I literally just said above. Why are you arguing about the definition of it? It's like you're trying to fit western nations under the term because you don't like them to try to make a point.

[–] axont@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah they do fit the definition, because the distinction between external and international policy you're making is arbitrary and meaningless. I'm a communist. My nation is the working class.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No they don't fit the definition, it's not meaningless or arbitrary. I don't know why you're arguing this, it's not like I'm defending the actions of western nations here, or even labelled any particular countries as being authoritarian.

I'm a communist. My nation is the working class.

No idea what the point of saying this is, but just to provide some useless and irrelevant facts to this discussion, the telescopic ladder I have is 3 metres long.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got an easier one for you that should help you to understand. The policy of colonies regarding the population within its borders counts as "internal", don't they? What shall we say for the colonial occupation of Afghanistan? Shall we call this liberal?

Come to think of it, what do you think of non-citizen permanent residents, because America sure likes killing those within its borders and treating the rest quite brutally.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not American and have no issue criticising them on their actions through history. I don't even know why you're bringing them up though? I just talked about what people define as an authoritarian state and you've gone off on some anti US tangent.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

There was disagreement over if the US fits the label