Yes both wield authority, but one's authority is backed by a small number of people with access to great power and resources, while other's authority is legitimised by the will of the majority

I believe that difference is critical in differentiating the two

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The importance is in equating what is equal, while showing that the term alone says nothing about how the power is spread or whose interests it upholds. Liberals often decry the "authoritarianism" of, say, Cuba, which wielded its authority in the favor of policies like comprehensive land reform for the good of the people.

[–] mitram2@lemmy.pt 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'll be honest, I don't know enough about Cuba to know whether or not it deserves the label. I've seen first accounts of events supporting both views, that Cuba is on path to a society exempt from exploitation and that it's ruled by an oppressive elite that uses the aesthetic of Marxism to fool the population.

If you have any suggestions on how to learn more I'd appreciate it.

And yes "authoritarianism" is reductive of all interactions in a political system, we agree on that

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Republic of Cuba page on Prolewiki is a pretty good starter. Usually people that claim such and such state is only adopting Marxism aesthetically to "fool" the population just fundamentally misunderstand how ideology works and how cultural hegemony works. For that, I recommend the essay Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."

[–] mitram2@lemmy.pt 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thank you for sharing

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

No problem!