HOME | DD
QuilesART β Totalitarianism
Published: 2011-12-12 18:00:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 62332; Favourites: 761; Downloads: 4246
Redirect to original
Description
...Related content
Comments: 567
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
This is why I'm finding myself recommending people to read Animal Farm more often these days lol
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow deep, I never thought of this before, they're both the same guys!
π: 0 β©: 0
There are many more modern day communists than actual National Socialists, which is the scary thing.
π: 2 β©: 0
Two sides of the same coin.Β Repressing free speech - both silenced the voices that disagreed with them and bred an ignorant populace unable to oust them.Β Β
π: 2 β©: 0
Or -
"How to get the heads of Communists and Nazis to explode at the same time."
π: 4 β©: 0
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that the allusion is to the Marxist-Leninist states and not communism generally.
π: 0 β©: 0
I found you posting Nazbol!
π: 0 β©: 0
One is an abyss of tyrannical bureaucracy that hates borders, the other is an abyss of tyrannical bureaucracy that loves borders.
π: 0 β©: 2
What part of Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain Do you not understand?
π: 0 β©: 0
Still hard to find which is which, though I'm guessing hitler hates borders while Stalin loves them
π: 0 β©: 1
Precisely the opposite, actually. Communism was founded as an internationalist movement, therefore intent on tearing down borders, while National Socialism is, well, Nationalist, which, by definition, defends borders. Of course, Russians were quite intent on defending their own "temporary" borders, just as a preliminary defense of the so-called 'progress' already made by their revolution. Hitler wanted to defend Germany's borders, he just wanted a MUCH bigger Germany to put a border around, perhaps the border ultimately being the upper ionosphere. Russia, on the other hand, wanted to forcibly tear down everyone ELSE's border, until all were unified under the Soviet Ionosphere.
Totalitarianism, by any other name, would smell as putrescent.
π: 0 β©: 2
Meanwhile Hitler wanted the whole of Europe to be Germany. Nationalism my arse.
π: 0 β©: 1
Their mutual and ironic hypocrisy was inevitable. The worst tyrannies are unchecked, unaccountable bureaucracies. The Pen is crueler then The Sword.
π: 0 β©: 0
The mustaches.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
It's pretty sad how the core theme of this piece is either completely misinterpreted or willfully ignored by so many commenters.
Sad, but not surprising. Keep up the good fight.
π: 0 β©: 0
Now what was that about Revolution...?
π: 0 β©: 0
The twins from the hell.A black devil A red devil.They both were Satan's son aimed to ruin human civilization.
π: 0 β©: 0
Como en un cΓrculo, los extremos terminan tocandose.
π: 0 β©: 0
So very true.
Goebbels himself said Stalin was second only to Hitler as a "great leader".
His words, not mine.
They both serve the same totalitarian principles.
1. Control by the state
2. Control for the state
3. Screw the individual
π: 0 β©: 0
On the left is socialism done wrong.
One the right is also socialism done wrong.
Oh, fascism. How you can destroy arguably (ideologically and theoretically) great systems and turn them into political nightmares.
π: 0 β©: 2
Let's start over. I AGREE that these are political nightmares. Now, Do you think an honest Socialist experiment can possibly exist long enough to be conclusively determined plausible in the current global environment? If outside interference is inevitable, how can we ever know for sure, by your standards? By what mechanism do you propose to solve the economic GDP calculation problem without a free market in the long term?
Furthermore; Do you think the CIA would meddle with a major 3rd way economic experiment?
π: 0 β©: 1
to assume that my positions on such matters have remained the same over the last two years is deeply flawed in numerous respects and shows to me that you would much rather concentrate on something completely irrelevant given that you - again - have had ample time to read and understand my arguments. you can tell me where i am not clear and i will most likely be able to explain or perhaps at least refer you to some materials to learn from. instead, 'ryan' would much rather act as a bottomless pit of snark and seemingly-grandiose analogies for the likes of SatanicCereal to sneer at. pathetic!
for now, you ask me about "the current global environment": this is yet another mistake in terms of your analysis given that socialist regimes are actively torn apart by bourgeois forces (even if their destruction is a long or late process). the interests of the bourgeois nations and the proletarian nations are conflicting and there can be little or no stability with regards to one nation. even with the contestedly-'socialist' juche state of north korea, there is an active war of words in addition to relatively-widespread military and nuclear preparations for and against the state, just as there have been with the soviet union and cuba. we must turn to postcapitalist societies, but by doing this, we enter the realm of haphazard speculation. with your 'anglospheric' bias in favour of some sort of 'certainty' - which you have hinted at - you will screech at my refusal to give a specific outline of what forms any postcapitalist societies will take therefore their success (let alone those of socialist societies). i justify it as follows: without extensive forecasting techniques, we are unlikely to know. it is not as simple as saying 'da gubbermind will kill da peeple and deyll sudenly want da demograsee'; there is much to analyse, such as the effects of natural disasters. it may seem obfuscatory to those who want simple answers, but it is often the simple answers and ill-justified reductionisms which eclipse greater understandings of the social domain.
next, you bring me to the 'economic calculation problem', posed by the likes of mises. to that, i raise you towards a new socialism and calculation in natura. it is possible to calculate the prices (non-transferable labour tokens or money) required within an economy for the effective distributions of products using extensive computer systems. i have already mentioned such systems to you yet you did not ask about them. i expect that you will cry about their 'inhumanity' and 'da boorocracee', an argument which you did not last long in defending last time.
thirdly, my intuition tells me that the cia and bourgeoisie-backed 'deep-state' organisations would support the centre and right-wing factions of the social-democratic movement. the left of that movement includes many marxist-leninists whose political programme is communist and bordering on revolutionary. however, your 'third way' is "functionally" similar to that of gaddafi's 'socialism' from reading your comments . this is a regime which the cia initially supported but eventually took actions against . (if you believe that i have committed a grave sinΒ by referring you to a wikipedia article, remember to check the sources and perform some research of your own on top. i cannot and will not touch upon all relevant sources.)
π: 0 β©: 0
How many ways do you have to do something wrong before drawing the conclusion that the entirety of the root concept was utterly wrong to begin with?
π: 0 β©: 1
watch out for those semantics scoob, they change with time and circumstances.Β now let's understand which 'socialism' you're on about.
π: 0 β©: 1
ALL socialism eats its own guts, sooner or later, in my opinion, whether nationalist or internationalist.
I am an adherent of the ChesterBelloc Mandate, 3rd way economy, incidentally, and am no fan of standard Macro Capitalism.
π: 0 β©: 1
even in the case of venezuela that is not so, with external market forcesΒ causing oil prices to crash. that is a failure of primary product dependency and resource allocation under a capitalist system, although i refuse to let the chavismo movement off the hook for this. you (presumably a distributist, which nobody asked about anyway) conveniently ignore efforts by the cia and by market forces (read: bourgeoisie) to destroy several latin american marxist-leninist regimes and also neglect to mention the causes behind the destruction of the soviet union. i also ask you to assess the conditions in which the ml and revolutionary social-democratic countries began and endured, with the ussr having withstood two world wars in addition to trade sanctions.
π: 0 β©: 1
The CIA's predecessors probably had spies who saw the early development of the Gulags (but kept the evidence strategically secret) which was what fed the paranoia of men like J. Edgar Hoover, and even if they really DIDN'T know before the publication of "The Gulag Archipelago", they certainly, over time, had economic, and cultural experts, both in and out of the employ of several western governments and journals, begin to crunch the long term effects of the socioeconomic impact of the unprecedentedly deep Soviet bureaucracy that just seemed to grow deeper by the hour throughout the 1920's.
GK Chesterton himself researched, by around 1925, that as many as TEN LAYERS of bureaucrats had grown between a common mother's need to provide her nearsighted son with glasses, and the distant, dreary, ink stamping overlord who could finally, ultimately, authorize them, by which point the boy, grown into an old man, would have gotten on better with a home made Inuit visor.
As a Libertarian by default (as they are at least, mostly, Minarchists, which is a start) I like the idea of the non aggression principle, and if a gang of foreign idiots want to tinker for fifty years trying to turn shit into food like Swift's Laputians, then my first instinct is to let them, they will EVENTUALLY grow sick of the futility of it. But when those same fools try to impose an international "revolution", to spread and inflict their bottomless abyss of bureaucracy on every nearsighted little boy, I can see why it would be damn tempting for organizations like the CIA and MI6 to preemptively prevent that madness from spreading, and not just ignore and let them die of their own weight, as is the Libertarian ideal.
Just because they DID interfere, however, is hardly proof that their self destruction was not inevitable, it just would have taken a lot longer, as in China and North Korea, which are either dying or transitioning by inches.
π: 0 β©: 1
i can see that in your wall of text you're blatantly defending the tools of the elite, which were integral in the failures of many historically-communist countries (which by coincidence were also socialist)Β justified for you by 'bureaucracy' and its evil inhumanity which is sacred and must be PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE OF MY FEELINGS, no? you tell me that they fail and now you want to make the failures worse and certain, a classic sign of a reactionary masturbation session. the measures which you supportΒ ensure that the hypothetical grown man whose story you tell is doomed to a pauper's life. you tell me that the ml revolutions may have been doomed anyway, though that does not discredit socialism as a whole, only previous implementations. just as the old guard cannot claim to follow 'the one true socialist ideal' for several reasons, you cannot claim that socialism as a movement has failed, only that its historical implementations have failed. your 'please stop trying' argument is that of a pessimistic conservative who worships the way of the world at a fundamental level even if the world itself has drifted away in its particularities. this is the mindset of a coward whose aim is not the creation of a more efficient state of affairs but the old, demonstrably inefficient one with a new skin. it would be quite alright if you could prove that the socialist model cannot work, though even mises has had trouble with it (and as i remember he understood the essence of the communist movement more than most 'communists' do today). instead, you aim to advocate the sealing of fates which you deem to be 'certain', yet mistakenly so.
please tell me how you, a self-declared 'libertarian', seek to rid the world of this when a computer-driven economy could do a very quick job, with the effects of some vertical layering being reduced. no, the chaos of the market shall take over! let's conveniently forget about supply chain management, which many private corporations have tended towards developing in reducing their risks and seeking greater profits...
π: 0 β©: 1
You misunderstand; I understand the TEMPTATION to interfere, I do not approve of it, at least where it can be proven that murderous revolution was not inevitable on my shores without it, which is a lot easier to judge in retrospect then it was for early agents in anticipation.
I am sure you would have been the perfect dictator to implement utopia, just everyone else who uses your particular rhetoric here. "If only I, I had been in Stalin's place, with no CIA meddling, Utopia would now exist!"
Sorry, I don't believe you. You would either have been corrupted, or whacked by someone who was corruptible. You can't legislate away human nature, and we are rather inclined to be colossal assholes when we fail to check and balance one another, and that demands we remain easily accessible to one another, which in turn means keeping bureaucracy SHORT: no more then a secretary between you and your elected official, THATS IT. That just does not last with any form of socialism I have ever herd of.
"Keep your politician close enough that you can kick him.", Chesterton.
π: 0 β©: 1
yet you imply that cia intervention is for the greater good, hence i may diagnose your ideology as being one of idealist cowardice. let me know how enforcing such pacifism goes in matters like these, you'll need a special get-out clause. is it not more honest to look away from such rigid ethics and into those which are almost wholly-dependent on and recognise the particular material circumstances which one faces?
another of your premises is that the theoreticians behind the socialist movement are wishful in their thinking, and yet you draw conclusions which you believe enable you to dispose of the entirety of the rather factionalised movement's theory when there have even been disagreements regarding the roots, ideals and praxis of the socialist movement among socialists. many socialists do not even wish to associate with each other and their theories clash; the anarchosyndicalists and marxist-leninists are an example. that tells me that you haven't even familiarised yourself with basic knowledge about the theories. your near-'petersonian' analysis does not affect the power of my response to you and it is not merely rhetoric to catalogue the causes of past failures (and indeed successes) in the socialist movement's programmes while learning from them in addition to noting changes in circumstances. this is actually a key part of developing solutions for given problems, which powerful and explanatory theory aims to do. even conducting analyses in the hypothetical 'alternative history' domain can practically develop one's analytical skills in addition to extracting information which is useful for the purposes of the socialist movement itself.
and now the old 'human nature' argument. you say that it cannot be changed by legislation, yet the revolutionary socialists aren't looking for legislation by itself. you have shown a gross misunderstanding of the whole movement, if not this particular part. for example, have you even researched consumerism, transhumanism and psychology?
it is time for you to grow out of your idealist fantasies and learn about what makes a theory worth keeping.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am agnostic on the question of whether the CIA has genuinely been a force for greater good in its early days, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I am sure that, even IF it was then, it has since become far too corrupt and unaccountable and needs to be cut down to size, drastically overhauled, and either reformed or done away with entirely.
As for the various flavors of socialism, you have not refuted or addressed my original main point: that no matter the other details, the one thing every version has in common is an abyss of bureaucracy, death by a thousand paper cuts, where every epitaph reads "I died of Red Tape".
π: 0 β©: 2
>CIA dindu nuffin
>It may have been good
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_β¦
Have a fucking list.
π: 0 β©: 2
So? What part of what I said contradicts this list? I take these incidents on an individual basis to determine whether or not there was a clear and present danger, which is damned hard to quantify in regards to the threat of a sneaky internationalist radical movement, as a whole, but some cases stand out. Iran certainly was not justified, laughably so. A poll taken in 1952 suggested the Iranian Communist Party had a mere 20% support in the upcoming election that never happened. I have no idea how the CIA sold that lemon to Eisenhower, but he clearly regretted it later. 20% is a joke. I do know that overrated "hero" of New Orleans, Clay Shaw, played some part in selling it to Eisenhower, although the details remain classified. Shaw was the only man ever put on trial for Kennedy's assassination, incidentally. I find it interesting that the investigation into him seems to be a part of last bit of the newly declassified JFK papers that remained classified at the last second, against Trump's wishes.
The CIA's own bureaucracy is a shit show, and it WILL be made accountable to the People. This will be done by whittling away at the stinking Duopoly, particularly through the grassroots Ranked Choice Runoff movement. There are 11 distinctive major regional political flavors in America, and the Plurality tyranny is forcing all 11 shapes into either a round hole or square hole. That will stop, and Maine has proven the process is already underway.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>