/lit/ - Literature

>>13362494
He's already addressed this, get batter bait ya fucking tankie

>>13362494
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

who even cares about jbp anymore? Who ever really cared?

“Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare.”

So is Peterson’s retarded bullshit about lobsters and hierarchies. The “classes” are just different. The end result is still a stratified pecking order. The difference is that Peterson and his zombie fucktards just think they’re at the top, so ignore this fact.

>>13362591

the 'dominance hierarchy' is a deconstruction of marxist class struggle, the difference is Peterson spins it as sacred while Marxists see it as a flaw

>post-modernism, on paper, is critical or marxism, yet on practice it's just an iteration of marxism and marxist rhetoric
well makes sense, peterson, on paper, isn't enabling incels and wh*te supremacists and inciting violence, yet in practice that's exactly what he's doing

>>13362572
Lots of people

>>13363029
yeah, but they were all losers

>>13363243
Not even all the losers cared. The only reason he’s famous is because he took on trannies.

>>13362887
>peterson, on paper, isn't enabling incels and wh*te supremacists and inciting violence, yet in practice that's exactly what he's doing
>wh*te
Has there been one violent crime related to Peterson or his views?

>>13362887
Don't worry. We don't like him anymore either.

>>13362849
More specifically, right wing is about natural order, law of the jungle. Left wing is about imposed (typically injected with some ad-hoc framework of "fairness").
The trouble with constructed order of marxists is that power is like gravity. You can *try* to defy it, but doing so requires constant energy input to keep the delta-v (ideology, brainwashing) and usually cost in externalities (gulags). Capitalism, on the other hand, arises spontaneously.
Yes, peterson is incoherent boomer hack, but I suppose he can work like neil de grass to introduce young people into poli sci.

>>13362494
Progressive neolibs mutated into zombie Marxists.

>>13363280
need any more nametags on that image Ben?

>>13362591
Reminder that liberals (even the classical ones) are Marxists by this spurious definition.
>We serfs, who work the land but can't claim ownership, and who must give a portion of our yield under threat of military force, are being OPPRESSED by the noble class who claims ownership of the land but does not work them. We must have a REVOLUTION to stop this!
>one class is claiming oppression by another class? Marxism! t. Jordan Peterson, defender of western values

Reality is marxist

>>13364555
But that's wrong as even rebellious serf didn't always try to topple the system but rather make it more efficient so that they stop getting fucked over. There was a belief, at least from part of the peasantrie, that their hierarchy was partly sacred which prove Peterson right.

Even if it wasn't the case it still one class who claim to be opressed by another one, not some kind of eternal class warfare like the marxist claim.

>>13364688
he's just angry that his meme ideology is now the face of parasitical culture

>>13363333
There has been many calls for equality way before marxism. Take levellers, 150 years before anyone else would utter such words as equal distribution or universal suffrage.

You're an imbecile though. While blindly touting muh capitalism muh natural competition you're absolutely ignorant of the fact that libertarian views actually rely massively on constructed values that endorse equality before the law, right of ownership, usually equal suffrage etc. None of that shit is natural. Wanna know what's natural? Feudalism - when lords bashed in the heads of uppity peasants, who demanded to be treated as humans. What else is equal? Monopolies - yet free market capitalism relies on the state to dismantle them on sight. Pyramid schemes and various other cons, which are illegal.

If you take "naturalism" as your main comparison point, there's really very little difference between capitalism and socialism/communism. Both rely on constructed values and synthetic systems.

>>13364688
Oh shut up. There was always a conflict between bourgeois and gentry starting from the medieval towns, which were basically republics inside kingdoms.

>>13364556
no, quite the opposite

>>13362591
Intellectually the postmodern tradition and its notion of power are not derived from the Marxist claim of "eternal and primary class warfare", despite resemblances. Postmodernity is a skepticism w/r/t historical claims that are mobilised in order to serve a particular master. proletariat vs bourgeoise is another metanarrative because it employs the dialectic as an objective marker of progress/change, but there is no consideration for whom benefits from that change. Postmodern perspectives are just as compatible wth the right. Just look at the way it infiltrated the American (alt)right in order to push Trump to presidency: The rejection of real events as "fake news", the proliferation of conspiracy theories, conflicting or irrational statements, etc.. even the slogan "Make America Great Again" is a clear gesture that the president sees his campaign as a struggle for power, both for himself and for the country.

>>13362591
>Focault say power bad
what a niggardly reading of focault

>>13362494
>And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
Not one of the postmodernist cucks accepts the future abolition of classes effected through the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. If the lobsterman has some evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

>>13364692
>Both rely on constructed values and synthetic systems.
Might is right is not constructed, anything that tries to avoid such simple, but brutal order is. The argument is about how fragile such constructs are. Feudalism and capitalism are stable because they more or less map to natural hierarchies. Communism isn't stable simply because just like libertarians, they somehow assume you can do without natural hiearchies, just ideology.

>libertarian views actually rely massively on constructed values that endorse equality before the law
Indeed libertarians are retarded as they continue to tout NAP delusion in face of direct evidence that you need a hiearchy (at least a warlord) to get anything done. Money being everything won't cut it.

>>13365207
>Might is right is not constructed
It is, even in feudalism, lords had to keep their vassal happy to keep them in line.

>>13362591
Peterson is a Nietzche guy, maybe the biggest thinker to influence postmodernism.

>>13362504
Where? Last thing I looked at he was still spewing the same tired critique.
He learned nothing.

>>13365297
>taking either of these hacks seriously

please head back to /pol/ already

>>13365219
>lords had to keep their vassal happy to keep them in line.
This is rather idealized view of how warrior castes actually functioned. It's not like *much* has actually changed since feudalism, except for scale. Ratio of violence one human can project.
Back then it was one guy, one horse and sword.
Now its one guy, one nuke. Hegemonies are important. It's still the same "because of warlords sitting on top you can get anything done". Whenever the hiearchies get less defined for any reason, you get a power vacuum and low tier violence until pecking order is established again. And you better have a system to establishing that order (see importance of laws of succession, such as democracy), because otherwise you get far more violence than there needs to be (most of african continent).
People legitimize feudal or democratic rules not because its a "fair" system, but only because it minimizes suffering in an inherently unfair one.

>>13365297
>jordan answers
>"I didn't like the answer so it's wrong"
lol cope tranny

>>13365319
where are the answers, Jordan.

>>13365350
>depends on what you define as "answers"

>>13364555
>liberals are marxists

no they're not they're reformists. they think we can regulate capitalism to save itself but marxists know there needs to be a fundamental reorganization of the economy if we want to abolish the class system. reforms aren't doing away with classes, they just prolong the inevitable or make obscure it. liberals have more in common with nazis and capitalists and side with them against the marxist radicals every time throughout history

>>13365388
how do you expect people to believe that you know what "marxists" say when you can't even comprehend a short post you're responding to

>>13362494
This guy is a retard (and i'm no leftist). He talked a little about the red pill movment, which existed before him (rollo tomasi etc...). What he says about psychology can be easily self taught on youtube.
I'm pretty sure he didn't read Das Kapital. He mixes up progressivism and Marxism.

Marx has absolutely nothing to do with LGBTs, trans-gender, immigration. He was even clearly against all of this.

This also applies for all LGBT/ immigrationists progressivists. Marx didn't give a shit about you. His work is about class struggle, not faggots.

>>13365695
>I'm pretty sure he didn't read Das Kapital.
That's correct. He admitted to only having read the Manifesto.

>>13365319
>any answer he gives must be correct and logically consistent because I do not have the intellectual capacity to engage with the topic beyond the point of simple mimesis

>>13365207
>they more or less map to natural hierarchies.
God dammit if only you knew the full extend of your own retardation. There are no natural hierarchies in Homo sapiens. This is not even a debate.

You cannot continue to say shit like that. I predict that 10 years from now this argument about natural hierarchies and power will be completely finished.

>>13365861
>There are no natural hierarchies in Homo sapiens. This is not even a debate.
yes it really is a debate

>>13365827
LOL
Like all the retards on 4chan who think they know Marx because they've read the manifesto.

Honnestly the manifesto was a mistake Marx made. It was an order from the communist party, and he wrote it with Engels in a few months when he was 30 years old i think. Das Kapital was published 20 years later and is the real work of his life.

>>13365883
Unironically not true at all. Socialists have gotten glimpses of Marx’s political ideology from the confines of The Communist Manifesto as opposed to Capital, an exposition of the working of Capitalism.

You must understand this. Marx was a communist, some of his most important transitional ideas to a communist state were to be found within the Manifesto and also other various writings and letters opposed to Capital.

You’re a dumbass. :3

>>13365867
You are a fucking retard. You think human exist only since the neolithich revolution (12000 years).

Every fucking study from prestigious universities, to 20 anthropologists, to modern documentaries for TV done in the Amazon rainforest conclude that there is no hierarchy in the primitive tribe.

I'm all for debate, and i try to not call names, but this is NOT subject for debate.

>>13365896
Marx in the Critique of the Gotha program was anti-statist.
Who would you believe, 30 years old Marx in Communist Manifesto, or about 60 years old Marx in Critique of the Gotha program?

>>13365898
(to 1920s anthropologists)

>>13365898
>prestigious universities, to 20 anthropologists, to modern documentaries for TV done in the Amazon rainforest
ie. extremely weak evidence. I don't know if you're aware but the entire field of anthropology is a giant morass of bias and awful methodology, and even then there are clear indications of some level of hierarchy in hunter gatherer societies. Furthermore you can't properly study uncontacted tribes by definition, and there is no real distinction between primitive humanity and the societies created by humans following agriculture, they are both natural. Everything in science is subject for debate, Newton and Einstein's laws are subject for debate, the ridiculous pretensions towards rigor of anthropology are most definitely subject to debate.

>>13365896
>some of his most important transitional ideas to a communist state were to be found within the Manifesto
not true at all, there are some interesting aphorisms in it but it is not a work of political theory; it's just a propaganda pamphlet

there has been a serious Reddit infestation here lately and I hate it.

>>13365861
>There are no natural hierarchies in Homo sapiens.
Being a predator and parasite is ultimately smart thing to do - enslave the weak, so you yourself have to do less. It's no surprise the largest hiearchy in animal kingdom ever is the human one. No other predator on earth has 50-tier level pyramids of slavery within single species. Animals and tribal packs *suck* at hiearchies. Primitive natural hiearchy is costly, brutal, inefficient and very literally darwinist. The way humans differ is we make our hiearchies fancy. Money is our currency of hiearchy and mating display, not barren teeth, antlers and murder.

>>13365913
Obviously the critique.

I could understand not following the argument if you weren’t part of the discussion, but my very damn post you are responding to has the definitions for what I’m fucking saying. Please read

>>13365937
Nice lack of argument. :3

>>13365883
Manifesto is not an essential reading, but it's not really a mistake in any way. Marx was already fully mature by 1844.

>>13365959
what? did you have trouble following or? my argument is that it wasn't written as an explication of his political theory but as a pamphlet to be distributed among the functionally illiterate prolitariat to help incite revolution, and that the most value it brings is a series of catchy aphorisms ("specter haunting Europe", "all that is solid melts into air", ect.)

>hierarchies are good because they're natural
>homosexuality is bad even though it's natural
nice contradiction bucko!

>>13365948
Now the argument of marx et al is that we no longer need to follow the low level law of the jungle, because it's icky even when we try to make it fancy with capitalism. Marx generally fails utterly at providing concrete systems of power distribution to replace the usual top down. Marx merel bawws at bare bones darwinism. To a point even anarchists were more fruitful in that regard, ie systems of bottom up consensus-governance can have some merit, if we dismiss the obvious issues with scaling it up from dozens to billions.

>>13365991
We were talking about Capital vs. Communist Manifesto bud

>>13366055
okay, so you obviously can't follow my argument. I am talking about why you are wrong about the Communist Manifesto. are you feeling okay anon? do you have a fever or something?

>>13366025
Read Marx.

>>13366084
>replacing hiearchy of capital with hiearchy of dictatorial politburo is gommunism

>>13366146
What?

>>13366198
I'm very obviously pointing out that marxism was never meant to get rid of hiearchies, just replace one hiearchy with another. Marxists have no business dissing power structures, as they're very much one.

And you respond to that with "read marx"? When it's clear you never read any of hegel, bakhunin, proudhon? Why they're even important, when Marx is the "Chosen One"? Because Marx borrowed and indeed, outright misrepresented a lot of cliff notes from them.

>>13366271
??

>>13366271
class is not the same thing as hierarchy

>>13366075
No you don’t understand, you introduced a third document which had nothing to do with the two options given.

To interpret Marx’s sociological initiatives or motives inherent in a Communist transition, The Communist Manifesto is a better source material for this transition. Barring Book three of Capital, of course, which includes Engel’s interpretive statements... :3

>>13366433
Correct. Class is one of attributes within hiearchy. Marxism is about class strategies, aka how to reshuffle the pawns. You still end up with hiearchy, however. More honest strains of liberal thought take it to logical conclusion - you don't need to bother with class warfare, as your objective is to render the whole notion of class pointless. This is viable only restricted, post scarcity circumstances (such as digital "wealth").
Of course marxism is far more practical than that, at the expense of keeping the hiearchy and gulags, just putting different pawns on the top of the pecking order.

To put it into some analogy: Marxism is about getting rid of record companies, because they suck everything from the worker's labor. Instead, you replace it with spotify, which socializes the labor value better. Regardless, you created a hiearchy. In anarchism, it's strictly pay what you want. Most people just pirate everything and labor value is only that the market decides you're entitled to. Everyone steals your shit, and gives you back only what they deem you need or deserve. The point is that there is no Stalin deciding on that, but your immediate neighbors quorum, a low tier consensus which doesn't span up. They decide who needs what. Suddenly there's no "grand hiearchy", just zillions of small, localized ones. That is the anarchist ideal of getting rid of hiearchy.

>>13366506
Try getting your ideas about Marxism from Marx instead of Stalin. That is, read Marx.

>>13366520
One hilarious thing about Marx is that he only merely implies dictatorship of proletariat, but never spells it out for what it is. He's been essentially avoiding the elephant in the room. Left to their own devices, proletariat will just re-form into hiearchy after revolutionary power vacuum.
Which is exactly what happened during all socialist revolutions, save for brief stints of metastable anarchy soviets. Marxist ideologues often use this for your argument "b-but marx-sama never said anything about stalin!". No he didn't indeed, to a point he skipped sections on state from the works he plagiarized (proudhon).

The noble tradition of smoke and mirrors continues to frankfurt marxism. You get explicit ideological pyramids (such as progressive stack). But it is never *explicitly* called what it is - a an ideological hiearchy trying to assert itself over darwinian one. Overwhelmingly, it also fails to do so, as the first comers (who are often very ill equipped, because they didn't attain status by merit) will start to behave in darwinian fashion, entrenching the position. Marxism is ultimately an excuse to attain power, and its political strategies get overwhelmingly exploited by capitalists in the end. Buy this latte to support starving children in Africa!

>>13366583
Marx was clear about the dictatorship of the proletariat being a forcible suppression of other classes. I don't know where you get the avoidance from. I would gladly respond to something more if only your posts had some actual content to them instead of a just bunch of empty assertions that form what could almost (but not quite) pass as schizo rants. To this one can only respond with "read Marx".

>>13366651
>Marx was clear about the dictatorship of the proletariat being a forcible suppression of other classes.
No, that was Engels, and only in response to anarchist rhetoric "down with the state". The anti-state anarchist faction threatened the emerging hiearchy of marxists within International, and this is how we ended up with this nonsense.

To Marx's credit, he was mostly silent on the issue (save for propaganda schlock like the manifesto). Instead of reading (just) the manifesto, try to follow the history of the factions. The state critique was a hot, contentious issue, and after 100 years of evidence, they were probably right even if they lost to bolsheviks. Delightfuly, one of those instances when might made right, even if they were wrong.

>I don't know where you get the avoidance from.
There was nothing said about the implied hiearchy *within* the proletariat. He presented it like 13 years old where "all the low class people will remain low class, after we gulag the kulaks. Workers will be equal to each other, nobody will try to one up and exploit another from up in ranks". That's not how states work, states are complex hiearchies, deeply intertwined with holdings of capital or direct violence. Always. If you cut up the top, the vacuum is rapidly filled with new brass from revolutionary ranks, oppressing the lower who "didn't make it". It's a hydra you can't just ward off with childish rhetoric dismissing Nietzche's *observations* on social darwinism. Notice darwinism isn't ideology. It's an ugly, but emergent phenomena in competition/cooperation game of social species. And here you're trying to stave off the storm with propaganda.

So what does all this imply and was left unacknowledged? If you remove burgeoise, new "woke" burgeoise will arise from proletariat ranks, politburo and dictator or clique on top. Marxists simply insist this can't happen, but it's painfully obvious it happened every fucking time.

>>13362494
Postmodernism rejects materialism? I don't know shit

>>13366761
>No, that was Engels
Marx literally wrote that the proletariat must use violent means (gewaltsame Mittel) against its enemies.

>Workers will be equal to each other
He never spoke about equality in that way. Engels wrote that workers won't be equal to each other since for people to be equal they would have to be the same. Marx wrote that the only kind of equality that makes sense is lack of class distinctions, but that clearly doesn't apply to those who are already in the same class, i.e. "workers".

>If you remove burgeoise, new "woke" burgeoise will arise from proletariat ranks, politburo and dictator or clique on top
Not if the party maintains its revolutionary course. If it gets derailed from it by counter-revolutionaries and instead gets directed towards forming "socialism in one country" and integrating itself into the world of capitalism then sure, but that's a direction communists oppose.

>Marxists simply insist this can't happen, but it's painfully obvious it happened every fucking time.
On the contrary, communists are aware that this happened, but they also don't think that one can conclude from it happening one time that it will happen every time.

>>13363264
I once saw someone get misgendered

>>13365948
>Slavery
>Before the neolithic revolution

Listen people. Until you get your facts straight, it's pretty useless to continue debating about this.
Either you are completely ignorant, or you are in denial, thinking there was always a hierarchy, exploitation of the weak by the strong etc...
Those things appeared 12000 years ago, with the neolithic revolution.

I don't know why there is such a lack of knowledge on this subject. Probably some denial to justify our current way of life.

>>13366017
In fact, there is no homosexuality in the primitive tribe. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

>>13362572
I had my Jordan Peterson phase. His public "culture war" antics were cringe, but some of his old lectures on Jungian psychology were fresh and interesting.

>>13367419
Jordan Peterson is in the sphere of political economy. Thus pretty uninteresting.

Everybody, leftists, LGBT, immigrationists, right wing racist, everyone who aim to solve problems with laws, money, institutions, delegation of power, is in the spectrum of political economy. Political economy has long been proven to not work.

>>13365297
Jew coke is made with real sugar because HFCS isn't kosher.

>>13362494

is zizek managed by CAA, too?

>>13367397
>Those things appeared 12000 years ago, with the neolithic revolution.
They were inherited from older societies lost to the sea level rise pulses at either end of the Younger Dryas.

>>13365312
An original thinker here

>>13367518
Okay that's alternative archeology.

If, and if, those society existed, we don't know much about them, and we don't know about their mode of production. It could have been something different than the 4 mode of production we know (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism).

>>13363333
appearing to defy natural law, at least a little is what made us the apex species. instead of just focusing on sex, sleep, food and how to get more, we tried to explain the world, and that caused us to pour resources and time into the arts and sciences, despite them not having a guaranteed benefit, if any benefit.

>>13365695
JP already addressed your issues

>>13364555

>>13366458
>you introduced a third document
You are mixing up your (you)'s retard, I have only talked about the Manifesto and why it's not a work of political theory.
>:3
literally off yourself at the most immediate opportunity

>>13365861
>There are no natural hierarchies in Homo sapiens.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with JP on this on and call you a liar.
There is absolutely hierarchies, wheter it be of competences (who is the best hunter for exemple) or social. As long as you have values, you have hierarchies.
This isn't even bringing in the biological arguments, as our brain reward us for progressing in various hierarchies.

>>13367643
Enough of the Manifesto. We can all agree that it's one of Marx minor work. The way i see it, people read it because it's short and easy to read. Then they claim that they have read Marx, when it's just a small fraction of his work.

>>13367663
Nop. The best hunter gatherer in the tribe didn't have special power other other members. Most importantly, he absolutely couldn't take the hunt for himself, even if he killed it.
Charisma is not power.

When someone in the primitive tribe was acting like an asshole, he was shunned by the others. This has been documented.

>>13367690
>The best hunter gatherer in the tribe didn't have special power other other members.
No but people certainly could tell who was good and who wasn't.

>Charisma is not power.
Hierarchy aren't just "power". If you're the boxing champion, it do not give you power over other but it certainly mean that your talents are recognized by many, and many benefits comes with that.

>When someone in the primitive tribe was acting like an asshole, he was shunned by the others.
So he was put at the bottom of the social hierarchy.