[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

King Goldstein,

I repeat myself because repetition is the only way you can enlight the dumb, meaning you. I said why I wielded platonism in the way I do and still you are being a unrational fool about it. If you can come up with a better name to unite all the different totalitarian ideologies and something that sounds good too, than I shall wield that name but for the time being I will use platonism as the collection for all the different totalitarian forms

Sure NE, it sounds real smooth, but it's still bullshit.

[New Era]

Jon, we live in a democracy and the wicked uses it's advantages so why shouldn't we ? I am far better with words in dutch and the ones that dislike me (the majority) even think I am a great word wielder. However I could care less for a name to unite all totalitarian forms, I am currently a fascist and won't bother to explain why to the ignorant on my school in my spare time.

[Truth-a-naut]

So you're not a Platonist?

[Khenlein]

How totalitarianism or Wholism can make better or fuller use of technology than democracy has been addressed here before: Wholism can impose individual sacrifice for a great common endeavor involving e.g. space technology. Right now, as Sapper's post noted, the national wealth is devoted to satisfying individual desires; space spending is only about 1% of the budget. Vastly more is spent on private cars, porn and junk food etc. Such priorities reflect the will of the masses, and the democracy under which they have their way. Wholism or totalitarinism could ensure that far more is spent on space than on say, private cars. Another example is the ability of a Wholist system to make full use of cloning and genetic engineering, whereas current society is too concerned with so called individual rights and judao-christian morality to do that.

Overall, I am satisifed with that response. It does seem that entirely too much of our national wealth is spent for frivilous hedonistic reasons. Its always struck me as an indictment of our society that while some expend millions of dollars for luxury items, a great deal of our children can bareley subsist, always a bad month away from hunger.

I do dissent with your views on some matters though, especially when it comes to individual rights. I am not referring to anything egregious of course, like the "right to own 15 homes", or the "right to spend a huge amount of wealth for a yacht". Rather, things that are more simple basic. Religious, intellectual, and expressive freedoms for starters. The right to be treated equally under the law, etc etc. It's my opinion that in a society composed of humans, one of the goals should be to continually improve or try to create a climate where the individual can improve his own standard of living. Because if not, then whats the point really? Afterall, what good is being a citizen of a nation with the most advanced spacecraft, if you can't even provide for your family.

Also, just because we've been striving toward democracy does not mean we will continue to do so. In the past, for instance, total imposition of Christianity over the earth was a goal. However, this does not mean that the world was totally converted to Christian fundamentalism.

As is often said, past trends are not always indicative of future ones. But at the present time, most peoples of the world are striving towards Republican Captitalism. And Totalism, as a rule, has been a failure in the 20th Century. Of course, I'm sure that brand of totalism isn't what most of you all portend to ascribe too.

[Kamil]

Often, the goals of totalitarianism have been confused as “power”, “terror”, and “wealth”. Such is not the case. But then what are the goals of totalitarianism? Marxists have equality, libertarians have freedom, and hedonists have pleasure. Totalitarianism holds the most basic objective of any living organism as its aim—general progress—and excels at doing so.

Perhaps the goals of totalitarianism are falsely intertwined with that of power, wealth, and terror, but forsooth: one could not omit them from the core principles and means of totalitarian ideology. Therefore, it is obvious that terror, power, and wealth are defining points of totalitarianism, so what exactly would it matter if totalitarianism succeeded in its goal of the progression of life if life itself cannot be lived. "Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." What's the point of ameliorating society if no one will enjoy it? It's like walking into an abandoned house of which no one will ever live in, to redecorate it. It's totalitarianism that is in fact, baseless.

It's very noticeable that the main incentive behind totalitarianism is the progression of humanity. Personally, I'd find more incentive in involving myself in the totalitarian movement to fulfill person goals rather than collectivist goals on behalf of other people. I don't live my life for others; I live life for myself. What does the progression of humanity mean to me if within a few decades I'm going to die, and not live to enjoy this progress? Besides, what would I have to enjoy? I'd be a slave.

It isI who gives my life meaning; I don't see what'd be appealing of having others establish this for me and coerce me to engage in slavery in the name of all good and progress in humanity. Fuck humanity. I'm almost certain that you're not attracted to being treated a slave, which is why, most surely, when you speak of your desired totalitarian milieu, you imagine yourself as being in power, and not holding slave status. Put yourself in the place of the order-takers; is it worth it? Why struggle for the good of humanity if your life is shit because of this program and when, you'll fully well know that the people of the future will live shitty impoverished lives as slaves?

Besides, rulers rule for their own self-interest: what makes you sure they will be dedicated to ameliorating humanity when it is most likely that this particular incentive is a veil for them to carry out their secret intentions of expropriating massive prerogatives from what is to be the peoples', etc..

The fundamental goals of the above ideologies, such as “pleasure” or “freedom”, are almost entirely baseless. The goals could just as easily be “sadness” and “oppression” and they could still be valid. Humanity lacks a completely omniscient, objective viewpoint of all existence; all opinions and “truths” regarding the purpose of life or the fundamental purpose of humanity are baseless and subjective.

Who exactly validates whether pleasure, freedom, or progress are baseless? It's entiry subjective; there is no absolute. Each individual has a disparate perception of what they value as a requisition or a mission of their life; that is why I advocate a society where each individual has the ability to pursue what s/he perceives as their ideal path or goal in life. As I have reiterated many times before: I advocate man's ability to live his life on his own terms. You can call me a hippy or whatever the fuck you want, but that'd be fairly inaccurate as I am quite misanthropic and nihilistic and rather desire this society for myself, not for others, although I have sympathy for those harshly exploited and oppressed by the usurpations and confinement perpetrated by the bourgeoisie, in which I would desire for these people to be emancipated since, the freedom of others, too, has a profound effect on my well-being and freedom.

Do you really believe that a totalitarian society would be able to sustain itself? Man is condemned to be free[Sartre]. Or as Bakunin said, or Chomsky would say, "Man has an instinct for freedom." Within the realm of a totalitarian society, its collapse would be almost instant as, unlike democratic systems, totalitarian systems have no "genius" behind them to secure stability. As Chomsky has written: "All of this illustrates very well the genius of democratic systems of thought control, which differ markedly from totalitarian practice. Those who rule by violence tend to be “behaviourist” in their outlook. What people may think is not terribly important; what counts is what they do. They must obey, and this obedience is secured by force. The penalties for disobedience vary depending on the characteristics of the state."; "Democratic systems are quite different. It is necessary to control not only what people do, but also what they think. Since the state lacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force, thought can lead to action and therefore the threat to order must be excised at the source." Another course of totalitarian society, as demonstrated by the history of the USSR, would lead to the peoples' lack of power to revolt, or make sufficient produce. Perhaps you totalitarianists will inevitably come to think that, as inscripted on the gates of Auschwitz, "Work sets you free."

All in all: totalitarianists believe it is their moral obligation to decide not only what is a valid goal that all people should aim for, they think they can simply intervene and enforce this belief of there's. This does not even suffice to measure their incommensurable absurdity. Another thing, most notable, perhaps, is that they have no genuine plan that can ensure stability and sustainability in their society.

While totalitarianism does not purport to know the objective truth about the purpose of humanity, totalitarianism has at least based itself upon the most basic instincts that we, as humans, possess.

As already noted: humans are condemned to be free. Perhaps you may be able to relate to this if you happen to hold an atheistic or existential affiliation? Also, what about the "instinct to freedom?" What would you argue against this?

As Vivisekt has pointed out many times, freedom is only possible under an anarchist setting. Even in libertarian governments, I am not free to impose my lifestyle on others, nor am I free to harm others.

It looks like both you and Vivisekt are wrong. Both of you presuppose that since there is no legal regime in an anarchy, humans are free to exercise whatever actions they want without any consequences. In other words, you fail to see the theory behind anarchism. Perhaps one of you could bother to explain what exactly you conceive of anarchism? Whether you are able to pose a valid and intellectual arguement against anarchism while simultaneously, showing that you have suffice comprehension of at least the basic principles of anarchism, go ahead. If you're just going to postulate, senselessly, that anarchy is chaos because there's no legal regime, I'll simply dismiss you.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

As is often said, past trends are not always indicative of future ones. But at the present time, most peoples of the world are striving towards Republican Captitalism. And Totalism, as a rule, has been a failure in the 20th Century

The complexity of the globalized world we live in makes it difficult to effectively analyze it; but in general I would agree that capitalism has triumphed. Capitalism is not necessarily congruent with democracy, however. The most economically succesful countries in the developing world are often oppresive, or at least not fully democratic one-party states.

And what about the West?

In Europe, interest and participation in politics has been dropping and voter turnout steadily decreasing for many years now, with people increasingly voting for semi-authoritarian parties advocating a return to a society of order and discipline. On the same continent, political power is being transferred from the nation states (and their populations) to the European Union, a huge, supranational, meritocratic organization, which is generally perceived as being undemocratic and secretive. Respected political scientists are even talking about a democratic crisis. The future does not look bright for democracy.

True, totalitarian governments have failed in the 20th century. But this is probably a result of their being regionally based, whereas a future totalitarian government is likely to come about as a result of worldwide crisis of some sort, creating a unified Earth and a unified humanity. With no external problems to worry about, this totalitarian state can’t fail. It’s simply impossible. All the empires that have ever fallen have done so as a result of external challenge, never internal challenge. For an example, no rebel group has ever toppled a regime without the help of a foreign state.

Also, the future totalitarian state will be able to benefit from more advanced technology than was available in the 20th century. Even though modern totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany couldn’t have come into existence without the technological requirements they dependended on for their survival and cohesion, future technologies will be much, much more powerful. For instance, the surveillance technology already in use today could be further developed and become extremely cheap with advances in nanotechnology. AI’s with a thousand times the computing powers of today could make it possibly to monitor all of the people all of the time. And this is just an example of what future technology has to offer. The 21st century totalitarian state will be as potent as ever.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

Also, what about the "instinct to freedom?"

The instinct to freedom, eh? How do you define this scientifically? Man doesn't wish to be free; he wishes to conform.

[Khenlein]

The instinct to freedom, eh? How do you define this scientifically? Man doesn't wish to be free; he wishes to conform.

Though I will not pretend to know everything there is to know about the nature of man. I will say this, it was East and not West Germany, that had to throw up a wall to keep its citizens in, and not keep foriengers out. It's the Cubans who are risking their lives, trying to swim through 90 miles of shark infested heavy current with nothing but but a life jacket, to reach the United States. Not, the other way around.

Now you make of that what you may, but it seems to me, the Totalist countries (or simply countries without guranteed personal liberties) are the ones who must keep their border guards facing inward.

What's the point of ameliorating society if no one will enjoy it? It's like walking into an abandoned house of which no one will ever live in, to redecorate it.

I think thats fairly well put Kamil. I think there are many attractive features of Totalism, and there are many versions of it I quite frankly would not mind living under. However, all this talk of "Progress for the sake or Progress" doesn't make much sense to me (besides sounding Orwellian), it's really an empty slogan. If given the choice between a technollogically backward society, where everyone seems to live long, free lives, without economic insecurity and without fear for their personal freedoms. And a technollogcially advanced society where indivuals are used and thrown away at the leisure of the ruling Oligarchy, for the sake of scientific excellence.

I daresay must people would choose the former. I think, any Totalist government would have to balance the needs of its citizens, with the "race for progress", for it to survive. To serve the god of "progress" at the expense of the citizens, seems senseless and unecessary.

[Kamil]

The instinct to freedom, eh? How do you define this scientifically? Man doesn't wish to be free; he wishes to conform.

To define this premise scientifically, one must turn their attention to the Marxist established fact of the class struggle. Essentially, what constitutes a social class is their relation to the means of production: there are those who have monopolized and own the means of production; there are those who are subordinate to the monopolization and work with these means of production. Since people in a class are people who share common economic position, they also share common interests. The ruling class, being the economically dominant class with the jurisdiction over the means of production, is also the politically dominant class with the jurisdiction over the lower class. The dominant class are interested in profits from the labour conducted by the labouring classes while the labouring class are interested in ameliorating their conditions. The moods clash and are known as what is class-struggle.

Have you ever wondered why there have been so many politico-economic revolutions throughout the whole history of mankind? People have come to the conclusion that, their political societies, based on the delegation and initiative of power in the hands of the few, are illegitimate and symbolize the negation of freedom. How come each revolution has resulted in the surrogation of the exploiting classes? The process of proletarization had not yet been fulfilled. Transcending this, it's simply because each rising class has been involved in state utilization. The capitalist epoch of history is a lot more complex, but it's not the time or place to cover everything on the class struggle. If you'd like to know more of this, if you don't already, ask some Marxists: many of them are dedicated to proselytization and are probably willing to spend hours to spread the word of Marx.

[Sapper]

Religious, intellectual, and expressive freedoms for starters.

Provided that the intellectual freedom is used productively, I see nothing wrong with that. However, most of the intellects of society will already be in government or a place of power were their intelligence can be used to benefit everyone the best, making intellectual freedom mostly redundant.

And Totalism, as a rule, has been a failure in the 20th Century. Of course, I'm sure that brand of totalism isn't what most of you all portend to ascribe too.

Past totalitarian regimes of the 20th century generally failed to external forces (excluding communism). America does not have such a problem, as we have many times the capability to impose our will on other nations, even under democracy. Wholism, as even non-totalitarians have to agree, would further this power. And you are correct: there has never been a "pure" Citivas or "pure" wholistic regime.

one could not omit them from the core principles and means of totalitarian ideology.

Perhaps I said that wrong. Power and to some degree wealth (wealth increases power, after all) are the goals of totalitarnianism. But our ends are not to empower certain individuals, but they are to empower the human race, to allow us to expand and evolve. Terror is a means to be used on a short-term basis until the values of current society are radically altered to coincide with those of the totalitarian rulers.

What's the point of ameliorating society if no one will enjoy it?

Starman answered this excellantly once:

The ironic thing is, many individuals may be happier in the long run under Wholism, simply because it can best correct or avert the problems that may make life horrific-environmental degradation and overpopulation etc. It may also mean peace; see Aristides-the Pax Romana was generally a better time for many. Certainly a wholistic system would make many individuals very unhappy in the short run, or perhaps indefinitely, by compelling sacrifice for the Whole, and happiness in itself is not its goal. But even the masses may well be better off under Wholism in the long run. Again a new Wholistic regime will have grand goals like expanding into space, and in that sense will continue to progress and "evolve."...

I'd like to add something: happiness needn't be equated wth materialism and individual perogatives which a Wholistic state would curtail or eliminate. Man can be happy or satisfied with his existence, even if spartan, if he has a strong sense of purpose and is working with others toward a great common goal. A sense of community and purpose is sorely lacking in current individualistic societies, and alienation can make life miserable for many. So in more ways than one, Wholism may actually be more conducive to individual well being than current societies which supposedly value the individual above all, but give rise to purposelessness, degeneracy and drugs-messing up individual lives as well as the Whole.

Besides, rulers rule for their own self-interest...

I refer you to the opening books of _The Republic_, when Thrasymachus (sp?) and Plato discuss how if a "doctor" hurts his patient even more to gain more money because the patient has to continue coming, then he is a "harmer" -- the opposite of a doctor. The kind of totalitarian ruler we envision is one that struggles side-by-side with even the lowest class, albeit doing different jobs (rather like _Brave New World_). Even modern totalitarian rulers such as Hitler and Stalin lived spartan-like lifestyles (even though it is true Stalin was considerably better off than most average Russians, I do not expect a leader of any nation to live in such conditions).

totalitarian systems have no "genius" behind them to secure stability.... Another thing, most notable, perhaps, is that they have no genuine plan that can ensure stability and sustainability in their society.

Totalitarianism = meritocracy. Meritocracy, by its very nature, ensure that many genuises gain prominent positions within the government. I have the "how", "when", and other practical considerations of totalitarianism down. Still working on the "why", and I believe I have nearly found the answer to this (look forward to a Part III!).

Also, what about the "instinct to freedom?"

What instinct of freedom? Behaviors are reactions to their environments, not built in. One highly intelligent person could use his capacities to their full extent, while one highly intelligent person could chose to not use them at all -- products of their environments.

Now you make of that what you may, but it seems to me, the Totalist countries (or simply countries without guranteed personal liberties) are the ones who must keep their border guards facing inward.

Yes. I will not attempt to argue against that. People just have different values today than what wholism will bring, or what will bring wholism. The Spartans had a totalitarian lifestyle, and they saw it as superior to Athens. Of course, totalitarian societies today and even earlier this century do not resemble totally what we on this forum propose.

[Garibaldi]

It is I who gives my life meaning; I don't see what'd be appealing of having others establish this for me and coerce me to engage in slavery in the name of all good and progress in humanity. Fuck humanity.

Greatest quote I've ever seen; do you mind if I use it for part of my sig?

And I pretty much have to agree with what Kam and Khenlein said about conformity vs. freedom; if people didn't struggle to be free, why would America have held a revolution? Why do cubans swim 90 miles? Why did the Russians revolt? Why don't Palestinians roll over? Why do the Iraqi's continue to fight? Why did Osama have to fight two superpowers?

[Khenlein]

Provided that the intellectual freedom is used productively, I see nothing wrong with that. However, most of the intellects of society will already be in government or a place of power were their intelligence can be used to benefit everyone the best, making intellectual freedom mostly redundant.

I think, perhaps, you misunderstood what I meant by intellectual freedom. By that, I meant the freedom of the people to voice their own thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc. In other words, a world where people cannot be "vaporized" for "thoughtcrime".

Remaining on that point, what body or person would decide what is productive, and what is unproductive?

What instinct of freedom? Behaviors are reactions to their environments, not built in. One highly intelligent person could use his capacities to their full extent, while one highly intelligent person could chose to not use them at all -- products of their environments.

This seems to be doublespeak to me. You skirt the crux of the matter. But since you respond to Kal's statement, I suppose thats his point to expound upon.

Yes. I will not attempt to argue against that. People just have different values today than what wholism will bring, or what will bring wholism. The Spartans had a totalitarian lifestyle, and they saw it as superior to Athens. Of course, totalitarian societies today and even earlier this century do not resemble totally what we on this forum propose.

I am well familiar with Spartan history, and myself would consider it superior to Athinai in some aspects, sure.

But as to what you specifically propose, I have not read this forums for quite some time until recently, so perhaps you have laid out the format of your Wholist Regime somewhere. If not, could you lay it out? I am, as I have said, someone who trusts more in blueprints and plans, than in slogans and sentences. Would your society encompass a limited sort of Totalist Democracy, like Athinai, or Jess' favorite, Starship Troopers?
Would your government be more akin to the defunct Unions "democratic centralism"?

Further, what safeguards or mechanisms are there to protect the populace from abuse and corruption? A position of near absolute power, has the tendency to make Dictator's and Oligarchs abuse it.

Edit: Also, you reference "us in this forum". I do not think you realize, but I am part of "us". . I simply seek to understand and appreciate just what it is you are proposing in particular (seems there are as many forms of Totalism as there are forms of "Democracy", which is to say, alot). And how you confront those issues which have plauged historical attempts at Totalist societies.

[Kamil]

Greatest quote I've ever seen; do you mind if I use it for part of my sig?

Hah, I wasn't expecting a compliment like that to be directed towards me. Well, I'm thrilled that you think such of that line. The line's essentially inspired by my existentialism, which, if you agree with the idea that it is the individual who gives his life meaning, by all means check existentialism out.

Perhaps I said that wrong. Power and to some degree wealth (wealth increases power, after all) are the goals of totalitarnianism. But our ends are not to empower certain individuals, but they are to empower the human race, to allow us to expand and evolve. Terror is a means to be used on a short-term basis until the values of current society are radically altered to coincide with those of the totalitarian rulers.

No, actually your ends are not to empower the human race, but to empower certain individuals. Who are you to decide what others value?

To allow us to expand and evolve? Haha. Evolution is already present and spontaneous: what you're looking to do is to dedicate the entire function of society to evolution. I think you're pushing things too far. Moreover, you're pushing something unwanted. No sane person wants to be dictated(perhaps martyrs?), especially to the extent that you plan to impose. Would you, personally, sacrifice yourself to be dictated in such a society that you theoretically wish to impose? I belief I already asked you this question. Where's my answer, baby?

This is the exact lack of logic and reason that totalitarianist ideology possesses: totalitarianists simply believe that their imposed plethoric indoctrination and force securing that coercion will not only engender a uniform mindset, which is something untenable, but totalitarianists childishly believe that this uniform mindset will span to a quite proportionate quanitity of time. That's utter and complete bullshit. You have completely disregarded several sections of my initial post within this thread directed towards your essay. You vacuously believe that meritocracy will suffice in sustaining your society simply because those that are cultivated and intelligent will be in power. How will a few smart men be able to deter millions of angry individuals engaged in insurrection? Unless these leaders possess a plethora of superior armament and are willing to obliterate their entire populace, then you have things won.

The ironic thing is, many individuals may be happier in the long run under Wholism, simply because it can best correct or avert the problems that may make life horrific-environmental degradation and overpopulation etc.

What about technocracy, primitivism, or simply spontaneous evolution which is a valid aspect of humanity, though it's not forced and rushed as you totalitariansts like it. At least technocracy and primitivism are compatible with freedom and human self-ownership. Besides, you're presupposing that totalitarianism will actually fulfill your progressive desires; we can't be sure of whether progression is most prosperous under totalitarian, capitalist, or anarchist conditions. In other words, does progression flourish more successfully when people are forced to do so, when people compete against each other to do so, or whether people voluntarily and collectively work to do so? Moreover, as already mentioned, totalitarianism is an impotent ideology simply because it cannot permeate its existence up to a sufficient time and, ineluctably, the population will be over-worked as demonstrated in other totalitarian-like regimes.

Certainly a wholistic system would make many individuals very unhappy in the short run, or perhaps indefinitely, by compelling sacrifice for the Whole, and happiness in itself is not its goal. But even the masses may well be better off under Wholism in the long run. Again a new Wholistic regime will have grand goals like expanding into space, and in that sense will continue to progress and "evolve."...

This statement resembles to something that'd be said in a cult. Once again, the author of this message is positing the effect totalitarianism would have as an expedient and its ends. Perhaps employing some sort of a scientific expedient to clarify these premises would be helpful. To use some rudimentary logic, let me demonstrate:

1) Using coercion as a driving force in a society will, as retrospectively proven, precipitate the unhappiness of the society's residents on account of their over-exhaustion, exploitation, oppression, and the excessive amount of violence and indoctrination employed within the process of enforcing these measures. Therefore, unless people suddenly assimilate certain various qualities that desire and welcome acts of pain and malice to be imposed upon themselves, people will be unhappy. The most explicit epitomy of such is demonstrated in Dachau and Auschwitz-Birkenau-Monowitz.

2) Because an entire society will be unhappy, it won't matter whether all that work employed for the progression of society will engender devices that produce better food, chemicals that artificially clean the atmosphere, or things that force an equilibrium in the quantity of species around the world. The thing is, people will not cease to be unhappy simply because their atmosphere is better, they are healthier, when their lives are centered to further senselessly engage in harsh labour for the sole purpose of creating this effect. Perhaps you'd like to be specific on what type of amelioration you and other totalitarianists believe a totalitarian society should fulfill? All in all, people will have no lives; all they'd do is work. When they'd return home, do you think they'd be able to engage in any other activities when they are impoverished from excess of drudgery?

I'd like to add something: happiness needn't be equated wth materialism and individual perogatives which a Wholistic state would curtail or eliminate.

Happiness is subjective, not objective; it's not you who decides what makes people happy, it is they that do so.

Man can be happy or satisfied with his existence, even if spartan, if he has a strong sense of purpose and is working with others toward a great common goal.

Yes, but totalitarianism denies the individual the right to orient themselves with a goal other than the one which they decide is going to be that person's.

A sense of community and purpose is sorely lacking in current individualistic societies, and alienation can make life miserable for many. So in more ways than one, Wholism may actually be more conducive to individual well being than current societies which supposedly value the individual above all, but give rise to purposelessness, degeneracy and drugs-messing up individual lives as well as the Whole.

Umm, alienation can easily, without a doubt, be identified in totalitarian society; man is alienated from himself, from his labour. Moreover, as a vehement individualist, I oppose your idea of establishing a community, which is apparently what individualist societies lack. Of course, I am no troglodyte(haha...I felt like using this word), but I feel that it's in my best interest to collaborate with others to engender a sort of community for a certain various purpose, I'd certainly do so, but it isn't ideal if this is a requisition in life and completely forced.

The kind of totalitarian ruler we envision is one that struggles side-by-side with even the lowest class, albeit doing different jobs (rather like _Brave New World_). Even modern totalitarian rulers such as Hitler and Stalin lived spartan-like lifestyles (even though it is true Stalin was considerably better off than most average Russians, I do not expect a leader of any nation to live in such conditions).

Haha, good luck with that. Perhaps you'd like to scientifically substantiate that estimation and attempt to calculate whether at all that's a possible outcome when the totalitarian ruler is subjected to a lifestyle of massive prerogative in terms of wealth and power. Still, you can't ensure that your ruler will actually abide by the program set out for him: to establish the people as the impetus for the progression of humanity via their deterioration to slave status.

Totalitarianism = meritocracy. Meritocracy, by its very nature, ensure that many genuises gain prominent positions within the government.

Backing an impotent ideology with potent defenders does not signify the ideology as something potent.

What instinct of freedom? Behaviors are reactions to their environments, not built in. One highly intelligent person could use his capacities to their full extent, while one highly intelligent person could chose to not use them at all -- products of their environments.

Yes. By that logic - something of which I agree with - people in an exploitative, denominational, and coercive milieu, illegitimate and identified with a negation of freedom, that's when the "instinct to freedom" is a valid thought. I already settled this in my latter reply in response to Johnathan (I believe).

[starman2003]

It is I who gives my life meaning; I don't see what'd be appealing of having others establish this for me and coerce me to engage in slavery in the name of all good and progress in humanity. Fuck humanity.

And I pretty much have to agree with what Kam and Khenlein said about conformity vs. freedom; if people didn't struggle to be free, why would America have held a revolution? Why do cubans swim 90 miles? Why did the Russians revolt? Why don't Palestinians roll over? Why do the Iraqi's continue to fight? Why did Osama have to fight two superpowers?

Man also strives for power, which is better than freedom. If people always struggled to be free, why has democracy been more the exception than the rule even in modern times?

[starman2003]

Meritocracy can be very conducive to stability and dominance of the masses by an elite. Even if the masses are dissatisfied, they are usually nearly impotent for lack of leadership. The Soviet Union's elite was never overthrown by a popular uprising, despite decades of so called "human rights abuses"; the elite eventually just became demoralized and abdicated. But it is a fallacy to think that totalitarian/wholist systems rely mainly on coercion and terror. No regime can attain power or last for any period of time without substantial support, and the communists and nazis enjoyed a great deal of support from the masses. Under certain circumstances, such as crises, many people will understand and accept the need for sacrifices of liberty etc, and support a nondemocratic regime. Moreover totalitarianism/wholism has been based on ideologies which inspired and motivated great numbers of people. Primitivism is out of the question in modern times. The phenomenal speed of Soviet industrialization in the 1930s, and the rapid ascent of German power in the years after 1933, certainly argue that totalitarian/wholist systems are most effective in attaining great common goals.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

Much of the discussion in this thread has centered on human nature; do humans want power, do they want happiness, do they prefer freedom to conformity or the other way around and so on.

None of this matters. Human nature isn't fixed. It can be redefined (technologically).

[Sapper]

so perhaps you have laid out the format of your Wholist Regime somewhere.

Much of what I have spoken of has been described repeatedly on this forum, and on the website < http://wholism.8m.com >.

No, actually your ends are not to empower the human race, but to empower certain individuals.

Empowering certain individuals is a means, but it is not the ends.

Would you, personally, sacrifice yourself to be dictated in such a society that you theoretically wish to impose?

Yes. And I am sorry if I missed the question when you asked it before. My answer would've been "yes" then as well.

How will a few smart men be able to deter millions of angry individuals engaged in insurrection?

Once again, we're focused on the how part of totalitarianism. I will answer your question, but I am more interested in your opinion on the "why". To keep control of a populace, all that is necessary is military support and a few fanatics. Stalin and other Soviet leaders were able to keep people surpressed without killing them all. More recently, Saddam and Castro have been able to do the same thing. Keeping the masses from rebelling -- even without using excessive force to "obliterate them all" -- is a rather simple task. Hitler was able to take advantage of the countries he conquered despite their resistance movements. America's invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have been mostly successful as well.

Besides, you're presupposing that totalitarianism will actually fulfill your progressive desires; we can't be sure of whether progression is most prosperous under totalitarian, capitalist, or anarchist conditions. In other words, does progression flourish more successfully when people are forced to do so, when people compete against each other to do so, or whether people voluntarily and collectively work to do so?

Of course totalitarianism leads to a stagnation of technological innovation, even though totalitarianism can use technology far better than democracy because it doesn't waste its money of worthless things. However, the human race is quickly approaching mastery of the basic scientific and technology techniques and ideas, and most progress will stop there meaning that the new wholist regime will have little need to continue scientific innovation. You can only discover gravity once! Starman has referenced Stent as a source before.

However, to say that totalitarianism does not foster progress at all is clearly false -- the Enlightened Despots, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Therefore, unless people suddenly assimilate certain various qualities that desire and welcome acts of pain and malice to be imposed upon themselves, people will be unhappy.

Pain, torture, terror, etc. are not inherent parts of totalitarianism -- they come as a reaction to people's disobediance. It would be great if everyone volunteerily joined together to work for their common good, and ultimately, the good of themselves. However, this is not likely. Now, why this would be good is what I am working on.

Perhaps you'd like to be specific on what type of amelioration you and other totalitarianists believe a totalitarian society should fulfill? All in all, people will have no lives; all they'd do is work. When they'd return home, do you think they'd be able to engage in any other activities when they are impoverished from excess of drudgery?

There are many examples of people working hard and being happy -- tribes in Africa, martyrs, Spartans, etc. Besides, after the initial militarization to unite the world and end disidence, a great demilitarization would occur resulting in a prosperous future of exploration and progress were living would be minimalistic, clean, and healthy.

Although it would be unnecessary, IMO, we could just engineer humanity to get pleasure from their work. See the _Hedonist Imperative Manifesto_.

[Khenlein]

Man also strives for power, which is better than freedom. If people always struggled to be free, why has democracy been more the exception than the rule even in modern times?

Thats just sophistry. You know as well as I that most one party, modern absolutist regimes are held in power by the aid of the military, and internal police forces. In addition to other police forces which serve to protect the regime, and not the people. At some point in history most nations were Absolute Monarchies, and only a fledging few were incorporating Consitutional limits to that power. At that point, I suppose you would of made the argument that why if most people strive for Constitutional limits to Autocratic power, are most countries still goverened by Absolute monarchs? And it would have been just as flawed an argument then.

[Khenlein]

The Ultimate Wholist ruler of the future, backed by super technology, will be a true god worthy of veneration

Reading your overview, I find myself disagreeing more and more with your theory. It seems to be, you simply seek to replace an ethereal supranatural God, with a Techonologically advanced Dictatorship. In which this super Tyrant will be venerated as some deity, "ominpotently" guiding this vast bureacracy in the race for War and Space.

This seems to be very regressive in every aspect of social evolution, which is in no way counterweighted by your empty promise of 'technological progress' (which, by the way, you have yet to effectively argue would be better served in your cult, than the current evolutionary process).Scientific progress is not an end unto itself. And is not a worthy end at all unless it is accompanied by humanistic aspirations of a better existence (social and economic equality, an improvement in the material [i]and social being of the individual.)

It's pretty brash and presumptious of you to call your theory the "pinnacle" of anything, when your only stated goals are to make a better moustrap, and concentrate absolute power into the hands of some proto-god. Its a pervesity worthy of some science fiction novella.

[Sapper]

Actually, Khenlein, Starman wrote that overveiw, not me. And I think you may be interpreting that a little too literally -- I think Starman meant that civilization will be like God. But, of course, if he truly meant that one dictator would be worshiped like a god because of his technology, then I will have to disagree with that, and fall back on my disclaimer that appears on the overveiw page.

I agree with Starman's theories on wholism about 95% of the time, however.