A State is supposed to exercise authority, so by saying X country (enemy of the Usonian Empire) is authoritarian you’re basically saying “There is a State”. Basically doublespeak Usonian propaganda.
In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”
E.g. Wikipedia defines it as
a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
A state necessarily exercising authority changes nothing about how violently and uncompromisingly any particular state goes about it. So I’m guessing calling a state plainly authoritarian is essentially saying nothing at all, but if I say your country is as authoritarian as North Korea, you know exactly what I’m saying and that I’m certainly saying something that is neither doublespeak or propaganda, right?
youre describing different quantitative levels of authority , but too much or too little authority it is. autoritarism means authority is present. water is wet. furthermore there is a lack of semantics. is this authorit exercised against the zionists or the palestinians and so on?
i am from the global south so yes, i know what it is when you call my korean brothers authoritarian. it means enemy of the usonian empire
I think we are conflating two different things: the state’s foreign policy stance and its domestic structure.
You are correct that ‘authoritarian’ is often a propaganda label used to justify sanctions or invasion. However, refusing to use the word to describe any state in the Global South implies that the only form of oppression that matters is Western imperialism. That effectively erases the lived experience of people in those nations who might be jailed or disappeared by their own government.
The term ‘authoritarian’ shouldn’t mean ‘enemy of the US.’ It should mean a system where the people have no mechanism to hold their leaders accountable. By that definition, a state can be anti-Zionist and still be authoritarian toward its own citizens. Do you believe there is any word we should use to describe a government that silences its own working class, or should we just stay silent about that to avoid sounding like the US State Department?
A State is supposed to exercise authority, so by saying X country (enemy of the Usonian Empire) is authoritarian you’re basically saying “There is a State”. Basically doublespeak Usonian propaganda.
In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”
E.g. Wikipedia defines it as
That’s every country
Reductions from what? The USSR was an increase in all of those things from Tsarist Russia.
A state necessarily exercising authority changes nothing about how violently and uncompromisingly any particular state goes about it. So I’m guessing calling a state plainly authoritarian is essentially saying nothing at all, but if I say your country is as authoritarian as North Korea, you know exactly what I’m saying and that I’m certainly saying something that is neither doublespeak or propaganda, right?
youre describing different quantitative levels of authority , but too much or too little authority it is. autoritarism means authority is present. water is wet. furthermore there is a lack of semantics. is this authorit exercised against the zionists or the palestinians and so on?
i am from the global south so yes, i know what it is when you call my korean brothers authoritarian. it means enemy of the usonian empire
I think we are conflating two different things: the state’s foreign policy stance and its domestic structure.
You are correct that ‘authoritarian’ is often a propaganda label used to justify sanctions or invasion. However, refusing to use the word to describe any state in the Global South implies that the only form of oppression that matters is Western imperialism. That effectively erases the lived experience of people in those nations who might be jailed or disappeared by their own government.
The term ‘authoritarian’ shouldn’t mean ‘enemy of the US.’ It should mean a system where the people have no mechanism to hold their leaders accountable. By that definition, a state can be anti-Zionist and still be authoritarian toward its own citizens. Do you believe there is any word we should use to describe a government that silences its own working class, or should we just stay silent about that to avoid sounding like the US State Department?