Slavoj Zizek vs Jordan Peterson debate. Marxism vs Capitalism.

a reply to: highvein

Yeah but under Communism nobody thought life sucked

Baha Haha I can't even fake it lol

a reply to: strongfp

I thought it was a great debate, though I find both to be underwhelming debaters and better lecturers.

a reply to: strongfp It is like debating which is worse. Marxism kills you instantly and reeks like beer#s and noooo fun allowed(except for the top tier), while capitalism kills you very very very slowly over many hundreds of years and it tastes really good and just about everyone gets somewhat of a chance.

So, what is this "debate" about again? Just trying to push through Marxism again? Mental illness never ceases to amaze me.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

and for the record, I don't debate, it is a pointless endeavor at self-satisfaction

Not debating is an endeavor in self-satisfaction. Never having your ideas challenged is the quickest way to dogmatism.

a reply to: r0xor

What's wrong with actually debating to hear both sides anymore? It's odd, right? Like that facet of humanity has fallen away from us...

Anywho, I don't mean to single you out. To be honest, I've found myself agreeing with you more and more.

But it is sad to see the current state of political discourse. It's like nobody has an open mind anymore. Everyone goes into a debate all fisticuffs.

a reply to: Lumenari

Peterson lost within his opening. He came ill prepared and simply spent half his time telling the audience what they already know, the criticism of the communist manifesto. His points on capitalism are rather underwhelming and bring forth a bland and mundane life to the human body and mind.
Like, Oh look people are out of the poverty range. And are now, back in the relative range of modern times. How is that progress?

Zizek went in knowing that Marxism can't realistically work, in a literal way, imagine being in his position and trying to argue that communism is good. Which is why he had the upper hand if his arguments are well thought out and his opening was good, which it was. Can you really argue back at some of his statements without bringing forth the usual strawman arguments like "yea well, communism has kill X amount of people?".

Zizek also steered clear of the old Marxism and brought forth that political ideas evolve and aren't set in stone. Peterson did the opposite.

a reply to: Lysergic

He's not a Marxist. He champions postmoderism.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: XAnarchistX

and for the record, I don't debate, it is a pointless endeavor at self-satisfaction

Not debating is an endeavor in self-satisfaction. Never having your ideas challenged is the quickest way to dogmatism.

I wish I could star this more

a reply to: strongfp

So you think that the Marxist argument was presented better, even though its proponent was not pro-Marxist. Fair enough.

I haven't had time to listen to his statements to decide if I can argue back or not. 2.5 hours is more time than I want to allot to dedicated listening, and I don't want to jump around a video. Maybe there is a transcript I can skim through to see his arguments.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Capitalism does keep those rich and in power... rich and in power, Capitalism has destroyed any small sense of "middle class" created corporatism and monopolies around the world

You are confusing Corporate Capitalism with free market capitalism.

We used to be a lot closer to free market capitalism than CC, but sadly, that day is long past.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

At least one person realizes they're both idiots.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

Peterson lost within his opening. He came ill prepared and simply spent half his time telling the audience what they already know, the criticism of the communist manifesto. His points on capitalism are rather underwhelming and bring forth a bland and mundane life to the human body and mind.
Like, Oh look people are out of the poverty range. And are now, back in the relative range of modern times. How is that progress?

Zizek went in knowing that Marxism can't realistically work, in a literal way, imagine being in his position and trying to argue that communism is good. Which is why he had the upper hand if his arguments are well thought out and his opening was good, which it was. Can you really argue back at some of his statements without bringing forth the usual strawman arguments like "yea well, communism has kill X amount of people?".

Zizek also steered clear of the old Marxism and brought forth that political ideas evolve and aren't set in stone. Peterson did the opposite.

The debate was titled Happiness, Capitalism vs. Marxism. Peterson argued why Capitalism was better than Marxism and made people happier. Zizek, as you just said, was unable to make the same case for Marxism. That's a loss for Zizek.

But then again it wasn't much of a debate.

a reply to: strongfp

Okay I'm at the 20 minute mark, skipped past the opening 5 minute intro blah.

So far its just been Peterson, talking about this idea of blaming everything on "Capitalism", rather than the bigger picture of hierarchies causing these problems. Which is universal before during after etc "Capitalism" and "Communism" and so on.

Other dude hasnt even gotten up talking yet. But in your mind Peterson already got his ass handed to him.

a reply to: Tartuffe

I rewatched it. And I still stand by my decision that Peterson didn't 'win'. But I agree, it was more of two intellectuals just sort of having a bit of a bant or, in their hyper intellectual sense a poetry slam.

Zizek kept to the topic. Peterson went off on rants. Zizek also kept the Marxist ideas within their limits, Peterson attempted to adapt them into modern standards.

What can we take from this debate?

In my opinion, it's a simple lesson for one, learn from the past. And the life we all live now and in the near future was shaped by raw Capitalism and Marxism whether we like it or not.

a reply to: strongfp

First.

Thank you for posting this video. I enjoyed this debate very much.
Zizek is a brilliant man as well as Peterson.

To me Zizek seems to not actually be a Marxist. He seems to be in love with the idea of Marxism, while trying to figure out why it has never worked. As when he was talking about how for one week a month there were no meat in the stores. It's as if he romanticizes his life and thinking on his younger days fondly, but at the same time not realizing that not having meat in the stores for a week does not mean it's a good thing.

While the debate, towards the end, did seem to enter into other factors than the core of the discussion, they were needed in order to put into context the complete thought.

I still believe Peterson's view in this debate was more on par with why Capitalism is better for the majority of people than Marxism, but I do believe that Zizek's knowledge of Marxism showed to be the greater of the two.