A Classical Liberal & A Progressive Marxist Debate

[IDL]

Shhh. Don't let the Jordan Peterson faithful or @IDL here you say this.

Hah, well. People are at a severe disadvantage when trying to understand the bigger picture in terms of how such ideology is behind many cultural changes and political agendas if they just sort of melt down at the idea and refuse to look closer. It matters less as to what term is used to describe it, than it does what it is.

 

[WiolentOne]

Jordan B Peterson:

Hilarious because here's the lefts idol Noam Chomsky lambasting post-modernism saying the same shit about all the Marxists, Maoists, Stalinists in academia who suddenly transformed over night into Post-modernists to continue on with their agenda.

He also gives us the "white, male, sexist" line leftists are famous for.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You know what would be a hilarious read? If we rounded up every WR poster who uses the word "Marxist" more than once per week, and made each of them write a one page essay describing Marxism.

I'd be happy to grade those papers

 

[helltoupee]

Honest question. What specifically do you disagree with Jordan Peterson on concerning this topic and what is your counter argument?

Peterson completely rejects Marxist theory *as a whole*, but idolizes Nietzsche, whose ideas could be just as easily pressed into dubious ends.

Nietzsche is a principle component in 'postmodernism', the same postmoderism that he says leads to death camps.

In other words, he can take inspiration where he finds it in Nietzsche, but not in Marx, whose ideas have been bastardized significantly.

He's disjointed and hypocritical.

His arguments for Trump being 'a genius because he's a reality tv star' don't help his credibility either.

 

[IDL]

Peterson completely rejects Marxist theory *as a whole*, but idolizes Nietzsche, whose ideas could be just as easily pressed into dubious ends.

Nietzsche is a principle component in 'postmodernism', which he says leads to death camps.

In other words, he can take inspiration where he finds it in Nietzsche, but not in Marx, whose ideas have been bastardized significantly.

He's disjointed and hypocritical.

His arguments for Trump being 'a genius because he's a reality tv star' don't help his credibility either.

Geez man, he didn't say Trump was a genius and he didn't say that he was smarter than the average person 'because he was a reality TV star'. He was making a point about people who are successful in multiple complex domains.

If you are going to try to put up a criticism of someone you probably shouldn't make it up when there are people around who are familiar with him and can recognize fabrication.

 

[WiolentOne]

Looks like througout his career Chomsky faced the wrath of these insane leftists.

Criticize Israel ? Anti-semite!
Defend free speech? Nazi!

Seems like the left uses the same tactics today as they did decades ago.

 

[WiolentOne]

Chomsky again kicking the shit out of the leftist narrative "different culture, hard to judge" aka moral relativism.

 

[eworden78]

By "lack of evidence" do you mean the completely traceable lineage of cultural marxist thought going back to the Frankfurt school and actual marxists? You are aware that "cultural marxism" is a term that was assigned to the ideology by critics, and not the actual terminology given by the creators of the ideology, right?

What is your opinion of this excerpt from wikipedia:

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society.
​

I'm just curious, I had never heard of Frankfurt School until today, so my intent is not to present this as a loaded questions.

 

[Der Eisbär]

What is your opinion of this excerpt from wikipedia:

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society.
​

I'm just curious, I had never heard of Frankfurt School until today, so my intent is not to present this as a loaded questions.

I think that wiki page is the result of some misinformed people that don't understand how the term is being used. We aren't saying there is a conspiracy headed by some evil Russian to spread Marxism through culture. Cultural Marxism is just an ideology, and the term was coined by critics of the ideology rather than it's proponents because it's a good descriptor.

 

[IDL]

What is your opinion of this excerpt from wikipedia:

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society.
​

I'm just curious, I had never heard of Frankfurt School until today, so my intent is not to present this as a loaded questions.

Are you sure that is from wikipedia? Or is that from RationWiki, which uses much more 'creative license' when it comes to describing things. It's a sort of political activist wikipedia.

This is the original wikipedia entry for cultural Marxism, and it is a less biased entry point. Wikipedia removed the entry and I think now only describes the Frankfurt school so this is the archived original:

https://archive.is/YzkIS

 

[Der Eisbär]

Peterson completely rejects Marxist theory *as a whole*, but idolizes Nietzsche, whose ideas could be just as easily pressed into dubious ends.

Nietzsche is a principle component in 'postmodernism', the same postmoderism that he says leads to death camps.

In other words, he can take inspiration where he finds it in Nietzsche, but not in Marx, whose ideas have been bastardized significantly.

He's disjointed and hypocritical.

His arguments for Trump being 'a genius because he's a reality tv star' don't help his credibility either.

Can you link me something where Peterson says that about Trump? Disappointing if true.

 

[eworden78]

Are you sure that is from wikipedia? Or is that from RationWiki, which uses much more 'creative license' when it comes to describing things. It's a sort of political activist wikipedia.

This is the original wikipedia entry for cultural Marxism, and it is a less biased entry point. Wikipedia removed the entry and I think now only describes the Frankfurt school so this is the archived original:

https://archive.is/YzkIS

It's from Wikipedia page on Frankfurt School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

 

[IDL]

It's from Wikipedia page on Frankfurt School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Ah, gotcha.

I don't think it has to do with 'destroying' Western society, but it would really depend on what was meant by that. Having to do with subverting it and weakening it yes I would say that is accurate.

KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov did some really great presentations on how ideological subversion works, as well as the use of a weaponized version of Marxist ideology. That was presented in the early 80's I think it was, so with the benefit of hindsight it becomes easier to understand IMO.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't believe anyone would willingly label themselves a cultural Marxist.

So it's a bullshit term.

In some ways, yes there was a rejection of Marxism among a certain group of intellectuals who were Marxist, but they realized there was a problem with Marx's dichotomy, focus on economics and that communism was not all it was made out to be. They borrowed certain ideas of Marx and shifted them to focus more on power relations, what caused those power relations and how power could be broken down and redistributed.

The idea that any influence by X makes someone an "Xist" even if they ultimately reject his thinking leads to absurdities if applied consistently. It seems to me that your replies throughout this thread are just confirming that the term is used as a weapon to shut down thought.

Most students today would have no clue about Marx. They would be more familiar with a thinker like Michel Foucault who is much more influential today than Marx. The term Cultural Marxist is not inaccurate considering how much influence Marx had on the current ideas being pushed in the humanities and identity studies programs in schools.

Most students--a small percentage of the overall population--would have no clue about Foucault either. Marx would be better known, both by name and by people's ability to express some basic familiarity with his thinking.

 

[Fawlty]

No substance, no principles


Classic Fawlty

Just pretend that I'm saving up my energy for a really good one. Because what follows definitely lacks substance.

Don't forget that this exchange started with me saying that it would be amusing if the people screaming constantly about the ills of Marxism would define it, and you accused me of apology (Will Smith question mark face.jpg). Now somehow you think you've done something substantive if you demand that I define liberalism (I don't rail about the ills of liberalism anyhow). And now there isn't much left to do except to inform your loved ones that if your brain had a face it would look like a vagina. Don't you think that's fair?

There's no chance (though I should have learned by now not to underestimate a WR poster) that you think I'm a Marxist, or that I want Marxists to run the country. Yet somehow you've personified in me some confused mash-up of your own politically-charged anger or philosophical unrest, as if I'm a symbol of what you think is wrong. That's so fucking weird. I just think you're stupid- like, "yeah, that guy is stupid and never makes much sense." You aren't the symbol of what's wrong with this country or any such nonsense. You're just wrong, and in my country. I'm risking elevating your station just by calling your brain a vagina-face. Do you follow?


I will throw you a bone on principle though, and we'll see if you chew it or choke on it. Personally, I feel- strongly- that it would be for the best if we all gave up our guns. I don't think the advantages are worth the drawbacks, and the violence inherent to our humanity and our culture is a relic that is long overdue for the dinosaur digs. However, my liberal principles don't allow me to advocate for an enforcement of that.

It's not my decision to make, and further, it's not my place to manipulate others into taking my position, and the arguments against my feelings are strong enough that I refuse to add my voice to the dissent against gun rights. On principle. The gears of principle at work there are that my society fairly decided an individual right which is based on real arguments, and I believe that progress toward non-violence will not come by way of my expressing my anti-gun feelings so that others will appeal to them. I also wouldn't create a dialogue in which the pro-and-anti-gun people would each be burdened with a mosaic position from which we could only choose one. That's one of the simplest examples, because it involves a constitutional and popular right. Now if you would be so kind, please write us an essay about what Marxism means to you. And remember that twice- nay, three times- I've said that your brain has a vagina for a face.

 

[helltoupee]

Geez man, he didn't say Trump was a genius and he didn't say that he was smarter than the average person 'because he was a reality TV star'. He was making a point about people who are successful in multiple complex domains.

If you are going to try to put up a criticism of someone you probably shouldn't make it up when there are people around who are familiar with him and can recognize fabrication.

What point was it that he was making exactly then?

He was a host of a TV reality show, he didn't create it for god's sakes.

 

[helltoupee]

Can you link me something where Peterson says that about Trump? Disappointing if true.

 

[IDL]

What point was it that he was making exactly then?

He was a host of a TV reality show, he didn't create it for god's sakes.

I think his point was that it is hard to explain someones success as 'dumb luck' when they are successful across multiple domains (Real estate business, Reality TV, presidential campaign)

It would be easier to make that claim on someone if they were only successful in one domain.

 

[helltoupee]

I think his point was that it is hard to explain someones success as 'dumb luck' when they are successful across multiple domains (Real estate business, Reality TV, presidential campaign)

It would be easier to make that claim on someone if they were only successful in one domain.

Let's be real here.

Mark Burnett created The Apprentice - the concept, everything. He then invites in a caricature to play "The Boss". Said boss shows up, listens to a few people talk, and spouts some semi-scripted bullshit adding in a tag-line meme of "You're fired!".

The success of this TV program is not reliant upon some above average application of intellect on Trump's part. Jordan Peterson is embarrassing himself to score political points.

 

[IDL]

Let's be real here.

Mark Burnett created The Apprentice - the concept, everything. He then invites in a caricature to play "The Boss". Said boss shows up, listens to a few people talk, and spouts some semi-scripted bullshit adding in a tag-line meme of "You're fired!".

The success of this TV program is not reliant upon some above average application of intellect on Trump's part. Jordan Peterson is embarrassing himself to score political points.

ok but you do realize that the point he was making was not simply 'Trump was successful in Reality TV therefore he must be smarter than average', right?

The point about success across multiple domains was the larger point, and that was a subset of the larger conversation.

It's also obvious that they were just speculating.