“Communism bad”

“Why?”

200 year old tropes so ancient they were debunked by Marx himself

Of course, you go through the motions of explaining the most basic political concepts that could be grasped by skimming the cliff notes for literally any Marxist works

“Friedrich Engels? Is he like the president of Germany or something?”

It’s like a kindergartener trying to teach you calculus.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      deleted by creator

      • ReadFanon [any, any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is gonna sound like it's a bit and that I'm just parodying Peterson's way of speaking in vague hand-wavey style but I promise you that it's not and I'm legitimately making an argument here...

        To Peterson, the historicity of The Gulag Archipelago is irrelevant to him because it represents a higher order, metaphorical truth.

        When you grasp this about what is important to Peterson's approach to truth then it becomes very obvious that he plays fast and loose with facts because he's not concerned with mundane truths that are the domain of historians and scientists, in fact he holds them in contempt especially when they run counter to his understanding, because he sees his purpose in uncovering and elucidating the metaphorical truths that structure our existence.

        If this sounds like a bunch of nonsense woo then you're right. If this sounds like the attitude of an aspiring prophet then you're right.

        But if you want to really understand how Peterson's brain works and why his avid followers seem largely immune to facts then this is the mentality that you need to wrap your head around. Pretty much everything that Peterson does is a sort of exegesis on this higher order, metaphorical truth that he's both attempting to understand himself while attempting to articulate it to his audience at the same time.

        There's a quote from him that really illuminates his belief about his "mission". I'll try to find it and if I do I'll edit it into this comment.

        • UlyssesT
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          deleted by creator

        • star_wraith [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          To Peterson, the historicity of The Gulag Archipelago is irrelevant to him because it represents a higher order, metaphorical truth

          And to add on to your comment, I think Solzhenitsyn himself sort of takes this approach in writing. I’ve heard Gulag Archipeligo described as “campfire stories about the gulags”, and I think that’s very apt. It’s not factual information, it’s just him gathering stories he hears from others. Whether or not those stories are true isn’t relevant. Solzhenitsyn saw it as his mission to bring down the USSR (and replace it with some Christo-fascist authoritarian state) and whatever stories he needed to pull out of his ass to make that happen was fine by him.

        • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I'm totally picking up what you're putting down here, yeah these people love subjectivr metaphorical truths, it gives them a spiritual charge. Its like they live in a world of pure signifiers, like they exist in a fog of metaphor and allegory and symbolism (they fuckin love their numerology too). It's like they're hoping to reach some kind of existential truth by tunneling through nonsense. It's ironic that theyre the ones who bang on and on about "facts and logic" because they have neither. They use the concepts as ritual fetishes, invoke their strange bile and wave around an ornate little doll called Facts and Logic. They present themselves as unassailable, because they have the doll on their side, but as soon as you assail them it crumples.

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            deleted by creator

      • ProfessorAdonisCnut [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        "He could have been simply brave for speaking truth to power, but instead he was braver for speaking untruth for power"

    • SkingradGuard [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I'm aware.

      Even if you tell libs/conservatives that, they just ignore it and say that her interview is just propaganda. Unreal.

          • Parenti Bot@lemmygrad.mlB
            ·
            1 year ago
            The quote

            In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

            -- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

            I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.