Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are really only two positions, when you boil the arguments down, between communists, progressives, socialists and their nemesis the classical liberal or neo conservative. The winnowed down argument is simply this; Either we people need a benevolent overlord to keep us protected and safe from ourselves or we are capable of making our own decisions and have little need of a “benevolent” overlord.
This is the contention that Weimar Germany argued against the national socialists. The National socialists position was that the nature of democracy is such that people will always politic for their self interest against the interests of the whole. This inevitably leads to a collapse of the economy as they had just experienced. The National socialists argued, they would be a benevolent overlord, and protect the interests of the whole. Sometimes at the cost to a faction but always to the advantage of the whole.
The same or similar arguments have been used historically to trick people out of their liberty. When Darius discovered that the Magi had fooled the Persians there was a lively debate as to the future government of the Persian empire. Darius argued that since a monarchy had served the Persian people so well in expanding their empire it should be maintained. He then proposed a contest to determine the new king, cheated, and became king. Then lost most of an army attacking the Scythians.
In these two instances, the future tyrant argued, effectively, that the people needed a benevolent overlord, to keep them safe. The people went along and were rewarded with bloodshed and death. Literally, rivers of blood, have flowed from those decisions. In my world view, that is a negative outcome, and per William James philosophy of pragmatism, and the idea should be discarded. But for some reason there are still people who take this stand.
Communists, progressives and socialists agree, that people need a benevolent overlord, to protect and keep us safe… from ourselves. That is a basic premise of their philosophies. To deny it, shows a great miscomprehension of the philosophy, in which you hold, else the arguer is using spurious logic.
Of course if rivers of blood, destroyed cities and ethnic cleansing, are an acceptable price to pay, to get rid of the dominant paradigm, there is another factor you should take into account. That is, the people in charge before the revolution are often the same after the revolution. Sometimes names change, but the Elite play revolving chairs, but instead of taking away a chair two are added. Only the most virtuous are culled in a revolution the most corrupt are safe.
Some people, who are communists, progressives and socialists, have the opinion that the people of the world, in the aggregate, have it too good. Especially in the US. Our high standard of living should be lowered. The pitiful standard of living in all of the nations controlled by communists, progressives and socialists, and others with the same basic philosophies, show, in living color, how the Elite want everyone to live… Well everyone except them…
For example; The standard of living in Venezuela is about to crash. The crash is inevitable, being staved off awhile by the continued seizing of private property. Property that the dictator squanders, going out to eat with the money. The infrastructure in Venezuela is decrepit from the misapplication of the vast amount of money, the government had, at it’s disposal. Instead of being sent to improve the oil infrastructure, roads, electric grid, telephone/internet grid water, sewer and gas. Which are valid things government can invest in… Buying the loyalty of the people was the use of the funds at Hugo’s hand. Buying loyalty works well in the short term but we’ll see how long lived it is when this crash plays out. I’m betting Hugo will start a war to get out of it for awhile longer…
What about the alternative? Letting people be self sufficient, free of coercion from the State, free in person, property and ideas… Basically the ideals of the enlightenment. Well, the lot of Man was lifted from lower than dogs live today, much lower, to heated homes, running-heated water, cars, lights, we have come from a state of perpetual want to a state of perpetual surplus. Pragmatically and empirically we can see, which argument, benevolent tyranny or liberty, is the closer representation of supreme truth… Yet the debate rages on…
