Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Authoritarians are ultimately all the same.

I think that as stated this isn't quite true, but that it points to a truth - that the authoritarianism-anarchism axis is a more powerful descriptor than the conventional left-right axis.

At the anarchism end of the spectrum, arguably all anarchists are the same. It doesn't matter what you combine your anarchism with, because there's no state to implement whatever your other belief or beliefs might be.

Whereas people can be authoritarian about all sorts of ideologies. (Religion. The environment. A flat distribution of material wealth. Devotion to the person of Glorious Leader, etc).

Down near the authoritarian end of the spectrum (and it is down; these societies are not pleasant to live in for those with the brain to question the ruling ideology) the similarities may be stronger than the differences. But I think you're overstating the case in saying they're all the same.

It was a figure of speech, an approximation to save on extra writing. The approximation is correct. It doesn't matter whether a communist of fascist state tortures you and your family. Who is better to be killed by? Hitler or Putin?

We see the right and left meeting in the close relationship between Trump and Putin. These are not men at opposite ends of the political spectrum but birds of a feather, and Trump has made it clear many times that he admires Putin, even to the point of favouring his word - an enemy leader - over that of his own secret service.

Ultimately, authoritarians fail because they remove anyone capable of helping them make informed decisions. Thus, they make ever worse decisions until the system falls. Still, it has to be said that Xi's communism in China has not failed. However, Xi made the mistake of following Mao and becoming the subject of a cult of personality, so he is destined to make similar mistakes. His bad decisions will probably kill half the country, just as Mao did. And like Mao is today, the Chinese people will probably lionise Xi for their ruination, just as Hitler today is a role model to many extreme right wingers in the west.

[Good_Egg]

Ultimately, authoritarians fail because they remove anyone capable of helping them make informed decisions. Thus, they make ever worse decisions until the system falls.

Yes, that's a common failure mode for authoritarian rule by an individual strongman figure.

Unfortunately, it's not much of a disincentive for authoritarian types. Because they tend to believe in competent systems of coercion and control that impose their ideas.

Rather than believing as such in the individual strongman who imposes his own ideas.

[Sy Borg]

Ultimately, authoritarians fail because they remove anyone capable of helping them make informed decisions. Thus, they make ever worse decisions until the system falls.

Yes, that's a common failure mode for authoritarian rule by an individual strongman figure.

Unfortunately, it's not much of a disincentive for authoritarian types. Because they tend to believe in competent systems of coercion and control that impose their ideas.

Rather than believing as such in the individual strongman who imposes his own ideas.

True. It appears to be zero disincentive. They lack the degree of self awareness to avoid the inevitable mistakes of authoritarianism. Every single one ends up mindlessly falling into the same trap.

However, they do not acknowledge their failures. By the time they reach the end point of the authoritarian cycle - when their mistakes finally catch up with them - they have already squeezed out or destroyed as much of their society's social, financial and intellectual assets as they will manage. So they simply don't care, as long as they can avoid accountability. It's not they will ever admit the damage they did, or regret it.

Mao never admitted mistake and, to this day, many Chinese don't realise that killing sparrows caused the famine. Stalin likewise never admitted or apologised for his numerous crimes against humanity. Nor Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito.

Ultimately, extremism is effective for one thing: change. At all other times it's a force of destruction. The intensity needed to overthrow the Kuomintang in China, for instance, is destructive once power has been achieved. The best ideologies for governance are moderate - social democracy and democratic conservatism (as opposed to the growing radicalism in the US that falsely claims itself to be "conservative").

[Ecurb]

No, of course not. It means ideologies that are extreme. And no, I don't care to define "and" either.

As a native English speaker who knows the meaning of "extreme" and "ideology", I have no idea what ideologies qualify as "extreme". Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Flat earth? Any ideologies that lead to atrocities?

"Extreme ideologies" is a meaningless phrase, and your claim: "The practitioners of many/most extreme ideologies have been responsible for atrocities" is one of the silliest and most meaningless I have ever heard. Those flat earthers torture and kill? If they do, they've kept it a secret.

Trying to discuss anything with you is like swimming upstream. Try as one might, one never seems to get anywhere.

[Sy Borg]

It's clear from the context that, by "extremism", Patter-Chaser was referring to the political sphere rather than random oddities like flat-Earthers or Reptilian conspiracy theorists. Extremism in the political realm is certainly a destructive force. Defining it is an issue, true, because extremists never admit it.

[Ecurb]

It's clear from the context that, by "extremism", Patter-Chaser was referring to the political sphere rather than random oddities like flat-Earthers or Reptilian conspiracy theorists. Extremism in the political realm is certainly a destructive force. Defining it is an issue, true, because extremists never admit it.

I don't know what qualifies. Besides "atrocities" are committed by religious groups as well as political ones. I don't even know what qualifies as "extremism" in the political sphere. Communism? It wasn't considered "extreme" in Communist Russia or China. Extreme means either "to a high degree" or "farthest from the center; outermost". In Russia or China, Communism WAS the center. In the Medieval Europe of the witch executions, Christianity and witch-killing WAS the center. "To a high degree" is simply meaningless. How can an ideology have "a high degree". I suppose one can believe fervently in it, and practice it devotedly. But -- like many modifiers -- it's influence on the noun (in this case "ideology") is unclear. Obviously if Pattern Chaser simply means that "extremists" hold fanatical positions and advocate extreme actions (like atrocities) then his position is simply tautological and trivial.

Pattern-Chaser's snark about my misundertanding is unmerited. He's blaming the victim -- in this case victimized by his inability to write clearly. "Avoid modifiers," wrote Strunk and White in "Elements of Style". Good advice.

[Ecurb]

By the way, my claim in the discussion -- that atrocities are often justified by utopian philosophies -- may be right, or it may be wrong. But at least it is intelligible. Utopian ideologies (unlike "extreme ideologies") are a subset of ideologies. Someone could point out atrocities justified by non-utopian ideologies (examples doubtless abound), or ask me to point to those justified by utopian ideals (which anyone conversant with second-grade history could identify). Would it be possible to falsify a claim that atrocities are justified with "extreme ideologies"? Gee, one might think, any ideology that justifies an atrocity qualifies as "extreme"! But where does the sentience get us?

Since you ask (OK, since I asked): "Absolutely nowhere."

[Sy Borg]

By the way, my claim in the discussion -- that atrocities are often justified by utopian philosophies -- may be right, or it may be wrong. But at least it is intelligible. Utopian ideologies (unlike "extreme ideologies") are a subset of ideologies. Someone could point out atrocities justified by non-utopian ideologies (examples doubtless abound), or ask me to point to those justified by utopian ideals (which anyone conversant with second-grade history could identify). Would it be possible to falsify a claim that atrocities are justified with "extreme ideologies"? Gee, one might think, any ideology that justifies an atrocity qualifies as "extreme"! But where does the sentience get us?

Since you ask (OK, since I asked): "Absolutely nowhere."

Recognising extremism is critical to a society hoping to avoid it. Case in point: the US. The right has become extreme. Consider, what party or group is further to the right of the political spectrum than the Republican Party in 2022? Can you think of any, aside from the man with the toothbrush moustache?

Extremism as a term perhaps not more clear than "tallness", but that lack of clarity does not mean tallness does not exist.

Clearly utopian ideals and atrocities are related. However, the issue is extremism, not the ideals; enthusiasm for committing atrocities to achieve those ideals. The problem with communism and fascism comes under the heading of Voltaire's, "The best is the enemy of the good". In refusing to tolerate the inevitable flaws of their preferred system they refuse to tolerate reality.

For a time they can enforce their own reality, as Putin has enforced in Russia with extreme censorship and daily propaganda, but their edifices, like those their "enemies", break down like every other system.

[Gregory A]

By the way, my claim in the discussion -- that atrocities are often justified by utopian philosophies -- may be right, or it may be wrong. But at least it is intelligible. Utopian ideologies (unlike "extreme ideologies") are a subset of ideologies. Someone could point out atrocities justified by non-utopian ideologies (examples doubtless abound), or ask me to point to those justified by utopian ideals (which anyone conversant with second-grade history could identify). Would it be possible to falsify a claim that atrocities are justified with "extreme ideologies"? Gee, one might think, any ideology that justifies an atrocity qualifies as "extreme"! But where does the sentience get us?

Since you ask (OK, since I asked): "Absolutely nowhere."

Recognising extremism is critical to a society hoping to avoid it. Case in point: the US. The right has become extreme. Consider, what party or group is further to the right of the political spectrum than the Republican Party in 2022? Can you think of any, aside from the man with the toothbrush moustache?

Extremism as a term perhaps not more clear than "tallness", but that lack of clarity does not mean tallness does not exist.

Clearly utopian ideals and atrocities are related. However, the issue is extremism, not the ideals; enthusiasm for committing atrocities to achieve those ideals. The problem with communism and fascism comes under the heading of Voltaire's, "The best is the enemy of the good". In refusing to tolerate the inevitable flaws of their preferred system they refuse to tolerate reality.

For a time they can enforce their own reality, as Putin has enforced in Russia with extreme censorship and daily propaganda, but their edifices, like those their "enemies", break down like every other system.

The USA has always been polarised by extremes. The Right there only stands out more now due to society's shift to the Left worldwide. This effect like the recession of the shoreline before a tsunami exposes the Right more than its actual representation suggests. Conservatism is in its death-throes, the Left set to be an all-conquering monster. Communism itself has never really existed at least in any sustainable way due to its inherently flawed constitution.

[Sy Borg]

By the way, my claim in the discussion -- that atrocities are often justified by utopian philosophies -- may be right, or it may be wrong. But at least it is intelligible. Utopian ideologies (unlike "extreme ideologies") are a subset of ideologies. Someone could point out atrocities justified by non-utopian ideologies (examples doubtless abound), or ask me to point to those justified by utopian ideals (which anyone conversant with second-grade history could identify). Would it be possible to falsify a claim that atrocities are justified with "extreme ideologies"? Gee, one might think, any ideology that justifies an atrocity qualifies as "extreme"! But where does the sentience get us?

Since you ask (OK, since I asked): "Absolutely nowhere."

Recognising extremism is critical to a society hoping to avoid it. Case in point: the US. The right has become extreme. Consider, what party or group is further to the right of the political spectrum than the Republican Party in 2022? Can you think of any, aside from the man with the toothbrush moustache?

Extremism as a term perhaps not more clear than "tallness", but that lack of clarity does not mean tallness does not exist.

Clearly utopian ideals and atrocities are related. However, the issue is extremism, not the ideals; enthusiasm for committing atrocities to achieve those ideals. The problem with communism and fascism comes under the heading of Voltaire's, "The best is the enemy of the good". In refusing to tolerate the inevitable flaws of their preferred system they refuse to tolerate reality.

For a time they can enforce their own reality, as Putin has enforced in Russia with extreme censorship and daily propaganda, but their edifices, like those their "enemies", break down like every other system.

The USA has always been polarised by extremes. The Right there only stands out more now due to society's shift to the Left worldwide. This effect like the recession of the shoreline before a tsunami exposes the Right more than its actual representation suggests. Conservatism is in its death-throes, the Left set to be an all-conquering monster. Communism itself has never really existed at least in any sustainable way due to its inherently flawed constitution.

Conservatism is being partially killed by the right. Many call themselves conservatives but they have no interest in conserving anything, including the natural environment, just radical change in almost all areas.

It is also being killed by the inevitable decay of fiat currency. Fiat currency is great for fast development but history shows that it always breaks down. As the financial system erodes, ordinary people struggle. Once people feel they have nothing to lose, they become radicalised, primed for revolution.

The irony is that revolution nowadays almost always ends up with ever more harsh controls. It's hard to think of a revolution in the last hundred years that resulted in more freedom for anyone.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's clear from the context that, by "extremism", Patter-Chaser was referring to the political sphere rather than random oddities like flat-Earthers or Reptilian conspiracy theorists. Extremism in the political realm is certainly a destructive force. Defining it is an issue, true, because extremists never admit it.

That's about it. There are some ideologies that are more extreme than others. In practice, in the real world, extremists often follow an extreme interpretation of an ideology that is not usually as extreme as their version of it.

Pattern-Chaser's snark about my misundertanding is unmerited. He's blaming the victim -- in this case victimized by his inability to write clearly. "Avoid modifiers," wrote Strunk and White in "Elements of Style". Good advice.

I'm sorry for the "snark". I became impatient when you refused to understand a meaning that is clear to any English speaker. An "extreme ideology" is an ideology that is extreme. This is not mysterious; I think even Strunk and White might approve.

[Ecurb]

I'm sorry for the "snark". I became impatient when you refused to understand a meaning that is clear to any English speaker. An "extreme ideology" is an ideology that is extreme. This is not mysterious; I think even Strunk and White might approve.

Since Communism, Catholicism and Islam are (or have been) mainstream ideologies, they are (or were) not "extreme". Yet they have been used to justify atrocities. Hmmmm. Either you are using "extreme ideology" in a non-standard manner, or you are incorrect about what ideologies justify atrocities.

[Sy Borg]

I'm sorry for the "snark". I became impatient when you refused to understand a meaning that is clear to any English speaker. An "extreme ideology" is an ideology that is extreme. This is not mysterious; I think even Strunk and White might approve.

Since Communism, Catholicism and Islam are (or have been) mainstream ideologies, they are (or were) not "extreme". Yet they have been used to justify atrocities. Hmmmm. Either you are using "extreme ideology" in a non-standard manner, or you are incorrect about what ideologies justify atrocities.

Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Their equivalents are the fundamentalist political wings of Catholicism and Islam.

[Ecurb]

Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Their equivalents are the fundamentalist political wings of Catholicism and Islam.

The Inquisition and Witch Trials were sanctioned by the mainstream Churches (Witch Trials by both Catholics and Protestants) -- not some fundamentalist wing of it. They were standard practice.

Communism was mainstream, too. It may not seem so today, but in the hayday of Communist Russia, China and Viet Nam it was the standard, mainstream ideology. If "extreme" means "far from the center", neither the Churches nor the Communists qualify. Didn't Hitler win an election? How far from the mainstream can one be and get elected?

[Sy Borg]

Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Their equivalents are the fundamentalist political wings of Catholicism and Islam.

The Inquisition and Witch Trials were sanctioned by the mainstream Churches (Witch Trials by both Catholics and Protestants) -- not some fundamentalist wing of it. They were standard practice.

Communism was mainstream, too. It may not seem so today, but in the hayday of Communist Russia, China and Viet Nam it was the standard, mainstream ideology. If "extreme" means "far from the center", neither the Churches nor the Communists qualify. Didn't Hitler win an election? How far from the mainstream can one be and get elected?

True, but I would parse "extreme" and "mainstream". History is littered with societies that embraced extremism en masse.

In today's political landscape, the situation is as I described above.