Introduction

What is the opposite of authoritarian? You don't know?Democracy perhaps, but that does not seem very satisfying.

Already, because even if democracy opposes authoritarianism, its opposite is not authoritarianism but dictatorship or oligarchy.

But also because in this case, how do we qualify Macron's France or Victor Orban's Hungary, which are both democracies and authoritarian regimes?

Perhaps a democrature, but that makes no sense. How could a regime be both authoritarian and the opposite of authoritarian?As a language model AI developed by OpenAI, I cannot process emojis or symbols like ':us' as text because they do not provide any meaningful language or sentence that could be translated into English. Could you please provide a text in another language for me to translate it to English?You will be tempted to answer me that these are hybrid regimes.swho have both characteristics of democracies and characteristics of authoritarian regimes. A kind of 'at the same time' so dear to the 2017 Macron.

But for me that doesn't work, because even though their regimes are much more liberal than dictatorships like Putin's Russia or Xi Jinping's China, they are not democratic at all.

Wait, which word did I use there? Liberal? Actually, that's the opposite of authoritarian. The opposite of a regime that deprives its citizens of individual freedoms is not a regime where the state is run by its citizens, but a regime where the state guarantees the rights and individual freedoms of its citizens (through a state of law, the separation of powers).It seems like you forgot to provide the text that needs to be translated. Could you please provide it?equality before the law, the fight against discrimination, ...). Therefore, a liberal regime.

However, I already see those further to the left jumping out of their seats. How is it that the opposite of authoritarianism is liberalism? Does that mean that in order to oppose authoritarianism one would have to be against public services and wealth redistribution and any state intervention in the economy?

And first and foremost, if there is indeed a common point between Xi Jinping, Putin, Orban and Macron, it is the support and theAs an AI model, I need more context to accurately translate "mise". This could be a French word meaning "putting" or "placement". It's also used in phrases like "mise en scène", which translates to "setting in scene" or "staging". However, in Spanish, "míse" is not a word. Could you please provide more details?Implementation by forced march of neoliberal reformWithout providing a text to translate, I am unable to perform my duties as a translator. Please provide the required text.? If liberal is the opposite of authoritarian, how could it be both authoritarian and liberal. That doesn't make sense ?

I know that some try to get out of it by saying they are economically liberal, but not politically, however this is not a satisfying way to get out of it, because if we go back to my initial problem, we find ourselves deprived of a word to designate the opposite of authoritarian. Or rather, the opposite of authoritarian becomes a circumlocution, aepart of a concept instead of being a whole concept.

On the other hand, this explanation, despite being unsatisfactory, hits where it hurts: why is what we commonly call economic liberalism inseparably associated in a single concept with political liberalism?

Yet, these two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

I know that after the Russian Revolution of 1917, some ideologists like Hayek tried to link the two, proposing theories that suggest economic liberalism.You didn't provide any text to be translated. Please provide it.It was a necessary and sufficient condition of political liberalism. That one would necessarily entail the other.And by corollary, that any policy of wealth redistribution, of state intervention in the economy, or of democratization of corporate governance (essentially allowing employees to have a say in their company's decisions) would lead to a slide towards authoritarianism.

However, apart from a fewscircleAs you did not provide any text, I am unable to perform the translation. Please, provide the text you wish to translate.Extremely minority and fiercely anti-communist (not to mention far-right), his theories have never convinced many people. And anyway, reality has taken care of disproving them.

Indeed, it became clear in the 30s that the abandonment of economic liberalism was not only not incompatible with political liberalism, but moreover, it was its condition.

Indeed, the lesson drawn rather universally from the 1920s and 1930s is that economic liberalism necessarily leads to fascism. And even today, the most liberal regimes...The text provided "ux" doesn't appear to be in a recognizable language. It might be an abbreviation or shorthand for something. Could you please provide more context or confirm the language?Politically, (Switzerland, the Nordic countries, ...) are clearly not socialist countries.sbut which are part of the least economically liberal countries of the OECD. And conversely, the countries reputed to be the most economically liberal, even if they are not the worst dictatorships in the world, are often very authoritarian, like Singapore for example.

You did not provide any text. Please include the text that needs translation.And which has not prevented the return to economically liberal policies in all countries around the world since the 70s/80s, with the consequences that we know.

As a result, this intertwining done in everyday language seems incomprehensible.

And it's not just a problem of a classification maniac who has nothing else to do.beyondRather than spending 3 hours debating over vocabulary problems. As every engineering student learns at their own expense: confusing words means confusing concepts (and when for your studies, you're doing practical work in electrical engineering where messing around can mean death by electrocution, it’s not in your best interest to be confused).

Indeed, how can we think and communicate with others if we do not have a word or concept to designate what we want to talk about? And worse than that in our case, this unfortunate choice of word conveys the idea that economic and political liberalism would be linked. That there would be no alternative to the neo-liberal politics of the 80s. There is no alternative.("Youhave the ref).

In fact, this confusion of words and concepts is quite normal. Or rather, it is easily explicable. It is the logical consequence of the war of words that our leaders engage us in.s(political and economic) for several decades. On the left, the main complaint is about the consequences of this war in the economic field (replaced employeeéby collaborator forMake believe that we are all equal, layoff plan replaced by employment protection plan, contribution.As an AI developed by OpenAI, I'll need the text you want to be translated. You haven't provided any text in a language other than English. Please provide a text in a different language so I could help you with translation.socialesreplaced by chargessocialesYet where...As a language model AI developed by OpenAI, I'm unable to provide a translation without a text. I request you to provide the text you need to be translated for further assistance.This war is the most insidious and the most effective it is in the political domain.

Indeed, in the economic field, to some extentsexceptionYou need to provide the text you want to be translated into English.Close, the reality that we want to hide with pretty linguistic wrapping jolts so much at the throat of the employees, thatThis phrase appears to be incomplete or a part of larger text. As it stands, "e la" in Italian translates to "and the" in English. However, without additional context, a fully accurate translation may be difficult to provide.employer propagandaYou haven't provided any text to translate. Please provide text in the language you want me to translate into English.creative marketingis generally ineffective.Nonemarketing campaignwill never be able to convince an employee that he is not subjected to thexordersfrom his bossIt seems like there's been a mistake as the text provided ("ou") is not complete or clear enough for a translation. Please provide the complete sentence and its language for an accurate translation.that this is not fairThe text provided does not contain content to translate into English.pleasant. None.strategy ofNo matter how well thought out communication might be, it will not convince a worker who has just received his dismissal letter that his job has been saved. In the corporate world, despite the omnipresence of managerial bullshit, everyone automatically understands what is really being talked about.

On the other hand, in the political field, by nature much more abstract and distant, he enjoys resounding success.

That's why I decided to write a post that would offer vocabulary, definitions, and a classification system to help people find their way a bit. Like any model, it is of course imperfect, not ideologically neutral and bound to be outdated, but I hope it will be useful to those wanting to understand the world around them.and who knowstWithout more context, I'm not sure what you want me to translate. The word "peut" in French translates to "can" or "may" in English.That one day we will have understood it so well that we will find a way to improve it.

The republic is me.

Already we are going to start with a widely rejected idea.aBrowsing the internet: we are not in a democracy.

Democracy has little to do with voting and absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of a rule of law, respect for individual freedoms, equality before the law, the fight against discrimination or whatever else.

We are in an oligarchic, even monarchical regime. In fact, for about 2000 years (from Plato's republic to the French revolution), it was classified.the dietsWorking in 3 categories.sDepending on how political powers were distributed within a society.

• If a country is led by all the citizens gathered in an assembly where everyone has the same right to vote, then we are in a democracy.

• If a country is led by a small number of people gathered in an assembly and the others do not have their say, then we are in an oligarchy.

• If a single person decides everything, then we are in a monarchy.

Like all classification systems, this one is questionable and incomplete. And this has led manyYou didn't provide any text needing translation. Please provide a text in a foreign language to be translated into English.nobodyYou haven't provided any text or indicated a source language to translate from. Please provide the necessary details, so I can assist you better.over the centuries offering improvementssor elseUnfortunately, you didn't provide any text that needs to be translated. Please, provide it and I will be more than happy to assist you.modelYou didn't provide any text to translate. Please, input the text you want to be translated.For example, in practice we will never have a perfectly democratic or monarchical regime.dIn reality, even in the worst totalitarian regimes, the dictator does not have all the powers. Therefore, if we strictly apply this classification to real regimes, we would have to conclude that e-sThe regimes of the world are oligarchies. Despite everything, this model remains a sufficient approximation to understand how political power is distributed within a country.

However, since the French Revolution, all the countries in the world have claimed to be democracies, regardless of their regime. China claims to be a democracy, the former Soviet republics claimed to be democracies, Napoleon said that his regime was democratic, when it clearly was not the case.

And it's not just propaganda. Well yes, but most people believe in it at least as much as we think we live in a democracy, even though from whatever angle you look at it, the 5th Republic is nothing like a democracy. In a democracy, the people decide but in France, even when more than 80% of the people disapprove of a reform and people take to the streets to protesterhis opposition, that happens without any problem.

The French are very largely opposed to the pension reform, to the prohibition of cannabis, to military support for the genocide committed by Israel, and to tax exemptions for thenoblesFor the great fortunes and multinationals, and violently making it known in the streets, but this does not change anything about the policy implemented by our government.

The result of all this is that no one knows what the word democracy means anymore (even vaguely).

Little by little in popular language (and in that of many intellectuals)sWe came to France to designate as democratic a regime where individual freedoms and the rule of law are respected (what I call a liberal regime).

So many try to justify this confusion of words.sBy saying that individual liberties and the rule of law would be necessary conditions of democracy. But already this is not true because the few systems functioning democratically today, like certain associations or small communities, have neither separation of powers nor written law (thus no rule of law).

Of course, one could argue that on a small scale it is possible to be democratic without all of this, but on a large scale it is not the case, but it depends on what we call democracy. If in a country, everything is decided via referendum, and 80% of the people vote, thThe text submitted does not contain any known language to translate into English. Please provide a valid phrase or sentence in a known language.genociderThe remaining 20%, are we in a democracy or in an oligarchy?As an AI, I'm unable to translate the text you provided because it's not recognizable as a word or sentence in any language. Please, provide a valid text for translation.The oligarchs represent 80% of the population (this brings us back to my critique of Plato's model that I formulated earlier).

Some will say no and will give a definition of democracy that makes it impossible to have an authoritarian democracy.

I say yes. For me, democracy is a regime where the entire population is consulted when making a decision, regardless of the method.

With my definition, there are therefore several types of democracy, just as there are several types of oligarchy or monarchy and above all, democracy is in no way conditioned with the respect for individual freedoms of all.

One can very well imagine a liberal monarchy that respects individual rights and the rule of law (although the liberal nature of the regime is fragile given that in theory the king can at any time stop respecting individual freedoms and the rule of law).

One could very well imagine a dictatorship of the majority which, contrary to what its name suggests, would be a liberal democracy where the rights of individuals are not respected. Then in fact,You need to provide the text you would like me to translate.There is little chance that aMay the monarchy be liberal. At least in the long term, because General De Gaulle's France proved that it was possible over more than ten years to reconcile monarchy and liberalism (the general practically concentrated all power in his own hands but to my knowledge the rule of law did not suffer too much).

And except in exceptional circumstances, there is also little chance for a people to democratically decide to infringe upon the rights of a part of its own. But since there has never been any democratic country in recent history that has lasted more than a few years (or even months) before being militarily crushed by its neighbors, this is impossible to verify.

I would just finish this passage by saying that: oligarchy, democracy or monarchy are actually families that group together.ntseveral different regimes (we can refine the model).

Monarchies, for example, can be divided into hereditary, elective, or divine right monarchy, depending on how the king is chosen and where he draws his legitimacy to govern from. We can also talk about absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy to differentiate liberal monarchies.You need to provide me with the text that you want translated into English.andilliberal.Thus, General de Gaulle's France.lIt appears as an elective constitutional monarchy (an elected king who commits himself to respect the rules of law and individual freedoms).

After his death, the regime gradually transformed into an oligarchy where those in charge are a class of professional politicians and editorialists from the country's notable families, who rely on the support of the richest to maintain their power. Basically, a plutocracy (the government of the wealthiest).

Democracies can, for example, be divided into direct democracies.eor representative or stochastic. In a direct democracy decisions are taken.s by the citizens coming together in assembly (this is the original meaning of the word).

In a representative democracy, citizens gather in groups (by family, by municipality, by social class.e, by profession, by ideology...) and together they decide on a common position and a representative who will meet with the representatives.It seems that you forgot to include a text that needs to be translated. Can you please provide it?from other groups to make a decision and will return to the group to explain how the negotiations went and find out if the decision suits them (and so on until an agreement is found).Beware, representative democracy has nothing to do with the current regime. Currently, we are electing leaders, not representatives. The difference is that we have no kind of influence over the oppositions they are going to support (most of the time we are not even informed), that we cannot dismiss them if we judge that they represent us poorly, and especially our elected officials do not represent us in any way.

The only representative democracy I know is the CGT (in theorySure, but you have not provided any text to translate. Please share the text you want translated into English.is one but in practice it’s sometimes more complicated). It seemsIt appears you forgot to provide text for translation. Can you please share the text you'd like translated to English?It is also how the Zapatistas in Chiapas operate but I am not very familiar with it.

Stochastic democracy, on the other hand, consists of entrusting power to a randomly drawn panel of French people so that the decisions are the same as those the French would have made if they had all come together. If we strictly apply the definitionssThis system is an oligarchy because a thousand people chosen at random decide for 60 million people, but if it worked as its proponents think, then it would make the same decisions as a perfect democracy so I want to still classify it as a democracy (This is where we see the limits of theseModels proposed by Plato, to define what is a democracy, but I don't have a better one.

The important thing is the economy, idiot.

But let's stop talking about politics and tackle the classification of economies (and policies.The text you're asking for translation isn't included. Please, provide the text for translation.(economic)

Economic liberalism does not have a name in common language. Some say that we should call it capitalism and say that it opposes socialism but that does not suit me, because there are tons of ideologies that oppose the current policies such as social democracy without necessarily opposing capitalism. Not to mention people like me who think that there is not one type of economic organization that is better in every situation.

Indeed, for me, our societies are a mix of communism, corporatism, and capitalism, and that's just fine. Medicine is a corporatist regime and that's very good (I do not want just anyone to be free to call themselves a doctor). Health insurance is communist and that's great (I don't want certain people to deprive themselves of care because they are too poor). Pharmaceutical companies are capitalist and ... well, bad example, but there are plenty of sectors like restaurants where I think it's good to have free enterprise reigning. But the most prevalent system is, of course, capitalism. Most people workslowIn a capitalist company, it provides most of the goods and services they need from a capitalist company (usually we spend more time at the supermarket than at social security).

And there is another problem. For me in everyday language, liberalism refers to two very different policies.

On one hand there is what we could call ultra-liberalism, which consists in saying that the state should limit itself to sovereign functions and should not intervene at all in the economy (we privatize everything else, we eliminate labor law and most standards, we lower taxes to the minimum). For them all other state missions (education, health, environmental preservation, worker protection, etc.), if they are a true desire.Citizens will be assured by markets that will emerge spontaneously. And these markets will produce a fairer and more efficient result (needless to say I disagree). Neoliberals agree that the result produced by a market is more efficient and fairer but I think it does not appear spontaneously when the state withdraws.

On the contrary, for them, the market cannot be created or maintained without constant intervention from the state. Otherwise, it will be dysfunctional. In addition to sovereign duties, they believe that the state must intervene by implementing all sorts of standards and subsidies so that fair markets capable of meeting the needs of the population emerge. Therefore, neoliberals are supporters of an increasing state intervention in the economy (that partly explains why since neoliberals took power, the percentage of public spending as a percentage of GDP have skyrocketed). But the type of intervention they support has nothing to do with what social-democrats want (neither in its aims nor in its means).

To better understand the difference, let's take an example.

To combat academic failure, a social democratic state will hire civil servants to offer free academic support to struggling students, or alternatively subsidize academic support associations (without interfering in how it operates, the state is simply making a donation like any ordinary person without imposing any conditions, solely because it trusts them to do a good job).

While a neoliberal is more likely to give education vouchers or tax credits.xfamilysSo that she can pay for tutoring lessons from a business in a market. Or else she will compete and submit tenders to tutoring associations to obtain subsidies (so they behave like businesses in a market). Ultra-liberal people, however, will just wait and say that if the problem does not solve itself, it is because that is what the population wants or feels is just. Basically, for an ultra-liberal, people are responsible for their situation and everything that happens has an explanation. Indeed, for an ultra-liberal, to explain is already to justify (this vaguely reminds me of something).

I will call them ultra-liberalism and neo-liberalism for lack of a better word, but I want it to be clear that neoliberalism and neo-liberalism have nothing to do with liberalism.Very often they are even incompatible.

An ultra-liberal does not intervene in the economy. A neo-liberal indirectly intervenes through subsidies, tenders, and norms but never replaces a business, and imposes a market logic whenever possible. A social democrat will consider that some tasks should be carried out by the state and not be subject to the market. I think like the social democrats, except that in addition, I believe that every single business should be led.esBy their employee and that we should create a social security system for food functioning on a communist mode. Basically, I am an extreme social democrat.

But let's conclude by finally proposing a classification of economic organizations. For me there are 3 main groups of possible economic organization: corporatist, capitalist, socialist (I think I don't need to define them)

AndcThe large groups are themselves subdivided into sub-groups that do not have much to do with each other. Capitalism is divided into ultra-liberalism, neo-liberalism, social democracy, etc.

Socialism is divided into communist (companies are merged into one single.ewhich has a monopoly and is controlled by a centralized state), collectivist (companies are locally directed in direct democracy and coordinateAs a language model AI, I need a text to translate it to English.at the level of the branch but remains independent and in competition), …..

Collectivism, I don't know what it consists of.ecan be divided (but knowledgeYou haven't provided any text for translation. Please provide the content you'd like translated.are limitedYou didn't provide any text to translate. Could you please give more information?)

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to explain how I would qualify the regimes that have succeeded each other in France since the second world war:

• Before the 1958 coup d'état that allowed De Gaulle to return to power, we were in a parliamentary regime (an oligarchy that derives its legitimacy from its ability to ideologically represent the rest of thepopulation), liberal (in the metropolis but not in the colonies) and social-democrat.

• After his coup d'etatwe have become a monarchic, liberal, and social-democrat regime

• Since the turning point of austerity in '83, we have become a regime in transition towards a plutocracy, liberal and neoliberal (the transition is still underway, as there is a lot of resistance)

• Since Sarkozy, we have beenYou didn't provide any text to translate. Please, give me the text you want translated.In transition towards a plutocracy, authoritarian and neoliberal (the transition towards authoritarianism has greatly accelerated since the yellow vest crisis).s)

With one caveat, however. In many neighborhoods, there are a lot of racialized individuals.You didn't provide any text to translate. Please give me the text you want translated.They have been living for a long time under an authoritarian regime. Everything I said mostly concerns white middle-class men. Others didn't wait to experience the gentle caress of a cop's baton in response to a word that was a bit too sincere.

Unbowed France, for its part, is not a party, but a constellation of movements.sto the ideasVery different ones have agreed to campaign for a parliamentary, liberal, and social-democratic system. Basically, the model defended by France Insoumise is the Fourth Republic and in a certain way Switzerland, the Nordic countries or Spain.

All the other major parties agree with the transition towards an authoritarian and neoliberal plutocracy. It diffThe text "è" is an Italian word which means "is" in English.they disagree on minor details or on how to achieve it, but not on the overall objective. For me, the PS, En Marche, Republicans or the National Front all share the same societal goal. So, I think we will continue to evolve in this direction over the coming decade. It's sad, but to give you hope, know that every time I've ventured to make a prediction about the future I've been wrong. For once that I make a pessimistic prediction, it would be a shame if I was right.