Karl Marx said his ideas would not work in a third word country or any country that wasn't already well developed. In other words he seemed to know his concepts were designed for a utopian r-selection system.
My question: Karl Marx/ Engels were a big aggravate of war and destruction by mass slaughter of those that made their utopian visions difficult as with Engels writings clearly states:
"the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
Engels writings on Genocide
Slav Sonderbund were considered to be the underclass people of Serbia.
In other words the rooted foundation of leftists thinking is based on war and our literal destruction. Which was shown to us by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on. How can r-selected (bunny rabbits) people be so blood thirsty?
Brace yourself, this will be a long one.
A couple of things must be understood.
First, r-type humans and Stalin are two different animals. Stalin was a full blown psychopath, and different from the average grassroots-level r-type idiots who put him in power (though r-types will gravitate to psychopaths for reasons I will explain shortly). You see this today in the US. The average empty-headed liberal bimbo in San Francisco wouldn’t do what Rahm Emmanuel would do in the US, if Rahm had complete power. So Liberal leaders tend to be more ruthless, and even more violent than Liberals.
That said many hard-core ideologue Liberals would vote in a Stalin, and then tolerate him as he butchered Conservatives. So they are not bunny rabbits either. This has a couple of roots.
Bunny rabbits are simply r-selected. In the book, we show how r/K Selection is where ideology begins evolutionarily, but not where it’s evolution ends.
First, the r/K psychologies evolve into individual Competitiveness and Anticompetitiveness, ala the Cuttlefish example above. Here in the cuttlefish, two different psychologies are competing with each other for market share of the population. In so doing, they evolve specific behaviors designed to thwart each other’s effective reproduction. K-types compete to make themselves fitter, and increase survivability, while r-types seek to use the K-type competitions as opportunities for promiscuous cuckoldry. Again, make a few highly competent offspring, or make a lot of idiots, and hope one makes it by sheer luck.
The final piece of the puzzle is group competition (not selection). Here the r-types adopt strategies expressly designed to screw over K-types, and destroy them. Think Hippies hating servicemen, and spitting on them. It is no coincidence that the r-types evolved an open animus to the K-type humans. Hippies hated the selflessly loyal military and law enforcement for a reason.
To understand why this is, you must understand that so far we know that these psychologies are likely produced by competing alleles of at least one gene (There may be more genes, but they will likely all revolve around competing alleles as well). What this means, is that you inherit one form of the gene, you tend towards r-type behavior. You inherit the other, you tend towards K-type behavior. It’s actually more complicated, but this will do here.
So now you have a bunch of r-type genes in the populace, each attached to a myriad other genes which subtly alter psychology. Some r-type alleles are attached to genes which make them perform behaviors designed to actively compete against, and seek to destroy, K-types. Others are not, and just try to consume resources and reproduce. As time goes on, r-type genes which do not also have genes designed to recognize Competitors and seek their destruction get out-competed by those which do. Seeking the destruction of a competing allele, and wiping it out, is a huge advantage.
As a result, as group competition enters the arena, you end up with two ideologies which not only are designed to exploit environmental conditions, but which are also designed to seek the destruction of their competing alleles through various strategies.
In evolutionary biology this effect is called a “Greenbeard effect.” A specific allele evolves an ability to recognize like-alleles, and performs behaviors designed to aid the allele in others, so as to perpetuate it. The term goes back to Richard Dawkins, and his book The Selfish Gene, though the idea was older. He hypothesized an imaginary allele which produced a green beard, as well as a tendency among Greenbeards to recognize and help each other. This would give substantial advantage to this Greenbeard allele, and so the phenomenon was named.
Here, we see r-types recognizing and seeking to destroy the competing allele which causes K-type behavior, and K-types seeking to bring about circumstances of freedom and free competition which will aid them to dominate the population over the less adapted r-types, while showing altruistic loyalty to other K-types. Each allele is seeking to aid it’s own allele to gain ground in the population.
Think of r and K-type psychologies as foundational traits, which then slowly evolve by trying out a lot of psychological tendencies, and then keeping those that work (because those which don’t confer advantage get out-competed).
Liberalism has been shown to have a genetic root. John Jost showed that Liberals tend to exhibit less loyalty to in-group. Likewise he showed Liberals exhibit increased openness to out-group interests. As r-type Liberalism evolved, it added on these two traits for a reason. K-types tend to disregard out-group interests, and show loyalty to in-group because it aids them to succeed in their competitions. By adopting conflicting urges, r-types find themselves innately imbued with a psychology designed to thwart the mechanism by which K-types seek their success, from a Darwinian perspective. Those r-types which evolved to help K-types win in war were gradually culled by time, as helping K-types only helped them to outcompete these aberrant r-types.
So yes, every Liberal envys and loathes K-types, from Hippies spitting on Servicemen, to Stalin killing freedom loving people indiscriminately. I suspect it is even part of why Liberals demand our troops fight our wars with their hands tied. Subconsciously, they are programmed to want K-type deaths when possible. So if a terrorist kills ten of our troops in an IED blast - “Oh, well.” But if our troops go the terrorist’s house and kill him, without every legalistic i dotted and t crossed, well, somebody will be spending an eternity in Leavenworth, and Libs will be running it on the news 24/7 to show how awful our military is.
The bottom line is the r-type and K-type alleles have adapted to group competition, and this is why r-types will seek K-type destruction. It benefits their allele’s genetic drive to permeate the population. Those r-type alleles which did not incorporate this competitiveness with K-types into their genome were out-competed, and are no longer around in large numbers. Of course, if a full blown psychopath comes along, and seizes control of the r-type movement (not difficult, given r-types tend towards patheity), and if that psychopath then starts slaughtering K-types, the r-types are not going to stop it.
A lot of this will be obvious to people in the biological sciences, because we have seen these evolutionary forces playing out forever in other organisms.
That all said, in Liberals, there is a strong tendency towards the Stockholm Syndrome, and it is probably evolved - an outgrowth of their strategy of using betrayal in group competition. Ally with a violent enemy during war-time, and then aid the enemy to kill K-types within your own population.
As a result, Liberals will have a strong psychological tendency to ally with violent threats. Think of how they wanted to free the wonderful Uighurs in Guantanamo (who were actually in battle with our troops just prior to being caught by the Afghans). Or of how horrible it was that some terrorists had panties put on their heads in Abu Ghraib. Hell, after 9/11 there were a few hundred at a protest in Berkeley complaining about us going into Afghanistan militarily in response to 9/11.
In war, this tendency to ally with violent threats produces an ability to ally with the enemy, and bring defeat to your own population. Think of the Hippies in Vietnam, had it happened in much more primitive times. If they could have made us lose to the NVA and Vietcong (which in primitive times would have been much closer geographically), the NVA and Vietcong would have killed most of our K-type men, placed us under an occupation, and probably appointed Hippies to positions of power. That is an enormous advantage, and it would all seem to arise naturally out of the Liberal, r-type psychology which seeks to sympathize with out-groups while showing diminished loyalty to in-group. The strength with which it presents will vary with extent that one demonstrates a Liberal ideology, but as you head farther leftward, it becomes very apparent. Hippies showed this trait off the charts.
To me it is just a more complex version of the Cuttlefish battles, where as the Competitors go about their competitions seeking to win, the transvestite Anticompetitors simply do what they need to in order win from a Darwinian perspective, regardless of any rules, honor, or shame.
So when you bring up Stalin, I kind of see it from that perspective. To Communists, Stalin was the violent threat who could eliminate the K-types once and for all. He was similar to what the Hippies wanted the Vietcong to be, what the murdering rapist is to the ACLU idiot, and what the hardcore terrorist in a blacksite is to the Amnesty International type.
On the surface, the Lib will spout some bull about values, morals, etc. But at the end of the day, there is a deeper psychological game afoot, and you see it in slightly different variations in so many places as you go back through history. Let there be a violent criminal, and there will be a Lib, cozying up to him, and telling the K-types who want to eradicate him to stand down. Just give the criminal what he wants, rather than fight. This is an innate tendency to see a threat and curry favor. That is why every Communist/Socialist/Marxist revolution was led by the wrong leader. At the time, every Lib thought the leader was great, but they are innately mis-programmed idiots, so it always turns out badly. Then they turn around and blame the leader their idiot types supported for the disaster their psychology created.
If you look at it as an evolved aspect of a Darwinian competitive strategy, things become a lot clearer and a lot more of it makes sense.
Don’t make the mistake of seeing competitive/non-competitive in this. Both Liberalism and Conservatism are competitive strategies, and they have been evolving some pretty competitive aspects to their strategies for some time. In some ways, Libs are even more competitive, as they will violate every rule of honor, loyalty, and decency to get their way, and see their r-type allele dominate the population.