Home  ›  Jordan Peterson Marxism

Jordan Peterson Marxism

Written By Monday, March 21, 2022 Add Comment Edit

2019 issue

Jordan Peterson

Slavoj Zizek

The Peterson–Žižek debate, officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, was a argue betwixt Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (a critic of Marxism) and Slovene philosopher Slavoj Žižek (a Communist and Hegelian) on the relationship between Marxism, capitalism and happiness. Information technology took place at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019 and was moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood.[1]

Billed past some as "the debate of the century",[2] the event had more tickets scalped than the Toronto Maple Leafs-Boston Bruins playoff on the aforementioned day, and tickets sold on eBay for over $300.[1] [3] [four]

In the argue, Peterson and Žižek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics.[i] They debated about the claim of regulated capitalism. Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies.[2]

Context [edit]

During an event at the Cambridge Marriage in November 2018, Žižek had called Peterson's work "pseudo-scientific", labeled him equally his "enemy" and criticized Peterson's work on the idea of a cultural Marxism, stating that "[h]is crazy conspiracy theory almost LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the terminal offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the Westward is, of form, ridiculous."[1] According to Matthew Sharpe writing for The Conversation, "[t]he term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech."[5] Critics have accused Peterson of misusing the term postmodernism, referring to postmodern philosophy, as a stand in term for the far-correct and antisemitic Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.[6]

Peterson said he could meet "any time, any place" to contend and it was announced on 28 Feb 2019 that the fence was scheduled for nineteen April 2019. The ii professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and Žižek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional.[1]

Debate [edit]

Around iii,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the result. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers.[7] The argue was divided into two thirty-minute introductions from each participant, followed by shorter 10 minute responses and fourth dimension at the end for additional comments and answers to questions posed by the moderator.[8] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the keen opportunity for human happiness: commercialism or Marxism".[9]

Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical assay of The Communist Manifesto.[2] He asserted that it is wrong to perceive history only through a lens of class struggle, there is no exclusively "skilful" proletariat and "bad" bourgeoisie, such identity politics is decumbent to disciplinarian manipulation and that in his view people practice not climb the social hierarchies only by taking advantage of others. Peterson stated that although commercialism produces inequalities, it is not like in other systems, or even parts of the globe compared to the so-chosen Western civilisation as it also produces wealth, seen in statistical data about the economic growth and reduction of poverty worldwide, providing an easier possibility to achieve happiness.[x] He concluded in a Winston Churchill'southward manner that "[c]apitalism is the worst economic organization, except for all the others".[nine]

At the beginning of his opening monologue, Žižek noted avoidance to participate in the debate in the role of an opponent and that both were victims of left liberals.[2] [10] The monologue itself was less focused every bit it touched many topics and things like cultural liberalism, Nazism, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Fyodor Dostoevsky and xenophobia, amongst others;[2] [9] and against the expectation of the debate format did not defend Marxism.[ix] [ten] On the example of China, he tried to connect happiness, capitalism and Marxism as well criticize China itself[10] and that "less hierarchical, more egalitarian social structure would stand to produce great amounts of this auxiliary happiness-runoff".[nine]

Later in the fence, Žižek agreed with Peterson'due south opening analysis and called for regulation and limitation of the market for capitalism to reduce the gamble of natural and social disasters.[10] [11] Žižek was as well critical of the multiculturalist liberals who embody the lie of identity politics and that Western countries should rather gear up the state of affairs in immigrants' dwelling countries than accept them.[10] Due to lack of defense for Marxism, at one point Peterson asked Žižek why he assembly with this ideology and not his philosophical originality,[10] [11] on which Žižek answered that he is rather a Hegelian and that capitalism has as well many antagonisms for long-term peaceful sustainability.[x] [eleven] In a similar fashion, Žižek asked Peterson to name him personal names of "postmodern neo-Marxists" in Western academia and from where he got the statistical numbers considering according to him the over-the-meridian political definiteness is opposed to Marxism, on which Peterson did not mention any names.[2] [ten] [11] Some view this exchange as evidence that the idea of "cultural Marxists" had been invented by Peterson and other members of the intellectual dark web without whatever show of its existence.[12] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself.[9]

Reception [edit]

Several publications such as Current Affairs, The Guardian, Jacobin and Quillette criticized Peterson for beingness uninformed about Karl Marx and Marxism.[xiii] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson fabricated many factual errors near Marx and Marxism such as misunderstanding the fundamental principle of the labor theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature.[14] The Guardian claimed that Peterson was uninformed about The Communist Manifesto and more often than not ill-prepared for the contend[fifteen] while Jordan Foissy of Vice maintained that he was "completely vacuous", making claims such every bit that power is never achieved through the exploitation of people.[16] Der Spiegel concluded that Žižek won the debate clearly, describing Peterson's attempt at arguing as "vain enough to testify up to an artillery charge with a pocket knife".[seven]

Writing for Current Affairs, Benjamin Studebaker criticized both Peterson and Žižek, calling the contend "one of the about pathetic displays in the history of intellectuals arguing with each other in public". Studebaker argues that "Zizek read a baroque, meandering, canned speech which had very petty to exercise with anything Peterson said or with the assigned topic. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I take seen many times, one which is incredibly piece of cake to beat out." Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. There was an opportunity. But Zizek was besides busy complaining nearly identity politics and his status within academia to attempt. He's the sort of aging quitter we all promise to never exist."[17]

Writing for Quillette, Ben Burgis criticized Peterson for having only re-read The Communist Manifesto and not other works by Marx, for equating Marxism with Stalinism and equality of result, for having ignored that Marx cited the Paris District (a radical autonomous experiment, which Žižek mentioned in the debate) equally an example of dictatorship of the proletariat and that it is Cathay, described equally "full of individual businesses these days, but the state continues to play an outsized role in shaping the Chinese economic system", which has driven the virtually in global poverty reduction Peterson attributes to complimentary-market capitalism, asking: "If ane of the main drivers of the global pass up of extreme poverty is its reject in the People'southward Republic, is this a success story for 'free market' commercialism or for a modified and liberalized course of state socialism?"[18]

In commenting straight on how the debate was received, Žižek wrote: "Information technology is typical that many comments on the debate pointed out how Peterson's and my position are really non so singled-out, which is literally true in the sense that, from their standpoint, they cannot see the difference between the two of united states: I am as suspicious as Peterson. So as I saw it, the task of this fence was to at least clarify our differences."[19]

Circulate [edit]

Every bit of April 2019, the only idiot box station in Europe which has had the rights to broadcast the contend is Croatian Radiotelevision, where it was circulate on 24 April and fully on 26 April.[twenty] [21]

See also [edit]

  • Cassirer–Heidegger fence
  • Chomsky–Foucault debate
  • Foucault–Habermas debate

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d due east Mudhar, Raju; Kennedy, Brendan (nineteen April 2019). "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each depict fans at sold-out debate". Toronto Star . Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Marche, Stephen (20 Apr 2019). "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Hashemite kingdom of jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek". The Guardian . Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  3. ^ N. B. (22 March 2019). "Happiness is watching a brawl between iconoclastic philosophers". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  4. ^ Hepburn, Bob. "Has Hashemite kingdom of jordan Peterson finally gone likewise far?". Toronto Star . Retrieved twenty April 2019.
  5. ^ Sharpe, Matthew (7 September 2020). "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out". The Chat. Retrieved four October 2020.
  6. ^ Berlatsky, Noah (two March 2018). "How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Marking for Fascist Propaganda". Pacific Standard . Retrieved x November 2020.
  7. ^ a b Frank, Arno (20 April 2019). "Slavoj Zizek vs. Jordan Peterson: Marxist gewinnt philosophenduell" ["Slavoj Zizek vs. Hashemite kingdom of jordan Peterson: Marxist wins philosophical duel"]. Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved iv October 2020.
  8. ^ Miller, Sam; Fluss, Harrison (xx April 2019). "The Fool and the Madman". Jacobin . Retrieved 21 April 2019.
  9. ^ a b c d e f Semley, John (20 Apr 2019). "Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Žižek was more a performance than a debate". Now . Retrieved 23 April 2019.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i Stošić, Petar (23 April 2019). "Jordan Peterson i Slavoj Žižek: Debata stoljeća ili precijenjeni testify?" [Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek: Debate of the century or overrated show?]. Index.hr . Retrieved 21 April 2019.
  11. ^ a b c d Pavić, Filip (23 April 2019). "Video: Analizirali Smo 'Filozofsku Debatu Stoljeća': Pred prepunom dvoranom umove 'ukrstili' Žižek i Peterson, debata ostavila mlak dojam" [We have analyzed the 'philosophical debate of the century': Before a packed hall minds 'crossed' Žižek and Peterson, debate left a lukewarm impression]. Jutarnji listing (in Croatian). Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  12. ^ Domise, Andray (1 May 2019). "The Jordan Peterson–Slavoj Žižek contend was good for something". Maclean's . Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.
  13. ^ McManus, Matt (22 August 2020). "Why Conservatives Become Karl Marx Very, Very Wrong". Jacobin. Retrieved 4 Oct 2020. "Hashemite kingdom of jordan Peterson has described Marxism as an evil theory and fabricated his name bashing 'postmodern neo-Marxism,' despite admitting during ane debate that he hasn't read much more the Communist Manifesto in the past few decades."
  14. ^ Fluss, Harrison; Miller, Sam (20 April 2019). "The Fool and the Madman". Jacobin . Retrieved xiii November 2019.
  15. ^ Marche, Stephen (xx April 2019). "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek". The Guardian . Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  16. ^ Foisy, Jordan (24 Apr 2019). "What I Learned at the 'Debate' Betwixt Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek". Vice . Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  17. ^ Studebaker, Benjamin (21 April 2019). "How Zizek Should Have Replied to Jordan Peterson". Current Diplomacy. Retrieved 4 October2020.
  18. ^ Burgis, Ben (24 Apr 2019). "Marx Deserves Better Critics". Quillette. Retrieved four October 2020.
  19. ^ Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). Myth and Commotion: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson. London: Zero Books, John Hunt Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 1789045533.
  20. ^ "Snimka dvoboja titana Žižeka i Petersona" [Video footage of duel betwixt titans Žižek and Peterson]. hrtprikazuje.hrt.hr (in Croatian). HRT. 21 Apr 2019. Retrieved 23 April 2019.
  21. ^ "HRT Je Jedina Televizija U Europi Koja Je Dobila Pravo Prikazati 'Debatu Stoljeća': Evo kada možete pogledati filozofski dvoboj Žižek - Peterson" [HRT Is the But Television in Europe Who Has Got the Right To Display 'Century Debate': Here's when you tin can view the philosophical duel Žižek - Peterson]. hrtprikazuje.hrt.hr (in Croatian). HRT. 21 April 2019. Retrieved 23 April 2019.

shirlowzeks1969.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson%E2%80%93%C5%BDi%C5%BEek_debate

0 Response to "Jordan Peterson Marxism"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel