Someone pointed out unjustly that there are 2 places in the planet where people believe in communism: North Korea and Boston Massachusetts. Simply, communism can either end in Gulag or not be realized at all. In the second case, it remains a utopia of left-wing dreamers who believe they can dictate their quirks to others due to the fact that they are guided by religion in a better world.
Of course, gramscism arises from this, or imposing its narratives, at the head of many genders, “the speech of hatred”, affirmative action and another madness resulting from the belief that Western/Christian civilization is evil.
But the analogy is besides much. The same thought of "progress", a akin "substitutional science" citing the expected compatibility with actual science—quasi-belief erstwhile expressed in "dialectic materialism" and "marxist sociology", having its apostles in Kronski and his like, now manifested in theories of tens of genders, acting in a amazing symbiosis with the planet of large capital ("capitalists will produce the strings on which we will hang them", as preached by the prominent left-wing man, Vladimir Lenin?). With the same sense of superiority over all those who do not very much want to believe in these “discoverys” due to the specified force not to be called a “obscurant” or a typical of “retirement” (relatively- not go to jail, like that teacher who refused to say “she”) to the student.
Another similarity – presenting the public as arenas of combat excluding excluded. Roger Scruton wrote about the left-wing imagination of society with "group rights that a individual has for being a woman, a homosexual, a typical of an cultural number and so on."
He besides wrote about the revolutionaries of 1968: “They built their utopia exclusively on negation, and this is the nature of utopia in all its forms, in my opinion. Ideally built to destruct the real.” And possibly any of the criticisms of capitalism or consumer society in Marx are correct (of course, the communists besides cut off from Marx in the sense that they removed from libraries the work of Cieszkowski, from whom Marx learned about Heglu) – I did not read, I read only Fromma, which is very inspiring. Only that the closer the construction of a "new, better" , the closer the duplication and multiplication of the disadvantages of the "old, worse", in a scalable form.
I believe that, of course, it is simply a question of the character properties of left-wing intellectuals, who consider themselves besides wise and eloquent to all these "excerpts", specified as Christianity and patriotism to respect, so they fight continually to construct trivial imitations.
Hence – another crucial analogy between the modern left and communists – the blade is aimed at nation and religion and replaced by transnational institutions and the "religion of humanity". Deptating the memory of the steadfast or removing crosses is part of this fight. A commune of Instagram times. Cross as a sign of “dark garden”, “adjudices”? Lenin would applaud! I stress that the fight against memory and religion is fundamental to today's left. This is not the "similarity" of the right hand to Putin, due to the fact that both the right and Putin (by the way, for completely different reasons) do not accept the LGBT movement.
Besides, the leading authorities of left-wing intelligence in Poland are the Army Information Agent, later incorporated into the KBW Zygmunt Bauman (in humanities) and Czesław Miłosz (in literature). For the sake of clarity - I consider both of them intellectually unusual, even prominent (I consider the brain to be illuminated by a résumé glass – and vice versa – favorable for propaganda distortion). The point is that they accepted the “costs” that “we must” bear, so that “the culminating past of the world” communism triumphed. The point is not to mention something to individual (although the fairy tale that “they did not know” I consider to cover up the manipulation of collaboration – I urge the traditionally excellent text of Herling-Grudziński from 1949) – but to confirm: left-wing intellectuals consider their ideas so large that the planet could be sacrificed for them. Besides, it's expected to be replaced by a new, better one.
Importantly, I do not mean organization continuity resulting from the membership of many left-wing organization politicians in Poland. They are, in fact, first and foremost career planners, conformists.
In any sense, in terms of defining utopia, it is inconceivable, so the communist utopia has completed its role.
As for defining ambiguities – there is no strategy that has been implemented in the textbook version, after all, the planet is not a fixed building from the sketch of the architect. However, I have 3 comments.
Firstly, the explanation that “true communism was not” is dangerous due to the fact that by default it suggests that “you gotta effort further”. In 1 of my texts, I wrote, "That is, since the ideas of the twentieth-century left were ending with Gulag, it does not mean that they were fatal, but only that "something didn't come up", the performers did not and the circumstances did not agree. As it is known that a individual who does not know how to swim does not drown, he must simply be moved to a shallower lake.” Experience has shown that it was not a concrete version of communism that was warped, but communism is simply a distortion.
Secondly, looking at the analogy of communism in the various actions of different people or organizations seems more reasonable to me than to track down “fascism” (councils – due to the fact that accusing of “fascism” is usually about Nazism), that communism had strong ideological foundations, and “fascism” was a phenomenon, a kid of times and circumstances, something with no possible for repeatability. It can be written that communism was created by ideologies and “fascism” created ideology.
Thirdly, semantic problems with the concept of "communism" are supported by the contradiction of leftist narratives. In 1 way communism was only a fewer years in Poland, until the “wetting” in 1956, and so it is defined by ideological rigor and brutality. In the second sense of communism in Poland at all, there was no position – those who identify communism with the planet of perfect equality, without injustice and exploitation.
These pictures can, of course, be combined – it is imposed: it is impossible to realise the planet of perfect equality without eliminating inequality. And all her supporters.
Hence the slogan, both parts of which are equally important: Get out with the commune and its heirs!
Jacek Tomczak
