Jordan B Peterson debunks the "It wasn't real communism" argument
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Jordan B Peterson dismantles the "It wasn't real communism" argument, commonly used by leftists of avoid either taking responsibility for their beliefs or to admit the failures of the flawed economic and social system. An insightful moment.
"Well,think again sunshine!!!"😂
“Think again Sunshine!” A lot of Americans need to hear this.
I've made this same argument before, but this man is able to do it better than I ever could. You can hear the emotion in his voice.
emotion has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.
There's no need to "dismantle" this argument, it's not an argument. The only communist and socialist states that have EVER existed ended up in the same place. If you claim it can be done again without that happening, you are contradicting ALL empirical evidence which states otherwise. I do not need to explain why contradicting empirical evidence makes you wrong.
You don't need to explain the contradiction to people with more than a room temperature IQ and who appreciate logic and history. They have the ability to think honestly about things. Logic and an acknowledgment of historical fact makes failed systems and policies self-evident.
But for the rest of those who think Marxism/Communism is a good thing, there is little one can do to convince them otherwise, short of being subjected to their own bleak policies.
Lads, that does not make the smallest bit of sense.
You might as well say that a family where every member has smoked for generations GUARANTEES that all futures generations will smoke.
Yes, there's tons of evidence against (almost) all "socialist" nations that have existed. It doesn't guarantee anything about possible future attempts.
At any rate, I'm behind you that a pure socialist state almost certainly wouldn't work, even just economically. The idea that it NECESSARILY leads to genocide, I don't see it, really.
That said, most states have some socialist ideals in the mix and they don't lead to any genocides at all.
Am I way off here??
+News Dude (DudeReadsRedditNews) when we are talking about communism, we are talking about a communist state. Not a small amount of redistribution or any slight implementation of communist ideals. If you try to create the communist/ socialist "utopia" you can be sure some of your methods are going to be a bit unclean.
Like he said, how many attempts do we give it before we let it die? Do another 20+ million people need to die? Or is the next time we try it not real communism either? How would you achieve differently than the leaders of the past?
It's not an argument, but it's a true statement.
A classless, moneyless society without rulers or private property hasn't been achieved so far.
The leaders of the USSR had communist ideologies, but the countries economy and society definitely did not correspond with that definition.
@@frocco7125 So then you must be able to answer Jordan's questions.
How many countries does it take to achieve your perfect utopian communist state?
And how many more millions of lives will it cost?
Perhaps the question shouldn't be
"Has real communism ever been tried?"
but should instead be
"*Why* has real communism never been tried?"
Because the rise of unionism along with the social democracy made sure to take away its revolutionary goal.
Wow. More wisdom in 2 minutes than anyone has offered in 20 years.
No.
ruclips.net/video/rM9EbD7nJ1g/видео.html
@@frocco7125 wow dude, that's your answer? Terrible video by the way
@@ChasingTheDream87
I thought it was pretty decent. Peterson does also have a few big misconceptions on what he's talking about in my opinion, but eh.
@@ChasingTheDream87 and if the power was in your hands, supposing you had the competence, which you don’t, you would have ushered in a new equitable golden age. Sounds like a brave new world you propose! 🤦♂️
@@frocco7125 I have to agree with you on Petersons views on some areas, postmodern philosophy I think he should avoid. Take Derrida’s views on hospitality- put into practice, seems disastrously, to be playing out in in the US at the moment for example. But he nails in with regard to communism, broadly. It’s a dangerous idea, to centralise so much power and try to force equality of out come will always be forced. The results will be a society that is offered no incentive to strive for success, so will stagnate. Centralised power, needs someone in charge, and people are what they are, power needs strong over site, so you get two factions-watcher and watched, with a beat them or join them outcome- both leading to one faction have absolute power and then corruption.
Peterson also has speak to his audience, who seem to range from fans, people showing an interest to new ideas and at least listen, to the young ideologue, eying with the (sometimes endearing, often necessary) Aristotle complex, with the question to stump Peterson, to “take him down” although they are often not quite sure why.
I find him an engaging speaker, informative, (in his field) very considered and giving carefully reply (often it seems rebuttal). I disagree with some of his broader ideas, but think he’s genuinely well meaning. The constant attacks he suffers seem so often to be “his apparent views”(deliberately) taken out of content, emotional provocative but very (so what you’re actually saying)vague and seem completely unwarranted. I realise this is an older upload, but take his recent casting as “king of the incels”. To be critical of the man for showing emotion and suggesting “shouldn’t the marginalised have a voice”, shows him to still be the clinical phycologist” trying to be a “net positive” in the role, I think often unfairly, that he’s been cast in and forced to “play” (maybe, at least initially, not unwanted). In the main, to the interviewers dismay, which keeps alive the challenge to take him down, then sit back and say “gotcha”.
Why it was cut in the middle ?
“Fascism has never really been tried. Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini betrayed the true meaning of Fascism. THEREFORE, the world should try Fascism again”
If that argument sounds idiotic to you, you would be correct. It is just as idiotic when talking about Fascism as it is talking about Communism.
Fascism is not based on a materialist conception of history, it is purely ideological, not deterministic.
@@etchalaco9971 To find a definition of the word “Fascist” or “Fascism” you could try blogging on the internet, reference old dictionaries, ask a history professor, ask a philosophy professor, ask a political science professor, or ask college students who use the word ad nauseam. In the end you will get so many conflicting and vague definitions that word becomes undefinable. I have to say, “Fascism is not based on a materialist conception of history, it is purely ideological, not deterministic.” is a new one to me.
@@michaelterry1000 You used the word, it is up to you to define the term
@@etchalaco9971 Yes, but I used the word to mock the tired old utterly ridiculous argument, “Communism has never been tried” to which I responded, “Fascism has never really been tried”.
@@michaelterry1000 what is your definition of fascism?
American founders understood in their bones that unchecked absolute power (ex. King George) led to tragedy. Marx completely missed the danger in having all economic, political and social power concentrated in one place (like Moscow), This concentration is just too tempting for those unscrupulous and ambitious. It was the fatal flaw of the Soviet Union and remains the fatal flaw of any sort of autocratic system. That Marx did not calculate this danger into his theory is puzzling.
May communism burn in hell
They don't believe in Hell, that is part of what makes them dangerous.
That's really succinct and powerful. Every SJW should take 2 minutes to listen to this.
Nobody that says "It wasn't really communism" is trying to imply that he would've done better. It's a fact, communist Russia and China simply were not stateless, classless and moneyless, how could that be when they were authoritarian states lead by a very strict number of people? And what does "how many other deaths do you need to see before admitting you're wrong" means? Millions of people died under a Capitalist society too, under the name of Colonialism, Democracy and more, but we just forgot about it since it wasn't happening to us, but to others in distant countries; and, even thanks to those deaths, capitalism worked, even if a big slice of the pie was made of poorly developed countries being used as "slave countries" to allow us to receive the benefits of capitalism.
Capitalism has many cons but it has also many pros, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted for this much.
But that doesn't mean that we have to stop striving to achieve a better society for us and for others, that doesn't mean we have found the final and ultimately best solution. When people first tried to navigate the ocean, they didn't just instantly came up with the perfect boat, they kept failing and failing, making one boat after another, one was faster, another more durable, but it took them thousands of tries and tries to find the one suitable for the job, and still it wasn't perfect.
Saying "Communism has never worked, thus it will never work" is an ingenuous statement: maybe we simply didn't have the right conditions to make it work in the first place.
I do believe that with the improvement of Technology and Automation, we can reach a point where all the manual jobs will become obsolete for a human to do, and by just oiling the machines we'll be able to simply harvest their goods. We'll reach a point where work will no longer be necessary, everyone will be able to pursue what matters to him: you wanna study Physics and improve the technological level we are at? Sure. You just want to read books, play your guitar and go walking? It's up to you. Maybe at first it will be hard, it won't be classless, it won't be stateless, it sure won't be moneyless, maybe it will never be, but we'll slowly try to improve ourselves and our world to make this voyage a little more pleasurable, for us, and for those who will follow.
"You just want to read books, play your guitar and go walking?" See, there's where this Socialist ideology falls flat. Think about it for a minute, where will you get your "resources" to do such things if you just "laze" around thing unproductive procrastination. Owh yeah making the "farmers" do the dirty job so you can sit around? Well that's a recipe for deaths upon death which the Marxists brought upon. Think again.
No matter how technology advances, there will always "resources" that needs to be produced. Food? Energy? Precious Metals? Aha, "Maybe we simply didn't have the right conditions to make it work in the first place" is always the argument Socialist always say till they enslaved all the producers again then starve themselves.
Communist Utopia:
Owh you're a farmer. So produce things (mine) for us so we can do our shit. Don't talk back and ask for anything because you are a farmer, and that's what you are supposed to do. Just farm. We the intellectuals needs to sit in our mansions because we need it and fill our stomachs with your food.
@@jdg7327 but have you even read my comment? I explicitly typed that an utopia like that could be possible once we achieve an incredible level of automation, no farmer would have to work for the good of others, machines would. Which means everyone would be able to spend his time to achieve his goals, what's important for him, and not having to worry about having bread on the table.
But said that, even if such thing could be possible in the future, it'd take centuries from now, so we're really speculating about clouds here; the only thing we can do right now is to embrace what we have and slowly improve every aspect of it.
Any self-proclamed communist of marxist of some sort is, from my point of view, disillusionate about the world if he thinks any kind of quick change will help to shape a better future.
@@Sisypho "Incredible level of automation". Do you even do Science?
Who do you think will maintain those machines?
Who will build those machines? Who will get the resources to build those machines?
Where will those machines get their energy to run?
And the billion corpses question is, who will "control" those machines?
After the food problem is solved, it will just escalate to material problem, then after that energy, then after that territorial
You severely underestimate humanity's proclivity to destruction and entropy. Resources isn't what drives people to do things. Purpose is. People already envisioned what future hold even such technological feat is achieved. Heck even if the "Replicator" is conceived, the so-called utopia is still a foolish dream.
To think that simply giving everyone food resolves everything is a foolish idea. It doesn't even take a minute to look at a neighbor that has luxurious car and get the urge to also want it.
@@jdg7327 of course somebody will have to mantain and create the machines, if you let billions of people pursue their passions somebody will occupy that spot, but still, we're talking about nothing here, i don't think it'll ever happen.
I don't get your point, of course there will be inequalities of some sort, i have no idea how to solve them or if it's even right to solve them, but you act as if there are none right now; and i'm neither a Marxist nor a Communist, i think every -ism has pros and cons, and if you think a single ideology is "the one", there's probably something wrong about it, so i don't think why are you trying to change my mind. People are not getting happier, this system is not helping the majority of the people, i just think we need to work on that; Capitalism gave us and unprecedented economy boost, but with heavy drawbacks, which we've all seen, so let's work on that no?
@@Sisypho Glad we have some same grounds, and no I'm not trying to change your mind but laying out why Marxist ideology fails each time it is tested.
True, Capitalism at its core is to give everyone the equal opportunity to flourish. Hence why most places where capitalism is tested the place grows. But also true that there is a fundamental flaw in capitalism, is that, it cannot and does not have the ability to ameliorate useless+poor people. After all in a capitalistic state a useful person has the chance to climb in ranks but a useless person will fall off.
I am more of in line with a mixed economy/policy rather than a pure orthodox. It is very much paramount to let the productive people flourish as much as possible while slowly raising the social safety net while also terminating and defunding useless ventures. I see no point in a future where things and studies that produce nothing are funded in social policies.
Does JP include nazis part of the communist death count?
No.
bad edit halfway thru dude show some class
what do you mean
0:42
I don't know if you listen to Jordan Peterson's lectures, but he goes on tangents very often, diverging from what he's originally talking about. I cut a segment I thought irrelevant. The link to the original video should be in the description if you want to watch the whole thing.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
sorry for coming off as a dick yeah i listen to almost all of his stuff and LUV the tangents but yeah i was looking for a snippet to link ina steam thread fighting with armchair champagne socialists
EDIT: shadilay btw
my show some class comment was unwarrented and the socialists i was arguing with had me on a downer
Hauld on a second... (going to try to be as neutral as possible here)
"They didn't do it right" = "I would have done it better" ???
These two ideas are REALLY not the same. At all. He is forcing a connection between the two.
Possibly a bad analogy:
You're watching sports and someone misses a shot.
"He didn't do that right" is really not the same as "I could have done that better".
His "argument" is complete sleight of hand. As much as I love a lot of what Peterson says, he is guilty of making these kinds of logic leaps by times. Funny enough, he is VERY quick to correct people who make similar mistakes.
Whether you hate communism/socialism or not, there is a WORLD of difference between what Marx wrote and what Lenin/Stalin/Mao/etc did.
This might seem like an exaggerated comparison, but you might as well blame Jesus for Franco, Mussolini, the KKK, etc...
If you really want to argue against "that wasn't real communism", and it is a VERY common argument, you'll have to find a better way, lads.
Saying "He didn't do that RIGHT" implies you know what RIGHT is in regards of communism.
Now since there hasn't been any real, substantial, right implementation of socialism, (where right means it hasn't disintegrated and/or caused deaths of many of its citizens), claiming you know how to apply communism "rightly", or that it can be applied "rightly" is Foolishness.
Since you provided a comparison here's mine:
Imagine I'm a scientist that formulates a nice theory.
All proofs fail.
I claim that the theory is true and all proofs haven't been 'rightly' executed.
What would any scientist worth its shoes answer to me?
Isn't the theory worthless?
@@anonymoususer3741
That's not a good comparison because a theory failing is a lot more clearly defineable than an economic system "failing".
ruclips.net/video/nT1X_-D803U/видео.html
@@anonymoususer3741 USSR just got out of monarchy, which is oppressive in its own way. They had to fight many wars, both before and after the Bolshevik revolution. World War I, World War II, in which USSR sacrified a lot of people and ressources to fight the Nazis. USSR had to counteract a constant flow of antagonistic propaganda from capitalists, mostly from nations that had it better, for reasons suchs as luck and imperialist policies. Trade restrictions. And they still succeeded on many aspects like never before.
Now, tell me, what would YOU have done, were you Stalin in 1944 ?
Author should get some European hystory classes. He will be surprised, that our "blessed" capitalism had taken nearly 400 years to establish through blood and death and constant returning back to feudalism and than again to capitalism. Look at the Netherlands in 1600s-1640s and France 1789-1814 this is just the brightest examples.
"REAL MARXISM" LOL.
I mean, this is more of an argument against Leninism specifically rather than against communism in general. Jordan Peterson doesn’t seem to understand the vast diversity of anti capitalist philosophy that ranges from Stalinism to Maoism to Leninism to democratic socialism to libertarian socialism to anarcho-communism. Ignoring those differences in favor of a mere “if I was in control it would be different” seems to me like a gross oversimplification of the left’s philosophical diversity
The "100 million deaths" trope has become a Godwin point of sorts, for socialism/communism. You say that trope, you're disqualified, you leave the room. Automatically.
Does avoiding the numbers and just saying it ends in famine, poverty and/or genocide that just happens to kill….let’s just say A LOT of people make it sound better?
Not exactly a good argument. Try using it yourself against a half-decent marxist professor and see what happens.
First part will be countered by a list of technicalities, like, I donno, differences between Lenin's, Trotsky's and Marx's vision of communism, and believe you me, marxists are generally far better at -bullshitting- I mean, discussing fine details, than Peterson, not to mention you. "The death toll", they'll say, "is an unfortunate result of local extremities". Hoarding up other examples will bring you nothing more but "enemies within, enemies without", "corrupting western influence", "pitiful mistake" and other popular mantras.
Second part could be thrown away as a typical "straw man" argument, although its likely to be true for quite a number of mommy's revolutionaries out there on the streets.
Do you even listen to yourself?
@@annalenaguptara7130 Well?
So the “it’s not real communism” argument. Fascists could literally say the same thing about hitler.
I guess slavery wasn't real capitalism then?
Good one
Slavery has existed looooooong before capitalism
@@daweed_spieschl famine existed looooooong before communism.
Also no, chattel slavery as we think of it did not exist long before capitalism it was very much an invention of capitalism
@@afgor1088 I never said famine was a communist invention. It was a consequence of communisms though.
Slavery exists because humas are assholes, not because of capitalism.
Capitalism is a brutal harsh reality with downsides. It is not perfect. But at least it works. Communism doesn‘t work in bigger societies. It has always failed spectacular.
@@afgor1088 right because "capitalism" has been around for thousands of years now
> That wasn't "Reaal" capitalism
> That wasn't "reaaal" Christianity
> That wasn't "Reaaal" conservatism
> That wasn't the reaaaaal crusade
> That wasn't reaaal fascism
Psyolopher Look up the words revision and improvement: two things that have never applied to the marxist doctrine, ever. Meanwhile, conservatism constantly changes (no such things as 'real' conservatism). Christianity is a faith-based mythos which is constantly being reinterpreted (no such thing as real xtianity). Real capitalism is objectively not our system (we use a mixed economy, aka gateway to corporatism). I could go on. Your analogy is nonsense.
Your point kind of contradicts itself wouldn't you say?
Marxist ideas change over time, and how they are implemented.
As with any political ideology, everything can and most likely will be changed to improve.
On top of that you have Ancoms, Socialists, Syndicalists, etc.... There are shitloads of ideological variations.
YOUR analogy is awful.
And all of the variations contain at least one CRUCIAL doctrine, just like all variations of Christianity do, for example. If a man called himself a Christian, but claimed at the same time that Jesus, son of Mary, was not the Messiah, the guy was quite simply not a real Christian. I don't think anyone sees a problem with that argument. But when it comes to socialists, it's enough to claim to be one, no analysis is required. Isn't that awesomely disingenuous?
"Marxist ideas change over time, and how they are implemented."
They are always implemented badly. They fail *every time they are tried*.
Evil Otto - After reading some of your comments, I'm betting you're like the best attorney ever. Remind me never to disagree with you! Thank you for your knowledge!
Wtf? This isn't even a real argument he's making, he's not making a real argument here.
How so? He's saying Marxism has been implemented many times and has been an abysmal failure leading to poverty and death every time. Marxists defend this as having not been 'true' Marxism. He's asking how many times does it need to be implemented before Marxists accept that it doesn't work. 100 million corpses doesn't seem to be enough, how many million more people need to die before Marxists accept that it doesn't work? Maybe you could try watching it again.
@@PartyOnDude_ except 1), communism hasn't killed that many people, that's CAPITALISM, and 2), this doesn't actually refute Marxism. While I admit the "not true socialism" argument is usually fallacious, using death tolls is not a refutation of Marxian economics, unless you believe it is, in which case you'd believe that capitalism is evil since it's killed more people. What Petersen says here doesn't actually refute the effectiveness of socialism, which raised Russia from a semi feudalist third world country to one of the biggest super powers in the world in just a few decades, which raised the literacy and life expectancy of people in Cuba. When you compare socialist countries to capitalist countries of equal development, the socialist countries have a higher quality of life. Nothing Jordan has said here refutes ANY of that, it doesn't actually address Marxian economics, only the type of government that socialism was enacted under.
@@Divine_Dreamer_vaporwave hi. I think when he's talking about the millions of people who died under communism he is referring to e.g. famines in Ukraine and China, Cambodia's killing fields, Soviet purges, deaths in Gulag camps. I'm not sure why you think 'capitalism' is to blame for those atrocities. It would be good to know what your definition of capitalism is and when/where all these people died as a result of it. By the way, do you live in a 'capitalist' country, or a "marxist' country?
@@PartyOnDude_ how are the famines the fault of socialism? Famines happen everywhere, including India while it was being occupied by capitalist Britain for over 150 years.
I'm not implying that capitalism is responsible for those tragedies. I'm saying that capitalism is responsible for MORE deaths from different events, like the fact that there is still mass starvation and malnutrition in capitalist countries because, in a capitalist state, you throw away food if you can't profit off it, despite the fact that there is enough food in the US to feed everyone in the US, some of them more than once; or the fact that you are denied health care if you are poor and can't afford it, or when millions of people lose their jobs every time capitalism has its boom and bust cycles, which is a cycle acknowledged by every economist, not just left economists, because it's an observable fact that capitalism goes through boom and bust cycles.
The effects of capitalism kills millions of people every year, so if you do the math for even a decade, capitalism kills more people in just a decade or two than communist governments ever did, and that's if I'm being GENEROUS.
@@PartyOnDude_ again, the death toll conversation doesn't even matter, because if we're comparing death tolls, capitalism is going to come out on top every time.
I'm looking for a refutation of the effectiveness of Marxian economics, not a condemnation of some poor government. So far I haven't been given one, by you or by Petersen.
He didn't dismantle shit
Socialism can work if you have a culture that encourages hard work and social responsability and politeness, you can give to a backward culture any kind of political sistem old or New. The same old patological traditions will turn it backward,, look for example at russia.multiculturalism can Works if the cultures are Realy Close to one another like germany and france for example, but you make a grave mistake when you think comparing france to germany is like comparing france to pakistan
"socialism can work if you have a culture that encourages hard work and social responsibility". The thing is that socialism actively disincentives hard work and social responsibility. It is a system that takes from those who are productive and redistributes to those who are not. So why bother being productive when you can sit back and have others work for you?
@@PartyOnDude_ This is retarded social welfare that we have today in some of our societies wich I agree supports laziness.
@@PartyOnDude_ No, socialism encourages hard work and social responsibility. You work hard because you know it's your hard work that holds society together, and it's your hard work that makes civilization progress. Socialism encourages social responsibility, because it's a system that requires a strong democratic system, and a strong democratic culture.
Capitalism, on the other hard, encourages laziness, by looking for the highest salary for the least work. It leads to parasitism and excessive hoarding. It leads to short-term decisions for a quick buck, and long term responsibilities be damned. When you know your salary is being slashed by a factor of 4, 5, or even 10, because parasites take the other 9/10th, you lose commitment and become a passive worker.
@@Simboiss Hahahaha!!!!!! You went to university to learn that, right? 🤣🤣🤣
@@PartyOnDude_ No, I never went to university.
Peterson sounds an awful lot like a television evangelist.
chuck1prillaman "communism is the great deceiver, a wolf and sheep's clothing. Freedom is the way, the truth and the light!"
Anti-socialism is very much like religion.
Daniel Gyllenbreider so is socialism
chuck1prillaman
I don't trust him, Shapiro, Spencer, or Crowder. Although Peterson is perhaps the kinder and more informed.
+Pappy Daddy - do you trust antifa?
"debunks"
JP is dishonest in this take.
ruclips.net/video/rM9EbD7nJ1g/видео.html
Isn't JP.a psychologist? And now he's an expert in criticizing Marx/communism lol stick to Psychology JP
What are you exactly
This is an actual logical fallacy. It's called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".
Except, it's not. Not even close. Capitalists also constantly make this mistake.
@@Simboiss Yes it is. Facts don't care about your feelings.
@@SergeantExtreme Sometimes, the definition simply doesn't fit. Not everything you disagree with is a Scotsman's fallacy.
@@Simboiss You say that like you don't even know what the fallacy is.
@@SergeantExtreme Sure, I know what the fallacy is. But if you take a country that is obviously NOT socialist, like North Korea (a monarchy), and then you hear someone tell you that it's not socialism, you can't just evoke the True Scotsman fallacy and be done with it. The person simply told you that you are wrong. There is a difference.
The real communism indeed never came to fruition sam as true democracy or true capitalism those are all ideals set in place to try to emulate, but we the human kind fail every time cause of our inherit nature. Also DR.Peterson who i utmostly admire makes a flawed assumption that kulaks were prosperous peasant class cause they "did better", NO that is a lie that needs to be dismantled ! Kulaks were doing better cause they had unlimited, socially unmobille, underpayed workforce that could not own land (slaves) and if that seems as capitalism to you i don't know what to say.
Communism means a society without a leader, without different classes and without money. Do any of those points apply to the SU? No. Therefore they were not communist. What is so hard to understand about that?
Its leaders had a communist ideology, but the national economy was far from actual communism.
Ahh yes a world without hierarchy sounds like we'd still be stuck in the dark ages as tribals
oh no, the usa has public water fountains! the usa is not real capitalist!
that's not really an argument
What's weird is that Peterson is very fond of Nietzsche - a man whose ideas influenced the Nazis, so by his own logic, I can label him a genocide denier purely on the grounds of him supporting his ideas.
Also, there was never supposed to be a 'dictator' under Orthodox Marxism. The dictatorship of the proleteriat as formulated by Marx was supposed to be composed of every member of the working-class. When Lenin translated those ideas, he didn't abolish those kinds of hierarchies. He created a vanguard of 'professional revolutionaries' that were designed to speak for the working-class cause. It was that kind of blind misrepresentation of Marxist doctrine that led to the Soviet Union being corrupt.
Exactly! Hitler interpreted Nietzche in a way which would have disgusted him. That isn't to say Nietzche's idea's are to be completely cast aside; regardless of the outcome. If I've learned anything from Peterson it's about transcending suffering to make oneself and humanity stronger. Both right and left wing ideologies seem to have proven themselves capable of immense human suffering. The only constant is the human beings themselves. Attempting to forge a way out of their misery. Idea's must always flow freely and should never be held responsible for the actions of any group. Perhaps the suffering that has occured through these idea's are just a sign that our current human conditioning isn't capable of interpreting them in a conducive way.
"What's weird is that Peterson is very fond of Nietzsche - a man whose ideas influenced the Nazis, "
When did he suggest putting the theories of Nietzsche into political practice?
"so by his own logic, I can label him a genocide denier purely on the grounds of him supporting his ideas."
No you could only do that if he denied the holocaust, which far from denying he repeatedly references.
"Also, there was never supposed to be a 'dictator' under Orthodox Marxism. "
Marxism necessitates a dictator, it necessitates a State and an iron obedience to that State. The claim that it can all be peace, love and mung beans is disproven over and over again. Now if Dr. Peterson were to suggest that the Nazis the had were great but just executed badly you could say he was doing what the postmodernists are doing but he doesn't.
"The dictatorship of the proleteriat as formulated by Marx was supposed to be composed of every member of the working-class. "
And how would that work? How would every decision be made by every person? Please tell me how 100 million workers vote on how big the grain silos should be and whether to invest in high grade track to transport the grain, use low grade track and replace it more often or just use more and lighter trains? And no cheating by using a price system. Really the number of things that "the people" would have to vote on would mean even giving a minute's thought to each proposal and sub-proposal would literally take up all your time. Ayn Rand exposed the stupidity of this idea DECADES ago and she was not the first.
_"Marxism necessitates a dictator, it necessitates a State and an iron obedience to that State"_
Do you have any argument or..?
_"And how would that work? How would every decision be made by every person?"_
Who would pick the cotton? There are these things called democracy and consensus decision-making. I don't recall Ayn Rand exposing any of those as stupid, they are very much alive all over the world.
Read the "20th Century Motor Company" chapter in "Atlas Shrugged". It tells you exactl the sort of problems that make "consensus decision making" impossible under Marxism. When the State owns everything they control everything. And yes it would be a State because without a State you an't forbid capitalism. People will trade if you don't threaten to shoot them.
"Who would pick the cotton? "
Picking cotton is something we know how to do. I don't know how to make a decision on a complex topic with 100 million people "contributing". Yes Ayn Rand liked democracy, LIMITED democracy that respected rights. But that doesn't mean it can be used for everything. How are you going to have a vote on how big the grain silos should be? How are you going to get the information necessary to vote on that decision?
_"It tells you exactly the sort of problems that make "consensus decision making" _*_impossible_*_ under Marxism."_
So you offer fiction instead of an actual argument.
_"And yes it would be a State because without a State you can't forbid capitalism"_
You can't "forbid it", but it would collapse on its own in five seconds without a state to enforce contracts and claims of property ownership. You can't have capitalism without the state in the first place. I am puzzled by people who pretend to not understand this.
_"LIMITED democracy that respects rights"_
What are "rights"? Is owning slaves a right? Many people throughout history seem to have believed so, and they advocated forms of societal organization that respected this right.
_"How are you going to have a vote on how big the grain silos should be?"_
How can a Congress possibly work? We should have a king.
"how many countries you need to disproof your communism"? lets start with at least one. show it.
he got things so wrong about communism, capitalism and "western culture". and religion.
it's so interesting that we use those former communist countries as examples.. when many of them were pretty dysfunctional to begin with.. nobody knows what would happen if one of the well off western european countries would give it a shot
I wish jordan would actually come up with convincing arguments why it wouldn't work rather than saying "look how it failed in that context.. let's not try again"
not only that but he's even ridiculing people who think it could work
I'm very open minded and I like to take every stance into account.. maybe capitalism isn't the best.. maybe some marxist ideas could be implemented.. why can we not have an open discussion
I very much love watching a lot of his content but this seems like something he's very biased on and he's not using facts but rather feelings
its funny that all logical conclusions point him to communism, and then his mind short-circuits. because the propaganda got to him (propaganda that equates communism with dictatorship. so the reverse of communism which is the idea that the people should own the factories and ..power). that's why he gets mad at this. you always get angry when you want to shut down a part of you that has a conflicting opinion.
that being said, imo communism is a sort of bee-hive that needs bees (that collaborate, viewing the hive as a shared spirit). so its impossible to do it with with capitalist/selfish people. it could work on smaller groups of people (where they are united). and its necessary at a basic level in any society (you don't want private police, army, etc).
i personally believe that reason is universal, like math, there can be one best solution. so no "left" and "right" parties, but rather a sort of public gov opened to all intellectuals proving the best solution. because indeed there is a problem with democracy, which is why it is currently AVOIDED. its that the majority of the people (that can vote) can be fooled by charlatans. then when they get to power you realize that they have no idea/desire how to improve the country, their only idea was the election campaign.
@@ubuntuposix He's clearly moved by the massive murder, that's why he might display anger.
You talk about cognitive dissonance yet you are the one saying all logical conclusions point to a system that hasn't yet been successfully implemented. Either your logic has holes or your data is irrelevant.
Cheers
@@anonymoususer3741: i'm from Romania, ex communist country from central-east Europe. before the world war 2 our communist party had a few members. after the russians came in with the army, "over night" those original members were disposed of or bought by the russians, and the party suddently had thousands of member. my point is that what "was tried" wasn't communism.. Russia made a deal with the west, America, or in my country's case, Churchill wrote 90% influence given to Russia.
SO.. put yourself in Russia's shoes. how would you profit from these countries that you won? Russia already stole all of our gold, and possessions, why not rob everyone of its property and turn it to the state, make every person work for the state, and the state leaders/gov are your puppets that you put there, to transfer all the nation's power to you.
Also may i remind you that America did everything in its power to prevent communism or socialism. the official reason for the Vietnam war was this. And Venezuela is not doing poorly because "communism doesnt work" instead because its been attacked economically. USA didn't like Turkey's leader and their currency also became more worthless by the hour.
Anyways, i don't want to defend communism to much because like i said, i believe in "spiritualism" (the public open gov that i mentioned before, which avoids the trap of (bought) democracy).
in other words i could say to you: "you want a red leash for your dog? all the dogs with a red leash that i've ever seen, were killed the next day". in which case if you insist at asking why, i would eventually tell you "because i kill every one of them if they have a red leash". in this example the red leash is communism, and i'm USA.
regarding the moving massive murder, capitalism also has its cruel examples. (it may have surpassed all) the M Albright clip could also be infuriating (ruclips.net/video/vqYSQtAk4bw/видео.html). but in my opinion what they do in the oil rich countries, where they attack the country and put (make a deal with) a religious radical, that enslaves the whole population, and of top of that uses this exact religious argument to explain terrorism and the need for further invasions ..this.. can make my blood boil (and i generally never get angry). btw, "Persepolis" if a good animation by an iranian woman writer/animator. there are also clips of how civilized/secularized was the country before the west had its way with it.
The Dr Phil of confused Boomer men.
Ya, No. He did not dismantle it. He merely misdirected the feeble minded.
Insulting the argument without refuting it is effectively confirming it.
Nope. Not even a little bit. I'm just not particularly interested in spending the time to describe his failures in detail. If the good Professor is ever interested in debating me, I would be happy to invest the time, but not for a RUclips comment.
Oh yes you have all these arguments but somehow it's too much of of a bother to actually state any. So you just make a dismissive comment knowing that all you have to do is express disapproval, because that would be enough to silence you. You're not interested in debating the professor, you're not even interested in debating me on the subject of your own dishonesty.
I think you need a hug
Tell us how he's wrong.