Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Havockk

Brian? wrote: »

I'm a libertarian socialist. Am I a psychopath?


This is a joke.

Don't worry Brian, I of course meant the laissez-faire variety.

So you stay out of the black book......






for now

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

I'm a libertarian socialist. Am I a psychopath?

how does a libertarian socialist work? it implies letting people have social freedom but economically an authoritarian system?

Havockk

silverharp wrote: »

how does a libertarian socialist work? it implies letting people have social freedom but economically an authoritarian system?

No state control of the means of production, close to anarchism.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

how does a libertarian socialist work? it implies letting people have social freedom but economically an authoritarian system?

It implies nothing of the sort. It's very close to anarchism, without the implied violent revolution.

IMO, it's the purest form of socialism. No state. No coercion.

Charmeleon

How do you keep people socialist without coercion? Say someone invents a new 5 minute sober up pill and becomes a millionaire but then refuses to give up 70-80% of their profits (or more)? Wealth has to be collected/confiscated somehow, how can it be done without oppression?

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

It implies nothing of the sort. It's very close to anarchism, without the implied violent revolution.

IMO, it's the purest form of socialism. No state. No coercion.

people like to own their own property, farms companies etc and then you would have to compete against world class companies. You would end up building walls to keep your people in and to avoid trading openly with the rest of the world.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I'm a libertarian socialist. Am I a psychopath?


This is a joke.

A good question. If a traditional libertarian is a psychopath what makes a socialist libertarian a cuddly teddy bear?

markodaly

Charmeleon wrote: »

How do you keep people socialist without coercion? Say someone invents a new 5 minute sober up pill and becomes a millionaire but then refuses to give up 70-80% of their profits (or more)? Wealth has to be collected/confiscated somehow, how can it be done without oppression?

You cant, not in a large nation state type society. Oh sure, if you had 20 people stuck on a desert Island a socialist system would be the best for sure. But in a country of 10-50-300 million, disaster.

Socialism on that scale relies on the state being in your pocket and (well in the past) in your bedroom. We have replaced the bedroom part with your living room as the state cares very much about what you say.

So, again curious on how a socialist libertarian system could actually work without a state. What incentives is there to keep the system socialist and what will prevent it from being just a normal libertarian society?

markodaly

I’ve heard the term. But am not committed either way on its correctness right now.

You mean you want to sweep that point under the carpet as it does your point of view no favours?

A fascist is someone who believes in an authoritarian ethnically homogeneous state, run by a central power. Fascists are ultra nationalists who believe in the supremacy of their race. Fascists want to violently expel or kill anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow definition. They don’t necessarily have to be white.

Interesting definition for sure but that was not the meaning of fascism when the Italians started running with the ideology back in the early 20's. What does this tell you? That the word and theory of it changes over time. There are probably a dozen different definitions of fascism. It even has its own wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Even back in the heyday of fascism it was different between counties. Italian fascism was different to Spanish fascism, while German fascism (which is the go to definition and the one you reference) was different from Romanian fascism.

So, to claim that you are the single authority on the meaning of the word, is a little too much when better theorists than you or I struggle with the question.

Sand

markodaly wrote: »

You cant, not in a large nation state type society. Oh sure, if you had 20 people stuck on a desert Island a socialist system would be the best for sure. But in a country of 10-50-300 million, disaster.

Socialism on that scale relies on the state being in your pocket and (well in the past) in your bedroom. We have replaced the bedroom part with your living room as the state cares very much about what you say.

So, again curious on how a socialist libertarian system could actually work without a state. What incentives is there to keep the system socialist and what will prevent it from being just a normal libertarian society?

That's the key point. Socialism can work in small, highly cohesive groups: tribes basically. In a small group, trust is high. Shirkers are easily identified and cast out. And those who excel at particular tasks (the best hunter, for example) are recognised, praised and celebrated by the group. There is constant positive feedback, reinforcing the behaviour. It becomes a matter of pride to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Indeed, in some tribal and cultural societies giving gifts is seen as the giver claiming precedence over the person who receives. This person is in their debt. So complex social rituals arise to disguise the gift as a trade, or as worthless to the giver and prevent the appearance of debt.

But if you take socialism and try apply it to large 'economic zones' composed of individuals who have little or no connection and absolutely no trust in their supposed fellows, then it breaks down. Shirkers can thrive. Overachievers get no recognition and begin to resent the demands placed on them to support people they don't know and have nothing in common with. It's a system that has to be imposed, violently, with all that implies.

markodaly

Sand wrote: »

That's the key point. Socialism can work in small, highly cohesive groups: tribes basically. In a small group, trust is high. Shirkers are easily identified and cast out. And those who excel at particular tasks (the best hunter, for example) are recognised, praised and celebrated by the group. There is constant positive feedback, reinforcing the behaviour. It becomes a matter of pride to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Indeed, in some tribal and cultural societies giving gifts is seen as the giver claiming precedence over the person who receives. This person is in their debt. So complex social rituals arise to disguise the gift as a trade, or as worthless to the giver and prevent the appearance of debt.

But if you take socialism and try apply it to large 'economic zones' composed of individuals who have little or no connection and absolutely no trust in their supposed fellows, then it breaks down. Shirkers can thrive. Overachievers get no recognition and begin to resent the demands placed on them to support people they don't know and have nothing in common with. It's a system that has to be imposed, violently, with all that implies.

Very well put and explained.

JohnnyFlash

Being into these really obscure political beliefs is a bit like supporting a non-league team in football. You think it’s keeping it cool and real, but deep down you know it’s complete horseshît. And people think you’re a weirdo.

Vicxas

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Being into these really obscure political beliefs is a bit like supporting a non-league team in football. You think it’s keeping it cool and real, but deep down you know it’s complete horsesh And people think you’re a weirdo.

I think you'll find that supporting Buckington Utd is way cool....

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

You mean you want to sweep that point under the carpet as it does your point of view no Favors?

I mean, I’m not sure it’s a correct term. Why do you constantly make me repeat myself.

Interesting definition for sure but that was not the meaning of fascism when the Italians started running with the ideology back in the early 20's. What does this tell you? That the word and theory of it changes over time. There are probably a dozen different definitions of fascism. It even has its own wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Even back in the heyday of fascism it was different between counties. Italian fascism was different to Spanish fascism, while German fascism (which is the go to definition and the one you reference) was different from Romanian fascism.

So, to claim that you are the single authority on the meaning of the word, is a little too much when better theorists than you or I struggle with the question.

I didn’t claim a to be a single authority on the word and you know that. I’m actually delighted you went off and did some reading. It was badly needed. Surely you can see now that antifa are not fascists? If not, get some more reading done.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

A good question. If a traditional libertarian is a psychopath what makes a socialist libertarian a cuddly teddy bear?

The hair.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

people like to own their own property, farms companies etc and then you would have to compete against world class companies. You would end up building walls to keep your people in and to avoid trading openly with the rest of the world.

There seems to be this complete misconception that believing in an end goal of a stateless, free society means something local and soon. A socialist society cannot be achieved given the present circumstances. Nation states are too powerful and entrenched in the pysche of the masses. I don’t believe we’re ready for the end goal. I but I know what I’d like the end goal to be.

It’s an aspirational philosophy and not set of political policies. Decide what kind of world you want to live in and work towards it. My great great grandchildren might get a look at it.

The corner stones of my thinking are pacifism and egalitarianism. The term that best describes this, that I’ve encountered, is libertarian socialism. So that’s how I describe my beliefs without having to list them out. I’m anti authoritarian and a believer in socialist ideals. Equality cannot be achieved through coercion. Only the worker can free them self.

How dare I believe a fair and equal society is a worthy aspiration!

Brian?

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Being into these really obscure political beliefs is a bit like supporting a non-league team in football. You think it’s keeping it cool and real, but deep down you know it’s complete horseshît. And people think you’re a weirdo.

I’m also an Everton supporter. So you’re not that far off.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

That's the key point. Socialism can work in small, highly cohesive groups: tribes basically. In a small group, trust is high. Shirkers are easily identified and cast out. And those who excel at particular tasks (the best hunter, for example) are recognised, praised and celebrated by the group. There is constant positive feedback, reinforcing the behaviour. It becomes a matter of pride to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Indeed, in some tribal and cultural societies giving gifts is seen as the giver claiming precedence over the person who receives. This person is in their debt. So complex social rituals arise to disguise the gift as a trade, or as worthless to the giver and prevent the appearance of debt.

But if you take socialism and try apply it to large 'economic zones' composed of individuals who have little or no connection and absolutely no trust in their supposed fellows, then it breaks down. Shirkers can thrive. Overachievers get no recognition and begin to resent the demands placed on them to support people they don't know and have nothing in common with. It's a system that has to be imposed, violently, with all that implies.

You don’t understand how a socialist society would work. That’s ok.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I didn’t claim a to be a single authority on the word and you know that. I’m actually delighted you went off and did some reading. It was badly needed. Surely you can see now that antifa are not fascists? If not, get some more reading done.

Yes, you actually kinda did and got pulled up on it by others. The method used by ANTIFA are clearly fascist much like the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Wahhabism among others. Fascism is a broader church than your own narrow definition. You have been watching too much Hollywood.

Your definition is incorrect when we are talking about Fascism in places like Spain or Eastern Europe.

Brian?

Charmeleon wrote: »

How do you keep people socialist without coercion? Say someone invents a new 5 minute sober up pill and becomes a millionaire but then refuses to give up 70-80% of their profits (or more)? Wealth has to be collected/confiscated somehow, how can it be done without oppression?

You don’t keep anyone, anything they don’t want to be. Simple as that.

Can you not envisage a society where accumulation of wealth is the prime goal?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, you actually kinda did and got pulled up on it by others. The method used by ANTIFA are clearly fascist much like the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Wahhabism among others. Fascism is a broader church than your own narrow definition. You have been watching too much Hollywood.

Your definition is incorrect when we are talking about Fascism in places like Spain or Eastern Europe.

This is quite tiresome. You haven’t budged an inch and neither have I. Except that I haven’t called you horse again.

Can you at least admit it’s hypocritical to criticize Antifa for calling everyone fascists, while calling them fascists?

Either way. Good speed. Call anyone you want a fascist.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t understand how a socialist society would work. That’s ok.

Neither do you. Yeah, yeah its a stated philosophical asperation not a political set of ideas. Quite convenient.

In other words you can call yourself whatever you want but when people ask for the details and they get tumbleweed. The world is not Star Trek and people are not robots.

Put it this way, you come across like the fattest kid at fat camp, telling others how to diet.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

This is quite tiresome. You haven’t budged an inch and neither have I. Except that I haven’t called you horse again.

Can you at least admit it’s hypocritical to criticize Antifa for calling everyone fascists, while calling them fascists?

Either way. Good speed. Call anyone you want a fascist.

You seem to be very upset about the notion that your friends on the far left can engage in Fascism. Does it really matter that much to you, does it really cut to the bone?

You reject the horseshoe theory because you know that there is truth to it. Take you for example, you are closer to the likes of Hayek then your average centrist.

ANTIFA are at best a bunch of stupid naive youngsters playing a game of fireside solders, at worst they are a bunch of dangerous thugs who should be on a terror watch list, like their far right 'friends'. One big group of fascist idiots.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Neither do you. Yeah, yeah its a stated philosophical asperation not a political set of ideas. Quite convenient.

Do you actually read my posts? Or do you simply respond to what you think I said?

I said it wasn’t a set of political policies.

It is, most certainly, a set of political ideas.

You’re infuriating to deal with. I don’t know whether this is some sort of tactic to provoke a angry response.

In other words you can call yourself whatever you want but when people ask for the details and they get tumbleweed. The world is not Star Trek and people are not robots.

Put it this way, you come across like the fattest kid at fat camp, telling others how to diet.

Classy insults. Really top notch. You must be so proud. Why can’t you debate like an adult?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

You seem to be very upset about the notion that your friends on the far left can engage in Fascism. Does it really matter that much to you, does it really cut to the bone?

You reject the horseshoe theory because you know that there is truth to it. Take you for example, you are closer to the likes of Hayek then your average centrist.

ANTIFA are at best a bunch of stupid naive youngsters playing a game of fireside solders, at worst they are a bunch of dangerous thugs who should be on a terror watch list, like their far right 'friends'. One big group of fascist idiots.

You don’t have the decency to actually debate. You just repeat the same points over and over again. It’s ridiculous. I’ll leave you to your hypocrisy. Everyone’s a fascist, brilliant.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t understand how a socialist society would work. That’s ok.

And when have we seen a socialist society successfully work and not corrupt itself?

His perception of how it works is easily as applicable as yours. Until we have a working system that lasts longer than a few generations, it's all hot air.

RDM_83 again

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t have the decency to actually debate. You just repeat the same points over and over again. It’s ridiculous. I’ll leave you to your hypocrisy. Everyone’s a fascist, brilliant.

Ok here is what I don't get, your giving out that people are using the word Fascist in relation to Anti-Fa because its inaccurate, I agree they are more likely violent anarcho-authoritarians*.

However the thing is, you misuse the term Fascist yourself, Steve Bannon for example is not a Fascist, he's a (probably racist) Anarcho-Capitalist, however you use Fascist to describe him, why because its an easy vague label to stick to controversial politics one doesn't agree with.

TLDR Don't give out about people misusing the term when you do the same yourself

*made up by me but as they believe their grouping, so their authority can use group violence to combat views they disagree with I think it works, particularly as I think that most Anti-Fa are just harmless crusts who are a bit edgey and havent put much thought into the entire thing.

Brian?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok here is what I don't get, your giving out that people are using the word Fascist in relation to Anti-Fa because its inaccurate, I agree they are more likely violent anarcho-authoritarians*.

However the thing is, you misuse the term Fascist yourself, Steve Bannon for example is not a Fascist, he's a (probably racist) Anarcho-Capitalist, however you use Fascist to describe him, why because its an easy vague label to stick to controversial politics one doesn't agree with.

TLDR Don't give out about people misusing the term when you do the same yourself

*made up by me but as they believe their grouping, so their authority can use group violence to combat views they disagree with I think it works, particularly as I think that most Anti-Fa are just harmless crusts who are a bit edgey and havent put much thought into the entire thing.

When did I call Bannon a fascist?

RDM_83 again

Brian? wrote: »

When did I call Bannon a fascist?

Here you go, so yeah I don't think you should be giving out about the misuse of the word

Brian? wrote: »

Calling a Trump a fascist may be hyperbole, but his right hand man is actually a fascist IMO. Steve Bannon is a "white nationalist" and a horrible human being.

Christ the full desktop site is so much better than mobile, advanced search actually works.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Do you actually read my posts? Or do you simply respond to what you think I said?

I said it wasn’t a set of political policies.

It is, most certainly, a set of political ideas.

You’re infuriating to deal with. I don’t know whether this is some sort of tactic to provoke a angry response.

Person 1: I want to have Utopia, a world free from hunger, poverty and free Netflix for all.
Person 2: Sure, that sounds nice, how do we get there?
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism!
Person 2: Hmm,not sure what that is. Can you explain?
Person 1: It is a set of aspirations where there will be no state, no coercion, where everyone will be socialist and there will exist, Utopia for all.
Person 2: Yea, cool story bro, but how will that cure hunger and poverty. Also free Netflix! You had me at free Netflix!
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism. Don't you think its a nice aspiration?
Person 2: Yeah sure but how do I get free Netflix!
Person 1: In my world, you won't need Netflix
Person 2: But I love me Netflix (sobs). How about curing poverty so, how does that work.
Person 1: Eh... Socialist Libertarianism. Its really an aspiration, not really a roadmap but its a nice thought no?
Person 2: So, its like religion or ideas like heaven.
Person 1: Yes, but more real.
Person 2: So how do we get there?
Person 1: Em, Socialist Libertarianism, its really an aspiration.
Person 2: You said that already. Give me the details on the how, like how do we get rid of the state and stop people from killing each other.
Person 1: Socialism. Everyone will be a socialist by consent and people will just be nice to each.
Person 2: So, you have no idea how I will get my free Netflix
Person 1: Sure I do, Socialist Liberta...
Person 2: I'm off for a drink.

Classy insults. Really top notch. You must be so proud. Why can’t you debate like an adult?

Like calling someone horse? Pot meet Kettle.