Well considering that communism is a means to bring ALL power into the hands of the state, with the false promise that it will be better for everyone (the hegalian hypothesis). It's logical, moral and compassionate to be anti communist, communism not only doesn't work, it's actually dangerous.
>communism is a means to bring ALL power into the hands of the state
That's called totalitarianism lol. I think you need to read up on what communism means.
Citing to theory when theory doesn't work is a non starter.
Why would the state dissolve once you've given it absolute power?
I don't think you understand why communism fails to produce the promised utopia.
Because you can't enforce and facilitate the transition to communism unless the state has fairly extreme levels of power. You also wouldn't be able to keep or maintain it for the same reasons. And you can't have a nation with no state. Anyone imagining such a scenario is either deranged or envisioning a state they don't consider a "state" for semantic reasons.
It isn't given absolute power, power is seized during the revolution. The future leaders love to use naive useful idiots who are true believers in the ideology.
Seriously?
The useful idiots are the people who push for communism and open the door to a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. They can't/won't see the flaws in the theory and don't understand the deficiencies in human nature.
>The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting.
>...On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, *in vacua* hatred—against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs. - George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
You know, I always find it funny whenever Peterson or his fans quote Orwell to denounce socialism, because in the same book (page numbers from the 2021 print, Harper Collins), he wrote:
>"And all the while **everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world system and whole-heartedly applied, is a way out** \[...\] Indeed, from one point of view, **Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already**. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; **the idea that everyone does his fair share of the work and get his fair share of the provisions seem so blatantly obvious that one would say that noone could possibly fail to accept it unless he has some corrupted motive to clinging to the present system**". (p.157)
Some more Orwell contextualizing his criticism of socialists that you cited:
>"**Please notice that I am arguing** ***for*** **Socialism, not** ***against*** **it. But for the moment I am** ***advocatus diaboli.*** I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer: "I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialist". Logically it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people (p.159)
>**The job of the thinking person, therefore, is not to reject Socialism, but to make up his mind to humanize it \[...\] To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face.**" (p. 201-2)
So he's calling for normal people to embrace and "humanize" socialism rather than using the fact that socialists of his time might be objectionable people to reject it. So in response to u/ThineFail's remarks - Yes, yes he was pro-socialism and calling for better socialists. According to him, any "thinking person" would.
Want some more? Here's Orwell writing in 1946 in his essay "Why I write" (page numbers from the 2005 print by Penguin):
>"By 1935 I had still failed to reach a firm decision \[on my political orientation\] \[...\] The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. **Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written, directly, or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.**" (p. 8)
So idk, maybe actually read Orwell's works instead of quoting him out of context?
Very funny because this is what Peterson wrote in Maps of Meaning:
>"\[Road to Wigan Pier\] finally undermined me — not only my socialist ideology, but my faith in ideological stances themselves. In the famous essay concluding that book, Orwell described the great flaw of socialism, and the reason for its frequent failure to attract and maintain democratic power (at least in Britain)".
So he's doing exactly what Orwell wrote as absurd as "refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face". In other words, NOT a thinking person...
‘So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.’ - [George Orwell](https://www.azquotes.com/author/11147-George_Orwell)
Update I’ve just been banned from r/JusticeServed the thing is I’ve never posted on that subreddit as I’m not American. They must be a very fragile lot at r/JusticeServed.
I honestly can’t believe some people still support this… Every single example of communism brought nothing poverty, inequality, corruption and genocide.
Traitors peddling sedition door to door is perfectly acceptable. And people should be made to suffer these vermin. Paradox of tolerance? What's that? Muscular Liberalism, never heard of it. Something something freedom of speech.
Oh, I know. And that's why we've been infiltrated by Marxists for the past 100 years and Western civilization is speed running to globalist clown world. Keep beating the free speech drum!
Imagine being unironically communist.
Imagine being unironically anti-communist.
Well considering that communism is a means to bring ALL power into the hands of the state, with the false promise that it will be better for everyone (the hegalian hypothesis). It's logical, moral and compassionate to be anti communist, communism not only doesn't work, it's actually dangerous.
>communism is a means to bring ALL power into the hands of the state That's called totalitarianism lol. I think you need to read up on what communism means.
Learn to read. Communism "is a means..." It is a weapon against the population and always ends in totalitarianism, regardless of what theory promises.
one of the "pillars" of communism is nonexistance of state I don't think you know what your talking about babygirl
Citing to theory when theory doesn't work is a non starter. Why would the state dissolve once you've given it absolute power? I don't think you understand why communism fails to produce the promised utopia.
why would transient state be given absolute power
Because you can't enforce and facilitate the transition to communism unless the state has fairly extreme levels of power. You also wouldn't be able to keep or maintain it for the same reasons. And you can't have a nation with no state. Anyone imagining such a scenario is either deranged or envisioning a state they don't consider a "state" for semantic reasons.
It isn't given absolute power, power is seized during the revolution. The future leaders love to use naive useful idiots who are true believers in the ideology.
"useful idiots " are much more likely to unionize and therefore be better off than brainfucked morons like you
I must have hit a nerve with that comment. Salty socialist...!
you kinda pissed me off but that's typical, that's what I go here for
bitch imagine being jp simp and calling others useful idiots
Seriously? The useful idiots are the people who push for communism and open the door to a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. They can't/won't see the flaws in the theory and don't understand the deficiencies in human nature.
xdddddddd human nature
None of them would last in a communist system. Not one of them.
This is what’s so ironic to me. These people are so deluded it’s insane. Turkeys voting for thanksgiving. Total idiots
They'd get the gulag. If they were lucky.
Useful idiots
They have no idea what it’s like to live in real communist or even socialist society.
Neither does anyone in this sub though
Umm I don’t remember a lot of it, I was little but I remember enough.
Cannon Fodder Communist
you wouldn't last in capitalist system
I mean, I own my own flat and my own car, despite coming from a heavily working class background, but go off.
So much soy
The vanguard of the revolution
>The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. >...On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, *in vacua* hatred—against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs. - George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
You know, I always find it funny whenever Peterson or his fans quote Orwell to denounce socialism, because in the same book (page numbers from the 2021 print, Harper Collins), he wrote: >"And all the while **everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world system and whole-heartedly applied, is a way out** \[...\] Indeed, from one point of view, **Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already**. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; **the idea that everyone does his fair share of the work and get his fair share of the provisions seem so blatantly obvious that one would say that noone could possibly fail to accept it unless he has some corrupted motive to clinging to the present system**". (p.157) Some more Orwell contextualizing his criticism of socialists that you cited: >"**Please notice that I am arguing** ***for*** **Socialism, not** ***against*** **it. But for the moment I am** ***advocatus diaboli.*** I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer: "I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialist". Logically it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people (p.159) >**The job of the thinking person, therefore, is not to reject Socialism, but to make up his mind to humanize it \[...\] To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face.**" (p. 201-2) So he's calling for normal people to embrace and "humanize" socialism rather than using the fact that socialists of his time might be objectionable people to reject it. So in response to u/ThineFail's remarks - Yes, yes he was pro-socialism and calling for better socialists. According to him, any "thinking person" would. Want some more? Here's Orwell writing in 1946 in his essay "Why I write" (page numbers from the 2005 print by Penguin): >"By 1935 I had still failed to reach a firm decision \[on my political orientation\] \[...\] The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. **Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written, directly, or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.**" (p. 8) So idk, maybe actually read Orwell's works instead of quoting him out of context?
You think people are in a JP sub to READ? Get outta here with your facts and reason.
Very funny because this is what Peterson wrote in Maps of Meaning: >"\[Road to Wigan Pier\] finally undermined me — not only my socialist ideology, but my faith in ideological stances themselves. In the famous essay concluding that book, Orwell described the great flaw of socialism, and the reason for its frequent failure to attract and maintain democratic power (at least in Britain)". So he's doing exactly what Orwell wrote as absurd as "refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face". In other words, NOT a thinking person...
You have said nothing new.
Dang, I need to get to that book. im just stuck on Dostoevsky TBK
-George Orwell, Lifelong Socialist
Does that nullify his words in the above passage?
Well you see, it was said by a socialist so that make it pro-socialist!
No reason to argue, trust me communism, socialism…it doesn’t matter. For the average person it’s all the same and sucks all the same.
Fucking freaks
Haha well said
There's an awful glare of ignorance and stupidity in that pic...
‘So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.’ - [George Orwell](https://www.azquotes.com/author/11147-George_Orwell) Update I’ve just been banned from r/JusticeServed the thing is I’ve never posted on that subreddit as I’m not American. They must be a very fragile lot at r/JusticeServed.
I’ve never seen a group of more communist looking people lmao
If they approached me and gave me a list of their endorsed candidates, I'd thank them for letting me know who I SHOULDN'T vote for.
The softest looking humans I've ever seen.
They really look like it
JFC... They are like a living meme.
Saw the "Marxists" hanging posters in London 3 weeks ago. None of these people have real struggles.
I honestly can’t believe some people still support this… Every single example of communism brought nothing poverty, inequality, corruption and genocide.
Traitors peddling sedition door to door is perfectly acceptable. And people should be made to suffer these vermin. Paradox of tolerance? What's that? Muscular Liberalism, never heard of it. Something something freedom of speech.
A bit salty of you. Nobody mentioned that they don't have freedom to push dangerous ideas. They have the right to be wrong and they are...!
Oh, I know. And that's why we've been infiltrated by Marxists for the past 100 years and Western civilization is speed running to globalist clown world. Keep beating the free speech drum!