22 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
A.'s avatar

The economics of these situations was not really the point, however. It was just an aside. A tool, at most.

CCP China is as Communist totalitarian as the USSR had been. And yet China is heavily into capitalism, while the USSR was not.

The issue within totalitarianism is not economics. The issue is about complete control of the followers or underlings/serfs. The economic/financial policies are simply another means of control, if there is any emphasis in that department at all.

For instance, the situation known as Parental Alienation within a family is a version of totalitarianism. The alienator is a Cluster-B personality and the target parent is a "Goodist". The alienator parent uses the joint children as tools of control against the other parent, in the same manner the alienator parent will use any other tool of control at their disposal. Including finances.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

China is not "communist" and neither was the Soviet Union (or North Korea, or Cuba); China is a mixed planned socialist economy that has adopted an unhealthy amount of capitalist "reforms"; the USSR was more of a socialist economy. "Communism" is the highest stage of development of socialism; it can't exist in one country or a even a union of allied states so long as capitalism exists in the majority of major industrialized states. "Communism" has never existed in the modern world; it remains a goal seemingly still quite far in the future from where we are today.

"Totalitarianism" is really just an evil-sounding epithet that is stripped of any real meaning; its purpose is as a linguistic hand-grenade that apologists for "authoritarian" bourgeois democracies can hurl at their economic and ideological opponents in the socialist world. During the Cold War, apologists for the capitalist system characterized socialist societies as "totalitarian" while they used the less pejorative "authoritarian" label for their anti-communist allies running far more murderous dictatorships in places like Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.

Expand full comment
Brent Nyitray's avatar

Gotta love the ol' Marx Mulligan. Communism has never been tried

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

It's their standard delusional reply, when they cannot fend off the logic of their opponent in any other way.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Nope. Wrong again.

Expand full comment
Cole R's avatar

with responses like this, you and Gnoman should get a room.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

He's not my type anyway.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

I think you are misunderstanding.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

I am on the side of liberty. And Western civilization. I abhor totalitarianism. But I can explain in-depth what it is, where many others cannot.

Totalitarianism is a state of mind before it becomes anything else.

If you are on the side of the WOKE, perhaps this is the wrong place for you. Though free speech for everyone is at play here, so by all means stay if you wish.

Expand full comment
Cole R's avatar

Are you responding to me? I was agreeing with you, and disappointed to see that type of empty response, 'nope, wrong again'.

i despise woke left more than anything. smug condescending and completely unaware of how wrong they are, how easily played they are. but then they are just simpletons bowling for virtue points.

That said, I'm sure we would disagree on much. what is 'liberty'? should we have no borders? anarchy? Everyone draws a line somewhere. personally I think things began to completely unravel with neoliberals and their phony hands-off approach that appears to have duped and control the 'two hives ' of establishment thought.

I'm mostly but not completely a fan of liberal libertarians, who on most issues are far left of the crypto-fascist woke liberals. whereas right wing libertarians tend to be to the right of Ayn Rand. whom the head of the church of Satan considered too extreme and immoral!

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
May 5Edited

Cole, I come to all of this from the viewpoint of someone who has studied and written about totalitarianism for many years. Including all the pieces that no one else ever supposed fell under that category. It is a very complex subject. It has more to do with Evolutionary Science than with Political Science, actually. Totalitarianism is not solely political! I think I might tattoo that on my forehead in order to break the myth here..

You cannot just argue the old standards of Ayn Rand or Friedman or try to define "liberty", and think you have therefore covered the bases here. Nowhere near. That is child's play in comparison to the big issues.

I spent hours here over the weekend posting a great many responses and relevant material on this Substack. Perhaps go back and read them all. You might also read the many resources I suggested. And that is just a start.

I walk a fine line posting here at all, between trying to summarize complex theories, and writing for a casual comment forum venue. I am not obligated or paid to do either, you know. You seem to think I am. A bit of gratitude might be in order.

Expand full comment
Cole R's avatar

i might have been curious to see what you've said before. but is this satire? gratitude? wtf do you think you are? and so I was on the money. get a room and teach that boy the true meaning of narcissism. I'm walking a fine line between civility and telling you how I really feel. You should be grateful for my shared insight about how you come off. Ha just typing something so arrogant in irony makes me hate myself. It is clear why you are fascinated with totalitarianism.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

👎

You do not belong here, but we will have to put up with you. You sound a bit mad. From the WOKE encampment?

You do know how Substack works, do you not? Over 20,000 people with Substack sites get paid for their writing. If they are lucky. You even pay yourself to subscribe to this Substack. And yet still, you fail to grasp the concept that informed writing is usually a paid job.

It takes all kinds....

Good day.

Expand full comment
Cole R's avatar

Of course you know who belongs here and who doesn't. Sorry I don't have time to read your Substack thesis on this matter, nor on your definition of woke though it seems you don't really grasp that and just use it as a pejorative, the same way 'woke folk' use the term fascist and racist. Though, when people are extolling the superiority of western culture, the latter can most likely be assumed.

Seriously, if you don't recognize your smugness and pomposity, then I'd say you are the one we must put up with.

No one is paid for their comments, no one else asks for gratitude for their effort.

May you have an enlightening day.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Here is something that may stretch your brain (just possibly...) : Why is material that is posted above-the-line by the Substack registrant meant to be paid-for in most cases, through a subscriber fee, but the same material posted in the comment forum is not?

Does it change somewhere along the way? What makes it valuable when posted by someone who registered on this platform, but suddenly becomes worthless when posted by someone who had not registered for a Substack site?

Remember, Substack hosts are not licensed or credentialed in any way just by virtue of writing on Substack.

Does the forum comment of someone who says they are an MD stand below a Substack host who is just shooting the breeze on medical issues? How do you prioritize the value of the information then? Is the Substack host ALWAYS the god? If you think so....why? There are over 20,000 Substack hosts out there. Anyone can sign up. Sometimes it is just another Influencer gig.

Sounds a bit preposterous that you think this way, no? You value written information according to where on the Substack site it is posted, rather than what the information actually is?

'Matt Taibbi -- good journalist though he is -- has a lower level of formal education and experience in the field of totalitarianism than I do. So you cannot be paying a subscription fee here for the educational level of the Substack host, can you? When many of the commenters out-do the hosts in this regard.

What is it then? Why would you go so far as to pay a subscription for a body of information simply because of its location when posted? In the host position rather than in the commenter position. Instead of paying according the the value of the information itself?

You sound like a groupie who gets led by the nose to adore someone or something just because you believe they have some kind of social prominence.

That, my friend, is one of the secrets of how totalitarianism works. A Pied Piper gets the dupes to go all starry-eyed and follow him....sometimes right over the cliff! Not that Matt Taibbi is a Pied Piper.....but you could be taken in by any Substack host, with your mind-blindness.

Too funny! You gave me my laugh for the day...🤣 I bet they see you coming.

Expand full comment
Cole R's avatar

forgot to add, neoliberals stem from the Ayn rand right. It was Milton Friedman who helped plan Regan complete Carter's deregulation and privatization mission, and Clinton jumped on board and put the ship into warp speed. Now less than ever do we have any autonomy, only the ability to choose who represents the ruling class. And not dare to question their agenda.

Trump is accelerating us on a crash course the dems would have preferred to disguise and ease us into.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

Proof that the term "totalitarianism" really doesn't mean anything at all is given by you when you assert that it perfectly describes phenomena as vastly non-identical as the USSR and a single element of a nuclear family.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Go take a little nap, Mark.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Lol. Whew! You two guys have left me in the dust. But I’m learning !

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

Marxists *begin* our analysis of social movements by first analyzing the economic bases of societies, in which are in fact found the answers to all the questions about why the society is organized in its particular way; societies based upon slave labor are structured in certain ways, just as societies based on wage-labor are structured in different ways. The social structure arises from the economic structure; the economic basis of a society dictates the limits to its development. Hunter-gatherer societies could not develop beyond a certain point until the rise of agriculture, when increased food production necessitated the establishment of permanent villages and a system for the production and distribution of surplus goods made possible by the advancement of agricultural techniques, animal husbandry, toolmaking, etc.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Whatever you say, Mark.....

They gotcha!

Expand full comment