Hey its fine if you want to believe you’re right, we all think we are. Thats why we believe what we believe. But can you at least not call people libs for not wanting authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism is not a thing, and you can tell it’s not a thing by how nobody who uses it can define it in a way that doesn’t include every government on earth.
Pretty much, or every? Can you think of a government that doesn’t fit this description? Because we already have a word for a system of institutionalized domination, and that word is “government.”
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
I think you’re on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I’m with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and “institutionalized” in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that…they serve the people? That’s not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.
The comment I’m responding to is saying authoritarianism isn’t a thing. Whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat the “right kind” of authoritarianism isn’t relevant to that conversation.
Hey its fine if you want to believe you’re right, we all think we are. Thats why we believe what we believe. But can you at least not call people libs for not wanting authoritarianism?
Behold the greatest advance in Liberal Theory since Harry Potter.
On Authority
You say, while defending the DNC elsewhere
You mean wanting to run brutal authoritarian dictatorships in other countries to exploit their resources
ah yes socialism is when dictator and no iPhone
Authoritarianism is not a thing, and you can tell it’s not a thing by how nobody who uses it can define it in a way that doesn’t include every government on earth.
Authoritarianism is a system of institutionalized domination, and yes this includes pretty much every government on earth currently.
Pretty much, or every? Can you think of a government that doesn’t fit this description? Because we already have a word for a system of institutionalized domination, and that word is “government.”
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
On Authority
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.
I think you’re on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I’m with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and “institutionalized” in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that…they serve the people? That’s not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.
This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.
What makes them different?
See my other reply
Is it not better for the working classes to institutionally dominate capitalists?
The comment I’m responding to is saying authoritarianism isn’t a thing. Whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat the “right kind” of authoritarianism isn’t relevant to that conversation.
Their point is essentially that it just means “has a government,” but is treated like it’s a strict condemnation of some governments over others.