Guys, I'm going to debate someone about Marxism...

It doesn't matter because some Marxist is just going to pull out a different interpretation of Marx based on the writings of an obscure hungarian writer in the 1960's and say that you're wrong

>an obscure hungarian writer in the 1960's
Why are you making fun of him user?

Attached: Lukács_György.jpg (384x465, 27K)

I don't know... why do you read books exactly?

The first four chapters of Das Kapital desu

Why agree to debate someone on something you aren't familiar with in the first place? I guess the fact that you're trying to learn about it to not look like an idiot is a step forward, but if you're reading just to debate people it's a waste of time

Utility and enjoyment.

And Marxist literature cannot provide that?

>And Marxist literature cannot provide that?
Utility? No, not unless you are planning on debating a lobster psychologist on Marxism.
Enjoyment? I should hope not.

>Utility? No, not unless you are planning on debating a lobster psychologist on Marxism.
Why not? Even if you don't share Marxist principles, they still helped shape the modern world and the ideology of today as reaction against the communist movements of last century. If you want to understand our world, Marx is almost necessary
>Enjoyment? I should hope not.
Well it depends. Generally, theory book are not enjoyable as fiction is, but there is enjoyment in learning.

This thread is making fun of Peterson.

>If you want to understand our world, Marx is almost necessary
Understanding the world and history is not at all the goal of the images you posted.
>Well it depends. Generally, theory book are not enjoyable as fiction is, but there is enjoyment in learning.
I meant that, for the readers sake, I hope they wouldn't enjoy reading all those books on those images. Imagine the type of person that would.
Of all the books in the world, why would you just read those about Marxism? I'm sure you can find books better suited to gaining an understanding of the world. I'm sure you can find books more enjoyable.

read The German Ideology and Thesis on Feuerbach.

Yeah we no shit you could read more enjoyable books, but the thread is about marxist literature, so I posted a few pics with marxist literature. I don't really see the problem here to be honest.

lmao

>the thread is about marxist literature
This thread is about the debate.
>I don't really see the problem here to be honest.
You could spend a lifetime reading that garbage, and for what?

>You could spend a lifetime reading that garbage, and for what?
Yea Forums

>marx is an obscure hungarian writer from the 1960s
the absolute state of lit

I don't get it. Why would Peterson admit he only read the Manifesto in 2019 when he's been criticizing this shit for years? It makes him look embarrasingly ignorant.

Attached: lmao.jpg (916x640, 74K)

He also said he read it when he was 18, lol.
It's more embarrassing he didn't read anything else about something he says he disagrees with so much.

Read the Manifesto twice and watch a couple Zizek videos.

>based on the writings of an obscure hungarian writer in the 1960's
Just pull up another writings of an obscure American current writer to prove him wrong.

Attached: BD9D3D12-4A04-4678-A4B9-4C26430BE5D8.png (897x591, 500K)

Nah, just read a propaganda pamphlet. You're good.

Your debate was yesterday, Jordan, you can't fix the damage done now.

Attached: 1384264617778.jpg (500x750, 80K)

Read it but also read this: marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/index.html

Read Baudrillard's Mirror of Production and something else by him like The Perfect Crime and then dunk on Marxists forever by telling them how they are really just being subsumed within capital and there is actually no possibility for radical critique of the system from the outside.

because it was painfully obvious he doesn't have a clue about the subject so the better move was to just flat out admit it in the beginning so no one had their hopes up after that

Nice reading comprehension, Yea Forums

No, eat a steak, do two lines of coke then listen to an audiobook of the manifesto at 2,5x speed while watching the perverts guide to ideology with the sound turned off.

you'll do fine with a laptop

Attached: peterson.jpg (1242x1699, 111K)

nice reading comprehension, Yea Forums. i knew some idiot would pretend that i misread him even though i was literally just pointing out that all zizek did was use MARX and not a 1960s hungarian writer and that that is a dumb copout excuse

>I don't know why some people think Marxism is some kind of religion where you have to agree with everything Marx said.
Duh maybe because its called Marxism

Pretty much.

Marx has been transformed in 10000 things, so whenever you say "This here is wrong!" they answer "No according to my interpretation!" then you have to ask for their interpretation and they will EXPLAIN it to you, and the audience will think he's like a teacher and you're like a child. Thus, he will "win" the debate.

Peterson's case was a bit extreme, because he should have known what type of thinker Zizek was. He didn't prepare. He's a psychoanalytic pseudo, so you shouldn't expect anything better. However, even if he had read, Zizek would probably use the same trick either way.

>of an obscure hungarian writer in the 1960's
István Mészáros?

The peasants see it that way no matter what the Marxist academics might say. I have personally met these peasants and talked to them about the revolution they think is coming

Attached: 3BA8E4CB-05EE-47BF-AA5E-1E0439032FB4.png (632x1162, 419K)

Nobody reads irrelevant Marxist trash because it's irrelevant trash. It's like why aren't you extremely well read on Arianism or catharism or some other dead sectarian cult?

Schupeters not a Marxist

>exchange in the marketplace of ideas is futile
>Lukacs is literally not just Marx applied to art, history, and society

if you dont want to be the imbecile in the debate be the marxist

PETERSON IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL/THINKER/PHILOSOPHER EXPLORING IDEAS FROM THE PERSECTIVE OF THE DARK WEB.

HE IS A PROFESSOR, A REACTIONARY PROFESSOR, WHO STAGED A POLITICAL PROJECT TO RIDE THE WAVE OF RIGHT WING POPULISM, MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF, AND MAKE MONEY, AMD STICK IT TO LEFTIES OF COURSE.

PART OF THE GAME HE PLAYS IS NOT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE IDEAS OUTSIDE OF HIS LITTLE SPIEL. THIS POST MODERN NEO MARXIST VS WESTERN CIVILIZATION IDEA IS NOT NEW. THE NAZIS SAID IT, THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY SAYS IT, THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY SAYS IT, NAME A REPUBLICAN THINK TANK AND THEY PROBABLY SPREAD THAT SHIT TOO. PETERSON KS NOT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH OR EXPLORING IDEAS YOU. AND I KNOW ITS YOUR PART IN THE GAME TO SCRATCH YOUR HEAD AND PRETEND THE THE ISSUE WITH PETERSON IS THAT HE WAS UNPREPARED BUT COME THE FUCK ON ALREADY. ITS UNBEARABLE.

Camatte is one of the only Marxists worth reading. He uses fairly simple language, understands Marx better than almost anyone, and he has a scathing critique of marxist organisation.

Part of arguing against leftists is to play dumb and then troll them when they get pissed off. If you are arguing that wealth inequality doesn't exist, pay gap doesn't exist, oppression doesn't exist, racism doesn't exist, progress is impossible or not worth it, hierarchies are ipso facto justified, or they are an unavoidable or unalterable part of human nature, etc, etc, why would you read detailed explanations arguing in the opposite direction?

Then don't talk about it like you know it or challenge people to a debate about said topic?

here's a piece of thought that I feel I need to articulate somewhere on here, because no one else might have come to the same conclusion so this post might be as good as anything:

notice that zizek well before the debate, in his various write ups and interviews or whatever, staunchingly opposed peterson clearly considering him as his political enemy - someone who needs to be called out on bullshit and acted upon against
but then, when it finally comes to the debate, zizek suddenly notices that peterson is not some kind of a Big Enemy or a dishonest, maniacally reactionary pundit. he just sees him as uneducated as he's ignorant, notices that peterson's stances are genuine even if misinformed. and then instead of totally blasting peterson, ziz embraces him feeling that peterson has good intentions that just got wholly misdirected. peterson becomes in his eyes a boy that needs further acquisition of knowledge and to let that happen he tries to treat him as humbly as he can. what a wonderful human being honestly, this is everything peterson needed to see communism with a human face

Because he thought Stalinism = Marxism, even though he himself has pointed out that there were communist that were anti-soviet; he just never thought to think why they were. simple category error