Why not Totalitarianism?

[PureX]

It can seem tempting, at least at the beginning. It seems many of our problems are related to a slow, bureaucratic behemoth that's designed in the way it is to protect against totalitarianism. In practice, what it turns into is a quasi-dictatorship of lawyers, bureaucrats, and judges, along with a confusing mish-mash of ideological pundits, politicians, and overly pompous pseudo-intellectuals who think they know what's best for everyone, whether they're in Academia, Hollywood, or Wall Street.

In situations like that (and it's happened before in history), it is tempting for some people to get behind a single ruler who can sweep away all these arrogant, puffed-up lunkheads and send them to some place where they can't bother anyone anymore. Someone who will stand up for the little guy and crush all these supercilious "middle managers" with no guts or backbone but somehow manage to game the system enough to gain a position of petty power that they can wield in their own little fiefdoms.

Those who don't know how to game the system might feel alienated, since they believe in following the rules and don't understand the ways and means of the bureaucratic bourgeois mafia. Only those who can afford the top lawyers can do that. The more people are left out and neglected by the system is just that much more support for a single strong ruler to crush them with an iron fist.

The so-called "little people" have nothing to lose by supporting a dictatorship, and even if their daily lives change little, there's a certain emotional satisfaction in seeing that justice is finally being done. Crush the capitalists, crush the bankers, crush the dishonest lawyers, the bureaucrats, judges, CEOs, and slicksters on Wall Street. Let justice reign.

Except that they have EVERYTHING to lose, including even their lives. Because the dictator will not hesitate to sacrifice them for his own agenda, and he will be far more ruthless and efficient at it than any bloated bureaucracy was. We have seen this time and time and time, again, all throughout history.

 

[sayak83]

The fundamental problem with totalitarian dictatorships is that the individuals who want to be dictators, and who will fight to gain such a position, do not care about the well-being of those they seek to rule. Such that their decisions will not serve the well-being of anyone but themselves. And this is not only damaging to the lives and spirit of all other individual human beings, its also damaging to the human species, as a whole.

Cooperation for collective benefit is far more effective means of gaining the greatest benefit for the greatest number of individuals, and for the species as a whole than division and competition will ever be.

Why humanity cannot recognize fact this is a puzzle. One that, if we do not soon solve, may well lead not only to our great individual suffering, but to our extinction as a species.

It's not a puzzle. It's game theory. A universally cooperative

My vision is completely inclusive, it's merit driven. I don't care what you are do something useful so I can buy into that instead of worthless idealism. Show me the value, and I'll buy it. Most of the governments that buy into socialist ideas create thought police and stymie innovation while focusing on identity crap instead of just getting out of the way and letting the people decide what's important for themselves. Pure democracy has been garbage since the fall of ancient Greece and their city-states, no need to repeat the corruption that inevitably follows when there are so many carcasses in our history books to pick through. Certainly, we should strive to treat others humanely but not equally - some are worth so much more than others.

Nobody is worth more than others. Human beings cannot be valued. As the only known conscious beings in a tiny speck of a planet in a 60 billion light years diameter universe composed mostly of dark emptiness, each human consciousness is, by its own intrinsic nature as self-aware consciousness, more valuable than a galaxy worth of inert gold or diamond. The fact that this is not obvious to people always amazes me, and not in a good way.

 

[Stevicus]

Except that they have EVERYTHING to lose, including even their lives. Because the dictator will not hesitate to sacrifice them for his own agenda, and he will be far more ruthless and efficient at it than any bloated bureaucracy was. We have seen this time and time and time, again, all throughout history.

You're only talking about those in the Outer Party and middle managers, the kind who believe they're more special than the common proles, who would be in the same boat either way. Those who keep their mouths shut and obey the State have little to fear

 

[Nous]

Why not support Totalitarianism?

How does one do that exactly? What hand signs do we make? I'm all for totalitarianism as long as it's either me or Oprah at the head of the table.

(And the first thing I'm going to do is bulldoze the White House, and build a new Executive Mansion designed by Frank Gehry. And put it better neighborhood than Washington DC.)

 

[YmirGF]

It's nearly the end of 2017 and the United States of America is no where near to a point of resolving the constitutional crisis it has now got itself in to. This is on top of everything else that has been going on for 30 years of neo-liberalism. The climate change, the income inequality, financial crisis, etc, (do I even have to list it because we can all think of something?)

In a few decades the festering pile of unresolved problems is going to blow up in our faces and all hell will break lose. Its no longer a radical sentiment to paint the future in apocalyptic terms; reading the daily news has become a journey through the book of revelations. Despite differences of emphasis, this is now largely a point of agreement between the left and the right, but we still pay lip service to the idea its avoidable based on the hope that the system of government can change course. It is becoming extremely irrational to think it will.

I'd say Trump is at least a big symptom of this- but truthfully, this is something that has been decades in the making. Libertarians and Republicans have been pointing out how far the United States has drifted from its original ideals for a long time and do deserve credit for that, even if I may naturally side with Democrats over the tide of economic, social and environmental issues that aren't getting addressed. The reality is that even if the blame can be pinned on Trump personally, the earliest possible opportunity Trump will be impeached will be after the 6th November 2018- essentially a year away- because the Republicans have shown they'd rather protect one of their own than the country (e.g. Roy Moore). The Democratic Party has wasted an entire year pushing moral outrage, mass hysteria and shouting "Russia" as a substitute for dealing with any of the problems facing Americans. They can't reverse the clock back to 2016 and we now live in a new set of political realities that even impeaching Trump will not change. Whether you think Trump is the problem or the Republicans- you have to admit the Democrats are not going to turn this thing around until 2020. And it is extremely questionable of it they can make some of the radical changes necessary to get us out of this mess based on past performance.

If Trump is impeached, you end up with Pence. If Pence is removed as well, you get Paul Ryan. The earliest opportunity for a Democratic President is 2020. Impeaching Trump is almost empty symbolism for the damage that will be done. The Republicans will pursue their agenda, Trumps' platform, to 2020 and will do so regardless as to whether Trump is still President. Even if a Democrat is elected in 2020, the Republican Party will still be there to use religious fundamentalism, corporate power, anti-science and anti-intellectualism to destroy the United States and hurt its people. And the Democrats will let them because they will keep supporting Capitalism and will keep moving to the "centre-ground" as the Republicans drag them kicking and screaming further to the right. The Democratic Party is a neo-liberal party. It will stand by its corporate donors and will use sweet sounding rhetoric to make you swallow their crap. They will not reform the United States to a point where it can avoid a near total collapse under the weight of the problems it is manufacturing by the end of the century. the Democrats will continue to make short-sighted decisions based on defending corporate capitalism and everyone will be reduced to the position of spectators to the government of the most powerful country being treated as a reality TV show based on rating, not results.

This is not simply an American Problem. It's the World's problem. If the US government has finally lost touch with reality and is now barely able to wipe its own arse, the rest of the world will suffer. The economic, political and military reach of the US is too great for this to be isolated or contained. This cannot go on and it begs the question as to why- after decades of abuse- anyone should trust this system any longer as its unlikely to self-correct. Regardless as to whose side your on- We've had a year of chaos and this is not how governments should be run. As all alternatives are necessarily going to be totalitarian (or else risk the probability of becoming it);

Why not support Totalitarianism? What exactly do we have to lose given that the United States is all but a totalitarian system in name or else is heading in that direction within our lifetimes? Is it really plausible to believe that the USA will be a free country in 50 to 100 years?

If I'm wrong, you're welcome give me some evidence that can make me want to support the landfill site now overflowing with toxic waste called Washington DC. I am not comfortable trusting this system with my future anymore. I live in the UK but I know this is global and I feel like crap for saying it because I still want to believe "free" societies are worth fighting for and I know the risks involved. but seriously- I want an alternative and I have almost stopped caring what it is as long as it works. How can we keep peddling the view that the only reason to defend freedom is that everything else is worse than this? We need something more than fear of an alternative to make a system worth keeping.

Trust me, you do not want to live in a world where I was the Emperor/God King.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's nearly the end of 2017 and the United States of America is no where near to a point of resolving the constitutional crisis

What constitutional crisis?

The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises
And which ones are most likely to come up during Trump’s presidency. The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises

This outlines a true constitutional crisis. I don't see it. The article is from last year: Trump has only been in office for three weeks, so it’s hard to say how this type of constitutional crisis might come up during his presidency. Now that we're almost a year into his presidency, what has come to pass as predicted possibilities of a constitutional crisis? And on what basis will Trump be impeached? Moreover, impeachment is not automatic removal from office.

 

[sun rise]

In theory, all political & economic systems are perfect.
N Korea should be a workers' paradise.
But let's look at things empirically...
Where has totalitarianism worked out well?
Could we emulate these systems with equally great results?

Government by people not laws works just fine as long as the rulers are virtuous. Getting rid of dictators who have never been or are no longer filled with virtue is the problem that needs to be solved along with the problem of succession.

 

[Revoltingest]

Government by people not laws works just fine as long as the rulers are virtuous. Getting rid of dictators who have never been or are no longer filled with virtue is the problem that needs to be solved along with the problem of succession.

Virtuous rulers?
I look at government system design as something which should function well with the rulers we get.
(Virtue is always in short supply because it's a quality at odds with winning elections.)

 

[Yerda]

Why not support Totalitarianism?

Because it would be an act of evil to do so.

What exactly do we have to lose given that the United States is all but a totalitarian system in name or else is heading in that direction within our lifetimes? Is it really plausible to believe that the USA will be a free country in 50 to 100 years?

Was it plausible 100 years ago that Germany would be the iconic modern European democracy? Christ knows what's going to happen in that time-span.

If I'm wrong, you're welcome give me some evidence that can make me want to support the landfill site now overflowing with toxic waste called Washington DC.

Has it ever been pretty?

What evidence of totalitarianism do you see in Washington?

I am not comfortable trusting this system with my future anymore. I live in the UK but I know this is global and I feel like crap for saying it because I still want to believe "free" societies are worth fighting for and I know the risks involved. but seriously- I want an alternative and I have almost stopped caring what it is as long as it works. How can we keep peddling the view that the only reason to defend freedom is that everything else is worse than this? We need something more than fear of an alternative to make a system worth keeping.

Mate, calm down. Even if the worst of what you suspect is to come to fruition there is almost nothing you can do about it. Note your discomfort and insecurity and try to let them go.

 

[sun rise]

Virtuous rulers?
I look at government system design as something which should function well with the rulers we get.
(Virtue is always in short supply because it's a quality at odds with winning elections.)

The OP was about supporting totalitarian government.,

 

[Revoltingest]

The OP was about supporting totalitarian government.,

Aye, & I addressed that before responding to your post.
Are you saying I shouldn't have responded to you?
Did you derail the thread, & drag me into it?
No dog treats or belly rubs for you today, bowser!

 

[Laika]

What constitutional crisis?

The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises
And which ones are most likely to come up during Trump’s presidency. The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises

This outlines a true constitutional crisis. I don't see it. The article is from last year: Trump has only been in office for three weeks, so it’s hard to say how this type of constitutional crisis might come up during his presidency. Now that we're almost a year into his presidency, what has come to pass as predicted possibilities of a constitutional crisis? And on what basis will Trump be impeached? Moreover, impeachment is not automatic removal from office.

We're agonisingly close to the last one. The American Government is now dysfunctional on a daily basis. It would seem only a matter of time before "something" happens which people can't ignore. The self-correcting mechanisms put in place in the constitution aren't functioning because both the Democratic and Republican Parties are either too corrupt, incompetent or partisan to actually admit there is a problem and put the national interest before that of party. The past year has consisted of trying to ignore about 90% of what Trump has said, done and tweeted, and the fact that Congress is either unwilling or unable to check the President's authority. As you said, impeachment does not mean automatic removal from office. So Imaging this playing out for 1-3 years, and accepting that impeachment is actually really unlikely, its started to sink it how much trouble we are in.

[Edit: Even if Trump was removed tomorrow and the problem could be isolated to him somehow, it will take probably a decade for American democracy to recover from what is going on. That's assuming Pence/Ryan or the winner of the 2020 Election isn't worse or else simply continues where Trump left off.]

4. Institutions themselves fail.
The Constitution’s system of checks and balances sets the various branches against each other for the laudable purpose of constraining tyranny. However, due to partisan polarization, individual corruption, or any number of other reasons, sometimes the political institutions in these arrangements fail, sending the governmental system into a crisis. This was the type of constitutional crisis commentators were seemingly referring to in describing reports that Customs and Border Protection agents (members of the executive branch) weren’t following orders from the judicial branch.

In theory, clashes between different parts of government could regularly produce constitutional crises, but in reality, they often don’t. Had Nixon ignored the Supreme Court ruling ordering him to turn over tapes of conversations he had recorded in the Oval Office, that would have been a huge crisis of this genre. But he didn’t.

Government shutdowns are a milder example. During the brief shutdowns in the Clinton and Barack Obama years, some government functions remained in place, and in both cases, agreements were eventually reached. But these situations illustrate how the Constitution doesn’t always provide safeguards or guidelines for making a decision when governing bodies reach a stalemate. The provisions of the Constitution set up political incentives for elected leaders to ensure that the government runs. When these don’t work, there’s not much recourse.

 

[Sanzbir]

In theory, all political & economic systems are perfect.

I gotta disagree there. Have you read Marx?? His math was terrible.

 

[Laika]

Mate, calm down. Even if the worst of what you suspect is to come to fruition there is almost nothing you can do about it. Note your discomfort and insecurity and try to let them go.

You made a good point about Germany being a democracy, but if you read the response I give below you'll see why I am so concerned (or rather disturbed). Trying to project the consequences of the current "dysfunction" in to the future shows that this is really dangerous and is dangerous enough to make Totalitarianism, not desirable, but certainly very close to "reasonable".

Are you saying there is no anti science and anti intellectualism on the left?

No. But Climate Change Denial belongs in different category because of how it threatens the future of the entire planet. It is extremely rare to find left-wing climate change deniers and it is overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon. As America is the second largest polluter in the world, behind China, the implications of the Republicans continuing to hold on to Climate Change denial as part of their platform are extremely dangerous for everyone.

As Noam Chomsky put it: "If we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organisation in human history. Literally."

 

[Jainarayan]

The American Government is now dysfunctional on a daily basis.

'Dysfunctional' is relative; the government does function, and is functioning as it always has:

• Government offices open.
• Government workers go to work and get paid.
• The military functions.
• We're not under martial law.
• The Supreme Court hears cases.
• Congress is as stupid and bureaucratic as they've always been.

It would seem only a matter of time before "something" happens which people can't ignore.

"It would seem" is a view, not an imminent occurrence.

and the fact that Congress is either unwilling or unable to check the President's authority.

That's the Constitution at work, doing what it was designed to do. I'm not particularly enamored of him, but I'm also not convinced he's overstepped his authority.

We were in far more trouble during the Nixon years and Vietnam era. Kent State, anyone?

 

[sayak83]

Trust me, you do not want to live in a world where I was the Emperor/God King.

God emperor of Dune comes to mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gotta disagree there. Have you read Marx?? His math was terrible.

It all worked out if human nature obeyed his assumptions.

 

[Mindmaster]

It's not a puzzle. It's game theory. A universally cooperative

Nobody is worth more than others. Human beings cannot be valued. As the only known conscious beings in a tiny speck of a planet in a 60 billion light years diameter universe composed mostly of dark emptiness, each human consciousness is, by its own intrinsic nature as self-aware consciousness, more valuable than a galaxy worth of inert gold or diamond. The fact that this is not obvious to people always amazes me, and not in a good way.

This is nonsense... Was Henry Ford more important than L. Ron Hubbard? Execution is everything - one person upgraded the life of everyone on this earth, and one person was a sci-fi writer (not even a really great one) scamming people with a pseudo-religion turned rich ***** club. The truest measure of a mans love for his fellow men and women is what he has given us in a real way, so obviously Ford was a great man who has helped most of us long after his own death. Your consciousness isn't valuable in my estimation - it was probably an evolutionary accident. The trees and grass don't seem to have consciousness yet live... Hmm... I'll take it further - how do you know those things aren't conscious? Maybe rocks have some sort of spirit or soul attached to them as well... If that's the case, then we are an invisible speck of all the available consciousness and the universe is boundlessly infused with it. This sounds much more interesting to me than your notion. But, if that were the case we wouldn't be any more valuable than the rest of the universe - our worth would be equal to dirt, and there is a lot more dirt in the universe. It seems that you feel your viewpoint is more altruistic than my notion, but I digress - I feel yours is a phantom, and an unknowable assertion. I may not know these answers any more than you, but I simply measure what I can via the five senses and move on from there. I do not presume that others are inferior because they are survival-minded, merit-minded, spiritually-minded, or whatever. It's sort of well... hypocritical... you've merely moved the target to a different sort of "merit", then reserved the pole position for your own ideas.

 

[Laika]

'Dysfunctional' is relative; the government does function, and is functioning as it always has:

• Government offices open.
• Government workers go to work and get paid.
• The military functions.
• We're not under martial law.
• The Supreme Court hears cases.
• Congress is as stupid and bureaucratic as they've always been.

The US embassy has been attacked in Beirut and North Korea described the Presidents decision to move the US embassy to Jeresulum as “Considering the fact that the mentally deranged dotard openly called for a total destruction of a sovereign state at the UN, this action is not so surprising”. Meanwhile back in the land of the free a Republican TV show host openly questions the Presidents mental stability and the President of the United States is sharing propaganda of Far-right organisations.

And That's just from the last two weeks. Think what we can look forward to next week.

"It would seem" is a view, not an imminent occurrence.

You still look both ways when you cross the street. Getting hit by a car doesn't have to be an "imminent occurrence" for you still to car about it. Its a bit late to care about it if you are already half way accross the street with a car coming towards you.

That's the Constitution at work, doing what it was designed to do. I'm not particularly enamored of him, but I'm also not convinced he's overstepped his authority.

We were in far more trouble during the Nixon years and Vietnam era. Kent State, anyone?

The Nixon Library may disagree.

 

[Sanzbir]

It all worked out if human nature obeyed his assumptions.

I don't think so. I remember reading one part in Capital where he laid out a scenario in which case a businessman bought wool, the laborer turned the wool into a piece of clothing, and the businessman sold it for a profit. Marx ignored subjective values in this equation, and reasoned thus that the businessman's profits implied a short-change for the worker because the value of the clothing, in Marx's opinion, was simply wool value + labor value = clothing value. Thus to make a profit on the clothing, the merchant must necessarily not pay the worker the full value of the clothing.

If it value worked the way Marx proposed, though, then by human nature as he understood it, no worker would rationally accept less than what was due for the static value of their labor since they would value their own labor more than they'd value the offered pay.

There's no way to explain why a worker would sell his labor for less than its static value without adding in subjective value theory to the mix, which goes against his math and argumentation.

So in my own readings, the math in Capital just doesn't add up, in practice or theoretically.