Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>
Topic Options
#48016 - 02/04/11 12:12 AM Re: red satanism [Re: Fist]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2575
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fist
1. Why did the USSR go on to lose the 'space race'? Why did they not dominate space in the way the US has?

They actually won the space-race in all firsts except for manned Moon-landing: first satellite, first animal (Laika), first man, first woman, first to land unmanned probes on the Moon, and first to place nuclear & thermonuclear warheads on an ICBM (the SS-6 & SS-7 "Sapwood").

Once the USA landed Apollo-11 on the Moon, the USSR didn't bother and just went back to orbital stuff.

To some extent all this was determined by who brought home which German rocket scientists at the end of WW2. Also the USA was better at miniaturization, so we didn't need such big boosters. The Soviets compensated by building gigantic boosters. So we had certain types of advantage & vice-versa.

 Quote:
2. Why doesn't Russia enjoy economic success with it's products outside of rather limited military sales?

It went from Czarist feudalism to forced communism to amateur capitalism. And it was never comfortable being an international trading player in the way that Europe and Japan & now China are. Russians tend to be very Russia-oriented, as Napoleon & Hitler learned the hard way.

 Quote:
3. Why do Westerners wax romantic about the Communist State while the people who actually live there die trying to get out?

This question is at least 20 years out-of-date.

But the USA had a love-hate relationship with the USSR all the way along. During WW2 Stalin was "Uncle Joe" and our good buddy. And generally Russians have liked the USA except when we've flipflopped them into "the Enemy".

 Quote:
4. How come the above Westerners don't simply stop complaining about Capitalism and move to the Workers Paradise of their choice? I am sure you could get a nice job in China reclaiming the lead from old car batteries.

China is becoming more capitalist all the time while the USA is becoming more socialist. If you wait long enough, you can get your car-battery job right here.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#48027 - 02/04/11 03:14 AM Re: red satanism [Re: Gattamelata]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Gattamelata
Well, all this in despite of more than because of Communism, but still..


I don't think so. With a planned economy and a strong rule it is easier to put your forces behind certain projects like the space project in this case. I would say that one of the reasons they did succeed was because of the way the country was run.

Still, this doesnt mean I'm a communist but some things are easier to accomplish with different ways to rule and govern a country.

Top
#48032 - 02/04/11 06:43 AM Re: red satanism [Re: TheInsane]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 45
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
 Originally Posted By: Gattamelata
Well, all this in despite of more than because of Communism, but still..


I don't think so. With a planned economy and a strong rule it is easier to put your forces behind certain projects like the space project in this case. I would say that one of the reasons they did succeed was because of the way the country was run.

Still, this doesnt mean I'm a communist but some things are easier to accomplish with different ways to rule and govern a country.



If we look at the Soviet space program, it actually had an interesting design that turned out to be highly efficient. Unlike the USA, which set up NASA as a single coordinating agency, the USSR operated a fierce meritocratic system of sorts where different teams did not cooperate but instead competed against each other in cut-throat fashion in order to deliver the best results.

Of course the ’unlimited funds’ provided by a planned economy contributed, but it does not give a full explanation on why the Russians achieved such success. As for such an explanation, I would not focus much on the ideology of ’Communism’ though. When this ideology interfered in the fields of science it mostly did more harm than good.

Bear in mind that the fields of hard science (with certain notable exceptions) were the least censored and therefore the most free disciplines one could pursue within the Soviet system. Add to that the long tradition of Russian science regarding space exploration and related subjects, pioneered so early as in Imperial Russia (see Konstantin Tsiolkovsky) and later developed up through the 20’s and 30’s, where Soviet rocket technology in the 30’s was comparable to Germany - before Stalin’s purges created a major set back for the Russian scientific pursuits. A set back that healed rapidly though, as captured German scientists where set to work after the end of WWII and a change in Stalin’s policy resulted in the release of the remaining elite of scientific personnel from the Gulag camps.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#48070 - 02/04/11 07:30 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Meatl Gear]
MuppetSlayer Offline
Meq - Banned
stranger


Registered: 04/27/10
Posts: 23
Loc: UK
Jason King gave a good explanation, but I think the attempt to synthesize Satanic and Leftist thought raises some interesting philosophical points.

I am not an elitist. I am not an egalitarian. I consider both a form of rigid overgeneralized thinking. In reality, one cooperates when its in one's best interest, and one competes when it's in one's best interest. When you compete, you apply statification and merit. When you cooperate, you get down (or up) to the other person's level in a quasi-egalitarian fashion. This does not imply equality on a philosophical level. But it does mean it's often in one's interest to be civil and not be a dick. I have good friends of different socio-economic class, and don't hold it against a person for being a prole if they also happen to be an exceptional friend to me.

The Satanic Reds have a different understanding to human nature to LaVeyan Satanism. Both start with human beings as animals. Both consider the happiness of the individual. The leftist Satanists, however, stress human beings as SOCIAL animals, and consider humans as inescapably interdependent. They use social science and academic philosophy to understand the human animal, instead of discredited theories such as social Darwinism. This leads to different political views, such as the view that state welfare improves the happiness of a nation, and thus gives an individual a better stab at happiness.

Humans are social animals. However selfish we may be, helping out the vulnerable in need often feels good. We may repress it, but it's a hardwired instinct as much as sex - and a Darwinian explanation can help to explain why this helped and helps our species flourish.

But here's the rub with socialism. It is not 'free love', where individuals willingly help each other out of a symbiotic sense of mutually satisfying good will. It's coerced sharing. People are forced to share. And what is worse, this is a "one size fits all" approach to sharing. Individuals who are naturally more generous lose their sense of generosity after being coerced. But individuals who are naturally selfish will understandably resent being forced to play the role of altruist when it is not in their nature to do so. (As many on this forum will no doubt relate to!)

Here my own views are more in line with classical Epicureanism. Communes can work on a small scale, as the Epicureans practiced to some extent. Epicureanism focussed on the happiness of the individual, and saw this kind of friendship as central to the good life (compare Epicurean theory with Maslow's hierarchy of needs). However, these relationships must be entered into voluntarily, and by mutual informed consent. The Epicureans were basically a group of friends who chose to live together and share their belongings as a means to their individual happiness, as each saw it. In this sense, they were true egoists.

MuppetSlayer
_________________________
muppet (ˈmʌpɪt)

—n (slang) (UK)
An ignorant person who has no idea about anything.

Top
#48085 - 02/05/11 04:39 AM Re: red satanism [Re: MuppetSlayer]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: MuppetSlayer
When you cooperate, you get down (or up) to the other person's level in a quasi-egalitarian fashion...But it does mean it's often in one's interest to be civil and not be a dick...The leftist Satanists, however, stress human beings as SOCIAL animals, and consider humans as inescapably interdependent.


I've never understood the idea that cooperation entails egalitarianism. People can cooperate within hierarchy; indeed, the most effective multi-person operations are coordinated because of leadership and direction. Too many people trying to plan something together end up with a hopeless mess. While humans can work together to realize a vision, the vision itself is often the design of a single competent individual.

 Originally Posted By: MuppetSlayer

They use social science and academic philosophy to understand the human animal, instead of discredited theories such as social Darwinism.


I'm not sure how social Darwinism is a discredited theory. There have been misapplications of it and misunderstandings of how it is meant to function, but that doesn't mean that the theory itself is flawed.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (02/05/11 04:40 AM)
Edit Reason: typo
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#55846 - 06/14/11 05:02 PM Re: red satanism [Re: XiaoGui17]
assault_ninja Offline
Banned--Idiot
stranger


Registered: 06/14/11
Posts: 36
I've joined this forum just to read Dr. Aquino postings and never really planned to post anything, but then I saw this topic.

You see, the relationship between individualism and communism is not as simple as it might seem at the first glance.

There's a novel called What Is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. This book in some ways predates Nietzche, Ayn Rand and LaVey. Chernyshevsky believed in the same rational selfishness, that was later championed by Ayn Rand and LaVey. His characters are downright Randian, he even has his own John Galt. But Chernyshevsky was also an utopian socialist.

So here's the thing, this book was really influential in the revolutionary circles at that time. Lenin particulary loved it, at some point he read it twice during the same summer. Some historian, don't remember the name, even stated that What Is to Be Done? did more for the revolution than Das Kapital.

Also, Ayn Rand was probably directly influenced by it, but AFAIK never acknowledged that. Of course, that would somewhat undermine her political philosophy.

There's also a case to be made about it influencing Nietzsche, since he was a big fan of Dostoevsky and attacking Chernyshevsky's ideas is pretty much the main theme of Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.

Top
#56271 - 06/26/11 09:37 PM Re: red satanism [Re: assault_ninja]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I would like to point out that I am apolitical and only believe in the will to power and of it's expression through abstract causal forms.

The many talk much about equality, but equality of what sort? Equality implies *worth*, so in order for man to be regarded as equal or unequal, there must be a comparative base of evaluation whilst seeing eye to eye as to what kind, what sort of equality is being talked about.

A view.

Equality? Surely we, as humans, share base instincts, correct? If this is so, then we could make example of *fear*. Insofar as we all share a reaction to fear, whether a passive, or an active reaction, and with equality in mind, such a distinction is not as important as the common ground of which fear is found to be felt by all. And in this way are we equal? If this is affirmed as so, as a base nature being shared equally among humans, then what is there to differentiate us other than the expression of the individual will?

Surely it is the turbulent scales of nature that tips the weight of events against that of the will? In this sense we are all equally exposed to nature and causality (and of eachothers doings, impositions of wills). If such is so, then what is there to differentiate us other than the weight, the mettle of the individual will?

There a man with a will as whimsical of a feather blowing aimlessly in the wind of whims and influences of others, then is he equal to a man who's will is of the blackest iron deeply inherited in the earth? I would say yes he is. Why? Because the weak justify the strong and this "is" the balance and equality.

Are these two seemingly different men in fact equal but learned to respond to the ways of the world very differently? If this is so and man is equal with what he is faced with by nature, then I assert that it is up to the individual to do with what he has inherited to the best of his ability, and likewise if he desires to be wasteful of himself that is down to the individual, all have equal choice but the power of the will decides who goes first, both in life and death.

I ask: Why, if men are of equal worth, would one care if the other were to triumph where he would not? Surely there will be a reserve of future triumph for the one who has not yet finished expressing his will? "ah, you have triumphed where I have not, I shall be rest assured that I am still equal to you, simply having not put my will to it yet" I present this to mock the powerless and the fallacy of equality.

We are all equally set before the limitations imposed by the hylic civilisation. I propose that the greater the weight of events, the greater the will of the individual must be to survive on his own as if he were to tip on the scales with the rest of the beast of burden, his will is then not his own. There would be no opposition to balance against his will.

The fear of socio-anarchy can be observed in the animal kingdom and our own civilisation, and it is this anticipation of uncertainty that causes us to act pre-emptively towards gaining power. In fact there is no difference between man except for his manner of expression of the will to power and his accomplishments of it, some express directly through overpowering imposition of the will, whilst others, weaker, spread thinly in statute, are predisposed to express the disguised forms of the will to power, having no choice.

If one can see he is being subjugated passive aggressively then why not visit that clandestine subjugator around his equal share of imposition, directly? And surely the weak will act surprised and act with further attempts at moral malfeasance. If we look at Socialism and Communism as both ways of distributing goods and services, then surely the strong in nature's eyes (predators who live bare minimum) have no weight against the mass of human cattle. People don't like to play fair, they are either good at pretending whilst totally ignoring the rules, and both systems only work when everyone follows the same rules. So a Satanist would simply adapt to any political system and express the will to power either directly or in disguised forms, with only himself, his personal goals, within his short life in mind.

I hear talk that displays a genuine mundane envelopment in politics such as "Socialism is incompatible with Satanism". Does an evil, sinister or otherwise truly transgressive individual give a rat's ass about the causal form he is exploiting to exemplify his own personal honour through expressing the will to power.

"But it's not all about the will to power" yes, I'm afraid it is, and if you want to pretend humaneness is not subtle, disguised powerplay, then you aren't adept at how the human species works and are caught up in the abstraction of the mundanes.

The wolf doesn't care how many sheep there are, or what the fuck they're doing, as long as they're being sheep.
_________________________


Top
#56662 - 07/09/11 05:07 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Hegesias]
Aries9 Offline
temp ban
stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 11
My first post, so I'll take this moment to say hello and now I shall comment on this.

I don't think you can say Satanism and any governing philosophy aren't compatible. By that token if we lived in a Marxist society one could no longer practice Satanism or be considered a Satanist?

You can practice Satanism in any system, and it will always be a superior philosophy. As for myself I've come to the view that all the systems are similar (identical as far as my views go) as they are all monetary based and corrupt. The only difference in those two factors is to what degree and by who's hand.

I offer a question,

Do most Satanists feel the need to seek monetary or social status to be effective at what he or she does or to find happiness in life?

I can say I do not.


Edited by Aries9 (07/09/11 05:08 PM)

Top
#56666 - 07/09/11 05:43 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Aries9]
assault_ninja Offline
Banned--Idiot
stranger


Registered: 06/14/11
Posts: 36
Actually there's two different questions to discuss here:
A. Can a satanist live within communist of other totalitarian society and exploit it?
B. Can a satanist honestly believe in Marxism, communism, etc?

Maybe even three:
C. Can a satanist struggle for Marxist or communist society, while not believing in it's ideals, just because he thinks that he can exploit it better than a capitalist society?

Top
#56690 - 07/10/11 04:06 PM Re: red satanism [Re: assault_ninja]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A satanist can live in any sort of society, the rules only apply to him if he believes they do. But can a satanist truly believe in Marxism or communism? No, these political ideologies are at odds with the satanic view. Enforced equality is not what I'd call a preference. The third question would require me to ask why he would even bother? If exploitation is the sole purpose, why would anyone waste time promoting something they'd not see happen during their lifetime? If exploitation is the game, would you care about the future or its generations?

D.

Top
#57891 - 08/01/11 08:48 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Fist]
Ophelia Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/01/11
Posts: 9
Loc: Portland, ME
Personally I don't see a problem with integrating Marxism with Satanism. If that is what you wish to do. I have seen Satanists mix Neo-Nazism with Satanism, I don't particularly agree with that stance because Neo-Nazism requires one to obedient and follow Nazi tenets which isn't very Satanic after all ;\)
However, I integrate feminism with my Satanic path in such a way that fits me. Maybe you can do the same that would work for you.
_________________________
Yahweh is the only god I would have a party with.

Top
#57896 - 08/01/11 10:44 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Meatl Gear]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
You must take into consideration that in Satanism private property is cherished, that everyone get's what they deserve, that is, work for. Whereas in Communism, private property is abolished, everyone gets everything, not necessarily that they deserve it (although ideally, people would deserve it supposing everyone is a hard-working proletariat).

The parallel, maybe, is in how Satanism (LaVey-oriented) and Marxism demolish all forms of religious thought. But they are two things totally different and only this in common.

Top
#57897 - 08/01/11 10:48 PM Re: red satanism [Re: Ophelia]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
Marxism requires one to follow Marxist tenets. What would be the difference?? The idea is that Satanism is oriented for individualism, and Marxism for collectivism. Crucial difference.
Top
#57907 - 08/02/11 02:38 PM Re: red satanism [Re: a. don]
Ophelia Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/01/11
Posts: 9
Loc: Portland, ME
I don't agree with this 'Red Satanism' either. It isn't Satanism when someone integrates another system in it that directly opposes what the philosophy is about (and that includes Nazism). But I am not going to tell a person what to do either. I think it is acceptable to use some tenets in one's Satanic path but not the complete system itself. Mixing Marxism into Satanism in it's entirety doesn't make sense.
_________________________
Yahweh is the only god I would have a party with.

Top
#58764 - 09/01/11 09:26 AM Re: red satanism [Re: Ophelia]
Liane Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/21/11
Posts: 29
Loc: Germany
I just finished reading "Marxism unmasked - From delusion to destruction" by Ludwig von Mises. This gives you an interesting insight and facts about marxist philosophy.
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/MarxismUnmasked.pdf

Sadly, in Germany the socialist/communist/marxist community is going to be very popular.


Enjoy!
_________________________
:) Autonomy without the State

Top
Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>


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.