• RedSturgeon [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      22 hours ago

      From Wikipedia: Authoritarianism is 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.

      Neoliberal worldview is all about human beings being evil and corrupt. Therefore governments will always be evil and what is the “democratic order of law”, exists to keep them in check and rotate them. This is the system.

      Anything that seeks to disrupt the -balance- between people and power is Authoritarianism.

      A bank taking away your account is not authoritarianism, it’s enforcing the law.

      But a government taking away the bank and nationalizing it would be authoritarianism. It does not matter what kind of government.

      You are not allowed to tell anyone how to live their life in Neoliberalism. That’s the idea, you can only change the law that’s in theory applied to -everyone- and enforcing the law is therefore not Authoritarianism.

      It’s a religion. You are a sinner, the law is sacred, the market is god.

        • RedSturgeon [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’d like to hear your thoughts on why you chose to react in such a way?

          I was simply answering your question. You used quotation marks so I assumed you’re using the mainstream definition of Authoritarianism and so I figured you’re wondering what would they say if you turned their own critique of socialism against themselves.

          If this was confusing I apologize and here’s a simplified answer: Authoritarianism is a term used by status quo to describe attempts at combatting the status-quo so no it isn’t . This is simply following the rule of law.

          My comparison to religion, a religion, not religion = capitalism = religion, is just to show how it has similar patterns of behavior to people who practice it. So you will be unable to effectively use a “gotcha” method like this to achieve any results.

          I figured that since this is /c/Politics we’re supposed to have more serious discussions in this community, so that’s why I’m taking myself seriously. I’m also trying to take you in good faith, but I can’t interpret the emote as anything other than you being disappointed in me. That’s the most good faith interpretation I am willing to extend to you and I’d appreciate if you treated other people with similar respect.

  • chenyun_fan1905@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing.

    “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder:

    On the one hand, these people seem to have got muddled when they found themselves in a predicament, when the party’s abrupt transition from legality to illegality upset the customary, normal and simple relations between leaders, parties and classes. In Germany, as in other European countries, people had become too accustomed to legality, to the free and proper election of “leaders” at regular party congresses, to the convenient method of testing the class composition of parties through parliamentary elections, mass meetings the press, the sentiments of the trade unions and other associations, etc. When, instead of this customary procedure, it became necessary, because of the stormy development of the revolution and the development of the civil war, to go over rapidly from legality to illegality, to combine the two, and to adopt the “inconvenient” and “undemocratic” methods of selecting, or forming, or preserving “groups of leaders”—people lost their bearings and began to think up some unmitigated nonsense. Certain members of the Communist Party of Holland, who were unlucky enough to be born in a small country with traditions and conditions of highly privileged and highly stable legality, and who had never seen a transition from legality to illegality, probably fell into confusion, lost their heads, and helped create these absurd inventions.

    What Is to be Done?:

    The government, at first thrown into confusion and committing a number of blunders (e.g., its appeal to the public describing the misdeeds of the socialists, or the banishment of workers from the capitals to provincial industrial centres), very soon adapted itself to the new conditions of the struggle and managed to deploy well its perfectly equipped detachments of agents provocateurs, spies, and gendarmes. Raids became so frequent, affected such a vast number of people, and cleared out the local study circles so thoroughly that the masses of the workers lost literally all their leaders, the movement assumed an amazingly sporadic character, and it became utterly impossible to establish continuity and coherence in the work. The terrible dispersion of the local leaders; the fortuitous character of the study circle memberships; the lack of training in, and the narrow outlook on, theoretical, political, and organisational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above. Things have reached such a pass that in several places the workers, because of our lack of self-restraint and the inability to maintain secrecy, begin to lose faith in the intellectuals and to avoid them; the intellectuals, they say, are much too careless and cause police raids!

    But most characteristic, perhaps, is the amazing top-heaviness of the whole “system”, which attempts to bind each single factory and its “committee” by a permanent string of uniform and ludicrously petty rules and a three-stage system of election. Hemmed in by the narrow outlook of Economism, the mind is lost in details that positively reek of red tape and bureaucracy. In practice, of course, three-fourths of the clauses are never applied; on the other hand, a “secret” organisation of this kind, with its central group in each factory, makes it very easy for the gendarmes to carry out raids on a vast scale. The Polish comrades have passed through a similar phase in their movement, with everybody enthusiastic about the extensive organisation of workers’ benefit funds; but they very quickly abandoned this idea when they saw that such organisations only provided rich harvests for the gendarmes. If we have in mind broad workers’ organisations, and not widespread arrests, if we do not want to provide satisfaction to the gendarmes, we must see to it that these organisations remain without any rigid formal structure. But will they be able to function in that case?

    My understanding of Lenin is because in Russia the communist parties were banned and had constant secret police (gendarmes) raids and spies, it made them accustomed to illegal activities, and were forced to create an organizational structure that could select leaders without democracy (because if you try and organize everyone together in one building for a vote the police just arrest everyone). So one of the problem with the Western communist parties is that they weren’t banned, and became too used to being able to set up collective funds for the trade unions (that police can just steal) and voting for their leaders. Basically that suppression makes the communist parties better at “being illegal” idk.

  • Twongo [she/her]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    richtig so!!! wir müssen die politische mitte stärken um unsere demokratie™ zu schützen oder so idk.

    das /s spar ich mir