Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[Raphael]

Isn't the first definition the one generally used in political science and philosophy?

I'm not sure, but I wonder if that might depend on which political science or philosophy department at which university you visit.

[rotting bones]

Most victorious political factions in history were rife with infighting. Social movements are not military formations. Internal order is less important than momentum and appeal.

[WeepingElf]

Isn't the first definition the one generally used in political science and philosophy?

I'm not sure, but I wonder if that might depend on which political science or philosophy department at which university you visit.

I, at least, understand liberalism as a political philosophy whose central tenet is that all human beings have equal rights and free will, and their freedom should not be restricted more than necessary in a peaceful and prospering society. Of course, different strains of liberalism differ in how much restriction is "necessary". Historical experience has shown that civil liberties such as free speech or free enterprise can be abused to interfere with the liberties of others, and therefore need some regulation: hate and lies are not protected by free speech, abuse of employees and customers is not protected by free enterprise, etc. These historical insights led to the evolution of social democracy and green politics from "classical" liberalism.

[Travis B.]

Regarding liberals supporting socialism, the phenomenon is rarer than you might think. There are an awful lot of people who support liberalism because they think it supports meritocracy, and they think they themselves are meritorious.

Liberalism is seen as supporting meritocracy because it is seen as giving people the freedom to best fulfill their intrinsic potential, through things such as universal education and like.

However, I do not see socialism as being opposed to this. If anything, by being opposed to hierarchies such as that of social class that people are born into I see socialism as being better for giving people the freedom to best fulfill their intrinsic potential than liberalism.

Many liberals unfortunately think they are more meritorious than poor people. They think socialism is a way for their inferiors to deny them their dues in the sense of: https://youtu.be/5WsZdDDQ8b0?t=74

A lot of people have been conned into thinking that socialism is big-C Communism, complete with rule by the Party and five-year plans. That does not change what socialism actually is -- and people tend to be much more open to socialism when it is presented as economic democracy (after all, democracy is a good thing, right?) rather than as being, well, 'benevolent' rule by the Party and five-year plans as our tankie friends would have us all believe (I have encountered plenty of tankies who were Stalinists completely in earnest, and who believed that rule by a Party would be more benevolent than rule by elected politicians as is the case in representative democracies, and who dismissed the concept of the council republic out of hand).

[Travis B.]

Isn't the first definition the one generally used in political science and philosophy?

I'm not sure, but I wonder if that might depend on which political science or philosophy department at which university you visit.

I, at least, understand liberalism as a political philosophy whose central tenet is that all human beings have equal rights and free will, and their freedom should not be restricted more than necessary in a peaceful and prospering society. Of course, different strains of liberalism differ in how much restriction is "necessary". Historical experience has shown that civil liberties such as free speech or free enterprise can be abused to interfere with the liberties of others, and therefore need some regulation: hate and lies are not protected by free speech, abuse of employees and customers is not protected by free enterprise, etc. These historical insights led to the evolution of social democracy and green politics from "classical" liberalism.

You can arrive at socialism if you take that a step further and recognize that private ownership of capital results in the infringement upon the liberties of others to be free of exploitation and to have democratic control over their daily lives, and that restricting ownership of capital to being owned collectively by those who use it does not actually conflict with equal rights and free will for all, and if anything enhances it.

[rotting bones]

A lot of people have been conned into thinking that socialism is big-C Communism, complete with rule by the Party and five-year plans. That does not change what socialism actually is -- and people tend to be much more open to socialism when it is presented as economic democracy (after all, democracy is a good thing, right?) rather than as being, well, 'benevolent' rule by the Party and five-year plans as our tankie friends would have us all believe (I have encountered plenty of tankies who were Stalinists completely in earnest, and who believed that rule by a Party would be more benevolent than rule by elected politicians as is the case in representative democracies, and who dismissed the concept of the council republic out of hand).

Many people support authoritarianism because they associate powerful authorities with ramming through decrees in their favor. This is why Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's work is so important. Despite his neocon streak, his game theoretic work on political theory demonstrates how authorities cannot survive without narrowly catering to the groups they are accountable to. Once you implement democratic centralism and remove popular elections, the Party is no longer accountable to the people. Its leaders can only survive through oppression.

[Raphael]

(I have encountered plenty of tankies who were Stalinists completely in earnest, and who believed that rule by a Party would be more benevolent than rule by elected politicians as is the case in representative democracies, and who dismissed the concept of the council republic out of hand).

I assume a lot of tankies in places not run by tankies are simply not that bright, and specifically not smart enough to understand the concept of a "false binary". Both capitalism and Stalinism look a lot better when they're presented as the only alternatives to each other.

[Travis B.]

(I have encountered plenty of tankies who were Stalinists completely in earnest, and who believed that rule by a Party would be more benevolent than rule by elected politicians as is the case in representative democracies, and who dismissed the concept of the council republic out of hand).

I assume a lot of tankies in places not run by tankies are simply not that bright, and specifically not smart enough to understand the concept of a "false binary". Both capitalism and Stalinism look a lot better when they're presented as the only alternatives to each other.

These people seem to be oblivious to why so-called 'democratic centralism' is not democratic at all in practice.

Edit: And yes, these people will claim that 'democratic centralism' is more democratic than representative democracy.

[Raphael]

These people seem to be oblivious to why so-called 'democratic centralism' is not democratic at all in practice.

I think their argument usually goes, there's no True Democracy anywhere anyway, so it's hypocritical propagandistic bullshit to attack Stalinist systems for being undemocratic.

What makes that argument effective is that it does contain a grain of truth. That is, there has never been, and probably will never be, any large-scale political system in which political decisions really are made based on "The Will" of "The People". I'd say that's because neither "The People" nor their "Will" really exist. I'm with Sam Vimes on that point.

But the thing is, although there really is no "democracy" in the "etymologically correct" sense of the word, the systems that are commonly called "democratic" still usually limit abuses, and enable work towards positive change, in a way in which other systems don't. That is why political democracy should be supported - not because it supposedly allows some entity called "The People" to rule.

[Travis B.]

These people seem to be oblivious to why so-called 'democratic centralism' is not democratic at all in practice.

I think their argument usually goes, there's no True Democracy anywhere anyway, so it's hypocritical propagandistic bullshit to attack Stalinist systems for being undemocratic.

What makes that argument effective is that it does contain a grain of truth. That is, there has never been, and probably will never be, any large-scale political system in which political decisions really are made based on "The Will" of "The People". I'd say that's because neither "The People" nor their "Will" really exist. I'm with Sam Vimes on that point.

But the thing is, although there really is no "democracy" in the "etymologically correct" sense of the word, the systems that are commonly called "democratic" still usually limit abuses, and enable work towards positive change, in a way in which other systems don't. That is why political democracy should be supported - not because it supposedly allows some entity called "The People" to rule.

To me a good reason to support democracy is that power corrupts and people are fallible and cannot be trusted with power over other people, but someone ultimately has to have power, and will have power one way or another (with simply having no one having power usually resulting in some small number of people seizing power for themselves), so the best approach is to diffuse power to as many people as possible, so each individual person has as little individual power over others as possible, while being limited and restrained by as many different people as possible.

[Raphael]

To me a good reason to support democracy is that power corrupts and people are fallible and cannot be trusted with power over other people, but someone ultimately has to have power, and will have power one way or another (with simply having no one having power usually resulting in some small number of people seizing power for themselves), so the best approach is to diffuse power to as many people as possible, so each individual person has as little individual power over others as possible, while being limited and restrained by as many different people as possible.

Once again, I completely agree. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[WeepingElf]

I'm not sure, but I wonder if that might depend on which political science or philosophy department at which university you visit.

I, at least, understand liberalism as a political philosophy whose central tenet is that all human beings have equal rights and free will, and their freedom should not be restricted more than necessary in a peaceful and prospering society. Of course, different strains of liberalism differ in how much restriction is "necessary". Historical experience has shown that civil liberties such as free speech or free enterprise can be abused to interfere with the liberties of others, and therefore need some regulation: hate and lies are not protected by free speech, abuse of employees and customers is not protected by free enterprise, etc. These historical insights led to the evolution of social democracy and green politics from "classical" liberalism.

You can arrive at socialism if you take that a step further and recognize that private ownership of capital results in the infringement upon the liberties of others to be free of exploitation and to have democratic control over their daily lives, and that restricting ownership of capital to being owned collectively by those who use it does not actually conflict with equal rights and free will for all, and if anything enhances it.

Sure. Socialism is not the same as a planned economy or a single-party dictatorship. It would be nice if employees owned the businesses they work at, and could freely elect their management. Such democratic enterprises would then compete in a market economy. An attractive vision indeed!

[Ares Land]

Most victorious political factions in history were rife with infighting. Social movements are not military formations. Internal order is less important than momentum and appeal.

It's all right, and in fact a very good thing, that various left-wing tendancies disagree with each other. When they constantly attack each other, with considerably more energy than they devote to attacking, say, the far-right -- yeah, that's counter productive.

Especially since the left as a whole is not victorious, and has no momentum or appeal to speak of.

[rotting bones]

I don't accept that a system without an alternative to monetary profit is socialism. A majority of 21st century "socialists" are liberals cosplaying as socialists.

[rotting bones]

Not that I wouldn't support radical liberalism. I just don't want anyone to mistake whatever comes afterwards for an effect of socialist policy.

[rotting bones]

It's all right, and in fact a very good thing, that various left-wing tendancies disagree with each other. When they constantly attack each other, with considerably more energy than they devote to attacking, say, the far-right -- yeah, that's counter productive.

Especially since the left as a whole is not victorious, and has no momentum or appeal to speak of.

My experience has been very different from those in the West.

In my childhood, I grew up under a government that claimed to be weakly ideologically Communist. How Communist they were is up for debate, but they did redistribute land and for a long time, the state had chief ministers who were publicly atheist. (To this day, "advanced" Americans say they will never accept atheist politicians.) This was a time when Hindu-Muslim tensions (called Communalism in India) were somewhat under control.

Then there was an anti-industrialization movement that opposed the Communist government's plans to acquire land to build cars locally, creating industrial jobs. The center-left party Trinamool ("Grassroots" or populist) represented the agrarian interests. They won, and as a result, there are no jobs in West Bengal. The state has become India's Nigeria, with tons of people operating international scams to get money. The farmers got to make their precious flour, but because of the general lack of spending power, they are also feeling the squeeze.

Because of general discontent with the economic situation, the far right party BJP has been steadily making inroads into the state. Under the Communists, they would have started a civil war before letting this happen. Every election, I live in terror that the one place where I have official citizenship will become unlivable for me. The only thing stopping a BJP victory might be the large Muslim population that is more integrated in this state than the rest of India because of Communist rule.

From my perspective, I see centrist and center-left policies as ENABLING the fascists to come to power. I agree that most centrists probably don't want this to the happen. However, given what has been happening in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY (yes, even Mexico: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-51/re ... est-state/), I don't understand how the center can deny their responsibility in this.

[rotting bones]

I'm all for people becoming more left wing, but isn't there something dishonest in advocating for the continuation of a global foodgrowing model that'll cause vast amounts of environmental damage simply because the alternative might make more people disagree with one's political ideas?

I'm not saying we should stay on the same model or not care about the environment. I'm proposing models that are not the same, do care more about the environment and also lead to good political results. As a Marxist, shouldn't you be trying to abolish the dialectic of capitalism? What is your plan to ensure stability? Thinking in terms of ideals rather than systems is utopianism.

Most small businesses fail. The pressure of trying to survive in a Capitalist market causes most small business owners to fall victim to the effects of Terror Management Theory.

Businesses only start doing well overall when liquidity rises. This is a technical subject that's difficult to discuss informally. The basic idea is what when the money supply increases, businesses are able to gather more of it. This makes them look profitable, but they are less pressured to perform socially beneficial work. Inequality also rises. Then comes the austerity crunch. See Capital Wars by Michael Howell.

[Travis B.]

I don't accept that a system without an alternative to monetary profit is socialism. A majority of 21st century "socialists" are liberals cosplaying as socialists.

What you mean to say is that you don't accept that a system based on a market is socialism. While I agree that a majority of 21st century "socialists" are really social democrats, fundamentally the hallmark of socialism is social ownership of capital, not communism versus a market. Also, in a market socialist system there would be no capitalists skimming off the top, all money either goes to what the workers have decided to pay themselves, is reinvested in the enterprise, goes to help support the general functioning of society, or goes to a social dividend.

[rotting bones]

What you mean to say is that you don't accept that a system based on a market is socialism. While I agree that a majority of 21st century "socialists" are really social democrats, fundamentally the hallmark of socialism is social ownership of capital, not communism versus a market. Also, in a market socialist system there would be no capitalists skimming off the top, all money either goes to what the workers have decided to pay themselves, is reinvested in the enterprise, goes to help support the general functioning of society, or goes to a social dividend.

I associate liberalism with the idea that we were living in a state of organic bliss until the extreme politicians arrived on the left and the right, precipitating our fall from grace. This idea in one form or another is pervasive in socialist movements today. This is why 21st century socialism is an enemy of the poor. Most people were never living in a state of organic bliss. Only the rich were. Maybe the Capitalists simply assassinated all the correct theorists, leaving only the wrong ones alive.

Even under market socialism, businesses can only survive by earning more currency than they spend. This will reproduce all the artificial scarcity dynamics under capitalism, including business cycles where production and job creation fall if goods become too cheap, budget lines where good investments keep each owner at the same wealth level on average, the liquidity dynamics where small businesses are only profitable on average when inequality rises, etc. Because of these and other reasons, once the initial idealism fades and society settles back into a steady state, small business owners will return to the same behaviors they are notorious for under capitalism. In addition to this, worker co-ops are known to be disincentivized to hire new full employees. Not only will the incentive structure of productive institutions not have been fixed, new perverse incentives will have been added to the list.

Under my proposal, by contrast, I have tried to free society from its dependence on monetary profit to obtain essential resources. This is why I can express a rational hope that any business which survives its implementation will not try to keep workers in a perpetual state of blackmail.

[Travis B.]

What you mean to say is that you don't accept that a system based on a market is socialism. While I agree that a majority of 21st century "socialists" are really social democrats, fundamentally the hallmark of socialism is social ownership of capital, not communism versus a market. Also, in a market socialist system there would be no capitalists skimming off the top, all money either goes to what the workers have decided to pay themselves, is reinvested in the enterprise, goes to help support the general functioning of society, or goes to a social dividend.

I associate liberalism with the idea that we were living in a state of organic bliss until the extreme politicians arrived on the left and the right, precipitating our fall from grace. This idea in one form or another is pervasive in socialist movements today. This is why 21st century socialism is an enemy of the poor. Most people were never living in a state of organic bliss. Only the rich were. Maybe the Capitalists simply assassinated all the correct theorists, leaving only the wrong ones alive.

While people do say that capitalism is a new thing in the big scheme of things etc. etc. etc., I haven't heard anyone who has actually put good thought into it say that pre-capitalist systems like feudalism/manorialism really were better than capitalism. Remember that liberalism was originally a reaction to the failings of pre-capitalist society, not a movement lauding it. In many ways people are freer under modern capitalism than they were before; while most people do have to sell their labor to survive, people are no longer tied to and subject to the whims of a feudal lord.

Even under market socialism, businesses can only survive by earning more currency than they spend. This will reproduce all the artificial scarcity dynamics under capitalism, including business cycles where production and job creation fall if goods become too cheap, budget lines where good investments keep each owner at the same wealth level on average, the liquidity dynamics where small businesses are only profitable on average when inequality rises, etc. Because of these and other reasons, once the initial idealism fades and society settles back into a steady state, small business owners will return to the same behaviors they are notorious for under capitalism. In addition to this, worker co-ops are known to be disincentivized to hire new full employees. Not only will the incentive structure of productive institutions not have been fixed, new perverse incentives will have been added to the list.

Under my proposal, by contrast, I have tried to free society from its dependence on monetary profit to obtain essential resources. This is why I can express a rational hope that any business which survives its implementation will not try to keep workers in a perpetual state of blackmail.

I should note that there are other alternatives to market socialism to consider such as the use of labor vouchers in the place of currency. For those here not familiar with labor vouchers, they are superficially like currency in that they are used by individuals to buy things, but are non-transferable, are destroyed when used to purchase something, and cannot be used to buy capital. Also, aside from a fixed quantity everyone would get per unit time as basic income, and additional amounts given to people who are retired or cannot work, they represent time spent working, with the same rate of pay being the same for everyone.

As for "small business owners", the would be no such thing in the current sense, as small businesses would be collectively owned by their workers, not by petit bourgeoisie.

As for worker co-ops being disincentivized to hire new full employees under a market economy, within a market economy that could be dealt with by requiring worker co-ops to create N number of new job positions as a condition of investment by public investment bodies. Of course, worker-owned and managed workplaces would not have this issue within an economy based on, say, labor vouchers.