I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.

  • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Authoritarianism under the banner of socialism isn’t success. It’s just a different kind of failure.

      • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re authoritarian, who are you protecting? It’s not for the people or the workers, so it’s not a revolttion worth protecting.

          • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are we talking about a revolution or a government, here? If you believe the revolution is ever-ongoing, fine, substitute your own words for the taking-power part and the governing part. If the taking-power part, I’m not sure we can know. Look at the Iranian Revolution. There were leftists involved with the taking-power part, but not so much with the governing part. As far as a government for the people, there are probably many different ways it can turn out, but the essence is fulfilling people’s basic needs while also respecting their human rights. No one’s gotten it right yet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I don’t think it’s arrogance. I’m not saying we have the answers, I’m saying we need to keep trying, because our past attempts were insufficient. It’s not arrogant to try to learn from one’s mistakes. And it’s not arrogant to assume that a movement’s chances of success can be altered by changing material conditions.

                I’m well aware that in many cases, authoritarian socialism/communism has improved material conditions for many people. But I also notice that not a lot of Westerners defending these governments attempt to move there. All our current systems are fucked, and acknowledging that is awareness, not hubris.

                In answer to your question of “which is better,” it probably depends heavily on the preexisting local circumstances. But I’m from the US, so I’m sick of being forced to choose between two shitty options in a false dichotomy. Neither. Neither is better, and we need to stop pretending what exists now is the end of political and economic philosophy. It’s not. We need to do better.

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you define what you mean by “authoritarian” in a way that doesn’t include actions the US does ? What is authority in your mind?

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Alright but like, which states aren’t then?

          Like, if none of them aren’t which I assume is your take (I was an anarchist myself until the climate crisis started hitting hard so I have some sympathy for anti statism myself) and you can see that socialist states provide a better quality of life than capitalist states when compared at an equal level of development, surely you can admit that one is a lesser evil than the other? But that’s not what the people shouting about “authoritarian states” functionally do with their rhetoric, functionally they defend capitalist states and uphold the status quo by forming part of the opposition to the end of capitalist states and the formation of socialist ones.

          • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            None, afaik. We need to do better. I don’t oppose ending capitalist states and forming socialist ones. I oppose violations of human rights by both corporations and governments. If we can’t set the bar above “marginally better for most people than late stage capitalism, but we’ll disappear you if you speak out against us,” we’ve already lost.

            • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What exactly do you think happens to people that actually threaten capitalism?

              The issue isn’t “speaking out” about problems. The issue is people attempting to overthrow the socialist system. Capitalism disappears and murders those of us that attempt to overthrow it just the same. You’re allowed to speak about problems so long as you are not actively trying to overthrow governments while doing so (and being effective at it). If you’re effective you end up like everyone in The Jakarta Method, like Allende, or like Assange. The US operates hundreds of blacksites all over the world and yet people pretend that people aren’t disappeared for being a threat to it. The lack of self awareness is perplexing.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying the US doesn’t disappear people. It absolutely does. The threshold’s just usually a bit higher than in, say, China. China’s better at meeting basic needs for people at the bottom, and the US will usually only throw you in a black site if you actually foment revolution, rather than simply criticizing the government. It’s amazing how many people assume you have to pick an existing model to root for here. I repeat, I think everyone are bastards, and that we can and must do better.

    • Red Wizard 🪄@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even in the United States after the revolution they implemented authoritarian measures to ensure the security of their revolution. They sized the land of Loyalists and effectively drove them out if the country. They killed Loyalists, who were their fellow colonists, for their opposition to the revolution. They attempted tirelessly for peaceful transition to independence but the Monarchy refused them and ignored them until they were left with no choice but to begin violent armed revolution. All revolutions are authoritarian in their nature. The American revolutionaries were seizing their power by force and imposing their self actualized authority over the colonies in pursuit of their own economic and social freedoms.

      The United States is authoritarian and many of the same ways that socialist states are authoritarian. If you don’t believe me, look at the history of the socialist movement in America. Look at what the state was and still is willing to do to its own citizens for criticizing and organizing against the capitalist and imperialist system that the state runs on.

      Are you here to tell me that McCarthyism and the red scare were democratic in their execution? That they were in line with the Free Speech and Free Expression ethos the United States projects? They were not times of political democratic freedom. Even in recent times you have leaders of movements critical of the state being killed for their political positions. Students killed during the anti-war movement in the 60s and 70s. Anti-War activists driven out of their employment and careers over their opposition to the state and it’s actions in Vietnam.

      So what do you call authoritarianism under capitalism then? Democracy??