cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/17079522
To keep it short the reason why some people are ok with authoritarianism is because most structures that we deal with on a daily basis are authoritarian.
Here is evidence that shows a significant amount of people are ok with authoritarianism:
This should be concerning.
And the thing is that it makes sense once you look at what are the most common systems that people interact with the most.
A clear example would be the Boss-Worker relationship. The boss creates a set of objectives/tasks for the worker and the worker sees them out. Rarely does the worker get the chance to set the higher level direction of what they are supposed to be doing with their time leaving them obedient to the boss and their demands.
Another example would be some Parent-Child relationships. Some parents treat their children as people that should show absolute respect towards them just because they are the parents not because they have something that is of value to the child (experience).
Even in the places where we do make democratic decisions those are usually made in ways that are supposed to be supplemental to authoritative decision making. An example would be how we don’t vote on decisions but instead how we vote on others to make decisions for us.
Once you add up all the experiences that someone has throughout their whole life you will see that most of them come into direct contact with authoritarian systems which means it makes that kind of way of thinking familiar and therefore acceptable.
Unlike democracy which is an abstract concept and something we only really experience from time to time.
If we want people to actually stop thinking authoritarianism is ok then we as a society are gonna have to stop using these kinds of systems / ways of thinking in our daily lives.
The boss/worker relationship is not (supposed to be) authoritarian. In a big company the “boss” works on a different level. The worker works on an operational level, “doing the work”. The boss works on a strategical level, “setting the course”.
The boss determines the best course for the company, managers determine the best implementations, operational workers put it into practice. (Strategical/tactical/operational)
These layers are there for a reason, because it works. You don’t want a boss messing with opertional issues. Operational workers are experts who know best, the boss is not the expert and would make it worse. The boss has good insight into all current issues in the company across all departments and knows which company needs are most important right now. That way you won’t get a wild west situation where eveyone does whatever they think or like best and people end up not working towards the common goal.
That’s how it’s meant to work. Of course there are bad bosses and bad people and there is a matter of economical unfairness. The relationship is not inherently authoritarian.
To set something straight when I use the term “authoritarian” I’m using it in the more broad sense to talk about obeying an authority which would then include the boss-worker relationship.
Secondly I never said that the system doesn’t work, have any benefit, or would be better off if there wasn’t a boss (even though I do believe the last one) but I am saying that using that kind of system to run a business plants the seeds that make people ok with living in an authoritarian world.
Also thats the same argument with how people say that living under a benevolent dictator would be more efficient than democracy.
I mean yeah maybe (I’d even say it’s debatable) but that’s not a kind of system that we want.
Than how would you like to see the boss/worker relatioship?
It is simply impossible to coordinate a hunderd employees into the same direction without some kind of management.
Try building an apartment complex with a 100 individual, self-employed contractors. It will be chaos. The dry wall guy will be doing his work before the electrician has pulled ll the wires throigh the wall.
There has to be a foreman to coordinate it all. But if that’s authoritarian, than how would you solve a big project like that?
I could argue with you on this for sometime but I’m not going to because that isn’t the point I’m making here.
To repeat myself
You aren’t actually refuting my point. You are just saying that it is impossible to not have an authority.
No I am refuting your point. You imply that every form of authority is bad. I say it isn’t. If it wasn’t for authority and coordination, humanity would still be living in the stone age.
Since not every form of authority is bad, not every authority relationship makes people okay to live in an authoritarian world.
A good company has checks and balances. A union or some kind of employee committee, should be able to influence strategic level decisions. An authoritarian regime does not.
A authoritrian regime is bad, authority in a company is not. People can see the difference. Current political tendencies to the right are not a call for an authoritarian regime, but rather has cause in socio-economical dissatisfaction.
(Also, It’s a nice discussion. Better than most on discussions Lemmy)
Nothing about the division of labor into planning and operation requires any form of authority over the worker outside of the workplace. And yet, it’s common for employers to exert control over things like when they work (regardless of the work’s time sensitivity), whether a medical professional’s opinion is adequate to merit accommodations, and the amount of created labor value that’s extracted from the worker versus what they’re paid.
That all, to me, seems quieter inherently authoritarian. It rests on the premise that the planning folks need to be able to control the working folks’ lives, and that they deserve a much greater cut of the profits for their trouble.
To me it seems that such a system that props up authority as absolutely necessary, justified, and desirable can reasonably be labeled as authoritarian. I’d argue that it’s also necessarily exploitative in such a case, but that’s neither here nor there.
What is relevant though is that simply saying ‘it’s not always like that’ while decrying every example as not representative doesn’t really get us far. Whether authoritarianism is ‘good’ sometimes is immaterial to whether it trains people to be ready to accept tin pot strong man dictators and politicians who emulate them.
High fructose corn syrup can taste just fine and be ‘good’ in some recipes, but if it’s also giving us all diabetes it’s probably better to stop using it. Likewise, let’s not ignore roads that lead to fascism. I’d really rather not have to flee the country or die in a concentration camp.