Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: The Socialist Delusion

  1. #11
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    8 Minutes Ago @ 06:45 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,898
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,303
    Thanked in
    556 Posts
    Every traditional village / community consisted of castes, and there were no slaves, no owners. What you refer to is the totalitarian caste system installed by megalomanic Führer-personalities (Nero, etc). That is not even near to the traditional caste system.
    Also the one in India has been changed by megalomanic conquerors many times throughout history, it is also not a good example.

    What I was talking about was an tribe-like caste system, beside some small perversions the mongolian rider folks maybe are an example. Originally, tribe-castes were organised by women, also old celtic tribes were originally lead by women (where leading means more showing a direction and keeping the folk together than to call for total war...oh that was Hitler, right). It was completely different from anything that exist today.

    There was no nation, no need to fulfill requirements of an overall existing power system, just a few hundred people that, as said, organise themselves into those caste systems. One is good in creating bread, another one is good with sewing, or fieldwork, another good in creating dishes, whatever. There were guards and warriors, mothers and storytellers, children and teachers, naturally evolved from the position they chose within the structure.

    The social acting of such a group ends when the effort to keep one member alive doesnt pay off for the group anymore. Is this cruel or inhumane? That is a moral discussion. When my grandma died, I wished I had the might to stop the docs from reanimating her over three weeks over and over again. The aorta bled in her belly, when she was operated she got two heart attacks, while she was in coma after that she had two acute strokes, her lungs were full of metastasises, no way that she would survive, yet she was reanimated seven or eight times. Is that social, or in the moral standpoint 'humane'? I dont think so. I found it cruel. From a distant point of view it was also a huge waste of resources. There was no hope whatsoever, but our christian moral dictates that one must be kept alive as long as the machines allow it, even if the brain and the body is dead for long. Actually, this is highly unsocial, because communities pay the price for it, and the intensive care wards are full with hopelessly kept alive people. The christian moral, and everyone within the western world is christian, weather one was raised religious or not, because the entire system, laws, rules, social structures, everything reflect christan views and morals, is one thing humanity must get rid off to rebuild its societies.

    Anyway, a commune system, or caste, or ranks, call it what you like can not exist within a nation, maybe even a city of the size of Berlin or New York already is too big. Those systems stop working when the community gets too big. In older times this problem didnt occure that often, because people didnt get old anyway or died on illness. And if not, there was a war against the neighbor tribe which solved the problem. The entire problem of today's world is its too big population. The simple fact of size lets a society degenerate, specially when the society tries to be 'social' and oppresses its members with the needs of the greater good (the society). The society itself, no matter which color it may have, communist, national socialist..., the moment when it starts to experience itself as a unity is the spin-off factor for degenerating.

    When I talk about ranks, it refers to the occupation people have, not their 'social gauged worth'. Because in such small tribes every single one was important to ensure the survival of the tribe. It exists on completely different conditions than today's societies.

    Another contraproductive point is money. Oscar Wild said: today people know the price of everything, but not its worth. That is true to the very sublevels of unconsciousness. Money is the dictator we all worship, we are working to earn money, which is immediately taken off by the needs generated by the money itself. Money has no value, only needs. It doesnt feed, it doesnt cloth, it is not social, it doesnt value life. Lifes are refered to as 'working power units' and the profit they generate for the money industry. Your income does by no means reflect even a small part of this profit btw. Resurrecting any form of real traditions/tribes requires the total destroying of money. It should be seen as what it is, a greedy satan, the ring to slave you all, the most evil creature within the living world.

    It requires further the destroying of any end-in-itself power or leading institution (states, nations). Each tribe is completely self-responsible, independend of others. Yes, the expansion seeking germanic spirit might be a problem here, when asking for respect for other tribe's property, as we would expect that respect for our's too (just a futile attempt to include peace in the thinking line).

    I can already hear the screams that shout 'but what is with our exports and imports, our industrial profit. First of all, industries in the form of today wouldnt exist anymore, no international, not even national concerns, due to the lack of the money industry. Export and import, or in general trade would still be possible, it has always existed throughout history, that actually was one reason (beside conquering land) for tribes to travel. Luxury, well, luxury in the form of today would also not exist anymore, but ask yourself how much of this advertising-waked 'needs' you really would need (or enable you to survive in cruel nature)? Not much I guess. Does that mean back to stoneage life? No, but it would look very different nonetheless.

    This is utopia, mostly due to man's accommodativeness and laziness. But it is the only way to resurrect true tribalism, a social (but not morally perverted that feeds mainly itself) system, with some limits to today's definition of social, and to live within nature, hopefully without destroying it too much.

    Again, the first problem to resolve on this matter is earth's overpopulation, considering 6,5 billion people this would mean mass extinction. On the other hand, when China, Korea, Russia, the Middle East and USA bombs finally the entire earth to pieces with their atom bombs, the problem is solved...

    Btw, that scenario reminds me on Ragnarök, the earth in flames and only two creatures survive the holocaust, the total extinction of mankind. Man is an entirely self-destructing error in evolution, and despite our consciousness, despite all our wisdom, despite the same errors throughout history over and over again, we dont learn anything and drive with fullspeed into the wall. So the moral question is, is that really sad?

    Money, nations and megalomanic leaders are the factors of man's degenerating, without these end-in-itself structures man would be much better off. Without these terror-systems (and it really is nothing else but terror) there would maybe a chance to build another form of humanity. As long as one of it is part of it, every attempt is doomed to fail.

    The expanding bureaucracy is installed to fulfill the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
    Elections dont change anything, because if they would, they would be prohibited
    There is no way out, as long as self-purposing systems rule mankind. And it is important to understand that these systems always and with no exception rule mankind once they are installed. They might be mans creation, but man is not their master. Never.
    Within these systems liberty is just a dream, self-responisibility is just a dream, these systems are illusion, no matter which color they have. Maybe even tribes are illusion, due to the factor of greedy man.

  2. #12
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    Anytime in history where there have been a lot of castes in society or slavery for instance the lower classes have eventually replaced the upper crust.
    There are vertical and horizontal caste systems.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, April 26th, 2010 @ 05:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    646
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    In the Tenets of Communism, Marx writes that the course of the communist revolution will “establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat,” who, according to Marx, originated in the 18th century with the industrial revolution and the birth of the machine and fossil fuels. (A democracy is easily subverted in modern nations which do not limit industrialism, mass production, and large businesses, which create a proletarian majority who are the natural adherents to socialism; no less a subversion is created by a capitalist majority. The only objective ruler must therefore come from outside these two classes, either a priest, warrior, or even a true artist.)

    In the height of the Middle Ages, there were in existence initiatic guilds which were spiritual by nature; and this was reflected in their art of which there was no distinction between art and craft. The artisan was an intelligent worker whose art was the expression of divine principles, which cannot be reproduced by machines. Even in the manufacturing period towards the end of the Middle Ages, artisans put a sort of individual character into their art; they did what they loved to do, which not only came natural to them, but was also a sacred rite through which they invoked a presence, a spiritual state or ecstasy, which was at the same time intellectual. There is nothing of this in the assembly lines and modern trades which are by no means arts or crafts, but rather robotic movements of which any individual or intellectual expression becomes an anathema.

    In the transition from traditional to modern civilization the castes were dissolved; government and the economy was no longer overseen by the sacerdotal caste; the artisan who lived to fashion his art gave way to the worker; and then mercantilism gave way to globalism and socialism.

    Whereas capitalism is the rule of the bourgeois and socialism is the rule of the proletariat, tradition is the rule of the warrior-king who is given divine right from the hierophant. Whereas in capitalism warriors and priests are subordinate to merchant-rulers, in socialism warriors, priests, and merchants are to be gradually done away with altogether. Both present the same problem: Businessmen or merchants are trained in business and are ever conscious on how to generate money and manage businesses, just as builders are conscious on how to build and servants on how to serve. This makes them naturally unfit for government, especially in today’s world where companies fix problems by buyoffs and spending, which is the only thing that a democratic government knows how to do. Therefore, only aristocrats—warriors or spiritual men—should govern, whose consciousness isn’t busied on anything other than preserving peace, justice, and protection of the people. But the castes no longer exist, like everything modern which has since lost its meaning, for to partake in a caste one must be spiritually reborn and bound by the universal principles from which a traditional civilization is based. This unfortunate error, which the moderns think can just as well be overlooked, has from the start spelled doom for any people adopting egalitarian democracy supporting the fantasy of equality. In the end, this departure leads to a civilization characterized by heresy.

    Marx claims that class struggle has always existed because one class opresses another. This is false. Monarchy does not equate to tyranny, which, truth be told, only exists when the government grossly abuses the people or their nation or the environment in which they live. Such abuses are often the product of the authority’s incompetence. In the periods between the 14th and 17th centuries, due to religious incompetence on the part of both Catholic and Protestant, empires were decimated and the properly initiated sacerdotal and regal castes were eradicated. The kings which assumed their positions lacked qualifications and were increasingly profane. Since one cannot judge a system by its degeneration, all of history cannot be thought of as a “class struggle.”

    Marx’s assertion that class antagonism has its basis in private property is also a gross oversimplification which viewpoint fails to recognize anything but the economy. Verily, injustice comes from sin, from greed, sloth, jealousy, disloyalty, and indecency. There is always going to be someone who is smarter, stronger, or more skillful than someone else, no matter how much one tries to engineer society, for man is made by God and nature, not man and machine. Furthermore, even if class was done away with there would be inter-class antagonisms because man is inherently jealous. Nevertheless, class can never be fully dissolved lest there would be only a worker class (assuming that a mechanized soldier is a worker), but no intellectual class. Who would command the armed forces? Who would be the designers, inventers, managers? Who would decide the laws? Marxism would cast civilization into a downward spiral toward lower and lower types of man.

    Wealth, on the other hand, would lose its meaning. Ideally, wealth is a measure of one’s skill, knowledge, or ability to do work. Capacity for knowledge and certain skills is genetic, and what isn’t purely genetic is traditionally passed on from generation to generation through learning and upbringing. Thus, in theory, inheritance and the traditional caste system makes perfect sense. However, when wealth is disproportionate to knowledge, skill, or ability to do work then we have a problem. This gives the wrong elements too much influence in society, and therefore, society is evermore being brought down to a lower level, as is the case today.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Socialist Vikings?
    By Adalheid Friunt in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 04:15 PM
  2. The Socialist Phenomenon
    By Renwein in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 6th, 2009, 01:31 AM
  3. A critique of Dawkins' "The God Delusion"
    By Taras Bulba in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, November 9th, 2006, 10:40 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 07:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •