authoritarians of any side deprecate liberal values (ie, individual liberty) & treat the individual as an expendable means to (rather than the nonexpendable ends of) their illiberal agenda
Except the media globally label the leftists as either communists or extremists. God forbid we redistribute the wealth so that no one starves and everyone can see a doctor when they’re sick.
Post sponsored by the governments of the US and Western Europe
deleted by creator
Wow, that must mean anarchists are actually authoritarians then. Right? Right?!
Do anarchists
deprecate liberal values (ie, individual liberty) & treat the individual as an expendable means to (rather than the nonexpendable ends of) their illiberal agenda
or oppose
a critical democratic right such as freedom of speech
?
The post is not meant to be exhaustive, only point out that authoritarians agree individual liberties matter less than their illiberal agenda.
That depends. Are you classifying them as authoritarian leftists or fascists?
They’re neither, that’s what I’m saying. “Abolish all power structures” would certainly be an interesting goal for an authoritarian.
I don’t understand why freely speaking my mind is necessarily a “democratic right”, but I certainly support it. Couldn’t an authoritarian leader simply not care and move ahead with his plans if he has enough support?
Having freedom of speech also gives freedom to organize, and those things are dangerous for dictators as people might be getting some ideas.
Meant a right critical for democracy: public oratory & debate of policy to argue policy, change minds, & gather support. Important since the ancient Greeks.
Authoritarians don’t need popular support once in power. They usually meet criticism with force.
First of all: thanks for the comprehensive reply. 👌
What if the autocrat wants advice on how to lead the country? I’m sure every wise king in the past looked for some sort of counsel, right? And they need some form of support, or at least the approval by big chunks of the population, else who’s putting his ideas into action and who’s tacitly accepting of it?
They could, but it’s unnecessary to sustain autocratic government. Whereas an autocracy isn’t accountable to governed citizens, a liberal democracy by design is.
Authority doesn’t require popular support, rule of law, or the recognition of individual liberties. Ideology (such as that the autocrat is divine or has an exclusive right to rule for whatever reason) & a faithful establishment with enough power to compel obedience can displace the need for popular support. When an autocrat’s interests conflict with the populace’s interests or an individual’s freedom, power decides who prevails. Only revolt or overthrow by a stronger power holds an autocrat accountable.
With a liberal democracy, authority is in a government that is accountable to citizens & that rules by laws limited by recognized individual liberties (ie, rule of law & limited government).
I don’t understand why freely speaking my mind is necessarily a “democratic right”,
Long story short: You can’t effect change without organizing, and you can’t organize without talking about organizing. And, well, a system where common people can’t effect change can’t be called a democracy. For liberal democracy specifically, how are you going to campaign and run for office if you can’t even talk about your platform?
Couldn’t an authoritarian leader simply not care and move ahead with his plans if he has enough support?
I’m not sure I understand the question.
It is my strong heartfelt opinion that all tankies and authoritarians are right wing. I do not see any authoritarian future as progress.
I’ve always thought of it as more an up and down split between authoritarianism and libertarianism. Authoritarians on both sides seek to limit rights and freedoms and any kind of dissent, the difference is who and what they generally target. All of it just corrodes into a control system for the sake of control.
You think of authoritarianism as being halfway to authoritarianism?
No, just the original direction of the spring changes.
My opinion is that both are influenced by Russian propaganda. Tankies (pre 1990 propaganda), maga (post 1990 propaganda).
If you ask then about any question outside of the ideology, especially about geopolitics they have virtually indistinguishable views.
Uh… have you actually talked to any anarchists recently? They tend to support Ukraine and oppose Russia and crew. Tankies and anarchists only really agree on hating capitalism and Western imperialism; there’s plenty they disagree on even outside ideology.
Not to defend conservatives, but “rightwing” and “bad” aren’t synonyms; someone can be bad and centrist or even leftist. I get the sentiment, but that’s just not what those words mean. Someone who wants to redistribute the rich’s wealth is leftist by definition. Point being: Tankies aren’t rightwing; they’re idiots.
Right Wing means Conservative.
Conservative means “wants to return to the old ways, retain the past way of doing things”.
The past was bad. Tankies are conservatives.
Conservative means “wants to return to the old ways, retain the past way of doing things”.
That’s what they pretend it means, but yeah no. The US has never not been a democracy (give or take the racial apartheid thing), yet you can see what US conservatives are doing. Comservatism is fundamentally about putting power and wealth in the hands of the ingroup and taking them from the outgroup. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
The past was bad. Tankies are conservatives.
And what past are tankies trying to bring back?
The US has at some point “not been a democracy” in the past, when it was colonies ruled by aristocratic oligarchs loyal to an absolute monarch. Conservative isn’t about keeping things the same as they were five years ago, it’s about keeping things the same as hundreds of years ago: no “globalism”, no racial equality, and strong ties between the state and religion which also includes the oppression of women and homosexuality.
Tankies are seeking to maintain a similar oligarchic and absolute-ruler structure used in the past.
I notice you didn’t mention the lack of democratic rights for a particular group of people in the United States after there was challenge to the monarchy. Y’know, as the revolution was happening, slave freedom petitions were already pointing out the obvious contradiction in a democracy where most people couldn’t vote. The US has legal routes to forced labour and denied democratic rights today extending back to the 1860s.
It has never been democratic as you are using the word, it has always wielded the idea of democracy to the benefit of its privileged class though.
You are a chud though, the talking points all over your profile could be AI generated they’re so typical. Might be even.
Not surprising, considering I have that user tagged Zionist for repeatedly defending Israel
It has gotten better over time but it was always better than that autboritarian shit.
You’re a bootlicker. Go lick some boots like you want.
The US has at some point “not been a democracy” in the past, when it was colonies ruled by aristocratic oligarchs loyal to an absolute monarch.
No offense but either you’re making shit up or uou have no idea what you’re talking about. Britain hasn’t been an absolute monarchy since, like, the Magna Carta, and the thirteen colonies had elected state assemblies and broad self-government. It was Britain trying to violate that self-government that led to American independence. Please learn history before talking about it.
Tankies are seeking to maintain a similar oligarchic and absolute-ruler structure used in the past.
Again you have no idea what you’re talking about. Tankies think (very wrongly) that a Marxist-Leninist vanguard state will eventually being about socialism and wither away. To them authoritarianism is a transitional stage, not a goal. I’m going to disengage because I doubt you’re actually interested in learning anything, but what you’re saying is straight up misinformation.
Bro doesn’t believe in the colonial period, folks.
At this point, it might actually take that “one great man” to be the voice of reason in the West, a spark that lights everyone’s lightbulb but with enough authority everyone just feels compelled to follow them (?). Cause if you leave it to the propagandized and honestly baseline cruel and selfish folks of today, they’ll just elect monster after monster. Sure, some might be brown, some might be women, some might even be brown women, but that doesn’t make them any better. 🤷
Anybody antidemocracy is immediately written off as mentally challenged in my book.
Lukewarm take: modern democracy is a failure, in its own objective of giving the people political power. Giving everyone, regardless of qualification, a political voice does not work unless they also undergo extensive education in politics, philosophy and class consciousness.
It also requires that the available sources of information be rational, objective and unbiased, something impossible for private mass media.
So, in reality we end up where we are: vast swathes of unqualified and apathetic voters who the ruling class can herd into the desired electoral outcome; manipulated by lies and fear to vote against their own interests.
TLDR: Democracy only works as advertised when the rich are specifically and fully excluded from the process and the resources necessary to influence the outcome.
A select group of people are not allowed to decide the competency and place of other people. A race of people cannot be declared superior to all others. Any such system is doomed to fail in a violent bloody mess as they’re inevitably proven wrong and ineffective.
Democracy is the only system capable of providing justice and equality.
You are literally describing why our current form of democracy doesnt work. A select few are able to game the system by virtue of owning private media empires, and the only outcome is eventual, violent change.
The purer and more direct the democracy the better, our current form in the USA specifically is flawed and the only recourse is electing enough DNC to restrict those who infringe upon the rights of others: repealing citizens united decision, taxing the rich, fair redistricting, absolute immutable rights for each person such as habeus corpus, and most importantly breaking up monopolies.
Maybe someday we can even seriously consider removing FPTP voting.
You might notice that the one side “gaming the system” the most are extremely undemocratic: Republican presidents win by EC Vote more often than popular vote, the GOP want to restrict voting access and remove names from rolls all the time, they tried to storm the capital on Jan 6 because they lost, they are disproportionately represented by low population red states in the senate like North Dakota, and they’re promoting a literal wannabe monarch Donald Trump who has been posting AI generated memes of himself wearing a crown.
This won’t end in bloodshed unless the villains of this story, Trump, starts the bloodshed and even then the prevailing side, the united strength of US Citizens and Immigrants, won’t tear the USA down they will repair it.
Other nations suffer similar problems but some far far less because there are forms of Democratic government which have thrived and are simply the best form of government.
Thankfully, I’m selectively illiterate!
Right, can you tell us where and how you learned about what these political philosophies are and how they have developed historically?
If you are gonna play at being a sea lion at least be good at it.
I don’t know why you’d expect me to take that seriously. It’s bot-like to just use a web term without even knowing what it means.
Come right out and say what you disagreed with.
What’s the point in that if you all think you know everything without learning how to learn? They’d just make up more nonsense.
Got it, you’re a fascist, understood.
“no u” Shut-up, chud. Go lick some boots.
