Comments by "" (@A86) on "Interview: Jordan Peterson Will NOT Use Gender Neutral Pronouns" video.

@Andy Brice - So a small, insignificant school (I'm a hardcore Leftist and a political junkie and I never even fucking heard of the Frankfurt School before this right-wing conspiracy theory sprouted about it several years ago) tried to extrapolate Marxism into race and gender and a few people followed suit, so therefore all of Marxism supports policing gender pronouns and supports SJW-ism? Regardless of the fact that Marx himself was socially pretty socially conservative?
5
Terrance Van Liew - By that logic, democracy is tyrannical or totalitarian. Who exactly is a group a dictatorship over since you are part of said supposed dictatorship? And how is it supposedly more authoritarian than a small upper-class cadre ruling over others (a republic), or unelected landlords who were granted land by State title ruling unlitaterally over those who own no property (Capitalist owners)?
4
TejrnarG - Well, their goals aren't, but you are correct that Stalinism and Maoism have tended to effectively rule not much differently than Fascists and often there is a lot of overlap in Fascist and Bolshevist programs. Even though their end goals differ. That's part of what supports the Horseshoe Political Theory.
4
Terrance Van Liew - Wrong. Kibbutzim and societies like the EZLN and Revolutionary Catalonia didn't have any centralized systems. Nor do worker-owned corporations and cooperatives, or cooperative communities and direct democracies. All forms of stateless and decentralized Socialism. I see no reason why living by Marx's motto would require a dictatorship or centralized planning (though all known Capitalist systems also have very central planning nation-state governments which uphold property deeds and laws, acquire and dole out private property to bidders, assign police and military forces, etc.). Workers and citizens are quite capable of running their own affairs as long as they're sufficiently educated.
3
Terrance Van Liew - TBH, I see Socialism, if done right, as simply Democracy applied to an Economy. Given such systems have existed befire, I fail to see why it's impossible.
3
Lachlan Allen - I have, it's just a small fucking obscure school nowhere near as significant or influential as right-wing conspiracy theories have convinced themselves it is. It'd be like calling Pastor James David Manning an important Conservative theorist or philosopher.
3
Terrance Van Liew - 1) You keep describing State Socialism. Many forms of Socialism do not believe in centralized planning. That's what kills your argument. 2) Capitalism is comfortable with central planning as well, just lessened than the Soviets. 3) Capitalism uses the private market to distribute goids, which is based on the subjective evaluation of the seller (and sellers who are big enough can be Price-Makers rather than Price-Takers). The sellers and owners are unelected and self-elected arbiters granted Property by the State, not necessarily because they're good at that Trade or field but just because they had enough money (gotten by whatever means) to enter the field. So, complete screw-ups who are wealthy enough to buy a company or kiss their way up to the top, or get by by being related to or friends with the right people, can arbitrate distribution and get by on anticompetitive means. Not to mention the mass a month of WASTE created by Capitalism. 4) Capitalism eventually runs itself into ground and needs Socialism to come save it. Hence why all the world's top economies are Social Democracies. All the world's purely Capitalistic systems are thirds world countries.
2
Terrance Van Liew - I said Capitalism, not Democracy. Also, I'm not arguing in favor of Anomie. I'm saying that rules don't inherently needs rulers and rules and organization doesn't automatically mean "central planning". You can have a non-capitalist system of distribution without central planning. See Parecon, Market Socialism, Gift Economy, Peer-to-Peer Economy, etc. Socialism is designed to overcome the central "contradictions" of Capitalism that eventually cause Capitalism to become self-destructive. Namely, Capitalism is a system that is about two types of people (Buyers and Sellers) trying to con the other. Sellers try to make the maximum amount of money possible by paying other people to produce for you for asking little money as possible, then charge Buyers for the products as much as humanly possible and give the workers as little compensation as you can; Buyers are trying to put in as little labor as possible in exchange for as much salary/income as possible, then buy for as low as price as feasible. That, and Capitalism inherently creates rulers because it's about a small number of people buying up public land, causing the landless/propertyless majority to have to work for the small owning class in exchange for less than the full value of what they produce (if they were paid the full value, no profit would be made). Since it's based on Competition, the end goal of all owners is to WIN by eliminating competition. Eventually, competing businesses are run out of business or absorbed until the dominant business becomes a Monopoly, and the economy becomes dominated by monopolies which pay as little as possible (this concentrating wealth and letting it stagnate). That's "winning" in the business world, but such a situation cause a Depression and social order falls apart. That's the self-destructive cycle Socialism was tailored to fix.
2
Terrance Van Liew - Private ownership requires some degree of force in the first place. Without a State, there is no private ownership a or distribution unless you have private force. Since the Capitalist's home spreads and grows over time and he buys more homes, and can eventually buy the State itself, his dictatorship really isn't any more limited than a State Socialist's. At least in Capitalism as it has classically existed for most of its history. A Libertarian or anarchistic form of Capitalism could exist, but I fail to see how it would truly be different from Corporatism unless it's something akin to Benjamin Tucker's type of society. In a Libertarian or anarchistic Socialist society, the State is gone entirely or minimized and people are self-organized. Calling it forced is like calling a team you're an equal member of a "dictatorship", which makes no logical sense. By definition, a dictatorship is when a single leader or cadre rules over an outside group.
2
matt bowden - It's "you're" (you are), and Marxists are radicals, not Regressives. Conservatives are Regressives (anti-progressive).
2
Goomba Oomba - Nationalism is Regressive Rightism. No better.
2
Terrance Van Liew - I'm not sure what you mean now, to be honest.
1
Terrance Van Liew - You haven't demonstrated this is what Marxism even believes in. Your argument is circular, hence why.its a non-starter. You're drawing a conclusion based on an unproven claim. I agree that Bolshevism is Totalitarian buy not all Marxism is Bolshevism. I'm not even a Marxist, BTW. I'm a Libertarian Socialist. But, as to the video, even authoritarian Marxism has little to nothing to do with SJW-ism. Marxism is a philosophy about Property and Class, not Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation. In fact, the Soviets, Red Chinese and North Koreans (even though North Korea is really an Absolute Monarchy with Stalinist trappings, not a real Socialist society) actually hated Gays and Transgendered people and frowned upon cohabitation without marriage. They also outlawed Prostitution and didn't like the Arts and hated Hippies. They didn't like multiculturalism either even though they were anti-racist (in rhetoric) and tolerated a multiracial society. They usually forced everyone to be the sane culture as the dominant ethnicity in the country. Like Soviet Russification. Authoritarian Marxism is actually socially pretty Conservative, very little to do with SJWs.
1
Terrance Van Liew - Private distribution is also a form of regulation of distribution. It's just private regulators instead of State ones. There are other forms like cooperatives, worker-owned companies, communes, a gift economy, P2P, Parecon, etc. Council Communism proposes stockpiling all production and working people take what they need, for instance.
1
Terrance Van Liew - 1) What is a capitalist but a private dictator? A capitalist has all-encompassing power within their company. The only thing limiting them a little is Unions and the State (and the fact they don't yet control the entire Market). 2) Well, there's Corporatism where giant companies basically buy out the State and get to become all-encompassing. That's what we're rapidly heading into. 3) Anyways, you keep defining a Socialist government as a Stalinist or Maoist government. Your criticism doesn't really apply to other forms of Socialism. You're doing the equivalent of someone arguing against all of Capitalism by making anti-Keynesian arguments or anti-Austrian economics arguments. That's your fatal flaw. You're critiquing one form of Socialism and trying to inappropriately extrapolate it to argue against all forms of Socialism.
1
Goomba Oomba - Like what?
1
TejrnarG - I don't think all Marxism is bad. As a Libertarian Socialist it's not my cup of tea, bit some firms of Marxism aren't authoritarian. Just like not all forms of Capitalism are bad either, IMO. Though I believe we can do better.
1