Hi Bo,
[Platt]
> > Do you agree that both communism and fascism glorify social authority and
> > willingly sacrifice individuals for the greater good? (Also, see comment
> > below.)
[Bo]
> Originally, as an intellectually constructed political system
> communism did NOT glorify authority, it rather emphasized
> collectivism, a system of that they believed was more democratic
> than the parliamentary one.
[Platt]
>From the following excerpt of the intellectually-constructed Communist
Manifesto I would surmise that social authority was essential to carrying
out the new order. Note the reference to "despotic inroads:"
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of
despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of
bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear
economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the
movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old
social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing
the mode of production.
"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty
generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands
of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the
soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable
distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with
industrial production, etc."
[Bo]
> And the wiping out of the the
> landowner class (the kulaks) in Russia was not sacrifice in the
> sense of individuals freely giving up property and/or lives for a
> cause they shared. This is why Bolshevism was such a dread for
> the middle class Germans and brought Hitler to power. However
> as WW2 broke out communism turned national (a social pattern)
> with all the attributes you mention. And communism never
> recovered, as the cold war took over it remained a national social
> system and the rest is history.
[Platt]
As communism was put into practice in other countries (China,
Cuba, North Korea) it became a national social system. From what
I read in the Manifesto, it was always intended to be so.
> Platt on USA:
> > Yes, much too much interference of government, a steady loss of
> > freedom since Wilson and SOM intellectuals were appointed to run
> > society.
[Bo]
> All levels are supposed to regard its parent level as "bad"; life
> despises inorganic death, society abhors biology's "jungle laws"
> ...etc. Yet, there is also a paradise lost element. The Fall Myth
> may be society's longing for biology's a-moral innocence, and
> intellect has it's own yearning for the social "participation" past. If your
> complaint about government interference reflects this nostalgia for the
> closer knit small-town USA of the past ... or?? This may be another
> answer for question you didn't ask ;-).
[Platt]
Very interesting -- nostalgia of a higher level for the lower, a "paradise
lost element" at each level (except inorganic I presume). There's no doubt
that Wilson and his intellectual cohorts played upon an innate desire for
"social participation" and national social unity. But, small-town USA was
consisted mostly of highly individualistic and independent entrepreneurs
with the bare minimum of laws necessary enforce contracts and punish
criminals. That changed, of course, when the intellectuals took over the
national government. But, I certainly agree that nostalgia for the social
pattern of "Can't we all get along?" is alive and well at the intellectual
level.
Thanks for another fresh insight. I always look to you for high value
interpretations of the MOQ.
Regards,
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
