So basically yeah I'm not even a Marxist, just go read reactionary Christians like Hegel and GK Chesterton

He talks about this re-Hegelianized Marxism but what of Marx even remains? Its trite to even be speaking of the Holy Spirit as an Atheist and still hold yourself to not be specifically committed to the exceptionalism of Western Civilization and Christian theology

>in front of a largely right leaning audience
lol

>Marxism is just like a feeling bro, its nothing to do with anything Marx ever wrote or said, its just like my chakra dude

Ok, explain how anti-sjw types who follow Peterson and have identified leftism as the enemy are leftists.

I'm more referring to the Chapo Traphouse tier retards who clapped for communist revolution

he wants to bring bring Marxist materialism to Hegelian dialectics. this isn't even in the top 10 most outlandish ways Marx has been reappropriated user, keep up please.

Attached: Less-than-Nothing-1050st-298174ca807675b57687a71eb3b15408.jpg (438x68, 14K)

>he wants to bring bring Marxist materialism to Hegelian dialectics
He said the exact opposite in this talk, he said he wants to bring Hegelian materialism to Marxist dialectics. Defend what this means and what of Marxism remains here

Zizek is a right wing concern troll, if you haven't picked it up already. His main criticism of capitalism, if you read between the lines, is not that it exists, but that we have only democracy to temper it with.

I can only assume what he means by Hegelian materialism here is the material fact of the superiority of the German white race which Hegel continuously emphasizes in his work

>"You're a marxists because you hold true marxists presuppositions and axioms.

>"Actually, I self identify as not being marxists. So you can't call me marxist, bigoted white boi"

Ok lmao

Yes they're retards and have embarrassed themselves but look at the audience Zizek gets and then that of Peterson who is the bestselling intellectual on the planet right now. Zizek went in there with the knowledge that he would be speaking to the center right and consequently he addressed their concerns and critiqued Peterson on his liberalism. People didn't expect that, I think that was very smart.

He literally always talks like that though

>durr you dont agree with my idea of marxism even though ive only read the sparknotes of marx therefore you aren't a marxist
this is the calibre of intellect that peterson fans have, yikes. absolutely fucking brain-dead

Attached: DURRR.jpg (645x729, 57K)

>People didn't expect that
there wasn't a single new sentence in that talk

>You're a marxists because you hold true ideas that marx didn't hold true
the abosolute state of peterson and his mindless followers

Attached: smooth brain.jpg (588x823, 39K)

So explain what Marxism is without just saying "looking at things materially" which is just the standard ground of all enlightenment thought preceding Marx by centuries

I love how retards think that reading a single manifesto written for uneducated proletariat is the same as learning an entire economic ideology. It always weeds out the dumb fucks when they say that Marx was an egalitarian.

>GK CHesterton
Based good choise.
What some good Chesterton after Everlasting man and The man who was Thursday

What he means is that Marx was more idealistic than Hegel, so to purge this last bit of idealism we (quite ironically) need to return to Hegel, the philosopher of absolute idealism. His claim that Hegel was the true materialist should be the thing that baffles you, not:
>wad dus marksidm meen whan hegul
when Marx was literally a young Hegelian, and young Hegelianism is literally the closest possible philosophical position you can find to Marxism. He even has the theory of "rebel" which is strikingly similar to alienated class and a master/slave dialectic of history. You don't understand any of the three philosophers you are trying to discuss here.

Attached: marx_hegel_by_rono1848_dc2yean-pre.jpg (969x825, 119K)

>This is not a new position for Zizek in the slightest.
Yeah that's one way of putting it

I understand but Peterson people do not watch Zizek.

Nah dude you're right, Marx was a peaceful free market libertarian and basically the Sargon of Akkad of his time

>Its trite to even be speaking of the Holy Spirit as an Atheist and still
stopped there You're a not even a pleb you're a pseudopleb, amazing you're not in a cult

if you do a strict reading of Hegel though you end with a position that shills for aristocracy

Not argument friendareeno

Exactly, it wasnt real Marxism.

Zizek down played his leftism to trick some of those alt-rights. He didn't mention a bunch of stuff he was for like open borders and paying reparations to black people

the young Hegelians felt those conclusions of the Old Hegel were simply the result of Hegel not being Hegelian enough. Remember Zizek mentioning the Owl of Minerva? Philosophy only being able to describe a system which is already decaying and cannot see the future? That was in the preface for the book in which he described the German system as the highest stage of history.

You have explained absolutely nothing of what remains of Marx other than just being a Hegelian and calling it Marxism so you don't get criticized by Jews in academia

>Marx wasn't a Marxist because he believed in Hegel
alright user, I guess Marxism doesn't exist

>the young Hegelians felt those conclusions of the Old Hegel were simply the result of Hegel not being Hegelian enough.
And the Right Hegelians didn't, they just stuck to Hegel directly and ended up developing Nazism

It has nothing to do with Jewish people you schizo

So what remains of Marx then?

hahahahaha I can't even imagine what the words I', saying mean to you inside your brainlet. Please just read one of Zizek's books. In Defence of Lost Causes would probably clear things up for you (don't even try to read Less than Nothing, you won't be able to).

>Please just read one of Zizek's books.
I've read three. I don't believe he's a Marxist anymore other than as some type of social club for old horny European guys

Okay? So is Gentille not a real fascist because he was a Right Hegelian? Both Fascism and Marxism were Hegelian movements, what is your point user?

How does what you're saying follow at all with what I'm saying you dumb fucking brainlet? Peterson admits he has only read the manifesto, you clearly haven't read anything, yet you literally think that if anyone disagrees with his sparknotes idea of marxism that they aren't marxist.

But to answer your question, Marxism in this context means agreement with the doctrine of Marx, of which a central idea is the abolition of classes. However, Marxism has been conceptually expanded upon by many writers since the 19th century.

race is irrelevant. fuck off back to /pol/

so you don't understand him, that's okay. philosophy isn't for everyone user, it's actually pretty hard.

So did Stirner, who was a literal student of Hagel, and a freind of Marx. You can have identical foundations and wildly different outcomes philosophically.

I mean Hegel is EXTREMELY Christian. A true UR-THEOLOGIAN, a titan like Plato.

>Marxism in this context means agreement with the doctrine of Marx
Woah thanks professor

Attached: X7fQkrX.jpg (1200x1000, 166K)

If you're going to be a cunt on Yea Forums why not just be aggressive about it instead of faggoty and sarcastic

>of which a central idea is the abolition of classes
So you mean everything thats involved in the Communist Manifesto which apparently doesn't count

Yes, and this is exactly why you can very easily be a Marxist who agrees with Hegel.

Which you and Peterson haven't read lmao

something about this post...

Attached: 1555726667793s.jpg (89x125, 2K)

You don't have to support free market if you're not an egalitarian. He was basically a technocrat oligarch

how would you like me to embarrass you next time user?

>ahah, that's just the idea he wanted to feed to the majority of the people bro, why do you think they matter lol

>His claim that Hegel was the true materialist should be the thing that baffles you, not:

Certainly, nothing consecrates any and all Phenomena like an irreducible indestructible Monad from which, in which, by which, to which they immanently ARE. "Materialism" in the Anglo sense is practically Solipsism.

Attached: yay.jpg (800x534, 183K)

>durr if you dont summarize a large body of political philosophy for me then ur wrong bro
What does me reading Kapital to you have to do with anything? You are just wrong and retarded. Anyone that disagrees with you isn't a Marxist in spite of the fact that you admit you haven't read anything but the sparknotes (if that). You are too stupid to live.

But abolition of classes does not mean equal outcomes, which is the false impression Peterson was under.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (697x512, 48K)

>reads an abridged and modernized version of Moby Dick
>that's the version they wanted to feed the majority of the people bro, obviously this is all I need to read to critique it as a work of literature

>Lacanian ontology
Can we talk about this? I don’t understand how people still shill Lacan. Everything he wrote sounds like total shit he pulled outta his asshole.

look into the Ljubljana school, they are known for their radical recasting of the psychoanalytic tradition as a serious philosophical works

>which is the false impression Peterson was under.
No I think Peterson was very clear in his stating that it just leads to a retarded monopolized state structure that can't be opposed which Zizek didn't even disagree with

Except that was publishers not Melville you fucking retard

Do you honestly think you can understand every philosopher from skimming Wikipedia? 1) peterson extracted ideas from the Manifesto that don't exist in it (equality of outcomes), and 2) the point of the Manifesto was as propaganda for the extremely uneducated masses, and as such is a cursory glance at Marxism

Lacan was actually based (and extremely redpilled)

Moby dick isn't a piece of propaganda which aim for the creation of a new society though.

>But abolition of classes does not mean equal outcomes

It litteraly does, otherwise new classes will just be created anew because some peoples will win more than other.

Zizek is a Marxist when there is a majority leftist crowd because he can talk about the death-cult ideology he still clings to without fear of admonishment. When talking in front of any other crowd, he lies and say he's more nuanced. Zizek is an entertainer; he plays the crowd. That's why you've seen 20+ threads about how Zizek 'DESTROYED!!!!!!' Peterson; they are threads made by midwits who judge victory by who entertained them more. In actual fact, no one 'won', because no in depth discussions even occured in all the time they were debating. I suppose, however, Zizek and Peterson's bank accounts won in some sense.

Attached: DqNIPEtX4AAZbtW.jpg (621x624, 44K)

>peterson extracted ideas from the Manifesto that don't exist in it (equality of outcomes)
What part of a classless, stateless, moneyless society is not equality of outcome?

thanks, will do

Attached: its-a-conspiracy.jpg (640x480, 79K)

Hegelianism admits that there are truths in many philosophies and that you shouldn't just dismiss it entirely because you disagree with a certain part. It's like the second point in the Phenomenology.

>the point of the Manifesto was as propaganda for the extremely uneducated masses, and as such is a cursory glance at Marxism

Therefore it should present the main idea of marxists extremly clearly. Or are you going to tell me it's full of deliberate bullshit?

>peterson extracted ideas from the Manifesto that don't exist in it (equality of outcomes)

Abolition of class mean equal outcome otherwise new classes will arise from the difference in outcomes.

Why do you think that matters? Think about it logicallt: Do you think Marx actually gave up on 80% of his theory when he wrote the pamphlet, just to pick it all back up afterwords? Or do you think he left 80% of his theory out because it wasn't an academic defense of his position, but instead a propaganda pamphlet designed to build class consciousness among uneducated workers? He didn't stops writing after the Manifesto, it wasn't anything more than a political polemic designed to stir up the proletariat.

>No
Yes idiot, this is what JBP believes rewatch the debate. He's also talked about Marxism and "equality of outcome" about a thousand fucking times
youtube.com/watch?v=3K8uLsHu5bA

any recommended work(s) from them about this topic?

>What part of a classless, stateless, moneyless society is not equality of outcome?
What is it with you idiots and loving to beg the question? What part of it IS equality of outcomes?

>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 has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality of outcomes.

He doesn't change his position, he is just more careful about what to say so he doesn't scare away people who are so easily turned off by all things they group in with the left

read the Critique of the Gotha Program (a work which is actually extremely relevant to academic Marxism)
>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.

>Why do you think that matters?
Because its talking about intent and representation. If the Communist Manifesto isn't representative of Marx the reasons where he diverged should be delineated as clearly as he wrote the Manifesto itself, otherwise its just pure smoke and mirror games in which there is no true Marx at all

Zizek donated his speaking fee because he's a Chad, Peterson won't even show up for less than fifty grand

It's lying by omission.

>herefore it should present the main idea of marxists extremly clearly. Or are you going to tell me it's full of deliberate bullshit?
It does present the main ideas clearly, what are you talking about? Why are you debating me about something you haven't read? Peterson has repeatedly shown he thinks Marxism means equality of outcomes. It doesn't. It doesn't say this in the Manifesto at all.

>Abolition of class mean equal outcome otherwise new classes will arise from the difference in outcomes.
No it doesn't, and you don't know what a class is. Class doesn't mean "this guy has more many than me". It means "this guy solely owns the means of production".

>What part of it IS equality of outcomes?
Because if there's no class, state or money where would there even be inequality in any political-economic sense. You've just aimed to abolish the three things by which societal inequalities could ever form

Classes will still rise again because of that difference in labor, Marx was just a blind fool who can't see two feets in front of him.

>the reasons where he diverged should be delineated as clearly as he wrote the Manifesto itself
user this isn't a secret. The Prolegomena didn't invalidate the parts of CoPR it skipped. You can't just cherrypick the most pop-version of their theory that they wrote (specifically for brainlets who couldn't read the read work, mind you) and hold that up as the ultimate example of their thought. it's as intellectually dishonest as choosing an abridged work of literature to review. I'm amazed this is anything but obvious to you.

see >Class doesn't mean "this guy has more many than me". It means "this guy solely owns the means of production".

Yeah but if there's no money you don't have any more than him anyway

Then lying is so widespread that it's done in nearly every situation. Ever chosen not to swear because you were beside your grandmother? Lying by omission.

So you're saying it is representative of his thought, you just don't like it being pointed out

Sure, money in the sense of "legal tender" but there's still an "exchange of value" and you can have more than another person i.e. not "equal outcomes". There's nothing preventing this.

I literally just said the exact opposite, I said it was a dumbed down pop-theory version of his work written for a largely functionally-illiterate working class.

>Class doesn't mean "this guy has more many than me". It means "this guy solely owns the means of production".

Rigth. But someone must own those means of productions, whether this is the state or some ind of custodian organisation. Those peoples will become the new privilegied, much worse than the old one. Therefore equality of class is an unreachable utopia, only possible if everyone is the same.

>I said it was a dumbed down pop-theory version of his work
That doesn't mean unrepresentative of Marxism

>It does present the main ideas clearly, what are you talking about?

Well then, what's wrong with only reading the Manifesto? It present the ideas clearly.

>every type of lying is equally as bad

Attached: 1551038225135.png (1200x1042, 247K)

currently on pol...

Attached: 123123.png (1897x285, 142K)

in the same way this is representative of the literary brilliance of Melville, sure.

Attached: 61aY1vg5ogL.jpg (410x500, 65K)

I'm not that guy but it is representative of his thought. What is your point? Do you have any disagreements with it?

The whole reason this seems to have started is because some guy is stupid enough to believe that, if someone disagrees with them, that they are just moving the flagpole as to what Marxism really is when in reality you can't truly understand Marxism through the Manifesto just like you aren't going to understand QM without knowing the math behind it. It's effective in that it summarizes the central ideas, but it's not a strict academic analyses of the topics which would require something as long as Kapital

Marxism was a Christian project in it's roots if we're being honest and it's also dead as a meaningful movement unlike Christianity.

Sure, but the problem is people are criticizing his ideas not the way he explains them.

>Do you have any disagreements with it?
Yeah its failed in every single attempt to implement them in hundreds of countries something which Zizek said he totally agreed with numerous times

That is admirable. However, it does not change the fact he is a communist.

>But someone must own those means of productions, whether this is the state or some ind of custodian organisation.
Yes,
>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.

>/pol/ has been calling him an under cover NazBol who is secretly anti-semitic

it never ends

Attached: 23536.jpg (400x400, 31K)

>Yeah its failed in every single attempt to implement them in hundreds of countries something which Zizek said he totally agreed with numerous times
Can someone please help me here? What does this word salad mean? Do you plan on explaining which part of the Manifesto you disagree with? Or are we done here?

They're not even wrong though

>this wasn‘t real marxism
>marx said he‘s not even a marxist
>communism is as complex as quantum mechanics

Attached: 98EDB40F-B8A7-4A3E-8545-6AA0E3F1D318.jpg (232x217, 9K)

>Do you plan on explaining which part of the Manifesto you disagree with?
I just did, the Communist part of it. But yeah feel free to fuck off with your non-arguments

He's criticizing the ideas not the arguments that support those ideas, and this is a bug due to the fact that he hasn't actually read any of the arguments, he just read the meme pamphlet.

He literally called them pathological in the debate

That's just intellectual masturbation, it will never happen and you just get a Super Bourgeoisie.

A better way to do it would be to create a Fate Machine that could arange equality in such a way that every man start life with an equal inheritance, thus enforcing equality of outcome.

So? Have you looked at him, he's a mess of pathologies

Too scared to reply to me lmao, pathetic. At least try harder with your strawmen

>He's criticizing the ideas not the arguments that support those ideas
So you're admitting you're more interested in rhetorical games than discerning actual reality. The ideas themselves are what fundamentally matters

>I just did, the Communist part of it. But yeah feel free to fuck off with your non-arguments
>durr i just told you which part durrr *doesn't say which part* durr the communist part
the absolute state of petersonfags

>This is just intellectual masturbation
I agree. You can cry about how equality of opportunity means equality of outcome all you want but Marxists don't subscribe to this. JBP is wrong.

It kind of deconstructs the ideology if you find out the base of it is just paranoia and pathology. At least he is self aware

Better to be a communist than a right-liberal like Peterstein

>equality of opportunity means equality of outcome all you want but Marxists don't subscribe to this.

But JBP agree with this, it's just that the Marxist definition of equality of opportunity is only reachable via equality of outcome.

>Marx: We need to have a revolution and install a dictatorship of the proletariat
>Peterson: No thats dumb and failed miserable
>Some Jew on a forum: HE DIDNT EVEN ENGAGE WITH MARX!!

>But JBP agree with this
Yeah after Zizek ripped his asshole open maybe youtube.com/watch?v=3K8uLsHu5bA

I don‘t even know which one you are. I just got into the thread.

arguments should not be treated as simply rhetorical games, they are the whole basis of philosophical practice. go read Plato you fucking subhuman

replying with another retarded, strawmanning greentext because you're too scared to actually argue, seriously pathetic

Right so you're saying Marx was completely wrong but the way in which he argued it was cool in the same way Plato was.
But you don't call yourself a Platonist or call for a political movement of Platonist parties, you move beyond identification with someone when their ideas prove insufficient

>my comment directly references a concept only mentioned once in this thread
>i dont even know which one you are
kill yourself

Leftist paranoia

I don't even know what you are talking about. I never said Marx was completely wrong I said Peterson never engaged with his arguments. You can't even follow the most simple lines of logic user, that's why you should read Plato. He might help you with that whole sophistry thing you seem to fetishize too. Or, maybe you can find someone with more patience to hold your hand through stuff like basic Marxist terminology.

Attached: 1551790863158.gif (511x512, 139K)

>if my autism is mentioned in a collective characterization that means it‘s only about me
Good god, dealing with an intellectual titan over here.

why do you guys identify as any of these ideologies, what are you even trying to accomplish? What is the point of reading up on this stuff when all you do is stay at home on the computer all the time, it makes the whole thing a waste. The alphas of the world are always going to be the ones who dominate the world in some form of society or another and there will be pain and suffering in any society. So whats the point to all this?

So are you saying Marx's ideas *were* correct?

>Le epic reddit maymay with le funny green words
You need to be at least 18 or older to post here, leave.

>my autism
Oh, so you have an argument then? Here you go buddy,

It‘s fun.
>the alphas of the world

Not him but I give him around 70% unironic yes.

Attached: 3.jpg (1000x541, 183K)

Ok like which ones?

JP stated plenty of time that equality of opportunites is good but that equality of outcome is bad.

are you really denying that there are a minority of dominant people who direct how things go?

alphas, chads, type A personalities, go getters, doers, leaders, whatever you want to call them. There is no denying that they run and turn the world regardless of what philosophical ideas or politics take hold of society. Things happen because of causes and effects that involved them.

Just a note: youtu.be/glcPasrhDgw

>JP stated plenty of time that equality of opportunites is good but that equality of outcome is bad.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with his wrong idea that Marxism means equality of outcomes

Thats just what they think, there's actually a bunch of crafty Jews behind them in the shadows pulling the real strings

>Which has absolutely nothing to do with his wrong idea that Marxism means equality of outcomes
Can you point to an example where he says this?

I‘m not sure what you think backlinking your high school tier „it’s all very complicated like math, dude“ analogy is doing on argumentative plane. Either the communist manifesto is a concise correct representation of core Marxist tenets, and therefore any valid criticism of the former is also that of a latter, or it is not and you are free to argue „true“ Marxism is some other interpretation and state „CM wasn‘t real Marxism“. But you can‘t have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, obviously I think Marx made some very insightful analysis of Capitalism. You do know you can't go to a decent school and graduate with a degree in economics without having read Marx, right? The idea that "every idea Marx had was wrong and ended in Stalin" is quite literally red scare residue left over from decades of propaganda to discredit the USSR and Red China. You are so far behind you think you are ahead; peak Dunning-Krueger.

What? JP's been plenty consistent with this, it's just that marxist retard who didn't know that JP think equality of opportunities is good.

No, I‘m denying desirability of such tremendous responsibilities.

I don't know why I have to keep posting this, Zizek told you all to read the Critique of the Gotha Program...
>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.

Ok, name one of these Marxist ideas

>Which has absolutely nothing to do with his wrong idea that Marxism means equality of outcomes

Again the only way to reach a classless society is through equality of outcome.

that's just you playing out a fantasy that someone like you could be on top of food chain above them, when in reality if they did exist they would just be a higher level of chad than the ones who have been in the public eye getting credit

So you're saying Jews are the real Chad all along

Attached: Louis B Mayer Clark Gable.jpg (474x618, 99K)

if they existed as a deep state yea

>Can you point to an example where he says this?
Dude, are you arguing for Peterson without having ever watched him?

Straight from the video,
>JBP: This was the consequence of the axioms of the Marxist system.
>But what is the connection?
>JBP: How much tyranny you have to impose in order to produce something like equality of outcome. What people who are agitating for the equality of outcome don't understand is [..]

Stop asking grade school level questions and read a fucking book you sub 70 iq troglodyte

So you don't consider the vast redistribution of wealth in the Soviet Union to not be an exercise towards an equality of outcome?
Its a rhetorical trick on your part to not consider that so merely because in Marx's idealism he thought that there would no longer need to be any disruption past that major equalization

Not him but it's a rhetorical trick to switch mid debate from criticizing Marx to criticizing the USSR, that's for sure.

The inability to contemplate hypotheticals is a sign of low IQ. There's a difference between popsci, which makes correct but cursory statements about something, and truly understanding the QM that it is describing.

The average person can get introduced to the ideas of Marxism through the Manifesto, but isnt going to understand the argumentation behind these ideas without reading Kapital. I'm not sure how you are incapable of understanding this. Retarded, clearly

>Again the only way to reach a classless society is through equality of outcome.
[citation needed]

Only because it's reality versus his dreamland

Hegel was the ultimate Atheist

Attached: 1441107561704.jpg (363x500, 41K)

Marx seemed incredibly naive

Well the USSR is the number two great success of Marx, the first one being china.

How would you do it otherwise? You'll just end up with an Hyper Bourgeoise who decide everything and various degrees of poors.

Are you retarded? You asked me,
>Can you point to where he says this?
And then I did, and then you switched the subject. Your only line of argumentation here is to say "DURR THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WAS SAYING". That's it. That's all you've got left. I'll be waiting for it.

I am not even saying I agree with Marx, I'm saying that that's not at all what he believed.

life well spent

kek

>How would you do it otherwise?
What in the mother of fuck are you on about? I said,
>Which has absolutely nothing to do with his wrong idea that Marxism means equality of outcomes
Marxists don't subscribe to equality of outcomes. If you want to cry about how equality of outcomes is necessary, that's fine. I am not a Marxist. There's a difference between critiquing the ideas of Marxism and misrepresenting them.
>inb4 where did he do that
I've already been through this in recent history, scroll up

Imagine if every time you brought up Adam Smith some sperg comes out of the woodwork complaining about the Somalia and the Congo

>Imagine if every time you brought up Adam Smith some sperg comes out of the woodwork complaining about the Somalia and the Congo
We call those people modern Leftists

I‘m not sure why you think calling me dumb and reiterating your trivial analogy is adressing my point in any way. Once again, you can‘t simultaneously claim that CM is fully representative of central Marxist ideas and shrug of any criticisms of it because „ackshually it‘s not“.

that kind of sucked desu

>shrug of any criticisms of it
Which ones, retard? What's your criticism of the Manifesto? Last time I asked this question some retard (and I hope it wasn't you) literally said "my problem with it is communism!!!"

Big brain takes

Attached: 1554863405044.png (757x615, 184K)

except we've had plenty of threads on both thinkers, and it's clear which side spergs out about which

your family is proud

zizek is entering the final stage of his life and as such his final enlightenment where he realizes that hegel was right about literally everything and that marx himself was a useless interlocutor.

>literally said "my problem with it is communism!!!"
Its kind of a big part of it buddy

>my critique is that i dislike communism
high iq thread right here

Attached: 1554863090872.jpg (960x932, 64K)

>Marxists don't subscribe to equality of outcomes.

Right, but you can't reach equality of classes without equality of outcome so they're either dumb or lying.

The very same ones that Peterson presented and Zizek agreed too.

Sorry, I'll stick to the part where he talks about having a commune of women to share between each other instead

>you can't reach equality of classes without equality of outcome
Abolishment of classes has nothing to do with equality of outcomes. How many times do I have to teach you this lesson, old man?
>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.

oh? so don't you mind explaining then?

>Abolishment of classes has nothing to do with equality of outcomes.
Are you saying the outcome isn't aiming to be more equal when you confiscate all privately held Capital and distribute it evenly between all people?

>my critique of the manifesto is something not in the manifesto or in any of his works

Attached: 1555442047251.png (680x680, 188K)

>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.

And you can't do that without either creating a Hyper Bourgeoisie, thus failing, genetically modifying human to become ant-like or creating a Fate Machine able to egalize everything in the universe, thus ensuring that people are equalized in their inheritance, giving everyone the opportunity to start his means of productions.

Peterson literally admitted that he hadn't even read Marx. He owned himself.

i much preferred this clown when he was just throwing pies at people

>There are people who actually defend Jordan Peterson getting paid thousands of dollars to show up to a debate and not even doing any reading besides a pamphlet and a few youtube videos

Its called the free market buddy, unlike you I don't have to defend it to the local commisar you commie bitch

He criticized capitalism for turning women into a commodity which was exploited and horded by the Bourgeois. He literally though capitalism turned the courting system into a form of socially regulated prostitution.

I do mind, the criticisms are concisely outlined in about 20 minutes of Peterson‘s speech and I‘m not particularly eager to retype them just to humor your running out of arguments and desperately fishing for some sophist cop out in techicalities or verbiage.

>Are you saying the outcome isn't aiming to be more equal
Yes, the "outcome" of "equality of opportunity" is to be given equal opportunities. This is not conceptually the same thing as everyone having the same level of "wealth".

>confiscate all privately held Capital and distribute it evenly between all people
Where does it say this anywhere?

True and its based. Women are whores

>heh I enjoy my mediocrity bub

>>confiscate all privately held Capital and distribute it evenly between all people
>Where does it say this anywhere?
Thats the whole point of communism. Note I said Capital

>I‘m not particularly eager to retype them
>i dont have any argument durrr ur desparate
this is pathetic lmao

is this satire or do you mind putting that in language I understand? im clearly not as well-read about ant-man and the hyper-bourgeoisie as you are

>Hire a contractor to paint your house
>He shows up and admits he doesn’t know how to paint a house and just throws a few splashes of paint and then leaves
>iTs ThE FrEe MaRkEt

>My painting fee is 50 thousand dollars by the way

I call the Hyper Bourgeoise a bourgeoise that own absolutly everything, like a Party for exemple, or maybe a Red AI charged with overseeing humans activities and enforcing its algorithmic will with armed drones

By having humans become ant-like I mean humans taking on the characteristic of socials insects, who naturally form communists society like ants.

By Fate Machine I mean an all-knowing robot capable of rigging reality to achieve whatever outcome is wanted.

Its another "leftist resorts to gaslighting and missdirection to avoid actual argument" episode

caveat emptor

It‘s a thread about a particular debate. The criticisms were very clearly and unambiguously presented in this debate. You are unwilling to address them and, judging by yout spergtastic insults, memetext and frogposting, you couldn‘t if you tried.

>t.

Attached: 1527470515004.jpg (808x631, 128K)

>come to Yea Forums thinking there might be interesting literature discussions
>maybe some theorizing on something obscure in one of Joyce's works
>It's just a bunch of edgy neets arguing over social media "intellectuals" who nobody will care about in a couple decades

:(

where did you come from?

Orthodoxy

FUCKING
FARTS OUT OF NORAS ARSE

Attached: 887C4468-2954-434A-8FA0-84587CA5F40C.png (500x459, 23K)

/hm/

You didn't reply to the first part, and
>Thats the whole point of communism
Sorry, if you meant "an asset that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work" then I'm not sure what the issue is here? The point of confiscating Capital is to prevent a single person from accumulating all the wealth, not to prevent people from having more and better private property

>durr these arguments exist but i refuse to tell you what they are durr go through the debate and find them if you dont find them u r retarded
the absolute state of petersonfags

I've been coming here for years, yet somehow let myself be disappointed every time, thinking that maybe this time It'll be different. It's really sad, seeing how there's nowhere to have an actual conversation on literature outside of academia except for the rare on-topic discussion on Yea Forums, which only happens during very specific astral alignments

>The point of confiscating Capital is to prevent a single person from accumulating all the wealth, not to prevent people from having more and better private property
i.e. Equality of outcome.
Otherwise all people would have an equal opportunity to accumulate all the wealth

To be fair, half of the catalogue is filled with this garbage right now

why not just make a thread about whatever you're interested in?

is this the power of Nick Land or something? i don't even disagree

I‘m not a Peterson fan in the slightest. It‘s also a tad silly to complain someone didn‘t „present“ you points from the debate in a thread about this very debate, but here you go. The relevant part starts at 11:40 and goes for about 20 minutes: youtu.be/78BFFq_8XvM

He won't acknowledge it unless you manually type out the full transcript for him

>not to prevent people from having more and better private property
If two people have different outcomes, that's not equality of outcome. They both had the same opportunity to have the same outcome.
>all people would have an equal opportunity to accumulate all the wealth
Yes, theoretically if everyone decided to relinquish their equal opportunity by jerking off all day except me.

I watched the debate. If you don't plan on explaining which parts of the Manifesto that Zizek disagrees with then you don't have an argument. Simple as that. I'm not going to wipe your ass for you.

>durr read this book if you dont do it ur wrong bro

No shit

>If you don't plan on explaining which parts of the Manifesto that Zizek disagrees with then you don't have an argument.
He has said many times in the past he finds it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism. He views the dictatorship of the proletariat as having been attempted to be constituted time and time again in history as an absolute failure and that Capitalism has proven itself to be productively superior at a catastrophic scale

>He has said many times in the past he finds it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism. He views the dictatorship of the proletariat as having been attempted to be constituted time and time again in history as an absolute failure and that Capitalism has proven itself to be productively superior at a catastrophic scale
And which part of the Manifesto is that in disagreement with again? Zizek is also aware of the ridiculous efficiency of capitalism without democracy, what's your point?

I literally linked you the arguments. But as the other guy said, you‘re now literally refusing to address them without me transcribing 20 minutes of talking. Fine enjoy your epic victory I guess.
>read this book if you dont do it ur wrong bro
Funny, that was your primary line of defense of Marxism just a few posts before. Bro.

Have you not read the Manifesto? I'm not that user but this is an endless shuffling of more and more minute goalposts down to such a ridiculous level. Zizek doesn't believe in socialist revolution, I'm sure you have the brain power to put the rest together on your own

Marx also thought capitalism was a fantastically productive process.

Treating it as dogma. He said stuff like people would use it as an excuse to do evil.

>I literally linked you the arguments. But as the other guy said, you‘re now literally refusing to address them without me transcribing 20 minutes of talking. Fine enjoy your epic victory I guess.
I watched the debate you dumb fucking retard, there is no point where Zizek concedes anything in the Manifesto. I can't find something that doesn't exist. If you want to explain where he says that, then go ahead. Otherwise you are just making shit up.

>Funny, that was your primary line of defense of Marxism just a few posts before. Bro.
Yes you have to read Marx to understand Marxism dumbfuck. However you're telling me to look for something that doesn't exist while saying
>DURRR you can't find it ur wrong

>he views the dictatorship of the proletariat as having been attempted to be constituted time and time again in history as an absolute failure
Peterson fans taking the "no-reading" strat to a new level

youtube.com/watch?v=YNRt-8GEi6c

Its not called german idealism for nothing

>there is no point where Zizek concedes anything in the Manifesto
Okay? What does that have to do with anything? You asked for criticisms and I pointed you to them. You‘re still to address them.

Guys, it should be easy.
>Zizek doesn't believe in a socialist revolution
[Citation needed] also the Manifesto doesn't say the struggle will end in a revolution as such, rather
>As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes".

>Treating it as a dogma
Ok? And?

this agrees with me, I'm saying the person didn't even read far enough in the sentence to get the objection to the Manifesto

>You asked for criticisms and I pointed you to them. You‘re still to address them.
>durr these criticisms exist bro just watch the 20 minute debate bro
Please, point them out. It should be easy.

Attached: 1553796841104.gif (300x219, 2.53M)

>[Citation needed]
He said it in the debate user, or how about you do a google search (), or, even better yet, how about you read a fucking book.

>durr these criticisms exist bro just watch the 20 minute debate bro
You just said twice you‘ve watched it already.

Yes, and I don't see where he disagreed with the Manifesto. We've been over this. Either explain how he did, or it didn't happen.

He. Doesn't. Believe. In. Socialist. Revolution.

>Yes, and I don't see where he disagreed with the Manifesto
Huh? Peterson‘s speech. I‘m talking about Peterson, not Zizek.

When given the change to talk to him he literally told Alexis Tsipras of Greece not to implement any radical socialist policies and just made moderate social capitalist demands of Germany

Wow great brainlets think alike! Your butt buddy already made this argument and then just resorted to
>durr read a book

>and basically the Sargon of Akkad

This would explain so much shit

Are you telling me you've been arguing that Peterson disagrees with the Manifesto this entire time? Do you actually think I'm arguing that Peterson agrees with the Manifesto?

So you already heard the argument for why he disagrees with the manifesto, but you refuse to do any of your own research up to and including reading. Yep, same old Yea Forums.

You know I would love to take "your idea of marxism" seriously. Unfortunately it appears that It's always changing so that You can avoid the consequences of being wrong again and again and again.
When You'll have an actual argument that goes beyond pretension perhaps I'll listen to you.

>You know I would love to take "your idea of marxism" seriously
How much Marx have you read then? Be honest user...

I'm legitimately surprised people don't remember that Sargon "used" to be ultra left economically.

>argument
>read a book
>same old Yea Forums
that's for sure

Also are you guys all under this misconception?

i love my sniffy boy

please lay out what you want us to tell you, in clear form, so that we can give you an answer that you won't just claim isn't a real answer, because at this point I'm assuming you're being intentionally elusive in your position to try and hide your lack of comprehension

More than Zizek considering that revolution and Historical materialism is one of the fundamental points of marxism.

I‘ve been arguing against your notion that criticisms of CM aren‘t valid criticisms of Marxism. What are you arguing about?

Do you think any Marxist has ever agreed with Marx on everything? Name me one academic Marxist who doesn't disagree with Marx.

Well thats kind of the point, ever since Adorno they're just a contrarian club of faggot Europeans

Show me where Zizek disagrees with the Manifesto. I've repeated this multiple times.

Here:
The closest thing I've gotten was "he doesn't believe in a socialist revolution" but I can't even tell who the fuck he's talking about because this guy said that he was talking about Peterson.

Originally this started out as some guy arguing the Manifesto had problems smugly dabbing really hard, but all he said was "the problem is communism"

I don't give a quantum of a fuck about that Because They're still marxist inasmuch as they believe in "class warfare", "historical materialism" and other profound sounding bullcrap.
If they dont, they have functionally nothing in common with Marx anyway.

>I‘ve been arguing against your notion that criticisms of CM aren‘t valid criticisms of Marxism.
When did I say that?

The manifesto is literally a call to revolution, its the whole point of the text. If he thinks the revolutions were a failure then he disagrees with it

...And He's not a marxist

where did you go?
where did you come from Cotton-Eye Joe?

see
ZIZEK DOESN'T BELEIVE IN SOCIALIST REVOULTION. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT BELONG ON THE LITERATURE BOARD

>The manifesto is literally a call to revolution, its the whole point of the text. If he thinks the revolutions were a failure then he disagrees with it
Revolution in the Manifesto just means an event that brings the "common ruin of the contending classes". If Zizek were against this, he wouldn't be Marxist period.

...

...

[citation needed]
Yikes, sperging retard. Zizek is not against the abolition of classes, the literal verb of which IS revolution.

Attached: 16e.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Attached: pjt-slavoj_zizek-2_.jpg (620x402, 14K)

>durr watch the video bro he says it HE SAYS IT MOMMY HE SAYS IT
nope

So I didn't say that at all then? Nice.

>socialists revolutions have failed
>against abolition of classes
nice. you've reached a new low

Attached: DzcGU5cUUAAuQE-.jpg (640x723, 30K)

>nope
good argument

>Zizek: Socialist revolution has been a total failure
>but I can define revolution as class abolition therefore he loves socialist revolution
fucking Peterson logic

Alright guys, looks like I've won. I've sat here for 2 hours waiting for a single person to show me where Zizek disagreed with the Manifesto. All I've gotten were,
>DURR READ A BOOK
>DURR WATCH THE DEBATE
Some dumb fucking retard even thought I was saying Peterson agreed with the Manifesto. Petersonfags eternally BTFO'D

Goodbye

Attached: index.jpg (300x168, 11K)

Revolutions are just like, a feeling dude

do you know what the term socialism means?

>he doesn't change his position, he just changes them a little

Socialism. Its like what you feel in your heart dude

Most people on the centre were huge leftist before. Leftism is very appealing to young people since it's so idealistic and they have nothing to lose since they haven't worked to build their lives yet.

Don't worry guys.. just dropping by this link..
amazon.com/Relevance-Communist-Manifesto-Slavoj-Zizek/dp/1509536116

>In this slim book Slavoj Zizek argues that, while exploitation no longer occurs the way Marx described it, it has by no means disappeared; on the contrary, the profit once generated through the exploitation of workers has been transformed into rent appropriated through the privatization of the ‘general intellect’. Entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have become extremely wealthy not because they are exploiting their workers but because they are appropriating the rent for allowing millions of people to participate in the new form of the ‘general intellect’ that they own and control. But, even if Marx’s analysis can no longer be applied to our contemporary world of global capitalism without significant revision, the fundamental problem with which he was concerned, the problem of the commons in all its dimensions – the commons of nature, the cultural commons, and the commons as the universal space of humanity from which no one should be excluded – remains as relevant as ever.

Take the L guys lmao

if you reject the LTV but say this sort of thing you may as well just become a "reactionary" (as in anti-liberal democracy), Marx's whole work rests on the LTV and to reject it is to reject Marx

>not real Marxism
is this becoming a right wing meme now?

Its actually something other Marxists have been saying about Zizek for years

Marxists who reject the LTV are unironically revisionists.

tankies are not people

Trots mostly but ok leftymeme retard

I think you ignore the caviat of those positions as there is a lot of leeway in "open borders" or even in the concept of "reparations".

Basically Zizek is fine with them in concept, but the execution must be done in a manner that ensures that some of the negative side effects are mitigated, and/or they don't cause more problems.

There's a nuance to it.

underrated post

>>communism is as complex as quantum mechanics
Unironically this

Peterson's fans had an SJW tankie strawman of Zizek that they expected Peterson to epic pwn.

I've read a lot of Zizek and I do not even recall him mentioning reparations at all.

It was in one of his youtube videos

Epic sheeple moment

>petersonfags lose another thread yet again
feelsgood boys they cant ever take W its so satisfying

Attached: 9F2887D0-E802-4E88-A2C6-444C9BDE89D8.gif (500x500, 2.51M)

based ghostbuster

He still is, people just don't care anymore about economics when they define who is left or right

Look up the Marxist definition of Class. It's not just "when people in power do things."

Pathological does not mean wrong.

If your whole ideology rests on it then it falls apart pretty quickly

Marx said a lot more than that. Peterson might actually agree with Marx's criticism of Stirner for example, if he ever read him.

he observed the business cycle, diminishing returns, and the manner in which urbanization and industrialization destroyed/chipped away "tradition" and "traditional" culture.

Oh my fucking god. It's been explained. Read the thread or listen to the Critique of Gotha Program audiobook on YouTube.

So basically a bunch of shit other people saw since Ancient Greece

Clearly not

>zizek wasn't calling nazis bad by calling them crazy, he was calling crazy people good!