[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / choroy / dempart / egy / jenny / leftpol / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 275269b4766c241⋯.png (31.99 KB, 217x158, 217:158, Untitled.png)


Are you ready? Will you attend? Do you think Zizek will be able to debate (I mean, Peterson is a snake and Zizek isn't renown for debating skills)




It was perfected by Marx but true


File: 4024cc0cb484299⋯.jpg (95.69 KB, 867x685, 867:685, t4g36ba8qi221.jpg)


Aduur I also oppose the Marxists gaining power in Russia because I'm a Marxist who read the specific rules of MArxism laid out by Karl Marx who is not fully a god but a demi god for me an intellectual so you can't apply Marxism outside of England the USA France and Germany this holds true even today btw Bolsheviks should have been stomped by the Menshevik Capitalists? who couldn't stomp anything and where gay af who later joined the Bolsheviks and where even later physically removed by Bolsheviks while a smaller minority joined the whites and was completely irrelevant. But they should have been the Winner in that scenario for reasons not the Bolsheviks, the anarchists or the entire White Army and foreign allied intervention Menshevik=good enough for me a MArxist intellectual because I know history and science and shiet





why zizek said that one time that "its upto communists to defend that"

and then he said "communism has failed"

what is he actually?

is this really our victory? i don't understand


File: 7bd2c1e78dd061e⋯.png (25.24 KB, 958x250, 479:125, ClipboardImage.png)


>the value does not result from the work put in, because no one will pay for purposeless (but labor-intensive) digging and burial of ditches

the madman actually invoked "muh holes", by god. can we do mudpies next?



>I also oppose the Marxists gaining power in Russia because I'm a Marxist who read the specific rules of MArxism laid out by Karl Marx

I never opposed the Russian Revolution (the kulaks deserved it :^) ), but rather pointed out that it was something that Marx did not predict but Lenin defied theory to put forth anyway. Marxist thought is not as hegemonic as you are making it out to be with your strawmans


>I give an example of the recognition marx by the left as a god

By referring to LTV that Smith created? Your inability to recognize the fact that Marxists are holding on to coz they see some use for it (whether you agree with it or not), not holding onto it for sentimental value is your own problem. Not making it ours.



I shed ziss juss to provoke you



>did not predict

did not predict or advocate






>"a thing needs to first be useful before it can have exchange-value" = "the more useful a thing is, the more value it has"

reading comprehension not your strong suit then?


File: 6e57a08c5b8967a⋯.jpg (30.67 KB, 550x386, 275:193, flat,550x550,075,f.u5.jpg)

subjective theory of value!

supply and demand bro.

but what if the child consents tho?



so that was shitposting irl?


>Zizek simply agreed with marxism critique

no its much more than that

"communism has failed" is a statement

and he pissed on all of the past struggle



Well, it's kinda less work to find water than diamonds if I'm honest.


> communism has failed

> but Capitalism bad too

> muh regulations

> muh climate

> Muh UN

> SJW's bad

> shoutout to Backstabbin' Bernie


Very Cool and epic.



Search, for starters: Paul Cockshott, Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts.



daily reminder to not comflate value with price. you know, the crucial mistake marx identifies in classical political economy.


File: 7b0814dc7f61e35⋯.jpg (8.46 KB, 175x287, 25:41, download.jpeg.jpg)


zizek understands the failure of the soviet union to be a sign of the dominance of the post-ideological liberal democracy of today. He speaks of Fukuyama often in this recital, who termed today's neoliberal order "the end of history", and so in a way, even communists are looking to transform capitalism rather than overthrow it - this demonstrates the destruction of a lot of communist movements against capitalism, so thus explains his comments about the "failure of (20th century) communism".



Or in other words he's a succ-dem who needs few weeks in a re-education camp.



Because use value and exchange value aren't the same you absolute fucking middle school tier retard


WHY DOES HE ALWAYS SNIFF? I can't find a single physical condition where someone sniff's like that all the fucking time. He can't always be sick.



from the conclusions i have made from my scarce analysis, yes.

he often describes himself as a 'pessimist' and speaks against revolution.



Tourette's Syndrome



he is inhaling a tiny fragment of cocaine every time to keep his heart pumping. he medically died 4 years ago.



He does not speak against revolution, he speaks against carrying out revolution in the wrong way, like it happened before. He says it is better to not act than to act and fuck it all up.




He seems more reformist demsuc I guess. He had a line mentioning organizing trade union that reminds me of IWW-tier praxis



so more socdem reforms is the only way?

then why "today's communists" even call them communists?



well he certainly supports the proletariat, but he just seems to talk more about toilets than theory though.



Zizek calls leftists today "Fukuyama Communists".



I guess that he think that path to socialism/communism is improvisational hence wary for some grand plan to reach it.



Only because Zizek hasn't heard of the Zapatistas of Chiapas.



he generally supports left-leaning candidates in western countries - this is the most political activity I've seen him advocate.



lol wtf is that?

i was already new to the left but now after watching the debate i am more confused than ever.

its funny that its is way too easy to be on the right, which offer you simple solutions to most of the problem even though no matter how fucked those solutions are but the ideas on are way too complicated and confused. like there is no clear purpose. i am not supporting the right wing here but today as an ordinary man its easy to be on the right and to act toward you purpose than it is to be on the left.



*ideas on left



I'm not well read on Fukuyama but here's my hot take. He's an philosopher who after the fall of USSR though we reached the end of history, which is capitalism with western democracy. What Zizek means by that is communist today don't really want radical change, are not thinking about how to get to real socialism but instead go for reformed capitalism. More or less AOC and Bernie.



yes you are right. i feel like it is by design.

right-wing world view is very simple to understand while the left is complicated and overly-intellectual which can alienate uneducated proles, which leaves a space open for middle-class leftists to dominate think-tanks and so on.

right-wingers set up simple constructed dichotomies:

reals/feels, us/them, government/citizen, individual/collective and so on. This logically leads to universalism and absolutism which become ideological monsters like fascism or anarcho-capitalism.

it is all quite depressing, but i have hope that the common class struggle will eventually unite all workers.



It somewhat starts with Burke/Paine

but further down it's Epicurus vs. Plato/Aristotle



yes, exactly.

Fukuyama is also a conservative, so it would be in his interest to promote this narrative also, but his message does have truth to it.



epicurus is based




Yes. That's why his followers were being killed up through to the industrial revolution when idealistic nonsense was, at least in the scientific field ditched, while it still prevails in philosophy.



Magnet 🧲magnet:?xt=urn:btih:14365cc5b99765fe5d70db01758a63f5a25159ae&dn=Slavoj+Zizek+vs.+Jordan+Peterson+Debate+at+the+Sony+Centre+on+Ap&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969



>More or less AOC and Bernie.

Honestly it is too early for them to reveal that they just want to reform capitalism rather then pave the way for socialism



why usa is the only country which matters the most in this world?


>which can alienate uneducated proles

but in old left there were people from all walks of life. and even the majority were the uneducated ones.



well, epicurus was a materialist

he made binaries and collectivised experience in a typical utilitarian manner:

good = pleasure

bad = pain

and all applicable.

his remedy for suffering in the world was not to satisfy your desires, but to resist them in a mystical sense. Once you lose desire, you lose the pain of unattainability.

in any case, it was the moralist idealists who hunted him, and made up lies of his hedonism.

interestingly, epicureanism spread and formed communes in it's wake that promoted brotherhood, and these were destroyed by the roman empire, kinda like how fascists destroy worker solidarity through a bargaining of something much worse.



Thanks. Gonna make some webms from it later



i am not being elitist when i call people uneducated, it is simply the fact that many people do not understand leftist language and so can be weary of it's message, or perhaps they are uneducated on the history of communist movements or class struggle.


File: 7d8a353a77d2672⋯.jpg (399.02 KB, 810x1564, 405:782, 2874728q.jpg)

Im guessing he's talking about muke? lol, moral fag.


File: 50b45fee93ff28a⋯.jpg (23.74 KB, 331x334, 331:334, 1434026343759.jpg)


intellectual property?



>Honestly it is too early for them to reveal that they just want to reform capitalism rather then pave the way for socialism

I kinda agree but I feel Kautsky was more radical than them. Do you seriously think AOC wants communism?


>why usa is the only country which matters the most in this world?

If course it isn't the only nation that matters. I used the as an example because everyone knows about them.


I've watched lots of zizek in the last week or so in preparation for this, but honestly I wasn't aware he is capable of going as hard as he did last night. He really outdid even himself and his beginning monologue was jawdropping in its complex argumentation.

Say what you want, but this guy basically might have just single-handedly saved the public discourse and gave exactly the reality check that the petersonites needed. And this is only the beginning, I claim.



This is a bit vulgarised. It is also important that him and his followers saw, that there was no divine creatures or gods needed in our world. This was the main issue everyone had with them. That you can explain this world without supernatural or idealistic nonsense.



Also, atomism.



the dialectics are in motion and so on and so on.


Jordan Peterson made PHD rank without reading a fucking book in his life. Let that sink in



it was so funny how loud people were cheering for peterson at the beginning then by the end zizek got the loudest applause


Between this and Bernie doing that Fox News townhall, I'm glad the right-wing is finally being exposed to mainstream common-sense social democracy instead of the neoliberal nonsense that, let's say, "certain people" want the masses to think of as "the left".


King Lobster claims his Autism Level is 150+


does anyone believe this?



I've got psychiatric problems and I've had to take the Wechsler a couple times in the process of getting a diagnosis and I scored "very superior" and yet I'm a fucking idiot. So I believe him, because Autism Level tests don't matter beyond determining if your brain is fucked up.



what??!! i thought Autism Level tests were god-given objective methods to test somebody's overall intelligence? weird…



Yeah like I've got a huge dick too but the last time I measured it (for insurance purposes) the ruler said it was only 3 inches. That's some serious bullshit, these numbers don't mean anything.


File: 12318a1ad37acc3⋯.jpg (1.67 MB, 3051x2622, 1017:874, Einstein-Quote_goldfish.jpg)


the category of overall intelligence is anti-human.





TRIGGERED Slavoj Zizek ATTACKS Jordan Peterson after Losing an Argument! *MUST WATCH*





Does anyone remember no book muke? This is him now. Feel Old Yet?



i fucking love hearing zizek talk





He had no idea what he was walking into, did he?

It's like he thought Zizek was some amalgamation of all the liberals he's confronted on college campuses.


File: 287ee740b824d0d⋯.mp4 (7.74 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, jordan_peterson_vs_slavoj_….mp4)


i wonder how long it will be until we see "ZIZEK DESTROYS LIBERALS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC" compilation$?



>no shirt tug




>In fact, this is not really a debate at all, because these men are nearly identical as far as I am concerned.

>this is what liberals actually unironically believe



diabetes causes him chronic pain which is the cause of his tics



Please don't take anything Robinson says seriously lol, he's a complete radlib retard



>"I agree with almost all of your critique of Marxism"

well any serious marxist should critique the communist manifesto as it is pretty basic vulgar stuff made only to agitate proles in 1848, but while he should critique it he shouldn't agree with *Peterson's* critique since it was cringeworthy trash



Anyone saying this is taking things way too much at face value, do you seriously think zizek gave a shit about point scoring in this debate?



i never saw it, did he say something about the lack of identity of 'the individual' in marxism?


File: e2df92dbb0ddd6a⋯.mp4 (6.25 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Dr. Jordan Peterson Vs Sla….mp4)



who is this idiot? he's not even smart enough to understand what zizek is talking about



"i don't think I've read a book…. let's just leave it at that"


File: 4bf63196c6a75c9⋯.mp4 (1.97 MB, 636x360, 53:30, How to debate like Jordan ….mp4)



Nathan J. Robinson is exactly the same kind of impotent moralizing liberal that Zizek was talking about. He is one of those "Anarchists" who always seems to have some political strategy related to re-aligning the democratic strategy.


File: 535716f822145f4⋯.webm (8.38 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Name a single neo-marxist….webm)


File: 027d7dbd6fd814a⋯.png (48 KB, 581x195, 581:195, bad day.png)

what did he mean by this?



jbp probably wanted to leave after that



Time to drink apple cider and have diarrhea for 2 weeks in bed.






To anyone thinking that zizek "renounced marxism" or agreed with peterson on this topic.


Zizek is not retarded and was not going to waste precious minutes forming autistic rebutals to highschool tier arguments against marx. The best way for peterson or any other peterson fan to get the answers is reading marx. Zizek said this himself recomending das kapital, critique of gotha and other works during the debate.

The problem is how to get liberals to read marx? Zizek adresses this in two ways, first by going against this monolithic inflexible view of marx's work and expliciting he is a hegelian (no one there will read hegel, if anyone does they will read marx after) letting people open to new leftist horizons inspired by marx but not necessarily being a pure marxist.

The second method is by being charismatic, which he was and far more than peterson could ever dream of being.

After the debate who do you think de watchers will google or eventually read? Zizek, hegel, marx or peterson.


File: 2b555a6141fc09b⋯.png (542.78 KB, 1318x532, 659:266, im done.png)




The best part was when, after this, Zizek lectures JP on how Postmodernism actually opposes Marxism and JP reply is that they should move on to another theme and return to that topic later. Only that they dont return to it.


File: e7af3af05a5ae05⋯.png (233.89 KB, 725x445, 145:89, 1.png)


File: 9585177a81d44ef⋯.png (20.43 KB, 475x118, 475:118, 2.png)

File: c9f043593e5065c⋯.png (17.16 KB, 412x107, 412:107, 3.png)

File: 9623e349653cae8⋯.png (20.49 KB, 458x105, 458:105, 4.png)

File: 7be7401c959a02f⋯.png (52 KB, 515x319, 515:319, 5.png)

File: 1edf19e3363282f⋯.png (172.72 KB, 598x421, 598:421, 6.png)



>Do you seriously think AOC wants communism?

I think she at least want some form of social democracy


Is Zizek even a real communist?



No he's made of rubber and plastic.



He's actually a hologram


File: d3b071a3d638f51⋯.png (39.89 KB, 569x232, 569:232, 1.png)


Jesus Christ, these people!



winging pearl grippers are the worse fan base you could ask for.


It really is fucking tragic how Peterson even became popular in the first place. The west is fucked.



>impotent moralizing liberal

>seems to have some political strategy related to re-aligning the democratic strategy.

Come now at least read what he writes before projecting your impotent rage on him.

He is insufferably smug though


File: d90a723cf529745⋯.png (390.65 KB, 600x415, 120:83, 77h1lvz7pet21.png)



i accept all potential comrades with open arms



Requesting TL;DR translations of these:







Sorry lad, I'm not sitting through either of those guys.



File: e22282463629e4a⋯.png (618.18 KB, 640x1000, 16:25, 7ba6gpb2mbt21.png)


File: 96cf2831a3f9e6c⋯.jpg (66.96 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 0xfs2456dct21.jpg)

File: e2cf65a1fbe6408⋯.jpg (33.6 KB, 607x480, 607:480, bi6s37hxr9t21.jpg)

File: ed98bf6e9909799⋯.png (44.47 KB, 640x390, 64:39, bt1nv2perbt21.png)

File: 6bed6aa9d512221⋯.png (230.32 KB, 640x775, 128:155, 6z2u2su88et21.png)

File: 79483b464fbb2a7⋯.jpg (181.29 KB, 900x900, 1:1, a43h696o4ct21.jpg)


Peterson may have been too intelligent to win this debate.



how though? I liked Zizek but a lot of his arguments and anecdotes were recycled from his previous talks. I don't really think he gave an original argument. This isn't a bad thing- it's just I don't think that he "went hard" or "rehearsed" considering that he gave his typical stump speech



How much of this is truth and how much of this is fiction?


File: 04aecb326f1466b⋯.jpg (1.11 MB, 810x2896, 405:1448, Screenshot_20190419-214806….jpg)




because diamonds are monopolized by a select few companies. artificial diamonds make diamonds obsolete at this point TBH. It's entirely speculative at this point though diamonds are useful for engineering



When Zizek lived under REAL COMMUNISM his work was declared unmarxist, he was denied a university gig, and he became a liberal dissident and an advocate of "radical democracy".



Reminder that most people here at one point in time were either liberals or reactionaries, and that changing people’s minds is possible.



Missing the point completely. The point is that the majority of people who post on chans and who pay attention to shit like this debate are either not working class or not in a position where they can actually organize nor want to try even if they could (if you think the worms who cling to fags like Peterson because they're identity is fragile as fuck and they need a big daddy to tell them to clean their room are going to unionize the McDonald's they work at you're living in a pure fantasy world)

The majority of Peterson fans are lumpens and the conclusion many of them reached is "Zizek is my new daddy now not cuz communism is cool but because he agreed with Peterson on everything but then made him look stupid so now I will look stupid if I defend him so better start saying what zizek says which is to…vote for Backstabbin' Bernie while continuing to be racist"(which obviously isn't zizeks actual point but that is 110 percent how these people will interpret it) and then an internet subculture will form around doing that and have no actual impact on the world

It's almost like there's a word for when you try to do revolution by convincing one side of bourgeoisie intellectuals and their petite bourg followers that the other half is correct rather than actually organizing and educating working class people and directly challenging capitalism through sustained action





Hmmm Laclau and Mouffe, maybe? (This guess is entirely based on second-hand impression.)



he tightly (as for him) condensed his usual ramblings into a write up that serves as an introductory statement for his thought - it's one truth missile after another and just as much has he could fit in those 30 minutes probably. he knows how much peterson is of an anchor for reactionaries lost in their youth, so he gave himself as an alternative knowing how much of his work already impacts similar demographic. he didn't give way to popular confusion and criticism when he said things in public that offended liberals and alienated alt-rightists or whatever alike. in a way I consider this debate an important breakthrough



anyone who ignores Zizek's writings and only goes by the debate performance gets the wall



>I’ve not read a single one of his books






Zizek is a liberal pretending to be a communist.



heck.. same…


>/pol/ has no threads about the debate

kek, the damage control



this is leftypol's year


>delusion is when you call a spectacle what it is and are doubtful about it's ability to make a material difference since such events are specifically engineered to do the opposite

>reason is when you think petite bourg and lunpens from reddit /lit/, /pol/, and /his/ forming a coalition with /leftypol/ because both agree that college liberals are dumb and that capitalism "has some problems" is going to change anything

In America either Trump is going to win re election, joe biden will win and well be back at square 1 with obama term 3 or bernie will win and we will have 1950s Eisenhower Keynesianism with social justice warrior and neoconservative characteristics. Then this entire board will be saying exactly the same shit.

Keep pretending we just watched the 2nd coming of the Paris commune cuz we owned /pol/ again though it's frickin epic amirite



you can act cynical, but you may miss the real class-oriented movements in the US.



The reason failed guys like peterson is because he is them but stronger.



You mean getting 10 percent more working class people than usual to vote for a social Democrat who is going to bomb Syria a week after getting into office to prove to the ruling class he isn't a threat and then die in office a week later?



it is better than nothing.



If you put some ketchup on a piece of shit and make a hotdog out of it it would be better than starving to death amirite



the revolution ain't coming either way




something else might happen once they start questioning their blind belief in a figure some of them ascended to godhood considering he didn't even know what's he's talking about re: marxism. those of them who will realize peterson is nothing but a fraud will experience crumbling of their personal worldview and begin to try to find answers elsewhere ("why is it that the figure that I held in such high regard turned out to be so ignorant/misinformed about marxism?" "could it be that he opposes its dogmas just because he's wholly unfamiliar with them?" and so on). it might be small fraction of them but it's a step in the right (left) direction. peterson fanbase is an important target here, because he himself presents himself an intellectual and many of those who follow him were drew in for the purpose of finding the Real Answers™ from him for that reason. who knows, maybe even peterson himself inspired by zizek will start to question his own beliefs to the point of becoming a full on ☭TANKIE☭ becoming a beacon for new radicalism in his search of truth. but that last sentence is just a loose interpretation of a wet dream I had last night. he surely won't take being embarrassed in front of his people lightly though. or at least his cognitive dissonance won't let him



you act like repeating the last 20 years would be the end of the world. You probably live in the first world, you are cynical that millions of people around you who are able to afford to live relatively comfortable lives can't see past their economic privilege.

imagine living in Djibouti, getting colonised by China, and living in a crime-riddled poverty-filled slum. Have some perspective, at the very least. I'm not saying that this isn't a shit situation, but it could be a LOT worse.



Now who's cynical lol?

Never said it was btw


Introduce Peterson to the immortal science of Marx-Leninism



peterson is in it for money

he is funded by the christian right



Most of Peterson’s fans aren’t workers because they aren’t adults. They are mostly teens and preteens. This is their formative years, and it’s good for them to be exposed to our ideas, because eventually they won’t be kids anymore, they’ll eventually be adults. They’ll grow up.



The last 20 years is what has brought us to the precipice of all human life being obliterated in the next 50 so yeah it probably would faggot


Look at what happened when half of /pol/ realized trump was a fraud and instead of moving even slightly left they just started supporting Yang, who is arguably even "worse". Zizek obviously isn't yang but I really doubt it will amount to anything for these people other than switching cool old guys who own the libs. And my main point was that even if it did the majority of Peterson fans and people who pay attention to academia in general aren't members of the working class so even if we converted all of them to communism full stop it wouldn't do shit. See: student movements throughout history


>Most of Peterson’s fans aren’t workers because they aren’t adults. They are mostly teens and preteens.

This is flat out not true. Most of Peterson fans are millenial failsons or middle aged men having a mid life crisis.



most of /pol/ aren't workers tbh.

that's why they get their worldview from memes and not the real world.



>most of /pol/ aren't workers tbh.

It's almost like that was my point the whole time



climate change itself won't kill humanity, it will be the lack of solutions the current liberal state has to choose from. Appropriating the state for global socialist causes will solve everything, even if it takes 20 years for this type of co-operation.


Is there a summary of the debate somewhere



weird flex but okay.





isn't peterson famous for being that humble guy who spoke to the common man in contrast to those Jüdischer Bolschewismus elites from the academia who supposedly just jack off each other? if that's not capitalizing on the influence one has on working class then I don't know what is. also when you go peterson videos comments and look who posts them it's clear that this "libs owned epic style" compilations audience is not even in the majority there

I didn't even know about yang thing because I'm not even familiar with current chan culture that much, but that's a ncie insight into the reactionary thought dynamics I guess. those idiots aren't salvageable anyway


There are a few supposed communists in this thread who are absolutely terrified of having their subcultural identity encroached upon after this debate, it's pretty sad.




Start with Kojeve's Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. It's slightly different from Zizek's Hegel but it's the interpretation that Lacan had so it's probably your best bet



It's not you just misunderstood the argument and don't want to admit it


>they aren't salveagble

Then who cares if I say even if they are it's worthless to advancing class struggle?


Hey man if you want to call yourself a communist because zizek talked you into supporting European social democracy from the 1980s go right ahead, shit like that is littered throughout the history of the Left and that's not the part in upset about. I'm upset that my comrades are so fucking desperate for a victory in the face of the most depressing era of reaction ever they have convinced themselves that you doing so is a legitimate victory for the left and anyonr who decides to criticize that line is jusy a cynical doomer who wants to ruin everyone's good time



>Hey man if you want to call yourself a communist because zizek talked you into supporting European social democracy from the 1980s go right ahead,

That's what confuses me about Zizek. He often sounds like social-democrat or some kind of reformist but there are videos of him shitting on social-democracy calling it "comfortable catastrophe"



I think Zizek has his own brand of communism that he made up himself, but he gives no clear definition of what he sees as communism.



no one is claiming that this is an amazing victory for the left, it is just a useful and entertaining phenomenon in the public discourse which may introduce people to leftist ideas. Peterson has a large following and this may be the first time he has spoken to a leftist with this type of exposure.



Zizek is more or less a reformist (he approves bernie ect.), but his critique of social-democracy is simply the fact that it's in service of the status quo and not part of a wider political project



because he's a crypto, can't you all fucking see this already???

a crypto stalinist



I mean I agree with you to an extent, so idk why you're feeling attacked when I didn't reply to you, I'm just saying an awful lot of communists have this unhealthy attachment to it as an identity and this is actually a big part of the problem that they then proceed to complain about. We've forgotten that agitating, educating & organizing isn't supposed to be about cheap victories like this but instead of seizing the opportunities that are made available and doing the actual hard work, we turn to optimism in the case of those memeing, or cynicism in a smaller set of cases because for a lot of these communists their ability to distance themselves from liberalism and engage in a discourse of disavowal is pretty much the only reason they actually are communists. We all know why this is, and the attitudes towards Zizek are actually a big part of the problem given his visibility.


Petersonfags on /lit/ are in full damage control mode.



*crypto fascist



He approves of Corbyn and Yanis's DiEM too (despite being pessimistic about the latter chances of making a difference)



check the sources for yourself.



literally why?

has peterson ever said anything interesting in his life?



The fact that when it comes to even critiquing zizek in this thread most of it has been about frustration with an inability to categorize him into a specific tendency is also symptomatic of this absolute domination of even leftism to bring it under the rubric of being a series of aspirational commified identities under capital, which is just an extension of the same problem with the subcultural dimension of identification with tendencies themselves. The entire conversation is essentially framed around how Zizek is either moving too close or too far aware from whatever perceived flag one has planted in the ground as a signifier of their membership.



>Then who cares if I say even if they are it's worthless to advancing class struggle?

my point was that the internet reaction isn't, not the actual working class real world people who are the majority of those who subscribe to peterson (who ARE NOT part of the academia). those are with the highest revolutionary potential amidst the non-left leaning strata of the working class just because they are searching for people like peterson hoping for help. THEY are those who are willing to act to change their daily lives the most of all of them



>9:04 P.M. — Peterson begins a 10-minute reply. He says, quite correctly, that he heard a criticism of capitalism, but did not hear anything defending Marxism. He says he assumed they would be debating Marxism which was why he opened with a long discussion of Marxism.

>9:07 P.M. — My God, Peterson is a hundred times more lucid than Zizek.

>9:08 P.M. — “The news on the ecological front is not as dismal as the people who put out the dismal news would have you think.” No evidence cited. Just said. To be fair, there has been no evidence from either man at any point.

>9:18 P.M. — Zizek talks about how too much democracy makes you unhappy because of the burden of responsibility. Any reason to believe this? No.

Top fucking kek, Nathan is such a fucking "intellectual" blowhard nerd. Zizek came into the debate not to talk about Marxism under false pretenses but to win over peterson's audience.



yeah, this is exactly the stance I was mocking. how braindead do you have to be to actually believe this?

anyone who actually thinks this give me some arguments so I can mock them too




>he's not a radlib

>therefore crypto fascist



I think this is just a recurring theme in American TV, they bring some "deep" anti-communist European philosopher in to debate an American charlatan and then everyone claps at the BTFO. It's like Hitchens.



>BAWWW someone is criticizing daddy, they must be a radlib wrecker!!!

At least have the sense to call me an Ultra or something. The dishonesty from Zizek cultists is astonishing.


>Peterson has a large following and this may be the first time he has spoken to a leftist with this type of exposure.

Already addressed this a million times were just talking in circles at this point because you don't want to admit how irrelevant this really is


I don't think even zizek knows what he wants anymore. I think it would be fair to call early 2000s zizek an actual Democratic socialist like Chavez or Allende despite him refusing to describe himself that way. His constant need to take the absolute most contrarian stance on every single issue has made him more and more contradictory since Living in the End Times


Go back to Twitter faggot



idk if you're trolling or not.

what makes you think Zizek is a fascist?

I have a neutral opinion of him



he's voicing conclusions that he has come to though his superior thought processes (thanks to deep knowledge of hegel, lacan, marxist rhetoric)

sometimes you just have to accept someone is smarter than you and let it go



yes it is irrelevant

but it is what it is.



yes of course

many young leftists do not self-crit and instead fall deeper into ideological pathologies.



It's more that he has no theory of what to do and therefore hasn't really defined himself… He does believe in violence at the very least.




Chomsky was right by pointing out that he's a blabbering Charlatan that only wants to posture in front of cameras



>I don't think even zizek knows what he wants anymore.

What he wants is not the point. I believe he's more of a ☭TANKIE☭ than many people realize. But I also think he knows he has a unique ability to smash through the firewall of Ideology and open indoctrinated minds to more radical, dangerous ways of thinking. This is an invaluable function, especially when it comes to winning over the crowd that might otherwise be suspectible to alt-right faggottry. Defending the USSR or picking one tendency or another would endanger this function. I think his views on Robespierre alone prove there's more to his "Communism" than simple DemSoc anti-capitalism.


File: b8cea866bfbeab6⋯.jpg (66.74 KB, 1186x762, 593:381, dasha.JPG)


Watch as Joe Rogan give the W to Peterson and show how fucking worthless this whole debate is


File: 7cc11c202d37f5e⋯.png (159.41 KB, 509x441, 509:441, 1.png)

Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek Clash in Intellectual 'Duel of Century'


The much-anticipated debate was arranged after Canadian self-help guru Jordan Peterson reacted to an article titled “Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing?” by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, in which he chastised the professor’s views.




>I don't think even zizek knows what he wants anymore. I think it would be fair to call early 2000s zizek an actual Democratic socialist like Chavez or Allende despite him refusing to describe himself that way. His constant need to take the absolute most contrarian stance on every single issue has made him more and more contradictory since Living in the End Times

I frankly think a lot of this has to do with the (unstated) impact that Capitalist Realism had on him. At the end of the day, Zizek's ultimate project is an attempt to articulate the question of refounding of Marxism for the 21st century. He's been saying as early as 2012~ that he thinks the project of 20th century socialism "is over." I think at this point he might realize he's not gonna be able to accomplish this, so he spends so much of his time now being contrarian / overly anti-PC: he really just wants to push the young left in the right direction.



fuck is Dasha in Toronto? Is The Bug also in Toronto? If I knew he was there I could have dropped by and called him a bug to his face. I live right next to the venue but I couldn't justify paying to see this shit and I was high af at the time



imagine slavoj attempting to communicate with that ape, joe rogan.




I don't wanna see this broad by herself. I wanna see Adam. Tbh she's cucking him right now with some Canadian bull.









btw if you actually go send anna my love from greece and tell her to stop buying into camille paglias bullshit and to actually read foucault



didn't just the way chomsky always seems to be calm and collected as opposed to fiery and emotionally charged zizek give you ever any pause?

here's my hot take: it's the passion that matters. part of the appeal for me, perhaps also for others, in zizek is that he doesn't have any brakes in his demeanor, which is also illustratory for his untamed thought - he's ready to not only to go beyond what he has presumed even a second ago but I do believe that he says a lot of things that were pretty much just made up on spot only filtered through his previous divagations (just as he has to improvise with an answer in >>2870395 video)

it also gives way to his physical tics - if he wants to sniff, he will sniff. if he wants to touch his shirt, he's not stopping himself from those inner needs

meanwhile chomsky is the guy who comes off not only as someone conservative in attitude but also in his mental processes, where he just doesn't go beyond barriers that he thinks he's not supposed to go beyond. typical for limited, narrow analytical thought. zizek's deconstructionist approach is exactly what leaves him at conclusions he comes to and chomsky criticizes exactly that - the very nature of his approach without being aware of the inherent deficits of that of his own


File: 949970c7a1dc782⋯.jpg (94.38 KB, 803x688, 803:688, zizek.jpg)

Guys… I think he converted Peterson to our side




Zizek was right about Chomsky as well, about him often just being a blind contrarian whose theories do not nearly have the level of objectivity he pretends they have.



Chomsky also got BTFO by Foucault.



I'll reiterate:

>Says NATO should have bombed Serbia more

>Muh Stalin killed 8000 gajillion

>Glad the USSR's gone

>Makes fun of Cubans for liking socialism and Castro

>Literally against the LTV

>Against materialism

>For Hegel

>Wants a giant socdem (left wing of fascism) federation of European countries (calls this communism)

>Against actual communism

>Constant quoting Himmler, Sakai-esque praise of Hitler, etc.

>Promoted all over the bourgeois media



>>Says NATO should have bombed Serbia more

wtf why would he say that?



wait does this mean that Dasha was shitposting here or was someone just pretending?




also I should add concluding that consequently this makes chomsky himself someone that is pure posture even when he's not aware of that (of course he is). zizek will say what he wants and do what he wants and has absolutely no concern for what someone who opposes him thinks. meanwhile chomsky is forever trapped in the stage of lacanian mirror stage, he is the inauthenthic poser here



>against materialism



>debate of the century

>only 500 replies

Wow, leftypol sucks nowadays.


I'm not sure about Zizek being a "fascist" or a wrecker but can we talk about this tumblr post? i've seen it brough up twice here and it never gets any attention, what do you think?




Because, Zizek is a fascist.


"Thus the worst anti-Serbian nationalist stands closer to Tito's legacy than the present Belgrade regime, which maintains itself, in the face of all "secessionists," as the legitimate and legal successor of the former Yugoslavia.

It Was Serbian Aggression Alone, and Not Ethnic Conflict, That Set off the War."

"So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to Clinton not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our…), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnavalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With poetry and music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying heroes (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets and that, consequently, they are safe!). This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social life…"

"even I did show some understanding for the NATO bombing of ex-Yugoslavia. Sorry, but this bombing did stop a terrible conflict. Some kind of humanitarian effort was perceivable, and the action had some kind of international legitimacy."


missed the debate, did zizek win



"So, precisely as a Leftist, my answer to the dilemma "Bomb or not?" is: not yet ENOUGH bombs, and they are TOO LATE."



>wait does this mean that Dasha was shitposting here or was someone just pretending?




no, peterson completely mopped the floor with him - peterson said "have you ever considered human nature?" and the libtard zizek was silent for 93 minutes.


File: 571973d6af27287⋯.png (61.86 KB, 698x378, 349:189, 571973d6af272871228859cdbc….png)


it was basically another zizek talk/lecture with jbp being completely lost



>It wasn't real Zizekism!!


Real Zizekism hasn't been tried.


Real Zizekism can only be found in the trash can of ideology.


what time does he say "im not saying your an idiot and you need to read marx but" i cant find it



>If you don't comprehend the true genius of begging NATO to bomb Serbia, you're just a brainlet!!!



> since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets and that, consequently, they are safe!




Citations, sources and references else your trolling disinformation. I mean for each claim, bebecause half truth is even more disinfo. I've read a shit ton of Zizek, and this sounds taken way out of context. He's the only popular writer next to Michael Parenti that I've seen give praise to Stalin and Mao (with some fair criticisms because they're human).


Eurasian nationalist ☭TANKIE☭s get mad at him, because he doesn't want to smash E.U. He thinks they should band together into a leftist alliance, and compete with Russia, America and China. Which is pretty fucking heuristic considering they are going to be one of their bitches, if they stop being America's bitch.



i also heavily advocate for this continental competition.


So the bit Peterson said about how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would inevitably corrupt those in charge…he's right isn't he? in this respect at least.. None of actually want the proletariat to just assume control of the state as it exists now, right?

But hasn't leftism moved on from DOP? and advocated for more democratic means of control, etc?



dictatorship of proletariat simply means transferring the operations of previous society from bourgeois control to proletarian control. DOP aims to be as democratic as possible in theory.



> look at what happened to ISIS, while ISIS and the so called moderate rebels are nothing but islamofascists, they have put Assad on the spotlight, showing that his regime is indeed a totalitarian one that doesn't support the movements of one big US military base in Syria and other similar movements

oof yikes cringe and snap*



DOP refers to the proletarian class being in charge of policy-making, instead of the bourgeoisie class under the current dicatorship of the bourgeoisie. Considering that the proletarians are the vast masses of society, proletarian rule is likely to be more proportional and representative than capitalist rule.

The danger is that instead of rule of the proles, you get rule of the partymen, sycophants, opportunists and revisionists.



Disregard shitposting flag



>Citations, sources and references else your trolling disinformation. I mean for each claim,


>Says NATO should have bombed Serbia more

I posted these already. His quotes on Serbia alone discredit him.

>Muh Stalin killed 8000 gajillion

>Glad the USSR's gone

This is his whole schtick, this was in the debate even.

>Makes fun of Cubans for liking socialism and Castro

"Yeah, but again, when a regime … revolution … legitimizes itself by this reference to suffering as you see, ‘even our economic decay proves our greatness,’ this is a very sad situation, which is why if I make a remark, which sounds maybe tasteless, but I think it’s deeply tragic … In psychoanalysis, we call this reference to renunciation ‘symbolic castration.’ So basically the regime’s legitimization was legitimization which … or fidelity to castration. Well, no wonder the leader was called Fidel Castro."

>Literally against the LTV


>Against materialism

>For Hegel

Do I really need to cite this? Again, it was even in the debate. You can't be for materialism and for "going back to Hegel."

>Wants a giant socdem (left wing of fascism) federation of European countries (calls this communism)

In the debate.

>Against actual communism

In the debate.

>Constant quoting Himmler, Sakai-esque praise of Hitler, etc.

In the debate.

>Promoted all over the bourgeois media

Do I need to cite this? He's a celeb.

Here, I'll add something else from the debate: he shat all over the DPRK as well, basically asking for regime change.


> just as you're about to Bully the liberal with facts and logic the mod bans

what the fuck


File: 04782924b23c884⋯.mp4 (7.39 MB, 720x480, 3:2, hypermoralization.mp4)

File: 97456b2d48e9448⋯.jpg (83.96 KB, 660x439, 660:439, chexf3fh.jpg)


found it


> Zizek:

> "Communism failed"

well you can pack up now boys it failed and you can forget about removing the capitalist system now take the black pill and just become democrat supporters.



Holy fuck Zizek str8 dabbin' on Kermit AND the libs.



File: 4222aa8857abb53⋯.mp4 (7.9 MB, 720x480, 3:2, read_marx.mp4)


I'll need someone to briefly tell me who those people are.



peterson is a psychologist, zizek is a philosopher



A liberal pretending to be conservative vs a liberal pretending to be a communist



such a chad moment



>None of actually want the proletariat to just assume control of the state as it exists now, right?

Marx already said about eleventy zillion years ago that "the proletariat cannot simply take hold of the existing state machinery and wield it for its own aims". The core of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that bourgeois state is smashed and replaced with the worker's state.



>most of /pol/ aren't workers tbh.

You know, I often think about this.

I feel like I was in the minority among NEETs, in that I actually picked up books and read about capitalism until I realized that being unemployed was actually a part of the system itself. It makes me think that most of them are lumpen who demand simple answers, like getting rid of the Jews for instance, or from upper middle class families so they have skin in the direction capitalism takes.


File: 5eb5408a0710272⋯.png (105.62 KB, 878x773, 878:773, Screenshot_2019-04-20_21-0….png)

File: 840af4054e72aaa⋯.png (27.52 KB, 847x257, 847:257, Screenshot_2019-04-20_21-0….png)

I'm a fucking idiot, because I've tried to go on Reddit again! What is wrong with this people, how can you be that thin-skinned??!



Can love….bloom..on the debate stage?



their entire lives up to this point is depending on their parents, of course they cannot understand the class struggle without educating themselves, but they are too busy fuelling their adolescent hate - eventually they will learn when they have to move out.



they look and sound like two retards


thought so


File: 268471a30f96df7⋯.mp4 (7.02 MB, 720x480, 3:2, read_gotha_critique.mp4)



>going to /r/communism

Eh stick to redpilling lobsterites on the JP sub if you're gonna do Reddit tbh, it's still probably a waste of time but at least you don't have to fuck around with this bullshit


File: 2a6f41dab7bfca1⋯.jpg (26.58 KB, 640x628, 160:157, yw0xq9gxhir21.jpg)

Hi guys, if you are going to make webms of this, please keep them under 4mb so they can be posted on 4chan and places that will actually benefit from hearing zizek's stuff






> "I still find Marx's Kapital to be an excellent description of the dynamics of capitalist society"

Well literally everyone with a brain does that tho even right wingers in the sphere of sociology and economics think it was pretty epic and agree with some of the analysis and conclusions. I seriously had multiple University professors who are communister than Zizek maybe Peterson is right and that Academics are soicalists. Maybe I'm an urbanite high class bourgois but most universities aren't spooked by karl marx or marxist professors I mean the right wingers probably think that the Marx Book is some kind of necromonicon tier thing that is used by jews to corrupt goy professors and turn them into socialists but it's really just something people read at least once in our bourgois circles because we are educated. I'm kinda surprised Peterson only read the manifesto .




aren't webms on 4chan soundless?



I can tell you from the countless webms i've fapped to in /gif/ that 4chan webms have sound.



Isn't it only on certain boards though? Or it was, at least. I haven't really been on any board other than /gif/ since webms rolled out tbh



only for /gif/ and /wsg/


File: 15642efd82881c2⋯.mp4 (6.68 MB, 720x480, 3:2, peterson_concedes_dunks_on….mp4)

LMAO this is too good



>his quotes on serbia

Discerning that some effect has been enacted by an action and the attribution of support towards such an end are not the same thing. Is it chic to become blind and turn self-righteous in the face of some NATO aggression by sole virtue of the fact that its a fight between some nobody country and NATO, the former only spoken to denote unimportance in the consideration. Why? In any conflict, we are not honour-bound to simply defend the actions of the non-NATO entity. Better that the events of post-yugoslav wars and the actions in Serbia serve as a reminder of the humiliation of the 'humanitarian' west than a vindication of the Serbs. But I suppose you think yourself lucky then that Zizek has provided you some milquetoast statement through which you can properly affix your broken sense of ethics. The manner in which you present his 'understanding for the NATO bombing of ex-Yugoslavia' goes in the same vein ("perceivable humanitarian effect", "international legitimacy") as with Iraq and the modern War on Terror, in that the prevailing symbolic order affords the latter (legitimacy) by virtue of a lionized effort for the former (humanitarianism). Would you balk in horror and exclaim that this recognization of the ideology at work is actually a furtive plea for the US invasion of the middle-east? No, or at least I'd hope not - because this form of critique flew so far above your head in the context of Serbia, so why the hell should I expect anything from your analysis any where else?

>muh USSR distention

"His whole shtick you say", I suppose the contributions made in combatting Western moralism and the inhumanity of modern liberalism in Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? were just an illusory fever dream. Critique can be made without acquiescing to anti-communism. The whole failure of the Soviet Union thing from him usually comes through the psychoanalysis, where he definitely makes distinctions about just how the """failure""" happened.


I'd remind you that he is a Lacanian so this is more than just, "eh hah hah zhe cubans have chopped of the penish". It connects a lot with the critique made towards the other socialist states, which has everything to do with ideology and its presentation in common culture and nothing to do with the state of economics

>against LTV

speak of the devil, Zizek goes into how he generally accepts the LTV, but in the end - I don't care, he is a dipshit philosopher and I'll not so lightly accept his prescriptions about optimal economics or their measure

>socdem federation

Good thing you clarified that socdem (left wing of fascism) is the left wing of fascism (socdem), or I'd have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about this! This is about the only standing thing you can say, Zizek is so adamant about Marxism in his private discussions but definitely tones down the fervour when speaking to a mixed audience. He is diluted, and never makes a firm commitment to the ideals he canonizes elsewhere when it matters most.

>against actual communism

Like I said above, if you mean his mercurial nature - yes. If you mean the critiques made, no.

>constant quoting Himmler, Sakai-esque praise for Hitler

This one was clearly the shocker throwaway that you stuck in there, or perhaps a veiled test to see if people were still reading. There has never been a genuine article of praise issued for either of these, the former being quoted usually comes in the form of a rebuttal to Nazi ideology on the jews and the so-called duty of the SS men who carried out the massacre of others, all in a superlative exercise of the ideological conception of fascism. The latter sounds arcane, and I've never heard of Zizek issuing praise that follows in the name of 'you know, this guy really gets the arguments that those stupid other marxists are missing'.

>promoted all over the bourgeois media

See: wishy-washy

>he was ASKING for regime change

Forgive me, but based on your critiques, I don't trust you to fairly assess and critique what is being said.

There are an enormity of things to critique Zizek about in his work, not least of which is a stubborn insistence on his part that inflammatory rhetoric and academic agitation can play the part of exciting some sort of vigour in the Marxism of the 21st century. I am in deep agreement with him on the necessity of a rebirth of a communist movement, but I wouldn't trust Zizek to be the executor of that goal. Nonetheless, afford him the credit that is due his good work and don't try to spin some lackadaisical and vindictive yarn about how he's a fascist just because you're unwilling to subject yourself to the universality of the critique of ideology and would prefer it just be pointed at the other guy



Godamit he's so fucking dumb, were niggas always this dumb? Were the Right Wing Critiqes of Marxism during the Cold War this dumb and basic ?



yes, always.



>when you're in full cope mode and have to hide your tears behind pepe memes and decontextualized sound bytes


>when you're historically illiterate and don't know that like half of Marxist theory is going "Well Marx was right about X but wrong about Y so we should reject his thoughts on Y and instead think Z"



lmao you are insanely far up your own ass

I'd bother to refute it if there was any danger of other people having the patience to read your shit


File: c3c055e7ef52f65⋯.mp4 (4.05 MB, 720x480, 3:2, postmodern_peterson_fatali….mp4)



>I don't know what Analytic Marxism is


File: f8f8b09207b08a5⋯.mp4 (4.17 MB, 720x480, 3:2, eco_collectivist_peterson_….mp4)



I agree with that evaluation.


File: e3ccc104b3273e4⋯.mp4 (2.64 MB, 720x480, 3:2, post_scarcity_peterson_fee….mp4)


File: 5b5f97fd08ff65e⋯.png (1.1 MB, 900x1200, 3:4, EZ2q7T9.png)




That's your prerogative. If you're satisfied with shitty critiques and 'hurr debunked lmao'-tier rebuttals, it's clear just how much you actually care about communism. but nice dismissal



>I'm sorry


I've been watching the newest vids on youtube on the topic and some are actual gems like this one:


Mostly it's people who were only familiar with Peterson finding out that Marxists aren't actually SJW liberal mouth breathers, so that's definitely a positive.


File: 81e820ab5915be3⋯.jpg (31.98 KB, 345x500, 69:100, 1360189418869.jpg)


>Sniffles vs Kermit

Peterpuffer was completely out of his depth. Judging by the look on his face, I don't think he was able to follow what zizek was even saying much of the time; confirmed for intellectual lightweight and apologist for the status quo, just like the rest of the intellectual dork web. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with half a brain. What is surprising is that Sniffles has crypto-fascist tendencies. He's pretty sharp tbqh famalamadingdong, even if he looks and sounds like he lives under a bridge.

I admit that I enjoyed watching that dickless catamite get a thorough ass-pounding.


File: 5f09e3eb386e022⋯.png (228.71 KB, 442x439, 442:439, 1.png)


>Marx explicitly rejects egalitarianism as a bourgeois category



is that destiny?




>Sniffles has crypto-fascist tendencies

what do you mean?



>crypto-fascist tendencies

How so, my brotendo?


The only thing that could've been better about this would've been if Zizek had done this after the debate.



am*Rica was a mistake



It took place in Canada, retard



>it's clear just how much you actually care about communism

As if Zizek cared about communism. He doesn't understand Marx and shills for David Harvey's retarded Capital commentary: https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2281705.html


File: d2a8bdf572af853⋯.mp4 (9.94 MB, 240x134, 120:67, NAME_ME_SOME_MARXISTS.mp4)


this is my favourite



I know, retard. I'm just saying that am*Rica was a mistake, and your reply proves it


File: 272612dba096a60⋯.mp4 (3.72 MB, 720x480, 3:2, immigration_capitalism_wit….mp4)


File: 63a4fd3064a13c6⋯.mp4 (3.95 MB, 720x480, 3:2, neoliberal_apocalypse_chea….mp4)



Then I'm a genius at playing video games and jacking off to anime.


Was it really wise for THEM to trot out their two gate keepers into more extreme parts of lefitsm and far right and just demonstrate that they are both clown shills to their respective audiences tho?



You've only got one objection there. I can guarantee you that Zizek has never misrepresented the philosopher Marx, and the fact that he doesn't understand the quantitative mechanics of capital enough to recognize that Harvey has serious gaps in his reading of Marx does not faze me as to the validity and pertinence of his readings of philosophy and ideology. Zizek does care about communism, but in only one facet is he competent, in the same way that I'm sure Harvey believes himself caring of communism, but in no facet is he competent. There're plenty of commendable and earnest people in favour of communism, but we do not deny them their due in the fields that they specialize in by virtue of the fact that they attempted to reach into other fields and did so poorly.



The 51st state



>shills for David Harvey's retarded Capital commentary

God I missed that point, yeah, he even brings up Harvey in the debate. David Harvey distorts Marx to an unforgivable degree.


Can someone webm the part where zizek talks about how white liberals in their rejection of culture are actually elevating themselves above everyone as they are special default people? it's early on in his first speech.



Chomsky v Peterson when?


File: a75693dd3f33ad2⋯.png (317.99 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 1468442988641-0.png)



Just that I heard a few dog-whistles. Judging by some of the comments up-thread, I'm not the only one. Sniffles is the first soi-disant Marxist I've ever listened to that hasn't made me want to throttle him. Congratulations on a well-deserved victory.


Zizek needs to go on Joe Brogan I'm actually serious these peterson acolytes are ripe for the picking right now. Joe let Jimmy Dore on he'd probably do it.



>That image

what is Francis even trying to say?


RIP lobster man's credibility, hopefully people wake up to this fraud after this.



omg both of their voices. shit would make me fall asleep so fast.



Chomsky ASMR


How the fuck do you not read Capital?


File: a7e872535924e62⋯.mp4 (365.32 KB, 202x360, 101:180, video 1555781975.mp4)




Chomsky v Zizek


File: f94eb496eba4bb8⋯.jpg (813.86 KB, 509x670, 509:670, Gabriele-dAnnunzio.jpg)


tl;dr: That liberalism dissolves the fabric of the organic society.

Read his book.



he literally said he doesn't agree with him


File: df96dc085b8d448⋯.jpg (14.27 KB, 620x402, 310:201, 1555795436366.jpg)


I got banned there today too



What "anti trans" comments has Zizek made?



he's interested in talking about trans people in lacanian terms which includes "castration anxiety" and the masculine/feminine binary which probably makes them upset because leftists are supposed to be their safe space


File: 02429d540fcdc2e⋯.jpg (18.18 KB, 1024x597, 1024:597, 16i5a00590a50cf50.09591722.jpg)

File: 0178397362fca3c⋯.jpg (19.13 KB, 368x350, 184:175, yawn.jpg)

File: 98b75ec443cbdb2⋯.jpg (18.71 KB, 300x220, 15:11, B2B-Boring-300x220.jpg)

File: d7b4ec86103afb7⋯.jpg (56.41 KB, 600x398, 300:199, boring-content1.jpg)

File: 4678a4f0e0174d1⋯.jpeg (16.47 KB, 520x370, 52:37, bored-woman.jpeg)




>settler colonial mindsets

radlibs are so fucking retarded



>how can you be that thin-skinned??!

<why haven't they flogged their own mind into a unfeeling hardened chitinous lump like I have??


File: 13cd40d792c8c6a⋯.png (25.52 KB, 759x49, 759:49, 1.png)


t. CIA






It makes sense when you realize radlibs actually want to preserve capitalism and redirect the discussion away from class every chance they can so you don't focus on the fundamental economic flaws and material conditions.


File: 248c0b0b8107d60⋯.jpg (34.73 KB, 720x718, 360:359, 1459628351072.jpg)


>intellectual dork web



is the masculine/feminine binary canonized by modern psychoanalysis? one of zizek's often repeated jokes is "there are only three genders, masculine and feminine", where did he take that from?




lmao pretentious, back to /lit/ pretender



Radlibs don't understand that Lacan isn't referring to sex or gender when he uses Masculine or Feminine, so they get triggered


File: ca7c5357d27c105⋯.webm (5.02 MB, 384x288, 4:3, impotent_moralizing_idiot….webm)

is this the end


File: 2c2f12b79d84e52⋯.jpg (25.49 KB, 327x297, 109:99, 1343165515759.jpg)


>he had to look it up



using masculine or feminine to refer to anything other than sex or gender is retarded



i forgot all of the psychoanalysis i learned but it's about "sexual difference" if you want to look into it more. sry i'm not of more help but it's confusing as hell lol. it's not about biology really. it's about difference and a "lack" and a relationship between the "lack"



this doesn't strike me as a finishing blow against peterson. he already conceded that his use of "pomo neo-marxist" is not technical. he lacks that strunk & white gene so you have to be charitable and focus on his bigger problems.



IMO, the debate only went to show how little Peterson actually knows about marxism, to the point that he has the average /pol/acks 'understanding' of it (equality of outcome meme, etc). I didn't actually expect it to be that bad, honestly. Zizek could have been a bit more coherent, but he did a good job overall. Won the crowd at least.



>Sniffles is the first soi-disant Marxist I've ever listened to that hasn't made me want to throttle him.

Why are reactionaries always such internet tough guys? They can't hold a conversation for two minutes without aggressively signaling that they would kill someone.



yes it completely surprised me as well. even zizek, in that RT interview, said he wanted to structure the debate around two 30 minute speeches, so as to minimize the amount of interaction with peterson, who he said is "rhetorically pretty good". if only he'd known how weak peterson's performance would be, he would have chosen to freestyle it all the way.


File: ffdd43a49db4a87⋯.jpg (12.15 KB, 253x255, 253:255, 1458390162613.jpg)






Do you know where you are?



Nice bladerunner image, my fellow intellectual.



>punching a nazi

>not egging them

Utterly antiquated praxis.



>not glitter bombing them



File: 2aab19da254d053⋯.gif (921.59 KB, 498x340, 249:170, tenor.gif)



>Francis Parker Yockey

>organic society



yeah, yeah i know punching is not enough. killing them way more superior approach



kek, glitter on a fascist is like sunlight on a vampire




i read that as gently pushing them into transitioning into transgirls then slowly coercing them to commit suicide


File: ba5b494f01458da⋯.jpg (47.89 KB, 500x339, 500:339, i regret nothing.jpg)






>all these (You)s for so little effort

Verily, my cup runneth over.


File: b7bdaa0b32b4975⋯.webm (8.91 MB, 720x480, 3:2, exposure_therapy.webm)

File: 4bf9e07b1d9e929⋯.gif (2.37 MB, 600x400, 3:2, a553f3754b1.gif)


File: 4478a5214ddcc03⋯.webm (5.3 MB, 720x480, 3:2, revolution.webm)

>crowd cheers for revolution and laughs at JP


File: c26ebd2eead8146⋯.png (386.2 KB, 641x481, 641:481, Screen Shot 2013-11-19 at ….png)

i just realized that what he's looking at here is a little chihuahua.


File: 07587609caeb20e⋯.jpg (132.21 KB, 901x1200, 901:1200, Df34byzVQAA9_yc.jpg)



she is so perfect



>that stare



who the hell is this dasha



do i spy a hairy pit




listen to red scare


File: b38253c087726df⋯.mp4 (2.53 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, sailor.mp4)


she is an angel that will never safe me



lmao, i just wanna see the expressions of zizek when crowd cheered



Maybe the funniest moment



I was the one who started that!



are you dasha?




no it was me :)



do you know when in >>2870806 her voice is?



oh my god thirstypol just find her nudes dont be a creep



who? idk who dasha is and I wasn't around her


File: 845557e30ee4d36⋯.jpg (291.57 KB, 2048x1536, 4:3, 1555720083351.jpg)


how can you know you were not around her then though, she looked like this


only found those from that hipster film, but i KNOW that there are others


Richard wolff is a lukewarm leftist but he would have done much better than that fraud Zizek. At least wolff doesn't ramble on about nonsensical shit and agrees with a fucking crypto-fascist on 90% of the points.



because the voices cheering after me were from a different section. There was like 3000 people there or something.



check insta faggot



Ok, thanks for the info. So I guess we didn't hear you in the video?



I downloaded the 1908 pictures but have not gone through all of them yet, are you sure they are (still) there?



Zizek was speaking to Peterson fans, you don't do that with a traditional style of argument. He did well for what this was, I don't think Wolff would be able to appeal to that audience in the same way.



Yea, Peterson's voice drowned me out, you can kind of hear it but not really lol. Some lobsterhead behind me was like "be careful what you wish for huhuhu" after.



someone posted her tits and got banned, so probably?



was this the moment he realized he wasn't in a room full of his sympathizers?



What is up with that girls legs?



stockings probably



>Zizek is surprised at Peterson's "stupid optimism," which is actually a matter for the Marxists. Then he wants to know who exactly these Marxists are that Peterson suspects behind the drives of new-minded identity politicians and LGBTQ activists. Nothing. Peterson turns on his wedding ring.

>What a presumption

>Now Zizek even provides assistance, names the names of some marginal Neomarxists. Nothing. Peterson strokes his locked laptop, which he unfortunately can not open now. Whereupon Zizek with a cruel elegance knocked him out: "This is not a rhetorical question with which I kindly implicate that you are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about."

>At least now know the 3000 people in the hall and the 6000 in the network, at least now dawning also Peterson, what he has assumed and that he has lost. He is so vain to use his pocketknife to make an artillery battle.



Do people actually find stocking attractive? This makes question the whole point of stockings. Could it be that women like it since legs are one of the errogenous zone of women so the fact that they wear them produces them sexual arrausal?

Could it also be that stockings perform a patriarchal role since they constrain movement? Because it is more comfortable to not wear clothes that "push on you" just because I lack a better way to explain it. I am aware that stocking also provide an aditional layer of clothing against cold, however if you ever been shopping with a women you would have noticed that the vast majority of stockings are like those that dasha are wearing, which provide an aesthetic value.



Its also ironic to note that pantyhoses and stockings are popular because they cover physical imperfections of the legs, however her >>2870850 scars and bruises are well defined even trough the stockings.



I find feet disgusting, i find legs arousing, so stockings divide me



They're so you don't have to shave your legs.



I dunno, I think specifically white stockings have the association of school-uniforms and thus youth and thus nubility. Might also be that stockings are worn in-lieu of trousers [specifically to keep the legs warm] and as such with a short skirt (there is no reason to wear them with a traditional ankle-length skirt). The lack of trousers or a ankle-length skirt implies an ability to get to the vulva with far greater ease and thus it is sexy. Also stockings don't constrain movement, compared to most other forms of female clothing pre-1920s the are immensely liberating. Also >>2870923 has a point, along with the fact that stockings give a sense of immediacy and intimacy compared to a long skirt, dress or trousers.

Personally, I do find white stockings attractive and I think tights get in the way once you are getting busy with someone.



Also to keep warm.



blessed anon


we have a lot of discussions here about the "worst communists." but the best communists are the nameless anons like >>2870833 who struggle in the background – such as rattling the nerdlinger jordan peterson by starting a cheer for bloody, violent revolution – and don't ask for any credit attached to their name. let us all follow those comrades' example.

incidentally there's a north korean song about this:




legs are erogenous zones on men too



She really isn't.

It's actually her weird flaws I find alluring.

For some reason, I have a thing for women with dead fish eyes.



hell yeah. you dudes should wear stockings sometimes, its a real turn on for some reason


>t-trans rights

hope s(he) sees this bro



>says something completely unrelated to the theory of the mirror stage but name drops it’s anyway

>calls the other a poser



Tangential but do you know what fucking rocks? Someone gently scraping your spine with their nails. Like legit, it feels better than sex. Just start at the top of the neck or the area above the anus between the bum cheeks and OMG it is amazing.


I've seen comments and reactions from Youtube about how the debate was just a "civil discussion" and that Zizek isn't really a marxist or communist. These are mostly coming from fans of Peterson who haven't grasped just how much Peterson got exposed in the debate. I think it would be prudent if we could nudge them in the right direction by explaining Zizek's position and by railing against Peterson's poor understanding of marxism and how unprepared he was for the debate (along with highlighting all the little things people miss like peterson calling foucault and derrida marxist). Just a thought.






peterson (and in general right wing) sycophants only respect how "cool" someone is

this is why zizek and not wolff or parenti was the perfect choice to do this with peterson, because he is far more charismatic and totally exposed him as a pseud and a nerd in a charming way

not a single one of these guys that defend peterson or say "it was a tie" would seriously tell you that peterson would get even a single point over zizek in a more structured and formal back and forth that did not force either one of them to reduce their thinking for plebeian consumption



That was expected hopefully some will watch his film about ideology and start from there. Deep down they know Peterson was exposed but nobody admits defeat on the internet.



>For some reason, I have a thing for women with dead fish eyes.

You should definitely become a Maoist.



The only method I've discovered that makes any progress is to basically just do what Zizek did but shorter and in snack-sized form. Disagree with idpol. Give 'em a babby's guide to the dialectic and then explain why Jordan Peterson is trapped in the resulting ideological prison.



Well I was more talking about regular people who are fans of Peterson. Hardline right-wingers are tougher to deal with.


The problem I see is that there's a line that's starting to be drawn where people are framing the debate as being more about "anti-political correctness" and how the two of them "agree more than they disagree so let's beat back PC culture XD!!!". I mean it's true that Zizek is anti-PC but I think it would be good if we can steer the normies away from this line and expose them more to Peterson being a fraud and introducing them to Zizek's philosophy.


Yeah something like this. Zizek said that the only reason he agreed to participate in the "debate" is to steer people who might be attracted to the alt-right to go to the left. We should capitalize on this.



>this is why zizek and not wolff or parenti was the perfect choice to do this with peterson, because he is far more charismatic and totally exposed him as a pseud and a nerd in a charming way

Thing is he's not going to convert them to Marxism, he's going to convert them to his coke-addled brainfuck theory.


File: 291943572f92d0a⋯.webm (461.47 KB, 626x360, 313:180, parenti tips bottle.webm)


>this is why zizek and not wolff or parenti was the perfect choice to do this with peterson, because he is far more charismatic

>he is far more charismatic

u wot?


Could any kind soul post the most updated debate bingo please?


in the coming days, I'm going to try and resist the urge of rubbing this in Peterson fan's faces.

The debate ended amicably, so for that reason, I'm going to wait to see if this has any influence on Peterson's thought process.

I'm seeing a trend with Peterson fans showing curiosity in communism, and I don't want to shoo them away because I don't care for their lobster daddy.



Zizek is a meme machine, the perfect tool to immediately disarm Peterson fans. Mister P has his everyman charm to be sure, but Ziz is a more appropriate foil.



Exposing Peterson as a pompous and uptight and uncool fraud that stuttered more than a man notorious for stuttering is valuable, especially when you consider their audiences. There was not a chance in hell that JP would have brought someone familiar with Zizek to his side. Remember, Peterson explicitly caters to lonely alienated white male incels which Zizek is easily able to sweep up because he is much more of a "daddy figure" and role model than Peterson ever was, despite Zizek's objections. A stuffy academic that takes the whole thing too seriously would have elicited a worse reaction. The first 40 minutes JP cries about the communist manifesto… Wolff and Parenti would have jumped in on that and tore him to shreds, but Zizek was smart enough to ignore it as drivel and win everyone over through his usual jokes and scripted points.


I like Parenti but there is a reason why Zizek is a superstar and he is not.


> I'm going to wait to see if this has any influence on Peterson's thought process

It won't of course, JP is nothing more than a grifter. He will brush this off as an amicable debate but highlight that Zizek is not a communist and will continue to rail against strawmen and the imaginary SJW aristocracy.



its the framing and contrast


File: 66f18ccb44d210f⋯.gif (1.52 MB, 401x300, 401:300, giphy (6).gif)


>Yeah something like this. Zizek said that the only reason he agreed to participate in the "debate" is to steer people who might be attracted to the alt-right to go to the left. We should capitalize on this.

I mean what are you trying to do? You're essentially despooking people to force them (in They Live style) to confront the reality of class society. The dialectic is an ideological weapon for the working class designed to do this – like unplugging Neo from the fucking Matrix. But you have to explain how this social / ideological stuff emerges from and reinforces the objective economic base. Changes in the economic base create a social, political reconfiguration and this is how history "happens."

It is my basic view that the ruling class is granting political demands to previously (and variously still) oppressed social formations. But this granting of political demands followed a conflict between capital and labor with a decisive victory *for capital*. The working class was crushed, as was organized labor, etc. The social and political restructuring followed from that. Why divide the working class along lines of race, gender, etc. if the working class is defeated? It serves no productive, economic purposes. That's why liberal capitalism is fine with creating "equality" in this social terrain but not in the economic one. The right-wing reactionaries put the blame on a conspiracy of "post-modern neo-Marxists" for these changes but they have nowhere to go: they see some of the problems with idpol but are themselves privileging the subjective over the objective in a reverse fashion to the liberal idpol types. They cannot resolve the dispute, only reinforce it, because they have no class analysis.

>I mean it's true that Zizek is anti-PC but I think it would be good if we can steer the normies away from this line and expose them more to Peterson being a fraud and introducing them to Zizek's philosophy.

Right. He's not saying "okay you can be a Marxist and also racist" or whatever. Like with the European Union and immigration, he thinks we should (from my reading) basically use the military to protect migrants and so on. Much bigger, much more sophisticated, and big-style central power to integrate these populations. And at the same time deal with the big global problems that are causing the immigrants to leave in the first place – and that's going to be economic.

He said before the debate:

>So how does one resist the radical right? The west’s most dangerous philosopher leans in to share a secret with me. “We need to start stealing motifs from the enemy. There is nothing more vulgar than today’s Right. Look at how Trump treats supposed heroes like John McCain. Ronald Reagan preached family values but Reaganomics did more to destroy family life than all gay liberals put together.”

>He becomes more animated on this point: “Why should the Left automatically accept this idea that patriotism is bad? Patriotism means for me that you have great trust in the greatness of your nation, for example what Angela Merkel did: accepting one million refugees, this is true patriotism: trusting in the greatness, tolerance, productivity of Germany.”


What's also hilarious is that – and this is a few days before the debate – he called Peterson a "Wikipedia theorist" and now there's memes of Peterson fiddling around on his fucking laptop during the debate as his world collapsed around him.

But I can say that the discussion after this has been productive by the usual standards on the left so Zizek has broken through a bit.


>It won't of course, JP is nothing more than a grifter. He will brush this off as an amicable debate but highlight that Zizek is not a communist and will continue to rail against strawmen and the imaginary SJW aristocracy.

You are also correct about this, and Peterson has more than enough money now and will continue making it. But history won't be kind to him.



hello what is the dialectic i am bab


Someone tell Muke to put the chat back on in the debate video. It's funnier to watch with it.



Uhhh it's about the relationship between you and your father and mother, I think. You can be a woman and play the role of the man, the thing to note is the anxious realization that your mother would rather fuck your dad than to be with your precious little and innocent soul. Either you'll seek a means to match that which you lack that your mother seeks in your father (AKA the fatherly phallus) for the rest of your life (the boy role) , or look for someone with that very phallus (the girl role) . Modern interpretations extend this and assume that the role is not necessarily attached to your "biological gender", you can be a woman and play either role.

Look Lacan isn't my strong suit here but I think that's the gist of it. I can see why would the fixation with the penis and girls wanting literally their father penis would make some radlibs mad but also lacanian psychoanalisis is super old so what can you do.



> the anxious realization that your mother would rather fuck your dad than to be with your precious little and innocent soul

is this a thing that people at large experience



As someone with no dad i can say i never felt that.



i don't care that you have no dad i obviously asked people who grew up with both parents


File: b624a3ef88d8eb5⋯.gif (891.8 KB, 1050x1050, 1:1, 19stone-dialectics-superJu….gif)

File: 770d9c098177da3⋯.png (37.78 KB, 300x294, 50:49, Base-superstructure_Dialec….png)

File: 9539622ede0fecd⋯.gif (488.59 KB, 500x214, 250:107, giphy (7).gif)


>hello what is the dialectic i am bab

I am also bab but from what I understand it's a method of analysis for describing how capitalist societies function, giving us the tools to overcome it. Capitalism is an ideological control system and we need the dialectic to figure out how it works so we can break it.

Capitalist societies are also structured in the form of an underlying economic base and a political/social/cultural superstructure. Social liberalism, for instance, arises in diverse cities with service-sector industries that operate on global scales. Social liberalism serves productive purposes, and social liberalism – politically – maintains liberal capitalism. (Social conservatism also does this, but I think this tends to derive from different economic sectors, and today rooted in rural areas; at least in the United States.)

The dialectic is the conflict between opposites (conflicting cultures or classes or spirits of the age) that arise due to the contradictions (in the Marxist version) inherent in capitalism. This emerged from Hegel who looked on the Romantic art of his time as a synthesis and transcendence of symbolist or iconic art (Egyptian, for example) and classical Greek and Renaissance styles, overcoming the apparent opposition between reason and passion or reason and subjectivity. Both of them, like Fukuyama, thought that the whole thing was leading toward some kind of ecstatic or at least satisfactory end-state, although that we're heading for some kind of "bliss" or end point is a teleological view which is a very 18th century notion and I dunno how I feel about that; a lot of Marxists these days have binned that part.

Anyways, in time, these opposites eat each other and a new "synthesis" comes into being, beginning the start of a new historical era – and out of that synthesis comes a new dialectical conflict. The conflict over slavery in the United States is useful here. The slave system was an exploitative economic system, and white supremacy emerged as an ideological control system which likewise maintained slavery. Black slaves were *exploited* as slaves for their labor, and oppressed as blacks: this oppression took political, legal, social and religious forms (religious justifications). And it was not moralizing that ended slavery, but a war against it *as an economic system* by the rising industrial capitalist power in the North that based itself on wage labor instead of slave labor. After the war, and the destruction of slavery, there was a political and social reconfiguration that transformed the United States into an industrial capitalist empire with a strong federal government – it did not return to a state of "1776 of small producers and a weak federal government but there's no slavery this time."

This is why reactionaries always "lose" in a sense, although they may win battles. Many conservatives of today are deeply uneasy with the global capitalism that prevailed after the Cold War. States are stronger than ever. The classic "free market" basically doesn't even exist anymore outside of select areas like oil and currency markets. Hence this Alex Jones style fantasy of "the answer to 1984 is 1776" (one of his phrases). But it was precisely the Cold War buildup that created this overwhelming, 21st century capitalism – and all the technology thanks to DARPA-funded military projects that allows Amazon to deliver goods instead of ICBMs.

Anyways that's a long post. But the conflict between the Lobsterheads and the SJWs for instance is reflecting another set of contradictions, and they are merely arguing over their signifiers.





Yes, but you can't remember it. It's concurrent with the mirror stage, literally at the point of the formation of the ego and the objectification of the self, still pre-language stage, but the impact of being abandoned by your mother is so large that it does three things:

1. It leaves you scared for life. The absence of the phallus becomes a drive for desire for the rest of your life.

2. It triggers a complex process of signification in the infants mind, which leads him to the realization (symbolification?) of the name of the father AKA the father's phallus, the reason of your mother's absence is given, for the first time ever, a symbol.

3. Literally forces the infant to comprehend that he/she isn't the center of the world, which is both a trauma, but also a good thing. When Zizek talks about forgetting the name of the father, he means psychosis.




But what is the phallus really? From my poor understanding of Lacan my impression is that it is something like a signifier of a lack? Regarding masculine and feminine roles my understanding is that sexuation is a response to some kind of an original trauma and that identifying with male(all) or female(non-all) is some sort of defense against it.



well fuck you i have no dad and i will keep telling you i have no dad you dad-haver nigger



It's an easy to comprehend metaphor, but the catalyst for this process is the absence of the mother, not the presence of the father. Lacan assumes, as families are configured this way often, that the child will assume that it's the father the reason for the absence, but it could be any number of yet incomprehensible things that form the name of the father, the reason of absence could be something menial like work.



i question having experienced it since i, like most people, didn't even know the penis goes into the vagina until i was significantly older, much less that my mom craves the dick. is phallus not literally a phallus, or did i have some implicit genetic memory of the ideal platonic dick inform me



Yeah, the phallus is a lack, the reason why your mother leaves is because you don't have something that your father does have.



Yes, the phallus is not literally a penis. Lacan's working from Fred's Electra and Oedipus complexes, combines it with Sausserian structuralism, and decides to call this complex symbol "the phallus".



this is all very strange and sexual and i regret trying to understand it



Fred lol, I meant Freud of course



That's Lacan for you.



Didn’t Freud reject the Electra complex?


All this Lacan talk left me thinking that neither Peterson nor Zizek brought him up even once. Zizek just barely referenced him when addressing happiness for just a bit. You'd think that they would find common ground here, given the topic of happiness, discussing the precious object of desire would be inevitable. And I mean, my mom is a psychologist and she knows her Lacan and re-reads him every so often, so how much of a quack is Peterson really, to not bring up what should be easy for a doctor in psychology?



I don't know, that's a good question. If Freud did dismiss the theory, Lacan still liked it enough to build upon it, regardless.




Sounds like something like the social contract that was originally not intended to be a metaphor but intended to be literal and then recast as a metaphor by others once it was obvious that it wasn't literally true (maybe including Lacan, idk)

Like I haven't read much Freud but what I've read doesn't dissuade me from thinking that his analyses were intended to be literal…

Is there anything I should read that can dissuade me of this notion?

Am I right that it was intended to be literal for Freud but not Lacan?

If so could/should there be a replacement in termonology? Kinda like a 'secularization' of the theory?




thanks i'm still confused but what can you do



Oh yes, I'm pretty sure that Freud was pretty literal. From what I've read, Lacan wasn't as literal about it, but I don't have a definitive source that claims so, fwiw I'm working from the Lionel Bailly Lacan book and he seems convinced that he wasn't literal. And I'm totally not the right person to ask whether these terms can become "secularized". What I can tell you for sure though is that Zizek would flatly refuse such a request, and call you a PC moralizer for attempting to do so.



Alright, thanks

>Zizek would flatly refuse such a request, and call you a PC moralizer for attempting to do so

Sad, I don't want to do anything like remove the nuance (removing the dialectics from Marx is wrong imo, although *maybe* defensible for introductory material, idk) or history from the analyses, but it just seems easy to misinterpret without any upside.

You have any source for this claim? It seems in character, but I'm wondering if he has said anything specific.



Peterson doesn't know shit about Lacan.



No, I don't have any. Lacan's psychoanalysis terminology doesn't seem to be contentious enough to have a current and visible discussion among psychologist, probably because Lacan, together with the rest of psychoanalysis, have been relegated to a place outside of clinical practice (in turn explaining Peterson's unfamiliarity). Lacan is widely understood to be outdated by current psych students.

Among contemporaries though , Lacan was pretty fucking contentious with mainstream psychoanalysts, feminists, clinicians, you name it. He was kind of a pariah (he was expelled back then by the only French psychoanalitic institution and went to form his own) and some even considered him a quack.

Currently relegated to philosophy, philosophers seem to reserve themselves their right to deal with "problematic" terminology. I can assure you that anyone who uses Lacan to build a system of thought fully intends to embrace the terminology.



So the thesis is capitalism, the antithesis is communism, and what’s the synthesis?



>I like Parenti but there is a reason why Zizek is a superstar and he is not.

Yeah it's called the CIA you petty booj dunce



The thesis is 20th century liberal capitalism, the antithesis is 20th century Soviet-style central planning, and the synthesis is 21st century China.






That's not the Hegelian dialectic. That's Fichte's dialectics



c-can I have my own dialectics too, p-please?


File: b5a87e4f372f279⋯.webm (1.2 MB, 512x288, 16:9, revolution.webm)

File: a490031cef2d04f⋯.webm (1.65 MB, 512x288, 16:9, revolutionwaudio.webm)

why is 4chan so shit with their 3mb no audio file limits


i didnt know zizek was pronounced zsheezhek. i always thought it was, ziz ek



At least the chapos have a sense of humor about it. r/communism and r/socialism are fucking stuck up about everything.



4mb + audio on /wsg/ and /gif/ only

>wanting sound to be widespread on 4chan



in slovenia we have a saying, well okay i'm not really from slovenia but maybe it's in ohio too, but the saying is:

"Zizek izek, zek ek k."

think about it!!!



Yeah, the Zh isn't rendered a-lot since obviously non-slavic keyboards don't have it and a lot of people don't know what the Z with the accent means let alone how to properly pronounce Zh.


Lot of libtards and Trans-touting faggots in this thread…. Safe-space-having flock of cucks…

(>unironically using the term "libtard")




dialectics is about understanding that reality is made up of processes that mutually reinforce each other and grow from said reinforcement in a never ending churn. its not just thesis antithesis synthesis, its the never ending way in which that resulting synthesis develops its own new antithesis that goes on and on forever.

when marxists refer to the base and superstructure its in a dialectical manner in that both base and superstructure continuously derive from the other and as a result shape itself and its other. i hope this makes sense.



top kek



proof that the mods are gay libtards lmao rekt


File: a56dad4ad4ec082⋯.png (131.73 KB, 799x728, 799:728, 1.png)



liberialism and zizek r 4 homos dude. why r u a fag lol?


File: 4960372a1e9d7a9⋯.png (271.71 KB, 992x423, 992:423, 1.png)

File: 6b49ae2ece4303c⋯.png (501.49 KB, 846x837, 94:93, 2.png)

File: 2df501676a9a94f⋯.png (755.72 KB, 964x820, 241:205, 3.png)

File: 2f06cac085a952b⋯.png (504.95 KB, 944x711, 944:711, 4.png)



So Jordan is a homosexual that is in league with Treaudou and they have gay sexy orgies together while talking about the Frankfurt School?


File: 105745362a02d65⋯.png (321.52 KB, 977x817, 977:817, 1.png)

File: 0cac03b325bd5e3⋯.png (192.16 KB, 964x718, 482:359, 2.png)

File: 8dfbd428355180c⋯.png (131.61 KB, 964x613, 964:613, 3.png)

File: af3df3970c311ff⋯.png (88.33 KB, 957x420, 319:140, 4.png)


File: 9d151f833bccb5e⋯.jpg (28.04 KB, 500x510, 50:51, 546.jpg)

File: 4bc09b6b66f293e⋯.jpg (52.15 KB, 554x762, 277:381, 1555790867399.jpg)

File: 5a51493db9151e8⋯.jpg (15.21 KB, 596x314, 298:157, 1555790894997.jpg)

File: f0028d93ec07fb1⋯.jpg (45.96 KB, 877x480, 877:480, 1555791784313.jpg)

File: b68e17b8dd4035f⋯.jpg (36.99 KB, 720x405, 16:9, 1555792915974.jpg)


(mining some memes)


File: ae84c1d15115e4b⋯.png (263.51 KB, 656x605, 656:605, 1555796542186.png)

File: 719f3862a589f6f⋯.png (211.05 KB, 1069x590, 1069:590, 1555796604094.png)

File: f2bba6ce564b285⋯.png (134.11 KB, 577x498, 577:498, 1555796730441.png)

File: 70eb4efaabc8f55⋯.png (724.12 KB, 549x2020, 549:2020, 1555796860272.png)

File: e74e981d56ba230⋯.jpg (950.01 KB, 2200x1347, 2200:1347, 1555804502019.jpg)



They're right though, Zizek really isn't a marxist. He's just a celebrity grifter.


File: b2efcf24f9679df⋯.jpg (587.2 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1555819673167.jpg)

File: 113fc9d4bd22f67⋯.jpg (162.24 KB, 800x921, 800:921, 1555843596462.jpg)

File: 8127d5458144c32⋯.png (899.43 KB, 2048x1714, 1024:857, lgB5Apw.png)

File: 64ca5a6e398f877⋯.png (240.69 KB, 509x432, 509:432, vab788tm4it21.png)

File: 22fcf45831fb224⋯.jpg (48.23 KB, 640x610, 64:61, nZKVCSlwxoaiPRsc-jwDdJlBfk….jpg)


File: 4c52cdbe4e3312a⋯.png (208.95 KB, 869x557, 869:557, 12341.png)

File: 3411c3be66597ac⋯.jpg (105.02 KB, 1088x3264, 1:3, mrv8p5i78ht21.jpg)


File: c41ae792914cf5f⋯.png (19 KB, 500x590, 50:59, dqlbzun2hzn21.png)

It was funny to learn that Zizek is a more comprehensive theologian than Peterson, who prides himself on his Christianity. The "jesus became an atheist" stuff really fried his brain.



I think he had a moment of enlightenment at that point on stage exactly because he himself can't come terms with the absurdity of faith and that's why he wasn't able to mask his astonishment at Chesterton's insight about Christ on the cross.



it was a great moment when you heard his nervous gasp.



/pol/ is siding with zizek on this one


File: 9a327e9af4d65c1⋯.jpg (69.32 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 7g24fp3almt21.jpg)

File: 8ef3d23562dd8c0⋯.jpg (56.79 KB, 640x821, 640:821, 3586.jpg)


peterson had a freudian slip early on.

he called the proletariat "creatures".


he also claimed that rich(er) people are unhappy, but he never made an excuse why he hoards so much cash.



It really blows my mind how transexuals have taken over the socialist/communist movements in the US.

Is this some capitalist CIA plot ? I am not sure, but I was also banned there for pointing out that queer theory and marxist theory are two completely different things.



literally all post structuralists are jargon masturbating retardation but sometimes they come up with ideas


Anon who was at the debate here. I mentioned a while ago some Peterson nerd randomly tried to debate me just for sitting next to him while being a commie. What I just found out is that he literally told my friend (who he also tried to debate) that communism killed 700 million people.



It probably is. Coupled with the misconception that the first Bolsheviks (Lenin and company) were ultra liberal allies who legalized homosexuality, transsexualism and so on out of sheer good will, and not because they needed all the workforce they could bring to their side, even the homos. They also like to paint Stalin as the bad dude who came and ruined everything Lenin achieved for human rights.



700 million?

literally where are these numbers coming from? I've heard ridiculous estimates like this in the last year, so there is even more misinformation being produced and distributed in a memetic format.


File: bda16461a57af78⋯.jpg (350.48 KB, 2047x1288, 89:56, D4ntJ6zUwAACbsu.jpg)

I had heard that Peterson admitted to not reading the communist manifesto until like a week before the debate, but honestly I thought that was just internet shitpost rumors.

Within his first 10 minutes of talking I could tell that this was entirely true. Peterson approached the communist manifesto as though it were some kind of unquestionable gospel of Marxism, and when Zizek took the conversation in an entirely different direction it was clear that Peterson had lost all footing on the debate and was just trying to not embarrass himself too badly.



and even in the case of a true political debate between marxism and capitalism, did peterson really believe that he would win?

he came into this totally unprepared.



He could have just virtue signaled endlessly about how anti-authoritarian he is. That's what he was hoping for.


File: ce815346f3c408a⋯.jpg (71.57 KB, 610x458, 305:229, 20130527-lobster-guide-foo….jpg)


he is anti-authoritarian, but he believes the individual should be tasked with the responsibility to care for the entirety of their respective society, rather than simply delegating the state to serve functions in the interest of the public - he is infuriatingly dull and pretentious.



I was somewhat hoping that Zizek would just debunk all of Peterson’s (and the audience’s) misconceptions about Marxism, but what he did was even better, and he eventually called out JP’s total lack of knowledge anyway.


Personally, I think authority is cool.

Happy birthday to the original communist and one true authority figure, Jesus Christ.



That’s a false distinction though. If you believe that individuals should care for the wellbeing of society then why can’t this be done through the state? The state is literally just an organized, centralized mechanism for society’s collective action. If every individual were to devote themselves to society then the medium through which they would organize their efforts would look a lot like a state.


File: dae01bed5071e6b⋯.jpg (157.11 KB, 676x1024, 169:256, pythagoras_knapp.jpg)


>orginal communist

I think that you will find that this was Pythagoras, pleb.



wrong holiday



yes, exactly.

peterson is afraid of the word "state" though.


<can you name one postmodern neo-marxist?


do you think peterson will learn from this or will he keep using this stupid phrase?


File: ce8390f747f814c⋯.jpg (102.42 KB, 746x500, 373:250, 1462049287840.jpg)


the funniest part is that you can watch it on loop and it matches perfectly


File: 3052d7f99637616⋯.jpg (551.68 KB, 1104x593, 1104:593, 1553571885475.jpg)


>nature is shit tier French cuisine

Is it really that bad?



you can see him literally reading off of wiki verbatim…




there is no other purpose for him having a laptop there unless he is on the internet. zizek did fine with his paper.



zizek was basically saying that appealing to nature is spooky



The Zizek-Peterson debate was a lot better than Chomsky-Foucault.



As communists we ought to ultimately be opposed to the state though.



the process of delegation is democratic.

and communism is the end of class struggle, we cannot achieve this today with current circumstances, otherwise we may become idealists.



Well it was more of 'nature is improv anyway' rather spooky but yea. Just wanted to know if French cuisine is really that terrible or just a meme



they eat snails


File: ac3cd689bd67cc8⋯.jpg (30.24 KB, 552x414, 4:3, ac3cd689bd67cc800751620d26….jpg)


That tastes fine though.


peterson diverts the economic reasons for environmentalism and anti-natalism to act like it is simply radlib nonsense, which explains why he was unwilling for global co-operation to prevent ecological catastrophe. I have heard that he is paid off by Koch Brothers, so it makes sense.

the fucking US President denies climate change, should I be so surprised?



snails soup are great tho



i have never eaten a snail


File: 5a890320b79acf5⋯.jpg (56.53 KB, 600x600, 1:1, statist followers.jpg)


>Happy birthday to the original communist and one true authority figure, Jesus Christ St. Peter.




you ever heard that clown Mark Passio talk about Christ? Mark is an ancap, so everything he talks about has to have some pathological attachment to this ideology, because he is autistic; he claims that jesus was an ancap because he supported the NAP.


File: 0b9b1655661d2cc⋯.jpg (31.07 KB, 260x506, 130:253, muh sides.jpg)


he claims that jesus was an ancap because he supported the NAP.


File: 94ccc5dbfafafee⋯.jpg (73.12 KB, 426x606, 71:101, 81rfDgvD19L._SY606_.jpg)



How was he even vaguely socialist? He was a cult leader.



>It really blows my mind how transexuals have taken over the socialist/communist movements in the US.

The gay movement's politics used to be pretty communist particularly back in the 1970s. The ruling class granted much of their politics demands but has not for trans people, who are often excluded in various ways – working shitty jobs and so on. This is also changing but this is why Pete Buttigieg can get accolades from liberals but a trans person is still considered radical or whatever. Naturally, trans people would be drawn more towards radical left-wing politics.


>Coupled with the misconception that the first Bolsheviks (Lenin and company) were ultra liberal allies who legalized homosexuality, transsexualism and so on out of sheer good will, and not because they needed all the workforce they could bring to their side, even the homos. They also like to paint Stalin as the bad dude who came and ruined everything Lenin achieved for human rights.

The irony is that Harry Hay – one of the early gay rights activists in the U.S. – used Stalin's national question to define gays as a distinct (and oppressed) cultural minority. Incidentally, most trans people I've met have tended to be hard MLs or Maoists.


Granting political demands bring "buy in." You can be gay and an imperialist now like Pete Buttigieg or whatever and get on the cover of magazines. Personal interests realign around economic interests. You can in a very qualified sense if you're trans but they get shit on so much and cannot trust the cops under any circumstances, and most live in poverty.




Parenti's really gotta stop blaming the CIA for everything, they didn't kill John Lennon.


Hey, guys. How was it?



He might say that the leftists transitioned from Marxism to identity politics but kept their oppressor/oppressed narrative if he's smart enough, but idk.

Currently his notion literally involves people lying about their beliefs or something (it's not really consistent, it's both presented as a sleight of hand and as an honest changing of beliefs), which is moronic.



It seemed like his explanation was that the oppressor/oppressed narrative was fundamentally wrong, and when the class narrative was proven wrong by uh… communism failing, I guess, people just moved to racism or whatever.



but at the same time, jbp claims to be a big Nietzsche fan, so I'm sure he subscribes to some master/slave dichotomy



Why the fuck would they transittion from class to idpol tho?

It has done absolutely nothing to further the goals of marxism, in fact idpol has already been apropriated by porky and is just painting corporations in a friendly facade.

It's the dumbest argument ever.

>the evil leftists are willing to adopt any excuse to paint society as a coflinct of groups, so they can play the victim.

The problem is, playing the victim and expecting fair treatment is explicitly and anti revolutionary and as consequence anti marxist.


Anyone noticed Slavoj had less tics than usual in the debate?



he sniffs more when he's nervous. since jpb was already embarrassing himself, zizek only sniffed a few times



Also like his speaking has recovered from his non-stroke.


File: 35e441b065dde12⋯.jpg (145.91 KB, 2000x1000, 2:1, Eh Canada.jpg)


I'll say it again bud is legal here now he might've had an edible. I can see the Z hitting a doob.



Tbh Zizek was going to uni in the eastern bloc just at the height of when all the students did LSD so…


File: 671385f5e94a97f⋯.jpg (862.28 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, OInCDSO8HrM.jpg)


Yeah I mean this was the biggest even of his lifetime and he wasnt as nerveus as when he does normal events. It is true that this may be because his normal events are more improvised and here he seems to have prepared a lot. Its also interesant to note that Zizek does not do his usual tics when he is reading from paper. If I recall correctly zizek said that he doesnt know where those tics are coming from, could those tics be interpreted in a psychoanalytical sense?




(yes ik that is not the only error I made, im pretty high rn)



I have MS & Epilepsy, been prescribed it(cannabis) has been prescribed to me since 2006, and I can honestly say it's afforded me a much better quality of life…



idpol on a certain level does play to marxist aims, but never in any way that people like peterson say. he thinks in terms of elements of superstructure as things on their own, not as products and perpetrators of the base inextricably tied to that foundation. thats why he cant formulate a critique of idpol that ever sees any side to it other than idpol as a tool of authority. zizek usually sees it for what it is: idpol is a leftist invention corrupted- in order to neuter and declaw it- to capitalist purposes, to varying success. the capitalist snively whiplash scheme is quite literally to try and buy the loyalty of the tranny, the brown person, or the woman with cheap propaganda that claims that their traditional enemy can be their liberator. jordan peterson thinks capitalism can liberate them, undoubtedly, apparently by denying them the history of their historical persecution by capitalism. both JP and his capitalist overlords are incorrect; only the revolution can liberate them. if you are saying "currently idpol is devoid of revolutionary potential," yes, of course. it was not always so.



>Why the fuck would they transittion from class to idpol tho?

Kaczynski had a psychological explanation for this which seemed reasonable enough. It involved for Kaczynski a real and substantial break with Marxism though.

>anti revolutionary and as consequence anti marxist

Yeah, but you could say that a lot of the trots and stalinists of the 60s didn't genuinely want communist revolution which wouldn't even be entirely disagreed with here.


I don't think that that contradicts anything I said. Like a tenable position for him is that Marxism went out of fashion/stopped being being believable and then people with an oppressor/oppressed narrative (which Peterson thinks is wrong) went to IdPol.




Zizek has stated before that he has never taken any drugs, including pot (I don't know about alcohol).



Oh the medical applications of cannabis are undeniable and the fact that people resist giving people cannabis oil in the UK is a fucking disgrace.


I mean tbf Yugoslavia didn't/doesn't have a big drug culture, especially outside of the imported eurotechno scene. So fair. But honestly, I defo think he would have dropped acid, especially in 1970s-80s Slovenia like holy hell that sounds like a great place to have been living in.



You could probably pick apart Zizek's body language, but to be blunt he has social anxiety, and the less anxious he is the less he will give off tics. The fact he gave off very few should show him as very confident in the setting.


I doubt Zizek has never indulged in narcotics, he was a conscript with social anxiety and tourettes, prime material for peer pressure.


1. What are the points we can draw from this debate?

I believe it was a confirmation of the stance we should take when we counter right wing arguments

zizek himself talked directly into the leftist audience asking for less poilitical correctness

2. what was the stupidest take you heard about the debate?

current affairs did a live blog using an absolute brainlet as a writer



1. saying the n-word is good praxis

Though more seriously, I think we need to disentangle ourselves from the academic "clean" left and consort more with the common man, while still maintaining leftist goals of total societal liberation and emancipation.



>Debate and outcome still being discussed here.

Anyone else surprised that no one's talking about Peterson publicly displaying his autism lvl on /pol. Cause I don't think I am.


Okay I admit it slavoj is an okay guy but I'm an idealist so I literally can't be a marxist. I think materialism is a really dangerous belief system.



>I think materialism is a really dangerous belief system.

elaborate as to why.



The conservative strides athwart the world and yells stop

What did he do? Link?



Peterson didn't come out of that debate on top is what I meant. And it's amusing /pol seems to not be discussing it.



Well the first thing is that you can't connect anything the brain does with consciousness which means you have two choices pretend the brain magically constructs consciousness maybe because of computation or electromagnetism or you deny the existence of consciousness. If you look at humans as mere biological machines like this people could (it's not inevitable) look at humans as something that needs to be "fixed" and attempt to reprogram peoples brains so they behave themselves. You already see this to some extent with psychiatry although it is far from being straight up mind control. Also I do want to be clear I think the brain is connected to consciousness but I don't think the brain exists in reality. My main concern is with people treating each other as robots to be reprogrammed because that is the inevitable conclusion to materialism and consciousness in my view.



>Well the first thing is that you can't connect anything the brain does with consciousness which means you have two choices pretend the brain magically constructs consciousness maybe because of computation or electromagnetism or you deny the existence of consciousness.


There are blind spots that have to do with the binding problem, but we already can see that sensation has some influence on perception using fMRI data. This just an appeal to ignorance. Materialist don't view humans as machines or whatever, but that the material informs the spiritual.



>sensation has some influence on perception

Yes everything is experiential

>Materialist don't view humans as machines or whatever, but that the material informs the spiritual.

They must view consciousness as coming from interactions. They think consciousness can be understood as a process. In order to be materialist you have to deny the reality of consciousness. In truth consciousness is all there is there is no matter. Matter is mere information within consciousness. The spiritual constructs the material it is information which the mind can create.


Ok, I'm watching it now.

Zizek is actually kicking ass.



>you can't connect anything the brain does with consciousness

this isn't even feigning ignorance anymore, this is straight up denial of reality. even the most primitive man knew that eye-consciousness is caused by eye sensation, or that hitting someone in the head kills them.

you say your concern is people treating each other as robots, but materialists will criticize your berkelean memes as solipsistic.

>materialists think that x

materialism doesn't commit you to any particular metaphysics



I'm a dualist and I'm still a Marxist, I'm pretty sure Zizek isn't an ontological materialist either. Marx's materialism is in practice a differentiation from Hegel's analyses on history.

I haven't read Hegel so this is going to be 2cnd hand account, but Hegel looked at the progression of society by the progression of ideas which has reason/freedom (not exactly sure) as its guiding movement.

Marx looked at the progression of history through human practices which, since they are required for society to reproduce itself, necessarily require knowledge and belief to be passed down to the next generations. The teloses of society thus include group/aggregate interests, especially the interests of the ruling classes, which tend to largely determine ruling ideology.


>If you look at humans as mere biological machines like this people could (it's not inevitable) look at humans as something that needs to be "fixed"

You can also look at people's psyches as something to be "fixed" under dualism or idealism. Eliminative materialism can't allow for any sanctity of the mind, because the mind doesn't exist, but I don't know of any non-stereotypical reason why non-eliminativist materialism (to be fair most materialists I've talked to are at least half-eliminativists) leads to psychology more than any other solution to the mind body problem.

(for an example of 'stereotypical' reason materialists tend to be anti-philosophical dawkins types, but I think saying materialism causes anti-philosophy is confusing the causality, being a STEM lord causes you to become a materialist, not the other way around.)


>Matter is mere information within consciousness

I don't view the mind-body problem to be that important, but I don't see how that makes sense. It's obvious that the concept of matter isn't a material thing which exists outside of the mind, but the very concept of matter is something that does exist outside of the mind.

Are you denying that it is part of the essence of matter that it exists without our perception? Or do you merely deny that matter with that essence exists? If your reason for not believing in matter is solipsistic skepticism, know such skeptical arguments apply equally to doubting the existence other people and the truth of your own memories in general, which you seem to take as existent.


File: 1b81b149ea7b102⋯.jpg (291.84 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg)


>you can't connect anything the brain does with consciousness



He's probably referencing the hard problem of consciousness


Do lobsters experience consciousness?


File: 4b689e4701ae902⋯.png (162.26 KB, 854x235, 854:235, Screenshot (19).png)

When do you reckon Sargon will make a response video to the debate?





this level of anti-intellectualism shouldn't be possible



File: 831871c8b3fc310⋯.png (268.23 KB, 2000x2000, 1:1, Stefan.png)


I'm waiting for Molyneux



>this isn't even feigning ignorance anymore, this is straight up denial of reality.

No it isn't. When I say consciousness I really mean spirit but I didn't want to say it because of the connotations. You can connect the brain to sensation and experience but not to spirit.


>but the very concept of matter is something that does exist outside of the mind.

Maybe I should say spirit instead of consciousness. I don't mean that matter doesn't exist outside of my own personal consciousness I mean it doesn't exist outside of spirit. All matter is just information there is no way to tap into this supposed "matter" directly. I don't believe physical objects are even necessary I think all that is necessary is spirit so it is all that we should believe in. I am not trying to be solipsistic I guess I am trying to be more like occam's razor.



Yeah, in practice I don't really think your solution to the mind-body problem is going to bring you into conflict with most of Marx's analyses of history/capitalism/politics. Not saying that Marxists sects won't try to chastise or kick you out because of it, but I don't think you should have a big problem with Marx (minus Theses on Feuerbach and the German Ideology) because of it.



I'm not sure but I won't dismiss Marx or anything. I am not well read on him frankly. But what little I do know doesn't seem to fall in line with my beliefs so much. What I believe about consciousness is important to me. The main problem I have with marxism, which could be a misinterpretation on my end, is that it seems like Marx pushes an Us vs Them idea the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. I think this is really an extension of Good Vs Evil and I think the worst thing you can do with that kind of philosophy is absolve yourself of sin. The right philosophy to me is to recognize that you are the source of evil and that it is a universal trait of humankind. The source of evil is the ego which binds us to our body and identity. That doesn't mean ego is necessarily evil just that it is the cause of evil. The thing about ego though is that it is inescapable that's the human condition. I say my view on consciousness is important because I think the ego extends to your physical body. The "mind" is not really one cohesive whole it has parts to it there is an entire unconscious within it. I believe in a real sense the physical body is part of a shared unconscious (but I really would say it is a shared yet separate conscious) which is essentially God. I guess my main point is I won't accept a philosophy that doesn't accept the inherit evil within ego because it will only breed more evil. I don't know enough about marxism to say whether it is true or not.



>Marx pushes an Us vs Them idea the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. I think this is really an extension of Good Vs Evil

I can't really think of a time where Marx thinks of things in the categories of good/evil. The closest he comes to is the manifesto where he describes economic relations as "in a word" "oppressor and oppressed", but the oppressors being morally evil is tenuous (I think Marx would intensely disagree, as class oppression isn't individual and thus cannot be solved by individual abnegation), and the oppressed being morally good is obviously nonsense.

>and I think the worst thing you can do with that kind of philosophy is absolve yourself of sin.

I'm not even sure if Marx was a moral realist, I *think* he was, but only because he consistently uses the terms 'justification' and 'freedom', but it's possible that he thought morality itself was a reified distortion of aggregate desires or something, not really sure.

>Ego being the source of evil

Individual interests fundamentally have the potential to go against the aggregate interests for Marx at the very least, so that's something somewhat similar. I am a moral realist, but I don't see how ego as you define it can be the cause of Evil without being the cause of all Good, it seems like it should define both.

<I'm giving you this analysis from Hal Draper's Marx's Theory of Revolution so take it with as much salt as you see fit

Marx in his early communist years at least (like 1844) thought that the proletariat could become the revolutionary class meaning that its immediate interests (as a class-not as a group) represented the interests of society as a whole. This is similar to the proletariat being fundamentally 'good', however this statement says little about the individual members of the proletariat, which could pursue their own individual interests at the expense of the class interest and ultimately societies' interests.

Marx also hated the lumpen-proletariat (translated as including prostitutes and beggars, but every time I've seen the term so far it has meant violent criminals/soldiers (paramilitary?) who were pro-Bonapartist), and was obviously friends with Engels, who he encouraged to not give up his exploitative business.

As for Marx acknowledging his own personal evil you'd have to read his letters to Engels, apparently he was an asshole to him, don't know if he ever expressed regret. He obviously changed his opinion a bunch and wasn't that sure of himself if that's what you mean. Doesn't seem like an upstanding person personally though.

Anyway where did you get your philosophy from? Berkeley?



Thank you for the insight anon.

>but I don't see how ego as you define it can be the cause of Evil without being the cause of all Good

I would say that evil is contained within ego but good exists beyond ego.

>Anyway where did you get your philosophy from? Berkeley?

No I mostly got it from a bunch of different people/observations/experience. I am not as well read in philosophy as I would like to be. Looking into Berkeley though and at least his views on idealism seem similar to what I believe.


File: 544d22b23fc21bb⋯.jpg (22.24 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

>Peter Joseph - Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")


Peter defends Marxist theory and the Communist Manifesto and critiques Peterson's misunderstanding of it by dissecting his opening argument



I always liked PJ but was always skeptical of the zeitgeist movements insistence on pushing away the label communist and it's lifestylist approach



no, that's EXACTLY what it is - chomsky has not a single idea about psychoanalysis, in his perception zizek only spouts drivel. meanwhile zizek has basically gone post-ego, he is as close to an expression of his own self as you can get and you can see that through his behavior. he found a way to constitute an utterly believable projection of the Real

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / choroy / dempart / egy / jenny / leftpol / vichan ]