• happybadger [he/him]
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only way Peterson's "postmodern neomarxist" boogeyman ever made sense to me is if he means people like Baudrillard/Foucault/Althusser/critical theorists who had Marxist roots but then either denounced Marxism or transitioned into postmodernism/liberal activism.

    But I've also seen his Zizek debate. His understanding of Marxism is literally misunderstanding page one of the Communist Manifesto, a book I first read at like age 12-13 and remember comprehending. There is no way in hell he read something as dense as Althusser's work and the closest he's come to Baudrillard is watching The Matrix. It's just a rhetorical version of one of those rorschach blobs that always looks like a penis.

      • happybadger [he/him]
        ·
        6 months ago

        Neomarxist on its own has been used by others outside of him, but even then it's as vague as tankie. I've seen it applied to Zizek for nominally being a Marxist while having a bunch of pro-European and conservative takes, generically to Eco-Marxists like John Bellamy Foster because they're rediscovering part of Marx, and by reactionaries because it's scarier than Marxist if big words scare you.

      • happybadger [he/him]
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don't remember much of what Zizek said in it, only that he bullied Peterson relentlessly and humiliated him in a room full of his cultists. It was inspirational as a dirtbag leftist.

      • SSJ2Marx
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Zizek sucks but he in that debate Peterson came out with nothing but the same conservative guff that people have been saying for a hundred years, and all Zizek had to do was say "cooperation is good actually" in order to win.