I am also confused. Specifically about “there’s no such thing”. Is the meme saying (among other things) that authoritarianism doesn’t exist or isn’t real? That seems obviously untrue on the face of it? Unless we’re redefining it so as to be meaningless.
Help me out here.
A State is supposed to exercise authority, so by saying X country (enemy of the Usonian Empire) is authoritarian you’re basically saying “There is a State”. Basically doublespeak Usonian propaganda.
In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”
E.g. Wikipedia defines it as
a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo
That’s every country
reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
Reductions from what? The USSR was an increase in all of those things from Tsarist Russia.
Picking apart the single definition used by one entity doesn’t mean the term itself is completely meaningless.
But fine, I’ll bite, just for fun:
the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo
That’s every country
That’s “whataboutism.” Or alternatively, it’s “authoritarian realism”—a term I just made up which refers to any view that assumes a nation has to centralize powers to exist because that’s how the world under capitalism currently operates.
Reductions from what? The USSR was an increase in all of those things from Tsarist Russia.
So 1. You just gave a counterexample to your first point, and 2. I guess the metric depends on who you ask. It could be reductions from a historical state (as we could say of e.g. the current USA compared to North America’s political systems prior to european colonization), or compared to some standard of liberty (e.g. your use of USSR).
I can agree with your first point and still posit that the term is meaningful: e.g. authoritarianism isn’t a binary state of extistence, but rather a spectrum that different states can be compared on; all states can be authoritarian to some degree, but some states are more or less authoritarian than others.
Or to put it another way, saying “authoritarianism” is meaningless because all states exercise authority is like saying “conservativism” is meaningless because all living creatures seek to conserve resources (to some degree).
I agree that language is an imperfect map for the real world we inhabit—and I especially agree that the language (as with any social tool) gets abused to manipulate people—but I don’t agree that those facts make the terms completely useless in communication.
That’s “whataboutism.”
Lol. No it isn’t, it’s not even fucking close. You think I’m going to read the rest of that when you’re already starting off with straight nonsense like this? Fuck I hate whoever trained shitlibs to just bleat “Whataboutism!” At any and all arguments, like a magic spell from Harry Potter (which is basically what you think it is)
“Authoritarian” is ALL states. “Authoritarian” as we know it today was just made up by the CIA to slander actually existing socialism states like China and the DPRK
I’m confused.
How?
It’s multi-layered and tedious to write down on the phone. Prolly easier to ask you some questions: How do you think this meme’s formula works? Do you beleive it to be factual that China isn’t authoritarian and that North Korea is not andictatorship? If not, do you know anybody who has ever claimed this?
“Authoritarian” is ALL states. “Authoritarian” as we know it today was just made up by the CIA to slander actually existing socialism states like China and the DPRK
The DPRK has gotten a particularly HEAVY dose of slander from the empire because of its proximity to its puppet gov of SK
Well… in that case, the meme is at least correctly used. That was my main concern anyways :')
You must realise you’re holding a very fringe position that’s more a conspiracy theory and will be considered trolling, right?
You must realise you’re holding a very fringe position that’s more a conspiracy theory and will be considered trolling, right?
This is seemingly paradoxical when a real deal conspiracy theory is being mainstream. DPRK being hell on Earth is a conspiracy theory not supported by facts, but it’s not fringe, it’s held by the entire collective western media (though that is more of a 5 corpos in a trenchcoat) and it’s constantly fed to their populations. Information bubbles are real.
And there are many such cases in topic of communism.
