• krzschlss@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be global authoritarian you have to be the wealthiest and most powerful. And currently there is only one government and its army that takes this title.

    • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      authoritarian threats

      This is a meaningless term used in this way. Every state is authoritarian, by definition. The only “state” that isn’t authoritarian is anarchy, and that’s only not an authoritarian state because it’s not a state. Use more accurate terms if you want to make a point.

      Countries are ignoring global authoritarian threats, by ignoring themselves, but that’s probably not the point you were trying to make.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          rejection of political plurality,

          Like when so much money is funnelled into US politics that only two capitalist ‘parties’ are able to compete, and they have almost identical policies except for some window dressing?

          the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo,

          Like when the republicans block democrat legislation, even though the democrats are in power?

          and reductions in the rule of law,

          What happened to Roe v Wade and how?

          separation of powers,

          Like when the previous POTUS secures a GOP majority on the Supreme Court, which the current POTUS can’t change?

          and democratic voting.

          Like suppressing votes by criminalising being black and requiring voter ID?

          The problem with the term ‘authoritarian’ is that it’s either meaningless and applies to everybody or nobody and is used as a weak rhetorical device, or it’s given some theoretical basis and it applies to every state and is used to shed light on state relations. Either way, it’s not a coherent criticism in an of itself.

          • lemmyshmemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            1 year ago

            criminalizing being black

            Not much fun or use “debating” someone who says this kind of thing.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not whataboutism, whatever that means. It’s an illustration that the use of ‘authoritarian/ism’ as a pejorative against one state in particular is a kind of inverse category error. The fact that a state is authoritarian is not automatically negative (except to anarchists); the term applies to every state. Hence, to use ‘authoritarian\ism’ to imply a negative is only coherent if one means to criticise the state form itself.