• RidderSport@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I think Saudi Arabia is the perfect example of why even that model isn’t even enough. I mean sure they are a monarchy and quite self-focused but not really in a nationalistic way. To be fair I don’t know much about their domestic politics. To put them into the same corner as Russia, eh dunno.

    • sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      Authoritarianism doesn’t necessarily require nationalism or vice versa, though they’re often linked, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. The USA is pretty flag waving, nationalist brained but individual freedom exists. Versus a country like Saudi as you mention is not particularly nationalist, but repression is widespread.

      They are quite different than Russia, but looking only at individual freedom, the two are similar in that freedom of speech is not respected and leaders are not fairly elected.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I couldn’t ask for clearer evidence than not accepting Saudi Arabia as authoritarian to demonstrate that “free vs authoritarian” are just propaganda terms and that how “free” a country allegedly is is really just a function of how aligned it is with the US.

      In what universe is Saudi Arabia more free than Cuba?

      • sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        I think some aspects of freedom are to some extent objectively observable, eg, is freedom of speech or religion observed? These can exist independently of US alignment - there are many countries in the global south that can qualify as free or partially free.