Asklemmy

The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.

Didn’t protesters in UK also get arrested recently? It was about 8 of them if I recall correctly.

All states are authoritarian, as every state is the extension of a given class. The only way to get rid of the state is through socialism, after revolution, and gradually sublimating all property into collectivized ownership until class no longer exists, ie communism. The administration, management, social planning, accounting, etc will remain while the need to exercise authority will vanish along with class. Until we get there, it is better for the proletariat to be in control, ie socialism, than the bourgeoisie, ie capitalism. The UK is under bourgeois control, while the PRC is under proletarian control.

The extent to which a given state exerts its authority depends precisely on the given conditions and circumstances a state is in. There is no latent desire for exerting authority at the helm, there are class dynamics and reactions to those changing relations through class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both serve the bourgeoisie, but Nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to retain private property and bourgeois control. Those same circumstances do not exist in modern Germany, but if they did, the state would be just as willing to wield its authority the same way if the bourgeoisie felt it necessary.

Well, one of those has military parades for its monarchy

Not really an answer to your question, but many would argue that the term "authoritarian" in its modern connotation is practically useless. What I mean is that there is no single definition of the term which is specific enough to be applied and understood in the context of a specific country, political system, etc. While certain academic disciplines attempt to agree on specific definitions, the reality is that most colloquial usage of the term is solely to demonize nations or ideologies without meaningful critique. Here's one of many articles on the subject, which I think gives a decent overview: https://www.peoplesline.org/p/authoritarian-is-an-analytically

Is there a centralised rule controlling organization (state) Does that organisation have a monopoly on violence?

If yes, that organisation/state is authoritarian. People have to abide to their will and dissenting to hard will be punished.

Do you still disappear if you are against the only (!) party in China? Do they still go after Chinese people outside(!) of China with police-like forces?

Does every country have some points that could be considered authoritarian? Sure, but let's not act as if the UK is anywhere near China on that scale.