Any country that maintains independence and an oppositional character must maintain a strong state, develop a military, and engage in censorship. All 3 get lumped in the vague and clearly now useless category of authoritarian, meaning the US will attempt to destroy your country and people and its citizens will think this is helping "freedom" and "democracy" and "defense" and just what smart people do. Or they will play the ancillary role of demonization while maintaining an anti-war pretense that somehow always means materially supporting American war criminals.
Censorship is definitely a sign of authoritarianism, and a strong state might be too, depending on what you mean by it, but not necessarily? And as liberal democracy seem to be the 'goal' of states to achieve, authoritarian is not at all a useless category since it's the opposite of democracy.
And as liberal democracy seem to be the 'goal'
Bourgeois democracy is the goal of capitalist states because it is democracy for the ruling class only. Liberal democracies have strong states and engage in censorship. They excecute, imprison, or discredit political dissidents. The difference isn't what they do but who they target and who benefits.
All AES states are democracies, they aren't liberal democracies and they don't benefit only the bourgeois. That's why say China is considered, "evil authoritarian" while the US and its "liberal democracy" are considered good by libersls like you despite the US actively engaging in genocide, proxy wars, running concentration camps on its border, sanctioning any nation that seeks independence from its hegemony, and persecuting political dissidents.
Censorship is definitely a sign of authoritarianism, and a strong state might be too, depending on what you mean by it, but not necessarily?
In reality, despite what the dictionary says, "authoritarian" means, "organized group we don't like".
Censorship is ubiquitous it just comes in different forms. The most powerful and insidipus is the kind you don't even think it censorship. For example, will you lose your job for standing up for Palestine? Will you get paid to be a journalist if you are too critical of the ruling class? When the electronic commons is actually controlled by private corporations, do you really have online speech protections? Is sinophobia the only reason TikTok is getting threatened with a ban? Whose voices are heard at city council meetings? Who gets the ear of politicians?
These are all forms of censorship, but most of them are treated as normal, even righteous and justified.
States that fight for independence rapidly find that the global monopolistic empire automatically dominates all media narratives and funds NGOs to undermine their projects. Do you expect them to let that expand and destroy their country? Censorship is an expression of authority, but does that mean it is always wrong or particularly bad? Forcing out invaders is also an expression of authority, as is organizing defense, social programs, literacy campaigns.
and a strong state might be too
The strong states are usually just doing the functions of private industry in "non-authoritarian" countries but in a way that better serves the people and are resilient to US interference.
And as liberal democracy seem to be the 'goal' of states to achieve
Liberal democracy is the most effective producer of genocide in history and is really just rule by the capitalist class that pretends to be of the masses. States seeking independence from the US must eschew it by definition, as they will otherwise be coerced into the US-dominated order.
authoritarian is not at all a useless category since it's the opposite of democracy.
Liberal democracies are, in reality, the most authoritarian countries. They impose the interests of the capitalist ruling class based on military and financial power with little regard for the horrors it inflicts. But you are correct about how the term is used, what it means despite its definition - "this is what we do and it is good, the system we don't like is bad".
So "independence from the US" at the cost of the peoples right to choose their own destiny? Sounds great..
Independence from the US is precisely what's facilitating the right of people to choose their own destiny.
Oh, so this will be a temporary authocracy to shed the US bonds, and then a revert to democracy and rule of law?
Or is it just a country denying the people their right to choose being applauded again since liberal democracy is somehow US imperialism?
It's not an autocracy. It's a democratically elected government that represents the interests of the people.
You link to an article describing Mexico taking the authoritarian path and describes it as freeing itself from US subordination.
If this is not what is happening, why bother with this post at all, or did you just want to push authoritarians good, liberals bad?
Its an article by neocon liar, Iraq War architect, and Axis of Evil author David Frum and you believe what he says? Also its in the Atlantic so its almost guaranteed to be liberal garbage.
authoritarians good, liberals bad?
"Authoritarian" is meaningless used this way. Its just hurled at AES and other nations attempting independence from US exploitation. And liberals are always bad. They support the global imperialist power structure - the greatest engine of destruction in out world. Liberals are literally destroying the planet and performing genocide as we speak
Yeah, I think a propaganda article from the burgerland is laughable, as would anybody with even a couple of functioning brain cells to bang together. The post illustrates how western media propagandizes against sovereign countries. Thank you for providing an example of a gullible westerner whom this propaganda is aimed to brainwash.
I don't know. It sure does seem authoritarian of Mexico to have an election and then for the person elected to act the way they campaigned they would. Wasn't their someone they forgot to ask? Not very freedom of them, you know?
And don't forget how the government engages in autocratic practices like having judges being elected instead of appointed.
That's horrible! Judges should be properly vetted by a panels of elderly millionaires to make sure they will uphold the rule of the bourgeois and then appointed. That's how the Founders intended!
That's right, this is far too important for the hoi polloi to have a say in.
Do you think the western media is 100% honest and free from bias?
