Authoritarianism is a specific thing. It doesn't mean just "very controlling", but to have a single centralized center of government that can abridge political

Authoritarianism is a specific thing. It doesn't mean just "very controlling", but to have a single centralized center of government that can abridge political freedoms. As an example, an early post-Roman Brittanic king would have been classed Authoritarian because they are a centralized point of control with no senate or alderman structure. Yes there was a small period in the 19th century where we had kings who had market economies but they typically had senates which contained most of the power and were generally just figureheads. A corporation can't keep you from voting. It doesn't prevent you from donating money to your favorite political candidate, or telling your neighbors about it. On the other hand as an example of authoritarianism, Xi Jinping has literally removed the ability for Chinese people to select someone else as their leader. Even their ability to elect non-CCP parties depends on his approval. Socialism depends on cohesion. You can't have 40% of the country riot because you won't be able to maintain services, whereas capitalist economies tend to survive such upsets quite well. You don't usually see mass political actions shut towns down in the US. That's part of why authoriarianism is attractive to socialist countries because it's one way of maintaining cohesion. Unfortuntely, it works because you remove the rights of people.