"Authoritarian"

[bobbybobbob]

Sorry, I must have misread your post. Well, then maybe bobbybob can respond instead.

I don't know that you've used it inappropriately, nor have I accused you of such. I just think it's a really dumb term and idea. I stand by my comments in other posts about what it really is. However you try to use it, it's probably best understood as a weak outsiders' smear against the preeminent and powerful culture of the USA in the late 1940s and 1950s.

It's mostly a cheap slogan against existing political power structures. "The Man." Slogans can be very useful, but this one is weak. It is essentially defeatist. It does not invite any further understanding of power. Power structures are inevitable. Politics is inevitable. There will *always* be authorities trying to steer your behavior and thoughts and that of the society. And this is not even usually wrong. Do you deny the authority of the mother and father over the child? The manager over the entry level employee? "Authoritarian" power structures are very often for the good. The key is to make sure you have authorities you like, who look out for your best interests. This is politics.

By political power structures I do not just mean the ruling government. I mean it in the same broad sense the term "authoritarian" has come to be used. The analysis applies in workplaces and families, relationships, churches, pop culture, etc.

The plain fact of human society is that you build and defend power, or others will exercise power over you. Rule or be ruled. The lament "Authoritarian" amounts to moaning that this is wrong. The moaning changes nothing. It probably makes it worse because it's dis-empowering. It invites you to whine and run away and avoid people and situations rather than intelligently organize and pursue your interests. Encouragement to the latter is very often the appropriate path out of "learned helplessness."

I'm sure somebody will accuse me of being mentally ill for being frank that the exercise and defense of power is an undercurrent of many social organizations and relationships. I think it's just realistic.

 

[goodandevil]

What does Louis Farrakhan has to do with the conversation ?

He was also funded by the ford foundation.

 

[narouz]

The plain fact of human society is that you build and defend power, or others will exercise power over you. Rule or be ruled.

Since I know from other threads that you are a Trump enthusiast,
I have some trepidation in saying I think I agree with you on this point.

But, I guess the notion is compatible with different political philosophies.
You want to "build and defend power" through the election of Donald Trump.
I want to "build and defend power" through the election of someone not Donald Trump.
(I want to build and defend power which will protect me from someone
like Donald Trump.)

There is a sortuv ironic wrinkle to this, don't you think?
I mean: personally, I want to "build and defend" and vote for
the kind of power (or authority)
that will exercise the least amount of control over me
while still doing what I want it to do--
make my life better
and if possible help make everyone's life better
(sounds a little utopian, but I simply mean that
I don't want my government to make my life better
by making the lives of people in other countries' worse;
corollary here is I also don't want my government to let other countries
make my life worse so that they can make their people's lives better.
Cooperation needs to take place.)

For me, Trump isn't a good fit with what I've just said.
He wants to let the rich people exert their will on the un-rich.
He doesn't see government as an entity which should ameliorate the inequities
which naturally occur when some have tremendous wealth and vastly more others have very little.
For him, life is all about Winning, and he sees himself as a Winner.
Life is about winning, and some people have got to lose.
Probably, in his view, because they deserve to lose.
"You're fired!"
So the authority you want to build by electing The Donald
will protect you because, I have to think, you see yourself as a winner along with Donald.
So you want Donald to keep your money away from the Losers and Whiners...yes?

I don't think I quite made my point above about irony.
I want to "build and defend" and elect an authority
that will protect me against authority--as much, all things considered, as possible.

 

[Drareg]

I don't know that you've used it inappropriately, nor have I accused you of such. I just think it's a really dumb term and idea. I stand by my comments in other posts about what it really is. However you try to use it, it's probably best understood as a weak outsiders' smear against the preeminent and powerful culture of the USA in the late 1940s and 1950s.

It's mostly a cheap slogan against existing political power structures. "The Man." Slogans can be very useful, but this one is weak. It is essentially defeatist. It does not invite any further understanding of power. Power structures are inevitable. Politics is inevitable. There will *always* be authorities trying to steer your behavior and thoughts and that of the society. And this is not even usually wrong. Do you deny the authority of the mother and father over the child? The manager over the entry level employee? "Authoritarian" power structures are very often for the good. The key is to make sure you have authorities you like, who look out for your best interests. This is politics.

By political power structures I do not just mean the ruling government. I mean it in the same broad sense the term "authoritarian" has come to be used. The analysis applies in workplaces and families, relationships, churches, pop culture, etc.

The plain fact of human society is that you build and defend power, or others will exercise power over you. Rule or be ruled. The lament "Authoritarian" amounts to moaning that this is wrong. The moaning changes nothing. It probably makes it worse because it's dis-empowering. It invites you to whine and run away and avoid people and situations rather than intelligently organize and pursue your interests. Encouragement to the latter is very often the appropriate path out of "learned helplessness."

I'm sure somebody will accuse me of being mentally ill for being frank that the exercise and defense of power is an undercurrent of many social organizations and relationships. I think it's just realistic.

Your last paragraph you say it has been an undercurrent of many organisation and relationships , I agree with you, but that does not make it sustainable.

You are the one sounding defeatist in the rest of it, children from authority styled parenting, never ends well, all power structures you mention throughout history collapse and end in carnage.
There is a difference between marshalling or shepherding to authoritarian I think ,it's tough term to define but I think we all know it when we see it.
Power structures that are immune to change are not good, after a period passes they become stagnant, after a period ,they clearly throughout history dont look out for our interests.

Rule or be ruled is defeatist and filled with fear ,again the ruler doesn't last long, there is no fact that humans must build power and defend it,humans are doing this sure ,again having power just to defend from loosing it seems pointless,it's like the gangster who knows well there a crook ,looking over their shoulder every day,not sleeping at night.

Intelligently organise and pursue your interests is a good thing but not if you view other people as below you and need to be kept in check and bouncing to the beat of the rulers drum.

POWER is not necessarily the same as authoritarian.
It all seems pointless when you consider infinite potential for change, why have so many miserable just so some clowns with money can be convinced they have power, the peasant can excercise the ultimate power we all posses and it's free, kill the King, French Revolution and many more examples. None of this is nice for the children or you could just force the kids to become soldiers via propaganda/ fear mongering.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't know that you've used it inappropriately, nor have I accused you of such. I just think it's a really dumb term and idea. I stand by my comments in other posts about what it really is. However you try to use it, it's probably best understood as a weak outsiders' smear against the preeminent and powerful culture of the USA in the late 1940s and 1950s.

It's mostly a cheap slogan against existing political power structures. "The Man." Slogans can be very useful, but this one is weak. It is essentially defeatist. It does not invite any further understanding of power. Power structures are inevitable. Politics is inevitable. There will *always* be authorities trying to steer your behavior and thoughts and that of the society. And this is not even usually wrong. Do you deny the authority of the mother and father over the child? The manager over the entry level employee? "Authoritarian" power structures are very often for the good. The key is to make sure you have authorities you like, who look out for your best interests. This is politics.

By political power structures I do not just mean the ruling government. I mean it in the same broad sense the term "authoritarian" has come to be used. The analysis applies in workplaces and families, relationships, churches, pop culture, etc.

The plain fact of human society is that you build and defend power, or others will exercise power over you. Rule or be ruled. The lament "Authoritarian" amounts to moaning that this is wrong. The moaning changes nothing. It probably makes it worse because it's dis-empowering. It invites you to whine and run away and avoid people and situations rather than intelligently organize and pursue your interests. Encouragement to the latter is very often the appropriate path out of "learned helplessness."

I'm sure somebody will accuse me of being mentally ill for being frank that the exercise and defense of power is an undercurrent of many social organizations and relationships. I think it's just realistic.

Sounds like you actually prefer authoritarianism, instead of the argument of not liking the way it was used. Maybe you don't approve of the way it was used because you agree with authoritarianism ?