We need Totalitarianism AND Freedom!

[Anti-Fascist]

First I shall define totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism must be viewed in light of what its purpose is,
what its mission is. What, historically, has been the mission of
totalitarianism? That is, what has always been the totalitarian's
motivation to control people? I suggest that it is this: to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND
the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the
individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant.

Such is my definition of totalitarianism. Example: Amerika, which
maximises the chances of survival of the citezenry by slaughtering
so-called terrorists, and subjugating the individual to the state for
this purpose (an example of this subjugation is the horrifying
extent to which it is deemed "anti-American" to criticise the
policies of Bush's regime).

Second I shall define freedom:

The ability to do what one desires.

Such is my definition of freedom.

Next progression:
Maximising the chances of survival of mankind, expanding the
means of production, and/or making man freer.

Please take careful note of these definitions. They are essential.

There are two types of totalitarianism. The first is the most
obvious: it involves control of behaviour. This is the type of
totalitarianism which everyone detests. On the other hand, there
is another type of totalitarianism which no one notices and which
no one therefore detests: it incolves control of desires, wants,
etc. (indirectly controlling behaviour). The first type of
totalitarianism restricts freedom, and the second type does
not, and here is why: You are a free man if you want to do only
those things which I want you to do, and are able to do
them. You are not free if you want to do many things, but cannot
do them because I am controlling your behaviour. In the first case
you are free to do whatever you want. Only in the second type of
totalitarianism do you feel a loss of freedom. Thus control of
wants does not negate freedom, but control solely of behaviour is
a negation of freedom.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said:

"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can
you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him?
Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his
pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without
his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to
take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open
his mouth without your knowing what he will say."

Replace "child" with citizen, "the teacher" with "society", and you
have my conception of the freest possible State - which is at the
same time totalitarianism.

Let us do a little rewording of the quotation above to illustrate my
point:
The citizen, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can you not
arrange everything in the world which surrounds him? Can you
not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his pleasures,
his pains, are not all these in your hands and without his
knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do.

Such is the perfect society - absolutely totalitarian, and absolutely
free at the same time. For freedom, in the words of John Stuart
Mill, "consists in doing what one desires." And such would be the
case. But the wants of the citizens would be controlled in such a
way that the citizens would do only what the State wants them to
do, which is Totalitarianism as defined above.

Thus Totalitarianism and freedom can exist together, or they
can exist apart. Nazi Germany and Iraq are examples of
Totalitarian regimes without freedom. The Totalitarian element of
these societies allows them to progress in various ways
(technologically, economically). But since these societies lack the
element of freedom, which is essential, they are not worth living in
anyway. On the other hand, there are societies with freedom but
without totalitarianism: crude Communist societies, which do not
have states, such as those in some areas of Africa. There is a
good deal of happiness - of liberty - in these tribes, moreso than
in most societies. But they do not have Totalitarianism, and so are
not able to progress in any way. Thus freedom without
Totalitarianism is stagnancy.

Only when Totalitarianism and freedom are united, do we have a
State capable of maximum progression and human happiness.
North Korea is one such example in which absolute Totalitarianism
and absolute Freedom are united. Every citizen in North Korea is
free to do as he wants. But every citizen wants to do only what
the State wants him to do. This is absolute freedom and absolute
control existing simultaneously.

"But," you will say, "just because totalitarianism and freedom can
exist together - does this mean we should want it? Is it
desirable?"

First of all, ideas of "fascism" are probably floating around in your
mind upon reading the word "totalitarianism". Do not confuse
Fascism with Totalitarianism. For Fascism is PURE totalitarianism
WITHOUT the element of freedom. This is absolutely undesirable,
and must be fought against. Happiness is got through LIBERTY.
Happiness is desirable. Therefore, pure totalitarianism (fascism)
must always be denounced.

Second of all, do not confuse freedom with anarchism: Anarchism
is PURE freedom WITHOUT the element of totalitarianism. This is
absolutely undesirable, and must be fought against. Progression
is got through TOTALITARIANISM. Progression is desirable.
Therefore, pure freedom (anarchism) must always be denounced.

It is the synthesis of Totalitarianism and Freedom which brings
about maximum happiness AND maximum progression.

And what is it that all mankind want? Individually, maximum
happiness; collectively, maximum production! -i.e., freedom and
totalitariainism.

Allow me to illustrate.

Freedom serves the individual. Each individual, taken by
himself, desires freedom, that is, happiness. I will take it as
self-evident that everyone wants to be free (i.e., to be able
to do as he wants). Of course, he may not care about the freedom
of others. But individually, everyone wants freedom.

On the other hand, Totalitarianism serves the collective.
All individuals (not each individual), taken as a whole,
desire totalitarianism, that is, progression. What is progression?
Maximising the chances of survival and expanding the means of
production (which go hand in hand). (This follows because
totalitarianism is itself about MAXIMISING the chances of survival
and expanding the means of production - but by subjugating the
individual to the State or to some equivilant. Very few
individuals want this. But historically it is apparent that society
itself - the collective - has no problem with this.) Is not maximising
the chances of survival and expanding the means of production
collectively desired?

To ignore the needs of the individual, and pay attention only to
the needs of the collective, is an error. For the collective is the
sum of the individuals. That is, the collective depends upon the
individual. Therefore, freedom cannot be ignored - the freedom of
the individual.

On the other hand, to ignore the needs of the collective, and pay
attention only to the needs of the individual, is an error. For the
individual, as a social being, is a non-entity without the collective
(i.e. society). That is, the individual depends upon the collective.
Therefore, totalitarianism cannot be ignored.

The individual and the collective are mutually dependent.

So yes, Totalitarianism and Freedom united are desirable.


We need a unity of opposites - of totalitarianism and freedom, to
maximise human happiness and human progression. This is
perfectly possible, and, as I have shown, desirable.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Sorry i didnt have time to read much of your post so acept my apologies if i&#39;m wrong but I think you are confusing Totalitarianism (<<a bourgeoise term, i wouldnt use it-its designed to put communism down) and a centrally planned economy.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 12 2003, 07:25 PM
Sorry i didnt have time to read much of your post so acept my apologies if i&#39;m wrong but I think you are confusing Totalitarianism (<<a bourgeoise term, i wouldnt use it-its designed to put communism down) and a centrally planned economy.
Yes, you do need to read my post again. I did not use the word Totalitarianism in such a way.

[Saint-Just]

I can see why you are a genius. Very logical and coherent Huzington. I have been saying similar things for some time, talking about homogeniality in terms of desires and so forth, that has fit with your post. I read it and found it very interesting, thanks for sharing it.

[Sheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 06:27 PM
Every citizen in North Korea is
free to do as he wants.

except leave...

[Invader Zim]

What is it with bloody stalinists and writting fucking huge posts. I&#39;m sorry, but I just cant be bothered to read that post, so I will just judge it now, and say that socialism and totalitarianism is an ideological oppersit, IMO, and that anyone who is a Zionist and a socialist is a can short of a six pack.

QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Nov 12 2003, 06:27 PM)
Every citizen in North Korea is
free to do as he wants.


except leave...

Or question the state...

[Sheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 11:54 PM
What is it with bloody stalinists and writting fucking huge posts. I&#39;m sorry, but I just cant be bothered to read that post, so I will just judge it now, and say that socialism and totalitarianism is an ideological oppersit, IMO, and that anyone who is a Zionist and a socialist is a can short of a six pack.

QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Nov 12 2003, 06:27 PM)
Every citizen in North Korea is
free to do as he wants.


except leave...

Or question the state...
you should read it. it&#39;s interesting, but that one paragraph about north korea just ruined it. also, mixing the two would never work, you cant have the best of both worlds without someone paying the price.

[redstar2000]

That is, what has always been the totalitarian&#39;s motivation to control people? I suggest that it is this: to MAXIMIZE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the
individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivalent.

Where did you get that idea?

We can only speculate about the subjective motivations of individual despots...and subject their public claims to scrutiny.

But if there&#39;s any "over-arching" purpose involved, it appears to me that it&#39;s all done "for the greater glory of them."


"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him?
Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without
his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open his mouth without your knowing what he will say."

Yes, a most despotic "ideal"...why anyone should advocate this is a matter for specialists in political psycho-pathology.


Such is the perfect society - absolutely totalitarian, and absolutely
free at the same time.

Isn&#39;t it great that "perfection" is, fortunately, absolutely unattainable&#33;


North Korea is one such example in which absolute Totalitarianism and absolute Freedom are united. Every citizen in North Korea is free to do as he wants. But every citizen wants to do only what the State wants him to do. This is absolute freedom and absolute control existing simultaneously.

This is what comes of taking government press releases as literal truth. It is absolute falsehood and absolute lunacy existing simultaneously.


And what is it that all mankind want? Individually, maximum happiness; collectively, maximum production&#33; -i.e., freedom and totalitarianism.

Ah, but the obstinate buggers persist in having different definitions of "happiness".

Good for them&#33;


On the other hand, Totalitarianism serves the collective.

Despots always make that claim; has it ever been historically justified?

I think not.


So yes, Totalitarianism and Freedom united are desirable.

Only to "great leaders" (despots) and other nutballs.

And, for some reason, we seem to get more than our share of the latter at Che-Lives.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I find it stunningly ironic that a person named “Anti-Fascist” would use a word “totalitarian” which was created by Fascists, and define it as the exact opposite of what it is. Fascinating. A new low for the moron we so humbly call Huzington.

[FuckWar]

This post is so damn elegant, at first I was confused into thinking there was something to it. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that it is just more abstract rehtoric that is wonderful from a theoretical point of view, but that is ultimately ludicrous. The real point is: would this help anyone, specifically the proletariate? I would say, no. Look at your idyllic society, North Korea. Do you think that people like starving to death? I&#39;m pretty sure that, even though they believe in their leader, they still are quite unhappy. Therefore I conclude that, although you theoretically could train people to really enjoy being poor and living in the face of extreme financial and class disparity, but if that is your idea of a "perfect" society, then there is something fundamentally wrong with where you are coming from.

By the way, your theory makes perfect sense, which is horrifying, and Amerika is probably the best example, because nobody with a conscious could really vote republican.

[Guest1]

Sounds like a brave new world to me.


you scare me.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Sheep+Nov 13 2003, 12:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sheep @ Nov 13 2003, 12:21 AM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 11:54 PM
What is it with bloody stalinists and writting fucking huge posts. I&#39;m sorry, but I just cant be bothered to read that post, so I will just judge it now, and say that socialism and totalitarianism is an ideological oppersit, IMO, and that anyone who is a Zionist and a socialist is a can short of a six pack.

QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Nov 12 2003, 06:27 PM)
Every citizen in North Korea is
free to do as he wants.


except leave...

Or question the state...
you should read it. it&#39;s interesting, but that one paragraph about north korea just ruined it. also, mixing the two would never work, you cant have the best of both worlds without someone paying the price. [/b]
Thanks for the compliments.

I admit that I might have stretched a fact about: the one about
north Korea. Otherwise I believe that my conclusions follow.

[dancingoutlaw]

Absolute freedom and absolute control cannot co-exsist. You do not grant freedom to someone by limiting their desires. A few problems I have with your argument.

1) Who decides what desires to grant? In a Totalitarian society presumably a central authority will be the ones calling the shots.

2) Who grants power to this central authority? Is power granted to the government by the ballot or by the gun?

3) Lack of choice is not a choice. In your theory you say.
You are a free man if you want to do only
those things which I want you to do, and are able to do them. This is not freedom. Any point where a central authority is able to control the desires of a man he is no longer a man but a drone. If this social

4) A citizen is not a child.
Replace "child" with citizen, "the teacher" with "society", and you
have my conception of the freest possible State - which is at the same time totalitarianism. Any person has the same rights as you and thus cannot be veiwed a drone to control.

5) You talk of maximizing the survivability of the race and a central authority being desirable for such a job . I don&#39;t think that 99 % of the people on this planet will think this way. What survival do we need to maximize? We are doing well without really trying too hard already.

Just a couple of thoughts

Peace

[Rasta Sapian]

Totalitarinastic Man&#33;

Communist to the Socialist to the Totalitarianist to the liberal to the Impiralist Pig to the Facist mother fucker&#33; :blink: Universalism is the Future&#33; :D


john stuart mill he was a thrill, smoked his erb wrote a free word&#33;

[(*]

I suggest that it is this: to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race")

Funny, that would be part of fascism.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

this "perfect" society you describe IS unattainable, quite fortuantley, i pesonally would have nothing to do with it, it fight it if anything&#33; This was an elegent(and perhaps intellegent) post ive seen from a Stalinist yet&#33; But it still didnt get my vote.

And as soemone said before me, sounds like a brave new world&#33;

you do scare me, fortunatley, im glad that these insane Fascistic(dont u like that) ideas just wont get it passed us.

just look, even IF u brainwash ppl to believe that this life under this society is awesome, you are undermining freedom in general, so u can trully can consider this a free society

[Iepilei]

Ah, a pressed-collar termite collective. Destruction of individualism for the sheer base that it serves the whole to "fully benefit society." Charming. Being the artistic mind I am, however, I move such notions be taken with nothing more than an ideological grain of salt. There&#39;s no use in furthering human development if we&#39;re not capable of enjoying it. There&#39;s no purpose of life if not to question.

There is one reason I despise Christianity as a practice for myself. I bitterly oppose the idea of &#39;Heaven&#39; - as a place infested with ignorance is no place for me.

[SonofRage]

Wow, what pure nonsense this is&#33; Totalitarianism in government cannot be justified ever. The argument of the possibility of the "benevolent dictator" who genuinely does the right thing for his people is inherently flawed. The most important reason why government must not be given such power can easily be summed up: Just because a tyrant is not in power now, it does not mean a tyrant will not rise to power.

Power corrupts and must absolutely not be centralized in such a way. Many argue that the system of government set up in the United States is extremely inefficient. That is the point. In theory (but not always in practice), having power divided in such a way keeps those in power from abusing it and doing insane things. The current administration is a perfect example of what can happen when the other branches of government give up their power to the executive branch.

I don&#39;t know what is more disturbing, the fact that someone would make such an argument for totalitarianism, or the fact that people would actually refer to this insanity as being elegant.

[Anti-Fascist]

Where did you get that idea?

History.


We can only speculate about the subjective motivations of individual despots...and subject their public claims to scrutiny.

Yet I am not talking about the subjective motivations of individual despots. I am not concerned with individuals. I was tlaking about the historic mission of totalitarianism.


But if there&#39;s any "over-arching" purpose involved, it appears to me that it&#39;s all done "for the greater glory of them."

That does happen too often, yes. But totalitarianism itself, its mission, has been for the good of the collective: whether it was in fact good for it is another question. Again, the good of the collective, society - in other words the State - but not for the indivual. What is good for "the State" can be expanding the means of production, increasing the chances of survival of the "race", scientific knowledge, technological improvements, etc. What is good for the indiviual are such things as "happiness", "freedom", "liberty", etc. Are you to tell me that the expanding the means of production is IN ITSELF good for the individual? It is only good for the individual insofar as it increases his happiness, liberty, etc. Hence "expanding the means of production" is not a personal good, but a collective, societal good. For the individual it is a means. For society it is an end.

The distinction between individual goods (happiness, liberty) and collective goods (improving means of production, etc) must be noted. I have noticed a pattern with Individual Goods and Collective Goods. Individual Good is a means by which to execute the goals of the Collective Good. The Collective Good is a means by which to execute the goals of the Individual Good.

To illustrate by way of example:

An Individual Good (happiness) is realisable by improving technology, for technology tends to make life easier. The Individual Good is the goal of the individual. To realise this goal, a means, improving technology, is required. But this means is itself an end - it is a Collective Good.

On the other hand, a Collective Good (improving technology) is realisable by making men happier (motivating them). Improving technology is the goal of the Collective Good. To realise this goal, a means is required - making men happier. But this means is itself an end - it is an Individual Good.


Yes, a most despotic "ideal"...why anyone should advocate this is a matter for specialists in political psycho-pathology.


Yet what I am advocating is not despotic. I am opposed to all types of dictatorships. By "he ought to do only what you want him to do", I did not mean some individual "you". I meant the State itself.


Isn&#39;t it great that "perfection" is, fortunately, absolutely unattainable&#33;

Mere rhetoric. "Perfection" is a purely subjective concept. What is imperfect to you can be perfect to another man. If you do not like the word "perfect", use "great" or something. I did not mean "perfect" in the absolute sense which you are making use of. By perfect I more or less meant "absolutely desirable and feasible". I have demonstrated how it is both of these.


This is what comes of taking government press releases as literal truth. It is absolute falsehood and absolute lunacy existing simultaneously.

I will admit that North Korea is a bad example. There is too much freedom there, and too much control. Yes, it has too much of both of these. I have explained why this is so above.


Despots always make that claim; has it ever been historically justified?

That is because it is not true totalitarianism, totalitarianism being the subjugation of the individual by the State for the purpose of augmenting PROGRESSION (progression being expanding and improving of means of production, augmenting the chances of survival of mankind or citizenry or "race") They have advocated totalitarianism, but have never actually implemented it. The only nations which have come close to implementing true totalitarianism are Amerika and North Korea.


Only to "great leaders" (despots) and other nutballs.

Your reasons? And just out of curiousity, do you know which fallacy you are commiting?

Elijah Craig:


I find it stunningly ironic that a person named “Anti-Fascist” would use a word “totalitarian” which was created by Fascists, and define it as the exact opposite of what it is. Fascinating.

The mission of Totalitarianism is to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant.

How is this definition the opposite of Fascism? I am not saying that Totalitarianism is fascism, but certainly I did not define it as the opposite of fascism.

[Anti-Fascist]

This post is so damn elegant, at first I was confused into thinking there was something to it. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that it is just more abstract rehtoric that is wonderful from a theoretical point of view, but that is ultimately ludicrous.

That is interesting, but calling it names is not going to make you any more convincing.


The real point is: would this help anyone, specifically the proletariate? I would say, no.

I would say yes. My totalitarianism is merely about implanting progressive morality into the minds of men, thus controling their "wants". They will not want to commit murder if they have the correct morality implanted into them - thus they are absolutely controlled, their wants are controlled. Yet at the same time they are free to do whatever they want&#33; Amazing, isn&#39;t it? Absolute control, and absolute freedom, united at last&#33;

Yet another person misunderstands me.

[Anti-Fascist]

Absolute freedom and absolute control cannot co-exsist. You do not grant freedom to someone by limiting their desires. A few problems I have with your argument.

Okay, tha&#39;ts nice. You merely stated the contrary of what said. This will not do.


1) Who decides what desires to grant? In a Totalitarian society presumably a central authority will be the ones calling the shots.

Irrelevant. It can be anyway. It can be a small minority of thugs. It can be a dictator. On the other hand, it
could be the majority. There is no "calling the shots" in the totalitariani society I mentioned. There is no
central authority in the totalitarian society I mentioned.


2) Who grants power to this central authority? Is power granted to the government by the ballot or by the gun?

You see? People misunderstand me. When I use the word "totalitarianism", already a bunch of preconceived ideas float around in their mind about my post, things which I have never said at all.

1. There would be no central authority.
2. All power is granted democratically. The society I speak of would be infinitely more democratic
than any existing society.


3) Lack of choice is not a choice. In your theory you say.

This reasoning will not do.

In other words, freedom is the freedom to do what one wishes? I.e., the choice to choose to...you get my drift? This definition cannot do.

There is no such thing as freedom of thought. Clearly such a
concept is idealism. Thoughts must be caused by something
other than thoughts.

But let us suppose, just for a moment, that there is "freedom of thought".
A want is a type of thought. Freedom of thought would therefore
mean freedom of wanting to do what one wants to do...or wanting
to want to do what one wants to do...and so on ad infinitum.
This will not do. In fact, I cannot even suppose that there is
such a thing is "freedom of thought".

Your rest of your argument falls apart owing to this and some of your
other "assumptions" - things which I never said.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by (*@Nov 13 2003, 05:48 AM

I suggest that it is this: to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race")

Funny, that would be part of fascism.
I have addressed this in my original post. Fascism is control
of behaviour, which brings about a negation of freedom.
Control of wants does not.

It can certainly be a part of fascism. It could also be a part
of, well, any type of society, really.

[Anti-Fascist]

this "perfect" society you describe IS unattainable

My logic still holds, even with the use of the adjective "perfect". You
will see that if you delete the paragraph in which the word "perfect"
was used, all my conclusions will nonetheless follow. I use the word
pefect to describe many things - even cups. Are cups unattainable?
You see, you cannot refute this simply by reason of my use of a
single adjective.


you do scare me, fortunatley, im glad that these insane Fascistic(dont u like that) ideas just wont get it passed us.

Do not be absurd. I said in my original post that Fascism is a negation of
freedom, and therefore must be fought against.


just look, even IF u brainwash ppl to believe that this life under this society is awesome, you are undermining freedom in general, so u can trully can consider this a free society

*Sighs* Yet another person has to work on his reading comprehension....

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 06:40 AM
Ah, a pressed-collar termite collective. Destruction of individualism for the sheer base that it serves the whole to "fully benefit society." Charming. Being the artistic mind I am, however, I move such notions be taken with nothing more than an ideological grain of salt. There&#39;s no use in furthering human development if we&#39;re not capable of enjoying it. There&#39;s no purpose of life if not to question.

There is one reason I despise Christianity as a practice for myself. I bitterly oppose the idea of &#39;Heaven&#39; - as a place infested with ignorance is no place for me.
There is no "destruction of the individual" implied
in my original post. Read the entire post before
replying to it.

For as I said in my original post:

"Freedom serves the individual. Each individual, taken by
himself, desires freedom, that is, happiness. I will take it as
self-evident that everyone wants to be free (i.e., to be able
to do as he wants). Of course, he may not care about the freedom
of others. But individually, everyone wants freedom."

And:

"To ignore the needs of the individual, and pay attention only to
the needs of the collective, is an error. For the collective is the
sum of the individuals. That is, the collective depends upon the
individual. Therefore, freedom cannot be ignored - the freedom of
the individual."

[Anti-Fascist]

Totalitarianism in government cannot be justified ever.

Wow&#33; I am absolutely convinced&#33; Thank you&#33;&#33;


The argument of the possibility of the "benevolent dictator" who genuinely does the right thing for his people is inherently flawed.

Yet another person misunderstands me, and I was so lucid, elegant
and coherent&#33;

No. I am absolutely opposed to dictatorships. Totalitarianism does
not require any sort of dictatorship, though it can (and often does,
unfortunately) exist alongside one.

The type of totalitarianism which I advocate is democratic.

Thus is your argument dismantled. I have refuted that premiss
upon which the veracity of your argument depends. I need not
say any more.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I think you should join my political party: "The Confederate Solidarity Union of Extreme Individualists Who Take No Shit From Anyone Else" - we haven&#39;t been able to work out a way to actually meet, seems everyone has their own damn ideas for a time and place =D

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I have an idea&#33; We can combine capitalism and socialism - we just need to totally cange the definition of each. Who cares what dictionaries and centuries of thought have to say on the subject? ;)

I define Capitalism as being able to eat food. I define socialism as wanting to eat food&#33; The two are obviously completely compatible and anyone that fails to see that has to work on his reading comprehension :rolleyes:

--- G.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 13 2003, 03:53 PM
I have an idea&#33; We can combine capitalism and socialism - we just need to totally cange the definition of each. Who cares what dictionaries and centuries of thought have to say on the subject? ;)

I define Capitalism as being able to eat food. I define socialism as wanting to eat food&#33; The two are obviously completely compatible and anyone that fails to see that has to work on his reading comprehension :rolleyes:

--- G.
Do not be absurd. I defined three words. Freedom I defined
as the ability to do what one desires. What is your problem with
this definition? Progression I defined as, mainly, expanding the means
of production. This definition I extracted from the works of Karl
Marx himself. What is the problem with this definition? Totalitarianism
I defined as the complete subjugation of the individual to the State,
and I said that it must be viewed in light of its historic mission, namely,
expanding the means of production, augmenting the chances of
survival of the citizentry, etc. What is wrong with these definitions?

Please try again.

Your turn.

[Saint-Just]

I said before that Huzington is a genius, whether he is right or wrong its futile to argue with him :mellow:

I am not sure about your definition of totalitarianism. I think its more than subordination of the individual to the state. It is also a state that seeks to influence the totality of human life and society, its purpose is a "drive to seize the human soul". Totalitarianism comes in different degrees but it characterised by the strong to total influence of the government over the state (all state institutions etc.).

[redstar2000]

When I asked the origins of your idea that totalitarianism exists for the purpose of maximizing survival, you suggested that the answer was to be found in history.

But when specific despotisms are cited, you say they were not "perfect totalitarianisms".

Then, a little further on, you admit that perfection is unattainable.

You are confused, Q.E.D.


I was talking about the historic mission of totalitarianism.

I&#39;m sorry but I do not see how it is possible for an idea to have "a historic mission"?

I can see how classes might be said to have "historic missions"...though I frankly dislike that sort of 19th century bombastic terminology; it&#39;s too romanticist and downright nebulous for my tastes.

But an idea? It sounds like Hegel&#39;s "world spirit"...an ideological hot-air balloon.


But totalitarianism itself, its mission, has been for the good of the collective: whether it was in fact good for it is another question.

It&#39;s not just "another question", it is the question. You are offering an explanatory hypothesis. Does the evidence support or refute your conjecture?

I think you already know the answer to that one.


Are you to tell me that the expanding the means of production is IN ITSELF good for the individual?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on a multitude of circumstances and conditions.


I meant the State itself.

Well, the capital-S "State" is an abstraction. Real states that actually have existed and presumably will exist are staffed by particular individuals who are, as it happens, usually members of or at least representatives of particular classes.

Certain abstract things can be said about states as human institutions in the abstract...but not much. Certainly nothing as "grand" as you suggest; many historical despotisms have acted in such a way as to reduce the chances of survival and reduce the growth of the means of production.

I know, you will say that such were not "real" totalitarianisms...which have, by your definition, never existed.

That&#39;s fair enough...real communism has a rather spotty historical record as well.

But whereas communism depends on participation of the masses of people, organizing matters to suit their preferences, totalitarianism depends on some small group of people "doing the right things" to "maximize production" and "survival probabilities".

And there&#39;s no evidence that any small group of despots have the capabilities to actually do that. What they always seek to do is maximize their own personal wealth, prestige, power, etc. even when the consequences spell disaster for both production and survival.

Consider the 3rd Reich: I think one could make a very strong argument that the persecution of German Jews constituted a self-inflicted mortal wound on Germany&#39;s prospects for empire.

Had the Reich not sent almost all of its best scientists into exile--a blow from which German science has still not recovered--Germany might have actually developed the "super-weapons" that they propagandized about while being pounded into ruins.

The net result of Germany&#39;s "imperfect" totalitarianism was about ten million dead Germans and a productive infrastructure blasted into desolation.

The "track record" of totalitarianism ought to discourage anyone with even a casual knowledge of history...I do not understand your real reasons for advocating it, except as an idle intellectual exercise.

It&#39;s just a bullshit idea.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[dancingoutlaw]

QUOTE

1) Who decides what desires to grant? In a Totalitarian society presumably a central authority will be the ones calling the shots.


Irrelevant. It can be anyway. It can be a small minority of thugs. It can be a dictator. On the other hand, it
could be the majority. There is no "calling the shots" in the totalitariani society I mentioned. There is no
central authority in the totalitarian society I mentioned.

Central to your argument is that a State controls the desires of it&#39;s people.


But the wants of the citizens would be controlled in such a
way that the citizens would do only what the State wants them to
do, which is Totalitarianism as defined above.
If there is no central authority then how can there not be a State? A loose Confederation agreeing to control the desires of men? Even if it is Democratic as you claim then it could only be one party since everyone would presumably have a limited range of issues to fulfill and would all basically agree on everything. Given the range of human issues that is an impossibility without mass enslavement.

I still don&#39;t buy your freedom through limited choice argument. If you limit the choices of people then you limit capabilities. Yes there is freedom of thought. It was freedom of thought that allowed men to fly and then go to the moon. It is freedom of thought that makes men and women overcome what seems to be impossible. As hard as you may try you cannot formulalize every human into a pidgeon hole. You can try to take away desire and will but there will always be ones out there who will want for something better. That you cannot stop.

peace

[SonofRage]

This is just a ridiculous argument. You are basically saying that totalitarianism is ok if people are coerced into desiring the same thing that the totalitarian state wants. This is not freedom. You admit this yourself when you say that the citizen&#39;s behavior is being controlled indirectly. To be truly free, we must be free from coersian as well.

[Anti-Fascist]

But when specific despotisms are cited, you say they were not "perfect totalitarianisms".

No. That is not what I said. I did not deny that those societies were totalitarian. I simply said that their being despotical is irrelevant. Despotism does not constitute totalitarianism, though very often it exists alongside totalitarianism. For instance, Amerika and Cuba are totalitarian; however, there is no "dictator" in these countries.


Then, a little further on, you admit that perfection is unattainable.

You are misquoting me and now misrepresnting what I said. I said perfection is unattainable in the absolute sense of the word. But I see perfection, in a less narrow sense of the word, everywhere. For instance, the cup is the perfect tool with which to drink water.

Do not use this false type of argumentation again.


I&#39;m sorry but I do not see how it is possible for an idea to have "a historic mission"?

Ideas are simply a reflection of objective conditions. Even so, "totalitarianism" is not a mere idea. It is an empirical fact. Its historic mission is its movement, its end, which is prior to its beginning.


But an idea? It sounds like Hegel&#39;s "world spirit"...an ideological hot-air balloon.

No. It is not an idea. It is a congeries of objective conditions which constitute totalitarianism.


Does the evidence support or refute your conjecture?


Support.


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on a multitude of circumstances and conditions.

I completely agree.


Well, the capital-S "State" is an abstraction. Real states that actually have existed and presumably will exist are staffed by particular individuals who are, as it happens, usually members of or at least representatives of particular classes.

And I completely agree with you.

The State cannot know what is best for us. The State is a mere abstraction.

Only the people can know what is best for us, the people. Everything must be democratic in the totalitarian society of which I speak.

[Rastafari]

It is a bond wherewith the savage man may charm the outward hatchments of his soul, and soothe the troubled breast into a magnitude of quiet. It is most precious as a blessed balm, the saviour of princes, the harbinger of happiness, yea, the very stuff and pith of all we hold most dear. What frees the prisoner in his lonely cell, chained within the bondage of rude walls, far from the owl of Thebes? What fires and stirs the woodcock in his springe or wakes the drowsy apricot betides? What goddess doth the storm toss&#39;d mariner offer her most tempestuous prayers to? Freedom&#33; Freedom&#33; Freedom&#33;


I don&#39;t say how freedom and totalitarianism really work together at all-they actually will negate each other by definition.

P.S. While were on the subject, didn&#39;t Jeremy Bentham have himself mummified?

[elijahcraig]

The mission of Totalitarianism is to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant.

Freedom CANNOT exist while the individual is subordinate to the state. Sorry.

And by what you say above, you ARE INDEED A FASCIST. Why not just go with that from now on scum.


How is this definition the opposite of Fascism? I am not saying that Totalitarianism is fascism, but certainly I did not define it as the opposite of fascism.

I didn&#39;t say it was the opposite of fascism. I said you defined totalitarianism as the opposite of what it was--freedom vs. totalitarianism. Complete control vs. freedom.

PS: Happiness is not the supreme ideal, so this whole post is rather irrelevant.

[Xvall]

I entirely disagree with you, but I must give you credit for actually writing a post so properly and &#39;professionally&#39;. Doesn&#39;t change the fact that now everyone thinks you&#39;re a tad bit insane.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 06:22 PM

The mission of Totalitarianism is to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant.

Freedom CANNOT exist while the individual is subordinate to the state. Sorry.

And by what you say above, you ARE INDEED A FASCIST. Why not just go with that from now on scum.


How is this definition the opposite of Fascism? I am not saying that Totalitarianism is fascism, but certainly I did not define it as the opposite of fascism.

I didn&#39;t say it was the opposite of fascism. I said you defined totalitarianism as the opposite of what it was--freedom vs. totalitarianism. Complete control vs. freedom.

PS: Happiness is not the supreme ideal, so this whole post is rather irrelevant.
First.

1. Freedom, in the words of John Stuart Mill, a great champion of freedom
and utilitarianism, "consists in doing what one desires."

2. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is "the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority."

3. But when the State controls the citizens in such a way that the citizen is totally
subject to its authority, but does this by controlling the citizens&#39; wants - this
is by definition totalitarianism.

Yet freedom "consists in doing what one wants".

4. And in this totalitarian society (see 3), in which the wants of the citizens are controlled,
every citizen is free to do what he wants, but he will only want to do what the
State wants him to do. This is freedom, because he can do whatever he wants (see 1)
. Anything he wants to do, he can do. But it is totalitarianism, because he is absolutely
controlled by the State - his wants are absolutely controlled by the State. This
individual is not coerced in any way. For, because he can do whatever he wants, he is
absolutely free. His thoughts are controlled not be coercion, but by morals, ideological
indoctrination, criticism, etc. And I shall repeat it again, since your reading
comprehension is so defective: he has the freedom to do whatever he wants, and
his wants are controlled.

Hence freedom and totalitarianism can coexist. And as yet no one has demonstrated the
contrary.

"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can
you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him?
Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his
pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without
his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to
take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open
his mouth without your knowing what he will say."

Second.

I am not and cannot be a fascist. Fascism is opposed to democracy. I believe
in absolute democracy without restriction. Fascism advocates pure totalitarianism, i.e.,
control of wants AND behaviour. Fascism thus restricts freedom, and I uphold freedom.
Fascism is pro-punishment, and I am one hundred per cent opposed to ALL forms of
punishment, for I believe that they restrict freedom. Fascism is pro-War, and I am
fanatically opposed to war.

Fascism is not "totalitariansim", but a type of totalitarianism - a type which
must be denounced and fought against.

As I have said before:

"ideas of &#39;fascism&#39; are probably floating around in your
mind upon reading the word "totalitarianism". Do not confuse
Fascism with Totalitarianism. For Fascism is PURE totalitarianism
WITHOUT the element of freedom. This is absolutely undesirable,
and must be fought against. Happiness is got through LIBERTY.
Happiness is desirable. Therefore, pure totalitarianism (fascism)
must always be denounced."

Elijah Craig, read my Totalitarianism and Freedom post before saying anything
about it. It is more than clear that you have not read it.

[dancingoutlaw]

My desire is to think outside of political indoctrination. How do you square this with your theory. I am sorry but it seems to me that you blame rejection of your theory on poor reading comprehension and not on true rejection of your theory.

Peace

[synthesis]

Hmm...


So if the State can be society as a whole, Totalitarianism could be the subjugation of the individual to society?


Just asking for clarification.

[The Feral Underclass]

You are a free man if you want to do only
those things which I want you to do, and are able to do
them.

Just because someone believes they are free does not make them free.


You are not free if you want to do many things, but cannot
do them because I am controlling your behaviour.

They amount to the same things. You said that "You are a free man if you want to do only those things which I want you to do, and are able to do them. But what if you want to do is not what I want to do. My behaviour is being controlled if I do not want to do what u want.


In the first case you are free to do whatever you want.

No&#33; I must do what you want.


Only in the second type of totalitarianism do you feel a loss of freedom.

Let us say that this is true. That I did want to do what you wanted, and indeed I did feel as if I was free. The question still remains, am I free? You have created a subjective oppinion about what freedom is. This does not negate fact. If I was free to do what ever I wanted, then I would be able to do it. But what if that conflicted with what you wanted me to do. My freedom is then restricted. Which means, in reality, regardless of what you believe freedom to be, in the end, I am not free.


Thus control of wants does not negate freedom, but control solely of behaviour is a negation of freedom.

Which are one and the same thing. And what if my wants conflicted with your wants?


"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can
you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him?
Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his
pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without
his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to
take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open
his mouth without your knowing what he will say."

But the question is why would you want to control another human being in such a way?


The citizen, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can you not
arrange everything in the world which surrounds him? Can you
not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his pleasures,
his pains, are not all these in your hands and without his
knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do.

This just dosnt make any sense. Your definition of freedom is "The ability to do what one desires." But then you go onto to define freedom as people who "ought to do only what you want him to do." What is at about you, or about the state which should see people subjugated in such a way.....


to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND
the means of production

What you are advocating is replacing one kind of oppressive human consciousness with another. The destruction of capitalism must come about with human consciousness. The working class must realise their role within society and want to change it. And change it so they can live in freedom. Freedom being the ability to experience life without being exploited or controlled.


Anarchism
is PURE freedom WITHOUT the element of totalitarianism. This is
absolutely undesirable, and must be fought against.

please elaberate.

[des-esseintes]

This is totally fucking insane, a grotesque Stalinist perversion :(

First of all, the ABC of Marxism says that the state appears on the stage of history once society is shattered into classes. The state, as a special body of armed men, is the guardian of inequality, a glorified policeman. As society progresses towards communism, with more and more abundance and thus equality, the state will gradually lose its purpose and wither away.

"The government controlling people&#39;s wants"; this is a philosophically idealist idea commonly associated with anarchism. They think that once you attain power you can make a paradise on earth right away. To quote Trotsky:

"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip."

The entire tapestry of human relations that make up society have one thing at the bottom: Needs. It&#39;s impossible to arbitrarily "decide" what someone wants. Every human being instinctively strives to acquire a decent standard of living, clothes, food and so on. A person put into a society where these conditions are not satisfied for him but for someone else will spontaneously revolt. Under Communism there will be enough goods to satisfy everyone&#39;s basic wants; no oppression; social behavior will be conditioned by habit and education. Under socialism, there will be only so much spurring as is required to make people produce as much as possible. There can be no question of "controlling wants", this is a soundly gruesome and inhuman idea suitable to a poor, Stalinist country. It reminds me of Orwell&#39;s 1984.

The entire history of mankind is the history of the struggle of every individual to satisfy his/her wants. If wants can be satisfied, there is no need for oppression, there is no need to "control wants".

You say that people will not commit murder once the right morality has been implanted into them. I differ. People will not commit murder once they have no reason to do so. This will happen once the stinking body of capital has been removed from the back of humanity and monetarist morality has found its grave. On a basis of superabundance theft will be as silly an idea as counter-revolution.

[Anti-Fascist]

dancingoutlaw said:

My desire is to think outside of political indoctrination.

And yet I am speaking of control of desires. You would not have such a desire.


I am sorry but it seems to me that you blame rejection of your theory on poor reading comprehension and not on true rejection of your theory.

No; when people explicitly say things which I have not said, and claim that I have said them, and then make an argument against those things which I have not said, it is apparent that their reading comprehension is it fault.

DyerMaker said:

So if the State can be society as a whole, Totalitarianism could be the subjugation of the individual to society?

[dancingoutlaw]

How would you go about controlling my desires? Of course you couldn&#39;t. You would aim to control the desires of the unborn and their children and all subsequent generations. So I ask you what is this process? How do you dominate so many wills at once yet no one either knows or cares and lives their lives in perfect freedom? Sounds like the D-grade citizens of "Brave New World" who were engineered to not want more or care about their status. Does the entire human civilization become D-grade citizens? Good luck with doing that peacfully.

Peace

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 10:54 PM
dancingoutlaw said:

My desire is to think outside of political indoctrination.

And yet I am speaking of control of desires. You would not have such a desire.


I am sorry but it seems to me that you blame rejection of your theory on poor reading comprehension and not on true rejection of your theory.

No; when people explicitly say things which I have not said, and claim that I have said them, and then make an argument against those things which I have not said, it is apparent that their reading comprehension is it fault.

DyerMaker said:

So if the State can be society as a whole, Totalitarianism could be the subjugation of the individual to society?
Ah... so I&#39;m wrong?

[Rastafari]

your take on Totalitarianism sounds remarkably buddhist to me. "Desire is an evil and must be limited."
You COULD do this, but not without nearly comprimising freedom. People could learn to live without those extraneaous desires, I suppose, but this isn&#39;t how a society is measured up as a "good" or "sucessful" one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anti-Fascist: Why have you not replied to my message?

[Anti-Fascist]

Just because someone believes they are free does not make them free.

And no one is denying that. I said:

You are a free man if you want to do only those things which I want you to do, and are able to do them.

Nothing more.


You said that "You are a free man if you want to do only those things which I want you to do, and are able to do them." But what if you want to do is not what I want to do.

Ah, but I am talking about a situation in which there is nothing that you would want to do which is not wanted to be done by Me; therefore, you are free, because you can do whatever it is that you want to do, and you do not want to do what I do not want you to do: you have no such desire; hence no confliction between My wants and your wants.


No&#33; I must do what you want.

And you would want to do what I want, and you are free and able to do whatever you want - but, again, you only want to do what I want you to do anyway.


The question still remains, am I free?


Yes, because you are able to do whatever it is that you want to do.


You have created a subjective oppinion about what freedom is.

I have not "created" a "subjective opinion" about what freedom "is". This is the actual definition of freedom&#33; This is what freedom has meant for thousands of years&#33; This is how the dictionary defines freedom&#33; And what is more, this is how philosophers define the word (John Stuart Mill, and all the other writers of freedom).


I am not free.

If you are able to do and think whatever you want to do and think, you are free&#33; - which is the case in the totalitarian society of which I speak, in which every person is able to do what he wants to do (thinking being a type of "doing").


Which are one and the same thing.

Control of behaviour and control of wants are not "one and the same". For instance, if I threw you in a prison, I would be controlling your behaviour by disallowing you to go outside of the prison. But I would not be controlling your wants - you could still want to leave the prison.


And what if my wants conflicted with your wants?

Then we are talking about something that I am not talking about. I am talking about a society in which your wants are to be controlled, but in which you are able to do whatever you want to do.


But the question is why would you want to control another human being in such a way?

No, that is not the question. That is a type of ad hominem: one&#39;s intentions and motivations are irrelevant in argumentation. Any book on logic will tell you the same thing.


This just dosnt make any sense.

Then you need to work on your skills in logic, I do advise.


The destruction of capitalism must come about with human consciousness. The working class must realise their role within society and want to change it. And change it so they can live in freedom. Freedom being the ability to experience life without being exploited or controlled.

And I entirely agree with you. But I also must point out the irrelevancy of this.


please elaberate.


Please what, son? What is "elaberate"?

I am tired of arguing with little kids.

[Anti-Fascist]

This is totally fucking insane, a grotesque Stalinist perversion

Like Elijah Craig and the rest, you have called my post names&#33; Now I am so convinced - oh&#33; how I am convinced by this&#33;&#33; Indeed, so convinced am I by this, that I shall convert - right now - to the religion of Trotskyism: that is how convinced I am by this&#33;&#33; Really&#33;&#33;


the ABC of Marxism says that the state appears on the stage of history once society is shattered into classes. The state, as a special body of armed men, is the guardian of inequality, a glorified policeman. As society progresses towards communism, with more and more abundance and thus equality, the state will gradually lose its purpose and wither away.

And I completely agree with the Marxist thesis of the withering away of the state. Yet this is irrelevant.


this is a philosophically idealist idea

Again, calling it names is not going to alter the facts.


They think that once you attain power you can make a paradise on earth right away.

Such is the position of the anarchist, and why I am determinedly opposed to anarchism.

But again this is irrelevant.


"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip."

And I completely agree with Trotsky on this.

But again, see above.


The entire tapestry of human relations that make up society have one thing at the bottom: Needs.

And I agree.


It&#39;s impossible to arbitrarily "decide" what someone wants.

Again I agree.

However, you are confusing "wants" with "needs". Someone might "want" to murder someone, but surely he does not "need" to. I am talking about controlling wants: making it so that people will not want to murder. This is not in the slightest arbitrary.


There can be no question of "controlling wants",

Indubitably there can. As soon as you implant morals into a young schoolboy, you are controlling his wants, making him not want to do "immoral" things.

Such is the type of "want control" I advocate.


If wants can be satisfied, there is no need for oppression, there is no need to "control wants".

You are confusing wants with needs. Murder is a type of want, for those suffering from ethical turpitude at any rate.


People will not commit murder once they have no reason to do so.

Which comes to exactly the same thing. People want to commit murder because they think that they have a good reason to commit murder. If you make it so that they do not have a reason to commit murder, as you say, you are indirectly controlling their wants. You cannot escape want-control.

[The Feral Underclass]

For a start don&#39;t call me son. Your not my father, you don&#39;t know me and you don&#39;t have a right. Ok&#33; good&#33;


I am talking about a situation in which there is nothing that you would want to do which is not wanted to be done by Me;

What gives you the right to decide what people want.


therefore, you are free, because you can do whatever it is that you want to do, and you do not want to do what I do not want you to do:

How can you want everything i want. What happens if I do not want to have your control over me. What happens if I do not want to do what you tell me to do? Just because I want to play football and you allow me to do it, does not mean I can go and play baseball if you do not want it. This does not make me free.


you have no such desire;

because you are controlling them.


And you would want to do what I want, and you are free and able to do whatever you want

And what happens if I do something other than what you want. What if I want to start an anarchist paper advocating collectivisation of the means of production and the destruction of central planning. Would you shoot me? Or what happens if I want to send my daughter to film school but you want her to work in a bread factory? Do you put me in prison?


but, again, you only want to do what I want you to do anyway.

So you are saying that you want to mold human consciousness to what ever you want it to be so that everyone agrees, believes and wants everything you want. And this is freedom&#33;


I have not "created" a "subjective opinion" about what freedom "is". This is the actual definition of freedom&#33; This is what freedom has meant for thousands of years&#33; This is how the dictionary defines freedom&#33; And what is more, this is how philosophers define the word (John Stuart Mill, and all the other writers of freedom).

You are claming that the notion of freedom is limited to what people want. But what happens if those people dont know what they want. Such is the case in society now. People do not know they do not want capitalism. Captialism makes them believe they want it, and so they do believe they want it. This does not make them anymore free. If they want everything you want, how can they ever want something for themselves. This is not what freedom is. And just because a dictionary and lots of men with grey hair say that is freedom, does not make it an objective view.

Freedom is being able to have what you want without having those wants controlled. Freedom is about being able to experience things, even if you do not know you want to experience them.


If you are able to do and think whatever you want to do and think, you are free&#33; - which is the case in the totalitarian society of which I speak, in which every person is able to do what he wants to do (thinking being a type of "doing").

But you control those wants. How can you claim that an individual controlling someones wants constitutes freedom. Controlling someones wants is not makng them free. It is making them dependent on what you believe they want.


I am talking about a society in which your wants are to be controlled, but in which you are able to do whatever you want to do.

I can only do what ever I want within the boundries of that control. I can not be controlled and be free at the same time. As we are going on dictionary definitions I went to www.dictionary.com

con·trol ( P ) (kn-trl)
tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols
1.To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3.To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.

free·dom ( P ) (frdm)
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
3. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.


No, that is not the question. That is a type of ad hominem: one&#39;s intentions and motivations are irrelevant in argumentation. Any book on logic will tell you the same thing.

There is nothing objective about what you wish the world to be like. It serves no purpose except to, in your own words "subjuge[ting] the individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant."

As we&#39;re on a dictionary role, let us look at the dictionary definition of "subjugated"

sub·ju·gate ( P ) (sbj-gt)
tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates
1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To make subservient; enslave.

All hail the mighty beacon of freedom.


I am tired of arguing with little kids.

pathetic&#33;

Having said that, us "little kids" will be inheriting the world from you old farts. So surely you should be trying to convince us of the greatness of your plan so we may carry it forward in your name instead of being rude. Sorry, but your not convincing me at all&#33; :)

[Anti-Fascist]

For a start don&#39;t call me son. Your not my father, you don&#39;t know me and you don&#39;t have a right. Ok&#33; good&#33;

You mean "you&#39;re", kid.

Now let us dissect your faulty reasoning...


What gives you the right to decide what people want.

Nothing. There is no God. Man decides everything for Himself.


How can you want everything i want. What happens if I do not want to have your control over me. What happens if I do not want to do what you tell me to do? Just because I want to play football and you allow me to do it, does not mean I can go and play baseball if you do not want it. This does not make me free.

You know, you VERY much suffer from subnormal reading comprehension.

I am going to say this one last time, and only one last time.

1. freedom is the ability to do whatever you want
2. if you have the ability to do whatever you want, therefore, you are free.

*sigh* This is pointless. Where are the people who have actually understood what I said, even the ones who disagreed with me? Where have they gone?

[Anti-Fascist]

To repeat...
my definitions are the same as yours.

I am not even going to state the same thing in different words,
as I have done again and again and again and again. I am tired
of doing this.

1. Freedom, in the words of John Stuart Mill, a great champion of freedom
and utilitarianism, "consists in doing what one desires."

This is the same as your definition. The liberty to do something without constraint is being able to do what one desires.

2. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is "the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority."

3. But when the State controls the citizens in such a way that the citizen is totally
subject to its authority, but does this by controlling the citizens&#39; wants - this
is by definition totalitarianism.

Yet freedom "consists in doing what one wants".

4. And in this totalitarian society (see 3), in which the wants of the citizens are controlled,
every citizen is free to do what he wants, but he will only want to do what the
State wants him to do. This is freedom, because he can do whatever he wants (see 1)
. Anything he wants to do, he can do. But it is totalitarianism, because he is absolutely
controlled by the State - his wants are absolutely controlled by the State. This
individual is not coerced in any way. For, because he can do whatever he wants, he is
absolutely free. His thoughts are controlled not be coercion, but by morals, ideological
indoctrination, criticism, etc. And I shall repeat it again, since your reading
comprehension is so defective: he has the freedom to do whatever he wants, and
his wants are controlled.

Hence freedom and totalitarianism can coexist. And as yet no one has demonstrated the
contrary.

"The poor baby, knowing nothing, is he not at your mercy? Can
you not arrange everything in the world which surrounds him?
Can you not influence him as you wish? His work, his play, his
pleasures, his pains, are not all these in your hands and without
his knowing? Doubtless he ought to do only what he wants; but
he ought to do only what you want him to do; he ought not to
take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open
his mouth without your knowing what he will say."

[The Feral Underclass]

Please don&#39;t call me kid. Thank you&#33;

I understand you perfectly well. You just don&#39;t make any sense. It isn&#39;t me mate, it&#39;s you. You are the one that dosnt seem to understand. I will try and explain my point a little simpler, so maybe you can.


Nothing. There is no God. Man decides everything for Himself.

Except in your world man dosnt. You are using different meanings and joining them together. On one hand you say man decides for himself and then say


therefore, you are free, because you can do whatever it is that you want to do, and you do not want to do what I do not want you to do

You also say:


I am talking about a society in which your wants are to be controlled...

Now this is where I get confused, controlled means:

con·trol( P ) (kn-trl)
tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols
1.To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3.To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.

And therefore if you are "...talking about a society in which your wants are to be controlled" you can not be free. Because freedom is the opposite of being controlled, defined thus:

[i]free·dom ( P ) (frdm)
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.

Now put definition 3 of controlled and definiton 1 of freedom:

3. To hold in restraint;
1. The condition of being free of restraints.

You will see that they are complete opposites and can not, in fact, co-exist, because it is impossible to be restrained and free of restraints at the same time. Do you understand? Apparently not.

You also go onto to say:


1. freedom is the ability to do whatever you want
2. if you have the ability to do whatever you want, therefore, you are free.

But you also say:


to MAXIMISE
the chances of survival of the citizenry (or "race") and to EXPAND
the means of production - to do both of these by subjugating the
individual to the state, government, nation or to some equivilant

Now we are in the same predicament as before because subjugate means:

sub·ju·gate ( P ) (sbj-gt)
tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates
1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To make subservient; enslave.

Now if you take definition 2 of freedom and definition 2 of Subjugate:

2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
2. To make subservient; enslave.

You will see, again, that they completly contradict each other. You can not be "liberty of the person from slavery" and "...enslave[d]" at the same time.

If you use these words to mean anything other than the dictiuonary definition please explain what you want these words to mean.

Are you simply trying to justify your own fascist tendancies? Are you a closet fascist who is in denial? desperatly trying to make totalitarianism and freedom fit together so that it is easier for you to deal with.

It also seems very strange how someone who dosnt like argueing with "kids" comes to a message board where the average age is 18. Why dont you go and talk with people your own age then, loser&#33; Oh that&#39;s right, no one will listen because your crazy&#33;

[elijahcraig]

Huzington is the reason we might need secret police in a socialist society.

:lol:

[dancingoutlaw]

Anti-facsist, I understand your point. I do not think that it is either workable or even in your own words "moral" or even ethical. The control of individuals through mores is an age old concept. We can see these mores as a social contract that keeps civilization from entering into a barbaric state. It is what keeps me from stabbing you in the neck if you make me angry. The social contract will tell me that there will be harsh consequenses to my actions.

Now to non-violent rebellion to mores. How would your thought experiment handle a re-evaluation of society? Say that what happened in America in the 60&#39;s happened in your society where the "new morality" was viewed by many as the old immorality yet has now become part of the social structure. Examine the Rennaissance where a strict religious society&#39;s universe was stood on end when they realized that a great majority of what they knew was in fact wrong. What would happen in this homogenized construction of yours? I propose that you cannot control human behavior through the means as you describe because there will always be those that are willing to push the envelope of society. Unless you are willing to dispose of these people outright; a change for the better or for the worse will occur. We do not live and a vacuum. We live in a climate where change is constant and nothing can hold back ideas.

You also dispose of freedom of thought as a myth. In an earlier post you assume that
Thoughts must be caused by something
other than thoughts.

I contend that they do not. Thought is unto itself a whole. You quote philosophers ,as a rule, who live strictly by thought. Not everything in the world is nurture and a society cannot control all of nature. Thought is what makes us more that mere meat. Thought is what as a race we live for. How can you dismiss such an important part of the human experience? Just one day look around you and see that everything in your grasp is because someone before you thought of it. Be impressed. Or try to act like it at least.

Peace

[The Feral Underclass]

Anti-Fascist: Why have you not answered any of the posts left for you?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anti Fascist, do you conceed that your argument is flawed or not?

[Soviet power supreme]

How can this kind of system work?

Are the newborn&#39;s minds only what can be controlled?

How this techinique will be used to current minds?

[SonofRage]

His argument is either farcical or insane. Either way, "debating" him is a waste of time.