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).