The cult of socialism (in all its various leader-ism manifestations) is one of control by violence and deception.
It is the scourge of the modern world as can be seen in any despotic regime throughout history.
How it resuscitates itself after each horrific failure is the astounding part to me. Truly the work of evil.
Thank you for continuing to educate with the additional perspectives. Maybe a few more fence riders will see the destructiveness of collectivism, subjective reality and giving up of one's freedom and sovereignty to the looters of society.
Just wait until my post that will follow the excerpts! If I can do the ideas any justice, I hope to get across just a little of how and why socialism is so evil. I'd never seen it so clearly as after finishing Shafarevich.
It’s a testament to the strength of the human being that people were able to continue to live in such a way, buying into the socialist idea. It does beg the question, what percentage of the population were actually on board, psychologically.
I suppose we need to think about the wokeness that has taken over today in comparison. The number of straight white men who must practice hating themselves. But then I guess there’s a big difference between those who already reached an adult age when such indoctrination started, and those who were born into it, for whom it’s just normal.
Yep, that's the question. My guess is that it was always a minority. But I'd really like to know what the numbers are for the current young generation. If it's substantial, that's bad news.
How do communists/socialists make a decision to change direction, someone has to stick their neck out, or is all this also a ruse, there being an elite fascist who directs the party?
Not sure I totally understand your question, Rick. But I'll be writing a bit on the topic after a couple more posts on Shafarevich. But to make sure I answer it here, what kind of change of direction did you have in mind? New policies directed from the top? Members who become disillusioned? If Golitsyn is to be believed, there were many ruses from the Soviets like this, but on the other hand, some really do stick their necks out.
Who makes decisions? Who makes the most money with these decisions? Who has the best lifestyle because of these decisions? Communism my ass, just another fascist hierarchal scheme to keep some people in the money. These elitists have nothing whatsoever to do with living within a commune, more of the same few at the top since large scale hierarchy was discovered and implemented, everyone else is to produce so they can siphon off the surplus, is my view.
I think there's more to it than that, but I agree with everything you write. Still not sure exactly what you meant by your original question, though. "How do communists/socialists make a decision to change direction"
Use any of their rules, how do these rules change? Who raises the idea of a certain change needed? Who makes the decision? If the party never changes the rules they would collapse much faster as there would be no adaptation to changing conditions. Someone is on the top, who is it? I already know who the leaders of the various parties are, who did/do these people answer to?
If anyone stuck their neck out to question any of the party rules according to your article they would be ousted. Rules have to change to adapt, the party member can't even make the suggestion, so there has to be someone above the party that dictates.
Yes, those cases tend to be ousted and/or go into exile. When rules change to adapt, I think the most parsimonious explanation is factions. There are always factions. Plus, the Party is limited to some degree by popular sentiment.
As discussed in my series on Desmet's book, the dynamics differ depending on the phase of pathocracy. In early years, you'll likely get executed. After stabilization, two wings tend to develop, hardliners and softlineners. There are bounds within which movement is possible.
It's articles such as this that remind me how thoroughly the independent media outclass our legacy media counterparts on every single metric.
The cult of socialism (in all its various leader-ism manifestations) is one of control by violence and deception.
It is the scourge of the modern world as can be seen in any despotic regime throughout history.
How it resuscitates itself after each horrific failure is the astounding part to me. Truly the work of evil.
Thank you for continuing to educate with the additional perspectives. Maybe a few more fence riders will see the destructiveness of collectivism, subjective reality and giving up of one's freedom and sovereignty to the looters of society.
Just wait until my post that will follow the excerpts! If I can do the ideas any justice, I hope to get across just a little of how and why socialism is so evil. I'd never seen it so clearly as after finishing Shafarevich.
It’s a testament to the strength of the human being that people were able to continue to live in such a way, buying into the socialist idea. It does beg the question, what percentage of the population were actually on board, psychologically.
I suppose we need to think about the wokeness that has taken over today in comparison. The number of straight white men who must practice hating themselves. But then I guess there’s a big difference between those who already reached an adult age when such indoctrination started, and those who were born into it, for whom it’s just normal.
Yep, that's the question. My guess is that it was always a minority. But I'd really like to know what the numbers are for the current young generation. If it's substantial, that's bad news.
How do communists/socialists make a decision to change direction, someone has to stick their neck out, or is all this also a ruse, there being an elite fascist who directs the party?
Not sure I totally understand your question, Rick. But I'll be writing a bit on the topic after a couple more posts on Shafarevich. But to make sure I answer it here, what kind of change of direction did you have in mind? New policies directed from the top? Members who become disillusioned? If Golitsyn is to be believed, there were many ruses from the Soviets like this, but on the other hand, some really do stick their necks out.
Who makes decisions? Who makes the most money with these decisions? Who has the best lifestyle because of these decisions? Communism my ass, just another fascist hierarchal scheme to keep some people in the money. These elitists have nothing whatsoever to do with living within a commune, more of the same few at the top since large scale hierarchy was discovered and implemented, everyone else is to produce so they can siphon off the surplus, is my view.
I think there's more to it than that, but I agree with everything you write. Still not sure exactly what you meant by your original question, though. "How do communists/socialists make a decision to change direction"
Use any of their rules, how do these rules change? Who raises the idea of a certain change needed? Who makes the decision? If the party never changes the rules they would collapse much faster as there would be no adaptation to changing conditions. Someone is on the top, who is it? I already know who the leaders of the various parties are, who did/do these people answer to?
If anyone stuck their neck out to question any of the party rules according to your article they would be ousted. Rules have to change to adapt, the party member can't even make the suggestion, so there has to be someone above the party that dictates.
Yes, those cases tend to be ousted and/or go into exile. When rules change to adapt, I think the most parsimonious explanation is factions. There are always factions. Plus, the Party is limited to some degree by popular sentiment.
As discussed in my series on Desmet's book, the dynamics differ depending on the phase of pathocracy. In early years, you'll likely get executed. After stabilization, two wings tend to develop, hardliners and softlineners. There are bounds within which movement is possible.
Communism is a fraud, everyone who blames communism is a fraud too.