The Collectivist Mind Game

[Redac]

Except, that's what was preached every time they've tried it.

[citation needed]

It seems more likely to me that they'd preach workers' democracy and the like, while the bureaucracy moves in to the position of the ruling class. As for the utopia stuff, again, I'd be surprised (but also not surprised, if you get my meaning) if the Soviet Union was explicitly promoting some utopian vision of things.

 

[jayem]

Assuming that you're not doing a "what the definition of is, is" it's another name for statists who have given up the idea of violent revolution and instead use "mind games" and propaganda instead.

If it just means a totalitarian state maintained by government propaganda,, then we are quite far from that. People still vote. We can change the President every 4 years, and the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. With enough public pressure on our legislatures, we can change the Constitution. That wouldn't likely have happened in the old USSR, or Maoist China.

And is he claiming that our current government spreads propaganda? I don't agree with that at all. The vast majority of propaganda I see is generated by private interests--political parties, PACs, special interest and advocacy groups, unions, business associations, professional organizations, and the like. And for every propagandum (singular?) supporting government policies, there's a like amount opposed. The internet especially makes it cheap and easy for all sides to get their message out. Definitely not something you'd find in a true authoritarian state.

 

[Rion]

[citation needed]

It seems more likely to me that they'd preach workers' democracy and the like, while the bureaucracy moves in to the position of the ruling class. As for the utopia stuff, again, I'd be surprised (but also not surprised, if you get my meaning) if the Soviet Union was explicitly promoting some utopian vision of things.

Translation: “Ballot box announces: “For the Motherland, for Stalin, for World Peace, for Communism.“

Translation: "Demand Peace."


























“All power to soviets! Peace to all nations! Lands to all peasants! Factories to workers!"

Guess what that says in all kinds of languages?

 

[jayem]

Well the latter might be true, but that doesn't mean they're either right or good for us in the long run - and that irrespective of any individual or short term benefits they provide.

I guess I'm getting off-topic, given how this thread is going. I agree totally that how these programs have become structured is financially unsound. But if you know their histories, they were established because of pressing needs that couldn't be met any other way. During the 30s, large numbers of the elderly--who couldn't work, and didn't have private pensions--were winding up in abject poverty. High unemployment made it impossible for many families to help them. SS came about because the circumstances of the Depression overwhelmed the ability of private interests to provide needed assistance. Medicare too, was necessitated because private insurors would not cover older, higher risk persons. Retirees--who no longer had employer based insurance--were either going without care, or going bankrupt paying for it. The problem was vastly bigger than private charity could manage. It's true that good intentions have expanded what was envisoned as safety nets into budget-busting all-encompassing social welfare programs. But they exist not because of any love of big government. But because private initiative was failing, and some type of systematic, collective action was the only way to meet the needs.

 

[seashale76]

I guess I'm getting off-topic, given how this thread is going. I agree totally that how these programs have become structured is financially unsound. But if you know their histories, they were established because of pressing needs that couldn't be met any other way. During the 30s, large numbers of the elderly--who couldn't work, and didn't have private pensions--were winding up in abject poverty. High unemployment made it impossible for many families to help them. SS came about because the circumstances of the Depression overwhelmed the ability of private interests to provide needed assistance. Medicare too, was necessitated because private insurors would not cover older, higher risk persons. Retirees--who no longer had employer based insurance--were either going without care, or going bankrupt paying for it. The problem was vastly bigger than private charity could manage. It's true that good intentions have expanded what was envisoned as safety nets into budget-busting all-encompassing social welfare programs. But they exist not because of any love of big government. But because private initiative was failing, and some type of systematic, collective action was the only way to meet the needs.

FDR's model for the New Deal was the form of collectivism known as Italian fascism. I only point it out as an interesting tidbit.

 

[Paradoxum]

Articles: The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant​

Articles: The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 2: Demonizing the Opposition​

Articles: The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 3: Demonizing Human Nature
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Don't you think the Right could be guilty of many of the accusations here too, not just the Left? Even this article could guilty of some of the things is says it is against.

 

[Redac]

Translation: “Ballot box announces: “For the Motherland, for Stalin, for World Peace, for Communism.“

Translation: "Demand Peace."


























“All power to soviets! Peace to all nations! Lands to all peasants! Factories to workers!"

Guess what that says in all kinds of languages?

So how exactly does advocating peace between nations and so on mean that they expect some sort of utopian, crime and violence-free world?

 

[variant]

Then why did he deliberately choose descriptors that have extremely negative emotional connotations as opposed to using clinical language to get his point across? To then point out that he is a professional at this means that he cannot even use the excuse of ignorance, he is purposefully using the same tactics he is decrying in others.

It's weird how people either can't see that or are willfully ignorant and expect others not to see.

 

[Rion]

So how exactly does advocating peace between nations and so on mean that they expect some sort of utopian, crime and violence-free world?

...what part of "world peace" is confusing you here? I'm serious.

A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible endings of history. Within the localized political structures or spheres it presents, "polyculturalism" is the model-based adaptation of possible interactions with different cultures and identities in accordance with the principles of participatory society

Utopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[seashale76]

So how exactly does advocating peace between nations and so on mean that they expect some sort of utopian, crime and violence-free world?

Really? It's like one of the big goals. However, from a Christian perspective, true peace and utopia will never be possible without Christ.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I guess I'm getting off-topic, given how this thread is going. I agree totally that how these programs have become structured is financially unsound. But if you know their histories, they were established because of pressing needs that couldn't be met any other way. During the 30s, large numbers of the elderly--who couldn't work, and didn't have private pensions--were winding up in abject poverty. High unemployment made it impossible for many families to help them. SS came about because the circumstances of the Depression overwhelmed the ability of private interests to provide needed assistance. Medicare too, was necessitated because private insurors would not cover older, higher risk persons. Retirees--who no longer had employer based insurance--were either going without care, or going bankrupt paying for it. The problem was vastly bigger than private charity could manage. It's true that good intentions have expanded what was envisoned as safety nets into budget-busting all-encompassing social welfare programs.

I understand their history was born out of a pressing need - and that a pretty dire one at the time. And I accept the concept of a corporate solution to meet the need. But understand that that need was a temporary (albeit serious, granted) one. The solution however, was not. Indeed, the "solution" was designed from the start (amid much opposition, mind you) to be a permanent one. That's where my issues with the concept of "social security" begin. Again, I've no problem with the concept of coming together to solve a temporary problem. But that's not what FDR and the democrats did. They pushed through a permanent government program in the midst of a time of serious financial crisis for many - and used that crisis as warrant for the implementation of their program. So mine is not a value judgment of the need of the time.

But they exist not because of any love of big government. But because private initiative was failing, and some type of systematic, collective action was the only way to meet the needs.

Again, I admit the good in pulling together as a nation to meet a temporary need - particularly a very pressing need.

I vehemently dispute the value of a "systematic" solution though, let alone a "collectivist" one - particularly since the need wasn't a "systematic" need, but a temporary one. I dispute it also because the solution, which was systematic, fundamentally changed this nation in a collectivist way. That was the key element of dispute at the time too but because of the crisis, emotion rather than reason prevailed. Moreover, the gargantuan crisis facing us today, which is the RESULT of that systematic solution threatens to put not only the elderly of this nation, but everyone else into deeper financial straits than those experienced by the nation in the '30s.

The problem is rarely the needs of the moment, but how we react to such needs and what we allow in their wake. Had this nation been more objective in that crisis, we would not be facing a far worse disaster today.

Collectivism is NEVER a viable solution, HAS never been a viable solution, and WILL never be a viable solution. And the sooner we abandon such a demonstrably disastrous ideology, the sooner we'll come together to achieve what ARE viable solutions.