11 ms·

Isn't anti-authoritarian typically considered a leftist position? So the opposite of what you are saying?

willcipriano 5y ago
Depends on who currently is the authoritarian. Left wing authoritarians make right wing anti-authoritarians and vice versa.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  I think this is obviously the right answer. There have clearly been left wing avd right wing authoritarians in history. These days in, western countries at least, most authoritarian are right wing. Trump and the conservative party in the UK being the clearest examples. I define here authoritarian as someone who is decreasing democracy and transparency. Not caring if they do it for the right or wrong reasons. Also clearly all leaders are a bit authoritarian, Obama did sine things as did Blair. But it pales in degree to the current leaders.
  - _ivvf 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      You cannot use heartland institute as a source. If the claim is that it is leftwing because they are supported by the working class than the republican party is leftwing/socialist which is hard to take seriously. As for your question the easiest and clearest example would be Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte of Chile that was supported by the right wing forces in the US, including Milton Friedman. I would encourage you to look aside from your partisan lenses. Note that I do not in any way argue against that Stalin or Mao most likely should be considered left wing and were brutal authoritarians that was a stain on the world.
      - _ivvf 5y ago
        I am happy to look at things from both sides. When I asked who are the rightwing authoritarians, I wanted answers that I could use to look things up. As for Hitler, I believe he was left wing for the following reasons: He pushed socialist programs like universal health care, welfare, government job creation, etc.. He was anti-established religion, including Christianity. He said that when he was done with Judaism, Christianity would be next. His beliefs on eugenics and racial superiority had far more in common with other leftists of his time. The American counterparts on the left, for instance, including the founders of planned parenthood, wanted to prevent minorities from reproducing, Hitler used the public education system to indoctrinate the youth into his ideology, a similar tactic of the left in the U.S. Hitler also encouraged/forced mothers to go to work, further undermining the nuclear family. Hitler made gun control laws stricter. Hitler also supported abortions. The only counter argument I've heard is Hitler was a fascist which is obviously right-wing. I don't buy this argument at all. Fascism seems like it could apply to either the right or the left equally.
        kmonsen 5y ago
        The extreme dictators like Stalin, Hitler etc are so far out that it doesn't really make sense to call them either. Edit: It is also meaningless. I didn't like Trump but he was/is obviously nothing like Hitler or even Pinochet. And Biden is clearly no Mao. Calling either of them these things is just lazy and brings no clarity. As for which is best/worst I think that is also a bit harder than it looks. For example I'm happy that I live in CA that is controlled by democrats instead of republicans. But honestly, I think one party control is bad whoever it is. We need power sharing and transparency. It is obviously bad when democrats are in control as well even if they pretend to do policies I support. And I don't always like what they propose, sometimes republicans have the right idea too.
        mcguire 5y ago
        Plus he strongly supported the Soviet Union, particularly with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. (Tongue firmly in cheek.)
        5y ago
thepasswordis 5y ago
It's considered a liberal position, not a leftist position. Traditionally leftist political philosophy is aligned with central authority (strong federal government, marxixm, communism, etc.) Whistle blowing is a lib position, but the conservatives have their own liberal movement as well with lib being the root of "libertarian", which in contemporary american political framing is right-aligned.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It's considered a liberal position, not a leftist position. “Liberal” and “left” are terms of slightly different origin for the same position, opposing the established narrow feudal/monarchist elite power in favor of popular sovereignty and the government based on the rights of the individual. It’s true that subsequently they’ve diverged with the old enemy being irrelevant, with “liberal” including and “left” excluding defense of concentration of power in the now-established capitalist elite justified by appeal the preeminence of the capitalist understanding of property rights.
  - blix 5y ago
    "Left" and "Liberal" are distinct political ideologies which happened to both oppose monarchies at one point in time. Their proposed solutions even then were quite different. Liberalism ostensibly values things such as property rights and freedom of information that are not really important in Leftism. Leftism prioritizes "fair" distribution of resources, which is not really a concern of Liberalism.
dantheman 5y ago
The left is uber authoritarian; progressivism is an authoritarian philosophy about using state power to change the world and society.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
Lenininism and its descendants confuse that issue (non-Leninist leftists often consider Leninism a right-wing ideology that borrows left-wing rhetoric, though.)
ryandrake 5y ago
Each "team" accuses the other of being authoritarian. So, when blue team is in charge, the reds think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. When red team is in charge, the blues think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. Basically, it's a rhetorical ploy to gain a few cheap points: When the side in charge does something you don't like, just call them "authoritarians," and your cause, whatever it is, becomes more appealing.
- _ivvf 5y ago
  Except what you are saying is not really true. Most conservatives want to reduce government power, not extend it. The left, on the other hand, universally wants to extend government reach. I would recommend reading "The Authoritarian Moment" which goes into detail as to how the left are basically winning: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Americas-Institutions/dp/0063001829 https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Ameri... To quote from the book's introduction: "There are certainly totalitarians on the political right. But statistically, they represent a fringe movement with little institutional clout. The authoritarian left, meanwhile, is ascendant in nearly every area of American life. A small number of leftists—college-educated, coastal, and uncompromising—have not just taken over the Democratic Party but our corporations, our universities, our scientific establishment, our cultural institutions. And they have used their newfound power to silence their opposition."
  - ddoolin 5y ago
    Conservative fear-mongering, recommending Ben Shapiro...am I really on HN?
    - literallyWTF 5y ago
      Yeah, this is really common on this site.
      - rnd0 5y ago
        I left /. over this shit; the prevalence of it on HN is beginning to become worrisome.
Leparamour 5y ago
Not necessarily. What you're thinking of is probably anarchism. Leftists can favour authoritarianism just as much as right-wing types. The difference is usually just between MY "good" authoritarianism vs. YOUR "bad" authoritarianism. In my opinion this "whistleblower" and democrat donor's call for more censorship is anything but anti-authoritarian.
gorwell 5y ago
The idea that authoritarians exist only in one wing has long been a misunderstanding and an ideological blindspot that is now smacking us in the face. The Atlantic recently did a good piece on this, noting that there are common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychological-dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychologi...
marcusverus 5y ago
If you want an anti-authoritarian ideology, you're looking for classical liberalism / libertarianism. In the US, neither the left nor the right could be considered 'anti-authoritarian', as the left embraces broad government control of economic matters (a welfare state, environmental regulations, relatively high taxes), while the right embraces government control of social matters (regulating abortion, supporting 'traditional' marriage, etc.) If you had a country with a perfectly free (laissez-faire) economy, but with strict social controls (mandatory Christian prayer in schools, abortion punishable by jail time, and mass deportations of illegal immigrants) leftists would call it an authoritarian nation. If you had a country with a state-controlled economy (complete with cushy welfare state!), but with perfect social freedom (legal drugs, no regulation on abortion or sex work, and open migration) the right would call it an authoritarian nation. While both right-wing and left-wing governments can exist without crossing the line into authoritarianism, only the classical libertarian's ideal government is by definition anti-authoritarian, because its focus is on the consent of the individual, whereas others are satisfied with the consent of a majority.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > While both right-wing and left-wing governments can exist without crossing the line into authoritarianism, only the classical libertarian's ideal government is by definition anti-authoritarian, because its focus is on the consent of the individual, whereas others are satisfied with the consent of a majority. "Consent of the individual with sufficient capital," to be clear. "Freedom" is a cold comfort when it's your freedom to die of exposure and hunger on a street corner. Nobody in that position consents to that, and no libertarian ideology I've encountered presents a compelling justification for such a sorry state of affairs (much less a solution).
  - NoGravitas 5y ago
    The law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    > "Freedom" is a cold comfort when it's your freedom to die of exposure and hunger on a street corner. This is a common argument, which is odd, since it doesn't make much sense. If your government were replaced by a libertarian one, would you stop caring about the poor? Would you be okay with folks dying in the streets? Of course you wouldn't. Well, luckily, one doesn't need a government to take care of the poor--you can do that by donating to a charity. Could charities feed and house the poor? Yes, and easily. In 2019, the Federal government spent ~$45 Billion on HUD (housing for the poor) and ~$85 Billion on SNAP, which only amounts to ~3% of the federal budget! This could easily be raised via private charities--especially considering that taxes would be far lower, leaving folks with more disposable income. Not to mention the sense of social responsibility which would come with the knowledge that taking care of the poor is your responsibility, and not something that you can ignore under the assumption that "the government will take care of them". > Nobody in that position consents to that, and no libertarian ideology I've encountered presents a compelling justification for such a sorry state of affairs (much less a solution). Let's consider this argument carefully. Say we've got two people, Person A and Person B. Person A is poor, and Person B is not. Say Person A wants money from Person B, and Person B doesn't give it to them. What does it even mean for Person A to "not consent" to this arrangement? So what if Person A does not consent to not having control over Person B--does Person A have some divine right to control Person B?
cnball 5y ago
That is what Gen X and later were taught when the right was in fact authoritarian. But then the left also included people like Stallman and Chomsky. Now we have a radical intransigent left again, and a brief look at the former Eastern Bloc shows us the end game of these people. I do not think that the "elite" leftists want a proletarian revolution though. They would like the exploitative China model, where bureaucrats and their offspring stay in power and the tightly controlled businesses do the work.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > a brief look at the former Eastern Bloc shows us the end game of these people. .. the use of nominally "democratic" elections to install far-right "populist" authoritarian leaders ?
BoxOfRain 5y ago
Not really, authoritarianism can be a property of both left and right wing ideologies. Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's USSR lay at opposite ends of the left/right spectrum yet were both undoubtedly authoritarian.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> Isn't anti-authoritarian typically considered a leftist position? It seems as though it used to be, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, but that's shifted pretty much 180 degrees.

Depends on who currently is the authoritarian. Left wing authoritarians make right wing anti-authoritarians and vice versa.

kmonsen 5y ago
I think this is obviously the right answer. There have clearly been left wing avd right wing authoritarians in history. These days in, western countries at least, most authoritarian are right wing. Trump and the conservative party in the UK being the clearest examples. I define here authoritarian as someone who is decreasing democracy and transparency. Not caring if they do it for the right or wrong reasons. Also clearly all leaders are a bit authoritarian, Obama did sine things as did Blair. But it pales in degree to the current leaders.
- _ivvf 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    You cannot use heartland institute as a source. If the claim is that it is leftwing because they are supported by the working class than the republican party is leftwing/socialist which is hard to take seriously. As for your question the easiest and clearest example would be Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte of Chile that was supported by the right wing forces in the US, including Milton Friedman. I would encourage you to look aside from your partisan lenses. Note that I do not in any way argue against that Stalin or Mao most likely should be considered left wing and were brutal authoritarians that was a stain on the world.
    - _ivvf 5y ago
      I am happy to look at things from both sides. When I asked who are the rightwing authoritarians, I wanted answers that I could use to look things up. As for Hitler, I believe he was left wing for the following reasons: He pushed socialist programs like universal health care, welfare, government job creation, etc.. He was anti-established religion, including Christianity. He said that when he was done with Judaism, Christianity would be next. His beliefs on eugenics and racial superiority had far more in common with other leftists of his time. The American counterparts on the left, for instance, including the founders of planned parenthood, wanted to prevent minorities from reproducing, Hitler used the public education system to indoctrinate the youth into his ideology, a similar tactic of the left in the U.S. Hitler also encouraged/forced mothers to go to work, further undermining the nuclear family. Hitler made gun control laws stricter. Hitler also supported abortions. The only counter argument I've heard is Hitler was a fascist which is obviously right-wing. I don't buy this argument at all. Fascism seems like it could apply to either the right or the left equally.
      - kmonsen 5y ago
        The extreme dictators like Stalin, Hitler etc are so far out that it doesn't really make sense to call them either. Edit: It is also meaningless. I didn't like Trump but he was/is obviously nothing like Hitler or even Pinochet. And Biden is clearly no Mao. Calling either of them these things is just lazy and brings no clarity. As for which is best/worst I think that is also a bit harder than it looks. For example I'm happy that I live in CA that is controlled by democrats instead of republicans. But honestly, I think one party control is bad whoever it is. We need power sharing and transparency. It is obviously bad when democrats are in control as well even if they pretend to do policies I support. And I don't always like what they propose, sometimes republicans have the right idea too.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Plus he strongly supported the Soviet Union, particularly with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. (Tongue firmly in cheek.)
        5y ago

thepasswordis 5y ago

It's considered a liberal position, not a leftist position. Traditionally leftist political philosophy is aligned with central authority (strong federal government, marxixm, communism, etc.) Whistle blowing is a lib position, but the conservatives have their own liberal movement as well with lib being the root of "libertarian", which in contemporary american political framing is right-aligned.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> It's considered a liberal position, not a leftist position. “Liberal” and “left” are terms of slightly different origin for the same position, opposing the established narrow feudal/monarchist elite power in favor of popular sovereignty and the government based on the rights of the individual. It’s true that subsequently they’ve diverged with the old enemy being irrelevant, with “liberal” including and “left” excluding defense of concentration of power in the now-established capitalist elite justified by appeal the preeminence of the capitalist understanding of property rights.
- blix 5y ago
  "Left" and "Liberal" are distinct political ideologies which happened to both oppose monarchies at one point in time. Their proposed solutions even then were quite different. Liberalism ostensibly values things such as property rights and freedom of information that are not really important in Leftism. Leftism prioritizes "fair" distribution of resources, which is not really a concern of Liberalism.

dantheman 5y ago

The left is uber authoritarian; progressivism is an authoritarian philosophy about using state power to change the world and society.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

Lenininism and its descendants confuse that issue (non-Leninist leftists often consider Leninism a right-wing ideology that borrows left-wing rhetoric, though.)

ryandrake 5y ago

Each "team" accuses the other of being authoritarian. So, when blue team is in charge, the reds think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. When red team is in charge, the blues think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. Basically, it's a rhetorical ploy to gain a few cheap points: When the side in charge does something you don't like, just call them "authoritarians," and your cause, whatever it is, becomes more appealing.

_ivvf 5y ago
Except what you are saying is not really true. Most conservatives want to reduce government power, not extend it. The left, on the other hand, universally wants to extend government reach. I would recommend reading "The Authoritarian Moment" which goes into detail as to how the left are basically winning: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Americas-Institutions/dp/0063001829 https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Ameri... To quote from the book's introduction: "There are certainly totalitarians on the political right. But statistically, they represent a fringe movement with little institutional clout. The authoritarian left, meanwhile, is ascendant in nearly every area of American life. A small number of leftists—college-educated, coastal, and uncompromising—have not just taken over the Democratic Party but our corporations, our universities, our scientific establishment, our cultural institutions. And they have used their newfound power to silence their opposition."
- ddoolin 5y ago
  Conservative fear-mongering, recommending Ben Shapiro...am I really on HN?
  - literallyWTF 5y ago
    Yeah, this is really common on this site.
    - rnd0 5y ago
      I left /. over this shit; the prevalence of it on HN is beginning to become worrisome.

Leparamour 5y ago

Not necessarily. What you're thinking of is probably anarchism. Leftists can favour authoritarianism just as much as right-wing types. The difference is usually just between MY "good" authoritarianism vs. YOUR "bad" authoritarianism. In my opinion this "whistleblower" and democrat donor's call for more censorship is anything but anti-authoritarian.

gorwell 5y ago

The idea that authoritarians exist only in one wing has long been a misunderstanding and an ideological blindspot that is now smacking us in the face. The Atlantic recently did a good piece on this, noting that there are common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychological-dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychologi...

marcusverus 5y ago

If you want an anti-authoritarian ideology, you're looking for classical liberalism / libertarianism. In the US, neither the left nor the right could be considered 'anti-authoritarian', as the left embraces broad government control of economic matters (a welfare state, environmental regulations, relatively high taxes), while the right embraces government control of social matters (regulating abortion, supporting 'traditional' marriage, etc.) If you had a country with a perfectly free (laissez-faire) economy, but with strict social controls (mandatory Christian prayer in schools, abortion punishable by jail time, and mass deportations of illegal immigrants) leftists would call it an authoritarian nation. If you had a country with a state-controlled economy (complete with cushy welfare state!), but with perfect social freedom (legal drugs, no regulation on abortion or sex work, and open migration) the right would call it an authoritarian nation. While both right-wing and left-wing governments can exist without crossing the line into authoritarianism, only the classical libertarian's ideal government is by definition anti-authoritarian, because its focus is on the consent of the individual, whereas others are satisfied with the consent of a majority.

woodruffw 5y ago
> While both right-wing and left-wing governments can exist without crossing the line into authoritarianism, only the classical libertarian's ideal government is by definition anti-authoritarian, because its focus is on the consent of the individual, whereas others are satisfied with the consent of a majority. "Consent of the individual with sufficient capital," to be clear. "Freedom" is a cold comfort when it's your freedom to die of exposure and hunger on a street corner. Nobody in that position consents to that, and no libertarian ideology I've encountered presents a compelling justification for such a sorry state of affairs (much less a solution).
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  The law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  > "Freedom" is a cold comfort when it's your freedom to die of exposure and hunger on a street corner. This is a common argument, which is odd, since it doesn't make much sense. If your government were replaced by a libertarian one, would you stop caring about the poor? Would you be okay with folks dying in the streets? Of course you wouldn't. Well, luckily, one doesn't need a government to take care of the poor--you can do that by donating to a charity. Could charities feed and house the poor? Yes, and easily. In 2019, the Federal government spent ~$45 Billion on HUD (housing for the poor) and ~$85 Billion on SNAP, which only amounts to ~3% of the federal budget! This could easily be raised via private charities--especially considering that taxes would be far lower, leaving folks with more disposable income. Not to mention the sense of social responsibility which would come with the knowledge that taking care of the poor is your responsibility, and not something that you can ignore under the assumption that "the government will take care of them". > Nobody in that position consents to that, and no libertarian ideology I've encountered presents a compelling justification for such a sorry state of affairs (much less a solution). Let's consider this argument carefully. Say we've got two people, Person A and Person B. Person A is poor, and Person B is not. Say Person A wants money from Person B, and Person B doesn't give it to them. What does it even mean for Person A to "not consent" to this arrangement? So what if Person A does not consent to not having control over Person B--does Person A have some divine right to control Person B?

cnball 5y ago

That is what Gen X and later were taught when the right was in fact authoritarian. But then the left also included people like Stallman and Chomsky. Now we have a radical intransigent left again, and a brief look at the former Eastern Bloc shows us the end game of these people. I do not think that the "elite" leftists want a proletarian revolution though. They would like the exploitative China model, where bureaucrats and their offspring stay in power and the tightly controlled businesses do the work.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> a brief look at the former Eastern Bloc shows us the end game of these people. .. the use of nominally "democratic" elections to install far-right "populist" authoritarian leaders ?

BoxOfRain 5y ago

Not really, authoritarianism can be a property of both left and right wing ideologies. Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's USSR lay at opposite ends of the left/right spectrum yet were both undoubtedly authoritarian.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> Isn't anti-authoritarian typically considered a leftist position? It seems as though it used to be, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, but that's shifted pretty much 180 degrees.