Why equality is unhelpful as a political goal

Patreon: / cuck
Twitter: / philosophycuck
I'd like to repeat that I'm not against using "equality" in political slogans, but this works for the most part only among people who already have similar political goals and therefore know on some intuitive level what specific types of equality the other person is talking about.
Thanks to my friend Finn for reading out the Engels quote.
Recommended reading:
"Critique of the Gotha Programme" by Karl Marx (www.marxists.org/archive/marx...)
"Philosophy and Real Politics" by Raymond Geuss - Part II Failures of Realism, Equality
Anarchopac's video: • Marx and Engels Were N...
I quoted Engels from "Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau (www.marxists.org/archive/marx...)
And Angela Davis from "Are Prisons Obsolete?", page 75
(www.feministes-radicales.org/...)
Here is the full Jordan Peterson interview:
• Joe Rogan Experience #...
I used clips from "The Young Karl Marx" (2017), as well as:
• Nurses At London Hospi...
• Life Inside a Californ...
Thank you to:
Aescetics
Aidan Williams
Jackson Ward
Joseph Patrone
Bad Horn Choir
Quantum Computation
Rooftop korean
IndustrialRobot
Kelly Rankin
John Drumm
no
ivan
Jinsoo An
Gibbering idiot
Carrie
Juan Chavez
Timour Maar
numu
Andrew Burns
Michael Doherty
d-lang
Cinabeeeeee
Isobel Abdolali
Robert Phillips
Adam Johns
Babak Golshahi
Tendies123
John beetles
Suzie Oh
and all other patrons

[@yhwh9778]

"to be equal you have to be the same person" *third impact intesifies*

[@mortak6307]

**Evangelion op intensifies**

[@NoName-ze4qn]

It all returns to nothing

[@Afriboy10]

I N S T R U M E N T A L I T Y

[@g00st62]

@@NoName-ze4qn fuck, now I have that song stuck in my head again...

[@mooncrime4998]

instrumentality is good actually, but unironically

[@michaelsieger9133]

“Marxists will make everybody listen to the same amount of Cardi B and Bach.” -Jordan Peterson

[@debrashmueli8560]

The better of the two being Cardi, evidently

[@gareth5528]

Michael Sieger You joke, but in leftist-run galleries the painting analogue of Cardi B next to Bach is occurring

[@basstrip73]

Gareth Where does Marx discuss how paintings should be displayed? And since when is ‘leftist’ synonymous with Marxist?

[@gareth5528]

basstrip73 This tactic of “Marx didn’t say that, so let’s pretend self-styled ‘Marxists’ aren’t doing it” is obscurantism imo

[@ttlovepie101]

@@gareth5528 that's just a failing of causality. A lot of people who believe in Marx believe in other post modern thought, like there is no objective way to determine art. Just because something didn't resonate with you doesn't mean it's not art. Marx did talk about dielatical materialism, that we should look at the material conditions of things around us and make judgements from there. That all is besides the point though, you can't say "people who understand x ideology often do y, therefore x ideology includes y." That's just a logical fallacy. If that logic worked then breathing and eating would be a core tenet of ideologies Also, who cares what your opinion of what should be displayed in a museum is. The world doesn't revolve around you, and if people like cardi b and Bach who are you to imply they are lesser for it.

[@marshallsweatherhiking1820]

Most of what the right criticizes really has it's foundation in French liberalism, not Marxism.

[@harpsdesire4200]

Bingo.

[@Rodg7556]

And what the modern left represents is mostly derived from french liberalism

[@tristanschell1932]

Darn French.

[@JollyJuiice]

@@Rodg7556 I must be looking at a different left

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@Rodg7556 I would say mostly British Liberalism. That gave us the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

[@moonlogic1986]

On equality and the draft: We now conscript women to the military in Norway. I served my first year before this happened, so all the women I served with were volunteers while the men were all conscripts (willing or not), which created an interesting gender dynamic, because the women were all strongly pro-military, while many of us men were not.

[@drewestification]

they're wanting men to take back control

[@moonlogic1986]

Women soldiers want men to take back control?

[@jonsnor4313]

Now force women to conscript too and see what happens. And if the men might get the choice too. I know it wolt happen buts an interesting though experiment.

[@kevinmathewson4272]

@@jonsnor4313 "We now conscript women in Norway." Read, dude.

[@Feast4Majora]

@karen kelly Of course if you lump every member of a group together, everything they say and do will seem contradictory. It's useless to tell random men not to enable wars.

[@anarchozoe]

Am glad you liked my video. Been a fan of yours since your video on K-pop.

[@jonasceikaCCK]

I'm really honored to hear that, you were one of the most helpful youtubers when I first started becoming a leftist!

[@djobokuwali4316]

Mixing marxism with identity politics prevents normies from seeing the light, just saying.

[@Basaltq]

Same here. Both of your channels are excellent on clarity and cutting to the point without removing anything important. It shows you are explaining content that you undertand as opposed to engaging in abstract and fuzzy concepts.

[@vatsetis]

Was a bit mislead by the tittle, but this video easay is really extraordinary.

[@khaymaneights]

@@djobokuwali4316 one might have a strong case in arguing that the working class being treated as "normies", something other than "us", is not exactly the path to enlightenment either

[@edwardbackman744]

“Communism is literally everything spread equally everywhere” -Karl Marx No seriously I’ve really been enjoying your content. I love the clips from Young Karl Marx.

[@thegoat-ishere4414]

💀💀you just sent his whole video to the ‘exposed for being flawed and irrelevant’ section in like 2 sentences

[@landonpowell6296]

"Socialism is when the government does stuff." - Karl Marx +Ryan >kicking out the most efficient members of your movement Thanks Nazi, if I want advice on how to lose a war against a bunch of impoverished countries, I'll ask for your advice.

[@technoguyx]

the ultimate goal of communism is the heat death of the universe

[@rafaelmarchanteangulo4582]

@@thegoat-ishere4414 do goats use quote check??? 😂😂😂😂 Or common sense for that matter

[@comradewildcat1770]

"The theory of communism can be summed up in one sentence: your daughter's attempts to establish a lemonade stand will be met with deadly force" - Also Karl Marx

[@petersmythe6462]

"Equality of outcome would mean everyone becoming the same person." How to be correct while sounding like Sargon of Akkad.

[@fromeveryting29]

...so, you have a past with him, too?

[@kerzariz8717]

@@fromeveryting29 YOUR COMMENT. HAHAHAHAHAHH

[@Roxanneredpanda]

So true, this guy is right in the most idiotic way possible

[@mark4asp]

Equality of outcome means we should only recruit blind and disabled players to play premiership soccer.

[@Br.soldier99]

​@@RoxanneredpandaYou deny biology

[@69adambomb69]

Emma Goldman said it best when,in regards to the women Suffrage movement of the early 20th century ,Said "I don't want to be equal to unfree men"

@Michael Corleone small advice: watch some shaun videos he talks about that topic pretty good ;)

[@skayrl]

Michael Corleone your misogyny is showing

[@f.t633]

@Michael Corleone *yawn*

[@skayrl]

Michael Corleone i mean, facts. what can i say

[@skayrl]

Michael Corleone it’s irony, i was joking. But I don’t understand your stance on me calling you a misogynist making me a misandrist? And yes, you’re right, advocating for women makes me have a heart full of hatred

[@mymom1462]

I’m a right-leaning dude. Your channel has really helped me understand postmodernism and marxism better. Not that I agree with a lot of it still but it’s refreshing to see someone who states the facts about what marx said instead of trying to deeply analyze what he meant. I didn’t know how marx and engels were anti-egalitarian. Makes me want to read parts of Das Kapital to understand more. I just recently realized how much I agree with marx as a person compared to marxism in general.

[@ephixel]

in general, i wouldn't recommend having strong opinions on anything you don't understand yet. after learning and understanding the full breadth of marxism and marx's writings you still feel urged to present yourself in a right-leaning manner that's fine but being against something you don't even understand is pretty poor praxis, my dude

[@mymom1462]

Shinji Ikari not really. I think i just didn’t know what Marx entailed. Political opinions are based on how you think people work. My opinions are specific to my experience in this world so they’d still remain the same overall. It’s just that I didn’t know what Marx actually entailed.

[@brumach527]

kapital is quite a long and dense read. I don't know how in to reading you are but it is ill advised to read das kapital without some prior marx and classical economics reading, especially if you are going to read parts of it.

[@yrobtsvt]

I switched from right leaning online political groups to left leaning ones in 2017, and quickly realized that most of what i hated about "the left" was actually just my hatred of the ignorant opportunism which tends to arise when people organize to fix problems. I will never be on the side of people online who make a living riding all over the guilty consciences of idiots, or who try to shame me into denying my own convictions. But there's actually plenty of depth to left-wing political thought and fascinating diversity in IRL direct action, none of which is easily visible in Internet discussions. (There is plenty of depth to right wing political thought too.)

[@argospanoptes4403]

Russian Bot You’re smart, I tried reading it all 3 volumes, I honestly didn’t get volume 2 and 3. You can always re-read books you don’t understand.

[@petersmythe6462]

"Everyone becoming the same person" *Borg-ism intensifies*

[@alexruddies1718]

Resistance is futile...

[@bandie9101]

#unexpectedstartrekreference

[@andrewtodaro2874]

Or the human instrumentality project from the Anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, where every human soul becomes one!

[@Br.soldier99]

Equality dont exist in any level

[@snoot_mcgoot]

Equality will always be an unreachable, impossible horizon, and that's okay. Life always will have inequality, because we are all unique in our life circumstances, goals, and personal experiences. What we can do is seek the lessen inequity insofar as it negatively impacts the quality of life, and create a more equal and fair playing field for everyone that celebrates justice and the unique individual needs of each person. Great video man - love your work!

[@marshallsweatherhiking1820]

While lack of fairness in capitalism is what motivates people who are naturally inclined to lean left, I think it's really important to not make it the end all and be all of capitalist critique. The most dangerous part of capitalism, especially unchecked capitalism, is it's inherently unstable structure. This is the only thing that will successfully sway full-blooded conservatives away from the current disaster ideology where the absolute right to private property is some kind of holy self-evident truth.

[@ConvincingPeople]

Marshall's Weather & Hiking I would say that the most dangerous aspect is not late capitalism's instability per se; the way that it encourages societal stasis and masks structural violence is far scarier in that it ensures that the fall will incur maximum attrition and collateral damage.

[@marshallsweatherhiking1820]

@@ConvincingPeople I don't think we disagree. I just think people need to understand that capitalism isn't "conservative" in that there is no kind of safe homeostasis that they want to imagine we can simply return to. Capitalism will always become a cancer that eats its own.

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 So to summarize, capitalism is like a cancer it is growth for the sake of growth in all it's varients (those being corporatism and imperialism), it demands that the primary factors of production those being land, labour and, capital fall into the grasp of a dangerous capitalist class at the top of the societal hierarchy of socio-economic status which you are born into, limiting your overall social mobility and that this societal caste of sorts is the antithesis of democratic ideals in a supposedly democratic society. Good to know!

[@johnliga9827]

To put it simply, equality amounts to the end of exploitation, discrimination and oppression which is totally reachable. We can live and will even thrive without having to oppress or exploit others. Inequality didn't just appear from nowhere to begin with but from oppression and exploitation(same reason why we must fight for equality. Equality couldn't just appear from nowhere. It must be established. Likewise for inequality. All the existing inequality only exist because it's been established). We're all unique and that doesn't get in the way of achieving equality. Quite the contrary, it is one of the reasons why we must strive for equality. The notion of compromising equality due to our uniqueness is dangerous as it can and will be easily twisted into a justification for some form of oppression. The problem with adopting their conclusion("equality will always be unreachable")in any way is that it gives their position some form of validity which they can use as a justification. They're totally and completely wrong and we must shove it down their throat for if we don't we'll be facilitating the oppression itself.

[@connorgray2896]

Watching these sort of videos has made me realise how much I need to educate myself on Marx before I speak on such matters again.

[@Jonathan-ds6yj]

Not much to learn, he was a slob a narcissist and never held a job in labor but rambled on about how much he hated those that had more than him, as slobs are prone to do.

[@ritadeep5590]

@@Giantcrabz I agree

[@conceptualization.6617]

@@Giantcrabz Marx made a great foundation, but some of his ideas are outdated. It's up to us to use actual existing socialist experiments to improve Marxist theory, instead of dogmatically following all of Marx's works

[@Thryllos]

@@GiantcrabzMarx himself was an advocate for changing our beliefs over time and experience so i think even he would agree with your statement

[@ANDDIRECTLLC]

Equality of outcomes has literally never been the goal of Das Kapital. Das Kapital criticizes capitalism for barring “equality of opportunity” because capital creates a rigid hierarchy that decreases access to capital for working class. When there is equality of opportunity aka equal access to capital, then equality of outcome is achievable in aggregate because the decisions that affect standards of living would be more democratized. So equality of opportunity should be a goal, but it can only come at the expense of the incumbents of capital...which is why it is a class struggle that requires political/legislative reform. Capital has a monopolizing effect IN PRACTICE, that decreases opportunity for non incumbents. The cost of that lack of capital opportunity (access) is expressed in the explosion of personal debt because monopolized incumbent interests have the unilateral prerogative to lower or stagnate wages & raise prices & because of tax codes, do not have to pay into the social, monetary or fiscal security of any nation, but can continue to control these aspects with the money power to buy political influence, so that the capital incumbents never have to give up their opportunity advantage. This cycle of increasing opportunity disparity destroys societies & the very competition that capitalists say is the sine qua non.

[@borisknapp9911]

"equality of outcome is achievable in aggregate" what does equality in aggregate even mean? Where I totally agree (and I think most people irrespective of political leaning do) is that the most problematic aspect of wealth inequality is the feedback loop with politics. Capital helps influence political decisions which help accumulate capital which then leads to even more power to influence politics and so on.

[@xCorvus7x]

@ Of course it does. How could there be equality of opportunity when not every one has the same liberties (social, economic, or otherwise)?

[@ANDDIRECTLLC]

Luc Verhoeven it does when the economy is completely financialized. in the past when America was great, “equal opportunity” meant “going west” oil prospecting, killing some native Americans & taking land or enslaving Africans to do your farming or cotton picking...but in a modern monetized economy, without access to money, you don’t have opportunity.

[@ArnarJohanns]

@@xCorvus7x My parents were smarter and more attentive than your parents, a random person inspired me that you never met, my school had slightly healthier food giving me nutritional advantages. Under the seemingly embracing leftist conception of equal opportunity lies a claim on total baseline unification and literal genetic lottery. The world you propose is a totalitarian hellhole. The liberal concept is quite different in that it does not prescribe how the world should be but how we should treat each other. Objective ability and a removal of irrelevant barriers should be our goal. The two concepts are based on completely different ideals, one a prescriptive social order and the other a moral imperative.

[@xCorvus7x]

@@ArnarJohanns Could my parents have been as smart or as attentive, could my school have had as healthy food? Individual inclinations and aspirations aside, not all parents have the same ability to tend to their children or make the right decisions, be smart, and not all schools are able to provide equally well for their students. This ability is compromised by inequalities which the Liberal system creates. But why do you bring up unique inspirations, chance encounters? Are you thinking of total control over the world, that every probability could ever be calculated and manipulated? Suppose one could go to such absurd lengths, inhowfar was this benefit to you to some one else's unconsensual detriment?

[@cap4526]

The full development of the individual. Thank you, that's an excellent way of articulating it.

[@TheSerfsTV]

Well this is just swell. Add you to my bread tube arsenal

[@somedudeok1451]

A very interesting take on the meaning of equality. Admittedly, I have not heard this yet, despite identifying as a marxist. It provides a smooth answer a question I have often been asked in debates: What if not everybody wants to be equal even in communism? At that point I always chose to wave it away by saying "People wouldn't necesserily have to be entirely equal." and focus more on marxisms critique of the current system, instead of what communism would ideally look like. Thank you for introducing me to this approach.

[@creepyisnotbad5719]

The problem I have with this video is that it misses what I believe to be a pivotal point : values are not goals. Values are merely the answer to questions like "how can we create a better society?". They are tools that politicians can use as a guide for policy making. Of course equality is not always the answer, as you showed in the video, but I don't believe the existence of a political value that's always helpful in any situation. Believing in equality as a political value means to believe that, given equal conditions, people should receive the same treatment. Of course this concept gets a bit confusing when we do not have equal circumstances. Imagine two people, one with one arm broken and one with two : to treat them equally means that they receive an amount of treatment that is proportioned to the circumstances. If both them received the same amount of treatment, it would be unfair and unequal, because the second guy has clearly more problems than the first one and therefore should receive more treatment. I believe in equality as a political value. I do not believe in equality as a goal, something to achieve at all costs. But then, who does really believe in a political value so much?

[@hangukhiphop]

I'd reframe that value from "equal treatment" to equal power. Equality is, after all, an indirect means to the overarching ideal of self-determination.

[@dd-xi1eh]

I'm noob here i don't understand it Btw what is political value ? This is really dumb question for ypu but this might help me 🙏

[@NathanDudani]

Well put

[@helenagrace9821]

so you mean equity instead of equality?

[@user-cf9np9cy8q]

We create a better society by leaving humans to live without societal expectations. Live and let live everybody fix your own problem. No one fixing for all. Problems wouldn’t exist if we weren’t always trying to fix it. The more we offer to be the “fixer”, the more problems arise with different races expecting more

[@SturFriedBrains]

My father is a Law professor who usually uses Marxist & Hegelian lenses in the crim classes he teaches. I think the best way I ever heard Marxism explained was as a means of returning to tribalism, like real tribalism, not the modern useage that refers to radical partisanship. For the majority of human evolution we lived in small tribes. These were almost as tightly packed groups as families, everyone knew everyone & there was enough space & resources for splits to take place, new tribes to form & one to move away from the other. In these tribes there were hunters who were better, gatherers who were better, builders who were better, leaders who were better, but all your better qualities were provided to the group. A hunter who brought home a great kill didn't demand money or resources for his kill, he fed his people. One day if he fell ill the tribe would retrieve medicine to try and nurse him back to health. Not only is he valuable to the tribe in his productive capacity, he has also formed an emotional bond with his tribesmen, an early death of this hunter would be a loss for everyone involved, & this hunter placing an economic barrier between his kill & the mouths of his tribesmen would be a loss for both as they would starve & likely not save him if he fell I'll. Resources are begotten of by and for a collective, not the individual, though the individual differences of people are respected & taken advantage of. Once man began to till the land he began to create surplus. With surplus people are no longer bound to each other as in a tribe, and populations boom. Dunbar's number is the limit on the number of people your brain can actually process as people, as agents & actors as opposed to objects. Eventually this lead to a total loss of tribal familial bonds & lead people to demand a quid pro quo system for their labor, an exchange which was previously expected through tribal love & norms. This was also the beginning of history & what we know as modern theology. All social institutions were designed to protect "haves" with surplus from violent reactions of "have nots". From there the rest is the more broadly know part of Marxist theory. It's a more narrative heavy, low resolution picture than the actual texts, but I think this version is actually a digestible, understandable version. People don't get the more complexified, jargonistic perhaps more accurate retellings of the Marxist narrative.

[@fellowtraveler620]

SturFriedBrains This is a perfect summation of what I think Marxism really means. When you read about hunter-gatherers it soon becomes obvious that many philosophers have basically been arguing a sort of return to tribal living. Not just in regards to Marxism but also in regards to social issues like feminism. If you read about the !Kung women as well as other hunter-gatherer women you will find that women in tribal society contribute equal amounts of food (and in the case of the !Kung women MORE) to the men. It wasn't until farming came along and surplus came into effect that men (or more specifically powerful men) gained more social status than the women because they relied on the men to operate the plow and run all the things outside of the home/family sphere and thus had no source of income on their own. Oddly enough, we are now sort of starting to enter into a sort of phase where the individual has more autonomy over themselves and their government that we are more and more becoming like our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The only difference between us and them is that we still live in groups WAY above the Dunbar number and we still have a social heirarchy. So the question becomes do we get rid of that bit of government that we have left and go back to living as hunter-gatherers? I see many problems because of this: 1) In The Better Angels of our Nature Steven Pinker lays out the case that hunter- gathers have a murder rate thousands of times higher than that of civilized societies. They are also go to war with each other about every two years or so. Even though the people in this hypothetical future would be a lot more civilized and therefore a lot less prone to violence there would still be a possibility of something like that happening in the future as society becomes more isolated and fractured from each other. 2) Advancement would probably cease to exist as well because there would likely be no companies or governments to organize large amounts of human resource--which is what lead to all of the wonderful advancements in medicine and technology that we have now. IDK, but it's still an interesting thought though.

[@fucktardickis]

SImon S That is an asinine comparison. No hunter-gatherer really had the time to "R&D", if you had the insight to make the trap then you would pass this knowledge onto the tribe. The individual human life was simply not as important or self centered in the way it is now. You have answered your own question as well, humans are egotistic, but the tribe is the extension of the individual human, it would have been your family and your entire society outside of brief contact with other tribes. IN a reverse manner one could argue that the invention of some trap or advancement you make is only possible because the whole tribe raised and hunted enough to allow you to survive long enough for you to develop that device. The trap passing into collective ownership of the tribe is basically a return on that investment.

[@fucktardickis]

Well yes there was no "research and development" you said you were a hunter and there was other hunters and made the first trap in history, so i assumed you were living in a hunter gatherer society and not 18th century England. Hunter gatherers had very limited ability for progress. They had to spend a vast majority of time and effort just finding food, and any technology they got needed to be man portable. Similarly you say the "real life socialistic approach" what do you mean? Communism? Democratic socialism? Ultimately this comments chain started as a discussion on the "communism as tribalism" metaphor. So im not sure what you even mean by " real-life capitalistic(individualistic)" really.

[@LightiningHobo]

It is important to know that a return to tribalism is impossible, even for marxism. All forms of social organization are historically constructed according to the material conditions avaiable. Socialism and Communism are social organizations that go beyond capitalism, "foward", you can't go "back" to tribalism. Capitalism is based in the material conditions of scarcity, communism in conditions of abundance. Since the material conditions are different, the social relations are different, in other words communism would have different social organization than tribalism. There could be values and other similarities but it would be very different and very hard to predict before it happens. The comparison is more useful to ilustrate how things were different then and therefore they can be different in the future. That we are not so tied up by things such as an egoistic or warmonging nature, that those values are more intrinsic to capitalism than to man.

[@FarmersAreCool]

Rome conquered the planet with the citizenship construct. Every country uses the citizenship construct, and the metaphysics of that system the imagery, the language are self referenced and founded upon biblical myth, Man created governments, governments created corporations, they are made up entities. Capitalism of the individual to maximize his production within his community is what built Canada and the USA. Now here in NB, for example, The dairy quota system, this socialized abortion is using fictitious quota to leverage farmers off the land and out of business. Usrury banking is the culprit, I mean This is world communism / socialism failing right now. Fix the Goddamn currencies, remove inflation from supply chains and get the fuck outa of lives with rules and Men can save the day here. Now Christ is the foundation of the west, we told a story about language, all the metaphors are what we founded our govs upon so we could go back and check ourselves for error and escape this ego trap we are stuck in. We have become tribal under these corproate (Dead ego, dead fiction)gov we treat as Gods. Oligarchs have used cybernetics and idolatry to link citizens to massive debt sinking them under the waves, Central banking and standing armies, this is communism, when USA spreads Usury banking they are spreading communism. We need the common LAw, we base that upon scripture, it is fiction meant to show you how human act. Dunno, guess I am retarded, restore the rule of LAw or all our families die.

[@argospanoptes4403]

Here is a quote from Marx to debunk Peterson from the Critique of the Gotha Program: “Rights by its very nature can only consist in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are only measurable by an equal standard in so far as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only, e.g., in the present case regarded only as workers, and nothing more seen in them, everything else being ignored.” I find it laughable that Peterson has not even read one of the shortest works by Marx, but constantly complain about Marxists misrepresenting him.

[@pillihpzelaznog2017]

Argos Panoptes nobody needs to read garbage

[@barkli2978]

Wamuu - Divine sandstorm, I think this is a *looks at smudged writing on hand* sad and empty troll?

[@pillihpzelaznog2017]

Mmmmm acid

[@ramonalejandrosuare]

So this Pillihp guy argues he sees Marx as clear as day but won't even read his argument to better attack him. LOL

[@pillihpzelaznog2017]

Don’t mind me I’m just a KGB spy sent here by President Putin to use racism bigotry and ignorance to troll you idiots till it gives you cancer

[@idanzamir7540]

Somebody: marxism is atheistic but it views the state as god me: sure, sure....

[@GoopyProduction]

Did you know that Marx was really into eschatology before becomming a proponent of economic and philosophical ignorance?

[@GoopyProduction]

@@jackharvey7824 why do you think it is that every marxist revolution winds up creating a very strong and oppressive state?

[@takaharrue]

sounds like someone read a few pages of stirner and is now a genius libertarian

[@GBSZ12]

@@jackharvey7824 "where the state slowly dissolves itself" jesus christ, what am I reading

[@GBSZ12]

@@jackharvey7824 I got upset seeing your analogy to high school bands, good argument

[@rugbyguy59]

Just want to say I’ve returned to this video (like many of your videos) repeatedly. It’s incredibly well constructed and informative. Thank you for your work. Comment 1000 too

[@krymore]

2:33 my brain switched off and all I could think about was isthisloss.jpg

[@jupiterjaeden9163]

One minor nitpick I might have is that I don’t believe “equality before the law” to be completely useless. I’ve always interpreted it to mean that the law should not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc. and should instead only consider the actions of each individual. EDIT: Also advocating for “political equality” (as in each member of a society having equal decision-making power) is something I believe to be good. I don’t think it’s actually possible or desirable for every person to have exact equal power all the time but every person should have the same opportunity to participate in decision-making.

[@bobbie3713]

You argument is self-defeating, you had to specify what you mean by equality in last sentence, which proves how fuzzy it is

[@n0tthemessiah]

A minimum wage worker gets a speeding ticket and is fined $200, a significant portion of his monthly income. A billionaire gets a speeding ticket and is fined the exact same amount, but he makes more than that in the time it took to write the ticket and hand it over to him. This is equality before the law.

[@Dominis.]

Never stop making these videos pls

[@homebrewfutures]

Jonas, your channel got me into reading Marx and this video specifically was what convinced me to read Gothakritik. Thank you for that!

[@newcenturynarratives130]

Honestly you've done a much better job in explaining Marxist thought than Zero Books. I watch his videos and come away thinking about Contra's criticism of "quoting unnecessarily convoluted philosophies of long dead eastern Europeans" (or something to that extent). Anyway. Thanks for your video

[@karimmoop9560]

>contrapoints

[@tyroneslyce4879]

>contrapoints

[@kosemekars]

It's far more analytical than ZB.

[@keylanoslokj1806]

you marxists are so ridiculous and dishonest. yout try to do apologetics for marxism but fail miserably. wherever it was attempted it failed miserably. capitalism is the best system we ever had. you try to present marxism as a dogma that promotes individualism. marxism is the polar opposite of individualism. commies are the most brainwashed and hive mind controlled thinkers that exist. i had friends of those in college, even their entertainment was monitored and guided. and everything was done according to the party's will. it is dictatorship of the proletariat, you seem to always forget that part. . .

[@karimmoop9560]

there's only two actual marxists itt, and it's me and lenin is love, the rest are socdems and academic cretins

[@leadmixer]

@2:33 is this loss

[@parkerkwon12]

I saw the title and thought "hooo boy this is gonna be bad" But then I watched and agree completely. Ironic what actually engaging with content can do to an opinion

[@upchuckles243]

This is such a wonderful clarification.

[@FlippingAwesomeKimmi]

i’m a new subscriber and i just want to say i love your channel. you clearly put lots of effort into these videos and you have a real skill for explaining and spreading knowledge

[@mudsh4rk]

Thank you for this. This stuff (your channel as a whole, not just this video) always seems like it should be so obvious that it doesn't even bear mentioning, but obviously it isn't and having such clear, concise, well supported capsule discussins of it is a great resource, both in terms of organiing my own ideas so that they're easier to communicate and in terms of having a convenient little primer I can link someone to. Cheers to Michael Brooks for plugging you on today's Majority Report, I hope you get a lot more traffic from it.

[@drbinxy9433]

To say I’ve learned a thing or two from your channel is a massive understatement.

[@Katalmach]

People that claim that Marxism is about equality of outcome generally do that because that is what has been in effect the what people that claim to be Marxists or are sympathetic to Marxism have done. I think it's incorrect to first blame the opponents of Marxism as being insufficiently rigorous when in fact they are not interested in the free-floating ideology, but rather what the present movement is doing. I realize this is vastly unfair to proponents of Marxism that are way more true to its roots and more educated on the matter, but this is just how every single movement is judged.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

True. Social Democrats who mix marxism with socialism, find the compromise they make can only be towards enforced equality. this is a problem with 'fixing capitalism'.

[@martinledermann1862]

+ Katalmach Precisely. He goes completely over Peterson's points without ever addressing what's really behind as he's too focused on proving how he know the actual theoretical Marxism better than him. The thing is, nobody really cares about who Marx was, and "Marxism" is just a buzzword used by the right, in a very similar manner to how the left uses such terms as "racism", "patriarchy" or "white supremacism" (without being able to distinguish it, even linguistically, from "white nationalism"). When the right criticizes "Communism" or "Socialism", they obviously refer to the real-world actual implementations of these ideologies not to what their original philosophical underpinnings were... What matters is how the modern left is trying to limit free speech or break national borders, etc., their intentions and actions is what matters, not what was written in Das Kapital or the Red Book.

[@Jay-oy5zs]

facts

[@ahania333]

@@martinledermann1862 the fact you think hes "liberal" is telling, lol

[@martinledermann1862]

@@ahania333 How would you describe him then?

[@miba34ful]

Very good video I agree with pretty much everything you said, though i want to add that ironically many of the contemporary marxists (Another name could be "college marxists" ) do not base marxism on Karl Marx anymore. I've seen many of these people call themselves marxists while campaigning for equality of outcome. While I'm in no way a Peterson fanatic I do see his point but it is obviously only a fair criticism of his when speaking of the aforementioned equality of outcome people, who in general identify as marxists.

[@bicameralmind32]

Exactly

[@calvinbrice.t2140]

Yup that’s the problem. People identify as marxists today are strictly about the equality of outcome which we know that is an impossibility

[@calvinbrice.t2140]

That’s the problem with the Left from the United States. They are too invested with the Equality of outcome which is flawed in every way

[@narieee2543]

I'm impressed by how you said all your patrons at the end instead of just saying thank you for supporting. It shows your sincerity about how much you appreciate their support. Excellent!

[@Jaffameister]

Thank you! I'd always had difficulty expressing this idea in conversation and debate, always being able to identify the arguments of centrists and the right as "not getting the point," but always struggling to word or even fully understand *why* they weren't getting the point. This has been really helpful in expanding the phrasing and vocabulary that I have available to me, and given me newfound knowledge and of the politics that had always *felt* right to me, but never necessarily understood.

[@tetrapharmakos8868]

You still don't have the tools to express this in a debate, because if you use this argument you will be dismissed by all rationalists for having committed both the genetic fallacy and the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[@MsClaireEverett]

I wish I could tie Peterson down Clockwork Orange style and force him to watch this video.

[@Leandro-bj6jh]

Summary of this video: "JP dumb, liberalism bad, Marx good"

[@robertbrandywine]

I thought this video more or less agreed Peterson and amplified upon it.

[@jrd33]

I don't think there's too much in this video he'd disagree with, fundamentally. His biggest error in this area is conflating the left/progressivism/marxism/postmodernism.

[@Br.soldier99]

Marxs is dumb

[@Alanthewhite]

THANK YOU! I'm not a Marxist at all, and I find a lot wrong with his writings, but I am so sick and tired of people who never actually read him making critiques that don't actually reflect what he wrote.

[@Enragedguy24]

I despise his teachings with my heart and soul and find them untenable from a myriad of ways, the least of which are neurological and economical. But! But people listen to Peterson too blindly. I like the man, but I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I just listened and believed. That said, JP does refer to Neo-marxism rather that Marxism in its original, non-egalitarian form. What do you make of that distinction?

[@garbagegarbagegarbage1005]

Enragedguy24 it’s pretty vague. I don’t really know what he’s referring to when he says that, and it doesn’t help that it sounds like the Nazi conspiracy of cultural marxism

[@mortak6307]

@@garbagegarbagegarbage1005 >Someone calls Peterson a nazi >several people are typing. > ah shit, here we go again.

[@radlad6435]

@@mortak6307 No one called him that. Someone just said something he said "sounds like" a Nazi conspiracy theory

[@mortak6307]

@@radlad6435 fair enough, still my attempt a joke works

[@lukespenz]

This was a very helpful video with the right kind of thinking. I would love to hear you do some long forums with other thinkers like maybe philosophytube or contrapoints

[@kadeshvega5013]

We should stop acknowleding Jordan's sub-par elementary level and poorly interpreted rants and start referring to it as the philosophy of thralls and weak men.

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

@@susanp3608 Agreed, I followed him for a bit a few years ago, and watched his debate with Chomsky, and I've come to the conclusion that he is basically any other basic bitch conservative with religious values that contradict their (classical) Liberal views. The only denominating factor with Peterson is that he is a decently articulated conservative academic (which is relatively rare) who happened to have been embroiled in controversy during his protest of bill C-16. I think he would have remained in obscurity within the cultural consciousness if the media didn't created mountain piles of hit pieces of the man. It was practically free publicity for the man, however stress inducing it ended up being later down the line. Now I just don't pay attention to him.

[@eternalblue4660]

I like to take myself as a thinker(For the most part anyway) and honestly this never crossed my mind at all, so throughout this whole video I was baffled. Thankyou for an amazing and well put together video!

[@EinFelsbrocken]

Thats basically philosophers everyday life tho. "Hey I thought really hard about this: *THING* What do you think about it?" " *Unveils a whole new pov* " "Ah fuck."

[@IPere54]

Most marxists outside of academia, and many inside, think marxism is about achiving maximum equality, so when people say marxism is about trying to impose total equality they may be technically wrong but they are right in practice.

[@Br.soldier99]

No kind of equality

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Another great one. I wish your analyses could be more widely known.....(Footnote: It's very funny when you, with your serious, intellectual voice, read some of the silly names of your Patreon supporters!)

[@jcrios1917]

I've heard many so-called "Marxists" claim that Marx and Engels were not egalitarians. This is patently false, even they who call themselves "Marxists", contradict themselves by quoting Marx in 1866 "The subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers." And again Engels in 1886 "The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers." In 1844 we find Engels writing sympathetically of American Shaker communities, which he argued, proved that "communism. - is not only possible but has actually already been realized." Marx also co-authored a French worker's party program in 1880 which stated that "the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race." Marx had also referred to the philosophy of Claude Adrien Helvétius as "real humanism" and the "social basis of communism." Similarly Marx and Engels referred to Gracchus Babeuf as the "first modern revolutionary communist." Marx to Kugelmann 1868 "great progress was evident in the last Congress of the American "Labour Union" in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality... Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included)." *Marx-Zasulich Correspondence 1881 First Draft "In the words of an American writer who, supported in his work by the Washington government, [’the higher plane'] ‘the new system’ to which modern society is tending ‘will be a revival, in a superior form, of an archaic social type.’ We should not, then, be too frightened by the word ‘archaic’." "Still, the research is sufficiently advanced to warrant the assertion that: (1) the primitive communities had incomparably greater vitality than the Semitic, Greek, Roman and a fortiori the modern capitalist societies: and (2) the causes of their decline lie in economic factors which prevented them from going beyond a certain degree of development." [of the Russian ‘rural commune'] "It is easy to see that the dualism inherent in the ‘agricultural commune’ may give it a sturdy life: for communal property and all the resulting social relations provide it with a solid foundation, it is just as evident, however, that the very same dualism may eventually become a source of disintegration. The privately owned houses, fragmented tillage of the arable land and private appropriation of its fruits, the mere accumulation over time of movable property, all these factors, then, serve to dissolve economic and social equality, generating within the commune itself a conflict of interests which leads, to the conversion of arable land into private property."

[@toatrika2443]

Clickes on the video thinking its probably stupid; consequently completely agree with every point made. Great video

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

Finally, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone bring up the facy that equality of opportunity is as unrealistic a goal as equality of outcome.

[@miculprint.]

Great video!I enjoy learning about different philosophies that dont specifically align with my own,you're a great source man,high quality.

[@DuncanMac23]

Just discovered your channel. Excellent stuff. Subscribed.

[@balvarez972]

I learned a lot about actual postmodernism and marxism from your channel. If its possible could you try touching on the topic of metamodernism? So far what I got is that its about reconstruction of ideas and the sense of being naïve, but cynical at the same time to a topic. I could be completely wrong, but learning from your videos has been fun and got me interested in learning for myself by actually reading and buying books. Keep it up and I look forward to your next video!

[@fionnmcglacken35]

This channel is a goldmine.

[@TerryKrg]

Refreshing, preoccupying and elucidating as always. Kudos

[@TheMonkeystick]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France

[@MrSaggat]

subbed. At first I was afraid of hearing yet another neoliberal nonsense philosophy on youtube. But I found gold.Thanks

[@robertmusilbronson3118]

a bit confused though: replacing Equality as goal with some other, more concrete goals/policies seems nice and rosy, but what's the guiding principle in establishing these other goals? aren't those means to an end? so what's the end, if not Equality?

[@D4PPZ456]

You basically want to strive for equality of outcome/opportunity only when they are beneficial to the system in some way. For example, we all agree that it would be the most beneficial arrangement, in any society, to take actions that would lead to the maximization of human potential for as many people as possible. It would, for example, make no sense, from a societal perspective, to take someone with a 200 IQ and make them a janitor for their entire life. The barriers that would stop a person's potential from maximizing, which is of tantamount importance to both the individual and the society, would be directly contradictory to this basic idea that most people can agree on. One of the main problems that gets in the way of the full maximization of potential is the idea that someone must be rich enough to maximize their potential through education, which is oxymoronic if you consider what is generally necessary for a person to get rich in the first place. This is a situation where equality of opportunity is clearly a better arrangement of the education system than one that would inefficient make us of human potentials, such as a completely free market one.

[@iosefka7774]

Marx's goal was liberty.

[@superduperfreakyDj]

They strive for Liberty, equality of opportunity so that every human can have the same chance to excel in whatever they're good at.

[@iosefka7774]

@@superduperfreakyDj "Equality of opportunity" is a horrible term made up by conservatives trying to justify poverty.

[@superduperfreakyDj]

@@iosefka7774 It's not a horrible term, conservatives just don't understand what it actually means

[@YensR]

6:50 Wait what? When you laid out her statements, I thought it was a clever way by her of showing the absurdity in the US prison system. I feel it takes a sociopath to actually be serious. Wow.

[@burner1303]

it takes a sociopath to be a prison warden

[@burner1303]

@Kill Team Charlie I'm being facetious, there are plenty of sociopaths who are productive members of society, unlike prison wardens.

[@jrd33]

"Instead of asking for equal rights, why not ask for better rights?" -- because this immediately leads to a battle where all the special interest groups fight to prove they deserve more than everyone else. Equal rights is also aiming for a system which is simpler, easier to understand and administer, which is an admirable goal in any change to a system.

[@kattflee5534]

With your help, and herding cats (zerobooks) finally wrapping my head around Marx.... Thanks..

[@martinherrera4617]

Katt Flee herding cats? What do u mean?

[@kattflee5534]

Meteroa Are you familiar with ZeroBooks? They have a podcast. An offspring of the podcast is is longform discussion tackling the giant book Capitol... I've tried 3 times in 6 years to get through the book.. This is the first time I'm actually retaining Information.... I think.. I'll try and find a link. Might be on KZbin if you try ZeroBooks herdingcats...

[@LightiningHobo]

Aggressive Tubesock That's essentially what it says in the introduction written by "Marky" Marx himself.

[@moodist1er]

If you want two sticks to think they're equal, you shape them with the same ax. Then you wrap those shaped sticks as a bundle around the ax. So the "bundle" gives its consent to the violent authority of the ax and not to do so is "impolite" (not polished / shaped). And that's how fascism works, through the violent control of perception.

[@robertbrandywine]

What is fascism to you? It certainly isn't about equality -- just the opposite.

[@moodist1er]

@@robertbrandywine fascism is the system of manipulating people's perception. Like when Trump tells his plebes that the election was stolen, or that neo nazis are good people, it's a blatant lie but his illiterate plebes believe him despite his rhetoric being easily refuted.

Thank you for the Are Prisons Obsolete? recommendation. It looks like a provocative read.

[@gnometooth]

Juat started watching your videos and love them!

[@Goldenhawk0]

God this is an amazing video.

[@ericcheese7594]

Knowledgeable Reaction Your videos are good too!

[@Goldenhawk0]

Eric Cheese Thanks. I'm working on few once university is done.

[@pskch9778]

THANK YOU. ''Equality of opportunity'' and ''equality of outcome'' are both wrong. You explained everything perfectly.

[@dexterjettster8875]

Equality is wrong. Period.

[@GabrielYuriTheNinja]

I see the effort to place accurate subtitles in various different languages. Congratulations for your channel.

[@obrkenobi1170]

Godamn your videos/arguments are perfect.

[@voltairinekropotkin5581]

There's a third option beyond both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of autonomy. That is, equality of capabilities to realise one's self-development. It's the combination of equality with freedom. This is the ideal we should strive for. Equality of autonomy is consistent with social anarchism's goal of synthesising freedom with equality.

[@scotthalland]

I'm not sure I precisely understand. What would this look like in a practical analogy?

[@voltairinekropotkin5581]

Scott Halland There's a fence blocking the view of a football game. There's three people who want to see the game, and they're all different heights. Equality of opportunity: The three try to watch the game over the fence. Only the tallest of the three can see over it. Equality of outcome: All three are given a box to stand on. The tallest could already see, so had no need for the box. The shortest still can't see, as the box isn't tall enough. The middle one is the only one who the box really benefitted, and can now see. Equality of autonomy: All three have the freedom to choose how many boxes (or none) they have to stand on. The shortest chooses two. The middle chooses one. The tallest chooses none. All are now equal, as they can see the game, and this equality was achieved by orienting the process of equality around individual agency and individual needs, instead of a one-size-fits-all metric of opportunity or outcome.

[@scotthalland]

Thanks for the reply. It probably adds to the point of the video a bit but I've seen these examples described with interchangeable terms. Typically though I've seen equality of autonomy as you describe it labelled as "equity" or "equitable distribution".

[@jamiedorsey4167]

So what happens when the desired outcome isn't equally available? Like maybe someone wants to stand out or gain relative advantage so they can attract a higher quality partner or they care about their social status? If the larger person wants a relative advantage and they are free to choose how many boxes they want, what's to prevent them from using their power advantage to take all three boxes?

[@peepiepo]

Your "equality of outcome" example didn't have equal outcomes. Your "equality of autonomy" *is* equality of outcomes. The "outcome" in the example is the view of the game, you give them what they need to get an equal view.

[@alexcereuceta5907]

Some would argue that MLK was fundamentally a Marxist, for the search for “equality in freedom” and not in “oppression” (I paraphrase), suggests a deeper understanding and action on the needs of those underprivileged, thus more freedom for them, shaped in whichever form of freedom they might need, no more oppression for the already privileged. That’s why I propose a minimum baseline standard for familial and individual development: every family and or person under a any given jurisdiction has the right (not a privilege) to a certain number of basic needs, regardless of the person’s social, political, educational, familial or generational context. Dependable housing, dependable nutrition, dependable education, dependable health care. With this 4 pillars the society cannot guarantee the success of an individual, but does provide the platform to promote individual success, growth, social mobility, and the pursuit of wealth and happiness, and thus a freedom of entrepreneurship, failure and to try again.

[@thatchapthere]

I mean, he was openly socialist www.huffpost.com/entry/the-uncompromising-anti-capitalism-of-martin-luther-king-jr_b_4629609?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFdPqUPqV2arwBr-ZJ1_UcC7MFE-377jjBxFggFNiXOaEG3_6ZeBfeWBJGfUpXDUDq8WggnMZT_0xIWg_J_26Kz3gQNgf9tghntwE6TCNenpw1ZvOSlgRc6XPhFpk9qrb_BLEzJcJ4qu57aH4HDAh5wxUd_p3dQsEIoOytWmmMBv

[@grecko8762]

Thank you for this clarification on this point - I have searched for an explanation of this concept, and Marxism as a whole, free of resentment and racism so I could better understand the attraction for so many intelligent people. You are much more clear and fair than even the great Robert Paul Wolfe who's entire lecture on Marxism I listened to and was disappointed by.

[@comradecthulhu6052]

This video is really good, it’s nuanced, which is lacking in today’s political environment. You’ve gotten yourself a new subscriber dude.

[@ShadowoftheDude]

Thinking about it, when people say equality a lot of the time what they’re actually talking about is liberty. “Equal opportunity” is actually about the freedom to direct your path in life, to pursue your chosen career, etc. “Marriage equality” is actually about free love (and consent, as you mentioned).

[@John-hz8xy]

I feel like Jordan Peterson is just doubling down on his ideas. I mean it would be humiliating for him to admit he's wrong.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

There's no need to admit he's wrong. As long as people keep buying his books and attending his public presentations to reaffirm their flawed beliefs through his authority he'll be just fine

[@John-hz8xy]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 sadly.

[@Br.soldier99]

You are wrong

[@quantumcomputation4963]

Thank you for clarifying this common misunderstanding regarding equality and Marxism. It may have been useful for you to mention that Marx's borrowed usage of the famous slogan "From each according..." (which it this form can be attributed to Louis Blanc) was criticised at the time by Jules Guesde who called it an "old supposed communist cliché". As an anecdote, in 1880 Guesde traveled to London to meet Marx , and I like to think the two of them argued about the usefulness of these kinds of political marketing slogans.

[@alandiaz8755]

great video. your channel is one of my favourites for sure

[@TerranceDaBuddha]

If you don't mind me asking what are you planning on doing with your degree in philosophy? Its something I always wanted to go to school for but I wouldn't know what to do with the knowledge or how to find a job that would need it.

[@explosionlord]

A degree in philosophy is best with another degree in something, eg maths

[@jonasceikaCCK]

Best case scenario would be becoming an undergrad teacher of philosophy I think

[@ericcheese7594]

Use your education to infiltrate the highest echelons of society, and overthrow western society via cultural Marxism.

[@mikuhatsunegoshujin]

eat whuite babies while you're at it.

[@miiks...5...3...9...]

Taxi Driver at best

[@HxH2011DRA]

Next do freedom

[@VE8PB]

Clicked on this video expecting to get mad. I should have known better. Very nicely done. I especially like the finish on Davis' book and how equality can be shown as a miserable outcome when conceptualised as a race to equal at the bottom outcomes!

[@lsobrien]

In all seriousness, this is an excellent video. Great take on the debate.

[@meat8064]

You've misquoted Marx. He stated "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" in his Critique of the Gotha Program. I'm curious on why you edited his phrasing.

[@thesnorg1442]

how does the lack of pronouns change the meaning of the quote?

[@user-wd8wx5md5z]

Both can be regarded as quite equivalent translations of the German sentence.

[@rootentootenbluebucko25]

I’ve tried to avoid politics as of late due to myself finding it all too depressing. However I enjoyed this video due to its key message of striving for better rights for all. Fits with my view of just be kind to each other.

[@Joy3269]

Thank You For This Video. My Friend. Your Videos are really very Nice. I would like tk Congratulate Yourself & All Your Team Members For Providing us with such a Nice Video. Your Concept is Clear & Nice. You have cleared all my doubts. Thank You. 🎉🎉🎉💐💐💐🙏🙏🙏🌻🌻🌻🌹🌹🌹👍👍👍❤❤❤.

[@DestroyerMariko]

Wow, this was great, going in my favourites list :D

[@yearslate9349]

Classic method of arguing against something; strawman it. Doubly points for thinking your strawman is actually what the other side believes.

[@Leandro-bj6jh]

Yeah, Cuck Philosophy straw manning liberalism is a good example.

[@envy5664]

are you critiquing this video or peterson

[@Cubelarooso]

You come so close, then just walk away. Absolute equality in all respects could be easily attained through voluntary human extinction.

[@hian]

A very good and informative video. I wonder if this clearer understanding of marxism is lost on more than the people complaining about marxism. While it may very well be true that the paradox of equality as a political goal is confounding and often used as a strawman to beat down left of center arguments by people right of center, I see the confusion often represented in many of the positions and arguments by the people left of center as well. I appreciate that your video touched on that as well.

[@shocky2787]

I love the way you say "talkin' about" xD

[@sethkellam5329]

Peterson is reacting to (for lack of a better term) "popular discourse" regarding equality. He correctly points out that there are manifold vectors along which equality can be measured. He's simply stating what a growing number of people (including myself) think: that the political left has taken a remarkably ham-fisted approach to equality, with no nuance or conditionality allowed. Enough of the defense of Peterson. It's actually quite a pleasure to listen to a (fairly, within the confines of youtube) sophisticated explication of Marx and marxism. It's a good antidote to the arguments I've had with identitarians who claim, "Yes I'm your Marxist from hell!" but who haven't the vaguest comprehension of Marx and Engels (or, re: antifa, Bakunin). But this is our time: we have people who claim to be leftists invoking Marx and Guevara, people on the right making similarly vacuous references to Hayek and Friedman. It's all good I guess in the 21st century...at least they have the names, if not the ideas, right.

[@Hooga89]

The thing is, the people both he and you are calling the "political left" are actually just a new generation of mainstream liberals who fanatically believe in the edict from the French Revolution of "Liberty, equality and fraternity". They aren't leftists, even though they might even believe they are.

[@tiagocorreia2690]

Everyone has to remember that Peterson either doesn’t read or lies

[@hanblue1862]

probably both

[@mortak6307]

Tiago Correia **Citation needed**

[@franlaris8553]

I normally don't leave comments in any type of video. But your videos have really made me think about everything I thought I knew about politics and philosophy. I have recently began looking for the basis of our politics and the tabu subjects (such as Marxism, objectivism, etc) that each side has and your chanel has really opened up my mind about some of these things.

[@reubena7854]

love the primary sources! i understand marx and engels a little more now.

[@user-ip3mm6pr7o]

"marriage equality"I had that argument myself actually. I'm a lesbian and my dad is a trump supporter. So like 10 years ago we were arguing about gay rights shit. The wild thing is, I've never even believed in marriage. I never wanted it to be a legal construct to begin with. My stance has always been to abolish marriage and its legal benefits and its costs to enter or divorce. But for some reason we ended up debating about gay marriage anyway because idk, I probably criticized his church or something. (I think it was when he left the lutheran church due to them recognizing gay couples as existing, but I was also like 14 so he was able to pull me along on a bunch of dishonest talking points that I kept emotionally reacting to cause teen girl or whatever). I have literally no idea how I got sucked into that one. Just the stupidity of the statement stood out so I remember the scene, just not the context. I think my brain has been broken ever since I heard that nonsense. And my dad built a shrine to glenn beck when his tv show was canceled, it takes a lot to break my brain.

[@fruitylerlups530]

I really do wish we actually advocated that the state should not recognize, legislate on or define marriage, like I mean i absolutelt do want to marry my boyfriend, but why the hell do i need the state to recognize it?

[@GynxShinx]

I can hit the conservatives with "I'm not a marxist because I want equality of outcome."

[@Br.soldier99]

​@squiresandspurs219Marxs was wrong

[@DoomRulz]

I've had to rewatch your video twice in a row to ensure I don't misunderstand you. You've clearly put time and effort into it, so I thank you for that! Would it be safe to assume that, Marxism as you've explained it here, is how things were supposed to work but it has since been twisted to suit certain ideological goals in the modern era?

[@Competitive_Antagonist]

I guess it's like opening a pin tumbler lock. You need big teeth for some pins and small teeth for other pins. The unevenness of the teeth balances with the unevenness of the pins so they both clear the barrel to allow the bolt to be released. In a sense they have been made equal, but neither the pins or the teeth are equal.

[@objectivereality1392]

I appreciate the insight of this video, although I feel like it is a bit of a strawman. I've never heard anyone claim that Marxism's goal is "absolute equality". I have heard people claim that Marxism's desired result (if not the stated goal) is equality of outcome, specifically as it pertains to quality of life. The information in this video supports this latter view of Marxism. Regarding the clip of Jordan Peterson explaining all the different metrics by which human equality can be measured. I feel like this was taken out of context a bit. Peterson wasn't pointing out these metrics to say "Marxism tries to make people equal by all of these metrics!" I think he pointed them out to say, "Marxism tries to *compensate* for the innumerable ways in which people are unequal by forcing their quality of life (outcomes) to be similar". The end result of a hypothetical "successful" implementation of Marxism is that a society's standard of living is brought into a narrow range, with no outliers of extreme wealth or destitute poverty. This result of this arrangement is, by definition, egalitarian-- Even if that was not the stated goal. So, I find it a bit disingenuous to say, "No! Marx's goal wasn't to create an equal society! The goal is to remove class distinctions and raise the minimum standard of living while also eliminating extreme wealth!" It's a semantics game.

[@lethalbee]

I've always considered Elizabeth S. Anderson's "What is the point of equality?" the best take on equality. In that article, she argues that equality is most important when it comes to participate in democracy. Equality of political influence is the most important equality of all (and the most problematic when there is inequality, e.g. money in politics)

[@user-th9pn7ze7j]

I like how the subtitles go (nasally voice) before they say what Peterson is saying lol

[@jeannebouwman1970]

Take a shot for every time he says equal or a word related to it

[@thefreeman26]

As a libertarian I have gained so much knowledge on classic Marxism from your channel. Although I often disagree with the ideas I can now clearly see logic behind Marxist arguments whilst before I would just say whatever they're just stupid. Keep up the good work

[@Kaergaard]

Watapon Watapon The original libertarian meaning or so it seems. Although on some points modern libertarianism and marxism have more or less the same policies and only differ on the 'how'...and if everybody should have access to weapons(libertarians) or just the government and its supporters(Marx, Das Kapital)

[@NedTesco]

@@Kaergaard That's untrue: "… the workers must be armed and organised. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx

[@NedTesco]

@@Kaergaard “The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see it stays there." - George Orwell

[@Kaergaard]

@@NedTesco Well that is true, because for a dictatorship to work, you need to disarm your opposition or eradicate them. The one thing that any socialist state excels at btw.. Can't have the bourgeoise running around with guns and ammo for a war, when you are trying to make life a living hell for everyone, can you?

[@NedTesco]

@@Kaergaard Nice job completely misreading those quotes lol

[@fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

>A community of absolutely equal people is literally impossible. It is possible actually: the transhumanist singularity. AKA the next stage of social development after FALGSC.

[@urbanhermit5797]

I love the little thank you at the end

[@diamantbelallari669]

You really did a great job adressing this problem. As a leftist myself, I always find myself in situations where I can't justify demanding 'full abstract equality',so this video definitely gave me an insight on how to think about it.