Comment on YSK Joseph Stalin created the Great Terror. He started killing people randomly including artists, generals, doctors, diplomats, government officials. Everyone was terrified.

• _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

  an argument easily disproven by pointing to the US for the last few decades.

  source

  • eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Shhh, you’ll interrupt the lib circlsjerk of how they’re the only good ones who commit atrocities, every other atrocity down by others is worse.

    source
  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Nope, a government has little bearing on a moral & political philosophy. As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.
    political map with axes left–right & libertarian–authoritarian
    Liberalism is a philosophy whereas liberal democracy is a type of government as was clearly stated:

    Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

    If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government. Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part until Trump.

    Even so, there are other liberal democracies across the globe.

    source

    • _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      there’s a lot wrong with your comment, but let me focus on this part here because there’s only so much stupid I can put up with.

      Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.

      you’re out of your fucking mind if you think the US has been even remotely protecting human rights. this is nothing more than the most obvious western propaganda bullshit, and even our allies in the rest of the western world would scoff at the idea.

      source
    • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      imagine being so illogical that you think that something as complex as all human ideologies can be represented on a 2D plain.
      reality is much more complicated that you can fathom, silly brah

      source

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Ah, so you reject conventional political science, too? Cool.

        It’s just straightforward definitions & logic: the diagram is there for the slow.

        Authoritarianism is 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.

        Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • oculi@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.

      The political compass is incredibly basic and does a horrible job at describing ideologies. Ideology is not just a basic “left wing/right wing, libertarian/authoritarian” %’s, it’s more accurately representable with parameters. It’s as useful as a toy.

      If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government

      Besides liberalism’s glaring issues, the whole point is that this is the inevitable endpoint of capitalism and by extension, liberalism. If an ideology always ends up in a horrible result as we see in the US and other liberal nations, it’s fair to include that in the criticism of Liberalism.

      your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.

      Jesus fucking christ what? The Indian genocides/reservations? Chattel slavery, and modern slavery through penal labor? The war on terror? The countless coups done by the US that installed fascist dictators? Japanese internment camps? The monroe doctrine? Operation paperclip? Palestine? Literally all of this happened before Trump came into power. What the fuck are you talking about. How is that defending “human rights & liberties” in any way?

      source

      • _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        hey, when obama drone bombed all those arab kids he was really *checks notes* protecting human rights. same with Biden aggressively clamping down on pro-Palestinian peaceful protests by students. I feel like my human rights are defended so hard.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Allero@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The “political” aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.

  Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:

  Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach to establish a socialist state, which is expected to wither away.

  So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.

  Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.

  By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.

  source

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types.

    While this is true, they’re talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before

    Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state)

    not any political system. None of the other types of communist governments have existed to scale for a meaningful duration & none have fulfilled their fantastical/mythical promise. They either fail within a few years or persist through authoritarian repression while purporting to strive for a fantasy they may never achieve.

    Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

    Not a political system. Nothing you wrote about it necessarily happens (depends on government), and the rich have been successfully sued & convicted of crimes before.

    liberalism

    Isn’t some deluded speculation. It’s a moral & political philosophy of immediately realizable demands to restrict government authority[^liberal-demands]. Are you arguing against the restriction of government authority & against liberty? That’s a strong argument to reject your political system as illegitimate.

    Unlike the fantasy of a communist society, the demands of liberalism have been achieved before in North America & Europe. It’s why you’re allowed to write everything you have.

    true democracy

    Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:

    Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy

    True democracy was already defined

    [Democracy][democracy] is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.

    and demands less.

    This is why socialism exists as a transitory state

    Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.

    economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry)

    Economic systems aren’t political systems, so they don’t have rights, though they may depend on rights (from a political system). :::spoiler Moreover, those benefits amount to less than purported in communist states. With all their rhetoric on substantive equality, & the time, state ownership, & central planning to achieve it, we’d expect at least the main outcome of economic equality. Yet, measures of economic inequality don’t support that: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba rate medium on economic inequality. (Only, North Korea with an average height notably shorter than South Korea due to food shortages has low economic inequality.) To the contrary, the “flawed” liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia do better with low economic inequality.

    Despite an ideology opposing the exploitation of workers, Soviet forced labor camps did exactly that & would work the malnourished to death.

    The formal guarantees for nutrition from those benefits meant little when at least 5 million died during the Soviet famine of 1932 the Soviets created.

    For instance, over five million people lacked adequate nutrition and starved to death during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, one of several Soviet famines. The 1932–33 famine was caused primarily by Soviet-mandated collectivization, although the famine in part was also caused by natural conditions. In response to frequent shortages, massive second economy existed for all categories of goods and services.

    In contrast, during the Great Depression in the United States, mortality fell & there were few reported cases from starvation.

    Without profit motive in those “benefits”, we might have expected a better environmental record in the Soviet Union. To the contrary

    Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.

    Their planners considered pollution control

    unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization

    and

    By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

    Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn’t realize.

    • labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
    • continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
    • steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).

    The Soviet experience of socialist ownership and the concomitant centrally planned character of the economy showed the difficulties of realizing economic growth in order to ensure an increasing standard of living. Growth in the Soviet Union had been high in the nineteen thirties and early fifties, but had been deteriorating ever since.

    The actual functioning of the centrally planned economy was very different from the way it was planned to function. This had very much to do with the fact that economic actors in the Soviet Union also responded to state actions in a way that frustrated the state’s stated intentions. People engaged in informal and illegal activities and reduced their working time, frustrating the growth targets.

    Shortages increasingly lead people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.

    The end of the Cold War has changed the focus of the debate on human rights. The West, with its focus on civil and political rights, no longer opposed the Soviet states, with their emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the communist systems gave rise to a certain extent of triumphalism in the West, which had proven to be not only superior in political and civil rights, but also in economic and social rights. The economies of the western countries produced much more income and the material welfare of their populations was much higher than that of those living in Eastern Europe. ::: [^liberal-demands]: by rule of law & protection of essential rights/liberties

    source
• ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  this isn’t wikipedia, put your bot away

  source

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    don’t cite resources contesting my thesis

    whatever 🙄

    source

    • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      lol, okay clanker

      source

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Cool ad hominem fallacy, brah. Try respecting logic when you learn how lame that is.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      that’s not what “thesis” means, brah

      source
• AppleTea@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  State terrorism is a contradiction in terms. Legally, terrorism is violence carried out by a group that is not recognized as a state internationally. States cannot do terrorism, the term exists to protect their monopoly on legal violence. George Washington was a terrorist until the British empire recognized and began doing business with the constitutional United States. We see a similar change occurring with Taliban members and the present government of Afghanistan.

  More importantly, though. You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism, yet if we dig into the present and recent past of the United States, we find policies that match the list you have provided.

  The Lavender Scare and Hoover’s FBI, the Red Scare and COINTELPRO, the police response to Kent State anti-war protests in 1970, the police response Columbia’s anti-genocide protests last year, the ongoing existence of privately run labor camps and prison farms.

  source

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    State terrorism is a contradiction in terms.

    Nope

    State terrorism is terrorism conducted by a state against its own citizens or another state’s citizens.

    Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

    The violations mentioned before are illegitimate exertions of authority to repress inherent human rights & liberties. Legal authority isn’t always legitimate authority. Violence against nonviolent dissidents (for political/ideological aims) is unjust.

    You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism

    Nope, reread:

    Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

    I don’t know about labor camps, but none of that has any bearing on a moral & political philosophy.

    Moreover, the fact we know it & discuss it openly puts that government far beyond repressive governments that suppress & deny their failures ever happen.

    Like all governments, liberal democratic governments lapse into illegitimate authority. More importantly, however, they correct their lapses due to the people exercising their inherent liberties to induce reforms. That’s the design lacking from authoritarian governments like communist states: transparency & accountability to the people exercising their liberties to induce reform. Nothing short of a revolution or dissolution keeps communist states accountable to the people: they repress such liberties & send critics to labor camps as anti-revolutionaries.

    source