I’m trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I’ve read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren’t flagged as right wing that are critical, but it’s just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I’m not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that’s not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
It helps if you look at it from the angle of democracy vs authority, rather than left vs right. Both communists and fascists lean heavily into authoritarianism, making them quite similar in many regards.
It’s a tough category out there for “Most meaningless buzzword”, but I’d still wager good money on “authoritarianism” taking home first prize
Totalitarianism is even more useless, but authoritarianism is up there
a toddler’s guide to ideology
"Our side: cool, democratic, sexy, morally-justified
Their side: dorky, authoritarian, ugly, morally-reprehensible"
You can’t define authoritarianism and we all know it. It’s just a thought-terminating cliche that you drop in political discussions to make yourself feel comfortable with supporting the status quo.
But America is the most authoritarian country in the world with the most prisoners, police murders, most warlike and belligerent, etc. I guess you made a typo and meant to say that fascists and liberals lean heavily into authoritarianism which makes them quite similar.
“Fascists and communists are the same, excuse me now while I support dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the military and police, make excuses for decades of US-backed anti-democratic coups and genocidal imperialist wars around the world, and support Biden as he continues or intensifies all of Trump’s policies (including caging children).” — liberals
Um, yikes Sweaty!
Don’t you know that they’re talking about how it’s democratic at home?
Sure it might be fascism writ large across every example of our overthrows, invasions, occupations, puppet governments, and the training and funding of death squads (because I’m going to completely ignore the fascism inflicted upon the internal colonies since I’m a middle-class liberal and it isn’t relevant to me personally) but that’s, like, whataboutism or no true Scotsman or ad hominem or something.
Edit: I called it! I fucking called it.
Yes, a democracy where like 5-7 states decide who the POTUS is, and where someone in California’s voted counts 1/3 as much as someone in Wyoming.
The highest stage of democracy is procedural democracy.
Why yes, I am a vooter. How did you guess?
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
But wait, if communists and fascists are the same, then how come the US always supports fascists against communists?🤔
It’s a coin toss and somehow the coin has favored the fascists for 100 years straight 🤯
I said they are similar, not the same. The foreign policy of the US is mainly to protect it’s elites business interests. Communists like to put assets under state control, which is bad business for the US elites.
what is a state
What’s authoritarian about criticising NATO?
Nothing, did I ever say otherwise?
“You can only attribute to me specific string of words I typed in a specific order, not things that immediately follow from the ideas I expressed”
All I said is that there are similiarities between fascists and communists.
That does in no way imply that critizising NATO is authoritarian.
Honestly its quite the opposite, authoritarianism is when you are not allowed to criticize, while democracy lives of critizism and discussion.
In terms of logic: A implying B is not the same as B implying A. Authoritarians often criticize NATO (A->B). But that does not mean everyone criticizing NATO is an authoritarian (which would be B->A).
I’m sorry you clumsy attempt at a strawman failed, maybe it would help to find some actual arguments.
Fucking debate perverts
Hey can we exercise some ‘action authoritarianism’ and ban this joker. I don’t want be a debate pervert here but they’ve motte and bailied their entire position at this point. They’re just regressing into a weird poorly thought out left-communist/libertarian-anarchist position.
You’re a saint AB.
noone cares u took informal logic 101 at university dude
deleted by creator
It’s when Mom tells me it’s my turn on the Xbox
Correction: It’s freedom and democracy when mom says it’s my turn on the Xbox, it’s Communism and authoritarian when she says it’s my brother’s turn.
In the context of my comment, the opposite of democracy. So basically a person or a group of people holding (significantly) more power than another.
is the us a democracy
Not really, more of an oligarchy I think.
so what do we do about it, ask nicely?
What does a democracy do if some people want to, and possibly have the means to, overthrow it and establish a dictatorship? Debate them? Send them a strongly worded letter?
Or do they exert their authority over them by arresting or killing them?
If people seek to overthrow democratic processes, they need to be stopped, by physical violence if necessary. The concept of police in and of itself is neither authoritarian nor democratic however, the question is who the police gets their authority granted by. Executions are inherently undemocratic tho imo.
This is some of the most word-salad bullshit I’ve seen on this website in a minute.
Who decides what ‘processes’ are ‘democratic’? By what authority do they do so? How is that authority established if there is no authority previously?
All political power originates from the barrel of a gun. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner things will clarify and you can stop swimming in bullshit.
“All political power originates from the barrel of a gun” Lets suppose you and a group of friends wanna go someplace to eat, but you have different ideas where you wanna go. Do you whip out a gun and force them to go to the place you like or do you have a quick vote?
You act as if democracy was some impossibly complex, incromprehensible concept, but really its quite simple.
Who decides which processes are democratic? The people, or in an indirect democracy the representatives they elected.
By what authority do they do so? By forming a majority.
How is that authority established if there was no authority previously? Referendums, elections or some other kind of vote.
That is not political power nor a political decision. There is no polity there. You are mistaking a social consumer decision for a political one. The political decisions of property ownership, enforcement practices, and monetary custom have already been made in that decision.
Political decisions are made and enforced at the barrel of a gun constantly. All political power rests on whom has the power to perform legitimated, legal, violence. This is incredibly simple political theory that you are glazing over by saying ‘Oh any time a group votes to do something that is a political decision.’ You are performing the opposite function, a reduction of political power to absolutely unrealistic simplistic terms that have never, and likely will never, exist in reality.
Who decides if the referendums, elections, or other kinds of votes are legitimate? Who decides who can or cannot vote in which referendums, elections, or other kinds of votes? A ‘majority’ of whom?
Of course its not a “political decision”, but it is an example of a group of people making a decision. You can expand that to a larger group size and a different subject matter.
At which point does it become a political decision? At which point do you take out your gun? When the group size exceeds a million people? When the subject matter covers taxes rather than restaurants?
Its not unrealistic to say that these things can be handled democratically.
Who decides if the votes are legitimate? Once again, the people.
Who decides who can or cannot vote? The people, by less direct means. When organizing a referendum for example, without a proper legal framework, it might be unclear what the voting age should be. The vote of some 16 year-olds might be accepted, while that of other 17 year-olds is rejected. These things depend on the general consensus of the population, which likely varies within the population itself and isn’t explicitly voted on. This might make things messy, but doesn’t nullify the entire concept of democracy
And finally: a majority of whom? You guessed it, the people.
That is the weakest definition I’ve ever seen. Are you capable of defining it on its own terms, rather than by negation?
Democracy is a political system that vests its authority in subgroups, usually in representatives, and always privileges the powerful over the powerless. Even in an idealized democracy, if a group of people can sway a plurality or majority of votes, they have massive power over everyone else.
Looking at empirical implementation of democracy, rather than just projecting the lens of a shallow 6th-grade understanding of politics onto the corporate media narrative, would help you understand that.
So would reading a book.
“CoMmUnIsTs ArE ThE SaMe As FaScIsTs”, whoa, what an original thought that we’ve never heard before, did you come up with that all on your own? I’m glad a wise liberal like you is here to enlighten us.
What democracy is involved in the Ukraine war?
When the fascist media corp says that a country is “authoritarian” it means that that country would have authority over them. In fascist countries the ghouls who own the media can pay off the corrupt state officials, in the countries they have called authoritarian, they can not. Anti-authoritarianism by media corpos just means they want to be above the law.
Ofcourse for normal humans this is different, every state would have authority over us.
What is democratic about the current situation:
https://mronline.org/2022/05/07/russia-and-the-ukraine-crisis-the-eurasian-project-in-conflict-with-the-triad-imperialist-policies/
L O L! You gotta wheelbarrow to carry around that giant brain of yours?
What do you call it when a democracy does something authoritarian?
I guess I’d call that action authoritarian.
In the end there are no perfect democracies, so far there have been no societies where every individual held the same amount of power. At the same time there have never been perfect autocracies either, as there have so far been no societies where one person held absolute power while everyone else held none. They are extremes in between which societies can move, no society is ever either one or the other.
Is… that supposed to be better?
Liberals exist on the vibes spectrum. There’s no objectively good or bad actions, only objectively good or bad people. If a good person does a bad action, it’s good. If a bad person does a good action, it’s underhanded and wicked. Parenti quote.
I don’t understand your question, better than what? Better than a democratic action? Heck no. Better than an entirely authoritarian system? Heck yes.
What a democratic action? Is a democracy violently putting down a far right uprising authoritarian or democratic? Is a democracy invading a another country to “bring it democracy” authoritarian or democratic?
Is a government that’s only democratic for some of its citizens but maintains the economic prosperity needed for a stable democracy by ruthlessly exploiting some of its own citizens and/or others abroad democratic or authoritarian?
Protecting democratic processes from authoritarians is democratic, even when physical violence is required in doing so.
Invasions aren’t. The people of a country should be the ones wielding the power there, not a foreign military.
“Democracy for some” is authoritarianism
I can’t remember the last time most western democracies held referenda before going to war.
Would it be safe to say that this is inherently authoritarian and that the violent resistance and potential overthrow of these governments would be a democratic action because, as illustrated above, these governments are authoritarian and they wantonly violate the democratic process?
The invasion of other countries is authoritarian. Resistance against that, even violent, is warrented.
Unfortunately, even the most democratic systems will have authoritarian elements. The world isn’t black and white, it isn’t “good” democracies vs “evil” dictatorships. Pretty much every country has a hybrid system running.
Whether a government is so rotten that it needs to be overthrown is up to the people. The questions ultimately are: is our government democratic enough? Are there ways of reforming it? Is overthrowing it worth the bloodshed? Will our newly established government have a chance of being more democratic, or is it more likely to end up even more authoritarian?
I can’t answer these questions, personally I think the time for a revolt is around the time the government starts to lock up non-violent dissidents.
The state is still wielding its authority against people, the fact it’s towards a cause you think is good doesn’t magically make it not an exercise of authority.
Also most western democracies aren’t really democracies by your approximation since most were colonialist nations for much of their history, partially when they became democracies, and the economics stability that helped them grow stable democracies came in large part from exploiting colonialist subjects.
The state will always hold authority against individuals. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as long as the state gets that authority from the people by democratic means.
What does authoritarian actually mean?
“democracy”
cum