The Difference Between Progressives & Authoritarians

What are the differences between Liberals and Authoritarians?

The primary difference between libertarians and progressives turns on each type\'s commitments along the economic freedom dimension. Where libertarians see economic freedom as essential to the generation of overall prosperity and the stewardship of capital, progressives seek to curtail economic freedoms. Whether in supporting higher taxation and redistribution, regulation of industry, or limiting private property rights, progressives are committed to various forms of economic intervention. Such interventions are usually carried out purportedly in service of the least advantaged in society. Libertarians, on the other hand, think the least advantaged in society are more likely to improve their conditions through dynamic entrepreneurial markets and a robust civil society sector. While both types agree about the goal of environmental protection, they usually disagree about the means.

How are Liberals and Authoritarians similar?

Despite stark contrast on economic matters, libertarians and progressives find greater overlap on issues that involve the protection of civil liberties or personal freedoms. For example, both types are skeptical of various forms of prohibition, whether on illicit drugs or sex work. Despite more recent fracturing among progressives on civil liberties such as free speech, progressives have historically supported basic civil rights and have found common cause with libertarians on issues ranging from criminal justice reform to non-interventionist foreign policy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Dimension	Progressive	Authoritarian
Role of Government	Active: promote equality, provide public goods, regulate markets, within constitutional limits	Expansive: control economic and social life to achieve regime goals
Source of Authority	Democratic consent expressed through elections	Ideology, revolutionary vanguard, or claims to represent the people
Political Opposition	Essential to democratic government	Treated as a threat to be neutralized
Free Speech	Strong support, with active internal debate about limits on harmful speech	Suppressed when it threatens regime authority or official ideology
View of Markets	Powerful but require regulation and correction	State-directed or heavily managed, often replaced entirely
Approach to Reform	Through democratic legislation and judicial protection of rights	Through state power, sometimes including revolutionary upheaval
View of Individual Rights	Foundational; equality requires protecting them, not eliminating them	Subordinate to collective goals; revocable when they conflict with state aims
Free Press	Essential to democratic accountability	Suppressed or co-opted to serve regime narrative
Constitutional Limits	Protect rights and check government power	Obstacles to be circumvented when they prevent achievement of social goals
Core Philosophical Foundation	Equality of opportunity and collective action through democratic institutions	Collective goals enforced through concentrated power

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does the line between progressive and authoritarian fall?

The most useful line is the willingness to operate within democratic and constitutional limits. A politics is progressive when it accepts the framework of democratic government, including free speech, political opposition, independent courts, and civil liberties, even when those limits frustrate its goals. A politics becomes authoritarian when it treats those limits as obstacles to be circumvented when sufficiently inconvenient, especially when the inconvenience is the persistence of political opposition.

Were the communist regimes really progressive?

This is contested. Communist regimes claimed to pursue progressive goals (worker liberation, racial equality, anti-imperialism, the end of class hierarchy) but used authoritarian means and produced outcomes that included mass killing, forced labor, suppression of dissent, and the elimination of civil liberties. Many contemporary progressives reject the communist legacy as a betrayal of progressive values and emphasize that democratic socialism, social democracy, and progressive liberalism are distinct from communist authoritarianism. Others have a more complicated relationship with communist history. The honest answer is that authoritarianism with progressive-sounding goals is part of the historical record, and progressives need to engage with this history rather than dismiss it.

Is "cancel culture" a form of authoritarianism?

This is a contested question that depends on what is meant by cancel culture. The phrase can refer to a wide range of phenomena: social criticism of public figures, organized boycotts, professional consequences for offensive speech, harassment campaigns, or formal censorship. Some of these are forms of free expression by people who disagree with the speech being criticized. Others may cross into harassment or coercion. Government censorship is authoritarian; private criticism is not. The harder cases are private actions (boycotts, social pressure, professional consequences) that affect speech without involving government. Reasonable progressives disagree about where the line should fall between legitimate criticism and harmful suppression.

Have American progressives ever drifted toward authoritarianism?

There is active debate about this. Some observers, including some progressives, have argued that elements of the contemporary American left have moved in authoritarian directions: supporting speech restrictions on political opponents, demanding ideological conformity within institutions, dismissing constitutional constraints as obstacles to justice. Other observers argue that these characterizations are exaggerated and that the progressive tradition remains fundamentally committed to democratic government and civil liberties. ASG does not take a partisan position on this debate, but the distinction between progressivism and authoritarianism is important enough that it deserves serious attention.

Can someone be both progressive and authoritarian-leaning?

People can hold mixed views, and an individual's politics can include elements of both. The question is whether the person, when forced to choose between progressive principles and authoritarian methods, sides with the principles or the methods. Genuine progressives, when the choice arises, side with democratic constraints even when those constraints frustrate their goals.

World's Smallest Political Quiz

Are You Progressive or Authoritarian?

Find out in less than 5 minutes by taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Take the Quiz