Is left intellectualism inherently authoritarian?

[sweetheart]

The neocons have their roots in left trotskyism, and it warrants some
investigation, on our own behalf, why the left has been the fertile
soil in which so many tyrants have bred. If we are the sensitive
do-gooder, receptive, life giving, goodwill-having left, then what is
it, about our dark side, that creates nightmares?

Is it a vacuum of power, that when everyone wants to share power, that
there is a hole in the middle for a tyrant? In reading so many posts
here on DU, the left worships its bright minds, and these are great
authorities, very "right" in their views... and this very-rightness
breeds in its own way, a very authoritarian put-down of the wrong.

Good judgment is so elevated and in some cases, not tempered with
humility to realize that judgment has limits... as it divides and
conquers persons. When judgment is seen as relative, and not
absolute, with some humble deference to a divine authority, there seems
to be less abuse... and perhaps the blame belongs to the secular
nature of such authoritarians.

In this regard, GWB is a godless tyrant, surrounded by ex-left
intellectual authoritarians who are equally godless... and i can't
help but wonder if there is some cohesion, some mysterious responsibility
that we all bear for the elevation of such human filth.

Have you wondered about this?

[SteppingRazor]

1. But authoritarians aren't always secular

Iranian theocracy, for example. Or every medieval king who held his crown through divine right. I don't think the answer to elitist authoritarianism is necessarily "humble deference to divine authority." In fact, with God on one's side, isn't it far easier to justify the ordinarily unjustifiable?

[sweetheart]

7. I really can't speak regarding Iran

I don't know "who" the authority is, or if it is not a collective borg
like the republicans. It seems the "authorities" that repress, are all
of the religious schools, and, educated in that regard.

As well, for all the complaining, Iran has invaded no nation, and has
been a generally peaceful state for thousands of years since persia
times.

I really don't mean "god on your side"... rather i mean truly religious,
someone who realizes that humans are prone to error, that when you're
"SURE" you're right, you're usually wrong... that the human ego is
prone to vanity and hubris, being wary of these sins of pride. So,
in that sense, there are no christian leaders involved with the repukes.
The only god that its on their side is war, hatred and egotism.

[kittynboi]

79. In fact...

....Secular authoritarians were more or less unheard of before the modern era. All kings, emperors, or other rulers of antiquity, except possibly the senators and stuff of ancient rome, all derived their claim of authority from some divine source or another.

[Larkspur]

2. The extremes on both sides of the political spectrum end in Totalitarianis

Communism mutated into Stalinism and dictatorship by one Party, and Capitalism mutates into fascism and a dictatorship by one Pary.

[Vladimir]

4. Communism mutated into Stalinism in the Russian context

in China it went down a very different road, as in Cuba and Yugoslavia (where it morphed into market socialism for reasons of national interest, for example). Capitalism also goes into fascism only in certain contexts: witness Sweden etc.

[Larkspur]

9. You're right. I was just being general in my description

All human systesm -- communism, feudalism, captitalism -- are subject to error and subject to being manipulated by powerful people or groups of people to serve the elite's ambitions.

[gorbal]

43. Would you say socialism was on the rise again?

Did anyone else notice the entire world take a turn to the left after George Bush's piss- poor example of "capitalism" turned everyone off.

I wonder if somehow in our doomsday doom and gloom in the United States we are missing the whole picture.

[K-W]

11. That is rediculous.

First off there is no dualistic spectrum. No form of government is the opposite of another form of government. Tyranny hasnt just coincidentally popped up in society after society, culture after culture, religion after religion. Communism didnt mutate into stalinism. Communism as a philosophy became, like so many philosophies before it, a tool for control when an authoritarian power structure achieved the ability to control information and thought. There is no danger in exploring any philosophy. There is danger in authoritarianism, any anything on the left is by definition against authoritarianism, including communist philosophy, the supposed teachings of Jesus Christ, and the ideals of liberalism, all three of which have been twisted by those in power to become tools of orthodoxy and control amongst many other concepts.

Attempting to achieve a communist society isnt likely to end in a totilitarian structure simply because it happens to be considered at the end of a spectrum of mainstream US opinion. Communism was useful for tyrants for the same reason christianity was useful for tyrants, it presents a way out of the harsh reality people found themselves living in. So leaders promised to deliver this alternative, and of course, delivered tyranny.

[TahitiNut]

67. Word!

Well-stated. :thumbsup: I agree ... and I'm VERY familiar with "American authoritarianism."

[rock]

3. no

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. Not inherently, no

It depends on the context. It seems that if you wait long enough, socialists and liberals in government will end up gradually becoming more authoritarian. It's the nature of power, that those who have it wish to consolidate it - no matter what the ideology.

[xchrom]

6. all institutions will devolve into machines that grub for

power, which is seen as survival.

that why european socialism uses the checks and balaces of elections to inject fresh blood into the system every so often - it isn't perfect.
but it ain't bad either.

but i'm no fan of democracy either.
as democracy has developed in this country it has tolerated and protected many evils.
no place is perfect -- the only worth while thing in this regard is to keep working for checks and balances and to make sure there are always new people coming into our institutions.

[bennywhale]

8. I think some of your argument is very perceptive "...this very rightness

breeds in its own way, a very authoritarian put down of the wrong." Pol Pot was reported to say "I know the truth and if you don't there is something wrong with YOU"

Obviously Pol Pot could not be described as having a lot of "rightness" however, he believed he had.

It is not then a preserve of the Left. All political persuasions believe they have rightness on their side and that their side is essentially right.

Therefore the problem is not which political persuasion, but the nature by which one's political covictions are played out. That is, it is ideologues of all persuasions that are authoritarians.

A dogmatic, fanatical belief, that you alone have unique access to the truth, will lead with certainty to a more authoritarian approach. What we must be fanatical about is democracy and freedom, not how right we are.

Also, a believe from free market fanatics perpetuates this. If you are inclined towards a fair distribution of resources; that automatically at some stage leads to forced removal of someones resources for redistribution (through taxes). They deliberately cloud the freedom and liberty of individuals with the sanctity of the market. In doing so, they merge the market activity of an individual to his/her liberty and freedom. This assertion also maintains by implication that all resources are justly owned, which they are not, and that it is authoritarian to interfere with a persons freedom to do as they wish with their resources.

This position is what leads people to believe that the Left is more authoritarian, when in fact it is not. Authoritarianism comes from a lack of respect for democracy, freedom, and freedom of speech, due to the dogmatic belief that you have unique access to the truth.

I am Definetely right and everyone else is definetely wrong. This makes it scarier as it implies that they are well meaning.

[sweetheart]

10. Perhaps the universities help with the sense of authority

Whilst the whole spectrum, as you mention, provides the ground... perhaps
as the left "owns" universities, and the reinforcement of "right"
and the elitism that verifies that authority, that there is increased
ground for producing "wolfowitz'es" and "straussians"?

[Mairead]

12. "why has the left been the fertile soil for breeding tyrants"

The problem is a definitional one. The Soviets weren't 'left' in anything resembling the way that, for example, Zinn is. As Chomsky points out, state socialists, state capitalists, and fascists are all the same thing at bottom: one small group at the top owns and controls everything, both government and business.

Which explains why it was so simple for the former Nazi party members to become good Commie party members, and good Commies to become good Capitalists: the underlying attitude of mind --Adam Smith's 'vile maxim'-- stays the same; only the label and other superficial details change.

[K-W]

13. As long as we have tyranny all philosophy will be twisted to it.

So why on earth are we blaming communist philosophy for tyranny.

Its just philosophy, everyone, go ahead, read it, it wont bite.

We are encouraged not to read it for the same reason christians were ecouraged not to read the bible for so long. Because lies about communism are used to control us just as lies about christianity were used to control them.

[Mairead]

14. Exactly.

There's nothing in the nature of communism or socialism--or even capitalism--that inherently leads to bad stuff. But any system can be hijacked, killed, and the skin wrapped around something completely ugly.

[K-W]

15. I disagree on capitalism.

Unlike socialism or communism, capitalism isn't a Utopian philosophy. It was not thought up, it developed and then philosophers like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, etc described it and developed their own Utopian or not theories of the future of capitalism. Socialism and Marxist Communism are capitalist theories.

What is presented as 'capitalism' by our government as the central dogma of our economy, is not capitalism, it is a completely inconsistent mythology designed to elicit support, behind it is also not any general philosophy of capitalism, but one particular philosophy of the future of capitalism, one that is not Utopian, like socialism or communism, but one that envisions the continuation of the capitalist social arrangement through new means. Just as mercantilist capitalism represented the continuation of the feudal social arrangement through new means as mercantilism transformed the economy and as industrialized capitalism continued on through new means to continue the economic relationship through the industrial age. Globalization is the attempt to move that relationship into the coming global economy, but what they sell publicly as globalization is a pack of nonsense.

The fundamental nature of capitalism is a system of exploitation, it is not a Utopian philosophy gone wrong.

[Mairead]

17. "The fundamental nature of capitalism is a system of exploitation"

Are you sure you're not thinking about private-profit capitalism? Capitalism only means not consuming all the wealth, but using it to fund additional work. Supposing the capital is owned communally?

(edit to fix html)

[K-W]

21. Capital cannot be owned communally.

If it is owned communally it is not capital. Capital is by definition private. Capitalism refers to a system of production involving reinvestment for profit, not all reinvestment. All societies reinvest in some way shape or form, not all societies are capitalist.

The extraction of profit by capitalists is inherent to capitalism. What you are suggesting would be an alternative to capitalism.

[Mairead]

23. That sounds ideological rather than linguistic to me

And my dictionary disagrees with you, too :)

[aion]

54. I see nothing in Webster's that indicates your point of view.

Etymology: French or Italian; French, from Italian capitale, from capitale, adjective, chief, principal, from Latin capitalis
1 a (1) : a stock of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period; also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income b (1) : net worth (2) : CAPITAL STOCK c : persons holding capital d : ADVANTAGE, GAIN <make capital of the situation>
2 <2capital> a : a capital letter; especially : an initial capital letter b : a letter belonging to a style of alphabet modeled on the style customarily used in inscriptions
3 <2capital> a : a city serving as a seat of government b : a city preeminent in some special activity <the fashion capital>

[GirlinContempt]

55. sorry to just jump in, but

Under capitalism, capital is inherently private.

Capitalism:
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

[rinsd]

24. Utopian Philosphy = the Pied Piper

The fundamental nature of communism is comformity and sacrificing ones self for the greater good of the whole.

And as capitalism nature of explotation allowed for the such abominations as slavery, communism's nature allowed for the wholesale elimination of peoples.

[GirlinContempt]

53. Untrue

"The fundamental nature of communism is comformity and sacrificing ones self for the greater good of the whole"

The fundamental principle of communism is the abolition of private properly, not as a sacrifice of ones self, but as a freeing of humanity.

[TahitiNut]

70. No ... it's NOT "the abolition of private property"

Communism is a reactive ideology, reactive to the abuses of capitalism. It does not attempt to abolish private ownership of property per se; it advocates the communal ownership of the means of production. Communism eschews ownership of productive capital by other than those whose labors create the very 'value' of that capital, i.e. workers. Communism does not inherently eschew private property in the form of consumer goods and skilled trades. A carpenter still owns his tools. A citizen still owns his car.

Let's make one thing, if nothing else, abundantly clear. "Ownership" is an entitlement. An entitlement is wholly and entirely a legal fiction of the State. Without titles, deeds, inheritance, and the State management and enforcement of such things, there is no "ownership" - only possession. In order to control ownership, one must control the State.

"Capitalism" was originally (pre-corporate era) the advocacy of private ownership of the means of production ... at a time when the Monarchy was deemed the 'agent on earth' (mediated by the Church) of God's ownership of all land. When the State (whether in the form of a Monarch or Stalinist or Fascist) effectively owns and controls all viable means of production then it, in effect, has the power to enslave all workers - workers who're forced to sacrifice the majority of the wealth created by their labors to the entitled (i.e. deeded or titled) "owners."

So "capitalism" was, like "communism," a reaction to the injustice of workers being robbed of the majority of the value of their labor. The original capitalists said "if the worker is entitled to own the land instead of the land-Lord, then the worker can keep the value of his labor." This eventually resulted in a market for ownership - a trade in entitlements created and enforced by the State. As we now know, this trade in entitlements led to abuses - "Robber Barons." (The use of the term "Baron" was not accidental - it portrayed a resurrection of the abuses of the Monarchy.)

Therefore ...

The question is and always has been: When the 'Owner" and 'Worker" aren't one in the same person, what's the just apportionment of the value of labor between the 'Owner' and 'Worker' and how is that economic Justice assured by a system of governance???


Let's always try to remember that the sole ethical and moral legitimacy of government is that it ensure Justice. Without justice, no government can be deemed morally legitimate. This is a core message of the Enlightenment and a major motive for both the American and French Revolutions.

I recommend: Rawls' "A Theory of Justice"

[GirlinContempt]

71. I'm well aware

I actually define private property in the same way Marx did. And thats what I was referring to. And I am aware of the roots of capitalism.
So, yes, the core principle is the abolition of private property, and not comformity for the good of the whole.

To quote Marx:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

[TahitiNut]

73. The point is ...

... the ordinary meaning of the term "private property" is not congruent with Marx's ... and the issue centers on that property which is productive property, not personal property.

The other confusion has to do with the focus on ownership of goods, i.e. the "capital output." This is the bone over which the contentions are made and the seminal issue is still one of fair and just apportionment of capital (i.e. wealth created by labor) between 'owners' and 'workers.'


Afterthought - Marx did two things: (1) identified a problem and (2) proposed a solution. When we (as a society) repudiate (2) we're still left with (1). Sadly, altogether too many seem to think the repudiation of (2) apologizes ignoring (1) and pretending it doesn't exist. It doesn't.

[GirlinContempt]

74. The point is

I'm working under Marx's definition of private property, which may not be common, but is what I was referring to. Sounds like we're on the same page more or less.

I personally agree with Marx's 1 & 2, and the bigger problem I see is people thinking a for-profit before-people system can be restructured to fix 1.

[murielkane]

16. The left bears no "mysterious responsibility" for GWBush

I'll grant you that it's a universal human tendency to want to follow leaders who seem to have all the answers. But this tendency is far more ingrained on the right than on the left. Just look around you -- the right marches in lockstep, while the left has a thousand different strains of opinion.

The left is not "the fertile soil in which so many tyrants have bred." I can't think of any tyrants who have come out of the democratic left. And even if you include exponents of state socialism as leftists (and I'm not sure I do), the left has produced far fewer tyrants than the authoritarian right.

The Neocons, despite their historical connection to Trotskyism a generation or two back, also seem much more closely connected to fascism than to socialism. At least one of them, Michael Ledeen, hobnobs with Italism neo-fascists and has written in praise of fascism. Their mentor, Leo Strauss was a German Jew of the type that would have happily supported the Nazis if he had only been given the opportunity.

Rather than angsting over its imaginary dark side, the left would be far better occupied in considering whether its compulsion to play nice and give everyone an even break might be a fatal weakness when going up against the unreconstructed bastards of the right.

[sweetheart]

30. Excellent point

the left would be far better occupied in considering whether its compulsion to play nice and give everyone an even break might be a fatal weakness when going up against the unreconstructed bastards of the right.

That feels like a home run... dead right on.

That said, how do you heard cats? How do you get so much diversity to
come together, outside of "opposing the BFEE"? For all the critiques
of capitalism and the demonstrations, the manifesto seems negative.
Kucinich suggests ending the WTO and NAFTA... and i understand his
motives, in that these organizations are being used to undermine civil
rights and labour rights hard fought for...

But the result is that the manifesto is negative, and what i wouldn't
give for a delicately worded manifesto we could all agree on and march
to, that was not designed in absentia by the neocriminals.

[H2O Man]

18. I don't think it is the "system"

that causes the abuse per say. Each of the three theories of industrial society -- capitalism, socialism, and communism -- have about the same potential for abuse. What might be more interesting to consider is which of the three offers the most potential for good, and has the maximum potential to be flexible to meet the most people's needs. I would give the nod to a mixed economy. There are some areas that should be open for a free market, and other areas that should be do better when they are socialized (public education, medicare& medicaid, etc). Socialism in a democratic state has perhaps the least chance of abuse, and the greatest potential to benefit the majority of the citizens.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

19. The God part

Take that out and you have me convinced. It's people who don't have a single overwhelming idea like God or Historical Necessity who tend not to do the real nasty stuff.

[Az]

20. The problem with knowledge in a diverse society

The cornerstone that makes our society work is the notion that we all have a say in the process. That is it is more a consential process than an authoratarian process.

The left tends to support the idea of growing to understand a problem. Find the truth and work from there is the basic model we follow. The better we understand a problem the better we can address a correction to it. But this is where our problem comes from.

Once we understand that something is right or wrong we wish to act on it. The fact that we see the sense of it does not mean others will see the sense of it. Suddenly we find ourselves at odds with the very foundation of the society we cherish. That is we wish to bring our view to others. They will necissarily see this as us trying to force our view on them. It matters not to them that we have investigated and approached the matter with reason and consideration. They simply see it as us trying to force our opinions on them.

Post Modern societies are a necessity for a diverse society. But they can easily wind up becoming stagnant. Because they insist that no one view can be right and all must have a voice in the process no progress can be made unless all in the society tend to progress along the same path. Over time this becomes increasingly difficult and eventually entropy takes hold and progress dies.

This is where we are now. There is no more cohesion in our society. Those that resist progress as we see it have dug their heels in and will go no further. Instead they are going to try to drag the society back to what they beleive is its correct form. There will be no more consensus. There will only be anger and conflict.

[sweetheart]

32. So is the answer to force it?

Perhaps the consensus must be manufactured? There is no equivalent of
DU in britain, and yet there is a much more organized left, as the
cats march in line... that through censorship, the left controls its
dissent through the BBC, yet producing a cohesive "voice".

But i suspect, that due to the constitutional monarchy, that britain,
however much it might appear, is not a postmodern society as you
describe... as there is a state religion... there are religions persons
in the House of lords and a great priest of canterbury, and a queen
in charge of a dying church.

How do we instigate cohesion... or must it break down in to riots and
a people's revolt or revolution where the nobles are beheaded in the
public square on the guillotine... so we can have a napoleon?

It sounds like either we come up with some "good" authoritarian leaders
and a cohesive manifesto, or "there will only be anger and conflict"..
or has it gone too far, and the second law of social thermodynamics must
finish its course?

[Az]

34. Discourse seems to be more alive in Europe

All pretense of discussion has broken down in the US. As long as discourse is continued the consensus process can work. Evidence and reason can be introduced to the process and bring about progress.

But once a faction has shut down and ceased to listen to the ideas of the rest in the society the process breaks. This is the nature of the social contract. The idea that we are all in this together and we must strive forward together.

Once a sufficient number cease to abide by this and decide to put only their agenda forward the entire system falls to peaces.

The progressive system is built upon reasoned dialog amongst equals. This cannot overcome an emotionally based insurgance from a sufficiently large group.

In Europe the groups that are radically opposed to progress are too small to effectively thwart it. But in the US the dynamic is different. It is not simply religion that is the cause of the problem. Great advances in society have come from religious individuals and will continue to do so. It is a particular aspect of some religious sects that is problematic. Specifically those exhibitting claims of absolute moral authority.

In the presense of such claims there can be no negotiation. Any society that has such a group present within it will experience a continual friction. While in normal circumstances there will be a degree of stress related to any social advances the presense of groups such as these exasterbates the matter exponentially.

Even the most inclusive society will eventually turn in on itself due to the presense of such factors. They desire to remain imovable. Either the society overwhelms them and drives them under or they grow and dismantle the progressive aspects of the society and turn in stagnant and repressive.

[sweetheart]

42. Very much like in the english civil war

It seems that the groups that refuse to dialog, were once much larger
in europe, and that they "evolved" somehow, by driving population
overseas and collapsing as empires through the excessive expense of war.

Sadly social maturity seems to come at such a heavy cost.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

22. PS

Is perpetuating the myth that left-leaning people are brainy, opinionated, smug, and domineering the best thing one could do to help the other side?

[sweetheart]

29. Oh its all about sides

Everyone's a freeper, is that it? It is a fact, that universities,
even today, as much as they are censored in thought, lean left.

I can't help but think that the authoritarian nature, to be "wicked"
with the abuse of power, comes before one's politics... that perhaps
some nasty people like woflowitz went to university and wore sheeps
clothing to get intellectual street cred, to reinforce their "rigthness"
and then went off to a life of abuse that was in the cards all along.

I'm sure dead strauss himself is rolling in his grave for what his
teachings were turned to in perversion of democracy.

It is not a myth, mate. The left is much better educated, and as anyone
on DU can observe, can be quite artful with the righteous putdown.
Each person is an individual, and i'm making no effort to slander
political ideals.. its a bit much.

[Mythsaje]

49. A lot of my views fit

right about the middle of the "left" "right" spectrum. (I know one poster said there IS no spectrum, but, in my eyes there a number of them. One ranges from Capitalism to Communism, while another ranges between Anarchy and Authoritarianism. Envision it in the shape of a cross or a lower case 'T,' if you prefer. There's a small quiz out there on the web somewhere that places you somewhere on the graph. I came out remarkably close to the Dalai Lama, if you can believe that.

One of the worst crimes in my book is abuse of authority. I was raised to have a natural dislike and distrust of it, and I've seen both the left and the right go too far on different occasions. I think the right has a greater tendency toward it if only because they lean upon the concept of God and Divine Will to support their case. Revealed religion is particularly dangerous because it takes away some peoples' need to ask questions. Assuming one knows something eliminates the chance one will ever learn anything new about the subject.

This isn't to say the left isn't occasionally guilty of it as well. They're less dogmatic, and more reasoned in their arguments of why something should be a certain way, but it's still vulnerable to excesses of authority just as is the right.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

62. I'm not even accusing you of "freeping"!

I just don't think we should even begin to engage this stereotype. Liberalism has to present itself as the obvious choice for aggrieved people who don't like to think. If we ourselves keep telling the public that we think they're smarter than they are, we will never win.

It may not be about sides, but it IS about winning.

[Lilith Velkor]

25. Nope

Although I did hear an interesting conspiracy theory on that:

Those guys are still communists, they just want to crash the US economy to prove to the world that capitalism doesn't work. Could be true for all I know... :shrug:

[omega minimo]

26. "not tempered with humility to realize that judgment has limits..."

"as it divides and conquers persons."


That's the trouble with


:bounce: :bounce:



and ego.

[lostnfound]

27. Yes. Humility and balance are two important values to hold onto

Humility in realizing that judgment has its limits; balance to avoid the extremes and to leave room in the real world for the practical expression of other perspectives and values.

Balance -- I.e., room for capitalist ventures amidst some pieces of a socialist-type of safety net; room for secular activities and religious ones; room for private and public spheres.

[kodi]

28. the arrogance of certainty has many homes.

peculiar to fanatics from both ends of the political spectrum is their belief in the absolute certainty of their cause.

[Az]

31. Its a bit more complex than just that

If you take the position that no one can ever be certain about anything to a sufficient degree then you create a situation that is stagnant. Unless one advocates walking in darkness we occaisionally have to bring the light of knowledge to bear on issues we face.

But those who dare to find a path forward are not always looked to for guidance by those who do not choose that way. Many times it is not the arrogance of certainty but rather the arrogance of ignorance which can often believe itself to be certain.

[kodi]

36. i find your comments remarkably obtuse

i dont know whether you misunderstood what the original poster was saying or if you are obtuse on purpose.

this was not a discussion on the Heisenburg Principle as applied to humanity.

the issue is that the left is perceived as having a dogmatic attitude seen by both allies and adversaries as elitist; that it stems from the far left's traditional perspective built around economic and political theories, and that for many on the left those theories are as inviolable as sacred text appears lost on you.

such absolute certainty drives human emotions and actions no less in a russian trotsyite than in a german national socialist or islamic (or american) religious fanatic, and is the common feature shared by the radical right and left and by religious fundamentalism. it is the arrogance that arises from investing in absolutes.

the certainty that one had built a better mouse trap is not the certainty of believing oneself is a member of a master race, a member of the vanguard of the revolution, or one of God's elect and thus grants one to do whatever one pleases if it furthers the "cause."

[H2O Man]

39. Yet it isn't the certainty

that is necessarily the problem. There are times that individuals and groups should be certain of the truth of their cause. There are examples that I suspect we would all agree on: the abolitionists' fight against slavery; environmental protection advocacy; and the efforts to end the American war in Iraq. When we look at Gandhi and King, they were clearly convinced that they were right.

Perhaps the difficulties lie in thinking that only we are right; that all issues can be broken down correctly into "right" and "wrong"; and to disrespect other views that we either understand and disagree with, or simply do not understand at all.

Gandhi used to say that intolerance betrays a want of faith in one's cause. I believe it. And intolerance is equally destructive coming from any direction, including the left or the right.

I think it is easy enough to agree with both of you on this.

[kodi]

52. as i said: "it is the arrogance that arises from investing in absolutes."

there is a broad line between believing in something and acting upon those beliefs. only those who feel threatened by alternative perspectives fortify their beliefs with actions against their own perspectives.

[H2O Man]

68. As long as "those"

who "fortify their beliefs with actions against their own perspectives" engage in such self-defeating behaviors, they surely pose no problem. I'm more concerned about people who are convinced of the absolute truth of their perspective who fortify their beliefs with actions that promote and entrench their own perspective, when that perspective is plum wrong. Racists, sexists, violent folk, and the like. Neocons in particular. The only thing that is more dangerous to our society is those who inhabit that broad line between knowing what's right, and doing something about it. Being a nation of spectators who lack the ability to act upon the truth makes that nation particularly vulnerable to those who act upon no sense of good whatsoever.

[Az]

45. I believe you may be misunderstanding

What about the certainty that homosexuality is not immoral? What about the certainty that women deserve the right to control their own bodies. What about the certainty that all people deserve equal rights?

These are all things that some in society have come to realize are true over the objections of others. It requires a significant number of individuals coming to understand these ideas to overcome the resistance of those who do not.

I am not sure how you managed to get inuendo of master races or god's elect out of my notions.

[kodi]

56. the issue's about authoritarianism on the left not decrying a queer nation

as i said, you are being obtuse.

to equate social and personal rights issues with the issue of the doctrinaire attitude of leftist political philosophy one must somehow be show them to be akin.

show me how this connection is made other than as i stated, viz., that the far left (and right) and anti-homosexual, anti-abortion advocates hold to the absolute moral, ethical, and philosophical certainty of their positions and that holding to the infallability of their positions grants to them the imprimatur to act upon these positions without regard to alternative perspectives, often to the detriment of pluralistic society.

the reference to nazis, communists, and fundamentalist deists illustrates that it is not the holding to a particular political or philosophical position that is the issue, but that there is an inherent feature in all three types where they use the application of social force to demand that others believe and/or act in a similar manner to themselves. these types hold to the absolute certainty that they are right and their opponents are wrong and that there is no middle way.

[bpilgrim]

57. Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

more...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

the issue is that the left is perceived as having a dogmatic attitude seen by both allies and adversaries as elitist;

pretty broad brush you are painting with...

but it is true that extremist of every stripe tend to paint their opponents (all of them) as dogmatic and abolitionist no matter the evidence.

but if we focus today on what is going on in America there can be no doubt that the radical right who are in power are the ones who are unwilling to compromise and i would argue that throughout history it is the right that are notorious for their willingness to use force to impose their values on the rest of us.

they must be confronted with the best arguments that intellectual experience has to offer to challenge their aggressive an absolutist policies to try to keep them in-check before they unleash a third world war in which none of us will survive.

while i think it is good to always question our own course and ideas i also believe it to be reductionist to argue that no matter what ideology you have they are essentially the different sides of the same coin.

compromise is certainly key but when faced with a regime that wants no compromise we must not surrender all our principles. at some point they must be stopped and arguing against them with our best intellectual arguments does not make us elitist nor extremest.

sorry for the long rambling post, but i hope some of what i said actually comes across as having a point.

peace

[kodi]

59. billy, where'd you get the bizarre notion I thought Hitler was a leftist?

Attempts by the Right to paint Nazis with the brush of socialism due to the name of their political party is disgraceful, not only for the fundamental distortion of Nazi political and economical positions but more as an attempt to cast its evil as a natural extension of socialism, and thus positioning the Right at God’s right hand against the scourge of collective citizen action in the economic and political arena.

Please, check out this link to a board i post on for the entire rebuttal to an argument that essentially claimed "Hitler was a leftie" I (Kuvasz) wrote....

btw: it was in response to an attack on Skinner, and DUers in general.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49628&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=70

[bpilgrim]

60. my bad, i'm such an idiot

sorry about that, been rushing around all morning and came in here to take a break when i saw this and after reading it, too quickly, i jumped to conclusions.

i see the left being attacked everywhere, i need to chill.

Thank you for providing your link i will check it out now.

sorry :toast:

peace

(BTW: i'm gonna leave it up as others who haven't seen yet might find it interesting)

[funflower]

33. Thanks for interesting philosophical thread, everyone. Nominating.

So nice to see some serious, thinking, flame-free discussion happening.
:grouphug:

[Selatius]

35. ALL power structures are inherently nihilistic

Any concentration of decision-making power, in my honest opinion, is ultimately doomed to end in tyranny regardless of the structure of government. Just looking at the federal government today should be more than enough to convince you of such a statement.

The problem is that one essentially gives up his own power by electing someone else to make decisions for him. As a result, that person has something other people do not: The ability to decide things above what others are allowed to do.

In a representative democratic government, the people can recall or vote out unacceptable officials, but looking at previous working examples of representative democracies, that is, by no means, the be-all, end-all solution to preventing tyranny from becoming entrenched.

Ah, but when one has that kind of power over others, that power can also be used to manipulate the people into doing his bidding. Concentration of power means not just giving someone the power to decide your fate. It also means giving up your perception of reality to such an authority figure.

This final point is what makes the ability to remove elected officials, in my opinion, ultimately irrelevant at the end of the day. The ones who can control perception can also control officials who are elected. They do not have to run for office. They simple pick and choose those who represent them and sit back and play the game. What you have is a shell of a democracy--a twisted, sick joke of what it means to be free.

The ideology of the left does not lend itself to tyranny anymore than the ideology of the right does.

Socialism as an ideology arose in response to the abuses seen under capitalistic models, but the entire school of socialism is divided into two camps: The ones who seek change by utilizing the power structures of the state, and the ones who seek change outside the power structure of the government arguing that using such structures will inevitably end in tyranny as bad or not worse than the order it replaced. It is this fundamental disagreement that separates people like Marx who wanted to utilize the state from people like Bakunin who wanted to utilize the simple power of education and organization and direct action of the masses without involvement of concentrated decision-making structures.

While both schools of thought agreed on the ultimate goal, it was the methodology with which to get there that there was disagreement over. Socialism is a harmless philosophy if one merely seeks to study it, but if one wants to take it one step further, then the way it is implemented can lead to a very real, substantive tyranny if done improperly.

As a footnote in history, it was Bakunin who claimed that if a revolution was fought under the banner of a Marxist revolutionary party, it would end in tyranny.

[leftofthedial]

37. you say "authoritarianism"

like it's a bad thing.

[bpilgrim]

38. no, the right is and has a long history of it.

most of the left intellectuals are in universities, TEACHING ,not KILLING.

the neoCONs ex-left 'intellectuals' were the drop outs.

on DU we try to STAMP OUT the lies to arm ourselves against the rampant lies of the neoCONs to get us back on track before WWIII breaks out, if it hasn't already.

but of course, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[KG]

40. what i'm wondering about is

who are these 'ex-left intellectual authoritarians' surrounding the chimp? i haven't seen anything resembling thought, much less intellectualism, emanating from the bush junta.

[orpupilofnature57]

41. No, just misinterpreted as Elitists ,when it's Shrubs daddies ilk all along

[greenpowered]

44. blind trust in government

I think the problem lies in blind trust in government. We all see it on the right, the refusal to address the crimes. They have become fascist now, we do not debate. We cannot debate gannon or the downing street memo, they created Saddams underwear and we have to talk about that. But this is there on the left too. For instance with banning guns. People on the left who want to do this have a blind faith the government will always be good and there will never be a situation where the people need to have the power to be able to overthrow the government by force. And anti-gun people will not debate that issue, its all about kids in schools getting shot, never the reason the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. This tactic is the same with the right, where they won't debate the issue that matters most, they deflect the debate to a similar argument they win.

The reason this country is great is the founding fathers set it up with permenant distrust of governmment. They were wise. This country is forgetting why that is important.

[orpupilofnature57]

65. I love it !! Welcome greenpowered !!

[Just Me]

46. I feel compelled to challenge many of your assumptions and,...

,...to distinquish many of your concepts.

Has "the left" been the fertile soil in which tyrants breed (hmmm,..)?

When bright minds expressing "right" views put down "wrong" views, is this a form of tyrannical authoritarianism ('cause, if it is, then King and Gandhi and those like them could be called tyrannical, too).

Does blame belong to the secular nature of "authoritarians" who utilize judgment, with humility, in a relative manner? (((yikes)))

Moreover, I gotta' tell ya', I view "trotskyism" NOT as a "left" or "right" philosophy but rather an ideology that closes all doors to intellectualism, to ideas and ideals and thoughts and theories. In so doing, "trotskyism", by its very nature, tends to attract tyrants rather than true intellectuals.

Intellectualism is not inherently tyrannical authoritarianism. Only men choose whether or not to be tyrants. Only men create ideologies which serve tyranny.

[sweetheart]

48. As with the libertarian - authoritarian scale

It really does not matter left or right, just that the right,
generally has no ammunition to defend its extemism.... and on the
left, there is plenty of ammunition.... I agree with your point,
that it is the individual that seeks absolutism, as a sort of pathology
of the sociopath, rather than any "ism" or political dogma.

In reference to the secular comment, i meant it in the context of
truly religious persons, where they indeed see, all human power as
"to be questioned" in terms of its source, intent and authority.
An atheist could be a truly religious person, by that standard... as
i mean truly self effacing, not the semblance. In an age of bush
and a bunch of wolves wearing sheepskins, the statement is open to
much misunderstanding... when false piety has taken on some sort of
righteous ability to squash opposition.

But then again, history's authoritarian repressors, all find themselves
right and pious, and certainly i don't see that religous in the least.

Balance seems to be taking our own inner-authoritarian-ego-tyrant
with a grain of salt... It seems those who don't are the greatest danger.

[bpilgrim]

51. "on the, left, there is plenty of ammunition." to fight the tyrants or

defend our tyrants?

if you mean to defend our tyrants, who are you talking about?

"But then again, history's authoritarian repressors, all find themselves right and pious, and certainly i don't see that religous in the least."

but religion often provides the tyrant his legitimacy (ammunition?) throughout history or been the tyrants themselves.

peace

[Just Me]

58. Do you acknowledge that intellectualism is a threat to tyranny?

I think that, in trying to ascertain how humanity allows tyranny, you may be examining the wrong box.

Perhaps, an exploration of how the rule of law plays into the equation is a better box. Perhaps, an examination of how past tyrants have succeeded would also be more helpful than focusing on political concepts or broad groups (e.g. great big "left" and great big "right").

As I previously suggested, men who are tyrannical create ideas that serve their tyranny. Take note of how those tyrannical men treat the rule of law.

[sweetheart]

78. Threatening itself

Intellectualism is a half way house between sincerity and doubt.
All along, the heart knows the truth. The threat to tyranny comes
from the heart, and intellecutalism will always play along with
the herd instinct.

As much as so many university intellectuals swallow their views for
a paycheque, such is what's real. So many very bright DU writers
are so right, they've no need to explain or convince others, merely
to diagnose them as trolls. Intellecualism, much as you say, contributes
to its own objectives, and we can only pray that they are not those
of tyrants.

[Just Me]

82. Intellectualism is "thinking", without being stuck between any two points.

To think is NOT to be placed between two such obscure points as "sincerity" and "doubt". Thinking is a stand alone endeavor. Without thought and thinking the words "sincerity" and "doubt" and meanings attached them wouldn't even exist.

Universities are created for the purpose of learning and thinking. I know of NO university intellectuals who swallow their views for a paycheck. There are some university employees/professors who may not like what they chose for their line of study or profession (that is a personal choice). There are others who may object to behaving according to rules which require mutual respect (that's being a cooperative member of an open community). Still others whose ideas are challenged (which actually encourages more thinking). That's life in a multi-cultural, inclusive, open-thinking, problem-solving institution.

You assert that the threat to tyranny comes from the heart? I've never known a tyrant who is threatened by his own heart. To the contrary, a complete absence of human empathy and disconnent from common human existence is consistently the case with tyrants.

Moreover, EVERY tyrant has sought, does seek to either diss intellectualism (thinking) or make sure he maintains strict tabs on it. The tyrant's greatest enemy are those who think rather than follow. I do believe we have many examples of tyranny in our midst by virtue of numerous incidences where universities are being attacked by the neoCON machine and its theocrats.

With respect to your comment, "very bright DU writers,...they've no need to explain or convince others, merely to diagnose them as trolls", I can only say this: there are many individuals here with such depth of experience in combatting the droppings of trolls that I consider them generally, though not always, SPOT ON in raising the red flag!!!

Lastly, I NEVER said intellectualism contributes to its own objectives,...I said tyrants do that. Does a chair or an idea or smoke contribute to their own objectives? I find it really weird that you give "thinking" the qualities of the men who do/create thought.

[sweetheart]

85. You're right of course

The thought is the child of the intent... and i believe that those
nasty neocon sorts had long made up thier minds to abuse power before
ever engaging in intellectual study.

I am wrong about universities as well, as i'm sure that many wise
persons are just being "not heard" there. That our society has 2 poles
of knowledge depending on who is in power, either the university or
K-Street. And, indeed that is an issue of intent more so than
thought or rational thinking.

:-) It is good, your point, and the heart that makes it, thank you. :-)

[lonestarnot]

47. There has to be some shared responsibility here...just can't understand

where.

[ooglymoogly]

50. then jesus bares responsibility for our present condition? nt

[sweetheart]

66. I come as the lion

Perhaps jesus does indeed have something to do with it. Perhaps
it is by his will that the descendents of the culture that
enslaved and killed his former are humbled through their own
arrogance.

For all the crimes of the nazis, the women of germany were raped by
the thousands by invading troops, as a form of allied justice? Well,
indeed, we are those women in another time.

[amazona]

61. no i haven't wondered about this because it's plain silly

I've heard some ridiculous claims in my day, but the claim that the left has any responsibility for George W. Bush is the biggest horse laugh of all time. You have cause and effect bass-ackwards to put it mildly. Yes, tyrants lie and claim to be wonderful liberal people; by definition, you would be taking your life in your hands to stand face to face with the tyrant and point out that he is another Hitler or another Stalin. So tyrants become more and more delusional because they are never confronted with reality. That doesn't make them "left" or "liberals" because they claim to be oh-so-very concerned and open-minded. Sheesh. DUers of all people should be able to see through such masks.

Bush is not stupid because people laugh at him, sweetheart. Grok this: People laugh at Bush because he is stupid.

I get real tired of being crapped on as some kind of "elitist" because I bothered to educate myself about the issues.

Smart people who educate themselves aren't the problem.

They are the solution.

I've done my duty, and I will NOT take guilt for the evil done by those I fight against. It is past time for responsibility to be placed where it belongs. Feeling guilty where you have committed no sin is a way of putting your own sweet self-importance in front of the real work that needs to be done.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Hoping4Change]

63. Well said. Though I would have added jaw dropping ridiculous.

:applause:

[Hoping4Change]

64. What do you mean by "humble reference to divine authority" ????

If you want to find a root cause of authoritarism look at religion and its belief in absolute good and evil. It is the notion that supposedly divinely inspired/delivered moral precepts can be laid out for all time and all people that is the cause for so much grief.

[sweetheart]

69. wide brush for religion

Absolute good and evil have little to do with real religion. The world
is made up of shades of grey, and a religious person recognizes that
they are prone to error, misjudgement, and petty egotism. What you
are calling "religion" is what the repukes have subverted; this new
faux-christianity of the romans who crucified christ...hardly
religion or christianity. Were jesus alive, he would have nothing
to do with those louts. Here on DU, i'm quite sure that most
christians can find nothing christian in the behaviours of our
authoritarian-right bretheren. I was writing in this true, degree,
not to the media lie.

[Hoping4Change]

72. Are you kidding? Where in the world do you get the idea

that absolute good and evil have little to do with religion? That is what religion is. Ever hear of the 10 COMMANDMENTS. Hello these are COMMANDMENTS. The notion of seeing the world in shades of grey comes from the Enlightenment which places reason over dogma.

[sweetheart]

75. Well, there you have it.

THe nazi's have overdone it, and, like everything else, perverted
religion as well. The enlightenment was espoused by religious people
last time i checked... real ones... but i don't deny that a bunch of
pretenders have been about the place. :-)

[bpilgrim]

77. the institutions have always stood in opposition to the enlightenment

and science unfortunately and some continue to do so even in our enlightened day.

also, it isn't accurate to put all the blame on the Nazis since religious institutions have a much longer and bloody history then they, unfortunately.

but with enlightenment, we have a much better Chance to resist the dogma.

wish us luck :hi:

peace

[H2O Man]

80. It might be interesting

to consider which religions of the world have the most in common with science, and which tend to try to suppress science. There are examples, such as the Iroquois, where the organized religion seems far more compatible with science than perhaps Pat Robertson's brand of christianity. Native societies had their share of problems, of course, but it is fascinating to read the comments made by the early Europeans who came in contact with the Indians in the northeast. The attributes that are actually in line with what the prophet jesus taught were far more often found in Indian society than in European society.

Of course, the question of which comes first -- the chicken or the egg? -- may be applied. Did a more humane culture produce a more enlightened religion? Or did the enlightened religion encourage the pursuit of science? I suppose it is like considering if yellow or blue are more important in creating green.

Rigid, uptight, and cruel cultures can result from diseased interpretations of religion and/or science. But it is only the bad potential of either or both. It is also their potentials to create healthy and compassionate societies.

[Just Me]

83. Chicken/egg, yellow/blue, right/left,....

,...which is more important?

Sometimes, we seem stuck on the importance of diffences rather than recognizing that differences are all important in the scheme of things. It's when greater importance is shifted to a particular difference that balance is knocked outta' whack. Humanity, mostly westerners in this age, seems compelled to always shift importance to certain differences rather than embrace the whole.

Well, your post provoked such "intellectualism" eg THINKING!!!!

[bpilgrim]

76. "Absolute good and evil have little to do with real religion." just real

religious institutions where they have a loooong history of ABSOLUTES and PERSECUTION to this very day

hopefully today the practitioners of the various faiths are wise and informed enough to resist their extremism and speak out strongly against it. American Catholics have been doing a great job of it against their dogmatic leaders in the Vatican. lets all wish them continued success.

peace

(on edit: a prime example of the resistance to the unenlightened dogmatic policies of religious institutions)

Pregnant Teen Grad Defies Ceremony Ban, Police Escort Family from Church

21 May 2005


YOU GO GIRL! In Montgomery, Alabama a pregnant teen graduate who was banned from her graduation program, defied her Catholic school today. At the end of the ceremony, she announced her own name and walked across the stage. The police promptly removed her mother and aunt from the church.

Alysha Cosby’s decision prompted cheers and applause Tuesday from many of her fellow seniors at St. Jude Educational Institute.

But her mother and aunt were escorted out of the church by police after Cosby headed back to her seat.

“I can’t believe something like this is happening in 2005,” said her mother, Sheila Cosby. “My daughter has been through a lot and I am proud of her. She deserved to walk, and she did.”

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=933

[eridani]

81. The left authoritarian/libertarian split is 150 years old

Google Bakunin + Marx for more information.

[rucky]

84. Extremes on both sides don't think critically...

but i wouldn't paint the fanatics on the left as "left intellectuals".

also, I don't think Noam Chomsky stays up at night thinking about how he can destroy his opponents.

[orpupilofnature57]

86. Better than the Progressive,"Let's Get Along" whilst giving it to neo-con

red necks that win it for the true elite, billionaires in flannel shirt's.