To keep it short the reason why some people are ok with authoritarianism is because most structures that we deal with on a daily basis are authoritarian.
Here is evidence that shows a significant amount of people are ok with authoritarianism:
This should be concerning.
And the thing is that it makes sense once you look at what are the most common systems that people interact with the most.
A clear example would be the Boss-Worker relationship. The boss creates a set of objectives/tasks for the worker and the worker sees them out. Rarely does the worker get the chance to set the higher level direction of what they are supposed to be doing with their time leaving them obedient to the boss and their demands.
Another example would be some Parent-Child relationships. Some parents treat their children as people that should show absolute respect towards them just because they are the parents not because they have something that is of value to the child (experience).
Even in the places where we do make democratic decisions those are usually made in ways that are supposed to be supplemental to authoritative decision making. An example would be how we don’t vote on decisions but instead how we vote on others to make decisions for us.
Once you add up all the experiences that someone has throughout their whole life you will see that most of them come into direct contact with authoritarian systems which means it makes that kind of way of thinking familiar and therefore acceptable.
Unlike democracy which is an abstract concept and something we only really experience from time to time.
If we want people to actually stop thinking authoritarianism is ok then we as a society are gonna have to stop using these kinds of systems / ways of thinking in our daily lives.
From my experience I found that people who are fine with authoritarianism for various reasons are the ones that want to be relieved from decision making and responsibility. It makes their life easier when they are given directions rather than thinking for themselves. Not all of them reach this point voluntarily, sometimes life just forces them into it.
In my experience, the people who crave authoritarianism the most appear to understand it the least. This is both a cause and an effect of the authoritarian executive system when put into practice.
Most authoritarians struggle mightily to explain the rationale behind their own choices, even incredibly simple ones. They also display a genuine aversion to the very process of evidence-based critical thinking.
Thus the allure of authoritarianism is in justifying the release of it’s agents from the burdensome task of real, responsible decision-making. It’s not hard to understand when you consider how overwhelming the decision fatigue must be for those described above.
I think we need to add the consideration, that representative systems put the blame on people, when in fact their actual influence is extremely limited.
Oh you voted for party xy? Then it is your fault that they fucked the people over again. But come next election all the media and political propaganda is telling you how that is the only acceptable party and the other ones are all evil…
Oh you took on the student debt to take the education that you were told by all mainstream voices to be necessary for you to have a decent live, but the cost of living and your debt eat up a lot of your middle class income? Well how were you personally so stupid to do what society told everyone to do. It is all your personal fault!
We life in a capitalist oligarchic society that structurally takes away peoples participation opportunities and their freedoms while claiming to give them all the freedoms and blaming every result of an entrenched system on the individual.
I disagree with the claim that the people who prefer authoritative systems always lack critical thinking. If the actual influence you have is almost zero, alleviating yourself from the blame that is put onto you is perfectly rational.
Plus something about authoritarians that few realize. Many don’t want to be the dictator. They just want the man in charge to be in charge. Debate is weakness, it’s slow, and shows doubt. Democracy is just a means to an end.
Unfamiliarity with the real deal, and the horrors it will bring. Combined with the belief that because you are the “in group” it will not be detrimental to you, only the “out group”.
You do something similar, by expanding the scope of authoritarian rule (that determines the direction of society at large) with small scale power relations which by themselves are governed (and limited) by society. There is plenty that is not allowed in the example relations you give by societal norms (laws/tradition/morals).
Combined with the belief that because you are the “in group” it will not be detrimental to you, only the “out group”.
Are you confusing authoritarianism with fascism?
Well yes and no. Fascism is a form of authoritarianism and if your leader controls stuff…
The in-group vs out-group thing happens with fascism. Non-fascist authoritarianism usually does not have it.
I do agree to some level. It seems to create some internal ethical conflict in people. The arguments for why dictatorships are bad are not applied to companies and the other way around.
I always thought this was extra clear among right-“libertarians” who often seem to have a very hard time not arguing for an anti-democratic state.
The arguments for why dictatorships are bad are not applied to companies and the other way around.
Hm… I’m not sure I follow what one has to do with the other. Are you alluding to some sort of banana-republic-esque situation? Or just general anticompetitve/monopolistic behavior?
I always thought this was extra clear among right-“libertarians” who often seem to have a very hard time not arguing for an anti-democratic state.
For the sake of clarity, are you using quotes to reference some group who misappropriates the libertarian term? Or are you saying that the libertarian philosophy argues for an anti-democratic state?
Hm… I’m not sure I follow what one has to do with the other. Are you alluding to some sort of banana-republic-esque situation? Or just general anticompetitve/monopolistic behavior?
Just very generally. In a company there is generally no formalized structure to represent the opinion of the subjects in this case workers. Neither are there such structures in dictatorships.
For the sake of clarity, are you using quotes to reference some group who misappropriates the libertarian term? Or are you saying that the libertarian philosophy argues for an anti-democratic state?
I do not know what you mean when you say “libertarian philosophy”, since things like libertarian socialism has very little overlap with “libertarianism” of the right. And there are the quotes again. I just think the word does not really seem appropriate in describing the philosophy when all I have heard from individuals defending it only reflect over the liberty to opress, never the liberty from escaping that opression.
I’m just trying to make sure that I don’t make assumptions in your position, so please forgive my probing.
In a company there is generally no formalized structure to represent the opinion of the subjects in this case workers.
So, to be clear, when you allude to the idea of companies being dictatorial, you are only referring to the treatment of the workers employed by the company and not how consumers interact with companies?
I do not know what you mean when you say “libertarian philosophy”
I am specifically referring to the political science concept of “libertarianism” [Wikipedia has a good outline, or this Britannica defintion, etc.] — libertarianism’s primary interest is in maximizing individual liberties, and strongly upholding individual rights.
all I have heard from individuals defending it only reflect over the liberty to opress, never the liberty from escaping that opression
Imo, this is due to a misappropriation of the term — I think I know what sorts of factions that you are referring to, and I would agree that they are not following what libertarianism advocates. Libertarianism does not advocate for the oppression of others; individual rights, and freedoms are held as paramount — the oppression of another is to infringe on their rights, and liberties. I personally simply refrain from using the term “libertarian” when talking about those sorts of people, as it only tarnishes the public’s perception of what the philosophy actually advocates.
Another part of it too is that people see all the problems happening in society and in the world, and aren’t getting told how complex they are and why they’re problems in the first place or about some of the nuances. Problems are getting reduced down to “They’re doing this to us,” or “Look how bad this is!” Obvious problems appear to just be languishing while politicians “do nothing about it.” People are just getting worn out by the apparent inaction and circling the drain.
So there’s a certain allure to wanting a strong hand to just come in and fix the thing, a sort of social bystander effect that you’re alluding to. Just seeing all the Russian sympathizers and obviously corrupt politicians in Congress makes me wish there’d be an authoritarian counter-coup that would take all them down in one fell swoop, a declared state of emergency, because finally then we could start making progress on important issues. I doubt I’m alone in thinking a version of this, certainly the Right-wing has been plotting its own coup for years.
People are okay with allowing things they imagine benefiting from the same way they’re ok with prohibiting things that don’t affect them.
Banning abortion is okay because they’re not going to do abortion. Banning tiktok is fine because they don’t use tiktok. Eating the rich is good because they’re not rich. Getting rid of capitalism is good because they’re not benefiting from it and so on.
It’s quite rare for a person to be for or against something only because they think it’s the right thing to do even if it ends up hurting them as an individual. In my view the only way to arrive at something even resembling a moral truth is by imagining that you’re then going to be placed in that society but you wont know into which role. For example if you know there’s a chance you’re going to spawn as a black person then you’re probably not going to advocate for something that disadvantages blacks but equally you might spawn as rich aswell so you shouldn’t be too excited about getting capital punishment for it either.
Does eat the rich really mean capital punishment for them? I thought it was just a meme way to say expropriate and redistribute their resources.
It’s not uncommon for people to call for their beheading with a guillotine aswell. Some are jokin, some are not. I think it’s safe to assume they would take their opposition literally in a equivalent situation instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Guillotine yeah I am sure some mean that literally. But eat the rich is clearly a metaphor I think. I don’t think people saying this are actual cannibals. But it would be an interesting poll to hear what people actually mean. If there are a lot of people who are actually wanting to kill people I would be more prone to oppose that language since I don’t support capital punishment (much less extra-judicial killings).
Some reasons:
They want THEIR side to win. If their side has the power, then the other side doesn’t.
Alpha-Beta dynamic. If they submit to an authority (government, religion, boss, etc) then that means they can do whatever to who they think they have authority over (women, blacks, gays, poor, etc).
Stupidity. Some people need to be told what is good and bad. They literally cannot figure it out on their own or they are too lazy to do so.
Unfortunately, this is one case where the answer really is “human nature”, though that nature may be influenced by experience.
Psychological research into authoritarian personalities shows some people really do have psychological needs (or at least desires) that are met by stupid ass authoritarian power structures. It’s not even, as you may be tempted to suggest, something like desiring power or wanting their team to win over the “enemy”.
If no enemy exists they will create one, they need it. If no hierarchical power structure exists they will create one, and not only so they can be at the top. There are authoritarian followers, too, who will create power structures so they can be at the bottom. (Or at least not at the top, they tend to need people who are below them as much as they need people who are above them.)
But authoritarian personalities tend to want this kind of thing to happen for its own sake and not because of any particular outcome. The authoritarianism is the goal itself. Psychological studies have shown these people will support (or at least not strongly oppose) oppression of while groups of people even when they are a part of the group in question. That is: they’d rather this stuff happen than not, even if it’s happening to them personally.
A good write-up on this aimed at non psychologists is The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer: https://theauthoritarians.org/
Written for the Bush era, sadly still relevant today.
What I’m arguing is that it isn’t an inherent part of human nature but instead it is something that is culturally ingrained in most people.
Therefore even if we did dismantle the system people would still have those preconceptions about how society should work and therefore they will rebuild this same systems.
There was a book that I read sometime ago that detailed a group of people that travelled to a remote island to try and start a new society from scratch. Almost immediately people began to reimplement the same structures that they grew up in.
So, the psychology research disagrees. While there IS a cultural/social component, there does seem to be a difference in people’s disposition.
The big evidence there can be change is the Milgram experiment, where people who had first hand experience with the Holocaust immediately saw what was going on and refused to take part. That was an aberration, though. People aren’t being forced to confront things on that scale in that way anymore, and even then it didn’t work on everyone.
Ok then I guess I need to read more about the psychology behind that then. But yeah we do need to find ways to make people less susceptible to authoritarianism.
Another good book about this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality
They are afraid. Afraid of making decisions. Afraid they can’t control themselves. Afraid of people that are different. Afraid to express their true selves….
After reading both, the other thread was way better. But good on you for cross-posting, OP.
Thanks for pointing this out! It’s interesting seeing another view of the discussion with some different responses.
I thought frog’s comments were particularly good.
I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion. We instead need to start having referendums on everything people think is worth one.
Edit: The downvotes and some of the comments on this comment are pretty ironic. Congrats fellas, you’re confirming what OP says is true: sometimes people are ok with authoritarianism.
Yeah, Brexit worked out great.
Sure, let’s cancel everything that didn’t work once! And let’s ignore all the other times it worked. As an example, the only referendum that ever was in Czechia was to enter the EU and we’ve been part of the EU for a few decades now, so the exact opposite of Brexit!
For the record - this is the argument against democracy. And it’s not so bad!
Democracy can do horrific things! It is prone to mistakes with things that can be fear-mongered, where there’s a lot of money invested in grifting, and when the real reasons are sufficiently complicated that they don’t fit on signs (or nobody is interested in doing the work to put them on signs).
Democracy can do horrific things!
There exists a philosophical argument on whether democracy is a means to an end, or an end to a means. One could argue that, no matter the real outcome of a democracy, it is always the most moral for the people to have had a say in that outcome. A properly structured government needs to ensure adequate checks and balances are in place to minimize potential “negative” outcomes.
Gang rape is democracy in action.
Hm, perhaps if the gang rape happened in a vacuum. In reality, though, there is likely an encompassing democratic society wherein the gang rape took place. Said democratic society most likely has laws that prohibit such an action from happening; therefore, since the gang rapers violated democratically passed laws, then they were acting in an undemocratic manner.
Hmm. Could you explain your position more?
Edit: wait I just realized this could be sarcasm.
It wasn’t sarcasm, I really think we need referendums on everything, otherwise it’s the same old nobility and peasants situation, albeit with extra steps. That’s the only thing that IMO can help people understand democracy.
deleted by creator
We instead need to start having referendums on everything people think is worth one.
For the sake of clarity, are you referring to direct democracy?
Yes.
How do you propose this would fit in with, assumedly, the existing representative democracy? Are you proposing that direct democracy should replace representative democracy or that it should work alongside representative democracy? If you are proposing the latter, what form would you suggest that it should take?
Well, everything works as it does now (meaning politicians do their usual jobs), but if someone doesn’t like their decision, they have some time to gather enough signatures to put it under a referendum.
Meaning you don’t have a referendum over literally everything, only if enough people think it’s worthy of a referendum.
The same principle applies for proposing new stuff instead of overturning what politicians did.
Obviously a proper analysis of the thresholds would be needed.
This is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think on this more.
Not only are most structures authoritarian, but most of the loudest “democracies” are not.
If you’re American and championing for freedom and democracy, you’re a hypocrite. You live under an oligarch style of authorianism. Look at the very well done Princeton study that showed percent of population for or against a certain idea versus the percent probability a law in the favour of the populous would he passed. In an ideal democracy, representative by the people, if 25% want X, then it should have a 25% chance of passing. If 75% want Y, it should have a 75% chance of passing. A 1 to 1 linear relationship would be ideal democracy.
In the USA, the probability of passing a law is 30%. That doesn’t make sense, it’s not a function, it’s a value! I hear anyone with sense say. That’s because it isn’t a function. If you are 90% of the population by mostly wealth, what you want or don’t want has zero affect on the outcome of law. Not a little bit, or a relational amount. Zero. You have no voice.
If you are in the top 10%, you fare better. Once it gets to being popular, it has a good chance of passing. On the low end it’s about the same.
Authoritarianism is a label America pushes upon other governments that it can’t control as well. They just function for a different purpose.
I know most people here won’t understand it because the American propaganda is strong. But next time you’re alone with your thoughts, give it a think. How much of a voice do you really have? All these freedoms you supposedly have, do you really have them? Spoiler alert, you don’t.
Because they dont want to be responsible for anything
because they are a threat to humanity
