[lbo-talk] "Authoritarian" -- define, please

[John Lacny]

I am bothered by the word "authoritarian," and never use it except to
ridicule it, mostly because I have never seen anyone give a credible
definition of what "authoritarian" means.

I suppose that in any reasonable definition of the term, George Bush could
be described as an "authoritarian," in that he wants to minimize democratic
accountability for himself and is not averse to using force for his own ends
and to undermine democratic accountability for his actions.

But "authoritarian" has a very different functional definition among some US
leftists (I have rarely seen it used in the sense I'm about to describe by a
leftist from outside the US). It's basically some leftists' equivalent of
saying "anti-American." They know that "anti-American" is not an appropriate
term of derision -- since the right uses it to attack leftists in general,
including putative "anti-authoritarians" -- but they use it in the same way
to attack other leftists.

And which leftists are "authoritiarians" according to this functional
definition? Those who suggest that (1) there are certain standards to which
we're all bound to adhere if we're to call ourselves progressives, and we
all have some responsibilities as well as the "right" to act out, and we
should be held accountable to abiding by collective and
democratically-arrived-at decisions; and (2) maybe leftists should do what
it takes to actually win, and that more than occasionally involves holding
ourselves and others accountable.

Since the hegemonic ideology of US capitalism has a strong dose of the "live
and let live" idea, many US leftists also tacitly accept that idea (or at
least, many of the white ones do -- most people of color understand from
experience that the idea is a mystification from the very beginning, which
is why you almost never hear people of color on the left resorting to the
"authoritarian" canard), and they think it unseemly to "tell other folk what
to do." To them, "telling other folk what to do" comes off as
"anti-American," though as I've mentioned before they know that using that
term is unacceptable, which is why they use "authoritarian" instead, though
they're saying the same thing.

They're saying that holding people accountable to collective decisions is
just as bad as enforcing arbitary class rule; occasionally they even employ
hilarious cliches like "You're becoming what you hate!" God forbid someone
suggest that Venezuela would be justified in jailing bloodthirsty coup
plotters; or that leftists are bound to respect union picketlines; or that
someone ought to actually edit Z Magazine. Because people who do stuff like
that are above all getting too heavy, taking the whole thing too seriously,
and maybe even suggesting that the left should win and create a new society
with different rules (and rules in and of themselves are a real downer!).
And since the "anti-authoritarians" are always in favor of revolution except
where it succeeds, they consider leftists who want to actually win to be the
most anti-American -- er, "authoritarian" -- of all.


- - - - - - - - - -
John Lacny
http://www.johnlacny.com

Tell no lies, claim no easy victories