(This is what I gathered from the last thread. Is this correct? I have posted a related thread in the "Ethics and Morals" thread about the lack of objectivity and "truth" of ideologies fundamental aims. Yes, I have borrowed quite a bit from Jesse, Vivisekt, and Starman.)
Often, the goals of totalitarianism have been confused as â€œpowerâ€, â€œterrorâ€, and â€œwealthâ€. 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 aimâ€”general progressâ€”and excels at doing so.
The fundamental goals of the above ideologies, such as â€œpleasureâ€ or â€œfreedomâ€, are almost entirely baseless. The goals could just as easily be â€œsadnessâ€ and â€œoppressionâ€ and they could still be valid. Humanity lacks a completely omniscient, objective viewpoint of all existence; all opinions and â€œtruthsâ€ regarding the purpose of life or the fundamental purpose of humanity are baseless and subjective.
Despite this, all ideologies must have a fundamental goal of which they strive for. Totalitarianismâ€™s goal is the intellectual, biological, cultural, and material evolution of humanity. By this process, totalitarianism aspires to take humanity as far away from the â€œedgeâ€ of the â€œcliffâ€ known as extinction as possible. Still, the question could be asked, â€œWhy is extinction something that we should push away from?â€ and this could not objectively be answered.
Totalitarianism embraces the most fundamental knowledge of any known organismâ€”the will to survive, and aims to excel at survival through more advanced means (such as technology and extremely efficient collective action) than witnessed in more primitive organisms. Because totalitarianism holds such a basic value as the core of its ethics, it is not totally baseless, but yet not totally objective.
Via a disciplined, hierarchal, goal-orientated society, totalitarianism seeks to rectify the stagnation that has begun under democracy, and begin to turn our sights toward grander things, all of which take us farther away from the metaphorical cliff-edge.
Although critics may pry totalitarians for a totally objective answer of why evolution is the goal of totalitarianism, why it is â€œgoodâ€ and hence something to be strived for, and other such questions, none of them can give completely objective answers to the same question: Why are happiness, freedom, and equality goals of hedonists, libertarians, and Marxists, respectively?
The goals of most ideologies are mostly baseless. 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.
I agree - this is fairly well said. As I pointed out in one of the other threads; because humans are flawed, and it is quite possible that we will always be flawed, I would argue that attempting to fabricate imperative is folly. It is not logical, given our own vast ignorance, to use our emerging powers of technology and conceptual knowledge to facilitate any comprehensive programs in the name of 'progress' that part from the inherent (observable) processes of life which allow our existance to continue in the first place. We should instead take up a scientific approach to ideology in that we make rational observations about ourselves, and then work to facilitiate only what we've observed as the invariable fundamental processes of humanity. That is why my totalitarian sociopolitical theory is centered on evolution, as a conceptual base (but extends beyond this). And by 'evolution' - I mean the constant updating and streamlining of the systems that the human species employs in order to survive and carry out basic functions. This is best accomplished through the development of science, technology, and continued exploration of all sorts (a byproduct of which is expansion - another apparently fundamental aspect of the human survival process).
We don't need to know the answer to that question to, regardless, see the logical validity of the concept. This is what all life (generally speaking) does - it evolves, improvises, and spreads - the result of which is the continuation of that life. It is unfortunate that, because humanity is in an intellectual position to question its own existance, that we tend to become confused on this issue.
» disclaimer: pathological liar / moral bankruptcy / lulz / kameradenpolizei
I'm honoured to be a reference for such an erudite and above all, logical and intelligent essay.
I'm doubly impressed with the coherency and structure of the essay - it was wonderfully readable and concise - almost an introduction to the goals of totalitarianism. With your permission, I'd like to add it to the sticky thread of this forum.
Interestingly, I have no criticism whatsoever for this.
Hmmm I didn't like the essay, I think it gave an idea that was everything but flattering towards totalitarianism.
Your essay basically describes totalitarianism as the ideology that pushes humanity to progress and away frome extinction. You compare it to Marxism, Libertarianism and their goals respectively. However I think the parallelism is erroneous. Equality to Marxism and freedom to Libertarianism are not what progress is to totalitarianism. Equality is the basic fundaments of the progressing society, and communism per se is a progress that goes through various stages. Freedom could or could not be considered the backbone of Libertarianismm definetely not its goal. Both of these ideologies have an inherent progress inside them, and you're saying that totalitarianism is better because it promises progress?
The basic problem I have with your logic and argumentation is the assumption over abstract concepts. Take the concept of progress for example. To sell the idea of totalitarianism as the ideology which will ensure progress you'd first have to define what progress is to totalitarians, and why it's most beneficial, something you didn't even strive for.
Your essay was focused on why totalitarianism is better, but I think that's a lousy way to promote an ideology or to try and justify it [and especially in this case where you chose Marxism and Libertarinism]. More over, like I said, I think the parallels you made were fallacies, and lacked the substance to prove why progress to Totalitarianism like equality is to Marxism. Overall I didn't like the essay.
I agree with DF. Furthermore, you didn't explain how Freedom is a subjective goal and Progress isn't. If the goal is progress, which you admit is subjective, then wouldn't freedom be necssary to decide what is progress?
The Pony has pranced upon your face- Tony Jaa
I don't think it really matters what the goals are of either ideology, but do describe them for me -- it may matter -- and at the very least, I'd like to correct that.
Let me do some revisions and I'll send you a finalized copy.
Perhaps I was not clear enough: "Totalitarianismâ€™s goal is the intellectual, biological, cultural, and material evolution of humanity." Should I add details (such as territorial expansion, increased lifespans, imposition of totalitarianism on lifestyles [assuming it is the best, of course], etc.)? I'm pretty sure I answered that the question about why progress is the better sufficiently, "totalitarianism has at least based itself upon the most basic instincts that we, as humans, possess... the will to survive, and aims to excel at survival through more advanced means (such as technology and extremely efficient collective action) than witnessed in more primitive organisms."
Progress is semi-subjective (not absolutely objective) because it is the most basic instincts that any organism has -- survival. It embraces our instincts. The idea that man has a 'right' to be free is based on nothing, IMO.
Tricky, tricky... I think progress has already been decided -- anything that allows us to "evolve" quicker and easier.
(BTW, I still haven't heard why freedom and happiness are wise goals!)
I am sympathetic towards totalitarianism, yet I would like to ask the author of this essay a question: Why is totalitarianism absolutely necessary for the continued existence of humanity?
Because it facilitates evolution and progress. Without it, we will perish.
Could not one say that about our current Republican Capitalism? ( I use North American sans Mexico as a reference) Surely our states have evolved and progressed , technologically, socially. Away from an agrarian theocratically dominated society, to one where the emphasis is science and secular humanism.
I'm curious, how do you see the Totalist state as superior in these areas where we seem to be doing so well in?
It would be foolish to argue that little progress has occured in democratic, capitalist America. I agree there has been much, in terms of technology. Technological progress is necessary for a future rise in wholism.
What good is knowing how to go into space, knowing how to restore the environment, knowing hwo to solve all of these problems, but not being able to utilize this technology because the voters just want lower taxes and more benefits, and the consumers just want bubble gum, fast cars, and Britney Spears' CDs? Totalitarianism gives humanity the ability to use the technology which was developed by democracy. Totalitarianism is, essentially, cultural evolution.
I haven't heard why progress is a wise goal, either. However, I can explain why freedom and happiness might be the best ones; because what is good is subjective, people must be free to decide what good is and to act upon it. Furthermore, happiness is a wise goal because it can be established as the root cause of what "good" is, as well as why we act and establish "good".
Also, the reason you've probably not heard an explanation up until now is that we're in the Platonist forum, were most people only understand the goal of progress.
The Pony has pranced upon your face- Tony Jaa
After reading this forum for awhile, I'm getting really tired of the word "progress".
King Goldstein wrote:We are not responsible that your progress stopped from the day you turned 14 and we hurt your feelings when we use this word. Platonism is the next part of human evolution, if the humans ever want to evolve into something greater, platonism is the only way, is the key for this to happen.
Freedom is a illusion that will never be realised, where in democracy they give the people the false feeling of freedom, we give them the bitter truth. Hapiness is something dangerous to wield, some get off by raping a young girl, some are happy when they kill somebody, when you are going to use hapiness in politics you are opening pandora's box.
I would say that an Ultimate Wholist totalitarianism will be, or will foster, the PEAK of cultural evolution. Great post.
So culturally, totalitarianism (or wholism) is the biggest thing since the Enlightenment? It's the culmination of human civilization, the end of history like the utopian communist society in socialist theory? Many, many thinkers have proclaimed their ideology the final one, their thought the one to end all future thinking. Seems a bit suspicious... unless you would care to elaborate on why totalitarianism follows naturally as the next part of our evolutionary history?
I suppose the basis for totalitarian ethics (i.e. why progress is a wise goal) would come from Darwin, and people like Neitzsche. From a Wikipedia article:
I haven't read much of Nietzsche. But I do seem to like his theories regarding evolution so far.
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.
How is "happiness" a fundamental goal?[/quote]
New Era wrote:
Uh huh... First off do you even know what Platonism is?, have you read The Republic?
What could be "applied" to Greek city states would not work in todays world. Or maybe you're just throwing the word around.
[...]if the humans ever want to evolve into something greater, platonism is the only way[...]
Then one day it all ends just like *that*
New Era wrote:
The bolded is quite an ambiguous statement. We (humans) already have 'Freedom', look what I'm doing right now; look at you go off and play games or read a book (heh). The ability to forumate a higher understanding of the world is Freedom. We seperated ourselves from nature when we realied nature.
Regarding it "Never being realized", well it'll (Freedom) certianly have problems with people with your blatently ignorant mindset running around banging rocks together claiming it's something revolutionary.
First of all, I don't think Nietzsche would agree that his writings are a blueprint for a totalitarian system of ethics. He was anti-statist and extremely individualistic.
Secondly, how can progress be a goal? Working towards a certain goal is progressing towards it; "progress" can't be a goal in itself.
It is necessary and probably inevitable because democracy is increasingly obsolete and the antithesis of the solution. Democracy prevents effective tackling of economic and environmental problems because sacrifice, the key solution, is generally too unpopular to be possible in a democracy. And it can no more meet the challenges of the future than it can solve problems of the present. The electorate ensures that only about 1% of the budget is spent on space; far more continues to be spent on petty individual luxuries and amenities like junk food and porn. Sure, past thinkers erred when they thought they had found the final answer in the form of e.g. communism. But scientific and material progress, the basis for ideological advance, is fast accelerating; that, coupled with the likelihood of ultimate limits to knowledge and progress, certainly suggests a great climax and end of progress will occur quite soon, historically speaking. And it will be the basis for the ultimate system. Consummate understanding will undermine libertarianism and foster Wholism because it will mean, for one thing, that Truth will be at last known. Actually Truth is already known, since the grand overview of Cosmic Evolution is known and scientifically established, even if many details have yet to be filled in. This Truth is totally antithetical to christianity and libertarian "anything goes" and is the basis for Ultimate Wholism. Past wholism-nazism and communism-reflected the evolutionary idea to some extent but they had nowhere near the consummate Evolutionary overview that is/will be basis for an Ultimate Wholism.
Last edited by starman2003 on Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
King Goldstein wrote:
I am reading the republic but since I currently haven't got any exams, my reading life is not that great. The republic and 6 other books I have started will be read when I have exams in december. Platonism is the basis, it only needs a few adjustments to be shapen in a practical tool to be wielded in the era of today.
King Goldstein wrote:
A illusion wouldn't be a illusion if nothing would be shown. Sure you have a sense of freedom, but is that really freedom my monarch friend. Even in the most aggressive ideology you have this freedom you speak off. I am quite progressive my friend