Fascism and capitalism are one and the same. For some reason (probably a heavy propaganda campaign) everyone thinks fascist when they mean authoritarian or dictator. Fascism is things like Citizens United allowing corporations to flood politicians with donations, essentially marrying corporation and government.
Yes. All states are authoritarian, as they are all representatives of a given ruling class by which the rest are oppressed. You can’t get rid of authoritarianisn without abolishing class, so socialist states are better in the interim.
Let’s flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.
Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.
So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?
Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).
Authoritarianism isn’t black or white; it’s a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.
Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism, here’s the actual definition from a dictionary “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.”.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I’ll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don’t have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority […] at the expense of personal freedom” seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (private property [not personal property] is inherently violent in my eyes) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
A relevant example in Sweden is the pending Kallak iron ore mine, which is opposed by the indigenous population because it threatens reindeer herding. Sweden is exerting violence, albeit under the guise of legal frameworks and processes, to maintain the rights of capitalist resource extraction over favoring true democratic processes and considering indigenous or local livelihoods.
If all this gets approved and the mine becomes operational, even local protestors or affected indigenous communities will be removed if they interfere or block operations. There is certainly an element of violence in a state enforcing property rights.
We see this with the Dakota Access Pipeline more starkly, organizers of the protests against its construction recently faced a lawsuit with harsh financial penalties, and protestors (including indigenous individuals) were dispersed with violence (with the use of LRADs, rubber bullets, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, or were arrested) so construction could proceed.
Fascism and capitalism are one and the same. For some reason (probably a heavy propaganda campaign) everyone thinks fascist when they mean authoritarian or dictator. Fascism is things like Citizens United allowing corporations to flood politicians with donations, essentially marrying corporation and government.
Fascism and capitalism are two separate things one is an economic system the other is a political ideology and fascism is authoritarian by nature.
How is capitalism not authoritarian by nature? Explain.
Is Sweden authoritarian?
Yes. All states are authoritarian, as they are all representatives of a given ruling class by which the rest are oppressed. You can’t get rid of authoritarianisn without abolishing class, so socialist states are better in the interim.
Let’s flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.
Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.
So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?
Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).
Authoritarianism isn’t black or white; it’s a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.
Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism, here’s the actual definition from a dictionary “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.”.
More knowledge for the hungry below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#%3A~%3Atext=11+External+links-%2CCharacteristics%2Cthe+goals+of+the+regime.
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I’ll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don’t have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority […] at the expense of personal freedom” seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
A relevant example in Sweden is the pending Kallak iron ore mine, which is opposed by the indigenous population because it threatens reindeer herding. Sweden is exerting violence, albeit under the guise of legal frameworks and processes, to maintain the rights of capitalist resource extraction over favoring true democratic processes and considering indigenous or local livelihoods.
If all this gets approved and the mine becomes operational, even local protestors or affected indigenous communities will be removed if they interfere or block operations. There is certainly an element of violence in a state enforcing property rights.
We see this with the Dakota Access Pipeline more starkly, organizers of the protests against its construction recently faced a lawsuit with harsh financial penalties, and protestors (including indigenous individuals) were dispersed with violence (with the use of LRADs, rubber bullets, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, or were arrested) so construction could proceed.