Absolutely agree. Authoritarian or not authoritarian is one axis we can use to describe a society, which I would claim is useful even if it isn’t the full picture. In the same way that knowing what temperature it is outside is useful even if it doesn’t tell you the full picture of what weather it is.
Again, there is no meaningful “authoritarian versus not authoritarian” when we are talking about states. All states, by virtue of being states, are authoritarian. The state is the organised machinery of class rule and coercion.
What changes is the context in which authority is exercised: class content, historical conditions, social function, institutional form, and how openly or indirectly that authority is applied.
I also do not think “authoritarian” functions like temperature here. Temperature is a definite measurable quantity. “Authoritarian” is a vague liberal abstraction that generally ends up meaning “state power I disapprove of”, while leaving untouched the actually important question: authority of which class, wielded against which class, and for what purpose?
It’s only a measure of “badness” if you think individual freedom from state oppression is inherently good.
This is a very silly framing, to put it mildly.
“Individual freedom from state oppression” in the abstract means very little. Freedom for whom? Freedom to do what? Freedom under what class relations?
Repression of fascists, landlords, imperialist proxies, comprador elements and other reactionary forces is good.
Repression of workers, peasants, oppressed nations, communists, labour organisations and progressive forces is bad.
Socialism is good and fascism is bad despite both being “authoritarian” according to this broad liberal usage. That is precisely my point. The word does not explain the real distinction. It obscures it.
But as I tried to point out earlier, these are definitely different levels of authoritarian. I’m not saying that less authoritarian is inherently always better no matter the context. You could say that it being 30 degress outside and it being 15 degrees outside are both “warm”, but that doesn’t make temperature a useless concept.
And again, I am saying they simply are not different levels of “authoritarian” in the way you are presenting it. They are different forms of class rule.
A fascist state violently repressing trade unions and communists, and a workers’ state violently repressing fascists and bourgeois restorationists, both involve censorship, police action, imprisonment, bans, and organised force.
The decisive question is not the amount of authority in the abstract. It is the social content of that authority.
I know you said earlier that “it’s the same amount of salt, the question is what dish you put it in”. But no matter the context, there are still basic elements of a society we can use to distinguish how authoritarian things are. In your worker’s paradise / fascist hellhole, is the press free to criticise the state? Are people free to gather and express a broad spectrum of political ideas? These questions can be interrogated (mostly) independent of the context of the society I would claim. And doing that is valuable, but of course not sufficient to mark that state as bad or good.
You can believe that if you like, but you would be wrong.
These questions absolutely cannot be detached from the social, economic and political base they arise from.
“Is the press free?” is not a neutral question. Which press? Owned by whom? Funded by whom? Serving which class interests? Free to do what? Free to organise fascists? Free to call for imperialist intervention? Free to defend landlordism? Free to undermine socialist construction? Free to spread bourgeois restorationist politics?
Under socialism, the press should be controlled in the interests of the working people. Bourgeois, fascist and reactionary viewpoints should be censored. Same with gathering to “express political ideas”. If the ideas are reactionary, fascist, imperialist-backed, or aimed at restoring bourgeois rule, then no, people should not be free to platform and spread them.
This is not some unfortunate contradiction. It is the basic reality of class struggle. No ruling class allows hostile class forces unlimited freedom to overthrow it. The bourgeoisie certainly does not. It only pretends to when the threat is weak or manageable.
These questions can be interrogated (mostly) independent of the context of the society I would claim.
Again they really cannot.
For example under capitalism, formal freedoms are shaped by property relations. A billionaire media owner and a rural worker may formally possess the same “freedom of speech”, but materially they do not possess the same power to speak, organise, publish, influence, or set political agendas.
Likewise, a “free press” under bourgeois rule is usually the freedom of capital to dominate public consciousness. A “free political sphere” under bourgeois rule is usually freedom within boundaries set by private property, imperial ideology, police power, courts, prisons, employment discipline and the market.
Treating these questions independently of class context leads to bad analysis. It turns historically specific class relations into abstract moral categories.
We should for sure also discuss all those qualities about the cage. But as you say, one is clearly preferable to the person inside it, making it a meaningful quality to discuss. Not the only meaningful quality to discuss, but a meaningful quality to discuss.
Again sure, but only in a subordinate sense.
The quality of the inside of the cage is not completely irrelevant (just like how I said talking about authority isn’t completely irrelevant). A padded cage is obviously preferable to a cage with spikes if the workers are the ones in the cage. Liberal bourgeois rule is generally preferable to fascist bourgeois rule. Legal trade unions are preferable to banned trade unions. Being able to organise openly is preferable to having to organise underground. I have not once denied that.
But the quality of the cage is entirely secondary and inconsequential to the actual important questions: who is in the cage, why are they there, who built it, who controls it, and what social relations does it exist to preserve?
“Authoritarian” tells me a state uses authority. I already know that. It is a state.
I really feel like we are retreading ground here.
Again, there is no meaningful “authoritarian versus not authoritarian” when we are talking about states. All states, by virtue of being states, are authoritarian. The state is the organised machinery of class rule and coercion.
What changes is the context in which authority is exercised: class content, historical conditions, social function, institutional form, and how openly or indirectly that authority is applied.
I also do not think “authoritarian” functions like temperature here. Temperature is a definite measurable quantity. “Authoritarian” is a vague liberal abstraction that generally ends up meaning “state power I disapprove of”, while leaving untouched the actually important question: authority of which class, wielded against which class, and for what purpose?
This is a very silly framing, to put it mildly.
“Individual freedom from state oppression” in the abstract means very little. Freedom for whom? Freedom to do what? Freedom under what class relations?
Repression of fascists, landlords, imperialist proxies, comprador elements and other reactionary forces is good. Repression of workers, peasants, oppressed nations, communists, labour organisations and progressive forces is bad.
Socialism is good and fascism is bad despite both being “authoritarian” according to this broad liberal usage. That is precisely my point. The word does not explain the real distinction. It obscures it.
And again, I am saying they simply are not different levels of “authoritarian” in the way you are presenting it. They are different forms of class rule.
A fascist state violently repressing trade unions and communists, and a workers’ state violently repressing fascists and bourgeois restorationists, both involve censorship, police action, imprisonment, bans, and organised force.
The decisive question is not the amount of authority in the abstract. It is the social content of that authority.
You can believe that if you like, but you would be wrong.
These questions absolutely cannot be detached from the social, economic and political base they arise from.
“Is the press free?” is not a neutral question. Which press? Owned by whom? Funded by whom? Serving which class interests? Free to do what? Free to organise fascists? Free to call for imperialist intervention? Free to defend landlordism? Free to undermine socialist construction? Free to spread bourgeois restorationist politics?
Under socialism, the press should be controlled in the interests of the working people. Bourgeois, fascist and reactionary viewpoints should be censored. Same with gathering to “express political ideas”. If the ideas are reactionary, fascist, imperialist-backed, or aimed at restoring bourgeois rule, then no, people should not be free to platform and spread them.
This is not some unfortunate contradiction. It is the basic reality of class struggle. No ruling class allows hostile class forces unlimited freedom to overthrow it. The bourgeoisie certainly does not. It only pretends to when the threat is weak or manageable.
Again they really cannot.
For example under capitalism, formal freedoms are shaped by property relations. A billionaire media owner and a rural worker may formally possess the same “freedom of speech”, but materially they do not possess the same power to speak, organise, publish, influence, or set political agendas.
Likewise, a “free press” under bourgeois rule is usually the freedom of capital to dominate public consciousness. A “free political sphere” under bourgeois rule is usually freedom within boundaries set by private property, imperial ideology, police power, courts, prisons, employment discipline and the market.
Treating these questions independently of class context leads to bad analysis. It turns historically specific class relations into abstract moral categories.
Again sure, but only in a subordinate sense.
The quality of the inside of the cage is not completely irrelevant (just like how I said talking about authority isn’t completely irrelevant). A padded cage is obviously preferable to a cage with spikes if the workers are the ones in the cage. Liberal bourgeois rule is generally preferable to fascist bourgeois rule. Legal trade unions are preferable to banned trade unions. Being able to organise openly is preferable to having to organise underground. I have not once denied that.
But the quality of the cage is entirely secondary and inconsequential to the actual important questions: who is in the cage, why are they there, who built it, who controls it, and what social relations does it exist to preserve?
“Authoritarian” tells me a state uses authority. I already know that. It is a state.