WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS JORDAN

>Nietzsche listed twice
>Lacan
>Whitehead

based retard

>Marx is a neomarxist
???

I love this pasta because it literally never fails to get bites

By "cultural marxists in university" most people mean pic related, so, really they mean neoliberal rich or rich-adjacent people who dabble (ineptly) in critical theory to write trendy lib-progressive horseshit about queering queerness or performative embodiment, and often consider themselves some kind of "Marxist" despite being a rich cunt who drinks two $6 coffees every day

Individually these people are weak, pathetic conformists, but when they make up 80-90% of the academy it's pretty stifling, and they gradually push a lot of infantilizing policy through that makes things even worse

Attached: 1565423261211.jpg (1264x1888, 647K)

vocaroo.com/i/s0nosuo282JQ
:3

are any of those people Marxists though? it doesn't look like any of them are studying Marx

>Now yes most of them may be dead
you played yourself

rachel is qt and you just know she's a freak in bed

The Brazilian girl is very stereotypical desu. Dyed hair, looks like she does anal for fun, graduated from a liberal Catholic very expensive college....

t. have been in the BR uni system for 14 years

Academic culture is inherently Marxist and biased to some degree.

Just like how Charles Darwin has exerted an influence on academic culture as well :3

Do you have any statistics on that? The stats that Peterson presented made Marxism a minority in even the most Marxists of disciplines

Marx is mentioned profusely in most 'newer' academic disciplines like Feminism or any sort of culturally progressive sociology classes.

What does that tell you about Marxism?

>most academics use philosophical schools for their own ends
There probably isn't a single school of philosophy that hasn't been completely bastardized by the academy.

read the rest retard

has he become a snake oil merchant now?

Attached: peterstein.png (533x508, 199K)

That it's more relevant to newer academic disciplines like feminism? Not quite sure what that proves user, correlation isn't causation. What does "profusely" mean in this context? Any stats you have are appreciated. Most of the feminists I knew in university were intersectional feminists, the last one I dated made fun of me for being a Marxist. I was in a political science program in a left wing university and I was one of 3 people I knew that identified as communist. If your boogeyman Marxist academia existed I probably would have done much better on my essays.

>WHAT im NOT a retard i just share some point of views -_-xDDDD

>now

where is the proof that he has stuck to this diet? and i'm sure he made the results of the blood work available publicly

It's triple chocolate dipped bait.

>implying that the ghosts of people lie Raymond Williams and Stuart hall don't haunt every single cultural studies and social science department

The presence of any Marxists is a pressing social problem.

vocaroo.com/i/s08365qiq5vX

I think you are a Marxist and you don't realize it: their favorite kind of Marxist. :3

I don't want to hear your faggy voice ever again

Uhh user, I'm a communist, might want to read my post again. My point was that most people in academia are liberal, and you actually go in there as a serious Marxists you are sidelined pretty quickly.

why do you slur your words like that? drunk or like a head injury or something?

You mean a neoliberal? It all depends on what college you go to.

Many colleges have a Marxist bent but there are definitely more conservative universities.

Never reply to me again :3

I'm thinking about what to say next when you hear pauses. I am typically speaking to a large amount of people. :3

>neoliberal
No, most of them are just milquetoast liberals, unconcerned with the market, hyperfocued on individuality and identity. My school was one of the first in Canada to have transgender bathrooms, it was not conservative by any stretch of the imagination

>"unwatchable/extreme cinema
>lars von trier

Attached: 1565788721125.jpg (377x264, 23K)

desu Antichrist had some pretty extreme shit it in it, and most of his movies I consider unwatchable

I'm sure they agree with conflict theory to the point where they can be described as Marx's intellectual descendants.

vocaroo.com/i/s04Gy0hJgYmM

:3

I like this because it works both ways if you read it wrong like I did.

I made it through less than 8 seconds; your voice actually disgusts me so you don't deserve a reply

Good Guy Greg is here for you :3

Attached: cfbd973e4c7f199b04271259f4f9efa2db41d7474c2971e8233121ae73f7c10d.jpg (600x594, 66K)

vocaroo.com/i/s0i7ZzluPl9H

I bet you're the one who made the plea for usernames earlier this week. fuck off

Attached: -016.jpg (460x276, 19K)

no one likes you

Butterfly does.

There should be some accountability for what we say, but I was not the one who made that plea, no. :3

>queer theory
>theology

Attached: Mikersoft+paynt+_b8b3c240e1ea918170c0a00e5249f795.jpg (957x621, 71K)

vocaroo.com/i/s10QaPWZVcvs

>Why aren't there any jobs in Biblical studies any more user, why have Churches stopped sponsoring theology placements?

vocaroo.com/i/s01tEoif04lL

:3

>50 pund weight loss? Jordon Peterson was a weed already, 50 pounds is like losing 60% of his body mass.

you're honestly a million times worse than butterfly imo

Ansel? Who is Ansel?

I remember when he was on Rogan the second time and he asked him why he looked so emaciated

"Postmodern neo-Marxism" is an American ideology, it's a mistake to attribute it to French philosophy. It's what you get when you take a Communist shell and replace it with race struggle (and later, other marginalized groups). The main difference between Communism and American Progressivism is that Communism asserts that social phenomena are derived from the relation of production within society, whereas American Progressivism asserts that social ills are derived from racism. As opposed to the contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of of production leading to the Communist mode of production, American Progressivism imagines an ongoing interrogation of American values at a given time by "marginalized groups" (especially blacks) to point out contradictions between alleged American values as stated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights and the values actually present at said time. The endpoint of Marxist thought is the realization of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of class society (in the Marxist sense). The endpoint of Progressive thought is a society in which previously marginalized groups feel included within society and aren't deprived of their autonomy or treated unfairly, or more succintly, the more perfect realization of Anglo values.

For example, a Communist would say that racism is a bourgeois phenomenon used to divide the global proletariat and frustrate the class struggle and seizure of the means of production. For a Progressive capitalism is a form of racism, taking its inspiration from slavery, designed to unfairly elevate privileged groups and exploit marginalized groups.

It's because I make you 'feel' worse.

Whatever that means.

Unlike her, I'm not a Stoic. I don't care about the collective 'feeling well' of the majority. I know that in the long-run, I have a much better effect on all of your lives, existentially. :3

How much responsibility am I supposed to take on from J.P's perspective?
He says as much as I can bear but I know I could handle far more but it seems awful?

>The endpoint of Progressive thought is a society in which previously marginalized groups feel included within society and aren't deprived of their autonomy or treated unfairly, or more succintly, the more perfect realization of Anglo values.
You can replace progressive with Capitalist.
Capitalism wants extra worker to increase profit. Extra workers = women, blacks, immigrants etc...
About LGBT, Capital favorize them because they are light years from class struggle. Identity rights is a diversion from class struggle.
Gay pride good. Working class strike bad.

Blurring things together is a sign of bad eyesight

Racial/sexual/etc nepotism is an inefficiency in the capitalist system which is why corporations are progressive.

I'd want to hang out with these people if I thought their research into these topics would actually be honest. Those are all interesting topics, but to get at the meat requires wading through the political spinning (or outright lying) and also doing lots of work to pick up what they've deliberately excluded due to political concerns and fear of losing their jobs and being ostracised by their set or even families.

>neoliberal
They're social democrats, not neoliberals. Stop misusing this term. Neoliberalism is ruthlessly cutting the humanities for being unproductive and privatizing everything, which these people would obviously oppose.

Whatever dude.

I'm not a Marxist, I view both Communism and Progressivism as forms of liberalism. Progressivism should be distinguished from capitalism due to its uniquely Anglo character and roots in the English language itself.

Not really. Most of those laws in an American context were born out of a conscious effort to engineer a Black middle class following the Civil Rights era, as part of a wider effort to portray the United States as having "reformed" its racist past, which needs to be viewed in light of the fact that Russia was winning victory after victory in the Third World at the time.

nu-Yea Forums, in it's more pure form, exposed for all to see

>burgercentrism
this is a global phenomenon

Yeah, you just outed yourself alright

Due to cultural exports from burgeristan.

Only due to American power. Not to say that it wouldn't exist at all, though.

>Progressivism should be distinguished from capitalism due to its uniquely Anglo character and roots in the English language itself.
French also has progressives. As germans and Scandinavians.
The Anglos are, with the jews, the vanguard of the Capital. Thus it's normal that they promote progresive ideology, which favors the Capital. Feminism equals extra workers (women) Mass immigration equals extra workers. LGBT: diversion from class struggle. By the way, your analysis could even have been some kind of right, but very recently, Japan organized mass immigration. Proving that the Capital dictate the politics, and not the other way round.
In any case, you don't understand that it's not the ideology which defines the mode of production, but the mode of production which defines the ideology. It's not the progressives which promotes Capitalism, but Capitalism which promotes progressivism. An ideology is only the reflect of the material condition of production.

Uncoincidentally, those cultures are closest to the English. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Sweden, especially, take to Progressivism so naturally.

>In any case, you don't understand that it's not the ideology which defines the mode of production, but the mode of production which defines the ideology. It's not the progressives which promotes Capitalism, but Capitalism which promotes progressivism. An ideology is only the reflect of the material condition of production.
Yes, I know what Marxism says. Like I said before, they're both just forms of liberalism. I view ideologies as driven by the needs of the power centers within society, not by the mode of production, as any mode of production requires Power to form the relations of production, so Power can't come from the production relation itself.

>liberals in power do liberal things
>this proves it's all capital the nefarious evil force guys!!!

>I view ideologies as driven by the needs of the power centers within society
expand on this

Nobody asked for your opinion, tranny.

Power wants to centralize and/or grow itself. This has basically been the story of liberalism - getting rid of intermediary institutions between Power and the individual (note that this is a loaded concept as it is). Sometimes this can be a troublesome group in society (e.g. nobles in the French Revolutionary era), sometimes it can be a geopolitical rival (see American liberal anti-Communist efforts in WW2).

After WW2 rather.

uhh user i'm a hitlerian

Power doesn't appear in a vacuum. Power is derivated from Capital accumulation. In Capitalism, power comes from Capital. In general, since 12000 BCE (neolitic revolution), power comes from private ownership of land and means of production.

>Uncoincidentally, those cultures are closest to the English. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Sweden, especially, take to Progressivism so naturally.
Those cultures are also the one which were at the Capitalism vanguard. Nederlands with it's first central bank, Denmark. When you have ships like those countries, you can project your power on many foreign markets.

I am a Marxist though. Unironically.

What you don't understand, is that it's induced by a class based society. Put this into the far end of south america, or in a town in north siberia, the same shit will happen. You see power as something evil, independent of the system. If there is room in a system for power to express itself, of course it will happen. Some people, because of their shitty childhood, mental illness, religious commandment (Talmud) whatever, will use the flaws in this system and control it.
Best way to supress power is to take away all the possible levers with which it express itself.

Shut the fuck up, burgoid.

I don't see Power as evil, it just is. I don't believe in suppressing it for the sake of its own suppression (that's basically liberal thought), I want it to be used for morally good ends.

>Power doesn't appear in a vacuum. Power is derivated from Capital accumulation. In Capitalism, power comes from Capital. In general, since 12000 BCE (neolitic revolution), power comes from private ownership of land and means of production.
Where does private ownership come from? Property is a legal, and thus social, relationship that requires some form of Power to recognize and enforce it, it's not just "Grug smash Ug with Ruk. Grug capitalist now!". Coincidentally Lockean thought isn't so far from this.
>I, Nigel, have mixed my labor with this plot of land. It's mine now!

what's your ideology?

I basically support moderate dictatorship.

Know your place.

So what do you want exactly, an equilibrium in Capitalism? The good aspects of Capitalism, without the bad ones?

Okay you just answered. Bad news for you, the Capital don't like dictatorship. As Marx said in 1867, the republic is Capital cherished political system.
We will probably never saw a dictatorship in the west again. Capital has grow way to much powerful.

really does prove that "cultural marxism" is just code for, "things i dont like" huh

As far as capital is concerned, no business can be in conflict with, or in opposition to, the State in any way. Fundamentally, these organizations are making use of State possessions.

>but globalization-
Globalization is contingent on military power to secure trade routes, negotiate trade treaties, protect IP, and so on. It's not a natural state of affairs and relies on a Great Power to promote it (for its own reasons). We're already starting to see a rollback on this front.

Yes Marx has nothing to do with these people, byproducts of Capitalism by the way.
In any case, i would bet $100 that not even 10% of these people have read Marx.

The State is an emanation of the Capital. It's use is to allow and promote the circulation of goods.

Yes, I know what Marxism says, I view this as completely backward for reasons I said above.

Welcome in a few years.

So... state capitalism? You sure you aren't a tankie, user?

There's not really any space for discussion here, you view social phenomena as derived from production relations and I... don't. There's no bridging that divide.

Nazis are culturally marxist. Just think about it.

Is human nature just the sum of social relations too or have you so called materialists bothered to catch up on neuroscience yet?

I'm thinking more along the lines of "do whatever as long as you don't do X" than "I command you to produce Y units of widget W." Obviously there's some space for commands here, but experience shows us that central planning isn't that effective relative to the counterfactual. This is more like the modern PRC than the USSR, except it'd be nice to avoid the stupid stuff of the PRC as well.

Attached: 1558905426889.png (1300x2000, 307K)

It's a combination of both. But predominantly social relation yes. Most psychopaths are not born in loving and intelligent families.

(...) genetics can be considered materialist conditions.

is this just a low effort white supremacist dog whistle? /bellcurve/ hours?

Elaborate Marx's theory of human nature and why you agree/disagree then.

How precisely do social relations transform into personality?
>noticing cross cultural invariants is white supremacy
Black and white thinking is a sign of mental illness.

>How precisely do social relations transform into personality?
You are a result of the meetings (good or bad) you've made during your life.
There are also genetic and epigenetic factors.
However, a human from a primitive tribe living in the amazon will never be a hollywood actor, and whore Sarah Jessica Parker will never be the mother of 8 in the Jungle.

try harder buddy, playing defense against "muh neuroscience" on Yea Forums is a low point i'm not willing to step to. here's how this is gonna go:

greentexting a paraphrased "point," if you can even call it that, and then not explicitly refuting it is about as intellectually dishonest as it comes. employs a sense of deniability, so on and so on until you've abstracted yourself so far from the impersonal irony you're in you become the Tundra

This is quite a simplistic picture, shouldn't there a more comprehensive up to date treatment of this in the Marxist literature? Considering the importance of human psychology to, e.g., fomenting class consciousness. What I'm getting at is I don't see Marxists keeping up with the times, and for supposedly dedicated materialists they more often seem to turn to airy fairy quacks like Lacan to fill in the gaps instead of real science.

What are you trying to say with this neuroscience thing exactly. That some races are superior to other? Some individuals superior to others? Because Marxism is not about this.

I'm only saying Marx's theory of human nature is inadequate and antiquated. You're jumping at shadows seeing /pol/ everywhere.

Nop, so what make a human personality, his genetics? His soul? Because i don't see what you mean by neuroscience.

>Wowow clitoris scene so icky
It's not like she's writing about Salo or August Underground or some shit.

>Deleuze and Guattari
>Adorno
Yeah dude this shit totally springs out of capitalism de novo lmao, fucking chuds.

I was thinking the part where she smashes his dick with a hammer and he cums a bunch of blood

>By "cultural marxists in university" most people mean pic related,
They also mean professors who indoctrinate these youths, including practically all social scientists, and academics in general although others are less explicitly political. Look at the story of James Watson. These people are ideologues first and scientists second, and prefer to reject valid findings when they contradict their world view. Their greatest opponents, in their eyes, are the evolutionary psychologists. They refute the notion of the "blank slate," which is central to socialist ideology, that any man can be molded.

It's clear the ancestral environment plays a larger role than previously thought. Reminder that the USSR banned genetics research and was rigidly Pavlovian as a consequence of Marxist dogma.

Yeah well Capitalism is dominant in western Europa since the 16th century. So the ancestral environment, whatever it was, was already influenced by the Capitalist mode of production.
By the way, most of Marxists today are very critical of USSR. Marxist-Leninist, or Bolshevists, are a minority of Marxists, especially nowadays. They were many until a few decades ago, but today, they are a dying species.
Most of us Marxists are against any State, included the soviet State.

Can we just agree that most of the primary postmodern thinkers were based and had interesting insights to offer, but that these insights were dumbed down and overextended by subsequent commentators for status and for political ends?

With the exception of Derrida, sure.

Why don't marxists (or people claiming to be marxists in opposition to the radical progressives) do anything about these people posturing as themselves? Why are they submitting everytime the idiots start raving about opression?

>Jordan: I want to debate a marxists
>disgusting fat slob: I'm a marxist
>Jordan: Okay lets debate
>*debate begins*
>Jordan: So you're a marxist
>disgusting fat slob: lol no not really XD

Name one interesting insight.

>posturing as themselves
no one in that pic claimed to be a Marxist

I wasn't talking about them especially, I was responding to the post

this so much

Attached: 1555744077396.png (1268x700, 871K)

>moral relativism, gender performance, the death of god, process and denying the One and other satanic ideas
That's just liberalism bro, it's the natural progress of capitalism

Why do most if not all Marxists support pretty much all of that drivel then?

Marx's critique of capitalism is solid, but the solutions he provides are bad and makes humans live like ants.

>and often consider themselves some kind of "Marxist" despite being a rich cunt who drinks two $6 coffees every day
But user-kun, Marx himself was a "rich-adjacent" person. In fact, most Marxist "thinkers" and other commie scum of the 20th century, from Lenin to Pol Pot, were quite well-off.

In the manifesto He even mentions how part of bourgeoisie will try and grift the revolution and appear to be proles -essentially the entire american neoliberal order.

I had to chuckle how he and engles call former version of socialism utopian and then put forward solutions equally as absurd.

Imagine being a barbarian and ravishing these over-refined peaches.

Marx saw three of his children starve to death when he was working in poverty

Because butterfly is a dumb tranny

>can't spell "all right"

Sounds like just the sort of dude I'd want running my society.

Not even Marx liked Marxists.
>Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late 70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

who runs your society now?

marxists are usually the most repulsive people in existence. They want power but are somehow defective, they are an unholy alliance of ugliness and ambition. They remind me of school shooters who are too collective in mindset to be become lone wolf terrorists and band together in gangs where they commit cowardly attacks of soft terrorrism because they dont want to be actually targeted.

I respect Lenin and Stalin a thousand times more than those faggots because they at least had balls and that's why these limp wristed faggot trannies adore those men because they want a daddy, while accusing the right of being bootlickers for thinking hierarchy just basically works better than anarchy that ends in warlords dominating people anyway.

Communists are the most disgusting people to have ever existed. Their feeble weak disgusting bodies, they wont even work out, their pretensions towards rebellion while remaining strictly within the set of opinions the NYT and Harvard tell them they can have, their attempts to be violent as antifa while refusing to actually get automatic weapons and take down neonazi gangs, just attacking dumb faggots like the proud boys, because they are terrified of real violence.

The degree to which they're ugly, effeminate faggots who are acting out like children under a governemnt that promotes their entire way of being, while not even attacking the men who are their real targets, but the faggots on the soft right pretending to be those men, is Gregor levels of pure revulsion.

There is literally nothing as pathetic as a white male communist in the present west.

There are less marxists than neomarxists. The orthodox marxists are even agaisnt the new trends. Neomarxists on the other hand are those who modify marx in any way because they think he was wrong in some points but not on the whole picture. Anyone not accepthing the full marxist ideology but only some or change it is a neomarxist. Neomarxists are people who think something like this: Marx was right but the class is not the biggest issues, it is the dynamics of nationality, race, religion and family that makes the inquelity and therefore we need to eradicate those. Now look at feminism, anti religion and traditionalism, sexuality freedom, economic destruction of middle class that is a front war between rich capitalists and neomarxists and their experiments. The hard question is if they are in control fully or not and if we are just being experimented on completely or not. Neomarxists cant be marxists because marxists accept materialism and they are not for constructivism and against everything inequal as in everything that is a bit different and natural. This may be controversial opinion.

Postmodernism is a fragmentation and relativism incarnate. It may or may not be marxist because postmodernism is broader idea. It is better to see postmodernism as against modernism to not be confused.

Follow the black sun.

Attached: 14881488148814881488.png (1435x2041, 1015K)

Nietzsche objectively cannot be neomarxist you retard

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not gonna depose one set of retards to replace them by another just as repulsive set.

Academia is still filled with marxists (mostly marxist humanists, frankfurt style or postmodern like the french theorists). If you disagree you're a disingenuous retard, it's that simple

PLEASE post your face. I'm 99% sure you look about as dumb as you sound.

Nice trips but the fact you took the bait nullifies your achievement.

Attached: teleports beind you2.jpg (967x1243, 41K)

What's your degree and what's your alma mater? If you don't have one then what makes you think you're at all qualified to say what the academy is "filled with"? Also "disingenuous retard" is contradictory, one suggests the person is lying about their marxist cred, the other that they simply can't see it.

Kys, retard

I think the vast majority of people who would come anywhere close to being labeled Marxists are in fact entirely just pro socialism and nothing else
"Marxist" has become nothing more than short hand slang for anybody who uses anti capitalist rhetoric and that's pretty much how JBP uses it as well and he deserved to get called out for that bad habit

Data for America.

Attached: marxism.jpg (388x224, 13K)

>Marxists say:Marxists are people defined by so and so
>Peterson says: So and so that reflex ti the criteria describes by the marxist who talked before me are Marxists
>Marxists: LOLOLOLOL NO ITS NOTREAL MARXISM!!!
Marxists should all hang.

What is this brainlet post even referencing?

zizek openly admits to being a Marxist

the context of the question regards Jordan Petersons claim that Marxists hold positions of high power in American academia. zizek asks him to name a few and he can not

Where are the Marxists?
Fucking brainlet.

learn English

>zizek asks him to name a few and he can not
Except he did and the marxist Zizek denyed that those Marxists were Marxists.

My english is leaps and bounds better than yours and It's Not even my first language.

>not understanding that that was the joke
>You must be 18 or older to post on Yea Forums

Peterson couldn't even name 1 post-modern neo-marxist you clueless retard, proving that he's just attacking a strawman.

what

>1 post-modern neo-marxist
Man i could hear the goalpost move from here.

Peterson looked like a stick before his diet, he must look full Auschwitz now. What a complete retard.

Hall is based, where's the problem?

Moving the goalpost from what? There was no point in your incoherent ESL post.

he didn't

he claims there aren't any conservatives in the social sciences, which is true but beside the point, and then quotes an unnamed and unverified poll that about 1/4 of professors in those fields identify as Marxist. as much as you might not like it, Marxism is also a very broad range of ideas. anyone who puts stock in any of marxs economic ideas could be called a Marxist

again, this is putting completely aside the postmodern part of the question, which amounts to complete nonsense

This better be a joke

>you just know she's a freak in bed
you know nothing of the sort, why are you saying this? you're not a character in a movie.

Explain why employers have no interest in oversaturating the supply of labor.
Of course they want women and desperate foreigners working for them. Children too, even if they have to go to third world countries to do it legally.

Then why does neoliberal companies like Netflix, Disney, Google/YouTube etc. promote those ideas and employ them?

those are commie companies though

very cool post

Yeah they just don't understand. Marx was very critical of mass immigration. He saw mass immigration as a way for the Capitalist to pay less wages.

Zizek is not a marxist lol, he holds him up as a major inspiration and follows some of his conclusions in his own thinking but he is certainly not a Marxist, he has even said as such.

"anyone who puts stock in any of marxs economic ideas could be called a Marxist"
What are words anyway if not toys for children to play with?

A problem which, as Lenin later would point out, would dissapear (and so would its causes) through the abolition of the capitalistic mode of production.

so give me the concrete definition that no one could argue with

what is a Marxist? what do they support? where are they? is it Disney casting black people?

there are no marxists in the US, user, all the real ones where killed in the 50's, the people of today who claim to be a marxists are just the equivalent of hippies

Disney casting black people is social marxism, obviously.

It's not just in america though, in France you will never find a left wing party that would explicitly disagree with Evergreen type of retards; for instance the so-called "new anticapitalist party" and "workers struggle" are amongst the biggest proponents of open borders, the european union and are as SJW as you can get; the jacobin party is coopted by communautarian non white people that hide behind an anticolonialism stance. I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who claims to be marxist - I certainly can't judge whether they are or not since I haven't read Marx yet- but it does bother me a great deal when they never clearly position themselves on stuff like immigration, so called positive discrimination and rallies forbidding white people (among other issues). Now I know people like Zizek would sniff and say something like "well that's not good" but then they don't do anything against that and sometimes they seem to lowkey be in agreeance but aren't just too fond of the extremism.

retarded pasta

This is pasta but I know people who would agree and not see anything incorrect in it

Attached: 26FC6249-71C6-4A1B-BFE5-C998E0ED4B77.jpg (540x540, 31K)

Read Das Kapital and critique of the Gotha program.
Abolition of exchange value, the State, private property of the means of production, delegation of power.

There is no necessity to have a link between what employers want and what national policy gets implemented. You could very well keep the "capitalist mode of production" under a dictatorship and just outright tell the employers to fuck off when they demand more immigration. You presuppose the problem is with some undefined "capitalism" and not the fact that liberal democracy lets the interests of individuals and corporations overrule the good of the people.

>he will never recover from this
lmao based žižek

>but it does bother me a great deal when they never clearly position themselves on stuff like immigration, so called positive discrimination and rallies forbidding white people (among other issues).
I am Marxist. I can clearly position myself on these stuffs.
Immigration is Capitalism reserve army. So said Karl Marx. Positive discrimination is some shit to lower wages and create diversion from class struggle. Rallies forbidding white people is stuff promoted to fragment the working class, and create divisions, not based on class, but other criterias.
>Now I know people like Zizek would sniff and say something like "well that's not good" but then they don't do anything against that and sometimes they seem to lowkey be in agreeance but aren't just too fond of the extremism.
We say they are Capitalism creatures, that they have not read Marx, that they reinforce Capitalism. What should we do more, physically fight them?
By the way, as a french, it surprise me that you haven't heard of Francis Cousin yet. A level Marxist. Better than Zizek.

It doesn't work like that. Currently, if you stop mass immigration in western europa, you'll have an economic crisis in a few months. There is no more margin for profit. Mass immigration is one of the last tools of the capital to slow down the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Capitalism is not undefined (read Das Kapital). Liberal democracy don't let the interest of individual and corporation overrule. Liberal democracy is under Capitalism control. Not the other way round. Since around 1914 according to us.

The modern conception of "class" is just an arbitrary division made up whole cloth to create divisions and rifts in more organic groupings of people. A good indication of this is the fact that "class consciousness" is something that has to be taught and drilled into the heads of people.

>Liberal democracy don't let the interest of individual and corporation overrule. Liberal democracy is under Capitalism control.
Literally only of these statements can be true at the same time. Either liberal democracy lets the interest of corporations overrule the good of the people, or it doesn't.

The first two categories, while not orthodox Marxists, have appropriated elements of Marxist theory into their schema.

You don't understand how wealth is created. And who takes it. If you did, you wouldn't say that.
Liberal democracy doesn't "let". Liberal democracy is an emanation of the Capital. It's Capitalism ideology if you want it said differently. Capitalism took control of the whole society around 1914.

>Liberal democracy is an emanation of the Capital. It's Capitalism ideology if you want it said differently. Capitalism took control of the whole society around 1914.

Attached: 1526285562006.png (499x338, 38K)

Most of the so called "capitalists" are actually Marxists, it's obvious, they navigate through a completely Marxist framework, they believe in class struggles, in materialism and in the communism vs capitalism dichotomy.

>The modern conception of "class" is just an arbitrary division
Do you think the fundamental division between the laborers and the people who profit from their labor is arbitrary?
>create divisions and rifts in more organic groupings of people
How would solidarity with other workers create division?
>class consciousness" is something that has to be taught and drilled into the heads of people
Do you not understand the function of privately owned media, education and other state and private institutions?

>A good indication of this is the fact that "class consciousness" is something that has to be taught and drilled into the heads of people.
To add on this, this is false. When workers decide to strike, nobody lobotomized them, manipulated them. They collectively decide to stop working.
What happened recently with the yellow vests is class struggle related. The yellow vests is clearly working class in it's essence. Nobody manipulated, of forced them. The working class has a collective consciousness.

Strikes almost always occur through prior agitation by strike coordinators.

i haven't digged deeper than Michéa (who isn't a marxist) to be honest, but recently i've become more and more open to "leftist" critique as long as it is not cringy anarchism, at least I don't feel like they are a pervasive enemy that should be fought against anymore.
>Immigration is Capitalism reserve army [...] fragment the working class, and create divisions, not based on class, but other criterias.
I do understand but then how do you translate that into politics? Does the fact that the capital strives off immigration means that you would want to restrict it and if so under what criterias? I also feel like marxists tend to restrict everything to socio-economics, I remember a Zizek thread that supposedly quoted a passage of one of his books were he was saying that in netherlands muslims are agressive towards gay people because they feel oppressed by them and the solution would be for gays to fight to improve their condition and unite in the struggle against the common adversary. I believe that there are divides that go beyond mere socioeconomics and exist prior to them, races (whether they are a biological reality or not, it's not relevant as they do exists insofar as people define themselves and act according to it) and cultures being some of them, while liberals do try to add fuel to the fire these are issues that are not a direct consequence of capitalism itself. These conflicts are real and are worsening as nothing gets done and I feel like it often gets handwaved away or absorbed into the classic class struggle schema where they become a mere addition, it seems that there is an unwillingness to accept that different populations can not mix together well (nd that's an understatement) no matter how well off they are because a man is more than just a human being. Some marxists seem really autistic about what's going on around them, but that's just my impression of course.
>physically fight them?
Denounce them harder, how come they can wear off Marx skin so easily? There shouldn't be any complacency towards these people

The fact that people can act together does not prove any "class consciousness", just a unity of opinion. You'll find a pretty large number of bourgeoisie opposing the increases in fuel prices alongside the workers. This is just you seeing what you want to see.

this is your brain on america

Jordan's speech was ultimate cringe.
Zizek was based.

Okay? We incorporated the Hindu numeral system in the west, does that make us all Hindus for using the number 0?

All the marxist handwaving about how all problems will magically solve themselves once evil capitalism is defeated is what makes me dismiss them out of hand nowadays. They almost always seem uninterested in engaging with reality.

Ur retarded
Capitalism will eventually falter due to its internal contradictions. Problems do not magically solve themselves, but through conflict develop into new conditions. Go read Marx instead of listening to your high school teachers pleb discourse

Okay, how do Marxists propose we solve the displacement of European people in their native countries?

White people must be replaced to stop racism forever. We need to have the whole world the same forever.

that's bait, including whitehead, nietzsche and heidegger of all people should make this obvious, you goddamn retards

What an idiotic, meaningless response.
>jast rid moorxx bruh it totally talks aabout dis

Attached: 1526994149681.jpg (763x771, 60K)

Whitey uh oh your days are numbered.

Capitalism is creating chaos. In the end, Capitalism needs chaos, in order to continue to dominate. The solution, unironically, is to change the mode of production, a mode of production which doesn't require mass immigration (extra workers). However, i don't delude myself. By the time people will realize what's is happening in Capitalism, and the mass immigration it requires in it's very essence, it'll be far too late, and whites in the west will be a minority.
Maybe Communism is for later. Like in a century, people being communist, but each ethnicity living separated in their own continent.

We are denouncing them, cultural leftists say we are fascists. Francis Cousin, an A level Marxist in France, is considered a fascist by the leftist intelligentsia. In any case, we are still a small minority. And serious Marxists thinkers are still rare. But they undeniably exist. Zizek is kind of okay, but i feel he is still too mainstream. Perhaps because he is scared of being ostracized if he goes too far in his criticism of mass immigration, gay culture etc...

Look here. The hairy balls represent the forest of chaos and the unknown. Look up, my rigid rod of social hierarchy, about to shoot a load of dogmatic imagery down your throat. Now open up.

>Francis Cousin, an A level Marxist in France, is considered a fascist by the leftist intelligentsia
Yes, I saw that first link on the google search

How does Capitalism solve this? Oh shit, Capitalism is responsible for it...

Zizek advocates a strong military presence to control boarders and twisting the arms of rich arab countries to get them to pick up some of the tab. Only way this is really going to work though is some form of global government

Not to take either side, but, conjecturing that because someone refuses to point to a Postmodernist Neo-Marxist, or cannot point towards, one of sufficient fame to be notorious enough among a crowd to serve an illustrated point, does not mean they don't exist.

There are plenty of egoist anarchist technologist marxists, that doesn't mean I can name you one that an audience would recognize.

The two wise responses to that loaded question are;

1. Try and explain that to a bunch of baiting postmodernist neo-marxists

2. Ignore the question.

I don't really think peterson knew how to handle that question at the time, and so decided against either position.

Attached: 1565880056845.png (139x174, 9K)

Someone here clearly knows the context of the pic.

Solid analysis, now explain how communism will solve the problem without even daring to address it? People are not proposing capitalism as a solution to the problem.

>There are plenty of egoist anarchist technologist marxists,
name one

That's insane and retarded.

Attached: 1565458278084.jpg (750x498, 208K)

Militaries protecting boarders or refugees being helped by their own people?

youtube.com/watch?v=9dKcsi3ePvc

Little black cart has a multitude of links to authors and podcasters entrenched within the indigenous anarchist scene who self profess as all of those labels in one form or another.

Now cease your inane jabbering, you will speak when spoken to.

Attached: 1564270464297.jpg (525x809, 131K)

If you abolish wage labor, you don't have to, and literally can't, import cheap workers from the third world.
Do you see mass immigration in the Huterrite community, one of the few communist community around the world? Nop. They are 100% Huterrite.

Involving a primitive theocratic totalitarian fascist government in the affairs of a bunch of sissy lefty commies.

Peterson's point isn't that "some postmodern neomarxists exist", his point is that postmodern neomarxists have infiltrated and poisoned academia to the degree that entire disciplines are not only under their wing, but entire universities, if not the entire North American post-secondary system. If you can't name one when pressed there is a big disconnect

>it's gonna solve itself, they will peacefully leave
And it's back to wishful no explanation thinking in no time flat

>flops around instead of giving a single name
wow you really studied that debate didn't you

retards

Attached: 1.jpg (300x168, 5K)

So you don't think Saudi Arabia should have to take in any refugees? They helped push radical wahabbism all over the middle east, they are responsible for the crisis too you know, a hell of a lot more than Germany is

That was fat JP before he went on the meat diet...

>Doest do any research when the source is presented to him.
The reason you will never accomplish anything in life is because you are incapable of focusing for more than 3 seconds on anything aside from instant, cheap, low risk gratification over a perceived victory against low intelligence opponents or trolls.

Attached: 1566437236631.jpg (1440x1422, 875K)

>name one
>no
>okay then
>stop being lazy
retard

He's obviously talking about some kind of zeitgeist in academia and leftist circles, composed of tacitly accepted axioms. It's hard to define strictly as the phrase "postmodern neomarxist" is by design an umbrella term. Everyone in academia knows what he's talking about. Some signs are the usage of "privilege", "gender", "intersectionality", "queer", etc. "Power" as well in most cases.

Can a mod please ban this person.

yike oof sweaty cringe back to r*ddit mods are fags and so are you

No of course they won't leave if we abolish wage labor. They are too comfy here. But at least they won't come anymore, because the mode of production won't need them anymore.
I've come to the realization that it's dead for a white europa. Capitalism have and will completely fuck europa, and north america. Last hope, Russia. Or creating some white State in flyover north america.
Perhaps in the end diversity willl understand that europe is not their continent, and leave for Africa. That's distant future.
We played with Capitalism, we have to pay the price.
Blaming Karl Marx for things he is not even responsible for won't change anything.

The problem of classification here isn't that anyone is operating under the presumption that a misnomer is accurate, it's that naming or classifying a class of beliefs and presuppositions and ideological constructs within these people, cultural marxists for example, is an egregious sin according to the people being classified.

Postmodernist neo-marxists don't want you to know they are postmodernist neo-marxists. Just like cultural marxists don't want you to know they're cultural marxists.

Being able to identify them, mock them, deride them, and insult them on the basis of that identification is something they view as a serious threat to their efficacy as cultural insurgents.

He's obviously talking about something unrelated to postmodernism and Marxism, duh, everyone in academia knows that progressives are a thing
was this supposed to prove JP right or were you being facetious?

You're probably pretty new to the board, but this isn't /pol/ or Yea Forums. People have to have finished high school at minimum to fit in.

I'm not blaming Marx, just explaining why I and most people I know have no interest in Marxism as a solution to anything.

I think the original poison goes back to Hegel and Kant, do any of these thinkers actually accept Marx's "iron laws" of history?

Without the materialist dimension all that's left is an unfortunate contempt for empirical reality, with Kant as its most prestigious exponent, and a Hegelian preference for metaphysical generalisations over analysis of the specific.

>Everyone in academia knows what he's talking about
That´s what Žížek said. Point was these people are not Marxists and Peterson has incorrect notion of what Marxism is (his concept is "viewing society as opressor vs. opressed").

I think the problem goes a bit deeper and is related to the fact New Worlders have extremely "fluid" and partisan new-speak. They don´t bother looking up what does a term mean and just roll with any meaning they feel it has.

A lot of these people seem to call themselves Marxists so can you really blame people for taking them at face value?

>A lot of these people
Not enough to call the entire group so.

...

It's like those annoying people who say Islamic terrorists aren't actually muslims because of this and this and this, when obviously they are. But these people will act wilfully ignorant in order to persist in their illusion.
>this guy who shouted Allah akbar while killing 50 people in the name of jihad also liked nightclubs and drinking alcohol, which the Koran says is bad, therefore he's not a muslim at all checkmate"

based pasta

>where are the egoist anarchist technologist marxists Petersen

If it was this simple wouldn't they all define themselves as pomonomo and read Marx? No one reads Marx anymore user, I knew a lot of these people, they are mostly on some intersectionality shit

Also, dying in service of jihad is an instant ticket to paradise. It instantly absolves you of all sins. For some die-hard muslims who have sinned a lot in the past, dying in jihad is their only option for entering paradise.

Even most postmosernists are starting to become quite shy about admitting they're postmodernists.

Try googling "cultural marxism". Even the biased and partisan wikipedia entry on the term, which basically called it a hoax, has been removed.

To name a demon is the have power over it.

Attached: 1560037199838.jpg (718x1002, 40K)

cultural Bolshevism literally was/is a conspiracy theory, if that's the only information you can find on "cultural Marxism" maybe you should take that as a sign you got duped.
>Even most postmosernists are starting to become quite shy about admitting they're postmodernists
stats? where are you getting this information about postmodernists shying away from the label?

Would you care to explicitly state your political alignment, comrade?

Attached: 1565389193709.jpg (988x948, 154K)

I'm a communist, and therefore am strongly anti-postmodern and strongly anti-progressive.

shut the fuck up faggot jordan peterson strawmans everyone on the left as a postmodernist while using postmodernism to go against the left

Their faces are deeply unsettling.

What's wrong with Marxism?

>Look at the story of James Watson
t. learned all he knows about population genetics from poorly reading PCA plots he found on /pol/

Materialistic drivel

Not a fan of science either I take it

that's not an argument you stupid fucking retard

How ... convenient for you.

I know it's not what your dad memerson told you, but I went to a very left wing university and was one of about 3 openly communist political science students. If you are a serious Marxist in academia you find yourself sidelined pretty quickly. I had 3 professors who called themselves Christian and none who called themselves Marxists.

You know that you're being disingenuous.

Your anecdotal espousal has convinced me that the hard analytical data on self professed Marxism in western academia (being a third of all tenured professors) is trite.

Viva la revalucion comrade

lmao you tryhard faggot

>a third of all tenured professors
bald-faced lie with no citation, cute

Watch out, the marxists are on the loose talking about how Marxism isn't really Marxism unless the Marxism they say is Marxism is Marxism.

Mods, please contact Stanford.

Those are the self-identification stats that you just mentioned, only you were exaggerating by more than a factor of 10; for Marxist professors in America as a whole the number is about 3%. Social sciences sees the highest concentrations and even that doesn't even reach a third of proffesors, it barely reaches a sixth.

retarded and gay utopianism from an overrated layabout. Why not follow Fourierism or some other 19th century utopian ideology? it's outdated and laughably unsuited to our times. the reason he still has clout is because middling professors and intellectuals have continued to stake their whole careers and reputations on him being right

there is no "science" there are only sciences

i bet you got bullied a shitload growing up

The real reason he still has clout is because it proved to be a workable plan for attaining power by making promises to low-status proles. We've been seeing a shift promising shit to proles towards promising shit to low-status minorities since to most people in this day and age that seems like a more feasible way to get power since proles are generally icky reactionaries and are kinda not buying the oppression narrative as easily.

Attached: citations-table-1 (1).jpg (1046x609, 317K)

Attached: citations-table-2-1.jpg (1036x281, 127K)

that makes sense thanks for helping put the pieces together

easy to mistake. Marxism is at some level based on christ-imagery, replacing the sacrifice of Jesus and the concept of a greater good with the concept of the proletariat as mediated by an enlightened priest-class. it's just catholicism for money.

american progressivism is animated by a hatred of the christ figure and the elevation of the leper figure. the very concept of healing ailments is antithetical to the ideology, which places otherness as the primary moral good and sameness-in-otherness as the primary social unit. it isn't about economics so much as it is wallowing. it's shouting your abortion and speaking your truth, but it isn't at all interested in the moral or rational elements of either. it's a momentary pleasure that's been extended into a culture of attack, disenfranchisement, and self-fulfilling mediocrity. it is anti-christian and anti-Marxism by necessity.

Lol

Literally every corner you turn. If you went to university you’d see it immediately.

t. brainlet who can't differentiate between marxists and liberals

any one to the left of webster amirite

Attached: 1563306414873.jpg (375x375, 31K)

Do any of you people even know what Marxism is

Marxism is when you don't say the n word, and also you get pegged by your poly gf.

t. onions wojak

Peterson's realm is deconstructing Postmodernism, he's admitted his only knowledge of Marxism is the Communist Memefesto, if he were to read Das Kapital he'd probably have some Marxist sympathies about the plight of capitalism, evident by his fascination with Zizek during the debate. But he's unaware that idpol stems from the interests of capital not anything that Sartre or Derrida published.

I'm pretty sure marxism is still regarded as worthwhile mainly because Marx's criticisms of capitalism were genuine and pretty unfettered
I'd say true marxism (or really anything socialist-libertarian for that matter) still hasn't been achieved, and there are currently two camps:
1) the camp that thinks marxism is going to be worse than capitalism (keep capitalism)
2) the camp that thinks marxism is going to be better than capitalism (go marxism)
You call it outdated and unsuited to our times, but you can say just as much as capitalism, which at its core was thought up long before Marx was even born.
On the contrary, I'd say with the advent of modern technology (automation, globalization), Marxism is a lot more do-able than when it was thought up.
While this can be true, this is more for the authoritarian branch of marxism rather than the libertarian one
Moreover there are enough populist marxists across the world (mainly in Europe) that still pick their target audience based on their class (i.e. the working class), rather than their being a minority/majority (i.e. the poor, the immigrants), although admittedly these usually aren't exclusive from one another.

Under

Rated

Post

Period.

:3.

Heidegger?

Yeah?

And which philosopher wrote that manifesto bub?
Give me a straight answer.

>If you went to university you’d see it immediately.
Which university did you go to. By all means, name names

>poly gf (male)

Marxist praxis today is pretty much polyamorous bdsm fetlife accounts with bbc

Why do pseuds hate this guy so much? I read his maps of meaning, it's pretty good. Is it because he called identitarians out?