Jordan Peterson and Real Communism
This is a major issue: was that real communism that was tried or was it not? We should be able to consider and decide that based one some evidence, but most people just assume it in quite illogical and emotional ways that the answer is yes it was. Despite me being very left wing I rather like Peterson and admire his intelligence, but this is one of the worst things ive seen him say so far. The idea that anyone who doubts that Stalin's Russia or Mao's china was real communism must be some kind of monster is a terrible thing to say...and quite the opposite of what Peterson often says we should think like. Isnt he the one that says we should seek evidence and use logic and analysis?
It is quite possible that someone exploring this issue wishes to seek the truth and wants to consider it more. They may end up, after reading and thinking about it more, saying 'yes that was real communism they tried, and it failed.' Or they might think 'Hmm, there seems some basic aspects of it that were not real communism'. But the EFFORT and openness to consider the issue should never be painted, per se, as a sign that they are some immoral monster. Considering this issue in NO WAY means we have to, directly or indirectly, condone the deaths of millions of people at the hands of Stalin or Mao. We can, with no contradiction, decide 'that was not real communism' and 'those deaths in Russia and China were horrible, a tragedy'.
He also says that anyone saying it was not real communism has no understanding of history, and states it like a fact. Again, this is very poor thinking and the opposite of what he says we should do. In my experience people who say that have more understanding of history than people who believe, unquestioningly, that is WAS communism and it has been proven to fail. That does not mean they know enough, but a moderate consideration of history tends to cast some doubt over the idea that it was fully communism. So, its the opposite of what Peterson says here. Generally people who say it MIGHT not have been full, real communism come to that thought via looking at history, NOT via a lack of considering history. Of course they may still be wrong, but their thinking comes from actually considering history to some moderate extent. Not from ignorance.
Here are, as i see it elements from history that may lead us to doubt that it was real communism... MAYBE:
1.That Stalin and Mao failed to put into practice various basic aspects of communist theories. That seems a pretty important point. If someone makes a car but fails to follow some basic elements... and then the car catches fire after 10 days, can we conclude 'they built a car and it didnt work, therefore cars are impossible to build, they are killers'. Doesnt seem very logical.
If we can show they didnt do X, Y and Z key aspects of the theory and practice isnt it more reasonable to say 'They did it wrong.'
2. There are records from as early as 1917 and 1918 of people saying 'this will not be communism' if the bolsheviks got their way. So people even at the time were saying this is wrong, its not real communism. The historical facts show that it was not that everyone said 'yes this is communism!' , then 50 years later they changed it to 'ah, not it was not really'. There were some people right at the start, in the very first year in Russia, saying that was faulty. Shouldnt their views, from people on the ground, actively involved, be taken into consideration? How can their views be written off by saying its a lack of history? Quite the opposite - its taking history in account which brings us to doubt how 'real' the communism was, by reading the words of people there at the time saying it was not.
3. The soviets and chinese attacked other left wing groups such as non-authoritarian socialists and anarchists. The very ones that said this would not be real communism. Many of them were killed or imprisoned. That should, at least, give us pause for thought. If they were 'real' communists trying to create a better society, applying communist theories of the full blossoming of democratic organisation by the majority, then why would they have attacked and killed other left wingers? We might say that violence against the rich elites is part of the basic communist approach, since they need to be overthrown (maybe). But why violence against other ordinary people of more or less the same views?
Seems that there are two likely reasons:
a. there is something inherent about the 19thC theories and ideals of communism that lead to violent oppression of any dissenting views.
b. the soviets and chinese took a distorted approach to communism, that did not follow some basic ideals, and instead established a dictatorship.
If the answer is A then we can pretty much say that communism is basically faulty and was tried and should never be tried again. The end.
But HOW do we establish this is the case? What are those inherent aspects that are faulty? Why is it there almost never anyone saying what they are specifically? We only have people ASSERTING its the case, and giving no evidence, not drawing on any specific texts in Marx and saying 'SEE, that part caused this violence 50 years later and here is how it caused it' . THAT would drawing on history to establish that it both was real communism and that it directly came from applying communist ideals and theory. And that would be a good example of the 'experiment, replicated' point Peterson makes here. So, where is that kind of well reasoned consideration? If you know any please tell me.
It seems to me that B is the more likely aspect. They distorted some of the key elements and therefore its reasonable to say it was not real or full communism. much as it was not a real or full car that was made, when several basic elements were missed out or deliberately altered. WHY, exactly, is that not a reasonable position to take? It may be wrong, and if so historical research can help us establish that. But it is not an unreasonable proposition... and Peterson making out that it is such a mad position to take it quite wrong. Actually, very damaging, because its gets in the way of us coming to a full understanding on this important issue.
It MAY be that communism is inherently unworkable, indeed - but the examples of soviet Russia, Mao's China etc do not clearly establish that in a scientific way, because there is reasonable doubt that they can be used as the variable named 'communism' in the experiment. It is, no matter how loudly some people shout it, not a clearly established fact. There is some doubt.
This is a major issue: was that real communism that was tried or was it not? We should be able to consider and decide that based one some evidence, but most people just assume it in quite illogical and emotional ways that the answer is yes it was. Despite me being very left wing I rather like Peterson and admire his intelligence, but this is one of the worst things ive seen him say so far. The idea that anyone who doubts that Stalin's Russia or Mao's china was real communism must be some kind of monster is a terrible thing to say...and quite the opposite of what Peterson often says we should think like. Isnt he the one that says we should seek evidence and use logic and analysis?
It is quite possible that someone exploring this issue wishes to seek the truth and wants to consider it more. They may end up, after reading and thinking about it more, saying 'yes that was real communism they tried, and it failed.' Or they might think 'Hmm, there seems some basic aspects of it that were not real communism'. But the EFFORT and openness to consider the issue should never be painted, per se, as a sign that they are some immoral monster. Considering this issue in NO WAY means we have to, directly or indirectly, condone the deaths of millions of people at the hands of Stalin or Mao. We can, with no contradiction, decide 'that was not real communism' and 'those deaths in Russia and China were horrible, a tragedy'.
He also says that anyone saying it was not real communism has no understanding of history, and states it like a fact. Again, this is very poor thinking and the opposite of what he says we should do. In my experience people who say that have more understanding of history than people who believe, unquestioningly, that is WAS communism and it has been proven to fail. That does not mean they know enough, but a moderate consideration of history tends to cast some doubt over the idea that it was fully communism. So, its the opposite of what Peterson says here. Generally people who say it MIGHT not have been full, real communism come to that thought via looking at history, NOT via a lack of considering history. Of course they may still be wrong, but their thinking comes from actually considering history to some moderate extent. Not from ignorance.
Here are, as i see it elements from history that may lead us to doubt that it was real communism... MAYBE:
1.That Stalin and Mao failed to put into practice various basic aspects of communist theories. That seems a pretty important point. If someone makes a car but fails to follow some basic elements... and then the car catches fire after 10 days, can we conclude 'they built a car and it didnt work, therefore cars are impossible to build, they are killers'. Doesnt seem very logical.
If we can show they didnt do X, Y and Z key aspects of the theory and practice isnt it more reasonable to say 'They did it wrong.'
2. There are records from as early as 1917 and 1918 of people saying 'this will not be communism' if the bolsheviks got their way. So people even at the time were saying this is wrong, its not real communism. The historical facts show that it was not that everyone said 'yes this is communism!' , then 50 years later they changed it to 'ah, not it was not really'. There were some people right at the start, in the very first year in Russia, saying that was faulty. Shouldnt their views, from people on the ground, actively involved, be taken into consideration? How can their views be written off by saying its a lack of history? Quite the opposite - its taking history in account which brings us to doubt how 'real' the communism was, by reading the words of people there at the time saying it was not.
3. The soviets and chinese attacked other left wing groups such as non-authoritarian socialists and anarchists. The very ones that said this would not be real communism. Many of them were killed or imprisoned. That should, at least, give us pause for thought. If they were 'real' communists trying to create a better society, applying communist theories of the full blossoming of democratic organisation by the majority, then why would they have attacked and killed other left wingers? We might say that violence against the rich elites is part of the basic communist approach, since they need to be overthrown (maybe). But why violence against other ordinary people of more or less the same views?
Seems that there are two likely reasons:
a. there is something inherent about the 19thC theories and ideals of communism that lead to violent oppression of any dissenting views.
b. the soviets and chinese took a distorted approach to communism, that did not follow some basic ideals, and instead established a dictatorship.
If the answer is A then we can pretty much say that communism is basically faulty and was tried and should never be tried again. The end.
But HOW do we establish this is the case? What are those inherent aspects that are faulty? Why is it there almost never anyone saying what they are specifically? We only have people ASSERTING its the case, and giving no evidence, not drawing on any specific texts in Marx and saying 'SEE, that part caused this violence 50 years later and here is how it caused it' . THAT would drawing on history to establish that it both was real communism and that it directly came from applying communist ideals and theory. And that would be a good example of the 'experiment, replicated' point Peterson makes here. So, where is that kind of well reasoned consideration? If you know any please tell me.
It seems to me that B is the more likely aspect. They distorted some of the key elements and therefore its reasonable to say it was not real or full communism. much as it was not a real or full car that was made, when several basic elements were missed out or deliberately altered. WHY, exactly, is that not a reasonable position to take? It may be wrong, and if so historical research can help us establish that. But it is not an unreasonable proposition... and Peterson making out that it is such a mad position to take it quite wrong. Actually, very damaging, because its gets in the way of us coming to a full understanding on this important issue.
It MAY be that communism is inherently unworkable, indeed - but the examples of soviet Russia, Mao's China etc do not clearly establish that in a scientific way, because there is reasonable doubt that they can be used as the variable named 'communism' in the experiment. It is, no matter how loudly some people shout it, not a clearly established fact. There is some doubt.