A Marxist Response to Jordan Peterson

[@TerribleTom113]

Peterson admitted in his debate that this was the first time he had re-read the Manifesto since in 40 years. This means he built an entire public career as a subject matter expert anti-Communist based on the half-remebered reading of a 30-page pamphlet 40 years prior. 😂

[@RM-xr8lq]

well his target demographic is people who have a 7-8th grade average reading level, they likely won't check anything beyond a wikipedia page at most...

[@TerribleTom113]

@@RM-xr8lqTrue. I genuinely don't understand how people still take him seriously. As a self-help guru, he's decent. 12 Rule For Life was one of the books (one of many) that helped me when I was in a bad spot in life. There is some value to his self-help stuff. But damn. In basically every other domain, he's completely full of sh*t and demonstrably wrong about 90% of the sh*t he rambles about. 😂

[@TheWhitehiker]

This book is short and filled with errors and misconceptions--why read it more than once?

[@sectumsemparium]

Let me sum it up for people who dont want to watch the whole 47 mins of video. Jordan hasnt read any of the books he claims to debate about, he went on reddit and pulled some random points to make himself look smart.

[@anthony452]

The irony in this comment is hilarious. "If you don't want to listen you can take my word for it... the problem with Peterson was that he didn't really read it himself and took someone else's thoughts on the subject. "

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@anthony452 not ironic.... considering that Marx wrote major works that take years to study, introducing novel concepts, and have fields built around them, while this video is just a guy reviewing a live tv debate between 2 historically unimportant pundits in toronto.

[@anthony452]

@@emilianosintarias7337 are you a bot? You seem to be in another conversation somewhere.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@anthony452 No I am not and no I don't. Do you not see the point i made? You are making an analogy, if it's valid then the comment was hypocritical and thus hilarious. I am countering that your analogy is false. That's because taking someone's word about a debate performance by a professional entertainer, university prof and talk show guest, is not anything like taking someone's word that they studied world renowned and world changing, classic, philosophical and social science works for decades.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

@@emilianosintarias7337actually you should take Jordan Peterson’s word. He says he only read the Communist Manifesto the day before the debate 😂 Judging from both this video and the debate itself, he probably hasn’t even read that! I agree with the OP, he skimmed the internet for quick “critiques” of marxism and came up with these absolute gems 💎!

[@knightonlibrary1183]

I don't normally pay any attention to Jordan Peterson as when I read his first book I found it simplistic and banal. This "debate" with Zizek (another charlatan) highlights Peterson's staggering ignorance - and the astonishing confidence that results from such ignorance.

[@ernestenlai5374]

I was wondering why Zizek didn't go for the jugular with Peterson, as anybody with a cursory knowledge on the subject matter would be able to utterly dismantle his pathetic attempt at debating, because this guy didn't even bother to do the basic minimum research on the subject matter he's debating. But after reading about Zizek's past as a pro Western anti communist from Gabriel Rockhill, I can see why Zizek was so ineffective. The debate was a complete dud because it wasn't a debate to begin with, they're both ultimately on the same side.

[@tortfeasor]

You seem intelligent.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@ernestenlai5374 Marxism is debunked even as Marx was alive by people like Böhm-Bawerk and Bakunin. Marxism is a reprehensible ideology based on virtue signaling and no economic basis. It fails completely at the economic front as its theory of surplus value is, at best, shortsighted and incomplete. At worst, nonsense! I am of the latter conviction. It's pure nonsense and I can easily prove it (and done so in many occasions). If Marx was alive today and had an honest bone in him he would have eaten his work for breakfast. Lunch would be too late!

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@ernestenlai5374 Nah, Zizek never debates in his debates. It's weird. He basically agrees with everyone when debate time comes, including marxists who debate him

[@publiconions6313]

​@@tortfeasorlol... do you think he caught your sarcasm?

[@jiensuyang3915]

I m deeply disappointed in dr Peterson shocked that USA , uk n Canada did not produce one quality scholar with ethics enough to publish rebuttal video following Peterson’s unfair assessments of marx.

[@gidrbridumarg3152]

The guy who bailed out of a debate with Richard Wolff at the very last moment by raising his fee, which the campus couldn't afford. A chicken dressed as a rooster.

[@gidrbridumarg3152]

I'm referring to JP btw, I have nothing but respect for comrade Taimur

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@gidrbridumarg3152 yes of course. I would be happy to debate Wolff :)

[@mattesparza2072]

Fantastic video. I know all of this, but watching this whole thing felt like getting a brain massage.

[@pagisubuh]

well explained. Thanks. Glad to find your channel.

I'd say his arguments regards to managerial work especially in terms of small business is wrong. I agree fully that in bigger companies, there's no correlation, but in small business, there is very much correlation. Usually the business owner is by far the most hardest worker and enables the business to be success. Normal workers simply do their job there and think little about the business outside of work hours. To most small business owners it isn't just job, it's all encompassing lifestyle. These small businesses even today make up over 40% of GDP and employ almost 50% of the workforce in US for example. Also, China achieved its poverty decrease by abandoning socialism and going capitalist in turbo mode. It was capitalism in China that decreased the poverty.

[@lololo]

The owner is only "the hardest worker" in the sense that you mean because, by being the sole owner of the means of production of which their revenue is extracted from, they have a greater incentive to make sure it doesn't fail, as opposed to the staff which is usually alienated from the products of their labour as well as from the surplus value generated. In a world where the means of production are socialized and their ownership rests in the hands of all workers, all workers would feel incentivized to do the same. Also keep in mind that administrative and managerial labour is valuable and productive in and of itself, but simply fullfilling this specific step in the production chain doesn't make that person inherently entitled to the ownership of that means of production as a whole. Leadership and ownership are different things, as explained nicely by Dr. Taimur in the video.

@@lololo " In a world where the means of production are socialized and their ownership rests in the hands of all workers, all workers would feel incentivized to do the same. " This hasn't happen in reality anywhere.

[@lololo]

@ It has indeed happened in varied degrees during the U.S.S.R golden age and China, in a complex relationship between the state and the workers. Also, even if it had never happened in any way shape or form, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Up until the 1900's minimum wage had never happened, now it exists globally.

[@pgen62]

Thank you professor Rahman. Dr. Peterson's method reminds me of Lenin's critique of liberal professor, Mr. Tugan-Baranovky, At the time, Lenin commented, "Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity!". It appears Dr. Peterson is using that same trick...

[@AudioPervert1]

Peterson's b*llshit aside, Slavo Zizeck can also be understood as discursive sausage for the educated folks. He like JP shares a common devotion, to Capitalism and the current world order.

[@TheColdFrontmusic]

so not only has Mr. Peterson only read the Manifesto (and no other work by Marx), but he also gets the Manifesto wrong at various important parts... not good, Mr. Peterson.

[@michaeljaffrey7958]

The idea that the history of humanity is the history of "class" struggle is also reductionist bullshit.

[@5driedgrams]

Great work, Dr. Very well explained.

[@CalebCarman]

This is the greatest takedown ever of Peterson.

[@dramsaysteele]

Peterson makes mistakes, but this guy makes mistakes too. For instance, Marx did indeed define "class" in purely economic terms, so it's reasonable to say that Marx in the Manifesto refers to "economic class struggle".

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Classes are economic categories but it does not follow from this definition that Marx is an economic reductionist. Because economic issues are not the only concerns in the class struggle.

[@Undefined01463]

Why don't you debate with him?

[@zaidahmed2220]

Because JP wouldn't

[@emilianosintarias7337]

he's pulled out of every debate with a serious marxist so far. I am sure if some blue haired fat rights activist who claimed to be a marxist challenged him, he'd do it. He'll never debate a serious marxist

[@DeepTitanic]

@@zaidahmed2220 It's his job to defend rich people on social media so it would look bad for him if he had to debate an academic

[@seaside3218]

I’ve always thought that one of the best arguments against late communism is that it’s boring due to less conflict. Which isn’t enough to dissuade me (I’m a socialist) but it’s true, if there were a lot less conflict then life would be a lot less entertaining. If we did fix all our class antagonisms and sang kumbaya, then would we not have a lot less to fight for, a lot less to live for, and a lot less to die for.

[@ThoughtfulVoyager]

Conflicts will still happen like conflicts between scientific theories, progress in ideas, etc. Only class struggle will end

[@seaside3218]

@@ThoughtfulVoyager yeah but still, it’s not the same.

[@ThoughtfulVoyager]

@@seaside3218 why does it have to be same to not be boring?

[@asadabbasmirza9519]

Ignore him.

[@mohinderkumar7298]

Pange wala video! Baad mein dekhta hun! 😂😂

[@desireswithhope]

Dekha fir? 😂 aaj Saturday hai to main dekhuga aaj. Sunday ko nai kyu ki monday ko kaam hai.

[@sarfrazsae9226]

People looking for short cuts, or cross out others'authority beings have more money or are in power being in a position. That means losing equality and basic right is what may favor. In other words, you cannot shift all medical issues to one side and support with good and in favor of finance to the other side. this can't be any way a classification unless you periodically economic recession to help out housing, individual business, set up better classification etc

[@animeshon97]

Good to hear your points. Even though my inclination to capitalism hasn't changed, I will not be making uninformed statements on Marxism.

[@justinwatson1510]

I respect you for having the restraint and self-awareness to not give opinions that would be ill-informed. I hope that you might consider challenging yourself to read Capital (you can find it free online,) you might find that the things you have heard about Marx are all mostly false

[@TheAzeemGuy]

Excellent Work and Analysis Prof. Dr. Peterson's critique generates more from his ignorance of communism and less from his actual understanding. Keep up the work Prof. ❤

[@mohamedmilad1]

Without even listening to the whole video, the fact you actually responded to Peterson you are doing him a great service. The guy is a real pretender and I will be surprised if he will be able to get a professorship outside Canada. He’s a showman. He’s not an intellectual . I am saying this not on ignorance but after listening to his lectures and reading his book which I bought long time ago before anyone knows of him, nearly two decades ago and listened to all his university lectures . I regretted wasting all that time. He’s populist who never read history and myopic in his intellect and I am certain he never read outside western academia or literature. He’s a writer who bracket a bracket statement.

[@HairyLeg23]

A youtube classic for people curious about Marxism. Four years ago this was of great help to me in my journey.

[@Redwhitewings]

If you can , you should refute Bertrand Russell " why I am not a Communist " article and the famous book " religion and science " book by Bertrand russell...if can ( though you can not) then you should go to refute more important book of him named" power"...

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

This video masterfully explained how “class” in the Marxist sense incorporates all meaningful social categories on all levels of analysis. There’s a place for race, nationality, ethnicity, gender…etc in addition to pure economic “class” . It also seems to preempt much if so called “intersectional analysis” but in a materialistic rather then “oppression based” framework.

[@Judge_Magister]

“Conplex thoughts of Marx and Engels”, one word sums it up just fine “theft”.

[@schizoid6673]

Excellent lecture! Oh how I wish that Jordan B Peterson wouldn't be such a baby and would agree to meet Rahman in a debate.

[@1851990ful]

Or just read the damn books before debating them with anyone

[@Redwhitewings]

Money is only one form of power, there are many other forms of power in the society like priesly power, kingly power, naked power...money is not the only form of power that govern the society...

[@erickechegar]

Great video prof!

[@Redwhitewings]

Jordan Peterson is not any philosopher but Russell or Kant are philosophers...so refute Kant or Russells logic...

[@LeoMes01]

Can you do some english content on Imran Khan ?

[@TheDemoraI]

@17:25 Adam Smith actually debunks the labor theory of value with this quote, and it didn't address what Jordan Peterson said about a manager, because this quote from Adam Smith is in relation to the value of a stock, which is not the same as managerial work.

[@justinwatson1510]

If you don't know what you are talking about, it would be less embarrassing for you to just not speak. Adam Smith said the value of commodities were proportional to the labor needed to create the commodity.

[@harshithsubramaniam5924]

"The real price of anything, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it." Adam Smith.

[@clarkkotte3069]

Dude, Adam Smith invented the labor theory of value. It was the classical model for how commodities were valued until Carl Menger introduced the subjective theory of value.

[@ExPwner]

@@clarkkotte3069 Smith did not invent it. He used it but he did not originate it. He knew LTV was flawed in his day.

[@mosthonestcommentor]

Labour Theory of value was invented by Adam Smith, you soyjack.

[@Smoovesquid]

Interesting. I'll check out more of this book. However, all of the Marxists here in America that I've dealt with think the Hierarchy is economic. They talk about race, patriarchy, gender, but ultimately money is where they lead. Which makes sense. Humans, unlike the bourgeoisie, aren't driven by philosophy, they are driven by Maslow. It's expensive to live life according to principles of any kind.

[@justinwatson1510]

The economic hierarchy is the only one that we all interact with, and there is a gendered and racialized component to the economic hierarchy in the US. That was the whole point of intersectionality.

[@BlueRockBill]

@@justinwatson1510 Gramsci. And Prof Rahman has a great lecture on him.

[@marks7167]

Then they are not marxists There are many people today who think they are socialist in marxists terms who socialist who are at best democratic socialist. In America we are not taught what Marxism means hence many young people today call themselves socialist again if anything they are not marxists

[@justinwatson1510]

@@marks7167 some of us are studying Marx and doing everything in our power to get others to do the same. I'm going to start including pamphlets with the food that I distribute to homeless people as well

[@leftykiller8344]

I read the Communist Manifesto several years ago, and my thoughts on it today are still the same as they were then: It looks really good on paper, but seems to be horrible in practice. Stalin’ as Russia and Mao’s China are the two glaring examples of this. Granted, these were violent revolutions, which as mentioned is not the way it is meant to happen. Modern China is not a very good example of it working either, because while they claim to be communist, their practice is very capitalist. I agree that certain socialist ideas have been implemented into countries with capitalist economic systems, and with success. If socialism is going to happen, slowly incorporating aspects of it into society until the system is fully consumed by it is probably the best way to go. This would circumvent the violence, and would work within the proper democratic state.

[@dimetronome]

It's also worth mentioning that Russia and China at the time of their revolutions did not have advanced capitalist economies. Marx and Engels believed that nations should progress from feudalism to capitalism before continuing to socialism and communism. I agree with what you are saying, but the biggest barrier to the reformist approach is that every time socialists and social democrats make any progress within the system, the capitalists (liberals, conservatives, fascists) either block/reverse their reforms or violently crush them.

[@MeowNap]

Many communists will agree with you that Stalin and Mao were severely flawed, as a matter of fact, genuine anti-capitalist democratic socialists will likely agree with most of what you said. Some currents of communists will even be the first to say that Stalin was a revisionist, and Mao's socialism (which is the expansion of the developments made by Stalin) is a product of this revisionism. Also, I don't really know what is meant by "these were violent revolutions, which as mentioned is not the way it is meant to happen", Engels says that "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon - authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" certainly sounds violent, no? On the contrary, (and even you acknowledge that China is capitalist), it is the deviation from communist principles in China, and in the USSR that has contributed to some problems, of course, if we ignore imperialism, sanctions, proxy wars, sabotage, propaganda campaigns, all perpetuated and done by the west, it appears to be the only problem, but I digress. It isn't some flaw inherent to communist theory, but rather those who seek to modernize or falsify it, replacing its socialist character and siding with a bureaucratic caste (USSR), or just straight up capitulating to capitalist liberalization (Dengist China) (in very very reduced terms). I also agree with the other commenter in saying that capitalists routinely will block, distort, or violently put-down socialist campaigns and proposals, simply out of class interest alone.

[@mbs0710]

king

[@anarkali_217]

So valuable especially for people who watch right wing US pundits n their propaganda in pakistan n then repeat it to their friends.

[@C_R_O_M________]

This proves that you have been successful at least in using a suitable username.

[@thomass2125]

So when will you be attending your next ethnic cleansing?

[@afaqjabbar8800]

Sir great, This man is got very much vanity in his stance.

[@FlyingDoctorC]

If Marx is so good how come Bangladesh is ahead of Pakistan in every metric of economy, GDP, literacy rates in both boys and girls for a Muslim nation? when Bangladesh started out life as a nation so poor, way behind Pakistan? Even Henry Kissinger thought it was a doom nation. Bangladesh adopted a capitalist model, focus on manufacturing of all kinds of clothes because it had no unique valuable natural resources.

[@ernestenlai5374]

Bangladesh is ahead because it wasn't used as a training ground for terrorists against it's neighbors by the West and thus was a relatively stable country and an attractive source of cheap sub contracted labor by Western garments multinationals. This is not really as great of an accomplishment of statecraft as you might think it is. Once the wages of the local population gets too high the multinationals will move out to some other country which can offer lower wages and similar quality and along with them, the temporary prosperity will leave as well because it hasn't built up any key industries of it's own.

[@ernestenlai5374]

@@marlinderwall8873 United States itself is a good example of deindustrialization. States which used to have high paying manufacturing jobs during the protectionist era now are riddled with drugs, crime and homelessness after shipping off their key industries to China after trade liberalization in order to gain higher profits.

[@zaidahmed2220]

Bangladesh is more socialist than pakistan. Go read.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

First time i ever heard Pakistan is supposed to have something to do with Marxism. LOL

[@justinwatson1510]

If Bangladesh and Pakistan were the only two countries on Earth, this might be a useful question and comparison. The United States has repeatedly proven its willingness to murder people for its own financial benefit, and it has the resources and technology to help or hurt whomever it wants.

[@ivaxnog6157]

Wellst he is with Daily Wire,

[@JustinAntitheist]

Idiotic. Thumbs down. A paraphrase of the first few minutes of this video: "Jordan Peterson claims that the Marxism sees history as being about economics or, in other words, about class. He's wrong! Marxism is about class struggle and classes are not just economic. It's almost all about economics, but not 100% about economic. So Jordan is wrong!"

[@mf2382]

The professor states that yes under capitalism wages have grown, but that the return on capital is greater and therefore while real wage earners are better off, their "social" position with respect to others has worsened. The notion that there is some "social" position is illegitimate. This is the core of the disagreement in modern society. Some people are caught up in "status". Why we should care about this is the real question. We need a society that ignores "status" and judges everyone on the content of their character. There is no other way forward.

[@yashasvi2]

the social position ultimately comes from property. To deny that is to deny reality.

[@mf2382]

@@yashasvi2 There doesn't need to be a "social position". It is a social construction that we can all easily do away with. So stop judging people by anything other than their character and their abilities, or their merit.

[@yashasvi2]

@@mf2382 we can do away with property but not easily. Thats where class struggle comes into play which Marx and Engels revealed in their magnum opus Capital.

[@mf2382]

@@yashasvi2We can do away with "social position" without doing away property. The notion that they are tied is Marxist lies. Deconstruction changes reality.

[@eQaiserIjaz]

The Communist Manifesto is an incredibly brilliant book. Written throughout a manic-procrastination cycle that's relatable to burnt-out millennials, the manifesto is tailored to its audience. Marx wrote to an urbanizing working class at the early stages of industrialization. These people were living in cities and consuming culture in higher amounts than the generations before them. They were reading good stuff and total garbage, and it was common for workers' unions to hire entertainers to read literature or act out plays for the people on the line in much the same way that we put on a podcast or a playlist today in the workplace. Marx knew what these people were reading. He and his cohorts read it too. These were people who were not "classically" educated but often self-taught, so Marx wrote to them. There's more to be said about the Communist Manifesto, for sure, but I truly believe it's worth a read. So, read it or listen to it! It's available online, you can pirate the Penguin edition, and you can also buy it. It costs less than fries!

[@TheWhitehiker]

Your fantasy on Marxism is entertainment, but reality creeps in quickly, Taimur; Keep with capitalism's immense success in both the first and third worlds. Communism, by the way, indeed has hierarchy--they're called commissars, unelected rulers. Wanna try again, Taimur?

[@lololo]

Did you watch the video?

[@TheWhitehiker]

@@lololo Ah . . . yes.

[@ulyanov17]

unelected rulers? who elected bezos and soros and rockefeller then?

[@TheWhitehiker]

@@ulyanov17 They were'nt working for the government!!

[@LadyInsipidity]

@@TheWhitehikercapitalism is doomed. Check out economists like Robert Brenner, Prabhat Patnaik, Anwar Shaikh, Jayati Ghosh

[@sf6199]

✔️

[@anndoshi8870]

This all seems to be very abstract and theoretical. All I know is, East Germany produced the Trabant, and India under the socialist model produced the Ambassador, both these vehicles were a joke. Meanwhile in the West as wealth grew, people both rich and poor had CHOICE and had a plethora of cars to choose from. I’ll take hard core capitalism any day with its Mercedes’, Fords and Toyotas you Sir, can have the Ambassador! What is it that you don’t understand about competition and choice?

[@JasonGoodfellow]

Outstanding

[@Redwhitewings]

You have to understand marxist society is impossible ...read the reoson given in the book " theory and practice of bolshevism " by bertrand russell...

[@reversefulfillment9189]

JP is like a Christmas gift wrapped in fancy paper and ribbons. You open it and find it contains a bloody horses head. Much like capitalism itself.

[@weeneeps]

Doesn't seem like you're arguing against what Peterson actually says. You've taken standard misconceived arguments against Marxism and found the clips of Peterson speaking that come close to matching them but he's not necessarily making those arguments.

[@justinwatson1510]

You must not pay attention to Peterson, because he, like most right-wingers who speak on Marxism, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. The only of Marx's texts that he claims to have read, The Communist Manifesto, is one of the shortest (if not the shortest outright) and he doesn't seem to even understand that much.

[@ExPwner]

Correct. He is just trying to be pedantic and not actually addressing what Peterson said.

[@cletusbufford]

Lol, he played the videos of him saying it... I only wish I hadn't have to listen to Weeping Kermit.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

You need a better cope my dude!

[@brendanogorman3748]

Ok have to call you out onthe statement about Soviet production versus fascist Europe. Firstly the Soviets were getting massive shipments of resources and materials from the West and other Asian neighbours and FYI European was not a unified collective all working together towards a common goal.

[@saulamarista3829]

Karl Mark will wrongly declare that a man like Cristiano Ronaldo is an oppressed proletariat, while a baker in Pakistan is an oppressive bourgeois. It doesn't matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; As long as it can catch mice, it's a good cat. Deng Xiaoping. China is the most efficient capitalist country. 2 systems one nation. There is no socialist country without an army. Capitalism is the only system in which a poor person can become rich through meritocracy.

[@DeepTitanic]

OK if China is Capitalist we should follow their capitalist path by doing capitalist things like nationalising all land, all critical industries, suppressing billionaires from political power and pulling 80 million people out of poverty. Whilst you're at it throw in prime time tv shows about Karl Marx. Y'know typical Capitalist stuff.

[@MiserableMuon]

Meritocracy is a myth.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Marx doesn’t compare classes vulgarly across countries without making the necessary adjustments and caveats. Also the concept of the “rich worker” is already addressed in the concept of the petite bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy. Finally, I’m sure Ronaldo is a major shareholder in many companies.

[@maksimilijan5029]

Oh, the classic capitalist fairy tale that anyone can become rich through meritocracy! What a load of ideological nonsense. Let's break down the delusion: Firstly, the idea of pure meritocracy within capitalism is a laughable myth. In reality, your chances of climbing the socio-economic ladder are heavily influenced by the circumstances of your birth. Born into a wealthy family? Congratulations, you're already ahead in this so-called meritocratic race. The system is inherently rigged, favoring those with existing wealth and privileges. Let's talk about access to quality education-the supposed equalizer in this meritocratic utopia. In a system driven by profit, educational opportunities are far from equal. Try telling a kid in an underfunded, crumbling public school that they have the same shot at success as someone attending a private institution with state-of-the-art facilities. Meritocracy, my foot! And what about the charming concept of job opportunities based on merit? Ever heard of nepotism? In the real world, it's often about who you know, not what you know. Good luck "meriting" your way to success when well-connected elites are handing out opportunities to their buddies and relatives. Oh, and let's not forget the role of sheer luck. The capitalist lottery doesn't reward everyone based on their hard work or talent. Many successful individuals owe a good portion of their wealth to being in the right place at the right time or catching a lucky break. It's not a meritocracy; it's a game of chance dressed up as a merit-based system. The grim truth is that capitalism perpetuates inequality. It's not a system that lifts everyone up through meritocracy; it's a system that entrenches divisions, ensuring the rich stay rich, and the poor struggle to get by. So spare me the meritocratic rhetoric-it's just a feel-good slogan for a deeply flawed and unjust system. The "meritocracy" myth-a term coined in 1958 by sociologist Michael Young, who, ironically, intended it as a cautionary tale rather than a celebration of equal opportunity. Young's work, "The Rise of the Meritocracy," depicted a dystopian future where societal elites justified their positions through supposed merit and intellectual prowess. Young's intention was to critique the dangerous implications of a system that places undue faith in standardized testing and educational achievement. In this satirical take, the meritocracy he envisioned became a new form of aristocracy, with its own set of privileges and inequalities. The message was clear: blind faith in meritocracy could lead to a society that merely replicates the exclusivity and elitism it claims to challenge. So, when someone waxes poetic about capitalism being the epitome of meritocracy, it's worth remembering that the very term was coined to criticize the potential pitfalls of such a system. Young foresaw a society where meritocracy, rather than dismantling traditional hierarchies, merely replaced them with a new set of merit-based ones. In essence, the "meritocracy" that some champion today has roots in a cautionary tale about the dangers of overestimating the ability of merit-based systems to create genuine equality. It's a term with a history that challenges the rosy narrative of capitalism as a flawless meritocracy.

[@gagandeepcheema5379]

As a manager my duty will be to recognize the smart guys! Yeah they will be taking decisions for me here is the thing, there are a lot of smart guys with big experience but not all of them can make me profitable. As a manager it will be me who will be chosing the right one to make decisions for me. So i am not making profit for doing nothing, i am making profit on the basis of my intellectual decisions! That decision making power is my skill!

[@ThoughtfulVoyager]

That is not the argument and Marxism understand that

[@ProletarianPower]

My guess is Jordan, at most, read a couple of excerpts from the manifesto then went onto his rambling. There's no eay he actually researched Marxism given how wrong he is here.

[@shway1]

yup. first 17 sec of this video are a great example of projection.

[@Redwhitewings]

Marxs main error is that he has given to much emphasis on money, he should give emphasis on power...

[@essaypodcast]

At least say things that make sense... All this word poridge my lord!

[@OGAshton]

what specifically is confusing you?

[@essaypodcast]

@@OGAshton I watched half of the video and couldn't keep up with all the gibberish... it's hard to get specific but lets try: how is a hierarchical class not a hierarchy? it's in the damn name!

[@cletusbufford]

@@essaypodcast It's not a "hierarchical class", but a class hierarchy. He's not saying that class hierarchy is not a hierarchy, he's saying that the two aren't synonymous. It's not about class hierarchy not being a hierarchy, it's about hierarchy not being exclusively class based. The point is in being against class based order, not against an order per se.

[@playafree18]

Better dead than red

[@troelselverskov9565]

This really shows that we should not fear socialists and Marxists. We really should only fear those who would actually TRY to implement it in reality. What Marx wrote isn't relevant to however many millions died in his name. Sacrificed on the altar of a fair and just society.

[@DB-um2rb]

I think when Peterson is referring to Marxism he is talking about those who would try to implement it in reality, not the philosophy itself. there is a strange phenomenon that in every version of a socialist government, a would be Marxist government, there is also a demand for strict limitations on freedom of speech. It’s really strange actually, but it certainly seems to hold true that every “Marxist“ government in history has had an authoritarian slant with no freedom of speech or expression. I think that’s what Peterson is mostly concerned about.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

that's like saying free speech kills millions and shouldn't be implemented, because so many have been killed by it being suppressed, or in wars that can come from it. Marx's ideas are democracy and liberty. If they are implemented and that provokes empires or oligarchs to try to crush it, the result is only a strong state and high walls can defend what little was gained in the opening round -and that cancels the democracy and liberty. It's that simple. That is not implementing democracy and liberty.

[@troelselverskov9565]

@@emilianosintarias7337 So in essence you agree with me? The soviet union collapsed and one of the major reasons was that the capitalists wouldn't lend them money. Which proves Margerat Thatchers statement that communism can only work of the get other people's money. And fails when they run out of other people's money.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@troelselverskov9565 No, that has to be the most confused thing I have read in awhile man. You need to start over on this.

[@kimobrien.]

There was a struggle that broke out over ideas and methods even before Lenin died when Lenin wanted Stalin removed from his position as general secretary. Trotsky is the continuator of the Marxist method starting with the "The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals." This was before Schozenitzen who was a major in the Red Army during WW2.

[@FlyingDoctorC]

I love professors with on each side of the discussion, but all they do is teach on govt salary. When students should be learning from real life business people and trade people. University system as whole should be reformed

[@clarkkotte3069]

So they should teach on a private salary? And what about education that is not for vocational purposes? Which, most of the university system was geared towards before the commoditization of the university.

[@DKREALFEEL]

THIS IS NOT EDUCATIONAL. JUST POORLY THOUGHT OUT ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF A POORLY THOUGHT OUT THEORY.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

can you support that? anyone can make a claim

[@DKREALFEEL]

@@emilianosintarias7337 Millions dead everytime these theories have been tried.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@DKREALFEEL Well not that's just empirically false. But what idea, what kills people and how does it do it?

[@DKREALFEEL]

@@emilianosintarias7337 The idea that a country can run a fully communist society without a free market economy. Defending these ideas nowadays is just evil dude. Too many people have died in pursuit of your goals.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@DKREALFEEL that's just cold war mumbo jumbo. Communism is not a set of policies for running a country. What are the ideas that are evil? How does extending political freedom and economic democracy kill? How does self management kill? What has killed more people than various incarnations of capitalism?

[@Kid_Ikaris]

lol he was the last of the classical economists! People conflate what happened with Soviet and Chinese communism with the work of Marx to an extreme degree. He was mainly critiquing capitalism not designing a political system.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Not sure what your point is? Marx stayed silent in the “political system “ question precisely because it cannot be predicted. He left the unfolding of that to the material conditions and the agency of the revolutionary classes.

[@wbtittle]

There is a reason I like Jordan Peterson. He is not invoking positive definitions. He invokes negative boundary conditions. So many people don't seem to get that. Trying to define a difference between HIERARCHIES and CLASS HIERARCHIES? OMG another long tail of missing the big hole in the middle.

[@wbtittle]

Thank you for the civil presentation though.

[@idenree5949]

I mean, there is a reason that he made a distinction between the two. JP was claiming that marx believed hierarchies have only been around as long as classes between people, which the professor points out is not true. Marx was only talking about hierarchies that develop among economic classes of people.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

If you can't see there is a difference between hierarchy in the church or a karate school and the marines and an institutionalized, economic political hierarchy with its hands on the state power, nobody can help you. One is voluntary, you can opt out, one is not. Also, hierarchy based on power is different from prestige/popularity/skill, but JBP conflates them.

[@wbtittle]

@@emilianosintarias7337 Even though they are different. THEY ARE THE SAME> They are more alike than they are different. Feedback loops are different. The measurement of where you are in the hierarchy and where others are is still deep in the nervous system. There are the people you trust. There are people you don't trust. There are people who trigger warning flags. There are people who don't. Expressing it all is not easy. If you are in a volunteer organization, one of the people you must be most wary of is the OVEREAGER guy. Always keep your eye on the over eager to help person... Too many times, he is the one that walks off with the money... Never be offended when someone recounts the money. People who get offended are people that make you nervous.

[@shway1]

@@wbtittle I find this sophistry in defense of motte and bailey tactics by a dunning kruger grifter disturbing

[@tortfeasor]

Your reductionism is staggering.

[@mosthonestcommentor]

Logg off!

[@tormunnvii3317]

It’s a shame that Rahman defends “Democratic” Centralism. I have much respect for all the rest of his work, but it’s disappointing to see someone so intelligent get drawn into defending ML/MLM’s.

[@zaidahmed2220]

From an emperical point of view, central democratic system is the best stepping off point into a socialist structure

[@justinwatson1510]

Shame on him for supporting the only ideologies that have led successful anti-capitalist revolutions! We should all be navel-gazers who ruthlessly criticize the attempts of people who have done more to liberate people than we ever have!

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

All socialist state’s practice some variation of DC . It goes back to Lenin, he paved the road for the model.

[@allen4758]

What's sad is when you get as well known and respected as JP has , you become a target.

[@asgharalisyed]

When one becomes a beacon of hating others for being different, they became a target…. Rightfully so

[@idenree5949]

A target.... of valid criticism? This video doesn't even try to assassinate JP's character, it literally just debunks his points.

[@allen4758]

@@asgharalisyed and it's always from the professional victim

[@justinwatson1510]

No self-respecting people with more than half a brain respect that obvious grifter. I'll grant you he is well-known, but not respected.

[@allen4758]

@@justinwatson1510 grifter 😂 how many books you write? We're you a Harvard professor, before the woke bullchit

[@johnmoonitz2968]

Yeah . . . It seems this Mr. Rahman is determined to interpret everything Dr. Peterson said without the slightest consideration of nuance. For instance: Dr. Peterson does not posit that the Marxists actually believe all of the proletariat were "angels" . . . he was simply saying that this is the game played by the Marxists/communists at that time . . . not unlike the games played by the Woke Democrats today, and for many years prior to their embrace of this murderous ideology, who could not possibly care less about those they proport to champion and defend . . . they are mere tools for them, and once they cease to be useful, they will, once again, be marginalized . . . or worse, depending on how much power they are able to secure. An honest assessment of this debate should catch this . . . instead, Mr. Rahman has to focus on what amount to incidental errors that are to be expected from someone who is not an expert on Marx. I wonder if at any point in this critique Mr. Rahman addresses the fact that Zizek not only made none of the points he is raising here, but almost completely ignored the topic of the debate altogether. Hardly shocking for a pseudo-intellectual of his caliber. My guess is that Mr. Rahman will give little to no attention to Zizek's pathetic performance at this debate. I have no desire to waste anymore time on this so called "critique" . . .

[@johnmoonitz2968]

Strawman right out of the gate . . . Regarding hierarchies . . . Mr. Rahman was arguing against a point Dr. Peterson did not make. . . . Not looking good for me wasting much more time on this . . .