|
paragon1 posted:Would you say Authoritarians differ in any significant way in their emotional and social needs from a non-Authoritarian, or are they largely the same and they merely find satisfying those needs easier with Authoritarianism for whatever reason? Authoritarians view the rest of society as being amoral, and that the only way society can survive is to regress back to more traditional, socially conservative views. Authoritarians, fascism, and utopians go hand in hand in that sense, because their reactionary views tend to hinge on a fantasy of a society that never existed. You can use this to come up with a set of rules or circumstances on how they view just about anything: race, the police, homosexuality, and politics.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
site posted:Are we talking about authoritarian as being distinct from totalitarianism for the purposes of this thread? Socialism and communism are totalitarian in nature, but for completely different ideological (and ostensibly more altruistic) reasons. But reading through PS' posts, much could apply just the same to that extreme as well. Would you care to back this claim up? The only historical precedence for this were Stalinist regimes. A correct political sliding scale would be something like this: From right wing to left wing, there's a shift from an authoritarian, monarchist, and autocratic perspective to a decentralized, anarcho-syndicalist, communist perspective; which is what the end game of communism was to begin with. People's political views towards authoritarianism are derived entirely on how they perceive social order and the necessity of hierarchy in a society. This is why right wingers almost instantaneously side with cops any debate about police violence, or the military in matters of questionable foreign policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
site posted:No because I'm not about to poo poo up Prester's thread arguing about your commie grand narrative like you want to. It's irrelevant. Dig up that Marx thread to go play in. Don't be intellectually lazy. You're the one who brought up that authoritarianism isn't unique to the right, and you're going to get called out for it. To say authoritarianism isn't exclusively a reactionary ideology or to say ideology doesn't play a role in being authoritarian is empirically incorrect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Care to name any socialist/communist governments that didn't become extremely authoritarian? Care to name ones that weren't Stalinist or weren't under the influence of the USSR? Is anyone else going to try at this or are we beyond this "truth is in the middle" and "merit for the moderates" bullshit?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
black potus posted:the difference between a threat like "gays will make us all go to hell" and "all men are out to get you" is that the latter is an extension of an actual measurable threat. even if the former were true it's not like we have gone to hell or are demonstrably living under the anti-christ. the markers are manufactured. and where the term authoritarian makes sense to me is they're manufactured from an authority (whoever/whatever is bringing you into the know) rather than extending from legitimate fears. It's not necessarily true to think authoritarianism exists solely to preserve authority. Authoritarianism, in terms of social conservatives, arises over the question on how you deal with a moral dilemma, whose answer is always systemic violence. Americans have always been complacent about this and it brings about how Germany went to poo poo during WW2- it was just a select few dictators instead of wide spread support for committing ethnic cleansing. Rather than trying to say its a preservation of hierarchy or the status quo, it's better described as bring the pendulum of historical unrest and revolutions to a grinding halt in a way that authority no longer has to legitimize itself and whose actions are unquestionably defended by the population. GlyphGryph posted:Why don't you take your own goddamn advice and try to stop making GBS threads all over this thread? You have managed to add "political", "violent" and "terroristic", which might be common outcomes but are definitely not defining features, and then acted as if PJ did. Especially since you're wrong even by your own standards - there are a number of left-wing groups that have been and are systemically violent. This is nothing more than a very lazy attempt at explaining social and political unrest in a revolutionary sense. You guys keep on talking about authoritarianism, but are not putting ideological context into it. This is like arguing about the sinking of the USS Maine without talking about its coal bunker or ammunition stores. You can spin it anyway you like, no actual dictator in history ever has been an instrument of social progress and never will.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Given then that the behaviour (in children at least, there are other methods via which this behaviour pattern can spread) emerges naturally as a probable (but by no means guaranteed) outcome of a certain type of child abuse in conjunction with the child never being able to freely explore themselves (thus the lack of developed introspection) I feel that this behaviour pattern is inherently a-political. And as has been extensively discussed already in the thread, there is no need for a line by line discussion of the Outer Narrative's of various groups (ideology) as under this model all Outer Narratives are to a large extent conscious lies covering a set of internalized beliefs (Inner Narrative) that, no matter what form they ultimately take, will have certain important common features as a result of the collective unmet psychological needs of Authoritarians. (Grand Narrative) What I'm saying is that it's dangerous to assume that people rely on some irrational inner narrative that is stripped of all meaning when brought into the open. Systemic racism, xenophobia, and mass hatred are products of people making conscious decisions every day in regards to their actions. You can't be accidentally racist, nor can you accidentally be an authoritarian. That is a choice you ultimately made at one point or another, and that's what makes them explicitly detestable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:And I want to stop talking about religion for a bit, in part because I think highly of them, or many of them. Churches are not the source of authoritarianism. But I do kind of think that there are some deep structures that contribute greatly though. I'd like to ramble on about that maybe in a bit. This is stuff I haven't thought through all that far but seems pretty plausible or at least interesting. You can't even talk about Christianity without talking about its involvement with the Roman government and centralized authority. Churches are historically authoritarian by default because they always rely on some explicit hierarchy. Even to the Roman government early Christian era, they took not worshipping their gods as being synonymous with loyalty to their government, which led to many overt actions against Jews and Christians when they failed to fall in line. It's why I partly find history written of the Catholic church to be infinitely more interesting than history of the Bible. It's literally generations of political intrigue and them routing out other Christian sects or Muslims- often using subservient governments to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Be careful not to confuse authoritarianism in the normal sense with Authoritarian in the sense meant by this thread. Just having an explicit hierarchy doesn't imply the inner/outer narratives and cognitive pillars that PJ talks about. I don't agree with his definition, because it assumes there exists some accident in personal character than something that can be rationally derived or inherited. Authoritarian institutions will spread authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if it is inherent or something deliberately put into place by the people who derived it. As for governments, you can feel that pressure exerting on you every day to be an authoritarian: it's called the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:There is a good point though that Communism is inherently authoritarian and thus anti-democratic by nature. Popper said as much in 1922. Creating utopias necessitates crushing all possible dissent, because criticism of perfection is completely wrong and logically impossible. A type of government or rule that explicitly recognises its own weaknesses and is a continuous, ongoing process, is much more adaptable and open to piecemeal change. The authoritarian governments of the communists circa early 20th century reflected the behavior of the French Republic circa 1793-1794, as both were war time governments and arguing within a vacuum without taking the ongoing international crisis of their respective time periods is pretty disingenuous- nor is it unique to communism in general. The Soviet Union was in a near constant state of war for 20 years, and began to mellow out when threat of invasion was supplanted by mutually assured destruction. HorseLord posted:Actual democratic socialists are anticapitalists also, they just think that they can get there via winning the capitalist state in an election, and reforming their way to utopia. This won't work, but they still do great things in making life better. I really shouldn't have to point out that democracy and capitalism are going through a very rough divorce at the moment. I think anyone who has paid attention to the 2008 crash and the ongoing Eurozone Crisis could easily come to that conclusion- especially in light that some of the most authoritarian governments on the planet at the moment (China, Singapore) have growing or thriving economies. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:I don't consider keeping undemocratic structures intolerant of basic forms of dissent but doing away with genocide and mass deportations to be "mellowing out" to be honest. There has been no single communist state that didn't practise widespread censorship and brutality against its population. Modern-day communists say that this is because "real" communism has never been actually tried, but I say that it is because communism is inherently anti-democratic due to its utopian, teleological nature. We can clearly see how libertarianism (the utopian variant of capitalism) would lead to tyranny and serfdom in a very short order, but apparently a lot of left-wing people still get misty-eyed at the notion of ideal communism. Communism is only utopian if and only if you see inequality as being absolutely necessary and a permanent upper class must necessarily exist for all practical purposes. the jizz taxi posted:Also the material circumstances of the French Terror were very different from those of the Bolshevik Revolution, so I'm not quite sure why you're drawing this particular parallel. They both took flight in a very, very similar political climate. There are plenty of similarities you can draw. Both had failing, incompetent ancient monarchies that dragged their heels through the entire process political reform. Both underwent radicalization in the presence of an international crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Is this a typo or am I misreading? The whole point of communism is that it eliminates class. Do you even think before you post? You basically just said "yeah authoritarianism is bad but here's why we should have a nauthoritarian government because we're unfit to govern ourselves" and "equality is calling everyone equally unequal". You guys keep on associating political and economic freedom with a regulated market, which is something that will stop existing this century. e: I'm going to go out on a leg and try to keep this on topic- what do you think people who vote selfishly, based on moral convictions or adherence to some self gratifying ideology? They vote for authoritarians. The people who are in Quiverfull vote for authoritarians, by PJs definition. The people who make up the majority of Christian churches in the US vote authoritarian. Specifically, I refer electing people whose laws specifically target women, minorities, and LBGT for the explicit purposes of turning a government into something that reflects their selfish ways. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
PJ would you view abuse (physical/sexual/mental) as something that is considered necessary for authoritarian families that fall into your grand narrative?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
i am harry posted:Yes that is the survival of the fittest backbone of conservatism. Funny that they can't reconcile that with evolution.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 06:31
|
|