Why is Communism idolized

[KilroywasNOTHere]

As Dostoevsky said, Communism is Catholicism without the God.

Ah that explains so much.

 

[Aldarion]

Only kind of, and only some people. There was always a solid core of apologia for them. The holocaust and the American troops rescuing people and bringing back such stories made everyone at every level of society have knowledge of Nazi evil. There was none of that for communism.

It might also be that Nazism is villified because and only because it directly affected the privileged Western countries, and nobody really cares about all the evils Communism did in Eastern Europe and Asia because, well, fuck the Slavs and the Chinese.

Although if you really want to be positive, it might be due to lack of knowledge as to what Communism really did, so...

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

For a good long while, we kind of did, though. We saw the Soviets and Chinese as evil. We saw what the Khmer Rouge did. All the "intellectuals" will say is, "that wasn't real communism," all while they still use the symbols and celebrate it. If you ask me, we just got soft and lost our ability to stand up to those types.

Ukraine didn't lose its ability to stand up to the leftists within their own country. Why else did that mass burning took place in Odessa on May 2, 2014?

 

[PsihoKekec]

That wasn't left vs right, that was Eastern Ukraine vs Western Ukraine/State Department Auxiliaries.

 

[Agent23]

Ok, now that we are done with the circlejerking, and it certainly was a lot of fun, let us take a closer look as to the reasons why the some people, particularly in the 3rd world and/or just moving into a more modern form of social organization.

I am going to focus on 3 particular places where some form of Communist power took control, those being China, Imperial Russia and Vietnam.
For the sake of shorthand, I will split the relevant people into 2 "classes", that being peasantry and aristocracy.

In all 3 cases the country in question was never a capitalist one, nor was it truly a sovereign nation at peace.

In all cases, there was a disconnected, aloof, inbred, mentally as well as physically, ruling elite that had no interest in whatever the people were doing and that was running on somewhat stale sociology-economical ideology, serfdom and tsarist autocracy and royal and church control over a large portion of the land with favorable tax statuses in the case of Imperial Russia, French colonial domination in the case of Vietnam, and a succession of Warlords, foreign invaders and a feckless and out of touch mandarin class in China.

In all 3 cases there was a huge amount of Crony Capitalism, rent seeking and favoritism on the part of the out of touch rulers, which could force peasants to sell them grains and rice at lower prices or outright expropriate it, could outright sell peasants as part of their lands(serfdom) within living memory, were massively corrupt and really didn't give a damn about those who they were ruling over, which included getting themselves into huge wars that damaged the peasantry.

INB4 reeing and flamewars. 😂

 

[Aldarion]

Ok, now that we are done with the circlejerking, and it certainly was a lot of fun, let us take a closer look as to the reasons why the some people, particularly in the 3rd world and/or just moving into a more modern form of social organization.

I am going to focus on 3 particular places where some form of Communist power took control, those being China, Imperial Russia and Vietnam.
For the sake of shorthand, I will split the relevant people into 2 "classes", that being peasantry and aristocracy.

In all 3 cases the country in question was never a capitalist one, nor was it truly a sovereign nation at peace.

In all cases, there was a disconnected, aloof, inbred, mentally as well as physically, ruling elite that had no interest in whatever the people were doing and that was running on somewhat stale sociology-economical ideology, serfdom and tsarist autocracy and royal and church control over a large portion of the land with favorable tax statuses in the case of Imperial Russia, French colonial domination in the case of Vietnam, and a succession of Warlords, foreign invaders and a feckless and out of touch mandarin class in China.

In all 3 cases there was a huge amount of Crony Capitalism, rent seeking and favoritism on the part of the out of touch rulers, which could force peasants to sell them grains and rice at lower prices or outright expropriate it, could outright sell peasants as part of their lands(serfdom) within living memory, were massively corrupt and really didn't give a damn about those who they were ruling over, which included getting themselves into huge wars that damaged the peasantry.

INB4 reeing and flamewars. 😂

I don't think that was ever in question...? My question was always about why the people who should know better - namely, the academics and such - tend to idolize Communism.

 

[Agent23]

I don't think that was ever in question...? My question was always about why the people who should know better - namely, the academics and such - tend to idolize Communism.

Maybe because of either ethnic connections or because they or their relatives profited in some way from the situation.
Or they are researchers of country/culture X, they found out that the previous regime was shit and they decided that maybe the commies were an improvement.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I don't think that was ever in question...? My question was always about why the people who should know better - namely, the academics and such - tend to idolize Communism.

Those who can do.
Those who can't teach.

Those who do earn.
Those who don't... try to justify receiving anyway.

 

[Cherico]

Maybe because of either ethnic connections or because they or their relatives profited in some way from the situation.
Or they are researchers of country/culture X, they found out that the previous regime was shit and they decided that maybe the commies were an improvement.

It's envy


Seriously if you have been in academia you would understand that a lot even most professors are riddled with envy. They dispise people who are richer and more suçcessful then they are and want to tear them down.

They honestly think because they understand a singular subject well that they should have dominion over every one else. It's pure envy hidden under a vener if holier then thou bullshit.

It's really that simple.

 

[Agent23]

It's envy


Seriously if you have been in academia you would understand that a lot even most professors are riddled with envy. They dispise people who are richer and more suçcessful then they are and want to tear them down.

They honestly think because they understand a singular subject well that they should have dominion over every one else. It's pure envy hidden under a vener if holier then thou bullshit.

It's really that simple.

As per my previous post, you mean?

Academics don't stop being people because of a diploma, but some might have other motives aside from the ones we listed already.

Also, with some academics, particularly those that are pure political and social theoreticians hubris plays a huge part as well, as Peterson said, they think they will be running the show, not that they will be sent to GULAG by Stalin.

There is this concept of a Midwit/Intellectual yet Idiot.

 

[PsihoKekec]

My question was always about why the people who should know better - namely, the academics and such - tend to idolize Communism.

Because for all the loftiness of their titles, academics are usually not any more sound of mind than the average worker behind the assembly line, only more sitzleder (patience to cram stuff in their head and write about it) and more hubris.

 

[Agent23]

Because for all the loftiness of their titles, academics are usually not any more sound of mind than the average worker behind the assembly line, only more sitzleder (patience to cram stuff in their head and write about it) and more hubris.

I am pretty sure that you need higher IQ for some academic stuff, engineering, biology, medicine, computer science, you know, the relevant academia stuff.

 

[Aldarion]

I am pretty sure that you need higher IQ for some academic stuff, engineering, biology, medicine, computer science, you know, the relevant academia stuff.

IQ however does not equate intelligence: what it measures is the potential.

Basically, think of a computer with 4 GB of RAM and a computer with 16 GB of RAM. Latter computer is much more intelligent in that it has more working memory and thus can complete more tasks in the same unit of time.

But do you really think that matters if the former computer is being used for simulating, calculus and design work while the latter computer is used for nothing but porn games?

That is basically the case here: academics may be intelligent, but since their brains had been infected by Marxism, they are nevertheless incapable of producing things of value.

 

[Agent23]

IQ however does not equate intelligence: what it measures is the potential.

Basically, think of a computer with 4 GB of RAM and a computer with 16 GB of RAM. Latter computer is much more intelligent in that it has more working memory and thus can complete more tasks in the same unit of time.

But do you really think that matters if the former computer is being used for simulating, calculus and design work while the latter computer is used for nothing but porn games?

That is basically the case here: academics may be intelligent, but since their brains had been infected by Marxism, they are nevertheless incapable of producing things of value.

I think you misunderstand IQ.
A large percentage of it is IIRC speed, also the ability to do stuff like pattern matching and recall.
At least some of it is actually influenced by the environment, with most kids tested starting off at around the 90 point mark, with schooling dumbing them down or in cases making them smarter.
Also, some forms of intellectual exercise boost your abilities to do intellectual work.
Psychologists found a "striking" difference in intelligence after examining twins raised apart in South Korea and the United States


Dutton has some interesting coverage on the topic, but I am too lazy to look for the rest of his videos and IMHO even he has a lot of biases since he is kind of a Britbong snob IMHO, I also disagree on him because of his western-focused, excessively orthodox view on the "Dark Ages", a time when Byzantium achieved some really notable engineering and technological developments, like the Hagia Sophia and Greek Fire, when there were numerous technological innovations like actual windmills and water mills developed, and the like.
For instance, he says it is heritable, but that does not mean 100% generic, since not having morons for parents will probably result in a better environment and more resources, that might lead to IQ improvements as well.
There was one other neuroscience researcher that Moleneux interviewed, and he thought that environment was more important than genetics in his view, and a badly structured U.S. welfare state led to some groups producing lots of dumb children instead of having higher IQs and "middle class aspirations".
That pompous linguist pundit that wrote "The Blank Slate" and "The better angels of our nature" also thought that environment in its entirety was very relevant, not just the family or school.

In any case, smarter 2 parent families will probably do better at parenting, they will have more money for one, which might translate to taking a more active interest in making sure their offspring is healthy, and if they are more intelligent that means that the mother might not partake in drugs, alcohol and cigars during gestation, and by taking vitamins and eating healthily and getting enough rest.
There were social programs in India for instance that encouraged breastfeeding, and that improved child health, it will be lovely if there is a follow up study of IQ.

Furthermore, there was some research that stated that brain development might be adversely affected by environmental cleanliness and microbes, with a dirtier environment where microbes are more abundant leading to more of the body's resources going going towards fending off infections than brain development.

However, affluent parents will inevitably seek to shelter their brats in various ways, which might eventually lead to a decrease in IQ over the long run.

Similarly academia where the non-hard science fields are concerned, and even when they are, might be pushing Social Justice crap or be dependent on money, and not merit where getting a degree is concerned.

Also I think that at least some high IQ people see the modern world and think to themselves, "Yeah, I don't want any of this shit, I will keep my spending low, get a lower paying job that doesn't require commuting and dealing with office Karens, and I will focus on my hobbies, and/or do a YouTube commentary channel about 40k or something else that interests me.", that group should be referred to as geeks and nerds IMHO.

You also have a variety of high functioning autists that have high IQs and are extremely obsessive with a particular field, those would probably plough into their preferred field even if the money isn't that good.

I have had to deal with a few of those, and they can be pretty performant, the problem is that they are basically like a mindless drill head, once they get some idea in their head it is very hard to get them to stop and consider other options, even if it is more sensible to do a and b and 80% of c than 100% of c, then leave b and a for whenever there is time for them.
They might overengineer stuff and reinvent the lightbulb, because they have a very specific idea how a lightbulb might have to function.
Those people should never be given power, IMHO, I mean, look at Bill Gates.

 

[Agent23]

Ok, since editing this again is bad form, and @Aldarion you might want to reread the previous post.

Now, in continuation to what I wrote, of course we have two other potential motivators as to why intelligent, as opposed to Midwit people might side with the prevailing academic narrative, groupthink and the reverse Gell-Mann effect, which actually corresponds with One of Robert Conquest's laws of politics, namely that experts will just go with the flow and trust "scientific and journalistic authority" on the subjects they know jack shit about, and even those that do not agree might decide to keep their views to themselves so as not to rock the boat or adversely impact their careers, or they are just frogs in gradually boiling water.
Heinlein actually covered that in Starship Troopers, saying that scientists will make the worst possible governors of society, beause they just want to deal with their particular pet projects and will just lock themselves in their labs and let the rest of the world rot, or something to that effect.

Also, people either inherit their views genetically or through upbringing, but those are not directly correlated with IQ to the leftoids' anger.

Finally, you have those that benefit in some way, shape or form from the whole thing or who either overcompensate for their inadequateness in other ways or try to drag the average of the field down to make themselves more valuable and give themselves better optics.
Like the whole affirmative action nonsense for instance.If 20% of the field becomes less qualified that means that people already in it will get a boost, even if they weren't as good back in the day when it was more meritocratic.

Now, there is one more point, that of aptitude and high functioning sociopathy as opposed to pure IQ and the group-oriented lemming-like behavior we see humans en mass partake in because we are social animals.

Somebody with an aptitude for math and science will not care about the small minded politicking of corporations or governments, and consequently Karens, midwits, IYIs and sociopaths that can mimic working "for the common good" will get promoted upwards in a bureaucracy, the more tiers there are the better.
Then, the bureaucrats will work to increase the size of their latifundia.

IMHO the Midwits/IYIs that inhabit the Davos are a prime example of this problem.
Shvab, the ringleader of the whole thing, is allegedly an engineer, but his thesis is about credit markets, and there is nothing on his CV about him producing any patents of actual note, he has also embezzled funds from the whole thing to enrich himself and his relatives.

A major portion of the loud "billionaires" that go there to self-congratulate and give themselves a verbal and mental virtue handjob are there to either virtue signal, self-promote their profitless, overvalued companies, or look to network with the rest of the prestigious "heard" and maybe do a few backroom deals.

People who have achieved something that is resilient and long-lasting and that actually makes real money don't bother being as loud, even if they occasionally indulge in some virtue signalling.

Buffett and Munger for instance haven never, to my knowledge, attended Davos or wasted their time with their virtue signalling, and Buffett for instance just said that he "doesn't go looking for a new church every weekend" where his investors are concerned.Contrast that with pathetic virtue signallers like the CEOs of your average as a service tech company with over 100 P/E.

 

[WolfBear]

@Agent23 Theoretically speaking, someone can be slow and yet have a high IQ. For instance, someone with ADHD. I feel like I need to clarify this part since being slow does not necessarily equal being dull.

 

[Agent23]

@Agent23 Theoretically speaking, someone can be slow and yet have a high IQ. For instance, someone with ADHD. I feel like I need to clarify this part since being slow does not necessarily equal being dull.

I see ADHD less as "slow" than as unfocused.
Also, in communist Russia treated ADHD via spanking at young age, work like charm, comrade.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I'm half convinced whatifalthist read this thread before making this video.

EDIT: He also almost word for word quotes some posts here too.

 

[LordDemiurge]

I feel like the answer is kind of obvious, because it does a better job of hiding it's malice.

Their thinkers tend to be good at pointing out flaws in the current paradigm. Deconstructionism is their bread and butter after all, and the US is a country whose government once massacred striking workers.

The problem is their solutions simply don't work.

A common theme I notice with communists is their opponents tend to let them get away with the Nirvana fallacy, comparing capitalism in practice while running away from the actual realities of communism in practice.

Bring up the benefits of capitalism. Such as rise in living standards, innovation and whatnot, and they will run at your argument with a never ending barrage of demands for technicalities, whataboutism, pedantry, and liminal zones.

More importantly their followers are pretty much unconscious or in self-denial of their own malice. To them capitalism and just about all power structures, are not human systems, but abstract demons and forms that are to be exorcised from the collective consciousness.

My assessment is that communists are fairly good at being' technically right' in their debates. Its only when you zoom out do you see how wrong it is, hence why they've made it an art form to keep their opponents grounded in the minutiae of their arguments.

 

[Captain X]

More importantly their followers are pretty much unconscious or in self-denial of their own malice.

I'm not sure about that - some of them are pretty blatant about their malice.