255
Entry #1: the entire .ml user base
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2026
255 points (75.8% liked)
Political Memes
12590 readers
3761 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Eh, I think there's a decent amount of intellectual overlap between authoritarian right wingers and authoritarian left wingers. They will both prioritize state control over people.
Define "authoritarian" without using variations of the word or variations of "totalitarian".
Three criteria:
You messed up the "don't use variations of the word" step.
What do you mean by
"Established authorities" and
"conventionalism"?
How does a "high degree" of submission look different from a "low degree"?
What constitutes "aggressive" defence in relation to regular defence and why is it definitionally authoritarian to defend something "aggressively"?
I don't think you understand the word totalitarian or it's variations. You probably understand authoritarianism, but you have a vested interest in not understanding it.
Try doing some reading, authoritarian personality is well studied.
theauthoritarians.org
As a counter, I think you should consider reading Towards a Critique of the Category of "Totalitarianism." Losurdo touches on much of the problems with theories of "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism."
Interesting read, thanks.
@BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
Hey, here's a textbook example of the second bullet point I listed above: aggressive defense of what are considered the established authorities.
I provided reading on the psychological profile of an authoritarian individual, whether they be followers or leaders. Cow here immediately jumped in with an essay critiquing Arendt, who is neither here nor there. Matter of fact, Altemeyer focuses on Canadian and American authoritarians, because he was a Canadian psychologist. I don't think he even mentions the Soviet union once in his book.
I don't know if cow here even took the time to understand that I was talking about individual psychology before defending the state. Aggressive defense of established authority.
"Aggressive defense?" I linked an article questioning the very concept of "totalitarianism," and said that much of the critique could be applied to the idea of "authoritarianism." Did you read the article? The point isn't the Soviet Union, the point is the very concept of "authoritarianism" and what that does or does not mean.
Correct. You linked a critique of the use of the word "authoritarianism" in the context of states.
Except you did that in response to authoritarianism being used in the context of an individual personality trait.
See why I consider you a statist authoritarian? You defend state power out of context.
The entire context of the conversation is about how the word itself is applied. I do defend the ability of the working class to hold and wield state power, and I reject liberal conceptions of authority as idealist.
...yes. So you are a statist who would likely score fairly high on the right wing authoritarian scale.
...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?
I did.
Once again, you are conflating theory of state with individual choice.
Which also makes evident that you did not do the reading I suggested. C'est la vie.
I am not confusing it, the very concept of "authoritarianism" is suspect, both in the way you define it and in the coloquial sense.
Fine. Let's not call it authoritarianism. Let's call it aboritarianism,
Same three criteria, different word. Happy?
Not really. You're making a rather pseudoscientific analysis of personalities to arbitrarily define them as "spooky word." What's the material base of "aboritarianism?" What's the practical application of categorizing people like this? It isn't a mental disorder, and it isn't genetic, and is very loose and arbitrary.
Common personality traits and similar behaviors dictated by said traits.
There is no such thing as "authoritarian personality disorder" or anything of the sort. Trying to grasp at straws to find a connection between these things isn't science, it's concocting a strawman by which to hurl at people you want to be seen by others as having the characteristics of the strawman.
No there is not. There is, however, a common series of behaviors, thought processes, and resulting social tendencies.
It's worth understanding those. It helps explain people's behavior.
Again, if you had the intellectual curiosity to read, like I did with your critique of Arendt, then you'd probably understand it. But as I said before, it's hard to make someone understand something they have a vested interest in not understanding.
Guess I can't expect much from a tankie.
I did engage with your work. Again, it's pseudoscience.
This is arbitrary. "High degree" isn't defined, and "submission" can be confused with agreement. If I agree with someone, or support their actions, that doesn't say anything about an underlying personality type.
"Aggressive" is doing heavy lifting here. Say I support the Palestinian movement, and I go to great lengths to defend their positions and actions. This, again, is not an underlying personality trait, it isn't based on genetics, it's just strongly supporting the liberation of a group of people and those who are leading that movement, the "established authorities." It's called having principles.
I'm a communist, much of my life is spent organizing directly against the established rules, traditions, and expectations of the society I live in. I support democratic centralism as a strategic tool, which is highly unconventional for how I was raised and where I live. Communism in general is a growing but fringe movement in the west.
None of this applies to me, but you decided to fit me into a box based on pure pseudoscience. None of what you said is useful, it does not predict behavior, it's little more then phrenology, even less useful than MBTI.
Further, you never established where the material base of this supposed personality type is. Genetics? Upbringing? Without a consistent base, then we cannot actually use it to predict anything. It's simply correlation if anything.
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.
Your action shere seems quite authoritarian by your own definition.
Cowbee critiqued the concept of authoritarianism - an established authority. The critique goes against your conventions. And you're lashing out instead of engaging civilly and in good faith.
Alright so "agressive defence of established authorities" includes providing literature to understand the concept youre discussing? How is this agressive and what established authority is being defended? The general concept of "the state"?
If "providing reading material to further understanding" in any context related to the mere concept of "the state" is enough, then by your own definition you are an authoritarian.
No, I understand it, which is why I am asking you to define it. Because any actual definition is one that is either so broad as to describe all states (like yours does) or so specific as to be redundant because one could just say the name of the specific state or institution one was thinking of.
This. I was going to ask if MAGA are dangerous.
Information bubbles are dangerous. Tribalism is dangerous.
The antidotes are inclusivity and critical thinking
Right, and you're definitely not in any sort of echo chamber.