• Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    The issue with using language such as “dictatorship” and “authoritarian” is those words have specific negative colloquial connotations.

    For example, one of the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) definitions of “authoritarian” is:

    of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

    This definition specifies a singular “leader or an elite” and would be incompatible with a definition that includes rule by the proletariat.

    Similarly, here is one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions for “dictatorship”:

    a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique

    My point being not that these definitions are absolute and cannot be changed, but currently in western societies, that the definitions describe rule by a singular elite leader or small group of leaders who have absolute, or near absolute power over their populace.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I understand, it’s all a part of what we have to deal with in the battle of linguistics to make our ideas clear.

      • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        43 minutes ago

        It’s nothing new for a society to change their language over time to make it more palettable to a larger group of people. For example, it is no longer considered acceptable to use the r-slur or the f-slur (not “fuck”, but the other one), whereas 10-20 years ago, it was considered normal to use those words.