-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jordan Peterson Beast Mode
- Thread starter thatbrian
- Start date
Here he says that Marxism was abandoned in the 1970's by his "liberal" bogeymen. Of course it's no longer true that the working class is getting rich. In fact by comparison with the upper class, the middle class has been losing ground ever since the 70's. So your point is not rational.
There have been no significant Marxists in the United States except perhaps in the 1930's.
It's alive and well today, just repackaged. You've actually swallowed it hook line and sinker
Oh, my goodness!
"Why is Marxism so attractive?"
Now you are posting videos that are strawmen!
Is there no end to your madness!
I Love An Atheist
Active Member
I never met more than three real Marxists in my whole life, and two were very young. Yet I was surprised to discover that in college, I majored in Cultural Marxism without realizing it.
I was an English major in college, and I once wrote a paper titled, "A Marxist Interpretation of, My Kinsman Major Molineux" (a Nathanial Hawthorne short story). It was only for a class in literary interpretation. The assignment was to choose from one of five interpretive methods: deconstruction, feminist, Marxist, reader response theory, or psychoanaytic. I had to learn these five methods in this class, though I was never required to use any of these methods for writing papers in any other English classes.
As I proceeded in my studies, I often grabbed ideas from these theories I had learned, in a kind of eclectic way. I did my own independent reading to learn more about most of the theories. I did more than I had to do, because I was interested in the theories themselves. Not every undergraduate student had to do this. At the post-graduate level students are required to become more heavily invested in theories. At the undergraduate level students could still just enjoy the literature and interpret it freely in most classes.
Some classes were joint English/women's studies classes. In these, I learned even more postmodernist academic feminist theory, and I and other students were required to resort to these theories to interpret some plays and fiction. But no students were required to take these classes. These were electives.
Later after graduation, work, marriage, motherhood and the passage of years I started to see people repeatedly talking about something they called "Cultural Marxism". When I looked it up, I saw it came from the Frankfurt School. I immediately recognized it. It was all familiar. I realized I was deeply steeped in the Frankfurt School, although I had never been taught about its existence. I'm not even sure any of my professors were aware of its existence.
But one thing I immediately realized about the Frankfurt School is that it has not only influenced academia. It has also influenced psychology, mass media, advertising and marketing.
Now what do you think influences people more? The ads they watch, or my paper about "A Marxist Interpretation of My Kinsman Major Molineux".
Furthermore, all political candidates rely on work that has a pedigree going back to the Frankfurt School when they do focus groups, targeted campaign ads, jingos, "talking points", etc.
So actually both political parties, and all corporations, have been influenced by the Frankfurt School or work derived from the Frankfurt School.
I may have written a few bad papers, but I doubt very much if English professors and English majors ruined the world. LOL
Yes. It has.
I don't know anyone who admits to being a Marxist, but I do know the ideology when I see it, and it is all over the 6 o clock news. It is on every college campus, and it is seldom absent from Hollywood movies. It's in the air we breath.
Peterson is an interesting guy and his presentations are sometimes spellbinding.
He is so much smarter than I that I hesitate to take issue.
But he's smart, and I'm not, but I will say there is a bit of reductionism going on.
The glaring difference between Peterson and Marxists has nothing to do with economics; Marx was a materialist; Peterson and Christians (and a whole lot of other people of all faiths) are not. Peterson's primary disagreement with Marxists, IMO, stems from that.
Is Marxism on the advance? Not really. Yes, some of today's radicals have clothed themselves in Marxist rhetoric, but I would bet you a small amount of money that none of them understand Marx.
The real nexus is materialism; Marxist is the most developed, perhaps, of the materialistic philosophies, so it often finds its way into modern discussion.
There are only a handful of Marxist governments. Most are straight-out authoritarian states. China espouses authoritarianism (and this is becoming more the case now that Xi can reign as long as he wants and is, in effect, a traditional Chinese emperor) and state capitalism. North Korea is nothing more than a traditional East Asian despotic state. Cuba was never Marxist, though it used the language. Russia is what it always was: a semi-European autocracy birthed in Asiatic despotism. Stalin clothed it in Marxist rhetoric. The rhetoric is gone today and Putin is, in effect just another Tsar (as Stalin was).
Peterson, unlike some of his admirers, knows that extreme concentrations of wealth and power are really a problem. Yes, human societies reward some people inordinately. Peterson knows this is a problem and any reasonable government will seek to ameliorate the situation for its own survival and the survival of the society.
FDR as no genius, but he understood that something had to be done to calm the storm that could have led to either communism or fascism in the United States. From our standpoint, perhaps, that seems to be outlandish. It was not at the time. The country was convulsing under 25 percent unemployment and it was a a dicey proposition that capitalism and democracy could survive in this country.
Marx was right about a lot of things. Workers were being abused. Liberty was a rare commodity. There was no logical reason that workers should not share in the profits of their masters.
He erred in his adoption of Materialism and his acceptance of Hegel's philosophy. Hegel thought the Prussian state was the end of history because it represented the ultimate evolution of society. Marx thought communism was the ultimate evolution of society. Neither considered that fools would use such ideas to their own ends.
He is so much smarter than I that I hesitate to take issue.
But he's smart, and I'm not, but I will say there is a bit of reductionism going on.
The glaring difference between Peterson and Marxists has nothing to do with economics; Marx was a materialist; Peterson and Christians (and a whole lot of other people of all faiths) are not. Peterson's primary disagreement with Marxists, IMO, stems from that.
Is Marxism on the advance? Not really. Yes, some of today's radicals have clothed themselves in Marxist rhetoric, but I would bet you a small amount of money that none of them understand Marx.
The real nexus is materialism; Marxist is the most developed, perhaps, of the materialistic philosophies, so it often finds its way into modern discussion.
There are only a handful of Marxist governments. Most are straight-out authoritarian states. China espouses authoritarianism (and this is becoming more the case now that Xi can reign as long as he wants and is, in effect, a traditional Chinese emperor) and state capitalism. North Korea is nothing more than a traditional East Asian despotic state. Cuba was never Marxist, though it used the language. Russia is what it always was: a semi-European autocracy birthed in Asiatic despotism. Stalin clothed it in Marxist rhetoric. The rhetoric is gone today and Putin is, in effect just another Tsar (as Stalin was).
Peterson, unlike some of his admirers, knows that extreme concentrations of wealth and power are really a problem. Yes, human societies reward some people inordinately. Peterson knows this is a problem and any reasonable government will seek to ameliorate the situation for its own survival and the survival of the society.
FDR as no genius, but he understood that something had to be done to calm the storm that could have led to either communism or fascism in the United States. From our standpoint, perhaps, that seems to be outlandish. It was not at the time. The country was convulsing under 25 percent unemployment and it was a a dicey proposition that capitalism and democracy could survive in this country.
Marx was right about a lot of things. Workers were being abused. Liberty was a rare commodity. There was no logical reason that workers should not share in the profits of their masters.
He erred in his adoption of Materialism and his acceptance of Hegel's philosophy. Hegel thought the Prussian state was the end of history because it represented the ultimate evolution of society. Marx thought communism was the ultimate evolution of society. Neither considered that fools would use such ideas to their own ends.