=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt
Log In to post a reply
48 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt
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.
In reply to:
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt (PMM)		 Replies:
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt (PMM)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index