3 ms·

I've found that Peterson has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) while

I've found that Peterson has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) while they could not be further from each other, except as being originated from conitental philosophy. I've written about one such instance here[0] and as far as I can tell it applies to this video too. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077128

mnglkhn2 9y ago
> has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) Because that is the most prominent application of postmodernism: to push forward neo-Marxist ideology.
- etplayer 9y ago
  That's actually not true. What is "neo Marxism"? As I understand it, it is the application of Marixist class theory to other non-class power structures. However I have seen nor have been able to find any evidence that this is an actually existing group that has grown out of Marxism. Furthermore, postmodernism denies the very structures in the materialist understanding of history which is essential to Marxism. So how are they compatible? These and other issues are discussed in my post and in the article I linked therein. There's simply no evidence for it; Peterson's confusion is his own and I hope that others do not follow him on this and instead choose to do their own research into philosophy.
  - SuoDuanDao 9y ago
    They are not compatible - Peterson's argument is not that neomarxism and postmodernism are natural bedfellows, but that people espousing postmodernist positions nearly always reveal a belief structure based in neomarxism when challenged by an intellectual equal. His evidence is presumably his own conversations with postmodernists, and his theory as to why this is seems based more in a psychological than philosophical framework.
- Emma_Goldman 9y ago
  This entire conversation is a tissue of confusions. 'Cultural Marxism' is a pejorative term for the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. It was invented by fascists to dismiss the whole enterprise without engaging with it. The Frankfurt School emerged in the 1920s/30s in response to the failure of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism in the way that Marx had suggested would happen, and as a response to the crude economism of a lot of early Marxism (i.e. where 'culture' was just an epiphenomenon rooted in the economic base of a society). It was a German school - its main sources were Hegel, Marx, Mannheim, etc. Post-modernism, on the other hand, is a term for a very amorphous group of (largely French) thinkers who reacted against the dominance of structuralist social theory in the 1960s, which itself was a reaction to existentialism. Its sources are usually the canon of phenomenology, the structuralists before them, and Nietzsche. The Frankfurt School is best known for its formulation of ideological critique, its critique of 'instrumental rationality', its holistic view of a critical social science, and its collected writings on aesthetics and mass media. The post-modernists are best known for their rejection of a lot of the heritage of the Enlightenment, their focus on the fragility and contingency language, and their emphasis on 'play, metaphor, rhizomes', etc. But they are not a single school - they are FAR more varied than the Frankfurt School. For example, Pierre Bourdieu (who had a fairly empirical sociology of cultural hierarchy and class) is worlds away from Jacques Derrida (who was an abstract theorist that wrote very opaquely, and IMO is responsible for a lot of the bad reputation of post-modernism).
Hasknewbie 9y ago
Peterson is apparently getting his definition of Postmodernism from a book he occasionally advertises for ("Postmodernism Explained"), by another Canadian professor, and which has virtually no standing: it is not peer reviewed, and is in fact self-published. Its thesis is apparently that secret Marxists propped up post-structuralism/postmodernism because they knew communism had failed (in the 1960s? Yeah. Right.) and needed their ideology to be furthered via a new channel. Or something. The author also has a hard-on for Ayn Rand, which coming from a philosophy professor I find funny. It's odd that Peterson is very specific in some parts of his discourse, but has such lackluster premises. If I wanted to convince the world that postmodernism was bad, I would point people to a more established work. It's not like criticisms of postmodernism are rare, no?
jules 9y ago
Why is cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory? It was my impression that Marxism just means class struggle in this context, and that cultural Marxism means class struggle on cultural issues rather than economic issues?
- mrkgnao 9y ago
  That's not the sense in which it is used most of the time (at least outside of academia). To repeat something I quoted up-thread: > 'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...
  - jules 9y ago
    I don't see how this contradicts what I said. A class struggle is about disrupting the existing structure, which is western society. Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure. There are people who don't like the current structure and aim to replace it. How is this a conspiracy? Western society already changed tremendously compared to 100 years ago. If you went back 100 years and asked a person what they think about their culture vs our current culture they might very well say that their version of western society has been destroyed.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure. No it wasn't (and no it isn't), it's aimed at abolishing the class structure. >There are people who don't like the current structure and aim to replace it. How is this a conspiracy? GP is referring to "cultural Marxism" being a conspiracy, and it is, not that Communists want to replace the class structure. The "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory posits that there is a group of people who want to destroy Western society. This is false. It relies on the idea that at some point Marxists changed to thinking in terms of gender or race rather than class - this is also false and lacking in evidence as GP also noted. The Wikipedia section really is a good overview of it.

mnglkhn2 9y ago

> has the habit to confuse postmodernism with "neo Marxism" (itself a term reminiscent of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory) Because that is the most prominent application of postmodernism: to push forward neo-Marxist ideology.

etplayer 9y ago
That's actually not true. What is "neo Marxism"? As I understand it, it is the application of Marixist class theory to other non-class power structures. However I have seen nor have been able to find any evidence that this is an actually existing group that has grown out of Marxism. Furthermore, postmodernism denies the very structures in the materialist understanding of history which is essential to Marxism. So how are they compatible? These and other issues are discussed in my post and in the article I linked therein. There's simply no evidence for it; Peterson's confusion is his own and I hope that others do not follow him on this and instead choose to do their own research into philosophy.
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  They are not compatible - Peterson's argument is not that neomarxism and postmodernism are natural bedfellows, but that people espousing postmodernist positions nearly always reveal a belief structure based in neomarxism when challenged by an intellectual equal. His evidence is presumably his own conversations with postmodernists, and his theory as to why this is seems based more in a psychological than philosophical framework.
Emma_Goldman 9y ago
This entire conversation is a tissue of confusions. 'Cultural Marxism' is a pejorative term for the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. It was invented by fascists to dismiss the whole enterprise without engaging with it. The Frankfurt School emerged in the 1920s/30s in response to the failure of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism in the way that Marx had suggested would happen, and as a response to the crude economism of a lot of early Marxism (i.e. where 'culture' was just an epiphenomenon rooted in the economic base of a society). It was a German school - its main sources were Hegel, Marx, Mannheim, etc. Post-modernism, on the other hand, is a term for a very amorphous group of (largely French) thinkers who reacted against the dominance of structuralist social theory in the 1960s, which itself was a reaction to existentialism. Its sources are usually the canon of phenomenology, the structuralists before them, and Nietzsche. The Frankfurt School is best known for its formulation of ideological critique, its critique of 'instrumental rationality', its holistic view of a critical social science, and its collected writings on aesthetics and mass media. The post-modernists are best known for their rejection of a lot of the heritage of the Enlightenment, their focus on the fragility and contingency language, and their emphasis on 'play, metaphor, rhizomes', etc. But they are not a single school - they are FAR more varied than the Frankfurt School. For example, Pierre Bourdieu (who had a fairly empirical sociology of cultural hierarchy and class) is worlds away from Jacques Derrida (who was an abstract theorist that wrote very opaquely, and IMO is responsible for a lot of the bad reputation of post-modernism).

Hasknewbie 9y ago

Peterson is apparently getting his definition of Postmodernism from a book he occasionally advertises for ("Postmodernism Explained"), by another Canadian professor, and which has virtually no standing: it is not peer reviewed, and is in fact self-published. Its thesis is apparently that secret Marxists propped up post-structuralism/postmodernism because they knew communism had failed (in the 1960s? Yeah. Right.) and needed their ideology to be furthered via a new channel. Or something. The author also has a hard-on for Ayn Rand, which coming from a philosophy professor I find funny. It's odd that Peterson is very specific in some parts of his discourse, but has such lackluster premises. If I wanted to convince the world that postmodernism was bad, I would point people to a more established work. It's not like criticisms of postmodernism are rare, no?

jules 9y ago

Why is cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory? It was my impression that Marxism just means class struggle in this context, and that cultural Marxism means class struggle on cultural issues rather than economic issues?

mrkgnao 9y ago
That's not the sense in which it is used most of the time (at least outside of academia). To repeat something I quoted up-thread: > 'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...
- jules 9y ago
  I don't see how this contradicts what I said. A class struggle is about disrupting the existing structure, which is western society. Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure. There are people who don't like the current structure and aim to replace it. How is this a conspiracy? Western society already changed tremendously compared to 100 years ago. If you went back 100 years and asked a person what they think about their culture vs our current culture they might very well say that their version of western society has been destroyed.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >Classical communism was also aimed at replacing the existing structure. No it wasn't (and no it isn't), it's aimed at abolishing the class structure. >There are people who don't like the current structure and aim to replace it. How is this a conspiracy? GP is referring to "cultural Marxism" being a conspiracy, and it is, not that Communists want to replace the class structure. The "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory posits that there is a group of people who want to destroy Western society. This is false. It relies on the idea that at some point Marxists changed to thinking in terms of gender or race rather than class - this is also false and lacking in evidence as GP also noted. The Wikipedia section really is a good overview of it.