WHO ARE THE MARXISTS?

>5 literally who threads up at once
>none of them post video
You kikes are terrible at this.

GET IN

Attached: 1524208637253.jpg (1024x768, 168K)

T

Yikes so cringe.

the zoomer is SHOOK

Attached: zizekthelacanianother.jpg (700x979, 718K)

FUCKING NORMALFAGS LEAVE

you came here in 2013 or later. fact.

Stop talking about that faggot

No one here ever liked him

bitchute.com/video/wV8dlev5IH6F/

>pic related
(((Centrism))) explained

If we're talking about who 'won' in this debate, which comes down to who stumped the other one with a solid question, then Zizek won with the 'name some marxists' question.

Peterson won't name the Jews that want to subvert western civilisation (or any civilisation for that matter including their own). You know Peterson was stumped because he goes on the attack, and wouldn't let up as easy if the roles were reversed. As Peterson says 'be very precise in your speech', but his answer to 'name a marxist' was anything but precise. He has created a 'cultural-marxist' strawman which in 2016-2018 was a piece of the puzzle the mainstream was missing in terms of understanding what is wrong with the current politically correct climate.

But Peterson's failure comes from his own lack of specificity, and if you have been following his career since he entered the public space he has essentially gone the way of a stand up comedian. He started out as an edgy voice, took up an agent, and is now watching what he says (i.e political correctness) when it comes to getting to the fundamental issues with our society.

I will say however that Peterson established the groundwork for today's youth to understand Christianity and Christ via a meta-narrative story context, and his Maps of Meaning work is substantial as what it is: a map. But it lacks the final groundwork that cements everything together.

Logos. I'm still figuring this stuff out myself. I'm currently regularly viewing and agreeing with Owen Benjamin and E Michael Richards. I'm reading the Bible (more interested New Testament than Genesis), and starting to discover the breathtaking beauty of Christian thought and values.

I'm not a converted christfag (yet).

Attached: Untitled.jpg (510x275, 50K)

Didn't he respond by stating that 25% of political science academics in the US identify as marxist? (and some other related data)
Zizek seemed to actually stumble after that response, he really didn't see that coming.

The major problem I see people has with "cultural marxism" is about semantics, it's a rather broad terminology used to define left-wing and neomarxist positions of (mainly) the Frankurt School academics, from the marxist Lukacs to the more socialdemocratic Karl Popper. We could call it "cultural leftism" and it would mean the same.

Attached: 1522348438219.png (480x332, 39K)

I press S to Sniff

this is obviously correct but leftists absolutely fucking hate when you call them cultural marxists even though it's our own word for them because muh not real marxism muh anti-semitism. like it fucking matters what we call them

Yes I am leaving. It is definitely time to leave this thread and also this board.

Attached: time to leave 3.gif (509x509, 3.85M)

Dafuq is wrong with bongs?
Atheism leads to cuckage leads to communist dick sucking.

Worst thing that happened to you idiots was your king making is own religion so he could morally justify murdering his wives.

Attached: Henry VIII.png (458x806, 960K)

If someone asks "name some Marxists" implying that there aren't any, and this is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" moment, then no. Marxists are everywhere. It's just a retarded statement. Leftists are backwards, fucked up, retarded, insane. The most insane of a thing you say the more they worship it. They're metaphysically inverted people.

He was trying to get Peterstein to name the Jew.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>taxonomy doesn't matter
Do you pervy kikes ever rest?

Attached: 1547812407194.jpg (638x863, 180K)

>If someone asks "name some Marxists" implying that there aren't any, and this is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" moment, then no. Marxists are everywhere. It's just a retarded statement. Leftists are backwards, fucked up, retarded, insane. The most insane of a thing you say the more they worship it. They're metaphysically inverted people.
Other thing is that leftists like to play stupid games with their abstract ideologies, and get really stupid about it. They use this as a defense mechanism to avoid being pinned down.
They do this in a way that people on the right literally never do. I mean so instead of arguing about ideas and principles it becomes "No I'm not X tho! I'm a 4th wave Marxian Leninist Anarchist deeply influenced by 19th century French philosophy and egoism!" and everyone normal is just shaking their heads saying "Dude nobody fucking cares" and yet they always think they "gotcha".

>he thinks bourgeois neoliberals are marxists
Evading the question because you need to be misinformed in order to make sense of your simplistic Manichean narrative.
You have to go back.

>cultural-marxist
Let me guess...
>big nose
>beady eyes
>hands permanently wringing

Attached: h____ _______t.jpg (220x220, 7K)

>"I agree with almost all of your critique of Marxism" - Slugo Zizek

Attached: based dark web.jpg (1024x768, 73K)

Heh like I just wrote here am I fucking PRESCIENT or what? I am spot on 100% of the time MWAaaaahahahahahahahaahahahhahhhah!

we can define whatever we want to be whatever we want, that's the beauty of the postmodernism that you ushered in baby

>arguing about ideas and principles
>the left this the left that the left hurr durr
It's almost as if you started it.
You'd probably call a tranny a woman, too. If not, then use a taxonomy that isn't operationally useless and doesn't just put everyone not fapping over /ptg/ into some "other" bin.

>"Most of the attacks against me are from the left liberal community" - Slabo Zizek
Guys, this thing was over before it even began.

You're literally a cuck is what you are.
Your desire to lump a bunch of different, incompatible philosophies into "NOT ORANGE MAN BAD" is not going to make you wiser.

That's not me, nigger. Blame the bourgeois neoliberals for that.

Attached: 1545281465087.png (528x276, 31K)

No the entirety of leftism is based in abstract pedantry and entirely divorced from the real world. That's why every leftist thinks he's smarter than everyone else and everyone else just think's he's the biggest retard on the planet without a shred of self-awareness. And history perpetually proves the leftists wrong over and over and over.

It's abstract thinking, not concrete. It's not based in the real world. It's not based in this physical reality.

Peterson was stumped for less than 2 minutes before he realized it was a question he had answered a million times.

Go re watch the debate, as soon as he realizes that he is fine he answers it using things he has said a million times. Which is probably why you tuned it out.

Concerning Peterson, while he has something really nice thing to say I do feel that he is still trying to explain human in materialistic sense. Yes we are fascinating creatures and science understand way less about world (universe and everthing else) far less then they are trying to claim, but in a essence we are explaing the world in structural means, and all of our spiritual meanings are just pychological way of organising society. In essence Immanuela Kant explanation (thanks to Bishop Barron for pointinh this out).

In my eyes he is just another materialistic appolget. Suprisingly good, but nevertheless same as Zizek, or Dawkins, Harris or rest of bunch

>It's abstract thinking, not concrete. It's not based in the real world. It's not based in this physical reality.
And not only that but left wing people CANT work within a framework of the real world. They CANT be practical. This is why they're always fucking losers, dirty, hippies, complete failures of people and absolutley miserable. This is why they're people who can't even take care of themselves, but still think they know whats best to take care of everyone else.

Cultural marxists , and peterstein answered. In this sofist way you can also ask who are the alt right? Who are nazis? It doesent matter what you identify actions and your opinoons fall in marxist ideology basket or not and of ot does you marxist unles you change that opinion

Peterson unfortunately conflated postmodernism with marxism if not postmodern relativism AS marxism and let Zizek HEGEL HEGEL HEGEL him for a few minutes.

Such is the state of e celeb debates these days. Nothing of value was gained.

Hey, are we reddit now? Cool. Also, Christianity is just another philosophical rabbit hole to discourage you finding your own rabbit hole. Why not Fourier transformations? Or proto-Romantic German literature? Anything really, make it yours.

>Owen Benjamin
I'll laugh so hard if mustache guy gets elevated to public intellectual

It's best to just to identify all the Leftist ideologies as JLeft. From libertarian neoliberalism to authoritarian global Trotskyism; the moralities that are the linchpin of these ideologies are alien to native Europe.
At it's core it's about societal "inclusion" of the JQ; which an externalize of inclusion for other groups. Inclusion of banking cartels or inclusion of jewish intellectuals etc. That's the real crux of all Leftist politics: how to get jews into power within non-jewish societies.

Attached: political compass stonetoss.png (1200x1306, 385K)

That would be pretty funny.

I keep hearing the rabbit hole argument. I'll have to wait and see.

Attached: bolshevik leadership.png (642x591, 32K)

Yeah notice how you never hear people on "the right" acting like this? Do you think people on "the right" are all ideologically homogenous too? No. Of course they're not. They never act in the immature and pedantic and obviously sophistic way that you are acting right now though by yelling "NOOOO IM SPECIAL! MY IDEAS ARE SPECIAL!"

If you have a set of ideas you want to defend, then state them. But this isn't what leftists do. They just say "U DONT KNO WUT REAL X IDEOLOGY IS!" and run away because they ultimately CAN'T defend their own ideas passed that.

Attached: not real communism.jpg (1200x806, 154K)

Because Peterson can't name the jew

behind every "organic

Attached: china jews.png (882x605, 367K)

i don't agree that it's based in that, i think leftism is a real genuine biologically emergent phenomena from those lower on the status hierarchy organising to be more adaptive and to outcompete (and a less charitable person might say parasitise) those above them, but the theoretical leftism they use to organise around is absolutely certainly abstract pedantry used as a status signal that effectively says "we are smarter than them, we can get around them"

All leftist ideologies are authoritarian. That's the problem with them. These people in this thread can say "NO WE ARENT MARXISTS!" or "BUT WE'RE SPECIAL!" whatever. It doesn't matter. They espouse authoritarian ideologies, even when they're anarchists. Even when they're all the way on the supposedly "libertarian" spectrum of the left, because even the "libertarian left" ideologies ALL revolve around providing people with "freedom through force" as if that's ever going to be a good idea and will ever actually work. I mean the flaw is so glaring and obvious and inherent from the start, but they all refuse to recognize it.

Just the fact that you say dumb shit like "biologically emergent phenemona" without a single shred of self-awareness proves me right beyond the shadow of any doubt. Intellectual mediocrity + Pedantry basically = Leftism 100% of the time.

Hey I'm interested in what you think about this comment I just posted tho . Curious what your response to that is.

I havent watched the debate but I assume it was in response to Judentsein talking about neo marxists?

Stupid question really, neo marxists in the "cultural marxism" sense don't even know who marx was, they just think of race and gender in the same way an economic marxist would see classes. Did Peterstein really stumble over that question that hard?

>anyone that dares question their elders even when they're pig-headed idiots

>keeps using bourgeois liberals who are actually right-wing as some sort of argument against leftism
Nice try at handwaving, kid. This tells me you don't know fuck all about Marxism or any other leftist ideology and are simply whoring for (Yous) and/or college money.
>hurr durr some people have to be poor because muh physical reality
>hurr durr hierarchies are physical reality
>hurr durr anyone not with my daddy is against me
High-quality philosophy, kid. Way to argue against historical materialism.

>implying that the world is real, when it's literally nothing more than a set of agreements and customs that are apparently renegotiable at any time
Oh, so you believe that the most efficient kikes know how to take care of other people? That's so self-evidently absurd on its face that I had better take a piss before I continue.

>muh gultural bolshevism
Re-heated bullshit from the 1930s.
>marxisat ideology basket
That's too strict for that dickless kike in who apparently can't handle anything more complex than "MUH DADDY"

>you never hear people on "the right" acting like this
Oh, sweet, now we're getting into bourgeois tone policing! Keep digging, this is kinda fun.
>Do you think people on "the right" are all ideologically homogenous too
Don't start what you don't want finished >they don't "I'M SPECIAL"
So what time yesterday afternoon did you first get to Jow Forums?
>If you have a set of ideas you want to defend, then state them
I'm not the one making such basic errors as trying to lump capitalists and socialists into the same bin.

>all
Direct democracy isn't authoritarian.
Are you going to get on livestream and kill yourself for lying?

>anti-semetic member of the Un-American Activities Committee is source for bolshevik's being jews

Attached: Dbdldy7.jpg (550x380, 21K)

my response is: 1) i think you have a lower IQ than me 2) only a liberal idiot would be against things that are "authoritarian"

read literally any books that weren't written by friedman

This is just a whole wall of green text and gaslighting without any actual arguments or anything, sorry.

Lol OK then! And hey at least you admit that you are grossly authoritarian, or pretty much admit it anyhow.

This is retarded
All mainstream religions derive from application of enlightenment axioms
>Equal Opportunity -> Capitalism/AnCap/Libertariansm
>Equal Outcome -> Communism
>Equal Genders ->Feminism
>Equal Races -> Nationalism, Open Borders
>Blank Slate -> Assimilation, Immigration
etc.

The only religion that is outside of the enlightenment paradigm is Fascism
Fascism = Imperialism/Colonization + Race Realism

Attached: black-and-red-wallpaper-of-the-nazi-party-emblem-logo.jpg (1920x1200, 504K)

>Stupid question really, neo marxists in the "cultural marxism" sense don't even know who marx was, they just think of race and gender in the same way an economic marxist would see classes. Did Peterstein really stumble over that question that hard?
nah, you basically got it all. Peterson's answer was actually good in that he quoted Haidt's Heterdox Academy group saying that 25% or something of academics in various fields self identify as marxist and zizek kind of brushed it off. the "cultural marxist" debate was the obvious key part though. zizek's classical marxism is very different from the thing (neo-marxist whatever) that both peterson and zizek identify and oppose.

Probably.
Even a passerby knows that there's animosity between the Classical Marxists an Neo-Marxists, but it looked like Peterson just lumped them together.

Then again it's all jew to me; tribe long nose trying to amass an army of either broke class slaves or aggrieved shitskins to do their bidding.

i told you i had been on Jow Forums for a long time my friend

>>Equal Opportunity -> Capitalism/AnCap/Libertariansm
>>Equal Outcome -> Communism

the fact that like 90% of americans say shit like this is proof the american education system is an indoctrination center

>MUH DADDY
Totally cucked.

Good night.

Is that how you compensate for brain damage secondary to circumcision?

Attached: 1534058175016.png (600x650, 42K)

>leftism is a real genuine biologically emergent phenomena
leftism is nothing more or less than resentment

>Haidt
A neoliberal jew with daddy issues?
Ohhh boy

Well the fundamental flaw in what you're saying is that free market capitalism and libertarianism isn't "about" equal opportunity, at all. Not even remotely. It's about liberty and freedom and as a secondary consequence of those things "equal opportunity" emerges in a way actually provides and promotes greater "equality" than is found under even the more authoritarian ideas that seek to enforce "equality" by authoritarianism.

Plus you don't get gulag'd, nice win-win.

Attached: libertarians.jpg (512x512, 57K)

they did studies on monkeys where they let some monkeys horde resources and food in secret and when the other monkeys found out they beat the shit out of them. what is that if not leftism?

How the fuck did I get tricked into thinking Żiżek is a leftist cunt?
How the fuck do people not see that Peterson and Żiżek complement each other? Stupid side-picking console war-inspired retards.

You know man, if you're not hiding what you are, and you're basically admitting that you're just an egregious authoritarian and that's what you believe in, then IDK what to tell you. I mean I can at least partially respect you for that. I dunno. You believe in authoritarianism, whatever.

But it's kinda hard to then turn around and subscribe to and defend any idea of "leftist libertarianism" once you recognize and admit that IMO.

imagine rejecting research that supports your own position because one of the people involved has genes you don't like. the absolute state of wignats

Imperialism is cancer to a nationalist focus.
Think about it.
National puts the domestic issues at focus.
Imperialism is outward expansion.

These are two incompatible political focuses that are doomed to fail when paired. It happened with the Roman Empire and it happened with the Nazis. Stay in your lane, help your people, and don't give two fucks about the world around you.

Fascism not inherently linked to imperialism or colonialism, fascism is the subordination of the state and the economy to the spiritual and physical well being of the nation

>just lumped them together.
This is what Jow Forums does on the daily.
>long nose
Unlikely. There would be no room for elevation of the chosen people under classical Marxism. That's why they hate it and try to conflate it with the same bourgeois idpol that Marx found so vexing in pic related at >liberty
To deprive others of theirs.
>freedom
To primitively accumulate what once was free.
Really a shit-tier meme ideology.

That's the same argument I keep hearing for social Darwinism. "Human nature" BTFO permanently

>Well the fundamental flaw in what you're saying is that free market capitalism and libertarianism isn't "about" equal opportunity,
Free Market Capitalism is deregulation of everything.
Result is everyone has an equal opportunity to do (((business)))
No laws to prevent wash trading or lying to your investors
No laws to prevent health and safety standards
No consumer protection laws
End result is tragedy of commons where a few winners exploit the system to their benefit and society gets fucked.
So the initial sate is equal, the opportunity is equal but the outcome is not equal.

Any brainlet seriously advocating for free market capitalism clearly didn't learn how greed causes the great depression or didn't see same process repeat in crypto
pink wojack is the face of free market capitalism in action.

Attached: 33481015d04b3974f9ed7acf616592901b13507ebdabf48ee1d6d09d63acc2c4.png (1070x601, 507K)

sublime parsimony

I actually don't think this is a bad route to take. "research" gets falsified all the time man, and esp when agenda and political, racial, or religious ideas get interjected into them. I mean yeah that's just fucking common sense. You'd be dumb to just blindly "believe" something because it comes from an institution you venerate. That's just shameless dogmatism. That's just making "science" into a 21st century secular religion.

civilisation and order is impossible without authority, i am sorry to break this to you. it's also weird that you think i'm left wing because i like zizek who is a social and cultural reactionary

>National puts the domestic issues at focus.
>Imperialism is outward expansion.
>These are two incompatible political focuses that are doomed to fail when paired. It happened with the Roman Empire and it happened with the Nazis. Stay in your lane, help your people, and don't give two fucks about the world around you.

The best defense is a good offense
Either you are conquering other nations or they are conquering you.
What state is the west in?

More wives, your grace?

>>liberty
>To deprive others of theirs.
>>freedom
>To primitively accumulate what once was free.
Wut?
Nobody is depriving you of your liberty under libertarianism. That's just retarded. Literally the entire point of the ideology is to provide the maximum amount of freedom and liberty to the people lol. That's the entire premise and motivation that motivates almost all libertarians of almost all stripes.

not gonna disagree with you there

>Fascism not inherently linked to imperialism or colonialism, fascism is the subordination of the state and the economy to the spiritual and physical well being of the nation
to the race, not the nation
nation is an abstract concept.
and at some time the race will want to acquire territory from inferior races that mismanage their resources like Mexicans or Blacks
So yes it's not inherently linked but it will result in manifest destiny Latin America and manifest destiny Africa in today's world.

The real question is whether we should invade mexico or continue letting mexico invade us.

Bong, go drink some tea, you can't read.

Heh yet every problem you lefties complain about today is literally created by the state via its regulations, including wealth inequality, corporate slave states and so forth.
Everything.
All of them.
100% of them.
The fact that this is how you react to someone whenever they say "let's REPEAL the laws passed by the state that made the situation what it is with all of the wealth inequality and so forth" shows that NONE of you have ever actually been interested in fixing problems to begin with but rather you're interested in gaining power and like committing gulag genocide or some other sick power fantasy shit and that's all.

Attached: communism truth, lapdogs of corporate america useful idiots.png (491x604, 539K)

>nation is an abstract concept
Not at all. A nation is a race tied to soil.
>muh groaf
Literally cancer.

This was a shitty question, designed to be unsanswerable, and it's embarrassing Zizek attempted it.

You don't have to name names to identify a growing trend, especially an ideology that predicates itself on decentralized leadership. It's glaringly easy to answer and Jordan did. Zizek only did this for the soundbite. And now CTH faggots are spamming it. Actually pathetic in an otherwise good performance from him.

>No I'm not X tho! I'm a 4th wave Marxian Leninist Anarchist deeply influenced by 19th century French philosophy and egoism!
This. It's annoying for two main reasons. The first one is because it's like a 14 year old girl talking about how she's special and not like other girls, you know, like every other 14 year old girl. Except it's some tenured liberal arts professor in his 50s or one of his many college freshmen devotees. There's also the infuriating bottom layer of smug, "more educated than thou" that permiates that entire statement. As if to say, "Yeah, that's right, I not only studied Marx, Lenin, and the great anarchist thinkers, but I'm also well versed in 19th century French philosophy. I'm so fucking smart and superior." Not-so-subtle intellectual peacocking. The second major reason is that it's basically a smokescreen. Like you said it's not about arguing the core ideas or principles, it's a tactic designed to reduce the debate to the taxonomies of how we label said principles/ideas. Which is essentially a waste of time. To paraphrase a big guy, "It doesn't matter what you are, what matters is your plan!"

>>just lumped them together.
>This is what Jow Forums does on the daily.
Of course they're lumped together; the fundamental crux of Marxism is perpetual revolution over the oppressor/oppressee cycle. Doesn't matter if it's rich vs poor (economic wealth) or whites vs blacks (societal wealth); people see it for what it really is: Jealousy politics.

And it is fundamentally Jewish. You gotta nip that in the bud and accept that fact.

>the entire point of the ideology is to provide the maximum amount of freedom and liberty to the people

Ask yourself about ' Liberty,' for example ; what do you really mean by it, what in any just and rational soul is that Divine quality of Liberty ? That a good man be 'free' as we call it, be permitted to unfold himself in works of goodness and nobleness, is surely a blessing to him, immense and indispensable ; — to him and to those about him. But that a bad man be 'free' — permitted to unfold himself in his particular way, is contrariwise, the fatallest curse you could inflict on him ; curse and nothing else, to him and all his neighbours. Him the very Heavens call upon you to persuade, to urge, induce, compel, into something of well-doing ; if you absolutely cannot, if he will continue in ill-doing, — then for him (I can assure you, though you will be shocked to hear it), the one 'blessing ' left is the speediest gallows you can lead him to. Speediest, that at least his ill-doing may cease

Attached: Thomas_Carlyle_lm.jpg (856x1172, 188K)

Juden peterberg vs zizek stalin. So much winning in that debate. Cant imagine how ( left/right) will recover. Was like hearing a Bolshevik discusing with a soviet socialist.

>the entire point of the ideology is to provide the maximum amount of freedom and liberty to the people

i also want to point out that if you read marx himself, this is also the foundation and definition of his worldview. this is what he thought the end point of communism was to be. this is why the "automated luxury communism" people want to sit back doing nothing as robots place food into their mouths.

>Heh yet every problem you lefties complain about today is literally created by the state via its regulations, including wealth inequality, corporate slave states and so forth.
Nah, it's mostly caused by people being brainlets and making dumb decisions
>eating expensive restaurant vegan meals rather than homecooked quarter pounder bergers
>paying to see shitty SJW Hollywood movies rather than creating their own
>buying cheap disposable fast fashion cotton on clothes instead of 10x more durable wool clothes
Don't misunderstand me. Corporations fuck us in college tuition, healthcare and housing prices
But people have a lot of blame for making stupid decisions in their daily lives.

>The best defense is a good offense
No it's not.
That's warmongering. The kinda shit that the neocons pull.

The hubris of this is monumental. Nazi Germany would still be around today if they didn't invade Poland.

Yeah exactly. I mean I'm a libertarian, right-wing guy. I like free market capitalism and so forth. I have, at various times in my life, been interested in very specific ideologies and ways of thinking, most of them very utopian, like agorism, or minarchism.
When someone tries to talk to me about libertarian, or capitalism, or right-wing ideas, or anything like that I don't sperg out stupidly and say "NO IM AN VOLUNTARYIST! YOU DONT UNDERSTAND REAL VOLUNTARYISM!" or something stupid like that. NOBODY other than leftists do that and it's because they're emotionally immature, mentally midgets and they can't defend their own points of view.

Alright, I’m gonna try to get my thoughts on the Zizek-Peterson debate down now.

First off, Zizek won. Hands down. No bias here, I actually disagree with Zizek on a whole bunch of points (I’m an ancom who thinks pc culture is actually good) . But he definitely blew JP out of the water. Peterson wasn’t prepared, and was clearly bullshitting. There were a lot of things Zizek said where you could tell Peterson was really thinking, although I don’t think he’ll change. Zizek did have some... problematic wordings. Downplaying lgbtq issues and going on an anti-pc rant at the end of the debate, namely. Otherwise, he did REALLY well. I do have some problems with the whole debate, because it places Peterson’s ideas on the same level as Zizeks, leading more people to consider it. Overall, good debate, Zizek won (but wasn’t perfect), and Kermit choked.