After hearing the Zizek-Peterson debate I've realized that 99% of arguments against Marxism from right wingers today are based on their own assumptions and misinterpretations and on shit they heard from other anticommunists. Peterson did all this and openly declared he had only read the Commiefesto (how is he even considered an intellectual?). So, how do we fix this? Is there a point in debating others anymore?
Are debates useless?
Christopher Evans
Other urls found in this thread:
amgreatness.com
newyorker.com
archive.org
youtu.be
spiked-online.com
carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog
goodtherapy.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
Mason Bell
Of course there is, just putting this information outside will certainly convert an amount of people, go to reddit, find people with misconceptions, prepare your sources and if you have the slightest idea of how to present your arguments you should absolutely engage.
Charles Sanders
No, actually the opposite. We should push for even more debates, not only to build awareness, but because all of today's liberals (social and conservative) understand even less about Marx than they did 10 years ago. They are on the weakest footing they ever have been, and we should utilize this to our advantage by pushing Marxist figures to the forefront to expose them, hijacking the current market for debates for a platform. This is the time to get people further left than Zizek into the limelight and make them known by people. Just imagine if someone like Parenti had been up there against Peterson, or even someone with a basic knowledge of Marx for that matter. We can't throw away this opportunity.
Luke Morales
People don't change their mind when it comes to worldviews in one fell swoop. The mind is like a stew that soaks up everything it sees, hears, etc then bubbles away, eventually someone may slowly start to shift, become less extreme in their previous view and end up somewhere between two views or shift towards the other. Debates don't have any immediate effect but at the same time you can't view the world where one never occurred.
At the same time some people are so far gone ideologically that they'll never change, and even in a situation where THE FINAL ARGUMENT descended from heaven and BTFO them forever they'd just starting frothing at the mouth and flinging shit. In short debates are a minutiae of information in the mind stew of anyone who sees them, which may or may not ever have an effect.
Gavin Hughes
Sadly no, they really do exist and started walking out of the debate
It's a sophomoric tendency mostly limited to Anglo universities, but it does exist
I suspect Peterson could have named a colleague on campus who self identifies as a Marxist, but chose not to instead going for how a set of vulgar marxist assumptions wanders in through continental theory (keep in mind continental theory is a very Anglo notion in itself) and through that into post modernism in the Anglo sense
Nota bene, zizek agreed with this analysis, only disputing that this can be considered in any way Marxism, because it goes against everything Marxism stands for
In Anglo terms neo-somethingism refers to ideologies that hearken and self identify as an ideology, but have somehow changed the, for lack of a better term "essence" of the original ideology cf. Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism
Sometimes they've even queered, in the strict academic sense of the term, the original ideology for example neo-reactionism
Best debate I've ever seen, they way zizek deliberately crammed enough into 30 minutes to make a guy who can do a close reading of a text largely off the cuff and extemporaneously without referring to it or notes, have to refer to his notes to respond was something else
Making sure his opening was prewritten so he wouldn't fall to the temptation of responding to the other party's opening was also a brilliant move
Honestly was the debate of the century, so much better than Chomsky vs Foucalt
The bit at the end where the q&a got cancelled so they could talk shop about the issues of the being a shrink in the public intellectual trade was the cherry on top
Seeing shrinks of that calibre being that candid with each other is something that you would normally never see even in private unless you were close to both and very lucky, let alone public
Those of you who have watched it have witnessed something amazing
Asher King
Mostly. Revolution will not come from any kind of debate.
Why? Because only those who have had enough of debate will participate in revolution.
As soon as you participate in democracy, you will be absorbed and destroyed by the capitalist system. Debates are therefore mostly useless.
Daniel Johnson
Was this ironic half-way through?
I'm going to guess wrong thread faggot
Sebastian Myers
Reminder that Parenti is 86 and needs a debate like Zizek vs Peterson
Mason Parker
[pic related in my prior post] note the constant laughs and applause both zizek and peterson got throughout the debate
Honk honk
I was going to ask a revolution for who to do what, but another user got in first with a classic (far predating the board split) old/pol/ style detournment
This is very important, a revolution always eats its own children, in a symbolic sense it's a blood sacrifice
For a revolution you always have to judge whether oneself and ones loved ones are worth the cost, furthermore the cost of a failed revolution is that and also a reaction in the opposite way intended
There is a piece by Katherine Cross which I think was her best work on gamergate, that she sadly deleted but might still be on one of the archive sites on revolution that should be read in parallel with a piece by Zizek on revolution the details of which I unfortunately can't recall but I think had something to do with the batman movie with Bane in it that problematises even the most peaceful revolution
Note, I'm not saying don't do peaceful revolution, or even violent revolution in say a genocidal or omnicidal situation, I'm saying do it with your eyes wide open about the real human costs the risks of a failure, and some thought on what to do the day after
Leo Miller
Everyone is going to fucking die. Might as well turn it into a blood bath with millions dead, so that we may make even more examples of how human beings are nothing more than egotistical animals. A revolution should be full of terror that destroys an entire Nation and ruins the people to their core, not this soft sophist bullshit. People tortured to death in the streets and human nature being truly revealed is what is most important, you nigger-faggot.
Isaiah Phillips
Ok edgemaster
Cooper Ward
Don't talk to papa Stalin that way.
Luke Reed
I don't think you should be allowed to participate in any revolution, tbh
Mason Jones
It's just the Zig Forumsyp that's been shizoposting all morning.
Luis Nguyen
All you're doing is posting word salads about how you want kikes, leftists and women to be tortured and murdered. All that's left to debate is whether you should be forcibly interred in a psychiatric institution post-revolution or simply get the wall and be done with it. Meanwhile, yet another Zig Forums reactionary confirmed for clinically insane danger to society
Evan Wilson
Just as a clinical note, sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was a real diagnostic category in the soviet union
The symptoms were the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, loss of affect, demotivation, absence etc combined with sudden but too short to be psychotic episodes proper outbursts of positive symptoms often but not always about things like freedom or democracy
If the current diagnostic model for schizophrenia is real then in a disturbing way sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was a real syndrome
It's worth noting here that Jung defined a schizophrenic as someone who was merely misunderstood
Cooper Turner
Early in the debate Peterson, noted that rule by pure parasitic force, to paraphrase him, was a very unstable configuration and that the rulers had to provide something more
The audience laughed, Peterson then joked that maybe it was an accurate way of how the people who laughed ruled, even more and louder laughter
Ethan Wood
It's not schizo posting, schizo posting is a newfag boomer thing that indicates a lack of understanding of what's being said
It's an 4/pol/ oldfag rhetorical strategy
Since it's only one user, and not a raid could the mods stop deleting every damn post of theirs, if you're going to be ruthlessly stalinist about post quality, could you at least leave their effort posts up, even if you're going to nuke their shitposts
Remember you're doing this for free, no need to work every damn moment of every second
Tnx in advance hotpockets
Jaxon Edwards
amgreatness.com
Here's the map of where we are now that zizek has asked for multiple times, and asked again for in the debate
Enjoy soon to be comrade in communism
Asher Hughes
what did user mean by this?
Justin Lee
Neo-con scum are inherently Marxist as of the creator of their garbage. No, I am a Nationalist-Partizan and will continue to be well into any further idiocy that engulfs my nation. Better to make them all dead, than be red…eh, comrade? A White Separatist Ethnostate is basically what I would fund, fight, and die for unironically. Oddly enough, I know a lot of the people in said ethnostate would be homesteaders in a chill connected agrarian format that relied on PMC-types to protect them from outside influences.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Robert Jones
OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEE
Isaac Lewis
I vote with my rifle and Marxist faggots will be my ballot. How's that for Nationalism, bitch?
All of you will suffer.
Michael Nelson
Infantile AND inconsequential
Jackson Bennett
Organizing is more important imho.
Lincoln Robinson
No argument and "MODS MODS MODS DEFEND ME AND BAN THE MEAN MAN!" cuckery.
You couldn't even achieve an overarching Nation-State under Marxist bullshit…so why the hell do you think you can critique some of the ideas that are vastly more adaptable to a post-destruction society? You really think it's going to be a leftyfag paradise? It's just going to be a bunch of ruin and starving people who will ultimately kill and steal from one another until some large force comes along and takes them over. It's amusing how the vol here will ban anything that doesn't suck off Marx or Commie retardation though.
Jose Scott
Aaron Brooks
lmao mad cause bad
Juan Howard
Why do gay people always gravitate towards teh communism? Is it like a mental illness to be a gay commie?
Jeremiah Wood
Idk, but psychotic schizos seem to be heavily overrepresented on the right-wing
Easton Gonzalez
1)I think you're confusing communism with Not Socialism, which is statistically the ideology that attracts the highest percentage of homosexuals.
2)You do understand that you're wasting your time, right? Since pretty much everyone here's seen those "insults"/critiques a countless amount of times before…
Michael Reed
Debate is lowest form of discourse
Thomas Ward
After reading this thread full of emotional knee-jerk reactions and strawman arguments, some of them even directed towards people that share the same ideology, I think the answer is obvious enough.
Debate does nothing. Retards like the ☭TANKIE☭ sage girl and Zig Forums shitposter will always double down if confronted. is right about putting information out there, as it may sway someone that already *WANTS* to learn themselves- but I disagree about "engaging" someone being at all productive.
Viewpoints are a war of indoctrination; most people simply stick with the views that they are indoctrinated with as children and teenagers. The ones that do not will not change at some random angry user's behest on the internet (in fact, it will repulse them from your views).
Cooper Mitchell
Caleb Clark
Debates are meaningful, and to say that nothing came out of the Peterson debate is just defeatist pessimism. Just look at all the attention Zizek's take on ideology has gotten in the wake of this. Some consequences of the debate:
1. Peterson's grasp on Marxism was shown to be completely lacking for all to see (more importantly, it was shown to himself), weakening his legitmacy and by extension, those associated with him.
2. Zizek detached PC-culture from the left and dispelled many of the common misconceptions of the left-ring among the right. Absolutely brilliant if the left wants to be taken seriously.
3. People were exposed to Marx' more important works, such as the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
This isn't inconsequential by any means.
Justin Green
Its not that debates are useless
Communism gets a bad reputation because of the absolute state of Communist regimes today
and no one really is a communist anymore
Oliver Myers
The only two countries left that are truly ruled by communists are Cuba (who are starting to pull a kruschev and allow America in) and North Korea. Cuba exports doctors and has one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world. North Korea has achieved pretty much full equality between both the countryside and urban areas and is beginning to broker deals to slowly but surely reunify with the south.
I also don't personally think China is communist but if you count them it's undeniable the pure miracles they've pulled off in terms of urbanizing and educating the populace while entering modernity not only at a break neck pace but in a purely Asian way.
As for "nobody really being a communist anymore" you're surrounded by people who though zizek lost the debate because he didn't advocate for a total holocaust of the global ruling class immediately so idk what you're talking about
Mason Johnson
How could you sincerely come to this conclusion? Are you deliberately being stupid? Communism gets a bad rep in the west because the west is anti-communist by design. Western "leftism" was born out of left-communism (anti-communism).
Isaiah Moore
As of today offically there are 5 marxist leninists states left: DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.
Nobody is running off to live in any of those, maybe China if you can get some business going. You can probably point to many countries in Europe with better healthcare than Cuba.
There are not many people out side of fringe groups that are communist today.
yes and the lack of really being capitalism the way Capitalist powers destroyed the Communist block
Jayden Anderson
Only "debates" with the working class is useful. You will never have a revolution relying on convincing the middle class or the bourgeoisie. This is an idealist way of thinking that was prevalent in Hegel's time and it took Marx and Engels to fight against it.
The working class is the only revolutionary class precisely because it is the commodity which the entire capitalist system relies on for survival and only it is the class which has nothing to gain from the increased profits of the capitalist system. The job of Marxists isn't to debate bourgeois or petty bourgeois intellectuals, its to convince the working class of the necessity of armed revolution because of the working class' material position.
Jordan Cook
Lol this is why I diffrrentiated being run by truly ideologically committed communists from merely having a communist party that,while having a wing still sympathetic to truly leninist socialism, is mostly run by revisionists. This is the case in Vietnam, which at best essentially is run the same way a social democratic European state would be run but because its an export economy and doesnt participate in imperialism doesnt have the capital to develop further without both aid from China and invitations to western corporations. Laos is largely the same.
China is overtly capitalist in Hong Kong to the point that Xi's attempts to prematurely annex it under mainland control have the potential to turn into a Russia/Crimea scenario. Deng's reforms throughout the 70s and 80s,while arguably necessary, opened the door wide open for revisionism within the CPC and also boatloads of foreign capital penetrating into China. Now that China has developed to such a high stage materially, it essentially functions as a Keynesian system with less robust welfare programs.
DPRK and Cuba are the only remaining states where revisionism was,smashed and that functioned in practice,insofar as they have been materially able to, as,socialist societies (this is at risk in Cuba now that Castro is dead which is why I lol when people accuse DPRK of neo-monarchism for cultivating such a strong love of the Kim's but that's another conversation).
Irrelevant to the point you were making which is that communism isn't popular and nobody are communists anymore
Contestable depending on which country we're talking about and also irrelevant
There's 2 things wrong with you saying this.
First by your definition there's five Marxist states, one of them being one of the biggest countries on Earth, whose president is genuinely well liked by large margins of the public on the mainland, so how are there not many people who are communist?
Secondly even if one disagrees with your definition, like I largely do, there's still many people who are interested in communism and many more who would be if their class consciousness wasn't redirected into bourgeoisie movements such as social democracy and neofascism. You're accusation of "fringe groups" being the only people interested in communism is strange because if a million people were part of a communist party you could still call it a fringe group despite it being "many people" because relevant to the global population in total it's a drop in the bucket.
Also even in those societies fun by communist parties there exist movements to reform said parties but not to make them more liberal but in fact more radical. In China there's been a crackdown on Maoist organizations, some or whom are fine with Xi being president and jusy want to take his purge of corrupted officials farther and replace them with new representatives elected in a more Democratic fashion by workers. Even when the Soviet union was at its worst the majority of people didn't want it to collapse and today over 50 percent of Russians have a positive view of Stalin and the he communist party enjoys massive popularity. This same trend has been repeated throughout Eastern Europe for the last 20 years and even in hyper capitalist nations like Japan the communist party enjoys increasing popularity. In India, the Philippines and Nepal there are militants risking their lives literally fighting for communism. In Iraq the communist party gained enough popularity in its last election to become part of a coalition government. In Turkey the Communist mayor of a moderately sized city was just elected .
Connor Phillips
Ok? You understand that I am not arguing that all those countries are "REAL Socialism"
The OP question was on the topic of anti communist perspective of the average person.
Actually its not. If the these regimes were fulfilling what people deemed as a better system to capitalism people would be trying to enter not leave at the rates they are.
Its not irrelevant just because you can't counter it
Your opinion on this is irrelevant.
Officially there are 5 Marxist states left in the world. Now you might disagree but this is the current narrative
this isn't MY definition it is what is taught in academia today.
So you agree but you don't like the world fringe. ok.
I don't see what this has to do with the topic.
Dominic Mitchell
Andrew Parker
The topic was about zizek vs Peterson and the anti communist sentiment
So it should go without saying that the subject population is the people in the US Canada and Europe not indian Maoists or whatever
Michael Evans
...
Robert Gomez
i think the problem is that nobody wants to fucking read anymore so will spend 3 hours watching a """debate""" instead.
Xavier Peterson
Also are you implying that people in the west not necessarily being interested in literally joining parties with the word communist or something referencing Leninism in the name means nobody is therefore interested in the ideas of Marx and Engels and therefore Marxists, regardless of their party or sectarian divisions ideologically, are wasting time talking to and reaching across the aisle to people such as Peterson and his fans and vice versa? Because that's empirically false
Jason Baker
Fix what? Read Hegel or Marx, the whole point of him (well, one of, anyway), is the issue of consensus and evolution of ideas of individual in relations to other people and society. You should at least know about a thing called class consciousness - meaning that convictions and logic of a person is determined by his economic being.
Such debate on such a topic with such contenders can be nothing more than a performance, a duel. Noone would think that they would result in participants being defeated, as in, accepting that they are wrong and their opponent is right.
However, it is a great thing if conditions of such debate are favourable for us - and in case of Peterson vs. Z, the game was rigged in favour of ourguy from the start.
Lincoln Morris
this is not the subject population we're talking about though
Cameron Turner
No I'm implying the number of people interest in communism is extremely small in the west
Hunter Bell
There never was. Identify specific problems and specific solutions. Don't promote them as being leftist or anti-capitalist or anything other than a solution to a problem. If people don't like your solutions or don't care, then that sucks for you.
Cooper Stewart
Okay but one can be interested in Marxism and Marx's ideas about capitalism without being interested in communism necessarily. Peterson conceded as much himself in the debate several times. You're claiming that debating isn't pointless it's just that most people aren't interested in communism but the op was about debunking strawmen against Marx and his ideas and whether that was futile or not
Joshua Ross
yeah and?
Brody Murphy
So what are we arguing about
Alexander Reed
You didn't really say anything or make an argument
Sebastian Diaz
Yes because when we win, those who follow are enemies will join our side. It might not be many, but it’s enough for it to be important.
Noah Gonzalez
I've been seeing comments among the twitterati wits that Peterson lost the debate when Zizek attempted to solicit a joke from Peterson at the end, and Peterson didn't give one
Peterson did in fact give Zizek a joke
It was gallows humour from a practicing Jungian psychoanalyst to a retired Lacanian
Freud poster, did you spot it?
Jeremiah Fisher
i got marxpilled by debates
Landon Wilson
which ones
Andrew Gutierrez
Debate isn't useless, but it doesn't perform the function idealistic liberals believe it does. It's not a battle of ideas. It's a battle of presentations and fanbases, and whoever has the best presentation or the strongest fanbase wins.
Lincoln Barnes
Zizek realized this and that's why he didn't actually try to posture or debunk every single one of Peterson's bullshit claims (which Peterson would've just counter-bullshitted anyway). He tried to reach to the audience and ramble about a different topic every five minutes which made Peterson incredibly anxious because Zizek wasn't like the low-hanging illiterate liberals he's always "destroying with facts and logic".
Leo Ramirez
Like clockwork.
Daniel Scott
ones I heard live on discord
Jose Torres
Debates aren't going to change shit.
newyorker.com
Brandon Fisher
Uphold Revolutionary Defeatist Thought
Levi Hernandez
Jaxon Green
They are if someone is honest with himself. ANd that's a rarity these days.
Blake Myers
Lurk more
Joshua Rivera
Shuddup newfag
Tyler Cox
...
Jack Martin
Debates are useless because even if you can get everyone to agree with your position, the point of leftism is to actually get off your ass and do shit. It's exceedingly obvious nothing is happening on the leftist front. So you'll just end up with more people complaining nothing is happening or defaulting to virtue signalling.
Josiah Flores
you win by capturing hearts and minds. what do you expect to do with most of society against the idea of communism…. become authoritarians and force them to be commies?
Logan Powell
It's only worth it if you're absolutely sure you can trust the debate won't descend into the gutter, and you aren't engaging with dishonest actors who don't really care about truth values.
Otherwise, it's pointless because even if you win a debate, it doesn't necessarily mean you are correct.
Evan Russell
Look at the climate change issue. Most people agree with the scientists that it is happening, but literally nobody is doing anything that will actually help in meaningful way. Instead you just get virtue signalling over consumer choices.
Michael Stewart
Also, I think people who use debate as sport are usually cancer. I see that backfiring someday when people realize how you can win a debate purely with rhetoric and being forceful.
Samuel Adams
small correction, most people agree that most people agree with the scientists.
Luis Turner
Climate change is a losing battle there isn't enough evidence
Chase Myers
Regardless of any political position you have, you need to realize that you need to kill people. The Nazis and Fascists want to kill us so that they can maintain Hate, we need to kill them to stop Hate.
We have people like Matt Shea wanting to kill us and hang us on flag-poles when we want to bring forth the American Revolution to its final level and they want to bring back the Confederate States of America literally treason, Right-Wingers will maintain this horrible state of existence as long as they can to the point that people like Elon Musk literally kill everyone and become Space Vampires consuming countless Galaxies.
Zachary Brooks
Rolled 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 = 9 (6d2)
Have you watched the debate?
If you have, assume both men are far smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable than you and watch it again
If you think either one of them is bullshitting or the like or is making an inadequate argument think again
They both know what they're talking about all too well
It's beyond if only you knew how bad things really are, to however bad you think things are they're actually worse don't cry, please laugh
Finally, Jorden Peterson's thought, especially his more obscure academic work meshes very well with Juche thought, and in fact provides scientific backing for many of it's theoretical positions
Oliver Walker
Peterson stopped calling it "Cultural Marxism" and calling it quasi-Marxist postmodernists: youtu.be
Ethan Martin
Elijah Gomez
@26:00 &@26:30 he almost starts crying again on stage. What a mess.
Grayson Diaz
What's with all the schizo posting lately?
Thomas Brooks
Are you ok, retard
Levi Foster
Imagine all of those guys being exposed to their own audiences as the hacks they are.
Oliver Rivera
he was mocking you for being schizophrenic
Austin Russell
More debates.
peterson agreed capitalism needs to be critiqued but he thinks post modern neomarxism is literally KGB training teachers to lie and make america authoritarian Stalinist and nothing else because he didn't read marx and doesn't know what marxism is
Important points were made like "thats not what marx said, read gotha" and his response to "why marxism" was "marx had good points about capitalism"
John Taylor
Peterson fans are realizing this but they think its because "the left" is doing a bad job at distinguishing themselves because they think liberals are leftist and when actual leftists tell them that they assume its in bad faith because they don't know any better.
Bentley Murphy
I'm well aware of that, that's why I asked him if he was ok
Study some Jung, and try again kid
He brought a very valid point to the debate and it still holds true
Luke Sullivan
My god, he's making a sophisticated conservative argument for socialism to the Heritage Foundation
Andrew Richardson
spiked-online.com
I guess debates aren't pointless
Ryan Powell
Molyneux has charisma at least
Landon Garcia
PLEASE
Christopher Bailey
In what world does Molyneux have charisma? He reminds me of someone teetering on the verge of mental collapse
Jaxon Foster
Really because he sounds exactly like a paranoid Yuri Bezmenov crossed with some Nazbol Elder Protocols. Over numerous studies with the most generous margins 1/3 of professors are left 1/3 are center and 1/3 are right in certain social science departments only. Every other department is 90% not marxist. All of his critique is misdirected rage at neoliberal manufactured crises that are a product of capitalism. In fact his critique itself is part of the same.
I've read Jung. Everything Peterson talks about can be learned by reading Joseph Campbell hero with a thousand faces and watching one Yuri B video on youtube.
What were his valid points that I missed?
John Bennett
Ok, can you explain the joke Peterson tells Zizek, at the end of the debate?
John Watson
carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog
Sometimes people repeat things because they are true not because they identify with other people saying them. Its really ironic that Jordan thinks other people need to face their demons, so he performatively puts Lenin on the wall in his house but wont read State and Revolution.
Adam Turner
That would be nice if it were true, but no things are not that simple
Peterson engaged a psychoanalytic technique, did you recognize it?
Ayden Johnson
goodtherapy.org
its really not that deep my dude he didn't go through any trials or purgatory he just assumed that because he was focusing on his own work and society pushed him into this place that he deserved to be there without reading any material
Thomas Johnson
youtu.be
from a peterson fan