- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
By authoritarian ideology, we will understand the ideology that contains the justification of authoritarianism, that is, unconditional submission to certain requirements and the prohibition to ask for explanations.
Today, such an ideology is anti-ideology, that is, the ideology of suppressing all ideologies. This is a relatively new direction, but it has gained strength very quickly and will soon be absolutely dominant. Any ideology will be considered evil and will be prohibited, any manifestation of ideology or even a hint of it will be considered a crime. Even today, you can be accused of being an extremist, radical, fanatic, revisionist, communist, liberal, populist, nationalist, fascist, racist, separatist, conspiracy theorist, sectarian, cultist, machist, satanist, pagan, believer, Orthodox, totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. and so on. Even the very words “ideology”, “propaganda”, “isms”, etc. are becoming increasingly abusive. The expression of the XIX century — “subversive ideas” – has returned to circulation. The clash of ideas, disputes, defending the truth of some ideas, the falsity and destructiveness of others-are criminalized. For example, here are recent statistics on criminal and administrative prosecutions for extremism in Russia: https://m.polit.ru/article/2019/02/23/extremism-laws/ Here is an overview of the relevant legislation in liberal democracies: http://polit.izm.io/ru/analytics/analytics-rabstvo-mysli-sovesti-i-slova
Since anti-ideology attacks all ideas, it will eventually suppress intellectual life in general. Any question, any criticism, any demand for explanations can be perceived as ideologization, imposition, zombification, etc. This has already spread in private conversations, including on this service. But this is precisely the prohibition to ask for explanations, it is a sign of authoritarianism.
Against this background, the appearance of any ideology in its former form will be a revolt against authoritarianism. Isn't that why today even ideologies with the heaviest burden often appear in an attractive romantic halo?
The answer is stored in the head…. Democracy does not exist (because the people who proclaimed this term had slaves…)(and it relies not on words, but on thoughts, because words are a reflection of thoughts), the rest of the world was turned by the United States itself into leading a” type ” democracy (without studying religion and culture). The answer will not be long and very cruel for the United States. That's what we're seeing now. Absolutely all states, including the United States, have an unambiguous form of government – authoritarian-this is the principle of the existence of the state. The laws of the constitution of any state in a different context of the state – have everything…., but “rights”, where you can be declared a terrorist in your state or where one person-a” democrat ” declares “that he is worthy Above all….”- a person must prove by deed that he can do something in the “system” (but there are no such people… in the system) – tedious. Learn history….. remember the slogans of 100 years ago) it is worth re-evaluating events and priorities. Should we extend the rights of inviolability of the state to all “nonresidents”, including diplomatic missions in their territories: or should we learn from the Balts – them (us)?lesson (but they owe us a lot for the territory….). Why should the word “Democracy” replace the ordinary word “freedom” In this way, people from the West have appropriated the concept of “Freedom” and have enslaved this concept and dictate their “Freedoms” to us. “democracy” – a figurative concept that goes beyond the boundaries of morality and human nature and in the economic plane-obviously, you need to sharply and soberly evaluate and get rid of it (or use faggots for your own purposes). As in the 90's (Spi_dil – be responsible for the bazaar and be responsible in full (according to bandit laws) – at 4-level to all. For this reason, the level of trust in our president is now higher than that of other official representatives of the West. Our society is not perfect ( and it will always be imperfect…. because there is a comparable concept…. with something else…. the past, the West-but all these are time gaps that you need to fill in interesting, necessary, worthy of attention and all this for yourself – so that the time spent at work leaves positive emotions). If you don't have enough time, you don't feel bad anymore, because you start to appreciate not so much work…. -how's the time
Ideologies are not totalitarian. They are characterized by expansionism, the implementation of which can be carried out in various ways, including totalitarian. Thus, totalitarianism is not a characteristic of the ideas themselves, but only of the mechanism of their dissemination.
We must first define the terms. “Authoritarian”, “totalitarian” – these words have a negative meaning. If we really want to understand the problem, it is better to avoid biased assessments.
The state can be run in different ways. You can make decisions as collectively as possible, with independent monitoring mechanisms, with checks and balances. Or you can limit the collective nature of the decisions made. In this case, decisions are made either by a narrow circle of like-minded people, or by one person at all.
For each of these systems, you can come up with your own ideology, that is, a system of rules and views that help the decision-making system act effectively.
Each of the systems (collective solutions or individual solutions) has its own pros and cons. Collective more or less guarantees against making deliberately bad decisions. But collectivity hurts efficiency. Lots of experts – lots of opinions. Therefore, the solution will always be a compromise. Moreover, collectivity means, as a rule, publicity. And this is a disadvantage in a competitive environment.
Individual decisions can lead to serious mistakes and miscalculations. But if a state is lucky enough to be headed by a smart person, such a state can make a serious leap forward.
In our time, there are different systems of state governance. For example, in Latin America, very often an authoritarian regime is replaced by a democratic one, and then again by an authoritarian one, and so on ad infinitum. In a democracy, human rights issues are being addressed, new leaders are being put forward, but the economy is stagnating. Under authoritarianism, the economy tends to grow rapidly.
A good example of authoritarian regimes is the United Arab Emirates, especially Dubai. Contrary to popular belief, this emirate received almost no oil. But thanks to effective centralized management, it is thriving. And no special democracy. They built a paradise on the site of a desert without human rights, transparency and elections.
Nor is China particularly democratic. And economic growth is indisputable. Near the country of full democracy-India. Glasnost, collectivity, electability – over the edge. There is only one thing missing-economic prosperity. A democratic country-Greece. Economic success is well-known.
Finally, we should mention the largest international corporations. They manage funds that are quite comparable to the budgets of some countries. In such corporations, there is clearly a policy guide. And they often thrive quite successfully. Of course, on the basis of the corresponding ideology.
Any ideology is authoritarian to a certain extent. It dictates the rules of behavior, binds you to a chain of beliefs. Any society that has lived up to the state ideology is authoritarian. True, here you can get to Letovsky's ” everything that is not anarchy is fascism, but I do not believe in anarchy.” This is already an artistic exaggeration that is present in the discourse of an individual (albeit very influential) poet.
It is not entirely accurate to say that ideology is authoritarian. Rather, an authoritarian regime (i.e., the intentions of the ruling class) can make almost any ideology anti-authoritarian. For example, half-jokingly, you can ask the question: what will happen if liberals suddenly start saying that they should adhere exclusively to centrist views and shoot for all extreme positions? There is a more realistic example: followers of Ayn Rand have raised the idea of an idol to a cult and are extremely intolerant of any criticism of her. Despite the fact that, it would seem, libertarians, fans of freedom, such an attitude towards opponents should not be peculiar. Although not every idea, but still many ideas can easily be indoctrinated in society through skillful and even inept propaganda. And what kind of idea will” link ” society, play on feelings, with its consciousness-the second question. That is, the desire to make an ideology “authoritarian” depends not only and not so much on the idea itself, but also on the willingness to accept this idea. Consequently, almost any ideology is potentially authoritarian, and in almost any country.