Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#47797 - 02/01/11 02:24 PM Re: red satanism [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3892
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
No bad blood. I don't even look at the names beside posts in any meaningful way..if I notice a trend I may eventually point it out, but it's always the content I am responding to. And while it's true you have written things I agree with in the past, for the most part your writing drives me to respond with one hand, the other firmly embedded in my palm.

When you say 'some satanists favour this or that' while mentioning things that are mutually exclusive to core Satanic philosophy, you are demonstrating you don't have a grip on core Satanic philosophy. That is why I say this sort of topic acts as a sort of visual filter to see who is who. If you find brutal honesty to be 'rude' that really isn't any of my concern.

If you truly believe in the egalitarian ideals presented by communism, you are not of the right stuff. Sure, a Satanist might thrive in a Communist system (as much as anyone could 'thrive') but that would be despite the system not because of it, and that Satanist certainly wouldn't be swallowing the kool-aide and submitting his will to the collective. There is much more to this than 'maximizing personal betterment'.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#47801 - 02/01/11 02:45 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well, yeah of course. A satanist uses the system in a profitable way for him or herself. Thats the whole point and I have never said anything different.

That being said I do not see Satanism as political (just as little as I see the LHP as being political as some people here have tried to think of it). Therefore there should be no thought that system A is more Satanic than system B. The Satanist always uses the system.

Most Satanists seem to favor the current system which is democratic which also is very much against the elitist, individualist approach Satanists have. But Im guessing they think this system gives them the best chances to prosper. And if it truly does then they should fight for this system and not another.

Top
#47806 - 02/01/11 02:54 PM Re: red satanism [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3892
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I for one, do not favour Democracy. I didn't drink THAT koole-aid, either. Functionally, getting ruled by a mob, or a set of tricksters using rhetoric to steer that mob, is really no different than a king or a dictator.

My personal political system of choice would be market anarchy, but being a realist I am not expecting to ever see one, nor will I be losing sleep over it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#47808 - 02/01/11 03:05 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dutch Satanist Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/19/10
Posts: 69
Loc: Delft, The Netherlands
I'm pretty much indifferent of politics, but if you would peg me down on it, you could call me a liberal constitutionalist. Even though I am not an American, I do agree with many things in the American constitution, especially the rules regarding seperation of religion and state, the right to bear arms, right to free speech, and the right of the state wrt nullification (which means that a state law will always overrule the federal law). And of course that the government shouldn't interfere with the personal lives of the people.

But to get back on topic; Marxism is in my opinion incompatible with Satanism. It's this whole collective thing and the eradication of individuality that doesn't jive with it. I'm not a number, I'm a free man!
_________________________
“There is a beast in man that needs to be excersised, not exorcised.”

Top
#47809 - 02/01/11 03:08 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Jason King]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Jason King

This means that maximizing the self requires maximizing a larger field. Anarchy is an ultimate fail in this regard, unless you're that dude with the long ass beard trappin' rodents on his little island.


Anarchy does fail in the way that you've pointed out. Anarchy isn't the opposite position to Communism, though, and I think no one is proposing anarchy as a valid opponent position. I think those "communal" functions can best be addressed by the private sector with healthy competition as a way of controlling cost. An overbearing governmental entity helps no one but the overbearing governmental entity (see the streets of Cairo right now for evidence).

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Understanding human nature as I do, I believe a collectivist model best maximizes the interests of the individual, and I see the alternatives as little more than aristocracies in disguise.


I can't go with you down that road. Collectivism alludes to some sort of rule system that would require people to share equally in everything (egalitarianism/collective need > the individual). This kind of thing stomps down on the individual via the method of leveling the playing field. This allows no place for excellence.

We do agree that governing bodies are a necessary thing. I think we disagree on the details.

I do thank you though for taking the argument on. Yours has been the most lucid and clear to date (which isn't surprising).
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#47810 - 02/01/11 03:40 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Fnord]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
I can't go with you down that road. Collectivism alludes to some sort of rule system that would require people to share equally in everything (egalitarianism/collective need > the individual). This kind of thing stomps down on the individual via the method of leveling the playing field. This allows no place for excellence.


I would not agree that collectivism alludes to a system that requires people to share equally in everything. Collectivism is a rather broad term that basically just means that the system puts more value in the goals of the collective than the goals of the individual. How the shares are divided can differ alot depending on the system.

Top
#47811 - 02/01/11 03:46 PM Re: red satanism [Re: TheInsane]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Collectivism is a rather broad term that basically just means that the system puts more value in the goals of the collective than the goals of the individual.


That doesn't contradict anything I said.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
How the shares are divided can differ alot depending on the system.


Some supporting examples of this position would be...?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#47816 - 02/01/11 04:13 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Fnord]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
How the shares are divided can differ alot depending on the system.


Some supporting examples of this position would be...?


Fascism. Collectivist but they never wanted to divide the shares equally. In fact one of the main streams of thought is class collaboration which essentially means that you keep people in different classes (i.e. different shares of the cake) and make them work together for the common good of the nation. The classes werent all static though. Fascism promotes, at least in theory, meritocracy.

Top
#47818 - 02/01/11 04:25 PM Re: red satanism [Re: TheInsane]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
I'm not going to argue those points specifically. Circling back to the discussion, which is whether Satanism is best served by leftward leaning politics, are you saying that Fascism is the best sort of government to support Satanic philosophy (realizing that it starts left and moves progressively to the right)?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#47822 - 02/01/11 04:59 PM Re: red satanism [Re: myk5]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
The popularity of fast food and Microsoft can be explained by one thing: affordability. Mass production of a bare-bones product is more accessible to a greater number of consumers. The alternative is that only the rich can afford computers and food. The fact that higher quality computers and food cost more should indicate to you that merit is rewarded; people are willing to pay more for a higher quality product.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#47824 - 02/01/11 05:10 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Jason King]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Understanding human nature as I do, I believe a collectivist model best maximizes the interests of the individual, and I see the alternatives as little more than aristocracies in disguise.


Emphasis added. You've stated a position. Do you care to make the case for why you believe this?

I believe the failings of a collectivist model, as it interacts with human nature, have been made clear in practice. Communism fails to produce innovation, incentive, choice for consumers, and the competition that drives producers to maximum efficiency. Even ignoring corrupt and oppressive regimes, directed economies that were marginally successful and peaceful (such as Orderville) were eventually abandoned because they failed to satisfy those that worked within them.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#47826 - 02/01/11 05:20 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Fnord]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
I'm not going to argue those points specifically. Circling back to the discussion, which is whether Satanism is best served by leftward leaning politics, are you saying that Fascism is the best sort of government to support Satanic philosophy (realizing that it starts left and moves progressively to the right)?


Thats a tough question. I am personally drawn to fascism (which I do not put as the same category national socialism just so we’re clear) but there are aspects of it that I dont like. And there are aspects I would worry about if it ever came to power again. Of course with systems that provide a strong regime it all comes down to what is prioritized and Satanism probably wouldn’t be one of those things in a fascist country. However I’d like to think that for me personally and for my country it would be good if we applied some of the positive aspects of fascism. I always saw egoism as different from selfishness where egoism provides a more intelligent approach and a wide perspective while selfishness is basically stupidity and only looking out for the short term (which most of the time will bite you in the ass in the end). So by changing some of the things I think needs to change around me I will also gain from it which is my approach to everything really. So while Fascism may not actively support Satanism (which system would?) I think some of its ideas would provide good change for my country and ultimately to myself as well.

Top
#47839 - 02/01/11 08:29 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Meatl Gear]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
There have been several "-isms" floating around this thread, and that's part of the general problem:

Communism IsNotTheSameThingAs Marxism
Marxism INTSTA Marxism-Leninism
... INTSTA socialism
... INTSTA collectivism & etc.

To add to the confusion, there are:
Political
Economic
Class
Social
dimensions to all of these.

And modern morphs of ManyOfTheAbove as well.

During the Vietnam War I interrogated VC/NVA prisoners & defectors. Almost without exception none of them knew anything about Karl Marx or communist theory. To the extent they were politically motivated, they were simple Nationalists who wanted any & all non-Vietnamese the hell out of their country.

China used to be its own style of communism, which at first toyed with M-L but found Stalinism much simpler when you wanted to get things done in a hurry, which post-Stalin became Maoism [because Chairman M wasn't about to kiss the ass of a young newcomer like Khrushchev], which today is careening into a new type of state-capitalism that would have Karl M spinning in his grave.

So you've already got a very messy matrix here. If you try to relate this to "Satanism", you've got all the controversy over its definition, including the added religious/metaphysical dimension. So lotsa luck.

That said, I think Animal Mother came closest to a bull's eye when he said that "communism and Satanism are antithetical". Simply because in all its variations communism is a leveler of people while in all its variations Satanism is a distinguisher between them.

To understand this, it's most helpful to get a grip on "pure/original" Marxism, because once you do that, the various takeoffs on it are much easier to see. Then it's a simple matter of taking your personally-preferred definition of "Satanism" and comparing. So here goes:

[M.A.A., in the Ruby Tablet of Set, 10/1/1984]

The European industrial revolution, which created the conditions conducive to the onslaught of modern capitalist/labor/socialist developments, began in England at the start of the 19th century. The move towards industrialization spread to Belgium as a consequence of English investments in that country, and France and Germany experienced their major industrial booms between 1830 and 1870. Sweden, Denmark, and the low countries followed during the period 1871-1914, as did Austria, Bohemia, and Russia. By the period just prior to World War I, the principal countries which were still essentially pre-industrial were Hungary, Italy, and Spain.

During the 1870s a gradual transition could be seen from individual entrepreneurship to various forms of industrial combination and conglomeration. Government aid to such industrial enterprises was also a new development, consisting of a gradual liberalizing of corporate law and the instituting of protective tariffs in order to help protect budding national industries against competition from further-developed foreign ones. By the 1890s England, Belgium, and Holland were the only countries still observing a free-trade policy.

The consolidation and organization of business encouraged (by example) the organization of labor. Labor unions first began to experience general legal toleration in France in the period 1864-1884, in England in 1871-1875, and in Austria in the early 1870s. The first international labor organization, the International Workingmen’s Association (the “First International”) was founded in London in 1864 and existed until 1876, when it dissolved due to a split between the anarchist faction of Bakunin and the socialist/Marxist factions. In 1889 the Second International came into existence, but it did not survive World War I.

Marxism, sometimes called dialectic materialism to distinguish it from the dialectic idealism of Hegel, is a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectic materialism, economic determination of human actions and institutions, the class struggle as the fundamental force in history, and a belief that increasing concentration of industrial control in the capitalist class and the consequent intensification of class antagonisms and of misery among the workers will lead to a revolutionary seizure of power by and the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the establishment of a classless society.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was strongly influenced by Hegel, but believed that Hegel had made a fundamental mistake in using nations as the basis for his dialectic and in relating it to a divine manifestation or purpose. Marx considered the dialectic to be a function of economic struggle between social classes, and he denied the existence of any supernatural intelligence, calling all religion “the opiate of the masses”.

According to Marx, one cannot choose one’s social class. Rather one is forced into a particular class by the forces of economics, particularly the means of production.

As more and more economic power becomes concentrated in the hands of the upper class (the bourgeoisie), the middle class will disappear, leaving only a large, impoverished working class (the proletariat) opposed to the bourgeoisie. Eventually the strain between these two classes will lead to revolution, resulting in a classless, utopian society. [“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”] Marx called this end result socialism, but it was ultimately called communism. As a general rule, “socialism” means ownership of the means of production by the state, while “communism” means ownership collectively by the proletariat.

Essential to Marxism are the concepts labor theory of value and theory of surplus value.

The labor theory of value suggests that the value of an item results from “the quantity of labor necessary for its production in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions of production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of the labor employed”. Members of the proletariat “sell” their labor-power (the ability to labor for a specific period) to employers from the capitalist bourgeoisie, but they are not paid the entire value of their labor. The part that is not paid to the laborer is called the surplus value. The capitalist keeps this surplus value as his profit.

As smaller competitors are driven out of business, the capitalist faces increasing pressure from large competitors. Since the cost of producing similar goods is more or less the same, trying to undersell competitors is not effective in the long run. The only way the capitalist can increase his profit is to pay the workers less and less. As the worker realizes that he is being exploited, he will develop class consciousness and ultimately revolt.

As economic forces and not ethical values determine relationships in a capitalist society, Marx charges that capitalism dehumanizes mankind, causing insecurity, fear, and self-alienation. Unable to find value in other humans, victims of self-alienation find it in produced goods - a phenomenon which Marx calls fetishism (love of possessions).

Marxism began the transition into what is called Marxism-Leninism at the turn of the century. Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” pamphlet was published in 1902. Lenin’s form of communism argued for a speeding-up of the Marxist process via a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, as well as for establishment of a revolutionary socialist state prior to the utopian state of pure communism.

Marx’ utopian society would require perfection in its citizens. This contrasts with most other political philosophies, which are geared to deal with enduring imperfections in human relationships (hatred, greed, selfishness, sloth, power-lust, etc.).

Marx, like Hegel, based his ideas on a necessary, inevitable force of history. Thus communism would eventually come no matter what capitalism tries to do to stop it. The other side of this coin is that there is nothing would-be communists can do to speed it up; their society must first evolve to the “last stages” of capitalism. The first country to embrace communism, Russia, was not in an advanced state of capitalism - nor have been the other countries which have become communist. Lenin modified Marx (“Marxism-Leninism”) with the concept of the state-embodied dictatorship of the proletariat: the running of the country by a communist party elite until its economic systems could be advanced to full communism. The state apparat would then “wither away”. It is noteworthy that power is addictive, and no “temporary” communist governments have shown any signs of withering away.

Marx conceived communism as supranational, assuming the nation-state system to be a device for economic and class inequality and exploitation. In their effort to justify their continued control, however, modern communist governments have strengthened their nationalism.

Marxism has been corrupted by its use as an ideological slogan in many countries and systems which were completely foreign to Marx’ original analysis. This leads us to a certain contempt for “Marxists” today, since they seem to be emotionally, not rationally motivated. This should not necessarily reflect upon Marx himself. A precise Marxist would say that the economic polarization forces which Marx identified have been delayed by deficit financing, compromises with the pre-revolutionary proletariat (unions, benefits, unemployment compensation, etc.), but that these are all merely postponements of a final reckoning.

... There, wasn't that simple?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47843 - 02/01/11 09:30 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



(Dr. Aquino, have only just noticed your post. I thought I would add mine anyway. Hopefully will bear some use for members)


About six months or ago I sat down and read The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. This book is basically an autobiography and a pretty good one, though quite dry and technical at times.

I was interested in a lot of what Greenspan had to say, particularly in regards to a trip he made to the Soviet Union at the invitation of the Soviet government during the later Gorbachev years.

Apparently the purpose of the trip was to provide educational opportunities to the Soviets regarding capitalism and capitalist economics.

Greenspan mentions that he was allowed to visit the room where the whole Soviet communist economy was co-ordinated and directed from. Unfortunately I do not have the book to hand right now, so I cannot recall the name of the room, specific part of the Soviet bureaucracy responsible for working there or the exact location of the room.

However, I was struck by the notion of it – the whole Soviet economy being run out of one room and we are talking about an enormous country with a huge population.

With a totalitarian centrally planned economy like this you would have to determine the goods and services needed by the entire population and then co-ordinate efforts and arrange for their production, transportation and consumption etc. on a national scale. Everybody in this type of system has a more or less assigned role and they follow what are supposed to be carefully thought out quotas and goals, based on genuine intelligence/information, in order to complete their small part in the process, so the overall goal can be met.

I will provide another post here once I have my hands on Greenspan’s book again because Greenspan’s perception and thoughts regarding this system and its inefficiencies and problems etc. are valuable, but basically I think that two tentative and yet reasonable conclusions can be posed with regards to this type of economic system and Satanism:

1. A communist system is intended to remove social classes and forms of inequity and domination from a society, but this is not in fact the case when one moves from theory to the reality of it in practice. The two great classes existing under capitalism may have been removed by communist revolution, but classes themselves are not eliminated, they are merely re-constituted in differing forms in the new society. The rule of the bureaucracy and the party leadership takes the place of the bourgeoisie and its state. Forms of hierarchy, stratification, might is right, and top to bottom power relations still constitute the basic components of the society. Satan as the symbol of the peoples struggle for justice against the bourgeoisie is inappropriate, as this Satan never actually acquires “his” victory once communism is installed. Might is right wins out here yet again.
2. Pretty much all of the Marxist concepts, such as substructure/superstructure, mode of production, alienation, the commodity, labour power, historical materialism etc. are all concepts which essentially see the individual and his/her “subjectivity” as an effect of something larger and something which the individual has little control over – he/she is a piece in a machine, or an element in a system, or a victim of historical or economic forces. Even the means of transcending, placating, and/or removing this so called evil system and actualising or realising the end point of the dialectic involve the individual entering and acting within yet another system, whether it is the union movement, or the party, or within industrial armies etc. Individualism is downplayed at every instance and anti-individualism is carried right into the heart of the communist system itself via the strict arrangements in place regarding production and consumption and ownership.

I am not sure how a relationship between Satanism and Communism can be maintained. There is no way the class struggle and its goals can be related to Satanism as far as I can see.

Top
#47844 - 02/01/11 10:16 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Fist]
manofsteel Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 153
Loc: Indiana U.S.
Thanks for being my judge but I believe I am just fine without the reading since I have already done so. Just because I don't debate all the bullshit online doesn't mean I don't know anything. By they way I don't remember asking for anyone's opinion but thanks for throwing it out there. Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the thread by the way. Maybe you could use some help on that. Just returning the favor. \:\)

Edited by manofsteel (02/01/11 10:17 PM)
_________________________
Amongst the sheep emerges a wolf.

Top
Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.