Communism was demonized because it was hijacked by fools that created the USSR and CCCP- two states that were/are definitely not Communist except in name, and that perpetrated many atrocities against their own people.

Communism as an ideal endgame isn't a bad thing. But all attempted implementations have fallen victim to human nature. I don't think we will accomplish real Socialism/Communism until we establish a post-scarcity environment- and that is easier said than done.

Not a bad end game? Another complete fucking idiot.

Kk.

Communists aren't human

The Communists in Russia were killed off pretty fast and replaced with a totalitarian police state that the west demonized as, Communist.

And Cuba? and NK? and Venezuela? and Communist China? Why was there such a massive influx of Cubans to Miami if Communist Cuba was such a paradise?

Those people were running from Cuba because they loved the dictator Batista. Naturally there would be dangers.

Will our Russian aligned perps flee to Russia if they lose this war we are currently engaged in?

You’ve clearly never lived under Communist rule. All these pseudo-intellectuals living in the West who think Communism is good would not survive a day in it. The only reason you think it would be good for you is because you’ve never witnessed it first hand.

And if it could be demonstrated people who lived in socialist states preferred them to capitalism?

Unfortunately we live in a world where that is not usually possible. But look at anyone who escaped socialism and moved to the west; they will tell you which they prefer.

well yeah, they left because they didn't like it, not very surprising on that front.

from this source you can see there's about an even split of people in former soviet countries that thought communism was better than capitalism. clearly not the black and white picture you painted in your original comment.

Jordan Peterson's "that's not real communism" fallacy description....https://youtu.be/OlB_xNOAn1c

He’s a great man.

He is.

His Q&A at Lafayette on youtube is worth watching.

Peterson has never read anything on Marxism beyond pop-culture memes He's a professor of psychology but that doesn't mean he can't talk intelligently about political theory. He can't talk intelligently about Marxism because he has never read a primary source on Marxism. In other words, he's talking out of his ass.

Peterson has probably read more about Marxism than you know exists.

For fucks sake he read the entire gulag archipelago which I couldn't even finish out of sheer boredom and staleness. There is only so many ways to deprive people of their dignity and live.

But out of curiosity what is the source of your claim that he has never read a primary source on Marxism, and be specific. What do you qualify as a primary source on Marxism? Obviously I would assume Marx himself is a primary source but if linked a video of Peterson discussing his detailed studies of Marx's writings you would probably move the goal posts.

Go ahead and link a video of the good Dr. of Psychology discussing his detailed studies of Marx's writings.

https://youtu.be/HRsXdS4R6vo

Maximum triggering, Jordan Peterson talking negatively about poor oppressed Marx while at a Trump hotel.

Enjoy

Welp I wasted 12 minutes trying to find where during the video he makes a specific critique of Marxist theory. He doesn't argue with any familiarity of theory or texts. He's arguing non-specifically like a poor student who has not done the assigned reading.

Solzhenitsen was a gulagged reactionary dissident. You can find jailed dissidents in any country.

Lol it's funny really. How modern defenders of communism are a holographic copy of the same people who caused so many millions to die in the past. Any criticism is explained away, dissidents are just purged and their service to the revolution glossed over. Hilarious, it's like a performance art.

Actually you are the carbon copy. You see the world as a good vs evil cartoon. We see the world as process of historical development through power struggles between class interests.

You see the world as a good vs evil cartoon.

As opposed to the oppressed versus the oppressors?

Assuming you're right about my world view (you're not) isn't it kind of silly to criticize someone for seeing good versus evil when your own ideology is hilariously similar in it's simpleton friendly class definitions?

We see the world as process of historical development through power struggles between class interests.

Okay well a process of historical development is just a fruity way of saying history. Which is probably accurate since you're all obsessed with a failed ideology from history. One that was born in the same cradle as Nazism and only survived a little longer than Nazism because of mutually assured destruction.

If we're honest with ourselves here Nazism would have survived longer than Communism if both had been left alone to experience the "process of historical development". Thank God that's not the case it's bad enough we had to put up with communist as long as we did.

Have a great day.

What has the US capitalist state done to its dissidents like Geronimo, Leonard Peltier, Malcolm X, MLK, Chelsea Manning?

I discuss ideas and theory. You regurgitate propaganda.

I discuss ideas and theories too, that's why we're talking. You seem to prefer to spend more time discussing the faults of the person presenting the ideas, like your criticisms of Jordan Peterson and I instead of considering the merits of the philosophies like Marxism/capitalism. The entire reason I'm talking to you is that you failed to defend Marxism and instead attacked Peterson as ignorant of Karl Marx.

I guarantee you that Peterson is familiar with Marx's writings regardless of the fact he doesn't promote them.

What has the US capitalist state done to its dissidents like Geronimo, Leonard Peltier, Malcolm X, MLK, Chelsea Manning?

Yes we have handled some dissidents poorly. But it's a testimonial to the superiority of our society and government that there hasn't been 100,000,000 "dissidents" and that we don't actually have a law on the books criminalizing dissident behavior.

No system is perfect so you'll be able to point out different ways in which our system isn't perfect all week long but I'll be able to counter with evidence that we are imperfectly better than the communist alternative.

As far as regurgitation of propaganda goes, I would take your movement more seriously if it was original, different or anything other than a continuation of the now 90 year old communist revolutionary BS.

I'll purge myself to the door.

"Stalin killed one hundred gorillion dissidents" is a claim with no documents to back it up. It was propagated by MI6 agent Robert Conquest and Timothy Snyder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqfbuKhnHTY

90 years is nothing on a historical timescale. We are only in the beginning of the socialist era.

You, like Peterson, only argue from pop-culture memes. Read the source literature.

Read the source literature.

But you discount any that doesn't frame communist Utopia as great and splendid. There is no historical literature about it's implementation that isn't negative in it's totality. We literally have evidence that it devolves into a purge feast.

No. There is a lot of contradiction among the Marxist writers. Trotsky and Luxembourg have problems with Lenin. Michael Parenti wholeheartedly disagrees with Noam Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, Richard Wolff. We fight amongst ourselves over the best way forward. We generally agree on the end goal of equitable distribution of produced wealth but there is a lot of disagreement on how to administer it and the strategies to get there. We have a goal. We are in the debating stage of formulating the process to get there.

You have no familiarity with theory and neither does Peterson. You both are posers. It's like if I went to the American Medical Association and spout the argument that bloodletting is a viable medical procedure because I read some quacks who support it.

You cannot formulate the Why and the How the theory is invalid without resorting the arbitrary "human nature" argument and the small data sample of the last century. You also ignore the dynamics of geopolitics among the players and make false comparisons. Cuba under Castro is better than Cuba under Batista. Cuba is not as good as Canada because Canada industrialized 100 years before Cuba and the US does not impose a trade embargo on Canada. I am a History major. 90 years is a blink in the timespan of human development.

The process to get there is what nobody wants to repeat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 181524}

The numbers of the purge are greatly exaggerated by Timothy Snyder. He doesn't have the documents to back it up. Wikipedia is pop-culture.

Purges of counter-revolutionary agents are necessary otherwise the revolution fails, the old regime gets back into power, and the revolutionaries are executed. This happens in every revolution. If Robespierre didn't implement the Reign of Terror, the French Revolution would have failed and there would be no liberal ideological model for the American Revolution to copy, so it too would never have happened. Benedict Arnold was purged.

Every drastic change in systems of governance is violent. If everyone is dogmatically against violence like you, then we would all still be worshipping the feet of pharaohs. You are a coward, a reactionary, and what was referred to in the Antebellum period as a House Ni**er.

"**" does not remove intent. Removed rule 10.

Yeah. Have to be a member of the priesthood to comment on the religion. Amiright?

You can comment all you want but I wouldn't value your opinion more than someone who has read the foundational literature.

You can comment all you want but I wouldn't value your opinion more than someone who has read the foundational literature.

Oh? What haven't I read? I've read capital volumes one and two, the manifesto, Collier's Marx, countless works by US socialists, namely Norman Thompson (he's legit), dialectic of enlightenment, one thousand plateaus, Adorno "the culture industry", Lenin "On labour unions", among other smaller works. The fact that you choose not to even engage in discussion with someone critical of your world view clearly shows the religious nature of your belief system, or B.S.

1. First we were talking about Peterson, now you want to make it about yourself.

2. I'm glad you're read some texts. What do you find wrong with Marx's critique of capitalism and the need to replace it with a worker-run system of production?

3. You're generally an asshole but I'm tolerant.

My problems arise in a metaphysical sence. Capitalism and communism are a false dichotomy.

I am neither.

My problem isn't with Marxism and its critique of capitalism, it is with the poor knowledge of human nature and incentive systems. Marxism works on paper, but when applied greed overrides the greater good of "communism".

I agree with you that capitalism and communism is a false dichotomy. They don't oppose each other as much as one will grow out of the death of the other. Capitalism will kill itself through it's internal process of concentration and force societies to choose between domination of the rich against the poor or the domination of the poor against the rich. Either way, there will be violence. Just as capitalism grew from the death of feudalism after a period of bloody revolution, so will communism.

Marx's critique of capitalism is almost universally accepted as accurate. How to replace it is the next step and no one has yet figured out how do that. And that's OK. It's a work in progress. Greed and corruption applies to every system. It is not unique to communism. There's no easy answer, it's up to the people to democratically punish and remove corrupt leaders. That will be part of the struggle. It's a long process.

What's your feelings on corporatism?

Capitalism is not the same now as it was in it's early stages. Corporatism is the stage of capitalism where the power of the bourgeois outgrows democracy itself and takes over the levers of the state. There is no purely free market. It has never existed and never will exist. A free market is more of a utopian construct than communism.

Gotta go out now. Will be back later.

Lol oh yeah the second someone makes a argument you suddenly "have to go".

Until this instance I have never made the excuse that I "have to go". What are you talking about?

If you want to understand how the state takes on the ideology of the ruling class I recommend Lenin's State and Revolution

Read it. What about it?

What about it? The state by definition is staffed by the dominant hegemony.

Where did I dispute that??

So you agree with Lenin that the state takes on the ruling ideology. Then we are in agreement capitalist nations are run by the bourgeoisie against the interests of the proletariat.

I don't see one "capitalist nation" in the modern day. Capitalism cannot exist with central and international banks.

Central and international banks are the result of capitalist concentration of wealth.

""capitalist""

Yes "capitalist"

You believe that democracy is essential to the future? Is universal suffrage a part of that?

Without democracy there is only tyranny. Full communism is the telos of democracy.

Lol communism is tyranny.

This comment has the same value as "LOL hurr durr".

Okay, tell me how your particular form of communism functions. How is the economy organized from your reading of the Marxist canon?

The theory is incomplete. There is infighting so far among socialists between Anarchists who want to skip the hard part of defeating the bourgeoisie and Marxist-Leninists like myself who recognize the need for a temporary centralized state to defeat the bourgeoisie. I agree with Lenin that after the revolution all power should go to the soviets, that is, local control of the economy.

And you leave out the anarcho monarchists I see... Very telling.

Because it only exists in your fantasy. Please go write a treatise explaining "anarchy monarchism" and how it will replace the current capitalist system.

I've written many. Feel free to go through my post history.

If no one agrees with you your idea is most likely, but not necessarily, wrong.

If no one agrees with you your idea is most likely, but not necessarily, wrong.

Meaning?

Go publish your treatise and let your peers review it. Until then, I don't want to waste my time on an uneducated crackpot.

Go publish your treatise and let your peers review it. Until then, I don't want to waste my time on an uneducated crackpot.

... I'm not the only person who writes on the subject of anarcho monarchism. I assure you it is a sound political philosophy. Just because you dismiss it doesn't dismiss the existing academia on the subject.

Artificial scarcity is the root of all economic ideology. Understand what is really necessary, then be in control of your own destiny.

I agree about artificial scarcity. There is enough to go around but the greedy don't want to share. I disagree about controlling your own destiny. We live in society. We are not atoms. We work together or we perish separately.

Your destiny, my destiny defines "society".

I don't know what you mean.

We are all the product of our choices. So let's make better choices, ideally together, but first, individually.

Society is an emergent construct, unless you believe you are a product of your environment.

Yes, we make choices individually but individually we are all largely influenced by the way we were brought up i.e. the dominant ideology. Yes I believe we are a product of the accrued culture of human civilization and more specifically our local culture, also allowing for unique permutations.

Because reading the Communist Manifesto is so hard that it requires some sort of bullshit degree to understand it? Fuck that. Peterson has nailed it on the head and you only have to look around and listen to what these radical leftists are spewing to verify it.

What do you think works then? No matter what way it’s ran, it fucking blows, that’s the reality of life. But under capitalism, an individual has many more chances to improve their life than under communism.

You should consider nihilism instead, it’s much more fulfilling than good old pessimism. I agree, life sucks, but there is nothing we can do. Both systems suck, but the reason we are capitalist is the reason we can say that.

Good analysis, unfortunately even the 'free- thinkers' here are mostly brainwashed by anticom rhetoric so good luck getting them to honestly engage

Im anticom because its against nature and man's independence. Godamn commies.

Why is capitalism demonized now?

Because it only benefits the super-rich.

The truth about both communism and capitalism is politically incorrect and therefore impossible to discuss on public forums like this, but essentially both are variations of the same thing, invented by the same group, benefiting the same group, the same organized crime syndicate.

Complete idiot. Variations of the same thing? Complete fucking idiot.

Marx married a literal Rothschild..

???

Look it up.

good one

It's pretty easy.

apparently not

All totalitarian systems are satanic.

Are u fucking kidding

I was thinking of making a post about this a while ago. As such, I don't have the answers either. Good luck getting any.

Antonio Gramsci's idea of [Hegemony]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony is the key word here. Communism is demonized because it goes against the cultural hegemony of the capitalist nation that we live in. There is a ton of academic research that goes against the myths of communist horrors, totalitarianism, and general badness propagated in the popular media but you need to look for it because you will never hear it on TV. [Dr. Grover Furr]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2SokNTdp5c has done a lot of work get to the bottom of things.

Socialism/communism is in it's infancy. The theory is still being developed. The countries that have tried to implement it are first trials, experiments. It took thousands of years for civilization to go from slavery to feudalism to capitalism.

Mao was right. After overthrowing the bourgeois state the new socialist state needs to institute a cultural revolution to destroy the lingering capitalist ideology. The Bolsheviks failed to do this and let revisionist opportunists such as Krushchev and Brezhnev worm their way into the leadership and diverge from Lenin's doctrine of "all power to the soviets". Soviet means workers' council.

Ignore the mouth breathers who can't entertain a new idea of social organization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUWrgLpazwE

Michael Parenti: Anti-Sovietism in the Media 1986

What's your feelings on corporatism?

You believe that democracy is essential to the future? Is universal suffrage a part of that?

Artificial scarcity is the root of all economic ideology. Understand what is really necessary, then be in control of your own destiny.

Read it. What about it?

I don't know what you mean.

The theory is incomplete. There is infighting so far among socialists between Anarchists who want to skip the hard part of defeating the bourgeoisie and Marxist-Leninists like myself who recognize the need for a temporary centralized state to defeat the bourgeoisie. I agree with Lenin that after the revolution all power should go to the soviets, that is, local control of the economy.

The process to get there is what nobody wants to repeat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge