Authoritarianism... by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Authoritarianism...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 15:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6726
PAGE 4 of 4

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:57 AM

Quote:
But I don't think it necessarily becomes stricter and more harsh, or even escalates, unless it gains power. I could be wrong...but by our example, the religious right didn't escalate and begin imposing its values on the nation until it had a sympathetic person in power...yes?

Every cult tries to spread, because there is also power and comfort in numbers. As they spread, and bring new blood into into their fold, the new blood will need to be tested, to ensure that they really are loyal. As time goes on, and the group becomes more paranoid about the outside, the tests become harsher.

It's usually in the second generation you start to see the first hints of dissent, one or two kids will become the black sheep, maybe even the scapegoat. They'll run away or try to escape, or the punishment will prove fatal. In that failure of the group, the first seeds of doubt are planted. Sometimes, as with organized religion, that is sufficient for the believers to fear and be even less likely to question, which does prolong the existence of the group, but attrition will exact it's cost.

The goal of the authoritarian leader tends to be power and control, to promote an agenda (like the perfect society) or to remove a perceived danger to society. Power and control I think can be considered a goal of authoritarianism.

Quote:
I agree with your three suggestions...tho' I'm not sure about "support"...you mean support those who break away? I think you have to respect BOTH, so as not to alienate either while you encourage those you can away from it, and support them...which may be what you're advocating.

I mean both. As for the leaders, I'm not sure there's any treatment for megalomania. If their ideas are based on psychological delusions, perhaps they can be treated like others with a psychological disorder.

I don't understand the mechanism of the leader as well. I can only assume that the same abuse that shapes the followers also shapes the leader, they develop the same extreme ideas, but also an ability to believe so much that they can pass on those beliefs. Is it a response to the abuse, rather than submitting to it, a determination to prove they are great, better than the other followers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 2:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"People will always vie for power."

This is exactly the 'human nature' argument many use to support any number of pathologies. It would argue that war is inevitable. And yet - we know it isn't.

Here are some things I learned:

Bonobo chimps all hunt - females hunt individually, males hunt individually, females hunt in groups, males hunt in groups, females and males hunt in groups together. All prey is shared evenly.
Males do not vie for status in a male hierarchy - their status is conferred by their mother's status, which tends to correspond with the time the mother's been in the group. Female status is achieved and maintained non-violently.

'Regular chimps' have mostly adult males hunting. Females sometimes 'successfully' hunt alone, but the few times it's been observed the prey was stolen by a male. Some of the more successfully hunting males have a higher status in the hierarchy, but some of the lower-status males are also among the most successful hunters. However, high status males always get a large share of the prey to eat, low status males must beg, adolescent males eat whatever scraps fall to the ground, and females always beg for food, getting roughly 1/10 of the average male.

Male baboons are a nasty lot. Males immigrate into groups, with constant vicious fights (and deaths) ensuing to achieve and maintain dominance. After a male become dominant, he often kills the existing young, much to the stress of females with young. Since baboons don't hunt - and rarely share food - the social aspects of this behavior can't be described.
"Jerkiness or worse certainly seems to be a job description for ordinary male baboons. The average young male, after wheedling his way into a new troop at around age 7, spends his prime years seeking to fang his way up the hierarchy; and once he's gained some status, he devotes many a leisure hour to whimsical displays of power at scant personal cost. He harasses and attacks females, which weigh half his hundred pounds and lack his thumb-thick canines, or he terrorizes the low-ranking males he knows cannot retaliate".

But then there is the (relatively) pacifist baboon troop. http://www.primates.co.uk/baboons/culture.html

So, are 'people' bonobos, or chimps, or baboons ?

I'd say it doesn't matter - because under the right set of conditions, even baboons can be bonobos.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 4:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

There's a lot of agenda driven reports on Bonobos, I've read a lot of stuff. There are interesting conclusions that you can come to from the actual data, but they don't support that human nature is egalitarian or peaceful, or that they have any stable family life. Bonobos are very promiscuous and carry a lot of STDs, they do occasionally get into wars and fall into typical patriarchal societies, but not very stable ones. They aren't violent as we are, or others, they don't engage in rape, and they're pretty much all vegetarians.

I think that like all theories, this one can be carried about 1/10th of a mile, and then you burn out. I'm willing to accept that non-bonobo human behavior is a result of social conditioning, but only the widely demonstrater behaviors here.

Ergo, rape and other individual interpersonal violence are largely creations of society, as are nuclear families, stable societies.

Oh, and bonobo do exhibit leadership, a central authority figure establishes himself, and it's always a male. female homosexuality is more common than male but both exist, and men get into macho man-offs that are kinda gay, but are done for display, rather than pleasure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay, just one more thought on Authoritarians being the Authoritarians, rather than the political Right or Left being the Authoritarians.

Consider Russia in the past 20 or so years. They went from a nominally Soviet/Communist Authoritarian Oligarchy to a nominally Democratic/Capitalist Authoritarian Oligarchy with minimal disruption to the Authoritarian Oligarchs in power. Wanna bet they couldn't go back to the Soviet/Communist model with about the same ease - for the Oligarchs, anyway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Every cult tries to spread, because there is also power and comfort in numbers.

He mentioned this. As well as

Quote:
It's usually in the second generation you start to see the first hints of dissent

According to what he postulates, their numbers drop as the kids see hypocrisy, and the tactics used, and their eyes get opened and they defect. He believes that's one of the reasons they try to recruit people so energetically; that it is a way of keeping their numbers up to counteract the second generations' defections. The defections won't prove fatal, at least not in non-cult groups, and might even work, as you suggested, to take others along with them. That's what he posits--particularly when it comes to social dominant authoritarians. Their willingness to use any tactic speaks to people like Jim Jones and others who indoctrinate their followers so thoroughly that nobody pays much attention to their obvious hypocrisy.

Quote:
As for the leaders, I'm not sure there's any treatment for megalomania

I agree. There's nothing to be done about the leaders; as long as they have ultra-loyal followers, you can't touch them, just try to respectfully help open their followers' minds, IMO.

Quote:
Is it a response to the abuse, rather than submitting to it, a determination to prove they are great, better than the other followers?

I think you had it right the first time; pure desire for power and authority. What CREATES the leaders, we can only guess, or so I believe. Obviously an authoritarian bent and myopic belief in "anything to make what I think is for the good", but it gets corrupted far beyond that, and that doesn't really speak to mere authoritarian leaders, but to social dominant authoritarian (couble highs, as he calls them).

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

I hope nobody minds my using color for my posts...I'm not just enjoying it, I'm finding it very useful in locating where I left off in long posts!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Niki

Quote:
According to what he postulates, their numbers drop as the kids see hypocrisy, and the tactics used, and their eyes get opened and they defect. He believes that's one of the reasons they try to recruit people so energetically; that it is a way of keeping their numbers up to counteract the second generations' defections. The defections won't prove fatal, at least not in non-cult groups, and might even work, as you suggested, to take others along with them.

Yes, it's a social ponzi scheme.

Which is why my primary attack is always aimed at cutting off their intake of supporters, at which point they choke, wheeze, and DIE.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2009 1:31 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Social ponzi scheme...I LOVE it!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 11, 2009 5:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"There are interesting conclusions that you can come to from the actual data, but they don't support that human nature ..."

Are you discussing bonobos, or humans ?

"... is egalitarian or peaceful, or that they have any stable family life."

Again, are you talking about humans or bonobos ? Bonobos don't have 'families' as we know them. OTOH many human cultures don't have 'families' as we know them either. In both cases, young get raised until they are old enough to have young of their own - no 'family life' is required.

"Bonobos are very promiscuous and carry a lot of STDs ..."

I will have to ask for some kind of reference on that. Common chimps carry a lot of STDs without being nearly as promiscuous as bonobos (this is known as a result of looking for AIDS models and sources in primates), but there is no data that anyone has published on bonobos. I think the point you are trying to make - that bonobos are 'dirty' and promiscuous, while common chimps are clean and faithful - is not sustainable.

"... they do occasionally get into wars ..."

Again, I will need to see references. Common chimps do have occasional 'wars' - though they are wars of attrition fought on the borders of territories against unwary chimps that show up alone - but bonobos don't.

"... and fall into typical patriarchal societies..."

References ? Not from ANY of the reading I have done.

"... and they're pretty much all vegetarians."

No, they hunt, and not just bugs and rodents but monkeys and other primates. This has been well observed at many sites by many different people.

"Oh, and bonobo do exhibit leadership, a central authority figure establishes himself, and it's always a male."

Again, you are just claiming so much --- nonsense is the kindest word I can find for it.

"I studied dominance relations in a wild group of bonobos at Wamba, Democratic Republic of Congo. Although agonistic interactions between males occurred frequently, most of them consisted only of display, and physical attacks were infrequent. Dominance rank order seemed to exist among males, but its linearity is unclear. Dominant males rarely disturbed copulatory behavior by subordinate males. However, high-ranking males usually stayed in the central position of the mixed party and, so, would have more chance of access to estrous females. Among females, older individuals tended to be dominant over younger individuals. However, agonistic interactions between females occurred rather infrequently, and most consisted of displacement without any overt aggressive behavior. Dominance between males and females is unclear, but females tended to have priority of access to food. The close social status between males and females may be related to the prolonged estrus of females (sounds pretty human to me) and their close aggregation during ranging. Existence of a male's mother in the group and her dominance status among females seemed to influence his dominance rank among males. Young adult males whose mothers were alive in the group tended to have high status. In some cases, change in dominance between high-ranking males was preceded by a corresponding change in dominance between their mothers. As the dominance status of females is similar to that of males, mothers may be able to support their sons to achieve high status, stay in the center of the mixed party, and so have greater access to females, which may maximize the number of descendants of the mothers."

And then you have failed to address the (relatively) peaceful baboons.

But if you want more, there are also common dolphins that gently court females, and other examples from the animal kingdom that don't behave according to their 'nature'.

Do you intend to claim this never happens ?
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2017 3:16 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

where does it go?

super trolls?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE