Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[Raphael]

This is about a political topic, so I could have put it into one of the existing political threads, but this initial post might end up being long enough to warrant its own thread.

In political contexts, people often talk about authoritarian and anti-authoritarian attitudes in different political camps. But I've gotten my doubts about whether this terminology really makes sense, partly as a result of watching followers of the Republican Party in the USA from the Clinton Administration to today.

I watched them when, during the Clinton Administration, they ranted about the oppressive, tyrannical US federal government which may or may not have been planning to built a New World Order. I watched them when, during the George W. Bush Administration, they equated any and all criticism of the then-leaders of that same US federal government with treason and terrorism. I watched them scream about an America-hating Muslim tyranny which was supposedly planning to put good patriotic Christians into FEMA camps during the Obama Administration. And of course, their sycophancy towards Trump was and is even more pathetic than their sycophancy towards George W. Bush had been.

Taking all this in made me think that human beings aren't really "authoritarian" or "anti-authoritarian". Instead, they're usually for authorities they like and against authorities they don't like. If that's true, then it might mean that what people usually call "authoritarianism" and what people usually call "anti-authoritarianism" would just be two special cases of Us vs. Them thinking, which is, of course, perhaps the single most powerful force in human politics, human history, and much of human life.

There are some caveats, though. There does seem to be something about the right-wing mind that is extremely fond of hierarchies, in a way in which the thoughts and feelings of most left-wingers aren't. Right-wingers really seem to assume as a matter of course, and to be absolutely convinced, that whenever two people are in some kind of relation to each other, one of them has to be the superior and the other one has to be the subordinate. It's not just that they're against egalitarianism - that goes without saying. It's that, on a very fundamental, very basic, very primal level, they can't even really comprehend egalitarianism.

That point was driven home to me when, a few months ago, I saw a right-wing political cartoon which showed black-clad dominatrices whipping chained men in a quarry, with the caption "This is the future that liberals want". That made me realize, they're so completely unable to even wrap their minds around the idea of people meeting each other on a more or less equal footing, that when they see that their opponents are against men in general ruling over, dominating, humiliating, or degrading women in general (outside of consensual BDSM settings), they assume, as a matter of course, that we must be in favor of women in general ruling over, dominating, humiliating, or degrading men in general. (Yes, OK, some of the more hardcore anti-oppression types might be in favor of that, but they're hardly representative.)

As for "anti-authoritarian" attitudes, I once read an comment by a moderately conservative writer who, himself, was unapologetically in favor of respecting authorities, and who argued that often, the most dedicated anti-authoritarians are authoritarians who hate the existing authorities because the existing authorities stand in the way of their desire to be the authorities.

And yes, I think there are people in some parts of the Left who fit that description to a T. For instance, people who are a lot into Direct Action, which, in my opinion, means that they try to write their own laws and then they try to hire themselves as the cops in charge of enforcing those laws, without the rest of us, who are expected to follow those laws, getting any input into the process.

One more note on authoritarian impulses in parts of the Left: back during my first failed attempt to go to college, 20 and more years ago now, most of the people with whom I studied were politically more or less left of center, but almost everyone I knew had a fairly low opinion of the Campus Left proper, that is, the people who would place their world-changing pamphlets everywhere.

Anyway, there was one particular Campus Left group whose pamphlets always followed a very basic formula: at the start, there was a quote by some more or less prominent figure, past or present, whom the group clearly saw as an authority. And then the rest of the pamphlet would elaborate on the general theme of that quote. I remember thinking back then that that was a somewhat strange approach for the publications of a group which belonged to a political camp that was theoretically supposed to be anti-authoritarian.

So what do you all think?

Final note: just in case you want to advice me to read Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, I already did that a while ago.

[zompist]

My initial thought was in fact to send you to Altemeyer. I'd just note that he has specific tests for the authoritarian personality and that it is not simply a response to conservatism.

If it were 1935, or 1955, it's be as obvious as the sun that there were left-wing authoritarians. As the existence of terms like "tankie" show, they still exist, but they're more likely to be mocked than listened to.

[zompist]

Anyway, there was one particular Campus Left group whose pamphlets always followed a very basic formula: at the start, there was a quote by some more or less prominent figure, past or present, whom the group clearly saw as an authority. And then the rest of the pamphlet would elaborate on the general theme of that quote. I remember thinking back then that that was a somewhat strange approach for the publications of a group which belonged to a political camp that was theoretically supposed to be anti-authoritarian.

Also, reflecting on this: you might want to distinguish authorities from authoritarianism, Putting weight on a particular authority is not authoritarianism, it just means the writer trusts, and expects the reader to more or less trust, that person. It's not wrong to defer (though not slavishly) to people who know about a subject.

Of course, in politics no one has universal authority— not even within the big swampy tracts we call "right" or "left". My guess (from seeing similar pamphlets) is that the group you mention only cited people they already agreed with, forgetting that this would do nothing to convince anyone who didn't already agree with them.

[Travis B.]

One key thing to remember is that the anti-authoritarian left seeks to build a world specifically without or with minimal hierarchy based on arbitrary authority (and by authority I don't mean in the sense of being an authority in the earned sense that zompist refers to).

As for there being a supposed "anti-authoritarian right", I frankly don't think such a thing exists, for the exact reason that the right is intrinsically married to hierarchy, and supporting hierarchy is intrinsically incompatible with being anti-authoritarian.

[Raphael]

One key thing to remember is that the anti-authoritarian left seeks to build a world specifically without or with minimal hierarchy based on arbitrary authority (and by authority I don't mean in the sense of being an authority in the earned sense that zompist refers to).

Authoritarians usually think that their preferred authorities are "earned" authorities.

As for there being a supposed "anti-authoritarian right", I frankly don't think such a thing exists,

What, exactly, are you responding to here?

[Travis B.]

One key thing to remember is that the anti-authoritarian left seeks to build a world specifically without or with minimal hierarchy based on arbitrary authority (and by authority I don't mean in the sense of being an authority in the earned sense that zompist refers to).

Authoritarians usually think that their preferred authorities are "earned" authorities.

The difference is that an anti-authoritarian thinks that following someone else should be one's free choice rather than being foisted upon oneself.

As for there being a supposed "anti-authoritarian right", I frankly don't think such a thing exists,

What, exactly, are you responding to here?

Your comments about rightists hysterically thinking Clinton and Obama were tyrants, in part, but I was also referring to allegedly "anti-authoritarian" rightists such as big-L Libertarians.

[Raphael]

The difference is that an anti-authoritarian thinks that following someone else should be one's free choice rather than being foisted upon oneself.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that some of the people, living or dead, who are revered as quasi-gurus in some of the creepier quarters of the Left have at least some followers who don't really think that I should get to freely choose whether to follow them or not.

Your comments about rightists hysterically thinking Clinton and Obama were tyrants,

I was not so much describing those rightists as anti-authoritarian as saying that their attitude towards authorities depends entirely on whether they like or dislike any individual authority at any given moment.

[Travis B.]

The difference is that an anti-authoritarian thinks that following someone else should be one's free choice rather than being foisted upon oneself.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that some of the people, living or dead, who are revered as quasi-gurus in some of the creepier quarters of the Left have at least some followers who don't really think that I should get to freely choose whether to follow them or not.

Mind you, there are plenty of authoritarian leftists out there.

[Ketsuban]

(Yes, OK, some of the more hardcore anti-oppression types might be in favor of that, but they're hardly representative.)

My understanding is this sort of thing is generally brought up as a thought experiment or a hyperbole to emphasise that the equality that people are actually asking for is already the reasonable compromise, not because there's anyone who genuinely thinks that The White Race plc owes a few hundred years of back-payments to someone for the institution of slavery. That said, a frustration I have with the subject of reparations is that everyone is so busy digging trenches that nobody has stopped to try and determine the magnitude of the question: adamant adherence to the notion that the United Kingdom can never owe someone something for its imperialist history looks immensely foolish if it turns out the debt amounts to fifty-three pence and a ham sandwich; the converse is horrifying if it would involve a Haiti-style transfer of wealth over the course of centuries which permanently impoverishes a nation of people whose benefit from said imperialism is extremely abstracted.

[Ares Land]

A few random thoughts.
Right-wing pretty cleverly claimed 'freedom' and 'liberty' for their own use, most noticeably in the US, but in other countries as well. It'll take some time disentangling that.
Right-wing anti-authoritarians are not as common, but they do exist; I even met a couple of them.

I think that, left or right, it's easy to fool yourself, close your eyes and pretend that folks that are seemingly on your side and appear to be winning are better people than they are. Che Guevara was a anti-authoritarian icon while being a very authoritarian personality in real life. For some reason, hippies were fond of Mao -- I guess you had to be there?

It's hard to claim, in 2025, that Trump is just a big fun guy that happens to put his foot in his mouth too often. But maybe it felt different ten years ago.
On the Democratic side, people seem fond of Gavin Newsom, despite the fact he has the looks and personality of Patrick Bateman.

[zompist]

I think that, left or right, it's easy to fool yourself, close your eyes and pretend that folks that are seemingly on your side and appear to be winning are better people than they are. Che Guevara was a anti-authoritarian icon while being a very authoritarian personality in real life. For some reason, hippies were fond of Mao -- I guess you had to be there?

I don't think it meant much in this country. Mao and Che were just seen as symbols of rebellion-- all the more so when the US was engaged in a foolish and divisive war. My impression is that European radicals at least read Marxists; the hippies were theoretically ultra-left but didn't study it and didn't do anything about it.

[Raphael]

My understanding is this sort of thing is generally brought up as a thought experiment or a hyperbole

This is going off on a tangent, so it's only tangentially related to your point, but I don't really believe in the existence of hyperbole. I think the whole concept is something that shitty right-wingers came up with when they said really shitty, repulsive, and indefensible things, and other people criticized them for saying really shitty, repulsive, and indefensible things.

No, as far as I'm concerned, the three basic modes of speaking are metaphorical, sarcastic, and literal. So when people are clearly neither being metaphorical nor sarcastic, they are being literal. If, in that context, they claim that what they're saying shouldn't really be interpreted literally because it is "just hyperbole", I'll assume that they're lying.

Don't want to be criticized for saying repulsive and indefensible shit? Then don't say repulsive and indefensible shit. Saying repulsive and indefensible shit and then defending it as "hyperbole" is a cheap copout and an inherently dishonest and cowardly way of talking.

A few random thoughts.
Right-wing pretty cleverly claimed 'freedom' and 'liberty' for their own use, most noticeably in the US, but in other countries as well. It'll take some time disentangling that.

I still think it's very much worth trying, though. After all, the vast majority of people have very little real freedom when things are run the right-wing way.

[Ares Land]

I think that, left or right, it's easy to fool yourself, close your eyes and pretend that folks that are seemingly on your side and appear to be winning are better people than they are. Che Guevara was a anti-authoritarian icon while being a very authoritarian personality in real life. For some reason, hippies were fond of Mao -- I guess you had to be there?

I don't think it meant much in this country. Mao and Che were just seen as symbols of rebellion-- all the more so when the US was engaged in a foolish and divisive war. My impression is that European radicals at least read Marxists; the hippies were theoretically ultra-left but didn't study it and didn't do anything about it.

Yeah, European radicals did read Marxists and some people were dead serious about Mao in '68.
But I think your analysis applies too. I don't think hippies saw anything more than a symbol of rebellion. Maybe they read the Little Red Book and other Marxists, but those are pretty inpenetrable anyway. I don't think it occured to anyone to check what was really going on in China.

Now, and this may sound fucked up, but I think is true, anti-authoritarian right-wingers saw, at one point, Trump as a symbol of rebellion.

I still think it's very much worth trying, though. After all, the vast majority of people have very little real freedom when things are run the right-wing way.

Oh, I definitely agree. I think it's actually easier now that frankly, right-winger can't credibly pretend to be in favor of 'freedom.'
It looks like they mostly dropped the pretense too.

[Raphael]

I still think it's very much worth trying, though. After all, the vast majority of people have very little real freedom when things are run the right-wing way.

Oh, I definitely agree. I think it's actually easier now that frankly, right-winger can't credibly pretend to be in favor of 'freedom.'
It looks like they mostly dropped the pretense too.

I think some of their political parties still have "freedom" in their name.

[Ares Land]

I still think it's very much worth trying, though. After all, the vast majority of people have very little real freedom when things are run the right-wing way.

Oh, I definitely agree. I think it's actually easier now that frankly, right-winger can't credibly pretend to be in favor of 'freedom.'
It looks like they mostly dropped the pretense too.

I think some of their political parties still have "freedom" in their name.

Oh, yes, sure, the 'freedom' bit is still there and still present in their rhetoric, but my impression is that they switched to a discourse that's much more openly authoritarian.

[Raphael]

Oh, yes, sure, the 'freedom' bit is still there and still present in their rhetoric, but my impression is that they switched to a discourse that's much more openly authoritarian.

Yes, they did.

[Travis B.]

(Yes, OK, some of the more hardcore anti-oppression types might be in favor of that, but they're hardly representative.)

My understanding is this sort of thing is generally brought up as a thought experiment or a hyperbole to emphasise that the equality that people are actually asking for is already the reasonable compromise, not because there's anyone who genuinely thinks that The White Race plc owes a few hundred years of back-payments to someone for the institution of slavery. That said, a frustration I have with the subject of reparations is that everyone is so busy digging trenches that nobody has stopped to try and determine the magnitude of the question: adamant adherence to the notion that the United Kingdom can never owe someone something for its imperialist history looks immensely foolish if it turns out the debt amounts to fifty-three pence and a ham sandwich; the converse is horrifying if it would involve a Haiti-style transfer of wealth over the course of centuries which permanently impoverishes a nation of people whose benefit from said imperialism is extremely abstracted.

The problem with monetary reparations is that ultimately real people have to pay for them -- while one can say The Government pays for them, where does that government get the money to pay them from? Why, real people -- real people whose personal benefit from slavery or imperialism or like may be very hard to quantify and may be near-nonexistent -- and oftentimes hereditary guilt is strongly implied. And it is not just to make people pay for something just because of the country in which they live or their race without regard to their personal ties or lack thereof to the matter at hand, no matter what wrong such payment is meant to recompense.

While for some things such as reparations right after WW2 for the Holocaust you can argue that most people alive at the time in the country (West Germany) which made the reparations had some role in things, however small, for things like slavery in America not only are the guilty parties long dead, but even if one accepts the concept of hereditary guilt, much of the White population of America is not even descended from people who lived in America at the time. (E.g. my mother's side is descended from people who came in the early 20th century, and my father's side is largely descended from people who had just gotten off the boat around the time of the Civil War.)

About the magnitude of such reparations that you bring up, monetary reparations for slavery or imperialism are one of those things that depending on who is determining the amount it could be anything between your examples of fifty-three pence and a ham sandwich or the Haiti independence debt, but I suspect they would say it would probably be closer to one extreme or the other rather than somewhere in the middle -- meaning that it likely would either be a trivial amount almost not worth giving or it would be a massive debt inflicted on very many people whose ties to slavery or imperialism are highly doubtful.

[Ares Land]

I'm kind of on the fence on the subject of reparations.
I am bothered by the fact that my own country's official take on the Haiti debt is that the political regime was different when the whole thing started, so, oh sorry, this is all the fault of some other country called 'France', but no relation, really, completely unrelated, we can't help you there.

There's also the fact that there's no way reparations can ever be implemented, politically, or even practically. So I'd rather focus on issues like, treating people in overseas departement and territories like people, or not being horribly racist to immigrants. Both of which are tall orders already.

[Travis B.]

I'm kind of on the fence on the subject of reparations.
I am bothered by the fact that my own country's official take on the Haiti debt is that the political regime was different when the whole thing started, so, oh sorry, this is all the fault of some other country called 'France', but no relation, really, completely unrelated, we can't help you there.

There's also the fact that there's no way reparations can ever be implemented, politically, or even practically. So I'd rather focus on issues like, treating people in overseas departement and territories like people, or not being horribly racist to immigrants. Both of which are tall orders already.

Well the French government has a long history of doing that with things, e.g. having the position that France has no guilt in the Holocaust because Vichy France was not a Legitimate French government.

I am personally much more in favor of trying to balance things out now in a way that does not simply punish anyone for being of the wrong group than to execute monetary reparations for wrongs in the (relatively) distant past (as defined by that all the perpetrators and all the victims and all of the immediate descendants of both are all dead). Examples would be to deliberately make college admissions and zero-to-low-interest (emphasis on this) home and college loans easier to get for people living in impoverished areas (note that this would help poor White people along with poor Black people, of course).

[Raphael]

Philosophically speaking, my problem with reparations is that they only make sense if you accept the idea of inheritance. Only then does it make sense to say that, if your ancestors should have gotten something in the past and didn't get it, you are entitled to getting it now. And I'm far enough to the Left on economic matters that I'm very sceptical of the whole idea of inheritance.

But practically - well first of all, you won't get anywhere in politics without a certain amount of coalition building, and you can't really built an effective progressive coalition these days without at least some people who are big on reparations.

And, as Ares Land points out, it's not as if they're likely to happen anyway, so if you assume that they're bad, they're still not that much of a concern.

However, in the unlikely case that it ever becomes feasible to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of the rich, I don't see why I should mind it if people descended from survivors or non-survivors of historical atrocities would get preferred treatment in getting redistribution payments, or if their part of those redistribution payments would be officially labelled "reparations".

I'd prefer it if this wouldn't become a reparations thread, though.