Žižek managed to provide a thoughtful critique of Peterson's "self-help" aesthetic while getting Peterson to go along with him. Instead of calling him out for stupidity, Žižek simply criticized contemporary trends of "spirituality" that include Peterson's own work – I don't think Peterson even realized what he was agreeing to!
Ž constantly talks about how spiritual experiences, and the focus on one's "inner self", may be perfectly "authentic", but nevertheless disgusting. He deconstructed Peterson's entire "self-help" mantra as nothing more than another facet of this general trend in contemporary capitalism to focus on the individual, even if the individual is complacent in a horrifying system of oppression. He pointed out that Peterson himself doesn't even fully buy into this, since he has made his fame by trying to rectify what he sees as larger social problems, rather than just staying home and focusing on himself.
The whole last part of the debate was essentially Peterson agreeing with Žižek that the consumerist individualism of our contemporary society (which includes Peterson's whole bag) amounts to moral cowardice. Say what you will about the rest of the debate, but Ž's ability to get him on this level was subtle and brilliant.
To try and steelman Peterson, I'd say: if capitalist society makes people into broken, useless idiots, then in order to fix society the first step is >>still
Jackson Moore
>the consumerist individualism of our contemporary society >contemporary society
we all know who they are. It's just illegal to point it out.
Parker Sanchez
To go a little further, Zizek himself argues we should think, not act, in a reversal of Marx's famous "the point is not to comprehend the world, but to change it". Zizek knows the current left is retarded and incapable of a successful revolution (defined as more than just as burning shit down, which any group of monkeys can do). But Zizek has no plan, his goal is just to get more people to reflect and hope that this produces a plan. In the 1800s Marxists and Anarchists believed that they could very easily raise up the level of "the people"; this belief did not survive the advent of mass propaganda, which has shown us not only how easy it is to degrade the people but how much many of them enjoy the degradation.
I'll start with 5 real Marxists, you can follow up with your 5 "Cultural Marxists," okay?
Real Marxists: Slavoj Zizek David Harvey Fredric Jameson Paul Cockshott Jodi Dean
5 "Cultural Marxists":
Evan Long
Peterson is a psychologist not a political philosopher. No one should expect him to win a debate like this. But he still did if only by default. Zizek was supposed to represent Marxism and never once gave an argument for it.
Luis Hall
ok fren, I'll play your game.
my 5 cultural (((marxists))) are [redacted due to illegal opinion] [redacted due to illegal opinion] [redacted due to illegal opinion] [redacted due to illegal opinion] [redacted due to illegal opinion]
Hunter Perez
you know real Marxists can and are, cultural Marxists right you stupid nigger? No one wants or cares about their idiotic politics so they hide it behind race and division.
Camden Foster
If you have to translate something a person says, run it through body language interpretation and explain hidden subtleties after the fact, despite it being in the same fucking language, then you might be a Q fag.
>Zizek was supposed to represent Marxism and never once gave an argument for it.
so much This.
Dylan Jackson
Frankfurt School.
Americans can't do Ž.
Parker Martinez
If that is the UK's conservatives.
F
Joshua Gutierrez
He's openly liberal.
Jayden Price
>Americans can't do Ž. There's not much reason to. His school of thought, while at times is genuinely enlightening, is generally incompatible with US.
Ian Young
Zizek has been critical of marxism for 30 years now and has written several dozen books. He has been quoted in academical papers over 110 thousand times. He calls himself Marxist for some convoluted reason due to his opinion about something Marx wrote, but you wouldn’t understand that anyway. Just because you’re clueless about philosophy doesn’t mean you’re right.
Caleb Adams
Sizek is a fat slobbering autist who is possibly just an alien wearing a human costume. He is disgusting and offers nothing of value. Juden peterstein is a Semite loving United Nations shabbos goy
Ayden Gutierrez
Is this the best summary?
Kayden Gonzalez
The idea that a debate between two celebrities is somehow a proxy for my own hopes, wishes, and opinions is so offensive. I'm so fucking tired of elites.
Leo Watson
Kill it with fire
Christopher Williams
I like that debate is trying to become a more popular sport. But I agree this one leaves a sour taste in your mouth. *audience applause*
Nolan James
This very much.
Luke Foster
>get mad that Peterkike is more communist than a supposed Marxist
Fuck off Peterstein acolyte.
Jack Turner
Obviously. This is only being spammed here by mongoloids trying to BTFO Jow Forums or the "alt-right" because they think Peterson is someone the far right likes or respects, not some milquetoast liberal playing fake opposition.
Oliver Thompson
What is worse is that Peterstein is one of the most effective gatekeepers for young white lads out there.
Leo Kelly
Philosophers are some of the worst people in the planet
Xavier Butler
Conservative about what exactly? Tranny shit? Nobody cares about your pet 0.1% of the public issue. He not conservative about anything that fucking matters. The only right wing conservatives are jew-aware paleocons.
It's funny how helplessly lagging these types are, constantly like 5 steps behind acting like they have their finger on the pulse of this place. Like having a freakout at the fucking clown meme.
Chase Cruz
He is somewhat conservative from a marxist point of view, in the sense that he's conserving 19th century liberalism as opposed to 19th century marxism. This is highly reactionary from their perspective.
All marxists are cultural marxists because all marxists are globalists by definition.
Landon Martinez
>ara Fatsos doesn't equal that, nerd.
Christian Richardson
Why are you assuming so many things about people discussing a debate between two notable philosophers/political thinkers? If they're too le cucked for you, then there's much better things to do with your time than do an irrelevant rant about neo-leftists here.
Jayden Edwards
They don't all check all the boxes, they're just what serves the purpose.
Stfu Pierre, you're irrelevant. Go build a bomb shelter over the Eiffel tower before it gets blown up by Mohammed.
Asher King
Zizek pointed out that what are commonly referred to as cultural Marxists could actually be called cultural Capitalism. I realize that this is amusingly accurate.
Noah Campbell
If you would actually read the teachings of the flag you are using, you would know this already. Two sides of the same (kike) coin, slowly merging into one.
Zachary Long
nothing makes them notable
Aiden Bell
>Why are you assuming so many things about people discussing a debate between two notable philosophers/political thinkers? OP's attitude. Have you read his posts? His understanding that someone like Peterson is somewhat a representative of a reactionary opposition to what he clearly sees as a capitalism vs socialism worldview deserves more attention than the debate.
Boring critique of modern economic systems is worthless drivel. I'm glad Peterson got called out for his bullshit, what I can't stand is socialists critiquing capitalists while pretending they are not part of the fucking problem. The progressive school of thought that promoted most of the degenerate shit we're worried about on this board came from progressive ideals, from both liberal and socialist, especially marxist traditions. "Capitalism" is a literal spook. It's a technocratic system, not an ideology, that provided them with the wealth to enjoy their decadent egalitarian ideals. This is why so many trotskyites turned neocons - they realized liberal america was closer to their globalist, egalitarian view than soviet Russia.
Gabriel Cruz
Peterson leaves r*ddit and leftypol in seething bouts of rage so I support him.
Brayden Thompson
if by rage you mean laughter then yes. petersons a joke of a lobster.
Jackson Garcia
>capitalists are the REAL communists
ok lol. and somehow naziism is opposed to both?
what the hell kind of economic system ran nazi germany? you think just cause it didnt have jews it wasnt capitalism?
Chase Brown
>capitalists are the REAL communists Where have I said this? My main point is that capitalists aren't capitalists the same way communists are communists, or liberals are liberals.
Let me put it this way: was there a group of thinkers in the 17th century who called themselves "capitalists" and kept going on and on about how "late stage feudalism" is ruining europe and how they should take over? No? >what the hell kind of economic system ran nazi germany? What is the economic system in communist China? What was the economic system in the USSR? I've seen communist groups calling the soviet system capitalism, while naming current china as still faithful to marxim. Capitalism is a poorly defined boogieman.
Landon Hernandez
>a jew loving "philosopher" and a commie shill having a debate
nobody care
fuck off r*ddit
Nathaniel Scott
>ok lol. and somehow naziism is opposed to both? Yes. It was, in fact, an ideology opposed to both capitalism and socialism. It's called the third position. You're such an embarrassment
The user you replied to was right too. >"Capitalism" is a literal spook. It's a technocratic system, not an ideology >This is why so many trotskyites turned neocons
Nicholas Rodriguez
I enjoy debates a lot. I despise the tendency for (((people))) to suppose that debaters are proxies for entire groups of people. But this is also because I despise cults of personality that surround popular "intellectuals" where people willingly hand over their own agency and independence to these "intellectuals."
Adrian Sanders
Imagine being this far into politics and not acknowledging communism as a viable belief system. Not like the soviet union became the second largest empire entirely on its own or anything
Carson Murphy
>not acknowledging communism as a viable belief system Of course it's a viable belief system. It's utopian, hedonistic christianity without Christ or the bible. The problem is that it sells itself as a science and an economic theory (that failed to predict anything) and not a religion.
Jack Reyes
It's entirely an economic system. All the supposed atrocities the USSR commited were in the name of industrialisation
John Bailey
Communism is a Jewish belief system, nothing else.
Ian Murphy
Who was Stalin? Who was Mao?
Nathan Martin
>It's entirely an economic system Yeah, and it is presented as a science. >All the supposed atrocities the USSR commited were in the name of industrialisation Ok. All the supposed atrocities the US commited were in the name of freedom of trade, therefore peace and hope.
Luis Cox
The debate question was just stupid given zizek's positions.
It should have been "Optimism versus pessimism over capitalism" since that is what truly separates the two men.
David Russell
Both victims of Jewish lies.
John Adams
>Who was Stalin? Who was Mao?
Josiah Cook
good goys
Jaxon Morales
and what are the modes of production and political structures under "third position"? my guess is its a combo of ethnic nationalist authoritarianism coupled with a free market
Kevin Green
Žižek recently had a stroke - that is empirically shown to dumb one down..
Landon Cook
Has Zizek ever said anything about Spengler or Yockey?
Kayden Ortiz
I'm tired so I don't have much to say, but these were good posts.
Jace Barnes
Their memory can't handle anything beyond 2 bit binary
Camden Murphy
>Unless you think broken, useless idiots who cant make a budget can solve civilization-threatening problems. this is one of the areas that I think peterson's position is most coherent
Cameron Perry
>if someone breaks into your house don't defend yourself unless you have cleaned your room
I guess TERFs are far right now too? Just because the left eats it's own, doesn't mean that what gets shat out becomes ours. Peterstein is a globalist boomercon. Boomercons are as "conservative" as North Korea is a democratic republic, and the "alt right" was a backlash against boomercons long before it ever got started on today's leftists. Boomercons were the young adults of the 1960s. They were the original media manufactured leftists. The first generation to be fed their opinions entirely through TV and film. They appear "conservative" today only because of the Alinskyist >A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag view causing globalist media to change their presentation, but it's just that: presentation. They are, on the level of substance, little different from the media manufactured leftists of today, who will, all else constant, themselves be seen as dumb conservatives in 20 or so years despite not having changed any of their views.
"Individualists" (in quotes because classical individualists had no issue with voluntary association and dissociation) claiming >All society's problems are the result of collectivism, and the only solution is to eliminate group identity are bullshit merchants just like the communists claiming >All society's problems are the result of inequality, and the only solution is to eliminate self interest It is /exactly/ the same line of thought, and it is leading us to exactly the same destination. Tribalism (like self interest) is part of the human condition and the only way they will get what they want is to engineer a new man, which will always create more death, destruction and unaccountability than tribalism (or self interest) generates naturally. Both of these positions assume the infinity malleability of man, and elevate human agency above natural law. There is nothing "right wing" about either of them.
Jesus Christ your analysis is trash. I know most posts on this debate are just leftist shitposters but I'm writing this for the few retards who genuinely believe Zizek out-performed Peterson.
The topic of this debate was "Happiness, Capitalism and Communism". Now, both of them addressed Happiness in a way that just made it more complex and left it rather unanswered, or at least with a lot of room for debate. With that out of the way, the rest of the analysis can focus on capitalism vs communism. Peterson began by defending capitalism and attacking communism. Zizek proceeded to admit that criticism has done wonders but it has a lot of problems. Peterson accepted those problems but argued it is the best system we have even if it isn't perfect. Zizek argued in favor of some restraints on capitalism while still admitting capitalism has done wonders. Zizek never once argued for a planned economy, he never once defended communism. All he did was argue in favor of some sort of mixed economy. Zizek agreed to a debate on capitalism vs communism but never bothered to defend communism, he instead focused more on, as OP says, "spirituality". Zizek was a sniveling coward. He profeses himself as a hegelian and praises the criticisms of capitalism but never offered an alternative. Zizek lost the moment he chose not to defend communism.
Colton Collins
Zizek need a vacuum to suck all that cum out of his mouth. Listening to him speak makes me physical ill.
Liam Ward
Peterstein needs a stomach pump to get all that Jewish cum out of him.
Henry Anderson
He sounds like kermit. I don't know how someone could sit through hours of them talking.
Adam Butler
>The topic of this debate was "Happiness, Capitalism and Communism" except it literally wasn't. those retards who thought Zizek would argue in favour of communism literally never seen any of his works.
William Mitchell
>guy who claims he's a marxist debates on how you can be an individual in a communist society, and dares use the term Cultural Capitalist >guy whose too afraid to tell his fanbase that he's a liberal debates on why capitalism is basically communism
Wow, would you look at that, they're both fucking stupid kike pawns, and they actually agree with each other.
Owen Adams
>hammer and sickle flag
You do realize that Zizek rejects communism and Marxism, right?
Mason Phillips
>North Korea is very globalist >So i China >or USSR >or any communist country that ever was brainlet
Jordan Bell
does he really ? He rejects 20th century communism and calls for reforms in the idea
Jaxson Roberts
Zizek has a massive lisp, how anyone could take anything he says seriously os beyond me, btw, his arguments were simply incoherent ramblings.
Asher Rogers
kermit the frog vs cookie monster
Matthew Nguyen
No he outright rejects both. He just thought some of Marxism's more nuanced critiques in Das Kapital may have held some merit, but otherwise, he disavows the all the most meaningful parts of Marxism/communism: class struggles, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, utopianism.
Luke Cook
>except it literally wasn't. It literally was and if Zizek isn't a communist then he is an idiot for agreeing to that topic. Peterson clearly was going to defend capitalism and so the role of relating communism to happiness and how it compared to capitalism would fall on Zizek. He agreed to that topic instead of changing it. Rarely have I seen someone strawman himself but Zizek succeeded.
