Jordan Peterson Doesn’t Understand Marx
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Who’s afraid of Karl Marx? (Jordan Peterson, obviously)
In the world of Jordan Peterson, there’s arguably few thinkers more troubling than one Karl Marx. But can really investigating his take on Marxism tell us anything about how Peterson functions as a thinker? And more importantly, does Peterson even understand The Communist Manifesto? Let's find out in this Philosopher Reacts to Jordan Peterson on Marxism.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Jordan Peterson on Post-Modernism► • Peterson Misses The Po...
The College Crisis: It's Not Just Debt ► • The College Crisis: It...
Why America Loves Fake News ► • Why America Loves Fake...
Analyzed and Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Henry Arrambide
Produced by Olivia Redden and Griffin Davis
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#JordanPeterson #PhilosopherReacts #Wisecrack
© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming
Jordan Peterson: valiantly defending the integrity of the intellectual tradition by publicly debating about authors he hasn't read
Ah yes, the good old "You didn't read Marx!" lmao yeah and we don't read "Mein Kampf" either, doesn't mean we can't critique the idiot that wrote it; the failings of the idea are plain for all to see.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no I read Mein Kampf, one should read it in order to better understand fascism. The same way we all should read Marx to understand marxism or John Stuart Mill to understand liberalism.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no Give this man his honorary phd in smartology
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no How are you going to debate Marxism when you haven't read Marx? How would you know about his critique of capitalism without reading Das Kapital? He was not a politician, that you can criticize his policies. How would you know anyone else is using his philosophy without first reading him?
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no lol
The craziest part of the debate is that Peterson starts by admitting he had to Re-read The manifesto for the first time since highschool… which means his career of advocacy against Marxism in the political and academic sphere has been based on a half remembered reading of the communist manifesto from when he was a teen.
Fairly certain Jordan think the cornflakes that get soggy in his bowl every morning are toxic leftist Marxist-type flakes.
Well, even decades later, he still approaches the material as would be expected of an undergrad who foregoes reading any supplemental works of the author of critiques from third party, in preference for shooting from the hip, and then complaining that the reason he got a C- is because the professor doesn't like him.
This is gold
well reportedly the manifesto was put together by Engels by cherry picking Marx's notes, which is why it resembles Engels work: "Principles of Communism" even though he reportedly wrote little to none of it, also multiple sources agree that much of Marx's notes at that time contradicted the final manifesto which was the reason for the "ceaseless procrastination" as it was called in Marx's Biography when he was lecturing on things that are practically the opposite of communism, free trade and political economics. He thought that free trade would allow people to create their own new businesses and not create monopolies? Marx was really a terrible thinker.
If you consider that he hadn't reread it after taking these historical contexts into mind it softens the blow, it was a manipulative piece by Engels and the Communist League so that they could use revolutions to get into power. Populism at it's inception, people like Hugo Chavez the drug lord, Mao Zedong the incompetent and Stalin the paranoid are the direct product of the whole movement. If the poster boy of capitalism the USA hadn't assisted Mao Communist china would have starved itself into a second revolution and would probably be a democracy right now funnily enough.
I just hope he doesn't do the same with the works of actually competent thinkers.
I will never forget how Peterson had to concede to Zizek that he has no idea who Hegel is, says it all about him.
Oh damn that's just what I wanted to hear
Wow.
No one knows Hegel better than Zizek, well besides Hegel of course lol
@@juvedoo99 hegel had no idea who hegel was at that time, lol
@@danishzahurr until the Owl of Minerva has flown.
Jordan Peterson is the epitome of speaking about things you know nothing about and everyone just believing you because you said it with confidence
always remember, he's a clinical psychologist, not a philosopher.
when he talks about things outside of clinical psychology, he is no more an expert than any layman and thus should not be taken with any more authority than anyone else who isn't studied in the field.
He absolutely abuses his academic credentials to overstep the bounds of his area of expertise to peddle his uninformed ideology.
I doubt Peterson's understanding of anything as he misapplies theories of every type in haste to form a strong worldview.
Boy the Joe Rogan podcast with Peterson was a doozy
Yeah keep thinking that buddy.
"the killings committed by communist regimes can best be explained as the result of the marriage between absolute power and the absolutist ideology of Marxism."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20professor%20of%20economics,perhaps%20tens%20of%20millions%20more.
Jordan Peterson is a living proof of "act calm and collected, be confident and people gonna believe you"
He doesn't seem calm, or collected, or even confident. He just seems obnoxious and entitled.
He seems over emotional to me but idk
He keeps his tone the same most of the time. It's only his volume that increases or decreases. And you'd be lying if you say he doesn't look like he truly believes in himself when giving wrong facts and setting up strawmen.
He is obnoxious to us not to the other side.
@@Itiswhatitis638 True, but that's a more recent development. When he first blew up he presented himself as this perfectly calm and reasonable intellectual despite his weird and objectionable views, and then gradually he turned into the unstable Kermit the Frog crying on camera that we all know and love today
@@BambiTrout Nah man he's always been crazy and he's always based things off emotion primarily. Have you read Maps of Meaning? He wrote that shit in the 90s and it opens with him comparing himself to Jesus Christ and the book to the Gospel. Then he launches into a bit about dreaming about his hot cousin and the nuclear apocalypse and drawing naked pictures of Jesus with snakes wrapped around his crotch in a fit of rage and confusion. This is the origin story he gives to explain his worldwiews.
You trace any of his viewpoints back far enough, and the basis is always "I had some kind of emotional crisis when I was a young man, and decided to act a certain way forever as a result." There's just more eyes on him now, so it's easy for his super weird super emotional shit to go viral now.
My drunk uncle made just as uninformed but much more entertaining rants about communism than JP ever could, and he did it for free.
And your drunk uncle doesn't pretend to have read foundational texts while getting their basic messages completely wrong, he just admits his source is he made it he hell up.
You people are stoooopid
@@UnreasonableOpinions Nobody need rant about communism:
just read the history of the Baltic states and the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union. Or Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.
@@johnhaggerty4396 reading the gulag is no small feat
@@johnhaggerty4396 the failings of a totalitarian nationalist state have little to do with the economic propositions of a philosopher. North Korea is called “democratic” but I would not say to look at their actions to see what democracy does.
"Why is this pamphlet made for unionizing easy to understand?"
And why does it simplify complex topics instead of dealing with every nuance?
I am frustrated and demand to see the pamphlet’s manager.
@@Justanotherconsumer Why are there no trees in this pamphlet?? So close minded!
(The fact Marx's entire thing was materialism, when Peterson tried saying Marx didn't address nature 😭 oh my god)
imagine having less reading comprehension than an uneducated factory worker in the 1800s
Rule 10: Be precise in your speech.
@@taranullius9221 I had to look it up.
Given how badly Peterson gets skewered in this video for how utterly imprecise he is in his speech, who would take his rules as good advice?
He’s not even a good role model for his low quality self-help books.
“I have read all of the works of Marx, all of your works, and you.”
- Zizek -
Most badass line any philosopher has ever said.
But who is philosopher
@@gorstor3551you
"the killings committed by communist regimes can best be explained as the result of the marriage between absolute power and the absolutist ideology of Marxism."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20professor%20of%20economics,perhaps%20tens%20of%20millions%20more.
Yes but what do you mean by read? And what do you mean by works? And what do you mean by Marx? And what do you mean by you?
tHeSe ArE cOmPlIcAtEd QuEsTiOnS 🤪🤪🤪
@@hardyhardyha5767 What do you mean by 100,000,00 million? And what do you mean by dead? And what do you mean by "I can't sell my childrens dead bodies as meat during the terror-famine"?
tHeSe ArE cOmPlIcAtEd CoNsEqUeNcEs 😛😛😛
Wokes dumber than dirt.
Peterson tends to practice "lazy" philosophy, also known as strawman philosophy, in which he privileges himself/his argument by constructing the opposing argument in a way that weakens it from the get go. This channel is absolutely correct in identifying this sort of pseudo-philosophizing as dangerous. It is not a tactic that Peterson devised on his own (its been around for a long time), and unfortunately it has become the main form of commuinication in modern politics. this video definitely earned itself a subscription. Thanks, team!
It just lost one so there is balance.
@@eliasl332 cry more
@@little_flitter they force propaganda down your throat and you like it wtf.
@@eliasl332 lmao. Something tells me you don't actually understand what Propaganda is.
@@little_flitter I do more that the most people, I even studied it.
Have you ever wondered why each side calls the other delusional? Is it possible for one to be right or they are both delusional?
Anyway, I advise to try to not be part of one ecochamber but to watch more of the opposite views. Most people seek conformation of their own bias like the good sheep they are.
I was really looking forward to this debate with Zizek. The day before the event I watched Jordan on his channel. He said that he hadn't truly prepared for it and that he was only going to focus on the Communist Manifesto. The Munk debate showed him to completely shallow about Marxism. One has to remember that he spent a good year telling folks that no one wanted to debate him on Marxian thought which was completely untrue. There were plenty of offers. For Jordan it was about the money. No one could afford the 50,000 grand that he was asking. Charlatan.
imagine Wolff vs Jordan debate lmao, a slaughter
@@Yellow.1844 Wolff was going to debate him since the arrogant Peterson like a child taunted anyone to debate him because no one dared debate him about Marxism. At the end Peterson like a coward, backed out of the debate with Wolff.
Peterson talking out of his äss with Zizek showed what a lazy mõr0n he is.
@@Yellow.1844 or JP versus Gabor Mate would've been brutal (like his takes on Peterson's parenting advice, for example). It almost happened and they were supposed to meet at a conference in Romania earlier this year.
@@Yellow.1844 that's why I loved desteny getting body slammed by Wolff. Dumb first year student thinking he knows more than a PhD educator.
Communism or Marxism are just social construct… Therefore anyone can just reinterpret or redefine those “ISM” whatever they wanted.
I think I have finally identified the problem I have with Peterson. It is that he is like that guy in college who writes a paper, defends a dissertation, gives a verbal presentation, etc. in such a way as to cover for the fact that he has not actually studied the subject matter enough to have a decent opinion.
In other words, he can speak the language of academia so well, he often SOUNDS like he knows what he is talking about when he really does not have a firm grip on the subject at hand.
For example, the classic move he goes to often is "Well, yes, you are not wrong, but I think the more profound point here is what
do we really mean when we ask "What do we mean?"" Followed but a diatribe about meaning. Evade the point, sound smart, and don't really have a decent argument.
His act is a hollow pantomime. I don't know why more people can't see it.
@@DepressedHandsomeSpaceCop it just goes to show you how much tone and bearing can easily sway credulous people
Yeah, he definitely reminds me of that guy in college. I think I can kind of relate to being that guy - if learning comes relatively easily for you and you end up gaining more knowledge relative to most people just through osmosis early on, you end up with an inflated sense of your own intelligence. But the ease of gaining basic knowledge isn't a substitute for careful and in depth study. I learned real quick that I wasn't astute enough to readily grasp a lot of texts and had to spend hours and hours alone and with study groups just to understand a few pages of a text. You can respond to that with humility and acknowledge that you aren't nearly as intelligent as you thought and as everyone said you were, or you can dismiss the effort required to study and understand as being a waste because the problem is with the material and other people. Peterson appears not to have gone the route of humility.
Basically Ben Shapiro's version of a HYPOTHETICALLY convincing argument.
The Sokal Affair personified.
Of all the bad habits JP has, I think the worst is treating every other thinker like they are a glib college sophomore. The next worst is a related issue and it's his habit of criticizing other people's work based on things that it isn't about. Criticizing someone for acting like nature doesn't exist when the essay is about urban factory workers is ridiculous. It's like saying Bach was a moron because his jazz doesn't swing. Sitting in faculty meetings with him must have been a special kind of hell.
I find it troubling how often critical thinking is being co-opted as a buzzword by conmen, conspiracy theorists, and extremist demagogues these days. They just say it, then make sure not to do it.
In a country where 50% of adults cannot read at a middle school level and 20% are functionally illiterate, this will ALWAYS be a profitable grift
Ben Shapiro is like. The definition of a sophist as opposed by Socrates. But is taken seriously by rightists. So yeah.
“I have done the critical thinking for you, and it turns out, you’re right. All those things and people and whatnot that you are scared of are in fact scary and dangerous. Good job.”
In practice the more a person talks about critical thinking the less capable of it they are.
Yet useful idiots aren't troubled by the demonisation of critical thinking, they welcome it, because their ideas require a lack of it.
Jordan Peterson is a post truth philosopher for a short attention span world. It is more about feeling in the moment and less about deep self analysis. Jordan Peterson is too addicted to recognition. Really we need more philosophers and more books.
He isn't even a philosopher
That's very elegant. I just sau "he's a bullshit-spewing hack who appeals to shallow dumbasses." I've yet to meet a JP disciple who has nuanced ideas about anything.
Karl Marx was a charlatan who lived as a hypocrite, lazy as fck, financially irresponsible & illiterate, consonantly abusing his wife by cheating on her & lying about it, and most of all enviously resentful towards wealthy people that he wanted to be living amongst. His eloquence with words to con gullible people with high school/college level of Reasoning allowing him to scam a shit ton of money from Engels.
Marxists are no different than religious fanatics who self righteously pass moral judgements outwardly to ignore either their moral, social & economics failures. The Left should have embrace Thomas Paine who was the real deal instead of some phony like Marx.
@@Shinkajo burn.
Lol he has 2 hour long videos and books full of (admittedly unnecessarily) long sentences. Also he looks at science for almost everything, and literally gives out exercises to do detailed self analysis. So i don't know if he's the one being post-truth here...
Jordan Peterson is a self-hermetical philosopher. He doesn’t argue against other people’s opinions or philosophies, he argues against what he thinks they believe…
His audience is composed of people who likewise have not read the things he is arguing against. So they go by his authority and trust that he has done the research, all the while he dishonestly tricks and lies to them.
I find him a bit cowardly. Dips his toes into outright occult, but won't go deeper. I'm assuming for fear of ridicule, or losing face with a good portion of his audience and enemies alike. Jung had similar fears, despite interesting views. Peterson's fans are often weirdly similar. A lot of them talk shit about pornography and online culture, but secretly indulge in much of the debauchery they openly deride. When one's philosophy rests on claims of piety or goodness, I immediately seek to respond by spewing blasphemy in its face, woven of everything sinful in its eyes. But then, that doesn't make me a friend of those who dislike this man. I'll do it to you too, y'know.
@@ashwhiteforest9078 because anti-intellectualism is the finest virtue of the right.
@@MatPost unfortunately at this time it is… i hope it gets better but the light at the end of the tunnel so far is just getting weaker. It’s very disheartening…
He insists people believe certain things based on their behavior instead of their arguments. It's like when he says almost everyone believes in god because they "behave as if" god exists. The problem with that way of thinking is you could forumalte all kinds of "behave as if" scenarios and then claim they're proof of what people "actually" believe.
@@LagMasterSam exactly…
Case in point: JP behaves as if he hasn’t read any of the txts or as if he has 0 critical thinking skills. Therefore…
Wait in this particular case it actually works XD lol
Why should Jordan Peterson read anything when his opinion is always right?
true.
Feels like peterson reversed engineered marx's perspective from animal farm.
haha, good one
And from the Soviet Union and Communist China as well.
@@quiett6191 lol you tried 🍪
@@JaseekaRawr well, just that he always seemed to approach the subject of Marxism via the experience of the nations that porported to follow Marx's ideas. Take for example how he almost always qoutes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he talks on the subject.
@@quiett6191 China is communist in name only.
In many ways it’s even more unhinged capitalism than we have in the US.
Just to clarify a point, Engles often gets way more discredited than he should with regard to many of these texts. He had a significant influence on all the volumes of capital, including volume 1, and of course volume 2 and 3 which were largely constructed into a book form by Engles from Marx's notes. Not a huge point but just worth reiterating because I think Marx gets all the spotlight when many of the seminal works of Marx were collaborative in nature, and i think that strengthens the ideas because its not just the thinking of one person but of a shared experience and analysis of the world.
Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is must-read for anyone who wants to get into Marxism.
To be fair, Engels downplays his own contributions to Marx’s works, see Engels address at Marx’s graveside
Engels also had some pretty spot on predictions about Europe in some letters & writings.
Engels is very good at extrapolating on the foundation of the ideas. I am sure that without his help, it would be a much shorter and less thorough book.
Also, Engels wrote two books which arguably made Marx the person he was. He wrote "The condition of the working class in england" which deeply impressed marx and was surprisingly influental at the time, and also he wrote "Umrisse zu einer Kritik an der Nationalökonomie" (didn't find an sccurate translation, It could be translated like "Adumbrations or Outlines (dont know which would better fit) for an critique of national economics" before they even met each other, which Marx also read and included early forms of most of Marx' and Engels' later main talkingpoints, yet of a more intuitive nature in some arguments and pointing out contradictions and logical fallacies in what economists of his time talked about, overall more argumentative, less scientific and not creating an own antithesis as they then both did in their later works.
Already when I was doing my MA in sociology people who discussed Marxism by only quoting The Manifesto were never taken seriously
To be fair, in the professional and productive world, neither sociology majors nor Marx are taken seriously.
@@Angry_Chair_87 in the context of intellectual debates both are, but to be fair, you obviously are not aware of that
Sociology is taken quite seriously in the professional world and it speaks volumes about your contact with it that you would claim that it doesn't, SWOreBowHunter
Depends on what think is the professional world. Academics? Maybe. Business? Not so much.
@@SC-dm1ct No, it really doesn't.
Peterson is the example of : If you talk about something you know little about with confidence , those who know even less then you will think you know what you'r talking about.
Wow utube really is one sided and it really grips my ship
We must only say Peterson is bad or say nothing
You certainly come across as very authoritative on the subject of psychoanalysing psychoanalysts. I bow to your superior psychoanalysis.
@@RUBBER_BULLET The subject of the video is actually about Marxism. Not psychoanalysis. Bow to your superior Marxist.
16:03 "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." This video was worth it for that quote alone. Excuse me while I go make it into a graphic and plaster it all over those design-your-own-merch sites.
Marx definitely has some zingers.
Only problem is that they are buried in like 3,000 pages of insufferable pedantry about the commodity form 😂
It's from his Eighteenth Brumaire. You should try reading the whole text. It's a bit hard, but such a brilliant political analysis of the French 1851 coup.
Also, I recommend checking out the full context of what Marx meant by when he said "religion is the opium of the masses" . The full context isn't as edgy Reddt atheist as you may lead yourself to believe.
actually, this is meaningless nonsense. it is neither insightful nor useful. much like most of what marx wrote.
@@overinvested Why didn't you try reading the whole text and come back with more constructive criticism?
That feeling when Brian David Gilbert puts more effort into researching and rating the sexiness of Castlevania monsters than Peterson does in an intellectual debate
Hey it's another dim witted Marxist!
I mean, I more than value his effort and scientific integrity. He is truly a pioneer of obsessively researching ultimately unrelevant but highly entertaining topics :)
His whole philosophy feels like a lot of “I don’t understand any of this and that makes me ANGRY.”
Commies be like: I can't win at any of this and that makes me ANGRY
Excelent summary!
Transphobia in a nut case
Yup, then he breaks down into tears
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no I’d rather be angry over human rights issues than pronouns and gender studies. Good job making any sort of case to justify his stance. 👍
“I looked up the word violence in the work, and nothing came up. Therefore, Marx did not support the use of violence.” I’m not saying Marx did, because I don’t know, but the use of a one word search to deduce his condoning or condemning of violence is… incredibly flimsy
He was sarcastic. Dude ! You didn't get it.
Peterson arguing against straw-men is his whole shtick - it's what the people who fund him want to hear and he barks on command at their imaginary enemies
cry baby
@@tomtsu5923 How old are you kid?😂 With that immaturity I question if you missclicked on this video instead of a nursery rhyme💀
Who funds him?
eh No
@@yoeyyoey8937 well he's now employed by the daily wire, who are funded by conservative think tanks
Some german newspaper summarised the debate as going into an artillery battle with a pocket knife and I think that sums it up perfectly. Cant imagine what it must have been like for Zizek who practically breathes Hegel, Marx etc.
because of UN war norms, Zizek had to bring a pocket knife too.
@@davidrojas4687 yeah but it was about a German author so he was allowed to bring a "war knife" aka kriegsmesser
Zizek was in person to respond. Don't you people not know about democratic agency
Anyone who lives and breathes Marx is nor exactly someone to take seriously.
Sounds like someone who enjoys intellectual maturation for its own sake.
Zizek is mentally ill.
The funniest moment in the Zizek v JPB debate was Zizek saying "please, I am not advising you read more books...of course I am not saying you are stupid..." (paraphrased from my ageing memory)
"I want to solicit you to tell a joke" had me in stitches. Zizek is the modern day Diogenes.
@@sodvar5047Hi-Larious.
instead of a lamp he carries a big NO THOUGHT sandwich board and just sings "Roll Out The Barrel: Pure Ideology Remix" at passers-by.
If they try to give him money, like a busker, he judges them enslaved to commodity fetish and whips out his COITUS (Critique Of Ideology: Trashcan University Spectacles) and challenges the wannabe busker-donor to a 12 minute sunglasses vs trashcan knock down, drag out fight.
If they try to actually think, he just says "Don't make SNIFFFF me tap SNORTLE the *adjust sweaty T-Shirt* sign again *LOUD CHORTLE* "
"Who are these cultural marxists?"
Zizek was utter overkill for Peterson, honestly. Like pitting a gorilla against a housecat
@@mattgilbert7347 Maybe you could try making sense, eh?
@@mattgilbert7347 I had a stroke trying to read that
You heard it here, folks. Jordan Peterson is opposed to harmful reductionist binaries.
I don't think he knows what that means.
Anybody can disagree with something that they understand, the true courage that Peterson displays is to disagree with something without worrying about understanding it. That's the true intellectual honestly that comes from actual ignorance, he's our greatest thinker.
What the fuck did you just say! Disagreeing with something without understanding it or even reading it is true ignorance and ultra-crepidarianism and never true courage. A great thinker would arm himself with actual resources to display credibility!!
Show some critical thinking human, dammit!!
dude I hope you are being sarcastic.
😂😂😂
@@MusaMecanica clearly
I wonder if your sarcasm will sail right over his cultists' heads and they'll agree with you or if you'll get the full brunt of their incel hate 🤔
Something important to note is that Marx is NEVER doing a MORAL judgment. On the other hand the right is ALWAYS analyzing and judging based on morality, on good and bad on right and wrong. Marx doesn't use such adjectives!
And yet still killed millions. Imagine. A worldview that doesn't stress morals ends in mass murder.
How about outcome based philosophy? Like utilitarianism…outcomes are what drive human happiness at least collectively morality is just an extension of successful outcomes that throughout the ages have been codified into culture
Careful with those absolute statements, you might hurt yourself and expose your ignorance all at once.
Zizek directly challenged him to link pretty much anything he calls Marxism to any of Marx's writings and Peterson in a few too many words acknowledged he has no idea wtf he's talking about. I'm not even Zizeks biggest fan but if you wanna see the epitome of someone punching below their weight, watch Peterson try to debate him.
If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's Marxism
Did we watch the same debate? Of course Peterson represented classical Marxism more or less accurately. The thing he had trouble with was understanding Zizek's position on classic and contemporary Marxism. And that is understandable because Zizek presented near no positive views or recepies on anything. He just criticised "capitalism". Peterson, boomer and naive his liberal views are, at least has some views and can articulate them. What does Zizek believe about the economy? From the debate I am unable to tell.
Mr Zizek was known as a marxist to public. And he himself denounced marxism in the very same debate. So, the debate turned into a dialogue about things they shared. I must applaud Zizek's move, because JP looked like he was stricken by lighting. And instead of bickering we received an enlightening dialogue.
@@michu1387 DID we?
Peterson he clearly only read the communist manifesto and hell even if he didn't, the fact he choose the Communist Manifesto as prep for a talk about Marxism when it's hardly the real meat of Marxist theory says a lot about it.
Check 1:40:33 in their debate (the "Manufacturing Intelect" upload) where Zizek says (basically) that the Manifesto is too simple but that Marx's "Capital"'s critiques are great, or Marx's political analysis and how Marx mentions in both of those stuff Peterson was basically critizicing him earlier for Marx not addressing and he is like
1:44:56 "Well maybe that's true but in the communist manifesto..."
So he straight up doesn't know if marx said any of this
Hell he opens saying 8:25 "Last time I read this I was 18, so 40 years ago" and he considers it important enough to be pretty much the sole piece of theory he reads for this debate against what he thought was a pure marxist.
Why would I believe that even when he has been a public figure openly talking about marxism for YEARS before this point and he hasn't read the manifesto in 40 years that he also read all the other theory that he openly said is not sure if Zizek was properly quoting?
@@nahuel3433 I mean, really, not worthy of debate, I agree fully.
Are we going with the 'every self-described Marxist revolutionary movement that engaged in actual violent revolution was wrong' or will that come later?
I'm impressed how confident he can be and how high he holds himself intellectually without even reading whatever the hell he is speaking. His hypocrisy is on at a level on its own, to a point of being even weird, because he may truly believe he knows what he is talking about. Truly a gem, a very well compressed t*rd turned into a diamond.
Idk if I'd say it's on a level of it's own lol. Basically all the right wing talking heads have no idea what socialism is and just make their opponents up with the power of ~IMAGINATION~. We're out here trying to have a nice warm group hug and some pundit screams "reeee they're doing a cooperation" -- like wut?
At one point he and his wife tried to start a church and floated the idea that he was a prophet
Shit like that is why I've believed for the last few years that we place too much value on confidence in American culture
Jordan is the personification of the dunning kruger effect, just behind shapiro.
@@narutofan08nd12 100000000% interestingly this also ties very neatly into toxic masculinity. As long as you are a confident white male, you can fail upwards with astoundingly few people calling you out
The title could’ve just been “Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand”
Jordan probably knows, but is paid substantially more to stay on code.
you forgot "... but is pretending otherwise".
Has anyone else been on Petersons videos and left comments pointing out how full of crap he is?
His fans are crazy.
Interestingly, he doesn't understand (Nietzsche, Jung and Dostoevsky)'s nuances and details on which he claims to be an "expert".
@@NeilLewis77 not really there just young kids learning on self improvement . Just go outside and touch some grass Neil Lewis . Y’all white folks are weird tryna attack good people
This Zizek vs Peterson debate could be considered a Peterson Stand-Up Comedy lmao
I sure was cackling the entire time 😂 I don't know much, but apparently even I know more about Marxism than Peterson.
Was there crying?
true, zizek never defended marxism and actually advocated against it despite claiming to identify with it.
You should see the dillahunty vs peterson one xD
Thank you for the necessary adjustments and final calibration.
Speaking of a priori, Peterson starts with the premise that ‘hierarchies are good actually’, as his most fundamental guiding principle, and his entire career is working backwards and justifying that premise.
Look, he had a dream about it, ok?
@@DepressedHandsomeSpaceCop he's just following his bliss!
A free thinkers who is also a fervent supporter of the hierarchy he's currently benefitting from it. And he thinks Marx dialectical materialism can't explain him.
Reaction.JPG
He doesn't so much say they are good as much as they exist.
"Man passionately debates what he imagines Marxism to be."
Utilizing the Marxist critique is a quick way to become an anarchist. It shreds economic and government philosophy. I wonder if Marx knew this.
@@anghusmorgenholz1060 If he didn't he probably would've figured it out after the big "communist" regimes that popped up
seeing as Marx used his critique to shred contemporary anarchists like Bakunin and Phroudon he propably knew even more
Oh yea like marx wasn't the ignition to all communist parties and dictatorships that came along with it in the last century. Sure, peterson's wrong, there's nowhere that the word Violence is written, I searched it with ctrl+f... rofl
@@squirrelhallowino29 he was also the inspiration to social democracy and a lot of peacefull left wing movemnts. this is like blaming jesus for fashism and other right wing christian dictatorships, besides alls the crimes perpetrated in his name by the katholic church
Lord give me the confidence to be one of the world's biggest public intellectuals, attend a debate which touches heavily on Marxism, read one pamphlet, and then make sweeping claims about Marx based only on that. Astonishing stuff.
Love your videos! The vid about toxicity in the field of economic, is one I liked in particular; very enlightening, yet - just as alarming. But you've been told that a thousand times, I bet. Just wanted to thank you for your great work. Have a nice day.
Growing up is unverstanding that there are far smarter people than Jordan Peterson
who ?
@@raspberryberet4544 Well, keeping in mind that intelligence is not a simple linear 'thing' that can be universally applied across all subject.
I'd imagine someone like Doctor Anthony Faucci is smarter than Petersen regarding pathology. Warren Buffet knows the market better than Petersen. Niel De Grassi Tysen is almost certainly better at explaining the fundamental framework of physics. Neil Gaiman is probably got better grip-handles on the history of literature and mythology. Churchill was a far better statesman (while also being an even bigger bastard). Marie Kondo is better at cleaning a room . . .
The list goes on and on. The thing is, I wouldn't have any special reason to trust any of them outside of their areas of expertise. I would, for instance, trust Buffet's take on sociology because some of his prudent advice for an investor is downright harmful to society (It is is very good investment advice, it just also has potential negative consequence if you're concerns extend beyond investment).
I'm not going to over compensate and say that Petersen is not capable of having any insights. But he's done what so many 'smart' people do when they get a massive ego on them and a loyal following, they start to assume their ramblings are to be taken as self evidence fact and that their narrow field is more broadly applicable than it actually is.
When I listen to Petersen's speeches, what I usually hear is a man who is scared shitless that much of what he takes as axiomatic bedrock is actually just like . . . subjective experience.
@@raspberryberet4544probably you if u actually understand marx
Exactly. Which is why leftists of 2023 should be ashamed that all it took was a run of the mill psychology professor to dismantle their entire ideology.
Today "socialism" means anything that speaks against the notion of "Capitalists should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else"
There's this Brazilian Marxist influencer and he has a quote. This quote goes *"if you think you found something Marx's doesn't take into consideration, you're probably wrong and you haven't looked hard enough"*
Grande Ian
Camarada????
Dê a ordem
Marxistas-Ianistas estão em toda parte
DÊ A ORDEM, CAMARADA
"Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous" -Immortal Technique
Great work good sir=)
I'd say capitalism and democracy are antonyms.
@@finnpendleton4615 to play devil's advocate capitalists would say, "money is voting power." I do agree it inevitably breeds corruption which is antidemocratic.
@@finnpendleton4615
Indeed
capitalism and freedom aren't either
So, now that you've spanned half the argument space, hit the other half lol
Maybe these two pairs of ideas are orthogonal?
Damn, didn't expect such an honest defence of Marx free from red scare propaganda and mccarthyism from wisecrack. Good job
Edit , never realized i had grabbed so much attention, for any new readers i kindly advice u to not go down and see the replies if you want to stay braincancer-free
Marx was super based. more people should be reading him
@@Mark-zk3gu Marx ideas led to the biggest amount of suffering in human existence. His ideas are ironically celebrated in the privileged west more than at the ruins in which they were actually practiced.
@@itamar4117 dude. Shut up and read Marx. I'm not going to respond to your garbage because you're cluelees about Marx. Marx wasn't an ideas guy. He was simply a critic of capitalism.
@@Mark-zk3gu Definitely
Don't tell me u feel sympathy for marx now
I love this work you've done because it details the flaws so well. Flaws which are clearly apparent to people who are familiar with the content, but hardly anybody is familiar with the content.
Including the bag of clowns that made this video
You realize if you are looking for the truth to the claims about JP's accusation of Marx's advocating for violent revolutions.. You won't be informed by someone who is pro-Marxist as this Clownish YT self proclaimed "Philosopher." You have to look at the works by Marx in articles that he wrote. There are MANY that are available in the Archives on the internet, and they all clear as day.. Advocate for violent revolutions. But, a more accurate way to put it, Marx advocated for those "dissidents" to perish in a revolutionary Holocaust.
"the killings committed by communist regimes can best be explained as the result of the marriage between absolute power and the absolutist ideology of Marxism."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20professor%20of%20economics,perhaps%20tens%20of%20millions%20more.
Lol @ 3 comments that were shadowbanned. They don't want you to be familiar with the content.
If hardly anybody is familiar with the content then what good is the term marxist?
What you're doing is important for public intellectual discussion. More critique pleaseee!
Yeah I love the stuff they were making with Jared but it was a little bit more joking, this is just a little bit more deep
A building block for the future
FACTS.
oh yes , the communism is the most successful and powerful ideology human created
to kill people🤭
Oh yeah, big contribution made here
Caring about Peterson's opinion on Marx is like caring about a goldfishes' opinion on Irish whiskey
Unfortunately there's a large swatch of humanity who care about that goldfish's opinion.
Gullible victims will continue to fatten Peterson's pockets.
letting goldfish swim in whiskey, not listening to their feedback sounds amazingly similar to cummunism, I have to agree
Jordan Paterson is an excellent fiction writer and his main character is himself.
Just remember the reason peterson debated zezek is because he refused to debate Richard wolf on economic because peterson was scared.
This is probably true, Zizek was way to nice about it, which Pro Wolf would not ...
Why would he debate an economist who sounds exasperated when he has to acknowledge the unspoken horrors of communism in practice?
I've heard Wolf talk about this multiple times. His arguments literally crumble in less than a minute for the most part. While debating Destiny, he conceded so much that the only "socialist" policy remaining in his speech was "well but workers should vote for their leaders", something that is already happening, today, in capitalism.
Right!! Richard has him shaking. God you commie tossers are just stupid. End of
@@Pensandoci9nice try
I think the performance value is what jordan really goes for. He knows his audience and chooses his points to address them, not to really take on the philosophy in full. It's a theatre of disapproval for a captive audience. It's why he constantly refers back to christian idioms and frames it in a way that excites the particular group he is speaking to.
Also his idea of framing out his "opposition" and strawmanning shows how badly he has to create his own enemies to fight. It goes back to my first comment on his performance to incite and excite his followers. He wants their following and their money and support so he is more concerned with that than an actual debate. He is intelligent, but not an intellectual. A charlatan and that's sad because he could be so much more.
@@nihilistzen6133 It's almost like he can't quit because he benefit from a certain material condition. I wonder if there is a Marxist theory that predicted this.
@@minhducnguyen9276 probably. there are many possible explanations or ways to say you could predict a certain behavior. I don't like any isms with the exception of prisms.
@@nihilistzen6133 Well yes. But in the context of the modern society, you generally can't dedicate your life to something that can't pay you a living. And that's just one iteration of dialectical materialism. The problem with people criticizing Marx is they take the outliers as the norm where Marxist theory clearly stated that it can only explain the general trend.
Have you watched his lectures? Cuz in considering that, I think you can see the origin of his lecturing style, and maybe realize, that he cares little about the “marketing” you are talking about.
The people cheering when he just mouth vomits is kind of scary.
Well they've never read Marx either, so they just accept that he must be correct because he's on their team, the very thing Peterson pretended to dislike but survives entirely upon.
@@ryucartel351 yeah bro. Let's not talk about the millions of dead caused by capitalism though? Iraq war, afghanistan, libya, western funding of mujahedeen/taliban. CIA coup d'tat of dozen regimes around the world in the name of capital. Nah bro. Aso let's not even mention colonialism all caused my free market capitalism? Let's talk about antifa and blm LOL, the most dangerous marxist systems... I have no words 😂🤦♀️
I dont know what he said, but they were some big words!!!
@@cheekymonkey8818 the biggest of words mate. Words like "marxism is bad".
I find it interesting. And I suspect in a different setting, I could easily cheer for those words.
I like to terrify myself.
It would be more efficient to do a video about what Peterson actually understand.
so... no video?
That would be one of the shorter videos in existence.
He has a whole channel for that, including his lessons he gave at Harward. Go there and see for yourself.
@@anghusmorgenholz1060 that would be good value! (if value is views / duration)
@@leonavis you can't divid by zero but it will be very short indeed.
He rarely read any of marx's tracts, but he makes grandiose statements about Karl Marx and his lifestyle, his poverty.
Thank you for putting yourself through all this Peterson for us. He seems to get away with saying whatever he feels like, so it's good to have a moment to put some of his statements under scrutiny without coming across as equally antagonistic.
It's always nice when the word salad spewing, anti-intellectual peterson gets put in his place.
Next: Karl Marx on Peterism
hed call it jewish and then go throw up
Given that His Peteness is basically regurgitating some pretty standard viewpoints, you could probably just read Marx and apply it to JP’s views pretty easily.
"The Canadian Ideology" lmao
I'm pretty sure that's called "lupenproletariat"
Bourgeoise apologetic. Pure and simple.
I happen to be reading Capital now and I literally burst out laughing when Kermit claimed that Marx had nothing to say about nature. Like I scared my dog. That muppet is funny af.
Of course, flatly denying that Marx advocated violent revolution, especially while ignoring the Civil War in France and Lenin's reading of it, strikes me as pretty irresponsible. Out of all the points to disagree with Peterson on, this is a particularly foolish one, in my opinion.
@@charlesclarke9368 "Things fall when you drop them" "bro are you advocating for things to fall that's kinda sus"
@@nihilismful I think it is very difficult to read Marx's subsequent political writings and maintain the claim that Marx did not advocate the destruction of the bourgeois state, which is to say violent proletarian revolution. This point is made forcefully by Lenin in his reading of Marx's analysis of the Civil War in France, concerning the fate of the Paris Commune.
@@blu3260 Yes, but Newton never wrote "Apples of all lands, unite!" So I am not sure the analogy holds.
@@charlesclarke9368 Why is unity bad?
It is incredible depressing that someone like Peterson is considered a serious intellectual in the US. This guy would get laughed out of the room when trying to discuss with serious academics in Western Europe.
He is a far-right populist speaker that pretends not to understand most of the issues he is talking about. What a waste of air.
take your meds schizo and you will never be as smart and as successful as jordan peterson. 😂 seethe and cope. marxism is dead
I was really impressed with the way Peterson kept his eyes shrouded in shadows for, like, the whole time. Truly the Edgelobster of our time
"When I was very young, I forgot in the Trophonean cave how to laugh; when I became an adult, when I opened my eyes and saw actuality, then I started to laugh and have never stopped laughing since that time. I saw that the meaning of life was to make a living, its goal to become a councilor, that the rich delight of love was to acquire a well-to-do girl, that the blessedness of friendship was to help each other in financial difficulties, that wisdom was whatever the majority assumed it to be, that enthusiasm was to give a speech, that courage was to risk being fined ten dollars, that cordiality was to say “May it do you good” after a meal, that piety was to go to communion once a year. This I saw, and I laughed." - Victor Eremita
Happiness is landing a rich babe. Maybe these existentialists are on to something.
Nah man, that was Victor Eremita.
@@crietzsche oops, my mistake and you are right!
I really appreciate these rebuttals. I didn't know enough about Marx to catch any of this stuff. It's valuable. Thank you.
Same here.
If you haven’t I’d suggest Dr. Richard Wolff, he’s an Marxian economist who has a PhD in history and economics, and has a really strong grasp of the fundamentals at play in Marx. His UA-cam channel has some older lectures he gave as an introduction to Marx, I just watched them recently and they really helped me understand what Marx, as a thinker, literary figure, political-economist, and visionary was ultimately up to.
Warning: do not confuse Karl Marx (the person) for Marxism( the theory)
2 cents on Marxism: Karl Marx entire theory was basically a criticism of capitalism as prevalent in then Western Europe that led to colonialism and slavery in Africa, Asia and South America. It is basically a template for criticism of modern capitalism and consumerism.
In the modern era, it is important to remember that end of cold War resulted in supremacy of Western thinking and capitalism becoming the global norm. In such conditions, Marxism and communism just became words that half intellectuals (Western white conservative) throw around to scare the people and maintain control.
Tldr: Marx envisioned a classless stateless Utopia, communist states in the real world (ussr China north korea) became authoritarian and Western scholars used that to denounce Marxism as a theory
In the modern era.
As for Marx himself, he was a genius as he was able to use economics to criticize politics, building a universal template that is focused on calculating utility as a function of material cost
@@anirudhsharma6826 well Marxism didn't end with Marx the idea of a communist party wasn't even marx idea it was Lenin idea and the idea of imperialism the stage of capitalism still is in Marxism Leninism is still the most advanced stage of Marxism
@@revolutionarydragon1123 If by a communist party you mean vanguardism you are right.
"I dont like identity politics" then makes all of his politics based on his identity of being anti-woke
I love how Peterson just makes up that Marx only believed in 'economic' class struggle and then talks about it for several minutes. He's literally arguing with a straw man. (I'm not pro Soviet Union, I'm pro Democratic Socialism).
The Soviet Union was such a nice place. . . NOT!
Is Peterson your very own "straw man"? How do you move from Peterson mentioning "economic class struggle" to him believing that Marx "only" believed in such a struggle? To state that Peterson believed that Marx only believe one thing is to make Peterson the most perfect straw man ever.
Correct. Peterson is clearly, and likely purposefully overlooking Marx’s anti-semitism and how he threads it through his economic mindset.
@@ThePeachtree69 . . .Open Borders for lsraeI right? G00i$h B0I$hevism.
People wouldn't be anti-semitic if people didn't give them a reason right? So when you call someone a racist maybe there's a reason they are like that. . . like FBI Crime Statistics.
the Soviet Union was a dictatorship akin to the Nazis.
"Socialism is based" -PrageU
To the 2000 people who disliked this video, go clean your room.
Our rooms are already clean df. Go clean your room lol you dirty hipster, and get a haircut.
Already did it😉
haha...good one
Jordan’s self-righteous ignorance is cringey. His reading and argumentation of the CM is freshman college level. Putting him against Zizek is beyond embarrassing. He should have the humility and intelligence to recognise that philosophy is not his field of expertise and that his approach to a limited reading and understanding of Marx is informed by his psychological slant and anachronistic strategies, which are his general focus as a public and somewhat populist intellectual.
Peterson believes in absolute free speech. He will say what he thinks with total confidence, never questioning how much confidence he should have in his statements. For him, it's up to the world to prove him wrong. He never stops to consider if he has any actual expertise. If you listen to him long enough he will either seem like the smartest man in the world, or a sophist who is best ignored. I certainly don't have time to sort out Jordan Peterson's thinking for him. I applaud you for trying.
He has a degree in pol sci.
@@immanuelcunt7296 And still that didn't stop him from having less than zero expertise on the subject he not only _prepared_ for a public debate, but also based his entire political career on. I think that makes it *worse.*
Peterson does not believe in absolute free speech.
He has sued people for saying negative things about him in their private conversations.
He has threatened to sue medias who say negative things about him.
His current focus (after finally moving on from Elliot Page) is how social medias should segregate speech between the anonymous and those who are not.
@@TheMarsCydonia Peterson, nor anyone else, ever claimed to believe in "absolute free speech".
That's purposefully misleading. There's a difference between saying negative things, and accusing him of misconduct in therapy sessions. And there's a difference between suing a media company for saying negative things vs intentionally lying about him in a harmful way.
And segregating speech for verified people and unverified people does not restrict free speech at all. Any more than going somewhere to listen to credible, genuine people who know what they're talking about, and then going somewhere else like a bar to listen to uninformed, dumb contrarians talk. It's different spaces that are both equally accessible, it's just providing a mechanism for the people who are more likely to contribute valuable things to be found, rather than hidden in vast amounts of comments.
@@TheMarsCydonia In his mind he probably believed he was supporting free speech. When someone says they believe in absolute free speech, it's usually code for, "I don't want to censor myself of think critically about what I'm saying." That's basically what I was trying to say. Elon is another example of this in practice.
Peterson: nature is never mentioned in Marx's work
Tell me you've never read volume 3 of Capital without telling me you've never read it...
"You have lost the debate until you've read 600 pages of this fascist totalitarian propaganda, that I haven't read either."
@@arkology_city “A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. - in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.”
From page one of Das Kapital.
@@arkology_city swing and a miss buddy, and you wanna know why?
*whispering voice* i have actually read the entirety of the three volumes of Capital, and i can tell you that the third book is nearly a thousand pages and is, together with the Grundrisse, some of the source material for the ecosocialist movement- John Bellamy Foster of the monthly review, for instance, has written a lot on both books.
For what it's worth, I thought the third book was the best out of the three. I don't think you've even read it, given you don't know how long it is
Amen
@@objetpetita Wow, you are so much better than me. Such a dedicated cult member.
Good luck on Nov 8th.
Jorpson doing the very thing he claims Marx does smh "Marx just believes the first thought in his head...I read a bit of this when I was teen, now let me tell you what my immediate thoughts about it were"
Every side thinks the other side is strawmaning them XD
Analyzing Jordan Peterson's critique of anything - whether it is Marxism, moral relativism, or incel culture - always takes a herculean effort because he packages everything he says in a gargantuan word salad. Every time he formulates an argument, it is replete with tangents and digressions that it is an almost Sisyphean task to make heads or tails of what he is actually trying to say.
He sounds smart, but when you look deeper it's full of holes. Problem is most don't have time or bother to look deeper and thus it comes off as smart and profound, even when in the end it's rubbish. That's the problem of Jordan Peterson.
@@TheVoiceOfReason93 there are whole sentences that are literally devoid of meaning
What you have to realize is that you aren’t his target. His targets are everyday people who have to work for a living and don’t necessarily have time to be reading up on things like marxism.
@@MrGert150 I understand that Dr. Peterson's target audience is the layperson, who is unfamiliar with these topics. Since that is the case, it behooves him to express his assertions more coherently and make things even more accessible. That is precisely what Dr. Peterson is not doing. I surmise the reason why he expresses himself they way he does is to overwhelm the layperson with a torrent of ideas, so as to convince the common person of just how "smart" he is, without having to truly craft a cogent and clear arguments. Its more about impressing than actually convincing
R yall even real?
I remembered watching the Zizek/Peterson debate and my only way of describing was "A raccoon devouring a lobster."
It’s not a surprise Jordan peterson doesn’t understand Marx. He is, afterall, a college freshman as a career 😂
Oh that's good
I love the juxtaposition of Michael in a tshirt and ball cap spitting facts and using quotes accurately in context & Peterson in a full suit imagining meanings to get mad at & be disappointed by
Lmao good observation
Kinda makes ya wonder about suits, donnit?
@@jossypoo CEO of Blackrock wears a suit to work, so does the CEO of ExxonMobil. Need I write more?
The amount of deflection, hypocrisy, and blatant academic dishonesty is unreal. He militarized his academic status against people. Dogma is his life force. Biggest most beautiful straw men ever are built by this man child.
The fact people take Peterson seriously is astonishing
Peterson is what's called "a gatekeeper".
You know the old commercials with the silver bearded "Most Interesting Man in the World"? Well, Peterson for whatever reasons constantly looks like "The Most Miserable and Depressed Man in the World"! Maybe that's because he's arguing on the wrong side of history. He'll go down as an utter fool and laughable 'intellectual' by those with critical thinking skills and reason.
the guy is a clinical psychologist who debates philosophy
motherfucker knows nothing more than a layman about philosophy but completely oversteps his academic bounds and banks on people knowing "he's a professor" to peddle his uninformed ideology
You have a unique talent for piercing the heart of a subject, both with razor-sharp humor and exact point.
and nitpick the shitout of it 😂😂😂
That's how you put a philosophy major to good use.
JP talks about Marx, french philosophy or anything that he dislikes, not as someone who read It, but as someone who heard about It from a bad source.
Jordan Peterson sounds like Glen from Superstore and I can’t stop imagining Glen saying these things
Oh my god.. Thank you! I couldn't figure out who he reminded me of. Now it's just beautiful!
You’re right! I can’t unhear Glen now
Jesus I need to rewatch that show.
Disagree... He sounds like Kermit the Frog to me!
Man so many people in the comments don't understand the difference between an economy system and a political system. Socialism doesn't lead to authoritarianism and capitalism doesn't automatically lead to democracy. You can have socialist democracies and capitalist dictatorships. You can have one without the other. They also can't see that just because something or someone professes something doesn't mean they always practice it. The line "all men are made equal" was written in a time when mostly landowning white men could vote, ignoring women and the literal tons of slaves in America at the time as well.
You cannot have capitalism with dictatorship because of the foundations and principles upon which capitalism is built. And capitalism is not only an economic system, it is also a social system.
@@SuperLomik what about capitalism makes it uniquely immune to dictatorship? Can you also say that socialism is not just an economic system but also a social system? H
@@richyhu2042 is not immune, but the moment there is a dictatorship, it is no longer can be considered as complete capitalism. And I did not say that it is immune. Such thing as a capitalist dictatorship cannot exist. The moment the principle of equality before the law is no longer upheld in public space it stops being a capitalistic country, it becomes a country with capitalistic elements and the decisions are no longer driven by the so "evil capitalism".
I'm not going to be shocked if the only coherent thing Jordan can say is "That's not how you spell 'Mark's""
Neither Ralsei (who's Lawful Good) nor Susie (who's Chaotic Neutral turned Chaotic Good) would do well under left-authoritarianism (which is as Lawful Evil as right-authoritarianism).
That's the problem; everyone thinks he's saying "Marxism", but he's actually saying "Mark's schism" 🤣
What bothers me the most is that there were people clapping and cheering 💀💀
If all of that could be edited out of the debate that wasn't much of a debate-at least on one side-would be a lot more barrable.
This shit is what Rick Sanchez meant when he said: Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what make you cheer!
"These creatures at the bottom..."
Boy he walked back that one next sentence.
Guess we know the poor aren't human to Pity-son.
yeah that one shocked me. wonder if he secretly thinks there are two types of people, and that the second type is lesser and that they dont like to be told as much. But his 'job' seems to be corralling the 'second' type with words.
I was only shocked with how honest that statement was to him.
It is literally how they think. Parents pay for college, uncle gets them a job, parents give down payment for house, they can take risks because they always have a safety net, and tall the poors are "creatures" that didn't try hard enough.
Jordan peterson became respected intellectual by calling everyone around him stupid in the most dignified way possible.
JP seems like he was captain of the debate team. Bring up any topic and you could probably tell him which side to be on and he would do equally as good with either of them. Its hard to unsee and even harder to detect how he truly feels on topics but he takes pride in his ability to portray himself as an expert at any and everything.
Nah, he absolutely and only argues from his feelings. He has developed advanced strategies for disguising his utter devotion to justifying his knee-jerk emotional reactions and unexamined personal beliefs as rational, rather than any actual critical thinking skills
@@dcktater7847 yeah it took me awhile to realize it (that he's mastered the art of BS'ing when he gets asked a topic he may not even be that familiar with). I'm sure he knows alot but once you see it a few times, it's hard to not notice when hes dancing around doing improvised argument points 😆
I'm amazed by how in the course of a few years he has gone from being a psychology professor to an expert on economics, politics, the environment, neuroscience, and whatever else he needs to be. He's whatever Gotham needs him to be.
I wouldn't say he effectively portrays himself as an expert on anything. He portrays himself as confident and emotional but even that appears fake... maybe not to people who passionately agree with the claims he makes... without reading the work of his opponents that he references.
That makes him a conman, then
I've considered myself a socialist for about two years. I just watched Peterson's opening statement for the first time. You went real easy on him in this video. Anyone who occasionally listens and is open to Marxist rhetoric for any length of time can tell that Peterson barely even has a cursory understanding of what Marx was saying. I actually felt embarrassed for him.
Which doesn't matter because he is speaking to conservatives that simply want to hear how they deserve to be wealthy, and the poor just don't work hard enough. People love to attribute all of their success and privilege to their OWN accomplishments. When that is easily challenged, they revert to the "well, that is just how it has always been, we need hierarchies because hierarchies exist naturally in nature" rhetoric.
@@bradm6287 He's not really talking as much to convinced conservatives as he's mostly talking to youngsters that doesn't know any better
I don't know how one can read on socialism and still consider themselves a socialist. How do you get past the literal mountains of bodies it's built on?
@@OmegaShadeslayer What do you think socialism is?
@@--sql idk. What do you think all the communists were doing worshipping Marx while stacking bodies? Are you racist? Marx considered black people monkeys at best. Or perhaps you're just so removed from danger and economic literacy that the consequences of Marxist systems aren't real to you?
Peterson is the proof that if you are well spoken and eloquent it doesn't necessarily mean that you're intelligent and cultured
Except he is not. He is just word-salad pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.
To deny he‘s intelligent is just insane, friend or fiend.
@@europeancuisine4897 that depends on what you mean by "deny" and what you mean by "intelligent" and what you mean by "friend of fiend"
@@europeancuisine4897 When weighed against the stupid, he may seem like an intellectual giant by those of slightly below average intelligence.
let us all bless michael here. normally more than just a few hours of peterson content spell brain rot for the normal person. i have no idea how he was able to get through it. kudos to you mr. burns.
Peterson: let's debate harry potter!
Zizek: u read the books?
Peterson: no
Zizek: u saw the movies?
Peterson: no ... but this synopsis is so bad
"where are the marxist?" was a brilliant way to own peterson by zizek
It was more like this..
Internet: Yall should debate Harry Potter!
Peterson: I read draft copy of the first book.
Zizek: I lied about the debate topic. I don't care about Harry Potter. Now let me lecture you about problems with literature as a whole.
@@VagabondTE Cope harder
@@captionjtk1366 lel, I'm not the one who turned Slavoj Zizek for salvation.
"He doesn't even address nature!" 💀💀🌚
Axa ThE lObStEr-nAtUrE
Appeals to nature are fallacies, so not mentioning nature is a good sign.
Why is nature irrelevant?
@@Conshisthot For the record, nobody says that nature is irrelevant because it’s a stupid idea.
Peterson lied and said that Marx shares that stupid idea simply because it makes him easier to attack.
What’s so funny is that, according to Marx, everything comes from nature and labour.
21th century debates absolutely suck ass.
Now do zizek’s part of the debate please.
Zizek: now thishh iss why we need to have a welfare shtate.
Wisecrack: brilliant, why has nobody tried this.
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Yes please... My favorite part was when he admitted in his opening statement that the whole debate topic was a sham and used the stage as a personal stop box. Which is kind of his thing if you actually know anything about him.
@@VagabondTE I've watched many Zizek videos about "Communism", that includes some variation of him saying, "I only call myself a Communist to piss off communists". And then proceed to directly criticize every known Communist project in and way. Of course, he evades any responsibility to give solutions, though he presents all avenues forward as perilous and probably doomed.
@@Tanstaaflitis This isn't true, especially not when you read his books. Zizek is hardcore radical leftist -- I say this as a Marxist, myself. Zizek is highly critical and very careful, but that is only because he truly cares about changing the world; he sees the path forwards as contradictory and difficult, and he's not wrong. I think Zizek represents a development of Marxist thought beyond Western Marxism and the New Left -- his criticism is part of moving forwards. There is a reason people see him as one of the heads of Communism for the 21st century.
Ah yes, let's analyse the children's book of physics to criticise the standard model. Peterson at it's core.
Really glad to see you engaging with this specific debate. I watched it and left feeling like Peterson hadn’t really done much of substance and you really broke down why I felt that. Keep doing what you’re doing
I would be really interested to see a video where you react to conservative academics who are actually informed and educated about Marxism. Where they know a lot and have educated reasons for being opposed. Would be interesting to see your fair take!
Not a bad idea at all! I'll do some looking around and see what we can come up with.
They’re hard to find because conservative audiences who’ve never read Marx in their lives keep propping up pundits who’ve never read Marx in their lives. Everyone just assumes everyone else has read it.
I mean, if those people existed you would have come across them already
We need more critiques of JP like this!
agree
If you haven’t seen Some More News’ video about Jordan Peterson it is well worth the time. It’s not short, but he deftly exposes all of the holes in the weepy Doctor’s public face. It is so well done and would drive the Peterson cult crazy as they couldn’t really refute any of it.
@@domenicgalata1470 i think his weepings are genuine and sincere. But I find some of his lectures with Pageau and Vervaeke, ridiculous.
Three Arrows did also a Great critic about JP about the Topic of Nazism.
Just visit Cosmic Skeptic and see his latest video
*"What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible"* -some guy who doesn't see groups of people as bad or good, apparently.
Noone responding to this? 🤔
I noticed that he was pulling from only one source. It urked me quite a bit because they were really strong claims out of no where
Teachers would given him maybe a 50%.
@@VorpalSnickerSnack Most deffinatly, I have been writing research after research paper for my psyc paper right now and it is such a pain in the ass to not be able to just speak freely. If its informational it needs cited. Just holding out till I can get to that sweet sweet conclusion : )
But yees he was just spewing absolute language, generalizations, lack of sources.
Oh come on, assuming the guy argued in good faith is just naive. He knew exactly what he was doing
Good video tho. Apreciate it
Exactly, that might be a point if he had misunderstood 1 or 2 points, but so many that it amounts to 99% of the txt. He either literally doesn’t understand anything and can’t read a txt or willingly misrepresents everything by building strawmen…
We have to heavily incline to the latter as JP has the overarching lens of his crusade against what he thinks the left and “woke” means. Which is a targeted agenda, therefore he knows what he 100% knows what he’s doing.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
I think it's actually an in between thing. Peterson knows he himself is on the right. He knows that makes him against Marx and Marxism. And he's sure he's a good person. So, if he's against it and he's a good person, that must mean it's bad and wrong. So, he looks very superficially at it and then extrapolates what it could be that would be the bad and wrong thing he needs it to be. So he's invented a strawman, but not because he looked at the real thing and deliberately made a straw version of it, just because he has intuitions about what things he opposes have to be like. And he may have an uneasy feeling somewhere that it might not really be what he imagines, but mostly he's convinced himself that it has to be, because if it wasn't, why, he might not be a good person for opposing it--and that's not negotiable.
You can't really call that arguing in good faith, because he hasn't actually confronted what it is he's arguing against, hasn't had the courage to do so. But you can't really say he knows exactly what he's doing, either. It's more an instinctive maneuver.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 Spot on - I believe this is what happens with convictions. As Nietzsche said, “Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.” Convictions will drive you to do anything, while lies blatantly or subtly misdirect from the truth, which will make the truth all the more clear. With this, Peterson is so convicted he does not participate in the dichotomy of the true essence of Marx's beliefs but is more concerned with what he has already believed and what opposes it. All in all, I'm regurgitating what you have written but trying to analyze it in a meta kind of way. So, you can extrapolate this to current sociopolitical climates where you see this "conviction" occurring. In my opinion, this conviction is more associated with the right-wing - at least, more openly.
19:00 you're technically wrong about Marx on violent revolution-- read the short speech Marx gave, The Possibility of Non-Violent Revolution. When violence isn't necessary for the revolution, it shouldn't be used. But when it is necessary, it should.
Violence as a last resort is the right call.
well, speaking technically, that's Marx describing an edge case and so actually supports the contention that fundamentally, Jeepers is wrong. Jeepers' contention is that communism is fundamentally about a violent overthrow is off base. Peterson fundamentally is bringing midcentury post war propaganda to a battle about a 19thC text.
@@weatheranddarkness Which makes sense since Jordie is a boomer and boomers have brain rot thanks to decades of cold war era propaganda. Nothing boomers say about economics or foreign policy can be trusted.
yeah, It was just pete mixing marx and lenin because he hasn't read either.
Choose the right tools for the right jobs
While I’m not a Hegelian by any stretch, I must defend the implication that he didn’t apply his theories to history. He did. And while Marx may have gone further in this, you are giving him too much credit.
Remember everyone, Marx as a man, was not a good Marxist. He couldn’t live up to his own philosophy. This is to say, there is no point in pursuing utopian style beliefs, like pure, unrestricted Capitalism, or fully committed Marxism, or even any form of Communism. Would it be great if these things could work in the ways that people thought they would? Sure. But human are terminally human.
Hearing Peterson's reactionary arguments that I grew out of at 19 is reminding me how cringe I was as a teen and I don't like it
For those interested in "nature" in Marx, Adorno's student Alfred Schmidt wrote a book "On the Concept of Nature in Marx"
Yes, its complete nonsense, even from a marxist pov.
Thank you!!!!
And Marx’s Ecology by John Bellamy Foster
Neat. Is there anything about genocide in that?
@@TheJradeYou do realize Marx wasn’t a Marxist-Leninist? Or any kind of authoritarian socialist? He was chiefly concerned with human freedom and wellbeing
his takes on marxism are something a five years old could formulate
I doubt 5 year olds have read Marx so you are correct in that regard.
most five year olds could give a good critique of marxism, so it makes sense.
Well communism is for people who have a 5 year old understanding of economics and finance