Didn't the revolutionary minority and the unrevolutionary majority get switched somewhere in this OP about the Trumpish appeal of authoritarian leaders? :)

But that was a funny analysis of Trump - particularly in highlighting his disgust of womanly secretions. There has to be something deeply wrong about a guy so intolerant of the unruly that he has to glue down his hair.

Did the article say Trump would be bold or simply rash and petulant? In truth, the summary I thought was that Trump is an empty narcissistic shell of a person constructed on the competitive notion of "the deal".

So he has internalised the idea that negotiations in life are about putting up a tough front. But then you need experts to help you out because you don't actually know much, and you might need to compromise once around the table, so every principle becomes flexible.

So the overall impression is that he would be a president whose prime goal was always to come out of every situation looking good - the winner in the deal - whatever unprincipled thing it took.

Donald Trump arouses many worries. One of mine is that he would be a very unpredictable loose cannon rolling around the White House -- one that could go off (be fired!) at a very inopportune moment with very unfortunate consequences. Aside from that, it is very difficult to predict what actual policies Trump might pursue.

At the very least I would expect gifts for the rich and hard work and frugality for the rest of us.

Trump would be way too "interesting". Presidents should not be carnival side shows. They can be inspiring, but otherwise they should be boring and efficient.

I loathed Nixon; I expect I shall also loathe Trump as president. I hope to god that it won't be necessary.

It seems like you're thinking through a lot of questions and I find it hard to reply even though the topic interests me.

I can say I agree to these two separately:

1. Tolerance can be wrong -- it is circumstantially good, not universally good.
2. Revolutionary minorities can be right to act.


I don't know the relation between these, though ,or how one follows from the other, or what-not.

Didn't the revolutionary minority and the unrevolutionary majority get switched somewhere in this OP about the Trumpish appeal of authoritarian leaders? — apokrisis

Yea, but if you think about it, it doesn't matter. The basic form is:I'm right and therefore I should liberate you from your error.

It's not that I want to be a dictator, it's that I have an obligation to humanity to take over the world and ram my opinion down its throat. It's not leftist or rightist. It's not minority or majority.

Do you agree? If so, I think I understand why you think that way. If you disagree, what's your reasoning?

I expect I shall also loathe Trump as president. I hope to god that it won't be necessary. — Bitter Crank

Actually, I think it would be pretty funny to have Trump as president. I don't think he's going to win, though.

It seems like you're thinking through a lot of questions and I find it hard to reply even though the topic interests me. — Moliere

OK.

I find this notion mingling with Chomsky's fundamental outlook: that knowledge of the way we should live is innate. This is a rejection of relativism. It follows from this that politics in general is just folly. What the world needs is more people who have authoritarian personalities. — Mongrel

It doesn't follow at all. Being authoritarian does not entail being right. Every politico from left to right thinks they are right, and they can't all be.

I will agree with Chomsky that we all know what it takes to live together - taking care of those in need, justice, tolerance, and so on. But this being the case, it should be possible to persuade people to agree to take the right decisions to the extent that they are not governed by fear, rigid tradition, propaganda etc, which divide the individual against themselves. And these are the tools of the authoritarian par excellence.

So politics is folly to just that extent that it allows, nay demands, authoritarianism. The notion of serving in government is due for revival as more than a rhetorical fiction; as an antidote to just that righteous certainty that justifies the commander in being a bully.

I will agree with Chomsky that we all know what it takes to live together - taking care of those in need, justice, tolerance, and so on. But this being the case, it should be possible to persuade people to agree to take the right decisions to the extent that they are not governed by fear, rigid tradition, propaganda etc, which divide the individual against themselves. And these are the tools of the authoritarian par excellence. — unenlightened

Yes, most of us know those things, at least deep down, but there are differences of opinion in terms of degree and selectiveness, e.g. taking care of those most in need (while others deemed less deserving can fend for themselves), tolerant of some but not others, as well as starkly contrasting notions of things such as justice.

I don't think that blame can be placed solely on the influences of external factors such as propaganda. Some people are just more self-interested, more judgemental, and so on, than others.

Heh. Sorry. I hope that is not a damper to conversation. I'll try to explain myself better.

On one hand I have thoughts about authoritarianism, which I tend to think of as the negative of libertarianism -- not in the sense of the American libertarian party, but in the historical view where the term originated within anarchist circles (who, to put that into perspective, are explicitly anti-capitalist).

Then there's the notion of tolerance, which doesn't necessarily go along with libertarianism even if we take it to be the only value that matters (who are intolerant when the values of libertarianism are violeted). But that might just be because I think of Authoritarianism along a spectrum and as the opposite of libertarianism.

Even so -- it seems to me that there's a difference between authoritarianism and conviction, which I would say is the counter to tolerance. We should be tolerant of any form of art, even if it seems "obscene", but we should not be tolerant of white supremacy -- we should have a conviction that white supremacy is wrong, and to oppose it is right, even if we happen to be in the minority, just as we should have a conviction that art should be open to all kinds of expression.

So I would say that, rather than praising authoritarianism because this is what people who know what is right do, that there's a negotiation which takes place between competing values, but in having conviction we can't abandon either one. We have to negotiate within particular circumstances.If we were to act out of tolerance when we're talking about some core values of our political outlook then, yes, that would be a political failing. It may be easier to say that this or that value takes precedence now, but it wouldn't be a conviction in that case.



Also, to talk about revolutionary minorities -- is it authoritarian to be in the minority? If so then every political persuasion, including libertarian, is authoritarian, because whether you be revolutionary or middle-of-the-road, the number of active people in a political group is always vastly smaller than the number of people within a country. We can talk about the situation of a small group of people, but revolutionaries-- like any political group -- don't have a lever to pull. They have to be appealing to people in some measure whatever methods they might use to overturn who is in power. Democratic forces like popular appeal are a factor even in formally non-democratic countries. So I suppose I'd just question both 1. how a minority is figured, and 2. the scenario of a vanguard forcing their way of life on everyone through an army. Not that it couldn't happen, mind, but I'm wondering how much of the scenario is just built out of self-doubt when, if we were actually building a revolution, we'd have to consider much more about how the people around us feel and believe than the scenario seems to indicate.


Also, lastly -- I don't know if I'd agree that knowledge of how we should live is innate. I don't know that I'd call this relativism, either. But it seems a different topic than either the topic of authoritarianism-libertarianism, or the revolutionary minority.

But this being the case, it should be possible to persuade people to agree to take the right decisions to the extent that they are not governed by fear, rigid tradition, propaganda etc, — unenlightened

Both Marcuse and Hitler agree with this except the sort of persuasion they favor is annihilation of the opposing view. Voila. No more fear, rigid tradition, or propaganda. Error has been "corrected" as described by Mr. Grady in The Shining.

Your approach would appear to require some faith in humanity. MLK came by his faith in a Christian church. Where'd you get yours?

Then there's the notion of tolerance, which doesn't necessarily go along with libertarianism even if we take it to be the only value that matters (who are intolerant when the values of libertarianism are violeted). But that might just be because I think of Authoritarianism along a spectrum and as the opposite of libertarianism. — Moliere

I think the opposite of libertarianism is acceptance of human government as either a necessary evil or as a vehicle for the expression of our potential. Authoritarian-leaning people are just conservative when all is well. If you're old enough to remember 911 (and you're American), then you saw how latent authoritarianism responds to stress. All of the sudden the population of the US was unified. It actually shocked me and frightened many people. Apparently, the US is always just one catastrophe away from ditching democracy and becoming a dictatorship.

.. more later, gotta go. :)

Your approach would appear to require some faith in humanity. MLK came by his faith in a Christian church. Where'd you get yours? — Mongrel

My faith is not of the dogmatic kind, but more of a decision. To believe in justice is not to fondly imagine it prevails already, but to commit oneself to making it somewhat more prevalent. My faith in humanity is of this order.

My faith is not of the dogmatic kind, but more of a decision. To believe in justice is not to fondly imagine it prevails already, but to commit oneself to making it somewhat more prevalent. My faith in humanity is of this order. — unenlightened

You could contribute to Doctors Without Borders and make justice somewhat more prevalent. That doesn't take faith in humanity.

You would need faith in humanity if you believe that accepting diverse viewpoints with the aim of convincing people to see what you see is superior to actively removing injustice from the world.

Even so -- it seems to me that there's a difference between authoritarianism and conviction, which I would say is the counter to tolerance. We should be tolerant of any form of art, even if it seems "obscene", but we should not be tolerant of white supremacy -- we should have a conviction that white supremacy is wrong, and to oppose it is right, even if we happen to be in the minority, just as we should have a conviction that art should be open to all kinds of expression. — Moliere

So you aren't tolerant of white supremacy? Exactly what are you doing about it?

I think that's a bit of a side issue.

The example is meant to elucidate what I mean by conviction, not to go into the ins-and-outs of white supremacy -- conviction as the opposite of tolerance, rather than authoritarianism as the opposite of tolerance. Namely, there are some beliefs, when we have conviction, that rules out tolerance.

Are there beliefs you do not tolerate? Or do you tolerate everything?

As it happens, Marcuse's essay is online. How 'bout that?

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/1965MarcuseRepressiveToleranceEng1969edOcr.pdf

There seems to be a slide in the meaning of tolerance. As if to tolerate your objectionable views means not to even try to disabuse you of them, on the one hand, and not to tolerate them on the other hand means to hang you over a cliff by the ankles until you change your mind or I get tired and let go. Which is to say I am extremely intolerant in the first sense, and extremely tolerant in the second.

It may be that something's been lost in translation. I'm from a country supposedly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Bringing up Chomsky and Marcuse means we're talking about claims of subversion that sounded like calls for revolution back in the day, but as these voices have aged, they sound more like abandonment of hope.

Tolerance has a specific meaning that one could gather by reading the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (which, along with the rest of the Constitution specifically documents that which is supposed to have been subverted.)

I think the left is used entertaining contradictory views, and I doubt conservatives ability to seriously consider other viewpoints.

Is there an argument that authoritarian rule is necessarily bad. Is it innately bad and if so how is that possible, unless it somehow represent the evil in us all. Is Democracy good? or just maybe the best so far.

Have you ever read the Derbyshire Case. It involved a father's frank conversation with his Eurasian son about why he should fear Blacks. He got fired from the National Review...too hot for them. Somewhat similar to the talk the Eric Holder, prior US Attorney General, said his father had with him about how he should act when confronted by the police. Holder also said when he was a Federal Prosecutor he was stopped a couple of times by the police for no other discernible reason except that he is Black. The realities of life don't always fit well with theory.

From Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

He goes on to state, it is a hundred years latter and the heat of oppression still goes on, and now about 60 years latter we are still deep into it...Black Lives Matter.

Interesting to note that the Conservative Party has tried to co-opt King's Creed, since it matches up well with many of our founding father's thoughts. They also like the fact that he preached non-violence and they have sought to make it part of their Creed, but I think King's Creed is beyond their range of thought.

Only because Nixon saw through the homosexual agenda to dominate the fashion industry, and fool women into wearing ridiculous things making them less appealing, and less attractive.

↪Bitter Crank Only because Nixon saw through the homosexual agenda to dominate the fashion industry, and fool women into wearing ridiculous things making them less appealing, and less attractive. — Wosret

Thanks for noticing.

Like most of the slurs cast against Homosexuals, yours is 100% true. The agenda continues, of course. I'm not involved in this particular area of destroying Western Civilization, but whenever I check in on fashion reports in the NYT, it is encouraging to see such good work being done. Women (and some men as well) are even more unattractively dressed, ridiculous, and unappealing this year than they were during the Nixon Administration.

I'm retired now, but I served in the program to saturate public parks with obscene sex acts so that nuclear families venturing into them would be totally scandalized and would experience nervous collapse. Children living in the vicinity were, of course, at total risk of being exposed to alternate sexual lifestyles. What questions they must have asked of their mortified parents!

I pioneered the effort to scatter bits of obscene literature masquerading as AIDS education material all over the city streets. Children would pick it up and bring it home, handing it to enraged mothers, who would call City offices to complain about the filth. They taught their children to fear bits of paper on the street. They were harangued to stay away from city centers where the most vital culture is. In this way, the culture of respectable Americans was further impoverished.

Since our campaign in the 1960s - 1980s, families now restrict themselves to their fenced in back yards. Even the Internet is a risk for them, because of our Total Degradation web sites which are awaiting the clicks of their innocent (but ever so curious) babes.

And how does Donald Trump fit into all this you, you ask? Heh, heh, heh...

"NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.

Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.

EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.

NIXON: Jesus Christ."

I didn't make t up. From his recordings.

I didn't make it up. From his recordings. — Wosret

Of course you didn't make it up. At least back then they weren't messing around with all this inclusive, opinion-neutral inclusive language bullshit. People's feelings were upfront and openly expressed, which made for faster more accurate communication. "Faggy" -- hey, I know instantly and exactly what he means, where I stand, and whether I should just leave or not. Identifying faggy fags clarified all sorts of things. For one thing, he was keeping track of where all the faggy fags were. I very much wanted to know where faggy fags were in 1968, and just couldn't find them. I should have just called up Dick and said, "Hey, Dick -- where is the best place to find a bunch of fags?" It would have saved me a lot of time.

Cool. But, uh, I don't follow your thread of thinking -- unless you mean that I should read the essay before commenting.

EDIT: Not that that is a bad thing. It just would've been nice to know that ahead of time. I'm reading it now. Will post more later.

So I read the Marcuse essay you linked.

I'm still inclined to say what I said before. I don't think the essay is promoting authoritarianism -- and I think there are other ways of pursuing political aims than by authoritarian means. That's why I was introducing the term "conviction"; so I could agree with you that tolerance is not a panacea of political goodness, but I could differentiate this from proposing that we should have more authoritarian personalities in the world.

I don't think that authoritarian personalities help. And I don't think that liberation requires authoritarianism. Even by militant means. I wouldn't endorse fighting for a clean society, or for protection from the undesirable. I'd say it's very much the opposite -- that authoritarian sentiments are quite prevalent, and it is this prevalence which inhibits emancipatory politics.

And I don't think that liberation requires authoritarianism. Even by militant means — Moliere

There's a fair amount of liberation that did happen as a result of military action (or so it would seem), for instance the American Civil War. Are you arguing that military action is never required?

Interesting to note that the Conservative Party has tried to co-opt King's Creed, since it matches up well with many of our founding father's thoughts. They also like the fact that he preached non-violence and they have sought to make it part of their Creed, but I think King's Creed is beyond their range of thought. — Cavacava

I think today's liberalism is tomorrow's conservatism. Here's an answer to MLK's dream speech: "It's time to stop singing and start swinging."

No. I'm saying that even by militant means (what we might call the extreme case) we are not thereby endorsing authoritarian attitudes or asking for more authoritarian personalities.

That really seems wrong to me, Moliere. It must be that I'm not familiar with your definition of authoritarian.

Hrmm, I don't think it's that. I'm trying to use your definition that you posited -- the one about desiring cleanliness of society and protection from vermin (thereby motivating them to either dictate or, more likely, be dictated to).

The U.S. military, for example, is not built out of conscription but is voluntary. Like, it's as close to a voluntary social contract that you get in the U.S. -- signing your agreement in pentuplets. I wouldn't say that this is the only way to have a voluntary force I'm just using the example to demonstrate the principle.

Or the Black Panther's use of armed self-defense -- clearly a use of militant force, but not an authoritarian one but the opposite.


This isn't to say that you won't find authoritarian streaks in various real-life scenarios, even in these particular examples I'm giving. These were huge movements and organizations involving lots of people across large time spans, and there is no doubt in my mind that people have authoritarian attitudes. But we need not endorse these attitudes or ask for more of them -- and even in acting in a militant organization you can work against authoritarian attitudes. (In fact ever since William Caley, in the U.S. Army, each soldier is held accountable for their individual actions -- it is your duty to disobey an illegal order)