Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Havockk

Havockk wrote: »

On Marx?
If so...

I'd tell ye to read Capital, but jesus it's a slog. I suggest maybe looking on youtube for Prof. David Harvey. He has a number of lectures available which he succeeds in making very accessible. Anyway he's a civil lad and even if it's not for ye it will give ya the gist.

I've read quite a bit on Marx... the theory. I'm interested as to when it was applied successfully in a practical sense. Not successful for a year or five years, but over a longer period of time. And I mean that for more than Marx, I mean it for the other political theories/systems that keep being brought up in this thread.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

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!

that's being reasonable I guess but it would need to be a world where the cost of everything people uses approaches zero. Once there is scarcity of anything there will be competition. Even if material scarcity goes away it will shift into other areas unless you want some dystopia where everyone is genetically modified so there is no difference between individuals?

Havockk

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read quite a bit on Marx... the theory. I'm interested as to when it was applied successfully in a practical sense. Not successful for a year or five years, but over a longer period of time. And I mean that for more than Marx, I mean it for the other political theories/systems that keep being brought up in this thread.

The major issue with providing you with that evidence is that whenever a socialist idea is deployed anywhere in the world there is inevitably a violent reaction or punitive measures taken in response.

Cuba - kicked out the mafia, there was an attempted invasion and a huge embargo that still is in force.
Egypt - Nasser nationalised the Suez, what happened? Israel, France and the UK conspired to invade and claim the Canal.
Argentina - Look at how awful their pogrom against the Left was.
Chile - The libertarian ideal, Friedman himself helped while the left were violently oppressed.
Columbia - The US actually funded Death Squads over Chiquata bananas.... FOR DECADES.

This list goes on and on, it's grim.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

that's being reasonable I guess but it would need to be a world where the cost of everything people uses approaches zero. Once there is scarcity of anything there will be competition. Even if material scarcity goes away it will shift into other areas unless you want some dystopia where everyone is genetically modified so there is no difference between individuals?

I want a society where our differences can be celebrated while giving everyone an equality of opportunity. Huge technical advances need to be made in order to even approach this.

It’s a misconception that socialism means zero competition. In a purely socialist society there would still be competition, but not for material gain.

I’ll give you a good example. A group at MIT are working on a fusion generator using super magnets that will actually produce a net 50% gain of energy using hydrogen. The byproduct is helium. Hydrogen in, helium out. That’s it. If the energy from these reactors can be used to mine for the elements used in the super magnets(it can) and create new hydrogen as fuel(it can) then we’ve taken a huge step forward for an energy independent world that no longer relies on hydrocarbons.

Now. The capitalist view is: we’ll sell you the power or we’ll sell you the Yttrium needed for the magnets.

The socialist view is: let’s work together to source the Yttrium to make the magnets.

People get hung up on the minute detail of what a society will look like, it’s abou baby steps not about flicking a switch and changing everything at once.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read quite a bit on Marx... the theory. I'm interested as to when it was applied successfully in a practical sense. Not successful for a year or five years, but over a longer period of time. And I mean that for more than Marx, I mean it for the other political theories/systems that keep being brought up in this thread.

You don't understand, Marxism will only work if EVERYONE adapts it. It's too fragile to survive while you have free market conditions elsewhere spoiling everything.

It's the sick note of economic systems

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

You don't understand, Marxism will only work if EVERYONE adapts it. It's too fragile to survive while you have free market conditions elsewhere spoiling everything.

It's the sick note of economic systems

There are Marxist principles at work all around you. I presume you have paid sick leave and holidays? I’d you lose your job you’ll get the dole. Your children won’t be allowed work in factories. Your employer can’t terminate your employment without notice or cause.

You get public holidays off work? I don’t, but most people do.

All of the above was achieved by Marxists.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

I want a society where our differences can be celebrated while giving everyone an equality of opportunity. Huge technical advances need to be made in order to even approach this.

It’s a misconception that socialism means zero competition. In a purely socialist society there would still be competition, but not for material gain.

I’ll give you a good example. A group at MIT are working on a fusion generator using super magnets that will actually produce a net 50% gain of energy using hydrogen. The byproduct is helium. Hydrogen in, helium out. That’s it. If the energy from these reactors can be used to mine for the elements used in the super magnets(it can) and create new hydrogen as fuel(it can) then we’ve taken a huge step forward for an energy independent world that no longer relies on hydrocarbons.

Now. The capitalist view is: we’ll sell you the power or we’ll sell you the Yttrium needed for the magnets.

The socialist view is: let’s work together to source the Yttrium to make the magnets.

People get hung up on the minute detail of what a society will look like, it’s abou baby steps not about flicking a switch and changing everything at once.

I wouldn't be in a position to predict the end of history, however being a fan of free markets is of course predicated in living in a world where everything is scarce and everything has an opportunity cost. For now you can thank capitalism for producing the surpluses that allow scientists to invent the future. its difficult to see the point where you switch off "capitalism" or "markets" . Even if some exotic energy supply is found if will shift the opportunity costs onto other areas, food, nice places to live in cities etc.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldn't be in a position to predict the end of history, however being a fan of free markets is of course predicated in living in a world where everything is scarce and everything has an opportunity cost. For now you can thank capitalism for producing the surpluses that allow scientists to invent the future. its difficult to see the point where you switch off "capitalism" or "markets" . Even if some exotic energy supply is found if will shift the opportunity costs onto other areas, food, nice places to live in cities etc.

We don’t live in a pure capitalist society with a completely free market though. The worst excesses of a capitalist system have been tempered by socialist policies that protect workers and the seek preserve resources. So you can thank socialism for the freedom of scientists to invent the future. In a real capitalist system they may not have been educated enough to make discoveries to begin with.

Dyr

Brian? wrote: »

There are Marxist principles at work all around you. I presume you have paid sick leave and holidays? I’d you lose your job you’ll get the dole. Your children won’t be allowed work in factories. Your employer can’t terminate your employment without notice or cause.

You get public holidays off work? I don’t, but most people do.

All of the above was achieved by Marxists.

Not by Marxists, read up on the history of Trade Unions and Labour Movements in the UK. These changes were being won by actual workers long before the firmly middle class Karl started putting himself about

It's a fairly common Marxist sleight of hand, "but we won all this". They did in their arse.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

We don’t live in a pure capitalist society with a completely free market though. The worst excesses of a capitalist system have been tempered by socialist policies that protect workers and the seek preserve resources. So you can thank socialism for the freedom of scientists to invent the future. In a real capitalist system they may not have been educated enough to make discoveries to begin with.

its not easy to argue for a history that didn't happen but the 19th century and early 20th century advanced just fine without the military industrial complex. the vast majority of the gains in standard of living in the 20th century came from farming and manufacturing innovation and productivity and general mechanisation.
Socialism didn't do Russia or Germany any favours

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

its not easy to argue for a history that didn't happen but the 19th century and early 20th century advanced just fine without the military industrial complex. the vast majority of the gains in standard of living in the 20th century came from farming and manufacturing innovation and productivity and general mechanisation.

Yes? I’m not sure of your point here.

Socialism didn't do Russia or Germany any favours

Germany? We’re not back to the “Nazis were socialists” codology are we?

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

Not by Marxists, read up on the history of Trade Unions and Labour Movements in the UK. These changes were being won by actual workers long before the firmly middle class Karl started putting himself about

It's a fairly common Marxist sleight of hand, "but we won all this". They did in their arse.

Why the aggression? Is there any need for it?

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

Not by Marxists, read up on the history of Trade Unions and Labour Movements in the UK. These changes were being won by actual workers long before the firmly middle class Karl started putting himself about

It's a fairly common Marxist sleight of hand, "but we won all this". They did in their arse.

Is it your argument that the trade unions weren’t socialists? If so, I’d like to see some background.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

The major issue with providing you with that evidence is that whenever a socialist idea is deployed anywhere in the world there is inevitably a violent reaction or punitive measures taken in response.

Cuba - kicked out the mafia, there was an attempted invasion and a huge embargo that still is in force.
Egypt - Nasser nationalised the Suez, what happened? Israel, France and the UK conspired to invade and claim the Canal.
Argentina - Look at how awful their pogrom against the Left was.
Chile - The libertarian ideal, Friedman himself helped while the left were violently oppressed.
Columbia - The US actually funded Death Squads over Chiquata bananas.... FOR DECADES.

This list goes on and on, it's grim.

Brilliant, show how badly the socialists were treated while leaving out the hundreds of millions that suffered and died under socialism.

I presume under your version of Marxism,which is more hardline that PBP and Solidarity, we will be living in a free society? Can we own a house? A farm? A business? Will there be limit on ones wages? Freedom of speech?

There is a reason why you have not elaborated an iota on your own view because under your own satirical rhetoric there exists and person pushing tyranny and authoritarianism.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I want a society where our differences can be celebrated while giving everyone an equality of opportunity. Huge technical advances need to be made in order to even approach this.

What does this even mean? Sounds like a mission statement of a Silicon Valley start up or NGO.

It’s a misconception that socialism means zero competition. In a purely socialist society there would still be competition, but not for material gain.

So, we are back to Star Trek?

Again, you are missing out on the crucial detail.
How?

I’ll give you a good example. A group at MIT are working on a fusion generator using super magnets that will actually produce a net 50% gain of energy using hydrogen. The byproduct is helium. Hydrogen in, helium out. That’s it. If the energy from these reactors can be used to mine for the elements used in the super magnets(it can) and create new hydrogen as fuel(it can) then we’ve taken a huge step forward for an energy independent world that no longer relies on hydrocarbons.

Now. The capitalist view is: we’ll sell you the power or we’ll sell you the Yttrium needed for the magnets.

The socialist view is: let’s work together to source the Yttrium to make the magnets.

Yes, sounds lovely, but you are forgetting about the efficiencies which the market will naturally draw up. A centrally planned economy is just too inefficient, as we saw with the Soviet Union. It will just collapse after a while.

Again, there is nothing wrong per say of people working together towards a common goal. This however, ironically works best in a capitalist economy as a whole but you can also have small groups of people working together in a socialist way, say in a University setting or research setting.

However, trying to run a state or a world like that is just doomed to failure. It has been tried and tried and has failed time and again.

People get hung up on the minute detail of what a society will look like, it’s abou baby steps not about flicking a switch and changing everything at once.

We are not asking for a Doctoral thesis, just even a few lines on how this world would work. Sure, it all sounds lovely but how do you get right of the human condition, the ultimate flaw in very socialist model and dream?

Our current world works, BECAUSE of the human condition.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

There are Marxist principles at work all around you. I presume you have paid sick leave and holidays? I’d you lose your job you’ll get the dole. Your children won’t be allowed work in factories. Your employer can’t terminate your employment without notice or cause.

You get public holidays off work? I don’t, but most people do.

All of the above was achieved by Marxists.

Amazing. Child Labour was regulated even before Marx published his most seminal works. Quite a feat by Marxists!

Trying to claim credit for everything 'nice' under the umbrella of Marxism, is really really clutching at straws.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Brilliant, show how badly the socialists were treated while leaving out the hundreds of millions that suffered and died under socialism.

I presume under your version of Marxism,which is more hardline that PBP and Solidarity, we will be living in a free society? Can we own a house? A farm? A business? Will there be limit on ones wages? Freedom of speech?

There is a reason why you have not elaborated an iota on your own view because under your own satirical rhetoric there exists and person pushing tyranny and authoritarianism.

Cool story horse.

I don't think they do Capital in pop-up form.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Cool story horse.

I don't think they do Capital in pop-up form.

Why are you calling me a horse? Because you can?

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Why are you calling me a horse? Because you can?

Groucho Marx himself appeared to me in a dream last night and commanded it.

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

I want a society where our differences can be celebrated while giving everyone an equality of opportunity. Huge technical advances need to be made in order to even approach this.

It’s a misconception that socialism means zero competition. In a purely socialist society there would still be competition, but not for material gain.

I’ll give you a good example. A group at MIT are working on a fusion generator using super magnets that will actually produce a net 50% gain of energy using hydrogen. The byproduct is helium. Hydrogen in, helium out. That’s it. If the energy from these reactors can be used to mine for the elements used in the super magnets(it can) and create new hydrogen as fuel(it can) then we’ve taken a huge step forward for an energy independent world that no longer relies on hydrocarbons.

Now. The capitalist view is: we’ll sell you the power or we’ll sell you the Yttrium needed for the magnets.

The socialist view is: let’s work together to source the Yttrium to make the magnets.

People get hung up on the minute detail of what a society will look like, it’s abou baby steps not about flicking a switch and changing everything at once.

What's that anecdote about MIT got to do with the price of fish?

Those researchers will be getting paid(material gain). Breakthroughs tend to come about by reward, not we will do all the work so you guys can have free power.

HappyAsLarE

Havockk wrote: »

The major issue with providing you with that evidence is that whenever a socialist idea is deployed anywhere in the world there is inevitably a violent reaction or punitive measures taken in response.

Cuba - kicked out the mafia, there was an attempted invasion and a huge embargo that still is in force.
Egypt - Nasser nationalised the Suez, what happened? Israel, France and the UK conspired to invade and claim the Canal.
Argentina - Look at how awful their pogrom against the Left was.
Chile - The libertarian ideal, Friedman himself helped while the left were violently oppressed.
Columbia - The US actually funded Death Squads over Chiquata bananas.... FOR DECADES.

This list goes on and on, it's grim.

Bang on. The evidence is there for what happens with socialist policy.

It is as simple as this: socialism requires people to take or to give. Those that have are the givers. If I have €100 but have to give up a chunk so everyone has an equal share, I will cease being productive to make my next €100.

But it goes deeper. I become resentful and bitter. You need to force me to lower myself to those less intellectually capable. Because we as humans are so variable in ability, you have to force me towards the average. It is inevitable that a tyrannical regime is needed for left ideologies. Tyrants inevitably create hell on earth. Millions die every time.

So we must accept that we are born unequal. We must accept inequality as a result. Do not think you are virtuous by being on the left. You just hate the rich. You are built to be selfish, by holding what’s yours, or demanding what is not.

pitifulgod

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Bang on. The evidence is there for what happens with socialist policy.

It is as simple as this: socialism requires people to take or to give. Those that have are the givers. If I have €100 but have to give up a chunk so everyone has an equal share, I will cease being productive to make my next €100.

But it goes deeper. I become resentful and bitter. You need to force me to lower myself to those less intellectually capable. Because we as humans are so variable in ability, you have to force me towards the average. It is inevitable that a tyrannical regime is needed for left ideologies. Tyrants inevitably create hell on earth. Millions die every time.

So we must accept that we are born unequal. We must accept inequality as a result. Do not think you are virtuous by being on the left. You just hate the rich. You are built to be selfish, by holding what’s yours, or demanding what is not.

Are Denmark and Sweden tyrannical regimes? :pac:

HappyAsLarE

Brian? wrote: »

I want a society where our differences can be celebrated while giving everyone an equality of opportunity. Huge technical advances need to be made in order to even approach this.

It’s a misconception that socialism means zero competition. In a purely socialist society there would still be competition, but not for material gain.

I’ll give you a good example. A group at MIT are working on a fusion generator using super magnets that will actually produce a net 50% gain of energy using hydrogen. The byproduct is helium. Hydrogen in, helium out. That’s it. If the energy from these reactors can be used to mine for the elements used in the super magnets(it can) and create new hydrogen as fuel(it can) then we’ve taken a huge step forward for an energy independent world that no longer relies on hydrocarbons.

Now. The capitalist view is: we’ll sell you the power or we’ll sell you the Yttrium needed for the magnets.

The socialist view is: let’s work together to source the Yttrium to make the magnets.

People get hung up on the minute detail of what a society will look like, it’s abou baby steps not about flicking a switch and changing everything at once.

No no no. Just no. How can the socialists work together. It is like asking a dominant lion to submit and be equal to his pride members. The pride will die out. Those that are incapable of adding value to the development of the energy project will kill it.

On the other end, the right are greedy. Nuff said. You got them right.

What works is when scientists that are too odd and eccentric to care about where they stand are left to it.

HappyAsLarE

pitifulgod wrote: »

Are Denmark and Sweden tyrannical regimes? :pac:

No. Nor are they really socialist. There is inequality.

markodaly

pitifulgod wrote: »

Are Denmark and Sweden tyrannical regimes? :pac:

They are liberal western democracies working under a capitalist system. A little bit of socialism but still a capitalist state.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

They are liberal western democracies working under a capitalist system. A little bit of socialism but still a capitalist state.

Social democracies.

SeanW

Havockk wrote: »

The major issue with providing you with that evidence is that whenever a socialist idea is deployed anywhere in the world there is inevitably a violent reaction or punitive measures taken in response.

Cuba - kicked out the mafia, there was an attempted invasion and a huge embargo that still is in force.
Egypt - Nasser nationalised the Suez, what happened? Israel, France and the UK conspired to invade and claim the Canal.
Argentina - Look at how awful their pogrom against the Left was.
Chile - The libertarian ideal, Friedman himself helped while the left were violently oppressed.
Columbia - The US actually funded Death Squads over Chiquata bananas.... FOR DECADES.

This list goes on and on, it's grim.

How about Venezulea? They went full on Communist in 1999 and there was little or no outside interference in the years since. The place is a ****hole today, inequality, starvation, murder, corruption, authoritarianism have never been worse. They have a year round growing season, beaches and scenery for tourism like you wouldn't believe, and billions of barrels of oil. Yet almost entirely from internal causes (i.e. Socialism) their country is a rotting cesspool of misery and fear.

As for Chile on the other hand, it's by most accounts a diamond in the rough, according to Wikipedia:

Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations, with a high-income economy and high living standards. It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development. Chile is the only South American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), joining in 2010. Currently it also has the lowest homicide rate in South America. Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

So ... yeah ... keep pushing Communism. Don't let the fact that it has always ended in mass murder, starvation, societal disintegration and the total destruction of human rights change your view, Comrade.

Havockk

SeanW wrote: »

How about Venezulea? They went full on Communist in 1999 and there was little or no outside interference in the years since. The place is a ****hole today, inequality, starvation, murder, corruption, authoritarianism have never been worse. They have a year round growing season, beaches and scenery for tourism like you wouldn't believe, and billions of barrels of oil. Yet almost entirely from internal causes (i.e. Socialism) their country is a rotting cesspool of misery and fear.

As for Chile on the other hand, it's by most accounts a diamond in the rough, according to Wikipedia:


So ... yeah ... keep pushing Communism. Don't let the fact that it has always ended in mass murder, starvation, societal disintegration and the total destruction of human rights change your view, Comrade.

Aye sweet mucker. Cheers for the permission.

pitifulgod

Havockk wrote: »

Social democracies.

You'd think by the way people are talking that most of Europe doesn't effectively have healthcare systems that are entirely socialist in nature. Same for education. Versus the incredible costs associated with both in the US.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zVbJ46zQpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_h-a5CXJ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W2Nkot_daU

Getting back on to the original topic the analysis by Rob Ager is one of the better ones out there and if you saw the original interview (now over 8 million views) you will likely be interested in these.