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?
I wouldn't go on and call it "power" that man strives for, but perhaps economic prosperity and/or stability. Postulating that, man in general, strives for power implies that the goal of most, if not all individuals is to culminate political power; it's quite recognizable that this is not the case, but unless you have anything to argue otherwise, by all means, go ahead. Untenably, stability, without a doubt, is to be a top priority in any epoch; power and dictatorship, on the other hand, I'd say, are goals precipitated in correspondence to the residing in a hostile and competitive state society. Essentially, in a society that necessitates positions of despotism to filled, which relies completely on a system of dictatorship, and which fosters vehement inclinations toward competition among peoples, it's is the inherent course that there are several various disparate conceptions of what severity and form these dictatorships are ideally to be institutionalized within. In addition, there are presences of anti-state programs, most notably - anarchism - but, as Errico Malatesta expresses:
"Since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order."
Of course, not to mention Noam Chomsky's brilliant and precise indications of how the media, in contemporary society, is owned by private and corporate power, and is completely subordinate to that specific bias, and incessantly employs strong doses of propaganda and indoctrination to permeate this bias into the minds of the masses. "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."[Chomsky] Anyways, there's no need to get into this as you may surely accept this.
Forsooth, it's not to say that inclinations toward greed, elitism, and malice will cease in a stateless society, but it's logical that they'll quite proportionately diminish if not completely dissipate. There are two central reasons for this, but in order for them to be comprehended, I'd be required to elaborate them, in detail. Of course, as no one has even portrayed a mild understanding of the nature and functions of a stateless society, this topic is to be dismissed.
On the contrary, power for some people, in juxtaposition to freedom, is a much more appealing condition they'd like to be possession of - but, this can also work vice versa. Anyways, how did you arrive that the conclusion that power is superior to that of freedom? What you seem to be doing is presupposing, on behalf of everyone else in the world, what's better for them and obviously treating power as the absolute and virtuous. If you conceded that this is just you speaking or perhaps you'd provide some scientific or factual substantiation on this assertion, maybe you could be dismissed without looking like an idiot. I myself have not postulated that freedom is better than power, but that I prefer freedom to power and I have showed how people lean towards freedom.
Most importantly, the democratic system, any democratic system for that matter, is not at all an adequate system of freedom; whether it is the conventional contemporary "democracy," what Chomsky likes to call "spectator democracy," or if its the more freedom-oriented democratic system of Marxist, which, albeit will never function, permits, in its theoretical form, the tyranny of the majority and is completely prone for minority manipulation. What, then, do I propose? I propose the abolition of the state; in place of the state, in terms of organization, I wish to implement a federation of communes, consolidating the vast numbers of small communities, which not to mention is a completely voluntary practise, and is simply used as a method to regulate local economic agglomeration and labouring, and perhaps to co-ordinate more wide-scale agglomeration. Individuals are free to live on their own without participating in any communal activity and can, with ease, remain at a stable or prosperous position. Without monopolization, idleness, etc, all of this is possible. Any system utilizing a state machine ostracizes
the smallest minority on earth: the individual (Ayn Rand). Haha, I'm so sorry that I quoted Rand.
Even if the masses are dissatisfied, they are usually nearly impotent for lack of leadership.
Have I not already reiterated this fact? Anyways, in relation to this, the masses are simultaneously "usually near important" to carry on with labour production at a sufficient rate; therefore, there are proportionate recessions in production.
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.
The Soviet Union was not overthrown by a popular uprising, that I admit, but there had been several occasions where the masses revolted against the totalitarian system, for instance, the civil war and the Kronstadt Rebellion. Moreover, there would have been a lot more, perhaps even successful insurrections, if the people had not been stupid enough to believe that they were in for freedom. Besides, these totalitarian regimes were totalitarian for the sake of fulfilling their own personal goals; they weren't out there to help the people ameliorate their industrial and technological positions. Good luck trying to mislead the people into another communism, though.
Your conception of the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, is incorrect as it did not abdicate on account of demoralization, but simply because Yeltsin deliberately precipitated the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not too big on history
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.
Well, how long of a time were the Nazi's in power? The Soviet Union, however, was lucky that, at the time, to be bestowed with the pleasure of there being, in several countries, a major Communist movement. But hey, I forgot, wasn't the goal of this to establish freedom and equality, or was it simply to change the society's condition to that of totalitarian nature?
The masses are of great support to totalitarian regimes, but sooner or later, that support will cease on account of the mass’ realization concerning the illegitimacy of this totalitarian regime to render happiness and well-being with all these rapid progressions in humanity. Don't think that the people will voluntarily enter into relations with totalitarianism; they must be misled. Don’t think you can pull-off as big of a success as these “democratic” regimes; you will never even be close. At best, you’d only reach be able to culminate national success, not international. Unfortunately, it's very well possible that this national regime will be decimated before it can launch itself off of the ground.
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.
Hah, yeah, primitivism is out of the question; you can easily say the same thing about totalitarianism. It's quite a different story to attain qualitative industrial/technological success and to transcend that. In addition, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany culminated this prosperity in both military and economic matters, and did not even possess the technological ameliorations of which you desire. Economic prosperity is already present in capitalist society, but as sapper said (I believe), totalitarianism, unlike democracy and capitalism, doesn't waste so much money on worthless things, which I would take it as a remark about worthless capitalist commodities.; therefore, I take it that totalitariansts desire progressions more important than progression in worthless everyday commodities. In closing, technological progressions with the designation of ameliorating the human condition, such as enviromental and health-oriented ameliorations - the ameliorations that I'm sure you aim for - were not prosperoud under these regimes.
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).
Human nature is non-existent; it's merely a worthless hypothesis. Due to the nature of this debate, I am not obliged to elaborate, so if you wish to challenge this, I'd be glad to argue, but for now, this is an idea that I want to seperate myself from; there's no need to elucidate why I hold such a position.
Empowering certain individuals is a means, but it is not the ends.
What do you propose to do? After success is culminated, will the dictators abdicate now that these people are happy? Of course not; the dictators will be overthrown. Shockingly, the dictators will be overthrow prior to any culmination of success can be done. A mirror reflects its own image, once an individual or groups settles into the prerogative nature of the state, one automatically becomes its preserver. As to why I think the dictators will be overthrown before any success may be culminated, it’s simply that, as already mentioned, a totalitarian system is unable to sustain its state of society without there being insurrections, recessions in production, etc.
Yes. And I am sorry if I missed the question when you asked it before. My answer would've been "yes" then as well.
Why do you feel morally obliged to be willing to degrade yourself and limit the meaning and orientation of your life to simply slaving-off in the name and good of others? I simply don’t understand collectivists.
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.
Just as one of your very of said: "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," or as Albert J. Nock put it: "It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power." Humans are the most vital supporters to totalitarian regimes; military support and a few fanatics, on the other hand, is important, but wouldn't be able to deter wide-scale insurrections without killing everyone. Moreover, guns suffice the job as anything beyond that, from airplanes to bombs, would be unnecessary as the goal is not to start a war within your country. The annihilation of several millions or thousands of civilians would definately slow things down in the progression. Also, if you take a look at all of the listed 'apparent successes' of totalitarianism, merely one is identified with a non-Communist affiliation, while the others are all Marxist-made totalitarian programs. Of course, these totalitarian governments do not/did not impose the entire functions of society to specifically progress humanity, but only to continue productions so that the money made from selling these products is all conveyed to the despots and, to develop a strong military base. All of these totalitarian epitomies show one thing: the masses, disillusioned with the Marxist promise of freedom, actually believed it was latent and that their leaders were authentic Marxist legends who, although were not able to revolutionize the impoverishment in society, did all they can to help. Anyways, do you honestly believe that there'll be yet another prosperity of totalitarianism simultaneously corresponding to yet another attempted freedom-oriented revolution - particularly Marxist - which is accompanied by the precursors of totalitarianism, specifically, state utilization, which precipitates a handful of leaders to take power? Note that this method, most often recognized as the number one source for creating totalitarian functions of society, does not abide by the theoretical totalitarian principles, as these totalitarian conditions are not planned or desired, but are simply a discourse. This signifies that these totalitarian leaders will not center the functions of the entire society in devotion to the progression of society. The only reason why there have been, in a few of these totalitarian regimes, progressions in technology, is because internationally, these regimes were perceived as illegitimate and slave-oriented, and were attacked. It is fact that the majority of progression, big or small, take place in times of war; that is simply why the Nazi and Soviet regimes culminated so much technological success. Yet, only the Nazi and Soviet regimes, out of the many other totalitarian regimes, succeeded in fulfilling certain various technological advancements; most notably, these progressions merely consisted in military and industrial matters; not the kind of matters you aim for. Besides, the vast majority of these advancements were not unheard of, these regimes simply worked-off already existing ideas; essentially, these leaders ameliorated their national impoverishment in technology by taking already existing concepts, and mimicking them. For totalitarianism to transcend already existing progressions, is the only proof that totalitarianism does live by its word. As Nietzsche said: Only excess of strength is proof of strength. Moreover, progression merely occurred in the Soviet Union on account that it had already been semi-industrial. All Marxist revolutions - historically proven - have been precipitated in third-world and semi-feudal milieus (the Soviet Union, too, was once in poverty, but by the time Stalin came to power and revolutionized the semi-industrial social climate into an industrial one, the negativity associated with Communism was not as strong as it is today). Therefore, these third-world and semi-feudal nations have a long way to go. Too bad that now, America is already so anti-Communist, that if any Communist nation progresses to at least semi-industrial status, it will be annihilated. Communism is permitted by America, but it is not permitted to grow. Nepal and Cuba are perfect examples of this. As they are both semi-feudal, and that Nepal is not engaged in any major benefitting trading relations, and that Cuba has barely any trading partners, they are unable to grow, only to serve as an example of how unsuccessful Communism is and also, how much of a thread Communists are. Therefore, as Marxism has been the sole impetus and creator of modern totalitarianism - disregarding the Nazi regime - and taking into consideration the fact of how Communism is to be barred from any progression, there is only one other prominent radical theory, but in retrospection, it has done nothing but show that it is successful, but it simply cannot fight-off five monolithic imperialist forces simultaneously. I am of course referring to anarchism. Finally, you'll simply have to try to persuade people yourselves on why they should choose totalitarianism, or you can simply wait for another Marxist-type theory to be engendered, and tried.
However, to say that totalitarianism does not foster progress at all is clearly false -- the Enlightened Despots, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
I don't know if you've noticed, but each of those listed names, most notably Hitler and Stalin, are carried along with a vehemently negative viewpoint; people seem determined to tear asunder anyone who comes in the name of Hitler or Stalin. My question is, considering the reputation of totalitarianism, how do you believe that it'll come into existence? Concurrently, I will answer the same for that of my beliefs: once the productive forces of society have entered into conflict with the relations of production, the proletariat, either spontaneously or under anarchistic influence, will destabilize and overthrow their nation's bourgeois democracy and, put in its place, a vast number of small autonomous communities, consolidated by a central institution, completely powerless, which is entirely composed of an anarcho-syndicalist union or a number of elected delegates from each district. The function of this central institution would be to maintain connection with the other communities, attempt to co-ordinate wider-scale production, and would detail any ongoing problems or erros with the economy, revolution, etc... In order for this revolution to disperse amongst international levels, it must be clarified that monolithic imperialist giants such as the U.S are matched or have collapsed. Hypothetically, if a revolution in the U.S is precipitated, and the government is overthrown, any other imperialist superpower is surely to be matched. In another scenario, the collapse of monolithic imperialist superpowers can be accomplished via the precipitation of revolution in an area which America is greatly dependent upon. For instance, as Saudi Arabia has invested several billions of dollars in America's economic infrastructure, the entire American economy would collapse if these investments were, with one blow, withdrawn, which would of course be the case if a revolution in Saudi Arabia succeeded in overthrowing their government. In retrospective, seeing as totalitarian regimes have arisen out of government promises of freedom or equality, as epitomized in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, etc. How do you believe, once again, a totalitarian regime, with goals and views in accordance with that of yours will come into power? Note that there has been no totalitarian regime that directly came into power proclaiming that it will enslave its people and received the population's consent, nor will there ever be. Moreover, you'd need to find yourself in the same situation that I proposed: people were discontented with their government, overthrew it, etc... You'd either need to take advantage of the workers' if they once again came into relations with Marxist latent totalitarianism, or you'd need to launch your own campaign to surrogate the contemporary government. Is your answer to be found in the message above, or do you have a different conception? Anways, seeing as totalitarian regimes usually come into power indirectly, it cannot be assured that this minority is unanimously in favour of what you are: progress.
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.
In correction, despotism necessitates pain, torture, and terror on account of involuntary labour conduct. Disobedience is an indication that people are not happy. Why would they be happy? They do not believe that it's worth it to work like a pig just to speed up the process of something already spontaneous; what you do not recognize is that what you think is good is not what others think is good; it's a matter of perception, although it's you people who irrationally disregard what others desire because, apparently, what others want is stupid and should be ignored. Only the government intelligentsia, in a hypothetical totalitarian society, would perceive it to be vital for the workers' to fulfill these imperatives. If there's disobedience, that does not signify that the dissidents oppose the progression of humanity but they oppose the idea of having to slave-off for progress, not for themselves, but for those of the future, who will doubtedly be happy, while simultaneously being deprived of any control over their lives. So, if totalitarianism is to provide humans with progress that will ameliorate their well-being, why is so much of this work resulting in their unhappiness. What does it matter if these people could breath better, are less prone to certain medical conditions, receive less UV rays, etc, if all they do in their life is work, listen to others, and daily repeat this process for the remaining years of their life. What if I was to lock you up in a 5-by-5 metre room where you wouldn't be able to get out, you wouldn't require any food or drinks, you wouldn't be prone to any diseases, but you'd need to engage in drudgerous labour conduct for 15 hours a day. You wouldn't be able to emancipate yourself from this room, you'd only have to work, make progress in your room, but you wouldn't have any hobbies, not that you wouldn't be able to have any due to your major fatigue. How would you like that experience?
Also more realistic and necessary, given the number of people who still want several kids or gas guzzlers. A stateless society is a pipe dream. Wholists here can point to many examples of past authoritarian or totalitarian regimes; they may have been far inferior to what can exist in the future but still arose in the real world, in modern times. How many stateless, modern societies can one cite as proof that such a system is workable, or even possible, now? If 90% of the world became stateless and 10% were wholist, the former would be devoured by the latter. True, much of humanity would oppose a wholist system because of the unpopular sacrifices it would impose. But it can still arise in a time of crisis, and perpetuate itself; the nazis kept much of Europe in subjection until they were just overwhelmed by external enemies lucky enough to vastly outnumber and outgun them. The Romans crushed many determined revolts. Moreover in the future automation may make much of humanity irrelevant. Robots won't object to slavery, and the humans they'll dispace will lose whatever leverage they had-or they'll be under military discipline following massive State expansion to soak up unemployment. Totalitarian/wholist systems in any event have been greatly strengthened by meritocracy in their effort to control the masses. Unlike feudal systems, which neglected the gifted from poor backgrounds, modern authoritarian systems have attempted to unite the most capable at the top, leaving the masses bereft of leadership. I doubt they'd stand much chance unless the elite itself "threw in the towel" like Gorbachev. Btw it is a fallacy to liken individuals in a nondemocratic system to say, prison inmates. The former USSR enabled gifted, cooperative people to pursue all kinds of interests, from excavating dinosaur eggs to competing in the Olympics.
- By Rancid
- By Tainari88
- By wat0n