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.
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
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.