I've been anti-capitalist since October 28th, 1982. Prior to that I was merely unenthusiastic. — Bitter Crank

Nice line BC! Was it not Wittgenstein who quipped that serious philosophy could be written entirely in jokes?

Lot’s of western folks have drunk the materialist cool aid: they don’t even think that human freedom is theoretically possible.

I thought "freedom" had a very specific definition. The freedom reportedly guaranteed or ensured by the state are in particular domains like religion for example, excepting of course the rather vague freedom to pursue happiness. That basically blows the lid off the responsibility of government - a government's primary function is to provide and protect our liberty but only in those areas that are liable to infringement of course.

As we devolve into a totalitarianism characterized by intolerance, divisiveness, and massive propaganda/ignorance, you just have to wonder whether the desire to be free has been selected out of Western people.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realise what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. But it’s not totalitarianism, by any stretch. The US appear to have a dichotomous perspective of the world: black or white, red or blue, left or right, freedom or totalitarianism, all or nothing, etc. In my view, it’s this general approach that needs to be examined...

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Freedom from what?
Freedom to do what?

Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China...man created God because it became apparent that society needs something morally pure (above man) when he inevitably goes bad (and he always does).

Large organizations, be they states or corporations, on down to small non-profits, are controlling and repressive by their nature. People don't like to be controlled. I don't either. I want neither the state nor the corporation telling me what to do. I too want to be free.

But wake up: There can be no great individual freedom in the kinds of states and workplaces we exist in. — Bitter Crank

Step by step. The last thing you want to do to go backwards.

Problem is there are so many people who just don't seem to care very much about this sort of thing. They will accept whatever comes down the pike. Those who truly care about (anything) are few and far between, a big problem in times like these.

Ah well, publish the contracts between insurers and providers (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). Here's a prime example: Big Pharma corrupted enough congress people (men and women both) to get a law passed forbidding Medicare/Medicaid from negotiating drug prices. Unconscionable. — Bitter Crank

That's just the "in your face" stuff (drug cartels). The more insidious undertaking was how the professions themselves were taken over by corporations and providers became willing dupes in the game of how do we separate as much money from patients as is possible. Believe me, every doctor has known what's been going on since the early 80's (or sooner if they were paying attention).

I love it! I can't tell if it's bait or true. I suppose to some, gaining freedom is the same as losing security. The security of not having to take responsibility for one's actions. — FlaccidDoor

Systems works by creating fear, then dependency, and your freedom is gone.

Risking security is entire purpose of being free.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free?
— synthesis
Freedom from what?
Freedom to do what? — baker

Everybody has to figure that out for themselves. Imagine figuring out what you need to do all by yourself!

Does anybody in the West still want to be free?
— synthesis
Freedom from what?
Freedom to do what? — baker

American ideals offer the freedom to strive to become human

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

I thought "freedom" had a very specific definition. The freedom reportedly guaranteed or ensured by the state are in particular domains like religion for example, excepting of course the rather vague freedom to pursue happiness. That basically blows the lid off the responsibility of government - a government's primary function is to provide and protect our liberty but only in those areas that are liable to infringement of course. — TheMadFool

The state is a unique entity in that it both secures freedom for its citizens while (at the same time) being its biggest threat.

The state is capable of the former (working in the interests of its citizens) only when small enough to not turn the tables as it surely does when it becomes large enough and consumes its masters.

I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realize what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. But it’s not totalitarianism, by any stretch. The US appear to have a dichotomous perspective of the world: black or white, red or blue, left or right, freedom or totalitarianism, all or nothing, etc. In my view, it’s this general approach that needs to be examined... — Possibility

There are many things that are quite totalitarian about the U.S., e..g., international adventures where this country has exploited its military advantages (having military influence in 150 countries) as well as what the U.S. has done with the global economy (it's trashing of the monetary system and using this financial leverage to secure interests).

This same power has been turned inward, as well, as not only have various freedoms been attenuated over the past decades but the the economic sanctions levied on the middle class in this country from the 70's forward (e.g., financialization, out-sourcing of manufacturing jobs, and monetary manipulation) has been quite totalitarian.

Instead of some stereotypical Latin American drug lord in control, we have instead a cadre of bankers, corporate interests, politicians, and the media banging the same drum.

Could the schools get any worse? Does anybody in public life ever tell the truth anymore? Could political polarity be any worse? Could the fact that the health care system is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams be any more evident? So on and on and on... — synthesis

Every time someone mentions the symptoms of the decay and collapse of secular society in this historical cycle, I only regret to know that we - humanity - have caused this twice in the past - the Bronze Age and the Classical Age - and we do not we seem to learn... Maybe we need collapse as much as birth.

I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realise what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. — Possibility

I do not think this reaction is so strange. After all, once freedoms are lost, one also becomes painfully aware that it is not within their own power to simply take them back, and that "the powers that be" have very little interest in ever returning them.

Losing freedom is a gradual process. Gaining it, usually the result of a bloody revolution against a tyrannical oppressor.

So when people call the US totalitarian, they're essentially just looking ahead.

Problem is there are so many people who just don't seem to care very much about this sort of thing. — synthesis

Most people are not / will not be intellectuals; most people are not / will not be rebels--political deviants. Most people are not engaged in philosophical discussions. This is so now, and as far as I can tell, always has been. Most people are now, and always have been, engaged with life as they know it. They are not stupid clods.

40+ years ago, I was interested in reading and applying anarchist writers like Emma Goldman (1869-1940); the writings from the IWW - Industrial Workers of the World; Marx's Manifesto; the Catholic Worker's founder, Dorothy Day (1897-1980). There are, here and there, other individuals (or very small groups) who are interested in this sort of stuff. I found it quite liberatory and motivating, and so have others.

One of the consequences of political deviation is that if an individual exercises their new-found interest, they are likely to become economically side-lined, which means a declining or flat income. Most political deviants are broke -- poor, economically precarious. I compromised enough to stay employed to keep food on the table and a roof over my head, but had I followed the typical upward path, I'd have been economically better off.

The United States has an extremely stingy safety net. Most people recognize that fact -- implicitly if not explicitly. If they want to eat and be housed, and raise their children, they understand what is expected of them.

There is a an anarchist / radical bookstore in Minneapolis that has, somehow survived for 50 years, or so. It has mostly been supported by donations. Its small circle of friends and supporters and meeting participants are a rag-tag bunch of politically deviant intellectuals types. Few and far between.

Over the past years it has become apparent (to me) that man needs a higher, everlasting moral authority...
— synthesis

Do you have an example in mind? — Wayfarer

I'll volunteer for the job, if nobody else is in line for it.

American ideals offer the freedom to strive to become human — Nikolas

Show me a human who is not a human. Be the person free or not free, from this or that or the other thing, or to do this or that or the other thing. Just simply show a human who is not a human.

Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China...man created God because it became apparent that society needs something morally pure (above man) when he inevitably goes bad (and he always does). — synthesis

Not to mention ancient Rome, Athens, The RC Inquisition and Autodafe, the Spanish and Portuguese and English and French near annihilation of the Native American Population, the Indian Caste System, Quantanimo Bay, the Bay of Pigs, the Bay of Loose Diarrhea, the Bay of Aborted Feti, the Bay of Mangled Car Wrecks with children cut in half... etc.

Human nature conquers human-nature-wannabe, and that's why god that has been created by man has been made dead by man.

This is so because man has realized that not even god can force humans to act the way CERTAIN humans want to control everyone else to act that SPECIFIC way that they envision would make a better world.

Moralists: god-worshipping or secularists, are both control freaks, who cite morals when their ammunition to control others has gone thin.

Over the past years it has become apparent (to me) that man needs a higher, everlasting moral authority...
— synthesis

Do you have an example in mind?
— Wayfarer

I'll volunteer for the job, if nobody else is in line for it. — god must be atheist

I don't think the OP had you in mind, somehow......

Moralists: god-worshipping or secularists, are both control freaks, who cite morals when their ammunition to control others has gone thin. — god must be atheist

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism.

]

I think that you are missing the point that Nicholas was making. Surely, we need to hold onto the freedom to develop our human qualities. Reading through the thread, I am wondering if some of the people writing here are actually in favour of totalitarianism. Do you really wish to be completely controlled and have you thought what this would really be like?

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism. — synthesis

Morality is not corrupted by intellectualism; morality (such as it is) is mostly or else always corrupted by greed, lust, hedonistic desires and a hunger for power.

And moral authority does not come from anywhere, PRECISELY because it should come form a source that can't be corrupted.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Of course there are smart thinking people who understand how the World is. But rarely are they the ones that set the lines in the public discourse.

Things that have existed and that can be and are taken for granted are simply unnoticed. And it's typical that especially part of the so-called "intellectuals" in their criticism of the society they live in do not notice how central, how important these things that take for granted truly are.

Hence it's no wonder that historically it has been the intellectuals that have promoted and believed in authoritarianism (communism, fascism etc), because they haven't seen the negative side of it in their lives.

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism. — synthesis

Such as? I mean, you're playing coy here - there's an obvious answer, but, knowing this forum as you do, you don't want to give it.

I am wondering if some of the people writing here are actually in favour of totalitarianism? — Jack Cummins

I am not in favour of anything. But I call the shots as they are. In the manner of the proverbial umpire, who says "I calls them as I sees them".

I make no judgement and I make no wishes or opinions or rules. I am a philosopher. I calls them as I sees them.

I would bet that well over 90% of democrats in the U.S. if interviewed (and maybe half the Republicans) would answer in the affirmative if asked whether it would be a good thing for all politicians to be from their party.

It is simply astounding to realize how few people understand the necessity of having different views and robust debates, this being the mechanism by which you end up with the most equitable policies (possible).

Morality is not corrupted by intellectualism; morality (such as it is) is mostly or else always corrupted by greed, lust, hedonistic desires and a hunger for power. — god must be atheist

Is not greed, lust, hedonistic desires and hunger for power intellectual?

@god must be atheist. Not all moralists are simply “control-freaks”. The ancient ones whose writings have survived were almost always moralizing—not to the many—but to a few.

For example, Seneca’s Moral Letters were written for a very narrow audience, specifically, for a young Roman knight named Lucilius whom he hoped make his friend, and Jesus wasn’t really preaching his morality to the ppl in general, but rather to his few disciples, and, of course, potential disciples.

Things that have existed and that can be and are taken for granted are simply unnoticed. And it's typical that especially part of the so-called "intellectuals" in their criticism of the society they live in do not notice how central, how important these things that take for granted truly are.

Hence it's no wonder that historically it has been the intellectuals that have promoted and believed in authoritarianism (communism, fascism etc), because they haven't seen the negative side of it in their lives. — ssu

Given that intellectuals are intelligent, and nobody but the intellectuals suppor totalitarianism, you are saying that it's the dumbfucks only who oppose totalitarianism.

Then how do you explain the Trump phenomenon and the storm of the Bastille Capitol?

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism. — synthesis

What are you thinking of here?