A form of government in which the governing body has absolute, or almost absolute, control. Typically this control is maintained by force, and little heed is paid to public opinion or the judicial system.
This definition of “authoritarian” applies to everybody. And literally none of the leaders of the Soviet union or the dprk qualify as dictators according to your definition either lmfao.
Please, please read State and Revolution. There are a lot of confusions that you have that that reading would do a lot to clear up. You have no historical materialist understanding of the state and frankly I think a lot of the disagreements that you have are not in actuality disagreements on principles but of confusion on the topic.
Sadly the cpusa mention overshadowed what you were trying to say, but I agree it’s something that needs to be constantly reiterated which is that third worldism is a fallacious ideology and needs to be combatted. One thing in particular is that American comrades really need to read more communist American history if they want to understand the condition of the American working class beyond “labor aristocracy” epithets. Every single gain the working class in the imperial core has made has been the result of both external AND internal movement and the over emphasis on the external leads to a disregard of emphasis on the internal.
Even for instance the civil war, which yes was fought on the part of the northern industrial capitalists to overcome the South’s political and state dominance, was also actually fought for with the blood of northern communists and leftists who understood the horrors of slavery and the need for solidarity against it. Bill Haywood as you mentioned consistently fought against backwards elements in the union movement against integrated unions up until his death. CPUSA or not there’s a long history of communism’s struggle here in the US and to deny our predecessor’s efforts is to say that all they have fought and died for is all for nothing.