Hannah Arendt was a big part of conflating these as "totalitarianism"
as if capitalism isn't totalizing. as if any mode of production wouldn't shape social relations
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13533 readers
955 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
going to tell my boss that as capitalism isn't totalitarian I will be goofing off at work wish me luck
while it is easy to place all the blame on Hannah Arendt's 1950s political work, I do believe :porky-happy: would have come up with this little rhetorical trick with or without her writing The Origins of Totalitarianism
sure, I mean she was just the willing tool of the bourgeoisie at the right moment.
See also: Authoritarian, Totalitarian.
True, but to me "Collectivism" is even more ridiculous than those because when applied to communists it refers to class struggle and when applied to fascists it refers to class collaborationism. These two things are literally the opposite! What the fuck liberals :agony-mescaline:
It's like "populism" which literally means "everything that isn't cold-blooded, warmongering hegemonic liberalism." It's applied to racism and civil rights activism, pro-democracy and anti-democracy positions, and pro-war (when it's for the "wrong" reasons) and anti-war (always) positions. Literally the only thing that's not "populism" to people who say "populism" is weird centrist liberalism that has no strong opinion on civil rights, opposes democracy in the "correct" way, and always beats the war drums when told that's the "good" thing to do. Everything from elitist warrior death cults to radical popular democracy is just "populism" to them.
reminds me of this
The question of “free press” and “free speech” is not separable from the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie versus the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of “political plurality” as such turns out to be the negation of the possibility of achieving any kind of truth in the realm of politics, it reduces all historical and value claims to the rank of mere opinion. And of course, so long as someone’s political convictions are mere opinion, they won’t rise to defend them. And so the liberal state remains the dictatorial organ of the bourgeoisie, with roads being built or legislation being passed only as commanded by the interests of capital, completely disregarding the interests of workers. Under regimes where political plurality is falsely upheld as a supreme virtue, the very notion of asserting oneself as possessing a truth appears aggressive and “authoritarian.”
Well I'm bookmarking the hell out of that essay. Thanks for sharing.
Roderic Day has a followup to that one called
and here are some of his other bangers:
It’s like “populism” which literally means “everything that isn’t cold-blooded, warmongering hegemonic liberalism.”
Somebody said that there should be good things for people who aren't me. What a bastard
Guys, guys, guys. Fascists breath air... Communists breathe air... It's two sides of the same coin! The only sensible middle ground is to not breathe! :liberalism:
Things my relatives have told me are communist: the Klan, the Nazis, slavery, the north in the Civil War (???), most countries outside of America, having pets other than dogs, drinking hot tea, believing dinosaurs were real, monarchy, opposing monarchy, Italian food, landlords, organized crime, and all mental healthcare
having pets other than dogs
:lenin-cat:
yes but have you considered: national socialist party
mic drop
:walter-breakdown:
mustachism
Liberalism has proven to be the worst of all ideologies for all of their thinkers lack cool facial hair
Even stupider: P O P U L I S M
doing good things people want is the same as doing bad things people want