…what? I’m a communist, first of all, which immediately makes me on the left. Second of all, I want mass democratization of society, which is why the very concept of “authoritarianism” is so muddy to begin with.
Right wing authoritarianism has nothing to do with the US political divide. It is called that because the French parliament back in the day had the monarchists/authoritarians sitting on the right side of parliament, while the liberals/anti-authoritarians sat on the left side of parliament. Many communists are right wing authoritarians.
One trait of high authoritarian people is the capacity for cognitive dissonance. This can be accomplished in many ways. I know, for example, that your definition of “mass democratization” is very different from what I would consider mass democratization. You have clarified this when defending North Korea.
The concept isn’t very muddy at all. It’s not even necessarily a bad thing to be authoritarian. However, highly authoritarian people often do not like being known as such. Interestingly, they would like to be seen as average authoritarian, while both medium and low authoritarian people think that being low authoritarian is best.
The ones on the left were those progressive against the monarchy. Today, the left consists of those progressive against capitalism. Communists cannot be right wing. You continue to use “authouritarian” as though it has any meaning because of a strange fascination with it.
Yes, I understand that you would like to change definitions that you personally dislike. But for the rest of the world, communists can be, and often are, right wing authoritarians. Although the more colloquial term is “tankie”. And yes, the word authoritarian has a clearly defined meaning in academia.
How is what you are doing here not authoritarian by your own standard? You’re behaving poorly, acting in obvious bad faith, because someone went against your conventions, didnt submit to the authority of the concept of “authoritarianism” and you’re defending it aggressively.
Maybe if you actually answered my questions I would have an easier time understanding, because right now the definition you have given me could describe almost everyone. That’s why I wanted you to avoid just using variations of the word to begin with.
…what? I’m a communist, first of all, which immediately makes me on the left. Second of all, I want mass democratization of society, which is why the very concept of “authoritarianism” is so muddy to begin with.
Right wing authoritarianism has nothing to do with the US political divide. It is called that because the French parliament back in the day had the monarchists/authoritarians sitting on the right side of parliament, while the liberals/anti-authoritarians sat on the left side of parliament. Many communists are right wing authoritarians.
One trait of high authoritarian people is the capacity for cognitive dissonance. This can be accomplished in many ways. I know, for example, that your definition of “mass democratization” is very different from what I would consider mass democratization. You have clarified this when defending North Korea.
The concept isn’t very muddy at all. It’s not even necessarily a bad thing to be authoritarian. However, highly authoritarian people often do not like being known as such. Interestingly, they would like to be seen as average authoritarian, while both medium and low authoritarian people think that being low authoritarian is best.
The ones on the left were those progressive against the monarchy. Today, the left consists of those progressive against capitalism. Communists cannot be right wing. You continue to use “authouritarian” as though it has any meaning because of a strange fascination with it.
Yes, I understand that you would like to change definitions that you personally dislike. But for the rest of the world, communists can be, and often are, right wing authoritarians. Although the more colloquial term is “tankie”. And yes, the word authoritarian has a clearly defined meaning in academia.
No? Nobody thinks communists are right-wing, and the concept of “authoritarianism” is itself disputed.
In your mind, maybe.
Nope, I linked a reputable academic critiquing the very subject.
A critique of using the word totalitarian to describe specifically nazi Germany and the USSR. That is not the same thing.
No, it isn’t the same thing, but the critique holds for the concept of “totalitarianism” and “authoritarianism” themselves. Did you read it?
How is what you are doing here not authoritarian by your own standard? You’re behaving poorly, acting in obvious bad faith, because someone went against your conventions, didnt submit to the authority of the concept of “authoritarianism” and you’re defending it aggressively.
Maybe if you actually answered my questions I would have an easier time understanding, because right now the definition you have given me could describe almost everyone. That’s why I wanted you to avoid just using variations of the word to begin with.