> One version of that concept is a cartoon of a naive guy cheerfully saying, “Oh I don’t really follow politics” while he’s loaded into a guillotine.
I haven't seen the cartoon but I imagine he's saying it to _another_ guy who is _also_ being guillotined. And that's the biggest lesson of them all. The guy chastizing him for not following politics is getting guillotined same as he is. All the following of politics in the world didn't save that guy. They both end up in the same spot either way but at least the 'naieve' guy isn't a neurotic wreck.
I have felt this way for a long time, that we live in a totalitarian state. And people call me crazy, because there aren't jackbooted thugs dragging people away in the middle of the night. But that's not what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is when, what's the quote? "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". The permeation of politics into private life is literal totalitarianism. And people do it willingly!
Back on the internet, pre-2016, we could actually have conversations without politics bleeding in. This is not a Trump thing, but rather a coincidence in time: 2016 is approximately when politicians started subverting social media. Taking online culture and turning it from what it was, _culture_, into a vehicle for exercising power on society. People will look at the side they hate doing it and think, well, our side has to do it to stop their side from doing it. Well, who's "we"? I didn't join no sides. It is not my concern that (to extend my example) Hillary Clinton was subverting online culture. My concern is that _politics_ is, and it doesn't matter which 'side' is doing it at any given time.
The way to fight back is to starve it of attention. You can just _not_ talk about politics. Talk about something else! Talk about something more productive! Something fun. Something like open source defense.
I for one appreciate this blog's principled avoidance of any political discussion.
I don't know whether that's a workable definition of totalitarianism. In his book Republic of Fear (about Iraq), Kaanan Makiya posited that a totalitarian regime posits that (in so many words) "the Party is the state, and the state is the people; therefore, to oppose the Party is to become an enemy of the people." And I suppose that in certain cases, the leader (Duce, Caudillo, Führer, Helmsman, etc.) may be identified with the Party, therefore, to oppose the leader is to become an enemy of the people.
So I'm inclined to say that the idea that the state has a role in play in every aspect of daily life is a necessary condition for totalitarianism, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient condition.
Interesting question. One possibility is that totalitarianism isn't necessarily bad if it's something that ultimately increases your freedom/well-being. So for example a dictator who insists on jurisdiction over every part of your life is bad, but a religion or moral framework that you voluntarily use in all parts of your life can actually be quite valuable.
People are far more afraid of free markets than unelected, life-tenured bureaucrats with the power to make, interpret and enforce law.
The devil they know
> One version of that concept is a cartoon of a naive guy cheerfully saying, “Oh I don’t really follow politics” while he’s loaded into a guillotine.
I haven't seen the cartoon but I imagine he's saying it to _another_ guy who is _also_ being guillotined. And that's the biggest lesson of them all. The guy chastizing him for not following politics is getting guillotined same as he is. All the following of politics in the world didn't save that guy. They both end up in the same spot either way but at least the 'naieve' guy isn't a neurotic wreck.
I have felt this way for a long time, that we live in a totalitarian state. And people call me crazy, because there aren't jackbooted thugs dragging people away in the middle of the night. But that's not what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is when, what's the quote? "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". The permeation of politics into private life is literal totalitarianism. And people do it willingly!
Back on the internet, pre-2016, we could actually have conversations without politics bleeding in. This is not a Trump thing, but rather a coincidence in time: 2016 is approximately when politicians started subverting social media. Taking online culture and turning it from what it was, _culture_, into a vehicle for exercising power on society. People will look at the side they hate doing it and think, well, our side has to do it to stop their side from doing it. Well, who's "we"? I didn't join no sides. It is not my concern that (to extend my example) Hillary Clinton was subverting online culture. My concern is that _politics_ is, and it doesn't matter which 'side' is doing it at any given time.
The way to fight back is to starve it of attention. You can just _not_ talk about politics. Talk about something else! Talk about something more productive! Something fun. Something like open source defense.
I for one appreciate this blog's principled avoidance of any political discussion.
Thanks, well said. People don't realize how much they can just opt out.
I don't know whether that's a workable definition of totalitarianism. In his book Republic of Fear (about Iraq), Kaanan Makiya posited that a totalitarian regime posits that (in so many words) "the Party is the state, and the state is the people; therefore, to oppose the Party is to become an enemy of the people." And I suppose that in certain cases, the leader (Duce, Caudillo, Führer, Helmsman, etc.) may be identified with the Party, therefore, to oppose the leader is to become an enemy of the people.
So I'm inclined to say that the idea that the state has a role in play in every aspect of daily life is a necessary condition for totalitarianism, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient condition.
You could also think of it as a 2D space, with decentralization<->totalitarianism on one axis and freedom<->oppression on the other.
Love this article. Here is the solution to totalitarianism. Marniekhaw.Substack.Com
Thanks!
I wonder if Lucas would consider a religion controlling every part of everyone’s life totalitarian
Interesting question. One possibility is that totalitarianism isn't necessarily bad if it's something that ultimately increases your freedom/well-being. So for example a dictator who insists on jurisdiction over every part of your life is bad, but a religion or moral framework that you voluntarily use in all parts of your life can actually be quite valuable.
I think it goes further than that considering how Lucas openly opposes "certain groups" (LGBT people, Jews, black people) having 2A rights.