LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Mardla]

What is authoritarian democracy? British fascism is the only thing that comes to mind.

Athens

[Western Vale Confederacy]

What is authoritarian democracy? British fascism is the only thing that comes to mind.

It's effectively your standard representative democracy, but with added particularities such as a lack of term limits, an empowered executive, tighter restrictions on the voter pool, and other such things.

[Duvniask]

Okay, to get things going in this thread again, which form of Leftism is the best?

Libertarian social democracy is the only acceptable form of leftism.

In other words, only the most milquetoast form leftism is acceptable...

How boring.

[The New California Republic]

What is authoritarian democracy? British fascism is the only thing that comes to mind.

It's effectively your standard representative democracy, but with added particularities such as a lack of term limits, an empowered executive, tighter restrictions on the voter pool, and other such things.

I mean, if the executive holds a lot of power and there are tight restrictions on who can vote, then it is debatable whether it is a democracy at all surely?

[Proctopeo]

Libertarian social democracy is the only acceptable form of leftism.

In other words, only the most milquetoast form leftism is acceptable...

How boring.

It's for the best.

[Pasong Tirad]

It's effectively your standard representative democracy, but with added particularities such as a lack of term limits, an empowered executive, tighter restrictions on the voter pool, and other such things.

I mean, if the executive holds a lot of power and there are tight restrictions on who can vote, then it is debatable whether it is a democracy at all surely?

Many dominant-party republics are like this, especially in Southeast Asia. Think Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and - to an extent - the Philippines. The rule of law is still for the most part upheld, the vote still happens, its results are still respected, but the odds seem to be stacked way too high for the ruling parties, and the laws are a little more lax when it benefits the current administration.

Honestly yeah I'd call Singapore a great example of an authoritarian democracy. Unless we're differentiating it from dominant-party democracies.

[The New California Republic]

I mean, if the executive holds a lot of power and there are tight restrictions on who can vote, then it is debatable whether it is a democracy at all surely?

Many dominant-party republics are like this, especially in Southeast Asia. Think Cambodia, Singapore, and - to an extent - the Philippines. The rule of law is still for the most part upheld, the vote still happens, its results are still respected, but the odds seem to be stacked way too high for the ruling parties, and the laws are a little more lax when it benefits the current administration.

Honestly yeah I'd call Singapore a great example of an authoritarian democracy. Unless we're differentiating it from dominant-party democracies.

I would argue that those traits push them into the "flawed democracy" category, if not much further than that, especially the likes of Cambodia as of late...

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I mean, if the executive holds a lot of power and there are tight restrictions on who can vote, then it is debatable whether it is a democracy at all surely?

Many dominant-party republics are like this, especially in Southeast Asia. Think Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and - to an extent - the Philippines. The rule of law is still for the most part upheld, the vote still happens, its results are still respected, but the odds seem to be stacked way too high for the ruling parties, and the laws are a little more lax when it benefits the current administration.

Honestly yeah I'd call Singapore a great example of an authoritarian democracy. Unless we're differentiating it from dominant-party democracies.

In an authoritarian democracy, the dominant/ruling party will also attempt to keep its political machine and supporter base well-oiled and stocked, and either absorb or put pressure on other parties seen as a threat to its political program.

This can be both good and bad depending on the intentions of the ruling party.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Huh, not exactly what I expected. I thought authoritarian democracy was a system of government in which there is no active Opposition and the government has far-reaching powers. Basically, once elected the government would rule absolute within the confines of the constitution and regular elections.

[Duvniask]

In other words, only the most milquetoast form leftism is acceptable...

How boring.

It's for the best.

Dare I ask why?

And what is "libertarian" social democracy? As opposed to authoritarian social democracy?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Huh, not exactly what I expected. I thought authoritarian democracy was a system of government in which there is no active Opposition and the government has far-reaching powers. Basically, once elected the government would rule absolute within the confines of the constitution and regular elections.

Authoritarianism isn't a monolithic ideology, so what exactly constitutes an authoritarian democracy is quite vague and expansive.

However, what you just described swings very close to totalitarianism.

[The New California Republic]

It's for the best.

Dare I ask why?

And what is "libertarian" social democracy? As opposed to authoritarian social democracy?

Hint: Look at their sig. Anything more hardline would either be a threat or ideologically distasteful, or both.

[Duvniask]

Dare I ask why?

And what is "libertarian" social democracy? As opposed to authoritarian social democracy?

Hint: Look at their sig. Anything more hardline would either be a threat or ideologically distasteful, or both.

I know what's in the sig, but I want to actually get into why; the actual principles and beliefs behind it.

[Pasong Tirad]

Huh, not exactly what I expected. I thought authoritarian democracy was a system of government in which there is no active Opposition and the government has far-reaching powers. Basically, once elected the government would rule absolute within the confines of the constitution and regular elections.

Far-reaching powers, yes. But a proper authoritarian democracy would still like to keep some semblance of democratic values - i.e. by keeping an opposition in power, however token it may be.

For example, out of the 297 Congressmen in the Philippine House of Representatives, only around 14 of them are actually members of the opposition. They're still there, but their power is basically squat.

[The New California Republic]

Hint: Look at their sig. Anything more hardline would either be a threat or ideologically distasteful, or both.

I know what's in the sig, but I want to actually get into why; the actual principles and beliefs behind it.

Cool. Just checking.

---

Huh, not exactly what I expected. I thought authoritarian democracy was a system of government in which there is no active Opposition and the government has far-reaching powers. Basically, once elected the government would rule absolute within the confines of the constitution and regular elections.

Authoritarianism isn't a monolithic ideology, so what exactly constitutes an authoritarian democracy is quite vague and expansive.

However, what you just described swings very close to totalitarianism.

Authoritarian democracy can be closer to democracy or authoritarianism, but I think the temptation is to go down the authoritarian route as the path of least resistance to power. Once a government gets a taste of authoritarianism it can begin to snowball within a very short space of time.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I know what's in the sig, but I want to actually get into why; the actual principles and beliefs behind it.

Cool. Just checking.

---

Authoritarianism isn't a monolithic ideology, so what exactly constitutes an authoritarian democracy is quite vague and expansive.

However, what you just described swings very close to totalitarianism.

Authoritarian democracy can be closer to democracy or authoritarianism, but I think the temptation is to go down the authoritarian route as the path of least resistance to power. Once a government gets a taste of authoritarianism it can begin to snowball within a very short space of time.

Sadly, 'tis what causes the downfall of many theoretically well-intended ideologies: Hunger for power and the often uncontrolled desire to want more of it.

Authoritarianism isn't inherently wrong, but it has been wronged so many times by the human greed factor.

[Proctopeo]

It's for the best.

Dare I ask why?

The pretense of actually helping people is still a reality instead of a pipe dream.
The whole "balancing the budget" thing is the only real hurdle, but a competent administration can make it work out just fine.

And what is "libertarian" social democracy? As opposed to authoritarian social democracy?

Yes.
It's social democracy as it should be, instead of the European bastardization. If you're going to do it you damn well do it right.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Mixed-economy Socialism, like Alec Nove's "feasible Socialism".

He's written some interesting articles for New Left Review.

[Duvniask]

Dare I ask why?

The pretense of actually helping people is still a reality instead of a pipe dream.
The whole "balancing the budget" thing is the only real hurdle, but a competent administration can make it work out just fine.

Honestly, for a long time any semblance of democracy or "rule by the masses" would also have been considered a pipe dream, yet here we are. Socialism is essentially just taking this idea of empowering the masses a step further.

And what is "libertarian" social democracy? As opposed to authoritarian social democracy?

Yes.
It's social democracy as it should be, instead of the European bastardization. If you're going to do it you damn well do it right.

This doesn't really explain all that much. What is "social democracy as it should be"? What part of European social democracy is a bastardization?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Okay, to get things going in this thread again, which form of Leftism is the best?

Hard to say, lately I've been wondering where exactly I stand...

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Hard to say, lately I've been wondering where exactly I stand...

There is nothing wrong with uncertainty. It is better than rigidity.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Hard to say, lately I've been wondering where exactly I stand...

There is nothing wrong with uncertainty. It is better than rigidity.

Adaptability and compromise is also quite a plus in politics.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Adaptability and compromise is also quite a plus in politics.

Adaptability, yes. Compromise? I suppose it would depend on the compromise. For instance, I could not allow capitalism to compromise my communism (as with the social democrats). On the other hand, compromising with one's comrades is desirable.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Adaptability, yes. Compromise? I suppose it would depend on the compromise. For instance, I could not allow capitalism to compromise my communism (as with the social democrats). On the other hand, compromising with one's comrades is desirable.

I like Lenin's thoughts on compromise. You compromise to stay true to your principles. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think he means that you sometimes compromise when it allows you to stay relevant and active to secure a communist revolution and proletarian takeover.

[Namnon]

What is authoritarian democracy? British fascism is the only thing that comes to mind.

Neoliberalism.