Jordan Peterson Doesn’t Understand Marx 

Jordan Peterson: valiantly defending the integrity of the intellectual tradition by publicly debating about authors he hasn't read

The craziest part of the debate is that Peterson starts by admitting he had to Re-read The manifesto for the first time since highschool… which means his career of advocacy against Marxism in the political and academic sphere has been based on a half remembered reading of the communist manifesto from when he was a teen.

“I have read all of the works of Marx, all of your works, and you.” - Zizek - Most badass line any philosopher has ever said.

Jordan Peterson is the epitome of speaking about things you know nothing about and everyone just believing you because you said it with confidence

I will never forget how Peterson had to concede to Zizek that he has no idea who Hegel is, says it all about him.

"Why is this pamphlet made for unionizing easy to understand?"

You heard it here, folks. Jordan Peterson is opposed to harmful reductionist binaries.

Why should Jordan Peterson read anything when his opinion is always right?

Just to clarify a point, Engles often gets way more discredited than he should with regard to many of these texts. He had a significant influence on all the volumes of capital, including volume 1, and of course volume 2 and 3 which were largely constructed into a book form by Engles from Marx's notes. Not a huge point but just worth reiterating because I think Marx gets all the spotlight when many of the seminal works of Marx were collaborative in nature, and i think that strengthens the ideas because its not just the thinking of one person but of a shared experience and analysis of the world.

16:03 "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." This video was worth it for that quote alone. Excuse me while I go make it into a graphic and plaster it all over those design-your-own-merch sites.

Thank you for the necessary adjustments and final calibration.

Of all the bad habits JP has, I think the worst is treating every other thinker like they are a glib college sophomore. The next worst is a related issue and it's his habit of criticizing other people's work based on things that it isn't about. Criticizing someone for acting like nature doesn't exist when the essay is about urban factory workers is ridiculous. It's like saying Bach was a moron because his jazz doesn't swing. Sitting in faculty meetings with him must have been a special kind of hell.

I was really looking forward to this debate with Zizek. The day before the event I watched Jordan on his channel. He said that he hadn't truly prepared for it and that he was only going to focus on the Communist Manifesto. The Munk debate showed him to completely shallow about Marxism. One has to remember that he spent a good year telling folks that no one wanted to debate him on Marxian thought which was completely untrue. There were plenty of offers. For Jordan it was about the money. No one could afford the 50,000 grand that he was asking. Charlatan.

My drunk uncle made just as uninformed but much more entertaining rants about communism than JP ever could, and he did it for free.

Would be nice to put up a link of the actual debate

I love this work you've done because it details the flaws so well. Flaws which are clearly apparent to people who are familiar with the content, but hardly anybody is familiar with the content.

That feeling when Brian David Gilbert puts more effort into researching and rating the sexiness of Castlevania monsters than Peterson does in an intellectual debate

I think I have finally identified the problem I have with Peterson. It is that he is like that guy in college who writes a paper, defends a dissertation, gives a verbal presentation, etc. in such a way as to cover for the fact that he has not actually studied the subject matter enough to have a decent opinion. In other words, he can speak the language of academia so well, he often SOUNDS like he knows what he is talking about when he really does not have a firm grip on the subject at hand. For example, the classic move he goes to often is "Well, yes, you are not wrong, but I think the more profound point here is what do we really mean when we ask "What do we mean?"" Followed but a diatribe about meaning. Evade the point, sound smart, and don't really have a decent argument.

The blue circle in the background with the darker top looks like its missing it's mustage. xD

Subscribed!

This Zizek vs Peterson debate could be considered a Peterson Stand-Up Comedy lmao

Jordan Peterson is a living proof of "act calm and collected, be confident and people gonna believe you"

Peterson is the example of : If you talk about something you know little about with confidence , those who know even less then you will think you know what you'r talking about.

Who is this guy and where the original host ?

Peterson tends to practice "lazy" philosophy, also known as strawman philosophy, in which he privileges himself/his argument by constructing the opposing argument in a way that weakens it from the get go. This channel is absolutely correct in identifying this sort of pseudo-philosophizing as dangerous. It is not a tactic that Peterson devised on his own (its been around for a long time), and unfortunately it has become the main form of commuinication in modern politics. this video definitely earned itself a subscription. Thanks, team!

Feels like peterson reversed engineered marx's perspective from animal farm.

Are we going with the 'every self-described Marxist revolutionary movement that engaged in actual violent revolution was wrong' or will that come later?

Collaboration with Matpat when?

The funniest moment in the Zizek v JPB debate was Zizek saying "please, I am not advising you read more books...of course I am not saying you are stupid..." (paraphrased from my ageing memory)

Peterson arguing against straw-men is his whole shtick - it's what the people who fund him want to hear and he barks on command at their imaginary enemies

let us all bless michael here. normally more than just a few hours of peterson content spell brain rot for the normal person. i have no idea how he was able to get through it. kudos to you mr. burns.

Every side thinks the other side is strawmaning them XD

Some german newspaper summarised the debate as going into an artillery battle with a pocket knife and I think that sums it up perfectly. Cant imagine what it must have been like for Zizek who practically breathes Hegel, Marx etc.

I find it troubling how often critical thinking is being co-opted as a buzzword by conmen, conspiracy theorists, and extremist demagogues these days. They just say it, then make sure not to do it.

“I looked up the word violence in the work, and nothing came up. Therefore, Marx did not support the use of violence.” I’m not saying Marx did, because I don’t know, but the use of a one word search to deduce his condoning or condemning of violence is… incredibly flimsy

Growing up is unverstanding that there are far smarter people than Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson is a post truth philosopher for a short attention span world. It is more about feeling in the moment and less about deep self analysis. Jordan Peterson is too addicted to recognition. Really we need more philosophers and more books.

The title could’ve just been “Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand”

good work

Just remember the reason peterson debated zezek is because he refused to debate Richard wolf on economic because peterson was scared.

Zizek directly challenged him to link pretty much anything he calls Marxism to any of Marx's writings and Peterson in a few too many words acknowledged he has no idea wtf he's talking about. I'm not even Zizeks biggest fan but if you wanna see the epitome of someone punching below their weight, watch Peterson try to debate him.

Already when I was doing my MA in sociology people who discussed Marxism by only quoting The Manifesto were never taken seriously

@wisecrack honest question. The first version of the manifesto was just a pamphlet but wasnt the second one more comprehensive

Angles had a nice beard alongside with Marcks, ngl

Something important to note is that Marx is NEVER doing a MORAL judgment. On the other hand the right is ALWAYS analyzing and judging based on morality, on good and bad on right and wrong. Marx doesn't use such adjectives!

Speaking of a priori, Peterson starts with the premise that ‘hierarchies are good actually’, as his most fundamental guiding principle, and his entire career is working backwards and justifying that premise.

Subscriber gained

That is the question: is the POV accurate, relevant, suscinct, applicable?

Next: Karl Marx on Peterism

It would be more efficient to do a video about what Peterson actually understand.

Now that’s what the kind of critique the internet deserves. Thank you very much for this awesome work! I wonder if someone like JP would ever change their minds based on well done and well intentionality critiques. Cheers!

NGL, the thought of reading a small text, 800 page triple volume (Capital vol. 1-3) is a daunting task. I may never do it myself.

Caring about Peterson's opinion on Marx is like caring about a goldfishes' opinion on Irish whiskey

"Socialism is based" -PrageU

The background music was so annoying I could not watch more than 3 minutes of this.

@17:00 The wealthy crowd actually gave that bulls**t an applause break.🤦🏼‍♂️ “We’re not ALL monsters, right!?” Clap, clap 👏

The people cheering when he just mouth vomits is kind of scary.

"Man passionately debates what he imagines Marxism to be."

12:20 bro that sentence was a mess of a mumble I woulda said “hol up hol up go back, what?”

you can't criticise JP for not understanding Socialism. After all, Socialists haven't understood it either. Hence they have failed to make it work time, after, time, after, time, after, time, after, time, after... you get the idea.

I think the performance value is what jordan really goes for. He knows his audience and chooses his points to address them, not to really take on the philosophy in full. It's a theatre of disapproval for a captive audience. It's why he constantly refers back to christian idioms and frames it in a way that excites the particular group he is speaking to.

"When I was very young, I forgot in the Trophonean cave how to laugh; when I became an adult, when I opened my eyes and saw actuality, then I started to laugh and have never stopped laughing since that time. I saw that the meaning of life was to make a living, its goal to become a councilor, that the rich delight of love was to acquire a well-to-do girl, that the blessedness of friendship was to help each other in financial difficulties, that wisdom was whatever the majority assumed it to be, that enthusiasm was to give a speech, that courage was to risk being fined ten dollars, that cordiality was to say “May it do you good” after a meal, that piety was to go to communion once a year. This I saw, and I laughed." - Victor Eremita

Your entire arguments foundation is that the communist manefesto shouldn't be regarded as the text that represents communism and Marxism? It's one of the most influential political documents of all time. There is no other text that even comes close to being as important to Marxism and Communism as the communist manefesto. The German Ideology and the capital may go more in depth but NOBODY READS THEM and most people haven't even heard of them. Imagine being on RU-vid in 2023 defending an ideology that lead to the death of tens of millions of people a century ago, while choosing to live in a country that opposes those beliefs. We'll get it right next time boys. We'll ring in that utopia next time.

I like how in the debate, Dr. Zizek first remarks is to relate how alike he and Peterson are. Peterson later says Zizek has "Moral Courage that makes him humorous, charismatic, and attractive." I enjoyed how friendly two men with apposing ideology could debate. I also enjoy Zizek calling himself a Hegelian. For all the defense of Communisms and Capitalisms, I find the core of Hegel's beliefs being the idea that our ever growing knowledge and understand might lead us to a better system. To me, that is comforting and seems like that goal is a healthier and more productive thing to discuss and debate rather than which of the two systems we know to be imperfect is better.

I'm impressed how confident he can be and how high he holds himself intellectually without even reading whatever the hell he is speaking. His hypocrisy is on at a level on its own, to a point of being even weird, because he may truly believe he knows what he is talking about. Truly a gem, a very well compressed t*rd turned into a diamond.

Anybody can disagree with something that they understand, the true courage that Peterson displays is to disagree with something without worrying about understanding it. That's the true intellectual honestly that comes from actual ignorance, he's our greatest thinker.

well, the argument about "disalienation" it is weak to say the least, however the video is pretty interesting

A man who read a pamphlet about an idea and thinks that give him authorities

Jordan Peterson is a self-hermetical philosopher. He doesn’t argue against other people’s opinions or philosophies, he argues against what he thinks they believe… His audience is composed of people who likewise have not read the things he is arguing against. So they go by his authority and trust that he has done the research, all the while he dishonestly tricks and lies to them.

I was really impressed with the way Peterson kept his eyes shrouded in shadows for, like, the whole time. Truly the Edgelobster of our time

The best *demolition* of Marxism for me has been Leszek Kolakowski’s 3-volume tome on the subject, “The Main Currents of Marxism”. It eviscerates Marx’s many, sophomoric contradictions in searingly plain logic.

We don´t really appreciate how well dressed Peterson is, do we?! We should. We really should, I mean..what else?!

"Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous" -Immortal Technique Great work good sir=)

His whole philosophy feels like a lot of “I don’t understand any of this and that makes me ANGRY.”

Missing the whole idea of dialectical marxism. Which the manifesto explains. If you read it.

My "ctrl F" search for some form of the word "violent" took me to this: "In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

What you're doing is important for public intellectual discussion. More critique pleaseee!

There's this Brazilian Marxist influencer and he has a quote. This quote goes *"if you think you found something Marx's doesn't take into consideration, you're probably wrong and you haven't looked hard enough"*

wait a minute... are you saying mr C-16 has trouble understanding things they read? How can this be?!

Bars

Damn, didn't expect such an honest defence of Marx free from red scare propaganda and mccarthyism from wisecrack. Good job Edit , never realized i had grabbed so much attention, for any new readers i kindly advice u to not go down and see the replies if you want to stay braincancer-free

Jordan Paterson is an excellent fiction writer and his main character is himself.

man, i keep thinking about this video. it’s like a shining example that wearing a suit and talking elequently doesn’t make you smart. even that being ‘smart’ (or ‘intellectual’ rather, but people use them interchangably nowadays which further underlines the point) doesn’t make you wise. do not trust other peoples opinions even when they sound like they know what they are talking about! finding out for yourself is the key

Marx did advocate revolution

I really appreciate these rebuttals. I didn't know enough about Marx to catch any of this stuff. It's valuable. Thank you.

I happen to be reading Capital now and I literally burst out laughing when Kermit claimed that Marx had nothing to say about nature. Like I scared my dog. That muppet is funny af.

This is awesome!

He read the manifest in German?

"He doesn't even address nature!" 💀💀🌚

Jordan Peterson sounds like Glen from Superstore and I can’t stop imagining Glen saying these things

Sure I’ll bite: Hegel took the old new age movement which featured hermeticism and alchemy and translated it into german. He called his idea the Hegelian dialectic whereby two opposites (a thesis and antithesis) would clash till the contradictions were obliterated and we’re left with a “sublated” idea (a higher order thing freed from the false contradictions imposed on it). Hegel saw the spiritual and the material as the two clashing entities, meaning he wanted to use the spiritual domain as the thesis with the material as the antithesis. Marx turned this around by saying the material was the thesis and the spiritual was the antithesis, why? Well it’s about what man makes to create himself, Marx thought material circumstances were the primary means by which man makes society; man makes society, society makes man and man makes society. Hegel (probably) thought the spirit was the primary way of “making society” and a critical race theorist might say race is the primary means of making society, a feminist or queer theorist would say gender is how man makes society. This is where we get “seize the means of production” from, he wasn’t talking about literal factories he was talking about how man can reclaim the production of society away from the illegitimate “bourgeoisie” so that man can become pure “social man” a socialist. To explain briefly about what Marx meant by “capital” let’s return to the new iterations of critical theories, the feminist believes the privileged group “heterosexual white males” have illegitimate hold over social production and they keep it away from oppressed groups by systemic ideology “the patriarchy”. Let’s put a different lens: “white people” keep illegitimate hold over the means of social cultural production by defining what “whiteness” means and then enforcing it systemically through “systemic racism”. I’d appreciate if anyone could try and tell me I don’t understand.

he didnt read the book I can tell

I remembered watching the Zizek/Peterson debate and my only way of describing was "A raccoon devouring a lobster."

I mostly agree with the ideas in this video. I do not agree with the method used to comb the texts used here as arguments. Looking for the word “violence” and getting 0 results is not symptomatic of a non-violent ideology, particularly if seizing the means of production (which has several meanings depending on the high Marx are you reading) if often not entirely clear about how to do it. My point is: ctrl F is definitely a hack; still, better read.

I would love to see you too have a debate where you f****** destroys you completely on the subject😂

You have a unique talent for piercing the heart of a subject, both with razor-sharp humor and exact point.

Thank you for putting yourself through all this Peterson for us. He seems to get away with saying whatever he feels like, so it's good to have a moment to put some of his statements under scrutiny without coming across as equally antagonistic.

"If only Karl had made Capital, instead of just writing about it." -his mom lol

16:14 Marx doesn't call for humans to be natural that's libertarianism. Marx calls for centralisation of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. All the many thing libertarians hate Centralisation, national banks, the state and worst of all monopoloys.

Jorpson doing the very thing he claims Marx does smh "Marx just believes the first thought in his head...I read a bit of this when I was teen, now let me tell you what my immediate thoughts about it were"