Left-wing authoritarianism exists and is a key predictor of psychological and behavioral outcomes

[jab]

Um--so Marxist-Leninism is not left wing. Violent overthrow of the capitalist oppressors is not left wing. Cults of personality are never characteristic of left-wing praxis.
The rule of the vanguard is not left wing. Opposition to free elections has never anywhere been a left-wing position. Censorship of opposing and unacceptable views has never been left wing praxis or precept..
Perhaps you need to consult the earlier studies of Authoritarianism which include left-wing authoritarianism, to clarify your stance.
Otherwise one runs the danger of being like the lobster-in-the-pot conservatives in the USA who find themselves thinking "It can happen here in our ranks, we are good people" while they are successfully being acclimated to accept being boiled alive.

 

[TomC]

Um--so Marxist-Leninism is not left wing. Violent overthrow of the capitalist oppressors is not left wing. Cults of personality are never characteristic of left-wing praxis.
The rule of the vanguard is not left wing. Opposition to free elections has never anywhere been a left-wing position. Censorship of opposing and unacceptable views has never been left wing praxis or precept..
Perhaps you need to consult the earlier studies of Authoritarianism which include left-wing authoritarianism, to clarify your stance.
Otherwise one runs the danger of being like the lobster-in-the-pot conservatives in the USA who find themselves thinking "It can happen here in our ranks, we are good people" while they are successfully being acclimated to accept being boiled alive.

Just so I understand.
Was this intended as a response to my post?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

... one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. ...

Who exactly voted on that?

Yeah, yeah; they were ancient Greeks; of course they had slaves; of course they didn't let women vote. No doubt that would have made all the difference.

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. ...

Who exactly voted on that?

Yeah, yeah; they were ancient Greeks; of course they had slaves; of course they didn't let women vote. No doubt that would have made all the difference.

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

Tried?

 

[untermensche]

... one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. ...

Who exactly voted on that?

Yeah, yeah; they were ancient Greeks; of course they had slaves; of course they didn't let women vote. No doubt that would have made all the difference.

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

The French chopped off their kings head and that gave rise to Napoleon.

Democracy is fragile and can be distorted by evil men.

But it is all we have.

Everything else is some form of authoritarianism.

You want to hear stories about things that have happened with no democracy?

 

[TomC]

... one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. ...

Who exactly voted on that?

Yeah, yeah; they were ancient Greeks; of course they had slaves; of course they didn't let women vote. No doubt that would have made all the difference.

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

That's another complex word I failed to include in my post #137.
Democracy

Listening to modern American history teachers talk, one might think that the USA was founded on democracy and equal rights. It wasn't.
Similarly, such teachers often teach that people like the Pilgrims came for religious freedom. They didn't. They wanted to be free from religious persecution so that they could be the persecutors. They were fine with religious persecution as long as they could do the persecuting.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

America was founded by rich guys that wanted to control everything and wanted to expand. They wanted their slaves and to kill anybody living on the land they intended to take when strong enough.

 

[KeepTalking]

Thanks for the in-depth dive, lpetrich.

As to Communism and authoritarianism, look at the people who inhabit Communist regimes and who defend those regimes. They act very much like the right-wing sorts of authoritarians.

I found this very interesting. I mentioned China and the USSR as examples of LWA, given that communism is a left wing ideology. It does make sense, however, that once a communist regime is in power, nationalists in that country who then support that regime would be more correctly identified as RWAs.

This is a good illustration of why I find words like left, right, liberal, conservative, and many similar no longer particularly useful in common discourse.
Tom

Can you elaborate on what makes my post a good illustration of that?

 

[TomC]

This is a good illustration of why I find words like left, right, liberal, conservative, and many similar no longer particularly useful in common discourse.
Tom

Can you elaborate on what makes my post a good illustration of that?

I'll do my best, in a quick sort of way.

Communism was once the outsider ideology. But over the last century or so it's become the state religion of some huge countries. It's enforced by authorities, who retain power by enforcing this ideology.

It is now a conservative, right wing, ideology for billions of people.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

This is a good illustration of why I find words like left, right, liberal, conservative, and many similar no longer particularly useful in common discourse.
Tom

Can you elaborate on what makes my post a good illustration of that?

I'll do my best, in a quick sort of way.

Communism was once the outsider ideology. But over the last century or so it's become the state religion of some huge countries. It's enforced by authorities, who retain power by enforcing this ideology.

It is now a conservative, right wing, ideology for billions of people.
Tom

Thanks for responding.

I think communism is still a left wing ideology at heart. It just seems that when it is put into practice, it becomes authoritarian. That Communist regime put into practice may retain some of that left wing ideology, but those who follow the now authoritarian regime out of a sense of nationalism could certainly be seen as right wing.

I don't think that renders the words useless in common discourse. I think it just means that in some cases that discourse may become a bit more complex, and those handy labels will not always fit the thing we are trying to label.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

^This is one of the reasons why when Trump said he had police and bikers following him, I asked if he'd be the next Hugo Chavez. Looking back at that August 2020 thread, it probably sounded paranoid, but after the Insurrection, probably not.

 

[WAB]

Could it be that communism is left wing in ideology, but right wing in practice?

 

[Bomb#20]

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

Tried?

To clarify, I meant "tried" in the sense that enough Tutsis survived that they were able to overthrow the government and stop the killings. But you're correct: when you try to kill them all but you only succeed in killing half, that's still genocide.

 

[Bomb#20]

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

The French chopped off their kings head and that gave rise to Napoleon.

Democracy is fragile and can be distorted by evil men.

But it is all we have.

Everything else is some form of authoritarianism.

You want to hear stories about things that have happened with no democracy?

That's not the issue in dispute. You claimed communism is free when it is democratic and unfree when it's authoritarian. No. Communism is never free; it's always authoritarian whether it's democratic or not. You claimed the only remedy for authoritarianism is democracy. No. The only remedy for authoritarianism is rule of law and respect for human rights. Democracy is just a means to an end. Democracy is usually the most effective way to get a society to practice rule of law and respect human rights, but not always -- as the saying goes, all politics is local.

 

[untermensche]

You know the democratically elected government of Rwanda tried to commit genocide against the Tutsis, don't you?

The French chopped off their kings head and that gave rise to Napoleon.

Democracy is fragile and can be distorted by evil men.

But it is all we have.

Everything else is some form of authoritarianism.

You want to hear stories about things that have happened with no democracy?

That's not the issue in dispute. You claimed communism is free when it is democratic and unfree when it's authoritarian. No. Communism is never free; it's always authoritarian whether it's democratic or not. You claimed the only remedy for authoritarianism is democracy. No. The only remedy for authoritarianism is rule of law and respect for human rights. Democracy is just a means to an end. Democracy is usually the most effective way to get a society to practice rule of law and respect human rights, but not always -- as the saying goes, all politics is local.

Who makes these rules of law if not within some democratic structure?

Who defines rights? Authoritarians?

Communism is free when it is democratic.

Period.

Just like capitalism will be free when it is democratic.

You can have some form of democracy or some form of authoritarianism.

There is nothing else.

 

[WAB]

It's real simple.

You want democracy and more democracy then you want as much equality and freedom as possible.

You want less democracy you are an authoritarian.

Democracy and authority coexist and cooperate.

Authority can exist without democracy.

Democracy cannot exist without authority.

 

[untermensche]

It's real simple.

You want democracy and more democracy then you want as much equality and freedom as possible.

You want less democracy you are an authoritarian.

Democracy and authority coexist and cooperate.

Authority can exist without democracy.

Democracy cannot exist without authority.

Authority invested by consent is democracy.

Authority gained by any other means is not consensual and illegitimate.

Democracy does not create paradise in itself. It gives authority legitimacy and bounds.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's real simple.

You want democracy and more democracy then you want as much equality and freedom as possible.

You want less democracy you are an authoritarian.

Democracy and authority coexist and cooperate.

Authority can exist without democracy.

Democracy cannot exist without authority.

Authority invested by consent is democracy.

Authority gained by any other means is not consensual and illegitimate.

Democracy does not create paradise in itself. It gives authority legitimacy and bounds.

The thing is, there are nonetheless geometries of our universe which are not up for vote or debate. The more pertinent ones to this forum involve the mechanics around 'goal oriented behavior'. It creates this reality that, ultimately, describes the reasons for and geometry of "legitimacy". But it also means that application of authority, even under democratic principles, may violate the legitimacy of the authority. Rather, a more complete discussion of "that which may support the general pursuit of general goals" is necessary on the topic of authority and what is right.

For instance, the Constitution is an authoritarian document outside democratic purview (or, functionally so at this point). Nobody here is arguing that such limits on government, as undemocratic as they may be, are unwanted, I think.

 

[WAB]

It's real simple.

You want democracy and more democracy then you want as much equality and freedom as possible.

You want less democracy you are an authoritarian.

Democracy and authority coexist and cooperate.

Authority can exist without democracy.

Democracy cannot exist without authority.

Authority invested by consent is democracy.

Authority gained by any other means is not consensual and illegitimate.

Democracy does not create paradise in itself. It gives authority legitimacy and bounds.

Yes, indeed. I agree with you.

 

[untermensche]

Authority invested by consent is democracy.

Authority gained by any other means is not consensual and illegitimate.

Democracy does not create paradise in itself. It gives authority legitimacy and bounds.

The thing is, there are nonetheless geometries of our universe which are not up for vote or debate.

Physics is not democratic.

The more pertinent ones to this forum involve the mechanics around 'goal oriented behavior'.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It creates this reality that, ultimately, describes the reasons for and geometry of "legitimacy".

Geometry?

I prefer legitimate authority.

I know no arguments in favor of illegitimate authority. Who wants that except the illegitimates with the authority?

But it also means that application of authority, even under democratic principles, may violate the legitimacy of the authority.

I have no clue how this conclusion was arrived at.

Rather, a more complete discussion of "that which may support the general pursuit of general goals" is necessary on the topic of authority and what is right.

That won't change anything.

Legitimate authority is only gained by democratic consent.

For instance, the Constitution is an authoritarian document outside democratic purview (or, functionally so at this point). Nobody here is arguing that such limits on government, as undemocratic as they may be, are unwanted, I think.

Every word of the Constitution could be changed.

We could have a new Constitutional convention and write a new constitution.

If we democratically decide we wanted to.