@Snipview yea unlike Jordan Peterson, most serious scholars tend to be busy teaching and researching instead of curating their RUclips channel. Professor Wolff is one of the most prominent and respected Marxist academics alive today, shouldn't he be the kind of person Jordan Peterson would wanna debate with to prove his point about Marxism??
@@osvaldoprado9906 Latin America has had military juntas and far right presidents/dictatorships ever since the Cold War. Only like 2 have had socialist governments.
@@DinoDino118 Terribly wrong. You also forgot to mention that most "right-wing dictatorships" actually fought terrorists. In Chile with Pinochet, the country has achieved the best economy and quality of life in its entire history. In Argentina, the Videla dictatorship was the best known, but again they fought terrorists like the Montoneros, who even killed innocent children. The worst dictatorship in Argentina was the one that is not recognized as one, and it is that of Perón who even killed other Peronists. Now all the countries of South America have socialist presidents with the exception of Brazil (Bolsonaro) and Uruguay (Lacalle Pou). Venezuela and Cuba have suffered the worst of communism for years and still do. It is clear that you do not know anything about Latin America.
You are too kind to spend 5 minutes of your time explaining things to someone whose only clear intention is to sabotage any rational critique of the status quo.
@Bosko Da Chief You have written so much, just for it to be incorrect. The idea that Marx, an ethnic jew, is a source of inspiration of the Nazi's is absurd. You mention the JQ but it is clear you have not read the book itself. The purpose of the JQ was in response to an antisemitic text by Brauer who argued Jews should not have full emancipation in Germany until they renounce their religion as political emancipation requires a secular state which Bauer believed did not leave room for social identities such as religion. Marx argued against this in the JQ, using Bauer's stereotype as satire, saying that religions will always prevail in a secular state and arguing that jews should be given full political emancipation regardless if they are practicing and religious. You also fail to admit the extreme anti marxist sentiment that Hitler and the Nazi's had, i cannot tell if this is purposeful or if you are just an idiot. This is shown through his actions, such as banning the KPD, the communist party, and sending Marxists to concentration camps. Not to mention his mass privatisation of the economy after the SPD, the social democratic party. We can also see his opposition to Marxism through his speeches such as: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” His perspective of socialism is entirely different to Marx and any other socialists in the 19th century. He also believed Marxism to be a jewish plot, spreading a conspiracy of cultural bolshevism or cultural marxism in which Jews spreading progressive ideals were trying to usher in communism. You also completely misunderstand what the 'opiate of masses' means. Marx, as an ardent materialism, believes religion arises out of material need for comfort. Under all, current and past, modes of production there is mass misery created, these causes them to seek religion for this comfort. He believes that religion will erode in socialism and communism as these material conditions for religion disappear. The pseudo intellectual you have mention obviously has not read Marx. Marx adamantly opposed any kind of worshipping of people. He rejected the notion of great man theory, believing people emerged out of material conditions and those conditions shape them. He admitted that, 1. Other people could come to his ideas without necessarily reading Marx or related texts and 2. If he did not write these texts someone else would due to the material conditions he lived in. You're idea that Marx places anything in moralism is so incorrect it is actually upsetting that someone would think that. In fact it was quoted that Marx would laugh whenever someone mentioned moralism. Furthermore claiming Marx was not rational is just incorrect. Marx's work was combining Hegel's dialectics and logic to the utopian socialists before him, creating what he called 'scientific socialism'. Marx places Hegel's works within a completely material outlook and rejected any form of idealism. You're proposition that Marx was not focused on the individual and was a collectivist is a child's understanding of Marx. You avoid substatiniting the point of Marx taking the perspective was one of 'all for one and one for all' because, obviously, it was never one of Marx's perspectives. Marx's class theory was based on the INDIVIDUAL'S relation to the means of production. Not to mention Marx's theory of alienation, probably one of his most famous ideas, attacks Capitalism for how it alienates a worker from his individual. By performing labour that is not for himself but for owners of the means of production the worker becomes stripped of his own agency and instead his goals are directed to him by the bourgeoisie. Socialism seeks to be the emancipation of the individual. You should actually try to read Marx before you write such a long but incorrect comment. This is the problem with Peterson as well, he admits to only have read the manifesto which Marx wrote on a train for workers. In fact in a 1872 preface he says the manifesto is more of a historical document then an actual representation of his theories.
@Bosko Da Chief It appears that the languages you read Marx in are languages you do not understand. Keep on espousing claims which you make no aim to substantiate.
Prof. Wolff is at the first place great humanist. Also he is one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time. Thank you prof. Wolff for opening of the eyes to so many people around the world.
Peterson has literally covered all of this already. Marxism has never been implemented successfully, despite being an alluring social theory it is just a theory. Whenever tried, millions die. And it's always just this sort of person who advocates it, an intellectual in the sense that they put their intellect before reality and thus think they can do better implementing the theory than Russia or China or anyone else that's tried. Yet they have never successfully implemented even the most mundane social policy on even a local level. I think he should start local, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Try and help some people. Or is that rather than compassion for the poor, he really just hates the rich?
PETERSON would like a tree limb exiting a chipping machine after Prof Wolff had a ''conversation'' with him. Nothing left but small thin slivers of his former self would be left.
@@MrBoazhorribilis he called him out. Jordan Peterson is simply a coward who claims Marxists won't debate him when it is he who refuses. Probably because he would be exposed for knowing next to nothing about Marxism and would be called out on all the bs he spews like cultural Marxism and calling Marxists post-modernists. Only Marxists he will address are dumbass college kids, but an actual Marxist intellectual who has been an economics professor and gone to Harvard, Yale and Standford? He doesn't have the balls.
Do you have evidence that Richard contacted Jordan and Jordan said no? A random guy making a random proclamation on a random RUclips video is not evidence that Jordan won't debate someone.
@@ericlefeld8059 That's exactly it. I don't know if it's so much that Peterson's audience is stupid - some are, most are not. But even smart people can fall for the words of a conman if that conman has been trained well enough. And Peterson is fairly well trained. Of course, that isn't to say that psychologists are all con-artists but some certainly are and I would say Peterson, whether intentionally or not, borrows extensively from their playbook.
@Snipview I'm sorry to have to point out the obvious to you but socialism exists along a spectrum of ideas from social democracy on the right to state planned on the left. One of the biggest issues socialists have is getting all these variants to agree on a common course of action which may lead to power struggles and authoritarianism of they can't be resolved. But know this. Critics of these various attempts at going beyond capitalism fail to acknowledge two things; their considerable accomplishments and the pressure of capitalist interventionism. The CIA has been the key agitator in destabilising leftist governments around the world and not just in Latin America where it has trained death squads and orchestrated too many coups to mention individually. The latest one being Lula in Brazil. Also, the figure that you and every other capitalist propaganda monkey claims that communism killed is taken from a book that was literally compiled and edited by a neo-Nazi. I find it laughable that anyone would describe the 1959-61 famine in China as a direct consequence of Marxism. By that reasoning I can say, without blinking, that Smith killed as many if not more with his support of colonialism. In fact, every capitalist economist has supported colonialism to one extent or another. Hell, the capitalist system kicked off with enclosure and God knows how many millions were killed being kicked off the land then. When you look at the frequency of famine under both the Romanovs in Russia and the Qing rulers in China and compare them to Mao and the Bolsheviks, both of which had their problems, one thing stands out. After the initial disruption, there were no more famines in Russia or China. Not one. How do you square that circle? Without falling back into your propaganda monkey nonsense, if at all possible
@@joshs1282marxists would say that he's too scared to debate him,on the other hand he debated slavoj zizek.if you're interested in his response to richard wolff here's the video."consider this to be a response from richard wolff"on richard wolff vs dr.jp's comment section video. ruclips.net/video/XJwEBizQgYI/видео.html
Please notice how Wolff, who himself is a great intellectual, is able to speak clearly and simply. Does Wolff ever try to sound intellectual. NO! He explains things clearly. For some reason, Peterson need to speak in complex run-on sentences and never answers anything clearly. Thank you Prof. Wolff for this presentation.
@@fun_ghoul Indeed. They look twice as big as my head lol. Illusion granted, I would wager they are above average. Happy I could clarify on this pressing issue
Mmmm yes sure this guy knows more than all the economists of USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and North Korea. If only he was in charge of these economies, he would have brought the Socialist utopia. Stop insulting the intelligence of the smart people in all these countries, it was tried, it failed. Moving on.
To expand upon my point, capitalism is one of the only systems that facilitates the access to capital to those who have the highest competence. It is not a guaranteed but it maximizes it compared to socialism. In socialism, access to capital is decided by a tyrant (who is not all-knowing) or idealistically, a Democratic majority (which usually is ignorant, how the masses tend to be). Competence follows the Pareto distribution, so logically, we want our resources to be at the hands of those more competent, and therefore there should always be inequality in the most productive societies. Socialism sacrifices productivity for equality, but this has not increased happiness for a variety of reasons, and it probably won't. At least, there is little evidence for it.
Everyrhing thing every concept is an Idea first which is expressed later in words or image means in a language, then it takes ideological form with time..economics, politics , Art, or anything man had created COMES from an Idea , and here comes the psychology and psychoanalyst, In understanding the human mind , the process that LED to a such thought in first , In decryption the smallest human Act in a totaly, in accessing to a deep understanding of that process comes with it a deep understanding of human behavior, the depths of the human mind , that's what is the most fascinating about psychology, at least for me.
Why do you trust an economist that isnt worth a huge fortune? Wouldnt any economist that actually knew how economies work be able to use that knowledge to create vast sums of wealth for themselves?
he's a lier, so I would be careful what you listen to. He tells half-truths and lies to push his narrative. He has to be a professor because he would never survive in the business world.
@@camdavis9362 He's an open Marxist. He mischaracterizes Marxism and the free marker to push his narrative. He wants more Marxists, so he continually links unrelated information to fool these idiots who follow him. In his video he says that the workers didn't want to share the riches wealth, which exactly the opposite of what Marx said. He ignores how many millions Marxism killed, and how many free market has lifted out of poverty. He and that idiot Robert Reich are on a campaign to turn people away from free market. The blame the mega rich for all the workers problems. They are nuts.
Deep breaths--for about 15 minutes--deep in, deep out, repeat...the anxiety will pass, you'll feel a sensation resembling calm, approaching but not reaching serenity, your neck and face muscles will, not relax, but will feel "different" a kind of pleasant feeling...as for the why...big handed people...I don't really know.
Thank you sir for setting an example of how the human brain should be operated! I wish the world were populated with more sober minded individuals like yourself!
@SnipviewYou are so ignorant of history and how the world works, read Chomsky and Wolff, educate yourself, what you describe has no resemblance to reality.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 It still beats having no tools. Occupationally I prefer to have fire and an anvil as well, especially when the problem is a lack of nails.
Economics, on the other hand, has nothing to say about human nature. This is true for economists both on the right and the left and human beings become objects in the mind of the utilitarian. So, I think a knowledge of psychology (personality traits, more specifically) with a good dose of philosophy is still the only thing that can lead to any moral system (however the system may be organized).
Marx made me question my capitalist culture like Pink Floyd made me question the institutions of my domestication. Neither provided much in the way of answers, but they opened my eyes to the problems.
I feel something similar; I think that Marx' and especially Lenin's analysis of Capitalism and its far-reaching consequences are spot on both for their respective times and our current times, however, I don't agree with all of the solutions they propose
Criticism to Peterson 1. Not judging marxism considering only the terrible Stalin period in Soviet Union. Analogy with atrocities by Christians. 2. Reducing marxism to the problem of inequality. And reducing the problem of inequality to the envy of the poor for the success of the rich. Wolffs' analysis: Inequality has been discussed for a thousand details. In fact, capitalism emerged during the American and French revolution, claiming to bring liberty, equity and fraternity. Where is the equity promised? Marxism finds an explanation: The master retains the wealth that the creativity of the employees produces, while the mass of the working class is excluded from the surplus. Employers and employees, masters and slaves.
@M A those are the issues with in this system that need to be fixed. Those are the convos we should be having. Not ones about doing away with system, but how to fix this one. I will say I dont think adopting some socialistic aspects in it is a bad thing. There are some already in the system already has some and it is helping the people in the system. A balance is needed. As long as the left can keep bringing in things that make sense then I'm in. But the left needs to also see the importance of the rights ideology as well. Just me though.
first marxists state was a slavs state - Russia. It doesnt make any sence how Marx called black ppl. His learning is about economy not about races and nations. Actualy a negro is a historical term. And in many languages it means what it means - black human race.
@Snappingturtle 267 Speaking as more of a progressive lefty than a liberal one I can tell you I find commonly held beliefs on the right - which I would not call sense - uninformed and regressive. Though we would obviously have to go issue for issue to have any substantive discussion.
@Snappingturtle 267 the right have gone fucking insane. People in the future will be shocked at how millions of people could follow an unhinged buffoon such as Trump. "Common sense," indeed.
@Snappingturtle 267 funny how you think socialism has never worked, when every developed country in the world has a socialistic safety net for the poor, which indisputably makes people better off than they would otherwise be; and the stronger the safety net, the higher the overall standard of living.. But "muh Venezeula," lol.
@Snappingturtle 267 You point at an oppressed people getting the bare minimum of help, and then use that as an explanation as to why help is not worth it. Circular. Standard RW tactic. Defund X. Point at X not working. Use as excuse to close down X for profit. Consider the socialist polices of FDR, that brought about the US golden age. The guy was so popular he died in office, and they amended the law to stop at 2 terms. Point at any socialist country and tell me why it's socialist, an i will point at one that is AS socialist, or more, that works just fine. Keep in mind, i will make you look stupid, so put some thought into it.
Every few days RUclips will recommend a Jordan Peterson video. I will watch said video. After a few minutes of watching I will realize that I have no idea what he is talking about and will begin to wonder if the problem lies with me or him. I will then think about it a bit and conclude that surely the issue lies with me given the size of his audience. I will think about it some more and realize that there need not be a relation between audience size and coherence. His popularity has perplexed me for some time. I've come to the conclusion that he makes a certain kind of person feel smart, and if that person is also prone to sympathy with rhetoric that denounces the "regressive-left" then there is a high probability that said person will become a Peterson promoter. Why did I write this? Oh that's right, I have issues.
It's just a matter of knowing the principles of what he is talking about, It all makes sense to me cuz I'm Marxist and i read about the french revolution, the main point is u have to read and discuss more things.
I have no issue understanding what Peterson is referring to when speaking. It may be due to me watching him a lot, or it may be an issue of you not knowing of the underlying references. If you're getting confused that often, while I almost never get confused while watching him, there must be some info you're missing (like some fundamental western/American stories). It may also be a problem of simply not watching the video in its entirety. It could also be a personality thing, like you being very low in trait openness. Be weary of putting all his fans into a single category.
Let’s see, which one doesn’t get the other, the Harvard/UoT prof or you? I am not confused when I see him talking as I have been studying him for several years. Your oversimplifications do not trump his coherence. I don’t know why you assume you can assess him. Ever heard of the Dunning Krueger phenomenon?
Read his book Maps of Meaning. He taught this book in a course at Harvard for several years so it is also available online. The psychological interpretation of the biblical stories is also a good one. If you are goi to undermine Peterson, undermine Jung.
Succinct and excellent response by Richard Wolff. I appreciate this video can just directly counter Peterson’s arguments and doesn’t waste time with petty insults. You don’t have to bother to insult Peterson when his argument alone has so little to stand on, and I actually appreciate this kind of straightforward approach more than most of the other Peterson response vids that circulate.
I think Peterson does have fair points from time to time, but really he uses too much sophisticated language and is too long-winded to ever efficiently explain his point. Same with Zizek.
Wolff with some more broke angry kids turning them into “Marxist” whatever definition we give it today. You guys are full of it XD go capitalism! I just bought GameStop stocks!!
It's a wonder that, with so little to stand on, he has stood strong against all his opponents... none have been able to present a logically reasoned argument against his position. Least of all this video rife with Straw-man arguments... I'd argue purely Straw-man arguments... not one honest, logically reasoned rebuttal.
My brother has gotten OBSESSED with Jordan Peterson and "pulling himself up by his bootstraps". I honestly want to show him this because it is such a great, thorough yet succinct analysis. Thank you, Professor, for the sake my sanity.
Peterson is an expert in Carl Jung and psychology, but he is not an expert in other subjects. I don't understand why he feels the need to spread his knowledge on subjects he only have a superficial understanding of.
Yeah... what a fool your brother is for believing in personal responsibility and becoming a productive individual... you should do everything you can to undermined that and promote your philosophy of entitlement, and resentment. But here's something you may want to consider... your limited education distorts your perception of what is a thorough and succinct analysis... the fact that that is your conclusion... demonstrates your inability to comprehend the topics being discussed... you cannot even detect blatant Straw-man fallacies in his argument which is purely intellectual dishonest distortions of the argument. He relies so thoroughly on such fallacies... precisely because his analysis born out of his ignorance. I'm willing to bet your brother has a distinct intellectual advantage over you... I suspect you are familiar with the frustration of never succeeding in honest debate against him. Good luck to him... hopefully he can help you.
@@Chipwhitley274 ....You know, I COULD point out the fallacies in your argument, and that you're basing all of what you said on the small, small argument of "The Black Slut Doesn't My Super Based Idol" but that would: a) cause me to have go through and address in each way that you're wrong (including mine and my brother's level of education, views on education, and even views on debate like situations and etc.), b) would seem like I'm trying to emphasis mine and my brother's difference as less vs, more/who's better comparison and I don't want to do that. Because intellect and education are not equivalent to actual WORTH. c) And sexism, and how that even when my brother is wrong, has a bad opinion, or anything similar, people, even our mother, will have more chances and opportunities or more leeway in fucking up than I ever will. Good luck pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps though. I'm sure with enough energy drinks you can do anything.
I really liked and enjoyed Jordan B. Peterson's on-line lectures for his insights into psychology. But when it comes to socio-economic issues, Richard Wolff's arguments simply decimate Peterson's. Pity are to those who must pick a camp to follow unconditionally and cannot look at things objectively. They are the ultimate slaves.
@@just83542 Why yes. Really, you need to spend more than 10 seconds researching this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/ Oh, and China seems to be doing just fine. Hell, their major problem is that the west, having shipped all its manufacturing to it, cannot pay for as much stuff. Funny that. When all your people are out of work, how are they going to buy anything. I direct your attention to this vid about how we got here: ruclips.net/video/tJoe_daP0DE/видео.html And this one about China: ruclips.net/video/CNMoTvjEL_w/видео.html Long version: ruclips.net/video/Cw8SvK0E5dI/видео.html
I remember Prof Wolff has said somewhere else, that if we cannot get over the stage of "I'm the good guy and they are the bad guys", then there is no possibility of a good discussion. Jordan Peterson, on the other hand, is saying "Marxists are the bad guys". I've also watched clips on China-related issues given by both Wolff and Peterson, where Wolff was able to recall all the critical details of the Chinese revolutions, down to the date and participants' names, while Peterson started by saying, "I sympathize with the Chinese people who are governed by the evil Chinese Communist Party" and then went on again to six-year-old mode: "We are the good guy. They are the bad guys". Frankly, I don't see any point of a debate between them two, where Prof. Wolff is a responsible, passionate intellectual and academic, while Peterson doesn't do his homework about the issues he talks about, be it Marxism or China.
Mark Grissom Let’s talk about this ‘responsible and passionate’ academic’s argument, shall we? He says if we use the argument that ‘perverted versions of marxism kills people, thus we should stop with marxism’ is preposterous, because we didn’t stop with Christianity even though perverted versions of that kills people too... This is an academic... according to you... who just talks over 200 years of human history like its nothing. A gigantic part of the enlightenment was about secularism, the SEPARATION of christianity and the state, so that moronic wars wouldn’t happen anymore. He refuses to mention that Peterson explains many times why Stalinism and Maoism are a logical consequence of the human psyche once marxism is embraced. He backs this argument up by books of Russian authors, about how the Soviet system slowly got perverted from this marxist ideal to a Stalinist society. Human psyche doesn’t embrace total equality of outcome, because we’re a species with an essential need for hierarchy. That’s why he mentions the lobsters too, because they have proven to be hardwired for hierarchical thinking in their DNA. Its the same thing Confucianism preaches: without hierarchy society falls apart. Either way, leaving out this part of Petersons argument is extremely unacademic... I dont fully agree with Peterson’s reasoning, but he is not represented fairly here. Also, I don’t get why all the comments say peterson isn’t an academic. He worked at Harvard for Christ’s sake! He has many publications and citations (already before the whole internet celebrity stuff) and is acquainted with many top psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt. This whole comment section seems like a bunch of salty Marxists who strawman arguments so they can feel good about themselves.
@@tsaoh5572 You are exactly like Peterson. You use concepts like Marxism, Confucianism and Maoism, but what do you really know about them? Ask yourself, seriously, did you really read any of the works on them?
Mark Grissom Yes I did, I followed multiple university courses on the subjects. So after your ad hominems, what is your actual argument? Or did you come here just to smirk? Did you read Adam Smith back to front before joining the criticism of capitalism? Please don’t answer those rhetorical questions and just reply based on the contents of arguments, thank you.
@@tsaoh5572 I don't think I would want to argue with you. Let me put it this way. I am Chinese, born and raised in China. I've spent the past two years in Australia and is looking forward to going back to China once my degree is finished. The reason I asked you if you've read anything on Maoism and Confucianism, is I've had so many meaningless "debates" about these topics with people like you. When you referred to Maoism, you used it almost exclusively to refer to the fact that the famine (1959-61) happened. The historical context was very complicated. Please don't say the Chinese media is full of censorship, so I don't know the full picture. I've read the Western side of the story; I mean reports, analyses and banned memoirs by the Chinese that are published in the West. So, any meaningful debate should be based on facts, where between you and me, I don't know where to start if you equal Maoism with killing and famine. Even serious Western scholars look beyond that. He's written a lot, and those works are collectively known as quasi-Maoism in a Western sense. Then, Confucianism. You referred to hierarchy. What do you really know about Confucianism? Seriously. It is more than the Analects, which I doubt you've studied. On one of the main buildings on my campus where I am doing my degree in Australia, there is a huge board with a mystical saying attributed to Confucius, which in fact is a quote from Tao Te Ching. This is what I am talking about. FACTS. Read my comments again, if you will. You were asking about my arguments. I was very specific that Wolff was very accurate with the historical facts, while Peterson was nothing but "The Chinese government is evil". That was my argument. And that's why I said you were exactly like Peterson, because you don't know the facts and are full of opinions, which are fed by the popular media. I've been reading the American news media every single day for two years now -- totalling about 3000 news articles, CNN, NYT, and all that -- and I am so frustrated that the American media can't seem to get the facts right, or maybe they don't care or maybe it's part of their agenda. FACTS. Now, Marxism. You seem to hate Marxists, but I'm not a Marxist. I studied Marxism in passing when I studied for my degree in Western Philosphy, which gave me a context for Marx's ideas. I feel very sad that the Western perspective has become so parochial that people fail to comprehend and imagine any alternative ways of thinking. It comes back to what I said in my original comment. Peterson and his supporters are all about "We're good. You're bad." If that's his choice of engaging, then what is there to talk about?
@@tsaoh5572 but Peterson's reasoning is more than just flawed. Peterson associates what happened in the Soviet Union as a consequence of enforcing equality which he associates with Marxism. None of this is true. He holds and tried to reiterate in the debate with Zizek that Marx was for equality of outcome which Marx never was. He also has no understanding of the history of socialism, particularly it's interaction with US foreign policy (Nicaragua, Cuba, and so on). The association of the Soviet Union with Marxism is an old trope that the US establishment invested in while it was deporting socialists and arresting them. Stalin's society wasn't one without hierarchy at all as anyone who has read even Animal Farm can tell you. So Peterson makes these bounds and leaps before getting to his analysis about human psyche. He also equivocates a lot with respect to hierarchies. To justify economic hierarchy he points to hierarchies of beauty and implies that it has everything to do with competency. Funnily enough, when he proposed a culture of enforced monogamy he was implying that society should tilt such that the disadvantaged are aided, an opinion he disparages when Marxists use it. His view on women is also quite problematic, especially his characterization of Betty Friedan's seminal text. I don't think he's dumb or a hack like Ben Shapiro. I just think he dabbles in things he has no understanding of and ends up emboldening a very specific group of people which is cis gendered white males.
Thank you for this. Many of us are sickened by Peterson's misreading of Marx and the deliberate conflation of brutal dictators with the ideas in Kapital.
Man, Wolf nailed this critique, just as he always has, just brilliantly said well done. Also, damn Wolff has some big hands, either that or it is just the way the camera is placed. Edit: I must be watching this video for like the 6-th time and every time it is as satisfying as the first.
I think its quite interesting how to the point he is in general. I'm not sure if that's a result of making these kinds of videos for a long time, as well as his career as a teacher. Or his own style?
@@busterbiloxi3833 lmfao why tf do you even watch his videos and take time to reply to comments if you hate him so much. Also I suggest you read a book about what marxism actually is before giving away such names as traitor and nutjob. It's laughable that a person is deemed for you a traitor if he just wants to better the system that we live in in such way as to give every employee a voice in their workplace and an opportunity for them to have equal rights in voting about something in their company as their ceo for example.
I haven't heard JP say anything brilliant. But then again, I don't listen to him much. As I understand the situation tho, it's younger men listening to him. And that demographic isn't doing so because they're dumb. I think they're hungry for more meaning and purpose and Peterson is (falsely) promising that to them.
@@rexnemovi6061 How to link to posts: At the top of the post, where it says '1 month ago' THAT is a link. imply right click it, and select 'copy link address' or similar on your browser.
@@rexnemovi6061 Right, so i'm on my laptop, so i can't really deal with all of that right now. I'll sort it when i get home, but the short version is: everything you said was wrong, and i can prove it in 2-3 hours. basically, you have every anti-socialist talking point known to man, and everyone of them is an outright lie. I don't blame you. If you have never actually reseached it beyond browsing a couple of news channels, it all seems very cut and dried. But, sorry to sound all conspiracy theorist here, but the people with the money, have a vested interest in everyone staying ignorant of socialism. Here, make a start on Venezuela: www.veteranstoday.com/2019/05/03/an-ocean-of-lies-on-venezuela-abby-martin-un-rapporteur-expose-coup/ ruclips.net/video/_fV-C1Ag5sI/видео.html
I can't judge Prof. Wolff's character since I never met him, and I don't know much about Marxism, but anyone who points out that Jordan Peterson is intellectually full of shit IS RIGHT!! Misrepresenting stuff is what he does all the time.
The poor do envy the rich. They envy the fact that rich people can own homes and don't have to worry about food budgets. In my view, those are pretty valid things to be envious of.
But he understands human psychology and behavior like only a few people on this planet. As far as I can tell, he looks at marxists ideas and came to the conclusion that it wont work (which the past also has shown) from a psychological perspective. Maybe I am wrong on how I interpret this but thats what I see…
The system of Capitalism is what ensures that there is widespread material deprivation under any system in which "80% of the work is done by 20% of the people." Our social hierarchies and class system are what determines who is allowed to do the jobs that actually pay one enough to survive. Even in our society it isn't like the working class aren't doing work anyway, they just aren't receiving fair compensation for their work because private ownership of the means of production and a disempowered labor force means that the Capitalists get to pay the lowest wage possible. The people who get paid really well are the people who sit at a desk, on a board, etc... and decide where the work gets done and what work should be done. Under socialism the Pareto distribution would just mean that the work gets done by the people who are capable and available while everyone else is a)being trained to be capable to do work b)enjoying their lives so that they can be mentally and physically available to do good work and c)enjoying their lives so that their lives can be worth living.
Man Is Not his Own Master-- Pareto distribution is not a law of economics that describes how things must be, it describes how things are in many situations. The reason that it is this way is capitalism. Capitalism is not the only economic choice and we can do better.
@@TheRedWabbit It is a law, it's why everyone can't be Micheal Jordan and why every business can't be Microsoft. Read the great leveler, there isn't a political system that has ever been able to do anything about inequality. It isn't Capitalism.
@@KieranThinks I have seen some valid attacks and I personally respect him almost exclusively in the domain of psychology. But that makes this video no less disappointing 😅
Well done sir, you bring clarity to the issue every time. That includes this response to Jordan Peterson. I love listening to your various RUclips videos, for the clarity in explanation. You have become one of my favourite people to listen to in the public space of intellectual thought and ideas. In short, I am a real fan. Thank you.
David Padilla Luckily for us whom are willing to criticise the current system and adapt, reform or overhaul it to be more functional. Their economic ideology is outdated and close to obsolete.
@@NateB Marxism is a scientific method lol, it can be applied to any epoch. I wouldn’t exactly go around saying “Evolution is stuck in the 19th Century”, saying that about Marxism has the same energy
His analysis of problems is great. He offers absolutely no solutions though. It's exactly like the communist manifesto. It just says "we won't do what the other guys are doing." I've clicked on a few of Richards videos, hoping to actually see on a practical level what Socialism might look like, but just like every single other thing on Socialism I've ever seen, there are zero practical specifics. In another video, he explains the failures of Russian communism by saying the workplace still had the same hierarchical structure. He's correct, but he just said that properly done Socialism won't do that. Great, but how? What would it actually look like? The reason I do not respect socialists is because all they do is complain, but never offer actual literal real practical alternatives. They just offer platitudes in an arrogant way.
I've always considered myself to be a pretty vehement anti-socialist but I do have a decent amount of respect for Mr.Wolff as an intellectual. I've decided to subscribe, I'd love to have a conversation with him sometime.
This is great stuff. This is the second video of Mr Wolff that I've seen and I'm impressed. I agree that people like Peterson have never studied what Marx wrote or have any understanding of what Marxism is. I'm no Marxist myself although I studied Marx's works quite extensively at university. Peterson, who has interesting things to say about things like personal development is completely lost when he moves outside of his own field. Calling everybody who wants a more egalitarian society a marxist is lazy and dishonest....as you so eloquently point out.......
applied Marxist policies result in equality of misery and death and starvation of millions of people, which is great if one wants mass depopulation. A tenet of progressive eugenicists who promote abortion and transsexual lifestyles. Paglia and others correctly ID androgynous attitudes in art and society as a sign of collapsing civilization. For more on civilizational evolution see Carrol Quigley's work.
Yeah Wolff is great at breaking down the concept to be introduced to less familiar societies, though some of the more orthodox Marxists I've followed seem to feel he's a little too softball. Though, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But that's not what Peterson espouses. He uses historical examples to show how collectivist systems fail every time. Each failure is more catastrophic than the last with each new collectivist leader declaring that they will be the ones to: "do it right this time." What Peterson proposes is we have enough evidence to declare collectivism a failure. Further, systems that acknowledged the value and power of the individual have flourished. Peterson simply acknowledges this and warns against the impending failure that is neocollectivism.
@Snappingturtle 267 Why do you say that? Are you calling me a gross liberal? If so, what do you mean by that? When I say the comments sound like cult members I mean it literally. In other words, many of the comments sound like people mesmerized in an almost religious way.
I'm an employee. I can also become an employer if I wanted to, but I didn't want the risk and hard work that comes with running my own businesses. I'm also a shareholder of various companies through index funds which I bought with the wealth created by working for an employer.
Thank you! I have listened probably hundreds of hours of Petersons lectures and he is little bit like dad figure to me. But it’s nice to find some valid critic about his arguments. I would love to see you debate with Jordan Peterson!
@@lordfarquaad6189 Would you prefer to stand in a breadline knowing that you'll at least be guaranteed bread at the end of it, or sit outside the local supermarket hoping that passer-bys give you money for your own instead of spitting on you for the 1000th time?
@@PsilentMusicUK its funny how you can just get up from your seat and walk to the super market and eat fruit from mexico, central asia, cheese from Canada and beef from the US... Venezuelans and Cambodians would trade places with you any day... and nothing is stopping you by the way... moving to breadline countries
Yes--BUT, Dr. Peterson presents his arguments as if he were sitting on a cactus which stokes my sense of urgency to maintain the deteriorating status quo. That's one point for Slytherin!
When did Dr. Peterson ever argue for the status quo? Arguing against Marxism isn't arguing for the status quo, it's arguing against a predictably horrible change. There are other changes.
@@jetblack8250 That isn't arguing for the status quo. If you propose Islamic Theocracy as a social system it's not "arguing for the status quo" to show it's a bad idea.
@@jetblack8250 the so called Marxists should offer clear alternatives, but they fail every time. Even the most radical capitalists admit that some changes can be made (inter alia, see J. Tomasi, Princeton). However, this doesn't mean that choosing the worst and most radical change would be a wise move. Wolff is mocking Peterson, but is failing in putting forward decent arguments against capitalism.
Karl Marx had very good critiques of capitalism; however his approach to replace capitalism is what Stalin took into account. The danger of Marxism is the violent take over of private means of production. Peterson never said criticism of capitalism was the problem with Marxism. In this video all Richard talked about was how Peterson fails to acknowledge Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Peterson acknowledges and has said several times that capitalism is an imperfect system... so what was the point of this video exactly?
Professor Wolff has good arguments that Marxist Economic Theory is an essential element to fixing the flaws of capitalism. It is a mistake to talk about "Marxism" as a dual to capitalism, the point Richard Wolff has devoted his life to is to help correct the mistakes created by the half century long Cold War taboo on discussing Marxist Economic Theory. These mistakes are very apparent in the misunderstandings of the potential for synthesis of (economic) leftist ideas into the realm of mainstream economic education.
I'm trying to watch more videos by Dr. Wolff to see if he makes any points about Marxism that are reasonable or hear him affirm how Marxist society would actually function. I really want him to convince me that Marxism is a good thing but unfortunately I'm not there yet. Liberty, equality and fraternity. Ok, let's agree those are three things are indeed desirable and capitalism doesn't provide any one of them (or does so poorly or maybe provides some and not others). How does Marxism provide any of those things? Capitalism allows the liberty of the working class to freely enter into contractual relationships with employers. If they perform, are creative and add value then they're promoted and maybe even entitled to partial ownership in the company (eg shares). If they're not satisfied then they're free to find another job where they can attempt to get paid what they're worth. If they want more rights to profits then they're free to risk their income by investing into that company, another company or use their creativity to take some other risks and start their own company like those capitalist entrepreneurs did in the first place, thereby providing the goods, services and jobs that people so desperately want. We're all equal in the eyes of God (should she exist) and the law. Equality beyond that is subjective. I get that many of us are dealt a bad hand but why should a "poor "American who has spent years trying to improve their station in life accept equal outcomes with his neighbor who is happy where they are and had all of the same opportunities? Why should someone who worked their way through college and faced the challenges of becoming a doctor or risked everything to start a company be told that they should be equal as someone who for instance, recently became a citizen? If we are entitled to the same profits from the state controlled businesses, then what motivation is there to study hard, become an engineer, create a new product/company, write a book, create art, etc? Who chooses who gets the manual labor jobs and who gets the intellectual jobs? I'd say capitalism produces fraternity by first giving people liberty and equality and the freedom to make something for themselves, and do so in a country or system where they can rise or fall based on their decisions and merit. But if hatred and resentment exist then of course fraternity can't exist either. Rather than feel entitled to something that you took no risk in producing, take responsibility for what you do with the opportunities presented to you via liberty and equality. For instance, I don't need a big house or a boat or take ski vacations every year. Maybe my neighbor feels that he does. Should I resent him for that? And does Marxism prescribe that we should all be entitled to his standard of living or should he be forced to accept mine? How is that decided? Envy should motivate you to work harder, not push you to seek equal outcomes. Also, under Marxism, who's in charge? Do they eat better? Wear warmer clothes? Live in more desirable houses in more desirable parts of the country? What about competition? Is the state expected to compete against itself? Who's responsible for being creative and creating the things people actually want to buy? Does someone just conceive the need for an iPhone and RUclips out of thin air, choose a team of people to make it happen and then force the population to use it? Are there actually economists out there who contest that we'd have what we have now in terms of technology and medicine without capitalism, competition and the innovation it produces? What does Marxism say about immigration and open borders when the state entitles everyone to the same thing? I have a feeling a lot of Democrats would probably call Marxist policies "racist". Or perhaps its a non-issue because who would want to immigrate to a Marxist society? Or maybe I'm not understanding the concept of Marxism at all. Is the reason I'm unable to change my mind and see the genius and possibilities under Marxism because I first need to change my entire world view and imagine a utopia where capitalism never existed? Where the wealth of everyone in the nation has increased and decreased as the nation did itself. After all, the wealth of a nation is vast and enough to spread around evenly. But assuming Marxism doesn't prescribe what one does with their money (ie certainly Marxism doesn't say that we'll be rationed the same food, wear the same clothes, live in the same sized houses), then what happens when people make decisions to spend their money on drugs? Gambling? To not pay attention during their free college courses? To use their money to buy a boat instead of a reliable car to get them to work on time? Is the state expected to forgive them and care for them when it's the individual's negligence that resulted in them being poor and infirm? It seems paradoxical unless a Marxist society is willing to forfeit their liberties and be forced to abstain from anything deemed a "vice". But please, help me understand how Marxism provides liberty, equality, and fraternity, or what Marxism provides at all. Thus far I've only read sarcastic comments, excuses that most are too dense to comprehend how Marxism works, or claims akin to "you have to accept it and implement it first to see how it all make sense".
Imo the whole problem in a debate like this is, that people either argue for one thing or the other. Capitalism isnt per se bad, but as every system it has to evolve and change by what the society needs, IF , and that is an" if" that -in this context - often leads to pro-capitalists/neo-liberalists discrediting people saying so with the accusation of being a "conspiracy guy", serving the common good (akka ALL of society) is actually the goal of our current system. So there are some approaches, that try to take ideas here and there and make something new that works in better way. one example that yet has to prove wether it works or not is the #postgrowtheconomy amnother, that has been put to practicse and works farely well, is the #commongoodeconomy
@@nat-moody that was Marx whole point more or less^^ But most people think and act dogmatic (and thats on both "sides" of the political spectrum) But at a certain point one should realize it's not going to happen that way and so why not try the "little step" approach. the Common good economy (btw Chomsky has a similar view on what qualifies as a "good" economy) is absolutely brilliant and solves quite a few problems we struggle with atm.
@@Sporting1210 I know :D (das kapital is really the foundational text). I was just trying to make this point clearer since it's often overlooked, as Marxism gets equated with stalinism or some other, impetuous caricature which conveniently suits the interlocutor's ideals
James Anthony He’s definitely out of his element on issues within the social sciences. Wolff even said he wouldn’t claim to have expertise in Peterson’s field (psychology), but then Peterson poses as an academic in Wolff’s field without even having a solid understanding of Marx’s work. Peterson’s ideas on social issues & economic systems do not hold up against any academic scrutiny.
@@brettb7242 Yes, JP should stick to his area of specialty, this being, clinical psychology. He's embarrassed himself, particularly his discussion/debate with Matt Dillahunty in 2018.
Extremely succinct Mr. Wolff. As much as I have tried to listen to Mr. Peterson because of recommendation, I just can't quite bring myself to endure him any longer.
I’m humored yet frustrated by the majority of Americans that intuitively recognize the problems with our economic system while also denouncing Marx when they generally agree with his assessment My co-worker ranted about technology destroying jobs and asked “what will we do when everything is automated and there are not enough jobs...” I pointed out he kinda summed up the conclusion of what Marx gave when he critiques the capitalist system and his reply was repulsion towards the suggestion He was literally laying out the basic idea from Marx but then couldn’t accept he agrees simply because he has a negative and false view of what Marx represents “But you can’t have private ownership of property under socialism...” I tried to calm his fears and told him he could still own a toothbrush that he could use after eating a mud pie! 🤔😉
What Marx's ideas "represent" is very documented an easy to see. 100% outcome of misery and genocide. What YOU want it to represent is whatever makes you feel good and moral. By now you have to be very willfully stupid to deny what Marx represents. I know people that have made that choice, and despite living the misery socialist brought them, they still pretend that it was/is a good thing. So I wouldn't be surprised that you'd be happy owning that toothbrush and nothing else.
That's because Americans are subjected to a *powerful* cradle-to-grave propaganda apparatus that maps all the problems associated with capitalism to "socialism" and "communism." You'll hear Americans whine about the hideous destructive capacity of capitalism having wrecked their lives and then immediately turn around and blame "the commie left" for it. The most ill-informed & heavily propagandized population on Earth.
I used to enjoy listening to Jordan peterson pontificate on all sorts of subjects, but when he became an aplologist for Elon Musk i thought hold on WTF? And that did it for me. Thank you professor Wolff.
Peterson realizes the dangers of capitalism, he's mentioned it numerous times - but his argument is, that it's still better than marxism/communism. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on any of these ideas because I'm just now trying to understand it all, but so far I'd have to agree with Peterson.
If only we could make Wolf our dear leader, surely he would know how to organize society better than the American framework of liberty, justice and its economic corollary, capitalism. Surely this time, it will be real socialism/communism finally bringing heaven on earth. Just give him and/or the ideas that have him the power to dictate over resources and your very lives. What could possibly go wrong? His intention are obviously benevolent and the ideas that have him are also intend benevolent development. Let’s build this tower high since it’s intentions are good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍 My college professor berated me for agreeing with Marxism. Corporate greed and now in America corporation's are people too. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mitt Romney played a huge part in that happening.
Inequality has very little to do with capitalism OR marxism. Inequality stems from the fact that people are born with massive inequality - inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, etc. Why are people suprised when all that innate inequality leads to inequality of income (production) and inequality of wealth?
So who is going to be better off? A person whose parent buys them a house at 20 or a person who has to save and pay off a mortgage for 30 years. On average? If we lived in meritocracy then why do these situations exist?
4:00 Can someone explain to me why it's "immoral" for the employer to increase his wealth while he is the one risking his capital to begin with? If I invest $1,000,000 and within 3 years my business goes bankrupt and I've been paying my employees the whole time am I owed anything from them? Why should the reverse be true? ( In that I owe them more money because the business is profitable, whilst not putting up any initial capital and having zero risk.)
As a member of the class that holds the capital, you are not being exploited if you lose said capital through actions of your own doing. But as the class that can only supply labor as a method of earning wealth, it is very easy for the labor of the working class to be exploited.
@@DynamicAero Are you saying there are groups of people that are unable to do anything besides supply labour? Is it my own doing if an employee of mine sabotages my company and I lose all of my money I invested into the company which in previous years I used my "labour" to accumulate? "You are not being exploited if you lose said capital through actions of your own doing." So why should I be penalised for creating a profitable company when I've taken on the risk and came up with the idea and put in the initial tough work? Are we assuming that a failing company is all the investors fault and the success of a company is all the employees fault? I understand it is easier to exploit labour if you are dealing with low skilled workers. In other skilled occupations though many people are capable of starting their own business if they are willing to take on the risk.
@@thetruthhurtsthetruthhurts5046 Do you not have any legal recourse if someone sabotages your company? If they steal your money, or intentionally lie to business partners, you can sue them. So sue them. What do you mean why should you be penalised? Do you want the government to pay you back for your lost product if your company fails? What kind of bullshit is that? I dropped my ice cream the other day because I tripped over my untied shoelaces. Why am I being penalised, huh? "Are we assuming that a failing company is all the investors fault and the success of a company is all the employees fault?" Are you serious? If a company fails the employees get fucked too, and if a company succeeds the investors profit. Are you unaware of how businesses work? Are you not aware that skilled employees might still be unable to start companies due to insurmountable risk at the time? Is this not something that you think is worrisome, or do you think that just because someone is skilled they can't possibly ever have problems in life?
It seems that this is more an opening thesis statement then a full rebuttable. Subtract the digs at Petterson's intelligence, it would be good to hear out a debate between these two on the subject of equality as Carl Marx wanted it. Along with a conversation about the post Marxist era and what direction the Post Modernist are wanting to go as to not repeat the mistakes of failed Marxist states. I see some questions of this Thesis Statement could be addressed, such as the following: Why is there still inequality even among heavily socialist states as well as there was in past ones? If Marxism is alive in every country to some degree, then why is inequality still such a major issue? To what degree can inequality be mitigated so that critics are satisfied?
No point in debating this man. like many, he misquotes Jordan Peterson to make his point. But on the point of capitalism: WORKERS do NOT create the SURPLUS. It is like saying that a knife creates my breakfast. The surplus was created by those who designed the entire business model that enabled workers to work. Their surplus is getting more than nothing.
Reducing the bad aspects of marxism to "what happened in Russia over 15 or 20 years under Stalin" severely weakens your argument. You know full well that tyranny didn't stop after Stalin, and that most other governments who founded their ruling philosophy on Marx were just as bad or even worse. That, and the fact that Peterson doesn't accuse the poor of envy, but cites Orwell accusing the upper middle class, are two points in your short reply video that will keep any Peterson devotee from taking you seriously. I appreciate the effort to confront Peterson, who I deem somewhat sketchy, too, but this is a bit superficial and faulty. Nevertheless, nice video!
It is never addressed because socialists are generally from the comfortable middle class that are envious of people wealthier and more socially powerful than them. Rather than confront that envy, they engage in projection. It's truly pathetic.
The problem I have when talking about this with people is that they're kind of amoral; they revel in the idea of being above in the hierarchy even though all they've done to be in that place is be born in their circumstances and accept the opportunities that rolled in (illusion of meritocracy). Even when discussing it with people lower in the hierarchy, they've been subjected to think that their craft is less-valuable and undeserving of just treatment and pay. The literal translation of the conversation would be: "Oh so you want the Doctor who spent years learning medicine to make as much as a Garbageman? Equality is a myth!" I think Peterson's believes that inequality is natural and therefore just (the lobster argument). Do I lack a proper understanding to explain this to people?
Peterson doesn't really think the dominance hierarchy is good, I think there are some lectures out there where he explicitly says otherwise too. Peterson instead accepts that a dominance hierarchy does exist as a result of just us being biological organisms - we aren't all the same in our strengths and weaknesses, we keep track of how everyone else is doing in relation to us, and overall it's just something built in for us to use and run with at our unconscious level. There are people out there who are hyper competitive, hyper social, and hyper industrious, etc. Peterson instead says "well those people aren't very balanced, they sacrifice everything - family, health, etc, to be insanely and almost unfairly good at something to the exclusion of everything else, and they pay dearly for it, but you can't just remove those people, so how then do we make it fair for everyone? Equality of outcome isn't a tenable position, and equality of start has complications, but it's not a straight forward solution. Instead we should focus as best as we can on improving every little part of someones life and that will usually orient them in a way to be successful over their whole life"
Jordan Peterson is a political pornographer. He represents and proffers a ridiculous utopian ideology. But as a pornographer, he doesn't have enough content to respond to. He is, however, worth discussing as an example of how good propaganda works.
I always thought Peterson talked too much so I didn't like him. After this video, I feel justified in my reaction, I just can't explain it as well. Thank you.
Never felt that he was talking for others or myself, just for himself. Jordan Peterson IS capitalist. Doctors are part of self entitled white-collar overpaid luxury jet-yacht culture.
Every single time a Socialist debates with a Capitalist, the strongest argument from Capitalist side would be the number if deaths caused by socialist regimes in the past. Prof. Wolff clearly and honestly refutes this death count analysis by mentioning the deaths caused in Colonies of Britain, France and Germany during colonialism. Forget all the countries. Even if a Socialist accepts that Socialism caused death, that death toll would still be notiing but a shame, in comparison with the death tolls in British India alone. British India alone had deaths that is hundred times more than Socialism ever did. The success story of Britain capitalism was founded on the deaths of hundreds of millions of Indian farmers and serfs.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The professor has big 'mafia sit down' energy here
I fucking laughed my ass off at this XD
No he doesn’t don’t compare him to something great
Big mafia hands also
@Jaskaran Singh something a Marxist would say lol
Heess from Noo Yawk.
Since this video, Peterson has also backed out of a debate with Wolff. LOL. Guess Peterson needed a safe space.
@Snipview yea unlike Jordan Peterson, most serious scholars tend to be busy teaching and researching instead of curating their RUclips channel.
Professor Wolff is one of the most prominent and respected Marxist academics alive today, shouldn't he be the kind of person Jordan Peterson would wanna debate with to prove his point about Marxism??
@Snipview You are wrong, not just america, but the whole world.
@Snipview Yeah i understand your point. Anyways, you would be surprised how ignorant people can be in other countries, especially in Latin America.
@@osvaldoprado9906 Latin America has had military juntas and far right presidents/dictatorships ever since the Cold War. Only like 2 have had socialist governments.
@@DinoDino118 Terribly wrong.
You also forgot to mention that most "right-wing dictatorships" actually fought terrorists. In Chile with Pinochet, the country has achieved the best economy and quality of life in its entire history. In Argentina, the Videla dictatorship was the best known, but again they fought terrorists like the Montoneros, who even killed innocent children. The worst dictatorship in Argentina was the one that is not recognized as one, and it is that of Perón who even killed other Peronists.
Now all the countries of South America have socialist presidents with the exception of Brazil (Bolsonaro) and Uruguay (Lacalle Pou).
Venezuela and Cuba have suffered the worst of communism for years and still do.
It is clear that you do not know anything about Latin America.
You are too kind to spend 5 minutes of your time explaining things to someone whose only clear intention is to sabotage any rational critique of the status quo.
@Bosko Da Chief You have written so much, just for it to be incorrect.
The idea that Marx, an ethnic jew, is a source of inspiration of the Nazi's is absurd. You mention the JQ but it is clear you have not read the book itself. The purpose of the JQ was in response to an antisemitic text by Brauer who argued Jews should not have full emancipation in Germany until they renounce their religion as political emancipation requires a secular state which Bauer believed did not leave room for social identities such as religion. Marx argued against this in the JQ, using Bauer's stereotype as satire, saying that religions will always prevail in a secular state and arguing that jews should be given full political emancipation regardless if they are practicing and religious.
You also fail to admit the extreme anti marxist sentiment that Hitler and the Nazi's had, i cannot tell if this is purposeful or if you are just an idiot. This is shown through his actions, such as banning the KPD, the communist party, and sending Marxists to concentration camps. Not to mention his mass privatisation of the economy after the SPD, the social democratic party. We can also see his opposition to Marxism through his speeches such as:
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
His perspective of socialism is entirely different to Marx and any other socialists in the 19th century. He also believed Marxism to be a jewish plot, spreading a conspiracy of cultural bolshevism or cultural marxism in which Jews spreading progressive ideals were trying to usher in communism.
You also completely misunderstand what the 'opiate of masses' means. Marx, as an ardent materialism, believes religion arises out of material need for comfort. Under all, current and past, modes of production there is mass misery created, these causes them to seek religion for this comfort. He believes that religion will erode in socialism and communism as these material conditions for religion disappear.
The pseudo intellectual you have mention obviously has not read Marx. Marx adamantly opposed any kind of worshipping of people. He rejected the notion of great man theory, believing people emerged out of material conditions and those conditions shape them. He admitted that, 1. Other people could come to his ideas without necessarily reading Marx or related texts and 2. If he did not write these texts someone else would due to the material conditions he lived in.
You're idea that Marx places anything in moralism is so incorrect it is actually upsetting that someone would think that. In fact it was quoted that Marx would laugh whenever someone mentioned moralism.
Furthermore claiming Marx was not rational is just incorrect. Marx's work was combining Hegel's dialectics and logic to the utopian socialists before him, creating what he called 'scientific socialism'. Marx places Hegel's works within a completely material outlook and rejected any form of idealism.
You're proposition that Marx was not focused on the individual and was a collectivist is a child's understanding of Marx. You avoid substatiniting the point of Marx taking the perspective was one of 'all for one and one for all' because, obviously, it was never one of Marx's perspectives. Marx's class theory was based on the INDIVIDUAL'S relation to the means of production. Not to mention Marx's theory of alienation, probably one of his most famous ideas, attacks Capitalism for how it alienates a worker from his individual. By performing labour that is not for himself but for owners of the means of production the worker becomes stripped of his own agency and instead his goals are directed to him by the bourgeoisie. Socialism seeks to be the emancipation of the individual.
You should actually try to read Marx before you write such a long but incorrect comment. This is the problem with Peterson as well, he admits to only have read the manifesto which Marx wrote on a train for workers. In fact in a 1872 preface he says the manifesto is more of a historical document then an actual representation of his theories.
@Bosko Da Chief It appears that the languages you read Marx in are languages you do not understand.
Keep on espousing claims which you make no aim to substantiate.
Pout more.
Y E S ! !
After JP got his own ass served up to him by Matt Dillahunty I’m doubtful he’ll go out on such a limb again.
Prof. Wolff is at the first place great humanist. Also he is one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time. Thank you prof. Wolff for opening of the eyes to so many people around the world.
I would be very interested to see a live debate involving both Wolff and Peterson
Peterson would never agree to it.
Peterson has literally covered all of this already. Marxism has never been implemented successfully, despite being an alluring social theory it is just a theory. Whenever tried, millions die. And it's always just this sort of person who advocates it, an intellectual in the sense that they put their intellect before reality and thus think they can do better implementing the theory than Russia or China or anyone else that's tried. Yet they have never successfully implemented even the most mundane social policy on even a local level.
I think he should start local, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Try and help some people. Or is that rather than compassion for the poor, he really just hates the rich?
@@MegaAlexPink And yet, you can apply that EXACT same logic to capitalism. L
@@spencerjames9417 Capitalism has never been been implemented successfully? Name a more successful society in the world.
OF course, JP claims (quite proud about it, too) that's HE's an "intellectual." So we'd want to apply the same test to him, right?
JP is just terrified of Wolff's gigantic hands
I didn’t notice it at first, now I can’t ignore it lol
Lmfao I like the idea of JP being like Charlie's uncle from Always Sunny
PETERSON would like a tree limb exiting a chipping machine after Prof Wolff had a ''conversation'' with him. Nothing left but small thin slivers of his former self would be left.
or BALLS!
Yeah. They were gonna armwrestle in case of a draw. That's why.
Jordan “Marxists won’t debate me” Peterson
This was not a debate. This was an aimless rant.
This guy is calling him out, not debating him lel
He did challenge him to a debate
@@MrBoazhorribilis Here! Here!
@@MrBoazhorribilis he called him out. Jordan Peterson is simply a coward who claims Marxists won't debate him when it is he who refuses. Probably because he would be exposed for knowing next to nothing about Marxism and would be called out on all the bs he spews like cultural Marxism and calling Marxists post-modernists. Only Marxists he will address are dumbass college kids, but an actual Marxist intellectual who has been an economics professor and gone to Harvard, Yale and Standford? He doesn't have the balls.
Jordan Peterson: No Marxist dares debate me!
Richard: You found one!
Peterson: Oh shit, a Wolff, run!
Peterson- thank gaud its Gone.
God I love capitalism.
Sees charging bull.
Oh shit not again
Ah, Marxism that disastrously
unsuccessful/untried (delete
as you choose) system.
Is he still saying that after Zizek handed his ass on a plate on that debate they had?
Do you have evidence that Richard contacted Jordan and Jordan said no? A random guy making a random proclamation on a random RUclips video is not evidence that Jordan won't debate someone.
100%. Peterson knows his market and keeps feeding what they want to hear.
Exploiting stupid people. No wonder he loves Capitalism!
@@dxcSOUL no wonder he's a psychologist, to manipulate efficiently.
@@ericlefeld8059 That's exactly it. I don't know if it's so much that Peterson's audience is stupid - some are, most are not. But even smart people can fall for the words of a conman if that conman has been trained well enough. And Peterson is fairly well trained.
Of course, that isn't to say that psychologists are all con-artists but some certainly are and I would say Peterson, whether intentionally or not, borrows extensively from their playbook.
"appealing to your market" is a useless truism that can be applied to any position even Marxism.
@Snipview I'm sorry to have to point out the obvious to you but socialism exists along a spectrum of ideas from social democracy on the right to state planned on the left. One of the biggest issues socialists have is getting all these variants to agree on a common course of action which may lead to power struggles and authoritarianism of they can't be resolved.
But know this. Critics of these various attempts at going beyond capitalism fail to acknowledge two things; their considerable accomplishments and the pressure of capitalist interventionism.
The CIA has been the key agitator in destabilising leftist governments around the world and not just in Latin America where it has trained death squads and orchestrated too many coups to mention individually. The latest one being Lula in Brazil.
Also, the figure that you and every other capitalist propaganda monkey claims that communism killed is taken from a book that was literally compiled and edited by a neo-Nazi. I find it laughable that anyone would describe the 1959-61 famine in China as a direct consequence of Marxism. By that reasoning I can say, without blinking, that Smith killed as many if not more with his support of colonialism.
In fact, every capitalist economist has supported colonialism to one extent or another. Hell, the capitalist system kicked off with enclosure and God knows how many millions were killed being kicked off the land then.
When you look at the frequency of famine under both the Romanovs in Russia and the Qing rulers in China and compare them to Mao and the Bolsheviks, both of which had their problems, one thing stands out.
After the initial disruption, there were no more famines in Russia or China. Not one.
How do you square that circle? Without falling back into your propaganda monkey nonsense, if at all possible
Thank you, Professor Wolff!
How my fellow Canadian JP can be taken seriously is beyond comprehension.
For the record, Peterson runs from this man.
Jordan Peterson will mop the floor with this guy 😂
Israel Vega then why did he back out of a debate with him?
@@joshs1282marxists would say that he's too scared to debate him,on the other hand he debated slavoj zizek.if you're interested in his response to richard wolff here's the video."consider this to be a response from richard wolff"on richard wolff vs dr.jp's comment section video. ruclips.net/video/XJwEBizQgYI/видео.html
@@israelvega5666 Really? Because Zizek destroyed him.
@@bigbrother6548 Žižek didn't really destroy him, he merely showed that Peterson doesn't know shit about fields that are out of his expertise
Please notice how Wolff, who himself is a great intellectual, is able to speak clearly and simply. Does Wolff ever try to sound intellectual. NO! He explains things clearly. For some reason, Peterson need to speak in complex run-on sentences and never answers anything clearly. Thank you Prof. Wolff for this presentation.
What the Donald would do for those hands... I dare not think
You realize that the effect above is due to camera placement, right?
@@fun_ghoul Indeed. They look twice as big as my head lol. Illusion granted, I would wager they are above average. Happy I could clarify on this pressing issue
Traditional European why are u so upset? Calm down.
@@fun_ghoul = troll
@Traditional European fucking lol
It's absolutely laughable that people take the word of a psychologist over an established economist with ample evidence to back his claims
@Neal Murfitt don't buy that
Mmmm yes sure this guy knows more than all the economists of USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and North Korea. If only he was in charge of these economies, he would have brought the Socialist utopia. Stop insulting the intelligence of the smart people in all these countries, it was tried, it failed. Moving on.
To expand upon my point, capitalism is one of the only systems that facilitates the access to capital to those who have the highest competence. It is not a guaranteed but it maximizes it compared to socialism. In socialism, access to capital is decided by a tyrant (who is not all-knowing) or idealistically, a Democratic majority (which usually is ignorant, how the masses tend to be). Competence follows the Pareto distribution, so logically, we want our resources to be at the hands of those more competent, and therefore there should always be inequality in the most productive societies. Socialism sacrifices productivity for equality, but this has not increased happiness for a variety of reasons, and it probably won't. At least, there is little evidence for it.
Everyrhing thing every concept is an Idea first which is expressed later in words or image means in a language, then it takes ideological form with time..economics, politics , Art, or anything man had created COMES from an Idea , and here comes the psychology and psychoanalyst, In understanding the human mind , the process that LED to a such thought in first , In decryption the smallest human Act in a totaly, in accessing to a deep understanding of that process comes with it a deep understanding of human behavior, the depths of the human mind , that's what is the most fascinating about psychology, at least for me.
Why do you trust an economist that isnt worth a huge fortune? Wouldnt any economist that actually knew how economies work be able to use that knowledge to create vast sums of wealth for themselves?
Lol judging from the 4k dislikes, the peterson fan boys found this video 🤣
You mean his incel fans?
the incels crawling out of the woodworks
Well, incels are like lobsters....
@@WiloPolis03 LOL, funniest thing I've seen all day.
@@maywill1 Thx man, good to see a Will sticking up for another fellow Will
Proffesor Wolff has really opened my eyes to some bad shit going on in the world
Same here
he's a lier, so I would be careful what you listen to. He tells half-truths and lies to push his narrative. He has to be a professor because he would never survive in the business world.
@@robertprice9052 lol ok troll 😆👌
@@robertprice9052 what lies has he told? Not attacking you, genuinely curious
@@camdavis9362 He's an open Marxist. He mischaracterizes Marxism and the free marker to push his narrative. He wants more Marxists, so he continually links unrelated information to fool these idiots who follow him. In his video he says that the workers didn't want to share the riches wealth, which exactly the opposite of what Marx said. He ignores how many millions Marxism killed, and how many free market has lifted out of poverty. He and that idiot Robert Reich are on a campaign to turn people away from free market. The blame the mega rich for all the workers problems. They are nuts.
Yo why are his hands so big wtf I'm getting anxiety
Because he is the opposite of Trump in every way
I think it’s the angle
True soviet coalworkers shovels, comrade
Deep breaths--for about 15 minutes--deep in, deep out, repeat...the anxiety will pass, you'll feel a sensation resembling calm, approaching but not reaching serenity, your neck and face muscles will, not relax, but will feel "different" a kind of pleasant feeling...as for the why...big handed people...I don't really know.
How is your conquest of bread?
Thank you sir for setting an example of how the human brain should be operated! I wish the world were populated with more sober minded individuals like yourself!
Thank Mr Wolff, I love watching you on RUclips and reading your books. You're a champion of the left, keep educating the masses.
@SnipviewYou are so ignorant of history and how the world works, read Chomsky and Wolff, educate yourself, what you describe has no resemblance to reality.
@Snipview 😂😂😂
What an idiot
J. Peterson has only one tool in his tool box: Psychology, with that he pretends to understand and explain everything on earth.
When all you have is a hammer, all problem look like nails.
Did u hear Oetersons insane take on Marduk
@@antediluvianatheist5262
It still beats having no tools.
Occupationally I prefer to have fire and an anvil as well, especially when the problem is a lack of nails.
@@dewaynestafford5507 No?
Economics, on the other hand, has nothing to say about human nature. This is true for economists both on the right and the left and human beings become objects in the mind of the utilitarian. So, I think a knowledge of psychology (personality traits, more specifically) with a good dose of philosophy is still the only thing that can lead to any moral system (however the system may be organized).
Marx made me question my capitalist culture like Pink Floyd made me question the institutions of my domestication. Neither provided much in the way of answers, but they opened my eyes to the problems.
I feel something similar; I think that Marx' and especially Lenin's analysis of Capitalism and its far-reaching consequences are spot on both for their respective times and our current times, however, I don't agree with all of the solutions they propose
@@ufkun20 better solutions were proposed by Proudhon and Kropotkin
@@r.t.5767 Spotted the AnCom
@@ufkun20 yes! :D
Savunamadim
Criticism to Peterson
1. Not judging marxism considering only the terrible Stalin period in Soviet Union. Analogy with atrocities by Christians.
2. Reducing marxism to the problem of inequality. And reducing the problem of inequality to the envy of the poor for the success of the rich.
Wolffs' analysis:
Inequality has been discussed for a thousand details.
In fact, capitalism emerged during the American and French revolution, claiming to bring liberty, equity and fraternity.
Where is the equity promised?
Marxism finds an explanation:
The master retains the wealth that the creativity of the employees produces, while the mass of the working class is excluded from the surplus. Employers and employees, masters and slaves.
And where do you stand, Joan? In reply to #1, What is Wolff's answer as to where we ought to look? He has none.
But in western society, doesn't everyone have the opportunity to be the employer?
@M A those are the issues with in this system that need to be fixed. Those are the convos we should be having. Not ones about doing away with system, but how to fix this one. I will say I dont think adopting some socialistic aspects in it is a bad thing. There are some already in the system already has some and it is helping the people in the system. A balance is needed. As long as the left can keep bringing in things that make sense then I'm in. But the left needs to also see the importance of the rights ideology as well. Just me though.
@@buddysilver5788 lol. :-D
first marxists state was a slavs state - Russia. It doesnt make any sence how Marx called black ppl. His learning is about economy not about races and nations. Actualy a negro is a historical term. And in many languages it means what it means - black human race.
And yet, many on the right see Peterson as a towering intellectual who crushes academics. So ridiculous.
The best they have to offer is Peterson, Shapiro and the Fox news circus.
@Snappingturtle 267 Speaking as more of a progressive lefty than a liberal one I can tell you I find commonly held beliefs on the right - which I would not call sense - uninformed and regressive. Though we would obviously have to go issue for issue to have any substantive discussion.
@Snappingturtle 267 the right have gone fucking insane. People in the future will be shocked at how millions of people could follow an unhinged buffoon such as Trump. "Common sense," indeed.
@Snappingturtle 267 funny how you think socialism has never worked, when every developed country in the world has a socialistic safety net for the poor, which indisputably makes people better off than they would otherwise be; and the stronger the safety net, the higher the overall standard of living.. But "muh Venezeula," lol.
@Snappingturtle 267 You point at an oppressed people getting the bare minimum of help, and then use that as an explanation as to why help is not worth it.
Circular.
Standard RW tactic.
Defund X.
Point at X not working.
Use as excuse to close down X for profit.
Consider the socialist polices of FDR, that brought about the US golden age. The guy was so popular he died in office, and they amended the law to stop at 2 terms.
Point at any socialist country and tell me why it's socialist, an i will point at one that is AS socialist, or more, that works just fine.
Keep in mind, i will make you look stupid, so put some thought into it.
Thanks!
Every few days RUclips will recommend a Jordan Peterson video. I will watch said video. After a few minutes of watching I will realize that I have no idea what he is talking about and will begin to wonder if the problem lies with me or him. I will then think about it a bit and conclude that surely the issue lies with me given the size of his audience. I will think about it some more and realize that there need not be a relation between audience size and coherence. His popularity has perplexed me for some time. I've come to the conclusion that he makes a certain kind of person feel smart, and if that person is also prone to sympathy with rhetoric that denounces the "regressive-left" then there is a high probability that said person will become a Peterson promoter. Why did I write this? Oh that's right, I have issues.
Whole world's got issues. Hang in there. You're doing good, man. 👍
It's just a matter of knowing the principles of what he is talking about, It all makes sense to me cuz I'm Marxist and i read about the french revolution, the main point is u have to read and discuss more things.
I have no issue understanding what Peterson is referring to when speaking. It may be due to me watching him a lot, or it may be an issue of you not knowing of the underlying references. If you're getting confused that often, while I almost never get confused while watching him, there must be some info you're missing (like some fundamental western/American stories). It may also be a problem of simply not watching the video in its entirety. It could also be a personality thing, like you being very low in trait openness. Be weary of putting all his fans into a single category.
Let’s see, which one doesn’t get the other, the Harvard/UoT prof or you? I am not confused when I see him talking as I have been studying him for several years. Your oversimplifications do not trump his coherence. I don’t know why you assume you can assess him. Ever heard of the Dunning Krueger phenomenon?
Read his book Maps of Meaning. He taught this book in a course at Harvard for several years so it is also available online. The psychological interpretation of the biblical stories is also a good one. If you are goi to undermine Peterson, undermine Jung.
Succinct and excellent response by Richard Wolff. I appreciate this video can just directly counter Peterson’s arguments and doesn’t waste time with petty insults. You don’t have to bother to insult Peterson when his argument alone has so little to stand on, and I actually appreciate this kind of straightforward approach more than most of the other Peterson response vids that circulate.
I think Peterson does have fair points from time to time, but really he uses too much sophisticated language and is too long-winded to ever efficiently explain his point. Same with Zizek.
@@daultontemplet4016 lol
Wolff with some more broke angry kids turning them into “Marxist” whatever definition we give it today. You guys are full of it XD go capitalism! I just bought GameStop stocks!!
It's a wonder that, with so little to stand on, he has stood strong against all his opponents... none have been able to present a logically reasoned argument against his position. Least of all this video rife with Straw-man arguments... I'd argue purely Straw-man arguments... not one honest, logically reasoned rebuttal.
@@Bert-Kay what did you buy in at?
The chad Wolff vs. the incel Peterson
My brother has gotten OBSESSED with Jordan Peterson and "pulling himself up by his bootstraps". I honestly want to show him this because it is such a great, thorough yet succinct analysis. Thank you, Professor, for the sake my sanity.
Peterson is an expert in Carl Jung and psychology, but he is not an expert in other subjects. I don't understand why he feels the need to spread his knowledge on subjects he only have a superficial understanding of.
You should ask your brother to actually do it, that is, dare him to try and literally pull himself up by his bootstraps, see how that goes.
@@AG-el6vt It’s never a bad thing
Yeah... what a fool your brother is for believing in personal responsibility and becoming a productive individual... you should do everything you can to undermined that and promote your philosophy of entitlement, and resentment.
But here's something you may want to consider... your limited education distorts your perception of what is a thorough and succinct analysis... the fact that that is your conclusion... demonstrates your inability to comprehend the topics being discussed... you cannot even detect blatant Straw-man fallacies in his argument which is purely intellectual dishonest distortions of the argument. He relies so thoroughly on such fallacies... precisely because his analysis born out of his ignorance.
I'm willing to bet your brother has a distinct intellectual advantage over you... I suspect you are familiar with the frustration of never succeeding in honest debate against him. Good luck to him... hopefully he can help you.
@@Chipwhitley274 ....You know, I COULD point out the fallacies in your argument, and that you're basing all of what you said on the small, small argument of "The Black Slut Doesn't My Super Based Idol" but that would:
a) cause me to have go through and address in each way that you're wrong (including mine and my brother's level of education, views on education, and even views on debate like situations and etc.),
b) would seem like I'm trying to emphasis mine and my brother's difference as less vs, more/who's better comparison and I don't want to do that. Because intellect and education are not equivalent to actual WORTH.
c) And sexism, and how that even when my brother is wrong, has a bad opinion, or anything similar, people, even our mother, will have more chances and opportunities or more leeway in fucking up than I ever will.
Good luck pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps though. I'm sure with enough energy drinks you can do anything.
I really liked and enjoyed Jordan B. Peterson's on-line lectures for his insights into psychology. But when it comes to socio-economic issues, Richard Wolff's arguments simply decimate Peterson's.
Pity are to those who must pick a camp to follow unconditionally and cannot look at things objectively. They are the ultimate slaves.
True
I don’t know man. Every single County where Marxism was implanted. It doesn’t seem to be going very well for them right now :/
@@dominicguanci2083 Now look into why, instead of assuming that socialism did it.
You will find US coups at the bottom of most of them.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 Khmer rouge was a US coup? China's Cultural Revolution? Fascinating
@@just83542 Why yes. Really, you need to spend more than 10 seconds researching this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge
www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/
Oh, and China seems to be doing just fine.
Hell, their major problem is that the west, having shipped all its manufacturing to it, cannot pay for as much stuff.
Funny that. When all your people are out of work, how are they going to buy anything.
I direct your attention to this vid about how we got here: ruclips.net/video/tJoe_daP0DE/видео.html
And this one about China: ruclips.net/video/CNMoTvjEL_w/видео.html
Long version: ruclips.net/video/Cw8SvK0E5dI/видео.html
I remember Prof Wolff has said somewhere else, that if we cannot get over the stage of "I'm the good guy and they are the bad guys", then there is no possibility of a good discussion. Jordan Peterson, on the other hand, is saying "Marxists are the bad guys". I've also watched clips on China-related issues given by both Wolff and Peterson, where Wolff was able to recall all the critical details of the Chinese revolutions, down to the date and participants' names, while Peterson started by saying, "I sympathize with the Chinese people who are governed by the evil Chinese Communist Party" and then went on again to six-year-old mode: "We are the good guy. They are the bad guys". Frankly, I don't see any point of a debate between them two, where Prof. Wolff is a responsible, passionate intellectual and academic, while Peterson doesn't do his homework about the issues he talks about, be it Marxism or China.
Mark Grissom Let’s talk about this ‘responsible and passionate’ academic’s argument, shall we?
He says if we use the argument that ‘perverted versions of marxism kills people, thus we should stop with marxism’ is preposterous, because we didn’t stop with Christianity even though perverted versions of that kills people too...
This is an academic... according to you... who just talks over 200 years of human history like its nothing. A gigantic part of the enlightenment was about secularism, the SEPARATION of christianity and the state, so that moronic wars wouldn’t happen anymore.
He refuses to mention that Peterson explains many times why Stalinism and Maoism are a logical consequence of the human psyche once marxism is embraced. He backs this argument up by books of Russian authors, about how the Soviet system slowly got perverted from this marxist ideal to a Stalinist society. Human psyche doesn’t embrace total equality of outcome, because we’re a species with an essential need for hierarchy. That’s why he mentions the lobsters too, because they have proven to be hardwired for hierarchical thinking in their DNA. Its the same thing Confucianism preaches: without hierarchy society falls apart. Either way, leaving out this part of Petersons argument is extremely unacademic...
I dont fully agree with Peterson’s reasoning, but he is not represented fairly here.
Also, I don’t get why all the comments say peterson isn’t an academic. He worked at Harvard for Christ’s sake! He has many publications and citations (already before the whole internet celebrity stuff) and is acquainted with many top psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt.
This whole comment section seems like a bunch of salty Marxists who strawman arguments so they can feel good about themselves.
@@tsaoh5572 You are exactly like Peterson. You use concepts like Marxism, Confucianism and Maoism, but what do you really know about them? Ask yourself, seriously, did you really read any of the works on them?
Mark Grissom Yes I did, I followed multiple university courses on the subjects.
So after your ad hominems, what is your actual argument? Or did you come here just to smirk? Did you read Adam Smith back to front before joining the criticism of capitalism?
Please don’t answer those rhetorical questions and just reply based on the contents of arguments, thank you.
@@tsaoh5572 I don't think I would want to argue with you. Let me put it this way. I am Chinese, born and raised in China. I've spent the past two years in Australia and is looking forward to going back to China once my degree is finished. The reason I asked you if you've read anything on Maoism and Confucianism, is I've had so many meaningless "debates" about these topics with people like you. When you referred to Maoism, you used it almost exclusively to refer to the fact that the famine (1959-61) happened. The historical context was very complicated. Please don't say the Chinese media is full of censorship, so I don't know the full picture. I've read the Western side of the story; I mean reports, analyses and banned memoirs by the Chinese that are published in the West. So, any meaningful debate should be based on facts, where between you and me, I don't know where to start if you equal Maoism with killing and famine. Even serious Western scholars look beyond that. He's written a lot, and those works are collectively known as quasi-Maoism in a Western sense. Then, Confucianism. You referred to hierarchy. What do you really know about Confucianism? Seriously. It is more than the Analects, which I doubt you've studied. On one of the main buildings on my campus where I am doing my degree in Australia, there is a huge board with a mystical saying attributed to Confucius, which in fact is a quote from Tao Te Ching. This is what I am talking about. FACTS. Read my comments again, if you will. You were asking about my arguments. I was very specific that Wolff was very accurate with the historical facts, while Peterson was nothing but "The Chinese government is evil". That was my argument. And that's why I said you were exactly like Peterson, because you don't know the facts and are full of opinions, which are fed by the popular media. I've been reading the American news media every single day for two years now -- totalling about 3000 news articles, CNN, NYT, and all that -- and I am so frustrated that the American media can't seem to get the facts right, or maybe they don't care or maybe it's part of their agenda. FACTS. Now, Marxism. You seem to hate Marxists, but I'm not a Marxist. I studied Marxism in passing when I studied for my degree in Western Philosphy, which gave me a context for Marx's ideas. I feel very sad that the Western perspective has become so parochial that people fail to comprehend and imagine any alternative ways of thinking. It comes back to what I said in my original comment. Peterson and his supporters are all about "We're good. You're bad." If that's his choice of engaging, then what is there to talk about?
@@tsaoh5572 but Peterson's reasoning is more than just flawed. Peterson associates what happened in the Soviet Union as a consequence of enforcing equality which he associates with Marxism. None of this is true. He holds and tried to reiterate in the debate with Zizek that Marx was for equality of outcome which Marx never was. He also has no understanding of the history of socialism, particularly it's interaction with US foreign policy (Nicaragua, Cuba, and so on). The association of the Soviet Union with Marxism is an old trope that the US establishment invested in while it was deporting socialists and arresting them.
Stalin's society wasn't one without hierarchy at all as anyone who has read even Animal Farm can tell you. So Peterson makes these bounds and leaps before getting to his analysis about human psyche. He also equivocates a lot with respect to hierarchies. To justify economic hierarchy he points to hierarchies of beauty and implies that it has everything to do with competency. Funnily enough, when he proposed a culture of enforced monogamy he was implying that society should tilt such that the disadvantaged are aided, an opinion he disparages when Marxists use it. His view on women is also quite problematic, especially his characterization of Betty Friedan's seminal text.
I don't think he's dumb or a hack like Ben Shapiro. I just think he dabbles in things he has no understanding of and ends up emboldening a very specific group of people which is cis gendered white males.
Much respect to Prof Wolff....✊
Thank you for this. Many of us are sickened by Peterson's misreading of Marx and the deliberate conflation of brutal dictators with the ideas in Kapital.
Man, Wolf nailed this critique, just as he always has, just brilliantly said well done. Also, damn Wolff has some big hands, either that or it is just the way the camera is placed. Edit: I must be watching this video for like the 6-th time and every time it is as satisfying as the first.
I think its quite interesting how to the point he is in general. I'm not sure if that's a result of making these kinds of videos for a long time, as well as his career as a teacher. Or his own style?
Wolff is the anti Trump. Smart, fair, educated and with big hands.
Bass player hands
You're deluded and a nut-job. Marxism sucks and Wolff is a traitor to the United States.
@@busterbiloxi3833 lmfao why tf do you even watch his videos and take time to reply to comments if you hate him so much. Also I suggest you read a book about what marxism actually is before giving away such names as traitor and nutjob. It's laughable that a person is deemed for you a traitor if he just wants to better the system that we live in in such way as to give every employee a voice in their workplace and an opportunity for them to have equal rights in voting about something in their company as their ceo for example.
JP is one of those brilliant people who thinks everybody else is dumb enough to fall for his BS.
I haven't heard JP say anything brilliant. But then again, I don't listen to him much.
As I understand the situation tho, it's younger men listening to him. And that demographic isn't doing so because they're dumb. I think they're hungry for more meaning and purpose and Peterson is (falsely) promising that to them.
Absolutely agree
yep. He's so smart l saw through him instantly. A charlatan. Snake oil salesman.
High IQ maybe- definitely low low EQ.
Peterson has the emotional maturity of a 4 year old. He is mischievous- but he doesn’t know what he is saying.
I don't even have to agree with Richard Wolff on anything to appreciate his clarity and precision.
And straw man
@@thevipez8740 Demonstrate it. Claims are worthless.
@@rexnemovi6061 How to link to posts: At the top of the post, where it says '1 month ago' THAT is a link. imply right click it, and select 'copy link address' or similar on your browser.
@@rexnemovi6061 Right, so i'm on my laptop, so i can't really deal with all of that right now.
I'll sort it when i get home, but the short version is: everything you said was wrong, and i can prove it in 2-3 hours.
basically, you have every anti-socialist talking point known to man, and everyone of them is an outright lie.
I don't blame you.
If you have never actually reseached it beyond browsing a couple of news channels, it all seems very cut and dried.
But, sorry to sound all conspiracy theorist here, but the people with the money, have a vested interest in everyone staying ignorant of socialism.
Here, make a start on Venezuela: www.veteranstoday.com/2019/05/03/an-ocean-of-lies-on-venezuela-abby-martin-un-rapporteur-expose-coup/
ruclips.net/video/_fV-C1Ag5sI/видео.html
@@antediluvianatheist5262
Thanks. It actually should have been pretty obvious - sometimes things just don't click.
Anyways, appreciated.
As expected, a lot of bad faith arguments in the comments
From the Marxists....yes.
And from the video. He literally bmakes the same strawmen as peterson.
@@steven-el3sw nope, from the bootlickers
Great rebuttal. Love the way you explain things.
Another blind “Marxist”(but really just unable to manage in a free market economy and mad) hook line and stinker xD
Nothing wrong with a good old sit-down to clear the air and help remove doubts, and questions to illuminate the FACTS.
"But... Solzhenitsyn!" Wolff would easily win any debate with Peterson.
Has he read the Gulag Archipelago? It's an excellent companion to Das Kapital.
Spot on, Professor!
I can't judge Prof. Wolff's character since I never met him, and I don't know much about Marxism, but anyone who points out that Jordan Peterson is intellectually full of shit IS RIGHT!! Misrepresenting stuff is what he does all the time.
@Cyrus the Great Zizek isnt an actual communist, he said it himself
The poor do envy the rich. They envy the fact that rich people can own homes and don't have to worry about food budgets. In my view, those are pretty valid things to be envious of.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Thank you, Professor Wolff! Much respect!
Wolff really hit him with the "he thought he did something" at the end there
Peterson knows precisely two things about Marxism:
Jack & $#!+.
But he understands human psychology and behavior like only a few people on this planet. As far as I can tell, he looks at marxists ideas and came to the conclusion that it wont work (which the past also has shown) from a psychological perspective. Maybe I am wrong on how I interpret this but thats what I see…
@ayy lmao well, you clearly did not understand what I was saying
That final statement is spot on.
The Pareto distribution kills Wolff's whole argument. That is the problem not Capitalism.
The system of Capitalism is what ensures that there is widespread material deprivation under any system in which "80% of the work is done by 20% of the people." Our social hierarchies and class system are what determines who is allowed to do the jobs that actually pay one enough to survive. Even in our society it isn't like the working class aren't doing work anyway, they just aren't receiving fair compensation for their work because private ownership of the means of production and a disempowered labor force means that the Capitalists get to pay the lowest wage possible. The people who get paid really well are the people who sit at a desk, on a board, etc... and decide where the work gets done and what work should be done. Under socialism the Pareto distribution would just mean that the work gets done by the people who are capable and available while everyone else is a)being trained to be capable to do work b)enjoying their lives so that they can be mentally and physically available to do good work and c)enjoying their lives so that their lives can be worth living.
@@rhysbaker449 The 80/20 is because of the the Pareto distribution not Capitalism. There is much we can do.
Man Is Not his Own Master-- Pareto distribution is not a law of economics that describes how things must be, it describes how things are in many situations. The reason that it is this way is capitalism. Capitalism is not the only economic choice and we can do better.
@@TheRedWabbit It is a law, it's why everyone can't be Micheal Jordan and why every business can't be Microsoft. Read the great leveler, there isn't a political system that has ever been able to do anything about inequality. It isn't Capitalism.
I honestly wanted to hear some concrete arguments against J.P.'s views, but sadly I find this too short and insubstantial 😕
It’s Richard Wolff, what did you expect...? 8|
You said it. Also, I find my country, now, being close to an economic default by the left. As it is and has been the case of many others.
@Vindexproeliator Wrong. Few countries are doing good on that. I've read every single word.
There are a million video online explaining peterson nonsense, have you seen Sam seders channel?
@@KieranThinks I have seen some valid attacks and I personally respect him almost exclusively in the domain of psychology.
But that makes this video no less disappointing 😅
Noam Chomsky has been asked what he thinks of Jordan Peterson, Chomsky replied that "he does not think about Jordan Peterson".
Love your work keep it going!
Well done sir, you bring clarity to the issue every time. That includes this response to Jordan Peterson.
I love listening to your various RUclips videos, for the clarity in explanation. You have become one of my favourite people to listen to in the public space of intellectual thought and ideas. In short, I am a real fan.
Thank you.
i also feel like Peterson is stuck in the 80's
Haha. Just like a lot of other schmos who identify with conservatives/republicans
David Padilla Luckily for us whom are willing to criticise the current system and adapt, reform or overhaul it to be more functional. Their economic ideology is outdated and close to obsolete.
At least he's not stuck in the 19th century.
@@NateB Marxism is a scientific method lol, it can be applied to any epoch. I wouldn’t exactly go around saying “Evolution is stuck in the 19th Century”, saying that about Marxism has the same energy
Salute Profff. Wolf. 🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
Prof. Wolf's analysis is beyond compare. I thank him for teaching all of us so much. His language leaves no doubt, we all need to think critically.
His analysis of problems is great. He offers absolutely no solutions though. It's exactly like the communist manifesto. It just says "we won't do what the other guys are doing." I've clicked on a few of Richards videos, hoping to actually see on a practical level what Socialism might look like, but just like every single other thing on Socialism I've ever seen, there are zero practical specifics. In another video, he explains the failures of Russian communism by saying the workplace still had the same hierarchical structure. He's correct, but he just said that properly done Socialism won't do that. Great, but how? What would it actually look like? The reason I do not respect socialists is because all they do is complain, but never offer actual literal real practical alternatives. They just offer platitudes in an arrogant way.
And the winner is Prof. Wolff. :) Every time.
I've always considered myself to be a pretty vehement anti-socialist but I do have a decent amount of respect for Mr.Wolff as an intellectual.
I've decided to subscribe, I'd love to have a conversation with him sometime.
Capitalism is in its final stage Imperialism. Where the richest capitalist countries dominate the world market.
Thank you prof. Wolff for your scientific rigour!
This is great stuff. This is the second video of Mr Wolff that I've seen and I'm impressed.
I agree that people like Peterson have never studied what Marx wrote or have any understanding of what Marxism is. I'm no Marxist myself although I studied Marx's works quite extensively at university. Peterson, who has interesting things to say about things like personal development is completely lost when he moves outside of his own field. Calling everybody who wants a more egalitarian society a marxist is lazy and dishonest....as you so eloquently point out.......
applied Marxist policies result in equality of misery and death and starvation of millions of people, which is great if one wants mass depopulation. A tenet of progressive eugenicists who promote abortion and transsexual lifestyles.
Paglia and others correctly ID androgynous attitudes in art and society as a sign of collapsing civilization.
For more on civilizational evolution see Carrol Quigley's work.
Yeah Wolff is great at breaking down the concept to be introduced to less familiar societies, though some of the more orthodox Marxists I've followed seem to feel he's a little too softball. Though, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But that's not what Peterson espouses. He uses historical examples to show how collectivist systems fail every time. Each failure is more catastrophic than the last with each new collectivist leader declaring that they will be the ones to: "do it right this time." What Peterson proposes is we have enough evidence to declare collectivism a failure. Further, systems that acknowledged the value and power of the individual have flourished. Peterson simply acknowledges this and warns against the impending failure that is neocollectivism.
@@therealblackout3659 bam!!!
@@therealblackout3659 Except nearly all of those 'failures' can be traced to capitalist attacks, usually the US directly.
See: Venezuela.
Comments by Jordan Peterson's viewers channel reminds me of the types of comments that I've learned about with cult members.
@Snappingturtle 267 Why do you say that? Are you calling me a gross liberal? If so, what do you mean by that? When I say the comments sound like cult members I mean it literally. In other words, many of the comments sound like people mesmerized in an almost religious way.
I'm an employee. I can also become an employer if I wanted to, but I didn't want the risk and hard work that comes with running my own businesses. I'm also a shareholder of various companies through index funds which I bought with the wealth created by working for an employer.
Bravo!!!
Thank you! I have listened probably hundreds of hours of Petersons lectures and he is little bit like dad figure to me. But it’s nice to find some valid critic about his arguments. I would love to see you debate with Jordan Peterson!
1:30 Would've been more effective if you named a few good examples of countries that flourished under Marxism.
I can give you a few: Venezuela, Cambodia, USSR, Ukraine, Cuba, Vietnam, China (pre-Zeng XiaoPing), North Korea
I wouldn’t use the words flourish for dictatorships that strip away freedom, and have breadlines
Cambodia is still one of the most poorest countries in the world.
@@lordfarquaad6189 Would you prefer to stand in a breadline knowing that you'll at least be guaranteed bread at the end of it, or sit outside the local supermarket hoping that passer-bys give you money for your own instead of spitting on you for the 1000th time?
@@PsilentMusicUK its funny how you can just get up from your seat and walk to the super market and eat fruit from mexico, central asia, cheese from Canada and beef from the US... Venezuelans and Cambodians would trade places with you any day... and nothing is stopping you by the way... moving to breadline countries
Yes--BUT, Dr. Peterson presents his arguments as if he were sitting on a cactus which stokes my sense of urgency to maintain the deteriorating status quo. That's one point for Slytherin!
When did Dr. Peterson ever argue for the status quo? Arguing against Marxism isn't arguing for the status quo, it's arguing against a predictably horrible change. There are other changes.
Michael Price He doesn’t offer any clear alternatives to the current arrangements.
@@jetblack8250 That isn't arguing for the status quo. If you propose Islamic Theocracy as a social system it's not "arguing for the status quo" to show it's a bad idea.
@@jetblack8250 the so called Marxists should offer clear alternatives, but they fail every time. Even the most radical capitalists admit that some changes can be made (inter alia, see J. Tomasi, Princeton). However, this doesn't mean that choosing the worst and most radical change would be a wise move. Wolff is mocking Peterson, but is failing in putting forward decent arguments against capitalism.
Wolf should tell Peterson that capitalism needs to clean up its room, there is a bad odour wafting from there
I don't think that jordan petersons arguments against marxism were outlined and rebutted here.
The lobster man. It is all in the lobster.
I agree. This video makes it sound like Peterson only makes surface comments on Marxism, but Peterson has gone in depth in the phycology of Marxism.
This Video is just another straw man.
Karl Marx had very good critiques of capitalism; however his approach to replace capitalism is what Stalin took into account. The danger of Marxism is the violent take over of private means of production. Peterson never said criticism of capitalism was the problem with Marxism.
In this video all Richard talked about was how Peterson fails to acknowledge Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Peterson acknowledges and has said several times that capitalism is an imperfect system... so what was the point of this video exactly?
Professor Wolff has good arguments that Marxist Economic Theory is an essential element to fixing the flaws of capitalism.
It is a mistake to talk about "Marxism" as a dual to capitalism, the point Richard Wolff has devoted his life to is to help correct the mistakes created by the half century long Cold War taboo on discussing Marxist Economic Theory. These mistakes are very apparent in the misunderstandings of the potential for synthesis of (economic) leftist ideas into the realm of mainstream economic education.
Mr. Wolf’s analysis of Capitalism and Socialism is very clear.
If you believe the hype - heard it all before, personally. A close up camera angle and baritone voice ain't changing my reality.
Befitting reply Prof. Richard Wolff! This 5 minute is enough to boost his knowledge from 0 to 100 for sure!
I have commented also on how Peterson's knowledge of Marxism leaves much to be desired. Awesome that Dr. Wolf has schooled him on the subject!
I'm trying to watch more videos by Dr. Wolff to see if he makes any points about Marxism that are reasonable or hear him affirm how Marxist society would actually function. I really want him to convince me that Marxism is a good thing but unfortunately I'm not there yet.
Liberty, equality and fraternity. Ok, let's agree those are three things are indeed desirable and capitalism doesn't provide any one of them (or does so poorly or maybe provides some and not others). How does Marxism provide any of those things?
Capitalism allows the liberty of the working class to freely enter into contractual relationships with employers. If they perform, are creative and add value then they're promoted and maybe even entitled to partial ownership in the company (eg shares). If they're not satisfied then they're free to find another job where they can attempt to get paid what they're worth. If they want more rights to profits then they're free to risk their income by investing into that company, another company or use their creativity to take some other risks and start their own company like those capitalist entrepreneurs did in the first place, thereby providing the goods, services and jobs that people so desperately want.
We're all equal in the eyes of God (should she exist) and the law. Equality beyond that is subjective. I get that many of us are dealt a bad hand but why should a "poor "American who has spent years trying to improve their station in life accept equal outcomes with his neighbor who is happy where they are and had all of the same opportunities? Why should someone who worked their way through college and faced the challenges of becoming a doctor or risked everything to start a company be told that they should be equal as someone who for instance, recently became a citizen? If we are entitled to the same profits from the state controlled businesses, then what motivation is there to study hard, become an engineer, create a new product/company, write a book, create art, etc? Who chooses who gets the manual labor jobs and who gets the intellectual jobs?
I'd say capitalism produces fraternity by first giving people liberty and equality and the freedom to make something for themselves, and do so in a country or system where they can rise or fall based on their decisions and merit. But if hatred and resentment exist then of course fraternity can't exist either. Rather than feel entitled to something that you took no risk in producing, take responsibility for what you do with the opportunities presented to you via liberty and equality. For instance, I don't need a big house or a boat or take ski vacations every year. Maybe my neighbor feels that he does. Should I resent him for that? And does Marxism prescribe that we should all be entitled to his standard of living or should he be forced to accept mine? How is that decided? Envy should motivate you to work harder, not push you to seek equal outcomes.
Also, under Marxism, who's in charge? Do they eat better? Wear warmer clothes? Live in more desirable houses in more desirable parts of the country?
What about competition? Is the state expected to compete against itself? Who's responsible for being creative and creating the things people actually want to buy? Does someone just conceive the need for an iPhone and RUclips out of thin air, choose a team of people to make it happen and then force the population to use it? Are there actually economists out there who contest that we'd have what we have now in terms of technology and medicine without capitalism, competition and the innovation it produces?
What does Marxism say about immigration and open borders when the state entitles everyone to the same thing? I have a feeling a lot of Democrats would probably call Marxist policies "racist". Or perhaps its a non-issue because who would want to immigrate to a Marxist society?
Or maybe I'm not understanding the concept of Marxism at all. Is the reason I'm unable to change my mind and see the genius and possibilities under Marxism because I first need to change my entire world view and imagine a utopia where capitalism never existed? Where the wealth of everyone in the nation has increased and decreased as the nation did itself. After all, the wealth of a nation is vast and enough to spread around evenly. But assuming Marxism doesn't prescribe what one does with their money (ie certainly Marxism doesn't say that we'll be rationed the same food, wear the same clothes, live in the same sized houses), then what happens when people make decisions to spend their money on drugs? Gambling? To not pay attention during their free college courses? To use their money to buy a boat instead of a reliable car to get them to work on time? Is the state expected to forgive them and care for them when it's the individual's negligence that resulted in them being poor and infirm? It seems paradoxical unless a Marxist society is willing to forfeit their liberties and be forced to abstain from anything deemed a "vice".
But please, help me understand how Marxism provides liberty, equality, and fraternity, or what Marxism provides at all. Thus far I've only read sarcastic comments, excuses that most are too dense to comprehend how Marxism works, or claims akin to "you have to accept it and implement it first to see how it all make sense".
Imo the whole problem in a debate like this is, that people either argue for one thing or the other.
Capitalism isnt per se bad, but as every system it has to evolve and change by what the society needs, IF , and that is an" if" that -in this context - often leads to pro-capitalists/neo-liberalists discrediting people saying so with the accusation of being a "conspiracy guy", serving the common good (akka ALL of society) is actually the goal of our current system.
So there are some approaches, that try to take ideas here and there and make something new that works in better way.
one example that yet has to prove wether it works or not is the #postgrowtheconomy
amnother, that has been put to practicse and works farely well, is the #commongoodeconomy
@Douglas if u think of marxism not as an ideal state or society, but as an imminent critique of capitalism, its use and value becomes clear
@@nat-moody that was Marx whole point more or less^^ But most people think and act dogmatic (and thats on both "sides" of the political spectrum)
But at a certain point one should realize it's not going to happen that way and so why not try the "little step" approach. the Common good economy (btw Chomsky has a similar view on what qualifies as a "good" economy) is absolutely brilliant and solves quite a few problems we struggle with atm.
@@Sporting1210 I know :D (das kapital is really the foundational text). I was just trying to make this point clearer since it's often overlooked, as Marxism gets equated with stalinism or some other, impetuous caricature which conveniently suits the interlocutor's ideals
Watch his videos on worker's co-ops that currently exist.
Thanks for the clarity 😊
The notion that Jordan Peterson is a great intellect or a brilliant thinker has got to stop.
Please. He's not an unintelligent man, but come on.
James Anthony He’s definitely out of his element on issues within the social sciences. Wolff even said he wouldn’t claim to have expertise in Peterson’s field (psychology), but then Peterson poses as an academic in Wolff’s field without even having a solid understanding of Marx’s work. Peterson’s ideas on social issues & economic systems do not hold up against any academic scrutiny.
@@brettb7242 Yes, JP should stick to his area of specialty, this being, clinical psychology. He's embarrassed himself, particularly his discussion/debate with Matt Dillahunty in 2018.
if Peterson stuck to psychology i think he’d be well respected, but my god his views on marxism and economics are painful to watch
@@thatguyben7754 Agree. Very painful.
Extremely succinct Mr. Wolff.
As much as I have tried to listen to Mr. Peterson because of recommendation, I just can't quite bring myself to endure him any longer.
Yeah... that is the tendency of the intellectually dishonest... avoid those that challenge your biases and agenda...
Absolutely agree.
I’m humored yet frustrated by the majority of Americans that intuitively recognize the problems with our economic system while also denouncing Marx when they generally agree with his assessment
My co-worker ranted about technology destroying jobs and asked “what will we do when everything is automated and there are not enough jobs...”
I pointed out he kinda summed up the conclusion of what Marx gave when he critiques the capitalist system and his reply was repulsion towards the suggestion
He was literally laying out the basic idea from Marx but then couldn’t accept he agrees simply because he has a negative and false view of what Marx represents
“But you can’t have private ownership of property under socialism...”
I tried to calm his fears and told him he could still own a toothbrush that he could use after eating a mud pie! 🤔😉
What Marx's ideas "represent" is very documented an easy to see. 100% outcome of misery and genocide. What YOU want it to represent is whatever makes you feel good and moral. By now you have to be very willfully stupid to deny what Marx represents.
I know people that have made that choice, and despite living the misery socialist brought them, they still pretend that it was/is a good thing. So I wouldn't be surprised that you'd be happy owning that toothbrush and nothing else.
That's because Americans are subjected to a *powerful* cradle-to-grave propaganda apparatus that maps all the problems associated with capitalism to "socialism" and "communism." You'll hear Americans whine about the hideous destructive capacity of capitalism having wrecked their lives and then immediately turn around and blame "the commie left" for it. The most ill-informed & heavily propagandized population on Earth.
I used to enjoy listening to Jordan peterson pontificate on all sorts of subjects, but when he became an aplologist for Elon Musk i thought hold on WTF? And that did it for me.
Thank you professor Wolff.
Peterson realizes the dangers of capitalism, he's mentioned it numerous times - but his argument is, that it's still better than marxism/communism. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on any of these ideas because I'm just now trying to understand it all, but so far I'd have to agree with Peterson.
Prof. Wolff has clearly convinced me with the last point he made.
If only we could make Wolf our dear leader, surely he would know how to organize society better than the American framework of liberty, justice and its economic corollary, capitalism.
Surely this time, it will be real socialism/communism finally bringing heaven on earth. Just give him and/or the ideas that have him the power to dictate over resources and your very lives.
What could possibly go wrong?
His intention are obviously benevolent and the ideas that have him are also intend benevolent development. Let’s build this tower high since it’s intentions are good.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
JP is terrified of debating Wolff
TERRIFIED
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍
My college professor berated me for agreeing with Marxism.
Corporate greed and now in America corporation's are people too.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Mitt Romney played a huge part in that happening.
@Snappingturtle 267 Lol, the U.S. is nowhere close to the best country on earth. Get your head out of your ass.
BEAUTIFUL ! THANKYOU !
Based Professor Wolff
Inequality has very little to do with capitalism OR marxism. Inequality stems from the fact that people are born with massive inequality - inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, etc. Why are people suprised when all that innate inequality leads to inequality of income (production) and inequality of wealth?
So who is going to be better off? A person whose parent buys them a house at 20 or a person who has to save and pay off a mortgage for 30 years. On average? If we lived in meritocracy then why do these situations exist?
4:00 Can someone explain to me why it's "immoral" for the employer to increase his wealth while he is the one risking his capital to begin with? If I invest $1,000,000 and within 3 years my business goes bankrupt and I've been paying my employees the whole time am I owed anything from them? Why should the reverse be true? ( In that I owe them more money because the business is profitable, whilst not putting up any initial capital and having zero risk.)
As a member of the class that holds the capital, you are not being exploited if you lose said capital through actions of your own doing. But as the class that can only supply labor as a method of earning wealth, it is very easy for the labor of the working class to be exploited.
Why aren't you the center of the universe?
Because you're not, your parents lied to you
@@ian9529 that makes absolutely no sense.
@@DynamicAero Are you saying there are groups of people that are unable to do anything besides supply labour? Is it my own doing if an employee of mine sabotages my company and I lose all of my money I invested into the company which in previous years I used my "labour" to accumulate?
"You are not being exploited if you lose said capital through actions of your own doing." So why should I be penalised for creating a profitable company when I've taken on the risk and came up with the idea and put in the initial tough work? Are we assuming that a failing company is all the investors fault and the success of a company is all the employees fault?
I understand it is easier to exploit labour if you are dealing with low skilled workers. In other skilled occupations though many people are capable of starting their own business if they are willing to take on the risk.
@@thetruthhurtsthetruthhurts5046 Do you not have any legal recourse if someone sabotages your company? If they steal your money, or intentionally lie to business partners, you can sue them. So sue them.
What do you mean why should you be penalised? Do you want the government to pay you back for your lost product if your company fails? What kind of bullshit is that? I dropped my ice cream the other day because I tripped over my untied shoelaces. Why am I being penalised, huh?
"Are we assuming that a failing company is all the investors fault and the success of a company is all the employees fault?" Are you serious? If a company fails the employees get fucked too, and if a company succeeds the investors profit. Are you unaware of how businesses work?
Are you not aware that skilled employees might still be unable to start companies due to insurmountable risk at the time? Is this not something that you think is worrisome, or do you think that just because someone is skilled they can't possibly ever have problems in life?
Thank you, Professor!
2 years later and Peterson still hasn't scheduled a debate, I was kind of looking forward to it...
bruh he nearly died in the last year and you expect him to debate?
you do realize he nearly died right?
@@darioam3329 should've cleaned his own room then before coming in the spotlight
4 years later as an atheist man I get on my knees and PRAY for a debate between these two.
It seems that this is more an opening thesis statement then a full rebuttable. Subtract the digs at Petterson's intelligence, it would be good to hear out a debate between these two on the subject of equality as Carl Marx wanted it. Along with a conversation about the post Marxist era and what direction the Post Modernist are wanting to go as to not repeat the mistakes of failed Marxist states. I see some questions of this Thesis Statement could be addressed, such as the following: Why is there still inequality even among heavily socialist states as well as there was in past ones? If Marxism is alive in every country to some degree, then why is inequality still such a major issue? To what degree can inequality be mitigated so that critics are satisfied?
No point in debating this man. like many, he misquotes Jordan Peterson to make his point. But on the point of capitalism: WORKERS do NOT create the SURPLUS. It is like saying that a knife creates my breakfast. The surplus was created by those who designed the entire business model that enabled workers to work. Their surplus is getting more than nothing.
I'm amused by the camera perspective and how it's made Professor Wolff's hands look gargantuan. Reminds me of that Pink Floyd song!
Thank You Mr.Wolff for sharing your perspective.
Reducing the bad aspects of marxism to "what happened in Russia over 15 or 20 years under Stalin" severely weakens your argument. You know full well that tyranny didn't stop after Stalin, and that most other governments who founded their ruling philosophy on Marx were just as bad or even worse.
That, and the fact that Peterson doesn't accuse the poor of envy, but cites Orwell accusing the upper middle class, are two points in your short reply video that will keep any Peterson devotee from taking you seriously.
I appreciate the effort to confront Peterson, who I deem somewhat sketchy, too, but this is a bit superficial and faulty. Nevertheless, nice video!
This. SO much this. This wasn't the response I was expecting. This could have been way better.
It is never addressed because socialists are generally from the comfortable middle class that are envious of people wealthier and more socially powerful than them. Rather than confront that envy, they engage in projection. It's truly pathetic.
You've earned my subscription, sir
The problem I have when talking about this with people is that they're kind of amoral; they revel in the idea of being above in the hierarchy even though all they've done to be in that place is be born in their circumstances and accept the opportunities that rolled in (illusion of meritocracy).
Even when discussing it with people lower in the hierarchy, they've been subjected to think that their craft is less-valuable and undeserving of just treatment and pay. The literal translation of the conversation would be: "Oh so you want the Doctor who spent years learning medicine to make as much as a Garbageman? Equality is a myth!" I think Peterson's believes that inequality is natural and therefore just (the lobster argument).
Do I lack a proper understanding to explain this to people?
Peterson doesn't really think the dominance hierarchy is good, I think there are some lectures out there where he explicitly says otherwise too. Peterson instead accepts that a dominance hierarchy does exist as a result of just us being biological organisms - we aren't all the same in our strengths and weaknesses, we keep track of how everyone else is doing in relation to us, and overall it's just something built in for us to use and run with at our unconscious level. There are people out there who are hyper competitive, hyper social, and hyper industrious, etc. Peterson instead says "well those people aren't very balanced, they sacrifice everything - family, health, etc, to be insanely and almost unfairly good at something to the exclusion of everything else, and they pay dearly for it, but you can't just remove those people, so how then do we make it fair for everyone? Equality of outcome isn't a tenable position, and equality of start has complications, but it's not a straight forward solution. Instead we should focus as best as we can on improving every little part of someones life and that will usually orient them in a way to be successful over their whole life"
This "Doctor" example always proves how much sick entitled those people are.
Jordan Peterson is a political pornographer. He represents and proffers a ridiculous utopian ideology. But as a pornographer, he doesn't have enough content to respond to. He is, however, worth discussing as an example of how good propaganda works.
I'm afraid to admit that I have an obsession with Richard Wolff😍
I feel kind of nauseous when Peterson discusses his take on Freudian theory.
I always thought Peterson talked too much so I didn't like him. After this video, I feel justified in my reaction, I just can't explain it as well. Thank you.
Never felt that he was talking for others or myself, just for himself. Jordan Peterson IS capitalist. Doctors are part of self entitled white-collar overpaid luxury jet-yacht culture.
Every single time a Socialist debates with a Capitalist, the strongest argument from Capitalist side would be the number if deaths caused by socialist regimes in the past. Prof. Wolff clearly and honestly refutes this death count analysis by mentioning the deaths caused in Colonies of Britain, France and Germany during colonialism. Forget all the countries.
Even if a Socialist accepts that Socialism caused death, that death toll would still be notiing but a shame, in comparison with the death tolls in British India alone. British India alone had deaths that is hundred times more than Socialism ever did. The success story of Britain capitalism was founded on the deaths of hundreds of millions of Indian farmers and serfs.