Peterson thinks Marx linked class struggle only to capitalism because of the Manifesto

>scientifically

I think their taste in movies also favors Zizek.
>Memerson: Lion King, Disney movies, Harry Potter, LOTR, etc
>Zizek: Vertigo, Y tu mamá también, Picnic at Hanging Rock, etc.

Picnic at Hanging rock is like the greatest thing to come out of Straya outside Danger 5, Wake in Fright and Nick Cave.

>I've gotten as acquainted with Zizek's work as is possible with the time constraints of only several months to prepare
>*24 hours earlier* Georg Wilhelm who? Eh, I read the Manifesto when I was 18, let's debate that instead.

Attached: 1519770549794.jpg (2048x1365, 949K)

>you can do a lot with one day. i want to review some of zizek's videos, to go through a couple of his books
tfw your exam is due but you still procrastinate playing vidya

>a couple of his books
He wouldn't be able to make it through the introduction to Less than Nothing with a weeks straight study

Attached: 1545093449999.jpg (3051x2154, 1.95M)

So where can I download the spectacle? Some user in the stream chat was talking about upping it immediately afterwards

just type "zizek peterson" in youtube dumbo

thank you, einstein lookalike in the brain cells

what the fuck is he even going on about. who do you have to read first to understand this? hegel and lacan?

I think this one's the only video he watched
youtube.com/watch?v=33kAMeHVzBA

Hegel, Plato, and Empedoclese should do it. For this passage at least.

Attached: IMG_20190420_113153.jpg (1029x1508, 121K)

Yeah it's Lacan and Hegel, but although I haven't read the book in question he does actually try to explain his terminology elsewhere, and to understand Zizek you should ultimately read Zizek anyway. Just go by chronology, he's more than the Supreme Object of Ideology now but it remains a key to his work. And you can probably drop his newer works, seems like he's beating a dead horse at this point (e.g. the New Class Struggle was mostly the same shit he's been saying for years).

He also likes Murmur of the Heart because he thinks the incest is cool.

>he thinks the incest is cool.
He never said that.

he pretty much did, but that's based and redpilled

JP challenged the trashman back in Feb. 2018 so he had over a year mobile.twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/963820282527014917?lang=en

Lol, guess where this comes from.
protip, it's on the page.

Attached: peters.png (594x596, 125K)

what the fuck, a year and all he did was read the fucking Manifesto? he deserved every moment of this

there's an audio version clyp.it/z1kjixdv

Are you people retarded? Watching videos is great since it allows him to see how Zizek speaks and the form of arguments in spoken word rather than written.
(Not saying that this means he did well, sad that I have to clarify this.)

based, maybe. certainly not redpilled.

the irony

He wouldn't ask, he'd walk to up to her and wipe his nose off on her sleeve, then finger her with one hand while holding her sleeve to his nose with the other. No eye contact.

That's from Peterson, though. We were talking Zizek.

More like decades spent attacking Marxism and all he read was the Manifesto.

Quite literally the best video on youtube

Did he even watch any videos? Zizek literally recycles all his talks so he would have been familiar if he had

so both like shitty movies

kek

The manifesto views feudalism as an improvement over capitalism though.
>The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self- interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
>The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
>The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation
That said claiming Marx said hierarchy never existed is super retarded.

lel

Zizek has a superior taste.

Attached: 20160925070134.png (560x416, 371K)

Zizek also likes Jaws, Goldfinger/ James Bond and the documentary Liberation Day. Being from Yugoslavia, I wonder what his opinion of Makajavev is.

Feudalism is the highest form of government.

>The awkward misplaced long pauses
>Literally had to wait for a full five seconds to think of the word greedy
>The spastic hand movements
>The ultra serious demeanor
>Runs every word through Thesaurus and speaks like pirate to express a very simple thing
Why is he like this?

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg (550x550, 40K)

Attached: monarshits btfo.jpg (640x853, 84K)

Marx wanted to destroy the social order though, that wasn't a bad think in and of itself, the problem was the replacement with "callous cash payment"

Jordan's opening speech is basically a public apology.

Historical Materialism is unfalsifiable and therefore worthless as a method of studying history. It's literally post-hoc deterministic reasoning. You can look at any event, describe how the event happened, and then simply claim that it was inevitable because it happened. You cannot argue against it because of course, the event did occur, but you cannot argue for it either because there is no way to verify that those events had to occur.

It is a supposition with no actual value except to make blase claims regarding the future. Marx and Engels not only failed to predict the future, they predicted the exact OPPOSITE of what actually happened. Do you think that if you had gone back in time and told Marx that Russia became a Socialist state before Britain, Germany or France, he would have believed you?

What is the predictive power of Historical Materialism? There is none. It's just arrogance. Dunning-Kruger syndrome made manifest.

can you believe he taught at harvard?

easily

>Runs every word through Thesaurus and speaks like pirate to express a very simple thing
??

>you have to fuck your sister to have a monarchy
Why are commies like this?

all theories of history are just pseudo-prophecies pretending to be scientific

This cantt be real

it's actually confirmed even worse than that
youtube.com/watch?v=MT82V08nM1A

>10 seconds in
>you can do a lot with one day
This guy is an actual fountain of boomerism, he just cant help it

He's insecure. That's why he insists on always being addressed as "Dr." or "Professor" whilst Zizek rejects it.

Why do retards larp as Monarchists online?

This is the same guy who has said "No marxist will debate me", I feel bad for all of the kids who had to go home and throw out his garbage books after realize they had been taken for a ride.

At least Monarchy actually existed. Where has communism ever existed outside of a Benedictine monastery?

>if you're not a larping monarshit you're a commie
hmmmmmmmm

My roommate (who is not philosophically or politically engaged) watched about half the debate before getting up and leaving the room saying he was going to throw his copy of 12 Rules in the garbage

While I'd like it if he were destroyed because his followers will naturally flow to the far right, Peterson will probably gain in popularity after this because the media complex that elevated him to his status needs him to pull identitarian potentates away towards the cringe that is modern white liberalism. He WILL be billed as the winner of this debate even though he got totally rekt, because the narrative requires that he win. Zizek is about as culturally relevant as Karl Popper, and his admirers are equally nonthreatening. Peterson's loss would create actual dissidents.

It's really just a rehash of Buckley vs Videl.

And then everybody clapped.

Attached: 0018209dc92e80b468a2e4c1a03b403e6b31f493f9a7bae0207e5a2bb232ab9d.png (950x857, 715K)

I'm serious, he went to work on his car rather than watch the rest

is your roommate a 30 yr old boomer

Why do people make up stories like this? This mental behaviour is genuinely scary.

Seething Kermit-fag

Attached: zizekpeterson1.jpg (607x480, 34K)

Is "went to work on his car" some Zoomer euphemism for jacking off? Because maybe then I would believe you.

Attached: seel.jpg (789x477, 62K)

literally lmao rn. this actually happened. he was never a huge Peterson fan, he liked a few of his talks and bought his books. he wasn't some rabid fanatic who found the light, we was a dilitante who had liminal knowledge of both Zizek and Peterson and was embarrassed he understood Zizek better as a mechanic than Peterson did as an academic

Why does Zizek rub his nose so much, nervous tick?

Cocaine.

you can tell it's a nervous tic really easy in this debate, when he's reading from the page he doesn't tic, the moment he goes off book the littlest bit he's sniffing and tugging his shirt

>Harry Potter, LOTR
Are these really among Peterson's favorites?

the ones he takes the time to give literary critique to, yes

Zizek brought up some interesting points on post-modernism but Peterson wins it for me. More confident and a much better orator. This is coming from a Zizek fan.

Shit like pic related
He's unnecessarily verbose

Attached: ap5x99uz6h411.jpg (858x424, 28K)

that pic makes me chuckle every single time

Absolutely Henotic.

Attached: jesus_laughing21.jpg (429x547, 31K)

How would you say "fuck off" without actually saying it? I agree that he's verbose in his lectures but this example is more of a joke lol

it's not a beauty pageant user, who cares who's the better orator? this is some Timaeus level sophistry

>il y a 4 jours

language?

obvs french

Literally a better ruler than any elected politican.

how is this "last minute guy" telling me to wash my penis? he cant even sort his shit out on basic stuff like preparing properly, fuck.

whos this YIYEK guy he talks about

>Vertigo
>Picnic at Hanging Rock
>shitty
Fuck you.

its not even obscure, its "technical" lingo for 2 or 3 ideas that if you know them well, you just replace the words in your head and it just flows.

easily one of the biggest moment of his career.
>two of the most famous psychoanalysts of their time, both professed experts in Marxist ideology.
>Peterson reads 0 Zizek and skims the Manifesto once.
Literally, what was he thinking?

Attached: 57314206_2148103868610189_3293784572189212672_n.png (656x605, 264K)

why did the thigns scientifically happen

Some one give me the quick rundown on Marx

I dont understand how Peterson has never read Capital. I read about 50 pages and decided fuck that, but he literally never shuts up about Marxism, why would he not read the book. Even if I were just going to have to write an article or something about marxism, I would read the book, let alone be a public intellectual who constantly talks about it

this is the real reason Peterson lost, all Zizek had to do was show up

>willingly admits the night before he hasn't done anything to prepare and that he might watch some of zizek's youtube videos

maybe he was setup to lose, so it was on purpose. cant find another explanation. guy wrote a 1000 page book or something on religion? cant believe a guy like that, so obsessed with symbolism and hierarchies, doesnt prepare for showdown. simply doesnt add up.

also the real problem here was that "cultural marxism" is a really troubled term because it cant be tracked down or defined or has a school with real life proponents, its some nebulous construct thats easily taken down. maybe if he coined a new name that didnt talk about marxism but about how this cultural relativism ethos created a new cultural hierarchy, he would have avoided to look like a fucking fool. maybe would have even avoided the whole debate and have no reason to debate zizek, so yeah, maybe he used that meme construct as a way to create just confusion and to make people waste time on it and him.

it's quite interesting/telling/funny that he is a clinical psychologist. what does it means that he constantly talk about it and yet cultivates his ignorance about it, what would another Jungian psychologist would say about that, it seems quite the obvious obstacle in his quest for wholeness isn't it... setting himself up to fail like that... who benefits from that conceit, old patrons he somehow still feel indebted to?

remember to wash your penis, and by wash your penis i mean forget to wash your penis for six months and then one day before your big date wash somebody else's penis by mistake

didn't happen you mean

You know what I meant. He was trying to be scientific regardless of whether he was right or wrong. He wasn't an old church lady moralist like Peterson portrayed.

>scientifically
Don't use this word, you don't know what it means.

too bad science doesn't care about your feeling

You think he fucked his sister?

This is fucking unbelievable. Wasn't the entire debate his own idea?
I was prepared to treat Peterson as someone I don't agree with, but whose intentions are fundamentally honorable and who acts according to certain standards. But now I know he's a man who considers "reviewing YouTube videos" in the last hour as sufficient preparation for his great debate and is perfectly happy to admit to it publicly.

Name one critic of Marx's Capital who actually understands the theory.

Zizek

I bet some of those bigbrained Austrian economics guys understood it well enough

>things that never happened

>Peterson opens by going on the offense into territory his opponent is an expert in
>he even admits to being poorly prepared
>She-Sek plays it calm and collected while Peterson spazs about constantly

Good God that was painful to watch. I turned it off about 35 minutes in. Judging by the comments elsewhere on the internet, it seems Petey got rekt pretty bad.

theres two types of comments being made
1.people who understand zizek saying peterson got destroyed
2.people who dont understand zizek saying it was a calm and civil discourse where both sides came to mutual agreement
the second type jp fans still stuck in the hole of christian conservatism

>still stuck in the hole

It's the other way around.

Do you guys know that the debate was not ABOUT Zizek, right? lmao

He wasn't even trying to destroy him. He could have made him cry on the stage though.

>another thread about Lobster Capaldi and Cocaine Hamil

philosophical tree-tize

Christian conservationism is stuck in the hole of PBJ? Okay.

The best part was the last quarter where Zizek reorients himself to speak directly at Peterson. Everything before that was a dumpster fire though. Peterson totally destroyed any credibility he had in the like the first 2 minutes of his speech (he actually sounded like he was going to cry because he knew he was fucked). If you turned it off at 35 mins you prob didn't even reach the only part worth watching.

he couldve but zizek isnt the type and its obvious that 'destroying' peterson would not convince his supporters to turn the other cheek
by agreeing on certain aspects of peterson's flawed critiques he could easily move the conversation into the direction he wanted it to go without wasting more time than he already had

making peterson cry on stage would have been funny as fuck but it wouldnt accomplish anything

No, because Zizek is the Christian and Peterson is the atheist.

>putting some psychologist up against one of the towering philosophical intellects of our time in a debate about philosophy
Who the fuck is surprised that Peterson looked like a fool? It's like putting the world's best chef in the boxing ring with Muhammad Ali and then acting surprised when the chef loses the bout. It's just not his wheelhouse.

I saw no confrontation from both of these guys. Peterson basically stands for the status quo and Zizek is a communist who isn't a communist who proposes a vague statism and to "stand back and think." No one won, all they did was talk past each other. Albeit Peterson made a fool of himself with regards to his knowledge of Marxism.

Top kek

Sure but didn't his scientific claims constitute the biases of what was ultimately a simplistic utopianism, e.g. old church lady is justified because she is going to reach heaven, marx because he is going to reach the classless society.

>simplistic utopianism
not that user, but you're talking about your communist phase in high school now. The emancipation of the capital and the creation of the 'Gattungsmensch' etc. et al. is utopianism, sure, but no way you think it's simplistic after actually troubling yourself with Hegel and Marx, that is, beyond the Manifesto and the foreword to the Capital. The old church lady would be his historical and contemporary adepts, their Bible being Marx, and this is when you sit down and read the Bible and see for yourself if it's simplistic. Much like the actual Bible, I'm sure people will be surprised what they really find there.

He cant even clean his own room

Attached: 56e.jpg (854x480, 66K)

The only people who read Marx these days are leftcoms, and they treat it as the Bible, with religious reverence, even while they dismiss the theory of "Great Men".

way to come off as a giant, disingenuous pleb, user. Maybe hold off on the crossboarding for now.

You should still wash your penis, just saying

hit a bit too close for comfort, huh?

The rhetoric in the manifesto certainly indicates such a moral stance. Marx could still hold such moral attitudes and still do analytical work without them.

Any time someone criticizes Marxism from any angle someone says "You just didn't understand it", when asked to provide a correct understanding a second leftist comes along and calls the first one a revisionist.

>gapitalism vs gommunism
>Zizek: Im not really a marxist haha, more like a hegelian ya know!

Marxism unironically btfo

And people paid to watch this shit debate

Peterson finally confirmed his status as midwit messiah by spending the deciding to talk about Marx instead of Hegel and pleb filtering all the memelets.

I am an advocate of an elective monarchy.

I find Virgin freak is quicker to say

If you're interested in Austrian critiques of Marx then the two that always get brought up are "Socialism" by von Mises and "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. I haven't gotten around to reading them yet so I can't offer any critique of my own, but those are the two I always see mentioned libertarians.

hey buddy, next time you're confused as to what language something is, run it through google translate on "detect language" mode. you're welcome

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 12.20.30 AM.png (213x132, 12K)

It's more like Peterson is Conor McGregor and Zizek is Mayweather. Peterson called out Zizek thinking that anyone calling themselves a Marxist must be a fraud while never realizing that he was projecting his own fraudulence on to Zizek.

such a good film though

haha
nigger shitterson was a fucking nigger this whole time!
who would have guessed it

go find another site to sully, you evil coward

oh yes, I noticed in a video when he tells of having met some fans who thanked him because they now clean their room and he was like: I met a young man, he told “doctor peterson, you helped my life”. Super cringe

youtube.com/watch?v=Zwunz4uOEHo

Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Bohm Bawerk too

Zizek didn't BTFO Peterson, Peterson did it to himself. Imagine spending years criticizing Marxism, basing half your media career around it even, then revealing on one of the biggest nights of your life that you haven't actually read Days Kapital. What the fuck was he thinking?

I honestly don't think Peterson is dumb, he's just fucking lazy and arrogant beyond all reason.

its funny how zizek is always dressed like a complete slob and goydan peterson is well dressed or at least tries to be (his jackets are always ill-fitted but I think thats because his torso is so misshapen and lanky), it says a lot about him wanting to 'sound' and 'look' smart instead of actually bringing something of substance and value unlike zizek who has nothing to compensate for.

Attached: 1549774403579.png (923x721, 633K)

he didn't need to read capital, part one of the Gotha program would have taught him more about Marx's view on equality and material conditions than he could have ever got out of the manifesto, and that's like way shorter than even the Manifesto

Meh, all the world's a stage. Zizek as well as Peterson are signaling with their attire. Peterson tells you that he accepts the demands of the hierarchy, Zizek shits on it. If Zizek wanted to disregard the signaling he would have to make a nod towards convention.

Zizek's image is obviously consciously crafted and retards like you fall for it.
>le scruffy earnest thinker
God this board is dumb

why do secondhand car salesmen wear ties?

Except Spengler, who rejects scientific history entirely in favor of intuitive reasoning, and manages to produce a compelling philosophy of history with real predictive power.

To get you to buy their autobiography?

french

self-help book actually

You're talking about objectivism, not Marxism.

based and Debord-pilled

I agree completely with you that Marxist thought (and Hegelian dialectic and christian theology) is extremely complex, but the end goal which that theory is mobilized to support or predict is a utopia justified simplistically by its "bestness". For example Marxists couldn't deny the classless society is better than than a classed society and remain Marxists, anymore than the old church lady could accept that a life of depraved sin is better than heaven and call herself a christian.

or maybe Peterson just has class and zizek is a slob

Alright user, back to the synthesis mines you go.

That comment can hardly be referred to as "verbose"

>nobody cares: the post

Someone shop this.

zizek is the clown of the establishment, that´s why appeals to the lowest common denominator like (you)

>he dress worst than peterson
>therefore he´s better than him

good use of logic there, retard

Attached: brainlet.png (817x443, 34K)

>the classless society
I cannot believe people believe in something this fuking stupid

Attached: memerson zizek.jpg (800x921, 162K)

>watching two adults talking about things that doesn't exist for 3 hours
holy shit, you're pathetic

It's not scientific in the way people mean by the word in English. The best translation for wissenschaft is "means of inquiry". E.g. Nietzsche 's "The Gay Science" is referring to science in that sense rather than the empirical one used by scientific researchers.

wash your room fucko

so two insufferable assholes

not an argument, useful idiot

not a comeback, incel

abstract doesn't mean it doesn't exist, you fucking materialist autistic pig

> t. brainlet

He's literally "I've been on Yea Forums for a week now" tier. It's ridiculous that he has gained this much attention and credibility. The internet is packed to the brim with pseuds, apparently.

>making peterson cry on stage would have been funny as fuck but it wouldnt accomplish anything
It would have accomplished making me laugh

>fear of public speaking mayoclinic
>relaxing nature sounds

kek

Richard Spencer about the debate:
youtube.com/watch?v=KNNclvcfYZY

Attached: 220px-Richard_b_spencer_cropped_retouched.jpg (220x295, 22K)

Is Zizek white enough for Spencer?

Seeing how he keeps praising him, he's at least honorary white.

>slavs
>white
Choose one.

>seething mutt american

whiter than you juan

Does that mean if I stood up there with nothing but boxers and shit running down my leg I'd be smarter than both of them?

every other marxist

I love how you guys wouldn't trust modern economics at all, which at least base their theories on actual mathematics and statistics, and yet think dialectic ramblings and conjectures are "scientific"

that's fucking hilarious

>it's not your vote that counts, it's your count that votes

Yeah I mean how could we fail to trust modern economics, they've only failed to fix the minor problems of neverending cyclical economic/financial crises, falling rate of profit, debt accumulation, resource scarcity, ecological meltdown, the de-industrialisation of the West, and skyrocketing inequality. I'm sure a few more PragerU videos will sort that.

Here’s the thing Lord Autismo, no serious people read or give a fuck about Marx.

>Yeah I mean how could we fail to trust modern medicine, diseases still exist!!!
>t. antivaxxer

Well done on the hilarious post user, but if modern medicine had not only failed to counter any diseases whatsoever, but had also introduced several new ones, yes, I would indeed be skeptical. You're so clever, please give me another hilarious analogy. Or do you think we have an answer for the problems I described?

Marx did predict a socialist revolution in Russia before any other european country, although very late in life. His work desk was full of russian economic data from 1860 onwards because of this, but he died before he had the chance of fully developing this idea. It was Lenin who later elucidated a satisfactory answer for this question in "Imperialism: the higher stage of capitalism".

It really baffles me how marxism is the only idological corpus which can be criticized for things it doesn't say/support, when there are so many actual mistakes to be analyzed instead of fabricating fake ones. It's probably because correcting the theory has an impact in effectiveness and praxis, whereas debunking false claims and falacies over and over again is not only tiresome (thus preventing an actual theoretical advance) but also pointless.

Yes, he said he hates watching himself because of that.

>It really baffles me how marxism is the only idological corpus which can be criticized for things it doesn't say/support,

what about anarchism?

>Marx did predict a socialist revolution in Russia
did he predict that Germany would fund Bolshevism to undermine Russia during WWI? Did he predict that Lenin would hold an election in Russia, lose the election and ignore the results? Russia turning to socialism was far from inevitable or scientifically determined, it was a circumstantial turn of events led by a bunch of fanatic murderers.

>largest country on planet Earth has mandatory classes on Marx

Marx didn't predict me having a wank today, guess dialectical materialism is a useless analytical framework, congrats on debunking one of the most widespread and engaged with philosophies of history in human history

the workers will never own the means of production

I'm so scared user, please hold me

>Newton didn't predict quantum fluctuations
lmao fucking brainlet

i will not hold you satantrips, this notion that capitalism is going to turn into socialism and then communism is dumb. It is very obviously never going to happen, which makes it a ridiculous meme no matter how many bigbrained niggas have commented on and extended the theory.

Marx didn't predict shit m8, he didn't even predict the existence of a middle class. He literally thought capitalism would make poor people poorer to the point of complete and utter inevitability of a full-scale international class war. Where is it?

>congrats on debunking one of the most widespread and engaged with philosophies of history in human history

that´s a nice thing to say to what it really is: a weird twisted secular political religion with no basis in logic

holy shit good point user! it's not like every Marxist post 68 has been saying that exact same thing! quick, someone get this post to Chomsky he's going to shit a brick

yes

When you endlessly revise your theory because it keeps failing to predict anything your theory is shit

You make me so sad user-kun, guess the largest country on earth being socialist means nothing, even if we ignore the fact that Marx said it was entirely possible socialism would never happen, and that being the case, our species would suffer a huge decline in living standards (that'd be climate change faggot)
:(

Read Marx spastic, he predicted the rise of relative poverty and the decline of absolute poverty, which is exactly what happened.

>Communism is just like a religion, this is the most original and groundbreaking critique ever made, and definitely can't be applied to any other socioeconomic existence ever devised

well done mate, can't wait to read that book of yours refuting Marxism.

I agree, Marx was too idealistic, we need to re-hegelianize him. glad there are good open-minded communists like us out there

>, guess the largest country on earth being socialist means nothing,
the workers will never own the means of production

some dictators can be like 'haha yeah we're socialist' while allowing plenty of private enterprise, but the workers will never be in charge

>can't wait to read that book of yours refuting Marxism.

no need for me to refute commies bastards, stirner already did that ;)

Attached: stirner.jpg (500x499, 97K)

>implying there is any 5 minute reading on a subject as nebulous abs poorly defined as historical materialism

Stirner never got traction because Marx btfo'd him

Y'all mutts need to read Bakunin and Marx at least to talk about communism

>China isn't socialist cos workers control n stuff

socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/towards-a-critique-of-workers-control/

Stop teasing me user :( you didn't answer the latter part of my response

How can anyone fail to realize that both these guys are fucking idiots

True, my bad. I still think marxism is much richer in terms of theoretical complexity, the later works of Ilyenkov being a clear example of this. Although I wouldn't underestimate the contributions of Owen, Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin...

He was able to dilucidate the socio-economic circumstances of late 19th century Russia made it a prime geopolitical ground for a socialist revolution (of which a failed attempt had already happened as early as 1905). Of course he couldn't foresee the consequences of all of this, user. Scientifically analyzing social conditions is not the same as being able to see into the future, you silly. Later theorists were able to develop marxist theories for this and much more (revisionism whithin the party and country, development of fascism, realpolitik applied to socialist countries, et cetera) although I'm prone to believe you may not be fully interested in such ideas, and I think I perceive a resentfull tone in your post. Perhaps approaching marxism without a clouded judgement (be it prejudice or feelings the cause of it) would be a much rather effectice approach to understanding it, and therefore being able to criticize it on it's own merits and failures.

There will never be a stateless, classless society. China is a dictatorship. You type like a faggot

never got traction because being an ideologue was the trend back then

aside from stirner:

Ted Kazcysnki
Robert Michels
Eugen Böhm von Bawerk
Murray Rothbard
Mikhail Bakunin
Friedrich Hayek

btfo the entire leftist/communism cause, only fools keep believing in utopias

>imagine listing Hayek and Kazcynski in the same list and thinking you were making a point

Jesus crhist this dude is embarrasing, what a fucking hack.

>China is a dictatorship
As if both socialist and capitalist countries cant be dictatorships you massive faggot, does this change their economic base?

Don't be so coy user, David Harvey did a whole series on yt to help you read Capital, you can do it

Socialism is a utopia but also climate change is about to kill millions unless capitalist countries take action that directly contradicts the profit motive. Enjoy the destruction of the West when India and Africa become uninhabitable faggot

i´m implying that there´s a wide variety of people with different ideals that are critical of your political religion, of course you care more abouts feels over reals, useful idiot

>feels over reals
>posts thinkers with mutually exclusive theories
>somehow think they are both right and both disprove Marx
you are doing """"feels over reals"""" right now you mong

have you read any of the authors i´ve listed above, and what they said about communism? (and if you read it, can you refute their argument?)

>There will never be a stateless, classless society
Paris commune?

it literally doesn't matter if you can follow basic logic becasue both Hayek and Kazcynski cannot be right, one is already disavowed by choosing the others position. so which one do you think disproved communism? you can't think they both did, it's logically impossible. Or, did you just google a list of Marxist critics with no knowledge of them whatsoever and assume simply because they disagree with Marx their theories must be compatible? Go on, if you think Marx is wrong, present the theory you think is right. There's no point disproving all these thinkers because obviously you can't support all their positions (again, unless you are doing that whole """""feels over reals""""" thing you seemed concerned about)

>Being an ideologue was a trend back then

I'm sorry user, but making excuses for Stirner's ultimate philosphicsl failure is quite childish. Also, he was utterly rebutted by Marx himself in "The German ideology", in a time when Stirner was a literal nobody only because Marx couldn't let go of Stirner's wrongness, I do recommend you read it.

As a side note:

> Ted Kazcysnki

I do not understand why would you put the Unabomber, ultimately anti-capitalismt(a modern ludite eco-terrorist) in the same list as Böhn Bawerk, the fiercest apologist of laissez-faire capitalism. Did you just google "critics of marxism" or do you just adscribe to whichever theorist that attacks marxism, whatever the theoretical alternative? If the later is true, seem pretty pathetic (in the etimological term pathos) to me. In the future, restrain yourself from such an unscientific approach to any kind of critique.

Böhn Bawerk had also a devastating response by Rufolph Hilferding in 1904 (rightfully so, since the austrian economics school of though is intelectually barren [if not plain dishonest]) so mentioning him does you a very poor favor.

Communism will never be achieved, China has private enterprise

>private enterprise exists under socialism
capitalism has landed gentries retard, it's about what is the dominant economic system, not whether other elements exist whatsoever

Who fucking cares anyway lol, we'll have planned economy when the environment collapses either way, the only question is whether its democratic or not. Get back to me when you've read ch 1 of Capital nigger

Communism will never be achieved, the environment is not going to collapse either. You live in a dreamworld

>Communism
>achieved
I don't want to post the definition from the German Ideology again, just read a book ffs

Your meme society is never going to happen. There will always be a ruling class, China is an oligarchy and the fact that you fall for it calling itself Socialist is genuinely funny

Does it matter what Marx linked it to in his speeches and writings? Focus on the hands that do, not the lips that promise.

Don't worry, we'll both be be wishing for socialism when you're knocking on my door thanks to climate change nigger

Attached: 4C90C40B00000578-5764511-image-a-2_1527113389993.jpg (634x721, 96K)

>climate change
an even bigger meme than communism. Literally doesn't matter and there isn't even any solid proof that it's the CO2 causing it since you can't exactly run experiments on or accurately predict the climate.

Even Zizek calls China capitalist, who are you even arguing against?

Besides, all major changes, such as gulf stream slowing down, will have unknown and major consequences.

oh boy wait till you find out about ice core sampling

Don't worry about it then, looks like my country'll still be around, and I don't give a fuck about you

I live in Canada so it's not going to matter either way. Though we'll be a Chinese colony by then, maybe we'll have your communist revolution here

Peterson's too old, he can't just hoover up information like us Internet kids. He's already burned the candle at both ends just trying to keep up and make sense of things. Someone should tell him that it's going to be okay and that we're going to make it.

Enjoy being an autonomous province under Premier-for-life Trudeau then user, and have fun being swamped by Mexicans thanks to our impervious capitalist system's flawless handling of ecological standards, gl

He's been blaming Marxism for the downfall of society for years, I don't understand why people expect him to have not read Marx. You know all those faggy atheists who don't read the bible and have never been to church but they know le Jesus was bad cause they watched #youtube videos on it? Peterson is that for Marxism. There is no difference.

It's going to happen regardless of whether I larp as a communist on Yea Forums or not

Then what are you sperging out on Yea Forums for? Learn Mandarin and fuck off while real countries take care of things

Peterson worked for the UN. That's the establishment.

>too old to read a book written in the 19th century
ok now this is epic

Attached: 023.png (2048x2048, 804K)

no shit sherlock

>what scientifically would happen.
YIKES

>Marx didn't predict me having a wank today, guess dialectical materialism is a useless analytical framework
This but un-fucking-ironically

There are different schools of modern economics, and the one of them with the most developed mathematical/statistical basis is the Marxian school. Marx laid the foundations for Marxism, but a lot has been developed since then and anything that had been dialectic ramblings (which are Marx's theories of history more than economics) is much more fleshed out today.

>No eye contact.
based

you have no power youre aware of this right? your views are not going to change the outcome

I get to go to my grave knowing I was right. Like I care what some Canuck faggot has to say anyway

Stop replying, the conversation's over

you are saying stirner is bad because he dont have traction. what that mean?. he dont have followers?. his philosophy imply a follower shouldn´t exist in the first place.

>utterly rebutted by Marx himself in "The German ideology",
i doubt you read it. but if you do, tell me what exactly is his utterly rebutted thing... marx never understand stirner. i read long time ago, so i dont remember well. but the feeling is marx infuriated ramblings about saint max. in that book marx expose himself like a manipulative piece of shit. from my point of view.
legitimate curious about the rebutted thing.

>knowing I was right.
Right about what you butthurt pleb, that capitalism is evil? That human societies are rife with exploitation?

You're not right about anything you have this delusive belief in a fucking 19th century German's autistic ramblings as some kind of gospel.

Still replying user?

God you're fucking stupid, I mean about climate change you brainlet retard, though sure, capitalism has several internal contradictions that relate to this. Though we've already established you don't believe in climate change anyway, so why are you still fucking blathering on?

>the feeling is
I hope you aren't the sperg who was complaining about "feels over reals" in this thread

I haven't been on Yea Forums in about 4 years. People are seriously saying boomer and zoomer buzzwords on here? Fucking lame. I heard about this debate and thought I'd poke my head in, what a mistake

Climate change is not science in the same way Newtonian physics is. It is a theory that might be true, with some evidence behind it, that could also be extremely wrong. There is no way to test it

He's right tho.
>Marx give rises to Stalin and co
>Stalin and co give rise to SJW

Oh God it's even worse
>people are now on either "team marx" or "team stirner" rather than reading both and applying some critical thinking skills
I left because Yea Forums invaded, and people had threads here where they talked about how they get uncomfortable and mad irl when someone smarter is in the room with them. Now apparently /pol/ & Yea Forums hangout on Yea Forums. Fuckin hell, I'll have a better time reading the YouTube comment section of the videos of this debate. See ya incels. Sucks that Gene died.

>Adam Smith gives rise to Regan and co
>Regan and co give rise to SJW

Well Peterson is a rat and a charlatan who found an audience in American retards that repeats his bullshit and propaganda about things they know nothing about but what America wrongly injects into them

For fuck's sake cultural marxism is literal nazi propaganda

made me giggle

I honestly can'ttell if you're talking about Zizek or Beterson

Now that marxism officially won, how do I become a marxist?

start listening to chapo trap house and make sure your voice has lots of vocal fry

>he doesn't dress for comfort
>falling for the fashion marketing

I bet this slave wears a tie too. Absolute cuck.

Start by destroying a self-help book author, everyone will think you're really samart

Is this bait

t. Failed state communist tranny

Attached: IMG_4931.jpg (481x637, 45K)

Peterson should've actually read Zizek's works but he might've been easily busy with all the traveling and events that he did so I'll give him a bit of leniency on that.

Also for brainlets that thought 'Not understanding Marsixm == Insufficient grounds for criticism against it', the whole point of criticising Marxism is that the ideology itself is a fucking failure because its basic premise doesn't take into account the worst evils of human nature and the intoxicating effect of power. Even Zizek acknowledged that and that's why he want to distant himself from the connotations of 'Marxism'. Peterson's whole career is built on his understanding that the idea of Marxism is so dangerous because it appeals to the common idiot and that once the common idiot has instilled that ideology on their mind and spread it on others, chaos ensues. Peterson doesn't really concern himself with the philosophical aspect of Marxism. He concerns himself with the practical aspects of it when it is put into work into the real world. He concerns himself with how the human psyche gets affected by ideologies and in turn the how the human being acts due to it.

oof

Have not yet watched this autistic debate but can someone correct me if I'm wrong in surmising from various posts that this guy read the communist manifesto for the first time ever in the weeks leading up to this event despite the fact that hes been tossing around the term "cultural marxist" for years? .....

>"There are grounds for criticising marxism"
>Human Nature argument
>"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" argument

Pathetic. You should at least have tried.

You are right.

Furthermore, that was his only reading (and it was a continuous misunderstanding of the short book for 19th century semi-literates) and yet he's been criticizing marxism for decades.

Ridiculous.

>you are saying stirner is bad because he dont have traction.
I'm a different user, he didn't say that. I didn't read the rest of your post because of this glaring mistake. Next time consider the argument you're responding to more closely

Hahahahaha. well honestly the thing I find most offensive about this man is how he says "bloody" in the British way all the time. that's just not on

Zizek might look like a hobo but he's actually relatable and feels authentic.
Memerson on the other hand is autistically theatrical. Like he walks around the stage, he holds his hand over his in a thoughtful pose, pauses for a dramatic effect, and says something that is emotionally charged. He puts on a performance as if he was in a movie or something. Just so autistic.

>He concerns himself with the practical aspects of it when it is put into work into the real world
And that's precisely why he's a brainlet.

>A huge number of Marx's predictions, big and small, have come true. To mention just a few that pop immediately to mind:

>that the tendency towards monopolies would continue, and intensify;
>that the boom-bust cycle of capitalism would continue, and that the capitalists would never be able to eliminate it (for reasons Marx >explained in depth);
>that peasant-type (semi-feudal) agriculture would slowly give way to capitalist agriculture;
>that capitalism would more and more become an international system;
>that the class struggle would continue and grow;
>that the Union would prevail in the U.S. Civil War (because of the much more advanced capitalism of the Northern states);
>that the workers would not be able to hold on to power in the Paris Commune (the the very first working class revolution, in 1871);
>that the working class could only hold onto power, after seizing it, by establishing its own proletarian dictatorship over the defeated bourgeoisie (a lesson Marx summed up after the Paris Commune, and proven correct by subsequent history); and, late in his life,
>that the first successful proletarian revolution might well take place in Russia.

what does it mean?

It means we're dealing with formless, abstract concepts that exist only in the minds of people. But since this is our way to orient ourselves in the world, it doesn't make it any less important to discuss. In fact, these abstract concepts can motivate people more than any material good would ever be able to.

Just say “fuck off”

see

As an actually fascist let me explain you something. Only imbeciles call them predictions, it an open agenda ready to be accomplished.

>Marx was a Jew.
>Mensheviks were mainly funded by Jews
>Bolsheviks were leaded by Jews
>Both German and Russian Masonic lodges were seeking the end imperial monarchies when they high rankings were mainly Jewish+

So an open agenda that is accomplished is not a prediction but an objective reached.

What about the Chinese/Koreans/Cubans/Vietnamese retard, where they all secret Jews too?

>Jewish+
is this some new kind of jew?

These are the kind of predictions you can find in the voluminous writings of any 19th century intellectual, some of the predictions you celebrate were already far advance before Marx predicted them. One quite important one
>that the class struggle would continue and grow
is false
What I was lampooning, and what marx admitted was his main original contribution to political theory, is that one social state capitalism would be give way to a new one the dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx derived this from a simplistic material view of history but he accepted he was not original in applying material factors to history) Not only has this not happened the sole historical antecedent of this kind of change e.g. Feudalism to Capitalism has never been satisfactorily located in the past or even proven to have occurred. So Marx's only original contribution to the prophetic tradition lacks predictive power not just in the future but also, incredibly, when applied to the past.
Apologies I don't have my books in front of me for the relevant quotations.

Look at Mao first congress pics. There are a lot of Jews around him. Even today their central bank has a lot of Jews who also live in... Hong Kong.

As someone fairly new to this board I found this debate quite interesting.
Peterson seemed out of water for most of the debate but looking at this thread it seems like he can't really blame anyone but himself for that.

I know absolutely nothing about Zizek, from what i can gather he is some kind of evolved super marxist that doesn't wanna be called a marxist?
>This guys catalog
Should i just start with The sublime object of ideology?

>using bad words

Find another mind to sully, you evil coward

Start with perverts guides

sublime object might not be a bad idea but you might have to stop to do a lot of extra reading to understand what the hell he's saying

there's a meme on this board that goes
>start with the greeks
and when anyone asks "where should i start with X philosophy" the answer is always to start with the greeks and then go chronologically because that's how philosophy progressed

you don't have to do that and it will take years to get caught up so if all you are is interested in zizek and not philosophy as a whole and/or psychoanalysis then just pick up sublime object and try to piece your way through it which will surely require help from google

>so I read just the manifesto yesterday and I think Marxism is wrong
Peterson really is Yea Forums's philosopher.

If you want to read specifically on his relationship with labour movement, there's
>Lenin 2017
>Reading Marx.
>The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto

None of those are above 300 pages.

Also, for a nice, concise explanation of why Marxist thought and Economic organized control systematically ruins the world, try reading Hayek’s Road to Serfdom

:3

Where did that came from? Everyone knows Hájek.

The point still stands, you have made a better argument than Jordan "wash your penis" Peterson

mine sides *sniffs* Ghhaffe left ze Building, Yes?

Peterson has a typical boomer understanding of Marxism, based more on Cold War propaganda than actual study.

This is evident in many of his statements, but the one that stood out to me is the claim that Marx viewed the proletariat as "good" and the bourgeoisie as "evil." This is peak boomer

In actuality Marxism makes no moral judgements at all about these participants, other than that the systematic pressures of capitalism tend to disenfranchise the majority of the population (the proletariat) for the benefit of the few (the bourgeoisie). The entire point is that this is because of the overall architecture of the system rather than any specific evil or wrongdoing.

>Scientifically
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

The problem isn't that he didn't foresee the consequences (that was problem for Russians but moving on) but that he didn't see that actual reasons why it occurred which the other user outlined. Many prophets of the ancient gods likely had a better hit ratio (one correct prediction) than Marx the Delphic oracle certainly did that does not prove that the basis on which they made their predictions is sound.

Ben Shapiro

I can't believe people don't believe in a better world

"Better" is value-laden. What is better to some is worse to others. This is why the term progressivism is such transparently insidious propaganda. There's no neutrality. What is progress to you is regress to another.

And that’s why Marx’s work is so full of moralistic language that he even had to address the criticism himself.

Well done user, what's better for the vast majority is what's worse for the tiny minority, glad we understand each other

>As an actually retard let me explain

Attached: 22042019152048.jpg (1439x3186, 462K)