Sunday 30 June 2024

The Buggers Who Complain.

Problem Solved? When all other options are exhausted, the firing squad remains. As Joseph Stalin is said to have declared: Eliminate the person, eliminate the problem.

THE BEST GUESS I can offer as to the author of the line is William Brandt. He wrote scripts for the 1990s New Zealand television crime series “Duggan”, starring John Bach as an introverted police inspector brooding morosely over the Marlborough Sounds. What was the line? As I recall, it was put in the mouth of an ageing communist, who had reduced his entire ideology to one brutal sentence: “Nationalise everything – and shoot the buggers who complain!”

As an honest summation of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, that line (whoever wrote it) is pretty hard to beat. Indeed, anyone who seriously proposes socialism as a solution to the world’s woes is being disingenuous if they suggest that the Red Dawn, should it ever arrive, will be the product of anything other than crushing centralised control and many, many, executions.

The problem is that it is difficult to present a society in which the local hairdressing salon has 150 chairs, and where critics of the government regularly disappear, as the sort of country in which anybody with a yearning to breathe free, or wear a striking hair style, would ever want to live.

If you’re a socialist living in a liberal democracy, the problem is compounded ten-fold. In those circumstances, the socialist paradise that must be painted has to strike one’s audience as appreciably better than the capitalist economy they currently inhabit. How is the orthodox comrade supposed to answer when asked: “Why would we trade games-consoles and Gucci fashion accessories for the guns and gulags of totalitarian communism?”

Not honestly, for a start. Or, at least, not when you’re addressing anyone who isn’t already so far ground down by the cruelties of capitalism that “guns and gulags” present themselves as intriguing possibilities.

For everyone else, the party line is simple. Guns and gulags are the inevitable outcome of revolutions that take place in under-developed peasant societies where freedom and prosperity have, for centuries, been the stuff of dreams. Socialist revolutions in advanced capitalist societies could only be expected in the most evolved democratic states. What need would the “democratic socialists” growing up in such states have of guns and gulags? Who needs the grim instrumentation of coercion when one’s society is already blessed with a modern and “progressive” education system?

Ah, “Education” – the answer to every problem. Whenever I queried my left-wing comrades about the fate of “the buggers who complain”, a steely glint would, for the briefest of moments, enter their eyes (as if they were picturing the people’s firing-squads in action) only to be followed, just as quickly, by an expression of kindly warmth.

“What would people have to complain about in a society where, thanks to an education system dedicated to undermining the hegemony of all oppressive structures, social justice can flow down like streams from the mountains?”

Such faith in the power of pedagogy! How proudly these comrades would describe their future Commonwealth of Unanimity, in which all accept the truths of socialism, and where teaching is the most revered profession.

And those issues which have always divided humanity: the limits of freedom; the morality of coercion; the inviolability of the individual human conscience; the sanctity of human life; the claims of the divine. How would our kindly socialist teachers prevent these profound questions from tearing their treasured Commonwealth of Unanimity apart?

Not an original question. And their answers were also lacking in novelty. Any failings in the process of eliminating the systems of oppression would have to be rectified by re-education.

And that is where the socialists’ castle in the air begins to disintegrate. Because that word, “re-education”, so often paired with “camp”, cannot help but draw a veil of darkening clouds across the future’s bright sky.

Ask the Uighurs of Xinjiang about the perils of “rectification through re-education”. Ask them about the high-rise complexes in which the tens-of-thousands giving incorrect answers to socialist questions are required to submit themselves to the pedagogy of raw political power. Day after day, week after week, until the lessons are mastered, and the rectified Uighur students are released into the warm embrace of the Peoples Republic’s agreed answers.

And the ones who refuse to submit to this nationalisation of their conscience? The buggers who keep complaining?

We all know the answer to that question.

They are shot.


This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 21 June 2024.

6 comments:

Don Franks said...

" anyone who seriously proposes socialism as a solution to the world’s woes is being disingenuous if they suggest that the Red Dawn, should it ever arrive, will be the product of anything other than crushing centralised control and many, many, execution" Goodness me. Well, guilty as charged, sort of. Sometime in 1972 I formed the opinion that capitalism was the source of most serious social problems - inequality, war, pollution- and that the international working class held the key to redressing this situation.I hold those same views today, in both hands. Certainly, many evils have been committed in the name of socialism, as they have been in the name of every other political label. What has truncated over the years has been any capitalist sanctioned vision of a civislised humanitatrian future. Left wing social democracy was once a real thing. Today, that camp is peopled entirely with cynical careerists. Indtisguishable from their fellow horse traders on the cross benches.

The Barron said...

Guns and Gulags and Education, Oh my.

Czarist Russia. Communist Soviet Union. Putin's Russia. I guess the difference today is that 100,000 of the prisoners are now given guns and sent to Ukraine.

Totalitarianism is about control. Socialism is an ideal. State ownership of crucial infrastructure, state living support, fair wealth distribution, equitable health and education provisions, the right to housing . . . None of this requires pervasive loss of civil or personal rights.

I remember that during the Nicaraguan revolution, a 'peasant' was interviewed. He told the documentarians that part of his job was to tend to the dogs at the mansion of one of the ruling elite. He had to feed these dogs the top prime steak available, then go home to watch his own children go hungry. Yet, if that bugger complained...

Larry Mitchell www.cprlifesaver.co.nz said...

Mmmm Communism ... or the more radical socialism is so "not NZ circa 2024".

So much so, that the subject today is rarely the subject of popular discussion and debate.

To this point ... that Chris Trotter may still air these antique issues but the proles could not care less.

It seems doubtful... alien Chinese? invaisons aside, if we in our lifetimes need to seriously debate the Communism V Capitalism contest.

That train left the station when we were offered free education and health care and we all could afford a colour TV and a Morris 1100 family Sedan ... back in the sixties.

David George said...

Thank you Chris, great essay.
Genuine diversity is a real problem for the collectivists - despite their claims to the contrary. If your Utopia requires Guns and Gulags or censorship and "re-education" it's bound to fail.

Pageau and Peterson on the growing polarisation of identity between the poles of the atomised individual and totalising state, and how subsidiarity offers an alternative, richer vision of identity and belonging.

"The modern and postmodern ages alike were and are characterised by an increasingly simplified and starkly dichotomous notion of human existence and development. The simplest overarching conceptualisation of human identity separates and divides the person into the opposing poles of sovereign individual and faceless automaton of the state.
In doing so, the complex internal hierarchy of the person — all the intrapsychic elements warring within, different motivations, emotions, drives, and impulses; different subordinate physiological, physical, biological, and chemical subsystems; the host of fractious psychological complexes and spirits—are collapsed to the singularity of autonomous liberal man, imbued mysteriously with intrinsic rights, and segregated in essence from any broader social context.

That broader social context is then, likewise, collapsed: couple, family, neighbourhood, workplace, city, province and nation are subsumed into society, or collective, or the state, separate from, antithetical to, or even superordinate above the individual. Those who worship power trumpet the former; those who worship whim elevate the latter. The individual, thus collapsed, is all-too-easily viewed in opposition to the collective, leading those who favour self to view all social bonds as contrary to the call of freedom or even indistinguishable from oppression, while those who favour society view individual existence itself as naught but impediment to the establishment of the utopian collective."

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog/identity-individual-and-the-state-versus-the-subsidiary-hierarchy-of-heaven/
Follow the link to the remarkable research paper itself.

Chris said...

Capitalism is consumption unfettered. It spreads its wings and finds its natural partners where pollution and corruption are the products of imperialism, exploitation and greed. Capitalism was courted and adopted by our colonialial predecessors and continues unabated. Uninvited unwanted invasions by a select few on the pretense of being the civilized, the good guys,the arbiters of free exchange and free speech. Yet when it comes to the crunch like their communist cousins, they are cynically very selective about who enters their club.It depends on who they like, who they determine as the good guys. Examples abound - US interference and destabilization of states in Asia,Latin America, Africa,the Middle East and now the Pacific. Chinese imperialism and opression of its minorities and neighbours. Russian nepotism and so we go on. Capitalism finds easy bed partners with authoritarian regimes. Again look at China, Russia, Chile under Pinochet... Capitalism gives lip service to human rights, freedom of speech and democracy while it allows its institutions to be corrupted by the greedy and powerful. Just look at the US, the current growth of fascism and the far right in Europe, all products of dysfunctional capitalist mischief making. So what is the left or right? Perhaps we are talking a myth, a figment of our imaginations. Something that gives us permission to hate, for tribalism to encroach and usurp our neighbours, reinforcing our own deluded insecurities. Perhaps the left and right are dysfunctional family members and not so far apart after all. Perhaps this debate is a distraction that helps us choose the bad guy, allows us to throw a few bombs and like the school bully feel satisfied that we have beaten the shit out of any useless bugger that dares challenge our own perverted view of the world. Just saying....

Anonymous said...

I read an article the other day claiming that Tikanga is the supreme law in New Zealand. Per the article it sits above both the courts and Parliament. If that is really the case we are not a liberal democracy. What the article didn't discuss is who pulls the levers of Tikanga.