"a lecture series about the sacred icons of the left. (Marx, Foucault, Derrida)"

youtu.be/EFWrLx8b2mQ?t=11m39s

So there we go, the guy that specializes in Jungian voodoo and alcoholism treatment is going to make a lecture series about the "sacred icons" of the left. Surely we can expect a penetrating critique of Marx's economic theories.

Attached: 830wwcbg4gb01.png (751x1000, 343.93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/marx-and-alienation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Gotta love how he puts Marx and Foucault in the same category, as if they are in any way compatible. Might as well make a series on the "sacred icons" of the right and include Thomas Jefferson alongside Nietzsche.

...

IIRC, he literally claims that post-modernism is Marxist conspiracy or something.

Ive never even read anything by Focault or Derrida and i honestly have no idea what they even write about. Would anyone mind filling me in?

Foucault's whole deal is effectively trying to make use of Nietzsche's analysis of power and meaning towards progressive/emancipatory ends. This is sort of the backbone of postmodern thinking, that by deconstructing the socially imposed meaning expressed in culture and politics, we can gain a better understanding of the power structures of our society, and how they control us through language, culture, etc. However its fundamentally at odds with Marxism, because postmodernism essentially sees culture as taking on a life of its own, rather than being tied to material conditions. It sees power as some nebulous, incomprehensible thing endemic to all human relations, that shifts and evolves almost randomly, gives rise to an imposed meaning, which in turn gives rise to new power relations. The irony of Peterson's whole bullshit is that Nietzsche, who he admires, is basically the founder of postmodernism.

Does this really need a thread?

They are a phenomenon restricted entirely to children of yuppies who study non-STEMM garbage in Western Europe and the US (and who are very eager to pick up modes of expression that seem to have the main function of distinguishing themselves) and almost orthogonal to the left.

He kinda has a point when he talks about egalitarianism, but the point of Marx is thinking about the disconnect between the utility of an object and its price. He just hoped the production of goods would be more efficient than it is now, but in terms of how much time and effort of our lives we have to spend to produce them, and the side-effect of that would be a more-efficient allocation of resources, in effect lowering inequality and making society more equal overall.
Leftists tend to forget this too, and that's when all the idpol and activist-fueled cancer starts infecting your brain. That's why the average far-leftist looks a bit ridiculous to the average normalfag. The latter doesn't care about people dying in far-away lands they never visited. However they care about their workweek (or the absence of one in their life), and that's the case for people all across the world. That's why third-worldism is retarded.

You should be weary that he is communicating with Peter Thiel

Attached: thiel-kid.jpg (533x723, 45.85K)

You recall correctly. He says that the marxists couldn't call themselves marxists in public after muh gorillions under Stalin so they rebranded as pomos.

I already know what it will look like:
mises.org/library/marx-and-alienation

Basically, Rothbard figured out he could speak with a tone of authority and make a bunch smart sounding, but totally irrelevant connections most people wont understand, and that would convice a fair number of clueless readers that Marx was being refuted in the article.

Anyone who actually understands Marx will at once be confused at what they're reading. Marx sees alienation as cosmic? That's funny, I thought he had a fairly well define and objective definition. in the next paragraph many marxists will wonder how Marx was influenced in any way by Plotinus, and some intrepid readers may even search Marxists.org to see if any work in their database contains a mention of Plotinus, and be rather disappointed.