I’ve often heard that China is authoritarian, particularly due to events like the suppression of student protests in Hong Kong. However, I’m curious about more recent examples. Conversely, I’ve been hearing about the UK’s Online Safety Act being used to target Wikipedia editors and silence protests, which raises questions about authoritarian tendencies there as well. What specific examples do you have that demonstrate whether these countries are authoritarian or not?
Didn’t protesters in UK also get arrested recently? It was about 8 of them if I recall correctly.
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
All states are authoritarian, as every state is the extension of a given class. The only way to get rid of the state is through socialism, after revolution, and gradually sublimating all property into collectivized ownership until class no longer exists, ie communism. The administration, management, social planning, accounting, etc will remain while the need to exercise authority will vanish along with class. Until we get there, it is better for the proletariat to be in control, ie socialism, than the bourgeoisie, ie capitalism. The UK is under bourgeois control, while the PRC is under proletarian control.
The extent to which a given state exerts its authority depends precisely on the given conditions and circumstances a state is in. There is no latent desire for exerting authority at the helm, there are class dynamics and reactions to those changing relations through class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both serve the bourgeoisie, but Nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to retain private property and bourgeois control. Those same circumstances do not exist in modern Germany, but if they did, the state would be just as willing to wield its authority the same way if the bourgeoisie felt it necessary.
To paraphrase a poet
All states are authoritharian, dipshit. It came free with the monopoly of violence
Not really an answer to your question, but many would argue that the term “authoritarian” in its modern connotation is practically useless. What I mean is that there is no single definition of the term which is specific enough to be applied and understood in the context of a specific country, political system, etc. While certain academic disciplines attempt to agree on specific definitions, the reality is that most colloquial usage of the term is solely to demonize nations or ideologies without meaningful critique. Here’s one of many articles on the subject, which I think gives a decent overview: https://www.peoplesline.org/p/authoritarian-is-an-analytically
What I think you are getting at with your question is that even in the way it is colloquially applied (“evil regime” / repression / lack of rights), the term authoritarianism is applied unequally. Actions that would be described as evil or authoritarian in somewhere like China are brushed off or ignored when they apply to so-called Western liberal democracies like the UK. To that I would absolutely agree, and I think that observation further speaks to the uselessness of the term in constructive dialogue.
Well, one of those has military parades for its monarchy
One is a quickly developing powerhouse.
The other is a democracy. It’s main opposition party had promised to allow porn again and is wildly successful
Is it really a democracy when people want something, sign a petition and get dismissed?
Yes: As long as people can vote, kick the other government out, and replace it with worse, maybe better.
I think where the confusion lies at, is the very definition of democracy. Democracy does not mean good governance or even particularly fair treatment. It had nothing to do with socialism or helping the disadvantaged. It simply means it can be replaced using voting.
I think the democracies of the west are overhyped oligarchies; but they are democracies
Democracy for the bourgeoisie is not democracy for the whole of society. If the bourgeoisie is in control of who and what the proletariat can vote on, it’s more theatrics than democracy.
Yes, as practiced it’s mostly theatrics and the working class does not take power due to many controls and mental conditioning.
Democracy gives the illusion of control.
But many of these countries are by definition democracies
I don’t really agree. Most definitions of democracy center the majority, or the people, as the source of political power. I’d agree if you were talking about voting, but we are talking about democracy overall.
Historically, democracy only allowed free males who were land owners to vote. A minority.
In the last few generations the wealthy have come up with clever ideas to hold onto power while expanding the vote to the majority.
So, I think Democracy is defined by periodically changing some of the government by the voting of some people. And the votes must be counted in front of witnesses.
This is my definition of democracy only; and not me arguing for it, personally I don’t think it works well enough
Ok, and China does that
Democracy broadly refers to a system of government where ultimate power rests with the people. I don’t believe it’s solely about voting; rather, it’s about whether people perceive that they are being represented by the government.
It is a democracy, yes.
The government is elected to represent its people. Annoying to us as it is, a tiny percentage of people [1] signing an online petition does not represent the people. There are an awful lot who think this new law is a good thing. [2]
[1] Yes. Fight me on this. 404k signatures out of 70million population = 0.58% opposed this enough to sign it.
[2] Mostly parents imo, and people who don’t understand the significant fraud risk involved. Those who haven’t been impacted yet, and those who enjoy other people being upset. Yes, I think this is a stupid law and the methods used even worse, but that doesn’t stop a democracy being a democracy
You can actually use syntax for your references, btw. Lemmy has that functionality (though I can never remember it).
Either way, the UK is a democracy purely for the bourgeoisie, the proletariat isn’t given legitimate control over the politcal process. It’s a bourgeois dictatorship.
Thanks!
Do you still disappear if you are against the only (!) party in China? Do they still go after Chinese people outside(!) of China with police-like forces?
Does every country have some points that could be considered authoritarian? Sure, but let’s not act as if the UK is anywhere near China on that scale.
There are 8 other political parties beyond the CPC in China. They don’t compete with the CPC, but cooperate, and exert their own interests. Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their government. The extent to which the average Chinese citizen can affect policy is greater than that of the average UK citizen, because democracy is more than just picking a party, but having the ability to pick and choose policy.
But I’m asking about real examples not made up ones. And if you are referring to secret services all countries have those.
What do you mean, made up…? Are you even serious? Example for police in other countries Example for disappearing people
And of course you send me the article from a paper that’s the mouthpiece of some US billionaire. Would you take it seriously if a chinese paper said the US ‘secret police’ is disappearing people? They are going to paint the worse possible picture since they are rivals.
Would you take it seriously if a chinese paper said the US ‘secret police’ is disappearing people?
I mean, they are though.
Then search in Chinese or any other non-English language, what the fuck?
Hahaha you cited the NYT and the Guardian. Awesome sources. Your billionaire-owned “sources” mean nothing here.
Good thing you dismiss what you disagree with without any further arguments. Waste someone else’s time please.
Treating the NYT seriously, after watching it spend two years being to the Gaza Holocaust what Der Sturmer was to the original Holocaust, is obscene.
Made up? Lol there are numerous examples of what he mentioned (for China, obviously). Online search os your friend.
The UK has multiple political parties and free democratic elections. Just because the current government passed a law you don’t agree with doesn’t mean the country is authoritarian.
Its a monarchy
Imagine thinking that the number of parties have anything to do with how democratic a country is. 🤣
