The Good, Bad and Ugly of Comment Replies

It never ceases to amaze me the level of mindless hatred the right wing can throw at me any given day. They say hate stems from ignorance, which I agree it does. The mindless and factless hate thrown my way by these right wingers can do nothing less than confirm this to me. Here I will give varying examples of what I’m talking about. It will also serve as reason why I don’t debate on the blog and instead do it in YouTube videos.

This is what you call trying to disguise an insult with a compliment. While I appreciate the fact it was (finally) acknowledged that the piece was well done, it was quite unnecessary (and false) to assert that I won’t debate. I don’t do it on the blog, or very much on YouTube partly due to time constraints. I don’t have time to acknowledge every single hater that is going to say the same thing every time.

Mao and Stalin killed 50 billion people which I have dealt with more than once, giving statistical information showing why these claims are just outright stupid. It’s also been adequately demonstrated how dishonest right wingers are when dealing with facts and material conditions at the time of any given incident, they refuse to do any analysis, make baseless assertions and refuse to acknowledge when something they claim is literally proven wrong. It doesn’t matter how many you show them the numbers behind their claim are a fraud. (In the case of some they even admit they just made them up.)

I don’t have the energy or the masochistic inclination to repeat the same thing over and over again. So therefore by default supposedly I can’t or refuse to debate, which is exactly what this person is claiming. This claim is absolutely false, I do debate, it’s meaningless as no one online actually listens and just act like idiots, demonstrating no logic in their personal attacks masquerading as debate. I don’t have time to deal with every hater that comes along wanting to scream their ignorance at me.

This comment was just such a cluster fuck of idiocy I’m not really sure where to begin. It starts with the usual fraudulent “human nature” argument. The human nature argument is actually the worst one you can make against communism. The typical right wing ignorant stance on the subject is all based on a premise that human nature is one way and never changes. This is completely false and ignores all of human history. Our human nature and consciousness has done nothing but remain in a constant state of change. Our human nature here is different than it was 50 years ago. It was “human nature” that women were naturally subservient to men. That has certainly changed. By their concept of human nature Native American societies could never have existed. Their communal life should have been impossible.

We once lived under theocratic rule and it was human nature that we did so. Yet we can see that we have moved away from that and see that we don’t need it, it is not in our human nature to depend on concepts of God. Most of my audience is American and will point to the very strong religious right (they call it religious RIGHT for a reason) as proof that people inherently need religion as part of human nature. Well I’d like to point to Europe, particularly Western Europe where it is very secular. By the logic of rightists on human nature those societies simply shouldn’t exist. Yes there are religious people there I’m not denying that, but they are in a minority which is shrinking. The power of Christianity as a social force is dwindling. This is largely a reason why fundamentalist Islam persists to this very day.

This is due in large part to the change in material conditions that took place in Europe. It is no coincidence that when living is a struggle, like medieval times a life and death struggle, people were more religious. As society became more civilized and created a higher standard of living with much less struggle to survive, religious needs began to fall away. Religion, particularly Christianity gives justification and solace for that suffering. It was no longer needed because the hardships had been dealt with, through planning, technology and struggle against the forces that had a large hand in causing it.

This is why Marx said religion was the opium of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed. Usually this is misinterpreted even by Marxists who see the phrase as meaning an illusion. No, this is meant as a coping mechanism for all the misery they endured. It was said that what suffering you face in this life is okay because the perfect kingdom of heaven is waiting for you. Opium in Marx’s time had been brought out not just as a high, but also as a pain killer. This is what Marx meant; religion was a way of dealing with misery.

In China a massive transformation took place in human nature and consciousness. This is acknowledged even by the opponents of Mao. Peasant farmers used to have someone stay up all night keeping an eye on the crops they grew in order to prevent theft. No one trusted anyone and was quick to stab each other in the back. Once the material conditions were changed by the Revolution people no longer did this. When the land was held in common through a commune, it was no longer necessary to do this. People stopped twenty four hour surveillance of crops. Trust and comradeship formed between people. Supposedly, by right wing hate theory, this should have been impossible.

To say that we had the same human nature today as we did even 50 years ago is just absurd. Human nature is always changing, progressing and regressing via social forces and material conditions. Despite the illogical and frankly childish assertions of the right we are not the same people today that we were as Neanderthals. Perhaps that’s what the right wing thinks they are.

To continue with his comment he clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge of history. He baselessly asserts that because of (his false conception of) human nature that, “Genghis Khan, Peter the Great, Napolean, Leopold the 2nd, Nicholas the 2nd, Kaiser Wilhelm, Enver Pasha, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Jim Jung Il, Idi Amin, Khadafi, Carlos the Jackal, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden”, are all the same. This is absolutely ridiculous and laughably ignorant. These men all lived in different times, operated in different material conditions, took different actions, had different objectives and followed different social philosophies. (Notice how he leaves out any Americans from this list ignoring the legacy of African genocide through the slave trade and he genocide of Native Americans.) This is just so stupid it’s not worth the time.

To finish off this spewing of childish hate he concludes with comparing social theory with Flat Earth Theory. The comparison is completely fallacious, one is social theory and the other is a matter of material scientific investigation. He only exposes his complete ignorance of social theory, be it Marxist or otherwise. To actually make this comparison is just unbelievably stupid.

No I am not kidding you, despite your angry rant Hungary was under the domination of fascists before and during WW2. It was very anti-Semitic as well. This is not propaganda this is fact, they referred to themselves as fascists and put forward fascist policies. If you disagree with this then perhaps you should cite something rather than just claiming it’s not true. If his assertion is true, than it should be very easy to demonstrate.

Yes I know I’m supposed to be impressed that you know what “Pravda” is. But no I actually am a Stalinist; Mao contributed to Marxist theory including the theories put forward by Stalin. You cannot reject Stalin’s contribution while following Mao’s. I’ll chuck this up to him not knowing anything about Marxist theory. Also people always seem so “freedom loving” using the name Orwell. Even though Orwell wrote fiction (like Ayn Rand) and had never experienced the Soviet Union. But fiction is always good enough for the right wing. By the way, Orwell was a Trotskyist, that alone should show you what kind of bias he had against Stalin and the Soviet Union. Always loved how right wingers back up and defend Trotsky like of their own.

Here on anti-Semitism he exposes his stupidity and blatant dishonesty. Socialist Europe was not anti-Semitic it was the Nazis who openly persecuted Jews. What this ignoramus has seen was anti-Zionist literature and as right wing usual, can’t tell the different. I’d wage quite a lot he’s part of the pro-Israel crowd. No, I don’t have to go to Hungary or Poland to see you’re full of shit.

This ladies and gentlemen, is why I don’t do debates on the blog.