Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[Raphael]

The liberal state's enforcement of liberal ideas isn't entirely conformant with the wishes of its people (hence phrases like "legislating from the bench"), but these liberal ideas are generally agreed upon by the minority that exercises power.

The problem with that argument is that pretty much all of the liberal ideas in question are about giving people more choices about what to do in their lives. Even the left-liberal limitations on laissez-faire economics that right-wing propagandists love to portray as limitations of choice are ultimately about giving as many people as possible more de-facto options to choose from in their lives.

Therefore, what you call "enforcement of liberal ideas" is simply a matter of preventing people from forcing their ideas on each other.

[Travis B.]

The liberal state's enforcement of liberal ideas isn't entirely conformant with the wishes of its people (hence phrases like "legislating from the bench"), but these liberal ideas are generally agreed upon by the minority that exercises power.

The problem with that argument is that pretty much all of the liberal ideas in question are about giving people more choices about what to do in their lives. Even the left-liberal limitations on laissez-faire economics that right-wing propagandists love to portray as limitations of choice are ultimately about giving as many people as possible more de-facto options to choose from in their lives.

Therefore, what you call "enforcement of liberal ideas" is simply a matter of preventing people from forcing their ideas on each other.

Exactly. Complaining about the "enforcement of liberal ideas" is simply complaining about not having the 'right' to oppress the general population.

[Travis B.]

I should note that even though I don't call myself a 'liberal' as I strongly disagree with capitalist 'liberal' economics and I at times disagree with 'liberal' social ideas, my main disagreements with left-liberal social ideas are when they conflict with the concept of freedom and equality for all (as should be evident from my posts in this forum), and in general I personally am very much for most of what most people call 'liberalism' at least in the US and Canada (as opposed to its senses in Europe and Australia).

And yes, I am very much okay with entrenching socially liberal principles so they cannot be undone even if a majority is against them, because they stand against and not for oppression, and individuals' rights to not be oppressed are more important than the 'right' of the majority to oppress those they see fit. Consequently, I am very unsympathetic with regard to complaints about how socially liberal principles are something being imposed by the 'political classes'. Such complaints are almost always made by those who would favor right-wing populism, and of course the same people will complain about democracy when it does not result in what they wish in the first place.

[Raphael]

I should note that even though I don't call myself a 'liberal' as I strongly disagree with capitalist 'liberal' economics and I at times disagree with 'liberal' social ideas, my main disagreements with left-liberal social ideas are when they conflict with the concept of freedom and equality for all (as should be evident from my posts in this forum), and in general I personally am very much for most of what most people call 'liberalism' at least in the US and Canada (as opposed to its senses in Europe and Australia).

If it helps anything, keep in mind that our charming friends over on the political Right usually don't make such fine distinction, and tend to see everyone to the left of themselves as "liberals". So while you and me might not think of ourselves as liberals, we are definitely "libs" by their standards.

And yes, I am very much okay with entrenching socially liberal principles so they cannot be undone even if a majority is against them, because they stand against and not for oppression, and individuals' rights to not be oppressed are more important than the 'right' of the majority to oppress those they see fit. Consequently, I am very unsympathetic with regard to complaints about how socially liberal principles are something being imposed by the 'political classes'. Such complaints are almost always made by those who would favor right-wing populism, and of course the same people will complain about democracy when it does not result in what they wish in the first place.

Completely agree.

[rotting bones]

Even the left-liberal limitations on laissez-faire economics that right-wing propagandists love to portray as limitations of choice are ultimately about giving as many people as possible more de-facto options to choose from in their lives.

Strictly speaking, the principle of mainstream Rawlsian left-liberalism is to come up with a consistent set of laws that increase the liberties of the people who would have been the most oppressed in your society across the set of all possible actions and inactions. It doesn't indiscriminately give options to everyone.

Personally, I no longer agree with the moralizing approach to politics because I don't think it convinces anyone and it demoralizes the people you need on your side. You can tell people to do the right thing until you're blue in the face, and they'll be like, "Nah, I think we'll try killing the Jews first. Have you heard of the Soviet bread lines? That's what happens when you don't kill the Jews."

The only way to get results is to build momentum for your movement through strategic populist appeals that makes the people for whom fascism sounds like common sense feel at least a little bit oppressed. Fascist tears is a sign that society is moving in a healthy direction, and it builds morale within your movement. We should set up actual bread lines to make the fascists even sadder.

[jcb]

The problem is with the categorization of jobs into "shitty" and "good". The idea of some jobs being undeserving of respect (AKA "shitty")

Why does everyone here assume that when I described jobs as "shitty", I meant "undeserving of respect"? Is that some kind of weird American thing? It seems pretty clear to me that if your job needs to be done, you should get the more respect for doing it, the shittier it is.

Do shitty jobs get paid well in Germany/Europe?

[Raphael]

Do shitty jobs get paid well in Germany/Europe?

Not really, but the idea that someone with a bad job deserves contempt strikes me as pretty weird.

[jcb]

Do shitty jobs get paid well in Germany/Europe?

Not really, but the idea that someone with a bad job deserves contempt strikes me as pretty weird.

In America, people that work shitty jobs are reviled and demonized, often by Liberals who mock and condescend to them, and tell them that they deserve their shitty lot in life because they lack an education.

[Travis B.]

Do shitty jobs get paid well in Germany/Europe?

Not really, but the idea that someone with a bad job deserves contempt strikes me as pretty weird.

In America, people that work shitty jobs are reviled and demonized, often by Liberals who mock and condescend to them, and tell them that they deserve their shitty lot in life because they lack an education.

That sounds like something for whom "Liberals" with a big "L" are their bogeymen would say. I personally oppose liberalism for its support of capitalism and am often turned off by the identity politics of certain sorts of liberals, but what you said sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a right-wing populist.

[jcb]

Not really, but the idea that someone with a bad job deserves contempt strikes me as pretty weird.

In America, people that work shitty jobs are reviled and demonized, often by Liberals who mock and condescend to them, and tell them that they deserve their shitty lot in life because they lack an education.

That sounds like something for whom "Liberals" with a big "L" are their bogeymen would say. I personally oppose liberalism for its support of capitalism and am often turned off by the identity politics of certain sorts of liberals, but what you said sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a right-wing populist.

Lowly-educated people working shitty jobs and highly-educated people working good jobs don't have the same economic interests, and acknowledging that fact is not making a "bogeyman" out of Liberals.

Also, the fact that "leftists" have abandoned the word "populist" to the right is part of the problem, but I've already talked about this before.

[Travis B.]

In America, people that work shitty jobs are reviled and demonized, often by Liberals who mock and condescend to them, and tell them that they deserve their shitty lot in life because they lack an education.

That sounds like something for whom "Liberals" with a big "L" are their bogeymen would say. I personally oppose liberalism for its support of capitalism and am often turned off by the identity politics of certain sorts of liberals, but what you said sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a right-wing populist.

Lowly-educated people working shitty jobs and highly-educated people working good jobs don't have the same economic interests, and acknowledging that fact is not making a "bogeyman" out of Liberals.

Also, the fact that "leftists" have abandoned the word "populist" to the right is part of the problem, but I've already talked about this before.

Right-wing populism includes things like complaining about "liberal elites", where rightists try to convince working class people that the source of their problems is the convenient scapegoat of said "elites" when the real source of the problems facing the working class is capitalism. How are you not echoing right-wing populists here?

[Raphael]

Lowly-educated people working shitty jobs and highly-educated people working good jobs don't have the same economic interests,

That might have been true in the past, but these days, both of these groups are being seriously squeezed by the groups that really do have different economic interests than either of them.

That said, of course it would be better if people in the center-left and left-liberal parts of the political spectrum would drop their "the best way to help people in blue collar and service sector jobs is to move them into white collar jobs"-attitude and replace it with an "we should help people in blue collar and service sector jobs by directly improving the lives of people in blue collar and service sector jobs"-attitude.

[jcb]

That sounds like something for whom "Liberals" with a big "L" are their bogeymen would say. I personally oppose liberalism for its support of capitalism and am often turned off by the identity politics of certain sorts of liberals, but what you said sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a right-wing populist.

Lowly-educated people working shitty jobs and highly-educated people working good jobs don't have the same economic interests, and acknowledging that fact is not making a "bogeyman" out of Liberals.

Also, the fact that "leftists" have abandoned the word "populist" to the right is part of the problem, but I've already talked about this before.

Right-wing populism includes things like complaining about "liberal elites", where rightists try to convince working class people that the source of their problems is the convenient scapegoat of said "elites" when the real source of the problems facing the working class is capitalism. How are you not echoing right-wing populists here?

You yourself acknowledged that Liberals are pro-capitalism, so what exactly are you complaining about?

[Travis B.]

Lowly-educated people working shitty jobs and highly-educated people working good jobs don't have the same economic interests, and acknowledging that fact is not making a "bogeyman" out of Liberals.

Also, the fact that "leftists" have abandoned the word "populist" to the right is part of the problem, but I've already talked about this before.

Right-wing populism includes things like complaining about "liberal elites", where rightists try to convince working class people that the source of their problems is the convenient scapegoat of said "elites" when the real source of the problems facing the working class is capitalism. How are you not echoing right-wing populists here?

You yourself acknowledged that Liberals are pro-capitalism, so what exactly are you complaining about?

There is more to social liberalism than just capitalism, and when right-wing populists complain about "liberal elites" it is not capitalism they are complaining about (as, after all, said right-wing populists are also pro-capitalist).

[jcb]

Right-wing populism includes things like complaining about "liberal elites", where rightists try to convince working class people that the source of their problems is the convenient scapegoat of said "elites" when the real source of the problems facing the working class is capitalism. How are you not echoing right-wing populists here?

You yourself acknowledged that Liberals are pro-capitalism, so what exactly are you complaining about?

There is more to social liberalism than just capitalism, and when right-wing populists complain about "liberal elites" it is not capitalism they are complaining about (as, after all, said right-wing populists are also pro-capitalist).

Well, *I* am complaining about capitalism.

[Travis B.]

You yourself acknowledged that Liberals are pro-capitalism, so what exactly are you complaining about?

There is more to social liberalism than just capitalism, and when right-wing populists complain about "liberal elites" it is not capitalism they are complaining about (as, after all, said right-wing populists are also pro-capitalist).

Well, *I* am complaining about capitalism.

So why single out the "Liberals" with a big L then, when conservatives and fascists are at least as pro-capitalist as them if not moreso?

[Travis B.]

The key thing about liberals is that many liberals sincerely believe in freedom and equality, and could be socialists if only they were convinced that their support for freedom and equality and their support of capitalism are self-contradictory. I want to convince liberals of this, to convert would-be socialists to actual socialists. You want to relegate liberals, and especially educated liberals, to being class enemies of the working class, and adopt the language of right-wing populists to do so. You also want socialists to adopt said language, and are oblivious to how the logic of right-wing populism is basically incompatible with freedom and equality for all.

[jcb]

There is more to social liberalism than just capitalism, and when right-wing populists complain about "liberal elites" it is not capitalism they are complaining about (as, after all, said right-wing populists are also pro-capitalist).

Well, *I* am complaining about capitalism.

So why single out the "Liberals" with a big L then, when conservatives and fascists are at least as pro-capitalist as them if not moreso?

The key thing about liberals is that many liberals sincerely believe in freedom and equality, and could be socialists if only they were convinced that their support for freedom and equality and their support of capitalism are self-contradictory. I want to convince liberals of this, to convert would-be socialists to actual socialists. You want to relegate liberals, and especially educated liberals, to being class enemies of the working class, and adopt the language of right-wing populists to do so. You also want socialists to adopt said language, and are oblivious to how the logic of right-wing populism is basically incompatible with freedom and equality for all.

(1) Because Liberals are taking up the valuable political space where there should be real leftists.
(2) Taking up this space deprives or confuses voters of knowing what real leftism is, or that it even exists.
(3) If I was a billionaire fascist, I can hardly think of a better political situation in which to thrive than the current one, where the other party in a two-party system is captured by capitalists, yet pretends to be left, thereby deleting leftist ideas from the political space.
(4) Because of their class interests, I very much doubt that Liberals could be convinced to support socialism. (Except the most cowardly ones, who just support whatever is popular in the moment. And these ones won't turn till victory is already achieved anyways.)
(5) You leave out the thing that is implied when it's said that Liberals should be the primary target to be convinced: That ordinary working class people are ugly, unworthy, and irredeemable. I believe this is both factually and morally wrong.
(6) Liberals have taken the high road in language/politics for the past generation, and what has it yielded? America being on the precipice of a fascist takeover. This is a demonstrably losing strategy.
(7) Liberals' way of speaking is off-putting. People (rightly) associate it with the way that soulless corporations and their boss talks to them.
(8) No, populism is not incompatible with freedom and equality for all.
(9) Right-wing populism, by definition, cannot exist. There is only real populism and fake populism.
(10) What Trump is doing is fake populism. When Trump says populist things, and then betrays his voters and does policies that help billionaires, the lesson to take away from this is not that populism is bad, but that people love populism, and desperately want it. (And yes, that voters are a bit dumb when they think that Trump will help ordinary people, hence the meme:)

[Raphael]

(4) Because of their class interests, I very much doubt that Liberals could be convinced to support socialism. (Except the most cowardly ones, who just support whatever is popular in the moment. And these ones won't turn till victory is already achieved anyways.)

1) Where did Bernie Sanders get his support from, again? I mean, in terms of class?

2) What class do you, personally, belong to now? Not "what class did you grow up in", or "what class did you belong to at some point in the past," but "what class do you belong to now?"

[zompist]

"Liberals" are a fake category you made up to have someone to be mad at.

Are you mad at Bernie Sanders? AOC? Elizabeth Warren? Zohran Mamdani? Black and Hispanic Democrats? Then say so, and explain why.

Are you mad at Bill Clinton or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer still? They aren't liberals.

As you say, the US is threatened by a fascist takeover. So you decide somehow that leftists rather than Republicans are the enemy. Great strategy, that's worked in precisely 0.00% of political fights.

I don't think the working class is anywhere near as left-wing as you think it is. But then, this feud against working people is mostly your own invention. I'm happy to join you in criticizing (say) Bill Clinton's attempt to take the Democrats toward the center, but it's absolutely not the case that Democrats hate working people. Are you concerned about the working people being disappeared by Trump's thugs, or knocked down by Trump's inflation, or by Trump's war on unions, or Trump's war on health care, or Trump's coddling of AI?

Progressives and socialists both have their failings; I try not to emphasize them because trying to create intra-left conflicts achieves nothing except strengthening the right. Both centrists and the left have a bad habit of blaming each other rather than focusing on the fascist threat.