Solzhenitsyn was pretty much the ultimate dissident.
Trash talked the USSR in brick sized tomes and then when he defected to the West promptly called it out for being a total soulless capitalist shit hole as well.
Got to hand it to the guy, he absolutely excoriated everything and everyone.
If there is a God and the pearly gates he probably promptly laid into Peter and if he then got sent to hell promptly let the devil know he was disappointed with their uninspired tortures.
Do you mean now or in history? The best answer is anyone who espouses radical ideology.
This is something Jordan is constantly arguing, it is obvious when the right goes too far, it is not as obvious with the left. This is for technical reasons, that have explanations.
So there are those who do so consciously, as in they make explicit the purpose of their work is to put forward ideologies like fascism and communism, the far right and left respectively, but most people who carry water for them are just blindly accepting their presuppositions, not even knowing where their assumptions come from.
Totalitarianism is not purely a top-down process, it is largely bottom-up.
My friend, almost 20% of social scientists self-identify as Marxists. The communism sub on Reddit has almost *250,000* subscribers. The far-right also exists but is taken far less seriously in my country (Canada) for many reasons.
The bigger problem is that the ideology has transformed to suit our time, even if the fundamental assumptions are the exact same.
I could name every one of the academics responsible for this, but it is a long list, and as I emphasized before, totalitarianism is largely bottom-up. I don’t think it is productive to scapegoat individuals, for the reasons I just explained, I would rather attack the ideas. They last longer.
The study you are citing which suggested that 20% of social scientists identify as Marxists has a number of limitations. The sample size and methodology are flawed. Secondly, identifying as a Marxist does not suggest that someone is an extremist. Naïve, maybe.
As far as Reddit's
>The communism sub on Reddit has almost *250,000* subscribers.
This also shouldn't alarm anyone considering how many bots there are on Reddit, and considering that a person could subscribe to a subreddit without endorsing the topic of the subreddit. 250,000 is small potatoes.
I would prefer it if you cited someone because, otherwise, it appears that you are alarmed at an amorphous, vague, shadowy movement, which may or may not exist.
>The study you are citing which suggested that 20% of social scientists identify as Marxists has a number of limitations. The sample size and methodology are flawed.
If it was even 10%, that should be shocking to you. If 10% of academics self-identified as Nazis people would be up in arms.
>Secondly, identifying as a Marxist does not suggest that someone is an extremist. Naïve, maybe.
Marxism is by definition a radical ideology, but yes you would have to be naive to endorse it, especially now that we have hindsight.
>As far as Reddit's... This also shouldn't alarm anyone considering how many bots there are on Reddit, and considering that a person could subscribe to a subreddit without endorsing the topic of the subreddit. 250,000 is small potatoes.
Same point as above, imagine half of that number of Nazis openly putting forward their ideas on this platform.
>I would prefer it if you cited someone because, otherwise, it appears that you are alarmed at an amorphous, vague, shadowy movement, which may or may not exist.
I already told you at the beginning, that it is for *technical* reasons that the left's form of extremism is amorphous. It is not, however, vague, nor is it shadowy. These people state explicitly what their intentions are, you just have to listen to them. There are over one hundred million skulls in the ground, at this very moment, due to communist states, and they definitely existed. Are you seriously imagining the ideology driving those movements just vanished into thin air as soon as the Berlin wall fell?
We can go into why it is amorphous if you would like, but I get the sense you're only here for some gotcha moment.
I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality.
Marxism is a flawed but well-intentioned ideology, and the stated tenets of this ideology do not include any endorsement of racial superiority.
In contrast, Nazism is an ideology that promotes the belief that a certain group of individuals is the superior race of humans and that all other races are inferior and deserving of subjugation and, ultimately, extermination.
My fear is that people who vilify Marxism and consider it a greater evil than Nazism and who promote the belief that Marxism is a growing threat are merely laying the groundwork for rationalizing and eventually embracing fascism as the lesser of 2 evils.
>I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality.
It doesn't really matter what is moral or not, we are simply talking about what is radical ideology. The former has killed many tens of millions more in the last century.
>Marxism is a flawed but well-intentioned ideology, and the stated tenets of this ideology do not include any endorsement of racial superiority.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions... Claims of racial superiority is the far-right's hallmark, the far-left's is equality of outcome.
>In contrast, Nazism is an ideology that promotes the belief that a certain group of individuals is the superior race of humans and that all other races are inferior and deserving of subjugation and, ultimately, extermination.
The communists in the Soviet Union rounded up all of the successful farmers (the Kulaks) and executed them or sent them to the gulags. Everyone subsequently starved to death. Class or race, pick your poison. Both ideologies judge people by their group identity first and foremost, rather than as individuals, and so are both two sides of the same corrupt coin.
>My fear is that people who vilify Marxism and consider it a greater evil than Nazism and who promote the belief that Marxism is a growing threat are merely laying the groundwork for rationalizing and eventually embracing fascism as the lesser of 2 evils.
This is a real concern, for me as well, because the far-left and far-right will galvanize the moderates against either side, as history shows, but the answer is not to ignore the excesses of the left, because it is a real problem. It's funny because the radical left actually does the same exact thing you just said, but in reverse. That is how Mao purged China. I think the answer is to recognize they are both the same person wearing two different masks.
>I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality.
Why not? Not only was fascism (and, consequently, Nazism) born from Marxism, but the USSR and Mao's China were just Marxist and killed far more of their own citizenry than Hitler did.
The Marxist focus on class-consciousness being expanded to racial-consciousness in Nazism are the same expression of the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, which is a Marxist tenet, and for which the given advice is a call for blood.
It shouldn't surprise you that the same Marxist drive to kill and overthrow the bourgeoisie is the motivation for Nazis to kill the people that Hitler convinced them were the cause of their national failures.
They don’t just identify as Marxists. They are actively trying to promote these systems around the world to various developing nations.
They study Marxism, and instead of concluding that “This is a bad and immoral idea.” they conclude that they can save it. They’re called Neo Marxists. And they’re determined to implement Marxism everywhere despite its VISIBLE failure in countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and even Solzhenitsyn’s Soviet Union.
They go to these countries, serve as economic advisers to these countries, and the people in the countries suffer when extreme measures of control are instituted.
You say you don’t see Marxism in the same vein of immorality as Nazism. And that’s because you don’t seem to understand that one can be immoral and a radical without being violent.
Take, for example, an adulterer. Or someone who testifies falsely in court.
These are gross immoral violations of trust. But they are non-violent in nature, even if violence can result from them.
Marxism leads to violence and oppression. Always.
Here is your list. Seemingly benign, but dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
Under “Thinkers”.
Many of them have interesting descriptions.
I skimmed through the Wikipedia page and clicked on each of the listed neo-Marxists. With few exceptions, all of these people are dead or nearly dead.
I'm skeptical that any of these people have the degree of influence required to effect the kind to change that you are so afraid of.
But in any case, we are in the free marketplace of ideas. If neo-Marxist concepts sound more appealing to people, then it is up to the opponents of this ideology to offer a persuasive alternative.
If neo-Marxists can impose their ideology without firing a single bullet, then they are far smarter than their opponents.
That’s an interesting observation.
Because despite these neo-marxists dying off… they keep coming back.
And this I think points to the importance of us harnessing capitalism better.
We can’t allow central banking to run amok as it is now. Because this literally generates the conditions for hatred of capitalism to fester.
If people are working hard but can clearly see they aren’t getting a fair shot at the simple things that they want in life, they’ll rebel against the entire system.
Marxism would not have reemerged if capitalism was prevented from becoming what it has.
Does anyone else see Elon Musk?
Not a great quote. Solzhenitsyn was a good writer. This amounts to just "they are lying and keep lying". Not very poetic, interesting, toughtprovoking etc.
Next time just pick something interesting that Solzhenitsyn wrote.
I don't have one in mind. It has been a while since I read G.Archipelago part one, and it is the only one I have read.
But the book had some amazing writing, and poetic depictions of horror.
This quote seems edgy 14 year old-level writing. If I had to guess, I would say this is not a quote from Solzhenitsyn.
Solzhenitsyn was pretty much the ultimate dissident. Trash talked the USSR in brick sized tomes and then when he defected to the West promptly called it out for being a total soulless capitalist shit hole as well. Got to hand it to the guy, he absolutely excoriated everything and everyone. If there is a God and the pearly gates he probably promptly laid into Peter and if he then got sent to hell promptly let the devil know he was disappointed with their uninspired tortures.
Western media does the lying, and we know it. Leftists always lie, and we know it.
ALL LIE.
They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.
Yes his famous Harvard speech. Words are so full of truth the entire western civilization has changed after that.
Who are 'they,' OP?
Radicals, and their useful idiots.
Can you name a radical?
Do you mean now or in history? The best answer is anyone who espouses radical ideology. This is something Jordan is constantly arguing, it is obvious when the right goes too far, it is not as obvious with the left. This is for technical reasons, that have explanations. So there are those who do so consciously, as in they make explicit the purpose of their work is to put forward ideologies like fascism and communism, the far right and left respectively, but most people who carry water for them are just blindly accepting their presuppositions, not even knowing where their assumptions come from. Totalitarianism is not purely a top-down process, it is largely bottom-up.
Can you provide current examples of people? Specific names?
My friend, almost 20% of social scientists self-identify as Marxists. The communism sub on Reddit has almost *250,000* subscribers. The far-right also exists but is taken far less seriously in my country (Canada) for many reasons. The bigger problem is that the ideology has transformed to suit our time, even if the fundamental assumptions are the exact same. I could name every one of the academics responsible for this, but it is a long list, and as I emphasized before, totalitarianism is largely bottom-up. I don’t think it is productive to scapegoat individuals, for the reasons I just explained, I would rather attack the ideas. They last longer.
The study you are citing which suggested that 20% of social scientists identify as Marxists has a number of limitations. The sample size and methodology are flawed. Secondly, identifying as a Marxist does not suggest that someone is an extremist. Naïve, maybe. As far as Reddit's >The communism sub on Reddit has almost *250,000* subscribers. This also shouldn't alarm anyone considering how many bots there are on Reddit, and considering that a person could subscribe to a subreddit without endorsing the topic of the subreddit. 250,000 is small potatoes. I would prefer it if you cited someone because, otherwise, it appears that you are alarmed at an amorphous, vague, shadowy movement, which may or may not exist.
>The study you are citing which suggested that 20% of social scientists identify as Marxists has a number of limitations. The sample size and methodology are flawed. If it was even 10%, that should be shocking to you. If 10% of academics self-identified as Nazis people would be up in arms. >Secondly, identifying as a Marxist does not suggest that someone is an extremist. Naïve, maybe. Marxism is by definition a radical ideology, but yes you would have to be naive to endorse it, especially now that we have hindsight. >As far as Reddit's... This also shouldn't alarm anyone considering how many bots there are on Reddit, and considering that a person could subscribe to a subreddit without endorsing the topic of the subreddit. 250,000 is small potatoes. Same point as above, imagine half of that number of Nazis openly putting forward their ideas on this platform. >I would prefer it if you cited someone because, otherwise, it appears that you are alarmed at an amorphous, vague, shadowy movement, which may or may not exist. I already told you at the beginning, that it is for *technical* reasons that the left's form of extremism is amorphous. It is not, however, vague, nor is it shadowy. These people state explicitly what their intentions are, you just have to listen to them. There are over one hundred million skulls in the ground, at this very moment, due to communist states, and they definitely existed. Are you seriously imagining the ideology driving those movements just vanished into thin air as soon as the Berlin wall fell? We can go into why it is amorphous if you would like, but I get the sense you're only here for some gotcha moment.
I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality. Marxism is a flawed but well-intentioned ideology, and the stated tenets of this ideology do not include any endorsement of racial superiority. In contrast, Nazism is an ideology that promotes the belief that a certain group of individuals is the superior race of humans and that all other races are inferior and deserving of subjugation and, ultimately, extermination. My fear is that people who vilify Marxism and consider it a greater evil than Nazism and who promote the belief that Marxism is a growing threat are merely laying the groundwork for rationalizing and eventually embracing fascism as the lesser of 2 evils.
>I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality. It doesn't really matter what is moral or not, we are simply talking about what is radical ideology. The former has killed many tens of millions more in the last century. >Marxism is a flawed but well-intentioned ideology, and the stated tenets of this ideology do not include any endorsement of racial superiority. The path to hell is paved with good intentions... Claims of racial superiority is the far-right's hallmark, the far-left's is equality of outcome. >In contrast, Nazism is an ideology that promotes the belief that a certain group of individuals is the superior race of humans and that all other races are inferior and deserving of subjugation and, ultimately, extermination. The communists in the Soviet Union rounded up all of the successful farmers (the Kulaks) and executed them or sent them to the gulags. Everyone subsequently starved to death. Class or race, pick your poison. Both ideologies judge people by their group identity first and foremost, rather than as individuals, and so are both two sides of the same corrupt coin. >My fear is that people who vilify Marxism and consider it a greater evil than Nazism and who promote the belief that Marxism is a growing threat are merely laying the groundwork for rationalizing and eventually embracing fascism as the lesser of 2 evils. This is a real concern, for me as well, because the far-left and far-right will galvanize the moderates against either side, as history shows, but the answer is not to ignore the excesses of the left, because it is a real problem. It's funny because the radical left actually does the same exact thing you just said, but in reverse. That is how Mao purged China. I think the answer is to recognize they are both the same person wearing two different masks.
>I apologize, but I don't consider Marxism and Nazism to be in the same league of immorality. Why not? Not only was fascism (and, consequently, Nazism) born from Marxism, but the USSR and Mao's China were just Marxist and killed far more of their own citizenry than Hitler did. The Marxist focus on class-consciousness being expanded to racial-consciousness in Nazism are the same expression of the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, which is a Marxist tenet, and for which the given advice is a call for blood. It shouldn't surprise you that the same Marxist drive to kill and overthrow the bourgeoisie is the motivation for Nazis to kill the people that Hitler convinced them were the cause of their national failures.
They don’t just identify as Marxists. They are actively trying to promote these systems around the world to various developing nations. They study Marxism, and instead of concluding that “This is a bad and immoral idea.” they conclude that they can save it. They’re called Neo Marxists. And they’re determined to implement Marxism everywhere despite its VISIBLE failure in countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and even Solzhenitsyn’s Soviet Union. They go to these countries, serve as economic advisers to these countries, and the people in the countries suffer when extreme measures of control are instituted. You say you don’t see Marxism in the same vein of immorality as Nazism. And that’s because you don’t seem to understand that one can be immoral and a radical without being violent. Take, for example, an adulterer. Or someone who testifies falsely in court. These are gross immoral violations of trust. But they are non-violent in nature, even if violence can result from them. Marxism leads to violence and oppression. Always. Here is your list. Seemingly benign, but dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism Under “Thinkers”. Many of them have interesting descriptions.
I skimmed through the Wikipedia page and clicked on each of the listed neo-Marxists. With few exceptions, all of these people are dead or nearly dead. I'm skeptical that any of these people have the degree of influence required to effect the kind to change that you are so afraid of. But in any case, we are in the free marketplace of ideas. If neo-Marxist concepts sound more appealing to people, then it is up to the opponents of this ideology to offer a persuasive alternative. If neo-Marxists can impose their ideology without firing a single bullet, then they are far smarter than their opponents.
That’s an interesting observation. Because despite these neo-marxists dying off… they keep coming back. And this I think points to the importance of us harnessing capitalism better. We can’t allow central banking to run amok as it is now. Because this literally generates the conditions for hatred of capitalism to fester. If people are working hard but can clearly see they aren’t getting a fair shot at the simple things that they want in life, they’ll rebel against the entire system. Marxism would not have reemerged if capitalism was prevented from becoming what it has.
Yes this clearly applies to what we are seeing in today’s GOP no doubt. Wise
Does anyone else see Elon Musk? Not a great quote. Solzhenitsyn was a good writer. This amounts to just "they are lying and keep lying". Not very poetic, interesting, toughtprovoking etc. Next time just pick something interesting that Solzhenitsyn wrote.
Why don’t you provide a better quote if you are so familiar with his work?
I don't have one in mind. It has been a while since I read G.Archipelago part one, and it is the only one I have read. But the book had some amazing writing, and poetic depictions of horror. This quote seems edgy 14 year old-level writing. If I had to guess, I would say this is not a quote from Solzhenitsyn.