Marxism doesn't have much, if really anything, in the ways of a "governing ideology". That's why it's helpful to actually read Marx.

The way Foucault analyses society is too scientific .

I’m hoping you used italics to suggest what Foucault did wasn’t scientific - because what he produced was historical opinionated prose. To call it scientific is a serious stretch!

Then it's just a waste of time. It's just some random ancient dude spouting nonsense about why he hates capitalism. But if he has no alternative, why bother with his nonsense?

Because his points are critical and of value in establishing a better economical system?

No. His points apparently lead to economic disaster like Russia and Venezuela. The US, German, and British economy has done fine ignoring pretty much ignoring everything Marx has to say.

When China switched from Marxism to Capitalism, that's when China's economic boom began. If China still believed in Marxism, their economy would be like Russia's.

Not true. He exposes some of the possible faults. His theory of economics is another thing altogether, it is a case of baby and bathwater. Just because his theory didn’t work in practice it doesn’t discount the critique of Capitalism.

I mean, I can write a critique of capitalism, too, if I didn't have to provide a working alternative. He's just some ancient irrelevant dude who has nothing constructive to offer.

Look, I came from China. Marxism is shi-.

Look, I came from China. Marxism is shi-. — YuZhonglu

Don't be a simpleton (like Peterson) and think that Marxism and the actual Real-World implementation of Marxism are equivalent issues. This isn't about the practical and historical implementation of an ideology! :angry:

Besides, to the Western intellectuals You (the Chinese) looked all so cute with your caps with the Red Star and green overalls waving the Little Red Book of Mao. And then you rode bicycles. Oh, how people just loved it here in the West that you rode bicycles! The streets of China were so different without the cars, which was so nice, so good. Everybody understood, that as there were so many Chinese, You simply could not have cars as we had, that would be an utter disaster. The Chinese simply couldn't have a similar materialist consumption-economy as we enjoyed, which was inherently bad. You were far better than that! You were Communists, or more specifically Maoists. It worked in your society. Hence the view among of the leftist intellectuals was that You were living sensibly and we, in the decadent capitalist West, should feel bad about our lifestyle.

全世界的无产阶级，联合起来！

I mean it entirely earnestly. (and it is a contrast, hence the emphasis, to Peterson's approach of suggesting our social organisation is given by a tradition myth).

Foucault's method of takes observation of our society seriously. Instead of approaching our social relationships in terms of whether they follow a myth or tradition, he looks at how we are states of the world who have produced a particular social organisation through our actions and social expectations.

The move is analogous to when we shift from insisting the causality of the world is given in myth, to act of observing and describing what the world is doing. Foucault does it with our social organisation in relation to our culture and structures of power.

Look, I came from China. Marxism is shi-. — YuZhonglu

To add to ssu's comment, Hitler was voted for in a democracy, so were many other dictators (as well as many a coup that simply overthrew the democracy), yet few here would even attempt to argue that: Hitler was bad, Hitler came to power in a democracy, therefore democracy bad. If you step back for a moment, the reason that this argument form is used with respect to Marxism or socialism or communism, is that nearly 2 centuries of propaganda backs up what reduces to simply repeating that propaganda. So it's understandable that people who repeat it think of themselves as doing good, but is it critical thinking?

If someone was arguing for democracy against opponents here, it would go without saying that they'd be able to accept democracy does indeed allow tyrants to get voted in but that it is not necessarily a fatal flaw to the philosophy of democracy itself (they would then argue why not); and it would go without saying that they'd be able to argue their view that the Nazi's were democracy gone wrong (and perhaps due to a poorly designed democratic system) and that is a risk but not definitive conclusive evidence that democracy is bad.

Indeed, if we were arguing in Marx's time, a proponent of democracy would need to contend with the criticism that one major democratic experiment led straight to Nepolean and the subsequent wars that killed millions of people, and the other major democratic experiment was clearly just colonial elites not wanting to give up their slaves. Point being, at one point, whether the point referenced or then before, it was not clear that real democracies in practice didn't simply descend to a worse despotism (aristocrats argued this for literally thousands of years; and they worked pretty hard to make sure there wasn't any prosperous democracies around for most of that time).

Now, this doesn't establish things either way; perhaps democracy does lead invariably to despotism; perhaps Marxism in all it's forms does lead invariably to despotism. The point of a philosophy debate forum is to debate it, support one's arguments or then criticize another's arguments, then contending with rebuttals, subtleties and reformulations.

For instance, some Marxists view democracy as essential to Marxism, and therefore the despotism of the Soviet Union or Communist China (both emerging long after Marx is dead) is incompatible with what Marx believed and wrote. The main supporting evidence of this is Marx's view of the Commune of Paris.

Show me Foucault’s scientific research then. You cannot do this because he didn’t do any because he wasn’t a scientist.

His work is generally opinion and speculation. It is good speculation in places, but to call it “scientific” is to not understand science.

To add to ssu's comment, Hitler was voted for in a democracy, so were many other dictators along as well as many a coup that simply overthrew the democracy, yet few here would even attempt to argue that the Hitler was bad, Hitler came to power in a democracy, therefore democracy bad.

You’d have to provide some pretty convincing evidence to back up that claim!

All I’m saying is you shouldn’t ignore the critique simply because you hated his failed solution. I’m saying no more than that.

You’d have to provide some pretty convincing evidence to back up that claim! — I like sushi

Did you read the rest of my comment?

Yes. But it wasn’t democracy that got him into power. It was the removal of all opponents parties so it’s not exactly “democratic” when you have a choice of one.

why? — fdrake

Yeah, I think you have it.

Zizek is rightly uncomfortable with those who treat event as a championship bout.

So you read the sentence "and it would go without saying that they'd be able to argue their view that the Nazi's were democracy gone wrong (and perhaps due to a poorly designed democratic system) and that is a risk but not definitive conclusive evidence that democracy is bad" as well as the rest of my comment, and you still believe I am putting forth that the Nazi's rise in Germany is a good argument against democracy?

Be that as it may, if we want to debate this, are you saying Hitler did not rise through a democratic process?

There is no debate? He didn’t get democratically elected. Saying “democracy gone wrong” insinuates he was democratically elected. Hopefully that misconception is firmly ironed out now so we can leave it alone.

There is no debate? He didn’t get democratically elected. Saying “democracy gone wrong” insinuates he was democratically elected. Hopefully that misconception is firmly ironed out now so we can leave it alone. — I like sushi

Ok, then yes, we disagree on this point.

Though I don't view Hitler being elected as a point against democracy, it's simply the case that he used the political process to form a government and institute a dictatorship; there was no coup (if you see a third option between the two, please explain it).

From Wikipedia:

The Act passed by a vote of 441–84, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.

The Reichstag Fire Decree was also constitutional, and as Wikipedia notes "the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to arrest all 81 Communist deputies (in spite of their virulent campaign against the party, the Nazis had allowed the KPD to contest the election[167]) and prevent several Social Democrats from attending [the vote on the enabling act]".

Do you dispute Wikipedia's description? How is the de facto dictatorship not compatible with the democratic process the Germans had? How was it a coup? or then some third option that is neither legal nor a coup? (i.e. how do you argue against the legality of each step towards the Nazi's seizing power without saying "a poorly designed democratic system"). The Nazi's didn't have a majority, but it's a parliamentary system, Hitler got the other parties to vote for his Enabling act, and he used a completely constitutionally valid Decree to round up the communists. Sure, the fire wasn't lit by the communists, but that I would include in the "risks of democracy": that bad faith actors can use subterfuge for propaganda purposes; the Germans still voted enough Nazi's into power as well as other parties largely sympathetic to the Nazi's; i.e. the argument "it's only democracy if no one plays any tricks", I do not think is valid.

Close, but no cigar! ;)

From wiki too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 1933, formally titled Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"),[1] was an amendment passed on 23 March 1933 to the Weimar Constitution[citation needed] that gave the German Cabinet — in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler — the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers and followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which had abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship.

The act passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 23 March 1933,[2][3][4] and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day. The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice.

The law was enacted by the Reichstag (meeting at the Kroll Opera House), where non-Nazi members were surrounded and threatened by members of the SA and the SS. The Communists had already been repressed and were not allowed to be present or to vote, and some Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end most of those present voted for the act, except for the Social Democrats, who voted against it.[5]

Stopping people from voting by threat/violence, or by already having removed their citizen rights, is not exactly what democracy is about.

Granted, his initial rise - although manipulative and violent - as in line with basic democratic principles. So, you have a point there. His actual appointment as leader was not democratic according to the above though.

Stopping people from voting by threat/violence, or by already having removed their citizen rights, is not exactly what democracy is about. — I like sushi

The threat/violence and repression of the communists were done under constitutional powers granted by the Reichstag Fire Decree. It's debatable how many MPs voted for the Enabling Act simply because they "felt threatened", and again the electorate could have voted for representatives that would stand against the Nazi's regardless of threats (the communists were a minority and their repression was legal under the Fire Decree, people could have voted for more of them and/or more anti-Nazi social democrats; but they didn't and anti-Nazi's were in the minority).

There is nothing that says violent and manipulative people can't participate in democracy. It is you that is close but not cigar: you are including in your definition of democracy the assumption that it must be constituted by people who value the democratic process, peaceful deliberation and no dirty tricks. You are confusing democratic values with the democratic process itself.

Someone defending the philosophy of democracy must contend with the fact that the democratic process can be used by someone who values dictatorship to seize power through completely legal steps. Hitler is an example of this in practice.

The other parties could have opposed him, but didn't. It's a weak quibble to say they "felt threatened", the MP's that voted for the enabling act weren't forced at gun point to vote one way in a farce of democracy; there was debate, there was a deal cut with the leader of the other major party; there were nevertheless people who voted against it. The ambiance may have been "threatening" but any MP who felt strongly anti-Nazi certainly would have voted against despite the atmosphere; the fact is the majority were not strongly anti-Nazi and largely sympathetic to Nazism (hence why the leader of the other major party accepted a deal; support in exchange for a a position in the de facto dictatorship). If the repression of the communists was an unconstitutional outrage, the other parties could have opposed the repression and the Fire Decree (but they didn't because they didn't like the communists either).

Historians don't talk about the "Hitler coup" nor the "19 something revolution where Hitler overturned the government with a group of guerrilla fighters descending from the mountains".

Hitler was the government! And he exploited weaknesses in the design of German democracy to create a pathway to a legal dictatorship.

Now historians also agree that a majority of Germans were not in favour of Nazism, a lot thought he was a joke and wouldn't win a significant amount of seats and didn't bother to vote. But the point of this part of the discussion is not that Hitler's rise was unconstitutional or that Germany didn't have a democratic process, but to point out Hitler didn't truly "represent" the German people (in a meta-democracy way, just as we can say today Trump doesn't "represent" Americans, due to losing the popular vote, in the same meta-democracy way), as well as to provide a general lesson on the dangers of not-voting and the danger of parliamentary first-past-the-post systems and constitutional emergency powers.

If you review your argument carefully it reduces to Hitler having an unfair advantage in passing the Enabling Act, due to a prior accumulation of power under the entirely constitutional Fire Decree (granted by Hindenburg, who was president and had that emergency decree power in a democratic system; he could have decreed otherwise). In other words, your argument is that the democracy was badly designed, not that Hitler seized power in an undemocratic way.

Hitler did not stage a coup nor overthrow the government with a revolutionary force, he played the democracy game (as anyone can do in a democracy, regardless if they value democracy or not), and he accumulated enough support and power to be able to legally exclude his fiercest opponents and then used that position to solidify totalitarian power, again legally.

To be a proponent of democracy is to accept such people can participate in public life and form parties and run for office and be in government; but to have faith that good democratic design and enough people really valuing democracy itself can prevent such people rising to form a legal dictatorships, as well as update and adapt the system when needed.

However, there's no mechanism in democratic theory to guarantee legal dictatorship can't happen; it's a risk and a criticism of democracy that a proponent of democracy must deal with.

I think this is enough to question the claim of a democratic vote:

non-Nazi members were surrounded and threatened by members of the SA and the SS.

I concede the to the bulk of your argument though given that if they hadn’t been threatened and blocked from voting then they the Nazi Party’s rise to power would’ve only been, at best, delayed rather than halted.

I’m well aware that people can democratically vote for a dictatorship - I believe something along those lines happened fairly recently in Turkey.

This is an interesting article about people talking past one another.

The digital audience at large for this debate seemed to only care about which speaker "owned" the other (I watched it live, with a live chat). This might as well have been a boxing match; Foreman vs Ali.

Just goes to show how far removed ideological analysis is from active popular political discourse.

The subject matter vs Peterson's background made this an ill-fated exchange to begin with. He's no economist and no political scientist; Zizek had the home-field advantage, which meant everything.

Me, Myself, and Ivy

The Preppy Progressives transfer their deserved but denied guilt over being nothing without Daddy's Money to those whose opportunities are stolen through that heiristocratic appropriation. With the delusion that they are Born to Rule, they seek distortions of history in order to force Whites to feel guilty. They hate their fathers while continuing to still believe what their fathers told them, before adolescent rebellion on everything else, about their inherited superiority.

Huh?

Then it's just a waste of time. It's just some random ancient dude spouting nonsense about why he hates capitalism. But if he has no alternative, why bother with his nonsense? — YuZhonglu

Have you read Marx outside of the Manifesto (assuming you've read that)?

If you want a better critique, Marx is wrong because there is no essence to human nature. Concepts like "Essence" and "Spirit" are just shitty words people make up to explain a neurobiological phenomenon that we don't understand yet.

My problem isn't just with Marx. If you really want to get into it, I don't like Plato. His philosophy is crap.

Ok so you haven't read Marx got it, this is great discourse

No, I've read enough to know he's wrong. Private property is not some socially conditioned aberration. It's an extension of basic human neurobiology found even in babies.

I.e. Even 2-year-old children understand the concepts of fairness and ownership.

I.e. Marx is shi-. ALL of his basic axioms behind his arguments are wrong.

It's not about ownership of personal belongings, it's about ownership of society's productive capability, like factories.