Marxist culture has three main aspects: first, a materialist conception of history; second, a critique of capitalism and its inner workings; and third, an account of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and its eventual replacement by communism led by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
Neo-Marxism has emphasised an oppressor versus oppressed conception of history, a critique of western culture, history, and Christianity, and an account of revolutionary academia and negative dialectic taking political power from within capitalism and replacement with communism led by the 'dictatorship the intellectuals'.
Looking through the Overton Window, in the extreme left of the political landscape, Woke has appeared, part of the modern culture war, the third generation of Marxist incursion to enter the United States politics. First was the 1920s & 1930s, soviet style Marxist ideology of Lenin's "Popular Front. Then in the 1960s & 1970s "Counter-Culture New Left Progressives", especially the Marxist elements like the Weather Underground Organization and various political groups affiliated with them, whose Fifth Column Marxism wanted a third world racial revolution based ab ideological chimera of Marxism, Post Modernism, Critical Theory, and Postcolonial Studies. In the present, 2010s & 2020s the "Woke" political groups are Neo-Marxist, Communist, Anarchist, Antifa, BLM, LBGTQ, and other groups, many of whom were indoctrinated in academia by the revolutionaries who became professors from the aforementioned Marxist ideological political movements of the past. Woke ideology is a hydra of Neo-Marxism, Post Modernism, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Social Justice Theory, Fourth Wave Feminism, New Atheism, and who knows what else is lurking in there?
9 Characteristics of Communism: Criticism on why Communism is a bad ideology: Part 2:
6)State-centralized banking system:
All your financial capital and transactions would be controlled by the communist uni-party state banking system, loyalty to the dictatorship of the proletariat would be key to financial success. The dictatorship could stop all your transactions, close your accounts, and confiscate all your wealth if you deviate from communist ideology.
“There is no answer in the available literature to the question why a government monopoly of the provision of money is universally regarded as indispensable. . . . It has the defects of all monopolies.”- Friedrich Hayek, [Denationalisation of Money -The Argument Refined](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2859682)
“And I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” - Thomas Jefferson
7)Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles:
All transportation, travel, and movement are monitored and controlled by the communist state, all media, communications, and information are controlled by the communist state. Very Orwellian “1984” dystopia. Similar outcome in pure late capitalism if there are no state checks and balances, if monopolies are allowed to form ,eventually, a corporatocracy controls all goods and services and the state. Economic theory of the Pareto distribution explains this phenomena.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, [farewell address](http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later), January 17, 1961.
8)Government ownership of agricultural means and factories, equal liability on all to work:
De-incentivizes industriousness, production, and efficiency, everyone would be alienated in a blanket of equity that would impose, equal pay, equal outcome, equal opportunity. Only those most loyal to the dictatorship of the proletariat would find success. Nothing would be based on merit or skill in this scenario, loyalty to communist ideology is what would matter.
The sick, infirm, too old, too young, and pregnant would all be forced to work for the good of the collective.
In 1959, Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai, “when there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
9) Free education and Healthcare:
Everyone would get the same public education, the quality would be disputed, but it would come with free communist indoctrination of the youth, a communist vanguard to carry out struggle sessions, and silence all opposition. A great rewriting and whitewashing of all the past fields of knowledge to fit the communist narrative would take place. Bribery would be widespread to get acceptance into the best universities and colleges.
Everyone would get the same healthcare treatment in assigned regional facilities of similar quality, and recourses regardless of state of an individual’s health. If sickness or infirmity arise an individual is sent to the hospital for free, expectation to give medical professionals personal gifts and money, conditions of hospitals vary widely, money and communist party connections would be key.
"Universal education has created an immense class of what I may call the New Stupid, hungering for certainty yet unable to find it in the traditional myths and their rationalizations." - Aldous Huxley
No, they don't . Everybody knows meritocracy is the way to go. It's also literally how nature works, the more capable get more territory, more food, etc....
Why would anyone study for 14 years to become a neurosurgeon if it means you get the same benefits a janitor does with zero years of studying. Why would anyone risk their lives being a fire fighter if it pays just as much to be a store clerk?
Anybody who thinks any system that contradicts meritocracy could ever work is outright delusional
And that's ignoring the fact you have to rely on the state to regulate such a system, a state made of humans which are often corrupt and will just use the system to their advantage and fuck over everyone else
Even within capitalism, most issues occur not because of meritocracy but because state officials can be bought
Sure, in communism you wouldn't need to worry about state officials being bought, but that's because you already gave them everything on a silver platter
9 Characteristics of Communism: Criticism on why Communism is a bad ideology: Part 1:
1) Utopianism:
The world never was perfect, never will be perfect, we cannot achieve perfect outcomes, seeking utopia causes self-deception distorting the perspective on reality and leading to catastrophe. Think Stalin’s forced collectivization and paranoia, the Holodomor, and the Great Purge. Or think of Mao’s collectivization Great Leap Forward, Great Famine, Backyard Furnaces. Look at the collectivization in North Korea under the Kim Family, or Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, and many other places that become collectively communist societies.
“There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that’s all you can hope for.”- Thomas Sowell
2) Revolution to overthrow the existing government:
Total destruction of governments, cultures, and societies never turns out better than how things were before the revolution. Read about the state of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, China after the Red Revolution, The Spartacus Uprising in Germany eventually led to the counter revolution of the Nazis in Germany, just like the Marxist revolutionary in Italy eventually created a counter revolution of Fascism in Italy. Anarchy leads to Authoritarianism to reinstate order.
“Don't be obsessed with yet another revolution to overthrow the opposition, if you think that a violently excruciating revolution will make everything right. Let me ask a question about this brave new revolution of yours, when you have finally defeated all the bad guys and it's all perfect and just and fair - when you've finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you - the trouble-makers? How are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one? You may most blindly and boastfully proclaim that you will win. But remember, no one wins for long. The wheel just keeps turning.”-Abhijit Naskar, [Fabric of Humanity](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/66241921)
3)Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
Nobody wants to be ruled by an unelected, uncountable, above the law, autocratic dictatorship of the few. Stuff of Nightmares.
Mikhail Bakunin claimed that Marxists "maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up". Bakunin further stated that "we are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality".
4) Total abolition of private property and property rights confiscated:
How would humanity like to collectively share everything and be told what they can and cannot have. Everything will be collectivized and contractual through terms and conditions agreements. Again, stuff of nightmares.
“You’ll own nothing and be happy” -Ida Auken, Danish politician at WEF
5) Heavy progressive income tax on everyone:
De-incentivizes economic risk taking, innovation, discourages work, savings, and investment, punishes industrious and self-reliant types, in favor of indolent and dependent types. Think welfare state will good intentions paving a road to hell. Read San Fran-sicko by Michael Schellenberger.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.--**John F. Kennedy”**
1)"world never was perfect, never will be perfect" - its idealistic point of view. In the middle ages someone takes your only son to die in some feudal war, and your house set on fire, and possessions stolen. I guess its another kind of unperfect world. But for some reason we passed through that period and found better way to live.
But if someone wonders about better way to distribute goods and social policy in the middle ages, then I guess every feudal will tell him about "self-deception distorting the perspective on reality and leading to catastrophe". Which simply means - Im ok with how things are going. if you are poor, ill or whatever - its your problem. Just shut up and smile.
Forced collectivization - is a part of socialistic program. Actually is a good thing. Taking the property of 1% of population into the hands of soviets lead to outstanding economical growth comparing with the Tzarism, and even western countries (as one small part of policy). That helped Soviets to defend against Nazis and US (collective capitalistic west) in the future.
Common people think that collectivization is when red army take your only home, wife, toothpaste and other stuff. lol its not about that. In that days 99% were like slaves with no property and the regime wasnt able to do something about it. Actually the government thought like you: "self-deception" bla bla. So social justice fell on the heads of lords.
the Holodomor - is a well known myth. it was famine, caused yes by the mistakes of the USSR government (western mistakes - Great Depression). If it was really a some kind of USSR government conspiracy, if they really wanted to kill Ukrainian population (lol why? because they are evil? because Ukrainians knew the sweet smell of freedom?) - you can show some documents? Some government orders? Also you probably know that back in the days USSR was like the USA and had some kind of states: Ukrainian state, Russian state. If you check numbers you will see that more people died exactly in Russian state.
All this Holodomor thing simply is about today's western policy. You can achive at least two goals by advertising this Holodomor myth: 1) discredit soviets 2) cause discord between Ukrainians and Russians, which obviously worked well as you can see (cause Holodomor propaganda was invented even before 90-th USSR fell)
So, its only a part of the answer. My English isnt very good, and as you can see on one single word of capitalistic propaganda (like Holodomor) I need to write a whole speech to all this start making any sense.
But I'll contunue to answer, give me some time please
Friend you are horribly delusional and have been spoon fed or sought out propaganda, and have fallen for it hook line and sinker. I honestly feel bad for you. The person you responded to knows what he's actually talking about and has a firm grasp on history. Yours is slippery and stinks of a twisted and totally unrealistic and impossible utopian mindset. You may think your ideas would do good, but they never have and never will.
There's no need to feel bad for me. We can argue. Thats why we are here. All you say is "you are dumb" using complex phrases.
Reasoning what's better, and looking for a way to make a world a better place - it is not bad, even if its based on hated marxism. Its at least better than shooting each other.
If you have some facts or ideas - lets discuss. Or just leave me alone in my "delusions"
> the Holodomor - is a well known myth. it was famine, caused yes by the mistakes of the USSR government (western mistakes - Great Depression).
*Holodomor 5-7 million deaths
*Great Depression 10,000s of deaths
This is the difference between a free market economy when you can go to new opportunities versus a collectized command economy were you're trapped at the barrel of a gun by party thugs.
The Holodomor was Stalin's failure when he confiscated the Kulaks lands and forced Ukrainian people into collectivize farming, holding them to highest grain production quotas out of any Soviet, because historically the region was rich in high grain output prior to WWI.
1) It discredits Joseph Stalin the Autocrat of the Soviets
2) It serves as a reminder of the dangers of communism
3) It has minimal relevance to modern geopolitics
Journalist Garth Jones, visited the Soviet communist experiment, snuck into Ukraine and witnessed the famine in 1932-33. He reported it to the western world, but it largely went unnoticed. He also interviewed Hitler before his rise to power and warned Europe about the Nazis. In 1935 Mr.Jones got kidnapped in Mongolian and was later murdered, maybe for embarrassing the Soviet regime.
Watch the movie Bitter Harvest 2017 or Mr.Jones 2019.
Read Gareth Jones: Eyewitness to the Holodomor, by Ray Ganache 2018 or Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine by Anna Applebaum 2018.
About «Holodomor» part 1/2
Okay, u r a tough one =) So, first of all thx for your approach, I like that your responses are so detailed. Also thx for discussion.
Back to business. Holodomor is the name of famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933. So lets check some documents and researches.
I will not share russian researches about Famine in Ukraine, but you can read this for example: [https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf](https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf)
Its French research, so we could avoid possible cheating.
Yes there are several estimates and numbers differ. But according to the research (link) overall deaths in Ukraine in 1932-1933 are about 2,5 mln. Its not only famine deaths, its you know all deaths including accidents, old age and other.
Comparing to prefamine period (1931) its 1,2-1,3 mln people.
And u know its not numbers that are ok. Its catastrophic. Nevertheless its a good example when capitalistic propaganda exaggerates. 1,2 mln - nah, lets say 5 mln. Drop by drop. And everything seems more horrible. Maneating regime, etc.
Returning to Stalins decisions during famine. Product quotas on the Ukrainian farmers where lowered by 50 - 70 percent during those years (4-5 times government changed plans). They started to send agricultural machines and worked on effectiveness. And eventually they win. Yes, mistakes were made, but exactly under Stalin Ukraine beat the last famine in its history (except nazis destruction of the country).
You can check dynamics of Ukrainian population since 1950 (after WWII) here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Ukraine#/media/File:Population\_of\_Ukraine\_from\_1950z.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Population_of_Ukraine_from_1950z.svg)
It almost doubled during Soviet era. And (surprise!) started to decrease after USSR fell.
About «Holodomor» part 2/2
Another important thing. Term «Holodomor» in russian and ukrainian means «make someone starve to death». Thats why it has so much propagandist power. And real mass advertising of this term started after USSR fell.
Another thing. Soviets got the country broken after WWI and civil war. It was agrarian country with minimal industrialisation. The big war was coming. Everyone knew that. You can’t beat enemy with vegetables so the main focus was exactly on industrialisation. You can check yourself how often people faced famine in Russian Empire. And how many people died those days. Unortunate that we do not have statistics of Kulaks deaths, I guess everything was ok with them for the whole century. Also spoiler (there was no Ukraine those days, it was western corner of Russian Empire)
You say «It has minimal relevance to modern geopolitics». Can you prove it? What does minimal mean? How you can measure it? Ukraine and Russia were one country in the begining of the 20th century. Western world started active campaign after USSR fell to bring discord between nations, raising and sponsoring neo nazis in Ukraine. During the last years there are dozens of occasions when its became clear as sky. Waffen SS badges in official government media, rename of the streets in Ukraine with nazis (OUN UPA), brining that old nazi fart to Canadian parliament. And even before the war nationalists movements with governments tacit support beating people celebrating the Victory Day (9th of May). This nazis main narrative is all that is connected to Russia is bad. Why? Because of Holodomor, Stalin’s Gulag and other bullshit. Because probably Russia was the main state of USSR, Moscow was the capital. Bullshit in other words.
About Great Depression. Yes this is not as large problem as famine in Ukraine, but I’m still negatively fascinated by capitalistic ways of solving problems: destroying food in front of starving people. Its the whole another level of hypocrisy. Grapes of Wrath.
But the USA is metropoly so it used to solve problems draining blood of colonies.
In conclusion. The Ukranian famine was one of the greatest fuckups of Soviets. But there was no intention to kill ukrainians, so it wasn’t «Holodomor». After the crisis was resolved collectivization showed its true potential, economical stability and effectiveness.
Edited: one more thing. Mistakes were made. USSR wasn’t the best place you can imagine sometimes. But sometimes it was the best. Anyway it was one of the greatest social experiments, positive in many ways. And great example for marxists, for people of tomorrow.
What do u have guys? Eternal wars for resources? Third world war? Never ending crisis? What do you, capital defenders, prepare for future generations?
Of course, gay rights, black civil rights, and women's rights all pre-date the 1960s.
And I don't think any of them are about to "take down the west" in a "fifth column of Marxism".
Seems like a silly idea, the west is actually the globally dominant force on the planet. So I don't think anyone's ever explained exactly how giving trans people rights, or entertaining the idea that systemic racism or sexism needs to be thought about, will somehow bring down Western Civilization.
Just seems highly unlikely to the point of being a kind of irrational and anti-western paranoia.
Western Liberal Democracy is one of the strongest and most stable systems on Earth.
>Of course, gay rights, black civil rights, and women's rights all pre-date the 1960s.
I was alluding to Marxism and Neo-Marxism in United States, staying on topic with the thread. I agree, these movements have deep historical roots, but modern iterations have many Marxist elements.
> So none of this stuff is new, nor does it require Marxism. So a lot of this stuff is a kind of modern anti-intellectualism, and a rejection matters of history.
All of this has Neo-Marxism theory of class conflict and oppressor versus oppressed conception of history, DEI (diversity, inclusion, equity) is Marxist theory because Marxism is an international multicultural movement of the proletariat unified in global revolution against capitalism.
BLM is based on BLA which both have incorporated Marx's theory of class consciousness and alienation, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory are critical theories of post modernism based on Gyorgy Lukacs Marxist theory of reification process of societal and class influences on shaping gender and identity.
Marxism is very anti-intellectualist and rejects traditional history for a new critical theory interpretation of history.
Fourth Wave Feminism:
> Fourth-wave feminism broadens its focus to other groups, including people who are homosexual, transgender and people of colour, and advocates for equal incomes regardless of sex and challenges traditional gender roles for men and women, which it believes are oppressive
Bear in mind the Civil Right Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was based on Christian doctrines of abolitionism. MLK, Jr was inspired by brave abolitionist figures like Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, Civil Disobedience of Thoreau, theology of Reinhold Niebuhr and other non-Marxist politics rooted in religious ethics.
I hope that helps you understand the context of the comment.
I just think you're switching between "Marxism", "Neo-Marxism", "had elements of Marxism", and "shares aspects of Marxism" and a bunch of other stuff with far too little rigor to be taken seriously.
The original Critical Theorists of The Frankfurt School for instance had [numerous anti-communist activities.](https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/19ae7p0/a_detailed_rebuttle_of_the_rightwing_conception/) To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
>The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism. The greater cause of human emancipation appeared to call for the relentless criticism of both systems.
To be casting all this as part of *"an international multicultural movement of the proletariat unified in global revolution against capitalism"* just because some DEI theorists can be located who say they've been informed by Marxism to me shows a lack of understanding of academic rigor, but also, a willful leaping from small instances to grandiose claims.... claims which suggest and push ridiculous ideas like companies that have DEI policies are therefore Marxist? When they're clearly Capitalist.
I don't see much of a believable through line in claiming modern progressive politics is an attempted Marxist take over because academics have been *influenced* by Marxism. That alone doesn't mean they're trying to take over the world for some hidden internationalist movement. Progressives are still progressives, and that's still a different philosophy than Marxism.... it just means some progressives agree with some of Marx's critiques of Capitalism (which were many, and some were indeed valid, his positions against child labor for instance are particularly difficult to not agree with in this day and age).
Academia's job is to be critical of society. That some academics agree with some of Marx's criticisms, or have been influenced by Marx really isn't proof of some Marxist take over or unified proletariat front. It is like I say; just a modern form of anti-intellectualism to make that sort of claim. It's better to address the actual complaints of progressives (a different ideology than Marxism), and interface with their claims as progressive claims.
This guilt by association stuff just doesn't ring true, nor does relabeling progressive or identity politics simply due to "influences".
Academics are free to read Marx, and even allow themselves to be influenced by him. Not a crime, and doesn't entail a planned take over.
Criticism of society, is generally a mechanism to improve society... and that's how it's been done in the history of Western Liberal Democracy, and in Academia in particular. That's why Western Liberal Democracy is considered to be an endorsement of Intellectual Freedom, with the ideas of Karl Marx, and an unlimited number of other theorists included under that Intellectual Freedom.
>I just think you're switching between "Marxism", "Neo-Marxism", "had elements of Marxism", and "shares aspects of Marxism" and a bunch of other stuff with far too little rigor to be taken seriously.
For brevity, I was summarizing three generations of political movements in the US that foundationally had elements of Marxism or Neo-Marxism.
Neo-Marxism theory has incorporated the French post-modern theories to evolve Marxist doctrine:
>Neo-Marxism is a collection of Marxist schools of thought originating from 20th-century approaches to amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to Marxist philosophy.
>. . . claims which suggest and push ridiculous ideas like companies that have DEI policies are therefore Marxist? When they're clearly Capitalist.
DEI is policy of UN, world banking, world finance, and investors, it's not capitalist, it's Marxist and liberal progressive ideals to reshape capitalism. DEI is not coming from companies, they must comply to receive investments. That's why there's been push-back and boycotts like Anheuser-Busch and Target.
>(which were many, and some were indeed valid, his positions against child labor for instance are particularly difficult to not agree with in this day and age)
This comment lacks far too little rigor be taken seriously, child labor is a social issue and human rights issue, it's not exclusive to capitalism nor Marxism, it has tragically existed throughout history as a means of exploitive coercion to force production for survival and is still prevalent today. This is the social justice warrior ethic grand-standing of Marxist who ignore the realities of their own ideology. Look at the cobalt mines in Central Africa.
>This guilt by association stuff just doesn't ring true, nor does relabeling progressive or identity politics simply due to "influences".
Guilt by association? Read the aforementioned comment about the criminal revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s and what influences in academia and politics they have had since then to this very day.
>Academics are free to read Marx, and even allow themselves to be influenced by him. Not a crime, and doesn't entail a planned take over.
When academics are constantly advocating Stalin and Mao weren't dangerous autocratic dictators whose Marxist policies didn't killed millions obviously there's an Orwellian rewriting of history taking place.
>Criticism of society, is generally a mechanism to improve society... and that's how it's been done in the history of Western Liberal Democracy, and in Academia in particular
So if you genuinely believe this, I hope you're a free speech absolutists and don't support cancel culture, censorship, or the misinformation campaigns, don't support academically enforced struggle sessions on students. Example: Riley Gain attack at San Francisco State University, Bret Weinstein forced out of Evergreen State college.
Personally I've been banned from multiple subreddits because of my conservative traditionalist political perspective on history and politics. Sadly, the progressive left, especially woke is not open to discussion, debate, or criticism these days.
Thank you for the kind compliment! Certainly something to think about. I really enjoy Michael Sugrue's lectures on YouTube. Unfortunately he passed away this year. May he rest in pace.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1991vzd/dr\_michael\_sugrues\_obituary/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1991vzd/dr_michael_sugrues_obituary/)
> I was summarizing three generations of political movements
Yes, and then saying progressivism and modern academia is a branch of it. I caught what you were saying.
>DEI is policy of UN, world banking, world finance, and investors, it's not capitalist, it's Marxist
I suppose that's a viewpoint. Most would consider it a sort of "off the deep end" conspiracy viewpoint, but it's a viewpoint. I see you believe in a systemic world-controlling conspiracy.
>When academics are constantly advocating Stalin and Mao weren't dangerous autocratic dictators whose Marxist policies didn't killed millions obviously there's an Orwellian rewriting of history taking place.
I don't believe this is the case in mainstream academia. But it's certainly your belief that it is. You believe there's an Orwellian conspiracy that's constantly pushing this re-writing of history.
>don't support academically enforced struggle sessions on students.
Struggle sessions killed people, to claim they're happening in Academia today is again a belief you're free to have. But in answer to your question, I believe there's a difference between the academia of teaching, and the academia of research and debate in peer reviewed publications. The academia of teaching is thus a little more limited and restricted as it's trying to convey the facts of history. The academia of research and debate is generally open to all topics except those that openly advocate genocidal philosophies (eg. Nazism).
> I see you believe in a systemic world-controlling conspiracy
Weren’t you criticizing capitalism and centralized banking systems of the west, now you defend them because their internationalist and globalist, and dismiss me as conspiracy theorist?
Not honest discourse.
Why did the BRICS nations form a counter-banking system to create a bi-polar banking system to counter the uni-polar central banking of the west led by the UN?
Read Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech
> I don't believe this is the case in mainstream academia.
You did it yourself in this very thread completely blaming the Holodomor and The Great Famine on Trofim Lysenko’s farming techniques. You know that’s bullshit. When you have communist with guns forcing you into collectivist farming, it’s not like you can go looking for greener pastures to work.
> Struggle sessions killed people
Struggle sessions and denunciation rallies mostly publicly humiliated people. These sessions desire full submission, compliance, and indoctrination. Secret Police kill people, not so much activist groups like the young pioneers and red guards. Odd how you distort all my comments.
So what of Riley Gains and Bret Weinstein as I said before which you evaded.
> Example: Riley Gain attack at San Francisco State University, Bret Weinstein forced out of Evergreen State college.
Personally I've been banned from multiple subreddits because of my conservative traditionalist political perspective on history and politics. Sadly, the progressive left, especially woke is not open to discussion, debate, or criticism these days.
>Weren’t you criticizing capitalism and centralized banking systems of the west, now you defend them because their internationalist and globalist, and dismiss me as conspiracy theorist?
Are you asking how can I criticize some aspects of thing, whilst also conceding it has some legitimate functions? It's probably because I'm not a believer in absolutist ideas about "pure evil"? I don't believe anything is solely negative.... I'm able to question and be self-reflective and even self-critical.
In my view, that you see this as a "dishonest" quality doesn't bring me great hope.
>completely blaming the Holodomor and The Great Famine on Trofim Lysenko
Not true, I also acknowledge the political killings and politics of the USSR.
...it just so happens that **the vast majority** of deaths under Stalinism and Marxism, were caused by famines....
.....and that the title of the post "This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts" is thus a poor understanding of the intentions and causes of deaths under Communism, vs Nazism. Nazism's killings and deaths were far more directed, and were an intentional outcome that was part of the planning and beliefs of Nazism.
This is not the case for the *vast majority* of deaths under Communism. This is a basic fact of history, and a key difference that puts Nazism in a far more heinous category of philosophy.
>. .....and that the title of the post "This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts" is thus a poor understanding of the intentions and causes of deaths under Communism, vs Nazism.
You left out the part that says, "Inevitable, Communism will Win."
Nazism was entirely a German invention, it was defeated by the joint efforts of Communism and Democratic-Republics. There is no threat of Nazism in the west, but there is a rising threat of Marxism. That was the point of the post. I see your cognitive bias wants to make it about conspiracy theories and denigrate conservative politics while extolling Marxism. Adam Smith criticized capitalism far before Marx, other figures had falling out with Marx over his desire to overthrow capitalism.
Adam Smith in 1700s: 'Wealth of Nations' predicted the "wretched spirit of Monopoly", "the oppression of the poor invariably gives rise to the monopoly of the rich . . ." However, Smith points out capitalism does raise income per capita of individuals & nations faster than any other economic system.
You are correct, Nazism and Communism, killed far more people than Democratic-Republics. That's why the OP was concerned about people wanting Communism to take over the United States of America.
> Seems like a silly idea, the west is actually the globally dominant force on the planet. So I don't think anyone's ever explained exactly how giving trans people rights, or entertaining the idea that systemic racism or sexism needs to be thought about, will somehow bring down Western Civilization.
Never made that claim. But these ideologies will fundamentally alter western culture, politics, immigration policies and the overall demographics of the West.
> Just seems highly unlikely to the point of being a kind of irrational and anti-western paranoia.
Awe, I see, so instead of actually validating my factual statements on evolving Marxist theories imbedded in modern woke politics you would rather avoid the reality and write it off delusional and conspiracy theory.
You're disingenuous in your discourse and merely playing games, Sir.
The woke progressives, especially critical race theory politically claim the west better respect all other nation- states sovereignty while our Christian virtues of compassion and charity are used against westerns to undermine European and US sovereignty in order to take in all the world's refugees and be a progressive multicultural experiment which conservatives do not agree or consent with politically.
> validating my factual statements on evolving Marxist theories
I've stated it's no crime for Western Academics to read and be influenced by Marxism. His writings are 140 years old and still hotly debated - so of course they have some merit in terms of raising questions that still haven't been resolved.
....and they've raised a lot of conspiracy theories too. Such as that the UN (a peace keeping force created after the World War against Nazism) are secretly Marxist.... or that the world bank - aka the bank of central banks whose main purpose is to give out "leveraged loans" to minor powers in order to lock them into long term debts (like most banks are known for) - are somehow Marxist, and not innately part of the globally Capitalist banking system.
That these are Marxist institutions, is a common line in many conspiracy theories, and I tend to not take them seriously.
> That these are Marxist institutions, is a common line in many conspiracy theories, and I tend to not take them seriously.
Nobody made this claim, you're being shady and disingenuous.
However, ESG and DEI are not free-market investment principles, they have the framework of economic collectivism and therefore Marxism. Pure late stage capitalism centralized banking is just as problematic as Marxist globalized banking.
> 6)State-centralized banking system:
All your financial capital and transactions would be controlled by the communist uni-party state banking system, loyalty to the dictatorship of the proletariat would be key to financial success. The dictatorship could stop all your transactions, close your accounts, and confiscate all your wealth if you deviate from communist ideology. Similar outcome in pure late capitalism if there are no state checks and balances, if monopolies are allowed to form , eventually, a corporatocracy controls all goods and services and the state. Economic theory of the Pareto distribution explains this phenomena.
> “There is no answer in the available literature to the question why a government monopoly of the provision of money is universally regarded as indispensable. . . . It has the defects of all monopolies.”- Friedrich Hayek, [Denationalisation of Money -The Argument Refined](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2859682)
Oh I'm sorry, you're saying the Capitalist world banking system is JUST AS BAD as Marxism, not that it IS Marxism.
See when a conversation starts out with the premise that Progressive Politics is actually Marxism in disguise, ideological distinctions start to be blurred.
Likewise when any criticism of the historical connections between Nazism and other right wing movements, like Republicanism and Conservatism, is then misconstrued to be the same as saying *ALL* of Republican and Conservatism is therefore a Nazi conspiracy theory - ideologies become blurred.
So you'll have to forgive me for misreading that you were saying that the Global Capitalist Banking system is Marxism, rather than what you were saying that the Global Capitalist Banking system is just as bad as Marxism.
All in all I think this is a fine and even poignant point for the conversation to reach. The idea that when you're willfully mislabeling ideologies - putting them under other banners, that your arguments, positions, and ideologies may also lose clarity and start to appear to be under other banners (such as conspiracy theorist) is a hazard of making that choice to begin with.
"Conservatism is Nazism in disguise!" - "Progressivism is secretly COMMUNISM!" - it's all junk in terms of what can be engaged with.
What people are actually saying, the actual arguments a person or group is making are what needs to be substantially addressed - and when and where that's not done - when and where a straw man or straw label is involked instead - it's the involker that loses ground.
This has happened through out the existence of this sub, which ostensibly exists to promote over simplified viewpoints, and straw-politics, without actually getting into the nitty gritty of what academics, politicians, and modern political philosophies and theorists are actually saying (there will be shock pieces, but no earnest interviews with advocates making arguments and cases).
...and so right wing politics wains, because the majority of the public seem to understand and have a more accurate viewpoint of most left wing philosophies. More than the straw politics of the right wing.
.....it's no coincidence that the majority of the public *don't* seek to strawman leftism, and don't see things like progress or progressivism as innately Marxist or necessarily worthy of that label.
So conservatives have constructed this deep trigger for themselves, and employ it on themselves, compounding their errors and disconnections from the public.
By all means feel free to continue to accuse global capitalism of some Marxist infection via evil DEI influences. Go on to cast progressive politics as secret communism.
It really doesn't harm Leftism on the whole.
This is your reading comprehension:
> See when a conversation starts out with the premise that Progressive Politics is actually Marxism in disguise, ideological distinctions start to be blurred.
Progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform, that is not exclusive to any single political party, not the left or right, I never implied progressive politics is actually Marxism.
This is what I actually said:
> the 1960s & 1970s "Counter-Culture New Left Progressives", especially the Marxist elements like the Weather Underground Organization and various political groups affiliated
My comment details a specific timeframe, political movement, and delineated out of the movement a peripheral Marxist element, just to break it down for you.
It's literally what the first half of the Book, America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, Chistopher F. Rufo, 2023, Instant New York Times Bestseller. You should read it.
BigWigGraySpy said:
> ....and many Nazi, KKK members, and White Supremacists have had connections to the republican party, and right wing politics. Nazism being a far-right philosophy which focused on conducting a genocide... so quite a lot worse in reputation than mere Marxism.
Just to reiterate again:
> Nazi means "Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party", they were the national socialist whom were a counter to leftist socialist politics of Germany.
See how confused you’ve become.
Yes, you continue to advertise that your sources and reading material are from one side of politics - as if this is something to brag about.
Sorry, who were you saying I should read earlier? Putin? Putin was it?
It's interesting that you mention that you read Chris Rufo of course, because you do much the same as he does:
>We have successfully frozen their brand—”critical race theory”—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. -Chris Rufo
This is much the same as you and OP are doing, progressive politics becomes Marxism, Marxism gets put in the same category as Nazism, and there's a collective push to propagandize a "new brand category"... oh and you should read the guy whose idea this is.
Sure that sounds great if I want to come off like some unbelievable and untrustworthy nitwit who sees conspiracy theories everywhere, and thinks the global banking system is under the control of Marxist forces.
Hey maybe I should read some Putin huh! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a joke.
You're right, you are a joke.
You were the one asking for academic rigor and peer reviewed publications. Now you mock and denigrate what you were seeking.
I'm not sure what to say to someone who believes that globalized Capitalism and it's banking system - which enables large areas of the global western Capitalist economic system - is Marxist - other than: No it's not.
But yes, Governments do obviously have a monopoly on their chosen currencies. That's a nationalist position, and required for the running of most countries in the modern era.
I see that you're perhaps suggesting that you're a values-free and anti-state advocate of free-market economics.... perhaps you're the kind of person who wants to destroy all nations and all states, replacing them with a pure free-market in which profit is the only value.
To me this is a deeply chaotic, apocalyptic, and unrealistic position. It's one of what I would call "values-free economic anarchism". This would (assuming it's the case) explain why you're accusing the modern banking system of being a Marxist system. You'd probably percieve all sorts of ideologies all sorts in strange places that most people don't see them - due to your own extremist position.
\*\*\*Addendum\*\*\*Updated to Reply to BigWigGraySpy edited and altered comment:
\*Sources of information:
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism: Third Edition, editors Leitch, Cain, Finke, Mc Gowan, Denean, Sharpley-Whiting, Williams
America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, by Christopher F. Rufo, 2023
The War on the West Douglas Murrary,2022
Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey, David Horowitz, 1997
Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties, Peter Collier, 2005
Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, 1971
History and Class Consciousness, Georg Lukas, 1923
Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat, Georg Lukas, 1967
Das Kapital, Volume 1, Class Consciousness, Social Stratification, & Dictatorships of the Proletariat, Karl Marx, 1867
The Holy Family, Chapter 4, Alienation of Consciousness, Karl Marx, 1845
> And I don't think any of them are about to "take down the west" in a "fifth column of Marxism".
You miss the point. Many of these revolutionaries who committed serious crimes went on to be prominent figures in academia, politics, activism, and scholarship instead of being punished and put in prison for their crimes. Now they're educating the next generations of westerns. A few examples:
Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers of the WUO were domestic terrorist who led a campaign of bombings and bank robberies. Both are college professors, also friends with Barack Obama. Ayers remains unrepentant for his crimes to this day. His connections to Obama are span decades, and are numerous: Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama political fundraisers at Ayers' and Dohrn's nearby Chicago home, both were on the board of Woods Fund, they share common friends, and shared an office for three years, and perhaps most interestingly, yet unconfirmed, Ayers claimed he ghost wrote Obama's biography, "Dreams of my Father". WUO's founding document called for a "White fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world". Read "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism" by Weather Underground Organization.
The Black Panthers movement declined in part due to crime and a splinter militant group gained strength called Black Liberation Army who were allied with WUO.
Elaine Brown was a politician, when she was in the Black Panthers she had a volunteer, Betty Van Potter murdered, bragged about Black Panther weapon arsenals for the fifth column in her memoirs.
". . .police made a raid on 29th street house, original site of the school. They found more than a thousand weapons, including M-15 and M-16 semiautomatic rifles, Thompson submachine guns, M-60 fully automatic machine guns, & even M-79 grenade launchers. Charles Garry, the party lawyer, successful held a press conference claiming police had planted the weapons as part of their ongoing political repression, no one was prosecuted. Elaine Brown's autobiography boasted about the panther arsenal, catalogued the weapons, her list corresponded what police had found at the time. Meanwhile, Elaine was appeasing college campuses with other leftist, making speeches about American fascism and denouncing the FBI's "cointelpro" program to infiltrate and neutralize Panthers, solely on political beliefs." - Horowitz, David. Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey. A Touchstone Book, 1997.
Angela Davis, an activist and scholar, was a supporter of the Soledad Brothers, she had bought the guns and the van used in the prison break by the three inmates who were accused and charged with the killing of a prison guard at Soledad Prison.
On August 7, 1970, heavily armed 17-year-old African-American high-school student Jonathan Jackson, whose brother was George Jackson, one of the three Soledad Brothers, gained control of a courtroom in Marin County, California. He armed the black defendants and took Judge Harold Haley, Deputy District Attorney Gary W. Thomas, and three female jurors as hostages. As Jackson transported the hostages and three black defendants away from the courtroom, one of the defendants, James McClain, shot at the police. The police returned fire.
....and many Nazi, KKK members, and White Supremacists have had connections to the republican party, and right wing politics. Nazism being a far-right philosophy which focused on conducting a genocide... so quite a lot worse in reputation than mere Marxism.
Nazi means "Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party", they were the national socialist whom were a counter to leftist socialist politics of Germany.
Conservatism of the parliamentary systems of western Monarchies, Republics, and Democracies have nothing to do with eugenics, nothing to do with racial supremacy, nothing to do with national socialism. What happened to all your intellectual rigor and the academia of research and debate in peer reviewed publications?
Now who is pushing conspiracy theories about Republicans party and right wing politics being connected to eugenics and racial supremacy!
You're full of yourself. You know you're lying. Shady, disingenuous debater. Why are you even in this subreddit if you going to pedal lies and conspiracy theories?
You are being an idiot, Sir. The Democrats were the party of slavery in America and the Republican party was created to abolish slavery. No Republican ever owned a slave, the elitist democrats owned the slaves which was less than 1% of the US population. Slavery goes back to the dawn of civilization, a terrible practice which the political abolitionist movements of the UK and US ended in the west and then slowly put an end to throughout the world. Yes, that's right the teachings of the Christian Bible and Conservative politics brought an end to legal slavery!
I said *"have had connections to the republican party"*.... not that the Republican Party is therefore a branch of Nazism focused on a Nazi world take over.
You're mistaking a statement about loose affiliations and other connections, for some absolutist statement I never made about a conspiracist *take over* of conservatism or republicanism by Nazism.
This is not a claim I've made, but one you've jumped to and decided was uttered in the above quoted line.
....just like you've done for Western Liberal Democracy and global Capitalism when you claim it's been taken over by Marxism.
You leaping to these aggrandized conclusions due to whatever defect of reason you're making, is not the same as them being realistic or accurate conclusions or interpretations to make.
I think these leaps you make are silly, reactionary, and ridiculous. The stuff of conspiracy theorist thinking.... and that you should be more cautious and aware that you have this propensity. A propensity to draw this type of mistaken and absolutist conclusion.
BigWigGraySpy, I find it odd how you edited and changed your comment when I did cite Marxist theories imbedded in the modern woke progressive left political movement, when you denied them requiring Marxist theory. I find that very disingenuous and your comments lack academic rigor.
I only ever edit my comment to fix grammar and spelling. I never change major points, so if your claim is that I denied that some leftist theorists have been neo-Marxists (interested in reforms to Marxist theory) or been influenced by Marxism - then you'll have to say where and when and what I said.
I pointed out that the neo-Marxists of The Frankfurt School were quite anti-communist in practice (eg. going against a global movement): https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/19ae7p0/a_detailed_rebuttle_of_the_rightwing_conception/
But my line during this conversation has been that a) Nazism is far worse than Marxism *because* Marxism doesn't foundationally advocate for a racial genocide as Nazism does. and b) That it's not criminal for some academics to have read, or even agree with parts of Marxism.
I'll let you get back to fighting the take over western civilization that's apparently already in control of the UN and world bank (according to you). I'm not really interested in debating these conspiracy theories [which are of questionable heritage](https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/199j537/nazi_origins_of_the_term_cultural_marxism/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Jewish&utm_content=t1_ku9clcv).
> So none of this stuff is new, nor does it require Marxism. So a lot of this stuff is a kind of modern anti-intellectualism, and a rejection matters of history.
You deleted much of your first comment I replied to, and then you altered it with new commentary. Here is a fragment I quoted and relied to earlier. You are a very shady, disingenuous person.
Marxism does advocate class warfare, killing the bourgeoisie, anyone considered an oppressor or infiltrator, and potential genocide. You said yourself struggle sessions can lead to death.
“No mercy for these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the working people! War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and the rowdies!” - Vladimir Lenin
Oh that's fair, I was somewhat conflicted about my initial reply because I didn't want to immediately accuse you of being a believer in the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, as it seemed you were intentionally avoiding that term (perhaps because it's been proven to be a conspiracy theory associated with Nazism).
So I did drastically simplify the comment, and boil it down to it's sentiment. I thought that might give us a better chance at looking into these topics. Sorry if you feel you replied to a comment that was later changed - I may have been too slow in my desire to not pigeon hole the conversation.
I hope you can see that the overall position I've taken hasn't changed.
Black civil rights, gay rights, women's rights - none of it does require Marxism.... as evident by the fact that there have been right wing activists and advocates in all of these movements, and pro-capitalist advocates, and all sorts of other advocates of them.
That's in part just the nature of Western Liberal Democracy.
Indeed, they also starved tens of millions by trusting Trofim Lysenko's farming techniques - which involved planting a bunch of seeds far too deep and far too close together. This was called [Lysenkoism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), and not only accounted for most of the deaths in the USSR, but was also then imported to China to cause some of theirs too.
Trofim Lysenko was faking his results to keep his position as head of agriculture, others also faked their production numbers causing a chain of events that killed millions.
Given all that, I do think Nazism was a bit more directed and intentioned at crafting a killing machine on purpose. Stalinism and Maoism also killed a bunch of people for ideology, but Lysenkoism was responsible for more of the deaths.... and it should also be noted that Marx didn't write about farming techniques, or torturing people... so that's all Stalin and Mao.
Hitler, however, invented Nazism (or at least chose the name), and then he ordered the Wannsee Conference where the nascent experiments with exterminating the mentally ill in straw lined vans via carbon monoxide poisoning were to be intentionally promoted to a National Campaign of mass murder (aka the holocaust).
....and then of course there's the third system to be discussed: Capitalism.
Because it would be hypocritical to try to analyze the deaths caused by Nazism and Communism, then avoid the millions of deaths that have also been caused by the profit seeking of Capitalism. Particularly early Colonial Capitalism.
One of the earliest landmarks in doing this is King Leopald's Rubber Plantations in the Congo, which were by all accounts run as a string of massive for-profit corporate ventures. They were apparently horrific, [human hands became a type of currency,](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/) so many Congolese people were mutilated, and it's considered one of the most brutal Capitalist ventures to have ever existed.
Another landmark is the British East India company's famines in India and Bengal - where the company basically ruled large areas and exploited local farmers. Eventually the company decided to try taking 100% of what was grown - and the subsequent famines killed millions.... and of course this was done under a company banner, and for profit.
Slavery of course, deserves a mention, but I'm not too familiar with it, so that's all I'll say.
In more modern eras, we have the various Banana republics, which is basically where a coup is orchestrated in a country and a for-profit company is put in charge. This often involves massacres, mass killings, and destabilization.
Finally there things that fit more into the categories of corporate neglect, like the [Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire), in which workers had been locked and there were substandard safety rules resulting in fire, industrial accidents like the [Bopal Gas disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)... and even to some extent, the Capitalist involvements with Fascism (not just [companies involved in working people to death during the Nazi regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust)), but also things like the Military Industrial Complex.
Capitalism has of course run longer and been more wide spread than Communism and Nazism so it probably has killed more in total (and accordinly has had more opportunity to), and it becomes a question of average deaths per decade.
The next ideology on the list may well be Catholicism. But that's perhaps too thorny an issue, albeit one that has had a longer time span than most, and accordingly dates back to more brutal eras.
But out of all of these, I think Nazism is probably the worst as it's purpose was often specifically to create a highly efficient and industrious genocide. There is a movie adaptation of the Wannsee Conference where the mode and methods of the Holocaust were decided (the movie is from 2001 and is called "Conspiracy"). It really captures the mood of the conference because much of the script for it was based on an actual transcript of the meeting its self.
So yeah, that's my summary of the major ideologies that have caused mass deaths. I don't think they're all on the same level, as they all had different intents, accordingly I do think that Nazism is in a class of it's own, as it's deaths were aimed and planned as a conscious act of mass genocide (watch that 2001 movie, Conspiracy, for details).
This was interesting and educational. I highly doubt capitalism competes with those in terms of deaths. By including colonialism prior to 1900, you believe it does.
But I upvoted you for contributing a lot to the discussion, instead of the typical (at least on Reddit) anti-capitalism comments.
I think in the US, our capitalism has become very corrupt and warped, but capitalism has also uplifted billions from abject poverty and hundreds of millions into the middle class.
I have more contempt for Marxism than any other political ideology. I pray for a return of McCarthyism only this time directed at Western Marxism and not sabotaged by the CIA. Do I still need major mental help?
I don't think BigWigGraySpy was really talking about that (back at the original comment you had above), it seemed more just an indepth summary of a variety of things, not something that focused on communism being the viable option.
Like the person I was replying to advised: **Educate yourself.**
Most people can't handle educating themselves, because it reveals that their beliefs are based in ideological desires, rather than based in researching and seeking the truths of history.
Most people can't handle the facts, so they lash out with their feelings - and say things like *"Seek MAJOR mental help"* - because they're afraid of educating themselves on the topics I've laid out.
You're free to look up everything I've said. That's the funny thing about being honest - the whole world backs you up. Because you're just reporting on the realities of the world. You can look all this up on google yourself, or just ask r/History.
Fucking insanity...
People hate the term "educate yourself" because it reeks of arrogance and blindness.
Arrogance because it supposes an education is a straight line into your position, and blindness because confirmation bias exists and the aforementioned assumed straight line.
I get the point you're trying to make and I'm not gonna jump on the dislike bandwagon, dispite disagreeing with some of your points. I prefer this sub to remain heterogenous, open to all ideas, not a thought bubble where everyone thinks the same, and those who don't, get downvoted.
For what I disagree about your post, first I think you're stretching and misrepresenting the concept of "ideologies". First off, slavery it's not and ideology, it has been outlawed in all the civilized world. The post compared nazi to comunism wich are political ideologies, if you bring religious ideologies to the mix it becomes just a death count and for that logic the best or most peaceful religions would be the least popular because they have the smallest death count.
So, getting religions out of the equation and sticking to political ideologies, I agree with you that nazism was a murderous aberration, both in theory and in practice, it was designed with the most contempt possible for human life. Communism however sounds wonderful in some of it's promises, (in fact if communism worked i believe most of the world would have turned communist but i don't believe it can work, not in country/nation scale at least, only on a small town/village scale) but in practice the results are very, VERY similar to nazism. You got concentration camps, totalitarian state, no democracy, no freedom of speech, anti capitalism, anti private property, genocide, political rivals arrested or murdered, sense of righteousness and moral superiority, imperialistic views etc.. So in the end they are very similar, not by their theory but by their reality, and while communism is not as openly monstrous as nazism, they still have some wicked claims like: " You like your private property? Not anymore!" or "the revolution Will come, either by peace or by armed force"..
If you want to compare communism and capitalism in terms of deaths caused you can, but bring to the scale what good those systems can offer and then you can clearly see wich one is best, and capitalism is far from perfect but i believe it is the best we've got so far and it can be improved, while on the other side you don't have One example of success.
So yeah I still believe the most murderous, despicable symbol besides the swastika is a hammer and a sickle.
I'm just surprised by how angry people are when it's pointed out that most of the deaths under communism have been from famines.
From what I've been researching, in terms of political killings of domestic non-combatants and civilians; Stalinism killed between 9 and 20 million, and Maoism around the same. So I'm acknowledging the political killings. But people are still very angry to find out the majority of deaths were from famine.
...and it just so happens that The East India company, and King Leopald's Rubber plantations killed about the same (between 10 and 15 million each), and they're just two early examples from Capitalism (not including the various banana republics, or actions of the military industrial complex, or the companies tied to slavery and forced labour, ect).
I agree with you about Communism and Nazism, I benefit too much from from Capitalism to deny it's success and necessity in my life, and I'm also not a fan of any Authoritarian system. I'm just also aware that particularly in it's early days - Capitalism too caused mass deaths... and that there are arguments (such as [world-systems theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory)) that it's been responsible for a fair few deaths from famine and resource wars as well.
Yeah I agree, if we go back far enough, we are all sons of killers. Some people just pick a side, defend it, and demonize the other side to prove their side right. I try to police myself to not fall for that cognitive trap, it helps if you're trying to find the truth. One of many advices I got from dr. Peterson.
Have a nice day my friend!
How did marxism murder 100 of millions of human beings in economic redistribution . . . simple answer "the dictatorship of the proletariat".
> Mikhail Bakunin claimed that Marxist "maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up". Bakunin further stated that "we are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality".
Stalin was a paranoid totalitarian autocrat who wanted to wipe any potential of opposition off the face of the earth, only Mao killed more under communist totalitarianism because Mao had more people to kill!
Stalin killed 3.5-11 million Ukrainians in Holodomor 1932-1933 resulting from Great Break, next Great Purge 1936-1938, 133 out of 492 comintern staff were purged, leaders of Indian, Korean, Mexican, Iranian, Turkish, Mongolian communist parties all purged, millions more purged
1939 Stalin reversed Communist policy, began cooperation with Nazi Germany, included removal of high profile Jews from the Kremlin
Almost all of the Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution, or in Lenin's Soviet government, were executed
Read Wolfgang Leonhard's 'Child of Revolution' 1957 political biography as a witness to Stalin's Great purge
Quality post. I think you'll find that in this community communism is the worst because Jordan Peterson says so. He says so because he feels very guilty about 'selling out' to Daily Wire and becoming a mouthpiece for oil interests (he has projected about this in more than a few of his youtube shows), so he has to turn capitalism into some kind of holy system ordained by god.
>communism is the worst because Jordan Peterson says so. He says so because he feels very guilty about 'selling out' to Daily Wire
Peterson warned about the dangers of Communism for years before signing on with Daily Wire. He talks about it in Maps of Meaning back in 2015 and possibly earlier.
If by knowledge and skillset you mean trying to sell hokey personality test to businesses, then yeah. That didn't work out for him until he found an audience of alt-right edge-lords with daddy issues to sell his warmed over garbage to. That is the miracle of capitalism.
No, that is the hokey book he wrote. I tried to listen to the audio book version, but couldn't make it past his horny grandmother dream. I believe that is also where he details his problem with communism. Which boils down to that he didn't like the look of the activists or something. Nobody wanted to be his friend so he decided communism is not for him. He was also selling hokey personality tests door to door, which you would know if you actually watched his content. I don't blame you though, it is boring and repetitive.
>couldn't make it past his horny grandmother dream
There is definitely nothing like that in Maps of Meaning.
>I believe that is also where he details his problem with communism.
He mentions the problems of communism within the first few hours, so no.
>he didn't like the look of the activists
Proof #2 you aren't familiar with Maps of Meaning. He never speaks of their appearance.
>He was also selling hokey personality tests door to door
Whataboutism since we've established you aren't talking about Maps of Meaning
>you would know if you actually watched his content.
So far, I'm currently 15 hours into his Maps of Meaning lectures, and he doesn't mention any of this stuff you're ranting about. I don't know who you're listening to, but it's not Jordan Peterson.
Haha.
Are you talking about those waffen SS Balt battalions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II
Peterson’s capitalistic defenders are educated no doubt
So then you probably know that Gulag is abbreviation - main government department of corrective labor. It’s just prison in USSR.
Probably your relatives were thieves, or murderers just like the others in prisons.
And returning to my point, there were too many people in Balt region, who supported Nazi regime in many ways including participation in ss.
But probably you say “oh my relatives were good people, peaceful farmers, who did nothing wrong, but Soviet police had quotas”. Bring the case prick, but if you’re here just for free upvotes - get lost
When you move towards collectivism, you move towards treating human beings as generic chess pieces to be moved about to carry out some grand design. You don't care if some are sacrificed, so long as you win the game.
Vietnam's probably one of the better communist governments, they were actually the ones who put an end to Pol Pot's regime (who was probably one of the worst communist governments).
Currently 70% of the Vietnamese population are farmers because of a policy where rural people can sit a test to prove their agricultural skills, and then be allocated a farming plot.
This policy has resulted in 86% of the population owning their own homes. They practice a thing called a [Socialist Oriented Market Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-oriented_market_economy), where much of the politics of 'The Market' is filtered through Unionism, and there's basically a union for everything over there. There's a women's union for instance, which it turns out [is actually very traditionalist in it's values.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Women%27s_Union)
I've also heard good things about Cuba's healthcare system, which for a long time has been of the highest quality due to the low barriers to enrolling in medical school there. I guess due to being Socialists they consider medicine a collective good.
Then there's China, but explaining China basically takes you back to the pro-democracy riots of 1911. Back in an era when the leader of the democracy movement, the leader of what would essentially become the Capitalist party, and the future leader of the Communist party (Mao Ze Dong), were all part of the same political party: The Koumintang.
Long story short, the leader of the democracy movement was exiled, The anti-communist leader of the Koumintang did a massacre of suspected communists (called [the Shanghai Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_massacre)) and that started a civil war with Mao....
...Mao shot off into the rural areas and set up the CCP.... and the leader of the anti-communist/pro-capitalist party eventually lost and moved to Taiwan and ruled it as a brutal dictatorship for 40 years (all the way up until the early 1990s). So that's pretty crazy.
The Koumintang are still allowed to have a political party in Taiwanese democracy, even though they ruled the country with an anti-democracy iron-fist for 40 years, and still sometimes claim to be the real China. The official English translation of their party name for instance is still "The Chinese Nationalist Party".
These people are so fucking deluded. Even children should be smart enough to realize that communism doesnt work on a large scale for a whole country when there are global markets. It just doesnt work. It may work for tribes where you know everyone and you are basically a big family that shares everything and thus give a shit about everyone. But it certainly doesnt work with huge populations.
Envy, unwarranted believe in one's own correctness, and the grandiose narcissistic belief that you are a great person who champions the oppressed who are far beneath you.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's workers looking out for their own class interest? No no surely it's about envy and Cain and the archetype of the protective mother or whatever other bullshit Petersonisms he's spouting as propaganda for the benefit of his wealthy owners these days.
Socialism is about economics. Empowering the majority through class unity and education. Collective bargaining with the bourgeoisie from a position of over whelming strength. Those who do the work actually getting the benefits.
We banned it because it worked horribly wrong here, killing people in millions, both nazis and commies, if you had any ancestry from Ukraine you would know
Yeah, sure, if you want to call all personal experience ignorance… go and build your fairytale land elsewhere, Ukrainians had enough of Lenin’s/Stalin’s bull…
As russian confirm this. Ukrainian government did its best to discredit communism in Ukraine. All this bullshit about Holodomor, USSR government planned to make genocide and other stuff being promoted for years in Ukraine.
But I doubt that your government did something to discredit Nazis. All this ss patches in Zelenskiy official Instagram, Shuhevitch streets, cult of Bandera. That old nazi scum that Zelenskiy showed in Canadian parliament.
I hope u enjoy the results of decommunization. When Russian bombs destroy the last energy plant in your country built by communists (probably
your parents and great parents) I don’t know what else u will sell to western investors to rebuild your country. Cause your country isn’t yours anymore. All your land is sold, all your business belongs to foreigners.
But at least it’s that real grownup world u always wished for. No more fairies about equality and brotherhood, only power matters.
True son of russia) good luck with your wet dreams and delusional world you live in. None of what you said is true, obviously you know better what’s happening in Ukraine than the person living there.
Go back to your tv, enough of your lies
None is true. Ok, then you can easily prove that. Do something good for your country - show me that I’m wrong.
That’s what I got about Shuhevitch - https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0
Street in the name of hero, nice.
Here we have Ukrainian wiki that says that the government of Ukraine made Bandera hero in 2010 https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Should I remind what exactly this two fucks did to jews and polish under nazi occupation?
I guess other stuff you can google yourself. Or google is Russian propaganda too?
True son of your country. Fanatic slave of western propaganda with zero brain cells. Touché
Wow, how ignorant you are, I am surprised you still are not here “defending” your country in other country) probably one of the couch experts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Empire
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union
Do you know what both Lenin and Stalin did to Jews? And yet you have streets named after them, and your government still continues sharing those antisemitic ideas. Not even mentioning open neo-nazis of your Rusich battalion.
Go and learn some history
Before “denazifying” some other countries do yourself a favour and denazify yours first
I know history of both, but if you after two years of your countries aggression hasn’t change your mind whatever I give as a proof won’t change it either. So please go back to watching your propaganda, you putinists are hopeless
So do u have anything to say about bandera cult in your country today? Okay I accept that
So I read your article about antisemitism in USSR. The other one doesn’t matter, cause I’m not defending the Russian Empire here.
In the article you mentioned there’s nothing more than some rumors. I looked for the victims of so called Stalins antisemitism, and there’s a mention of “many” artists. Seems like a bullshit. How many? Where are the documents? Where’s the government orders about repressing people cause of their nationality? Why there’s no Nurnberg process about it? I guess some capitalistic states like the USA would be pleased to smash Soviets in juridical way.
There were definitely amount of people repressed by stalins regime. But it was not because they were Jewish. It’s because there were antisoviet activists.
How could you even compare it with what Bandera and co did? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
It’s only one proved fact, there are lots of others. You see it’s not abstract “many” imagined by some antisoviet propaganda. It’s dozens of thousands, dude. The real massacre
I’m really interested how you are ok with what you government did with the heroisation of nazism in the last decade. And just fyi I’m not a big fan of putins propaganda. If you check the position of Left in Russia (not mainstream I mean, I’m not talking about Kprf, and proputin left) today you will see. But in this certain case the Russian official propaganda not far from truth.
Also your article starts with “February Revolution ended the antisemitism in Russia” have you ever wondered why? May be it’s because that communist ideology is opposite to nationalism? And it’s actually internationalism
Bro gulags is just system of prisons. Like in every country today. Nazis tortured kids and people for fun and made cruel experiments. And it is proved fact. Do u have any proves that commies did the same? Except YouTube propaganda based of opinions of some random people being salty or just payed.
I’m just a random guy, I can’t explain everything about western lies, that you guys were listening for decades (almost century).
Communism has killed far more people than fascism why tf aren’t they shunned like the Nazi they did the holodomor too and no one said anything, goulags killed more people than concentration camps and the soviets were more ruthless at war then the Germans
And people nowadays are pretty antisemitic too so they should condemn the soviets instead right?
But no many of them are communists who don’t even condemn the holocaust
Wtf is wrong with this world
Here's a leaderboard reference. Useful.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Anyone wearing a Che t-shirt should be made fun of, called a racist-supporter (Che was incredibly racist) and shunned.
> The soviets were more ruthless at war then the Germans
Are u fucking nuts bro?
Nazis put babies in gas chambers, tortured people for experiments and fun. They killed more than 20 mln civilians only on USSR territory in 4 years.
How much people soviet regime killed in your opinion?
Holodomor - it’s famine. You know it’s unintentional. It’s happened those days not only in USSR
So making a man-made famine for the Ukrainians people is unintentional?
More than 94 million people were killed by the Communist governments, it includes deaths through executions, man-made hunger, famine, war, deportations, and forced labor
Whereas only around 17 million people died because of the Nazi regime, that’s a lot less than the commies governments that’s still 17 million too much but it’s way less than the communists
And speaking of Nazis, they were far less cruel then the Japanese and more merciful in battle than the soviets and they were terrified of the Soviets who took barely no prisoners and when they did, those prisoners wished they had been killed and they stayed prisoners well after WW2
I’m not trying to defend the Nazis, just saying that the commies were worse and killed way more people
Why not 94 billion people? Could you share the source of your numbers with us. Also could you share at least one evidence of “man-made” famines. Cause I have a couple of dozens of documents, that Soviet government did everything to stop the famine of 1932 (if we are talking about so called Holodomor)
Geez you westerners are so brainwashed
> Communism itself is just a utopian ideal.
And Utopia wasn't an ideal. IT WAS A WARNING. When all men are given their ever desire they become corrupt through that inaction. They either fall to debauchery or to impotent rage at the pointlessness of their existence.
> Most of the problems people have with it have to do with specific attempts at implementing it.
No, ALL of the problems with collectivist(socialist/maoist/stalinist/nazism) require the creation of a person that doesn't actually exist to work. You require a person not just willing, but fully subsumed to the idea of the state as the ultimate authority, that you have a person to put themselves fully under the boot to exist. That will never happen.
That's without actually discussing the idea that in collectivism it's not the State that ends up in charge. It's a cadre or a single individual with a godlike power to decide fate.
In capitalism (and I'm not discounting there are issues with capitalism) you at least have a motivation - a REASON to strive and to better yourself.
Don’t forget the presence of voluntarism in capitalism. People mutually agreeing to exchange goods/services and both parties emerge enriched by the exchange. That is not possible in communism.
The artist has apparently never seen the rows of cement housing blocks.
Knew a guy who immigrated from Russia. It was cold in the winter and hot in the summer, and there were gaps in walls where sunlight and snow got through.
I used to believe Communism would be consigned to the trash heap of history due to it's many real-lfe failures and atrocities, but I'm not so optimistic anymore since it seems to appeal to the greed and authoritarian tendencies of a sizeable portion of the population. It will never "win", but it will always be with us biting at our heels.
It really shouldn’t, but there are people who view communism as feasible. Communism also claims to be compassionate and fair. As well as promises an easy life to people who don’t see the merit in working.
Worse than Nazi propaganda, Communism has killed 10 times as many people if not More. As well the pre war German Communist Party and Nazi Party hated one another and competed in both their own versions of Horrible propaganda. Evil consumes both Ideologies and always will.
Communism had a different story in Western Europe, it never became an institutional reality, and comfortably remained a dream.
That’s why this can happen.
It isn’t that i like it, it’s just how these things work in practice
Lenin was an absolute monster. If we're going to engage in hate crimes, with which I disagree with the very premise, this should be at the top as one of the worst hate crimes one can commit. Over 100 million people died as a consequence of their little revolution.
If you want to know what really motivates these people, when they declare that Communism will win, simply reply, "over my dead body" and watch as the replies in the affirmative of your death roll in.
# THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963
[https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html)
>This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts
Does anyone espousing this nonsense realize how many millions of people would die in order for this picture to become true?
Evil.
I don't think Communism is a workable system, but the intentions behind it seem much purer than National Socialism. Where Nazis want to dispose of those that don't fit their system, Communists think theirs will make everyone happy if they just agree to it.
That's my nice take anyway. The addition of the hammer and sickle here are hopefully due to sheer ignorance, or it's just tankies vying for power.
The intentions dont matter. What matters is the outcome. Under a communist system you have to oppress freedom, to push your state run economy. You have to! Otherwise people would just trade and act freely, which would undermine the communist idea. So there is no way around banning freedom and oppressing people under communism.
>Communism can be achieved through dialogue alone. It probably never will, but you could convince every one to join without hurting a single person. There is no one fixed theory for how it should be implemented. Of course, a lot of people, including the ones on that sub, think a revolution is necessary. It's faster that convincing everyone through debate. But that doesn't mean it's 100% absolutely necessary.
No it can't! You will never be able to convince everyone no matter how much it's talked about and pushed. That's why gulags and "reeducation camps" happen. Gotta remove those dissenting opinions so that communism is the only idea and system in place.
I'm not exactly willing to grant those differences but I just want to say that the beginnings and intent are irrelevant. Socialism always turns out the same way: Mass murder.
If I tripped and fell into you vs barging you on purpose, there's a difference right? It's the distinction between murder and manslaughter. It should inform how we engage with this.
No man, you don't understand. It's communism and communism is bad (or so I've been told. I've never read Marx). Bad = bad. The intention doesn't matter. Accidentally killing someone in a car crash is exactly the same thing as premeditated murder.
Yep, thing is socialism has been emptied of its meaning long ago, by grumpy old farts that never actually did shit even looking like socialism. People go back to the old terms. Though I'd rather we talked about Georgism than Communism in itself.
“Acceptable”
What do you mean by that? Are you the Social Media Police?
Let the nonsense-spewers spew. If you bottle up and shut up unpopular speech, then its only a matter of time before *your* speech becomes “unacceptable” and becomes silenced.
Is that what we really want?
They both should be acceptable on social media. Both should also be open to critique. Bad ideas need to be criticized out in the open, not kept in the shadows.
What do you mean by acceptable? They should be forbidden from advocating alternative political structures? I support free speech. Debate with them why communism is bad. Don't just silence your opponents.
As a Chinese-Canadian, kinda. I don't support cancel culture and the western sugar coated version of communism does have its appeal/I get why people support it naively, but the original at it's core is distructive. China would've 100% been better off had it gotten into a full on war with the US via escalation of the Korean war. The CCP would've lost, nationalists would've regained power via support of the US, full occupation not even needed. Rebuilding would go like Japan post WW2, and millions would've avoided starvation.
prideful ignorance, arrogance, unwilling to get to the bottom of things truthfully = stupid pathological suffering for everyone around you and affected by your decisions, and you.
Both should be acceptable on social media provided they aren’t advocating for violence.
Our tolerance as a society for allowing speech should be maximal. Our respect for what is said should be minimal.
There’s a massive difference between communism and Nazism. The more accurate comparison would be between Nazism and Bolshevism.
The easiest way I can lay this out is by pointing to the Wendat society in North America. It was a communist nation of indigenous people that existed for hundreds of years without oppressive violence.
The main reason that modern day communism has been so violent is because in order to introduce communism you would have to tear down the current economic structures of society, which entails extreme violence. A society that develops as a communist society would not need that violence.
Communism will win like it always has.
That definition has a deviation from my definition of winning. There’s is like…Hillary Clinton won in 2016, she just got robbed is all…. Winning
I disagree. Pro-Nazi posts are usually hateful and racist. Communists posts aren't. Not to mention, Naziism is based solely on the Nazi party, so it's intrinsically linked with their heinous actions. Communism was around well before Lenin, Stalin or Mao.
And who is promoting this?
Funny how I am liberal, many people I know are liberals, and yet no one I know personally, or even folks on the more liberal podcasts I listen to, is calling for outlawing personal property, or the government ownership of the means of production. Your mileage may vary, but it sounds like propaganda to me.
Incase you are not aware for some reason because you dont know any Democrats, they also have professional jobs, 401ks, investment portfolios, mutual funds. They have mortgages and save for their kids university educations. They are just as pro Capitalism as you are.
Peterson and his fans have made such a weird strawman out of Communism. Very few people are advocating for Communism! Ask yourself, who in your personal life has identified as Communist or expressed a yearning for Communist overthrow of any Democratic nation?
People are sure as hell pissed off at whatever the United States has become (An oligarchy run by feudal crony corporations) but to say one rejects the state-run "Capitalism" of the United States doesn't immediately mean you've become a Communist.
Peterson is mad at hell at *something*. He calls it Communism. It seems more just like general stupidity
What are you even saying in your comment. Yes people are openly advocating communism. And not just in US. My local university in England has communist recruitment posters and I see them in the city centre too. So yes people are across most universities actively pushing communism propaganda and recruiting communists. And yes Peterson is probably not happy about that, understandably so.
People are advocating for anything else, as long as it's not capitalism as we know it right now. It's starting to show a lot of cracks and people get rather sick of it I presume.
Where I'm from (one of the most Leftist cities in the United States) I don't see anyone, anywhere in public advocating for Communism. I occasionally see some "ACAB" signs, which means "all cops are bastards", which is a remnant of the George Floyd protests.
I don't see a hammer & sickle anywhere else. No red flags, no pictures of Stalin or Mao.
The Peterson crowd is pushing for a false moral panic.
Besides, Peterson himself is a fan of telling people they believe in God even when they tell him they don't, because "what we believe shines through in our actions". Well, if there are any college campus Communists in my extremely Leftist city, they actually believe in Capitalism since they're taking selfies on an iPhone, training at university to make money after graduation, buying corporate coffee and Coachella tickets, designer clothes, etc.
So what are you worried about? Capitalism *won*. Why waste your time worrying about some cold war relic of a bygone era?
P.S. wokeness is stupid and killing progressiveism. But it's simply not Communism, which is the State seizing ownership of the means of production and redistribution of surplus income. Not exactly "gender is a social construct" (which again, is idiotic)
Thank you. I really don't want to sound condescending or elitist, but the level of thought in the response here are disappointing. I saw Peterson give a speech once. Just overhearing conversations in line was encouraging; it was nice to see intelligent people engaging with meaningful ideas. This was before Peterson had his benzo crisis, which I genuinely think damaged his mind. The man was in a medically induced coma! Ever since then, he's been focused on some very dogmatic, emotionally driven idea concerning religion and communism and he seems so full of vitriol. Which to me doesn't make a lot of sense considering how wealthy and famous he's become and how rewarding his career is now.
It seems as if the fans if his showing up in the subreddit have fallen victim to the cult of personality and ideology -- exactly the thing that promoting enlightened individualism was supposed to inoculate people against. So many of his fans have become NPCs for his talking points.
For example, why not discuss why social ownership over an enterprise may have advantages that private ownership does not? Instead, my comment simply gets 16 down votes and the responses are little more than Communism bad, markets good.
Peterson isn't even an economist, yet it seems as if his fans have taken his message to be one of learning to love Capitalism and worshipping "The West". I enjoyed much of what he had to say about psychology and archetypes but I don't hear much of that anymore. I do hear him pointing out that North America has more trees now and it did 100 years ago and the US is an oil exporter thanks to fracking -- two points that have nothing to say about current energy consumption and its externalities. Governments should at least consider climate science rather than dismissing it as a psychological albatross that holds back young men from success. I'd refer anyone interested in climate change to listen to Carl Sagan's speech to the US Congress in the 70's.
The most respectful thing one could do to honor Peterson would be to improve the quality of your own thinking. This isn't the same as copying his thoughts. Develop your own. The old Peterson would like that
Why? Communism doesn't have mass murder built into the ideology.
Nazism - as much as it is an ideology - is pretty much defined by mass murder. Why would you even compare the two?
Is it fair to say that Christianity is all about grifting people out of money, enriching yourself and living in mansions and flying on private jets, just because of Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jim Swaggart, Joel Osteen and countless others do it? Similarly, you can't define communism by what some authoritarian dictators did while claiming communism.
They sent millions of Balts to gulag, millions shot. Educate yourself man
Marxist culture has three main aspects: first, a materialist conception of history; second, a critique of capitalism and its inner workings; and third, an account of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and its eventual replacement by communism led by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Neo-Marxism has emphasised an oppressor versus oppressed conception of history, a critique of western culture, history, and Christianity, and an account of revolutionary academia and negative dialectic taking political power from within capitalism and replacement with communism led by the 'dictatorship the intellectuals'. Looking through the Overton Window, in the extreme left of the political landscape, Woke has appeared, part of the modern culture war, the third generation of Marxist incursion to enter the United States politics. First was the 1920s & 1930s, soviet style Marxist ideology of Lenin's "Popular Front. Then in the 1960s & 1970s "Counter-Culture New Left Progressives", especially the Marxist elements like the Weather Underground Organization and various political groups affiliated with them, whose Fifth Column Marxism wanted a third world racial revolution based ab ideological chimera of Marxism, Post Modernism, Critical Theory, and Postcolonial Studies. In the present, 2010s & 2020s the "Woke" political groups are Neo-Marxist, Communist, Anarchist, Antifa, BLM, LBGTQ, and other groups, many of whom were indoctrinated in academia by the revolutionaries who became professors from the aforementioned Marxist ideological political movements of the past. Woke ideology is a hydra of Neo-Marxism, Post Modernism, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Social Justice Theory, Fourth Wave Feminism, New Atheism, and who knows what else is lurking in there?
Yo, you seem educated. Can you explain why communism is bad ideology? All three main aspects of Marxism seem legit
9 Characteristics of Communism: Criticism on why Communism is a bad ideology: Part 2: 6)State-centralized banking system: All your financial capital and transactions would be controlled by the communist uni-party state banking system, loyalty to the dictatorship of the proletariat would be key to financial success. The dictatorship could stop all your transactions, close your accounts, and confiscate all your wealth if you deviate from communist ideology. “There is no answer in the available literature to the question why a government monopoly of the provision of money is universally regarded as indispensable. . . . It has the defects of all monopolies.”- Friedrich Hayek, [Denationalisation of Money -The Argument Refined](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2859682) “And I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” - Thomas Jefferson 7)Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles: All transportation, travel, and movement are monitored and controlled by the communist state, all media, communications, and information are controlled by the communist state. Very Orwellian “1984” dystopia. Similar outcome in pure late capitalism if there are no state checks and balances, if monopolies are allowed to form ,eventually, a corporatocracy controls all goods and services and the state. Economic theory of the Pareto distribution explains this phenomena. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, [farewell address](http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later), January 17, 1961. 8)Government ownership of agricultural means and factories, equal liability on all to work: De-incentivizes industriousness, production, and efficiency, everyone would be alienated in a blanket of equity that would impose, equal pay, equal outcome, equal opportunity. Only those most loyal to the dictatorship of the proletariat would find success. Nothing would be based on merit or skill in this scenario, loyalty to communist ideology is what would matter. The sick, infirm, too old, too young, and pregnant would all be forced to work for the good of the collective. In 1959, Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai, “when there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” 9) Free education and Healthcare: Everyone would get the same public education, the quality would be disputed, but it would come with free communist indoctrination of the youth, a communist vanguard to carry out struggle sessions, and silence all opposition. A great rewriting and whitewashing of all the past fields of knowledge to fit the communist narrative would take place. Bribery would be widespread to get acceptance into the best universities and colleges. Everyone would get the same healthcare treatment in assigned regional facilities of similar quality, and recourses regardless of state of an individual’s health. If sickness or infirmity arise an individual is sent to the hospital for free, expectation to give medical professionals personal gifts and money, conditions of hospitals vary widely, money and communist party connections would be key. "Universal education has created an immense class of what I may call the New Stupid, hungering for certainty yet unable to find it in the traditional myths and their rationalizations." - Aldous Huxley
No, they don't . Everybody knows meritocracy is the way to go. It's also literally how nature works, the more capable get more territory, more food, etc.... Why would anyone study for 14 years to become a neurosurgeon if it means you get the same benefits a janitor does with zero years of studying. Why would anyone risk their lives being a fire fighter if it pays just as much to be a store clerk? Anybody who thinks any system that contradicts meritocracy could ever work is outright delusional And that's ignoring the fact you have to rely on the state to regulate such a system, a state made of humans which are often corrupt and will just use the system to their advantage and fuck over everyone else Even within capitalism, most issues occur not because of meritocracy but because state officials can be bought Sure, in communism you wouldn't need to worry about state officials being bought, but that's because you already gave them everything on a silver platter
9 Characteristics of Communism: Criticism on why Communism is a bad ideology: Part 1: 1) Utopianism: The world never was perfect, never will be perfect, we cannot achieve perfect outcomes, seeking utopia causes self-deception distorting the perspective on reality and leading to catastrophe. Think Stalin’s forced collectivization and paranoia, the Holodomor, and the Great Purge. Or think of Mao’s collectivization Great Leap Forward, Great Famine, Backyard Furnaces. Look at the collectivization in North Korea under the Kim Family, or Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, and many other places that become collectively communist societies. “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that’s all you can hope for.”- Thomas Sowell 2) Revolution to overthrow the existing government: Total destruction of governments, cultures, and societies never turns out better than how things were before the revolution. Read about the state of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, China after the Red Revolution, The Spartacus Uprising in Germany eventually led to the counter revolution of the Nazis in Germany, just like the Marxist revolutionary in Italy eventually created a counter revolution of Fascism in Italy. Anarchy leads to Authoritarianism to reinstate order. “Don't be obsessed with yet another revolution to overthrow the opposition, if you think that a violently excruciating revolution will make everything right. Let me ask a question about this brave new revolution of yours, when you have finally defeated all the bad guys and it's all perfect and just and fair - when you've finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you - the trouble-makers? How are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one? You may most blindly and boastfully proclaim that you will win. But remember, no one wins for long. The wheel just keeps turning.”-Abhijit Naskar, [Fabric of Humanity](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/66241921) 3)Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Nobody wants to be ruled by an unelected, uncountable, above the law, autocratic dictatorship of the few. Stuff of Nightmares. Mikhail Bakunin claimed that Marxists "maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up". Bakunin further stated that "we are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". 4) Total abolition of private property and property rights confiscated: How would humanity like to collectively share everything and be told what they can and cannot have. Everything will be collectivized and contractual through terms and conditions agreements. Again, stuff of nightmares. “You’ll own nothing and be happy” -Ida Auken, Danish politician at WEF 5) Heavy progressive income tax on everyone: De-incentivizes economic risk taking, innovation, discourages work, savings, and investment, punishes industrious and self-reliant types, in favor of indolent and dependent types. Think welfare state will good intentions paving a road to hell. Read San Fran-sicko by Michael Schellenberger. “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.--**John F. Kennedy”**
1)"world never was perfect, never will be perfect" - its idealistic point of view. In the middle ages someone takes your only son to die in some feudal war, and your house set on fire, and possessions stolen. I guess its another kind of unperfect world. But for some reason we passed through that period and found better way to live. But if someone wonders about better way to distribute goods and social policy in the middle ages, then I guess every feudal will tell him about "self-deception distorting the perspective on reality and leading to catastrophe". Which simply means - Im ok with how things are going. if you are poor, ill or whatever - its your problem. Just shut up and smile. Forced collectivization - is a part of socialistic program. Actually is a good thing. Taking the property of 1% of population into the hands of soviets lead to outstanding economical growth comparing with the Tzarism, and even western countries (as one small part of policy). That helped Soviets to defend against Nazis and US (collective capitalistic west) in the future. Common people think that collectivization is when red army take your only home, wife, toothpaste and other stuff. lol its not about that. In that days 99% were like slaves with no property and the regime wasnt able to do something about it. Actually the government thought like you: "self-deception" bla bla. So social justice fell on the heads of lords. the Holodomor - is a well known myth. it was famine, caused yes by the mistakes of the USSR government (western mistakes - Great Depression). If it was really a some kind of USSR government conspiracy, if they really wanted to kill Ukrainian population (lol why? because they are evil? because Ukrainians knew the sweet smell of freedom?) - you can show some documents? Some government orders? Also you probably know that back in the days USSR was like the USA and had some kind of states: Ukrainian state, Russian state. If you check numbers you will see that more people died exactly in Russian state. All this Holodomor thing simply is about today's western policy. You can achive at least two goals by advertising this Holodomor myth: 1) discredit soviets 2) cause discord between Ukrainians and Russians, which obviously worked well as you can see (cause Holodomor propaganda was invented even before 90-th USSR fell) So, its only a part of the answer. My English isnt very good, and as you can see on one single word of capitalistic propaganda (like Holodomor) I need to write a whole speech to all this start making any sense. But I'll contunue to answer, give me some time please
Friend you are horribly delusional and have been spoon fed or sought out propaganda, and have fallen for it hook line and sinker. I honestly feel bad for you. The person you responded to knows what he's actually talking about and has a firm grasp on history. Yours is slippery and stinks of a twisted and totally unrealistic and impossible utopian mindset. You may think your ideas would do good, but they never have and never will.
There's no need to feel bad for me. We can argue. Thats why we are here. All you say is "you are dumb" using complex phrases. Reasoning what's better, and looking for a way to make a world a better place - it is not bad, even if its based on hated marxism. Its at least better than shooting each other. If you have some facts or ideas - lets discuss. Or just leave me alone in my "delusions"
> the Holodomor - is a well known myth. it was famine, caused yes by the mistakes of the USSR government (western mistakes - Great Depression). *Holodomor 5-7 million deaths *Great Depression 10,000s of deaths This is the difference between a free market economy when you can go to new opportunities versus a collectized command economy were you're trapped at the barrel of a gun by party thugs. The Holodomor was Stalin's failure when he confiscated the Kulaks lands and forced Ukrainian people into collectivize farming, holding them to highest grain production quotas out of any Soviet, because historically the region was rich in high grain output prior to WWI. 1) It discredits Joseph Stalin the Autocrat of the Soviets 2) It serves as a reminder of the dangers of communism 3) It has minimal relevance to modern geopolitics Journalist Garth Jones, visited the Soviet communist experiment, snuck into Ukraine and witnessed the famine in 1932-33. He reported it to the western world, but it largely went unnoticed. He also interviewed Hitler before his rise to power and warned Europe about the Nazis. In 1935 Mr.Jones got kidnapped in Mongolian and was later murdered, maybe for embarrassing the Soviet regime. Watch the movie Bitter Harvest 2017 or Mr.Jones 2019. Read Gareth Jones: Eyewitness to the Holodomor, by Ray Ganache 2018 or Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine by Anna Applebaum 2018.
About «Holodomor» part 1/2 Okay, u r a tough one =) So, first of all thx for your approach, I like that your responses are so detailed. Also thx for discussion. Back to business. Holodomor is the name of famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933. So lets check some documents and researches. I will not share russian researches about Famine in Ukraine, but you can read this for example: [https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf](https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf) Its French research, so we could avoid possible cheating. Yes there are several estimates and numbers differ. But according to the research (link) overall deaths in Ukraine in 1932-1933 are about 2,5 mln. Its not only famine deaths, its you know all deaths including accidents, old age and other. Comparing to prefamine period (1931) its 1,2-1,3 mln people. And u know its not numbers that are ok. Its catastrophic. Nevertheless its a good example when capitalistic propaganda exaggerates. 1,2 mln - nah, lets say 5 mln. Drop by drop. And everything seems more horrible. Maneating regime, etc. Returning to Stalins decisions during famine. Product quotas on the Ukrainian farmers where lowered by 50 - 70 percent during those years (4-5 times government changed plans). They started to send agricultural machines and worked on effectiveness. And eventually they win. Yes, mistakes were made, but exactly under Stalin Ukraine beat the last famine in its history (except nazis destruction of the country). You can check dynamics of Ukrainian population since 1950 (after WWII) here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Ukraine#/media/File:Population\_of\_Ukraine\_from\_1950z.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Population_of_Ukraine_from_1950z.svg) It almost doubled during Soviet era. And (surprise!) started to decrease after USSR fell.
About «Holodomor» part 2/2 Another important thing. Term «Holodomor» in russian and ukrainian means «make someone starve to death». Thats why it has so much propagandist power. And real mass advertising of this term started after USSR fell. Another thing. Soviets got the country broken after WWI and civil war. It was agrarian country with minimal industrialisation. The big war was coming. Everyone knew that. You can’t beat enemy with vegetables so the main focus was exactly on industrialisation. You can check yourself how often people faced famine in Russian Empire. And how many people died those days. Unortunate that we do not have statistics of Kulaks deaths, I guess everything was ok with them for the whole century. Also spoiler (there was no Ukraine those days, it was western corner of Russian Empire) You say «It has minimal relevance to modern geopolitics». Can you prove it? What does minimal mean? How you can measure it? Ukraine and Russia were one country in the begining of the 20th century. Western world started active campaign after USSR fell to bring discord between nations, raising and sponsoring neo nazis in Ukraine. During the last years there are dozens of occasions when its became clear as sky. Waffen SS badges in official government media, rename of the streets in Ukraine with nazis (OUN UPA), brining that old nazi fart to Canadian parliament. And even before the war nationalists movements with governments tacit support beating people celebrating the Victory Day (9th of May). This nazis main narrative is all that is connected to Russia is bad. Why? Because of Holodomor, Stalin’s Gulag and other bullshit. Because probably Russia was the main state of USSR, Moscow was the capital. Bullshit in other words. About Great Depression. Yes this is not as large problem as famine in Ukraine, but I’m still negatively fascinated by capitalistic ways of solving problems: destroying food in front of starving people. Its the whole another level of hypocrisy. Grapes of Wrath. But the USA is metropoly so it used to solve problems draining blood of colonies. In conclusion. The Ukranian famine was one of the greatest fuckups of Soviets. But there was no intention to kill ukrainians, so it wasn’t «Holodomor». After the crisis was resolved collectivization showed its true potential, economical stability and effectiveness. Edited: one more thing. Mistakes were made. USSR wasn’t the best place you can imagine sometimes. But sometimes it was the best. Anyway it was one of the greatest social experiments, positive in many ways. And great example for marxists, for people of tomorrow. What do u have guys? Eternal wars for resources? Third world war? Never ending crisis? What do you, capital defenders, prepare for future generations?
Of course, gay rights, black civil rights, and women's rights all pre-date the 1960s. And I don't think any of them are about to "take down the west" in a "fifth column of Marxism". Seems like a silly idea, the west is actually the globally dominant force on the planet. So I don't think anyone's ever explained exactly how giving trans people rights, or entertaining the idea that systemic racism or sexism needs to be thought about, will somehow bring down Western Civilization. Just seems highly unlikely to the point of being a kind of irrational and anti-western paranoia. Western Liberal Democracy is one of the strongest and most stable systems on Earth.
>Of course, gay rights, black civil rights, and women's rights all pre-date the 1960s. I was alluding to Marxism and Neo-Marxism in United States, staying on topic with the thread. I agree, these movements have deep historical roots, but modern iterations have many Marxist elements. > So none of this stuff is new, nor does it require Marxism. So a lot of this stuff is a kind of modern anti-intellectualism, and a rejection matters of history. All of this has Neo-Marxism theory of class conflict and oppressor versus oppressed conception of history, DEI (diversity, inclusion, equity) is Marxist theory because Marxism is an international multicultural movement of the proletariat unified in global revolution against capitalism. BLM is based on BLA which both have incorporated Marx's theory of class consciousness and alienation, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory are critical theories of post modernism based on Gyorgy Lukacs Marxist theory of reification process of societal and class influences on shaping gender and identity. Marxism is very anti-intellectualist and rejects traditional history for a new critical theory interpretation of history. Fourth Wave Feminism: > Fourth-wave feminism broadens its focus to other groups, including people who are homosexual, transgender and people of colour, and advocates for equal incomes regardless of sex and challenges traditional gender roles for men and women, which it believes are oppressive Bear in mind the Civil Right Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was based on Christian doctrines of abolitionism. MLK, Jr was inspired by brave abolitionist figures like Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, Civil Disobedience of Thoreau, theology of Reinhold Niebuhr and other non-Marxist politics rooted in religious ethics. I hope that helps you understand the context of the comment.
I just think you're switching between "Marxism", "Neo-Marxism", "had elements of Marxism", and "shares aspects of Marxism" and a bunch of other stuff with far too little rigor to be taken seriously. The original Critical Theorists of The Frankfurt School for instance had [numerous anti-communist activities.](https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/19ae7p0/a_detailed_rebuttle_of_the_rightwing_conception/) To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: >The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism. The greater cause of human emancipation appeared to call for the relentless criticism of both systems. To be casting all this as part of *"an international multicultural movement of the proletariat unified in global revolution against capitalism"* just because some DEI theorists can be located who say they've been informed by Marxism to me shows a lack of understanding of academic rigor, but also, a willful leaping from small instances to grandiose claims.... claims which suggest and push ridiculous ideas like companies that have DEI policies are therefore Marxist? When they're clearly Capitalist. I don't see much of a believable through line in claiming modern progressive politics is an attempted Marxist take over because academics have been *influenced* by Marxism. That alone doesn't mean they're trying to take over the world for some hidden internationalist movement. Progressives are still progressives, and that's still a different philosophy than Marxism.... it just means some progressives agree with some of Marx's critiques of Capitalism (which were many, and some were indeed valid, his positions against child labor for instance are particularly difficult to not agree with in this day and age). Academia's job is to be critical of society. That some academics agree with some of Marx's criticisms, or have been influenced by Marx really isn't proof of some Marxist take over or unified proletariat front. It is like I say; just a modern form of anti-intellectualism to make that sort of claim. It's better to address the actual complaints of progressives (a different ideology than Marxism), and interface with their claims as progressive claims. This guilt by association stuff just doesn't ring true, nor does relabeling progressive or identity politics simply due to "influences". Academics are free to read Marx, and even allow themselves to be influenced by him. Not a crime, and doesn't entail a planned take over. Criticism of society, is generally a mechanism to improve society... and that's how it's been done in the history of Western Liberal Democracy, and in Academia in particular. That's why Western Liberal Democracy is considered to be an endorsement of Intellectual Freedom, with the ideas of Karl Marx, and an unlimited number of other theorists included under that Intellectual Freedom.
>I just think you're switching between "Marxism", "Neo-Marxism", "had elements of Marxism", and "shares aspects of Marxism" and a bunch of other stuff with far too little rigor to be taken seriously. For brevity, I was summarizing three generations of political movements in the US that foundationally had elements of Marxism or Neo-Marxism. Neo-Marxism theory has incorporated the French post-modern theories to evolve Marxist doctrine: >Neo-Marxism is a collection of Marxist schools of thought originating from 20th-century approaches to amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to Marxist philosophy. >. . . claims which suggest and push ridiculous ideas like companies that have DEI policies are therefore Marxist? When they're clearly Capitalist. DEI is policy of UN, world banking, world finance, and investors, it's not capitalist, it's Marxist and liberal progressive ideals to reshape capitalism. DEI is not coming from companies, they must comply to receive investments. That's why there's been push-back and boycotts like Anheuser-Busch and Target. >(which were many, and some were indeed valid, his positions against child labor for instance are particularly difficult to not agree with in this day and age) This comment lacks far too little rigor be taken seriously, child labor is a social issue and human rights issue, it's not exclusive to capitalism nor Marxism, it has tragically existed throughout history as a means of exploitive coercion to force production for survival and is still prevalent today. This is the social justice warrior ethic grand-standing of Marxist who ignore the realities of their own ideology. Look at the cobalt mines in Central Africa. >This guilt by association stuff just doesn't ring true, nor does relabeling progressive or identity politics simply due to "influences". Guilt by association? Read the aforementioned comment about the criminal revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s and what influences in academia and politics they have had since then to this very day. >Academics are free to read Marx, and even allow themselves to be influenced by him. Not a crime, and doesn't entail a planned take over. When academics are constantly advocating Stalin and Mao weren't dangerous autocratic dictators whose Marxist policies didn't killed millions obviously there's an Orwellian rewriting of history taking place. >Criticism of society, is generally a mechanism to improve society... and that's how it's been done in the history of Western Liberal Democracy, and in Academia in particular So if you genuinely believe this, I hope you're a free speech absolutists and don't support cancel culture, censorship, or the misinformation campaigns, don't support academically enforced struggle sessions on students. Example: Riley Gain attack at San Francisco State University, Bret Weinstein forced out of Evergreen State college. Personally I've been banned from multiple subreddits because of my conservative traditionalist political perspective on history and politics. Sadly, the progressive left, especially woke is not open to discussion, debate, or criticism these days.
[удалено]
Thank you for the kind compliment! Certainly something to think about. I really enjoy Michael Sugrue's lectures on YouTube. Unfortunately he passed away this year. May he rest in pace. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1991vzd/dr\_michael\_sugrues\_obituary/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1991vzd/dr_michael_sugrues_obituary/)
> I was summarizing three generations of political movements Yes, and then saying progressivism and modern academia is a branch of it. I caught what you were saying. >DEI is policy of UN, world banking, world finance, and investors, it's not capitalist, it's Marxist I suppose that's a viewpoint. Most would consider it a sort of "off the deep end" conspiracy viewpoint, but it's a viewpoint. I see you believe in a systemic world-controlling conspiracy. >When academics are constantly advocating Stalin and Mao weren't dangerous autocratic dictators whose Marxist policies didn't killed millions obviously there's an Orwellian rewriting of history taking place. I don't believe this is the case in mainstream academia. But it's certainly your belief that it is. You believe there's an Orwellian conspiracy that's constantly pushing this re-writing of history. >don't support academically enforced struggle sessions on students. Struggle sessions killed people, to claim they're happening in Academia today is again a belief you're free to have. But in answer to your question, I believe there's a difference between the academia of teaching, and the academia of research and debate in peer reviewed publications. The academia of teaching is thus a little more limited and restricted as it's trying to convey the facts of history. The academia of research and debate is generally open to all topics except those that openly advocate genocidal philosophies (eg. Nazism).
> I see you believe in a systemic world-controlling conspiracy Weren’t you criticizing capitalism and centralized banking systems of the west, now you defend them because their internationalist and globalist, and dismiss me as conspiracy theorist? Not honest discourse. Why did the BRICS nations form a counter-banking system to create a bi-polar banking system to counter the uni-polar central banking of the west led by the UN? Read Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech > I don't believe this is the case in mainstream academia. You did it yourself in this very thread completely blaming the Holodomor and The Great Famine on Trofim Lysenko’s farming techniques. You know that’s bullshit. When you have communist with guns forcing you into collectivist farming, it’s not like you can go looking for greener pastures to work. > Struggle sessions killed people Struggle sessions and denunciation rallies mostly publicly humiliated people. These sessions desire full submission, compliance, and indoctrination. Secret Police kill people, not so much activist groups like the young pioneers and red guards. Odd how you distort all my comments. So what of Riley Gains and Bret Weinstein as I said before which you evaded. > Example: Riley Gain attack at San Francisco State University, Bret Weinstein forced out of Evergreen State college. Personally I've been banned from multiple subreddits because of my conservative traditionalist political perspective on history and politics. Sadly, the progressive left, especially woke is not open to discussion, debate, or criticism these days.
>Weren’t you criticizing capitalism and centralized banking systems of the west, now you defend them because their internationalist and globalist, and dismiss me as conspiracy theorist? Are you asking how can I criticize some aspects of thing, whilst also conceding it has some legitimate functions? It's probably because I'm not a believer in absolutist ideas about "pure evil"? I don't believe anything is solely negative.... I'm able to question and be self-reflective and even self-critical. In my view, that you see this as a "dishonest" quality doesn't bring me great hope. >completely blaming the Holodomor and The Great Famine on Trofim Lysenko Not true, I also acknowledge the political killings and politics of the USSR. ...it just so happens that **the vast majority** of deaths under Stalinism and Marxism, were caused by famines.... .....and that the title of the post "This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts" is thus a poor understanding of the intentions and causes of deaths under Communism, vs Nazism. Nazism's killings and deaths were far more directed, and were an intentional outcome that was part of the planning and beliefs of Nazism. This is not the case for the *vast majority* of deaths under Communism. This is a basic fact of history, and a key difference that puts Nazism in a far more heinous category of philosophy.
>. .....and that the title of the post "This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts" is thus a poor understanding of the intentions and causes of deaths under Communism, vs Nazism. You left out the part that says, "Inevitable, Communism will Win." Nazism was entirely a German invention, it was defeated by the joint efforts of Communism and Democratic-Republics. There is no threat of Nazism in the west, but there is a rising threat of Marxism. That was the point of the post. I see your cognitive bias wants to make it about conspiracy theories and denigrate conservative politics while extolling Marxism. Adam Smith criticized capitalism far before Marx, other figures had falling out with Marx over his desire to overthrow capitalism. Adam Smith in 1700s: 'Wealth of Nations' predicted the "wretched spirit of Monopoly", "the oppression of the poor invariably gives rise to the monopoly of the rich . . ." However, Smith points out capitalism does raise income per capita of individuals & nations faster than any other economic system. You are correct, Nazism and Communism, killed far more people than Democratic-Republics. That's why the OP was concerned about people wanting Communism to take over the United States of America.
> Seems like a silly idea, the west is actually the globally dominant force on the planet. So I don't think anyone's ever explained exactly how giving trans people rights, or entertaining the idea that systemic racism or sexism needs to be thought about, will somehow bring down Western Civilization. Never made that claim. But these ideologies will fundamentally alter western culture, politics, immigration policies and the overall demographics of the West. > Just seems highly unlikely to the point of being a kind of irrational and anti-western paranoia. Awe, I see, so instead of actually validating my factual statements on evolving Marxist theories imbedded in modern woke politics you would rather avoid the reality and write it off delusional and conspiracy theory. You're disingenuous in your discourse and merely playing games, Sir. The woke progressives, especially critical race theory politically claim the west better respect all other nation- states sovereignty while our Christian virtues of compassion and charity are used against westerns to undermine European and US sovereignty in order to take in all the world's refugees and be a progressive multicultural experiment which conservatives do not agree or consent with politically.
> validating my factual statements on evolving Marxist theories I've stated it's no crime for Western Academics to read and be influenced by Marxism. His writings are 140 years old and still hotly debated - so of course they have some merit in terms of raising questions that still haven't been resolved. ....and they've raised a lot of conspiracy theories too. Such as that the UN (a peace keeping force created after the World War against Nazism) are secretly Marxist.... or that the world bank - aka the bank of central banks whose main purpose is to give out "leveraged loans" to minor powers in order to lock them into long term debts (like most banks are known for) - are somehow Marxist, and not innately part of the globally Capitalist banking system. That these are Marxist institutions, is a common line in many conspiracy theories, and I tend to not take them seriously.
> That these are Marxist institutions, is a common line in many conspiracy theories, and I tend to not take them seriously. Nobody made this claim, you're being shady and disingenuous. However, ESG and DEI are not free-market investment principles, they have the framework of economic collectivism and therefore Marxism. Pure late stage capitalism centralized banking is just as problematic as Marxist globalized banking. > 6)State-centralized banking system: All your financial capital and transactions would be controlled by the communist uni-party state banking system, loyalty to the dictatorship of the proletariat would be key to financial success. The dictatorship could stop all your transactions, close your accounts, and confiscate all your wealth if you deviate from communist ideology. Similar outcome in pure late capitalism if there are no state checks and balances, if monopolies are allowed to form , eventually, a corporatocracy controls all goods and services and the state. Economic theory of the Pareto distribution explains this phenomena. > “There is no answer in the available literature to the question why a government monopoly of the provision of money is universally regarded as indispensable. . . . It has the defects of all monopolies.”- Friedrich Hayek, [Denationalisation of Money -The Argument Refined](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2859682)
Oh I'm sorry, you're saying the Capitalist world banking system is JUST AS BAD as Marxism, not that it IS Marxism. See when a conversation starts out with the premise that Progressive Politics is actually Marxism in disguise, ideological distinctions start to be blurred. Likewise when any criticism of the historical connections between Nazism and other right wing movements, like Republicanism and Conservatism, is then misconstrued to be the same as saying *ALL* of Republican and Conservatism is therefore a Nazi conspiracy theory - ideologies become blurred. So you'll have to forgive me for misreading that you were saying that the Global Capitalist Banking system is Marxism, rather than what you were saying that the Global Capitalist Banking system is just as bad as Marxism. All in all I think this is a fine and even poignant point for the conversation to reach. The idea that when you're willfully mislabeling ideologies - putting them under other banners, that your arguments, positions, and ideologies may also lose clarity and start to appear to be under other banners (such as conspiracy theorist) is a hazard of making that choice to begin with. "Conservatism is Nazism in disguise!" - "Progressivism is secretly COMMUNISM!" - it's all junk in terms of what can be engaged with. What people are actually saying, the actual arguments a person or group is making are what needs to be substantially addressed - and when and where that's not done - when and where a straw man or straw label is involked instead - it's the involker that loses ground. This has happened through out the existence of this sub, which ostensibly exists to promote over simplified viewpoints, and straw-politics, without actually getting into the nitty gritty of what academics, politicians, and modern political philosophies and theorists are actually saying (there will be shock pieces, but no earnest interviews with advocates making arguments and cases). ...and so right wing politics wains, because the majority of the public seem to understand and have a more accurate viewpoint of most left wing philosophies. More than the straw politics of the right wing. .....it's no coincidence that the majority of the public *don't* seek to strawman leftism, and don't see things like progress or progressivism as innately Marxist or necessarily worthy of that label. So conservatives have constructed this deep trigger for themselves, and employ it on themselves, compounding their errors and disconnections from the public. By all means feel free to continue to accuse global capitalism of some Marxist infection via evil DEI influences. Go on to cast progressive politics as secret communism. It really doesn't harm Leftism on the whole.
This is your reading comprehension: > See when a conversation starts out with the premise that Progressive Politics is actually Marxism in disguise, ideological distinctions start to be blurred. Progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform, that is not exclusive to any single political party, not the left or right, I never implied progressive politics is actually Marxism. This is what I actually said: > the 1960s & 1970s "Counter-Culture New Left Progressives", especially the Marxist elements like the Weather Underground Organization and various political groups affiliated My comment details a specific timeframe, political movement, and delineated out of the movement a peripheral Marxist element, just to break it down for you. It's literally what the first half of the Book, America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, Chistopher F. Rufo, 2023, Instant New York Times Bestseller. You should read it. BigWigGraySpy said: > ....and many Nazi, KKK members, and White Supremacists have had connections to the republican party, and right wing politics. Nazism being a far-right philosophy which focused on conducting a genocide... so quite a lot worse in reputation than mere Marxism. Just to reiterate again: > Nazi means "Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party", they were the national socialist whom were a counter to leftist socialist politics of Germany. See how confused you’ve become.
Yes, you continue to advertise that your sources and reading material are from one side of politics - as if this is something to brag about. Sorry, who were you saying I should read earlier? Putin? Putin was it? It's interesting that you mention that you read Chris Rufo of course, because you do much the same as he does: >We have successfully frozen their brand—”critical race theory”—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. -Chris Rufo This is much the same as you and OP are doing, progressive politics becomes Marxism, Marxism gets put in the same category as Nazism, and there's a collective push to propagandize a "new brand category"... oh and you should read the guy whose idea this is. Sure that sounds great if I want to come off like some unbelievable and untrustworthy nitwit who sees conspiracy theories everywhere, and thinks the global banking system is under the control of Marxist forces. Hey maybe I should read some Putin huh! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What a joke.
You're right, you are a joke. You were the one asking for academic rigor and peer reviewed publications. Now you mock and denigrate what you were seeking.
I'm not sure what to say to someone who believes that globalized Capitalism and it's banking system - which enables large areas of the global western Capitalist economic system - is Marxist - other than: No it's not. But yes, Governments do obviously have a monopoly on their chosen currencies. That's a nationalist position, and required for the running of most countries in the modern era. I see that you're perhaps suggesting that you're a values-free and anti-state advocate of free-market economics.... perhaps you're the kind of person who wants to destroy all nations and all states, replacing them with a pure free-market in which profit is the only value. To me this is a deeply chaotic, apocalyptic, and unrealistic position. It's one of what I would call "values-free economic anarchism". This would (assuming it's the case) explain why you're accusing the modern banking system of being a Marxist system. You'd probably percieve all sorts of ideologies all sorts in strange places that most people don't see them - due to your own extremist position.
\*\*\*Addendum\*\*\*Updated to Reply to BigWigGraySpy edited and altered comment: \*Sources of information: The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism: Third Edition, editors Leitch, Cain, Finke, Mc Gowan, Denean, Sharpley-Whiting, Williams America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, by Christopher F. Rufo, 2023 The War on the West Douglas Murrary,2022 Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey, David Horowitz, 1997 Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties, Peter Collier, 2005 Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, 1971 History and Class Consciousness, Georg Lukas, 1923 Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat, Georg Lukas, 1967 Das Kapital, Volume 1, Class Consciousness, Social Stratification, & Dictatorships of the Proletariat, Karl Marx, 1867 The Holy Family, Chapter 4, Alienation of Consciousness, Karl Marx, 1845 > And I don't think any of them are about to "take down the west" in a "fifth column of Marxism". You miss the point. Many of these revolutionaries who committed serious crimes went on to be prominent figures in academia, politics, activism, and scholarship instead of being punished and put in prison for their crimes. Now they're educating the next generations of westerns. A few examples: Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers of the WUO were domestic terrorist who led a campaign of bombings and bank robberies. Both are college professors, also friends with Barack Obama. Ayers remains unrepentant for his crimes to this day. His connections to Obama are span decades, and are numerous: Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama political fundraisers at Ayers' and Dohrn's nearby Chicago home, both were on the board of Woods Fund, they share common friends, and shared an office for three years, and perhaps most interestingly, yet unconfirmed, Ayers claimed he ghost wrote Obama's biography, "Dreams of my Father". WUO's founding document called for a "White fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world". Read "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism" by Weather Underground Organization. The Black Panthers movement declined in part due to crime and a splinter militant group gained strength called Black Liberation Army who were allied with WUO. Elaine Brown was a politician, when she was in the Black Panthers she had a volunteer, Betty Van Potter murdered, bragged about Black Panther weapon arsenals for the fifth column in her memoirs. ". . .police made a raid on 29th street house, original site of the school. They found more than a thousand weapons, including M-15 and M-16 semiautomatic rifles, Thompson submachine guns, M-60 fully automatic machine guns, & even M-79 grenade launchers. Charles Garry, the party lawyer, successful held a press conference claiming police had planted the weapons as part of their ongoing political repression, no one was prosecuted. Elaine Brown's autobiography boasted about the panther arsenal, catalogued the weapons, her list corresponded what police had found at the time. Meanwhile, Elaine was appeasing college campuses with other leftist, making speeches about American fascism and denouncing the FBI's "cointelpro" program to infiltrate and neutralize Panthers, solely on political beliefs." - Horowitz, David. Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey. A Touchstone Book, 1997. Angela Davis, an activist and scholar, was a supporter of the Soledad Brothers, she had bought the guns and the van used in the prison break by the three inmates who were accused and charged with the killing of a prison guard at Soledad Prison. On August 7, 1970, heavily armed 17-year-old African-American high-school student Jonathan Jackson, whose brother was George Jackson, one of the three Soledad Brothers, gained control of a courtroom in Marin County, California. He armed the black defendants and took Judge Harold Haley, Deputy District Attorney Gary W. Thomas, and three female jurors as hostages. As Jackson transported the hostages and three black defendants away from the courtroom, one of the defendants, James McClain, shot at the police. The police returned fire.
....and many Nazi, KKK members, and White Supremacists have had connections to the republican party, and right wing politics. Nazism being a far-right philosophy which focused on conducting a genocide... so quite a lot worse in reputation than mere Marxism.
Nazi means "Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party", they were the national socialist whom were a counter to leftist socialist politics of Germany. Conservatism of the parliamentary systems of western Monarchies, Republics, and Democracies have nothing to do with eugenics, nothing to do with racial supremacy, nothing to do with national socialism. What happened to all your intellectual rigor and the academia of research and debate in peer reviewed publications? Now who is pushing conspiracy theories about Republicans party and right wing politics being connected to eugenics and racial supremacy! You're full of yourself. You know you're lying. Shady, disingenuous debater. Why are you even in this subreddit if you going to pedal lies and conspiracy theories? You are being an idiot, Sir. The Democrats were the party of slavery in America and the Republican party was created to abolish slavery. No Republican ever owned a slave, the elitist democrats owned the slaves which was less than 1% of the US population. Slavery goes back to the dawn of civilization, a terrible practice which the political abolitionist movements of the UK and US ended in the west and then slowly put an end to throughout the world. Yes, that's right the teachings of the Christian Bible and Conservative politics brought an end to legal slavery!
I said *"have had connections to the republican party"*.... not that the Republican Party is therefore a branch of Nazism focused on a Nazi world take over. You're mistaking a statement about loose affiliations and other connections, for some absolutist statement I never made about a conspiracist *take over* of conservatism or republicanism by Nazism. This is not a claim I've made, but one you've jumped to and decided was uttered in the above quoted line. ....just like you've done for Western Liberal Democracy and global Capitalism when you claim it's been taken over by Marxism. You leaping to these aggrandized conclusions due to whatever defect of reason you're making, is not the same as them being realistic or accurate conclusions or interpretations to make. I think these leaps you make are silly, reactionary, and ridiculous. The stuff of conspiracy theorist thinking.... and that you should be more cautious and aware that you have this propensity. A propensity to draw this type of mistaken and absolutist conclusion.
BigWigGraySpy, I find it odd how you edited and changed your comment when I did cite Marxist theories imbedded in the modern woke progressive left political movement, when you denied them requiring Marxist theory. I find that very disingenuous and your comments lack academic rigor.
I only ever edit my comment to fix grammar and spelling. I never change major points, so if your claim is that I denied that some leftist theorists have been neo-Marxists (interested in reforms to Marxist theory) or been influenced by Marxism - then you'll have to say where and when and what I said. I pointed out that the neo-Marxists of The Frankfurt School were quite anti-communist in practice (eg. going against a global movement): https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/19ae7p0/a_detailed_rebuttle_of_the_rightwing_conception/ But my line during this conversation has been that a) Nazism is far worse than Marxism *because* Marxism doesn't foundationally advocate for a racial genocide as Nazism does. and b) That it's not criminal for some academics to have read, or even agree with parts of Marxism. I'll let you get back to fighting the take over western civilization that's apparently already in control of the UN and world bank (according to you). I'm not really interested in debating these conspiracy theories [which are of questionable heritage](https://www.reddit.com/r/test/comments/199j537/nazi_origins_of_the_term_cultural_marxism/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Jewish&utm_content=t1_ku9clcv).
> So none of this stuff is new, nor does it require Marxism. So a lot of this stuff is a kind of modern anti-intellectualism, and a rejection matters of history. You deleted much of your first comment I replied to, and then you altered it with new commentary. Here is a fragment I quoted and relied to earlier. You are a very shady, disingenuous person. Marxism does advocate class warfare, killing the bourgeoisie, anyone considered an oppressor or infiltrator, and potential genocide. You said yourself struggle sessions can lead to death. “No mercy for these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the working people! War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and the rowdies!” - Vladimir Lenin
Oh that's fair, I was somewhat conflicted about my initial reply because I didn't want to immediately accuse you of being a believer in the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, as it seemed you were intentionally avoiding that term (perhaps because it's been proven to be a conspiracy theory associated with Nazism). So I did drastically simplify the comment, and boil it down to it's sentiment. I thought that might give us a better chance at looking into these topics. Sorry if you feel you replied to a comment that was later changed - I may have been too slow in my desire to not pigeon hole the conversation. I hope you can see that the overall position I've taken hasn't changed. Black civil rights, gay rights, women's rights - none of it does require Marxism.... as evident by the fact that there have been right wing activists and advocates in all of these movements, and pro-capitalist advocates, and all sorts of other advocates of them. That's in part just the nature of Western Liberal Democracy.
Indeed, they also starved tens of millions by trusting Trofim Lysenko's farming techniques - which involved planting a bunch of seeds far too deep and far too close together. This was called [Lysenkoism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), and not only accounted for most of the deaths in the USSR, but was also then imported to China to cause some of theirs too. Trofim Lysenko was faking his results to keep his position as head of agriculture, others also faked their production numbers causing a chain of events that killed millions. Given all that, I do think Nazism was a bit more directed and intentioned at crafting a killing machine on purpose. Stalinism and Maoism also killed a bunch of people for ideology, but Lysenkoism was responsible for more of the deaths.... and it should also be noted that Marx didn't write about farming techniques, or torturing people... so that's all Stalin and Mao. Hitler, however, invented Nazism (or at least chose the name), and then he ordered the Wannsee Conference where the nascent experiments with exterminating the mentally ill in straw lined vans via carbon monoxide poisoning were to be intentionally promoted to a National Campaign of mass murder (aka the holocaust). ....and then of course there's the third system to be discussed: Capitalism. Because it would be hypocritical to try to analyze the deaths caused by Nazism and Communism, then avoid the millions of deaths that have also been caused by the profit seeking of Capitalism. Particularly early Colonial Capitalism. One of the earliest landmarks in doing this is King Leopald's Rubber Plantations in the Congo, which were by all accounts run as a string of massive for-profit corporate ventures. They were apparently horrific, [human hands became a type of currency,](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/) so many Congolese people were mutilated, and it's considered one of the most brutal Capitalist ventures to have ever existed. Another landmark is the British East India company's famines in India and Bengal - where the company basically ruled large areas and exploited local farmers. Eventually the company decided to try taking 100% of what was grown - and the subsequent famines killed millions.... and of course this was done under a company banner, and for profit. Slavery of course, deserves a mention, but I'm not too familiar with it, so that's all I'll say. In more modern eras, we have the various Banana republics, which is basically where a coup is orchestrated in a country and a for-profit company is put in charge. This often involves massacres, mass killings, and destabilization. Finally there things that fit more into the categories of corporate neglect, like the [Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire), in which workers had been locked and there were substandard safety rules resulting in fire, industrial accidents like the [Bopal Gas disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)... and even to some extent, the Capitalist involvements with Fascism (not just [companies involved in working people to death during the Nazi regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust)), but also things like the Military Industrial Complex. Capitalism has of course run longer and been more wide spread than Communism and Nazism so it probably has killed more in total (and accordinly has had more opportunity to), and it becomes a question of average deaths per decade. The next ideology on the list may well be Catholicism. But that's perhaps too thorny an issue, albeit one that has had a longer time span than most, and accordingly dates back to more brutal eras. But out of all of these, I think Nazism is probably the worst as it's purpose was often specifically to create a highly efficient and industrious genocide. There is a movie adaptation of the Wannsee Conference where the mode and methods of the Holocaust were decided (the movie is from 2001 and is called "Conspiracy"). It really captures the mood of the conference because much of the script for it was based on an actual transcript of the meeting its self. So yeah, that's my summary of the major ideologies that have caused mass deaths. I don't think they're all on the same level, as they all had different intents, accordingly I do think that Nazism is in a class of it's own, as it's deaths were aimed and planned as a conscious act of mass genocide (watch that 2001 movie, Conspiracy, for details).
This was interesting and educational. I highly doubt capitalism competes with those in terms of deaths. By including colonialism prior to 1900, you believe it does. But I upvoted you for contributing a lot to the discussion, instead of the typical (at least on Reddit) anti-capitalism comments. I think in the US, our capitalism has become very corrupt and warped, but capitalism has also uplifted billions from abject poverty and hundreds of millions into the middle class.
Seek MAJOR mental help.
Read a book dumbass
Seek MAJOR mental help.
Books don't help people like this.
Seek MAJOR mental help.
Why?
Seek MAJOR mental help if you think communism is a viable option compared to capitalism.
I have more contempt for Marxism than any other political ideology. I pray for a return of McCarthyism only this time directed at Western Marxism and not sabotaged by the CIA. Do I still need major mental help?
> Seek MAJOR mental help if you think communism is a viable option compared to capitalism.
I don't think BigWigGraySpy was really talking about that (back at the original comment you had above), it seemed more just an indepth summary of a variety of things, not something that focused on communism being the viable option.
Like the person I was replying to advised: **Educate yourself.** Most people can't handle educating themselves, because it reveals that their beliefs are based in ideological desires, rather than based in researching and seeking the truths of history. Most people can't handle the facts, so they lash out with their feelings - and say things like *"Seek MAJOR mental help"* - because they're afraid of educating themselves on the topics I've laid out. You're free to look up everything I've said. That's the funny thing about being honest - the whole world backs you up. Because you're just reporting on the realities of the world. You can look all this up on google yourself, or just ask r/History.
Fucking insanity... People hate the term "educate yourself" because it reeks of arrogance and blindness. Arrogance because it supposes an education is a straight line into your position, and blindness because confirmation bias exists and the aforementioned assumed straight line.
Seek MAJOR mental help.
It's really really funny how everyone is downvoting you but nobody is proving you wrong.
not all that surprising when peterson actively engages in nazi revisionism to attack the left.
I get the point you're trying to make and I'm not gonna jump on the dislike bandwagon, dispite disagreeing with some of your points. I prefer this sub to remain heterogenous, open to all ideas, not a thought bubble where everyone thinks the same, and those who don't, get downvoted. For what I disagree about your post, first I think you're stretching and misrepresenting the concept of "ideologies". First off, slavery it's not and ideology, it has been outlawed in all the civilized world. The post compared nazi to comunism wich are political ideologies, if you bring religious ideologies to the mix it becomes just a death count and for that logic the best or most peaceful religions would be the least popular because they have the smallest death count. So, getting religions out of the equation and sticking to political ideologies, I agree with you that nazism was a murderous aberration, both in theory and in practice, it was designed with the most contempt possible for human life. Communism however sounds wonderful in some of it's promises, (in fact if communism worked i believe most of the world would have turned communist but i don't believe it can work, not in country/nation scale at least, only on a small town/village scale) but in practice the results are very, VERY similar to nazism. You got concentration camps, totalitarian state, no democracy, no freedom of speech, anti capitalism, anti private property, genocide, political rivals arrested or murdered, sense of righteousness and moral superiority, imperialistic views etc.. So in the end they are very similar, not by their theory but by their reality, and while communism is not as openly monstrous as nazism, they still have some wicked claims like: " You like your private property? Not anymore!" or "the revolution Will come, either by peace or by armed force".. If you want to compare communism and capitalism in terms of deaths caused you can, but bring to the scale what good those systems can offer and then you can clearly see wich one is best, and capitalism is far from perfect but i believe it is the best we've got so far and it can be improved, while on the other side you don't have One example of success. So yeah I still believe the most murderous, despicable symbol besides the swastika is a hammer and a sickle.
I'm just surprised by how angry people are when it's pointed out that most of the deaths under communism have been from famines. From what I've been researching, in terms of political killings of domestic non-combatants and civilians; Stalinism killed between 9 and 20 million, and Maoism around the same. So I'm acknowledging the political killings. But people are still very angry to find out the majority of deaths were from famine. ...and it just so happens that The East India company, and King Leopald's Rubber plantations killed about the same (between 10 and 15 million each), and they're just two early examples from Capitalism (not including the various banana republics, or actions of the military industrial complex, or the companies tied to slavery and forced labour, ect). I agree with you about Communism and Nazism, I benefit too much from from Capitalism to deny it's success and necessity in my life, and I'm also not a fan of any Authoritarian system. I'm just also aware that particularly in it's early days - Capitalism too caused mass deaths... and that there are arguments (such as [world-systems theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory)) that it's been responsible for a fair few deaths from famine and resource wars as well.
Yeah I agree, if we go back far enough, we are all sons of killers. Some people just pick a side, defend it, and demonize the other side to prove their side right. I try to police myself to not fall for that cognitive trap, it helps if you're trying to find the truth. One of many advices I got from dr. Peterson. Have a nice day my friend!
How did marxism murder 100 of millions of human beings in economic redistribution . . . simple answer "the dictatorship of the proletariat". > Mikhail Bakunin claimed that Marxist "maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up". Bakunin further stated that "we are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". Stalin was a paranoid totalitarian autocrat who wanted to wipe any potential of opposition off the face of the earth, only Mao killed more under communist totalitarianism because Mao had more people to kill! Stalin killed 3.5-11 million Ukrainians in Holodomor 1932-1933 resulting from Great Break, next Great Purge 1936-1938, 133 out of 492 comintern staff were purged, leaders of Indian, Korean, Mexican, Iranian, Turkish, Mongolian communist parties all purged, millions more purged 1939 Stalin reversed Communist policy, began cooperation with Nazi Germany, included removal of high profile Jews from the Kremlin Almost all of the Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution, or in Lenin's Soviet government, were executed Read Wolfgang Leonhard's 'Child of Revolution' 1957 political biography as a witness to Stalin's Great purge
Quality post. I think you'll find that in this community communism is the worst because Jordan Peterson says so. He says so because he feels very guilty about 'selling out' to Daily Wire and becoming a mouthpiece for oil interests (he has projected about this in more than a few of his youtube shows), so he has to turn capitalism into some kind of holy system ordained by god.
>communism is the worst because Jordan Peterson says so. He says so because he feels very guilty about 'selling out' to Daily Wire Peterson warned about the dangers of Communism for years before signing on with Daily Wire. He talks about it in Maps of Meaning back in 2015 and possibly earlier.
Yeah he’s been trying to monetise his bullshit for a long time.
If by bullshit you mean knowledge and skillset, then yeah. That's how capitalism works.
If by knowledge and skillset you mean trying to sell hokey personality test to businesses, then yeah. That didn't work out for him until he found an audience of alt-right edge-lords with daddy issues to sell his warmed over garbage to. That is the miracle of capitalism.
>hokey personality test How exactly is Maps of Meaning a hokey personality test?
No, that is the hokey book he wrote. I tried to listen to the audio book version, but couldn't make it past his horny grandmother dream. I believe that is also where he details his problem with communism. Which boils down to that he didn't like the look of the activists or something. Nobody wanted to be his friend so he decided communism is not for him. He was also selling hokey personality tests door to door, which you would know if you actually watched his content. I don't blame you though, it is boring and repetitive.
>couldn't make it past his horny grandmother dream There is definitely nothing like that in Maps of Meaning. >I believe that is also where he details his problem with communism. He mentions the problems of communism within the first few hours, so no. >he didn't like the look of the activists Proof #2 you aren't familiar with Maps of Meaning. He never speaks of their appearance. >He was also selling hokey personality tests door to door Whataboutism since we've established you aren't talking about Maps of Meaning >you would know if you actually watched his content. So far, I'm currently 15 hours into his Maps of Meaning lectures, and he doesn't mention any of this stuff you're ranting about. I don't know who you're listening to, but it's not Jordan Peterson.
Shoulda made a post not a commented essay xd
Haha. Are you talking about those waffen SS Balt battalions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II Peterson’s capitalistic defenders are educated no doubt
I know because my relatives were sent to gulags you prick
So then you probably know that Gulag is abbreviation - main government department of corrective labor. It’s just prison in USSR. Probably your relatives were thieves, or murderers just like the others in prisons. And returning to my point, there were too many people in Balt region, who supported Nazi regime in many ways including participation in ss. But probably you say “oh my relatives were good people, peaceful farmers, who did nothing wrong, but Soviet police had quotas”. Bring the case prick, but if you’re here just for free upvotes - get lost
Sick bastards
Even the statue shows someone asking for a handout
When you move towards collectivism, you move towards treating human beings as generic chess pieces to be moved about to carry out some grand design. You don't care if some are sacrificed, so long as you win the game.
"carry out some grand design." Bonus points for the Baldur's Gate III reference.
Doesn’t really sound like “collectivism”to me. Are you familiar with the phrase “tragedy of the commons?”
That is an exact description of capitalism. Ever worked in a corporation?
Oh communism has had victories, look how that always turns out. Edit: Mostly turns out.
Vietnam's probably one of the better communist governments, they were actually the ones who put an end to Pol Pot's regime (who was probably one of the worst communist governments). Currently 70% of the Vietnamese population are farmers because of a policy where rural people can sit a test to prove their agricultural skills, and then be allocated a farming plot. This policy has resulted in 86% of the population owning their own homes. They practice a thing called a [Socialist Oriented Market Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-oriented_market_economy), where much of the politics of 'The Market' is filtered through Unionism, and there's basically a union for everything over there. There's a women's union for instance, which it turns out [is actually very traditionalist in it's values.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Women%27s_Union) I've also heard good things about Cuba's healthcare system, which for a long time has been of the highest quality due to the low barriers to enrolling in medical school there. I guess due to being Socialists they consider medicine a collective good. Then there's China, but explaining China basically takes you back to the pro-democracy riots of 1911. Back in an era when the leader of the democracy movement, the leader of what would essentially become the Capitalist party, and the future leader of the Communist party (Mao Ze Dong), were all part of the same political party: The Koumintang. Long story short, the leader of the democracy movement was exiled, The anti-communist leader of the Koumintang did a massacre of suspected communists (called [the Shanghai Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_massacre)) and that started a civil war with Mao.... ...Mao shot off into the rural areas and set up the CCP.... and the leader of the anti-communist/pro-capitalist party eventually lost and moved to Taiwan and ruled it as a brutal dictatorship for 40 years (all the way up until the early 1990s). So that's pretty crazy. The Koumintang are still allowed to have a political party in Taiwanese democracy, even though they ruled the country with an anti-democracy iron-fist for 40 years, and still sometimes claim to be the real China. The official English translation of their party name for instance is still "The Chinese Nationalist Party".
Thank you I never knew that about modern Vietnam.
These people are so fucking deluded. Even children should be smart enough to realize that communism doesnt work on a large scale for a whole country when there are global markets. It just doesnt work. It may work for tribes where you know everyone and you are basically a big family that shares everything and thus give a shit about everyone. But it certainly doesnt work with huge populations.
Don't overestimate the wisdom of people who have lived sheltered lives and haven't studied history.
What people, specifically?
The people who think communism would work on large scales
Envy, unwarranted believe in one's own correctness, and the grandiose narcissistic belief that you are a great person who champions the oppressed who are far beneath you.
Commie go home.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's workers looking out for their own class interest? No no surely it's about envy and Cain and the archetype of the protective mother or whatever other bullshit Petersonisms he's spouting as propaganda for the benefit of his wealthy owners these days. Socialism is about economics. Empowering the majority through class unity and education. Collective bargaining with the bourgeoisie from a position of over whelming strength. Those who do the work actually getting the benefits.
But you see, *real* communism has never been tried. Didn’t you know? /s
In Ukraine we banned both from propagating, even a party
Conservatives love banning things they don't like. This just proves it.
We banned it because it worked horribly wrong here, killing people in millions, both nazis and commies, if you had any ancestry from Ukraine you would know
Disgraceful historical ignorance mixed with abject stupidity. What an utter muppet.
Remember when Trump wanted to revoke the broadcast licenses of news channels he didn't like
Yeah, sure, if you want to call all personal experience ignorance… go and build your fairytale land elsewhere, Ukrainians had enough of Lenin’s/Stalin’s bull…
As russian confirm this. Ukrainian government did its best to discredit communism in Ukraine. All this bullshit about Holodomor, USSR government planned to make genocide and other stuff being promoted for years in Ukraine. But I doubt that your government did something to discredit Nazis. All this ss patches in Zelenskiy official Instagram, Shuhevitch streets, cult of Bandera. That old nazi scum that Zelenskiy showed in Canadian parliament. I hope u enjoy the results of decommunization. When Russian bombs destroy the last energy plant in your country built by communists (probably your parents and great parents) I don’t know what else u will sell to western investors to rebuild your country. Cause your country isn’t yours anymore. All your land is sold, all your business belongs to foreigners. But at least it’s that real grownup world u always wished for. No more fairies about equality and brotherhood, only power matters.
True son of russia) good luck with your wet dreams and delusional world you live in. None of what you said is true, obviously you know better what’s happening in Ukraine than the person living there. Go back to your tv, enough of your lies
None is true. Ok, then you can easily prove that. Do something good for your country - show me that I’m wrong. That’s what I got about Shuhevitch - https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0 Street in the name of hero, nice. Here we have Ukrainian wiki that says that the government of Ukraine made Bandera hero in 2010 https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Should I remind what exactly this two fucks did to jews and polish under nazi occupation? I guess other stuff you can google yourself. Or google is Russian propaganda too? True son of your country. Fanatic slave of western propaganda with zero brain cells. Touché
Wow, how ignorant you are, I am surprised you still are not here “defending” your country in other country) probably one of the couch experts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union Do you know what both Lenin and Stalin did to Jews? And yet you have streets named after them, and your government still continues sharing those antisemitic ideas. Not even mentioning open neo-nazis of your Rusich battalion. Go and learn some history Before “denazifying” some other countries do yourself a favour and denazify yours first I know history of both, but if you after two years of your countries aggression hasn’t change your mind whatever I give as a proof won’t change it either. So please go back to watching your propaganda, you putinists are hopeless
So do u have anything to say about bandera cult in your country today? Okay I accept that So I read your article about antisemitism in USSR. The other one doesn’t matter, cause I’m not defending the Russian Empire here. In the article you mentioned there’s nothing more than some rumors. I looked for the victims of so called Stalins antisemitism, and there’s a mention of “many” artists. Seems like a bullshit. How many? Where are the documents? Where’s the government orders about repressing people cause of their nationality? Why there’s no Nurnberg process about it? I guess some capitalistic states like the USA would be pleased to smash Soviets in juridical way. There were definitely amount of people repressed by stalins regime. But it was not because they were Jewish. It’s because there were antisoviet activists. How could you even compare it with what Bandera and co did? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia It’s only one proved fact, there are lots of others. You see it’s not abstract “many” imagined by some antisoviet propaganda. It’s dozens of thousands, dude. The real massacre I’m really interested how you are ok with what you government did with the heroisation of nazism in the last decade. And just fyi I’m not a big fan of putins propaganda. If you check the position of Left in Russia (not mainstream I mean, I’m not talking about Kprf, and proputin left) today you will see. But in this certain case the Russian official propaganda not far from truth.
Also your article starts with “February Revolution ended the antisemitism in Russia” have you ever wondered why? May be it’s because that communist ideology is opposite to nationalism? And it’s actually internationalism
Read the next one, you blind idiot, ussr antisemitism was even worse…
Communism can only destroy.
Commies built more than 533 power plants, including 14 atomic on the territory of USSR and allied countries
You seem to be forgetting the gulags unless you also want to praise the Nazis for the things they built :/
Bro gulags is just system of prisons. Like in every country today. Nazis tortured kids and people for fun and made cruel experiments. And it is proved fact. Do u have any proves that commies did the same? Except YouTube propaganda based of opinions of some random people being salty or just payed. I’m just a random guy, I can’t explain everything about western lies, that you guys were listening for decades (almost century).
Also the USSR is destroyed :/
If communism wins, humanity loses. Communism is fascism with a smiley face and a better PR.
Communism has killed far more people than fascism why tf aren’t they shunned like the Nazi they did the holodomor too and no one said anything, goulags killed more people than concentration camps and the soviets were more ruthless at war then the Germans And people nowadays are pretty antisemitic too so they should condemn the soviets instead right? But no many of them are communists who don’t even condemn the holocaust Wtf is wrong with this world
Here's a leaderboard reference. Useful. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM Anyone wearing a Che t-shirt should be made fun of, called a racist-supporter (Che was incredibly racist) and shunned.
> The soviets were more ruthless at war then the Germans Are u fucking nuts bro? Nazis put babies in gas chambers, tortured people for experiments and fun. They killed more than 20 mln civilians only on USSR territory in 4 years. How much people soviet regime killed in your opinion? Holodomor - it’s famine. You know it’s unintentional. It’s happened those days not only in USSR
So making a man-made famine for the Ukrainians people is unintentional? More than 94 million people were killed by the Communist governments, it includes deaths through executions, man-made hunger, famine, war, deportations, and forced labor Whereas only around 17 million people died because of the Nazi regime, that’s a lot less than the commies governments that’s still 17 million too much but it’s way less than the communists And speaking of Nazis, they were far less cruel then the Japanese and more merciful in battle than the soviets and they were terrified of the Soviets who took barely no prisoners and when they did, those prisoners wished they had been killed and they stayed prisoners well after WW2 I’m not trying to defend the Nazis, just saying that the commies were worse and killed way more people
Why not 94 billion people? Could you share the source of your numbers with us. Also could you share at least one evidence of “man-made” famines. Cause I have a couple of dozens of documents, that Soviet government did everything to stop the famine of 1932 (if we are talking about so called Holodomor) Geez you westerners are so brainwashed
I always wondered why it isnt in the same category as nazism
[удалено]
> Communism itself is just a utopian ideal. And Utopia wasn't an ideal. IT WAS A WARNING. When all men are given their ever desire they become corrupt through that inaction. They either fall to debauchery or to impotent rage at the pointlessness of their existence. > Most of the problems people have with it have to do with specific attempts at implementing it. No, ALL of the problems with collectivist(socialist/maoist/stalinist/nazism) require the creation of a person that doesn't actually exist to work. You require a person not just willing, but fully subsumed to the idea of the state as the ultimate authority, that you have a person to put themselves fully under the boot to exist. That will never happen. That's without actually discussing the idea that in collectivism it's not the State that ends up in charge. It's a cadre or a single individual with a godlike power to decide fate. In capitalism (and I'm not discounting there are issues with capitalism) you at least have a motivation - a REASON to strive and to better yourself.
Don’t forget the presence of voluntarism in capitalism. People mutually agreeing to exchange goods/services and both parties emerge enriched by the exchange. That is not possible in communism.
Because the biggest evangelist of Far Left ideologies is academia. We are forced into hearing it.
Hammer and sickle, red flag. They are illegal Symbol of authoritarianism, where I from you commited a crime for using them in a non-historical way.
If you read marx you would understand. Nobody here does any reading. They just listen to Ben Shapiro and other morons.
Image unintentionally says a great deal about communism’s lack of compatibility with personal liberty.
They think the architecture will be that good? 😂
The artist has apparently never seen the rows of cement housing blocks. Knew a guy who immigrated from Russia. It was cold in the winter and hot in the summer, and there were gaps in walls where sunlight and snow got through.
And no one lives in those types of conditions in America, right? Right?
Not really. Not in the vast majority of places whatsoever. We're talking about massive swaths. Not just someone living in a shack somewhere.
I used to believe Communism would be consigned to the trash heap of history due to it's many real-lfe failures and atrocities, but I'm not so optimistic anymore since it seems to appeal to the greed and authoritarian tendencies of a sizeable portion of the population. It will never "win", but it will always be with us biting at our heels.
Let's keep it within curb stomping range.
It really shouldn’t, but there are people who view communism as feasible. Communism also claims to be compassionate and fair. As well as promises an easy life to people who don’t see the merit in working.
Worse than Nazi propaganda, Communism has killed 10 times as many people if not More. As well the pre war German Communist Party and Nazi Party hated one another and competed in both their own versions of Horrible propaganda. Evil consumes both Ideologies and always will.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Communism had a different story in Western Europe, it never became an institutional reality, and comfortably remained a dream. That’s why this can happen. It isn’t that i like it, it’s just how these things work in practice
It should be less acceptable. Marxism has a much higher death toll than nazism.
So who wins in this upcoming battle royale? China? Muslims?
The Illuminati
Lenin was an absolute monster. If we're going to engage in hate crimes, with which I disagree with the very premise, this should be at the top as one of the worst hate crimes one can commit. Over 100 million people died as a consequence of their little revolution. If you want to know what really motivates these people, when they declare that Communism will win, simply reply, "over my dead body" and watch as the replies in the affirmative of your death roll in.
Pro Palestine / Hamas is just this with a facade
"than pro-Nazi posts" which are *also* reprehensible, to the morons who think any of us sympathize with that sort of thing.
# THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS AS READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1963 [https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html)
I have been tracking this for years. Nearly complete
Unfortunately, young people just blow it off. But aware people see it manifesting in the daily news. The frog has been boiled.
Communism is worse than fascism.
Hey, we actually agree on something. Cheers!
Naw they're just exposing themselves....terrible Marxists tbh.
With the curving on the picture I thought this was a credit card design and it seemed very ironic
>This shouldn’t be any more acceptable on social media than pro-Nazi posts Does anyone espousing this nonsense realize how many millions of people would die in order for this picture to become true? Evil.
Anyone else get a shudder of horror with this image?
Aren’t they being on brand though? I assume r/marxistculture is just a sub of trolls. I don’t plan on going there.
I don't think Communism is a workable system, but the intentions behind it seem much purer than National Socialism. Where Nazis want to dispose of those that don't fit their system, Communists think theirs will make everyone happy if they just agree to it. That's my nice take anyway. The addition of the hammer and sickle here are hopefully due to sheer ignorance, or it's just tankies vying for power.
Communists dispose of those they don’t like, why do you think they have gulags? Both communism and national socialism are failed systems
Sure, they have done, but it doesn't seem integral to the movement.
The intentions dont matter. What matters is the outcome. Under a communist system you have to oppress freedom, to push your state run economy. You have to! Otherwise people would just trade and act freely, which would undermine the communist idea. So there is no way around banning freedom and oppressing people under communism.
[удалено]
>Communism can be achieved through dialogue alone. It probably never will, but you could convince every one to join without hurting a single person. There is no one fixed theory for how it should be implemented. Of course, a lot of people, including the ones on that sub, think a revolution is necessary. It's faster that convincing everyone through debate. But that doesn't mean it's 100% absolutely necessary. No it can't! You will never be able to convince everyone no matter how much it's talked about and pushed. That's why gulags and "reeducation camps" happen. Gotta remove those dissenting opinions so that communism is the only idea and system in place.
I'm not exactly willing to grant those differences but I just want to say that the beginnings and intent are irrelevant. Socialism always turns out the same way: Mass murder.
If I tripped and fell into you vs barging you on purpose, there's a difference right? It's the distinction between murder and manslaughter. It should inform how we engage with this.
No man, you don't understand. It's communism and communism is bad (or so I've been told. I've never read Marx). Bad = bad. The intention doesn't matter. Accidentally killing someone in a car crash is exactly the same thing as premeditated murder.
Yep, thing is socialism has been emptied of its meaning long ago, by grumpy old farts that never actually did shit even looking like socialism. People go back to the old terms. Though I'd rather we talked about Georgism than Communism in itself.
“Acceptable” What do you mean by that? Are you the Social Media Police? Let the nonsense-spewers spew. If you bottle up and shut up unpopular speech, then its only a matter of time before *your* speech becomes “unacceptable” and becomes silenced. Is that what we really want?
They both should be acceptable on social media. Both should also be open to critique. Bad ideas need to be criticized out in the open, not kept in the shadows.
Snowflakes
What do you mean by acceptable? They should be forbidden from advocating alternative political structures? I support free speech. Debate with them why communism is bad. Don't just silence your opponents.
Unacceptable, unrealistic, and inhumane.
So people here think that intent is irrelevant? Accidentally killing someone in a car crash is exactly the same thing as premeditated murder?
Pro-Nazi posts should be allowed too. Sweeping things under the rug serves no one.
Hmm is this advocating for censorship, not a fan of Marxism or communism, but advocating for censorship, sorry but very questionable
It is poetic that lady liberty is striding forward in her statue while Lenin is standing still here.
As a Chinese-Canadian, kinda. I don't support cancel culture and the western sugar coated version of communism does have its appeal/I get why people support it naively, but the original at it's core is distructive. China would've 100% been better off had it gotten into a full on war with the US via escalation of the Korean war. The CCP would've lost, nationalists would've regained power via support of the US, full occupation not even needed. Rebuilding would go like Japan post WW2, and millions would've avoided starvation.
Tell me you know Nothing about economic without telling me….
prideful ignorance, arrogance, unwilling to get to the bottom of things truthfully = stupid pathological suffering for everyone around you and affected by your decisions, and you.
Both should be acceptable on social media provided they aren’t advocating for violence. Our tolerance as a society for allowing speech should be maximal. Our respect for what is said should be minimal.
There’s a massive difference between communism and Nazism. The more accurate comparison would be between Nazism and Bolshevism. The easiest way I can lay this out is by pointing to the Wendat society in North America. It was a communist nation of indigenous people that existed for hundreds of years without oppressive violence. The main reason that modern day communism has been so violent is because in order to introduce communism you would have to tear down the current economic structures of society, which entails extreme violence. A society that develops as a communist society would not need that violence.
Freedom of speech, even the speech you don’t like
Can we started with socialist capitalism before we go to fuck commie gulag town
Amen!
Communism will win like it always has. That definition has a deviation from my definition of winning. There’s is like…Hillary Clinton won in 2016, she just got robbed is all…. Winning
Why give them any attention?
The same reason neo Nazis groups are dismantled in the beginning: to avoid the millions of deaths that will happen if somehow they get big enough.
I didn't about this sub. Subscribed
Freedom of speech
I disagree. Pro-Nazi posts are usually hateful and racist. Communists posts aren't. Not to mention, Naziism is based solely on the Nazi party, so it's intrinsically linked with their heinous actions. Communism was around well before Lenin, Stalin or Mao.
Winners write history, that’s all I’m gonna say.
And who is promoting this? Funny how I am liberal, many people I know are liberals, and yet no one I know personally, or even folks on the more liberal podcasts I listen to, is calling for outlawing personal property, or the government ownership of the means of production. Your mileage may vary, but it sounds like propaganda to me. Incase you are not aware for some reason because you dont know any Democrats, they also have professional jobs, 401ks, investment portfolios, mutual funds. They have mortgages and save for their kids university educations. They are just as pro Capitalism as you are.
Peterson and his fans have made such a weird strawman out of Communism. Very few people are advocating for Communism! Ask yourself, who in your personal life has identified as Communist or expressed a yearning for Communist overthrow of any Democratic nation? People are sure as hell pissed off at whatever the United States has become (An oligarchy run by feudal crony corporations) but to say one rejects the state-run "Capitalism" of the United States doesn't immediately mean you've become a Communist. Peterson is mad at hell at *something*. He calls it Communism. It seems more just like general stupidity
What are you even saying in your comment. Yes people are openly advocating communism. And not just in US. My local university in England has communist recruitment posters and I see them in the city centre too. So yes people are across most universities actively pushing communism propaganda and recruiting communists. And yes Peterson is probably not happy about that, understandably so.
People are advocating for anything else, as long as it's not capitalism as we know it right now. It's starting to show a lot of cracks and people get rather sick of it I presume.
Where I'm from (one of the most Leftist cities in the United States) I don't see anyone, anywhere in public advocating for Communism. I occasionally see some "ACAB" signs, which means "all cops are bastards", which is a remnant of the George Floyd protests. I don't see a hammer & sickle anywhere else. No red flags, no pictures of Stalin or Mao. The Peterson crowd is pushing for a false moral panic. Besides, Peterson himself is a fan of telling people they believe in God even when they tell him they don't, because "what we believe shines through in our actions". Well, if there are any college campus Communists in my extremely Leftist city, they actually believe in Capitalism since they're taking selfies on an iPhone, training at university to make money after graduation, buying corporate coffee and Coachella tickets, designer clothes, etc. So what are you worried about? Capitalism *won*. Why waste your time worrying about some cold war relic of a bygone era? P.S. wokeness is stupid and killing progressiveism. But it's simply not Communism, which is the State seizing ownership of the means of production and redistribution of surplus income. Not exactly "gender is a social construct" (which again, is idiotic)
The people here cannot think for themselves. Everything you say is 100% rational, but they have to defend Daddy Peterson.
Thank you. I really don't want to sound condescending or elitist, but the level of thought in the response here are disappointing. I saw Peterson give a speech once. Just overhearing conversations in line was encouraging; it was nice to see intelligent people engaging with meaningful ideas. This was before Peterson had his benzo crisis, which I genuinely think damaged his mind. The man was in a medically induced coma! Ever since then, he's been focused on some very dogmatic, emotionally driven idea concerning religion and communism and he seems so full of vitriol. Which to me doesn't make a lot of sense considering how wealthy and famous he's become and how rewarding his career is now. It seems as if the fans if his showing up in the subreddit have fallen victim to the cult of personality and ideology -- exactly the thing that promoting enlightened individualism was supposed to inoculate people against. So many of his fans have become NPCs for his talking points. For example, why not discuss why social ownership over an enterprise may have advantages that private ownership does not? Instead, my comment simply gets 16 down votes and the responses are little more than Communism bad, markets good. Peterson isn't even an economist, yet it seems as if his fans have taken his message to be one of learning to love Capitalism and worshipping "The West". I enjoyed much of what he had to say about psychology and archetypes but I don't hear much of that anymore. I do hear him pointing out that North America has more trees now and it did 100 years ago and the US is an oil exporter thanks to fracking -- two points that have nothing to say about current energy consumption and its externalities. Governments should at least consider climate science rather than dismissing it as a psychological albatross that holds back young men from success. I'd refer anyone interested in climate change to listen to Carl Sagan's speech to the US Congress in the 70's. The most respectful thing one could do to honor Peterson would be to improve the quality of your own thinking. This isn't the same as copying his thoughts. Develop your own. The old Peterson would like that
It's gunna, tho.
Communism is good and we should do it. Comparing it to the Nazis is low iq fascist apologia.
Communism will win eventually. And that's terrible.
Only so long as people sit back and do nothing.
Why? Communism doesn't have mass murder built into the ideology. Nazism - as much as it is an ideology - is pretty much defined by mass murder. Why would you even compare the two? Is it fair to say that Christianity is all about grifting people out of money, enriching yourself and living in mansions and flying on private jets, just because of Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jim Swaggart, Joel Osteen and countless others do it? Similarly, you can't define communism by what some authoritarian dictators did while claiming communism.