If something is a propaganda it does not automatically mean it’s false.
propaganda
n 1: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some causeYes yes but the truth is always in the middle. (I am so smart)
Does it happen a lot around here though? Most of the time I think we’re mostly just critical of Capitalists and Authoritarians. Usually Socialism, real Communism, and Anarchism are not really critisized except by some .world users.
Edit: Except during a round of good ol’ Leftist Infighting.
Authoritarianism is just yet another word made up by the west to label communists
Are you… being sarcastic?
If so: Good one!
If not: I would not like to enguage in the infighting atm, so I bid you a lovely day,No, go break free of the western “media” and look it up, it was a YACACO (Yet Another CIA Anti-Commie Op)
sighs, Ok, fine, if you want to do this rn, I guess we can.
Though I have no doubt it was probobly originally a word meant to slander real communism as the western world has done countless times (few ppl on lemmy would/should deny that the west has produced a shitton of bad anti-commie propoganda), I also fully agree that Authoritarianism does actually exist as much as Capitalism, Communism, and Anarchism exists based off of the actual agreed upon definition. If you take the definition of the system itself, there is no reason to conflate it with Communism. It IS a different system than real Communism, hence why that word was used as Anti-Communist Propaganda. It associates communism with a different (and very real) malignant system to make communism look bad. Sorry if this became too much of a rant, but I really just think that denying the existance of “Authoritarian” states is not a good idea. Let’s explain to people that Communism ≠ Authoritarianism instead of trying to claim that Authoritarianism doesn’t exist.
Edit: I also fully beleive that ANY government/social system can devolve into Authoritarianism if implemented incorrectly or not vigilant enough about making sure not to centralize power in a problematic way.
Wouldn’t you consider Hitler’s ideology authoritarian? Or Mussolini’s?
It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.
What they are saying is that “Authoritarian” is not a precise term that distinguishes anything and was just made up as a way to try to accuse AES states of being just as bad as fascist ones. It’s a horseshoe theory term because any actually accurate term you would use to describe Hitler’s or Mussolini’s ideology would exclude the ideology of socialist states.
It’s not about if an ideology uses authority to entrench itself. Every state and organization with any power in the world does that. It’s about who wields that authority against who, and for what purpose. We generally consider Hitler and Mussolini to be exceptionally “authoritarian”, but in reality the only thing exceptional about them was that they directed that authority inward instead of just outward, the latter of which we in the west are all more accustomed to. They took the full-spectrum colonial violence typically reserved for non-white people outside their borders, and directed it also towards white people within their borders. This (and only this) is what we have been taught to view as an unacceptable aberration.
TLDR Authority itself is not “good” or “evil”. Authority is just a weapon like any other, and what makes it heroic or repugnant is who wields it against who.
I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.
All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.
This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.
Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what’s the point of the descriptor?
Edit: if I have been too vague I’m happy to elaborate further
I find it interesting the way you put it
What would a stateless society look like in your opinion? Are there any practical examples?
In addition to what @sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml said, statelessness in the context of communism refers to one that has collectivized production and distribution, and in so doing has eliminated class society. Administration remains, but oppressive tools like police fade away as there no longer is a basis for class struggle. The origin of the state, after all, is class society and a need for a ruling class to win class struggles.
I feel like the definition I use for state might be somewhat different than most around here, as I would consider an administration as a state.
Even without class struggle, crimes and abused would still occur how can a copless society (with millions of members) resolve this issues? Local militias? Wouldn’t those be the “police”?
Curious to hear from you
The basis of crime is nearly always economic. In a society where needs are addressed, including mental health, there really isn’t a basis for crime. Administration isn’t really a class, just like managers aren’t a distinct class from any other worker.
Trying to give an actual image of what stateless society will look like is missing the forest for the trees, though, we won’t know exactly what it will look like until we get there. What we do know is the basis of the state is class struggle, and without class struggle there ceases to be a basis for it.
Anyone says anything against their worldview
Libs: HURR DURR .ML HURR DURR TANKIE
Capitalism is shit. Fascism is shit.
The fuck is a “counter source”? That’s just not how the burden of proof works.
