If it's not Stalinism, then what is it?

[JackRiddler]

Stalinism. McCarthyism. Mirror images in so many ways, they served to reinforce each other through their hostility. Blind nationalisms, fundamentalisms, extremisms and fanaticisms of different kinds may serve different psychological needs, interests or political philosophies - even "centrism" can qualify. But they exhibit a consistency of attitude: Demands for absolute conformity to a pre-set line. Expectation of absolute loyalty to some leader or abstract principle. Fawning over remote idols. Stubborn defense of their perceived territory and patented issues. Placement of loyalty before reason. Hateful and irrational global labels of contempt for those perceived as disagreeing with them: e.g., these are fools, crazies, racists, right-wingers, Nazis; the more meaningless, the better. Contempt for reason. Monotony. Talking points. Repetition. Repetition. Sophistry. Rewrites of history, rewrites of reality. Luckily those who seem to show it in defense of the present US government's personnel and policies (many of which are consistent with unfortunate USG policies stretching back decades) have little in the way of enforcement power in this particular venue. They may flood, but they don't pull very much (something you'd think they'd notice, and adapt for greater effectiveness). They may bully, but they don't get to censor very much.

So this is not Stalinism, because it is the opium of a powerless sect. But the attitude is there.

Point made, I'll spare you the next 10 paragraphs.

[Kolesar]

1. If you wrote in complete sentences, you might actually make a "point"

It's a stream of consciousness about somebody who is Stalinist. Two passes at the first three sentences is all that I bothered with.

[JackRiddler]

12. Example.

"Hateful and irrational global labels of contempt for those perceived as disagreeing with them: e.g., these are fools, crazies, racists, right-wingers, Nazis; the more meaningless, the better."

Should have included: distraction. Pretending not to understand. "TL;DR" or ROFL smiley. Etc.

[Progressive dog]

33. Stream of partly conscious(ness) is my take

but not as polite as yours.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Thank you.

For sparing us the next 10 paragraphs.

[SidDithers]

10. /thread...

Sid

[JackRiddler]

14. I thought to set a better example

than some of your friends.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Hahaha!!

Vladimir Putin thanks you.
His ex-wife thanks you.
The entire country of Russia thanks you.

[NoPasaran]

4. I have this nagging sense I'm missing out on beer and travel money

[treestar]

30. lololololo

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. IOW, authoritarianism.

Demands for absolute conformity to a pre-set line. Expectation of absolute loyalty to some leader or abstract principle. Fawning over remote idols. Stubborn defense of their perceived territory and patented issues. Placement of loyalty before reason. Hateful and irrational global labels of contempt for those perceived as disagreeing with them

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. Authoritarianism has already set in.

It's the total litmus test, you are either with us or against us. And, if you are against us, we will label and marginalize you. Eventually you will want to fit in and you will either convert to the truth or at least deny your views and give credence to the corporatist mindset. We use prefixes like "anti" in order to label your views thus marginalizing you further and making undesirable for others to consider your heretical nonsense. We do all of this out of love and your best interests.

I recently saw how it is being attempted to label anyone against Monsanto GMO as being anti-science, it reveals that those with something to gain would like nothing more than to create a popularity club for everything. Who wants to be unpopular?

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. No argument here. Obey, conform, keep quiet and your head down, never question,

your life is a privilege that we have a right to take away, the majority is always right, etc.

I eventually learned that being unpopular has its own rewards, not the least of which is find entertaining and creative ways of saying, "I told you so". Another advantage is both finding and being recognized by other malcontent troublemakers. They tend to be far more interesting and intelligent that "normal" people.

[treestar]

31. Of course no one has said that

And the system in the US Constitution doesn't demand that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. You say it with every post. This board, at least much of its content, says it every day. n/t

[treestar]

35. You are misrepresenting my "every post."

[HappyMe]

6. Thanks for not posting 10 pages of this.

I can't tell what the deal is. I assume you are calling somebody names..

[stevenleser]

7. Yep, a long winded name calling exercise while patting himself on the back at the same time. nt

[HappyMe]

8. It seems to be quite fashionable at the moment.

[nobodyspecial]

24. All the cool kids are doing it

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Speaking of long winded name-calling exercises designed to pat oneself on the back

...how did your radio program with Congressman Grayson go? What does he say about his DU posts?

[stevenleser]

42. They're still trying to find time in his schedule. I'm ready whenever they are. nt

[bunnies]

9. I cant tell which side of which debate youre attacking.

These things used to be so much clearer. *sigh*

[JackRiddler]

13. Keep watching.

Many of them will appear at some point in this thread.

[BainsBane]

15. Something that doesn't kill millions of people

and put them in Gulags isn't Stalinism.

[JackRiddler]

16. Thanks, historian.

As you didn't read to the end, or selectively omitted it, I don't care.

[BainsBane]

17. You're welcome.

[JackRiddler]

18. A bot would do better.

[BainsBane]

20. Bots aren't historians

They are many kinds of states that have engaged in surveillance and other authoritarian practices. They vary widely in structure and ideology. The sort of hyperbole in your post does not hold up to scrutiny.

[JackRiddler]

22. Bots don't get sarcasm, either, historian.

You either didn't read the OP, which is not about "states" but attitudes. Or else you can't read. I don't care which.

[Kolesar]

26. For fun, you can diagram the Palin-esque sentences in the OP

And I don't mean Michael Palin

[Kolesar]

25. I read the Gulag Archipelago and you didn't ... eom

[JackRiddler]

38. Not true.

[treestar]

29. Yep. And even McCarthyism while bad, is not Stalinism

Yet they are equated right off the bat.

[Octafish]

21. I met a Romanian general once...

...I was a reporter then. I asked him about what had happened in 1989. He was in Detroit for the 1994 World Cup games as the leader of the team.

The man had been one of the fist to publicly oppose Ceausescu and his regime. During the fighting, a sniper shot him through the cheek. The bullet was stopped by one of his teeth. He carried it as a souvenir and took it out of his wallet to show me. One of the ugliest things I'd ever held in my hand, the projectile was dull black-gray, heavy as sin and came to a very sharp point.

The general was a veteran of World War II and the Cold War and was active duty until Ceaușescu was gone. I asked him about whether he felt there was any difference between the NAZIs and the Commies. Paraphrasing, he said:

[font color="blue"]"No. No, not really. Both are authoritarian, totalitarian forms of government. The people are subservient to the rulers."[/font color]

Sounds familiar.

[nobodyspecial]

23. Point

If you in any way support the current U.S. government, you are a Stalinist. You have no teeth. But you certainly would kill the good liberals and progressives here if you could.

[Recursion]

27. We haven't starved 10 million Ukrainians to death lately (nt)

[JackRiddler]

37. And you haven't read the OP lately, either.

Maybe you should try less recursion and more reflection.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Anyone who doesn't get what you're saying

is trying not to.

[JackRiddler]

36. Yup. Hard.

[KG]

39. REC.

[arely staircase]

40. ah, a modified godwin

nt