4 ms·

"No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?

by mkmk3 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago
Is every authoritarian a fascist? If not, that statement makes perfect sense: there's no looming fascist takeover, but authoritarians are claiming there is to influence the population and get more power.
- rendall 4y ago
  This is the correct answer.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  Finally, another person who thinks it's weird a moderately sized swath of humanity has no concept or historical understanding of the myriad different types of authoritarians spawned by society over the years. Nobody remembers the party authoritarian government of pre 1990's Mexico? Nobody notices present day Singapore organized under the same??? Nobody remember Pinochet in Chile for an example of military authoritarianism? How about Myanmar??? And why is it always the Marxist leaning types with this blindness? It's like they are jealous of their equivalently terrifying sibling ideology and only have eyes for it or something...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Is every authoritarian a fascist? In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.

"No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?

by mkmk3 4y ago

"No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?

Is every authoritarian a fascist? If not, that statement makes perfect sense: there's no looming fascist takeover, but authoritarians are claiming there is to influence the population and get more power.

rendall 4y ago
This is the correct answer.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
Finally, another person who thinks it's weird a moderately sized swath of humanity has no concept or historical understanding of the myriad different types of authoritarians spawned by society over the years. Nobody remembers the party authoritarian government of pre 1990's Mexico? Nobody notices present day Singapore organized under the same??? Nobody remember Pinochet in Chile for an example of military authoritarianism? How about Myanmar??? And why is it always the Marxist leaning types with this blindness? It's like they are jealous of their equivalently terrifying sibling ideology and only have eyes for it or something...
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is every authoritarian a fascist? In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.