How do you respond when people bring up Mao Zedong killing sparrows and causing a famine that killed "millions"?
How do you respond when people bring up Mao Zedong killing sparrows and causing a famine that killed "millions"?
You're viewing a single thread.
Fascist Authoritarianism is a form of government and communism is an economic system, communism has been used as a carrot dangle by corrupt fascist authoritarian governments many times but has nothing to do with communism itself, and even so fascist capitalism has caused way more far reaching harm than fascist communism has
Fascist Authoritarianism is a form of government and communism is an economic system, communism has been used as a carrot dangle by corrupt fascist authoritarian governments many times but has nothing to do with communism itself, and even so fascist capitalism has caused way more far reaching harm than fascist communism has.
Can you define "authoritarian" as you use it here?
Also, what the fuck are you even trying to say here?
It's the authoritarianism that makes these governments bad, not the type of economic system.
You need to ensure a good democracy, regardless of economic policy.
It's the authoritarianism that makes these governments bad, not the type of economic system.
You need to ensure a good democracy, regardless of economic policy.
Alright, thanks for helping me understand your argument.
What do you mean by authoritarian?
The opposite of democratic. It's a gradient. The people of a nation either has equal influence on how the nation is run, you have something in between or a very small minority has all the power.
The extreme where everyone have equal influence (impossible in reality) is perfect democracy. The extreme where a single person has all the influence, is an perfect authoritarian. Then you draw rough lines at points where the democracy is as good as you can possibly get, a flawed democracy, authoritarianism light, etc, depending on how unequal the influence is between people.
Also, I am not the one who you originally replied to.
The opposite of democratic. It's a gradient. The people of a nation either has equal influence on how the nation is run, you have something in between or a very small minority has all the power.
Where are you getting this definition from? It doesn't match what I've seen.
The extreme where everyone have equal influence (impossible in reality) is perfect democracy. The extreme where a single person has all the influence, is an perfect authoritarian. Then you draw rough lines at points where the democracy is as good as you can possibly get, a flawed democracy, authoritarianism light, etc, depending on how unequal the influence is between people.
I'm not clear on how you're determining which flawed political project is "as good as you can possibly get". Is there some non-authoritarian political project you support? If not, is there a level of authoritarianism you find acceptable?
You are trying to be way too specific in your counter questions for it to ever be meaningful. A better question would be, why isn't it possible to get a perfect democracy.
The answer is simple, if you have any influence over another person, it's already not perfect. As in a well spoken person at any workplace can voice their support for certain policies and create a higher influence for some stated ideas than a person being silent.
Your final question does not make sense. The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions. Forced transparency for people in power for example increases democracy, nice, then we do it.
I have not stated any specifics on what constitutes what to what degree, I only defined the entire solution space. So it's no wonder it's not clear.
You are trying to be way too specific in your counter questions for it to ever be meaningful. A better question would be, why isn't it possible to get a perfect democracy.
I'm trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you can't avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:
I have not stated any specifics on what constitutes what to what degree, I only defined the entire solution space. So it's no wonder it's not clear.
Your final question does not make sense. The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions. Forced transparency for people in power for example increases democracy, nice, then we do.
I'm trying to get you to argue for the political system you support. I'm frankly not very clear on your explanation of an authoritarian gradient, but it's very common for "anti-authoritarians" to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarian.
I'd like to highlight one bit you said:
The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions.
This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if that's your goal.
I’m trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you can’t avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:
I can't avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position... How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.
This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if that’s your goal.
What are you talking about? I have absolutly no idea what "Marxism-leninism" is, so this label means nothing to me. The possible combinations of political policies is WAY larger than the total combinations of a list of political philosophists.. So trying to collapse it any position into these few labels is just crude.
You state "but it’s very common for “anti-authoritarians” to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarian" and then point at my "The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions". You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian. There is absolutly no logic to this and you need to really clear up your ideas, cause and effect, because that does not compute in any universe.
So I agree, using a math metaphore, if we are discussion any solution, but you have made up your own axioms, then you can never get a good understanding, because your priors are incompatible with eachother.
I can't avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position... How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.
You clearly hold a position, otherwise we wouldn't be here going back and forth. You're going to have to submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known. You can't argue against something, without arguing for something. What are you arguing for? Is your position (as I've assumed) that authoritarian government is bad?
I'm not going to watch your video. You need to make your arguments for yourself. No one else can.
I have absolutly no idea what "Marxism-leninism" is, so this label means nothing to me.
Marxism-leninism is the dominant communist tendency in the world, and the tendency of the Lemmygrad instance this post is in.
It's not weird that you're not familiar with it as such; education in the West is super anti-communist.
You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian.
Yes. That's my point! Marxism-leninists hold authoritarian (here I'm using it to mean "the state monopoly on violence" or "the oppressive power of the state") means as a necessary tool.
You can't seize the means of production without fighting the owners for it (a revolution) and you can't hold onto that means of production without continuing to defend against capitalism/the owner class. Once that class contradiction has been removed (by oppressing the bourgeoisie out of existence), and once foreign capital isn't fighting for control of your society. You can drop the use of state oppressive power - because it's not a tool you need anymore!
Holy shit, bro actually linked CPG Grey as a source. The dude notorious for making videos based on a single book, and deliberately ignoring criticism of that book when making his videos. The video in question splits "rulers" into "democratic rulers" and "authoritarians" and makes no attempt to actually define these terms. Essentially, it argues that a ruler has a certain number of "keys" that they need to keep happy in order to stay in power (the people, the military etc.) and that democracies are democracies and authoritarian dictatorships are authoritarian dictatorships and one cannot be halfway between them lest it collapse or something. Dude is the epitome of the smug reddit intellectual who reads a single source and believes themselves to be an expert on a topic they didn't know existed 5 minutes ago. Only difference is Grey makes videos rather than reddit posts.
If that isn't enough, he also said that the Monarchy in the UK shouldn't be abolished because of "tourism." Yeah.
If an economic system can only be implemented by authoritarian regieme on such a large scale, is it wise to separate them?
If not, no. I really do not believe that is the case however. I personally think the ussr was as communistic as Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic.
If you have some authoritarian group at the top going, one for us, one for the people, one for us, one for the people. It's not communism.
I personally think capitalism, socialism, communism, etc are just tools. And as all tools, you apply the right tool for the job.
The value gained from national resources for example is definitely something that should be shared equally between the people. What price you want to set for hobby wood working projects you do in your spare time should be purely up to you and a buyer.