Hidden authoritarianism in the Western society

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

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 ?

Conservative liberalism - Wikipedia

Depends on the date/etymology/agenda... 😉

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Any society has to have an element of capitalism, but it needs to be tempered with elements of socialism.

In the old day's that was called <insert religion>... 😉

Edited July 8 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

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 ?

Almost as puzzling as why do conservatives use "liberal" as a pejorative description of a vast range of progressive/Left policy ideas they don't like.  Liberalism is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

Your definition of authoritarian doesn't sound like the one I have heard or used, or representative of how progressives use the term.  

The use I am familiar with, and thought was agreed upon, is:

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.  Probably a near synonym of an authoritarian leader would be an autocrat or dictator.  So, I wouldn't care to characterize someone asking for equal rights before the law as being authoritarian or an imposition of one's own will on others.  

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Almost as puzzling as why do conservatives use "liberal" as a pejorative description of a vast range of progressive/Left policy ideas they don't like.

It’s Pavlov.

You take some description and repeatedly equate it with bad, evil things, so you get the response just by dropping the word. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. CRT. DEI. Woke. Odds are excellent that the ones salivating can’t define the terms. They just “know” it’s something bad.

[MigL]

I have no use for labels myself , and only used the term because some people self-label themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives'.
And note I did say "hope you're not offended ...", but sure enough, some of you seem to be.

My post wasn't meant to be about labels, but how words change to reflect an agenda.
Populism used to mean the will of all people, or what we commonly call democracy, and that kept authoritarianism , the will of an elite few, or despotism, in check.
Now populism, the will of all people has bad name also, leaving me thoroughly confused as what  agenda the people who re-purpose these terms actually want.

You can go with the M-W dictionary definition , but we all know what they actually mean; everyone has a say regarding their governance, or, just the few who are/consider themselves better than ' the basket of deplorables'.
Or, after the re-purposing of the 'isms', they now mean mob rule, or dictatorship.

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

I disagree with the definitions, especially in this context. In Authoritarianism imposing will on others is often a consequence, but is not the definition in the political sense (which I assume is the context). Authoritarianism in a political system refers to system in which strong central powers by maintain their power by limiting elements of pluralism.

Capitalism has nothing to do with bettering oneself as such. It minimally just refers to an economic system characterized by private ownership of means of production which is geared to maximize profit. Again, there are consequences of such systems, such as accumulation of wealth (and in an unfettered system it means that the means of production will inevitably accumulate in few hands). But the consequences of definition are not how the system is being defined. Capitalism doesn't necessary lead to authoritarianism. However, wealth relates to power and folks, who effectively have the wealth of small nation, indubitably have great power. Now, if they somehow abstain from the political arena, it might be less problematic. Likewise, if they have a system in place to constrain their influence. But if they wield it unchecked and influence media, politicians, academia and so on, then again we have concentration of power, which goes towards authoritarianism.

  

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Populism used to mean the will of all people, or what we commonly call democracy, and that kept authoritarianism , the will of an elite few, or despotism, in check.

So populism is an interesting term as on its face it may be what you said, but there is more to it, when we look at in which contexts it is being used and what it describes in those contexts. Specifically, populism was to my knowledge never a clearly defined term. The one point that is characteristic for most uses of populism is an anti-elite (and often anti-establishment) use. The issue there, of course, that those claiming to be anti-elite frequently are part of the very same.

 

However, I don't think that there was ever a clear foundational meaning. Specifically, it was rarely used in the same way groups would consider themselves "socialist", "conservative" or otherwise. It is only rather recently where group define it the way you do, i.e. following the will of the people (whatever it might mean) and I think it is mostly because media conflate populism with demagoguery and as a consequence, demagogues who are called populists are now claiming to be follow the fill of the people, ironically often by using authoritarian tactics.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

However, I don't think that there was ever a clear foundational meaning. Specifically, it was rarely used in the same way groups would consider themselves "socialist", "conservative" or otherwise. It is only rather recently where group define it the way you do, i.e. following the will of the people (whatever it might mean) and I think it is mostly because media conflate populism with demagoguery and as a consequence, demagogues who are called populists are now claiming to be follow the fill of the people, ironically often by using authoritarian tactics.

The term seems to be applied mainly to the idea of the common people, or "we the people" as American sloganeers would have it. The idea, all by itself, is pitted against an elitist establishment, which is depicted as a multiform control system, manipulated by overeducated liberals (often of a specific stated or implied ethnicity), imposing its constraints on all the red-blooded, two-fisted, freedom-loving, God-fearing people, and giving all the power to bureaucrats and academics. Resentment against that elite is nurtured with disinformation and public tantrums (or rallies), where a (?) charismatic, or anyway, compelling speaker shouts at the mob about all the wrongs they suffer at the hands of the elite, which is soft on crime, lets dark-skinned immigrants take your jobs, demands that you be civil to groups you despise, and is coming for your guns, pickup trucks and cattle. (Or whatever version is relevant to the country and period.) 

The gist is that 'we the people' need a Strong Man to give us back a glory and power we never actually had. in return, he gives us permission to commit violence against everyone we resent.

Edited July 8 by Peterkin

[MigL]

So, because of D Trump, populism, or the will of the people which we used to call democracy, has been redefined to this

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

demagogues who are called populists are now claiming to be follow the will of the people, ironically often by using authoritarian tactics

 

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, because of D Trump, populism, or the will of the people which we used to call democracy, has been redefined to this

 

No, it has nothing to do with Trump. The idea of calling groups populists predates that for a very long time. And the common part is that folks were railing against an elite. Specifically, if they use prejudice and fear to make their point. Also, the repetition that populism just means the will of people is just not true, even if you repeat it once more. Especially in the past (around 19th century) there have been populist movements that were associated with development of democracy (largely, because ideas related to democracy were evolving), but that has not been true at least since the 20th century (where different forms of populism across the political spectrum were associated with the creation/strengthening of authoritarian structures and heck, in a way that might have been what people wanted, but it clearly did not further democracy).

From Wiki:

Quote

Although frequently used by historians, social scientists, and political commentators, the term [populism] is exceptionally vague and refers in different contexts to a bewildering variety of phenomena.

Margaret Canovan, 1981^[8]

 

As noted, populists was never a well-defined term, but using the simplest definition of anti-elite one could claim that two examples of populism are:

- demanding tax increase on the ultra-wealthy to finance social programs and

- calling for deportation of citizens with immigration backgrounds to combat crime.

However, at least theoretically the former could (doesn't mean that they do) provide economic calculations showing how that might work. Conversely, the second example is based on prejudice and fear-mongering because it is not based on actual data/research and also would have issues of legality. As such, the latter could be considered demagoguery.

 

 

[MSC]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, because of D Trump, populism, or the will of the people which we used to call democracy, has been redefined to this

 

I'm kind of with you in this one MigL and a few of your most recent comments have seemed to hit a note with me. Not everything but a lot. I also get what Charony is saying, that the accumulation of capital in order to leverage authority through corporate lobbying/Bribery is a strategy of would be authoritarians. For me it's a case of not all capitalists lean authoritarian but lot's of money in the hands of a power hungry few, in a system that is greased primarily by money, is a recipe for a slow crawl toward dictatorship with an ever weakening democracy. Our reliance on money to make the entire apparatus of government and society to work, makes us weak as a species. 

Now, I'm not arguing for the abolition of capitalism, far from it. It does need to stop being put on a pedestal however, when the current structure has upper management capitalising on their workers/colleagues lack of power through capital, to take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie for themselves while lobbying against raising the minimum wage, fighting against living wage policies or union busting. 

As to the points of yours I do agree with; populism. I also find that confusing. Especially with project 2025 out there. What about Trumps platform is popular? It really is a poorly defined word that could have a few uses depending on the context but it seems to me that it's a term that ended up getting used because Trump said he is popular and fights for the people... when in reality most people think he's horrible and only works for himself.

Or is populism now something to do with saying you'll give people exactly what they are asking for (in this case Trumps base) with overly simplistic solutions that your base can understand even though the issue is far more complex than the easy fix the public thinks is possible? Like "Build a wall". 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

So, because of D Trump, populism, or the will of the people which we used to call democracy, has been redefined to this

 

It was never a well-defined word. Used in modern politics, it's the will of some of the people - the loudest and most easily swayed by shallow ideas, hollow promises, symbols, slogans, tribalim and shouting.

You can still call democracy democracy.

And the degradation of democracy is not due to Donald Trump. All he's done is set himself up as the latest loudest shouter. The use of 'populist' tactics was never far from the surface, but it generally had been contained for a long time by the constitution, the supreme Court, reasonably honest election oversight and responsible news reporting. As those eroded, the slide of American politics to where a puny figure like Trump could climb on it. I put the start of the visible slide at the 1972 Nixon campaign; then came Gingrich and Wallace. Etc.   

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, MSC said:

As to the points of yours I do agree with; populism. I also find that confusing. Especially with project 2025 out there. What about Trumps platform is popular? It really is a poorly defined word that could have a few uses depending on the context but it seems to me that it's a term that ended up getting used because Trump said he is popular and fights for the people... when in reality most people think he's horrible and only works for himself.

I think this is the danger of a word that seems to be clear what in what it means, but actually isn't. It is not necessarily related to something that might or might not be popular. Rather it is the overarching anti-elite messaging (as if he wasn't rich and part of the elite himself). The populism part is really that he claims to represent the unheard masses and to rise up against... someone. Probably common sense, for the most part. The platform itself does not need to be popular in the broadest sense (though obviously, it has to resonate with someone).

But it is not same as just supporting things that the majority of people want (e.g. common sense gun laws, abortion rights, higher salary for teachers etc.). And again, the misunderstanding is understandable, but just not what the term more commonly refers to (exception for a fairly narrow time in the long past).

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The use of 'populist' tactics was never far from the surface, but it generally had been contained for a long time by the constitution, the supreme Court, reasonably honest election oversight and responsible news reporting. As those eroded, the slide of American politics to where a puny figure like Trump could climb on it. I put the start of the visible slide at the 1972 Nixon campaign; then came Gingrich and Wallace. Etc.   

Populism tends to come out of the tool box in times of crisis, as an important factor is not stating things that are popular, but rather promising to fix things that are not. It was less about being for something, but rather against. And these promises are usually vacuous. Populists/demagogues were fueled in Europe due to the immigrant crisis. What these group did was to whip up fears (and data be damned) and promised to take care of it somehow. Including deporting folks who did not look like them.

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Populism tends to come out of the tool box in times of crisis, as an important factor is not stating things that are popular, but rather promising to fix things that are not.

In Nixon's time, one of those 'wrong' things was the process of desegregation in the long, deep wake of the Civil Rights movement. His strategists - notably Roger Stone, who went on to advise other Republican candidates - knew just which fears to exploit. The fear of losing majority privilege and the fear of crime and drugs (on which he declared war - a terrific excuse to bulk up law enforcement, put a whole lot of young people in jail and off the voters' list, incidentally turning a generation off political participation). Nixon claimed to speak for "the silent majority". In his campaign, that unregarded, long-suffering America was depicted as law-abiding middle class taxpayers, who were burdened with supporting an ungrateful underclass of wastrels and fallen women. He was also very publicly associated with superstar Billy Graham. His successors built on that religious foundation and formed an abiding alliance with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority - repressive Christian groups seeking political power over their fellow citizens. In that sense, the promise to give back something that had been taken away was true: no more separation of church and state. The NRA came on board in the 70's, as well.

Those unholy alliances, coupled with an upsurge in dedicated right-wing broadcasting, and a massive increase in financial support by interest groups with plenty of funds, and a few egregious Supreme Court decisions, the party kept formulating more pro-business, anti-union, militaristic policies, and cut public services, all in the name of individual liberty. They - that is, a few ruthless and influential men in the party - alienated or deliberately pushed out moderate, thoughtful conservatives, and the quality of candidates steadily declined - until the Grand Old Party was left with the sorry spectacle we see today.           

Edited July 9 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

The thing about a hidden 'ism is, most of the population can't see it bc they don't want too and that's why it's insidiously hidden in plane sight.

The player's aren't bad people, they're just bad actor's; and we're all happy to suspend reality, to see what happens next...

 

[MigL]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The thing about a hidden 'ism is, most of the population can't see it bc they don't want too and that's why it's insidiously hidden in plane sight.

But that's not always the only option.
Sometimes, they don't see it because its not there.

( we just discussed how these terms aren't clearly defined; authoritarianism to you, is not to someone else )

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

But that's not always the only option.
Sometimes, they don't see it because its not there.

( we just discussed how these terms aren't clearly defined; authoritarianism to you, is not to someone else )

Indeed, the perfect authoritarian thinks for everyone and everyone's happy about it, as in my previous mention of "a brave new world".

But however we define that particular ism, it's always there; but sometimes it's well enough hidden that we don't want to see it, even when someone lifts up the curtain to reveal the wizard of Oz. 

 

[dimreepr]

Google fits the bill, rather too well...

[CharonY]

Folks that are afraid are often in favor of authoritarianism, and more specifically, to  autocracy (consolidation of power into a person). The idea of a great man as savior is unfortunately deeply ingrained in most folks. Whenever things are perceived to get tough (regardless whether it is really the case or not) these tendencies get a severe boost. While there was  trend of world-wide democratization (which was linked to some degree to trade and cultural exchange), there is always the tendency to backslide. In Europe, authoritarian groups have been on the rise for a while and have taken over is some countries. So even in well-established liberal democracies, there are efforts to erode certain rights (making them closer to become electoral democracies).

Even looking at things from a high level we do see these trends, where liberal democracies have declined since the the height of liberal democracies in the 2010s with movement toward the authoritarian axes- (liberal democracy-electoral democracy-electoral autocracy-closed autocracies). Thus somethings started to happen around 2010 that seems to make matters worse. Many of the mechanisms are therefore not unique to the US, though there is a relationship between neoliberalism and authoritarianism. The interesting bit is that most folks might think that neoliberalism with all its emphasis on free-market and individual liberty and focusing on economic growth should in fact be more associated with ideas of freedom. Yet in reality, the opposite happened.

Essentially, and perhaps paradoxically, neoliberalism with all its demands for austerity and deregulation, ultimately sees the state as a means to re-shape society along market-driven lines. However, this leads to fracturing of social cohesion (a source of "crisis" in the Marxist lingo) which required at the same time authoritarian tendencies to maintain the cohesion. In Europe, this is often happening by drawing ethnic lines (see Hungary), for example. A similar tactic is used by the GOP in the US, to blame immigrants (the use of illegal is really optional) and so on.

One of crises was 2007 and the fallout was investigated rather thoroughly through that lens:

Quote

This article returns to Marxist commentaries during a previous period characterized by profound contradictions and conflict—especially the writings of Nicos Poulantzas and Stuart Hall on authoritarian statism/populism from the late 1970s to the 1980s—in order to make sense of the present era. The article argues that we are witnessing the rise of authoritarian neoliberalism, which is rooted in the reconfiguring of the state into a less democratic entity through constitutional and legal changes that seek to insulate it from social and political conflict. The apparent strengthening of the state simultaneously entails its growing fragility, for it is becoming an increasingly direct target of a range of popular struggles, demands, and discontent by way of the pressures emanating from this strengthening. A primary reference point for the article is a notable casualty of the post-2007 crisis, European social democracy, but the implications for radical politics more broadly are also considered.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2013.843250

Quote

In the contemporary Neoliberal world order, the issues that define the age-old debate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy have become more nuanced and critical. In the 21st C, the democracy-capitalism conundrum that Joseph Schumpeter grappled with in the 20th century (Schumpeter, 2008) has become a debate about the relationship between two paradigmatic processes referred to as “neoliberal democracy” and “authoritarian neoliberalism”. Using the two concepts to frame the discussion, the chapter explores five dimensions that shape the relationship between capitalism and democracy reflected around the world in practice in the contemporary global world order. First is the authoritarian regime that strategically leverages neoliberal globalism to achieve newly industrializing development. A second strand stems from transitioning democracies - considered low intensity democracies - that are seen to impose neoliberal economic regimes on their citizens to sustain development goals. In the least developed regions of the world, low intensity neoliberal democracies emerge as choiceless democracies imposed by international finance institutions on aid recipient developing world countries; this presents a third relationship. A fourth relationship resists neoliberalism through progressive populist regimes while a fifth occurs primarily among Western liberal democracies where the crisis of neoliberalism produces the crisis of liberal democracy. We apply all five models to case events that illustrate contemporary political-economic transformations in the UK, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the US, and that examine democratic impact, change, and transformation. The chapter concludes that authoritarian neoliberalism (Bruff, 2013, 2019) has emerged as a dominant regime type around the world whose impact has been to increasingly destabilize liberal democracy in the West and to stunt the substantive consolidation of democracy in the Global South.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112659.00013

Also:

https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

Folks that are afraid are often in favor of authoritarianism, and more specifically, to  autocracy (consolidation of power into a person). The idea of a great man as savior is unfortunately deeply ingrained in most folks. Whenever things are perceived to get tough (regardless whether it is really the case or not) these tendencies get a severe boost. While there was  trend of world-wide democratization (which was linked to some degree to trade and cultural exchange), there is always the tendency to backslide. In Europe, authoritarian groups have been on the rise for a while and have taken over is some countries. So even in well-established liberal democracies, there are efforts to erode certain rights (making them closer to become electoral democracies).

Fear in this case is very much an age related issue, with the banner 'it was better back in the old day's where I felt safe'. 

The balance is wrong and the pendulum is gathering speed towards the inevitable extreme/zenith, and when the young find out 'they're gonna be pissed'.