Jordan B Peterson
I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it’s been raised.
On February, April 19, 2019, I debated Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek in Toronto, April 19 at the Sony Centre. Dr. Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, whose works on cultural studies, psychoanalysis and, above all, for the purposes of our debate, Marxism, are world-renowned. The topic? Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism. This is the official video. Many bootlegs have already been released, but that seems inevitable given our current state of technological capability.
I started with a critique of The Communist Manifesto, which is the central revolutionary document of the Marxist movement (rather than addressing, say, Zizek’s work, which wasn’t what the debate was about).
It wasn’t so obvious for the rest of the discussion that Marxism, per se, comprised the central topic of discussion.
Watch for yourself.
A good article, I think, on Zizek: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/#H2
— SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL —
Donations: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
Merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/jordanbpeterson
— BOOKS —
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning/
— LINKS —
Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com/
12 Rules for Life Tour: https://jordanbpeterson.com/events/
Blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blog/
Podcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/
Reading List: https://jordanbpeterson.com/great-books/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drjordanpeterson
— PRODUCTS —
Personality Course: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.com/
Understand Myself personality test: https://understandmyself.com/
Merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/jordanbpeterson
Source
This what a good Debate looks like not the shit Ben Shakiro puts online.
should have had a vote at the end to see who won according to the audience . what's the point of the debate unless we know who
had the better ideas.? according to that audience .
08:40
Zizek makes a meh arguement for marxism. Claiming that China is doing great using both capitalism and marxist policies is somewhat of a shocking claim. One of the reasons why China has been economically successful is because of their disrespect for intellectual property rights and huge foreign investments. They will claim ownership of products that they did not design and recreate them, same for claiming innovation on behalf of its people for the state. Free speech goes out the window, racial segregation based on geographic region is also a big problem. I do not see how "Marxism" is in any way successful in China, especially when it cost some hundred million people's lives in 1960s. At what cost… his analysis of what it means to be happy made no sense to anyone.
That's really stupid. Manifest is written for simple workers and show only basics of communism.
It's written for propaganda. Propaganda actually is good word. Example: Every country is doing propaganda of healthy life.
There is tons of works.
Marx
Articles from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher pdf
Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung pdf
Articles from the Rheinische Zeitung pdf
Capital Vol. I, 1867 audio doc doc-zipped epub mobi pdf
Capital Vol. II, 1885 doc epub mobi pdf prc
Capital Vol. III, 1894 doc epub mobi pdf prc
Capital Vol. IV (Theories of Surplus Value) epub mobi prc
The Civil War in France, 1871 doc epub mobi pdf
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850, 1850 doc pdf
Comment on James Mill pdf
Conflict with Bakunin pdf
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859 epub mobi pdf prc
Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875 epub mobi pdf
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right pdf epub mobi pdf
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 doc epub mobi pdf prc
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852 doc epub azw pdf
The First International pdf
The German Ideology pdf epub (vol. 1) epub
Grundrisse, 1857 epub mobi pdf
The Hague Congress pdf
Heroes of the Exile doc pdf
The Holy Family, 1845 epub mobi pdf
The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Critique pdf
Lord Palmerston, 1853 doc pdf
Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848 audio doc epub mobi pdf prc
Mathematical Manuscripts, 1881 pdf
On Freedom of the Press pdf
On the Jewish Question, 1844 doc pdf
The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847 doc epub mobi pdf
Value, Price and Profit, 1865 doc epub mobi pdf prc
Wage Labour & Capital, 1847 audio doc epub mobi pdf prc
Writings on the North American Civil War pdf
The Young Marx pdf
Biographies of Marx pdf
Engels
Anti-Dühring, 1878 doc epub mobi pdf
Articles from the Labour Standard pdf
Brentano vs. Marx pdf
The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution doc pdf
The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845 audio doc pdf
The Death of Karl Marx pdf
Dialectics of Nature (part) pdf
On the History of Early Christianity pdf
The Housing Question pdf
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy pdf
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884 doc epub mobi pdf
The Peasant Question in France and Germany pdf
The Peasant War in Germany, 1850 azw doc (older version) epub mobi pdf
Principles of Communism, 1843 epub pdf
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, 1852 doc pdf
Socialism: Utopian & Scientific, 1880 audio epub mobi pdf
Synopsis of Capital
And it's even without Lenin, Stalin, Trotksy, Frankfurt school and many many others.
I swear the Zizek talked for at least four years.
900 thumbs down? Most of these 900 probably didn't watch the whole video. Sad of course but majority prevails. Its all love tho.
what is very important and what they both f o r g e t is U S U R Y.
Facing ourselves is the only way we can face each other. Economic disparities or differences are only viewed through the lens of those who don't recognize what they have or don't have. That goes for the rich and the poor. I honestly don't know how to explain the revelation I've had from watching this debate, but man it's seriously enlightening. It really is an example of yin and yang. It's a balance that we are all too primitive to understand. We overlook it. I'm blown away.
The greatest longevity achieved by this otherwise mostly agreeable discussion as I have found from Marxists online is this: 1:57:00. Time and time again, I have read that this is where Zizek 'got him'.
Zizek asks Peterson to outline where these Marxists are. He describes them as impotent. As I type this out we are in June 2020, and the rise of Marxism could not be more clear. The major political talking point is Black Lives Matter—an organisation who themselves admit that they are Marxists, seeking to overthrow capitalism. The surviving notion that 'Zizek destroyed Peterson here' is not merely infantile but also now demonstrably untrue. In fact, the mechanisms forewarned by Peterson have come to reveal a prescience far beyond that which one might have given him credit for at the time.
Please, do not misread this as a criticism of Zizek, because at this time he was well within his right to question this. But, let the record say that it was not Zizek who was correct in this instance. It was Peterson.
You can be (and I am) with the sentiment Black Lives Matter and also be against organization behind the scenes of this movement. Its not a conspiracy or right wing tin foil hat idea to say that the two people who founded and run the Black Lives Matter organization are marxists. Its public knowledge and they openly admit it. Its also apparent that these same people have complete religious understanding that they can use the marxist doctrine and run things better than the Russians or the Chinese were able to. This kind of social experiment has been tried before, a few times.
I find it humorous that the proponents of Zizek's Marxist philosophy in the audience fail to see the humor that they are only able to discuss and voice their opinion about these ideas because they are in a capitalist democratic republic. Go back into history and look at what happened when people objected to the ruling (marxist / communist ) party while living in that type of society.
Zizek: "the harmonious people of China"
well that should probably set off a red flag in most peoples minds…
If you review what that means to China, this "harmony" means the death of identity and the death of civil liberties on an individual level. They are very much anti gun rights, anti gay rights, anti uniqueness . The concept of the individual does not exist to them.
I could be wrong though, someone should probably go survey the descendants of people who questioned the movements during Stalin's and Mao's day, I'm sure their story is enlightening. ☕
top 10 anime crossover
When the identification of the problem is drastically oversimplified, the solution is usually also drastically oversimplified. Oppressor vs Oppressed and the oppressed needs to revolt against the oppressor… Marxism addresses maybe 20% of the problem and likewise offers 20% of a solution. Which is why it always fails. So many factors of the problem never taken into consideration and so when the revolt happens, if it’s a successful revolt, they find themselves and their system in chaos as they never had a complete solution to begin with.
I did thoroughly enjoy this debate though. And Zizek is entertaining and I can see why people enjoy his work. The same way he criticizes leftists for categorizing all people on the right as “racists and fascists” and says it’s not that simple and it’s a lazy approach to dismissing someone – Marxism itself does the exact same thing. It’s a lazy way to categorize all the problems in a society – it also gives people at the bottom a free pass to not take responsibility for their situation. And that’s why it’s so attractive for them. It gives them an enemy to place all their problems on as opposed to looking at themselves.
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” -Winston Churchill
The big problem with individual responsibily is that we have opinions that clash, and we don't even master definitions at a level of consent. It's noted at protests that most protestors are unable to articulate what it is they fight against, but they share a common conviction and chose a common enemy, for yes indeed they fail to take responsibility. Unless you plan to cast a spell and proper educate everybody, we want to have proper leadership and organization. The Marxist fear about capitalism is fulfilled, power is gained through capital and the winds of change fly towards the greedy interests of the few in control of the economy. The problem with the decent level of live that was achieved through capitalism, the "abolition" of poverty is that it allowed a certain few to gain monopoly of the strings, and set a limit to how wealthy one can be, and how many relatively wealthy people can there be, thus implying a big majority that stand under dependency and at the mercy of the few, that unlike in politics, they don't rote.
Unless the economical inequality is solved, it is impossible for one to not resort to immoral means in order to reach a level of influence enough to bring about change for the better based on pure intent, the same it is impossible to keep on to that pure intent once you become engaged with immoral activities in order to serve that greater purpose you initially sought out for.
I do not condone terrorists at the hand which, or are a cause of genocides and terror; however, such atrocities could not happen today because of the free media and internet. We have today tyrants that have to play a more complicated game than before that must need guise their tyranny with socio-political agreeable methods, so they remain silent against the loud argument of "they are much better than the criminals such as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc." They today employ economical terrorism, they do not need an army to massacre, or a virus to sicken and kill, they simply destroy their economy and political structure, bind their hands against changing their regime, and witness a slow decline into barbarism that roots the core traditional values that have built the nation's moral compass and humanity as we describe it in modern terms.
Therefore defending democracy and capitalism by saying it's better than the extreme examples of a corrupted system such as communism and fascism.
Just make this mental exercise: what if the fascist regime and the german resolution focused on a character different that Hitler and those we consider now criminals, but on a pacifist "guru" that did not advocate antisemitism or racism, would he have realized a revolution towards a better world? Definetly! But he too, would have been requested to disarm and to keep complying with the united regulations about global economy, or the raise of capitalism. Well then, would his revolution not become obliterated by inviting the same corrupting mausoleum that provided the necessary protection for the globalists to prevail there too, and get a hold of the education everywhere.
Well I'm not writing a book here so…
Peterson's problem when he talks about Marxism is that he doesn't really understand it. Not only Marxism, but clearly doesn't understand Marx's ideas in general. Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto for the Party, not simply for themselves. Also, Peterson clearly doesn't understand Derrida to directly imply that his work simply replaced the class struggle with identity politics.
Same people complaining about the audience reacting to Zizek and Peterson are the same people that bring up politics at Thanksgiving
When the identification of the problem is drastically oversimplified, the solution is usually also drastically oversimplified. Oppressor vs Oppressed and the oppressed needs to revolt against the oppressor… This addresses maybe 20% of the problem and likewise offers 20% of a solution. Which is why it always fails. So many factors of the problem never taken into consideration and so when the revolt happens, if it’s a successful revolt, they find themselves and their system in chaos as they never had a complete solution to begin with.
Also a father tends to lose authority if he repeatedly shows his incompetence or tyranny
The environmental critique is Zizeks weakest argument. He’s wrote wee dint rouble, but companies use ecological benefits as their pitches to customers all the time. Plus, the environment deteriorating would hurt profits. There’s nothing about capitalism that is antithetical to environmental preservation.
I’m a JP shill, but Zizeks point abt authority and competence is interesting and new. Something to chew on
Jesus Christ, cut the beginning please!
This video encapsulates the true essence of a debate and in all my inexperience I say this that nowhere else have I seen such a flawless exchange of ideas with so much room for understanding on both sides and a (dare I say this) common goal of solving the problems of society as human beings instead of belongings of a group. It has been a treat watching these 2 and half hours of pure knowledge spurt.
I am very confused how Zizek answered the question of true happiness by not providing an actual answer but instead turning to talk about love and Christianity and JBP's housework slogan. I think I miss a link here, can someone explain?
god help the colombian economy when Slavov stops doing coke
he uses china as an example which is ironic since their greatest achievements have come from taking advantage of capitalism lol