GrammarPolice

I'm taking issue with your narrow definition of authoritarian. I don't support the premise that authoritarian governments can exist only through the dictatorship of capital.

If freedom of press, freedom of movement, etc are impeded, then there is no democracy. You're an anarchist. You should agree with this

Things can have a bias and still be correct yes, but you have not provided a reason as to why your specific model is "correct"

Lmao go off

Read what i wrote again. I never suggested communists were Nazis, and I don't take issue with communists. I'm referring to the specific brand of "communism" you practice in the triad: campist pro-authoritarian pro-bureaucracy pro-massacre "communists".

Your group and Nazis are similar in that you both preach nonsense

I wouldn't want to see what nazis post. Similarly i don't want to see what tankies post

Lmao. Say what you want but your tankie triad is an echo chamber. Banning anyone expressing a moderately different one from yours.

I already am?

Why don't you stay in your echo chamber? Much better that way

Bruh get off my tail

Like i said if that's how you want to do it, who am i to argue with you?

You've set the terms, and your classifications are internally consistent. All I'm highlighting is that it's left-biased and therefore not objective

Your version is a left-focused/biased interpretation. The dictatorship of capital is not the only thing that makes a state authoritarian IMO.

Going by your classifications, the DPRK isn't authoritarian, and that's a ridiculous premise unless you're a tankie.

Well i guess if that's your version of this then so be it