It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless as a descriptor. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.

"Authoritarianism" is not a distinct mode of production, nor does it actually describe structures. It's like saying "bad" or "mean," it has a negative connotation but means almost anything.

Ok so, I have a question. You say "I also fully beleive that ANY government/social system can devolve into Authoritarianism if implemented incorrectly or not vigilant enough about making sure not to centralize power in a problematic way."

So where is the line for you? What is "problematic power" vs "non-problematic power".

Like what countries do you think are authoritarian now vs ones that arent?

At what point does a government that enforces laws on the people who live in it through a monopoly on state violence stop being "Not-Authoritarian" and start being "Authoritarian" in your view? I am legit asking because I don't get why you see some countries as "Authoritarian" and others as not.

(Idk if that persons instance can see my question. If not oops I forget which of them blocks grad.)

Honestly, it's very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don't think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.

Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won't find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.

I feel like the definition I use for state might be somewhat different than most around here, as I would consider an administration as a state.

Even without class struggle, crimes and abused would still occur how can a copless society (with millions of members) resolve this issues? Local militias? Wouldn't those be the "police"?

Curious to hear from you

The basis of crime is nearly always economic. In a society where needs are addressed, including mental health, there really isn't a basis for crime. Administration isn't really a class, just like managers aren't a distinct class from any other worker.

Trying to give an actual image of what stateless society will look like is missing the forest for the trees, though, we won't know exactly what it will look like until we get there. What we do know is the basis of the state is class struggle, and without class struggle there ceases to be a basis for it.