Richard Wolff responds to Jordan B. Peterson 

I fucking laughed my ass off at this XD

No he doesn’t don’t compare him to something great

Big mafia hands also

@Jaskaran Singh something a Marxist would say lol

Heess from Noo Yawk.

Jordan B Peterson - 2,235,654 subscribers RichardDWolff - 69,160 subscribers LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@@snipview8363 yea unlike Jordan Peterson, most serious scholars tend to be busy teaching and researching instead of curating their RU-vid channel. Professor Wolff is one of the most prominent and respected Marxist academics alive today, shouldn't he be the kind of person Jordan Peterson would wanna debate with to prove his point about Marxism??

@@mcteethinator yes, teaching you how to destroy America from within and fulfil Krushchev's prophecy: “We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within....” You must be very proud of yourself.

@@snipview8363 You are wrong, not just america, but the whole world.

@@osvaldoprado9906 not all nations are as historically illiterate, and gullible as America

I didn’t notice it at first, now I can’t ignore it lol

Lmfao I like the idea of JP being like Charlie's uncle from Always Sunny

PETERSON would like a tree limb exiting a chipping machine after Prof Wolff had a ''conversation'' with him. Nothing left but small thin slivers of his former self would be left.

or BALLS!

Yeah. They were gonna armwrestle in case of a draw. That's why.

Peterson would never agree to it.

Peterson has literally covered all of this already. Marxism has never been implemented successfully, despite being an alluring social theory it is just a theory. Whenever tried, millions die. And it's always just this sort of person who advocates it, an intellectual in the sense that they put their intellect before reality and thus think they can do better implementing the theory than Russia or China or anyone else that's tried. Yet they have never successfully implemented even the most mundane social policy on even a local level. I think he should start local, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Try and help some people. Or is that rather than compassion for the poor, he really just hates the rich?

@@MegaAlexPink And yet, you can apply that EXACT same logic to capitalism. L

@@spencerjames9417 Capitalism has never been been implemented successfully? Name a more successful society in the world.

OF course, JP claims (quite proud about it, too) that's HE's an "intellectual." So we'd want to apply the same test to him, right?

This was not a debate. This was an aimless rant.

This guy is calling him out, not debating him lel

He did challenge him to a debate

@@MrBoazhorribilis Here! Here!

@@MrBoazhorribilis he called him out. Jordan Peterson is simply a coward who claims Marxists won't debate him when it is he who refuses. Probably because he would be exposed for knowing next to nothing about Marxism and would be called out on all the bs he spews like cultural Marxism and calling Marxists post-modernists. Only Marxists he will address are dumbass college kids, but an actual Marxist intellectual who has been an economics professor and gone to Harvard, Yale and Standford? He doesn't have the balls.

Peterson- thank gaud its Gone. God I love capitalism. Sees charging bull. Oh shit not again

Ah, Marxism that disastrously unsuccessful/untried (delete as you choose) system.

Is he still saying that after Zizek handed his ass on a plate on that debate they had?

Do you have evidence that Richard contacted Jordan and Jordan said no? A random guy making a random proclamation on a random RU-vid video is not evidence that Jordan won't debate someone.

Same here

he's a lier, so I would be careful what you listen to. He tells half-truths and lies to push his narrative. He has to be a professor because he would never survive in the business world.

@@robertprice9052 lol ok troll 😆👌

@@robertprice9052 what lies has he told? Not attacking you, genuinely curious

@@camdavis9362 He's an open Marxist. He mischaracterizes Marxism and the free marker to push his narrative. He wants more Marxists, so he continually links unrelated information to fool these idiots who follow him. In his video he says that the workers didn't want to share the riches wealth, which exactly the opposite of what Marx said. He ignores how many millions Marxism killed, and how many free market has lifted out of poverty. He and that idiot Robert Reich are on a campaign to turn people away from free market. The blame the mega rich for all the workers problems. They are nuts.

​@Bosko Da Chief You have written so much, just for it to be incorrect. The idea that Marx, an ethnic jew, is a source of inspiration of the Nazi's is absurd. You mention the JQ but it is clear you have not read the book itself. The purpose of the JQ was in response to an antisemitic text by Brauer who argued Jews should not have full emancipation in Germany until they renounce their religion as political emancipation requires a secular state which Bauer believed did not leave room for social identities such as religion. Marx argued against this in the JQ, using Bauer's stereotype as satire, saying that religions will always prevail in a secular state and arguing that jews should be given full political emancipation regardless if they are practicing and religious. You also fail to admit the extreme anti marxist sentiment that Hitler and the Nazi's had, i cannot tell if this is purposeful or if you are just an idiot. This is shown through his actions, such as banning the KPD, the communist party, and sending Marxists to concentration camps. Not to mention his mass privatisation of the economy after the SPD, the social democratic party. We can also see his opposition to Marxism through his speeches such as: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” His perspective of socialism is entirely different to Marx and any other socialists in the 19th century. He also believed Marxism to be a jewish plot, spreading a conspiracy of cultural bolshevism or cultural marxism in which Jews spreading progressive ideals were trying to usher in communism. You also completely misunderstand what the 'opiate of masses' means. Marx, as an ardent materialism, believes religion arises out of material need for comfort. Under all, current and past, modes of production there is mass misery created, these causes them to seek religion for this comfort. He believes that religion will erode in socialism and communism as these material conditions for religion disappear. The pseudo intellectual you have mention obviously has not read Marx. Marx adamantly opposed any kind of worshipping of people. He rejected the notion of great man theory, believing people emerged out of material conditions and those conditions shape them. He admitted that, 1. Other people could come to his ideas without necessarily reading Marx or related texts and 2. If he did not write these texts someone else would due to the material conditions he lived in. You're idea that Marx places anything in moralism is so incorrect it is actually upsetting that someone would think that. In fact it was quoted that Marx would laugh whenever someone mentioned moralism. Furthermore claiming Marx was not rational is just incorrect. Marx's work was combining Hegel's dialectics and logic to the utopian socialists before him, creating what he called 'scientific socialism'. Marx places Hegel's works within a completely material outlook and rejected any form of idealism. You're proposition that Marx was not focused on the individual and was a collectivist is a child's understanding of Marx. You avoid substatiniting the point of Marx taking the perspective was one of 'all for one and one for all' because, obviously, it was never one of Marx's perspectives. Marx's class theory was based on the INDIVIDUAL'S relation to the means of production. Not to mention Marx's theory of alienation, probably one of his most famous ideas, attacks Capitalism for how it alienates a worker from his individual. By performing labour that is not for himself but for owners of the means of production the worker becomes stripped of his own agency and instead his goals are directed to him by the bourgeoisie. Socialism seeks to be the emancipation of the individual. You should actually try to read Marx before you write such a long but incorrect comment. This is the problem with Peterson as well, he admits to only have read the manifesto which Marx wrote on a train for workers. In fact in a 1872 preface he says the manifesto is more of a historical document then an actual representation of his theories.

@Bosko Da Chief It appears that the languages you read Marx in are languages you do not understand. Keep on espousing claims which you make no aim to substantiate.

Pout more.

Y E S ! !

You realize that the effect above is due to camera placement, right?

@@fun_ghoul Indeed. They look twice as big as my head lol. Illusion granted, I would wager they are above average. Happy I could clarify on this pressing issue

Traditional European why are u so upset? Calm down.

@@fun_ghoul = troll

@Traditional European fucking lol

Jordan Peterson will mop the floor with this guy 😂

Israel Vega then why did he back out of a debate with him?

@@joshs1282marxists would say that he's too scared to debate him,on the other hand he debated slavoj zizek.if you're interested in his response to richard wolff here's the video."consider this to be a response from richard wolff"on richard wolff vs dr.jp's comment section video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XJwEBizQgYI.html

@@israelvega5666 Really? Because Zizek destroyed him.

@@bigbrother6548 Žižek didn't really destroy him, he merely showed that Peterson doesn't know shit about fields that are out of his expertise

Because he is the opposite of Trump in every way

I think it’s the angle

True soviet coalworkers shovels, comrade

Deep breaths--for about 15 minutes--deep in, deep out, repeat...the anxiety will pass, you'll feel a sensation resembling calm, approaching but not reaching serenity, your neck and face muscles will, not relax, but will feel "different" a kind of pleasant feeling...as for the why...big handed people...I don't really know.

How is your conquest of bread?

Exploiting stupid people. No wonder he loves Capitalism!

@@dxcSOUL no wonder he's a psychologist, to manipulate efficiently.

@@ericlefeld8059 That's exactly it. I don't know if it's so much that Peterson's audience is stupid - some are, most are not. But even smart people can fall for the words of a conman if that conman has been trained well enough. And Peterson is fairly well trained. Of course, that isn't to say that psychologists are all con-artists but some certainly are and I would say Peterson, whether intentionally or not, borrows extensively from their playbook.

The way you have "moved on", after you have destroyed 50 countries and killed 100 million with it, is by saying "that was not real Socialism", "that was state Capitalism", inventing the "Democratic Socialism" oxymoron, and lying to everybody that the Capitalist Scandinavian countries who got badly burned fooling around with Socialism, and didn't know how to backpedal fast enough, are Socialist now. LOL!!!!!!! Oh, and you came up with the stupid idea that worker coops can compete with Samsung&Co. LOL!!!!!!!

"appealing to your market" is a useless truism that can be applied to any position even Marxism.

You mean his incel fans?

the incels crawling out of the woodworks

Well, incels are like lobsters....

@@WiloPolis03 LOL, funniest thing I've seen all day.

@@maywill1 Thx man, good to see a Will sticking up for another fellow Will

I think Peterson does have fair points from time to time, but really he uses too much sophisticated language and is too long-winded to ever efficiently explain his point. Same with Zizek.

@@daultontemplet4016 lol

Wolff with some more broke angry kids turning them into “Marxist” whatever definition we give it today. You guys are full of it XD go capitalism! I just bought GameStop stocks!!

It's a wonder that, with so little to stand on, he has stood strong against all his opponents... none have been able to present a logically reasoned argument against his position. Least of all this video rife with Straw-man arguments... I'd argue purely Straw-man arguments... not one honest, logically reasoned rebuttal.

@@Bert-Kay what did you buy in at?

Sure, "educate the masses" by saying, after they destroyed 50 countries and killed 100 million with it, "that was not real Socialism", "that was state Capitalism", inventing the "Democratic Socialism" oxymoron, and lying to everybody that the Capitalist Scandinavian countries who got badly burned fooling around with Socialism, and didn't know how to backpedal fast enough, are Socialist now. Oh, and caming up with the stupid idea that worker coops can compete with Samsung&Co. LOL!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

@@snipview8363You are so ignorant of history and how the world works, read Chomsky and Wolff, educate yourself, what you describe has no resemblance to reality.

@@nomad9338 why am I not surprised that you think that reading Chomsky and Wolff from your dad's basement is better education that living half a man's life, being born and educated, INCLUDING in Socialism and Marxism-Leninism, all the way through college, in a REAL Socialist country, surrounded by other REAL Socialist countries like it, and a stone throw away from Soviet Russia. And then living the other half in America. Then you think you can come out from your basement and change the world. LOL!!!!!!!!

@@snipview8363 😂😂😂

@@nomad9338 jokesters are those like YOU who spend their days shopping around for lowest prices, forcing competing companies to lower their prices, and wages, to satisfy YOU - and then point their finger and accuse the companies you are squeezing of "exploiting" their workers. Yes, you are that dumb! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel something similar; I think that Marx' and especially Lenin's analysis of Capitalism and its far-reaching consequences are spot on both for their respective times and our current times, however, I don't agree with all of the solutions they propose

@@ufkun20 better solutions were proposed by Proudhon and Kropotkin

@@r.t.5767 Spotted the AnCom

@@ufkun20 yes! :D

Savunamadim

And where do you stand, Joan? In reply to #1, What is Wolff's answer as to where we ought to look? He has none.

But in western society, doesn't everyone have the opportunity to be the employer?

@M A those are the issues with in this system that need to be fixed. Those are the convos we should be having. Not ones about doing away with system, but how to fix this one. I will say I dont think adopting some socialistic aspects in it is a bad thing. There are some already in the system already has some and it is helping the people in the system. A balance is needed. As long as the left can keep bringing in things that make sense then I'm in. But the left needs to also see the importance of the rights ideology as well. Just me though.

@@buddysilver5788 lol. :-D

first marxists state was a slavs state - Russia. It doesnt make any sence how Marx called black ppl. His learning is about economy not about races and nations. Actualy a negro is a historical term. And in many languages it means what it means - black human race.

The Revanchist he is a coward

​@@williamclausen4679 Well he does cry a lot...

If you dpnt know the answer to that you might want to follow the rule that says listen to people like they may know something you dont. I dont get the hatred of Peterson. His political points of view are based i history, research, and psychology. They arent his theories. The political stuff is a biproduct of his primary objective. His university lectures are all on you tube. Hes an ivy league professor, taught at Harvard. Take advantage of it. Its a free education.

I think the Zizek debate was going to happen but then Zizek had health problems. Idk if there was a rescheduling.

Because he's a thinktank stooge, just like Dave Rubin, an avatar of his overlords at the Heritage Foundation. He's so obsessed with "the truth," apparently, that he runs from anyone who could shatter his perception of it.

Whole world's got issues. Hang in there. You're doing good, man. 👍

It's just a matter of knowing the principles of what he is talking about, It all makes sense to me cuz I'm Marxist and i read about the french revolution, the main point is u have to read and discuss more things.

I have no issue understanding what Peterson is referring to when speaking. It may be due to me watching him a lot, or it may be an issue of you not knowing of the underlying references. If you're getting confused that often, while I almost never get confused while watching him, there must be some info you're missing (like some fundamental western/American stories). It may also be a problem of simply not watching the video in its entirety. It could also be a personality thing, like you being very low in trait openness. Be weary of putting all his fans into a single category.

Let’s see, which one doesn’t get the other, the Harvard/UoT prof or you? I am not confused when I see him talking as I have been studying him for several years. Your oversimplifications do not trump his coherence. I don’t know why you assume you can assess him. Ever heard of the Dunning Krueger phenomenon?

Read his book Maps of Meaning. He taught this book in a course at Harvard for several years so it is also available online. The psychological interpretation of the biblical stories is also a good one. If you are goi to undermine Peterson, undermine Jung.

I think its quite interesting how to the point he is in general. I'm not sure if that's a result of making these kinds of videos for a long time, as well as his career as a teacher. Or his own style?

Wolff is the anti Trump. Smart, fair, educated and with big hands.

Bass player hands

You're deluded and a nut-job. Marxism sucks and Wolff is a traitor to the United States.

@@busterbiloxi3833 lmfao why tf do you even watch his videos and take time to reply to comments if you hate him so much. Also I suggest you read a book about what marxism actually is before giving away such names as traitor and nutjob. It's laughable that a person is deemed for you a traitor if he just wants to better the system that we live in in such way as to give every employee a voice in their workplace and an opportunity for them to have equal rights in voting about something in their company as their ceo for example.

From the Marxists....yes.

And from the video. He literally bmakes the same strawmen as peterson.

@@steven-el3sw nope, from the bootlickers

The Pareto distribution, bye smoke 🤣🤣🤣

Prateo is an abstraction.

You, me, and my others, brother..and the Professor delivered :)

CALL HIM MISTER CHIMNEY!

@D Master Paterson, like the idiots who worship him, are too stupid or too dishonest to recognize their arguments have been blasted out of the water. But it would be intertaining for those of us with a brain.

@Neal Murfitt don't buy that

Mmmm yes sure this guy knows more than all the economists of USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and North Korea. If only he was in charge of these economies, he would have brought the Socialist utopia. Stop insulting the intelligence of the smart people in all these countries, it was tried, it failed. Moving on.

To expand upon my point, capitalism is one of the only systems that facilitates the access to capital to those who have the highest competence. It is not a guaranteed but it maximizes it compared to socialism. In socialism, access to capital is decided by a tyrant (who is not all-knowing) or idealistically, a Democratic majority (which usually is ignorant, how the masses tend to be). Competence follows the Pareto distribution, so logically, we want our resources to be at the hands of those more competent, and therefore there should always be inequality in the most productive societies. Socialism sacrifices productivity for equality, but this has not increased happiness for a variety of reasons, and it probably won't. At least, there is little evidence for it.

Everyrhing thing every concept is an Idea first which is expressed later in words or image means in a language, then it takes ideological form with time..economics, politics , Art, or anything man had created COMES from an Idea , and here comes the psychology and psychoanalyst, In understanding the human mind , the process that LED to a such thought in first , In decryption the smallest human Act in a totaly, in accessing to a deep understanding of that process comes with it a deep understanding of human behavior, the depths of the human mind , that's what is the most fascinating about psychology, at least for me.

Why do you trust an economist that isnt worth a huge fortune? Wouldnt any economist that actually knew how economies work be able to use that knowledge to create vast sums of wealth for themselves?

And straw man

@@thevipez8740 Demonstrate it. Claims are worthless.

@@rexnemovi6061 How to link to posts: At the top of the post, where it says '1 month ago' THAT is a link. imply right click it, and select 'copy link address' or similar on your browser.

@@rexnemovi6061 Right, so i'm on my laptop, so i can't really deal with all of that right now. I'll sort it when i get home, but the short version is: everything you said was wrong, and i can prove it in 2-3 hours. basically, you have every anti-socialist talking point known to man, and everyone of them is an outright lie. I don't blame you. If you have never actually reseached it beyond browsing a couple of news channels, it all seems very cut and dried. But, sorry to sound all conspiracy theorist here, but the people with the money, have a vested interest in everyone staying ignorant of socialism. Here, make a start on Venezuela: www.veteranstoday.com/2019/05/03/an-ocean-of-lies-on-venezuela-abby-martin-un-rapporteur-expose-coup/ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_fV-C1Ag5sI.html

@@antediluvianatheist5262 Thanks. It actually should have been pretty obvious - sometimes things just don't click. Anyways, appreciated.

Another blind “Marxist”(but really just unable to manage in a free market economy and mad) hook line and stinker xD

Mark Grissom Let’s talk about this ‘responsible and passionate’ academic’s argument, shall we? He says if we use the argument that ‘perverted versions of marxism kills people, thus we should stop with marxism’ is preposterous, because we didn’t stop with Christianity even though perverted versions of that kills people too... This is an academic... according to you... who just talks over 200 years of human history like its nothing. A gigantic part of the enlightenment was about secularism, the SEPARATION of christianity and the state, so that moronic wars wouldn’t happen anymore. He refuses to mention that Peterson explains many times why Stalinism and Maoism are a logical consequence of the human psyche once marxism is embraced. He backs this argument up by books of Russian authors, about how the Soviet system slowly got perverted from this marxist ideal to a Stalinist society. Human psyche doesn’t embrace total equality of outcome, because we’re a species with an essential need for hierarchy. That’s why he mentions the lobsters too, because they have proven to be hardwired for hierarchical thinking in their DNA. Its the same thing Confucianism preaches: without hierarchy society falls apart. Either way, leaving out this part of Petersons argument is extremely unacademic... I dont fully agree with Peterson’s reasoning, but he is not represented fairly here. Also, I don’t get why all the comments say peterson isn’t an academic. He worked at Harvard for Christ’s sake! He has many publications and citations (already before the whole internet celebrity stuff) and is acquainted with many top psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt. This whole comment section seems like a bunch of salty Marxists who strawman arguments so they can feel good about themselves.

@@tsaoh5572 You are exactly like Peterson. You use concepts like Marxism, Confucianism and Maoism, but what do you really know about them? Ask yourself, seriously, did you really read any of the works on them?

Mark Grissom Yes I did, I followed multiple university courses on the subjects. So after your ad hominems, what is your actual argument? Or did you come here just to smirk? Did you read Adam Smith back to front before joining the criticism of capitalism? Please don’t answer those rhetorical questions and just reply based on the contents of arguments, thank you.

@@tsaoh5572 I don't think I would want to argue with you. Let me put it this way. I am Chinese, born and raised in China. I've spent the past two years in Australia and is looking forward to going back to China once my degree is finished. The reason I asked you if you've read anything on Maoism and Confucianism, is I've had so many meaningless "debates" about these topics with people like you. When you referred to Maoism, you used it almost exclusively to refer to the fact that the famine (1959-61) happened. The historical context was very complicated. Please don't say the Chinese media is full of censorship, so I don't know the full picture. I've read the Western side of the story; I mean reports, analyses and banned memoirs by the Chinese that are published in the West. So, any meaningful debate should be based on facts, where between you and me, I don't know where to start if you equal Maoism with killing and famine. Even serious Western scholars look beyond that. He's written a lot, and those works are collectively known as quasi-Maoism in a Western sense. Then, Confucianism. You referred to hierarchy. What do you really know about Confucianism? Seriously. It is more than the Analects, which I doubt you've studied. On one of the main buildings on my campus where I am doing my degree in Australia, there is a huge board with a mystical saying attributed to Confucius, which in fact is a quote from Tao Te Ching. This is what I am talking about. FACTS. Read my comments again, if you will. You were asking about my arguments. I was very specific that Wolff was very accurate with the historical facts, while Peterson was nothing but "The Chinese government is evil". That was my argument. And that's why I said you were exactly like Peterson, because you don't know the facts and are full of opinions, which are fed by the popular media. I've been reading the American news media every single day for two years now -- totalling about 3000 news articles, CNN, NYT, and all that -- and I am so frustrated that the American media can't seem to get the facts right, or maybe they don't care or maybe it's part of their agenda. FACTS. Now, Marxism. You seem to hate Marxists, but I'm not a Marxist. I studied Marxism in passing when I studied for my degree in Western Philosphy, which gave me a context for Marx's ideas. I feel very sad that the Western perspective has become so parochial that people fail to comprehend and imagine any alternative ways of thinking. It comes back to what I said in my original comment. Peterson and his supporters are all about "We're good. You're bad." If that's his choice of engaging, then what is there to talk about?

@@tsaoh5572 but Peterson's reasoning is more than just flawed. Peterson associates what happened in the Soviet Union as a consequence of enforcing equality which he associates with Marxism. None of this is true. He holds and tried to reiterate in the debate with Zizek that Marx was for equality of outcome which Marx never was. He also has no understanding of the history of socialism, particularly it's interaction with US foreign policy (Nicaragua, Cuba, and so on). The association of the Soviet Union with Marxism is an old trope that the US establishment invested in while it was deporting socialists and arresting them. Stalin's society wasn't one without hierarchy at all as anyone who has read even Animal Farm can tell you. So Peterson makes these bounds and leaps before getting to his analysis about human psyche. He also equivocates a lot with respect to hierarchies. To justify economic hierarchy he points to hierarchies of beauty and implies that it has everything to do with competency. Funnily enough, when he proposed a culture of enforced monogamy he was implying that society should tilt such that the disadvantaged are aided, an opinion he disparages when Marxists use it. His view on women is also quite problematic, especially his characterization of Betty Friedan's seminal text. I don't think he's dumb or a hack like Ben Shapiro. I just think he dabbles in things he has no understanding of and ends up emboldening a very specific group of people which is cis gendered white males.

The Pareto distribution kills Wolff's whole argument. That is the problem not Capitalism.

The system of Capitalism is what ensures that there is widespread material deprivation under any system in which "80% of the work is done by 20% of the people." Our social hierarchies and class system are what determines who is allowed to do the jobs that actually pay one enough to survive. Even in our society it isn't like the working class aren't doing work anyway, they just aren't receiving fair compensation for their work because private ownership of the means of production and a disempowered labor force means that the Capitalists get to pay the lowest wage possible. The people who get paid really well are the people who sit at a desk, on a board, etc... and decide where the work gets done and what work should be done. Under socialism the Pareto distribution would just mean that the work gets done by the people who are capable and available while everyone else is a)being trained to be capable to do work b)enjoying their lives so that they can be mentally and physically available to do good work and c)enjoying their lives so that their lives can be worth living.

@@rhysbaker449 The 80/20 is because of the the Pareto distribution not Capitalism. There is much we can do.

Man Is Not his Own Master-- Pareto distribution is not a law of economics that describes how things must be, it describes how things are in many situations. The reason that it is this way is capitalism. Capitalism is not the only economic choice and we can do better.

@@TheRedWabbit It is a law, it's why everyone can't be Micheal Jordan and why every business can't be Microsoft. Read the great leveler, there isn't a political system that has ever been able to do anything about inequality. It isn't Capitalism.

The best they have to offer is Peterson, Shapiro and the Fox news circus.

@Snappingturtle 267 Speaking as more of a progressive lefty than a liberal one I can tell you I find commonly held beliefs on the right - which I would not call sense - uninformed and regressive. Though we would obviously have to go issue for issue to have any substantive discussion.

@Snappingturtle 267 the right have gone fucking insane. People in the future will be shocked at how millions of people could follow an unhinged buffoon such as Trump. "Common sense," indeed.

@Snappingturtle 267 funny how you think socialism has never worked, when every developed country in the world has a socialistic safety net for the poor, which indisputably makes people better off than they would otherwise be; and the stronger the safety net, the higher the overall standard of living.. But "muh Venezeula," lol.

@Snappingturtle 267 You point at an oppressed people getting the bare minimum of help, and then use that as an explanation as to why help is not worth it. Circular. Standard RW tactic. Defund X. Point at X not working. Use as excuse to close down X for profit. Consider the socialist polices of FDR, that brought about the US golden age. The guy was so popular he died in office, and they amended the law to stop at 2 terms. Point at any socialist country and tell me why it's socialist, an i will point at one that is AS socialist, or more, that works just fine. Keep in mind, i will make you look stupid, so put some thought into it.

Peterson is an expert in Carl Jung and psychology, but he is not an expert in other subjects. I don't understand why he feels the need to spread his knowledge on subjects he only have a superficial understanding of.

You should ask your brother to actually do it, that is, dare him to try and literally pull himself up by his bootstraps, see how that goes.

@@AG-el6vt It’s never a bad thing

Yeah... what a fool your brother is for believing in personal responsibility and becoming a productive individual... you should do everything you can to undermined that and promote your philosophy of entitlement, and resentment. But here's something you may want to consider... your limited education distorts your perception of what is a thorough and succinct analysis... the fact that that is your conclusion... demonstrates your inability to comprehend the topics being discussed... you cannot even detect blatant Straw-man fallacies in his argument which is purely intellectual dishonest distortions of the argument. He relies so thoroughly on such fallacies... precisely because his analysis born out of his ignorance. I'm willing to bet your brother has a distinct intellectual advantage over you... I suspect you are familiar with the frustration of never succeeding in honest debate against him. Good luck to him... hopefully he can help you.

@@Chipwhitley274 ....You know, I COULD point out the fallacies in your argument, and that you're basing all of what you said on the small, small argument of "The Black Slut Doesn't My Super Based Idol" but that would: a) cause me to have go through and address in each way that you're wrong (including mine and my brother's level of education, views on education, and even views on debate like situations and etc.), b) would seem like I'm trying to emphasis mine and my brother's difference as less vs, more/who's better comparison and I don't want to do that. Because intellect and education are not equivalent to actual WORTH. c) And sexism, and how that even when my brother is wrong, has a bad opinion, or anything similar, people, even our mother, will have more chances and opportunities or more leeway in fucking up than I ever will. Good luck pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps though. I'm sure with enough energy drinks you can do anything.

Socialists themselves Prove that Socialism does not work Socialist do not start their own Factory To make a better mouse trap Or their own shoes

@@coolmodelguy6304 You just showed That you are an Idiot Your intellectual rebuttal is an insult ? HA ! HA ! Thanks you for Showing that Socialists are Idiots With your very own words HA ! HA !

Ah. APE MAN thump chest . . . make loud noise. HA ! HA ! FUN !

@Ajay Agnihotri They must really suck Because the Socialists will not Continue their brilliant success But instead, keep yammering on About the Capitalist Success is Repeated Unless its Not Success Am I wrong ?

​@@coolmodelguy6304 😂 😂 😂 Dude!!

Has he read the Gulag Archipelago? It's an excellent companion to Das Kapital.

When all you have is a hammer, all problem look like nails.

Did u hear Oetersons insane take on Marduk

@@antediluvianatheist5262 It still beats having no tools. Occupationally I prefer to have fire and an anvil as well, especially when the problem is a lack of nails.

@@dewaynestafford5507 No?

Economics, on the other hand, has nothing to say about human nature. This is true for economists both on the right and the left and human beings become objects in the mind of the utilitarian. So, I think a knowledge of psychology (personality traits, more specifically) with a good dose of philosophy is still the only thing that can lead to any moral system (however the system may be organized).

His analysis of problems is great. He offers absolutely no solutions though. It's exactly like the communist manifesto. It just says "we won't do what the other guys are doing." I've clicked on a few of Richards videos, hoping to actually see on a practical level what Socialism might look like, but just like every single other thing on Socialism I've ever seen, there are zero practical specifics. In another video, he explains the failures of Russian communism by saying the workplace still had the same hierarchical structure. He's correct, but he just said that properly done Socialism won't do that. Great, but how? What would it actually look like? The reason I do not respect socialists is because all they do is complain, but never offer actual literal real practical alternatives. They just offer platitudes in an arrogant way.

applied Marxist policies result in equality of misery and death and starvation of millions of people, which is great if one wants mass depopulation. A tenet of progressive eugenicists who promote abortion and transsexual lifestyles. Paglia and others correctly ID androgynous attitudes in art and society as a sign of collapsing civilization. For more on civilizational evolution see Carrol Quigley's work.

Yeah Wolff is great at breaking down the concept to be introduced to less familiar societies, though some of the more orthodox Marxists I've followed seem to feel he's a little too softball. Though, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But that's not what Peterson espouses. He uses historical examples to show how collectivist systems fail every time. Each failure is more catastrophic than the last with each new collectivist leader declaring that they will be the ones to: "do it right this time." What Peterson proposes is we have enough evidence to declare collectivism a failure. Further, systems that acknowledged the value and power of the individual have flourished. Peterson simply acknowledges this and warns against the impending failure that is neocollectivism.

@@therealblackout3659 bam!!!

@@therealblackout3659 Except nearly all of those 'failures' can be traced to capitalist attacks, usually the US directly. See: Venezuela.

Haha. Just like a lot of other schmos who identify with conservatives/republicans

David Padilla Luckily for us whom are willing to criticise the current system and adapt, reform or overhaul it to be more functional. Their economic ideology is outdated and close to obsolete.

At least he's not stuck in the 19th century.

@@NateB Marxism is a scientific method lol, it can be applied to any epoch. I wouldn’t exactly go around saying “Evolution is stuck in the 19th Century”, saying that about Marxism has the same energy

It's interesting that you bring this up. In my consideration of the Marxist theory, from what I have learned, it appears to me that there is actually a lot of psychology not considered when building models of social structures. We are infinitely complex beings that have developed equally complex structures for interpreting and interacting with the world around us. The idea that we can create a perfect system that will resolve all conflict and create a utopia is absurd at best. Do we need hierarchies? Probably. Intelligence is not equally distributed, that is not hard to see and it's actually in the best interest of those who are less intelligent to partner in some manner with someone who is more intelligent. The question is, does Marx adequately model this problem? I personally don't think so. We have learned so much since then about ourselves that it is unreasonable to continue to assume that Newton understood everything. We need Peterson, Wolff, and Lord McLoudmouth to sort this out. Each of us working on our own little social experiment to see what works. That is the beauty of smaller states that have a loose collaboration on military, interstate transportation and maybe a small number of other things so we can have a bunch of small and less consequential effects if things go wrong. I absolutely think that California should go completely socialist and we should allow them to fully embrace Marxism and just have to pay their share of military and transport. I would also fully support Utah doing the opposite, again keeping the effect contained and allowing people to migrate freely to the one that is working best for them. As to how we affect the limitation of the effect of catastrophe, I don't know because there is no system that can account for everything because it is infinitely complex. It's like saying that Darwin's theory explains everything, it doesn't, and can not. He had no idea how complex the problem he was working on was. In the end we need to continue to develop and answer these questions but to say that Marxism is a complete answer is foolish at best.

Is hierarchy only a social construct or can it occur via completely non-cognitive mechanisms? That is all Peterson asks. The way the left evades the simple question tells me they are afraid to answer the question.

@@jhbbunch I completely agree. If I said something that appears to be on the contrary it was misspoken.

@@jhbbunch what I don't understand, is the apparent hatred for Peterson. do these people never considered anything but their own ideology?

@Krista Star so what you're saying is that the hierarchies observed in lobsters are constructed by the lobsters? I find that difficult to believe...

When did Dr. Peterson ever argue for the status quo? Arguing against Marxism isn't arguing for the status quo, it's arguing against a predictably horrible change. There are other changes.

Michael Price He doesn’t offer any clear alternatives to the current arrangements.

@@jetblack8250 That isn't arguing for the status quo. If you propose Islamic Theocracy as a social system it's not "arguing for the status quo" to show it's a bad idea.

@@jetblack8250 the so called Marxists should offer clear alternatives, but they fail every time. Even the most radical capitalists admit that some changes can be made (inter alia, see J. Tomasi, Princeton). However, this doesn't mean that choosing the worst and most radical change would be a wise move. Wolff is mocking Peterson, but is failing in putting forward decent arguments against capitalism.

'highly educated' LMFAO, no arts degree holder is highly educated. 'civil' another joke, stealing goods and services, by government gun, from people who actually produce, is slavery. 'argument', not quite, more like personal opinion based on repeated failed policies. The dumbass doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

He has no points, JP would eat him alive and it's not even worth watching

@@MBOgonnaPWNu We already live in a socialist matriarch, can you not see the wealth transfer? It's commonplace for compulsory educators to hold a BA w/ 3.8GPA, post Title IX. Divorce is a Judiciary arts degree goldmine. Econ is an ARTS DEGREE! Arts degree holders use sophistry as a mean of stealing resources. 'Truth is the enemy of the state'- AUK

@@PaddyAztec as i said, i dont agree. But at least hes not screaming at JP name-calling him racist, sexist, etc etc.

America's right seems to have chosen 'the universities' as a villain. Like. 'No arts degree holder is highly educated'. This guy actually said this. Seems like there's a tide coming with no respect for education or science. Scapegoat 'the universities'. Follow frauds as long as they sell you identity politics, 'liberal elite' persecution complex. Same shit your heroes speak out against.

Capitalism is in its final stage Imperialism. Where the richest capitalist countries dominate the world market.

Zizek did pretty good, even though he's not an economist

That's why Peterson backed out of debating Wolff and instead went for Zizek.

Zizek displayed his vast understanding of the world in such a way that showed how narrowly JBP can be applied or is even useful. Zizek put him back in his corner, at least for the moment. Meanwhile, JBP's performance was laughable, just walking around the stage with internet tips for charisma.

Economic theories is not Peterson's area of expertise.

Zizek is a philosopher and his knowledge of historical and contemporary philosophy which underpins every thing Peterson thinks he knows is why he easily toppled Peterson. JBP embarrassed himself.

It’s Richard Wolff, what did you expect...? 8|

You said it. Also, I find my country, now, being close to an economic default by the left. As it is and has been the case of many others.

@Vindexproeliator Wrong. Few countries are doing good on that. I've read every single word.

There are a million video online explaining peterson nonsense, have you seen Sam seders channel?

@@KieranThomasSmith I have seen some valid attacks and I personally respect him almost exclusively in the domain of psychology. But that makes this video no less disappointing 😅

True

I don’t know man. Every single County where Marxism was implanted. It doesn’t seem to be going very well for them right now :/

@@dominicguanci2083 Now look into why, instead of assuming that socialism did it. You will find US coups at the bottom of most of them.

@@antediluvianatheist5262 Khmer rouge was a US coup? China's Cultural Revolution? Fascinating

@@just83542 Why yes. Really, you need to spend more than 10 seconds researching this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/ Oh, and China seems to be doing just fine. Hell, their major problem is that the west, having shipped all its manufacturing to it, cannot pay for as much stuff. Funny that. When all your people are out of work, how are they going to buy anything. I direct your attention to this vid about how we got here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tJoe_daP0DE.html And this one about China: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CNMoTvjEL_w.html Long version: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Cw8SvK0E5dI.html

I haven't heard JP say anything brilliant. But then again, I don't listen to him much. As I understand the situation tho, it's younger men listening to him. And that demographic isn't doing so because they're dumb. I think they're hungry for more meaning and purpose and Peterson is (falsely) promising that to them.

Absolutely agree

yep. He's so smart l saw through him instantly. A charlatan. Snake oil salesman.

High IQ maybe- definitely low low EQ.

Peterson has the emotional maturity of a 4 year old. He is mischievous- but he doesn’t know what he is saying.

@Glyn lmao he's married

Glyn Well Wolff is married so that’s a fat L for you.

To the guys replying "but he's married!"... WHOOSH!

Commies hate Chads

How old are you?

Not really sure where you got the admitted to not knowing anything about Marxism because he clearly does... Zizeks arguments were for that of Marxism but rather the regulatory aspects of it. He failed to address all 10 of the major criticisms of Marxism that JBP pointed out. And in regards to happiness (what the debate was all about) he never explained how Marxism is better than capitalism in that regard in fact he straight up said that he doesn't think happiness is worth pursuing and valuable which is the complete opposite of what the debate is supposed to be. Peterson said it perfectly when he told him that he's a "strange Marxist" (because he wasn't really arguing for Marxism, he even brought up the benefits of capitalist aspects in places like China and how effective it's been there). He was arguing for zizekism which although shares some aspects with Marxism isn't actually Marxism

John Escobar not reading that wall of text LMAO zizek had lobster boi for dinner

@@mannyortiz3656 didn't expect much else tbh. Just lazy uncritical thinking from someone who still foolishly think Marxism can work lol

John Escobar First lobster boi, now Shapiro LMAO. The right is for dummies

@@mannyortiz3656 I'm on the left bud, only difference is that Im not foolish enough to fall for foolish ideas that have been proven wrong over and over

Yeah... that is the tendency of the intellectually dishonest... avoid those that challenge your biases and agenda...

Absolutely agree.

Peterson doesn't really think the dominance hierarchy is good, I think there are some lectures out there where he explicitly says otherwise too. Peterson instead accepts that a dominance hierarchy does exist as a result of just us being biological organisms - we aren't all the same in our strengths and weaknesses, we keep track of how everyone else is doing in relation to us, and overall it's just something built in for us to use and run with at our unconscious level. There are people out there who are hyper competitive, hyper social, and hyper industrious, etc. Peterson instead says "well those people aren't very balanced, they sacrifice everything - family, health, etc, to be insanely and almost unfairly good at something to the exclusion of everything else, and they pay dearly for it, but you can't just remove those people, so how then do we make it fair for everyone? Equality of outcome isn't a tenable position, and equality of start has complications, but it's not a straight forward solution. Instead we should focus as best as we can on improving every little part of someones life and that will usually orient them in a way to be successful over their whole life"

This "Doctor" example always proves how much sick entitled those people are.

Thank you.

Not gonna happen. For as much noise as Peterson likes to make, he always chickens out of actual academic debates.

Even if by some miracle you manage to get Peterson in the same room as as Wolff, the old lobster would just weasel out of every argument with his signature long-winded, polysyllabic, jargon-laiden woo-woo.

Thank You, Dr Wolf. I admire your patience. Such utter Cold War nonsense in the name of earnest criticism of Karl Marx’s actual analysis of 19th Century Capitalism. It’s worrisome that Peterson has mustered such a following. The same should be said of other Old School Individualists (pace Dewey) who fill the public air space. It has been decades since Political Economy has been taught in the US. A public “debate” (a moderated, on stage, conversation would be more appropriate) would be interesting if the conversation did not lapse into specious rhetoric and ad hominem. Hyde Park style theater wouldn’t help the public one bit. Let’s see if Peterson responds. I have my doubts.

Peterson whip out the lobster to beat the wolf. There wouldn't be much of a debate. Hierarchies are hard wired into humans brains. Eliminating them creates chaos.

Check out lords of creation

Ellen Woods, and her close colleague, Brenner, certainly are correct that there is a problem in trying to locate capitalism as a sort of quantitative expansion (and effectively naturalizing it), but I am less convinced by her and Brenner's own theory of capitalism's origins, as insightful as they are in their own rights. At least in my reading of the 'Brenner debates', they seem to take something of an opposite tack by placing the origins of capitalism almost entirely in the countrysides of England, explained almost entirely in regards to the emergence of a competitive lease system in the former. While this is proximally explained by 'class struggle' among the peasants, lords, and monarchical state, there is very little theorization on the material/political relations that constituted the particular 'pre-capitalist' modes of production or their dynamics and contradictions, let alone on the world stage. In other words, theirs' approaches something of an 'internalist' problematic of hermetically sealed nation-states. World-historical processes like the Spanish conquest/looting of the Americas, the rise and fall of the Mongol empire, competition with the Ottoman empire etc. etc. don't feature except as incidental or exogenous. So while Woods' critique is apt (and she was generally excellent), she tends to dismiss the wider world; i.e 'uneven and combined' dynamics. That is, although the extension of, say, world trade, cannot be identified as a course as such, it cannot be dismissed as a determination, and moreover, needs to be specifically integrated.

Thank you for a great comment! There has been much criticism of the Brenner/Wood thesis which i'm still working my way through it. Is there anything in particular you can recommend? With regards to the colonisation of the Americas, the mongol empire etc you seem to be arguing for Wallersteins 'world systems theory'? I think the point of Marxism is exactly that modes of production develop/change through internal contradictions such as the proposed 'social property relations' of Brenner and Wood. What do you think of Woods criticism of the 'non-eurocentric' explanations of capitalism featuring Asia, colonial history etc as essential to the development of Capitalism? I think Wood quite convincingly shows that they actually reproduce some neo-Smithian notions: 1). Being Capital not as a social relation but as the generic accumulation of wealth. 2). Capitalism as being a neccesary endpoint, i.e what has to be explained according to postcolonial theories of core-periphery is not how and why Capitalism developed, but rather why Capitalism didn't develop in the otherwise advanced non-european civilisations .. This likewise takes for granted that capitalism is either inescapable historically or a part of human nature awaiting 'release'. They reproduce classical notions of Capitalism and end up assuming its existence by explaining not why capitalism developed in Europe but rather why it didn't develop in Asia, The Americas etc (their answer being colonial exploitation). From a theoretical standpoint i'm also unconvinced that a marxist explanation of capitalist development can begin with external, non-social factors to begin with (the incursions of the Mongols, the plague they brought with them or the exploitation of the americas) since Marxism claims for societies to devleop through internal contradictions. Would you think of, say, Colonial expansion and colonial trade as a precursor to capitalism?

@@Gufberg All very pertinent points, and I must note that, of course, I do not have the answer, and have engaged with the Brenner debate/origin of capitalism stuff only very sporadically and hap-hazrdly, generally as a backdrop to some contemporary retheorizations of 'The Agrarian Question' problematics, which I only have a schematic understanding of in the first place. The particular works I half recall that informed my response were Henry Heller "The birth of capitalism" and "How the West Came To Rule" (I forget the authors), which tries to place the question not simply one as colonial domination ( which begs the question, in a way) but as "uneven and combined" development of differentiated Pre capitalist modes. My history is not strong enough to evaluate strongly, but I think the theorhetical framing in that way is a good step towards resolving the Wallerstein/Woods or divide. I am also informed to some degree by Banaji, or at least one point that I have grasped, that relations of production are not reducible to their forms, that is, modes of production are not reducible to modes of labour. So I think Woods is very apt in her critique that qualitative changes are not reducible to quantitative changes as such, but I think a) teleological critiques might be pertinent to particular authors, but don't carry much weight on their own (i.e that isn't a natural teleology still doesn't explain why it did or didn't happen when or where) and b) that particularly social character of social property relations, and the 'abstract social' that is so core to capitalism's compulsive qualities, requires integrating world market dynamics and their extension in explaining the 'social' of 'social property relations' themselves. That is why I think she is a bit too quick to dismiss (even amidst incisive critique) the likes of Wallerstein. I think it is precisely because capitalism is not a given natural condition, and that forms characteristic of it existed prior to it (wage labour, profit, markets, competitive sale), that an entire system of compulsions cannot be convincingly theorized to have sprung from some particular mechanisms, such as competitive leases. Even if they are presumed to be key, the conditions for which these potentialities to be realised or occured as systemic must be theorized in tandem. I am writing from my phone here, so I hope my however half-baked thoughts here aren't too opaque and address the relevant points you raised....

You're accomplishing some very, very well thought answers on your phone. Your point regarding teleology as not in-itself being damning is great. The truth could very well be teleological i. e showing the teleological 'infrastructure' of other theoretical frameworks is not the same as proving that they aren't true? I agree with you on this mostly, i think. But they do all presuppose a 'natural inclination' in Man towards trade that, just on its face, seems absurd to me even if it is not - on its own - obviously untrue. Wood/Brenner explains how social property relations predetermines and modifies the effects of, say, plague or technological innovation. This i think in itself constitutes a viable and - in terms of explanatory power - better alternative to the 'natural commerical expansion' or 'capitalism in embryo' hypothesis shared by both demographic, commercial and postcolonial-focused academics. So as such i think she does deal more specifically with how preceeding theories have been wrong specifically. But the point regarding teleology is going down in a note somewhere. I had thought vaguely about the problem of her generalizing approach to criticism but not at all in so concise terms. I have to write 60-70 pages on this next semester so this is really appreciated! I find the political marxist approach very, very convincing but i dont want my MA to be an uncritical regurgitation of Wood and Brenner. regarding b). Is this not the chicken/egg question that Wood simply disagrees on fundamentally? I.e she insists that world markets derived from market imperatives that were constituted in the concrete historical/social developments in the english countryside? I. e she claimed that social relations created Capital whereas others believe that Capital created social relations. Also please dont feel forced to respond to all this. I'm just enjoying our chat lol.

Thank you, i couldn't agree more, hence why Jordan P. understands this on a fundamental level.

PurpleSuicide. Straight savage? Weird.

BoulderPM. Nothing to do with psychology. If capitalism worked for the majority then socialism and Marxism wouldn't even be a thing. Capitalism has had close to 500 years to perfect its manifest flaws and yet is now in a state of chaos that threatens the viability of our species. And that's with everything in its favour too. The choice is a classic one: socialism or barbarism.

BoulderPM. You see success in a grocery store? My own version of success would hinge on how many people could afford to shop there.

BoulderPM Now THAT was straight savage. Mic drop, man.

Gore certainly had a wit.

*sing song voice* Uuuusing iiittt!

@Snappingturtle 267 Lol, the U.S. is nowhere close to the best country on earth. Get your head out of your ass.

But he understands human psychology and behavior like only a few people on this planet. As far as I can tell, he looks at marxists ideas and came to the conclusion that it wont work (which the past also has shown) from a psychological perspective. Maybe I am wrong on how I interpret this but thats what I see…

@ayy lmao well, you clearly did not understand what I was saying

The lobster man. It is all in the lobster.

I agree. This video makes it sound like Peterson only makes surface comments on Marxism, but Peterson has gone in depth in the phycology of Marxism.

This Video is just another straw man.

yeah i don't want to be rich lol. i want there to be no more rich people that work less than poor people.

"por que no los dos?"

@@LittleMushroomGuy There's a reason why his name is used to identify one of the dark triad personality disorders. The right-wing seems to have a high concentration of all three at the moment. I mean, for fucks sake, a clinical psychiatrist should be able to figure out that Trump is a grandiose narcissist and pathological liar. Not Peterson though. In all likelihood he's a borderline sociopath.

Everyone wants their economic situation to be stable. Not everyone wants to be rich.

I make very little money by Canadian standards. I do not envy the rich and I certainly don't hate them. The way I see it, they are working like crazy and/or taking risk is that are making their hair fall out and their marriages fall apart. I have worked for many many rich folks and I can say that happiness and wealth are not the same thing. Most rich people I know are terrible with money and they are working way too much. They have no time to enjoy life! From what I have seen it is a very rare rich person who is relatable and has time to talk and has a healthy relationship with his wife and children. I always found that as long as I have money for shelter, food and entertainment then I am fine with that. Ya sure my employers make money off of me sometimes. Good for them. They are taking on a whole lot of stress on my behalf. I am thankful for that! So Earl, don't pretend like you speak for the poor because you certainly do not.

And moves up on the dominance hierarchy than Pete

In the RU-vid hierarchy, Dr. Peterson outranks "Prof." Wolff

@@macbeth8393 RU-vid is not a criteria of validity. Professor Wolff intellectually and ideologically outclasses peterson.

@@fl00fydragon By which metric? Do you have their IQ scores? Maybe you could measire how many bytes of information they have in their brains and how much of it is academic or related to comllex abstactions around a topic? How about how often they are cited? How do you rank ideology objectively though? That part just sounded like "hurr me agree with dogman boooo lobster"

@@sebastiansirvas1530 Sir, I am here today to serve you your Internet Comment Award. You have earned it. Peterson himself would be proud.

@Snappingturtle 267 Why do you say that? Are you calling me a gross liberal? If so, what do you mean by that? When I say the comments sound like cult members I mean it literally. In other words, many of the comments sound like people mesmerized in an almost religious way.

Lol

An employee potentially becoming an employer, doesn't justify capitalism, any more than slavery is justified by a slave potentially becoming a slave master. Also, any such relationship is inherently unequal. The possibility of an individual escaping one to become the other, doesn't amount to equality. That can only be achieved in a system without masters.

have you tried starting a business or you just talking?