Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
It's worth noting that the late Bob Altemeyer, who literally wrote the book on the right-wing authoritarian personality, found that the left-wing authoritarian personality was basically identical; the difference was in whether or not the person identified with groups that were already in power or groups that wanted to overthrow the established order rather than the substance of their opinions in other ways. The difference is circumstance rather than ideology in practice; authoritarians want to find a "proper authority" to submit to and for said authority to put the wrongs of the world right through brutalizing people the authoritarians don't like and want put in their places while silencing all dissent an criticism. Altemeyer's work is not without criticism, but the core idea, that authoritarians aren't necessarily ideologically consistent and can even flip-flop on their opinions as what they see as "proper authority" changes, does seem broadly borne out by the historical evidence.
to:
It's worth noting that the late Bob Altemeyer, who literally wrote the book on the right-wing authoritarian personality, found that the left-wing authoritarian personality was basically identical; the difference was in whether or not the person identified with groups that were already in power or groups that wanted to overthrow the established order rather than the substance of their opinions in other ways. The difference is circumstance rather than ideology in practice; authoritarians want to find a "proper authority" to submit to and for said authority to put the wrongs of the world right through brutalizing people the authoritarians don't like and want put in their places while silencing all dissent an or criticism. Altemeyer's work is not without criticism, but the core idea, that authoritarians aren't necessarily ideologically consistent and can even flip-flop on their opinions as what they see as "proper authority" changes, does seem broadly borne out by the historical evidence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I wavered on whether or not to say anything at all, and then on whether to put it down in the folders. But Altemeyer ultimately argues largely from a psychological, not historical or political, viewpoint, and I think that it's both important to note and stands outside the context of both the ideological particulars of what fascists and communists actually believe and the historical context of what their regimes' policies were.
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Although political commentators have pointed out similarities between the two ideologies (and started many a FlameWar in the process), on paper Nazism and Communism are opposites. Communism (or more accurately, UsefulNotes/{{Marxism}}) preaches a materialist worldview, where culture is a construct at the mercy of economic conditions and exploitation, while Nazism and other forms of UsefulNotes/{{Fascism}} preach an idealist[[note]]In the philosophical sense of the word; the analysis page for Analysis/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism has more details.[[/note]] worldview, with culture as the expression of a race or country's "collective soul", and considers Marxism a symptom, if not the cause, of societal decay. At least, that's what they printed in their respective textbooks. The mainstream liberal worldview sees both as monstrously totalitarian systems, however, as do adherents of other ideologies, and is more concerned with the dehumanizing ''methods'' that Marxist and Fascist dictatorships utilize than with their utopian claims. And that's where the confusion starts. While many self-described communists notably ''don't'' subscribe to the methods of [[UsefulNotes/JosefStalin Stalin]], UsefulNotes/{{Mao|Zedong}}, etc., it's generally accepted that the ''essence'' of fascism is its propensity for violence for violence's sake, so when liberals say that non-violent libertarian socialists (people who wish to combine economic UsefulNotes/{{socialism}} with a laissez-faire societal system) do "the same thing" fascists do when they take what they perceive as a self-defensive ''ultima ratio'' use of violence against fascists, the libertarian socialists get testy.
to:
Although political commentators have pointed out similarities between the two ideologies (and started many a FlameWar in the process), on paper Nazism and Communism are opposites. Communism (or more accurately, UsefulNotes/{{Marxism}}) preaches a materialist worldview, where culture is a construct at the mercy of economic conditions and exploitation, while Nazism and other forms of UsefulNotes/{{Fascism}} preach an idealist[[note]]In the philosophical sense of the word; the analysis page for Analysis/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism has more details.[[/note]] worldview, with culture as the expression of a race or country's "collective soul", and considers Marxism a symptom, if not the cause, of societal decay. At least, that's what they printed in their respective textbooks. The mainstream liberal worldview sees both as monstrously totalitarian systems, however, as do adherents of other ideologies, and is more concerned with the dehumanizing ''methods'' that Marxist and Fascist dictatorships utilize than with their utopian claims.
And that's where the confusion starts. While many self-described communists notably ''don't'' subscribe to the methods of [[UsefulNotes/JosefStalin Stalin]], UsefulNotes/{{Mao|Zedong}}, etc., it's generally accepted that the ''essence'' of fascism is its propensity for violence for violence's sake, so when liberals say that non-violent libertarian socialists (people who wish to combine economic UsefulNotes/{{socialism}} with a laissez-faire societal system) do "the same thing" fascists do when they take what they perceive as a self-defensive ''ultima ratio'' use of violence against fascists, the libertarian socialists gettesty.
testy.
It's worth noting that the late Bob Altemeyer, who literally wrote the book on the right-wing authoritarian personality, found that the left-wing authoritarian personality was basically identical; the difference was in whether or not the person identified with groups that were already in power or groups that wanted to overthrow the established order rather than the substance of their opinions in other ways. The difference is circumstance rather than ideology in practice; authoritarians want to find a "proper authority" to submit to and for said authority to put the wrongs of the world right through brutalizing people the authoritarians don't like and want put in their places while silencing all dissent an criticism. Altemeyer's work is not without criticism, but the core idea, that authoritarians aren't necessarily ideologically consistent and can even flip-flop on their opinions as what they see as "proper authority" changes, does seem broadly borne out by the historical evidence.
And that's where the confusion starts. While many self-described communists notably ''don't'' subscribe to the methods of [[UsefulNotes/JosefStalin Stalin]], UsefulNotes/{{Mao|Zedong}}, etc., it's generally accepted that the ''essence'' of fascism is its propensity for violence for violence's sake, so when liberals say that non-violent libertarian socialists (people who wish to combine economic UsefulNotes/{{socialism}} with a laissez-faire societal system) do "the same thing" fascists do when they take what they perceive as a self-defensive ''ultima ratio'' use of violence against fascists, the libertarian socialists get
It's worth noting that the late Bob Altemeyer, who literally wrote the book on the right-wing authoritarian personality, found that the left-wing authoritarian personality was basically identical; the difference was in whether or not the person identified with groups that were already in power or groups that wanted to overthrow the established order rather than the substance of their opinions in other ways. The difference is circumstance rather than ideology in practice; authoritarians want to find a "proper authority" to submit to and for said authority to put the wrongs of the world right through brutalizing people the authoritarians don't like and want put in their places while silencing all dissent an criticism. Altemeyer's work is not without criticism, but the core idea, that authoritarians aren't necessarily ideologically consistent and can even flip-flop on their opinions as what they see as "proper authority" changes, does seem broadly borne out by the historical evidence.
