A reminder that the term “totalitarianism” is nonsense, it is a liberal invention designed to propagate liberal ideology and discredit communism.

  • @lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A system in which your average joe is deeply convinced that the media are “objective” and “neutral”, that claims to simply reflect bare human nature, to be the eternal end of history, and to be an abstract model that doesn’t account for culture and material conditions, fits the vague vision of “totality” in politics way better than any revolutionary regime.

    • @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      And most importantly a system that does not tolerate the existence of any alternative system anywhere on earth and which has a crusader like mentality that demands that it must spread itself by any means necessary into every corner of the world.

  • If you want to use the term and give it legitimacy, then also apply it to the country that keeps a third or more of the world’s population under sanctions and dictates how they live without letting them vote in American elections. Any country that has been couped by the US should be allowed to vote in its elections by popular vote.

  • @Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    The title of this article belongs in the shit liberals say com.

    “Revolutionary People’s Party - Front” <- that’s it I think we’ve finally ran through all the word arrangement possibilities. The leftist dictionary has been exhausted…the next bullshit irreverent party we make will just be called “…party”. And the 2 dots will be 1 for the proletariat, 1 for the peasantry 😂

    Not to insinuate this party is bullshit, but their name certainly is clownish.

    Now to get serious…

    The Guardian isn’t leftist, it’s neoliberal. Democracy Now! and The Young Turks are respectively the less and more radical variants of the outer Mainstream Media which is by and for the Neoliberal establishment.

    One of the biggest issues when discussing leftists, and western leftism is there is no static definition or criteria for what is meant. Ironically, this hasn’t prevented infighting at all. Many jokes are made about the unlimited number of ML parties in existence and their various feuds based on their explicit differences, yet the vagueness and blurred lines we in the west have taken has changed nothing. It’s more like smog, underneath it the iron lines of ideology still lay plain to see and compare.

    See what I mean? “he fight against totalitarianism was a war cry that rallied conservatives, liberals and pro-imperial leftists behind NATO interventions” They separate liberals from “pro-imperial leftists”, so the lines of social expression are blurred, but how would one describe those leftists’ economic policies? Liberal. So the ideological lines still lay bare underneath the smog.

    The author confuses the true nature of fascism as being a national entity and not a manifestation of imperialism.

    “Because of this distribution of power, classical totalitarian systems often collapsed after the death of a dictator, or regimes fell after the leader was removed from office by a military coup, or sometimes even after defeat in an election.”

    Nazi Germany served the American bourgeoisie who funded and encouraged Hitler’s rise to power, and likely aimed him at their competitors in France and Britain as well as at the Soviet Union. Fascism has collapsed in these cases because they were in the format of a proxy war, the regime was remote. In this case, the regime is in it’s home, so it’s format looks different, adding in the bourgeoisie, but in reality they were always there atop the dictators controlling their every move.

    They also don’t understand the bourgeois class’ hand in Russian politics:

    “What makes totalitarian rule in the US particularly frightening for citizens who see its essence is the fact that it is impossible to imagine a scenario in which the corporate state could be reformed. On the other hand, Putin’s opposition in Russia, for example, has only one goal and that is to replace Putin, which makes its narrative much more powerful and dangerous.”

    This is a good point in essence, however the opposition in Russia doesn’t require deep and profound change of the status quo unlike in America, which drastically changes their options from ours.

    Imo, the term totalitarian is like anything else, it can be useful in explaining things to people who don’t fully understand politics, however it shouldn’t be used by people knowledgeable of politics aside from addressing the term itself.

    None of this means they’re bullshit, just their name is silly, the title of the article is ridiculous, and the writer has much to learn. Just wanted to state that to exonerate my jokes at the top from the serious nature of everything I typed below them.

    • @Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      And the 2 dots will be 1 for the proletariat, 1 for the peasantry

      Make it one dot for workers, one for peasants and one for intelligencia. DDR/DPRK style.

      They separate liberals from “pro-imperial leftists”

      That’s likely intentional and insidious

      opposition in Russia doesn’t require deep and profound change of the status quo

      By opposition, do they mean the NED supported shits like Navalny? Then sure, because their only beef with Putin and his admin is that they’re not in charge.

      Then again there are genuine communists still left, who do want the status quo changed.

      • @Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Are you saying the author incorrectly identify the Western left as pro-imperialist?"

        I took it the other way, that the author is trying to muddy the waters by drawing nonexistent distinction between liberals and “pro imperialist leftists”. As if there are some liberals in the Core that aren’t pro imperialist

      • @Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Are you saying the author incorrectly identify the Western left as pro-imperialist?

        That wasn’t my point but the western left is a mix of Communism, Anarchism, Greens, and Socdems. It both is for and is against imperialism depending on which members you talk to. My point was despite looking like a monolith because we use vague terms like “leftist” and “the left” instead of concrete terms like anarchist or communist to describe the west, there is a general misunderstanding abroad and within the US as to what the left actually consists of. I pointed out that underneath these vague terms, consistent ideological positions can be found and so each participating ideology can be identified and thus the left in the west can indeed be understood.

        Yes I understood the overarching theme of the author pointing out the vapid hypocrisy of the US. For those who find value in such an article by all means enjoy it, learn from it, grow. However there are those such as myself who didn’t get as much from it. I’m simply pointing out why this is the case and how this article could be improved, that’s all.