Skip to main content

Communism Presented To Us As Democracy

Earlier I posted a cryptic message that I wanted to explain a bit more clearly. The question was, what do you call someone who promises to protect you, but beats you when you dissent? I was rushing and did not mean to freak anyone out - the point was to draw a parallel between our human right to live free of abuse -- a subject I care very deeply about, and communism.

Let me explain. When a person is being abused, the person abusing them (whether a parent or a partner or a caregiver) often pretends, at least at first, to be caring for them, when in fact they are manipulating the person to be under their thumb. This is communism in a nutshell. Because under communism, freedom of thought is only acceptable to serve the "interests" of the group. Individual rights are not acceptable, period.

(This was the experience I personally had in yeshiva, where you either believed and were "one of us" or you didn't and were ostracized...fortunately there has been some progress since then.)

Because nobody I know has actually lived under communism, I don't think they really understand it. Moreover, we are always told that we live in a democracy, and that democracy and communism are actually totally opposite in nature. Nevertheless the confusing media world we are living in, where there is apparently only one way to think, is a direct signifier of a communist society. Analysis is fine and good but if you cross the line into ideas that threaten "the group," you are to be silenced.

It is core to my nature to integrate the personal and political. I'm not an original thinker in that regard - feminists have always said and done this. I think about Passover when we celebrate freedom from slavery, but growing up the women slaved to put together a table. That hypocrisy always stuck in my craw.

If you think about it logically, the things we take for granted in our personal relationships with others, are also the things we believe should order our external social world. If a girl grows up thinking she exists to serve her father, her mother, her brothers and then her husband and kids...she is very unlikely to develop an identity of her own. Conversely, if a girl is encouraged to run free, to study and to be creative, guess what as an adult she will seek out relationships, jobs and community activities where she is valued as an equal person at the table - not a slave.

The bottom line is, regardless of your politics, in the United States all of us are free to have our own views regardless of what others think. We can marry who we want. Our status in life is not determined by family or caste or color or religion or anything other than initiative.

This is why, as a democracy, we must be aware of and resist any attempt to overthrow our way of life. And always know, when people try to take away something you have, they will always try to do it in such a way that you don't even know it's happening. Or even, that you happily follow along. They use words like "safe," "free," "together," "love," and so on when the reality is crushing conformity, slavery, roboticism and in fact the terminal end of everything our society is built on.

The link here is a short primer from Stanford University which explains, very simply and succinctly, how this riddle operates. It explains how someone can insist that they're against bigotry and hate, but actually be promulgating those very things, in order to centralize and consolidate full power over the individual.

The bottom line is, in a communist regime, freedom of expression is deeply desired - as long as you will go along with the program. Otherwise you are considered a danger to the state, and marginalized, punished, censored, exiled or otherwise punished by any means necessary.

We live in a democracy. Not a communist regime.

http://stanford.io/2ccFA5O

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …