Any left wing authoritarians here?

This is based on this website - www.politicalcompass.org - which posits that the world is more complicated than merely left v. right.

In fact there are two dividing lines right v. left, and authoritarian v. libertarian.

Thus there are four broad types - left authoritarian, left libertarian, right authoritarian, and right libertarian.

I've met right wingers of both types. It's the difference between a fundie theocrat and a 'South Park' conservative as they are called. But I'm not so sure I've met a true left authoritarian type. I think I may have but am uncertain.

So where are these left wing authoritarian types? There sure seems to be mostly left wing libertarian types here in America.

Another intersting thing, it's possible that I, as a left wing libertarian, could be closer to a Bush voting right libertariarian than I would be to an extreme left authoritrian, even though we both vote opposite on candidate choices.

Well, maybe with this one it would be safe.

I am laughing so hard at these pics - thanks bouncy



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Didja rent it?

MERDE! I AM ZE GENERAL BONAPARTE! YOU SHALL KISS MY SHOES!

REVOLUTION!

I've occassionally seen some posts on DU that lean towards leftist authoritarianism or at least approach it with a "holier-than-thou" attitude. When you have people who are absolutely convinced that their ideas are the right ones - the majority be damned! - that is a step on the way to leftist authoritarianism.

One could also argue that excessive political correctness approaches leftist authoritarism.

That said, the American left is pretty much anti-authority and libertarian, especially in social issues and free speech issues.

There is plenty of willingness there to let the government control the social lives of people, too.

This is due mostly to the Catholic Church :(

And as for submitting to authoritarians of any stripe, it seems to me the United States has a longer history. Take Ecuador for example, under an opressive and incompetent government, the people recently took to the streets and threw their president out, the 3rd time in 10 years. Hardly authoritarian.

What are the examples you are thinking of? I can definitely think of a lot of right-wing authoritarians Latin Americans have been victimized by owing to direct U.S. intervention in their political affairs, though.

But there are some about....

"So grave was the crisis, it was necessary to execute sentence first, and hold the trial afterwards."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How is that for lefty authoritarian LOL

In fact, I am the liberalest. You cannot top MY liberalnessosity.

Case in point:

:P

You faux-hippy FOOL!!!

:D

I am not listening

I'm so liberal I broke off the right turn signal on my car. All lefts, all the time baby!!

TOP THAT, MOTHER SCRATCHER!

Because you're on the right one way or the other. :-)

"I would not object to Anarchy, provided I could be the Grand Anarch."

:rofl:

The Grand Poobah Anarchistress of the Authoritarian Left Kingdom on Earth.

:D

Meetings are Thursdays at 1 pm at the IHOP on Maple and Sizemore, downtown. Bring a friend. Stay for the Unitarian Jihad meetings immediately after.

"I knew it was time to clear out of town when them damn Unitarians came round and burnt a question mark on my front lawn."

As a UUer myself, I love it. Big question mark. :rofl:

"Brother Dagger of Quiet Reflection"

:evilgrin:

coincidentally, this is how I have always thought of myself too.

:rofl:

i like it

Now I need to change my DU name!

(to the tune of "Oh tidings of comfort and joy")

Well, I'm an OMNIPOTENT BEING, though I mostly appear in the form of a cute rodent.

I, therefore, declare that all sentient beings must give thanks and praise to the "Grand Poobah Anarchistress of the Authoritarian Left Kingdom on Earth!" :D

I MADE THE RAT GOD MAKE ALL OF YOU SNIVELING LEFTIES WHO AREN'T AS PURE OF A LEFTIST AS ME BOW DOWN TO ME!!!

:D

Wow this left authoritarian thing is pretty cool. Didn't know it was available to us!

"But I don't like Spam!"

I am the great Non-Ruler of the World!

To be considerable dispute over just who holds that position; several claimants have appeared already here....

"Let's get organized, people!"

wear seatbelts yada yada as the left authoritarian, and the left libertaian would be, stay the fuck out of my life, i may believe these things but i dont have the right to enforce on others?

go to politicalcompass.org, click on "analysis," then "view the analysis," then scroll near the bottom of the page to the "International Chart" heading.

but as others have pointed out that type is a pretty rare bird in America these days. I guess it's true that virtually all of the American 'left' is modern and libertine, which all and all is a good thing.

As a few posters have pointed out the closest we get are seat belt laws and political correctness, which is a pretty watered down version compared to Stalin.

I prefer common sense: don't offend people. But don't twist society up in knots over it, know what I mean? Everyone just chill out.

As for seat belt laws, at first I bristled at them. But I saw them made into law, I saw punishments for not using them and they became a habit for myself and my family over time. (Mostly out of fear of the fines.)

As a result, I did NOT go through the windshield in a head-on collision last summer and I did not die, leaving my child motherless. I only suffered bruises in a perfect seat belt line from the back of my ear across my chest.

So I have to say I'm pretty glad for that bit of societal conditioning over time. That one saved my life and my child's life (she was in the car, too....and it was one hell of a nasty wreck....the 12 year old passenger in the other car was not belted and was killed).

now they don't bother me...

It's kinda like requiring people to wear hunter's orange while hunting. It's good for everyone and saves lives.

But there are limits to what I'd feel comfortable with, even if meant saving lives.

sense as we can when passing laws. I say "we" but of course I mean Congress.

Which is why it's bad to elect total dipshits to Congress. I thought most of America knew that, I mean, I would have thought that was pretty self-evident, but I stand corrected. A lot of America seems to really like total dipshits making laws.


I mean hello, a repuke in the Texas House of Representatives tried to pass a law making risque cheerleader moves illegal. Fortunately the Senate had the wherewithall to say "what a load of crap, who is going to enforce this, who is going to decide what's risque and don't we have bigger problems?" and it died in the Senate, but still. WTF???

Just one example.

To view Soviet Communism as a particularly leftist system. In many ways, it is more accurately viewed as the ultimate expression of monopoly capitalism, with that monopoly openly held in the hands of the state. Just about everything that afflicted that system is what theory would predict a total monopoly would be able to indulge in. the differences between it and the corporate fascist state typified by Mussolini are not really worth mentioning in analyzing the function of the thing: as the saying goes, "Same shit, different box."

I've always felt as such. They are essentially the same thing. And for someone living under either system the differences for personal freedom would be negligible.

I always find it funny when a right winger calls us communists. After all, the communists didn't believe in free speech, didn't believe in fair trials, didn't believe in defense attorneys, etc., etc., in fact in a lot of ways the modern right wing is closer to Soviet Communism than the American left.

If you can forgive a bit of reading recommendation, hunt up Mr. Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". It is his acount of service in the Spansih Civil War as a P.O.U.M. militiaman, and besides being a cracker-jack read, has some excellent material analysing Communism in the context of that time in relation to the whole of the Left.

:D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103791/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8dHQ9MXxmYj11fHBuPTB8cT1CZWxsZSBFcG9jfGh0bWw9MXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1

One of my senior seminars was on Orwell, so I had to read about 90% of what he wrote. I appreciated him more and more the longer I studied him.

There is no higher praise, nor anything so rare.

it sounds like something I'd be very interested in. It will be my next read.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia.

for sure.

But, no, it's not often that one finds an authoritarian leftist anymore.

and that is extremely frustrating for authoritarians. You know all those ex-liberals, all those disillusioned '60s left wingers? Did you every wonder why they switched to the right? Now you know.

it's a question of power. Democrats used to be the most powerful party. When the guys who switched to become conservative later in life were growing up, they perceived that the authority, the power was with the Democrats, so they allied themselves with the Democrats.

They don't "believe" things the way the rest of us do. They derive pleasure from being authoritarian, from having and exercising power over others in a certain way that makes them feel somehow in control. So, they think they believe this idea or that idea, but really, it's about power and control and establishing a structure of rules and all the things that go along with an authoritarian personality.

which may not be the best thing. If we can regain power without them, no reason we can't keep power without them, and that might be the best for all involved.

I don't know how authoritarian he was in other respects, but he operated was known for twisting arms and making deals. He did not balk at lying his way to war. That type of person is drawn to power like a moth to the flame. Be ever vigilant.

libertarian used to mean democratic.. now hijacked by the RW to mean corporate rule

the word thus confuses everyone now.

abandon it.

You can have a democratic regime in which there are very few individual freedoms, so long as the laws restricting those freedoms are democratically passed. A liberatarian regime, on the other hand, is by definition 'liberal' with its granting of freedoms.

those who categorize people and those who do not.

those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Those who can count and those who can't.

because we won't let them to dump toxic waste in our drinking water or threaten to fire employees who won't have sex with them.

...Um, I would also say there are DEFINITELY some left authoritarian types here, but I'm certain they wouldn't characterize themselves as such!

family homes for more things on this board. it is a damn knee jerk reeaction. dont know squat about the story, make all kinds of assumptions, take the kids away. my biggest surprise on this board how easily people resort to that decision. i am also seeing it in real life. i dont htink it is something democrats should ignore about themselves any more than the shit the republicans need to own.

and repugs have tons more shit, i acknowledge.

still

but then i am not an authoritarian, i am a libertarian

buttin' into families in a knee jerk fashion, that bugs me too.

Kids are not property. They are their own human beings with their own rights. Parents do not have the right to infringe on them. If they do, no one is butting in any more than the police would be butting in protecting me from someone who wanted to beat the crap out of me.

I will never tolerate abuse of anyone, and that includes children. Children have the right to not be abused. I have no problems with anyone stepping in to stop it. I'm anti-child abuse. Sorry if that bugs some. I really don't care. The notion that children are property and that parents can do anything they want to them, and any one who intervenes is "butting in" is wrong. Children are human beings, not belongings.

i am talking about people that dont get a whole story, yell abuse, pull the children, and there you go. protect the child from the rescuer.

i like how you did absolutely that. not knowing squat, you have me saying i own property and get to abuse.

the knee jerk reaction

then, yell.......and i dont care what anyone says

perfect example of left authoritarian.

I said that I'm not. However, you are the one who insists that the government is butting in when they remove kids from abusive situations. I don't know what else to make of that. Sorry.

Tell you what. Why don't you find out which politicians want to gut child services and vote for them so there will be fewer people "butting in".

Not too many, in my experience, but they're here.

Any talk about pornography will turn some up. A few will turn up for Terri Schiavo threads as well.

yeah there are elements of the left wing that can do the 'save the chilrun' dance as well as the right wing theocrats.

not that children shouldn't be protected, but a lot of things done in that name have little or nothing to do with children and are in fact just excuse to bring down the hammer.

as an excuse to tell consenting adults what they can't do.

Like: Legalize, Regulate and Tax Marijuana for ADULTS, like alcohol and tobacco?

But What Kind of Message Does That Send the Children!!!

Do you really think corporations ought to be free and wild, like a rabid hyena? Or do you think the public ought to have the authority to regulate them with governmental bodies like the SEC?

Do you think that because women have the right to make reproductive choice, that government shouldn't have the authority to keep people from harassing them?

Do you think it was wrong to use "authority" when rock-throwing mobs tried to keep black students out of white public schools not so long ago?

In my experience, the difference between libertarians and old-fashioned right wing loonies is that libertarians own modems.

Nor are right wing loonies themselves much fooled...

Conservativeforum.org - Home Page
Collections of essays, quotations, and links on a wide range of subjects, often by distinguished contributors, and usually from a conservative or libertarian point of view.

www.conservativeforum.org

Free Will: Daily Libertarian Conservative News And Commentary!
Your daily dose of humor, current events, and politics, injected directly by an Illinois conservative!

www.freewillblog.com


Duke Conservative Union
The Duke Conservative Union promotes conservative, classical liberal and libertarian principles, policies and candidates at Duke University. In addition, the DCU acts as an umbrella group for its Member Organizations - conservative, classical liberal and libertarian clubs, associations, societies, etc. - on campus.

www.dukeconservativeunion.org

Right Wing Stuff-conservative, Republican, Libertarian, Anti-liberal T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Mugs, Hats, ---- Tshirts, Tees, Tee Shirts
Conservative Superstore - The best conservative, republican, libertarian, right-wing, political t-shirts tshirts shirts and bumper stickers as well as conservative, republican, libertarian, right-wing, political slogans to be found on any site on the Internet.

diablolife.com

I had to step away from DU for a while I was so PO'd.

I suspect politicalcompass.org is skewed by America's right-wing orientation.

I still think it's skewed to the right, just because I don't find it plausible that I'm anywhere near that far to the left.

For instance, I believe in state sovereignty, lawful succession, and so on. I believe in property rights vs. redistribution of property by the state. I believe in strict law and order, including complying with laws with which one does not agree. And so on. I'm no student of Karl Marx, and I'm certainly nowhere near anarchist in the Authoritarian/otherwise scale. I feel my -10/-10 is completely unjustified.

getting -10/-10 would seem very unlikely.

Maybe a malfunction try the test again and change some
answers see what you get.

Maybe you found a bug.

The biggest flaming liberal I know didn't get a -10/-10. I didn't even get that score, LOL!

I bow to your liberalness. :D

Seriously, I think the question set is skewed.

... actual political opinions would indicate. I think a LOT of people unthinkingly pick a word because it "sounds good" and have very little idea with what politicians they're most aligned.

Like I said, I'm all about law and order, private property, organized states, and so on. The "extreme left," for instance, genuine anarchism and the like, are nothing like what I believe in. The fact I can be totally law and order and in favor of private property and even the general preservation of the current structure of government and society, and somehow score "off the scale" to the left is ridiculous. I am not that far to the left. There is something wrong with this "standard" or "measurement."

I saw someone claiming -10 economic 3 authoritarian on
another board: http://www.comradeche.com/forums/

I think it is a Stalinist hangout.

Check this one:

http://www.comradeche.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4


Can't relate myself being a center left anarchist -2/-8.

...and they can start over seem to be close to left-wing authoritarians. I'm speaking of people who vote third-party in order to make the Democrats lose. I have seen someone explicitly propose this strategy; it is similiar to how Stalin urged communists in Germany to remain ideologically pure and not form a coalition with more moderate elements against Hitler, the idea being, that Hitler would make things so bad that people would come running to the communists.

"We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks."

Amen.


It'd sure be nice if people blowing hot air actually examined the meaning of the axes. The horizontal axis relates to economic issues - in particular, the far 'right' believes all industry should be private and virtually unregulated. That's called "laissez faire" economics. The far 'left' believes that most critical industries (airlines, trains, communications, power, health care, water, etc.) should be 'owned' by the state and operated for the public good rather than private profit, while private business (to the degree it exists) should be strongly regulated.

Political stances regarding individual civil liberties and human rights are portrayed on the vertical axis. Those who'd reject any criminalization of victimless 'crimes' would fall low on that axis. Those who'd criminalize flag-burning, for example, fall higher on that axis.

Seems pretty accurate, although I would probably be -10 in each direction if there were a few qualifiers added to a couple of the questions. There were a couple places in which I felt the wording of the questions could be interpreted in more than one way. Still it was probably the best test of political beliefs that I have seen online.

NOT very authoritarian at all, that.

I took this about two years ago. I have apparently become more liberal in that time.

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

I'm a left libby according to this site. I can live with that.

Economic left/right -6.88
Authoritarian/libertarian -5.28

which are inherently libertarian and democratic and thus basic rights and freedoms are taken for granted/not questioned (generally speaking).

Non-Western authoritarianism is/was associated with state sanctioned violence and totalitarian regimes (left and right): eg. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

Modern Western authoritarianism is not usually associated with violence, but with oppressive laws which go against the values of liberty and democracy, usually in the name of some narrow religous or social agenda.

IMO, both the Western left and right have authoritarian and libertarian wings. This is how I see it at this stage in this country (USA):

Democratic Party
authoritarian wing: maternalist left (nanny staters)
libertarian wing: anti-war activists, civil rights activists, social liberals, etc.

Republican Party:
authoritarian: paternalist right (religous right), social conservatives, nativists, etc.
libertarian: NRA/anti-gun control, anti-tax, pro-business, etc.

-

So, today's Western authoritarian left, IMO, are the nanny staters who want to tax porn, regulate entertainment (video games, music, etc), enact anti-smoking laws, anti-spanking laws, etc. They are the left's answer to the religous right - self righteous, moralistic, crusading, always at odds with libertarian wings of both parties, etc.

The most virulent pro-business types on the right are the true dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians (capital L) - and they basically would replace the tyranny of government with the even more frightening tyranny of the board of directors (more frightening of course b/c at least the former is ostensibly elected and beholden to all citizens while the latter is beholden only to shareholders, i.e. rich people). The Bushies and the Libertarians (think American Enterprise Institute) like to talk the talk of libertarianism (small L), but they are no less authoritarian, IMO. People would certainly be no more free under their system of so-called free enterprise (read: protected monopolies), and you could certainly argue that they'd be quite a bit less so.

True libertarian righties are quite suspicious of "pro-business" though they definitely believe in the free-market and less government interference. Pseudo-libertarian righties think they believe this but have simply been successfully brain-washed by the bullshit propaganda rained on them daily by wealthy Libertarian fundies, think-tanks, and of course our current regime.

IMO, just as far left libertarian are anarchists/libertarian socialists.

Under neither of these extreme systems would people be free. Group dynamics (bullies would rise to the top and seize control) would take over resulting in little freedom.

IMO, what separates libertarians from authoritarians is not what inevitably results from the system advocated for, but the values/goals one starts out with.

In general, libertarians of all types (even extremists) hold strong values/beliefs re personal freedom/rights and truly intend to produce a more free society, even when the end result winds up being the opposite.

Hot DAMN! What an edjakayshun in economy, philosophy and every damn whatnot! Thanks. I'll savor this.



.

Minimum wage laws? Think the government ought to take action to ensure citizens' rights aren't abridged by private parties (like goons harassing women's health cliniics)?

Congratulations, you ARE one. It's good company--we're those "big government liberals" that I hope will one day give Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly an on-air stroke.

Left-wing libertarians don't necessarily believe there should never be any laws put down from on high or that authority should never exist. They believe that authority should exist only insofar as it has a rational reason for existing. Take environmental laws. The Tragedy of the Commons (Harden 1968) is a formulation that demonstrates that it is a mathematical certainty that certain types of shared resources (air, water, land) will degrade through time when at least some people exploit them. This poses a rational reason for regulation (which could of course be decided upon through non-authoritarian means). Hence the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act (the latter was interestingly signed by Bush I, showing that even Republicans can sometimes listen to reason). Anyway, this type of rational regulation hardly makes one an authoritarian.

What do you think?

"They believe that authority should exist only insofar as it has a rational reason for existing...it is a mathematical certainty that certain types of shared resources (air, water, land) will degrade through time when at least some people exploit them."
Gee, to me that leads to "since they're going to degrade anyway, why take special steps and meddle in an authoritative manner."

"his poses a rational reason for regulation (which could of course be decided upon through non-authoritarian means). "
But you're not going to enforce that regulation without authoritarian means.

Let's take another example...the "Get Away With Murder" bill Frist is trying to stuff through the Senate today that protects gun manufacturers from liability laws...authoritarian or libertarian?

Consider this.

Traditionally authority has nearly always been held in the hands of the few. This puts the term in a certain historical context.

But if you read through libertarian theories you find a different concept, legitimate authority.

I think the issue here is the confusing of the concept of legitimate authority with the traditional idea of authority.

This has led to the separation of right/left and auth./lib. On one hand you have 'liberals' who wrongly conclude that traditional style authority can be legitimized by the trappings of democracy. And on the other hand you have "republicans" so caught up in battling anything that looks like traditional authority, they end up supporting new forums of centralized authority even in cases where the old form is actually less elitist.

So you have 'liberals' propping up a very elitist government to battle against even more elitist corporate structures which is supported by "conservatives" who think the elitist corporate structure will end the elitist government.

What the whole thing disguises is that true libertarianism/leftism has been marginalized and snuffed out in favor of the private/public horse race.

"So you have 'liberals' propping up a very elitist government to battle against even more elitist corporate structures which is supported by "conservatives" who think the elitist corporate structure will end the elitist government."
Wow, guess everybody's out of whack but you....

"Gee, to me that leads to "since they're going to degrade anyway, why take special steps and meddle in an authoritative manner.""

Well, because if they degrade it will be to everyone's detriment. Really the only salvation is some form of regulation. In fact, it seems so clear that only the hardest right-wing ideologue would try to deny it (they would just as soon run us all into the ground than stray from dogma) and hence we actually have some protections like the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.

"But you're not going to enforce that regulation without authoritarian means."
Right - but rational authority. And my argument is that that does not make one an Authoritarian writ large.

and you begin to see why this libertarian/authoritarian horseshit is just that.

is the basis of most authoritarian governments like ours. The type of authority that does us no good and restricts freedom for no useful purpose except to protect power. Understanding that type of authority is useful, I think, while allowing that those who oppose it do not champion the idea of "no authority," just rational authority. Erich Fromm elaborated the difference between rational and irrational authority, and it has been a useful concept for me.

Authority that protects power is very rational, it just isnt legitimate.

But no, that isnt what I was talking about at all.

Fromm's "rational authority" was a psychological term, not a political one. It referred to "rational" that which a person recognized due to rational concepts, and "irrational" as that which a person recognized due to fear or awe...

Either way, the "authority" as Fromm used it is in the person responding to the authority, not the authority him- or herself. It's authority granted by the self.

For example, a teacher can be an irrational authority for YOU if your're afraid of him even though there are rational reasons why you should accept his authority and he is behaving altruistically.

case specific and dependent on the view of the person under authority. An example from Fromm: a teacher uses rational authority when his/her purpose is to elevate the student to his/her level. Thus rational authority has a purpose and is always decreasing as the person under authority becomes more like the authority.

Nor were his ideas purely psychological. He used his authority concept to explain many political ideas, such as Nazism. It is hardly frogmarching (whatever that means) to link Fromm's pschological theories to politics as the two were consistently linked in his writings.

he suddenly becomes a rational authority?

This gets screwier and screwier.

Fromm posed the term in connection with discussion of neurosis in human beings. You can't just frogmarch the term over to a discussion of political institutions and force it to work as you wish.

The basis of our government is in the Constitution: "We the people..." If you want to pretend other wise, that's dandy....but it's your game, not actual objective fact.

and the results are no more useful.

"In fact there are two dividing lines right v. left, and authoritarian v. libertarian"

This just shows the nonsense of modern political philosophy.

Right and left is authoritarian v. libertarian.

Dividing the political spectrum into quadrants allows for a more reasoned approach to interpreting political ideology. The question of where to put Hitler becomes much more tractable when you see that authoritarianism was the foundation of the Nazi philosophy while its economic principles were ancillary and opportunistic.

He was an authoritarian, meaning he WASN'T A LEFTIST

The left is the populists. The right is the authoritarians.

Stalin wasn't a leftists anymore than George W Bush is a leftist, yet notice that they both claim to be leftists. Bush fancies himself a champion of democracy and Stalin assured all that he had every intention of crafting a communist nation.

Just because authoritarians are constantly co-opting the language of populists doesn't mean that somehow authoritarians who claim to be attempting democracy/communism/libertarianism etc are on the left.

Even if they themselves believe at the same that they are authoritarian and leftist, they aren't. They are wrong.

You claim that breaking things down left/right and auth./lib. helps to explain Hitler, but you don't support that, you explain that he was an authoritarian opportunist, which is exactly right. And which is why he, like Stalin or G.W. Bush filled his speeches with populist rhetoric but constantly and consistently chose to enforce and strengthen his authority at the expense of the people.

The issue here is whether we analyze the real ideologies of people or the nonsensical theories used to obscure or rationalize them.

Certainly you can imagine an authoritarian leftist government, one that through authority enforces a leftist economic policy (e.g. state-run communism) and restricts freedoms. I don't see how you can say that this is not actually leftist, but they're wrong, they're just fooling themselves, they're actually right-wing. It seems much more logical to say, no, there is a spectrum here economically (and socially) from left to right that actually exists. Maybe you could say that the spectrum runs from one extreme on the left (there should be no individual interests, only an interest in the furthering of society as a whole) to another extreme on the right (society should be a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests). The debate between left and right is: which works better or which blending of the two? Now, apart from that, there is the issue of authoritarianism v. libertarianism.

But if you're saying that a society that is leftist cannot be authoritarian, well, I guess nothing else I can say will convince you. All I know is that thinking of the political spectrum with 2 axes has, for me, alleviated confusion and made the propaganda much easier to penetrate. Sorry if I can't convey that in these posts.

Certainly you can imagine an authoritarian leftist government, one that through authority enforces a leftist economic policy (e.g. state-run communism) and restricts freedoms.

No I cant imagine that, because it couldnt possibly exist. An authoritarian government cannot be leftist by definition. Authoritarianism is the right, populism is the left. A nation where authority is in the hands of a state and not the people does not have a leftist government.

It may be a government run by leftists, that is run by people who claim leftist goals, but that doesnt make authoritarianism leftist, it makes those people either liars or fools.

State run communism? That is also impossible. The entire point of communism is that there is no centralized authority. But lets look at state run economies. Such economies can either be left or right in nature. It all depends on the nature of the state. If the state is very democratic, a state run economy will fall pretty far on the left. If the state is very authoritarian, the economy it runs will fall on the right.

As far as restricting freedoms, again, that proves that the state is not leftist.

Here is your big mistake. When confronted with a state that claims leftist ideals but practices the policies of the right, instead of concluding that the state is lieing or dellusional, you conclude that the states words and actions are consistant and thus authoritarian policies are a part of the leftist ideals.

Maybe you could say that the spectrum runs from one extreme on the left (there should be no individual interests, only an interest in the furthering of society as a whole)...

That is not a leftist philosophy, that is nationalism, which is of course a right wing philosophy.

to another extreme on the right (society should be a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests).

That is not a right wing philosophy, that is essentially the basis of left wing philosophy.

You are confused by propaganda. By authoritarian states like the Soviet Union utilizing nationalism while claiming to be communists, and by groups like the Republican party who claim to be populists but are in fact pushing right wing authoritarianism.

Well, your view of politics makes no sense to me, I'll admit it. Castro, then, would have to be right-wing or not an authoritarian. Actually, he is a left-wing authoritarian. I see nothing but assertions on your part, which is fine, except that your assertions don't hold water for me, sorry.

He has some populist ideas and some authoritarian ideas. So it depends on what aspect of Castro's ideas/actions or what aspect of the Cuban government you are talking about.

Overall the Cuban state is very authoritarian, so I suppose if I had to generalize I would call it right wing even though its leaders profess left wing ideals and in some instances have populist policies.

On the other hand, overall Castro seems to be a left winger, but on very key issues of governance he has extreme right wing positions.

Very few real people or organizations are going to be ideologically pure.

to have Castro used as an example of a leftist dictator, without putting it into context. He lives on a small island quite close to a hostile empire that attempted to overthrow his government and kill him. Being under constant attack for a few decades may result in policies that would not have been there but for US hostility. I think that K-W is correct in his assessment of Castro.

Clue: It's economic :eyes:

I am arguing that the sites definitions and analysis are based of a misunderstanding of the left and the right.

Many people actually start threads with questions like "What is DU's opinion on _____" or "What should we think about this or that." That is the plea of an authoritarian personality seeking the authority it so craves.

And woe betide you if you differ from accepted liberal/progressive orthodoxy on some issues, or if you express yourself in a non-PC manner, authoritarian liberals will be all over you in a second, wanting to send you to the re-education camp for sensitivity training.

:eyes:

I guess I'm getting more radicalized. :)

Our quest was the search for an -ismless existence. Our first action was to move against ourselves and immediately disband.

I scored something like -9.25/-6.67. Not all too authoritarian, I know, but I figured I'd be scored as a total commie/hippie/freak. Must have been the question about "some criminals can never be rehabilitated" or whatever it said....

could be argued as having faintly authoritarian to authoritarian tendencies. For instance, forcing everyone to pay into a government social program, ultimately, is more authoritarian than giving people the option to pay in. There are several philosophical schools of thought within socialism on this very subject. Not all forms of socialism resemble the face of Stalin.

Some advocate socialism through direct action, popular organization, and education. (Libertarian socialists or anarcho-socialists) Others advocate socialism by winning office in the existing decision-making structures of society and imposing it from the top down. (State socialists) Of the latter, you have those on one side who do it despite popular will (Stalin) and those on the other side who try to do it with respect to popular will.

Ultimately, if you asked me, state socialism is a dead end. It's a bandaid solution on a sucking chest wound. There's no way to govern an economy as complex and as dynamic as ours or any peoples by having it centrally controlled by a consolidated decision-making structure such as that found within any republican form of government. You're just going to stifle innovation and creativity. It ultimately means replacing capitalists who control everything and decide what gets produced with bureaucrats who control everything instead, and there isn't a satisfactory mechanism to end sufficiently abuses from said bureaucrats even if people could elect new leaders to replace the old ones.

This is what you get with republican forms of government (representative democracies): You elect leaders who screwed you over. What do you do? You elect a new batch of leaders and hope they will make it better again and hope they, too, won't screw you over. I'm sorry, but that comes uncomfortably close to the definition of insanity. As Eugene Debs said:

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. YOU MUST USE YOUR HEADS AS WELL AS YOUR HANDS, and get yourself out of your present condition.

In other words, do it collectively yourselves. Don't be lazy and let politicians make the decisions for you. You've got to do it with your own hands together. You'll never be free, and you don't deserve to be free, if you are not willing to stand up and take direct responsibility of your lives into your own collective hands as opposed to leaving it to bankers, employers, and the politicians in Washington. YOU outnumber THEM.

Most were young, in college. They believed that ideology was more important than how ideology was applied.

If you disagreed with them, there could be no discussion. One must agree, or be dismissed from their circle of ideologues. Progressives that got into that group tended to be either assimilated or ejected. If they were in student government, groups that they disagreed with must not only not be funded, they must be deprived of a voice in student government until they recanted.

They didn't acknowledge themselves as authoritarian; they viewed themselves as enlightened, the "vanguard" of progressive thought. But when they tried to drown out speakers with opposing views and launch investigations of newspaper reporters who disagreed with them, it was fairly clear, fairly quickly, that they were as progressive as Hitler, and enlightened as Lysenko.

However, their public image didn't match their private actions.

When they lost an election, it was either because it was rigged (even if they were the controlling party, they'd challenge their own), because the media was biased against them, or because the student body was too stupid. When they won an election, it was because of student solidarity and progressivism.

It made me truly glad I was *not* involved in undergraduate student body.

I find myself arguing with them frequently on these forums. On the politicalcompass.org spectrum I'm strongly libertarian and slightly left of center.

There isn't a whole lot of difference between an LW authoritarian and an RW authoritarian. They're both pushing some kind of agenda on people and the most extreme are willing to use all stick and no carrot to get their way. The details of their programs may be very different, but their effect on the lives of citizens is exactly the same - You will do it our way or else. They share the trait of having little faith in people to do the right thing even when you offer them incentives like tax breaks - They'd rather threaten to throw you in jail for non-compliance and keep the tax money so they can spend it promoting their little Socialist or Fascist Utopias.

Any time someone starts pushing something that is supposedly for the greater public good but wants to implement it as MANDATORY this or a BAN on that, I see trouble brewing.

LW authoritarians are especially bad for Democratic Party policy IMO. We already have a partly deserved reputation as leftist extremists, which turns off the vast center of Americans who want to live their lives in peace and not feel like they are being pushed around or being forced to pay beyond their reasonable share for other peoples' problems and misfortunes.