5 ms·

That is terrifying. Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Do people really think somehow that next time w

by _mlbt 1y ago

That is terrifying. Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Do people really think somehow that next time will magically be different despite all historical evidence pointing to the fact that this ideology is flawed at its very core?

Mars008 1y ago
I think this is the result of woke shit pushed in education.
- rcakebread 1y ago
  More like MAGA rewriting US Soviet relations history.
  - Mars008 1y ago
    Looks like today most people don't trust both sides. Some choose to ride one wave or another.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  It's predictable backlash against the US whitewashing a lot of history. People are skeptical of the official narratives and do their own research
scarecrowbob 1y ago
I mean, yes, in Texas for instance that kind of propaganda is state mandated.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  I guess maybe the blue cities push the Marxism/Communism propaganda, but I don’t think the rest of the state does.
throwaway3060 1y ago
Not in any detail. In my experience, Americans actually know very little about the Soviet Union, beyond that they were the "adversary" in the Cold War.
ben_w 1y ago
> Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Even if they do, when you're living somewhere that's free to fail you before you're even born, the second-worst case can still look good. And also the absolute worse case is Pol Pot, and there's many examples equally awful showing that a lot of people just flat out refuse to accept humans can be that evil. But also, basically all types of governments can demonstrate the sorts of failure mode that Communism is famous for. Holodomor and Great Leap Forward's famines were Communist failures, the Irish Potato Famine and several in India under the British were Capitalist failures. > the fact that this ideology is flawed at its very core? You may be surprised if you read a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Several parts of it have been considered "common sense" in capitalist nations for over a century. Me, I think Karl Marx made the same error as Adam Smith, that both think humans free from rules are naturally amazing and they largely ignore power seeking behaviours and the consequences of that. Hence Smith is associated with laissez-faire, and "socialist" and "anarchist" were seen by the authorities of the 19th c. as being much the same*. (I over simplify a bit, this is just a comment and not a script for a replacement idiology). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism#Relation_with_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_li...
- _mlbt 1y ago
  I've read The Communist Manifesto. There are indeed parts of it that are sensible in isolation. The problem is that taken as a whole, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. are deeply flawed ideologies doomed to catastrophic failure and devastating results. History has shown us this repeatedly. To Quote Ronald Reagan... “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
  - ben_w 1y ago
    What history has shown us is somewhat weaker than you say — for all the stuff they did badly, for all that they wildly missed their own raison d'être and became just another power structure for just another bunch of essentially aristocrats, it did also get Russia from the Tzars to orbit in 40 years. But that aside, when you're already getting failed and the people failing you specifically hate one thing, it's very easy to reach for that thing. To your quote: Well, I'm not a communist (unlike a previous partner)… but I'm also not a capitalist, because I see that capitalism also is a deeply flawed ideology doomed to catastrophic failure and devastating results, and that history has shown us this, too, repeatedly. I'm also not "anti-" either of them, because I'd rather see someone take the best of both and find some new mechanism to deal with the other repeatedly observed historical fact: that a non-trivial fraction of the population are power-hungry sadistic arses. To quote, albeit from fiction: "To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash-one-of-the-major-problems-for-there-are https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdas... (Both capitalism and communism have failure modes separate from the problem of dark triad personalities, but both sets are much easier to deal with if your society has also solved the problem of dark triad personalities, and a society does also need to solve the problem of dark triad personalities irregardless of what else it does).
ahazred8ta 1y ago
In the US, most history and social studies classes are "taught" by football coaches. Most students don't retain anything important.
immibis 1y ago
Nobody wants the Soviet Union. People do want a fair society. Quite arguably, the Soviet Union wasn't even communist (it was only called that, like how the N**s called themselves socialist and North Korea calls itself a democratic republic)
- _mlbt 1y ago
  The problem is that communism can’t give you a fair society. You have to seize the means of production by force. This force has always created a brutal authoritarian regime that refuses to cede power willingly. Like in the book Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others. The top members of the party always live better than the proletariat. Marxism just isn’t compatible with human nature.
  - immibis 1y ago
    By the exact same reasoning, no system can give you a fair society. All systems rely on seizing things by force. Now that's out of the way, perhaps some systems give you better unfair society that seizes things by force, compared to others. Perhaps we could calmly deliberate about which system that creates an unfair society by seizing things by force is the best, and then implement that system, creating the best possible unfair society that seizes things by force.
tmcdos 1y ago
Every ideology is flawed - even the utopias. Perhaps the humanity should try without ideologies?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  “Ideology” is just any system of values. Like “politics” people tend to pretend that ones they like are some other category while the label only applies to things they don't like, but...

by _mlbt 1y ago

Mars008 1y ago

I think this is the result of woke shit pushed in education.

rcakebread 1y ago
More like MAGA rewriting US Soviet relations history.
- Mars008 1y ago
  Looks like today most people don't trust both sides. Some choose to ride one wave or another.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
It's predictable backlash against the US whitewashing a lot of history. People are skeptical of the official narratives and do their own research

scarecrowbob 1y ago

I mean, yes, in Texas for instance that kind of propaganda is state mandated.

_mlbt 1y ago
I guess maybe the blue cities push the Marxism/Communism propaganda, but I don’t think the rest of the state does.

throwaway3060 1y ago

Not in any detail. In my experience, Americans actually know very little about the Soviet Union, beyond that they were the "adversary" in the Cold War.

ben_w 1y ago

> Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Even if they do, when you're living somewhere that's free to fail you before you're even born, the second-worst case can still look good. And also the absolute worse case is Pol Pot, and there's many examples equally awful showing that a lot of people just flat out refuse to accept humans can be that evil. But also, basically all types of governments can demonstrate the sorts of failure mode that Communism is famous for. Holodomor and Great Leap Forward's famines were Communist failures, the Irish Potato Famine and several in India under the British were Capitalist failures. > the fact that this ideology is flawed at its very core? You may be surprised if you read a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Several parts of it have been considered "common sense" in capitalist nations for over a century. Me, I think Karl Marx made the same error as Adam Smith, that both think humans free from rules are naturally amazing and they largely ignore power seeking behaviours and the consequences of that. Hence Smith is associated with laissez-faire, and "socialist" and "anarchist" were seen by the authorities of the 19th c. as being much the same*. (I over simplify a bit, this is just a comment and not a script for a replacement idiology). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism#Relation_with_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_li...

_mlbt 1y ago
I've read The Communist Manifesto. There are indeed parts of it that are sensible in isolation. The problem is that taken as a whole, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. are deeply flawed ideologies doomed to catastrophic failure and devastating results. History has shown us this repeatedly. To Quote Ronald Reagan... “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
- ben_w 1y ago
  What history has shown us is somewhat weaker than you say — for all the stuff they did badly, for all that they wildly missed their own raison d'être and became just another power structure for just another bunch of essentially aristocrats, it did also get Russia from the Tzars to orbit in 40 years. But that aside, when you're already getting failed and the people failing you specifically hate one thing, it's very easy to reach for that thing. To your quote: Well, I'm not a communist (unlike a previous partner)… but I'm also not a capitalist, because I see that capitalism also is a deeply flawed ideology doomed to catastrophic failure and devastating results, and that history has shown us this, too, repeatedly. I'm also not "anti-" either of them, because I'd rather see someone take the best of both and find some new mechanism to deal with the other repeatedly observed historical fact: that a non-trivial fraction of the population are power-hungry sadistic arses. To quote, albeit from fiction: "To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash-one-of-the-major-problems-for-there-are https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdas... (Both capitalism and communism have failure modes separate from the problem of dark triad personalities, but both sets are much easier to deal with if your society has also solved the problem of dark triad personalities, and a society does also need to solve the problem of dark triad personalities irregardless of what else it does).

ahazred8ta 1y ago

In the US, most history and social studies classes are "taught" by football coaches. Most students don't retain anything important.

immibis 1y ago

Nobody wants the Soviet Union. People do want a fair society. Quite arguably, the Soviet Union wasn't even communist (it was only called that, like how the N**s called themselves socialist and North Korea calls itself a democratic republic)

_mlbt 1y ago
The problem is that communism can’t give you a fair society. You have to seize the means of production by force. This force has always created a brutal authoritarian regime that refuses to cede power willingly. Like in the book Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others. The top members of the party always live better than the proletariat. Marxism just isn’t compatible with human nature.
- immibis 1y ago
  By the exact same reasoning, no system can give you a fair society. All systems rely on seizing things by force. Now that's out of the way, perhaps some systems give you better unfair society that seizes things by force, compared to others. Perhaps we could calmly deliberate about which system that creates an unfair society by seizing things by force is the best, and then implement that system, creating the best possible unfair society that seizes things by force.

tmcdos 1y ago

Every ideology is flawed - even the utopias. Perhaps the humanity should try without ideologies?

dragonwriter 1y ago
“Ideology” is just any system of values. Like “politics” people tend to pretend that ones they like are some other category while the label only applies to things they don't like, but...