Trying to get off the Road to Serfdom

[Laika]

Hey everyone,

I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.

Taking that view would mean- to a greater or lesser extent- becoming an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Whilst I'm congratulating myself on my intellectual honesty to get to this point, understandably, I want to run away, find a small corner and cry as my good intentions turn to a vision of hell. Despite being a commie, I am human.

Bad Commies.

At the same time, I am not thrilled about free market libertarianism either- the main reason to support the latter would appear purely a defence of the status quo as the lesser evil. At the moment, the fact it's more like "the devil you know" is what it's got going for it and admittedly the fact that I can legally have this conversation without fear of persecution. (Hello NSA, hows Edward Snowden doing? )

Beyond Marxist Strawman arguments, I can't anticipate your responses so I'd like therefore to call on your knowledge and experience and pose you a few questions. I welcome longer, more well-thought out responses and will put the time in to read and reply to them. I don't mind controversial responses so your very welcome to surprise me and challenge the premises of the question itself. Anything goes at this point.

Please, Save me from Utopia.

1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?

2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?

3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?

4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?

5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?

6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm largely not seeing the connections of these questions...

Not to boil it all up into a couple of questions, but what do any of these notions personally do for you? What do you gain by supporting them?

I can answer these questions:

#1 - The Civil War was mostly a symbolic authoritarian smack down. Despite the emancipation non-whites still didn't experience much equality until well past 1960.

#2 - Take all Ayn Rand books you own and find the nearest source of flame. Ones mind is ones temple.

#3 - No answer.

#4 - They replaced their Communism with oligarchy. Industry is private only in the sense that the Russian government decided to let you run it and you're one of Putin's besties.. It isn't much different from what happens in China.

#5 - The authorities who have the power decide what the truth is. This is true for Russia, and it true everywhere else. If a country supports the idea of climate change then there is a reason they are selling this "woo." In the USA, for example, the NOAA (the people that run the radars and satellites) really have no other way to get funding for tech other than to complain constantly about climate change. Despite the fact that for the last 10,000 years we are colder than we've ever been. I still think it is responsible to limit pollution and work toward making zero, but this science and its notion that we are headed for some calamity is dubious at best. The most polluted places in China which have air so thick you can chew it are still only experiencing a 2 degree increase in temperature in the last 50 years. To experience an equivalent worldwide would have to have this sort of air quality globally.. It is rather unrealistic...

#6 - Their views weren't the problem -- it was their human rights abuses. Ultimately, the allies were sort of shamed into reacting via their overly Christian spiritual concepts. Cartoons at the time styled Hilter as the Devil...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Hey everyone,

I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.

Taking that view would mean- to a greater or lesser extent- becoming an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Whilst I'm congratulating myself on my intellectual honesty to get to this point, understandably, I want to run away, find a small corner and cry as my good intentions turn to a vision of hell. Despite being a commie, I am human.

Bad Commies.

At the same time, I am not thrilled about free market libertarianism either- the main reason to support the latter would appear purely a defence of the status quo as the lesser evil. At the moment, the fact it's more like "the devil you know" is what it's got going for it and admittedly the fact that I can legally have this conversation without fear of persecution. (Hello NSA, hows Edward Snowden doing? )

Beyond Marxist Strawman arguments, I can't anticipate your responses so I'd like therefore to call on your knowledge and experience and pose you a few questions. I welcome longer, more well-thought out responses and will put the time in to read and reply to them. I don't mind controversial responses so your very welcome to surprise me and challenge the premises of the question itself. Anything goes at this point.

Please, Save me from Utopia.

This must be so hard for you; discovering an ideology you've dedicated yourself to for months, maybe years, isn't what you thought it was. For what it's worth you have my sympathies.

1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?

If I could take my current mentality back with me I would have picked Lincoln's side.

2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?

Rand was 100% wrong on this. Might does not make right, neither does the fact that their culture was different. It's also worth bearing in mind that Rand is speaking from the perspective of the victorious culture, at least a generation removed from the actual Native genocide - and that she is speaking about a culture that most people only know about through what little survives today as well as what little was recorded in the past; almost entirely from the white perspective. The funny thing is that for most of the time the white men spent invading Native lands, they did not recognise individual rights for everyone so it's a rather hypocritical point for Rand to have made.

3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the right to hold private property? The right to self-determination on your private property (ie the State can't tell you how to use your property)? Or is it something else?

4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?

Not at all knowledgeable on this subject so I'll refrain from answering.

5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?

An individual denying climate change is simply holding an opinion. You haven't implied whether or how they act on that opinion. The USSR banning scientific opinions is an attempt to create thought crime.

6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?

With the Kamehameha! There is a world of difference between having views and acting on them. The minute the Nazis started trying to implement their views they should have been stopped. Inflicting terror on people, eugenics, social engineering, genocide. Having opinions on these is not a crime; acting on those opinions could be.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.

I advise believing in the individual aspects of philosophies you like, trying to get them to comport with each other, changing as needed, & not concerning yourself with a label....which might need to be invented just for you.
Also "intellectual honesty" seems so judgmental. You're discovering/designing a system....something I once did for a living. We didn't think of "honesty". We simply did the best we could at optimizing a design to fit our goals. So I say to continually explore, invent, analyze, change & enjoy.

Taking that view would mean- to a greater or lesser extent- becoming an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Whilst I'm congratulating myself on my intellectual honesty to get to this point, understandably, I want to run away, find a small corner and cry as my good intentions turn to a vision of hell. Despite being a commie, I am human.
Bad Commies.

You needn't apologize for people who did bad things, even if you subscribe to many of their beliefs. You learn about system response from them. I agree that large scale communism & socialism require &/or result in strong central authority (fascism). That would fail my goals, ie, individual social & economic liberty.

At the same time, I am not thrilled about free market libertarianism either- the main reason to support the latter would appear purely a defence of the status quo as the lesser evil. At the moment, the fact it's more like "the devil you know" is what it's got going for it and admittedly the fact that I can legally have this conversation without fear of persecution. (Hello NSA, hows Edward Snowden doing? )

I believe it's possible to design a stable system of democratic capitalism with a welfare state. This might appeal to you.

Beyond Marxist Strawman arguments, I can't anticipate your responses so I'd like therefore to call on your knowledge and experience and pose you a few questions. I welcome longer, more well-thought out responses and will put the time in to read and reply to them. I don't mind controversial responses so your very welcome to surprise me and challenge the premises of the question itself. Anything goes at this point.
Please, Save me from Utopia.

We're all after a personal vision of utopia.
I'll tolerate an imperfect one because system design theory allows for optimization, but not perfection.

1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?

I favored the North because slavery should not be.
Secondarily, secession was wrong....although going to war over it alone wouldn't justify the massive carnage.

2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?

I say they didn't have rights to land they weren't using, but they did regarding land they used, which would include vast areas for nomadic groups.
By analogy, I viewed the movie Avatar as a libertarian battle over property rights, ie, the Na'vi (owners) were repelling thieves (humans).

3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?

Rights can often be in conflict, eg, free speech & restrictions on falsely yelling "Fire!" in a theater.
Balancing is necessary, & I favor doing that with preference for individual liberty, both social & economic.

4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?

Tis above my pay grade to comment upon a specific tactic in such a radical transformation.
It would require intimate knowledge of the old system.

5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?

Individuals deciding for themselves, even though they'll often be wrong, is what a free society is about.
I prefer diversity in discussion & debate to a central authority dictating truth from on high.
The latter is unstable....everyone is entirely right or entirely wrong.

6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?

The Nazis had more than views....they trampled the rights of others.
I favor defense alliances with countries in order to keep aggressors at bay.

Beware:
RF staff have reprimanded me for "regurgitating" such "right wing rhetoric", so exercise caution in reading the above.

 

[Laika]

I'm largely not seeing the connections of these questions...

Not to boil it all up into a couple of questions, but what do any of these notions personally do for you? What do you gain by supporting them?

An appreciation of the complexity and subtley of another way of thinking, basically to check if it is a viable alternative to what I've already got, or -if not- whether I can draw from it.

I can answer these questions:

#1 - The Civil War was mostly a symbolic authoritarian smack down. Despite the emancipation non-whites still didn't experience much equality until well past 1960.

Well said.

#2 - Take all Ayn Rand books you own and find the nearest source of flame. Ones mind is ones temple.

[shamefully tries to hide PDF version of The Virtue of Selfishness...]

#3 - No answer.

No Worries.

#4 - They replaced their Communism with oligarchy. Industry is private only in the sense that the Russian government decided to let you run it and you're one of Putin's besties.. It isn't much different from what happens in China.

Crony Capitalism at its best.

#5 - The authorities who have the power decide what the truth is. This is true for Russia, and it true everywhere else. If a country supports the idea of climate change then there is a reason they are selling this "woo." In the USA, for example, the NOAA (the people that run the radars and satellites) really have no other way to get funding for tech other than to complain constantly about climate change. Despite the fact that for the last 10,000 years we are colder than we've ever been. I still think it is responsible to limit pollution and work toward making zero, but this science and its notion that we are headed for some calamity is dubious at best. The most polluted places in China which have air so thick you can chew it are still only experiencing a 2 degree increase in temperature in the last 50 years. To experience an equivalent worldwide would have to have this sort of air quality globally.. It is rather unrealistic...

There is a massive disconnected between the actual scientific literature and the popular literature on the subject. Scientists don't actually know the big picture as they are all working in their specialism, and their so failure to communicate can hold up research. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) keeps publishing reports as it tries to put the puzzle together and figure out exactly what's going on. It's fallen to popular science authors, journalists and politicians to promote it and it has been done mainly through fear. As a marketing mechanism it doesn't work, and as an educational tool its really dumbing down the science.

Admittedly money is always a factor as they have to pay bills. look up 'Apec Blue' on China; it's when Bejiing had the Apec conference and said pretty much everyone should stop polluting and they had blue skies for the first time in a long while.

#6 - Their views weren't the problem -- it was their human rights abuses. Ultimately, the allies were sort of shamed into reacting via their overly Christian spiritual concepts. Cartoons at the time styled Hilter as the Devil...

Fair point. I've always had an issue with reducing Nazis to demonic caricatures, as it means we aren't to understand what they really represented.

 

[Laika]

This must be so hard for you; discovering an ideology you've dedicated yourself to for months, maybe years, isn't what you thought it was. For what it's worth you have my sympathies.

Many thanks. its been over a decade of reading and thinking since my mid-teens, but around seven years in more depth. It's taken about three to go from knowing 'somethings wrong' to this point when I know change is unavoidable. Emotionally, those past three years feel like several lifetimes.

If I could take my current mentality back with me I would have picked Lincoln's side.

Same here.

Rand was 100% wrong on this. Might does not make right, neither does the fact that their culture was different. It's also worth bearing in mind that Rand is speaking from the perspective of the victorious culture, at least a generation removed from the actual Native genocide - and that she is speaking about a culture that most people only know about through what little survives today as well as what little was recorded in the past; almost entirely from the white perspective. The funny thing is that for most of the time the white men spent invading Native lands, they did not recognise individual rights for everyone so it's a rather hypocritical point for Rand to have made.

A brilliant point.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the right to hold private property? The right to self-determination on your private property (ie the State can't tell you how to use your property)? Or is it something else?

The US supported Right-wing dictatorships around the world in the fight against communism. One interpretation of it, was that as private property is necessary precondition for a free society, defending private property by a dictatorship enabled the development of democratic socities in the long run. This was a line of thinking behind the McCarthy Witchhunts as well. Ironically, this economic determinism- that free markets lead to free societies is largely marxist import as many communists became anti-communists and tried to come up with reasons to defend capitalism.

There is also the fact that democracy' as a system of majority rule poses a threat to individual rights and natural right. A democratically elected far left government can potentially be seen as a tryanny by majority, in that the majority denies individuals the right to private property. Pinochets Coup in Chile against Allende is the most well known example, but also raises questions as Chile was the first country to really introduce 'neoliberal' economic policies and had a degree of backing from Milton Freidman and the participation of members of the Chicargo School to implement these policies.

Not at all knowledgeable on this subject so I'll refrain from answering.

That's cool.

An individual denying climate change is simply holding an opinion. You haven't implied whether or how they act on that opinion. The USSR banning scientific opinions is an attempt to create thought crime.

With the Kamehameha! There is a world of difference between having views and acting on them. The minute the Nazis started trying to implement their views they should have been stopped. Inflicting terror on people, eugenics, social engineering, genocide. Having opinions on these is not a crime; acting on those opinions could be.

I overlooked this possibility honestly. I think that is to do with Marxist bias against liberalism and I forget about the liberal resistence to Nazi rule. so thanks for that.

 

[Laika]

I advise believing in the individual aspects of philosophies you like, trying to get them to comport with each other, changing as needed, & not concerning yourself with a label....which might need to be invented just for you.
Also "intellectual honesty" seems so judgmental. You're discovering/designing a system....something I once did for a living. We didn't think of "honesty". We simply did the best we could at optimizing a design to fit our goals. So I say to continually explore, invent, analyze, change & enjoy.

Marxism is a 'total' system, so for a long time trying to fit everything to it's basic premises has been alot of work. that has been alot of fun to look into new areas but it has obvious downsides as it restricts the capacity for holding contary views.

You needn't apologize for people who did bad things, even if you subscribe to many of their beliefs. You learn about system response from them. I agree that large scale communism & socialism require &/or result in strong central authority (fascism). That would fail my goals, ie, individual social & economic liberty.

I believe it's possible to design a stable system of democratic capitalism with a welfare state. This might appeal to you.

We're all after a personal vision of utopia.
I'll tolerate an imperfect one because system design theory allows for optimization, but not perfection.

Thanks. I will keep it in mind.

I favored the North because slavery should not be.
Secondarily, secession was wrong....although going to war over it alone wouldn't justify the massive carnage.

War is a tricky subject as it violates so many liberties in the name of the collective survival of the state. So I can appreciate that.

I say they didn't have rights to land they weren't using, but they did regarding land they used, which would include vast areas for nomadic groups.
By analogy, I viewed the movie Avatar as a libertarian battle over property rights, ie, the Na'vi (owners) were repelling thieves (humans).

Lol.

Rights can often be in conflict, eg, free speech & restrictions on falsely yelling "Fire!" in a theater.
Balancing is necessary, & I favor doing that with preference for individual liberty, both social & economic.

Tis above my pay grade to comment upon a specific tactic in such a radical transformation.
It would require intimate knowledge of the old system.

Fair enough.

Individuals deciding for themselves, even though they'll often be wrong, is what a free society is about.
I prefer diversity in discussion & debate to a central authority dictating truth from on high.
The latter is unstable....everyone is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Yeah. This is something Communists never figured out. "Democratic Centralism" ultimately favoured the Centralisation of power to a much greater degree than freedom to dissent.

The Nazis had more than views....they trampled the rights of others.
I favor defense alliances with countries in order to keep aggressors at bay.

Beware:
RF staff have reprimanded me for "regurgitating" such "right wing rhetoric", so exercise caution in reading the above.

Dam Admins....

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, I'm not criticizing moderation here.
But some individuals have personal shortcomings.

 

[Nakosis]

I'll answer, but for me the truth of it depends on what I find to be of personal benefit.

I'm mainly a Capitalist. I don't think a person should depend on others. Of course I had no one to depend on so that likely affects my worldview. However now that I am older and have to consider surviving in a difficult job market for older folks, I'm considering supporting Hilary who has more socialist agenda even though she obviously rich enough it's something she'll never have to worry about so it's kind of a hypocritical position.

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?

I think neither. I'm not one to impose my view of morality on others. At the same time I would not personally support slavery.

2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?

Really, she said that? I don't think they were savages but I think the reality is might makes right. You have to be capable of defending yourself. Otherwise at some point someone or another is going to take your resources.

3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?

Again, it doesn't matter. Whoever holds the power makes the final decision. Whoever doesn't has to deal with it. There's no baseline for what is right. There is just whoever can enforce their version of right on the rest.

4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?

Right for those who managed to survive it. Wrong for those who didn't

5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?

You assume an objective truth, I don't. Both science and prophets try to predict the future. In an enclosed lab with control experiments, science is pretty good. The universe is neither in an enclosed lab nor controlled.

6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?

I think the thought of it is more satisfying than the actuality of it. I don't want to kick the crap out of anybody, but I might if I thought doing so suited my purposes.

 

[Laika]

Of course, I'm not criticizing moderation here.
But some individuals have personal shortcomings.

no worries. I'm surprised I haven't had problems with some of the subjects I've brought up from time to time, but RF membership does lean leftwards overall.

I think the thought of it is more satisfying than the actuality of it. I don't want to kick the crap out of anybody, but I might if I thought doing so suited my purposes.

True. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Revoltingest]

no worries. I'm surprised I haven't had problems with some of the subjects I've brought up from time to time, but RF membership does lean leftwards overall.

It also helps that you're civil & considerate.
For me, that trumps being on the same side of an issue.

 

[rocala]

I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.

Sorry to read of your crisis. I went through a similar phase some years ago and lost interest in politics altogether for a while.
After some time I started to see again the state of the world and my responses and answers were the same too. The only difference was that I no longer thought of myself as a Marxist.

Truth is nobody has the full picture. Marx and Engels were writing a long time ago and they were not writing about the socialist state, just explaining this one. Most left activity after 1920 was governed by the counter revolutionary USSR with horrific results eg inter war Germany, Spain and China. So no role models there.

I think history shows that any hard left governments of the future will emerge from periods of trouble. Outcomes will then depend not only on their resources, particular conditions of time and place and most importantly what other countries are doing to destroy the new regime. Result - unpredictable, just do the best you can.

You know what your principles are, tweak them as conditions change and stand by them. Good luck.

 

[Laika]

Sorry to read of your crisis. I went through a similar phase some years ago and lost interest in politics altogether for a while.
After some time I started to see again the state of the world and my responses and answers were the same too. The only difference was that I no longer thought of myself as a Marxist.

Truth is nobody has the full picture. Marx and Engels were writing a long time ago and they were not writing about the socialist state, just explaining this one. Most left activity after 1920 was governed by the counter revolutionary USSR with horrific results eg inter war Germany, Spain and China. So no role models there.

I think history shows that any hard left governments of the future will emerge from periods of trouble. Outcomes will then depend not only on their resources, particular conditions of time and place and most importantly what other countries are doing to destroy the new regime. Result - unpredictable, just do the best you can.

You know what your principles are, tweak them as conditions change and stand by them. Good luck.

thanks. it is much appreciated.