Just as capitalist states are “authoritarian” against working class interests, socialist states are “authoritarian” against capitalist interests.
The state is a tool for one class to oppress another. The goal of (most) communists is to transition from capitalism — where the capitalist class is in power — to a stateless, classless communist society via socialism — where the working class is in power.
Public perception of which is more “authoritarian” therefore depends on which class is currently in power and is able to manufacture consent, and that is the capitalist class in the vast majority of the world right now since the USSR’s overthrow.
socialist states are “authoritarian” against capitalist interests
The problem with this claim is that the USSR was quite authoritarian towards everyone. The Gulags were a place merely of political repression. Political jokes that are part and parcel of American late night comedy shows would get people harsh labor sentences during certain periods. The claim that this had to happen to protect the working class seems thin.
One regime’s political-dissident-by-speech is another’s dissident-by-drug-addiction. America’s “War on Drugs” was purely political disenfranchisement along racial lines, and it’s a major reason why the US continues to have higher incarceration rates than the USSR had in many of the years the Gulag system was operational.
By the way, prison rape jokes have long been a part of those late night comedy shows, to give you an idea of just how ingrained the American prison culture is.
You don’t know what you’re talking about
read the resent news of Julian Assange or John Pilger there’d be a lot more if i could think to name them
A five minute primer on Herman & Chomsky’s propaganda model:
Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media MachineHere is an alternative Piped link(s):
Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
With the USSR overthrown, virtually all mainstream media now is capitalist propaganda. And the capitalist class obviously would not want the working class to prefer a system where workers are in power.
Being familiar with Bulgarian corruption, I’m going to confidently state that their percentages aren’t due to a rounding error.
I was in Hungary last year and the nostalgia for communism is high and a significant portion of the population still remembers all the bad parts - Orban has really destroyed the social safety nets there and it hurts to see.
Hungary was also the best part of the Soviet Bloc to live in for the people.
So it’s not just that modern Hungary is worse: communist Hungary is more miss-able than communist East Germany.
Nigel Swain’s two books on the subject are good:
-
Collective Farms Which Work? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)
-
Hungary: The Rise and Fall of Feasible Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1992)
He’s writing from the perspective of a non-red English academic who’s like… “wait… this works?? how do we explain the anomaly?”
Hungary had full shelves, booming agriculture, available consumer goods.
-
I’d also expect there’s more and more people propagandized by capitalist media in post-Soviet states as time has passed since capitalist bastards took it over. People who have not lived under socialism or experienced the massively decreased quality of life from the privatization forced on those countries.
Though fortunately it seems like the Russian capitalists have not managed to succeed in this, with more and more people identifying with the USSR than the capitalist Russian Federation in recent years.
Hard to do that at the heart of the revolution I guess. Maybe Russian communist parties could use that to become more revolutionary, specially with Russians able to see the stark difference between Russia under capitalism and China thriving under socialism. Doubt that’ll happen while Putin is in power though.
This graph is such bullshit. If you were being honest in your arguments there would be no need to alter the results of the study.
This is the original graph - “About the same” answers were given directly to “worse”, fabricating results.
This is the study. Despite their life “not being better” on average, they still conclude that Communism has its downsides and are in no way saying they want to go back to it.
But in practice communism ends up the same. The workers had no actual power under Communism. The leaders still took it all.
Removed by mod
They even had to build a wall to keep the capitalist working class outside of east Berlin.
That Pew data is outdated. They have new data from 2019. Why did you post outdated and bad data to strengthen you belief?
The latest research literally says conditions are better now for most people. Unless you hate homosexuals and women. Every metric indicate high standards of life and rights.
I hate capitalism as much as the next person. But posting like you did is how we got Trump. Just faking everything till it happens.
“Bad data” is when you use data more representative of people who have actually lived under socialism and experienced the massive decline in quality of life, social welfare, housing, etc after capitalist bastards took it over and privatized everything for their profit
Ye sure. No communist project has ever worked out because some people are by nature evil and hungry for power. Every communist regime has gone to shit because of it. Anyone hungry for power should be imprisoned because they are a danger to society. But most people rely on direction to function. It’s a double edged blade.
Capitalism ruins everything in its path and communism eat it’s children. Welcome to the suck.
The “muh human nature” argument is a fallacy, you do realize that, yes? People are products of their environment, in Capitalism greed and selfishness are rewarded, so you think the way people act in Capitalism is natural for all economic systems, lmao.
I don’t think that’s the right reason, though it does touch upon one of the biggest reasons.
Communist projects have failed in no small part because of external interference from non-communist countries. Look at the US and their infamous “bringing democracy” around the world, for example.
But they’ve also failed not because of innate human nature, but because some people’s nature is indeed what you describe. And unfortunately, violent revolutions have a tendency to make it very easy for those people take step in and fill power vacuums left in the wake of the former regime’s demise. Even if the ideals of many of the boots on the ground in the revolution was entirely well-meaning, the leadership might not be, either from the start, or as the revolution goes on. That’s why so many of the more famous communist regimes are incredibly authoritarian.
Name me one communist regime and I’ll tell you why you’re a fucking idiot and don’t know the difference between communism and socialism.
Hungarian here. There reason for being the top 1 was because the country was running on debt hell for 10-15 years.
Kádár (the ruler of that time) had promised from 1956 that he will improve the living standards. This worked until the 70s, when the oil crisis happened and Kádár realized that with those current living conditions, the country needs to get loans. So he did that until communism have ended.
Because we live in a capitalist society where capitalists control our media and education. Back in the fifties, you’d be jailed or even killed for being a communist (or gay) in the United States of America. Why do we view this as any less authoritarian than the USSR? Because it’s our past.
Because the USSR killed millions of its own people in concentration camps and gulags. The two are so incomparable.
While I agree that the USSR was worse, the two absolutely are comparable.
- The US had concentration camps. Arguably it still does, just not for its own citizens.
- The US currently has inhumane and deadly prison conditions, but they used to be far worse.
Comparing deaths may put USSR on top, but the US isn’t that far behind.
Comparing authoritarianism is another story. Both quieted political dissent in the same way: raiding opposing political organizations and jailing or killing their leaders. That is authoritarianism.
one of my favorite takes on this subject is from This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong:
Most Americans shrink from the word “dictatorship.” “I don’t want to be dictated to,” they say. Neither, in fact, does anyone. But why do they instinctively take the word in its passive meaning, and see themselves as the recipients of orders? Why do they never think that they might be the dictators? Is that such an impossible idea? Is it because they have been so long hammered by the subtly misleading propaganda about personal dictatorships, or is it because they have been so long accustomed to seek the right to life through a boss who hires them, that the word dictatorship arouses for them the utterly incredible picture of one man giving everybody orders?
No country is ruled by one man. This assumption is a favorite red herring to disguise the real rule. Power resides in ownership of the means of production—by private capitalists in Italy, Germany and also in America, by all workers jointly in the USSR. This is the real difference which today divides the world into two systems, in respect to the ultimate location of power. When a Marxist uses the word “dictatorship,” he is not alluding to personal rulers or to methods of voting; he is contrasting rule by property with rule by workers.
The heads of government in America are not the real rulers. I have talked with many of them from the President down. Some of them would really like to use power for the people. They feel baffled by their inability to do so; they blame other branches of government, legislatures, courts. But they haven’t analyzed the real reason. The difficulty is that they haven’t power to use. Neither the President nor Congress nor the common people, under any form of organization whatever, can legally dispose of the oil of Rockefeller or the gold in the vaults of Morgan. If they try, they will be checked by other branches of government, which was designed as a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such “usurpation of power.” Private capitalists own the means of production and thus rule the lives of millions. Government, however chosen, is limited to the function of making regulations which will help capitalism run more easily by adjusting relations between property and protecting it against the “lawless” demands of non-owners. This constitutes what Marxists call the dictatorship of property. “The talk about pure democracy is but a bourgeois screen,” says Stalin, “to conceal the fact that equality between exploiters and exploited is impossible. . . . It was invented to hide the sores of capitalism . . . and lend it moral strength.”
Power over the means of production—that gives rule. Men who have it are dictators. This is the power the workers of the Soviet Union seized in the October Revolution. They abolished the previously sacred right of men to live by ownership of private property. They substituted the rule: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” -
Because of who controls the presses in capitalist countries.
Isn’t that generally said by countries that oppose them?
The land of the less authoritarian had race discrimination until half a century ago, right? Seeing the BLM, it seems to have a prominent role even now. So are they any better?
Authoritarian is usually code for when white people don’t rule a country
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: racismWe really ought to teach critical race theory in schools like conservative politicians and pundits claim.
lmao did someone really report me over getting their precious little white feelings hurt?
moment
The shite Americans will make about skin-colour.
This comment doesn’t stand up to 3 seconds thought. It’s their one answer to every question.
Honestly though, like our grappling with racism in the states smears our views of geopolitics so much. Like we struggle to imagine a culture not wrapped up in it.
Russia tho.
That’s why Russians aren’t “white” anymore. They’ve been downgraded to asiatic horde again, which is why NATOpedia has trotted out meat wave theory again. Like authoritarianism, whiteness is also an ever-shifting construct of imperialism/colonialism.
If you’re saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness…
But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it’s “an ever-shifting construct”…
Then the “construct” has no explanatory power.
Why not just say ‘authoritarianism’ is opposition to the NATO bloc?
You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”
Why not skip the middle step?
If you’re saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness…
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that “whiteness” as a construct is a tool of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism. And that the Global North similarly tends to attribute “authoritarianism” to whichever states are acting insufficiently subservient to their imperialist interests at any given moment. And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other, because they’re both tools of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism.
But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it’s “an ever-shifting construct”…
Whiteness is as old as European colonialism, and has been baked into capitalism—which began in Europe—from the start. Whiteness has been twisted into all sorts of nonsensical logic pretzels. See for example honorary Aryans honorary whites. It has no explanatory power because it is simply a tool of power. Even the Irish, Italian, and other Catholic European immigrants have suffered it within our own country. As Josep Borrell has more-or-less said, the imperial core is the “garden”, and the rest of the world is the “jungle.” Imperialism uses race—which again is made-up bullshit—as a tool to justify their imperialism.
You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”
I’m not saying that, but the NATO bloc often seems to imply it.
And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other
It’s not empiricaly right tho. Hitler and Stalin are the first type-examples. In the modern era it’s normally Putin and Xi who get the label.
I already covered the origins of this propagandistic Western conceptualization of “authoritarianism”/“totalitarianism” in another comment in this post. But I’ll add a 1955 CIA report that was declassified in 2008.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
I already covered the origins of this propagandistic Western conceptualization of “authoritarianism”/“totalitarianism” in another comment in this post
This is off topic, but I want to mention for the sake of other hexbears that I’m glad you linked to this other comment you made. It’s a good comment but no one on hexbear can see it or anything else in that reply chain. Since you were replying to someone from an instance not federated with us, it’s just not visible. A reminder that the exact same thread can look completely different depending on what instance you’re reading it from.
Only one of those four is white, and it’s a classic reactionary tactic to downplay him compared to the Georgian and the older Han Chinese example
Equivocating Stalin and Hitler is some crypto Nazi shit.
Equivocating Stalin and Hitler is some crypto Nazi shit.
It is standard in Westoid discourse, e.g. the Wikipedia page on “authoritarianism” probably does it idk didn’t read it.
People who use words like “authoritarianism” equate the two.
Why not skip the middle step?
Go ask the NATO bloc and their supporters. The obvious and surface answer is that it has to do with making for an easy “us-vs-them” identifier. “Of course they’re bad, they aren’t white like us good wholesome folk are, who are inherently good and wholesome because we’re white, and being good and wholesome makes us right and correct in what we do and you can tell because we’re white. The ones who are bad clearly aren’t like us. They’re not white!” Yes, it is circular reasoning and garbage logic. But I don’t know why you’re getting pissy at us for that instead of the dipshits white people who keep moving the goalposts on the meaning of whiteness, as they always have done to suit their agenda. Take it up with them.
Sorry I have no idea what you’re talking about.
The thread was asking about authoritarianism. I was slagging the people who said it’s about being black, not about Hitler, Stalin, the USSR, Putin, etc.
You were asking about the shifting nature of the meaning of the term whiteness. Go up and read your own comment to see how you related that to authoritarianism. If you can’t follow your own train of thought, then I can’t help you because it makes it apparent you’re not asking in good faith.
You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”
What I’m trying to explain to you is that “we” are not saying that. The people who use whiteness to justify their actions and otherize their enemies are saying that. This isn’t difficult.
Like I said, I’m here to slag Yanks and their know-nothing racist views of the world.
It’s astonishing how they’ll confidently lecture ya on things they demonstrate complete ignorance of.
I was slagging the people who said it’s about being black, not about Hitler, Stalin, the USSR, Putin, etc.
This is holocaust denialism.
Saying Hitler is white is holocaust denial?
This thread became gibberish a while back
I have heard, from leftist, that Russian leadership has a higher tolerance for casualties on their side because THEY see the forced conscripts from easter Europe as disposalable. I have not seen/heard a NATO leader suggesting that they are.
They aren’t?
Americans live in an authoritarian plutocracy, but refuse to believe it
because capitalists have to lie about reality to preserve their ill gotten gains.
Because authority carried out under the pretenses of private property is whitewashed in liberal states, who are the ones in your question doing the “considering”.
From Losurdo - A critique of the category of totalitarianism:
Nowadays we constantly hear denunciations, directed toward Islam, of ‘religious totalitarianism’ or of the ‘new totalitarian enemy that is terrorism’. The language of the Cold War has reappeared with renewed vitality, as confirmed by the warning that American Senator Joseph Lieberman has issued to Saudi Arabia: beware the seduction of Islamic totalitarianism, and do not let a ‘theological iron curtain’ separate you from the Western world.
Even though the target has changed, the denunciation of totalitarianism continues to function with perfect efficiency as an ideology of war against the enemies of the Western world. And this ideology justifies the violation of the Geneva Convention, the inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the embargo and collective punishment inflicted upon the Iraqis and other peoples, and the further torment perpetrated against the Palestinians. The struggle against totalitarianism serves to legitimate and transfigure the total war against the ‘barbarians’ who are alien to the Western world.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, the legendary capitalist freedom to go homeless and die of preventable diseases. And the awful authoritarian communism of providing full employment and eliminating poverty.
If you don’t think the USA is the most authoritarian country ever, your definition of authoritarianism is useless.
Let me guess, you’re an American who has never been outside of the USA, never read anything about other countries, and believes 'Murica is the greatest one forever and only one that matters (even in evil)
This. This post right here is why no one takes this place seriously.
That chart is pretty great, because it shows that only a tiny minority of US states have smaller incarceration rates than Russia.
Oh yeah, the whole blue state red state thing is just degrees of awful.
I’m not going to stick up for the U.S. carceral system, but it does not really speak unequivocally to the matter at hand now does it?
Yeah, the legendary communist free world, where you went to gulag, if you dared to think of your own. And the awful authoritarian capitalists of bringing up the average quality of life that much since ww2. /S
Sorry, but this view is very much too simple.
What country has the biggest prison population both by raw numbers and on a per capital basis?
By raw numbers obviously the US, followed by china with not too many less. Per capita El Salvador and Cuba are on the first two places. So what’s your point? Per Capita and in raw numbers there is a capitalist country and a country which calls itself socialist on place one and two.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Better check your facts before next time.
Now include Guam and Puerto Rico, which are US territories.
? I really don’t know what you are hinting at. In raw numbers the US will still be number 1 followed by China and per capita adding in countries with a lower incarceration rate and less people than the USA won’t lift up the USA in the ranking.
Perhaps, if NATOpedia’s raw data is to be trusted.
Incarceration rates and counts. From World Prison Brief
The World Prison Brief at PrisonStudies.org is an online database providing free access to information on prison systems around the world. It is now hosted by the Institute For Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck College, University of London.
It was previously hosted by the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS). It was a research centre at the University of Essex. It was launched at the House of Lords on 4 April 2011. Between 1997 and 2010 ICPS was based in King’s College London and was launched formally by Home Secretary Jack Straw in October 1997. In July 2010 the International Centre for Prison Studies incorporated and registered as a charity with the Charities Commission of England and Wales. From the outset the Centre was independent of governmental and intergovernmental agencies, although it would work closely with them.
So who really knows what the quality of the data is without further investigation. But it seems to have been originally created by the UK’s military-intelligence-industrial complex.
I flubbed one stat that doesn’t really move the needle on the point I was trying to make. I was thinking of world powers and didn’t double check to make sure nations scorned by empire didn’t barely hedge the US out of the top 5 on per capita (though another of its territories made it).
America is a remarkably “authoritarian” country by all standards whether they be prisons, police spending, or military spending.
You know absolutely jack shit about how Lenin came to power, or what Stalin did to maintain it do you?
Communism sounds great on paper and if anyone ever works it out successfully irl I am in.
The problem is they always try to use power to achieve their goals and that corrupts a society from the beginning.
Grown organically it might work but for some reason people really hate communists
Lenin is great, and Stalin literally saved the world. The USSR was a great success. It was as authoritarian as any western “democracy”. Prove me wrong bozo.
How did they go about it though?
At the barrel of a gun.
The same way they kept it going.
Discuss what they achieved all you want, you can be a great man without being a good one.
Damn revolution bad? I guess we should just lie down and accept how things are then. Better the death of millions of people, billions very soon, from the system that exists; than thousands from a revolution. You are very wise.
Have all of the revolutions you want, just don’t force others to live by your choices.
If you have the support, then good.
If not, go start your own thing.
Buy some land and start a community, support each other and grow larger through shared experiences and work.
If you get enough, you can start your own town.
Yeah you kind of still have to play by other rules as far as taxes, but you could be self-sufficient and off the grid.
Residential windmills and solar panels have come a long way, recycling would be easier, and if you get the right machine, you can actually burn trash for power.
Move in more people like yourself and you can probably go big enough to take over a county by sheer weight of legitimacy.
That’s probably as big as you could go though, the Mormons have kind of got Utah, but they’ve been working on that since like the 1850’s I think, and they still only have influence, a rather large amount of influence, but not control
You can see the parallels with fascism.
Totalitarianism, AKA authoritarianism. Hannah Arendt came from wealth and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. This is a bourgeois liberal, intentionally anticommunist construct that lumps fascism and communism in the same bucket.
Monthly Review, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
If fact almost all of the “Western left” (that wasn’t crushed by red scares) was captured by the imperial core’s propaganda machine: Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism
It’s simple to label a government as “authoritarian” just because they have things called “laws” that prevent you from exploiting their people. Likewise, it’s convenient to repeatedly tell your citizens that distant, non-English-speaking countries are “authoritarian.” The truth is, for every Westerner who can afford to travel and verify these claims, a million others will just accept what the media tells them. They’ll even go on to reinforce these narratives, despite having no firsthand experience or direct connection to these places.
Projection of the contradiction of capital, capitalists states only allow freedom to those that can pay and has the illusion of free choice only when it comes to consumption.
Because mass media, manufactured consent, and regulatory capture are the “good” kind of coercion.
