ethan_passerine [none/use name]

Hey, I’m not! It’s amusing that authoritarian socialists get accused of excusing authoritarianism under the guise of anti-imperialism, while failing to address the reactionary nature of regimes like Putin’s though indeed. Especially to the point of proudly exclaiming that the term ‘authoritarianism’ has no value in theory or praxis - a dead give away to their true nature, and oddly incapable of owning such a label.

Whether you go by Juan Linz’s definition - the origin of the term as used in a political sense - or Bob Altemeyer’s later refinement it’s clear that Russia fits this label as it was laid out by its originators.

So no, I do not use terminology on the basis of my personal likes or dislikes. I use these terms because they mean something, as laid out by the political theorists who originated them.

So again, I apologize that some words may make you feel itchy, or maybe a little self-conscious. Through, you should note that self-reflection is good, and you shouldn’t shun perceivably negative terms because they may (or may not) play into your belief system.

I’m sorry that you find the word ‘authoritarian’ upsetting, however it does have a commonly agreed upon definition. I personally see no need to pretend otherwise.

Russia is deeply authoritarian, and built on the oppression of the people by the State and capital. What would you consider authoritarianism to be?

Why yes, Putin is an autocrat, his highly personalized and centralized system of power lacks meaningful checks and balances. He suppresses dissent, and operates largely on his personal whims rather than any sort of institutional governance.

Opposing one tyranny by excusing another betrays the essence of liberation - solidarity fights all oppression, not just the West’s. Revolutionary ethics demand consistency, selective outrage that shields authoritarianism under the guise of anti-imperialism is not how we should conduct ourselves.

Putin is a reactionary autocrat who embodies the worst traits of State tyranny - nationalistic, militaristic, and hostile towards personal and workplace freedom - even if his oligarchic capitalism and Soviet nostalgia contradict a strict ‘far-right’ label.