Authoritarianism is a sickness.

[cthulu2016]

It is a morbid defect of personality.

Discuss.

[longship]

1. And the best research was reported by a lifelong Republican, turned Independant.

Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean. (Yes, that John Dean, of Watergate fame.)

I saw a Dean talk during his book tour for the book in SoCal. He was a gracious speaker and was willing to stand around answering questions well after he had finished his presentation. Then, he gladly signed every book that people brought up to him and spent more time chatting than many would have.

Dean's book is in part based on the work of Bob Altemeyer who has made a career on studying the authoritarian personality.

BTW, Dean's book is also a good read.

R&K

[pinboy3niner]

9. He signed a book for me when he spoke with Michael Moore at Wadsworth Theater

I mentioned that I'd volunteered for Kerry for a couple of months in Ohio, and we started chatting about that. Very interesting guy. And no matter how long the line was, he seemed always interested in talking to the people he was meeting.

[backscatter712]

77. Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians is available free online.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[geek tragedy]

2. Authoritarianism is one end of a continuum with the opposite

pole being anarchy.

[cthulu2016]

3. Nazis and Stalinists on one end. People who pretty much don't exist on the other end.

Yes, the terrors of anarchy are what people in the USA should be worried about. It is such a constant danger for us.

Just the other day I walked 100 feet wihout close observation by anyone.

God only knows what I might have done. I shudder to even contemplate it.

[geek tragedy]

5. Yes, but paradoxically any workable system has to include elements

of authoritarianism (diluted to become social order and lawfulness) and anarchy (individual liberty).

Anarchists per se don't exist in the US, but anarchy does exist in the world--see Somalia and Mali and Syria for how wonderful anarchy is for people.

Indulging either element leads to evils.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Those nations aren't examples of anarchy.

Quit making things up out of whole-cloth. You may think you're sounding like you're an authority about the subject, but to say that Somalia, Mali and Syria are examples of "anarchy" is about as foolish as one can get.

I've spent the last seven to eight years of my life studying the philosophy of anarchism. I've studied the different variants of anarchism (all variants for the anarchist tradition of socialism). I've studied those that followed the Individualist currents from Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren (both of whom were fierce socialists), to the Mutualists in the Proudhonian tradition (advocates of free-market socialism, and not coincidentally very similar to theories proposed by Warren, even though Proudhon and Warren never exchanged ideas), to the collectivists who followed the fierce adversary of Marx, Mikhail Bakunin (who's disciples now call anarcho-syndicalism), to the communists in the shadow of Prince Peter Kropokin, who, by the way, set forth to build upon Darwin's theory, stressing that it was those species who favored cooperation who tended to survive, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.

And of course, I would be remiss if I left out some other influential anarchists who have made great contributions to and for the Labor movement, and made great contributions for human rights!

Henry David Thoreau
Emil Armand
Leo Tolstoy
George Orwell
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ernest Hemingway
Nestor Makhno (of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine fame)
Daniel Guerin
Albert Camus
Emma Goldman
Big Bill Haywood
Voltairine de Cleyre
Albert Einstein
Howard Zinn
Noam Chomsky

You may want to read just a little about something before saying something so off the mark.

[Luminous Animal]

19. And let's not forget...

Emma Goldman
Lucy Parson
Margaret Sanger
Voltairine de Cleyre
Priya Reddy

[Fantastic Anarchist]

20. Wouldn't dare ...

I did have Emma and Voltairine in my post though.

But yes, I forgot about Lucy Parsons and Margaret Sanger.

I must admit, I am not familiar with Priya Reddy, though.

Edit: Also forgot many, many more. But I'd be here forever naming names!

[geek tragedy]

22. I've read this little book called

the dictionary.

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:
he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anarchy

I kinda feel bad for philo majors who forget a world exists outside of the books only philo majors read.

[Dragonfli]

32. In the context of this discussion it is an incorrect use for a word that has many meanings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Your Somalia example is only representative of state-collapse anarchy which isn't antonymous with Authoritarianism.

[geek tragedy]

37. Oh dear, you've confused yourself so much that you're arguing with yourself.

You claim that it's incorrect to refer to the situation in Somalia as 'anarchy' and in the next one declare what exists in Somalia to be a form of . . . anarchy.

[Dragonfli]

42. You still don't understand the context, or how I did not "argue with myself"

You likely know that, and are just trying to disregard the entire history and many branches of anarchism.

If you want to discuss authoritarianism in the the context of the discussion you would talk about anarchism, and not one narrow definition of the the word anarchy.
Then misleadingly bring up Somalia and conflate all of anarchism with an example of the debris left behind a failed and completely collapsed state, which is only one of very many examples of how even anarchy the root can be defined.

Look up Websters definition of anarchism, I supplied the link above for you to make it easy.

[geek tragedy]

64. Authoritarianism is more than a belief system--it is a real world practice and phenomenon.

Authoritarianism is an actual practice, a state of being, in places like the Vatican and Pyongyang.

Anarchism isn't a practice, it's a theory. Anarchy is a state of existence, and a real world phenomenon. An empirical description.

You are trying to argue that the definition of 'anarchy' as it exists in the English language has been invalidated by anarchist academics.

A rather authoritarian position to take on behalf of your fellow anarchists--claiming the right to define a word for the unwashed masses against their will.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

103. Would you say that there are no authoritarian structures in Somalia?

Remember, your original assertion in your post #5.

Yes, but paradoxically any workable system has to include elements of authoritarianism (diluted to become social order and lawfulness) and anarchy (individual liberty).

Anarchists per se don't exist in the US, but anarchy does exist in the world--see Somalia and Mali and Syria for how wonderful anarchy is for people.

Indulging either element leads to evils.

You say "Anarchists" (people who subscribe to some variant of the philosophy of anarchism) "per se don't exist in the US" <which is either incorrect, or an outright lie, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt>, then go on to apply that very context to "Somalia and Mali and Syria" to see "how wonderful anarchy is for people."

You've no doubt wasted a bunch of people's time in this thread arguing that definitions and context are important, yet in the context you've used above - discounting everything we've argued about so far - you are still incorrect in applying that to Somalia, to Mali, and to Syria.

So, you can argue semantics, apply dictionary definitions consisting of a couple sentences to describe something so complex as anarchism (I've provided my dictionary definitions, too, supplanted by anarchist literature), but in the end, it is your original assertion as quoted above that has invalidated all of your subsequent arguments.

Your context (your argument) which you think applies, and the context of anarchism in general (my argument) doesn't apply to any of the countries you listed. And to think, all I had to do was use your argument all along to rest my case.

But if you insist on still being ignorant, or not even being consistent with your own words and context, then more power to you. Afterall, I'd hate to be an authoritarian and actually ask you to even reconcile your own arguments!

[geek tragedy]

104. For the umpteenth time, I'm really not interested in discussing anarchism.

We're talking about anarchy, the condition of a lack of authority and order.

If one wants to get technical, anywhere there are families or clans or tribes there can't be anarchy, since those all involve hierarchies and authority.

By that stretch, anarchy has been defined out of existence.

There are several, competing authoritarian structures in Somalia--but no stability, with conflict breaking out between and amongst them in different configurations all the time.

Just like black can be the absence of color, it can also be all colors combined at once. A state of being where the only source of 'order' is whoever happens to be holding an AK47 in the closest proximity is not order, it's chaos. It's anarchy--the complete absence of an ordering authority, regime, set of principles, or otherwise stabilizing forces.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

105. It appears that you're not even interested in defending your own context, either.

Look, either way you present it, my context vs. yours, you're still incorrect.

I just happened to finally use your own original assertion to let you know how incorrect you were.

All the best.

[geek tragedy]

106. Again, I am incorrect only if I accept your definition of anarchy

Going by the one I use (dictionary definition)--Somalia has been in anarchy for decades. There is no government. There is no source of order, just warring factions exchanging turf on a rather consistent basis. A different order each day is not order.



it's rather Hobbesian.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

107. You're incorrect according to the context you provided in your original assertion.

Please, give it a rest.

[geek tragedy]

110. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry that it chafes you that I won't submit

to your authoritative awesomeness.

Last word is yours.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. Applying dictionary definitions ...

To real world applications of the philosophy of anarchism. Because you do know that there have been real world applications of anarchy, don't you? You wouldn't be talking out of your ass again, even after being corrected? If I were you, I'd be embarrassed. Interesting.

I "kinda" feel bad for you.

"Anarchy is order!" ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (yeah, the guy widely regarded as the first to use anarchist in reference to his philosophy; regarded as the god-father of anarchy)

Because I'm feeling generous today, do yourself a favor. Read this wonderful online book by Daniel Guerin. It should help "unconfuse" you.

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice

Please read it. It's very enlightening. It dispenses with all the misconceptions of anarchism, and it really gets to the core of the beauty of the humanitarianism, the cooperation, the solidarity that is anarchism.

I'll provide an excerpt of the forward by Noam Chomsky:

In his attack on the right of private or bureaucratic control over the means of production,, the anarchist takes his stand with those who struggle to bring about "the third and last emancipatory phase of history," the first having made serfs out of slaves, the second having made wage earners out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers (Fourier, 1848).[22] The imminent danger to "civilization" was noted by de Tocqueville, also in 1848:

As long as the right of property was the origin and groundwork of many other rights, it was easily defended---or rather it was not attacked; it was then the citadel of society while all the other rights were its outworks; it did not bear the brunt of attack and, indeed, there was no serious attempt to assail it. but today, when the right of property is regarded as the last undestroyed remnant of the aristocratic world, when it alone is left standing, the sole privilege in an equalized society, it is a different matter. Consider what is happening in the hearts of the working-classes, although I admit they are quiet as yet. It is true that they are less inflamed than formerly by political passions properly speaking; but do you not see that their passions, far from being political, have become social? Do you not see that, little by little, ideas and opinions are spreading amongst them which aim not merely at removing such and such laws, such a ministry or such a government, but at breaking up the very foundations of society itself?[23]

The workers of Paris, in 1871, broke the silence, and proceeded

to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor.[24]

Certainly not your dictionary definition, but kinda illustrates the actual subject we're talking about, eh?

[geek tragedy]

48. I am not interested in your 'counting angels on the head

of a pin' labratory/fiction novel version of anarchy as discussed by people who advocate for anarchism.

I'm talking about the 99% of the planet who aren't anarchist ideologues.

Anarchism as you describe it isn't evil, it's naive.

Anarchy in the real world sucks horribly. It fails.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. I'm not interested in your ignorance, either ...

... but here I am countering your falsehoods.

So, I've already provided information from a well-known anarchist historian, and since you fancy dictionaries (to explain complex political/social philosophies with just a few sentences), I'll even play that game.

Definition of ANARCHISM - from Merriam-Webster

1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2
: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
See anarchism defined for English-language learners »
See anarchism defined for kids »

And so, here we are, even within your narrow scope of the "definition", can you explain to me how this relates to Somalia? Please tell me what above elements describe Somalia "to a T".

Also, other authoritative sources should help supplement dictionary definitions, no? Do you write term papers using only dictionaries? I certainly hope not!

A concise encyclopedic summary of anarchism:

Political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. The word was used only pejoratively until Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, now regarded as the founder of anarchism, adopted it in What is Property? (1840). The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin clashed with Karl Marx at the First International; when it was dissolved in 1872, Bakunin's followers retained control of workers' organizations in Latin countries such as Spain and Italy. Even anarchists who believed that the transition to a government-free society required violent revolution disagreed on the nature of the transition. Anarcho-syndicalism, which developed in the late 1880s, emphasized labour unions (syndicats) and called for general strikes to paralyze the state. In the 19th and 20th centuries, anarchism also inspired experimental communities, including New Lanark in Britain and Brook Farm in the U.S. During the early months of the Spanish Civil War, anarchist militias were in virtual control of much of eastern Spain, where they established hundreds of anarchist collectives. Suppressed as an organized movement by fascism in the 1930s, anarchism reemerged in the 1950s and '60s through its influence on the civil rights movement and the student movements in the U.S. and Europe. The radical ecology movement in the 1970s also was inspired by anarchist ideas. Beginning in 1999, anarchist-led street demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund received unprecedented publicity and inspired new anarchist groups, periodicals, and Internet sites. Anarchist themes are reflected in the work of many 20th-century artists, writers, and musicians, including Pablo Picasso, the American poets of the Beat movement, the Spanish Surrealist filmmaker Luis Buñuel, and the American composer John Cage.

Again, using your narrow definition, you know, the one where it makes you feel superior to those that may know a bit about the subject, can you explain how this relates to Somalia? How Somalia is "anarchy?" Somalia, by the way, is still a state! That's contradictory to one of the central elements of anarchy!

I'm very embarrassed for you. You could have quit, conceded that you don't know what you're talking about and let the subject rest. Instead, you worry about my angels dancing on a head of a needle. Well, the concern is reciprocated, chap.

[geek tragedy]

61. You're conflating anarchism the theory and anarchy as it exists in the real world.

Somalia is not an example of anarchist principles being enacted. It is an example of anarchy.

Anarchy is :

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anarchy

a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy



What anarchist theorists claim does not trump the widely accepted definition in the English language.

If anarchist academics' claims were authoritative in any way, you might have a claim. But they don't.

Ironically, you are trying to assert anarchist theorists' AUTHORITY to tell everyone else what 'anarchy' means.

Sorry, but no one put you in charge.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

81. Yet, you haven't read anything I've provided

... because had you, you'd know that I provided real world examples of anarchist societies (and principles enacted). So, it's not just "theory", but it has been applied in the past, and is being applied in some parts of the world currently (Freetown Christiana being one example already provided).

Your assertion that Somalia is "anarchy" still doesn't hold water. I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions, which you refuse to provide.

Somalia, a state, is not anarchy. It may be chaos, it maybe disorder, but it's not anarchy (which is not a synonym for chaos or disorder according to application or theory).

Seriously, man, give up.

[geek tragedy]

87. "which is not a synonym for chaos or disorder, according to application or theory"

It is a synonym for chaos or disorder in the English language.

That is its plain meaning.

I provided you multiple times with what the word "anarchy" means in the English speaking world. Dictionary definitions.

You reject the plain meaning of the word as it is used in the English speaking world.

That is your right to hold that opinion, but your opinion is not fact and it is not binding upon others.

Just as you do not care what non-anarchists consider "anarchy" to mean, I really do not care what anarchists consider "anarchy" to mean when I use the term.

So, to the extent that one assumes that anarchist theory is authoritative, you are correct.

To the extent that anarchist theory lacks authority, you are incorrect.

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. You're arguing anarchy with an authoritarian. Your head will stop hurting once you quit

beating it on that wall of obstinacy.

[geek tragedy]

63. No, he's arguing anarchy with a non-anarchist. You use the term "authoritarian"

as a 2nd grader uses the term "poopy pants" or how a Teabagger uses "socialist"--a meaningless insult devoid of context, expressing only personal animosity.

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. No, I am very familiar with what you've written on a variety of topics and the positions you

consistently take and defend (you have a lot of time on your hands and spend much of it writing here).

You are an authoritarian.

You can take that as an insult if you wish, but whether you do or not doesn't change that fact.

[geek tragedy]

73. Yes, you disagree with what I write therefore I am an authoritarian.

As I said, a content-free insult.

Btw, it is your mere opinion that I am an authoritarian, based on your subjective understanding of the term. It is not a 'fact' as you claim.

The only reason you jumped into the discussion was to lob the insult in the first place.

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. You might have noticed that I didn't reply to you, I offered Fantastic Anarchist some friendly

advice, advice, I might add, that you have amply demonstrated the value of. Now that you have imposed yourself, I will take it myself.

Enjoy you subservience and try not to get too mad when we laugh at your attempts to exercise your own imagined authority. Here's some Sam Adams for your edification.

[geek tragedy]

80. Heh, you interpret disagrement as "attempts to exercise your own imagined authority."

Thank you for proving my point that your use of the term "authoritarian" is that as a mere childish insult when you have nothing of substance to say, but merely want to disparage someone personally.

Sorry, you are not being oppressed when people disagree with you. Indeed, your attempts to declare such disagreement as impermissible and icky is itself an authoritarian impulse--you don't like it when people disagree with you, so you insult them.

Last word is yours. I promise I won't oppress you by giving any further opinions.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

85. I think that I should have taken your advice. It is greatly appreciated.

Though, I'm too invested in it now. I'm a masochist, I suppose.

[Egalitarian Thug]

94. It's easy to get wrapped up in it. I usually do it myself, but life has recently compelled me

to see to other things for the next few days or weeks.

Cooperation is much harder than coercion. Peace.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

99. Much peace to you, as well.

Be well.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. A Teabagger uses the term socialism completely out of context.

They don't know the concept or philosophy of socialism. Kind of the same way you are using anarchy/anarchism out of context. Because you don't know the concept or philosophy of anarchy/anarchism.

Strange, eh?

[geek tragedy]

90. Anarchists do not have the exclusive authority and power to define the word 'anarchy'

Your appeal to anarchist philosophy and writings is a misplaced appeal to authority (oh the irony).

I consciously use the term "anarchy" in a way inconsistent with how anarchist ideologues conceive of it.

But, that does not make my understanding wrong. It just makes it different than yours.

To the extent you are trying to tell someone they are wrong because they do not infuse the word with the meaning anarchist theorists do, you are behaving like an authoritarian.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. Ahh, didn't you just chastise someone else for them calling you an authoritarian?

And now, since we disagree, I'm an authoritarian, too.

You lack consistency, my friend.

[geek tragedy]

96. I didn't say you were authoritarian, I said that asserting one's own viewpoint

as a rule of authority is authoritarianism--my way or the high way in a manner of speaking.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

100. Sigh ...

I'm not trying to force my viewpoint on you.

Your original assertion was that Somalia was "anarchy." I demonstrated, very comprehensively, that it was not, and why - even according to the very narrow definition that you provided.

You still want to use the term ignorantly, be my guest.

All the best.

[Shankapotomus]

55. Thanks for the book recommendation

Kropotkin. Exactly what I was looking for...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

93. It's an extremely great read. Way ahead of his time.

Glad I could help.

[Hissyspit]

10. Linear social and cultural constructs are usually so simplistic as to be false.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

11. You're saying anarchism is on the same continuum as authoritarianism?

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. If I didn't, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[geek tragedy]

12. What's on the opposite end of whatever continuum

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

one would find anarchism/anarchy?

Bonus question: how is anarchy benefiting the people of Somalia?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. Bonus Bonus Question: Where are you getting that Somalia is "anarchy?"

Anarchy is a philosophy of no authority, no hierarchy, no state, no exploitation, and no capitalism, where the people control the means of production and the products of their labor and distribute accordingly without instruments of a state.

Bonus Bonus Bonus question: How does Somalia fit any of the above?

[geek tragedy]

23. Somalia fits the definition of the word "anarchy" as it is understood

in the English-speaking world.

It also happens to be what anarchy actually entails in the world extant.

I understand you choose to understand the concept as it exists in the imagination of philosophy professors and not the real world, but that is your issue to sort out.

[Dragonfli]

27. With all due respect, It is only understood that way by stupid or uneducated people

Like how freepers think the word socialism means Obama, and how they think fascism is a branch of socialism.

Educated people actually know what Socialism and Fascism mean, as taught by those silly professor types that you think imagine what they teach.

It really is a thing, as the above anarchist has tried to patiently explain to you, it isn't even new, not by a long shot.

Rather than propagate uneducated assumptions of what such words mean, just admit it is something you never learned and try to educate yourself.

[geek tragedy]

34. Yes, only stupid people associate words with their commonly understood meaning

and real world application. You should inform those stupid hayseeds who publish the Oxford English Dictionary of their ignorance. I'm sure your credentials are vastly superior to whatever rube they had write that entry.

Life is very simple when one is a sophomore and knows everything.

[Dragonfli]

43. You don't even understand the context of the discussion do you?

I spelled it out for you above and used your friend the dictionary to help you understand, you must be home schooled, forget about sophomore, does that level even apply to learnin' history and such according to your mum and dad?

On edit :The above dictionary link may be too confusing for you, this dictionary link will help if the above one is too complicated at first. I am here to help.

anarchism defined for kids.

[geek tragedy]

50. Had I been talking about the academic definition

you might have a point.

Since I was discussing what happens in the real world, what anarchist academics and writers have to say really isn't the issue--the track record of societies where there is a lack of authority is.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

45. No, it is not understood that way by the English-speaking world.

In fact, if you knew history and political science, you'd know that it isn't understood that way at all.

In fact, it's not just philosophy, but anthropologically speaking, many societies exhibited anarchic elements in their societies. There were real world examples pre-US America, in France (the Paris and Leon Communes), in Russia, in Ukraine and in Spain.

Hell there is a living society based in the Netherlands called Freetown Christiana.

There are and have been small anarchistic type of societies since the dawn of man.

So, you should sort out issue - you're the one talking about a subject ignorantly.

[geek tragedy]

47. I understand the No True Scotsman logical fallacy you are

employing.

If it sucks, like Somalia, then it isn't anarchy, even though Somalia fits to a T the dictionary definition of 'anarchy.'

http://www.google.com/#q=somalia+anarchy&hl=en&ei=eahuUea_DJGo4AOi2oGYDw&sqi=2&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.45368065,d.dmg&fp=ae5dbc3c1dfb969f&biw=751&bih=409

Just like the USSR and Maoist China weren't actually Communism, according to adherents of that ideology.

What do all supposed anarchist societies have in common? They went extinct, because anarchy doesn't work long term.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. No one is applying the "No True Scotsman logical fallacy" ...

I doubt you even understand how that fallacy works.

I'm not saying that Somalia is not true "anarchy" implying that there's anything anarchic about the state (an anarchist state is contradictory). I'm saying that Somalia doesn't incorporate any elements of anarchism at all. Your fallacy may work with Maoists or the USSR, though that's highly debatable, too, because according to analysis, they weren't communist, but state capitalist.

By the by, I'll provide yet more information on this subject as well, no doubt that you will dismiss out of hand in order to continue to adhere to your own ignorant view of the subject. It's okay to be incorrect about things, geek tragedy, especially about subjects that you obviously have little understanding of. What's tragic, is presented with facts that counter your preconceived notions, you still stand by your ridiculous assertions. Is the earth flat in your world?

What Was the USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism

[geek tragedy]

82. What you do not understand is that anarchy is not dependent upon the

incorporation of anything related to anarchism.


It is the absence of authority and order. It's a mere state of being, facts on the ground, a situation.

You see, I am not required to accept anarchist theory in determining what "anarchy" means.

You have your insular definition as adopted by a discrete, small community of fellow believers.

But, your definition is not relevant to those who do not belong to your ideological community.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

91. No, you don't understand that anarchy doesn't apply to Somalia.

I've asked you again and again to provide an answer, and you can't.

There is authority, hierarchy, and order in Somalia. Just because there isn't an overall continuous and universal authority apparatus that applies to all areas, doesn't mean that Somalia is "anarchy." There are various tribal overlords and systems of hierarchy definitely in place in Somalia.

But, by all means and continue to argue yourself out of even more credibility.

[geek tragedy]

95. There is order in Somalia?

You provided a cite to wikipedia on the term anarchy earlier. Allow me to refresh your recollection:

Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[5][6] Anarchy is also a technical issue of economic science.[clarification needed][citation needed]

As you can see right there, when a word has multiple definitions there will be cases wherein whether it applies depends on which definition one adopts.

Somalia has been in a constant state of the War of All Against All for the past few decades. Al Shahab vs the government, Al Shahab vs Hizbul Islam, etc etc etc.

It's hard to have an ongoing civil war where there isn't anarchy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

101. Are you being obtuse?

Within those groups, the warring warlords and such, it's institutions, if you will, have a hierarchy, has order, and some form of governmental organization (with Al Shahab and Hisbul Islam) to use but examples. There is no horizontal implementation of democracy, workers self-management, cooperation, solidarity, non-coercive institutions, etc. Do as they say, or you may find yourself dead. That describes authority. Just because there isn't one universal governmental institution (in the practical sense) that supplies the authority and order in a monolithic sense, doesn't mean that anarchy exists. It actually means the exact opposite. Monolithic or polylithic institutions of authority and hierarchy that uses coercive and state-like systems of control is anything but anarchy.

That's not anarchy nor anarchism.

[Shankapotomus]

57. Excuse my butting in here

but it sounds like you are describing Egalitarianism, which depends on a highly collectively enforced code of ethics, such as group shaming, to ensure order to enable the fair distribution of resources and put down individual attempts at hierarchy. My understanding of Anarchy is that it wouldn't advocate the enforcement of one or the other. However, I defer to you on Anarcism as my study of it is weak.

[Marr]

36. Psychologically, it's simply a personality trait

that anyone can exhibit under the right circumstances. Some seem to exhibit it all their lives, however.

[geek tragedy]

39. As used in psychology, it's heavily infused with political and cultural assumptions.

Doubtlessly there are those who crave that kind of structure and hierarchy.

[Marr]

40. Yeah, They align with whatever represents the traditional power structure...

...whether it's politically left or right, or apolitical.

[Shankapotomus]

4. I think there has been generous discussion

It's time to start rounding them up and quarantining them from the rest of society. Then we can figure out what to do with them.

oh yea, almost forgot. i need one of these, i guess.:

[Occulus]

6. That was called WWII.

We didn't do what we should have, and gotten rid of the Nazis in our own country. They took over instead, and a grandson of one of them got selected by the SCOTUS to sit in the Oval Office.

If we had executed Prescott Bush for treason we would all be much, much better off today.

[derby378]

7. One of my favorite flowcharts of Left vs. Right...

...came from the Church of the Subgenius. It showed the poor sap in the Middle of the Road being preached to by the guy on the extreme left saying "Don't arm or defend yourself!" and the guy on the extreme right saying "Industry dominates nature!"

Only thing is, the political line turned out to be a circle, and the extreme left and extreme right were standing right next to each other, while both of them were getting their pockets picked by a SubGenius.

I always admired that diagram for some reason.

[Dragonfli]

24. The only thing they are truly experts on would be the dynamics of slack

How to give slack, how to take slack, and of course how to steal slack.
Not only are the adepts capable of cutting some slack, but also stretching it, and tying it into knots. If you act now you can buy double the slack for the price of half!

[Gregorian]

8. Created by child abuse.

Abuse being - neglect, humiliation, being raised by people with no sense of humanity, and a zillion other things.

Not always, but never without.

See family stories of - Bush, Hitler, Stalin, and however you spell Czhowcheque. (Fuck it, I've googled it too many times to do it again. )

[backscatter712]

14. Ceausescu? n/t

[vanlassie]

33. Yep.

[backscatter712]

15. +1,000,000,000!!!

Authoritarianism is a cancer on our country, and on most other countries in the world!

[woo me with science]

16. Corporatism and authoritarianism go hand in hand.

It is no coincidence that the reliable message board fans of every corporate betrayal coming out of this administration are the very same folks now cheering a growing surveillance state.

The propaganda is getting creepier and creepier, folks. We are living in a dangerous time.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. Exactly.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Terribly true

[Zorra]

86. US authoritarian politicians are apparently more likely to be conservative, and be republicans.

I suppose it is reasonable to consider that most authoritarians in the general population are also conservative, and that those who have an interest in politics gravitate toward republican/Third Way conservatism.

Altemeyer suggested that authoritarian politicians are more likely to be in the Conservative or Reform party in Canada, or the Republican Party in the United States. They generally have a conservative economic philosophy, are highly nationalistic, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, oppose gun control legislation, and do not value social equality.[13] The RWA scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist attitudes, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps.[13] Although authoritarianism is correlated with conservative political ideology, not all authoritarians are conservative, and not all conservatives are authoritarian. It is also worth noting that many authoritarians have no interest in politics.[citation needed]

Authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to suspend constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights. They are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals,[21] and report that punishing such people is satisfying for them. They tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities[22] and homosexuals.[23] However, Stenner argues that authoritarians will support programs intended to increase opportunities for minority groups, such as affirmative action, if they believe such programs will lead to greater societal uniformity.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

[KansDem]

98. I had a professor once during my college days...

...you made the statement during one class: "You can't be a conservative unless you have something to conserve."

I look around the world today and his comment becomes all the more relevant.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. I believe the authoritarian is a child that fears that their own lack of impulse control is the

dominant motivator of everybody else as well. They feel that since they fear they might run amuck without the fear of retribution/punishment, so would everybody else. It's not unlike the latent homosexual that becomes violently opposed to another's homosexuality.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Most nu-dems and third wayers infesting this board are rabid authoritarians

It's been a disappointing trajectory for the party.

[AverageJoe90]

29. Don't think it's just that myself, TBH.

You've got a few anti-Obama people here who act in that very same fashion, too. It isn't just one side.....

[Marr]

38. What would you characterize as an authoritarian, non-Third Way sort of post?

I can't say I've noticed any.

I have, however, noticed an entire sub forum dedicated to almost nothing but classic authoritarian rhetoric in support of Dear Leader.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. That's funny...

Because I've noticed an "infestation" of rabid anti-Obama/anti-Dem'ers who signed on around the time of his election in 2008.

Go figure.

[whatchamacallit]

58. Ha, if contributing money and voting for the man twice

makes you anti-Obama, so be it. I'm more of an anti-shitty policy guy myself.

[carolinayellowdog]

62. dehumanizing rhetoric shows which side you're on

infestation, rabid-- question the leader and you're subhuman vermin

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2688733

Guess you missed this one?

[geek tragedy]

75. Game, set, match.

It's very funny how those who decry ideological impurity purport to be anti-authoritarian.

[carolinayellowdog]

67. invasion, not infestation, is what it feels like

termites aren't skilled at political rhetoric

[treestar]

69. Not true at all

The real authoritarians are the ones who think Congress should have no power, and it should all reside in the President. When the President does not get what he wants due to Congress, or has to compromise due to Congress, they sneer.

[whatchamacallit]

70. Personally, I think the president mostly does

get what he wants.

[treestar]

72. Yeah right.

His appointments are approved right away and the Republicans are going to do his bidding.

[geek tragedy]

74. "Infesting" is a dehumanizing term, itself a hallmark of authoritarian thought.

Ironically, those who piss and moan about the 'authoritarians' here are among the least tolerant towards dissenting opinions and views.

To the point where they compare people with more moderate views to vermin.

[lunatica]

26. Malignant Narcissism

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Ever since I read about the Milgram experiment, I agree.

It is probably the character flaw that renders a community or society the most vulnerable. Mental illnesses like schizophrenia don't come close to the social harm inherent in authoritarianism.

[OwnedByCats]

108. A man in the UK

known as Derren Brown, who is an illusionist, did a program about mind control and how some people can be manipulated to perform things they would never ordinarily do. He had some people do the Milgram Experiment, most had never heard of it before. I was surprised, both in the original experiment and Derren's show, that people would just go on shocking people with electricity just because a scientist in a white coat told them to. There is no way I would agree to do anything like that, most especially as my life was not being threatened. Derren did say that not everyone can be so easily led, so he chose people based on who he thought would be the most cooperative. It still baffles me how anyone could deliver what they believed could be lethal shocks to another person. I just don't get it.

[Zorra]

31. Yes. nt

[MNBrewer]

35. how dare you bring this topic up on DU? do you want the Republicans to win?

[mick063]

41. The human element

Perfectly devise any hierarchy, organization, or government on paper and then watch the human element bring out the worst or best aspects of it.


Authoritarianism has worked well on some very rare occasions when the leader was a kind, compassionate soul.

There have been worker's parties that have been ruthless to the general populace when the leader was greedy and oppressive.

It boils down to this. It isn't just the system, but more importantly, the type of people that inhabit the system.


Which brings me to the fundamental argument between left and right. The right hates our present government and thinks we would all be better off if government was rendered powerless. The left hates our present government and thinks we would all be better off if corrupt people that influence our government were rendered powerless.

So is it more conservative to change the infrastructure as opposed to changing the inhabitants of the infrastructure? By definition it is not. The right are conservatives by label only. What they support is a 1% fantasy land that was sold to them as conservatism. What they support is radical departure from our government infrastructure. The polar opposite of conservatism.

[carolinayellowdog]

46. Sadomasochistic elements described by Erich Fromm

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

From The Authoritarian Personality:

The passive-authoritarian, or in other words, the masochistic and submissive character aims — at least subconsciously — to become a part of a larger unit, a pendant, a particle, at least a small one, of this “great” person, this “great” institution, or this “great” idea. The person, institution, or idea may actually be significant, powerful, or just incredibly inflated by the individual believing in them. What is necessary, is that — in a subjective manner — the individual is convinced that “his” leader, party, state, or idea is all-powerful and supreme, that he himself is strong and great, that he is a part of something “greater.” The paradox of this passive form of the authoritarian character is: the individual belittles himself so that he can — as part of something greater — become great himself. The individual wants to receive commands, so that he does not have the necessity to make decisions and carry responsibility. This masochistic individual looking for dependency is in his depth frightened -often only subconsciously — a feeling of inferiority, powerlessness, aloneness. Because of this, he is looking for the “leader,” the great power, to feel safe and protected through participation and to overcome his own inferiority. Subconsciously, he feels his own powerlessness and needs the leader to control this feeling. This masochistic and submissive individual, who fears freedom and escapes into idolatry, is the person on which the authoritarian systems — Nazism and Stalinism — rest.

More difficult than understanding the passive-authoritarian, masochistic character is understanding the active-authoritarian, the sadistic character. To his followers he seems self-confident and powerful but yet he is as frightened and alone as the masochistic character. While the masochist feels strong because he is a small part of something greater, the sadist feels strong because he has incorporated others — if possible many others; he has devoured them, so to speak. The sadistic-authoritarian character is as dependent on the ruled as the masochistic -authoritarian character on the ruler. However the image is misleading. As long as he holds power, the leader appears — to himself and to others — strong and powerful. His powerlessness becomes only apparent when he has lost his power, when he can no longer devour others, when he is on his own.

[pampango]

51. Your excellent post reminds me of the times I have seen support for idea of 'benevolent dictators'

as a recommended form of government. This support for such an undemocratic form of government is most often professed on the right in the form of: we need a strong leader who represents the 47% (or the 1% depending on the speaker) to protect us from the tyranny of the majority of 'takers'. Occasionally it manifests itself on the left: we need a strong leader who represents the 53% (or the 99%) from the tyranny of 'makers'.

Liberals seem to understand better than conservatives that the purpose of government involves both the ends that is sets as goals, but the means that are used to arrive at those goals. Conservatives appear to care less about means but focus almost exclusively on the ends they hope to achieve. In their view, if less democracy (fewer people voting, unlimited 'free speech' from the rich and corporations, endless filibusters from a determined minority party, etc.) will help them achieve their goals then then ends justify the means. This appears to be much less true with liberals (which undoubtedly weakens them when confronting conservatives on the political battlefield).

It does seem that the only people who value democracy (the 'worst form of government except for all the others') are those who do not have, understand the dangers of the 'other' forms of government and have not yet experienced the frustrations that go with the 'inefficiency' of a democratic system.

"As long as he holds power, the leader appears — to himself and to others — strong and powerful. His powerlessness becomes only apparent when he has lost his power, when he can no longer devour others, when he is on his own." - Very well said. As evidenced in the world today, when dictators survive their fall from power (not a common occurrence) and the mystique of omnipotence is stripped away, their frailty and powerlessness do become apparent.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[carolinayellowdog]

59. thanks for your excellent original post; I was merely quoting Erich Fromm

but these passages strike me with great force as relevant to my personal observations. The integration of Freudian and Marxian ideas is very compelling in this case even for a reader who doesn't accept either Freud or Marx as authorities.

At DU I've been largely an intimidated bystander, but have had plenty of painful experience with online authoritarians as a result of writing and research on what might be called "alternative spiritual movements." With four different groups I've participated in fora where some people were openminded investigators of history and discussions started out civil and productive. In each case they were hijacked and ultimately destroyed by a coalition of masochistic and sadistic authoritarians. The masochists derailed all critical discussions of history with rah-rah hero-worship. Then the sadists stomped all over it with punishment and humiliation for anyone who persisted in asking questions that made believers uncomfortable. Some people's lives were ruined by the punishment inflicted by religious authorities merely for objective discussions of history with unbelievers online. As an unbeliever I was left guilt stricken that these people's friendliness to me and others of my ilk led to horrible abuses from their leaders.

[TM99]

89. From you excellent post

am I correct in the assumption that you may be a fan of Wilhelm Reich? His works Listen Little Man, The Murder of Christ, and The Mass Psychology of Fascism really go deeply into just this topic.

I am a neo-Reichian having trained in Lowen Bioenergetics and supervision under a direct student of Reich. To remove the psychology and characterology from the equation when discussing political and social ideas like authoritarianism is specious. It must be looked it and looked at deeply.

[carolinayellowdog]

102. thanks for the titles suggestions; I've been an admirer based on secondary sources

and friends who were familiar with his work, yet never was engaged enough before to read Reich's original books, but I will definitely look into The Mass Psychology of Fascism.

[LanternWaste]

49. Ask 5 people what it means, and we get eleven different answers

It's also a word with a broad definition. Ask 5 people what it means, and we get eleven different answers that will change the following week.

Show a receipt at the door? An authoritarian to many.

Stop at a red light? An authoritarian to many.

Have a job? An authoritarian to many.

Disagree with the premise? An authoritarian to many...

[redqueen]

52. Yep. nt

[geek tragedy]

65. Just like "socialism" would be used on Free Republic.

Pay your taxes: socialist.

call the fire department: socialist?

regulate pollution: socialist.

[KittyWampus]

66. Thank You. For some any authority impinging on someone's right to do anything they please

is Authoritarian.

[slackmaster]

53. Yes it is, and one of the worst aspects, as with many sicknesses, is that people who have it...

...often have no insight into the fact of their own illness.

[snagglepuss]

76. .

[Taverner]

84. I would label it a mind virus, like evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist anything

[Initech]

97. Fundamentalism is definitely a mind virus.

It programs you into believing that one line of thinking is superior to everything else. Authoritarianism is really no different. And people use both of these things to get away with some truly awful evil shit.

[backscatter712]

88. I prefer Altemeyer's definition of authoritarianism.

Three traits:

1. Authoritarian submission - they pick a daddy figure, and worship him no matter how horribly he behaves.


2. Authoritarian aggression - not only do they worship their daddy figure, they want to force you to worship him too.


3. Conventionalism - MURICA! FUCK YEAH!!! Apple pie - FUCK YEAH! NASCAR - FUCK YEAH! FOX News - FUCK YEAH! Jesus Christ - FUCK YEAH! Slavery - FUCK YEAH!

Source: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[hunter]

109. Parents often pass authoritarianism onto their children.

I was raised to "Question Authority," even to push back and disrupt it whenever it became abusive, or to flee if the fight became hopeless.

That's probably why most of my ancestors came to the United States and why they often ran into the wilderness just as soon as their feet touched the ground. Most of them didn't leave any official records of their arrival. Entire crews abandoned ship in San Francisco, for example, and many of those ships are still there buried beneath the city.

The most interesting thing to me is how religion played a part in it. Claims of human authority could be canceled out of any moral equation by direct appeal to God.

The authorities are telling me one thing, God is telling me another. I think I'll go with God here...

Mostly that worked pretty well as this God is the "love your neighbor, don't kill him or steal his stuff," sort of God, with all those rules superseded by the "you're not somebody else's stuff, you belong to God" sort of God.

Wives and children are not the property of their husbands, workers are not the property of their bosses, and slavery is evil.

One of my ancestors escaped authoritarian Europe as a mail order bride. Unfortunately she ended up in Salt Lake City as one of multiple wives. The Mormons were convinced that polygamy was okay with God, but she was not. So she ran away with a U.S. government surveyor and established a wilderness homestead.

Certainly it may have been God telling her to do that, a conflict with her own religious beliefs, but more immediately she didn't like sharing a husband with other women in a patriarchal authoritarian society. Running off with the dashing young explorer must have seemed a wonderfully romantic and exciting thing to do. It's unknown if their first kid was the offspring of temporary Mormon husband or her forever husband, and it doesn't matter.

One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is some rather twisted beliefs about punishment. Authoritarians train their children to accept punishment, and they use punishment as a tool to enforce conformity to their authoritarian social structures. Some children rebel and escape these structures, but many grow up to become authoritarians themselves.

My own childhood was more of an anarchy than anything else. Neither punishment nor reward were used as tools of behavior modification. I don't respond to either. Every day was full of random shit and random reward, true hunter gatherer style.

Some days you get the sweet berries and salmon, some days the bears chase you away. I probably would have benefited from a little more family social structure, two of my siblings ran off when they were sixteen because there was just too much chaos in the household, but I do know that an authoritarian household would have likely destroyed me or set me loose on the world as a fifteen year old street kid. (My own runaway siblings got good jobs and found neat, very quiet places to live. How boring!)

Part of any family culture is genetic and the family culture adapts to the genetics.But I also think there are some authoritarian family cultures that are malignant and abusive and passed on from generation to generation.

[carolinayellowdog]

111. all my siblings are as anti-authoritarian as I, which fits the historical legacy

and our parents were never punitive but we did have a sense of discipline. When I learned via genealogy that my 18th and 19th century southern ancestors were nonconformist in religion and politics (Quakers, Unionists) I thought hmm, maybe deference to the status quo is "in the blood" and so is the opposite.