The Marxists, Jordan, where are they?

youtube.com/watch?v=rqov7Jcgz0E

they don't really touch on many themes apart from the dumbing down of culture and the role of universities, it's not the best debate but they do say some interesting things. scruton is who peterson pretends to be but doesn't even get close to, so it's at least a debate between two actual intellectuals

he means where are the Marxists in postmodern identity politics, simply saying a minority of professors are Marxists doesn't mean anything

Zizek: Where are the marxists ?
Peterson: Here.
>Oh, he meant where are the marxists in the something something red herring something, not in this.
There is no end with you people, ain't it ?

Memerson invented a boogeyman with a word salad tier label, "POSTMODERN NEO-MARXISTS". Think about that for a second. Think on how retarded it sounds. And now and only now come up with some names. Go.

In their mothers basements, Zizek, where they belong :3

oh, no, i agree, it is idiotic. By attacking user response to Peterson's answer i was not making a statement that everything he ever said ever was right, bear in mind. It was solely a attack on user response.

oh sweaty... here is the actual transcript:
>Zizek: it's simply I would like to know because you and I like this often when you attack somebody you said aggressively and what should read more tell me whom, so I'm asking you not read more I don't advise you but who are give me some names and so on and who are these post-modern egalitarian neo-marxist and where do you see any kind even of a Marxism. I see in it mostly and impotent and utterly impotent moralization.
>Peterson: well I mean there’s organization like Jonathon Haidt’s what's it called heterodox Academy and other organizations like that have documented an absolute dearth of conservative voices in the social sciences and the humanities and about 25% according to the what I think are reliable surveys approximately 25% of social scientists in the u.s. identified themselves as Marxists and so there's that very solid
>Zizek: but where are these neo Marxists?
>Peterson: okay, but.…
>Zizek: Can you name me one neo-Marxist?
>Peterson: well, well...let’s go to....
>Zizek: I know a couple of Marxists, for example, who does very solid economic work, David Harvey, one, but he writes very serious books, economic analysis and so on and so on then there is the old guy who is far from simplification Fredric Jameson and so on

>Peterson: well yeah your question seemed to me to focus more on the pair a peculiar relationship that I've noticed and that people have disputed between post-modernism and and neo Marxism and I see the connection between the postmodernist types and the Marxists as a sleight of hand that replaced the notion of the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie as the
oppression by one identity group by another.
>Zizek: totally agree with you
>Peterson: okay so with that but so now look, we can
>Zizek: but that’s precisely a non Marxist gesture

do you really not see the question and answer, or your mind creates a blind spot for it ? transcripting the conversation and adding more words to it just reinforces my case of your use of a red herring. Please. Go fool somebody else. I'm familiar with fallacy 101.

so now the issue has transferred to not where the marxist are but whether post-mordenist are marxist or not... son......... please...

>adding more words
that's the transcript user, I didn't add anything. he was clearly asking about the Marxists in his idea of postmodern-neomarxists, which you obfuscated by paraphrasing the debate incorrectly; why would he ask "where are the Marxists in academia" if he goes on to list some of the Marxists he knows in academia? His point is people like him and Harvey and Jameson, the big Marxists today, are in no way related to postmodernism or "postmodern neomarxism". Jameson wrote one of the most influential critiques against postmodernism that has ever been published

>well yeah your question seemed to me to focus more on the pair a peculiar relationship that I've noticed and that people have disputed between post-modernism and and neo Marxism and I see the connection between the postmodernist types and the Marxists as a sleight of hand that replaced the notion of the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie as the oppression by one identity group by another.
When the teacher asks you a question and you don't know the answer but want to appear knowledgeable.

who would fucking dispute the idea that there are marxists in academia? of course there are some. there are also post modernists, and many marxists will tell you, its they who run academia, much to their chagrin. foucaultians are the bain of many a marxist professors. yet somehow they are one in the same, according to you and other pbj fans. if only the postmodernists were marxists, then they could be in charge of university politics...

you know, zizek loves making oxymorons. liberal communists and all that. maybe he'll pick up on this idea of postmodern marxists.

Let me say the way i see it and the way i think you see it, to see if we are still debating over the same thing.
The way i see it, people use this excerpt to make it seem like Peterson got zinged, wich he wasn't.
the way you see it, is that Peterson idea of a marxist doesn't have anything to do with... the great marxists.
Am i missing something about your point ?

different user here. zizek was clearly critiquing the idea of a postmodern neomarxist, because such a position is incoherent. it has nothing to do with marxist professors, but postmodern neomarxist thinkers. there is no one that claims such a position.

responding to you in particular, Peterson says that there is no reason why postmodernist should be Marxist, not much of an answer i know, but the way i see it postmodernist will align with pretty much anything to further their agenda, because they believe in nothing. Correct if I'm wrong but marxist or at least leftist have this rhetoric about going against the ruling class, and that is just perfect with the post-mordenist agenda; That's why political correctness is seen with Muslim, with black people, with marxist, with pretty much anything antiestablishment.

Damn. There SHOULD HAVE BEEN at least one fishing pole in the whole bloody mess of HL engine gun models at the time.

Look, going straight to the point, while i surely believe that there are Marxists who critic postmodernism. I still believe some postmodernist adopt marxists posture. This argument that "that is not a marxist gesture" or "true marxists are attacked by postmodernist types" seems a lot to me like "no true Scottmann" logic.

>because such a position is incoherent.
That's Peterson's point. Supposed Marxists use postmodern theory as a means to their desired ends.

if theres an enemy of postmodernism, it would be the concept of "truth," the grand narratives of history, objectivity or anything that claims such power. this is directly opposed to historical dialectics which is one of the pillars of marxist theory. but it relates to "pc" culture in this way: that the beliefs held by the dominant (white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal) culture is not the only "truth" in the world, and that the subjective experience of minorities etc. are just as valid (and therefore we should have more black and women writers or whatever). unfortunately for us marxists, this doesnt really amount to much. just having more minority voices does nothing if those minority voices lack an adequate theory about the material conditions that form our experiences. and postmodernism refuses to acknowledge certain universalities that can bring about class consciousness. so it really is annoying when we get lumped together. and pc culture follows down that line of thinking, not a marxist thought. so you cant blame us there.

You can tell Jordan Peterson is a bad Jungian because his idea of Postmodern Neomarxists is exactly the kind of incoherent, dream-logic doom prophecy that Jung himself described as the shadow projection of a mentally ill individual onto a political landscape, and until they recognise it as a reflection of their own psychological imbalance rather than something truly real they'll never actually recover.

Jung actively criticises people who turn their mental illness into an over-simplistic political narrative as a form of projection and cope.

If JP was actually engaged in Jungian thought, rather than using a bastardisation of Jung's thought as a crutch for his own psychological needs, he would recognise this "Postmodern Neomarxist cabal" as something he must venture into and understanding deeply, whether it is a mental projection or a real movement. Instead, he has charged large sums of money to preach about people he admits he has not read, and where he has he has either not understood them (he tried to read Zizek and Derrida once each and failed) or not really disagreed (Foucault), or read the most entry-level literature (Marx). Jordan Peterson has had at least three years since becoming e-famous to read these thinkers slowly and methodically to truly understand them and mount an engaged and academically sound response. Instead, he has chosen to run the grift circuit on YouTube, throwing lukewarm platitudes and gotchas that get him praise from a fanbase who does not read.

He cites Nietzsche and Jung continuously, yet Nietzsche would have seen him as a mewling Christian apologist clinging to a past he is mentally dependent on, and Jung would have seen him as just another depressive mistaking the sickness of his soul with the sickness of the world.

This is not to say that there are not Marxists in academia, or overzealous leftists, or weak men in the modern world. This is only to say that to the extent they exist, they do not function as JP describes them, and to the extent that they damage society they are not some metaphysically evil ooze-monster in some children's book-tier fight between the forces of good and evil.

a postmodernist wouldnt. lets clear up some terms. pc sjw culture, the kind that you all complain about, are usually feminists, lgbt activists, anti-racists etc. and they want more representation or whatever. this is very much a postmodernist position: the cishet white male dominance of culture must be overthrown and allow the truths of other be told. now where is the marxism in this? you might say, well the idea of the oppressed overthrowing the oppressors, thats marxist. wrong. marxism is not about replacing the ruling class with a more multicultural ruling class. it is about replacing the structure of society completely, with something that addresses the failures of capitalism. theres nothing marxist about postmodernist thought. it is, in fact, counterrevolutionary, designed to pacify the so called oppressed people by having representation at the top of the system look like them.

Is Zizek being a slob a statement against capitalist materialism, or is are his communist beliefs an excuse for being a slob?

Zizek: children are smart because they blindly believe in the mainstream media pushed climate change narrative despite the 97% figure being absolute bs

total misreading of that video. hes saying we should approach the problems we are facing with the same earnest naivete those children have. we are so confused by propaganda and ideologies that it is refreshing to see a group of kids approach a complicated subject without any of the bs.

i can't say i agree or disagree with you, but i thank you for the thought provoking argument. You gave juice to my brain good sir, and for that i thank you.
But, i would like to hear your thoughts about the fact that Cambodia, North Korea, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, China, where countries they applied the marxist political vision, all with great disaster. I, sincerely and unironically, want to hear you thoughts on this; don't really know how to emphasize my well intention without sounding sarcastic in this site lol.

>we should naively believe any "facts" from any "authority"
No matter how you want to spin it, it is just retarded.

how many of those people are still alive?

I'm asking you this mostly because the common response i see in marxists when asked this sort of question, either there's denial or projection.
You seem to know your shit, and i was curious to see your response to a tough question.

On the 22nd of April Jordan Peterson addressed The Heritage Foundation, one of the key think tank recipients of Koch Brothers money.

Last year Peterson addressed The Manhattan Institute, another one of the major think tanks in the Kochs funding network.

Jordan Peterson has attended Turning Point USA events. TPUSA is funded by four different groups all funded by the Koch Brothers. Other Koch funded pundits attend with him.

Jordan Peterson routinely recommends on his twitter something called HumanProgress. HumanProgress was established and is funded by The Cato Institute. The Cato Institute was co-founded by Charles Koch and is the largest recipient of their think tank funding.

He has also recommended the Institute for Humane Studies. Charles Koch has been the chairman of its board since the early 1970s, it is housed on the grounds of George Mason University which the Kochs have gained virtual control over, and between just 2005-2017 alone the Kochs gave 34 million to IHS.

Jordan Peterson originally came to wider attention at Rebel Media. Rebels founder Ezra Levant did his college internship at the Charles G. Koch Foundation and later worked at the Fraser Institute the Kochs main think tank in Canada. Rebel Media has received funding from Daniel Pipes racist Middle East Forum. MEF has in turn received funding from Donors Capital Fund. Donors Capital Fund is a 'blind trust' used by the Kochs and other super wealthy elites to make anonymous donations to climate change denial groups and racist groups like MEF.

So what is the deal with the Koch Brothers and Jordan Peterson?

idk lol. i havent studied enough of history to really understand what happened. i think in the ussr, because of the threat of capitalist infiltration (same with the US) they had to get more and more authoritarian, eventually leading to stalinism and the evenutally total beauracratic corruption. its hard to say if communism always leads to authoritarian states because of the spy games that occur. thats why im for a global worker revolution, i dont think, if such strong capitalist forces like the US remain, that any kind of communist state could exist. the US will always undermine such a threat to its power with war, sanctions, and coup attempts like those occuring in venezuela.

but if you look at a place like cuba, its insane what they can do with what they have. with very little trade they managed to survive as a socialist state for decades. its clear that it CAN work, but the powers that be cannot have that be true. so its hard to say what is truly possible and what are merely pipe dreams.

How Peterson not remember at least one?

i wouldn't blame solely in in the US, regarding USSR, i mean, i'm not denying the influence, post-war america was paranoid with communist influence, but that didn't turn the entire structure of the government authoritarian; i think USSR was becoming authoritarian much before the cold war, Lenin policies, and books as well as Trotsky, was suggesting a much more radical approach of government, that's why they were Bolsheviks. Again, not making an apology to US wilsonianism.

Not all marxists nor all postmodernists

>global warming isn't real because I don't trust anything
Wow... stupider than an ecofascist.

If you don’t know keep your fucking mouth shut.

I don't like peterson but aint the whole thing about marxist thought permeating through leftist idealogues and not actual diehard marxists?

the marxism comes in with the strategy for overthrowing. Rules for Radicals, etc.

The modern left uses a strategy, consciously or unconsciously, built on top of Hegel, sharing many similarities with the subversite strategies of Communism in 50's.
unconstrainedanalytics.org/report-re-remembering-the-mis-remembered-left-the-lefts-strategy-and-tactics-to-transform-america/

The masters will always try to suppress the slaves rising up.

Literally who cares. The debate was shitty, there was barely any confrontation and it was short. The topic of capitalism vs Marxism regarding something as abstract as happiness can not be discussed in a few hours by two guys.

I didn't say that, I said the mainstream version of it is a complete misrepresentation and that's where the kids get their facts from. I don't know how old you are but i've seen many media pushed doomsdays in my time, hell, even with global warming they said most of us would be underwater by now. We are way past due for having no ozone layer and getting sunburnt in seconds.

The media pushes the 97% figure a lot which is a figure that discounts all opinions from scientists who say 'im not sure'. Even that 97% (which only comes from a small subsample of scientists) is only saying 97% of that subsample believes humans have SOME effect which is a nobrainer, it's not saying 97% of scientists believe that at this rate we will be fucked within 10, 100, 200 or however many years they are currently saying, it keeps getting pushed back as we fail to meet their estimates.

All that is besides the point though that what he said was completely retarded. He implied that kids are smart because they take an unbiased look at biased "facts".

Seriously. Nietzsche is a postmodern neomarxist? Gtfo pseud

I think it was not about belief but action. We all believe change needs to happen, why are only the kids doing anything?

Doing what? crying about it? they are not the only people doing this but it is childlike to complain about something without offering any semblance of a realistic solution.

That makes a lot of sense though as his whole career is built entirely on doing that about capitalism.

ITT: right-wing booklets
>postmodernism: there are no metanarratives anymore
>Marxists: the proletariat will overthrow capitalism; class struggle is the motor of history
>postmodernism: let's focus on identities, discoursively perpetuated oppression
>Marxism: only the revolutionary proletariat matters, identity is bourgeois consciousness, class struggle is ontological and not symbolic

>inb4 more brainlets
Google the words you don't understand, k?

Only Jameson is a valid name on that list.

You know you can be a Marxist capitalist right?

ok daddy.

except for all the sea ice melting and the increasingly hotter years, i guess you could that their predictions didnt come true....

the unrealistic solution is doing nothing. there are scientists and engineers with solutions, the problem is politics and the ruling class not wanting to let go of their money.

it is not a philosopher's nor a psychoanalyst's job to solve the problems inherent to biogenetics, climate change, cybernetics, etc. his job is to figure out what the problems are and why we refuse to take the problems seriously.

Althusser and Adorno are valid too.

You guys don't fucking READ do you?
Postmodernism is a fucking critique of modernity, it's not written in support of any of this shit. Jameson was a post modernist because he criticised the way modernity is destroying identity (hence the label schizophrenic)

Not really marxists

Mark Blyth
youtube.com/watch?v=Z8rU09IkqS4

I've read them both extensively. Both were for the LTV their whole lives, remained Marxists till their last breath while being critical of the USSR, both criticized severely the '68 idiots.

You are wrong.

>Althusser
>not really a marxist
niqqa what

He even defended the idea that Marxism is a science till the very end, so idk what that comrade is all about.

>except for all the sea ice melting and the increasingly hotter years, i guess you could that their predictions didnt come true....
You are moving the goalposts, I never said it had zero truth to it, I said the mainstream medias portrayal of it (where the kids get their facts from) wasnt true.

>the unrealistic solution is doing nothing. there are scientists and engineers with solutions, the problem is politics and the ruling class not wanting to let go of their money.
Tell me a couple of these solutions and I will debunk them.

>it is not a philosopher's nor a psychoanalyst's job to solve the problems inherent to biogenetics, climate change, cybernetics, etc. his job is to figure out what the problems are and why we refuse to take the problems seriously.
Well a big problem is that they constantly lie about the facts and cry about it without a solution which causes people to disregard the whole problem, he is contributing to the problem by running his mouth about things he clearly doesn't understand and discrediting the anti global warming movement.

Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams and their offspring.

well, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel energy. the problem is transitioning to a completely renewable energy system. the problem has always been, can the economy handle it, not is it possible to stop using fossil fuels. and doing that requires the political will and the complete fucking of oil industries worldwide. but we should do it and we need to do it. also, energy will be cheap af. no need to buy gas for your car anymore. but thats not something the people at the top want, do they? so all this massive resistance to it is only helping some greedy fucking jew steal from all of us.

>Well a big problem is that they constantly lie about the facts and cry about it without a solution which causes people to disregard the whole problem, he is contributing to the problem by running his mouth about things he clearly doesn't understand and discrediting the anti global warming movement.
They do enough to discredit themselves considering that the end of our species is preferable to coexisting with such insufferable individuals.

exactly, climate change deniers is just one big death cult

Leftists and their life-cult suck all human potential out of the species. Nonexistence is preferable to coexistence with those monsters.

>three more dead man
The Marxists, where are they?
youtube.com/watch?v=ySKgtr7sYtw

damn user. i remember when i was edgy too.

I love how the right eventually overtook the cynical nihilist market. They used to be the most vocal about "values", "religion", "order", and so on, and now their newest generation's life goal is to trigger liberals on twitter, masturbate at the extinction of our species, and their political praxis is constrained to voting to meme candidates like Trump who is the epitome of the valueless, rootless urbanite.

Attached: images.jpg (700x1080, 72K)

Just name some solutions to global warming rather than saying "there are a lot"

I agree that more nuclear energy would be a step in the right direction but I disagree that the problem in getting there is politics or the ruling class, I think that's more of a problem with the average persons stigma towards it. You can say that they were brainwashed by propaganda into it but that's in the past.

The problem isn't as simple as getting our rulers to step aside and allow more renewable energy usage. More renewable resources being used will just reduce the demand for fossil fuels and lower the price, the third world will swoop in and start buying them. How elastic is the demand for cheaper energy? my guess is that it is quite high. This will essentially just be a tax from the first world to the third, is that objectively a good thing? I don't know, it's complicated.

In the fields of study those men created. Cultural studies as we know them developed out of Marxism. Orthodox Marxism has been so thoroughly refuted and developed that embracing it is like fighting a modern war with stick and slings, but elements of it remain in many fields.

The left has achieved a cultural hegemony and institutional control so powerful that only the partial destruction of the current system can change it in the slightest. There's really nothing left for anyone outside of the left to hope for except destruction.

Almost all whine about the very same things Peterson is whining about

>I still can't name Marxists
okay
>Cultural studies as we know them developed out of Marxism.
Not really. If anything, it was (and continues to be) a protest and attack against Marxism.
See: The general vibe I get from you is that you are totally unfamiliar with the humanities and you just want to hate them en bloc.

This is another hilarity: Foucault (whom'st Peterson asserts he read, "or TRIED to read") would agree that "your a whyte male" types of patterns in culture are totally oppressive.

>where are the capitalists, Zizek?

postmodern neomarxist is such a ridiculous hodgepodge bastard of a nonsense phrase

what are some other funny names to call people who disagree with me?

>accelerationist neofeudalists
>panslavonic web-anchorites

help me out Yea Forums

In power?

Attached: Capitalists laughing at the American people.png (440x280, 216K)

alt right

>Muslim fundamentalist Stirnerites
>American "white" supremacists

>Not really. If anything, it was (and continues to be) a protest and attack against Marxism.
It's merely a recognition of the the failures of orthodox Marxism. They still are informed by the ideas of Marx even if they have moved on.

The idea that Marxists need to be named for Marxist influence to bee present is just another attempt by the broader left, who regardless of their disagreements will always form the needed coalitions (They're always thinking of Spain, and they don't want another repeat of that) to protect their precious think tanks. The problem is the obsession with Marxists that come out of Peterson types trying to revive Red scare fears in the boomers. The left is a complex organism and obsessing over one of its facets does not help create an understanding of them. If anything it only aids them in their acts of misdirection.

>GOD EMPEROR TRUMP IS A SELF MADE CAPITALIST GENIUS
>STEVE JOBS REVOLUTIONIZED THE MARKET HE BECAME A MUST READ IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS ALL AROUND THE WORLD
>>>where are the capitalists, Zizek?

Attached: 1.png (593x368, 252K)

>failures of orthodox Marxism
foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/11/03/better-red-than-unfed-a-survey-of-post-communism/

>teacher in school said that communism was bad
>corporate produced documentaries show us how communism bad
>commies BTFO

>Trump
like people had much of a choice in voting for him.

>Soviet style state communism is the same as orthodox Marxist analysis
Are we even having the same conversation?

I agree with you. Even Zizek preferred him over mrs. "we came we saw he died"

oh man when did most governments turn into communism holy shit time to burn all my money

i think its necessary to make some kind of treaty that bans fossil fuels worldwide by some future date, including in any third world country (and we should refuse to trade with anyone that doesnt). its a global problem that will affect everyone, so i dont see the problem with getting everyone on board for that. the problem is they want to industrialize, obviously, and fossil fuels make that quick and dirty. so we have a tech problem - how do we replace fossil fuels so that the replacement is just as efficient and scalable, a political problem - appeasing the controllers of oil so that its not "unfair" to them (obviously, as a marxist, i just say fuck em, but i guess they dont like that), and an economic-political problem - what do we do with all the workers currently employed in fossil fuels, as well as the countries that need oil to become a modernized country? its difficult for sure, but its not impossible. but we dont want to do it yet, or at least the oil controllers dont want us to do it, ever, and its been a problem of convincing them this is a serious problem and we have to do it since the the 80s. and they just keep fucking gaslighting us while the evidence and the bodies pile up.

post-empirical anarchomonarchists

>Marxists, are, like, liberals, mane

>postmodern condition
>not itself a metanarrative
'I made up stories, I referred to a quantity of books I'd never read, apparently it impressed people, it's all a bit of parody ... It's simply the worst of my books, they're almost all bad, but that one's the worst' -Lyotard on "the Postmodern Condition"

>oh man when did most governments turn into communism holy shit time to burn all my money
The left knows that we are not in a revolutionary moment. They have acted in such a way as to colonize every existing social space. The universities are the fourth and most powerful branch of our government. This is because they are ultimately the ones who select the individuals to lead in both the public and private sector. Though they don't have full control, they can make all business bend a knee, so their power will continue to grow.
>accelerationist neofeudalists
Some form of eofuedalism is the inevitable conclusion to what most accelerationists support.

I specifically stated that the broader left is in no way homogeneous. It encompasses everyone from left-liberals to anarchists to tankies to demsocs, etc. Understanding the coalition they form (through what is ultimately fundamental moral agreement) and how Marxism informs thoughts and strategy is important. Do you just like repeating the epic owns you read on left-twitter?

> Marxism informs thoughts and strategy is important.
While not reducing it all to Marxism.

Sorry, I just feel like I need to be explicit with you.

I don't really understand what you are saying, user. I am asking for realistic solutions to the problem and you are posing something completely unrealistic. I don't believe that it's only unrealistic because of oil barons and jewish overlords either, I think getting the whole world to agree with it wouldn't work regardless.

>convince them it's a serious problem
It's not a serious problem if you are on the verge of death right now. You are essentially advocating letting some poor people suffer more or die right now (because of added inefficiency and restrictions on cheap energy) for the long term survival of people who already live relatively comfortable lives. There is clearly a point where you can go too far in restricting cheap energy, it's not as simple as stopping it entirely, and it's not because of the joos. You have a very simplistic idea of the problem, you could say childish.

>the universities are the fourth and most powerful branch of government

ahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaahahhahahahahahhhahahhahahhahahaa ok user.

maybe harvard and other ivy league schools. they certainly teach marx there, but i have a feeling they learn only to be able to better crush any unwanted prope uprisings rather than become marxists themselves.

>They have acted in such a way as to colonize every existing social space.
The "left" you refer to (let's just call them post-68 liberals) made mild cultural progress post-68 (thank them that you can kiss your gf on the street and not get frowned upon, btw) sacrificing the very economic gains of the working class Marxists always emphasized. The neoliberal of today is the blind admirer of both of these facts and their hysteria stems from trying to stick to their already "successful tactic" (of abandoning the workers) for more LGBT rights. Again, if you don't understand that this has nothing to do with Marxism, then nobody can help you.

>The universities are the fourth and most powerful branch of our government.
I've been to three unis, all humanities. Never once have I met a Marxist professor. In fact, I've heard stories of them firing people who dared to bring up Capital before I got there. The majority of the professors you'd consider to be left were into Lyotard, anti-collectivist post-leftism, deconstructing normatives and so on -- but even they were an absolute minority compared to the hegemonic fanfare that surrounds capitalism, business, progress, the end of history.

>Though they don't have full control
These pomo types I mentioned have absolutely no control, in fact, their very ideologies prevent them from assuming any kind of power.

>they can make all business bend a knee
Kek. It's like I'm talking to an alien here. If you are referring to shit like the Ghost Busters all-female cast and so on, you are noticing how capitalist corporations understood how your stupid alt-right vs. liberalism culture politics is actually incredibly profitable to them, so they started using it consciously. If a director of a movie says "if u dont liek me movie, u r nazi" it generates 2 million tweets and 50k youtube vids from both sides which is free advertisment and tickets sold for them.

WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS, BILLY?

yeah but left libs suck and are gay as fuck

You'll still work with them whenever even the slightest adversity rears its head.

>thank them that you can kiss your gf on the street and not get frowned upon, btw
I unironically think this is a bad thing for society but i'm a virgin.

>unis
All of mine pushed diversity to obscene levels, admission/scholarships based on race, pushing the concepts in certain classes etc., if

a lot of them will vote for kamala or buttigieg because of idpol. fuck that shit man, they arent real allies

What "concepts"? Did they teach you about dialectical materialism? Class struggle? Soviet and anarchist history?

They are liberals, man. They like capitalism and fail to understand that maybe growing racism in the US has to do something with the cheap labor coming from Mexico, i.e. due to fucking capitalism.

itt updated version of "fourier = marx"

>Whitehead
>Pinker
>Dennett
>Heidegger
>Nietzsche
>Bataille
>marxists
user watcha doin

i.e. all revolutionaries in history brought up on us the same devastation so they are the same regardless of historical conditions or the nuances of their thinking, aka. reactionary thinking, aka. "I'm a dumb shit and proud of it"

for the reactionary, any form of social criticism is automatically branded as the boogeyman. of course, when they do their backwards criticism of "progressives", it is just common sense

Didn't the last election prove that the establishment will not allow anyone to the left of Hillary? Wasn't it already proven that they cheated Bernie from winning the primary, someone who would be considered a mild socdem in Europe? Why do you think that is, my big brained friend?

Don't you think that Marxist already knew this? We had someone called Allende in the past who was your typical "playing by the rules" guy and was couped by the US. We had Marxists in pre-WW2 Germany killed by socdems, ultimately leading to the rise of Hitler.

Don't you think we'd learn from our own history?

what is "you"? chapotraphouse redditors? that's not marxism

>The "left" you refer to (let's just call them post-68 liberals) ...
Their reforms are motivated by the same moral principles that draw other people to whatever position within the broader left they fall on. For that reason they will always cooperate against those whose politics are motivated by a different moral position and those on the outside cannot view the different ideologies as discreet entities. You might be embarrassed by left-liberals, but they are still your allies.
>I've been to three unis, all humanities. Never once have I met a Marxist professor. In fact, I've heard stories of them firing people who dared to bring up Capital before I got there. The majority of the professors you'd consider to be left were into Lyotard, anti-collectivist post-leftism, deconstructing normatives and so on -- but even they were an absolute minority compared to the hegemonic fanfare that surrounds capitalism, business, progress, the end of history.
I had several Marxist professors. And their classes involved the using the work of Marx, Benjamin, Lefebvre, Althusser, etc. to engage with and analyze culture. Even the business ethics class I took had a section about Marxist critique of capitalism. I went to a pretty shitty school, but I was very much exposed to it.
>These pomo types I mentioned have absolutely no control, in fact, their very ideologies prevent them from assuming any kind of power.
Academics through their institutional control are the gatekeepers of all social mobility. Their control over the educated labor force gives them power over both individuals and businesses.
>you are noticing how capitalist corporations understood how your stupid alt-right vs. liberalism culture politics is actually incredibly profitable to them
It's more that an educated labor force is incorporating elements of the of what they learned as a form of activism. Companies go along with it because they require that specialized labor force, and because the political left has so much concentrated economic power that appealing to them is the most lucrative option. It's more like the Rural Purge than it is trying to play both sides.

So what should I read of Zizek?

Attached: zizek.png (840x455, 562K)

>Marxism
>moral principle
He was the anti-moralist par excellence, you miserable brainlet.

It wasn't proven, I didn't see that much support for him and could easily believe him losing legitimately but I wouldn't be surprised either way. I think the more telling event from modern politics is the fact that Brexit still hasn't happened, which makes the whole system a sham.

I was talking about leftists in general and not Marx. While Marx's analysis may be amoral (even though it is dripping with moral language to the point where he had to address it), the man himself and his personal involvement with the socialist movement indicates that he shared these sentiments. There were plenty of other things he could have done with his knowledge, and aiding capitalists could have been one of them.
Are you the guy who tried to define Marxism as whatever it was the Soviets did? I'm explicitly saying that Marxism does not encompass the entirety of of the left. I'm merely saying that those whose ideas are informed by the work of Marx and later Marxists will fall into line with left-liberals when push comes to shove. I'm sure plenty chapoheads are conscious of those ideas and that they influence their political understanding and strategy.

>Academics through their institutional control are the gatekeepers of all social mobility
No they are not, it is not as if they can fail students for not being left enough. Nor do the students immediately make bank when they leave university except huge amount of debt. At best they are the one that maintains the illusion of social mobility. Read Micheal Young.

>I had several Marxist professors. And their classes involved the using the work of Marx, Benjamin, Lefebvre, Althusser, etc. to engage with and analyze culture. Even the business ethics class I took had a section about Marxist critique of capitalism. I went to a pretty shitty school, but I was very much exposed to it.
Again, this is liberalism. I asked you before: did they teach you dialectical-materialism? Soviet and anarchist history? etc.

It is not us, Marxists, teaching you how to CULTURALLY analyze capitalism or how to talk about capitalism through the lens of ETHICS. We want to overthrow capitalism ECONOMICALLY and we don't give a shit about ETHICS. What you were "exposed to" is the politically-correct and watered down faux-radicalism of conveyor belt professors. The professors who teach you to be so "self-conscious" and "radical" that by your thirties you'll be a Hillary voter crying about Russiagate.

cont.

>the man himself and his personal involvement with the socialist movement indicates that he shared these sentiments.
lmao he was shitting on and criticizing members of the movement all the time. In fact this has become a tradition that the Left does it all the time. This guilt by association argument is flimsy at best.

To quote Adorno:
>Even intellectuals who have all the political arguments against bourgeois ideology handy, are subjected to a process of standardization which, whether in crassly contrasting content or through the readiness on their part to be comfortable, brings them closer to the prevailing Spirit [Geist], such that their standpoint objectively becomes always more arbitrary, dependent on flimsy preferences or their estimation of their own chances. What appears to them as subjectively radical, objectively belongs through and through to the compartment of a schema, reserved for them and their kind, so that radicalism is degraded to abstract prestige, the legitimation of those who know what today’s intellectuals should be for and against. The good things, for which they opt, have long since been acknowledged, their numbers accordingly limited, as fixed in the value-hierarchy as those in the student fraternities. While they denounce official kitsch, their sensibility is dependent, like obedient children, on nourishment already sought out in advance, on the cliches of hostility to cliches. [...] That all cultural products, even the non-conformist ones, are incorporated into the mechanism of distribution of large-scale capital, that in the most developed lands a creation which does not bear the imprimatur of mass production can scarcely reach any readers, observers, or listeners, refuses the material in advance for the deviating longing. Even Kafka is turned into a piece of inventory in the rented apartment. Intellectuals themselves are already so firmly established, in their isolated spheres, in what is confirmed, that they can no longer desire anything which is not served to them under the brand of “highbrow”. Their sole ambition consists of finding their way in the accepted canon, of saying the right thing. The outsider status of the initiates is an illusion and mere waiting-time. It would be giving them too much credit to call them renegades; they wear overlarge horn-rimmed glasses on their mediocre faces, solely to better pass themselves off as “brilliant” to themselves and to others in the general competition. They are already exactly like them.

>It wasn't proven
Except Wikileaks proved it via the e-mail leaks. Except Trump keeps taunting Bernie for this very fact. Except hundred thousands of young voters kept complaining that they wanted to vote for Bernie and the Democratic party purged their names from the lists beforehand.

>Marx's analysis [...] is dripping with moral language to the point where he had to address it
Let me guess, you are referring (with Peterson) to the Manifesto. It's a fucking agitprop piece, you dumbass. You can not agitate politically without referring to the people's sense of right and wrong. That does not imply that Marx's method of analysis had anything to do with morality. You were duped by a pseudointellectual.

>Are you the guy who tried to define Marxism as whatever it was the Soviets did?
I didn't "define" it as such, but the soviets were Marxist.

This. If you really wanna read about "leftists getting OWNED EPIC STYLE" you should read Marx's criticisms of Bakunin, Stirner, Proudhon, the Gotha Programme, etc. The guy was a fucking beast.

>It is not us, Marxists, teaching you how to CULTURALLY analyze capitalism or how to talk about capitalism through the lens of ETHICS.
Analyzing culture through class relations and the base-superstructure dynamic seems awfully Marxist to me. So does using a Marxist understanding of Capitalism when decisions.
>We want to overthrow capitalism ECONOMICALLY
This is an ethical position. I don't know why you think "capitalism ought to be overthrown" is not one, but it is.

>Analyzing culture through class relations and the base-superstructure dynamic seems awfully Marxist to me.
Yes, THAT WOULD be awfully Marxist. Except "somehow" these professors forget about how the proletariat is the revolutionary class that must overthrow the bourgeoisie in a bloody revolution and institute state terror against their return. Except "somehow" these professors substitute capitalism's inherent contradictions with moral tropes. Except "somehow" these professors forget to tell you about historical materialism, of how capitalism is at best a mild improvement over feudalist class relations.

What I'm trying to get at: your faux-radical professors gave you a neutered analysis that "somehow" left out the fucking BASE from the base-superstructure model.

>>We want to overthrow capitalism ECONOMICALLY
>This is an ethical position.
No, it is not. Saying that "I want to overthrow capitalism because it oppresses furries and that is bad" is an ethical position. Saying that communism would be a far more superior socio-economic system that wouldn't suffer a capitalist crisis every 10 years devastating the populace isn't.

His book on Violence. Or his books on Christianity if u r a Petersonfag.

>Let me guess, you are referring (with Peterson) to the Manifesto
Specifically, I'm referring to one of his footnotes in Capital.
>That does not imply that Marx's method of analysis had anything to do with morality.
Again, as I said in my previous post:
> While Marx's analysis may be amoral
I am fully agreeing with you on this one. I argued that Marx the man still had moral principles that led him to be actively involved with the socialist movement for his entire life.
I've spent this thread arguing that left is rather diverse in their solutions to and even the political problems they recognize. That doesn't change the fact that in today's political landscape, they will fall -in line to oppose the right. For that reason, no matter how much they bicker, it would be dumb for someone on the outside to believe that their differences make them discrete entities in any meaningful sense.
>Except "somehow" these professors forget to tell you about historical materialism, of how capitalism is at best a mild improvement over feudalist class relations.
That was explicitly stated in the ethics class I took. You're much further from the fringes than you really think.
>Saying that communism would be a far more superior socio-economic system that wouldn't suffer a capitalist crisis every 10 years devastating the populace isn't.
Sure. That is not an ethical statement. When you jump from that to "we ought to overthrow capitalism," you are taking an ethical position. I honestly don't think you even know what ethics is.

>they will fall -in line to oppose the right. For that reason, no matter how much they bicker, it would be dumb for someone on the outside to believe that their differences make them discrete entities in any meaningful sense.
But you still can't paint everyone with such a board stroke just coz they oppose the Right. This is just brainlet tier tribalism.

I’m willing to recognize their internal differences. It just isn’t anywhere near as meaningful to me as it is to you. I oppose the fundamental moral principles that guide the left. I may hate anarchists more than talkies, but I know that they both will play for the same team in opposition to me.

Anarchists and "tankies" make up about 1% of what you call the "broad left".

Stop *clap* wasting *clap* your *clap* life *clap* talking *clap about *clap* marxism

Capitalism doesn’t have much of a future (in the west at the very least), so their relevance is always increasing. Left-liberals will soon be forced to take one side or another.

>I oppose the fundamental moral principles that guide the left.
But most leftists aren't under the moral principles that you assume all are because of your stupid tribalism

>jameson is a post modernist because he critiqued the way modernity is destroying identity
except his book is not called modernity: the logic of late capitalism, is it? he isn't a post-modernist, you're making the same mistake as peterson and confusing him with precisely the thing he's critiquing

Oh thank god you missed an asterisk after the fifth clap I don't have to listen to you.

Anarchists are just as likely to team up with the right as the left. You sound like a dumb anglocuck. Teams, pshaw!

>Capitalism doesn’t have much of a future
Due to its inner contradictions and not due to some evil Marxist overlord and his minions meddling with it.

The guy already said that he was severely indoctrinated with Marxism in his university while he's obviously not familiar with basic terminology. He is a liar, and a bad one at that.

I don’t think I’ve even stated what I at the very least believe that position to be. As far as I can tell it is the belief that human life is of the highest moral value and that society should be organized in the way that best protects it. That is enough to bring together all groups that make up the broader left.

You are talking about humanism, Pinocchio. Marx was an anti-humanist, just so you know.

Attached: 1.png (502x567, 208K)

>Due to its inner contradictions and not due to some evil Marxist overlord and his minions meddling with it.
Partially, I think it has to do with Chinese exacerbating these contradictions and that their ability to do so comes from their understanding of Marx. Again, my concern is with the left in general and the aspects of their understanding which are derived from Marx and later marxists. I may not have been clear, but I specifically oppose the creation of Marxist boogeymen but support identifying and understanding the many places Marx readers his head in contemporary discourse.
> He is a liar, and a bad one at that.
That’s a different poster. I haven’t said a thing about Jameson in this thread.

>Jameson was a post modernist

Attached: jamesonblam.jpg (680x345, 89K)

So you're just a sociopath?

>Partially, I think it has to do with Chinese exacerbating these contradictions and that their ability to do so comes from their understanding of Marx.
I'd agree to that, but let it be said that they came from literal shithole-tier third world conditions to where they are now. It's not as if they'd fit the (((le))) image of the alt-right as you rightly point out. They did proper economics and here they are 60 years later, second on the global map.

>That’s a different poster.
Sorry about that.

>Partially, I think it has to do with Chinese exacerbating these contradictions and that their ability to do so comes from their understanding of Marx.
So you concede the Marxist analysis is correct.

I’m just someone who believes that there are things more valuable than human life and that an value life has derived from dedicating energy towards the continuation of that thing (in my case, it’s complex state-oriented society. In the case if others it’s property or god. Those obsessed with property generally are sociopaths.)

There two most prominent types of edgy late-teens political ideologies is centrism ("I'm above ideologies, I'm all about issues. Also: horseshoe.") and nihilist cynicism ("Crunching popcorn while we die out") with a good amount of egotism. While the latter is considered edgier (since the former is p. much the perpetuated technocratic mainstream), both are typical symptoms of post-modernity itself, their defining attributes are their position towards the spectacle (the former doesn't even realize that it exists, while the latter thinking he's above it, enjoys it) and ethics (vague liberal/secular/christian humanism on the one hand and egotism on the other). Meh, at least the cynical nihilists read (Stirner, Nietzhsce, Land), so there's hope for them.

Or, now that I see, he might be just your standard technocrat. Probably STEM-fag:

>Those obsessed with property generally are sociopaths
Is this the typical
>"materialism" (as in obsession with money") = materialism (ontological position")
bullshit?

why does everybody ignore the fact that zizek himself names several of the marxists within seconds of asking this question?

Attached: 1539904433801.jpg (421x389, 26K)

No, I only meant that ancaps and libertarians are generally sociopaths.

>Or, now that I see, he might be just your standard technocrat. Probably STEM-fag:
Couldn’t be further from the truth. One of my inspirations is the hatred I have for technocracy and the influence of stem fields over culture that have developed since the tech-boom.

wow read the fucking thread you lazy piece of shit

no

If you're not a bourgeois individualist and you worship the social organism you might be closer to a communist than you think.

Heideggerian? Zizek writes sum cool shit in either Violence or in his In Defence of Lost Causes. I forgot which.

Peterstein is a fucking brainlet who's propped up to keep white people on the liberal plantation.
Zizek's anti-capitalism necessarily leads to fascism, even though he himself isn't a fascist.

Attached: 1539703088208.jpg (367x446, 41K)

>the Marxists, Jordan, where are they?

Attached: 123123.png (662x471, 103K)

>cries about liberals
>posts about muh horseshoe
Read a book, maybe?

I'm not horseshoe posting, I'm nazbol posting.

He names the ones who are so obscure as fuck who actually talk about marxism

his point was that those Marxist don't fit the idea of postmodern Marxism that Peterson talks about

>I was talking about leftists/rightists in general
how to out yourself as a total fucking retard 101