4 ms·

> Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetica

> Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded. > Because it creates a totality This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary: 1) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? >The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary I don't trust the dictionary to define terms which are better defined in their own fields (in this case, sociology or politics or philosophy). But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition, since you say that the good-intentions-but-unfree society I described before is totalitarian. Another example: can racism be totalitarian? Even your second definition would seem to suggest so. What about gender roles? In the end, I see no reason at all why totalitarianism must come about as part of a coordinated intention or conspiracy. If good-intentioned bureaucrats can create a totalitarian society, why can't neutrally-intentioned capitalists and consumers?
- andrenth 8y ago
  > so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter Because, regardless of intention, results are a consequence of human action. > What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? Are you asking if emergent properties can be totalitarian? I think this question is not very useful. Do we have a real-world system in which nobody is to blame for its properties? > But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition If you're talking about the capitalist societies we have today, yes, they can absolutely be totalitarian. But is that because of capitalism or in spite of it? The fear of totalitarianism is the reason capitalists defend freedom and the reduction of the state. > can racism be totalitarian? The idea of racism? The definition of the word? I don't think so. But a society where racists can exert power over people and reduce their freedom is totalitarian. But we're back to the human factor.

claudiawerner 8y ago

>Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? >The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary I don't trust the dictionary to define terms which are better defined in their own fields (in this case, sociology or politics or philosophy). But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition, since you say that the good-intentions-but-unfree society I described before is totalitarian. Another example: can racism be totalitarian? Even your second definition would seem to suggest so. What about gender roles? In the end, I see no reason at all why totalitarianism must come about as part of a coordinated intention or conspiracy. If good-intentioned bureaucrats can create a totalitarian society, why can't neutrally-intentioned capitalists and consumers?

andrenth 8y ago
> so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter Because, regardless of intention, results are a consequence of human action. > What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? Are you asking if emergent properties can be totalitarian? I think this question is not very useful. Do we have a real-world system in which nobody is to blame for its properties? > But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition If you're talking about the capitalist societies we have today, yes, they can absolutely be totalitarian. But is that because of capitalism or in spite of it? The fear of totalitarianism is the reason capitalists defend freedom and the reduction of the state. > can racism be totalitarian? The idea of racism? The definition of the word? I don't think so. But a society where racists can exert power over people and reduce their freedom is totalitarian. But we're back to the human factor.