생전의 월린의 리얼 뉴스 인터뷰를 링크해 준적이 잇습니다..
그가 사용하기 시작한 전도된 민주주의 (inverted totalitarianism) 는 이젠 보통명사가 되엇습니다.
아무래도 많은 것을 보고 좀 더 깊게 생각해 보는 사람들의 눈에는 보통 사람들이 볼 수 없는 것이 잇겟지요.
지식인 이란..바로 그런것을 보고 고민하고 이야기 하는 사람을 말 합니다.
이자는 어용 지식인이 될 것임을 스스로 선언한 자 입니다.
이자가 어용이 되던, 개 좆만 빨던...스스로의 선택이니 내 알바 아닙니다.
하지만 스스로를 지식인이라 나발 거리는 것은....당장에 구역질이 낫지요..
뭔 말을 씨불리던 뭔 책을 쓰던 ...미친듯이 쫓아 다니며 들어주고 읽어주는 교도들이 잇다는 것이
지성인의 기준은 아니지요..
그런것이 지성이라면...전광훈이나 문선명이 메시아 라 하여 틀린 주장도 아니겟지요.
지식인들의 주장과 책은 두고 두고 읽을 수 잇습니다..
시간이 지나고 열기가 식엇을때 ...돌연 심심해저 버리는 것 따위를 지성이라고 할 수 는 없지요.
셀던 울린의 주장을 복사한 듯한 글이 다시 올라 왓습니다.
셀던 울린이 사용하기 시작 햇던 전도된 전체주의라는 단어를 고대로 사용햇지만..
주제에 맞게 적절히 변형햇고 미국과 히틀러의 제3제국과의 비유도 세련되게 바꿧습니다.
북한이 군사위성 쐇다며...경보가 올리는 세상입니다.
누가 뭔 말을 어떻게 하는지..그런 말을 어떻게 듣고 해석하고 소화해야 하는지 따위는
전적으로 본인의 책임입니다.
본인이 똑똑하지 못하면 ...끊임 없이 코 베이는 세상입니다..
눙깔 빤히 뜨고 당하는 세상이 되엇고
세상이 그 만큼 살기 어려워졋다는 것이지요.
어짭니까....
어차피 똥 오줌을 가리는 능력을 스스로 배양 하는 것 말고는 다른 방법이 없습니다.
꼭 한번 읽어 보시라고
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/liberalism-and-the-spectre-of-inverted-totalitarianism
Liberalism and the spectre of inverted totalitarianism
The imperial ideology of the US is not fascism but a form of liberalism refitted for rationalizing military, political expansion
미국의 제국주의적인 이념은 파시즘은 아니다..군사적 정치적 팽창을 합리화 시키기 위해 재 조정된 자유주의 형태을 띠고 잇다.
--)) 수구 꼴통놈들의 보수가 보수가 아니고, 진보 꼴통놈들의 진보가 진보가 아님을 우리는 현실에서의 처절한 체험으로 알게 되엇습니다..
민주주의 자유 인권 따위 ...마치 인류의 보편적인 가치라도 된 것인양 한없이 아름답게만 들렷던 것들도 조금만 더 들어가서 보면 허접한 것들이다는 것을 금세 알게 되지요.....좋던 싫던 우린 이미 그 정도는 판단 할 수 잇을 만큼의 참담한 현실을 충분한 경험을 한 것이지요.
노무현의 사람사는 세상을 보세요....
그것은 완벽하게 사람만 잡는 세상이엇지만..그들은 지금도 이 사기질을 계속하고 잇지요.
중요한 것은 단어나 구호가 아니고 ...실질입니다..
눈을 더 크게 뜨고, 더 생각하고, 더 고민해 보려 할 필요조차 없습니다....
사실 그대로를 보고 그 사실에 기초 하여 상식적으로 판단하면 되는 간단한 일이지만
현실은 이런 것 조차 쉽지 않게 뒤 틀어 버렷습니다.
사람들이 다 이상해져 버렷습니다..
Henry Heller / May 28, 2023 / 7 min read
Pablo Picasso, “Massacre in Korea,” 1951. The painting was considered to be a condemnation of US intervention in the Korean War. Image courtesy Musée Picasso/Wikimedia Commons.
The conflict now raging between the West and Russia and China is a struggle for global power. At the end of the Second World War the economic weight and influence of the United States allowed it to dominate world trade and manufacturing but also to control financial markets as well as build a system of global political and military alliances and bases which reinforced its control. Today its imperial dominance is under threat. The US is trying to prevent the emergence of rivals for world hegemony and block the development of a multipolar world. But it still maintains a residual power based on the role of the dollar as well as its military forces and political pacts. Nonetheless, the growing unease of the American state in the face of its declining international power lies behind its increasing militarism and aggressive imperialism, particularly notable against its two main rivals. It is using what remains of its strength to try to restore its global position. This aggressive drive is fueled by its long history of wars which helped not only to create its empire but also to recast American society into one managed by corporations and the state. What is paradoxical is that its imperial ideology happens to be not fascism but an all-encompassing and intolerant liberalism refitted for rationalizing military and political expansion.
There is a direct continuity between previous great power struggles and this current conflict. The past can also illuminate the present state of affairs. In particular, one can learn from the global rivalries of the period 1939-1941. The diplomatic manoeuvres and alliances of those years can throw light on the present. I would especially point to the close parallel between the foreign policy of the US now and Nazi Germany then. Then as now the idea was to seize control of the oil resources of the Middle East. More significantly the goal was, then as now, to dismember Russia and pillage its resources. Finally, the Nazi ambition to undermine Russia was a means of uniting the rest of Europe behind Germany. But these imperialist policies are more or less the same as those of the US today. Moreover—and this is the main point—these policies are in both cases products of authoritarian political systems whose foreign policies were or are predatory imperialisms.
At the beginning of the Second World War the world was divided into three camps: the fascist Axis led by Nazi Germany, the Anglo-American allies (champions of liberalism) and the communist Soviet Union. Both of the former were imperialist but the first two were not only bitter international rivals but ideological enemies—the Anglo-Americans still committed to bourgeois liberalism and representative democracy whereas Germany was autocratic, authoritarian, racist and militarist.
Today the cards are differently distributed. The socialist Soviet Union is no more-replaced by Russia, an illiberal capitalist state or so-called managed democracy. Its place ideologically has been assumed by a gigantic socialist country, the Peoples Republic of China. The fascist states of the past are gone, too. But I would argue their role has been filled by what Sheldon Wolin has called inverted totalitarianism. The best example of such a state is the US.
Everyone is by now familiar with the economic doctrines of neoliberalism which literally are a throwback to classical liberalism, the hallmark of which was reduction to a minimum of the state’s right to interfere with the economy and the personal life of the citizen. Today the liberal state has been supplanted by a neoliberal order based on an inverted totalitarianism in which the state, instead of effacing itself, massively intrudes into the economy and personal lives of citizens. Its goal is to use its powers to support private enterprise and to protect corporate power with which it acts in close partnership. Unlike the laissez-faire liberalism of the past this new version of the state unashamedly intervenes to foster the interests of capital.
Liberalism in its nineteenth century form had a number of fundamental teachings. Supreme among them are the rights of individuals conceived of as rational beings. The full development of the capacities of individuals are only possible if the constraints on them by society and the state are reduced to a minimum.
Liberals pride themselves on their rationality, sense of nuance and abhorrence of dogmas and political extremes. Among the rights conceded to the individual are the right to assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and the right to personal privacy. Sacrosanct is the right to private property exalted to the level of a fundamental human right. Lip service continues to be paid to these rights. However, the number of people who actually control property and particularly productive property is today very few. Moreover only a minority have the financial means to protect their right to privacy or their freedom from arbitrary arrest. Indeed, the development of the surveillance state has rendered these latter rights worthless. Extreme social and economic polarization has made the idea of legal and political equality into a shibboleth at best. Likewise the freedom of the press and the media has been thoroughly compromised by censorship by the state and the dominance of private media owned by the rich.
Liberalism originally rejected political democracy, insisting that only men of substance and education should have rights to participate in politics. But class struggle from below and the discovery that representative democracy could actually help to stabilize capitalism led to democratic enfranchisement in the second half of the nineteenth century. But as a result of the growth of corporate power, state authoritarianism and extreme inequality have been reduced democratic political processes to a sham. Whereas in the past the US stood for the principle of national self-determination, today that ideal depends on a state’s conformity to a rules-based order as determined by the US.
The debased liberalism of today—purveyed like other commodities through a totalizing media—is a hollowed out and reified ideology. It is defined by super-patriotism, religious piety, human rights, so-called free choices including elections (and the choice of shampoos), and the rule of law, of which the population has become a virtual audience of passive consumers rather than real and active protagonists. Liberal principles have been emptied of real meaning but are invoked as a set of dogmas to which citizens are more or less forced to salute.
Militarism, print and electronic media and increasingly pervasive surveillance have played a totalizing ideological role, not as in Nazi Germany to mobilize the population, but to render it psychologically passive. The impact of this thick but not particularly nourishing mess of liberal symbols and codes is to render the mass of the population helpless in the face of overwhelming oligarchic power and the growth of an authoritarian state. Unlike fascism which purported to provide assistance to the economically vulnerable the neoliberal order enforces increasing precarity on the population, rendering it powerless to organize itself politically to resolve its economic difficulties. Ordinary citizens are tied to this power through consumerism and sensationalism which includes the realm of politics. Politics avoids substantive issues in favour of personalities, rhetoric, and advertising. The questions of class and empire are ignored while identity politics(정체성 정치), which keeps the population divided, are highlighted. This system of inverted totalitarian control came into place between the Second War and today. It has proved remarkably successful in undermining personal freedom while enhancing the authority of the police and military in the name of protecting the liberties of the individual.
How does the situation between 1939-41 bear upon the situation today? Back then the imperialist struggle for control of Asia reduced itself to a conflict between the US and Japan. Having been defeated, Japan became a vassal state of the US and is now part of the system of alliances offshore to China, a superpower which is the new rival of the US for dominance in Asia. But the analogy between the past and present situation is particularly evident in the US’s posture toward Russia and the Middle East.
The US today, with its debased liberalism and ultra-imperialism, plays a role similar to that of Nazi Germany. It must be remembered that back in 1941 the Germans did not act alone. By that year Hitler was in control of the whole of Europe except the Soviet Union. Crusading against communism was a common motif of fascist governments ranging from Vichy France to the dictatorship of the Iron Guard in Romania.
The Nazis in fact had the support of authoritarian and fascist governments across Europe. Germany by then had reached the decision to attack the Soviet Union. Partly its aim was to dismember Russia and pillage it of its oil, food and minerals. But these designs developed into a campaign to dominate Turkey and the Middle East to undermine Britain while securing the oil of that region for Germany. If we look at the situation today we see it as strikingly analogous. The US seeks to dismember Russia and, incidentally, in doing so find a backdoor by means of which it can cripple China. Moreover, using NATO, the US aims to integrate the rest of Europe into its crusade against Russia. This crusade is a means of strengthening its grip on Europe. The attack on Russia is seen as a campaign which will help to unite Europe under American leadership.
사실 나치는 유럽 전역의 권위주의적이고 파시스트적인 정부의 지지를 받았다. 그리고 마침내 소련을 공격하기로 결정했다. 부분적으로 소련을 공격한 목표는 러시아를 해체하고 석유, 식량, 광물을 약탈하는 것이었다. 그러나 이러한 계획은 그 지역의 석유를 확보 하면서 ..터키와 중동을 지배하여 영국을 약화 시키는 것으로 발전했다..오늘날의 상황에 비춰 보면 우리는 놀랄 만큼 유사점을 볼 수 잇다. 미국은 러시아를 해체 시키고, 그렇게 함으로써 자동뽕으로 중국을 무력화시킬 수 있는 뒷문을 찾으려 한것이다. 게다가, 미국은 나토를 이용하여 나머지 유럽 국가들을 러시아에 대항하는 십자군원정에 통합하는 하려 하고 잇다. 이 십자군원정은 유럽에 대한 미국의 지배력을 강화하기 위한 수단이다. 러시아에 대한 공격은 미국의 지도 하에 유럽을 통합하는 데 도움이 될 군사작전으로 보여진다.
--)))나치을 지금의 미국... 소련을 지금의 러시아...영국을 지금의 중국으로 치환하면...2차 대전과 꼭 같은 그림이 그려집니다.
From a political point of view, neoliberalism is different from classical liberalism in its disregard for individual liberties for the sake of state and corporate power. But, in closing, we might remind ourselves that even in its original form liberalism was not committed to democratic rights but was forced to concede them.(원조 자유주의 조차도 인민들의 민주적 권리를 약속 하지 않앗다 오히려 그런 권리를 포기 하게 강요하엿다) Confronted by class struggle, fascism became its default position as in the case of France, Italy and Germany. Indeed, as Domenico Losurdo has pointed out, liberalism from the beginning not only excluded those without property but also the peoples of the Global South by justifying colonialism, racism, slavery and genocide. Today’s inverted liberalism in which imperialism plays a key role is thus not unique but rather an ongoing characteristic of this ideology.
Domenico Losurdo가 지적했듯이, 자유주의는 시작부터 무산자들을 제외햇을 뿐만 아니라, 식민지주의, 인종주의, 노예제 및 대량 학살을 정당화함으로써 글로벌 남부를 배제했다. 따라서 제국주의가 핵심적인 역할을 하고 잇는 오늘날의 거꾸로된 자유주의는 독특한 것이 아니라 오히려 이런 이데올로기의 지속적인 특징인 것이다.
--))) 민주주의, 자유주의가 무엇인지에 대한 분명한 이해가 잇어야 합니다...
애초의 좁고 배타적인... 민주주의나 자유 따위의 개념이 역사가 진행 되면서 보다 넓고 포괄적인 의미로 발전해 왓습니다....
그런데 오는날 미국 주도 패권-서구주도의 패권-이 흔들리면서 이것이 다시 본래의 좁고 배타적인 의미도 될 돌아 갓습니다.
사람들은 이런것에 당황하고 혼란을 느낍니다...
그런데 전혀 그렇 필요가 없다는 것이지요....
그게 본래 부터 그런것이엇습니다..
다른소리는 대문에 걸어둔 글에서...우리가 그리도 미처 날튀는 민주주의, 시장, 자유 따위가 얼마나 우스꽝그런 가식인지를 이야기 햇습니다..
이런 정도의 기본적인 인식도 없다면.....다르소리 카페에서 알짱 거리지 말고 꺼지라고 햇습니다.
모든 시대는 그 시대의 파시즘이 잇다.............프리모 네비
21세기 파시즘은 민주주의다.........................알렝 바데우....
말 장난 하지 맙시다..
민주주의를 우리가 알고 잇는 그런 포괄적인 보편적 가치을 의미 하는 것으로 사용할 것이 아니라면,
고저 미 양아치 쐣끼들의 전쟁을 하기위한 명분 따위로나 사용되는 것이라면
처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록나자 좆 같다며 되진 허접한 정치인이나 그 추종자들의 정치 권력의 권력유지용 구호로나
사용되는 것이라면,,,,,,
민주주의라는 단어는 쓰지 맙시다..
Henry Heller is a Professor of History at the University of Manitoba. He is the author of The Birth of Capitalism: A 21st Century Perspective (Pluto Press, 2011), The Cold War and the New Imperialism: A Global History, 1945-2005 (Monthly Review Press, 2006) and The Bourgeois Revolution in France (Berghahn Books, 2006).