How do you even respond to such shit-tier criticism?

Zizek doesn't like debates, iirc. And I wouldn't like it either if you have to debate someone like Peterson.

Well my point remains, Chomsky won't be around forever and he's kind of old to be the voice of a movement like he was in his younger days. When do we get fresh blood?

Matt Christman from Chapo, C. Derrick Varn who's on all types of lefty podcasts, hbomberguy, etc. These people are all very well-read and intelligent and could do good in BTFOing reactionaries and alt-right demagogues. I wonder if they would bother doing that shit, though, especially how we've seen the alt-right self-implode without any outside attacks.

shit op i can't even tell who is serious anymore

All of them are pomo goon eceleb attentionwhore scum. Contrast this with Chomsky, who is an influential intellectual in multiple fields of research, formally trained tenured academic, and renowned political philosopher in his own right.

I remember the cast of Monty Python's Flying Circus recently bemoaning the downfall of classical education, and how another generation of radical but cultured agitators like theirs may never again come about. The academy needs to be purged.

Whatever. They can serve our cause and already BTFO reactionaries, just haven't addressed Peterson in debate yet (mentioned and tackled on Chapo and Cum Town).

C. Derrick Varn is also an actual university graduate in philosophy, author and writes for several left outlets, so he's a tier up from the others.

You won't find people like that anymore on either side.

If you think the former and latter are not born of the same influence and their downfall not a direct consequence of capitalist developments and New Left deviations in the late '60s, you're going to fool yourself into thinking this degradation is some consequence of conscious deviations.

Why the fuck do people worship this guy? This is straight up demagoguery and and he relies entirely on moralizing and guilt tripping.

"There's something wrong with you!"

Disgusting.

I actually enjoy all the people you mentioned but comparing any of them to chomsky made my soul vomit.

Because he uses the same arguments Holla Forums uses.

One of the great things about Chomsky is that he's universally respected. That Peterson guy wouldn't be so arrogant if he faced him. Even Molymeme and Rebel media looked like school boys when they interviewed Chomsky.

What did you mean by this?

commies is dumb xD

Right, but I don't want to watch debates to see him humor some enamored pseudo-intellectuals. I want to see the old days of Chomsky vs Buckley on national TV not this weak ass youtube bullshit or Tomi vs Trevor wankery.

This one's kind of decent
youtube.com/watch?v=cE25ylnviks

Found in the comments of the video

Zero fucking self awareness. My god.

kek

Feels really, REALLY bad man

Words cannot express how much my jimmies were rustled. It's the standard "oh mao and stalin bad and they talk a lot about communism and like color red so gommunism bad :DD".

Communism is the fucking goal, you achieve it or you don't. Road to communism, at least according to MLs, is socialism. That's why USSR was called a socialist republic, it never was communist ever since it took the Tankie road of never-ending transitional period of state-capitalism, resulting in almost no socialism at all.

"Utopians are most dangerous :DDD". What is even that supposed to mean? Utopia isn't even an ideology, 90% of ideologies want to improve "something", even nazis wanted to purify the gene pool because they believed it would lead to humanity becoming genetically superior and shit like that.

asked and answered in the same line, good job

No, you would know the history, not their policies.

The biggest piece of evidence against this position is that you could freely leave Russia during the rule of the Tsars.

Why would utopians use language about a temporary period of "state capitalism"? Surely a communist utopian would never dream of uttering such a phrase.

Most people don't measure quality of live based on freedom of movement alone. Again, we're not arguing "was the soviet union good". We're just arguing "was the soviet union better on average that tsarist russia?". Few people would answer "no" who aren't belligerent ideologues.

Didn't Imperial Russia have the exact same system of internal passports and (borderline genocidal) forced resettlements as the USSR?

Yep, and double the famine fun

I agree, but it is still the most telling and damning piece of evidence against life in the communist nations of the 20th century vis a vis life in the rest of the world. Plus, it is a damning fact in and of itself, a state which operates like a giant prison camp when it comes to borders.

I have never heard that claim. If you look at the history of famous Russian figures of the 19th century like Dostoyevsky & Tchaikovsky, they traveled freely in and out of the country.

Look at any description of the USSR's restrictions on freedom of movement (on Wikipedia, for instance), and you'll repeatedly come upon introductions where they say such practices originated from the Imperial period, after a brief cessation during the revolution, though I haven't found any detailed descriptions of how these systems worked in a brief search. That's without even mentioning serfdom and ethoreligious subjugation, the aftereffects of which lingered long past their legal discontinuation.

Both were aristocrats, of the sort the USSR also allowed to travel to a certain extent. Aside from that, both personally fell afoul of the vigorous censorship and political crime regimes of Imperial Russia.

but this is exactly what the left and this board has memed about for decades since soviet union fell

he might be wrong about a lot but this is undeniable

Terrible argument. Do you think Stalin had restricted travel?

What "this" are you talking about? The failures of people in the 20th century to achieve Communism?

Not only would you have to give me sources on something I have never heard of from reading despite quite a bit about this period, but you would also have to explain

1. Why every other or virtually every other communist nation did the same thing.
2. Why the Bolsheviks continued it, and how the fact that the Tsarists supposedly did it was any kind of excuse.

Nobody is even getting into this, nor would it explain the same restrictions in countries where serfdom died centuries prior.

This and add to that the massive defections and entire groups of people that did leave as soon as they had the chance as opposed to in previous years. I don't know where the bizarre claim that Soviet Russia was better than Czarist Russia comes from. Why would communists even want to rehabilitate the legacy of Soviet Russia, it certainly had nothing to do with communism and its totalitarian nature reached far deeper into the lives of the average person than Czarist Russia did.

It's not that bizarre or controversial. Being better than tsarist Russia is an incredibly low bar to clear

We don't. But if that's been set up as the basis for argument (something is good as long as it's better than any other alternative), then even the Soviet Union fits that criteria. The point is to show that it is a bad argument, not that the conclusion is valid.

State socialism requires walls. You cannot have an open socialist economy.

Same claim can be made for Soviet Russia

…that's exactly my point of why his argument is bad. How are you having this much trouble following my argument?

I don't know why you people feel the need to apologise for these blatant psychopaths. It's not doing you or your movement any favors.

Not an argument

Are you implying those things are false or…?

'Mao and Stalin dindu nuffin xD' isn't an argument either, especially when it disagrees with almost all the available evidence. It's almost as retarded as holocaust denial.

Rebel Media interviewed Chomsky? The fuck?

No one said that either. Start arguing against non-strawmen anytime

Where are you getting this? From the Peterson video?

Yes, it's an extrapolation of his argument I detailed way up the thread.

are you misunderstanding that post on purpose? it's not trying to defend mao or stalin, but attacks the reduction of communism as an ideology into mao and stalin.

Yes they did.

Obviously implying that Mao and Stalin weren't 'bad,' or that pointing out their flaws is a bad thing.

No, you are

Why the fuck WOULDN'T he point out the most catastrophic failure of socialism/communism in history?

It seems you're just butthurt that he makes the most obvious and logical argument against these ideologies, by pointing how badly they can go wrong. No, it isn't directly attacking the ideologies themselves, because they're so ludicrously difficult (and arguably impossible) to implement in the first place.

I don't even like the guy but this is pathetic. has brain damage, wow.

I think you start these threads

nope no argument here

Them: You're wrong
Us: No you

Also I think I know that guys son.

Ok, lets read the post you replied to very carefully.

which you strawmanned to
in
while in the original post the point wasn't to argue for or against the merits of Stalin or Mao, but rather the line of argument itself. Belgian Congo does not inherently disprove capitalism either.
are you still with me?

...

If the best you can do is say I have brain damage with no actual retort, it's probably safe to assume projection and insecurity

You're the first person in this thread unable to parse the message. It's really not that complicated, but if you're having trouble with any of the bigger words I can help out buddy

Tell him to tidy his room.

Every. Single. Time.

What do you mean 'disprove' capitalism? Disprove that it works? Capitalism works fine, communism doesn't, and the attempts to get there led to tens of millions of unnecessary deaths. Whatever criticism you can mount against 'capitalism', it functions. Therefore, Stalin and Mao and their utter failure to achieve their aims is in fact a very valid argument against 'communism,' perhaps the most valid there is. That post was obviously suggesting that wasn't the case, which can only mean that Mao and Stalin were not 'that bad.'

Just shut the fuck up mate.

With arguments like that, who needs strawmen?

...

Are you developmentally challenged? He's saying that if the numerous totalitarian, violent, despotic governments operating under a capitalist economy don't invalidate capitalism then it doesn't follow that the repressive governments of passed Communist regimes condemn the entire economic theory.

you sure you aren't literally_shaking right now

when capitalism leads to 'tens of millions of unnecessary deaths' it isn't a failure of the system itself?
also read the original post you replied to - it talks of the difference between 'communist' countries like USSR or maoist China and the marxist concept of communism. if mao and stalin were bad or not is completely irrelevant in that sense.

no need to get upset, its only the internet

There's no real way to respond. His head is purposefully shoved up his ass. He knows the truth and rejects it in favor of what he loves more than the truth. That's what is so horrible about douchebags. He's willfully choosing not to change his mind despite all evidence.

Now, for real, the soviet union was passed off as a socialist country, but it got taken over by some authoritarian reactionary shitheads, lenin and stalin. It was literally run by psychopaths who had their best friends murdered. It was run by people who didn't give a shit about the welfare of the people. It was like Chile. Chile is a great example of the free market gone awry. Chile is very comparable to the soviet union.

Marx didn't advocate for the soviet union. He said the death penalty could never exist in a civilized society. We leftists do not advocate for the fucked up system lenin created. We do not want that. That is not real communism or real socialism. And fuck him if he just chooses to ignore our actual beliefs.

As I said, details are hard to come by casually, and usually attached to descriptions of the USSR. for instance:
remi.revues.org/5196?lang=en#tocto1n1
I suspect this is due to the lack of political motivation to investigate common conditions of life in the period from this angle, since on the one side are capitalist shills who play up how wonderful the Czars were, and on the other side you have Sovietboos who are loath to draw any comparisons between the USSR and the empire it "replaced", caught between them modern Russian patriots who glorify all periods of Russia as best they can, and modern anti-Russian foreigners who are focused on denigrating Putin.

Name an ML regime that wasn't immediately preceded by some sort of tinpot dictatorship at best, or feudal monarchy at worst. Seriously, they were products of their place and time.

Aside from what reiterated about ML being better or worse than what preceded it, because they were cut from the same cloth.

HAHAHAHA OH WOW! I was arguing in good faith up to this point, but the socdem reformism without which capitalism would've imploded in the late 1800s? The catastrophic crashes that happened constantly before then? Today's "business cycle" (i.e.: regularly shitting the bed every decade or so) tolerated as just an unavoidable part of the economy since then? The enormous economic, environmental, and human cost exacted from civilization by it? 4/10, classic bait, but try polishing it up with some original presentation next time. Pic related.

You are either being trolled, or arguing with a normalfag who is simply incapable of "getting it".
When you see someone instinctively recoil and start shrieking at the words "Stalin" or "communism" or "socialism" you should know they are probably beyond help.

Capitalism works, Communism doesn't.

As simple as that, pseuds. Stay triggered.

0/10 see me after class

I'm not criticizing the idea of walls, it's a necessary feature of state socialism. It's more a critique of the state socialist approach, but on the other hand it's not like I have any better alternatives.

That little attention he first got when he raged against the pronoun really got to his head. Podcast and Patreon soon to follow, no doubt.

wtf I love the status quo now

Not an argument ;^)

He's a tenured professor he doesn't need a Patreon, and I think he already does a podcast with Sam Harris.

With that said he's just trying to become a public intellectual by channeling resentment against identity politics and flirting with the alt-right

Why do these retards always pair off for maximum autism?

Sam Harris is less autistic than Peterson tbh, at least he was a real scientist at some point even if he supported the Iraq war and other such crusades, and is anti free-will.

Peterson is just a butthurt old man yelling at clouds who discovered a fertile base for "Dude just find the golden mean and sort yourself out lmao, fug trannies and braise jesus :DD"

lel

Just replace 'Marxism' with 'liberals' retarded understanding of Marxism' in your head and he makes decent points

Sorry, as obvious from the quotes, that was meant as a reply to rather than you. Regarding what you just said, though, I would go further, and say that even functional democracy requires some walls as long as the massive gulf between the ultracapitalist backwaters of the 3rd world and the socdem reformed 1st world produces such enormous perverse incentives through arbitrage.

That's why I support protectionist measures such as immigration bans and trade tariffs, but I also support open borders between economically and legally similar countries. For instance, segregating the EU into GDP/capita tranches. All temporarily, of course, until development can close the 1st/3rd-world gap, but I admit that's at least superficially similar to the "lel wither away" argument MLs hid behind.

Sam Harris literally bought his degree. He's like a porky approximation of a real scientist

I don't think Harris is autistic but I'm pretty sure he's a legit sociopath. I don't think I've ever seen him laugh

Within a competition-based economy where you either fight for what you can get or starve, people being shitty to each other is natural.

However, I do not equate something being natural with something being good or desirable.

You are right, capitalism is better at producing commodities and creating needs.

That's a big part of the problem.

this is pseudo intellectual borderline normie speak. its something i've noticed gaining popularity on the left psued circles on twitter and on here. pick a different word or phrase, you sound like a fag english major

shajfkcksnhxiekxnbwhhsidknsbhjejxjxjjskskjehdhxhjejxjkdndhxhjxjskwlghskkfkfisom nsuhdiekmrnfkrs

He doesn't, Harris and he had a couple of podcasts that were pretty antagonistic. Even Harris's retarded fans started to have the veil lifted from their eyes, as Peterson is genuinely a humane and nuanced thinker, even if you disagree with some of his retelling of history.

Sam Harris is a pretentious narcissist and Zionist who seeks to dehumanize Muslims due to their religion.

Interesting. There is something very artificial about him.

That's more Leonard Peikoff, and the focus is generally Iran. Harris is much more subtle about it. I believe his use of examples of nuclear war is not because he thinks that it should be done, but because it makes the ruling powers seem practically humane when they don't use nuclear weapons against nations like Iran, but only conventional weaponry.

I didn't see this before. The information you are sharing, talking about the 1860s, looks like a holdover from feudalism, and also probably had to do with conscription and the head tax.

Poorly constructed sentence, I know, but the general message is there. It appears to have been a minor issue by 1906, only mandating the holding of a passport in major cities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_passport#Russian_Empire

Well with Russia, the Russian Provisional Government.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_emigration_and_defection

continued.

The Berlin Wall was built in 1961. Are you really going to argue that the division between East and West Germany was a holdover from the Third Reich that the communist government never got around to getting rid of?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_emigration_and_defection

hbumberguy said he doesn't debate

Can't argue with quads like that

I recently discovered Jordan Peterson and holy Christ he has some of the purest ideology I've ever seen. I can't stop watching him, it's like a slow motion trainwreck of wrongness and stupidity. He borders on schizophrenia at times.

Ok but can we stop saying "not real communism" and just say "not communism"? The "real" weakens the statement and makes it easier to make the "no true Scotsman" claim. Don't make it harder than it already is. Using "real" makes it sound like you're doing a purity test rather than pointing out something failing to qualify in the first place.

Peterson isn't so much a personality but rather an object with the capability of propagating the most simple and common propaganda points of the red scare. Peterson doesn't seem to be capable of adding anything, he has simply absorbed what every socialist is forced to endure hundreds of times and regurgitates it for a wider audience.

When you hear someone raise their voice when the term "millions of people" is voiced you can easily tell how substantial their critique is going to be.