Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Марксизм: Жижек / Петерсон: официальное видео" video.

  1. Pleasure of renunciation itself Or in other words: You Kant do that!
    3
  2. Everytime this experiment was run Marx himself explains the outcome: “(For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist.” "[S]ince it negates the personality of man in every sphere Crude Communism is but the logical expression of private property. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself". "One may say that this idea of the community of women is the open secret of this entirely crude and unreflective communism. Just as women are to pass from marriage to universal prostitution, so the whole world of wealth (ie., the objective being of man) is to pass to the relation of universal prostitution with the community." “Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.” - Marx
    2
  3. 20:28 -- Damn it Pop Peterson, you are just genuine in your beliefs, and you're studied [although no one can study Marx perfectly!1], and that tremble was so dear!...oh you...I knew I liked you somehow, for a reason...you do care. I think the mostly alt-right stuff and [!] linker-Fachismus, these past years, were mostly the gunk [or chaff, as it were] that was cramping your style, I knew I liked you for a reason. You're still wrong though [I think, anyway!].
    1
  4. 2:30:10 -- They're called Ì̑͊d͓̣̘̯̲̥ͭ̔̒ͨ͊̃eỏ̗̼̠͚͐͗ͤg͈̜ͪͮrͮ͆͊ͫam͊ṣ̺̙̠̤̽ͤ͐ͩ̌ and personalities - Whence, Marx. And Nietzsche, and Kant, and Hegel, and many more, but especially Marx...the material-unmaterial per-son. Charaktēres. -- You've done something you should have done, accretions (sediments?), etc... You go on to explain in no uncertain terms the very things to be found in yogic schools, like Karma, and Bhakti, and Gyan yoga, specifically are highlighted here, Raja yoga, of course, is nestled safe in Jesus Christ. -- 2:31:50 -- Here, this sounds like something from Deleuze & Guatarri. Then you go onto speak about "appearing" meaning, and well, you didn't quite put it in that exact sense, but...formally, this is easily attenuated to the rest of the discussion's highlights...this near scholastic or even Marxian take [cf. also, "reification as recognition"]...and this is the problem I have with this notion of "appearing meaning/appearance of meaning"...people seem to be able to justify so much atrocity, and marginalization, and provocation, and fanaticism, beliefs, whatever, "capitalism",...all these axiomatics are self-justifiable only insofar as these assertions have been promulgated by predilections [already highlighted by people (personalities and their speeches and writings) like Marx and Freud and Jung and Kant, without exception, etc.] towards an unknown [hence the Landian approach to "accelerationist capitalism"]...all this self-justifying and self-righteousness is what's "toxic" in society. Then we go onto this "unconscious set of undefined axioms", which is nicely said, too. This is almost "occult" in it's aspect, spooky-doo, ooooo, ghostly-creepy crawlies. "Personalities", Charaktēres. This subterranean-Platonic double-bind [it appears, quite plainly] is the crux of many interesting things. The "Socratic Daemon". Try to stop doing that -- Have initiation.
    1
  5. Metrics Good, I'm glad we can start going into psychometric data, what's next? econometric socialist bullcrap data?
    1
  6. Socio-political system of econom... -- Zizek facepalms MARX IS CRITICIZING CRONY CAPITALIST "ELITIST".
    1
  7. Cultural Marxism is a misnomer. Literally, a contradictory term. And it is also an excuse, both as an axiomatic to presuppose the "purity" and "superiority" of capitalism itself, or an axiomatic to presuppose a flattening of culture ["transposes immanent antagonism, ambiguity, tension"] itself, which just sounds, frankly, like a Soviet plot. Crude Communists. They are probably more racists than just plain "nationalists", too, given the track record.
    1
  8. 2:07:00 -- Here comes the Kantian Categorical Imperative argument, based on not only "Judeo-Christian" values, but pan-Germanic values, German Idealism, and what is the precursor to the Hegelian dialectic. The view that "what I think is good and can make a universal value, is the Good, and is right opinion, judgement and critical view" -- A real act of primordial postmodernism. Plus, if a moral isn't "universal" [and is capitalism? is race? is culture? is systems? is politics? or is politics just an extension of that "war (which is) an extension of politics"?], it can't be "true", right? so if Capitalism is the moral perfection of truth and the categorical imperative par excellence, then it clearly needs to be critiqued on these grounds.
    1
  9. What if things invert and go completely the wrong way Yeah...and?
    1
  10. Democracy Marxists are revolutionary social democrats. Not socialists.
    1
  11. So I'll... Not come up with any reasons to solve the problems inherent in capitalist exploitation [even technocapital? or the "elites"?], but I will axiomatize and court capitalists' ideals about their exploits as something contingent on the 'grace of the more sensible' and wholly necessary as a fact: and then completely misread Marxian theory.
    1
  12. Sacrosanct So is religion, State, fascism, liberality, democracy, etc. [More and more enfoldments.]
    1
  13. Utopian socialism is what people like Charles Fourier thought up, Christian Socialist, and this was competition against the Marxian revolutionary social democracy [notice when it crops up, you see movements all over the world]. But see, it was never utopian. This is a fundamental mistake in theory, and skews the problematic unto a strawman argument.
    1
  14. E-Rad[e]-icate the enterprise -- Damn, that's cold...that's cold. Better be super moral then, and we all know, businessmen have just that particular knack for this world. ; )
    1
  15. Axiom 1: History is to be viewed as an economic class struggle. Only in the sense of our drives leading us as being the viewer of History. In this sense, yes it is a class-struggle, because of economic burdens and exigencies. Beyond this there are drives which pertain to complexes that exhibit in other ways rather than reproductive, or even expressive, but this is not solely due to human nature, but also due to certain power dynamics that press on human productivity. Next axiom. PS: In keeping with hierarchical organization -- And synarchic organization, like tech-capital. Animal kingdom, structuralism -- Both do not preclude themselves, unless one admits that what is sole for the human being is nary for the animal creature. Predated human history itself, capitalism -- Certainly a good phrasing there, Peterson, whether you meant it or not: yes it has been predating human history for so long. True. It also can be refined...didn't you think that it could? Class struggle, no, deeper problem -- Cf. Axiom 1. Existential problem, taking from below -- The Commons, in Marx's words. Cruel and harsh natural world -- Cf. Reification. Give the devil his due -- Or in other words, class struggle, q.e.d. PPS: Crystal clear -- So was Marx, on that. Eschatological, Peterson...read Capital...it's not a proposal that to have revolution is a given only then: that was never presumed by Marx, hence Axiom 1: the reasoning is that because someone always struggles to the top, in order precisely to control and compartmentalize hierarchy below them [that's what Hierarch means], and that means that revolution is "natural" and hence predicated on the absorption of surplus value, thence Valorization, the concept of the remit to wages and/or slavery [or destitution] being a "moral value" for the good of "nature": and thence with out capitulation, the order of revolution in class struggle in toto. Exploitation, very unstable means of obtaining power -- It's a means of keeping power within synachic lines of affectation, and also, cf. Axiom 1. It's also a means of expanding and implicitly controlling power. And it's also a means of "creative destruction". It's a means of keeping an axiom of contingency and necessity, and reliance, which instability provides. Exploiter and exploitee, it's not obvious -- It's obvious, when in the framework of Axiom 1 [see above]. And the reasoning is because of the proverbial "class struggle". The binary does preclude a further mystery, but to nail it down to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is cutting a little thin, though. That is to say, that it's multiple classes that form the structure base and superstructure. Unfortunately race, and nation, and creed, plays part and parcel as well. Group identity politics, proletariat good, bourgeoisie evil -- Inner warfare? Pitting people into groups -- Uhh...I thought nature did that itself? Aren't you backtracking a bit here? as in...alot? This goes to the further Marxian theory of Capital. Capitalists own means of production, oppressing all the workers -- No. Not "all the workers". Just the workers in Germany. He couldn't predict everything, and well, Marx never claimed he could predict things outside of this theoretic schemata, just that it would represent whyfors in a historicist fashion. Wage earners become scarce, which drives market value upward -- And where do these new earners get found? right. From the "globalized" world. Not a very good critique, here, from you, Peterson. It's a meager derivative of not keeping up to date with Marxian theory, nor reading Marx in his entirety, and thus you attribute this notion as being a misunderstood one by Marx, when in actuality it was merely understated because he did not predict how Capital would operate at all lengths...that would be impossible. But he does draw out a very dire premise and eschatology. Assume a priori -- Like so many powers that be, just do willy-nilly? like State? like Church? "The Cathedral"? like "a priori synthesis"? Like capitalism?
    1
  16. 30:47 -- Did you catch that? -- Impossibly complex to make Impossibly complex to make Impossibly complex to make
    1
  17. Think about thinking Metacognition? isn't that super-duper bad times? doesn't deal in like crazy radical shit? certainly the matter would be clear to, say, Kant, that that authority of what is found to be of a categorical imperative would be true, and so...metacognition and everything that comes along with it, I guess.
    1
  18. Experiments But only according to the dictates of a very small handful of people, realistically. =)
    1
  19. Absurd, managers, businessmen, exploitation Cultural vulture capitalism, world-federalism, destruction of national heritage, inculcation of "multiculturalism", all of these are critiques by "Marxists" towards capitalist society. Racial tensions...social democracy cropping up, consistently leading to disastrous results from not only crude communist regimes but then also right-wing reactionaries against "liberalism". What say you about this, Peterson? Know how a business works -- Well, learn to understand Marxian theory. It's not an economic system [classical Marxian theory is not orthodox Marxist theory], it's a critique, first of all; secondly if you knew how business works, you'd see the above mentioned trends as possible only thru the system of capitalism and "liberalism", that is, even from a right-wing perspective [conflations abound of ideologies and their histories, duly noted]; thirdly, Marxian theory is not simply a critique of "business" [not at all, and that overlay is silly], it is a critique of human nature: read about the concept of "false consciousness" ["Inner warfare with your self" -JP], and the concept of Capital as a mechanism which leads to the not only depressed wages of man, but the flattening of him, as well, into a mechanistic component. Both right-winger reactionaries, populists under Trump, and left-wing or even post-left "ideologies" are all "trumpeting" about.
    1
  20. Courtier's always stop short of real philosophy, because it's scary...and upsets the political order, and yes...Philosophy starts in politics, but that's why they call it a revolution.
    1
  21. Doesn't just It doesn't justify anything in your reasoning: that and the disproportionate reason for war, before that income growth. Which "income growth", yes, the extremely wealthy sees more of it, you can see left-wing and right-wing critiques against the latest in "trickle-down economics", and how it's mildly improved the income of migrants [and then some rationale as to why their "culture is being extirpated"], and/or has achm "empowered the patriarchy!" [I guess]. Both sides have an argument against it [though I'm downplaying the leftist response, obviously, with a "joke"]. There are several reasons I've just highlighted right here that signifies why people are rightly always slingshot around the moon of Communism back towards the Earth of capitalism.
    1
  22.  @stephenhughes5156  People are bound to be crude communists, unenlightened communists.
    1
  23. Social science Besides ethnology and anthropology, there was no "social science" before Marx. Marx practically invented sociology, or at least the antecedents to the concept of it.
    1
  24.  @arekingi  That's a really sore reading of history and the nuances and intricacies of it.
    1
  25. Achieved that By the end of it's total reign, ironically. But then, as usual, by advantage, they exploited it. Please, Mr. Peterson...please.... Constitutes the clear winner Wrong. Marx never said "capitalism was evil". Remember? he also praised it. But you forgot to do your "double-think" about that, didn't you? ; ) Marx only critiqued the crony's, the robber-barons...not capitalism nor Capital itself.
    1
  26. Almost all ideas are wrong That's a great tautological argument. It's true, almost all ideas are wrong. Quite the scope one would have to undertake. Psychoanalysis, maybe it's also "wrong"? Did you undertake that in the scope of your tautological pretensions about knowing how "almost all ideas are wrong" applies, in totality, with Marxian or anti-capitalist thought? or even any critique of capitalism? Wrong - OR...or...a reality at issue, but insurmountable...insuperable.
    1
  27. If God doesn't exist everything is permadeath Gee. That sucks.
    1
  28. Abstract labor Surplus labor value? Valorization? So this you agree with. And by the way, sometimes utile elements are used against people, wrongfully, hence, why it's always useful to ask what is utility precisely? Growth -- Admittedly, Marx admits, in his more arrogating statements, that Capital was fitting to "get us here", where the means to production could be, essentially, "salvaged"- if you will- not to put too fine a point on it, I'm obviously paraphrasing. Obviously any sort of "revolution" is violent. I don't approve of insurrectionism, but this was also a contested issue in communist and anarchist thought, to an extent, it's even found in capitalist thought, now, thankfully. Isn't that grand? [*And nte. none of this is that "strange" either.] Constraint on wasted labor -- And what occurs? more attempts at world-federalization, from all angles, more expansionism, protectionism, attempts towards autarky, history "repeats itself", people want recognition [read the latest in circles on 'Reification']. Way too complicated for anyone to think thru -- Not only is that a cop out, but...manifestly ascribed to by Marx as the necessity to learn, as a proletariat, to educate yourself, because the lumpenprole would not be able to do that, due to being...essentially...lazy. That too might also be a cop-out, ironically. Alienated, from -- Not "from" but "an alienation". This isn't going away, just because the "utopia" vision is "wrong" [plus, the notion is facetious, it's not even taken seriously by communists that a "utopia" arrives from this, just a blatant misconception; also that centralized power wouldn't immediately be co-opted by the dictates of the proletariat [which is what that means, literally; eg., the "dictatorship of the proletariat"], which would then would, presumably, start all over again in their material exploits until new class struggles arose.
    1
  29. Violent means Unfortunately, when revolutionary thought isn't violent itself, capitalist kings make it violent, or they lash out against it. Whether artistic, political, or social.
    1
  30. There's mere evidence that With enough social barriers "dismal qualities" of life are nullified, and transferred into entertainment, and in-dwelling alienation, which research shows is good PS: "[Wikipedia] In discussion of "random materialism" (matérialisme aléatoire), the French [Marxist] philosopher Louis Althusser criticized such a teleological (goal-oriented) interpretation of Marx's theory of alienation because it rendered the proletariat as the subject of history; an interpretation tainted with the Hegelian idealism of the "philosophy of the subject", which he criticized as the "bourgeois ideology of philosophy" -- As you can see the "contemporary moment" [which even right-wing circles have talked about, specifically, in their own respects to their ideologies] has been reviewed and critiqued even by Marxian theorists themselves.
    1
  31. 53:00 -- Or what Marx referred to as "Crude Communists". Because? Mr. Peterson... Because Marxian theory belays an eschatology.
    1
  32. Richer now Poor later.
    1
  33. Resources This isn't just about "running out of resources" worldwide; it's "goods" and "fungibles" and "land-space" that people are going to need. Peak at 9 billion Again, that's a projection, goodness, gracious...out of more than singular projection, so the contention herein is with the actual solo projection being taken at face-value as "correct", when there is not reason to take any other projections [at least that you elucidate] at face-value as "incorrect", q.e.d.
    1
  34. All the other systems don't Socialism soaks through all the lands of outside nations- it is it's own Lebenstraum, it is it's own employment of ATTRITION in order to gain the resources it needs, but it does it through propaganda, all through this destruction of hierarchy and culture/heritage- in order to absorb immigrants and displace the native population/workforce, for the sake of efficacy in the face of LOW-FUNDS and RESOURCES: call this the "band-aid" or "stop-gap" effect. "State Socialism", obviously, requires centralization, it has been delineated (according to history, anyway), at least by Historical Standard (see: Trotsky); but yet a global effort (aka non-Globalist World-cooperation) is the best course of action— this suggests that borders & finite controls on population, with minimal government intervention (the most minimal to approximate the smallest force required to implement a state-guard against monopolies & immoral business practices)...'. Social Democracy starts up [and you can see the results, it is seen right from the second and even first world war, in Germany], and the reason why is the "ideal" end of making people more or less "democratized" but globally considered [hence, "social democracy" is leftist in the regard that it "transcends race" to "fend for the worker, the poor, the disenfranchised", whatever], & that is part of the selfsame "band-aid effect" I elucidate above: The "taking away" of sovereignty starts above: but you can now see WHY it happens, and why capitalists coordinate with "progressives" all the while: you can call it "anti-white" [it is] but it's also a part of a vaster problem which is contributed to by "globalization" [cf. above on "social democracy", and also see "multiculturalism"]. There is a means of "denial" and/or "exit", but you'll always be dragged back to this same song and dance, and it won't change...because of the synarchic trends therein "globalization"; which leads to "globalism" [which is actually just a way to discern "global concerns" about cosmopolitanism].
    1
  35. Advertising culture/sales & management culture Are these new races, too?
    1
  36. "Egalitarianism, as "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome", a clearly Marxist 'aim' And also a capitalist platitude...hence Zizek's framing of the argument, which was not an argument for egalitarianism, but an argument against postmodernity's take on "equality".
    1
  37. Moderate free-market Exactly, Peterson...exactly. But you still haven't actually read much of Marx, still, have you? or any Marxian theory? the UN Isn't pleasing any populists. -- The poor are getting richer too -- Thank you Eurocommunist parties that represent heads at the UN, from the EU supranational body of states? Socialists?
    1
  38. In keeping with what's good for you, and what's good for your family, in keeping for you as an individual, and society in the larger frame in keeping with what's good for you And the synarchic hands which control the most arbitrary and most delicate and most proportioned aspects of our society top-down, they are...just Gods, I guess. Can't even criticize them; that would be just...rude.
    1
  39. Commons Or, if you will, the Social Rucksack!
    1
  40. Damn, Mr. Peterson...I do like this theological side to you. That explanation of Christian thought, of that sense of "loss" [one could say], that sense of "fighting temptation, but being delivered from evil" as it were, through what you and Zizek helped explain: this reading of the "redemptive" through such a metaphysics [as like you find in your book] I find particularly grand and true. Jesus said he'd "set [of man and family] at variance of the household" which is just a parabolic [literally] way of saying what you said: "you set order to your house and everyone else's at the same time" -- Very Hegelian...very Marxian of you.
    1
  41. 2:17:35 -- Or, in other words, contact -- God and sin are things that don't mix. They do not touch, ever.
    1