I think history has shown that authoritarianism tends to be pretty successful, not that that means it will continue to be so. But even if that wasn’t the case, if we only cared about what succeeds we’d all be deliriously happy with capitalism, wouldn’t we?
I see the term kicked around. But it tends to be interpreted as “authority I disagree with” which can mean just about anything depending on the listener.
Conservatives have gleefully used the term in their crusade to dissolve consumer protections, to wage war on civil groups, and to persecute minorities under the banner of “anti-DEI”.
if we only cared about what succeeds we’d all be deliriously happy with capitalism
Capitalist growth drive contains the seeds of its own destruction. We’re seeing that play out with Trump’s tariffs, Boeing’s bankruptcies, and the failure of a slew of liberal institutions throughout the NATO block.
But its naive to conclude the failure of capitalism - or “authoritarianism” generally speaking - is just bureaucracy writ large. At some point, you need a new orthodoxy to organize around. It can’t just be vibes based individualism that we’re all gambling on spontaneously congeling around a better system of interaction.
But it tends to be interpreted as “authority I disagree with”
I disagree with most hierarchical forms of authority, so at least statistically that seems like an adequate definition.
Conservatives have gleefully used the term
I dunno if you’ve noticed this, but conservatives don’t seem to care much about where they get the words they turn into weapons or what they might’ve originally meant, so I wouldn’t use them as a yardstick for the general meaning or utility of a term.
Capitalist growth drive contains the seeds of its own destruction.
I think you might’ve missed my point. You replied to my joking comment about authoritarianism by asking who would win between an authoritarian and an anarchist. I was countering by pointing out that we obviously care a lot more about things like justice than merely who would win, otherwise we would all back capitalism because it’s winning like gangbusters right now despite being pretty unjust. The fact that it might stop winning some day really doesn’t have much bearing on the point about only backing winners though, does it? I choose to assume that you’ve misunderstood, because the alternative is to assume that you are acting in bad faith in trying to distract from the original point.
It can’t just be vibes based individualism
Dismissing a whole-ass rich and nuanced political philosophy as ‘vibes’ - twice now - is not making me terribly inclined to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt for much longer though.
My metric of success for the purpose of this discussion is that we (most of us anyway) live in a capitalist economic system and not something else. It’s ‘succeeding’ in the sense that nothing else has replaced it, like it replaced feudalism.
Obviously I don’t think it’s good or right or just, but I’m forced to acknowledge the fact that it’s on top right now.
I think history has shown that authoritarianism tends to be pretty successful, not that that means it will continue to be so. But even if that wasn’t the case, if we only cared about what succeeds we’d all be deliriously happy with capitalism, wouldn’t we?
I see the term kicked around. But it tends to be interpreted as “authority I disagree with” which can mean just about anything depending on the listener.
Conservatives have gleefully used the term in their crusade to dissolve consumer protections, to wage war on civil groups, and to persecute minorities under the banner of “anti-DEI”.
Capitalist growth drive contains the seeds of its own destruction. We’re seeing that play out with Trump’s tariffs, Boeing’s bankruptcies, and the failure of a slew of liberal institutions throughout the NATO block.
But its naive to conclude the failure of capitalism - or “authoritarianism” generally speaking - is just bureaucracy writ large. At some point, you need a new orthodoxy to organize around. It can’t just be vibes based individualism that we’re all gambling on spontaneously congeling around a better system of interaction.
I disagree with most hierarchical forms of authority, so at least statistically that seems like an adequate definition.
I dunno if you’ve noticed this, but conservatives don’t seem to care much about where they get the words they turn into weapons or what they might’ve originally meant, so I wouldn’t use them as a yardstick for the general meaning or utility of a term.
I think you might’ve missed my point. You replied to my joking comment about authoritarianism by asking who would win between an authoritarian and an anarchist. I was countering by pointing out that we obviously care a lot more about things like justice than merely who would win, otherwise we would all back capitalism because it’s winning like gangbusters right now despite being pretty unjust. The fact that it might stop winning some day really doesn’t have much bearing on the point about only backing winners though, does it? I choose to assume that you’ve misunderstood, because the alternative is to assume that you are acting in bad faith in trying to distract from the original point.
Dismissing a whole-ass rich and nuanced political philosophy as ‘vibes’ - twice now - is not making me terribly inclined to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt for much longer though.
Depends on your metric of success. By my metrics they are abysmal failures.
My metric of success for the purpose of this discussion is that we (most of us anyway) live in a capitalist economic system and not something else. It’s ‘succeeding’ in the sense that nothing else has replaced it, like it replaced feudalism.
Obviously I don’t think it’s good or right or just, but I’m forced to acknowledge the fact that it’s on top right now.
Ah, fair. They are certainly good at perpetuating themselves.