The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJung-Freud Archive
The Radical and Conservative Spirit of Communism
Illusion of Western Liberalism & Problem of Self-Degradation — Historical Communism vs Current Western Compulsory Degeneracy called 'Progressivism'
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Communism is both radical and conservative in spirit, hardly surprising as it’s a deeply moralistic ideology that developed in reaction to the revolutionary upheavals of capitalism. Remember that Karl Marx himself recognized capitalism as the most transformative system developed by mankind. It was most extreme and ‘radical’ in changing all forms of human relations and interactions. It destroyed entire communities and created new ones. It changed the way people thought and felt about values and their place in the world. Such breakneck pace led to much that was useful and good but also much that was alienating and soulless. Marx recognized that capitalism’s power was such that the genie could not be put back in the bottle. There was no going back. All that communists could do was wait for contradictions of capitalism to finally come to a head and unleash a revolution whereby workers would take over the means of production led by the dictatorship of communist moralists and intellectuals. This vision was radical, yet it was also conservative in that Marx hoped for a stable future where things wouldn’t change so drastically. In the communist future, human needs would not be sacrificed at the altar of profits and growth. Communists would inherit the means of production and wealth created by capitalism(and could only have been created by it) but, once in charge, they would regulate the pace of historical change so that society would serve the masses of workers than insatiable bourgeois greed for more profits. Thus, even though further ‘progress’ may be stunted in such a communist order, people would come before profits. The social order wouldn’t be upset just so some capitalists could make more money. Such emphasis on stability and balance was, in key aspects, conservative.

Still, Marx’s vision of communism depended on historical processes made possible by capitalism. Thus, Marxism is less anti-capitalist than post-capitalist. Marx didn’t argue that communism is the way to build an economy. He conceded nothing beats capitalism in wealth creation, technological innovation, urbanization, and emergence of mass consciousness. But he believed capitalism to be too ruthless and rootless for the good of the masses. Also, the bourgeois notion of individualism was illusory because only a handful of oligarchs controlled the key means of information and communication. And only a small number of people could really enjoy leisure and the arts. There was the bigger problem of rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. And these contradictions would eventually lead to mass uprisings that made communist revolution inevitable… or so Marx prophesied.

One problem of communism in the 20th century was it mostly impacted societies that hadn’t undergone the capitalist-industrial revolution. (As it turned out, established capitalism proved to be endlessly adaptive in meeting mass demands, distracting the masses with bread & circuses, and/or buying off the radicals with sinecures in the system.) The few exceptions were East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and to some extent Hungary. Unsurprisingly, communism was least bloody in those nations(though far from bloodless). But in nations where communism had to be used as a building tool for industry, it was bound to be bloody, not least because of pressures from capitalist/imperialist nations. After all, Russian communism was encircled by capitalist powers that, at one time, even sent troops into Russia(as US and its allies are today in Syria) to nip the revolution in the bud. So, there was a sense that unless Russia quickly built up industry, it would be destroyed. What it took capitalist nations a century to develop had to be done in a decade or two, and this led to the use of mass coercion and even state slavery. Russian Communism, far from inheriting the bitter but bountiful fruits of capitalism, would have to grow the industrial tree. It was even truer of China that, in the first half of the 20th century, made Tsarist Russia look like a modern nation. Also, endless civil strife and Japanese invasion destroyed what little industrial economy had been developed under the KMT. (And so, the current Chinese government argues, though rather disingenuously, that it must allow some degree of capitalism to develop the kind of modern economy that allows for a true transition to a communist economy.)

As for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, they are not entirely useful models of capitalist success because their growth depended so much on being part of the US empire. (Also, US capitalism could be far more generous than European capitalism because America has the best land and resources in the world. The US empire needn’t be as extractive of other parts of the world as the European imperialist economies did.) Had the US denied Japan and the ‘Asian tigers’ market access to American consumers, how far could their economies have grown? (While South Korea has often been compared with North Korea, what would happen to its economy if the US and its allies applied the kind of economic pressure faced by the northern half?) Even as their economies grew, they became ever more dependent on US whims and thus became political puppets of America; they have zero sovereignty, whereas Asian nations that developed from a communist foundation, like China and Vietnam, are relatively more sovereign.

In the case of Asia, the appeal of communism had partly to do with moralism and social justice(owing to their Confucian past) but also to its promise of anti-imperialism. Though Chinese Communists rejected Confucianism, their ideal vision was to a large extent a refurbishment of the Old Way. Confucius believed a good society should be governed by philosopher kings and a wise scholar-class; he also regarded peasants as the salt of the earth, a people of virtue. He had nothing but disdain for the merchant-business class as parasitic. Asian communism essentially replaced the scholar-class with revolutionary elites and replaced the peasants with the proletariat(though Mao made a big deal of peasants as a revolutionary force; Gandhi also favored the peasants).

But moreover, many Asians were attracted to communism because Russia declared itself a friend of non-white peoples under European imperialism-colonialism. Also, before the new US-dominated order of the post-WWII era, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism in most of the world. The system was rigged so that industry would be centered in the European metropole while the Third World would be used mainly for raw materials and basic manpower. Because Chinese and Vietnamese communists came to political consciousness in the first half of the 20th century when capitalism was rigged in favor of the West, they tended to see US-led capitalism of the post-war era in the same way, i.e. US capitalists would continue to do what the Europeans did. They failed to realize that US capitalism allowed for all nations to participate in world markets and develop their own industries. But then, the US played it both ways to confuse the matter. At certain times, the US sided with the Third World against the Europeans, as in the Suez Crisis. But at other times, US pulled off coups, as in Guatemala and Iran, that forestalled any lurch toward ‘socialism’. In the case of Vietnam, the US aided the French against the Viet Minh after World War II, convincing the Vietnamese communist-patriots that the Americans were a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’.

It’s debatable to what extent the Cold War had a humanizing or dehumanizing effect on US foreign policy. Did the Soviet-Communist Threat make the US kinder and more generous to the Third World to win hearts and minds? Or, did the US dig in its heels and support loathsome regimes just to contain communism? Probably both depending on the place and setting. One thing for sure, the ebbing of communist threat in the 1980s made the US less knee-jerk supportive of dictatorial regimes in Asia and Latin America. But then, following the total demise of the USSR, the US empire grew more arrogant and aggressive, especially against the Middle East at the behest of Jewish Power. And the ‘new cold war’ is entirely the doing of the Jewish-run US. (This suggests that the rise of Jewish Supremacist Power than the fall of communism was mainly to blame for the rising obnoxiousness of US foreign policy. If not for Jewish domination, would there have been all these wars in the Middle East and North Africa? Would there have been a ‘new cold war’ with Russia or all this anti-Russia hysteria?)

Oddly enough, it’s arguable that the societies that most closely resembled Karl Marx’s vision of the communist future were post-war US and Western Europe. While they retained capitalist economic systems, the government played a powerful role to level the playing fields and to restrain runaway ‘greed’. It’s no wonder that Noam Chomsky thinks that the US from the 50s to the 60s was the golden age where wealth distribution was most egalitarian. High taxation(at over 90%) and powerful labor unions(and limited immigration) meant that capitalists couldn’t act like Jeff Bezos, Koch Brothers, and Tim Cook(the Crook). This New Deal America and Marshall Plan Europe took pains to spread the wealth around. Capitalism remained and continued to operate on the basis of profits, but through taxation and the power of collective bargaining by big labor, there was a burgeoning middle class that became the majorities in US and Europe. Of course, Karl Marx envisioned a total collapse of capitalism, and Marxists scoffed at the notion of ‘social democracy’ as a craven compromise with capitalists; Marxists felt the same way about fascism. Still, the postwar order was quasi-Marxist-lite in that the vast pools of workers were allowed to share in the fruits of capitalism like never before. Among Western European nations, Labour-led UK came closest to Marxism when big labor attained unprecedented power and when big industries were nationalized.

Now, even if a communist order were to inherit the wealth of fallen capitalism, it is doubtful it would function well for long. Just imagine the city hall running all the industries. Imagine New York city hall running all the hotels, restaurants, apartments, factories, shops, and etc., and it’s obvious why things would run slowly if at all. It’d be a bureaucratic nightmare. This is why even communist nations experimented with some degree of privatization and small business to provide incentives to people to work harder and be more productive. Now, some Marxists condemned bureaucratized communism and argued for something closer to voluntary-anarchism made up of local communities working closely together along democratic lines. Israeli Kibbutz works along these lines, but still, people feel most free when they can run businesses or look for jobs on their own.

Government tyranny often degrades individual dignity but not always. Tyranny can also save individuals as humans are pretty self-degrading. Can tyranny degrade a population? Sure, we are witnessing it now in the West with the Deep State oligarchy pushing all sorts of degeneracy such as globo-homo, trashy feminism, Afro-mania, Jewish egotism, mainstreaming of pornography, and the like. In the past, decadence was a matter of freedom in a liberal democracy. Today, it’s mandatory as all of us are forced to bake cakes for ‘gay wedding’, refer to a man with a wig as a ‘she’, pretend blacks are angels when too many are thugs, celebrate ‘slut pride’ as ’empowerment’, and honor Jews as all-knowing & all-wise when so many of them are insipid a-holes like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.

Besides, true liberal democracy is dead in the West where the so-called ‘free press’ works hand in glove with the deep state and encourages censorship in media monopoly and internet platforms. Today’s ‘liberals’ are elitist scolds who work for Zionists and the Deep State than defend the rights of free speech and free assembly. Just ask BDS supporters how ‘liberal democracy’ works in the West. Under the new system, decadence and degeneracy are not merely individual choices but the official value system of the Empire of Judea. Today, most politicians in cities are COMPELLED to march in ‘gay pride’ parades.

The current system gives the lie to the notion of individualism. While capitalist systems were more individualistic than communist ones, the current rulers of the West fear genuine individualism. Prior to the rise of the internet, nearly all information and discussion were dominated by a handful of corporations and elite institutions. The Internet gave rise to true individualism, for good or bad. So, what did the Power do? The Power rigged the game so that a handful of oligarchs, mostly Jews, would gain platform monopoly and shut down individual voices that deviated from the official dogma. Jewish Power also used financial power to make it nearly impossible for dissidents to make any money. Jewish Power made McCarthyism look like kid-stuff by using whatever means to have any dissident fired and blacklisted from jobs. So much for individualism. For a time, the internet offered a hope for true individualism in thought, ideas, and exchange of information, but Jewish Power gained dominance as gate-keepers of news, search algorithms, and money. While dissidents are not shot in the back of the head or dragged off to gulags and there are alt-tech sites, the fact of the matter is that most voices are irrelevant or inconsequential without access to the main square of debate and discussion.

Most damaging is that all this censorship goes under the label ‘liberalism’ when it is directly opposed to the very spirit of liberalism. But labels matter, and as long as Jewish-Tribal illiberalism goes under the name of ‘liberalism’, so many people will be fooled into believing, “I support PC and censorship, and that makes me ‘liberal’.” What operates in the West is a kind of selective tyranny. It allows and even encourages total unfettered freedom in certain areas — foul language, anti-white hatred, tattoos & piercings, green/purple hair, globo-homo-tranny trashiness, black thuggery, white self-loathing, horny for Zion, video game violence, alcohol & drugs, sacrilege against Christianity, etc. — while suppressing the kind of freedom, no matter how soft-spoken or genteel, that dares to speak the truth about Jewish Power, black crime, deep state corruption, homo decadence, and tranny lunacy. Antifa can burn down police stations and BLM can riot and loot, but Jared Taylor cannot use Paypal and Stefan Molyneux can’t have a channel on Youtube.

Because certain expressions and actions are given free rein while others are censored or penalized on account of them being ‘hate speech'(therefore not legitimate as expressions of freedom), the current West fools itself(and many around the world) that it is indeed free. Imagine an order where a white woman has the choice of having sex with a black man or not having sex with him. Such would be genuinely liberal. But suppose the New Order says she MUST have sex with him because to reject him would be ‘racist’ and ‘hateful’. In other words, she no longer has choice and must accept even interracial rape while the very notion of saying ‘no’ to sex with a black man becomes ‘hateful’. This is what has happened with the Homo issue. When the West was closer to the liberal ideal, one could choose to be homo or to support homo interests. Still, it was not compulsory.

But then, ‘gay wedding’ was forced on all the nation, and all businesses must bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. And politicians must march in ‘pride’ parades and praise homos to high heaven, just like all politicians MUST praise Jews and Israel. It’s not a matter of choice. As such, the current West is really a rape victim of Jews, homos, and blacks. It cannot say NO, not even to illegal immigration-invasion. No matter what Jews, homos, and blacks demand, we must grovel and give. We don’t have a choice. Jews want billions more in aid to Israel? It has to be given. Homos want the entire month of June as their month to take over cities and prance around? Roll out the pink carpet. And what is truly disgusting is that the great majority of Americans, even so-called ‘conservatives’, are fine with this or even impassioned about it. So much for individualism. If people in the West are indeed individuals, why are they so sheep-like and so easily swayed hither-thither? How did a nation that was mostly anti-‘gay marriage’ become pro-‘gay marriage’ in such short a time? How truly degrading.

Communist tyranny for the most part could be brutal, repressive, exasperating, torturous, and even murderous, but it wasn’t generally degrading. It was like theocratic tyranny. In this, Godless communism had something in common with Christian tyranny and Islamic tyranny(the kind one finds in Saudi Arabia and Iran). It was intensely moralistic and placed great emphasis on basic virtues. It had little tolerance for decadence, degeneracy, deviance, and etc. It emphasized one’s duty to society, social justice, and the basic necessities of man. It extolled human virtues. The problem is we are not angels, and we don’t want to be scolded all day and night. It’s like even most hardcore Christians don’t want to live in a theocratic order and be preached endlessly. Even most Muslims don’t want to live under Islamic tyranny. And the Middle Ages in Europe was a rather gloomy period under the power of the Church. And Catholic Spain under Franco was hardly a fun place. And some find the Neo-Christianism of today’s Russia to be inching toward repression.

However, all such are not degrading. They may be stultifying and boring — like what kids feel sitting in churches when they really want to go outside and play — , but they are not degrading. Today, the UK that allows the ‘freedom’ of LGBTQXYZ parades is degrading whereas the ‘authoritarian’ Russia that forbids such is not degrading. Today, ‘free’ Japan is a far more degrading place than repressive China that does NOT allow pornography, approve of globo-homo, or encourage green hair/tattoos/piercings on the national airwaves. South Korea and Taiwan under military dictatorships in the past were far less degrading than their current incarnations of globo-homo, K-pop degeneracy, hedonism, materialism, and etc. Like Shane said of the gun, freedom is only as good as the people who use it. 60s Counterculture proved how freedom can be used to degrade an entire population with indulgence in sex, drugs, and youth culture. And all those white working class folks who died of opioid overdose wallowed in self-degradation of substance-abuse. Terrible use of freedom. Of course, the rotten ruling elites didn’t care. (If white goyim sold drugs that killed off innumerable Jews, the media would have been outraged, but goyim are mere sheeple to Jews who run the media. Whether white goyim or Arab goyim, they are expendable in service to Jewish profits and power.) Russia under globalist ‘liberal democratic’ rule during the Boris Yeltsin years was one of the most depraved and degrading places on Earth. Some would argue that Vladimir Putin hasn’t been ‘tyrannical’ enough in asserting Russian values and Russia’s place in the world. ‘Free’ Weimar Germany was far more degrading than dictatorial National Socialist Germany, at least until Hitler’s pathology went into high gear and set off crazy wars.

Now, there were certain cases of communism that were indeed degrading for two reasons: Cult of Personality and the Politics of Hysterics. Cult of Personality, whether of Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Ceausescu, and etc. is always degrading because it demands that people look up to some person as god-like. If people must worship, let it be God, gods, or some holy stuff. When people look up to a person as an infallible godlike figure, right or left, it can only be degrading. This is why the MLK and Mandela cults are also harmful. It’s one thing to say that those men achieved great things, but it’s quite another to elevate them to near-godhood. It’s of a childish mentality.

And then, there is the Politics of Hysterics, with the Cultural Revolution in China being the most obvious case. Same goes for religious fervor. Christians and Muslims were most dangerous when they got into the mode of inquisition, crusade, or jihad. ‘With God on our side’, they felt they could do no wrong; whatever terror or evil they committed was in the name of God. Same has been true of communism. While communist systems generally favored stability and order, they could turn rabid at times and unleash purges and mass hysteria like the one that rocked China in the late 60s, leading to mass destruction of peoples and property. Such hysteria can only be degrading because insane passions override any potential for reason and equilibrium.

But, such lunacies are not limited to communism or theocracies. In Jewish-ruled West, we’ve witnessed the hysteria of cultural degeneracy. In some ways, it’s more disgusting than communist and theocratic extremes because, whereas communism and religions have moralism as foundations, decadence/degeneracy is inherently immoral or, at best, amoral; therefore, to turn an immorality or amorality into the highest moral passion is ludicrous. It’s really a form of secular satanism in our ‘Disgustine’ Order(where things that naturally disgust us are given the ‘moral’ and ‘spiritual’ authority once reserved for figures like St. Augustine.

To be sure, decadence has value as a freedom, not a virtue. In a free society, people should be allowed a degree of decadence and vice, as people are somewhere between animal and angel. Decadence is to be tolerated, not extolled. Besides, creativity flows partly from the darker and subversive side of man. If communism failed because it demanded people be angels, the current global order is failing because it mandates people be animals whose main passions are tattoos, piercings, porn, rap, GloboHomo, Negrolatry. It’s like the dynamics of truth and lies. Ideally, we should prefer the truth over lies.

Yet, it’s a tall order to expect society to be built entirely on the truth. People naturally lie all the time. Also, even if everyone were committed to the truth, no one can know the whole truth, and everyone has blinders on, no matter how sincere he or she may be in devotion to the truth. As such, a society that is wholly committed to the truth and nothing but the truth would be a bad one. Communism was such an order that insisted that the dialectical materialism of Marxism-Leninism was the scientific truth, and there could be no other. Many communists were wholly sincere in their beliefs, but such purist radicalization of Truth led to a reign of fear because anyone accused of spreading lies or falsehood, usually ‘bourgeois’ in nature, could be destroyed.

But, as history has shown, no man, no matter how intelligent-wise-or-visionary, could figure it all out and know all the truth. Karl Marx was not the last prophet who finally revealed the eternal truth no matter how much his acolytes were convinced of it. But it doesn’t have to be communism. Any order that claims the monopoly of truth, even with utmost sincerity, is bound to go bad because it’s pure moral hubris for any person or order to know everything. So, modern democracy came up with a system that is dedicated to seeking the truth but also tolerates ‘lies’ and ‘falsehoods’. Part of the reason for tolerance is the acceptance of human nature as flawed — lying comes naturally to people, and everyone does it — , but the other reason is the ‘lie’ could turn out to be the truth while the official or conventional ‘truth’ could turn out to be the lie or falsehood. Many ‘conspiracy theories’ have proved to be true, while many conventional narratives have proved to be false.

But, the West is no longer that kind of system, one that generally favors the truth but has room for lies. The current West is for favoring and even forcing the Lie while suppressing the truth. Unlike early communists who sincerely believed in the truth of Marxism, the current Jewish ruling elites don’t believe anything they push. They surely know a man with a wig is NOT a ‘woman’. They surely know that Jews were not guiltless through history, i.e. Jews were as often villains as victims. They knew the Russia Collusion narrative was total baloney. They said Covid-19 is going to kill us all, but it suddenly didn’t matter to the rioters, looters, and ‘peaceful protesters’. They surely know BLM is based on an utter lie; why else did they reduce crime in New York with stop-and-frisk policies? In other words, the current Jewish Power is actively pushing what they know to be total lies.

Not only are they pushing the BS but they are cramming it down our throats and ramming it up our arse. It’s beyond mind-f***ing; it’s more like mind-rape or mental-nakba as people are FORCED to swallow the BS… or else. And since truth, backed by honesty and courage, will mention that the Emperor wears no clothes, it must be actively suppressed. If a system that, in total commitment to the truth, forbids lies is bad enough, imagine a system that forbids truth in total commitment to the lie; alas, that is the state of the current West. People are now being ‘canceled’ left and right for having expressed a view, no matter how truthful, that stands in the way of what the Jewish elites know to be the Big Lie. If even systems devoted to the truth end up as an empire of lies, as were the cases with theocracies and communism, just imagine the future of a system that is fundamentally built on lies.

This is why ‘gay marriage’ was so dangerous to civilization. It destroyed the truth of the most basic and meaningful bio-social-moral institution with the lie that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, i.e. homo-fecal-penetration among men and tranny-penis-cutting-and-fake-vagina-attainment are the biological equivalents of the process that produces life and perpetuates the species. But then, that lie was the product of another big lie, the cult of moral perfection of Jews built on the Holocaust Narrative that spread the lie that, just because Jews suffered horribly in WWII, they were cleansed of all sins for all their past, present, and future behavior.

Among communist regimes, the Cambodian and North Korean stand out. The Khmer Rouge was more like a Jim Jones Cult. It took the ruralism of Mao and Gandhi and pushed it to the limit. North Korea was ruled more like a dynasty, and the father-to-son transition of power was more in keeping with Chiang Kai-Shek’s son taking power in Taiwan and Lee Kuan Yew’s son taking the helm in Singapore. Also, their anti-intellectualism went beyond anything seen in other communist nations with the possible exceptions of China during the Cultural Revolution and Stalinist Albania. Cambodian and North Korean forms of communism were extreme opposites of one another. The Khmer Rouge had no use for industry and relied purely on peasantry in the countryside. Also, its rule relied on quasi-anarchic gangs of brainwashed youths who roamed around to torture and kill anyone deemed heretical or tainted. It was a system of terror but decentralized. Maoist Cultural Revolution turned even crazier.

In contrast, North Korea emphasized heavy industry and total top-down control, a communist Sparta minus the style. Khmer Rouge-ism was inspired by Maoism at its zaniest(Great Leap and Cultural Revolution), whereas the North Korean system was based on Stalinism and traditional Oriental Despotism. Still, even most communist nations loathed the Cambodian case; the Chinese supported it only to contain Vietnamese influence. And North Korea was so brainlessly Stalinist even after De-Stalinization in Russia that it became a running joke in Warsaw Pact nations. Also, even though irony wasn’t much appreciated in communism, the Iron Curtain nations weren’t without a sense of humor as a coping mechanism against authorities.

In contrast, the more earnest and obedient mass mentality of North Koreans made for a more childlike and stupid trust in authority and the cult of personality of the Great Leader. As ruthless as Stalin was, he wasn’t without intellect and culture, and there were cultural achievements in the USSR. Mao, though sometimes crazy, was a genuine visionary with a powerful sense of destiny. North Vietnamese leaders, though committed to a brutal ideology, were men of intelligence and talent. In contrast, Khmer Rouge guys were just nuts, and Kim Il-Sung was a third-rate hack with full-blown megalomania. In contrast, most Iron Curtain rulers were second-rate hacks with middling egotism; they had their own little cults of personality but within limits, and they had no intention nor the means to transfer power to their own children. (Oddly enough, the communist savagery of the Khmer Rouge was exposed by another communist nation, Vietnam. Generally, even as communist nations were at loggerheads with one another, they didn’t expose each other’s atrocities. Red China didn’t spill much ink about Soviet mass killings, and Soviets didn’t make too much fuss about mass deaths in China. But when Vietnam took over Cambodia, they made sure to expose the horrible crimes of the Khmer Rouge. It was a useful way to justify the invasion and to shame China as an enabler of this most loathsome regime. Even as the US acknowledged the evil of the Khmer Rouge, the CIA worked with China in the 80s to aid Khmer Rouge remnants in Thailand to ‘resist’ the Vietnamese occupiers. A total shi*fest.)

Aftermath of the Khmer Rouge madness

Ceausescu and Kim Il-Sung

Those on the ‘right’ have condemned the recent ‘woke’ mobs, BLM thugs, and antifa lunatics as ‘communists’ and the like, and there is certainly some similarity between their nuttery and radical excesses under communism, especially during the Cultural Revolution in China. But when it comes to iconoclasm, Christians and Muslims have been no slouches either. So many pagan temples were ground to dust by Christian mobs. Later, Catholics and Protestants went about slaughtering one another. Even now, Muslim extremists, aided by the US and Israel, destroy ancient temples and monuments all over Iraq and Syria. Also, the sheer lack of resistance to the current rampage in the West shows that capitalism has done its part in turning the masses into amnesiac zombies who’ve lost any meaningful connection to the past and feel no outrage in the destruction. And arguably, worse than physical destruction of churches is the spiritual desecration of them with globo-homo and BLM symbols. Do god and jesus serve homo degeneracy or worship black megalomania as the highest form of holiness?

At the very least, communism emphasized social justice for the masses, the workers who produced things and did real work. Also, communism didn’t favor one group over another. While most communism was nationalist, it didn’t say one nation of people was better than another nation of people. It was willing to put the past behind and let communist nations move forward together as a brotherhood of peoples. In other words, Russians were not good simply because they were Russian. Or Germans were not bad simply because they were German. This is in total contrast to what now prevails in the West with identity-idolatry, or ‘identolatry’, especially of Jews, blacks, and homos.

According to the current ‘wokery’, Jews, blacks, and homos are good, even holy, simply because they’re Jews, blacks, and homos. It’s not a matter of content of their character or legitimacy of their actions; they are simply good because of their identities. So, we must support and praise Jews no matter what they do to Palestinians, what they do in the Middle East or around the world. Jews know best and are the best no matter what they do because of who they ARE.

And look at the BLM madness. Blacks kill each other and other races. Blacks are top thugs and criminals. But blackness is to be eternally identified with what happened to Emmitt Till and in the Civil Rights Movement. So, never mind that blacks can do good things or bad things. Never mind that injustice can be done to blacks but blacks can also do injustice onto others. Never mind all that and just fixate on blackness as eternally tied to the Civil Rights Movement and ‘We Shall Overcome’. So, if blacks don’t want to pay at Starbucks, they must be extolled as angels. If blacks pull off one Hate Hoax after another, it’s always a ‘teachable moment’. If blacks cause all sorts of problems in schools and get suspended, we have the likes of Obama and others lecturing us that it’s due to ‘systemic racism’.

As for homos, never mind that many of them serve in the Deep State and work as goons for CIA and Zion to spread wars all over the world. Never mind the HIV crisis was the result of disgusting out-of-control ‘gay’ behavior. It doesn’t matter what Homos do. They are to be celebrated and cheered simply for what they ARE. According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are great simply for what they ARE. They can never do wrong; indeed they are right even when they’re wrong. PC says most non-whites(minus blacks) are to be judged by what they DO.

So, if they do good, they’re good while doing good, and if they do bad, they’re bad while doing bad. As for whites, they are bad simply for what they ARE. It doesn’t matter how much good they do because they ARE intrinsically bad, and therefore no amount of good done by whites can absolve them of their ‘original sin’ of black slavery and ‘eternal sin’ of the Holocaust. (But even this formulation of white sin is based on identity-idolatry. Why was American slavery worse? Because Northern Europeans enslaved BLACKS. And why was the Shoah worse? Because JEWS were killed. In other words, some victims are more equal than others.)

At the very least, communism didn’t play such games with identity-idolatry. While recognizing Nazi-German crimes, it didn’t turn Jews into Eternal Saints. Neither did communism condemn Germans as Forever-Villains who must atone til the end of time for what happened in WWII. As long as Germans were willing to work together with other nations, they could have their national pride. Also, the emphasis was on workers and basic virtues. Communism had nothing to do with globo-homo decadence, tattoos-piercings & other forms of degeneracy, skanky slut-pride, Afro-jiver neo-savagery, promotion of unfettered narcissism, mindless youth culture, and the like, all of which are the staple of Antifa, BLM, Western Feminism, LGBTQ nonsense, and etc. Antifa is more ‘gayday’ than Mayday. So-called Portland ‘communists’ are dominated by trannies with ties to rich capitalist oligarchs who did everything to undermine working class consciousness. Besides, the current BLM and Antifa violence got the green-light go-ahead from Jewish oligarch-capitalists who decided to stick it to Trump and White America.

In the two videos below, can anyone find anything remotely associated with Antifa anarchy, slut pride, ‘gay’ vanity, anti-white vitriol, mindless identity-idolatry of Jews-blacks-homos, and the Great Replacement? Notice East German nationalism was perfectly acceptable as long as Germans acknowledged the humanity of other nations. Also, communist feminism wasn’t anti-male. It merely said women deserve the same basic rights and could serve as labor force. It was about men and women having equal dignity, not about nasty Jewish bitches and lesbians spreading anti-male hatred for narrow agendas: Jewish bitches tell white bitches to hate white men, and lesbian bitches tell women that they should prefer carpet-munching to real sex with men.

As much as I detest communism, all of Europe would now be better off if it had come under Soviet rule after WWII. It’s no accident that men like Viktor Orban emerged in former-communist Hungary. Now, to an extent, their patriotism is a reaction against the memory of communism(and Soviet domination), but it is just as much an extension of what had been socially conservative and nationalist under communism. Indeed, the future of Poland seems grim because the younger generation has been so ‘pozzed’ by Western capitalism. Many young Poles put their people & nation behind globalist priorities of appeasing Jews, celebrating homos, worshiping Negroes, and welcoming Great Replacement in the name of Diversity. They want to go the way of the Irish who now welcome the Great Replacement and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Likewise, even though communism put China and Vietnam economically behind Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which nations are now more independent and hopeful in the next 50 yrs? Japan, SK, and Taiwan are utterly decadent and demographically doomed; politically and ideologically, they are total whores of globo-homo US. Incredibly enough, as miserable as North Korea is, it may survive as a people/culture in the next 50 yrs while South Korea, along with Taiwan, becomes an Asian Ireland.)

Ideally, a healthy traditionalism and conservatism should serve as balance against liberalism and progress. But the pace of change under capitalism has been such that the past has been left behind in the dust. For most people in the West and East, Pop Culture is the only culture left. How ironic then that communism, though a radical ideology, served as a substitute-conservatism against the tireless change wrought by capitalism that produces so many fashions that relegate tradition to a distant memory, if that.

The cases of Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceausescu are instructive. They certainly weren’t good guys and certainly not nice guys. But they have to be seen in context. Romania was a key ally of Nazi Germany in World War II and paid dearly for it. Naturally, the Soviets installed their communist puppet. Still, Ceausescu was able to forge a rather independent course for Romania. In 1968, he refused to join with other Warsaw Pact nations in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and he was wooed by the West as an independent kind of communist leader. His regime was rotten to the core, but some Romanians look back with certain fondness because their nation has benefited little since the fall of communism. In certain respects, things have gotten worse. (As bad as Ceausescu was, he was no worse than the creeps who run the Western Deep State. Of course, the difference was he had more power to imprison and kill people. Still, in terms of moral character, was he worse than George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist creeps at NYT & CNN, the goons at CIA & FBI, the scum that run Wall Street? Ceaucescu’s wife was an idiot, but so is Michelle Obama the phony. And even though Western elites cannot do to their own people what communist regimes did, they sure have no qualms about killing countless people abroad. Look at Iraq and Syria. But in a way, even Ceausescu wasn’t as evil and verminous as the current cuck-leaders of the West who push for Great Replacement against their own peoples. In my book, ‘Mama Merkel’ is worse. Emmanuel Macron who calls for the Africanization of France is immeasurably more evil. Justin Trudeau is a bigger joke. Boris Johnson who completed Brexit but welcomed the endless immigration-invasion of the UK by Africans and Muslims is many times worse.)

Communists came to power in Yugoslavia because the fascist Croats during World War II, as stooges of Nazi Germans, carried out all manner of atrocities, especially against Serbs. Naturally, under the circumstances, the pride of resistance fell to those on the Far Left. In contrast, as the Polish Right had rejected any alliance with Germany, it constituted the main resistance against both Germans and Soviets following the invasion in 1939. Tito is a strange case because he initially criticized Stalin for being too soft. The Soviets condemned his ‘adventurism’, and to save himself from Soviet pressure(and possible invasion), he turned anti-Stalinist. Thus, Yugoslavian neutrality during the Cold War was mostly accidental.

Still, the reason why some still have a soft spot for Tito is due to what happened AFTER communism. While the diverse makeup of Yugoslavia was always volatile, the US poured gasoline on the fire and ignited a ‘civil war’ to draw most of the newly formed republics to the West while isolating and destroying Serbia that remained close to Russia. Given the horrors that ensued and economic problems since, it’s understandable why some look back to the relative stability of the Tito years.

While it’s true that Jewish Power generally goes easier on leftist than rightist rulers, it’s more a case of “Is it good for Jews?” Saudi Arabia could be deemed ultra-right as a theocratic state, but it’s been protected by the Jewish-run media, more or less. Meanwhile, Assad of Syria has been far more liberal and modern but much condemned as a ‘butcher’ because Israel hates him as an ally of Iran. Current Jewish Power hates the leftist rulers of Venezuela because of their ties with Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, Jewish Power works cozily with quasi-Nazi types in Ukraine. If Adolf Hitler had been kind to Jews, Jews would probably not hate him so much even if he had killed bushels of Slavs and Gypsies. Jews don’t seem to be virulently anti-Mussolini because, for most of Fascist Italian rule, Il Duce was friendly with Jews and had many Jews in the regime; also, Jews tend to identify more with swarthy Italians. There are few Jews who still defend Stalin. Jews hated Stalin as the guy who purged Leon Trotsky and other Jewish Bolsheviks. Then, because of Stalin’s defeat of Nazi Germany, he was much appreciated by Jews once again, but when Stalin and later Soviet leaders sided with Arabs against Israel, the World Jewry increasingly became anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet in general. From the 70s onward, Soviet regime was kinder to Russia nationalists than to Jewish Liberals. While Russian nationalists were ideologically rightist, they could at least be relied upon to be patriotic; in contrast, Jewish Liberals, though more on the left, were seen as untrustworthy cosmopolitans whose true loyalty was with the Global Tribe.

Ideally, rather than Liberal Democracy or communism, fascism should have dominated Europe. But, World War II happened. The good thing about fascism was it synthesized tradition with modernity and capitalism with socialism. And it infused them all with nationalism. But what it lacked was a strong sense of humanism, and this deficiency led to racial nihilism among Germans and hubris among Italians, and that led to problems that ignited World War II. If Hitler and Mussolini had been wiser like Kemal Ataturk and avoided war, it’s likely that both the Liberal West and Communist East would have moved closer to the fascist model. Liberalism was too rootless while communism was too monomaniacal. But hubris led to war, and fascism got a bad rap. Still, everything that works today is sub-fascist, a combination of nationalism with a useful blend of capitalism & socialism and tradition & modernity. Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China resemble this model. Iran too survives despite sanctions because of the fascist element. And the positive aspects of Israel(apart from the hubristic mode of Greater Israel and warmongering) owe to the fundamentally fascistic formulation of Zionism.

 
Of Related Interest
Defending the Bolsheviks and Soviet Communism
Hide 148 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thank-you. This is an excellent contemporary defense of Communism. As a Communist, I am amazed that Communism gets lumped in with wokeism. And most Communists don’t seem to be interested in pushing back against wokeism.

    I’m curious about this: “As much as I detest communism, all of Europe would now be better off if it had come under Soviet rule after WWII.”

    So why detest Communism?

  2. Fascinating tour d’horizon. Many thanks. A few quibbles:

    Cult of Personality, whether of Stalin, Mao.. Mao, though sometimes crazy

    Mao discussed the cult phenomenon with colleagues, who felt it was unavoidable. He had, after all, saved China’s ass and they were hysterically grateful. Says Harvard’s John King Fairbank, “The simple facts of Mao’s career seem incredible: in a vast land of 400 million people, at age 28, with a dozen others, to found a party and in the next fifty years to win power, organize, and remold the people and reshape the land–history records no greater achievement. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, all the kings of Europe, Napoleon, Bismarck, Lenin–no predecessor can equal Mao’s scope of accomplishment, for no other country was ever so ancient and so big as China. Indeed Mao’s achievement is almost beyond our comprehension”.

    the Politics of Hysterics, with the Cultural Revolution in China being the most obvious case. Khmer Rouge-ism was inspired by Maoism at its zaniest (Great Leap and Cultural Revolution)

    The Great Leap was immensely ambitious, but the withdrawal of USSR technicians and engineers, combined with a doubling population left Mao few choices. It was beaten by weather, local incompetence and the US Grain Embargo. But during the Great Leap decade, the Chinese made their first car, their first truck, their first tractor, their first airplane, their first gunboat, and so on, in the late 1950s during the Great Leap Forward.
    A number of important plants were built with the help of the then Soviet Union, and began to play important roles in Chinaʼs economic life.
    Also during the Great Leap Forward, Chinese peasants built a great number of reservoirs throughout China. Of the ten biggest reservoirs in China today, the Danjiangkou Reservoir, Miyun Reservoir, Shisanling Reservoir, Xiashan Reservoir, Xinanjiang Reservoir, Lushui Reservoir, Xinfengjiang Reservoir, Songtao Reservoir, Shengzhong Reservoir, and Guanyinge Reservoir, nine were built during the Great Leap Forward. From 1949 to 1976, the 27 years of the Mao Era, Chinese peasants, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao, worked on 200,000 kilometers of banks of the Yellow River, Hui River, Hai River, Liao River, and so on to prevent floods. In 1949, before the Communist Party came to power, there were only 6 big reservoirs, 13 medium-sized reservoirs, and 1,200 small reservoirs in China.

    The Cultural Revolution was a successful literacy campaign that taught 400,000,000 illiterate peasants to read, write and vote. It was ‘revolutionary’ only because the peasants had been illiterate and voiceless for 4,000 years. Nobody was killed or injured during it, and the economy continued growing 6%-7% throughout.

    • Thanks: Kim Jong Il
    • LOL: Pop Warner
    • Troll: john-hopelo
  3. Capitalism is showing its true face! However one may feel about either Soviet Communists or German Nazis, at least they opposed Homosexuality. That is more than I can say for “American” Society, today!

  4. Julien says:

    All of these systems are passe. The zionist and rothschild system of surveillance and digital biometric slavery will replace all other system. Fully autonomous AI will act as their enforcers and which will not be able to act against their masters as security features will be built into them. Remember Robocop? Robocop had a human part, these AI systems are all machine parts.

    • Replies: @JM
    , @Anonymous
    , @old coyote
  5. Whatever his errors in economic management, Ceausescu tightly restricted abortion, contraception, and divorce. For this he (along with Khomeini) will one day be known as a heroic forerunner of the coming patriarchal counterrevolution, when the gorgons of feminism will be banished back into the caverns of hell. While Romanian women were undergoing random workplace gynecological exams to protect the nation from contracepting sluts, the great cucking was occurring in America, as divorce rates skyrocketed, pornography entered the mainstream, and all abortion restrictions were forcibly lifted. Meanwhile, while the US was sinking deeper under the yoke of the ZOG, Ceausescu was literally selling Jews to Israel. One day the great man will be universally revered.
    Later-period Stalin also gets kudos, for dealing with the Jews, banning modern art, and (partially) resurrecting the patriarchy.

    • Replies: @JM
    , @JM
  6. the cartoon at the end of the article is really interesting.

    “good job, donny!”

  7. anonymous[318] • Disclaimer says:

    This is probably not possible without geographical separation like Greater Idaho

  8. Treg says:
    @hmachine1949

    Start with The Black Book of Communism.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • LOL: Slav
    • Replies: @Slav
  9. lloyd says: • Website

    The Khmer Rouge under French educated Pol Pot developed a novel policy to stop the famine that the CIA set out to impose on Cambodia. Instead of commandeering the food from the country side, they closed down urban life and brought the entire population into the countryside to grow food. It was expedient for Vietnam to invent atrocities about them to exonerate their conquest of a Communist country, as it was expedient for the West to exonerate their previous destruction of much of Indochina. The Khmer Rouge preserved the Cambodian cultural sites. So I think they were deserving of some dispensation as Jung-Freud gives to all the other twentieth century tyrants. When I was in Cambodia, there was an outcry in Cambodian villages at the depiction of the Khmer Rouge in school text books. The display of skulls seems to me fabricated. Where are their bodies? Have the skulls been dug up from old cemeteries or even fakes? I taught this interpretation in my University economic classes in China. It appeared to get a good response from the descendants of the great Leap Forward era.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  10. While on the subject of communism, I’ve always thought socialist realism in art gets an unfair treatment. Conservatives dismiss it because it’s socialist, and leftists despise it because it’s realist (meaning it requires skill and effort, two great enemies of egalitarianism). I realize that most of it was mediocre, but some of it is quite visually appealing. I’ll take stunningly colorful North Korean propaganda posters over murals to Fentanyl Floyd any day.

    • Thanks: Kim Jong Il
  11. And Catholic Spain under Franco was hardly a fun place.

    Ah, the old “But White/Republican/Fascism etc. countries are so borrring.”

    How boring is a country that Salvador Dalí would chose to live in?

    https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/make-art-great-again-the-good-optics-of-salvador-dali-part-1/

    England without Jews: Elizabethan Age (Shakespeare, etc.)
    Spain without Jews: Rise to world empire.
    Etc.

    After WWII Marshall McLuhan wrote to Wyndham Lewis that Canada was so boring, it needed to “import a few million Jews to liven it up.” Instead, they got the comically philosemitic Pierre Trudeau, (*) and now, under his supposed son, it’s a multiculti shithole.

    With Jews, you lose.

    (*) https://dailyrake.ca/2022/12/31/cooper-pierre-trudeau-and-friends-a-canadian-hheritage-moment/

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  12. at least until Hitler’s pathology went into high gear and set off crazy wars.

    It’s not 1943, and we have the internets now, so there’s no reason to continue to “think” with ideas planted in your head by British Intelligence agents via the MSM.

    You have to be a special kind of retard to believe that those pasty teabags, having conquered 1/3 of the planet, and ruling it with an iron hand (ask Gandhi), were peace-loving pacifists who wanted nothing but love and progress for all mankind, until one day, for no reason at all, Hitler went nuts and tried to conquer the world.

    Since you also seem to think that the most intelligent, most educated, most highly cultured people in Europe, one day, for no reason at all, went nuts and elected Hitler in order to kill all the kindly, good-hearted Jews that were doing so much to help all mankind, so I guess you are at least consistent.

    • Thanks: HdC, Son of a Jedi
    • LOL: Zane
    • Troll: john-hopelo
  13. Jews were as often villains as victims? Ha! Ha!

    Their villainy rejected? Opposed? Antisemitism!

  14. Mac_ says:

    The article title in a way complete on own, remind of real life, same as bees hive, birds flock, wolves pack, (what’s left of any of them) to have revolving life, as long as able, is combining mind, energy, our direction, not dump energy into expanding void of psychos, selfish division earth destruct. Aside that, noting comment four facts, and is the black void. should shift against. Connect forward energy, wind, fire, water, earth, and people.

    JF is being a communist by making the article. So are comments. We should in real life around us, is energy. Appreciate the article JF.

  15. Franz says:
    @hmachine1949

    So why detest Communism?

    People in the West were Pavlov’d into the “hate the system” rut without realizing it makes no sense.

    Take capitalism. (Please). As British Colonies using “colonial script” (sometimes just scrip) as a medium of exchange, the simple folk of Pennsylvania and Virginia were wealthier than the English who stayed at home.

    That was then. Now? 50 billionaires own more than 200 million of their fellow citizens.

    So it depends on who runs the system, not the system’s specifics. Ben Franklin thought the Colonial Script — not much more than IOUs — could have run the US indefinitely. And with guys like Ben, it may well have.

    A talk with a Hungarian ex-pat made it clear to me that after the troubles of 1956, Hungary was probably better off than lots of capitalist countries. The floor of socialism protected many, the ability to start and run your own business was a great way to fill in the gaps. It was effective.

    It’s not fascism or communism or capitalism. It’s who’s running it. Franco did fine for Spain, the Perons did less well for Argentina. But Americans don’t want to look at it that way.

    • Agree: old coyote
  16. Dumbo says:

    Even if I detest Communism and commies, in the end one must admit that current “democracy”, “capitalism”, or whatever the current system should be called (“Satanism?), is even worse.

    You can eventually recover from a bad, authoritarian political system, even if it takes decades.

    But you can’t really cover from most your population being replaced by Blacks and Arabs, as is the case in Mälmo. (The current woman in charge – it’s always women, LOL – says that Sweden must just “assimilate harder”.)

    That’s another thing, too – Communism for all its faults was mostly masculine. No big female leaders, and little feminism in society (well, I guess women had to work, and there was some lip service about equality, but mostly women kept more to their traditional roles there than in the West, and they were not told to slut it up, as they are in the West. However, abortion was high in Communist countries too, so the birthrate problem already existed, and got worse after the end of Communism).

    Bottom line: Communism sucks. The current “Western” system sucks even harder. But that’s not a good excuse to go back to Communism, a failed, ugly experiment.

    • Agree: john-hopelo, Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
    , @Priss Factor
  17. What about all of Stalin’s victims? Wait, that is right. Most of them were Goyim. That is precisely why Stalin’s crimes are downplayed. Notice, the MSM goes on and on about the Six Million Jews, who perished in The Holocaust. The operant term being “Jews”! Seems they believe the lives of Jews are more precious than those of the rest of us.

  18. @Dumbo

    ((They))) convince women to dress as sluts, then invite in the Arab Muslims!

  19. Were it not for Communism, there would not be Fascism either. The Fascist movement arose in reaction, yet in imitation, of the Communist movement. This, of course, was most especially true of the most infamous type of Fascism of all: German National Socialism. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany alike were modeled on precisely the very Communist Russia they intended to destroy: complete with a single ruling party, secret police, and prison camps. One could say, Fascism arose in revenge for Communism!

    My intent is not to defend Fascism. I certainly would not defend National Socialism. Yet, one can clearly see how violence begets violence, when one studies European History. And, by the way, I think I know what the key difference between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler was, the key difference that would explain why no matter how many the former exterminated, he is never as demonized and vilified as the latter. You see, Joseph Stalin was much more quiet and introverted than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini were. One could say that “Uncle Joe” was a bit Taciturn even. And, Stalin’s books are never quite as read as Hitler’s. So, we do not have much insight into Stalinism as we do into Hitlerism. The Fascist error, the error of both Fascist Dictators, was to shoot their mouths off too much. Stalin, by contrast, knew when to be quiet.

    • Replies: @Marcali
    , @HdC
  20. The MSM seem to believe that only the Germans and their Nazis are truly evil!
    One feels like crying out: Oh really? What about the Soviet and Chinese Communists, and Communists generally around the world?

    But, we all know how the MSM will reply. They would reply that when the Communists exterminated off millions, it was different: and done for different reasons. Perhaps, for more noble reasons. After all, it was all for the sake of the Workers and Peasants of the World, or some such nonsensical rationalization as that.

    And, the Japanese? Why, according to the MSM, the Japanese are not even Human. Ergo, they cannot be condemned by the high standards one uses to condemn Human beings, like the Germans for example. So, one cannot call THEM evil!

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  21. There’s a lot to be said for a system that is founded on “from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.” Too bad for us and the world that the American Revolution happened a couple of generations too soon for this to have been its founding credo, instead of John Locke’s adoration of aristocracy. If and when such a system ever comes to a state with a long tradition of democracy and civil liberty (as opposed to, say, Russia, China, Germany, etc.), that state will be something to see.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  22. Marcali says:
    @hmachine1949

    Why detest? For this for example:

    The genocide and mass murder of the Soviet Communists (rolled):

    The Civil War period till 1922: 3,284,000
    The NEP period till 1928: 5,484,000
    The collectivization period till 1935: 16,924,000
    The Great Terror period till 1938: 21,269,000
    Pre-World War II period till June 1941:26,373,000
    World War II period till 1945: 39,426,000
    Postwar and Stalin’s twilight till 1953: 55,039,000
    Post-Stalin period till 1987: 61,911,000
    (R. J. Rummel: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917, Transaction Publisher, 1990.)
    It can be seen for instance, that before Hitler got into power at all in 1933, the Bolsheviks had murdered or otherwise eliminated about 12,000,000 human beings.

    • Agree: john-hopelo
    • Thanks: Trinity
    • Replies: @Anymike
    , @Commentator Mike
  23. Marcali says:
    @Twin Ruler

    Whole communist societies were forced to be quiet:

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
    ― Theodore Dalrymple in an interview with Jamie Glazov for Frontpage Magazine on 31 Aug. 2005.

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  24. @hmachine1949

    So why detest Communism?

    Because it was overly simple in its conceptualization of human nature and economics.
    The fact that communism lost ideologically in peace-time goes to show it wasn’t viable in the long run. China moved away from Maoism, and Russia settled for quasi-fascism after failures with both communism and gangster-globalist-capitalism.

    Fascism, or neo-fascism shorn of the flaws of the Italian and German varieties, has proven to be the superior way, even to so-called ‘liberal capitalism’.

    Fascism combines socialism with capitalism and stakes them on nationalism. It adopts futurism and change but is rooted in heritage and culture. Thus, it is the most balanced ideology.
    Communism was ultimately another form of monotheism: Karl Marx is god, his truth is the one and only truth, and it’s all about class struggle and equality.
    Fascism was neo-pagan in acknowledging the various forces at work, all of them legitimate in their own way. Monotheism says there’s only one god and all other gods are false. In contrast, the pagan view is there are many gods/forces, and while some are more important than others, they all play key roles in the larger whole. Communism’s monotheism insisted on radical socialism and had an ideological allergy to market economics. It championed revolution and heaped abuse on the past.
    In contrast, fascism accepted facets of both capitalism and communism. It accepted modernity but also venerated past and history, which wasn’t simply reduced to a Hegelian process whereby its only function was to lead to a narrow view of utopia.

    Fascism failed by overly emulating the Imperialist Capitalist West. Mussolini shouldn’t have emulated the UK and France in taking chunks of Africa, and Hitler would have done better to stick with German nationalism than go for the Greater Germanic Empire, especially to match Anglo Imperial Power.

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Wokechoke
  25. HdC says:
    @Twin Ruler

    Please research and make a list of achievements of national Socialism and communism, that improved the standard of living for their citizens.

    Hint: Every western country now has 4 or more lanes divided highways, and Volkswagen is still a very popular car.

  26. @Twin Ruler

    The MSM seem to believe that only the Germans and their Nazis are truly evil!

    MSM is controlled by Jews, and its core mission is to place Jews at the center of tragedy and guilt(for goyim). If MSM raised a big fuss about other great victims of history, Jewish Tragedy would have to compete with tragedies of other peoples. Communist victims are problematic to Jews because too many Jews were involved directly or indirectly with communism. Jews were big in American communism and sent nuclear secrets to Stalin. Since the 1960s, Jews made Joe McCarthy to be the worst of the worst for his anti-communism, which often meant anti-Jewish-radicalism.

    The only group that Jews elevated to near-equal status are blacks, and this has been a risky move. What if whites feel sorrier for blacks than for Jews? Worse, what if blacks begin to sympathy with Arabs and Palestinians? Still, Jews did this because they know their power is mainly based on white submission to Jews. In Europe, Jews can guilt-bait whites there as having been Nazis, Nazi-collaborators, 0r cowards who didn’t fight Nazis. But this is harder to pull off in the US that, if anything, fought and defeated the Nazis. So, Jews use the black thing to guilt-bait whites in the US, and this has been effective because whites have grown to worship blacks as athletes, studs, and rappers.

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  27. Miro23 says:

    Had the US denied Japan and the ‘Asian tigers’ market access to American consumers, how far could their economies have grown?

    That’s an interesting question, and it’s difficult to say since US corporations were attracted to outsourcing (increasing profits) as soon as it became feasible.

    But all the same, if you read a book like Park Chung Hee’s ” The Country, the Revolution and I “* – the US (after the Korean War) was happy to run South Korea as a colony on aid that mostly returned to US corporations. They had no interest at all in industrializing the country.

    It was a decision of General Park that South Korea could only get out of poverty by industrializing – which was a very difficult thing to do from such a low base. He had some experience of Japan and bought into their idea of strong industry/strong military. His industrialization came from taking some crazy risks, squeezing the public and directing what capital there was to export industry development (getting dollars). He obtained US investment by hyping up the N. Korea military threat and also getting Japanese investment and technical help using war reparations and better relations arguments.

    He was doing this as early as 1963, but it’s true that it only worked because he could sell S. Korea’s early industrial output overseas (build up foreign currency balances).

    * “The Country, the Revolution and I ” Park Chung Hee, Hollym Corporation Publishers, Seoul, Korea 1962. It’s worth reading the book just for the story of the Hyundai Pony (Turin motor show 1974).

  28. @Dumbo

    Even if I detest Communism and commies, in the end one must admit that current “democracy”, “capitalism”, or whatever the current system should be called (“Satanism?), is even worse. You can eventually recover from a bad, authoritarian political system, even if it takes decades.
    But you can’t really cover from most your population being replaced by Blacks and Arabs, as is the case in Mälmo.

    Yes. Communism was repressive in Eastern European countries, but the Soviets never tried to stamp out Polish identity or Hungarian culture. Also, the borders were respected. Even within the Soviet Union, national identities were respected, especially after Stalin’s death. It’s no wonder that the breakup of the Soviet Union was possible with the fall of communism. Under communism, many national regions had been left intact, even despite Stalin’s criminal forced-migrations of peoples.

    Now, Stalinism was murderous with lives, and millions perished.

    While mass executions and man-made starvations are not a thing in the Current West, something worse is happening: The Great Replacement or White Nakba. Entire cities and towns are being remade into Third World zones. Worse, what’s happening goes to show that demographic colonization is downstream from mental colonization. So many whites are WELCOMING White Nakba because they’ve been made to hate their own white skin. Prince Charles was offended by all-white royal guards. Prince Harry would love to turn the Royal Family into a bunch of Africans. And so many trashy Britons are into Africult, and Ireland has a homo-hindu as one of the top ministers.

    At the very least, despite the radical extremism, communism stood for something meaningful, like workers and makers having their fair share. The proles were seen as the heavy-lifters of society.
    In contrast, what is the most sacred figure in the current West? Homos & trannies and black thugs who loot and rape, and of course, Jewish billionaires who bring us more Wars for Israel. At the thematic level, the current West is degenerate and disgusting. Communist practice failed to live up to communist theory, but the theory itself is rotten in the current West. It’s like Christian theory failed to live up to practice, but still Christianity is a profound moral and spiritual religion. In contrast, Satanism is rotten even as theory. The current West is satanist because, never mind the practice, the theory itself is evil. Indeed, the current official ideology is so evil that it’s a relief that pockets of the West fail to live up to them. Blessed are those who aren’t into drag queen story hour or suppression of BDS(as ordained by Jews).

    Peoples could survive Stalinism, but after the current globalism is over, there will be never left to save in the West.

    • Agree: Slav
    • Thanks: Chuck Orloski
  29. @Priss Factor

    The only hope then, is to get the Blacks and Jews to debate each other over which atrocity was actually worse, The Holocaust or Slavery. Fortunately, this has already happened for quite some time. And, we should also bring up Liberia– the African American version of The State of Israel.

    What makes the situation in the Middle East so much more stupid is this: Islam, basically, is another form of Judaism. I cannot understand why anyone would hate one of those religions while loving the other. And both Jews and Muslims hate White Goyim/Kaffirs. I suppose, one can perceive the humor in that.

    Still, I often wonder if the Republican Party secretly desires for Muslims to remain as religiously fanatical and fundamentalist as they are. After all, the Muslim Arabs could decide to become more secular and turn away from Faith to Science. This, of course, would make the Arabs more dangerous to the White Race, since then said Arabs could technologically compete with Whites, and such technology could be converted into advanced weaponry. This, in all likelihood, is what the Republicans secretly fear!

    People are waking up to Israeli crimes. And what makes it all the more stupid is this: for exactly the same reason Americans hate what happened to the Jews in The Holocaust, Americans also love what the Jews, in their turn, are doing to the Palestinians. After all, Americans worship Jews above all others. We are living in the age of Jew worship. It all has to do with a certain superstition: the superstition of Jewish Divinity. After all, the Jews are called The Chosen People!

  30. @James J. O'Meara

    How boring is a country that Salvador Dalí would chose to live in?

    Dali was a strange figure. At any rate, he came into his own before the Spanish Civil War, and his later career was essentially propping a readymade brand. At any rate, me thinks Dali intuitively understood(like Camille Paglia) that his brand of transgression could only work within a traditional setting. In a world where transgression is made transcendent(as in the current degenerate West), there is no place for real eccentrics as even your average dope will be waving the homo flag and cheering at drag queens.

    Also, Franco’s regime tolerated certain eccentrics(and even tried to woo certain figures like Picasso and Bunuel) precisely because the Spanish Right was so devoid of culture and creativity.

    But then, one of Soviet Union’s greatest artists since the 60s was the rightist-nationalist-Christian Andrei Tarkovsky. While cultural repression can inhibit creativity, the alienation from the official narrative may actually fuel inspiration. Hungry starving artists are most driven, and artists often lose their edge when favored as court-artists.

  31. @hmachine1949

    You’ll be swinging from a lamppost before you ever comprehend that your jewish mind virus is ontologically evil, so I won’t bother explaining to you that mass cultural genocide, ethnic eradication, and militaristically enforcing the principles of Frankist Sabbateanism are objectively wrong. Die, commie.

  32. Anon[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @hmachine1949

    Indeed, why detest communism?

    While embracing the universal brotherhood of man, communism is also nationalistic because its socialist roots is the recognition that we are a social animal whose self-realization and affirmation as an individual is achieved through and in the social milieu of the family, clan, tribe and nation.

    Think about it. What happens to a human being if deprived of the social supports of kinship and social networks? The first casualty of that deprivation, the family, means the end of humanity, unless the State steps in to produce factory assembly lines of baby mass production.

    We are already in the course of that insane development with reduced fertility in the “enlightened” capitalism while the State encroaches deeper into the family’s domain to produce tomorrow’s cookie-cutter babies.

    Yes, communism is nationalistic and conservative and the only hope for mankind’s survival.

    Great article Jung-Freud! Malgre’ the faux pas – e.g. Stalin was against the “personality cult” often interrupting speakers in mid sentence to cut down fawning speeches.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  33. @Godfree Roberts

    The Cultural Revolution was a successful literacy campaign that taught 400,000,000 illiterate peasants to read, write and vote.

    So, from 1949 to 1966, the great majority of Chinese remained illiterate under Mao?

    And what was there to read? Little Red Book?

    Books were burned en masse during the period.

    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @lloyd
  34. anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @lloyd

    Unz’s own Israel Shamir has published a remarkable essay arguing that the Cambodian Pol Pot Khmer Rouge genocide is a fake exaggerated narrative
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/

    Every major claim of mass murder or death / genocide / famine, has notable counter-point literature

    Shamir has published detailed material here on Unz, with sources saying the Soviet Stalin-gulag death & imprisonment figures are fake, with Soviet archives listing, e.g., about 10 million total arrested during thirty years of Stalin’s rule (The USA arrests 10 million people every single year these days!)
    https://www.unz.com/ishamir/red-zog/

    Canadian Douglas Tottle did a 1987 book denying the Ukraine starvation ‘Holodomor’, as based on a mish-mash of Hitler-Nazi propaganda plus Hearst media fanatic anti-Bolshevism; Tottle’s ‘Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth’, is free online here
    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

    Here’s a rejection of the Armenian genocide narrative by the Turkish foreign ministry
    http://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn – openly a fan of Spain’s Franco – is seen by some as a deceiving opportunist with fascist leanings. Solzhenitsyn’s first ‘Stalin gulag’ book in 1962 was sponsored by Khrushchev himself … Solzhenitsyn tasted fame and glory thanks to this, and seeing the West full of ‘Stalin killed tens of millions’ stories, Solzhenitsyn got fabulously rich going along … leading some to argue he is not credible
    http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

    And notably, at least 10 prominent Jews have added to Nazi Holocaust denial claims, including Ron Unz … the list below is in chronological order by birth year

    (1) Joseph Ginzburg (1908-90) aka Joseph G. Burg, who personally interviewed Auschwitz survivors & had his books burned by postwar West Germany
    https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/Josef-Burg.html

    [MORE]

    (2) Guy Dommergue (1924-2013), full name Roger Guy Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, French anti-circumcision activist
    https://www.henrymakow.com/2014/09/Circumcision-Explains-Jewish-Psyche.html

    (3) Bobby Fischer (1943-2008), chess master & USA dissident
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/bobby-fischer-speaks-jews/

    (4) Jacob Cohen (born 1944), his earliest childhood in Morocco

    (5) Robert Litoff (born 1945), Connecticut-born Phi Beta Kappa in psychology
    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=943

    (6) Gerard Menuhin (born 1948), son of the famous violinist
    https://www.henrymakow.com/2019/11/does-holocaust-denier-book.html

    (7) Nathanael Kapner (born 1950), convert to Orthodox Christianity & prominent web dissident
    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=943

    (8) Norman Finkelstein (born 1954), Princeton PhD & author of ‘The Holocaust Industry’
    https://web.archive.org/web/20161004125702/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPr8GYUK2EE

    (9) Ron Keeva Unz (born 1961), running the successful, California-based, conservative Unz Review
    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    (10) David Christopher Cole (born 1968), who as ‘David Stein’ made a 1992 video saying Auschwitz was significantly fake



    Video Link

    • Replies: @lloyd
  35. Dumbo says:
    @Anon

    While embracing the universal brotherhood of man,

    That’s where it goes wrong. I remember reading commie authors that talked about the “New Man” that was going to come, someone who would be more fraternal, wise, caring, and I was wondering… Where the hell is this “New Man” going to come from?

    Communism is bad because it’s an Utopianism based on false premises. You have to start from the idea that man is a “twisted branch” (kant), or call it original sin, whatever, but nothing perfect or ideas can come from mankind.

    communism is also nationalistic because its socialist roots is the recognition that we are a social animal whose self-realization and affirmation as an individual is achieved through and in the social milieu of the family, clan, tribe and nation.

    This seems more similar to fascism, which was a kind of right-wing socialism when you think about it. Communism was more international and abolished borders when they were not convenient – i.e. Soviet Union.

    Also, Communism was atheist, which destroyed a lot of social bonds (After WWII this started to be reversed a bit, but it would take the end of communism to really fix things).

    In the end, Communist are just irremediable Utopians whose God is “Humanity” or “Equality”, a very bad religion if you ask me.

    But the bottom line is, there is no Capitalism vs Communism, it’s jews all the way down.

  36. lloyd says: • Website
    @anonymous

    As someone said, the public believe the biggest lies because they can’t imagine telling such whoppers themselves. Solzhenitsyn did his time as a dissident intellectual, living in working conditions normal for an industrial labourer. Having completed it, he returned to the literary scene. That is a great improvement on the contemporary treatments of dissidents in America today. For them, their penal hell hole never ends in and outside prison. Every Western journalist working in the Soviet Union received funding from CIA in order to give a standard anti Soviet Union slant. Left to themselves, they probably would have written like Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor. In New Zealand, the anti white narrative expands every year as the stories top themselves. They have their gas ovens where Maori children were mercilessly flogged for speaking Maori by sadistic white teachers. There is no recorded evidence.

    • Agree: Slav
  37. lloyd says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    One cannot guarantee that Chinese brought up in the Mao era are literate. If 400,000,000 Chinese were taught to read and write, that means several hundred million remained illiterate. Rather the opposite in the West, where one cannot guarantee people brought up in the on going Western cultural revolution can read and write. I have been told by Chinese that during the Cultural revolution, the schools were closed and book shops only had the Little Red Book. Chinese look back on that era with bemusement. A saying in China is or was: “Mao Tse Tung gave us freedom, Deng Xiaoping made us rich”. Chinese are not ideologically driven. You might say their glass is always half full, while in the West, it is always half empty.

  38. How the Chinese Communist Party Works.

    • Thanks: Agent76
  39. In the case of Vietnam, the US aided the French against the Viet Minh after World War II, convincing the Vietnamese communist-patriots that the Americans were a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’.

    • Thanks: JM
    • Replies: @JM
  40. When the US Army uploaded this to YouTube, before they were eliminated, a few comments claimed that the wrong side lost World War II, but I don’t think that they meant the Soviet Union.

  41. Anymike says:
    @Marcali

    This adds up to about 225,000,000 dead in about 70 years. Seriously, the Soviet women of childbearing age must all have been constantly pregnant to make up for these staggering losses, the ones who weren’t themselves dead of course. How did the Soviet Union rebuild after World War II and for decades thereafter compete with the West in the space race and in military power with everybody dead? How did they defeat the Wehrmacht with everybody dead?

    I think there is something wrong with these numbers. You know. You know.

  42. Anymike says:
    @Observator

    The dictum “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” grows out of Karl Marx’s personal early roots in Platonic idealism. The Platonic order and the Platonic concept of social justice posits that there are within the human kind different orders of people each of which has different capacities and talents and different needs in life both on a daily basis and in the longer arc.

    Under Soviet communism, it didn’t work out so well though. The ordinary production worker contributed according to his unique abilities and was deemed to need a space in an overcrowded cinder block apartment resembling the worst of American public housing in that era, a good pair of boots that would last two or three years and a week in the Crimea every summer.

    The apparatchiks and nomenklatura by contrast contributed according to their ability to administrate and received according to their need for Western credit cards and annual shopping trips to Paris.

    But, that’s the theory of it anyway. Our big problem worldwide is that we are living in a sewer of Aristotelian inadvertency and inconsistency. Aristotle believed that human males and human females had a different number of teeth. That’s all you need to know.

    He also in his epistemological hierarchy made the definition of who stood where in the hierarchy of knowledge essentially social and therefore manipulable. How did that work out? It’s all in Book I, chapter 1 of the Metaphysics. You only need to read a couple of pages to see what a bunch of rot it is.

    • Replies: @old coyote
  43. …and the most dangerous superstition, the belief in state & mercenaries – (s)electional faith in government & authority, keeps rattling on either way, instead of self-government based on truth (facts / real freedom of speech).
    Every people gets the people and the governments it deserves.
    Iron & blood are the only game changers.
    The world deserves the real and the current gamers deserve the best punishment available: the worst lifelong incarceration (if lucky) and instant death (if unlucky) with greetings from Monte Christo.

  44. JM says:
    @Julien

    Agreed. And Communism, Fascism, Monarchism, Mixed Economy…all these look like beacons on the hill beside the Surveillance Society.

  45. Which is worse, witchcraft or nazism? Is a narrow moustache more evil than a pointed hat? Why? Will my career be destroyed if I don’t bend my arm at the elbow when waving? Nazi salute? Are you sure?

    Are modern religions and their treatment of straight-armed heretics better than older ones?

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  46. JM says:
    @Zadachabudetvypolnena

    The other thing he did, which – probably unjustly – hastened his demise was to accelerate the re-payment of Romania’s National Debt to the Western bankers so that Romania could be debt free.

    Now the national assets are a free-for-all for all the foreign and domestic parasites. That is no step forward nor was the destruction of Heavy Industry. But neither was the physical destruction of the – admittedly – flawed elites under earlier Communist regimes. His reconstruction of the capital was also pretty catastrophic.

  47. Quote:

    But you can’t really cover from most your population being replaced by Blacks and Arabs, as is the case in Mälmo.

    Excuse me. The spelling is Malmö.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  48. JM says:
    @Zadachabudetvypolnena

    BTW, in his “literal sale” of Jews to Israel how was the price determined: by a predetermined Schedule of Charges based on what the market would bear (since the Romanian nation was a Monopsonist) or by some kind of auction system?

    On another matter: an earlier – pre-Communist – regime had a stroke of genius in solving the Gypsy problem: they offered the leaders a sovereign region of the country for the settlement of the Gypsy population. Somehow nothing came of it.

  49. Mark G. says:
    @Anymike

    I think there is something wrong with these numbers. You know. You know.

    I believe those are cumulative numbers with the final total being 61,911,000.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  50. Malla says:

    Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and East Asia became progressively nationalist with time. The early Soviet Union was far more Jewish and Trotskyite and promiscuity, ugly modern art and all that was pushed on the conservative populations of the Russian Empire via shock therapy. Thanks to this forced promiscuity, the early USSR was filled with bastard children which became a major headache for the state. Stalin’s rise saw the liquidation of the early Commies and slowly with time, this Judaic globohomo shit was replaced by the conservative Social Realism movement. The USSR and Warsaw Pact World became less Jewish with time and thus more conservative and traditional as time went on. It is as if, ironically, the later USSR and Warsaw pact world became the successors of the Third Reich and Fascist Italy.
    The West charted the opposite course, Marx’s crackpot predictions of the Industrialised nations of the West collapsing with a revolution of the proletariat having failed, some Marxists, instead of getting some sense and abandoning Marxism, tried to theorise the reasons for this disappointment. One thing they noticed was that many of these nations had colonies. Chachang, thus was birthed the false and idiotic but highly addictive West “looted” the colonies theory. The truth was that most European Empires and the Japanese Empires were actually losing money on the colonies. These were advanced populations having backward populations (feudal backward like Indians/ Indonesians/ Arabs etc.. or outright primitive backward like Sub Saharan Africans) in their Empires. This was also true of Tzarist Russian Empire in Central Asia, losing money. And guess what this was true of the USSR as well, where the European SFSRs like Russia, Ukraine, Estonia etc.. were losing money for the upkeep of Central Asian SFSRs like Tajikistan. After decolonisation, the people in the colonies thought that since the “exploitation and looting” has stopped they would all magically become rich and Europe poor. LOL, actually the opposite happened, Europe became relatively richer than the Third world after decolonisation. Instead of abandoning this “Europe looted the Global South” nonsense and having a more critical analysis of their own populations, culture etc…. they (leftards and Third World nats) came up with the new concept of “neo-colonialism”. And the madness never stops.
    The other development from the failure of crackpot Marx’s prediction of the collapse of industrialised capitalist societies was a new form of attack on the West. On the culture of the West, that is, the belief that the traditional culture of the West had somehow prevented the collapse as envisioned by the nutcase Marx. And thus was born Cultural Marxism (as against traditional economic Marxism).
    Soon Western civilization was to be attacked in the media and academia, traditional Western notions of race, behaviour, morality, mannerisms, gender, religion etc…to be continuously attacked. For racial struggle to replace class struggle. Since the standard of living of White Working class people improved after WW2 (and in Germany with the rise of the National Socialists), the chance of a revolution was now low, so now race, gender, sexuality etc…was to be used instead of class struggle. Soon the White Working class was dumped by the left. The left is crazy to gain power and it will use (and throw away) anything or everything to gain POWER.

    Thus Eastern Europe and Western Europe went in two opposite trajectory with time, while the East faced globo-homo shock therapy at the start, it went towards more social conservatism while Western Europe and the Anglo world went towards slow Cultural Marxist globo-homo.

    • Thanks: Miro23
    • Replies: @Miro23
  51. Conservative Spirit of Communism

    Thank you for putting this one up top, Mr. Unz. By doing this, you show that you are truly fair in supporting free speech by the wise and deeply stupid alike.

    This one goes along the lines of the latter, as 2 to 3 1/2 generations of experience of misery living under Communism has apparently not been investigated by Mr. Young Fraud. He coulda’ just talked to a coupla people about it ….

    I am glad I am not missing anything smart or wise from this newer writer on your blog. After this, I couldn’t trust a word out of him.

  52. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:

    The article does no do explain anything. Read Andre Vltchek to find out what communism is, not this.

  53. Mark G. says:

    The decadence and decline you see here in the U.S. is due to the corroding effect on morals of the inherited wealth passed down from an earlier era of free market capitalism which encouraged people to work hard by letting them keep the fruits of their labor. You see the same thing in individual families where those who inherit great wealth often lead debauched lifestyles.

    You can prevent this by adopting an unworkable economic system like Marxism that keeps everyone poor, but this is likely a cure worse than the disease. History tends to go in cycles where a country becomes wealthy, stops doing the things that made it wealthy, and then goes into decline. After it hits bottom the process often starts over again. I’m a long-term optimist and I think the U.S. will eventually reverse its decline but the next 20 or 30 years will probably be quite rough.

  54. JM says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I have no illusions about the Chinese, but am glad they too are strong nationalists. The Indo-China Communists were never a threat except to those who wanted a monopoly control and ownership of their national resources and who saw their heroic fight for true sovereignty as an inspiration to others.

    Both of those you listed are great interviews:

    • Thanks: Agent76
  55. This man condradicts himself every 2 phrases and has almost no knowledge of Eastern European history, what a joke of an article.

    • Replies: @JM
  56. Smith says:

    Turn up the dial and let’s return to actual communism, yes, the successful and prospering communism (or rather socialism) that is being practiced in China and Vietnam!

  57. @Nonky Wonky Nong

    Accusations of racism are eerily like accusations of witchcraft, come to think of it. Non-Whites, it would seem, attribute magical powers to Whites!

  58. Malla says:
    @Priss Factor

    monotheism: Karl Marx is god, his truth is the one and only truth, and it’s all about class struggle and equality.

    Karl Marx is treated more like a prophet, and just like other globalist ideologies like Christianity and Islam, it wants to spread around the world and spare no human. No human in theory has an option to avoid it.
    And just like other religions who have believers and heathens, believers and kaffirs, Marxism has an outside enemy too. It has various sects, heretics and “people of the devil” who must be annihilated. Religion many be the opium of the masses, Marxism is outright heroin.

  59. Malla says:

    One cannot know about the truth of life in the USSR without the Ushanka Show.
    https://www.youtube.com/@UshankaShow/featured
    Strange (or not strange) that leftist Youtube does not like his channel. Youtube does not like a person born as a Soviet, “spilling the beans” so to speak, on the USSR.

    The Truth About Soviet “Free” Housing. Part 1

    What Was Wrong With The USSR Back In 1982? The Death Of Brezhnev

    Was The USSR a Great Place for the Lazy and Poor?

    • Thanks: Agent76
  60. Slav says:
    @hmachine1949

    “And most Communists don’t seem to be interested in pushing back against wokeism.”

    This applies only the ones from imperialist countries who are no communists, they are mostly social fascists.

    • Replies: @Malla
  61. I used to be like most other people. I used to feel sad about the deaths of Anne Frank and the rest of the Six Million Jews who, supposedly, died in what is termed The Holocaust. One day, I began to wonder: what about all of Stalin’s victims (and for that matter Mao’s)? That was when I had my major ideological epiphany! In a word, “Goyim”. Most of Stalin’s (and Mao’s) victims were Goyim, rather than Jews. And, that is precisely why what happened to Stalin’s and Mao’s victims are relatively down played.

    And notice, they say that The Holocaust was “Uniquely Evil”. And if (((they))) call it that, what to they call the very similar atrocities carried out by The Communists? Kosher Slaughter? But, seriously, I am inclined to think that when (((they))) say The Holocaust is “Uniquely Evil”, they mean to imply that they believe that the German people are “Uniquely Evil”– every single German man, woman, and child.

    It all goes back to the distinction, made in the Talmud, between the Jews, as The Chosen People, and the Goyim, as mere Cattle in Human form. Ergo, all those Holocaust movies reveal as much about the racism of The Jews, as ever they do about the Nazis. What makes it all the more sickening to me is this: for the exact same reason “Americans” condemn The Holocaust, they condone, even praise, everything that the Jews, in their turn, are carrying out against The Palestinian Arabs. Goldhagen, in his “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”, does not even mention Soviet atrocities against the Russian population at all.

    Now, in order to understand how The Jews perceive The Holocaust, imagine this scenario. There is a farm, wherein the cattle round up the farmer, his family, and all their farm hands, rather than the other way about. Now, most people, being people, would perceive that as, somehow, Supernaturally evil. That the cattle, in that case, rose above their Station in the Great Chain of Being! Jews are merely sore that someone decided to do to them what they love to do to other people.

    • Replies: @Zane
  62. Oh, and by the way, I seriously doubt that German Americans really are the largest reported Ethnic Group in America. That claim is, obviously, an example of the Big Lie Technique, if ever there was!

  63. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Communism is nothing more than the executive branch of Talmudism. I’ll pass on that, thank you.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  64. One day, the Blacks will realize that the Jews are only using them. Kanye West is waking people up.

  65. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @Julien

    There is but one thing which allows the zionist and rothschild [Z&R] owned human control algorithm to work. That something is the law making power of the international nation state (INS) system. The INS system consist of a set of structures which divide the total area of the world into segments, and the segments divide the global humanity into manageable sized units and the units permit the Z&R to monitor and control the behaviors of all that is within.
    A recent advance in the control system is the algorithm ( a data intensive math modelling technique). As algorithms mature, they need more accurate data, they need data collected in real time, and they need to be able to adjust their output (feedback monitoring and feed forward control ) in faster and faster ways, but no matter the maturity of the algorithm, its purpose is to monitor and control human behavior and human thought processes.

    In order for the technology implicit in the algorithms to produce accurate outputs, it must be feed [input] highly accurate and completely up to date data. Data needed to make the high technology algorithms to work comes from surveillance activity which can be enhanced by technology, including bio metrics.

    So who owns the technology that collects the data and who owns the algorithms that control the behaviors of all humanity? Do the Z&R clans own both the technologies and the exclusive rights to the control algorithms? Answer yes.

    So how is this exclusive ownership accomplished? Monopoly powers are exclusive to the governments (nation states) unless the nation state separates extracts 1 or more of its monopoly powers and give that extracted monopoly power to a non government interest (i.e. the oligarch and his or her corporation) no monopoly power can exist in a private or non government person or entity. Copyright, patents, deeds, and government contracts, etc. are examples of monopoly powers that have been extracted and given [by rule of law enacted by government] to the non human organizations(NHOs) and to private individuals (Oligarchs]. Many of the NHOs are owned or controlled by members of the Z&R clans, many recipients are are human Oligarchs. So how does these copyright, patents, deeds, and the like get into private hands? IOWs how are these gifts of government to non governments given?

    ok, so the power of the nation state to rule by law, allows the nation state government to write laws that convey ownership of parts of powers of government to private individuals or NHOs.

    Government is nothing but a collection of monopoly powers. When the government separates its monopoly powers into individual parts and doles out the parts of government to NGO or private interest someone becomes the owner of a part of government. I think you will see the Z&R types are owners of most of the parts of governments [monopoly powers] that have been privatized.

    My question is how will humanity defend itself against secure, fully autonomous non human algorithmic enhanced AI technology behavioral enforcement if that technology is exclusively owned by the oligarchs and their non-human organizations? What steps can be taken . I propose that all laws that allow governments to partition its powers into part and to dole out those partitions to Non Human Organizations or to private individuals be rescinded and a constitutional amendment be made to make private or non human ownership of monopoly powers off limits to all but elected government.

  66. Dumbo says:
    @Brad Anbro

    It’s going to be spelled Malmöhammed soon.

  67. Mac_ says:

    ~ can’t stop looking at first phot, think should save link, copy image, put where see it, keep in pocket, car, bathrm, bedrm. can strengthen thinking doing that, restore mind energy. Such good eye JF. Image reminds strong energy, beauty in strong energy.
    .

  68. Malla says:
    @Slav

    This applies only the ones from imperialist countries who are no communists, they are mostly social fascists.

    Nope, they consider themselves Marxists.

    • Replies: @Slav
  69. @Anymike

    Most of these “X billion people died from communism!” claims all come from CIA propaganda like “Black Book of Communism.” They have no relation to reality.

    • Replies: @Marcali
  70. Ever hear of DaSynagogue of Satan?

    https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2022/12/satans-wars-christians-killing.html?m=0
    Starting with the Civil War and adding both World Wars I and II, total military deaths alone easily total at least 40 million…and civilian fatalities further extend the human loss of life beyond 100 million – not counting millions more disabled.

    What do these major wars have in common?

    All three were wars between national cultures which were Christian!
    “You and him go fight!”

    Read the rest at link above!

  71. Slav says:
    @Malla

    They are not Leninist, they don’t understand their own parasitic position in the world imperialist system.

    • Replies: @Malla
  72. The perfect case study in the social conservatism of communism has already been given to us by Germany. One nation split between west and east, between capitalism and communism respectively. What do we see when we contrast American-capitalist west Germany with communist east Germany during the cold war?

    West Germany: rampant sexual perversion, pornography, state mandated pedophilia, mass immigration of millions of Turks and other problem ethnicities, dead culture, radical feminism.

    East Germany: family values, pornography and other sexual predation banned, immigration or miscegenation practically non-existent, preservation of German culture and traditions.

    The difference was stark, with East Germany obviously being far more socially conservative. Of course, American conservatives prefer west Germany because American conservatives tend to be dick chugging sodomites who like having the “freedom” to pimp their daughters out to pornographers or give them away in marriage to Deshaun from the hood (as long as he promises to vote for Trump).

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  73. Anonymous[237] • Disclaimer says:

    Karl Marx is a God. Thank God for the Soviet Union. Thank God for China. Thank God for Vietnam. Thank God for Cuba. Because God certainly isn’t a Christian. Our planet’s hope can only be communism and the end of the super filthy rich 13 Illuminati families (most of whom are Christian not Jewish) who destroyed the USA turning it into a Nazi death camp to impose this ideology on the planet via endless wars with the billionaire Illuminati minions under them like the Waltons, Gates…et cetera….it was the Illuminati who started the Cold War against communism because communism wants to destroy their evil fascist capitalist totalitarian power…NATO and the new Cold War via Ukraine, Syria, Yemen….communism will win because a combined China, India (forget Quad), Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan will eventually join together via SCO and BRICS to finally crush this evil western insanity…..communism is the only just future for our planet…globo homo communists supporting China, North Korea….the gay rights movement of early activists always supported communism……how can communism be patriarchal when women bus drivers and women labourers everywhere in communist countries…..feminism, true feminism, is communist….but the right wing lunatics carp on endlessly saying they are the enemy of communism…what trash…Godfrey Roberts’ comments are easily the most informed and accurate in these comments here so thank you Godfrey.

  74. Agent76 says:

    Mar 24, 2016 America: Freedom To Fascism

    A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.

    
    Jan 19, 2021 Fascism: When Big Government & Big Business Work Hand-in-Hand

    Benito Mussolini said that “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” When surveying modern events, along with events over the last century, is this not the major problem that we face today?

    • Replies: @Aninymous
  75. Wokechoke says:
    @Anymike

    Soviet casualties in ww2 are much overblown. Stalin’s death count likewise.

    • Agree: Zane
  76. Wokechoke says:
    @Priss Factor

    Marxism and Communism was a trendy western fad. Just another bunch of Goys following a novel Jewish Guru.

    bring on the Bear!

  77. Miro23 says:
    @Malla

    Thanks. That’s a fine summary. The Marxist/ Cultural Marxist distortion of reality with regard to British India is something to see.

    • Thanks: Malla
  78. I… RoboMoralFascist 1st… approve this message.<(:-)

  79. America has been under communist control since 1913 , when the zionists/communists saddled America with their privately owned central bank , the FED and their collection agency, the IRS, 2 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, and then came the wars, and deaths, and debt , all for the profit of the zionist communist bankster kabal.

    Zionists are destroyers of Christians and nations and humanity and they are destroying America.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan, werpor
    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
  80. JM says:
    @MikeAmbrozi

    Yes, apart from some semi-original insights, its scattered assertions are all over the place like a mad woman’s breakfast.

    The basic insight, that Russian based Communism was less of a threat to the rich cultures of European nations than that of the frantically subverted American was made in the immediate Post-War period by the American fascist, Francis Parker Yokey. In this, I’m certain he was right.

  81. @Marcali

    I am not convinced. Here’s an illustration of Russia’s population since 1897.

    Other than WWII and the Civil War there have been no major drops in population numbers, and perhaps a couple of million during a year of hunger. If anything it is capitalism which is killing off the Russians as made clear at the top of the graph.

    • Replies: @Marcali
  82. Marcali says:
    @Anymike

    I am sorry to see that you could not comprehend the satistical term of “rolled”.

    • Replies: @Anymike
    , @Anymike
  83. Anonymous[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @hmachine1949

    I damn sure agree with you, only I would limit it to socialism and not communism. Communism is just too much about “sharing everything” – some people are lazy and worthless and willing to just put their hand out. Socialism expects everyone to do their share.
    A good example of socialism is today’s China.
    I still agree that given communism or Jewish capitalism (treat the working class like serfs), communism is actually better for the nation as a whole.

  84. The length, breadth and shallowness of this work detracts from it’s effectualness in altering the perception of any would be reader.

    Learn to murder your children “your conceptions”, Cut the throats and dash the heads of your preciouses darlings against the stones become brutal…

    Once you have murderlized your children stew in the slaughter and contemplate earnestly if they where ever really your children at all or just the figments of another mind foisted upon you like birds laying their parasitic eggs in another’s nests…

  85. @Hulkamania

    What you said of East Germany, I might add, could also have been said for Nazi Germany!

  86. Thus, Marxism is less anti-capitalist than post-capitalist. Marx didn’t argue that communism is the way to build an economy. He conceded nothing beats capitalism in wealth creation, technological innovation, urbanization, and emergence of mass consciousness.

    This is incorrect.

    Marx believed that Communism would outproduce capitalism and allow for a shorter work week.

    In fact he describes the efficiency of Communism freeing up so much time that most of the day that engage in all kinds of activities without the capitalism specialization of capitalism:

    “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Karl Marx

    Karl Marx sold Communism as utopian. It was to beat capitalism on productivity by removing the ownership class that he believed were reducing efficiency by taking a profit.

    He also believed that Communist societies would be technologically advanced. That is part of New Man theory.

    Also, communism didn’t favor one group over another. While most communism was nationalist, it didn’t say one nation of people was better than another nation of people.

    Communism openly favors the proletariat over everyone else.

    Karl Marx stated that not all nations are capable of Communism and supported slavery of Africans.

    “Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world and you will have anarchy— the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.” Karl Marx

    Of course you won’t hear Marxists talk about any of this.

  87. @John Johnson

    And to think, today’s Marxists pretend to be against racism. The sheer hypocrisy!

  88. A couple observations. The GDR national anthem video is beautiful. Notice the clean streets, the order, the happy people, the pro-natalism and the total lack of Turks. Give me back Erich Honecker and The Wall!

    Victoria Nudelman-Kagan is getting quite chubby. She needs to cut down on her portions of European children. Leave some lil’ Hanschen for the rest of your Tribe, you glutinous yenta!

  89. @Julien

    All this AI surveillance misses something important: only White males are capable of tending to and running such a’big brother’ wet dream. Slavery of those fellows is the obvious method; perhaps sabotage of the machine could result- if it ever gets that far. Most of the dissident White community today has sufficient IQ and foreknowledge to understand that without electricity none of this bullshit will ever happen. As the evil geniuses discover they have de-populated the mid-wit liberals and the ignorant with their vaxx and their contrived shortages, they had best hurry off to the bunkers before the domestic terrorists come looking for the ones who murdered their grammies and their kin.

  90. @John Johnson

    Slavery could not compete with the industrial revolution- Marx could not see that coming. Others could and used ‘enlightenment’ lies to further a civil war in America. Slavery would have disappeared on its’ own here; but the resources of the South were taken by force on behalf of jewish banksters- here and in England- using slavery as a cause for the “coming of the Lord” christcucks in the North.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  91. Priss, I think Japan is an interesting case for this debate. Japan has a liberal democracy with a capitalist econ system – A true First World nation. But the Japanese leadership has not signed on to the globo-homo, third world immigrant parade. The Japanese take enormous pride in their identity and totally reject any attempt to replace or cancel the Japanese peoples. And the japs guard their voting rights very selfishly, as they damn well should. But the birth rate is a troublesome consideration and may open the door for the globo-homos to charge in.

    I believe some wisely crafted (fascist) laws to reward parenting while discouraging porn, queers and radical feminists could help right the ship.

    Another outlier for thought is Switzerland.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Anymike
  92. @Anymike

    “some animals are more equal than other animals”… Orwell.
    Aristotle did have a good take on rhetoric vs dialectic; his intuition that 80 of 100 are incapable of reason and can only be swayed with emotion seems to the basis of control for nearly all authoritarian regimes.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  93. Aninymous says: • Website
    @Agent76

    Give the original source for the mussolini quote about fascism being the melding of the state and corporate power. There isn’t any.!! Its a covenient quote for latter day commies and there fellow travelers. Its similar to the one liberals trot out about Hitler and gun control. A falsification(s) for a contemporary political argument(s)

  94. Aninymous says: • Website

    Give the original source for the mussolini quote about fascism being the melding of the state and corporate power. There isn’t any.!! Its a convenient quote for latter day commies and their fellow travelers. Its similar to the one liberals trot out about Hitler and gun control. A falsification(s) for a contemporary political argument(s)

  95. @hmachine1949

    Communism is jewish internationalism.

    zionism is jewish nationalism.

    Communist jews are responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people in the 20th century.

  96. @old coyote

    Slavery could not compete with the industrial revolution- Marx could not see that coming.

    Had nothing to do with that.

    Marx was not a racial egalitarian and didn’t care if Africans were enslaved.

    He didn’t believe that Africans were capable of adopting Communism.

    Jung is working from a modern take on Marx where his views on race and Jews are kept out of academic texts. The typical Marxist actually hasn’t read Marx.

    The race denial of the left and Anglo shaming came after Marx. It has its origins in Boas and the Frankfurt School.

    Marx and Engels believed race was real and accounted for the development differences of North and South America. But don’t take my word for it, here it is from the man himself:

    Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it? – Karl Marx, father of the left

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
    , @Malla
    , @werpor
  97. @John Johnson

    Marx believed that Communism would outproduce capitalism and allow for a shorter work week.

    But only if communism inherited the fruits of capitalism.

    He also believed that Communist societies would be technologically advanced.

    As it will presumably make good use of technology created under capitalism.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  98. @Director95

    Japan has a liberal democracy with a capitalist econ system – A true First World nation. But the Japanese leadership has not signed on to the globo-homo, third world immigrant parade. The Japanese take enormous pride in their identity and totally reject any attempt to replace or cancel the Japanese peoples. And the japs guard their voting rights very selfishly, as they damn well should. But the birth rate is a troublesome consideration and may open the door for the globo-homos to charge in.

    Japan is sinking fast, like Battleship Yamato, neck and neck in national suicide with Taiwan and South Korea.

    One difference between Wasp-ruled US and Jewish-ruled US was the former wasn’t so insistent. As long as satellite countries drank coca-cola and watched Hollywood movies and did as told in foreign policy, they were left alone. Indeed, when US was Wasp-ruled, it didn’t much interfere in the ideology and culture of Europe. Wasps didn’t push the Great Replacement and globo-homo. It was the rise of Jewish Power that led to the US insisting its satellites do as the US does. (Ironically, many Europeans pursue certain Jewish agendas under the delusion that they’re besting Christo-Fascist-ultra-right America. So, Europeans were all onboard with globo-homo to show the Americans what a bunch of ‘homophobic’ tards they are. In fact, globo-homo was hatched by Jewish America and pushed all over the world. And the notion that Christo-Fascists rule America is a farce. Even Bush II’s presidency was entirely Neocon Zionist.)

    Wasp-ruled US was often dissatisfied with Japanese way of doing things, but it didn’t interfere much. In contrast, Jewish-ruled US is sticking its nose into Japan. Also, internet made it difficult for Japanese to maintain their own national culture.

    Japan has massive globo-homo parades. (Taiwan already has ‘gay marriage’.) Japan put up a half-black woman as Miss Japan. It promoted Naomi Osaka. Japanese TV is full of jungle fever, and the fact that it’s pornified country means it will spread that stuff to young ones.
    Japanese businesses, which have the most power, are calling for mass immigration, and close to 50% of Japanese are for it and welcoming the great replacement as they’ve lost faith in life, heritage, and nation.

    Japan is undergoing a quieter death, but it is dying, and in 50 yrs, it will be an entirely different country ruled by cuck-collaborators of Jews over a populace that is barely half Japanese. Mark my words. Also, many Japanese are weak of culture. When they go abroad to learn and work, they just become part of globalism and look down on Japanese values and culture as irrelevant. The essence of Japanese culture is to serve the master.

  99. High taxation(at over 90%) and powerful labor unions(and limited immigration) meant that capitalists couldn’t act like Jeff Bezos, Koch Brothers, and Tim Cook(the Crook).

    Those taxation rates had massive loopholes. That is how the Republicans were able to talk the Democrats into bringing down the rates. They compromised over loopholes. The wealthiest 1% in the US were not actually paying 90% income tax rates.

    The few exceptions were East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and to some extent Hungary. Unsurprisingly, communism was least bloody in those nations(though far from bloodless).

    The East Germans were simply better at making people disappear. They also had methods for making dissenters go insane and they would be shipped off to a mental ward.

    In other words, Russians were not good simply because they were Russian. Or Germans were not bad simply because they were German.

    That’s touching. Now here is an actual quote from Marx:

    . Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way

    So lower races will have to give way to higher races. What happens to them? Well whatever the higher races decide of course.

    As much as I detest communism, all of Europe would now be better off if it had come under Soviet rule after WWII.

    So you would send another 20 million people off to gulags so in your mind there would be less faggotry in the future?

    The real irony here is that you rail against Jewish power while telling us you would submit all of Europe to the mad plans of A SINGLE GERMAN-JEW. The plans that failed fucking miserably in the 1920s but you would subject Europe to his left-wing dictatorship and failed economic plans for 50 years in the belief that they won’t have gay marriage afterwards. So some dissenter is shipped off to Siberia for intellectual skepticism …. but hey…… your future offspring will be less likely to be in a society with gay marriage. Just consider that while your freeze to death in a mine.

    Can you not consider the possibility of rejecting both Communism and liberalism?

    • Replies: @werpor
  100. @Priss Factor

    Marx believed that Communism would outproduce capitalism and allow for a shorter work week.

    But only if communism inherited the fruits of capitalism.

    Marx called for taking over the factories and machines which of course were created by capitalism.

    But the Communist countries were supposed to outproduce the remaining capitalist countries as the capitalist system itself was viewed as inefficient because of profit. In fact the individuals of the Communist countries were supposed to reach new intellectual levels. They were basically supposed to become countries filled with geniuses since they wouldn’t be held down by capitalism. But only for some races.

    Jung is just plain wrong here and is trying to justify Marxism with hindsight. Marx never said that capitalism would outproduce Communism. He predicted the opposite would happen and Communist countries would crush the capitalist countries in every regard. It is highly utopian. He didn’t call for a violent revolution just to make some mundane worker’s state. The proletariat dictatorship was only supposed to be temporary as the workers were supposed to reach new intellectual heights and democracy would eventually exist naturally. It didn’t happen and millions died trying to create the utopian bullshit of a single German-Jew who didn’t bother to take basic economics.

  101. Anymike says:
    @Marcali

    Communism prevailed in the former Russian Empire for 70 years and change. During that time, given the known human lifespan, almost everyone who was alive in 1917 would have died simply from natural causes or accidents sometime within the next 70 years. Many of the people born subsequent to 1917 would have died also from natural causes or accidents during that time.

    Attributing some large percentage of the all of the deaths that occurred during the Soviet era to the malicious actions of the regime seems unreasonable.

    You need to elaborate and perhaps explained what you mean by “rolled”.

  102. Anymike says:
    @old coyote

    You don’t need Aristotle’s help to come to that conclusion.

  103. @John Johnson

    Wow, Karl Marx was not a Racial Egalitarian.

  104. Malla says:
    @Slav

    They are not Leninist, they don’t understand their own parasitic position in the world imperialist system.

    They (baizuos) are a different type of Marxists, different evolution. They keep on blaming the West for being parasitic and they are very pro-Third World. They are Cultural Marxists. A big chunk of the Marxists in the West evolved in a different direction than the Warsaw pact World.

  105. Malla says:
    @John Johnson

    Marx even supported the British Empire in India, because he believed that would modernise India, and bring India from a feudal state to a Capitalist industrial State which would in the long term move India towards the path of Communism.

    He didn’t believe that Africans were capable of adopting Communism.

    He was right on that one. Compare post Empire Tanzania (Julius Nyerere – Ujama) with say mainland China, North Korea or Eastern Europe during the Warsaw Pact days. Or even Cuba for that matter. In Africa it all ends up into tribalism. The only things that can succeed among black Africans are tribe or at best, maybe some Islamic state.

  106. webbles says:

    Man thinks, God laughs.

    Then what would Darwin say?

    Joe

  107. Dacian says:

    No, Ceausescu did not sell the Jews to Israel. He only claimed that the country be reimbursed for the free schooling that the country provided up to and including university and doctoral degrees.

    Furthermore, Ceausescu lifted the country out of illiteracy, made 10 grades obligatory with the aim of giving a high-school level education to everyone. Built English BAC civilian jets, endowed Bucharest with a long needed metro/subway system, built an automobile industry out of nowhere, nuclear plant, a flotilla of fishing boats bringing harvest from the Atlantic, etc. etc. Rather than condemn Ceausescu for the cult of personality, one should self search human nature and the slavish kowtowing to the warmongering politicians that we see nowadays in the West to understand what the much hipped “cult of personality” actually is.

    And I am saying all of this, as a former political dissident who left Romania in the late 1970s.

    By comparison to today’s brainwashed westerners, Ceausescu did not order one single kill. I had friends who were rather exiled, but not one was killed. But the war criminal West who killed millions upon millions of human beings are using lies and deceit to appear innocent of their real crimes.

    Unfortunately the author is quite ill informed about the history of the East and makes all sorts of pedantic and trite statements. Worse, many of the comments here show their own “cult” of hyping the ignorance of the the author. Hypocrisy at its highest.

    • Replies: @Odyssey
    , @Commentator Mike
  108. Odyssey says:
    @Dacian

    Ceausescu’s biggest sin is that he wanted to pay off all Romania’s debts and did not want to depend on the banking mafia. That’s why he managed to achieve it by saving a lot, even on food, but with this, he signed his own death sentence. I wonder if Serafimko also agrees with this or if he is busy waiting for a signal together with the Poles somewhere on the Ukrainian border.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  109. Corvinus says:

    “Because certain expressions and actions are given free rein while others are censored or penalized on account of them being ‘hate speech'(therefore not legitimate as expressions of freedom), the current West fools itself(and many around the world) that it is indeed free.”

    Yes, the West is free. There is no such thing as unfettered freedoms. There have always been restraints in our conduct. That’s the social contract in action.

    “Imagine an order where a white woman has the choice of having sex with a black man or not having sex with him. Such would be genuinely liberal. But suppose the New Order says she MUST have sex with him because to reject him would be ‘racist’ and ‘hateful’.”

    Lol, this is a classic false premise.

  110. denmla says:

    hmm, nice?, but empty!, masticating vocabulario with fancy(?) names, like republic, democracy , capitalism communism, socialism all kind of ‘religion’ garbage from so called ”philosophers” (useless vagabond workers hee) , look at marx!…..is NOTHING but simple gol to enslave others to work for lazy boom’s !, and we know end, ‘revolution upon revolution, meaning killing slaves, until IQ36 genetically damage ”human” come up” with better word for slavery!….inherently ”humans” have few (more, likely!)g damage chromosomes!, like psychopatic narcissism,, selfishness , greed….>>

  111. Always thought provoking

  112. As the Ukraine War is the start of ww3 I don’t think it willmatter very soon.

  113. @lloyd

    As far as I can recall through direct witnesses having been through the event, the genocide did take place in Cambodia during the time the Khmer Rouges were supposed to be in full control. Actually, by the same testimonies, it is far from certain that the authors of the crimes were the Khmer Rouges proper : many are of the opinion that actually the numerous thugs that had supported the preceding fascistic regime and already by all official Western accounts killed at least half a million among the about two of the alleged massacre, were just continuing their usual murderous activities like before and paying lip service to the new regime as an offer they couldn’t refuse, and with a vengeance by practising a burned earth policy in retribution for their defeat and their abandon by the Western powers. The killing fields were already in full operation long before the Khmer Rouges came. Actually Phom Penh was ordered to be emptied because there was a mass slaughter going on with the approval of Henry Kissinger, and those who were killed were those who refused to flee : the Khmer Rouges emptied the city for lack of immediate means to beat down the Lon Nol thugs that had already turned in into a slaughterhouse.

    That does not mean the Beijing-supported Khmer Rouges were innocent, but their main contribution to the horror was keeping their eyes wide shut not to admit they were the victors only on paper and going perusing their marxist doctrinal texts while paying no attention to what happened. They had no interest in proceeding to a massacre because most Cambodians had only one single dream : going back to their villages and building them back. They had no interest in killing so many intellectuals because it is among that class that they enjoyed most of their devout support and could recruit those most ready to the biggest personal sacrifices. Pol Pot, just to name one, lived a very austere life imitated from that of Buddhist monks minus the religious rituals : he was not exactly a kleptocrat of the kind you would have expected in such a murderous position nor a replica of Stalin or of Menghistu Mariam. One sign to that is that most of the rulers having been accused of performing most of the killings were elected as regular officials as soon as regular multi-partite elections were allowed again to proceed, by those who are supposed to have been their victims of choice during the regime. Something in the narrative doesn’t match with today’s reality, even though the mortality was real.

    My opinion is that Cambodia was being culled by Western-paid warriors proceeding under marxist or Chinese false flag like what would be done just a little later on in the name of Islam by various groups actually supervised from the US or Israel. If marxism was to be defeated that was right the thing to do for the Western deep state.

    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @John Johnson
  114. @Odyssey

    Ceausescu’s biggest sin is that he wanted to pay off all Romania’s debts and did not want to depend on the banking mafia.

    But he was a mediocrity and he spent lavishly on dumb projects.

    • Agree: Odyssey
  115. Malla says:
    @Francis Miville

    If marxism was to be defeated that was right the thing to do for the Western deep state.

    LMFAO, the Western deep state are not anti-marxist, they are pro marxist. They might be against certain types of Marxist regimes, they dislike. If they would have been so serious about defeating Marxism, they would have banned the teachings of Marx in western Universities. Western media and academia would not have been left winged. As a kid I became pro-Marxist just by watching American Jew Deep State media.
    What the Western deep states were afraid of was the possible rise of another Hitler or Mussolini. And top prevent that one of the many strategies used was the sexual revolution.

    https://unherd.com/2022/12/the-politics-of-masturbation/
    Was the sexual revolution a government psy-op?

    In the early Thirties, one wing of the psychoanalytic movement splintered off and became politicised under the leadership of Wilhelm Reich. Reich was convinced that fighting fascism would require a psychological transformation of the entire German population. Their susceptibility to authoritarian politics and attraction to the Fuhrer were due to the unhealthy festering of irrational forces in individual psyches, rooted ultimately in sexual “repression”. Through the efforts of Archibald MacLeish, arch-WASP literary man of the Ivy League and liberal activist, these ideas gained influence in the American security services during the war, and particular the OSS, which was planning for the reeducation of the Germans upon their defeat and subsequent military occupation. And, in fact, the US-led Allied High Commission took up this project of Freudian political therapy in its rule over the defeated Germans, which lasted until 1955.

    To put the matter crudely, the Germans were going to have to start masturbating more. More seriously, the working-class family, with its sharply distinguished sex roles and ideal of a strong father, was found to be at the root of the political problem. Reich called himself a Freudo-Marxist.

  116. Anymike says:
    @Director95

    Japan’s population grew rapidly between 1945 and 1990. It has been level since then hanging around above 120 million. The figure could be deceptive and partially the product of longer lifespans but Japan is by no means dying.

    Japan as an economy and a force in the world could do well with a population of maybe 90 million, if they had enough young people.

  117. @Godfree Roberts

    Thanks for listing the achievements of the Cultural REvolution that have been entirely suppressed in the West which has simply denounced it as a mindless suppression subjugation of the poeple and denial of personal liberties by Mao’s godless Communists.

    The fact is as the author of Fanshen make clear that the Great Leap Forward was, as the slogan implies, a cohesive and coherent effort to shake the Chinese people free of the ancient traditions that had subjugated and made them accept the ideologies that bound them to the old order by showing them how and developing comnfidence in themsleves they could by their own efforts linberate themslves from those tradition by breaking them mold that tied them to the landlord class and their oppressors by working together to engage in capital formation in their communities to lay the foundation for future growth by their own labors.

    It was thus an enormous national education project that showed what they could accomplish by self-reliance to create capital that woulkd greately enhance their future productivety that instread of becoming the wealth capitalisdts ACCUMULATED FOR THEMSELVES BY EXPLOITING WORKERS that WOULD INSTEAD BE HELD BY and for the bemefit of the comminities that built it.

    The solid tangible results of those efforts that you ldescribed are the proof of the success the revolution achieved that Western capitalists must necessarily suppress to make it appeare that the private accumulation of wealth for expanding the means of production fhat vastly enhanced the productivity of labor is the only way effective way to do so while hiding the fact that expanding the means of producttion in this way means that it can be done only by the individual caitalists expropriating for themslves the the product of the workers who creatred it and using it to turn around continue to oppress them by holding in private hands the means of production they have produced by their labor to enhance their productivity that is in tiurn used to further enslave them to the capitalists.

    It is thererfor important to note that unlike capitalist privately accumulating the means of production that workers produced, what the Chinese people built that you describe remained as the wealth of the community rather than of individual capitalists.

    That also was a big leap forward.

  118. @John Johnson

    Alleges:

    In fact he describes the efficiency of Communism freeing up so much time that most of the day that engage in all kinds of activities without the capitalism specialization of capitalism:

    “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Karl Marx

    Wow, have you missed the point of Marx’ comment and what the authors has said about Marx’s explanation of capitalism

    To c;larify, Marx’s point is that after the capitalists have expanded the means of production by accumulating the product of the workers in private hands to the point that humAnITY COULD PRODUCE AND REPRODUCE THE means OF PRODUCTION AND the necessitis of life without engagining in endless toil, when those means of production were “socialized” i.e held in common by the producers who necessarily have to cooperate and coordinate their activities in the production process as a “social” process rather than operateing as individual producers, people would be able to engage in all those activties without those activities becxoming their identities.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  119. Anymike says:
    @Marcali

    On further review, the correct term would be “cumulative”. “Rolled” as you use it to stand in for “cumulative” is jargon or a slang term, at least in this context.

    The 61,000,000 killed figure might not be accurate. Adult men of productive years undoubtedly would have to represent some large proportion of that number. If the Soviet regime killed off that many of the inherently most productive group within society, how did the regime build up industry, fight and win massive a war and then compete with the United States in world power for the next four decades?

    There may be an answer, but we need to know what it is.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Marcali
  120. Anymike says:
    @Mark G.

    That is correct. I figured it out eventually. People should not use jargon. Another thing I detest is acronyms other people cannot be expected to know.

    • Agree: Mark G., werpor
  121. @Dacian

    There was much that was wrong with communism but also much positive. It definitely needed correcting and improving, and I don’t think glasnost and perestroika were such bad ideas, but it should have all moved in a different direction. Now it is obvious that the anti-communist revolts were colour revolutions promoted by the West with cheap propaganda. The talk of the mass murder by the communists is greatly exaggerated. And now instead of one party they have many parties playing some neverending stupid democracy games. The fall of the Berlin Wall was greatly hyped up and it could have offered salvation to Germany had the East taken over the West rather than the other way round which made a mockery of “unification” as it was just a takeover.

  122. Zane says:
    @Twin Ruler

    There was no ” Holocaust “. It’s a lie.

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  123. @Zane

    Oh, I never thought of that!

  124. werpor says:
    @John Johnson

    Academic texts are very carefully manufactured within the academy by a process of rendering, much like butchering an animal renders it into unrecognizable parts. A lamb chop is not a sheep. Neither is a sheep a lamb chop. One cannot look at a sheep and see lamb chops or eat a lamb chop and see a sheep.

    The academy is like a digestive system. What comes out is not lamb chops. What went in is not lamb chops either. The academy is an artificial thing, raising tame sheep. Tame sheep are not at all like wild sheep. Tame sheep are raised to be eaten and sheared. Sheep are not alarmed when the shepherd kills one of them for his dinner. They wait patiently to be sheared. Or eaten!

    Arguing about which shepherd is better is a straw man argument. All shepherds eat lamb and shear sheep. Tame sheep follow the crowd. Shepherds depend on that. Better to be a wild sheep — the view is much better. And, there are no shepherds.

  125. @Francis Miville

    They had no interest in killing so many intellectuals because it is among that class that they enjoyed most of their devout support and could recruit those most ready to the biggest personal sacrifices.

    Completely ridiculous history denial.

    We have testimony from ex-soldiers and survivors that they were trying to kill intellectuals.

    Pol Pot was a moron who thought he could create a state entirely of workers and farmers. That was the plan. He viewed intellectuals as untrustworthy and unfair in their abilities.

    It’s not at all contended. There are leaders behind the plans of mass murder that have apologized.

    Khmer Rouge killing leaders apologize:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/dec/30/cambodia

    Sorry for killing your relatives as part of some stupid plan to get rid of intellectuals. Our bad.

    This is what happens when left-wing resentment goes to the extreme. People that are too “unequal” are killed.

    My opinion is that Cambodia was being culled by Western-paid warriors proceeding under marxist or Chinese false flag like what would be done just a little later on in the name of Islam by various groups actually supervised from the US or Israel.

    It was Vietnam that removed Pol Pot. That was in 1979 which means a neighboring Communist country that hated the West removed him. They knew he was a complete psychopath.

    Please read basic history before coming up with your own theories.

  126. @The Old Philosopher

    In fact he describes the efficiency of Communism freeing up so much time that most of the day that engage in all kinds of activities without the capitalism specialization of capitalism:

    “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Karl Marx

    when those means of production were “socialized” i.e held in common by the producers who necessarily have to cooperate and coordinate their activities in the production process as a “social” process rather than operateing as individual producers, people would be able to engage in all those activties without those activities becxoming their identities.

    How would one be able to spend most of the day choosing activities without a massive increase in production over capitalist economies? You do realize that most people would not choose the jobs that are required for the economy to work? Hunting and fishing are leisure activities and Marx describes spending half the day doing them.

    Were Soviet citizens able to hunt and fish until the afternoon and then stroll on into the factory around 2? Then clock out early for a dinner with some criticism?

    This is all so ridiculous.

    Marx was very intelligent but intelligent people can come up with some very stupid ideas.

    It was clear that his plans were not well thought out after they were applied in 1920s USSR and today we still have people promoting them. That shows how so many leftists and egalitarians are unable to think independently and put all their faith in the failed plans a single German-Jew who didn’t take economics and never managed a business. He clearly hadn’t spent much time working in the real world as he believed low level workers and managers were only separated by artificial distinctions.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  127. @Anymike

    The 61,000,000 killed figure might not be accurate. Adult men of productive years undoubtedly would have to represent some large proportion of that number. If the Soviet regime killed off that many of the inherently most productive group within society, how did the regime build up industry, fight and win massive a war and then compete with the United States in world power for the next four decades?

    I’m not going to defend 61 mil but there is plenty of evidence that they killed off too many intellectuals.

    Yes they built up industries but they were heavily dependent on East Germany for advanced machinery and then they later were trading gas and minerals for semiconductors.

    They put men in space but were dependent on the West for computer technology and medicine.

    The USSR was always an empire of smoke and mirrors. The only time they stopped trading heavily with Germany was 1941-1945. Interestingly Hitler’s chief economist was against Barbarossa because he believed the losses wouldn’t outweigh the economic status quo of simply buying oil from them. Even if Germany won he believed it would be an economic loss. Better to let the Soviets keep working and selling Germany oil and grain.

    The USSR would have collapsed in the late 70s if not for the oil spike. They ended up having to import chicken from the US which was a complete embarrassment. The Soviet people had been raised to believe they were the best and they were not only importing chicken but it was clearly higher quality than anything they had seen.

  128. werpor says:
    @John Johnson

    “Can you not consider the possibility of rejecting both Communism and liberalism?” Every stick has two ends. Communism and liberalism emerged in an age of mass production. Grasping one end of the stick or the other end manifests intellectually and eventually publicly as an argument over who will control the stick. Who will get what share of the outputs of production? Wages, taxes, profits are outputs.

    Early manifestations of mass production could not have been brought into being without huge masses of capital, huge masses of labour, and huge returns on investments, i.e., profits. Returns on investment manifest as either retained earnings or dividends. Both retained earnings and dividends drive more investment. Which begets further input. Which necessitates further wages with which to pay for labour input.

    Capitalism is dynamic. And convergent. Invention is a manifestation of curiosity. Innovation is a utilitarian process. Invention began with a problem. Innovation solved it. Heating water in a confined container without a lid but instead connected to an output tube provided the escaping steam with power. Pumping water out of flooding mines solved a problem. Steam engines were large compression chambers laid on their sides, mounted on wheels. The driving wheels were turned by steam compressed to do work.

    One thing led to another. Most of the output in the age of steam depended on the output of huge steel mills. Steel for bridges, rails, engines, carriages, and later steel for building skyscrapers. Those early steel mills had as many as six thousand workers. Large masses of people were attracted to the steady wages. All this led to mass consumption and considerable discontent.

    Governments were called on to regulate. The law was called on to settle disputes. Railroads could not have been built without government. They granted land upon which to lay the track. The land provided the lenders with security upon which to justify the loans.

    Capitalism is dynamic and convergent. All together this was capitalism. People flooded to work in steel mills, engine works, pipe making factories, foundries, bridge building, track laying, and a little later to work in Fords vertically integrated factories; the eventual out, automobiles. And $5 a day wages.

    All this output necessitated new management skills and double entry bookkeeping came into its own.

    The entire thing was almost miraculous. Communism was an intellectual exercise which assumed that all this could somehow be controlled. This appealed to labour, government and bankers. These inventions and innovations led of course to applying them to building a better cannon. There is no better book than “The Arms of Krupp” by William Manchester, that I ever read, to elucidate this aspect of invention, innovation, and sheer audacious will as applied to building arms.

    In fact I can think of no better book to illustrate the difference between theory and practical output than Manchester’s story of an absolutely amazing manifestation of man’s quest for mastery, however dark the consequences.

    Now consider today:
    The Internet would never have flourished as it has if government, bankers, and the establishment could have predicted the consequences. The masses no longer exist. Certainly they do if one considers large populations as “the masses.” But certainly steel plants no longer employ 6000 labourers.

    One consequence of mass labour was the effect of using a single lever to increase output or decrease output. Central banks raise or lowered interest rates. Today the more central banks intrude on the economy by raising or lowering interest rates or government intrudes by increasing indebtedness or intrudes by lying to the public the quicker the various manifestations of the mass age will decompose.

    I doubt anyone can predict the future. But no question we are living in a future which was not predicted by Marx. Automobile assembly is an amazing just in time output made possible by invention and innovation which will only continue. The age of mass production and mass consumption and mass assemblies of soldiers “going over the top” was a stage.

    The Internet has made the obscenity of war transparent for anyone who cares to watch the unfolding madness in Ukraine. The reason NATO failed there is its assumptions are rooted in the mass age. The taxes necessary to continue driving economies by manufacturing arms is driving the U.S. into bankruptcy. Those elites are operating as though the assumptions guiding them are relevant in the Internet age. In fact most politicians could not survive anywhere else than the past. They are parodies!

    Watch TV, or read a newspaper, or listen to the radio — the MSM is a vestige of an earlier age. As often as not it is sheer entertainment eliciting from me deep guffaws! Obviously I do not live in a vacuum.

    Over the holidays I attended the annual circuit of friends and family celebrations. Gad! I’d forgotten how much things had changed since 2019. Things are not going back to the way they were. Even the New World Order stuff presumes a compliant public living exclusively in the United States, Western Europe and the old Commonwealth countries. The old guard still have the power and the levers to continue to run the West into the ground, yes they do — but they are more like dinosaurs.

    All the leaders are plants. They are hardly elected. Their foolish commentaries are scripts manufactured by the old elites’ propounding their dated views of the world. The new world is emerging and information is now common currency. Money flows towards information and runs from lies and misinformation.

    Consider this:
    Large pools of capital are finding it hard to discover suitable investments where the returns to capital are sufficient to mitigate the risk. But the new economy is a totally different form of social organization than the Mass Age. The technologies are more specific in their application. And yet more widely dispersed. There is nowhere today where cell phones have not proliferated. Information flows at the speed of light. The Mass Age meant control. The Internet Age is uncontrollable. Indeed the more governments try to control information the more information moves to jurisdictions where control does not, or cannot exist.

    Information is self regulating in the Internet Age. Either it is useful or it is not useful. Governments are bankrupt. Consumers are only limited by the hours of the day. Even then information is running in the background. Governments are being forced to abandon the old paradigms. Still they will not go quietly! Unfortunately.

    The Internet Age is neither capitalism nor communism. It has elements of both. Information is more and more in the hands of everyone. Every person is a node in the Information Age. Another important aspect of information is — it is not linear. Think about that!

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  129. @John Johnson

    cites from point I made:

    production process as a “social” process rather than operating as individual producers, people would be able to engage in all those activties without those activities becoming their identities.

    You still don’t get it. Marx doesn’t mean that people would serially engage in those activities all the time, but that their identity wouldn’t be based on any particular ectivities, such that a baker “is” a baker, a butcher “is” a butcher, a candlestick maker “is” a candlestiuck maker, etc., etc., and that what he does is what he is, thereby reducing the whole person into his singular productive activity.

    The production process in pre-capitalist and pre-industrrial societies is entirely unlike how it operates in capitalist societies and how that affects the dynamics involved in the process of cognition that is essentially the unity of opposites in sentient beings apprehending the world through the senses and then comprehending it through the dynamic process process of cognition of the brain that occurs by this very process that accumulates within the computer-like brain the synthesis of these opposite in memory that in turn conditions how sentient beings aprehend and comprehend the material conditions within which they live.

    If you want to learn how this process works, read about the OODA loop model that Col. John Boyd formulated that descrtibes it. That stands for Observatio-orientation-decisio- a tion with feedback loops from action to observatioin that is assimilated during the oritentation phases, leading to further decisions and action as a continuing process of cognition.

    This is the process Marx referrred to as Praxis, the knowing by doing, except that John Boyd has formulated a model for showing how the parts of the process are interconnected.

    The key obnservation on which Marx based the point about people being able to do diffrent things rather than their identity being formed by singular activities that the division of labor in industrial societies increasingly required workers to enngage in separate activities that were aggregated as workers acted separately but their separate actions were unified in a final product that was not theirs, but was instead alientated from them by the capitalist appropriating it as his own the product of their labor that was the praxis that was forming their cognition of the world.

    John Locke makes this point that clearly distinguishes the owner from the laborer and thaet justifies the appropriateion of the product of the work by one from the other when he notes somewhere in his treatise that the product of my labor is my own (that is, if a catch a deer, that makes it mine), but then goes on to say that the product of my servant is also mine. But if labor is what vaslidates my acquiring and appropriate material things from the natural world that makes it mine and for my exclusive use, what entitles me then to appropriate the work of my servant whose labor produced what I am entitled to appropriate from him?

    Thus as Locke makes clear, as the lord, he appropirates from his servant the product of his labor that , in turn is a critical element in the process of cognition that makes the person what he or she is.

    This is where Marx’s concept of alienation enters the picture, whereby the capitalist alienatees from the worker the product of his labor that is the foundation for the dynamics of the process of cognition. Thus the capitalist system by its very nature alienates the worker from hismelf by apppropriating from him the productr of his own labor.

    The critical role the division of labor plays in this is that in pre-indiustrial societies that for most of human history was how humans produced and reproduced the necessities of life, communities only produced use values. That is, they only produced what they used for themselves, and then also used up what they produced. They did not engage in producing for the market, that is, making object of use value for others.

    In these communities, individual producers were jack of all trades and learned to do all the things need to produce what they used. This was, indeed an almost entirely individualized production process.

    It was as the means of production became more complicated that individuals had to develop specialized skills to use them for production and to recreate the means of production. Enter the division of labor.

    But while the develoment of more complex means of production enhanced the labor power of workers to produce, it increasing compelled them to act cooperatively in an increasing coordinated poroduction process but that under capitalist was owned by the capitalist who by appropriating the product of labors of the workers alientated them both from their producxt and thereby froom themslves.

    And this is where Marx points to the key contradiction in the capitalist mode of production because it can only work by multitudes of people acting cooperatively (i.e collectively), the capitalist system increasingly becomes a socialized rather than an individualized production process where individuals create for themelves what they use.

    Yet by the process being owned by individual capitalists (including a corporation that is a collective of individual capitalists), this individualization of ownership that is operated for the sole benefit of the individual owner is the dialectic opposite of the actual socialized production process. This is how the material prodcess of production that is the foundation for continuously producing and reproducing the necessities of life that is the foundatioin of society comes into conflict with merely its superstructure that weighs upon it being the laws, etc. that are the basis for entitling the cpitalist to expropriate from the worker the product of his labor as Locke justified it with his example of him owning the product of his servant’s labor.

    To see how this is so, and its significance, identify one thing you used today that you produced entirely by your own effort (and I don’t mean breathing the air you need to live).

    Just one thing.

    Now consider how many separate things you use in any one day and where they came from. To get them to you necessitates the cooperation and coordination of millions of people. That’s how socialized the production process is, and how the individual capitalist social superstructure is completely at odds with how production is organized collectively (i.e socialized), but its results are apporpriated by the individual capitalist from the actual producers .

    The key contradiction is that capitalism is supposedly a system of individualized production that is in fact an entirely socialized system that the capitalist seeks at all costs to keep people from recognizing and drawing the correct conclsuon it is well past time for the expropriators to be expropriated.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  130. Anon 2 says:

    When it comes to building things, whether nation building or building great works of engineering, the typical Jew is as dumb as a doorknob. Jews had 3,000 years to build a great civilization, at which they completely failed. Not even anything as great as Ancient Greece or Rome. Something less glorious would have been fine, but no, they created nothing one could admire. They typically try to get a free ride on the shoulders of those who do the hard work of nation building and maintenance.

    All this doesn’t bode well for New York City. How is it possible that a city of 9 million (20 million in the metro area) does not have even a single great school of engineering? For that you have to go to MIT in the Boston area. NYC is dominated by Jews, Hispanics, and blacks – none of these groups are known for great engineering talent. That’s why New York has no future. The U.S. infrastructure, largely built 100 years ago, and certainly more than 50 years ago (e.g., the Interstate Highway system) is falling apart, and needs to be completely rebuilt. Where is the talent to accomplish this task going to come from? Nothing to look forward to except a decline to Third World status. Sad. No wonder America is becoming the laughing stock of the world. From the outside it looks like the only thing the U.S. cares about is pronouns, performing double mastectomies on 12-year-old girls, and chemical castrations on 8-year-old boys.

    • Thanks: anarchyst
  131. @The Old Philosopher

    You still don’t get it. Marx doesn’t mean that people would serially engage in those activities all the time, but that their identity wouldn’t be based on any particular ectivities, such that a baker “is” a baker, a butcher “is” a butcher, a candlestick maker “is” a candlestiuck maker, etc., etc., and that what he does is what he is, thereby reducing the whole person into his singular productive activity

    No I understand and he is not merely making a point about specialization.

    He is imagining a typical day in his Communist utopia where production is so efficient that he can choose to hunt or fish for half the day.

    Let’s look at the full quote:

    In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

    He is clearly not talking about the weekend and he in fact credits the Communist system:

    society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow

    Only massive gains in production would make this possible.

    You can’t outproduce capitalism if everyone is choosing their own form of work half the day. How many people would choose grueling factory work? Yet he believes production would be high enough to where he go can tend to cattle if he feels like it. This is ridiculous. Who is going to show up at 7 AM to make fishing poles when they can go fish?

    This is one of many areas where Marxism breaks down. He doesn’t explain how this all works and just reverts back to talking about Communism as a utopia where the efficiency will allow all these wonderful things. Well it didn’t work and Soviet factory workers ended up working longer work weeks and they couldn’t appeal to a union because independent unions are banned under Communism. What a utopia. Even before 1930 the Communists had turned the state into One Big Government factory and oh well if you don’t like your job or specialization.

    The key observation on which Marx based the point about people being able to do diffrent things rather than their identity being formed by singular activities that the division of labor in industrial societies increasingly required workers to enngage in separate activities

    Specialization in capitalism is what leads to efficiency gains. Marx skipped Econ courses and views specialization as repressive. Specialization is more efficient than everyone trying to learn everything. It’s simply more efficient for one tradesman to master masonry and another to master metallurgy. Then they trade their services instead of both starting from zero experience. Capitalism then allows indirect trading through the monetary system while a managed economy has to make all kinds of micro exchanges.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  132. @werpor

    Every stick has two ends. Communism and liberalism emerged in an age of mass production. Grasping one end of the stick or the other end manifests intellectually and eventually publicly as an argument over who will control the stick. Who will get what share of the outputs of production? Wages, taxes, profits are outputs.

    It’s actually possible to criticize laissez faire capitalism without the context of a failed alternative. There were criticisms of capitalism before Marx. He wasn’t the first person to point out problems with capitalism like child labor, stagnant capital pools and class explotation. In fact Marxism ends up working against the proletariat as it takes away their ability to vote out corrupt politicians and form unions. Stalin had to censor Western media because it contradicted the Soviet claim that the US working class had harder lives compared to the Soviets.

    Jung is trying to project practically on Marx as if he was pushing an alternative to the Western capitalism that may not be as productive but will have its own benefits.

    That is not at all what Marx predicted. Marx claimed there would be an end to wars, hunger and national division thanks to Communism. It was supposed to bring about worldwide utopia and lead to a new level of humanity….but not for all races. Marx amusingly believed that class differences were entirely artificial but race was real. That actually contradicts the beliefs of modern Marxists.

    Marx to this day deceives people and especially egalitarian Whites with his promises of utopia. He was highly intelligent but his plans have major problems. Just ask a group of Marxists as to what the state should do if someone chooses to not work. To this day they haven’t agreed on how to handle this basic problem. They will argue about whether or not he should be shipped off to a camp or if he should get his meal ticket as a human right. There are some pretty funny reddit threads where they get into massive arguments over this simple question. Das Kapital was published in 1867 and they still haven’t figured this out.

  133. Sarah says:

    In the communist future, human needs would not be sacrificed at the altar of profits and growth. 

    Also, the bourgeois notion of individualism was illusory because only a handful of oligarchs controlled the key means of information and communication.

     (As it turned out, established capitalism proved to be endlessly adaptive in meeting mass demands, distracting the masses with bread & circuses, and/or buying off the radicals with sinecures in the system.)

    Had the US denied Japan and the ‘Asian tigers’ market access to American consumers, how far could their economies have grown? (While South Korea has often been compared with North Korea, what would happen to its economy if the US and its allies applied the kind of economic pressure faced by the northern half?) Even as their economies grew, they became ever more dependent on US whims and thus became political puppets of America; they have zero sovereignty, whereas Asian nations that developed from a communist foundation, like China and Vietnam, are relatively more sovereign.

    It’s no wonder that Noam Chomsky thinks that the US from the 50s to the 60s was the golden age where wealth distribution was most egalitarian. High taxation(at over 90%) and powerful labor unions(and limited immigration) meant that capitalists couldn’t act like Jeff Bezos, Koch Brothers, and Tim Cook(the Crook). 

    Now, even if a communist order were to inherit the wealth of fallen capitalism, it is doubtful it would function well for long. Just imagine the city hall running all the industries. Imagine New York city hall running all the hotels, restaurants, apartments, factories, shops, and etc., and it’s obvious why things would run slowly if at all. It’d be a bureaucratic nightmare. This is why even communist nations experimented with some degree of privatization and small business to provide incentives to people to work harder and be more productive.

    Today, ‘free’ Japan is a far more degrading place than repressive China that does NOT allow pornography, approve of globo-homo, or encourage green hair/tattoos/piercings on the national airwaves. South Korea and Taiwan under military dictatorships in the past were far less degrading than their current incarnations of globo-homo, K-pop degeneracy, hedonism, materialism etc. 

    They want to go the way of the Irish who now welcome the Great Replacement and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Likewise, even though communism put China and Vietnam economically behind Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which nations are now more independent and hopeful in the next 50 yrs? Japan, SK, and Taiwan are utterly decadent and demographically doomed; politically and ideologically, they are total whores of globo-homo US. Incredibly enough, as miserable as North Korea is, it may survive as a people/culture in the next 50 yrs while South Korea, along with Taiwan, becomes an Asian Ireland.)

    👌👌👌👌👌

  134. @John Johnson

    Claims the beneefits of specialization:

    Specialization is more efficient than everyone trying to learn everything. It’s simply more efficient for one tradesman to master masonry and another to master metallurgy. Then they trade their services instead of both starting from zero experience. Capitalism then allows indirect trading through the monetary system while a managed economy has to make all kinds of micro exchanges.

    That’s exactly the point that the person’s being then becomes being a baker or a mason, and by being bound into that mold, his ability to realize his full hiuman potential is stultified.

    O f course Marx expected that for that to be realized, productive forces would have to be vastly increasedf so that the hard work wouild be done nby machines rather than human labor.

    That is indeed what is largely happining with robots taking over assemly lines.

    There is a story about GM executives taking UAW officials around a plant and proudly showing off a brand new production line staffed mostly by robots to show how GM was moderning production. The union officials were suitable impressed and all went well until one of them asked “And how many cars will those robots buy.”

    Boom. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

    Another example. Look at a picture of grain harvewstiung, for example, in the 1920’s that required dozens of people to harvest the grain. Today, one combine can harvest an acre in a few minutes, bale the stalks and load them in one truck while it sacks the wheat it separates from the chaff and with a converyor dumps it into another truck that hauls it away The the machine can harvest untold number of acres an hour unlikm,e the hours of labor it took to harvest an acre before.

    That is exactly what Marx envisioned the capitalist system of production would achieve. And he never held it against the seystem for doing it

    Excapt he also realized thzt this system of production aimed for nothing more than satisfying the greed of the capitalists to satisfy their quest for for profits they could realize only by privatizing all the means of production and material resources needed for producing the necessities of life rather than organizing it for satisfying human needs.

    And it is by privatizing the means of production and the resources need to produce the necessitis of life that they could compel workers to sell their labor power to the capitalist for as little as the capitalist is able to force them to accept or starve. It is a system that Calhoun well described as wage slavery.

    Marlon Brando in the movie Burn playing the part of a British agent organizing a slave revolt to weaken French rule in the Carribean turns around to tell the horrified plantation owners to free the salves to quell the revolt he started. When they protest, he points out what they had to lose, since the slaves would then have no choice but to work for the plantation owners for whatever wages they would pay them and make them fend for themslves rather than having to feed clothe and shelter them. And if one of them dies or was sick, rather than having to spend capital to acquire a new slave, they just hire one of the unemployed to replace him. When asked what he plans to do next, he says he is off to Vietnam. The movie was released around 1967 or ’68.

    It ends as he is walking on a pier headed to the ship taking him to Vietnam that he is stabbed to death by one of the newly enslaved free workers to the cheers of the audience.

    That’s the foundation for the capitalist system of coercion that creates the illusion of freedom for workers which consists solely of which capitlist they sell themsleves to in order to accquire the necessitities of life they cannot acquire any other way because the capitalists have privatized the means of product and the resources necessary to produce it.

    It”s a system that places the attainment of greed for profits by the few above the ability of the multitudes to realize their human needs that Maslow has identified in the order of prepotency for governing humnan behavior as physiological, safety, belonginges esteem and self actualization needs that governs behavior by indiviuals having to regularly be able to satify their more prepotent need befor before regulary engaging in behavior that enables them to satisfy the less prepotent ones.

    And by by having privatized both the means of production as well as all resources required for producting the necessities of life and the satisfaction of this hierarchy of human needs, the capitalist system of production considng the vast multitudes to barely being able to regularly satisfy the two most prepopent needs, much less realize the thre other less propotents ones of esteem, belongingess and self-actuallization which goes a long way to explaining how various institutions of social bonding are collapsing in capitalist societies.

    Marx also well understood that the communialism he had in mind after the capitalkist expropriators were expropriated would not work if the consciousness of the worklers remained as it was represdsed unter the cap;italist system of exploitation. But he also noted that it is precisely through praxis in the course of the struggle to overcome it that the consciousness of the masses would also be altered as the foundation for the revised conditions under which the necessities were produced to satisfy all human prepotent needs rather than just the greed of the capitalist that they can achieve only by respressing the ability of the vcast multitudes to realize their human potential.

    That, is indeed, the biggest crime crime against humnanity that capitalists have committed

    I don’t expect you to get any of this because you’re simply a propandist for your masters.

  135. Rahan says:

    Jung-Freud has passed a serious watershed with this fine article. Before, his essays were usually “good stuff that shows serious potential”.

    This here is the first article that makes explicit the consolidation of the older stylistic and conceptual tendencies and experiments into one formidable whole with structural, thematical, and stylistic internal coherence.

    Also, hints and clues of a worldview still in the expansive stage (still a bit “hunter-gatherer” but already with serious “cultivator” elements) appear here and there, leaving a quite pleasing impression.

    Congrats to the author!

  136. Rahan says:

    The good thing about fascism was it synthesized tradition with modernity and capitalism with socialism. And it infused them all with nationalism. But what it lacked was a strong sense of humanism,

    More specifically “out-group humanism” was lacking.

    Humanism in the sense of “in-group solidarity” was strongly encouraged, but at the expense of the “out-group aliens”. A bit of a neolithic regression.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  137. @Rahan

    Not a problem as long as you don’t conquer and dominate other peoples.
    But fascism went from nationalism to empire, not least because it looked around and noticed that all the great powers were imperialist.

  138. MotGOD says:

    Utter and pathetic nonsense.

    Communism is Judaism; Capitalism is Judaism.
    And the Jews openly brag about both of these facts.

    Shilling for one is Shilling for the other.

    Are you a Jew, a shill, or just a traitor to the white (and all other), races?

  139. anarchyst says:

    Every generation has its promoters of communism who argue that “communism would work if properly implemented”. Throughout the decades, I have seen many starry-eyed young people state as such.
    Of course, they make excuses for all of the bloodshed, misery, and other results of the imposition of communism throughout history.
    All fools…
    There is one thing young people should be aware of:
    communism=judaism
    judaism=communism
    …it’s all in their talmudic playbook…

  140. claims:

    Of course, they make excuses for all of the bloodshed, misery, and other results of the imposition of communism throughout history.

    And of course capitalism has createed the garden of Eden withou a drop of blood, right?

  141. Marcali says:
    @Hulkamania

    So the USA is wallowing in the crimes of its Holy Ally. Remarkable observation.

  142. Marcali says:
    @Anymike

    „Bolshevism cannot escape responsibility for the establishment of a dictatorship instilled with hatred for the individual. As a result of its criminal actions, more than sixty million people were exterminated. Bolshevism, as a species and forerunner of fascism, made itself the principal force in the genocide of its own people.”
    (Alexander N. Yakovlev: a Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, Yale University Press, 2002, p.237.)

    Now Yakovlev was a high ranking soviet functionary, one of the highest ranking.

  143. Marcali says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Why don’t you continue the trend line that has the first break in it, marking the beginning of WW 1 at 1914?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  144. @Marcali

    That would simply imply what the population would be if the trend in population growth continued as previously and not how many people were actually killed. The negative blips are mostly due to people killed and who died of whatever cause and they hardly add up to what you mentioned.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jung-Freud Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement