I seriously applaud you! A true seeker after wisdom and knowledge! This is rare.

Noam Chomsky -- superior in almost every way. — Xtrix

This is true.

a vast majority of people are generally content with their lives. — whollyrolling

In the days of plantation-slavery a vast majority of slaves were content with their lives as slaves, one could not get them to resist or see its tyranny. You have uttered a point that doesn't comprehend itself.

in the Aristotelian conception of "identity", change and therefore difference, is inherent within a thing's identity — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean these are the same? No difference needs to be drawn in order to make a distinction, which would indeed imply, as Hegel says, going beyond the principle of identity? How can you contain identity and difference in the same instance of identity? Further, how can you identify something as being the same which is itself beyond the "inert imagine" that identity strives to cast? Of course, you should have worked through all these questions and many more doing post-doctoral work on Hegel? Unless of course, you just focused on his aesthetics? Unless of course, you haven't actually done any post-doctoral work on Hegel? Your replies are a good indication that you've never even read him.

It's called the law of identity, stupid. "A thing is the same as itself". Do you not comprehend that a thing necessarily has temporal extension, and also that a thing changes as time passes? Therefore we can conclude that change and difference are inherent within the identity of the thing, as an aspect of its sameness. There is no contradiction here, just a feature of temporal existence being accounted for. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that is part of Hegel's discovery, identity and difference are part of being, but Hegel did not stop there, but of course, you already know this, so I don't have to tell you. More importantly, you have refuted the very principle you claim to champion without even realizing it. Change is not the same as sameness, identity is not the same as difference. This means identity cannot contain difference in order to be equal to itself, must not presuppose it in order to make itself intelligible. If a thing is identical to itself, which I take to be the proper formation of the concept, then the "self" you point to at the moment of identification, vanishes in the next instance. You have, as a matter of fact, gone beyond the image you propagated, so boldly and mightily tried to assert was "itself," but now it is not. Quite accurately then, you are dishing out a tautology to thought, you are in the business of asserting "inert images" as reality, most of all, you do not even realize your own negation. Sorry my poor fellow, but you must choose, you cannot have it both ways, either take being as it goes beyond Aristotelian logic, or live your life in the error of a tautology. Do you start with being or do you start with identity? It seems to me the evidence is clear; for you identity is and must be secondary to being, very hard to see how this doesn't cause problems for your view of identity?

What is most striking is that you seem to think you can simply class identity with difference without going beyond the claim of identity itself. It is a mere assertion on your part, a loaded premise, hoping you don't get caught by a more careful thinker. This is ignorant and proves you don't comprehend the necessary literalness of the concept. Now I know you will insist and demand that you have the right to pack being (with all its difference) into the concept of identity, or to interpret the concept through being, but the concept itself will not permit it, which is proven the very instance you make a distinction between identity and difference. Yours is merely an attempt to retain the abstraction of identity against the reality which negates it. The real question is how you can identify anything through the identity principle, once you admit that being supersedes it? (Notice, you are not qualifying being with identity, but as you must, you are qualifying the nature of identity through the authority of being. Your solution is merely to assert and pretend that this has no effect on the concept of identity).

I am not interested in playing these games with you merely to appease your wounded ego. Metaphysician Undercover, you need to go under the covers and brush up on your Hegel.

I think time is better spent elsewhere. — Xtrix

That is just the knowledge I am trying to get at, how did you determine this?

You'll know when you see it. — Xtrix

Then clearly you assign a limit of time to effectiveness. This seems most strange to me, as I am still being affected by thinkers who are long dead that never even spoke to me. Also, this must mean, if one cannot "see it," then it must not be there, but what if it is there, but one cannot see it? What if one's intellectual labor only bears fruit in the distant future? Clearly you would not call this an impossibility? It would seem the history of culture stands against it. What if the intellectual decided not to speak because he could not see that his work would have value in the future? It seems you are simply telling me to order my intellectual life according to what I feel?

But when you say "to speak of Identity you have too pressupose Identity is not Difference" you are stating a tataulogy, NOT an argument of any kind. To be successful of this forum you need to be kinder, clearer, and. more thoroughal — Gregory

I was speaking with a person who claimed to have done post-doctoral work on Hegel, he claimed to be well-versed and knowledgeable on the subject. He also claimed to be well-versed in Plato and Aristotle, so much so that he claimed they were superior to Hegel in terms of dialectic. This means he should be familiar with Hegel's analysis of Aristotle. It is quite clear in the Logic. Hegel does not merely assert what you call a "tautology," he draws out the contradiction from the very being of identity itself. Further, he proves that Aristotle's formation is a "tautology."

MARX AND THE SERIOUS QUESTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY II:

"To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men's societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of "Rent" which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers."

Here Marx makes an argument as to why it won't work to partially nationalize property. Because it will retain the same divisive structure of competition.

"I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers.

"The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending." Marx, The Nationalization of the Land, Marx and Engles Collected Works Volume 23

So this is the question, will the nationalization of land lead to a change in the organization and process of labor? Will it allow labor to emancipate itself from the system of capital? Will this then lead to the result of the nullification of class distinctions? (Perhaps, a more fitting question, which stands at the base of Marx's thought, is it even possible to have an advanced class society, must society advance beyond class in order to progress itself into higher stages of intelligence?) Will a society, without class, if such a thing can exist in economic terms, lead to the resolution of many of its social tensions and contradictions?

These are interesting and important questions, clearly humans are greatly affected by economic systems, especially when those systems hold vital goods hostage behind a wall of required activity. That we could not do better than the present inequality seems self-evidently false.

What is most clear, is that Marx understands something sweepingly vital, how society is organized matters to the quality of society itself. The process of this movement is also the movement that accounts for much of the psychological, even physical structure, of the individual.

Marx was a humanist. He was thinking in terms of species consciousness, which is far higher, and more responsible, than individual consciousness. I would argue that it constitutes the domain of adult thinkers.

Marxists are outnumbered. And you're wrong: you are going to lose — Gregory

I am not a Marxist. It is intellectuals, those who use words to solve problems, that are outnumbered against systems of violence. Sadly, we are not smart enough to see ourselves as a class, and so we will divide until they conquer.

He should definitely stick to psychology — Enai De A Lukal

He can't even be trusted in this domain, actually, it's even worse. His pop-psych stance is one of complete cherry picking. Let me cite just a few revolutionary names to prove this, Peter Fonagy and Allan Schore, ground breaking work in Attachment Theory. But there are so many more incredible advances in Social Psychology and Cultural Psychology, Peterson conveniently ignores them all, his consciousness reflects none of it. He is not bringing young people into the modern world with all its advances in the social sciences, he is regressing them to primitive values! This is directly against Nietzsche's position, exactly as you say. I just want young people to know, I want the people who are being duped by this man to see that we have better answers to Nihilism, that moral conservatism is not a path to enlightenment, it is just the opposite. Conformity is not a way to go forward but a way to go backward. I long to see young people, and people in general, liberated to the power of thought -- not my thought, not Peterson's thought, but what they can make of thought.

Not only is this a mischaracterization, this is pretty much the literal exact opposite of Nietzsche's actual position. — Enai De A Lukal

What's most interesting is that he has a history of distorting intellectual's positions. He did the exact same thing with Jung... now, I don't know all the details about this one, but my friend who is exceedingly well versed in the field of psychology watched one of Peterson's lectures on Jung, where he tried to defend Jung from Nazism, my friend went into detail about how Peterson totally distorted the facts in order to make Jung look better. My only question is, how many times is an intellectual allowed to do this, without correcting themselves, before they lose credibility?

Yes, your reasons are that you are just a smart ass piece of shit, who'd rather engage with petty insults — Metaphysician Undercover

What's most interesting is that I don't think I called you any names? I was trying very hard not to do that, but I did accuse you of things based on your performance and approach. I tried to draw accurate conclusions off of the information you provided, as it is quite clear, that you are indeed, talking out of your backside. No doubt you are upset that you got called out, and exposed for posturing. But this is good because I think you have likely dominated many people with this technique. You could always just fight back and provide the links to Aristotle, instead of calling me names. (Moderators please do not remove these posts, they truly manifest some very important things, and they really stand to prove my point.)

Sounds like an ideology, and a rather extreme one at that, like Libertarianism. Societies depend on collective cooperation, so that needs to be respected as well, right? — praxis

Praxis is here spot on. Everything that makes up an individual is determined by the system into which he is born... for all objectors and haters -- good luck refuting this! The last fifty years or more have seen the social sciences verify this premise over and over and over again, and it is not in danger of being refuting because no human could survive without society, it is a physical and psychological impossibility. So what we get in Peterson is exactly that, "ideology," the myth of the self-made-individual. There is no such thing! Peterson is pushing a delusion, the very idealism that leads to totalitarianism, rugged individualism. All one has to do is follow his premises to their logical political conclusions. One ends up distorting the ontology of the individual as well as the ontology of society; one ends by resorting to violence as a way to deal with contradiction. This is what happens when thought is removed from the equation, and this is exactly what Peterson has done. However, what he doesn't realize is that this is not actually a way to rid the world of tension, it is merely the act of burying one's head in the sand, or worse, erecting a dogmatic delusion, immortality system (see Becker), in order to cope with the tension. When this system is threatened, because thought has been removed from the equation, the only recourse is that of violence, the delusion must be defended against those who seek to refute it! What's at stake, in Peterson's delusional, reactionary world, civilization itself! This is how the violence eventually gets justified.

Good lord, you have got to be kidding me? I think you mean, the workers?

The Hegelian proposal, to throw these ideals of being and not-being back into the obscure, mysterious, and vague realm of becoming, instead of crystalizing the separation in understanding, just renders the world of material existence as unintelligible. . . — Metaphysician Undercover

If you had actually read Hegel on identity, which I am highly skeptical of given your exposition, then you would know that Hegel does exactly the opposite! He removes the idealism from identity (the mysticism) by specifically drawing out its concrete components, which Aristotle was not able to do.

(The only reason I am not quoting Hegel directly is because I have zero respect for intellectuals like yourself, masters at posturing, masters at playing the superiority card, simply because you are good at articulating yourself. It makes me feel like I am merely giving you more ammunition to bully people.)

"Sameness" and "identity" therefore is assigned to the evolving object, and difference is not excluded dichotomously from sameness. Since this is the way we speak about an identified object, as remaining the same object despite changes to it. it is dialectically correct, and Hegel's proposed dialectical argument is unwarranted. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is only further proof that you have not read Hegel. Further, your idiosyncratic formation is here very likely your own. Now that is all fine and well, but you seem to be attributing it to Aristotle as though this was his position. Can you show me where he assigns "sameness" and "identity" (difference through dichotomy) to the evolving object? This is very strange indeed. Allow me to clarify Hegel's position against your false, intellectual posturing: one cannot assign "inert images" to living objects if they are concerned about comprehending reality, this is the whole problem that Hegel exposed and refuted in Aristotle and thought in general!

The fact that your entire exposition doesn't even contain a trace of this awareness in terms of Hegel's dialectic, is proof for me that you either haven't read him, or you have failed to comprehend him. Your formation of Aristotle is also exceedingly suspect. I don't want to have any more interaction with you, but I want people who read this to know that you are not an authority on Hegel, and likely Aristotle as well, you are making stuff up in order to posture yourself as being knowledgeable.

No one has to take my word for it, all they have to do is read The Science of Logic. To further add weight to my position, because I admit it is unorthodox that I am not quoting Hegel, but I have my reasons, one can also read the masterful text by Thomas Hoffmann, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, A Propaedeutic.

I think Marx was basically a Democrat as the whole idea was to gain political power through democratic means (or other means in non-democratic countries) to then push through rules that would put an end to class struggle by effectively abolishing class distinction. Once everyone is in the same class, democracy logically followed as both economic and political power would be vested in the same people and the democratic would no longer be marred by class struggle. — Benkei

Concise clarity here. I would encourage those who are objecting to stop trying construct strawmen and argue instead, why they disagree. 1) can we ever really abolish class distinctions? (Even if the answer is no, thought doesn't end there). So what can we do to lessen or correct the inequality caused by class distinctions? The capitalist answer is precisely what Marx critiqued, and we are seeing his criticisms play out more now than at any other time in human history.

2) Would democracy logically follow if class distinctions were abolished? Why or why not?

Pick a different word if you don't like it. The point is that the response is totally reasonable. Learning that dictators ruthlessly killed hundreds of millions of people... hatred and fear, disgust, contempt, are not irrational responses. In any case you will have to make a distinction between appropriate emotional response and inappropriate. You will also be forced to use a qualifying word.

When he's talking to those who can think and hear. — Xtrix

How does he know when this is the case? And further, does this have to happen within a set perimeter of time?

As per your revision: "Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind."

If it is a relative thing then how do you know what you're talking about? I thought I heard you say, "they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done." How do you know this?

But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time — Xtrix

How does a thinker know when he's not wasting time?

Peterson advocates for the empowerment of the individual while acknowledging the difficulty of life as well as the wonderment of life. I think his framing is well designed to give the individual resilience as well as hope, promoting competence and taking responsibility. What power do you think he avoids questioning? — Judaka

Tell me what you know about the class structure of society? Tell me what you know about systemic oppression? What do you know about inherited trauma and how that trauma is generated in class systems? Hell, what do you know about trauma in general? [Do you claim that the individual components of a system are not affected by the overall structure and process of the system?]

I would be shocked if you were not an American, and even more, are probably one that escaped poverty, the projects, etc. (Indeed, let us try to sell Peterson's ideology to Syrians).

Oh, and this is all relevant, so very relevant. His framing is designed to ignore concrete systemic issues, as well as psycho-biological factors. His presumption of will power has been totally refuted, we can even make light work of it here and now. What happens when your brain doesn't produce the right amounts of Grey Matter? (After you have figured this out) then tell me how we should deal with people whose brains are deficient in Grey Matter? Is it really just a matter of taking responsibility? I wonder where you think this idea leads? I wonder, has Peterson truly thought deeply about the concept of responsibility and what it means? Have you for that matter?

Let us begin then, since you raised the term tell me what responsibility means?

I will say, your response can be directly applied to how people respond to philosophical pessimism. In other words, when the pessimist casts aspersions on being born and life itself, pointing out the structural deficiencies and negative aspects of that structure, people will turn it around on the questioner. It must be a deficiency in the person seeing the deficiency, but never the system itself. You can call it existential gaslighting. — schopenhauer1

So very true. The reason is because humans cannot handle psychological pain, and reality is painful, it is frightening = hence, humans cannot handle reality. Most thinkers simply bury their heads in the sand... no, this is not true, that would be easier to deal with, most thinkers construct a delusional narrative to counter the negative reality. In Peterson's case it's simply conformity, validating the false truth of the administered world as though it comprised totality. This mindless approach to the world was ripped apart by the Frankfurt School, precisely because 1) it's false and 2) it sets the social stage for genocide and totalitarianism. Of course, those who are merely conforming do not perceive any of this, their approach to the world is not critical but intuitive, and this means their intuition blinds them to the negative development of reality. There is something very wrong with any thinker who is telling us to forsake thought in exchange for comfort. This is not resistance but resignation, it is functional Nihilism, even if it doesn't adopt the name. Thinkers are better than this, thought is a greater power!

SUMMARIZING THE POVERTY OF REPLIES ON THIS THREAD: So far there has not been a single educated critique of Marx's position. Those who have attempted to reply in the negative have simply tried to search online for a quote that would support their biased position against Marx. It's the juvenile technique of trying to find something that will stick, and every time these attempts are refuted, there is not an alteration in the belief structure, because it is held in place by a preset bias. The critic simply searches for something else to prove what he already believes. This is not the way critical thinking works. Further, every negative reply seems to be motivation by the fallacy of guilt by association. This position comes with sweeping assumptions: all Marxists are Maoists, Stalinsts etc.// Marx taught a totalitarian political system. But the bottom line, the premise which drives all of these objections, is the premise that Marx and Marxism are dangerous. The replies are generated by a very rational emotional response to the atrocities of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. What the objectors don't comprehend is that these were all Right Wing movements! Right Wing totalitarianism is the result of dictators coming into power without democratic checks on that power. None of these movements were Marxist movements, and more importantly, Marx would have been against them. (However, a qualification is necessary here: power corrupts and we cannot say for sure that it would not have been the same in the case with Marx). Nevertheless, Marx is not a savior, he was a very powerful and relevant economic and political thinker. The shallow attempts that have been offered here haven't even made contact with his position.

What has Marx to do with democracy? Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. — ssu

What class makes up the majority of society?

I never said it was a democratic movement. In fact I said the opposite. My point was that the nationalization of property didn’t result in the conditions Marx predicted — NOS4A2

Responding to your error is exceedingly unpleasant. I only do it because I'm aware that many readers will not be able to discern your contradiction.

1) Admits his examples were not democratic movements. 2) Then goes on to use examples to blame Marx for these movements. Totally inconsistent, ignorant, contradiction.

With all due respect, in the following quotes you cited nothing about “democratic nationalizations”, which was obviously a phrase you made up. — NOS4A2

In what does democracy consist? In dictatorships? In ruling class minority parties? Last time I checked democracy is where the people rule themselves, not where they are ruled. Not sure why you assume that Marx must specifically make use of the term "Democratic Nationalism," in order to put forth this concept (which the quotes I provided demonstrate)? Your objection is one of mere formality and not even worthy of a reply. If you are claiming that Marx's idea of Nationalism is the same as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. I have clearly provided citations that show Marx talking about the workers liberating themselves from the State. You must answer the question with some kind of proof: what was Marx's idea of Nationalism?

Your ignorance here is off the charts, it is also unforgivable, it is the result of the most desperate attempt at confirmation bias.

If I had the power, I would in fact, ban you from this thread, you have been caught red handed, cherry picking, citing Marx out of context in total distortion, your entire contribution here is error, misinformation, mischaracterization and fallacy (guilt by association). Which merely proves that you are neither a serious thinker or a skilled thinker.

The communist revolutions have led to despotism and terror, and have themselves crushed dissent with violence. — NOS4A2

This is correct, even if the revolutions started out as communist revolutions, which is very doubtful given the fact they were not spurred by advanced capitalist societies, they morphed into fascist movements. As I have repeatedly said, I do not believe that a workers revolution will bring about a utopia, I believe it will lead to more of the same violence. Nevertheless, when it comes to the next stage of social progress Marx cannot be ignored, his contribution, power and clarity of thought are simply too relevant.

Clearly we have a serious problem here: I agree and reject every Marxist dictator you have mention, I also reject the idea of a workers revolution, and yet I am not an anti-Marxist. Why? What's the difference between us? Am I just ignorant and deluded? Well, there is one serious difference, I HAVE ACTUALLY STUDIED THE IDEAS OF MARX, you clearly have not.

I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will. — Judaka

This is indeed the dilemma: how does one convince culturated slaves of the evil of slavery? Along comes a man and tells them to adhere to their masters, deep down they have always felt this to be true, when they heed the advice they notice the world makes more sense, their existential angst vanishes, they feel a stronger sense of purpose and they can detect order in the world. All of these things are the products of conformity, they are the result of validating the false truth of what is administered, but this cannot be the way of thinkers. Little does the one who obeys comprehend that his existence is predetermined by a process of production, of the which, he is merely a cog in the wheel. If he never stops to question the system he finds no discontent with it. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways! After all, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem cannot be systemic, the fault lies with the individual's inability to re-frame his discontent. "Stand up straight, put on a suite, go out and face the world with confidence, for all is equal and fair, opportunity awaits, banish every negative thought."

But what we really have here are lies, we have a kind of regression posited as a form of progression. What we really have here is a system of oppression and power, which through conformity, escapes detection. If it is wrong to question power then it is wrong to live, there is no way around it. The great conspiracy is not conformity, but invincible stupidity, repeatedly presented as intelligence.

If one is born a slave, is raised as a slave, it is no surprise that one should come to believe in the invincible virtue of slavery. But the slave has nothing to fear, because he knows, that if there was anything wrong with slavery, he would certainly be able to detect it! And the fact that he only perceives slavery to be a virtue, is proof that it is a common good. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways!

Try telling that to the professor of my post-graduate course on Hegel's Dialectics of Being. — Metaphysician Undercover

All the better, then we can actually discuss the work of Hegel. How did you retain Aristotle's position on Identity after Hegel clearly demonstrated that it collapsed in on itself, precisely because, to speak of Identity, one must presuppose that Identity is not Difference, which is itself a violation of the principle? (As I'm sure you know, dialectics comprehends contradiction emerging from being itself). I would love to hear your refutation? And as you well know, having done "post-graduate" work on Hegel, this is only one small portion of his argument against Aristotle's position.

Maybe. But you could say the same about many other issues as well -- Creationism, QAnon conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. If we spend all of our time doing battle with this nonsense, we'll never move on. — Xtrix

This assumes we can move on without doing battle with it. I admit, if the cult is small enough and does not pose a threat of future proliferation, to the best of our calculation, then better to let it alone. However, I have seen exactly your approach lose the culture to fanaticism in nearly the space of fifty years. There is real danger on gambling against error. What you are doing is assuming that your level of awareness and education will win out at the end of the day. This is not what we learn from history. Intelligence is always on the defensive!

It's a strange phenomenon these days: once someone has locked into a dogma, it's like a black hole -- there's no coming out of it. One wonders what attracts people to these black holes in the first place, but that's why we need to stick to rational argument, evidence, science, etc. -- and hope most people are sane enough to accept reality. — Xtrix

I agree, we do need to do all these things. But we must also refute error, if we do not it will gain simply because it's attempt to deceive goes unchallenged and the ignorant have no defense against it. As intellectuals we have a social responsibility in this direction.

Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued. — Xtrix

Here, my friend, your optimism is misplaced. Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman shifted the entire nature of American economics in the direction of capitalism. When they were on the scene intellectuals said the same things about them that you are now saying about Peterson. Our resistance to this kind of stuff matters. I do not do it because it brings me pleasure or I have some kind of obsession, I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence.

"Can a "Purpose" exist without consciousness?"

"Purpose" is a word created and used by man to demarcate that which he finds to have value, that which is valuable to him. This is not a profound question, the answer is swiftly, and absolutely, no. The question is merely an abstract game one deems to play with themselves and others.

Then we can evaluate the conclusions by their effectiveness at bringing about desirable outcomes as opposed to their truth quality. — Judaka

Any self respecting thinker must reject this kind of subjectivity. Whose "effectiveness" the Right or the Left? Quite consistently, I deny the presumptions on which this kind of thinking is based. The idea that one cannot know truth is a game of radical abstraction. I easily deny it. Children deprived of water and food will die. Supposing our Nihilist friend has a child, he will not fail to give it food and water. I deny that the Right is equal to the Left; I deny that pragmatism is a philosophy of intelligence. Some never recover from the error of radical abstraction, it poisons life and thought. The way forward will not be found by letting Nihilism set the rules. A thinker is better than that, nay, thought is a greater power.

You're a kind of anti-evangalist, right? — Wayfarer

I am against stupidity and ignorance, most especially when they come to occupy a place of authority.

Like I already said, it was given to the peasantry. — NOS4A2

There is so much error and confusion here I do not think I can address all of it. This is the tragic fate of our time. Misinformation cannot be countered because it's easier and swifter to assert distortions than it is to refute them.

The land was controlled by the party and the supreme leader in every case you have cited. These were not democratic movements. The workers were neither free or in power. This is a serious point because it refutes your false, straw man, poisoning of the well, example. You are of course, free to deny it and believe what you want, but this will not make your belief accurate.

Since we’re asking for citations, whereabouts did Marx speak of “democratic nationalizations”? — NOS4A2

With all due respect, the fact that you would even ask such a question can only prove that you haven't read Marx. His entire program was about the worker's emancipating themselves from a class system of oppression. This had nothing to do with dictators or new ruling class parties.

"The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but can only be abolished by the individuals again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour. This is not possible without the community. Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class. The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In a real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association." Marx, The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, D. Proletarians and Communism

"...the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto (which has, moreover, been that of all society up to the present), namely, labour. Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State." ibid.

What you are doing is cherry picking from Marx. Such a procedure is not in line with intellectual honesty.

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.” — NOS4A2

You have here cited a quote you don't even comprehend. Marx was specifically asked about violence, I can't remember where exactly, there are 50 volumes, but his reply was, (paraphrase) "of course, we don't advocate violence, but the ruling class will not let us have democracy." And this is indeed the tragic truth of revolution. The rulers are desperate to hold onto power and will use violence to crush dissent. They will not allow democracy!

“ The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” — NOS4A2

Again another quote you don't understand, seriously taken out of context!

I cannot interact with you anymore on this topic. You are simply trying to validate what you already believe, this is known as confirmation bias. What you should be doing, if you were serious, is trying to learn what Marx actually said and taught, not simply trying to find cherry picked quotes to justify your position. I wish you all the best.

Once you give power of a dictatorship to anyone, the outcome is really bad. It simply changes people. In the end, killing your fellow human beings comes so easy. — ssu

You misunderstand the way democracy works. However, one can sabotage democracy, exactly as we have done in America, by impoverishing and depriving the masses of education. One's vote is only as good as their ability to comprehend, to not be duped.

I just have not followed Peterson so much that I would know just where and when he has said that " God is necessary for value" — ssu

The quote I cited above* where he distorts Nietzsche is enough, unless Peterson claims to do what he says Nietzsche could not? I should have use the word "implies" instead of "claim," although I honestly don't see much difference, because the implication implies the claim whether spoken or not. Clearly Peterson is not claiming that values can be constructed in the absence of God? If that was the case his entire approach to civilization would be uprooted and nullified. He tries to make it seem like Nietzsche was an advocate of his position, namely that values could not be created apart from God.

*In another place I extracted the same quote from his exchange with Susan Blackmore.

And how does that dictatorship work then? — ssu

It is a democratic system of workers. There is going to be power in any system, the question for Marx (and it is indeed an intelligent question) was which class would bring about the greatest emancipation of the species? Sadly, we have never had this kind of system in the history of the world. I for one do not believe a worker's revolution will bring about utopia, but this neither exhausts Marx or negates his value. You might actually try reading him and thinking about what he says.

If so, please give the direct quote for this. — ssu

It would seem to me that this is not necessary, Peterson's position evidently presupposes this. This is not my mere invention. Allow me to connect the dots, if man can indeed achieve positivity apart from the supernatural, then there is simply no reason to run to God, or in Peterson's case, argue he is necessary! Such an act would be a violation of the premise of positivity. When Peterson makes the claim that God is necessary for value, he presupposes all kinds of unspoken things. One of these things is that man cannot produce the positive without God. (As I already demonstrated, he is such a fanatic in this sense that he tried to attribute his own error to Nietzsche). And let's be frank, Peterson is a Christian, Christianity contains the idea of original sin, it asserts that mankind is fallen and must be born again. When you imply that Peterson must directly assert this line for line in order to prove that he believes it, this is false. All one needs to do is calculate backward from his conclusions. One merely has to presupposes something in their position in order to be charged with it. In fact, this is how most high level philosophical thinking proceeds.

NOS4A2 — NOS4A2

Unto whom was the land nationalized in the examples you cite? Were these democratic nationalizations?

Please give a citation where Marx's political theory validates the actions of Mao?

North Korea also claims to be a Marxist country, but where is the democracy of the workers?

Does every country who claims to be Marxist, does this prove the country is Marxist?

Please give a citation from Marx where he says dictators should have authority over the people, where he says society should be ruled by dictators? Is that how communism works?

Actually Plato provides a much more useful dialect than Hegel. After reading Plato and Aristotle, you'll be able to see where Hegel goes wrong in his dialectics — Metaphysician Undercover

My guess is that people respect you on this board, well, I am not a respecter of persons, I am a respecter of thinkers. I am calling you out right now, because I know for a fact that you are speaking out of your backside. I would like to make it clear, unlike you, I am not merely posturing here. What you have asserted merely manifests your blatant ignorance, not only for dialectics, but also toward the philosophy of Hegel. Admit that you have never studied 1) Hegel or 2) Dialectics. (I suppose you might think you have studied dialectics because you have read Plato and Aristotle, but these are 2000 year old formations, we have come vastly beyond these architectures). If you have merely studied Plato and Aristotle then you have not studied dialectics, you have merely studied the dialectics of Plato and Aristotle. This would be like studying the Ptolemaic models, and saying because of this, that you have studied science.

What do you mean by this? — EnPassant

With all due respect, I don't find it very productive to engage with you.

He's basically managed to sell milquetoast conservatism to millenial white gamer dudes through an aesthetic of personal transformation. — fdrake

This is exactly it, and tragically these young people don't have the resources to place him in context as an intellectual. There is nothing there. Even in the domain of psychology this guy is a joke. The amount of revolutionary research and progress in psychology, in the last 20 years alone, is breathtaking. Peterson exemplifies and embodies none of it. He is still trying to preach the moth-eaten narrative that will power is the agent of human psychological salvation. We know this is nonsense, many other factors are at work. Like I accurately said, he's a conformist and a reactionary. But what is most tragic is that he's not turning out thinkers, he's creating more like himself, those who mindlessly validate the status quo. It should be noted, this is the direct opposite of what it means to be a thinker.

but the alternative seems to me to be socialism or barbarism. Or worse, socialism or extinction. That's where we're going, I'm afraid. — David Mo

Tragically this seems true. It is also common sense: humans cannot exist without society. We can either approach this intelligently or play the private property game.

I thank you for your reply because it's in line with the original post. The question is, will the needs of humans actually force sanity and intelligence on the earth, or will tyranny lead to even greater extinction and suffering?

Those who think it's a matter of an American system versus the tyranny of the world... my god, what can one even say to such people, they are swimming in the coolaid. The common, uneducated man or woman, totally lacking class awareness, doesn't even have the tools to comprehend the status of their plight. Everything they think about reality is filtered through the culture that has administered it. They mistake these beliefs for original thoughts, they are no such thing. What's perhaps most frightening is that these are the very people who will usher in the next great catastrophe of Nationalist violence. Of course, they will not see it this way, they will see it as the good guys killing the bad guys, as the most righteous Nation defending itself from the error of all the rest, including its own citizens. As Adorno so aptly said, the world is always in danger of lapsing into barbarism, and this is something every intellectual must be concerned with.