etplayer

>You cannot have no social structure anymore than a person can have "no age"

Class is not equal to social structure; when Marxists talk about classes they refer to economic power relations, as in, there is no group of people with majority or exclusive control over the main social means of production. This is in contrast to today in which the social means of production are owned almost entirely by the bourgeoisie, as in, the capitalist class, which employs wage labour.

In higher stage Communism, there is free association of people and the method that may be chosen would likely be decentralised direct-democratic councils with random or rotating delegates.

To add to this, try meditation too. It can be done while sitting and with the noise around you on a train, and you don't have to look odd by closing your eyes (though you could pretend you are sleeping). However I find it is most comfortable in a private place. I usually listen to music or try to read if it does not make me nauseous, but nothing to do with my studies.

>So it was aimed at replacing the existing structure...

If I told you that I'd be replacing your broken windshield, would you understand that I'd be simply removing your windshield and not putting anything in its place?

>There are people on the fringe left (and fringe right) who want to do exactly that.

I should have been more specific; the group which is accused of being "cultural Marxists" includes the Frankfurt School which did nothing you describe nor expounded any intention to. Of course they exist, but the people accused of being those people who exist are not those people.

>That is precisely what intersectional feminism is about.

That's true, though it does little to hold for Peterson's argument that "Marxists" in general have moved to such a position, or have mutated class theory rather than simply adding to it. Marxists, orthodox and otherwise, still think in terms of class.

>Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure.

No it wasn't (and no it isn't), it's aimed at abolishing the class structure.

>There are people who don't like the current structure and aim to replace it. How is this a conspiracy?

GP is referring to "cultural Marxism" being a conspiracy, and it is, not that Communists want to replace the class structure. The "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory posits that there is a group of people who want to destroy Western society. This is false. It relies on the idea that at some point Marxists changed to thinking in terms of gender or race rather than class - this is also false and lacking in evidence as GP also noted. The Wikipedia section really is a good overview of it.

That's actually not true. What is "neo Marxism"? As I understand it, it is the application of Marixist class theory to other non-class power structures. However I have seen nor have been able to find any evidence that this is an actually existing group that has grown out of Marxism. Furthermore, postmodernism denies the very structures in the materialist understanding of history which is essential to Marxism. So how are they compatible? These and other issues are discussed in my post and in the article I linked therein.

There's simply no evidence for it; Peterson's confusion is his own and I hope that others do not follow him on this and instead choose to do their own research into philosophy.

I've found that Peterson has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) while they could not be further from each other, except as being originated from conitental philosophy. I've written about one such instance here[0] and as far as I can tell it applies to this video too.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077128

>Planned economies such as the USSR clearly impinge on human liberty, tend to be undemocratic, and are usually very inefficient

I disagree that they impinge on human freedom, at least I don't think they do compared to capitalist economy. I see no reason why they should be undemocratic. And you'll find nobody in favour of a 5 year plan as the USSR had; there have been massive advances in economic planning methods, as elaborated by Cockshott et al.

I love the irony of saying it is "inefficient" especially when we compare it to how currently under capitalism firms compete by doing the same research, repeating the same mistakes, often extremely inefficiently, in the name of profit. This is one of the most inefficient things I have heard of.

The USSR planning model isn't a good alternative. But I think that some economic planning model, whatever it may be, should not be ruled out, especially as it can feature as part of lower-stage Communism.

>Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor?

The workers own the products that they make, and if made in join production then I expect some calculation to be made in terms of socially necessary labour time to be used for calculation. Another option is labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others and one cannot accumulate more than 365*24 per year (as they are hour based). This puts an end to the function of capital accumulation which is found in money.

>Does a central bank exist?

Probably not. I expect there to be multiple communities each maintaining their own banks of extra produce from which people can either withdraw freely (higher stage of Communism) or with labour vouchers (lower stage). Many would disagree with me on this point, and I'm by far the most well read in terms of distributive aspects.

>externalities

The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society.

>trash collection, research, maintaining

Undesirable jobs would probably be allocated on a rota-like system, or some other democratically decided way. Research and maintenance doubtlessly people find motivating in themselves, so I think that would be covered by self-interested parties. I know a few people who would likely be interested to do one or the other. Education would naturally focus around the fulfilment of jobs which are short in supply.

>Who pays the laborer who produces capital?

There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table.

What kind of capital production are you talking about? If talking about the development of constant capital (materials, machinery, tools etc.) then the allocation of people to make these resources is probably allocated such that each person needs to do the minimal amount work, either in exchange for labour vouchers or a share of the products made with the materials, machinery and tools that were produced. The same goes for the maintenance of that capital, as a machine degenerates by its labour content leaving it into the goods it produces, and it is repaired by supplying it with new labour. This seems difficult to calculate.

>I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.

That's mostly because "leftism" is a massive variety of tendencies, factions, parties, individuals, theorists, ideologies. They (like mine I assume) are non-answers because most people don't don't devote much time to think of this when they have more motivation to study the critique of capitalism, or just do other things. I have to say that most people are simply unmotivated, and I am one of them. People like the original anarchists, Zizek, Badiou, the Marxian economists etc. have much more time to devote.

>Oh yeah, the conception of freedom has changed so that slavery is freedom.

No; if anything, capitalism is the closest to slavery if we consider the case of the slave abolishing the ownership of slaves (the human component) of private property, the proletarian is the same in that he must actually abolish private property in general to be free.

>every implementation of communism has assigned labor.

Does capitalism not have assigned labour? You are free to move between jobs to some degree, but you are assigned labour in general, for without that assignment (by the capitalists) then you are liable to destitution or poverty or death or the charity of the State.

>you actually mean state police going door by door and confiscating any valuables you have. Maybe lynching some property owners along the way.

You misunderstand the concept of property. I have written about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15160835 as an explanation.

>A. You don't actually own it the state does.

No; Communism is an anarchist ideology, and the workers through voluntary democratic institutions manage the means of production - so you, by extension manage the means of production.

>You do not have any economic freedom under communism because you cannot sell what you supposedly own.

No. These is no sale in Communism because the conceptions of freedom have changed, society adopts a different set of needs, namely, goods are not imbued with exchange value, as they are not commodities. It doesn't make sense to sell things in Communism. This is what Communism is - the bringing about of the condititions such that the current ones are obsolete. As Marx said, Communism is not an ideal to be achieved, but the constantly existing movement which abolishes the present state of things.

>Even under communism you do not have the option to sell your own labor freely.

This is a very good thing! You don't have to sell your labour to survive! And even if you wanted to, you can get higher returns by owning any more labour you do.

>What occurs is that you are assigned work that the government believes that you are most suited to.

Hilariously false. Please actually read Marx; I'll quote the relevant part here:

"He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now."

The quote I used happened to be incongruent with the source I linked, so I'm sorry for that - I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. That said, you asked for statistics and I have provided them - Cuba in terms of poverty isn't as bad as most of its peers in South America.

The fact that you're telling me to move to Venezuela (capitalist economy) or North Korea (a country that doesn't even call itself Communist or even Socialist any more) shows just how bad your argument is. It was perfectly valid for me to bring up an example of a repressive regime as an immediately understood example of injustice. However I could have just as easily used the example of Bangladeshi sweatshop workers. Should they just shut up or move away?

Moving is irrelevant, too - everywhere has become private property, everywhere is rented or taxed. One cannot escape capitalism.

>1. It calls for the forced confiscation of private property.

Yes. What about it?

>2. Explain how someone can be liberated by having their economic freedom removed?

People's economic freedom is not removed, rather, it is provided in the first place - higher stage Communism is the refined ideal of the free association of people as producers and labourers in the economic sphere.

Just to take you up on this, I do not think that Cuba is a Communist country, but it reports very highly on poverty and especially in comparison to other countries in South America.

>Despite this, the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America and 48th among all countries.[0]

Further, I see it as bad for private property is tyranny, the labourer is deprived of the full value of what he creates, and the class society creates artificial necessity to provide wage labour or accumulate sufficient capital just in order to survive. For these reasons I see the system as barbaric, as with our resources it is clearly enough to do better. To say nothing of the horrendous exploitation of those in Bangladesh for example, this only being the most visible example of the exploitation Marx tells us about.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...

The idea that "if you don't like it, leave" can be used to excuse any injustice, such as against the Jews in Nazi Germany. What's your point, exactly? It's a farcical notion and I hope you can see that it is counter to the idea of human progress to expound it.

>Don't force your horrible ideology on the rest of us (which communism literally calls for).

No, it doesn't. Communism calls for the liberation of people via the abolition of private property, itself a concept which is forced on everyone, including the owners of private property. This is like saying that the abolition of slavery "forces an ideology" on everyone because now nobody can own slaves. Again, it's farcical. Oscar Wilde and Kropotkin have explained the individualist nature of Communism.

You're saying that if it takes time for the effects of a capitalist mode of production, which does not cater for those at the bottom of society, which creates wars for profit and plunder then therefore these countries are not guilty? Are you aware of how capitalism came about, through the forceful and violent enclosure of the commons in Western Europe, and the invasions and famines caused by the redirection of supplies and food for where it would be profitable elsewhere (Bengal famine), rents enforced by landlords (Irish Potato famine), etc.? If you are unaware of how capitalism came about, Marx does a good job explaining it through the laws in the country in which he lived, England[0].

[0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm and https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm

You lived in a country that was under Party rule of an emulation of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard state which operated on the functions of private property, money and was clearly a class society, I'm guessing, unless you lived in revolutionary Catalonia.

I am currently living in a country that's still under capitalism and I'm experiencing how bad it is right now.

Why do you say this?

I think it's a shame that the HN article title was changed from something which is clearly expounded by the video i.e Communism, and mentioned several times even with quotes by proto-Communists and Communists themselves, and the attack on private property. Copyright is merely used as an expemplary in the talk. Why was the title changed? Is it that Communism is seen as "click bait" or too radical for the HN audience that it must thus be tuned down to something with less flare?

>Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis.

This sounds awfully theological to me.

>You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes.

I honestly have no idea where you get this idea from, and I've had to explain it so many times; it's a popular misconception about Communism but I simply have trouble understanding where it originates. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, no Communist espouses it. For a counter to your point, take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution[0] however your very premise is flawed; Communism does not mean the absolute equality of everyone, as even a child can see that people are different and have different strengths. Communism is merely a more equal system in which people receive the product of their labour in fully.

> To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive

This is a tired point, the fact that it is still trotted out reeks of naturalistic fallacy, and the idea that humans are no better than the universe, ignoring the fact that the forms of oppressive have changed but the relationships remain roughly the same. You seem to suggest that capitalism, or at least some class society, is necessary. I see no reason to believe this is true. You assume that these systems are natural, deriving right from the universe itself; again, you expound theology.

>that life feeds on life

This is a funny point because even though this is unavoidable, humans have created ways to minimise the extent to which this occurs, by consuming less life i.e vegetarianism. Do you see how this thinking can also apply to, say, capitalism? We may not eliminate certain pressures but we can certainly reduce them.

>build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence

Not really. I'd say that capitalism does this instead, and the reason is that within capitalism we could only hope to do that if it brings profit to the speculators. This idea that capitalism is a promoter of human progress is obviously false given the great amount of pollution, false science etc. which happens in the name of capital itself. If we can't even care for this planet, what makes you think that capitalism nurtures prolonged interplanetary existence? The very idea seems ridiculous to me.

In short, you've confused nature with a rather recent mode of production (which optimises for things that aren't natural at all) and used a theological argument to say that it must be this way or we'll be doomed to massive turmoil and never leaving planet Earth.

[0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua...

>Scientific advancement and technological innovation both greatly benefit from societies that have the greatest individual liberty and the least central control.

Communists agree, and this is why democratic Socialistts such as Oscar Wilde praised the fact that Communism nurtures individualism, especially for those in the arts and sciences. He wrote about this in The Soul of Man Under Socialism:

"What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture – in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want."

Your idea that anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate heir of the liberal ideas which were used to found the US is, to be honest, a silly one - as one can see the exact opposite in the writings of the Communists and anarchists whose whole idea was based on the freedom of individuals and their free association, something which even individualist anarchists such as Stirner realised is not possible with private property.

I agree, it's something that sounds difficult to get right, and if it's possible to get right, what's the best way to go about it? I contend that the model which the Soviets adopted was poor, not only for the reasons you mentioned (rigid central planning, authoritarianism, and opposition to recognised science in favour of nationalism-based "science"). It's important to ask why these things happened, so I think that the solution is not as simple as I perhaps made it out to be.

However we see that in the Soviet Union, places of science remained private property, administered by either private institutions or a state which claimed to be in control of the people, while it was clearly not. The whole Soviet model collapsed very early one because certain factions were banned, and their members executed. I do not think that this is the best that we can do. However I think that the solution, however utopian it sounds, lies in abolition of private property because otherwise we are still beholden to the whims of speculators and their profits rather than the interest of the community. Even if you only democratised science, this would be problematic; the scientists need to eat, and I would argue that they shouldn't have to eat only if the State or a private institutions tells them that they can eat.

There are other examples to go along with what you said. I can't remember the source, but there was a time in the Soviet Union in which scientists wished to implement a much better system of central planning which took into account input and output tables continuously; whether or not the computer power existed at the time I don't know, but the system was quickly shut down by the Soviet bureaucracy - I think because it posed a threat to the power of the State. This is why I tend to by more sympathetic to anarchist ideologies (as a questioner at the end of the presentitaion mentions), because by destroying the material conditions of the state then the state ceases, what you describe as happening has less chance to take hold.

This is why Communism is an anarchist ideology, in recognition of the very problem you have mentioned. Modern day Communists such as Zizek and Badiou accept this, and Badiou urges us to continue with the Communist Hypothesis[0]. The Soviet model was initially radical, but it was not radical enough to overcome the power structures which were much more entrenched than the founders of the revolution thought. So I still think Communism is the answer, but in what way is yet to be found out, and the debate fiercely rages. It's not that I think Lysenkoism is better than what we have currently (including all our junk "science" coming from here and there), it's that I think there is a solution superior to both situations, namely, in the reduction of power of the state and the diminishing of nationalism by making a global revolution as Marx's internationalist roots envisioned. It's not the abolition of private property that was the cause of Lysenkoism, it was exactly what we see now - rigid state bureaucracy and private institutions.

[0] https://newleftreview.org/II/49/alain-badiou-the-communist-h...

You are of course correct.

I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today.

The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice.

To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.

Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense against property; Communism isn't only the common ownership of MoP, rather, the Communists contend that this follows naturally from the abolition of private property, not such that everything becomes everyone's property, but that it becomes the property of nobody. Marx once said (I paraphrase) that the theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: the abolition of private property. Engels also said that just as the slave frees himself by abolishing the human aspect of private property, so does the proletarian by abolishing private property in general.

No, the case made in the talk takes the example of Sci-hub and agreement with its principles into a wider scope to ask, if intellectual property is a problem (itself a radical idea, even on HN) what about property in general? And by this 'property' nobody means one's toothbrush, the Communists and anarchists mean private property. As Proudhon tells us the difference; near the beginning of his most important work (which went on to inspire Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin and every other Communist and anarchist) he writes as follows:

"There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.

This double definition of property — domain and possession — is of the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend what is to follow."

In my opinion, and apparently that of the person giving the talk, when we talk about science we don't only want the journals to be free (as in free speech), we want the "means of production" for it to be free. In this way, we believe, science can serve the broader community as a tool to advance knowledge rather than only when it's convenient for profit. As an example, look at how the funding was recently pulled (though I'm not fully up to date on the story) on a US government study into the effects of coal mining on health. I contend that there would have been less motivation to do this, if it was possible at all, in a Communist society.

>Marxism is bad. Like Hegel, Marx wrote without any substance, and his work has been refuted long ago. Its legacy is undeniably bad. Nobody sane discusses Marxism itself, other than it's historical place. To me, Marx and Hegel are prophets and enemies of reason.

I have to say I disagree with this; Marx wrote with very much substance, though he was a flowery writer, and he employed a certain method which he and Engels admitted was rather obscure and unfamiliar to the thinkers of their new time - but there's plenty of content there, such that many have been inspired by his work to take it in new theoretical directions.

The "refutations" of Marx come from everywhere, even from Marxists, their validity however is still up for question. For every refutation there is usually a Marxian counter-refutation lurking in the background. If you don't believe me, just look at the modern argument between the anarchists and Marxists and the economical argument that still rages to this day between the understandings of Marx's value theory and tendency of the rate of profit to fall, like Kilman's TSSI, Okishio, Samuelson, Morishima, Cockshott etc.

Yes, I am proposing a change that such material should not be illegal to possess. As to distribution, I have not made up my mind.

I think you're going about this wrong. The difference is what harm is "valid"; if I laugh at you and humiliate you, it may indeed make you upset and traumatized, and I think it may be morally or ethically wrong for me to do that - but should that mean that there is a law against that?

At some point we draw the line, and in almost all other respects the line is drawn elsewhere - in that mere knowledge of an act occuring is not sufficient to make that act illegal.

The equivalent here would be the fact that the robber is in the gas station, I think? Should the robber not be allowed to be anywhere where he may even be seen by you? In the same way, even though the abuse of the child was problematic, should someone who views the abuse be disallowed from doing so? And further, there is even more disconnect here, making your analogy much weaker - what does the victim know of the instance in which someone views that recording?

>Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did?

Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done.

i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography.

With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge.

>So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?

Not if there was no harm caused.

I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?

Not only the UK an Canada, but Australia, NZ and some European countries too have implemented what I must say is a heinous law against freedom of expression through drawing. This hideous trend shows that governments have little care.

It was also illegal in all of the US at the country level, however this was stricken down by SCOTUS rightly in my judgement as a violation of the first amendment. There are still state laws against it.

I'm someone familiar with how it works, though obviously I do not search for the material myself - but it depends where one goes. I2P is known for its torrent capability and the torrents can be freely obtained. Tor has various forums that are free to sign up for. Freenet has many, many sites from what I can tell are freesites for this content.

I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it.

>Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.

This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.