The postmodernists performed a sleight-of-hand after realising that they couldn't be marxists anymore and so they...

Peterson is absolute cringe thinker who literally sells lobster themed sweatshirts. But to be fair, what's more cringe is to imply postmodern philosophers needed any rational motivation. The Frenchie Profs. and their derivatives live for fame and fucking their undergrads.

Attached: istockphoto-1035600772-612x612.jpg (612x408, 52K)

IVANHOE IS A STORY ABOUT A BOY AND HIS TOOL

>doesn't Peterson realise how absurd he sounds when he says this shit?
absurd how?
>What would even be the motivation for postmodern philosophers to replace class struggle with identity struggle?
more like transposing identity struggle over top of class struggle, and because it's easier to tell which side everyone is on, or because it's easier to measure static demos than dynamic ones, or maybe because the champagne socialists are blind to true class struggle. Is this really the most important question?
>Is there some element in conflict theory that helps promulgate some ulterior goal the postmodernists have?
"ulterior goal" implies a level of intentionality that nobody else has suggested except maybe schizos on /pol/. One thing conflict theory does well is amalgamate power, so any ideology incorporating it will naturally rise to the top through memetic natural selection. But maybe you could also mutter about deterritorialization for a few hours to answer that question. This question doesn't seem very important either, but more because it's based on a false premise.
>If so, what is that goal?
see above, but to QRD: dissolution of the established order to make way for something new
>The destruction of the west, presumably;
lolwat
>so is a corollary of that that any conflict theory, be it Marxism or intersectionality, is part of a larger plot to bring down western civilisation rather than a genuine caring for those disaffected groups?
again ascribing to malice what can easily be accounted for through ignorance (or not even that, simply a different worldview). Certainly the dynamics of power are more important than the "disposessed" these people ostensibly fight for, as seen by how minority people are ostracized from the progressive sphere for infractions large or small, with the same degree of harshness as straight white men. The thing they fight to protect is a set of abstract classifications, not any specific human beings.
>Is he implying the Jews?
"No!"

t, bedursun internet defense force, I guess, I get wanting to vent but your post doesn't make much sense OP

On the 22nd of April Peterson gave a talk to the Heritage Foundation, it is heavily funded by the Koch brothers.

Last year he gave a talk to the Manhattan Institute, also funded by the Kochs.

He has attended Turning Point USA events. TPUSA receives funding from 4 different Koch funded groups.
Other Koch funded pundits have also attended.

On his twitter he regularly cites HumanProgress. HumanProgress is a project of some sort of The Cato Institute. Charles Koch founded and continues to heavily fund The Cato Institute.

He also cites the Institute for Humane Studies - Charles Koch has been the chairman of its board since the 1970s and between 2005-2017 donated 34 million dollars to it.

Peterson broke into the mainstream at Rebel Media. Rebels founder Ezra Levant did his college internship at the Charles Koch Foundation, later he worked at the Fraser Institute the Kochs principal think tank in Canada, it has received donations from Daniel Pipes racist Middle East Forum which has in turn received donations from Donors Capital Fund a 'blind trust' that the Kochs and others use to make anonymous donations to islamophobic groups and climate change denial groups.

What is the deal with the Koch Brothers and Jordan B. Peterson?

what he is implying is that there is a big conspiracy in academia and its all leftists and Marxists and socialists and SJWs out to get you the white man the real victim

Yes. Christianity is gentile kikery. Marxism is secular materialist kikery.

Who's gonna be the Peterson that sweeps up all the stranded Peterson fans?

Finding out your hero is a fraud is never easy. Pick yourself up and move on. Take with you the good bits, or start completely anew. Just don't hurt anyone.

Peterson sees something he doesn't like.
Peterson doesn't like Marxism and Post modernism.
Hence the thing he doesn't like is caused by post modernist Marxists.

It's the only way I could make sense of his logic considering the post modernists were heavily critical of Marxism and the fact that when post modernism really took off as a movement was when communism was still really popular in Europe.

>big conspiracy in academia
Not sure he implies conspiracy, more points out a state of affairs.
>its all leftists and Marxists and socialists and SJWs out to get you the white man the real victim
The humanities are filled with malcontents of various stripes who've created a weird culture of privilege around victimhood. It's narcissistic cuntery, at heart. Peterson is inveighs against this culture, afaict. He doesn't claim men are the real victims or anything like that.
I'm not keen on the man especially, but don't put words in his mouth because you'd rather be a snarky cunt than formulate a proper consideration.

Wasn't Herbert Marcuse pretty open about ditching the working-class as revolutionary agents and clinging to marginalized minorities?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

>The working class is no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change. As a result, rather than looking to the workers as the revolutionary vanguard, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between radical intellectuals and those groups not yet integrated into one-dimensional society, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other ethnicities and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable. These were the people whose standards of living demanded the ending of intolerable conditions and institutions and whose resistance to one-dimensional society would not be diverted by the system. Their opposition was revolutionary even if their consciousness was not.

It's not me or Peterson saying it, it's the "Father of the New Left" himself!

>What would even be the motivation for postmodern philosophers to replace class struggle with identity struggle?
because they are pampered establishment lapdogs who, unconsciously, want to play at being glamorous rebels while serving the status quo. Identity politics keeps the masses bickering (divide and rule), addresses things of little to no consequence (is "x" racist, tranny bathrooms, women's issues) and allows the system to keep chugging along keeping the powers that are in power, and allows the over-educated scholastic sophists in the acedmy to pretend that a monograph about Henry James' poetics or some shit might have revolutionary import.

He's not wrong, but it was just that other leftists pointed out the flaws of a Marxist approach during the development of the cultural studies, and it's since evolved into think tank for the broader left and has pulled more or less all of the humanities and social sciences into the fold.

>cultural marxism is real

Literally nazi propaganda. How can anyone listen to this frog trash? Unironically.

The best propaganda is true, and academia being used as a think tank for the left is the current state of affairs. Whether it's called Cultural Marxism or not doesn't really matter.

It isn't though. My literary theory 101 course book and lecturer made us read Althusser, explained base-superstucture, then told us Gramsci was one of the first to realise superstructure (culture) is more important than we previously thought, and thus made way for people like Derrida and Foucault. And this guy was a self-professed anarchist. The problem with the 'cultural marxism' trope is that it is very much associated with antisemitic conspiracy theories, though it need not be.

In any case there is nothing wrong with trying to make the world a better place. Fuck nazis.

>In any case there is nothing wrong with trying to make the world a better place
Human extinction is preferable to the rise of a stateless society. Fuck your morality.

>Literally nazi propaganda
The Nazis did nothing wrong

If you think human extinction is preferable to anything then you are an imbecile whose extinction must be secured. Thought is bound by the duty to not desire its own demise, as is the case with life. Alternately, you could an hero if you want it so much.

> Thought is bound by the duty to not desire its own demise, as is the case with life.
That's quite the assumption. Life gains value alone through interaction with the state. Those who wish to do away with this have no real manner for reasonably justifying their existence.

I have no desire for death or human extinction. I only know that it would be preferable than the triumph of the anarchist. In all other cases the survival of the species is preferable.

>frankfurt school
So not a postmodernist, what even is the point of this post.

Yes it is quite the assumption, but it is the starting assumption of all ethics.

Whereas your assumptions seem to me unjustifiable.

Life does gain value, and in fact requires interaction with family, society, in short, community. But the state? What is the state? The mystical fiction of a society united in one person? Why should I bend to a tyrant I don't need, the figure of tyranny that can be abused to no end? I would much rather believe in God or the church if I wanted to be bound in a spiritual union with my community - so long as the church does not become what the Popes made of it, cloaking Roman statism in the garb of spirituality.

Based

>Life gains value alone through interaction with the state.
Are you serious?

>In all other cases the survival of the species is preferable
Now let me stop you right there.

this is a good post, please give your rebuttal OP

>The mystical fiction of a society united in one person?
It is precisely the mythological qualities of the state that allow life to gain some value. This mythology allows lives to be tied to institutions, cultural norms, and aesthetics that allows life to be tied to something more than valueless bodies. In that sense liberation comes from the state, and the truest form of enslavement derives from existence in a stateless plane.

You and all your ideals only aim to make the world worse. Your ethics is a failed science and you as an individual bring harm to everything you interact with.

>you as an individual bring harm to everything you interact with
The only correct thing you've said so far

It's neo-marxist.
By "post-modern neo-marixst" peterson means the critical theory gender studies literary department crowd. They suck off the post structuralists, frankfurt school, read their freud marx and nietzsche. It's a broad brush picture, and not specific enough to be accurate in any particular case but does a job of shining a light on this cancerous crowd of kike, fag, cunt and shitskin others who hate the achievements of the white male

>The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.

Where are you getting this stuff about the state giving meaning and liberation

>It is precisely the mythological qualities of the state that allow life to gain some value. This mythology allows lives to be tied to institutions, cultural norms, and aesthetics that allows life to be tied to something more than valueless bodies. In that sense liberation comes from the state, and the truest form of enslavement derives from existence in a stateless plane.

Not him but elaborate on this, because so far i'm smelling a faint odor of grade B bullshit. Explain in what way the state is surrounded by any sort of mythological/spiritual mantra. The mythological aspects you seem to highlight appear to me as a society integrating crucial aspects of the state into it's culture, making the state not mythological but rather having the quality assigned to it, invalidating your hypothesis.

he gave him a statistical answer actually..

no its not. Christianity is not dialectical.

How is the modern left wing intelligentsia not a bunch of people parroting post structural thought and people like Adorno? How isn’t the modern academic left rooted in more or less Marxist and post modern by products?

>t. never read Hegel

Within the context of liberal society the left is the elite and lumpen masses they rile up, so both "class struggle" and identity politics can fit under this umbrella. The former can be called Communism with Continental characteristics and the latter Communism with American characteristics.

itt people are mad academia is full of leftists, very definitely because of jews, and not because right wingers are either status quo neocons (boring, who wants to defend capitalism with the same arguments adam smith came up with 200 years ago?) or outright conspiracy theorists who think jews are taking over (which has no credible evidence)

pretty marxist, didnt even mention class once. the true mark of marxism...or should i say, the true marx?

youre so cucked by the capitalist state

are you really gonna defend THE STATE of all things? your problem with communism is the lack of government? lol

who said that?

Attached: orangutan hrm.jpg (555x541, 55K)

>youre so cucked by the capitalist state
I consider myself a pretty militant anti-capitalist.
>are you really gonna defend THE STATE of all things? your problem with communism is the lack of government? lol
The state is the only thing that makes human existence even remotely defensible. There's no justifiable reason for humans to exist without it. All anti-statist politics reduces the value of man to the body, and as such they are ultimately libidinal in nature. Only through interaction with state entities can we strive for something more.

>people like Adorno?
They're more like the people who (unintentionally) killed Adorno if anything.

You can’t be left and anti-proletarian. Libidinality is at the core of collective sublime subjectivity.

>not opposing capitalism from the right.
The state is necessary to direct the energies of the proletariat in a meaningful direction, and a branch of it should consist of an representatives elected by unionized workers in order to give them authority over property owners. But all men must be saved from the impulse to make the libidinal central in life, and the state is only entity that can do it.

His mistake is assigning intent. However, "the postmodernists" don't exist, and so they can't trick anyone in the first place. He should really be focusing on the illogic of the oppressor/oppressed paradigm more than he is instead of jumping at ghosts where none exist. Also the reason that he got fucked when Zizek asked who are the marxists; the new ideology of the left is Marx-like, however nobody is going to self identify as a Marxist like that.

What I REALLY don't understand is why do you people who know he's just spouting bullshit try and understand why he does it, it's obvious he hasn't read anything he talks about (he even said he only read the manifesto, a 30 pages meme pamphlet written for uneducated 19th century workers).
Yet you people, regardless of whether you like him or hate him, still try to find a way to justify his beliefs, as if deep down you somehow think Peterson isn't the average boomer and couldn't possibly simply be a hack cashing in on his audience.
He really does not deserve this amount of attention.

He pisses of the right people, but that is his only redeemable quality.

you know who also pisses off the right people? jar jar binks. yet you dont see anyone making him the spokesman for the virgin lumpen proles. hes literally forced on you by the koch bros.

I don't engage with him in anyway, so I don't really care. I'm willing to tolerate who's even remotely anti-left. Death by climate change is far, far preferable to coexistence with the reds.

might as well just kill yourself now then faggot

At the current moment living is better than not living no matter much much the reds pollute this world with their noxious presence.

> this is your brain on cold-war era propaganda
Aren't you a bit too old to post here?

I would be sympathetic to the reds if Soviet style governments still existed. It's anti-statist egalitarians I despise.

still not getting why government is the hill this freak is willing to die on

I can't conceive of a decent human existence without it. One which strives for something more than the comfort of bodies.

Perhaps you lack imagination. No kingdom of the earth can save your soul. Only through Christ is there salvation.

bro if you know anything about the think tank world, the entire conservative half takes Koch money. They are pretty hands off, however, and at places like Cato there are a lot of other bigger donors.

Here's the thing though: right wing media and think tanks HAVE to take Koch money. Academia purged all their conservatives, and the progressive hegemony there enjoys all the government $ and alum donations. Any conservative research or scholarship has to depend on private $.

>academia purged all the conservatives
source for this claim?
>inb4 JIDF detected

The fact of the matter is there was no 'purge.' There are just very few conservative intellectuals, because to be an intellectual one needs intelligence. Which conservatives completely lack. Reality has a leftist bias.

All politics are identity politics.

>What would even be the motivation for postmodern philosophers to replace class struggle with identity struggle
Imagine being this blue pilled. The workers of the world did not unite, they prioritized things like religion, nationality, family etc.. So, what is the solution then, to undermine these institutions by every possible way, primarily using post-modernist critical theory, where every thing is made subjective, there is no right or wrong only opinions.

Wouldn't that also undermine the Marxists, since class oppression would be reduced to a subjective viewpoint?

SEE: the concept of religion

Well, I left out the last piece which is to insert dominance of their narrative. The result of this power struggle is conveniently not explicit in PM

>>the postmodernists performed a sleight-of-hand after realising that they couldn't be marxists anymore and so they replaced class struggle with identity politics!
That can work, as a theory.
The problem is that he's only applying it to specific groups (SJWs), whereas he could easily apply it also to nationalists and such, people who have no power in academia.
So basically anyone who wants to change the system is a postmodern neo-marxist.

It's a simplistic way of describing the application of Marxist thought during the rise of the New Left into the postmoderns today. What's the issue?

>What would even be the motivation for postmodern philosophers to replace class struggle with identity struggle?
To grab political power.

>Individualism and citizen rights and pursuit of freedom is good!
>Except when they're not

Dunno why it took me this long to realise this was his entire schtick

>tl;dr He's saying that identity politicians abuse minorities as a human shield for personal gains

Unlike the ones that abuse majorities in order to abuse minorities for personal gains?

Show me the marxists.

Jordy is a fag

I think Jordan Peterson, alongside Ben Shapiro, Milo, Sargon of Akkad, etc. are all retards. But I believe this because I'm a fascist, and will never understand SJWs trying to allude to their being nazis when they're easily the most Liberal bastards on the planet.

Attached: DILWBh_XcAEJYxO.jpg (1000x600, 104K)

Quads confirm

he just said that majority of social science proffesors are left leaning, that answer in no way correlated to the question

Looks like your hero has more blood on his hands.
>...for their role in cultural Marxism and communism...
archive.is/hChM5

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 142K)

If you're not up to speed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting

It's an embellishment. Intellectuals are aloof and have a hard time identifying changing beliefs, especially when it happens outside their sphere of expertise. Extreme leftists did an excellent job in the 60s and seventies of obfuscicating their deep position while appealing to youth culture. Rest assured, when you see a college course dealing with pop culture, the professor is certainly far left. Today, many professors may not even realize how far left they are. The ideological progeny of Marx have come to dominate academia, less because of any particular conspiracy at the universities, and more so by their influence in popular culture. Through critical theory, social studies, comparative studies, interdisciplinary studies and the areas of continental studies more focused on contemporary issues, the far left has easily controlled contempirary discourse largely by the non-presence of conservative thinkers. While conservatives have been working at things like history and analytic philosophy or the sciences, the far left has inserted their theoretical language into ordinary parlance without having to force it through the ordinary crucible of obscure and practically occult academic debate. This was in large part possible because of the growth of business schools, and the growth of a non-academic beauraucracy within the universities. A college dean now is largely uninvolved and unconcerned with any academic positions, and is almsot soley charged with the financial oversight of the school. This means they will accept and foster any program or set of classes which has high enrollment or which leads to strong employment numbers which are used in marketing the school to incoming students. From the 60s, the liberal arts have become increasingly irrelevant to the financial health of a university. Their primary function at this point is to create a debt pipeline for cheap teachers in the postgraduate system, and to keep students from dropping out once they realize they have no interest, skill, or work ethic to complete the more difficult and more personally profitable degrees. This was further exacerbated by the GOPs focus on economics, which has overtime led to the almost complete abandonment of the humanities by the increasingly business focused so-called conservatives.

>more like transposing identity struggle over top of class struggle, and because it's easier to tell which side everyone is on
Peterson's explicit words are: REPLACED class struggle with identity politics. He thinks that their only motivation for doing so is to 'play an oppressor vs oppressed game' so I ask you again, why this game?
>"ulterior goal" implies a level of intentionality that nobody else has suggested except maybe schizos on /pol/.
Peterson literally says that they realised that Marxism was untenable (despite the fact that communism was still alive in those times; one of the largest parties in France was communist), and so they made a SLEIGHT-OF-HAND and REPLACED class struggle with identity politics. Those words clearly imply intent.
>One thing conflict theory does well is amalgamate power, so any ideology incorporating it will naturally rise to the top through memetic natural selection
Was the French Revolution a Marxist revolution because they posited a conflict between monarch and commoner? Do you think all ideologies which recognise a conflict between oppressed and oppressive groups in society are a) Marxist and b) a simple grab for power?
>lolwat
All of Peterson's associates at one point or another have talked about the left wanting to bring down western civilisation. I believe Peterson has talked about it too but I'm not 100%.
>The thing they fight to protect is a set of abstract classifications, not any specific human beings.
Nothing to do with postmodernism. Postmodern philosophers argued for individual expression and the throwing off of all group identities. Judith Butler, a literal postmodern feminist, wants the abolition of gender.

If there is any one class of people most responsible for this change, it would be media publishers, and from that group journalists. Most people are not particularly curious beyond the limited scope of their private life. It is only by the press that they have any interest or concern over anything else, and this only out of a sense that it is "good to be informed." This means the public discourse is driven not by the real interest of the public at large, but by what journalists believe will be newsworthy. The problem with this is twofold: most journalists are completely ignorant about everything except the news business and those journalists which truly understand the business of news are either deeply cynical or deeply biased. This means that you're average journalist will be little better than a stooge in the hands of a skilled political operator, or even simply your ordinary hustler. The average journalist is not actually equipped with how to separate truth from opinion, or even from fiction; instead they are trained in how to spot a "story" that will draw in readers, and how to convey information (regardless of content) in a succinct and digestible manner to those who were previously ignorant of what's been told. The exceptional journalist however is aware of this process, and is politically adept. They are still stuck with the simple reality that complex truth cannot be communicated through the news. Therefore, if they remain a journalist, and by understanding the process, they will become an operator of the system of mass publication. In effect, they will become a soft propagandist for whatever positions they think SHOULD occupy a larger portion of the public consciousness. This is inevitable. Almost anything can be made to sell, but doing so often requires a slight manipulation of rhetorical effect. (Journalism is simply mercenary rhetoric.) In most cases this means overdramatizing a calamity that has no real relevance to the public at large, but is known will draw attention and thereby sell advertising. Conservatives by definition care more about tradition, so are more dismissive of what is new. The past 100 years has seen the greatest transformation of communication and transportation in the entire history of the world. The left has used this to great advantave. Conservatives are just now starting to understand what has happened. It is little surprise that fascism, the perverse fusion of modernism with conservatism, has been the first "conservative" movement to have any counter-cultural effect. In the 60s, it was the far left activists telling people college was broken and using underground cartoons to sow dissatisfaction and trust. Now the alt-right is doing the same thing. But what good can ever come of deceit?

>a) Marxist and b) a simple grab for power?
a) no
b) yes

Marx certainly thought the French Revolution, particularly the Paris commune was the first breach of the inevitable realization of communism. It was also Marx who put forward the idea of oppressor/oppressed as the essential and nearly eternal historical dialectic. The reason post-modernists abandoned traditional marxism was because they felt Marx could onky view the world in the now-outdated context of his time--that of agrarian laborer versus factory owning bourgeoisie, hence the labor/capital conflict. Foucault in particular argued that language itself was a barrier to progress, that people could not think outside the bounds of the language taught to them by the oppressing classes. Post-modern thought is absolutely an evolution of marxism to an extremely abstract form. Yes, there were still many "orthodox" marxists at that time, but where are they now? You will be hard pressed to find any far left agrarian movements, most day laborers voted for Trump, and the unions have been in intense conflict with the organizers of left wing movements. Marxism was untennable with the material advances of the capitalist west. The radical social equality put forward by marx could not be sustained in the traditional terms when laborers in the US had more and worked less than their communist brethren in Soviet Russia. To the extent that post-modernists deny this direct lineage, it can absokutely be understood as a sleight of hand. The arguments against traditional marxism, especialky on practical grounds, is just as effective against post-modernists; however, when treated as something novel and distinct, most dissenters get mired in a swamp of relativism and abstraction created by the alphabet soup of post-modern thought.

postmodernism, communism, marxism, etc. all have the same underlying symptoms.

all are concerned to various degrees with self-victimization, deconstruction and revolution.

you will notice that not one of these ideologies has anything that resembles a constructive approach, personal responsibility or order.

so to say that someone doesn't identify as a marxist is irrelevant. we *all* know what beliefs and behavior are symptomatic to those ideologies but we pretend otherwise.

What's really interesting or insidious about Foucault is how thoroughly America has internalized this sort of thing:

> Foucault in particular argued that language itself was a barrier to progress, that people could not think outside the bounds of the language taught to them by the oppressing classes.

In the sense that the ruling class uses Foucaldian langauge to call a permanent revolution against itself (or rather, against intermediary structure between the State and the average person).

It's quite simple. Peterson isn't much of a hermeneutician. He simply blames his fellow academics as the causal factor behind the rise of the SJW students he encountered. His lazy historiography of the ideas may be endlessly infuriating to the self-styled "orthodox Marxist" pedants of this board, but all the mumbo jumbo on paper from the 1960's is of much less interest to him than the psychological profile of the actually existing SJW today.

He isn't a cryptofascist as insinuated here, but rather an anti-totalitarian Popperian liberal who is as deathly afraid of the fascist pushback against the SJW as he is of Communism, and so he set about to craft a moderate conservatism to present as an alternative to far right ideology that would appeal specifically to the demographic most susceptible to it. This also entails speaking their language to some extent.