Soft-Authoritarianism & Bullshit Democracy in America & Germany
An Egoist & Psychoanalytic Perspective
Soft authoritarianism refers to a political system that maintains a degree of authoritarian control without the overtly repressive measures commonly associated with hard authoritarianism or totalitarian regimes. In these systems, the government employs subtle methods to control and influence society, including legal and institutional manipulation to maintain power, media control and propaganda to shape public opinion, limited political pluralism with controlled opposition, and restrictions on civil liberties and political rights, but not to an extent that makes them entirely non-existent.
Contemporary authoritarianism has evolved beyond the overt displays of power and repression that characterized traditional forms of autocracy. Instead, many authoritarian regimes today employ covert regimes and soft authoritarian tactics to maintain control while projecting an image of legitimacy and stability.
Covert regimes operate behind the scenes by manipulating information, controlling media narratives, and silencing dissent in subtle yet effective ways. These regimes cloak themselves in the guise of democracy, but their actions reveal a much more f**ked up reality – one where individual freedoms and civil liberties are systematically eroded.
Soft authoritarianism isn’t much different. In fact, on a scale from overt regime to covert regime to soft-authoritarianism one would have to grapple with the comparison. It always makes me think of this proverb:
A murderer will kill you. A thief will steal from you. But you will never know where you stand with a liar.
I don’t know if I prefer being completely blindsided and for my unconscious to be systematically abused in the name of power than to just being publicly executed or exiled.
The tactics of soft-authoritarianism rely on nuanced methods of control, such as manipulation of public opinion, restriction of internet freedom, and targeted harassment or public shaming of ‘conspiracy theorists.’ While these tactics may not involve overt violence or repression, they nonetheless serve to undermine individual autonomy.
Origins of the Term
The term soft authoritarianism was first popularized in the early 1990s, particularly in the context of the political systems in East and Southeast Asia. It emerged as analysts sought to describe regimes that did not fit neatly into the categories of full democracies or harsh dictatorships. One notable early user of the term was Fareed Zakaria, a political scientist and journalist, who employed it to describe regimes that used less overtly repressive measures to maintain control while still undermining democratic principles.
Let me give you some key example that people tend to refer to when explaining the terminology:
Singapore: Under the People's Action Party (PAP), Singapore is often cited as a prime example of soft authoritarianism. The PAP has maintained continuous power since 1959, using a combination of legal restrictions, media control, and political co-optation to limit opposition while ensuring stability and economic growth.
Russia: Under Vladimir Putin, Russia exhibits characteristics of soft authoritarianism. Despite holding elections and having a semblance of political competition, the playing field is heavily skewed in favor of Putin and his allies through media control, legal manipulation, and suppression of dissent.
But soft-authoritarianism can be found all over the place. It's right there, in your hand or in front of you as you are watching this video. It goes so much deeper than elections and law enforcement. It is invasive. It is psychological. It is in all of us and we are carrying it along, not knowing we are perpetuating it because we are kept small. We are told we need to be led and governed. We are told we need someone to hold our hand. So we feel so small that we dont understand our own impact on the perpetuation of soft-authoritarianism.
Let's look at a couple of countries that wouldnt immediately come to mind.
Soft Authoritarian Tactics in the United States and Germany
To truly grasp the nature of contemporary authoritarianism, you have to deconstruct the power dynamics at play within these regimes. Unlike traditional authoritarian systems, which rely on overt displays of force and repression, covert regimes and soft authoritarian tactics operate in the shadows, manipulating information and controlling narratives and thought to maintain control.
At the heart of these power dynamics lies a fundamental change within the relationship between the ruling elite and the populace as well as a culturalization of politics. While authoritarian leaders wield immense power and influence, the general population is often left powerless and disenfranchised. Covert regimes exploit this power differential by controlling the flow of information, which has a massive influence on perception.
The popularization of social media has led to the emergence of affectual changes in the perception of and desire for truth. This then led to a kind of panic and subsequent transformation within the political space.
“The political and academic left, it is fair to say, has in many countries seen the mainstream media as servants of the ruling class to be countered at every opportunity. It is ironic that so many of those same voices are now vigorously defending the likes of the New York Times and the BBC against Trump’s ongoing campaign to define them as sick, dishonest, pro-elite, anti-working people purveyors of ‘fake news’ […].” (McNair, 2018)
This explains a rise in the merging of popular cultural expression and political affiliation. The emergence of politically-charged internet memes is a good example here:
“Compare the first election won by Obama, in which social media devotees reproduces the ironic but official blue-and-red stylized stencil portrait of the new president with HOPE printed across the bottom, […], to the bursting forth of irreverent mainstream-baffling meme culture during the last race, in which the Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash Facebook page and The Donald subreddit defined the tone of the race for a young and newly politicized generation, with the mainstream media desperately trying to catch up with a subcultural in-joke style to suit two emergent anti-establishment waves of the right and left.” (Nagle 2017: 3)
This has then led to sophisticated online campaigns and strategic use of social media by political actors on both sides of the spectrum. The synthesis here is a kind of neurotic polarized dialectic which is affected by the instability of truth and facts and thereby driven by the unconcious needs and drives of individuals.
In my 2019 study on political polarization I find that:
[…] the rise of political participation in the form of ideological internet memes can be tied to a general distrust of mainstream media and the rise of fake news, not as an occurrence but as a topic, instilling a new loyalty to the mainstream or non-mainstream media source which supports bias. Furthermore, fake news […] propagation starts with an individual seeking to combat fear of uncertainty over the impossibility of ideological absolutes, with an establishment of a myth including an absolute enemy. This myth takes the form of an opposer of the individual’s own needs for political self-ascription and ends in the accumulative production of an ideological in-group which sustains an established political identity. So, essentially [political polarization] is a symptom of an embedded desire for individual legitimization, and its propagation instruments are used to cope with the impossibility of absolute legitimization by repeatedly reproducing the content and seeking approval from others.
(Aneka Brunßen, 2019)
You can find the conference paper here: The Synthesis of Social Media Dialectics
In essence “[l]egitimacy is, […] in part, one that circulates among political subject affective experience, a sociopolitical emotional experience as a common feeling of rightness.” (Anker 2014: 118). This need is to be fulfilled.
Another method is surveillance.
In America, the widespread use of surveillance technologies by both governmental and private entities has created an environment where individuals are constantly monitored. Programs like the NSA's PRISM, revealed by Edward Snowden, demonstrated the extent of governmental surveillance. This pervasive monitoring can lead to self-censorship, as individuals alter their behavior out of fear of being watched.
Germany has similarly faced criticism for its surveillance practices, such as the expansion of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the country's federal intelligence service, and its monitoring activities. The introduction of laws that increase state surveillance capabilities, ostensibly to combat terrorism, raises concerns about the balance between security and personal freedoms.
The concept of the Panopticon, as developed by Michel Foucault, profoundly influences our unconscious processing of surveillance by embedding a constant sense of visibility and potential observation within our psyches. In a Panopticon-like society, where surveillance is pervasive yet often unseen, individuals internalize the gaze of an omnipresent watcher. This internalization leads to self-regulation and self-censorship, as people modify their behaviors and thoughts to conform to perceived norms and expectations, even when not actively being watched. This dynamic operates unconsciously, fostering a pervasive sense of anxiety and discipline that shapes actions and identities. The mere possibility of being observed becomes a powerful tool of control, subtly conditioning individuals to align with authoritarian values and undermining personal autonomy and democratic engagement. This psychological shift, driven by the invisible yet omnipresent surveillance, corrodes the foundational principles of trust and freedom.
Max Stirner's concept of the individual, encapsulated in his idea of the "ego" as the unique, autonomous self, intersects with the unconscious in a dynamic interplay of self-realization and sociopolitical constraints. The unconscious, as described by Freud and other psychoanalysts, harbors repressed desires, fears, and internalized societal norms that often elude conscious awareness. This hidden domain of the mind can act as both a source of creative potential and a barrier to the full realization of Stirner's individual. The unconscious holds the power to either reinforce conformity through internalized authority or to unleash the unbound ego by confronting and integrating these repressed elements.
Let us now have a look at how that works.
How Does Soft-Authoritarianism Affect the Individual?
What I am trying to offer you here is an egoist’s perspective, using the work of various thinkers to relate it to democracy as a form of soft authoritarianism. To do so, let’s first go to the very foundation of what an individual even is.
An Egoist & Psychoanalytic View of the Individual
This philosophy of individuality which Stirner offered the world is ignored in contemporary philosophical discourse. But it is actually very interesting as it isn’t framed that way anywhere else. It actually aligns with some aspects of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, as well as offering a connecting point for Hegelian and Marxist dialectics.
So what Max Stirner does is, he outlines the development of the ego through a process of liberation from external constraints and the realization of true self-ownership and autonomy.
This development occurs throughout 3 stages:
The first stage includes a process of subjugation where the child is subject to external authorities such as parents, teachers, and societal norms. The child's identity and actions are largely shaped by these external influences.
This reminds me a lot of Freudian psychoanalysis. Stirner's stage of childhood, where the individual is subject to external authorities and societal norms, aligns with Freud's concept of the superego formation as it asserts that during this period, the superego is established as the child internalizes the rules and expectations of their caregivers and society.
It also reminds me of the Lacanian mirror stage which signifies the beginning of self-awareness and the formation of the ego, similar to how Stirner describes the initial realization and assertion of the self.
During this stage, the individual lacks self-awareness and autonomy, operating under imposed rules and beliefs.
The second stage is all about youth rebellion and idealism.
As the individual transitions to youth, they begin to question and rebel against the authorities and norms imposed during childhood. This stage is characterized by a search for personal identity and independence. However, youth often replace one form of authority with another, such as abstract ideals, moral principles, or causes (e.g., patriotism, religion, or humanity). These ideals still exert control over the individual's will.
Again, we can draw comparisons to Freudian psychoanalysis: In Stirner’s youth stage, the rebellion against these internalized norms parallels the struggle against the superego. The individual's quest for personal identity involves challenging the constraints imposed by the superego, although often replacing one form of authority with another.
Stirner argues that many people stay trapped in the tyranny of this stage which is all about crossing the border from emotional attachment to social structures and parental guidance or support to ownness.
This can be related to Lacanian psychoanalysis as well: In the second stage, individuals chase abstract ideals (freedom, morality, humanity). This pursuit is driven by the illusion that fulfillment lies in these external constructs. The liminal stage between Stirner’s second and third stages parallels the individual's entrapment in the Lacanian Symbolic Order. Just as Lacan's subjects are bound by the desires mediated by the Symbolic Order, Stirner’s individuals are trapped by abstract ideals.
The third stage relates to adulthood and the realization of unique self (Der Einzige)
In adulthood, the individual achieves a higher level of self-awareness and autonomy. They recognize the limitations and constraints of all external authorities and abstract ideals. The ego understands that true freedom comes from self-ownership and self-determination. The adult ego sees itself as the creator of its own values and identity, unbound by any external or imposed constructs.
Transitioning to Stirner's third stage (achieving true autonomy) involves recognizing and rejecting these external ideals, akin to a Lacanian subject confronting the inherent lack in desire and striving for a form of self-fulfillment beyond the Symbolic Order.
I believe that this stage of self-ownership must be fundamentally guided by an understanding of desire as an external force with massive productive potential and its own agenda, much like the kind that was described by Deleuze and Guattari in their critique of capitalism.
I believe that Stirner’s individual passes through and is fundamentally formed by a tripartite development which ultimately sheds the domination of the superego, the Symbolic Order, and the capitalistic force of desire to then align it with itself to form ownness.
But to do so, you have to unlearn everything.
Soft Authoritarianism’s Impact on the Individual & Democracy in the US and Germany
By applying the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan, and Sigmund Freud, we can explore how this creeping authoritarianism infiltrates the unconscious minds of individuals.
Lacanian Perspectives: The Mirror Stage and the Big Other
Soft authoritarianism manipulates the Big Other, subtly altering the societal mirror in which individuals perceive themselves. Through controlled media narratives and pervasive surveillance, the state influences what is deemed acceptable and normal. This manipulation can lead to an unconscious internalization of authoritarian values, where the individual begins to equate compliance with security and dissent with danger. As the Big Other becomes increasingly authoritarian, individuals may unconsciously suppress their democratic impulses, fostering a culture of conformity and passivity that undermines democratic engagement and critical thought and freedom.
Freudian Unconscious: Repression and the Authoritarian Personality
The concept of the authoritarian personality, developed by Theodor Adorno and others, draws on Freudian ideas to explain how certain individuals exhibit a preference for authoritarianism. This personality type is characterized by a need for order, conformity, and a fear of ambiguity. In a soft authoritarian context, the state exploits these unconscious tendencies, creating a societal environment where authoritarian values are normalized and reinforced. Through media, education, and public discourse, the state subtly encourages the repression of critical thought and democratic engagement, leading individuals to unconsciously align with authoritarian norms. This repression undermines the democratic ethos, fostering a populace that is more susceptible to manipulation and control.
The psychoanalytic insights of Lacan, and Freud collectively reveal how soft authoritarianism can undermine democratic systems by influencing the unconscious minds of individuals. As democratic values and norms are subtly eroded, the collective unconscious becomes more aligned with authoritarian principles. This shift can lead to a populace that is less engaged, more compliant, and more susceptible to state control.
In a democracy, active participation, critical thought, and dissent are essential for the health and vitality of the system. When the unconscious is manipulated to suppress these democratic impulses, the very foundation of democracy is at risk. To counter this, it is crucial to foster environments that encourage critical engagement, support independent media, and promote education that emphasizes democratic values and critical thinking.
The rise of soft authoritarianism in America and Germany represents the inherent problem with democratic systems. By subtly influencing the unconscious minds of individuals, these regimes will erode democratic values and norms, leading to a more passive and compliant populace.
An Egoist Perspective of the Concept of Democracy
Let’s now look at how egoist philosophy perceives the concept of democracy in general and then think about how egoist anarchism offers a way out.
Tyranny of the Majority
I would argue that democracy inherently leads to the tyranny of the majority. This occurs when the desires and interests of the majority are imposed on the minority, including individuals who may have radically different views and needs. As Stirner himself explains in The Ego and Its Own, any form of collective decision-making imposes external control over the individual:
"The people’s good fortune is my misfortune!"
In a democratic system, the majority's decisions become law, thereby subjugating the minority to rules they did not consent to. This majority rule is seen as just another form of authority that limits individual autonomy and self-determination.
Illusion of Freedom
I would also make the claim that democracy creates an illusion of freedom. While citizens may have the right to vote and participate in the democratic process, their choices are often limited by the structures and institutions of the state. Stirner would view the act of voting as a superficial exercise that masks the deeper reality of subjugation to external authority:
"I am free in no state."
Democratic processes and institutions can give individuals the feeling of participation and control, but the fundamental power dynamics and constraints on personal autonomy remain unchanged.
Institutionalization of Authority
I also believe that democracy institutionalizes authority through laws, regulations, and government structures that individuals are compelled to obey. For egoist anarchists, these institutions represent collective forces that override the individual's will and autonomy. Stirner critiques all forms of institutionalized authority as spooks that dominate the individual:
"State, society, morality, these are nothing to me; they do not exist, because they have no existence for me."
In a democracy, laws created through democratic means are still seen as external impositions that restrict individual freedom.
Further, I believe that democracy promotes social conformity, as individuals are encouraged to align their interests with those of the majority or the common good. Egoist anarchists reject the notion of a common good, viewing it as a collective imposition that suppresses individual uniqueness and self-interest. Stirner would argue that social norms and expectations, even those derived democratically, are spooks that individuals must reject to achieve true autonomy.
In a democracy, the pressure to conform to societal norms and the will of the majority can stifle individual expression and self-realization. And to an egoist, there is no greater enemy.
So, in general this concept highlights the importance of the broader institutional and societal contexts that support or undermine voluntary association. The concept also underscores that authoritarian tendencies can exist even within systems that appear to support consensus and public opinion.
And from an egoist anarchist perspective, democracy itself is inherently flawed because it imposes collective authority over the individual which creates a tyranny of the majority and an illusion of freedom. Democratic institutions and processes institutionalize authority and promote social conformity.
For egoist anarchists, true freedom can only be achieved by rejecting all forms of external authority and prioritizing one’s internal authority - i.e. the individual's own will and self-interest above all else.
Egoism as a Counter to Soft Authoritarianism in the US and Germany
Stirner’s egoism provides a philosophical foundation for opposing soft authoritarianism by emphasizing the primacy of individual autonomy and self-interest. In practical terms, this could manifest as personal liberation and thereby offering a blueprint to critically examine and reject the subtle forms of control imposed by soft authoritarian regimes. It also includes accidentally promoting non-conformist behaviors and attitudes that challenge the status quo and resist co-optation by the state just by you being yourself and existing as a unique individual.
But first…you have to unspookify yourself!
Unspookifying Yourself
How to unspookify, you ask?
To "unspookify oneself" from the subtle control exerted by soft authoritarianism, inspired by Max Stirner's philosophy, it takes focus and commitment. I don’t want to tell you how to live your life. Everyone’s path is different. But I can tell you what I did.
These are recommendations based on my own life and experience as well as book recommendations to deepen your understanding:
Recognize and Identify Spooks
Regularly engage in introspection to identify external influences on your beliefs, values, and behaviors, particularly those shaped by media and state narratives. Question why you hold certain opinions and whether they are genuinely yours or imposed by society.
Book Recommendation: The Ego and Its Own by Max Stirner
Critically examine the ideologies, moralities, and societal norms you have internalized, especially those related to national identity, patriotism, and state authority. Recognize them as external constructs that may not serve your individual autonomy.
Book Recommendation: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison by Michel Foucault
Identify Emotional Manipulation
Learn to recognize melodramatic narratives used by media and political entities to evoke strong emotional responses. These tactics often simplify complex issues into good vs. evil dichotomies to manipulate public opinion and behavior.
Book Recommendation: Orgies of Feeling: Melodrama and the Politics of Freedom by Elizabeth Anker
Reject External Authorities
Consistently question the legitimacy of all forms of authority, including government, media, and social institutions in the context of their influence over your thoughts and behaviors. Ask yourself if they truly represent your interests or if they serve to control you.
Book Recommendation: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Prioritize your own experiences and perspectives over imposed narratives. Trust your judgment and intuition in making decisions, especially when faced with conflicting information from various sources.
Book Recommendation: Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard
Seek Diverse Information Sources
Seek out diverse and independent sources of information to counteract mainstream media narratives, which may be influenced by soft authoritarianism. This helps in forming a well-rounded view and reduces susceptibility to manipulation.
Book Recommendation: The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
Develop critical thinking skills to analyze information objectively. Avoid accepting information at face value and consider multiple viewpoints before forming conclusions.
Book Recommendation: The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy by Murray Bookchin
Embrace Self-Ownership
Make decisions based on your own needs and desires rather than societal expectations. Embrace Stirner's concept of "ownness" by prioritizing your autonomy.
Book Recommendation: Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
Resist the pressure to conform to societal norms that do not align with your personal values. Celebrate your uniqueness and individuality.
Book Recommendation: On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
Resist Surveillance and Control
Take steps to protect your privacy from surveillance. Use encryption tools, secure communication methods, and be mindful of data privacy.
Book Recommendation: No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State by Glenn Greenwald
Connect with like-minded individuals who value personal autonomy and freedom. Build supportive communities that resist authoritarian control and foster individual empowerment.
Book Recommendation: The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia by James C. Scott
Engage in Non-Conformist Behaviors
Use creative outlets to express your individuality and challenge societal norms. Art, writing, and other forms of creative expression can be powerful tools for resistance.
Book Recommendation: Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Foster Continuous Self-Education
Study egoist anarchism and related philosophies to deepen your understanding of individual autonomy and resistance to authority. Reading works by Stirner and other radical thinkers can provide valuable insights.
Book Recommendation: The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
By following these steps, you can begin to "unspookify" yourself, reclaim your autonomy, and resist the subtle forms of control exerted by soft authoritarian regimes in the United States and Germany.
Most people will tell you that the United States and Germany are established, successful democracies, but I call bullshit. And if you also choose to call bullshit…this text should have given you some tools to back up that claim. These democracies, which are already inherently oppressive, veil subtle methods of control and influence that limit true individual autonomy and freedom.
Walk your own path!
If you are interested in learning more, consider joining our community or union of egoists: