Author Topic: The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON  (Read 28513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1260 on: May 15, 2018, 04:07:57 PM »
It's going to get off the rails, I guarantee it. Harris will never let Peterson get away with bible stories.


Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1261 on: May 15, 2018, 04:12:26 PM »

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1262 on: May 15, 2018, 04:13:54 PM »
"if you found me a culture that did was I just did"

But you don't find that, while you find religious cultures through all of recorded human history. And not just random cultures and random texts, but texts that lead cultures to succeed and replace older texts that offered less to the people and species. Harris isn't appreciating how we got to this point as a species by treating religion in such a manner.

Cuisine serves a purpose to human society. If you think of the concept of meals and family meals, namely the invention of soup,that's group living that takes multiple ingredients and then improves the yeild of that hunting/gathering by putting them in a pot with water and fire. So you get large meal for a group, creating social interaction and unity, while allowing uninterrupted work beyond. Maybe you even increase play time by having that group meal, which benefits you emotionally and socially.

So you can look at food and extract something out of it, but you got to do so sincerely and intelligently. Not that flying spaggheti monster sort of take Harris has there.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 04:18:39 PM by etiolate »

Shostakovich

  • To err is human, to Kris, divine.
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1263 on: May 15, 2018, 04:18:55 PM »
Harris' point is that Peterson's metamyth analysis is unfalsifiable and ad-hoc.

Stro

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1264 on: May 15, 2018, 04:27:04 PM »
A solid 80% of whatever Peterson says is unfalsifiable and ad-hoc. That's his shtick now (maybe always?).

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1265 on: May 15, 2018, 04:38:14 PM »
If anyone wants to read the essay that jake and I were posting about a while ago, it's here: https://www.academia.edu/20852194/RELIGION_SOVEREIGNTY_NATURAL_RIGHTS_AND_THE_CONSTITUENT_ELEMENTS_OF_EXPERIENCE

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1266 on: May 15, 2018, 04:43:14 PM »
If you find value in JP dissecting parables and fairy tales you might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1267 on: May 15, 2018, 04:48:30 PM »
As an ess jay dubya myself I'm not really down with the "hur hur kill yourself" rhetoric.

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1268 on: May 15, 2018, 04:53:19 PM »
As an ess jay dubya myself I'm not really down with the "hur hur kill yourself" rhetoric.

noted

Coitus

  • Junior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1269 on: May 15, 2018, 05:04:18 PM »
But you don't find that, while you find religious cultures through all of recorded human history. And not just random cultures and random texts, but texts that lead cultures to succeed and replace older texts that offered less to the people and species. Harris isn't appreciating how we got to this point as a species by treating religion in such a manner.

Perhaps he doesn't appreciate it because it doesn't appear to be true, or at least certainly not self-evident.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1270 on: May 15, 2018, 06:48:46 PM »
Harris' point is that Peterson's metamyth analysis is unfalsifiable and ad-hoc.

It's tough for me to call something that works across multiple disciplines and cultures as ad-hoc. Considering he goes into how the religious ideas are backed up in real life ways, I am wondering what you precisely mean by unfalsifiable and ad-hoc?

Is it just the act of interpretation that you have issue with?

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1271 on: May 15, 2018, 10:54:00 PM »
It's tough for me to call something that works across multiple disciplines and cultures as ad-hoc.

oh really

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1272 on: May 15, 2018, 11:01:22 PM »
Leadbelly:

Two links and I'll leave it there for good:
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2419019#msg2419019
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2420397#msg2420397

Okay. I've not said the Right is necessarily any better than the Left in this regard. In fact this is why being on the side of free speech is extremely important. Who is on top can change. Those same speech restriction policies you were in agreement with could one day suddenly be used against you.

You say you don't understand why they are focusing on the Left so much because you see similar attitudes, but for different reasons on the Right. What I think you are missing is institutional power. So for example, universities are overwhelmingly liberal which is why the attacks on free speech are more likely to be from the Left. We're not simply talking about attitudes from the students, but the policies they are beginning to influence. Safe space policies, trigger warnings, dress codes at halloween, etc, they're not coming from the Right, it is coming from the Left. They are also creeping into other areas. As you know, Google for instance has a diversity department that has a particular ideological perspective. The very reason Peterson suddenly came into the spotlight was because of legislation to do with gender neutral pronouns.

Quote
Basically the one place that the left seems to take a harder line on free speech restrictions are when it comes to issues of prejudice. Which has always made me suspicious about why so many like Peterson only seem to give a shit about that particular inflection point of anti-prejudice and not the still much larger issue of people advocating restrictions on speech because of their prejudice??

I'm from the UK. We have hate speech laws in the UK. You may be aware of the Count Dankula incident, in which he was prosecuted for hate speech for making a Nazi joke. Very few people on the Left defended him. The majority of the protest actually came from the Right. The Left has pretty much completely abandoned free speech.

Why be against hate speech? The problem with hate speech is that it is vague and subjective. What exactly is 'hate' if you get my point. If you go back 60 years for instance, the LGBT community would have been considered grossly immoral and a degradation of society. Homosexuality of course was illegal in the UK until 1967. It took a bit more time to get wider acceptance. One thing LGBT campaigners knew back in those days was that free speech is extremely important. When you are faced with a society and a State that is hostile to you, all you have is free speech. Some people today seem not understand that hate speech laws even 60 years ago would have been used against them. Against their speech. In fact in terms of LGBT campaigners, don't take my word for it.



The other thing is, once you normalise the idea that the State has the right to criminalise certain speech, you create a culture and climate where people grow up thinking no one has the right to offend them. That the state should step in. Then you get all kinds of special interest groups that say things like, "Wait a minute, if this speech is classed as hate speech, why not this other type of speech?". That's inevitable. So in the UK for instance there have been campaigns to make 'misogyny' a form of hate speech. You can really see the issue there. Misogyny no longer simply means 'hatred of women' it is used far more broadly than that by feminists and people on the Left. Pretty much anything criticisng 'feminism' could be construed as misogyny. And the way hate speech works, it is not intent that decides whether something is classed as hate speech or not, it is the person who took offence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/amber-rudd-misogyny-hate-crime-change-law-prejudice-women-home-secretary-greens-mps-charities-a8196786.html

The left is silent. What they don't seem to grasp is, governments change. One day maybe a far-right government is voted in and they have the same legislative powers against 'hate speech' as any other government. It is a bad idea to allow the state to control speech. It is a bad idea historically, and it is a bad idea logically.

Peterson was against it because it was compelled speech by the State. I hope I have given you a god explanation of why you should be fully in support of Peterson on that. A lot of people on the Left it seems aren't. Certainly this is the case in the UK.

So I'm gonna start by saying I absolutely agree with your core argument about why erring on the side of non-regulation when it comes to speech and that is where I come down as well. I also very much co-sign onto the notion that people that advocate for the ability to control speech in a democracy have to be aware of the sort of devil's bargain they may be getting into because those that have different values, motives, and views then your own could become in charge of those levers and re-purpose them in ways to silence speech you think should be allowed.

Much else though isn't really addressing what I am trying to get across. Though I get the points you are making.

I'm not saying that the left, and more specifically the younger generation of the left, is absent their own free speech concerns, clearly there are some notable cleavages there, and you speak to some of them. My point has only been that by all evidence I have found, they are not currently the sort of existential threat that is often catastrophized by the speakers mentioned in the video in the other thread. That comparatively, the left-leaning youth and the left writ large seems to be much smaller in both depth and breadth toward restricting free speech than what you currently see on the right and from older generations. And the left unquestionably in America has far less control of power levers to advance their free speech restrictions.

And to extrapolate into a point I didn't make in that last post, when certain speakers beat that drum as if it is the major existential free speech issue of our time, and basically infer it is the only one, its hard not to conclude that either through ignorance or purpose, they are manufacturing a crisis by denying the proper larger context this issue exists in, or at a minimum, ends up greatly exaggerating and denying proper context about it. Which leads people who put trust into them and then leaving with warped views of reality.

As an aside to the whole Google thing, it has always been a bit of a hard sell for me on getting worked up over that as someone that lives in the south. I mean from short experience in that field, and from friends still in it, there is a pretty good chance that if you have any sort of perceived liberal leanings on your facebook page or on a company personal audit, you can consider your resume shredded if you try and work in any of the oil and gas or industrial industries that populate much of the region. If we are moving to a world where there is a bit of an over-correction in trying to policy misogyny or racism in the workplace, I'm not sure I'm losing sleep over that trade-off.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 11:17:56 PM by Nola »

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1273 on: May 16, 2018, 03:05:18 PM »
Much else though isn't really addressing what I am trying to get across. Though I get the points you are making.

I'm not saying that the left, and more specifically the younger generation of the left, is absent their own free speech concerns, clearly there are some notable cleavages there, and you speak to some of them. My point has only been that by all evidence I have found, they are not currently the sort of existential threat that is often catastrophized by the speakers mentioned in the video in the other thread. That comparatively, the left-leaning youth and the left writ large seems to be much smaller in both depth and breadth toward restricting free speech than what you currently see on the right and from older generations. And the left unquestionably in America has far less control of power levers to advance their free speech restrictions.

Okay. Right, first I will clarify a few things. As I stated I am from the UK, so the perspective I am coming at it from is Left-wing politics in the West more generally, rather than exclusively the US. The US to a degree is shielded from some of the issues I am talking about because of the  First Amendment. However, one thing I have noticed is that even in the US there are people who agree with the concept of hate speech to some degree. Those people a more oftenly people who identify as Left-wing. I've heard for instance things like, "hate speech is tantamount to inciting violence". This equating words with violence is a dangerous game. The argument often made against equating words with violence is that it justifies using violence against words. What I don't hear as much though is that, at least to me, it seems like an attempt to subvert and undermine the very notion of free speech. There are many people strongly in support of free speech who would stop at inciting violence. That is the line for a lot of people. That's what I think is going on there. If hate speech is inciting violence, or if words are flat out violence, then it is not free speech.

The point I am making is in Europe, particulrly in the UK, the politics is similar. It's the same stuff being spouted by the Left: identity politics, white privilege, intersectionality, etc. The difference is there aren't any  First Amendment protections. And so someone can potentially be sent to jail for making a Joke. And as I mentioned, the Left are silent. Many on the Left agree with it. Owen Jones, a leftist journalist in the UK, in a interview with Jonathan Pie basically flaat out said calling someone "A fucking queer" is not free speech. Many on the Left have that sentiment. You have feminists for instance pressuring the government to clamp down on abusive tweets aimed at women online, etc. There is a real illiberal streak with modern left-wing politics today. What makes it so insidious is that it is done in the name of social justice. Why would you be against hate speech? And that is how the radical Left is getting a footing. It is not like a university for example would create policies that are blatantly racist. Imagine some far-right group campaigning for a 'white-only' space on campus. It's not going to happen. In the name of social justice, on the other hand, well why wouldn't a university want to make it a more 'inclusive' place? The problem is, these are trojan horse words. Inclusion for instance means the exclusion of certain points of view. It might not be an ovetly racist policy, but it is a discriminatory policy in a different way.

I do think it is only a minority of the Left that are the real problem. However, they also happen to be the most vocal and organised. I think it is around 8% of women in the UK that identify as feminist. Feminism is actually a bourgeois minority movement, yet it has enormous influence comparative to its size. The reason it has so is 1. its history and 2. The cause is good. In terms of free speech however, modern day feminism is one of the major culprits for attacks against free speech. They are always trying to ban and censor things.

And you can say, well, is it the biggest issue in the wider scheme of things? Here's another perspective based on the current situations in Europe. Throughout Europe there is a very real concern about the level of immigration over recent years, particularly Muslim immigration. You have questions about security. You have questions about identity and what this will mean for Europe in the coming years. They're hard questions to answer. It is not  Right that is making it difficult to talk about these issues (obviously) it is the Left. You see the more the Left is silent about Islam, the more they are silent about the effects on mass immigration, all they are doing is showing the wider public that they are incapable of dealing with the real issues. The more they dismiss people's concerns about Islam and immigration as racism, the more they will push the public away. The far-right is quite happy to talk about these issues. I think the biggest problem with the Left is its inability to connect with ordinary working-class people. Its abandonment of working class people in fact. There has been move from class politics to identity politics. My fear is what they are really doing is pushing more people to the right. As Sam Harris has said, identity politics is extremely toxic when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

In terms of the US, some people believe that political correctness from the Left is part of the reason for Trump being elected. It's possible it had something to do with it.

In a way, I don't think it matters whether it is the Right or the Left that is the bigger concern. You have to be critical of it whatever side it comes from. If you feel the Left's approach to social Justice is wrong and counter-productive, then by all means express those sentiments. Ultimately there is eiher merit to those critiques or there is not. Trying to second guess people's motives is kind of pointless in that regard.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 03:13:01 PM by Leadbelly »

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1274 on: May 16, 2018, 03:18:29 PM »
Throughout Europe there is a very real concern about the level of immigration over recent years, particularly Muslim immigration. You have questions about security. You have questions about identity and what this will mean for Europe in the coming years. They're hard questions to answer. It is not  Right that is making it difficult to talk about these issues (obviously) it is the Left. You see the more the Left is silent about Islam, the more they are silent about the effects on mass immigration, all they are doing is showing the wider public that they are incapable of dealing with the real issues. The more they dismiss people's concerns about Islam and immigration as racism, the more they will push the public away. The far-right is quite happy to talk about these issues. I think the biggest problem with the Left is its inability to connect with ordinary working-class people. Its abandonment of working class people in fact. There has been move from class politics to identity politics. My fear is what they are really doing is pushing more people to the right. As Sam Harris has said, identity politics is extremely toxic when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

1) The Left is refusing to talk about important questions of identity.

2) The Left has become toxic by embracing identity politics.


In the same dang paragraph, man.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1275 on: May 16, 2018, 03:31:36 PM »
Throughout Europe there is a very real concern about the level of immigration over recent years, particularly Muslim immigration. You have questions about security. You have questions about identity and what this will mean for Europe in the coming years. They're hard questions to answer. It is not  Right that is making it difficult to talk about these issues (obviously) it is the Left. You see the more the Left is silent about Islam, the more they are silent about the effects on mass immigration, all they are doing is showing the wider public that they are incapable of dealing with the real issues. The more they dismiss people's concerns about Islam and immigration as racism, the more they will push the public away. The far-right is quite happy to talk about these issues. I think the biggest problem with the Left is its inability to connect with ordinary working-class people. Its abandonment of working class people in fact. There has been move from class politics to identity politics. My fear is what they are really doing is pushing more people to the right. As Sam Harris has said, identity politics is extremely toxic when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

1) The Left is refusing to talk about important questions of identity.

2) The Left has become toxic by embracing identity politics.


In the same dang paragraph, man.

What are you doing? Are you sifting through the post looking for something to find fault with?

Questions of identity. A large movement of peoples from one area to another who have very different cultural values. If the movement is large enough and fast enough it could potentially change the culture of the place they move in to. An extreme example is if France suddenly had a population growth so thaat 51% of the population was Muslim. Culturally would France remain the same or would it change?

This is one aspect of people's concerns. Now you can argue whether that is a legitimate possibility, whatever, but what isn't helpful is someone saying you shouldn't have that concern because it is racist.

Identity Politics. What happens when people speak critical of Islam for instance is people see a brown skinned minority that is potentially being marginalised. And there is a concern there. The problem is, it gets in the way of having aa very real discussion about the issues.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 04:26:40 PM by Leadbelly »

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1276 on: May 16, 2018, 03:32:55 PM »
What are you doing? Are you sifting through the post looking for something to find fault with?

Trying to second guess people's motives is kind of pointless in that regard.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1277 on: May 16, 2018, 03:35:59 PM »
What are you doing? Are you sifting through the post looking for something to find fault with?

Trying to second guess people's motives is kind of pointless in that regard.

Okay. Yeah I shouldn't assume motive. It was a question though not a statement. Either way, point taken

I just wondered why you took two sentences from what is aa lengthy post that's all. :

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1278 on: May 16, 2018, 03:37:30 PM »
I bolded four sentences which are all in the same paragraph and plainly contradict each other.

If you don't find that contradiction to be worth noting, I don't know what to say.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1279 on: May 16, 2018, 03:40:59 PM »
I bolded four sentences which are all in the same paragraph and plainly contradict each other.

If you don't find that contradiction to be worth noting, I don't know what to say.

I don't....

Does my explanation not clarify that? Maybe I am missing the point.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1280 on: May 16, 2018, 03:42:04 PM »
You are missing the point, yes.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1281 on: May 16, 2018, 03:55:49 PM »
You are missing the point, yes.

Nah. I understand for instance why the Left is silent on the issues. And that is for the reasons you actually mean by highlighting certain sentences that way.

I'll give you an example that you may be are aware of. Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are on the Southern Poverty Law Center website listed as anti-Muslim extremists. They're just critical Islam. That's all. Identity Politics has made it so it is difficult to even criticise Islam without being branded some kind of bigot. That is the problem Sam Harris was talking about.

People being concerned about identity and other things when it comes to immigration doesn't inherently mean they are bigot and that there is no legitimate argument to be made.

It being a contradiction I think only makes sense if having concerns about identity and 'identity politics' are literally interchangable statements. Anyway...

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1282 on: May 16, 2018, 04:00:52 PM »
It being a contradiction I think onlly makes sense if having concerns about identity and 'identity politics' are literally interchangable statements.

Now we're getting somewhere.

If you want to complain about the malign effects of "identity politics" while excluding from that category political movements explicitly based on identity, you maybe might possibly want to come up with a definition that can be applied consistently.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1283 on: May 16, 2018, 04:11:16 PM »
National identity and the impact of immigration is not the same thing as identity politics.

Here's one major difference: Identity politics views the group identity as immutable. Immigrants who assimilate and adapt to the new country meld into the national identity. That simply doesn't occur in identity politics. White is white. Gay is gay. Muslim is Muslim. One of the underlying harms of Identity Politics is it removes any unifying identity like nation and a nation's culture. It instead separates people and then stacks them up in victim power.

So concerns for a national identity holding is also the same place of concern that worries about identity politics. Without anything to unify a people then you get strife.

Like the current American division.

This is ignoring the economic impact and other issues with mass immigration.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 04:21:00 PM by etiolate »

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1284 on: May 16, 2018, 04:53:33 PM »
One really annoying thing about identity politics is that the people who generally complain about it, seem to think they don't engage in such things themselves.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1285 on: May 16, 2018, 04:55:21 PM »
Also, Leadbelly: as far as the issue of Free Speech is concerned, there's a lot of problems people like us have against people who claim to advocate such a thing, and at the top of the list is the fact that said advocates don't seem to actually believe in such a thing. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/995827598952484865

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1286 on: May 16, 2018, 05:16:49 PM »
immigration doves by definition are more sanguine about newcomers being compatible with the national identity than immigration hawks

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1287 on: May 16, 2018, 05:30:55 PM »
That's criticizing running a TeenVogue intro piece to Marx. Free speech includes criticism.

Not at all like banning speakers or trying to shutdown a speaker. Most of the speakers that get shut down or protested hold Q&A sessions for criticism.

Stro

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1288 on: May 16, 2018, 05:32:11 PM »
I guess I missed Marx being in charge of a nation and ordering millions to their deaths

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1289 on: May 16, 2018, 05:39:30 PM »
Also, Leadbelly: as far as the issue of Free Speech is concerned, there's a lot of problems people like us have against people who claim to advocate such a thing, and at the top of the list is the fact that said advocates don't seem to actually believe in such a thing. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/995827598952484865

Am I missing something? Obviously free speech does not mean you can't be critical of something. Of course this in itself can be a bit murky. For instance, is it okay to use your free speech in way that you deny someone else their free speech? An example of that would be students who protest in a lecture so loudly that the person giving the lecture is unable to speak. I've heard people make the argument that, well, they're exercising their free speech. Yeah, they are, but...

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1290 on: May 16, 2018, 05:58:25 PM »
Also, Leadbelly: as far as the issue of Free Speech is concerned, there's a lot of problems people like us have against people who claim to advocate such a thing, and at the top of the list is the fact that said advocates don't seem to actually believe in such a thing. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/995827598952484865

Am I missing something? Obviously free speech does not mean you can't be critical of something. Of course this in itself can be a bit murky. For instance, is it okay to use your free speech in way that you deny someone else their free speech? An example of that would be students who protest in a lecture so loudly that the person giving the lecture is unable to speak. I've heard people make the argument that, well, they're exercising their free speech. Yeah, they are, but...

ding ding ding

(Not that I necessarily believe that, but that is literally the argument that many of the free speech advocates use whenever they're criticized for something they said)

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1291 on: May 16, 2018, 06:02:10 PM »
I think the line is at "using my speech with the objective of denying others speech"

Someone made the point, I think it was Bret Weinstein, that you're not only suppressing one person's speech but the right of others to hear that speech. As silly as I think people protesting outside a Peterson speech are, I don't wish to stop their right to protest outside. I'd draw the line at blocking the entrance and the audience attending or going inside with the protest and taking the stage/shouting down everyone else.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1292 on: May 16, 2018, 06:08:35 PM »
I think the line is at "using my speech with the objective of denying others speech"

Someone made the point, I think it was Bret Weinstein, that you're not only suppressing one person's speech but the right of others to hear that speech. As silly as I think people protesting outside a Peterson speech are, I don't wish to stop their right to protest outside. I'd draw the line at blocking the entrance and the audience attending or going inside with the protest and taking the stage/shouting down everyone else.

I agree. Also I think there is an element of 'doublethink' to using speech to suppress speech. lol

curly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1293 on: May 16, 2018, 06:26:01 PM »
The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1294 on: May 16, 2018, 06:34:05 PM »
I think the line is at "using my speech with the objective of denying others speech"

Someone made the point, I think it was Bret Weinstein, that you're not only suppressing one person's speech but the right of others to hear that speech. As silly as I think people protesting outside a Peterson speech are, I don't wish to stop their right to protest outside. I'd draw the line at blocking the entrance and the audience attending or going inside with the protest and taking the stage/shouting down everyone else.

Sounds reasonable enough on the surface. But then, should something like say, boycotts be allowed?

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1295 on: May 16, 2018, 06:38:25 PM »
The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.



As an aside, I've been thinking about why Peterson bothers me so much. I mean besides his religious gobbledygook and sophistry. These are easy to brush aside, but he annoys me on a visceral level.

 I figured it out. The dude is hysterical. I can perceive a profound, seething rage that is bubbling just underneath the surface that spills over on occasion. This hatred manifests itself in histrionics, face twitching and contortinf, his voice shaking with impotent anger. He really is an unpleasant old man that needs to chill the fuck out.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1296 on: May 16, 2018, 06:44:14 PM »
The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.

If you know about the holodomor and have read the communist manifesto then the linking between the two is pretty obvious. The language of the propaganda against the "Kulaks" is straight out of the manifesto.

The wiping out of dissent is in the manifesto. The confiscation of property from emigrates and "rebels",which the Soviets took to however a degree they wished and filled up their gulags.

Just read the manifesto and look at what happened.

Stro

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1297 on: May 16, 2018, 07:48:42 PM »
The article isn't even praising Marx, it's basically just a wiki skim. Teen Vogue probably could do articles on Hitler and Mao because obviously they aren't getting taught in school very well.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1298 on: May 16, 2018, 07:51:50 PM »
lol fucking zerobooks

Capitalism does indeed have a death toll. Expanse and exploration has a death toll.

However, linking Locke to the Reign of Terror is a fucking hilarious starting place. Rousseau was more an influence on the Jacobins and the far left wing that carried out the Reign of Terror. And that far left wing sounds like some proto-socialist readings of Rousseau.

curly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1299 on: May 16, 2018, 08:05:29 PM »
I've read the Manifesto and I have no idea what you're talking about. When it mentions the petty-bourgeois it treats them as a class destined to disappear under capitalism, not an enemy that the proletariat must defeat during the course of a revolution—and "defeat during the course of a revolution" is not synonymous with "commit a genocide against." To put blame on Marx for the Holodomor because Stalin used Marxist rhetoric is akin to blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust because the Nazis took up the concept of the ubermensch. It takes the most disingenuous reactionary reading to see calls for genocide in the Manifesto—which, by the way, is a piece of agitprop and not a particularly important document for understanding Marx's thought as anyone who's studied him seriously could tell you.

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1300 on: May 16, 2018, 08:06:56 PM »
Lol at Peterson dismissing the entirety of Marx's writings because some people used his writings in bad faith. Kind of like how a lot of people have done with holy scriptures, which Peterson loves.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1301 on: May 16, 2018, 08:22:52 PM »
I guess the issue with Communism is how do you incentivise people to contribute to society. I think the potential flaws would be the flaws of human nature. In the same way the potential flaws of anarchism are the flaws of human nature.

I am an anarchist at heart. An anarchist and anti-establishment in the sense that I have always had a disdain for authority since my childhood. Realistically, I couldn't see anarchism working. I guess I have the same misgivings about Communism.

It's this line of thinking where I wonder, would there ever be some correct form of Communism or would it devolve in a similar way to what it actually did in the Soviet Union?

curly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1302 on: May 16, 2018, 08:48:49 PM »
90% of what Marx wrote was a critique of capitalism. That's how he arrived at communism, not by saying this system is bad and we need to fix it, but by saying this system has these glaring contradictions and flaws which will cause it to collapse and this is what will come after. He wasn't a prophet and imo as a nonexpert was overly deterministic and inflexible in his predictions, but a lot of his criticisms are extremely relevant to where we are in the present day. The extreme accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few and accompanying disappearance of a middle class, capitalism's crises of overproduction and existential need to seek out new markets, to privatize and monetize every aspect of human existence, all these are key themes in Marx's writings. You have to be blind to not see the ways in which Marx was right—hell you can find articles all over the capitalist press saying, gee, Marx was kind of on the money.

So when Peterson or his ilk say Marx was a monster, we must not talk about Marx, they're basically covering their eyes and pretending the flaws he pointed out don't exist. They're ignoring how the crises of the present day—Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, the rise of xenophobic nationalism in general and the turn towards autocracies in the developing world—are born out of discontent with the ills of liberal democratic capitalism. What Zizek said at the end of that capitalist realism video rings quite true to me, that we are in a crisis of liberalism and we have a choice between Berlusconi and some type of socialism.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1303 on: May 16, 2018, 09:04:33 PM »
If Marx is responsible for the Holodomor, then the Great Famine is Adam Smith's fault.

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1304 on: May 16, 2018, 09:05:36 PM »
90% of what Marx wrote was a critique of capitalism. That's how he arrived at communism, not by saying this system is bad and we need to fix it, but by saying this system has these glaring contradictions and flaws which will cause it to collapse. And a lot of his criticisms are extremely relevant to where we are in the present day: the extreme accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few and accompanying disappearance of a middle class, capitalism's crises of overproduction and existential need to seek out new markets, to privatize and monetize every aspect of human existence. You have to be blind to not see the ways in which Marx was right—hell you can find articles all over the capitalist press saying, gee, Marx was kind of on the money.

So when Peterson or his ilk say Marx was a monster, we must not talk about Marx, they're basically covering their eyes and pretending the flaws he pointed out don't exist. They're ignoring how the crises of the present day—Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, the rise of xenophobic nationalism in general and the turn towards autocracies in the developing world—are born out of discontent with the ills of liberal democratic capitalism. What Zizek said at the end of that "capitalist realism" video rings quite true to me, that we are in a crisis of liberalism and we have a choice between Berlusconi and some type of socialism.

In fact Marx was also complimentary to what capitalism had achieved. In The Grundrisse he wrote quite complimentary things about capitalism. Ultimately he didn't think it was enough.

That said, whatever you do, it has to be implemented. It is one thing talking about it, another thing actually making it work. One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked. It has lifted the majority of people out of poverty.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1305 on: May 16, 2018, 09:08:46 PM »
One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.

That relies on rather broad definitions of both "capitalism" and "worked."

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1306 on: May 16, 2018, 09:14:43 PM »
One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.

That relies on rather broad definitions of both "capitalism" and "worked."

Well, the majority of the world's population is now lifted out of poverty. It wasn't lifted out of poverty through charity.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1307 on: May 16, 2018, 09:18:43 PM »
I've read the Manifesto and I have no idea what you're talking about. When it mentions the petty-bourgeois it treats them as a class destined to disappear under capitalism, not an enemy that the proletariat must defeat during the course of a revolution—and "defeat during the course of a revolution" is not synonymous with "commit a genocide against." To put blame on Marx for the Holodomor because Stalin used Marxist rhetoric is akin to blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust because the Nazis took up the concept of the ubermensch. It takes the most disingenuous reactionary reading to see calls for genocide in the Manifesto—which, by the way, is a piece of agitprop and not a particularly important document for understanding Marx's thought as anyone who's studied him seriously could tell you.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Quote
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

This is all based on a historic view of life as oppressor and oppressed, with communism as  the end to that. The violent revolution is inevitable. And he specifically means capitalists by bourgeoisie.

Quote
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

This is of course was one of the ideas that supplied the gulags with pointless forced labor.

Quote
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

Quote
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

These ideas feed directly into the logic behind the state actions that lead to the mass starvation and famine of the Ukranians and the "kulaks". All the angry bourgeoisie rhetoric slipped right onto the farmers who were doing better. Redistribution and lack of property made them enemies. The middle class had to be flattened out.

Quote
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

I doubt you actually read this shit or know about the Holodomor propaganda.



Fat capitalist is now fat kulak.

Quote
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

https://ukrainiangenocidewhap.weebly.com/stage-1-classification.html

Quote
The classification seemed relatively simple. The Ukrainians were already outcasts. The Communist Army had imposed their will on the Ukrainians when they overthrew the Ukrainian ruler. The Ukrainians themselves had rich culture and thus a large and deep sense of national pride. The deposing of their leader made them bitter to the idea of communist rule. Their independence had been attacked. Due to this, Stalin felt their national pride undermined his power and the idea of communism as a whole. These traits made the Ukrainians an easy group to target.

Ukranians too much a national identity. Too many kulaks. Something had to be done to them.

And Marx expected violence. It was part of the plan.

Quote
The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm


There are critiques of Capitalism at the time of Marx by Marx which are of merit. The problem is his solution and make no mistake its his solution. It's his name on these ideas and this angry, resentful, violent rhetoric.

Understood another way:

Marx - None of these bad things you say will happen have any chance of happening because proletariate yada yada..

Narrator - All the bad things happened.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1308 on: May 16, 2018, 09:22:18 PM »
Well, the majority of the world's population is now lifted out of poverty. It wasn't lifted out of poverty through charity.

From 1990 to 2010, roughly two thirds of the headcount reduction in global absolute poverty came from the People's Republic of China.  :ussrcry

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1309 on: May 16, 2018, 09:25:10 PM »
Well, the majority of the world's population is now lifted out of poverty. It wasn't lifted out of poverty through charity.

From 1990 to 2010, roughly two thirds of the headcount reduction in global absolute poverty came from the People's Republic of China.  :ussrcry

You kind of proved the point without knowing it I guess. China went from a socialist economy to a capitalist one. China is more of a hybrid society.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1310 on: May 16, 2018, 09:26:22 PM »
Got you covered.

One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.

That relies on rather broad definitions of both "capitalism" and "worked."

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1311 on: May 16, 2018, 09:31:00 PM »
wait is your dumbass saying thats not true capitalism? and so the capitalist influence leading to poverty reduction doesn't count?

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1312 on: May 16, 2018, 09:43:38 PM »
If Marx is to blame for Stalin, who's to blame for Hitler?

agrajag

  • bowl of petunias
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1313 on: May 16, 2018, 10:18:32 PM »
If Marx is to blame for Stalin, who's to blame for Hitler?

Jesus is to blame for Jordan Peterson

 :picard

Leadbelly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1314 on: May 16, 2018, 10:25:34 PM »
This is relevant to the conversation we've had. Watch it the whole way through
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:40:25 PM by Leadbelly »

curly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1315 on: May 16, 2018, 10:33:30 PM »
I've read the Manifesto and I have no idea what you're talking about. When it mentions the petty-bourgeois it treats them as a class destined to disappear under capitalism, not an enemy that the proletariat must defeat during the course of a revolution—and "defeat during the course of a revolution" is not synonymous with "commit a genocide against." To put blame on Marx for the Holodomor because Stalin used Marxist rhetoric is akin to blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust because the Nazis took up the concept of the ubermensch. It takes the most disingenuous reactionary reading to see calls for genocide in the Manifesto—which, by the way, is a piece of agitprop and not a particularly important document for understanding Marx's thought as anyone who's studied him seriously could tell you.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Quote
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

This is all based on a historic view of life as oppressor and oppressed, with communism as  the end to that. The violent revolution is inevitable. And he specifically means capitalists by bourgeoisie.

Quote
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

This is of course was one of the ideas that supplied the gulags with pointless forced labor.

Quote
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

Quote
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

These ideas feed directly into the logic behind the state actions that lead to the mass starvation and famine of the Ukranians and the "kulaks". All the angry bourgeoisie rhetoric slipped right onto the farmers who were doing better. Redistribution and lack of property made them enemies. The middle class had to be flattened out.

Quote
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

I doubt you actually read this shit or know about the Holodomor propaganda.

(Image removed from quote.)

Fat capitalist is now fat kulak.

Quote
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

https://ukrainiangenocidewhap.weebly.com/stage-1-classification.html

Quote
The classification seemed relatively simple. The Ukrainians were already outcasts. The Communist Army had imposed their will on the Ukrainians when they overthrew the Ukrainian ruler. The Ukrainians themselves had rich culture and thus a large and deep sense of national pride. The deposing of their leader made them bitter to the idea of communist rule. Their independence had been attacked. Due to this, Stalin felt their national pride undermined his power and the idea of communism as a whole. These traits made the Ukrainians an easy group to target.

Ukranians too much a national identity. Too many kulaks. Something had to be done to them.

And Marx expected violence. It was part of the plan.

Quote
The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm


There are critiques of Capitalism at the time of Marx by Marx which are of merit. The problem is his solution and make no mistake its his solution. It's his name on these ideas and this angry, resentful, violent rhetoric.

Understood another way:

Marx - None of these bad things you say will happen have any chance of happening because proletariate yada yada..

Narrator - All the bad things happened.

Should I just repost what I've said already, because you haven't actually replied to any of it?

Revolutionary violence doesn't mean genocidal violence, just as overthrowing a monarchy doesn't mean you must kill the entirety of the aristocracy.

Stalin repurposing Marx's rhetoric about the class struggle and applying it to petit-bourgeios peasants is a reflection on Stalin, not Marx. Under Marxist theory the petit-bourgeios are an irrelevant class long before a revolutionary period. The very idea of attempting to institute socialism in a backwards society like czarist Russia goes against orthodox Marxism.

90% of Marx's writings are about capitalism, not a coming socialist or communist state, if you bothered to read anything besides The Communist Manifesto, the least essential of Marx's published works from a theoretical perspective.

What a precious liberal you are, clutching your pearls over Marx's angry rhetoric, as if he had just gone easier the class conflict could be resolved amicably.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:47:51 PM by curly »

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1316 on: May 16, 2018, 11:12:10 PM »
This is relevant to the conversation we've had. Watch it the whole way through

you must be new here

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1317 on: May 17, 2018, 12:04:14 AM »
We're talking about the killing of millions of people. Revolutionary violence tends to be in high death counts. You're being a stickler about genocidal violence for reasons unknown. The question was Is Marx responsible for Communism? Are Marx's ideas related to the millions killed via Communism? The answer is yes. You read Marx and the ideas are there. And for some ungodly reason, the failed agricultural and private property ideas still get repeated to this day.

There's little repurposing there. The "it was only Stalin" rejoinder puts you in the camp of Hitler had some good ideas. It's dumb, dishonest and disgusting.

curly

  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1318 on: May 17, 2018, 01:02:06 AM »
Is Adam Smith responsible for the millions of deaths under capitalism? Is John Locke responsible for the genocide of native populations? Marx supported using violence to achieve his political ends, he didn't support the wholesale elimination of populations, which is a pretty fucking huge difference. I'm tempted to ask what you think Marx's ideas on property and agriculture(?) are, but I know it will be some horrific mutilation (maybe if I say this a third time it'll get through: prescriptions for what the future society should look like are a small part of Marx's oeuvre, which you would know if you were actually familiar with him). The Soviet and Chinese agricultural polices are derived from Leninist and Maoist theories about how to transition to socialism in a largely peasant society, a situation whose very existence is a departure from orthodox Marxism.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 01:08:15 AM by curly »

Shostakovich

  • To err is human, to Kris, divine.
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #1319 on: May 17, 2018, 01:04:46 AM »
by engaging with etiolate, you have already lost