Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video

15 mei. 2019
3 119 383 Weergaven

I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.
On February, April 19, 2019, I debated Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek in Toronto, April 19 at the Sony Centre. Dr. Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, whose works on cultural studies, psychoanalysis and, above all, for the purposes of our debate, Marxism, are world-renowned. The topic? Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism. This is the official video. Many bootlegs have already been released, but that seems inevitable given our current state of technological capability.
I started with a critique of The Communist Manifesto, which is the central revolutionary document of the Marxist movement (rather than addressing, say, Zizek's work, which wasn't what the debate was about).
It wasn't so obvious for the rest of the discussion that Marxism, per se, comprised the central topic of discussion.
Watch for yourself.
A good article, I think, on Zizek: www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/#H2

--- SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL ---
Donations: www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbpeterson
--- BOOKS ---
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning/
--- LINKS ---
Website: jordanbpeterson.com/
12 Rules for Life Tour: jordanbpeterson.com/events/
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog/
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/
Reading List: jordanbpeterson.com/great-books/
Twitter: twitter.com/jordanbpeterson
Instagram: instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson/
Facebook: facebook.com/drjordanpeterson
--- PRODUCTS ---
Personality Course: www.jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com/
Understand Myself personality test: understandmyself.com/
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbpeterson

Reacties
  • Cocaine is a hell of a drug

    Parmesan BeagleParmesan Beagle5 uur geleden
  • Zizek's comparison regarding french cuisine sounds like marxist history. It failed before so lets change the name and sell it as a success.

    Peter TiernoPeter Tierno6 uur geleden
  • i hate this. someone make zizek take ADD meds or something, this wasn't a discussion, this was one guy trying to engage in debate and another senselessly picking up scattered papers and reading the first sentences off them. i wonder why the moderator didn't even dare correct zizek on the time, and why zizek thought more about giving a performance than defending or even comprehensively stating his thesis statement. theyre both brilliant minds, but this was such a shitty watch and really im frustrated for peterson, he was ready to have a discussion but what he got was a frankensteined script of a debate partner

    Salta PioggiaSalta Pioggia7 uur geleden
  • Somebody please morph this into the most epic anime that would ever be made in the history of humankind.

    AryaArya8 uur geleden
  • Its pretty clear at Zizek's 1st 10 minute rebuttal is when the stimulant started kicking in. 🥳🤓

    AndrewAndrew9 uur geleden
  • This video aged well, now biden is going full communist after stealing the presidency

    Loco AmericanLoco American10 uur geleden
  • it is good for the poor that the rich be richer , because the rich when he gets richer he opens new companies then the middle class will have more jobs then the poor gets more richer when the middle classes and the rich give him some of that money as charity , and may be the poor takes the old place of the middle class

    حارث يزن Harethحارث يزن Hareth12 uur geleden
  • marx look was not western white look , thats one of the sources of his silly marxism

    حارث يزن Harethحارث يزن Hareth12 uur geleden
  • life problems are combinated of multiple endlless things , like religions ,knowledge , beauty , money , it is silly to put it all in the money problem

    حارث يزن Harethحارث يزن Hareth12 uur geleden
  • I always imagine Zizek is eating peanut butter anytime hes off screen

    john smithjohn smith17 uur geleden
  • The antithesis between them 2 is so fucking poetic: One acts precessional-intelectual on the suit the other is a mad genious with cajual clothes. One is a clinical sciences based psychologyst the other is specialised in psychoanalysis. One is very stern and direct in his belief the other is very open and ambiguous One uses an apple the other uses paper

    nope nopenope nope17 uur geleden
    • "One uses an apple the other uses paper" = Microsoft not Apple.

      faison gachefaison gache27 minuten geleden
  • Starts at 15:15. You're welcome. I just saved you 15 minutes...

    TOMEK POLSKAdoBOJUTOMEK POLSKAdoBOJU19 uur geleden
  • Probably better to just watch this on mute with captions

    t dt d21 uur geleden
  • Tyranny of proletariat! Exactly what happened in my country. Then we were persecuted. Then we fled to the USA, and here we are. Holly crap! I can’t believe this garbage is well and thriving in our universities.

    Rita SRita SDag geleden
  • Global warming is a deep state scam. ALL the evidence shows that CO2, in particular human CO2 has very little effect on climate.

    Aaron BarlowAaron BarlowDag geleden
  • A good debate between Peterson and Dracula.

    Aaron BarlowAaron BarlowDag geleden
  • I had to get some perspex to put against my tv screen. This dude was spitting all over my carpet. "Sufferin' succotash!"

    v twinv twinDag geleden
  • Zizek needs a bib for all that spit coming out.

    K JK JDag geleden
  • they should put this debate on ItaliaUno in Italian !

    Crazy GoatCrazy GoatDag geleden
  • Imagine if Peterson had been married 4 times and his current wife was 30 years younger than him....he would've been cancelled a long time ago.

    TTDag geleden
  • The Slovenian Jeff Daniels

    TTDag geleden
  • Zizek is a class A Intelligent Idiot

    John GilJohn GilDag geleden
    • I didn’t understand wat he believes at all.

      Mario GMario G10 uur geleden
  • i always listen to jordan peterson, but zizek took the stage

    Damian DamianioDamian DamianioDag geleden
  • I find something terribly moving about this. Two great men, discussing serious notions of human existence for everyone across the globe to hear. What a time to be alive really.

    joejjohnstonjoejjohnstonDag geleden
  • Two geniuses who don't know that forests are not the same as tree plantations.

    David EdwardsDavid EdwardsDag geleden
  • Ah the irony that there were scalped tickets at the debate between "capitalism and marxism"

    hybridarmy777hybridarmy777Dag geleden
  • The real winner of the debate is the one who learns from it. But if we leave this a side, Zizek destroyed Peterson's arguments which were oversimplification of Marx and his philosophy.

    Erik BrezovecErik BrezovecDag geleden
    • @Erik Brezovec but Zizek has called himself a Marxist. And the tickets say Marxism vs capitalism. I’m not sure if it’s the English but I definitely feel like most people walked away from this debate not understanding Zizek. People say scientists are terrible philosophers. I think that’s wrong and I think philosophers have terrible science. Like almost none. I also thought that part of philosophy (as well as science) is abstraction. Zizek does want to abstract anything. It looks like the only way you can be a Marxist to him is if you say you are while holding the manifesto. That there isn’t underlying philosophy in the book that is terrible. Like a human can be anything? That’s scientifically falsifiable. Now I will grant that Marx has a nice critique of capitalism. But the antidote is flat out wrong. That’s why Peterson was so confused. Zizek and Peterson put this whole thing together around Marxism and Zizek is apparently not a Marxist? How does that even happen? It was a mess and this debate for the most part was ignored because nothing was done and the whole debate wasn’t even really on topic.

      Mario GMario G11 uur geleden
    • ​@Tango Kaleidos how do one not understand Peterson's lack of knowledge in the basic philosophy - first of all Hegel, then Marx? I know his background and his work, but in this specific argument he entered with the dogmatic not scientific view of Marxism. He was talking about ideology which is really lay level of argumentation. A deepness of a thought was really primal from him, while Žižek (whom we could criticize on his own account) has been Hegelian in the full sense of the word. Now, regarding your comment, it is purely Peterson's style that u adapt in your comment - in lack of a valid argument against my opinion, You simply say that I do not understand him. Explain it to me then and make an counterargument.

      Erik BrezovecErik BrezovecDag geleden
    • that's only because you don't understand Jordan Peterson's argument clearly. I'm not interested in a winner but Jordan explained himself much better than Zizek in this particular debate.

      Tango KaleidosTango KaleidosDag geleden
  • this was no debate. it was a pretty good lecture though. the audience was a distraction

    Acct AdminAcct AdminDag geleden
  • 90 minutes in and absolutely loving this exchange, but it's not so much about Marxism. I wish I would have heard more from Zizek on this, can't help but feel a little underwhelmed even though the discussion is great.

    Chris PedersenChris PedersenDag geleden
  • This public debate goes beyond advocating for the generosity of the hunger of the audience, to be fortunate enough to know that generosity is the force behind this "Star Wars" like battle.

    Nathan BlizardNathan BlizardDag geleden
  • i cant even listen to zizek talk with that aggresive lisp

    Orphan of KosOrphan of Kos2 dagen geleden
  • First time I watch this, im high af on weed, it changed my political view. Now I'm sober and it can still changes my political view. What a nice debate. What's not nice is the audience tho.

    Diska KurniawanDiska Kurniawan2 dagen geleden
  • comments extra gay on this one

    Kirby QuinnKirby Quinn2 dagen geleden
  • Tl;Dw Peterson won

    Perc SaturnPerc Saturn2 dagen geleden
  • Slobbov Sneezek

    dedosdigitaldedosdigital2 dagen geleden
  • Only good points were made for the entirety of the conversation. Interesting the hecklers had nothing to object to once the conversation actually got interesting, when they could directly respond in real time. They should do some podcasts.

    guyguy2 dagen geleden
  • “Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well…My soul, once true to God, is chosen for Hell.” -Karl Marx, The Pale Maiden

    AdiebobAdiebob2 dagen geleden
  • Best 2 people on the planet

    RooTcasRooTcas2 dagen geleden
  • Very confused why peterson is talking about happiness.... His entire worldview is opposed to it.

    Cats 2079Cats 20792 dagen geleden
  • This is typically leftist marxist tactic: tell me one, name me this, it is dumb to even answer to this. Kill off the discussion at this point.

    DoomLegion83DoomLegion832 dagen geleden
  • Zizek is wrong in "the will to change society". They have the will. And its not to be made up on one person, its about the "culture". Zizek is a downtalking idiot and he discredits himself. its horrible to listen to him in the questions section.

    DoomLegion83DoomLegion832 dagen geleden
  • 1:51:00

    19UME026 Aniket Biswas19UME026 Aniket Biswas2 dagen geleden
  • The teeny-tiny lathe intralysosomally pretend because camel aboaly return past a crabby drug. fresh, numerous mexico

    Robert ZhengRobert Zheng2 dagen geleden
  • The Slovenian is improperly dressed for such an event, his socks are way too short, his English does not suit his intellectual magnitude...

    Marius OanăMarius Oană2 dagen geleden
  • 15:15

    ScepterScepter2 dagen geleden
  • How is happiness a product of action? Isn't it action itself bondage? Also, isn't one is happy in deep sleep needing nothing? Then how is deep sleep which is abode of happiness, a state of action? In Indian Philosophy called Purva Mimamsa ( Philosophy of action), this is considered. And refuted strongly in the Bhagavad Gita. Please do read Chapter 3 of Gita along with Shankaracharya commentary.

    gvss sudheergvss sudheer2 dagen geleden
  • Zizek doing Soo much coke, his nose is constantly running

    bigD bobbigD bob2 dagen geleden
  • Zizek pretty based tho

    IAm HeckIAm Heck2 dagen geleden
  • Two very smart men. If you want confirmation that communism could work you won't find it here...

    boohackerboohacker3 dagen geleden
  • Zizeks praise of China is looking a bit suspect now. Loved this talk though.

    Mark SmithMark Smith3 dagen geleden
    • He says in the debate itself that he doesn't praise China... You may want to rewatch the second half

      GabeDoesThingsGabeDoesThings2 dagen geleden
  • Was not expecting Zizek to get up for his opening statement and unironically say both that communist countries are worse polluters than capitalists and that Chem trails are a massive threat to humanity 😂

    JakeDotComJakeDotCom3 dagen geleden
  • Near-genius conversation.

    Praveen SharmaPraveen Sharma3 dagen geleden
  • Jordan! My good man. Please, if you haven’t already, read more into Platonism and Neo-Platonism. These ethics you are recognizing in Judeo-Christianity stem from the Platonic tradition. Any grain of goodness within the Bible is ripped off from so-called “pagans”. This is why you see such a stark difference between the doctrine of the OT and NT. Whereas the OT talks about a chosen people and the ordering of them to slay all whom they come across: “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.” Exodus 23:27 The NT takes a more “god is love” approach and talks of the need to liken ourselves unto the Good as much as possible before death.

    Outdoor EscapadesOutdoor Escapades3 dagen geleden
  • Asberger, Tourette ... nice discussion

    LasseLasse3 dagen geleden
  • Is zizek talking through a walkie talkie?

    James TJames T3 dagen geleden
  • Isn't "Marxist Philosopher" an oxy moron? My experience is "ideologue" should come right after Marxist.....at least that applies to 99% of the ones I've debated with. "Capitalism is tyrannical. Marxism offers equality and is merciful and just......never mind the 10's of millions of people who suffered and died while this "theory" was being tested out.........that's not Marx's fault!" That's pretty much the crux of my experience with Marxists.

    Aaron BeauchampAaron Beauchamp3 dagen geleden
    • @Aaron Beauchamp: Have you read both volumes of Marx’s Das Kapital? Marx was heavily influence by Hegel. So maybe also check out Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes. Hegel is considered to be a significant philosopher in the western canon. If you have read these books and still find Marx to be shallow, then okay. Marx can have depth to him and still be wrong or worthless, but most people think it was just the Manifesto and that’s it. I am a trained philosopher - as in I have a PhD in philosophy and teach it at the university level. And in order to understand Marx, one needs to understand Hegel, and Hegel is no easy pill to swallow. And Zizek is not a devotee of Marx, he is an expert on Marx’s theory. Das Kapital is over 2,000 pages. Either way, to each one’s own. Take care!

      Post DeliberatelyPost Deliberately3 dagen geleden
    • @Post Deliberately I've never called myself a philosopher, but I can be philosophical when required. Examining Marxism led me to see that the theory was not deeply thought out ( in regards to its real validity and usefulness). I would go so far to say it's completely oblivious to every day reality. Aren't philosophers, by nature, deep thinkers? Point? The majority of Marxists I have encountered seem to not have examined their beliefs very deeply......most of what I get are common slogans and regurgitated rhetoric. So my point stands....."philosopher" is not an apt descriptor. "Ideologue" works much better. Anybody who truly examines the tenets of Marxism - with intellectual honesty - will see what an utter load of crap it is, and not worth exerting any more intellectual energy to it.

      Aaron BeauchampAaron Beauchamp3 dagen geleden
    • Zizek is a philosopher who is one of the premiere experts of Marxist theory or Marxism. Marxist philosopher is another way of saying a philosopher of Marxism. A Kantian philosopher is not one who believes everything Kant says to be true but a philosopher of Kant.

      Post DeliberatelyPost Deliberately3 dagen geleden
  • Can someone tell me the name of the book Zizek references at 2:16:48

    sam b1tsam b1t3 dagen geleden
    • Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton

      ekardnamableekardnamableDag geleden
  • I think it is rubbish how they talk about Christ’s moment of atheism on the cross. The supposed son of GOD doubts the divine due to his mortal suffering? That doesn’t sound like a truly divine being. Socrates went out in a more inspiring manner. Yes, he wasn’t tortured, but he was condemned on the basis of false judgement, just like christ, and right before his death he gave a lecture on the immortality of the soul and how he was not afraid to die because it wasn’t the death of his soul, but only the thing which encumbers and traps his soul. The Bible is follicle in so many ways, and the words of the ancient sages are far more inspiring than those found in that book of the vengeful, wrathful, and jealous “god”.

    Outdoor EscapadesOutdoor Escapades3 dagen geleden
  • Imagine taking Peterson serious after this.

    Dani the MayqueenDani the Mayqueen3 dagen geleden
    • Whys that?

      Oli LaceyOli Lacey3 dagen geleden
  • Peterson - Deconstructs, analyzes, contemplates, criticizes, respects and answers. Zizek - Pouts and calls for "revolution" What a pompous jerk.

    Christopher MeisnerChristopher Meisner3 dagen geleden
    • Peterson: doesn't even read one volume of Marxist theory -gets on stage demanding entry fee for a debate on the topic. Peterson is a pseudointerlectual conman. A conspiracy theorist vomiting his monocausal patterns of "explaination" into every face he finds. If you can watch this debate and think that he is an honest player you can't be helped.

      schmiddes Werbanschmiddes Werban3 dagen geleden
  • Was very impressed with Zizek's critique toward the very end of the debate of Peterson's emphasis on putting one's own house in order, viz that what seems like a simple matter of individual conscience may yet be determined by ideology. The point about Suzuki and Japanese imperialism, and Himmler's devotion to the Baghavad Gita gave me pause. One of the few direct responses in the debate, and in the context of Peterson rehearsing his strongest material.

    ekardnamableekardnamable4 dagen geleden
  • And now with the Covid 19 and the shut downs, and vaccines. Perhaps, try and see if the medication for astma, Pulmicort, if that have a positive result on people with Sars Cov2 that causes Covid 19. And let's see if some will blaim any breakdowns in the economy on Covid 19. And remeber the word Saturation, debt saturation.

    CristofferCristoffer4 dagen geleden
  • It would have been interesting if some of them, Mr Peterson or Zizek, had mentioned Fractional Reserve Banking. Also if Zizek could have explained what the word Anti Semitism really means. And who created it and why, for example. Who are you supposed to be anti, and why? Also, who gave Theodor Herzl some money, and the wrtings of Theodor Herzl. Another thing, regarding refugees and so called populist, are all migrant movements/refugee movements natural? It would also have been good to mention that wall street, and others, helped finance the revolution in Russia, and also the National Socialists in Germany. Was that for ideological reasons perhaps? Then the knife in the back. Then money from Russia, after the revolution, wnt through Estonia and Sweden and then to Wall Street, City of London... Telecom infrastructure is important, without that you can't transfer money for example, and the military and intelligence services like the former KGB, Gestapo or the CIA...CIA yes, needs it, aswell as the FBI. Who controls the Telecom infrastructure in many countries around the world? And is it so maybe, that Israel custom/takes toll on goods from example Africa that is transported that way into the Middle East/Eurasia. Who wanted the so called Jewish state to be placed exactly there... Also, did Ben Gurion have some owners interest in the bank that helped building some labour/internation camps? Either he did, or he did not. What Evacuation where the politicians talking about in Germany, evacuation. How come that so called hasidic jews in Israel say that the others are not jews, could that be classified as anti semitism too, btw? Does control of natural resources, general means of payment and the flow of natural resources, that needs a telecom infrastructure too, matter? Could some nations perhaos have wanted to be in control of that themselves, not letting for example a private interest control it for them? Knife in the back again...

    CristofferCristoffer4 dagen geleden
  • It's actually really fitting that Peterson has only read Manifesto at two points in his life, when he was 18 and to prepare for this debate. Goes to show how little attention he really paid to the words in front of him; when he basically says that "Marx say proletariat good and bourgeoisie bad and that's a lil' simple dontcha think????" and his fans clap, I wanted to open up my Manifesto on the section about the bourgeoisie's revolutionary character and lob it at my computer screen. I guess that's what happens when you're convinced Marxism is when college students don't want to get a job or something.

    JP RuizJP Ruiz4 dagen geleden
    • Indubitably. And I believe we should be able to keep the fruits of our creation, whatever that may be. His theory inherently sacrifices that to the collective. That's why I love this onset of NFT culture because I think we will see artists finally relish in a way they can maintain capitalistic autonomy over how they monetize their art, it's the verge of a big libertarian renaissance. Thanks for the talk.

      Dan LaDueDan LaDueDag geleden
    • @Dan LaDue: The ontological being of the human being for Marx is that of a creative being. Humans create by nature. The will to control our creative endeavors - or products - has been usurped from us. I am not defending, nor do I defend Marx, that was just some food for thought. His dialectic materialism is informed by Hegel (other food for thought). You are right; he did not own a business ever. You need to be commended for tackling this endeavor so quickly! Be well.

      Post DeliberatelyPost DeliberatelyDag geleden
    • @Post Deliberately And appreciate that you wren't antagonistic as well. i'm here for healthy discussion. Too many people talking about at the audience lol.

      Dan LaDueDan LaDueDag geleden
    • @Post Deliberately there's an ebook. few pages into it and already he basically admitted people who try to claim things like health care/housing is a human right are wrong because they are commodities that exist outside of people. and his argument for trade leaves out human's free will to work on a sliding scale, and take different prices because different commodities have different personal value - demand fluctuates. He lived in a utopian world of perfect absolutes not the wonderfully grey area that is the free market. i'm sure he goes more in depth on these but Marx just sounds like someone who never ran his own business. it's a nice theory but in the real world it doesn't work. too many examples of a command economy failing under too much govt red tape. he puts too much value in the creation labor, his definition of a useful article doesn't factor in marketing, transport, clerical and administrative work, development costs, benefit costs, business loans, etc. Every piece contributes and impacts price, the laborer is only one replaceable part of that process. Some people work better and faster than others and deserve better pay. The laborer should have the ability to negotiate a fair trade for their services. "the value of a commodity would remain constant if the labor time remained constant" no because humans have free will to make better trades when possible.

      Dan LaDueDan LaDueDag geleden
    • @Dan LaDue: No problem...thank you for not being a typical youtube commenter and replying with a combative or disparaging remark. So refreshing. And good luck on Das Kapital! It is a beast of a text, but worthy reading even if one does not agree with it.

      Post DeliberatelyPost DeliberatelyDag geleden
  • Bro Jordan Peterson is such an idiot humans used to shit in their drinking water in the Paleolithic age too that don’t mean it’s human nature

    noah wileynoah wiley4 dagen geleden
    • If Jordan Peterson was alive in 1840 he would’ve said that we should have slaves because it’s human nature we’ve always had slaves it just a reality of humanity and it helps keep us going

      noah wileynoah wiley4 dagen geleden
  • The fancy cinema happily consider because dibble postsurgically grate off a handsome deborah. stormy, coherent fall

    E PangE Pang5 dagen geleden
    • The ergot of the day is the Bisquick of the night.

      Matt JarvieMatt Jarvie3 dagen geleden
  • Zizek is a form of crappy communist! Trying to make his bones on Jordan Peterson's back.

    Marek NosekMarek Nosek5 dagen geleden
  • Praising Chinese communist party has not aged well.

    Mary OwensMary Owens5 dagen geleden
  • im still salty it was not a rap battle >:(

    František JabůrekFrantišek Jabůrek5 dagen geleden
  • This was amazing !!!

    SocratesSocrates5 dagen geleden
  • The splendid numeric holly blush because bucket ordinarily refuse pace a bloody level. innate, perfect dredger

    Ryd ScheerRyd Scheer5 dagen geleden
  • *Fun Fact: The UN Charter is almost identical to the Communist Manifesto.* Please look up both and compare.

    I-am-VeritasI-am-Veritas5 dagen geleden
    • A difference , the Manifesto's god is Marx , the UN's Lucifer .

      dedosdigitaldedosdigital2 dagen geleden
  • If Zizek and his Marxist "comrades" had their way most of the people reading this would be killed. Evil does not exist in nature besides in the hearts of people like Zizek and fellow Marxists. How could any actual sane person defend and suggest Marxist Communism as a good thing? Absolutely mind boggling. Karl Marx was a mean disgusting racist responsible for some of the most atrocious acts committed by and onto human beings in recorded history.

    I-am-VeritasI-am-Veritas5 dagen geleden
    • Educate yourself or at least watch the video unbiased

      Felix GarciaFelix Garcia5 dagen geleden
  • this focus on the individual, to "put your house in order", "you will be happy and even achieve success" it's the typical capitalist bullshit ergo consequence: "If you are not successful is because you did not make enough effort". Not everybody has the same chances, luck or motivation.

    SuperInthenightSuperInthenight6 dagen geleden
  • 2021, Peterson is still trying to find the name of one marxist...

    SuperInthenightSuperInthenight6 dagen geleden
    • @Nautilus Guitars lmao

      Karl MarxKarl Marx3 uur geleden
    • Also, the names in those studies are withheld. These people don't come out publicly and declare their affinity for Marxism, because they know that the vast majority of the population would detest and scrutinize them, and they can't stand up to scrutiny. Instead, they prey on impressionable kids who are taught to look up to them and fear retribution for speaking out, and propagandize them with their nonsense behind the facade of academics. There are several reliable statistics that show about 20% of professors in the social sciences identify as Marxists, and 45% identify as radical/activist leftists (who then often promote Marxist ideas). So we're talking almost 70% of social science professors pushing a radical left-wing narrative. It doesn't matter if you can name them individually. The evidence is there. Not only in these statistics, but in the extreme biases of the culture. There are myriad stories of people being completely fucked over, attacked, fired, suspended, dismissed, etc for questioning the left-wing narratives in just these fields alone, but almost zero instances of the same for other students or faculty questioning non-left-wing narratives in the entire educational institution as a whole. That alone is blatant, undeniable evidence of this systemic bias. It's easy to be a Marxist and push that agenda from the comfort of your desk as a tenured professor who has no economic pressure and no experience with life beyond academics. Put these people on a farm for one day and their delusions would quickly dry up and be shown as the masturbatory abstractions that they are.

      Nautilus GuitarsNautilus Guitars4 uur geleden
    • ​@eeeezypeezy Or maybe... Just maybe, Peterson was in the middle of a severe health crisis that literally had him on the verge of death for almost a year. Idk though, Maybe something else came up... Seriously, it's quite telling that socialists and communists always have to defend their position with fraudulent conjecture, misrepresentation, or appeals to emotion (I know because I was one). Speaking of, the almighty Richard Wolff is guilty of this very thing. He's the reason I abandoned socialism/Marxism after hearing how he's the undisputed champion of Marxism, as I was desperately trying to hold onto those beliefs and find someone who defended it well, only to find him utterly unconvincing and borderline cowardly in his refusal to acknowledge any inconvenient argument. Instead of debating his opponents, he goes on 10 minute soliloquys that are based on nothing but emotion, evades every single criticism, and constantly changes the subject to avoid having to face scrutiny. He almost never *actually addresses* the premise of the debate, opting to just ramble aimlessly with buzzwords and trendy clap-baiting (same thing Zizek did here. What a surprise). Wolff's recent debate at the Soho Forum is just one more example of how he can't defend his position, because it's indefensible when confronted with objective, demonstrable reality. The notion that he would intimidate Peterson is absolutely laughable and comes from the same desperacy to withhold convictions that I suffered years ago. He's not the badass you all seem to think he is. In fact, he's a perfect example of faux profundity and intellectual cowardice. Absolutely hollow, meaningless, and intent on nothing but appealing to emotion and ignorance. Which is why he gets demolished in every debate he's had against any worthy opponents. It's only when the argument can get steered into abstract, unfalsifiable musings that he wins, and always with an audience of ignorant left wing college kids. When there's a diverse audience, he always loses the debate. He seemed to stop taking debates with concrete and demonstrable resolutions also, after Gene Epstein absolutely wiped the floor with him. Seriously, he's not someone who you should hold in high regard in terms of intellectual integrity. He's an example of what not to be.

      Nautilus GuitarsNautilus Guitars4 uur geleden
    • @lookbovine lmao

      Karl MarxKarl MarxDag geleden
    • While calling Marx an idealist that ‘rejected the material world’!

      lookbovinelookbovineDag geleden
  • They both got good point but i would agree with JP more bc, he is right. In order to fix big problem you should know how to fix your household. It's those small things that actually make big changes. The idea of the butterfly effect. where the small things that actually add up to big changes. Plus u don't get to jump levels. You fixed the smallest issues first before going global. Beside how could you possible worry about the world when your own world is in chaos.

    S MS M6 dagen geleden
  • Both of these men have the wrong understanding of Jesus Christ's words from the cross. They speak from their bias without seeking true understanding. They could benefit from studying what Scott Hahn had to say. Jesus was a Rabbi using a common teaching technique, quoting one part of a Psalm to represent the whole. He was referring to Psalm 22.

    jmgwksterjmgwkster6 dagen geleden
    • If you believe in god i dont even know why you are watching this video

      Felix GarciaFelix Garcia5 dagen geleden
  • Can the audience stop shouting at everything it's so annoying

    Baltzar BonbeckBaltzar Bonbeck6 dagen geleden
  • What I think that we see here is a forgotten way of political discussion. It is in its essence a step away from the mass media (or if you like established medias) handling of the modern debates. As Christopher Lasch points out in his book The Revolt of the Elites (1994) "By current standards Lincoln and Douglas [debates of 1858] broke every rule of political discourse. They subjected their audiences, which were as large as 50 000 on one occasion, to a pain staking analysis of complex issus." This somewhat shares the likeness in the manner in which this debate was handeld. At-least in my opinion the admirable complexity and philosophical nature of the conversation still manages to draw the attention from a larger crowd is hopeful and says a whole lot of the sate of todays televised debates has come to. As Lasch continues "The contrast between these -- justly famous debates -- and present day debates in which the media defines the issues and draw up the ground rules, is unmistakable and highly unflattering to ourselves. Journalistik interrogation of political candidates -- which debates has come to -- tends to magnify the importance of journalist and to diminish that of the candidate. Journalists ask questions, prosaic preditical questions for the most part, and press the candidate for prompt specific questions, reserving the right to interrupt when ever they appear to stray from the prescribed topic."

    JOHAN BJÖRCKJOHAN BJÖRCK6 dagen geleden
  • The audio is so quiet :(

    John DoeJohn Doe6 dagen geleden
  • This crowd sucks.

    JDubJDub6 dagen geleden
  • Let me repeat a reply I make to a commenter below: I think you'll find that people suffer LESS in capitalist heirarchies than in all other heirarchies EXCEPT FOR when capitalism reaches outside of its capitalist heirarchy to suck wealth out of other societies, either by outright colonialism, or by initially innocuous-looking foreign investment (including that being presently done by China). The same concentration of wealth happens in other societies where there is some degree of surplus, either inherent to the bounteous resources of the society, or taken out of other exploited societies. As Peterson points out, the problem of wealth concentration is actually WORSE AND MUCH MORE OF AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM than all this simplistic blame of capitalism; rather, it's a mathematical principle having to with iterative trading, and I see that same mathematical accumulation happening in socialist, communist and Maoist societies as well. It looks different, it's described differently, but it's the same thing. I've met all sorts of people who were raised in socialist, communist, and Maoist societies, and it certainly looks to me that it hasn't done them any good at all. My Russian tutor years ago, a lawyer from Moscow who had been trained as a U.N. translator for French and English, was of the opinion that communism was "an evil system". Bright as he was, and he had A LOT going for him, he couldn't handle the show-up-on-time, get-your-head-into-the-job demands of the West and went back to bankrupt Russia after the Soviet collapse. A psychologist I knew taught the upper echelons of post-Soviet psychiatry the snake oil she was selling, and she said of the top tier resorts where the trainings were held that it was almost impossible getting the staff to do simple things like moving a teapot from room 7 to room 4. She said that workers looked at their jobs as life sentences that they had to endure, not as roles where they had to get things done and be of service to other people. There was a saying about work back then "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work". I remember a worker's tell-all story about Soviet employment starting out "We make, in our factory, many useless things, ineptly designed and shoddily manufactured. We make, for example, lamp shades . . . .". I've interviewed Soviet-era workers for jobs in Canada and found that the more intelligent they are, the more the only thing they can say about working in a socialist system is a more intelligent description of why it's impossible to get anything done -- the Marxist-based system is so hopeless. But such Marxist glories are the direction our brilliant activists of today are taking us. Peterson, like UNBIASED, TRUTH-SEEKING others who have TRULY STUDIED these questions, knows all this, so don't be too quick to say he doesn't make sense -- speaking from what I know, I'd suspect an accurate summary-type opening statement from him goes over many people's heads.

    Vancouver TerryVancouver Terry6 dagen geleden
  • Zizek has a thick accent ! I barely understand what he says !

    quang lêquang lê6 dagen geleden
  • Citizens! We have Samson, the Sadduce Strangler, Silus the Assyrian Assassin, several seditious Scribes from Caesarea, we have... Life of Brian, to whom it may concern

    madjunacmadjunac6 dagen geleden
  • “To read something you don’t just read the words you take apart the sentences” (Paraphrasing here!) If I did that with every book I read, I’d be reading that book for months! Peterson (and other such academics) must be very fast readers indeed!🥴

    Muddy WitchMuddy Witch6 dagen geleden
    • Peterson has tremendous processing speed, a necessary part of his exceptional intelligence (IQ 150). I've spent time analyzing some videos of his where his speed of processing is evident in how he handles questions from the audience or in an interview or debate and to my eyes, his speed of processing is tremendous. People's brains are different in that respect much like an 8th-generation I7 processor is immensely faster than a 286 computer from 1990. So what he reads quickly, he'd also read much more deeply than a normal, or even highly intelligent person would. I read slowly, slower than the average person, but I take apart sentences as I do, and rework my entire knowledge base on the spot when something has to be added or adjusted. That's the way to learn -- it's been studied and there's no doubt about that. I've read studies, for example, about the differences in depth of learning and understanding among medical students, and it's the ones that do the type of reading I am describing (although they'd do it faster than I do it, as most everyone is faster than I am) who learn the deepest and understand the material best. I read about 50 years ago (seriously -- I have by clinical standards an exception memory) that some of the dangerous errors that were almost made in JFK's administration were attributed by some analysts to the fact that speed reading had been encouraged within their ranks. I read that in a popular book about good reading habits, not written by an expert in foreign affairs or in a peer-reviewed research paper, so I can't say it was authoritative, but that's what that one book said. A motivational lecture I listened to in the late 80's said that another (uncited) study found that people who read one book on a subject slowly ended up knowing the subject better than others who speed-read six books on the same subject. So I'd say beware of speed reading unless you have enough processing speed and enough working memory to analyze it IN DEPTH as you go.

      Vancouver TerryVancouver Terry6 dagen geleden
  • Lol my ex was a postmodernist and a marxist

    Strictly MusicStrictly Music7 dagen geleden
    • Sounds pretty based

      Tristan PepperTristan Pepper7 dagen geleden
  • I thought zizek would be a complete and utter tool ! But i liked him and agreed with most of what he said. Good stuff

    Ged KennyGed Kenny7 dagen geleden
  • I can't listen. The communist is just not understandable.

    Eternal TaoEternal Tao7 dagen geleden
  • It’s pretty amusing to hear the crowd cheer when this slobber hound speaks poorly about Trump. It’s amazing to me how easily people can be manipulated. I still haven’t quite figured out if it is due to stupidity or some form of mass hypnotism, maybe it’s both. Apparently when rats are subjected to certain sound waves they become violent. It’s possible that Lester Holt blathering the same lies thousands of times has the same effect.

    Big JBig J7 dagen geleden
    • You are a leftist, so you would rather reside in East Germany than West Germany back in the day. You would rather live in Cuba than the United States. You would rather a corrupt member of the government lead your household than lead it yourself. Try as I might, I can’t find any redeeming values intrinsic in the concept of socialism. Try as I might again, I can’t find any evidence that socialism has ever accomplished anything other than misery. The most recent accomplishment of socialism was to turn Venezuela into the armpit of South America overnight. Is there something I’m missing, maybe someone can help me see the socialist light? Someone please find an example in which socialism was successful.

      Big JBig J5 uur geleden
    • @Big J Actually in the rest of the World basically both are seen right winged and im a leftist so both are bad for me.

      Felix GarciaFelix Garcia5 dagen geleden
    • There is no bitterness in what I said, it’s strange to me that you see it that way. The media complex has not said one good thing about Trump and not one bad thing about Biden. I doubt either of the two are perfect, which means you have been manipulated, I have not, but you have. None of that has anything to do with bitterness.

      Big JBig J7 dagen geleden
    • Your bitterness is palpable

      Tristan PepperTristan Pepper7 dagen geleden
  • THE MERCENARY 2020 ON AMAZON PRIME BRUTAL MARTIAL ARTS ACTION ....................................................................ex 2 REP SNIPER

    D LegionnaireD Legionnaire7 dagen geleden
  • You might think the dislikes are because of disagreement with certain points of view, but I can assure you a big chunk of these is due to the low audio level.

    Valuable member of societyValuable member of society7 dagen geleden
  • Translated: "if you give me all of your everything to the point of your own misery, only then can you be happy" . Socialists want to watch the world burn because of the shame resulting from their own affloholism.

    David BoggsDavid Boggs7 dagen geleden
  • Zizek is the Sylvester the Cat of Marxist Looney Toons.

    Mario MeneMario Mene7 dagen geleden
  • JP: Natural problems necessitate organization, so therefore we must organize hierarchically because obviously there is no other way of organization.

    Ryan KellyRyan Kelly8 dagen geleden
  • JP's first argument makes no sense. Marx says the capitalism causes suffering through a heirarchy he calls the class struggle. JP says thats wrong because humans have always created hierarchies. That does not address Marx at all, nor does it disprove the idea that capitalism causes suffering through those hierarchies. It just says something about the origins of the heirarchy called the class struggle.

    Ryan KellyRyan Kelly8 dagen geleden
    • I think you'll find that people suffer LESS in capitalist heirarchies than in all other heirarchies EXCEPT FOR when capitalism reaches outside of its capitalist heirarchy to suck wealth out of other societies, either by outright colonialism, or by initially innocuous-looking foreign investment (including that being presently done by China). The same concentration of wealth happens in other societies where there is some degree of surplus, either inherent to the bounteous resources of the society, or taken out of other exploited societies. As Peterson points out, the problem of wealth concentration is actually WORSE AND MUCH MORE OF AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM than all this simplistic blame of capitalism; rather, it's a mathematical principle having to with iterative trading, and I see that same mathematical accumulation happening in socialist, communist and Maoist societies as well. It looks different, it's described differently, but it's the same thing. I've met all sorts of people who were raised in socialist, communist, and Maoist societies, and it certainly looks to me that it hasn't done them any good at all. My Russian tutor years ago, a lawyer from Moscow who had been trained as a U.N. translator for French and English, was of the opinion that communism was "an evil system". Bright as he was, and he had A LOT going for him, he couldn't handle the show-up-on-time, get-your-head-into-the-job demands of the West and went back to bankrupt Russia after the Soviet collapse. A psychologist I knew taught the upper echelons of post-Soviet psychiatry the snake oil she was selling, and she said of the top tier resorts where the trainings were held that it was almost impossible getting the staff to do simple things like moving a teapot from room 7 to room 4. She said that workers looked at their jobs as life sentences that they had to endure, not as roles where they had to get things done and be of service to other people. There was a saying about work back then "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work". I remember a worker's tell-all story about Soviet employment starting out "We make, in our factory, many useless things, ineptly designed and shoddily manufactured. We make, for example, lamp shades . . . .". I've interviewed Soviet-era workers for jobs in Canada and found that the more intelligent they are, the more the only thing they can say about working in a socialist system is a more intelligent description of why it's impossible to get anything done -- the Marxist-based system is so hopeless. But such Marxist glories are the direction our brilliant activists of today are taking us. Peterson, like UNBIASED, TRUTH-SEEKING others who have TRULY STUDIED these questions, knows all this, so don't be too quick to say he doesn't make sense -- speaking from what I know, I'd suspect an accurate summary-type opening statement from him goes over many people's heads.

      Vancouver TerryVancouver Terry6 dagen geleden
    • Maybe im wrong here but wasnt the point to jps concern that because marx seemed to attack capitalism so strongly that because of his actions could one assume that he didn’t really see the entire picture which is that hierarchical values existed outside of it and therefore to blame capitalism so fundamentally would be like blaming the logs you are trying to make a fire with for being wet and not recognise there exists something called rain.

      william magnussonwilliam magnusson6 dagen geleden
  • I just finished watching it. It’s not that Peterson demonstrated his understanding of, and the superiority of, free markets - as much as Zizek demonstrated his near total misunderstanding of, and the inferiority of, everything else, including free markets. This is why Peterson is the optimist and Zizek is the ultimate ‘horrified’ pessimist. Life (the ‘unbearable reality’) scares the hell out of Zizek because he can’t imagine anyone has control of it, or even some of it, in the same way it frightens many young, impressionable people. That free-market supporters are not so much alarmed by life (i.e. the prospect and changing nature of ‘equality’, controlled or otherwise, e.g. acceptance of risk) is what adds to their fear. Peterson’s point of view was, as they say, muddied because he was wrestling in what turned out to be the pseudo-intellectual swamp of psychoanalyzing people who ‘line up their god damned coke cans’ at the supermarket or use ‘German toilets’.

    H. Jay EshelmanH. Jay Eshelman8 dagen geleden
    • ​@White Walker If you can't imagine the tenants of free markets, you can't determine whether or not they are beneficial, to anyone. Zizek was economically incoherent, and, at the end of the discussion, focused himself as an apologist for being a progenitor of the ill treatment of Jews during the 1930s and 40s, much like his fellow eastern European, who was also born just after WWII, WEF founder Klaus Schwab does. The extent of their confession of sins can only be matched by their insistence that we all confess to being human (like them) and, therefore, inherently capable of unspeakable evil , as their forefathers were. Misery, afterall, enjoys company. And if history is any indication, Zizek, Schwab and Socialists everywhere, will do everything they can (e.g. the Great Reset) to justify their continued existence at our expense. This phenomenon is exceeding the realm of mere transparency, accountability, and responsibility. There’s got to be more to this pervasive behavior, now more visible than ever in the public spotlight of our schools and in government. I suspect it’s becoming evident almost everywhere if we take the time to look. I know I’m rethinking my part in this discussion. This adherence to Socialism appears to be more a symptom of Clinical Depression, the mental disorder brought on by stress, embodied by a lack of motivation, difficulty making decisions, low self-esteem, guilt, anxiety, sadness, hopelessness, and irritability. How else can anyone be triggered into such self-destructive behavior? “Depression isn’t contagious in the same way the flu is, but moods and emotions can spread. Have you ever watched a friend laugh so hard that you started laughing? Or listened to a co-worker complain for so long that you started feeling negative, too? In this way, moods - and even depressive symptoms - can be contagious.” Those who are finding themselves attracted to the pessimism of Marxist tenants, the assertion that individuals are inherently evil, especially those who can’t bring themselves to trust anyone, should be introspective. I don’t see them as the enemy. But they may need professional help. Really. I’m serious. Before they unintentionally harm someone other than themselves.

      H. Jay EshelmanH. Jay Eshelman7 dagen geleden
    • It's not about "being able to imagine" it, it's about whether or not this kind of thinking is actually beneficial to society at large.

      White WalkerWhite Walker7 dagen geleden
  • It would be very very helpful to have closed caption. His infatuation with his nose was distracting me to no end. I think he was saying interesting things.

    Thomas WilliamsThomas Williams8 dagen geleden
  • You can see the disappointment and even disgust in Jordan’s face when the crowd cheered after he said “bloody revolution”. It’s Sad some people can be so devoid of empathy.

    Gluten Free BreadGluten Free Bread8 dagen geleden
    • Lmao

      Karl MarxKarl Marx5 dagen geleden
  • I have a profound feeling of debt that I feel I could never settle after listening to this fascinating conversation. Hopefully a simple "thank you" to both will be a small repayment. If it were within my means, I would attempt to lock these two gentlemen in a suitably comfortable room for as long as it takes to write a Manifesto of Humanity.

    P AP A8 dagen geleden
  • I am glad Zizek mentioned China's economic miracle. But that exactly proves Peterson's point that capitalism is THE best system that we human being is capable of coming up with to solve the economic inequality and development dilemma. China's economy was on the verge of collapsing when Deng Xiaoping started the so called economic reform. Why he needed reform? because years of planned economy as envisioned by the Marxists had failed miserably. The all good proletariates just could not provide bread and of course freedom, let alone happiness to its people. Communism is an evil ideology. If you don't believe it, then take a look at Cuba or Venezuela.

    Days Of ElijahDays Of Elijah8 dagen geleden
    • It feels like you are disproving yourself

      Felix GarciaFelix Garcia5 dagen geleden
NLworld