You messed up the “don’t use variations of the word” step.
What do you mean by
“Established authorities” and
“conventionalism”?
How does a “high degree” of submission look different from a “low degree”?
What constitutes “aggressive” defence in relation to regular defence and why is it definitionally authoritarian to defend something “aggressively”?
I don’t think you understand the word totalitarian or it’s variations. You probably understand authoritarianism, but you have a vested interest in not understanding it.
Try doing some reading, authoritarian personality is well studied.
Hey, here’s a textbook example of the second bullet point I listed above: aggressive defense of what are considered the established authorities.
I provided reading on the psychological profile of an authoritarian individual, whether they be followers or leaders. Cow here immediately jumped in with an essay critiquing Arendt, who is neither here nor there. Matter of fact, Altemeyer focuses on Canadian and American authoritarians, because he was a Canadian psychologist. I don’t think he even mentions the Soviet union once in his book.
I don’t know if cow here even took the time to understand that I was talking about individual psychology before defending the state. Aggressive defense of established authority.
“Aggressive defense?” I linked an article questioning the very concept of “totalitarianism,” and said that much of the critique could be applied to the idea of “authoritarianism.” Did you read the article? The point isn’t the Soviet Union, the point is the very concept of “authoritarianism” and what that does or does not mean.
The entire context of the conversation is about how the word itself is applied. I do defend the ability of the working class to hold and wield state power, and I reject liberal conceptions of authority as idealist.
…what? I’m a communist, first of all, which immediately makes me on the left. Second of all, I want mass democratization of society, which is why the very concept of “authoritarianism” is so muddy to begin with.
Your action shere seems quite authoritarian by your own definition.
Cowbee critiqued the concept of authoritarianism - an established authority. The critique goes against your conventions. And you’re lashing out instead of engaging civilly and in good faith.
Alright so “agressive defence of established authorities” includes providing literature to understand the concept youre discussing? How is this agressive and what established authority is being defended? The general concept of “the state”?
If “providing reading material to further understanding” in any context related to the mere concept of “the state” is enough, then by your own definition you are an authoritarian.
No, I understand it, which is why I am asking you to define it. Because any actual definition is one that is either so broad as to describe all states (like yours does) or so specific as to be redundant because one could just say the name of the specific state or institution one was thinking of.
You messed up the “don’t use variations of the word” step.
What do you mean by
“Established authorities” and
“conventionalism”?
How does a “high degree” of submission look different from a “low degree”?
What constitutes “aggressive” defence in relation to regular defence and why is it definitionally authoritarian to defend something “aggressively”?
I don’t think you understand the word totalitarian or it’s variations. You probably understand authoritarianism, but you have a vested interest in not understanding it.
Try doing some reading, authoritarian personality is well studied.
theauthoritarians.org
As a counter, I think you should consider reading Towards a Critique of the Category of “Totalitarianism.” Losurdo touches on much of the problems with theories of “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism.”
Interesting read, thanks.
@BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
Hey, here’s a textbook example of the second bullet point I listed above: aggressive defense of what are considered the established authorities.
I provided reading on the psychological profile of an authoritarian individual, whether they be followers or leaders. Cow here immediately jumped in with an essay critiquing Arendt, who is neither here nor there. Matter of fact, Altemeyer focuses on Canadian and American authoritarians, because he was a Canadian psychologist. I don’t think he even mentions the Soviet union once in his book.
I don’t know if cow here even took the time to understand that I was talking about individual psychology before defending the state. Aggressive defense of established authority.
“Aggressive defense?” I linked an article questioning the very concept of “totalitarianism,” and said that much of the critique could be applied to the idea of “authoritarianism.” Did you read the article? The point isn’t the Soviet Union, the point is the very concept of “authoritarianism” and what that does or does not mean.
Correct. You linked a critique of the use of the word “authoritarianism” in the context of states.
Except you did that in response to authoritarianism being used in the context of an individual personality trait.
See why I consider you a statist authoritarian? You defend state power out of context.
The entire context of the conversation is about how the word itself is applied. I do defend the ability of the working class to hold and wield state power, and I reject liberal conceptions of authority as idealist.
…yes. So you are a statist who would likely score fairly high on the right wing authoritarian scale.
…what? I’m a communist, first of all, which immediately makes me on the left. Second of all, I want mass democratization of society, which is why the very concept of “authoritarianism” is so muddy to begin with.
Your action shere seems quite authoritarian by your own definition.
Cowbee critiqued the concept of authoritarianism - an established authority. The critique goes against your conventions. And you’re lashing out instead of engaging civilly and in good faith.
Alright so “agressive defence of established authorities” includes providing literature to understand the concept youre discussing? How is this agressive and what established authority is being defended? The general concept of “the state”?
If “providing reading material to further understanding” in any context related to the mere concept of “the state” is enough, then by your own definition you are an authoritarian.
No, I understand it, which is why I am asking you to define it. Because any actual definition is one that is either so broad as to describe all states (like yours does) or so specific as to be redundant because one could just say the name of the specific state or institution one was thinking of.