Give me... again, it's not a rhetorical question or politely saying you are an idiot. You don't know what you're talking about
It's simply I would like to know who are give me some names and so on and who are this?
post-modern
Egalitarian neo-marxist and where do you see any kind even of a Marxism please?
Well, I mean
Organization like Jonathan heights
What's it called
Hello zero books readers
Well, it happened Jordan Peterson and slowly jiseok had their debate
In this video, I'll present a short excerpt from Elliot Rosen stocks book Ezra Jack in the clinic
Along with some thoughts on that debate and the left's reaction to it
But before we get to the left's response
Before we critique the critique
Let's put the whole thing in context. So voice Slavoj Zizek doesn't need Peterson
what I mean by that is that when
Zizek wrote about Peterson. He did so in his usual way
You know in the same way that he might have written about a Batman movie
Further though. He doesn't need Peterson the way a jealous husband
Might need a cheating wife, but is that Peterson is not any part of his?
Internal self. It doesn't need the problem of Peterson in order to create his own project
Yeah, what say that again?
To explain this idea of the jealous husband who needs his wife to cheat
I'll read you a slightly revised quote from a Zizek essay, entitled Jacques Lacan's Four Discourses
Quote: "Recall Lacan's outrageous statement that even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife
That she sleeps around with other men is all true
His jealousy is still pathological" 
Along the same lines
One could say that even though most of the current left's claims about the right are true
They are racist they are misogynist. They're ignorant and self-interested
They're leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro narcissistic idiots who undermine democratic values?
The left's hysteria about the right is still
pathological because it represses the true reason the left needs a right-wing enemy in order to sustain its ideological
position
Why does the left me to right-wing enemy in order to sustain its ideological position? I'll maybe return to that question...
But in the meantime, let's shift our example
The jealous husband uses his unfaithful wife as an excuse for his own failures either
in sexual failures or his other failures
The cultural conservative likewise needs a group of maybe godless definitely smug
always urban liberals or leftists in
Order to maintain his understanding of himself as a defender of traditional values
Romantic myths and the idea of a harmoniously functioning cultural order that he might return to
without a liberal scapegoat
the cultural conservative would have to examine not only how he participates in the destruction of
his old traditional culture
For instance how his economic values might be in opposition to his cultural preferences
But may lead him even to question whether he understands what this old traditional culture was or might be
He might be forced to ask whether he really wants to return to it at all
This notion of the paranoid husband whose jealousy is pathological even though his wife really is cheating on him
it's
crucial if we're to understand what Zizek was aiming to accomplish - what I would say
He did accomplish during his debate with Peterson and I think realizing this helps with the criticism Zizek has received from the left
Into a perspective as well
Let's take Benjamin Studebakers piece in current affairs to start with he predictably enough
started off by raiding the debate as if it were a pop song by comparing it to Foucault versus Chomsky, for example
He critiqued it in terms of form
He objected that Zizek for instance hadn't properly addressed Peterson's argument in his opening presentation
this isn't very different from objecting to a singer for missing a note or
Even more accurately to objecting that there's no recognizable refrain in an ambient work by Brian Eno
The opening presentations didn't immediately appear to connect but this was the result of the debate being between two figures from
disparate domains and
Also a strategic choice by Zizek who didn't let Peterson set the terms or the frame for the argument
but rather provided his own theoretical framework and his own thoughts and
Set them in opposition to Peterson's ideas
Studebaker goes on from there to offer his own critique of Peterson's argument against Marx
to refute Peterson's critique of the Communist Manifesto and
To provide his own analysis and summary of the significance of Marx which is a fine thing in itself
It's worthwhile to think through all the ways Peterson went wrong in its opening argument
But when evaluating Zizek's performance, we should ask ourselves why Zizek didn't opt for this approach
Studebaker answers this question for us even though he doesn't appear to recognize what he wrote to be an answer
Here's what he wrote quote
Zizek didn't push Peterson to talk about the intricacies of Marxist and socialist theory and
Peterson didn't appear to have done the reading that would be necessary for him to produce an interesting conversation about them in quote
All Zizek would have accomplished by taking Peterson apart on the level that Studebaker did
Was demonstrate that jiseok had done his homework while Peterson had not this was established a bit later on anyway
Quickly and efficiently and it wasn't belabored
the point wasn't to humiliate Peterson but to win over the audience a
Bit more interesting than the current affair piece is the piece in Jacobin
While Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller also began by doing what Zizek didn't bother to do
Namely explacating the depth of Peterson's ignorance in regards to Marx they went on to critique
Zizek in some interesting ways
Their criticism of Zizek mostly amounted to a laundry list of assertions according to the two authors
Zizek had the right opinions on some issues and the wrong ones on some others, but they didn't bother to fully explicate Zizek's opinions
They seemed to think that because Zizek's  politics were not identical to their own that the whole debate could be dismissed
Overall, I think the left would do well to take a bit of Jordan Peterson's advice
You don't want to teach him to win you want to teach him to play well with others
and that's to be reciprocal so that means to try to win but also to pay attention to the -
To developing the other people around him and not to put winning the game above everything at all times
So then he's fun to play with
Zizeks's performance at this debate was pretty much pitch, perfect
He didn't get flustered. He didn't Hector or belittle Peterson or his fans
But rather managed to demonstrate that there are leftist with interesting things to say
while exposing Peterson's limits and
Advocating for the need for radical change and a break from capitalism
That doesn't mean that there aren't reasons to be critical of Zizek or the things he said during the debate
I'd be very interested in exploring Zizek's charge that Marx's vision is
ultimately a technocratic one. That said being critical has to involve understanding the meaning of your
Interlocutors ideas and when Fluss and Miller wrote that Zizek quote came off as a technocratic liberal himself
Since for him the masses are incapable of achieving freedom
For themselves and that they needed some kind of master to guide them. They were miss reading him and
Being uncharitable and really naive
the notion of the master or the master signifier from Lacan is a complex one having to do with
mediating our relationship with the world, but they recast that idea here as
Zizek's embrace of authoritarianism rather than his embrace of what he thinks to be a necessary form of authority
To get a universal kind of authority
Still
Fluss' claim that Zizek and Peterson both
Affirmed the existence of class society social hierarchy and an inescapable fate of suffering may well be half, right?
I tend to agree that jiseok has abandoned the idea of creating a classless society
but I disagree that such a society would have no remaining social hierarchies and
would eliminate suffering
longtime listeners and viewers of this channel might recall that when I had a chance to interview Zizek I
Specifically pressed him on the question of whether he thought Marx's core concepts from capital
Namely the primacy of labour time under capitalism was correct
And I found that the Slovenian psychoanalysts like a great many other Marxist had abandoned the concept
It seemed to me that abandoning this concept of labour
Leads naturally to abandoning the goal of creating a classless social order from my way of thinking then Zizek isn't a Marxist
But from my way of thinking a great many luminaries and revolutionaries from the Marxist tradition
Aren't Marxist either?
the point isn't who is a Marxist but rather can we develop our understanding and politics and
Right. Now the point is did this debate help us in that endeavor.
I think it did
When I think about the event now the Petersons Zizek confrontation, it seems to me that
More than a debate
it was a
psychoanalytic intervention Zizek set out to
remove
Petersons symptom to
dispel the
mythical figure of the postmodern neo-marxist
And I think he succeeded
But where does that leave Peterson where will he go now? What will he say?
Will he continue to talk about these folk demons to blame society's ills on
College campuses and neo-marxist and if so won't it seem hollow now that he's been through this
psychoanalytic experience
And what about Zizek
What about his symptom?
The symptom of let's call it multicultural
politically, correct
liberal pseudo revolution
What would he do if
that figure if that
symptom
Were to be dispelled
What would he talk about?
In his book Zizek in the Clinic, Eliot Rosenstock wrote that quote: In an ironic twist
ZIzek's view of himself not being taken seriously as a philosopher
Maybe not only accurate but directly caused by his function as a kind of cultural therapist"
Zizek relays information to the general public about dialectical processing and in psychoanalysis
Until the general public can interpret their own motivations and processing of information better than the void of the other
Zizek himself"
End quote
I think this is the core of it
Zizek can provide people with an introduction to the various contradictions and problems in society
He can help people of many different persuasions and with many different
psychological symptoms
figure out their situation
At this debate with Peter see he surely did this
Even Peterson himself seemed to be forced into moments of openness
Where he had to reconsider his position?
But these moments of openness have to include movement
They have to lead to making decisions and to our thinking for ourselves
At times inevitably that will mean disagreeing with Zizek
You want me to tell you about my mother?
Thanks for watching this Zero Books video
if you enjoyed it subscribe to this channel and
Click on the notifications bell so that you'll be alerted whenever we release a new video
you should also consider supporting us on patreon our
patrons get access to our inside Zero Books podcast every week and
Can get access to the Zero Books, book Club and help us to continue making online content from the left
you
