Who's More Authoritarian? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Sceptic
#14216995
The typical Liberal:

Economic authoritarianism - support financial and corporate regulation, traditional Keynesian demand management theory, 50p top tax rate, etc.
Social authoritarianism - hate crime, political correctness, smoking ban, firearms ban, measures to remove obesity, environmentalism, etc.
Social libertarianism - relaxed immigration controls, decriminalise cannabis, legalise prostitution, abortion is ok, etc.
Secular State - seperation of religion and politics, possible support of a republic (in UK) rather than constitutional monarchy
Foreign policy - supports UN but opposed to neoconservatism
Crime and punishment - rehabilitation, etc.

The typical Conservative:

Economic liberalisation - relax regulations on business and banks, neoliberalism/monetarist policy, possible flat tax rate or some other conservative system
Social libertarianism - free speech, no smoking ban, no firearms ban, no regulation of consumer products for ethical outcomes, etc.
Social authoritarianism- stricter immigration controls, harsher drug policies, harsher prostitution laws, criminalise abortion, etc.
Religion and politics - many conservatives would want for stronger influence of religion on politics and use religious arguments against abortion, contraception, etc.
Foreign policy - neoconservatism. Some conservatives in favour of huge military influence in other countries solely for national defence and asserting America's military dominance. British conservatives generally in favour of constitutional monarchy but most American conservatives/Republicans are not.
Crime and punishment - 'tougher sentences', 'capital punishment', etc.


In light of this, it seems the argument that conservatives are small government, and for civil liberties, whereas liberals are all for the nanny state is absurd and obviously something that benefits only the right wing in politics. Both have their mixture of authoritarian and liberal policies.
#14217622
Decky wrote:I'm not sure that you know what liberalism is, you are trying to describe social democracy.


It's not really his fault. I'd say a ton of Americans have stereotyped views of what constitutes a liberal or a conservative. Just watch enough Fox News or CNN, sadly. It's just a tiny window into how warped the American political landscape is.
#14217728
^Precisely, the contemporary definition of 'liberalism' is different, even in UK where I am from the liberal democrats are a centrist party with some left leaning fractions (e.g. Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown). Social context is everything when it comes to political definitions. Some would argue social democracy is more authoritarian than modern liberalism as well. JS Mill, who you have cited moved to the left further on in his life (even going as far to argue against some of the hostility against the proposed arguments by utopian socialists in favour of co-operative arrangements, etc.) and a lot of his arguments about the harm principle influenced a lot of modern leftist thought. It doesn't matter what definition you use anyway, that's a tangent away from the topic I introduced in the thread: which ideology is more authoritarian?
#14218074
Sceptic wrote:^Precisely, the contemporary definition of 'liberalism' is different, even in UK where I am from the liberal democrats are a centrist party with some left leaning fractions (e.g. Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown). Social context is everything when it comes to political definitions. Some would argue social democracy is more authoritarian than modern liberalism as well. JS Mill, who you have cited moved to the left further on in his life (even going as far to argue against some of the hostility against the proposed arguments by utopian socialists in favour of co-operative arrangements, etc.) and a lot of his arguments about the harm principle influenced a lot of modern leftist thought. It doesn't matter what definition you use anyway, that's a tangent away from the topic I introduced in the thread: which ideology is more authoritarian?


I'm surprised. From your post you sounded like an American. Are you saying that the sentiments of liberal and conservative are similar to the stereotyped views in America, assuming you're familiar with those? I wouldn't be surprised, but I also don't pay attention to UK politics in the same way I don't pay attention much to US politics, so I wouldn't know.
#14218094
Bulaba Jones wrote:I'm surprised. From your post you sounded like an American. Are you saying that the sentiments of liberal and conservative are similar to the stereotyped views in America, assuming you're familiar with those? I wouldn't be surprised, but I also don't pay attention to UK politics in the same way I don't pay attention much to US politics, so I wouldn't know.


We normally talk about left (Labour) and right (Conservative), or maybe lefties and tories/conservatives. My friend last year studied politics and insisted he was a liberal (in a centre-left sense) but on the whole, the general British public do not use the term 'liberal' very much. I have never met a self-professed classical liberal or Libertarian in this country, someone I know is from the Netherlands and she calls herself liberal, referring to classical liberal, of course. Having said that, there is a party called the Lib Dems which is one of the three main parties but smaller than both Labour and Conservative, and unlikely to get into at the next general election. They are in the centre, to the right of Labour but to the left of the Conservatives and less socially authoritarian than both parties (only party that voted against war in Afghanistan/Iraq, for instance). They also have their strong social liberal currents (Vince Cable, Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy) but also have what is referred to as the orange liberal, someone who is economically right of centre.

So yeah, it's kind of complicated, more complicated than Decky makes out. Also, in any academic circle, the term 'modern liberalism' refers to pretty much exactly what I described in the OP and sprung out of ideas of equality, liberty and fraternity from the French Revolution. It is perfectly valid to use the term in that sense. 'Classical liberalism' dates way back historically and actually did have some economically-left undercurrents, like in JS Mill. Adam Smith also argued for state provision of certain goods, e.g. roads, so it seems the philosophical notion of 'liberty' was not one that should compromise actual social consequences. Then of course you get the fascists and the Marxists referring to 'Liberal-Capitalism' which normally refers to some sort of strategy by the ruling elite to maintain the status quo order of private capitalism and economic liberalism. In order to suppress the working class, the Liberal ruling elite supposedly change between socially liberal tactics of appeasing them with welfare, minimum wage, drugs (e.g. legalisation of weed, cheaper booze) and then getting them to 'pull their socks up' when they become all conservative and get them to work harder to power the means of production and make those evil capitalists more dividends.

So basically the term 'liberal' is just a mish-mesh of political and philosophical ideas (the concept of freedom itself is highly debated), but it was perfectly clear in the OP what I was referring to when I provided the description, so I don't see the need for Decky to be so goddamn pedantic!
#14218101
I'm a real liberal. I want to legalize pot, I support abortions, and I'm for lower taxes as long as the government budget is nearly balanced. And I really like my gun collection. I don't want right wing varmints invading my property. Oh, and screw sending soldiers overseas to fight Israel's wars.
#14218108
Lower taxes has not an iota to do with social liberalism, at least not in the current political context or the context of this thread. But hell, since this thread is now going to ruin let's talk about giant flying spaghetti monsters instead.

Image
#14218425
so I don't see the need for Decky to be so goddamn pedantic!




I don't see the need for you to take the lords name in vain!

*insert Dr Lee style rant*
#14218800
Sceptic wrote:In light of this, it seems the argument that conservatives are small government, and for civil liberties, whereas liberals are all for the nanny state is absurd and obviously something that benefits only the right wing in politics. Both have their mixture of authoritarian and liberal policies.


It depends on the values you embrace. There can be no intersubjectively ascertainable conclusion when it comes to questions like this one right here. If you are more comfortable with the values of the right-wing, you'll mostly pay attention to issues that the right-wing is fond of.
If you are more comfortable with the values of the left-wing, you'll do "exactly" the opposite. If you are opposed to both ideologies, you'll hate them both. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you're more objective.

It's pretty tedious to talk about this since a person's values will always determine who's perceived to be more authoritarian.
Our values determine the stuff we perceive and the stuff we tend to ignore.


I think the right-wing is generally much better at discrediting political opponents. I suppose we can all agree on this.
Jonathan Haidt wrote a bit about this in his book "The righteous mind". It's fairly interesting. Give it a read if you have the time.

The notion of authoritarian leftism is one of the best ideas conservatives have ever come up with.
#14218817
emmitt wrote:It's pretty tedious to talk about this since a person's values will always determine who's perceived to be more authoritarian.
Our values determine the stuff we perceive and the stuff we tend to ignore.


I disagree, authoritarianism refers to state intervention and can be discussed objectively. Some use the term authoritarian not as a dirty word but as a badge of honour: "I want the state to intervene in the economy to ensure minimum wage and social welfare, what's wrong with that?"

I think the right-wing is generally much better at discrediting political opponents. I suppose we can all agree on this.


More so in US but yes I can agree with that, mainly to do with the political culture over there however.
#14218821
Even if you knew how to operationalize authoritarianism, it wouldn't be objective just because you say so.
There'd be different ways of operationalization.
It always depends on the values you want to stress.
#14219047
In the U.S., the differences between the two are superficial as both require a consumer spending society based on borrowing and a propped-up petrodollar.
#14311015
If we are using the US definitions, then liberals limit the freedom of economic entities, while conservatives limit the freedom of individuals.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]