Peterson v Zizek debate has reignited Marxism in this board

Go back where?

Attached: anywayhowsoursexlife.jpg (1280x720, 46K)

yeah, i miss back in the day when Yea Forums almost felt like a place where staging a revolution was possible. and then the alphabet agencies cam and turned it into controlled op... fucking sucks.

Yea Forums is different than rest of Yea Forums though

Yea Forums is faggier than /lgbt/ if thats what you mean

In which way?

Nietzsche is discussed here all the time

>It's not wonder the right is so theoretically bankrupt, they massively reject the most important thinker of the past 200 years.
It's funny because the 'most important thinker' according to the Left is a guy whose work has absolutely no value except convincing butthurt proles to stage revolutions that end in tyranny

You could throw out every single Marxist text and nothing of value would be lost

your propaganda only works for so long before people get tired of it and see you as anti-intellectual as the sjws

marx is read in 2019 for a reason. his critique of capitalism is so much more than vapid sjw vs nazi oppression wars that you guys want to push. his critique will be relevant until capitalism and its problems are overcome.

The critique is adequate and even correct, the solutions that have been presented so far have not worked in practice (say what you will about American interference, sanctions, etc.) Socialist policies are workable, I'm just not sure the entire system can work until we have automated a large portion of our economy.

>his critique of capitalism is so much more than vapid sjw vs nazi oppression wars that you guys want to push.
I don't know if I'd call obscure verbiage and ad-hoc economic determinism "so much more."

>anyone who has taken a marxist brainwash course could shill for marxism unlike peterson

wow such insight

>The critique is adequate and even correct
That's the bulk of Karl's work. He didn't spend much time proposing solutions.

>the solutions that have been presented so far have not worked in practice
Define "work in practice".

ok.
yeah the old solutions clearly didnt work. but that doesnt mean the problems magically went away. we still have the problems of capitalism + more. thats why we have to spend some time thinking and figuring out a solution.

>could have given as good or better of a rundown AND critique of the Communist Manifesto
wow such reading

Marxism is a religion, that's why it's read. the labor theory of value is nonsense

reading is GAY and for LOSERS

think trump reads? fuck no. and we shouldnt either.

yeh that's the only thing marx wrote in about in like 10k pages. you got it dude. thumbs up

Attached: 0WuhP8h.jpg (1920x1080, 111K)

its read because it tells people why they feel alienated and miserable and why everything feels like soulless profit driven garbage (sound familiar?) it gives a theory that doesnt require outside malignant forces like those DREADED SCHEMING JEWS ruining society; it merely points out that capitalist bougie society is meant to self destruct.

It's the basis of his thought, and it's wrong. No reason to engage with him any further

lelelel reed uh buug.

Attached: 1446827986534.jpg (650x635, 61K)

Social democracy is the most obvious solution. I know you kiddos love your edgy lenin quotes though

you know how fucking empty it is to be successful in capitalism? you think getting a job solves peoples misery? you think jeff bezos is happy? lol

Social democracy without niggers (see the former nordic model)

Why are notsoc reactionaries such chuds, /leftypol/?

My chans.

I'm only asking him to read the post he's replying to, you know? the thing you didn't do?

this is /leftylit/ now

newfag please get the fuck out. pre-/his/ Yea Forums was /leftypol/ central

Sucdems got cucked so fucking hard by neoliberal Third Way bullshit. Fuck off

And yet /pol/ has been "invading" since at least 2012

no u

Attached: eff4cac132d9d949475d667250279e4bcfe2276ce7730cb2956e969721cc4953.jpg (634x415, 47K)

pol was more or less a non-entity till it got raided by reddit during the 2016 election. before that it was a backwater board

it never changed. reactionary posters just became more vocal and annoying when the trump wave came. but trumps a passing fad thats getting boring and the diminishing returns will make them find some other way to own the libs or whatever.

im hoping those attention seeking whores might find zizekian pessimistic contrarianism which is at least a little bit more bearable to us than reactionary right wing crap.

You're a retard bro. /q/ was deleted in 2013 after for more than a year it was a battleground of people demanding /pol/ be deleted and Yea Forums be split an additional 3 times. Stop with your revisionist newfag script, it's embarrassing.

Yes and? Spamming spooks and pure ideology and whatever they said was a good deterrent back then

Daily reminder for her to apologize to my comrades

If /pol/ was a backwater, then this place was a wasteland.

no, it's more gay.

I was actually really shocked at how unprepared and off-guard Peterson was. Like, coyly admitting to not having read up on the positions of his opponent and simply jotting down some dot points when reading the manifesto the night before lol. The man had something like 6 months or so to figure out what he was walking in to. From what I saw I would argue that Peterson lacks an aptitude for theory and prefers to rely on simple bold statements, but then I remember he wrote Maps of Meaning which for better or worse is as finicky with specialised definitions and eclectic source material as any continental philosopher. I think the guy was just lazy and thought he could apply the youtube format presenting ideas to real life.

>her
Don't make me post the webm.

pol was still one of the smaller boards I don't get your point

this place is still a wasteland, just more /pol/fags now

I'll try to change my values so as to not cause you discomfort on a japanese cartoon forum тoвapиш
just kidding HAIL the Eternal Silicon Emperor of the Final Reich

Imagine expecting anyone to entertain any post made in this garbage thread with something other than shitposting.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it’s because of Butterfly :3

You actually should prove to me Butterfly didn’t affect the topic of debate in the first place. Simply she used a name on Yea Forums. Sheesh. Oh yeah and she loves me :3

>marxism
sorry kid, but i'm not GAY

Attached: hhh.jpg (327x380, 18K)

>some retarded newfag on Yea Forums of all places saying saying this
Shut the fuck up. The zimzam trial was huge, that same year saw dorner being cornered, the creation of pedowood and the nork missile crisis. The only boards that were any faster would have been Yea Forums, /r9k/, Yea Forums Yea Forums and maybe Yea Forums or Yea Forums during a big game. 8 years ago people were crying about how le ebul stormfags needed to be deleted except instead of discord trannies it was blamed on r/shitredditsays which is why Yea Forums is a board. Stop being a dishonest l*ftie retard, newfaggot.

Attached: 1555594453326.jpg (1050x741, 142K)

7 years*

It was laziness pure and simple. He's been coasting for too long now. He hasn't developed his thinking at all since 1998, beyond the political shit (most of which is poorly thought out paegentry to get internet clicks). I hope this curbstomp he received (which was mostly self imposed) has humbled him to the point where he realizes that it's time for him to take a moment away from the limelight to try and broaden his horizons a little. It would be good for his brand so to speak since he's started to repeat himself a lot recently.

It is quite literally not the basis of his thought. That would be historical dialecticism

the top 3-5 boards make up the majority of posting, we are like #20 rn and slow as fuck compared to a board like /pol/ is today (#2). /pol/ being where it was 8 years ago (maybe 10th?) would have been probably the same speed as Yea Forums is now

>oy vey well you see technically probably I can imagine
Shut up newfag jesus christ

and yes, meme trials gave bumps but so did Peterson/Zizek, we got 1000 post on a thread before it died, still not an active fucking board

you weren't here 8 years ago obviously, and if you were you were on Yea Forums with the rest of us. fuck off.

Can both /pol/ and /leftypol/ leave? I just want to talk about books

Attached: 7900b0fc470b0c5fdca19737b3c60b77.jpg (1986x3000, 550K)

Based

If you watched closely you would see he was prepared for whole another kind of "discussion", shitflinging that would resemble more what's happening on this site.

He was there to give that commie a proper thrashing by throwing around Pinker's stats how awesome is capitalism and in what ways are Marxists pathological. He doesn't really need to know what is Marxism, because he can empirically observe it's results, right? And the results say it never worked, hence all he would need to do would be to recite the empirical facts until the commie shuts up and claim victory.

Yeah I know you got blown the fuck out with your reddit NPC scrip and you have nothing. Stop being a lying newfaggot retard.
>bragging about using Yea Forums in 2012
Imagine being so new you unironically do this

>I'm an oldfag!
>b-but I never used Yea Forums haha I'm not a faggot

>/pol/ wasn't an active board during the year the entire website cried about them and a new board was made in their honor
The audacity of you jews is honestly stunning some times

>being this illiterate
lol Yea Forums died forever the day /arcanine/ was launched

jesus christ how much of a faggot do you have to be to defend the importance of "your" board that you post shit like this

Literature is inherently political

I haven't used /pol/ since the cripplechan exodus. I'm sorry you're a liar and a newfag but you know what you could do is not talk out of your ass and you wouldn't have to worry about damage control.

Attached: 1443298708220.gif (661x716, 103K)

Oh my god.... I want to destroy your existence.

:3

>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like.
MARX IS BASED

cringe and cope

sure, buddy. you cry a lot about it for someone who says they no longer visit /pol/.

He's also redpilled on the JQ.

Attached: images.jpg (267x400, 24K)

>honor
what do you think a containment board is you massive faggot

>omg 4channers im just being an obvious astroturfing newfag stop correcting me
why are you like this?

A tired meme from 7 years ago when /pol/ was "not an active board". Why are you guys like this?

let it go

I have read 0 leftist lit.
Where do I start?
marx > lenin > mao?

It hasn't.

imagine being in such a bubble that you believe marxists are still defendong the ussr. we literally have a term specifically for those people ...

just want to let you know you’re high IQ and correct, don’t waste too much time arguing with brainlets here. you can’t help them and you can put your mind to better use. the revolution needs more thinkers and more literature. not to tell you what to do but just sayin

>j-just leave me alone
No. You hysterical retards can't conclude that everyone who you disagree with is from /pol/ which means reddit in 2016 because /pol/ was a dead board. Its retarded. People on Yea Forums have been screeching about /pol/ for 7 years. Just stop pushing your retarded agenda .

Marx, Zizek, Chomsky, Eugene Debs

ANGLOS ARE BRAINDEAD

NEVER CLICK ON MARXISM THREADS

try capitalist realism by mark fisher

despite a century of attempts marxists still have 0 countries they can point to and say "this is what I mean" lol

Correct.

marxist critique of capitalism is valid in every country, so actually, marxism applies to literally the entire world now.

not trying to convince those morons, but this shit will be read by lurkers and someone has to push back.

marx offered a great critique but no viable solutions

Attached: 1554986545211.jpg (2000x2000, 410K)

i agree, but people here think you can throw away the baby with bath water, and what you get with that is jewish conspiracy theories instead of recognizing the legit problems of capitalist production

>/fa/
>123 iq

Attached: 2019 fa meetup.png (452x817, 752K)

>I need to defend the honor of pol from lurkers
faggot leave

lel wat. im not the fag saying pol is the greatest, most relevant board of all time. thats some dude with hurt feefees and wishes his safespace was his again

>it's a propaganda piece.

So the purest ideas that Marx wanted to dissmentate. Gotcha.

wtf i love peterson now

Is socialism an absolute inevitability, bros?

/fit/ and /biz/ should be waaaaaaaaaaaaay lower.

>muh everything is politics
Such a sad existence

[Citation needed]

>dissmentate
i think you should give zizek a chance you clearly have lots in common

Attached: 1555541429892.jpg (600x300, 119K)

shut up newfaggots

>says the marxist
Why are you guys such liars?

>he told me Yea Forums has been tilting at windmills for almost a decade omg he wants a safespace
lmao how can you be this retarded

This is true. Even Zizek admits in the debate that he's partly trolling with the Stalinist stuff and a mixed economy is the way to go. A totally planned economy only makes sense in a post-scarcity world, and we're still a ways off from that.

ive been on Yea Forums longer than you. you were in diapers when i was watching elfen lied on Yea Forumstv

You think Peterson is wrong for mentioning the kulaks ? you are stupid

>should I critique Marx?
>okay... he wrote a lot of long books...
>shit I don't understand any of this...
>Oh, what's this? something written for illiterate factory workers in the 19c?
>well, this is the only thing I can read of his, so I might as well pretend this is the most important part
>even though I literally don't even know what the other parts are because I never read it

Attached: 1519770476010.jpg (950x634, 348K)

what are you talking about you dumb fucking schizo i never said anything like that

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

shut up newfag

>some dude with hurt feefees and wishes his safespace was his again
your words not mine user

What Jewish "conspiracy theory"?

ah. then you are defeated in what you are saying. peterson is right

I'm not a marxist you fucking retard

thinking the jews are ruining everything and completely ignoring the systemic conditions that enrich them in the first place

What webm?

lmao what a statement

burger hands made this post

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never mentioned Peterson. I never said you are wrong about anything. You are a dumb fucking retard.

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

exactly. theres no critical thought here, just scapegoating and bigotry.

Attached: modern leftism.png (1200x1620, 152K)

>the labor theory of value is nonsense
what's the argument for that

You implicitly admitted "the jews run everything" retard

looks like you lost idiot

Peterson trying out his debate strategy for the rematch

I take it that the idiot, who was lost, is you?

Lost what retard? What are you even talking about? You are so fucking brain-dead that you have to keep repeating
>durr peterson is right
>ur wrong
Even though you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. Literal NPC it's actually impressive

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

lol, in what universe did i say that? i said that anti-semitism, even with its so called "evidence" (the jews running the media, etc.), occurs because nazis dont have sufficient class analysis to see the real problems. yeah it may be true that jews do have enormous power in hollywood, but that by itself isnt the cause of the degradation of society. it is the structure of society itself, which has no ethnicity, nationality, or tribe, that is destroying us.

looks like you trolls cant answer the kulak question.

this is actually unbelievable, ive actually found the first NPC. i thought it was just a meme bros. i didnt think they actually existed...

Attached: 54364758_593060231199303_3591048565939503104_n.jpg (299x374, 12K)

>thinking the jews are ruining everything and completely ignoring the systemic conditions that enrich them in the first place

>le NPC xDDD
back to pol, stormlord!

yep. thats what i said.

I would love to see an outline of how an economy should operate if not in a mixed market capitalist system.

The racism and stuff is not to be edgy, it literally is just the truth

You're pitiable

>didnt mention the kulaks
>didnt disagree with you
>didnt mention jordan petersn
>durr answer my question about the kulaks
>ur wrong
>peterson is right
You are incapable of realizing that you are an NPC by definition, so this is just par for the course buddy.

Attached: index.png (241x209, 7K)

Malista

i hope so

get memed on kid lmao

>i was just pretending to be retarded

Attached: 1554843298085.png (831x799, 329K)

>everyone replying to me is one person
wew time to go back kiddo

>anonymous imageboard
>reply to someone
>they reply to me
>reply to someone
>they reply to me
>reply to someone
>someone else replies in his place
>magically expected to know it was someone else

Attached: towel1.jpg (600x600, 40K)

>anonymous imageboard
>assume people's identities
retard

>can't discuss anything with anyone without putting a disclaimer at the start of my posts
MOM THERE'S TWO OF THEM

Attached: 2towel1.jpg (600x600, 73K)

>im different from the other girls

I got cancer from reading this

i dont doubt that you actually believe it, but your supporters are literally edgelord kids who think waving nazi flags in public is the epitome of comedy

You too

>Such a sad existence
But it is. I'm sorry you don't see it, but this is just the way it is

>burger hands
I'm European

if people can politicize the diary of a jewish slut people can politicize literally anything

Why do people support commie marxie shit? No good has ever come of cummienism.

>people can politicize literally anything
Obviously. Both the author and the reader are inherently political beings

>No good has ever come of cummienism
Burger education is fascinating. It's like you live in a parallel universe

It's a religion

is this the part where people spam antifa and kekistan pics?

They think people being grossed out by trannies is a result of capitalism

Setting aside the question of how they are presented in the manifesto for a moment, which ideas Peterson highlight would you say are not shared by Marx?

You are what's wrong with the world. Manifesting the pain of your hollow, vapid, spiritually-barren life into politicizing everything. Go to church and put politics back into it's dirt-level hierarchy.

What fascinates me the most about Marxism is how independent the entire ideology can be from Marx himself, even if he was never born the logical antithesis to capitalism would be exactly what he proposed.

notice how every attack on Peterson is always from some random faggot projecting his intellectual superiorty on him by claiming Peterson is incapable of even understanding Marx? The irony of bourgeois intellects

Marx wasn't an egalitarian

Egalitarian being defined in what way?

go away commie scum
communism destroyed china, they weren't so bug like before
communism is garbage in russia and whatever other hellhole they still follow that stuff
there is no such thing as a first world purely communist country

the most glaringly obvious one is that the equality of outcome was something Marx argued against frequently:
>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.
-Marx Critique of the Gotha Program

But past that he focused almost totally on socialist revolution and redistribution (I'll note here Marx did not advocate for redistribution, he called this vulgar socialism); the thing is Zizek doesn't argue for a socialist revolution and is deeply critical of revolutionary movements as a whole. So even the one point of the Manifesto, socialist revolution, isn't the area of Marxism Zizek would ever promote.

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

In the way Peterson defines it, as striving for absolute equality despite people having different abilitieq

whoops replied before I finished.
Here's a bonus one for your effort user! maybe you can give an analysis of what Peterson got right?

Peterson just got exposed as a dilettante, and a poor one at that.

1) Anyone who has taken a 100 level course on Marx could have given as good or better of a rundown and critique of the Communist Manifesto that Peterson gave.
2) No serious Marxist reads the meme pamphlet Marx wrote for uneducated workers, it's not an academic source, it's a propaganda piece.
3) Peterson, although claiming to have read and understood at least a modicum of Zizek's works, was not able to produce a single meaningful critique of his theory, even going so far as to be impressed with Zizek's take on Christianity
3a) Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion, in particular Judeo-Christianity; he also critiques Marxism for being an athiest doctrine which rejects these principles. So if Peterson had done so much as read Zizek's wikipedia article, let alone an article on him in an encyclopedia of philosophy, let alone read one of his books on Christianity, he would have known this position and not been impressed by it. It means he didn't even watch Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Incredible lack of research.
4) Peterson did not stick to his position that Marxism was bad, instead retreating to a simple repetition of his individualism (at one point admitting that the heart of the individualism leads to the position that you must do what is best for the community anyways "good enough for you/your family isn't enough" which basically recasts JP's position as individually enlightened Marxism)
5) Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program which is shorter than the Manifesto and much more important (reminder this intellectual has been arguing against the evils of Marx for decades and hasn't even read him in any meaningful sense since he was 18).
6) By the end, Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes. His only point to the debate which had any relevance was to point out Capitalism's productive force, a fact that he also admits Marx agrees with and discusses at length in the Manifesto.
7) Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.

Peterson has been exposed as someone who has no real education (or perhaps intellectual interest) in political theory. I am actually amazed there are people who watched this debate and think Peterson managed even the bare minimum of understanding of both Marxist theory and the historical realities of capitalist dynamics.

trans idpol has nothing to do with marxist critique of economic production, sorry. trans idpol is sadly lacking in any kind of class analysis and is worse off for it. you people are so head fucked you think any use of the word "oppression" is automatically marxist. its sad to see all sides in that debate to be so fucking poor in thought.

Are you saying there are no trannies out there that think liberation from capitalism will cement their identity as valid?

read nick land idiot

who fucking cares what mental defective people think?

There are also trannies who believe libertarianism will help them get rid of government oppression, it's as if they align with whatever ideology their perceive to be on their side, your point is?

>You are what's wrong with the world
Interesting. I'm just stating the way things are

>go away commie scum
You don't have to be a commie to recognise the positive impacts that ideology had (same goes for the culturcide, etc). For example, it had a positive impact on workers rights, emancipation of women etc. in West Europe, even though commies were never in power there. It's so American of you to see things black or white

i dont deny the existence of marxist trans people, like contra points. theyre just simply not the norm. most transpeople believe in capitalism, or dont really think of it or care. just like most liberals.

1)
Not an argument.
2)
Not an argument.
3)
Declarative statement.
3a)
Not an argument.
4)
An argument but has nothing to do with capitalism vs communism. Peterson thinks our culture can change into a more charitative one within a capitalist system, hence his collectivism isn't contradictory with his moralism.
5)
Not an argument.
6)
He couldn't because Zizek doesn't promote Marxism in any tangible way.
7)
Agree on this but this isn't on Zizek's merit.

>it had a positive impact on workers rights, emancipation of women etc.
In your opinion. Even then that is a meagre offering for all the terrible shit it caused

ladies and gentlemen mr. stefan molyneux is IN. DA. HAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>points out Peterson not reading the ideas he criticise
>not an argument
Alright then

lol, Zizek is a normie globalist, a soc dem berniebro at best

and yet, Zizek agreed with all his points about marxism

not hard to agreeing the ussr was shit, something most leftists have accepted decades ago, you lnow, when it collapsed.

>In your opinion
This is widely accepted, not my opinion. I understand that, as an American, you've been taught to observe things as either black or white, but nothing is like that and we shouldn't reject the positives just because the ideology that resulted in them wasn't perfect - if this was the case, we would have to reject ecology and animal welfare just because the nazis were invested in it

The only Marxist who don't defend USSR are idiots who buy into western propaganda and are basically armchair. It's one thing disagreeing with things USSR did, and an other thing to fully buy into CIA propaganda and go full "not true socialism". I know since I was that kind of person.

Attached: poster-space.jpg (1600x970, 392K)

Zizek agreed that marxism in general was shit, he only supported Marx's analysis of capital but nothing else marxist beyond that

this "not an argument" lobsterfaggot pops up to defend daddy in every single thread, but can't mount an actual defense beyond playing smarter than thou to every user who replies to him

nobody defends the USSR except middle-class internet retards who have never read Marx or been anywhere near an actually communist country

No he didn't, there was a reason he said things like "Marx is much more complex, read the Critique of the Gotha Program"; Zizek is just too polite to rub his nose in it. Besides, this idea that Zizek has to agree with everything in the Manifesto or he's not a Marxists is an argument in bad faith. Zizek just published a book on the Manifesto (ironically he's one of the few Marxists with an interest in the Manifesto, although more focused on the role it played in Europe, not in the Peterson vein of "this is what Marx really meant"), so if you want a good rundown on where Zizek disagrees just pick that up

My family is from a communist country. I called them delusional when they spoke of life back then.

>muh CIA
>muh armchair
The USSR was not marxist in any sense of the word, it neither had reached the productive forces necessary to transition from capitalism to socialism, nor did it abolish commodity production and wage labor.
If all it took to be a socialist is to hang a portrait of Marx in your parliament then even China would qualify, then again you probably think China is socialist too

>then again you probably think China is socialist too

Yes I do

Zizek clearly disavowed any marxist praxis beyond Marx's analysis of capitalism. he may like the manifesto historically, but he doesn't think the theory of the proletariat holds anymore

Is this like the mirrored version of pol? a retarded but a lefty one?

>it's only truly marxist if everything works out as i predicted
now that's convenient

>Is this like the mirrored version of pol?
no, because it's impossible to have unmoderated leftist boards, imageboards are inherently reactionary

Attached: 19BDF5A0-EE15-4A50-9F65-E582A3562D56.jpg (1939x1945, 526K)

fucking lmao

Its only Marxist when it ceases to be capitalist and actually achieve what the ideology outlines, is that too high of a standard to meet?

join us over at /leftypol/

Attached: antifascist-action.jpg (800x800, 62K)

>Marxism
>posts a pic of two cult leaders and a bald Russian
hmm very dialectical comrade

yes, because the ideology outlines nothing, just says property shouldn't be managed by markets but nothing about how to solve human conflict otherwise, as Zizek pointed out clearly in the debate

wow, you must be literally retarded let me turn them into syllogisms for you

1) a) Anyone who has taken a 100 level course on Marx could have given as good or better of a rundown and critique of the Communist Manifesto that Peterson gave.
b) you should be able to give a better rundown on the Manifesto than a first year student if you are to debate Marx
c) Peterson should not be debating Marx

2) a) No serious Marxist reads the meme pamphlet Marx wrote for uneducated workers, it's not an academic source, it's a propaganda piece.
b) in an academic debate, one should only use academic sources
c) Peterson should not have focused on the Manifesto in the debate

3) a) Peterson, although claiming to have read and understood at least a modicum of Zizek's works, was not able to produce a single meaningful critique of his theory, even going so far as to be impressed with Zizek's take on Christianity
b) someone who is going to debate someone else should have a general idea of his theory
c) 3a) Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion, in particular Judeo-Christianity; he also critiques Marxism for being an athiest doctrine which rejects these principles. So if Peterson had done so much as read Zizek's wikipedia article, let alone an article on him in an encyclopedia of philosophy, let alone read one of his books on Christianity, he would have known this position and not been impressed by it. It means he didn't even watch Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Incredible lack of research.
d) someone who demonstrates lack of knowledge of Zizek's take on Christianity does not have a general idea of Zizek's theory
c) Peterson should not have debated Zizek

[I'll leave out the ones you gave a pass as they are]

5) a) Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program which is shorter than the Manifesto and much more important (reminder this intellectual has been arguing against the evils of Marx for decades and hasn't even read him in any meaningful sense since he was 18).
b) any serious intellectual who has been interested in Marxism in an academic sense for as many years as JP should have at least read the Critque of the Gotha Program
c) Peterson is not a serious intellectual or is not interesting in Marxism in an academic sense

I'm the user who did a double major in political science and philosophy by the way, this is a topic I am educated in.

>joins us over at shitty heavily moderated leftist forum #21312382

There is more to Marx than abolishing private property, perhaps you should read him before larping as a Marxist

>Zizek clearly disavowed any marxist praxis
pretty much true
>beyond Marx's analysis of capitalism
Marx's analysis of capitalism is theory, not praxis, and if we are talking theory Zizek borrows a lot more than that from Marx. In fact the reason he still calls himself a communist is because he believes that we are facing "problems of the commons", something he sees as a classic Marxist insight.

>the productive forces necessary to transition from capitalism to socialism
They were developed enough and it had a socialist economy. Of course with many failings because of not having them developed enough for communism. but as far as socialism goes, Which in itself is a USSR revision, they were developed enough. This argument applies to China which is why I don't really think Deng "betrayed" socialism.
>nor did it abolish commodity production and wage labor
But it did in many ways. Of course if we compare USSR to your utopian view of Marxism which was unattainable at the time it doesn't hold true. But your worker wasn't sold on the market anymore because of near complete employment, and as far as the economy goes most of it was planned.
So shut up you fucking utopian and see Marxism in practice, and actually study it instead of listening to CIA propaganda and comparing it to socialism which exist in your head. You might think I'm some kind of delusional tankie but I have family who lived in a socialist state and read history books about USSR. Before I talked about it with my family and read the books I was also the utopian "not true socialsm" liberal.

Take the Red pill [actual size].

Attached: pills.jpg (451x604, 56K)

Marxists are the most insufferable people on earth. You never explain what you think or want you just hide behind weaselly definitions

yes, there's the analysis of capitalism, there's nothing else to communism except meme words like "ownership of the means of production" (no definition of ownership provided) or even worse, """""democracy"""""

next you'll tell me people shouldn't serve money, money should serve people

>join us in our cult

no thanks, i have a brain you know

>In fact the reason he still calls himself a communist
i think he calls himself a communist more for the cool edgy academic points that for anything actually theoretical, he literally ran for the liberal party as a candidate in his country

hey user not the guy you're replying to but why aren't any serious economists/Nobel economists Marxists?

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

t. hasn't read marx, but likes to larp as a marxist

This is what happens to you when you take Chapo seriously

Go back to your Chomsky reader, 112. You are not ready for a world beyond Simpsons references and getting pissy at the news

because the Nobel prize is a liberal prize? i'm sure they gave prizes to marxist economists in the USSR

wait upload your degree again i want another screen cap of you getting shit on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists

>David W. Harvey FBA (born 31 October 1935) is a British-born Marxist scholar and Distinguished Professor of anthropology and geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). He received his PhD in geography from the University of Cambridge in 1961. Harvey has authored many books and essays that have been prominent in the development of modern geography as a discipline. He is a proponent of the idea of the right to the city.
>In 2007, Harvey was listed as the 18th most-cited author of books in the humanities and social sciences in that year, as established by counting cites from academic journals in the Thomson Reuters ISI database.[1] Some of the artists influenced by Harvey's work are Elisheva Levy in Israel and Theaster Gates in Chicago.

Unfortunately I can't. I'm still banned for pointing out that Che exclusively fucked 3/10s

I think Peterson's ineptitude at displaying his knowledge of marxism has prompted edgelords to learn a bit about it so they don't get caught with their pants down if and when they are asked to demonstrate some knowledge about their ideological bogeyman. I don'tthink you're going to get a load of chantards pledging allegiance to marx anytime soon, not least because marxism has been decidedly out of fashion in academia for decades now.

was he a manlet?

The webm where the tranny BO of /leftypol/ chokes on a fat chode, replete with pig grunts.

Nah, Cuban revolutionaries were chads. Fidel was 185cm and Che was 173cm.

>I'm the user who did a double major in political science and philosophy
lmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooo

You paid COLLEGE TUITION to whine about politics?
You WENT INTO DEBT to double major in "taking things easy" and "thinking I'm smarter than other people"?

Dude, you know you can just complain about your dad for free, right? It doesn't cost money to be a pissy little fag

post your degree, faggot

>5'8"
>not a manlet
what did he mean by this?

Attached: tzcpeTj.jpg (672x1022, 264K)

No, he was either incredibly gay or incredibly unappealing to attractive women

pic related, this squatemalan mini-fridge was literally his wife

Attached: Hilda_Gadea_y_Che_Guevara_-_Luna_de_miel_-_Yucatán_1955[1].jpg (302x320, 25K)

Most Marxists still defend the USSR. The newest fad is "China is still socialist" in light of the unfortunate mishap in Venezuela.

>watches a 3 hour debate on political theory
>cares about it enough to argue about it on a Malaysian foot fetish forum
>laughs at people who care about it enough to learn about it from experts
got me user, you must the biggest brain of them all

Attached: 1515076898970.png (643x533, 109K)

so his communism was just some sort of cope?

Attached: hilda-guevara-gadea_large.jpg (468x346, 39K)

>post your certificate of mediocrity and poor financial decisions
Damn, can't seem to find it. But maybe if I do worksheets good I can be a man of the working class like you?

joke's on you, i skipped Peterson's speech

>Most Marxists still defend the USSR
citation for that? Zizek took the chance in the debate to btfo "capitalism with Asian values", so defending China certainly isn't Zizek's position

>makeup to a sports competition

Anti-Soviet Marxism was always an academia-thing, outside of academia most socialists still support the USSR, China, and any other countries on the Axis of Resistance to the US.

citation for that?

Interact with some socialists to find out for yourself. It's not like they perform studies on this...

not him but I got an question for you. Why shouldn't I support the USSR?

Why would you? The workers didn't own the means of production and Stalin just killed his own citizens and party members all the time. What the fuck was the point

>MUH 40 MILLION
>MUH 123439 BRAZILLIANS
>MUH DUMMY THICC STALINS ASSCHEEKS SUFFOCATED 10109409 GAZTRILLIONS

Oh, I didn't know who that person was. Probably better off.

I am a self confessed communist with communist friends, I have only ever seen one unironic tankie with my own eyes, and he was obviously highly autistic and dressed head to toe in faux-soviet regalia. The only "soviets" left are mentally ill or speak russian.

The people owned the means of production in the only way possible, through the Party.

>Stalin just killed his own citizens and party members all the time.
Most Communists would say that it didn't happen and they deserved it.

it literally doesn't exist anymore?

>The people owned the means of production in the only way possible, through the Party.
The average person had zero input on any decisions, how the fuck did they own anything?

> implying just one is not too much

are you defending the USSR now? I thought you didn't like it. Why would you hold up Marxist-Leninism as the only method of socialism? Goddamn unintentional tankies are more common than normal tankies. Red scare propaganda makes you sympathize with Stalin. Think about that...

That's just how it works. In Communism there is only one class, the proletariat, who exercise a dictatorship as vested in the Communist Party.

>The workers didn't own the means of production
But the working class did own the means of production though state. And because of the near universal unemployment the bosses of enterprises were forced to listen to workers demands.
>Stalin just killed his own citizens and party members all the time.
He might have a point. See what happened to guy like Sankara who didn't want to act to stop potentially counter revolutionary people. Of course Stalin paranoia was retarded but it wasn't evil mustache man who wanted power and was a crypto-capitalist.

What I mean is that actually learn about USSR instead of repeating the talking points people give. I'm not a tankie and think USSR did a lot things wrong but it was an important socialist experiment.

I'm the poster you replied btw

I oppose Communism but view Marxism-Leninism as the only coherent form of socialism, because it's at least somewhat honest about how it is actually going to work: the Party owns everything. Dreams of neoprimitivist automated luxury communism are just that, all technological advancements have led to further centralization rather than decentralization. This is not bad in and of itself, but is bad when governments are unwilling to admit this because it goes against "muh liberty/autonomy".

>retard: tankies are retarded, they listen to madmen like Stalin and Lenin
>same retard: the only way to do socialism is a vanguard party! dictatorship of the vanguard party!

Attached: 1506981600313.png (757x632, 349K)

>I oppose Communism but view Marxism-Leninism as the only coherent form of socialism
so you are a mongoloid and you just admit it like that? brave of you user

Postmodernism >>>> Marxism

Why do you think other forms of socialism are coherent? The basic formula of "dictatorship arising out of vanguard party with the Party owning the State" has generally been upheld in socialist experiments.

>The basic formula of "dictatorship arising out of vanguard party with the Party owning the State" has generally been upheld in socialist experiments.
are you sure you're not a tankie? the only remnants of the Iron Curtain left is fucking North Korea. I'm a communist and I don't believe socialism works. The fucking US today is closer to what Marx theorized as socialism than the USSR user...

You realise that not only Marxism-Leninism calls for the necessity of an all-powerful state functioning as a proxy for the people yes?

Are you sure you're not literally retarded? >The US is more socialist than...
Let me stop you right there moron.

zizek was like "you reading of marx is pretty superficial"

> near universal unemployment
Meant employment. This is what lack of sleep does to a person.

there is unironically a wider distribution of the ownership of the means of production in the US than in the USSR. I don't believe in socialism user, it was already coopted as a crutch by capitalist countries before Marx was even dead.

But guys the workers literally did not get to decide how things worked, the Party did. You cannot seriously be falling for this 'the workers own it through the party' sleight of hand?

Careful here. You seem to forget that Marx was the one who presented a system that ties accumulation of capital and economical relationships with history of states and societies, and these economists follow his steps even if they hold different political views (I certainly mean the ones who make theories from observations, not the ones who theorize about “utility” as if they were living in 18th or 17th century).

yes, and yet he explicitly disavowed marxist praxis while defending marxist analysis and theory, and agreed that Peterson's targets were the right targets, but that there was no reason to call them marxists

>The fucking US today is closer to what Marx theorized as socialism than the USSR user...
I agree with you, but while holding an extremely negative view of the US. I view both the modern US and USSR as having essentially the same roots and power structure. There is an equivalent of the Party Central Committee, it's just a bit harder to pin down.

The State is generally all-powerful nowadays, limited government is a bad Anglo-Saxon joke. If we're honest about this then we can start to talk about whether the government is doing a good or bad job based on some agreed-upon conception of "good" within a given society.

I'm calling "social ownership" itself a sleight of hand.

yes, i agree, both Peterson and communism lost the debate

there's no definition of ownership in marxism, so it can be literally anything you want

What is there to decide? The planning model was tried to be more decentralized under Khrushchev but that led to planning anarchy. Having decentralized planning was impossible. Yugoslavia had workplace elections and was decentralized but it relied on markets instead of planning so it was possible. Like I said before the workers demands were met because of near 100% employment which meant things like cafeterias and nurseries near enterprises and more relaxed pace of work.

the US is socialism with American characteristics, prove me wrong

More true than you know.

is this the beginning of the bordiga gang's reign over Yea Forums?

Attached: bordiga.png (347x367, 106K)

>some newfag actually attempts to compare the week long bonanza of the zimmerman trial to anything that has or ever will happen on fucking Yea Forums
Absolutely cringe post dude. It's really pathetic to see newfags act this way.
>/pol/s traffic in 2012-13 was comparable to Yea Forums at any time ever despite being obamas re-election into a slew of happenings
Absolutely cringe post dude. It's really pathetic to see newfags act this way.

Attached: 65544c_4691618~2.jpg (1590x891, 250K)

Nothing new from zizek if you have watched at least 2 videos from him.
youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

Attached: zizek.jpg (883x164, 74K)

>communists
>voting for socdems
/pol/yp go back

But that is just a dictatorship. And not of the proletariat, but of the Party, of a small group of people.

No, stop with this cope. The only thing that happened was that Peterson got exposed as a brainlet.

Peterson was a brainlet from day 1, no need for this debate to show that. Communism still lost the debate as Zizek conceded communist praxis is untenable garbage even though the analysis is good

What we have to do is wait for widespread ecological disaster to collapse our institutions in the latter half of the 21st century then rebuild from there. People will never want big change if they're comfortable, but soon they'll be forced to fight for survival.

>Zizek, possibly the most famous communist on the planet, wheels out his decades old position that socialist revolution was proven a failure
>omg did Zizek just btfo communism? is he even a communist anymore?
fucking retards everywhere

Attached: 1510424725373.jpg (300x222, 9K)

Yeah but the party was compromised of the working class people. That is a Leninist idea which is "Jacobins meets the proletariat". Communist like Luxemburg didn't really agree with it and wanted to do things more decentralized way. Social democrats sold her out tho and she was later found in a river with a hole from a gun. but you are correct in that the political life of citizens of USSR was a mostly a joke, but it was dictatorship of the proletariat. This can be seen in things like 8 hour work weeks (7 for hard jobs), free healthcare and education.

i love when the left tries to replace the proletariat with climate change, top notch cope

>Yeah but the party was compromised of the working class people
Lol

Zizek never was a tankie to begin with. Even when he still lived under communism, he was a dissident.

>Yeah but the party was compromised of the working class people.
Lenin wasn't working class user, when WW1 broke out he went to France to relax and brush up on Hegel

Ideology won't matter so much when billions are starving

are you retarded? Zizek was never a communist, he literally ran for the liberal party in his country.

he just does the communist thing for academic cool points and to make people upset, if you hear to what he actually says he is closer to a soc dem globalist like Merkel or Bernie in praxis than to any communist

Attached: zizek-at-home.jpg (282x389, 23K)

>Yeah but the party was compromised of the working class people.
How does that solve anything? As soon as they're the Party they become a new political class, they have the power and the workers don't

I feel like it is sheer absurdity to call that a dictatorship of the proles

>if you hear to what he actually says he is closer to a soc dem globalist like Merkel or Bernie in praxis than to any communist
If you would take a look at with whom is he associating you would see it´s the likes of Tsipras, Varoufakis or Morales.

>compromised of the working class people
the working class is a structural position, not some magical essence people have in their hearth. Working class people literally don't even exist the day after the revolution except in propaganda

He was a dissident under communist rule, did you think they were going to let him in the communist party? The whole thing was basically a rub to point out the lack of democracy, because he was a top tier troll even back then. user, be honest, if you want to make money, don't call yourself a communist. Peterson made millions off patreon shitting on communism after reading the Manifesto once at 18, more than Zizek has made in his whole life shilling Hegel. The truth is he would have more appeal (academically and socially) if he wasn't a communist.

bernie is registered as an independent and yet runs as a democrat precisely because this is the only way to gain power. youve got no chance of getting elected if you run for the green party or the CCCP or some shit

>Tsipras, Varoufakis or Morales
socdems, as i said

name one praxis position by which Zizek could be called a communist

why would you define communism by a fixed form of praxis? have you, dare I say it, never read Marx?
>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

He's poor

It was. All of soviet leaders before Gorbachev didn't even go to the university. You did gain privileges but they didn't transfer to your family after your job at the party ended. You couldn't just live out your life without work by being a party member.
He was born in a poor peasant family if I remember correctly. After him all of the leaders were. He also dedicated his whole life to socialism so I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed to rule.
The party wasn't a thing where people's families stayed in. Maybe some at the top managed it but the leaders who went up in ranks weren't related to each other and came from working class backgrounds. They simply were workers who rose up in ranks.

> implying there is something to collapse

I should also point out the naivety of those who seem to live relatively comfortable lives, and keep saying “Let Apocalypse come, it will make everything clear!” It obviously won't.

he writes 3-4 copypasted books every year and lives in NY, i'm sure he has enough money

Yet socdems that are in major confrontation with Merkel. Plus it´s as far left as you can get in the west today.

>All of soviet leaders before Gorbachev didn't even go to the university
That doesn't mean they were working class

You seem to study advertisements for Communist countries, and not Communist countries themselves.

What class were they? They were workers who just rose up in the party ranks. Easy as that.

>he thinks literary types still browse this board

So tell me where I'm wrong.

did they ever work?

Mostly criminals

>They simply were workers who rose up in ranks.
That is completely irrelevant dude. Capitalists often also just 'rise up the ranks'.

I wouldn't conflate the idea of equality lobsterman was critiquing e.g. a society without hierarchy with the the kind of equality Marxs is critiquing here e.g. a society in which people are not valued by their productive labor but by a universal human standard.

I am unfortunately aware of the many things Zizek doesn't believe in, he discuss them at extreme length, however lobsterson was critiquing marxism not zizekism so the point is irrelevant. Marxs did advocate for redistribution but he believed it would take place though an inevitable historical process.

Khruschev and Andropov did their share of manual labour, if you meant that.

Were they working during their leadership days?

Well, they did state functions, pass and write laws, etc
How? If you mean corruption than yeah, that was a problem that was grappled by Andropov. But sadly he died within 15 months because of poor health. if you mean they were crypto-capitalist than that doesn't hold up because wealth inequality in socialist countries is nothing compared to capitalist ones and all enterprise bosses handed they profits to the state.
A capitalist can stop working and just live his life on some private island, he doesn't need to sell his labor to live. If you stopped working for the state you lost all your party privilege and simply worked in a factory.

Yes.

i mean before being the bosses, in what sense were they working class?

I mean actually working on factories day by day, shift by shift.

They needed to sell they labor to continue living.

Then no.

How did they stay in party then?

> You did gain privileges but they didn't transfer to your family after your job at the party ended.
This man doesn't seem to get what Soviet hearse races were.

Unironically, the best material to study Soviet life:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes

> [Asenshi] Sarazanmai - 02 [B2467667].mkv
See you later.

Attached: 1555738360259.jpg (3360x2113, 1.77M)

Have sex.

more like bachelor of farts

they ruled

Party work is still work.
So your source are jokes? Simply skimming by the jokes in there they quote Gulag archipelago, a book in which the gulag system doesn't add up with the records released under Yeltsin, an anti communist.

> tyranny is Communism if the guys on top were born into the right class

>Marxs did advocate for redistribution but he believed it would take place though an inevitable historical process.
by definition this is not redistribution

>they ruled
reminded me of this
youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>boasting having a degree in arts
>easiest degree to achieve

how embarrassing

Attached: 1522547783984.jpg (300x223, 15K)

How was it tyranny? They were autist who banned rock music and gained privileges like a better apartments. Them being more tyrannical than western rules only perhaps applies under Stalin.

>they ruled
Woah, don't sound like working class.
>compromised of the working class people
>YOU SEE PARTY IS WORK TOO HEH
Now you just being hypocritical. Literally claim yourself working class

>Woah, don't sound like working class.

they never were (lenin was a lawyer iirc)

philosophy chad master race gets flak from the incels; it does not bother us for Stoicism was required reading

Attached: 135699-135598.png (600x540, 63K)

>Now you just being hypocritical. Literally claim yourself working class
They were workers. They have to sell they labor to continue living. Simply pick a soviet leader and you see they were workers who climbed up the ranks in the government. You can make an argument it failed in democracy, and it did in most respects, but to not claim them working class is absurd.

>They were workers
No, they weren't. They didn't work

they were workers in spirit

I get it. Khrushchev simply got in power and spend his rest of his whole life in his bed drinking tea.

they were wokers in soul and spirituality achieving the nirvana to fulfill their purpose (happiness) in life

You were the one that claimed that party compromised of the working class people but suddenly when you are in the party you didn't have to work shifts. How is that possible?

You worked for the state. Someone needs to fulfill those functions. You can't expect a country to run itself.

You didn't adress yours contradiction. Why party compromised of the working class people make working class people leave their working class? It's like constantly destroying yourself

I addressed this already. Working class in Marxist lingo are those who need to sell their labor power for living. Read the principles of communism if you want to understand it better (marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/lrlibrary/03-LRL-princip-of-comm.pdf). It's a short but unfortunately unfinished text which answers few questions you may have.

It's no contradiction. More like some kind of гaчя angloid sophistry.

When you speak of working class politicians you speak of their background and their property, you don't assume they deliver a speach in the morning and then go ride a tractor in the afternoon.

>you don't assume they deliver a speach in the morning and then go ride a tractor in the afternoon.

Attached: 1547125254803.png (500x420, 155K)

>For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a tractorsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, ride a tractor in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, tractorsman or critic.
-Marx, The German Ideology