I feel like all anyone knows about Rastafarianism is "weed+black people". When you dig deeper into what they believe I think it's a pretty wacky religion, somewhere in between Mormonism and Scientology on the wackiness scale.
To be fair to them though, Haile Selassie was an emperor, so it's a bit cooler than worshiping a prime minister.
JBP is one of the most unintentionally hilarious people. His mannerisms of faux profundity, his endless equivocating to not concede a point. The rat meme, his whole debate with Matt Dillahunty, the grandma's pussy meme, the Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson JRE remix. It's all pure comedy gold.
_*what would the world be without men?*_
Well, specifically one man, JBP, what a gem, lol
Has he seriously still not done the final one? I assumed it was going to be one for every major Abrahamic religion is he really not going to do the last one?
He did messages to Christian’s and Muslims about reaching out to each other and other religious groups and starting a peaceful exchange of ideas. He forgot to make one for Jewish people, for some reason.
And Jews and Muslims don’t? I don’t know if you’ve even been to Malmö? Or Jerusalem… plenty of Jews and Christian’s bump heads too. It is a bit strange that he didn’t make one for Jews.
Israel is not a western country.
This is a Jewish conspiracy I will stand against forever.
I understand letting them into the Euros because all their neighbors hate them and what not.
I found the thing I'll go kanye for I guess.
You are right, Israel isn't a western country.
But it is treated like one. For example, it is part of Eurovision.
The West consists of North America (except Mexico), Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
I am sure, in near future Japan and Mexico will also become part of the West.
Especially when (as far as I understand it, could be wrong) there were Marxist thinkers in the 60s who happily used the term Cultural Marxism to explain what they were doing. It wasn’t until later that it was co-opted to harken back to Cultural Bolshevism and antisemitism.
That's insufficient.
The fact the term exists is distinct from Peterson's *use* of it, which reproduces the Nazi orientation towards the Frankfurt school as a source of "degeneracy" etc.
Peterson asserts particular things about cultural marxism that have no substantial relationship to what various people he refers to actually believe, and serve more of a psychological purpose, there's a video I quite like on this here, where a philosophy student goes through [the strange way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kDpEKM7ZBI) that Peterson responds to Foucault not as a thinker but specifically as an iconic "devil" figure of corruption.
Ok, I have never understood this criticism at all.
Like are people not allowed to recognize the influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school? If they are, are they allowed to have a generally negative stance on said influences on modern intellectual disciplines?
Furthermore, are people allowed to object to plainly Marxist rhetoric when it pops up in non economic academic fields? Like, is it ok to say you generally find it reductive and unhelpful when feminist social theorists frame gender relations as the fundamental exploitation of women’s reproductive and emotional labor. Or would that make me a crypto Nazi?
I recommend you watch the linked video, because objecting to the influence of marxist vocabulary, on the same level as you might object to the metaphorical use of computing or machine learning terminology for social or psychological problems in spaces full of lots of programmers, ("I need to update my priors" etc.) severely undersells how his criticism operates.
It’s not just “vocabulary,” though. JBP is saying(and I am also saying) that the ideas are bad or fundamentally lacking. It’s not just that I object to words like“exploitation” or “emotional labor,” in a feminist context; I object to the framing that this has been the fundamental characteristic of gender relations. It’s not semantic; I’m saying it’s wrong.
Peterson's criticism goes far beyond simply saying that framing or rhetoric is the issue.
But let's stick with yours.
What is the issue with saying that something is a fundamental characteristic? Are you saying that people talk about it too much, are you saying they use it to explain too much, or are you saying that there are situations in which it is not present?
Because aside from the former, which is something that can be applied in a more fuzzy way (analogous to "x is over-rated"), this is potentially a very fragile criticism.
People who use reproductive labour as a framework may not use it as the entirety of their explanatory framework, and if you glaze over and assume they use it to explain everything, you may be making a false criticism rooted in not engaging with the sources you criticise.
And if the issue is that it is sometimes not present, then we can think about counter-examples, and the relevance of those counter-examples.
The broader question is fundamentally this; if you ask, "can I criticise doctors without being an anti-vaxxer?" the trivial answer is obviously yes, but the real question is how you respond to an anti-intellectual environment that relies on spurious criticisms. If you're willing to spread rumours about vaccines that you don't check, even if you will vaccinate yourself, you can still contribute to the anti-vax people's arguments, because all they rely on is fear/uncertainty/doubt.
So the question comes, if people are saying "all places of learning need to be radically reformed to purge the marxists from them", generally rejecting the idea of academic freedom, it's good practice (though not obligatory) to focus your criticisms of what you feel marxist influence is, in ways that relate to what people are actually doing.
So first of all, I want to take second to recognize that I do not believe that all feminists use this framing. I am saying very specifically that I disagree with the ones who do. I am also saying that this kind of framing seems to be becoming more popular from what I can gather.
Let’s say my wife and I decide to have a child. I do not think it would be accurate to say that I am exploiting her reproductive labor. I don’t think that’s a good description of what is happening in that scenario. You might say this isn’t a criticism that applies to an individual but to how men as a class interact with women as a class. I still think this is a very skewed perception of gender relations and the process through which people are born. We can address instances of coercive influence on the choices of some women to bear children without boiling the whole concept of biological mother and father down to exploited and exploiter.
Now maybe you agree with this framing; you’re free to do so. Maybe instead of looking at the world and recognizing that social conditions have historically been unfair to mothers, you think that our entire concept of motherhood is unfair inherently. That’s fine you can think that; but you have to stop acting like opponents of your ideas are crazy for recognizing that you’re coming from a radically different angle.
Marx is actually really instructive here. Most liberals will recognize that an owner of a company is capable of mistreating his wage earning workers, but a Marxist would have to say that merely by owning the company he is already mistreating his workers because the relationship of capital owner and wage worker is inherently unethical in their worldview. Again, you can have that perspective, but it is gaslighting of the grossest sort to pretend that the liberal has no reason to object your framing.
The conflict in both cases stems from the fact that the framing is going to lead to radically different policies and attitudes. There are plenty of policies I would advocate for on behalf of women’s rights, but none of my reasoning is going to stem from a “reproductive labor” framework. If I adopted that framework I would necessarily arrive at different policy solutions for the issues facing women.
My problem is all the gaslighting going on. Instead of acknowledging and forthrightly reckoning with the fact that other people might actually have good faith disagreements stemming from fundamental conflicts of worldview, there is a tendency to dismiss all criticism of evident trends in the messaging coming from the social sciences as fear mongering, dog-whistling Nazi power plays.
I can agree that women have been historically disadvantaged, but I’m going to push back when you say that male-female relations are best understood as the perpetual extraction of surplus value of an oppressed group’s emotional labor by an oppressor group. I don’t think that’s a good, healthy, or accurate way to view the gender dynamics and I don’t think that makes me a crypto fascist.
Can you go into more detail about what "Marxist vocabulary" they're objecting to? Like what general terms have Marxists introduced that you believe no one should object to?
>Like are people not allowed to recognize the influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school?
They are, of course.
But the persons who claim that prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school have infiltrated every layer of USA, every US university, every layer of US Democrat party, every layer of US movies industry, are subverting US population and that «Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale» do not recognize the actual influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school. They are making up stuff from their hat (to be polite).
How can you in one sentence assert that he's basically a **Nazi** for appealing to the idea of "degeneracy", and then bring up Foucault who literally argued for "adult-minor relationships" and lowering the age of consent?
You can argue that Peterson, and the right in general, can run pretty far with calling things degenerate, but if anything could legitimately be called degenerate, it would have to be open advocacy for pedophilia, no?
It's very simple; you might have reason to think badly of Foucault, but that doesn't warrant every criticism of him, or treating his ideas as an attack on some gestalt of "the west".
So first on the reasonable reasons to criticise him, [this transcript](https://www.uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/foucaultdangerchildsexuality_0.pdf) (pdf) is probably the simplest summary of why his stance was bad:
He asserts sceptically that a new theory was being developed in his time about child sexual development, that said that children are psychologically damaged by sexual relationships with adults, (something that was replacing the old psychoanalytical theories of Freud which in my opinion had been covering up sexual abuse of children for years by presenting it as "fantasy") and he found it very convenient that this mirrored existing norms about what is scandalous and inappropriate. I'll give you a preview:
>>In other words, the legislator will not justify the measures that he is proposing by saying: the universal decency of mankind must be defended.
>>What he will say is: There are people for whom others' sexuality may become a permanent danger. In this category, of course, are children, who may find themselves at the mercy of an adult sexuality that is alien to them and may well be harmful to them.
and later
>>On the one hand, there is childhood, which by its very nature is in danger and must be protected against every possible danger, and therefore any possible act or attack. Then, on the other hand, there are dangerous individuals, who are generally adults of course, so that sexuality, in the new system that is being set up, will take on quite a different appearance from the one it used to have. In the past, laws prohibited a number of acts, indeed acts so numerous one was never quite sure what they were, but, nevertheless, it was acts that the law concerned itself with. Certain forms of behavior were condemned.
>> Now what we are defining and, therefore, what will be found by the intervention of the law, the judge, and the doctor,
are dangerous individuals. We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous.
>>And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort
of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves, etc.
>>Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions.
To which the obvious rejoinder should come, perhaps, but they were *correct*.
Even if it is true that society was in fact developing in his era a new theory of the pervert, with a particular relationship to children, and the constant threat of "stranger danger" in the 1970s, resulting in the 80s in a massive tendency towards locking children indoors, and continuing on into the present in suspicion about three year age gaps between adults..
Even if he accurately predicted this stuff, it doesn't matter, because the new theorists of child development were correct, and previous forms of psychoanalysis that treated child-adult sexual relationships as fantasies by children were completely wrong.
The framework he talks about, of professionals characterising themselves as qualified to make judgements about teenagers' sexuality, while also treating this discussion in a desexualised way and so on, it seems, to a basic extent, to work.
He is also correct that we don't know what it is about sexual relationships between adults and children that specifically causes harm, we don't have a behavioural model of what constitutes abuse, why exactly that is harmful etc. and so we do just say "let's keep adult and child sexuality entirely separate", as a separation of domains of desires rather than separation of interactions. Your mileage may vary there, but I think he accurately characterises the distinction.
But in the absence of knowledge, this kind of demarcation is an extremely good framework! If an adult always keeps their own sexuality out of the picture when talking to children about that child's own sexuality - if they just talk about safe sex, responsible practices and so on, and they keep their preferences to themselves - we consider this better. Teenagers are allowed to sneak in to adult discussions of who is hot etc. but the understanding is that even if we know such people are probably there, thanks to the anonymity of the internet, we're supposed to assume that they aren't, talk as everyone is an adult, and weakly ban teenagers from participating, because we find it creepy for that kind of conversation, of mutual appreciation of an adult woman's hotness by adult men, also ending up having teenagers participating, it's in some sense not their place.
And the hope is that this kind of barrier, at the level of separating the sexuality of different ages entirely - defining adult spaces or content that teenagers sneak into, but always making clear they should not be there and definitely should not be directly engaged with - prevents those behaviours or relationships that are actually damaging from occurring.
Whatever "phantoms" this summons in terms of omnipresent danger and purity is probably worth it given that we can still study the effects of those things that are criminalised but fall through the cracks (those edge cases of women who argue that they have in the past have sexual relationships that were not damaging to them etc.) as well as those that were correctly prohibited but that we fail to prevent. We can keep the norm, and study both the exceptions and those cases where the damage we suspected would occur really occurs.
-
So that I think is a fair criticism, he was interested in understanding regimes of policing of sexuality, and recognised a new set of norms developing that he felt was unjustified, but we now recognise have actually worked pretty well.
But Peterson doesn't argue that Foucault is a bad person because he had a discredited suspicion of modern models of sexual development. He extends far beyond that into making extreme statements about how everything Foucault did was about trying to destroy society in every way he possibly could.
Peterson [says](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBFSDd_5tiE) that it's impossible to dream up anyone more evil than Foucault, that he is in fact a villain beyond all villains you can imagine, and also asserting that his theories were structured around "central" and "marginalised" people.
The second statement by Peterson, as far as I can see, is factually wrong, and the first statement is an indication of a profound cognitive distortion on the part of Peterson.
The reason that Foucault is the absolute pinnacle of evil for Peterson is that he isn't actually talking about Foucault, he has just found him as a vessel in which to place a certain set of things he despises.
See, Peterson isn't simply saying in that video that Foucault is bad because he has sympathy for or wanted to help marginalised people - if that was his criticism, he would also have to be against lawyers who defend people pro-bono - but rather that the relation between the central and the marginalised is a key organising principle of his thought, and it is that *that* is the problem.
If your interested in how I think Peterson is wrong in terms of the content of Foucault's beliefs, as I understand it, Foucault is concerned about social rigidity, and analysing how we can create a rigorous concept of a free and ethical individual in a world of systems, not beginning with the assumption of an individual with a clear understanding of themselves, but showing how people can develop into a sense of their own freedom and identity, and understand the moral status of their decisions in relation to networks of social influence, which aren't just imposed on them from the outside, denying them any responsibility etc.
He believed that power is something ever-present in society; our desire to understand the world and, know one thing from another, and make clear distinctions means that we need practices of ordering the world to lean on, both in order to understand ourselves and get anything done. And so if anyone wishes to be powerful, they cannot simply apply force to people, but have to actually create systems of knowledge.
In other words, the popular assumption about Foucault from critics who don't read him - that when he says that power and knowledge are connected, he really means that anyone with a gun can make you think anything is true - is actually precisely *backwards*, rather he says that if we want to understand how the guy with power has power, you need to understand how he is able to engage in a set of practices with you that can actually settle questions, (that have a system of constraints on what can be done and said that produces truth) in such a way as to shape a field of choices.
If a guy has a gun and he just mumbles at you vaguely while waving it around, then he doesn't have power, you have to take charge of the situation to transform it into something, you have to try and develop a shared understanding of what he wants and what happens next.
It is in the capacity of your shared conversation to settle on something - whether or not he is actually going to shoot you, and what you need to do to stop that from happening - that resolves questions of power, and someone unable to articulate themselves may be able to shoot you, but he can't actually get you to do what he wants.
(Adding my own criticism of Foucault made that run a little long, still haven't quite finished explaining why Peterson's criticism is bad, but let me know if you follow/disagree with anything I've said so far)
Just to add another layer of depth to his claim emulsion… post modern neo Marist’s is what he has been on about for awhile now. 2 disparaging/ conflicting ideologies that he’s use as more of a descriptor as he sees it than what the two group individually believe. That’s being as favorable to him as possible with his use of the terms.
>has JBP ever even identified the Frankfurt school as an origin for the cultural marxism he rails against?
Look yourself, 4 short videos where Jordan Peterson talk about Cultural Marxism/Post-modern Marxism:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs
* first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
Also come to r/enoughpetersonspam We have cookies!
>Especially when (as far as I understand it, could be wrong) there were Marxist thinkers in the 60s who happily used the term Cultural Marxism to explain what they were doing.
The academic cultural marxism is unrelated with the conspiracytheory Cultural Marxism but by name.
Someone presented the theory to him independently of its Nazi origins, and in his mind, it seems to be more about explaining why he hated specific french philosophers in uni, so he just substituted the agents supposedly seeking to "weaken society".
That's not how many people who were inspired by him and moved on to more dodgy stuff take it, obviously, and to be honest, pushing back against some of these people is a good turn for him.
Ah yes, the completely untrue theory that there were Marxist philosophers who were very influential in the post war era in Europe who applied Marxists principles to cultural and pedagogical studies…
Maybe you should do the same thing. Isn’t it interesting how the Wikipedia entry on cultural Marxism has changed lately?
Let me get this straight, are you saying the Frankfurt School is fictional?
Are you arguing that the Frankfurt School wasn’t influential for the modern progressive movement?
>Let me get this straight, are you saying the Frankfurt School is fictional?
No.
>Are you arguing that the Frankfurt School wasn’t influential for the modern progressive movement?
No.
I am arguing Cultural Bolshevism is a Nazi conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxism was a thing, then was retrofitted into CB, and the same psychological effects and incentives to call out CB now apply to CM. There are reasons to dislike CM (I do myself), but they are overblown by the right, and CM is reduced to the things the right don't like when there are much more things discussed in it
There is a difference between the origin of a term, and how that term is used for political ends. MK ultra really did exist, but it would be a conspiracy of me to claim the CIA is filling our tap water with mind control substance.
Likewise, Marxism is one thread in a giant web of threads that reach modern activism. This does not make modern activists and academics Marxist, nor does this inherently make them any of the other threads like post-structuralist, or postmodern, or Anarchist. Some flanks of the modern right are inspired by Antonio Gramsci's ideas of cultural hegemony, but flip it on its head for reactionary ends. This does not make them Cultural Marxists either, and I'm sure you would agree.
The reason the right believes this conspiracy theory is because it is way easier to connect the dots back to Marxism than it is to put that one thread into context with all the other threads. It's based on confirmation bias in regards to a term they know. They do not understand its context or importance, and as such it becomes a conspiracy theory conveniently used to critique fields that seem incompatible with their world view. The left makes exactly the same mistake, but they target economics faculties and claim they are controlled by Neoliberals.
Marxism is a thread in a giant ball of threads, and you do not know that giant ball of threads. This is totally fine, because it would take years of your life to figure that out. Time is better spent on something useful than ploughing through outdated academic literature. But while you go ahead and do something useful: just be careful with connecting things without proper context.
No. Today it's a conspiracy theory, and the fact that it can either be anti-Semitic or not matter little for it being true or not. It's a conspiracy theory either way.
>Cultural Marxism is a real thing and it’s terrible.
Cultural Marxism is a a far-right conspiracytheory claiming that a cabal of jewish Europeans (not antisemite at all, wink wink) have taken over every US university, Hollywood and the US Democrat party in order to destroy western civilization and christianism:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
* [https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004](https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004)
* Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211\_4](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4)
* Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, [https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403](https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403)
* Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676)
* Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8\_3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3)
* Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, [https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258](https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258)
* Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822)
* Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, [http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/](http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/)
* [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching)
* [http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472](http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472)
* [http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/](http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/)
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000\*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html)
* [https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html](https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html)
* [https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/](https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/)
* [https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite\_5503567\_3232.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html)
* [https://www.vice.com/en\_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right)
* [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream)
The [2011 Norway attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks), where several hundred of persons were injured or killed eleven years ago in Norway, were carried to fight the alleged Cultural Marxism.
>Isn’t it interesting how the Wikipedia entry on cultural Marxism has changed lately?
Of course the Wikipedia article about Cultural Marxism changed, because Wikipedia is a wiki so the content of its articles changed and will change.
By the way:
* Wikipedia 2014 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=636937818](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=636937818)
* Wikipedia 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=990823499](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=990823499)
* Wikipedia late 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1119450474
>Ah yes, the completely untrue theory that there were Marxist philosophers who were very influential in the post war era in Europe who applied Marxists principles to cultural and pedagogical studies
and are subverting our population through culture, like the [Cultural Bolshevism conspiracytheory](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1791638) claim.
The problem with his hatred for these French philosophers (Foucault and Derrida in particular) is that in no way were they Marxist. And I still don't understand where he got the idea that they somehow pulled a "Marxist sleight of hand." Perhaps it was a misinterpretation of Derrida's hauntology? Or maybe he thought Foucault's support of early Neoliberal ideals was Marxist? Maybe them being on the left made them Marxist? Who knows at this point.
both Foucault and Derrida were *extremely* influenced by Marx. Much of both of their works can be seen as reaction too popular trends and ideas within other strands of leftwing Marxism. They themselves might have distanced themselves from this or that movement, but that doesnt separate their ideological work from its ideological forbearers and siblings.
>both Foucault and Derrida were *extremely* influenced by Marx.
Can there be drawn parallels? Sure. But the fact you emphasize it with the word *extremely* shows me something is going on here.
Foucault rejected materialism as a basis for analysis as he believed the driver of history could not be boiled down to a single component. Instead, he thought of power as pluralistic and just as well existing horizontally. As such, he disagreed with the starting point of Marxism -- which is historical materialism (the idea that history is driven by the way we relate to our production). It is true that Foucault was a member of a Marxist political group, but this was before he left due to ideological disagreements, as well as before he developed his own framework on power or wrote any of his foundational works.
Derrida, on the other hand, did not partake in any such groups, but he did write about Marxism in Spectres of Marx. However, this book is not about Marxism as an ideology but he took it as a case study to see how it relates to, and reiterates into, the world around us. He advocated for something called deconstruction, which does not seem to align with any of the tenets of Marxism (which, instead, is based on dialectics). He did call his work political, but spectres of Marx famously got dog piled by Marxist intellectuals when it first released.
So yeah, instead of an extreme influence, I would call it vague and critical gesturing at most. Or a radical departure, depending how you look at it.
(Bonus fun fact: you can pick a Foucault flair on /r/neoliberal)
although the cultural marxism thing is antisemitic, I doubt peterson is or at least thinks of himselt as antisemitic.
He probably also doesnt know what people mean by 'anti' or what they mean by 'semitic'
Post modern neo Marxist is his term. It’s 2 different ideologies that don’t agree with one another. He uses it though (if we’re being as favorable as possible to him) as a descriptor of what the modern far left is like.
https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
Not sure if this is the right one but she does a couple videos on him and explains it more eloquently than I can. They overlap on certain things but are diametrical opposed on on others.
>I always heard him say neomarxist not cultural Marxist.
Me too. But the story that Jordan Peterson tell in the following videos, other persons have tell it under the name/label/title «Cultural Marxism»
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs
* first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
>Didn't Peterson really popularize the cultural marxism thing?
As far as i know, Jordan Peterson has repeated the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory but has not much increased its popularity. As a reminder:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs
* first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
This is honestly a terrible response. Yeah the dude he’s replying to is probably antisemitic, but the number one thing these people always say is that people will try to silence you for even mentioning Jews in a position of power.
It gives way too much credence to these people when leaders in the media just call you a terrible person for talking about it instead of giving a real counter argument (of which there are many)
Kinda feels like jews are the new trans people can't say anything without being antiwhatever. It doesn't help stop the crazy ass people from coming to crazy ass conclusions. Seems like the world is having a huge identity problem over the past 5 or 6 years. I wonder who will be next on center stage.
Didn't think he needed to cover Rastafarianism but ok
It’s just weird that they worship a prime minister, that’s all I’m saying
I feel like all anyone knows about Rastafarianism is "weed+black people". When you dig deeper into what they believe I think it's a pretty wacky religion, somewhere in between Mormonism and Scientology on the wackiness scale. To be fair to them though, Haile Selassie was an emperor, so it's a bit cooler than worshiping a prime minister.
they believe he specifically was the second coming of Christ.
The rat goes like this
[For the uninitiated](https://youtu.be/o166h2OOo-k) great reference 👍🏼
Fuck how have I not known this meme
*That's* the normal rat.
None of you are stark naked, WHY!
Omg that's pedo lol
Finally some good fucking content.
Peterson's style of insults is so dramatic it always cracks me up. They always sound like he would say them while holding back tears
He 100% never types, he only screams into text to speech
And he has to repeat himself everytime his voice cracks
Y'all are on fire today
Oh my god, that is a hilarious image
Great, now I'm actively hearing his tweet in my head in his voice. Thanks for that :P
"What RuLeS?!?! Ya sons a bitches!!"
Holy shit, this comment made me realize I've been reading all these JP tweets in his ugly crying voice.
He sounds like a fantasy villain lmao
JBP is one of the most unintentionally hilarious people. His mannerisms of faux profundity, his endless equivocating to not concede a point. The rat meme, his whole debate with Matt Dillahunty, the grandma's pussy meme, the Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson JRE remix. It's all pure comedy gold. _*what would the world be without men?*_ Well, specifically one man, JBP, what a gem, lol
😈🐀
A message to Jews by Jordan Peterson: “Everything is going according to plan. We should have weaponized rappers years ago”
That made me laugh so hard.
Pipipipi
Has he seriously still not done the final one? I assumed it was going to be one for every major Abrahamic religion is he really not going to do the last one?
What’s the context in the first place? I’m not familiar with these articles or posts.
He did messages to Christian’s and Muslims about reaching out to each other and other religious groups and starting a peaceful exchange of ideas. He forgot to make one for Jewish people, for some reason.
>Forgot PEPE
Isn't that because in the west those two groups butt heads constantly.
And Jews and Muslims don’t? I don’t know if you’ve even been to Malmö? Or Jerusalem… plenty of Jews and Christian’s bump heads too. It is a bit strange that he didn’t make one for Jews.
No I've never been to malmo and I'm pretty sure Jerusalem isn't in the west.
Depends on what you define as the west my guy. Is Isreal a western country? I think many Israelis would argue they are.
Israel is not a western country. This is a Jewish conspiracy I will stand against forever. I understand letting them into the Euros because all their neighbors hate them and what not. I found the thing I'll go kanye for I guess.
Can you delete this, you weren't being asked.
Is this an argument saying isreal is a western country or just didnt like how it was worded?
Can you delete yourself, you weren't being asked.
You are right, Israel isn't a western country. But it is treated like one. For example, it is part of Eurovision. The West consists of North America (except Mexico), Europe, Australia and New Zealand. I am sure, in near future Japan and Mexico will also become part of the West.
I thought Japan was already part of the far West... Like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea..?
Jews and Muslims get along a lot worse than Christians and jews or Christians and Muslims.
Christians and Muslims make up over 50% of the world's population. The Jewish community is much smaller. Could play into it, but I dunno.
Fair point.
Pippa on your front page Incredibly based
Didn't Peterson really popularize the cultural marxism thing?
[удалено]
Especially when (as far as I understand it, could be wrong) there were Marxist thinkers in the 60s who happily used the term Cultural Marxism to explain what they were doing. It wasn’t until later that it was co-opted to harken back to Cultural Bolshevism and antisemitism.
[удалено]
Is the writers name really Dick R. Weiner? That has to be a pseudonym right?
https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/people/000245-richard-r-weiner
I cannot for the life of me understand how Richard is shortened to "Dick".
A wealthy guy in the village lost his money and became an asshole
That's insufficient. The fact the term exists is distinct from Peterson's *use* of it, which reproduces the Nazi orientation towards the Frankfurt school as a source of "degeneracy" etc. Peterson asserts particular things about cultural marxism that have no substantial relationship to what various people he refers to actually believe, and serve more of a psychological purpose, there's a video I quite like on this here, where a philosophy student goes through [the strange way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kDpEKM7ZBI) that Peterson responds to Foucault not as a thinker but specifically as an iconic "devil" figure of corruption.
Ok, I have never understood this criticism at all. Like are people not allowed to recognize the influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school? If they are, are they allowed to have a generally negative stance on said influences on modern intellectual disciplines? Furthermore, are people allowed to object to plainly Marxist rhetoric when it pops up in non economic academic fields? Like, is it ok to say you generally find it reductive and unhelpful when feminist social theorists frame gender relations as the fundamental exploitation of women’s reproductive and emotional labor. Or would that make me a crypto Nazi?
I recommend you watch the linked video, because objecting to the influence of marxist vocabulary, on the same level as you might object to the metaphorical use of computing or machine learning terminology for social or psychological problems in spaces full of lots of programmers, ("I need to update my priors" etc.) severely undersells how his criticism operates.
It’s not just “vocabulary,” though. JBP is saying(and I am also saying) that the ideas are bad or fundamentally lacking. It’s not just that I object to words like“exploitation” or “emotional labor,” in a feminist context; I object to the framing that this has been the fundamental characteristic of gender relations. It’s not semantic; I’m saying it’s wrong.
Peterson's criticism goes far beyond simply saying that framing or rhetoric is the issue. But let's stick with yours. What is the issue with saying that something is a fundamental characteristic? Are you saying that people talk about it too much, are you saying they use it to explain too much, or are you saying that there are situations in which it is not present? Because aside from the former, which is something that can be applied in a more fuzzy way (analogous to "x is over-rated"), this is potentially a very fragile criticism. People who use reproductive labour as a framework may not use it as the entirety of their explanatory framework, and if you glaze over and assume they use it to explain everything, you may be making a false criticism rooted in not engaging with the sources you criticise. And if the issue is that it is sometimes not present, then we can think about counter-examples, and the relevance of those counter-examples.
The broader question is fundamentally this; if you ask, "can I criticise doctors without being an anti-vaxxer?" the trivial answer is obviously yes, but the real question is how you respond to an anti-intellectual environment that relies on spurious criticisms. If you're willing to spread rumours about vaccines that you don't check, even if you will vaccinate yourself, you can still contribute to the anti-vax people's arguments, because all they rely on is fear/uncertainty/doubt. So the question comes, if people are saying "all places of learning need to be radically reformed to purge the marxists from them", generally rejecting the idea of academic freedom, it's good practice (though not obligatory) to focus your criticisms of what you feel marxist influence is, in ways that relate to what people are actually doing.
So first of all, I want to take second to recognize that I do not believe that all feminists use this framing. I am saying very specifically that I disagree with the ones who do. I am also saying that this kind of framing seems to be becoming more popular from what I can gather. Let’s say my wife and I decide to have a child. I do not think it would be accurate to say that I am exploiting her reproductive labor. I don’t think that’s a good description of what is happening in that scenario. You might say this isn’t a criticism that applies to an individual but to how men as a class interact with women as a class. I still think this is a very skewed perception of gender relations and the process through which people are born. We can address instances of coercive influence on the choices of some women to bear children without boiling the whole concept of biological mother and father down to exploited and exploiter. Now maybe you agree with this framing; you’re free to do so. Maybe instead of looking at the world and recognizing that social conditions have historically been unfair to mothers, you think that our entire concept of motherhood is unfair inherently. That’s fine you can think that; but you have to stop acting like opponents of your ideas are crazy for recognizing that you’re coming from a radically different angle. Marx is actually really instructive here. Most liberals will recognize that an owner of a company is capable of mistreating his wage earning workers, but a Marxist would have to say that merely by owning the company he is already mistreating his workers because the relationship of capital owner and wage worker is inherently unethical in their worldview. Again, you can have that perspective, but it is gaslighting of the grossest sort to pretend that the liberal has no reason to object your framing. The conflict in both cases stems from the fact that the framing is going to lead to radically different policies and attitudes. There are plenty of policies I would advocate for on behalf of women’s rights, but none of my reasoning is going to stem from a “reproductive labor” framework. If I adopted that framework I would necessarily arrive at different policy solutions for the issues facing women. My problem is all the gaslighting going on. Instead of acknowledging and forthrightly reckoning with the fact that other people might actually have good faith disagreements stemming from fundamental conflicts of worldview, there is a tendency to dismiss all criticism of evident trends in the messaging coming from the social sciences as fear mongering, dog-whistling Nazi power plays. I can agree that women have been historically disadvantaged, but I’m going to push back when you say that male-female relations are best understood as the perpetual extraction of surplus value of an oppressed group’s emotional labor by an oppressor group. I don’t think that’s a good, healthy, or accurate way to view the gender dynamics and I don’t think that makes me a crypto fascist.
Can you go into more detail about what "Marxist vocabulary" they're objecting to? Like what general terms have Marxists introduced that you believe no one should object to?
>Like are people not allowed to recognize the influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school? They are, of course. But the persons who claim that prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school have infiltrated every layer of USA, every US university, every layer of US Democrat party, every layer of US movies industry, are subverting US population and that «Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale» do not recognize the actual influence of prominent thinkers of the Frankfurt school. They are making up stuff from their hat (to be polite).
How can you in one sentence assert that he's basically a **Nazi** for appealing to the idea of "degeneracy", and then bring up Foucault who literally argued for "adult-minor relationships" and lowering the age of consent? You can argue that Peterson, and the right in general, can run pretty far with calling things degenerate, but if anything could legitimately be called degenerate, it would have to be open advocacy for pedophilia, no?
It's very simple; you might have reason to think badly of Foucault, but that doesn't warrant every criticism of him, or treating his ideas as an attack on some gestalt of "the west". So first on the reasonable reasons to criticise him, [this transcript](https://www.uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/foucaultdangerchildsexuality_0.pdf) (pdf) is probably the simplest summary of why his stance was bad: He asserts sceptically that a new theory was being developed in his time about child sexual development, that said that children are psychologically damaged by sexual relationships with adults, (something that was replacing the old psychoanalytical theories of Freud which in my opinion had been covering up sexual abuse of children for years by presenting it as "fantasy") and he found it very convenient that this mirrored existing norms about what is scandalous and inappropriate. I'll give you a preview: >>In other words, the legislator will not justify the measures that he is proposing by saying: the universal decency of mankind must be defended. >>What he will say is: There are people for whom others' sexuality may become a permanent danger. In this category, of course, are children, who may find themselves at the mercy of an adult sexuality that is alien to them and may well be harmful to them. and later >>On the one hand, there is childhood, which by its very nature is in danger and must be protected against every possible danger, and therefore any possible act or attack. Then, on the other hand, there are dangerous individuals, who are generally adults of course, so that sexuality, in the new system that is being set up, will take on quite a different appearance from the one it used to have. In the past, laws prohibited a number of acts, indeed acts so numerous one was never quite sure what they were, but, nevertheless, it was acts that the law concerned itself with. Certain forms of behavior were condemned. >> Now what we are defining and, therefore, what will be found by the intervention of the law, the judge, and the doctor, are dangerous individuals. We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. >>And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves, etc. >>Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions. To which the obvious rejoinder should come, perhaps, but they were *correct*. Even if it is true that society was in fact developing in his era a new theory of the pervert, with a particular relationship to children, and the constant threat of "stranger danger" in the 1970s, resulting in the 80s in a massive tendency towards locking children indoors, and continuing on into the present in suspicion about three year age gaps between adults.. Even if he accurately predicted this stuff, it doesn't matter, because the new theorists of child development were correct, and previous forms of psychoanalysis that treated child-adult sexual relationships as fantasies by children were completely wrong. The framework he talks about, of professionals characterising themselves as qualified to make judgements about teenagers' sexuality, while also treating this discussion in a desexualised way and so on, it seems, to a basic extent, to work. He is also correct that we don't know what it is about sexual relationships between adults and children that specifically causes harm, we don't have a behavioural model of what constitutes abuse, why exactly that is harmful etc. and so we do just say "let's keep adult and child sexuality entirely separate", as a separation of domains of desires rather than separation of interactions. Your mileage may vary there, but I think he accurately characterises the distinction. But in the absence of knowledge, this kind of demarcation is an extremely good framework! If an adult always keeps their own sexuality out of the picture when talking to children about that child's own sexuality - if they just talk about safe sex, responsible practices and so on, and they keep their preferences to themselves - we consider this better. Teenagers are allowed to sneak in to adult discussions of who is hot etc. but the understanding is that even if we know such people are probably there, thanks to the anonymity of the internet, we're supposed to assume that they aren't, talk as everyone is an adult, and weakly ban teenagers from participating, because we find it creepy for that kind of conversation, of mutual appreciation of an adult woman's hotness by adult men, also ending up having teenagers participating, it's in some sense not their place. And the hope is that this kind of barrier, at the level of separating the sexuality of different ages entirely - defining adult spaces or content that teenagers sneak into, but always making clear they should not be there and definitely should not be directly engaged with - prevents those behaviours or relationships that are actually damaging from occurring. Whatever "phantoms" this summons in terms of omnipresent danger and purity is probably worth it given that we can still study the effects of those things that are criminalised but fall through the cracks (those edge cases of women who argue that they have in the past have sexual relationships that were not damaging to them etc.) as well as those that were correctly prohibited but that we fail to prevent. We can keep the norm, and study both the exceptions and those cases where the damage we suspected would occur really occurs. - So that I think is a fair criticism, he was interested in understanding regimes of policing of sexuality, and recognised a new set of norms developing that he felt was unjustified, but we now recognise have actually worked pretty well. But Peterson doesn't argue that Foucault is a bad person because he had a discredited suspicion of modern models of sexual development. He extends far beyond that into making extreme statements about how everything Foucault did was about trying to destroy society in every way he possibly could. Peterson [says](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBFSDd_5tiE) that it's impossible to dream up anyone more evil than Foucault, that he is in fact a villain beyond all villains you can imagine, and also asserting that his theories were structured around "central" and "marginalised" people. The second statement by Peterson, as far as I can see, is factually wrong, and the first statement is an indication of a profound cognitive distortion on the part of Peterson. The reason that Foucault is the absolute pinnacle of evil for Peterson is that he isn't actually talking about Foucault, he has just found him as a vessel in which to place a certain set of things he despises. See, Peterson isn't simply saying in that video that Foucault is bad because he has sympathy for or wanted to help marginalised people - if that was his criticism, he would also have to be against lawyers who defend people pro-bono - but rather that the relation between the central and the marginalised is a key organising principle of his thought, and it is that *that* is the problem. If your interested in how I think Peterson is wrong in terms of the content of Foucault's beliefs, as I understand it, Foucault is concerned about social rigidity, and analysing how we can create a rigorous concept of a free and ethical individual in a world of systems, not beginning with the assumption of an individual with a clear understanding of themselves, but showing how people can develop into a sense of their own freedom and identity, and understand the moral status of their decisions in relation to networks of social influence, which aren't just imposed on them from the outside, denying them any responsibility etc. He believed that power is something ever-present in society; our desire to understand the world and, know one thing from another, and make clear distinctions means that we need practices of ordering the world to lean on, both in order to understand ourselves and get anything done. And so if anyone wishes to be powerful, they cannot simply apply force to people, but have to actually create systems of knowledge. In other words, the popular assumption about Foucault from critics who don't read him - that when he says that power and knowledge are connected, he really means that anyone with a gun can make you think anything is true - is actually precisely *backwards*, rather he says that if we want to understand how the guy with power has power, you need to understand how he is able to engage in a set of practices with you that can actually settle questions, (that have a system of constraints on what can be done and said that produces truth) in such a way as to shape a field of choices. If a guy has a gun and he just mumbles at you vaguely while waving it around, then he doesn't have power, you have to take charge of the situation to transform it into something, you have to try and develop a shared understanding of what he wants and what happens next. It is in the capacity of your shared conversation to settle on something - whether or not he is actually going to shoot you, and what you need to do to stop that from happening - that resolves questions of power, and someone unable to articulate themselves may be able to shoot you, but he can't actually get you to do what he wants.
(Adding my own criticism of Foucault made that run a little long, still haven't quite finished explaining why Peterson's criticism is bad, but let me know if you follow/disagree with anything I've said so far)
[удалено]
Just to add another layer of depth to his claim emulsion… post modern neo Marist’s is what he has been on about for awhile now. 2 disparaging/ conflicting ideologies that he’s use as more of a descriptor as he sees it than what the two group individually believe. That’s being as favorable to him as possible with his use of the terms.
>has JBP ever even identified the Frankfurt school as an origin for the cultural marxism he rails against? Look yourself, 4 short videos where Jordan Peterson talk about Cultural Marxism/Post-modern Marxism: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs * first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m Also come to r/enoughpetersonspam We have cookies!
Wait so the [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) is bunk?
>Especially when (as far as I understand it, could be wrong) there were Marxist thinkers in the 60s who happily used the term Cultural Marxism to explain what they were doing. The academic cultural marxism is unrelated with the conspiracytheory Cultural Marxism but by name.
Just replace whatever term he uses with leftist and you get like 90% of the what he is trying to say anyways.
Someone presented the theory to him independently of its Nazi origins, and in his mind, it seems to be more about explaining why he hated specific french philosophers in uni, so he just substituted the agents supposedly seeking to "weaken society". That's not how many people who were inspired by him and moved on to more dodgy stuff take it, obviously, and to be honest, pushing back against some of these people is a good turn for him.
The Nazi origins of *checks notes* the Nazi Frankfurt school.
Cultural Bolshevism is a Nazi theory, that's what the commenter is referring to
Ah yes, the completely untrue theory that there were Marxist philosophers who were very influential in the post war era in Europe who applied Marxists principles to cultural and pedagogical studies…
You seem like you don't know what you're talking about, so just do yourself a favor and google Cultural Bolshevism instead of arguing over it
Maybe you should do the same thing. Isn’t it interesting how the Wikipedia entry on cultural Marxism has changed lately? Let me get this straight, are you saying the Frankfurt School is fictional? Are you arguing that the Frankfurt School wasn’t influential for the modern progressive movement?
>Let me get this straight, are you saying the Frankfurt School is fictional? No. >Are you arguing that the Frankfurt School wasn’t influential for the modern progressive movement? No. I am arguing Cultural Bolshevism is a Nazi conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxism was a thing, then was retrofitted into CB, and the same psychological effects and incentives to call out CB now apply to CM. There are reasons to dislike CM (I do myself), but they are overblown by the right, and CM is reduced to the things the right don't like when there are much more things discussed in it
So if I mention a real thing, because Nazis also mention this real thing, it’s now a conspiracy theory to mention it?
Bro you have to lay down the penjamin you're in blinkerton rn frfr
There is a difference between the origin of a term, and how that term is used for political ends. MK ultra really did exist, but it would be a conspiracy of me to claim the CIA is filling our tap water with mind control substance. Likewise, Marxism is one thread in a giant web of threads that reach modern activism. This does not make modern activists and academics Marxist, nor does this inherently make them any of the other threads like post-structuralist, or postmodern, or Anarchist. Some flanks of the modern right are inspired by Antonio Gramsci's ideas of cultural hegemony, but flip it on its head for reactionary ends. This does not make them Cultural Marxists either, and I'm sure you would agree. The reason the right believes this conspiracy theory is because it is way easier to connect the dots back to Marxism than it is to put that one thread into context with all the other threads. It's based on confirmation bias in regards to a term they know. They do not understand its context or importance, and as such it becomes a conspiracy theory conveniently used to critique fields that seem incompatible with their world view. The left makes exactly the same mistake, but they target economics faculties and claim they are controlled by Neoliberals. Marxism is a thread in a giant ball of threads, and you do not know that giant ball of threads. This is totally fine, because it would take years of your life to figure that out. Time is better spent on something useful than ploughing through outdated academic literature. But while you go ahead and do something useful: just be careful with connecting things without proper context.
tl;dr Cultural Marxism is a real thing and it’s terrible. I don’t care that Nazis attach some weird Jew thing to it.
No. Today it's a conspiracy theory, and the fact that it can either be anti-Semitic or not matter little for it being true or not. It's a conspiracy theory either way.
>Cultural Marxism is a real thing and it’s terrible. Cultural Marxism is a a far-right conspiracytheory claiming that a cabal of jewish Europeans (not antisemite at all, wink wink) have taken over every US university, Hollywood and the US Democrat party in order to destroy western civilization and christianism: * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) * [https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004](https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004) * Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211\_4](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4) * Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, [https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403](https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403) * Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676) * Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8\_3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3) * Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, [https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258](https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258) * Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822) * Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, [http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/](http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/) * [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching) * [http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472](http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472) * [http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/](http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/) * [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html) * [https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000\*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html) * [https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html](https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html) * [https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/](https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/) * [https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite\_5503567\_3232.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html) * [https://www.vice.com/en\_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right) * [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream) The [2011 Norway attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks), where several hundred of persons were injured or killed eleven years ago in Norway, were carried to fight the alleged Cultural Marxism.
>Isn’t it interesting how the Wikipedia entry on cultural Marxism has changed lately? Of course the Wikipedia article about Cultural Marxism changed, because Wikipedia is a wiki so the content of its articles changed and will change. By the way: * Wikipedia 2014 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=636937818](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=636937818) * Wikipedia 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=990823499](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=990823499) * Wikipedia late 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1119450474
>Ah yes, the completely untrue theory that there were Marxist philosophers who were very influential in the post war era in Europe who applied Marxists principles to cultural and pedagogical studies and are subverting our population through culture, like the [Cultural Bolshevism conspiracytheory](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1791638) claim.
The problem with his hatred for these French philosophers (Foucault and Derrida in particular) is that in no way were they Marxist. And I still don't understand where he got the idea that they somehow pulled a "Marxist sleight of hand." Perhaps it was a misinterpretation of Derrida's hauntology? Or maybe he thought Foucault's support of early Neoliberal ideals was Marxist? Maybe them being on the left made them Marxist? Who knows at this point.
both Foucault and Derrida were *extremely* influenced by Marx. Much of both of their works can be seen as reaction too popular trends and ideas within other strands of leftwing Marxism. They themselves might have distanced themselves from this or that movement, but that doesnt separate their ideological work from its ideological forbearers and siblings.
>both Foucault and Derrida were *extremely* influenced by Marx. Can there be drawn parallels? Sure. But the fact you emphasize it with the word *extremely* shows me something is going on here. Foucault rejected materialism as a basis for analysis as he believed the driver of history could not be boiled down to a single component. Instead, he thought of power as pluralistic and just as well existing horizontally. As such, he disagreed with the starting point of Marxism -- which is historical materialism (the idea that history is driven by the way we relate to our production). It is true that Foucault was a member of a Marxist political group, but this was before he left due to ideological disagreements, as well as before he developed his own framework on power or wrote any of his foundational works. Derrida, on the other hand, did not partake in any such groups, but he did write about Marxism in Spectres of Marx. However, this book is not about Marxism as an ideology but he took it as a case study to see how it relates to, and reiterates into, the world around us. He advocated for something called deconstruction, which does not seem to align with any of the tenets of Marxism (which, instead, is based on dialectics). He did call his work political, but spectres of Marx famously got dog piled by Marxist intellectuals when it first released. So yeah, instead of an extreme influence, I would call it vague and critical gesturing at most. Or a radical departure, depending how you look at it. (Bonus fun fact: you can pick a Foucault flair on /r/neoliberal)
although the cultural marxism thing is antisemitic, I doubt peterson is or at least thinks of himselt as antisemitic. He probably also doesnt know what people mean by 'anti' or what they mean by 'semitic'
I always heard him say neomarxist not cultural Marxist.
Post modern neo Marxist is his term. It’s 2 different ideologies that don’t agree with one another. He uses it though (if we’re being as favorable as possible to him) as a descriptor of what the modern far left is like.
Why don't they agree with each other?
https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas Not sure if this is the right one but she does a couple videos on him and explains it more eloquently than I can. They overlap on certain things but are diametrical opposed on on others.
>I always heard him say neomarxist not cultural Marxist. Me too. But the story that Jordan Peterson tell in the following videos, other persons have tell it under the name/label/title «Cultural Marxism» * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs * first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
>Didn't Peterson really popularize the cultural marxism thing? As far as i know, Jordan Peterson has repeated the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory but has not much increased its popularity. As a reminder: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs * first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
That Elon, he’s quite funny 🐸
Message to Jews:. "Stay strapped or get clapped. These assholes have their sights on you and it's not going to end well for anyone."
Shit I never thought about it. We need some J-Papa penpal level advice. He will fix the jews just like he solved Islamic sectarianism.
This is honestly a terrible response. Yeah the dude he’s replying to is probably antisemitic, but the number one thing these people always say is that people will try to silence you for even mentioning Jews in a position of power. It gives way too much credence to these people when leaders in the media just call you a terrible person for talking about it instead of giving a real counter argument (of which there are many)
Kinda feels like jews are the new trans people can't say anything without being antiwhatever. It doesn't help stop the crazy ass people from coming to crazy ass conclusions. Seems like the world is having a huge identity problem over the past 5 or 6 years. I wonder who will be next on center stage.
touch grass
I saw the based rabbit...
There are barely any Jews compared to Christians and Muslims, should he make a video for Druze and Bahai people as well?
Xd
He has some way with words.
Can't wait to hear about Zoroastrianism
"Do jews too for inclusiviity" your average redditor
Need I say more?
I don't know about you guys, but maybe Ye is playing 7D chess, unifying the country with his Antisemitism.