"Authoritarian"

[narouz]

If James doesn't endorse your model, and you still force him to operate on your jurisdictions, then you're exercising authority over James.

It's true James was at my farm
and I was trying to get him to use my custom offset Tele 17 on his tour to advertise it.
It was dark and we were walking back to his car along an overgrown path,
and I saw he was about to step off to one side right onto a coiled copperhead!
I jerked him out of the way and he crashed into a blackberry thicket on the other side.
What am I gonna do--I had to use force!

 

[Such_Saturation]

It's true James was at my farm
and I was trying to get him to use my custom offset Tele 17 on his tour to advertise it.
It was dark and we were walking back to his car along an overgrown path,
and I saw he was about to step off to one side right onto a coiled copperhead!
I jerked him out of the way and he crashed into a blackberry thicket on the other side.
What am I gonna do--I had to use force!

I knew it... I knew you would write something of that sort before they could get the Idi Amin gif reinstalled...

 

[thyrulian]

Duude stop saying a*******arian, it's harām

Mitochondrial frickin respiration is haram.

Diving into with solemn surrendering the gift-spangled sproutings of cold, quiet seed whose animatory function serves a beckoning reminder of the id-neglecting dissolution consequent when silver threads are cut out of exorbitantly ethereal perversion is ******* haram.

 

[narouz]

 

[Spokey]

Authoritarian does seem to get used where "disagrees with me" or "is angry" might be more appropriate. It does clearly get abused.

I take it to mean, sanctions all thought from a position of authority, be that political, religious or scientific.
IE, "Cholesterol causes heart disease because big Pharma and all those posh MDs they paid for says so, you're nobody so I won't bother to entertain your position and further I think you should be arrested and bared from internet usage for daring to have an opinion on the matter contrary to people I and society deem experts."

But you find it everywhere. Personally I'm just grateful being able to name an ineffable problem that's been the bane of a lifetime one way or another. I find it hard to distinguish between my own authoritarianism, and legitimate anger, for instance the incandescent rage I feel when a qualified MD suggests giving statins to children or pregnant women. Is it authoritarian of me to think that man should be put in a padded cell strewn with needles and medical waste? I dunno, really I don't.

 

[bobbybobbob]

I take it to mean, sanctions all thought from a position of authority, be that political, religious or scientific.

The problem is that deference to authority is indispensable to modern civilization. I do not have a degree in biochemistry, physics, or biology and I have no interest in getting one. I am an expert in two narrow subjects and it took me many years to get here. I simply don't have time to form all of my own opinions on nutrition and lifestyle, or even moral and spiritual subjects. I need to pick respected authorities and believe in them and advocate for them. That's just how life works. Making sure those authorities are not wrong or corrupt is a complicated political problem. You can't just brush it away by saying something like "Do your own research." Yeah, like I'm going to spend eight years building up the requisite expertise to do my own research on a lot of this stuff. You need a deep background in chemistry, statistics, experimental methodology and design of experiment, and how socio-political forces influence the research scene. "Do your own research" is a rather pathetic lie. Not gonna happen in any meaningful way. I just spent over a decade mastering my own profession. I need the cheat sheet version on certain other subjects.

On the matter of nutrition and certain medicines I am a proud authoritarian for Ray Peat. He is my authority and I defer to him as a loyal subject. I will go to bat for him when people attack him in the lower realms with stupid points I can easily deflect.

 

[goodandevil]

I have never once seen people talk about dealing with their inner authoritarian. The term is always used as a smear. If it's not used as a way to say "these people are stupid-heads and I hate them," then it's sometimes a vague and useless complaint about society. In the latter case it's particularly bad because it shuts down further thought on why certain things might be that way. There are no causal factors or history to consider, instead like a zombie infection somehow "authoritarians" moved in. Zombies, of course, have high serotonin and it's all that simple.

Excellent point. I suppose also ironic, because people feel they have to present thenselves, and exist, in an infallible way- as defined by the very powers that wield authority.

 

[narouz]

The problem is that deference to authority is indispensable to modern civilization. I do not have a degree in biochemistry, physics, or biology and I have no interest in getting one. I am an expert in two narrow subjects and it took me many years to get here. I simply don't have time to form all of my own opinions on nutrition and lifestyle, or even moral and spiritual subjects. I need to pick respected authorities and believe in them and advocate for them. That's just how life works. Making sure those authorities are not wrong or corrupt is a complicated political problem. You can't just brush it away by saying something like "Do your own research." Yeah, like I'm going to spend eight years building up the requisite expertise to do my own research on a lot of this stuff. You need a deep background in chemistry, statistics, experimental methodology and design of experiment, and how socio-political forces influence the research scene. "Do your own research" is a rather pathetic lie. Not gonna happen in any meaningful way. I just spent over a decade mastering my own profession. I need the cheat sheet version on certain other subjects.

On the matter of nutrition and certain medicines I am a proud authoritarian for Ray Peat. He is my authority and I defer to him as a loyal subject. I will go to bat for him when people attack him in the lower realms with stupid points I can easily deflect.

I got a kick out of that, bob.
Really.
You make some good points.

But I do think you go to far.
Aren't these significantly different statements:
1. I believe everything Ray Peat says and anybody who says different is full of crap!
2. I find Ray Peat very convincing about most nutrition and health matters,
but I welcome discussion from those who hold different views.
?

I understand what you're saying about you (and I!) not having the education
to "do our research" at the same level Peat has.
But does that mean we must slavishly surrender to his every view
and accept him as our authority?
And does it mean that we in turn must try to force those who do not believe
everything Peat says,
to submit to him?

 

[DaveFoster]

Mitochondrial frickin respiration is haram.

Diving into with solemn surrendering the gift-spangled sproutings of cold, quiet seed whose animatory function serves a beckoning reminder of the id-neglecting dissolution consequent when silver threads are cut out of exorbitantly ethereal perversion is ****ing haram.

Degenerate. The id is to be suppressed. Man's base nature must be conquered.

 

[tara]

Socialism is 100% authoritarian, as a socialist yourself you probably don't understand authoritarianism

Lol.

Unregulated capitalism tends to systematically concentrate monopoly power in the hands of a small number of people who are then able to dominate the rest of society. This is inherently anti-democratic, and looks like a set up to make authoritarianism very likely.

There have been various autoritarian regimes that have called themselves socialist. Some of them have more in common with capitalism than socialism - that is, they concentrate control of capital in a few hands - so they have been socialist in name but not in substance.

Undemocratic socialism can also concentrate power in the hands of a dominant few, and give rise to authoritarianism. But that's to do with inadequate democracy, not an inherent part of socialism.

From my PoV, real socialism could potentially be a lot more compatible with democracy than capitalism is. It hasn't yet been tried on more than quite a small scale yet, as far as I know.

 

[thyrulian]

Degenerate. The id is to be suppressed. Man's base nature must be conquered.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Vomit.

If estrogen is an angelic agent, then ******* damn it.

 

[bobbybobbob]

Lol.

Unregulated capitalism tends to systematically concentrate monopoly power in the hands of a small number of people who are then able to dominate the rest of society. This is inherently anti-democratic, and looks like a set up to make authoritarianism very likely.

There have been various autoritarian regimes that have called themselves socialist. Some of them have more in common with capitalism than socialism - that is, they concentrate control of capital in a few hands - so they have been socialist in name but not in substance.

Undemocratic socialism can also concentrate power in the hands of a dominant few, and give rise to authoritarianism. But that's to do with inadequate democracy, not an inherent part of socialism.

From my PoV, real socialism could potentially be a lot more compatible with democracy than capitalism is. It hasn't yet been tried on more than quite a small scale yet, as far as I know.

Socialism and Capitalism are terms from a slice of the 19th century. They have been dead and irrelevant for a long time. When you use them you are spending time with ghosts and fighting their battles.

 

[tara]

Of the definitions my thesaurus offers, the one I like best is "expecting unquestioning obedience".

Nice.

An authoritarian wants you to:

1) Accept what they say without question and,
2) Do what they say without question.

They want your compliance at the expense of your autonomy.

I agree with your description. I think it is often used as that kind of meaningless slur. But there may occasionally be real uses for the word, too. Like this nice example of Spokey's:

"Cholesterol causes heart disease because big Pharma and all those posh MDs they paid for says so, you're nobody so I won't bother to entertain your position and further I think you should be arrested and bared from internet usage for daring to have an opinion on the matter contrary to people I and society deem experts."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

This is interesting. I guess I think in terms of legitimate authority being an authority that is vested with authority by some kind of mandate arising from democracy and/or real relevant skill and knowledge. Authoritarianism to me involves illegitimate authority, that is demanding obedience or acceptance without good reason or mandate.

The problem is that deference to authority is indispensable to modern civilization.

Yes.

Making sure those authorities are not wrong or corrupt is a complicated political problem. You can't just brush it away by saying something like "Do your own research."

I agree.

I consider Peat to be an authority on some areas of physiology, because he has studied and thought about it so well. I don't see him as authoritarian, because he usually presents the reasons for his ideas, and doesn't demand that anyone else accept them, and as far as I know he doesn't try to boss anyone else around. And I don't make any commitment to unquestioningly accepting everything he says as true. To my mind, his authority is limited to particular areas of expertise.
I generally recognise the legitimate authority of the traffic police where I am because I think they are generally reasonably constituted and mostly serve the safety of the community well (even if I doon't particularly enjoy getting a speeding ticket). I can't speak for other countries where such authority may be more misused.

Leaders can be authoritarian or not, depending on how they acquire and perform and maintain their leadership role. Part of the legitimacy of someone's authority probably includes something to do with being able to be questioned, abandoned or deposed for a better alternative if enogh people think don't serve their role well enough.

 

[tara]

Socialism is 100% authoritarian, as a socialist yourself you probably don't understand authoritarianism

BTW, I'm not sure I identify as a socialist.
Though it seems that in the extreme capitalist US, anyone who is ever-so-slightly to the left of the GOP gets called socialist. Eg Sanders campaign - it's social democrat, not a socialist. None of the policies I've seen from him suggest not supporting an ongoing capitalist system - he suggests some very mild limitations and modifications, while leaving the overall system intact.

Socialism and Capitalism are terms from a slice of the 19th century. They have been dead and irrelevant for a long time. When you use them you are spending time with ghosts and fighting their battles.

Capitalism is the dominant economic organising principle at the moment. It is strongly influenced by a trend that I'm not sure how to name - maybe Financialism? - in which the massive daily transfers of currency itself has major effects on economic realities.
It is clearly unworkable in the long-run, and has been showing major cracks in recent times.

I don't know what we will figure out to replace it, but it's about time we do.

I expect there will be some useful lessons to learn from countries and groups who have attempted something more socialist, and some things that are best not recreated.
You have to have respect for Cuba, for instance, when it comes to their health system. Not becaue I think it is perfect, or that the world should adopt their system in whole. But they have a life-expectancy similar to the US using a fraction of the resources. They must be doing something right. I think part of it is giving priority to everyone's health ahead of some people's excessive accumulation of wealth.

 

[bobbybobbob]

Capitalism has never been an organizing principle. Karl Marx coined the very term to describe the early industrial economies that rather organically emerged in parts of Western Europe in the mid to late 19th century. At no point did anyone ever say "we're capitalist now." Marx also said history would inevitably march to conditions where socialism would be achieved. Ignoring what exactly he meant by that, it's obviously not happening.

I reiterate: when you use these terms "capitalist" and "socialist" you are talking with dead dudes from 200 years ago who have been proved mostly wrong. Nobody serious cares anymore.

 

[tara]

At no point did anyone ever say "we're capitalist now."

A rose by any other name .... Doesn't matter what they call it.
There seem to be different definitions of capitalism. Some recognise the possibility of state capitalism, some exclude it.

Merriam-webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Wikipedia:
"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, the creation of goods and services for profit, and a system of salary and wage labor for the majority of workers.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.[6][7]"

And here's a socialist point of view ( What is Capitalism? | World Socialist Movement):
"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

While there may not be any entirely pure capitalist systems around, these definitions describe the larger part of the US economic system and most other countries now too. Some amelioration of the effects of pure capitalism help keep the system going for longer. For instance, social security systems can help subsidise the wages the people who are working for the capital owners, and stave off collapse of the society.

 

[DaveFoster]

From my PoV, real socialism could potentially be a lot more compatible with democracy than capitalism is.

You're right tara, democracy is not compatible with capitalism.

 

[tara]

Nobody serious cares anymore.

Does defining everybody who disagrees with you as 'nobody serious' count as 'authoritarian'? :)
History is not yet over. We don't yet know what will happen.
One of the reasons some of the experiments that were moving in more socialist diections have not progressed is because the US government has repeatedly participated in undermining them.

I think one of the things Marx did not take into account (because it was not there to observe at the time) was how effectively populations could be confused about the major economic relationships, and how much of the population could be given middle-class privilege (relative to the rest of the working class) and convinced that their interests lie with maintaining the system, and that TINA.

 

[goodandevil]

Does defining everybody who disagrees with you as 'nobody serious' count as 'authoritarian'? :)
History is not yet over. We don't yet know what will happen.
One of the reasons some of the experiments that were moving in more socialist diections have not progressed is because the US government has repeatedly participated in undermining them.


I think one of the things Marx did not take into account (because it was not there to observe at the time) was how effectively populations could be confused about the major economic relationships, and how much of the population could be given middle-class privilege (relative to the rest of the working class) and convinced that their interests lie with maintaining the system, and that TINA.

Well said ... COMRADE Tara

 

[goodandevil]

Does defining everybody who disagrees with you as 'nobody serious' count as 'authoritarian'? :)
History is not yet over. We don't yet know what will happen.
One of the reasons some of the experiments that were moving in more socialist diections have not progressed is because the US government has repeatedly participated in undermining them.

I think one of the things Marx did not take into account (because it was not there to observe at the time) was how effectively populations could be confused about the major economic relationships, and how much of the population could be given middle-class privilege (relative to the rest of the working class) and convinced that their interests lie with maintaining the system, and that TINA.

National Anthem of USSR