• nekandro@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The entire principle of authoritarianism is either public support or public apathy. An authoritarian regime is only as stable as its populace.

      A government that butchers its people against the will of the populace cannot survive even if it is democratic. A government that butchers people with the will of the populace will survive regardless of whether or not it’s authoritarian.

      See: Israel, America, Canada, Australia, UK

      There’s no fundamental difference between a democratic and authoritarian government in this regard. The primary difference is (and has always been) whether property is managed as a function of the state (monarchies, socialism) or as a function of the individual (democracies, anarchy).

      Well, that and the “people” that get killed in democracies are usually of a different skin colour than you, so maybe you just don’t care?

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Authoritarian” is connected to horseshoe theory which has holocaust trivialization history, please avoid using it

      • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That was a stretch but do you mean that the theory of totalitarianism was used to conflate Nazi Germany and USSR, and to an extent, justify double genocide theory…?

        That being said, I don’t see how it relates?

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        What would you say if I characterized the third reich as authoritarian? Would that make me a Holocaust trivializer?

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s a square-rectangle situation in my view. All fascists are authoritarian bit not all authoritarians are fascist

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Okay but bow is authoritarian useful? Can you find a definition that applies to Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc, that doesn’t also apply to the governments of NATO countries like the US, France, England, etc?

              • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                I think Juan Linz created a decent criteria. It’s useful as a descriptor of how much personal liberty a person residing in a particular state can assert and how easily a person can petition their government without fear of reprisal.

                  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago
                    • Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
                    • Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat “easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency”.
                    • Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
                    • Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.

                    He wrote this in the 1960’s, mainly in reference to Spanish Fascism but not exclusively.