ARTelevision

I have come to the conclusion that I am a firm adherent of authoritarian ideas. As I see it, this is antithetical to anarchism and it stands in opposition to libertarianism.

This is based on my conception of human nature. I see us as essentially unable to observe, scrutinize, and comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner and it is also a result of our basal anarchic tendency. Anarchy is a given in the state of nature. It needs no further promotion. The anarchic principle arises as forms of libertatrianism in civilized discourse.

Authoritarian rule has risen to the surface in supposedly different political systems. This is because it is the required parameter of civilized life. Humans are savage, self-serving individuals who require systems of control for optimum social operation. The only way humans are civilized is by fear.

IMO, the question is not what can or should replace the universal authoritarianism of forms of governance. The question is one of control - how much and what manner of control are best.

__________________
create evolution

Charlatan

That is a very provocative assertion Art... and I don't, one the whole disagree with you.

I've always felt that the most successful govenments are a balance of a strong, responsible government and a liberated responsible citizenry. Too much in any direction and you have either dictatorship or anarchy.

The key is balance.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

denim

Very key point, yeah. It's a razor's edge though, with disagreement on where the razor is.

Charlatan

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with this portion of your arguement. Yes systems of control are neccessary BUT I don't think fear is the only way in which humans are "civilized" (Civilized being a highly politicized word on its own).

Fear is but one useful tool for who wish to impose control. However, I feel that the control that is created by the use of fear, while quick to impliment and powerful, is a fleeting one. Those who live in fear can go one of two ways... a)escalate into more fear (which can lead to chaos) or b) turn on those who appear to have manufactured the fear (see Joe McCarthy).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

I come to this conclusion finally through self-examination.
I would submit that a thorough inventory of what exactly constitutes a social control inside a human being is always reducible to fear.

__________________
create evolution

Bill O'Rights

Wow, Art...I knew that we disagreed politically, but I don't think we could be further apart, on the political scale.

1. I don't see Libertarianism as anarchistic. I see it more as taking on, and encouraging, personal responsiblity.

2. While anarchy may be a given in the state of nature, I beleive that we, as human beings, have risen above that. Granted, we may not be finished evolving, but I think that, as a whole, we create our own order.

3. I also disagree that the only way humans are civilized is by fear. I think that humans are driven to civilization by a collective need for culture and education. Satisfy those two needs, and you have...civilization.

What you are describing sounds more, to me, like a prison system. There will always be those that cannot, or simply refuse to, follow basic agreed upon rules for civilized life. These are the ones that we lock away, to live their lives under your "systems of control for optimum social operation".

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

JumpinJesus

I see a problem in your arugment, Art. If authoritarianism is necessary because we are "essentially unable to observe, scrutinize, and comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner...", then who will the leaders be if they are susceptible to the same faults as other humans?

Authoritarianism requires repressive measures to control a population at the hands of an elite group. This group determines what is appropriate for its subjects. If they are unable to comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner, then doesn't it go that their leadership will be severely flawed?

Also, there are many cases in which an authoritarian form of government has retarded economic growth. Think Franco's Spain, or the Phillipines.

While authoritarian governments will sometimes tend to ignore the actions of individuals, it can also lead to highly repressive actions - Singapore's strict set of public laws. While some may view forced manners and ordered society as ideal and even preferential to what we experience in the United States, it does so at the cost of culture, I believe.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Halx

I've drawn up a graph...



Y axis is power of the central government
X axis is the purpose that power is used for

If it confuses you, you're on your own because I got a headache trying to explain it any better last night.

So, to be authoritarian does not necessarily mean it's 1984. A government in complete control can still grant total freedom to it's citizens. The sad part is, some people cannot possibly imagine it this way because today's leaders are pieces of despicable shit.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ARTelevision

Hal, fascinating. I'm still thinking on this and will get back.

Bill O'Rights I have no comparable idealistic view of human nature as you express. I just don't see us that way.

JumpinJesus, it's not black or white. The fact that leadership is flawed does not countermand its necessity. So we have the situation that it's a relative degree of "flaw" in relation to what would be optimum. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for practicability and and an understanding that human freedom is an essential component of an enlightrened society.

I'd like to leave it there in an uncontentious state but I further posit that the only freedom available to humans is the illusion of freedom. An enlightened leadership creates conditions where the illusion of freedom is widespread.

__________________
create evolution

denim

Hal, it comes down to the fact that two of your terms are synonyms. Get the concepts straight, and I'll take another look.

Journeyman

So then you would agree that the humans that would be charged with running, tweaking, optimizing and enforcing an authoritarian state also need to be in fear of the consequences of messing about and abusing the power they're given, yes?

What is your opinion on capitalism, by the way? This view of human nature would imply that if the heads of corporate entities are left with nothing to fear, they will exploit to their hearts content. Do they, then, also require systems of control for optimum social operation?

Stompy

Hm, I'm not so sure you could have Authoritarianism and anarchism at the same time. Don't they contradict each other?

Authoritarianism (much like totalitarianism) is unquestionable authority and suppression of individual freedoms, correct?

In any case, going that direction seems (to me, anyway) to be a big step in the wrong direction of what the world is trying to become.

There needs to be more of a fear element to control unruly citizens that try and take advantage of the freedoms that pretty much everyone else can handle without much of a problem.

__________________
I love lamp.

ARTelevision

Journeyman, yes - the more levels of control the better. Again, this does not obviate the need to answer questions related to their efficacy - in other words, their quality and all of the associated aspects of goodness as variously defined.

__________________
create evolution

Halx

no, they are not - they do not mean the same thing. They are two extreme grades of two different things.

Totalitarianism is oppression, assimilation and denial of individualism
Authoritarianism is absolute control of the *government functions*

I'm starting to develop a twitch. Please don't make me explain it again.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

denim

It's just that you said the same thing twice which gets me.

Halx

I can't explain to someone who doesn't want to listen.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

JumpinJesus

Authoritarianism deals with a group of leaders in control of a government. China is an example of this. Totalitarianism is headed by a single individual. Hussein's Iraq was an example of this. There is a difference between the two, even though both are repressive forms of government.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

ARTelevision

I am more interested in discussing the many possible points along a spectrum which positions authority and anarchy as opposite human tendencies than I am in discussing the exact definitions of the polarities themselves.

I'd like to add to the previous (so far undiscussed) position that freedom is in actuality the illusion of freedom the corollary that control is in fact the illusion of control. I'm not naive enough to accept anything absolute about the relationship between words and experience. I'd like to discuss experience and not semantics at some point.

__________________
create evolution

SLM3

Perhaps Plato's guardian state would be to your liking. Philosopher Kings who are more adept to knowing "the good" in society and therefore more capable of leading us out of the cave.

Be careful when discussing a human nature, as that entails certain constants. Are we to deny social and cultural implications or are we to take a communitarian approach? Are there truly inherent aspects to each and everyone of us? Is it the fear you mention? Is fear not a construction of our own?

Maybe the problem is us trying to be self-critical in the first place. Before Kant and the creation of the social sciences (psych, sociology, biology) humans were the observers. Now we are the subjects of our own observation. Foucault would say this has led to the mass over-complication of things and he would put the blame squarely on Kant.

Maybe sometimes a fish is just a fish. I wonder how our outlook would change if we learned to take a step back, de-problematize history, and just be human.


SLM3

ARTelevision

All good points.
I simply prefer a civilized social setting.
In order for that to exist, we require hierarchical chains of authority with the ability to instill fear. I'm suggesting it has always been so.

__________________
create evolution

denim

Okay, that's clearer. Thanks.

ARTelevision

It's no clearer because there are many possible definitions of this term, as it derives from the simple descriptive adjective "authoritarian" which can be used in very vague ways.

Here's just one definition that counters the unreferenced one proposed by JumpinJesus. I'm not proposing any of these but offering them as indications that the distinction between an individual and an elite group is not definitive.

from m-w.com

"Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
- authoritarian noun
- au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun"

I don't think semantics gets us anywhere here. To say that I am authoritarian rings very true to me. I am proposing authoritarianism as a descriptive term for a position I am working on creating - not to describe something that has existed in the past.

__________________
create evolution

filtherton

I think the problem is that, under any system, humans are the flaw. They all look good on paper, but in practice history has proven that it is only a matter of time before a certain group of people figure out how to take more resources than they deserve.

I agree that freedom has an illusory aspect, but it is also tangible. We have many freedoms that the average chinese person doesn't.

I don't really see how a move towards authoritarianism would have any positive effect on the quality of the average american's life.

hammer4all

Well, as a closet anarchist, I am totally opposed to all that is authoritarianism. If humans are really the "savage, self-serving individuals" you say, then I certainly wouldn't want one with ultimate power and control over my life...

Anarchism is an often misunderstood political theory as I think it is in this thread. It does not mean chaos or a return to "the laws of the jungle." It is philosophy advocating a society based on voluntary co-operating of free individuals--free from coercion by structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination. I couldn't hope to explain it with the same eloquence that many anarchist thinkers have so I will just leave a link to a great FAQ on the subject.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

ARTelevision

Yes, in other words, an ideal which has never existed in any nation state ever inhabited by human beings.

__________________
create evolution

hammer4all

Actually, there have been historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles.

More here

ARTelevision

Yes. I'm aware of the various "communes".
I used the term "nation state" deliberately.

I do hope others read the info you provided.
I don't see too many serious citizens gaining much confidence from the history of a movement such as that which has produced no stable and lasting nation state.

Thanks.

__________________
create evolution

Journeyman

I think the term nation state precludes the lack of a significant governing body by its own definition. In terms of applying anarchism to the real world, I'd have to be in Rousseau's boat in the sense that you can't have it for populations larger than a certain size. Meanwhile, in regards to his continuum wherein the larger the population, the more authoritarian you need the governing body to be, I feel that the US is held in a sort of halfway limbo by the nature of individual states governing their own populations with an amount of sovereignty, being united only on certain levels by a federal government.

smooth

The first thing I'll note is that the links provided declare that the problems confronting such societies came from external forces, not due to internal contradictions or insurmountable issues.

You seemed to base your view that anarchy's lack of viability would be due to natural human tendencies--the anarchists' claims on the the linked sites claim otherwise.

Finally, I'll take the opportunity to respectfully point out to you that an anarchist nation-state can not exist by defintion because a nation-state is a political entity.

There are nations without States and States with multiple nations-but no nation-states can exist without political organization and bureaucracy. That is the "State" side of the hyphen that is contradictory to anarchist tenets.

The "nation" side of the hyphen hinges upon shared cultural meaning and history. Anarchists could never heed to a national boundary since that would be adhering to a higher authority than the individual actors in any given social interaction. Thus, the adherence to and belief in nationality is also contradictory to the anarchist belief system.

EDIT: I found this interesting:

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (1902) was written by Peter Kropotkin while in exile in England. Partly as a response to Social Darwinism, Kropotkin drew on his experiences in scientific expeditions during his time in Siberia to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation in animal and human communities.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_...r_in_Evolution

Considering how much influence Darwin and evolution are said to have exerted on the Enlightenment, I'll have to read this book since it doesn't get much play.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

whocarz

There have been plenty of anarchist communes or societies all over the world at varying times in our history. They however are normally wiped out or forced into submission by others. The problem of this style of society is then, security, which it cannot promise. Other humans would be the reason. Simply put, an anarchist society is not a viable long term solution unless it happens to be the ONLY society left in existence. On that note, it is impossible, in my belief, to have a large populus living under such a system. Anything past a few hundred individuals and things start to deteriorate. Just my thoughts.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

denim

Are you at all familiar with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, sir?

I'm trying to understand what Hal is talking about, not be more confused. Redefining an established word isn't helpful.

ARTelevision

The definition that was proposed by JumpinJesus is a redefinition.

I'll tell you what. Nothing is more important than avoiding semantics. It is important to talk about experience not words. I am willing to change the title of this thread to Authoritarian Principles just to get the hell on with a substantive discussion.

"Authoritarian" is an adjective that carries with it the connotation of a preference for strong authority. Historical -isms are useless terms unless you want to use them as tools of art of professional historians.

This has not a thing to do with Alice in Wonderland.

__________________
create evolution

denim

You're right. I got the wrong book. It's actually Through the Looking-Glass:

If you want to be confusing, feel free to dismiss the given meaning of a word in favor of one that no one but you knows. The purpose of language is to communicate using known symbols we call "words". I was trying to find out what Hal meant by something he said. JumpinJesus helped. You're not.

If you insist on redefining existing symbols, you might as well come up with new ones which mean exactly what you wish, then explain what you mean to others so we'll know what the new word is.

Avoiding semantics in order to prevent others from understanding you is disingenuous. You might as well not say anything, to be more efficient.

ARTelevision

Again, JumpinJesus' "definition" which you seem to find so illuminating flies in the face of many professional historians and better statesmen than ourselves who have referred to both China and Russia - as well as Hussein's Iraq as interchangeably Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

I have let go of the term Authoritarianism because it carries with it the baggage of an historical term of art - which professional historians use as a generality to group together the somewhat and inexact aspects of various dissimilar societies and conditions. I have offered to replace it with the concept "Authoritarian Principles" in the interest of promoting substantive discussion.

You have ignored all of this and continue to push toward a semantic cul-de-sac. All of your statements are irrelevant.

I won't be responding here again unless someone is interested in pursuing substantive issues regarding Authoritarian Principles.

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

one's political view--of the proper form of government----shapes one's construction of the fiction "human nature"---one is derived from the other, and the sequence is analytically political form-view of the subject and not the other way around.... for the most part we consume "political philosophy"--we match existing frameworks to scattered observation and use that framework to codify what we are saying--such arguments as exist about "human nature" and "the state of nature" are functions of forgetting that "political philosophy" consists in a series of fictions elaborated to justify a given political position in the present of the author: hobbes (who is obviously at some level closest to the position outlined at the start of the thread) is no exception.


i do not think that there is a set of stable non-empty predicates that one can all "human nature" in general. maybe something really basic--avoidance of pain--but i would argue that these tendencies are in themselves empty, and that they are given contents only through socialization, as are nearly all other aspects of human being-in-the-world--think about someone like piaget, for example, rather than hobbes in your considerations of how to frame this kind of question.

so when you talk about "human nature" you are using images from the genre of political philosophy to legitimate projections concerning basic subjective orientations toward the world, or toward the self, and to avoid having to take on the ways in which particular social-historical formations produce particular types of subjects. making "human nature" eternal, filling this fiction in with your intellectual or affective investments, is a way of throwing up your hands, nothing to be done.

anther type of circular relation between observations in the present and images that organize those observations is a kind of western religious thinking, which pushes these matters (what is "human nature"?) back onto questions of the soul and original sin---categories like "the soul" have the advantage precisely of evacuating any relation to the present (by shoving the meaningful discussion back into mythical time) and enabling the depoliticization of the world (the limits of which are a function of how interventionist you imagine the god-term to be in the world).

but i do not think that you are operating in this framework, art: i think the problem is the first one.

in short, then: i do not think you can make arguments about"human nature" without running into lots of problems about your own ability to seperate what you see from the ways of bundling information particular to someone like hobbes.


had you argued that in america, today, the long-term tendency politically is toward authoritarian forms of rule--and had you based this argument on an analysis of how you see subjectivities to be shaped by--say--consumer culture or contemporary capitalism (the prompts to reflexive thought are systematically redirected to thought about the world as reflected in objects one accumulates...) then, art, i might have agreed with you.

but even if i did, i would not endorse the tendency.
rather, i would actively fight against it.
no matter how hopeless it might seem to fight against something like that in the states, i would rather exist in a mode of permanent conflict than submit to an american-style fascism.
and the conflict would center on linking a particular socio-economic system to particular outcomes in the world and working out arguments for the intolerable consequences of that system as they exhibit themselves in those outcomes.

the bottom line is that if what you see is accurate about america, then it is a function of discrete, deliberate choices made across the history of this place, instituted and maintained by human beings, that could be otherwise.

any historical project is a gamble--america was and is one, anyplace was and is one.
nothing anywhere ever is worked out in advance.

this is probably already too long, so i'll hold off on saying more for the moment.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

denim

Hal, Art says they're the same. I'm going to look elsewhere to get this straight, as it's clearly not going to happen here.

ARTelevision

Thanks roachboy, I like that analysis.

How's this?

In america, today, the long-term tendency politically is toward authoritarian forms of rule. I base this argument on an analysis of how I see subjectivities shaped by--say--consumer culture and contemporary capitalism (the prompts to reflexive thought are systematically redirected to thought about the world as reflected in objects one accumulates...).

I observe this and I would propose that we are doing spectacularly in promulgating the illusion of freedom among our relatively well-controlled population.

As a side note, I'd be careful calling certain terms "fictions" while espousing other equally fictitious terms and concepts. As I've stated, my positions on reified conceptualizations, historical paradigms, and language are that they are all quite poor in their ability to refer to actual cicumstances as lived, experienced, and acted upon.

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

i retract the term "fiction" then, good sir....
it was a polemical move in this case aimed at opening up the conversation....

quote:
I observe this and I would propose that we are doing spectacularly in promulgating the illusion of freedom among our relatively well-controlled population.

yes.
sadly, i agree with this as observation.
not sure that we would derive the same implications for ourselves from this agreement, however.
something in me refuses to accept that this is the best we can do.

the states is a funny place.
you cannot analyze it coherently using much in the way of older frames of reference.
and you cant simply go on observed experience as a guide for thinking politically lest you end up repeating the logic of the space in which we live in your critique of it.

which gets to my central preoccupation: now what?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

Well it also gets us over attempting to pinion discussions on presumptive "definitions" of concepts and words. I appreciate that.

Now what? Well, as I stated, substantively, aside from my observations that tend toward generality, I proposed that the question is really not one of control - because it is a requirement from our Primate heritage. The question is what exactly constitutes an "enlightened authority" or what qualities should be considered optimal for governing humans, given that hierarchical authority is a universal condition?

__________________
create evolution

meepa

Without reading through the entire thread, did anyone say Hobbes? Did anyone say Rousseau? Cause you're bringing them back from the dead for a 21st century celebrity deathmatch!