• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 7th, 2025

help-circle




  • The other comment is definitely far too simplicistic in its proposition, but I’ll point out that Communism doesn’t have to be authoritarian. That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

    Combine those two and you have a recipe for authoritarian suppression of all who disagree with the dominant ideology, or the dominant leader figure supposedly best representing it. What they might initially see as a necessary step to a better world then becomes a feedback loop: Anyone who argues that they’re past the point where this policy is still necessary and justified is a dissident by definition.

    Conversely, authoritarian policy also doesn’t require communism. It’s perfectly possible to have a non-communist ideology in power that suppresses all opposition. The problem isn’t communism, it’s violence: once started, it’s hard to reign in again and keep on the right track.











  • Eurydike I was a boss removed. Not only was she unusually prominent in politics for a queen, she also engaged in foreign policy on her own, successfully negotiationg with a foreign general to have him protect her late husband’s throne against a pretender, apparently without any participation from her son-in-law, who served as regent at the time.

    The youngest of her sons, Phillip II, would go on to reform the military and secure hegemony over Greece, laying the groundwork for the invasion of Persia that he never got to carry out. After his assassination, that invasion was instead performed by his son, Alexander III, later dubbed “The Great” for this feat.

    It should be noted that, with Alexander being on campaign for basically all of his reign and generally not too interested in domestic rulership, his mother Olympias of Epirus was the de facto ruler of Macedonia. Behind the successful general are two powerful women that first protected his father’s throne, then took care of the actual ruling so that he would be free to hunt glory.





  • luciferofastora@feddit.orgtoEurope@feddit.org*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The detailed and nuanced answer would take into account the exact crime, but the short answer: No.

    A democracy must guard itself against usurpation by demagogues that rally people through deceitful rhetorics and appeals to passion with the intent to break the order of that democracy. That order, among other things, contains laws restraining what politicians are and aren’t allowed to do. A candidate with clear disregard for these laws is a threat to that order, such that this democracy must protect itself by not allowing them to hold powers they are likely to use irresponsibly.

    Put differently, someone who shows clear contempt for democratic rules is no longer entitled to democratic rights either. Note the distinction: democratic rights doesn’t mean human rights.