WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS PIDOR

based

HE COULDNT NAME A SINGLE ONE

HE COULDNT NAME A SINGLE ONE

HE COULDNT NAME A SINGLE ONE

HE COULDNT NAME A SINGLE ONE

>>marxists where?

>>all of academia and educational system

fuck both of them, fucking grifters they are

hegel, fichte, kant, kierkegaard, barthes, bergson, pierce, camus

"If you're a leftist, don't be afraid to stand against the political correctness. Think!" Zizek, 2019.

reminder that "postmodern neomarxism" = communism with American characteristics

santa, hitler, papa smurf, bieber

Attached: 1547698602838.jpg (1001x1024, 80K)

Incorrect. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. My claim (a negating claim) is that he's incorrect about three philosophers.
I don't care about shutting down an argument, he's simply incorrect.

>Adorno
>influencing sjws

Most of the people you listed are more Nietzschean than marxist though.

It’s bait, user. Don’t take it too seriously.

>where are the marxists? give me names
>gives a statistic about self-proclaimed marxists in academia, the arena he's constantly wrestling in, then says its the marxist ideology and not any prominent individuals
you guys are going to run that meme into the ground because it was literally LITERALLY the only part of the debate that even remotely resembled a debate. they spent 85% of the time agreeing with each other

This. I just read The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin, and was astounded by his thesis that communist revolution as the only purpose of art in the modern age. Any conceptions of beauty, art for the sake of art, lead directly to fascism, according to Benjamin. The most noteworthy part of the whole piece, the concept of locality and temporality as the ‘aura’ distinguishing an original work from its copies, was openly borrowed from another author by his own admission. The fact that this is required reading within Art faculties astounds me.

Nietzsche was a Marxist

>i didnt go to university to be challenged by ideas i dont like wtf???

Oh please, spare me the infantile retort. I read it of my own volition, expecting to be challenged. What astounds me is that such drivel is still heralded as the new gospel of the age 83 years later by tired academicians.

He mentioned Nietzsche in the list.

He's 100% on point with fascism being a strict aestheticization of the political discourse, you should read that again, but more carefully.

How is that not a perfect answer.

He didn't say all of acedamia but 25% of academia.

How?

>NEETzche
>Heidegger

Attached: tommy.jpg (296x400, 19K)

based senator mccarthy

Attached: joseph-mccarthy-9390801-1-402.jpg (300x300, 12K)

Peterson gave the informed and correct answer to this question though, that the post-structuralist/post-modern 'left' transferred the oppression narrative to concerns of identity. Which Zizek agreed with.

Of course, they both agreed such people aren't proper Marxists, but they also agreed that Marxism was and is a failure and not the answer regardless.

Zizek though was right to ask Peterson to clarify his statements about 'Marxist postmodernism', but Peterson answered it satsifactorily, damning a form of leftism that Zizek and Peterson both agree that they dislike.

Shut up, you got raked. Deal with it.

Pretty much this.

If we're talking about who 'won' in this debate, which comes down to who stumped the other one with a solid question, then Zizek won with the 'name some marxists' question.

Peterson won't name the Jews that want to subvert western civilisation (or any civilisation for that matter including their own). You know Peterson was stumped because he goes on the attack, and wouldn't let up as easy if the roles were reversed. As Peterson says 'be very precise in your speech', but his answer to 'name a marxist' was anything but precise. He has created a 'cultural-marxist' strawman which in 2016-2018 was a piece of the puzzle the mainstream was missing in terms of understanding what is wrong with the current politically correct climate.

But Peterson's failure comes from his own lack of specificity, and if you have been following his career since he entered the public space he has essentially gone the way of a stand up comedian. He started out as an edgy voice, took up an agent, and is now watching what he says (i.e political correctness) when it comes to getting to the fundamental issues with our society.

I will say however that Peterson established the groundwork for today's youth to understand Christianity and Christ via a meta-narrative story context, and his Maps of Meaning work is substantial as what it is: a map. But it lacks the final groundwork that cements everything together.

Logos. I'm still figuring this stuff out myself. I'm currently regularly viewing and agreeing with Owen Benjamin and E Michael Richards. I'm reading the Bible (more interested New Testament than Genesis), and starting to discover the breathtaking beauty of Christian thought and values.

I'm not a converted christfag (yet). 0342

Stop going to war on canvas.

Attached: ben.jpg (673x1000, 75K)

Nice mental gymnastics there. He said name some marxists.

So Peterson then went onto a 'its embedded in other ideologies man' strawman territory.

A pathetic answer to a straightforward question. There's no wriggling out of that.

Isn’t he saying that the entire basis of modern art is revolutionary politics though? It’s clear that he sees this as good if communist and bad if fascist, because of his own sympathies. The trouble I find with that is that he directly equates beauty with moral evil, vis-a-vis fascism, which is a conclusion I can’t possibly agree with.

Take the Coleridgepill.