Postmodern Marxism vs Post Capitalism / Jordan Peterson

[Stom]

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

Again, I'm coming back to this. Can you explain why you think this? It might give me more insight into your thinking.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

I don't understand your question about Wiki.

Tell me how my example:
1) restricts opposition to the state and
2) its claims,
3) exercises an extremely high control over public and
4) private life, and
5) means that opposition to the state results in oppression.

Can I assume when you say I've failed to think about human nature you're referring to the above? Otherwise please expand, thanks.

[Stom]

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.

I don't understand your question about Wiki.

Tell me how my example:
1) restricts opposition to the state and
2) its claims,
3) exercises an extremely high control over public and
4) private life, and
5) means that opposition to the state results in oppression.

Can I assume when you say I've failed to think about human nature you're referring to the above? Otherwise please expand, thanks.

In order for us to continue, it's very important to understand that Communism cannot function if parts of society are capitalist. If the black market grows and grows, you need to quash that. So when, in Communist Romania (and I'm assuming elsewhere based on film and literature, I just have first hand accounts of Romania, my father-in-law was a Hungarian gynaecologist there so had the odd position of being both very powerful and very dangerous), people started coming home with hams that they did not buy from the state, those people were put under surveillance to discover how they were getting the hams. If the person selling them the hams was discovered, they were arrested.

So, considering the state is all under Communism, as soon as that person starts selling hams, he is opposing the state. At which point the state takes action against him. If it does not do so, the black market will thrive and communism won't exist anymore. And considering people always want something better...

Hell, it happened in the UK, too, with the ration books. People traded them for something else they wanted. Because not every person wants the same thing. So if you prescribe the same thing to everyone, they're going to trade...they're going to, well, use what they have as capital.

So, now we've established that any divergence from the state-controlled "norm" is a direct and tangible threat to the system, and that the system wants to exist (or the powers in control of the system want it to exist), that system must resist that divergence in any way possible.

So...

1) Divergence from the system is punishable immediately - a pretty obvious definition of restriction of opposition
2) It's claims means, in this case, the means of production. So, in my hams example, the man is sent to prison and his slaughterhouse/farm is confiscated from his family, it should belong to the state. Immediate restriction of opposition.
3) You are unable to exercise personal control over what you eat, where you eat it, what activities you take part in. And then, by extension, because of the nature of the system, you'll lose control over who you meet. Because certain people will be under surveillance because they came home with a leg of lamb and their daughter told her nursery teacher (almost true story - the daughter is my wife).
4) By extension the same as 3)
5) I don't need this, right? I mean, we've pretty much covered that.

Look, it's very simple.

When the basic premise is that everyone has the same, people will always want more. They will start trading in the black market, which is a form of capitalism, and they will become a threat to the state. So any time you want something better for yourself or your family, be it access to certain foods, a holiday, certain literature, or even an abortion, you're going to have to go to the black market and take part in the destruction of the system.

Left unchecked, it will result in the destruction of the system alone.

Checked, it will result in the incarceration and death of thousands and potentially millions of people who just wanted an opportunity to create a better life for themselves.

It is a flawed premise because it forgets human nature.

[cashead]

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

Again, I'm coming back to this. Can you explain why you think this? It might give me more insight into your thinking.

No.

[Stom]

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

Again, I'm coming back to this. Can you explain why you think this? It might give me more insight into your thinking.

No.

Ok, thank you for that. Then I guess I’ll just remain in the dark as to why zizek won that debate, as it really was not apparent to me.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

I don't understand your question about Wiki.

Tell me how my example:
1) restricts opposition to the state and
2) its claims,
3) exercises an extremely high control over public and
4) private life, and
5) means that opposition to the state results in oppression.

Can I assume when you say I've failed to think about human nature you're referring to the above? Otherwise please expand, thanks.

In order for us to continue, it's very important to understand that Communism cannot function if parts of society are capitalist. If the black market grows and grows, you need to quash that. So when, in Communist Romania (and I'm assuming elsewhere based on film and literature, I just have first hand accounts of Romania, my father-in-law was a Hungarian gynaecologist there so had the odd position of being both very powerful and very dangerous), people started coming home with hams that they did not buy from the state, those people were put under surveillance to discover how they were getting the hams. If the person selling them the hams was discovered, they were arrested.

So, considering the state is all under Communism, as soon as that person starts selling hams, he is opposing the state. At which point the state takes action against him. If it does not do so, the black market will thrive and communism won't exist anymore. And considering people always want something better...

Hell, it happened in the UK, too, with the ration books. People traded them for something else they wanted. Because not every person wants the same thing. So if you prescribe the same thing to everyone, they're going to trade...they're going to, well, use what they have as capital.

So, now we've established that any divergence from the state-controlled "norm" is a direct and tangible threat to the system, and that the system wants to exist (or the powers in control of the system want it to exist), that system must resist that divergence in any way possible.

So...

1) Divergence from the system is punishable immediately - a pretty obvious definition of restriction of opposition
2) It's claims means, in this case, the means of production. So, in my hams example, the man is sent to prison and his slaughterhouse/farm is confiscated from his family, it should belong to the state. Immediate restriction of opposition.
3) You are unable to exercise personal control over what you eat, where you eat it, what activities you take part in. And then, by extension, because of the nature of the system, you'll lose control over who you meet. Because certain people will be under surveillance because they came home with a leg of lamb and their daughter told her nursery teacher (almost true story - the daughter is my wife).
4) By extension the same as 3)
5) I don't need this, right? I mean, we've pretty much covered that.

Look, it's very simple.

When the basic premise is that everyone has the same, people will always want more. They will start trading in the black market, which is a form of capitalism, and they will become a threat to the state. So any time you want something better for yourself or your family, be it access to certain foods, a holiday, certain literature, or even an abortion, you're going to have to go to the black market and take part in the destruction of the system.

Left unchecked, it will result in the destruction of the system alone.

Checked, it will result in the incarceration and death of thousands and potentially millions of people who just wanted an opportunity to create a better life for themselves.

It is a flawed premise because it forgets human nature.

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying about the flaws in despotic communism. But I don't think this applies to my example of democratic communism. Would you mind re-reading my example and seeing if your criticisms apply to it?

[Stom]

I don't understand your question about Wiki.

Tell me how my example:
1) restricts opposition to the state and
2) its claims,
3) exercises an extremely high control over public and
4) private life, and
5) means that opposition to the state results in oppression.

Can I assume when you say I've failed to think about human nature you're referring to the above? Otherwise please expand, thanks.

In order for us to continue, it's very important to understand that Communism cannot function if parts of society are capitalist. If the black market grows and grows, you need to quash that. So when, in Communist Romania (and I'm assuming elsewhere based on film and literature, I just have first hand accounts of Romania, my father-in-law was a Hungarian gynaecologist there so had the odd position of being both very powerful and very dangerous), people started coming home with hams that they did not buy from the state, those people were put under surveillance to discover how they were getting the hams. If the person selling them the hams was discovered, they were arrested.

So, considering the state is all under Communism, as soon as that person starts selling hams, he is opposing the state. At which point the state takes action against him. If it does not do so, the black market will thrive and communism won't exist anymore. And considering people always want something better...

Hell, it happened in the UK, too, with the ration books. People traded them for something else they wanted. Because not every person wants the same thing. So if you prescribe the same thing to everyone, they're going to trade...they're going to, well, use what they have as capital.

So, now we've established that any divergence from the state-controlled "norm" is a direct and tangible threat to the system, and that the system wants to exist (or the powers in control of the system want it to exist), that system must resist that divergence in any way possible.

So...

1) Divergence from the system is punishable immediately - a pretty obvious definition of restriction of opposition
2) It's claims means, in this case, the means of production. So, in my hams example, the man is sent to prison and his slaughterhouse/farm is confiscated from his family, it should belong to the state. Immediate restriction of opposition.
3) You are unable to exercise personal control over what you eat, where you eat it, what activities you take part in. And then, by extension, because of the nature of the system, you'll lose control over who you meet. Because certain people will be under surveillance because they came home with a leg of lamb and their daughter told her nursery teacher (almost true story - the daughter is my wife).
4) By extension the same as 3)
5) I don't need this, right? I mean, we've pretty much covered that.

Look, it's very simple.

When the basic premise is that everyone has the same, people will always want more. They will start trading in the black market, which is a form of capitalism, and they will become a threat to the state. So any time you want something better for yourself or your family, be it access to certain foods, a holiday, certain literature, or even an abortion, you're going to have to go to the black market and take part in the destruction of the system.

Left unchecked, it will result in the destruction of the system alone.

Checked, it will result in the incarceration and death of thousands and potentially millions of people who just wanted an opportunity to create a better life for themselves.

It is a flawed premise because it forgets human nature.

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying about the flaws in despotic communism. But I don't think this applies to my example of democratic communism. Would you mind re-reading my example and seeing if your criticisms apply to it?

OK, there's no point in continuing if I can't get across the entire premise.

For Communism to survive, it needs to be absolute. If people are trading things outside of the system, that is a threat to the system. The system either has to eliminate the threats or die.

Ergo, it's impossible to have Communism without totalitarianism, as the people who are threatening the system need to be eliminated in one way or another. Silenced, locked up, or killed. And if they are not eliminated, capitalism will just eat the system apart from within.

[Stom]

By the way, I just wanted to say this somewhere and this felt like the perfect place.

I do believe strongly that it is the individual's responsibility to correct the problems in their life. To try and better themselves.

It is the state's responsibility to facilitate this.

That's why I can be both strongly for personal responsibility AND social responsibility, as well as for changes to the way we are governed, both socially and economically.

It's why LGBT rights, fights against domestic violence, and BLM are so important, because when you have strong inequality against a group who are being pushed down, you're limiting their chances to be able to correct the problems in their life. If a poor black man is seriously struggling in his life and steals a loaf of bread, goes to prison for that, confronts his own personal problems and yet cannot improve his life drastically because he is unable to shake his "conviction" for stealing $0.60, while a rich white man can embezzle $6m from taxpayers, get a slap on the wrist and do it all again without even trying to confront his own personal problems...

That's a broken system: the state is not facilitating individual responsibility. Far from it, the state is facilitating irresponsibility.

I don't see this as a cry for Marxism, unless Marxism means humanism.

The most important tenets of capitalism were regulation and restriction of monopoly, two tenets that have been discarded in this post-capitalist world we now live in. Bring them back and you return some of that equality/egalitarianism.

But does that mean we should engage in a cultural war? Should we raise children as genderless? I saw an article about this. The parents did not assign a gender to the child and let them pick their own clothes, the design and colour scheme of their room, and so on. All absolutely fine.

But they also only read literature to the child that conformed their views. That talked about gender fluidity. Is this not the same as imposing a gender role? Are you not just doing the exact same thing but with genderlessness?

We have many pictures of our son in a dress, with hairclips in his hair, and pushing a pink pushchair. We always let him do what he wanted with that. But he grew out of it. When he's given free choice on what to do, he picks cars and planes now, not dolls. He's never had them pushed onto him, it was his free choice. We never vetted his literature for gender roles, we just read simple stories where the gender of the character is not important. And it helps that in Hungarian, there is no he/she, only ő.

BUT, and this is the important thing, that is their choice.

I choose how much I'm paid. Under Communism, I would not have that choice. I would not be able to choose my hours and set my rates so I could work the right number of hours. I would not be able to work from home, probably, because there would be no need for marketing if everything was controlled by the state. I'd need to engage in state-sponsored labour of some kind or other. What would that mean?

I wouldn't be able to choose to go on holiday as and when I wanted, to decide what to do with my money, and so on, because I can't choose to work harder in order to make more than my neighbour. Who, by the way, is someone who has chosen to work his shit off for the first 25 years of his adult life so he can move abroad and spend all his days gardening and having fun rather than working. His factory brings in the money while he does what he wants. He couldn't do that under Communism.

If Marxism merely means Humanist Capitalism, then colour me a Marxist and let's be done with it. But in that debate, Zizek did not outline what Marxism meant in response to Peterson's failure to define it satisfactorily. And in the comments, there were plenty of people explaining that Peterson didn't know what Marxism is, and that the Communist Manifesto isn't Marxism, but none of them explained what Marxism therefore is.

[cashead]

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.

Was profitable. Kermit tanked his patreon a while ago because... reasons, and has failed at every turn to create an angry white man alternative since. This pattern of self-immolation and slitting each others throats because they can't help but tattle on each other has meant that the alt-right grifters either lose their patronage by virtue of becoming an embarrassment, or they fly too close to the sun and implode.

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.

No no, you got it in one.

[cashead]

But in that debate, Zizek did not outline what Marxism meant in response to Peterson's failure to define it satisfactorily. And in the comments, there were plenty of people explaining that Peterson didn't know what Marxism is, and that the Communist Manifesto isn't Marxism, but none of them explained what Marxism therefore is.

The Ziz didn't have to do a fucking thing, because jorp, who did basically near zero research and thought he could wing it in a debate against one of the foremost philosophers of our time, fell apart when he was asked to define the terms he kept banging on about, and couldn't.

Question: What the fuck does "post-modern Marxism" even mean?

Answer: Nothing. It's a bullshit nebulous term that doesn't mean a goddamned fucking thing.

[Stom]

But in that debate, Zizek did not outline what Marxism meant in response to Peterson's failure to define it satisfactorily. And in the comments, there were plenty of people explaining that Peterson didn't know what Marxism is, and that the Communist Manifesto isn't Marxism, but none of them explained what Marxism therefore is.

The Ziz didn't have to do a fucking thing, because jorp, who did basically near zero research and thought he could wing it in a debate against one of the foremost philosophers of our time, fell apart when he was asked to define the terms he kept banging on about, and couldn't.

Question: What the fuck does "post-modern Marxism" even mean?

Answer: Nothing. It's a bullshit nebulous term that doesn't mean a goddamned fucking thing.

He did define it, though. Just not satisfactorily for Zizek, or you it seems. So what does Marxism stand for? I tried to look up a modern definition of Marxism, albeit briefly, but I could only find refutations of capitalism, not the framework for a system or belief.

But all those do hold the class struggle as a central tenet, so I'd say Peterson's categorisation was not necessarily an incorrect one.

[Son of Mathonwy]

In order for us to continue, it's very important to understand that Communism cannot function if parts of society are capitalist. If the black market grows and grows, you need to quash that. So when, in Communist Romania (and I'm assuming elsewhere based on film and literature, I just have first hand accounts of Romania, my father-in-law was a Hungarian gynaecologist there so had the odd position of being both very powerful and very dangerous), people started coming home with hams that they did not buy from the state, those people were put under surveillance to discover how they were getting the hams. If the person selling them the hams was discovered, they were arrested.

So, considering the state is all under Communism, as soon as that person starts selling hams, he is opposing the state. At which point the state takes action against him. If it does not do so, the black market will thrive and communism won't exist anymore. And considering people always want something better...

Hell, it happened in the UK, too, with the ration books. People traded them for something else they wanted. Because not every person wants the same thing. So if you prescribe the same thing to everyone, they're going to trade...they're going to, well, use what they have as capital.

So, now we've established that any divergence from the state-controlled "norm" is a direct and tangible threat to the system, and that the system wants to exist (or the powers in control of the system want it to exist), that system must resist that divergence in any way possible.

So...

1) Divergence from the system is punishable immediately - a pretty obvious definition of restriction of opposition
2) It's claims means, in this case, the means of production. So, in my hams example, the man is sent to prison and his slaughterhouse/farm is confiscated from his family, it should belong to the state. Immediate restriction of opposition.
3) You are unable to exercise personal control over what you eat, where you eat it, what activities you take part in. And then, by extension, because of the nature of the system, you'll lose control over who you meet. Because certain people will be under surveillance because they came home with a leg of lamb and their daughter told her nursery teacher (almost true story - the daughter is my wife).
4) By extension the same as 3)
5) I don't need this, right? I mean, we've pretty much covered that.

Look, it's very simple.

When the basic premise is that everyone has the same, people will always want more. They will start trading in the black market, which is a form of capitalism, and they will become a threat to the state. So any time you want something better for yourself or your family, be it access to certain foods, a holiday, certain literature, or even an abortion, you're going to have to go to the black market and take part in the destruction of the system.

Left unchecked, it will result in the destruction of the system alone.

Checked, it will result in the incarceration and death of thousands and potentially millions of people who just wanted an opportunity to create a better life for themselves.

It is a flawed premise because it forgets human nature.

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying about the flaws in despotic communism. But I don't think this applies to my example of democratic communism. Would you mind re-reading my example and seeing if your criticisms apply to it?

OK, there's no point in continuing if I can't get across the entire premise.

For Communism to survive, it needs to be absolute. If people are trading things outside of the system, that is a threat to the system. The system either has to eliminate the threats or die.

Ergo, it's impossible to have Communism without totalitarianism, as the people who are threatening the system need to be eliminated in one way or another. Silenced, locked up, or killed. And if they are not eliminated, capitalism will just eat the system apart from within.

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

[cashead]

But in that debate, Zizek did not outline what Marxism meant in response to Peterson's failure to define it satisfactorily. And in the comments, there were plenty of people explaining that Peterson didn't know what Marxism is, and that the Communist Manifesto isn't Marxism, but none of them explained what Marxism therefore is.

The Ziz didn't have to do a fucking thing, because jorp, who did basically near zero research and thought he could wing it in a debate against one of the foremost philosophers of our time, fell apart when he was asked to define the terms he kept banging on about, and couldn't.

Question: What the fuck does "post-modern Marxism" even mean?

Answer: Nothing. It's a bullshit nebulous term that doesn't mean a goddamned fucking thing.

He did define it, though. Just not satisfactorily for Zizek, or you it seems. So what does Marxism stand for? I tried to look up a modern definition of Marxism, albeit briefly, but I could only find refutations of capitalism, not the framework for a system or belief.

But all those do hold the class struggle as a central tenet, so I'd say Peterson's categorisation was not necessarily an incorrect one.

I don't give a shit about what jerp thinks "Marxism" means, what's "postmodern Marxism," what is it, and who are the "postmodern Marxists" that he goes on about? He can't really provide an answer, because it's a nebulous bullshit term, like "political correctness" that means jack fucking shit.

[Stom]

The Ziz didn't have to do a fucking thing, because jorp, who did basically near zero research and thought he could wing it in a debate against one of the foremost philosophers of our time, fell apart when he was asked to define the terms he kept banging on about, and couldn't.

Question: What the fuck does "post-modern Marxism" even mean?

Answer: Nothing. It's a bullshit nebulous term that doesn't mean a goddamned fucking thing.

He did define it, though. Just not satisfactorily for Zizek, or you it seems. So what does Marxism stand for? I tried to look up a modern definition of Marxism, albeit briefly, but I could only find refutations of capitalism, not the framework for a system or belief.

But all those do hold the class struggle as a central tenet, so I'd say Peterson's categorisation was not necessarily an incorrect one.

I don't give a shit about what jerp thinks "Marxism" means, what's "postmodern Marxism," what is it, and who are the "postmodern Marxists" that he goes on about? He can't really provide an answer, because it's a nebulous bullshit term, like "political correctness" that means jack fucking shit.

OK, but what about anyone else? What about yourself? How do you define it for yourself? And why does it annoy you so much?

[Stom]

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying about the flaws in despotic communism. But I don't think this applies to my example of democratic communism. Would you mind re-reading my example and seeing if your criticisms apply to it?

OK, there's no point in continuing if I can't get across the entire premise.

For Communism to survive, it needs to be absolute. If people are trading things outside of the system, that is a threat to the system. The system either has to eliminate the threats or die.

Ergo, it's impossible to have Communism without totalitarianism, as the people who are threatening the system need to be eliminated in one way or another. Silenced, locked up, or killed. And if they are not eliminated, capitalism will just eat the system apart from within.

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

[Stom]

The Ziz didn't have to do a fucking thing, because jorp, who did basically near zero research and thought he could wing it in a debate against one of the foremost philosophers of our time, fell apart when he was asked to define the terms he kept banging on about, and couldn't.

Question: What the fuck does "post-modern Marxism" even mean?

Answer: Nothing. It's a bullshit nebulous term that doesn't mean a goddamned fucking thing.

He did define it, though. Just not satisfactorily for Zizek, or you it seems. So what does Marxism stand for? I tried to look up a modern definition of Marxism, albeit briefly, but I could only find refutations of capitalism, not the framework for a system or belief.

But all those do hold the class struggle as a central tenet, so I'd say Peterson's categorisation was not necessarily an incorrect one.

I don't give a shit about what jerp thinks "Marxism" means, what's "postmodern Marxism," what is it, and who are the "postmodern Marxists" that he goes on about? He can't really provide an answer, because it's a nebulous bullshit term, like "political correctness" that means jack fucking shit.

And, by the way, I think we got off on the wrong foot in this debate because I didn't make my own position on Peterson clear.

I'm not a huge fan of his politics. I think he has a tendency to take his psychological thoughts too far into politics and extrapolate them, which can have major issues. It also stems from the politics he encounters on a day-to-day basis - or did.

I do like his psychological stuff because he is a very eloquent a clear speaker who can simplify complex topics and provide very interesting observations around human behaviour. I like him both from a personal development POV and from a professional POV (as my job is essentially the sociology and psychology of selling, after all).

Hell, I avoid his politicisations as can be seen by the fact I posted this thread now, having only now really jigged about the "post-modern Marxism". I am genuinely interested in what that means, in what it pertains to, and in how modern Marxists see it as different from their own beliefs (and also in how it differs from a classical view of Marxism).

Considering I did study politics at A-level, I haven't been exposed to nearly as much Marx as I should have. I've read the Communist Manifesto more than 15 years ago and I don't really want to go back to it as I remember it as dull and clunky.

But it is interesting that I wasn't given more tutoring in Marx, considering the impact he had on our society and our politics.

So I am genuinely interested in what Marxism means to people now and why Peterson's term of post-modern Marxism causes such pain when it does seem to fit (from the outside at least).

I hope we can actually talk about it. I am far from alt-right, I consider myself a "humanist", someone who believes the state should exist to allow individuals to better themselves. Which means my politics does borrow heavily from the left, not the right (though there are definitely some more right of centre elements, I think that's natural in a concept outside of traditional left vs right politics.

[Puja]

OK, there's no point in continuing if I can't get across the entire premise.

For Communism to survive, it needs to be absolute. If people are trading things outside of the system, that is a threat to the system. The system either has to eliminate the threats or die.

Ergo, it's impossible to have Communism without totalitarianism, as the people who are threatening the system need to be eliminated in one way or another. Silenced, locked up, or killed. And if they are not eliminated, capitalism will just eat the system apart from within.

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

Personally, if I were inventing a communist system, I'd go with option c) the chicken taxing excess wealth into oblivion, rather than "arresting someone, or worse". Not that I'd be in favour of that system myself, but it is perfectly possible without going into repression.

This discussion made me think of this system which I saw a few years back about a fictional sci-fi economy (in the text under the comic):

I've actually been doing a lot of thinking - on Lily's behalf - about the financial system of Florenovia. As Ellen mentioned, it's a welfare state with an asset tax, and it's very focused on rates and subscriptions. The interesting thing is that I came up with this before I was aware Patreon was even a thing, and before my Mom signed up for Netflix or for the local farming collective deal that gets her a box of fresh local produce once a week, so maybe the world's already moving in that direction. Here's how it goes:

Let's say you live in an apartment in a Florenovian city, and your rent is a thousand credits per month. That's about typical, depending on location. Now, your rent isn't charged by the month - it isn't charged at 33.3 credits per day or even 1.4 credits per hour... no, your rent is the low, low price of .000386 credits (or 386 microcreds) per second.

Now, there are some other services you need to pay for - no, not Internet access, silly! Imagine, the barbarism of forcing someone to pay for necessities like cloud access or tap water or oxygen or medical care! No, no, of course not. But there's this company, DisnMarvxar, and they've been making a lot of really good movies lately, so you want to subscribe to their channel allowing you to stream from that catalogue of movies whenever you like. That service is only ten credits per month, or 4 microcreds per second, so let's add that one to the list as well.

We'll subscribe to a few more services - a local auto-piloted go-anywhere taxi service, a gym membership, a bot-on-demand automated butler/personal assistant service, a couple of reputable charities... and now we're spending about 600 microcreds per second, or about 1555 credits per month, give or take.

Fortunately, as a citizen of Florenovia, we're entitled to a stipend simply for being alive. This stipend is fixed to certain economic indicators such as property prices, food, et cetera, and is intended to be enough for a single person to live alone in relative comfort, even if she chooses to do nothing but lie around, watch DisnMarvxar movies and masturbate all day. Right now, it's fixed at around 2000 microcreds per second. That means we've got 2000 coming in every second and 600 going out... not bad! Even if we do nothing else, our bank account is growing by 1400 microcreds every second!

Ah, but then there's that asset tax. The tax rates are also pegged to economic indicators, and right now the tax woman takes a whopping .001% out of your bank account... every second! So the two rates eventually converge until that .001% is equal to your total cash flow... and your bank account reaches equilibrium at 140 credits, which is your spending money. If you go out and buy something that's a hundred credits, your account will slowly fill back up over the course of the day.

Now, let's say this isn't enough for you, and you want more than what the stipend is paying out. Well, most manual labour, construction, transport, customer service, agriculture, and so forth is all done by robots, but fortunately, you've got a half-dozen industrial design certifications, so you're going to get a job at Toyotsubishi designing the next generation of monorails. Toyotsubishi pays you 2000 microcreds a second as long as you're employed there, which doesn't sound like much until you consider that this is in addition to the 2000 we all get simply for being alive - your total income is now 4000 microcreds per second, which means you can increase your per-second expenditures from 600 to 1000, and still have enough that your spending money at any given time is 300 credits!

So you move into a bigger place, the rent on this one is 2100 microcredits per second... and you lose your job. Oh no! Does that mean that, in only a few minutes, you're going to be evicted? Well, fortunately, like all employers, while Toyotsubishi was paying you, they were sending an additional 10% of your salary (or 200 microcreds per second) to a tax-sheltered (but also interest-sheltered) container. When Toyotsubishi fired you, the money that was being diverted into that container now comes back out at a rate equal to the original salary... meaning that if you worked for them for ten months, you still have an additional month during which you collect that 2000 microcreds per second, giving you plenty of time to either find a new job or move back to a cheaper apartment.

So what happens if you want to buy something that's worth more than your spending limit, such as a vehicle? Well, let's say you want a new car that's 12,000 credits (or 12 kilocreds), and you negotiate a pay rate of 400 microcreds per second, which means you'll have it paid off in about a year, give or take. Careful, though! Once something like a car is in your possession, a portion of its real-time blue book value is added to the assets against which you have to pay taxes!

But what happens if the person you're dealing with doesn't want to set up a leasing scheme like that - they want their money now! Well, you can set up a loan with yourself. This chick wants a grand, so I'm going to give her a thousand credits right now, and set that debt aside in a container where it stays unmolested by interest rates or taxes, and set up a payment rate towards it of 100 microcreds per second, meaning that I'll be in the black with myself in about three months.

Conversely, of course, if someone gives you a large lump sum of money - or, say, you get your birthright bid of ten megacreds that pays out once you attain your License of Financial Autonomy - you can put that into a tax and interest-sheltered container and have it dribble out to you at whatever rate you like. The containers have to be both tax and interest sheltered - anything that pays out interest would also be subject to taxes, and only the most brazen of con artists would suggest that they have some sort of fund that accumulates interest faster than taxes would erode it away.

Of course, if one is not careful with one's containers, one could find oneself drowning in a sea of self-inflicted red ink, which would warrant an investigation from government-funded Financial Consultants. Now, you may simply have fallen on hard times, in which case the FCs would be there to provide assistance, but in the event that you have chronic debt issues, you may be facing the revocation of your License of Financial Autonomy.

Education in Florenovia is focused around obtaining certifications and licenses, and there are three in particular that are considered to comprise baseline responsible adulthood - the License of Bodily Autonomy (which allows you to do such things as get tattoos, drink alcohol, or turn your sex drive on), the License of Residential Autonomy (which allows you to move out of your parents' or guardians' house), and the License of Financial Autonomy (which allows you access to your own bank account to make your own purchases). In much the same way that a self-harming drug addict might have their LBA revoked or a criminial mischief-maker might have their LRA revoked, someone who finds themselves consistently in the red would face the shame of having their LFA revoked, having all of their finances turned over to a government-provided personal accountant, and having to take remedial finance classes at the local high school.

"But Tailsteak", you say, "This economy is so focused around subscriptions and rates that one-time charges for things are almost meaningless. Why, if I gave someone ten credits, within a few hours, that transaction would be effectively undone! It's almost as if, in a post-scarcity economy where most physical work is done by robots, the focus is on services that enrich people's lives consistently, rather than one-time purchases of individual goods!"

And, of course, yes, you're correct.

Imagine you go to a fancy-schmancy restaurant. Their menu is much like a typical modern menu, and you can have a nice meal for around a hundred credits. Having just finished your meal, the robowaiter makes sure to inform you that you can purchase a membership to this restaurant for only fifty microcreds per second, which would allow you to come in and eat whenever you're in the neighbourhood... or go for the deluxe option of 100 microcreds per second, which would allow you access to the rarer wines, and would allow you to bring up to five guests at no additional charge! Which is better, in the long term, both for the restaurant and for the customer? Wouldn't you like to be able to walk into a fancy restaurant and tell your friends "Don't worry, I have a deluxe membership here, order whatever you like"?

This financial system addresses the main complaints with both capitalism and communism. The main flaw with capitalism is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer - in Florenovia, any large static fund doesn't accumulate interest, but rather erodes over time if left alone, and the wealth redistribution ensures that as far as you fall, you can never reach the level where you lack the necessities of life. The main flaw with communism is that a lack of competition and lack of need breeds complacency and eliminates the motivation to excel - in Florenovia, one is motivated to provide value in some way to one's fellow woman if one wishes to make larger discretionary purchases, to buy a seat in government, or have a daughter. Although women are free to abstain from work - and, indeed, most do - income is also seen as tangible proof of merit, usefulness, and contribution to society.

I think Lily's biases are clear in this system - she's a self-starting entrepreneur who values innovation and hard work that benefits one's chosen friends and family, but she's also a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that the disadvantaged don't necessarily deserve to starve and who likes a nice sturdy social safety net.

Anyway, I don't think all that is going to make it into the comic any time soon. I'm looking forward to seeing people's opinions about it in the forum, though.

I will note, I am not necessarily endorsing this (the theory, the comic, or the overthinking which the author has put into it), but I find the theory interesting.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

Personally, if I were inventing a communist system, I'd go with option c) the chicken taxing excess wealth into oblivion, rather than "arresting someone, or worse". Not that I'd be in favour of that system myself, but it is perfectly possible without going into repression.

This discussion made me think of this system which I saw a few years back about a fictional sci-fi economy (in the text under the comic):

I've actually been doing a lot of thinking - on Lily's behalf - about the financial system of Florenovia. As Ellen mentioned, it's a welfare state with an asset tax, and it's very focused on rates and subscriptions. The interesting thing is that I came up with this before I was aware Patreon was even a thing, and before my Mom signed up for Netflix or for the local farming collective deal that gets her a box of fresh local produce once a week, so maybe the world's already moving in that direction. Here's how it goes:

Let's say you live in an apartment in a Florenovian city, and your rent is a thousand credits per month. That's about typical, depending on location. Now, your rent isn't charged by the month - it isn't charged at 33.3 credits per day or even 1.4 credits per hour... no, your rent is the low, low price of .000386 credits (or 386 microcreds) per second.

Now, there are some other services you need to pay for - no, not Internet access, silly! Imagine, the barbarism of forcing someone to pay for necessities like cloud access or tap water or oxygen or medical care! No, no, of course not. But there's this company, DisnMarvxar, and they've been making a lot of really good movies lately, so you want to subscribe to their channel allowing you to stream from that catalogue of movies whenever you like. That service is only ten credits per month, or 4 microcreds per second, so let's add that one to the list as well.

We'll subscribe to a few more services - a local auto-piloted go-anywhere taxi service, a gym membership, a bot-on-demand automated butler/personal assistant service, a couple of reputable charities... and now we're spending about 600 microcreds per second, or about 1555 credits per month, give or take.

Fortunately, as a citizen of Florenovia, we're entitled to a stipend simply for being alive. This stipend is fixed to certain economic indicators such as property prices, food, et cetera, and is intended to be enough for a single person to live alone in relative comfort, even if she chooses to do nothing but lie around, watch DisnMarvxar movies and masturbate all day. Right now, it's fixed at around 2000 microcreds per second. That means we've got 2000 coming in every second and 600 going out... not bad! Even if we do nothing else, our bank account is growing by 1400 microcreds every second!

Ah, but then there's that asset tax. The tax rates are also pegged to economic indicators, and right now the tax woman takes a whopping .001% out of your bank account... every second! So the two rates eventually converge until that .001% is equal to your total cash flow... and your bank account reaches equilibrium at 140 credits, which is your spending money. If you go out and buy something that's a hundred credits, your account will slowly fill back up over the course of the day.

Now, let's say this isn't enough for you, and you want more than what the stipend is paying out. Well, most manual labour, construction, transport, customer service, agriculture, and so forth is all done by robots, but fortunately, you've got a half-dozen industrial design certifications, so you're going to get a job at Toyotsubishi designing the next generation of monorails. Toyotsubishi pays you 2000 microcreds a second as long as you're employed there, which doesn't sound like much until you consider that this is in addition to the 2000 we all get simply for being alive - your total income is now 4000 microcreds per second, which means you can increase your per-second expenditures from 600 to 1000, and still have enough that your spending money at any given time is 300 credits!

So you move into a bigger place, the rent on this one is 2100 microcredits per second... and you lose your job. Oh no! Does that mean that, in only a few minutes, you're going to be evicted? Well, fortunately, like all employers, while Toyotsubishi was paying you, they were sending an additional 10% of your salary (or 200 microcreds per second) to a tax-sheltered (but also interest-sheltered) container. When Toyotsubishi fired you, the money that was being diverted into that container now comes back out at a rate equal to the original salary... meaning that if you worked for them for ten months, you still have an additional month during which you collect that 2000 microcreds per second, giving you plenty of time to either find a new job or move back to a cheaper apartment.

So what happens if you want to buy something that's worth more than your spending limit, such as a vehicle? Well, let's say you want a new car that's 12,000 credits (or 12 kilocreds), and you negotiate a pay rate of 400 microcreds per second, which means you'll have it paid off in about a year, give or take. Careful, though! Once something like a car is in your possession, a portion of its real-time blue book value is added to the assets against which you have to pay taxes!

But what happens if the person you're dealing with doesn't want to set up a leasing scheme like that - they want their money now! Well, you can set up a loan with yourself. This chick wants a grand, so I'm going to give her a thousand credits right now, and set that debt aside in a container where it stays unmolested by interest rates or taxes, and set up a payment rate towards it of 100 microcreds per second, meaning that I'll be in the black with myself in about three months.

Conversely, of course, if someone gives you a large lump sum of money - or, say, you get your birthright bid of ten megacreds that pays out once you attain your License of Financial Autonomy - you can put that into a tax and interest-sheltered container and have it dribble out to you at whatever rate you like. The containers have to be both tax and interest sheltered - anything that pays out interest would also be subject to taxes, and only the most brazen of con artists would suggest that they have some sort of fund that accumulates interest faster than taxes would erode it away.

Of course, if one is not careful with one's containers, one could find oneself drowning in a sea of self-inflicted red ink, which would warrant an investigation from government-funded Financial Consultants. Now, you may simply have fallen on hard times, in which case the FCs would be there to provide assistance, but in the event that you have chronic debt issues, you may be facing the revocation of your License of Financial Autonomy.

Education in Florenovia is focused around obtaining certifications and licenses, and there are three in particular that are considered to comprise baseline responsible adulthood - the License of Bodily Autonomy (which allows you to do such things as get tattoos, drink alcohol, or turn your sex drive on), the License of Residential Autonomy (which allows you to move out of your parents' or guardians' house), and the License of Financial Autonomy (which allows you access to your own bank account to make your own purchases). In much the same way that a self-harming drug addict might have their LBA revoked or a criminial mischief-maker might have their LRA revoked, someone who finds themselves consistently in the red would face the shame of having their LFA revoked, having all of their finances turned over to a government-provided personal accountant, and having to take remedial finance classes at the local high school.

"But Tailsteak", you say, "This economy is so focused around subscriptions and rates that one-time charges for things are almost meaningless. Why, if I gave someone ten credits, within a few hours, that transaction would be effectively undone! It's almost as if, in a post-scarcity economy where most physical work is done by robots, the focus is on services that enrich people's lives consistently, rather than one-time purchases of individual goods!"

And, of course, yes, you're correct.

Imagine you go to a fancy-schmancy restaurant. Their menu is much like a typical modern menu, and you can have a nice meal for around a hundred credits. Having just finished your meal, the robowaiter makes sure to inform you that you can purchase a membership to this restaurant for only fifty microcreds per second, which would allow you to come in and eat whenever you're in the neighbourhood... or go for the deluxe option of 100 microcreds per second, which would allow you access to the rarer wines, and would allow you to bring up to five guests at no additional charge! Which is better, in the long term, both for the restaurant and for the customer? Wouldn't you like to be able to walk into a fancy restaurant and tell your friends "Don't worry, I have a deluxe membership here, order whatever you like"?

This financial system addresses the main complaints with both capitalism and communism. The main flaw with capitalism is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer - in Florenovia, any large static fund doesn't accumulate interest, but rather erodes over time if left alone, and the wealth redistribution ensures that as far as you fall, you can never reach the level where you lack the necessities of life. The main flaw with communism is that a lack of competition and lack of need breeds complacency and eliminates the motivation to excel - in Florenovia, one is motivated to provide value in some way to one's fellow woman if one wishes to make larger discretionary purchases, to buy a seat in government, or have a daughter. Although women are free to abstain from work - and, indeed, most do - income is also seen as tangible proof of merit, usefulness, and contribution to society.

I think Lily's biases are clear in this system - she's a self-starting entrepreneur who values innovation and hard work that benefits one's chosen friends and family, but she's also a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that the disadvantaged don't necessarily deserve to starve and who likes a nice sturdy social safety net.

Anyway, I don't think all that is going to make it into the comic any time soon. I'm looking forward to seeing people's opinions about it in the forum, though.

I will note, I am not necessarily endorsing this (the theory, the comic, or the overthinking which the author has put into it), but I find the theory interesting.

Puja

That's an interesting system. I think it brings about a situation which is not too different from my sketch of democratic communism, ie that no one can really accumulate much wealth, but one is safe from poverty; you're basically free to live as you want, buy what you want etc, as long as you stay within your means. You can't become rich but you can have a better lifestyle by working harder or being particularly skilled in something valued by society.

[Son of Mathonwy]

OK, there's no point in continuing if I can't get across the entire premise.

For Communism to survive, it needs to be absolute. If people are trading things outside of the system, that is a threat to the system. The system either has to eliminate the threats or die.

Ergo, it's impossible to have Communism without totalitarianism, as the people who are threatening the system need to be eliminated in one way or another. Silenced, locked up, or killed. And if they are not eliminated, capitalism will just eat the system apart from within.

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

It does matter what I've come up with (please read it - honestly it is worth reading a couple of paragraphs). You can't become rich in my system, but you can have a relatively richer or poorer lifestyle (and house, car etc) depending on how hard you work or how skilled you are.

The system does not penalise you for this - it encourages it. There won't be a black market for ham (or whatever) because it will be sold in your nearest (state-owned) supermarket. And should you break the law, well, there would be a warning or fines or whatever. What happens when someone breaks the law in the UK? Do fines and other punishments imply totalitarianism?

I understand your point, but I don't think it applies here.

[Stom]

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

Personally, if I were inventing a communist system, I'd go with option c) the chicken taxing excess wealth into oblivion, rather than "arresting someone, or worse". Not that I'd be in favour of that system myself, but it is perfectly possible without going into repression.

This discussion made me think of this system which I saw a few years back about a fictional sci-fi economy (in the text under the comic):

I've actually been doing a lot of thinking - on Lily's behalf - about the financial system of Florenovia. As Ellen mentioned, it's a welfare state with an asset tax, and it's very focused on rates and subscriptions. The interesting thing is that I came up with this before I was aware Patreon was even a thing, and before my Mom signed up for Netflix or for the local farming collective deal that gets her a box of fresh local produce once a week, so maybe the world's already moving in that direction. Here's how it goes:

Let's say you live in an apartment in a Florenovian city, and your rent is a thousand credits per month. That's about typical, depending on location. Now, your rent isn't charged by the month - it isn't charged at 33.3 credits per day or even 1.4 credits per hour... no, your rent is the low, low price of .000386 credits (or 386 microcreds) per second.

Now, there are some other services you need to pay for - no, not Internet access, silly! Imagine, the barbarism of forcing someone to pay for necessities like cloud access or tap water or oxygen or medical care! No, no, of course not. But there's this company, DisnMarvxar, and they've been making a lot of really good movies lately, so you want to subscribe to their channel allowing you to stream from that catalogue of movies whenever you like. That service is only ten credits per month, or 4 microcreds per second, so let's add that one to the list as well.

We'll subscribe to a few more services - a local auto-piloted go-anywhere taxi service, a gym membership, a bot-on-demand automated butler/personal assistant service, a couple of reputable charities... and now we're spending about 600 microcreds per second, or about 1555 credits per month, give or take.

Fortunately, as a citizen of Florenovia, we're entitled to a stipend simply for being alive. This stipend is fixed to certain economic indicators such as property prices, food, et cetera, and is intended to be enough for a single person to live alone in relative comfort, even if she chooses to do nothing but lie around, watch DisnMarvxar movies and masturbate all day. Right now, it's fixed at around 2000 microcreds per second. That means we've got 2000 coming in every second and 600 going out... not bad! Even if we do nothing else, our bank account is growing by 1400 microcreds every second!

Ah, but then there's that asset tax. The tax rates are also pegged to economic indicators, and right now the tax woman takes a whopping .001% out of your bank account... every second! So the two rates eventually converge until that .001% is equal to your total cash flow... and your bank account reaches equilibrium at 140 credits, which is your spending money. If you go out and buy something that's a hundred credits, your account will slowly fill back up over the course of the day.

Now, let's say this isn't enough for you, and you want more than what the stipend is paying out. Well, most manual labour, construction, transport, customer service, agriculture, and so forth is all done by robots, but fortunately, you've got a half-dozen industrial design certifications, so you're going to get a job at Toyotsubishi designing the next generation of monorails. Toyotsubishi pays you 2000 microcreds a second as long as you're employed there, which doesn't sound like much until you consider that this is in addition to the 2000 we all get simply for being alive - your total income is now 4000 microcreds per second, which means you can increase your per-second expenditures from 600 to 1000, and still have enough that your spending money at any given time is 300 credits!

So you move into a bigger place, the rent on this one is 2100 microcredits per second... and you lose your job. Oh no! Does that mean that, in only a few minutes, you're going to be evicted? Well, fortunately, like all employers, while Toyotsubishi was paying you, they were sending an additional 10% of your salary (or 200 microcreds per second) to a tax-sheltered (but also interest-sheltered) container. When Toyotsubishi fired you, the money that was being diverted into that container now comes back out at a rate equal to the original salary... meaning that if you worked for them for ten months, you still have an additional month during which you collect that 2000 microcreds per second, giving you plenty of time to either find a new job or move back to a cheaper apartment.

So what happens if you want to buy something that's worth more than your spending limit, such as a vehicle? Well, let's say you want a new car that's 12,000 credits (or 12 kilocreds), and you negotiate a pay rate of 400 microcreds per second, which means you'll have it paid off in about a year, give or take. Careful, though! Once something like a car is in your possession, a portion of its real-time blue book value is added to the assets against which you have to pay taxes!

But what happens if the person you're dealing with doesn't want to set up a leasing scheme like that - they want their money now! Well, you can set up a loan with yourself. This chick wants a grand, so I'm going to give her a thousand credits right now, and set that debt aside in a container where it stays unmolested by interest rates or taxes, and set up a payment rate towards it of 100 microcreds per second, meaning that I'll be in the black with myself in about three months.

Conversely, of course, if someone gives you a large lump sum of money - or, say, you get your birthright bid of ten megacreds that pays out once you attain your License of Financial Autonomy - you can put that into a tax and interest-sheltered container and have it dribble out to you at whatever rate you like. The containers have to be both tax and interest sheltered - anything that pays out interest would also be subject to taxes, and only the most brazen of con artists would suggest that they have some sort of fund that accumulates interest faster than taxes would erode it away.

Of course, if one is not careful with one's containers, one could find oneself drowning in a sea of self-inflicted red ink, which would warrant an investigation from government-funded Financial Consultants. Now, you may simply have fallen on hard times, in which case the FCs would be there to provide assistance, but in the event that you have chronic debt issues, you may be facing the revocation of your License of Financial Autonomy.

Education in Florenovia is focused around obtaining certifications and licenses, and there are three in particular that are considered to comprise baseline responsible adulthood - the License of Bodily Autonomy (which allows you to do such things as get tattoos, drink alcohol, or turn your sex drive on), the License of Residential Autonomy (which allows you to move out of your parents' or guardians' house), and the License of Financial Autonomy (which allows you access to your own bank account to make your own purchases). In much the same way that a self-harming drug addict might have their LBA revoked or a criminial mischief-maker might have their LRA revoked, someone who finds themselves consistently in the red would face the shame of having their LFA revoked, having all of their finances turned over to a government-provided personal accountant, and having to take remedial finance classes at the local high school.

"But Tailsteak", you say, "This economy is so focused around subscriptions and rates that one-time charges for things are almost meaningless. Why, if I gave someone ten credits, within a few hours, that transaction would be effectively undone! It's almost as if, in a post-scarcity economy where most physical work is done by robots, the focus is on services that enrich people's lives consistently, rather than one-time purchases of individual goods!"

And, of course, yes, you're correct.

Imagine you go to a fancy-schmancy restaurant. Their menu is much like a typical modern menu, and you can have a nice meal for around a hundred credits. Having just finished your meal, the robowaiter makes sure to inform you that you can purchase a membership to this restaurant for only fifty microcreds per second, which would allow you to come in and eat whenever you're in the neighbourhood... or go for the deluxe option of 100 microcreds per second, which would allow you access to the rarer wines, and would allow you to bring up to five guests at no additional charge! Which is better, in the long term, both for the restaurant and for the customer? Wouldn't you like to be able to walk into a fancy restaurant and tell your friends "Don't worry, I have a deluxe membership here, order whatever you like"?

This financial system addresses the main complaints with both capitalism and communism. The main flaw with capitalism is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer - in Florenovia, any large static fund doesn't accumulate interest, but rather erodes over time if left alone, and the wealth redistribution ensures that as far as you fall, you can never reach the level where you lack the necessities of life. The main flaw with communism is that a lack of competition and lack of need breeds complacency and eliminates the motivation to excel - in Florenovia, one is motivated to provide value in some way to one's fellow woman if one wishes to make larger discretionary purchases, to buy a seat in government, or have a daughter. Although women are free to abstain from work - and, indeed, most do - income is also seen as tangible proof of merit, usefulness, and contribution to society.

I think Lily's biases are clear in this system - she's a self-starting entrepreneur who values innovation and hard work that benefits one's chosen friends and family, but she's also a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that the disadvantaged don't necessarily deserve to starve and who likes a nice sturdy social safety net.

Anyway, I don't think all that is going to make it into the comic any time soon. I'm looking forward to seeing people's opinions about it in the forum, though.

I will note, I am not necessarily endorsing this (the theory, the comic, or the overthinking which the author has put into it), but I find the theory interesting.

Puja

If there are private companies, I’d argue it’s not communism, it’s a form of socialism.

[Stom]

Stom, I think we can have this conversation but you need to read what I've said.

I've described a version of democratic communism (invented in 30 minutes so it's sketchy) but I don't see where your argument about communism being impossible without totalitarianism applies to it. In particular, nowhere does it say you are forced to buy certain things, or do certain work, or not be able to work from home (if feasible for the type of work).

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

It does matter what I've come up with (please read it - honestly it is worth reading a couple of paragraphs). You can't become rich in my system, but you can have a relatively richer or poorer lifestyle (and house, car etc) depending on how hard you work or how skilled you are.

The system does not penalise you for this - it encourages it. There won't be a black market for ham (or whatever) because it will be sold in your nearest (state-owned) supermarket. And should you break the law, well, there would be a warning or fines or whatever. What happens when someone breaks the law in the UK? Do fines and other punishments imply totalitarianism?

I understand your point, but I don't think it applies here.

It's not that I didn't read it, I did, I just feel that by limiting people's ability to improve their position, you're going to see them break the system. I don't think any system that allows private companies can really be called Communism, either, as it breaks one of the fundamental tenets.

Whether or not I think a system of socialism could work is another matter.

And while I consider myself a "social capitalist" in terms of economic leanings, socialism can be both such a broad and narrow term that it's impossible to quantify.

It's one of the reasons I came at this from Peterson: I have adapted my view of politics to be far more psychological and sociological rather than theoretical or philosophical.

And maybe it's one reason I found the Zizek/Peterson debate difficult to follow is because Peterson is a psychologist who structured his thoughts and presented them clearly and cleanly (whether or not you agree with them) and Zizek is a philosopher who presented his thoughts as almost a stream of consciousness, and was therefore occasionally incoherent to me.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Because it doesn't matter what you come up with, the central tenet is that you cannot better yourself by earning more money and therefore being able to afford better things.

So as soon as someone tries to do that, they break the system and the system has two choices: allow itself to be broken or push back. Pushing back means...well...arresting someone, or worse, for opposing the system.

Do you understand my point here?

It does matter what I've come up with (please read it - honestly it is worth reading a couple of paragraphs). You can't become rich in my system, but you can have a relatively richer or poorer lifestyle (and house, car etc) depending on how hard you work or how skilled you are.

The system does not penalise you for this - it encourages it. There won't be a black market for ham (or whatever) because it will be sold in your nearest (state-owned) supermarket. And should you break the law, well, there would be a warning or fines or whatever. What happens when someone breaks the law in the UK? Do fines and other punishments imply totalitarianism?

I understand your point, but I don't think it applies here.

It's not that I didn't read it, I did, I just feel that by limiting people's ability to improve their position, you're going to see them break the system. I don't think any system that allows private companies can really be called Communism, either, as it breaks one of the fundamental tenets.

Whether or not I think a system of socialism could work is another matter.

And while I consider myself a "social capitalist" in terms of economic leanings, socialism can be both such a broad and narrow term that it's impossible to quantify.

It's one of the reasons I came at this from Peterson: I have adapted my view of politics to be far more psychological and sociological rather than theoretical or philosophical.

And maybe it's one reason I found the Zizek/Peterson debate difficult to follow is because Peterson is a psychologist who structured his thoughts and presented them clearly and cleanly (whether or not you agree with them) and Zizek is a philosopher who presented his thoughts as almost a stream of consciousness, and was therefore occasionally incoherent to me.

My system doesn't have private companies - they are all state-owned. You may certainly question if it truly is a form of communism, but you need to find where it fails to qualify.

While my system does reward hard work, I agree it limits the ability of a person to improve their position when compared with our society. But I would say our society is grossly unfair in this regard, is unnecessarily extreme (who really needs the possiblity of making oneself a billionaire in order to be motivated?), and in fact may be sowing the seeds of its own destruction as inequality steadily grows.

[Stom]

It does matter what I've come up with (please read it - honestly it is worth reading a couple of paragraphs). You can't become rich in my system, but you can have a relatively richer or poorer lifestyle (and house, car etc) depending on how hard you work or how skilled you are.

The system does not penalise you for this - it encourages it. There won't be a black market for ham (or whatever) because it will be sold in your nearest (state-owned) supermarket. And should you break the law, well, there would be a warning or fines or whatever. What happens when someone breaks the law in the UK? Do fines and other punishments imply totalitarianism?

I understand your point, but I don't think it applies here.

It's not that I didn't read it, I did, I just feel that by limiting people's ability to improve their position, you're going to see them break the system. I don't think any system that allows private companies can really be called Communism, either, as it breaks one of the fundamental tenets.

Whether or not I think a system of socialism could work is another matter.

And while I consider myself a "social capitalist" in terms of economic leanings, socialism can be both such a broad and narrow term that it's impossible to quantify.

It's one of the reasons I came at this from Peterson: I have adapted my view of politics to be far more psychological and sociological rather than theoretical or philosophical.

And maybe it's one reason I found the Zizek/Peterson debate difficult to follow is because Peterson is a psychologist who structured his thoughts and presented them clearly and cleanly (whether or not you agree with them) and Zizek is a philosopher who presented his thoughts as almost a stream of consciousness, and was therefore occasionally incoherent to me.

My system doesn't have private companies - they are all state-owned. You may certainly question if it truly is a form of communism, but you need to find where it fails to qualify.

While my system does reward hard work, I agree it limits the ability of a person to improve their position when compared with our society. But I would say our society is grossly unfair in this regard, is unnecessarily extreme (who really needs the possiblity of making oneself a billionaire in order to be motivated?), and in fact may be sowing the seeds of its own destruction as inequality steadily grows.

We live in a neo/post capitalist society, though, however you want to call it.

Back when Marx was writing, corporation tax was mainly greater than 50%. Companies were expected to invest back into the company and wages were not taxed so high. We should be going back to a similar system.

I have no problem with a company owner paying themselves a salary of £10m if the company's performance deserves it. But I do have a problem with private companies making £10bn in profit, sending it through tax havens, and only paying £5-50m in tax on that profit.

I had an idea for small businesses here, whereby a company should get tax breaks after every employee up to around 100. So small and medium sized businesses would be rewarded for creating jobs. Couple this with higher corporation tax and I think you have a much fairer system.

Capitalism isn't the problem, the current interpretation of it is the problem.

The solution is not Marxism, or anything that restricts your ability to create wealth for yourself, but a form of humanism that focuses on individuals rather than companies.

Take the British pub opening as an example. It's a form of neo-capitalism whereby Wetherspoons are benefitted over independent pubs. That should be reversed for us to live in a fair society.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's not that I didn't read it, I did, I just feel that by limiting people's ability to improve their position, you're going to see them break the system. I don't think any system that allows private companies can really be called Communism, either, as it breaks one of the fundamental tenets.

Whether or not I think a system of socialism could work is another matter.

And while I consider myself a "social capitalist" in terms of economic leanings, socialism can be both such a broad and narrow term that it's impossible to quantify.

It's one of the reasons I came at this from Peterson: I have adapted my view of politics to be far more psychological and sociological rather than theoretical or philosophical.

And maybe it's one reason I found the Zizek/Peterson debate difficult to follow is because Peterson is a psychologist who structured his thoughts and presented them clearly and cleanly (whether or not you agree with them) and Zizek is a philosopher who presented his thoughts as almost a stream of consciousness, and was therefore occasionally incoherent to me.

My system doesn't have private companies - they are all state-owned. You may certainly question if it truly is a form of communism, but you need to find where it fails to qualify.

While my system does reward hard work, I agree it limits the ability of a person to improve their position when compared with our society. But I would say our society is grossly unfair in this regard, is unnecessarily extreme (who really needs the possiblity of making oneself a billionaire in order to be motivated?), and in fact may be sowing the seeds of its own destruction as inequality steadily grows.

We live in a neo/post capitalist society, though, however you want to call it.

Back when Marx was writing, corporation tax was mainly greater than 50%. Companies were expected to invest back into the company and wages were not taxed so high. We should be going back to a similar system.

I have no problem with a company owner paying themselves a salary of £10m if the company's performance deserves it. But I do have a problem with private companies making £10bn in profit, sending it through tax havens, and only paying £5-50m in tax on that profit.

I had an idea for small businesses here, whereby a company should get tax breaks after every employee up to around 100. So small and medium sized businesses would be rewarded for creating jobs. Couple this with higher corporation tax and I think you have a much fairer system.

Capitalism isn't the problem, the current interpretation of it is the problem.

The solution is not Marxism, or anything that restricts your ability to create wealth for yourself, but a form of humanism that focuses on individuals rather than companies.

Take the British pub opening as an example. It's a form of neo-capitalism whereby Wetherspoons are benefitted over independent pubs. That should be reversed for us to live in a fair society.

I agree, (whatever we call it) capitalism is becoming more extreme, socialist elements are being reduced, inequality is increasing - this is a bad situation.

Re the owner with the massive salary, you may not have a problem with it but what purpose does it serve? Does the incentive need to be remotely as great as the unlimited* amounts available? Would it really harm the incentive to work if the maximum individual wealth was, say £10m**?

I can certainly see a case for encouraging job creation (when unemployment is a problem). I haven't given it too much thought in detail - I think I'd want to tie it to training if possible.

NB re Witherspoons vs independent pubs, there was a time when small companies (or rather companies with profit below a certain level) were taxed at a lower rate than larger ones. This has been phased out over a long time and ended in 2015. Not a good thing IMO.

I agree the current interpretation of capitalism is a big problem, but I don't necessarily believe (as you do) that the best system is a capitalist one***. You say the solution is not Marxism (do you mean communism or socialism?), but I don't think you've made the case (say, regarding my sketch of democratic communism).

And, to go back to the earlier discussion, do you now think that (some forms of) communism can function without totalitarianism?


* in that there is no explicit ceiling
** I would go lower, but let's say this number for the sake of the argument
*** although were I in charge I would modify the form of capitalism rather than scrapping it - I don't want one giant leap into the unknown

[Stom]

My system doesn't have private companies - they are all state-owned. You may certainly question if it truly is a form of communism, but you need to find where it fails to qualify.

While my system does reward hard work, I agree it limits the ability of a person to improve their position when compared with our society. But I would say our society is grossly unfair in this regard, is unnecessarily extreme (who really needs the possiblity of making oneself a billionaire in order to be motivated?), and in fact may be sowing the seeds of its own destruction as inequality steadily grows.

We live in a neo/post capitalist society, though, however you want to call it.

Back when Marx was writing, corporation tax was mainly greater than 50%. Companies were expected to invest back into the company and wages were not taxed so high. We should be going back to a similar system.

I have no problem with a company owner paying themselves a salary of £10m if the company's performance deserves it. But I do have a problem with private companies making £10bn in profit, sending it through tax havens, and only paying £5-50m in tax on that profit.

I had an idea for small businesses here, whereby a company should get tax breaks after every employee up to around 100. So small and medium sized businesses would be rewarded for creating jobs. Couple this with higher corporation tax and I think you have a much fairer system.

Capitalism isn't the problem, the current interpretation of it is the problem.

The solution is not Marxism, or anything that restricts your ability to create wealth for yourself, but a form of humanism that focuses on individuals rather than companies.

Take the British pub opening as an example. It's a form of neo-capitalism whereby Wetherspoons are benefitted over independent pubs. That should be reversed for us to live in a fair society.

I agree, (whatever we call it) capitalism is becoming more extreme, socialist elements are being reduced, inequality is increasing - this is a bad situation.

Re the owner with the massive salary, you may not have a problem with it but what purpose does it serve? Does the incentive need to be remotely as great as the unlimited* amounts available? Would it really harm the incentive to work if the maximum individual wealth was, say £10m**?

I can certainly see a case for encouraging job creation (when unemployment is a problem). I haven't given it too much thought in detail - I think I'd want to tie it to training if possible.

NB re Witherspoons vs independent pubs, there was a time when small companies (or rather companies with profit below a certain level) were taxed at a lower rate than larger ones. This has been phased out over a long time and ended in 2015. Not a good thing IMO.

I agree the current interpretation of capitalism is a big problem, but I don't necessarily believe (as you do) that the best system is a capitalist one***. You say the solution is not Marxism (do you mean communism or socialism?), but I don't think you've made the case (say, regarding my sketch of democratic communism).

And, to go back to the earlier discussion, do you now think that (some forms of) communism can function without totalitarianism?


* in that there is no explicit ceiling
** I would go lower, but let's say this number for the sake of the argument
*** although were I in charge I would modify the form of capitalism rather than scrapping it - I don't want one giant leap into the unknown

OK, I'll go in order, with a bonus at the end

The purpose of being able to command a high salary is that you built that business. You had the idea, you created it, and you probably put in a lot of work to get there. Wages are not the problem, corporations believing their only purpose is to make money for their shareholders is.

On the same theme, $10m is not that much money. If you want economic stability for life, a lovely home, the ability to take a summer holiday and a winter ski-break, the ability to eat out at the best restaurants, and the ability to basically fulfil your every desire, you probably need a salary between $3m and $100m, depending on the person. I see no problem with this. If the rich were earning $10m a year now, we'd have a damn equitable society. But they're not, because they're earning $250m+ and getting that money without working simply because they had the money to invest in the first place.

My problem with Marxism is an inability for anyone who disagrees with the premise of Marxism=Communism to give me a satisfactory explanation of what Marxism actually is.

I believe a capitalist system is better than either a Marxist or a Socialist one (depending on your definition of Socialism, of course, as that dragon has many heads) simply because, while humans are not inherently selfish, they do inherently want to better themselves. Creating a ceiling on their ability to better themselves will lead to depression, as Peterson talks about in his psychology and human behaviour stuff (much better than his politics, would you believe it from a psychologist), and backed up by many others.

On to communism without totalitarianism: if you are preventing people from making the choice to own certain items, as well as wealth, you're authoritarian already. Couple that with the system's need to sustain itself and you have totalitarianism.

In your example in particular: if someone wants to own a sports car - and I assume there is still sports to watch, else you're going to have to do a lot of explaining to a lot of people - so they can emulate, for example, Lewis Hamilton, you are preventing them from doing so.

If their desire to do so is strong enough to forgo the consequences, you will need to make an example of them. Let them go with just a slap on the wrist and more and more people will go looking for black market Mercedes. And then you have a direct threat to your system of government and economics. How are you going to deal with it?

And for the bonus, I found this guy, who has a very simplistic outline of some of what I believe in economically. I'd be interested to know whether you think what he says has any echoes of Marxism. Because, and this is a very important thing...

Outside of the main tenets of Communism and, therefore what I have seen of Marxism (please someone point me toward somewhere if his main premise changes after the Manifesto, not just the window dressing), there is not much difference between it and Capitalism in the true sense of the word.

That's my big problem with people who are against Capitalism. There seems to be a misunderstanding of what capitalism means.

Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.

And, also, capitalism has many facets. It can take many forms. But central to them all, in my opinion, is competition. Or the absence of monopoly (https://www.businessinsider.com/monopol ... ism-2019-1)

Here's that video: