Peterson believes that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s...

>Peterson believes that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s, while typically claiming to reject Marxism and Communism, because they were discredited as economic ideologies as well by the exposure of crimes in the Soviet Union, have actually built upon and extended their core tenets. He states that it is difficult to understand contemporary society without considering the influence of postmodernism which initially spread from France to the United States through the English department at Yale University. He argues that they "started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name ... The people who hold this doctrine – this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount – they've got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well".

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i10EVWg-6dA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

honestly how is any of this controversial? I think any reasonable left-wing theorist would agree there has been a shift in academia influenced by post-structuralism and critical theory, both of which have a Marxo-Freudian base to some extent towards a new understanding of power structures as can be seen in Critical Theory. Does Peterson maybe phrase this a bit polemically? Yes. Are there right wing conspiracy retards who believe in the boogeyman of Cultural Marxism? Yes. That doesn't mean "cultural" Marxism doesn't exist, i.e. applying Marxist theoretical tools to cultural critique as can be seen in Critical Theory.

as can be seen in Critical Racial Theory*

1. postmodernism is not a movement but a culutral logic, a general international attitude, a "zeitgeist" with which all our expressive choices are confronted and by which they are produced. as such it is erroneous to associate it in particular with "French philosophers." contrary to opinion, philosophers are generally good at what they do, and that many of them in a conjuncture particular sensitive to the developments of capitalist society detected and reported a general breakdown of meaning-productive systems places them more as a symptom than as a cause of the latter. all this to say that when a geico commercial breaks the fourth wall it isn't because some marketers read derrida—although, buzzfeed shows that this isn't always the case, either. but the commodification of philosophy is already a phenomenon that the philosophers who identified postmodernism discussed and analyzed (see jameson's book on the topic, chapters on "Ideology" and on "Theory").

2. because, while it is correct to say that the Yale liberals (not yet de Man but certainly already Spivak) took the basic historical blueprint of marxism and adapted to their local causes, it is incorrect to say that anything remains marxist about this when marxism-leninism is still the theory and praxis of international proletarian struggle against metropolitan imperialism—as for instance in the PRC and DPRK.

3. because it makes liberal ideology more difficult to identify by calling it marxism

note on 1: im referring to "postmodernism" in its concept, not necessarily as a historical fact—though the french experience does confirm it

I agree about post-modernism, I agree that Peterson uses it incorrectly here, I was more defending the rest of what he says but you are correct.

>it is incorrect to say that anything remains marxist about this when marxism-leninism is still the theory and praxis of international proletarian struggle against metropolitan imperialism—as for instance in the PRC and DPRK
lmao

>3. because it makes liberal ideology more difficult to identify by calling it marxism
Classical liberalism is inherently opposed to identity politics and anti-meritocratic approaches. If you're talking about social liberalism, one of the most nebulous ideologies ever, then you might have a point.

are you positing some sort of epistemological break between the liberalism of the 19th century and that of today? if so i'd like to hear about it

>PRC and DPRK
Jucheist psychopathy and Mixed Market Totalitarianism isn't Socialism user. They're not socialist nations, you're using tankie terminology to reframe the struggle against Capital and the State as "metropolitan imperialism" which is M-L propaganda He's LARPing as a classical liberal, an ideology that's dead and whose remains have been chimerically absorbed into Liberal economic discourse and social engineering.

There is no fucking Propertarian, free market liberal school of thought whatsoever outside of think tanks

The academics and artists behind postmodernism were directly funded by the CIA, which saw it as a way to neutralize the historical materialism of Marx and the socialist realism of the Soviet Union.

Postmodernism is only capable of being produced and enjoyed by the upper classes (those who can devote significant time to pop culture consumption and typically posses a college degree) and its absence of real meaning renders it harmless as a mechanism of social criticism.

mao's cultural revolution was a strategic insight mired in a tactical error. he was right to see that the battlefield of revolution had changed from the countryside, but it was not to be held in the class room or the city streets, either. marcuse made the same mistake: both believed students had revolutionary potential. the problem is that the contest over capital itself was not yet apparent to mao—it was apparent to deng though, and thats why china today is able to compete with the capitalist countries. as for the dprk your psychologizing interpretation of juche tells me you believe cnn lies about the """hermit kingdom"""

china today is doing what lenin and stalin had meant to do, which was wield capital itself as a weapon against the capitalists. this is dialectics precisely.

and in doing so becoming capitalists

So marxists realized the soviet union was a failure, and instead they started focusing on rights for gays and women as a means of destroying western culture. Because basic human decency is just marxism under a different name. Google the Frankfurt school.

This. Western "Marxists" abandoned socialism very early on, and have been effectively fighting against real social change since then. They create a narrative of state power being always corrupting, and glorify localism and "peaceful rebellion" to the detriment of actual proletarian democracy. The extent to which Marxism was undermined as a radical project and integrated into the liberal intelligentsia, is extremely depressing and reveals the cultural hegemony of capital.

Kill your self

Da postmodernists be keepin da white man down

If basic democratic rights for gays and women are a Marxist plot, then I guess I'll happily call myself a Marxist subversive agent if you really insist. But honestly, this is ridiculous. There's nothing revolutionary about exercising public discourse to point out inequalities.

Sarcasm.

The funniest thing about that dude is that his entire scthick could very easily be contributed to post-modern thought. What's more post-modern than being skeptical of the ideological systems and institutions that govern modern society?.

Kek. Literally this. I really don't get what this guy ideology is. He just seems like a contraria who likes to point out obvious thing

that's the thing plebs don't get about the post-modern, it's not an ideology is a stage of history, the "post-modern writers" are a lot more like adam smith than marx in the sense smith just observed the development of capitalism, he didn't try to make a whole economic system emerge through force of ideology (a supreme irony of marxism)

*be attributed fuck

I think the radical unions got busted because of police and industrial relations reforms during the GD and WWs. Any country that needs to go to war will mobilise their industry by introducing indentured labour or arresting those who don't work hard enough (who become prisoner labourers). If you seriously think there was a proletarian democracy sprouting in the fifties, you're deluded. ((((postmodernism)))) didn't destroy Marxism, because Marxism was already dead in Amerikkka and, to some degree, the Soviet Union tbqh desu.

He's part of a profitable new school of writers who can't stomach the profound epistemological difficulties enherent in contemporary social developments, and therefore has to present "postmodern thinkers" as an external threat that are actively destroying a supposed pre-established harmony of western culture.
There are really two explanations - either they have an extremely poor understanding of how social dynamics work, or they are doing it to gain fame, notoriety and cash. I tend towards the latter.

>you gotta clean your room, bucko, you don't know what kinda postmodernist neoliberals could be hiding under your dirty clothes, man!

Imagine taking Jordan Peterson seriously

hahaha

>profound epistemological difficulties enherent in contemporary social developments
Such as?

our growing materialism has made our rooms inherently dirtier because there's more stuff in it!

>At this point, to my astonishment, Peterson begins to weep. He talks through his tears for the next several minutes. ‘Every time I talk about this, it breaks me up,’ he says. ‘The message I’ve been delivering is, “Find the heaviest weight you can and pick it up. And that will make you strong. You’re not who you could be. And who you could be is worthwhile.”’

>They’re so starving for that message. Young men are so desperate for a pathway that they are dying for it. And it’s heart-breaking and terrible that this idea has been kept from them. It is a malevolent conspiracy or ignorance to keep that from young men. Some of the young men who come to my lectures are desperately hanging on every word because I am telling them that they are sinful, and insufficient, and deceitful and contemptible in their current form, but that they could be far more than that, and that the world NEEDS THAT. This presents an ideal that can be approached and life without that is intolerable. It’s just meaningless suffering and that’s true if you have all the cake you can eat and all the girls you can have one-night stands with.’

>Political ideologies do not shape the world and our surroundings
I knew you guys didn't have standards, but can you at least play by your own rules you discredit us with?

so you are agreeing with him, just adding that he used a few wrong words and lost some small nuance?

>He's LARPing as a classical liberal, an ideology that's dead and whose remains have been chimerically absorbed into Liberal economic discourse and social engineering.
classical liberal just means conservative though, conservative want to conserve traditional classical liberal institutions, they don't really have any other connection to any other tradition beyond that

the Frankfurt school includes autistic elitists like Adorno who considered the sexual revolution and student protests degenerate garbage, you may have a point with Marcuse but not much with the other people in there

>The funniest thing about that dude is that his entire scthick could very easily be contributed to post-modern thought.
he unironically re-twitted a image meme of him and a few other retards photoshopped into a christian icon, so yeah, you are correct

there are people who frame our current predicament in different ways than the postmodern point of view, so pointing out that that's a possible point of view of our current predicament kind of misses the point that there are others

The left always accuses everybody else of being dumb for not accepting all of their premises while at the same time ignore every other single point of view. Please stop doing this and we may have a productive discussion at some point.

I don't see why I need to take a protestant preacher with pseudo-philosophical content seriously, sorry.

you are correct in not taking Memerson seriously, just don't pretend your point of view is defensible either just because you got good at grandstanding about it without actually saying anything

Well, true enough, I don't get into debates on political philosophy on this board, it's a terrible place for it. I try to read the literature and look for coherent conservative thinkers, which do exist even if I'm not particularly impressed yet.

wrong—socialism is the revolution of the capitalist mode of production within that mode of production. it's an ironic charge you're making—you accuse CPC of betraying marxism, a theory defined first and foremost by its historical materialist dialectic, but in doing so you posit an ahistorical idealism about correct communist practice which cannot face up to the reality of the international situation: that anti-imperialist struggle today consists in the primarily economic (and no longer, as in the 19th and early 20th centuries, military) strategy of re-appropriating capital for the advancement of socialism.

cf. Domenico Losurdo (2017), "Has China Turned to Capitalism?—Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism," /International Critical Thought/, 7:1, 15-31, DOI: 10.1080/21598282.2017.1287585

no, try reading/thinking, dipshit

>society COMPLETELY CHANGED because of some assholes at Yale
Jesus Christ. Academics are so delusional.

and not to mention, as the excerpt argues, of fending off the encroachment of us economic imperialism

people don't understand that marxism isn't just "what marx said in the manifesto and capital." or rather, they dont forget—they simply accept this reading from their bourgeois paymasters, who find it convenient to associate marx on this basis with other ludicrous 19th century ideas like libido theory and phlogiston. the truth is that lenin and mao advanced marx's theory forward into the 20th century based on scientific-historical analysis of the situation confronting them and the revolutionary praxis they successfully undertook therein

What would Dostoevsky say about today's ideological situation? Not specifically Dostoevsky but you know (I hope) what I mean. I always feel the fool among erudite people who are politically inclined. Like Vietnam playing on the TV screen in Persona. Is girardfag here who writes philosophers as capital letters?

Nice ML praxis user
However isn't there a danger of adopting this kind of anti-imperialism but leaving behind any viable transition to socialism? I see little possibility of China making fundamental economic transformations once they "develop the productive forces" to whatevee point. Do they have any theoretical discussions on abolishing the market in the Party and such?

shut up r e d d i t

How do I become a based contemporary commie poster?

the market in china is already "outward facing." there are two very great articles in the volume /Whither Marxism?/ reflecting on the chinese experience circa 1990, and most analysts at the time agreed that the market mechanism mediates between state industry and capitalist global economy. even today, of china's top 500 companies, something like 70% of their productivity comes from state industry, which utilizes market mechanism in order to compete while at the same time avoiding the cut-throat pursuit of profit which the american conjuncture has showed time and time again actually leads to more instability and a shrinking bourgeoisie.

see also youtube.com/watch?v=i10EVWg-6dA

read. leftypol is a shithole, but you'll occasionally have a reading list that you should dive into, but I only go there to shit on phillistines who are too preoccupied with "world change" to the point where they disregard nearly all writings (Hegel and Marx especially)

Chinks will be the greatest economy the world has ever seen within a decade.

Will be interesting to see how the American psyche responds to being BTFO by literal commies.

waiting for the genetically engineered 7'2", 220 IQ Chad Chink overlords

funnily enough, maps of meaning in it's core is postmodern, he just doesn't realize that postmodernism in itself does not destroy values, but it's the machanism to produce value and meaning by de- and reconstruction. he says so himself by using the terms explored and unexplored teritory. the postmodernism he is talking about is just the philosophy of deconstruction used to fuel a political ideology which is a derivative of the marxist ideology played out in a societal landscape, which in itself is a very valid point but obv doesn't do justice to the underlying thought of postmodernism

>post-modernism is evil
>god is dead but I believe in him pragmatically
uhhh Peterson? What's going on big guy?

>word salad
delicious

if you can't differentiate between an idea and it's implementation, I got bad news for you friendo

This.
Chinks will take all the primary resources from Africa and Russia, their technology will surpass ours and we will fade into irrelevance.

yummy yummy

how do i pledge allegiance to chinks?

live in Australia and pay taxes