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.
Right wing authoritarianism has nothing to do with the US political divide. It is called that because the French parliament back in the day had the monarchists/authoritarians sitting on the right side of parliament, while the liberals/anti-authoritarians sat on the left side of parliament. Many communists are right wing authoritarians.
One trait of high authoritarian people is the capacity for cognitive dissonance. This can be accomplished in many ways. I know, for example, that your definition of “mass democratization” is very different from what I would consider mass democratization. You have clarified this when defending North Korea.
The concept isn’t very muddy at all. It’s not even necessarily a bad thing to be authoritarian. However, highly authoritarian people often do not like being known as such. Interestingly, they would like to be seen as average authoritarian, while both medium and low authoritarian people think that being low authoritarian is best.
The ones on the left were those progressive against the monarchy. Today, the left consists of those progressive against capitalism. Communists cannot be right wing. You continue to use “authouritarian” as though it has any meaning because of a strange fascination with it.
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.
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.
Right wing authoritarianism has nothing to do with the US political divide. It is called that because the French parliament back in the day had the monarchists/authoritarians sitting on the right side of parliament, while the liberals/anti-authoritarians sat on the left side of parliament. Many communists are right wing authoritarians.
One trait of high authoritarian people is the capacity for cognitive dissonance. This can be accomplished in many ways. I know, for example, that your definition of “mass democratization” is very different from what I would consider mass democratization. You have clarified this when defending North Korea.
The concept isn’t very muddy at all. It’s not even necessarily a bad thing to be authoritarian. However, highly authoritarian people often do not like being known as such. Interestingly, they would like to be seen as average authoritarian, while both medium and low authoritarian people think that being low authoritarian is best.
The ones on the left were those progressive against the monarchy. Today, the left consists of those progressive against capitalism. Communists cannot be right wing. You continue to use “authouritarian” as though it has any meaning because of a strange fascination with it.
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.