It’s an old story: elite dictatorships in the name of democracy and the proletariat
I found the following at Ace’s:
DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican
Hello Alex,You say your work is dedicated to strengthening democracy. I have one simple question for you.
In your 30th anniversary publication, you had an article from your longtime head of Open Society Fund-Serbia, Sonja Licht. She also happens to be one of the most decorated civilians in Europe and widely considered an expert in democracy:
… In the article for Open Society, Licht openly discusses the problem of whether democracy can survive without trust in their leaders.
Her solution: “I believe the time has come for a responsible, courageous elite, those who care far more about addressing the genuine social problems than about election results. Only a political elite with vision, prudence and a focus on the general good–to whom the electorate, with their active involvement in public life, can cede part of their sovereignty in the elections… spearhead… our struggle to survive.”
Read that again.
The idea of democracy as pushed by the head of one of your foundations is to literally stop “election results” and to have the public cede their trust to a technocratic elite.
End democracy to save democracy itself.
I recently noticed a new word: “anarchotyranny.” At least, it’s new to me. I first time I saw it was yesterday, when commenter “Griffin” used it in the thread about the 67-year-old man sent to prison for gun violations in New York. Lo and behold, just a few hours later I saw this discussion at Ace’s of the very same word:
A term that’s enjoying new popularity — because it describes the hell that the left is imposing on us — is “anarchotyranny.”
The idea is that we live in a tyranny filled with lawlessness (anarchy). Those seem to be opposites, which would make anarchotyranny a contradiction in terms, but you have to remember that only some get tyranny while others get anarchy. …
If you’re a rapist, a mugger, a killer, a drug-dealer, an illegal alien, you get anarchy, with the government staying out of your business and letting you harm your fellow citizens and ply your criminal trade with little government interference.
But if you’re among the working population with a family and a mortgage and commitments you just can’t walk away from, you get the tyranny, the endless laws, the endless demands for you to get a permit to do every single thing that free men used to do freely, and strict and brutal punishment from the state when you ignore a law here and there. Don’t you know that only the hardcore criminals get to ignore the laws with impunity? …
The left wants to control people, and so they focus on the group of people who actually will obey all (or most) of the laws they pass: the naturally, inherently law-abiding. The people who can’t afford to spend six months or a year in jail.
Meanwhile, for the criminal class: complete freedom to do whatever they want to do.
Another reason that chaos and crime is allowed and even encouraged is that the violence can then be used as an excuse to crack down even more on the law-abiding. That’s how increased types of gun control, as in a city like New York, is justified and advocated by the left. The obvious contradiction – that such laws don’t stop criminals from owning guns, just the law-abiding – has a logic that would make it seem counterproductive. But it’s not counterproductive if the real aim is to cause more chaos and more justification for more restrictions, which then enable the leaders to exercise more control over the populace.
And then there’s the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was a stage in Communism, as used by the Soviets, whereby after the proletariat revolution a supposedly temporary state of dictatorship was established by elite leaders acting on behalf of the proletariat and for their supposed benefit [my emphasis]:
Marxism–Leninism … seeks to organise a vanguard party to lead a proletarian uprising to assume power of the state, the economy, the media, and social services (academia, health, etc.), on behalf of the proletariat and to construct a single-party socialist state representing a dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is to be governed through the process of democratic centralism, which Lenin described as “diversity in discussion, unity in action”. Marxism–Leninism forms the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the late 1920s, and later of the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc.
I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.
‘Anarcho-tyranny’ is not a new term. It was coined by the late Sam Francis back in the 90s. He died in 2005 but he was entirely prescient in describing how America would deteriorate.
Look to London today to see what NYC will be tomorrow, and for the same reasons.
Commune-ism has always aligned itself with criminals. How better to fracture society? Now we have a new term for a tactic that is as old as time…
I am certain that the red-blue divide will absolutely harden, on either side. The blue areas (the big Dem-run and dominated cities) will become more chaotic and violent, more inhospitable to small businesses, to conservatives and middle-class, to whites (or white-adjacent, to include Jews of the observant sort, as well as observant Christians of various stripes.)
The red areas (some states, the smaller cities, towns and countryside where the Dem political machine hasn’t been able to obtain a strangle-hold) will be the refuge of the working classes, the folk who rather like high-trust societies, functioning economies with minimal government interference, small businesses, and relative freedom from street violence of all kinds. A kind of soft civil war – and I think that it is already upon us.
Sgt. Mom (7:42 pm), it definitely is already upon us, and has been for some years, albeit with decreasing softness and with an incipient hardness. Have a look around . . .
A few weeks ago I too was intrigued the Sonja LIcht comment neo quotes. Here is a fuller version of her text:
________________________________
I believe the time has come for a responsible, courageous elite, those who care far more about addressing the genuine social problems than about election results. Only a political elite with vision, prudence and a focus on the general good—to whom the electorate, with their active involvement in public life, can cede part of their sovereignty in the elections … will be able to justify public trust and spearhead what is probably the most serious battle for the future of humanity and our civilization: our struggle to survive.
I can already imagine the reactions of many: this is a naive utopia, it is impossible in this day and age. This means that in advance we’re acquiescing to an egotistical, selfish approach to life and a world in which the stronger, wealthier and more powerful have the right to take for themselves everything or nearly everything. And at the same time we’re accepting the fact of people being reduced to mere peons in the hands of the “all-powerful leaders,” who enslave not only institutions and countries, but society as a whole.
If this is, indeed, the case, then the next pandemic will find us unprepared, and the average temperature by the end of this century will have risen by 4 °C or more. Most of our planet will have become uninhabitable by then, meaning that we are effectively consenting to dystopia.
–Sonja Licht
________________________________
It is curious that Licht doesn’t seem to notice the problem of her distrust in “all-powerful leaders,” the bad guys, and yet her faith in a “political elite,” the good guys.
Oh dear, how does one tell the difference?
It seems in Licht’s mind the difference is the stance on acquiescing to global initiatives on diseases and climate change.
Climate change especially and Covid recently are emergency levers used by Licht’s political elite to subvert democracy for the good of us all.
Back when I did online battle on the climate change front, I asked the climate orthodox whether they would accept democratic votes on climate change initiatives.
Only one agreed to accept democracy.
In Soviet times criminals were “socially friendly” elements, permitted to take over low level functions in prisons and gulags where they stole from the government and terrorized the political prisoners.
It is an old tactic for the powerful to make pets of criminals while clamping down on the law abiding. We’re becoming a society where rules are for the chumps and those without connections.
huxley:
As far as Licht is concerned, the “good guy” group can be distinguished by the fact that it has Licht in it.
This is one of those times that make me wonder how far outside the mainstream my media consumption is, because ‘anarcho-tyranny’ has been part of my lexicon for years at this point.
I hadn’t realized that applying it to Solzhenitsyn’s observations about Soviets and their criminal class was a retrofit, because the term hadn’t yet been coined.
I also find myself surprised Neo didn’t encounter it in the past couple months in the discussion around Iryna Zarutska’s murder.
Anarcho-tyranny. That’s a thoroughly despicable and frightening concept, and sadly captures the despicable nature of our far left. Rioters in Portland exhibit this in spades, and if you watch how they function as a cohesive army with no apparent command and control function, you realize how well trained they are. They employ interlocking rings of offense and weapons that have ostensible inoffensive purpose (umbrellas and bottles of water, frozen into hard blocks) so they can change from an apparently peaceful citizen into an armed combatant instantly.
Another example of anarchy-tyranny that has just popped up is the advertisements by Democratic leaders telling Law Enforcement Officers and military members they can and should refuse unlawful orders. On the face of it, that is sound advice. In fact, it invites anarchy and the breakdown of law and order.
This all cannot be domestically-generated opposition. I smell the presence of international terror groups behind it all.
‘Tis the season…
Indeed, gifts galore!!
Looks like the EU will be deciding thumbs UP… or thumbs DOWN…
IOW, WHO shall live and WHO shall die…
(As behooves any great dictatorship “for the people”!)
“’Almost Every German City Is Now On The Verge Of Bankruptcy’”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/almost-every-german-city-now-verge-bankruptcy
File under: Jolly Gifters…jolly grifters…
I’m reading a novel by John Ringo about a supergenius boy who survived the foster system in Baltimore. One of the points he makes is that anarchy is okay if you’re a fit 20-something man. For everyone else, they are at the mercy of these young men.
He also says not only are the police not hated, they are adored. They are all that stands between the people and the tyranny of the young men.
Time to re-read Kurt Schlichter’s “People’s Republic” yet?
https://a.co/d/fDhzvDN
Dictatorship of the proletariat is in reality the dictatorship of the Party elite.
And it doesn’t “wither”, it entrenches itself.
Gordon Scott, even some fit young men will fail in that system.
A group of fit young men win out over individuals. It becomes a system where gangs rule.
Hence what you see in Mexico, were armed gangs called cartels run parts of the country the government doesn’t control.
Some of the biggest victims in such systems are the young men who are not in the gang or those in the losing gang.
Anarcho-tyranny. That’s a thoroughly despicable and frightening concept, and sadly captures the despicable nature of our far left. Rioters in Portland exhibit this in spades, and if you watch how they function as a cohesive army with no apparent command and control function, you realize how well trained they are. They employ interlocking rings of offense and weapons that have ostensible inoffensive purpose (umbrellas and bottles of water, frozen into hard blocks) so they can change from an apparently peaceful citizen into an armed combatant instantly.
Note that the approach they use would fail in terrorizing armed citizens who can defend themselves. But that isn’t allowed. The police are there to protect antifa and BLM thugs.
Back when I did online battle on the climate change front, I asked the climate orthodox whether they would accept democratic votes on climate change initiatives.
Only one agreed to accept democracy.
Note how they like to use things like CARB (in CA) or EPA to impose these rules. They prefer that over the legislative process. That way Newsome can say he didn’t ban gas cars . . .
I’ll add this thought to my comment on young men; gangs tend to be created in low-trust social groups.
Hence, Anarcho-tyranny favors low-trust social groups.
It will drive an increasingly tribal society.
All of this will harm young women, who are one of the groups voting for it.
In a legitimately functioning, fairly administered election process, where representatives actually fulfill their promises, the “Dictatorship of the proletariat is in reality” equivalent to the implementation of the voters’ choices, because the proles outnumber the elites.