So — Peterson may be open to marxism now?

That would mean the Republican Party (in the US) isn't right wing.

He was right about Marxism leading to equality of outcome tho, Marx and Zizek are just lying snake.

This is the aesthetic of the 21st century

god i wish that were me

what a terrible time to be alive

Obvious bait but I'll take it.
"Equality of outcome" is a meaningless phrase if you don't define what you mean by outcome. Equality in the abstract sense means nothing more than sameness; to say we are equal is to say we are one and the same person. This is why Marx and Engels explicitly rejected egalitarianism as a bourgeoisie fabrication, valuing it only as a political tool to galvanise the working classes.
Instead Marx and Engels sought equality on one front: class. The abolition of class is not the destruction of all hierarchy, as Peterson presumed, it is only the abolition of class hierarchy.

What a wonderful night to have a tomgirl fetish

Peterson was there to make money, if he were interested in Marxism he would've already done his readings by now.
Stop spamming this shit, there's already like 5 threads

Intellectual Marxism will never take off. University marxists will never read books. They just want to kill/rob rich people, same as the lower class.

>"Equality of outcome" is a meaningless phrase if you don't define what you mean by outcome.
So is all equality. Do we all want to be starving homeless hobos?

Zizek said basically no Marxism at all. Yeah he said Capitalism is shit but even Hitler said that

You do realise it is exactly the opposite, and most people lament that. Reading books makes you stupid. Only praxis makes us smart.

It isn’t

>Reading books makes you stupid
Yea Forums - Literature 2019

wouldn't that be a silly thought?

Yeah, read any serious work on praxis, co-learning, proletarian consciousness versus bourgeois individual ideology.

I doubt it. He may read some postmodernism though now that he knows it is a seperate school of thought.

MODS PLEASE DELETE ALL ZIZEK AND PETERSON THREADS. THEY ADD NOTHING TO THE ART OF LITERATURE.

Or just allow a containment thread

Peterson's whole theses rests on the premise, I think, that a jump could be made from reformist left-liberalism to an actual attempt at revolution possibly even resulting in some kind of 20th century style totalitarianism. He didn't understand that most Marxists would consider that to be a highly optimistic position as for them the left-liberal and progressive movement represents a capture and retardation of revolutionary potential (if any even exists now). The dynamic that seems to be lacking from his take on the matter is that, despite indulging in rhetorical hyperbole tinged with the colour red and revolutionary aesthetics, everything the campus activist/SJW/whatever-you-want-to-call-it crowd does legitimises the current system seeing as the only interaction those types ultimately engage is is petitioning. Some times they petition loudly and aggressively, sometimes they are even offensive and irrational, but it is still petitioning, and therefore validating, the current powers. It is complicated by the fact that many of them also share Peterson's mistake in thinking that forming a movement on twitter to shame Pepsi for not releasing a limited edition can with the Trans flag on it also tantamount to a step on the road to revolution.

Attached: 1555849456050.webm (1000x424, 1.93M)

He already committed career suicide when he revealed himself as a charlatan that at bottom only really cares about money. Dressing like a dandy, selling psuedoscience personality tests for 10 dollars, selling a list of questions for you to answer for like 50 dollars. How could anyone that matters respect him as a thinker.

your point is fair that one may not confuse petitioning with revolutionizing. but JBP started to get political when the SJW started to make laws in Canada. More generally speaking, any revolution in history began with the formation of a movement,which demonstrates, petitions, makes itself heard, gathers people, and then at some point, revolution is possible.

>he hasn't watched past the introductory statements
/pol/ incarnate

as if this doesn't happen on the left wing as well

You know everything that codes in thigh-highs has a penis, right?

Imagine actually thinking that Republicans are right-wing

Him going lefty Ben Garrison would be pretty damn funny, but I doubt that. Even considering his leftist origins and how mentally unstable he is, he would need to gradually immerse himself with Marxistic leftists and there just aren't that many of those in North America.

Yes, and?

A more conservative left seems like the only option for a genuine social revolution. Combine concepts of egalitarianism with concepts of anti-globalisation and regulated markets and you have a system that pleases everyone except the 1%.

I don't know how /pol/ et al reacted to this debate, but if this turns the far right into old school leftists, then global politics is in for a very interesting turn.

>but if this turns the far right into old school leftists
Not gonna happen, until migration stops being a major issue.

Hence why anti-globalist policies would be a necessity. The migration problems are a symptom of the expansion of global capital.

Double digit iq post

>Peterson doesn't have the focus or intellect to have a nuanced take on Marx
The issue is that it takes tremendous intellectual power to fully understand an opposing viewpoint clearly without swapping it for a strawman. This is especially true for political/economic discussions because of how directly informs people's lives.

Peterson just isn't of that caliber, which is okay because probably 0.01% of thinkers are capable of that level of perspective.

Not really
'Socialist' Zizek pretty much agrees with socialist-lite Peterson.
Don't know why they had Peterson defend capitalism when he's not even a capitalist. Zizek was more interested in getting people talking about Hegel than Marx (they're linked I know but still distinct).
Peterson isn't on the right.

Theatrics >>> Solutions

Even if it was true and it was solely capitalism responsible for mass migrations. It is enough to say "Fuck niggers, just sink dem boats" to which a lefitst will respond "But that's racism, you see if we stopped economic exploitation and imperialism blabblblabl..." and you will get the public polarized along the lines of racism.

Compare the Republican platform with Clinton's from ~25 years ago on everything but guns and Israel.

you are thinking of american style """""debate"""""

Peterson might have failed in every way, but the crypto marxists and Zizek did no better at convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced. He opens with China as the greatest economic miracle ever? Wow. Great. He leaves out the fact that 50 million of their population had to starve to death for them to get even slightly close, as well as forced population control limiting the amount of children you could have. Peterson obviously didn't know what he was doing, but it wasn't a debate, and at least he wasn't dishonest like Zizek was.

>He leaves out the fact
actually at the end of his speech he brings up how he isn't bringing up China as a positive example but rather as how horrible capitalism can/will be

Attached: 1555984385144.png (1268x700, 871K)

China is in a superposition (in the quantum sense) of brutal capitalism and an example of a great socialist success (if they get a geostrategic "win" over the US).

Zizek's point is that ex-authoritarian communists make the best managers of capital, he doesn't play the game of trying to pretend they are in any way socialist

I don't disagree that contemporary left-wingers are interested in officially changing the dynamics of society to better reflect their ideology, but what strikes me as very odd is how Peterson and the like only focus on these efforts from the left, and not on these efforts from the right. In my own country, radical, hyper-nationalist groups have literally started trying to infiltrate mainstream parties and have even attempted to get dog-whistle slogans passed as law, and yet I don't think I've EVER heard of Peterson, Harris, etc. take issue with this

So you decentralise and attack capital and stop targeting the migrants themselves, thereby falling into the trap of polarising the public along lines of race.

They're all ivory tower types. Their viewpoints stem from their situated social position in leftist dominated academia. Naturally they're addressing what's closest to home.

And the case can be made that the right is far less interested in social engineering these days than the left. The only corner where the desire to legislate morality appears in the right is in its religious wing, which is hugely diminished in its reach in large part because of the immense power of secular corporations and the sway business interests has over the conservative establishment. Plus the general decline in religiosity in developed countries.

The right wing generally wants to keep foreign values out and familiar values the same while recovering the past. The left wants to let foreign values in and make familiar values different while erasing the past. By this token, it's clear that the left is more concerned with change than the right.

You seem to be confusing neoliberalism with the left. Leftism is primarily about working class interests and equality of opportunity. The problem is that neoliberals identify as "leftists" and without a genuine leftist party in any western country, people don't have a measuring stick by means to claim otherwise.

This isn't to say that the left don't try to change the system once they're in power, but you have to acknowledge that the left aren't in power currently.

>authoritarians better at managing capital than actual people participating in the market

This is according to what? China is broke now.

>China is broke now.
This is according to what?

>On the PPP basis, China is world's largest economy in 2018. Total wealth of china is estimated at 25.3 trillion international dollar. China is followed by United States with figure 19.4 trillion. India, which is 7th largest economy in nominal terms, is at third place. Tuvalu is the world's smallest national economy with a GDP (PPP) of approximately Int. $44 million.

>if they're fetishistic about free markets they aren't "right wing" in any meaningful way.

What does "right wing" mean to you? Honestly asking. Aren't libertarians much further right than conservatives? Conservative want all kinds of government intervention, just listen to Trump blaming China for all the US problems, or guys like Tucker Carlson talk about banning driverless trucks, George Bush... Richard Nixon, etc

Republicans haven't been right wing on economics for a long time.

Peterson dumb lol

“I would perfer not to” — Žižek

>explicitly rejected egalitarianism
>abolition of class hierarchy.
it is a contradiction isnt it? you cannot feasibly do this. people form clubs and societies based on similar social class it is hardwired

center right
they're not monarchists or fascists or nrx but they don't lean left on any issue unless the above groups are the literal only things you compare them to

peterson has always been a marxist. just look at what he says about the availability of sex. he wants enforced monogamy so that men who have too much sex have less and men who don't have sex can finally stop being asspained incels.

there would still be social stratification, but it wouldn't be based on "possession" of the means of production. it would still be possible to have reached communism and to have sexism, racism, preference for handsome people etc.

They’re both getting older is all. The fire is dwindling.

He is a pathological sophist. Peterson is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a dilettante and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

Peterson becoming a marxist is exactly what he needs to keep the money flowing. Now that he has milked right wing organisations, it's time to milk the left.

That "debate" was really embarassing. Marxism is fucking gay but at least read something about it before debating

Peterson fumbled so hard that he literally used the "even if you're not a fascist, you could become a gateway intellectual for fascist" argument everyone used on him and tried to use it on Zizek. This had to be the most ridiculous moment.

Have you seen the fucking child protests happening these days?

This the SJW'ification of Western education. The radical left has won.

Don't ever read anything. Don't ever listen to anyone. Don't ever debate any topic. Don't ever stop to think. Just REACT, REACT, REACT! If you're wrong, REACT some more!

One of the best points Peterson ever made was that these kids should go home and get their life together before moralizing on everyone's behalf. Literally what the fuck do they think they know about anything? Go home, clean up and do your homework.

It is true that whatever "true" definition of Marxism Yea Forums is pushing these days won't ever take off, because said "true" definition only exists for in the minds of a few "Marxist Intellectuals." The only meaning of the word Marxist that matters it he meaning implied when the blue-haired college girls fling it around like shit in a hot tub. They're the uneducated activist majority - they get to decide what the general public thinks Marxism means.

It doesn't matter what Marx *actually* said about social classes - all the matters is the bits you can easily quote that gives the objectively wrong impression.

Jordan Peterson go on Chapo

people dont bring up how long Zizek has been doing things like this too. Peterson has only been a public intellectual for 2, maybe 3 years

Zizek doesn't really do public debates, though, and he never seems to acquit himself well against detractors. I'm still surprised he handled himself so well, and that Peterson ate shit as badly as he did

>China is broke now.

Attached: feafeafeafeashts.jpg (600x600, 28K)

>Have you seen the child protests these days
>SJWification of Western education
Ohh sweetie, the west has always been a bad joke. Our only problem is it gets worse every time it's told.
Just look at this video and compare to Jordan Peterson answering a question. youtu.be/4xeebU8VhmY
It's obvious that as a whole we are becoming infantile. The west will not stop until it's unborn. This has nothing to do with politics. Wake up! Devo was right.

Pro tip from up top, its not dumb ass

Zizek has had many conversations with many different thinkers, he just has the misfortune of retards being unable to understand him and thus claiming he doesn't make sense.
youtube.com/watch?v=6GHiV4tuRt8

They’re about as right-wing as the democrats are left-wing.

>it is only the abolition of class hierarchy.
Class-hierarchy is just a manifestation of Human social-hierarchy.

I agree. In fact:

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.

Attached: 6MsfK4A.jpg (1280x960, 227K)

>having respect to those open to marxism

If China is broke, I don't know what to say about America

i wonder how feminine her penis is.

Right wingers believe authority and hierarchy are necessary for the preservation of race and nation. They believe in patriarchy and religion, self-restraint and family formation. They think the highest human happiness can be achieved when the passions are restrained and the people are engaged in constructive labor, including having lots of kids. Right wing is inherently ethnocentric.

Libertarians WERE right wing but were hobbled by classical liberal priors. They saw current authorities as corrupt, and rather than struggle for better elites they rejected the validity of authority itself. Rather than fight for an authority that will rule on their behalf, they retreated into fantasies of anarchistic social orders where everyone will leave them the hell alone. Libertarians were right-wingers in temperament, but philosophical utopians. Until recently most libertarians were of Anglo stock.

These people are all gone. In the last six years the libertarian movement has hemorrhaged its middle class constituency. The only ones left are addicts, trannies, and pedophiles engaged in the business of scamming each other.

You're never broke if you meet any of the following criteria:
1. you print your own money
2. you produce half the planet's industrial goods
3. you are a military superpower

Yep. Left wing demagogues are immune from the temptation of profit-seeking and audience-milking.

Attached: 1554905832136-png.png (1063x986, 945K)

I liked the bit in the discussion where Peterson brings up the worst way to achieve power is to exploit people under you to rise up in the hierarchy. I didn't much care for the audience laughing though.

So is there officially a Peterson-Zizek dialectic?

I like how this is trying to make Contra look like antifa hahaha; tranny so dangerous you need to make propaganda

Zoomers and late millennials are so morally corrupted that it makes me ill to try to get inside their heads.

I don't think there's been a dialectic since Derrida.

haha yeah man imagine if america was already a communist country haha crazy right?

Attached: Mencius_Moldbug.jpg (240x226, 37K)

Peterson will be "up for" whatever can get him money, I'm sure. He's a charlatan huckster. I unironically wish we could kill every televangelist, self-help shitter, and fox news agitator. The world would start going in a better direction with that and then we can take care of the rest.

haha cunt your face should be fucked off by bbc

Yeah he's so greedy he gave up patreon.

Jesus you people are in a cult.

Pretty much. How can one have a platform so heavily rooted in ignorance?

I hope Peterson gets redpilled on Hegel if he can

Why does a guy who analyses Disney movies trigger the shit out of reddit pseuds here?

>2k
>for a fucking carpet
I can get you a carpet for a bottle of vodka lmao

>libertarian
He worked for the UN. He's a globalist, and a neoliberal.

>He's a globalist, and a neoliberal.
So is Žižek.

this is why there is only one human bean for us to look up to.
Jesus the Christ.

No, he made zizek disown the manifesto as shitty marxist work, he made zizek say trump is not a fascist, he stumped zizek about fixing your life first before fixing the world, he stumped zizek about marxism as a bad example for young people, stumped bcoz after jp countered, zizek didnt counter back anymore regarding the topic. he made zizek look like a beta coz zizek was obsessed with personalities, plus he made zizek say that man is innately evil and bcause of that he lost the sympathy of world

>he made
lmao stop projecting. zizek is well known to disown soviet communism, teleological principle of history, hysteria of calling trump facist and being pessimist. its not like peterson "made" him to do those things.