When you hear “authoritarian,” are you referring to states in general as instruments of authority, specific forms of states, or a specific metric of, say, representation? The reason Marxists say authoritarianism is a meaningless descriptor is because it doesn’t analyze what authority actually is in a way that is useful. I believe in a more unitary system of governance with democratic control by the working class. Some may say the democracy bit makes it non-authoritarian, some may say the unitary aspect makes it authoritarian, some may say the fact that it’s a state at all makes it authoritarian, and yet these are all equally valid/invalid usages of the term because it isn’t based on objectivity.
I think “authoritarian” is a principle of concentration and protection of power in the same way “democracy” is a conceptual term for structured collective guidance and oversight of an operation, and “anarchy” is the principle of maximizing agency of groups and minimizing the ability of any party to wield coercive power, etc.
They’re concepts.
My interest isn’t in categorizing and ranking nation states, it’s in examining and weighing the qualities of different approaches.
When someone says that a term like “authoritarianism” is meaningless, I just don’t feel like having an arugment. It’s like ‘I don’t see color’ or ‘age of consent? I think maturity is what matters.’ Alright, have a great day, I’m gonna go over there.
So if it’s a concept, but one that cannot be measured or objectively defined, then it loses its functional utility. The group “tankie” is a nebulous but acknowledged group of people that support existing socialist states, ones commonly referred to as “authoritarian” by “non-tankies.” Since this is not a measured approach, but instead a principle, this is now a meaningless allegation without someone doing the legwork to prove that unitary worker democracy negatively impacts individual agency beyond any other approach.
To explain the Marxist position, nebulous allegations of “authoritarianism” have no weight because they do not explicitly address distribution of power, class dynamics, etc. All the allegations do is create categories of “authoritarian vs. less/non-authoritarian” that cannot be objectively understood from the allegations alone. This returns us to the idea that “authoritarianism” is meaningless, it isn’t a useful term and everyone has different ways of understanding its application to real systems.
First: I don’t consider the term “Tankie” nebulous because I only apply it to people who self-identify as such.
Similarly, I don’t go around bringing up authoritarianism. When someone else brings it up to defend it, I generally roll my eyes and move along.
Personally, I find this line of reasoning about definitions semantic in the least productive way. It’s just Loki’s Wager. So with all due respect, I don’t wish to debate you. I answered your question in good faith and I’m content to leave it at that.
When you hear “authoritarian,” are you referring to states in general as instruments of authority, specific forms of states, or a specific metric of, say, representation? The reason Marxists say authoritarianism is a meaningless descriptor is because it doesn’t analyze what authority actually is in a way that is useful. I believe in a more unitary system of governance with democratic control by the working class. Some may say the democracy bit makes it non-authoritarian, some may say the unitary aspect makes it authoritarian, some may say the fact that it’s a state at all makes it authoritarian, and yet these are all equally valid/invalid usages of the term because it isn’t based on objectivity.
I think “authoritarian” is a principle of concentration and protection of power in the same way “democracy” is a conceptual term for structured collective guidance and oversight of an operation, and “anarchy” is the principle of maximizing agency of groups and minimizing the ability of any party to wield coercive power, etc.
They’re concepts.
My interest isn’t in categorizing and ranking nation states, it’s in examining and weighing the qualities of different approaches.
When someone says that a term like “authoritarianism” is meaningless, I just don’t feel like having an arugment. It’s like ‘I don’t see color’ or ‘age of consent? I think maturity is what matters.’ Alright, have a great day, I’m gonna go over there.
So if it’s a concept, but one that cannot be measured or objectively defined, then it loses its functional utility. The group “tankie” is a nebulous but acknowledged group of people that support existing socialist states, ones commonly referred to as “authoritarian” by “non-tankies.” Since this is not a measured approach, but instead a principle, this is now a meaningless allegation without someone doing the legwork to prove that unitary worker democracy negatively impacts individual agency beyond any other approach.
To explain the Marxist position, nebulous allegations of “authoritarianism” have no weight because they do not explicitly address distribution of power, class dynamics, etc. All the allegations do is create categories of “authoritarian vs. less/non-authoritarian” that cannot be objectively understood from the allegations alone. This returns us to the idea that “authoritarianism” is meaningless, it isn’t a useful term and everyone has different ways of understanding its application to real systems.
First: I don’t consider the term “Tankie” nebulous because I only apply it to people who self-identify as such.
Similarly, I don’t go around bringing up authoritarianism. When someone else brings it up to defend it, I generally roll my eyes and move along.
Personally, I find this line of reasoning about definitions semantic in the least productive way. It’s just Loki’s Wager. So with all due respect, I don’t wish to debate you. I answered your question in good faith and I’m content to leave it at that.