3 ms·

Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. And every group that's articula

Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. Arguing that they're separate requires the addition of another dimension that doesn't add information. Murderous communism and murderous fascism are both murderous and utopistic, adding the color commentary of left wing / right wing ideals doesn't improve the model. >BDS usually refers to the mostly left wing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (against Israel) movement, which has nothing to do with the reactionary right. I could have phrased that better, I intended to use BDS as an example of the activism spilling out of campuses.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. The “every group...” part wouldn't support the conclusion that it is an ideology rather than mechanism adopted in support of varying and widely divergent ideologies if it were true, and it's also not true, as there are plenty of violent authoritarian regimes in history (and even today) that were not driven by any vision of a “political utopia”. > And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. That's also not true, though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence. OTOH, that also doesn't support your claim. In fact, given that “violent authoritarianism” and merely employing violence at some point are world's apart, it's not even germane to the point, even if it was true.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  >though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence Counter example: the peaceful handoff of Hong Kong between the U.K and China - they managed to create a government in Hong Kong without any violence. >widely divergent ideologies if it were true The ideologies aren't wildly divergent in the dimensions of interest: 1) utopian idealism 2) willigness to use violence though I repeat myself.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Authoritarian violence is absolutely an ideology - every group that's ever employed it has been a group with a political utopia. The “every group...” part wouldn't support the conclusion that it is an ideology rather than mechanism adopted in support of varying and widely divergent ideologies if it were true, and it's also not true, as there are plenty of violent authoritarian regimes in history (and even today) that were not driven by any vision of a “political utopia”. > And every group that's articulated a political utopia has employed violence. That's also not true, though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence. OTOH, that also doesn't support your claim. In fact, given that “violent authoritarianism” and merely employing violence at some point are world's apart, it's not even germane to the point, even if it was true.

alexanderstears 9y ago
>though every group that has successfully established a government (whether or not they had a utopian vision) has employed violence Counter example: the peaceful handoff of Hong Kong between the U.K and China - they managed to create a government in Hong Kong without any violence. >widely divergent ideologies if it were true The ideologies aren't wildly divergent in the dimensions of interest: 1) utopian idealism 2) willigness to use violence though I repeat myself.