Not what it looks like to me. Things have taken a malignant Jacobin turn over the past year or two. Those who aren’t ideologically pure become food for those who hold themselves out as more dedicated. That process repeats itself indefinitely. So what it looks more like to me is a bunch of savages trying to see who can be the last one sta…
Not what it looks like to me. Things have taken a malignant Jacobin turn over the past year or two. Those who aren’t ideologically pure become food for those who hold themselves out as more dedicated. That process repeats itself indefinitely. So what it looks more like to me is a bunch of savages trying to see who can be the last one standing. Sort of the opposite of Marxism.
(Lest you get the idea that I’m somehow defending Marxism, I'm as pure a capitalist as there is. I cannot think of a single socioeconomic point on which old Karl and I might agree.)
I think that many movements can turn to authoritarianism if (1) they have come to believe that their cause is existentially important, (2) they are not quickly succeeding in their aims via persuasion and have no patience for waiting, and (3) they can acquire the power to enforce.
Whan a movement's goals include enforcing behaviors and beliefs on a granular individual level, their authoritarianism follows a more totalitarian path ("for your own sake, we must control your behavior"). That is, they don't just need to control the big issues and keep themselves in power (pretty much all authoritarians have those mandates), they also want to control nearly every facet of everyday life and every interaction between people. So you are right, this is socio-political, not just political.
I agree with my liberal friends that there are disturbing signs of authoritarianism in Trump. However, they have difficulty seeing the incipient roots of totalitarianism in modern progressive ideology, with things like seeking the power to coercively punish and thus extinguish an ever growing list of "microaggressions".
Not what it looks like to me. Things have taken a malignant Jacobin turn over the past year or two. Those who aren’t ideologically pure become food for those who hold themselves out as more dedicated. That process repeats itself indefinitely. So what it looks more like to me is a bunch of savages trying to see who can be the last one standing. Sort of the opposite of Marxism.
(Lest you get the idea that I’m somehow defending Marxism, I'm as pure a capitalist as there is. I cannot think of a single socioeconomic point on which old Karl and I might agree.)
I think that many movements can turn to authoritarianism if (1) they have come to believe that their cause is existentially important, (2) they are not quickly succeeding in their aims via persuasion and have no patience for waiting, and (3) they can acquire the power to enforce.
Whan a movement's goals include enforcing behaviors and beliefs on a granular individual level, their authoritarianism follows a more totalitarian path ("for your own sake, we must control your behavior"). That is, they don't just need to control the big issues and keep themselves in power (pretty much all authoritarians have those mandates), they also want to control nearly every facet of everyday life and every interaction between people. So you are right, this is socio-political, not just political.
I agree with my liberal friends that there are disturbing signs of authoritarianism in Trump. However, they have difficulty seeing the incipient roots of totalitarianism in modern progressive ideology, with things like seeking the power to coercively punish and thus extinguish an ever growing list of "microaggressions".
And now we're back to analyzing the fall of Rome. Exactly where we need to be focussed.
Nope. Been trying to suss it out for a long time, too.