this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
41 points (93.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8640 readers
233 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Authoritarianism" is not a word that describes any real distinction, it's a thought-terminating cliche that boils down to "any use of authority the speaker doesn't like", similar to how "terrorism" just means "any use of violence the state doesn't approve of". In practice, there is no such thing as an non-"authoritarian" government. It's an oxymoron. Every single government on earth maintains a monopoly on violence and enforces laws with that monopoly. It's doubly important to use that authority to protect a revolution, because no capitalist order will allow itself to just be voted away without escalating into full-spectrum war, as we've seen for over a hundred years, and will require a functioning state to combat. From Engel's On Aurhority, 1872:
For something.more modern, here's a sick ass 2 minute Parenti beat that goes over the same thing
Downvote isn't mine btw, I save that for people who are being hostile
Then you come up with better word.
In my definition, any system where the general public cannot throw out the bums without violence is authoritarian.
The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. It just swaps distributed power for the even bigger problem of bigger concentrated power.
Just look at happyness indexes. We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent. Capitalists hate this and I assume communists do too because it shows neither is the way.
This is fundamentally incorrect.
Not only is it your definition, but you give no agency to the people. If a socialist state is supported by the public, then that's a good example of a working system. I don't know what you mean by "the bums," if you mean opportunists then every socialist state has had mechanisms to expel party members that were more leech than diligent communists.
This is also incorrect. Communism and socialism are both viable, and have been better at distributing power than capitalist systems, including the nordic countries. Collectivization of production and distribution spreads power out to the people, society is run both in a centrally planned fashion and from below.
You're referring to the nordic countries. These are anti-democratic dictatorships of capital that fund elaborate safety nets using the spoils of imperialism. Capitalists love this because they retain their super profits, and communists correctly hate this model because it perpetuates imperialism.
A better word for what? A state?
Who are "the bums"? Ask a communist, and they'll tell you it's the rich capitalists who run everything. Ask a fascist, and they'll tell you it's jews and brown people. This is the problem with not having a class analysis, without it you're permanently stunted at the childhood level of "good guys and bad guys", with nothing but vibes and latent social prejudices to decide which is which.
China is currently the world power, has lifted over 500 million people out of poverty, and has achieved the fastest increase in average lifespan in human history. The second fastest increase in human history was the establishment of the Soviet Union. As of the last Harvard survey, 95.5% of Chinese people are "satisfied or very satisfied" with their society. To saycommunism isn't viable is, I'm sorry, cope. Communist Cuba has been strangled by embargo for it's entire existence and they still invented a cancer vaccine. Incredible things are possible when money and resources go to something other than a handful of rich capitalist pedophiles.
"It is known". And oh look, the old "different races and cultures of people just can't get along happily" racist brainworm rears it's ugly head again, along with the implication that communist governments somehow aren't democratic? The CPC has nine million members, and works by moving proposals up from local councils to national bodies. Meanwhile in our "democracies", corporations write the laws and it's legal for them to bribe the handful of legislators, who speak for gerrymandering districts full of disenfranchised people. Don't forget also that we have the most prisoners and prison slaves of any place on Earth. Last year I watched four riot cops break a college kid's arm right in front of me for the crime of protesting against Palestinian genocide. I say of "capitalist democracy" what Ghandi said of "western civilization": sounds great, when do you start?
I will find whoever wrote that line into The Mandalorian and beat them with soap bars like private Pyle.
I agree. The Chinese are the most interesting. Trying to integrate a more flexible market economy into their social system is a huge accomplishment and what is needed.
The reverse is needed in the US. The other big challenge in the US is quality of leadership. Democracy requires an educated and engaged electorate, access to true information, honest fact based debate, good decision making, and a willingness to make it work. All in short supply these days.
It's intentional since inception.
Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive
It's probably more accurate to say you cannot have actual communism without democracy.
Sure, and history proves that socialist systems run by communists have brought massive democratization to their societies because of the structures they implemented.
I absolutely agree. Have we ever seen that in the wild though especially at scale?
It may be in fact mutually exclusive in that it may conflict with human nature and most cultures. US is of couse extremely individualistic for example though not uniformly so.
Yes, every socialist state in history has been ruled by the majority, by the working classes. "Human nature" has nothing to do with it, what is "human nature" is really just the way our environment shapes us, including how we produce and distribute. This is why we can say there is "proletarian ideology," as working for a living shapes our ideas and how we think of the world.
Your definition is stupid, you should talk less and listen/read more