[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cyber / f / jp / kurakao / recreo / tingles ]

/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
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

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: 0522d9750651626⋯.jpg (686.12 KB, 1242x1119, 414:373, marx.jpg)

 No.2871160

After hearing the Zizek-Peterson debate I've realized that 99% of arguments against Marxism from right wingers today are based on their own assumptions and misinterpretations and on shit they heard from other anticommunists. Peterson did all this and openly declared he had only read the Commiefesto (how is he even considered an intellectual?). So, how do we fix this? Is there a point in debating others anymore?

 No.2871167

Of course there is, just putting this information outside will certainly convert an amount of people, go to reddit, find people with misconceptions, prepare your sources and if you have the slightest idea of how to present your arguments you should absolutely engage.


 No.2871171

No, actually the opposite. We should push for even more debates, not only to build awareness, but because all of today's liberals (social and conservative) understand even less about Marx than they did 10 years ago. They are on the weakest footing they ever have been, and we should utilize this to our advantage by pushing Marxist figures to the forefront to expose them, hijacking the current market for debates for a platform. This is the time to get people further left than Zizek into the limelight and make them known by people. Just imagine if someone like Parenti had been up there against Peterson, or even someone with a basic knowledge of Marx for that matter. We can't throw away this opportunity.


 No.2871204

People don't change their mind when it comes to worldviews in one fell swoop. The mind is like a stew that soaks up everything it sees, hears, etc then bubbles away, eventually someone may slowly start to shift, become less extreme in their previous view and end up somewhere between two views or shift towards the other. Debates don't have any immediate effect but at the same time you can't view the world where one never occurred.

At the same time some people are so far gone ideologically that they'll never change, and even in a situation where THE FINAL ARGUMENT descended from heaven and BTFO them forever they'd just starting frothing at the mouth and flinging shit. In short debates are a minutiae of information in the mind stew of anyone who sees them, which may or may not ever have an effect.


 No.2871219

File: b9f02fb2f759c77⋯.jpg (712.38 KB, 768x768, 1:1, 1555163587773-1598613334.jpg)

>Marxism from right wingers today are based on their own assumptions and misinterpretations and on shit they heard from other anticommunists.

Sadly no, they really do exist and started walking out of the debate

It's a sophomoric tendency mostly limited to Anglo universities, but it does exist

I suspect Peterson could have named a colleague on campus who self identifies as a Marxist, but chose not to instead going for how a set of vulgar marxist assumptions wanders in through continental theory (keep in mind continental theory is a very Anglo notion in itself) and through that into post modernism in the Anglo sense

Nota bene, zizek agreed with this analysis, only disputing that this can be considered in any way Marxism, because it goes against everything Marxism stands for

In Anglo terms neo-somethingism refers to ideologies that hearken and self identify as an ideology, but have somehow changed the, for lack of a better term "essence" of the original ideology cf. Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism

Sometimes they've even queered, in the strict academic sense of the term, the original ideology for example neo-reactionism

Best debate I've ever seen, they way zizek deliberately crammed enough into 30 minutes to make a guy who can do a close reading of a text largely off the cuff and extemporaneously without referring to it or notes, have to refer to his notes to respond was something else

Making sure his opening was prewritten so he wouldn't fall to the temptation of responding to the other party's opening was also a brilliant move

Honestly was the debate of the century, so much better than Chomsky vs Foucalt

The bit at the end where the q&a got cancelled so they could talk shop about the issues of the being a shrink in the public intellectual trade was the cherry on top

Seeing shrinks of that calibre being that candid with each other is something that you would normally never see even in private unless you were close to both and very lucky, let alone public

Those of you who have watched it have witnessed something amazing


 No.2871220

>>2871160

Mostly. Revolution will not come from any kind of debate.

Why? Because only those who have had enough of debate will participate in revolution.

As soon as you participate in democracy, you will be absorbed and destroyed by the capitalist system. Debates are therefore mostly useless.


 No.2871224

>>2871219

Was this ironic half-way through?

>>2871223

I'm going to guess wrong thread faggot


 No.2871226

Reminder that Parenti is 86 and needs a debate like Zizek vs Peterson


 No.2871235

>>2871224

>Was this ironic half-way through?

[pic related in my prior post] note the constant laughs and applause both zizek and peterson got throughout the debate

Honk honk

>I'm going to guess wrong thread faggot

I was going to ask a revolution for who to do what, but another anon got in first with a classic (far predating the board split) old/pol/ style detournment

>>2871228

This is very important, a revolution always eats its own children, in a symbolic sense it's a blood sacrifice

For a revolution you always have to judge whether oneself and ones loved ones are worth the cost, furthermore the cost of a failed revolution is that and also a reaction in the opposite way intended

There is a piece by Katherine Cross which I think was her best work on gamergate, that she sadly deleted but might still be on one of the archive sites on revolution that should be read in parallel with a piece by Zizek on revolution the details of which I unfortunately can't recall but I think had something to do with the batman movie with Bane in it that problematises even the most peaceful revolution

Note, I'm not saying don't do peaceful revolution, or even violent revolution in say a genocidal or omnicidal situation, I'm saying do it with your eyes wide open about the real human costs the risks of a failure, and some thought on what to do the day after


 No.2871271

>>2871241

>revolution is when you kill lots of people for no reason

Ok edgemaster


 No.2871272

>>2871271

Don't talk to papa Stalin that way.


 No.2871273

>>2871241

I don't think you should be allowed to participate in any revolution, tbh


 No.2871277

>>2871273

It's just the /pol/yp that's been shizoposting all morning.


 No.2871282

>>2871280

>debate

All you're doing is posting word salads about how you want kikes, leftists and women to be tortured and murdered. All that's left to debate is whether you should be forcibly interred in a psychiatric institution post-revolution or simply get the wall and be done with it. Meanwhile, yet another /pol/ reactionary confirmed for clinically insane danger to society


 No.2871287

>>2871280

>"Sluggish Schizophrenia"

Just as a clinical note, sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was a real diagnostic category in the soviet union

The symptoms were the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, loss of affect, demotivation, absence etc combined with sudden but too short to be psychotic episodes proper outbursts of positive symptoms often but not always about things like freedom or democracy

If the current diagnostic model for schizophrenia is real then in a disturbing way sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was a real syndrome

It's worth noting here that Jung defined a schizophrenic as someone who was merely misunderstood


 No.2871293

File: 2e4feee9a501e91⋯.jpg (476.82 KB, 470x753, 470:753, 1555017820880775471267.jpg)

>>2871290

>It was a typical way to control dissent in the Authoritative-Slavery Society that was the USSR. Take your meds fag.

Early in the debate Peterson, noted that rule by pure parasitic force, to paraphrase him, was a very unstable configuration and that the rulers had to provide something more

The audience laughed, Peterson then joked that maybe it was an accurate way of how the people who laughed ruled, even more and louder laughter


 No.2871298

File: 5727ba07efe4622⋯.jpg (171.77 KB, 320x320, 1:1, 1555569104313-1656861518.jpg)

>>2871277

It's not schizo posting, schizo posting is a newfag boomer thing that indicates a lack of understanding of what's being said

It's an 4/pol/ oldfag rhetorical strategy

>>2871235

>I was going to ask a revolution for who to do what, but another anon got in first with a classic (far predating the board split) old/pol/ style detournment

Since it's only one anon, and not a raid could the mods stop deleting every damn post of theirs, if you're going to be ruthlessly stalinist about post quality, could you at least leave their effort posts up, even if you're going to nuke their shitposts

Remember you're doing this for free, no need to work every damn moment of every second

Tnx in advance hotpockets


 No.2871302

File: b041ae491663776⋯.jpg (257.22 KB, 850x400, 17:8, 1555669119165524104938.jpg)

>>2871295

>still into the stale left vs. right meme

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/21/read-the-paper-cnn-says-is-white-supremacist/

Here's the map of where we are now that zizek has asked for multiple times, and asked again for in the debate

Enjoy soon to be comrade in communism


 No.2871306

>>2871160

>how do we fix the problem that rightwingers don't understand leftwingers

>we refuse to talk to them

what did anon mean by this?


 No.2871308

File: 0c17eaa8874d70b⋯.gif (411.29 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, Homestead_Sample.gif)

>>2871302

Neo-con scum are inherently Marxist as of the creator of their garbage. No, I am a Nationalist-Partizan and will continue to be well into any further idiocy that engulfs my nation. Better to make them all dead, than be red…eh, comrade? A White Separatist Ethnostate is basically what I would fund, fight, and die for unironically. Oddly enough, I know a lot of the people in said ethnostate would be homesteaders in a chill connected agrarian format that relied on PMC-types to protect them from outside influences.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2871312

>>2871308

OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEE


 No.2871330

File: 41cc47d65c04a28⋯.jpg (11.05 KB, 193x255, 193:255, 41cc47d65c04a28e3282936e2c….jpg)

>>2871318

>How's that for Nationalism, bitch?

>Wants to live in little agrarian towns protected by PMC's that will be easily bulldozed over by anyone with an actual functioning state or just collapse on itself with the PMC's just taking and extracting what they want from people rather then deal with your faggoty township

Infantile AND inconsequential


 No.2871331

Organizing is more important imho.


 No.2871332

>>2871330

No argument and "MODS MODS MODS DEFEND ME AND BAN THE MEAN MAN!" cuckery.

You couldn't even achieve an overarching Nation-State under Marxist bullshit…so why the hell do you think you can critique some of the ideas that are vastly more adaptable to a post-destruction society? You really think it's going to be a leftyfag paradise? It's just going to be a bunch of ruin and starving people who will ultimately kill and steal from one another until some large force comes along and takes them over. It's amusing how the vol here will ban anything that doesn't suck off Marx or Commie retardation though.

(lol he mad)

 No.2871336

File: 3989b702979cff7⋯.jpg (88.09 KB, 900x675, 4:3, proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg)

>>2871332

>It's amusing how the vol here will ban anything that doesn't suck off Marx or Commie retardation though.

>wow they won't allow my anticommunist schizoposts on the communist board really makes you think huh


 No.2871337

>>2871332

lmao mad cause bad


 No.2871340

>>2871336

>>2871337

Why do gay people always gravitate towards teh communism? Is it like a mental illness to be a gay commie?


 No.2871343

>>2871340

Idk, but psychotic schizos seem to be heavily overrepresented on the right-wing


 No.2871345

>>2871340

1)I think you're confusing communism with Not Socialism, which is statistically the ideology that attracts the highest percentage of homosexuals.

2)You do understand that you're wasting your time, right? Since pretty much everyone here's seen those "insults"/critiques a countless amount of times before…


 No.2871347

Debate is lowest form of discourse


 No.2871354

>Is there a point in debating others anymore?

After reading this thread full of emotional knee-jerk reactions and strawman arguments, some of them even directed towards people that share the same ideology, I think the answer is obvious enough.

Debate does nothing. Retards like the ☭TANKIE☭ sage girl and /pol/ shitposter will always double down if confronted. >>2871167 is right about putting information out there, as it may sway someone that already *WANTS* to learn themselves- but I disagree about "engaging" someone being at all productive.

Viewpoints are a war of indoctrination; most people simply stick with the views that they are indoctrinated with as children and teenagers. The ones that do not will not change at some random angry anon's behest on the internet (in fact, it will repulse them from your views).


 No.2871356

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


 No.2871366

>>2871354

Debates are meaningful, and to say that nothing came out of the Peterson debate is just defeatist pessimism. Just look at all the attention Zizek's take on ideology has gotten in the wake of this. Some consequences of the debate:

1. Peterson's grasp on Marxism was shown to be completely lacking for all to see (more importantly, it was shown to himself), weakening his legitmacy and by extension, those associated with him.

2. Zizek detached PC-culture from the left and dispelled many of the common misconceptions of the left-ring among the right. Absolutely brilliant if the left wants to be taken seriously.

3. People were exposed to Marx' more important works, such as the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

This isn't inconsequential by any means.


 No.2871374

Its not that debates are useless

Communism gets a bad reputation because of the absolute state of Communist regimes today

and no one really is a communist anymore


 No.2871381

>>2871374

>the absolute state of communist regimes today

The only two countries left that are truly ruled by communists are Cuba (who are starting to pull a kruschev and allow America in) and North Korea. Cuba exports doctors and has one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world. North Korea has achieved pretty much full equality between both the countryside and urban areas and is beginning to broker deals to slowly but surely reunify with the south.

I also don't personally think China is communist but if you count them it's undeniable the pure miracles they've pulled off in terms of urbanizing and educating the populace while entering modernity not only at a break neck pace but in a purely Asian way.

As for "nobody really being a communist anymore" you're surrounded by people who though zizek lost the debate because he didn't advocate for a total holocaust of the global ruling class immediately so idk what you're talking about


 No.2871385

>>2871374

>Communism gets a bad reputation because of the absolute state of Communist regimes today

How could you sincerely come to this conclusion? Are you deliberately being stupid? Communism gets a bad rep in the west because the west is anti-communist by design. Western "leftism" was born out of left-communism (anti-communism).


 No.2871405

>>2871381

>The only two countries left that are truly ruled by communists are Cuba (who are starting to pull a kruschev and allow America in) and North Korea. Cuba exports doctors and has one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world. North Korea has achieved pretty much full equality between both the countryside and urban areas and is beginning to broker deals to slowly but surely reunify with the south.

>I also don't personally think China is communist but if you count them it's undeniable the pure miracles they've pulled off in terms of urbanizing and educating the populace while entering modernity not only at a break neck pace but in a purely Asian way.

As of today offically there are 5 marxist leninists states left: DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.

Nobody is running off to live in any of those, maybe China if you can get some business going. You can probably point to many countries in Europe with better healthcare than Cuba.

>As for "nobody really being a communist anymore" you're surrounded by people who though zizek lost the debate because he didn't advocate for a total holocaust of the global ruling class immediately so idk what you're talking about

There are not many people out side of fringe groups that are communist today.

>>2871385

>How could you sincerely come to this conclusion? Are you deliberately being stupid? Communism gets a bad rep in the west because the west is anti-communist by design. Western "leftism" was born out of left-communism (anti-communism).

yes and the lack of really being capitalism the way Capitalist powers destroyed the Communist block


 No.2871415

Only "debates" with the working class is useful. You will never have a revolution relying on convincing the middle class or the bourgeoisie. This is an idealist way of thinking that was prevalent in Hegel's time and it took Marx and Engels to fight against it.

The working class is the only revolutionary class precisely because it is the commodity which the entire capitalist system relies on for survival and only it is the class which has nothing to gain from the increased profits of the capitalist system. The job of Marxists isn't to debate bourgeois or petty bourgeois intellectuals, its to convince the working class of the necessity of armed revolution because of the working class' material position.


 No.2871448

>>2871405

>As of today offically there are 5 marxist leninists states left: DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba

Lol this is why I diffrrentiated being run by truly ideologically committed communists from merely having a communist party that,while having a wing still sympathetic to truly leninist socialism, is mostly run by revisionists. This is the case in Vietnam, which at best essentially is run the same way a social democratic European state would be run but because its an export economy and doesnt participate in imperialism doesnt have the capital to develop further without both aid from China and invitations to western corporations. Laos is largely the same.

China is overtly capitalist in Hong Kong to the point that Xi's attempts to prematurely annex it under mainland control have the potential to turn into a Russia/Crimea scenario. Deng's reforms throughout the 70s and 80s,while arguably necessary, opened the door wide open for revisionism within the CPC and also boatloads of foreign capital penetrating into China. Now that China has developed to such a high stage materially, it essentially functions as a Keynesian system with less robust welfare programs.

DPRK and Cuba are the only remaining states where revisionism was,smashed and that functioned in practice,insofar as they have been materially able to, as,socialist societies (this is at risk in Cuba now that Castro is dead which is why I lol when people accuse DPRK of neo-monarchism for cultivating such a strong love of the Kim's but that's another conversation).

>Nobody is running off to live in any of those, maybe China if you can get some business going.

Irrelevant to the point you were making which is that communism isn't popular and nobody are communists anymore

>Europe has better healthcare

Contestable depending on which country we're talking about and also irrelevant

>There are not many people out side of fringe groups that are communist today.

There's 2 things wrong with you saying this.

First by your definition there's five Marxist states, one of them being one of the biggest countries on Earth, whose president is genuinely well liked by large margins of the public on the mainland, so how are there not many people who are communist?

Secondly even if one disagrees with your definition, like I largely do, there's still many people who are interested in communism and many more who would be if their class consciousness wasn't redirected into bourgeoisie movements such as social democracy and neofascism. You're accusation of "fringe groups" being the only people interested in communism is strange because if a million people were part of a communist party you could still call it a fringe group despite it being "many people" because relevant to the global population in total it's a drop in the bucket.

Also even in those societies fun by communist parties there exist movements to reform said parties but not to make them more liberal but in fact more radical. In China there's been a crackdown on Maoist organizations, some or whom are fine with Xi being president and jusy want to take his purge of corrupted officials farther and replace them with new representatives elected in a more Democratic fashion by workers. Even when the Soviet union was at its worst the majority of people didn't want it to collapse and today over 50 percent of Russians have a positive view of Stalin and the he communist party enjoys massive popularity. This same trend has been repeated throughout Eastern Europe for the last 20 years and even in hyper capitalist nations like Japan the communist party enjoys increasing popularity. In India, the Philippines and Nepal there are militants risking their lives literally fighting for communism. In Iraq the communist party gained enough popularity in its last election to become part of a coalition government. In Turkey the Communist mayor of a moderately sized city was just elected .


 No.2871464

>>2871448

>Lol this is why I diffrrentiated being run by truly ideologically committed communists from merely having a communist party that,while having a wing still sympathetic to truly leninist socialism, is mostly run by revisionists. This is the case in Vietnam, which at best essentially is run the same way a social democratic European state would be run but because its an export economy and doesnt participate in imperialism doesnt have the capital to develop further without both aid from China and invitations to western corporations. Laos is largely the same.

>China is overtly capitalist in Hong Kong to the point that Xi's attempts to prematurely annex it under mainland control have the potential to turn into a Russia/Crimea scenario. Deng's reforms throughout the 70s and 80s,while arguably necessary, opened the door wide open for revisionism within the CPC and also boatloads of foreign capital penetrating into China. Now that China has developed to such a high stage materially, it essentially functions as a Keynesian system with less robust welfare programs.

>DPRK and Cuba are the only remaining states where revisionism was,smashed and that functioned in practice,insofar as they have been materially able to, as,socialist societies (this is at risk in Cuba now that Castro is dead which is why I lol when people accuse DPRK of neo-monarchism for cultivating such a strong love of the Kim's but that's another conversation).

Ok? You understand that I am not arguing that all those countries are "REAL Socialism"

The OP question was on the topic of anti communist perspective of the average person.

>Irrelevant to the point you were making which is that communism isn't popular and nobody are communists anymore

Actually its not. If the these regimes were fulfilling what people deemed as a better system to capitalism people would be trying to enter not leave at the rates they are.

>Contestable depending on which country we're talking about and also irrelevant

Its not irrelevant just because you can't counter it

>First by your definition there's five Marxist states, one of them being one of the biggest countries on Earth, whose president is genuinely well liked by large margins of the public on the mainland, so how are there not many people who are communist?

Your opinion on this is irrelevant.

Officially there are 5 Marxist states left in the world. Now you might disagree but this is the current narrative

>Secondly even if one disagrees with your definition, like I largely do, there's still many people who are interested in communism and many more who would be if their class consciousness wasn't redirected into bourgeoisie movements such as social democracy and neofascism. .

this isn't MY definition it is what is taught in academia today.

>You're accusation of "fringe groups" being the only people interested in communism is strange because if a million people were part of a communist party you could still call it a fringe group despite it being "many people" because relevant to the global population in total it's a drop in the bucket

So you agree but you don't like the world fringe. ok.

>Also even in those societies fun by communist parties there exist movements to reform said parties but not to make them more liberal but in fact more radical. In China there's been a crackdown on Maoist organizations, some or whom are fine with Xi being president and jusy want to take his purge of corrupted officials farther and replace them with new representatives elected in a more Democratic fashion by workers. Even when the Soviet union was at its worst the majority of people didn't want it to collapse and today over 50 percent of Russians have a positive view of Stalin and the he communist party enjoys massive popularity. This same trend has been repeated throughout Eastern Europe for the last 20 years and even in hyper capitalist nations like Japan the communist party enjoys increasing popularity. In India, the Philippines and Nepal there are militants risking their lives literally fighting for communism. In Iraq the communist party gained enough popularity in its last election to become part of a coalition government. In Turkey the Communist mayor of a moderately sized city was just elected .

I don't see what this has to do with the topic.


 No.2871482

File: 22680dd12eaaea8⋯.jpg (22.4 KB, 750x560, 75:56, 22680dd12eaaea8c6459da83d6….jpg)

>I don't see what you pointing out that communism and leftist movements adjacent to it are still popular the world over has to do with my argument that communism is no longer popular and nobody is interested in it except for irrelevant fringe groups

>le academic definitions meme


 No.2871490

>>2871482

The topic was about zizek vs Peterson and the anti communist sentiment

So it should go without saying that the subject population is the people in the US Canada and Europe not indian Maoists or whatever


 No.2871495

>>2871490

>give numerous examples of people interested in communism the world over

>"you proved my point because one of the myriad groups were in India haha"


 No.2871496

i think the problem is that nobody wants to fucking read anymore so will spend 3 hours watching a """debate""" instead.


 No.2871498

>>2871490

Also are you implying that people in the west not necessarily being interested in literally joining parties with the word communist or something referencing Leninism in the name means nobody is therefore interested in the ideas of Marx and Engels and therefore Marxists, regardless of their party or sectarian divisions ideologically, are wasting time talking to and reaching across the aisle to people such as Peterson and his fans and vice versa? Because that's empirically false


 No.2871525

File: 5ce30a0d6ec5c9a⋯.jpg (76.61 KB, 337x500, 337:500, hegel.jpg)

>>2871160

> So, how do we fix this?

Fix what? Read Hegel or Marx, the whole point of him (well, one of, anyway), is the issue of consensus and evolution of ideas of individual in relations to other people and society. You should at least know about a thing called class consciousness - meaning that convictions and logic of a person is determined by his economic being.

Such debate on such a topic with such contenders can be nothing more than a performance, a duel. Noone would think that they would result in participants being defeated, as in, accepting that they are wrong and their opponent is right.

However, it is a great thing if conditions of such debate are favourable for us - and in case of Peterson vs. Z, the game was rigged in favour of ourguy from the start.


 No.2871546

>>2871495

>give numerous examples of people interested in communism the world over

>the world over

this is not the subject population we're talking about though


 No.2871547

>>2871498

>Also are you implying that people in the west not necessarily being interested in literally joining parties with the word communist or something referencing Leninism in the name means nobody is therefore interested in the ideas of Marx and Engels and therefore Marxists, regardless of their party or sectarian divisions ideologically, are wasting time talking to and reaching across the aisle to people such as Peterson and his fans and vice versa? Because that's empirically false

No I'm implying the number of people interest in communism is extremely small in the west


 No.2871554

>>2871160

>Is there a point in debating others anymore?

>anymore

There never was. Identify specific problems and specific solutions. Don't promote them as being leftist or anti-capitalist or anything other than a solution to a problem. If people don't like your solutions or don't care, then that sucks for you.


 No.2871607

>>2871547

Okay but one can be interested in Marxism and Marx's ideas about capitalism without being interested in communism necessarily. Peterson conceded as much himself in the debate several times. You're claiming that debating isn't pointless it's just that most people aren't interested in communism but the op was about debunking strawmen against Marx and his ideas and whether that was futile or not


 No.2871617

>>2871607

>Okay but one can be interested in Marxism and Marx's ideas about capitalism without being interested in communism necessarily. Peterson conceded as much himself in the debate several times. You're claiming that debating isn't pointless it's just that most people aren't interested in communism but the op was about debunking strawmen against Marx and his ideas and whether that was futile or not

yeah and?


 No.2871619

>>2871617

So what are we arguing about


 No.2871699

>>2871619

>So what are we arguing about

You didn't really say anything or make an argument


 No.2871702

>>2871160

>Is there a point in debating others anymore?

Yes because when we win, those who follow are enemies will join our side. It might not be many, but it’s enough for it to be important.


 No.2872015

I've been seeing comments among the twitterati wits that Peterson lost the debate when Zizek attempted to solicit a joke from Peterson at the end, and Peterson didn't give one

Peterson did in fact give Zizek a joke

It was gallows humour from a practicing Jungian psychoanalyst to a retired Lacanian

Freud poster, did you spot it?


 No.2872019

i got marxpilled by debates


 No.2872075

>>2872019

which ones


 No.2872085

File: 36514085ea3a581⋯.png (1.27 MB, 2419x1166, 2419:1166, opposum meme magic.png)

>>2871160

Debate isn't useless, but it doesn't perform the function idealistic liberals believe it does. It's not a battle of ideas. It's a battle of presentations and fanbases, and whoever has the best presentation or the strongest fanbase wins.


 No.2872105

>>2871160

>Are debates useless?

Zizek realized this and that's why he didn't actually try to posture or debunk every single one of Peterson's bullshit claims (which Peterson would've just counter-bullshitted anyway). He tried to reach to the audience and ramble about a different topic every five minutes which made Peterson incredibly anxious because Zizek wasn't like the low-hanging illiterate liberals he's always "destroying with facts and logic".


 No.2872106

>>2871219

>>2871235

>funny clown froggy picture

>post is garbage

Like clockwork.


 No.2872109

>>2872075

ones I heard live on discord


 No.2872258


 No.2872262

>>2872258

Uphold Revolutionary Defeatist Thought


 No.2872289


 No.2872292

>>2872258

They are if someone is honest with himself. ANd that's a rarity these days.


 No.2872298

>>2871219

>Honestly was the debate of the century, so much better than Chomsky vs Foucalt

Lurk more


 No.2872332

>>2872298

Shuddup newfag


 No.2872522

>>2872262

>facts are defeatist


 No.2872550

Debates are useless because even if you can get everyone to agree with your position, the point of leftism is to actually get off your ass and do shit. It's exceedingly obvious nothing is happening on the leftist front. So you'll just end up with more people complaining nothing is happening or defaulting to virtue signalling.


 No.2872555

>>2872550

you win by capturing hearts and minds. what do you expect to do with most of society against the idea of communism…. become authoritarians and force them to be commies?


 No.2872565

It's only worth it if you're absolutely sure you can trust the debate won't descend into the gutter, and you aren't engaging with dishonest actors who don't really care about truth values.

Otherwise, it's pointless because even if you win a debate, it doesn't necessarily mean you are correct.


 No.2872568

>>2872555

>using a literal failed slogan from the iraq war

Look at the climate change issue. Most people agree with the scientists that it is happening, but literally nobody is doing anything that will actually help in meaningful way. Instead you just get virtue signalling over consumer choices.


 No.2872570

>>2872565

Also, I think people who use debate as sport are usually cancer. I see that backfiring someday when people realize how you can win a debate purely with rhetoric and being forceful.


 No.2872579

>>2872568

>Most people agree with the scientists that it is happening,

small correction, most people agree that most people agree with the scientists.


 No.2872591

>>2872568

Climate change is a losing battle there isn't enough evidence


 No.2872604

Regardless of any political position you have, you need to realize that you need to kill people. The Nazis and Fascists want to kill us so that they can maintain Hate, we need to kill them to stop Hate.

We have people like Matt Shea wanting to kill us and hang us on flag-poles when we want to bring forth the American Revolution to its final level and they want to bring back the Confederate States of America literally treason, Right-Wingers will maintain this horrible state of existence as long as they can to the point that people like Elon Musk literally kill everyone and become Space Vampires consuming countless Galaxies.


 No.2872631

Dice rollRolled 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 = 9 (6d2)

>>2872550

Have you watched the debate?

If you have, assume both men are far smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable than you and watch it again

If you think either one of them is bullshitting or the like or is making an inadequate argument think again

They both know what they're talking about all too well

It's beyond if only you knew how bad things really are, to however bad you think things are they're actually worse don't cry, please laugh

Finally, Jorden Peterson's thought, especially his more obscure academic work meshes very well with Juche thought, and in fact provides scientific backing for many of it's theoretical positions


 No.2872632

>>2871160

Peterson stopped calling it "Cultural Marxism" and calling it quasi-Marxist postmodernists: https://youtu.be/3p2vobGtS0M?t=798


 No.2872638

File: 940e2f8cc8d1e6d⋯.png (36.3 KB, 607x360, 607:360, zse9pyt97nt21.png)


 No.2872641

>>2872632

@26:00 &@26:30 he almost starts crying again on stage. What a mess.


 No.2872655

>>2872631

What's with all the schizo posting lately?


 No.2872659

>>2872655

Are you ok, retard


 No.2872661

>>2872638

Imagine all of those guys being exposed to their own audiences as the hacks they are.


 No.2872666

>>2872659

he was mocking you for being schizophrenic


 No.2872667

More debates.

peterson agreed capitalism needs to be critiqued but he thinks post modern neomarxism is literally KGB training teachers to lie and make america authoritarian Stalinist and nothing else because he didn't read marx and doesn't know what marxism is

Important points were made like "thats not what marx said, read gotha" and his response to "why marxism" was "marx had good points about capitalism"


 No.2872673

>>2871607

>Okay but one can be interested in Marxism and Marx's ideas about capitalism without being interested in communism necessarily. Peterson conceded as much himself in the debate several times. You're claiming that debating isn't pointless it's just that most people aren't interested in communism but the op was about debunking strawmen against Marx and his ideas and whether that was futile or not

Peterson fans are realizing this but they think its because "the left" is doing a bad job at distinguishing themselves because they think liberals are leftist and when actual leftists tell them that they assume its in bad faith because they don't know any better.


 No.2872680

>>2872666

I'm well aware of that, that's why I asked him if he was ok

>>2872667

>but he thinks post modern neomarxism is literally KGB training teachers to lie and make america authoritarian Stalinist and nothing else because he didn't read marx and doesn't know what marxism is

Study some Jung, and try again kid

He brought a very valid point to the debate and it still holds true


 No.2872716

>>>2872632

My god, he's making a sophisticated conservative argument for socialism to the Heritage Foundation


 No.2872762


 No.2872764

>>2872661

Molyneux has charisma at least


 No.2872767

>>2872638

>Zizek and Shapiro

>the barely intelligible vs. the bumblebee mouth

PLEASE


 No.2872805

>>2872764

In what world does Molyneux have charisma? He reminds me of someone teetering on the verge of mental collapse


 No.2872813

>>2872680

>Study some Jung, and try again kid

>He brought a very valid point to the debate and it still holds true

Really because he sounds exactly like a paranoid Yuri Bezmenov crossed with some Nazbol Elder Protocols. Over numerous studies with the most generous margins 1/3 of professors are left 1/3 are center and 1/3 are right in certain social science departments only. Every other department is 90% not marxist. All of his critique is misdirected rage at neoliberal manufactured crises that are a product of capitalism. In fact his critique itself is part of the same.

I've read Jung. Everything Peterson talks about can be learned by reading Joseph Campbell hero with a thousand faces and watching one Yuri B video on youtube.

What were his valid points that I missed?


 No.2872818

>>2872813

>Everything Peterson talks about can be learned by reading Joseph Campbell hero with a thousand faces and watching one Yuri B video on youtube.

Ok, can you explain the joke Peterson tells Zizek, at the end of the debate?


 No.2872824

>>2872818

https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2018/10/13/descent-into-hell-carl-jung/

Sometimes people repeat things because they are true not because they identify with other people saying them. Its really ironic that Jordan thinks other people need to face their demons, so he performatively puts Lenin on the wall in his house but wont read State and Revolution.


 No.2872856

>>2872824

>Sometimes people repeat things because they are true not because they identify with other people saying them.

That would be nice if it were true, but no things are not that simple

Peterson engaged a psychoanalytic technique, did you recognize it?


 No.2872866

>>2872856

https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/jungian-psychotherapy

its really not that deep my dude he didn't go through any trials or purgatory he just assumed that because he was focusing on his own work and society pushed him into this place that he deserved to be there without reading any material


 No.2872870

https://youtu.be/7JG0k-lncbs?t=17m38s

from a peterson fan

>I don't think that can be stated enough but furthermore it's just Peterson didn't walk from the perspective of one of the in nerds who's watched hours and hours and hours of his stuff I wasn't surprised by any of the things that he said as it pretty as it progressed I think it's just that they've been so exposed to such a sort of hyper partisan framing of Peterson's beliefs that as he starts to elaborate on what he actually thinks they become confused and they think oh he must be walking himself back but it's actually no he just never was as Extreme as you ever thought he was.

>so I guess the last thing you could say about Peterson's stated views on Marxism is that there's not a proper bridging of the gap between sort of Marxist philosophy and the more rational sort of market limiting practices that we commonly have in our societies or or sort of read different sort of reasonable redistributionist policies and this makes a certain amount of sense because of how insanely dangerous Marxism can be when it's taken to its extreme which is something that both Peterson and Zizek agree on but maybe it's kind of non-integral in that he's sort of failing to face the fact that the thing with Marxism is that he was one of the first very serious critics of capitalism and we happen to live in a highly capitalist economy so we can't get around the need to criticize it it's it's it's a necessity and the fact that one of the first people to do it was Marx means that a lot of the very important ideas happen to come from the same guy and so we have to sort of suck it up and deal with the fact that the same doctrine that caused so many deaths in the 20th century this also comes from the same source as a lot of the kind of maybe important rational criticisms of capitalism that we have.

>the only thing is that although there is a clear distinction between the sort of insane revolutionary doctrine and the rational deep and necessary criticisms of capitalism it's also the case that like these groups of people don't really differentiate each other very much within the social circles and academic circles that they work in and so Peterson's criticism that the left has not done a proper job of D marking what really constitutes like the ultimately pathological and dangerous left it's very true and so I actually think that that is a much bigger problem more pathological problem than the fact that Peterson is kind of like blanket disavowing Marxism in the way that he is


 No.2872872

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")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7O_9708RmU

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


 No.2872877

>>2872866

You didn't recognize it, I'll give you a hint it's a psychoanalytic technique not a specifically Jungian one


 No.2872889

>>2872877

your completely ignoring the critique

why don't you enlighten us with his secret message


 No.2872894

>>2872889

You seem interested enough in psychoanalysis that I'm not going to spoil it for you

Here's a funny one though

>Doctor doctor tell me a joke

>All my patients have cancer these days, I'm handing out chemo like candy


 No.2872911

>>2872870

He can't deal with the solution.

Isn't the communist manifesto militquose birderline socdem reforms like progressive taxation? If that stuff is _insane_ then I don't know what to say.


 No.2872915

>>2872911

The 10 planks are essentially just "What do we do the day after". Don't equate them with Marx's views on the implementation of socialism.


 No.2872941

>>2872632

He'd already shifted to neo-marxism a while ago as more descriptive of the phenomenon I think

Good lord, he just went straight for the largest audience of working class poor he could find on short notice that would take him told them this post-modern collapse of metanaratives is just idealism and abstract bullshit then told them they could build whatever fucking socialism they want at whatever scale they want

Dear god, the man is an intellectual beast, Cambridge missed out the fools

Fuuucking strewth


 No.2872945

I swear I'm more impressed by Peterson than his fans are, and I'm a Zizek fan


 No.2872961

Freud poster, are you seeing what I'm seeing?

We just saw Peterson pass lacanian analysis in one session on film, and now we're seeing the resultant hypomania

Good lord, this really was the debate of this century.


 No.2872965

>>2872961

*hypomania again on film

I wonder what he's going to do next

He should have about two weeks thereabout of a peak experience before he crashes for a bit


 No.2872971

I don't think debates are useful for finding truth. Sometimes the discussion is about very binary yes/no questions supported by obvious facts, in that case sure you can find truth if you force someone to admit they are wrong, however this is rarely the topic of a debate. The more abstract it becomes the more room there is for sophistry and when it comes to philosophical topics or questions about the "real" nature of society it's basically just an exercise in sopistry. Noone will ever be forced to admit they are wrong because there are always paths to slip away from being pinned down, divert the topics focus or even repeat points already conceded earlier. In such a case, and that is the usual case with debates, it really is just about impressions and how shit looks and feels to the audience. However if you accept that it is precisely that, I guess you can make the argument that its simply a means to an end, which is to get people on your side (in a somewhat manipulative way of course).

Of course, most of the left (or "left") hates debates precisely because of that. The very premise of debates gives the right a platform and a chance to bring the audience to their side. Any potential gains are outweighed by the potential losses.

The question then is why? Usually the implicit argument goes something like right-wing thought inherently lending itself to sophistry and 'making impressions' and thus its representative plays from an advantageous position in debates, so to speak. I honestly don't know if this is true though. The opposite assumption would be that leftists simply don't have the balls and confidence in their articulation of arguments, so they just accept the platform of debate as a "lost cause" and move on.

Whichever of these theories is correct, I'm not sure abstaining from debates is a smart strategy. Antifa is a useless shit that can't sabotage anything, let alone completely and totally prevent the right from getting a platform. So think about it this way: The right will always find some moronic liberal (strawmanned as a marxist) to debate and beat up on. My perception of the topic has been that people have recently come to realize that if someone is going to represent the "left" in a debate with them no matter what, it might as well be someone who can actually defend his position. Maybe, just maybe, aggressively going out there and exposing their moronic talking points about karltural marxism and "socialism is when the government does literally anything" actually works? Maybe someone just needs to git gud at it and start going out there. I don't know if it'll work, maybe they really do play from an advantageous position, but I don't think there's much harm in trying, this whole "but you give them a platform doe" is an illusion, the platform is already there and someone dumber than you will take the spot if you aren't going to. That's what I think.


 No.2873017


 No.2873150

>>2872971

That's why we don't debate but writing books and articles to refute the strawman and clarify our views to the mass. We struggle, but not debate.

The implication of debating is to agree that there could be a single world-view share between US and THEM. But as a Marxist, I don't believe that. Philosophy is partisan in nature, there could never exist only one world-view of the world. We fight them, instead of uniting our world-view with them.


 No.2873161

>>2873150

(cont.)

Debate should only be conducted between leftists, and even so, we must exclude the class-traitors, who merely pretend to be leftists, but do not really seek socialism.


 No.2873276

This should be model for debating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO2_vcHTqvk&t=136s

"Thousands of words flow from his pen, But there is not a solid idea in his heart."


 No.2873279

>>2872894

just tell us

im more interested in schizoanalysis


 No.2873298

>>2872915

After what? Remember that the text was made in 1848 made for the conditions of 1848. Second, that these ten planks turned me off of marxism as a libertarian minded person when like half of it is just centeralization of the state into industries and stuff, not workers direct control over those industies through positive and negative feedback from output of production. Sure, centeralization would help with establishing efficient information of these outputs and inputs for the optimal plan but I wouldn't know that if I just read the Manifesto. I probably wouldn't be a Marxist today if I've read the Manifesto before reading Marx's other works.


 No.2873305

File: 4bc7befdbe0a3e6⋯.jpg (41.59 KB, 435x262, 435:262, oof.jpg)

>99% of arguments against Marxism from right wingers today are based on their own assumptions and misinterpretations and on shit they heard from other anticommunists

<99% of arguments against Fascism from left wingers today are based on their own assumptions and misinterpretations and on shit they heard from other antifascists

Also, generalizing with broad strokes involves the same exact logic as racism. If you're actually "lefty" (unless that no longer includes being for or against race realism) then you should probably think twice before typing before you make this board look clinically retarded.


 No.2873311

>>2872872

Gotta love PJ's critique. Just about every argument against socialism and in favor of capitalism is a logical fallacy.

Its pretty silly to me that he doesn't identify as a socialist, even though hes in favor of a planned economy where the means of productions are held in common. He also thinks the soviet union was state capitalist, even though they abolished private property and had a planned economy.


 No.2873653

It's not about getting insta-conversions, it's about planting a seed. Maybe they'll ignore it for a while, but if ever they think to themselves, maybe after a really shitty week at work, "man, fuck capitalism." maybe then they'll remember a sneaky bit of Marxian text that stuck to their minds.


 No.2874440

1/2

Excuse me for jumping past the slapfight which took place.

Debate, in and of itself, isn't necessarily useless. The issue is the structure it takes, which can have infinite variations, and each one is conducive towards some factors and detrimental to others. The primary concern is to maximize dialectics – as in, ideally, a frank, omnidirectional exchange of ideas with the goal not to "win", but to advance the topic forwards, hopefully towards new insights, and participants changing their minds isn't a goal, but the rather the method – and minimize rhetoric, an unidirectional imposition of information which entails absolutely no chance for the speaker to be challenged and where the listeners are effectively a resource to be reaped.

I don't think anyone here will disagree if I say the modern structure of debate is terrible. It boils down to the participants, usually handpicked to represent different sides which are already assumed to be all similarly worthy of consideration (already, in itself, an opportunity to cripple the debate before it starts), and thus, are not only unlikely to speak openly and build on the same topic, but actually expected to treat it as a simplistic adversarial dispute, as if the debate was a sporting event and one side must triumph over the other. The debate itself boils down to the participants taking turns making speeches – pure rhetoric – with accusations against their opponents and using every fallacy under the sun, again which moderation does ansolutely nothing, and keeps itself to being a glorified stopwatch. "I'm sorry sir, but you have failed to fully debunk your opponents accusations that socialists ate 100 gorillion children for breakfats. Now it's time for his rejoinder, and afterwards we'll consider this debate to be settled forever."

The whole structure of a debate must change so it can foster dialectics, and more crucially, to curb arguments in bad faith. The moderator must actually moderate, and hold participants accountable for fallacies and logical mistakes. Instead of keeping time, he must ensure the participants argue in good faith, and allow them to interject in the middle of an opponent's argument in case the latter is making a glaring mistake, or using fallacies, or straying from the topic etc. To sum it up, the moderation must enforce the form, while the participants provide the substance.


 No.2874442

2/2

>>2874440

I'm not going to pretend I know the technical intricacies of debate, read the Ancient Greek treatises on it and what-have you. All I know is that the format currently en vogue, which is the only one that for some reason is assumed to be the only one which won't make the universe cease to exist, is flawed by design, in order to manipulate information under a thin layer of discussion. Not coincidentally, it's an exact analog of how a liberal democracy is designed to subvert popular will, under a false democratic guise.

At least before Lenin's death, the internal proceedings of the Bolshevik party remained extremely democratic, and key to it was high participation (thanks largely to Lenin's insistence on a party of "professional revolutionaries") and on active moderation on all discussions, even as the Soviet State itself became increasingly authoritarian due to practical necessity. It's kind of hard even for gommies to believe that Lenin never had the privilege of last word on any topic, nor was his position ever undisputed. Just the opposite. Even throughout 1917, Lenin was, not rarely, proposing something seemingly counter-instinctual for the party, and sometimes was a minority of one e.g. with regards to the April Theses, and yet managed to win debates on key issues by sheer force of argument. He's an extremely rare kind of leader, in that he rose to de facto leader of the party with intellect alone, with cutting deals or making alliances of opportunity. And while he managed to argue the party towards voting for his proposals, he most definitely didn't win all the time, and accepted that fact as well. In other words, back in his time, democratic centralism worked exactly as it should. And while I'm not able to envision a way to make sure such a system is preserved in the face of the Stalins of the world, I can tell you that the formt of their debates was a completely necessary, if not sufficient, part of it.

I think this debate format, not to mention the habit of honestly discussing all issues, is not only important in order to make debates at all worthwhile again, but should be built upon and applied throughout the whole society, and the formal basis of a participatory democracy and, eventually, a workers' democracy. Effectively, the soviets would most likely coalesce into something like this format, but they had been hollowed out by Lenin during the rigors of civil war, but alas. I reiterate, I think that this format, or at least some other format which cosnciously maximizes dialectics and minimizes rhetoric is absolutely fundamental, both to possibly turn this farse called representative democracy into a participative one, and to ensure that a socialist revolution and posterior government do not fall to authoritarianism. For the latter not to grow beyond what the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie necessitates, it's essential for a culture of debate to take hold of society, turning every citizen into a participant, as opposed to the pathetic, almost fully passive spectator he now is under liberal democracy.


 No.2874950

Dice rollRolled 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2 = 10 (6d2)

>>2874440

>The primary concern is to maximize dialectics – as in, ideally, a frank, omnidirectional exchange of ideas with the goal not to "win", but to advance the topic forwards, hopefully towards new insights,

It's worth noting that this happened in this debate on the topic of happiness

How did the two participants of the debate achieve this feat?


 No.2874980

>>2871160

If 99 % of arguments against Marxism are based on misconceptions, then there is a point to debating, which consists in correcting the misconceptions.

Zizek didn't really do a good job at this, imho.


 No.2875020

Better dead than red

(USER WAS SHOT FOR THIS POST)

 No.2875904

>>2874950

Which one do you mean? Oscar vs Kermit?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cyber / f / jp / kurakao / recreo / tingles ]