New Lanark

Standard

In school, students learn about New Lanark as an experiment in utopianism.  But that’s stupid because it implies that the only utopianism that can possibly exist must be under the hand of a “benevolent dictator” who chooses to be kind to his subjects.

I don’t consider socialism to be a mere redistribution of wealth.  For me, that’s just welfare.  I think socialism goes deeper than that to the point where the workers of a mill collectively decide how it operates or something along those lines.

True communism is probably similar to the Hakka communes where people engage in collective decision-making within a common self-sustained environment.

1024px-New_Lanark_buildings_2009

New Lanark

 

Advertisements

Consensus vs. Democracy

Standard

In a previous post, I discussed the phenomena of consensus which I felt was more common within the Eastern tradition. However, I don’t think it’s a good thing for people to sacrifice their actual opinion and thoughts and go along with the group because it destroys important dissenting and minority views that often are the greater truth.

It would be great if all people had good intentions and their natural stances were generally accurate, for the welfare of the group, and in agreement with everybody else, but that’s not always the case.  The fairest thing is democracy where people vote in what they think.  If by chance there is a consensus, then great, but if not, majority rule should prevail until people with a minority position make a compelling case to the general public long enough that it becomes the new majority stance.

Democracy is exhausting, but still the best way, in my opinion.  I still disagree with the elitist set-up of the West which I barely even regard as democratic.  Western states have destroyed true fledgling democracies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America etc.  I support direct democracy (because it’s a natural right and) since technology makes it particularly feasible now.  Those who think the public are dumb need to work hard to explain things in a way people can comprehend.  Often if it can’t be explained to the average person, one may not understand it well enough themselves.

High-Functioning Anarcho-Communism

Standard

The self-sustained micro-communities created by the Hakka people of Fujian province are proof that egalitarianism and statelessness do not result in mass poverty or cannibalism.

via Fujian Tulou – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

These micro-communities were high-functioning (many equipped with sewage systems,) environmentally friendly, and adapt for self-defence.

They are inscribed as exceptional examples of a building tradition and function exemplifying a particular type of communal living and defensive organization, and, in terms of their harmonious relationship with their environment, an outstanding example of human settlement.

via Fujian Tulou – UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM: NO EXCUSES

Standard

My greatest irritation is the extreme hypocrisy in society’s fussiness over perfect language, spelling, and grammar which always fails to include precision in terminology that opposes state dogma.

Do scholars ever write articles discussing “North-Korean variants of democracy” or “democracy with North-Korean characteristics”? Of course not.  It’s obvious to anybody that democracy is merely being abused and exploited by a regime that cares nothing about its people to maintain power.

Sinister regimes will always use something positive to mask the fact they have no intention of actually implementing such things.

Everyone can agree on that.

So why do people imply that Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot were genuinely interested in trying to implement real communism/socialism?  Just like North Korea declaring itself democratic or the phoney elections held by authoritarian states, there is only the desire to pretend one is implementing socialism on the people’s behalf.

The abuse of the terms “communism”/”socialism” by the West (and the authoritarian regimes) are some of the worst forms of human mind-control.  Educators who are using these terms to describe the USSR or Pol Pot’s Cambodia are genuinely brainwashing children, harming society, and engaging in Orwellian-style thought-control.

The first thing that pops up when I type “communism” into Google:

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.
via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Does that at all sound like the USSR, China, North Vietnam etc.?

But despite the extreme need for precision in language, no scholars, academics or educators bother bringing up the fact that these authoritarian regimes inherently could not be communist by definition. It’s like saying “authoritarian democracy” or “democracy with authoritarian elements.”

There are no excuses for abusing terminology in this fashion. How could Hitler’s Nazi Party and the USSR both be examples of socialism? Just looking at the basic definition of socialism, one can tell that neither are socialist. Every educated man and woman wants to pretend that abuse of language will lead to the destruction of society, yet none are willing to sacrifice their position within their academic circle by pointing out the simple, basic truth that these terms have been exploited by the West and the Eastern regimes to justify control.

Is everyone too lazy to put their heads together and come up with new terminology that is actually accurate? When it came to quantum mechanics, everybody was willing to get together to sort out how the entire physics community should interpret the new scientific research/data. But nobody can put their heads together to figure out that people will say whatever it takes to get themselves into power.

One could call it: “Stalinism,” “authoritarian exploitation,” “intentional impoverishment,” “Stalinist classism,” “Maoist elitism,” “Pol Pot’s exploitation of socialist ideology,” “lying,” etc.

At the end of the day, anybody who thinks the USSR was an example of communism or socialism is either:
a) not intelligent enough to be discussing the issue on an academic/political level, or
b) using their intelligence to purposefully lie to the public.
Either way, people like that should have no place in academia, education or the political arena.

Let Me Make Myself Very Clear

Standard

Terminology has gotten so confusing.  Soviet-style socialism had absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx’s original manifesto aside from using it to justify illegitimate forms of control.  China being more of a free market that is run by an all powerful autocratic élite is now the complete opposite of what Karl Marx had envisioned for communism.  American liberalism is pure subservience – pushing for every “liberal,” “humanitarian” cause that doesn’t actually question unnecessary institutions of power.

(Other glaring misnomers are Hitler’s National “Socialist” Party and The “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea (who have a surprisingly cute website I should add.))

I think I might be adding to this confusion, so I want to make myself quite clear:

I condemn traditional forms of capitalism that try to keep people poor arbitrarily and unnecessarily.  The only type of “capitalism” I uphold is High-Efficiency Capitalism.

Beyond High-Efficiency Capitalism is one other type of economic system I think is both feasible and ethical which us pure collectivism because it provides exponential benefit for all involved when people properly contribute to it.  And those who argue against it and have such a huge problem with such things are most likely the ones incapable of contributing properly, in my opinion.

wpid-trust-circle

The exponential stability of teamwork

One problem is that going from our current system to pure collectivism (which again has absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Russia seeing as how true collectivism has no dictator) is like turning a balloon inside out.  High-Efficiency Capitalism would actually be an amazing way to catalyze such a transition which in reality is inevitable because that’s how groups of organisms naturally stabilize in the environment anyway.  (The last few thousands years of human civilization mean diddly-squat compared to the millions of years that species spend approaching a stable group dynamic, in my opinion.)

Thus, we can get there the easy way, or the hard way

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Milton Friedman

As I stated in one of my other blogs, a tactic of more sinister personality-types is to convince everyone else that selfishness is all that exists and that people are supposed to be that way.  That’s why countries like the US and Britain worked so hard to make sure highly democratic forms of economic development didn’t take place.

British Propaganda Machine

Click

Western Intervention - Latin America

Click

 

 

 

 

 


I wish Friedman was still alive today so I’d have the opportunity to tell this lizard-faced lunatic exactly what I think about him in person.


Obviously, I have my own stance on economics which I’ve discussed in previous posts (A Challenge to the Economists), but will be discussing in more detail in future posts as well.

Thinking Challenge

Standard

Why is redistribution of wealth in Sweden not causing the bread lines and abject poverty seen in the Soviet Union during “communist” rule?

Additionally, with how broken the economy and human society/civilization is at this point, would trying something new and giving “providing the basic necessities of life” a chance really be the worst thing imaginable?


The picture comes from: 50 Pictures Everyone Should See | Smashing Picture.

I chose it because it reminds me of the work of Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish director.