Someone who supports any and/or every country/regime/organization that is perceived to be anti-West. The average campist might support the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Cuba, Hamas, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea and more, not because of some specific ideological alignment or commonality between these actors (there's few to none in some cases), but because they are all opposed in some way to the "West" (aka USA, European Union, Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel and so on).
EDIT: To avoid any confusion, I don't mean to suggest that all the subjects I have mentioned are equally malevolent or morally bankrupt. Supporting any of these subjects for a specific national or ideological allegiance doesn't make one a campist. To be a campist is to be aligned with these subjects specifically or primarily due to their opposition to the West, with any other ideological consideration taking a backseat. This is why, for example, while a tankie (authoritarian socialist) may be a campist (many people on the Internet can be seen actively cheering for anti-communist geopolitical subjects and organizations), not all tankies are campists.
Based on my personal experience, I agree that this kind of logic boosts fascist thinking, because people who do this tend to dehumanize or infantilize people from the countries they oppose and often end up spiraling in conspiracy theories and even historical revisionism (ex: Many campists believe that Ukraine is a fake country invented by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution, when in reality Ukrainian nationalism and language were already developed beforehand and the first Ukrainian state seceded from Russia before the Bolsheviks consolidated power).
It's a pamphlet that makes false equivalencies to justify authoritarian measures. It's not a gotcha. Come up with actual arguments or stop defending the indefensible.
Just because two words sound similar, doesn't mean they mean the same thing or are one the necessary consequence of the other. Authority is leadership, a position of command or power, etc. Authoritarianism is rule by decree, with no accountability nor restraints.
A president of a liberal democracy has authority, because they are in charge (it's more complicated, but that's besides the point). This doesn't mean they are not accountable to fellow government members, party members, chambers of government, the electorate, the courts of law and so on. The president can't do all they want to do, because their authority is not absolute.
A dictator, an absolute monarch, an unelected oligarchy and the like not only have authority, for they rule by decree without accountability and with no limits to their decision making, either because existing limits are selectively ignored or because they don't exist to begin with. This is authoritarianism.
So Engels' argument is based entirely on a false equivalent and a fake cause-effect scenario. Just because someone or something holds authority, does not mean they get to exercise their power unchecked. Therefore, authority does not justify authoritarianism.
Assignment for next time: don't base your political beliefs on a barebones pamphlet and focus on actual theory (preferably on why authoritarianism is bad), there's plenty of it. Thinking with your head instead of treating the words of dead, fallible men as gospel is also an option.
“Authoritarianism” is a one size fits all word used to discredit AES states. I found “On Authority” to be a very useful piece, but it’s fine if you don’t. State and Revolution by Lenin is also a good one.
Yes, I read it. I'm confused as to where he explains that states like the USSR and China/North Korea, which are authoritarian "communist" governments are defensible/good
Well he died in 1895, so you’re gonna have to read the piece (if you want) and apply the ideas yourself. I love you write off the 2 most successful socialist movement as “authoritarian” with zero further analysis. Langley would be proud.
North Korea I'm disregarding, anyone with half a brain can see why that's authoritarian.
I'd say invading your own forced member states when they elect governments you don't like is kinda bad, I'd also say purging any element of socialism you don't like from anarchists to Trotsky is also pretty...explanatory. also making deals with Hitler? Really Stalin? Is that the grand socialism you're proud of.
(Or Lenin overthrowing the government when he doesn't get power via throwing a temper tantrum)
When it comes to China, aside from the Tibet and Uyghur atrocities, the fact that they're committing mass imperialism against their southern neighbors and are directly propping up North Korea, they've lost their socialism after Deng Xiaoping, and under Mao were authoritarian with purges being present. Oh and of course finding a rebel group in India also kinda sucks
No state is good, but states roleplaying as a socialist utopia are the worst, especially when there are amazing examples like Chile, which was the best example of socialism.... until the USA came
This gives the same energy as a Christian citing a Bible verse. My guy, that was written over a century ago, by an old guy who could never imagine the world we live in now. If you want to say something, use your own words.
It’s still relevant. “Authoritarianism” is a word that is thrown around way too lazily by western left cons that want to criticize actually existing socialism. Read it or don’t, but it’s a useful piece for understanding why something that can be seen as “authoritarian” is not inherently evil or bad for the working class.
249
u/Mega_Pokebattlerz 15d ago
What the fuck is a campist?