Why do Liberals and Anti-communists claim Communists and Socialists are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" when they (libs and anticoms) openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism?
Why do Liberals and Anti-communists claim Communists and Socialists are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" when they (libs and anticoms) openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism?
Why do Liberals and Anti-communists claim Communists and Socialists are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" when they (libs and anticoms) openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism/Neoliberalism?
I simply can't really understand why do Liberals and Anti-communists always keep saying that Socialism/Communism are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" ideologies when they, Libs and Anticoms, can openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism/Neoliberalism, whatever if it is advocating for the full privatization of everything and or if it is by having an Authoritarian Capitalist government with a facade democracy and with a quasi-legal appearance.
Like, I simply can't take how much Liberals always complain about "Socialism/Communism is one-party state" when clearly PRC has far more parties than in the USA and than most Westerner countries, as well as even DPRK has more parties on parliament than the USA itself. But still liberals will just go and say "yeah, the multi-party system on the West is not perfect, still it is better than the multi-party system from PRC and DPRK", and stuff like that.
Without mention they will legit say that "council/proletarian/socialist democracy is not democracy because it doesn't allow right-wing parties" but they will say "liberal democracy is democracy because ppl can vote periodically, even if it means they can only vote for liberal parties", and they will even dare to say "ppl should be allowed to have any kind of opinion on a proletarian democracy and freedom of speech should be absolute under a proletarian democracy and no law should violate the absolute freedom of speech" yet they will say "but you have freedom of speech under liberal democracy, as long as what you say don't go against the law" and they will still add "but the laws are made by the majority who voted for them on liberal democracy".
And some of them will even deny the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie because "everyone can be bourgeois" and or "but left-wing canditates are often elected" and just go full survivorship bias about that.
Without mention, you can even mention about the tyranny of the legislative power and of the judicial power and they will say "but it was the ppl who voted for the legislative and the judicial power just obey the legislative", and stuff like that. And some will even dare to say "but if it legal and constitutional, then it is not authoritarianism nor totalitarianism".
I could even mention about how much about spying and the Aiport Security Papers Please thing, but their answer is always like "yet it is not prison, if you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't fear anything" and or "but they must counter terrorism etc". And you mention about Western political dissidents and stuff and they will say "well, they were antidemocratic, even if they advocated for more democracy, since stuff like direct democracy and democratic socialism are utopian because ppl are just too ignorant, but ppl are very aware of who they are voting on liberal democracy".
And that is fun how they always say "Socialism and Communism = Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism" yet they will just ignore all examples of authoritarianism/totalitarianism under capitalism. And some will even go to "but that is not real democracy" mode, and some will even say "well, liberal democracy doesn't mean freedomocracy, because freedomocracy means that ppl can be free and stuff, and not oppressed nor repressed as it happens under most liberal democracies out that."
And about Colletivism, that is fun how much they claim to be against "Collectivism" and they will claim "Democracy is Collectivism" etc, yet they will go to defend Javier Milei and Ancap politicians until the very end and if you say "but every state is inherently collectivist" and or "but every law is inherently collectivist" or they will just go cognitive dissonance mode and or they will just say "but look, Javier Milei is not a Collectivist himself, he is an Individualist who is just playing with the cards with the Collectivist State and with the Collectivist Laws and the Collectivist Law Enforcement, and he will abolish both three ASAP." And stuff like that.
Sorry if it is quite long post. I just think I said everything about that.
The average westoid lacks an internal self and just repeats things they’ve heard before
dont most people repeat things they've heard before if not asked to think about it critically? I dont think that's exclusive to westoids, its just that the things westoids repeat regarding politics is usually wrong.
I unironically think that white supremacist culture involves a denial of the self in childhood of oppressors that leads to a weak sense of self in adulthood. A weak sense of self makes it much easier to latch onto external signifiers like race and brands and things like that.
Why do you think this? This reminds me of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Friere says the same thing about peasants, that they lack subjectivity
Hyperbole, and I haven’t read Freire. It sounds like he was discussing the lumpen mindset in another context?
I was hyperbolically railing against how gestures broadly the way things are creates good imperial subjects who just consume slop, don’t question the propaganda, and repeat/poorly paraphrase the latest phrases they’ve been programmed with (much like an old remote, it only has the memory for 10 or so).
honestly I think for most people its just engrained red scare propaganda. Their perception of communism starts and ends at the idea of a supreme leader at the top who calls all the shots, and their perception of capitalism is that as long as they are participating in a vote, it must be democratic.
Yeah, id agree that a lot of it boils down to not being educated on the subject. What little research has been done, if any, was provided to them by American history class textbooks and more modernized propaganda
They associate freedom with freedom to exploit and freedom to excessively consume in the face of incredible poverty and world destroying consequences. Trying to take that away is violence in their eyes
The interactions of negative vs positive freedoms is something rarely discussed in the west. The freedom to something or the freedom from something. Hell, they see concepts like being bound to family, community, and society as oppression because apparently being atomized into a lone individual who inherently is owed nothing and owes nothing is true freedom.
I swear this is why you see people in the US always "searching for meaning" in their lives. Alone and atomized. Not belonging to an extended family, community, and society around them, owing nothing thus owed nothing and vice versa. They want rights with no responsibilities.
Neoliberalism did some serious damage to everyones general perception of life. I'm very guilty of it at times
A lot of anti-communists consider themselves leftists/anti-capitalists and are struggling with some sort of false consciousness.