I've struggled with this subject for some time and decided it is probably a good idea to throw this open to debate as I want to see what comes up.
Today, it is almost taken as 'fact' that National Socialism and Communism are evil by definition as systems of totalitarian government; that what happened under both systems constituted "crimes against humanity" and a violation of the natural law of society which leads to human rights. There is a collective incomprehension at how these things are even possible.
Yet, what appears to be self-evident to us now, was not self-evident then. People convinced themselves not only that it was possible, but that it was right.This was not merely a product of relativism (although it was certainly part of it), but of a set of 'worldviews' which justified these actions in terms of collectivist ideologies which valued the rights of the group (represented by the state) above the rights of the individual.
A major part of this conviction was based on an assessment of history as a science. In both ideologies, history was governed by a series of laws which led to social development. In the case of National Socialism, it was based on Social Darwinian theory of the struggle between races, and in the Communist case, it was the class struggle. These historical laws acted as the moral justification for (enormous) individual sacrifices for the 'common good'. The "scientific" nature of the claim is what made them so dangerous, since it was argued that these laws objectively existed and acted independently of the will of individuals, thereby acting as the source of moral reasoning. To work with these laws was moral; to go against them was immoral. When these objective laws are attributed to the state, it is as simple as what is in the state's interests is moral, what goes against the states interests is immoral, and hence the "extermination" of the real and imagined enemies of the state becomes "ethical".
As a Communist, this is and has caused me some serious ethical problems. these arguments run contrary to judeao-christian and liberal humanist traditions of ethics. Whilst the objections to totalitarianism are more than understandable, they have become a "problem" in their own right.
The arguments are generally that private property is the basis of individual rights and a "free" society; whereas common property is the basis for state control and totalitarianism. So, it is argued, without protections for private property and the free market, individual rights, "freedom and democracy" are endangered or lost.
But The absolute and unconditional insistence on the moral worth of the individual and there rights has led to "magical thinking" in which the free market is the best and only solution to our problems, even when there are credible arguments that it could be the cause.
The most obvious is Climate Change, which represents a potentially catastrophic market failure; worse still the refusal to admit that this could be a market failure in need of government intervention may actually make a bad situation worse. This comes in two forms; denying the problem even exists and using 'freedom of thought' to peddle anti-scientific notions and then asserting that any challenge to the right of private property constitutes a wider threat to individual liberty and an encroachment of "big government" in to society. This is in spite of the fact we already live in a society where 'limited government' is taking steps to push back our civil liberties in the name of 'counter-terrorism'. So there is a serious need to make a strong case for collectivism of some kind, so that climate change as a common problem affecting everyone on the planet can be addressed.
The issue, is that the arguments against totalitarianism are arguments against ALL forms of collectivism, including very moderate ones which have historically been compatible with centre-left politics such as progressive, social liberal, social democratic/democratic socialist. The battle over health care in America is illustrative of the way in which the arguments over the "slippery slope to totalitarianism" are used against such reforms. The same can be said for the rightward drift of the Labour Party in the UK after Blair came to power. To a greater or lesser extent, many of the arguments against collectivism can be taken as arguments as democracy itself as a system of majority rule because it threatens minority rights; the insistence on individual rights makes it easier to be apathetic and cynical, as working towards common ends in a democratic process is demeaned as impossible due to individual insignificance in comparison to the problems, corrupt politicians, corporate influence, etc.
So, a response to this means re-thinking:
i) the relationship between collectivism and totalitarianism and arguing that collectivism is compatible individual liberty and the status quo. (obviously the most preferable).
or...
ii) The totalitarians were actually right, capitalism is on it's way out as a system and we're are going to need something collectivist that would be both revolutionary totalitarian. This would imply liberalism is not the natural order and our moral understanding is either incomplete or wrong.
I'm interested to see what people think of this problem and to get your opinions on the outcomes. the sheer unlikely hood of a gradual and reformist solution to it, makes me lean towards the second option but then it just scares the living day lights out of me. my apologies for this being so long, but I wanted to be through so you don't think I'm trolling as I'm quite lost on this.
So, Can Totalitarianism be a moral response to climate change if it proves that we cannot or do not reform the current system in time?
Today, it is almost taken as 'fact' that National Socialism and Communism are evil by definition as systems of totalitarian government; that what happened under both systems constituted "crimes against humanity" and a violation of the natural law of society which leads to human rights. There is a collective incomprehension at how these things are even possible.
Yet, what appears to be self-evident to us now, was not self-evident then. People convinced themselves not only that it was possible, but that it was right.This was not merely a product of relativism (although it was certainly part of it), but of a set of 'worldviews' which justified these actions in terms of collectivist ideologies which valued the rights of the group (represented by the state) above the rights of the individual.
A major part of this conviction was based on an assessment of history as a science. In both ideologies, history was governed by a series of laws which led to social development. In the case of National Socialism, it was based on Social Darwinian theory of the struggle between races, and in the Communist case, it was the class struggle. These historical laws acted as the moral justification for (enormous) individual sacrifices for the 'common good'. The "scientific" nature of the claim is what made them so dangerous, since it was argued that these laws objectively existed and acted independently of the will of individuals, thereby acting as the source of moral reasoning. To work with these laws was moral; to go against them was immoral. When these objective laws are attributed to the state, it is as simple as what is in the state's interests is moral, what goes against the states interests is immoral, and hence the "extermination" of the real and imagined enemies of the state becomes "ethical".
As a Communist, this is and has caused me some serious ethical problems. these arguments run contrary to judeao-christian and liberal humanist traditions of ethics. Whilst the objections to totalitarianism are more than understandable, they have become a "problem" in their own right.
The arguments are generally that private property is the basis of individual rights and a "free" society; whereas common property is the basis for state control and totalitarianism. So, it is argued, without protections for private property and the free market, individual rights, "freedom and democracy" are endangered or lost.
But The absolute and unconditional insistence on the moral worth of the individual and there rights has led to "magical thinking" in which the free market is the best and only solution to our problems, even when there are credible arguments that it could be the cause.
The most obvious is Climate Change, which represents a potentially catastrophic market failure; worse still the refusal to admit that this could be a market failure in need of government intervention may actually make a bad situation worse. This comes in two forms; denying the problem even exists and using 'freedom of thought' to peddle anti-scientific notions and then asserting that any challenge to the right of private property constitutes a wider threat to individual liberty and an encroachment of "big government" in to society. This is in spite of the fact we already live in a society where 'limited government' is taking steps to push back our civil liberties in the name of 'counter-terrorism'. So there is a serious need to make a strong case for collectivism of some kind, so that climate change as a common problem affecting everyone on the planet can be addressed.
The issue, is that the arguments against totalitarianism are arguments against ALL forms of collectivism, including very moderate ones which have historically been compatible with centre-left politics such as progressive, social liberal, social democratic/democratic socialist. The battle over health care in America is illustrative of the way in which the arguments over the "slippery slope to totalitarianism" are used against such reforms. The same can be said for the rightward drift of the Labour Party in the UK after Blair came to power. To a greater or lesser extent, many of the arguments against collectivism can be taken as arguments as democracy itself as a system of majority rule because it threatens minority rights; the insistence on individual rights makes it easier to be apathetic and cynical, as working towards common ends in a democratic process is demeaned as impossible due to individual insignificance in comparison to the problems, corrupt politicians, corporate influence, etc.
So, a response to this means re-thinking:
i) the relationship between collectivism and totalitarianism and arguing that collectivism is compatible individual liberty and the status quo. (obviously the most preferable).
or...
ii) The totalitarians were actually right, capitalism is on it's way out as a system and we're are going to need something collectivist that would be both revolutionary totalitarian. This would imply liberalism is not the natural order and our moral understanding is either incomplete or wrong.
I'm interested to see what people think of this problem and to get your opinions on the outcomes. the sheer unlikely hood of a gradual and reformist solution to it, makes me lean towards the second option but then it just scares the living day lights out of me. my apologies for this being so long, but I wanted to be through so you don't think I'm trolling as I'm quite lost on this.
So, Can Totalitarianism be a moral response to climate change if it proves that we cannot or do not reform the current system in time?
