Hidden authoritarianism in the Western society

[Linkey]

I have come to some conclusions concerning the politics in the West; however, I haven’t watched the western mass media very much, and I am asking the people here to comment.
As far as I can see, this is a typical situation: voters are asked to choose between several candidates, and Candidate A proposes some kind of rubbish because of which people don’t want to vote for him, but they don’t have much choice, since candidate B, while voicing a normal position on this issue, proposes some other rubbish on another issue. In fact, this means that is some kind of hidden collusion between these candidates.
In the United States there is a confrontation between the leftists who want those who work to give money to those who do not work, and religious rightists who ban abortions and so on.
It is interesting to speculate why Americans had chosen Trump instead of DeSantis and Haley. My questions are:
1) Which one of them has a tougher position on banning abortions - Trump or DeSantis?
2) Which one of them is more religious, and more “anti-Satanist” (religious Republicans have the idea that Democrats with their LGBT agenda are Satanists)?
3) Which one of them was planning more strictly to cancel the support of Ukraine?
I believe Haley voices popular foreign policy slogans, but promotes other crap like de-anonymization of social networks and “banning Russian trolls” in them. I think for this reason she also loosed the primary elections to, but maybe someone here know more.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

I have come to some conclusions concerning the politics in the West; however, I haven’t watched the western mass media very much, and I am asking the people here to comment.
As far as I can see, this is a typical situation: voters are asked to choose between several candidates, and Candidate A proposes some kind of rubbish because of which people don’t want to vote for him, but they don’t have much choice, since candidate B, while voicing a normal position on this issue, proposes some other rubbish on another issue. In fact, this means that is some kind of hidden collusion between these candidates.
In the United States there is a confrontation between the leftists who want those who work to give money to those who do not work, and religious rightists who ban abortions and so on.
It is interesting to speculate why Americans had chosen Trump instead of DeSantis and Haley. My questions are:
1) Which one of them has a tougher position on banning abortions - Trump or DeSantis?
2) Which one of them is more religious, and more “anti-Satanist” (religious Republicans have the idea that Democrats with their LGBT agenda are Satanists)?
3) Which one of them was planning more strictly to cancel the support of Ukraine?
I believe Haley voices popular foreign policy slogans, but promotes other crap like de-anonymization of social networks and “banning Russian trolls” in them. I think for this reason she also loosed the primary elections to, but maybe someone here know more.

I think it is sheer nonsense to imagine some kind of "hidden collusion" between political opponents in most Western democracies. There can be a few exceptions, in specific instances, generally for tactical reasons that everyone can see. One current example is the way Labour and the Liberal Democrats avoided campaigning against one another, in the run up to last night's UK general election, in order to ensure a resounding defeat for the Conservatives. And of course in countries with proportional representation there are often governments put together as coalitions of parties (e.g. The Netherlands). Or the current pooling of efforts in France to deny a majority to the RN next week. But these examples are not hidden collusion. They are out in the open for voters to see. 

 

  

 

[KJW]

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

de-anonymization of social networks

In Australia at the moment, there is discussion of forcing social network platforms to age-verify their participants to prevent children from being exposed to inappropriate content. But this seems to me like a backdoor way to require everyone to provide ID to use the internet.

We have a term for governments that wish to implement policies of this nature... we call them "nanny states".

 

 

Edited July 5 by KJW

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

Candidate A proposes some kind of rubbish because of which people don’t want to vote for him, but they don’t have much choice, since candidate B, while voicing a normal position on this issue, proposes some other rubbish on another issue. In fact, this means that is some kind of hidden collusion between these candidates.

Not necessary to collude. Voters quite often get enthusiastic about rubbish policies. 

And it doesn't matter which rubbish Republican candidate most loudly bruited which rubbish policy. They would all do something repressive that hurts poor people and benefits their sponsors. There are no

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

leftists who want those who work to give money to those who do not work,

only Democrats who want to ease the burden on people who work by taking back a little of the resources seized by people who do not work.

Nor are the right-wing Republican who enact repressive religious doctrine adhere to those doctrines; they simply cater to that faction for its political and financial support. Nobody's going to prevent the Russian trolls (all too real, btw - and thirty other countries run them, including China) through legislative measures - it can only be done by the owners of the social media. 

2 hours ago, KJW said:

We have a term for governments that wish to implement policies of this nature... we call them "nanny states".

Which beat the hell out of fascist states to live in.   

 

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have come to some conclusions concerning the politics in the West; however, I haven’t watched the western mass media very much, and I am asking the people here to comment.
As far as I can see, this is a typical situation: voters are asked to choose between several candidates, and Candidate A proposes some kind of rubbish because of which people don’t want to vote for him, but they don’t have much choice, since candidate B, while voicing a normal position on this issue, proposes some other rubbish on another issue. In fact, this means that is some kind of hidden collusion between these candidates.
In the United States there is a confrontation between the leftists who want those who work to give money to those who do not work, and religious rightists who ban abortions and so on.
It is interesting to speculate why Americans had chosen Trump instead of DeSantis and Haley. My questions are:
1) Which one of them has a tougher position on banning abortions - Trump or DeSantis?
2) Which one of them is more religious, and more “anti-Satanist” (religious Republicans have the idea that Democrats with their LGBT agenda are Satanists)?
3) Which one of them was planning more strictly to cancel the support of Ukraine?
I believe Haley voices popular foreign policy slogans, but promotes other crap like de-anonymization of social networks and “banning Russian trolls” in them. I think for this reason she also loosed the primary elections to, but maybe someone here know more.

It's not really hidden at all, in whatever society you choose to look; a politician wants authority... 🧐

[Linkey]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Voters quite often get enthusiastic about rubbish policies

I don't agree with this, and I have several arguments for my point of view. There are several examples where the people of a country had a referendum about some rubbish decision of their government, and they rejected this decision via voting.

One example is prohibiting abortions at US or Poland. Maybe I had seen some articles, that there had been polls in Poland where 75% of the polish people responded that they want a referendum concerning the topic of abortions ban. Have anybody heard about this?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

I don't agree with this, and I have several arguments for my point of view. There are several examples where the people of a country had a referendum about some rubbish decision of their government, and they rejected this decision via voting.

And how many bad ones did they endorse. Brexit springs to mind...

Of course, we may have very different definitions of rubbish.

[MSC]

I think the question in the title is great for a discussion but not in the way OP thinks. There is not so much a hidden lean toward authoritarianism in the world but it's external to politics. 

Ask yourself this; why is it in governance and politics we lean towards democracy and public co-ownership of the community, but in employment most of us work for businesses with top down power structures where the majority of employees have little to no say how the businesses is run despite having a vested financial security interest in seeing the business run well. 

I acknowledge the small existence of co-ops and public businesses yet I've not heard of much in the way of corporate referendums and democratic ship steering of business practices and policy. I also acknowledge it's not the same as governance but I still find it interesting to wonder how a business might be run more democratically from policy setting to pay structure. I'm not talking full on communism but I feel that companies that have a more team orientated egalitarian approach to profit sharing tend to have the most loyal employees and the most respected bosses. In the end, management is a job like every other job and like every other job in a business is essential so avoid anything even remotely resembling a pyramid as much as possible. Else from a certain perspective it just looks like management takes a cut of every individual under thems profit. 

If egalitarian pay was based on company success as opposed to determined by vocation, in conjunction with affordable non debt invoking education, you'd only see people being paid the same within the same company and employees would have much more reason to work together than play office politics to climb up ladders to chase money whether they are management suitable or not. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

in employment most of us work for businesses with top down power structures where the majority of employees have little to no say how the businesses is run despite having a vested financial security interest in seeing the business run well. 

It's in the doctrine of capitalism, just as monarchy is in the doctrine of Christianity. These things are not to be questioned - ever. 

[MSC]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

These things are not to be questioned - ever. 

I challenge you to explain why without making me want to question it more!

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, MSC said:

I think the question in the title is great for a discussion but not in the way OP thinks. There is not so much a hidden lean toward authoritarianism in the world but it's external to politics. 

Ask yourself this; why is it in governance and politics we lean towards democracy and public co-ownership of the community, but in employment most of us work for businesses with top down power structures where the majority of employees have little to no say how the businesses is run despite having a vested financial security interest in seeing the business run well. 

I acknowledge the small existence of co-ops and public businesses yet I've not heard of much in the way of corporate referendums and democratic ship steering of business practices and policy. I also acknowledge it's not the same as governance but I still find it interesting to wonder how a business might be run more democratically from policy setting to pay structure. I'm not talking full on communism but I feel that companies that have a more team orientated egalitarian approach to profit sharing tend to have the most loyal employees and the most respected bosses. In the end, management is a job like every other job and like every other job in a business is essential so avoid anything even remotely resembling a pyramid as much as possible. Else from a certain perspective it just looks like management takes a cut of every individual under thems profit. 

If egalitarian pay was based on company success as opposed to determined by vocation, in conjunction with affordable non debt invoking education, you'd only see people being paid the same within the same company and employees would have much more reason to work together than play office politics to climb up ladders to chase money whether they are management suitable or not. 

I think it's important to keep in mind how western democracies actually work. With the partial exception of the Swiss, they generally do not operate via referendum.  We choose representatives to govern for us, recognising that the issues of government require dedicated focus and understanding, which the populace is neither capable of nor sufficiently interested in. We thus delegate decision-making, to people we have decided to trust on the basis of what they have told us about how they will reach decisions. It's the only way that makes sense in today's complex world.

The board of directors of a company is in much the same position. The employees are often not able to see the whole picture, unless they do a hell of lot of extra work, outside their regular jobs. They would need to master disciplines other than their own (engineers would need to understand marketing and finance for example), to get in a position to make an informed reading of board papers, and understand the issues that the board concerns itself with. In most companies, there will be different interest groups in different parts of the business. Someone has to make hard decisions between options that favour one group or another.

While I agree that a well-run company will have channels by which to consult employees and get feedback (absence of which can lead to delusions and disaster), I really don't think the cooperative model is likely to work, other than in small and simple enterprises in which everyone can see and  understand the issues for themselves.  I do agree a flat management structure is to be encouraged, but here the achievable flatness will depend on the level of autonomy that can be given to employees, which will in turn depend on the level of education and understanding that can be expected of them. (It's not by coincidence that there are so many ranks in the army.)

 

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's in the doctrine of capitalism, just as monarchy is in the doctrine of Christianity. These things are not to be questioned - ever. 

Too facile by half.

[Linkey]

11 hours ago, MSC said:

Ask yourself this; why is it in governance and politics we lean towards democracy and public co-ownership of the community, but in employment most of us work for businesses with top down power structures where the majority of employees have little to no say how the businesses is run despite having a vested financial security interest in seeing the business run well. 

The key difference is that an owner of a firm can't make his employees his slaves, he can't rape their daughters and so on - the laws prohibit that. And an autocrat can do all that because he is over the laws.

Edited July 6 by Linkey

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

The key difference is that an owner of a firm can't make his employees his slaves, he can't rape their daughters and so on - the laws prohibit that. And an autocrat can do all that because he is over the laws.

That depends on how badly people need a job, modern slavery is a thing. You should watch or read "The grapes of wrath" by John Stienbeck, for some background on the subject.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

The key difference is that an owner of a firm can't make his employees his slaves, he can't rape their daughters and so on - the laws prohibit that. And an autocrat can do all that because he is over the laws.

Yes, the wealthy are always held accountable for their transgressions. </sarcasm>

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Too facile by half.

Nevertheless, vertical organization and top-down control is fundamental to both doctrines. There are very clear chains of command.

The harshness of the stratified system is somewhat mitigated by democratic governance, wherein the common people elect representatives to protect their interests. That's why laws are enacted against various kinds of abuse... but those protections can also be eroded by subsequent administrations.  Democracy in the west is less than two hundred years old, and it's already crumbling in everywhere.

10 hours ago, MSC said:

I challenge you to explain why without making me want to question it more!

Why which? Why was it set up way? Why does it work? Or why is it not to be questioned?

It's set up this way on the pattern of monarchy and aristocracy. The ruling class is clearly defined; it owns everything and controls everyone. The population does what it's told, from paying poll tax and working for whatever wages are offered to serving in the army. 

It works, because the arrangement makes for a stable, pyramid structure of society, until some major shift in the economy causes internal rearrangement of layers. But the new aristocracy - clerical, military or financial - soon settles everything back to the old arrangement with a change of cast.  

In the church, it's not to be questioned because it was so ordained by God, and you simply have to take it on faith. Questioning can have dire consequences. In capitalism, money talks; penury shuts up, if it doesn't want a police baton upside its head. 

[Linkey]

I have found a nice article on Medium:

 

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

 

Many people say that currently the rich people become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class dissapears. The authors of this article state that this trend started when Reagan decreased the taxes for the rich. And currently the mainstream mass media in the West keeps silent or lie about this problem - in particular both Fox News and CNN (especially CNN). This is explained by the fact that the 1% of richest people control the mass media and are motivated to keep this situation as long as possible. And this is the reason that the americans now choose between two candidates they don't like: smart people are not allowed to participate in the elections, because a smart president can become a threat fot these 1% richest.

[dimreepr]

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nevertheless, vertical organization and top-down control is fundamental to both doctrines. There are very clear chains of command.

The harshness of the stratified system is somewhat mitigated by democratic governance, wherein the common people elect representatives to protect their interests. That's why laws are enacted against various kinds of abuse... but those protections can also be eroded by subsequent administrations.  Democracy in the west is less than two hundred years old, and it's already crumbling in everywhere.

That's bc it was never a democracy, it's just a version of the previous autocrat's version of "the perfect authoritarian"; where as the perfect authoritarian is, 'all the people' all of the time...

49 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I have found a nice article on Medium:

 

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

 

Many people say that currently the rich people become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class dissapears. The authors of this article state that this trend started when Reagan decreased the taxes for the rich. And currently the mainstream mass media in the West keeps silent or lie about this problem - in particular both Fox News and CNN (especially CNN). This is explained by the fact that the 1% of richest people control the mass media and are motivated to keep this situation as long as possible. And this is the reason that the americans now choose between two candidates they don't like: smart people are not allowed to participate in the elections, because a smart president can become a threat fot these 1% richest.

Many people say that a medium can never disappear, bc it's stuck in the middle; medium's just aren't that smart... 🙄

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Many people say that a medium can never disappear, bc it's stuck in the middle;

It can't disappear, because the ruling class needs administrators, organizers, bean-counters, technical support, caregivers, pedagogues, expediters and enforcers.

Edited July 6 by Peterkin

[MSC]

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

think it's important to keep in mind how western democracies actually work. With the partial exception of the Swiss, they generally do not operate via referendum.  We choose representatives to govern for us, recognising that the issues of government require dedicated focus and understanding, which the populace is neither capable of nor sufficiently interested in. We thus delegate decision-making, to people we have decided to trust on the basis of what they have told us about how they will reach decisions. It's the only way that makes sense in today's complex world.

The board of directors of a company is in much the same position. The employees are often not able to see the whole picture, unless they do a hell of lot of extra work, outside their regular jobs. They would need to master disciplines other than their own (engineers would need to understand marketing and finance for example), to get in a position to make an informed reading of board papers, and understand the issues that the board concerns itself with. In most companies, there will be different interest groups in different parts of the business. Someone has to make hard decisions between options that favour one group or another.

Indeed businesses aren't all run homogenously. The reason I mentioned referendums having the potential to be used more in business settings is ease of use of technological aides for votes due to drastically smaller voter pools of employees. Also; representative democracy applied in a business setting would endanger the companies operation if it becomes a popularity contest instead of merit based promotions. I suppose my pitch here for an alternative model isn't a desire for total mimicry of the political machines of representative democracy, more like a mixing of different ideas so that the top down corporate power structure is diluted into something that works better for all employees. I mean not every policy but some. For example policies that can have a direct impact on how customers  interact with and treat employees in customer facing roles. One of my first jobs was customer service for a energy provider in the UK and I left that job because the company had refund policies which made it harder to make people whole when our system genuinely and verifiably overcharged them and if it ever got dealt with as a complaint, it was above my head even though I could see for myself we had made a mistake with meter readings. It's the sort of authority structure that is responsible for making the Chinese military an indecisive and corrupt mess, of nobody wanting to make decisions until time is wasted for a request to be allowed to act, be granted through a lengthy travel up the chain of command, even though you already have an idea of how to respond. 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Many people say that a medium can never disappear, bc it's stuck in the middle

Tell that to the shrinking 'middle class'.

For some 'authoritarianism' is becoming somewhat like 'racism'; if you can't find it, you're obviously not looking hard enough.

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

the issues of government require dedicated focus and understanding, which the populace is neither capable of nor sufficiently interested in

Ah, the 'elitism' that led to 'populism' ( as originally defined ).

[exchemist]

25 minutes ago, MSC said:

Indeed businesses aren't all run homogenously. The reason I mentioned referendums having the potential to be used more in business settings is ease of use of technological aides for votes due to drastically smaller voter pools of employees. Also; representative democracy applied in a business setting would endanger the companies operation if it becomes a popularity contest instead of merit based promotions. I suppose my pitch here for an alternative model isn't a desire for total mimicry of the political machines of representative democracy, more like a mixing of different ideas so that the top down corporate power structure is diluted into something that works better for all employees. I mean not every policy but some. For example policies that can have a direct impact on how customers  interact with and treat employees in customer facing roles. One of my first jobs was customer service for a energy provider in the UK and I left that job because the company had refund policies which made it harder to make people whole when our system genuinely and verifiably overcharged them and if it ever got dealt with as a complaint, it was above my head even though I could see for myself we had made a mistake with meter readings. It's the sort of authority structure that is responsible for making the Chinese military an indecisive and corrupt mess, of nobody wanting to make decisions until time is wasted for a request to be allowed to act, be granted through a lengthy travel up the chain of command, even though you already have an idea of how to respond. 

Yes indeed effective companies have ways of getting feedback from the front line. The area you mention has a long way to go, it seems.  Since the Covid crisis it feels as if a lot of companies have cut back on customer service - one seems to get stuck in voicejail for ages and then the wazzock at the other end has no idea what you are talking about.  

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Tell that to the shrinking 'middle class'.

For some 'authoritarianism' is becoming somewhat like 'racism'; if you can't find it, you're obviously not looking hard enough.

Ah, the 'elitism' that led to 'populism' ( as originally defined ).

Not at all. It is just common sense and was accepted for decades, until we got a recent streak of politicians promising easy, populist answers to difficult problems, courtesy of the internet turbocharging stupid attitudes. Immigration in the UK is a current classic. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It can't disappear, because the ruling class needs administrators, organizers, bean-counters, technical support, caregivers, pedagogues, expediters and enforcers.

 

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Tell that to the shrinking 'middle class'.

For some 'authoritarianism' is becoming somewhat like 'racism'; if you can't find it, you're obviously not looking hard enough.

Well that joke fell flat on it's face... 😣

We have to accept authority at every level of social interaction, not from every level of social ability; the hidden authoritarian that we face, in our enlightened modern age, is a little girl thats smart enough to know that a quick flash of cleavage is a way to be an influencer and have everyone like it; well, everyone that counts.

Edited July 7 by dimreepr

[MSC]

22 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes indeed effective companies have ways of getting feedback from the front line. The area you mention has a long way to go, it seems.  Since the Covid crisis it feels as if a lot of companies have cut back on customer service - one seems to get stuck in voicejail for ages and then the wazzock at the other end has no idea what you are talking about

And it's only going to get worse, for now at least you can tell the wazzock at the other end is human. In a few years? Who knows. 

On 7/6/2024 at 9:23 AM, swansont said:

Yes, the wealthy are always held accountable for their transgressions. </sarcasm>

When writing a little, says a lot. +1

You're absolutely right of course. Holding the wealthy or the powerful accountable is very difficult and even when it's clear laws have been broken. Take discrimination laws for example; as it stands the only people in a position to sue for unjustifiable discrimination in the area of employment law surrounding hiring, are individuals who already are independently wealthy enough to take an employer to court. If you are unjustifiably discriminated against for say just working a register in a store and need to keep looking, even if you got rejected from a job because the hiring manager or boss hates your skin tone or is creepily only looking for timid female employees, there really isn't much you can do in a legal system that is hostile toward pro se advocates vs companies with lawyers on retainer just for this. Meanwhile you'd still need to look for a job to make ends meet. Not to mention the majority of resources to help individuals find legal aid, qre geared towards unfair firing practices not hiring practices. 

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the many many other ways the rich and powerful avoid accountability for both illegal acts and legal but unfair acts. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, MSC said:

And it's only going to get worse, for now at least you can tell the wazzock at the other end is human. In a few years? Who knows. 

When writing a little, says a lot. +1

You're absolutely right of course. Holding the wealthy or the powerful accountable is very difficult and even when it's clear laws have been broken. Take discrimination laws for example; as it stands the only people in a position to sue for unjustifiable discrimination in the area of employment law surrounding hiring, are individuals who already are independently wealthy enough to take an employer to court. If you are unjustifiably discriminated against for say just working a register in a store and need to keep looking, even if you got rejected from a job because the hiring manager or boss hates your skin tone or is creepily only looking for timid female employees, there really isn't much you can do in a legal system that is hostile toward pro se advocates vs companies with lawyers on retainer just for this. Meanwhile you'd still need to look for a job to make ends meet. Not to mention the majority of resources to help individuals find legal aid, qre geared towards unfair firing practices not hiring practices. 

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the many many other ways the rich and powerful avoid accountability for both illegal acts and legal but unfair acts. 

The hidden authoritarian is the money we all seek, the spectrum of us runs from, 'I only want enough to buy what I actually need' through 'I only want enough to buy the stuff I think I need' and 'I only want enough to ensure my future' to 'I want enough to win and be declared "champion Industrious mouse in the whole universe"; which kinda makes most of us a bit pathetic.

That's the problem with identifying the bad guy's, even politicians and saints are evenly distributed along that spectrum, that's why capitalism slips under the radar of authoritarianism. 

Edited July 8 by dimreepr

[MigL]

I hope you guys don't take it as an insult when I call you 'liberals', but why is it 'liberals' seem to have a penchant for re-defining words to suit an agenda ?

Authoritarianism has a specific meaning; imposing your will and wants on others.
Capitalism used to mean the attempt to better oneself, usually through the gain of resources.

Now, since D Trump has made authoritarianism the new 'boogey-man catchword for everything bad' people are starting to sweep everything they personally dislike under its ever growing rug.

My earlier post was not meant as a joke, Dim.
Any society has to have an element of capitalism, but it needs to be tempered with elements of socialism.
The hard part is deciding how much of each to incorporate into our society, as too much of either one will be bad.

When you take it for its original meaning 'populism' is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, as it means all the people's choice, not the imposed will and wants of the elite few.
Now the wealthy, or capitalists, want to impose their will and wants over the rest of the people so they must be authoritarian. Somehow, even if they want to start new businesses, with their resources, which will provide jobs for the unemployed, is now seen as a bad thing because it will also result in gains for the capitalist, and so must be authoritarianism ?
But when people demand more civil rights, better social benefits, more social money spent in their neighborhoods, etc. that is NOT imposing your will and wants on others because we recognize it as a good thing, and so is not authoritarianism ?