It seems we disagree with the meanings of left-wing and right-wing and how they relate to authoritarianism, which is understandable. The terminology nearly lost all meaning after the Cold War.
“As I said, most authoritarian regimes, governments, in the 20th century were left-wing, i.e., they were communist.” Again, that is just Cold War propaganda. Do you honestly believe that just because a despotic regime calls itself communist that they are indeed communist? Do you fall for North Korean propaganda as well? Do you think they are a democratic republic? Do you think the Congo is a democratic republic? After all, it’s in the name, right?
Here is a video about despotism. It does not come anymore clearer than that. It kind of reminds of the US and why I do not vote. Voting is just a formality and a form of consent, consent of the governed. I do not consent or recognize the current system as legitimate, but I do not possess the ability or resources to resist, hence my anxiety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo3hS1fyBkw
“the left is much more prone to big government authoritarianism” I beg to differ. What you call “the left” is really center right. In an environment where everyone is moving right politically, anything left of center is considered to far to the left. Squelching free speech to protect a political class, no matter what the reason, is something someone on the right would do, the very opposite of progressive. You could probably recall during the Bush years there was a lot of talk on limiting free speech and putting dissenters on a list. Much of it wasn’t just talk, and it wasn’t that long ago. Again, it was a very right-wing thing to do. Obama continued that tradition by pursuing with extreme prejudice whistle-blowers, even though he said he wouldn’t. He helped pass the NDAA and did nothing to stop the NSA from spying on people. Again, it was a very right-wing thing to do.
“By all means, summarize Altemeyer’s and Fromm’s arguments for me, if you think they substantiate your point.” I will and from Citizendium no less. Right-wing authoritarianism does not always correspond to political ideologies, such as left or right. It’s a set of personality traits which correspond to a person’s political and social dispositions. “It is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[1][2]
- Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
- Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
- Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].” — http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
There have been attempts to measure left-wing authoritarianism in the US, but so far those attempts have proven fruitless as measures of authoritarianism always correlate slightly with the right.
“Escaping freedom
As ‘freedom from’ is not an experience we enjoy in itself, Fromm suggests that many people, rather than utilising it successfully, attempt to minimise its negative effects by developing thoughts and behaviours that provide some form of security. These are as follows:
- Authoritarianism: Fromm characterises the authoritarian personality as containing a sadist element and a masochist element. The authoritarian wishes to gain control over other people in a bid to impose some kind of order on the world, they also wish to submit to the control of some superior force which may come in the guise of a person or an abstract idea.
- Destructiveness: Although this bears a similarity to sadism, Fromm argues that the sadist wishes to gain control over something. A destructive personality wishes to destroy something it cannot bring under its control.
- Conformity: This process is seen when people unconsciously incorporate the normative beliefs and thought processes of their society and experience them as their own. This allows them to avoid genuine free thinking, which is likely to be anxiety provoking.” — http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_Freedom
Erich Fromm describes two types of freedom, freedom from (negative freedom) and freedom to (positive freedom). Human life and consciousness is a constant balance of these two processes. Normally, people associate our current situation, freedom from feudalism and Victorian paternalism, as a process of self realization and actualization; however, freedom from old authoritative regimes brings about separation, emptiness, and anxiety. This is where “freedom to” comes into play, but as we have the freedom to become productive and seek greater connection, we also have the freedom to submit ourselves to another authoritative regime. Fromm also identifies several types of orientations which I find rather useful: dependent orientation (the feudal serf and the dependent child), hoarding orientation, exploitative orientation (the sociopath or psychopath, the ceo, the fearless leader), marketing orientation (consumer behaviour, materialism, the various behaviours indicative in a capitalist society), necrophilic orientation (people obsessed with developing land, technology, law, war, anything which does not grow), and productive orientation (a biophilic person, man without a mask, a progressive person concerned with community, and a zest for life). So far, Dr. Altemeyer and Fromm have provided excellent incite and have solidified my reasoning for remaining critical of society and its political process. I am certain RWAs and the social dominators among the political and corporate elite have undermined democracy in the US. Even though there are such parties as the Green and Libertarian parties, do you even see them on national news? Are they in the debates? The Republicans and Democrats have both colluded together to ensure that no one gets “confused” by all the other choices out there. They want to ensure other “nonviable” candidates do not “steal votes” away from the voters. They even set up a corporation which handles all debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates. If you watched the video on despotism, you can see these acts by the ruling parties rates rather low on the information and respect scale. Voting has become more or less a formality, and it lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system that I sure as hell never consented to.
“I’m afraid I can’t take your word for it, as they were both leftists, and I find leftist theorists to be pretty consistently intellectual dishonest and shoddy.” Your bias is showing, and I find it funny you calling Altemeyer a leftist as he clearly states in his book he is politically moderate on most issues, but I suppose you do not see a difference. Communist, socialist, capitalist, left-wing, right-wing has very little political or descriptive value except in obfuscating what the actual politics are. Their meanings constantly shift wiht the political climate. Right now, they are mostly used in to illicit an emotional response and create panic. Our different usages of the terms left-wing and right-wing demonstrate this obfuscation. If I were to define left from right, it would go something like this. Left-wing represents progressive ideas such as cultural diversity, secularism, egalitarianism, freedom of expression, freedom to dissent, cooperation, etc. Right-wing represents social and economic conservative values and conventionalism. The right-winger desires tradition and stability over cultural diversity. They tend to be nationalistic and have an affinity for strong father figures and authority. They tend to be mistrustful of different cultures and people of different ethnicity. My observation has been that people who tend to lean to the right have a strong propensity to be authoritarian. You seem to hold the exact opposite view, and that is where we part ways.
“ I’m arguing that your arguments for not voting are not persuasive.” I have not found the arguments for voting to be very persuasive, either. I do not vote due to a deep sense of alienation and disinterest. I am also about as anti-authoritarian as they get. I have no “comrades,” as you put it. I know these reasons are not to your satisfaction. If you still cannot understand how one can come to feel and act this way, you can just chalk it up as one of the mysteries of life.
From what I have read, I think we are going to have to end the conversation here, or we will end up in circles. We agree on some things and vastly disagree on others. Let us just leave it at that.