|
U-Know! Forum » in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 13:49
|
||
I haven't either. I think Jim was being general in his observation, not pointing at anyone here.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:07
|
||
|
PMM wrote: I know exactly what you mean, but that's not true of HH. I know I'm guilty of a degree of utopianism from time to time, but I don't see anyone here attempting to defend or recommend authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Er... that'd be me, maybe? I'm quite open about it, in fact. I feel that the unsustainable nature of our society makes some form of authoritarianism inevitable. A combination of consumer capitalism and representative democracy has created a quite unholy mess, and they are not the tools by which it can be cleaned up. My humble suggestion would be that we don't wait for authoritarianism to be imposed upon us by resource depletion. Because down that road lies the kind of totalitarianism that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot made so very famous. Allowing capitalism to consume and destroy the ecology of which we are part is literally suicide. And the resulting collapse will be ripe for exploitation by the uglier faces of both left and right. But why does authoritarianism have to be totalitarian? I'm not sure that it does. And I certainly don't wear a Stalin badge. Who here has ever defended Stalinism, by the way? That was an interesting accusation. See, we already accept a level of authoritarianism. During World War Two -- ironically, as part of the fight against fascism -- Britain introduced some quite draconian "emergency measures". Land and goods requisitions, rationing and whole host of policies (including limitations on freedom of speech) that were quite simply authoritarian. No two ways about it. We may argue about specific policies or individual implementations of them, but there's little doubt that most of these restrictions would (a) seem very severe and authoritarian to us today (getting thrown in jail for buying bread on the blackmarket!), and (b) were almost certainly necessary. Resource depletion and ecological collapse may well pose risks far greater than any political ideology, however reprehensible. A similar kind of "war response" is required from us, and it won't come about out of popular demand. Very few people ever vote for less to eat. And nobody riots for it. But we have a wonderful opportunity to shape the future nonetheless. A chance to write the rules for ourselves. And to set up the authority under which we will live. Specify its mandate and parameters, along with the limitations of its scope. And we work out a way of doing it right. By saying it's impossible because... "Look! Stalin!" you are saying that Stalin was the very best we are capable of. We can't do better than him? Really? Well, I'm pretty sure we can. If we do nothing and allow capitalism to run rampant over the planet... allow human desire to sate itself until there's just nothing left... then we invite our worst nightmares down upon us. But if we try to impose sustainable limits on our desires, and yes, use dreaded "authority" to enforce those limits; then we might surprise ourselves and salvage something workable out of this technological clusterfuck we built around ourselves. |
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jun 26, 2009, 14:34
Jun 26, 2009, 14:21
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear I'd guess that every one of these hundred thousand would split for the west in a heartbeat, if they could do so without being shot, tortured, or thrown into a forced labor camp. Unfortunately I don't have time to read this entire thread, seeing as this is my lunch break and I have to go back to work in five. But if I was a citizen of that festering, anachronistic neo-Stalinist shithole I'd be praying for Obama to nuke my own country as quickly as possible so I wouldn't have to live under such a regime anymore.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:22
|
||
|
Actually, I was thinking of you when I wrote the last bit. I nearly put "except for Grufty Jim" in brackets. I do understand where you're coming from. People will not vote for a voluntary reduction in their standard of living or level of consumption, therefore change has to be imposed from somewhere. ie) above. Currently, the authority of the state seems to be most harshly directed against those that wish to turn us aside from ever increasing consumerism. And yeah I know. I'm sitting on my fat arse preaching revolution again. Sorry.
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:22
|
||
|
Two things. Someone posted "there is no them and us" I totally agree with that - I adhere to the Pogo cartoonist view that "I hacve seem the enemy and they ... are us". That kind of directly leads to the next one, which is do you really have no such contradictions yourself? I've loads of which I'm all too aware - well of some of them at least. Your posts come across as if you see others contradictions and understand all the why's and how's etc, but by not mentioning any of your own you sound like you are being superior.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:33
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear I'd guess that every one of these hundred thousand would split for the west in a heartbeat, if they could do so without being shot, tortured, or thrown into a forced labor camp. I'm not so sure it's that simple, handofdave. You referred to North Korea as "the realization of Orwell's nightmare state". And it may well be something close to that. But the real nightmare in Orwell's vision is that Winston really does love Big Brother at the end of the book. The state imposes its will upon him. Completely. The two-minutes hate weren't "bogus"... the emotions felt were very real. Just as -- I suspect -- they might be very real to the North Koreans participating in those mass rallies. I'm not suggesting, by the way, that the people of North Korea don't live in perpetual fear of their own government. Merely that they feel a whole bunch of other contradictory stuff too. The majority of the North Korean population know nothing other than this life. And not everyone escapes from an abusive relationship when they get a chance. This is why I'm quite worried about North Korea possessing nuclear missiles (and I'd be very worried if I were Japanese). It's a schizophrenic nation with an even more schizophrenic government. I'm not sure it's capable of truly comprehending the consequences of nuking someone.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:37
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Currently, the authority of the state seems to be most harshly directed against those that wish to turn us aside from ever increasing consumerism. Absolutely. In fact a prerequisite for the kind of "constitutional authoritarianism" I'm talking about would be the dissolution or overthrow of current political institutions. I'm certainly not suggesting we get Alistair Darling, David Cameron and Geoff Hoon to usher in our bright sustainable future.
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:43
|
||
No problem squire.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:44
|
||
|
There's one important point missing in your argument, and that is, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Not just a phrase, it's true.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 14:56
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: There's one important point missing in your argument, and that is, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Not just a phrase, it's true. You really think I haven't given any thought to that? Which is why I propose a "constitutional authority" rather than an individual or committee. A set of rules which those who enforce them have no power to change. Safeguards would have to be built in, and mistakes would be made. Vitally though... I'm not suggesting we have a choice in this. The physical limitations of our ecology are being breached. The rules are about to change. Our only choice is whether we try to plan our adaptation to the new conditions, or let them be imposed upon us.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
