2016 October 07 Friday
Utopians Become Conformists

How can you have a utopia if some people might think thoughts that throw into question the idea of a perfect society? Progressive utopia is conformist. Its just a new kind of conformism.

Legutko’s thesis is that liberal democracies have something in common with communism: the sense that time is inexorably moving towards a kind of human utopia, and that progressive bureaucrats must make sure it succeeds. Legutko first observed this after the fall of communism. Thinking that communist bureaucrats would have difficulty adjusting to Western democracy, he was surprised when the former Marxists smoothly adapted—indeed, thrived—in a system of liberal democracy. It was the hard-core anti-communists who couldn’t quite fit into the new system. They were unable to untether themselves from their faith, culture, and traditions.

I think some of the dissidents are driven more by contrarian natures and strong innate independence of mind. People who have more independent minds could cluster together and become majorities in some existing smaller nations. This would allow them to escape the drive for conformism. However, by their absence every nation they leave will become easier to mold into conformity of behavior and thought.

I do not have a solution to offer against the growth of stifling political correctness other than build a separate society for the politically correct and then let them live in it.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 October 07 02:25 PM 


Comments
Jim said at October 13, 2016 1:53 PM:

Your solution implies that the left would be willing to tolerate a society for those who did not share their values but the fanatical nature of the left will not allow that. People on the left are not like some Buddhists monks content to live their own way in some utopian commune and not seek to impose it on others. Rather they are like Islamic Jihadis - All must submit to the will of Allah or alternatively to the left's notion of human destiny.

The left like the Islamic Fundamentalists are fanatical believers in The One True Way or True God for everyone. They cannot tolerate non-conformity to their beliefs.

William Vadi said at October 15, 2016 12:19 PM:

Talking about what "the left" is or what the leftists "are like" has become meaningless. To overgeneralize that way is simply stupid.

William Vadi said at October 15, 2016 12:24 PM:

I like Putin and he's very much left. So what? If somebody makes sense what do I care if he's labeled right or left. If I dislike both Trump and Clinton, does that make me left?

What is "left"? Nobody defines, nobody makes himself clear anymore.

Jim said at October 16, 2016 1:15 PM:

What is "left" about Putin?

Seth W. said at October 17, 2016 2:23 PM:

@Jim: So you mean he's right? I really doubt that.

Dan said at October 19, 2016 7:59 AM:

@Seth, William --

Putin leftist? Are you trolling or just not bright? Let's see...

Putin is:
* Nationalist
* Gave his people the right to bear arms 2 years ago (true)
* Supports the Russian Orthodox Church
* Against Cathedral
* Low, flat tax regime
* Favors strong military
* Wants his people to make more babies and is against abortion
* Opposes the LGBTQ silliness
* Doesn't like Hillary
* Supports far right regimes like LePen in France
* Kicked out Soros and all the globoleftist NGOs

Why do you think the left hates him so much? Hint: it's not because he's a bad man. He's actually quite mild. The left loved Stalin, Mao and Gueverra, all of whom were proudly genocidal.

Seth W. said at October 24, 2016 3:02 PM:

@ Dan,

You mean leftists are not nationalists?
You mean leftists are not low, flat tax regimes?
You mean leftists are not in favor of strong military?
You mean leftists don't oppose LGBTQ silliness?
You mean leftists have to like Hillary?
You mean Hillary is left???
You mean Putin doesn't support Assad's regime in Syria?
You mean ultra-right Pinochet, Franco, Hitler and Somoza weren't genocidal? And about Guevara.....¿genocidal? (I assume you mean Ernesto "Che") What the hell are you talking about?

What have you been smoking? Are you on weed brownies?
You don't even know what left and right are and you don't know your elementary history.

Jim said at October 27, 2016 8:26 AM:

Seth W. - Pinochet, Franco and Somoza may have been brutal tyrants but they were not genocidal. I would say that Guevara, though certainly brutal, doesn't qualify as genocidal either.

Leftists are generally opposed to nationalism, in favor of high taxes for the redistribution of wealth, and generally support political correctness and rarely criticize even it's silliest manifestations. Leftists in countries not controlled by the left are generally hostile to a strong military.

Perhaps Hillary is a secret member of the vast right-wing conspiracy but I doubt it.

William Vadi said at October 29, 2016 12:30 PM:

Jim, give it a rest. You make no sense when you compare Guevara with Pinochet, Franco and Somoza. You just repeat stupidities from what you ignore.

William Vadi said at October 29, 2016 1:33 PM:

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Finland are leftist countries at the time, or countries with long leftist -that is socialist- tratditions.
What the fuck are you talking about Jim? All these countries have free higher education, free healthcare for all and all sorts of worker's rights so the abusive right-wing capitalist owner doesn't get away with turning employees into merchandize.

Capitalism that has eaten our democracy, our middle class. It’s eaten our health care system, our prison system, our news media. It’s even eaten our food systems so thoroughly that a lot of our food is no longer something that should be eaten.

Someone needs to explain to the "free market solves everything" idiots like you that when it comes to socialism, you’re soaking in it. Corporate America "just wants to help", right?

When you're handing over national parks to corporations, when the price of a life-saving drug goes 5,000 % overnight, when elections are being bought and sold, we realize there are somethings better left out of the claws of free market profiteers.

What are you talking about Jim? You make no sense about anything.

Dan said at October 31, 2016 8:58 AM:

William, Seth --

Left wing actually does have a meaning. It doesn't mean just whatever you want it to mean. It actually derives from where certain factions sat in parliament during the French revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#History

The left side in the French parliament at the time of the French Revolution was anti-clerical and rebellious and sought to overturn the existing order, using the poor in a revolution against the establishment. That is the history of where the term comes from.

Putin is not a leftist by any stretch. He is pro-church and tradition, he adamantly does not want to overturn the order, he is not a revolutionary. There are variations on the left of course. Admittedly nationalism and authoritarianism can be both left and right. But Putin has very few of the marks of historical leftists.

Seth W. said at October 31, 2016 2:03 PM:

@ Dan

COMPARED TO ANY REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT NOWADAYS, PUTIN IS A LEFTIST, PERIOD. HAVE A NICE DAY.

Dan said at November 1, 2016 8:03 AM:

@Seth, no shouting please. Just evidence. If Putin is a leftist, that would be an interesting thing to know. I don't see any evidence of it.

Why would you say Putin is a leftist?

Seth W. said at November 1, 2016 2:04 PM:

Just evidence? Now you're talking about evidence. Ok let's have it your way then... Che Guevara; how was he genocidal? There's no evidence of that at all, except what you claim against well-known history. In fact he never even had the power to become one. Bush alone has killed more than Guevara. Kissinger by far has killed more than Guevara. Obama has killed more than Guevara.

Why would you say Guevara was genocidal? On the other hand isn't there evidence of ultra-right Pinochet, Somoza, Hitler and Franco as genocidal? If you no longer use enciclopaedias just look it up on wiki. It is pretty accurate on that type of information.

Here's a piece of evidence regarding Putin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjrlTMvirVo

EVIDENCE YOU SAY?
Putin has many times spoken in favor of a new world order for all, not just the corporation. Putin has spoken so many times against elitist capitalism. Putin rebuked Obama for what he did against socialist Khaddafi, didn't he? He made arms deals with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Maduro, didn't he? Unless you just bury your head on the ground you won't know that Puin is considering reopening the military base in Cuba and strengthening alliances with Nicaragua.

Here take a look:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261611/putin-i-liked-communist-and-socialist-ideas-very-daniel-greenfield
http://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201601251033688953-russia-socialism-communism-putin/

And about the caps, I'm not shouting, so there's no need to get all sensitive. Remember caps are not only for shouting, they are also for making yourself clear. Of course there are many -specially women and some politically correct pussified men- who are so affraid of using them. Romans used them all the time and I like how they look in short texting. I LIKE CAPS. See? No shouting. Some things just feel like STANDING OUT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Dan said at November 2, 2016 5:38 AM:

Seth W. --

As for Ernesto Lynch, his birth name was more appropriate because of all the people he killed or had killed. Here is some stuff you can read, but be careful...it could be triggering for you.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
http://www.therealcuba.com/?page_id=32
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4077397/It-is-a-sad-reflection-of-our-time-that-Che-Guevara-is-seen-as-a-hero.html

His kill totals were small compared to folks like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. If your standard is that one needs to kill millions to qualify as genocidal he obviously didn't reach those numbers. Also, I suppose if you mean genocide as an effort to kill a particular ethnic or religious group, he may not qualify. He aimed to kill opponents of the revolution, which is not an ethnic group.

Nevertheless he was a mass murder. And a deadbeat dad. I'm not sure how he smelled but probably not very good considering he looks greasy in all his pictures.

Regarding Putin, it's complicated because of history. Russia tries to say good things about its past and its history even as its policies move away from that. This effort to honor the past is probably healthier than the western self-loathing. China is similar: it is still officially Communist even though in practice it is totally the opposite now.

If you want to judge where Putin's Russia actually lies, you have to look at actually policies instead of Putin's words, which are an effort to have continuity with the past (like what China does).

In reality Russia has:
- Low flat taxes, like US conservatives only dream about; taxes are actually regressive (Communist Russia 'redistributed' almost everything)
- He gave people the right to bear arms (Communist Russia forbade arms)
- He favors the church pretty intensively (Communist Russia repressed the church and killed many churchmen)
- There are no gulags (Communist Russia killed many millions of political opponents)
- Socially he is clearly conservative, and against all the social leftism pushed by the west and against abortion
(Communist Russia led the world in legal abortion, back in the 1920s)

Calling Russia leftist is like calling China Communist (which it isn't really any more). They keep the name for the sake of continuity but actual practice has changed dramatically.

Triggered yet?

Dan said at November 2, 2016 5:41 AM:

Seth W. --

As for Ernesto Lynch, his birth name was more appropriate because of all the people he killed or had killed. Here is some stuff you can read, but be careful...it could be triggering for you.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
http://www.therealcuba.com/?page_id=32
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4077397/It-is-a-sad-reflection-of-our-time-that-Che-Guevara-is-seen-as-a-hero.html

His kill totals were small compared to folks like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. If your standard is that one needs to kill millions to qualify as genocidal he obviously didn't reach those numbers. Also, I suppose if you mean genocide as an effort to kill a particular ethnic or religious group, he may not qualify. He aimed to kill opponents of the revolution, which is not an ethnic group.

Nevertheless he was a mass murder. And a deadbeat dad. I'm not sure how he smelled but probably not very good considering he looks greasy in all his pictures.

Regarding Putin, it's complicated because of history. Russia tries to say good things about its past and its history even as its policies move away from that. This effort to honor the past is probably healthier than the western self-loathing. China is similar: it is still officially Communist even though in practice it is totally the opposite now.

If you want to judge where Putin's Russia actually lies, you have to look at actually policies instead of Putin's words, which are an effort to have continuity with the past (like what China does).

In reality Russia has:
- Low flat taxes, like US conservatives only dream about; taxes are actually regressive (Communist Russia 'redistributed' almost everything)
- He gave people the right to bear arms (Communist Russia forbade arms)
- He favors the church pretty intensively (Communist Russia repressed the church and killed many churchmen)
- There are no gulags (Communist Russia killed many millions of political opponents)
- Socially he is clearly conservative, and against all the social leftism pushed by the west and against abortion
(Communist Russia led the world in legal abortion, back in the 1920s)

Calling Russia leftist is like calling China Communist (which it isn't really any more). They keep the name for the sake of continuity but actual practice has changed dramatically.

Triggered yet?

Seth W. said at November 7, 2016 2:26 PM:

So what happen to Randall anyway? It's been a while since he posted anything

I hope he's ok.

Lono said at November 8, 2016 1:10 PM:

Seth,

His twitter account is still active - so he seems to be alright - I was also growing a little concerned.

I believe the conclusion of this election season is keeping him quite busy.

Seth W. said at November 9, 2016 2:45 PM:

It seems that Donald Trump won the elections. I'll personally start considering leaving the USA. No bull.

Dan said at November 10, 2016 7:42 AM:

Seth W. -- Canada I suppose... Certainly not Me-hee-co or Venezuela.

Seth W. said at November 14, 2016 2:31 PM:

@ Dan

I agree. Not Mexico or Venezuela. Neither Colombia, Brazil or Peru. None of those. However, Canada? I personally think Canada is overrated, just like Jazz, the Silicon Valley, baseball and Harley Davisdon.

I have second thoughts on moving to a frozen wasteland where to endure the cold and get depressed for 7 months. I would personally consider Uruguay, Chile or Argentina, before Canada. Costa Rica is also worth my pondering. I speak Spanish pretty well, no hassle there.

William Vadi said at November 16, 2016 4:23 PM:

Fuck Canada. It's pretty much the same as the U.S. 80% of the Canadian economy is the USA's. Besides Canadian Immigration is way to uptight for ordinary non-elite people, like 95% of humans. Gotta start thinking big when planning to move: Russia, France or Australia. I don't care for all that crooked-teeth, tight-lip, twisted-mouth British accents, or all that Japanese bowing. Ugh! I would like a country that isn't so pussified. I don't wanna feel like the character John Spartan in the movie Demolition Man.

JJ Cintia said at November 17, 2016 5:41 AM:

The problem with the Left is they haven't met a fanatical enemy that can grab and hold their attention. Afghanistan in the 1980s shows an obvious solution. Islam is diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING the Left believes, and they stupidly support them due to seeing US as a common enemy. We need to rectify this, by getting Islam and Leftism to cohabitate in our cities and compete directly for resources by eliminating any separate funding systems. When The Left finally sees what Islam is, and Islam has to live amongst them, we can step aside and let them kill each other.

Brett Bellmore said at November 22, 2016 3:21 AM:

"I agree. Not Mexico or Venezuela."

Why, you racist, you! ;) (Just saying that because I'm assured that it's racist to distinguish between countries in the context of immigration.)

Good to see that he's still alive, I was getting a bit worried myself, so soon after Den Beste's passing.

William Vadi said at November 26, 2016 1:38 PM:

Hey Brett Bellmore

I think Seth was just talking about his preferences on where to live. Why racist? Mexians, Chileans and Costa Ricans are the same Mestizo ethnic group, you dumbass, you. He said he would go for Chile, but not Mexico; Costa Rica, but not Venezuela. Why call Seth W a racist? That doesn't even make sense. Is it because he speaks Spanish and you don't?

Brett Bellmore said at November 27, 2016 4:57 AM:

That's why I winked. "dumbass". I was being sarcastic.

Brett Bellmore said at November 27, 2016 5:00 AM:

William, that's why I 'winked'. ;) I was being sarcastic. Dumbass.

Jim said at November 27, 2016 9:36 AM:

Vadi - The term "mestizo" refers to someone of mixed European-Amerindian ancestry. (There is usually some African ancestry as well.) However the relative amounts of European vs. Amerindian ancestry varies very widely between different groups called "mestizo". For example the European component is much higher in Sonora than in southern Mexico. It is not accurate to think of Mexicans, Chileans, and Costa Ricans as being genetically homogenous.

William Vadi said at November 27, 2016 10:43 AM:

Jim,

True, the relative amounts of European vs. Amerindian ancestry can vary, but not so much in Mexico, and same goes for most of Latin America, generally speaking, like Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia and the whole Central America.

What I mean is that we can -generally speaking- call Mexico a mestizo country. However, the Mexican state with the highest percentage of white population is not in the north. It is Jalisco in the west-central part of Mexico, not northern Sonora. It's Jalisco, especially the region called "Los Altos de Jalisco". Take a look at indigenous and mestizo Chihuahua in the north. The Mexican state with the highest Indian (non mestizo) population is Oaxaca, but even there, more than 50% of the population is mestizo.

Furthermore, the only two states with a barely significant percentage of black population -and I mean less than a significant one- are Guerrero and Veracruz, but it's tiny.

So Mexico is mostly mestizo, just like Chile, and we can very well generalize and say that both are pretty much genetically homogeneous. Argentina on the other hand isn't. Argentina is the country with the highest percentage of white population in the Americas. Canada is probably second or Uruguay...

What's more, regardless of your knowledge -and mine- of Latin American ethnicities my point is perfectly made on Brett Bellmore's idiocy by calling Seth W a racist. He must be really a woman, because women are usually unable to separate different concepts. If we read above we see Seth W. pretty much agreeing with you. He said he was willing to consider Chile and Costa Rica, a couple of mestizo countries. How is that racist? It seems to me that he was talking about quality of life in those countries not ethnic groups.

William Vadi said at November 27, 2016 10:47 AM:

Brett Bellmore

Ok. Got you. But, you gotta admit that sarcasm is not particularly easy to detect in writing, because sarcasm is stating exactly the opposite and without a tone of voice...

Cheers anyway dummy..

William Vadi said at November 27, 2016 10:49 AM:

Are we going to have any more posts from Randall? He's got us all wonder now.

Jim said at November 29, 2016 9:04 AM:

William - Mestizos - individuals of mixed European-Amerindian genetics with often some minor degree of African ancestry are indeed the dominant demographic group in Mexico. But there are very substantial differences in the relative amounts of European vs. Amerindian ancestry by region. Also the Amerindian ancestry itself varies quite a bit between areas of Mexico.

I think that Latin America has a lot more genetic diversity than would be indicated by simply calling most of them "Mestizo" nations. Some countries like Venezuela have only very small populations of Amerindians. Others like Bolivia have very substantial Amerindian populations. Calling both Chileans and Dominicans "mestizo" ignores quite substantial differences in the genetics of these populations.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©