/lit/ - Literature

Juden Peterstein exposed as massive pseud by Sniffman.

I respect Peterson because I think he really wants to save the West. His handling of Jung's theories is competent, and I believe that the debate may have gone towards a comparison of notes between the thoughts of Carl Gustav Jung and Lacan and a model of happiness in the 21st century can be developed in the light of both theories.

The problem was that Peterson prepared to attack what he considers the corroding agent of society and thought that Marx is exclusively the communist manifesto.

Zizek's call, on the other hand, is more painful in the sense that he says that apparently the only thing we can do is to carry the capitalist consequences to the end because we don't really have a choice on the subject. The oligarchy is in charge, not the population. What else can be done?

>>13216388
where can I see the battle of the pseuds? youtube?

Made me realize that Chomsky was right the whole time.

>>13216388
>I wasn't ready

>>13216490
God I am in love with this man

>>13216388
14 min in and it's already clear Peterson has no idea what Marx is talking about and/or is turning Marx's sociology of capitalism into an economic reductionism.

I'll add more as I continue to watch.

>>13216390
find another site to sully you evil coward

>two of the most miserable looking fucks ever
>these are the people we should be listening to with regards to happiness

>>13216516
around 19min Peterson says "you have this implicit idea that all of the good is on the side of the proletariat and all of the evil is on the side of the bourgeoisie". This is what orthodox Marxists call Vulgar Marxism. Marx actually respected Capitalism although he rejected the system's exploitation. Peterson makes Marx sound like a conspiracy theorist. Marx clearly rejects this reading of his work in the beginning of his Kapital. The individual members of the bourgeois class (who were, just like the proletariat, forced into their sociological position by Capitalism) are not guilty or evil in Marx's sociology.

Peterson, like many critics of the left, mistake Bolshevism's reading of Marx for what Marx wrote.

>>13216569
23min in, and it's no longer clear to me whether he is criticizing Marx for inspiring Bolshevism's way of doing things or critizing Marx for failing to explain what the proletarian post-capitalist order should look like. He then presumes this post-capitalist future will be ruled by a minority of proletarians in a centralized fashion, although to my knowledge Marx never elaborated on any of that and moreover this sounds suspiciously similar to the planned economy bolsheviks tried to implement.

>>13216484
based

>>13216600

The way Peterson talks says a lot about Jungian psychoanalysis, in that his critique of Marxism presumes the Marxists care as much about good versus evil as Jungian analysis does. Marxist analysis, however, is rather amoral, in the sense that it is a sociological perspective rather than an individualist one.

>>13216620

Around 30min in, Peterson confirms what I already suspected; The way he describes Marx's postive comments about Capitalism is that Marx's respect for Capitalism is somehow an inconsistency. But the young Marx was a Hegelian, so of course he wanted to move beyond Capitalism towards an even better society.

Why would Peterson accept a debate about a subject he didn't even seriously research about?

>>13216697
money?
or maybe because critics were saying he is a chicken if he didn't?

>>13216620
>Marxist analysis, however, is rather amoral, in the sense that it is a sociological perspective rather than an individualist one
This seems to me to be a common defense Marxists employ but it seems a bit two-faced. On one side Marxists will say "we're not an ideology, we're not manichaean moralists, we're not explicitly corrosive agents like what uninvolved outsiders like Peterson paint us as", but then on the other side you get party lines, gulag memes, and institutional infiltration. Like no shit Marxism is an analysis, every ideology analyzes society and comes to conclusions from that analysis. The implementation of those conclusions is ideology and Marxists are no different. Peterson's a pseud who doesn't know what Marxism is but this whole "we're different!" schtick is just tiring. And I say this as someone on the far right who's found Marx's analysis of capitalism valuable.

>>13216666

Zizek has some interesting insights, but his 10mins are not a refutal or even reaction to Peterson.

>>13216754

I think Marx's mistake is he welcomed his prediction and tried to help it along, thereby becoming an activist instead of a scholar. Moreover, by doing so the manichaean moralists took control of what should have been an amoral hypothesis about future events.

This is why Marx scholars differentiate between young Marx and old Marx, Marx the academic and Marx the revolutionary.

I'm not defending Marx here because I'm a Bolshevik. I'm defending him because Peterson's summary of Marx is simplistic (and much so for an academic).

two retards fighting

>>13216761
48min in
Zizek is all over the place. 9/11, Nazis, Populism, Trump, and all sorts of stuff. It entertains the crowd, but apart from calling populists and nazis pathological, I'm not hearing a social commentary about a bunch of stuff. At least Peterson tried to criticize Marxism..

>>13216827
>I think Marx's mistake is he welcomed his prediction and tried to help it along, thereby becoming an activist instead of a scholar
Exactly. He said "the worker's revolution and everything else that I've said is inevitable" and then he went and tried to spread his ideology. If it was truly inevitable he wouldn't be trying to spread it in the first place because it would not matter.

>This is why Marx scholars differentiate between young Marx and old Marx, Marx the academic and Marx the revolutionary.
Well that's fucking stupid, Marx scholars are just making up mental gymnastics to justify how they're special and different. Marx the academic led directly to Marx the revolutionary, they're not two different people the revolutionary outlook is resultant from the academic analysis.

>I'm not defending Marx here because I'm a Bolshevik. I'm defending him because Peterson's summary of Marx is simplistic (and much so for an academic).
I agree that Peterson is a reductive idiot and really nothing more than a rank-and-file conservative posing as some kind of new-age alt lite type. But Bolshevism is shit and unnecessarily brutal to people who don't have to be brutalized, Strasserism and syndicalism in general are both superior.

>>13216879
50min in
I expected Zizek to attack capitalism, but he instead attacks the alt-right's use of "cultural marxism" to avoid the real cause of degeneracy (i.e. capitalism). I tend to agree with Zizek about this.

>>13216886
>Well that's fucking stupid.

Not really. Other thinkers in history have been given the same treatment. Not everyone who is born thinks the exact same as his younger self did. Wittgenstein is the best example of this.

>>13216411
Thx

What would a debate between Foucault and Zizek be like?

>>13216928
I know there are plenty of instances where you can separate different sections of a person's life by their thought but this is definitely not one of them. It's pure sophistry so that Marxists can pat themselves on the back and say "see we're different!" Early Wittgenstein is concerned with an entirely different worldview than late Wittgenstein. Marx was also taking an active part in spreading his ideology. The Communist Manifesto was published relatively early in his thought and it's obvious intention is to spur workers into action rather than something like Das Kapital which is an academic exploration of the "inevitable".

>>13216388
The fight was between a guy saying he's not political who has been taking political view points on the news since the new atheism thing and the other guy is completely incomprehensible.
It's just a pokemon fight essentially for people to lazy to develop their own ideas so they proxy war through these personalities to validate themselves.

>>13216388
made me realize Peterson is a dumb ass nigga

>>13217911
his nigga ass didn't even show up "I wasn't able to prepare adequately." fuck your ass and stay home with the children.

>>13216388

>>13216569
>This is what orthodox Marxists call Vulgar Marxism
It's also something that Zizek passionately rejects. There's footage of him getting called out at a leftist seminar for not "opening his heart", to which he responds by shitting all over them for getting sentimental about immigrants, treating them like a humanitarian crisis instead of addressing immigration as a geopolitical situation in order to solve it.

>>13216388
Who gives a fuck, it’s long past and was a total milquetoast flop, stop posting these threads

>>13216497
Fag

The funny thing about Zizek, or so as it seems to me, is the left holds him up as a sort of Marxist messiah, when I bet he'd throw most left leaning individuals under a bus if given the chance.

>psychologist who barely understands Marx vs. philosopher-clown in a discussion more than a debate
It was a stunt for publicity

>>13218355
He doesn't seem super well put together either like out of shape, neck bearding, with a lot of cocaine mannerisms.

>>13216388
Ridiculous. And I haven’t even seen it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=liT7e5M6XfY

>>13219454
>He doesn't seem super well put together either like out of shape, neck bearding, with a lot of cocaine mannerisms
*SNIF*
*RUBS NOSE
*SNIF*
*EXTENDS HIS TONGUE BRUSHES HIS LIPS WITH IT*
*COMBS HIS BEARD*

*AND SO ON AND SO ON*

this fucking slovenian is a walking meme.

>>13216569
>Peterson, like many critics of the left, mistake Bolshevism's reading of Marx for what Marx wrote.
Like people do with Nietzche?

>>13216484
>>13216388

>>13219464
Imagine making fun of youtube celebrities, then unironically posting an Abby Martin production.

>>13219512
Based Chomsky. How is he so lucid at his 90s?

>>13216388
Zizek won and exposed him for what anyone that actually knows what postmodernism is has been claiming from the start, but like Zizek stated at some point during the debate, don't think of it as scoring points and who was right or wrong, but actually focus on what they're saying and think on it.

>>13219648
Cryptocurrencies

>>13216528
Onions.png

>>13216445

yup

>>13219512
Chomsky is a very smart man but Zizek isn't a fraud. He is taken seriously by Hegel scholars such as Pippin.

>>13216411
>I respect Peterson because I think he really wants to save the West
lol

>>13219572
Imagine defending Peter Jordenson by inferring something is wrong with one of the only journalists working today

>>13218315
Perfect.

>>13220054
>Hegel scholar
This is an oxymoron.

>>13220781
Cool

>>13219512
He's always been eternally seething at Zizek for some reason. Maybe he got offended when sniffman offered him some coke at some event or other.

>>13216994
Old Marx and Young Marx is a very useful distinction, but it was never between revolutionary and academic, it's between his scientific and humanist stages

>>13216388
Human happiness is not determined by exterior circumstance.

>>13220936
Just be yourself

>>13220851
Zizek basically called him out for defending the Khmer Rouge, suggesting that his insistence on empirical data left him totally oblivious to the atrocities they committed in cambodia when all he needed to do was listen to what the public were saying. I don't think Chomsky's ever recovered from it desu

>>13221137
Isn't Chomsky right though? When a majority agrees with something doesn't make it right unless it's a question about a thing that affects them.

>>13221143
Whether or not Chomsky's methodology is "right" is irrelevant, Zizek showed how even one of the most revered marxist academics doesn't actually pay any attention to the public he purports to represent. Can't hear the screams of the proletariat having their throats slashed open with serrated sugar cane if you're too busy in your lab perpetually tweaking your methodology until you arrive at the right conclusion, by which point its too little too late.

>>13216388
OH NONONONO

>>13221137
That would only be a problem if the Khmer Rouge actually did anything wrong. They didn’t .

>>13221143
He's not saying you should only listen to the majority anon. Remember when a bunch of Iraqis were complaining about being bombed by drone strikes and the US government kept denying it? "The facts" said it wasn't happening, but it was obvious to anyone with half a brain what was happening. Chomsky wanted to make Cambodia out to be a smokescreen obfuscating awful shit going on in East Timor, which basically involved denying the accounts of refugees (not simply the majority but people who lived through the genocide); turns out the "smokescreen" he tried to run with ended up being one of the worst genocides in history. It's okay though, according to him, because he wasn't wrong according to "the facts" of the time. Very solid empiricism.

>>13219512
>would waste 2 minutes listening to the real thing
>waste multiple minutes reading an "analysis" that simply reenforces his prejudices

Why is he so afraid of facing the real world?

>>13221171
Intellectuals are not the proletariat. Their labor is fundamentally different from all other forms of labor.

>>13221178
>Dr. Zizek
>Dr.
Don't do that

>>13221192
no offence, but what does this non-sequitur have to do anything? I never stated otherwise.

>>13221203
The screams heard were from a different class of people entirely. Pretending they were from the proletariat is dishonest.

>>13221223
pretending that the khmer rouge only targeted the intellectual class is dishonest too. inb4 anecdotal evidence, but I've been to cambodia a few times and its massively apparent that people from all walks of life suffered a tremendous amount. I'll concede that it probably wasn't the proletariat getting their throats cut in such a barbaric way, but if you weren't killed, chances are you were at the very least evicted from the city to starve on the frontier. But my point still holds up that Chomsky was totally blind to the scale of the catastrophe that was going on at the time

>>13221171
Chomsky isn't a Marxist but an anarchist.

>>13221493
same shit different bucket

>>13221178 Sadboys just need a strong daddy :)

>>13221870
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh no? :3