I was going to argue against this, but then you’re right. There has been regulatory capture of socdems as they became neoliberals; who keep chasing the magical “centrist” unicorn. But in reality, who they are trying to appease are the property owning base who want their property value to keep going up and up, at the expense of the youths, families and homeless, and to appease rich donors.
The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) historically opposed the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) due to ideological differences, particularly regarding the approach to socialism and the use of revolutionary tactics.
I wonder how that worked out. Oh, right.
Does anyone have that Wolfenstein meme of the two klansmen and a nazi soldier talking, and the caption is something like “two American liberals talking before being interrupted by a european social democrat?” I can’t find it
Content like this is why I come here.
Progressive Politics fans when they see US candidates presenting an alternative to the status quo and giving people something to hope for:
What a stupid person. There is a fascist in the White House and he’s a conservative. It’s all to do with fear. Specifically fear or freedom your own, or someone else’s.
This is going to come as a huge surprise to you but we’re not all Americans living in the shit hole country. Maybe you should ask Rosa Luxemburg if this meme is true or not
Using the word conservative to describe someone you just called a fascist is hilarious.
You are terribly uneducated on politics.
Pretty sure that’s every political system, unfortunately…
Don’t be pretty sure, about things you haven’t studied, then.
You don’t enjoy people talking on your social media, do you?
Talking yes. Talking out of their ass no.
Both of you could’ve simply named the political system that you think is magically immune to being overthrown, while somehow not being authoritarianism itself.
2 things quickly:
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
This meme isn’t about states being overthrow this meme is about how socialdemocrats entire ideology is built upon “reforming” capitalism by implementing a welfare state to more evenly spread the profits of the super exploitation of the periphery. When those profits dry up so too does the welfare state which inevitably pushes them right or left to deal with the heightened contradictions. The meme is pointing out the unfortunate pattern of it almost always ending in a rightward shift (due to many factors).
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society
Historicially, classes have been created or destroyed in order to create more or less centralized authority-driven decision making, and societies with less centralized authority have called ones with more centralized authority “authoritarian”.
Feudalism, dictatorship and even economic subjugation are called authoritarian by less authoritarian states.
In practice, the criterion for “authoritarianism” is however far back on that scale makes your current political center have anxiety about their ability to keep their current privileges from the authority.
But in theory you can see that the social organisation with the least authority possible would be an anarchist one, designed to dissolve class hierarchy when possible (e.g. abolition of private property) and apply anti-authoritarian safeguards if not (e.g. teach children how to take class action against adults, and make it easy for them to do so).
While such a society will still accumulate authority, it is designed to process it like any other waste product.
This means “authoritarian” is as meaningful as “filthy”. We can never be fully clean, but someone who chooses not to bathe to the standards of their time can be called filthy, and those standards can improve over time.
Your framework sounds nice in the abstract, but it doesn’t hold up against the concrete reality of how the term functions today. “Authoritarian” isn’t applied based on some neutral scale of centralization. It’s very clearly deployed selectively as a moral weapon by the Euro-Amerikan ideological apparatus to delegitimize any state or movement that resists imperial integration or challenges capitalist property relations.
If the criterion were truly about concentration of coercive power, the United States (with the world’s largest incarcerated population, extrajudicial drone programs, domestic surveillance architectures like COINTELPRO and it’s successors, and an executive branch that operates beyond legislative or judicial restraint on the whims of the president) would be the paradigmatic case. Yet it rarely (never) receives the label in mainstream discourse. Why? Because the term isn’t neutral.
On the historical point: classes aren’t created or dissolved to adjust the “level” of authority. They emerge and transform through shifts in the mode of production and the intensification of class struggle. The bourgeois revolutions didn’t aim to “spread” or “centralize” authority. They smashed feudal state forms to erect new ones that secured the dictatorship of capital (parliamentary democracy, rule of law, private property enforcement) all presented as “freedom” while materially consolidating a new class rule. The question was never how much authority, but authority for whom and against whom.
Anarchist models that treat authority as a contaminant to be minimized misunderstand the state as a neutral tool rather than an instrument of class power. In a world still structured by antagonistic classes, the relevant distinction isn’t between “more” or “less” authority, but between authority that reproduces exploitation and authority that dismantles it. The proletarian state, like any state, exercises coercion, but its historical task is to render itself obsolete by abolishing the class relations that make coercion necessary.
In it’s modern usage the term obscures more than it reveals. As it’s not meant to be a useful tool for analysing states, power or history, but a bat to beat those who don’t get in line.
What would you characterize as authoritarian/authoritarianism?
Wikipedia seems to do a decent enough job defining it:
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.
But basically, my point is:
- If your government represents the people, then it is possible for your people to elect authoritarianism, especially if they are unhappy, like the meme describes, and/or when there’s foreign nations trying to destabilize the system.
- If your government does not represent the people, then it is likely to devolve into authoritarianism on its own, because individuals or individual groups will want to assume all power and limit the rights of others.
Basically, my opinion is that politics is a constant work in progress, no matter the political system.
The trick is to have a system where if people choose to engage in authoritarianism they lose power. A liberal democracy can arrest a head of state who engages in illegal actions more easily than a feudal monarchy does.
This is because of their respective structures, with indictment being a legal structure with physical preparation done to facilitate it on the one hand, and being treason in the other.
So naturally the more a system facilitates the overthrow of authorities, the less authoritarian it gets. You’re right that politics is a constant work in progress, so a good political system incorporates that progress as smoothly as possible.
No system can withstand a sufficiently powerful foreign intervention, but a system where the overthrowing of authority is as mundane as throwing out the trash, where people’s best method of accumulating wealth and power is by betting on something other than authority, can split your false dichotomy.
Systems that attempt this are called anarchy.
That said, you are missing one key element from the meme. People aren’t voting for authoritarianism because they are unhappy but because they have reaped the fruits of authoritarianism/imperialism on a global scale and they want the system to find new people to exploit.
If a region in the western world became anarchic with no economic changes, it would rightfully be overthrown by people from the global south who their economic system oppresses. Liberal democracy prevents this through citizenship and the authority of those with voting rights over those without.
So anarchy would qualify in spirit if not in letter, but it would require a reckoning with everyone whose oppression we benefit from.
