3 ms·
No, and I don't think that a mass consensus is in any way relevant to determining whether something is an authoritarian regime or not. There was never a mass c
by madaxe 13y ago
No, and I don't think that a mass consensus is in any way relevant to determining whether something is an authoritarian regime or not.
There was never a mass consensus in the USSR that it was authoritarian, because it was not permitted.
When I say not permitted, I do not mean that they had people with guns going "THINK THIS!", but that social pressure and group-think were utilised to ensure that nobody broke ranks - just like media control in the US and UK ensures.
It's very easy to rule people by pitting them against one another, and putting them in a state of fear, envy or suspicion of their fellow cit.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoSo, okay, how do you determine it then? If those things listed each happened once, it wouldn't be authoritarian. (Would it?) What about twice? Three times? There has to be some threshold. I couldn't think of a better threshold than some kind of consensus, because it's essentially a value judgment. But, it's a good point about group-think. Maybe there has to be a consensus among people outside of the marginalized group? Maybe the fact that people are even openly questioning whether we have an authoritarian regime in the US means that we don't? Perhaps things are authoritarian when a wide range of people expect abuse from the people in power, whether or not they recognize it as such. Or, maybe it's more sinister than that, and we only truly recognize authoritarianism in retrospect.
- madaxe 13y ago> Or, maybe it's more sinister than that, and we only truly recognize authoritarianism in retrospect. Bingo, you get it. Put a frog in a pan of cold water, bring it to the boil. It'll stay there, perfectly content, until it cooks.