• Pagliacci
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?

      • Communist@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn’t be authoritarian, it’d be fascistic.

        • Pagliacci
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know Wikipedia isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it’s article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:

          Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

          FWIW I’m not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.

          • Communist@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, it’s more like a large portion of the people voting would have to be fascistic, not that the system itself would be fascistic

            It’d be a weird contradiction to have such an anarchist system end up fascistic, I don’t think it’s a concern in the real world.