PyramidHead
Contributor
One of the most liberating realizations I have come to in the past year or so is that the concept of "authoritarianism" is so vague and nonspecific as to be basically devoid of meaning. People apply it as a way of labeling a type of society they don't like, but this is not a useful way of categorizing societies. Outside of the class interests of the person making the charge of authoritarianism, there is scarcely any difference between the exercise of power in so-called authoritarian nations and the so-called democratic ones. Both are states, and if you don't understand what states are and why they exist, then calling some but not others authoritarian might seem like a valid framework.
However, the state doesn't make sense as an isolated phenomenon, and the application of behaviors such as suppression, coercion, and control cannot be rationalized by appealing to the inner evil of certain human beings (or more troublingly, races or ethnicities of human beings). That's a fairy tale explanation: one day, an evil wizard appeared, and he just wanted to be powerful, so he started doing authoritarianism. The good wizards in the rest of the world didn't like it, so they banded together to stop him, and from then on there was no more authoritarianism. This is the extent of many people's understanding of the second world war, for example, or the government of modern-day China.
The state is a tool for repression and subjugation in all instances, without exception, and before you take me as a libertarian, allow me to elaborate.
i. Societies are organized around producing and distributing the things that everybody needs to survive. Whichever class (and a class is just a functional role relative to the process of production/distribution of social goods) is in control of the levers of production will use the state to dominate and weaken the classes that lack such control. This is not an all-or-nothing process of course, so there will always be allowances and admixtures of greater or lesser freedoms for the non-dominant class, but in general and from far away, the state is always a tool of the dominant economic class in society that manages its ongoing conflict with the other classes.
ii. Under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are a small minority of individuals and corporations who, taken together, extract value from the exploitation of those who work for them, i.e. they pay workers less than the value created through the work they do, and channel the surplus into expansion of the company, profits, dividends for shareholders, and importantly for this discussion, influence in government. The official institutions of the state apparatus, such as the army, the legislature, the law enforcement agencies, the bureaucratic structures, and the elections themselves, only exist because class divisions exist and there needs to be some way of managing the adversarial relationship of the capitalist class to the exploited classes, whom they rely upon but cannot allow to become dominant.
iii. The authority exerted by the state in capitalist society is thus manifested in laws that protect private property, copyright, accumulated wealth, and whatever manifestation of the "general welfare" that is the most palatable to the owners of the means of production. The balance must be struck between controlling the working class so they are constantly compelled to provide their labor, and placating them with occasional concessions so that unrest does not turn into revolt. Again, I'm not just talking about some capitalist societies when I say this: all of them, in all times and places, are exactly as "authoritarian" in this sense, in that the state machine is purely an implement of keeping the workers alive, enthusiastic about working, but ultimately in check.
iv. The situation is no different in examples of societies that have been called "authoritarian" to differentiate them from Western "democracies". In such places, like anywhere, the dominant class in society uses the state to hinder the power and influence of the classes that would threaten its dominance. The reason this looks different in some places is because the capitalist class is not the dominant class in every society, and furthermore, capitalism nonetheless is the world economic system.
These two facts account for the perceived authoritarianism, as a feature that differentiates one place from another, of many non-Western societies such as China today, the Soviet Union in the last century, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (often referred to by the misnomer of "north" Korea). In some such societies, the conditions of class struggle led to a scenario where the capitalists no longer held the dominant position. As such, the formerly exploited classes became dominant, and used the state to limit and curtail the aspirations of the formerly dominant capitalists. Because the world is still capitalist, however, the methods they used were simply more direct, to meet the constraints placed on them by the reality of global imperialism.
It's much less risky to be a socialist in a capitalist state than the other way around, because individual socialists do not pose a threat to the hegemony of capital as long as basically the entire world and its military force is committed to protecting it. When socialist and communist states impose strict penalties on capitalist behavior, their rationale for doing so reflects the vulnerability of any non-capitalist state in a capitalist world. If the resurgence of rich landlords, finance capitalists, and other elements of the bourgeoisie gets a foothold, they will more easily reclaim the state from the workers by calling upon the allies of capital throughout the world. This is what led to the ultimate dissolution of the USSR over time; from without and from within, capital infiltrated the institutions of power and regained a stronghold that was able to topple the working class from control over the state. It was able to do this with help from the many capitalist powers that had strong interests in seeing the USSR fail, and through the complacency of postwar leaders who took the lack of outright military conflict as a sign of conciliation.
This has not happened in China. After a period of opening up to foreign investment in order to leverage the survival of China as an incentive for capitalists, China has entered a period of renewed socialist development. The government is doing what every government does: applying coercion and pressure to frustrate any attempts at a permanent capitalist resurgence in society. Corruption in business is severely punished. Laws are channeled toward disproportionately harming the rich profiteers who are allowed to thrive in China to grow its productive forces. Foreign policy is not a tool of expanding and taking over other countries, but of building up their economies so they will be on China's side if there is a threat from Western capitalist powers. As such, the government in China enjoys the approval of 70-80% of the 1.3 billion people who live there and vote for representatives in huge, transparent elections. The representatives vote for officials higher in the chain, and the President is appointed democratically by these officials. Intensive polling and surveying feeds into the 5-year plans that China implements to further the transition to socialism.
From the perspective of people living on stolen land run by capitalists, this will look strange and "authoritarian". But it is no more coercive than the use of the state to oppress the masses in a society dominated by capital, and no less democratic either.
However, the state doesn't make sense as an isolated phenomenon, and the application of behaviors such as suppression, coercion, and control cannot be rationalized by appealing to the inner evil of certain human beings (or more troublingly, races or ethnicities of human beings). That's a fairy tale explanation: one day, an evil wizard appeared, and he just wanted to be powerful, so he started doing authoritarianism. The good wizards in the rest of the world didn't like it, so they banded together to stop him, and from then on there was no more authoritarianism. This is the extent of many people's understanding of the second world war, for example, or the government of modern-day China.
The state is a tool for repression and subjugation in all instances, without exception, and before you take me as a libertarian, allow me to elaborate.
i. Societies are organized around producing and distributing the things that everybody needs to survive. Whichever class (and a class is just a functional role relative to the process of production/distribution of social goods) is in control of the levers of production will use the state to dominate and weaken the classes that lack such control. This is not an all-or-nothing process of course, so there will always be allowances and admixtures of greater or lesser freedoms for the non-dominant class, but in general and from far away, the state is always a tool of the dominant economic class in society that manages its ongoing conflict with the other classes.
ii. Under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are a small minority of individuals and corporations who, taken together, extract value from the exploitation of those who work for them, i.e. they pay workers less than the value created through the work they do, and channel the surplus into expansion of the company, profits, dividends for shareholders, and importantly for this discussion, influence in government. The official institutions of the state apparatus, such as the army, the legislature, the law enforcement agencies, the bureaucratic structures, and the elections themselves, only exist because class divisions exist and there needs to be some way of managing the adversarial relationship of the capitalist class to the exploited classes, whom they rely upon but cannot allow to become dominant.
iii. The authority exerted by the state in capitalist society is thus manifested in laws that protect private property, copyright, accumulated wealth, and whatever manifestation of the "general welfare" that is the most palatable to the owners of the means of production. The balance must be struck between controlling the working class so they are constantly compelled to provide their labor, and placating them with occasional concessions so that unrest does not turn into revolt. Again, I'm not just talking about some capitalist societies when I say this: all of them, in all times and places, are exactly as "authoritarian" in this sense, in that the state machine is purely an implement of keeping the workers alive, enthusiastic about working, but ultimately in check.
iv. The situation is no different in examples of societies that have been called "authoritarian" to differentiate them from Western "democracies". In such places, like anywhere, the dominant class in society uses the state to hinder the power and influence of the classes that would threaten its dominance. The reason this looks different in some places is because the capitalist class is not the dominant class in every society, and furthermore, capitalism nonetheless is the world economic system.
These two facts account for the perceived authoritarianism, as a feature that differentiates one place from another, of many non-Western societies such as China today, the Soviet Union in the last century, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (often referred to by the misnomer of "north" Korea). In some such societies, the conditions of class struggle led to a scenario where the capitalists no longer held the dominant position. As such, the formerly exploited classes became dominant, and used the state to limit and curtail the aspirations of the formerly dominant capitalists. Because the world is still capitalist, however, the methods they used were simply more direct, to meet the constraints placed on them by the reality of global imperialism.
It's much less risky to be a socialist in a capitalist state than the other way around, because individual socialists do not pose a threat to the hegemony of capital as long as basically the entire world and its military force is committed to protecting it. When socialist and communist states impose strict penalties on capitalist behavior, their rationale for doing so reflects the vulnerability of any non-capitalist state in a capitalist world. If the resurgence of rich landlords, finance capitalists, and other elements of the bourgeoisie gets a foothold, they will more easily reclaim the state from the workers by calling upon the allies of capital throughout the world. This is what led to the ultimate dissolution of the USSR over time; from without and from within, capital infiltrated the institutions of power and regained a stronghold that was able to topple the working class from control over the state. It was able to do this with help from the many capitalist powers that had strong interests in seeing the USSR fail, and through the complacency of postwar leaders who took the lack of outright military conflict as a sign of conciliation.
This has not happened in China. After a period of opening up to foreign investment in order to leverage the survival of China as an incentive for capitalists, China has entered a period of renewed socialist development. The government is doing what every government does: applying coercion and pressure to frustrate any attempts at a permanent capitalist resurgence in society. Corruption in business is severely punished. Laws are channeled toward disproportionately harming the rich profiteers who are allowed to thrive in China to grow its productive forces. Foreign policy is not a tool of expanding and taking over other countries, but of building up their economies so they will be on China's side if there is a threat from Western capitalist powers. As such, the government in China enjoys the approval of 70-80% of the 1.3 billion people who live there and vote for representatives in huge, transparent elections. The representatives vote for officials higher in the chain, and the President is appointed democratically by these officials. Intensive polling and surveying feeds into the 5-year plans that China implements to further the transition to socialism.
From the perspective of people living on stolen land run by capitalists, this will look strange and "authoritarian". But it is no more coercive than the use of the state to oppress the masses in a society dominated by capital, and no less democratic either.
