The hottest take is out!

Zizke sounds like he’s constantly sucking the world’s smallest cock. I would watch this debate but I literally can’t stand it. It’s already bad enough that Peterson sounds like Kermit the frog.

>that episode of chapo where they open with Matt and Felix doing a parody of a hypothetical Peterson/Žižek debate where they argue about the morality of busting loads

soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-188-menaker-facts-stated-feat-daniel-menaker-22518

Attached: 7F34E430-084F-4EB8-A8C1-5D733EAEA504.jpg (1018x1024, 100K)

the more i listen to Peterson and Leftists from the US the more I think people of Anglo culture are completely incapable of understanding Marx thoughts but also many others concepts that won't rely on individualism and private property (which both do not exist in reality). It's almost genetic, the way Peterson says quickly "we have a problem" about the oceans being completely destroyed while still defending the capital is almost pathologic. Also the Anglo left, the "liberals" are capital's greatest tool of repression, thinking Saul Alinsky or Obama are leftists has something almost comical. The only clever thing said in this debate is that Sanders program was standard leftist agenda years ago and now it sounds very radical.
Anglos can't be leftists because of their nature, which absolutely hates nature and things in their natural state, they cannot stand the fact that naturalism is the only right way of existing, both left and right.

Aren't frogs anglos?

Obama is a left winger. Just because he is not as left as Mao doesn't mean he isn't left wing

>Obama is a left winger
Lmao

>french
>also a communist rat

imagine my shock

In what meaningful way was Obama left-wing?

Based and redpilled

>Anglo
>everything different is commie trash

imagine my shock

im not even communist though, it's just time to move on, this debate was about stuff that is centuries old, on both sides. With all the ressources and means we have today we are incapable of creating something new.

he tried to fix health care with subsidies, tried to help people get easier access to education, obamaphone. The man was all about gibs. Just because he didn't want to bankrupt his country for those gibs doesn't mean he wasn't left wing. If there was a realistic way to get people health care like in Europe, obama would've done it

>If there was a realistic way to get people health care like in Europe, obama would've done it
But there is, and he didn’t because he’s not on the left

Attached: 63A7174E-F19C-4DDA-A82F-BFC582BA38C8.jpg (750x1130, 196K)

TL;DR Leftie admits Peterson won

Attached: 1550902307926.png (548x71, 5K)

There really isn't. You Americans are way to unhealthy for that, you have to much illegals in the country, your doctors earn to much money, your nurses earn to much money. A single payer system would take up more than 66% of the federal budget. Its just really unrealistic

Gibberish

He tried to fix healthcare through the Magic of the Market™, tried to "improve" education by making it more like job-training programs (and introducing more Magic of the Market™ via the aggressive push for charter schools).
The man was all about the careful management of the capitalist economy. Just because he wasn't as blatantly kleptocratic as the Republicans doesn't mean he wasn't fundamentally capitalist and imperialist.
Strong emphasis on the "imperialist" part: Barack "Drone King" Obama massive expanded the surveillance state, introduced much of the border security Trump is being vilified for, failed to do much to end America's interventionist military adventures abroad and started a few ones himself (e.g. Libya).

I'm not saying Obama was a right-winger. He, after all, spoke all the language of "opportunity" and did the whole song and dance of Progressive Neoliberalism. But being to the left of Attila the Hun doesn't make you any more "leftist" than being to the right of Mao makes you a rightist. Obama was the archetypal centrist neoliberal, nothing more, nothing less.

>If there was a realistic way to get people health care like in Europe, obama would've done it
Except he wouldn't, because it would oppose his liberal ideology.

Being more lucid than Zizek isn't much of an achievement.

Based

To slightly elaborate, my operating definitions of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are that leftists want to redistribute power to the powerless, while rightists want to redistribute power to the powerful. A man who wants to more or less maintain the status quo of society's power structures is therefore a centrist, which is what Obama was.

You need to be over twelve to post here.

If w could get the govt and the heebs out of the health care and insurance industries, we could make things better. The thing that scares me about govt health care is that there is no accountability. Can you sue the govt (and win) if they misdiagnose you or otherwise damage you?
On another note, we have too many poor shitskins to take care of. Before we try anything socialist we need to be more homogeneous (and therefore more productive).

We understand Marxism you faggot. That's why we don't want it. Read an opposing viewpoint for once in your life. Read Hayek and get back to me.

oh nonononono

>We understand Marxism you faggot
You do?

not only Obama, but even Trump is a left-winger you absolute morons

In what meaningful way?

Border security and military interventions have nothing to do with left or right. He aimed for left wing policies, but he was still a liberal. Its possible, you know

>Border security and military interventions have nothing to do with left or right
"left" and "right" are vague terms with very different meanings for different people, but come on. I think we could agree that, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, people who were all about rah-rah militarism have been usually lumped as "right-wing" and people who were for open borders and a nationless world have been usually lumped as "left-wing".

capitalist scam system again BTFO by some french guy

they all support egalitarianism, the main goal of left-wiggerism, they support the domination of the merchant class over aristocracy, they are for separation of religious life from politics, they are materialists etc.

I highly doubt Donald Trump "supports egalitarianism".

I mean that’s literally nonsense. Read the report. They crunched the numbers trying their hardest to find a way that universal healthcare would be economically unfeasible in the US. That was their goal, and they’d thought they’d achieved it and then released a report stating their findings. But then some autistic asshole came along and checked their math and found out what they’d omitted: which was that we could continue to pay for the same level of healthcare we currently receive AND cover literally everyone in the country while still SAVING $2 Trillion.

You literally have no argument

Attached: 2294EC47-A6B9-4F3F-92D2-C9D213355A83.jpg (599x803, 100K)

All Communists should ironically be decapitated. They are defective human beings. Scrap them

Attached: Future Communists.jpg (1200x1224, 773K)

what the fuck is ironic decapitation?

you have been watching too much of the CNN then and not looking at his policies, he might be jewish supremacist at best.

unironically*

Im going to sew your mouth shut Jew. You are the synagogue of Satan

Attached: Murderthejew.jpg (396x432, 104K)

Did the bearded scruffy nazi win or the beardier scruffier nazi?

Attached: peterson_lobster_mural.jpg (1080x1102, 333K)

>"I'm a 14 year old edgelord and I get bullied in school"- the post

Attached: 20keks.png (459x612, 533K)

What are some of his egalitarian policies?

>let two controlled oppositions fight each other

Attached: Peterson is a Marxist.jpg (900x600, 406K)

all of them

Attached: Peterson.jpg (1200x800, 153K)

Even putting kids in cages?

>"left" and "right" are vague terms with very different meanings for different people
if just depends how far on the spectrum you are. Socialists do view Obama and Tony Blair as centrists or even right wingers. The tea party viewed obama as a communist.

yes, not putting them into cages would be giving them privileges others don't have

...which is why my operating definition is how a person relates to power dynamics. It's a more or less "objective" measure and is fairly robust. And by that measure, Obama is a centrist.

>kike
>gives link to live commentary of a socialist and someone who dislikes Peterson
should I be surprised?

>which was that we could continue to pay for the same level of healthcare we currently receive AND cover literally everyone in the country while still SAVING $2 Trillion
Sure, and there will be peace on earth and we'll all dance in circles singing happy songs.

he also dislikes Zizek

Tell me, heeb, how are we going to create new innovations without the possibility of financial reward? How would Edison or Tesla have done their research without the backing of JP Morgan and George Westinghouse? Without the potential for reward (profit), nobody will take risks. And if you think benevolent lefties will do it out of the goodness of their hearts, then you have a lesson in human nature to learn.

yeah, true. I noticed that later. The whole "live commentary" of this guy seems just pointless

So you don't.

Everybody should dislike Peterson. He is a whinny, greedy fuck who sells new-age ideas to incels...

It's not enough that he makes 8mil USD per month, he even charges for handshakes and he charged for that stream of the debate too.

Nice rebuttal faggot.

Yes, by your measure you think he is a centrist. I think he's a left winger. it really doesn't matter either way

Sounds like the System working as intended.
People are willing to pay for all of that, so no harm's done, right?

I neither like him or dislike him. His earlier youtube stuff had huge impact on many people, so I give him credit for that.

false dichotomy
reality is there are slaves and owners
slaves choose between "left" and "right"
owners choose "left" and "right" and own both

about sums that "commentary"
the journalist came with negative attitude towards both of those guys and the whole thing is just his whining

Attached: 60515539-1ada-43c6-85bb-1ab3eaaef6be.png (743x374, 42K)

It's even funnier when people like Peterson start going off about the Frankfurt School wanting to destroy traditional Western civilization, meanwhile Marxists like Adorno are screaming about the catastrophic effects that capitalism and globalized commercialization are having on ... traditional Western culture.

Marxism as a derivative of process philosophy can only work if all men are angels. The utopian end stage of dialectical materialism, which is communism, flies in the face of human nature.

>naturalism is the only right way of existing, both left and right.

True, fuck Peterson. Time to end these discussions the old way. Only a dead commie is a good commie

Well, they get buyers remote. Notice how with time, Peterson gets more and more unpopular even here on Jow Forums.

>huge impact on many people
yeah, many of them have a clean room, but what else did they gain from his ideas? It's snake oil, Peterson is here just to numb you down and keep the status quo.

Notice how he also perpetuates notion that you have to SUFFER to have meaning and happiness in life. This is Justin Trudeau level of intellect.

Attached: download.jpg (300x168, 8K)

If the government were completely out of "health care" (including licensing of practicioners and accreditation of hospitals and medical schools, drugs testing), it would no longer be health care but instead, you could properly call it "medical services".

>Marxism as a derivative of process philosophy
woah

Attached: alfred-north-whitehead-2yufds5midvbavdcl8o2rk-624x624.jpg (624x624, 39K)

Well you're the one who claimed to "understand Marxism" and then farted out a non-sequitur conservative talking-point about "innovation".

If you must have a "rebuttal", I'd just point out that innovation happens all the time, without the profit incentive, and that the profit incentive can and does often function as a active impediment to good development.
Feel free to read these. I know you won't, because nobody is going to read 10,000+ word linked to them from some edgy anime imageboard, but I hope you'd at least bookmark them and read them during your commute next week:
currentaffairs.org/2018/10/innovation-under-socialism
currentaffairs.org/2019/04/cheating-at-monopoly

What are some Marxist critique of capitalism?

Underrated post.

If you read the intro you will know it is not a lefty but rather some idpozzed sack of libshit.

Some homeless guy that stumbled onto the stage when Zizek was late. Slurred speech, probably drunk off his ass, but pretty funny otherwise so they kept him on. It's a good thing Zizek didn't actually show up as the homeless guy was really all Peterson could handle.

>what else did they gain from his ideas?
If you think all he talked about was cleaning foreskin and room, then it's obvious you didn't listen to too much of his works. I mean the earlier stuff. I don't know what he's preaching now.

Also, as a supplemental, from a Trump-aligned magazine:
americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/the-american-way-of-innovation-and-its-deficiencies/

Edward Feser or Scott Hahn would btfo both of them. Based Aristotelianiasm/Thomism.

Basically the entire curricula of every liberal university's economics courses.

IIRC the main criticism is that the capitalists enrich themselves at the expense of the exploitation of the workers. There are also complaints about monopolies but nearly all monopolies have been created or at least protected by government.

2 irrelevant CIA shills circle jerking each other? Gee, how can you not pay to see that?

I hope you are writing under the pretense that capitalism has not existed in America for over one hundred years. We have had a mixture of socialism and capitalism that has its roots in the Civil War and the Progressive Era.
BTW I am not an ancap. There are some elements of socialism I like, but they will not work in a country filled with degenerates and shitskins. Also, most social programs should be administered at the local level to ensure accountability and effectiveness.

>Basically the entire curricula of every liberal university's economics courses
Nobody teaches Marxian economics in any economics course.
(Unless you're one of those faggots who consider anything with even the slightest whiff of Keynesianism to be basically Marxist. I sure hope you're not!)

>There are also complaints about monopolies but nearly all monopolies have been created or at least protected by government
Marx didn't speak about monopolies. The focus on monopolization is a distinctly post-marxist trend that arose as a response to the rise (and metamorphosis) of social-democracy in the interwar period.

But alright, you have the "exploitation" thing going. Could you elaborate on it? How exactly do the capitalists enrich themselves at the expense of the workers? What are the mechanics at play here?

Could you give another Marxist critique of capitalism?

No one values something you give them for free, user.

What are your operational definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism"?

Imagine being this bad at socializing or rational thought.
Go outside, kid. Your parents don't deserve to worry about you.

socialism is when the government does things and the more the government does the more socialister it is

Lol I mean the math doesn’t lie. What other than hard data proving it will work provided by the very people that most oppose universal healthcare would convince people like you?

Or have you just made up your mind and decided to completely disregard facts?

Your turn. Critique pic related. Note that Jamestown was starving and after a market system was implemented, they were prosperous.

>No one values something you give them for free, user.
yeah, but charging for pictures and handshakes... That just shows how much you value your fans and supporters, that you are unwilling to spend time with them for free.

Your turn. Critique pic related. Note that Jamestown was starving and after a market system was implemented, they were prosperous

Attached: Screenshot_20190420-062350.png (1080x2270, 627K)

I mean if you had to cover two overblown retards babbling for 3 hours you might be a little sour about it too

Capitalism is free market economics based on the right to keep private property including the fruits of your labor. I rely heavily on Bastiat for this definition.
Socialism is when the government controls (to varying degrees) the means of production; the right to private property is not sacred. This is a mixture of Bastiat and Hayek.

What about when the workers control the means of production, how do call that one?