This article contextualizes an exchange between Dr. Richard Wolff and Abby Martin about Jordan Peterson that was uploaded to Empire Files’s YouTube channel.
It then debunks some of the critical analysis and positions made by Wolff, and places his work within the context of Kultural Marxism.
Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek Discuss “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism”
I know a lot about Marxism.
Slavoj Žižek was one of my professors during my M.A. research at New York University and in his lectures, he frequently explicated on the works of Karl Marx and G. W. F. Hegel.
Vivek Chibber and Bertell Ollman, experts in the fields of historical and dialectical materialism – sub-fields in History and Political Sciences based on the writings of Marx – were also my professors while at NYU.
While not that familiar with the work of Jordan Peterson (my familiarity with his work consists of watching another of his other debates) I was curious to see him speak given his rise to fame and my own psychological investigations under my father’s guidance while attending FICAM.
Grading the Debate
Watching Jordan Peterson explain Marxist thought was thorougly cringy.
When I first heard him say something askew from what Marxists actually describe in their works I thought of writing – as I did with the Steve Bannon vs. David Frum Munk Debate – a sort of ongoing commentary, this time correcting him.
I quickly realized that to do so would consume more time than I was willing to commit, so was heartened to see that Harrison Fluss, a former colleague from mine from FAU, went into specifics in Jacobin Magazine. Though I don’t agree with a number of his conclusions there or in his other commentary on Peterson, his assessments related to Marx are valid and insightful.
This, however, doesn’t mean that Slavoj Žižek won the debate.
There was no real overarching conflict affirming or negating a resolution. It was more like a mutual clarification of perspectives, a charting of concepts histories and a series of clarifications and jokes.
Though Žižek states in his rebuttal that Peterson’s reading of The Communist Manifesto was overly-simplified, he also recognizes that what Peterson means by “Cultural Marxism” doesn’t actually emerge from Marxist thought and even agrees with Peterson that some of the critical points he makes about it are nevertheless correct.
More importantly, as it relates to Capitalism vs. Marxism and it’s relationship to Happiness, is that Žižek agrees with Peterson’s description of post-modernist/identity politics protests and other ideas it the replacement of Marx’s idea of class conflict– defined as being between the working class, proletariat and the bourgeoisie – with those of the terms used within identity politics discourse.
Thus even though Dr. Peterson can’t name a single of these “post-modern Marxists” – they both share that they’ve had experiences on campus of those embodying this value system.
This is important, as it allows the Žižek and Peterson to come to a mutually agreed-upon understanding of what is meant by Cultural Marxism and to agree that what they understand by it is socially harmful.
Debunking the Debunking of Jordan Peterson’s “Cultural Marxism” with Richard Wolff
In his interview with Abby Martin on Empire Files Dr. Richard D. Wolff similarly recognized Peterson’s unfamiliarity with Marxist literature and inability to name a single person that would fall under the rubric of a “Cultural Marxist”.
But, rather than being a magnanimous interlocutor he claims that Dr. Peterson’s used of the term Cultural Marxism is merely a revival of an old Nazi trope that has no connection whatsoever to Marxism (it does, and I describe it in brief here) and then denigrates him for not understanding what “exploitation” means to Marxists. That whole subsequent dialogue between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Žižek which finds them clarifying the terms used and then agreeing to the? Completely ignored.
The extent to Dr. Wolff’s unfairness to Jordan Peterson goes beyond making red herrings and being condescensing to someone speaking outside their area of specialization.
In his closing comments, Dr. Wolff equates the perspective of Dr. Peterson (a view, incidentally, shared by Marx [₁]) – that social hierarchies will always exist in some form to the justification of chattel slavery in the Americans.
Let me state this again as it is important.
Whereas Dr. Jordan Peterson limits his discussion on hierarchies to endogenous personal capabilities (such as physical attractiveness and other such mundane and widely recognized categories) and says equality of ends is offensive to the human condition but equality of opportunity is a necessary value to strive for – Dr. Wolff twists this and Dr. Peterson’s otherwise mundane argument (“People can be judged based on different qualities” – a position adjacent to his claim that history can be judged on qualities other than class struggle) to mean that he is justifying slavery.
More than that, he places this position within a wider, conspiratorial framework wherein Peterson is an expression of the economic elite which feels the “status quo is in danger” and thus the “dominant classes” revert to using the language of “natural law” to justify their rule.
Beyond merely making the false claim that Peterson’s position is to justify slavery, Wolff states that in situations wherein people use the language of natural law – that physical violence is an appropriate response.
His exact words are: “The minute you hear that [justification of hierarchies] you should reach for your gun.”
Given that Dr. Peterson’s last words are to praise the human capacity to engage with and learn from others that hold different world views and that Žižek’s last words are to warn Leftists from falling into “the political correctness trap” and to be intrepid in their thinking, this line of commentary by Dr. Wolff’s seems highly suspect [2].
Orwellian Irony: Why Kultural Marxists Seek to Debunk Cultural Marxism
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Žižek both reject the Marxist framework that subsumes individual liberty under the collective.
The above image provides a brief indicator as to why that is so – being forced to rely upon the attention and benevolence of a Party or Dear Leader for the means by which to self-reproduce or better one’s socio-economic standing is degrading and has lead, historically, to a wide variety of crimes great and small.
In contrast to Dr. Richard Wolff, who views Dr. Peterson as an avatar for the anxieties of an economic elite that fears a shift towards Socialism in America (Idealism), I view Dr. Richard Wolff along with a number of intellectuals, artists and political activists as being associated with Venezuela’s state media, state intelligence apparatus and the PSUV (Historicism).
What is the basis for my claim, besides being on a show funded by Venezuela?
In addition to appearing on a number of media outlets connected to or associated with Venezuelan state media, Richard D. Wolff was also involved with Occupy Wall Street (along with many other Venezuela-aligned Marxist-inspired organizations such as the Workers World Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Revolutionary Communist Party); is also an instructor at the People’s Forum and and is on the board of the Left Forum – organizations which hosts a number of Kultural Marxist personalities; frequently appears on The Real News Network– which has numerous former Venezuelan government officials working for it; and is involved with a Democracy at Work, a non-profit with an anti-capitalist orientation akin to other political activism projects that have received funding from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
In fact, Dr. Wolff’s closing comments – misrepresenting the position of a perceived enemy and then threatening violence – are roughly commensurate with the political climate fostered by Nicolas Maduro: Discouraging criticism under threat of neglect (access to government goods and services) and violence (via SEBIN and colectivos). Given the role that academic editors and peer-review plays in academic publications
I imagine that Dr. Wolff’s written corpus isn’t as distortive and crass as this “debunking,” but I’ll have to rely on other’s assessments as after having watched his exchange with Abby Martin I’m disinterested in potentially encountering other falsifications done for the sake of demonstrating ideological purity and superiority.
Footnote
[1] This is a very strange claim for Wolff to make as the notion that “hierarchy” disappears under a socialist regime is quickly disproved via historical analysis or reference to seminal Marxist texts. In Critique of the Gotha Program, Karl Marx writes:
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
While one can certainly make the claim that conflating Marx and Lenin is intellectually problematic, it’s also worth citing Lenin to disprove Wolff’s claim that all hierarchies are flattened in a Socialist societty. In Lenin’s own words, from , “The State and Revolution”:
“We are not utopians, we do not ‘dream’ of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and ‘foremen and accountants’.”
One could also look to the history of the Soviet Union, with Joseph Stalin’s policy enactment of “primitive socialist accumulation” to demonstrate that exploitation still existed via the provision of surplus value being provided to political cadres loyal to the current leader of the Communist Party and not workers.
[2] In what is essentially a criticism of The Resistance, which is intimately connected to the Left Forum, Slavoj Žižek also claimes in his closing statement that “People labeling others fascist is lazy thinking, and Trump is not a fascist.”