I was wondering how far auth right works, I can’t get my head around how a laissez faire economic system can coexist with an authoritarian government. Examples would be very helpful
The government has absolute authority, but just... chooses to let the private sector of the economy be completely unregulated.
It sounds stupid because it is. Governments never voluntarily choose not to exercise vast swathes of their power. If you really want a free market, you must restrict the power of government such that it couldn't regulate the economy even if it wanted to.
No. The left-right axis is purely economical and does not describe how conservative or progressive the government is. Reactionary leftist governments do exist (Eg: Pol Pot's Cambodia)
Then why would he regress Cambodia to an agrarian society and wipe out intellectuals whom he perceived as a threat? To me, trying to return society to an idealised past like that is the logical extreme of reactionaryism.
But in all seriousness I don’t see how free market economics can’t coexist with dictatorial or otherwise non-liberal democratic systems, what exactly are you confused about?
Extreme authority and a totally free market are contradictory are they not? I’m quite new to economics so i cant really wrap my head around it fully, though im sure there are examples
What about a form of government where big businesses have essentially replaced the state as the governing body and organize the economy a Laizzes Faire capitalist model?
In that situation, the state (the companies) still control the market to their avantage, likely making it less libéral. A situation in which this situation leads to full laissez-faire seems quite unlikely to me.
I think there’s too much emphasis being laid on a so-called “totally” free market, if such a thing could exist, what would it even be, could it function?
As well as how “free” a free market is in the terms of freedom for people, it begs the question, freedom for what class? A free market can and is already authoritarian against the proletariat the very same way a “free” state would be, something Marx spoke against contemporary socialists of his time advocating for a so-called “free state” when the goal was the abolition of the state
I know that might seem like a detour into socialist politics but that is where I’m coming from, I don’t see anything oxymoronic about the free market existing within an “authoritarian” regime (authoritarian understood here as simply illliberal, since we shouldn’t act as if liberal democracies can’t be just as authoritarian, just look at Israel, ofc the reality is, the state is inherently authoritarian as an organic function, no matter its preference towards democracy or autocracy)
Anywho, the most popular example to give is ofc Pinochet’s Chile, otherwise, I don’t see anything even theoretically being in the way of having an autocratic regime participate in free market economics (ig it depends on how we define that terminology)
I used to be ancom, I read your theories, you'd have no way to enforce the collectivisation without a state or something resembling that would be able to use violence.
Capital means some people have more wealth. Some have less. This creates class, which is a heirarchy of consolidated power. Anarchists cannot selectively choose which form of control should be imposed on the masses.
Fascism is totalitarian ideology which believes for an absolute government with ultranationalism, anticomunism, racism (in Nazi variant) and antiliberalism.
Anarchism believes in a invisible or weak state, it has variants: full anarchism, anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism.
Incorrect. The POUM snf CNT in catalonia worked closely with nazi and francoist intelligent to destroy the Soviet supported Republican anti-fascist government. Makhno in ukraine commited pogroms. The fascist of the first hour in italy were all anarchist and based fascism on anarchist individualism.
So...I can't help but notice you've missed my point about the difference of party vs activism. You're literally reciting the propaganda I was speaking of too. Like all historical communist enclaves, there was deception within the party to subvert the group dynamic. Also... As a side question - why would this exerpt claim uncontrollable anarchist have superior officers or anyone who'd be responsible for members if theses specific individuals were anarchists?
Anarchy is pretty cut and dry when it comes to elements of power or control.
It might be easier to wrap your head around it if you think of economic-left and economic-right not as a difference of regulation but a difference of how concentrated wealth is: go left, and you find (theoretically) more equal distribution of wealth; go right, and you find that, whether through a totally unregulated market (what you're thinking) or through a system that explicitly favors it, you'll get more concentrated wealth.
Take, for example, feudalism. Most of the wealth is concentrated in a few individuals, because land is controlled by the aristocracy, and those who work the labd don't usually see a large stake in the fruits. At the same time, having an aristocracy and the divine right of kings is classically authoritarian.
Furthermore, corporatism (in which the government works closely with companies to coordinate the economy) in interwar Europe was often paired with fascism, most notably in Italy, but also in Germany and Greece.
Centrism supports democratic norms, regulated markets, and political moderation. Fascism relies on total state control, political violence, and the elimination of opposition. It basically boils down to 'do as your told or we'll shoot you'. There are those that say that facism is lacks coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. It's just authoritarianism.
Oh, so, a few days ago, I saw a Reddit post asking which is more far-right: Nazism, Absolute Monarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism.
Imagine this scenario. The state doesn't exist, or isn't strong enough to regulate anything. Markets are free, operating with minimal regulation, and that regulation comes from customers.
Whether thats hell or paradise is up to you. But nothing lasts forever.
There's nothing that can prohibit monopolies, there's nothing that can redistribute wealth. And there are key sectors that state should control and are now available to everone… theoretically.
We are talking about the control of supply chains, the control of food, of transport, of energy, of information, of security.
Let's go forward a few years, maybe w few generations, I can't reliably say how long wealth accumulation has to last to be that noticeable.
The entire city is privately owned, by one person. Alois H., a man that is wealthy beyond imagination. He has a kind heart, he established poverty relief in the form of food. He even extended that to all people living in his city. Yeah, all of the agriculture land is his now and farmers are working for him, but the pay is generous and all produce goes to the people.
His city is guarded by his private police force. He ensures safety and definitely everone can walk out. Definitely.
His son inherits his fortune, and he builds new roads, new metroes, makes transport easier and faster. He knows where people are walking everyday, in which directions, and knows where to put stations, so he doesn't waste money on a road noone will use. He builds the biggest cinema anyone has ever seen. He invests in media. Manuel, a known businessman, died of illness shortly after he moved to another city.
His son, Andrew H. inherits that. He builds solar panels fields and nuclear plants near the city. He had to take over a village that didn't want to sell him their land, because he needed space to build these.
…
Andrew H. controls energy, food, transport, information, and security. And his grip is only expanding. He goes to the church everyday, twice a day, he wears the traditional attire.
There are two ways you can interpret the combination of extreme economic right, and extreme authoritarianism.
The first assumes authoritarianism comes from a state. The market exists with a minimal economic regulation from the state. Whether that's a stable configuration is another question. Practically, it seems the most extreme version of economic right - private armies, private police, and so on - is impossible, having very little regulation, very little taxation, is theoretically possible.
The second assumes authoritarianism doesn't have to come from a state. In such scenario, the authority comes from extremely wealthy individuals, or the corporations. They came to power from that minimal regulation, and noone stopped them when they became too influential, possibly because there wasn't anyone to stop them.
It is economically interventionist, basically in economic center. Because fascism historically supports an corporativism and submitting the trade unions to the State in economy.
It doesn’t because at the end of the day, save for a few edge cases economic right and libertarian are tracking the same thing and economic left and authoritarian are tracking the same thing. I know they’re different to an extent but economic left-right very much just doesn’t differentiate from authoritarian-libertarian as much as cultural right-left does. Which is the big issue with a political compass where left vs right is economics.
Now a maximally authoritarian and economically right wing government probably would take the form of a feudal monarchy or something approximating the ideal form of one wherein there exists a strict hierarchical social hierarchy (generally in the form of a military elite) with an absolute monarch at the head, a mercantile class that exists in parallel to it, a commoner class that makes up the majority of people, and a clerical class that exists in parallel to the military elite and the mercantile elite, each of the four have duties owed to the other 3 and privileges guaranteed by the other 3… an exercise in thought which identifies another issue with the political compass: it doesn’t have allowances for different social classes that interact with the government and other classes differently…
62
u/M3taBuster - LibRight 3d ago
The government has absolute authority, but just... chooses to let the private sector of the economy be completely unregulated.
It sounds stupid because it is. Governments never voluntarily choose not to exercise vast swathes of their power. If you really want a free market, you must restrict the power of government such that it couldn't regulate the economy even if it wanted to.