Postmodern Marxism vs Post Capitalism / Jordan Peterson

[Stom]

So, as we're all getting a bit weighed down in the Trump bashing, Boris bashing, Covid frustrations, I thought we could have a good old fashioned political debate.

I've been listening to some more Peterson again. Whatever your thoughts on him, he is very well read and intelligent enough to pull out some very interesting points from what he has read.

He is constantly talking about Marxism and how dangerous it is. Which led me down 2 separate rabbit holes.

1) What actually is socialism
2) What the hell is the Intellectual Dark Web, and why would anyone want to associate themselves with Ben Shapiro?

I had always simply considered socialism as a system whereby the means of production, et al, is regulated by the people. That's something I'm generally for.

But I hadn't considered it as a tool for Communism. Which is very odd, as you'd think they'd teach that in A-level Politics.

Put simply, is socialism simply a tool to take a capitalist society to a communist society?

If we believe that, then socialism is no means of government. But then, what does that leave us with on "right vs left"?

Should we strive for social equality? Or should we strive for equality of opportunity? And what does that look like?

And on the Intellectual Dark Web, Peterson, and others: I feel it is their responsibility to couch their views so they are obviously not extreme. Right now, I feel like Peterson likes his newfound fame and fortune too much to edit his language. The idea of free speech is vital, but that has to come with acceptance of the consequences.

Without that, free speech is just a shield to hide behind.

The use of anyone who speaks out against perceived injustice by "the left" as a far-right tool is ridiculous. I personally do not consider Peterson, or many of those labelled the intellectual dark web, as pseudo-facist (except the aforementioned Shapiro). Listening to what they have to say, they seem to be intellectuals who value balance. Every day they are persecuted against by people purporting to be far-left, so of course they're going to fight back against that.

What does anyone else think?

[gransoporro]

I do not know the guy, here are my questions for you.

What are the definitions of Marxism, socialism and communism this guy uses?

Here in US socialism is a vast umbrella that covers from social-democracies to communist USSR. So no wonder, using this vast umbrella, you can see countries entering the socialdemocracy end of the spectrum to shift over time further down the Marxist tunnel into full blown communism.

From an economic point of view, my view of socialism is that it plans production (and economics on a grand scale) rather than regulate it, and to all effects denies capital its role. This has an effect on free enterprise, innovation etc.
Mind you, I accept a large amount of grey, where heavy regulation has similar Effects but is not the same as planning.

What is the view of Mr. Peterson?

[Sandydragon]

Decent overview here:

https://www.history.com/news/socialism- ... ifferences

I've heard the claim that Socialism is a path to Communism a few times. Also, I seem to recall that Lenin and other key Communist leaders were very wary of Socialists who might prevent Communism (by diluting the message or improving the situation of the proletariat to a point where they don't want revolution).

[Digby]

Wanting to talk about Peterson seems like wanting to talk about Bedford

[Son of Mathonwy]

From Wikipedia:
An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialise production while the former aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).

...although I'm sure there are other definitions.

On the basis of this, socialist elements in the UK have quite rare since the 80s, but an example would be Cardiff Airport. Former examples would be British Rail and British Telecom. These entities would be publicly owned but their services sold for profit.

Communist elements in the UK are less rare (although some might disagree with this definition (!) consider if these entities would be run any differently in a communist society), ie the police, fire brigade, NHS (only in part, since some of the production is now on a capitalist basis). In their pure form production and consumption would be socialised.

There's no reason to think that Socialism is merely a tool for achieving Communism. It's clearly a model for a kind of society, and clearly some elements of a society can be run on a socialist basis while (at the same time) other elements are on a capitalist or communist basis.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Re Peterson, I'm not familiar with what he's saying on this matter (although I can imagine). I've only watched a couple of his videos; the one I can remember was where he advises with absolute certainty that no one should become an artist (of any sort) since your expected level of wealth will be lower than if you do something mainstream. The thrust of his argument held a lot of truth, but 1) thank goodness some people become artists nonetheless, and 2) his tone of complete certainty was unfounded (so I would be extremely wary of taking his word for anything without researching it elsewhere).

[Sandydragon]

From Wikipedia:
An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialise production while the former aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).

...although I'm sure there are other definitions.

On the basis of this, socialist elements in the UK have quite rare since the 80s, but an example would be Cardiff Airport. Former examples would be British Rail and British Telecom. These entities would be publicly owned but their services sold for profit.

Communist elements in the UK are less rare (although some might disagree with this definition (!) consider if these entities would be run any differently in a communist society), ie the police, fire brigade, NHS (only in part, since some of the production is now on a capitalist basis). In their pure form production and consumption would be socialised.

There's no reason to think that Socialism is merely a tool for achieving Communism. It's clearly a model for a kind of society, and clearly some elements of a society can be run on a socialist basis while (at the same time) other elements are on a capitalist or communist basis.

You can compare the running of the various police services in the UK with those in former communist countries for some obvious examples in how they approached the job differently.

But in terms of funding and ownership, it is true that in every country that had some kind of functioning governance, policing is controlled by the state (albeit often augmented by corporately available security services). Same for the military, and again often augmented by commercial services in certain circumstances.

Which demonstrates that between the extremes of pure capitalism and communism, most countries are somewhere on that arc, not necessarily to one extreme or another.

[Son of Mathonwy]

From Wikipedia:
An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialise production while the former aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).

...although I'm sure there are other definitions.

On the basis of this, socialist elements in the UK have quite rare since the 80s, but an example would be Cardiff Airport. Former examples would be British Rail and British Telecom. These entities would be publicly owned but their services sold for profit.

Communist elements in the UK are less rare (although some might disagree with this definition (!) consider if these entities would be run any differently in a communist society), ie the police, fire brigade, NHS (only in part, since some of the production is now on a capitalist basis). In their pure form production and consumption would be socialised.

There's no reason to think that Socialism is merely a tool for achieving Communism. It's clearly a model for a kind of society, and clearly some elements of a society can be run on a socialist basis while (at the same time) other elements are on a capitalist or communist basis.

You can compare the running of the various police services in the UK with those in former communist countries for some obvious examples in how they approached the job differently.

But in terms of funding and ownership, it is true that in every country that had some kind of functioning governance, policing is controlled by the state (albeit often augmented by corporately available security services). Same for the military, and again often augmented by commercial services in certain circumstances.

Which demonstrates that between the extremes of pure capitalism and communism, most countries are somewhere on that arc, not necessarily to one extreme or another.

Re the police, of course the UK police and the East German Stasi had a radically different approach, but that was due to the nature of government, ie democratic vs totalitarian, rather than the economy being capitalist/socialist vs socialist/communist.

[Stom]

His arguments about Marxism are quite believable.

I'd say that the work of him, coaches like Brooke Castillo and Byron Katie, and others like Maxwell Marx, have really opened my eyes to the benefits of capitalism.

It's not changed my outlook on neo-capitalism, which is a terrible thing.

But it has led me to have quite straight forward views on personal responsibility among other things.

On socialism and Marxism in the UK and other countries: to have social ownership of one thing does not make you a socialist state. However, to strive toward social ownership of everything does make you a Marxist to some degree or another.

Denying people the opportunity to create wealth is taking away a personal freedom. I believed for many years that communism only did not work because it was married with totalitarianism. But in fact, it cannot work without totalitarianism, as the backbone of communism - and socialism for that matter, if you're socialising all production - is removing personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms should be the cornerstone of any democracy. But I don't believe our current "Bill of Rights" system works when married with extended personal freedom.

Because if all you have is rights and freedom, you have anarchy. Why would someone else respect your rights if they impinge on their personal freedoms?

I think that's one of the problems I have with Peterson and his freedom of speech concepts (though he may have addressed that elsewhere, I haven't listened to even 1/10th of his work). Freedom must be married with responsibility.

I love personal freedom. It's my free choice to set up a company. It's my responsibility to deal with the consequences of that.

The current system for high net worth individuals, whereby they have very little responsibility at all, is unsustainable.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Denying people the opportunity to create wealth is taking away a personal freedom. I believed for many years that communism only did not work because it was married with totalitarianism. But in fact, it cannot work without totalitarianism, as the backbone of communism - and socialism for that matter, if you're socialising all production - is removing personal freedoms.

But this isn't true. If the people wanted a full communist state they could bring it in democratically. And remove it again democratically if the wanted. Or vote for any blend of communism/socialism/capitalism/(other)ism (provided these are economic systems, not political systems).

That people might vote for (full) communism may seem far fetched, but then we live in a neo-liberal capitalist system which has been drifting away from socialism for 4 decades now. Had we been drifting in the opposite direction, it might seem reasonable.

NB none of this is to suggest that I want a communist state (I don't, although I want more socialist and communist elements in our society).

[cashead]

Remember when he debated Zizek and got his ass handed to him so thoroughly, that he ended up in a beef coma?

[Stom]

Remember when he debated Zizek and got his ass handed to him so thoroughly, that he ended up in a beef coma?

Who is zizek? Could you show it, I’d be interested. YouTube is so full of videos about “Peterson crushes feminist” it’s just embarrassing and one of the main reasons I’m not a bigger fan of his. He needs to do more to stop people using what he says to promote hate.

[Stom]

Remember when he debated Zizek and got his ass handed to him so thoroughly, that he ended up in a beef coma?

OK, I think I found it. Not enough time for it all, yet, just watched Peterson's monologue. And I agreed with the main premises, until the end. And I think I pretty much know why.

He's a psychologist. His understanding of human behaviour is superb and when he couches everything in human behaviour, it makes perfect sense and confirms thoughts I have (as I very much want a humanist society).

But for his last point, on free market economies, it's no longer couched in human behaviour, but in economics, growth, etc. Suddenly, his statistics look skewed.

He made a point in another talk, which was: There's this idea that people can't hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time. That idea was obviously formulated by someone who has never met a human being.

As a marketer, what I take from this is the fact that people can have two thoughts about what you say. One that agrees and one that disagrees. And you need to then address their disagreement. Peterson didn't in that free market stats section. He didn't address the increase in inflation compared to wages. And that makes his argument fall down completely.

Which is a shame as it was his closing thought, so I can understand the thought that his whole argument was rubbish, if you just hear the last part...which was rubbish.

Here's what I was listening to:

[Sandydragon]

Denying people the opportunity to create wealth is taking away a personal freedom. I believed for many years that communism only did not work because it was married with totalitarianism. But in fact, it cannot work without totalitarianism, as the backbone of communism - and socialism for that matter, if you're socialising all production - is removing personal freedoms.

But this isn't true. If the people wanted a full communist state they could bring it in democratically. And remove it again democratically if the wanted. Or vote for any blend of communism/socialism/capitalism/(other)ism (provided these are economic systems, not political systems).

That people might vote for (full) communism may seem far fetched, but then we live in a neo-liberal capitalist system which has been drifting away from socialism for 4 decades now. Had we been drifting in the opposite direction, it might seem reasonable.

NB none of this is to suggest that I want a communist state (I don't, although I want more socialist and communist elements in our society).

That can work on a smaller scale, but in my opinion the community ownership and sharing of resources only really works where every buys into it. Communes are fine for those who want live in them and abide by their rules.

[Stom]

Denying people the opportunity to create wealth is taking away a personal freedom. I believed for many years that communism only did not work because it was married with totalitarianism. But in fact, it cannot work without totalitarianism, as the backbone of communism - and socialism for that matter, if you're socialising all production - is removing personal freedoms.

But this isn't true. If the people wanted a full communist state they could bring it in democratically. And remove it again democratically if the wanted. Or vote for any blend of communism/socialism/capitalism/(other)ism (provided these are economic systems, not political systems).

That people might vote for (full) communism may seem far fetched, but then we live in a neo-liberal capitalist system which has been drifting away from socialism for 4 decades now. Had we been drifting in the opposite direction, it might seem reasonable.

NB none of this is to suggest that I want a communist state (I don't, although I want more socialist and communist elements in our society).

If communism explicitly forbids personal financial betterment by denying individuals the chance to own the means of production, is that not by definition totalitarianism?

Even if it's not, I'd argue it is in everything but name. You are in complete subservience to the state for all things. You have no control over anything you do, pretty much, as everything is mandated by the state.

That doesn't sound positive. Communism denies the right to individualism by pushing the collective (the commune, as it were) to the front and centre.

If people want individualism, and to break free of the system, they by necessity break the actual system. So in order to sustain the system, the system must crush any opposition before it becomes too large to handle. Because if one person is selling raw milk on the side, that's a small problem. But if 10% of the population are getting their milk from a source outside of "community" control, suddenly you have a major threat to the system.

[Mikey Brown]

He needs to do more to stop people using what he says to promote hate.

LOL/ROFL etc.

[Stom]

He needs to do more to stop people using what he says to promote hate.

LOL/ROFL etc.

Why exactly? I mean, I don't know which way you are lolling...

lol

[Mikey Brown]

Just trying to imagine what that process looks like.

I don't view Peterson quite the same way as the full-on "intellectual dark web" grifters but the fact he prompts so much hate and divisiveness seems to be key to it being so profitable. I guess that's just how media works in general.

I'm sure I''ve heard him make some good arguments before, but it feels like a lot of his focus is on pandering to the universally oppressed white male. Sometimes he just sounds like a dribbling lunatic, but I guess we're all allowed a few of those.

[Stom]

Just trying to imagine what that process looks like.

I don't view Peterson quite the same way as the full-on "intellectual dark web" grifters but the fact he prompts so much hate and divisiveness seems to be key to it being so profitable. I guess that's just how media works in general.

I'm sure I''ve heard him make some good arguments before, but it feels like a lot of his focus is on pandering to the universally oppressed white male. Sometimes he just sounds like a dribbling lunatic, but I guess we're all allowed a few of those.

When he talks about human nature, about man, and about the decisions we make, it's really, really interesting. When he gets too far away from human nature, he gets very...iffy.

He should know better than that, but he has an ego and when someone asks him a question, he can't help but answer it, even if it's not his area of expertise.

[Mikey Brown]

Just trying to imagine what that process looks like.

I don't view Peterson quite the same way as the full-on "intellectual dark web" grifters but the fact he prompts so much hate and divisiveness seems to be key to it being so profitable. I guess that's just how media works in general.

I'm sure I''ve heard him make some good arguments before, but it feels like a lot of his focus is on pandering to the universally oppressed white male. Sometimes he just sounds like a dribbling lunatic, but I guess we're all allowed a few of those.

When he talks about human nature, about man, and about the decisions we make, it's really, really interesting. When he gets too far away from human nature, he gets very...iffy.

He should know better than that, but he has an ego and when someone asks him a question, he can't help but answer it, even if it's not his area of expertise.

Maybe that's what we're seeing here, I don't know, but I'm not sure I trust him. Even the most fantastic minds have some flawed opinions, and it seems once you're a known voice of authority on anything in this realm you are then expected to voice an opinion on everything else.

[Stom]

Just trying to imagine what that process looks like.

I don't view Peterson quite the same way as the full-on "intellectual dark web" grifters but the fact he prompts so much hate and divisiveness seems to be key to it being so profitable. I guess that's just how media works in general.

I'm sure I''ve heard him make some good arguments before, but it feels like a lot of his focus is on pandering to the universally oppressed white male. Sometimes he just sounds like a dribbling lunatic, but I guess we're all allowed a few of those.

When he talks about human nature, about man, and about the decisions we make, it's really, really interesting. When he gets too far away from human nature, he gets very...iffy.

He should know better than that, but he has an ego and when someone asks him a question, he can't help but answer it, even if it's not his area of expertise.

Maybe that's what we're seeing here, I don't know, but I'm not sure I trust him. Even the most fantastic minds have some flawed opinions, and it seems once you're a known voice of authority on anything in this realm you are then expected to voice an opinion on everything else.

Hence the fact I like him...but I don't take him at gospel. I mainly like his non-political stuff, tbh. It has a lot of relevance and chimes really well with some coaches who would be considered extremely liberal. Mainly because they're women...

But I wanted to talk politics here Marxism vs Capitalism. I hadn't seen what Cashead mentioned, so I'm looking forward to watching the rest later to see what Zizek can say.

[Stom]

Remember when he debated Zizek and got his ass handed to him so thoroughly, that he ended up in a beef coma?

OK, so I've watched both opening speeches now. Peterson step by step broke down the Communist Manifesto and why he believes it's wrong.

Zizek said the current situation was bad, that communism in the 20th century was bad, but that capitalism was worse because of ecology? While quoting China, the world's biggest polluter, as a positive?

I'm afraid I found him a little incoherent. Maybe there's more after the responses. But the opening speeches were poles apart. One person using human nature to deconstruct something, the other one simply giving his thoughts. I know which one I'm more likely to believe. But that's unfair. Obviously Peterson is a polished orator and Zizek isn't (maybe just in English).

[Stom]

Sorry, I didn't quite finish his speech. Isn't he just saying free market capitalism is wrong? And that capitalism needs regulation? That's not communism or even socialism, that's just a form of capitalism, and one I'm definitely for. And I don't see how it goes against pretty much anything (bar the end of his opening speech) Peterson has said.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Denying people the opportunity to create wealth is taking away a personal freedom. I believed for many years that communism only did not work because it was married with totalitarianism. But in fact, it cannot work without totalitarianism, as the backbone of communism - and socialism for that matter, if you're socialising all production - is removing personal freedoms.

But this isn't true. If the people wanted a full communist state they could bring it in democratically. And remove it again democratically if the wanted. Or vote for any blend of communism/socialism/capitalism/(other)ism (provided these are economic systems, not political systems).

That people might vote for (full) communism may seem far fetched, but then we live in a neo-liberal capitalist system which has been drifting away from socialism for 4 decades now. Had we been drifting in the opposite direction, it might seem reasonable.

NB none of this is to suggest that I want a communist state (I don't, although I want more socialist and communist elements in our society).

If communism explicitly forbids personal financial betterment by denying individuals the chance to own the means of production, is that not by definition totalitarianism?

Even if it's not, I'd argue it is in everything but name. You are in complete subservience to the state for all things. You have no control over anything you do, pretty much, as everything is mandated by the state.

That doesn't sound positive. Communism denies the right to individualism by pushing the collective (the commune, as it were) to the front and centre.

If people want individualism, and to break free of the system, they by necessity break the actual system. So in order to sustain the system, the system must crush any opposition before it becomes too large to handle. Because if one person is selling raw milk on the side, that's a small problem. But if 10% of the population are getting their milk from a source outside of "community" control, suddenly you have a major threat to the system.

From Wikipedia:
Totalitarianism is a term for a political system or form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power has often been held by autocrats who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media.Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extensive political repression, a complete lack of democracy, widespread personality cultism, absolute control over the economy, massive censorship, mass surveillance, limited freedom of movement (most notably freedom to leave the country) and widespread use of state terrorism.

Let me paint a picture of a democratic communist state, an example of how one could be run:
Ownership of expensive items such as cars, houses, gems, precious metals is prohibited (or in the case of jewelry, limited and recorded). Business is state owned. Citizens are paid within a limited range, eg a basic universal income is paid and this is increased due to seniority (in work) to a maximum of 4xbasic level. Paid currency expires after 12 months (or perhaps depreciates over the second 12 months). Property and vehicles are rented (from the state) with this currency. Foreign holidays (and a limited amount of foreign currency) can be bought (otherwise the currency can't be transferred abroad); gifts and private transactions are limited.
Elections are regularly held. Communist parties are clearly the most popular, but there are minority capitalist parties too. There is freedom of speech and movement. Health, education, justice and care are available freely to all. Choice of education and work is open to all (rationed by ability). Emigration is allowed, after a certain period (years) for reflection and setting up abroad, the individual will transfer nationality and receive a payment to reflect their share in the state (obviously, immigration followed immediately by emigration isn't allowed).

This picture is quite different from our society but is better at least in some ways. Would you agree it's not totalitarian? Many of the negative aspects you list (eg complete subservience to the state) do not apply here.

[Stom]

But this isn't true. If the people wanted a full communist state they could bring it in democratically. And remove it again democratically if the wanted. Or vote for any blend of communism/socialism/capitalism/(other)ism (provided these are economic systems, not political systems).

That people might vote for (full) communism may seem far fetched, but then we live in a neo-liberal capitalist system which has been drifting away from socialism for 4 decades now. Had we been drifting in the opposite direction, it might seem reasonable.

NB none of this is to suggest that I want a communist state (I don't, although I want more socialist and communist elements in our society).

If communism explicitly forbids personal financial betterment by denying individuals the chance to own the means of production, is that not by definition totalitarianism?

Even if it's not, I'd argue it is in everything but name. You are in complete subservience to the state for all things. You have no control over anything you do, pretty much, as everything is mandated by the state.

That doesn't sound positive. Communism denies the right to individualism by pushing the collective (the commune, as it were) to the front and centre.

If people want individualism, and to break free of the system, they by necessity break the actual system. So in order to sustain the system, the system must crush any opposition before it becomes too large to handle. Because if one person is selling raw milk on the side, that's a small problem. But if 10% of the population are getting their milk from a source outside of "community" control, suddenly you have a major threat to the system.

From Wikipedia:
Totalitarianism is a term for a political system or form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power has often been held by autocrats who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media.Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extensive political repression, a complete lack of democracy, widespread personality cultism, absolute control over the economy, massive censorship, mass surveillance, limited freedom of movement (most notably freedom to leave the country) and widespread use of state terrorism.

Let me paint a picture of a democratic communist state, an example of how one could be run:
Ownership of expensive items such as cars, houses, gems, precious metals is prohibited (or in the case of jewelry, limited and recorded). Business is state owned. Citizens are paid within a limited range, eg a basic universal income is paid and this is increased due to seniority (in work) to a maximum of 4xbasic level. Paid currency expires after 12 months (or perhaps depreciates over the second 12 months). Property and vehicles are rented (from the state) with this currency. Foreign holidays (and a limited amount of foreign currency) can be bought (otherwise the currency can't be transferred abroad); gifts and private transactions are limited.
Elections are regularly held. Communist parties are clearly the most popular, but there are minority capitalist parties too. There is freedom of speech and movement. Health, education, justice and care are available freely to all. Choice of education and work is open to all (rationed by ability). Emigration is allowed, after a certain period (years) for reflection and setting up abroad, the individual will transfer nationality and receive a payment to reflect their share in the state (obviously, immigration followed immediately by emigration isn't allowed).

This picture is quite different from our society but is better at least in some ways. Would you agree it's not totalitarian? Many of the negative aspects you list (eg complete subservience to the state) do not apply here.

Firstly, Wiki?

Secondly: restricts opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high control over public and private life.

Well...I'd say that's a pretty clear description of Communism. You cannot own goods. As soon as you strive for ownership, you a threat to the system. So your opposition immediately results in oppression in some form or other. If you allow anyone the opportunity to better their situation, you immediately create the end of your system. So you cannot allow it. Your opposition is restricted.

Seriously now. If opposition to the system would immediately break the system, the system must take measures to ensure it is not opposed.

Your description of a communist state would not work because you've failed to think about human nature. And that's entirely Peterson's point in his demolition of the Communist Manifesto.

We cannot ignore psychology when talking about sociology and we cannot ignore sociology when talking about politics. They are inexorably linked. A political and economic system that goes against human nature is doomed to failure...it's just a question of how brutally they want to try to make it work.