etplayer

7 ms·

31.
by etplayer 9y ago
>You cannot have no social structure anymore than a person can have "no age" Class is not equal to social structure; when Marxists talk about classes they refer to economic power relations, as in, there is no group of people wi
32.
by etplayer 9y ago
To add to this, try meditation too. It can be done while sitting and with the noise around you on a train, and you don't have to look odd by closing your eyes (though you could pretend you are sleeping). However I find it is most comfo
33.
by etplayer 9y ago
>So it was aimed at replacing the existing structure... If I told you that I'd be replacing your broken windshield, would you understand that I'd be simply removing your windshield and not putting anything in its place? >The
34.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure. No it wasn't (and no it isn't), it's aimed at abolishing the class structure. >There are people who don't like the current structure and aim
35.
by etplayer 9y ago
That's actually not true. What is "neo Marxism"? As I understand it, it is the application of Marixist class theory to other non-class power structures. However I have seen nor have been able to find any evidence that this is
36.
by etplayer 9y ago
I've found that Peterson has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) while they could not be further from each other, except as b
37.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Planned economies such as the USSR clearly impinge on human liberty, tend to be undemocratic, and are usually very inefficient I disagree that they impinge on human freedom, at least I don't think they do compared to capitalist eco
38.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor? The workers own the products that they make, and if made in join production then I expect some calculation to be made in terms of socially necessar
39.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Oh yeah, the conception of freedom has changed so that slavery is freedom. No; if anything, capitalism is the closest to slavery if we consider the case of the slave abolishing the ownership of slaves (the human component) of private pr
40.
by etplayer 9y ago
>you actually mean state police going door by door and confiscating any valuables you have. Maybe lynching some property owners along the way. You misunderstand the concept of property. I have written about it here: https://ne
41.
by etplayer 9y ago
The quote I used happened to be incongruent with the source I linked, so I'm sorry for that - I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. That said, you asked for statistics and I have provided them - Cuba in terms of poverty isn't a
42.
by etplayer 9y ago
The fact that you're telling me to move to Venezuela (capitalist economy) or North Korea (a country that doesn't even call itself Communist or even Socialist any more) shows just how bad your argument is. It was perfectly valid
43.
by etplayer 9y ago
Just to take you up on this, I do not think that Cuba is a Communist country, but it reports very highly on poverty and especially in comparison to other countries in South America. >Despite this, the poverty level reported by the govern
44.
by etplayer 9y ago
The idea that "if you don't like it, leave" can be used to excuse any injustice, such as against the Jews in Nazi Germany. What's your point, exactly? It's a farcical notion and I hope you can see that it is counter
45.
by etplayer 9y ago
You're saying that if it takes time for the effects of a capitalist mode of production, which does not cater for those at the bottom of society, which creates wars for profit and plunder then therefore these countries are not guilty? A
46.
by etplayer 9y ago
You lived in a country that was under Party rule of an emulation of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard state which operated on the functions of private property, money and was clearly a class society, I'm guessing, unless you lived in revolut
47.
by etplayer 9y ago
Why do you say this?
48.
by etplayer 9y ago
I think it's a shame that the HN article title was changed from something which is clearly expounded by the video i.e Communism, and mentioned several times even with quotes by proto-Communists and Communists themselves, and the attack
49.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. This sounds awfully theological to me. >You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the f
50.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Scientific advancement and technological innovation both greatly benefit from societies that have the greatest individual liberty and the least central control. Communists agree, and this is why democratic Socialistts such as Oscar Wild
51.
by etplayer 9y ago
I agree, it's something that sounds difficult to get right, and if it's possible to get right, what's the best way to go about it? I contend that the model which the Soviets adopted was poor, not only for the reasons you ment
52.
by etplayer 9y ago
You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism&quot
53.
by etplayer 9y ago
Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense against property; Communism isn't only the common ownership of MoP, rather,
54.
by etplayer 9y ago
No, the case made in the talk takes the example of Sci-hub and agreement with its principles into a wider scope to ask, if intellectual property is a problem (itself a radical idea, even on HN) what about property in general? And by this &#
55.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Marxism is bad. Like Hegel, Marx wrote without any substance, and his work has been refuted long ago. Its legacy is undeniably bad. Nobody sane discusses Marxism itself, other than it's historical place. To me, Marx and Hegel are p
56.
by etplayer 9y ago
Yes, I am proposing a change that such material should not be illegal to possess. As to distribution, I have not made up my mind.
57.
by etplayer 9y ago
I think you're going about this wrong. The difference is what harm is "valid"; if I laugh at you and humiliate you, it may indeed make you upset and traumatized, and I think it may be morally or ethically wrong for me to do t
58.
by etplayer 9y ago
>Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I a
59.
by etplayer 9y ago
Not only the UK an Canada, but Australia, NZ and some European countries too have implemented what I must say is a heinous law against freedom of expression through drawing. This hideous trend shows that governments have little care. It was
60.
by etplayer 9y ago
I'm someone familiar with how it works, though obviously I do not search for the material myself - but it depends where one goes. I2P is known for its torrent capability and the torrents can be freely obtained. Tor has various forums t

More ›