A Marxist response to Jordan Peterson

Dr. Taimur Rahman's response to Dr. Jordan Peterson's criticisms of the Communist Manifesto. This video argues that Dr. Peterson makes a complete caricature out of Marxism in order to attack it.
A Marxist response to Jordan Peterson's criticism of the Communist Manifesto.
Dr. Taimur Rahman's response to Dr. Jordan Peterson's criticisms of the Communist Manifesto. This video argues that Dr. Peterson makes a complete caricature out of Marxism in order to attack it.
(Since the original debate occurred in English, my video is in English)

[@SocialismForAll]

Jordan Peterson was doing pure projection when he called Marx a narcissist whose work is on the level of an undergrad!

[@DripEmpError]

100% lol

[@MrDeadhead1952]

Given the critcism is of a political manifesto and not an academic work the fact the writing is at of an undergrad level just says it was sufficient to the need.

[@nathangale7702]

That’s the best explanation of Marxism I’ve heard, I like that you point out all the things that Marx and Engels did not promise socialism would achieve, it allows me to consider the ideas seriously instead of discounting them as fantasy. I also appreciate the respectful way in which you approached Dr Peterson’s arguments, it adds a lot to your credibility in my opinion.

[@marcelbenner993]

I find it interesting that this should be the best response to Peterson like many here suggest. While it is well organized and calmly presented (I bet that Peterson mischaracterizes some things of Marxism, so correcting him is fair), I see inconsistencies, dishonesty or misrepresentation by Rahman too, as I pointed out in my longer reply here a couple of minutes ago. If this is the best representation of Marxism, I seriously have troube understanding how one can follow these ideas in 2021.

[@MrA5htaroth]

Read the actual Communist Manifesto and draw your own conclusions. It isn't long. I read it and was appalled, but you may respond differently.

[@musaamir1210]

i know im randomly asking but does any of you know of a tool to get back into an instagram account? I somehow lost the password. I appreciate any tricks you can offer me

[@musaamir1210]

@Giovanni Gannon Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site through google and I'm in the hacking process atm. I see it takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.

[@musaamir1210]

@Giovanni Gannon It worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D Thank you so much, you saved my account :D

[@Achrononmaster]

Thanks Taimur. This was like 1000 times better than any other debunking of Petersen vs Žižek that I've seen. You put Zero Books to shame.

[@CarlyonProduction]

Bijou Smith I totally agree. I like Doug and co, but I say every single time that constant theory jerk offs are not helpful. What I like about this is it is a factual debunking. He is going through the work and showing unequivocally why Peterson is wrong. I am seriously impressed with this video. Wish he would do more!

[@kylemccormack1785]

Really? I thought this response was incredibly weak, involving mis-quoting the Professor multiple times.

[@SpaghettiShaq]

@@kylemccormack1785 begone, lobster

[@kylemccormack1785]

@@SpaghettiShaq Nah.

[@kylemccormack1785]

@ozgamer So is this the only thing you dim witted children are capable of?

[@pensulpusher2729]

This is the guy Peterson should have debated. Geez. I’m a Peterson fan but I would love to see him be forced to present deeper arguments or just get owned and have to really redress himself

[@bush696]

I felt Zizek gave a good argument to be fair

[@Simone-xe9cw]

@@bush696 zizek went pretty soft in that debate imo

[@danksamosa3952]

He has refused to debate marxists

[@User0resU-1]

He ran away from a debate with Prof. Wolff on Marxism. Funny about that!

[@michaela8194]

@@matthewkopp2391 very nice way of saying he's full of shit and towing the line for proto fascists because it's more profitable than fighting for the poor.

[@sonycompa]

Dr. Peterson hasn’t studied Marx. He is a psychologist who is overplaying his hand by getting involved in debates outside his realm of expertise.

[@sadshitpoorpoop]

The west seems to be up to the brim with pseudo intellectuals, another example of Capitalism elevating brainless, halfwit cronies up the socioeconomic ladder. Personally I found Peterson to be somewhat genuine of a person and still believe it to be the case. Perhaps he's been affected(manipulated) and developed a bias, you know, staying in company of big bullshitters. Or maybe he cannot recognise the big problem of Capitalism owing to he himself being engulfed by and participating in the system.

[@brigadierharsh1948]

@@sadshitpoorpoop Capitalism elevates the brainless? Pseudo intellectuals? If capitalism is guilty of anything it is not giving much attention to intellectual activity but if you want to find a group that talks endlessly but says very little you would be hard pressed to find a better example of this than among the Marxists.

[@kw1199]

so what are you then? a philosopher or somebody outside there realm of expertise?

[@lewisbilly12353]

I do not like this purity form of testing a scholar, it is an ad hominem at its best.. As if you getting a PHD in psychology, means you can only ever comment on strictly psychology. Even though his analysis includes different elements of existentialism and other social sciences that he has done research on. His constructed critique of Marxism relies a lot on what he is an expert in.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@sadshitpoorpoop "pseudo intellectuals"- that has taught at Harvard... Or we could avoid the ad hominems.

[@ahmadkhan9165]

Dear Taimur, I really enjoy your lectures . Your autopsy of Dr.Peterson's arguments was excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope you'll continue educating us with new lectures. I would really love to watch a video on the common misconceptions people have about Marxism . Btw, I and I'm sure a lot of other viewers are eagerly waiting for new lectures in your Das Kapital Series. I hope you'll start uploading them soon. Keep the good work coming!! Thanks.

[@Antaryox]

Ahmad Khan what misconception? The 130 000 000 victims it has produced is that a misconception?

[@vaderx2000]

This is one of the best videos I’ve ever seen on Marxism. Thank you very much Professor Rahman!

[@marcelbenner993]

I find it interesting that this should be the best response to Peterson like many here suggest. While it is well organized and calmly presented (I bet that Peterson mischaracterizes some things of Marxism, so correcting him is fair), I see inconsistencies, dishonesty or misrepresentation by Rahman too, as I pointed out in my longer reply here a couple of minutes ago. If this is the best representation of Marxism, I seriously have troube understanding how one can follow these ideas in 2021.

[@rebeccaemick6618]

@@marcelbenner993 I can't find your 'longer reply' post? Would be interested in reading your criticisms of Dr. Rahman response to JP on Marx.

[@marcelbenner993]

@@rebeccaemick6618 Sure.. here it is. If you have any questions or find errors, let me know :) Dear Dr. Rahman, it was very interesting for me as someone that is opposed to socialism in general to hear the corrections. However, I have some questions that arose while listening to your rebuttal. 1. Regarding your comment about China around 22:47, the out-of-poverty-lifting of 700 million people aka "arguably the greatest economic achievement in human history". You also said that this process came to be in the last 40 decades. How would you link the opening of the Chinese markets to the world market, the opening of foreign capital in the Special Economy Zones as well as privatization in this time frame to communism (The liberations started around 1978 after Mao's death and Xiaopings inaugauration)? China calls itself communist, but since they witnessed the wonders of freer markets on their tour throughout the West after Mao's death, I don't believe that calling China communist is truly fitting, right? This would also need to be put to the test by taking Marx’ very own definition of communism. Do you think Marx would have called China communist? Before and after 1978? Especially regarding your own quote: “Where socialist states have failed to create the necessary democratic institutions to check abuse of authority, there of course corruption did and will thrive.” Even if someone did not read Marx and Engels, I think it is quite obvious that the definitions you yourself give in this video would not be represented in China. 2. Regarding Africa: Absolutely yes, more Africans are getting poorer, but that is because wealth growth cannot keep up with population growth (which will cap soon enough anyways). Percentage wise, extreme poverty has declined from 54 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2015. I think you are a little bit dishonest at presenting the numbers for Africa. 3. Regarding Russia: Yes, inequality was less, but what about absolute wealth? And you are correct in saying that the Soviets did very well in the Space Race, but isn't that easy if you mostly put your funds into one thing? The same question can be posed in regards to Cuba. Yes, their education was superb. But what about freedom, living standards or quality of life in general? Also, don't you find it interesting that the Soviet Union banned worker cooperatives except for those under state control? The very thing Marx wanted (the means of production being in the worker's hands) was forbidden by the state. To be honest, it seems that you have issues with coherence of the Marxian idea of communism when you take the Soviet Union (or China for that matter) as an example - again with your very own quote ( “Where socialist states have failed to create the necessary democratic institutions to check abuse of authority, there of course corruption did and will thrive.”) in mind: Do you believe Marx’ would have viewed the Soviet Union as communist/socialist? 4. The European countries have a lot of economic growth - true. But the bulk of their producing economy is based on a system of private ownership over the means of production. The surplus by this economy is taxed and then redistributed. Thus I don't really understand how that would support your argument. Also, those very redistribution machines are government funded programs that were initiated by the anti-socialist Bismarck. Socialists back then saw the government as a mechanism of the ruling class - again: I have trouble understanding what good this does to your argument. On the one hand economically, on the other philosophically speaking as how Marx views societies. You go on to speak again about European countries later on (39:37) where you say that “many of these points have been taken up by governments that are not even socialist”. But except #2 progessive taxes (which were around even when Marx was only 3 years old in Prussia as three different rates for four different classes - so you can hardly call this a socialist idea - www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1882547.pdf) and #10 free education, none of the other things are present. You could argue that one idea of Marx - I don’t even know if it is his original, I would need to do some more research if these ideas were not uttered by capitalists too - transpired into modern private ownership systems, but that is basically all there is to it in regards to Marx’ 10 points. 5. Regarding economic growth where you say that socialist societies CAN be more productive than capitalist societies on a macro-economic level (40:00): In all comparable examples in history where one culture was divided into a socialist and capitalist society, the capitalist society was decades ahead in technology. For example: Western Germany vs DDR, South vs North Korea. Just to give some evidence to this notion: Honecker’s microelectronics-program cost 14 billion Mark from 1986-89 plus 14 billion more were spent on research and development in that field plus 4 billion for imports from Western Germany. Despite all these expenditures the outcome was depressing: The cost for the production of a 256 Kbit memory circuit was 534 Marks in the DDR. The same piece could be bought on the free market for 4 - 5 Mark… just to make that clear: Production vs end price). In 1969 the SED announced it would overtake Germany by 1980 in living standards. Let’s look at 1989: Only a little bit over half of the households in the DDR had a car. Over half of those were Trabis. People had to wait between 12,5 and 17 years for a new car. This led to the phenomenon only planned economies are able to achieve: The price on the black market for a used car was over 2 to 3 times of that for a new one. Again: I could go on endlessly with these examples covering different continents and time periods. So if you truly believe that economic growth rests on advancement of technology, which I completely agree with: Wouldn’t the best course of action be to rely on the inherent mechanisms of capitalism which push innovation and technology? 6. Yes, it is true: More inequality leads to more street crime. But then you go on to mention Canada, Sweden, Norway which again are all private ownership capitalist systems. And yes, gun violence is absurdly high in the States, but couldn’t it also be a factor that there are 120 hand guns per 100 citizens (Falkland Islands being second with nearly half that amount)? 7. 43:55 You say that Engels was opposed to violence. But Peterson asks the really important question: How should this unfold? Do the communists think that the landowners, industrials and people with capital will simply get expropriated and have their things taken away? Of course it will be bloody. And/or you will trigger the emigration of the better educated, able, skilled and enterprising which can also be demonstrated in various examples in history. ____________________________ So while I seriously enjoyed your rebuttals of some of Peterson’s misconception, I have trouble understanding why you would call yourself a Marxist because of these summarized questions: a. Where is the consistency in calling China or the Soviet Union communist and is this in line with what Marx would describe as marxist or communist or socialist? b. Aren’t the wonders of China due to their opening to the world market and privatizations? c. How can you support Marxism if you believe that technological advancement and innovation are the most important factors for economic growth (which also needs to transpire to the living standard of the people as can be seen in Cuba and the Soviet Union) given the historical examples as well as theory by the Austrian School which described the issues of planned economies perfectly and laid out socialism’s downfall antequam fieret. Thanks in advance for considering these points, as I am sure we both have the best of intentions for other humans when postulating our favorite modus operandi for society. Best regards Dr. Marcel Benner

[@rebeccaemick6618]

@@marcelbenner993 Firstly, thank you for providing your post and for the prompt reply Dr. Benner. For sake of brevity I'll comment on your summarized questions first and see where that takes us. You wrote: "a. Where is the consistency in calling China or the Soviet Union communist and is this in line with what Marx would describe as marxist or communist or socialist?" From my understanding of Marx, he would not have considered these countries as Communist/Socialist. Neither should JBP, nor anyone else in my opinion. You wrote: "b. Aren’t the wonders of China due to their opening to the world market and privatizations?" Perhaps engaging in the world market, but privatizations? Are not the vast majority of China's largest companies state owned enterprises (SOE's)? According to Fortune's 2020 Global 500-SOE's own 84 of the 124 companies on the list and per; CSIS in 2020, SOE's own 91 of the 124 companies on the 500 list. Also, I would add that many formal private ownership enterprises are still under state control, ie; the state chooses the board of directors, CEO's, makes the investment decisions, etc.. and heavy regulation are they not? If this is so, could you show the consistency in your claim linking "privatizations" to the "wonders of China"? You wrote: "c. as well as theory by the Austrian School which described the issues of planned economies perfectly and laid out socialism’s downfall antequam fieret." I've edited C to your end statement, as I feel the first statement is a direct question to Dr. Rahman. I hope you don't mind. The economic theory of the Austrian School (especially von Mises ECP argument, which I assume you are referring to in your claim), has been argued against and criticized since it's conception, not only from Marxists and Communists/Socialists, but Economists and Mathematicians. You are aware of this, yes? One of the best refutations I know of is by Robin Cox from the SPGB: socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2020/03/eca-unravelling-of-myth.html If the link doesn't work and your unfamiliar with this work, a simple robin cox and the eca google search will get you there. I look forward to any discussion between us that may arise Dr. Benner. Rebecca

[@marcelbenner993]

@@rebeccaemick6618 Hi Rebecca, sure, no worries, it is my pleasure! First off, I want to say that I agree: In my opinion China or the SU were not Communist according to Marx. My issue with Dr. Rahman’s argument is that he does say they were/are. And that he attributes things like the out-of-poverty lifting of 800 million people to a system that is not Marxist from the get go AND the system only was able to do so because of market principles. Also for further clarity, I would propose to refer to Communism as how it unfolded in reality (SU, China, North Korea) as real communism - RC - and theoretical Communism as in Marxian or non-Marxian Communism as TC - theoretical communism. What is also important is the discussion whether TC necessarily will play out as RC, but I think we can postpone that, as we have enough to cover right now. b. While it is true that a vast majority of these companies you named (China’s biggest) are state owned, you cannot forget private ownership itself and the small and middle sized businesses that emerged from this. Under Mao, private ownership basically was non-existent. Deng Xiaoping’s reforms included pilot projects in the Special Economic Zones (capitalism inside the Communist China). The result was that the number of private businesses was well around 90.000 before the decade ended in this small area and they employed 1.6 million people. These "enterprises under other ownership structures" how countless foreign-owned companies, private enterprises, individual enterprises, and other types of business that emerged in the Xiaoping reforms were legally called, operated more efficiently and paid their employees more than state-owned or township enterprises. This has been reflected in a growing income gap between the owners, directors, and executives of these enterprises and the employees of state-owned enterprises. When the government tried to set prices in the 90s to counter this development, it resulted in massive inflation, which along with party corruption ended in the famous incident of Tiananmen Square. Deng, who came back from retirement, had to reinstate the liberizing reform plans after this. The number of Small and Middle sized Businesses (which are mostly not state owned) was around 38 million in 2019 and they account for 90% of the country's companies, contributing over 70% to patents and account for 80% of nationwide jobs in the country. Each year there are about 5 million more and they are one of the driving factors of the Chinese economy. In regards to the overall Chinese economy: State owned businesses accounted for 40% of China's GDP of US$15.66 trillion in 2020, with domestic and foreign private businesses and investment accounting for the remaining 60%. That means the majority of China’s GDP is not state-owned. Another issue regarding state ownership in China is that the state does not run the business. The Party Central Committee declared in its 1984 "Decision on Reform of the Economic Structure" that "from now on government departments at various levels will, in principle, not manage or operate enterprises directly," signifying the government's recognition of an enterprise as a "legal person" separate from the government department in charge. While these businesses are state-owned, they completely run on market principles. That is definitely not something Marx would have liked ;) Generally I would like to ask you a question in this context: Are you against Liberalizations or capitalism? Because I don’t quite understand the motive for asking specifically for me to prove the claim of privatizations playing a major role in China’s success when nearly all economic articles, papers or books on this issue list it as a major factor and which to me is pretty obvious when looking at the numbers I gave you in the paragraphs before. c. Here we can discuss whether Mises’ ECP or his critics were correct. But just leave the ECP aside. Why don’t we simply look at history and all the planned economy examples? Even if the ECP is right or wrong, history has shown that planned economies did not allocate resources as efficiently as private ownership economies. And not by a small margin, as my previous examples of the DDR have shown. This can be traced back to any context where similar cultures can be compared (indicating that Mises and Hayek were right). But let’s get away from central planning and look at what the author of your link says: “By “socialism” or “communism”, as we saw earlier, was traditionally meant a society without markets, money, wage labour or a state. All wealth would be produced on a strictly voluntary basis. Goods and services would be provided directly for self-determined need and not for sale on a market; they would be made freely available for individuals to take without requiring these individuals to offer something in direct exchange. “ Is this something you would advocate for? As in Theoretical Socialism or Communism? I am also looking forward to this! Marcel

[@infidreamer6984]

The kind of prof I wish I'd met at college. Thank you!

[@Taimur_Laal]

Thank you.

[@bucksteingold4334]

@@Taimur_Laal You're a pseudo-intellectual apologizing and enabling for mass murderers. Absolutely disgraceful. Twice as many white slaves were kidnapped and taken to Africa as were taken from Africa to America.

[@not888f9]

@@bucksteingold4334 Who what when and where ? 🤣

[@bucksteingold4334]

@@not888f9 look it up tishpid. They had ships coming in kidnapping anyone that didn't flee for hundreds of years. The Moors and other Africans and Middle Easterners and those who shall not be named or my comment deleted basically have been running the slave trade. Maaaany books written on it...

[@deleuzeional]

@@bucksteingold4334 cry about it 😂

[@koalasquare2145]

Could you do a dedicated series on Marxism? Explaining it in detail. You seem to explain in well and you seem to understand it more than a lot of other people.

[@matj3046]

Marxism is simple. A racist, anti semitic rhetoric created by a racist, anti semitic unemployed bum... Followed by people with a good heart but limited understanding of what it actually stands for and what it actually believes in.

[@Qzou7702]

@@matj3046 arrogance makes you sound like a fool. my friend.

[@QuartuvLarry]

@@Qzou7702 Actually, he's astute. Communism is strictly the ideology for the brainwashed and the history class flunkouts. No exceptions.

[@Kamisama77]

@@matj3046 I'm against marxism but i know your cmt is a trash. Logic of Marxism sound like a decent dream (for most poor people)that can't come true. Just like that. They claim equality but they can't actually equalize. Plus equal share of profits (thats the basic logic of marxism) is leading to less effort. Thats the major flaw of it. Plus its a totalitarian system and so that you have no chance to kick the bad leader out. Thats another major flaw.

[@nawjoghschool2714]

He has lectures but they are all in Urdu.

[@harunsuaidi7349]

As much as I like Dr. Peterson, I wish he had done his homework and read more Marx. I think he would change his mind as he read more Marxists. He often talks about ideological possession. Whenever he talks about Marxism, I think he is, ironically, possessed by Neoliberal ideology without realizing.

[@buddysilver5788]

MARX HAS BEEN EDITED, REDACTED & POLISHED TO FOOL THE IGNORANT! KARL MARX: RACIST SUPREMACIST, ENEMY OF HUMANITY & HYPOCRITE June 24, 2012 This is a truly important article the international media and mainstream historians dictating how we think, do not want you to read. by Jack Sen Karl Marx, champion of today’s progressives from Beijing to Hollywood, was a card carrying bigot and racist. And not just by today’s standards, mind you, but by those of his contemporaries as well. Racist Marx wrote: “The Negro has strength & power to labour, but the Nature which created the power denied to him either the intellect to govern, or willingness to work.” “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it.” And that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg! Marx actually used the word ‘nigger’ on dozens of occasions in his writings, letters and diary - all which we will go into later. This is due to his dealings with his Jewish slave trading uncle; and in spite of the fact the term is not even found in his native German vernacular! His contempt & sheer disrespect for blacks ran that deep. He also has some shocking views on Slavs, Indians, and the Irish, that neo-Marxist dupes and their liberal enablers conveniently ignore. This is a long and heavy read but I can assure you that it’ll supply you with ALL the ammunition you will ever need to stop Leftists DEAD in their tracks. Firstly I want to thank the repeatedly publishing of our work. I’d actually lost the following essay some months back, as I failed to back it up when I closed down the old ekp.org address. Last night, on the odd chance someone had republished it; I did a brief search for it again on Google-miraculously finding it on the FOFNP’s honourable site, here at www.fofnp.org/karl-marx-racist-supremacist-enemy-of-humanity-hypocrite/ Let’s just say I was happy to see my research hadn’t been lost.

[@jzonkel]

@Rizu der Rotfuchs Scammer? That's weird. I thought scammers had malevolent intentions. Peterson seems to be helping millions of people with his scams. What product is he convincing people to buy with his scam? So much of his work is completely free

[@MrAmaury5000]

Rizu der Rotfuchs you’re and idiot, brainwashed by your privileged university

[@boomshroomgoonmoon]

Marxism is a proven bunk ideology. Just let it go.

[@yea4253]

@@buddysilver5788 That is the most moronic thing I've ever read

[@Cybernaut551]

Peterson was correctly stating things in my opinion.

[@spacewad8745]

Peterson clearly hasn’t read any Marxist literature. He himself says that he once read the manifesto some 40 years ago and then goes on to admit that he reread the manifesto briefly just before the debate, which in itself was a farce. Arguing against Marxism just after a cursory reading of a political pamphlet like The communist manifesto is just as ridiculous as arguing against capitalism just by reading The WoN. I was surprised Zizek didn’t completely shatter Peterson’s intellectual worth.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Agreed. I think Zizek had something prepared and wanted to read that rather than respond to the specific points made by Peterson. He should have responded to those points.

[@ksksk7052]

To turn this on its head, how many ANTIFA activists and the cool kids on campuses calling themselves Marxists have read Marx? It seems quite convenient to label your critics as bourgeois know-nothings. The strategy of name-calling and insulting the intelligence of those who don't exactly "get" your point is hypocritical.

[@vancouverterry9142]

@@ksksk7052 Well said, Gayatri, well said!!!!

[@sahanwijewardane9955]

@@ksksk7052 If Jordan Peterson described himself as simply a "cool kid on campus" who just showed up to give his best shot at debating Zizek, then maybe you'd have a point about the name-calling. But Jordan Peterson presents himself as a serious philosopher and debater yet then completely mischaracterizes the topics he is debating about, so I think the name-calling is pretty justified

[@ksksk7052]

@@sahanwijewardane9955 I will wholeheartedly agree with you that he was simply inadequately prepared to take on a Zizek. TBH I don't think either party wanted to take on the other side, that was an entirely artificial expectation from the audience, expecting some sort of ideological boxing match. However, and this is a question, and I am willing to hear that I am coming from a place of ignorance - how does one attack the excesses of the left? The first charge levied against you is - "Oh you simply haven't read enough, you're not on our level.." - that to me is a thoroughly immoral sleight of hand. What would you say to kids whose parents Stalin took? What would you say to those who grew up in the police state that was his legacy? Zizek is no vanguard of the left, he has happily criticised it on multiple occassions, but I still feel that the question that Peterson brought attention to remains unanswered, and is obscured by people such as OP who want to attack a lack of wanton academic credentials.

[@OfLaSoul]

So this entire time Peterson kept ranting about "postmodern neo-marxists" but he only read the communist manifesto at the age of 18 and then again in preparation for this debate? How about the rest of Marx's works? Does he even understand what he's critiquing?

[@vancouverterry9142]

You've got a really strange idea about Peterson's knowledge of the subject. How did you get that impression? Someone might've manipulated the info you've seen.

[@veejayroth]

@@vancouverterry9142 He said so himself in the debate + he never quotes any other Marx' work...

[@vancouverterry9142]

@@veejayroth Something has gotten misquoted or taken out of context. First of all, WHICH DEBATE is being referred to? And I have seen Peterson saying that he read the Leftist canon extensively. I can't remember his exact words about what exactly he'd read but I do remember words such as he knows it "inside out" or "back to front" -- words like that. It SOUNDED LIKE, to my ears, that that meant he'd read Marx, among others. I'd say the impression to that effect was reasonable and what any reasonable listener would make based on his words. So the matter needs clearing up. Offhand and personally speaking, I doubt if he'd presume to speak at any length about Marxism based just on an examination of the thin little cursed Manifesto. So I would like to see this question cleared up. I have listened to a number of videos where people try to get some attention and credibility by criticizing some aspect or another of Peterson's work and I have NEVER been impressed that those critics knew the full extent of his work well enough to make credible critical videos. Some philosophy profs do make corrections, that's true, but in terms of Peterson's overall thrust when he speaks outside of his field (psychology, as we all know), those corrections, valid they may be, are not relevant to his overall thrust, which NO ONE yet has been able to counter, as far as I can see, simply because it's valid and, in fact, is the thin edge of a brighter intellectual mentality that is in the earliest stages of becoming recognized as a backlash movement against the intellectual incompetence of the day. Some critical reviews are based on laughably unrepresentative slices of Peterson's work, thin enough to discredit the reviewer simply on the basis of their points of departure being ridiculously non-representative. One such example, in my opinion, is the review by Todd Grande, a psychologist with a lot of KZbin videos commenting on all sorts of things. Another example is the multi-part one (no less) by Chris Langan, a bar bouncer in New Jersey who claims (and claims and claims and claims) to have an IQ of 200 (which I don't take seriously). It's a good example of simple bad listening and boorishness, at best, and a very interesting inadvertent bit of self-disclosure by the reviewer. I suggest a "forest for the trees" approach to these reviews of Peterson -- what is the reviewer trying to accomplish? Aggrandizement for his or her schtick? Is it irrelevant nitpicking with respect to the overall points Peterson is trying to make? Is the reviewer intentionally trying to sidestep or roundaboutly discredit valid points by disproportionate emphases on small matters that are immaterial to Peterson's thesis? Anyone who fails to recognize the EXTREME SERIOUSNESS of the situations Peterson is railing against and who fails to recognize the EXTREME VALUE of his work is suspect in my eyes.

[@nenadmilovanovic5271]

@@vancouverterry9142 Zizek debate, Jordan says he read the manifesto 40 years ago and did a cursory reading of it before the debate.

[@vancouverterry9142]

​@@nenadmilovanovic5271 But think a bit more clearly: the fact that he read the cursed manifesto 40 years ago and again, cursorily, before the debate DOES NOT MEAN, AND IS NOT AN ADMISSION, that he didn't study Marxism and Leftist philosophy at other times. I RECALL QUITE CLEARLY in one of his videos he made passing reference to having studied the Leftist writings at length and in depth, and that that was a good part of the reason he was confident he had solid reasons for railing against Leftist perspectives. I think something Peterson said has been misleadingly edited and quoted out of context in order to convey the impression that he doesn't know the Leftist canon. I have never watched a video or read anything that criticizes Peterson which indicates that the author knew Peterson's work well enough to say what they're saying. The anti-Peterson commentary, actually, is an index of just how LOW the intellectual competence AND INTEGRITY of the current age has become. People can get hits and attention, etc, from whomping up some criticism of Peterson, and the lazy-minded and intellectually-incompetent flock to such superficial treatments. Low integrity pays, it's part of the slate of new industries in front of us -- race hustling, gender hustling, identity hustling, hustling of victimhood claims, etc. It all pays now, and the mentally lazy support it much like junk food sells in heaps to slobs. I know that philosophy prof's can sometimes fine-tune and correct his errors about philosophers BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT is his overall thrust, not the obscurantist fuss about points that immaterial to his overall thrust. In courts of law, for example, it's routine to dismiss as irrelevant any misinterpreted evidence that is immaterial to the pleaded claims or defences. THAT EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEFTISTS AND THEIR COMRADES IN ARM CHAIRS as COMPARED TO those WHO ARE COMPETENTLY AND SERIOUSLY ANALYZING THE ALARMING SOCIAL PROBLEMS WE'RE ALL FACING. For all their cover story of being humanists, etc, (if not out-and-out luminaries), any clear-thinking, competent, educated and intelligent assessment of the social problems of today and the known effects of Leftist ideology shows that the Leftist position is just self-indulgence in self-aggrandizing fantasy, or worse (wallowing in, and manipulating aggressive pathology, including anti-social pathology in some cases). Other than that, the Leftist positions are just ignorance. The social problems of today are SCARY INDEED and what the brighter minds, Peterson among them, WILL SHOW YOU, if you have the guts and ability to think honestly, is that the CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE INCORRECT, and, as an add-on to that, Leftist thinking must adds to the misunderstanding.

[@earthjustice01]

Kudos to Prof. Rahman for a very impressive summary and synthesis of Marx's theories. Wow! Basically he uses Jordan Peterson as a foil to give a first rate explanation of Marxism. It's obvious that Peterson is sloppy and not well versed in Marx, he's almost making it up as he goes along. Rahman, in contrast has done the reading. He quotes many of Marx and Engels works. Note that he doesn't quote Das Kapital, which is just as well as that way he keeps it all clear and easy to understand. I have never heard a clearer and easier to understand lecture on Marx. I am in awe of this lecturer from Pakistan!

[@Taimur_Laal]

Charles Justice thank you.

[@vardaanvardhan9932]

Jp is a scientist. Not very well versed person in political theory. He essentially defends Capitalism/Libertarianism/Individualism and does it very cogently and his arguments are very compelling.However, props to Mr.Taimur for not behaving like an SJW and providing valid refutations.

[@maybepriyansh9193]

@@vardaanvardhan9932 He also is a chrsitian apologist and has spread pseudoscience in the name of promoting theological values or narratives as he calls it. The dude is intellectually extremely dishonest.

[@aman_insaan]

@@maybepriyansh9193 and throughly patriarchal too..!

[@abdurrazzaq2314]

@@vardaanvardhan9932 If he is not well versed in Political Theory than it would be be better for him and to do his research. Besides, grow up. Only teens prop up an "SJW" straw-man these days.

[@maxolasersquad]

I've been listening to Jordan Peterson for a bout a year as well. I think one of his biggest problems is that his critique of the left is an oversimplified caricature, which I think is one of the reasons that he is so popular with the right. Most lefties, at least the ones that I associate with, are not very knowledgeable regarding Marxism and few strongly identify with him. By and large the left seems critical of hierarchies, but not necessarily opposed to them, and indeed is often eager to implement them. Dr. Peterson's biggest sin is setting up straw men, which conflates many ideas, and then arguing against them.

[@bazstrutt8247]

Jack David Baucum Kermit the Fraud is basically a liar

[@michaellamont2605]

All the Marxists I've met are people I have wanted to escape from. They all seem to have a broken moral compass.

[@Winstonclawfinger]

I agree with your statement, but I go further. He oversimplifies psychology and never mentions modern therapy techniques that help a lot of people. He instead goes to extreme basics of cognitive talk therapy all the while pushing drugs as a solution. As this is a complex issue drugs do benefit a few, but studies prove that the harm vs benefit in most cases are suspect. He never mentions trauma or epigenetics, EMDR therapy. If you want a good person to help your mental wellness check out Gabor Mate.

[@ottrovgeisha2150]

IT's worse. He sees left everywhere, in everything he doesn't like. Keep in mind that he is supposed to be a PSYCHOLOGIST. But instead of human issues, he sees political conspiracies.

[@Ematched]

@@ottrovgeisha2150 my wild hypothesis is that all of Peterson's anxieties are explained by infidelity, if not full cuckoldry, that he has experienced. I've never seen direct evidence of this, but his obsession with "enforced monogamy" and fixation on adults with high sex drives both reveal scars he fails to conceal, especially during his many emotional breakdowns.

[@420SOHAIB]

Very nice ReMARX. I regret not taking your lectures while at LUMS.

[@amdusias2978]

Mr. Rahman, your video should be required viewing for people who are either considering Communism as their political slant or those who ignorantly attack it. You really need to appear on The Michael Brooks Show.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Thank you. I would love to be on his show. If you can connect us, I'd be grateful.

[@shantanusingh5320]

@@Taimur_Laal but sadly, he is now no more.

[@Sinleqeunnini]

@@shantanusingh5320 Yes. A very tragic fact. But perhaps Sam Seder's Majority Report?

[@Ematched]

@@Sinleqeunnini Totally! The Majority Report's forum is still vibrant, and a discussion of Marxism/Socialism in regards to U.S. policy would be a great way to further Brooks's legacy.

[@kylemccormack1785]

Well I mean, people who are "considering communism as their political slant" should first look to all of the abject horror produced by communism, as well as it's claims of total ownership over all people and over all property by revoking private property rights. It is a disgusting, murderous ideology expressly managed by poor, envious greedy and lazy people who want to take by force that which does not belong to them.

[@FrederickFNNoronha]

I enjoy your lectures, Prof. Greetings from India.

[@ChandraSekhar-qz2cm]

Anti-national

[@mdminhazulislam1034]

@@ChandraSekhar-qz2cm bruh

[@brighamsankar520]

@@ChandraSekhar-qz2cm bruh

[@thomassimms2574]

I don`t go for Marxism over Capitalism, but this professor does a nice job of refuting Jordan Peterson.

[@krishanchand835]

Thank you professor Rahman,you are a great teacher on Marxism,I wish you healthy and happy life,with respectful regards Dr Krishan Chand from India

[@suplified]

What Jordan has wrong Taking a caricature and presenting it as reality.

[@shantanusingh5320]

He didn't straw man, he literally showed the clips, neither did he take him out of context..

[@Ematched]

@Krónika Peterson is a buzzword robot. He's less interesting than an anti-Marxist version of a Magic 8-Ball.

[@oneidea1121]

@@Ematched hes a pshychologist with plenty of interesting things throughout his career , any person with common sense can see that, there are things i like and dislike about him but he is in fact interesting

[@Ematched]

@@oneidea1121 he really doesn't have anything interesting to say. The things he says that are correct are unoriginal, and the "original" things he says are incorrect.

[@oneidea1121]

@@Ematched how about you stop Generalizing and actually be specific, I'm trying to actually understand your points but you are leaving me empty ended.....

[@kt45675]

Im curious on how many people actually watched the debate and realized he cut Jordans answers to make it appear different then the argument presented?

[@DmGray]

Ah yes, the eternal "needs more context" defence for EVERYTHING Peterson says. The man preaches direct and concise answers, but doesn't ever offer them. He often includes dense and personal definitions for common terms & is FOREVER strawmanning positions he doesn't hold. Now, I'm no Peterson hater, I think he has plenty of insights to offer... but anyone reliant on the man for POLITICAL analysis is an idiot. That is not the man's field and it is obvious every time he talks about it. It's even more ironic when you realise that his own politics (liberalism) is what inspired & motivated much of the identity politics he despises & provides the foundation for the institutional biases he rightly opposes. Meanwhile, the leftists that he targets his vitriol on don't have nearly the power he supposes they do. A bunch of loud college kids & their enablers who are likely worried about losing money if they don't cater to a bunch of rich kids fantasies.

[@jcchat66]

​@@DmGray the irony here is that Marxism is not a political analyst in the first place. I am no fan of Jordan at all, do this is not a defense. However, Jordan deals with social and moral issues. As does Marx and Engels. Neither are political issues, which is the study of power and organization itself. Only modern day man, having pushed religion out of the limelight, has confused politics with social issues. The two are entirely different fields of study, and they do not actual overlap. It's merely that the Separation Clause or the Western push to separate social and political powers which endured for centuries, has slid back into the Greco-Roman way of thinking that they are the same. In essence, Marxism really is influenced by Greek thinking, combined with an ancient Germanic prejudice to invest kings with moral authority as well, and alien concept to most other cultures where they were ever separate powers. I have read much of Marx and his contemporaries, Antonio Gramsci being the most insightful one in my opinion. And they all show distinct prejudices of history and social study. Which we would expect, since they would not have had access to the volumes of history at our fingertips today. Any common person with access to the Internet and its vast historical records could show that Marx was ignorant. Jordan does not suffer this handicap as he lives in this age, not the 1800's. Why Marx is even still famous or talked about is the real wonder and mystery of our era.

[@jcchat66]

@@adityaoza7854 because like all religions, it deals with social and moral issues, not the politics of organizations (where power resides.) For example, Classical Liberalism is not a moral or social critique. It does not blame society or "class struggle" for issues, but power (politics) itself. Thus, Classical Liberalism seeks to regulate and control all forms of power, not society itself. Society is to control its institutions, not be controlled by them. Religions, and also Marxism, is about society itself and class, believing as many religions do that society needs to be controlled by institutions.

[@MartinBraonain]

26 people own more than 50% of the population - the centralisating force of capitalism. Great point.

[@geezer7818]

Own? How are they owned? I haven’t watched all the video btw.

[@koolademasta]

I don't know why that is a problem

[@robcampbell6700]

I studied Marx for nine years and found Peterson's contribution an embarrassment. His popularity gives him a sense of his own omniscience that is totally undeserved. When intellectuals become entertainers and audiences clap and cheer their rhetoric, we are in deep philosophical trouble. Truth is not established through popularity; just as science cannot operate on the basis of consensus. And Marx, Dr. Peterson, is primarily a social scientist; an economist and a philosopher and he doesn't let morality get in the way of these pursuits.

[@chubsley2000]

They should hash it out on Joe Rogan's podcast. I don't understand the difference between a hierarchy and a class hierarchy

[@raymondjensen4603]

Being popular doesn't make you an entertainer. There are plenty of entertainers that are not popular but are still entertainers. We would also agree that truth is not established by popularity but is also not hindered by it. The conjectures you've made are not supported. They are just slurs. Peterson just did a series of lectures at Cambridge, and I would recommend these as examples of clear, rigorous intellectual thought. As for not letting morality get in the way of your philosophy, this is the philosophy of an authoritarian. There were people sent to die in Soviet labor camps for the sole crime of owning a horse. That lack of morality did not produce a workers Utopia but did kill people by the millions all around the world. It stopped when it became apparent to even the most dogmatic the vanity of continuing. But they did keep their power by retaining their authoritarian governments. Human beings are nothing without their morality. Your nine years of studying Marx really didn't serve you well. In your Utopia I would be on my way to a Gulag.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

I'm so happy to find your channel.

[@DBCisco]

In the USA (at least) the terms Fascism. Socialism and Communism are interchangeable, as well as understood as Totalitarian Oligarchies or Utopian Democracies.. depending on whether you are a Democrat or Republican. 70 years of the 'Cold War' has poisoned our language.

[@aabbcc7532]

DB Cisco historically they are all branches from the same Utopianism, I.e Germany’s national socialists, Italy’s socialists under Mussolini, Lenin’s Soviet Union, it’s all the same restarted political utopian religion that places the government as god.

[@DBCisco]

@@aabbcc7532 Socialism, Communism and Capitalism are economic systems they are independent of politics and governments. For Example, China is a Capitalist Communist Dictatorship.

[@tenholindberg9862]

@@aabbcc7532 whatever you call it. The reality is humans created governing bodies on society, and look the corona virus situation how else ppl could manage the pandemic on move. But the important aspect is, that today if one want to argumentate some choise to government. That the framework is not government vs liberty. Ifone looks the scientific data , abstract views on human psyche or observation of market and human behaviour, the only rational view to make a dichotomy on government and alternative. Hence the real debate regarding this is limited government vs corporate tyranny.. as corp.. arent valuing for example human rights without enforcer

[@GnarledSage]

@@DBCisco 🤦🏻

[@sadshitpoorpoop]

Was delighted to see an update video in English. I find your videos very informative and liberating, just that, I do not understand the "sophisticated" Urdu language. Thanks for the amazing content.

[@marksulzman1551]

Spot on! This video demonstrates IMO how JP's sudden massive popularity has people elevating him beyond his capacity. He clearly is not that familiar with Marxism perhaps suggesting him believing his own "hype". He should watch this video and stick to Clinical Psychology. Also, yes many of these "reaches" happen to be Republican / Pro Corporate talking points.

[@kw1199]

Jordan use to be a socialist so that's what motivates his thinking. he understands that Marxism appeals more to envy and resentment and less to altrusion just as dovkeivsky realized. Jordan also analyzes economic systems through then lens of behavorial science and developmental psychology. To reduce his criticism of Marxism to "talking points" is insanely reductive and stupid given how multifaceted his critique is

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@kw1199 Well, at least the above professor addressed the points JBP brought up.

[@shaft9000]

"Clearly", eh? Hmmmm. Whenever someone uses the term "taking points", it tells me that they are vaguely referring to ideas that they themselves are unwilling or presently unable to consider, for whatever (lack of) reason. An attempt at dismissal done by side-stepping the matter entirely. No dice, Mark.

[@captainmaim]

I disagree, JBP is a leftist. He often recommends you think for your damn self and take his suggestions as only that. That's not right-wing politics. The part that makes it confusing is that his experience of hierarchy and tradition in general, and his pessimism about humans, means that he fears societal breakdown in particular because the result will be a fascist takeover and then exterminations... So he pushes back on critiques of society as such.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@captainmaim Well he describes what makes left and right over time, throughout multiple cultures. And that is his critique of Marxism, that it goes to the far extreme of the left, regardless of the esoteric nuances of Marx and Engels. Left wants things to change, advocate for porous borders in society, and is hierarchy critical. Right wants things to stay the same, pro borders, and current hierarchy instantiating. So I would say he is currently more right leaning, because his ideas are pro liberalized markets, and that is the norm attempting to be preserved.

[@josezdimera]

A great video, thank you. I think the main clash between the two points of view is that you argue from the position of philosophical theory of communism, while Mr Peterson argues based on practical implementation of that theory, that we have witnessed in 20th century. Being born and raised in communist Czechoslovakia I can tell you, that that regime was itself a caricature of what Marx describes and was much closer to Peterson's description. I believe, that communism is inherently unstable because in order to perpetuate itself it inevitably has to turn into authoritianism to keep enforcing equality. Equality is in direct opposition to the market forces and technological progress and nature of men.

[@user-oj3pg4vy1k]

>communist Czechoslovakia Socialist*. Communism is a stateless society. >I believe, that communism is inherently unstable because in order to perpetuate itself it inevitably has to turn into authoritianism to keep enforcing equality. And capitalism isn't authoritarian? It doesn't use violence to sustain itself? It doesn't exploit the third world? It doesn't crush unions? It doesn't wage wars for profit? Capitalists don't repress the working class? >enforcing equality Marx never talked about equality as an end goal, or even as a desirable goal. Neither did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fanon, Athusser or any other marxist thinker that I know >Equality is in direct opposition to the market forces "Market forces" is an extremely idealistic concept that only came to be during capitalism. Hell, can you even describe what it is? >technological progress The USSR went from a feudal shithole to launching the first satellite into space in less than 50 years. What are you talking about? >nature of men. If it exists (which is doubtful, seeing how differently people can act in different contexts) science shows that we are inherently more altruistic than selfish. If anything, it is capitalism that goes against human nature by commodifying every human need and alienating people from each other. Here is the source for that claim: www.nature.com/articles/nature11467

[@josezdimera]

@@user-oj3pg4vy1k 1. socialist vs communist - it was an authoritarian regime ruled by Communist party of czechoslovakia. not a socialist party. the idea was to get to communism through authoritarian socialism. marxism-leninism was a compulsory field of study in every university. do you have an example of practical implementation of communism? maybe the comunes (kibutzes in israel - where all of them turned to regular capitalism or failed?) the point is, that i am not arguing about theory, but what happened when someone tried to implement the theory in real life. 2. enforcing equality - there was no private capital in ČSSR - all means of production were owned by state (or "collectives" in some cases) just as Marx envisioned. let me tell you how wages were determined in my country - there was a table devised by someone in government based on your position , job title, and years you spent in that position. everyone matching the one table row was paid the same. meaning there was no incentive for competiotion and people were complacent. also to get any higher level position you had to be a member of communist party. 3. "market forces" to explain - i was talking about a process where value of ideas, products and services are determined by the needs and demand of the consumers through a rather complex but natural process of price / demand feedback. which breeds a competition between producers to bring a better or new product or service for lower price as long as there is a demand for it. This did not exist in ČSSR. the production plans of the state owned enterprises were determined by bureaucrats 5 years ahead as well as the prices of those products and services. the result was that there were periodically shortages of certain goods (funnily enough toilet paper used to be scarce product quite often) and then there we stores full of one type of product, that no one wanted. you talk about market forces as an "idealistic concept" - but that is a concept that has served successfully to fulfill the needs of people long before capitalism came about and still works today much better than the central planning of the communist party. 5. launch of Sputnik and Gagarin and cosmic program - well yeah. that and military research and progress was about the only thing that CCCP achieved in terms of technological advancement. because it was a matter of prestige and competiotion with the US. At the same time they were not able to produce a car or electronics that could compete with anything produced in western world (and still can't). Somehow they forgot to serve the proletariat in the process of building communist utopia. The whole economy was based on exploiting natural deposits like oil and gas. and it still is in current Russia. In 40 years since communists dismantled democracy, Czechoslovakia went from being a modern country on par with rest of the Europe with modern and world famous brands like "Škoda" cars, "CZ" and "JAWA" bikes, "BATA" shoes to the backwater shithole with living standard of 33% compared to the western Europe 6. nature of men - well I believe man are reproductive vehicles for genes and that to large extent dictates their nature - we're not necessarily selfish or altruistic - both strategies can work, often at the same time being employed by the same human being. however there always was competition for resources and the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" just does not work until we get to the post-scarcity economy. And believe me, communism would not get us there.

[@user-oj3pg4vy1k]

@@josezdimera 1. So you admit that the system was socialist? 2. I see a lack of backstabbing and competitiveness as a plus. Is the system, where some guy can make over 3 times your salary just because he is a son of the boss better? Depression and a general increase in mental ilness rates say no 3. >i was talking about a process where value of ideas, products and services are determined by the needs and demand of the consumers through a rather complex but natural process of price / demand feedbac And where exactly do we see it in the real world? Don't businesses utilize internal planing? >which breeds a competition between producers to bring a better or new product or service for lower price as long as there is a demand for it The real world doesn't work like economics textbooks. Where exactly do you see this competition? Everything is dominated by oligopolies and the choices are pretty arbitrary. Sure, you CAN choose between 2 brands of bottled water, but they are both owned by Nestle. Businesses exist only to make money. They don't care about demands of the people, hence why we have homelessness and malnutrition. Any shady practice that a business can get away with will almost instantly be copied by other businesses to make a profit. >a concept that has served successfully to fulfill the needs of people There are homeless people on the street, mate 4. >only thing that CCCP achieved in terms of technological advancement Radio? Nuclear reactor? The very first phone? Advancements in agriculture? >The whole economy was based on exploiting natural deposits like oil and gas. and it still is in current Russia Capitalism DOESN'T exploit natural resources to the point that the whole world is threatened by climate collapse? It DOESN'T wage wars for foreign resources? The US DIDN'T invade Iraq for oil? it DOESN'T stage coups? >In 40 years since communists dismantled democracy, Czechoslovakia went from being a modern country on par with rest of the Europe Funnily enough, the reverse happened with Eastern Europe and Russia. Since the switch to capitalism the production plummited, life expectancy shrinked and people stated actively emigrating. The effects of capitalism has been disastrous for us. 5. >just does not work until we get to the post-scarcity economy. We already have enough food to feed over 10 billion people. There are more houses than homeless people, but the inefficiency of capitalism makes it so that people still suffer

[@xenoblad]

@@user-oj3pg4vy1k IIRC regarding the phone, the USSR invented the first cell phone, but not the first regular phone.

[@buz-hn7zw]

@@josezdimera Spot on sir say space and military ,looks like that itself is a endorsement of market economy.Even here they could not transform these technologies into new goods and services for the people as they lived in a command economy .The demands of the people was "defined"by the bureaucrats.

[@asenaemre]

Thank you for the most cogent critique of JP's view on Marxism I've come across so far. My gratitude. It is a shame that my favorite Valrus in Human Form (Slavoy) did not pursue this sort of response to JP.

[@MinhajMalik]

Your channel is very underrated.

[@aliqasim4956]

Yuval Noah Harari has predicted the emergence of the useless class in the coming future due to scientific progress. What are your views on it? Thanks

[@danyalghaznavi6818]

Rehashing old Marxist theses on the reserve army of labor.

[@Taimur_Laal]

That's a pretty harsh assessment of JP. I don't think he is completely useless :)

[@danyalghaznavi6818]

@@Taimur_Laal I was talking about that claim about Yuval Hariri. But on J.P since u mention it, nah he's the enemy; he's their new best faux intellectual who puts the false in false opposition. It may not be too late but he gets to the target audience because the "left" has no actual response in the mainstream against him. Zizek is good but still too apologetic. Which is why urs is probably the best response, as confirmed by a lot of comments here, to date.

[@vancouverterry9142]

Ah, the concept of "the useless class" -- yes, THAT is the concept we need! It would include Leftist schoolteacher types from the "snake pit" faculties that are spreading the acid of social dissolution solely for the purposes of their consciously- or subconsciously-hidden PERSONAL AGENDAS, and it would also include their so-called "educated" so-called "students". The "useless class" is the most courteous and diplomatic accurate term for them all, so I thank you for making mention of it. I must look into it further.

[@vancouverterry9142]

We have a thriving useless class already, and a lot of it is due to humanities faculties. IF YOU LOOK REALLY CLOSELY AND CAREFULLY, you can see the paradoxical simplifying effect of escalating complexity is simplifying vast hordes of people into simpletons. Take a close, careful look and you'll see that.

[@thomaspynchon8400]

This is the most thorough refutation of that Kermit LMAO. He also says wild, exaggerated things about postmodernism without reading a single literature.

[@dimetronome]

As a fellow liberal arts professor, I must say that this is by far the best response to Jordan Peterson’s mischaracterization of Marxism I have seen (and your response is so well-organized and to the point!). Excellent work, sir!

[@marcelbenner993]

I find it interesting that this should be the best response. While it is well organized and calmly presented (I bet that Peterson mischaracterizes some things of Marxism, so correcting him is fair), I see inconsistencies, dishonesty or misrepresentation by Rahman too, as I pointed out in my longer reply here. If this is the best representation of Marxism, I seriously have troube understanding how one can follow these ideas in 2021.

[@vancouverterry9142]

Another self-serving glorified school teacher grateful to see some confirmation bias that serves his immensely privileged days as he waits for yet-easier days on a comfy pension. Just take a look at the mess you glorified school teachers are fueling and worsening. Why aren't you working to salvage the dumbest generations (your graduates) from whatever sort of Marxism your type has fed or encouraged in them? And in the end you'll probably say "oh, that wasn't REAL Marxism" or whatever, as Chomsky says about all the catastrophic failures of all forms of Marxism. As Peterson points out (not about Chomsky specifically), saying that is a veiled claim that if they, the liberal arts professor-types who say it, were in charge, it would have been a cakewalk to socialist utopia had their pontifications been properly followed, rather than the hellish, maybe irreversible, situations that Leftist professors in the "snake pit faculties" are ACTUALLY facilitating and enabling into existence. You'd be immensely more valuable to society if you caught on to what is horrifying Peterson about what's going on. Whether his presentation needs some obscurantist fine-tuning or not is not the point. And ALL MARXISTS are a generation or two behind science -- if you could catch up with science (and don't go Foucault on me, please -- VIABLE understandings are a small, finite set ONLY), you'd see the serious problems of today are being hugely misunderstood and worsened by the woefully under-developed "thinkers" that are coming out of the liberal arts academies.

[@dimetronome]

@@vancouverterry9142 You make a lot of assumptions about me, based on a very short response. You seem to believe that I'm a Marxist and that my issue with Peterson is that he criticizes and disagrees with Marxism, but that's not even the case (I'm actually a libertarian). My problem is that Peterson doesn't even know what Marxism is, so he misrepresents Marxism and builds a straw man to argue against. I'm not making any judgements about how right or wrong Marx was. Marx was wrong about a great many things, but that's not the point here. The point is that Peterson mischaracterizes Marxist theory. I have a problem when any philosopher's ideas are misrepresented, even the ones I completely disagree with. I provide my students with an honest overview of many different theories and philosophies (in the philosopher's own words) and it's up to them to decide what they want to believe in. I'm not in the business of making people into socialists, and I honestly don't care what their political ideologies are.

[@dimetronome]

@@wdcurry111 I'm not a commie. I'm just a libertarian who doesn't like it when any philosopher's ideas are mischaracterized (even the ones I disagree with).

[@dimetronome]

@@marcelbenner993 I agree with you that Dr. Rahman's response isn't entirely accurate, but it is the best I've seen by far (if you've seen better responses, I'd be interested in seeing them). My concern isn't so much about making Marx look good (I'm not a Marxist), but with being honest about Marxist philosophy. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to follow Marxism in the 21st century, although it's possible we can still learn some valuable insights from him (like any other philosopher). After all, Marx lived during a completely different era in the history of capitalism, and so many of his predictions were wrong or irrelevant to how capitalism is today. I think the dominant view among academics (including philosophers and economists) is that Marxism can provide a useful critique of capitalism, but it should not be used to make predictions or as any kind of political action plan. After all, Marxism has lost a lot of credibility due to its failed predictions, the evils that were committed in its name (even though the authoritarian version of Marxism we see in Communist regimes is more the creation of Lenin than Marx), and the fact that Marxism is more pseudoscience than social science (ex. many Marxist claims are not testable or falsifiable). One issue I have with Marxism is that it is a political/economic ideology centred on the beliefs of only one man, which limits critical thinking and inevitability leads to a cult-like attitude by many Marxists who are blind to his flaws and insist he was right about everything (no philosopher is).

[@SomethingImpromptu]

Hey, this was a very good video, but I just want to mention- it’s very common, in my experience, to see Marxists misrepresent or generalize about anarchist positions, and for anarchists to misrepresent or generalize Marxist positions. I can only speculate about why (perhaps because they don’t expose themselves to enough theory/history outside of the traditions they already agree with- I’m not sure-) but nonetheless, I notice a bit of that here. At 6:10 you say “Karl Marx & Engels, unlike postmodernists & anarchists, are not opposed to all forms of authority or hierarchy.” I’m not going to respond to this assertion about postmodernists, as I’m not well-read enough in their political theorists to feel qualified, but as someone who has read & takes influence from a broad range of both Marxists & anarchists, I can tell you that it is not true that anarchists as a rule are “opposed to all forms of authority or hierarchy.” Of course, I have to speak in generalizations here, as one would to make statements about “Marxists/Marxism” in general (there are many different tendencies of anarchism as there are of Marxism). But I think a pretty strong generalization is to say that a central tenet of anarchism is that we ought to *challenge* social authorities & hierarchies, to question whether they are *legitimate*, but quite broadly, most tendencies of anarchists do believe that there are legitimate authorities/hierarchies. The thing is, it’s blatantly obvious that some authorities/hierarchies are legitimate, are justified, which is why I think this is worth mentioning- because painting anarchists as these insane people who just want to tear down literally every hierarchy/authority simply because they are hierarchies/authorities is exactly the kind of caricature that I see often on the more statist side of the left, where it seems people often don’t bother to make an informed, good faith attempt to represent what anarchists believe, instead just presenting this wacky, exaggerated version that anyone sane would reject out of hand. Don’t get me wrong; I see many anarchists do the same to Marxists, but still, aa someone who feels they’ve gained a great deal from learning what both Marx/Marxists & anarchists actually believe, I think it’s counterproductive & that spreading these misimpressions only helps to close leftists off from other valuable schools of thought, simply because they think they already know that their whole body of work must be founded on nonsense if they believe the things that the other side of the divide claims they believe. To get back to the specific point- anarchists frequently give common examples of *legitimate exercises of authority* & *legitimate hierarchies*. For instance, anarchists tend to agree that the authority parents exert over children is justified. The government imposing stoplights & other traffic laws is an exercise of authority, but they would generally agree that it’s perfectly legitimate, because it vastly improves our lives by making it possible for society to run in a world where people need to travel without crashing into one another, & the imposition of traffic lights isn’t exploitative or otherwise abusive. On the other hand, our current system or traffic ticketing IS very arguably illegitimate. If you’re a working class person, a single $400 traffic/parking ticket could have catastrophic consequences, rendering you unable to afford food, housing, or medicine for the month, but if you’re a billionaire, you could literally get 100,000 tickets & have it not impact your day to day life whatsoever (not to mention that most of the money from these tickets goes to finance a neoliberal corporate state whose programs are overwhelmingly designed to benefit the ultra-wealthy sector of the bourgeoisie, who are able to serve as major donors in our privately financed electoral system & thereby buy influence/control in our government- these factors are where you get into what I think many would agree are illegitimate forms of hierarchy/authority, whether you’re an anarchist or a Marxist. This process of analyzing and questioning hierarchies/authorities is at the heart of anarchist thought- far from just baselessly attempting to burn down anything which isn’t perfectly horizontal, they are all about discerning what forms are justified & desirable and which are not. Anarchists are generally in favor of democracy, but plenty of them acknowledge that *some* mechanisms of representation & federation are simply a necessity in order to govern on the same of a nation; many anarchists have proposed federated systems in which workers in localized councils would elect representatives to higher assemblies (not unlike those advocated by council communists & other left Marxists). The key is that power starts from the bottom (with the working claaa) upwards, and that the representative assemblies on higher levels are ultimately accountable & responsive to the broad base of their working class constituents- there are many ideas about how to achieve & maintain this in a way which is both legitimate & effective, from liquid democracy to making it easy for enough of the constituency to replace representatives who don’t carry out their will/interests, to making the positions very termporary (I shouldn’t have to tell anyone that there is a body of theoretical work on democracy which extends to antiquity, and for the last 200+ years anarchists have been dealing with & contributing to this discourse, bringing their own lens of analysis to the table). Quite a lot of the beliefs I find Marxists commonly hold about anarchists as an umbrella group are simply vast, reductionistic generalized oversimplification based on some cherrypicked lines out of the work of one or two anarchists, often 200 years ago (before much of the depth & diversity of the tradition that exists today had developed)... And, again, same with anarchists towards Marxists- taking a few particularly objectionable sounding lines written by Marxists, or the thoughts of a few 16-18 year old ones they encountered online, and just dismissing a massive, highly differentiated body of very valuable work on that basis... I personally know I’ve gained a lot from exposing myself to & really developing a solid understand & background in both of these tendencies, and I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea that, rather than treating political theory like a dogmatic, sectarian team sport where you gain points for “purity,” we should be analyzing both of these traditions, taking what’s right from both, criticizing & rejecting what’s wrong, & synthesizing a more developed, more effective theory than either was originally, to begin to resolve at least some of the antagonism between anarchists & Marxists, & to come out of it with a theory which will yield better results. The people who refuse to critique or reform either anarchism or Marxism are stuck in the same mindset as those who pretend the US Constitution is a perfect document, or that capitalism is the best system we can hope for because it already exists. Neither the orthodoxy of anarchism nor of Marxism/the work of Marx) has a perfect predictive record, neither has prescriptions which are optimally formulated for modern day, globalized, neoliberal late-capitalism; neither is totally flawless. And neither is monolithic- there are very intelligent people taking this into account & internally critiquing/reforming the theory of both. My point is simply that both have important ideas & lenses to offer and understanding both in depth broadens your frame of reference, arms you with analytical capacities & a depth of knowledge which you can’t get from only understanding one or the other & the absurd, misrepresentative caricatures the in-group paints of the out-group. It’s much harder to reduce the other to these hyperbolic talking points (“oh, anarchists don’t believe in participating in political struggle,” “oh, Marxists are all authoritarians who want to install a new ruling class-“ neither of which are true) when you have the background knowledge or the intricacies & diversity of what both of these traditions actually say. Hell, it can be very useful & informative to read theory that you completely disagree with (Adam Smith is sometimes almost Marxist-sounding, but your Ricardo, your Friedman, your Mises, your fascists of various stripes, Keynes, social democrats- really any)... But I think it’s particularly fruitful to broaden & deepen your knowledge-base in these very key radical left tendencies, because nearly everything they discuss is relevant & in both cases there are many occasions where the one holds insights that fall into the blind spots of the other. That said, never read Jordan Peterson. It’s not even good hate-reading, it’s just boring & varies from obvious common-sense to absolutely incoherent when he steps into the domain of politics, where he has no clue what he’s talking about.

[@jornoporno05]

This was a very informative read, thank you!

[@MoosaIslamic]

Very interesting read indeed. Thank you

[@Thewonderingminds]

""".... we should be analyzing both of these traditions, taking what’s right from both, criticizing & rejecting what’s wrong, & synthesizing a more developed, more effective theory than either was originally, to begin to resolve at least some of the antagonism between anarchists & Marxists, & to come out of it with a theory which will yield better results. """" _How impossible it is to realize the inherent fallacy of the afore written argument ??_

[@tonykennedy1615]

Communism kills. Always. Every single time. Sheeeesh.

[@SomethingImpromptu]

Tony Kennedy Tony Kennedy First, that’s not true. Certain authoritarian tendencies who believe communism can/should be brought about through a repressive dictatorial state have killed significant numbers of people- that is unquestionably true. But that’s only some communists; other communist traditions (who were critical of those dictatorial states and authoritarian traditions all along) have not. Second, capitalism has killed enormous numbers of people too. Whether from deprivation (the number of people who died of deprivation under capitalism *in a single capitalist country like India in the 20th century alone* is insanely high. But IMO it serves no purpose except as political propaganda to try enumerate exactly how many people died because of certain economic policies (here we would be talking about state socialism, not communism, vs capitalism)... Notoriously unrealistic propaganda like the Black Book of Communism comes up with these insane numbers which even mainstream historians agree aren’t true... But think about it. How do you count “deaths due to socialism” or “deaths due to capitalism?” In any society, there are countless other factors at play besides the mode of production. I mean, say there’s a famine, and lots of people die. How do you objectively determine whether the famine was an avoidable consequence solely of economic policy, versus being a natural famine (which do happen unavoidably)? How do you scientifically determine how many of those deaths would’ve been avoided in the other economic system? More to the point, if somebody dies when they’re 50 from bad health/malnutrition in that economy, does that count as a death because of socialism? What if it’s when they’re 40? 30? 20? 60? 70? How do you scientifically determine exactly which deaths are “because of socialism” or capitalism? The answer is “You don’t.” If you want to demonize the system that existed in that time and place, then you count every single death you can possibly find to blame purely on the economic system so you get a crazy high number (people die all the time and economics is often a factor). If you want to paint it as a good, desirable system then you set rigid standards where you can’t count many deaths. The Black Book of Communism’s methodology was that they literally set out intentionally to hit some insanely high number, and then go figure: they counted in such a way that they hit it. Crazy how that works. You could EASILY do the same thing with capitalism, and hit a much higher number, but again, I don’t think that’d be a very scientific pursuit... All those “hundreds of millions” numbers, and even the Black Book’s 94 million, have been debunked, and you should question the motivations of anyone who is trying to convince you communism is inherently more dangerous than fascism/Nazism. But despite all that, these numbers still get tossed around without any critical thinking whatsoever. It’s not about objectively measuring the historical deaths caused by different systems comparatively, it’s not about understanding the world. It’s about convincing people communism is the worst force imaginable, some horrific bogeyman worse than Nazism, to protect the ruling class who continues to screw us over and actually do cause deprivation on the scale of billions day after day. But yeah, brutal mass murdering dictatorships have been supported and enabled to kill countless people in the name of defending capitalism too, countless have gone hungry or died of preventable diseases because they were denied healthcare in capitalism or died of exposure because they couldn’t secure housing in a capitalist market, and so on, and if you conveniently want to ignore all of those deaths then it’s clear that you don’t care about finding the truth of the matter. Third, just something worth learning: communism is communists’ *end goal.* It’s a mode of production. The economic system in the USSR, China, Vietnam, you name it- it was never communism. The actual socio-economic system of communism would be stateless, so it’s ironic to blame all these deaths caused by dictatorial states on “communism.” As I alluded to before, there are many different kinds of communist schools of thought (people who believe a communist mode of production & economic system is the most desirable end goal). Some are statist (believe strong, often dictatorial, states are necessary to eventually achieve communism). Some, like council communists, other left Marxists, and anarchocommunists, are anti-statist (believe greater democracy and liberation from some of the worst excesses of state power is the necessary and desirable approach to achieve communism). Blaming Stalin & Mao’s atrocities on “communism” as a whole is literally like blaming all fascist death squads and concentration camps and mass killings on “capitalism,” just because that was the economic system they were advocating/defending (except that in those states, there actually was a form of capitalism, whereas in states controlled by Communist Parties, the economy was not communist). There is an authoritarian right & a libertarian right, and there is an authoritarian left & a libertarian left, and if we take this extremely reductuonistic view that the actions & consequences of the MOST extremely authoritarian variants should be blamed on the economic system as a whole, then okay- we don’t have to differentiate between Stalin & the most anti-authoritarian socialist/communist revolutionaries... In that case we don’t have to differentiate between Hitler or Mussolini or Bolsonaro or Pinochet & Rothbard or Mises or any other right-libertarian. By your logic it’s fair to just count all their victims as just “victims of capitalism,” on top of all the people who do die preventably in capitalism every day.

[@VeryAverageGirl]

How very interesting. Thank you for sharing this

[@PhysConcept]

I have watched this debate some days ago and it made be believe firmly that Mr. Peterson does not know anything about Dialectics. He has not even introduced to Hegel. Binary opposites and bifurcation of things into two absolute categories is not the method by which dialectics work.

[@Jardarny]

Great video and a wonderful reply to the Peterson / Zizek debate. I watched the Zizek Peterson debate and was very disappointed, not only by Peterson's lack of knowledge and understanding of Marxism - and the implict very lax effort to remedy that even in the context of the debate! - but also, and perhaps even more so, by Zizek's failure to correct him. Dr. Rahman however, here provides good explanations and corrections to Peterson, in a very clear and concise way, and I would love to see the debate continue on such a high level as is presented here. And I agree with Dr. Rahman in that I believe that Peterson is capable of that, at least if he could get past his initial prejudice, do some proper reading on Marx and Engels (and perhaps economic theory in general), and then present his arguments. To Peterson's defense though, he is not a professor of economics and getting enough knowledge and a deep enough understanding of economic theory would require a lot of effort. But, as he is an academic and talks about Marxism a lot, he should make the effort. What I could wish for from Dr. Rahman though was perhaps to shed some light on the difference between Marxism as presented by Marx and Engels, and Marxism filtered through Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro. At least in my view, the former were intellectual heavyweights while the latter are perhaps more aptly labelled as tyrannical, cynical madmen, and it is sad that Marxism more often is connected to and represented by them than by Marx and Engels themselves.

[@KobiAmoMensah]

Absolutely smashing! Thank you, Dr. Rahman! I love it! But I still like JP all the same.

[@Lahoria9]

Ecellent lecture. It appears as if karl max is speaking through you. Do you think USSR was an accurate marxist system of governance? Dont you think governance in itself is a complex problem that whoever tries to govern either communist or capitalist deviate from its real objective? Thanks for this very informative world class lecture. I wonder how people have different magnitude of concerns.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Thank you. You have asked some very good questions. I think I will need some time to answer them.

[@Lahoria9]

@@Taimur_Laal very well. I'm waiting then.

[@ramireznoy]

Very good questions. Let me give you my opinion. By no means the USSR was an accurate marxist system. It may have started pointing to be one, but the form of government, the social organization and the corruption of power lead to something very different. For starters, the workers never ever got any power, any real power, other than playing around with some social organization under the eye of the "communist" party. Furthermore, the class struggle was a hijacked term to actually describe the struggle of the political class to keep the power. Sadly, this pretty much describes any "socialist" or "communist" government. Government is a complex task, like anything involving many individuals. If marriages can be complex, imagine dealing with the needs and wants of the whole society. But there is a gotcha... What makes a good government? One that thinks about everything in behalf of the people; or one that allows the people to think about everything by themselves? The first one is kind of the root reason for so many failures, the second one is still to be seen. But something is telling me it is easier to go by the second one... if the power representatives are willing to give it up.

[@lesliengwa255]

I wish I could 'tag' professor Peterson... he needs to hear this. I agree that hierarchy (probably ) precedes class.

[@randomflux5902]

Peterson's world view may help a few struggling teenagers and people at a low point in their lives but that's all there is to him. This is just one aspect of his understanding that you have highlighted where he misconstrued something. He is wrong about a lot of things. But because of the self-help stuff he preaches, he has a following. I enjoyed the thorough analysis! Your channel is underrated.

[@kklh7918]

Honestly, I think you guys are wrong but I'm willing to hear what you have to say about peterson. Tell me, give me a perfect example of why he doesn't understand the communist manifesto or marxism? I have read it and he seems to be on the money.

[@randomflux5902]

@@kklh7918 Did you even see the video? The analysis has plenty of examples

[@ckncoke]

"a few struggling teenagers" more then 3M, not 74k ;)

[@natalien.6051]

@@ckncoke The reach of ideas doesn't mean that the idea ia good. Exmples are: Religion, Slavery, Sexism, Monarchy etc. Look at the ideas arguments and not how much it is spread.

[@vancouverterry9142]

@@natalien.6051 The implication of your post is that you know which ideas are good and which are not. Whence your insight and knowledge, then? Do you have ANY critical thinking abilities? Do you have better thoughts than Peterson has about what he talks about? Or do you just swallow cliches and follow politically-correct herds of sheeple? Or do you do nothing and have nothing to contribute while you talk down about those who really are engaged with the big social issues of the day? Take a look at yourself, not at whatever big subjects you can pose as a judge of.

[@Eyesayah]

Very refreshing response to the case against Marxism laid out by Mr. Peterson. My early response to Mr. Peterson was positive. On reflection, however, he resembles others who find the need to attack irresistible. As contrasted with Mr. Rahman, more heated. I salute the flag of personal responsibility and would like to see it extended to active participation in political life. I don't know if anyone could confidently predict that increasing class inequality will work out in any way other than ongoing adjustments. It appears most will be judging themselves primarily as consumers, and on varying standards on that point.

[@manlymanmann7592]

your comment section is a mess. they're bringing the rest of the shady arguments against marxism, (since you did such a good job of covering most of them) and there is no one here to refute them.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Manly ManMann I can reply to all of them but it would take a while.

[@manlymanmann7592]

@@Taimur_Laal I know, I wish I was a better marxist scholar because I'd love to do some more of the replying. unfortunately, by using Peterson as your example, you're going to get many trolls who don't like to think for themselves, or even watch your video who spread misinformation about marxism and the history of marxist nation states.

[@jasonrichard7560]

@@Taimur_Laal educate yourself, instead of just agreeing and then you could have a conversation with a troll. I have a feeling you have no clue to what's really going on. Look up Klaus Shwab and WORL ECONOMIC FORUM an independent foundation.

[@kylemccormack1785]

@@manlymanmann7592 Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "troll". In fact, most of you are using the term incorrectly. A troll is someone who posts SOLELY to engage others and trick them into pointless arguments. That's not what is happening here. What IS happening is that Taimur Rahman here is a very well trained Marxist, and he's being exposed all the same. We actually don't WANT you glorious geniuses leading the world. Literally the only idea any of you has ever had is "take other people's stuff by force". It's a shitty idea and we're happy to gun you all down next time you try.

[@manlymanmann7592]

@JD123483 go away. you're incoherent.

[@michaelweber5702]

I am impressed with Dr. Rahman's intelligent refutations of Dr. Peterson's analysis on Karl Marx but how could we have Communist societies with human nature the way it is so it seems like 'pie in the sky' as every attempt of socialism brings such a lack of freedom , so it seems to me that we need a free market capitalist democracy , not crony corrupt capitalism...

[@lewisbilly12353]

Well JBP explains why communism leads to tyranny. That the amount of authority required to regulate that much of people's lives naturally leads to tyranny. I am disappointed with the first part of this response however. I feel as if he attempted to argue on a technicality of JBP talk about hierarchies. I feel as if Rhaman did not attempt to fit JBP criticism properly into a class hierarchy. Just going JBP saying hierarchy in general, and that Marx and Engels did not say hierarchy in general, ect ect ect.

[@Achrononmaster]

Communism is not a monolith. When state centralized yes, it does lead to natural tyranny. But "free market capitalism" is an even worse contradiction. There is no free market when wealth is accumulated, and how do you prevent wealth accumulation in an initial free market. You cannot. The only plausible solution for a democracy is to allow both private enterprise and socialism. You socialize universal basic needs, and allow privatization of other production. a democracy gets to fine tune and constantly revise what the people broadly accept is a universal basic need (education, food, homes, electricity, a job, justice system, security, for starters). as a nation becomes more prosperous it can expand, as it democratically pleases, what it chooses to have as a state provided universal need.

[@captainmaim]

@@lewisbilly12353 Dr. Rhaman seems to switch from speaking of individuals to speaking of groups to speaking of civilizations as if those aren't three different things. Dr. Peterson nearly always focuses on the individual in society as a practical focus. That's a very different sandbox. Dr. Peterson argues that Marxist interpretations always lead to horrors because they require a level of conformity that humans can't so. Perhaps the philosophy is internally consistent, but humans can't dance to that song.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@captainmaim Well, there are studies on why. Humans at most have a maximum capacity of 500 social connections. Phd biologist Bret Weinstein says this is why it won't work. Basically, you are not incentivized to work for the benefit of others outside of your own direct social group. There was an experiment done in which people chose to pay into an account. At the end of the month, the account would be doubled but distributed evenly. Well, people paid less and less into it over time until they did not at all. So, Socialism/Communism, or equality of outcome/ sharing the means of production, cannot incentivize it well, so it must use violence as the incentive to produce. Essentially, everyone becomes a slave to "everyone else", but really just the hegemonic power that decides the violence.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@Achrononmaster I think you have a basic flaw in your free market argument. Getting wealth is not a zero sum game. Just because one person gets it, does not mean someone else loses out inherently. Now, there is a problem with rent seeking, as in getting money for some arbitrary control of a bottleneck or barrier. For example, if you are the only owner of land between to cities, and you charge exorbitant prices for transport between the two, and all you gotta do is own land. That and many other practical reasons is why free market is a bad idea, not "if one person gains, everyone else loses"

[@dollhouse3009]

I bow down before my new master.

[@yeboscrebo4451]

Doll House really? This guy was full of nonsense.

[@metolse475]

@@yeboscrebo4451 How so?

[@marcelbenner993]

I find it interesting that this should be the best response to Peterson like many here suggest. While it is well organized and calmly presented (I bet that Peterson mischaracterizes some things of Marxism, so correcting him is fair), I see inconsistencies, dishonesty or misrepresentation by Rahman too, as I pointed out in my longer reply here a couple of minutes ago. If this is the best representation of Marxism, I seriously have troube understanding how one can follow these ideas in 2021.

[@marcelbenner993]

He might be correct in refuting Petereson's misunderstandings or mischaracterizations, but to be honest he didn't do a very good job of defending Marxism economically. You can read my reply I posted a couple of minutes ago for further info (turned out a bit long though).

[@thevulgarhegelian4676]

Taking Peterson to school. Great insights, so helpful to see how this debating has gone off the rails. Ill give Peterson this he has made the greatest strewman argument of Marxism that i have ever seen. He should have studied what Marx said and not just Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[@mr.pickle6744]

Jordan Peterson is wrong because he gets the “Us vs Them”, dichotomy wrong. Thank you for clarifying the error. It is clearly, “Them vs Us”, how could Peterson be so careless.

[@kikianasahmad2328]

I'm RIGHT WINGER. But I like to learn a lot of new things from your channel.

[@jurtjeisok]

A lot more interesting than listening to Peterson, because dr. Rahman actually backs up his claims with evidence, while in the case of Peterson we just need to take his word for his interpretations, if you even can extract something meaningful from the word salads he produces to begin with

[@vancouverterry9142]

You're speaking from a pitifully-limited grasp of Peterson's work. I think I am beginning to see the pattern in those who so superficially criticize or dismiss Peterson. His critics really haven't given the range and depth of his work much thought. Laziness, bias, and an unbridgeable IQ gap, it looks like.

[@shahsadsaadu5817]

@@vancouverterry9142 none of it. Peterson is just straight up stupidly shallow.

[@LizaFan]

@@vancouverterry9142 Christ, your comments under this video. Seek help, you angry, little man.

[@vancouverterry9142]

@@LizaFan Wake up to the fact your mind is just swimming in dogma, without any substantial grounding in education and without competent thinking abilities.

[@ashutoshagnihotri8739]

Peterson seems to be strawman personified in the above lecture you worked upon. Good Job Doc!

[@SeppOzunda]

Highly informative channel, useful and pretty necessary in these days of populism and stereotypes, which are hindering knowledge to grow. Very helpful to counter this, thank you very much.

[@buddydinesh]

Greetings from Sri Lanka. It is an enjoyable lecture to listen to. This reminded me of my early days with JVP & now degenerated into popular leftwing politics as a leading political party in Sri Lanka. We need passionate academics like you in our country as well.

[@jamesockelford514]

I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson. But respect to Dr. Taimur's response - I thought aspects of it were excellent.

[@jamesockelford514]

Having said that, using Stalinist industrialization methods as a counterargument for growth I find appalling. What happened during the creation of Magnitogorsk (this being just one of the dozens of brutality cases during industrialization, including the Holodomor) is not a model that should be championed. These methods must be universally denounced.

[@giuseppesordu3824]

I think Peterson never really read the communist manifesto.

[@Achrononmaster]

Yes. But worse, he certainly never read "Capital", which was a heck of a lot more than economic reductionism..

[@gregorymenillo4185]

Excellent, thank you. This is a lucid, informed, and overall very fair lecture response. I have subscribed, and I’m looking forward to more material from you! Thanks again!

[@crazylegs8387]

Dr. Rahman, thank you for this analysis. Maybe you can even debate Peterson on his inane assertions, in the future.

[@Winstonclawfinger]

Peterson would never debate him. He dodged a debate with dr Richard wolffe already and knows he would make himself look stupid.

[@anthonygaribaldi9938]

So has Jordan Peterson never read Marx or is he just exceedingly disingenuous?

[@mirpurirepublicanarmypakis5939]

@ä You should be glad that the Guy in the Video is wanting to Improve his own country.

[@mirpurirepublicanarmypakis5939]

@ä Ok 👍

[@matthewkopp2391]

Anthony Garibaldi he is a propagandist of western capitalism. Any nation can find a better solution than his idiocy. It is merely a desperate attempt to hold onto a shred of power.

[@matthewkopp2391]

He never read Marx and is the latest propagandist trying to dispel the self evident.

[@TangieTown81]

@@matthewkopp2391 The "self evident"? That Marxist philosophy is immoral and unethical and in practice is even worse?

[@jonkjolstad]

By far one of the very best answers I've heard, and there have been many by now. Many thanks. If only angry young men in the White world would listen...

[@kw1199]

thats the thing about philosophy.. it all sounds good if it can be articulated. The question is what does reality and past experience prove? Marxism as a political doctrine has failed tremendously everywhere it has been tried. And please don't respond with the no true scottsman fallacy of "real communism wasn't tried."

[@KirilDimitrov86]

There is no White world just like there isn't a Brown or Black world. This is typical identitarian nonsense. We are individuals and our melanin density does not define how we think. Also, Marxism is a failure and has been demonstrated as such time and time again. And what do you mean by angry white men? Why are you engaging in inane tropes?

[@lewisbilly12353]

The fact that you brought race into it is why I am inherently distrustful of these groups and their critiques.

[@willofr3924]

Kiril Alesh you fail in realizing that race constitutes to far greater evolutionary and biological characteristics than just “melanin density,” which is merely a visual aesthetic that makes up one small factor of biological and evolutionary racial differences, intelligence and IQ included.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@willofr3924 lol race is a social construction anyways.

[@rebeccaemick6618]

One of my favorite responses to JP on Marx. Excellent work Dr. Rahman, thank you.

[@TwiztedHumor]

I think Peterson is in for a black eye on this one.

[@TwiztedHumor]

my god... you didn't give him a black eye.... you left a smoking hole on his head.

[@hauntyoo]

This is hands down the best breakdown of Peterson's arguements against Marxism. Shame it has only 70k views! I'll try my best to spread it out there!

[@normankelley]

Taimur Rahman gives a good example of why I never paid that much attention to Peterson when he attributed the ills of "postmodernism" and "political correctness" to Marxism: he never actually quotes from Marx. Peterson's expertise is psychology. While Rahman's is political philosophy, if not philosophy itself.

[@Ematched]

Peterson also doesn't understand postmoderniam. The funniest part of that is his whole psychological model is based on the notion of truth being that which is true to the individual, a concept that emerges out of postmodernism.

[@kylemccormack1785]

@@Ematched Except it also emerged roughly 2,600 years ago in Ancient Greek Philosophy, and then 2000 years before now during the rise of Christianity, and then about 600 years ago with the Enlightenment. And in about half a dozen other places, periods, and times not worth mentioning here. I'm not certain you know what post-modernism is my dude. It most certainly did not DISCOVER the concept of Individual Truth.

[@shahsadsaadu5817]

@@kylemccormack1785 yeah,no. Sophism wasn't really about the "notion of truth" it negated the idea and necessity of truth itself. Closest thing to the concept of "individual truth" in western Philosophy aside from postmodernism is phenomenology.

[@kylemccormack1785]

@@shahsadsaadu5817 Literally no one in this thread is talking about Sophism. Do you know what that word means? Because it has literally nothing to do with this conversation. Perhaps you meant Solipsism? If you're going to snidely correct someone, try to not fk it up this badly.

[@shahsadsaadu5817]

@@kylemccormack1785 i figured since you said individual truth showed up in greek philosophy,you meant sophism. Because that's the only school of thought that one could Could say argues for truth individual perspective. "Man is the measure of all things" and all.

[@michaelhayashi2978]

Looking forward to hearing this, as I disagree with Marxism at my base, and I like testing my base. Cheers

[@akshaygupta1135]

Read my critique of this guy in comments.

[@HansWick]

Communism is authoritarianism. Capitalism is more compatible with human nature. The problem is the corporations using the government to get contracts paid for with our tax money and eliminating competition. Smaller government would be better.

[@michaelmappin1830]

Much love from canada! Eagerly awaiting more videos.

[@henrik2518]

So is Jordan Peterson simply ignorant or purposefully dishonest...

[@kebilfree17]

Yes

[@Achrononmaster]

Ignorant objectively, just browse any of his lectures, they are full of illogical arguments and sometimes downright idiotic misunderstanding of science. For dishonesty... harder to prove, but look at how he gets funded and who he elects to debate. He chose Žižek because he thinks Žižek is mad and incoherent, which is true half the time, but the other half of the time Žižek creamed Peterson so badly it was embarrassing. He turns down debates by claiming his fee is too high. That's the hallmark of a fraud who is in the game for money.

[@henrik2518]

@@Achrononmaster I just finished watched the debate/discussion with Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson. It was glorious.

[@kazaddum2448]

He has to pay for his benzo-diet somehow.

[@dannistor7294]

He is bad, bad, bad. His popularity is puzzling, or maybe explicable through the equally poor intellectually level of his followers. In exchange, Professor Rahman is demonstrating brilliantly how beautifully articulated Marxism is and how desperately needed it is. The only issue that was not covered (but I'm sure Professor Rahman will address it as well), is why this lovely system failed so miserably in the many places it was imposed....

[@WORLDCITIZEN10]

Excellent lecture

[@mesmer1218]

Thank you for a solid refutation of Peterson’s claims, Dr. Rahman. As I watched the debate between Peterson and Zizek, I was floored that Zizek allowed so many unfounded claims and characterizations to go unchallenged. Perhaps Zizek had another goal in mind? If so, it is unclear to me what his strategy he was employing. As a Communist, and as an avid reader of Marx and Engels comprehensive works, it delights me to no end to see a solid and worthy refutation of what passes of academia these days. As for me, it’s fine when people offer differing opinions about capitalism and communism. But to stray so far from facts and peer reviewed scholarship? It boggles my mind how this kind of disinformation has become a form social currency these days. I greatly appreciated how your rebuttal was kind, compassionate, and very gentlemanly. I am now subscribed to your channel and I am looking forward to watching many of your videos.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Thank you. I think Zizek had written an essay and he just stuck to what he had written. He didn't bother answering any of the accusations made. Which was wrong. He should have addressed those arguments point by point.

[@mesmer1218]

@@Taimur_Laal Thank you for the kind reply and reminder. I had completely forgotten that Zizek was reading from an essay.

[@Taimur_Laal]

@@mesmer1218 Most welcome. Yes. I think he should have taken some time to address the main criticisms. No point in merely reading from an unrelated paper when the audience is looking for answers to the questions raised.

[@inbuckswetrust7357]

Zizek is just a whipping boy figurehead, and Petersen distorts and confuses realizing what he's doing.

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

Although I highly respect and appreciate zizek, I think you would have been a superior opponent to Peterson

[@haimbenavraham1502]

Thank you Professor Rahman. A very enlightening lecture.

[@jack.1.]

How does Taihmur define inequality

[@efeshen]

an addition to the response to the argument in 16:56. according to marx's capital, when a business owner works as a manager, he is considered as taking the role of a worker. he takes the role of a capitalist when he claims the product. it is one role exploiting the other, the fact that both roles are fulfilled by the same person is irrelevant. in fact it is very much the case in many small businesses where the owner performs both productive and valorising roles. however this doesn't vindicate him from exploiting the other workers of that company since exploitation in marxian terms isn't merely a moral vilification but rather a technical term denoting the transfer of value.

[@Dzvakangark]

I would very much like to see you do a video explaining the split or evolution of Marxism by Lenin, specifically the differences and why Lenin thought that Marx was wrong about a non-violent natural progression towards socialism, and that it would only occur through force and leadership. Thank you.

[@captainmaim]

12:41 Dr Peterson was speaking about in-group cooperation, not civilizations in conflict like your reply and dismissal. Dr. Peterson's focus is on the individual in society and he very seldom uses groups at all. Your reply misunderstands his argument. I don't believe Marx was arguing that the Ottoman class was oppressing the Arab class, rather the Ottoman empire, as a political unit subjugated the Arab peoples. Dr. Peterson's illustration of the chimp on chimp violence makes this clearer perhaps.

[@matthewkopp2391]

captainmaim I see what you are saying. Marx was largely looking at the capitalist enterprise mostly in an impersonal way. But I do think that Marx also understood the idea in a more personal way too. He developed the idea of class struggle and class consciousness from Hegel's Master Slave dialectic. Which is pretty complex paradoxical story. But essentially he saw the master and slave as codependent beings whose identities rely on one another. If the master seeks to have the identity of master affirmed from the slave he finds that it is impossible because the slave is not free to offer it. If the slave develops a higher competence than the master he too can not be recognized for the mastery attained. What Hegel was pointing out was that there are many ways to fail in achieving consciousness in this dialectic. But that there was a possibility over gaining a consciousness that transcends both identities. I am guessing that you might have relationships of which you experience a sense of equality of regard? And other relationships where it is hierarchical without equality of regard. In the second category I experienced the unequal regard in relationships that were parents, teachers, and employers. And in all three cases I expected recognition for accomplishments of which the "master" was unable to give. And therefore found my identity tied dependently onto an authority. Until enough awareness developed that freed me from that dependency. I think both Hegel and Marx were observing this psychological phenomenon that was elaborated in psychology later. That's why I wish Peterson would actually read the material. Because this going beyond the dialectic Jung would call the transcendent function. If this is the case that an equivalency could be made between Jung, Marx, and Hegel, then it is a real phenomenon that Marx understood but could also could be said that Marx was overly optimistic that enough people would be able to achieve such a consciousness. Or at least in practical terms they will spend their younger adulthood caught in the dialectic without enough consciousness to release themselves.

[@Sam-gy3ok]

...Confuses post modernism and Marxism... how is JP a respected public intellectual

[@lewisbilly12353]

He doe snot confuse them. He puts groups them together as being critical of hierarchies, Marxism being critical of economic hierarchy, Postmodern being critical of hierarchy. Post modernists also say they evolved their ideas from Marxism. So yes, the movement is related.

[@kazaddum2448]

What did you expect from someone spouting nazi-dogwhistles: "Cultural-Marxism".

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@kazaddum2448 Dog whistle has assumed the argument. Taking yourself as right because you can malign someone instead of making an argument.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Gaizilla!!! But the postmodernists he cites were actually taking issue with Marx. Namely against the idea of teleology and grand narratives. To name a few issues. And the biggest irony is that Foucault voiced support for a version of classical liberalism the very political ideology Peterson supports. But Peterson is unfortunately too ignorant and lazy to do basic research on those he criticizes. But let's break that down as to what that means. If you are against teleology you are against a projected definite political ends such as a stateless society where workers owned the means of production (Marxism) If you are claiming there are no grand narratives you are claiming there is no progression of history which goes against the entire claims of progressive politics in multiple countries (including Marxists). But then Peterson claims postmodernism is the basis of identity politics, when Foucault was anti-essentialist and was against universal claims in regards to identity categories. And almost all of identity politics makes essentialist claims like "born this way" gay politics, or feminists claiming a universal essential line of identity since antiquity etc. or even TERFS make an essentialist claim as to what is a woman that goes contrary to a transgender female essentialist claim. Etc. The problem is Peterson doesn't even start with the basic facts.

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

Matthew Kopp Peterson has repeatedly acknowledged the apparent paradoxical aspect of the intermingling of postmodernism and Marxism. There are plenty of instances available for your viewing pleasure. His point is that we cannot in some sense “be” postmodernists because it doesn’t of itself constitute an ideology, lacks telos and grand narrative structure. His point is precisely that postmodernists end up defaulting to ideologies and telos and narratives because human nature is such that it draws us to these ends-driven ideas. Marxism, as it manifested in the twentieth century and continues to manifest today, is essentially anti-western, anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian. There is a psychologically gentle slide from postmodern critique of the status quo and western civilization to Marxism. It’s really that simple. People aren’t disposed to hovering without a ground to stand on. They lose grip on their sense of meaning and purpose and life and so they grasp at the nearest ideological rope that might anchor them somewhere relatively comfortably. This relationship between postmodernism and Marxism goes somewhat further, though. People are, after all, inconsistent in their beliefs and imperfectly rational. Thus any argument to the effect of “people can’t be both postmodernists and Marxists because this would generate a contradiction” is null. People can in one moment appeal to Marxist principles and in another appeal to postmodern critique. We aren’t divinely logical creatures. Generally, we use whatever seems most beneficially to us in discourse. That is why you find such absurd contradictions in the belief systems of today’s left wing activist types. For example, “men can be women” and “we live in a male dominated patriarchy” are mutually exclusive propositions, yet I have personally encountered several people who would endorse both. Their belief systems are chaotic and incoherent precisely because they are cobbling together of various academic talking points rather than a continuous historical narrative that has evolved over thousands of years.

[@herewego2998]

Thank you, Prof, I was so inspired by Dr. Peterson but you nailed it Sir, the problem with Peterson he uses rhetorical language most of the time, and people like and get impressed by that.

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

What an excellent refutation of anti-communist arguments. Every lecture of yours i watch, the more i appreciate your great skill in articulating complex debates.

[@MrSnippety]

I love this guy >.< it's both a respectful and comprehensive roasting . Much more than Peterson really warrants!

[@MrSnippety]

@Steven very mysterious!

[@mypapaya590]

Unlike leftist, white nationalist and Jordan Peterson's fan, they are nasty

[@ajj1204]

Taimur, you are a great teacher. Wonderful response . Peterson mix ideology with reasoning.

[@hufinnpuff3068]

Would have been better to just directly talk about this with Jordan Peterson instead of responding with a video.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Why? Isn't his video public? Then why shouldn't the reply be public?

[@hassanzulfiqar506]

I think you should have a debate whith Dr Petrson about this. I hope the internet can make this happen.

[@kelestra1]

Peterson is scientifically dishonest, as shown in this video. He created so many strawmans, outright lies to lay the groundwork for his "argumentation". He will not ever talk to Dr. Rahman as he would scientifically stomp him into the ground. At least that what I think of Peterson till I see a debate between the two.

[@megahoemaniac3512]

@@kelestra1 I agree. Did you see how Peterson dismissed Richard Wolff? Pathetic. Wolff would also annihilate Peterson.

[@kelestra1]

@@megahoemaniac3512 I don't know what you are pointing towards there. Can you elaborate please?

[@megahoemaniac3512]

@@kelestra1 Richard Wolff asked Jordan Peterson to debate him and JP laughed him off publicly without giving any real good reason other than, something to the effect of "He's a Marxist so why should I?" Implying of course that people who are foolish enough to call themselves Marxists shouldn't be taken seriously. In fact, JP once said anyone calling themselves a Marxist should be punched in the face. That comment pretty much sealed the deal for me. Jordan Peterson doesn't want to debate actual Marxist economists because he would get obliterated. JPs field is psychology, Wolff's is economics. Wolff doesn't go around supposing things about psychology the way Peterson does about economics. This is because Wolff is intellectually honest, in my opinion, and Peterson is not. Wolff charges a VERY modest rate to come speak at a townhall or church or where ever they want him. Peterson charges outrages sums to come spill his snake oil.

[@kelestra1]

@@megahoemaniac3512 Tyvm. And of course he does. He was an unknown Dr. of psychology until he jumped the neocon train and began preaching 'individual responsability' and 'the system of capitalism is the gReAtEsT eVaRrR!11eleven'. And with this he became a 'scientific source' of conservatives to cite and earned a lot...

[@lewisbilly12353]

I take issue with Libertarians opposing hierarchy, as that is a reductive view. They think hierarchy should be decided voluntarily by free choice. As in, you choose to have over those whom you choose. Moreover, Libertarians always acknowledge the need for a democratically elected state to enforce private property rights. So no, they are not antihierarchy. I feel as if you video largely talks past JBP. I wish you could have discussions with him, so that he could update or even change his views as you bring it up. Because maybe you are talking past each other. He viewed as arguing against hierarchy, and maybe that is because he felt as if class was a hierarchy and that hierarchies are good. I really feel as if you just added Libertarians in there without thinking. Or we have completely different views on what Libertarianism (objectivism) is.

[@Taimur_Laal]

I doubt he's even heard my lecture. Send it to him. Perhaps he will respond or engage.

[@lewisbilly12353]

@@Taimur_Laal well you could also get to the core of his argument better. Much of your contention is semantic.

[@radwanparvez]

Wow... This is an excellent review. Thank you so much prof Taimur. I wish people could see a debate on dr peterson vs you.. However, in your video, u didn’t talk much about Stalin and Lenin and Mao part in shaping the history of marxism. And this is the most popular criticism against marxism. It would be great if you could talk about ur comments on them.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Thank you. Since the discussion was on the theory of Marxism, I stayed within that parameter. Sure, I can also speak about the history of communism.

[@radwanparvez]

Also , if you could talk about the Pareto principle and how it is reconciled in the Marxist theory, it would be great.

[@VoxInGoa]

@Martin September What scientific foundation does the Pareto principle have? How about the whole history of nature, not only humans?

[@faizksf]

One of the most articulate and well-researched answers to a person who is loved more for his orations than perhaps his depth. I am saying this after Dr. Taimur has exposed his superficiality otherwise I love Dr. Peterson's writings and lectures. Kudus to Dr. Tiamur who has come up with a very logical and comprehensive encounter in such a humble manner that one cannot help appreciating.

[@MrDeadhead1952]

Depth! By his own admission right at the beginning that he has no understanding of Marx since his knowledge of the subject based on a reading of the Manifesto a pamplet Marx wrote over the course of six weeks. It's a Manifesto designed to stimulate interest it's not a detailed summation of Marxist Theory apart from anything else it predates Capitol by 20 years. All Peterson succeeds in doing is to demonstrate the depth of ignorance he wants to pontificate about.

[@panaruss]

Nicely presented. I would love to see a debate about socialism with Peterson and Rahman as I have a hard time following Zizek. You can call Peterson's version of Marxism a caricature or straw man if you want, and I think you did a good job presenting that point, but as far as I can see Rahman still holds a somewhat utopian idea that Marxism has yet to be done correctly, while the history of Marxism looks to me to pretty much follow the Marxist caricature Peterson is arguing against. Perhaps Peterson should have looked closer at the differences between Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and now Xi JinPing. But here is the fundamental problem I believe Marxism faces. It is godless. Birthed in the wake of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was another among many attempts at the political/philosophical way forward without God. You must admit, Marx goes out of his way to treat religion as something detrimental to human progress. For most, if not all Marxists this atheism is a virtue, only without God there can be no such thing as virtue. All human constructed forms of values are built in space with no foundation, so you pick your own and try to impose them on others. You prefer equality, she prefers compassion, he prefers courage, ze prefers sexual freedom, but all are simply remnant survival instincts that can now be dismissed like transcendent absolutes, good, evil, right and wrong- because we are all just animals dealing with life on a spinning ball. A brief span of consciousness and then, poof, back to virtual non-existence. If God exists, then Marxism falls under its own judgement, borrowing its values from the religion it rejects and failing miserably to achieve the ideals it insists on elevating as most necessary. Odd how that's what it looks like in the rear view of history. And, if there is a God, the selfish murderous tyrants of communist dictatorships join the selfish greedy capitalists in hell while the people they unjustly treated "evolve" to join their creator in an eternal dance of love and joy. Be something if that were actually true, would it not?

[@anglo-irishbolshevik3425]

Thank-you for this which I found very informative. I've noted a number of other videos by you which I would love to listen to but they're not in English. Is there any chance you could release them in English please so you could reach a wider audience.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

To all the idiotic commentors: marxism is not a political system, it is an analysis. Marxism is not a system it can't fail or work. It can and has predicted things.

[@yaqoobattal]

The Peterson vs Zizek debate was a total joke. Where we saw Peterson's misunderstanding of Marxism and Zizek"s apologistic approach while facing laughable objections of Peterson.

[@Lowlitstudio]

the other thing that i want to posit here is that one has to ask and wonder "why" are people like Peterson promoted by platforms like youtube and people like Joe Rogan, too. Is there something insidious going on? We all know that there are all sorts of algorithms on platforms like facebook, and such, but it is interesting that in this capitalist regime that Peterson is promoted so heavily. If one were more eloquent than him, and stronger and handsomer, but they were espousing and promoting equal rights in regards to safe shelter water food, and if they were anti exploitation, and if they were promoting things like universal basic income, or free college for all, universal health care, etc... Why is Peterson promoted so heavily? Is there something insidious going on?

[@zachariahwade8482]

Prosody Monstrosity Because lies, distortions, populism(simple answers to complex issues)sensationalism and fear sell, and when it’s in service of the Status Quo, it’s always going to be promoted over boring old peace, love, and progress.

[@murtadha96]

This was really informative and enjoyable! Thank you

[@Firespectrum122]

I'm going to be honest - a lot of this seems like technical disagreement rather than any actual rebuttal. I'm willing to change my mind if you can offer at least some argument against the fact that Communist revolutions always turn into dictatorships rather than a misunderstanding of Marx's works. The problem may actually not be with the theory, which is debatable, but the implementation of it always seems to result in massacres and broken states.

[@hv1461]

That was so well done and interesting, thank you. At about 19:56 you say that Marx argued that Socialism was even more productive than Capitalism. Can you elaborate upon that please. How did Marx come to that conclusion and what factors convinced him. Thank you in advance.

[@yeboscrebo4451]

H V he can’t elaborate because it isn’t true. He said himself you have to look to the future. In other words, it’s never happened.

[@hv1461]

@@yeboscrebo4451 I agree it didn't happen. I was interested in finding out what convinced Marx to believe that it would happen.

[@Taimur_Laal]

Marx believed that a planned economy would grow faster than the anarchy that prevails in capitalism. I think the data has, in fact, proved him right.

[@KapteinKul]

@@Taimur_Laal What data are you speaking of, Dr.?

[@Lowlitstudio]

Peterson did what i find soooo many people do, they argue against "Marxism" in a way where it seems like they never actually read the Communist Manifesto, or have not re-read it relatively recently. It's as if they are arguing an argument that they've been arguing since they were in college or something. Re-read it Peterson! Seriously. I have many things, critiques, criticisms, and points that i would like to counter Peterson on in regards to, such as1. The difference between Communism and Marxism - people soooo confuse these two things 2. What would either Marxism or Communism be if it were not molested and interfered with by capitalists and capitalist nations 3. there needs to be a critique of people like Peterson being puppets of the Bourgeoise, yet totally unable to see that that's what they are 4. Marx and Engels, in the London meeting that preceded the Manifesto, from my understanding, were trying to elucidate what is and what is not "communism" which, correct me if i am wrong, is just a community without "private" property, which, in this capitalist country that i live in called the USA doesn't really have private property, or it does, but only for one percent of the population, and this really needs to be addressed. We live in a time when machined can build houses and cars and we really don't need to be working shitty slave like jobs anymore, and it's not just about "working hard" anyone with a sociology degree can understand and clearly see that it's not about working hard to get ahead, it's about who you know.... one more point is that the "communist" regimes were not communist, they were "state capitalism" and this needs to be differentiated from what communism is - thanks for this video

[@kw1199]

you think only 1% of people own private property in US? LMFAO. You don't know when Marx and Smith and all the classical economic people talk about private property they mean the right to personal possession and not land right? I mean clearly u don't if u don't think 100% of Americans have ownership of some possessions.. ownership that is upheld by the state. Marxists didn't want the individual pursuit of economic material thus with Marxism u wouldn't have the nice lap top or smart phone u typed this on. Think im wrong? revisit the actual arguments that took place and take a look at the historical implementation of such ideas. Im not even talking just about Leninism im talking about the Anarcho syndaclist republicanos in the Spanish civil war, EVERY LEFTIST OF EVERY FORM EVERY WHERE WHEN GIVEN POWER TURNED AUTHORITARIAN AND THE WORKING CLASSES MOST OPPOSED THEM. that's why the poor saw Hitler as a liberator at first and that why the Serfs allied with Franco in the Spanish civil war. Even a fucking serf doesn't want collective ownership of land lol

[@aletheiajak6373]

I've subscribed you, sir. I am sorry, I am postmodernist, but love marx.

[@vancouverterry9142]

How could you "love marx" if you are "postmodernist"? Marx argues a thesis, and a post-Modernist would see that as a power-seeking / power-serving position. As a postmodernist, you should be decrying ANY viable, sensible, workable perspective on ANYTHING, even hard, impersonal science (not that we're talking hard science here). Don't forget that Marx sat by idly and watched his son die of exposure and malnutrition in New York City because Marx was too spiritually advanced to write a few pieces for the New York newspapers who would have paid him for anything he brought in. He let that child die solely in order to feed his own messianic, grandiose self-intoxication. So "love marx" as you state, while claiming to be "postmodernist", as you wish, but do give a thought to the possibility that you're just living in an imaginary idea of what it's all about.

[@robertchanrussell2010]

To oversimplify, Peterson is tired of being attacked by JSWs and he blames "humanities" professors and departments for that. He looks "who's most left? Socialists. Who was most popular and is seldom read? Max." Just a guess. He recently commented on vaccines, something he is really out of his realm in.

[@leoh8947]

Your critical fallacy is that Peterson is commenting directly on Marx's work. He is in actually criticizing the mentality of the followers of Marx and the stance of modern extremists and self proclaimed socialists/communists. it is fact that in many occasions terrible things happened in the name of Marx.

[@leoh8947]

Btw love your work, and glad to see that real educated students of history that study the marxist documents exist :). It is true that communism is a terribly failed experiment, but the fact it was created and is keeps moving in the hearts of people all over the world shows us that Capitalism has some critical short-comings that we will have to patch-up using several cherry-picked ideas and systems found in communism. #YangGang #CryptoRevolution

[@debadattagiri9483]

Well sir, I am from India. But Peterson was explaining about Communist manifesto but at 6:48 you are explaining about Karl Marx letters. I am from West Bengal and to be honest sir Communism had destroyed my state for 25 years. In theory Communism may be great but practically it's a disaster.

[@paullyman6832]

His debate with Zizek wasn’t purely about the Manifesto of the Communist Party. That’s just the only bit of Marxist theory he claimed to have read in preparation for the debate, that’s Peterson’s fault not an excuse for his to make bad arguments and expect them to not be refuted.

[@beurteilung713]

Communism didn't destroy your state, the government of the USSR "destroyed° your state. The USSR was not communist, it was a dictatorship with a social safety net. Socialism = Proletariat own the means of production via the apparatus of a proletariat democratic state. Communism = A stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are democratically owned by the workers and workers unions directly.

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

1:00 - Peterson may insert the world “economic”, but I don’t see how the argument is at all affected. Class is primarily constituted of economic factors. It is not the only factor, but it is certainly the most significant. Aren’t you just being pedantic? You can’t sidestep the argument by pretending it is made invalid because of a reasonable insertion of a word. 1:45 - This quote is out of context. It doesn’t tell us anything about what factors Marx considered most significant in determining human history. It is a statement about human psychology rather than historical materialism. 2:00 - A nice attempt at a bait and switch. Again, Marx’s quote was psychological and Peterson’s was historical. 3:00 - What exactly does the Engels quote even mean? If I’m charitable with it, I suppose it’s true, but in the most uninteresting and trivial sense. The historical materialist critique may not claim that economic class struggle is the only factor, but that’s irrelevant since Peterson never represented it as such. Perhaps you should listen more carefully. He said “primarily”. That’s not the same as “only”, is it? You need to work on your slight of hand. 4:00 - Your definitions are flawed. Hierarchy is not just authority of a person or group over others. That is a particular kind of possible manifestation of hierarchy. If you had actually listened to Peterson you would have understood that. Hierarchy is a perception of relative status. If you perceive yourself as being more skilled at playing the piano than me, what authority do you have over me as a result? None. The only way that could be is if I had the same perception and desired to submit myself to your authority in order to learn from you. Your definition of class is consistent with Marxism but, as is Marxists’ proclivity, begs the question of whether or not class hierarchy is exploitative or not. Peterson would agree that it often is, but only under conditions of corruption. Classes can spontaneously form under cooperative and mutually beneficial conditions. Think about the structure of a military. I’m not even five minutes in and haven’t been able to watch more than a few seconds without finding something catastrophically wrong with what you are presenting. I’m sure Marxists under the influence of confirmation bias will agree with everything you say.

[@Based_D]

I would like to see Peterson and Rahman actually debate each other so they can each rebuke the others arguments.