Is authoritarianism genuinly the worst thing ever?
-
Just in case they're not...
-
@foobarbaazquux said in Is authoritarianism genuinly the worst thing ever?:
Do you fight the corporate fascist machine with isolated assemblies? No, someone needs to build the interstates and the hydroelectric dams: the solution is to form a Party which is unapologetically, militantly, Pro-Human.
Do you "fight" it by consolidating it? I don't know. What would I know.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26603249
https://www.wellesu.com/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26603249 -
@foobarbaazquux said in Is authoritarianism genuinly the worst thing ever?:
There exists a real social responsibility to have correct ideas about the world.
Also you'll probably be needing a pen, a piece of paper, a pub, a companion or two and a chat to arrive at them. With humour.
-
@ThinPicking >Do you "fight" it by consolidating it?
Future real economic growth is only possible under communistic conditions, hence all of the de-growth rhetoric from capitalists, and the relatively frozen state of the US economy in real terms. Which is why you have the US FTC fighting to keep down the size of corporate enterprises instead of nationalizing them: in a similar way as to how Mussolini was a verified Small Business Fan.
They are afraid of the monsters they've created growing too powerful and efficient for them to act as the middlemen and masters.
Also you'll probably be needing a pen, a piece of paper, a pub, a companion or two and a chat to arrive at them. With humour.
Sure. Nazis and Rationalists, Authoritarians, both think that correct ideas exist solely in the mind.
Really I think this epistemological difference is a huge explainer of conflict and development today. American culture acts in a kind of gnosticism, where the real world is bad, and everyone admits and knows it, but it's fine because of abstract liberal values in the secret spiritual world or whatever.
-
See, you're (probably) mistaken sneedy (@sneedful). Talk chop or go home in future.
@foobarbaazquux this is great and I'll be back. rn I need to sleep and go to work.
-
@foobarbaazquux
I agree that real economic growth is through communism, but to create an ideal society, we must give up working too much, and since communism promotes working and evolution, happiness of the citizens will be affected negatively through too much competition.
Communism focuses on production and money. Women who marry a rich man will get social approval, then the future young women will do the same. The idea of choosing with your heart is not widely used and maybe even forgotten. It's pretty common to see insecure women in eastern Europe choosing an ugly guy, even though we may see them as "feminine".
A comparison with Italian women, who are clearly confident, they choose with their hearts, which translates into a better match, getting more handsome partners. Thus, inhibition is almost non-existent and this translates to greater happiness.
Here we can see the naive, submissive, almost feared women (eastern european) compared with the free spirits.
I made this comparison to prove that communism closes the mind of the people through too many rules imposed. Those rules if not respected, people would get punished, so most of people are living in fear. This fear could be seen in exams, choosing a partner, making unexpected decisions, doing the opposite of what their parents told you and even when friends come to visit you (they really try to give a good impression and may get angry if not everything is ready).
The key would be a balance, but we are too evolved technologically to put it into practice. -
This post is deleted! -
I agree that real economic growth is through communism, but to create an ideal society, we must give up working too much
In the sense of "work" as menial labor, only necessary work should be done; as much work as possible should be automated. China is at the forefront of automation in this regard, with car factories, mines, and ports being highly automated. It is difficult to automate to this extent in the US though, because life is not very secure for many people: if people stop going to work, they will fail to pay their car debts, student debts (which in a number of cases are NEVER payed off, and are the sole form of debt not erased in bankruptcy), rent, mortgages, expensive food, our largely "fake" economy. People need to have a job, even if on-paper, to survive, and this leads to the proliferation of the service industry, as described by Marx in Capital Volume III. Useless human barista-performances for the sake of survival, work that can be replaced by a mildly advanced vending machine.
The home ownership rate in China is 90%. In the US, it is 65%.
I made this comparison to prove that communism closes the mind of the people through too many rules imposed.
Yeah, I would say this is true of the late USSR for sure, which I don't view very positively. In my mind China represents the height of Communist thought today, in the 21st century.
A related point made by Cockshott is that the history of human development is that of descent of trophic levels in terms of energy production: first, the only form of "energy production" was hunting. Then, there was agriculture, a level down the food chain.
Solar energy is perhaps the lowest level of the food chain, sans maybe nuclear fusion (or something yet unknown). China is at the top of the world in both.
True-to-form to the bioenergetic worldview, contemporary domestic politics are relatively unimportant compared to developing the fundamentals of the Productive Forces, which is what Marx was all about.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto.
So-called "Western Marxists" often talk about communism as a prescription to be commanded from high above by some idealistic party, but the real theory of Marxism is instead concerned with studying the way in which society did actually move from aristocracy to capitalism, with socialism as the next logical step, merely the result of a few different differential equations w.r.t. profit rates, and so forth, being extended. Socialism in Marx's time was largely theoretical, but today even the United States is a kind of barbaric socialist country, out of sheer necessity. This is part of the context necessary for understanding the commentary of Xi and others about it (e.g., "Marxism is completely correct")
-
@foobarbaazquux Communism is when ugly deformed freaks make it illegal to be normal and rob and/or kill successful people out of petty resentment. The ideology is all just window dressing
-
@onliest You're thinking of Trotskyists. In which case, yeah, totally true.
-
@foobarbaazquux wtf i love communism now
-
@foobarbaazquux i saw the changqui or whatever city from china
totally unironically i agree with you how china is based now
-
@foobarbaazquux i apologize for saying youre trolling now …. senpai..
-
@sneedful Kohai, I would advise you drop the four chan dot org jester act. It's estrogenic.
-
@foobarbaazquux wtf are you talking about
-
Did you know that Nazi Germany heavily cultivated soybeans, feeding them to troops, to the extent that Westerners gave them the nickname "Nazi Beans?"
The US-led world order, with its PUFOid proclamations, is the geopolitical anti-human inheritor of Nazi Germany as a bulwark against Bolshevism, which is and always was the real movement.
Does this please you? How does it feel to be controlled opposition? Even back in their "heyday", that's what Nazi Germany really was... the British Empire's dog.
-
This post is deleted!
