Authoritarians, Assemble!

[The Merchant Republics]

But see here's the thing. How often do you want to vote and tell the PM to go screw himself? How often do you even get the chance if you did want to? Sure you can write a letter. I can write a letter, by all likelihood no one will read yours or mine and we'll be in exactly the same position. I suppose you can go out and protest, and I suppose I can't. But... does that change anything.

For the average person that just wants to live life, as long as there is personal social liberty. I don't really care who is in power.

I think democracy has become a bit of a God to the West. We do things for democracy's sake rather than for whether its actually the best idea.

China is far from the best example, still loads of ways it needs improvement. But Singapore and other more authoritarian leaning nations in Asia seem to have found a good balance.

And that's exactly the kind of person dictatorships want: good obedient people, who so long as they can go and dance, or drink, or party, or buy their iPhone, and not question a word about how the entire country is being run, that's just fine by them.

I do care about how my country is run. Social freedom is just a bribe given by dictators to ensure political stability. I don't want to be bribed.

And yeah, you can write a letter, but can you write a letter saying: "Please allow free and transparent elections?" Nope. If you did...bye bye to you.

My point about the letter is that more than likely if I did send that letter, it would never be read and neither would yours. Even if they did, they'd just shred it and be done with it. A letter isn't a threat to the Party.

Yeah. And what exactly is your problem with that? Why do people have to aspire to political change when they are already happy?

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but frankly. I just think having experienced both, political freedom is highly overrated. Not without merit, but highly overrated nonetheless.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

And that's exactly the kind of person dictatorships want: good obedient people, who so long as they can go and dance, or drink, or party, or buy their iPhone, and not question a word about how the entire country is being run, that's just fine by them.

I do care about how my country is run. Social freedom is just a bribe given by dictators to ensure political stability. I don't want to be bribed.

And yeah, you can write a letter, but can you write a letter saying: "Please allow free and transparent elections?" Nope. If you did...bye bye to you.

My point about the letter is that more than likely if I did send that letter, it would never be read and neither would yours. Even if they did, they'd just shred it and be done with it. A letter isn't a threat to the Party.

Yeah. And what exactly is your problem with that? Why do people have to aspire to political change when they are already happy?

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but frankly. I just think having experienced both, political freedom is highly overrated. Not without merit, but highly overrated nonetheless.

Maybe they're not happy but obviously, they can't say a damn word about it because they'd get a bullet put in their heads. Just maybe that's true also?

Funny enough, quite a few years ago, I wrote to the Federal Minister of Health, and I got a letter reply, I think (I could be wrong) personally signed as well. Go figure.

[The Merchant Republics]

My point about the letter is that more than likely if I did send that letter, it would never be read and neither would yours. Even if they did, they'd just shred it and be done with it. A letter isn't a threat to the Party.

Yeah. And what exactly is your problem with that? Why do people have to aspire to political change when they are already happy?

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but frankly. I just think having experienced both, political freedom is highly overrated. Not without merit, but highly overrated nonetheless.

Maybe they're not happy but obviously, they can't say a damn word about it because they'd get a bullet put in their heads. Just maybe that's true also?

Funny enough, quite a few years ago, I wrote to the Federal Minister of Health, and I got a letter reply, I think (I could be wrong) personally signed as well. Go figure.

Well. I mean I live with and talk to people here on a daily basis. They tell me what they do and don't like about being Chinese and living under the Government of China. Most people are decently happy.

You've got a very strong and I think mostly false impression of what it's like to live here I think. People don't feel all that controlled. I too had a much darker impression of China before I got here. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just saying having lived here, I don't really fear authoritarian governments like I once did.

Honestly? That's pretty cool. I'd bet it was probably an aide that wrote it and he just signed it, but still pretty cool.

[Kubra]

My point about the letter is that more than likely if I did send that letter, it would never be read and neither would yours. Even if they did, they'd just shred it and be done with it. A letter isn't a threat to the Party.

Yeah. And what exactly is your problem with that? Why do people have to aspire to political change when they are already happy?

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but frankly. I just think having experienced both, political freedom is highly overrated. Not without merit, but highly overrated nonetheless.

Maybe they're not happy but obviously, they can't say a damn word about it because they'd get a bullet put in their heads. Just maybe that's true also?

Funny enough, quite a few years ago, I wrote to the Federal Minister of Health, and I got a letter reply, I think (I could be wrong) personally signed as well. Go figure.

Oh yeah, I mean a PM or secretary of defense I mean can't expect much but comparatively minor officials are usually down with returning letters. You can even physically interact with a lot of them, it's no secret that the provincial premier DD'd for quite a few parties before, y'know, becoming premier and not having the time to.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Maybe they're not happy but obviously, they can't say a damn word about it because they'd get a bullet put in their heads. Just maybe that's true also?

Funny enough, quite a few years ago, I wrote to the Federal Minister of Health, and I got a letter reply, I think (I could be wrong) personally signed as well. Go figure.

Well. I mean I live with and talk to people here on a daily basis. They tell me what they do and don't like about being Chinese and living under the Government of China. Most people are decently happy.

You've got a very strong and I think mostly false impression of what it's like to live here I think. People don't feel all that controlled. I too had a much darker impression of China before I got here. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just saying having lived here, I don't really fear authoritarian governments like I once did.

Don't forget, they've lived life only under that system of government, so if they feel relatively free socially, then yes, they'll develop a generation of mostly politically apathetic individuals who are taught to respect the CPC. They weren't born to not care about politics: they were indoctrinated to do so.

I've never lived there, so yes, I don't know personally speaking, I'm just saying your "they're all mostly happy" attitude was at least partially ingrained in them from a young age: this is China, the CPC rules, full stop. Now go be happy and be a consumerist in a "socialist state" and we (the CPC) will take care of the rest for you. That's just how it is.

[Kubra]

Well. I mean I live with and talk to people here on a daily basis. They tell me what they do and don't like about being Chinese and living under the Government of China. Most people are decently happy.

You've got a very strong and I think mostly false impression of what it's like to live here I think. People don't feel all that controlled. I too had a much darker impression of China before I got here. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just saying having lived here, I don't really fear authoritarian governments like I once did.

Don't forget, they've lived life only under that system of government, so if they feel relatively free socially, then yes, they'll develop a generation of mostly politically apathetic individuals who are taught to respect the CPC. They weren't born to not care about politics: they were indoctrinated to do so.

I've never lived there, so yes, I don't know personally speaking, I'm just saying your "they're all mostly happy" attitude was at least partially ingrained in them from a young age: this is China, the CPC rules, full stop. Now go be happy and be a consumerist in a "socialist state" and we (the CPC) will take care of the rest for you. That's just how it is.

The CPC can't be entirely blamed, China has not ever really been a place where being "politically conscious" is quality worth cultivating.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Don't forget, they've lived life only under that system of government, so if they feel relatively free socially, then yes, they'll develop a generation of mostly politically apathetic individuals who are taught to respect the CPC. They weren't born to not care about politics: they were indoctrinated to do so.

I've never lived there, so yes, I don't know personally speaking, I'm just saying your "they're all mostly happy" attitude was at least partially ingrained in them from a young age: this is China, the CPC rules, full stop. Now go be happy and be a consumerist in a "socialist state" and we (the CPC) will take care of the rest for you. That's just how it is.

The CPC can't be entirely blamed, China has not ever really been a place where being "politically conscious" is quality worth cultivating.

This is true too, just like Russia. Russia had the Czars, then Soviet dictators, now a new neo-Czar. China had centuries of absolute rule, now more absolute rule just under a hammer and sickle (for decoration purposes only). These peoples have known nothing of democracy, so, yes, I get it too. I still prefer having a say over how my country is governed rather than the approach Merchant is advocating, i.e., I'm free otherwise, so that's good enough for me. For me, that's not good enough.

[Kubra]

The CPC can't be entirely blamed, China has not ever really been a place where being "politically conscious" is quality worth cultivating.

This is true too, just like Russia. Russia had the Czars, then Soviet dictators, now a new neo-Czar. China had centuries of absolute rule, now more absolute rule just under a hammer and sickle (for decoration purposes only). These peoples have known nothing of democracy, so, yes, I get it too. I still prefer having a say over how my country is governed rather than the approach Merchant is advocating, i.e., I'm free otherwise, so that's good enough for me. For me, that's not good enough.

I mean if nothing else political consciousness is a rather nice hobby and sharing ones hobby is only natural
I should certainly hope that my hobby doesn't end up in some way criminalised

[Senkaku]

What is being defined as "authoritarian" here? That seems awfully vague- de jure single-party states like China, de facto single-party states like Singapore, countries led by strongmen like Russia and Turkey, countries ruled by iron-fisted dictatorships like North Korea, or just countries where the government is pretty active in citizens' lives and the economy like France or something? It seems like a pretty wide range of beliefs and political systems, all of which have variously been labelled "authoritarian" by different people.

I'd just like to know who, exactly, on like the France-North Korea spectrum, I'd be getting lumped in with according to this thread, if I labelled myself an authoritarian.

[BonziNation]

What is being defined as "authoritarian" here? That seems awfully vague- de jure single-party states like China, de facto single-party states like Singapore, countries led by strongmen like Russia and Turkey, countries ruled by iron-fisted dictatorships like North Korea, or just countries where the government is pretty active in citizens' lives and the economy like France or something? It seems like a pretty wide range of beliefs and political systems, all of which have variously been labelled "authoritarian" by different people.

I'd just like to know who, exactly, on like the France-North Korea spectrum, I'd be getting lumped in with according to this thread, if I labelled myself an authoritarian.

"Totalitarianism and Fascism are forms of authoritarianism, which is governance by an authority without the option of questioning whatever the authority orders. The distinctions between the three are mostly a matter of political theory; applying these labels is usually done very loosely and, in my opinion, badly.

An authoritarian government is any ruling political unit in which the person or group in power tells everyone else what to do, more or less without recourse." - Cecilieaux Bois de Murier

[Senkaku]

What is being defined as "authoritarian" here? That seems awfully vague- de jure single-party states like China, de facto single-party states like Singapore, countries led by strongmen like Russia and Turkey, countries ruled by iron-fisted dictatorships like North Korea, or just countries where the government is pretty active in citizens' lives and the economy like France or something? It seems like a pretty wide range of beliefs and political systems, all of which have variously been labelled "authoritarian" by different people.

I'd just like to know who, exactly, on like the France-North Korea spectrum, I'd be getting lumped in with according to this thread, if I labelled myself an authoritarian.

"Totalitarianism and Fascism are forms of authoritarianism, which is governance by an authority without the option of questioning whatever the authority orders. The distinctions between the three are mostly a matter of political theory; applying these labels is usually done very loosely and, in my opinion, badly.

An authoritarian government is any ruling political unit in which the person or group in power tells everyone else what to do, more or less without recourse." - Cecilieaux Bois de Murier

Well, that was succinct and helpful, thank you and goodbye forever to this thread.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I just came here to tell you that you are all disgusting totalitarians! Good night!

[Aillyria]

I just came here to tell you that you are all disgusting totalitarians! Good night!

So informative and productive, would you like to elaborate?

[Pilarcraft]

I just came here to tell you that you are all disgusting totalitarians! Good night!

So informative and productive, would you like to elaborate?

I mean, as much as I disagree with that statement, it isn't an elaboratable statement lmao. Like, how can you explain a statement like "you're disgusting totalitarians"?
(Then again, not all authoritarians are totalitarian, so I guess it's a systematically flawed statement.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I just came here to tell you that you are all disgusting totalitarians! Good night!

So informative and productive, would you like to elaborate?

>replying to bait
Anon, I...

[Aillyria]

So informative and productive, would you like to elaborate?

>replying to bait
Anon, I...

Eh, it's whatever. I'm only barely authoritarian myself.

[Trotskylvania]

Most conventional thinking on authoritarianism is pretty incoherent, to be honest. I'm not really convinced that one can create meaningful, separate categories of "authoritarianism" or "libertarianism"

It fails to distinguish between ends and means. In conventional thinking, there's no real distinction made between someone who uses violence for liberatory ends, and someone for whom violent repression is an end in itself.

And everyone everyone either ignores or twists themselves into knots justifying systemic violence. "It's not an authoritarian regime, it's a liberal democracy. We're just protecting private property from those unemployed starvelings." "The police shot another person? Eh, he should've kowtowed harder."

[Shikihara]

Most conventional thinking on authoritarianism is pretty incoherent, to be honest. I'm not really convinced that one can create meaningful, separate c"It's not an authoritarian regime, it's a liberal democracy. We're just protecting private property from those unemployed starvelings." "The police shot another person? Eh, he should've kowtowed harder."

t. no one in the history outside of anarchist strawmen.

[Trotskylvania]

Most conventional thinking on authoritarianism is pretty incoherent, to be honest. I'm not really convinced that one can create meaningful, separate c"It's not an authoritarian regime, it's a liberal democracy. We're just protecting private property from those unemployed starvelings." "The police shot another person? Eh, he should've kowtowed harder."

t. no one in the history outside of anarchist strawmen.

I'm sure is very comforting to the victims that boot stepping on them has been sanctioned by a constitution.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Let's play an authoritarian party game.

[A m e n r i a]

Before I say anything, I would like to say that Amenria reflects my political views, like any other NS nation should.

Amenria is an authoritarian state because liberalism breeds secularism, capitalism and other heretic atrocities, which will breed evil, pain and suffering. We want to make sure Asia is led by those who deserve to rule - pure-hearted heroes.

Democracy is a broken system, where the ungrateful, unfaithful and unthinking rabble rule. In democracy, leaders are not the ones who are capable of leading, merely those popular enough to be voted by the masses. This will result in oppression by weak, spineless fools who never deserved to lead in the first place.

To me, authoritarianism is a system ruled by those who deserve to rule - the strong. Strength defines a person. Not wealth or profession. The strong must protect the weak and the weak must support the strong.

Sorry for the wall of text, have a nice day.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Before I say anything, I would like to say that Amenria reflects my political views, like any other NS nation should.

Amenria is an authoritarian state because liberalism breeds secularism, capitalism and other heretic atrocities, which will breed evil, pain and suffering. We want to make sure Asia is led by those who deserve to rule - pure-hearted heroes.

Democracy is a broken system, where the ungrateful, unfaithful and unthinking rabble rule. In democracy, leaders are not the ones who are capable of leading, merely those popular enough to be voted by the masses. This will result in oppression by weak, spineless fools who never deserved to lead in the first place.

To me, authoritarianism is a system ruled by those who deserve to rule - the strong. Strength defines a person. Not wealth or profession. The strong must protect the weak and the weak must support the strong.

Sorry for the wall of text, have a nice day.

This forum is OOC.

[Kubra]

Most conventional thinking on authoritarianism is pretty incoherent, to be honest. I'm not really convinced that one can create meaningful, separate c"It's not an authoritarian regime, it's a liberal democracy. We're just protecting private property from those unemployed starvelings." "The police shot another person? Eh, he should've kowtowed harder."

t. no one in the history outside of anarchist strawmen.

"It fails to distinguish between ends and means. In conventional thinking, there's no real distinction made between someone who uses violence for liberatory ends, and someone for whom violent repression is an end in itself."
tl;dr the problem isn't political violence in general, but the normative definition of such currently taken.
Er, is that the correct interpretation, trot?

[Omakhandia]

Would it violate forum rules to call you guys dictatorial scum?

[Aillyria]

Most conventional thinking on authoritarianism is pretty incoherent, to be honest. I'm not really convinced that one can create meaningful, separate categories of "authoritarianism" or "libertarianism"

It fails to distinguish between ends and means. In conventional thinking, there's no real distinction made between someone who uses violence for liberatory ends, and someone for whom violent repression is an end in itself.

And everyone everyone either ignores or twists themselves into knots justifying systemic violence. "It's not an authoritarian regime, it's a liberal democracy. We're just protecting private property from those unemployed starvelings." "The police shot another person? Eh, he should've kowtowed harder."

Good point. I myself straddle the line of what most people would be call authoritarian, libertarians normally consider me decidedly authoritarian and authoritarians for the most part don't.

It's a spectrum with an ill defined boundary between the two poles.