/lit/ - Literature

>>13008994
cringe

a revisionist retelling in which peterson doesn't get bamboozled is unacceptable

>>13008994
Not at all what happens, retard. And why's their color and age relevant in any way?

>>13008994
based, anybody has a clip of the part where he says:
>i know who these people are
Zizek is pretty redpilled

>>13009028
Yep, he literally said in a previous interview that "All of the original Soviet leadership were Jews"

>>13009074
so when he says that if your wife cucks you, you shouldn't be mad, is this some kind of dog whistle for the people who are actually listening to his words? is he pointing towards something to awaken people?

Zizek bodybagged peterson. Peterson said that capitalism is a realization of personal happiness thru the freedom of possibility within a landscape of plenty. Zizek demonstrated that humans often chose self destruction and the bonds of socialism as a means to the end that is happiness. In the same breath so to speak he says that the failure of marxism is an utter foregone conclusion. He is a sophisticated troll. We cant imagine a perfect society because we dont even understand the paradoxical nature of human desire.

>>13009090
not what he says lol
100-120 IQ turbo-pleb

>>13009074
Well it's true. If it weren't for the Chinese then the greatest coordinated massacre in history was constructed in theory (Marx etc), implemented into reality(Bolshevik/Menshevik) and executed on an individual level (Cheka) by a reconizably ethnic Jewish movement, and that against a foreign culture. No historical guilt for that though, you can't even write books about it.

>>13009097
explain your understanding of it, i want to laugh

>>13009115
you know there's an actual history board right

>>13008994
Peterfag BTFO
https://youtu.be/oY1JWInbr6k

>>13009120
it doesn't require explication just listen to what he actually says

>>13009133
now that's very convenient for you and your intellectual cowardice

>>13009131
i won't watch everything, does he also play the part where Zizek says "i know who these people are and i don't like them"?

>>13009143
seeth harder turbo-pleb

>>13009152
cuck

>>13009156
ooh bringing out the classics
jew next?

>>13009090
You are actually a moron. If you cant trust your wife you get a younger hotter wife (or none at all). The anger you have is pathological because you are butthurt about the situation rather than clearly seeing whats happened and the steps that need to be taken. This is the pathology of jealousy.

>>13009121
I like the modest IQ filter that lit provides (inb4 lol) and it seems natural that discussions cover a range of relevant topics especially when political. It's not like historical discussions on here are unusual.

>>13009131
>Zizek: Where are the postmodern neo Marxists?
>Memerson: Your question seemed to me to be particularly more inclined to believe bla bla bla that replaced the notion of oppression of the bourgoisie by the oppression of the people of the country of the planet of the solar system of the galaxy of the universe bla bla bla by one identity group by another.
OHNONONO HAHAHAHAHA

>>13009193
inb4ing something doesn't stop it from being retarded
and if you come here to talk about history you should fuck off to the history board

>>13009131
Minute 14:00 onward. Jesus Christ.

$500 tickets

>>13009205
>History and literature aren't intrinsically connected in profound ways
>/His/ actually cares about history
>Large portions of literature aren't just partially fictionalized accounts of actual occurrences, and the actual occurrences don't matter

Yeah okay bud. Sure thing. History doesn't at all impact philosophy in any way right?

>>13009224
eristics

>>13009096
Based

>>13009187
>rather than clearly seeing whats happened and the steps that need to be taken
that sounds really bad if you are aware of which situation Zizek usually applies that cucking story...

I am never watching this debate, public intellectuals are cringe and gaypilled

>>13009121
But there he would get stoned for spreading bullshit.

>>13009131
Honestly, that was a bullshit question and Peterson's response should have basically been attacking the premise of the question. Whether or not you consider these people who took great inspiration from Marx but applied his dialectic to non-Marxist economic ends Marxist is a semantic argument, not one of significant substance, especially considering he opens by admitting he knows exactly what Peterson is getting at. Whether they are classical marxists in some pure sense is more or less irrelevant to the polemic against Western/White society that is being pushed by them.

>>13009238
>stoned
very semitic execution method, point proven &.

>>13009196
>i know who these people are

>>13009240
It was a legitimate question. "Postmodern neo-Marxist" is a bullshit term.

>>13009238
Implying their entire board isn't primarily bullshit. If you consider the massive documented explicitly Jewish influence on Bolshevism to be bullshit, but consider the mainstream narrative surrounding Jeanne Jeno and Great Zimbabwe to not be bullshit, it's fairly clear you aren't actually interested in history and are just using it as a tool for your political/religious beliefs.

>>13009244
?

>>13009090
How do people struggle with this lacan?the simplest and most straight forward

>>13009255
The real question is what motivates people to argue with communists? They are sophists and bullshitters of the highest degree, just look at Zizek's line in the debate
>you need to read the Communist Manifesto
>no, just because it's part of the Manifest doesn't mean it's critical of Communism, you need to read everything by everyone who read the Manifesto and who read that and so on and so forth *sniff*
They live in their own academic la-la-land and simply don't care about facts, so why try to reason with them? They're all obscurantists and political parasites.

>>13009255
you mean frankfurt school? in a way "marxist" term is kinda highjacked, but as>>13009240
says, you are trying to avoid the elephant in the room - antithesis to traditional society

>>13009256
>If you consider the massive documented explicitly Jewish influence on Bolshevism to be bullshit
Did you meant to write Menshevism? Because I'm afraid Jews never were the dominant force in Bolshevism, more like disposable tools.

>>13009261
if you roll back a few moments before the "who are the marxists part", Zizek agrees with Peterson that idpol people are scum and infect academia, he just disagrees about calling them marxists

My surrogate father figure absolutely TROUNCED yours in this incident of verbal combat, this duel of intellect. The way he utterly destroyed the whimpering simpleton who you in your ignorance admire is oh so satisfying to me, almost to the degree to which I imagine coitus with a female feels like. Do you feel that despair in your heart, that creeping, crippling dread of decades worth of cognitive dissonance suddenly E.X.P.L.O.D.I.N.G. and ripping your soul apart? My elation is its equal. I feel totally vindicated. My worldview has TRIUMPHED over yours and I will not apologize. Heck yeah we did it!

>>13009090
AND WHY THE FUCK HAS THIS QUOTE BECOME SO POPULAR LATELY

>>13009269
explain it

>>13009277
because Zizek uses it in the context of why antisemitism is pathological all the time in his latest articles

>>13009275
Based

>>13009096
/thread

>>13009236
not really. If the nazis actually took steps to change their socialstructure that a few people could control most of the media and banks. Then they wouldnt need to ape out and blame everything on the jews. Same thing applies today with immigrants. Stoping immigration wont solve our social standing since wether we have open borders or not the wars funded by the west will still be creating mass migration.

>>13009270
You need to read Capital if you want to discuss Marx. The manifesto was intended for farmers, basically Jordan Peterson tier intellects.

>>13009270
I will never understand angloids. Why are you interested in philosphy if you don't want do read long books and "facts" mean so much to you? Just step away from the screen bro and go do your utilities

>>13009255
Sure, it can be a bullshit term. Zizek knows exactly what is going on here, and his primary effort is to reduce the connection between Marxist thinking and this phenomenon, whether you want to call it Post-colonialist/Progressivist/Marxist whatever. His main objection to it being called marxist is not actually anything to do with Marxism itself but that these people are fundamentally not revolutionary but are impotent bureaucrats. Being an impotent bureaucrat and taking great inspiration from Marx ist/Post-colonialist thinking are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are incredibly connected in a way Zizek is both willing to acknowledge out of one side of his mouth but not willing to accept out of the other. I don't care what you call them, the label doesn't actually matter.
Call them woke capitalists techno-feudalists for all I care, this doesn't address the actual substance of the issue, and the main purpose just seems to be a smoke screen to reconcile Marx by trying to deny the very strong connection between the Marxist dialectic and their line of thinking.

>>13009303
>farmers
no, workers
100-120 IQ turbo-pleb

This was literally my takeaway. Lots of trannies had heir panties in a bunch salivating at the chance for Peterson to to be DEMOLISHED by FACTS. But really he never wen Off message from his usually shit. Like he said Zizek isn’t a standard Marxist (who are generally confused about Marxism anyways) and really they both just agreed about everything. The only moment Peterson looked like a faggot was when he tried to talk about cultural Marxism. The fact that Sizek has read Hegel doesn’t make him a genius you stupid faggots. Zizek only did this to let people know there are leftists that aren’t PC faggots which is true. This is really more about Zizek calling out the bad leftists destroying his movement which if other lefties had bigger balls they would do, while Peterson collected his paycheck as always. Him making money REALLY prolapsed the assholes of people for some reason but he openly admits not only does he have no problem doing this but that it’s a metric of success, believe it or not boys and girls some people have no problem accumulating wealth. Have Sex.

>Zize: Lets take away from this that women and trannies should calm down
>Pete: agreed.

Based and redpilled both of them.

>>13009309
Peterson doesn't know all that. He hasn't even read Marx beyond the manifesto (once at age 18). He can't discuss Marxism. All his arguments come from prejudices basically. His entire basis is the term "cultural Marxism" from the fucking 1950s. Literally "red scare" tier. He's literally decades behind in thinking.

>>13009312
Yeah whatever. Doesn't change the fact Memerson hasn't read beyond that.

>>13009273
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/247752/why-did-russian-jews-support-the-bolshevik-revolution

>The Bolsheviks enjoyed very little support among the Jewish population ... And this was despite the fact that many of the Bolsheviks' most important leaders were Jews

Jews supporting Mensheviks more than Bolsheviks doesn't detract from the very Jewish influence on the leadership of Bolshevism bud.

>>13009309
>these people are fundamentally not revolutionary
neither is Zizek, he is a berniebro at best

>>13009309
>very strong connection between the Marxist dialectic and their line of thinking.
Which is...what? The intercontinental neotaoists emerged from US, a country obsessed about race and relatively docile about labour.

>>13009341
A Berniebro that is miles ahead Peterson in thinking.

On the 22nd of April Peterson gave a talk to the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation.

Last year he gave a talk to the Koch-funded Manhattan Institute.

On his twitter he routinely cites the Cato Institute-founded HumanProgress. The Cato Institute was founded by and receives the majority of its funding from the Kochs.

On his twitter he also refers people to the Institute for Humane Studies. Charles Koch has been the chairman of its board for decades between 2005-2017 alone pumped 34 million dollars into it. It has been described as the recruiting centre for the Koch network.

Peterson has attended TPUSA events, and TPUSA gets its funding from 4 different Koch-funded groups. Other Koch funded pundits like Shapiro and Rubin attend with him.

Peterson first came to wider public attention on 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 principal think tank in Canada. It has received funding from Daniel Pipes racist Middle East Forum and it in turn has received funding from Donors Capital Fund a 'blind trust' used by the Kochs and a number of others to make anonymous donations to climate change denial groups and islamophobic groups.

So what is the Kochs interest in Jordan B. Peterson exactly?

>>13009333
Sure, Peterson doesn't know that. I'm not defending Peterson being woefully unprepared but I wasn't expecting him to be prepared to "debate" in any meaningful sense someone like Zizek (especially given that Zizek basically has no concrete positions to debate besides simple things like "let's be critical of capitalism because technical progress and individual happiness are not necessarily teleologically good" which is essentially just a platitude at this point).

This doesn't mean the question isn't fundamentally bullshit. If it was Zizek vs. Spencer (who actually has quite a lot of admiration for Zizek and has written articles and given talks about him before) or something and Spencer said "Name me the Fascists/Nazis! You keep talking about Fascists where are they!" you'd be rightly saying that it was a disingenuous question based on a bad faith premise.

>>13009338
Wait, are you saying that "Bolshevism was Jewish" or are you retreating into the "some of the bolshevik leaders were Jewish and I don't care virtually all of them were executed" Motte?

wtf I love jews now
-Peterfags

>>13009236
The patholoical distrust- checking her phone, following her- is the kristalnacht. Divorcing her is investment in education or industry or something the japs would do.

>>13009341
>American leaders
He's connected to Syriza, even though he disagreed with them sucking up to German banks.

is Zizek a danger?
http://en.kalitribune.com/die-furie-der-zerstorung-slavoj-zizeks-reinvention-of-revolutionary-terror/

>>13009355

>>13009359
What is your standard for enough Jewish influence for it to be something people consider meaningful? Does the presence of non-Jews negate the influence of Jews (who need I not remind you were a significant numerical majority (at the highest peak ~6% of the Russian population) but at certain points made up between 35%-80% of the leadership in Bolshevism)? Your semantic game is primarily just slippery nonsense seeking to obfuscate rather than actually examine the truth.

>>13009280
Google jealousy as it applies to othello and psychoanalysis. Pathological jealousy is subconscious acting out of ones insecurities.

>>13009355
sounds like an antisemitic conspiracy theory

>>13009355
>>13009377

>>13009213
no way

>>13009382
is being salty about capitalist inequality jealousy and pathological? or does that get a pass because it's convenient?

>>13009384
Where did I say anything anti-Semitic, or present a theory to explain these associations?
>>13009355
>>13009377
>>13009386

>>13009370
sounds convenient that divorce doesn't involve any actual separation in this case

>>13009162
Cringe

>>13009355
The Koch's are interested in Peterson because he fundamentally is a technocrat globalist neo-liberal as well, he's just one that wants to pump the brakes on the post-colonialist anti-white cultural push to avoid destabilizing the system he's come to enjoy and profit off of (and probably genuinely believes in on some level).

>>13009389
>young womens leadership
>addressed by Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson

>>13009389
you used dog whistles to hide it

>>13009357
Marxism is something defined. Being a racistag is not. Like someone else said, "postmodern neo-Marxist" is just a bullshit and inaccurate way of trying to say SJW. And if we're on that plane then yes, a great deal of SJW are faceless and nameless pretty much like Nazifags. But when you say "postmodern neo-Marxist" you better name examples or else your premise is bullshit.

>>13009393
>because he fundamentally is a technocrat globalist neo-liberal
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
>as well
Are you saying this is what the Kochs are?

>>13009396
What dog whistles?

>>13009388
Youve changed topics. Zizek mentions cuckin as analogous to nazism because we tend to create narrative to our problems which can reify into self destruction. In the same way that nazis do a holocaust, a cuck drives himself mad tryna prove his wife is cheating.

Zizek claims to be an authoritarian capitalist. It sucks explaining this.

>>13009415
wtf, did you brain get fried in the process of the conversation?

>>13009399
Yes, the Koch's are technocratic neo-liberals who believe in open borders capitalist markets rather than specifically defined and closed regions. I'm sorry you don't actually understand the implications of those three words (the first of which meaning the elite are primarily Technology oriented capitalist firms, the second being the belief in liberalized capitalism as the best possible economic infrastructure, and the third being the belief that a global market place is a better form of political existence than defined and unique nations/States) but that doesn't make them word salad when combined.

>>13009426
Getting salty about inequality can become pathological if you construct a narrative (guatemalen immigrants) to explain these inequalities, and then the narrative runs amok.

His warning against narrative run amok, he not saying dudes should accept getting cucked. Dunno how else to explain it.

>>13009427
I don't know what you mean by calling them technocratic except as some sort of obscurantist insult. Do you want them to be agrarians?

They are not neo-liberals, at least as I understand the term.

They are libertarian anarcho-capitalists, they draw their inspiration directly from Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayak, Murry Rothbard, and James McGill Buchanan.

Of course they are opposed to government regulation on migration - they oppose government and regulation.
They oppose the EPA, OSHA, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the ACA, Department of Education, Minimum Wage, Income and Estate Tax, etc - why would they be any different on this topic?

Its funny watching so many MAGAchuds get mad about this as if they expect someone to suddenly turn around and be inconsistent about their beliefs simply because Based Trump says so.

>the first of which meaning the elite are primarily Technology oriented capitalist firms, the second being the belief in liberalized capitalism as the best possible economic infrastructure, and the third being the belief that a global market place is a better form of political existence than defined and unique nations/States
Are these all positions that Donald Tax Cut for the Rich, Deregulate, Sell Public Assets, Oppose Public Healthcare Trump is opposed to?

>>13009460
>Football team bullshit
Holy fuck, please go back.

>>13009379
>What is your standard for enough Jewish influence for it to be something people consider meaningful?
For a political movement "to be Jewish", I would say Jews need to have a decisive position in it. For example when two fractions collide, the one with more noticable Jewish presence should be the victorious one.

>but at certain points made up between 35%-80% of the leadership in Bolshevism
You need to cite sources and define those vague terms like "leadership" before you start throwing in such wild claims.

>obfuscate
Obfuscate the truth with what? History?

>>13009503
kek

>>13009485
You're the one wanting politics to be like a football team, you're mad at them being consistent about their beliefs instead of supporting based trump

>>13009521
>supporting Cringe Trump in 2019

>>13009521
I'm not that guy, just pointing out that you're obviously dumb and completely out of your depth when you start bringing up twitter bullshit for no reason.

Did stephenson coin the term technocrat in crypto and now its been borrowed a few times and now its pseud speak? That would be funny as fuck i think thats srsly what happened.

>>13009121
History is a form of literature.

>>13009546
it's also not

>>13009131
lol peterstein looks like that autistic kid getting shit on by the professor here

>>13009545
You're a retard if you've never heard the word technocrat before.

>>13009131
Richard Wolff seems to judge the capitalist as "morally wrong" for taking the surplus value which is pretty dumb since it's inherent in the system.

>>13009096
That's not what happened. They both agreed that the pursuit of happiness is delusional and that social constructs need constant revision because capitalism and marxism are dead ends in and of themselves.

Srsly, try just a bit harder next time, senpai. baka.

The whole event was a waste of time. It was really only ever going to go one of two ways:
>1. They actually talk about Marxism in relation to the alleged subject and Zizeck doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>2. Zizeck doesn't actually talk about Marxism in relation to the alleged subject and they have virtually nothing to disagree over.
We got the latter. Zizeck didn't even really have anything to say about Marxism, he just cautioned against letting the defects of capitalism go rampant, which are things basically everybody (Peterson included) are already aware of and trying to figure out solutions to.
I like both of these men, but the whole culture surrounding pop intellectual figures is insufferable and this feels like its peak. There's already a fuckton of clips from the discussion like in >>13009131. Pseud fanboys take moments where literally nothing happens and spin it as GOOD MAN DESTROYS BAD MAN 2019 [DVD RIP], which is extra pathetic since I can't actually think of a single clash they had actually over the entire runtime. Most of the time they're having completely different discussions.

>>13009240
>the polemic against Western/White society
Yeah but there's no such thing in marxism, unless you think the west is capitalism itself and must be preserved at all cost.

>>13009460
>MAGAchuds
how to make someone completely disregard your post

>>13009662
are you implying Peterstain has a better understanding of Marxism than Zizek? Lol
The options were:
>They actually talk about Marxism and the jester Zizek makes Peterson look like an idiot
>They talk past each other like in Chomsky v Foucault and mostly agree on incidental things
Zizek obviously spanked Peterson for saying stupid shit once or twice but due to the rules of the debate they both mostly stuck to their prepared talking points and Peterson refrained from saying anything too damaging. Salvoj continued to do his Nu-Zizek thing and regurgitated the same tired populist spiel.

>>13009309
>HBeing an impotent bureaucrat and taking great inspiration from Marx ist/Post-colonialist thinking are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are incredibly connected
This is fucking hilarious, as the creation of countless impotent bureaucrats is one of the most fundamental consequences of Marxism. It creates offices, and licenses, and proofers, and editors, and editors for the proofers, and offices in which to edit the licenses for the editor's proofers. This bullshit isn't explicit in communist communist doctrine, but it's absolutely necessary to implementing communism IRL. For an example, go read the afterword to the Strugatsky's novel Roadside Picnic, where they describe the process of just getting a fucking book approved for publishing in the Soviet Union.

>>13009707
>are you implying Peterstain has a better understanding of Marxism than Zizek?
Find where I said that- not that it even matters if Zizek knows more about Marxism in the first place. Your ability to defend dogshit relies more so on mental gymnastics and stretching the subject than it does a nuanced understanding of dogshit.

>>13009751
Hillarious, but irrelevant. What Slavoj meant by Impotent bureaucrat is that they merely oversee the (capitalist) system and give stamps of political correctness, they don't attempt to change or even question the "base" as a Marxist would.

>>13009595
Did you read my post or what? I read crypto probably 10 years ago? It was written in 1999. I suspect stephenson invented this portmanteau as a literary novelty to suit his work and that psueds have attributed much meaning to it. You are actually the fucking retard my guy.

>>13009662
>literally nothing happens
Mhmm, watch 14:00 onwards, sweetie.

>>13009826
I think the word choice is much more inadvertently telling than you're giving it credit for. Like I said, bureaucracy isn't in the doctrine, but it's necessary to its implementation because fitting Marxism into reality is a constant process of pounding a square peg through a hole that's actively trying to squeeze it back out. The PC police he's talking about are totally related because they're acting out the exact same impotent war against natural forces and desperate attempt to justify their existence. They fell into this pattern because they're following the Marxist logic that Zizek is trying to distance them from. The only reason they're not attacking the "base" is because they're all crytpo-communists who've had Marxism human-centipede'd to them by their cultural ringleaders and don't even fully understand the drum they're marching to. Zizek makes the mistake of dismissing this army of retards as not being a legitimate force for Marxism on account of them not understanding themselves.

>>13009924
Since we've already watched the whole thing, how about you explain what you're referring to instead of asking me to watch some other dipshit's video?

>>13009090
He doesn't say that silly, he says that EVEN IF all of his paranoid suspicions about his wife were true, it says far more about the husband's inability to confront his own shortcomings or insecurities than anything about the wife. It's the same with Jews in pre-nazi germany– Yes they were highly influential, intelligent and working in positions of power, but one can very easily use a handful of truths like those in service of a much greater and insidious lie. No one would make the inductive leap from 'russians are the best dominatrixes' to 'russians are conspiring to weaken and control our men through sex', so why is it so different for the jews?

>>13009946
Peterson is left looking like a retard in front of everyone because the "connection" he sees between Marxism and postmodernism is that both are obssessed with identity politics. That's literally his entire foundation for his word salad terms.

>>13009976
Listen to it again.

Here's Peter Joseph's take on the debate:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n7O_9708RmU&t=449s

>>13010034
Critique of Pure Peterson

>>13009021
When zizek asked who these marxist that peterson goes on about so often, op is it, op is that mythical post-modernist you hear ao much about.

>>13009074
>>13009090
>it's an antisemites trying to appropriate antiantisemites because they can't read episode
P A T H O L O G I C A L

>>13010103
>When zizek asked who these marxist that peterson goes on about so often, op is it, op is that mythical post-modernist you hear ao much about.
So is OP a postmodern or a marxist? You flipped it halfway through your sentence it is hard to follow

>>13009662
>I can't actually think of a single clash they had actually over the entire runtime
brainlet
off the top of my head, he dunked him on pomonomo, his conception of natural hierarchy, his take on Dostoyevsky, his take on Jesus, and his take on Marxist equality. what didn't happen is two things, one Zizek never rubbed his nose in any of these things, and peterson didn't have a response to anything. somehow one person calmly running through a laundry list of the others theoretical errors while the other nods and looks sheepishly at the floor isn't burger style showmenship so they must have tied
when Zizek called him a stupid idiot and he didn't even have a response past citing some stats on sociology professors

>>13010166
I rewatched it giving as much charity as I could to Peterson, and I don't think Zizek really trashed him aside from his direct challenge to name any of the postmodern neomarxists and his repudiation of the lobster hierarchy idea. What really made Peterson come off poorly is that, for a guy who's so literal-minded in his approach to philosophy, he uses so many limp rhetorical flourishes and weasel words in his speaking, whereas ironically Zizek the continental philosopher always deploys his metaphors and jokes and allusions surgically

>>13010216
>that's why cupid has arrows...
>Zizek looks at him like mien gott...

>>13008994

You can tell that /r/jordanpeterson is in full cope because the best way they can spin it is that Jorp actually agrees with Zizek. In none of their imaginary scenarios does he actually score a rhetorical victory, because he showed up to debate the imaginary Cultural Marxist who lives rent-free in his head instead of the actual guy he challenged to a debate in a fit of autism-rage over a year ago.

>>13010224
>in opening the door to let in the sheep, you've welcomed the dragon in as well

>>13010115
your fear of le evil antisemitisms hiding around every corner is in fact pathological

>>13009951
>yeah maybe it was the jews but you're mentally sick for noticing
>I mean *sexual and humorous non-sequitor" right?
Post nose

>>13010259
You have to go back

>>13010324
Written in such a way that even low-IQ crossboarders will understand.

>>13010316

>>13010316
It wasn't a non-sequitur you fucking waterhead, he was directly using it to illustrate the point, which you are congenitally incapable of understanding because of your low untermensch IQ

>people want the revolution to be bloody and violent
>comrades cheer over necessary actions
>peterson almost cries

>>13010351
>casually mentioning subreddits
>le crossboarders
>admitting you only use this shithole dead board
lmao get the fuck out of here reddit

>>13010358
>It wasn't a non-sequitur you fucking waterhead
Yeah, it qas
>he was directly using it to illustrate the point
Stop talking about yourself in third person. If you genuinely believe this you're a retard, but we both know that isn't the case. You're a real piece of shit pal.

>>13009205

To be fair the history board is filled with /pol/ retards but this place isn't very far behind in their population so it's a bit of a chore to discuss history on this website.

>>13010402
>You're a real piece of shit pal
what's the matter homie? sloping forehead? thick brow got you down?

>>13010404
Well maybe you should fuck off from this website newfag

>>13010404
>the history board is filled with /pol/ retards
how is that a problem for someone who wants to complain about jews?

>>13010416
xD

>>13009460
>anarcho-capitalists

Doesn't exist. They're called retards.

>>13010435
>le nothing actually exists
commiebots are so pathetic

>>13010440

Yeah, that is exactly what I said. It's definitely not that those two things are incompatible and its followers are just retarded capitalist cucks. It's just rebranded libertarianism.

>>13010451
>cucks
>>>/pol/

>>13010166
If you interpreted any of those as "dunks," then you're the fucking brainlet. The only thing on that so-called laundry list that was contentious at all was the "where are the Marxists" bit.

>>13010216
>direct challenge to name any of the postmodern neomarxists
Zizek also explicitly says he knows exactly who Peterson's talking about and only seems to take issue with how Peterson's categorizing them. That's a poor grievance on Zizek's part, considering that the entire shitty idea people have against Peterson's choice of words is that a Postmodernist and a Marxist theoretically shouldn't exist in the same person. On paper that's true, but that's also like saying that a Christian and a murderer can't exist in the same person, because muh contradictions. It's either disingenuous or a shocking display of stupidity to act like people aren't constantly mashing together whatever fucking ideas serve them at any given moment, contradictions be damned, and that certain contradictions don't get intellectually married all the time. The only thing people won't do is call themselves something contradictory. Absolutely nobody is going to claim they're a "postmodern neomarxist." They're just going to act it out.

>>13010451
as if anarchism and communism are compatible
as if communism is compatible with anything other than the daydreams of genetic mistakes

>>13010283
You are the ones who brought it up you retard.

>>13010481
>On paper that's true, but that's also like saying that a Christian and a murderer can't exist in the same person
>Creed x Deed
Bad analogy. This is Creed x Creed conflict.

>The only thing people won't do is call themselves something contradictory.
You are stuck withing the problem that those two creeds are contradictory (and historically clashed as exemplified with Foucalt), which is whole another problem. Zizek was asking "Where are the Marxists?" He was asking where's the Marxist element in the social justice/politically correct crowd.

>>13010496
>someone mentions jews
>LE ANTISEMITE!!!!!!
>You guys brought up anti-semites wow
You should stop using such a meaningless word altogether. Its honestly kinda cringe bro. You're not going to shut down discussion with your naughty no-no stop label.

>>13010481
why was it not a dunk to deconstruct Peterson's interpretation of Dostoyevsky? I never see anyone bring that up but if you've listened to Peterson you know how central that is to his core project, the fact Peterson didn't respond somehow means he wasn't btfo? Is this a new debate strategy? the reverse gishgallop? stare and the floor and stumble around awkward statements of agreement and suddenly the debate is a tie.

>>13010508
I use Nietzsche's terminology, debate him if you want

>>13010517
>i cant argue my own points so here is some dead german
how do you feel about Nietzsche's views of women desu

>>13010523
he was a cuck so they we're in line with that, why do you ask?

>>13010523
They're okay, brainlet don't notice he shit just as much on men.

>>13010482

>two conflicting ideas where the workers have seized the keans of production and there is no state and there are no classes

Am I speaking with an American or a retard? I mean, there's no difference but I would be astonished if you were from Europe.

>>13010541
maybe his opinions on jews are also because he was a cuck

>>13008994
Petersonfags pretending Zizek isn't a marxist is pretty pathetic cope desu.

>>13010547
you should try quoting them on your twitter but make sure to say 'i also dont like men haha'

>>13010451

>>13010562
I meant to reply with this to >>13010482

>>13010551
maybe everything he wrote was because he was a cuck, cool psychology trick anon. oh wait, I thought psychology was a jewish trick? how does that work again?

>>13010568
>maybe everything he wrote was because he was a cuck,
probably accurate, let's put him to rest

>>13010560
Why would I, it's much more fun to only quote the worst parts without any contexts.

>>13010560
>post on twitter
why do people out themselves for this stuff? cringe af anon no one posts on twitter but fags

>>13010576
>t. Freud
how's your mother doing?

>>13010481
Zizek was asking for a specific example in order to go forth with a concrete example, not explicitly as a "gotcha." He said he knows a few academics who identify as Marxists, whose ideas couldn't be more materialist and milquetoast, compared to the wild deconstructionist tendencies that Peterson characterizes. The fact that Peterson couldn't or wasn't willing to name a specific thinker as an example just made himself look worse.

>>13010586
>jews invented psychology
please try to keep up

>>13010555
the Distributist made a video claiming Zizek outed himself as a neoreactionary. cope levels like I have never seen before

>>13009681
You're playing a shell game where you attempt to distinguish doctrinal Marxism and the actions and beliefs of those who describe themselves as Marxist as if there is some profound difference. This is dishonest, and you should stop it if you want to be taken seriously. It is similar to someone saying there is no scriptural reason for the Catholic Church to be opposed to Islam specifically, thus the crusades were not Catholic in nature. If you wish to make that kind of argument, go for it, but it's very apparent to everyone involved (including yourself) that it's not an honest representation of what is currently going on.

>>13009546
>history is a form of literature.
My goodness...

>>13010622
no, it's more like saying if you call yourself a Christian but you don't pray, believe in god, or think Jesus was a real person, you can still be a Christian. Sure, call yourself that, but don't expect theological discussion to suddenly swerve towards your inane bullshit. Same with these twitter "Marxists" online who don't believe in class struggle or material dialectics and are pro intersectionality, they can call themselves Marxists but that's not what Marxism is when you study it academically
>muh pomonomo
I had a professor who was the typical meme, she called herself a Foucaultian and was focused intently on intersectional feminism and she hated Marx

>>13010611
>it is another right winger co-opt something or someone from the Left episode
Why can't right wingers just get their shit together

>>13010656
it's the you made this I made this meme with dialectical materialism, quite fascinating. I saw this coming years ago when I watched a video of Steven Crowder calling out people for thinking racism is real when it turns out according to him it was epiphenomenonal to the divisions inherent in class differences, and that the left should be complaining about economic inequality

>>13010622
it's a shame what those christians were getting up to at Waco

>>13009398
>Fascism is something defined, being anti-white is not
Do you see the issue with this line of thinking? I don't actually care if you have some objection specifically to the label of Marxist in a classical sense. They are people who often openly describe themselves as Marxist, and take inspiration from the Marxian dialectic and Marx's dialectical materialism in very obvious ways. Your attempt to distance Marx from the actions and beliefs of people who apply his thinking in a way which could be called Neo-Marxism/Cultural Marxism is fairly hollow and you as well as Zizek know exactly who Peterson is pointing to and where their connections to whatever you want to call that generalized ideological framework lie.

Marxism is also significantly less rigid than you're dishonestly implying, especially in the wake of Post-modernist thinkers and the Frankfurt school who explicitly adopted Marxist dialectical materialism to apply it to their thinking. I don't actually care if you object to people calling it Neo-Marxism because it is not an inaccurate way to describe how this IdPol/Post-colonialist/oppression politics emerged as the central mechanism for the manifestation of power on the left.

>>13010683
Literally nothing? I'm really glad the ATF burned all those children alive to save them from alleged child abuse that the accusers never even presented a case for.

>>13010677
Kinda like how /pol/-tier anti-cultural marxists uses Adorno's critiques or Spenglerfags pretending that Adorno was their boy all along.

It seems like they would rather 'red'-wash someone then actually shift their views...

>>13010683
the people at waco did nothing wrong(this post is satire glowfriends)

>>13010696
>>13010706
pithy rhetorical device aside, my sincere belief is obviously that the ATF murdered the branch davidians, but also that they were not doing things that could be classified as chill or dope

>>13010654
IdPol is explicitly a product dialectical materialism except applied to these fragmented commoditized identity groups. Where are the actual Marxists who are so opposed to these people who call themselves Marxists and make up most of the left if this is such an abortion of your beloved classical Marxism? Is it just David Henry and Slavoj now that Mark Fisher is dead? You do often see these intersectional Feminist/Post-colonialist etc professors highly criticize Marx, but they use his ideological toolkit in order to form their position. It's absolutely absurd to try and distinguish them as if there is a significant difference aside from minor esoteric squabbles and purity spiralling (which tends to make up most of these types criticism of Marx). They fundamentally believe in a Marxist paradigm for analysis of society, even if they've replaced the prole/bourgeois with straight white men vs everyone else in the progressive stack (with Jews curiously always at the top).
Your analogy is not even close to the same, it would more be like when traditional Catholics criticize modern protestantism as not actually Christian because of their divergence from Central doctrinal Catholicism. Sure, an argument could be made, but they are fundamentally both Christian and use a Christian framework for social analysis, even if they have fairly major differences in specifics internal to the framework. You're the traditional Catholic pretending that Episcopals fundamentally aren't Christian in any form what so ever and expecting people who aren't traditional Catholics to take you seriously.

>>13010751
What do you think they were doing?

>>13010754
>IdPol is explicitly a product dialectical materialism
No it isn't.

>>13010768
Forgot to add that it is interesting you namedropped Fisher when his most renown article was shitting on liberals for shitting on leftists by having bourgeois idealism up their ass instead of class analysis.

Zizek was obviously trying to lure in the "alt-right" or whatever you want to call them. He plays the smart guy who seems to know what he is talking about and tries to confuse his opponent. He openly admitted that he does when he ran for president 20 years ago and even admitted it during the debate itself.

>>13010751
>They were doing things that aren't chill or dope
And you're wondering why nobody takes you seriously? Get the fuck out of here you bugman faggot. You know who is also doing lots of stuff that isn't chill or dope? Literally every protected class under the current IdPol/NeoMarxist moral paradigm. Bad things happen, it doesn't matter what you think of them because you are a fundamentally irrelevant person to these conversations.

I don't care that they may or may not have done things you or I find morally questionable, bad shit happens. They still were arguably Christian and someone calling them Christian shouldn't be some point of contention. IdPol Feminism+ is fundamentally rooted in Marxism as a framework for societal analysis even if their parameters for who are the oppressed class vs oppressor class is different.

>>13010785
>1990 was 50 years ago
I mean 30 years ago

>>13010759
hypergamy

>>13010792
>oppressed class vs oppressor class is different
This was around even before Marx came around though. The French Revolution often use that dichotomy with the nobles.

>>13010754
>IdPol is explicitly a product dialectical materialism

>>13009009
BASED CRINGE POSTER

>>13010792
>IdPol Feminism+ is fundamentally rooted in Marxism as a framework for societal analysis
In what way?

> even if their parameters for who are the oppressed class vs oppressor class is different
If it's Marxistic analysis of capitalism then the oppressed class are the workers and the oppressor class are the capitalists. You can't change that, since Marxism is an analysis of capitalism through this perspective.

>>13010792
I don't care at all about the Branch Davidians you fucking retard, I wanted to see whether you're a hypocrite or a cretin, and it looks like it's the latter. It's good to know that any ideological strain is immutable and impossible to dilute as long as it comes from a name brand stock you gullible hole

>>13010785
false

>>13010792
>IdPol/NeoMarxist moral paradigm
>>13010754
>IdPol is explicitly a product dialectical materialism
identity politics is an ancient idea, it has existed as long as culture has. one of Marx's main critiques he kept making was against identity politics (please read the Critique of the Gotha Program). you are literally too uneducated/retarded to have this discussion

>>13010768
Yes, Identity politics is fundamentally derived from dialectical materialism. It is the view that divergences in material conditions among these social categories (whether they be PoC or LGBTQ+ or Women in the feminist perspective) and intentional exploitation of these people by the privileged straight white men (bourgeois) have caused the entirety of the political and social problems these people experience on a daily basis. The progressive position is fundamentally viewed as the summation of the social/political problems experienced by these various IdPol groups via the contradictions between their material conditions and the social promises made by the American (and Europe/Canada as America's vassals) society. It is literally just dialectical materialism expanded to these commoditized identity groups rather than the more or less binary capitalist class/workers used in classical Marxism.

>>13010781
I named Fisher because he was one of the last classical Marxists left. He did often criticize these people, but to claim they didn't stem from the same root is ridiculous. Fisher is just a Marxist who didn't read the fucking memos of how the ideological paradigm had shifted away from class and to these commoditized identity groups. It's still almost the exact same structure and belief system, he just didn't update his firmware.

>>13010848
>Fisher is just a Marxist who read Marx
ftfy

>>13010833
How so? You don't think he wants the people who blame neo-marxism for everything to have a clearer picture of things?

>>13010828
I don't care that it's a diluted mutation of Marxism, hence why people like Peterson use the "Neo" prefix to distinguish between classical Marxism and the current practices of the Left, which they openly derive from Marxism and people who sought to expand upon his world view.

You wouldn't honestly argue that the Episcopal Church or Mormons aren't Christian and I don't care that it's not pure enough for you. You're being autistic about not wanting to be associated with the bullshit establishment bureaucracy that is explicitly derived from your belief set, even if classical Marxists find it undesirable in an ironically conservative way.

>>13009241
Underrated

>>13010848
>didn't read the fucking memos of how the ideological paradigm had shifted away from class and to these commoditized identity groups.

I don't get it, I thought that was his point

>>13010848
>It is the view that divergences in material conditions among these social categories (whether they be PoC or LGBTQ+ or Women in the feminist perspective) and intentional exploitation of these people by the privileged straight white men (bourgeois) have caused the entirety of the political and social problems these people experience on a daily basis.

I can understand imperialism (European nations exploiting the rest of the world), in fact Lenin connected the stuggle of nationalism to the struggle of socialism (while blatantly contradicting it by invading Poland, but that's another story); but such exploitation isn't really talked about as much as is status of 3rd worlders within the "white" countries. And how the fuck is it possible for faggots to be exploited? And how do women fit into Marxism, when Marx personally flipped them off?

>>13010848
U cant expand it to these groups because these matters are moreso economical than cultural. You can, but you are putting a lot of words in marx mouth, so to speak.

>>13010905
>how do women fit into Marxism,
Has anyone who isn't a concern trolling reactionary made the case that Feminist empowerment was just a scheme to exploit women as proles and further devalue male labor at the same time

>>13010878
Are the millions of Christians who have never read the entirety of the Bible not Christian? Are the Muslims who have never read the entirety of the Quran not Muslim? You're just purity spiralling and attempting to deny the direction Marxists turned after the 68 revolution and their increasing incorporation into the establishment. They made their long march through the institutions and now that they have reached their destination you deny their journey and origins like a dishonest coward.

>>13010911
You don't need to put words into Marx's mouth. Marxism is a much larger phenomenon than just what Marx wrote. You wouldn't take seriously people who argue that any works written by George Lincoln Rockwell couldn't fundamentally be Nazi works because you'd be putting words in Hitler's mouth. I'm just asking you to have a shred of the honesty that you expect from everyone else.

>>13010923
see
>>13010654
if you want to put the word "Marxist" in your twitter bio that's one thing, if you want to write an academic paper on Marxism as a political philosophy that's a whole other bag of worms. It's like those youtube atheists who find some 80 iq fundementalist and BTFO the fact he doesn't know Jesus put a demon in a pig and drove it off a cliff. Is it a christian debating an athiest? sure, why not. are they doing theology in an academic sense? fuck no.

>>13010848
>Fisher is just a Marxist who didn't read the fucking memos of how the ideological paradigm had shifted away from class and to these commoditized identity groups
Then it stops being Marxism.

>It's still almost the exact same structure and belief system
They are both leftist (they seek liberation from power), but that's where it ends. Marxism is rooted in analysis of capitalism.

>>13010897
You're being intentionally obtuse. Yes Fisher explicitly battled against the momentum that the Marxist left had gained by incorporation into the establishment toward increasingly stratified commoditized identity groups. You can very well argue that they are being bad Marxists by doing so but to argue they aren't Marxist at all is being dishonest.

>>13010948
>Marxism is a much larger phenomenon than just what Marx wrote
Yes, it's also what Lenin, Stalin or Mao wrote. Something that is called the "labour movement". Where's the "labour" in faggotry?

>>13009532
>you're dumb for pointing out the Kochs are just being consistent

>>13010964
You can say that's where the distinction between Marxism and whatever this intersectional nonsense occurs, but that is fundamentally no different than saying Protestants aren't Christians because of their separation from the doctrinal church. Yes, this intersectional nonsense is different than classical Marxism, but it is still fundamentally Marxist (again why people often use the terms Neo-marxist or Cultural Marxist to separate those two concepts).

>>13010505
>where's the Marxist element in the social justice/politically correct crowd
You can literally make a Communist Mad Libs, swap the buzzwords with social justice rhetoric and it'll be functionally a reflavored version of same thing. I really don't see what people don't see about that.
>The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles
>All members of [the marginalized] must seize the means of [privilege]
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
>The [oppressed] have nothing to lose but their chains
>The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its [privileged]
It certainly doesn't help that social justice activists are very frequently seen with the hammer and sickle memorabilia and regurgitating either direct or modified Marx quotes. Again, I don't think there's an honest or educated way to deny the connection.

>>13010593
Something about Peterson that appears to be increasingly problematic for him is how careful he wants to be with his words. He's too careful. If you go back and watch his older material things come to him and he says them, then maybe refines them later on if they're not quite right or exactly, 100% what he intended to say. Ever since he started doing interviews for his most recent book, around the time every MSM outlet on the planet started looking for excuses to crucify him, you started to see him lag up or outright refuse to talk about things before having first internally articulated his point precisely, so he can't get burned for something he doesn't actually believe. It's made him a much worse live speaker and I think that's what was going on then. It looked more like there was a trigger he was afraid to pull than he was completely stumped. We've seen how he acts when somebody stumps him. This looked more like he was doing his "give me another century to get my sentence right" thing.

>>13010992
>You can say that's where the distinction between Marxism and whatever this intersectional nonsense occurs, but that is fundamentally no different than saying Protestants aren't Christians because of their separation from the doctrinal church.
You are trying to pull a "no true scotsman here", but I'm afraid this supposed Scotsman of yours is a Shona from Zimbabwe. You are eliminating the defining aspect of Marxism and you are replacing it with something entirely different. They are both leftist movements, but that's where it ends. Marxistic movements are more often than not homophobic and even containing racistic/xenophobic elements.

>but it is still fundamentally Marxist
In what way. How do you even define Marxism?

>>13011012
you can do that with literally anything you retard
[Intersectionally], the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the [minority] and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the [minority], which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of [wo]man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the [minority] became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the [minority] in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts.

>>13010984
Trotsky doesn't count? Curious distinction on your part given that Trotsky's concept of racism is basically the one used today in most intersectional social justice concepts and Trotsky directly influenced the figures most prominent in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.

>>13011012
>I really don't see what people don't see about that.
You took form and divorced it from substance. With bit of luck you might do that even with Mein Kampf. I don't see where's the point to it?

>>13011072
>Trotsky's concept of racism
Which is...?

>Trotsky directly influenced the figures most prominent in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism
In what way?

>>13011046
>you can do that with literally anything
>see, you can even make intersectionality sound controlling and anti-individualistic
>which is obviously crazy

>>13011076
Marxism was conceived out of hatred toward the successful and powerful, and the erroneous assumption that such success can only be found through exploitation of the unsuccessful. It's the exact worldview that drives the social justice crowd- they just use social issues as a proxy to get there. I'm not removing form from substance, that's what's at the very core of the substance itself. It's not necessarily damning in itself, but again, why are there always communist flags at social justice rallies? Why does that crowd not only see no need to distinguish themselves from that, but sidestep doing so every time they're asked to? It's because deep down they understand that they're one in the same, and condemning their blood brothers like that would concede to a set of standards that'd only come back to fuck them.

>>13011089
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

Trotsky formed the basis for the concept that racism is "prejudice plus power" that is used today. The people who officially brought that idea into the fold to which it is used in mainstream leftism today were explicit Trotskyists.


Here's an article about how feminism and Marxism are connected via trotsky in the international socialist review.
https://isreview.org/issue/93/womens-liberation-marxist-tradition

>>13011172
Based Trotsky.

>>13011171
so it's both fascist and marxist, good to know. what else? radical islam is probably in there

>>13011172
>Trotsky formed the basis for the concept that racism is "prejudice plus power" that is used today.
how cancerous can one specialfriend be

>>13011178
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.

>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

>>13010890
The point of contention I have is using the failures of “neomarxism” and whatever other microclassifications to criticize the ideological ancestor they claim. You’re right, I wouldn’t say the Mormon church isn’t Christian, but if I have some kind of ideological beef with Mormons not drinking Red Bulls or something, I wouldn’t try to go after Augustine for it

>>13011172
>Thus, many Marxists arrived at roughly the same theoretical starting point as many socialist-feminists by the late 1960s and early 1970s—and shared the same goal: using Marxist theory to better understand women’s unpaid labor inside the family and its connection to women’s oppression as a whole within capitalist society.
I have no problem with this, although neither articles mention that "racism is "prejudice plus power"". If your assertion is that there were/are Marxist feminists, no one will disagree with that. If you mean that there are Marxist feminists therefore intersectional feminists are Marxists that's not a proper syllogism.

>>13011171
>Marxism was conceived out of hatred toward the successful and powerful,
From Spartacus to Spartacus league, many movements were found on such beliefs.

>and the erroneous assumption that such success can only be found through exploitation of the unsuccessful
Now you are getting closer, but you aren't there yet.

>It's the exact worldview that drives the social justice crowd
Nope. They are more about pursuing subjectivity, they want to fully express their "otherness", whatever that is. Marxistic prole doesn't say "accept me for what I am", he says "I want the whole pie I baked".

>that's what's at the very core of the substance itself
You are exposing that it's a narrative seeking to overthrow some kind of system. But in such reduction you are leaving the substance of Marxism behind.

>why are there always communist flags at social justice rallies?
Never saw one. But then again I'm from a post-communist country, our SJWs emerged predominantly from anti-communist, pro-western opposition to oppressive, "oriental", geriatric communism. So I have trouble understanding your point there.

>>13011217
Feminism as it is presently understood is not a distinct framework from Marxism in any real sense. It just takes the dialectical materialist dynamic between the workers/capitalist classes and projects it onto the sexual dynamics between men/women/lgbtq. It's fundamentally cut from the same cloth.

>>13011311
no it's not, start with the Greeks next time and read Lysistrata

>>13011172
>Trotsky formed the basis for the concept that racism is "prejudice plus power" that is used today
That's a very superficial statement.

>The people who officially brought that idea into the fold to which it is used in mainstream leftism today were explicit Trotskyists.
Were the Americans that sought abolishment of slavery and equality of blacks Trotskyists? Because I'm afraid that vector existed before Trotski was born.

>Also, can you specify? I can't really see anything revolutionary here
>Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.
Seems that he just throwing shit at Hiter for not being a true socialist.

>>13011326
The play in which the women accept that their primary method of achieving their intended goals is through withholding of sex is feminist? Sure bud, the Greeks were definitely feminist, whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>13011359
In terms of your second point, the concept of anti-racism/universalist egalitarianism is not unique to Trotsky obviously, but his interpretation of the concept of racism through the dialectic of a power relationship fundamentally changed the way leftists deal with the concept. It was no longer a question of egalitarianism under the law, but a question of leveling the scales of social power that even most abolitionists didn't believe in. It was a fairly common idea to be both an abolitionist and believe that blacks and whites fundamentally were incompatible with each other on a civilizational level ala Notes on the State of Virginia and Abraham Lincoln. It was not until after Marxism that the concept of racism became one of characterization of interaction between to social bodies rather than a thing that a particular person experienced at the hands of particular people in a particular instance in time. Trotsky fundamentally redefined the question of racism from the experience of an individual to the experience of a group by adding the implication of power in a collective sense into the idea.

Again, I don't understand why you guys are so insistent in fighting against things that are incredibly apparent to anyone who is honestly looking at the matter. The progressives are fairly open about where their influences come from and how much inspiration they take from Marxism/Marxists. My guess is it has something to do with trying to reconcile the belief that Marxism is genuinely about representing the working class with the overwhelmingly bourgeois and often hyper consumerist/individualist types who tend to strongly identify with Marxism/Communism even if their belief structure is a bastardization by someone like Fisher's view.

>>13009271
The Frankfurt School has nothing to do with identity politics and neither does postmodernism.

>>13009240
Name just one.

I found zizeks cuckold analogy disingenuous as fuck. It assumes your feelings towards something are pathological while a jealous husband could be suspecting his wife is cheating because he has some new information, she's behaving different from usual etc. It's only a useful insight when the jealousy *precedes* any reason to exist i.e. it's only insightful when a person is already pathological.

This applies to Jordan Peterson. He did not start out railing against "cultural marxism", he picked it up as a topic because of his experience at university with left leaning professors. It's easy to look at Jordan as a grifter who jumped on the anti-sjw bandwagon but this isn't some youtuber making videos in his mom's basement, he was going up against his colleagues and the establishment he works at. Many people have gone through a lot of shit and even lost their livelihoods for speaking up against social justice or making politically incorrect statements (men and women have differences, men have penises and women have vaginas etc), jordan is one of the lucky few and it's worth considering where he would be now if his YouTube series against she's did t blow up, probably out of a job. Using the cuck/antisemitism analogy in this case would be like turning it around on the jews i.e telling Jewish people in Nazi Germany that their belief that the Nazis are out to get them is pathological, it's a useless insight.

Another annoying part is the "who are the Marxists?! Name a single Marxist" line. Jordan Peterson (like a lot of conservatives/right wingers) uses "cultural Marxism" as a sweeping statement to describe groups of people or certain cultural trends and even though the term might be inappropriate they do use it consistently and the rebuttals often involve explaining why the term is inappropriate rather than debunking the phenomenon it is (incorrectly) being used to describe. Almost no worthwhile insights are gained for this process though I will admit it's a stupid term and political correctness/sjw are much more approrpiate, but it's not like he's wrong.

>>13008994
>as opposed to black men rambling which usually leads to someone screaming worldstar and someone getting the shit beat out of them

Oh man, white people!

>>13009074
WTF I LOVE ZIZEK NOW????????!!!!!!!?))) BbbbbbbbBASED

>>13010259
I have witnessed an intellectual that i like come out favourably in a debate with a intellectual that i don't before but i just wasn't this pathologically obsessed with it.

>>13009407
I'm just cucking around, anon. You didn't use any dog whistles.

>>13010793
>tfw the Berlin Wall fell 265 years ago

How come none of the communist(leaderships) states abolished the salariat at least?

lmao you guys are all cucks

>>13009131
but he did name some. And he's completely right loads of the social mainstream academia identify as both marxist and pomo.

>>13014189
did we watch the same video? Jordan stared at the ground and mumbled some cop out answer like an autist, then Zizek answered for him. He couldn't name a one of his boogeymen that he's been trumpeting for years. He couldn't provide a single name. Zizek makes the point that actual Marxists are marginalized in academia, and those who overwhelmingly identify as such are neo-liberals who have no grasp on actual ideology.

>>13008994
You are right in that this (((debate))) was total prolefeed and in that there's no real difference between these two retards' ideologies.
The one true second chance for the West is agrarian communism Pol-Pot style + religious fundamentalism and burning of books.

>>13014201
yh Peterson was a nervous, horrible debater, and Zizek was way more interesting to listen to. That said, Zizek is just trying to make the same old communist argument that any marxists who discredit his beliefs in some way are not "real marxists", whatever the fuck that means.
Zizek never actually formulates how he thinks society should be ran, btw. He just has his observations and deflects when asked for anything constructive.

>>13014211
>Pol Pot
hahahahahaha

>>13009009
And that's a good thing!

>>13010508
Jews = antisemites. It all makes sense now.

>>13014211
>agrarian communism
Mass suicide by starvation?

>>13014544
death is good

>>13011172
>"prejudice plus power"
So all twitter users who get anybody fired are in fact, racists.

>>13014544
People who can't grow plants don't deserve to pass down their genes. Pol pot was based and greenpilled.

>>13014213
Zizek freely admits that he has no idea how to replace capitalism. That's why he refuses to answer that question.

>>13014544
based Lukács

>>13014211
Based

>>13014211
Savonarola pls

>>13013865
Its lacans analogy and you did not understand it for shit lolol

>>13014641
i understand that the pathology exists to justify the identity of the husband i just don't think its true in the case of jbp

>>13009951
>>13009090
>>13009074
>>13009028

where is this? I want to read it

>>13009341
You should read a Women’s studies textbook, you’ll change your mind on the first page. Walk onto literally any liberal arts campus (I go to Trent University in Canada) and you will meet and greet with exactly the kind of people Peterson describes.

>>13013512
Patricia Bidol

>>13009090
It means that eve if it's true it should not serve as an excuse for all of your life going wrong and not confronting the problem.

>>13009115
bullshit, fucking sources /pol/ fag

>>13009237
/thread
It's a fucking shame that /lit/ now has these type of threads, too.

/thread

>>13009662
based

>>13015065
200 years together. Credible author as well.

>>13009602
He's a dumb boomer, I fucking hate his patronizing speaking pattern.

>>13009398
>postmodern neo-Marxism does not accurately identify the way SJW’s think
How do? It seems completely reasonable. They’re all for nihilistic relativism, preaching that everything including gender is ultimately subjective and that any kind of canonical reality is oppressive towards those who don’t want to live in it, while simultaneously advocating that the history of western society is best characterized as an intersectional group vs. group battlefield. The term seems fitting.

>>13009028
Zizek said, "I know what you mean" when referring to the so-called "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" ideas like political correctness. But Peterson fails to really reply to it, citing a vague statistic about how marxists are in universities.

>>13009602
>Richard Wolff seems to judge the capitalist as "morally wrong" for taking the surplus value which is pretty dumb since it's inherent in the system.
If things which are morally wrong are inherent to a system (such as the theft of surplus value), then it follows that such a system would itself be morally wrong. I don't know how this line of reasoning could be considered "pretty dumb", since it is completely valid.

>>13014189
no he name people who did studies that determined that some sociology professors are Marxists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQChjCBCm3k

>>13015032
she's a critical race theorist, not a Marxist. Marxists openly disagree with her
>Critical Race Theory is a popular pass-time among my comrades on the radical left who ascribe to various positions within the broad political ideology of identity politics. Since I'm a Marxist, or at least a Marxian, it's largely been something I've ignored. This is because for the most part it has appeared, looking in from outside the social circles where this particular family of ideas have currency, to be little more than a self-serving rhetorical tactic of petit-bourgeois academics seeking, out of narcissism, to claim for themselves and certain of their peers some of the political capital owed to the working class and won by them through hard graft during the civil rights movements of the fifties and sixties.
http://www.wetasphalt.com/content/why-racism-prejudice-power-wrong-way-approach-problems-racism

this is basically what this episode amounts to
>don't know what Marxism is
>don't know what intersectionality is
>both are left
>left is bad
>two bad things on the left are the same thing
might as well have the left invent conservito-republicanism, say it came out of fa
scism, and group everyone from Ted Cruz to Trump under it

>>13011172
wtf I love Stalin now

>>13015399
I've come to view 'the left' as entropy. Bugpilled af.

>>13015498
You're a retard who lives in an echo chamber

>>13015710
I'm a hardcore monarchist. I have no echo chambers.

>>13015498
>>13015819
>quotes milquetoast NRx talking points
>I am le individual
reddit is that way, friend

>>13015827
reddit literally doesn't allow far right people to post on it

>>13015835
https://www.reddit.com/r/nrx/

>>13015827
>milquetoast
It's a take on Spengler from my opponents' perspective, which I can agree on. 'The left' has never built a thing. It just reacts on the past maliciously.
>NRx talking points
...though I received it from a self-proclaimed leftist anyway.
>I am le individual
Ha ha ha... I'm a mess. A class mongrel.

>>13015840
>295 members, no comments on any of the posts
They're just flying under the radar

>>13015861
just cause your favorite subreddits got banned doesn't mean you can't find a new one, it does mean you have to leave though

>>13015872
the far right on reddit hop around from sub to sub getting banned, they're a tiny irrelevant minority that the rest of the site hates

>>13015881
you are further explicating your expertise on reddit, but this only further confirms the fact that you have to leave

>>13015902
Im pointing out to you that reddit doesn't allow far right people to post, so your comment telling the guy to go there was dumb

Juden is restarded

>>13015908
https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkEnlightenment/

>>13015914
I retract my statement then, I didnt think Reddit would allow that sort of board to exist

>>13015918
They don't, that one is just fringe enough and doesn't overtly present itself as far-right so it's gone under the radar.

>>13015399
Are you implying that isn't the state of the rhetorical view of the right on the left? There have been fairly significant academic leftists who consider literal progressive liberals like Steven Pinker to be fascist, and there were massive numbers of people who pulled the G.W bush was literally Hitler bit in the early 2000s. People call Trump fascist all the time and he's not even particularly controversial in terms of the mainstream right on his actual policies, fucking Bill Clinton ran to the right of Donald Trump on immigration.

Hell, even Zizek uses the terms fascist and Alt-right as if he has no actual concept of what they stand for aside from some vague sense of immoral/heretical for their racism/sexism etc.

>>13015354
thank you for speaking up on this quentin, many commentators have avoided bring up these points out of ignorance or fear... or both

>>13015362
>She's not a Marxist, she's just a far leftist who strongly advocates for the use of critical theory (a direct derivative of the Marx's dialectical materialism and explicitly developed by Western Marxists)
>George Lincoln Rockwell isn't a Nazi, he's a white nationalist who happened to also supposed certain forms of corporatist syndaclism with strong social safety networks for his people

I'm sorry but I don't think you're actually engaging in this conversation in good faith.

>>13010132
A postmodern Marxist retard try to keep up

>>13014544
Exactly.
An Earth with 50 milion people. All farmers. No bankers no anything. All fundamentalist relugious.
One main city (and i say one) in the whole planet with perhaps 1 milion people. One university and the government and Church administrations.
Whoever isn't fine with this is a kulak and gets to starve.
You can't say it wouldn't be paradise Because it would be.

>>13016043
>all critical race theorists are Marxists because the Frankfurt school invented critical theory
this is the definition of bad faith anon, you are either naively ignorant, or willfully ignorant, or willfully malicious in your ignorance; I'd rather not find out which to be honest.

>>13016077
Would you say that all people that criticize Jewish influence in media are nazis because Nazis made that point?

>>13014220
Come on. have balls. Tell me that wasn't real communism.

>>13016083
OOOH SNAP

>>13016083
what? you are the one being spurious with definitions; wouldn't that be your argument?
critical race theory = Marxism
then
criticism of Jews = Nazis?
>>13016105
someone please break this down I don't see how this is anything other than btfoing his own position

>>13016077
>Believing in an ideological framework developed and directly advocated by Western Marxists
>Not a Marxist

Yes, if you are a critical race theorist, you are a Marxist. You believe in a direct derivative of Marxism. When guys like Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch tried to distance themselves from being seen as Nazis because there are significant differences between their perspective and the perspective of literal 1930s National Socialists nobody on the left took that seriously and for good reason. Yes, if your belief system is a literal direct descendent from Marxism you are a Marxist in the same way that if you are a Mormon, you are a Christian despite Mormonism occurring later and having significant differences. It doesn't matter that Orthodox Catholics have significant criticism of newer Protestant sects or Mormonism, it is still Christian fundamentally and anyone arguing otherwise is not being honest. It doesn't matter that you as someone who considers your beliefs more directly in line with classical Marxism finds intersectionalism/critical theory off-putting, it is still a root from the same tree (and not even particularly removed as the people who developed it were directly acknowledged as literal Western Marxists in the classical sense) and to try and claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

>>13016146
They're just labels, I personally don't really care what people call things as long as the definition they're using is clear

>>13016157
all of western philosophy is a direct derivative of Plato, is it useful to call everyone a Platonist?

>>13016161
wouldn't it be clear to associate Marxism with the ideas of Marx? why is it more clear to define it as something Marx would have disagreed with?

>>13016146
This post >>13016083 wasn't made by me. I think his point was to demonstrate that anti-Semitism and Nazism are generally considered one and the same among the left.

Critical Race Theory is Marxist. There is a difference between being Marxist and being directly Marxism in a classical sense, and you know there are many offshoots of classical Marxism to which you do not contort yourself into nonsensical gymnastics in order to avoid the origins and primary influences involved. There are significant differences between Maoism and Trostkyism but yet you do not pretend as if it's a conspiracy theory to talk about them as being Marxist, nor people who believe in them to be Marxists.
If you believe in Critical Race Theory, you are a Marxist, just as if you are an Episcopal you are a Christian. You may not be a Catholic, but you are a Christian and if I were to try and argue otherwise to you, you would rightly say I was being dishonest.

>>13016168
The issue is 'what Marx wrote' vs 'what Marxists write and do'. I personally think calling all these people neoMarxists or pseudomarxists or whatever is pointless, but getting angry about it is ridiculous for people who use the term Fascist for just about anything right wing they dont like.

>>13016166
If they believe in something that falls under what is commonly described as Neo-platonist yes. You're not talking about thousands of years of difference with hundreds of generations of divergence, there is a direct line from Western Marxism in the early 20th century and Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory is a direct product of Trotskyists and the Frankfurt School, which are both considered Marxist with next to no contention about that designation.

>>13016182
the true mental Gymnastics is pretending every movement inspired by the Frankfurt school is Marxist. Yes, the Frankfurt school is Marxist; yes Adorno is a Marxist; no, the Spenglerians who appropriated Adorno are not Marxists, they openly reject Marx. I know, it's hard to do, you actually have to understand both the ideology and the group you are trying to connect it to, but you do the work you will see that there are huge disconnects in thought even though one inspires the next. Aristotle was a student of Plato, Plato was his major intellectual influence, you would be wrong, however, to consider the followers of Aristotle to be Platonists: ideological identification is more complicated than a simple genealogical analysis

>>13016157
In what way is the Race theory thing Marxist? Apart from the claim that some people who developed it were influenced by some people that were influenced by Marx?

>>13016197
>people who use the term Fascist for just about anything right wing
you are arguing against a strawman, not me. even Zizek is against this. if your only argument for doing something is "the other side does it and they are retarded for doing it", just don't do it.

>>13016071
Marxism and postmodernism are incommensurable. Even your daddy Peterson openly says this, though he claims that these two separate groups have formed some sort of alliance with each other within academia in order to fill universities with libtards like themselves (to paraphrase Peterson).

>>13016168
Here's the problem with this, Marxism is a lot more than just the work of Marx directly and you know this. Marxists.org isn't just the work of and Marx and nobody considers Marxism as a school of thought to have ended development in 1883. If you're trying to tell me that Marxism as a whole is only the work of Marx, I'm sorry but you're full of shit and engaging in purposeful dishonesty and obfuscation of an issue that is actually not particularly hard to parse out. The Frankfurt school were not particularly shy about being heavily influenced by Trotsky, and many Critical Race Theorists throughout the past 50 years directly called themselves Trotskyist-Marxists.

>>13016182
>anti-Semitism and Nazism are generally considered one and the same among the left.
Are there Anti-semites out there who aren't nazis?

>>13016278
Yes. Every single free human.

>>13016299
So that is a no.

>>13016245
>Marxists.org isn't just the work of and Marx
stupid fucking argument, they have everything from Hegel to Freud on there, it's an archive of a lot more than just "Marxists"
okay, I know this is hard for you to follow, so lets try and flesh this out a bit. do you agree with Marx and base your analysis on Marx's ideas? do you identify as a Marxist? then you are a Marxist. do you disagree with Marx and not based your analysis on his ideas? do you not identify as a Marxist? then you are not a Marxist. there are plenty of critical gender theorists who disagree with Marx, they do not base their analysis on Marx's ideas, and they do not identify as Marxists (e.g. Patricia Bidol). pretending that every critical race theorist is a Marxists because critical theory came out of a group of Marxists is spurious, it does not corrospond with even the basic outline of Marxism like the one above. surely you can see why this sort of sloppy analysis helps no one, do you want everyone on the right to be a Nazi? because this is exactly how everyone on the right became a Nazi in burgerland

>>13010751
>>13010706

Glownigs repent. Ye cursed and wicked wretched den of vipers. The sinful eye must be plucked out and discarded

>>13016224
Try and keep up.
The actual surface level logic of Marxism doesn't really matter.
there's something in contract law called facially neutral language, the idea being that you phrase your legal document to sound benign, but underneath the surface level is an agenda.

The argument Peterson makes is that regardless of the logical, facially neutral posturing of postmodernism or neomarxism, there is an underlying agenda. (not even necessarily conscious--memes have their own agendas distinct from the interests of their host mind)

>>13016702
That's a nice story, but until such a claim is quantified, it's hard to consider it as anything other than mere paranoia over libtard agendas meant to subvert western values or whatever bullshit you tell yourself.

>>13016313
I'm actually okay with everyone on the right "becoming a Nazi" in a pejorative sense if it means actually acknowledging in an honest way where many of the right's actual influences come from and moving past the name calling (though I don't think there is this sort of central convergence point around any major figure on the right quite the same way there is around Marx on the left).

Though to be frank, Neo-Conservativres like Ben Shapiro and the like fairly consistently get called Nazis despite being both incredibly liberal on nearly every social issue and are significantly closer to the contemporary left than anything even close to resembling Nazism. American conservatives are just leftists from 10 years ago, but if there were to be actually fascistic figures in positions of power on the right, I have a hard time believing you'd see this same sort of hard headedness in the face of very obvious reality about admitting that.

Again, your distinction between these Critical [x] Theorists and Marxists is primarily just a semantic slight of hand. While there certainly are Critical [x] Theorists who disagree with specific positions that Marx held to claim that they are not fundamentally Marxist is to deny the root of their fairly recently developed worldview back to Marx. The entirety of critical theory stands on Marx's shoulders, and while certain critical theorists may object to him, they more often than not don't object with him over any actual principle differences, but rather over not having the same sort of enlightened/progressive view that they have picked up from atop his shoulders. I don't actually care that there are Marxists who occasionally find themselves at odds with Marx, they are still fundamentally Marxists.

While this isn't the result of a study (not that you could actually get a study done on the prevalence of Marxism in American universities without getting your funding cut and called a fascist all over the news and probably physically attacked by AnComs seeking to reinforce the current status quo paradigm) every single leftist I've talked to who had criticisms of Marx didn't criticize him because of some serious philosophical difference, but rather a failing to live up to their standard of leftism. Feminists who criticize Marx criticize him for not being Marxist enough! They criticize him for failing to actually follow through on his groundwork to the extent that they have, for failing to incorporate into Marxism their extension of it. This doesn't make them not Marxists but rather a later iteration of Marxism which has become watered down in the process of trying to broaden the prole/bourgeois dynamic Marx established.

>>13016313

>>13016924
Cont).

Again, I know you're probably sick of the religious comparisons but they really are the most apt ones to make. That's really all critical theory/intersectionalism is, a section of Marxism. You can object and call it watered down and complain about how some portions diverge from doctrinal Marxism all you fucking want, but its still a sect of Marxism much the same way that the Episcopal Church or Unitarian Universalism is a sect of Christianity. The Episcopal Church is a very watered down version of Christianity that Martin Luther and traditional high church Lutherans would find repulsive (likewise most Episcopals would probably find many of Luther's views and writings to be worth of contempt in much the same way Critical Gender theorists complain about Marx's homophobia or his inadequate view of women's role). This doesn't make Episcopalians not Protestants or Christians in some fundamental way! They are still Protestants even if there are major disagreements between them (and I would argue the differences between the Episcopal Church today and traditional Lutheranism are much larger than the differences between critical theory and classical Marxism)!

>>13016278
Yes, there are quite a few, though they are mostly either Muslim, or very devout third-world Christians.

There also used to be a bunch of anti-Semitic tankies, but they have mostly all become more associated with the alt-right than the left at this point because of how fundamentally unable the left is to actually be honest about itself