HN user
How is a state which allows and encourages wage labour and trade 'communist'? Totalitarian everyone agrees on, as to whether it is Communist or Socialist other than in name is heavily doubtful.
State intervention in a capitalist economy does not the abolition of the value-form make, it makes a state capitalist economy.
Here it is again 'CP isn't wrong'. Yes it is, I don't see how you can think it's not.
You haven't defined any criteria for 'wrong'; the person you are replying to is taking issue with the fact that the harm principle (a commonly accepted ideal of what is 'wrong' in individualist society) does not apply to any given instance of viewing or possessing child pornography. You have to define your criteria for 'wrong' rather than simply assert it. By defining criteria, only then can you be refuted in any meaningful sense, rather than a rally of "it's wrong" and "no it isn't wrong".
So if you say that it is wrong, please back up your meta-ethical position.
It's not a kink, it's not a fetish, it's not a sexuality
Pedophilia is a fetish; it may be other things too, but it is a fetish for children, this is even in the 'plain' sense of the word fetish, which is to concentrate on a particular aspect above all else. The pedophile, rather than fetishising say "normal" features like breath, fetishises extreme youth.
being a paedophile is totally fine then you need to get help
Nowhere did the poster say this.
The PROTECT Act specifically had provisions against even drawings of any kind, however those parts to my knowledge were ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, there are various state laws against the material; I don't have a better source than Wikipedia at the moment, but:
Currently, such depictions are in a legal grey area due to parts of the PROTECT Act being ruled unconstitutional on a federal level; however, laws regulating lolicon and shotacon differs between states; several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions (such as video games in the state of New Jersey), while others usually have only vague laws on such content; in some states, such as California, such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws,[70] while the state of Utah explicitly bans it.[71]
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornogra...
But what if it's artificial child porn that looks like your child?
I don't understand the problem. Let's assume that no real images are used as input to the artificial child image creation process. So what if it looks like your child? That is mere coincidence, and doesn't seem to me to be reason why it should be illegal to possess or produce.
There are justifiable reasons for this.
Can you please elaborate on what these are, or where I can read about what they are? So far, the reasons I have been given and those that I have seen used for example in England when laws were being created (the CAJA 2009 law) have been poor reasons and unjustifiable restriction of freedom of expression in my view.
Out of interest, in what way is harm increased? Does the same harm occur in cases in which the image is only being viewed?
I know you're being facetious, but under a Communist society it's likely that there would be several popular hobby projects, similar to open source community's efforts. Things like AIM would be developed in private or cooperatively, just as modern software is written, but without the influence of capital and wage labour.
This was not a problem with Socialism, it was a problem with the form of economic planning used. We must also bear in mind that there are forms such as market Socialism. Neither the USSR nor Venezuela paid attention to cybernetic planning; scientists in the USSR were repeatedly shut down by bureaucrats for suggesting it.
There exist modern planning methods, though still academic, such as those elaborated by Cockshott and Cottrell in Towards a New Socialism, it's worth a look if you haven't seen it already.
Nobody is suggesting rigid five year plans any more.
Automation certainly can benefit society (the majority of whom are workers), but in the way in which it is used at the moment does not benefit them in the fullest sense; they can take advantage of lower prices, but they can't take advantage of having much more free time to pursue creative hobbies, science, education and entertainment.
There are at least two possible solutions offered; the first is UBI in which everyone gets sufficient money to live off. Where exactly this money comes from and from what profits is up for question, and raises interesting questions about profitability in industries where there is higher organic composition of capital. The second option is one in which automation isn't used for profit at all, it is used simply to reduce working hours via ceasing commodity production and instead only the manufacture of use-values. In my opinion this second option (frequently called Socialism, endorsed by the likes of George Orwell, Einstein, Oscar Wilde, Marx and Engels) leads the way to an even greater emancipation and heightened productive capacity of society, given that there would no longer be any need to ensure high employment (high employment across industries is necessary for workers to buy back the products that they make, which generates profit). The second option also deals quite well with the psychological issues of living in a commodity-producing society brought up by the likes of Marcuse and Adorno.
Although the UBI solution to the problem of rising automation has rightfully earned the interest of many, I do not believe it goes far enough to ensure a more free, equitable and democratic society for all.
Edit: Regarding UBI, what is the incentive to stop companies from "offloading" the duty to pay a fair wage onto the state? I'm not really up to scratch on UBI details, so a response would be appreciated.
You're attempting to redefine the meaning of words to create a strawman
Isn't this exactly what post-Marxian authors did? By the time Marx was writing, it was clear what capitalism was - the predominant employment of wage labour, private ownership of social means of production, and accumulation of capital. The idea that a state which owns all or most of the productive capacity of society cannot be "capitalist" for some reason is outstandingly silly.
The more protected against 'exploitation' people in a particular country are, the more likely they are to risk their lives trying to escape their socialist utopias.
This is a very ignorant statement; there exist heavy protections against high exploitation in the EU, but the EU is not a Socialist organisation nor are many people trying to escape it for its labour laws. There has not existed a Socialist society as of yet aside from the Paris Commune and Catalonia (which I must note, very few people tried to escape); before you reply that this is an NTS fallacy, I must say that the Socialist mode of production rests upon the abolition of the law of value (i.e commodities are not produced) and the working class as a whole hold ownership of the social means of production, and the functions of private property have been done away with. This was not observed in the regimes of the USSR, Soviet satellite states, Cuba or Venezuela.
If you weren't a hypocrite you would renounce your citizenship and relocate to a 'better' place, like Cuba or Venezuela.
No. Cuba and Venezuela both operate the capitalist mode of production, and in fact Cuba is in very direct violation of the principles of non-alienated labour. How can a Socialist country be opposed to fair working conditions? This suggests to me that it is not Socialist at all. You must also note that I have not shown any appreciation for the economic models of either Cuba or Venezuela. The idea that I must support any country which calls itself "Socialist" is as absurd as saying that as a democrat I must support any country which calls itself "democratic", including the DPRK.
Capitalism is inseparable from a free market system.
No, it's not; there exists market Socialism, for example. There also exists mutualism. I don't know where you're getting this from other than the idea that authors in favour of capitalism also tend to prefer free market economics.
Whether we're talking rudimentary Socialism or its derivatives, including Fascism and Communism.
Communism is actually the complete lack of state control but also the lack of commodity production and therefore the market.
Regulation is antithesis to Capitalism because it imposes State control over the economy.
You have still failed to explain why lack of regulation is central to capitalism other than to name Hayek, Mises and Friedman who were in favour of free-market capitalism. Other authors who sought to describe capitalism prior to them didn't include "free market" as a core principle of capitalism.
There is no denying that the epitome of capitalist production is completely unencumbered by a State, but there is also no denying that the state must intervene in a capitalist economy to protect property rights on a large scale. There is also the idea that the the State itself cannot be a capitalist actor which is totally false; we see the State engaging in the employment of wage-labour and selling on the national and international market. This makes the state as capitalist as Microsoft or Google.
The US isn't even remotely close to being a free market system and hasn't been for decades.
Where exactly did GP claim that it is? And why is regulation incompatible with a capitalist system? You are making the confusion that capitalism means "free market", when it doesn't.
American medical system is not capitalist but mercantilist.
This distinction is made on the fallacious idea that "capitalism" is equal to a totally free market. This is a common confusion but false nevertheless. There is no reason I see why a capitalist system cannot include intervention by the government, and indeed it must deal with this to uphold property rights as even libertarian authors tell us.
Capitalism is the predominant employment of wage-labour, the private ownership of social means of production and the goal of accumulation of capital.
Historically free market has always resulted in a much better quality in addition to lower prices.
It has also resulted in much higher rates of exploitation, as the workers of countries with more lax or unenforced labour laws suffer greatly for it.
When Venezuela's economic ministers say things like "the law of supply and demand is a lie" to justify price controls
They can't be very good Socialists then; Marx was a supporter of the law of supply and demand, and its functioning is extremely obvious to anyone familiar with the idea of markets, even without training. Marx didn't deny it nor did his contemporaries or predecessors.
I assume it's motivated by their socialist ideology, and blame the policy on that ideology.
The North Korean statesmen have made disparaging remarks about democracy, but they claim to be democratic. Yet we would both agree not to blame democracy for what is happening in North Korea. Is there any evidence that Venezuela is actually implementing Socialist policy any more than the DPRK is implementing democratic policy?
But nevertheless in intrudes on the public sphere, to simply deny its effect on the culture surrounding it and the society which uses it is naive. The idea that businesses exist apart from everyone and everything is a pernicious one.
So, I'm not sure if that's really xenophobic.
A little nitpick, but "-phobia" suffix does not strictly mean fear, though that is its origin. It can also mean hatred.
Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)
No? I never said that; he shouldn't be pressured, but merely the act of serving foreigners or having his restaurant listed is not pressure to change -- in fact, if he changed, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the rating system? He was rated on the Japanese food he serves, not the Canadian food.
We're primates, not pure energy beings that we can reprogram at will.
Nobody doubts this; my point is that our current mode of production has a very strong effect on how we go about our daily lives and the attitudes that it influences; we have overcome "human nature" in many circumstances, but that's irrelevant because it's clear that the way people behave is to do with how they are raised, what kind of attitudes are imbued in them; for Marx labour is not merely something that people do, but it's something that we do which makes us human; thus the changed characterstic of labour, which comes in through the base of society influences the superstructure. I don't know why you seem to be clinging so much to the idea that human nature is as we see it now; Fromm notes for example that "human nature" has changed, such as the arising of the general desire for fame that has only been seen since the 14th century. Yet many would say this is human nature. Do you not think that historical analysis is important here? Socioligists have more of a place to describe exactly what human nature is rather than biologists and the empiricists whose only data is restricted to what they can see here and now. This is too narrow.
collectivist societies
Communism is the epitome of individualism, the free association of people. All society hitherto is collectivist by definition, man is not an island, he is formed and forms everything around him in the effort to make it non-alienated.
which we arrived at through millennia of trial-and-error and free choice.
No. Capitalism is no more a natural phenomenon than the Russian revolution's spurred State socialism was. Look at the enclosure in Western Europe and the laws which led up to it, the functioning of the State and how its function has changed. Your idea that we are simply in a natural point which has not been forced in any way, that capitalism is the highest form of development, ignores that history is not linear, and that systems win because people push them. Capitalism comes in to the world 'soaked in blood' as Marx puts it.
When we listen to the sociologists, we get the holodomor.
Analysis of our society does not bad economic planning and/or genocidal killing make. When we listen to sociologists we also get revolutionary Catalonia and universal health care in the civilised countries.
That said, there are modern Communist projects which rely not at all on agrarian population; they believe that education should be tailored to fit the current mode of production; for a view on this, you may be interested in Paul W. Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism in which he elaborates what a society might look like under lower-stage Communism and what methods can be used to get there, and how an economy might be organised.
Communism is nothing about farming or peasantry - this was largely a Leninist invention to apply to the feudal society of pre-revolutionary Russia, and strengthened by Mao Tse-tung in the Chinese revolution. Marx, to my knowledge, had no support for the idea, nor did his contemporaries or predecessors.
It's because utopian projects are at odds with human nature
This asks the question - what isn't at odds with human nature? Why do you think that utopian projects are necessarily at odds with human nature? Marx and Engels were sociologists, and in fact many modern sociologists are Marxists too. That doesn't mean they're right, but it's some indication that the "human nature" argument needs looking into.
And it has been looked into. Erich Fromm, a member of the Frankfurt School, wrote a book called Escape From Freedom in which he details the investigation of the human condition and attempts to identify what human nature is and to what extent it is malleable. The idea that "human nature" is suited to our current mode of production is as he notes a little fallacy stretching back to Freud's time.
The nature of humans is at least in part influenced by their environment. The mode of production we currently see (capitalism) is part of our environment. Are not changed men the product of changed circumstances? Perhaps Marx himself would agree with both you and I here:
"The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." — Karl Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach, III"
To "human nature" I say firmly: human society.
did you ever stop to wonder why every communist state ends up the same?
Communists have. Anarchists have. I know you're using the question rhetorically, it deserves an answer. Some say that it lies in praxis - the method in which lower-stage Communism is established; some say that it is because of Lenin's praxis, that is, Marxism-Leninism, not Marxism or Communism in general; some say that it is because the state must immediately cease during revolution (this is the position of the anarchists); some say that it is because of poorly maintained democratic models and incorrect transfers of power; some say that it is because of the action of counter-revolutionaries within the party.
It could also be what you said. But I do not think it is nearly as simple as you are making it; arguments have been advanced for the reasons I have mentioned. Where are yours?
Marginal economics seems to be rather popular, but I'm still a stickler for classical ideas of value personally.
I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.
Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be.
The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.
I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009.
he's an admitted paedophile
So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.
Would someone mind explaining why my comment was downvoted, and how I can improve my comments in future please?
As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1]
I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716)
I'm not sure why my comment here is downvoted, though.
No. Canadian too, Canada has frankly draconian laws when it comes to free expression and possession of pornographic fiction.
How do I chain VPNs together where I'm not giving my Tor requests to any of the computers between mine and the Tor network? I use a server at the moment to tunnel but French law requires them to store my history for a year after I've left their service.
From the article:
Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made.
If he believes this, then why is he legislating that virtual pornography, in fact even hand drawn, of the Simpsons which bear such little resemblance to real people, never mind actually existing people, is against the law?
But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".
Was it really? And if so, does he, or the authors of the legislation, have evidence to back up this claim? This seems to be totally unsubstantiated nonsense this judge is saying. And what of fueled demand? The fact that a drawing or story might make someone else do an action is, in my view (and I hope others can agree) not reasonable grounds for illegalising possession or production of that drawing.
Unfortunately bone-headed cases and legislation like this have graced the rest of the Commonwealth and various European countries.
It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet.
However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries.
What's perhaps even more concerning is that even stories are illegal in Canada. The mere possession of the material, i.e a drawing that you made yourself is illegal in England. Publishing a story or even sexual roleplaying with another adult over the Internet might find you sentenced under the Obscene Publications Act.
It's hideous in my view and such laws deserve to be stricken down with ferocity.
The paper is at best center-left; you'll find no support for any Socialist parties, and they even make fun of Corbyn's labour from time to time. Being liberal doesn't mean 'left', either. The paper always (to my knowledge) runs "PC" articles and especially opinion pieces, but that's not restricted to left-wing sources.
It's probably best put by the first sentence: the mainstream left of British political opinion - which turns out to be almost wholly center-left, even Corbyn is a social democrat.
Many countries in Europe (I would know beacuse I live in one of them) have laws forbidding you from possessing certain drawn pornography of fictional characters on threat of imprisonment. I would say we have our fair share of hideous or ridiculous laws too.
One such alternative would seem to be Proudhon's anarchism (mutualism) or even Marx's (or his predecessor's) Communism, though I know this is generally an unpopular response, I see no reason why it has no merit.