*USSR intensifies*
Hello to everyone.
This video is an indirect answer
to Jordan Peterson
following the debate that took place
about a month ago between him and Slavoj Žižek.
 
My answer is coming a bit late, mainly because of my other important obligations,
but also because I hardly speak English and it was hard to find a subtitled version of the debate;
I didn't want to resort to approximations stemming from a  lack of [miss]understanding on my part.
Hence, I waited until I could find a complete transcript of the debate, and more specifically of the parts involving Jordan Peterson,
, so as to take the time to read it carefully, and to ensure that I had properly grasped what was being said in the translation.
[[[which is more sensible, and to be sure to get a good comprehension of the translation]]].
So why do I wish to respond to this debate?
Firstly, because it was a significant event:
after all the topics at stake were happiness, "capitalism" vs. "marxism", which... is quite an odd phrasing,
given that capitalism is a mode of production whereas marxism  is to be understood (roughly) as an epistemology and methodology of social sciences.
Summarizing marxism is an arduous task
For instance, one can see that a work like The Capital is impossible to categorise.
Marx's wish to develop a totalizing comprehension of society, not solely limited to only historical, economical, or social objects, makes such a task difficult.
It would have been more logical, for instance, to say "capitalism vs. communism", but I digress...
Furthermore, another reason for me to make this video response is because Jordan Peterson's influence is quite significant, and is growing still.
And this despite the fact that what he says about what he *believes* to be marxism (let alone communism) is completely and utterly wrong!
Constantly making use of straw man after straw man.
I took some notes from the first part of the debate, and if this video interests you, (the number of views and thumbs up will tell, along with reactions on the IHT's Discord server (French speakers are welcome!)),
I may try and tackle the whole debate(though I can't promise when).
Now then, let's now begin with the "method" that Peterson offers us:
First point, he admits to have only read, or at least to base his criticism, solely on one book: The Communist Manifesto (CM).
For various reasons, this is extremely weak.
Here, I'll only discuss 3 graspable ones:
The first one is that the CM was initially ordered at that time by the Communist League, which Marx and Engels had recently joined.
(For more detail I recommend that you watch the "Young Karl Marx" film, in which this is very well illustrated).
So as the name suggests, it's a manifesto, not a comprehensive theoretical writing.
It is mostly a polemic book, the goal of which being to clearly present the positions of the then burgeoning communist movement.
In other words, the CM is a work of vulgarization.
Moreover, it's a work Marx wrote in his youth.
Now, I'm not necessarily a supporter of this epistemological division, made at the university, between the younger Feuerbachian/Hegelian Marx on one side and the old Marx on the other.
However it is very much possible to grasp Marx's work as one coherent whole, especially through his major work that is the Capital.
Thus, to base one's entire counter-argumentation only on the CM isn't serious,
especially when clamouring to be able to shoot down marxism as a social and political theory (in a wider sense).
It's ... quite sketchy to use but a minor fraction of Marx's and Engels' work.
[So yes, I've said it's indeed a youth work.]
Last but not least, Marx never pretended that his writings were of a prophetic nature.
This is something I will try to demonstrate in my upcoming books on Marx, which I hope to release (in French) over the next few months/years.
But of course, there's no need to wait for me, guys.
If you simply begin by reading Marx, along with the many commentators far more serious than someone like Peterson,
you will notice how the core preoccupation of Marx, Engels, and even Hegel before them, is to think about the present historical moment;
to produce a philosophy of the present that puts itself in the service of History, as explained by Marx in his Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'.
To go against speculative and idealist philosophy in order to transform the world.
This can be found in his famous 11th thesis on Feuerbach, where he states that " philosophers [so far] have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to *change* it.".
This shallowness is further exacerbated by its glossing over of Marx's magnus opus that is the Capital ( though a knowledge of all his works as a whole matters in order to genuinely understand him).
Marx spent his time to show the inherent contradictions within a specific mode of production, capitalism, and to explain them objectively.
He did not title it " Communism". I'll also repeat that the Manifesto is just that, a manifesto.
Jordan Peterson is simply resorting to the typical McCarthyist and Popperist  attacks, themselves originating from the usual liberal cliché on Marxism, in which they denounce it as being "yet another form of moral historicism".
But Marx's work is not some historicism (i.e. it is not a predictive theory)
[ though that would take some time to demonstrate. Even if, after all, Peterson doesn't bother proving anything on his side, simply content with stating his opinion]
Marx does not predict some sort of mechanical or natural emergence of Communism, Socialism, etc.
On the contrary, he clearly stresses the critical importance of political actors in the processes leading to the transformation of the means of production.
It was through the involvement of such political actors that the transition from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist one was made,
impulsed by the then revolutionary class of the time, the bourgeoisie.
Marx points this out  on many occasions :
In the fifth note of 'The German Ideology'  he says " We know only a single science, the science of history " he distinguishes between natural sciences and the way these relate to historical sciences.
In the 32nd or 35th note of the Lefebvre Edition, which talks about the philosopher and historian Giambattista Vico,
Marx again stresses the importance for social and historical sciences not to be apprehended in the same way as natural sciences.
Thus, he rejects from the onset the idea that social and historical sciences could be in any way predictive.
Finally, Marxism is not some kind of moralistic stance (a point I may develop more about it in my future videos) as Peterson can't seem to help himself repeating.
For example, in The Capital, on the topic of the extortion of surplus-value, the decrease of wages is not due to "unethical" capitalists acting purely out of malice.
On the contrary, and while noting that although the compression of wages is, to some extent, driven by some form of spite/contempt,
Marx expressly remarks that "In order to remain objective, we must set this aside, and observe in which way Capitalism still possesses inner contradictions,
EVEN in a case where everyone would be morally irreproachable, which, obviously, is impossible".
So, as you can see, Peterson's understanding of Marx is virtually non-existent.
Now, a last thing about methodology.
Peterson concludes by accusing those academics which claim to be Marxists of  holding what is written in the CM as something sacrosanct.
Two mistakes : first, academics who claim to be Marxists are not Marx.
So again, rather than listening to the discourse of liberal academics in the university where he worked, he should instead read Marx if he wants to dissert on him. He didn't.
And considering that he aspires to be the leading figure of the anti-communist avant-garde, reading Marx would actually be a good start.
Second, when it comes to holding some positions as sacrosanct, it's completly wrong. In fact it's the exact opposite.
Dialectic methodology shows, from Hegel to Marx and in their followers that nothing is unchangeable by definition.
This is yet another red flag pointing to the complete incompetence of Jordan Peterson on this topic.
Adding to that, about his method, Jordan Peterson always refers back to naturalism to back his arguments, which is very interesting because
(and this I have demonstrated in my own book "Pourquoi je suis communiste" which is due to  be published soon at Delga editions, in the chapters "Criticism of positivism and cognitivism")
naturalizing social relations is a central element of dominant capitalist discourse,
trying to make us believe that our position in the production process is the result of a natural order of things of hard-wired natural relationships.
In a sense, Peterson is completely at home in the dominant ideology, as Marxists had showed and demonstrated for numerous years now.
Since I couldn't watch the debate (not speaking English) I used this time to read,
though not entirely because the book wasn't mine, well over half of Peterson's "12 Rules of Life" best seller,
which is a prime example of this naturalistic discourse.  It's all about the "alpha male", "primordial and natural hierarchy", and how to structure oneself there.
Now, on to the following points.
Peterson signals that he will dissert on 10 main points he took from the communist manifesto.
And by the way (to french speakers) I'll refer you to the video of my presentation last year, at "café marxiste" for the 170th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto,
for a detailed reading with quotes and analysis ...
because it's not possible to make everything in a single video.
It's the main limitation of the Youtube format, and it's the reason why, if you seek to learn more, you can access our courses, which contain a rich and structured content with a study process spread over several years,
which really allow a proper training to Marxism for whoever is intersested.
First, Peterson says that Marx and Engels see Human History only in terms of class struggle, based on the first sentence of The Communist Manifesto.
Peterson interprets, again without having actually read the relevant books (maybe he heard that somewhere), that class conflict is only viewed from an economic perspective.
Peterson argues in return that for him, struggles within societies have more to do with biology than history.
That's perfectly asinine.
In essence, he is saying that, indeed, there are hierarchies in human relationships, but that their roots come from deep down, since these hierachies are, for him,biological in nature, shaping the struggle between humans.
The histroric origin of social hierarchies is simply cast aside.
Even without reading Capital. A Critique of Political Economy , had Peterson taken the time to study even another book published the same year, The German Ideology,
he would have seen that the idea of a social conflict rooted in biology had been already analysed by Marx and Engels, where they demonstrated that it simply wasn' the case.
If Marx and Engels talk about a social division of labour, it is for this reason.
Let me explain: in The German Ideology (though not only, but here you may at least take the references, look for "social division of labour by family and social division of labour on marxist.org),
it is explained that the very first division of labour was a natural one because production was not yet organised  under historical modalities, but instead still under natural modalities.
In this situation, one cannot yet talk of "production", for the very word "pro-duction" implies the existence of a goal (the same goes for words like "program", "project", "provision",etc.).
All these words carry the idea of a projection in the future, the organisation of something which has to be produced to reach a set goal.
There is a direction imparted to the production, which hence needs a social and political organisation of at least a city or a big village,
able to organize and set in place a social division of labour, in which some will govern/manage and other produce.
Thus, an early social division of labour is observable between intellectual and manual labour.
They tell us that the very first divison of labour is a natural one, meaning that it has more to do with the distinction between "female" and "male" (i.e. natural categories),
than between "man" and "woman", the latter two being categories pertaining to a social organisation.
How so ? Well, to put it very simply, the very first social division of labour was dictated chiefly by physical constraints.
In fact, when it comes to raw physical strength, the stronger members will be able to consistently execute more strenuous work within the tribe,
while the female (because at this point humans are still closer to their animal stage) won't be able to perform similar activities when pregnant.
This is why the first division of tasks was made to accommodate those constraints.
However, this all changes the moment we enter into a historicised mode of production. Slavery, for instance.
If one is a slave, it is because of specific social conditions which produced slavery.
A slave can be a man, a woman, a child, black, white, fat, slim, strong, etc. All share the same relationship to a political power.
Remember what Rousseau once wrote : " The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty".
It is this very transition from a state of nature to one of a civil/historicised society that is purely rejected by Peterson, along with every capitalist.
From the moment we are dealing with historical developments, what happens is that an ideological narrative begins taking shape,
stemming from the need of the dominant class to justify each individual's place in the mode of production they rule.
Why is the slave a slave when Pharaoh doesn't need to work ?
Why are you a worker when the ruling class of the Arnault, Pinot, Bettencourt, Besnier, Mulliez,... [French business magnates]... don't have to work?
It is precisely this narrative [the type which Peterson instils] that will be there to justify/legitimise a *particular* relation of production.
It tells the slave (or serf) :" You weren't born into nobility, and thus, naturally, you do not to belong in the aristocracy";
or, nowadays "You did not work hard in school, and thus, naturally, you do not belong here [TN: in dominant circles]".The latter being the dominant capitalist narrative.
You can see how tedious it is to deconstruct the nonsense spewed out by people like Peterson, who put no effort in topics they simultaneously keep rambling about for days on end.
The crux of the matter is that it would take hours and hours to point out and correct all the mistakes one by one.
Because yes, and it needs to be said once and for all, each and every one of his sentences are pure nonsense at best.
I usually am not as vehement when making an answer, but here, everything is overly grotesque.
The good old cliché McCarthyist discourse here is so obvious, it's not even funny. Everything he says is rubbish.
All he really does, in essence, is to bunch together his naturalistic presuppositions with his liberal preconceptions and his psychologising school of thought to stand up a huge straw man to attack Marx and Engels.
Onethat would require several hours to correct. That is also why I give you multiple references and hence avoid further lengthening the video.
Peterson further tells us:
"Marx links class struggle to capitalism when in fact it runs deeper than that. "
Again, where does he see this ?
The first sentence of the Communist Manifesto is " the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" it is not written all history of capitalism, where did he read that ?
Or which translation did he use, to be so far off the mark?
And his recurring argument is always (at least in the translation I had access to, but maybe the exact wording was different) to allude at something "much deeper than the tendency of capitalism itself",
where again "much deeper" means "in a genetic sense".
It is "deeper" because it is "in nature", in "our genes", in "the rivalries", etc.
Hence his theorizations about lobsters, as if human relationships could be compared with lobsters'. This makes no sense.
Marx and Engels, on the contrary, were referring to the entire historical movement of human society.
Capitalism is defined as a mode of production, and NOT as some social relationship solely structured around a class struggle.
Class struggle is found in all human socio-historical interactions,
precisely because there is a social division of labour that is no longer based on nature, or direct/non-mediated work.
When I live in the tribe: if I am hungry I take a fruit and eat it. There is no mediation, no ideological relation.
Whereas when I'm slave, I do not work to satisfy my needs, but to satisfy someone else's
This is the decisive point. And Marx clearly shows that it is these historiciseable social relations that determine class struggles,
and this, whether it be under capitalism or not.
It's something that  Hegel's had already perceived and demonstrated through his master-slave dialectic,
or trough his theorisation of the scapegoat mechanism...
So Marx didn't speak in any way of class struggle as something specific to capitalism.
If Peterson were more aware of things other than those simplistic naturalist and cognitivist theories on psychology,
he would know that Marx and Engels try to demonstrate how the class stuggle is (or, more specifically, is often summed up as) what drives History of human society,
how it is the decisive factor behind social and historical transformations.
Marx and Engels don't claim this principle to be their invention.
Social classes are present in Plato's writings, and class conflict is already found in the works of Ricardo and Smith.
It is once again a straw man.
And then Peterson goes on about a problem regarding "the male", "the hierarchy", etc.
It is here that, from the get-go, he claims that Marx would allegedly have a moralistic perception  of History (when in fact it's he who does).
I challenge anyone to find in Marx's works any moralising or moralistic undertone.
He says that capitalists are stealing from labour, because these are objective conditions.
It is the process of extortion of surplus value. But in order to grasp this, one needs to read the first tome of the Capital.
Those conditions are so objective, in fact, that even Warren Buffet said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
This is because the objective relations, i.e. the general formula of capital, "money -> commodity -> money prime" (because capital is NOT structured around class struggle, but instead around this specific formula) where "money prime" includes surplus value + profit.
The commodity  is thus a mediation, in which its exchange value is decisive.
I buy something with the aim to make someone else work.
I buy raw materials, factories...
All this in order to have the raw materials transformed by living labour (by Chinese workers for example),
and then resell them in Europe or in the U.S.A.,... in order to make a profit.
This is the capital's general formula. It is what defines it as a particular mode of production.
On the topic of hierarchy, Peterson condemns Marx as if the latter was denouncing the idea of hierarchy.
But this is off the mark. What is being denounced is a *certain* form of hierarchy, the social division of labour, as previously explained.
Off the top of my head, in the Capital Volume 1, section 4 chapter 11 [TN: chapter 13, "Co-operation"], the topic of what a "directing authority" entails is addressed.
When discussing it, he points out that "A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one"
Leadership and direction are indeed essential and necessary, especially when considering their practical implementation in the later theorisation of the political/revolutionary vanguard.
But it is completely different from a social division of labour maintained by a dominant ideology, which is nothing short of the ideology of the ruling class (see The German Ideology).
I covered quite a lot, so feel free to  slow down the video, take notes, watch again, etc.
Verify everything I said, read the citations, go see for yourself etc.
Peterson made use of a grotesque straw man for his attack on marxsim.
And everything he said [here] about Marx is fundamentally skewed.
More troubling still, based on what I've read in the transcript (since I couldn't follow the live conference),
in Žižek's first answers, is that Žižek concedes certain points to Peterson, on which the latter is just completely wrong.
I'll stop this first part here, and as you can see we've simply begun scratching the surface.
If you are interested in me continuing this, share the video and give a thumbs up.
Feedback is also welcomed on our discord server, etc.
And if I see that there is a demand, I will try to make another one, even if it seems unfinishable.
Because it is true, I insist. It is not just some personal point of view, everything Perterson says, is objectively skewed .
Thank you for watching up to this point.
I don't know if you follow Peterson for his works in behavioral psychology, and I wouldn't know what to say about them, as I cannot judge his skills in this particular domain.
But when it comes to his political analysis, or, more worryingly, his conception of man-woman relations that does not acknowledge them as the expression of a historically determined process,
he is simply irrelevant, not to mention wrong (and I can't help but wonder how he finds the cheek to flaunt those views, considering how ridiculous they are).
Listening to Jordan Peterson's opinion on those matters is a waste of time.
Now that I think of it Žižek tells him that one cannot compare authority in animal relationships with the father-son authority because it is not a relationship based on force, (cf. the Rousseau's quote I mentioned) .
Peterson confuses absolutely all the cagoteries.
If you are interested in those subjects, I hope (and impress upon my publisher, if he is watchng this video),
to release my book soon. Many of you have already asked me about it, which is normal, and I'm the most impatient.
This future book, "Why I am a communist" will seek to question the current way in which Human and Social Sciences relate to it objectivity.
I try to demonstrate the inefficacy of cognitivist and positivist theories, which ultimately only serve to comfort capitalist interests,
even if those theories can be backed by people who don't belong to the right wing.
I'm thinking about Noam Chomsky, who was once 
the the leading figure of the cognitivists.
Thank you for watching, see you soon.
