Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

Yep, that's probably it, Lass. Maybe you could read some of it and decide for yourself though.

Yep, that's probably it, Lass. Maybe you could read some of it and decide for yourself though

I'm not interested. I'm not particularly gender critical.

You think he has read no Marx? Seriously?

Or is it that you think he’s read it and doesn’t agree with your your analysis of it?

JC4MPLZ please enlighten us on the specifics of where he went wrong, or winged it and didn’t know what he was talking about.

Lass
If you can't be bothered with C.F. try Lise Eliot -it's never to late to broaden your mind.
Cordelia Fine studied Experimental Psychology at Oxford University, followed by an M.Phil in Criminology at Cambridge University. She was awarded a Ph.D in Psychology from University College London. Between 2002 to 2011 she held research positions at Monash University, the Australian National University, and Macquarie University, and was an ARC Future Fellow from 2012-2016 in the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences.
Lise Eliot is Professor of Neuroscience at The Chicago Medical School of Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine & Science.

1)He said it himself in so many words. He read the Communist Manifesto in prep for the debate. Says he read it when he ws 18. Maybe he did, but it is barely what you do to engage with Marx now in your 40s in the so called debate of the century, up against a philosopher-psychoanalyst from the former Eastern bloc. It is what you do if you are an A level student trying to grapple with the basics of a Marxist ideology. He admitted he found Zizek too difficult to read.
2)Everything he said about Marx was nonsense. Eg Marx does not deal with nature. So so wrong. But more, JP doesn't understand the first thing, about capitalist production for profit, about the historicity of human nature and on and on. 3)What he delivered as criticism was the same old same old which has nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto or Marx, and nothing to do with Zizek, but is a critique of the horrors of Stalinism in the old anti-totlaitarian mode Shockingly bad.

Damn. Just wrote a longish repky and it got Los don't think I can be bothered again.

Silly me....

Have you heard what he says about people like you JC4?

People like me. What do you mean? Other professors?

Maybe he did, but it is barely what you do to engage with Marx now

What he delivered as criticism was the same old same old which has nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto or Marx, and nothing to do with Zizek, but is a critique of the horrors of Stalinism in the old anti-totlaitarian mode Shockingly bad

Given the abysmal failure of all Marxist regimes is there much need to engage beyond it's a terrible idea.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of Maxism itself. These so-called "Marxist" regimes were not actually Marxist, but dictatorships. So it's no wonder they failed in the end.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of Maxism itself

Well that in itself is a matter of opinion.

These so-called "Marxist" regimes were not actually Marxist, but dictatorships. So it's no wonder they failed in the end

I've heard that apology many times. Marxism is only possible under a dictatorship. They have all failed.

I am starting to wonder if you actually are JP posting under a psuedonym.

Is that the best you can up with? Quite sad really.

I've been a poster for several years, usually with the word "lass" in my name.

However if I am Jordan Peterson my knowledge of and history of posting on Scots civil law is impressive for a Canadian clinical psychologist.

I think it's pretty well accepted that Peterson doesn't really know much about Marxism. Most of what he thinks of as Marxism is more like postmodernism. I think he considers the identity-politics habit of only seeing things in terms of oppressor and oppressed as borrowed from Marxism, which I suppose could be true though I don't think that I'd then call it Marxism.

By 'people like you' JC4 I mean Marxist apologists.

He says of Marxist apologists 'You think, in your delusional arrogance, (I love that bit) that you alone understand the communist doctrines of Marxism better than anyone has before and if you were the ones implementing those doctrines then you'd have succeeded in ushering in Utopia by now'

He goes on to say 'That's what you mean when you say communism has only failed so far, causing many millions of death through tyranny and dictatorship because it just hasn't been done properly yet.'

Actually it's better to watch him say it than to read it written down because the scathing contempt really comes across when you it. You can really feel how much he loathes that mix of stubborn stupidity and arrogance.

And CaptSkippy just gave us the perfect post to illustrate this.

when you hear it

Goosefoot yeah, he calls postmodernism ‚cultural Marxism‘. And before you know it, he throws everything from feminism over Transactivism to Stalin into the grand pot of evil Marxism.

Not sure why JP doesn’t like Marxism, though. Considering he is for equal distribution of the ultimate means of production (aka women) among men, it very much looks like JP is a more radical Marxist than even Marx was, doesn‘t it?

Those JP apologists show as much contempt for anyone they disagree with as he does. Match made in heaven I think.

It's like "conservative feminism", these two things are mutually exclusive. So is a "maxist dictatorship". I would love to read a passage from any of Marx's writings where he advocated for that.

Well I think it’s quite clear that if Marxism has never worked without the need to make it into a dictatorship then it doesn’t work full stop.

To say it might is like saying you can feed a cat a nasty tasting worming tablet by just explaining to the cat that it’s for his own benefit and he’ll see your point and just swallow it voluntarily.

The reality is that it can’t be done without physically restraining the cat.

I never said it might work. I said that the idea itself is not objectionable, because marxism (itself) != dictorship.

I have no intention of ever trying it out (with or without dictorships) and I would not support a party that has marxism at its core. But that's mainly because I think that any economy moves to quickly for a five-year plan to work properly. I don't think it would be very partical or effective.

And I'll say again, that calling something "marxist", to disguise the fact that what you want is totalitarianism is akin to being pro-life and advocating for the murder of doctors or calling yourself a woman when what you are is a man. Remember Gamergate? That was all about "ethics in gamejournalism" afterall and totally not about harassing women in the gaming industry.

People have been slapping disingenuous labels on methods and ideas they know are unpalatable to the public at large for all of human civilization. Just because you call something a thing or trying to change a definition does not mean that thing becomes what you call it.

Ellenborough sorry to burst your bubble, but Marxism works pretty well. It explains historic and societal developments where other economic theories, including the neoclassical ones the neoliberals are so invested in, fail.

Tellingly, people who use the inqualified, sweeping term ‚Marxism‘ when they mean Communism are probably the only ones who consider JP some grand intellectual giant.
I furthermore wonder if they consider China and Cuba ,Marxist‘ countries and whether they think the average Chinese or Cuban peasant had a better life pre or post ,Marxism‘.Being enslaved by some white colonialist or at the mercy of some grand Emperor ain‘t all that dandy, either, I presume.

The five year plan is not a Marxist policy. It was cooked up under Stalin as a response to the looming war threat. Didn‘t even the US turn their economy into a war economy in the 30‘s?

You need to make up your mind. Earlier you said Marxism doesn't work without a dictorship and now you are saying Marxism does work well.

Furthermore, I am far from a JP supporter. I don't even understand how you got that idea given my previous posts in this threat. Do you even read what other people post?

Either way, don't bother replying. I am done with this pointless discussion. It's as pointless as having Peterson on MN would be.