Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries (2011) from Communist and Post-Communist Studies.
From the abstract of The Presence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism in Western Europe and Its Relationship with Conservative Ideology (2006)
The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) can be considered as one of the cornerstones of political psychology…
shame it’s BS used to shame one half of the political spectrum
Conversely, in the political activist sample high LWA scores were common among left-wing extremists and evidence was found for a two-dimensional LWA aggression-submission structure.
Well, you get the picture.
Writings elsewhere obviously aren’t biased.
Hence, social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism evoke a distinct set of mechanisms to provoke prejudice.
Left wing authoritarianism
Altmeyer (1996) developed a measure of left wing authoritarianism–that is, a left wing variant of right wing authoritarianism. Left wing authoritarianism comprises the same three clusters of items as right wing authoritarianism; however, individuals who report left wing authoritarianism embrace institutions that want to overthrow the existing powers; they do not embrace the establishment. Specifically, the first set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism submission, relates to the inclination of individuals to submit to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.
I think that sentence gave me brain damage.
The second set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism aggression, refers to the tendency of individuals to espouse aggression and violence towards the establishment. The third set of items, called left-wing conventionalism, refers to the inclination of individuals to comply with the norms and standards of authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.
Van Hiel, Duriez, and Kossowska (2006) developed a variant of this measure, comprising eight items, that excludes left-wing conventionalism. They argued that conventionalism refers to adherence towards established traditions, contradicting the left-wing orientation.
According to Van Hiel, Duriez, and Kossowska (2006), left-wing conventionalism could be interpreted as individuals who follow left wing authorities; but this interpretation begins to merge with left-wing authoritarianism submission and thus seems redundant.
Four of the items in this revamped scale relate to left-wing authoritarianism submission: A typical item is “A revolutionary movement is justified in demanding obedience and conformity to its members” (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). The other four items represent left-wing authoritarianism aggression. A sample item is “It would be wrong to solve our problems by acts of violence against the conservative Establishment” (reverse scored).
They use this word ‘revolution’ a lot.
I don’t think they know what it means?
This scale was then administered to a sample of voters as well as to another sample of political activists, including affiliates of a Stalinist party, a neo-Marxist communist party, an anarchy party, and right wing extremist movements. The psychometric properties differed between the voters and the political activists.
In the ordinary voters, left wing authoritarianism was positively related to ring wing authoritarianism as well as cultural conservativism–a measure that represents the extent to which individuals report contempt towards abortion, euthanasia, and premarital sex, for example. Left wing authoritarianism, however, was negatively related to economic conservativism, representing respect towards trade unions, economic equality, and government intervention (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). These findings align to the proposition that more extreme attitudes, regardless of whether they support or disavow economic equality, are motivated by similar inclinations. For example, both left wing and right wing authoritarianism might represent an attempt to forge a sense of clarity in a threatening world.
Excuses, excuses. Minimizing. Shifting blame.
In the activist sample, however, a different pattern emerged. Left wing authoritarianism was inversely related to right wing authoritarianism. These individuals, presumably, had committed to a specific course of action to forge this sense of clarity (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). Furthermore, as evidence of validity, left wing authoritarianism was significantly elevated in the left wing activist groups; these findings confirm that left wing authoritarianism is a viable concept.
If it applies to both wings, it can’t be used to distinguish, making it quite useless. Presumably? Political “Science”.
It has a reference list but you can see they don’t try as hard when ‘studying’ the home team (we know about the liberal bias in academia) and they attempt to excuse the findings that neither wing is flawless.