Is authoritarianism genuinly the worst thing ever?
-
This commie scum blocked me so I can’t see what he said, but I agree with you…
I bet he’s really ugly too…
-
This post is deleted! -
@sneedful and i said all this things about brazil etc which are not communists but to compare to usa and how much better it is than other parts of the world.
-
Communism seeks to remake mankind and its adherents believe in the blank slate hypothesis. They will go to any lengths to try to implement their system and millions upon millions have died because of it.
The USA was founded on enlightened principles that are far more in alignment with the best of human nature. I believe in complete freedom and the non aggression principle. Seems obvious to me that this is the best way to live so we have maximal freedom.
-
@sneedful said in Is authoritarianism genuinly the worst thing ever?:
but in usa that doesnt even happen in the first place; the idea of someone in usa purposefully adulterating milk to water it down does not happen
A number of milk brands in the US contain Propylene Glycol, in order to act as a solvent for added D and A vitamins. It is not listed in the ingredients list for various reasons.
I mean, I can appreciate what you're saying about poverty in the third and second world. And it is the case that the US is in some ways the most materially comfortable country. I can also tell you personally that Putin's regime dramatically increased quality of life in Russia relative to the oligarch years, and it's objectively reflected in greater life expectancies. AMLO and Sheinbaum work to bring about similar results in Mexico.
they hold human life to a higher value and standard
Kind-of-sort-of. There are some positives to our liberal values. We "just" have to work to live up to them more often.
And since China hit their renewable energy target 6 years early, and is the most advanced country in terms of nuclear power,, the smog situation is much improved.
Communism seeks to remake mankind and its adherents believe in the blank slate hypothesis.
This seems like an understanding of Communism downloaded from Prager University or something. Dialectical Materialism, the philosophy of Marx, is exactly the opposite of the "blank slate hypothesis": it is the idea that the material conditions of society and people determine their nature (of course, it is a recursive relation). Is it the recognition that humanity is not a slate, blank or otherwise, to reason about in the abstract, but exactly and specifically the result of developing against the environment. It is very much in line with the mentality of Ray Peat which holds that materially changing diet can have radical consequences on brain action. It is a concept validated by the fact that you are here.
They will go to any lengths to try to implement their system and millions upon millions have died because of it.
Life Expectancy in the USSR and PRC increased dramatically.
The USA was founded on enlightened principles that are far more in alignment with the best of human nature. I believe in complete freedom and the non aggression principle. Seems obvious to me that this is the best way to live so we have maximal freedom.
I mean, sure. The fact is that the US was also founded in a condition where half the country practiced chattel slavery. This is more-or-less the whole contradiction that Hegel and Marx worked to reason about: how to reconcile the so-called bourgeois ideals from the ACTUAL reality. Much of what they were talking about has already come to pass, because their theory is correct. So as not to tear itself apart, the United States now exists in a "bankster socialism", where we have public schools (of admittedly varying or dubious quality that all teach Regime Science), but simultaneously, the majority of people pay >30% of their income in rent. This is the new contradiction to be reconciled. I think Michael Hudson gives perhaps the best evaluation of the current power situation in his book 'Superimperialism', focusing on how the US uses its role as the worlds' chief creditor and holder of the world reserve currency to achieve political aims.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.
-
it's a common tactic to criticize the USA and how things are run as if that is the opposite of this ideal Communist world.
I'm not defending the USA. I'm defending the principles of freedom from authoritarianism, the freedom to do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting others, the freedom to keep your own labor and the fruits thereof, the freedom to extract resources from the world and make them your own.
The USA is hardly a capitalist paradise. It's corporate fascism largely with some freedom around that. It's still better than many if not most places if you value freedom and the ability to get ahead on your own initiative.
But the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to make it or fail, above all freedom to OWN GUNS, is what makes the USA a special place and far better than most other places.
I work with people around the world and they are not even allowed to own a firearm. This is fundamentally putting them at the mercy of their government. Here in the USA, we have an armed militia, consisting of almost everyone, and that goes a LONG way towards fighting the worst authoritarianism.
-
I'm defending the principles of freedom from authoritarianism, the freedom to do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting others, the freedom to keep your own labor and the fruits thereof, the freedom to extract resources from the world and make them your own.
The USA is hardly a capitalist paradise. It's corporate fascism largely with some freedom around that.
The fact that the former ACTUALLY produced the latter, this is why Communism is a relevant idea in spite of abstract arguments about Freedom being all that is politically necessary. 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.
The US Founders had an ideal of Freedom of Speech. But Mao Zedong said:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?
In an era of widespread scientific fraud , which kills millions, and leaves millions more in a hell of subclinical hypothyroidism/mental illness, I think Mao's idea more correct. There exists a real social responsibility to have correct ideas about the world.
-
@foobarbaazquux dude didnt mao create a fucking famine lol
and propylyne glycol isnt in chinese milk? what the shizz are you blithering about? so lets be specific, if chinese milk dosnt have additives like western milk, are we going to go down additives by food line by line and show that china has none? like what the flying fudge is your point? do you think im such a fool that i take your point as valid on a logical basis?
i saw a college guy wearing a hammer and sickle shirt in public and i pointed and yelled “a communist with an iphone!!!!” lololololol
your point about correct ideas is hilarious
who decides? some politician loser moron ? -
I can't abide people who think communism is a good idea, so I shall refrain from further posts. Thank you for your views anyway.
-
@sneedful You are being unserious. The practice is fine for running a whataboutist smokescreen against a positive claim, but it will not get you closer to Truth.
History, and nothing else, will demonstrate what is correct.
-
@foobarbaazquux man you must be trolling at this point
-
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
