This is assuming the conclusion that capitalism (and only capitalism) is the goose.

Obviously under that assumption most would think it a bad mistake to kill the goose. Meanwhile some are considering different, possibly better, geese

yes definitions matter, so what is it that Marxism or the marxist means to overthrow, if thats what a marxist means to do, and what is capitalism and does the marxist mean to over throw a/our particular definition of capitalism.

Here I would say its more a distinction of having private ownership, or private ownership of the means of the production (are these different?) and I think that would satisfy wiki for both words (ie capitalism = private ownership of means of production; marxism= no such private ownership)

Not sure what that was to do with definitions.

It was about the wealth creation part of society. is capitalism the only golden goose in town? Can't just assume it is in an arguement with those who think it may not be. And certainly can't claim it's true by definition

I think its odd you continued without defining capitalism. It might be that its the only way to wealth yes. I think that if we are anti-Marxism we probably think this. I think this passage from Ideal Money is relevant:

But I think fundamentally property rights and rights and freedoms are the measure or should be, so it might be tautological yes.

https://www.gzeromedia.com/viewpoint...n-in-argentina

The Argentinian president seems to agree, with article suggest, with the use of my/JP's definition of Marxism. Put I take issue with the implications of anarcho-capitalism, in its actuality, being in contrast to marxism.. (for example it really matters who the private owner is that receives the state sale and how they win such a bid etc. and how they got their wealth to make such a purchase.)

State is supposed to be something that upholds our freedoms. It seems that general ignorance from either side means to tear down the infrastructure that hold up our freedoms/rights.

I call that marxism. So bitcoiners for example, crypto anarchists are general marxists. Most don't realize they very proudly and loudly share marxist ideals (ie the elite should be over thrown and the spoils shared among the commoners) but they are themselves self identified as being anti marxist

I'm not a huge fan of laws that criminalize words and ideas rather than actions but they normally are gutted by the court system on constitutional/free speech grounds. But the world is truly a ****ed up place if an academic wants to go to war over
personal pronouns. What a dumb ****ing hill to die on. Pronouns, even if made up, are about as important in the scheme of things as strange given names, hyphenated last names, or bizarrely spelled names. The net loss to a person for accepting how others wish to to be called is pretty nominal.

Indigenous teachings: Is getting a seat at the table really a special privilege? Doesn't the special privilege rest with the group that has been denying the teachings? Aren't the students bodies made up of indigenous people?

I just want to make sure here u said that misgendering someone should be a criminal offense. JP wasn't dying on a pronouns hill it was about free and compelled speech
No. They are students like the rest of us. And they don't have indigenous knowledge for us to learn that is seperate from our knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. Not special to a group

That's a very strange interpretation. The misgendering statute does not exist in a vacuum. There are plenty of laws that make speech a criminal offense -disturbing the peace, harassment, contempt of court and obscenity. There ares also plenty of non governmental restrictions imposed by businesses and societal norms. So yes, Peterson has picked a dumb ****ing hill to die on. Instead of concerning himself with a actual attempt by a govt to limit the content of speech he instead fights about not adhering to what should be an acceptable social norm.
He is just using the statute and his slippery slope into Marxism argument to be justify his stance and to become an internet famous *******.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It's your example, explain yourself.

buddy ur a moron. Peterson was fighting against legally compelled speech and said he's completely fine with the politeness of calling someone their prefered pronouns. Wtf is ur problem?
I said Peterson is against government compelled speech and completely fine with the custom of calling people their prefered pronouns. Being someone that is ok mandating legal that u have to bend to others subjective wins is psychotic. Ur a moronic psycho.

Jjou u act like ur gonna critique my understanding of Marxism but u have simply shown the crowd u don't have one. U don't have an understanding of any of this. U probably perfectly agree with Peterson's ACTUAL view. Wtf is ur problem?

Tell us what Marxism is then pussy.

Don't be a coward anymore, put ur opinion on the line. It's ok. It's ok to be wrong u don't have to be afriad. Don't be scared coward

Ad hominin

Strawman

Ad hominin.

Well done.

wanna see how ad hominems work wanna see someone that understand them.

You wont' give your actual opinion, or definition, nor will you actually counter anything I have said or presented, because you are a coward.

Now....respond..... saying "ad hominem"

So everyone will understand, you ARE a coward.

Youre one of the those kids in the crowds the kids the kid who is down. Thats your skill. You think the clique is against me here, so you can just come in with disagreeing SENTIMENTS and no substance.

Thats who you are....

Do I come across as a pushover?

intellectual cowardice, that obviously bleeds into your life.

It's your thread, started at Bobo suggestion. I still waiting for you to connect the personal pronouns law = Marxism.

Until you do, I am just going to assume you are the a small minded bigot who parrots a "famous" bigot because you have no ability to express cohesive original thoughts on a miniscule social issue.

Im well aware of the problems of the various systems. But over the last decades, where the actual threat of communism gaining a foothold in the US is very small, and we arent in as active a cold war around the world as we had been, many people dont really know anything about the systems themselves. Instead they just know that all they have to do to stir up outrage in their political base is call someone a commie or socialist, even if that label has nothing to do with the actual policy being discussed.

I'll bet you are. Thats the extent of you and your intellect. You have no ability to participate. You are a coward.

I guess but thats lumping in those that understand, say something like peterson, with those that don't and just heard communism is bad.

I've caught multiple or many people saying or implying that communism and or marxism is bad, while these people themselves CLEARLY identify with marxist principles. I think a lot of people really haven't been explain why marxism versus for example the american constitution is a very bad thing.

Further posts that just attack another poster with no substance will be deleted and infracted, unless I get busy.

Just mine right?

Out of every person here who has tried to imply i Have put forth something wrong. Or they mean to critique. Imply I don't know why I'm talking about. Say I don't know what I'm talking about etc...

Not one of you has put forth your own definition of Marxism in contrast.

Thats the extent of the character of people here.

its just a clique. Where is the sincere dialogue?

Dude, you start these train wreck threads to hear yourself speak, kind of a version of Skalansky lite. Why would sincere dialogue be a part of that equation. Also, do people still use the term clique regularly? Seems kind of retro, and kind of amusing you would put any group of people here into some sort of clique. Still, I would be curious for you to list this uber clique's members and what their goal is on these forums. Try to be sincere when answering this. Thanks in advance.

All the best.

Your ridiculous premise is that a social nicety, if imposed by law, will definitely lead to a 180 degree change in our social, economic and political philosophy.

I have tried to put into context how immaterial and immature it is to not abide by this social nicety. There is no need for my definition of Marxism, as I completely disagree that any of this has any impact whatever on our societal norms.

If you want to prove your premise and be taken seriously, maybe provide more than a Peterson video to show the progression to Marxism you fear.

Ganstaman, you can leave up his posts insulting me. They prove the shallowness of his reasoning and logic.

Hey ganstaman, do ur ****ing job.

u don't know what Marxism means. This has been demonstrated Cleary. The rest is u pretending like ur making a proper critique.

Give ur understanding bra. It's ok to be wrong in front of people. I risk it all the time.

Let me submit that Marxism probably has something to do with the politics of Karl Marx.