It's hilarious looking back how Peterson was always saying "I'll debate any Marxist who dares" and then didn't when the man, the Wolff himself challenged him.
Peterson uses too much palaver, constantly. I seldom listen to him, although I respect him for being helpful to our disengaged young men. Peterson avoids challengers when it comes to serious debates, however.
Jordy Pete is a grifter, saying he will debate any Marxist or actual Leftist, which doesn’t include Liberals, just for his audience, but he knows that if he actually debated a Leftist, he would lose the debate, thus losing followers and money.
Capitalism may be a bad system like you may think, but it's the best system that has been used thus far. Communism has been proven not to work. It leads straight to authoritarianism. Prove: Communism can exist in capitalism. Capitalism can not exist in Communism.
@American Fuel TV Apparently given the definition in this video, yes they all do. Which I would suggest that bosses of course cannot pay employees the exact amount that they would make from the product that the employee generates or else why would anybody go to business to begin with? There has to be profit at the fundamental level.
@American Fuel TV I would think it would be just what an individual employee made for that company, assuming that can be quantified. Definitely not overall profit.
I can get see that in an egalitarian world, but under capitalism, I beg to differ. I only have this anecdotal evidence, but it's pretty persuasive: It is not only fact that your boss will generally be terrible toward the workers, but it is unashamedly cultural. It is vastly the norm, not an exception. It is mythological via our popular media, Hollywood movies being maybe the most powerful. If it's academically "stupid", then why is it a near-universal? And this, from a man [Peterson] who stresses legitimate hierarchy as a basic human yearning. You get more results under tyranny by harshness, not reward or a welcoming environment. I do believe humans can achieve and enjoy such ways, but for the moment being shitty to peeps would be the norm, since it blends in with the shitty paradigm.
@Joshua E. On my planet , ancient global poverty has been reduced to 8% by capitalism. Marxism has been reduced to the workers paradises of Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea , Hollywood and American schools. How is it going on your planet?
Right, yes, I comprehend; but what I found odd is Peterson's argument. It not only contradicts the empirical, cultural norms that are pervasive (not right, not wise, just clear and present), but furthermore argues against his own assertions that hierarchical structures and forceful guidance, reliant on strength / projected strength, are the natively compatible, pre-existing, organic framework that we humans are defaulted to obligingly utilize. I don't agree with him at all, but wished to point out the contradiction. It's just odd, no more, no less. -The Revolution Will Not Be Televised...hm, or will it? -A-
The debate between Peterson and Zizek was a real eye opener for me. I stopped blindly following Peterson. While I haven't invested too much in understanding Marx, I felt humbled watching that debate as I was too a bit arrogant towards Marxist positions without knowing much of it.
You should start by reading Marx carefully. First, the Communist Manifesto, part 1. Then read Capital. It’s a huge work but if you want to really understand Marx, you have to study it. Listen to Professor Wolfe. He really knows Marx. Peterson is just a shill for the right wing. He’s completely ignorant about Marx. He’s a psychologist. Not an economist. Marx was primarily an economic theorist, a critic of capitalism.
@@stevenyourke7901 lol marx was a trash economist and wrong. We've seen this the last +100 years. It's shit in theory and shit in practice. The fact u blind idealistic delusional idealogues keep this ridiculous theory alive and still being a marxist in 2000s is equivalent to being a flat earther
I was in the same boat. I wasn't that well versed in Marxism and wasn't impressed at all by some of Peterson's comments about it and realised that he wasn't well versed in its philosophy. Then I realised that Peterson's perspective comes from psychology. He's trying to understand why any human being would ever think that a gulag or a concentration camp is a good idea when it's so clearly a terrible thing. Communism in theory does not play out the sane way in practice, and while he may not completely understand the theory he seems to be good at explaining the practice.
@@jonsegerros I disagree with you, Marxism in understanding the economic actually has lots of merits, especially in fulfillment of actual nuance and function of economy as economy from its original etymology, as art or discipline of living, and Marxism want to achieve an political and economical environment that sustainable to solve daily, whether big or small social obstacle and problem we faced as living beings, trying to combat the increasing consumerism and excessive production that conducted by capitalist via market fraudulence in evading both community and government present counter-measure that function to shield them from endangering trickery, the common case that are happening in USA, predatory credit and banking as well unassured private insurance service.
@@williemherbert1456 so, solution to modern capitalism that could be easily solved by deregulation and stopping corporatistic legistlagion = full on marxist. Kek ok. o, you know, we just keep the market economy and stop ruibning it by government inverventions and big business corporations controlling the market rather than having a free market. as the pseudo-capitalism we have today
@Long duk dong you can have a minimum amount of donors as well, though the odds of this threshold being met is near zero as no candidates have yet achieved this so far
Honestly, Gravel has less than a 0% chance of winning. And he is faaaar from the best left wing candidate. If your a leftist who is willing to give the democrats a chance in this upcoming election, it honestly does not make sense to vote for anyone except Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabard, and Andrew Yang. Every other dem candidate is either a straight up corporate shill, or filler and has no chance of winning (most are both). It would make more sense to not vote than to vote democratic for anyone who is not one of those 3 (from a leftist perspective)
Steve Fortuna ... to disrespect Gravel, who is highly intelligent, articulate, a former member of Congress, a genuine servant of the people & the planet, a peace activist, because of his age, is only serving the corporate media’s narrative! It’s too bad more politicians aren’t looking out for the American people. You should at least listen to what he has to say, you might be pleasantly surprised. If he gets on the debate stage, he will force the others to address important questions and not just platitudes.Tulsi 2020!!!
@Michael Maya he has a lot more following, sure, but Peterson has very very little credibility among actual academics. he barely contributed anything to his own field, and he's widely seen as a charlatan by anybody besides his horde of teenage-to-twenties boys who follow his views. parenti has been around a long time, and wouldn't play nice like Zizek did, he would go for the throat and eviscerate Peterson for knowing absolutely nothing about Marx or history period
Not only he sounds not very accurate about marxism, he's also ignoring his own profession, his own identity as a psychologist, because as a human behavioral expert you should know human's tendencies. Exactly he's ignoring human nature. Thank you Mr Richard wolff!!
Abraham Lincoln observed: Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Seems WETHEPEOPLE need to reorient the Mister Monocle's of this rabbit hole.
Joe Doaks That's what we get for being idiots on a societal level. Being an honest free market advocate I despise the institution of the the modern corporation and the absolute corruption of contract law.
Lincoln went on to say that to tax a man's labor is just wrong, capital should be taxed, the exact opposite of what is in place today where labor is taxed and capital taxed very little if at all.
@@ScienceTalkwithJimMassa I've run across a few p'sov which gave occasion to that comment, do you happen to have a link or search criteria for finding where and to whom he made these comments? When raygun doubled withholding and introduced the handcuffs of the 1099, I about gave up on any 'capitalist' favoritism. I have been self=-employed most of my life and have written, proudly, for too many tax cycles, too many 5 figure checks being dazzled by some very lucrative earning years. Truth is that trying to go thru the hoops of loans and grants most always depended upon ref's from someone of consequence which was not easily manifest via my blue collar life circumstance. That made building a business momentum, which always burns an entrepreneur's credit card stash, a very gut wrenching ordeal due to what we now know is a controlled and essentially closed money river and investment game. I've never found even a hint for how society can have free market exchange and not have market regulation of the pronounced greedhead syndrome in American and whirled society...avarice is the rule deception the main lever.
@@paulrevere47 This quote says as such in 19th century fashion. "And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847), p. 412. He is in essence saying that it is not right to take away what a man has labored for which would include wages. You can go to this website for more quotes: rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln97.html
Jordan Peterson uses the term "exploitation" in the common sense way of "wilfully treating people in a mean and nasty manner". Marx did not use the term "exploitation" in that sense.
Also, paying people less than they produce is common sense. As en employer you have to cover other expenses and make sure you have some buffers to survive bad times. If you really underpay your employees they will move to the competitor. Marx ignored price discovery (or wage discovery in this case). In a capitalist society you can switch employers but in a perfect marxist society you can not.
@@BspVfxzVraPQ > paying people less than they produce is common sense. Employers pay employees what they ,the employees, produce. He doesnt pay them what he produces. Marxism is the economics of zombies who use an intuited social consciousness to produce whatever they feel like producing with no conscious, rational concern for a market of supply and demand. They throw their production into a common pot. The other zombies take from the pot whatever they feel like taking, all without money. The intuited social consciousness, replacing price coordination, assures the faithfull zombie that he produces what the other zombies want and that the other zombies produce what he wants, all without any conscious concern for supply and demand. This is the real zombie economics. Marxists regard it as scientific. Of course, Kant’s subjectivism decapitated science before Marx wrote. The theoretical result is economics without mind and the individual. The practical result is Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela and the conceptual disintegration of virtually all economics teaching.
Erwin, that's quite an accurate explanation of a particular authoritarian type of Marxism, but doesn't represent all Marxist schools of thought. The problem with capitalism herein lies the problem of self defining its necessity to exist within the system.. Of course itll seem as if you always need capitalism for capitalist markets to work in a capitalist system lol.. But refusing to contemplate alternatives outside this norm reveals an inability to imagine scenarios outside of certain paradigms.
@@sovereignpsyche7968 > particular authoritarian type of Marxism The transcendental Marxist ideal of decentralized authority quickly changes to centralized authority as concrete reality makes its appearance.
I've watched some of his videos, his tone of voice, his cadance, sounds all the time like somebody 'pissed in his porridge' as we say around here. Somebody told him he is an idiot, perhaps in an 4:32 'ersounce way' but he still holds a grudge. I just wanted to use that word, 'ersounce' nonchalantly, for once
" The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the *forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions* " Directly from the Marxist manifesto. Of course, there's a cultural movement. And its intention is to undermine the current status quo. This one snippet tells us that. When the likes of Peterson say "Cultural Marxism", they are referencing the cultural side of Marxism specifically, not the economic side. Jordan Peterson isn't ignorant of Marxism. Richard Wolff hilariously is. And apparently hasn't made it beyond section 2 of the Marxist manifesto. And neither have you. And nor has any Marxist who claims that Peterson is lying or doesn't understand Marxism.
I was hoping for an intelligent critique. Instead, the first two arguments were basically: 1) Peterson thinks like (is) a Nazi 2) Peterson is a racist. Ugh. Come on, please discuss the substantive ideas instead of using personal attacks. Then you took a quote, misconstrued it (I watched that debate), and went for the straw man tactic. I know Peterson has his flaws, but this discussion didn't enlighten me, it just made me groan.
@@sebastianlenzlinger9291 I got through to about six minutes and gave up. Because you invested the time to comment, I'll invest the time and finish watching. The straw man/Peterson's never read Marx argument continued on to 8:30 or so. Then a straw man/misrepresented argument about hierarchy occurs. I don't really want to argue. I just wanted a thoughtful critique of Peterson. For that to happen, the critic has to first understand Peterson and then attack the strongest version of his argument, rather than misinterpret and attack a false representation of his ideas. Perhaps you can point me to a better critique by someone who has a deeper understanding of Peterson's ideas and who then explains why they disagree. I feel like Sam Harris is one example of this. I am open to other examples.
@@superduperfreakyDj lol. That's how you expose a lie. You debate the idea! You scrutinize it. You shine the light on it. If it's a lie it won't stand up. If someone refuses to let their ideas be debated, you can be pretty sure the foundation is weak.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 It's easy for him to say that without Peterson being there to clarify what happened. It's likely that there was a perfectly good explanation. Peterson debates people regularly, I see no reason why he would withdraw from this particular debate, especially given that he had previously agreed to it.
I actually think they could probably reach some interesting points but nethertheless there would be some loss due to friction, since Wolff, for all his nominal Marxism, is such a insufferable Anglo-Saxon positivist. That's alright as long as you talk economics but with criticizing the whole of society, more like Zizek does in the footsteps of freudo-marxism, Frankfurt school and so on and so on, it gets kinda annoying. Take the difference between Postone and Wolff to get what I mean. Postone is a brilliant Marxist who as kinda synthesized 60s Frankfurt philosophical Marxism with old school by the book reading of Das Kapital.
If you are interested in the topic and not just agreeing, I suggest you look into it further. Somewhat disingenuous to debunk cultural Marxism without mentioning the Frankfurt School, isn't it? Sure Marx never mentioned cultural Marxism, because it was a build out of Marx's earlier work. Doesn't mean it wasn't constructed, which Wolff is implying.
It's short for a reason- it's short of true information. Richard Wolff is a liar; I doubt that Peterson would decline an opportunity to debate with a Marxists. If anything it would be the other way around. It's the first time I've listened to Wolff and already I can see the lies he vomits out. Type in 'Cultural Marxism' in youtube and you'll have your info. TBH, this is the only video that I've watched talking about Culture Marxisms as phrase used by the right to be hateful to those who they disagree with. Wolff is a damn liar and Culture Marxisms manifested from Marxisms and the proletariat class/minority.
@@sam33naR Its horrible propaganda. Honestly, the way this misrepresent just about everything Jordan says so they can mock him as stupid on a entire subject based on what... 5-6 words out of context. Come on, this is just sad. Even if Jordan is full of horse shit, this is much worse.
@Exploited unlivable wage voluntarist libertarian Become the business class, simple. While currently I am not very well of with both my parents being teachers with little salary, I will attain great riches and become wealthy.
They’re critiquing a strawman. I have reservations with some of Jordan Peterson’s ideas, but this doesn’t represent them in a fair or reasonable way. The comment about exploitation was in the context of a discussion about market dynamics of labour, ie bad employers lose labour through competition. There are issues with his position, but not the ones made in this video. The hierarchy discussion is also misinterpreted. While suspect in his reasoning about social hierarchies, Jordan Peterson has made multiple remarks about the distinction between his description of hierarchies and the desirability of such hierarchies. His discussion revolves around dominance and competence, and he has made clear that not all hierarchies are desirable. He’s making the point that not all hierarchies are undesirable, not that all should be accepted. The speakers are misrepresenting his views here, which is disappointing, because they could have made a much better critique of Jordan Peterson’s ideas, if they’d represented them correctly.
I've heard my fair share of Peterson, but I've never seen this properly addressed- what exactly makes the hierarchies currently existing in society revolve around competence? the fact that they work? is everything that works then justifies the system around it? My old car is running but just barely, does it make my car the best car around? His suggestions on how to improve society basically go like this: "Work by the existing system's rules, clean your room (develop your conscientiousness, which basically in this case means- develop an affinity to and skill at playing the system's game), and by the time you're tamed by the system (and usually are a beneficiary of it) then maybe you could try changing it". It's as if any resentment against the rules or those who make the rules isn't allowed, as it is supposed to be immediately bringing us closer to an ideological hell hole. But when you see statistics like these: www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/11/26/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective , how can a person say the system is fair because it works? works for whom? the people at the top of the hierarchy of course! (Refer to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wealth_Inequality_by_Group_1989_to_2019.png) and those people are justified being at the top... because the system works! do you see how tautological this line of reasoning is? And the system will keep working... until it won't, because people will not be able to tolerate the increasing inequality between the rich and the rest of society. And if its supposedly governed by a power law (AKA the pareto principle, which isn't even 80-20 by now, from 2016 data i found that 90% of the wealth in the US is held by the upper 20%) then we find a way to adjust for that before a violent revolution comes. But that requires a more quiet revolution hopefully- with capable young people working against this system, not just climbing up the ranks of it until they forget they were ever at the bottom (and leaving the less capable there).
FirsToStrike you take your broken car to the best repair shop around because they’re the best, not because they’ve shot and killed all the other repair shop owners in your area.
My understanding of his commentary on hierarchies is that they exist, they happen quite naturally and that they can involve dominance and/or competence but that all hierarchies tend towards corruption. He has also said that the left is vital in that it is strongly concerned with the well-being of people and the political left is needed to check the hierarchies. Now I may not be remembering correctly but this is my impression of what he has said.
@@Jmartphilly The wealthiest of capitalist have shot and killed every other State run economic system around. In the process, they bloodied the water of economic solutions in the minds of the people. The phenomenon of class warfare is what Scipio called the "culpable levelling" of a democracy. It's ugly head is easily identified today as the argument for more democratic socialism by the proletarious and the cry of theft by the luckiest of the assiduous.
@@alexsmith2910 Every time someone sees the truth about JP, and expresses it, I sigh in relief. If not for yall, I would be living in a very dark twilight zone episode
8:40 she says JP justifies hierarchies. JP said pointing out that they exist is not the same as saying they are good. This entire interview makes errors such as this.
@@youtuber6185 JP is in favor of hierarchies. This is the equivalent of saying they are good. More often than not, they are right about JP, and critique of him, though not perfect, is absolutely necessary
Adam Ortiz Your comment is misleading. He says they can be a problem but are inevitable and necessary. Some things that are necessary are not always good but without them you have chaos. See the following video: th-cam.com/video/ViGdjc08Vt4/w-d-xo.html The intentional misleading of Jordan Peterson’s points and the incorrect deductive reason Wolff uses quickly show his nonsensical ramblings on capitalism. Disparity exists so it’s capitalism’s fault is such an oversimplification of inequality of outcome it’s border line laughable. There is inequality in height , should we force a limit at 5’5 in basketball? It’s the same thing in society. There will always be inequality in a free society and to enslave us all to the lowest common denominator leaves us all in poverty. It’s a fools argument. Wolff is a fool.
If you listen to Peterson and what others have said about the topic you should realize that Peterson has hardly anything of interest to say. Congrats on not realizing that
What Peterson does is add side disclaimer everywhere but ultimately his main point is hierarchy is good and natural. It's like 'Im not sexist, but!' , I'm not racist, but! IQ is problematic, but!.
@@davidcorner4507 "Anything of interest" is subjective on an individual level so just because may not be "anything of interest" to you, don't mean that others feel the same and on the contrary might just find what he says quite interesting.
Edward Brotherton because what he says fits with their narrative not because what he says is either substantiated or profound. Jordan Peterson from what I’ve observed often does not have anything interesting to say about topics outside of his field of expertise. In fact he’s a good example of what it means to know enough to think you’re right but not enough to know you’re wrong. I’m not saying he “never” (absolutist term) has anything good to say but for the things that he gets coverage for he never has anything interesting to say. Don’t be purposely obtuse by “never” he means for the things he gets coverage for and for “interesting” he means things that are either well substantiated or profound
I'm not a Petersonian but to equate him to Steve Bannon or even call him right wing is a joke. And shame on Abby for lazy journalism. I'm right wing. Jordan Peterson is way left of me.
Surrogate daddy? I think millions of people like what Peterson has to say, because most of it is right, and they can see he has genuine compassion an empathy for people, and has a hefty measure of humility. Human virtues that these two wanna be intellectuals do not possess. So your stupid comment reveals much about you, and nothing about anyone else.
Both Hillary Clinton and Obama would be measured as "right wing" by the current standards of the representative left. I'm pretty conservative myself but we need the moderate left to be represented so the democratic socialist, marxist and/or outright communist fringes of the left can be presented as the fringes they are. I cannot believe that average left-leaning person would agree with this stuff... The extremists get all the air-time.
Pieter Rossouw the fact you lump together democratic socialism, marxism and communism as all being the same and “extremist” shows you lack an even basic understanding of the issue you’re trying to speak to.
I don't think peterson has thought efficiently about his own arguments. He's fine in his own professional realm, but when he starts going outside of it, his clear ignorance of the subject matter, and his over reliance on his own prejudicial ideas, really shows. These two put in just as much thought to dismantle those ideas as peterson put into them to create them.
What arguments? Peterson’s Methods of Meaning was literally unintelligible hogwash.... complete with comically drawn diagrams of the “dragon of chaos?” No shit... I actually tried to make it all the way through the 600 pages of rambling schizophrenia .... finally gave up after 300 pages in...my diagnosis JORDAN PETERSON IS A QUACK. He is a modern day L. Ron Hubbard.
@BLAIR M Schirmer "It saves them having to think, I suppose." yes Ideologues sure hate it when they have to think for themselves so they would rather just repeat these goofy slogans. 🙃
@John D I don't think anyone truly wants more Govt Power or any kind of Power in their lives. I think it just comes down to an Economic System that is Sensible and Fair and allows Everyone to create their own existence. all that Gov., Corporation, Bureaucracy, Institutions etc. are is just noise and distractions from the only true thing that matters(Economy). everything else is just made-up to create a sense of meaning and structure in people's lives but they only work to Control and Divide the masses even more because they are only there to seek the support of the people and not to actually directly improve their Lives. you can only do that when all the focus is on the Economic System and not this other shit we have everyday about Partisan Politics, Religious views, various Ideologies, Social, Cultural beliefs and so on... so all this nonsense we see talked about today is a Huge waste of time because while it goes on and the people join their side of the argument, the Economy will just continue to be a struggle for most people while the Lucky few Elites(Gov./Corp.) who thrive with all these made-up Social conventions/institutions everyone is Conditioned to prioritize their lives by, just stay in Power and don't really care too much about the Struggles in the Economy for the everyday person. they would rather just keep things pretty much similar to way things are now so their time, energy and focus will continue to go to this Made-Up story they keep telling you, me and themselves we should care about and center on rather than paying attention to and concentrating more on that which truly matters the most in Everyone's Life. and that's of an Efficient, functioning Economy with the sole purpose to be able to provide Everyone a Healthy, Decent Living standard. no Gov., Corp., Politics, Authority, Organization etc. needed.
Alessandro Belli Bro he believes porn should be banned like??? He’s a blatant republican that occasionally tells you to wash your balls and clean your room lmao
@@evanhadkins5532 he has argued many times that we need both the left and the right. I have also heard him debate for both left and rightwing ideas. I would say from what I heave heard of him it would be right of centre. But then this could also be down to him not agreeing with some arguments made bt students/faculty who are overwhelmingly left. This may create some bias in the content that is available.
@@MrJakecornford Yes he debates both sides. He ends up with a position something like 'the right wing is the more reasonable position' fairly consistently.
Exploitation is built into life itself. Unless somebody is your kin, you can but view that person in an exploitative way. The difference between capitalism and every other kind of system is that that exploitation has been successfully distanced by introducing money in between. The most pessimistic, though not because of that untrue, interpretation of capitalism, is, 'take a proportion of the money I made you so you don't otherwise take my freedom or even my life'. In every other system, the latter two are what can only be the case.
@@zootsoot2006 The more relevant question is 'how much' capitalism or whatnot a society should have, and on that note both history, Christianity, and many other fields come together to argue that America needs a serious critique of its own capitalistic system. Marxism should be one of the voices in that critique.
@@Sinleqeunnini And every conservative would agree with you. The British Queen Mother put it perfectly, 'the best system is a Conservative government with a strong Labour opposition'. Don't think anyone's put it better than that. Marxism is merely the Capitalism's Unconscious, all those human motivations which are not fully expressed in a capitalistic system. It is not a system of its own, and if treated as such can only destroy a society, much like the unconscious taking over the mind can only lead to mental illness.
@@zootsoot2006 A faulty analogy, given that it attributes consciousness to what are presented as ahistorical theories. Marxism an articulated theory in many variations. Just because it emerged as a reaction to emerging capitalism doesn't mean it can't function on its own, or that it can't be changed and adapted for more fundamentally pragmatic reasons. Nor is there any reason why a conservative government should necessarily be in power through such developments. As Heidegger noted, deep historical tendencies in the 'West' (should one choose to defend that notion) involve the notion of revolution and freedom, with its best aspects represented by the polis and the cross. That has been on full display for the last few hundred years. There is no reason not to think that won't continue in the present, much to the conservatives' chagrin.
@@zootsoot2006 money existed before capitalism, though... if what you say were true, the world before capitalism would have been pure slavery, which is simply not the case.
Wolff largely sidesteps the issue, which is disheartening. Cultural Marxism isn't orthodox marxian economics, hence why there's a different term for it. CM is the application of class struggle to identity groups other than "bourgeois" and "proletariat". Whereas exploitation is tautological for the proletariat, as they are defined by their employment status, the same is not true for sex, race, etc. If you make a black woman the head of a financial institution that still doesn't change the exploitative nature of this institution, but it sure seems to appease a lot of "progressives", which is why someone like Zizek can find common ground with Peterson. In the US, identity politics are being used as a wedge issue to force people to vote for a party that hasn't adequately represented workers in decades. It's the establishment LARPing as woke revolutionaries while handing out crumbs and symbolic nothings.
Yes, the tech companies, or at least some of them, have figured out how to play this very game so that progressives can comfortably carry on as mass consumers of every brand new gadget that comes out, while the old ones get dumped on the coast of Africa and workers are paid mere cents to make these products.
The tech companies are particularly zealous and probably employ a lot of people who actually believe in this stuff, but *all* the major companies and brands are playing the woke olympics, and I think you'd have to be especially naive and gullible to not assume cynicism on their part. Nike endorsing Kaepernic to play to the black identitarians in the US while they still pay asian children pennies to sew together sneakers in Indonesian sweat shops is the perfect example of this, although from a PR perspective the effort backfired horribly. There's a great twitter account called @wokecapital that does nothing but post tweets, ads and images put out by major brands, financial institutions etc. trying to sell you something using rainbow flags and diversity rhetoric. It's pretty sickening when you see it all compiled together, especially when there's some international day of this or week of that and all the multinationals start spewing the same "on this day we'd like to commemorate all coloured wammen of colour beep boop" machine-speak. Considering how poorly it's being received by the public of late, I suspect there is an even deeper layer to trying to promote this worldview in the corporate world. After all, an ideology that allows you to shut people up by referring to their innate characteristics, one which elevates certain demographics into unquestionable oracles of lived experience, one which fundamentally pits every identity group against every other one in an intersectional battle royale, wouldn't that be the *ideal* ideology for a ruling class to promote among the proles? Imagine having a workforce too busy tone-policing one-another for racially insensitive microaggressions to band together to demand decent working conditions.
@@AliRadicali Yes, exactly. Exactly right. There is no coincidence that social justice identitarianism started getting attention from media following the housing crash and the bail outs. This is also why the last two presidents have been (s)elected by the establishment in such an extreme identity juxtaposition.
I'm going to have to disagree slightly there, I think the media's shift towards woke identity politics was more of a confluence of circumstances than something that was planned. I also think it happened considerably later than 2008, I'd say mainstream media woke really picked up in 2014 with gamergate and the run-up to the 2016 election. Prior to that I think most of the woke was being driven by college graduates getting hired and Twitter becoming more and more important to journalism. Remember, Occupy tore itself apart due to intersectionality, and the mainstream press was glad to give them a platform to embarrass themselves at that point. Colbert had an infamous interview with an OWS representative who called herself "Ketchup". No I think the establishment press really got on board with the intersectional hoo-hah when they threw their weight behind Clinton, knowing full well that her only selling point was her woman card. They called all criticism of Obama racist, sure, but my impression was that most of the talking points during his elections were policy-related. Honestly I'm kind of surprised how slow the establishment was to latch on to social justice. I certainly don't think they expected POTUS Trump and it really bruised their egoes to not be in control of the outcome there. They'd have been fine with president Rubio or Jeb!.
@@AliRadicali I think what you're referring to is the point at which it all started to peak - of which you are surely correct. Though I would argue that Trump was no surprise to the establishment, which willingly gave him any and all airtime that they could offer (the exact opposite of their historical strategy with political figures they wanted to suppress). I think he and Clinton both were chosen to play a role in the peaking of this "wokeness". Anyhow, an idea/concept shift tends to need time to build - granted, far less time in our current world. From what I can tell, the momentum picked up about 10-12 years ago, and there's been an exponential increase in the exposure of society to 'social justice' since then. I'm not sure what the long game is, in regard to whether 'social justice' will fizzle out once the establishment has cherry-picked it for what they want and need in order to control the population by division, or if it is going to continue to see an increased role in society.
As person who is not some big fan of marxism, I totally agree with mister Wolff. People embrace Peterson's views because they never read anything about marxist ideology. Many people tend to label opposite opinions very easily without objectivity. Conservative extremists think that everything different from their perspective is "Marxism" and progressive extremists think that every different opinion is Fascism.
Maveric I don’t see how it has to be black and white, left or right. Libertarianism is a completely different take on politics. Just maybe there is a SPECTRUM with a CENTER. Because they literally advocate no coercion by the state where as both left and right have their own interests and support coercion to get it.
@@Fallonbuddy24 American libertarianism doesn't want government coercion but ignores economic coercion. Rather than acknowledging any of the existing coercion or exploitation of the capitalist system, such as the exploitation of the workforce on pain of starvation or homelessness, or exploiting whole countries, it would enable more of it by holding the basic economic relations of capitalism sacrosanct. The best historical image of "free" market capitalism we have is thus Victorian Britain, where people (including children) are forced to work for slave wages. American libertarianism also depends on people abiding by the NAP without enforcement, which is a strangely positive view of human nature, much like the view of Rousseau which JP is so critical of. Actual non-coercion is sought by left wing anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists, who seek to actually create an economic system where horizontal and non-coercive relations are actually possible, rather than just keeping existing capitalist relations like libertarians want to.
@L Cincinnatus Are you trolling? I googled "jordan peterson on cultural marxists" and came up with hundreds of videos, clicked on three and bingo, he used that term in all three. Also, note: I am much more right wing than Peterson.
Two of the world's best bits of hope in the face of savage madness---"Marx was first published in 1867 so Peterson had time to take a look at it." (whack!!)
...and the Koran was written well before that. Have you read it? Gurantee peterson knows more about Marx than the average person. This is a semantic point used to try and discredit a whole body of knowledge that a person may or may not have. Smh
@@philisamazing08 And The Bible was written well before The Koran but that doesn't save either from being clownishly wrong. Nothing "semantic" about Wolf's showing Peterson's pretentious ignorance.
And YOU had time to check how well Marxism went in the Eastern Block, haha. Just move over here and give us a lesson, please! Open invitation. But wait! You guys just READ it! 0 firsthand experience with it! :D
@@robertmartin6655 It would be foolish to think Wolff/Martin are unaware of failed communist states. What they show is that Marxist analysis still has a lot of value---especially in a blind-ignorant America eating its own people and ecology and fomenting global war for the Profit of a very few. For ex., in America I paid $200/month for web/phone/cable and couldn't afford health care. Here in "socialist hell" I get the same for under $50/month and health care is FREE after my taxes. Keep your fake "free market," you tool.
@ Capitalism works worse than even the flawed real existing socialism we had. Check this out: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf
I think it's easy to take a quote out of context and make assumptions about what someone may believe. This will only become more clarified if there is a debate between Peterson and this guy.
WOW. Im completely surprised at Dr Wolff's ignorance. I thought for sure he would admit that cultural marxism is a real thing since he is an academic and i also love his work but sorry Dr Wolff is WRONG. Cultural Marxism is real and its nothing to be ashamed of If Cultural Marxism doesnt exist then why does the University of California at Los Angeles have a course on the subject by Douglas Kellner with a downloadable PDF document called "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies?" That is really weird dont you think? Maybe you can email the professor and tell him he doesnt know what he is talking about. Even though the professor himself is a Marxist. Also why did Richard Weiner Professor of Political Science write a book on cultural Marxism called "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology?" Also why does Marc Tuters from the University of Amsterdam have a academic journal article on the subject. Also why does Jerome Jamin from the University of Liege have an academic journal article called "Cultural Marxism: A Survey?" All sources are available upon request.
Wolf says that Marx and Engels where interested in the interplay between economy and culture 2:14. This is in alignment with the understanding of Cultural Marxism in the paper you refer to. What Wolf is opposing is the idea that Marxists somehow secretly control society. Like when right-wing youtubers call CNN a "left-wing media giant".
If I was your boss and heard you talk like that, I'd demonstrate my respect for your view by letting you go find another job. And listen to your own criticism of yourself: If you ever start your own business and hire workers, you will behave corruptly. So by your own admission, you are an immoral person.
@@CalebDiT No its because the system drives and encourages such behaviour bosses who behave differently do so in spite of the system not because of it.
@@elliotyourarobot I disagree. Greed is driven, encouraged, and protected by the culture. Laws aren't created by a system. They're created by people. And if you believe in some form of democracy, then you believe the legislators who have long careers voting as our enemies aren't voted into office by the system. They're selected by us. So the reason we don't fix these problems is because it would be hypocritical. If the people were to change, businesses and the laws would change.
@@CalebDiT Culture creates the system and just because we the people want change doesn't mean we will get it because of the bourgeoisie we are forced to elect.
@@elliotyourarobot Oh, you were forced to vote? I'm sorry you live with a government that makes you do that. In America, despite all its faults, we're not required to do so. For us, the problem is that people keep trying to change the system _with_ the system, whereas elections should generally be boycotted until people don't have to select from merely the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, in addition to our voting for our legislators, every law in America is judged by the people in the courts; in the juries. No matter what the national and state Congresses enact, the people can overrule almost any law. Alas, we don't. The jurors -- the people -- have become the corrupt judges and perpetrators of injustice. It remains, however, you're contradicting yourself. You agree that the culture creates the system but you then say the culture wants to change the system. The culture wants to contradict itself? Still, since you say the culture creates the system, it seems your criticism should be against your culture for its immoral choice in creating that system.
No, he’s just another disguised commie apologist. I find it hilarious that people like you criticize others interpretation of political beliefs but then preach someone like Karl Marx who is complete fraud himself, man tried to run his own business and completely failed, and also lived like a bum with his buddy, nothing but a false prophet. Keep dreaming of your world that you find ideal, it will never exist. Sorry
He literally has no point aside from "Peterson uses the definition of power different than Marx/misrepresents his definitions" which isn't even a rebuttal. Wolff is a typical communist apologist, writing off crimes against humanity like Dekulakization and the Holodomor as "not real communism" and "the result of poor resource management" when we know they were targeted attacks on specific ethnic groups. Anyone stupid enough to spout moronic bullshit like "The USSR was only a critique of capitalism" clearly skipped history and isn't worth more than a moment of brain power.
ear-candy? The fact that employers pay you less than you are worth is not something mind expanding, its the most obvious feature of the employer-employee relationship. Like does he not realize how hard it is for an employer to find a gap in the market, establish himself, produce a good people buy and then manage all of that with employees? So the employer is expected to give what the worker is worth? Since the employer wouldn't be of any value in that equation, why does the employee not go about and work without being employed by someone else? He would be paid 100% of his worth. Damn right, because to establish yourself in the market is extremely fucking hard and tedious and probably way harder than being employed for only 90% of your works value.
Can't actually refute Jordan and co. Only the usual name calling ''hateful'' or ''afraid of blacks or women'' i.e. ''racist'' . He's confusing 'classical ' Marxism' with later Frankfurt school writers that he ignores....
Petrson reminds me of Ayn Rand. He indulges in wishful thinking and dresses it up as critical theory. "bosses wouldn't exploit their workers" FFS!! And bears don't sh*t in the woods.
9:00 No, that isn't how slavery happened, not even in America. Slavery was going on everywhere in the world for almost all of human history, and it was not based on race. The only reason the American south developed racial superiority/inferiority beliefs was an unintended consequence of the line in the constitution that says "all men are created equal." It's a line that doesn't allow for slavery, so to get around that obvious fact the slave traders adapted the argument that blacks are not real men and therefore it doesn't apply to them. This guy is pretty ignorant for a guy who wants to call Peterson ignorant.
i wondered if he misrepresented what Peterson says about hierarchies also... he seemed to create hierarchical groups rather than hierarchy's for individuals.
But slave masters used the same justification of it being a 'natural order' before the American and French revolutions, before the idea of this "all men are created equal". It was never a way to circumvent the Constitution. The Americas had slavery long before the Constitution and used these exact same talking points about "Natural Law" as a way to justify it- when in fact it was always an exploitive measure.
The Marxist definition of exploitation is flat-out wrong. The employee values the wages paid by the employer MORE than he values his labor, or he would not voluntarily accept the terms of the employment contract. Likewise, the employer values the employee's labor MORE than they value the capital they pay him, or they would not voluntarily accept the terms of the employment contract. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement to both parties. You could just as easily make the argument that the employee trades his labor to EXPLOIT the employer's vast amounts of capital, and lack of labor.
Peter DeLong to be fair what he says is true, but he stops short at the exploitation. And only looks at the worker and treats them like a victim. Your comment takes it to completion. Both parties are exploiting and profiting from each other. Both are doing a cost benefit analysis, where the benefits outweigh the cost. He turns it into a zero sum game where the employer wins and the employee loses, which is a childish way of looking at it.
Peter DeLong also I think he’s saying that a lot of employees are undervaluing their labor and selling themselves short. Which is also true, but that’s a part of life and it’s up to the employee to properly negotiate his value. He also fails to mention that the employers can overpay for labor allowing the employee to gain the edge, but no matter what it’s rarely if ever a zero sum game.
The other core principle of Marxism is the "labor theory of value" - where the value of a good or service is directly proportional to the amount of societal labor which goes into it. This is easily debunked by the subjective theory of value - where the value of a good or service is determined by the individuals engaged in the transaction. In other words, the more intense the desire within an individual, the more valuable the good is to that person. Example: I would pay $15 for a shirt with a Milton Friedman quote on it, but I would pay $0 for a shirt with a Richard Wolff quote, even though the shirts are materially the same with equal amounts of labor invested in them. Conversely, a fan of Richard Wolff may pay $50 for a shirt with one of his quotes, and have zero interest in a shirt related to Friedman.
If we had a system that didn’t funnel most of the profit to the shareholder class, you might have an argument. But as it stands, most people have no choice but to accept whatever employment they can find, so is it really a choice or a reluctant acquiescence? And even you if reject everything Wolff is saying, we can’t ignore the fact that paying people the current minimum wage or even a little bit more, is in and of itself exploitative. And this is the point where people often say, “well, then work 2 jobs, work 3, work 4, hustle.” Which further proves the point that the working class, be they poor or middle class, are underpaid relative to the cost of living. Not to mention the quality of the jobs themselves: more part time and temp jobs, means employers aren’t fully investing in their workforce, resulting in high turn over rates, workers feeling a sense of alienation and indignity in what little work they can scrape together.
I'd REALLY like her if she was herself not such a Marxist. The Marxist guest did perhaps have a good point about cultural Marxism being ACTUALLY cultural bolshevism. Bolshevism was born of Marxism, however.. the two being indistinguishable. I'd like to hear him expound on that point.
When I lived in Germany, my friends and I used to make fun of a certain approach to argumentation we called *ad Hitlerem.* If Hitler or any Nazi ever did something, no matter what, it was evil. So much for being a vegetarian, or going alcohol free for a while. That’s this guy’s approach to the label “cultural Marxism?” In the US, the term became interesting after Frankfurt schoolers like Herbert Marcuse, a Marxist refugee from Nazi Germany, openly proclaimed that he was doing a kind of cultural Marxism, or excuse me, Marxist interest in culture. Has this guy never read Martin Jay’s well known book *The Dialectical Imagination*? That book was there to analyze what the Frankfurt school did with the Marxist tradition. So give me a break. Now, admittedly, the debate with S. Zizek was not Jordan Peterson’s best debate. Peterson should do a better job of reading Marx, but Peterson’s focus has always been NOT on *Das Kapital,* but on what Marxists have wanted to achieve politically. If this guy had understood Marx well or even read Allen Megill’s book on Marx, he would be able to see that Marx ultimately did not believe in politics or the market - Marx thought they were both on their way to being obsolete. Jordan Peterson has always been closer to Zarathustra’s critique of revolutionary utopians, and their defective psychology. This was really a banal discussion.
Exactly. People here are complaining about Peterson not reading "enough" (like Jeezus, the guy reads so quick, and reads a ton). They are looking at Peterson's critique in a political lens but Peterson's approach is to look the political and cultural ideologies through the lens of a psychologist and the innate behavioral nature of people, utopia, and the people ushering the utopian vision.
What an awful take. The hypocrisy of saying Peterson doesn’t understand Marxism and then not understanding his take on hierarchies and woefully misrepresenting it. Peterson always says hierarchies tilt towards tyranny so we need to keep them in check, but he also says we can’t do away with one of the most fundamentally parts of our being, so fundamental that we’ve had them for hundreds of millions of years. He also says too much inequality is bad for both sides. So how is he using hierarchies to justify inequality? Also how do you define how much value one brings to the table at a given occupation? And if you are not making more money than giving to your employees as a business owner how do you pay for everything else Involved in the company besides wages? Where in history has this supposed exploitation been abolished and had a successful economy? Furthermore if these workers have so much value why can’t they find a place that knows their value, or in some cases do it freelance? Is it because they might not have the value they think they do? These two need to talk with a legit critic and see how their ideas hold up, much like Peterson was doing on national television for years. Marxists arent going around testing their ideas with adversaries on any regular basis because their ideas don’t hold up under scrutiny, so they stay in their little cocoon where it’s all safe.
have a look at the mondragon corporation. as far as i understand it, it is a worker owned company that is as close to a socialist project as you can get within the confines of a market based economy. the wikipedia page has some information if you're interested. now to the point that marxists aren't going around testing their ideas, well, you have got to thank mr. peterson for that, as he chickened out of the debate with mr. wolff, for valid reasons or not. demand of him that they have a debate in the near future, be it over skype if necessary. he owes it to his fans to obliterate some marxists or however else that debate might turn out.
No you have an awful understanding of what was said. Read the replies above me and do some research. There are many places where corporations are taking a Marxist/socialist approach like the Mondragon corporation and these systems are working. Read about the Sandinista's in Nicaragua. Read about the Zapatistas in the mountains of Mexico. You have to understand that the Capitalist powers of the world ( mostly the USA ) have waged a bloody war on any people trying to establish a true Democratic Marxist/Socialist society for hundreds of years. Not because the Capitalist think that these ideas are evil, but because it threatens their power choke hold on the world. It's kind of hard to set up a society like this when you have that kind of knife at your throat.
Armando Alvarez I feel you are upset because you don’t have the money or power that the capitalist does. Quick question what would you do if you were super rich and had people kissing your behind? And don’t say “I would be disgusted at such a thing” cuz if that was so, I suggest you take a nice look at the mirror and say let me give up this mirror and time investment on TH-cam comments and go help out at the food bank. For a longer question, what do you plan to do with your socialist society?
@@sheilag2231 I will be honest with you. If I was suddenly super rich, the temptation will be there, absolutely. I grew up in this hyper materialist consumerist society. As much as I claim to despise it, of course I see the new fancy material toys and feel a desire for them, I grew up in America, it would be abnormal for me not to have some desire for these things. But I learned enough to understand that this "desire" for the fancy mansion and the new Tesla and the new gaming machines are really just illusions. And I really mean this, they are illusions. I think that greed is the easiest way to corrupt a human being, I'm sure many people will agree with that statement. If someone like Jeff Bezos can have a truly ridiculous amount of money and other people, a lot of people mind you for such a powerful and rich country like the USA, are suffering from hunger, something is wrong there, isn't it? Does that mean that I cannot criticize or critique how we've been conditioned to think this way since the day we are born into this country? Do you realize how much money and man power goes into the propaganda that keeping us thinking in this way? I think one of the best things someone could do is voice their opinions with the public on subjects like this and I want to do more of that. I like having conversations about things I'm passionate about with people, is that bad? That last question is a very difficult question, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I have some concrete answer on how to run/structure a socialist society. There are many smarter people than I that can work out these situations, but I at least know that I would want this kind of structure to be set up democratically. Not by the decisions of a few elite corporations. As far as what I would personally do within a socialist society, well for one I would participate more as I feel my voice would actually matter in more significant ways than I think it does now. But also please understand that I am more of a pessimist on even getting close to that point. I think it's near impossible from where we are now. The general population required for such a change is too concerned with their own little bubbles. Let me ask you a hypothetical, if you were suddenly as rich as Bezos, or even say started your own company that became successful in the United States where you became a billionaire, and say you visited some truly impoverished part of the planet and saw kids starving. A whole village/town starving like this. Like true African type starvation. You were able to talk to the people there, you knew their language, you are able to connect with them on a real human level. Would you not feel very weird and sick to your stomach of the absurd wealth that you were allowed to accumulate? Would you tell the African kids to clean their rooms, pull up from their boot straps and maybe they can make something of themselves? What if it were somewhere like Afghanistan or Nicaragua where the dire conditions such as this were brought upon directly because of the United States in the name of Capitalism, or as the propaganda puts it, "Freedom"?
Contact your congressmen that just shows that you don’t understand who your enemy is. Peterson is not in opposition to the capitalist/fascist/imperialist establishment, quite the opposite actually.
@@ObjectiveAnalysis You really think there is only one type of establishment in charge? Imperialist establishment? Really? You're about 200 years too late on that one buddy, that ship has quite literally sailed. Sure, rich corporations certainly hold a degree of power but they are by far not the only one's in control. Academia and entertainment alone breed their own sorts of power with their own agendas, there's no one type of person with one sort of objective running this shit show.
@@lucius02 Yes, because everyone is asking Wolff to debate him on anything other than Marxism. Oh no wait, they literally want him to debate JBP on Marx...... I mean wtf dude?
@@lucius02 ... I have no student loan because I do not live in a shithole country. Also, I'm a programmer, any loan I would've had would've been paid back a decade ago. And lastly, I am hard right. Peterson is to my left. Your comment was just obviously retarded so I couldn't help myself.
Ryan B well I’m assuming if he did it was probably due to his current medical situation. Where did you hear it from? I’d be really surprised if he refused without good reason because I’m pretty sure he’s undefeated
theonenonly122 no, this was before all that. He didn’t technically cancel, but he asked the college who was supposed to be hosting it for far too much money to attend, and allowing him to backout under the guise of not being paid enough.
As a philosophy major who has his disagreements with Peterson, I am not impressed by the mischaracterization of his views and his facile dismissal as a bigot. The lack of nuance in this conversation is disappointing and sadly not wholly unexpected in the current polarized political landscape.
Consider the possibility you have accepted a description of Steve Bannon from the media and never actually listened to his ides- Bannon is a simple populist, the true meaning of populist- As in the country belongs to the people, not the ruling class. he feels people have been getting screwed by the elite class, and thinks it's time to reverse this. Not a racist, xenophobe and all the other SNL characteristics painted on him- Conservative populist. But the beautiful thing about a captive media, is that the lefdt gets to "newspeak" everything into meaninglessness- Can anyone define "RACIST" in a way where it actually fits t6he people being accused of it today? As far as i can tell racist now translates to " raised some points we can't afford to publicly argue with, or we will be cancelled ourselves"
if that's how you define exploitation you do not know what it means. Either that or you can just as easily argue that the employee is exploiting the employer/owner because he is getting all the fruits of his labour while being provided tools, machinery, capital completely for free AND while not being at risk of losing any money given the business goes under
I agree. A bit of a silly analogy, but what springs to mind is pawn shops. Say you have an antique piece valued at $1000. The pawn shop will never pay you anything in the vicinity of that amount because they bear the risk of not selling it, and ultimately they profit off the margins.
By virtue of the fact that you accepted the job, that means that you ALSO are getting more value in return for what you are giving, because if your time is worth more to you than that $20, you will not accept the job. (Key words: "worth more TO YOU"). And yes, this of course also applies if you are in a desperate situation and accept a job for lets say $5/hr. In that moment, the $5/hr is worth more than your hour to you, until its not worth it to you anymore. Whatever situation you are in, either a desperate one where you accept a job for "low" pay or an empowered one where you only accept a job for "higher" pay; if you accept the job, then YOU found it worthwhile to exchange that hour for that dollar amount. The value of something is what somebody is willing to pay AS WELL AS what somebody is willing to accept for it in return. When those 2 things meet, that is the value in that moment in time.
There's alot of coercion at play though, if you don't work. you starve (in a perfect capitalist system). So unless you have large amounts of money saved (in a world that wants you to spend as much as possible), then youre being forced to take a job by a capitalist. 5 dollars an hour would be worth a lot to you at that moment, but what you produce in an hour is worth much more. By the way, where would the McDonalds burgers come from if there weren't any burger-flippers?
8:37 Abby Martin: "Another thing that [Jordan Peterson] says is... that hierarchies are biologically natural and that we should just accept them." Curtis Everett (Chris Evans) in Snowpiercer (2013): "That's what people in the best place say to the people in the worst place."
My 40 years life in a communist country proof that no matter how beauty the words they used to describe communism all communist countries will end up as a highly hierarchy system, much worse then capitalism countries. I think there are something fundamentally wrong in Marxism. By the way, I came from China.
@@qianglao I'm from S. Korea, a capitalist country. While I'm better off than an average Korean, I still saw a good number of my friends suffer undeserved hardships just because of the social order. All system has this kind of horrid hierarchy - not just in communist and/or capitalist societies, but as they say, the grass always look greener on the other side. That's why people from capitalist countries often cry for socialism, and vice versa. Realistically speaking we just have to make the best out of our environment, even if it is flawed.
@@qianglao I came from USSR. The same shit. Hierarchy is inevitable. So there are 2 options: 1. Centralized the Power in the hands of Bureaucrats/Technocrats & * their Families & Friends. 2. Decentralize the Power across the Local Governments & Corporations. Decentralization is the Best Practice across all subjects. In System Development, it's the Decentralized Component/Plugin based systems like Linux. In Business it's Decentralization & Flat Organizational Structures. In Finance it's the Decentralized Currencies like Bitcoin. In Politics it's The Founding Fathers idea of Decentralization and local governance.
@@mshin291 You are describing the rigid/corrupt hierarchies. It's one big Federal Government planning for a Better Social Good. The problem, it's doesn't work. You cant fix people & society. We will always have the sociopaths & nepotism & corruption & crime & hierarchies .... All you can do is to minimise the harm & damage; To Prevent the idiots & criminals to break your system. A common solution is a Decentralized System. Look at Linux. Probably there are a Nazi & Communist version of Linux. Linux is small and runs everywhere. And there are free & licensed versions of Linux. * "The main functions of the Kernel are the following: Manage RAM memory, so that all programs and running processes can work. Manage the processor time, which is used by running processes. Manage access and use of the different peripherals connected to the computer".
@@qianglao Of course hierarchies of some kind are inevitable, the point is that Peterson tries to use this dull sentiment to justify the current hierarchy that he's well off in. Not all hierarchies are tyrannical power structures, some hierarchies are fare worse than others. Stop playing this silly false dichotomy game of "it's either USSR or US capitalism", it's lazy and nonsense.
There has been a trend among the mainstream left of talking about civil rights issues and equality, but not talking about economic issues and income inequality. The neoliberals would only advance causes that did not impede the free market or profits of the corporations. This allowed them to appear left wing, but not actually be left wing on pocket book issues like wage stagnation etc. Equality, liberty and fraternity was the mantra of Liberalism. Early socialists and then Marx said that liberalism and capitalism were not delivering that for the working masses, but rather were creating income equality and a new class of elites to replace the old elites of feudalism. Capitalism was just the latest in a long history of systems of exploitation and it had its own exploited classes just like slaves and peasants before it. Liberalism's failure to address this and asking what to do about it was called The Social Question and is the root of socialism. Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron, because Marxism without the economic and class conflict components is just liberalism
Very well said. Liberalism and Marxism are blood brothers. You cannot discuss & critique one without discussing the other. Peterson's idea of being a "classical liberal" is dumb.
I just want to say, I came in here with an open mind, and interested in hearing some criticism of Peterson...and then you went directly to ""Right wing figures like Steve Bannon, Jordan Peterson", and then described his position in a way that doesn't sound anything like I've ever heard him say. That...just doesn't help.
He did not address the "cultural marxism" question. Here there is a good rebuttal of it: commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/
I clicked on this video with the same mindset, open to hear criticism. But none of their arguments are logic and the level of the interview is just appalling. It's a conversation with the same undertone of demagoguery that Peterson is afraid of.
@@milithdheerasekara6957 Here's another way to look at it: The values that filter down in our culture are not always the idealized academic version. A lot of it gets dumbed down into sentiment, and sometimes absurdity. And then academics want to No True Scotsman the situation, and fail to criticize it, even while the bulk of the culture moves in a direction partially of their creation. You could make similar arguments for the same thing happening to ideas on the Right as well, albeit through different channels. The Right-Wing version might have, for example, something to do with a reasonable conversation about the signals and benefits a less-restrictive market can bring, but it gets dumbed down into "market good, freedom good, Government bad", and then Conservatives take that dumbed-down-into-meaninglessness thing and pretend knowing it makes them way smarter then those 'Libtards', and proceed to do ignorant damage making decisions based on such ideas. If I were to wash my hands of that, I would know I was being intellectually dishonest, and also realize it I was neglecting my responsibility to criticize and correct bad ideas, wherever they may be found. The same, unfortunately, I don't think can be said as much for those on the Left. The Left dumbs-down in equally damaging ways, but it doesn't get called out on it, possibly because the nature of the way it happens gives some easier excuse, or renders line-drawing harder, because "at least they mean well". Peterson has talked about this: We kind of know when the Right goes too far, but we' don't seem to have an understanding of when the Left goes too far, and where the line is when they do. I really wish for academics to open their eyes to the damage being done in the name of Left-Wing ideology, not pretend that it's just a matter of misunderstanding and there's no problem here, and be more willing to criticize those on their 'side' who go wrong.
@@Virtuoso80 You raise an interesting point: "If things I say could be misinterpreted or dumbed down into something potentially harmful should I still say these things?" I would say YES and suggest, as an antidote to misinformation, that we, as a civilization, make education an extra priority.
As a lefty I can attest that: 1. Peterson acknowledges the necessity of the left. He's worried about radicals, right-wing ones too. 2. There's absolutely no evidence that Peterson "doesn't like" women, LGBT, or non-white ethnicities. He wants everybody to flourish. 3. He doesn't use the fact that hierarchies are inevitable to justify gross inequality. He often points out that bad things happen when inequality grows to where it becomes unsustainable. I have to say that I am disappointed by Peterson withdrawing from the debate with Wolff. This does come off as hypocritical, as he emphasises the importance listening to people whom you disagree with. I also think he was disappointing in the Zizek debate (whom I respect). All points worth criticising. However, Peterson is mainly about promoting individual flourishing. I agree that he may be out of his depth when it comes to Marx. But, he has made a positive impact on me (and thousands of others) in terms of getting my life straight(er). His shortcomings in some areas shouldn't be used to discredit his good ideas.
His wife has serious health issues and he has a busy schedule. All that may play into why he does what he does. Who has/would have a screen name of Hades? A clever genius, no doubt.
@@DinoDudeDillon I'd say anything that has to do with finding or creating meaning in your life. I particularly like how he derives them from his clinical work and psychology in general and how they tie in with mythology. Of course he didn't come up with most of them but the way he links them to different domains seems rather novel, as far as I know. I still found them useful and coherent as an atheist and lefty. Made a huge positive impact in my life and kept me from going down a nasty road. I'd recommend a clip about lying as a good way to get a rough picture. Just search for it here. Cheers Man
The part with exploitation sounds like half the truth. If a person values 20 $ so much that Its ready to work for one hour to earn that (has time, needs money) than there is no exploitation,even if the employer values the work higher than 20$. If Its voluntary, if both sides agreed, then Its pointless to acuse anyone of exploiting the other.
True. And that is clearly understood by everyone who takes on a job working for some employer, whether or not they are on "the Right" or "the Left" or somewhere in between (which is where most people really are...they're somewhere in between the farthest extremes of Right and Left). I don't have any problem with the fact that an employer must pay me less than the value I produce for him in order to have a viable business that makes money for him....but I do have a problem with people being paid outrageously less than the value of what they are producing and being paid so little for a full time job that they can't meet basic living expenses and live above the level of abject poverty. At that point it does become exploitation. In other words, there needs to be a reasonable compromise made between the needs of the employer and the needs of the workers...a fair bargain needs to be struck between them...and that's what brought the union movement (and socialism itself) into being in the first place. You can't give over total dictatorial power to the employers and expect a fair system. Neither can you give it over to the workers and expect a fair system. A compromise that both sides can willingly accept is what needs to be found, and that's why we have always had "collective bargaining" between unions and companies, since unions were allowed to exist. At first they were not legally allowed, and any attempt by workers to unionize was met with extreme violence on the part of large businesses and governments against workers...........and that wasn't very long ago, historically speaking.
It’s a simple equation. 1+ec= (L+L*)/L Worker produces more value for the boss that the boss pays him. That is exploitation under capitalism. It doesn’t matter whether it’s voluntary or not-it isn’t btw…We live in an environment where if a worker doesn’t enter into an unfair contract with a capitalist, that worker will starve. That is a coercive negotiation. The worker might as well have a gun pointed at their head when deciding whether or not to enter into a contract as an employee. That being the case, it has nothing to do with the factor of exploitation in Marxist theory
widsombsiw can you back up your point? What part of Wolff’s critique of Peterson is incorrect? Or are you just blindly following him and cannot actually articulate your own beliefs?
I agree with Wolff here. JP keeps going on about neomarxism, far left and cultural marxism while he is actually creating a strawman of those ideas. He is a good at self-help but just fails in historical understanding of social ideologies. Anything 1 cm left to him is an evil plot of the far left to bring back the USSR.
Of course the employer MUST pay the employee less than whatever they produce or the employer would not be able pay for the cost of running the business or themselves, its only when those margins are skewed way out of proportion that it becomes exploitation.
Exactly! I run a business and it would be insane to pay someone everything they bring in. The business wouldn't grow and if they had one bad day I'd have to fire them. Where as because I have profit, we can buy better tools, produce more material, and everyone makes more and more while having an easier time working.
True. And that is clearly understood by everyone who takes on a job working for some employer, whether or not they are on "the Right" or "the Left" or somewhere in between (which is where most people really are...they're somewhere in between the farthest extremes of Right and Left). I don't have any problem with the fact that an employer must pay me less than the value I produce for him in order to have a viable business that makes money for him....but I do have a problem with people being paid outrageously less than the value of what they are producing and being paid so little for a full time job that they can't meet basic living expenses and live above the level of abject poverty. At that point it does become exploitation. In other words, there needs to be a reasonable compromise made between the needs of the employer and the needs of the workers...a fair bargain needs to be struck between them...and that's what brought the union movement (and socialism itself) into being in the first place. You can't give over total dictatorial power to the employers and expect a fair system. Neither can you give it over to the workers and expect a fair system. A compromise that both sides can willingly accept is what needs to be found, and that's why we have always had "collective bargaining" between unions and companies, since unions were allowed to exist. At first they were not legally allowed, and any attempt by workers to unionize was met with extreme violence on the part of large businesses and governments against workers...........and that wasn't very long ago, historically speaking.
@@PsilentMusicUK His speeches are great, I recommend especially "Is Capitalism devouring democracy" and "Reflections on an Alternative Economic Present" here on TH-cam. And a little book called "Talking to my Daughter about the Economy" (get it for free on libgen.is). However, I do have some disagreements with him here and there. For example, I think he is too critical of past experiments in real existing socialism, and seems to dismiss their achievements. Calling the Soviet Union a dystopia and such.
@@mirror452 I've seen the lectures and desperately need to read the book (I'm a slow reader). I also have my disagreements with him. I think he tends to express a vague and perhaps dogmatic view of immigration on the few occasions that he's been asked about it. I sort of agree with your point about ex-Socialist projects (as a history graduate I like considering both positives and negatives of any regime, though the USSR does come in for a lot of legitimate criticism). His understanding of the history of Capitalism, economics and the financial system is incredible. I think it's his ability to articulate that knowledge in understandable terms that makes him so appealing to me.
Is Jordan Peterson truly considered a conservative? I feel comparing him to Bannon is a bit of a reach. He is a bit of a shrill voiced alarmist towards the left but i never felt he really leaned far right.... just because he criticizes the far left.
Rusty James well considering the right is all about tradition, hierarchy, capitalism, and order I’d say Peterson falls into it pretty neatly. I wouldn’t describe him as “far right” like I would Bannon but he’s definitely on that side of the isle. He just pretends not to be, like Dave Rubin, because it grants him some plausible deniability
Disclaimer: it's ok to be conservative. We need to stop seeing it as a contemptful position. That being said, JBP does not neatly fit in the 'conservative' label, in fact he leans more towards 'classocal liberalism'. I'm just tired of having every argument stuck in the 'in-group/out-group' view of the world, which is the Crux of identity politics.
He has some conservatives values which is alright, and he has some liberal values which is alright. Being conservative merely correlates with scoring higher in personality dimension of Trait Conscientiousness while scoring lower in Trait Openness. That is all there is to the differences between Conservatives and Liberals, which is why they should teach the psychology of personality as a social engineering class in highschool so that the next generation can remove itself feom this meaningless polarization and learn to understand one another.
I don't think Wolff is a communist, and is only "marxist" insofar as he is a critic of capitalism. his solution is worker coops and democratization, not government authoritarianism.
Considering that Marx himself did not go into an awful lot of detail about what a post revolutionary society would look like (other than, as far as I know, his praise of the Paris commune's government structure)... it could work out within a Marxist framework of analysis as it minimizes exploitation of surplus value of workers and is more likely to prevent social reproduction and the excessive incursions of capital (as in assets from outside of the productive process) distorting the nature of the process (such as issues of over production, lower rate of profit returns, etc.). Prof. Wolff is definitely a Marxist. As for Marx wanting government authoritarianism... chief, we need to talk, lol. Marx, with all his many, many flaws and lapses in ideological judgement (younger Marx was indeed much more militant, taking inspiration from jacobin radicals like Louis Blanquis, Rousseau, who by Marx's standards were pretty naïve, etc.) I fail to see how Marx was an authoritarian (like anyone from his time basically, you had classical liberals who were fucking 'yikes' in that respect, monarchists, anarchists like Proudhon, etc.) he was pretty middle lane (barring ,say, the anarchists, who were much more radical) in this respect (as unlike one of his great ideological influence, Hegel, did not talk about the 'absolute, ethical state' and other concepts that are, as you put forth authoritarian). Marx was anything but, as he was anti-state ultimately.
JP is very clear that hierarchies can be corrupt and dysfunctional. I note that none of the two talking try to defend the position that a society without hierarchies is possible.
It is odd that those who argue for Marxism don’t understand this. In current society there is hierarchies but at least there is a possibility that you may rise within it. In Marxism there is still hierarchy except you are permanently stuck at which ever level those at the top decide for you to be stuck at. It’s just absurd to me.
S H what? The ideal political system for capitalism is dictatorship with slavery, and no labor unions. Because people are only meant to produce capital. People are not important at all in capitalism. In socialism it’s all about people. That then you have dictatorships in Russia it’s more about their history and nothing to do with Marx.
@@mediatool9596 um, no not really. Chill out, lol. Maybe it was an unintentional oversight or maybe Wolff doesn't see him as a "Dr" for the time being. Are you a Peterson Stan?
Heard about Abby through the joe Rogan podcast and wow she is incredible. I love how she pointed out that Bernie is the biggest threat to the dem establishment
Jorge Lozano she said her channel was hard to search and would take time to find. This channel was the second on the search. That’s lie #1. I’m sure there will be more.
Really? Go read up on his voting record when it comes to airstikes in the middle east when a Democrat is in the office. Bernie is a tool use beautiful to temper the revolutionary mindset of the leftists that believe. And he's significantly more dangerous for the world than Peterson and Bannon combined.
@@jalemairliha and how many air strikes has Bannon ordered. Get over yourself. Joe Biden is a career long international doom and groomer who's been voting to blow up innocent people for 5 decades. My point is not that Steve Bannon is worth defending. It's that he has no tangible power and never did. He's a media guy. Biden is a bomb dropper.
I like this guy and what he was saying. About the topic of exploitation; If you were getting the full value of your work, you would be getting the same money as if you were self employed. Your boss needs to add his cut for whatever he does and more for growth investment, so of course some of the value is lost. A lot of the time, the cost to the consumer is based on the production costs, so keeping wages down is preferred. I think the real exploitation comes from certain parts of the economy which is artificially raising its value in order to make people poorer than they need to be. Like the housing economy, the petroleum and power economy. These are the things people can't do without, but people have to now pay more than what they should be able to easily afford from their labour effort.
Notice he refers to 'unfettered capitalism'. Its running the capitalist machine without any safeguards. In our society, where corporations and the rich have captured democratic power, they've removed the safeties, so the machine produces more for them, and less for everyone else. Capitalism can work. For a time. Before the monster is out of its cage, wrecking havok on the population.
> Your boss needs to add his cut for whatever he does and more for growth investment, so of course some of the value is lost For whatever he does?! Provide capital, land, factory, wages prior to profit, customers, suppliers and, most important, the idea that created a business. Of course, you could stand naked in a forest and wait for the Dialectic.
Yeah, all conjecture and guess work at ulterior motivation, and no actual definition or goodfatih analysis of intention. It's not like there are dozens of instances where JP - not sure about Bannon- has explained what he means by Cultural Marxism......oh wait, there are. Of course the problem is that he (and Bannon supposedly) are the only ones who use the term Cultural Marxism.....oh wait, thats not true either. So then it must be they use a markedly different definition......nope, that also isnt the case. I've seen several clips of this "marxist expert," tired of the mischaracterization of marxism- clearly he is very much an ideologue- whenever he talks about marxism, and especially in the couple clips I've seen of him "destroying" JP, they contain a lot of bullshit and outright lies. Thre is something clearly not right about this man. And I dont have to guess and elaborate at his ulterior motives, and link them to some historic manifestation of evil; whatever the specifics, they're clearly not aimed at honesty, sincerity, understanding, and truth.
Yes, he did, in the debate against Slavoj Žižek. And it was quite apparent that he has never actually read Marxism. Having said that, these guys are still making strawman arguments against him.
When JP talks about hierarchies his argument is sound. He never justifies social inequality and he actually criticizes capitalism often. So this missed his argument about the roots of inequality in hierarchies. About cultural marxism, he is asked the same question by Zizek and the response was given which you do not discussed here. Instead they go on about the concept of exploitation and use and out of context quote to call JP ignorant. JP knows and acknowledges that there are exploitative people "tyrants" in hierarchies be it political hierarchies or economic hierarchies. His take on that is closer to home in that it provides psychological tools to help avoiding on becoming one. I was born and raised in a leftist family. In my view they didnt debunk anything, just took an "easy" shot at JP. I take JP wisdom about life to be much more enriching and actually more revolutionary than the Marxist academic pissing contest.
@@NiaziMujahidKhan not really. Its hard to critique a position like ‘being against Postmodern NeoMarxism’ without looking like you are strawmanning your opponent because your opponents position is completely incoherent. Your opponent is conflating two things that aren’t the same (and are in fact opposed in significant regards) and isn’t clear about which one in particular they believe to be problematic. Peterson has argued against Gay Marriage on the grounds that it constitutes an ‘assault on traditional modes of being organised by cultural marxism’. To simply describe this as a fairly incoherent belief riddled with contradictions is not strawmanning anyone because the argument isn’t coherent enough to misrepresent.
its time that we all reconsider our views about theories and ideas propounded by Peterson and his followers...most of them will not stand to test ..Peterson should concentrate on teaching psychology and not poking his nose in every matter ...people like Wolff or Noam Chomsky are far more intelligent and understand our world better than him..many many times...
Wolff cant hold Petersons jockstrap. Wolff is a Socialism shill and most intelligent people see right through his bs. The Socialism experiment has been run, resulted in mass murder everywhere its been tried and everyone with an understanding of history and human nature realize where the road of Socialism leads...to tyranny and mass murder.
Certainly it pains me to watch this man talk but it’s necessary to balance out my viewpoint of modern political theory. What hurts is that everyone on the left speaks clearly from ideological and generically emotional standpoints, while most on the right consistently provide factual statistics and evidence that support their arguments. Why is this?
I highly recommend that you read this rebuttal of the "cultural marxism" concept then: commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/
Gramsci did discuss the need for a working class culture to replace bourgeois cultural hegemony. But it was nothing like what Peterson ansand the other right wing conspiracy nuts imply.
It isn't some kind of right wing conspiracy, what Peterson claims is that certain Marxist principles have been incorporated in the social sciences and humanities and that that specific perspective is coming to dominate academia right now. You can agree or disagree about whether or not that is a good thing but you can't deny that such a thing is in fact happening. No one alleges there is some kind of Marxist council spreading these ideas, it is just what is happening in academia right now.
Brigadier Harsh The problem is some people have alleged and still claim that there is a secret cabal of Marxist Jews who are attempting to undermine Western culture. There has been generations of different versions of this narrative. In the USA go back to McCarthism and the John Birch Society and you find similar rhetoric. Go back to the 1920‘s and you find this narrative. The only thing I can conclude with Peterson, an otherwise intelligent man, is that he was actually hired to do this specific job. Is that a conspiracy? Well the job of reframing political narratives has been done before. It is not necessarily nefarious but it is still propaganda. There are various ways it has been done transparently. For example George Lakoff wrote a book as to how liberal democrats should frame their narrative and talking points to win elections. And he was hired by the Obama campaign. So I am taking a leap as to my assumption but it is not that bizarre of a guess. The fact is much of the right wing believed this narrative for decades and much of it was anti-semetic. Is it possible that Peterson and Shapiro were groomed to rewrite that narrative to make it not anti-Semitic? There can be a very good discussion and debate between someone familiar with classical liberalism and Marxism. What is not well known is that the basic foundations of Marx is classical liberalism but he criticizes those ideas as well for not producing the outcomes that Adam Smith claimed it would at that time. Peterson perpetually does not renounce his ignorance on this subject, he maintains it which is anti-intellectual. And part of that ignorance is maintaining the idea that Marx is some how not „Western“. Which is a bizarre claim being that Marx was born in Prussia Germany and went to a classical university. That his work cites Aristotle, Voltaire, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hegel should provide the insight that Marx might be a Western philosopher. Not to mention the fact that Marx is perhaps more „western“ than Nietzsche or Schopenhauer who employed Hindu and Buddhist thought in their work. But the idea that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are somehow an enemy of „the West“ never comes up. In other words what I get from Peterson is a type of rhetoric that attempts to weave a political narrative not an honest discussion of actual ideas. So whether intentional propaganda narrative spin or the worst type sloppy scholarship. It is an assault on enlightenment thinking.
I can't think of any more potentially totalitarian ideas than Peterson's statement to Sam Harris that the criterion for a true statement should be it's "social usefulness." That could've come out of the mouth of Trotsky or Mao, and leads one to believe that for Peterson, the pursuit of uderstanding and insight takes a backseat to the pursuit of effective propagandizing.
@@michaelgrant169 Im talking about pay. You cant pay the employees as much as the owner because the owner will never have an incentive to start the company in the first place.
The grammar in the title is incorrect. When using the proper noun "Jordan Peterson" in a sentence you need to add the verb "destroyed," in capslock. For eg Jordan Peterson DESTROYED a visit to a cafe; I DESTROYED a book by Jordan Peterson; She DESTROYED a youtube video on Jordan Peterson; Several students DESTROYED a conversation about Jordan Peterson, etc etc.
Which hierarchies? and to what extent are you claiming these hierarchies are the result of natural phenomena vs a social construct. Do you really think that the org chart and wage distribution at McDonald's or Amazon is predominantly the result of natural development?
@@cookergronkberg : What's the difference between "natural phenomena" and "social constructs"? When you go right to the beginning of life as we know it all the organisms built hierarchies (often deadly ones). So one can argue that those organisms were behaving according to a social contract - at least from an outside perspective. A contract that defined who got eaten and who survived a bit longer. The building of swarms/flocks/schools further cemented and modified both the hierarchies within a given species as well as in harmony or conflict with others. And that goes on basically unchanged until today. Even the upcoming of "intelligence" and "consciousness" didn't change that but only gave us the ability to become aware of these socially (not necessarily consciously) constructed hierarchies. However - and that's a mistake far too many people make - stating the fact that there are (and always were) hierarchies is not a judgement. Such a statement does not necessarily imply that hierarchies are _good_ (or _bad_ for that matter). Being aware of a fact (and making others aware) is not the same as welcoming said fact. And Peterson himself has a lot to say about the inherent stupidities of certain hierarchies.
@@mwat56 The distinction could take place at various levels in which it is no longer very useful to simply reduce human life and society to the interaction of matter and energy in the universe. We have fields like sociology and economics precisely because we need higher level concepts and explanations, even if we still ultimately can consider everything we do as an emergent property of physical processes. I am personally against a particular idea that I have seen some Peterson fans make that makes very strong claims about natural hierarchies necessarily leading to particular high level economic or political systems. This seems extremely tenuous.
Jack Kerouc locked himself in a room took lots of speed and wrote a book that inspired generations of people to embrace the world and go "on the road". Jordan Peterson locked himself in a room took lots of speed and wrote "don't forget to clean your room".
His writings inspired thousands of young men to abandon radical white nationalist movements and thousands of others to improve their lives. JP literally saved human lives with his book. Most authors can't say their writings did that. I don't know who Jakc Kerouc is but your point seems silly to me.
@@resiktd1944 well I would agree with that but I still dont understand how undermining a man's work who has done positive good in the world has anything to do with that. Good morning by the by.
I think you are on the wrong track here; the identity politics that has replaced economic justice came from Focault and his cadre of French so-called marxists, who specifically focused on culture. Thus, sex becomes a form of oppression, and sexual relationships are overwhelmingly a power dynamic. Watch Focault debate Chomsky on YT and you will see what I mean. This type of "culture war" is used as it is largely against the norms of the working class, and thus they can be written off as "populist lackeys", "phobes", and "fascists", rather than the economically exploited. Thus, excessive individualism is called left-wing, when in fact it is neo-liberal. Thus, "all that is solid melts into air", and the traditional ties that held working-class communities together come under attack under the guise of "identity politics" which ignores even the mild truism "It's the economy, stupid" that even social democrats used to adhere to. Marx warned about false consciousness.....
When Peterson said bosses would never exploit their workers, I choked on my Nestle chocolate bar.
African children didn't give their forced labor to Nestle supply sweatshops for you to choke on their freakin chocolate bar.
@@periodtbabe I was being facetious. I was pointing out the absurdity of Peterson's statement.
It's not a real quote. Notice you never hear him say it. It's a paraphrase of a quote, taken out of context.
Seems to me like a fair take on what Peterson said.
So finish your job and start it on your own. Who is preventing it?
People really criticizing Wolff for "strawmanning" when Jordan Peterson tried to debunk communism by reading Communist Manifesto before bed
@@panaccoman Nazis weren't socialists in the contemporary sense of the word.
The Peterson crowd seem to follow their leader like lemmings.
@@panaccoman butthurt
@@panaccoman perhaps try reading a book before bed tonight. Go on and break the habit of a lifetime!
@@panaccoman becasude Mein Kampf to Nazism is the same than the Communist Manifesto to Marxism... sure bud
It's hilarious looking back how Peterson was always saying "I'll debate any Marxist who dares" and then didn't when the man, the Wolff himself challenged him.
Peterson uses too much palaver, constantly. I seldom listen to him, although I respect him for being helpful to our disengaged young men. Peterson avoids challengers when it comes to serious debates, however.
Jordy Pete is a grifter, saying he will debate any Marxist or actual Leftist, which doesn’t include Liberals, just for his audience, but he knows that if he actually debated a Leftist, he would lose the debate, thus losing followers and money.
@@kirstinstrand6292Wolff will not debate anyone who knows what they are talking about.
@@robertprice9052 Such as?
Capitalism may be a bad system like you may think, but it's the best system that has been used thus far. Communism has been proven not to work. It leads straight to authoritarianism.
Prove:
Communism can exist in capitalism. Capitalism can not exist in Communism.
Lol this aged well...
Just came from your insta story to see this funny video
Thanks for sharing this! Gave me a great laugh.
@turtles_O Shut up and go loot some more stores and keep shouting BLM to deaf ears.
Mikhalia hope your'e well. Stay gold
Tricky disinformation
Yes, bosses would be stupid to exploit their employees, but that doesn't stop them from doing it anyway.
Since the bosses are stupid, there are no profits, no capitalism and no oppression. All Marxists can return home. Its all good/.
Of course it doesn't but simultaneously it certainly does mean that the fundamental nature of power can't just be based on exploitation.
@Militant Anarchist Judging by your name I assume you must be one hell of a reasonable person
@American Fuel TV Apparently given the definition in this video, yes they all do. Which I would suggest that bosses of course cannot pay employees the exact amount that they would make from the product that the employee generates or else why would anybody go to business to begin with? There has to be profit at the fundamental level.
@American Fuel TV I would think it would be just what an individual employee made for that company, assuming that can be quantified. Definitely not overall profit.
It would be stupid for a boss to exploit the workers? Dude, have you ever had a job? lol
I can get see that in an egalitarian world, but under capitalism, I beg to differ. I only have this anecdotal evidence, but it's pretty persuasive: It is not only fact that your boss will generally be terrible toward the workers, but it is unashamedly cultural. It is vastly the norm, not an exception. It is mythological via our popular media, Hollywood movies being maybe the most powerful. If it's academically "stupid", then why is it a near-universal? And this, from a man [Peterson] who stresses legitimate hierarchy as a basic human yearning. You get more results under tyranny by harshness, not reward or a welcoming environment. I do believe humans can achieve and enjoy such ways, but for the moment being shitty to peeps would be the norm, since it blends in with the shitty paradigm.
Define exploit. Define fair. Do you want a job or not?
@Joshua E. > most people hate their bosses and jobs generally
Your faith in the supernatural is noted.
@Joshua E. On my planet , ancient global poverty has been reduced to 8% by capitalism.
Marxism has been reduced to the workers paradises of Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea , Hollywood and American schools. How is it going on your planet?
Right, yes, I comprehend; but what I found odd is Peterson's argument. It not only contradicts the empirical, cultural norms that are pervasive (not right, not wise, just clear and present), but furthermore argues against his own assertions that hierarchical structures and forceful guidance, reliant on strength / projected strength, are the natively compatible, pre-existing, organic framework that we humans are defaulted to obligingly utilize. I don't agree with him at all, but wished to point out the contradiction. It's just odd, no more, no less. -The Revolution Will Not Be Televised...hm, or will it? -A-
The debate between Peterson and Zizek was a real eye opener for me. I stopped blindly following Peterson. While I haven't invested too much in understanding Marx, I felt humbled watching that debate as I was too a bit arrogant towards Marxist positions without knowing much of it.
You should start by reading Marx carefully. First, the Communist Manifesto, part 1. Then read Capital. It’s a huge work but if you want to really understand Marx, you have to study it. Listen to Professor Wolfe. He really knows Marx. Peterson is just a shill for the right wing. He’s completely ignorant about Marx. He’s a psychologist. Not an economist. Marx was primarily an economic theorist, a critic of capitalism.
@@stevenyourke7901 lol marx was a trash economist and wrong. We've seen this the last +100 years. It's shit in theory and shit in practice. The fact u blind idealistic delusional idealogues keep this ridiculous theory alive and still being a marxist in 2000s is equivalent to being a flat earther
I was in the same boat. I wasn't that well versed in Marxism and wasn't impressed at all by some of Peterson's comments about it and realised that he wasn't well versed in its philosophy.
Then I realised that Peterson's perspective comes from psychology. He's trying to understand why any human being would ever think that a gulag or a concentration camp is a good idea when it's so clearly a terrible thing.
Communism in theory does not play out the sane way in practice, and while he may not completely understand the theory he seems to be good at explaining the practice.
@@jonsegerros I disagree with you, Marxism in understanding the economic actually has lots of merits, especially in fulfillment of actual nuance and function of economy as economy from its original etymology, as art or discipline of living, and Marxism want to achieve an political and economical environment that sustainable to solve daily, whether big or small social obstacle and problem we faced as living beings, trying to combat the increasing consumerism and excessive production that conducted by capitalist via market fraudulence in evading both community and government present counter-measure that function to shield them from endangering trickery, the common case that are happening in USA, predatory credit and banking as well unassured private insurance service.
@@williemherbert1456 so, solution to modern capitalism that could be easily solved by deregulation and stopping corporatistic legistlagion = full on marxist.
Kek ok. o, you know, we just keep the market economy and stop ruibning it by government inverventions and big business corporations controlling the market rather than having a free market. as the pseudo-capitalism we have today
...this comment section is weird...
Hmm.. just look at the US...
@@asdfhjgasfd12 Well...read the above comment....
Bc people dont buy the bullshit behind the Socialism shills
@@mediatool9596 Maybe because you have been brainwashed.
@@armandovaiandando6472 nope. Way off. Try again next time
Donate a dollar to mike gravel to get him on the debate stage
C J Titan he's running to shit on biden
Let's get him on that damn stage!
@Long duk dong you can have a minimum amount of donors as well, though the odds of this threshold being met is near zero as no candidates have yet achieved this so far
Honestly, Gravel has less than a 0% chance of winning. And he is faaaar from the best left wing candidate. If your a leftist who is willing to give the democrats a chance in this upcoming election, it honestly does not make sense to vote for anyone except Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabard, and Andrew Yang. Every other dem candidate is either a straight up corporate shill, or filler and has no chance of winning (most are both). It would make more sense to not vote than to vote democratic for anyone who is not one of those 3 (from a leftist perspective)
Steve Fortuna ... to disrespect Gravel, who is highly intelligent, articulate, a former member of Congress, a genuine servant of the people & the planet, a peace activist, because of his age, is only serving the corporate media’s narrative! It’s too bad more politicians aren’t looking out for the American people. You should at least listen to what he has to say, you might be pleasantly surprised. If he gets on the debate stage, he will force the others to address important questions and not just platitudes.Tulsi 2020!!!
Michael Parenti should have been the one that debated Peterson.
there's no way that would be suitable for the public. there would be way too much gore, Parenti would slaughter him
@TheSingularity And last time Peterson humiliated himself in public
@Michael Maya he has a lot more following, sure, but Peterson has very very little credibility among actual academics. he barely contributed anything to his own field, and he's widely seen as a charlatan by anybody besides his horde of teenage-to-twenties boys who follow his views.
parenti has been around a long time, and wouldn't play nice like Zizek did, he would go for the throat and eviscerate Peterson for knowing absolutely nothing about Marx or history period
Lol he’d never dare😅🤓
Bob Black referred to Parenti as a Stalinist simpleton, so it seems uncertain as to weather that would be anymore interesting.
Not only he sounds not very accurate about marxism, he's also ignoring his own profession, his own identity as a psychologist, because as a human behavioral expert you should know human's tendencies. Exactly he's ignoring human nature. Thank you Mr Richard wolff!!
Marx himself either fundamentally ignored or misunderstood human nature in all his works (to be more percise - human psychology and social behaviour)
Lyubomir Ivanchev I don’t think there is anyone yet that can fully understand the human mind.
@@Hoi4o Care to explain?
@LlibertarianGalt Tell me what Marxism is
As usual Richard Wolff is brilliant. 😎
Not at all
Abraham Lincoln observed:
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Seems WETHEPEOPLE need to reorient the Mister Monocle's of this rabbit hole.
Joe Doaks That's what we get for being idiots on a societal level. Being an honest free market advocate I despise the institution of the the modern corporation and the absolute corruption of contract law.
Lincoln went on to say that to tax a man's labor is just wrong, capital should be taxed, the exact opposite of what is in place today where labor is taxed and capital taxed very little if at all.
@@ScienceTalkwithJimMassa I've run across a few p'sov which gave occasion to that comment, do you happen to have a link or search criteria for finding where and to whom he made these comments?
When raygun doubled withholding and introduced the handcuffs of the 1099, I about gave up on any 'capitalist' favoritism. I have been self=-employed most of my life and have written, proudly, for too many tax cycles, too many 5 figure checks being dazzled by some very lucrative earning years.
Truth is that trying to go thru the hoops of loans and grants most always depended upon ref's from someone of consequence which was not easily manifest via my blue collar life circumstance. That made building a business momentum, which always burns an entrepreneur's credit card stash, a very gut wrenching ordeal due to what we now know is a controlled and essentially closed money river and investment game.
I've never found even a hint for how society can have free market exchange and not have market regulation of the pronounced greedhead syndrome in American and whirled society...avarice is the rule deception the main lever.
@@paulrevere47 This quote says as such in 19th century fashion.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847), p. 412.
He is in essence saying that it is not right to take away what a man has labored for which would include wages.
You can go to this website for more quotes:
rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln97.html
@@ScienceTalkwithJimMassa Great, thanks!
Jordan Peterson uses the term "exploitation" in the common sense way of "wilfully treating people in a mean and nasty manner". Marx did not use the term "exploitation" in that sense.
Also, paying people less than they produce is common sense. As en employer you have to cover other expenses and make sure you have some buffers to survive bad times. If you really underpay your employees they will move to the competitor. Marx ignored price discovery (or wage discovery in this case). In a capitalist society you can switch employers but in a perfect marxist society you can not.
@@BspVfxzVraPQ > paying people less than they produce is common sense.
Employers pay employees what they ,the employees, produce. He doesnt pay them what he produces. Marxism is the economics of zombies who use an intuited social consciousness to produce whatever they feel like producing with no conscious, rational concern for a market of supply and demand. They throw their production into a common pot. The other zombies take from the pot whatever they feel like taking, all without money. The intuited social consciousness, replacing price coordination, assures the faithfull zombie that he produces what the other zombies want and that the other zombies
produce what he wants, all without any conscious concern for supply and demand. This is the real zombie economics. Marxists regard it as scientific. Of course, Kant’s subjectivism decapitated science before Marx wrote.
The theoretical result is economics without mind and the individual. The practical result is Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela and the conceptual disintegration of virtually all economics teaching.
Erwin, that's quite an accurate explanation of a particular authoritarian type of Marxism, but doesn't represent all Marxist schools of thought.
The problem with capitalism herein lies the problem of self defining its necessity to exist within the system.. Of course itll seem as if you always need capitalism for capitalist markets to work in a capitalist system lol..
But refusing to contemplate alternatives outside this norm reveals an inability to imagine scenarios outside of certain paradigms.
@@sovereignpsyche7968 > particular authoritarian type of Marxism
The transcendental Marxist ideal of decentralized authority quickly changes to centralized authority as concrete reality makes its appearance.
@@sovereignpsyche7968 well then link me to a piece outlining your preferred kind of marxist economic system.
Thank you so much. From a long time Peterson was annoying many of us , by his ignorance of Marxism
I've watched some of his videos, his tone of voice, his cadance, sounds all the time like somebody 'pissed in his porridge' as we say around here. Somebody told him he is an idiot, perhaps in an 4:32 'ersounce way' but he still holds a grudge. I just wanted to use that word, 'ersounce' nonchalantly, for once
Boy are you the ignorant one.Have you tried to live in a communist state?Ask people who did,they hate it with a passion.
@Jaskaran Singh I more talking old style soviet communism ,before it morphed to a type of capitalism,but that is your experience.
@Jaskaran Singh the russians because they are young and cant remember the lines for food and nececities and the gulags.
" The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the *forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions* "
Directly from the Marxist manifesto. Of course, there's a cultural movement. And its intention is to undermine the current status quo. This one snippet tells us that. When the likes of Peterson say "Cultural Marxism", they are referencing the cultural side of Marxism specifically, not the economic side.
Jordan Peterson isn't ignorant of Marxism. Richard Wolff hilariously is. And apparently hasn't made it beyond section 2 of the Marxist manifesto. And neither have you. And nor has any Marxist who claims that Peterson is lying or doesn't understand Marxism.
I was hoping for an intelligent critique. Instead, the first two arguments were basically: 1) Peterson thinks like (is) a Nazi 2) Peterson is a racist. Ugh. Come on, please discuss the substantive ideas instead of using personal attacks. Then you took a quote, misconstrued it (I watched that debate), and went for the straw man tactic. I know Peterson has his flaws, but this discussion didn't enlighten me, it just made me groan.
Seems like you missed 90% of the video
@@sebastianlenzlinger9291 I got through to about six minutes and gave up. Because you invested the time to comment, I'll invest the time and finish watching. The straw man/Peterson's never read Marx argument continued on to 8:30 or so. Then a straw man/misrepresented argument about hierarchy occurs.
I don't really want to argue. I just wanted a thoughtful critique of Peterson. For that to happen, the critic has to first understand Peterson and then attack the strongest version of his argument, rather than misinterpret and attack a false representation of his ideas.
Perhaps you can point me to a better critique by someone who has a deeper understanding of Peterson's ideas and who then explains why they disagree. I feel like Sam Harris is one example of this. I am open to other examples.
mentioning how the notion of cultural marxism originates from nazism is just a fact sorry #notsayinghesanaziorracist #justfaxx
Bro Jordan's entire argument is a blatant lie there is no 'debating' or critiquing a lie.
@@superduperfreakyDj lol. That's how you expose a lie. You debate the idea! You scrutinize it. You shine the light on it. If it's a lie it won't stand up. If someone refuses to let their ideas be debated, you can be pretty sure the foundation is weak.
Wolff and Peterson..debate !
Wolff has to pony up the cash. No Marxists want to debate Peterson though.
@@steven5054 what are you talking about? Wolff was going to fly across the country to debate him but Peterson withdrew.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 It's easy for him to say that without Peterson being there to clarify what happened. It's likely that there was a perfectly good explanation. Peterson debates people regularly, I see no reason why he would withdraw from this particular debate, especially given that he had previously agreed to it.
@@johnwalsh717 Peterson significantly raised his price after being told that Wolff was going to show. That's according to Boise State.
JP don't want that smoke
I'd rather see Wolff in a discussion with Zizek than a debate with Peterson.
ELlo-Gee Philosopraptoa Zizek would eat Wolff alive
@@MrDeathyness Zizek would eat Zizek alive.
I actually think they could probably reach some interesting points but nethertheless there would be some loss due to friction, since Wolff, for all his nominal Marxism, is such a insufferable Anglo-Saxon positivist. That's alright as long as you talk economics but with criticizing the whole of society, more like Zizek does in the footsteps of freudo-marxism, Frankfurt school and so on and so on, it gets kinda annoying. Take the difference between Postone and Wolff to get what I mean. Postone is a brilliant Marxist who as kinda synthesized 60s Frankfurt philosophical Marxism with old school by the book reading of Das Kapital.
Zizek has difficulty connecting two thoughts in a logical way.
Why not both?
There's only one thing I didn't like about this video.
It was too short. I could've listened to this for an hour or more.
Agreed. I really hope the full interview drops soon.
th-cam.com/video/2yEiv1fIhyE/w-d-xo.html
Check out “Zeitgeist Addendum” and “Zeitgeist Moving Forward” ✌️
If you are interested in the topic and not just agreeing, I suggest you look into it further. Somewhat disingenuous to debunk cultural Marxism without mentioning the Frankfurt School, isn't it? Sure Marx never mentioned cultural Marxism, because it was a build out of Marx's earlier work. Doesn't mean it wasn't constructed, which Wolff is implying.
It's short for a reason- it's short of true information. Richard Wolff is a liar; I doubt that Peterson would decline an opportunity to debate with a Marxists. If anything it would be the other way around. It's the first time I've listened to Wolff and already I can see the lies he vomits out. Type in 'Cultural Marxism' in youtube and you'll have your info. TBH, this is the only video that I've watched talking about Culture Marxisms as phrase used by the right to be hateful to those who they disagree with. Wolff is a damn liar and Culture Marxisms manifested from Marxisms and the proletariat class/minority.
Came for a proper debunking, found them debunking a straw man. Disappointing.
Agreed. See here for proper debunking: th-cam.com/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/w-d-xo.html
"cultural Marxism" itself is a straw man.
This is amazing! Would love to see more of you and Dr. Wolff together!
You are a troll
You amaze to easily.
@@TheReactor8 Why a troll?
@@redwater4778 And you comment unnecessarily.
@@sam33naR Its horrible propaganda. Honestly, the way this misrepresent just about everything Jordan says so they can mock him as stupid on a entire subject based on what... 5-6 words out of context. Come on, this is just sad. Even if Jordan is full of horse shit, this is much worse.
the jp fanboys relly showed up to the comment section. maybe they cleaned their bedroom earlier lol.
Unlike you guys who are high on weed all the time wanting the government to feed you
What an insightful comment.
This is an amazing comment.
"NOOOOO PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM MINE IN THE HECKIN COMMENT SECTION."
lol piss harder, piss baby
@Exploited unlivable wage voluntarist libertarian Become the business class, simple. While currently I am not very well of with both my parents being teachers with little salary, I will attain great riches and become wealthy.
Average comment in this section: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
They’re critiquing a strawman. I have reservations with some of Jordan Peterson’s ideas, but this doesn’t represent them in a fair or reasonable way. The comment about exploitation was in the context of a discussion about market dynamics of labour, ie bad employers lose labour through competition. There are issues with his position, but not the ones made in this video. The hierarchy discussion is also misinterpreted. While suspect in his reasoning about social hierarchies, Jordan Peterson has made multiple remarks about the distinction between his description of hierarchies and the desirability of such hierarchies. His discussion revolves around dominance and competence, and he has made clear that not all hierarchies are desirable. He’s making the point that not all hierarchies are undesirable, not that all should be accepted. The speakers are misrepresenting his views here, which is disappointing, because they could have made a much better critique of Jordan Peterson’s ideas, if they’d represented them correctly.
I've heard my fair share of Peterson, but I've never seen this properly addressed- what exactly makes the hierarchies currently existing in society revolve around competence? the fact that they work? is everything that works then justifies the system around it?
My old car is running but just barely, does it make my car the best car around?
His suggestions on how to improve society basically go like this: "Work by the existing system's rules, clean your room (develop your conscientiousness, which basically in this case means- develop an affinity to and skill at playing the system's game), and by the time you're tamed by the system (and usually are a beneficiary of it) then maybe you could try changing it".
It's as if any resentment against the rules or those who make the rules isn't allowed, as it is supposed to be immediately bringing us closer to an ideological hell hole.
But when you see statistics like these: www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/11/26/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective , how can a person say the system is fair because it works? works for whom? the people at the top of the hierarchy of course! (Refer to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wealth_Inequality_by_Group_1989_to_2019.png)
and those people are justified being at the top... because the system works! do you see how tautological this line of reasoning is?
And the system will keep working... until it won't, because people will not be able to tolerate the increasing inequality between the rich and the rest of society. And if its supposedly governed by a power law (AKA the pareto principle, which isn't even 80-20 by now, from 2016 data i found that 90% of the wealth in the US is held by the upper 20%) then we find a way to adjust for that before a violent revolution comes. But that requires a more quiet revolution hopefully- with capable young people working against this system, not just climbing up the ranks of it until they forget they were ever at the bottom (and leaving the less capable there).
FirsToStrike you take your broken car to the best repair shop around because they’re the best, not because they’ve shot and killed all the other repair shop owners in your area.
@@FirsToStrike it is based on competence, because competition exists. Clearly not everything works, not by a long shot..
My understanding of his commentary on hierarchies is that they exist, they happen quite naturally and that they can involve dominance and/or competence but that all hierarchies tend towards corruption. He has also said that the left is vital in that it is strongly concerned with the well-being of people and the political left is needed to check the hierarchies. Now I may not be remembering correctly but this is my impression of what he has said.
@@Jmartphilly The wealthiest of capitalist have shot and killed every other State run economic system around. In the process, they bloodied the water of economic solutions in the minds of the people.
The phenomenon of class warfare is what Scipio called the "culpable levelling" of a democracy. It's ugly head is easily identified today as the argument for more democratic socialism by the proletarious and the cry of theft by the luckiest of the assiduous.
"So ignorant... that it takes your breath away." - RW on our favorite frog
It's true.
@@alexsmith2910 Every time someone sees the truth about JP, and expresses it, I sigh in relief. If not for yall, I would be living in a very dark twilight zone episode
8:40 she says JP justifies hierarchies. JP said pointing out that they exist is not the same as saying they are good. This entire interview makes errors such as this.
@@youtuber6185 JP is in favor of hierarchies. This is the equivalent of saying they are good. More often than not, they are right about JP, and critique of him, though not perfect, is absolutely necessary
Adam Ortiz Your comment is misleading. He says they can be a problem but are inevitable and necessary. Some things that are necessary are not always good but without them you have chaos. See the following video:
th-cam.com/video/ViGdjc08Vt4/w-d-xo.html
The intentional misleading of Jordan Peterson’s points and the incorrect deductive reason Wolff uses quickly show his nonsensical ramblings on capitalism.
Disparity exists so it’s capitalism’s fault is such an oversimplification of inequality of outcome it’s border line laughable. There is inequality in height , should we force a limit at 5’5 in basketball? It’s the same thing in society. There will always be inequality in a free society and to enslave us all to the lowest common denominator leaves us all in poverty. It’s a fools argument. Wolff is a fool.
She left out what Jordan Peterson says about how hierarchies have a tendency to become tyrannical, important point
If you listen to Peterson and what others have said about the topic you should realize that Peterson has hardly anything of interest to say.
Congrats on not realizing that
What Peterson does is add side disclaimer everywhere but ultimately his main point is hierarchy is good and natural. It's like 'Im not sexist, but!' , I'm not racist, but! IQ is problematic, but!.
@@davidcorner4507
Maybe you will be so kind to give an example?
Who are the others and what did they say about the topic?
@@davidcorner4507 "Anything of interest" is subjective on an individual level so just because may not be "anything of interest" to you, don't mean that others feel the same and on the contrary might just find what he says quite interesting.
Edward Brotherton because what he says fits with their narrative not because what he says is either substantiated or profound. Jordan Peterson from what I’ve observed often does not have anything interesting to say about topics outside of his field of expertise. In fact he’s a good example of what it means to know enough to think you’re right but not enough to know you’re wrong. I’m not saying he “never” (absolutist term) has anything good to say but for the things that he gets coverage for he never has anything interesting to say. Don’t be purposely obtuse by “never” he means for the things he gets coverage for and for “interesting” he means things that are either well substantiated or profound
All the Petersonians disliking the video because their surrogate daddy is being exposed for being out of his element.
I'm not a Petersonian but to equate him to Steve Bannon or even call him right wing is a joke. And shame on Abby for lazy journalism. I'm right wing. Jordan Peterson is way left of me.
@athesit humanist and you keep falling for war criminals like Bernie
Surrogate daddy? I think millions of people like what Peterson has to say, because most of it is right, and they can see he has genuine compassion an empathy for people, and has a hefty measure of humility. Human virtues that these two wanna be intellectuals do not possess. So your stupid comment reveals much about you, and nothing about anyone else.
"Right wing figures like Jordan Peterson" wrong, right from the first sentence.
thought the same thing, marc! they don't even know him at all
Are we here cus of Mikhaila?
all of his values are deeply rooted in conservatism, whether he claims he is one or not is irrelevant when you look at his entire philosophy
Both Hillary Clinton and Obama would be measured as "right wing" by the current standards of the representative left. I'm pretty conservative myself but we need the moderate left to be represented so the democratic socialist, marxist and/or outright communist fringes of the left can be presented as the fringes they are. I cannot believe that average left-leaning person would agree with this stuff... The extremists get all the air-time.
Pieter Rossouw the fact you lump together democratic socialism, marxism and communism as all being the same and “extremist” shows you lack an even basic understanding of the issue you’re trying to speak to.
I don't think he has thought about Jordan Peterson's arguments efficiently. Not at all
Because you're brainwashed by a quack.
I don't think peterson has thought efficiently about his own arguments. He's fine in his own professional realm, but when he starts going outside of it, his clear ignorance of the subject matter, and his over reliance on his own prejudicial ideas, really shows.
These two put in just as much thought to dismantle those ideas as peterson put into them to create them.
What arguments? Peterson’s Methods of Meaning was literally unintelligible hogwash.... complete with comically drawn diagrams of the “dragon of chaos?” No shit... I actually tried to make it all the way through the 600 pages of rambling schizophrenia .... finally gave up after 300 pages in...my diagnosis JORDAN PETERSON IS A QUACK. He is a modern day L. Ron Hubbard.
Wolfe and Martin. 💕👍🔴⚫
Yes please!
Hear! Hear!
@BLAIR M Schirmer
"It saves them having to think, I suppose."
yes Ideologues sure hate it when they have to think for themselves so they would rather just repeat these goofy slogans. 🙃
Hope she can interview Michael Parenti at some point too.
@John D
Sure. The entirety of Scandinavia.
@John D
I don't think anyone truly wants more Govt Power or any kind of Power in their lives. I think it just comes down to an Economic System that is Sensible and Fair and allows Everyone to create their own existence. all that Gov., Corporation, Bureaucracy, Institutions etc. are is just noise and distractions from the only true thing that matters(Economy).
everything else is just made-up to create a sense of meaning and structure in people's lives but they only work to Control and Divide the masses even more because they are only there to seek the support of the people and not to actually directly improve their Lives. you can only do that when all the focus is on the Economic System and not this other shit we have everyday about Partisan Politics, Religious views, various Ideologies, Social, Cultural beliefs and so on... so all this nonsense we see talked about today is a Huge waste of time because while it goes on and the people join their side of the argument, the Economy will just continue to be a struggle for most people while the Lucky few Elites(Gov./Corp.) who thrive with all these made-up Social conventions/institutions everyone is Conditioned to prioritize their lives by, just stay in Power and don't really care too much about the Struggles in the Economy for the everyday person.
they would rather just keep things pretty much similar to way things are now so their time, energy and focus will continue to go to this Made-Up story they keep telling you, me and themselves we should care about and center on rather than paying attention to and concentrating more on that which truly matters the most in Everyone's Life. and that's of an Efficient, functioning Economy with the sole purpose to be able to provide Everyone a Healthy, Decent Living standard. no Gov., Corp., Politics, Authority, Organization etc. needed.
Jordan Peterson isn’t a “right wing figure”...
You don't think so. I'd say he is, even if he doesn't regard himself as being of the 'right wing'.
Alessandro Belli Bro he believes porn should be banned like??? He’s a blatant republican that occasionally tells you to wash your balls and clean your room lmao
@@mitsuki2272 when did he say porn should be banned?
I have heard his say that it's not particularly healthy but not banned.
@@evanhadkins5532 he has argued many times that we need both the left and the right.
I have also heard him debate for both left and rightwing ideas.
I would say from what I heave heard of him it would be right of centre. But then this could also be down to him not agreeing with some arguments made bt students/faculty who are overwhelmingly left. This may create some bias in the content that is available.
@@MrJakecornford Yes he debates both sides. He ends up with a position something like 'the right wing is the more reasonable position' fairly consistently.
You could only believe this if you've never actually listened to Peterson talk for yourself.
Exploitation is built into life itself. Unless somebody is your kin, you can but view that person in an exploitative way. The difference between capitalism and every other kind of system is that that exploitation has been successfully distanced by introducing money in between. The most pessimistic, though not because of that untrue, interpretation of capitalism, is, 'take a proportion of the money I made you so you don't otherwise take my freedom or even my life'. In every other system, the latter two are what can only be the case.
@@zootsoot2006 The more relevant question is 'how much' capitalism or whatnot a society should have, and on that note both history, Christianity, and many other fields come together to argue that America needs a serious critique of its own capitalistic system. Marxism should be one of the voices in that critique.
@@Sinleqeunnini And every conservative would agree with you. The British Queen Mother put it perfectly, 'the best system is a Conservative government with a strong Labour opposition'. Don't think anyone's put it better than that. Marxism is merely the Capitalism's Unconscious, all those human motivations which are not fully expressed in a capitalistic system. It is not a system of its own, and if treated as such can only destroy a society, much like the unconscious taking over the mind can only lead to mental illness.
@@zootsoot2006 A faulty analogy, given that it attributes consciousness to what are presented as ahistorical theories. Marxism an articulated theory in many variations. Just because it emerged as a reaction to emerging capitalism doesn't mean it can't function on its own, or that it can't be changed and adapted for more fundamentally pragmatic reasons. Nor is there any reason why a conservative government should necessarily be in power through such developments. As Heidegger noted, deep historical tendencies in the 'West' (should one choose to defend that notion) involve the notion of revolution and freedom, with its best aspects represented by the polis and the cross. That has been on full display for the last few hundred years. There is no reason not to think that won't continue in the present, much to the conservatives' chagrin.
@@zootsoot2006 money existed before capitalism, though... if what you say were true, the world before capitalism would have been pure slavery, which is simply not the case.
Wolff largely sidesteps the issue, which is disheartening. Cultural Marxism isn't orthodox marxian economics, hence why there's a different term for it. CM is the application of class struggle to identity groups other than "bourgeois" and "proletariat". Whereas exploitation is tautological for the proletariat, as they are defined by their employment status, the same is not true for sex, race, etc. If you make a black woman the head of a financial institution that still doesn't change the exploitative nature of this institution, but it sure seems to appease a lot of "progressives", which is why someone like Zizek can find common ground with Peterson. In the US, identity politics are being used as a wedge issue to force people to vote for a party that hasn't adequately represented workers in decades. It's the establishment LARPing as woke revolutionaries while handing out crumbs and symbolic nothings.
Yes, the tech companies, or at least some of them, have figured out how to play this very game so that progressives can comfortably carry on as mass consumers of every brand new gadget that comes out, while the old ones get dumped on the coast of Africa and workers are paid mere cents to make these products.
The tech companies are particularly zealous and probably employ a lot of people who actually believe in this stuff, but *all* the major companies and brands are playing the woke olympics, and I think you'd have to be especially naive and gullible to not assume cynicism on their part. Nike endorsing Kaepernic to play to the black identitarians in the US while they still pay asian children pennies to sew together sneakers in Indonesian sweat shops is the perfect example of this, although from a PR perspective the effort backfired horribly.
There's a great twitter account called @wokecapital that does nothing but post tweets, ads and images put out by major brands, financial institutions etc. trying to sell you something using rainbow flags and diversity rhetoric. It's pretty sickening when you see it all compiled together, especially when there's some international day of this or week of that and all the multinationals start spewing the same "on this day we'd like to commemorate all coloured wammen of colour beep boop" machine-speak.
Considering how poorly it's being received by the public of late, I suspect there is an even deeper layer to trying to promote this worldview in the corporate world. After all, an ideology that allows you to shut people up by referring to their innate characteristics, one which elevates certain demographics into unquestionable oracles of lived experience, one which fundamentally pits every identity group against every other one in an intersectional battle royale, wouldn't that be the *ideal* ideology for a ruling class to promote among the proles? Imagine having a workforce too busy tone-policing one-another for racially insensitive microaggressions to band together to demand decent working conditions.
@@AliRadicali Yes, exactly. Exactly right. There is no coincidence that social justice identitarianism started getting attention from media following the housing crash and the bail outs. This is also why the last two presidents have been (s)elected by the establishment in such an extreme identity juxtaposition.
I'm going to have to disagree slightly there, I think the media's shift towards woke identity politics was more of a confluence of circumstances than something that was planned. I also think it happened considerably later than 2008, I'd say mainstream media woke really picked up in 2014 with gamergate and the run-up to the 2016 election. Prior to that I think most of the woke was being driven by college graduates getting hired and Twitter becoming more and more important to journalism.
Remember, Occupy tore itself apart due to intersectionality, and the mainstream press was glad to give them a platform to embarrass themselves at that point. Colbert had an infamous interview with an OWS representative who called herself "Ketchup".
No I think the establishment press really got on board with the intersectional hoo-hah when they threw their weight behind Clinton, knowing full well that her only selling point was her woman card. They called all criticism of Obama racist, sure, but my impression was that most of the talking points during his elections were policy-related.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised how slow the establishment was to latch on to social justice. I certainly don't think they expected POTUS Trump and it really bruised their egoes to not be in control of the outcome there. They'd have been fine with president Rubio or Jeb!.
@@AliRadicali I think what you're referring to is the point at which it all started to peak - of which you are surely correct. Though I would argue that Trump was no surprise to the establishment, which willingly gave him any and all airtime that they could offer (the exact opposite of their historical strategy with political figures they wanted to suppress). I think he and Clinton both were chosen to play a role in the peaking of this "wokeness".
Anyhow, an idea/concept shift tends to need time to build - granted, far less time in our current world. From what I can tell, the momentum picked up about 10-12 years ago, and there's been an exponential increase in the exposure of society to 'social justice' since then. I'm not sure what the long game is, in regard to whether 'social justice' will fizzle out once the establishment has cherry-picked it for what they want and need in order to control the population by division, or if it is going to continue to see an increased role in society.
As person who is not some big fan of marxism, I totally agree with mister Wolff. People embrace Peterson's views because they never read anything about marxist ideology. Many people tend to label opposite opinions very easily without objectivity. Conservative extremists think that everything different from their perspective is "Marxism" and progressive extremists think that every different opinion is Fascism.
@LlibertarianGaltNo one does except you clearly! Says a lot about you just from that comment
Lol huge claims and you didn't even bother to add one supporting point or argument. @LlibertarianGalt
Marxist ideology = 100 million murdered
This is guy is like bernie sanders' uncle
Jordan Peterson is not right wing, I like you Abby but you’re wrong saying he’s right wing.
Lol just like Dave Rubin pretended to not be right wing for a while there 🙄
Yeah, if you had to attach a label, "Libertarian" might be the closest fit. Right wingers despise Libertarians. Too much independent thought.
If you think libertarianism (as it's understood in America) isn't right-wing, I have a bridge to sell you.
Maveric I don’t see how it has to be black and white, left or right. Libertarianism is a completely different take on politics. Just maybe there is a SPECTRUM with a CENTER. Because they literally advocate no coercion by the state where as both left and right have their own interests and support coercion to get it.
@@Fallonbuddy24 American libertarianism doesn't want government coercion but ignores economic coercion. Rather than acknowledging any of the existing coercion or exploitation of the capitalist system, such as the exploitation of the workforce on pain of starvation or homelessness, or exploiting whole countries, it would enable more of it by holding the basic economic relations of capitalism sacrosanct. The best historical image of "free" market capitalism we have is thus Victorian Britain, where people (including children) are forced to work for slave wages.
American libertarianism also depends on people abiding by the NAP without enforcement, which is a strangely positive view of human nature, much like the view of Rousseau which JP is so critical of.
Actual non-coercion is sought by left wing anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists, who seek to actually create an economic system where horizontal and non-coercive relations are actually possible, rather than just keeping existing capitalist relations like libertarians want to.
Who puts Steve Bannon and Peterson under the same umbrella???
Did you listen to what they were talking about? The term "cultural Marxism", which both Peterson and Bannon use, but neither can define, or defend.
@L Cincinnatus Are you trolling? I googled "jordan peterson on cultural marxists" and came up with hundreds of videos, clicked on three and bingo, he used that term in all three.
Also, note: I am much more right wing than Peterson.
L Cincinnatus You sound like an ignorant dumbass.
Peterson and Bannon both use the term very frequently, which is why Proffesor. Wolff mentioned them both in the same breath.
@@tonyjofenig6833 th-cam.com/video/y3qkf3bajd4/w-d-xo.html
Two of the world's best bits of hope in the face of savage madness---"Marx was first published in 1867 so Peterson had time to take a look at it." (whack!!)
...and the Koran was written well before that. Have you read it? Gurantee peterson knows more about Marx than the average person. This is a semantic point used to try and discredit a whole body of knowledge that a person may or may not have. Smh
@@philisamazing08 And The Bible was written well before The Koran but that doesn't save either from being clownishly wrong. Nothing "semantic" about Wolf's showing Peterson's pretentious ignorance.
And YOU had time to check how well Marxism went in the Eastern Block, haha. Just move over here and give us a lesson, please! Open invitation. But wait! You guys just READ it! 0 firsthand experience with it! :D
@@robertmartin6655 It would be foolish to think Wolff/Martin are unaware of failed communist states. What they show is that Marxist analysis still has a lot of value---especially in a blind-ignorant America eating its own people and ecology and fomenting global war for the Profit of a very few. For ex., in America I paid $200/month for web/phone/cable and couldn't afford health care. Here in "socialist hell" I get the same for under $50/month and health care is FREE after my taxes. Keep your fake "free market," you tool.
@ Capitalism works worse than even the flawed real existing socialism we had. Check this out:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf
I think it's easy to take a quote out of context and make assumptions about what someone may believe. This will only become more clarified if there is a debate between Peterson and this guy.
Then get Lobster-Daddy to debate Wolff...
Well he was willing to debate JP. Peterson is the one who backed out of it.
Wouldnt that have been great?
But Peterson rann away from that debate - so he probably knows he cannot win it. No other reason to back out, really.
go get the 50K that Peterson wants for the debate and let there be a debate
@@davidcopperfield2278 as soon as someone got 50 k he would ask for 100 k and u would still defend him.
Recently discovered his work. This man is aweseome.
I take it you mean the work of Prof Wolff 🙃
Abby, are you going to release the full interview??
Yes!
@Mario Your right . The fat guy is right too. This "Cultural Marxism" is only in the educational systems in capitalist counties.
WOW. Im completely surprised at Dr Wolff's ignorance. I thought for sure he would admit that cultural marxism is a real thing since he is an academic and i also love his work but sorry Dr Wolff is WRONG. Cultural Marxism is real and its nothing to be ashamed of
If Cultural Marxism doesnt exist then why does the University of California at Los Angeles have a course on the subject by Douglas Kellner with a downloadable PDF document called "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies?" That is really weird dont you think? Maybe you can email the professor and tell him he doesnt know what he is talking about. Even though the professor himself is a Marxist. Also why did Richard Weiner Professor of Political Science write a book on cultural Marxism called "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology?" Also why does Marc Tuters from the University of Amsterdam have a academic journal article on the subject. Also why does Jerome Jamin from the University of Liege have an academic journal article called "Cultural Marxism: A Survey?" All sources are available upon request.
Wolf says that Marx and Engels where interested in the interplay between economy and culture 2:14. This is in alignment with the understanding of Cultural Marxism in the paper you refer to. What Wolf is opposing is the idea that Marxists somehow secretly control society. Like when right-wing youtubers call CNN a "left-wing media giant".
@@SamuelLancaster At 1:42 he explicitly states that Marxists have never used the term and its not part of Marxism. He is wrong and ignorant
Benevolent bosses was debunked a long time ago, it's called power corrupts.
If I was your boss and heard you talk like that, I'd demonstrate my respect for your view by letting you go find another job.
And listen to your own criticism of yourself: If you ever start your own business and hire workers, you will behave corruptly. So by your own admission, you are an immoral person.
@@CalebDiT No its because the system drives and encourages such behaviour bosses who behave differently do so in spite of the system not because of it.
@@elliotyourarobot I disagree. Greed is driven, encouraged, and protected by the culture. Laws aren't created by a system. They're created by people. And if you believe in some form of democracy, then you believe the legislators who have long careers voting as our enemies aren't voted into office by the system. They're selected by us.
So the reason we don't fix these problems is because it would be hypocritical. If the people were to change, businesses and the laws would change.
@@CalebDiT Culture creates the system and just because we the people want change doesn't mean we will get it because of the bourgeoisie we are forced to elect.
@@elliotyourarobot Oh, you were forced to vote? I'm sorry you live with a government that makes you do that. In America, despite all its faults, we're not required to do so. For us, the problem is that people keep trying to change the system _with_ the system, whereas elections should generally be boycotted until people don't have to select from merely the lesser of two evils.
Furthermore, in addition to our voting for our legislators, every law in America is judged by the people in the courts; in the juries. No matter what the national and state Congresses enact, the people can overrule almost any law. Alas, we don't. The jurors -- the people -- have become the corrupt judges and perpetrators of injustice.
It remains, however, you're contradicting yourself. You agree that the culture creates the system but you then say the culture wants to change the system. The culture wants to contradict itself? Still, since you say the culture creates the system, it seems your criticism should be against your culture for its immoral choice in creating that system.
The debate between Capitalism and Communism already happened. It’s called the 20th century, and it’s obvious which philosophy is preferable.
Wolff really touched a nerve with all the rightards in the comment section haha
No, he’s just another disguised commie apologist. I find it hilarious that people like you criticize others interpretation of political beliefs but then preach someone like Karl Marx who is complete fraud himself, man tried to run his own business and completely failed, and also lived like a bum with his buddy, nothing but a false prophet. Keep dreaming of your world that you find ideal, it will never exist. Sorry
@@justinkerrigan5863 bellowed the temporarily embarrassed millionaire...
@@Amadeus8484 how does that much delusion taste?
@@Ps3luvr260 And the projection is stellar too lol
He literally has no point aside from "Peterson uses the definition of power different than Marx/misrepresents his definitions" which isn't even a rebuttal. Wolff is a typical communist apologist, writing off crimes against humanity like Dekulakization and the Holodomor as "not real communism" and "the result of poor resource management" when we know they were targeted attacks on specific ethnic groups. Anyone stupid enough to spout moronic bullshit like "The USSR was only a critique of capitalism" clearly skipped history and isn't worth more than a moment of brain power.
Richard Wolff explaining exploitation is ear-candy. He's so clear and persuasive and right.
ratguy101 Also full of shit.
ear-candy? The fact that employers pay you less than you are worth is not something mind expanding, its the most obvious feature of the employer-employee relationship. Like does he not realize how hard it is for an employer to find a gap in the market, establish himself, produce a good people buy and then manage all of that with employees? So the employer is expected to give what the worker is worth? Since the employer wouldn't be of any value in that equation, why does the employee not go about and work without being employed by someone else? He would be paid 100% of his worth. Damn right, because to establish yourself in the market is extremely fucking hard and tedious and probably way harder than being employed for only 90% of your works value.
Everyone already knew you get paid less than the value you create. That's because as a worker you have less risk than the owner.
Can't actually refute Jordan and co. Only the usual name calling ''hateful'' or ''afraid of blacks or women'' i.e. ''racist'' . He's confusing 'classical ' Marxism' with later Frankfurt school writers that he ignores....
You missed 90% of the video
Dude you clearly just covered your ears and yelled “lalalalalala” and proceded to make this stupid ass comment.
Petrson reminds me of Ayn Rand. He indulges in wishful thinking and dresses it up as critical theory. "bosses wouldn't exploit their workers" FFS!! And bears don't sh*t in the woods.
9:00 No, that isn't how slavery happened, not even in America. Slavery was going on everywhere in the world for almost all of human history, and it was not based on race. The only reason the American south developed racial superiority/inferiority beliefs was an unintended consequence of the line in the constitution that says "all men are created equal." It's a line that doesn't allow for slavery, so to get around that obvious fact the slave traders adapted the argument that blacks are not real men and therefore it doesn't apply to them. This guy is pretty ignorant for a guy who wants to call Peterson ignorant.
i wondered if he misrepresented what Peterson says about hierarchies also... he seemed to create hierarchical groups rather than hierarchy's for individuals.
But slave masters used the same justification of it being a 'natural order' before the American and French revolutions, before the idea of this "all men are created equal".
It was never a way to circumvent the Constitution. The Americas had slavery long before the Constitution and used these exact same talking points about "Natural Law" as a way to justify it- when in fact it was always an exploitive measure.
The Marxist definition of exploitation is flat-out wrong. The employee values the wages paid by the employer MORE than he values his labor, or he would not voluntarily accept the terms of the employment contract. Likewise, the employer values the employee's labor MORE than they value the capital they pay him, or they would not voluntarily accept the terms of the employment contract. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement to both parties. You could just as easily make the argument that the employee trades his labor to EXPLOIT the employer's vast amounts of capital, and lack of labor.
It makes sense if you change the meaning of the word. Like so many other far left ideas.
Peter DeLong to be fair what he says is true, but he stops short at the exploitation. And only looks at the worker and treats them like a victim. Your comment takes it to completion. Both parties are exploiting and profiting from each other. Both are doing a cost benefit analysis, where the benefits outweigh the cost. He turns it into a zero sum game where the employer wins and the employee loses, which is a childish way of looking at it.
Peter DeLong also I think he’s saying that a lot of employees are undervaluing their labor and selling themselves short. Which is also true, but that’s a part of life and it’s up to the employee to properly negotiate his value. He also fails to mention that the employers can overpay for labor allowing the employee to gain the edge, but no matter what it’s rarely if ever a zero sum game.
The other core principle of Marxism is the "labor theory of value" - where the value of a good or service is directly proportional to the amount of societal labor which goes into it. This is easily debunked by the subjective theory of value - where the value of a good or service is determined by the individuals engaged in the transaction. In other words, the more intense the desire within an individual, the more valuable the good is to that person.
Example: I would pay $15 for a shirt with a Milton Friedman quote on it, but I would pay $0 for a shirt with a Richard Wolff quote, even though the shirts are materially the same with equal amounts of labor invested in them. Conversely, a fan of Richard Wolff may pay $50 for a shirt with one of his quotes, and have zero interest in a shirt related to Friedman.
If we had a system that didn’t funnel most of the profit to the shareholder class, you might have an argument. But as it stands, most people have no choice but to accept whatever employment they can find, so is it really a choice or a reluctant acquiescence? And even you if reject everything Wolff is saying, we can’t ignore the fact that paying people the current minimum wage or even a little bit more, is in and of itself exploitative. And this is the point where people often say, “well, then work 2 jobs, work 3, work 4, hustle.” Which further proves the point that the working class, be they poor or middle class, are underpaid relative to the cost of living. Not to mention the quality of the jobs themselves: more part time and temp jobs, means employers aren’t fully investing in their workforce, resulting in high turn over rates, workers feeling a sense of alienation and indignity in what little work they can scrape together.
The capitalist owner says "Jump". The wage labourer says " Where's my gun".
That's how it should be lmao.
Then say it pussy, instead of roleplaying on a TH-cam video on your half day off.
@@Friendznco IT PUSSY!
Medal please.
Chairman meow… best reply ever
I don’t know whats worse, how little Peterson knows about marxism or how little Wolf knows about Peterson. Makes this talk completely pointless.
Wolfe doesn't claim to know peterson. He had to do research he said. Peterson claims to know marx. Drastic difference.
Alex Smith, he clearly needs to do much more research, it’s just fighting strawmen with strawmen.
@@soulfuzz368 You are ridiculous. And Peterson is a flaky pompous egotist.
If Peterson doesnt know what Post Modernism or Marxism is then thats his fault for misappropriating the terms.
@@DaSquareful TRUTH. Ha. He needs to "take responsibility to educate himself".
Abby Martin. My celebrity crush. DAMN, WHAT A WOMAN!
She is a babe.
I'd REALLY like her if she was herself not such a Marxist.
The Marxist guest did perhaps have a good point about cultural Marxism being ACTUALLY cultural bolshevism. Bolshevism was born of Marxism, however.. the two being indistinguishable. I'd like to hear him expound on that point.
@@nwchrista The point was that "cultural Marxism" does not even exist in any meaningful form but as a fear tactic of the Reactionary Right.
@@ManoverSuperman really so I can criticize gays and transgender people then?
@@individualistjoe3688 with all being equal...why not😂😂
When I lived in Germany, my friends and I used to make fun of a certain approach to argumentation we called *ad Hitlerem.* If Hitler or any Nazi ever did something, no matter what, it was evil. So much for being a vegetarian, or going alcohol free for a while. That’s this guy’s approach to the label “cultural Marxism?” In the US, the term became interesting after Frankfurt schoolers like Herbert Marcuse, a Marxist refugee from Nazi Germany, openly proclaimed that he was doing a kind of cultural Marxism, or excuse me, Marxist interest in culture. Has this guy never read Martin Jay’s well known book *The Dialectical Imagination*? That book was there to analyze what the Frankfurt school did with the Marxist tradition. So give me a break. Now, admittedly, the debate with S. Zizek was not Jordan Peterson’s best debate. Peterson should do a better job of reading Marx, but Peterson’s focus has always been NOT on *Das Kapital,* but on what Marxists have wanted to achieve politically. If this guy had understood Marx well or even read Allen Megill’s book on Marx, he would be able to see that Marx ultimately did not believe in politics or the market - Marx thought they were both on their way to being obsolete. Jordan Peterson has always been closer to Zarathustra’s critique of revolutionary utopians, and their defective psychology. This was really a banal discussion.
agreed
THANK YOU lmao
Thank you for being more educated than I am, because I knew I smelled bullshit coming from this man
It's really annoying when you're trying to go in with an open mind and then they just use that as an opportunity to propagate their ideology onto you
Exactly. People here are complaining about Peterson not reading "enough" (like Jeezus, the guy reads so quick, and reads a ton). They are looking at Peterson's critique in a political lens but Peterson's approach is to look the political and cultural ideologies through the lens of a psychologist and the innate behavioral nature of people, utopia, and the people ushering the utopian vision.
What an awful take. The hypocrisy of saying Peterson doesn’t understand Marxism and then not understanding his take on hierarchies and woefully misrepresenting it. Peterson always says hierarchies tilt towards tyranny so we need to keep them in check, but he also says we can’t do away with one of the most fundamentally parts of our being, so fundamental that we’ve had them for hundreds of millions of years. He also says too much inequality is bad for both sides. So how is he using hierarchies to justify inequality? Also how do you define how much value one brings to the table at a given occupation? And if you are not making more money than giving to your employees as a business owner how do you pay for everything else Involved in the company besides wages? Where in history has this supposed exploitation been abolished and had a successful economy? Furthermore if these workers have so much value why can’t they find a place that knows their value, or in some cases do it freelance? Is it because they might not have the value they think they do? These two need to talk with a legit critic and see how their ideas hold up, much like Peterson was doing on national television for years. Marxists arent going around testing their ideas with adversaries on any regular basis because their ideas don’t hold up under scrutiny, so they stay in their little cocoon where it’s all safe.
have a look at the mondragon corporation. as far as i understand it, it is a worker owned company that is as close to a socialist project as you can get within the confines of a market based economy. the wikipedia page has some information if you're interested.
now to the point that marxists aren't going around testing their ideas, well, you have got to thank mr. peterson for that, as he chickened out of the debate with mr. wolff, for valid reasons or not. demand of him that they have a debate in the near future, be it over skype if necessary. he owes it to his fans to obliterate some marxists or however else that debate might turn out.
The resources necessary to maintain the company afloat besides wages are considered as materials, thats how they are accounted for in marx analysis
No you have an awful understanding of what was said. Read the replies above me and do some research. There are many places where corporations are taking a Marxist/socialist approach like the Mondragon corporation and these systems are working. Read about the Sandinista's in Nicaragua. Read about the Zapatistas in the mountains of Mexico. You have to understand that the Capitalist powers of the world ( mostly the USA ) have waged a bloody war on any people trying to establish a true Democratic Marxist/Socialist society for hundreds of years. Not because the Capitalist think that these ideas are evil, but because it threatens their power choke hold on the world. It's kind of hard to set up a society like this when you have that kind of knife at your throat.
Armando Alvarez I feel you are upset because you don’t have the money or power that the capitalist does. Quick question what would you do if you were super rich and had people kissing your behind? And don’t say “I would be disgusted at such a thing” cuz if that was so, I suggest you take a nice look at the mirror and say let me give up this mirror and time investment on TH-cam comments and go help out at the food bank. For a longer question, what do you plan to do with your socialist society?
@@sheilag2231 I will be honest with you. If I was suddenly super rich, the temptation will be there, absolutely. I grew up in this hyper materialist consumerist society. As much as I claim to despise it, of course I see the new fancy material toys and feel a desire for them, I grew up in America, it would be abnormal for me not to have some desire for these things. But I learned enough to understand that this "desire" for the fancy mansion and the new Tesla and the new gaming machines are really just illusions. And I really mean this, they are illusions. I think that greed is the easiest way to corrupt a human being, I'm sure many people will agree with that statement. If someone like Jeff Bezos can have a truly ridiculous amount of money and other people, a lot of people mind you for such a powerful and rich country like the USA, are suffering from hunger, something is wrong there, isn't it?
Does that mean that I cannot criticize or critique how we've been conditioned to think this way since the day we are born into this country? Do you realize how much money and man power goes into the propaganda that keeping us thinking in this way? I think one of the best things someone could do is voice their opinions with the public on subjects like this and I want to do more of that. I like having conversations about things I'm passionate about with people, is that bad?
That last question is a very difficult question, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I have some concrete answer on how to run/structure a socialist society. There are many smarter people than I that can work out these situations, but I at least know that I would want this kind of structure to be set up democratically. Not by the decisions of a few elite corporations. As far as what I would personally do within a socialist society, well for one I would participate more as I feel my voice would actually matter in more significant ways than I think it does now. But also please understand that I am more of a pessimist on even getting close to that point. I think it's near impossible from where we are now. The general population required for such a change is too concerned with their own little bubbles.
Let me ask you a hypothetical, if you were suddenly as rich as Bezos, or even say started your own company that became successful in the United States where you became a billionaire, and say you visited some truly impoverished part of the planet and saw kids starving. A whole village/town starving like this. Like true African type starvation. You were able to talk to the people there, you knew their language, you are able to connect with them on a real human level. Would you not feel very weird and sick to your stomach of the absurd wealth that you were allowed to accumulate? Would you tell the African kids to clean their rooms, pull up from their boot straps and maybe they can make something of themselves? What if it were somewhere like Afghanistan or Nicaragua where the dire conditions such as this were brought upon directly because of the United States in the name of Capitalism, or as the propaganda puts it, "Freedom"?
I think it's unfair to Peterson to lump him in with Steve Bannon. He's not inherently evil like Bannon is
Evil is a complex thing.
I hope Bannon runs for president
Are you sure he's not?
Jordan Petterson has not ustified hierarchies, he only observed them. They got that wrong.
He has justified hierarchies and made a case for why we need them.
This guy mischaracterizes alot of Jordan Petersons arguments though.
We do need hierarchies. Tbeg are important. And even if we didnt want to. We naturally do it.
Hahahaha, i've never expected Empire Files doing Jordan Peterson! good work guys.
Both are controlled opposition of the establishment, if you ask me. It's a complex world.
That's why empire had people that watched it, now it's in the trash can...group trash can
Contact your congressmen that just shows that you don’t understand who your enemy is. Peterson is not in opposition to the capitalist/fascist/imperialist establishment, quite the opposite actually.
@@ObjectiveAnalysis You really think there is only one type of establishment in charge? Imperialist establishment? Really? You're about 200 years too late on that one buddy, that ship has quite literally sailed. Sure, rich corporations certainly hold a degree of power but they are by far not the only one's in control. Academia and entertainment alone breed their own sorts of power with their own agendas, there's no one type of person with one sort of objective running this shit show.
@@brigadierharsh1948 Ah, that was a really good one.....
Please debate Peterson. We need it
Wolff has only read Marx and marxism and will get blasted out of the room.
@@lucius02 Yes, because everyone is asking Wolff to debate him on anything other than Marxism. Oh no wait, they literally want him to debate JBP on Marx......
I mean wtf dude?
Wolfe already extended an invitation but Peterson declined
@@jesperburns and this is why your marxist ass will never pay back his student loan.
@@lucius02 ... I have no student loan because I do not live in a shithole country. Also, I'm a programmer, any loan I would've had would've been paid back a decade ago.
And lastly, I am hard right. Peterson is to my left. Your comment was just obviously retarded so I couldn't help myself.
Let’s get them in a debate so JBP can have another notch on his belt
they tried but perterson cancelled lmao. he got cold feet. keep coping.
Ryan B well I’m assuming if he did it was probably due to his current medical situation. Where did you hear it from? I’d be really surprised if he refused without good reason because I’m pretty sure he’s undefeated
This is all wrong. Here is the truth www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm
theonenonly122 no, this was before all that. He didn’t technically cancel, but he asked the college who was supposed to be hosting it for far too much money to attend, and allowing him to backout under the guise of not being paid enough.
Ryan B damn, crazy. Can you show me a link by chance
I gave up on Peterson after he arrogantly pretended to be an expert on China.
As a philosophy major who has his disagreements with Peterson, I am not impressed by the mischaracterization of his views and his facile dismissal as a bigot. The lack of nuance in this conversation is disappointing and sadly not wholly unexpected in the current polarized political landscape.
Amit B.E. Yadda yadda paradigm.
@@MatameVideos thank you for your thoughtful and incisive criticism
Amit B.E. You’re welcome, I’n glad I helped 🤗
@@MatameVideos that you most certainly did
Well they are marxists so its kinda hard to not misrepresent others views when youre selling fairy tales.
Lumping Steve Bannon together with Jordan Peterson? I find this rather hilarious. So, is everything right of Marxism the same?
He didn't say that everything to the right of Marxism is the same.
Consider the possibility you have accepted a description of Steve Bannon from the media and never actually listened to his ides- Bannon is a simple populist, the true meaning of populist- As in the country belongs to the people, not the ruling class. he feels people have been getting screwed by the elite class, and thinks it's time to reverse this. Not a racist, xenophobe and all the other SNL characteristics painted on him- Conservative populist. But the beautiful thing about a captive media, is that the lefdt gets to "newspeak" everything into meaninglessness- Can anyone define "RACIST" in a way where it actually fits t6he people being accused of it today? As far as i can tell racist now translates to " raised some points we can't afford to publicly argue with, or we will be cancelled ourselves"
Let me help you out here. They’re simply 2 people that have both used the term described in this video. Hope that helps.
Peter Ciurea Go back to watching your intellectually-challenged white nationalist youtube grifter of choice.
@@docan5248 caca
if that's how you define exploitation you do not know what it means. Either that or you can just as easily argue that the employee is exploiting the employer/owner because he is getting all the fruits of his labour while being provided tools, machinery, capital completely for free AND while not being at risk of losing any money given the business goes under
I agree. A bit of a silly analogy, but what springs to mind is pawn shops. Say you have an antique piece valued at $1000. The pawn shop will never pay you anything in the vicinity of that amount because they bear the risk of not selling it, and ultimately they profit off the margins.
By virtue of the fact that you accepted the job, that means that you ALSO are getting more value in return for what you are giving, because if your time is worth more to you than that $20, you will not accept the job. (Key words: "worth more TO YOU"). And yes, this of course also applies if you are in a desperate situation and accept a job for lets say $5/hr. In that moment, the $5/hr is worth more than your hour to you, until its not worth it to you anymore. Whatever situation you are in, either a desperate one where you accept a job for "low" pay or an empowered one where you only accept a job for "higher" pay; if you accept the job, then YOU found it worthwhile to exchange that hour for that dollar amount. The value of something is what somebody is willing to pay AS WELL AS what somebody is willing to accept for it in return. When those 2 things meet, that is the value in that moment in time.
Price, wage, and purchasing theorists lay down your pens! The final words have been spoken.
There's alot of coercion at play though, if you don't work. you starve (in a perfect capitalist system). So unless you have large amounts of money saved (in a world that wants you to spend as much as possible), then youre being forced to take a job by a capitalist. 5 dollars an hour would be worth a lot to you at that moment, but what you produce in an hour is worth much more.
By the way, where would the McDonalds burgers come from if there weren't any burger-flippers?
8:37 Abby Martin: "Another thing that [Jordan Peterson] says is... that hierarchies are biologically natural and that we should just accept them."
Curtis Everett (Chris Evans) in Snowpiercer (2013): "That's what people in the best place say to the people in the worst place."
My 40 years life in a communist country proof that no matter how beauty the words they used to describe communism all communist countries will end up as a highly hierarchy system, much worse then capitalism countries.
I think there are something fundamentally wrong in Marxism.
By the way, I came from China.
@@qianglao I'm from S. Korea, a capitalist country. While I'm better off than an average Korean, I still saw a good number of my friends suffer undeserved hardships just because of the social order.
All system has this kind of horrid hierarchy - not just in communist and/or capitalist societies, but as they say, the grass always look greener on the other side. That's why people from capitalist countries often cry for socialism, and vice versa. Realistically speaking we just have to make the best out of our environment, even if it is flawed.
@@qianglao
I came from USSR. The same shit.
Hierarchy is inevitable.
So there are 2 options:
1. Centralized the Power in the hands of Bureaucrats/Technocrats & * their Families & Friends.
2. Decentralize the Power across the Local Governments & Corporations.
Decentralization is the Best Practice across all subjects.
In System Development, it's the Decentralized Component/Plugin based systems like Linux.
In Business it's Decentralization & Flat Organizational Structures.
In Finance it's the Decentralized Currencies like Bitcoin.
In Politics it's The Founding Fathers idea of Decentralization and local governance.
@@mshin291
You are describing the rigid/corrupt hierarchies.
It's one big Federal Government planning for a Better Social Good.
The problem, it's doesn't work.
You cant fix people & society.
We will always have the sociopaths & nepotism & corruption & crime & hierarchies ....
All you can do is to minimise the harm & damage;
To Prevent the idiots & criminals to break your system.
A common solution is a Decentralized System.
Look at Linux.
Probably there are a Nazi & Communist version of Linux.
Linux is small and runs everywhere.
And there are free & licensed versions of Linux.
*
"The main functions of the Kernel are the following:
Manage RAM memory, so that all programs and running processes can work.
Manage the processor time, which is used by running processes.
Manage access and use of the different peripherals connected to the computer".
@@qianglao Of course hierarchies of some kind are inevitable, the point is that Peterson tries to use this dull sentiment to justify the current hierarchy that he's well off in. Not all hierarchies are tyrannical power structures, some hierarchies are fare worse than others. Stop playing this silly false dichotomy game of "it's either USSR or US capitalism", it's lazy and nonsense.
Wow I can't believe I haven't seen this interview!
Marx explains exploitation, but workers know what it is. Jordan Peterson must have never had a job outside of academia.
Alas, all the "wisdom" of non-entreprenuers will forever be lost to this poor ignoramus...
Jordan Peterson has actually had a lot of jobs over the years. His jobs ranged from building a railway to teaching at Harvard
I was looking forward to this video but was let down by the fallacies and also the bias of the interviewer
I agree I don’t think there is honest fair interviewing anymore.
She’s kind of cute though
There has been a trend among the mainstream left of talking about civil rights issues and equality, but not talking about economic issues and income inequality. The neoliberals would only advance causes that did not impede the free market or profits of the corporations. This allowed them to appear left wing, but not actually be left wing on pocket book issues like wage stagnation etc.
Equality, liberty and fraternity was the mantra of Liberalism. Early socialists and then Marx said that liberalism and capitalism were not delivering that for the working masses, but rather were creating income equality and a new class of elites to replace the old elites of feudalism. Capitalism was just the latest in a long history of systems of exploitation and it had its own exploited classes just like slaves and peasants before it. Liberalism's failure to address this and asking what to do about it was called The Social Question and is the root of socialism. Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron, because Marxism without the economic and class conflict components is just liberalism
Yep! Peterson and other right talkers like to use a strawman "marxism" which ignores economics and even the DNC is pro bank!
Very well said. Liberalism and Marxism are blood brothers. You cannot discuss & critique one without discussing the other. Peterson's idea of being a "classical liberal" is dumb.
Great interview with Dr. Wolff. The sound mixer did a poor job, however, as his microphone level was much too low compared to Abby's.
Should’ve hired a capitalist to do it.
They don't understand basic economics -- Why would they understand audio engineering?
Capn Sweet yea socialists really don’t understand economics at all
Why do they keep grouping Jordan Peterson and Steve Bannon together? They have nothing in common.
JP is not a right winger
They are both spreaders of the anti Semitic cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Pookz , are you being serious?
Nick Smith they have loads in common. Speak to the same insecurities
@@derekdufon5069 : He is not serious. He is biased.
This was my first Richard Wolff video I ever saw and I've been learning from him ever since! The WOLFF!
Jordan Peterson does conflate Marxism and culture idealogies, but I don't know if he intentionally does it or just out of intellectual ingorance.
Neither, he is talking about seeing everything as a war between oppressor and the oppressed.
@@EWKification which has fucking nothing to do with Marx.
Both
@@TheWorldNeverSleeps
This!
@didrik mortensen it does that he's pushing a certain false narrative to justify our current economic model. Read the economist Steve Keen.
I just want to say, I came in here with an open mind, and interested in hearing some criticism of Peterson...and then you went directly to ""Right wing figures like Steve Bannon, Jordan Peterson", and then described his position in a way that doesn't sound anything like I've ever heard him say. That...just doesn't help.
He did not address the "cultural marxism" question. Here there is a good rebuttal of it:
commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/
I clicked on this video with the same mindset, open to hear criticism. But none of their arguments are logic and the level of the interview is just appalling. It's a conversation with the same undertone of demagoguery that Peterson is afraid of.
@@hendrikvdmaesen8620 lol, he took apart peterson's idiotic interpretation of marxist exploitation
@@milithdheerasekara6957 Here's another way to look at it: The values that filter down in our culture are not always the idealized academic version. A lot of it gets dumbed down into sentiment, and sometimes absurdity. And then academics want to No True Scotsman the situation, and fail to criticize it, even while the bulk of the culture moves in a direction partially of their creation. You could make similar arguments for the same thing happening to ideas on the Right as well, albeit through different channels.
The Right-Wing version might have, for example, something to do with a reasonable conversation about the signals and benefits a less-restrictive market can bring, but it gets dumbed down into "market good, freedom good, Government bad", and then Conservatives take that dumbed-down-into-meaninglessness thing and pretend knowing it makes them way smarter then those 'Libtards', and proceed to do ignorant damage making decisions based on such ideas. If I were to wash my hands of that, I would know I was being intellectually dishonest, and also realize it I was neglecting my responsibility to criticize and correct bad ideas, wherever they may be found.
The same, unfortunately, I don't think can be said as much for those on the Left. The Left dumbs-down in equally damaging ways, but it doesn't get called out on it, possibly because the nature of the way it happens gives some easier excuse, or renders line-drawing harder, because "at least they mean well". Peterson has talked about this: We kind of know when the Right goes too far, but we' don't seem to have an understanding of when the Left goes too far, and where the line is when they do. I really wish for academics to open their eyes to the damage being done in the name of Left-Wing ideology, not pretend that it's just a matter of misunderstanding and there's no problem here, and be more willing to criticize those on their 'side' who go wrong.
@@Virtuoso80 You raise an interesting point: "If things I say could be misinterpreted or dumbed down into something potentially harmful should I still say these things?" I would say YES and suggest, as an antidote to misinformation, that we, as a civilization, make education an extra priority.
As a lefty I can attest that:
1. Peterson acknowledges the necessity of the left. He's worried about radicals, right-wing ones too.
2. There's absolutely no evidence that Peterson "doesn't like" women, LGBT, or non-white ethnicities. He wants everybody to flourish.
3. He doesn't use the fact that hierarchies are inevitable to justify gross inequality. He often points out that bad things happen when inequality grows to where it becomes unsustainable.
I have to say that I am disappointed by Peterson withdrawing from the debate with Wolff. This does come off as hypocritical, as he emphasises the importance listening to people whom you disagree with. I also think he was disappointing in the Zizek debate (whom I respect). All points worth criticising.
However, Peterson is mainly about promoting individual flourishing. I agree that he may be out of his depth when it comes to Marx. But, he has made a positive impact on me (and thousands of others) in terms of getting my life straight(er). His shortcomings in some areas shouldn't be used to discredit his good ideas.
His wife has serious health issues and he has a busy schedule. All that may play into why he does what he does. Who has/would have a screen name of Hades? A clever genius, no doubt.
What are his good ideas?
(not being rhetorical; genuinely curious)
@@DinoDudeDillon I'd say anything that has to do with finding or creating meaning in your life. I particularly like how he derives them from his clinical work and psychology in general and how they tie in with mythology. Of course he didn't come up with most of them but the way he links them to different domains seems rather novel, as far as I know. I still found them useful and coherent as an atheist and lefty. Made a huge positive impact in my life and kept me from going down a nasty road. I'd recommend a clip about lying as a good way to get a rough picture. Just search for it here. Cheers Man
The part with exploitation sounds like half the truth. If a person values 20 $ so much that Its ready to work for one hour to earn that (has time, needs money) than there is no exploitation,even if the employer values the work higher than 20$.
If Its voluntary, if both sides agreed, then Its pointless to acuse anyone of exploiting the other.
Work under capitalism is not voluntary.
True. And that is clearly understood by everyone who takes on a job working for some employer, whether or not they are on "the Right" or "the Left" or somewhere in between (which is where most people really are...they're somewhere in between the farthest extremes of Right and Left). I don't have any problem with the fact that an employer must pay me less than the value I produce for him in order to have a viable business that makes money for him....but I do have a problem with people being paid outrageously less than the value of what they are producing and being paid so little for a full time job that they can't meet basic living expenses and live above the level of abject poverty. At that point it does become exploitation. In other words, there needs to be a reasonable compromise made between the needs of the employer and the needs of the workers...a fair bargain needs to be struck between them...and that's what brought the union movement (and socialism itself) into being in the first place. You can't give over total dictatorial power to the employers and expect a fair system. Neither can you give it over to the workers and expect a fair system. A compromise that both sides can willingly accept is what needs to be found, and that's why we have always had "collective bargaining" between unions and companies, since unions were allowed to exist. At first they were not legally allowed, and any attempt by workers to unionize was met with extreme violence on the part of large businesses and governments against workers...........and that wasn't very long ago, historically speaking.
It’s a simple equation. 1+ec= (L+L*)/L Worker produces more value for the boss that the boss pays him. That is exploitation under capitalism. It doesn’t matter whether it’s voluntary or not-it isn’t btw…We live in an environment where if a worker doesn’t enter into an unfair contract with a capitalist, that worker will starve. That is a coercive negotiation. The worker might as well have a gun pointed at their head when deciding whether or not to enter into a contract as an employee. That being the case, it has nothing to do with the factor of exploitation in Marxist theory
😂 they actually fear Jordon Peterson and made whole video bashing him wrongly.
widsombsiw can you back up your point? What part of Wolff’s critique of Peterson is incorrect? Or are you just blindly following him and cannot actually articulate your own beliefs?
I agree with Wolff here. JP keeps going on about neomarxism, far left and cultural marxism while he is actually creating a strawman of those ideas. He is a good at self-help but just fails in historical understanding of social ideologies. Anything 1 cm left to him is an evil plot of the far left to bring back the USSR.
Wolff did want to debate Peterson in person at Boise State University, Peterson turned it down.
@@ladyblues994 yep.
Watch the Zizek vs Peterson debate. This video is 100% accurate
"Jordan Peterson or Steve Bannon". Enough said right there.
To see “Marxist Economist” was enough for me kek
In the words of Jesse Lee Peteron
"Amazin"
'mazun
HassAmayzin
Beta Male!!
Jesse Lee is Da Man:-)
Of course the employer MUST pay the employee less than whatever they produce or the employer would not be able pay for the cost of running the business or themselves, its only when those margins are skewed way out of proportion that it becomes exploitation.
Exactly! I run a business and it would be insane to pay someone everything they bring in. The business wouldn't grow and if they had one bad day I'd have to fire them. Where as because I have profit, we can buy better tools, produce more material, and everyone makes more and more while having an easier time working.
True. And that is clearly understood by everyone who takes on a job working for some employer, whether or not they are on "the Right" or "the Left" or somewhere in between (which is where most people really are...they're somewhere in between the farthest extremes of Right and Left). I don't have any problem with the fact that an employer must pay me less than the value I produce for him in order to have a viable business that makes money for him....but I do have a problem with people being paid outrageously less than the value of what they are producing and being paid so little for a full time job that they can't meet basic living expenses and live above the level of abject poverty. At that point it does become exploitation. In other words, there needs to be a reasonable compromise made between the needs of the employer and the needs of the workers...a fair bargain needs to be struck between them...and that's what brought the union movement (and socialism itself) into being in the first place. You can't give over total dictatorial power to the employers and expect a fair system. Neither can you give it over to the workers and expect a fair system. A compromise that both sides can willingly accept is what needs to be found, and that's why we have always had "collective bargaining" between unions and companies, since unions were allowed to exist. At first they were not legally allowed, and any attempt by workers to unionize was met with extreme violence on the part of large businesses and governments against workers...........and that wasn't very long ago, historically speaking.
Chomsky and Wolff are brilliant representatives of the left. I love you Abby, you're such an inspiration to women, smart and independent!
I recommend checking out Parenti's speeches here on YT.
Start with "Human Nature and Politics"
Yanis Varoufakis is very good also.
@@PsilentMusicUK His speeches are great, I recommend especially "Is Capitalism devouring democracy" and "Reflections on an Alternative Economic Present" here on TH-cam. And a little book called "Talking to my Daughter about the Economy" (get it for free on libgen.is).
However, I do have some disagreements with him here and there. For example, I think he is too critical of past experiments in real existing socialism, and seems to dismiss their achievements. Calling the Soviet Union a dystopia and such.
@@mirror452 I've seen the lectures and desperately need to read the book (I'm a slow reader). I also have my disagreements with him. I think he tends to express a vague and perhaps dogmatic view of immigration on the few occasions that he's been asked about it. I sort of agree with your point about ex-Socialist projects (as a history graduate I like considering both positives and negatives of any regime, though the USSR does come in for a lot of legitimate criticism).
His understanding of the history of Capitalism, economics and the financial system is incredible. I think it's his ability to articulate that knowledge in understandable terms that makes him so appealing to me.
@@PsilentMusicUK Agreed.
Is Jordan Peterson truly considered a conservative? I feel comparing him to Bannon is a bit of a reach. He is a bit of a shrill voiced alarmist towards the left but i never felt he really leaned far right.... just because he criticizes the far left.
He is absolutely a conservative. Look at his religous views as well as the lie of cultural marxism which is a nazi dog whistle.
Rusty James well considering the right is all about tradition, hierarchy, capitalism, and order I’d say Peterson falls into it pretty neatly. I wouldn’t describe him as “far right” like I would Bannon but he’s definitely on that side of the isle. He just pretends not to be, like Dave Rubin, because it grants him some plausible deniability
@@SuperSupermanX1999 Wow, my brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high level important ideas.
Disclaimer: it's ok to be conservative. We need to stop seeing it as a contemptful position. That being said, JBP does not neatly fit in the 'conservative' label, in fact he leans more towards 'classocal liberalism'.
I'm just tired of having every argument stuck in the 'in-group/out-group' view of the world, which is the Crux of identity politics.
He has some conservatives values which is alright, and he has some liberal values which is alright. Being conservative merely correlates with scoring higher in personality dimension of Trait Conscientiousness while scoring lower in Trait Openness. That is all there is to the differences between Conservatives and Liberals, which is why they should teach the psychology of personality as a social engineering class in highschool so that the next generation can remove itself feom this meaningless polarization and learn to understand one another.
I don't think Wolff is a communist, and is only "marxist" insofar as he is a critic of capitalism. his solution is worker coops and democratization, not government authoritarianism.
He does accept surplus value of labor and so appropriation of the value created by the workers by the capitalist.
No dude he says he’s a marxist lol
Considering that Marx himself did not go into an awful lot of detail about what a post revolutionary society would look like (other than, as far as I know, his praise of the Paris commune's government structure)... it could work out within a Marxist framework of analysis as it minimizes exploitation of surplus value of workers and is more likely to prevent social reproduction and the excessive incursions of capital (as in assets from outside of the productive process) distorting the nature of the process (such as issues of over production, lower rate of profit returns, etc.). Prof. Wolff is definitely a Marxist.
As for Marx wanting government authoritarianism... chief, we need to talk, lol. Marx, with all his many, many flaws and lapses in ideological judgement (younger Marx was indeed much more militant, taking inspiration from jacobin radicals like Louis Blanquis, Rousseau, who by Marx's standards were pretty naïve, etc.) I fail to see how Marx was an authoritarian (like anyone from his time basically, you had classical liberals who were fucking 'yikes' in that respect, monarchists, anarchists like Proudhon, etc.) he was pretty middle lane (barring ,say, the anarchists, who were much more radical) in this respect (as unlike one of his great ideological influence, Hegel, did not talk about the 'absolute, ethical state' and other concepts that are, as you put forth authoritarian). Marx was anything but, as he was anti-state ultimately.
Wolf is a realist. Communism is utopian.
@@boathemian7694 Agreed
JP is very clear that hierarchies can be corrupt and dysfunctional.
I note that none of the two talking try to defend the position that a society without hierarchies is possible.
It is odd that those who argue for Marxism don’t understand this. In current society there is hierarchies but at least there is a possibility that you may rise within it. In Marxism there is still hierarchy except you are permanently stuck at which ever level those at the top decide for you to be stuck at. It’s just absurd to me.
S H what? The ideal political system for capitalism is dictatorship with slavery, and no labor unions. Because people are only meant to produce capital. People are not important at all in capitalism. In socialism it’s all about people. That then you have dictatorships in Russia it’s more about their history and nothing to do with Marx.
@@MarcoBonechi The dictatorships resulting from trying to apply socialism is never because of some failure of maxism lol
@@Darren_S Just like with capitalism. Double lol.
@@MarcoBonechi "capitalism is dictatorship with slavery"
Do you understand what capitalism is? Genuinely.
I like the nuanced jab of referring to him as "Mr. Peterson" instead of "Dr."
Academics don't refer to each other using their titles.
@@lilskinny9141 Since when?
@@balgaadrian4046 Yeah idk what he’s going on about
Infantile
@@mediatool9596 um, no not really. Chill out, lol. Maybe it was an unintentional oversight or maybe Wolff doesn't see him as a "Dr" for the time being.
Are you a Peterson Stan?
Heard about Abby through the joe Rogan podcast and wow she is incredible. I love how she pointed out that Bernie is the biggest threat to the dem establishment
Jorge Lozano she said her channel was hard to search and would take time to find. This channel was the second on the search. That’s lie #1. I’m sure there will be more.
@@jeremyyates64 She meant that the content of her channel is hard to search through, not that it's hard to find the channel itself... dumbass.
Really? Go read up on his voting record when it comes to airstikes in the middle east when a Democrat is in the office. Bernie is a tool use beautiful to temper the revolutionary mindset of the leftists that believe. And he's significantly more dangerous for the world than Peterson and Bannon combined.
@@jalemairliha and how many air strikes has Bannon ordered. Get over yourself. Joe Biden is a career long international doom and groomer who's been voting to blow up innocent people for 5 decades.
My point is not that Steve Bannon is worth defending. It's that he has no tangible power and never did. He's a media guy. Biden is a bomb dropper.
I like this guy and what he was saying. About the topic of exploitation; If you were getting the full value of your work, you would be getting the same money as if you were self employed. Your boss needs to add his cut for whatever he does and more for growth investment, so of course some of the value is lost. A lot of the time, the cost to the consumer is based on the production costs, so keeping wages down is preferred. I think the real exploitation comes from certain parts of the economy which is artificially raising its value in order to make people poorer than they need to be. Like the housing economy, the petroleum and power economy. These are the things people can't do without, but people have to now pay more than what they should be able to easily afford from their labour effort.
Notice he refers to 'unfettered capitalism'. Its running the capitalist machine without any safeguards. In our society, where corporations and the rich have captured democratic power, they've removed the safeties, so the machine produces more for them, and less for everyone else. Capitalism can work. For a time. Before the monster is out of its cage, wrecking havok on the population.
Runaway inflation.
You guys should check out Carl Menger's theory of value.
> Your boss needs to add his cut for whatever he does and more for growth investment, so of course some of the value is lost
For whatever he does?! Provide capital, land, factory, wages prior to profit, customers, suppliers and, most important, the idea that created a business. Of course, you could stand naked in a forest and wait for the Dialectic.
Richard Wolff is a serious intellectual. Peterson is an opportunist.
A serious intellectual who immediately resorts to sophomoric ad hominem attacks on racism/sexism/homophobia.
He said he sells fakery. Then tells you his definition.
What?
Yeah, all conjecture and guess work at ulterior motivation, and no actual definition or goodfatih analysis of intention. It's not like there are dozens of instances where JP - not sure about Bannon- has explained what he means by Cultural Marxism......oh wait, there are. Of course the problem is that he (and Bannon supposedly) are the only ones who use the term Cultural Marxism.....oh wait, thats not true either. So then it must be they use a markedly different definition......nope, that also isnt the case.
I've seen several clips of this "marxist expert," tired of the mischaracterization of marxism- clearly he is very much an ideologue- whenever he talks about marxism, and especially in the couple clips I've seen of him "destroying" JP, they contain a lot of bullshit and outright lies.
Thre is something clearly not right about this man. And I dont have to guess and elaborate at his ulterior motives, and link them to some historic manifestation of evil; whatever the specifics, they're clearly not aimed at honesty, sincerity, understanding, and truth.
Did JP actually say that about workers being exploited could someone link me that?
Yes, he did, in the debate against Slavoj Žižek. And it was quite apparent that he has never actually read Marxism. Having said that, these guys are still making strawman arguments against him.
When JP talks about hierarchies his argument is sound. He never justifies social inequality and he actually criticizes capitalism often. So this missed his argument about the roots of inequality in hierarchies. About cultural marxism, he is asked the same question by Zizek and the response was given which you do not discussed here. Instead they go on about the concept of exploitation and use and out of context quote to call JP ignorant. JP knows and acknowledges that there are exploitative people "tyrants" in hierarchies be it political hierarchies or economic hierarchies. His take on that is closer to home in that it provides psychological tools to help avoiding on becoming one. I was born and raised in a leftist family. In my view they didnt debunk anything, just took an "easy" shot at JP. I take JP wisdom about life to be much more enriching and actually more revolutionary than the Marxist academic pissing contest.
@@NiaziMujahidKhan Calling out the Right on their bullshit isn't strawmanning.
@@NiaziMujahidKhan not really. Its hard to critique a position like ‘being against Postmodern NeoMarxism’ without looking like you are strawmanning your opponent because your opponents position is completely incoherent. Your opponent is conflating two things that aren’t the same (and are in fact opposed in significant regards) and isn’t clear about which one in particular they believe to be problematic. Peterson has argued against Gay Marriage on the grounds that it constitutes an ‘assault on traditional modes of being organised by cultural marxism’. To simply describe this as a fairly incoherent belief riddled with contradictions is not strawmanning anyone because the argument isn’t coherent enough to misrepresent.
its time that we all reconsider our views about theories and ideas propounded by Peterson and his followers...most of them will not stand to test ..Peterson should concentrate on teaching psychology and not poking his nose in every matter ...people like Wolff or Noam Chomsky are far more intelligent and understand our world better than him..many many times...
Wolff cant hold Petersons jockstrap. Wolff is a Socialism shill and most intelligent people see right through his bs. The Socialism experiment has been run, resulted in mass murder everywhere its been tried and everyone with an understanding of history and human nature realize where the road of Socialism leads...to tyranny and mass murder.
@@mediatool9596 please at least inform yourself about the things you say, it's generic and ignorant
Man please just look up Thomas Sowell. literally just type Thomas Sowell or Thomas Sowell capitalism on youtube.
Even if you dont like capitalism, please just watch this with an open mind th-cam.com/video/uiYH66HznW0/w-d-xo.html
Chomsky would agree with Peterson
Certainly it pains me to watch this man talk but it’s necessary to balance out my viewpoint of modern political theory. What hurts is that everyone on the left speaks clearly from ideological and generically emotional standpoints, while most on the right consistently provide factual statistics and evidence that support their arguments. Why is this?
I like watching intelligent rebuttals to arguments that I find compelling. Too bad this doesn't qualify.
Maybe I can do that for you, what do you disagree with?
Exactly why I come and watch videos that contradict my own viewpoint. But every time I see this man in an interview it just seems like reality tv
I highly recommend that you read this rebuttal of the "cultural marxism" concept then:
commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/
So glad you did an episode on this. ♥️
Gramsci did discuss the need for a working class culture to replace bourgeois cultural hegemony. But it was nothing like what Peterson ansand the other right wing conspiracy nuts imply.
It isn't some kind of right wing conspiracy, what Peterson claims is that certain Marxist principles have been incorporated in the social sciences and humanities and that that specific perspective is coming to dominate academia right now. You can agree or disagree about whether or not that is a good thing but you can't deny that such a thing is in fact happening. No one alleges there is some kind of Marxist council spreading these ideas, it is just what is happening in academia right now.
Brigadier Harsh The problem is some people have alleged and still claim that there is a secret cabal of Marxist Jews who are attempting to undermine Western culture. There has been generations of different versions of this narrative. In the USA go back to McCarthism and the John Birch Society and you find similar rhetoric. Go back to the 1920‘s and you find this narrative.
The only thing I can conclude with Peterson, an otherwise intelligent man, is that he was actually hired to do this specific job. Is that a conspiracy?
Well the job of reframing political narratives has been done before. It is not necessarily nefarious but it is still propaganda.
There are various ways it has been done transparently. For example George Lakoff wrote a book as to how liberal democrats should frame their narrative and talking points to win elections. And he was hired by the Obama campaign.
So I am taking a leap as to my assumption but it is not that bizarre of a guess. The fact is much of the right wing believed this narrative for decades and much of it was anti-semetic. Is it possible that Peterson and Shapiro were groomed to rewrite that narrative to make it not anti-Semitic?
There can be a very good discussion and debate between someone familiar with classical liberalism and Marxism.
What is not well known is that the basic foundations of Marx is classical liberalism but he criticizes those ideas as well for not producing the outcomes that Adam Smith claimed it would at that time.
Peterson perpetually does not renounce his ignorance on this subject, he maintains it which is anti-intellectual.
And part of that ignorance is maintaining the idea that Marx is some how not „Western“. Which is a bizarre claim being that Marx was born in Prussia Germany and went to a classical university. That his work cites Aristotle, Voltaire, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hegel should provide the insight that Marx might be a Western philosopher.
Not to mention the fact that Marx is perhaps more „western“ than Nietzsche or Schopenhauer who employed Hindu and Buddhist thought in their work. But the idea that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are somehow an enemy of „the West“ never comes up.
In other words what I get from Peterson is a type of rhetoric that attempts to weave a political narrative not an honest discussion of actual ideas.
So whether intentional propaganda narrative spin or the worst type sloppy scholarship. It is an assault on enlightenment thinking.
I can't think of any more potentially totalitarian ideas than Peterson's statement to Sam Harris that the criterion for a true statement should be it's "social usefulness." That could've come out of the mouth of Trotsky or Mao, and leads one to believe that for Peterson, the pursuit of uderstanding and insight takes a backseat to the pursuit of effective propagandizing.
Wolff is a fool. You cant pay an employee what the product is worth. There would be no incentive to start a company in the first place.
@@michaelgrant169 Im talking about pay. You cant pay the employees as much as the owner because the owner will never have an incentive to start the company in the first place.
The grammar in the title is incorrect. When using the proper noun "Jordan Peterson" in a sentence you need to add the verb "destroyed," in capslock. For eg Jordan Peterson DESTROYED a visit to a cafe; I DESTROYED a book by Jordan Peterson; She DESTROYED a youtube video on Jordan Peterson; Several students DESTROYED a conversation about Jordan Peterson, etc etc.
Lmao
9:17 But that doesn’t change the fact that hierarchies are natural.
Which hierarchies? and to what extent are you claiming these hierarchies are the result of natural phenomena vs a social construct. Do you really think that the org chart and wage distribution at McDonald's or Amazon is predominantly the result of natural development?
Get off twitter and go read a book, and I don't mean Jordan Peterson.
@@cookergronkberg : What's the difference between "natural phenomena" and "social constructs"?
When you go right to the beginning of life as we know it all the organisms built hierarchies (often deadly ones). So one can argue that those organisms were behaving according to a social contract - at least from an outside perspective. A contract that defined who got eaten and who survived a bit longer. The building of swarms/flocks/schools further cemented and modified both the hierarchies within a given species as well as in harmony or conflict with others.
And that goes on basically unchanged until today. Even the upcoming of "intelligence" and "consciousness" didn't change that but only gave us the ability to become aware of these socially (not necessarily consciously) constructed hierarchies.
However - and that's a mistake far too many people make - stating the fact that there are (and always were) hierarchies is not a judgement. Such a statement does not necessarily imply that hierarchies are _good_ (or _bad_ for that matter). Being aware of a fact (and making others aware) is not the same as welcoming said fact. And Peterson himself has a lot to say about the inherent stupidities of certain hierarchies.
@@mwat56 The distinction could take place at various levels in which it is no longer very useful to simply reduce human life and society to the interaction of matter and energy in the universe. We have fields like sociology and economics precisely because we need higher level concepts and explanations, even if we still ultimately can consider everything we do as an emergent property of physical processes.
I am personally against a particular idea that I have seen some Peterson fans make that makes very strong claims about natural hierarchies necessarily leading to particular high level economic or political systems. This seems extremely tenuous.
Cancer is natural.
Jack Kerouc locked himself in a room took lots of speed and wrote a book that inspired generations of people to embrace the world and go "on the road".
Jordan Peterson locked himself in a room took lots of speed and wrote "don't forget to clean your room".
Great comment.
His writings inspired thousands of young men to abandon radical white nationalist movements and thousands of others to improve their lives. JP literally saved human lives with his book. Most authors can't say their writings did that.
I don't know who Jakc Kerouc is but your point seems silly to me.
@@akumaoni3861
Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion......Jack Kerouc.
@@resiktd1944 well I would agree with that but I still dont understand how undermining a man's work who has done positive good in the world has anything to do with that.
Good morning by the by.
Akuma Oni so they're not living in their mum's basement anymore?
I think you are on the wrong track here; the identity politics that has replaced economic justice came from Focault and his cadre of French so-called marxists, who specifically focused on culture. Thus, sex becomes a form of oppression, and sexual relationships are overwhelmingly a power dynamic. Watch Focault debate Chomsky on YT and you will see what I mean. This type of "culture war" is used as it is largely against the norms of the working class, and thus they can be written off as "populist lackeys", "phobes", and "fascists", rather than the economically exploited. Thus, excessive individualism is called left-wing, when in fact it is neo-liberal. Thus, "all that is solid melts into air", and the traditional ties that held working-class communities together come under attack under the guise of "identity politics" which ignores even the mild truism "It's the economy, stupid" that even social democrats used to adhere to. Marx warned about false consciousness.....
Nobody cares what you think.