Stranger Posté 22 janvier 2007 Signaler Posté 22 janvier 2007 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.html The New Totalitarianism by Keith Preston Having been an adherent of the classical anarchist outlook for nearly two decades and a participant, whether directly or peripherally, in the culture of the radical Left during that time, my own political background has given me some important insights into what is going on politically in our country and in Western civilization today.The New Totalitarianism Historically, classical liberals, libertarians, traditionalist conservatives, classical anarchists and, quite frequently, religious believers and even dissident socialists have fervently resisted the onslaught of the greatest evil of modernity, that of the totalitarian state. Though I am a traditional Bakuninist anarchist and most of those reading this are likely in the libertarian, paleoconservative, classical liberal or anarcho-capitalist camps, most of us would no doubt agree that the state and the concentrated power it represents is among the gravest threats to human life, liberty, culture and civilization. Therefore, we have reason to value one another. Most of us are instinctively inclined to associate the totalitarian state with the ideology of Marxism. Given that the concept of state-directed "command" economies has fallen into intellectual disrepute in recent decades, some are inclined to regard Marxism as having been relegated to the garbage heap of once prevalent but now discarded intellectual frameworks in the same manner as Zeus worship or the Ptolemaic model of the universe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Orthodox Marxists, particularly Stalinists, were in their heyday fond of referring to heretics within their own ranks as "revisionists." Enver Hoxha's polemics against the "de-Stalinized" Communist parties of Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s come to mind. Yet, the branch of Marxist "revisionism" that should be of the most concern to us today is that whose roots can be traced to the Frankfurt School of the 1930s and its subsequent influence on the so-called "New Left" of the 1960s. Fortunately, LRC's own regular contributor William Lind has elsewhere summarized the foundations of this system of thought, thereby saving me the trouble of having to do so. Says Mr. Lind: "We call it 'Political Correctness.' The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious. If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious. First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted 'victims' groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole… […]What the proponents of the sixties cultural revolution have, in essence, done is rather than overthrow the US empire, they have seized control of that empire and are using it for their own purposes, which may or may not overlap with the interests of the older establishment. The creeping totalitarianism we see evolving today is an outgrowth of Marxism, not necessarily in the orthodox socialist sense, but in the re-application of Marxist theory to cultural matters, where the 'official victims' of Western civilization replace the proletariat as the focus of a dualistic struggle for political power. The emerging ideology of the Western, particularly American, ruling classes can, I believe, be described as follows: 1. Militarism, Imperialism and Empire in the guise of 'human rights', 'democracy', modernity, universalism, feminism and other leftist shibboleths. 2. Corporate Mercantilism (or 'state-capitalism') under the guise of 'free trade'. 3. In domestic policy, what I call 'totalitarian humanism' whereby an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere, anyplace, anytime ever practices 'racism, sexism, homophobia', smoking, 'sex abuse' or other such leftist sins. 4. In the realm of law, a police state ostensibly designed to protect everyone from terrorism, crime, drugs, guns, gangs or some other bogeyman of the month. The kind of state that proponents of this new ideology envision is one where the purpose of local government is to enforce leftist orthodoxy against competing institutions (like families, religions, businesses, unions, clubs, other associations), the purpose of national government is to enforce leftism against local communities, and the purpose of foreign policy is to enforce leftism against "backward" or "reactionary" traditional societies. La gauche occidentale repose en effet sur le même groupe de valeur, la répression contre la discrimination et "l'égalité des chances." Même la droite a été embarqué avec la guerre pour apporter la démocratie au moyen-orient. Finalement la guerre froide a peut-être été perdue.
Rincevent Posté 23 janvier 2007 Signaler Posté 23 janvier 2007 […] Finalement la guerre froide a peut-être été perdue. C'est presque la thèse de Boukovsky pour ce qui concerne le Vieux Continent dans ce petit livre dérangeant (quelqu'un l'a lu ?) :
Invité jabial Posté 23 janvier 2007 Signaler Posté 23 janvier 2007 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.htmlThe New Totalitarianism by Keith Preston La gauche occidentale repose en effet sur le même groupe de valeur, la répression contre la discrimination et "l'égalité des chances." Même la droite a été embarqué avec la guerre pour apporter la démocratie au moyen-orient. Finalement la guerre froide a peut-être été perdue. Elle a été perdue. Et de la même façon et pour la même raison, le peuple américain est en train de perdre la guerre contre la dictature. Au final, la nation US a gagné contre la nation URSS mais sur le terrain des idées, un compromis s'est fait entre les deux. Or, comme écrit Ayn Rand, le compromis entre nourriture et poison est du poison. Il met simplement plus longtemps à agir. C'est presque la thèse de Boukovsky pour ce qui concerne le Vieux Continent dans ce petit livre dérangeant (quelqu'un l'a lu ?) : Je l'ai lu et ce qui m'étonne, c'est qu'il exclue les USA alors qu'il s'y passe, à un degré près, la même chose.
Rincevent Posté 23 janvier 2007 Signaler Posté 23 janvier 2007 Elle a été perdue. […] En fait, elle a sans doute été perdue au moment où l'Ouest a subventionné l'URSS, hors période de guerre.
Messages recommandés
Archivé
Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.