Not really, no. To a capitalist, all forms of leftism is 'authoritarian,' because they consider private property natural and oppose leftists 'stealing' in.

'Authoritarianism' just isn't a particularly useful term because nobody who uses is is ever actually categorically opposed to forcefully compelling people to do or not do things. They will always have a build in exception for what ever they consider to be 'legitimate authority', and what they consider justified authority will just depend on what political philosophy they ascribe to. So really calling the word just means "someone with a different political theory to me with regards to legitimate authority."

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Just because some people might not use the term correctly doesn’t mean it isn’t a useful term

I left lemmy.ml because there were too many people defending or denying historical acts of political violence. That’s what we mean when we say tankies are authoritarian.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago

If you'd actually read my post, you'd know my point wasn't about it being used "incorrectly".

people defending or denying historical acts of political violence. That’s what we mean when we say tankies are authoritarian.

Defeating the Nazis was an act of political violence, freeing slaves was an act of political violence, over throwing the feudal system was an act of political believe, driving out colonial empires is an act of political violence, enforcing property rights is an act of political violence, ceasing the means of production is an act of political violence.

See? This is exactly, exactly what I was talking about.