4 ms·

Note that subtle != mild. If going against society results in you losing your job (because your employer doesn't want to deal with bad publicity), losing your

by a1369209993 7y ago

Note that subtle != mild. If going against society results in you losing your job (because your employer doesn't want to deal with bad publicity), losing your home (because you can't make rent/mortgage payments), losing your friends (because anyone who hangs out with a [racist/rapist/fetus-murderer/scammer/person who refuses to sign things they can't read/etc] suffers guilt by association), and possibly starving to death in the street (if you can't convince anyone to charity you some food), then that society is totalitarian, no matter how subtle they are about it. Current western society isn't nearly that bad[citation needed], but that's neither because it's impossible nor for lack of anyone trying.

BurningFrog 7y ago
Are you just using "totalitarian" as a synonym for "really bad" here, or do you have something more precise in mind?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  "You are required to be totally compliant with what (leaders of) society demand, on pain of really bad stuff." Or: a system where [people, as distinct from bureaucracy, hostile memeplexes, corporations, etc] have virtually no authority and [bureaucracy et/vel al] wields absolute control of every aspect of the country, socially, financially and politically.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    What is the power of a person, separate from a group? When there are three hundred million people, how much individual power can there be? Or should there be? The accumulation of power in structures is inevitable. Moreover, the fact that this is even an open debate suggests that calling the current state of affairs totalitarianism is a bit exaggerated. There are multiple groups currently vying for control of every aspect of life, with no single group having complete control, and people throw in with the one they feel closest to. I don't know what that is, but it doesn't match totalitarianism.
danharaj 7y ago
All of these things still happen to LGBT people in western society.
- mattcaldwell 7y ago
  It saddens me that this was downvoted, because it's entirely true. It doesn't just apply to LGBT people, though. There are all kinds of minority groups that are treated as second-class citizens in modern Western (and Eastern) cultures.
toyg 7y ago
This line of reasoning dilutes the term “totalitarian” too much. Any given group being intolerant of contrarians is not “totalitarian”, it’s just a group following group instincts. Otherwise you might as well argue that most animals are totalitarian, which is 1) patently absurd and 2) dangerous (since you are effectively arguing that totalitarianism is the natural state of any society). Totalitarianism is not just about reaction to dissent; it requires a proactive side with structured ideology and a conscious effort to fashion all elements of life (public and private) after such ideology. Whether you really have something like this in Western society, is very debatable. Consumerism might get close, but you can still live and thrive without being a consumer, if you really want, and you won’t be jailed for it. When you say “subtle totalitarianism”, you are highlighting some elements of Western life that could fit a totalitarian environment, but you are also ignoring all the rest that points in the opposite direction: organised dissent, freedom of expression, tolerance and survival of alternative lifestyles, and so on. This is normal: a lot of sociological constructs are not binary. But you cannot say that a society is totalitarian if it fits only a few of the characteristics of observed totalitarian systems. I might concede that, after 1990, Western societies have somewhat sleepwalked into something closer to a “totalitarian capitalism” than they were before; but I think we are still far from the excesses of actual totalitarian societies.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Are you just using "totalitarian" as a synonym for "really bad" here, or do you have something more precise in mind?

a1369209993 7y ago
"You are required to be totally compliant with what (leaders of) society demand, on pain of really bad stuff." Or: a system where [people, as distinct from bureaucracy, hostile memeplexes, corporations, etc] have virtually no authority and [bureaucracy et/vel al] wields absolute control of every aspect of the country, socially, financially and politically.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  What is the power of a person, separate from a group? When there are three hundred million people, how much individual power can there be? Or should there be? The accumulation of power in structures is inevitable. Moreover, the fact that this is even an open debate suggests that calling the current state of affairs totalitarianism is a bit exaggerated. There are multiple groups currently vying for control of every aspect of life, with no single group having complete control, and people throw in with the one they feel closest to. I don't know what that is, but it doesn't match totalitarianism.

danharaj 7y ago

All of these things still happen to LGBT people in western society.

mattcaldwell 7y ago
It saddens me that this was downvoted, because it's entirely true. It doesn't just apply to LGBT people, though. There are all kinds of minority groups that are treated as second-class citizens in modern Western (and Eastern) cultures.

toyg 7y ago

This line of reasoning dilutes the term “totalitarian” too much. Any given group being intolerant of contrarians is not “totalitarian”, it’s just a group following group instincts. Otherwise you might as well argue that most animals are totalitarian, which is 1) patently absurd and 2) dangerous (since you are effectively arguing that totalitarianism is the natural state of any society). Totalitarianism is not just about reaction to dissent; it requires a proactive side with structured ideology and a conscious effort to fashion all elements of life (public and private) after such ideology. Whether you really have something like this in Western society, is very debatable. Consumerism might get close, but you can still live and thrive without being a consumer, if you really want, and you won’t be jailed for it. When you say “subtle totalitarianism”, you are highlighting some elements of Western life that could fit a totalitarian environment, but you are also ignoring all the rest that points in the opposite direction: organised dissent, freedom of expression, tolerance and survival of alternative lifestyles, and so on. This is normal: a lot of sociological constructs are not binary. But you cannot say that a society is totalitarian if it fits only a few of the characteristics of observed totalitarian systems. I might concede that, after 1990, Western societies have somewhat sleepwalked into something closer to a “totalitarian capitalism” than they were before; but I think we are still far from the excesses of actual totalitarian societies.