That's a good question and I can't give a detailed answer because I'm not a historian but there are plenty of good books on it. I think the short answer is that with Stalin at least he'd murder anyone even remotely suspected of disloyalty. He was the state and he completely consolidated power. I wish I knew more about the specifics.

We need to expand our discussion outside of the US. We're lucky to be living in the US, at least compared to other nations. Other states are not so kind.

Stalin killed around 1 million of his own citizens in the span of a year or two during the purges of the late 30s. There were other purges too. We're talking in the tens of millions killed by both Stalin and Mao and that's only over the course of their regimes - around 25-30 years each. The craziest individual murderers aren't remotely capable of setting up a vast secret police force that can abduct anyone in the middle of the night because they're an acquaintance of a suspected traitor or cut off the food supply to an entire region that they suspect could become disloyal.

I'm just talking about states here. I'm not including drug cartels, organized crime, or corporations in this count.

I think what you're saying is often true, but it doesn't account for evil in its entirety. If you look at Ted Bundy and some other serial killers, for instance, you'll notice that there's a strong sexual component and in the tapes they'll describe their acts as something akin to an addiction. If you were to read the writings of Carl Panzram, another very active and sadistic serial killer of the early 20th century, you'd likely identity the driving force as nihilism and a deep seated rage rather than a drive for status. It's possible that a drive for status played some role, but if you look at their actual writings it'd be a stretch to describe it as the main one.

Do we really need to bring in the numbers killed by Stalin and Mao? Hitler?

If you look at the 20th century the numbers killed by government are beyond enormous - more than even the worst murderers could dream of. I think that's what Tzeentch means.

@Tzeentch I've always found the phrase "necessary evil" a little puzzling. Evil is really a religious word, and if you examine it religiously it really can never be necessary. Like if a doctor needs to cut off a man's arm because otherwise he'd die due to frostbite we might reflexively call this a "necessary evil" but there's really nothing evil about it - it's entirely necessary. If on the other hand the doctor just randomly cut off the man's arm for no apparent reason, yes, we'd call that evil. The evil lies in the complete lack of sense or necessity. Just something to think about.

When learning a new language I try not to judge how "correct" that language is (i.e. how it matches up to my understanding of the world) and instead I just try to immerse myself in the mindset of that language. In any case, I think part of the purpose of language is just to make functioning easier - it's not always to describe every phenomenon 100% in its entirety. English speakers should all be aware that being blonde or a child being tall are impermanent states this usually doesn't need to be outright stated. I speak Russian too and it's the same thing in Russian. It's cool that Spanish has its own take on that, but again, I try not to denigrate another language for being "wrong."

Maybe just remember that you don't have to respond to every post in a thread, you learn which posters you like to read and which aren't worth responding to. — Judaka

This x1000. It's funny, I've been here maybe a year and I've been relatively active and there are plenty of other relatively active posters but it'll be like two ships constantly passing in the night silently with some people... just no engagement. With others I've tried to engage and it turns into a total mess and then we learn to avoid each others, but with others, again, two ships passing in the night with never any contact.

Plenty of posters are fine to engage though. @ssu is a pleasure to talk to. I think we've been fine so far despite not agreeing on everything. It's a mixed bag with some of the leftists.

Ok, this might just be a cultural difference (you're Australian, right?) In the States, as far as I can tell, socialism is pretty much always used as an alternative to capitalism. It means dismantling capitalism. If you want to go more to the left you'd just say "we need more social programs" or "we need stronger social programs."

I don't consider UBI or welfare "socialism." I think true socialism is ownership by the proletariat.

Justice, fairness, human rights, freedom - that's how I think of socialism. — Judaka

Interesting, I have a few questions about what socialism constitutes for you.

Under socialism, would someone be able to start their own independent business, say, without the approval of a council of workers? How does investment work under socialism? Can someone just day trade for a living? What does socialism say about speculators? What if someone doesn't want to get a "real" job under socialism, what happens then? Certainly this didn't fly in the USSR.

Personally, I'm just fundamentally opposed to any system which forces you into a normal job in the name of social cohesion. I've never been entirely sure what socialism says about entrepreneurship or side hustles.

The biggest of which is capitalism itself, which certainly coerces you into working, decides your worth and whether you're even valuable enough to be
getting paid in the first place. — Judaka

If we look at a dictionary, coercion is the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. Something needs a mind to be able to coerce - people can coerce, government can coerce. An animal could coerce.

If we were to plane crash onto an island with fruits and natural resources we'd likely want to survive, but the island isn't coercing us into gathering those resources in order to survive. You can choose to lay down and die or beg from others.

Capitalism doesn't coerce you by forcing you to do something, it coerces you by restricting you to such few options that to say you aren't be coerced into choosing one of them seems like semantics. — Judaka

While I don't agree with your use of the word coercion here, I get what you're saying here. I agree with the gist of your argument, but I feel like your real target is poverty and not capitalism. Poor people under Marxism are just as limited, if not more. Plenty of capitalists support a universal basic income or some sort of welfare requirement, myself included. Capitalism doesn't demand no government compensation for anyone at any time. Milton Friedman, one of the major capitalist thinkers in recent history, supported a universal basic income.

Thanks for sharing your story.

I will say that for those who work within the system - that is, have a normal 9-5 job, pay rent, average salary, not much savings - my prognosis is poor. I've never trusted the system to magically help these people and boost them into the upper classes. I think of the system as more than just capitalism though, so we might differ there. In any case, the system doesn't reward you for saving. I wouldn't even count on the system to reward you for hard work at your 9-5, but who knows maybe it might for some people.

I've been in kind of an interesting place because while I was raised and grew up UMC, for the past 5-6 years I've been working with people from either poor, lower middle class, or maybe just normal middle class backgrounds. It's sometimes hard for me to tell the difference between normal middle class and lower middle class. I've always hidden my own background from my co-workers. No need to bring that up. It's been a super interesting experience though and I will say I've become more class conscious.

I know we've talked about your own personal situation before, and you know my advice if you want to live more comfortably. I'm not going to rehash it. Someone could honestly be pulling 6 figures and still be struggling in certain areas of the country, especially with debt. I do hope all is well with your situation though.

For our purposes here it might be worth first seeing ideology not as something one possess, as you suggest, but rather as a way of seeing; a looking-glass through which one interprets and understands social practices. — Banno

This is fine by me. What I was implying with the phrase "ideologically possessed" is the idea that ideas possess people. It's interesting to think about. I understand that we all have lenses through which we view the world through, but some of these lenses just don't allow any flexibility and are strongly dogmatic. Some of these lenses are all encompassing and completely grip the subject. That's what I mean by ideological possession. I just don't think it's fair to say a fanatical Nazi and your average, pragmatic non-political American are equally "ideologically possessed."

You think the fact you recognize other have rights, money and property renders your insistence on having your own rights, money and property unselfish? I don't think that works. — Ciceronianus the White

No, by saying that I "bite the bullet" on that one it means I accept your premise; I just don't view it as a negative. I'm fine accepting that there's a selfish component to my worldview: I value my property, money, and rights. In fact, I'd even go further and say that this quality is actually a positive. If you don't value your own, how are you going to value others stuff or rights?

I was just responding to what seemed be your negative implication towards selfishness or self-centeredness.

You have a legitimate claim here. I am not dismissing your claim. If the government or the white man or whoever takes your property and violates your rights that is a massive injustice and compensation makes sense. I'll say nothing more about the issue because I don't know the specifics, but I apply my principles universally. Everyone gets held to the same standards.

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world? — Ciceronianus the White

I'll bite the bullet on this one. It is my property. It is my rights, and it is my money. These things are hugely important. It's not just about me though - I apply that standard to everyone. And if you don't you're kind of a monster, no offense. If you don't view other people's money, property, or rights seriously then you are at best immature and ignorant and at worst a monster.

Every person possess some kind of ideology, the question has to do with the concrete nature of ideology. — JerseyFlight

Maybe in some vague, general sense everyone possesses some ideology or way of viewing the world, but not everyone is equally ideologically possessed.

every quality you possess came from society. — JerseyFlight

Oh really, well thanks for letting me know. I never knew spina bifida or cystic fibrosis came from society. Never knew the amount of fast twitch muscles I had actually came from society. I never knew tongue tie came from society.

I don't really want to argue with you here, I just kind of feel bad because you're clearly ideologically possessed. I mean how am I suppose to argue with someone who doesn't believe in individuals. Who would I even be arguing with? In any case, just know that I'm trying my best empathize with you...and the reason I can do that is because you are an individual with your own mind which has unfortunately been completely taken over by Marxist dogma. Anyway, I do wish the best for you.

Thats not what it seems to me, reading eg the FB posts from my friends in the academic left. Its more like just that "collective empaty". — Ansiktsburk

So what are the limits to collective empathy? Does the academic left just feel empathy with all poor people around the world? How about all poor people who have ever existed? Apparently they feel empathy for every single one of them... they apparently feel "empathy" for people who they have no idea exist.

I'm sorry but it's just bullcr*p. You can't empathize with 4 billion individuals. It's just virtue signaling. If they want to empathize with all 4 billion I'll tell them that I empathize with every human being who has existed and has ever faced any sort of problem therefore making a better, more virtuous person than them.

You can't empathize with an idea or an abstraction. That's not how empathy works. You empathize with individuals.

Easy. He or she has a heart. He or she is an empathetic being, who feels the pain of others, and wants to stop it for them. — god must be atheist

Not to triple post, but I find this subject interesting.

There's about 38 million Americans under the poverty line. Obviously it's impossible to know all of them, and in turn care about them as individuals. To claim to care about them is really to to care about an abstraction, an idea. And the mark of a good person, according to the leftist, is that he or she genuinely cares about this group of people - not as individuals, because that would be impossible, but as a collective or in other words an idea/abstraction.

So it's not about empathy, at the root of it. Honestly speaking, it's about commitment to an idea or a principle. It's about solving an idea. Solving a problem. Lets leave empathy out of it.

I think the access to academics is a big part. If your worldview expands beyond yourself and you start to think in terms of benefiting the system that all are a part of instead of only benefiting yourself or your family, you start to move in a socialist direction. — Pro Hominem

Like this for example. This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

I really like this response because it really captures the essence of it. Capitalists are not just wrong, they're bad people according to the thinking left-winger. They are egotistical and care less, if at all, about those around them. They're basically egotistical sociopaths.

If you were to ask me about my assessment of this issue maybe 10-15 years ago I would have said the exact same thing you're saying now. I get where you're coming from 100% and I'm glad you laid out the issue as you did here.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

I was raised in a upper middle class home and I used be a socialist and for much of my life I was on the left. Financially speaking everything was always taken care of for me and in seeing the wealth around me I didn't understand at a young age why poverty or homeless people had to exist. On top of that, I worked some crappy, low wage jobs with bad bosses which further solidified my allegiance to the left. My thinking was in a country as advanced and wealthy as the US, why do we still have poverty and homelessness? I was thinking about the big picture and principles first, and myself last. I also had no experience with poor people. They were just problems to be solved by giving them, as a collective, a certain amount of money or resources.

Somewhere along the line my thinking become more bottom-up. Instead of thinking about vast systemic changes to eliminate poverty, I started studying personal finance and decisions which could be made on an individual level. I actually met and talked to poor people (or atleast people from poor backgrounds.) I'm still down for some systemic changes, but I'm just a lot more careful about them. Every problem doesn't need to be immediately addressed with a scalpel. And I hate to say it but maybe some people are actually directly responsible for their own poverty and routinely choose materialism and status over long term financially health, and they know it.

Also young people don't pay taxes.

The field of philosophy, as an academic discipline, is traditionally anathema to this type of discourse, and there's a reason behind it. Traditionally philosophy, and also science, are predicated on the notions that anyone can make an argument - doesn't matter the background - and that argument is to be judged on its own merits.

On the other hand, if we're talking about racial/gender/ableist etc. privilege this type of dialogue necessarily values certain types of voices over others, and not necessarily unfairly. If I'm a disabled person - which I am - I'm extremely suspicious of a non-disabled person who claims to speak to my experience. I can say with confidence that it takes years and years for a non-disabled person to really understand - assuming they ever do - the disability. I personally only see this level of understanding in experts who have worked in the field for decades.

Even within a certain disability community the question of who gets the voice and who gets the representation is a pertinent one. We're not a monolith. We'll tend to share certain general perspectives but our opinions about the disorder/disability can vary very widely.

I don't understand why we're only talking about privilege along racial lines here. One of the biggest privileges in life is physical attraction and its something that is largely outside of our control. Each one of us is likely privileged and unprivileged in a billion different ways and yo focus exclusively on only one facet in a discussion thread about privilege in general seems like we're missing the bigger picture.

If values are not established by culture, where do they come from? Much fatalism you have here. I wonder if the people you find attractive in your culture would be equally attractive to the members of another culture? Some tribes drastically alter their bodies, if you are lacking these cultural alterations, it is doubtful you would be attractive to the people in that culture. — JerseyFlight

I just don't believe people are blank slates waiting to be filled up by whatever the culture presents. I think if we were we'd be seeing an insane degree of uniformity of thought and attitude within a culture when even within strong cultures we see a diversity of that if we dig below the surface. I know Steven Pinker and Chomsky have done some serious work on this, and their work shows that the mind comes pre-programmed, in other words some things are innate. Our minds are not just blank slates waiting for the world to write on anything them, and I honestly think this idea is dead scientifically speaking. Of course there's room for culture in influencing us but to say it's 100% is just too much.

I don't think what I'm saying it fatalism. Think of it this way: If we are just 100% culture, do we even have a self? If there's nothing permanent about you, then who are you? There is no you.

As for the tribe comment I'd just need to see more research done. There has been research done into what humans find attractive, and there has been some research which claims a universality of some features such as facial symmetry being attractive. I know of no culture where men prefer women with masculine faces. I'd like to see culture try to teach that attraction.

EDIT: Consider homosexuality - it exists in every culture. If people are truly blank slates and endlessly malleable then we should be able to cure homosexuality through social reprogramming. These efforts have failed miserably where ever they've been tried.

I don't believe that physical attractiveness is just a cultural phenomenon. I don't believe humans are endlessly malleable through culture, either. There are biological realities which you're going to need to deal with at some point. I get it, you can try to use culture to patch them over or make them less of an issue, but the fact of the matter is these realities are intractable features of life and unless you want to exterminate the entire human race you will have to deal with them.

These biological realities help form our individual identities whether we like them or not, and despite all of this talk of "progress" we really don't know what's truly going on inside the minds of others. To claim that we just need the right culture to bring about complete uniformity of attitude or instinct or reaction towards something is just too much for me, personally. I don't mind if you believe but it's just not worth it for you to try to convince me on that.

Got it, so we just need to teach people to value quality of character over attractiveness and we're all set. Attractiveness no longer matters.

You really understand humanity.

It'll no longer make a difference whether a girl is a 9 or a 2, us men will only judge her on her character and not even notice her outward appearance.

If you are more specific about the problem, but then again how you could you be, Peterson told you not to be specific, then I can do my best, using my intelligence, to tell you what I think we need to do to fix it. — JerseyFlight

Great, well I'm thrilled to hear it. I love getting specific, there's just so many issues to address.

Lets start with the issue of attractiveness in men. Now I want you to consider the full spectrum here - everything from models to.... you ever see 90 day fiancee? Just google search "ed from 90 day fiancee."

I don't think I need to go over with you how attractiveness is an obvious advantage socially speaking, and it's also one in the workplace.

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another?

Jersey, I'm asking you how do we, as a society, fix the inequality/unfairness/oppression of these issues? You say you want to target all forms of oppression. Tell me how we fix this.

We have not already done this. We have come nowhere close. Answer me this: Why are there still ugly people? Why are there still tall people? Why are there still charismatic people while others are socially awkward? Why do we have those who can speak fast while others must speak slow? Why do some have to worry about their tourettes while others don't? Why are some people born with certain genetics which makes it easier them to lose weight?

You want equality and absence of oppression? Start there.

That's all fine and well, but if he admits there's a problem, which he does, he even validates the word "oppression," what caused it? Is his approach to the problem actually targeting the source? We already know the answer, his reply is, forget about the complicated details of reality and just fall back into the Matrix. — JerseyFlight

I think he'd say there's a billion different reasons that could have caused one to be "oppressed." I think if we, as a society, were to honestly target all of the sources of oppression we would turn into something like the dystopia Kurt Vonnegut described in Harrison Bergeron - basically a society where everyone is equally disadvantaged by reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

EDIT: This is not to say that Peterson is against fighting oppression. Of course he supports fighting certain forms of it.

Peterson isn't specifically talking about the culture here, he would consider it just a general truism of life that people are oppressed or fall short of the mark in one way or another. It probably doesn't even matter the type of society.

It's interesting that you say he reinforces and justifies privilege. Where do you get that? I get it if it's just a general critique of capitalism or the right but if we're talking about Peterson specifically his position is a little more nuanced.

Here's a segment I was able to dig up from Peterson on privilege. You only need to watch from the 2 minute mark to around 3:30 or maybe 4 minutes (someone made a song out of this, by the way. You can see it on youtube.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-8slOBngqk

I don't troll often but this thread was just too much for me.

In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony God's blessing but because I am enlightened my own intelligence.

Which seems to be saying that if you don't set yourself in order first, your arguments are going to be bad. — Echarmion

Good advice, certainly, but what if an unordered mind comes up with something rather important? — Echarmion

Ok, this is not what Peterson is saying. Of course a disordered person can produce a good argument. Peterson isn't concerned here with the type of arguments being produced by a disordered person.

Peterson is speaking to the self here more as a therapist or a coach, not as a philosopher who is purely concerned with the rigor of one's arguments. Nor is he speaking as a political activist who is trying to rally people for some cause and will use whoever he can get. He is saying before you actively try to change the world and put yourself in those leadership positions maybe take a step back and gain some maturity and perspective.

I kind of agree with you. If I heard a political theorist say something like "before you criticize some government, put yourself in order" I would be suspicious. However, with Peterson he begins the chapter talking about people who are just anti-being. It's not a political thing. There are some people who just criticize virtually everything because they fundamentally hate being. Take off your philosopher goggles and put on your therapist/life coach ones. Keep in mind that for Peterson the good precedes the right/the rational.

So, what does he say, in your interpretation? What's the connection between setting your house in order and criticizing the world? — Echarmion

He means set yourself/your mindset in order.

Peterson starts off the chapter talking about the Columbine killers and Carl Panzram - both of whom hated being and described so in detail in their manifestos or biographies. The Columbine killers hated pretty much everything. And they were right in regard to a lot of it - life is often pain, life is unfair, injustice happens constantly. But if you're just criticizing and coming at things from this type of perspective it's a monstrous and nihilistic way to approach the world even if you happen to share some opinions with normal, rational folks.

In politics there might be some use for these people, but Peterson is always speaking to the individual. Political philosophy or theory tends to deal in groups, Peterson does not.

Chapter 6 of Peterson's book is "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" but he obviously doesn't mean that literally. He's not saying only people whose houses are 100% clean are entitled to try to change the world. Nor does he says that only people whose family lives are perfect are entitled to opinions.

In the chapter he uses Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a model: Solzhenitsyn didn't just curse his fate in the gulag, he poured over the details of his own life "with a fine toothed comb" and engaged in the type of self-reflection to make his work a masterpiece. All Peterson seems to be asking is that people approach the world from a standpoint involving humility and responsibility before criticizing the world. He's not saying you're not allowed to, I don't know, raise awareness for the chinese concentration camps if you're family life isn't perfect.

That's a good question. Acknowledgment would be a good first step. I don't know exactly what it implies but the fact that it exists means it should probably be acknowledged and we can go from there in regard to the individual trait we're talking about (race, class, physical difference, disability, etc.)

Height privilege is absolutely a thing, especially among men. Taller men are privileged.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though.