[hun27]

All have moved leaps and bounds, yet nothing "revolutionary" so to speak has changed industry yet. All that exists is a luxury market catered to improving people's entertainment and needs, BUT not the nations wants.

Hey! Just want to correct your sentence... you probably meant, "All that exists is a luxury market catered to improving people's entertainment and wants, BUT not the nations needs."

Also, how is "the nation" a separate entity? In my understanding, doesn't the nation reflect the people and the people, the nation?

--Lev

[starman2003]

...doesn't the nation reflect the people and the people, the nation?

In a democracy, yes, and just look at the degeneracy and aimlessness here to see what comes of it. Only a capable, enlightened few should have political perogatives.

[hun27]

when does one become "enlightened"?

[starman2003]

Previous "enlightenment" such as that of the nazis and communists, was illusory. But for their founders, racial and economic theories appeared to explain everything. In the future, greater scientific etc understanding should enable neo-authoritarians to do better.

[Preston Cole]

But science can only serve the people's desire to expand and conquer. You can't just shove science down the throat of the common populace before history, culture and the nation.

[starman2003]

Science, or ideology based on it, can certainly motivate an elite, and get them to replace past culture with it. To this day, atheism is more widespread in Russia than in the US, compliments of soviet education, based on science and imposed by the previous elite.

[hun27]

I agree with you starman2003 in that previous forms of authoritarianism (e.g. Nazism and Soviet-style communism) were illusionary, idealized, “running on heavy emotions”, etc. I also agree with you that the future will be lead by science, technology and reason. However, why should authoritarianism have to reappear? And if it should, what will it look like? What will make it different from traditional forms of authoritarianism? My understanding is that all types of authoritarianism are unjust, backwards and conservative. Shouldn’t the world stay its course? Shouldn’t we let the future be pioneered by liberal democracies that respect freedom, individuality, and diversity? Admittedly, the current system is not perfect, it allows for a lot of corruption, lethargy/unemployment, economic dislocation and political inefficiency, but isn’t authoritarianism or neo-authoritarianism an unreasonable alternative? Thoughts?

Note: as a liberal myself, I’m not seeking to attack your political views. I’m seeking the truth through debate and discussion. I want to know what you and other like-minded authoritarians know/think. I.e. convert me to your way of thinking

[Preston Cole]

Authoritarianism is the only reasonable alternative. Humans need strong leadership to achieve anything. You may point out the liberal USA as an example of great technological advancement, but you'd be ignoring the equally great technological innovations and achievements under Nazism and Stalinism/State Socialism. The difference between the USA and Nazi Germany/USSR is that the USA is currently the leading power in useless technology--that is, constant technological upgrades that serve individual desires rather than the community--and totalitarian technology is both practical on a mass scale and conductive of progress: weapons/military research, mass media radios, television, space research, and necessary but limited entertainment means. The USA doesn't understand the meaning of useful technology, and this is what's causing the downfall of individualism right now.

My understanding is that all types of authoritarianism are unjust, backwards and conservative.

That's liberal propaganda. Submitting to authority isn't backwards; serving your own individual interests and having unlimited freedom is backwards.

unjust

What's unjust about criminals getting tough punishment, or you and I having our freedoms limited in the interest of communitarian survival? Also note that the "freedoms" propagated under liberalism are destructive and therefore not freedoms in the first place. Freedom of speech to slander the government; freedom to do drugs; freedom to bribe your way through college; freedom to evade military service--all these freedoms are anarchic. Freedom is when you have a strong community around you, when you have a family and when you get to know the meaning of life as an organism and not as billions of individuals.

It depends on how you define freedom. There are serious differences between Liberal freedom and Fascist freedom.

conservative

Common sense is conservative. When human nature doesn't really change even in the 21st century, and when the same values (family, community, authority, nation, planet) are what people feel despite their embrace of liberalism, generic conservatism is what makes sense to us. All other things, progress, evolution, are dependent of conservatism.

[starman2003]

....you'd be ignoring the equally great technological innovations and achievements under Nazism and Stalinism..

Sorry to disagree but in terms of purely technical invention both generally lagged behind the west. The nazis fell behind in radar, codebreaking, nuclear research etc, while the soviets, unable to innovate, relied mainly on theft or copying of western gear. That said, it is obvious that modern authoritarian systems excelled in utilization of what technology they had. Blitzkrieg warfare was an example, as was the fact that the USSR, despite having less wealth than the US, generally matched or even surpassed the US in space. Probably the most stunning example was conventional forces. The soviets had more divisions in east Germany alone than the US had worldwide. The west had better thank its lucky stars that nuclear weapons were an adequate substitute for conventional forces. Without them, it would've been eaten alive.

why should authoritarianism have to reappear?

Try reading the newspapers. The US, and the world, are beset by a host of serious problems which democratic government just can't solve because the universal solution to everything from deficits to environmental degradation is individual sacrifice, yet it is too unpopular to impose in a democracy.

...all types of authoritarianism are unjust, backwards and conservative.

Ever read Gibbon? "If a man were called upon to mark that period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most prosperous and happy, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom."
Modern authoritarianism stemming from science-based ideology, is anything but "backwards and conservative." It stands for progress and change.

I'm seeking the truth through debate and discussion.

He's come to the right place, eh, Preston?

[Preston Cole]

He's come to the right place, eh, Preston?

Hell yes. People may come in here liberals, but they'll leave fascists.

[robertcwash]

The difference between the USA and Nazi Germany/USSR is that the USA is currently the leading power in useless technology--that is, constant technological upgrades that serve individual desires rather than the community--and totalitarian technology is both practical on a mass scale and conductive of progress: weapons/military research, mass media radios, television, space research, and necessary but limited entertainment means.

The difference between Nazi Germany/USSR and the USA is that the latter isn't a shitstorm of economic decay and corruption.
What the hell is "totalitarian technology"? I didn't know political ideologies were capable of creating products and services!

Space research serves the community?

[Traianus]

Space research serves the community?

In a totalitarian society nothing is outside of the state, the community exists only inside the state, existing for the state and being a product of the state. What is a benefit to the standing of the nation-state is of benefit to the community.

What the hell is "totalitarian technology"?

Again, technology produced in a totalitarian society can be considered a product of the state, as everything is inside the state, the individual cannot act outside of the state and can only function as part of the community, the community being the nation and the nation being the state.

[robertcwash]

Do you answer all questions via these obfuscating tautologies?

That was about as fulfilling as the the answer "Because" to the question, "Why?"

[Traianus]

Ah, you now understand. Saying a "Nation-state" is tautologous, because in the totalitarian system, the state, the nation and everything contained therein are the same thing.

Thus, space research (which undoubtedly serves the state) also serves the community, "individual-community-nation-state" = "state-state-state-state". What serves the state serves community.

[starman2003]

Space research serves the community?

Not just research but an aggressive program of expansion and utilization. The potential is certainly great; it could multiply the wealth and power of civilization.

[Bridgeburner]

The difference between Nazi Germany/USSR and the USA is that the latter isn't a shitstorm of economic decay and corruption.

The U.S is probably one of the most corrupt countries in the world, in addition to the economic turmoil they are facing right now.

[starman2003]

The US has among the highest rates of obesity and substance abuse, it is drowning in red ink and has infrastructure issues, to put it kindly. A recent visitor to China was impressed by the superiority of much of their infrastructure. What it all boils down too is that because of democracy, virtually all of US national wealth is squandered on individuals--very often to the detriment of individuals as well as to the whole or society.

[Figlio di Moros]

Also, how is "the nation" a separate entity? In my understanding, doesn't the nation reflect the people and the people, the nation?

In a manner of speaking, but it's misleading due to the vast array of interpretations of that simple statement. What I suppose you mean is that the nation is a collection of individuals, and therefore the welfare of each individual is important for a sum-total welfare of the nation. However, I'd disagree w/ the individual as the primary unit; what we'd define as "bands" in more primitive societies are the most basic unit of complex ones. Also, it's important to understand that it's not merely the sum total, but that the nation itself provides an excess to the sum which should properly be held in common. Whereas an individual is inherently nihilistic in his sole personage, a nation is a living embodiment of of the language, beliefs, customs and vestiges he holds dear and gives purpose to him.

That said, one shouldn't confuse the nation, the living embodiment of society, with the state, the "monopoly of force". We do, unfortunately, have people here who confuse the latter as an end in itself, rather than endorsing necessary authoritative hierarchy to promote the general(non-sum) welfare and purpose of the people as a whole.

[starman2003]

..we do, unfortunately, have people here who confuse the latter as an end in itself..

And the greatest authoritarian rulers and hegemons were similarly "confused."

[hun27]

That said, one shouldn't confuse the nation, the living embodiment of society, with the state

I agree. The politically correct term that I should have used is state. Still, I do not understand why many people believe that authoritarianism is something necessary. When you begin to see your own self-worth in this world, as something very infinitesimal, you begin to realize that the underlying philosophy/logic anyone should hold in this life is: live and let live. And hopefully, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you (i.e. the simple "Golden Rule"). Yes, people need boundaries and areas of control, but when you begin to talk of extreme forms of authoritarianism or fascism, you talk of the ownership of people, which I do not believe is ethical. And I do not believe that anyone, in their right mind, would willingly submit to a form of government that keeps them indoctrinated or in bondage.

Let me make this clear: that I'm completely against mankind's "old-world" conservative allegiances (i.e. the allegiance/allegiances one might hold to race, religion, and/or nationality). And if you want to know why, read the work's of Karen Armstrong or Christopher Hitchens, or even Neitzsche - there is no God and this universe is larger than you can ever imagine. It does not know you are here and it does not care about your existence, but without digressing too far, I do not believe that by lending all power to a central authority on the basis of social order (or whatever else) that you can save the world from environmental degradation, political corruption, poverty, or war.

In my humble opinion, if you want real progress (which is nothing short of peace and global cooperation) you should embrace a system/ideology whereby our humanity alone is sufficed enough for us to act respectful, cordial, and compassionate to one another. None of this: "useful vs useless weapons/military research" and "technology for totalitarianism" talk that I see many "neo-fascists" talking about on here - incredibly immature. And do not, for one second, try to bolster the 'accomplishments' of Nazism in your responses as justification for authoritarianism. It is mind-numbing to even imagine someone today, still talking about the supposed superiority of one race or nation over another, as if some sort of international Social Darwinism presides over the human race. Subconscious sadists with a fetish for authority and tough daddy-figures shouldn't be on a serious forum discussing politics and governments.