I don't think the various Marxist influenced totalitarian regimes of the past 100 or so years could in any way be classified as "conservative", unless you broaden the definition so that it applies to just about everything!
Let me put it this way. Totalitarian groups have the same basic behavior. They seize control by being agents of change (for issues in the society that are often overlooked or untouchable by the powers that be). But once, they achieve power, there is no further use for that change. Change gets shut down. They swing radically from being extreme advocates for change in society to fossilizing society with themselves in charge.
Yes, I did understand what you were saying, I just don't have a lot of time to shitpost. You make a good point, authoritarian governments need to maintain themselves if they are to exist in the longer term (as the Marxists say, the system works to reproduce itself). A good example of this is the current version of the CCP. But a few counterpoints: - You are conflating Authoritarian personality with totalitarian political regimes (but to be fair it was my post that started that) - not that the two are unrelated. - You could somewhat legitimately split authoritarian impulses into two different types (I see this done a lot by Marxists to defend their brand of totalitarianism) - ones that want to maintain, or go back to, some sort of "golden age" in the past, and ones that have a utopian vision of the future. These could be called "conservative" and "progressive". Altemeyer definitely focuses on the former. - Talking about Authoritarian leaders of totalitarian governments, the ones that are more "progressive", using the categories defined above, very often will be implementing their utopian visions over may years (i.e. the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, dekulakisation, forced collectivisation). Some (most?) even espouse continuous revolution as the only way to reach the utopian state. - The process of remaking society provides justification for the totalitarian government to maintain control - and the chaos generated by this activity can, with the appropriate agitprop, make the population look to a strong leader to save them. You could argue this is some sort of meta-conservatism but I think that would fall into a trap of infinite regress. They can also use this to justify murdering any potential political threats (see Pol Pot). Society and Culture is complex, so processed that maintain power can be distant from, or complementary to, processes that maintain authoritarian control.
More generally authoritarians exhibit two sorts of conservative behavior by definition. Reliance on an authority is in itself moderately conservative. The the really pronounced conservative behavior is conformity. This is routinely derided by internet opposition as "talking points", "mothership", and so on (for example, "dialing in some talking points from the mothership"). This happens no matter where one is on the left/right axis. That's why "psychologically right wing" is a thing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 15, @10:32PM (2 children)
Let me put it this way. Totalitarian groups have the same basic behavior. They seize control by being agents of change (for issues in the society that are often overlooked or untouchable by the powers that be). But once, they achieve power, there is no further use for that change. Change gets shut down. They swing radically from being extreme advocates for change in society to fossilizing society with themselves in charge.
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday March 16, @06:14AM (1 child)
Yes, I did understand what you were saying, I just don't have a lot of time to shitpost. You make a good point, authoritarian governments need to maintain themselves if they are to exist in the longer term (as the Marxists say, the system works to reproduce itself). A good example of this is the current version of the CCP. But a few counterpoints:
- You are conflating Authoritarian personality with totalitarian political regimes (but to be fair it was my post that started that) - not that the two are unrelated.
- You could somewhat legitimately split authoritarian impulses into two different types (I see this done a lot by Marxists to defend their brand of totalitarianism) - ones that want to maintain, or go back to, some sort of "golden age" in the past, and ones that have a utopian vision of the future. These could be called "conservative" and "progressive". Altemeyer definitely focuses on the former.
- Talking about Authoritarian leaders of totalitarian governments, the ones that are more "progressive", using the categories defined above, very often will be implementing their utopian visions over may years (i.e. the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, dekulakisation, forced collectivisation). Some (most?) even espouse continuous revolution as the only way to reach the utopian state.
- The process of remaking society provides justification for the totalitarian government to maintain control - and the chaos generated by this activity can, with the appropriate agitprop, make the population look to a strong leader to save them. You could argue this is some sort of meta-conservatism but I think that would fall into a trap of infinite regress. They can also use this to justify murdering any potential political threats (see Pol Pot).
Society and Culture is complex, so processed that maintain power can be distant from, or complementary to, processes that maintain authoritarian control.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 16, @04:10PM