We Are Deeply Serious…About Genocide!

|

Via Dan Foster, yet another oh-those-wacky-commies human interest story from a mainstream media outlet. This is perhaps the most understated lede in the history of journalism, from the wonderfully bourgeois-sounding New York Times journalist Channing Joseph: "If communists have a reputation for anything, it is seriousness." Well, communists do have a reputation for something—and it's slavery and mass murder, which I suppose is rather serious business, but why pick nits. For instance, the death toll from Mao's Great Leap Forward alone, according to historian Frank Dikötter's recent archival research, exceeds 50 million. But Joseph is interested in discovering what commies do for fun when they don't control the means of production.

In a brief profile of the Brecht Forum, named after the Stalinist playwright Berthold Brecht, who famously defended East Germany's slaughter of protesting workers in 1953, Joseph offers a deeply uninteresting look at Manhattan's delusional Reds: "…[T]there is also the monthly Game Night, when regulars put down their copies of "Das Kapital" and immerse themselves in table tennis, foosball and a complicated Marxist version of Monopoly called, appropriately, Class Struggle."

Joseph writes that the Manhattan's Gulag Center is a "surprisingly open and idealistic place," where "youngish, fashionable people" come to sandblast the crimes of communism from capitalist history books and shout incoherent platitudes like "Every woman that has a child is not a mother." I imagine a resolution was later passed to collectivize the children of Brooklyn.

But nothing beats this final paragraph, which I offer without comment: "While Mr. Balagun waved me out the front door, I imagined Marx's ghost floating in the hazy light of the evening, watching over the poker players. Behind his famous thicket of a beard, I could almost see a grin."

NEXT: Warning: Four Loko Makes Drunken College Students Act Like Drunken College Students

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Those crazy guys are always gettin so wild and mass-murdery. In other news genocide makes the best slapstick.

  2. I imagined Marx’s ghost floating in the hazy light of the evening, watching over the poker players

    , exhorting them to kill the black guy.

  3. Marxist version of Monopoly called, appropriately, Class Struggle.”

    Does the winner get to be Stalin and kill the other contestants? Or, do they players simply agree that they’re all winners at the end of long, dreary, and unpleasant game night?

    1. Class Struggle is one of those satiric games that came out in the 1960s.

      1. Speaking of which, Nuclear War is a lot of fun, even though most of the time everyone dies, or maybe because of that.

        Is Class Struggle any fun?

        1. BoargGameGeek.com ranks Nuke War #1158. Class Struggle ranks #6424.

          For comparison Monopoly ranks #6539.
          Puerto Rico is #1 and Agricola #2 (both I really enjoy). Tic Tac Toe is #6556, which is the lowest rank game with enough reviews to get a number (Monopoly isnt really that bad, but it has a bad rep amongst bggites).

          1. Monopoly isnt really that bad, but it has a bad rep amongst bggites
            Obviously, you mean bigots. Bigots that that were bad at monopoly.

            1. Persackly….you only hate Monopoly if you lose at it. I love Monopoly.

          2. The game I keep threatening my gaming group with: Die Macher

            Die Macher is a game about seven sequential political races in different regions of Germany. Players are in charge of national political parties, and must manage limited resources to help their party to victory. The winning party will have the most victory points after all the regional elections. There are four different ways of scoring victory points. First, each regional election can supply one to eighty victory points, depending on the size of the region and how well your party does in it. Second, if a party wins a regional election and has some media influence in the region, then the party will receive some media-control victory points. Third, each party has a national party membership which will grow as the game progresses and this will supply a fair number of victory points. Lastly, parties score some victory points if their party platform matches the national opinions at the end of the game.

            Each of the 7 rounds has 19 phases.

          3. umm…that is boardgamegeek.com, not boarg. Typing hard.

            1. It was an appropriate typo.

          4. I’m glad to see Civilization is ranked #63 and ASL is ranked #44. Makes me feel like those times spent pondering a big map and cardboard counters were times spent appreciating gaming greatness.

        2. No. I actually played it a fair bit in college, as I was helping a friend who was programming the computer game (Apple II version, iirc) for Avalon Hill. It was explicitly didactic, with the goal of indoctrinating you into communism. My friend said he’d talked with Ollman, the author of the game, who said he didn’t care if it wasn’t fun, as long as if people played it once or twice they learned what Marx was teaching.

    2. “You landed on Collective Chest, comrade. Oh too bad, the Stassi have determined you to be an enemy of the people. Pay each player one child.”

    3. I’m actually slightly intrigued by this. If nothing else it would be entertaining to get a rule book and the cards.

      Review:
      http://www.marginalrevolution……ggle_.html

  4. I guess you have to draw a distinction between Commies who have power, and commies in the US. There aren’t a lot of overt commies here who have the power to implement mass murder. But I think the passage would read better if “lack of humour” were substituted for “seriousness.” That word seems to be used mostly positively these days, to mean people who are serious about things they should in fact be serious about.

    1. I guess you have to draw a distinction between Commies who have power, and commies in the US.

      the only distinction is the power. Give those American commies power and they will create just as shitty of a system where one such as Stalin can thrive.

      Anyway the vile hatred for Birthers, who are infinitely more harmless, that Weigal spewed here is justification enough for attacking GULAG apologists.

      1. why can’t you hate both? birthers are fuckfaces. so are the people who take the kgb bar schtick seriously.

        yay!

        1. In fairness forming a government that removes the president from power if he cannot produce a birth certificate has not been tried…communism has been tried with devastating results.

          The result of the birther government would amount, in my opinion, to a collective shrug and some murmurs of “that was kind of weird”.

          But yeah its a free country you can hate who the fuck you like.

        2. I guess the difference is that birthers so far haven’t killed or enslaved one person, while commies have killed over 100 million people, and enslaved many more. Or is that too subtle a difference to have hatred for the latter while acknowledging some level of dislike for the former?

      2. Actually, most of these commies would be killed in the power struggle for leadership. They would be the useful idiots who would be gotten rid of when sterner measures were needed after the proles got upset about how badly things were working out, and needed some examples made of some of them to keep the rest cowed.

        1. This.

          It’s the history of communism everywhere it’s been practiced. Interesting, though, that they’d still like to play with fire and be the “intellectual” foundation for yet another regime. “Maybe this time, after we’ve again consolidated control over production, food, violence and our laws in the hands of a few, they’ll fix everything, give it back, and we’ll have a utopia!”

          1. Also, fascism. Always and everywhere (from Iraq to San Angeles), wannabe philosopher kings in the intelletual class realize that forcing their Big Ideas on everyone is difficult, and that they need strongmen and thugs to do the dirty work involved in establishing control. They usually fail to realize that strongmen and thugs don’t need intellectuals at all.

            1. Yeah, to be honest I’m not very scared of the people who actually call themselves Communists. It would indeed suck if they had any power, but they don’t.

              It’s the technocrats that you really have to keep an eye on. I have nothing against intellectuals- I guess I would call myself an intellectual if there weren’t something inherently dickish about calling yourself an intellectual. And when I was young I kind of thought that if people would just let me run things we’d have a lot less problems.

              But by the time I was in my early twenties I had figured out that knowing a lot about a few subjects that most people wouldn’t bother with didn’t actually mean that I would make a great benevolent dictator. I’m afraid there are a lot of people out there who are convinced that because they have an above average IQ and some skill at rhetoric they ought to be making all the decisions. They scare me- people who are dumb enough to admit to being communists don’t, because they are clearly never going to have the power to do anything more than annoy me.

        2. They would be sent Glue Factory, yes?!

        3. It’s not just the useful idiots, it’s those seen as a threat to take over power, like Cienfuegos. Once Che was done with Castro’s dirty work in Cuba, he got out not so much to “spread revolution”, but because he knew that if he’d stayed, a plane crash awaited him, too.

          Also, about half the government when Stalin was in power.

          1. I’m pretty sure that Castro tipped the Bolivians as to Che’s whereabouts.

            1. Look, I just asked the Bolivians to pass along a May Day card to Che. I had no idea they were going to use that info to shoot him. Damn sneaky Bolivians.

  5. Marx’s ghost floating in the hazy light of the evening, watching over the poker players.

    POKER? COMMUNISTS? WTF?

    1. CAN’T READ MUM-MUM-MARX’S POKER FACE

    2. They don’t play for money, silly! That would be…fun. They play for their identities as communists.

    3. If a player wins too many chips, they wack him.

  6. The New York Times cannot die fast enough.

    1. Beat it! The Minimalist is a great source of meat recipes.

  7. If only our government could be that serious.

    We could seriously cut down on our greenhouse gas emissions.

    1. Is that the real Tony or the fake one?
      Anyway, “10:10” could dispense with the pretense at humor, just implement the buttons.

      1. It’s stupid enough to be Tony; hard telling.

        1. The real Tone Tone usually stops a little short of gulags and death camps.

          1. “The real Tone Tone usually catches himself a little short of gulags and death camps.”

            Fixed

        2. Fake Tony. No insults.

      2. He’s usually not so concise.

    2. And they’d give me a pony.

      1. That would be the Tony Pony.

  8. So, I made a friend when I started college this year due to our shared interests in guns and O’Rourke. Turns out that he’s actually a devout Leninist and Soviet Union fan up through WWII. So, Reasonoids: should I try to rehabilitate or run far, far away?

    1. It can be done, just focus on how individualism would make his life better and you’ve got him.

      1. Maybe too late, if he has chosen to be blind to history.

        1. Sure it can be done \, but it won’t be easy.

          Step 1: Appeal to his love of guns. Stick the barrel of a loaded one in his mouth.
          Step 2: Appeal to his love of communism. While holding loaded gun, have 3 friends come over and confiscate 80% of his shit (there are 5 of you in the room after all).
          Step 3: Show him pictures of his family and let him know they will die if he talks.
          Step 4: Leave

          Now, this may not get him to convert to libertarianism, but it will expose Communism for what it really is. Just be prepared to follow through on step 3 if he doesn’t have the sense of humor the NYT expects him to have.

    2. Fuck him.

      If he, like you, has just started college, you’re no match for all of the Marxist shit they’ll be shoving down his throat over the next 4 years.

      1. I disagree. If you get to him first he may start to question all of those things his profs spew. Try to get in the same classes as him (elective history and economics or whatever) and then you can advocate for capitalism and liberty when you ask and answer questions. Enjoy watching the professors head explode.

      2. Except he might just talk the commie talk because it pissed the right people off when he was a teenager. If he has any sack at all who he considers the right people to piss off will change a lot once he’s going to University.

        I was pretty left of center when I started University. Four years of having to deal with actual leftists cured me of that.

    3. I would test the waters with this O’Rourke piece and see what he thinks.

      How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism ‘R’ Us

      If he doesn’t get it then I would just move on. You’re bound to be disappointed at some point if not.

      1. What if the dude has really good weed?

    4. Do you have enough hormonal interest to make the next year a waste of time?

    5. College is a time for making mistakes. Embrace him and learn to see the world as he does.

    6. Convert would be the appropriate word. Doubt he’ll change, even confronted with horrific evidence of communist crimes. Still, get some of the ugliest cases, and from several different regimes (so he can’t say, “oh, but the others weren’t as bad”).

      Or you could at least try to convert him to a Bakuninist, that wouldn’t be so bad.

    7. I tell you what,
      If he turns out to be an obsessive health Nazi that tells you how your marginal levels of body fat will kill you one day, while neglecting to mention their own meth and coke addiction, run screaming dude..

    8. Don’t be silly, Jingles. The kid is invaluable to you. Keep a list of his associates, note their activities as extensively as possible. Plant a few bugs here and there where they transgress. Save this information for a decade or two down the road when the next Anti-Communist movement comes back in vogue, cross check who on your list has made a successful go at life, and then you blackmail them. Do that to your extreme right wing associates, and sexual fetishist friends as well. They never teach you that skill while you are actually in college but being a ratfucker pays off dividends in the long run in ways that a degree rarely does unless you were smart about your field of study.

    9. I have my share of radical Leftist friends at least initially sympathetic to Lenin. Most are not serious – most just like to feel like cool, hip intellectuals who can quote Jean Paul Sartre and look down on the uncool working stiffs who have been turned into brainless zombies by Wal-Mart.

      I always approached it by finding out if they were more favorable to the anarchist end state or to a socialist mega-state. There are a lot of people on the far left with zero cognitive dissonance who are sympathetic to both (who vote for Obama and think Mao/Che/Lenin was noble, while calling themselves anarchist radicals). If he’s one of those, you have to point out this dichotomy. If they are more favorable to Bakunin-esque left-anarchism, there is plenty of hope.

      In a libertarian society, nothing at all is stopping individuals from voluntarily collectivizing and bypassing the capitalist system altogether. In fact, many libertarians would agree that voluntary collectivism would be necessary to replace many of the current processes of the state in society.

      Moreover, boycotts, strikes and collective bargaining agreements are all natural, healthy mechanisms of a free market (and the internet is making information better and organizing faster than ever). Corporations are not natural entities of a free market. Much of the appeal of Marxism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets as being the current system with socialized risk, limited liability and subsidization of the politically powerful and wealthy, but even more evil. They look back upon history, rightly, as being made up of exploitation by both the rich and the governments that the rich and the racial majority control, and see Marxism as a way to correct the flaws of historic inequality. From our libertarian perspective, putting corrective, compulsory power in the hands of the very same corrupt institution that caused the inequality in the first place seems to be flatly stupid, but the fact is many just have no better ideas. We can’t change the distant past. We can only continue to break down artificial barriers to equality, most of which originate directly from the entity they claim can fix poverty.

      Although I’m no anarchist myself, I was able to talk a good number of left-anarchists into voting libertarian, because when our ends are more or less the same, from their perspective it’s much easier to guide people away from consumerism in a naturally corporation-free society than to foolishly expect to overthrow democracy, set up a Leninist mega-state, spend decades brainwashing the populace to give up their capitalist whims and redistribute resources until everyone gets so equal that they realize that they no longer need a state.

      1. I have my share of radical Leftist friends at least initially sympathetic to Lenin.

        If they were truly radically Leftists, they’d share their girl/boyfriends with you…

    10. A fan of both Lenin and P.J. O’Rourke? That’s some serious cognitive dissonance.

    11. Depends on the quality of his weed.

  9. Does Hitler’s ghost grin shyly as it floats around neo-Nazi dinner parties?

    1. Not to equate Marx and Hitler. Marx, after all, didn’t slaughter people or even know what an abomination his political/economic mishmash would be.

      1. Read the Communist Manifesto sometime. Marx knew what a violent and genocidal doctrine he was espousing was.

        1. I suppose, but it’s one thing to write about it and another to carry it out.

          In Hitler’s case, he did both. After the German-USSR pact was signed, there was a joke that Hitler sent a copy of Mein Kampf to Stalin, personally erasing all of the parts about destroying Communism and seizing Russian territory for German use.

          1. You seem to know a lot about Hitler. You aren’t from Brazil, are you? Have you ever meet Gregory Peck?

            1. Well, one time in Argentina, this really old guy came up to me and, in a heavy German accent said, “Pro, I am your father.” Totally off topic.

          2. “I suppose, but it’s one thing to write about it and another to carry it out.”

            Correct. In typical communist fashion, Marx relied on everybody else.

        2. If Marx wasn’t such a lazy fuck, he would have made something out of himself. Instead of a screwy old crank, he could have acquired real power and killed a bunch of people.

      2. Pro Libertate|11.10.10 @ 8:16PM|#
        “Marx, after all, didn’t slaughter people or even know what an abomination his political/economic mishmash would be.”
        If Marx didn’t he should have been labeled an ignoramus.
        I’ll find the quote if you ask, but by the early ’20s, Schumpeter and his buds knew they were looking at an ‘experiment’ causing mass deaths.
        By now, even Judt admits that centralized planning leads to centralized murder.

        1. I’m not giving Marx a pass; I’m just saying that he wasn’t Hitler.

          1. Funny how Manson doesn’t get that same pass. He only incited a few murders.

            1. I have about as much antithesis to Marxism as you could want, but I think there’s a difference.

  10. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…[sigh!]

  11. Let us please remember: The NAZIs were National Socialists. Literally indistinguishable from communists and admitted so by Hitler himself in one of his speeches.

    1. I read somewhere that the term national socialist was actually outlawed under Stalin, and that the people had to use Hitlerites or Nazis to refer to the Germans. Apparently, Stalin was afraid that people could be confused as to who the real national socialist was.

      1. Actually, Stalin didn’t like the term “Nazi” much better than “National Socialist” (since it’s obviously just an abbreviation of the latter). He wanted folks to call the Nazis “fascists.”

    2. I wouldn’t say “indistinguishable,” but they certainly spawned from the same womb. Of course, like all siblings, they developed an intense rivalry

      1. The Nazis did boast that it was easy to convert Communists and Sozis to Nazism.

    3. Well, no. Communists are international socialists who want the whole world to be united under the same ideology, equality for all the workers (if they survived the purges).

      Nazis were national socialists, who wanted the German Aryan race to conquer the entire world and subject the subhumans under the bootheel of the master race.

      The intended effect either way was uniting the world via mass murder, but the national version of socialism was arguably a bit more pernicious and evil in application.

      1. and Islamists want the whole world to be united under one allah’d ideology…seems any time you have an ‘-ist’, you have a group that wants to master everyone else. Maybe they should all be referred to only in their -ism forms.

        1. Knew it was a mistake to join the Libertarianist Party!

        2. Nudists!

      2. prolefeed|11.10.10 @ 8:58PM|#
        “…The intended effect either way was uniting the world via mass murder, but the national version of socialism was arguably a bit more pernicious and evil in application.”
        The actual effect was the opposite, as measured by murder.

        1. Indeed. And to me the continued existence of communists in polite company indicates greater perniciousness, because it’s more seductive.

      3. I think the difference is that fascists (Nazis being one variety) seek to acquire absolute power by appealing to nationalist sentiments while communists seek to acquire absolute power by appealing to a sense of loyalty to others in the same economic class or profession even across international borders. Mussolini switched teams when he recognized the obvious – it is easier to appeal to nationalism than some abstract solidarity with proles in other countries.

        I’m too cynical to believe that hardcore communists, especially marxists, are actually interested in creating a just society based on equality.

        Marxism is more evil than Nazism because it is more likely to gain influence. Anytime an ethnic group declares itself to be the inevitable master of all humanity, it automatically rallies the resistance of every other ethnic group against it. History shows this to be true.

        1. Marxism is more evil than Nazism because it is more likely to gain influence.

          So is a terrorist who tries to blow up a crowded building but fails at it less evil than a guy that kills one person successfully?

          I wouldn’t say so.

          1. Nazism for all practical purposes is dead. It lasted less than a generation. Marxism is still alive, is still taught sympathetically at Universities, is still apologized for and is still killing significant numbers of people.

            I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

            1. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

              That you seemed to base your opinion on what was more evil on recruiting success, not intent to do evil things.

              1. I consider both Marxists and Nazis equally evil in their intent which in both cases is a naked desire for power. prolefeed proffered his opinion that Nazism was a bit more pernicious and evil. I merely responded by pointing out that Marxism is more evil because it is a much more successful ideology. I suppose it is a bit silly to argue which is more evil, but I do get tired of people assigning even a hint of good intentions to Marxists.

                1. Yes. But I think that good intentions can produce evil.

                  1. You know who else had good intentions?

                    Oh, wait a minu…

                    1. +6 million

                  2. Yes. But I think that good intentions can produce evil.

                    I consider someone who drills holes into peoples’ heads for the fun of it far more evil than someone who genuinely thinks it will cure their fever.

        2. Two sides of the same coin. You may as well be arguing about their uniforms.

          1. There is something sharp about red, and the hammer-and-sickle looks empowering, while the swastika looks sinister. If only Hitler were more artistic, he could have professors singing his praises today.

            1. ‘Tis strange, considering how many gays he had on staff.

            2. Oh, come on – the German uniforms were by far the best. The swastika is much scarier than the hammer and sickle.

              Wait, are we arguing about their uniforms…?

            3. I do think all the Roman imagery looked pretty intimidating. Borrowing all those golden eagles and the widespread use of those banners on parade. Much cooler than the Soviets.

              1. The Romans were much more honest than we are today. So were the NAZIs in some ways. The Roman Fasces were the ultimate truth about law (much better than the current blindfolded woman w a scale & a sword). Basically, the Fasces were a blunt, no spin, symbol of the strength of the organized and the power to kill. They recognized it applied to all law, but no one admits it still applies today.

      4. Your description of Communist theory is right, but in real life, the Soviets used patriotic propaganda and discriminated against non-Slavs.

        If you asked them, they’d say they were international socialists, but if you’d watched them, you’d probably wind up saying the opposite.

        1. Can we all agree that the Soviets were serious?

        2. If you asked them, they’d say they were international socialists, but if you’d watched them, you’d probably wind up saying the opposite.

          Japan had a ton of propaganda about how it was helping out all the other Asian countries during World War II.

          1. Yes, I’ve read one of the textbooks that talked about how Japan united Asia, provided good education to poor countries, etc., and it’s very much like reading a “what about all the good things Hitler did?” article (e.g. New York Times).

            Honestly, though, by whitewashing the incidents all it does is piss off Asia, while most Japanese retain an accurate perception of what happened. Heck, most support reparations to Asian nations, recognition of the comfort women issue, apologies, etc. Since pols here (textbooks being a very political issue as the curriculum is effectively nationalized) have managed to anger neighbors and provide a poor education to people who understand the truth anyway, it’s truly the worst of all possible outcomes.

            1. A few years ago I went to the Asian Art Museum we have in SF. The exhibit had a “Timeline of Colonialism in Asia” (or something like that) posted on a wall. Tellingly, there was no mention of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

        3. Soviet-era joke: If you speak Yiddish, Estonian, and Russian you’re a rootless cosmopolitan. If you speak Estonian and Russian, you’re a bourgeois nationalist. If you speak only Russian, you’re a good internationalist.

    4. Communist are supposed to have no private property and have workers controlling the means of production, while Nazis were Fascists who were supposed to allow private ownership of companies and such, but the state would control those companies, I think. I may not know what I am talking about.

      1. In other words, one wanted to squash your freedom while the other wanted exploit it.

        Sort of like the difference between a bossy girlfriend and a manipulative bitch.

      2. You just missed the last step in your first example. “workers controlling the means of production,” but the party, ie state, would control those companies. There, no that I’ve fixed that for you we can see that fascists and communists are the same. Only the semantics change.

  12. New York Commies.

    I hate New York Commies.

    1. Have you tried them with mustard?

      1. They’re better with a little smoked salmon and a schmear…..

    2. The strokes don’t like new york city cops much either.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgYg_ktRdE

  13. It’s funny how the only ones who champion communism are either:

    1) Those with power in communist regimes (I.e., those to whom the rules do not apply).

    2) Stupid fucking westerners who have never lived under communist rule.

    I’ve never met someone who has come from a communist land who advocated for it. In contrast, most have Randian hatred for it.

    1. Those who came from communist lands to America are also the ones who can’t understand why we still have people in America who worship such complete blights upon humanity.

      I’m open for trading the two, if that’s possible. If North Korea wants to send us a few million we have a couple blue states that are filled with commie lovers. Seems like a fair trade.

    2. Actually, read “Nothing to Envy” about life in North Korea — quite a few people not wielding power in that benighted country supported the system there until the famine set in and the cognitive dissonance got too great.

      1. Once your oppressive centralized bureaucracy gets rolling -BOOM! Famines. It’s always with the famines.

        So basically if people would stop starving to death communism might work!

        1. Hey, if you want real power, seize control over one of the necessities of life: food, water or shelter.

          1. This might explain the high percentage of little Eichmanns who work at my areas public utility district or at in the building department.

          2. Or start with medicine!

            1. Nah, a real man can walk it off.

          3. Anyone remember the “hydraulic states” (exact term?) that started 4 – 6 thousand years ago?

    3. I’ve never met someone who has come from a communist land who advocated for it. In contrast, most have Randian hatred for it.

      They probably supported it before they realized how fucked up it was in practice. No better way to turn someone against communism than to make them live in a communist country.

  14. Off topic, but worth posting.

    TSA at it again.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig

    1. I should add it was Meg McClain one of the FreeState people and kind of known around such circles.

      She’s the chick that auctioned off tattoo space on herself.

      1. Wow, they do not want people opting-out. That’s some serious petty-tyrant bullshit.

  15. I don’t know if they still do, because I haven’t been to one in a while, but for at least many years Brecht Forum hosted the Libertarian Book Club’s Anarchist Forum series.

  16. In a related story, Jesse Jackson just told msnbc that repealing ObamaCare would be a sign of “creeping genocide.”

    1. and racist. It’s always racist.

  17. Oh, look at the cute little commies, coo-chee coo-chee coo.

  18. I was going to go read it until I read that last paragraph and almost threw up. I decided it’s too much for me to handle.

  19. “Pol Pot is my favorite political philosopher.”

    1. Pol Pot is my favorite weed.

  20. In related news:

    Michael

    Oh, fuck me running. Now the glibtards are singing paeans to payday lending.
    https://reason.com/blog/2010/11…..-of-payday
    This is the sort of intellectualism that makes me support the notion of revolutionary excesses that involve grinning commissars, dingy basements, grimy pistols and easily maintained sawdust floors.

    1. The mask slips. But it always does, doesn’t it? It’s like showing you a picture of a kitten. This is for you; make sure you watch the whole thing to see the part with the kittens.

      1. “glibtards”….nice.

        1. After reading the comments in one Volokh article where people basically said, well Stalin and Mao were doing it for the greater public good so killing tens of millions of people is less evil than Hitler, that kind of comment isn’t really surprising.

          Oh and one of the thing Mao’s people would do is skin animals, then put the skins still wet with blood and tie them around people. They’d let the skins dry out, the blood would stick to the person’s skin, and then they’d rip them off. Grinning commisars indeed.

          1. No idea what this sub-thread is about..

            But it does seem very exciting.

          2. There’s the other group of Mao/Stalin apologists that denies the whole thing happened.

          3. Hitler was after the greater good. He was improving the gene pool as he spread glorious communism (National Socialism, but no one could tell the difference in the 30s).

      2. I squeeed a bit. Fuck you, I’m not ashamed.

    2. Since this commenter seems to prefer that the poor have to borrow money from loan sharks who enforce borrowers’ obligations with brass knuckles and broken legs, I’m not surprised he/she should also look kindly on “grinning commissars, dingy basements, grimy pistols and easily maintained sawdust floors.”

  21. I imagined Marx’s ghost floating in the hazy light of the evening, watching over the poker players. Behind his famous thicket of a beard, I could almost see a grin.

    Also, it was a dark and stormy night.

  22. Marxist version of Monopoly called, appropriately, Class Struggle.”

    I once heard a quote (and I can’t find the source, but I think it was either Shel Silverstein or Art Buchwald) that the best thing about “Monopoly” was “The thrill you get when you’ve just wiped out a friend.”

    Would the parallel quote for “Class Struggle” be “The thrill you get when you’ve just liquidated a friend”?

    1. The thrill you get when you’ve just denounced a friend under torture?

    2. I really do not like that game…and I am in the real estate business. of course the reality of real estate requires one to get a hold of property owned by the rich few and to divide and sell it to the larger populace and less rich…democratizing land is very unlike the board game. By the way the real things is way more fun.

      I loved Risk but after they made a version you could play on the computer I quickly discovered that the ai was smarter then your average human opponents….and after a while you discover that the whole game is a long version of tic-tac-toe.

      1. Diplomacy was my all-time favorite board game. The problem was finding enough people who had a whole weekend to play it.

        The best part was when somebody felt totally betrayed because you actually kept your treaty with them.

        1. Most Diplomacy these days is played online, VIA email. The game can stretch for months, but it’s actually more practical than a marathon in-person board gaming session.

          I have one solo win, which was in the chaos variant-34 players, each starting with 1 supply center. I was Holland and stabbed St. Petersburg to the tune of a 4 SC gain to get to 18.

          I’m actually a lot prouder of that than I should be.

          I have a friend who still runs online games, if you’re interested, drop me an email and I’ll put you in touch.

  23. I have a great name for the Communist version of Monopoly. It’s called: Monopoly.

    1. Under capitalism man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it’s the other way around.

      1. That’s just dumb enough to be a bumper sticker and considering the source the only proper place would be a bumper.

        1. It’s an old joke from behind the Iron Curtain.

          1. Russian(as in a red passport) sister-in-law. I know. It is also attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith, although I’m not sure what work it is from.

    2. Coercive or government monopoly would be more accurate. Since there are many forms of monopoly.

    3. In United States, you play board games. In Rahshah, board game plays you…haaah haaah haaah…!”

  24. I wonder what the communist or marxist would call the Settlers of Catan.

    1. The People’s Revolutionaries of Catan?

  25. When God created man, he gave him three qualities: to be honest, to be clever, and to be communist. Then the devil came and decided that this was too much. A man should have only two of the three qualities, in any combination–a man can be honest and communist, but then he is not clever; or clever and communist, but then he is not honest; or clever and honest, but then he is not a communist. (You Call This Living? A Collection of East European Political Jokes by C. Banc and Alan Dundes, 1990.)

    1. I might have to get that one.

      1. It’s the same book as First Prize: 15 Years! published in 1986.

  26. No matter what you do, never ask the UN to define genocide. By the current definition the UN operates under, Al Capone was a victim of genocide…

  27. All this blather and nobody mentioned collectivism. Wow.

    1. In Russia, collectivism mentions you!

  28. the Stalinist playwright Berthold Brecht, who famously defended East Germany’s slaughter of protesting workers in 1953

    Huh? I wouldn’t regard his sardonic “The Solution” (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/brecht140806.html) which he wrote about the June 17 uprising, as a defense of the government.

  29. you Christ-fag capitalists don’t understand Marx the way I do, because I’m a genius.

  30. I have not read Frank Dik?tter’s book. How does it compare to Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts, The Black Book of Communism, or Rudy Rummel’s work?

  31. I never played “Class Struggle”, but I saw the game in the front window of a vintage games store close to campus when I was in college. The picture on the front of the box always amused me – it was Karl Marx arm-wrestling with Nelson Rockefeller. (This was in the early ’80’s, so the Cold War was still very much a part of the present and, as we all thought then, the foreseeable future. I always thought that Marx arm-wrestling, say, a exquisitely tailored William F. Buckley would have been more appropriate.)

    I always wanted to buy the game, but my timing was off. The shopkeeper kept pretty “European” hours – the damn store was closed every time I walked past it. Then one day, I noticed it wasn’t in the window anymore, so apparently someone who made it into the shop during the 25 minutes per week it was open beat me to the punch. I gave a long sigh of disappointment. Then completely forgot about “Class Struggle” for the next 28 or so years – until I read this post.

    1. It must be scarce, because there are none on Amazon or eBay at the moment. Amazon has a picture of the box, though.

  32. They were also playing another game. It’s called USEFUL IDIOTS.

    The reporter won.

  33. I bet the reporter was wondering why the ghost of Marx had a tail and horns along with his beard..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.