Since its very founding, the Proletarians have self-identified as "totalitarian", usually in reference to their ideology's extensive restrictions on social liberties. However in a recent speech by Warren Platt, the 69-year-old that has led the party for a whole consecutive 47 years, the Proletarians are not totalitarian, but egalitarian:
Warren Platt wrote:Say I told you we were never a totalitarian party. Say we mistakenly believed we were totalitarian because of the strict nature of our ideology in comparison to contemporary values. Say these words are not semantics, but rather the result of a very long and scrupulous discussion.
First, I must be clear on what I mean by "totalitarian" and what I see as "totalitarianism". Totalitarianism is the ideology of absolute oppression. It is the one that sees no limits to the powers of authority, one that seeks to control every aspect of life. It does not tolerate any dissent. It is in direct opposition to critical thought.
To most people and even ourselves, we fit many aspects of this definition. Our ideology is a way of life. It not only seeks to guide the political life, but also the social, the personal, the cultural - it is all encompassing. Yet, despite our appearance of being a totalitarian movement, we fail to fit the definition of totalitarianism in practice. We have not for example, ever refused checks on power or transparency. We have always been restricted by a very strict constitution.
As I say this, I recognize that I have led this party for nearly five decades. Clearly in most democratic societies, that is not the case. Yes, it is true that not everyone in this party wants me as the leader. Some believe they could do a better job, others disagree with my own views. I know this because they tell me openly, I have discussed with them many times. At the same time, there are many in the party that support my leadership, that have told me that they believe I am doing a good enough job not to warrant replacement.
How have I remained in power for so long? Well, I was never really "in power" in the first place. My "authority" is this: organizing meetings with the top representatives of the party, all of whom have been originally elected by unanimous consensus. If I want to change a policy, I have to go through the process of unanimous consensus just like anyone else here. Regardless, have I imprisoned, harassed, tortured or in any way violated the right of another? No. Don't take my word for it, take the word of surveillance. Every single member of this movement is under surveillance. People know what I am doing, what others are doing and I the same. Surveillance is often thought as a tool for oppression, but here it is the opposite. Surveillance when used right, when nobody, especially the leadership is exempt from it and the results of the surveillance are publicly available, it becomes a tool of accountability.
We do have limits for our surveillance however, very important ones. Firstly, people are never to be under surveillance without their awareness. Secondly, people must be free from surveillance while in their personal quarters or when using the bathroom (with exception to when they use the internet or some other external communication system). Thirdly, the use of surveillance must be documented, those watching and those being watched must be recorded. We do not see surveillance as a one-way mirror, it goes both ways. We don't desire to create a society where one is forced to live inside a glass house, but rather a society where they are ensured that if someone attacks them or treats them unfairly, the action will be recorded, so to aid in the criminal's prosecution.
How does a liberal society that rejects surveillance find the evidence to hold the criminal responsible and protect the innocent? They cite that surveillance leads to a slippery slope, that it will become a tool to shame others and ultimately oppress them. What they fail to realize is that you can also use surveillance on the state, you can also use surveillance to keep those "at the top" in check. Without documentation, accountability cannot exist. How are they going to find the evidence to convict a rapist if there is no evidence that such a crime occurred if there is no hard physical trace? Imagine if whenever there were two people in one room, a camera was watching, not necessarily a person, but just a camera, a means of documentation. The couple would know the camera is there and it would almost always not be watched unless an emergency occurred, in which the couple would be aware someone is watching and who is watching. It is better to know than not to know and having the tools available to record and document liberates people from having to rely on their word alone.
In this sense, two-way surveillance is an egalitarian ideal, but also a libertarian one. You have the liberty, the insurance of having evidence for your existence. If you are to get attacked, you will have evidence such an attack occurred. There is nothing free about a society that is blinded in secrecy, one where the misguided belief of privacy allows criminals to thrive. Without evidence and with the pressure to protect the innocent, society will become corrupted by their need to rely on witness testimony and often very inaccurate recollections of memory.
We are scrupulous in documentation to ensure everybody follows the rules. When someone breaks a rule, we have evidence and thus we have the ability to justly hold those accountable. This is an egalitarian system, not a totalitarian one. Yes, our people cannot reproduce, they must be celibate, they must dress modestly, they must treat each other with compassion, but they have all voluntarily joined this movement and they all have the right to leave whenever they wish. The leadership is forbidden from breaking the rules just like everyone else, we have extensive limits to our authority.
Yes, we have no freedom of speech, you cannot use profane or uncivilized language here, but you are still encouraged to criticize our system. Harsh criticism is a tradition of ours, we view it as a necessity. Criticism is needed for discipline, it keeps the ego in line, it reminds you that you are not perfect and that you can always improve. Surely you can express yourself without using vulgar language? Surely pornography and especially extremely graphic unnecessary violence has no place in civilized entertainment. Surely you can express yourself meaningfully without having to resort to shock material. Surely it is wrong to depict men and women as mere objects of gratification, whether it be sexual or violent?
Yes, we have no freedom to be sexual or reproduce, but you must understand the freedom that comes from celibacy and infertility. The right to abortion liberates a woman because it gives her the ability to reject her forced natural role of a mother, of a carrier of an organism that will feed off and burden her body. Yes, a fetus is a living being, but so is the carrier! The carrier's right to be free from an organism living off its body like a parasite is greater than a parasite's right not to be terminated. If you don't think a fetus is a parasite, then how does a fetus contribute to a person's wellbeing? Abortion can be permanently prevented through sterilization, a humane act that liberates the individual from any possibility of pregnancy and therefore puts women in more equal footing with men. This isn't about absolute equality, but rather about being humane and fair - that is really what we mean by "equality".
It is wrong to terminate an innocent life, but isn't it wrong to forcefully bring one into existence without their consent? Life is not a universal gift. In life, one has the capacity and almost insurance that they will suffer at some point in their life and most likely throughout many portions of their life. The unborn will never suffer from disease, starvation, fear or any other suffering. Those who view life as a sacred state must realize that pain - evil would cease without it. We do not advocate for everyone to just die based on these reasons, but rather to respect one's right to not exist and never assume consent for pain. You wouldn't think it is right to rape a human vegetable because they are incapable of giving consent, then do not think it is right to give birth on the principle that those who do not exist - want to exist.
Lastly, intimacy, sexuality, romance, whatever you may call it, is not a freedom, but rather a great burden and source of instability on society and the individual. With intimacy, brings the high possibility of jealously, of extreme emotional dependence on an inherently irrational relationship. A relationship is irrational when it does not mutually benefit the individual and the society they live in. While friendships may fit this definition in some cases, sexual relationships always fit this definition. They put individuals at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, they further oppress them by means of emotional manipulation and addiction. The only thing a virgin or celibate misses out on from intimacy is that of anguish, regret and shame. It is better to be celibate and respect individuals not for their attractiveness and ability to sexually gratify, but rather for their merits. Celibacy is thus an egalitarian and libertarian practice as it seeks to liberate those from addiction and treat others fairly and compassionately on principles of camaraderie.
I assure you that you will not find a person on this Earth happier than the voluntary sterile celibate who feels no shame and has none of the problems that inherently come with being intimate. You may find a happy intimate person, but they are living an unnecessarily dangerous life. Like a smoker, they put themselves at higher risk of disease and destructive dependence.
I could continue on and on, but I must conclude with the reasons stated, nevermind our firm belief in every society's right to self-determination, for why our ideology is very strange (unorthodox), strict, but egalitarian and libertarian.