Why not Totalitarianism?

[Laika]

Our system is amazing even when it is completely filled with career politicians and has become a cesspool of child abuse, conspiracy, and other intrigues it still manages to function somehow. If anything it's a testament to how good we've got it. Even the worst of them haven't managed to completely break it - the founding fathers were sharp as a tack, undoubtedly.

Trump's election was the curtain call for the totalitarianism of the far left, and a real political movement from grass roots folks across the country to stop identity politics, refugee insurgence, and illegal immigrants from taking over our country. The only reason the Democrats want all this is because they typically get that vote, and they will get that vote at the cost of our very existence... I see this as exceedingly selfish, and short-sighted as many others do. The message sent is loud and clear: a resounding "f--- no!" I am slightly amused at the Trump is Hilter attitude around here, but there certainly isn't any way to settle things for the adult-aged children among us without occasionally saying, "no".

This particular election recertified that pure Americana is in good health, and the parasites are being ejected from the host as we speak. Looking forward to at least seven more great years...

Of course, you are free to disagree with me but I do concede most of my reason for posting is that many around here need to see some mental health professionals. One President isn't enough to get bent out of shape over, and if it does bother you that much get the assistance you need to make your life right.

You're more than entitled to question my sanity and the sanity of everyone else on the forum. I do it regularly.

Unfortunately, as therapists in the UK are public sector workers they are required to report "extremism" to the authorities even if you haven't done anything wrong. So the fact I posted this thread, even as a rant, could easily become sufficient grounds for them doing so. Letting off steam on RF is less risky.

 

[Mindmaster]

You're more than entitled to question my sanity and the sanity of everyone else on the forum. I do it regularly.

Unfortunately, as therapists in the UK are public sector workers they are required to report "extremism" to the authorities even if you haven't done anything wrong. So the fact I posted this thread, even as a rant, could easily become sufficient grounds for them doing so. Letting off steam on RF is less risky.

Let's be clear, I'm not even implying you are the object of my diatribe.

And yea, that sucks regarding "extremism"... I still think your confidentiality, especially in the context and setting of seeing a counselor to help you sort through some things is paramount to actually accomplishing the feat. It doesn't matter so much what you are, as to how good you can become in the end. All medicine should promote this idea of seeking the cure at any reasonable cost...

 

[Laika]

Let's be clear, I'm not even implying you are the object of my diatribe.

And yea, that sucks regarding "extremism"... I still think your confidentiality, especially in the context and setting of seeing a counselor to help you sort through some things is paramount to actually accomplishing the feat. It doesn't matter so much what you are, as to how good you can become in the end. All medicine should promote this idea of seeking the cure at any reasonable cost...

Yeah. I would have gone to see a therapist a long time ago if that hadn't been the case.

And thanks for the "funny" rating for the OP btw. At least my ranting gave you some entertainment.

 

[Rival]

therapists in the UK are public sector workers they are required to report "extremism" to the authorities even if you haven't done anything wrong.

**** really?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Such criticism does not add up.
But theoretically, Marxism works.
One need only assume that humans behave exactly as they do not.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

The USS Cole, the WTC in 1993, the Marine barracks... over 20 years ago. Bay of Pigs, JFK one of the most beloved presidents... almost 60 years ago, 56 to be precise... brings us to the brink of nuclear war.

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.

This is all Henny Penny; I've seen too many things worse than Donald Trump to get upset over and fear for my existence.

The Nixon Library may disagree.

Of course it would! But I'd recommend the newspapers, news footage and magazine articles of the time.

 

[Sanzbir]

Such criticism does not add up.
But theoretically, Marxism works.
One need only assume that humans behave exactly as they do not.

Let me try to restate: The math only works if Subjective Value Theory is not true.

But if Subjective Value Theory is not true, the problems the book/theory outline would not occur.

Thus I reason it does not even work in theory, because the theory is self-contradictory, the theory reliant on both Subjective Value Theory being false and true.

 

[Sanzbir]

What math would this be?

The book Capital.

 

[Laika]

**** really?

The quote below is from page 6 of the NHS Prevent Strategy Framework.

The Prevent Duty 2015 requires all specified authorities including NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts to ensure that there are mechanisms in place for understanding the risk of radicalisation. Furthermore, they must ensure that health staff understand the risk of radicalisation and how to seek appropriate advice and support. Healthcare staff will meet, and treat people who may be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. The health sector needs to ensure that healthcare workers are able to identify early signs of an individual being drawn into radicalisation. Staff must be able to recognise key signs of radicalisation and be confident in referring individuals to their organisational safeguarding lead or the police thus enabling them to receive the support and intervention they require.

The USS Cole, the WTC in 1993, the Marine barracks... over 20 years ago. Bay of Pigs, JFK one of the most beloved presidents... almost 60 years ago, 56 to be precise... brings us to the brink of nuclear war.

The difference is that JFK was not a moron. Trump... well... I'll let him speak for himself.

 

[Mindmaster]

The difference is that the Indigenous populations of the America's didn't occupy, displace and kill when they came over.
Anyone who thinks that settlers aren't privileged over the Indigenous have never been to a reserve.

Can't blame anyone else for how they live now, that's 200 years ago. No one forces them to live on reservations, nor is anyone going to give them a free ride to get out of the hole if it is miserable. They need to get off their own asses just like I do. And, I'll confess I like to be lazy with things as well, but I don't blame others when I happen to suffer financially for it either. We are still one of the few countries where you birth status is completely irrelevant, provided you get busy.

Mind you, don't think that I feel indigenous people have always been treated right or fairly but in America they have as good as a shot as anyone else. If not, it is their life choices that keep them down not any societal obstruction.

 

[Sanzbir]

Anyone who thinks that settlers aren't privileged over the Indigenous have never been to a reserve.

Agreed, but I don't like you treating all populations as if they are monolithic:

The difference is that the Indigenous populations of the America's didn't occupy, displace and kill when they came over.

Some most certainly did kill, occupy, and displace. To just leave it at the most obvious example: the Nahua.

 

[Laika]

The USS Cole, the WTC in 1993, the Marine barracks... over 20 years ago. Bay of Pigs, JFK one of the most beloved presidents... almost 60 years ago, 56 to be precise... brings us to the brink of nuclear war.

It's worth pointing out that JFK also did not face questions as to his mental stability to the point where Generals said they would disobey an order by the President to use nuclear weapons...

 

[Mindmaster]

Is your moral compass really this simplistic?

This has nothing at all to do with morality, it has to do with the health of a society - AKA the prime directive for even having one. People who are destroying themselves expect us to foot the bill, or take us down with them. Sorry, not on-board with that, in the pragmatic sense... AT ALL

I had a friend who became a felon for buying one little baggie of coke during a cop sting. Buying mind you, not selling... He made the choice to be there, and he assumed the risk. He didn't complain about losing his right to vote OR his ability to own firearms. (A life long passion, mind you.) We have to have a system of consequences for harmful behavior or the whole damn thing goes down in flames. You have to err on the side of the good folks, or you encourage the bad ones. So anyway, my friend is a really nice guy but never once in my presence did he lament about his misfortune - he accepted responsibility, and knew this recourse was a possibility. That's what adulting is...

 

[Jainarayan]

The difference is that JFK was not a moron. Trump... well... I'll let him speak for himself.

Moron or not, JFK brought us to the brink of a nuclear conflagration. I lived it. I was 4 years old. I was far too young to understand what a nuclear war was, but I did know I was terrified that I might die.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's worth pointing out that JFK also did not face questions as to his mental stability to the point where Generals said they would disobey an order by the President to use nuclear weapons...

I'm not sure what an "illegal" order would be, considering that Trump is the Commander in Chief. Very likely, anyone who disobeyed an order to fire would probably be summarily shot on the spot. But all of this is fear-monger of the silliest order.

 

[PureX]

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

But the 'state' (ruling elite) will want to exploit the population in every possible way, for it's own benefit. Leading to the population's misery, and to their eventual demise. So they will not be "safe" at all, by cooperating. Nor will the ruling elite, because the most aggressive and ruthless among us will always be seeking to take their place, by any means available.

All you have to do is examine any society in which the rule of the collective breaks down, and you will see the inevitable result: The most ruthless bullyboys with the biggest guns and the greatest willingness to resort to violence become the new overlords, even as they divide themselves into camps and factions, each fighting with the other for total dominance. The general populations suffer enormously under such anarchy, which is why humans everywhere, throughout time, have banned to together to form governments, to rule themselves equitably and fairly, and to everyone's benefit.

The 'bullyboys' and 'warlords' are always lurking among us, however, awaiting their chance take over. And if we do not guard our governments, and laws, they will do so. Just as they are now doing in the United States.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, because totalitarianism has worked so well in the past. America is nothing is like a totalitarian dictatorship. I mean, we have our problems but come on.

Provide native Americans a privileged say by amplifying their voice. They are the original owners of this land, and should have a greater say in their own homeland.

I don't see why they should have more of a say than anyone else. We don't live in an ethnic country. We're all supposed to have an equal say here.

 

[Laika]

Moron or not, JFK brought us to the brink of a nuclear conflagration. I lived it. I was 4 years old. I was far too young to understand what a nuclear war was, but I did know I was terrified that I might die.

My dad was 12 when it was going on. His parents owned a pub and he remembers everyone being very tense and quiet and that you could "cut the tension in the air with a knife".

I'm not sure what an "illegal" order would be, considering that Trump is the Commander in Chief. Very likely, anyone who disobeyed an order to fire would probably be summarily shot on the spot. But all of this is fear-monger of the silliest order.

I sincerely hope so.

Look, I'm not trying to scare people. But basically, "freedom" feels like ****. Freedom feels like being a powerless, helpless individual who is totally insignificant and can't change anything. Being a perpetual victim is then presented as "virtuous" because "doing nothing" helps everyone else's "freedom" to essentially do nothing with their lives. But freedom means you achieve nothing because you have no money or no opportunities to get money. And that's the only thing that ever matters in "free" societies. Actual achievement or self-worth are spat upon because they don't conform to the "acceptable" individuality of being a mindless consumer who defines themselves by what they own or their career who gets in debt so they can be a slave. If you have any abilities or talent, the only thing that matters is that you sell it and subject yourself to everyone else's abuse. You are free to chose what you buy, but everything else in life is a trap and you are just a rat in a maze.

It is clearly not in my self-interest to support free societies, when my experience of freedom consists of a society that refuses to do anything about the existential problems it faces because it views having power as fundamentally "evil" or "totalitarian". When it really matters, freedom means looking at existential threats and deciding that collective suicide is a great idea. This is a society that has no future and worse, doesn't want a future and I'm supposed to just be "ok" with it when I'm surrounded by people who think the freedom to hurt and kill themselves is more important than having the power to make a difference. Whatever I'm "supposed" to think, being a helpless victim is bad and therefore "freedom" is bad. But actually trying to become empowered, to work together with people effectively to get stuff done and get results is treated as "evil" because it threatens other peoples "freedom" by subordinating them to a group working to achieve a common goal. The individual must be prized above all things, including the fact individuals acting alone can't achieve anything. Its only when people work together that anything really important happens.

I might be truly ****ed here, but if I am supposed to make decisions based on "self-interest", it is clearly not in my self-interest to support free societies when I have to become personally responsible for anything people think I've done wrong and am written off as "damaged goods" who can't achieve anything in there life and has no value because he doesn't have any money, or the right kind of job, etc. If this is what "freedom" is, I don't want it. I do not want to live my life being scared of caring about people because I might get hurt because we are told to assume everyone is a selfish psychopath only interested in their own sucess.

Can you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Jainarayan]

Can you see what I'm getting at?

In a way, but as with all things as you go through life you start to see things differently. Decade by decade you see that the more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[Stevicus]

But the 'state' (ruling elite) will want to exploit the population in every possible way, for it's own benefit.

The State is the population, so when you say "for its own benefit," it's for the benefit of the population as a whole. That's the entire reason for the State to exist in the first place. Otherwise, why have a government at all?

Leading to the population's misery, and to their eventual demise. So they will not be "safe" at all, by cooperating. Nor will the ruling elite, because the most aggressive and ruthless among us will always be seeking to take their place, by any means available.

Once a strong leader is in place, that leader will find that it's in his own interests to eliminate any potential ruthless and aggressive types who could threaten him.

All you have to do is examine any society in which the rule of the collective breaks down, and you will see the inevitable result: The most ruthless bullyboys with the biggest guns and the greatest willingness to resort to violence become the new overlords, even as they divide themselves into camps and factions, each fighting with the other for total dominance.

Do you have any specific historical examples in mind? Stalin and Mao eliminated their opposition and stayed in power for life.

The general populations suffer enormously under such anarchy, which is why humans everywhere, throughout time, have banned to together to form governments, to rule themselves equitably and fairly, and to everyone's benefit.

Our general population suffered during the American Revolution and the Civil War, so it can happen just as easily under Western "non-totalitarian" governments as well. Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it can't ever happen. I agree that it's not a situation that anyone would want, but it's sometimes necessary in order to solve problems where negotiation and political compromise are insufficient.

The 'bullyboys' and 'warlords' are always lurking among us, however, awaiting their chance take over. And if we do not guard our governments, and laws, they will do so. Just as they are now doing in the United States.

Just as a point of order, our society is more like the Roman Republic before the rise of Caesar, who brought order and elevated Rome to a new level of greatness. We already have far too many "bullyboys" and "warlords" in the form of mafiosi, organized criminals, Wall Street slicksters, and political machines. It's all the same from the point of view of the common citizen. They're just fooling much of the public into thinking that we're better off under corporate rule than under State rule, but they're selling out the country to the highest bidder. They have no stake in preserving or defending the country, since they can bail to offshore climes if things get too rough. The totalitarian dictator has already burned his boats, so he either has to preserve and protect the country, or else he goes down with it. He has a greater stake in the well-being of the country than the average mobster or CEO, who are ruling the country today.