T Nation

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Religion, Trans Activism, and Censorship


I don’t think Shapiro holds up well when he’s not dealing with a rational person.

(P.S.: 1) I’m not a conservative. 2) I haven’t turned on Fox News since 1990, when I was ten years old.


You could say that I was deconstructing post-modernism.

Unfortunately I’m extremely well versed in Marxist ideology as I had that crap shoved down my throat for quite a few years in school. The premise about the relationship between production and thought in not correct - Marxism actually defined it in terms of class with special emphasis on it’s hereditary properties.

In his drivels Marx borrowed a typically Christian concept of regular atonement for one’s sins stemming from his/hers background and wrong “class”. Acceptable classes were peasant, workers and honest intelligentsia, the latter being ideologically, educated and with provable worker/peasant lineage. Non-acceptable classes were small burgeoise, decadent intelligentsia and plutocrats.

So that means that if you had the misfortune that your parents were of the ideologically impure class, you had to perform regular auto-da-fe’s and go the extra mile to prove to people of appropriate lineage that you’re dedicated to the cause, usually being more extreme in both words and deeds.

And here comes the central concept - your class and background defined you. How can your comrades trust you when, let’s say your grandfather owned a shop where he exploited workers. In other words, no matter how you tried you couldn’t erase this original sin of yours - you were always suspect.

Sounds familiar? That’s identity politics. Check your privilege, straight white men all that crap is literally taken verbatim from cumbersome Marxist tomes, only “class” has been expanded to include race, gender, sexual orientation and whatnot.

Yes, but the litmus test is his relationship with communism, the Soviet union and the repressive political system communism has produced. For all practical purposes he’s a marxist to me.

The same argument could be applied to original modernists and futurists and their infatuation with fascism, allegedly due to aesthetic reasons. Still fascists.


What you learned in school sounds like a vulgarisation of Marx, than actuall Marxism. Yes class antagonism is a key factor in Marx’s understanding of historical development (See: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles), but spesific class relations in spesific historical phases are born out of how the productive life is organized in said phase. Therefor “How man produces, dictates how he thinks”, comes before class struggle. With “thinks”, I here mean culture in the broadest sense, or what Marx called the superstructure. One example of this, is the hunter and gatherer societys. They way they produced back then (By hunting wild animals and gathering fruits, roots etc), did not allow and did not need a complex superstructure (In the form of a state, a complex division of Labour, laws, a highly organized religious/ideological system etc). How ever when humans settled down and started farming and domesticating animals, one start to see the emergence of more complicated societal systems, including classes. That’s the key to Marxism, that when changes are made to the way we produce, then it will follow changes in the superstructure and the relations between the members of society (Class relations).

Identity politics on the other hand are not based on an materialist conception of history, but rather a moralistic one, wich are not the same. Post-modernism is neither Marxist nor intersectional feminism btw, but the latter might be inspired by post-modernist concepts.


Are you telling me Comrade Stalin vulgarized Marx?

Not exactly. The main tenet is negation of individuality as a burgeois concept. Also, identity politics draws heavily from Christian tradition either directly (virtue signalling, moral purity…) or indirectly through Marx (atonement for one’s sins stemming from class participation) and combines them with the Marxist concept of class belonging.


Yes offcourse Stalinism is a vulgarisation of Marx. “The one party state”, “Socialism in one country”, a socialist revolution in a backward country, is not traditional marxist presepts. There is a reason Rosa Luxemburg accused Lenin for having Blancquist tendencies. And if Lenin had them, then it follows that Stalin had even more of them.

Further there is “no atonement for one sins” concept in Marx’s Marxism (Perhaps there is one in Stalins version).

When it comes to Marx and “the individual”, he had this to say: “The free development of each, is the condition for the free development of all.” (Marx 1848). Sounds to me he wanted a society that allowed every individual member to live up to their full potential.

My main point here, is not if Marx’s Marxism is correct, but that you conflate Marxism, Post-modernism and Intersectional feminism, wich are 3 different things. This conflation is allready a tired narrativ pushed by the right for some time now.



Who were the ones who were capable of “free development” according to him, how was this “freedom” obstructed for the masses by them, and what were the means proposed to attain this for everyone? Keep in mind this was a very different time and the middle class was virtually non-existent.

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

The Communist Manifesto


Stalin and Mao’s “vulgarization” were simply the inevitable outcomes when Marxism was applied in real life.


The full quote is:

“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Marx 1848).

My interpretation is that he basicly says that in order to achieve the universal emancipation of all of humanity, one must transend the capitalist order. Or in other Words, what stands against the aim of “freedom for all” is capitalism. Offcourse the “irony” in Marx, is that while capitalism is in the way of full emancipation, it is also a necessary condition for said emancipation.

Regarding Maoism and Stalinism. It’s key if one wants to understand the history of socialism, that there are plenty of different variations of it (socialism), and that often are at odds with each other on many issues. Stalinism and Maoism failed for many reason, both from inherent flaws in their doctrines, but also because the material conditions did not allow the realisation of what they claimed to achieve. Besides Leninism and all it derivations (Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism etc), there are plenty of other marxist derivations; Ortodox Marxism (Kautsky), Reformist Marxism (Bernstein), Council Marxism (Luxemburg) etc.

Further to argue that Marx ideas leads to the horrors of Stalin and Mao, demands that you 1) Prove you understand Marx (Wich is difficult, see all the different interpretations of his writings above), 2) Provide a solid argument for why this is the case. Just stating it does not make it true.

The main problem with Marx from my perspective, is that it’s not clear how one would achieve Socialism in his writings, ergo all the different variations of Marxism. For example, one can on the one hand argue that the proper marxist doctrine is to argue for free-market policys to ensure the fastest advancement of capitalism and thus the fastest way to socialism, or one can argue that the working class ought to take political power trough elections or a political revolution to start the long march towards a socialist society. There have been so-called marxists who have argued for both positions.

Ps. Love the quote. The best counter-argument to burgeoise private property in history IMHO.


Says this:

Then immediately gives response. You are disingenuous and cannot be trusted USMCCDS423, if that is even your real name!


You beat me to this. Thought the irony was worth highlighting, but then you had to ruin your post by asking, the following.

I liked your post, but nobody get any wild thoughts that I agree with postmodernism. lol


Again, how is this “necessary condition” achieved and what were the social and political climates during the time of writing? These are all from the same chapter of The Communist Manifesto.

Likewise, we currently understand “capitalism” to be a market economy free from State intervention. This is not how it was defined by Marx. Neither is it how it was defined by various people throughout the historical time-span from then until now.

Indeed there are going to be different interpretations of his writings.

However, If every single application of Communism across the world regardless of cultural differences has led to similar outcomes, this is not something I need to prove. You would have to prove, and describe the required conditions within the specific timeframe for Communism to not result in these outcomes when applied.

What is your definition of socialism?

Can you expand on this?


How much study is required to properly understand stuff like Marxism, intersectional feminism and “real” socialism and communism?

I’d like to become an expert in bad ideas but I didn’t have the advantage of childhood indoctrination.


Philip K. Dick, Joseph Heller, and Umberto Eco were postmodern authors.


Before one can conclude that something is a bad idea, one has to understand it. When it comes to Marxism, that is comprised of many texts and different Authors With different interpretations and ad ons, it takes some studying. I myself have not read much on intersectional feminism, so I have little to say about it.

Ignorance are never a virtue.


I will give you a proper response tomorrow, since it’s late over here, and your questions demands rather long answers.


You’re saying the terrible outcomes of implementing Marxist ideas isn’t adequate to conclude that the ideas are bad? Or are we playing the No True Scotsman card?

Selective ignorance most certainly is a virtue. Given our finite time on this planet, what’s virtuous about spending your time studying bad ideas unless you’re, say, a historian, some other type of scholar or perhaps a policy maker, where it’s important to know about those bad ideas in more depth?

Isn’t it more virtuous to spend your time studying something useful or, if you’re into ideologies, more successful ones? Even better, you could DO something useful with that time. We have to remain ignorant on most subjects. There simply isn’t enough time in a life to learn everything.



I was pretty sure you were being sarcastic, but…

Lots of people have said dumber shit in these forums with absolute seriousness and certainty LOLLL. So you gots to state the obvious even when obvious in these here parts.


Yeah it was a bit of a troll post rolled in with genuine curiosity about where experts in Marxism come from and what their motivations are.

Snow-pocalypse 2019 cancelled my plans for the night, so here I am on PWI.


Marx fundamentally denied agency to the individual, attributing his “nature” to social relations. In other words, the class struggle and one’s belonging to the “wrong” or “right” class. Individualism is denounced as a ploy to divide the proletariat. Marxist class solidarity is actually a codified rebuttal of individualism.

“Man ‘s nature is not abstract; a characteristic of a certain individual. Actually it is the totally of all the social relations”.

With this understanding of man’s nature, is connected the idea of the revolutionary reconstruction of the world and the role of the educational factor.

Nope. Marx proposed reconstruction of an individual top-down using education to promote a favorable social environment to de-construct the old and create a new person, a homo novus if you will. These top-down imposed social environments for reeducation have a name - gulags or reeducation camps.

After the establishment of full communism, a reconstructed New Man (and the New Woman) were to emerge whoSE defining characteristic is the denial of any form of individualism, as Mayakovsky succinctly formalized.

Again, here again we come to the concept of atonement that was codified - through public Marxist self-critique, acknowledgment of ideological straying and acceptance of reconstruction, a new birth after the reeducation and reconstruction.

It failed in a country spanning nine time zones and possessing the largest mineral reserves in the world, not to mention vast quantities of other natural resources. You couldn’t get a better starting point than that.

As @dt79 mentioned, it failed in extremely varied circumstances - geographical, social, ethnic, cultural… even different types of Marxism failed. When it comes to applying scientific rigor to political systems, the evidence is pretty damning, especially if you consider parallel experiments of North/South Korea and West/East Germany on almost identical populations.

Do not underestimate the acrimonious debate about “true Marxism” among communist regimes - Czech Orthodox Marxism, Trotskyst heresy, Romanian ethno-Marxism… Albania under Enver Hoxha was supposedly the only true Marxist state in the world, denouncing both Mao and “crude Soviet revisionism of Marx through Marxism-Leninism”, but the physical manifestations were always the same - death penalty for owning a boat and massive fortifications not aimed at repelling the external enemy but keeping the population hemmed in.


Not a real one, lol