Where do you get this that Marxism strives for an egalitarian utopia...

>equality is not a leftist value
Now hold the fuck on user.

Nope, it's a liberal value

I'm explaining why Peterson is saying that Marxism is egalitarian, are you illiterate? You're literally saying the same thing as OP.

It means liberating humanity from economic antagonisms to more personalized antagonisms/"smaller dominance hierarchies".

Engels and Marx weren't retarded, they knew about fundemental innate differences in human beans.

this is retarded lol, equality is indeed a leftist value.

Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians. Zizek's minority interpretation of the true faith is completely irrelevant to the overall character of the movement.

Economic justice comes first for Marxists - any conceptions of equality are tainted by the bourgeois capitalist mode of production - which will use a concept like equality to drive profit and scatter the opposition.

Hence identity politics being the distraction for the liberal left that it is.

Ah, so because Zizek btfo your Lobster Sage, you're saying he's...

...not true leftism???

Attached: 1548018788250.gif (250x250, 1.14M)

Name one.

No, there it is the opposite way around where the Salafis are actually more in adherence to scripture. The liberal muslims are the fake ones.

Getting rid of class distinctions won't suddenly make us equal in our abilities nor in our needs.
When Peterson speaks of egalitarianism that is exactly the meme level of understanding he has of Marx, just some dude who want everyone to be equal in all aspects.

youtube.com/watch?v=pzQZ_NDEzVo

starting to listen to this debate now
holy shit i hate peterson

Literally name a single Marxist who believes Marx was an egalitarian.

I always kept on getting that video on my recommendation list and thought it was just another nu-right channel because of the name, glad I gave it a try though

I thought Peterson was well spoken in the debate, but not well prepared.

this was so stupid and gay. Yeah Zizek had better stuff but that isn't saying much, Peterson has been saying word for word the exact same things for almost 3 years now

You would think such an intellect would read Marx before debating Marxism with a Marxist.

subhuman-iq-tier goalpost moving

they're right tho

Again you do not understand. We're talking about the mainstream bourgeois ideology in the university, in culture and in media. Those who call themselves 'unironic communists' or 'democratic socialists' or 'progressive' or even 'marxists'. They're the left and they're intersectional. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Marxism as Zizek understands it does not exist which is what he himself laid out. Now why should we ignore that 95% of people who derive inspiration and ideological justification from Marx and even call themselves marxists/socialists/communist are radical egalitarians? Because Marx commented on the Gotha program? I mean I get it, you're the internal opposition and you're fighting for the terminology - but your defeat has been total.

100% bullshit post

You are an idiot

Attached: 0.jpg (884x1200, 156K)

>rereads the communist manifesto
>is an expert on why marxism is bad
i think he's stupid but i guess he's playing his role

Nope

Star by explaining your 95% figure, then.

Orthodox Marxism-Leninism : modern Left as sedevacantism : Catholicism

It's not one remark in the essay, there is tons of critique of equality and egalitarianism going on in Engels' writing as well. Marxism is fundamentally looking to abolish class distinctions thereby spreading inequality to more specific areas, and they fully embrace it from the start.

>We're talking about the mainstream bourgeois ideology in the university, in culture and in media.
Ah yes, the Marxists that control every aspect of your culture, or are you referring to liberals by any chance?
Those who call themselves democratic socialists such as Sanders are just social democrats who like the socialist label since Americans are braindead when it comes to politics either way. and none of those are Marxists.
You really seem to think Marxists are somehow currently the dominant wing on the left

holy waste of dubs

Why was Peterson so unprepared?

He couldn't have prepared enough.

the bourgeois ideology of marxists?
ummmmm, wtf

Petersons lack of preparation or knowledge about the subjects reminds of the people who debate Chomsky and fail miserably
Buckley, Perle, Dershowitz
They have a lot of hubris and pompousness but when it comes to the crunch they are exposed to be very shallow and just repeating commonly accepted opinions of those in power. They never bothered to check anything partly because it would contradict their views, but more to point they are incapable of such doubt and critical self assessment thanks to operating on the effects of the dunning kruger syndrome.

twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

Because he's an absolute faux intellectual fraud who only got famous for harping on trannies but being a college professor rather than just a basement dwelling youtuber while doing so, that's his entire claim to fame.

Arrogance, ignorance, and a belief that Zizek would be one of the "postmodern neo-Marxists" he's invented, rather than an actual thinker with his own ideas. He's had so many people telling him he's God's gift to the world he probably thought he could afford to read the Communist Manifesto and leave it at that.

Ideological marxism has always been rooted in the bourgeoisie. That's not even debatable.

t. can't debate

You're all like Copts yelling that Catholicism isn't true Christianity.

Depends on the definition of the word. The classical liberals were the most famous proponents of equality before the law.

But over time as marxists and socialists in particular subverted the liberal movement, the term was warped to refer to various kinds of wealth redistribution tactics and equalization of economic outcomes. And recently thanks to intersectionality, also equal outcomes in social interactions for identity groups. Distinctly illiberal ideas.

>twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562
holy fucking shit lmao

i honestly think this was extremely humanizing for peterson and i ended up liking him more even though ive been zizek's nr1 buttboy since highschool half a decade ago

Sure buddy, keep believing that the ruling class somehow embraced the most antagonistic ideology to them that exists

Yeah, I'm sure all those nerdy Jews were the sons of coalminers.

you're like a guy not making an argument

>Marx critiques Egalitarianism
>Let me tell you why Marxism is about egalitarianism
You are braindead, user

95% were.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Does that sound to you as equality of outcome?

>even a highly educated man is this ignorant on politics

How can people think democracy is a good idea when the average person is even more retarded than this?

Yes?

>liberating humanity from economic antagonisms
>Engels and Marx weren't retarded,
they're utopian retards

It doesn't work like you think. There's no such thing as a ruling class - the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively. If there is something we can call a ruling class it is dynamic and the entry qualification is ideology and IQ. The propagation of leftism is an expression of the synthesis of state and capital, this system isn't directed by an establishment it reflects the spontaneous movement of soulless capital and the interest of the state. Leftism as we see today has developed to justify the expansion of the state by facilitating the dillution of the taxpayer base, the capital/state compromise here is the mass importation of non-taxpayer consumers into the society. What you perceive as orthodox marxism is not compatible with this process as such it has been transformed, but you're not looking at liberalism at the culture war level, it is leftism. Obviously the economic type is barred from the higher ranks,

well then ironically you inherently have to believe everyone has the same ability and needs which makes you an sjw retard

>built a meritocracy
stopped reading there lmao

Attached: 1544594300500.jpg (602x603, 63K)

>There's no such thing as a ruling class - the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively.
Just look at the rich families that rule the US. Maybe you would have a case if there wasn't inherited wealth, huge disparities in education quality and so many rich kids who get groomed into becoming politicians, heads of NGO, think tank members or professional political activists.

/thread
Peterson was there to make money, Zizek was there to propagandise and have a good time basically.

>the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively.
We can objectively measure that there isn't a meritocracy as the same ruling class from the middle ages still occupy the highest positions in society. We can see this in University admissions. In American Universities there are legacy admission in which applicants are preferred because of their family status. That's not very meritocratic is it? And in the UK those with Norman aristocratic surnames still have a high persistence in Oxbridge. In fact it's been measured that wealth is as inheritable ,if not more than, as height.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/social-class/
telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/universities-and-colleges/10413798/Same-names-have-attended-Oxbridge-since-the-Norman-Conquest.html
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/florence-rich-families-social-mobility-same-as-1427-a7056141.html
>inb4 you say that these aristocrats have a higher IQ than everyone else

>You would think such an intellect would read Marx before debating Marxism with a Marxist.
If he had read and understood even basic marxism, he wouldn't say half as much as the stupid shit he does on a daily basis.

>from each according to their abilities...
This means it doesn't matter what your abilities or more specifically how valuable your contribution is to society.

>...to each according to their needs
Means everyone get what they need (as defined by society), which will be basically the same for everyone. Food, water, housing. Some medical treatments.

If someone contributes a lot of value and still doesn't get a better reward than someone who adds very little or nothing then that is what people mean when they talk about equal outcomes.

A surgeon who works 10 hour shifts while holding lives in the palm of his hands has the same ability and needs as a janitor who can get his job done in like 6 hours if he puts his back into it and at most runs the risk of having to work an hour overtime.
It is pretty clear that the doctor both has more ability and 'utility' (in the sense in which their abilities are specialised of course) than the janitor and will of course have bigger needs considering the stresses that come from their job.
This of course doesn't devalue the needs and labour that the janitor provides nor does it create a class distinction like we see under capitalism.

It's not Christianity at all.

Of course people try to entrech themselves in the system but in overall mass they are irrelevant. They are mere administrators and enforcers of a system they have no control over and if they threaten the capital/state created ideology they will be ejected. It's not the Jews or the capitalists or the Wasps or the reptilians, It is human rapacity in the form of soulless capital and the insatiable interest in growth of an out of control state. In fact those thinking themselves the establishment are not even in control of their own thought. The entire system is so subverted by the aforementioned synthesis that they confuse its cancerous desires for their own morality. Everyone's a useful idiot these days.

How can you misunderstand such a simple quote which was basically just written as a piece of propaganda to simplify communism for the, mostly, uneducated masses?
Is this the fabled power of Yea Forums?

What needs does the surgeon have that the janitor doesn't have? Got an example?

Where can I read where Marx critiques egalitarianism?

Explain it then

>let's debate the bible.
>guys, first I have to tell you that I've only read the book of revelation when I was 18

Attached: 1.jpg (310x387, 18K)

good post

He thought he was going to debate Nicolas Maduro

The dominant ideology is always nameless and contingent. Things change fast, what is yesterday unimaginable becomes the new norm tomorrow. Do you want to explain "intersectionalism" as conspiracy or structurally? You had conservatives supporting the Khmer Rouge and Mujahideen throughout the 1980s. Weird.

You're not looking at liberalism historically or structurally or you would see terms like meritocracy or pluralism have no substance in actuality. No one has ever actually been a liberal, even as an ideal type it fails as an ideology. The general political economy of all modern states are variations of state capitalism which definitionally reflects organized interest groups, they just differ. Maximizing a state by minimizing its revenue is a weird strategy and it seems more like something the right has embraced since the 1980s.

>>inb4 you say that these aristocrats have a higher IQ than everyone else
And if they do?

Fucking critique of the gotha program or this simple, short text by Lenin marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Well, IQ is indeed heritable. But you don't have to look into small scale studies check those looking at the relation of conscientiousness/IQ and wealth. They will demonstrate the meritocracy. Concerning Ivy league schools you can go to the classic Bell Curve by Charles Murray who observed this IQ stratification closely. At the beginning of the 20th century these schools were almost in total establishment factories, that completely changed. Now IQ reigns supreme. Funny exception here are Jews whose strong ingroup preference allowed them to reverse this trend. This of course doesn't mean that some rich assholes will not get their retarded kids into good schools, we're talking about the overall character which is decidely IQ oriented.

Well they're certainly not dumber than everyone else.

Stripper blowjobs

If you want to play that game socioeconomic status (SES) is a totally different metric then IQ and it correlates much better with how you will do in life which disproves what you call meritocracy. Having a high IQ isn't the best strategy in life.
>the classic Bell Curve by Charles Murray who observed this IQ stratification closely.
Are you trolling? Murray study is highly flawed. His claims on the IQs of disadvantaged children leaves out the most important data point. Adoption from a poor families into better-off ones is associated with IQ gains of over 15 points. The heritability of intelligence is demonstrably much much lower among children raised in poverty.

I know it from reliable sources that there is also a great need for stripper blowjobs among the janitors

This debate was good for exposing how much of a brainlet your benison fag on the street is.

Salafi are not "literalists" (which most Islamic thought is), they are autists. They consider chess "gambling" and coffee an "intoxicant"

Attached: 1511702836532.jpg (369x363, 21K)

>no state
>no family
>no class distinction
>no religion
>no culture

How are people supposed to be unequal this this scenario? I'm not being facetious, I've never studied Marxism, so I'm curious.

>15 points
A kid that went from 90 to 105 still can't compete with a 130 IQ STEM M.Sc graduate. There is a lot of malleability when it comes to IQ based on education and living standards, but genetic predisposition is undeniable.

There are other predictors of success such as social intelligence and creativity, but IQ is the most accurate and reproducible predictor of success.

Good post

>A kid that went from 90 to 105 still can't compete with a 130 IQ STEM M.Sc graduate.
point is
Compete on what? STEMfags don't rule the world and the higher up on the IQ scale the more problems you will encounter
gutenberg.org/ebooks/47403

>but IQ is the most accurate and reproducible predictor of success.
No it's not. That's demonstrably false. Socioeconomic status (SES) in every study correlates better with life outcomes.

>15 point gain
That's still pretty low.

You're ignoring the transient charachter of early IQ gains and I was talking about Murray's study of the ivy league system. IQ heritability is well establihed. SES findings are inconsistent and IQ up to 130 or so is the main determinant of 'life success' + I did mention conscientiousness. But let's not talk so broadly about an issue which is easily resolveable by looking at sat scores over time at the ivy level. Your proper level of critique would be establishing that at the establishment level IQ becomes less relevant, although of course I already affirmed that by pointing to ideology.

Attached: SatIvy.jpg (2160x2160, 1.76M)

I guess it comes down to how much each individual puts in? And then everyone decides what they get? But how exactly do you formally get all these people to make these decisions? Idk maybe im just retarded

>Compete on what? STEMfags don't rule the world
Financial success. And STEM was just an example of a highly profitable field filled with high IQ people. Political elites also tend to have high IQ, just like people in business and economics.

I can only really think of the very small group of cream of the crop professional athletes and artists who gain a lot of wealth without requiring a high IQ. Though I have no idea how the IQ distribution is among NBA players. Maybe they are smarter than I think.

>the higher up on the IQ scale the more problems you will encounter
>180 IQ
Extremes don't make the rule. I obviously haven't had time to read it, but the first thing I notice is that this book (1942 ?) predates autism being popularized and studied properly.

>Socioeconomic status (SES) in every study correlates better with life outcomes.
Not doubting you, but can you post some of these studies for me to look at?

>now you argue that Marx wasn't a believer in equality of outcome and I'm not so sure about that because his notion of the eventual utopia that would constitute genuine communism was a place where all class divisions were eradicated

>but those arent hierarchies

>look the most important of the hierarchies had disappeared and so maybe he had sophistication to talk about other forms of hierarchies but if that's the case then I can't imagine why he thought that the utopia that would emerge as a consequence of the elimination of economic hierarchies would be a utopia because if there are other forms of hierarchies that still existed people would be just as contentious about them as they are now like we have hierarchies of attractiveness for example that have very little to do with economics and there's no shortage of contention around that or any other form of ability and so that's why I associate the social justice types who are basically postmodernist with Marxism it's the insistence that you view the world through the narrative of oppressed versus oppressor and I think it's a catastrophe

how does this not totally btfo Zizek?

Name a single online self-declared marxist space where I could go and call trannies men without being banned.

There's probably a community of Marxists TERFS out there.

yeah there must be. I wonder if there is a patriarchal Marxist group out there

Lenin said everyone would need to do a certain minimum amount of "socially necessary labor", in exchange for which they'd get certificates to access a publically-owned stockpile of supplies. Above that minimum, you'd just get the full value of however much work you did. (So, you get what you work for, unlike the capitalist system, where a CEO gets what you work for). Though keep in mind not everyone on the Left agrees with Lenin, his was just the most widespread version.

>now you argue that Marx wasn't a believer in equality of outcome and I'm not so sure about that because his notion of the eventual utopia that would constitute genuine communism was a place where all class divisions were eradicated
because it's not true. abolishment of classes is not the same as equality of outcome. it's equality of opportunity, unironically.

Here's Lenin BTFOing a LIBERAL academic making this same argument in 1914: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Nazbols

are they actually patriarchal? I mean like Old Testament or Sharia tier patriarchy. Seems like Marxists would be very opposed to the entire idea of men subjugating women

>it's equality of opportunity, unironically.
It's like throwing the bread in the fire and padding yourself on the back because everyone gets the same amount of bread.

If you can do whatever you want but it doesn't change the outcome then your equality of opportunity is worthless.

Eh, not 100%, but they tend to believe one of the big problems with Capitalism is how it forces women into the workforce, rather than letting them occupy their "true" role as pastoral mother figures standing in a wheat field somewhere.

Stalinism

>We can objectively measure that there isn't a meritocracy as the same ruling class from the middle ages still occupy the highest positions in society.
goddamnit the French forgot to finish the job

>rather than letting them occupy their "true" role as pastoral mother figures standing in a wheat field somewhere.
It amuses me when tradcons(for lack of a better term) view women this way. As if women haven't been scheming and playing men since we first evolved, as if they were helpless retards. They should read actual accounts of men living in patriarchies complaining about how their women control them.

It is a mystery to me why men are so clueless about women, it is so widespread that it feels like there must be some reason men evolved that way, that being clueless is actually a benefit to them somehow.

Pretty socially and politically reactionary.
Strasserites in denial imo.

Attached: IMG_20190412_114830_872.jpg (960x918, 137K)

Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity. Differences classes emerges because of differents capacity and interest the only way to suppress that is to turn everyone into a grey asexuel humanoid.

Why are Marxist so dishonests?

dugin's takes on western gender roles as an anglo-bourgeois construct is very interesting and nuanced; he rejects anglo progressivism partially on the basis that its primary subject that it pathologically forces everything to progress towards is the 18th-19th century bourgeois white male. he rejects such axioms as undesirable in themselves, not because such a position should only be attainable to some, but because they are products of toxic materialist liberalism and should be attainable to no one.
dugin seems to believe in something like organic hierarchy that does not even need to be made explicit in writing, because the person making such an insistence that such a hierarchy must exist is reacting to the breakdown of such a hierarchy by his own inability to maintain it. a hierarchy defended by letter of the law only is not a true hierarchy. this view is not anti-hierarchical and is perfectly commensurate with patriarchy; evola makes similar claims many times throughout his career "feminism is the result of mens' femininity" and so on.

Peterson has a picture of this guy in his house yet probably has not read anything by him.

>The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.
this logically leads to "postmodern neomarxism" as identified by Peterson once you start conflating unsatisfactory outcomes with alleged inequalities of opportunity, starting with "u racis" and eventually arriving at "u transphobic"

>he liberal system has built a meritocracy
Micheal Young is spinning in his grave coz of retards like you

>Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights. Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

Define rights. As if all the elites were just feeding off of the lower classes without producing, directly or indirectly, anything themselves in contemporary Western societies (I’m aware that this was written a hundred years ago, but you posted this as a counter-argument to Peterson’s point). Since IQ and conscientiousness correlate heavily with socio-economical status, it could well be argued, that the higher classes, in fact, contribute more to the well-being of a society than the “non-privileged”, because they are capable of solving tasks faster.

>In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market. The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

youtu.be/WGRC5AA1wF0?t=3808
How does this not btfo Lenin’s essay?

>In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

Impossible to achieve. See Peterson’s argument about the lobsters.

>This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

Also, nice seething resentment.

I knew it was over when Zizek said something along the lines of "I"m not saying you are an illiterate idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about! NOOOO!" It just made me think he was calling Peterson that.

Something related to Russian communist party or Venezuela if they know how to use internet.

I actually in essence if not in prescription agree with Michael Young so I doubt that.

/leftypol/

>I agree with the man who mocked the concept of meritocracy who thought it was fucking retarded in a society that already has class

Attached: 1543424047693.png (943x639, 548K)

that would be equality of income you idiot.

if we give people what they need and take from people the surplus that they have then the outcome is more equal ffs

this
lefties are mad he didn't dunk on him but its clear he didn't want to alienate peterson fans by publicly crucifying their dad

Remember when Peterson said we shouldn't worry about ecological disaster because someone will fix it one day? And he calls commies "utopians" KEK

>This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

just fucking read marx zizek literally brought up this passage during the debate

Well, you consider my statements as in support of this meritocracy? I'm describing it as a meritocracy for the implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state.

Engels wrote about women's oppression wrt domestic labour so nah

That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'. I mean look at that bit that says 'Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard'. This is very different than a theory of rights grounded in the absolute authority of a monarch, which would have no equality of application at all.

>Well, you consider my statements as in support of this meritocracy?
The fact that you even claim there is one is retarded enough

>I'm describing it as a meritocracy for the implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state.
Literally who does that?

Of course there is one, it's measurable. Not accepting that is just denying empirical reality and off you go to the commie la la land of self-referential theory. Your second statement is too unclear to answer.

>no you see if we consider everyone to be the same class then we reach equality

That's stupid. Differents subclasses will simply form inside that class and we'll be back at the beggining.

>I knew it was over when Žižek said that,
why

>This means it doesn't matter what your abilities
Yes, this is called political equality and this demand ironically was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all the countries in the world proves this.

>Means everyone get what they need (as defined by society), which will be basically the same for everyone. Food, water, housing. Some medical treatments.
Now you are referring to a wrong interpretation of a marxist's idea of economic equality. Economic equality simply means abolishment of classes. This does NOT correspond to equal outcomes, rather equal opportunities. The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.

>if we give people what they need and take from people the surplus that they have then the outcome is more equal ffs
That's not what I'm saying. Read above.

I am saying that the 'meritocracy' that you are talking is not anyway near the meaning of the word.

I mean if you put it like there is a system that optimizes implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state then yea it exist but nobody calls it a meritocracy.

this

That's not ironic at all, the bourgeoisie were trying to wrest power from the royal class.

So let me get this straight, Peterson thinks that capitalism is the way out of the social problems we're facing, as opposed to the "marxist" tendency of externalizing responsability.
Zizek tries to dispell the notion that "marxism" and "liberalism" are the same and denounces that liberals have become a tool of capitalism itself.
Is that it? Just the lack of proper names for things?

Attached: Black-Francis-01.jpg (1848x962, 238K)

Rights is referring to political equality which was put in place by the ruling class across every country where it currently exists on this planet

>That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'
Yes it does, where does that passage endorse economic equality? It endorses political equality, and the abolishment of classes. This means that everyone has equal opportunity aka
>The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

>That's not ironic at all
It is when you have retarded conservatives running around crying about political equality on one hand while jerking off the rich with the other

That was my point, that it endorses political equality, which is not the only conception of right

What's Peterson thinking here?

Attached: 251459cc.jpg (916x640, 42K)

link?

Yes but are they really true Marxist ? Like its saying of those who calling themselves these terms are like fans of a football team who don't know who are the wide receivers are.

what is so bad about the "will of soulless capital". we live in incredible abundance thanks to it and soon enough so will the rest of the world.

Can we just take a moment to mention how awful the moderator was though? They may as well have gotten any random dude to do it.

Attached: 1555780369684.jpg (916x640, 99K)

Meritocracy can be defined as a hierarchical system which rewards according to productive capacity. That can be in soccer or business, The goal is irrelevant. We're having a meritocracy which works for the goals of a subverted system is all.

giving a shit about debate moderators is some small brain shit.

>Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians.
Chinese are calling themselves what?

>That was my point, that it endorses political equality, which is not the only conception of right
The quote is clear as day in pointing out that political equality does not mean economic equality (in the equal outcomes sense) and thus completely contradicts the idea that "marx is pro equality". Unless you seriously want to say that you didn't mean equality of outcomes, in which case I have no idea what you are talking about

in pointing out that, for Marx, political equality does not logically mean economic equality*

No one honestly thinks a classless society wont divide based on merit right?

>Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians
this weird phenomena where radlib feminists and anarchist larping antifa have become in the right's eyes the "Marxists" still fucking baffles me. Read Exiting the Vampire Castle

>Name one
>Well, here is the bloody thing you know...
Peterson you lost, go to bed

this

reminder if you can't answer this question (like Peterson couldn't) you are in no position to be considered anything CLOSE to an expert in Marx or Marxist theory. Peterson out of his depth by miles.

That's a matter of definition. Freudians shit on Freud all day long these terms are malleable and the discussion about it largely semantic. The intersectionalists have an identifiable lineage to marxism and their oppressed oppresser narrative suffices for outsiders to accept their allegiance to this corpus. It's just not a relevant topic for the non-left opposition. They're shit if they're marxists and they're shit if they're not.

The problem with Zizek is the same with leftism in general, they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.
I really appreciate him for admitting he actually has no idea how to fix the problem we have to today as opposed to people who actually represent the left.
Zizek is a true intellectual with huge amount of knowledge but little solutions the real life problems while Peterson is less knowledgeable but he offers solutions for people living in first and second world countries.
In the end the result of this debate is pretty expected, the difference between a philosopher and a psychologists way of seeing things.

Some people are born smarter than others. Some are born stronger. Some will work harder than others. These are natural inequities Marx is fine with and wanted to provide space for

>If there is something we can call a ruling class it is dynamic and the entry qualification is ideology and IQ

ok, you are correct to say that the modern day ruling class is more open to outsiders than before, but it is absolutely wrong to think of it as a meritocracy. Family, money, connections are the main factors still why people enter the ruling class and remain there.

>Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity
t-that's what user said though....

>strawman of postmodern cultural neo marxism.
Indeed, the correct assessment is jewish owned and programmed golems.

you could see Peterson reeling at that moment from some form of extreme vertigo

And twenty years later, Stalin personally owns Russia. I guess he wasn't wrong.

Attached: sako-sako-rk95-upotte-48.9.jpg (210x240, 19K)

Did you notice how happy Žižek was when he was talking? I think he finds his happiness and purpose in debating, he even donated all money he got from this event to charities. He's truely an old fashioned philosopher, a thinking man.

Attached: 1555764554330.jpg (1800x1322, 534K)

Jews would own the world and be the closest approximation to people in it.

>Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity.
thats what i said.. wat

you literally couldn't even make it to the end could you?
>To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Until you focus on the average Joe's problems no one is going to take you seriously. Screeching about billionaires is pointless

>Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity.
It's not, actually. People are highly specialized, even on genetic level. They are the most free when they are born to the class they were bred into.

he hates debates but loves writings, if he laughed it was because of all the dirty jokes he has in his mind at all times

The true snapshot of this debate.

Attached: giantziz.jpg (907x638, 57K)

I was just pointing out that Marxism desires political equality, unlike absolute monarchy.

>he even donated all money he got from this event to charities
Peterson "won't do anything without 50k in fees" btfo yet again

>desires
Advertises itself with the claim*

equality of opportunities doesn't assume everyone will be as good as everyone else at everything, that's equality of outcome

Zizek is truly blackpilled. This is the thing about life guys, if you’re blackpilled you’re always right about everything. Nothing is perfect, no ideas or systems or even nature itself. What Peterson is saying and offering is a meaningful life that’s not blackpilled. The truth is, is that to be happy you need a certain amount of arrogance to the world. Religion is the perfect example of this but in modern times it could be politics, art, social justice. Some higher means will always make people happier and stronger and the masses of Peterson’s audience are proof of that. It’s no coincidence that the stupidest people ride to the top of society while intellectuals and philosophers are unhappy and at the bottom. In this way Peterson is indeed selling snake oil. But it’s ALL snake oil and Zizek offers no answers or meaning but rather morbid criticism. This is the fundamental orbit these two have been floating around. Zizek symbolizes truth and death, which are mutually exclusive. Peterson symbolizes lies and life.

Choose your path.

Fuck i meant equity or outcome whatever.

Point is, Marx is a lying cunt.

>If you can do whatever you want but it doesn't change the outcome then your equality of opportunity is worthless.
because the point isn't to change the outcome, it's to give everyone the same opportunity

so your definition of postmodern neomarxism is just
>conflating unsatisfactoryr outcomes with alleged inequalities of opportunity
if that's the case, what's the big deal?

>define rights
He did. Political rights; everyone being equal under the law. I really don't understand the rest of what you are trying to say there or how it relates at all

>how does this not btfo lenin's essay
Peterson thinks marxism means equality of outcomes, and it doesn't. The link isn't taking me to 3808s which corresponds to 63 minutes 28 seconds but when I go there, I'm not seeing at all how it BTFOs Lenin's essay. Could you explain further?

Opportunities are never equal, they can't be. It's absurd that you think that gimping a portion of the population in favor of another gives opportunities rather than takes them.

Is that so. He seemed to me enthusiastic and very lively compared to Peterson whom I found extremely monotone and boring. But I didn't know much about Žižek before this debate so that's just my observation.

...

It's not, IQ has superseded class a long time ago. In vast majority the elite in every enterprise now consists of high IQ individuals and the elite isn't in control of capital, the capital controls and regulates access to the elite. You will rise by serving the needs of the capital, not some actual old white guy with a monocle. In significant part this capital is even owned by the working class. It doesn't matter. The whole class analysis is just primitive.

Just that it is not really what meritocracy means

Even the ability to find, groom and reward capacity of the current system is debatable. But meritocracy Micheal Young is talking about is the education or allocation of opportunities or resources as rewards for capacity.

It literally is. The Marxist definition of economic equality is the abolishment of classes which means equality of outcomes in an economic sense.
>They are the most free when they are born to the class they were bred into.
Lenin points this out when he discusses political equality. The issue with your argument is that people being politically equal in spite of being biological different is precisely a bourgeois invention.

>marxism desires political equality
did you read the essay? political equality is not a marxist invention. political equality exists across all of the west precisely as an invention of the bourgeois

Differences classes emerges because of differents capacity and interest the only way to suppress that is to turn everyone into a grey asexuel humanoid.
you are referring to political equality here which exists with or without marx. the big businesses you get on your knees and jerk off are the ones giving political equality to the masses

>Opportunities are never equal, they can't be. It's absurd that you think that gimping a portion of the population in favor of another gives opportunities rather than takes them
That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born. That's the exact opposite of equality of opportunity

The idea of a society that is a genuine meritocracy is an insane impossibility

>? political equality is not a marxist invention
I didnt say it was. I compared it to absolute monarchy.

Peterson hasn't read Marx and bases his dislike for Marxism off modern Marxists who just want to use namedrop Marx in a way to support their woke agenda.

Modern Marxists also haven't read Marx so normally this wouldn't be a problem, but that's not what Zizek is.

Zizek doesn't want to make Peterson look bad because all he cares about is 'freeing' Marxist ideology from its current use in the sjw vs. the right argument where its either used to justify hatred and violence against 'nazis' or used as a right wing boogeyman.

Why was the representative of the right this milquetoast centrist self-help guru?
Zizek/Eric Striker dialogue when?

ALRIGHT I'm out guys. I can't argue with 25 people at once that refuse to read or comprehend an essay that a child could understand. Maybe if you guys were at least responding with analyses as to why "equality of opportunity necessarily implies equality of outcomes" rather than just spewing it over and over or reading more than two sentences without spewing false nonsense I would have stayed.
>big win for the petersonfags

In summary, political equality is not a marxist invention. Economic equality doesn't mean equality of outcomes, no matter how much you cry about it. Goodbye.

>That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born.
Why would you apply this thought only to wealth? Some people born smarter, more talented, better looking, etc.
As long as people aren't the same, inequality will exist.

Is there going to be a second debate? It was very popular, both of them were trending on twitter globally and all, pretty rare I say.

oh ffs calm down

>The problem with Zizek is the same with leftism in general, they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.
Stop with this utilitarianistic stupidity. Žižek has no solutions, because it´s not his job to find them. If you want leftists with solutions look for people like Varoufakis.

Maybe the real happiness were the friends we made along the way

I want Zizek to have a talk with a fascist instead of a gay-ass right-liberal who doesn't know shit.
Don't even make it a debate. Just talk.

Attached: 1444570419186.png (444x325, 193K)

I can care about average Joe's problems and bitch about meritocracy. It is not a zero-sum game

there are not a lot of self-proclaimed Fascists. Better to get someone like Moldbug, though he wouldn't do it and nobody knows who he is

>I didn't say it was
>I was just pointing out that Marxism desires political equality
Sure, you didn't, but you weren't saying anything. Political equality exists with or without Marxism. The people have always desired a social contract, and the ruling class desires it.

>I compared it to absolute monarchy.
Ok, that's cool but
>That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'.
Yes it does, again, unless you are don't mean "equality of outcomes" by "pro equality" here in which case.. ok? Then what's your point?

I did not blame him for a moment. But real life problems require real life solutions.

>spits all over himself

>That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born.
I just love advertisements, journalists and oligarchs!

Monarchies were good for humans.

Because Jordan Peterson is a retar d

My point is that it is part of the ideologies that promote equality, as opposed to an ideology with a Monarch and nobles who mete out rights at their discretion. There are other similar forms like the authority of a husband over wife in lots of religious texts is not an equal conception of right

There's a reason why nobody takes JP seriously, Zizek just wanted to reach out to a younger audience and cash the check.

>they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.
Then why don't you join the club and come up with your own solution instead of being another critic like Zizek

>they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.

read bookchin

Philosophy isn´t there to solve your problems.

is this bait?

People who actually want to change the world should study economy. Currently, anyone who makes money out of economic knowledge will use it for its own merits (obviously)
If you want to influence the rules, first you need to win the game within the current set of rules. Zizek knows this exactly, he is a philosopher. The problem is with the mobs on twitter who expect a revolution. it's not gonna happen and seeing them constantly got super tiresome at this point

...

ok radlib

HAHAHA
FUCKING LOSER
PETERSON? MORE LIKE PENIS SON

Attached: 1543545772760.jpg (1407x1080, 248K)

how the fuck is bookchin's municipal liberatarianism radlib?

Capital (+state) sees the world through a binary, profit/no profit and it always goes for profit. It is not capable of long term planning as its component parts usually fall apart and reorganize after a short time. If profit means that the west ought to be drowned in migrants then that happens. If a rainforest has to be chopped down then it's gone. If the structure of the family has to be disintegrated to get the female into the production process then that will happen if it creates society wide infertility or not.

Capital is just hunger, it is the hunger of every individual human interacting in the marketplace. You are correct in pointing out that you cannot just condemn this hunger, especially since people are still starving. And it is not deplorable to want a better life for your child. But do you want it to be the end of all philosophy in human society - do you want its ideology to remove all competing ideas from our minds until we're nothing more than zombies? Because that is what's happening. You could also make a very fundamental reactionary critique about what kind of a dystopia awaits us at the end of this process even if it succeeds on its own terms.

But why haven't marxists told them to go fuck themselves already? I do agree than all those retards often sound like neoliberals (the reverse is also true), but why are marxists letting them phagocyting most of their groups? Why do most of them take the trouble of defending them still? To me it sounds like the progs are their biggest opponents right now because they are disemboweling marxism so they can wear its skin, effectively supplanting it

What Marxists? There was a part of the debate that people misunderstood as Zizek calling out Perterson for not being able to name any actual marxist, but that wasn't what happened. Zizek was making a point that real marxists are gone, those like David harvey are relics and outliers. These days most online marxists are chapo listeners who literally do only care about wearing its skin to provide an excuse to punch 'nazis'. Marxism is now just a way to make hate cool and there's nothing that can really be done about that.

Marxists as Zizek understands it are a handful of people. Marxism as understood by SWJs is a mass produced corporate movement whose members/symphatizers are churned out in the tens of thousands by the university system.

Not him but if I had to go with my country (France), then we have
>the communist party
>the new anti-capitalist party
>France insoumise (jacobins rather than socialist/marxists)
> Worker's struggle
Absolutely all of them put issues like open borders, thirld worldism, no criticism on islam allowed, tranny stuff, egalitarian shit on the forefont. People who dares go against the line get shafted every time.

that lenin piece is hilarious
>The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.
>>t. jordan peterson

>Yes it does, where does that passage endorse economic equality? It endorses political equality, and the abolishment of classes.
As if getting rid of class distinctions was even remotely possible. They're indistinguishable from status hierarchies, which are a permanent feature of human social organisation.
>This means that everyone has equal opportunity aka: “The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.”
How would production be efficient if everyone had an equal amount of control over the means of production? There would be no selection according to competency and no investments for future developments because no-one is allowed to profit from risk, since profit is conceived to be theft of surplus value.
The more stuff is produced, the better off everyone is.
>”It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.”
All citizens already have equal opportunities for working since private enterprises hire people mostly based on competency. No one is suffering from privation to such an extent that they would be unable to begin working and acquiring competency over time. Support for those who are incapable of properly participating in the labour market already exists and it would be ridiculous to demand that they have “equal footing with regard to the means of production”.
Capitalism in the west makes the most of people’s abilities and practically everyone’s basic needs are met by the (limited) public sector. Marxists are idiots.

This
Which makes it all the more confusing why politically correct sjws are celebrating because the only reason Zizek was even able to win is because he rejected the connection Peterson made with sjws and marxists

Attached: unnamed.jpg (900x900, 77K)

>This does NOT correspond to equal outcomes, rather equal opportunities.
Equal opportunities in the current paradigm is valuable because it means everyone can utilize their skills and abilities to achieve success and wealth, assuming they are successful in producing things of value. This maximizes the productive power of society because every citizen who can contribute something of value is encouraged and not inhibited from doing so. If you remove this aspect then having equal opportunities becomes worthless.

If the outcome (wealth) is not influenced by the amount of your success, then what is the value of having opportunities?

>the abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.
But why would you care about this equal footing if your achievements don't result in any benefit for you personally? And don't tell me that's a misinterpretation. Marx thought this state of society would only be possible in this utopic state of society where most resources are abundant and people only work for personal fulfillment. This assumes everyone already has everything they would ever want. He definitely did not talk about some people getting more than others.

>rejected the connection
aka literally no connection. marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion. the implication here is that you are admitting peterson knows nothing about marx, and neither does the rest of academia, which just makes this all the more embarrassing for everyone involved

Also, still ironic I made an entire thread asking for the name of a single postmodern neomarxist and it died without a single name being mentioned

>some people getting more than others
*based on their contribution

>But why would you care about this equal footing if your achievements don't result in any benefit for you personally?
What are you talking about? It does result in benefit for you personally. There is no equality of outcomes in marxism, you simply get equal opportunity.

>If the outcome (wealth) is not influenced by the amount of your success, then what is the value of having opportunities?
Again, I have no idea what you are saying here. Outcome isn't equal in marxism. If you do more, you get more money, it's just that classes are abolished so you aren't going to be born into a special caste of society having done no work at all to deserve it

I'm not disagreeing. My point is Chapo fags shouldn't take this as a win cause Zizek was trashing them.

That would be Socialism, not Communism.

"To each according to his contribution"

Or as Marx called it "lower phase communism", later called "Socialism" by Marxists.

>marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion.

That just show that he was either retarded or lying. Egality of class is impossible without equality of outcome.

Because it's about equal opportunity not saying everyone is exactly the same at everything

>equality of outcome is impossible
>yes, Marx wasn't arguing for that
>then he's retarded

Attached: 1545432478557.gif (500x382, 125K)

It's true Marxism was about abolishing capital it wasn't about egalitarianism originally. Now it's degraded into something different though.

i dont understand why chapo autists and retards on twitter are celebrating this debate

yo what if the debate got interrupted with steve austin's entrance theme and the camera cutting to greg sadler in a bane mask running down the aisle shirtless and stone cold stunning both JPB and zizek

youtube.com/watch?v=MrJLsNo9sCU

Attached: 1542136036509.jpg (900x900, 335K)

>Egality of class is impossible without equality of outcome.

as long as you accept this confused useless notion of "equality" you'll be stuck saying dumb shit like this.

No I mean you can't achieve a classeless society without equality of outcome, which prove that Marx is stupid since he reject equality of outcome.

He does give an actual solution but the problem is you have to somehow get society to actually act on it.

Same as with everything, its about controlling the narrative. Get enough people to spread a lie and no one will care about the truth.

>marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion.
He rejected the liberal idea of egalitarianism. The term did not have the same meaning as it has today.

r/stupidpol

A solution like that is not a real solution. Even a 5 year old can design a perfect utopia in theory. Solutions have to start from an individual level

Okay, then you are not using the term classless society the way Marx did, you have created a new non-Marxist term coincidentally called classless society. If Marx though a classless society must have equality of outcome, why would he have written the exact opposite?

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.

he would have unironically made a better argument than either of them

People want their childs to live a good life. Therefore they'll make them inherit stuff they absolutly don't deserve. This will create people who "own the means of production" or whatever rich boogeyman you want.

The only way to avoid that is to either break people will or to create a great machine capable of equalising everything in a manner that make inheritance equal for everyone. Of course this would mean either genetically modifying the entire human race or creating a reality warping robot that could account for thing like dumb luck.

Because he's either dumb or lying to get intellectual on his side (so that he can better murder them when the time of the revolution comes).

>People want their childs to live a good life. Therefore they'll make them inherit stuff they absolutly don't deserve. This will create people who "own the means of production" or whatever rich boogeyman you want.
How can you make your children inherit something that is owned by the society as a whole?

HOW CAM LIFE?

am i deep yet guys?

Because you get ressources for working which you use to acquire (or lose) more ressources, which you pass on to your childrens.

It's not about the individual level, that's like the whole point of Hegel. The society is reflected in the individual

did he actually say that? What a dumbass

And? How much can a single person produce? You can never outcompete a society on your own. Which resources would you even get?

>Be Marx
>Be a brilliant scholar
>Dazzle everyone with your philosophical brilliance
>Make a deep and nuanced case for the advancement of human society towards a place which maximizes equality of outcome
>Be user on 4channel
>think Marx wants vulgar socialism
>cast Marx as a dirty utopian
>people point out Marx didn't mean that at all and he wasn't a utopian in the slightest
>somehow thinks this mean Marx is must be wrong
is this the power of America?

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

A healthy society can create grand individuals like Napoleon who could be those people who change the world.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
literally the biggest Marxist meme ever, and somehow people manage to read this as
>From each the same and to each the same!

marx made a widget which is in architecture lingo for a great blueprint that when built does not actually work.

Marx is a nice guy but he watched too much Star Trek

did he ever say that really? what a dumbass

No, my definition of "postmodern neomarxism" is American Progressivism, I'm saying that Stalin and Roosevelt are not so far off from one another. Definitely not diametrically opposed.

Well he was a dirty utopian, please tell me how you can reach equality of class.

You could set yourself as a trader of ressources between peoples who want more of X and don't mind exchanging Y for that. Of course, you'll take a cut in every transaction. Now, since we live in the modern age, you could also set up a website to do so for you, and therefore get an increasing amount of ressources delivered to you.

>Which resources would you even get?
It doesn't matter. Objects of arts, car, books. The important thing is that you have things of value, which will inherently increase your sexual values for female, birth ressentement or admiration toward your success and make life easier for your children.

>From each the same and to each the same!
It doesn't mean this, in practice it means that the Party decides how to distribute the product of society's labor.

by asking him to describe the perfect society you are demanding him to be a utopian
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
-Marx, The German Ideology

>lefty memes

jesus christ

>somehow people manage to read this as

>We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

And litteraly all of those movements aimed at utopia.

>You could set yourself as a trader of ressources between peoples who want more of X and don't mind exchanging Y for that. Of course, you'll take a cut in every transaction.
But first you won't take a cut since Marxist want to replace markets with planning and second why would you even have a cut? It isn't only you who trades, there's no private property so you can't really do that much for yourself. Third communism is to be achieved when there is post scarcity when it comes to needs.
>It doesn't matter. Objects of arts, car, books. The important thing is that you have things of value, which will inherently increase your sexual values for female, birth ressentement or admiration toward your success and make life easier for your children.
>Sexual values
Lol.

How is "to each whatever the fuck he wants as long as it is available" better?

Who else is going to determine from each/ to each?

You can say Marx rejected egalitarianism but the whole universe of Marxist thought definitely does not reject egalitarianism.

Marxism is a universe of ideologies some do and some do not reject egalitarianism. This idea though that some of his 'followers' are 'moronic' is ridiculous. There are many very intelligent Marxists, and to say they aren't just because you don't agree with them is pretty wild.

Not him, but there wouldn't be a state, it's decentralized communism, so whomever you take the stuff from would decide if you need it.

If you now have a million reasons why this wouldn't work, then you are right, it's fucking ridiculous and wouldn't work.

Bismark implemented a bunch of socialist ideas and he was the definition of realpolitik. You are historically ignorant and it shows.

Did he implement social programs or did he implement socialist programs?

>first you won't take a cut since Marxist want to replace markets with planning

I will because people will want thing that the Red AI will not have planned for and will ressort to trading or stealing.

>why would you even have a cut?

Because I'm the one who's helping create this transaction therefore I deserve to be rewarded.

>there's no private property
But I get ressources for my works right? So I do have things that are my own.

>communism is to be achieved when there is post scarcity when it comes to needs.

Irrelevents, things like alcoohool, sex and drugs will still be desired.

>Sexual values
That's a thing yes, that's why you have birds with incredibly beautiful feather or wonderful songs.

you are still operating under the assumption there is someone who owns it in order to decide, it must be decided democratically. Marx literally never formulated what he though Communism would look like, and deeply criticized the people who tried to formulate loose future societies like this. Communism can only arise from the material conditions in existence, not an ideal or theory.

Ah yes I'm sure he brough an end to the cosmic duality of exploited/exploitant.

woaaaahhhhhhhhh, you really NAILED that fucking guy there, hahahahahaha

At the time there was literally no difference between the two, social programs were those crazy ideas about labour rights and pensions being pushed by the socialists. The reason he did it was specifically to undercut the Communist movement in Germany.

The fact that there are intelligent Marxists doesn't mean there aren't also moronic Marxists. If you need proof of how many retarded Marxists there are just check out /r/chapotraphouse.

No he did it to kill the Communist movement in Germany

There is always someone who takes care of the thing, maintains the thing, holds on to the thing. Someone whose job is handing out the thing. Assuming there is no endless supply of the thing he needs to make decisions on whether you need the thing.

>it must be decided democratically
Didn't you just say Marx didn't formulate how things would be decided?

I'm operating under the assumption that the Party owns society, which is how Communism has played out thus far.

How does this not just revert into anarchism? All existing forms of public ownership existing thus far involve a power center possessing the thing in question as opposed to delegating ownership of it to someone. If the Party isn't going to enforce public ownership it would appear that you're going to devolve into state capitalism, warlordism, feudalism, or something along those lines.

Which failed.

I don't see whay was your original point anyway. What bismark did wasn't a movement to "abolishes the present state of things."

I don't need 'convinced' that there are moronic Marxists, there are a lot of fucking stupid people, that's pretty obvious. Moronic followers aren't the problem of any ideology ever, the intellectual followers are leading the moronic followers by definition, it really doesn't matter what they think and they never are the people you have to worry about unless you're literally worried about some asshole smashing your window.

In reality you should be more worried about the guy convincing people to smash windows.

>I will because people will want thing that the Red AI will not have planned for and will ressort to trading or stealing.
Like? If there is a thing you personally can make, than it will have no need to be mass produced. Everything else you need a factory for, which will simply be connected to redAI.
>>why would you even have a cut?
>Because I'm the one who's helping create this transaction therefore I deserve to be rewarded.
Sure, but you won't be able to own the trade company or whatever you have in mind. You get your labor vouchers and be told to fuck off.
>But I get ressources for my works right? So I do have things that are my own.
Of course imbecil, but there is a great leap from your toothbrush to a factory. One is personal property while other is private property.
>Irrelevents, things like alcoohool, sex and drugs will still be desired.
And? You will work for them and buy them. Needs are things like food and medical care, not a new IPhone for some Instagram hoe.
>That's a thing yes, that's why you have birds with incredibly beautiful feather or wonderful songs.
Too bad private property will never make you a giga chad.

You're a fucking idiotic ideologue. Maybe the Bismark agreed with some of their principles and ideas. Maybe he really thought he could implement some in a way that was agreeable to the entirety of his society. Maybe he felt morally compelled as a Christian to care for the poor or something in a meaningful way while maintaining a cohesive society that didn't descend into Chaos of revolution.

Do you think there is only one way to set up democracy?
There cannot be a party which owns society under communism by the very definition of communism, you are thinking of socialism.

There were welfare programs way before socialists came along and argued for them because of horseshit marxism. Usually the arguments for them were pragmatic or humantiarian/liberal. And they weren't called socialist. Socialists don't own the concept of social programs.

>How does this not just revert into anarchism?
It would. There is a reason why communism is called utopian.

I never once said Bismark was implementing communism, what the fuck? My point was not all implementations of socialist though was a movement towards Utopia, because even Bismark could so it. You people really need to brush up on syllogistic logic.

not him but please point me to the labour rights groups that existed before the Socialist movement, I'm very interested.

Is there any actual support for "stages" theory that identifies Communism as distinct from socialism in Marx's writings, or this just revisionism out of China/USSR?

You were arguing with a fucking ideologue he had no intentions of interpreting your logic or understanding your argument. You're like assuming good faith, but you're sitting here having political debates. Cut these faggots loose you'll never be able to 'talk' to them.

If moronic followers are the sole meaningful voice of your ideology (the thing that normal people see and interact with), then maybe they are the problem.

Why would people want things like state capitalism or feudalism? If someone tried to take public property for himself he simply would get gunned down. Easy as that

anywere that isn't western europe or america

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Relief_of_the_Poor_1601

Yes, read critique of the gotha program. The distinction between lower and higher stage communism is from marx. Socialism is the poor man communism, which is a revision from the USSR.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae

He said welfare programs, and these have certainly existed.

I completely disagree with you, they act as a strategic smokescreen, it's actually quite a good thing from their perspective, you're chasing a ghost meanwhile the intelligentsia are reading different things. Like in college they redefine white supremacy and racism so you can speak bombastically to the proles but in commune with the other educated people you're merely discussing power frameworks that structured themselves around race almost as a convenience.

>it's about equal opportunity
there's no such thing

Shhh...let them continue to addle on about idea purity and how its complete divorce from the phenomenological world doesn't matter. it's literally why Marxism always fails

>The idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a House of Correction or even prison.
wow this is some labor rights. remind me how they got to shoving 8 years old down Chimneys under this act? Oh yeah, it literally gives orphans to companies.

Communism is about labour rights, not welfare.

Personal enrichment. And you (small group) can't gun down a militia (bigger group). You would require an organized institution (state) to organize a resistance of the majority. Any warlord with a small organized army could take over any such hypothetical communist society in the matter of a year.

Also you assume the majority would agree with your ideology indefinitely.

>Like?
Maybe drugs or alcohol who may be limited, prostitutions, or shiny items which you want to decorate your bunker with. Or maybe someone really just want food which I'll be able to provide with my labor voucher.

>or whatever you have in mind.
I'll trade in the middle of Siberia, far from the restless Red Eyes, where I'll become the Food Baron.

>You will work for them and buy them
But the Red AI stop Ivan from drinking three bottles of vodka per day and he really wishes to do that. I have the bottles which I exchanged against his rations of chocolats, he'll buy them from me and I'll get some vodka and some chocolats which will be used in the securing of further ressources.

>Too bad private property will never make you a giga chad.

Large amount of private property actually make you sexy among severals species, including humans.

>Maybe the Bismark agreed with some of their principles and ideas. Maybe he really thought he could implement some in a way that was agreeable to the entirety of his society. Maybe he felt morally compelled as a Christian to care for the poor or something in a meaningful way while maintaining a cohesive society that didn't descend into Chaos of revolution.

Right, so that would make him hostage of those utopians communists, not an utopian himself.

Sounds like socialism to me

What we would need is a highly complex social AI to manipulate people into meaningless political banter endlessly to prevent them from ever compromising the power structures that we'd set up that uh don't uh exist anymore because... advanced.... communism.

>My point was not all implementations of socialist though was a movement towards Utopia

I agree, but I was mostly talking about communists desu

How does Marxism allow for investments to happen if the investor is not allowed to profit from the risk that investing entails through surplus-labour?

How can an entire economy be under public ownership without becoming crippled?

How can we get rid of classes when social hierarchies are an inextricable part of social life. How does class status equality differ from mental equality, since the attribution of status is a mental phenomenon?

>let's judge history by modern standards
It was designed to give welfare to those unable to work. You can whine that it doesn't agree with your shitty 21st century sensibilities, but it was a social program where there wasn't one before, and it predates any crappy marxism by hundreds of years.
And there were other such social programs in the past. Socialists don't own the concept.

you are missing the second point:
>The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
you cannot talk about Communism as a movement discounted from the material premises like which socialist policies are implemented and which are not. Ultimately, as someone who considers myself a communist and a Marxist, I think we should give up on socialism, it's only served as a crutch for capitalism, not an attack on it.

It was designed to placate a rapidly deteriorating working class for the benefit of the Capitalists. That was a bill pushed by the Bourgeois to their direct benefit.

>Bismark was a secret communist because he gave a few advantages to the poor

OK

>Personal enrichment. And you (small group) can't gun down a militia (bigger group).
So you think a militia of want-to-be-capitalist would take over a countless militias of proles?

>You would require an organized institution (state) to organize a resistance of the majority.

Not really, even today you could organize a thing on Facebook for instance to tell a large group of people about any criminal activity.

>Any warlord with a small organized army could take over any such hypothetical communist society in the matter of a year.
Doubt

>Also you assume the majority would agree with your ideology indefinitely.

I mean under communism being a communist is meaningless. This is something like if someone wanted a return to monarchy and he gave an argument like "you think people will agree with capitalism indefinitely". It's stupid.

>Maybe drugs or alcohol who may be limited, prostitutions, or shiny items which you want to decorate your bunker with. Or maybe someone really just want food which I'll be able to provide with my labor voucher.

You can read my previous response to you to see why this is wrong.

>But the Red AI stop Ivan from drinking three bottles of vodka per day and he really wishes to do that. I have the bottles which I exchanged against his rations of chocolats, he'll buy them from me and I'll get some vodka and some chocolats which will be used in the securing of further ressources.

You simply exchanged two things without profit. You don't have private property to create vodka on mass scale. If vodka for some unknown reason is banned in the community you will be simply be seen as a criminal since it's so bad it needed to be banned in the first place.

>Large amount of private property actually make you sexy among severals species, including humans.
Today I learned parrots own factories.

The reasoning behind it doesn't matter, it wasn't socialist.

>it was pushed by the bourgois to their direct benefit
So not socialist, then? I guess you agree by your own reasoning after all.

based retard see
I never once argued that the Poor Law Act 1601
was socialist.

Ok, you're too stuck in your red way, please die for the good of the world.

>You simply exchanged two things without profit.

I take a cut so no.
>You don't have private property to create vodka on mass scale.

But I do have vodka voucher and people who don't care about drinking vodka. Maybe I can also convince the factory gard to let me snap some vodka bottles for bigger exchanges.

>If vodka for some unknown reason is banned in the community
Not banned, limited.

>Today I learned parrots own factories.
Why do you think some birds make huge shiny nests?

...

>So you think a militia of want-to-be-capitalist would take over a countless militias of proles?
I did not say anything about capitalism. Maybe he would set up some autocratic society or maybe socialism even. Or anything else that is appealing to some people.

>Not really, even today you could organize a thing on Facebook for instance to tell a large group of people about any criminal activity.
So they would organize their efforts? Under one leader or a small group of leaders? And that/those leader(s) would afterwards give up his powers? lol

Also such organization is slow. A warlord can act fast and overwhelm smaller groups before the slow democratic process comes to a decision. That is why all contemporary democracies dispense with democratic processes when it comes to exercising war.

>his is something like if someone wanted a return to monarchy and he gave an argument like "you think people will agree with capitalism indefinitely". It's stupid.
People sometimes "return" to monarchy. Your misconception is that there is some hierarchy of systems like evolution where the more superior system follows necessarily after a more inferior system. Which is false.

For instance an autocratic system is more efficient than a democratic system as long as the leader has the right priorities and is good at his job. The argument for democracy is that you can't guarantee that the next supreme leader isn't inadequate or that the current supreme leader doesn't become corrupted. But as long as the leader is adequate the system outperforms all others when it comes to power supremacy.

Once the warlord is in power he could raise a new generation that doesn't agree with former communist ideals. And he would have pragmatic arguments for it.

The original argument was that social programs are socialist

If you read carefully, the argument was that the social programs being being advocated in Bismark's Germany were socialist programs, there was no difference between the two until Bismark cooped them.

First of all i'm not . You responded to wrong person.

>Ok, you're too stuck in your red way, please die for the good of the world.
Getting Peterson's debate flashbacks here.

>I take a cut so no.
What cut? You exchanged bottles of vodka for chocolate and a bottle of vodka. This means you either you abuse disabled people who can't see that they give you a chocolate for free. Which is something I think will get you a bad name in the community, or his vodka is worth as much as your bottle - the chocolate, which means you got nothing.

>But I do have vodka voucher and people who don't care about drinking vodka. Maybe I can also convince the factory gard to let me snap some vodka bottles for bigger exchanges.
And why would they do that? They give vodka for free? Pretty based. Also what the fuck is vodka vouchers?

>Why do you think some birds make huge shiny nests?
Muh hierarchies. You see it's natural to have hierarchies so communism is debunked. Also private property = nests.

You can figure yourself why you are wrong. It's 23:30 where I live and I'm getting tired. Also writing on the phone is painful.

can still reply since I'm going to read his response in the morning for laughs.

>You can figure yourself why you are wrong. It's 23:30 where I live and I'm getting tired. Also writing on the phone is painful.
Okay I will just ignore your post though because you have no argument

I responded to two peoples actually.

>You exchanged bottles of vodka for chocolate and a bottle of vodka.
Yes and I took a bit of vodka and a bit of chocolate during the exchange.

>And why would they do that
Because I bribed them with hentais (banned by the Red AI) which I had drawn by the resident chinks for the low prices of two chocolate bars and half of a drink of vodka.

>Also what the fuck is vodka vouchers?
A voucher given to me at the end of the month which allow me to get two bottles of vodka, or one of wine.

>Muh hierarchie
No because it increases their sexual values.
>Also private property = nests.
For bird yes.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Sozialversicherung_in_Deutschland

Use google translate. The ideas already existed and were implemented before Socialists became popular and forced Bismarcks hand.

The statement I have a problem with is that the ideas of Socialism and social programs used to be synonymous and Bismarck just did some handwaving to make them non-socialist. No, social programs existed way before that.

This list the begining of social programs in Germany at 1845, long after Marx started writing. How does this prove that the implementation of "social programs" in Germany wasn't an explicit attempt to put Socialist polices in action to kill the power of the Socialist movement?

The communist manifesto did not even come out until 3 years later. You think an unknown philosopher living in Paris influenced prussian legislation?

Do you think that was the only book he wrote or something? You cannot be this stupid. Also, socialism even predates Marx.

nice answer thanks

Look at his bibliography before 1845. Also even if he had written something popular that was advocating for this exact policy, politics don't move that fast.

>socialism predates marx
And was irrelevant until 1870ies

No it wasn't, that's blatantly false. In 1845 Marx published both the German Ideology and the Theses on Feuerbach, he was in an incredibly influential period of his Career. He was considered so dangerous by this point Germany had already revoked his citizenship. You should take a history class on Europe in the 19th century (you would know the year of revolutions was in 1848)

Moldbug v Zizek would be a very, very interesting debate.

Prussian law in question 17. January 1845
The German Ideology March 1846, not published until 1932 (lol)
Theses on Feuerbach written in 1845, never published in Marx' life time (double lol)

No it wouldn't.
A psychoanalyst philosopher vs a computer science philosopher is guaranteed to be nothing but talking past each other.

look, if you don't have an argument that's fine, but pretending no one knew what socialism was 3 years before the year of revolutions is literally brainlet tier retarded. Why did Germany revoke his citizenship? You know he has very well known for his journalism at this time, right?

Dude you just gave two examples of his writing that were so blatantly wrong that you should be too ashamed to still post on this board

My point was that he was writing his most influential work on communism at that point, not that those works were the ones that made him famous. I shouldn't need to convince you that he was famous at that point, he was considered one of the most dangerous people in Europe at the time; the only European country that would even let him within their borders was England. You are a literal moron who cannot follow the most simple of examples let alone fucking google the history of socialism.

Do you mean why didn't he read volumes of incestuous continental philosophy which he could name drop? Presumably he doesn't believe Hegelian metaphysics and the like have any relation to the real world, similar to how people don't feel the need to familiarize themselves with flat earther's writings before they dispute their theories.

>the only European country that would even let him within their borders was England
How come he was living in France when that law was enacted? Afterwards he moved to Brussels. Maybe you are talking horseshit again?

Also Marx was just one writer of Vorwärts! primarily he did editing for it. You can read some of his articles in it online, not as influential or specific as you would want them to be. The paper (not Marx specifically) got banned for criticizing the Prussian king. The top editor was imprisoned, the publisher made a deal with the government. Marx being expelled from the country was just some minor side effect, he wasn't some big mastermind.

You are retarded.

If you have a time travel machine you can go to literally any Communist country and say all this and more. North Korea might still be good for this too.