…A profit driven government that consolidates power and resources under a single figure-head and their keys to power at the expense of the common people, is an authoritarian state. Or if you’d rather the super simple watered down version: A government that serves itself, and not the people it is supposedly established to govern.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that takes away wealth, safety, and comfort for his people for his own agenda; that’s tyranny, a tyrant, and an authoritarian dictatorship.
This is just how I understand it. Though I am super excited to see your argument otherwise!
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
So an absolute monarchy will vacillate between being authoritarian and not based solely on the moral character of the particular king in power, even though the system remains the same?
Yes, Monarchy describes the method of passing rulership. Authoritarian deacribes the style of ruling.
Monarchy describes a type of government in which the leadership generally rests in one person, and that person is generally chosen based on heredity.
Authoritarian describes a style of governing in which the ruler and ruling class have little regard for human rights and freedoms, often employing a type of police state with high levels of control on individual behavior.
A monarchy could be authoritarian, or a monarchy could be fairly liberal and allow a lot of personal freedoms and self rule.
An authoritarian government could be a monarchy, or it could be a dictatorship, oligarchy, or even a type of democracy. Typically individuals don’t like living under authoritarian systems so typically they don’t last long under truly free democracy. But since authoritarians often crack down on opposition, the press, and freedom of assembly it is possible for them sometimes to maintain power across elections.
Authoritarianism broadly speaking is just a strong central government, so I suppose it’s not always a dictatorship per say I’d that’s what your point is. However, even still, there would be a class of people with absolute power over the populous just like the rich towering over the poor under capitalism. So it’d essentially be the government putting the boot over your neck instead of the billionaires
You’re very clearly a “baby leftist” from your few comments here so I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way. You really need to read some theory. Your heart is seemingly in the right place but that doesn’t mean much when you have yet to deconstruct your liberal foundations and actually come to understand the how and why of scientific socialism.
Ah, so this is what you mean by that. Still, bad focus. Ever since Hoxha’s Albania, Socialists have been pursuing the separation of the government and the economy as separate governing entities. So any claim that Socialists advocate for a strong central government is outdated at best. In reality it was always an askew argument as the people have far more democratic control over their lives than under capitalism.
could you define authoritarianism for the class? you may be as brief or extensive as you wish. the floor is yours, democracy crusader.
…A profit driven government that consolidates power and resources under a single figure-head and their keys to power at the expense of the common people, is an authoritarian state. Or if you’d rather the super simple watered down version: A government that serves itself, and not the people it is supposedly established to govern.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that takes away wealth, safety, and comfort for his people for his own agenda; that’s tyranny, a tyrant, and an authoritarian dictatorship.
This is just how I understand it. Though I am super excited to see your argument otherwise!
So an absolute monarchy will vacillate between being authoritarian and not based solely on the moral character of the particular king in power, even though the system remains the same?
Yes, Monarchy describes the method of passing rulership. Authoritarian deacribes the style of ruling.
Monarchy describes a type of government in which the leadership generally rests in one person, and that person is generally chosen based on heredity.
Authoritarian describes a style of governing in which the ruler and ruling class have little regard for human rights and freedoms, often employing a type of police state with high levels of control on individual behavior.
A monarchy could be authoritarian, or a monarchy could be fairly liberal and allow a lot of personal freedoms and self rule.
An authoritarian government could be a monarchy, or it could be a dictatorship, oligarchy, or even a type of democracy. Typically individuals don’t like living under authoritarian systems so typically they don’t last long under truly free democracy. But since authoritarians often crack down on opposition, the press, and freedom of assembly it is possible for them sometimes to maintain power across elections.
Authoritarianism broadly speaking is just a strong central government, so I suppose it’s not always a dictatorship per say I’d that’s what your point is. However, even still, there would be a class of people with absolute power over the populous just like the rich towering over the poor under capitalism. So it’d essentially be the government putting the boot over your neck instead of the billionaires
You’re very clearly a “baby leftist” from your few comments here so I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way. You really need to read some theory. Your heart is seemingly in the right place but that doesn’t mean much when you have yet to deconstruct your liberal foundations and actually come to understand the how and why of scientific socialism.
Cowbee’s reading list should give you a good start
Ah, so this is what you mean by that. Still, bad focus. Ever since Hoxha’s Albania, Socialists have been pursuing the separation of the government and the economy as separate governing entities. So any claim that Socialists advocate for a strong central government is outdated at best. In reality it was always an askew argument as the people have far more democratic control over their lives than under capitalism.