/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10042343]

Popper seems to be a meme right now. I never really paid attention to him. Are the normies getting him right? Should Karl Popper be read?

[Anonymous No.10042356]

>>10042343

Seems like a stupid semantic argument. As long as you don't tolerate violence or damage to your person or property, I don't see why you have to do anything else. Your pic just seems like an excuse to arrest people for having "politically incorrect" opinions like not wanting more immigration.

[Anonymous No.10042363]

i wonder where he got the name POPPER from
HINT: he wasnt taking BONG TOKES

[Anonymous No.10042367]

>that picture

"No liberty for the enemies of liberty" (Saint-Just) is an old meme from the French Revolution, and we know very well its murderous consequences. Nothing new here.

Regarding Popper himself, no idea.

[Anonymous No.10042371]

>>10042363
kek

[Anonymous No.10042426]

>>10042356
If you look at in context though, it would have made sense for people on the shit end of the stick to behave intolerantly towards their oppressors, or dickhead who don't like them in other words.

I do find it interesting that leftists have repurposed Popper's nuanced argument and apply it to natzies, but they don't do the same with the extremely retrograde and anti-cosmopolitan Islamist ideology.

[Anonymous No.10042437]

>>10042343
He's right in a Hegelian way

[Anonymous No.10042442]

I doubt Hindenburg cared much for tolerance.

[Anonymous No.10042445]

>>10042426
yeah, what I do know of Popper is how it has been used for years against islam

[Anonymous No.10042446]

>>10042437
Whenever I'm wrong about something I'm going to say that from now on. "But I was right, in a Hegelian way"

[Anonymous No.10042458]

It seems like a means for justifying violence that protects the status quo.

[Anonymous No.10042461]

>Karl Popper

[Anonymous No.10042466]

>>10042426
>I do find it interesting that leftists have repurposed Popper's nuanced argument and apply it to natzies, but they don't do the same with the extremely retrograde and anti-cosmopolitan Islamist ideology.

We do. Maybe you don't seek out actual leftist critiques of Islam and aren't really exposed to media that would give you those critiques? Not even trying to be snarky, most socialists are as critical of Islam as they are of Christianity, and naturally so. It's more pertinent to speak on issues relating to fascism then it is to Islam tho, at least in the States.

[Anonymous No.10042468]

No. A neoliberal capitalist ploy to distract idiots and lesser liberal ass kissers.

[Anonymous No.10042483]

>>10042468
Yeah. If this is necessary to sustain it, the open society is its own enemy.

[Anonymous No.10042493]

P O P P A
O
P
P
A

[Anonymous No.10042499]

>>10042466
Do you mean Sam Harris or Bill Maher? These are a few left-leaning figures known for their critical stances on Islam. But they are few and far between. And the thrust of leftist politics in recent years has been one of appeasement and apologetics for Islamist extremism.

[Anonymous No.10042501]

honestly who even cares

nobody is actually committed to total freedom for everyone. never happened, never will. when people advocate for it, its just politically convenient.

its more effective to talk about what a society wants as opposed to some impossible values they should maintain. most people dont care about having consistent principals, they just want to feel good living where they are.

[Anonymous No.10042533]

>>10042499
Nobody significant is defending terrorists, its directed towards moderate Muslims who face the biggest backlash because of terrorism

Not to boil everything down to an aphorism, but generally, the left is wrong on Islam, but the right is wrong on Muslims

[Anonymous No.10042535]

Isn't that shit taken out of context in the first place?

[Anonymous No.10042536]

>Karl Popper

[Anonymous No.10042551]

>>10042533
>moderate muslims
The left sure doesn't care for moderate fascists of any other kind. Makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10042556]

>>10042343
I started reading Popper's The Open Society before I was jew aware, and it puzzled me to no end why he smeared Plato and Hegel with blame for the totalitarian atrocities of the 20th century, yet absolved Karl Max from criticism.
Now I know, the jew always covers for his co-ethnic.

[Anonymous No.10042565]

>>10042556
is popper really jewish? god, that would make too much sense.

[Anonymous No.10042585]

>>10042343
Based on equivocation. Tolerance of thought is different than tolerance of action. Free speech is different than free action. Furthermore, intolerance is performed in many ways, which are very unequal to each other. If I refuse to listen to someone, I am being intolerant. If i shoot them for what they say, I am intolerant. If I excommunicate someone for the color of their skin, I am being intolerant. If I fine someone for an action they took, I am being intolerant. Obviously, any society, even one that is generally regarded as tolerant, is a system of bother certain tolerances and certain intolerances. For a society to be completely tolerant about all things in all ways is to not be a society at all. But to say a society must be intolerant of some things in some ways is not a novel or importanr thought at all, for it is the very basis of society. The question is what should be tolerated and in what ways. In this, the American society is quite clear that all speech, and therefore all thought, is to be tolerated only so far as the law is concerned, and only to the point of action, where a new system of tokerances is continually molded by democratically organized legislation and judicial review. I've never read Popper, so I can't really say how his ideas agree or disagree, but any who use his name to support the idea that thought alone, and so also speech, can be actively curtqiled by the government engages in gross equivocation of the meaning of tolerance.

[Anonymous No.10042613]

>>10042556
He dedicated a huge section to extensive criticism of Marxism, you sophist.

[Anonymous No.10042616]

>>10042565
from his wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Personal_life

[Anonymous No.10042693]

>>10042556
>jew aware
Sounds like someone needs a five knuckle sandwich.

[Anonymous No.10042831]

>>10042343

This may make sense in a strictly dispassionate sense, but in practice humans always twist and manipulate these kinds of rhetorical arguments towards their own ends. This is easily primed for labeling an adversary 'intolerant' and then justifying all means of destroying them.

The idea is too paradoxical and vague to ever disseminate correctly without descending into chaos.

[Anonymous No.10042971]

>>10042693
>threatening violence because you disagree with that anon
Pretty pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10042991]

>>10042343
bullshit idea made to please modern sensibilities
either you defend absolute freedom of speech or you simply defend censorship and don't care if people accuse you of being intolerant because tolerance is a meme

[Anonymous No.10043003]

>>10042343

Who gets to define "intolerance" ? These days everything from reading certain books to sitting on a train the wrong way is considered intolerant.

[Anonymous No.10043005]

>>10042971

>being a moralfag

You too.

[Anonymous No.10043009]

>>10043005
My bad, I took you for someone with questionable morals; turns out you're just a lunatic.

[Anonymous No.10043022]

>>10043005
everybody is a moralfag in some way, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10043023]

>>10042343
this is only a paradox if you haven't defined "intolerant", and tolerant as well for that matter.
Ideas must be tolerated as far as our emotions being hurt, but not as far as being physically hurt. Thats all there is to it, no paradox there.

[Anonymous No.10043027]

>>10042343
How historically illiterate do you have to be to think that Nazism spread through tolerance of extreme views? Absolute tolerance would preclude both most Nazi practices AND the government imprisoning people for their political opinions.

[Anonymous No.10043093]

>>10042343
>want to live in a nice white country full of nice white people
>people literally want me killed for being a white nationalist
I guess I should commit genocide then, I can't tolerate intolerance.

[Anonymous No.10043124]

>>10043093

The most liberal parts of the US are some of the whitest. You think the hippies weren't white? Europe and the US moved left far quicker when they were ethnic states or close to it.

This is not to say that I love unchecked migration and refugees everywhere, but the idea that races have intrinsic unchanging political leanings is a notion that dies with any knowledge of history.

[Anonymous No.10043125]

>>10042693
>a five knuckle sandwich.

A fist has only four knuckles you goober

[Anonymous No.10043155]

>>10042367
how can you disagree with this face?

[Anonymous No.10043168]

>>10042533
being a "moderate" while you have a de facto armed bastard son that does all your dirty work is quite convenient

it allows you to have things like de facto blasphemy laws in western countries that are paid with the death sentence. and the left's answer to this is just more appeasement.

[Anonymous No.10043175]

>>10042536
>You will never find a brilliant hot Catholic girl who writes about ethics and causality and have 7 children with her
Why live

[Anonymous No.10043179]

>>10043125
>not having a thumb

>>10043022
>not being a moral nihilist

[Anonymous No.10043180]

>>10043155
like this :^)

[Anonymous No.10043187]

>>10043093
Why white?

>>10043027
The tolerance did allow the building up of the party's power though, which allowed Hitler to get rid of enemies violently

[Anonymous No.10043270]

>>10042343
>reee kick them out!
is he the precursor to crazy man Hoppe?

[Anonymous No.10043294]

Just read Feyerabend.
Why don't they ever read Feyerabend...

And if you want a grown-up critique of tolerance read Nietzsche and Zizek.

[Anonymous No.10043310]

>>10043294
>read Feyerabend paper
>enjoy what i am reading
>suddenly he starts talking about alchemy and astrology as justified alternative sources of knowledge without justifying it in any way
did he actually write anything of value?

[Anonymous No.10043399]

>We're tolerant because we're against muh nazzzzzies
Anyone on the center is a white supremacist according to feral leftists.

[Anonymous No.10043424]

>>10043399
Jej.

[Anonymous No.10043451]

>>10042343
sagan > popper

[Anonymous No.10043475]

>pictoline

[Anonymous No.10043496]

>>10042499
>Do you mean Sam Harris or Bill Maher?
More like Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.10043499]

>>10042343
Not gonna touch that pic but Popper's main achievement was falsification, which is a great thing for natural scientists but is being misapplied in many social sciences.

[Anonymous No.10043513]

>>10043179
>punching with your thumb
lol

[Anonymous No.10043643]

Popper is a fag and couldn't realize that tolerance was not a paradox it was just self defeating

[Anonymous No.10043714]

>>10043270
Yes, of course, they are obviously saying the same. Retard.

[Anonymous No.10043749]

>>10042343
Progressives think this justifies punching nazis, but it really just shows that tolerance cannot legitimize itself and needs to stay in private life, not public life.

[Anonymous No.10043755]

>>10043749
They seem to forget it can go both ways as well.

[Anonymous No.10043762]

tolerance itself is a massive fucking meme

[Anonymous No.10043764]

>>10043762
I agree, Gas all Kikes

[Anonymous No.10043802]

>>10042556
Does he really absolve Marx? I'm only a little way into the first book but he mentions in the intro that the three main thinkers he plans to tackle are Plato, Hegel, and Marx, which would suggest they all receive the same severe treatment, no?

[Anonymous No.10043862]

> should he be read

For any student of epistemology, absolutely yes. That said, there's room for nuance in his open society. By "not tolerating intolerance", my interpretation of that is to allow the individual to express his views within the confines of existing society, but not to budge in terms of allowing their ideas to form matters of policy.

[Anonymous No.10043951]

>>10043475

[Anonymous No.10043955]

>>10042343

>Being scared of words and pictures

Why are Liberals like this?

[Anonymous No.10043981]

>>10043802
>Does he really absolve Marx?
No, besides the fact he's a raging liberal, the whole thing he's most known for is his epistemological attack on the likes of Freud and Marx

Ignore anti-Semitic trolls

[Anonymous No.10044018]

>>10042466
Can you point me in the direction of some leftist critiques of Islam?

[Anonymous No.10044024]

>>10044018

Are critiques of Islam are, by definition, right-wing.

[Anonymous No.10044047]

>>10044024
What is your definition of right-wing? Was Envher Hoxha right-wing?

[Anonymous No.10044060]

Why is there a double standard between national socialism and communism?
They both killed millions of people, but only nazi's get pinned with wanting to repeat the crimes of their predecessors.

[Anonymous No.10044101]

I am proudly intolerant and very much an enemy of the open society in all its forms.

[Anonymous No.10044113]

>>10044101
Being a Naz-Bol is the definition of shitting where you eat

[Anonymous No.10044130]

>>10044101
Every one of you is a Nahtzee until some poor woman takes pity on you and lets you bang her.

[Anonymous No.10044316]

>>10042466
>as critical of Islam as they are of Christianity
>as critical

Jesus, dude. Christians aren't going around throwing acid in peoples faces, covering women up, and cutting off women's genitals. Christians may be wrong, and they may do some messed up stuff, but the two groups aren't even comparable.

If you think Christians are just as bad it's because you're coming from a Eurocentric perspective.

[Anonymous No.10044764]

That doesn't work because intolerance isn't an objective trait. People nowadays will call you intolerant for using the word "denigrate" or questioning transgender bathrooms. Is that enough grounds to silence someone?

[Anonymous No.10044777]

>>10042343
lmao, no. Popper thinks Plato was a fascist.

[Anonymous No.10046029]

>>10044777
Is Plato not a fascist? I could see how some of his ideas in Republic could give that impression.

[Anonymous No.10046046]

>>10046029

Define "Facisim"

[Anonymous No.10046049]

>>10046046
Define "define"

[Anonymous No.10046054]

>>10042343
No. Right and wrong are not subject to the calculus of convenience.

[Anonymous No.10046058]

>>10046049

de·fine
>dəˈfīn
>verb

1.
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
"the contract will seek to define the client's obligations"
synonyms: explain, expound, interpret, elucidate, describe, clarify; More

2.
mark out the boundary or limits of.
"clearly defined boundaries"
synonyms: determine, establish, fix, specify, designate, decide, stipulate, set out;

[Anonymous No.10046064]

>>10043270
It's hard to take anyone seriously who feels the threat of communism serious.

[Anonymous No.10046075]

>>10044316
he is probably going with the "christianity only doesn't do these things because it was modernized" line of thought while ignoring that many modern ideas such as social justice, economic freedom or even fucking secularism came from the catholic church

[Anonymous No.10046091]

>>10042343
If you were to seriously apply the logic here proposed, society wouldn't just get rid off Nazis. They'd get rid of Muslims. Yet oddly enough the groups that have such animosity for the former consider the latter wholly beyond scrutiny. What could be the explanation for this? Only that their motives are not as stated, that this is ultimately simple posturing, arbitrary ideology gone amok by a populace impressionable and loth to think critically.

[Anonymous No.10046102]

>>10042343
Whoa... so this is the power of philosophy

[Anonymous No.10046195]

>>10043175
>hot
i love ol' GEM, don't get me wrong—but that's a pretty strong word for someone who always looked like a bulldog. hell, i never thought iris murdoch was attractive enough to merit her numerous affairs, though i can sympathize why witty slept with her and not anscombe.

[Anonymous No.10046232]

>intolerance must be outside the law

popper needs to check his fucking islamophobia

[Anonymous No.10046238]

>>10046091
>What could be the explanation for this?

because if you can exclude muslims for creating sharia zones then you would have to exclude the hassidim too

[Anonymous No.10046252]

>>10046054
Voltaire didn't actually say that.

[Anonymous No.10046345]

>>10044130
That goes both ways

[Anonymous No.10046381]

>>10043124
That's why California used to be a Purple state. Check the rates in which immigrants vote for leftist parties for muh benefits and muh bring the whole family over!

[Anonymous No.10046384]

>>10043270
Hoppe is right you know.

[chop No.10046386]

>>10043270
>>10046384
Is Democracy: tgtf worth a read? I was surprised to find a link to the full .pdf on Hoppe's own website and I was thinking I'd make it the next book I read.

[Anonymous No.10047573]

>>10046252
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10047579]

>>10043124
>The most liberal parts of the US are some of the whitest.
This is untrue. Maybe percentage wise it's true for some small states, but the real correlation there is with wealth and left leanings.

You look at places like West Virgina or Iowa, they are over 90% white and not especially wealthy, they're all red states.

[Anonymous No.10047648]

>>10047573
Wasn't it said against Voltaire and originated in a biography of his detailing his detractors? I can't be bothered to google it (on my phone) and I'm not that anon though.

[Anonymous No.10047655]

>>10047579

Wasn't le drumpf's election pretty much decided by white people having the temerity to vote for him?

[Anonymous No.10047875]

>>10047655
white people are a meme, trump won because the neoliberal mainstream narrative collapsed, russia and white people are just a red herrings to avoid confronting this fact

[Anonymous No.10048314]

>>10042343
DEFINE TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE POPPER
RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.10048328]

>>10042363
you couldnt tell a joke if it hit you on the face

[Anonymous No.10049298]

bump

[Anonymous No.10049370]

>>10043310
he's joking you goon, he hated scientism

[Anonymous No.10049392]

Why do you guys believe in Democracy when it has failed? No one can accomplish anything of value. We need one side to take over and eradicate their enemy through force.

[Anonymous No.10050168]

>>10049392

>I'm still alive
>Democracy as failed

Has failed me yet.

[Anonymous No.10050561]

>>10042343
Karl Popper? More like Karl Poopier am I right?

[Anonymous No.10050573]

>>10046386
I'm not this poster but I'd also like to hear some thoughts on this.

[Anonymous No.10050603]

>>10042343
but what if western society has more to fear from middle eastern migrants than in nativists, in terms of eroding liberal notions of tolerance?
what if the set of tolerances espoused by the left (muslims good, nazis bad) ends up making our society more intolerant than the inverse?
we see here that it isn't as simple as 'don't tolerate intolerance', intolerance for what? to whom?
as it stands what is tolerated or not by whatever political position tends to be decided by what various political parties think will end up inflating their voter rolls and not on pragmatism or preserving anything, it seems.

[Anonymous No.10051127]

>>10042343

My problem with this infrographic is that "Nazis/fascism" are the only ideologies of that people who espouse this philosophy recognize as "intolerance."

Islamists are intolerant toward infidels. Anarchists are intolerant towards statists. Communists are intolerant towards "kulaks" which could be anybody they want to be.

WHY DO THESE GET A FREE REIGN?

[Anonymous No.10051494]

>>10042343

But, see, it literally does not make sense. It is a paradox, one which your meme fails to resolve.
>The intolerant cannot be tolerated by a tolerant society.
>A society which does not tolerate is intolerant.
>Therefore a society which does not tolerate intolerance is intolerant.
>Therefore a society which does not tolerate intolerance must not tolerate itself

Unless this balding autist is actually arguing that "intolerance" is meaningless outside the context of a majority defining tolerance, and placing an "intolerant" minority outside that definition to justify not tolerating it.

Or in other words, "we must persecute any individual or movement which preaches persecution" which means the speaker must be persecuted because he literally just preached persecution.

[Anonymous No.10051527]

>all the butthurt rightwingers in this thread
So good.

[Anonymous No.10051616]

>>10046386
If you have to ask whether it's worth a read, it's worth a read

[Anonymous No.10051651]

As SJW as it sounds the benchmark for tolerance should be allowing people of any gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age, ability, economic status participate on an equal level in your imagined society. I'd say this is roughly broad enough to be inclusive of ideologies as fringe as communism and AnCap but not broad enough to tolerate things like Nazism and radical Islam.

[Anonymous No.10051847]

>any gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age, ability, economic status participate on an equal level in your imagined society
>I'd say this is roughly broad enough to be inclusive of ideologies as fringe as communism and AnCap but not broad enough to tolerate things like Nazism and radical Islam.
that sounds tricky, you listed a few arbitrary categories, but left out religion, i don't see how you can meaningfully tolerate an ethnicity built around a religion if you don't tolerate religion, and if you tolerate religion you open the door for islam

in the same way you say you would tolerate ethnicity, but does mean only minority ethnicity while whites are only allowed to organize as universal subjects? Or are you going to tolerate people organizing around white ethnicity as well, and at what point are you going to cut it before it turns into actual Nazism?

[Anonymous No.10051851]

>>10051847
was for >>10051651

[Anonymous No.10051876]

>>10051847
I don't think religion should be included, it should not be covered by tolerance or indeed held to a different standard than ideology. There are many sexist, racist, homophobic, ablest and very many other kids of -ist religions out there and they should not be protected. If they actively fall under these categories, as radical Muslims do, they should be prosecuted. However if you subscribe to a more liberal strain of Islam that doesn't promote imposing medieval laws upon society then this should be permitted and protected as long as it stays liberal.

In the case of ethnicity built around religion you're clearly referring to Jews, and other descendants of ethnoreligions. They should not be protected on the basis of their religion, they should be protected on the basis of their ethnicity. And "Jew" is not an ethnicity, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Beta Israel and so forth are ethnicities. And it's entirely possible to belong to one of those ethnicities strictly speaking without being religiously Jewish.

>Or are you going to tolerate people organizing around white ethnicity as well, and at what point are you going to cut it before it turns into actual Nazism?
I think people organizing on the basis of being white is permissible provided it doesn't degenerate into trying to impose white supremacist policies onto the existing system. As long as their organization does not impede upon the rights and freedoms of the listed categories it is a non-problem.

Indeed I think white people having a mainstream acceptable outlet for racial organization would be helpful to stop them from radicalizing and becoming real Nazis.

[Anonymous No.10052660]

>>10047875
Can you tell me what this neoliberal mainstream narrative is? I believe you, but I want to be able to talk to other people about it and have at least a shot at being persusive.

[Anonymous No.10052915]

>>10043005
Wow big brain

[Anonymous No.10052925]

>>10044130
Women clap emoji need clap emoji burqas

[Anonymous No.10052930]

>>10046091
You'd also obviously have to apply it to communists.

[Anonymous No.10052938]

>>10051494
It's all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.10052946]

popper is the worst """philosopher""" to have ever existed

even a kid can figure out falsification

[Anonymous No.10052947]

>>10051651
What if groups within that society want to self-segregate? Currently that's illegal because you can't refuse service to groups, you can't have homogenous institutions and the government will force undesirable groups into the territory of groups who don't want them there.

[Anonymous No.10052951]

>>10042343
Idk.

[Anonymous No.10052959]

>>10051876
What about black supremacist policies like forcing companies to hire PoCs over whites?

[Anonymous No.10052963]

>>10042343
I don't know

[Anonymous No.10052997]

>>10042971
>>Another sheep violence shaming

That's what adamantly held differences of belief always boil down to. Violence shaming is how the powers that be stay in power.

[Anonymous No.10053006]

>>10042343
Pretty dumb. EVERYBODY is intolerant of something. Surely he is not referring to "intolerance of murder"?

Demonstrates how "tolerance" as an ideal virtue is pretty dumb. A tolerant society arises from the sensibilities of the population, not the law.

Liberty is a state, not an ideal.

[Anonymous No.10053146]

Here' the relevant question in America today:

Should you be allowed to wear a swastika in public?

If so, should physically assaulting someone wearing a swastika be acceptable?

If the swastika man is yelling at minorities that he wants to kill them, but not actually harming them in any physical way, is violence against him acceptable?

[Anonymous No.10053298]

>You must be intolerant of the intolerant

Doesn't that make you... intolerant?

[Anonymous No.10053975]

>>10046064
Nigga, did you miss the last 100 years of history?

[Anonymous No.10053983]

>>10042367
>waah some abusive rich fucks died

Revolutionary violence isn't any more reprehensible than the execution of murderers

[Anonymous No.10053990]

>>10053146
Yes
No
No

[Anonymous No.10053993]

>>10044024
Bad bait

[Anonymous No.10054001]

>>10053983
You see, "comrade", the problem is: who is the enemy of revolution and who is not? There is a long history of leftist revolutionaries murdering their own, when the power balance shifts

[Anonymous No.10054043]

>>10042556

Popper puts Marx in his place actually, by deconstructing all of his argumentation in Das Kapital and concluding the introduction of ad hoc hypotheses makes it pseudo-scientific, which was not what Marx originally intended. He still gives Marx a lot of credit in other ways (and frankly, the guy has a lot of credit if even for trolling others into loving/hating him so hard).

Popper was a great "practical" person and basically created what we now consider to be the definite differences between "science" and "non-science". Sadly, he has failed to spread this view: not only are contemporary scientists extremely ignorant of all philosophy, even analytical and Popper himself (I would know, I'm a physicist), most of my peers in academia actually lie in some kind of logical/empirical positivism zone, claiming they are finding "truths" and that "theories are facts, facts are derived from data, and theories are ontological", except they don't even use the word ontology in spite of smearing ontological claims into mere equivalence classes.

Likewise, OP's picture imply Popper did not ever differentiate from allowing thoughts to allowing actions, and that his views on tolerance do not have to undergo constant revaluation. How do you say who is being intolerant at any given time? You might have to ban both sides of the argument at times and impose the middle ground, which is hell of an irony. Popper does address such things, but it's another view he failed to pass on, and people remain acting as he sought them not to. I hope he found happiness in life at least.

[Anonymous No.10054071]

>>10053975
Yes, McCarthyism was a great success.

[Anonymous No.10054091]

>>10054071
Great chinese famine was an even bigger one, really cut into that world overpopulation. Heck attempted communism was so good, that people died trying to spread the word about the utopia, scaling the Berlin wall and swimming on the makeshift rafts from Cuba to the failed capitalist country called USA