Jordan Peterson vs Angela Nagle on Patriarchy

(Marxist) Zero Books publisher claims we do not live in patriarchy. thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=Y5u38RvNXc8

Other urls found in this thread:

thedailybeast.com/george-orwells-letter-on-why-he-wrote-1984
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Why is Patriarchy even considered something bad? It has brought about the greatest civilizations in history. We should bring back patriarchy.

Well, yes, we aren't living in a patriarchy because of jewish subversion, but we should be living in a patriarchy. It's the right and natural order of things.

Jordan Peterson's claim is that we do live in patrairchy, and that's a good thing. But if that's the case, you can just as easily blame everything bad going on right now as the result of patriarchal authority. So we get ppl like u and user over here who's nostalgia and resentment for feminine society drive his politics more than any material factor.

The mistake is believing that painting the system blue or pink fundamentally changes what's underneath. You're all simply bickering over aesthetics, instead of what's really going on.

>Jordan Peterson's claim is that we do live in patrairchy, and that's a good thing.
Then he's wrong. There has never been a successful civilization that wasn't a patriarchy. Abandoning it was/is pure lunacy.

so you would describe our current civilization unsuccessful and blame that lack of success on feminine influence? what do you think brought about that change in power?

>so you would describe our current civilization unsuccessful
I would certainly say that our current civilization is in a massive downturn. It was very great once and we're still feeling the effects of that, but we're in rapid decline.
>and blame that lack of success on feminine influence?
Partly. There's also increasing multiculturalism and decreasing traditional values. And every new generation is less strong and disciplined than the one that came before.
>what do you think brought about that change in power?
Liberal ideologies.

Here's where I would challenge you, user. Ideologies don't drive history, rather, history drives ideologies, material history that is.

The development of capitalism is what caused all those things to happen. The creation of household electronics and consumer goods such as the vacuum cleaner, microwave frozen meals, and other innovations decreased the amount of domestic labor required to maintain a home. At the same time, the success of the post-war period allowed many more people to afford to send their daughters to college (here in the US, which is probably the biggest exporter of "multiculturalism" and "feminism"). For these woman, opening up the labor market to women was their only barrier to further social status, and so that's what they fought for, even if the result was to create expectation for two working parent households and thus lower wages for everyone.

Capitalism and traditionalism are in constant contradiction, as is any system which must revolutionize the methods of production with the sentiments of old ways of doing things. Capitalism was behind the rise of liberal ideologies, ones who's embrace of multiculturalism was only second nature to their embrace of global markets.

You are mistaken that our generation isn't disciplined. We are disciplined, but not to any human values. We are disciplined to enjoy, to participate in the market and embrace the hedonism, as well as the social atomization, that comes with it.

I mostly agree, though capitalism didn't precede liberalism, but grew out of an early form of liberalism. Capitalism and liberalism are very interwoven and support each other.

Everything wrong with our society that started after women's suffrage happened because of women.

>The development of capitalism is what caused all those things to happen.
Capitalism was developed long before the war.

Capitalism, as a tendency/form of production, did exist under feudalism with the small craftsman and merchants, and then factories. It's from this class that liberalism was formed.

However, I'm sure you realize the impasse we're at now. There's no going back now. If your goal is to reset social relations and attitudes a couple hundred years, you cannot do so without destroying all the gains made by capitalism and its vast productive capacities. The best thing you can hope for is to make labor more voluntary and full time motherhood more viable. If you are correct that women have a natural tendency to be those in charge of childcare, then this would naturally mean more women returning to the household.

Development doesn't mean beginning, I was simply referring to the particular developments of the post-war period. Feminism, as a movement, however, does seem to gain steam with capitalism itself.

That's a bit oversimplified, don't you think? But if you do want to go down that path, you're welcome to renounce all technological progress of the last 100 years.

But what if the oposite is true?
What if the economic dacay of the modern world brought up disatisfaction with ideologies present at it's prime?
Decreases in living standards are known to incentivate deviant behaviour as people lose faith not only in their economy but also in the values of their society.
Feminism on the other hand is just a consequence of the insertion of women in the workforce, which is in itself a consequence of the failings of capitalism as it is no longer sustainable with only male labor.

I miss John Candy.

>But if you do want to go down that path, you're welcome to renounce all technological progress of the last 100 years.
I said everything WRONG with our society.

You cannot have the good without the bad, user. It was that technological progress that created our ideological and social landscape today.

Whew, get your neck stretched. You're not worth the effort. Sage goes in all fields

>If your goal is to reset social relations and attitudes a couple hundred years
I'd say going back between 70 and 100 years would be sufficient. European civilization only really started to go downhill during and after ww1. Then fascism made a very good attempt at fixing things, but was ultimately destroyed.
Living standards continued to go up for quite a while after decay of civilization had already begun.

>Development doesn't mean beginning, I was simply referring to the particular developments of the post-war period. Feminism, as a movement, however, does seem to gain steam with capitalism itself.
Feminism gained steam because of the shortage of men during the war, and American principles of equality. Females worked the factory jobs that men would have worked, which gave them the confidence that they could work these jobs regardless. There is nothing preventing this from happening in a communist society as well, as they would also need replacement factory workers to sustain themselves. The American idea of freedom then convinced these women to push for their equality instead of going back to their previous roles.

And thus we see the american reactionary in its natural habitat, dismissing criticism of his collapsing system even as he ties his own noose.

You say material history but I have a hard time grasping the difference. Isn't the stuff required for all those inventions just technology? Isn't capitalism a technology, as much as it is an arrangement of material? And technology is ideas. And every social idea, to the extent it's useful and is implemented in society is a technology.

So where is the line?

>It was that technological progress that created our ideological and social landscape today.
>our technological progress led to illegal immigrants

>The American idea of freedom
Or equality, they're nearly the same.

How would communism prevent liberalism?

Edited for ideologically sound mastubation.

>Living standards continued to go up for quite a while after decay of civilization had already begun.
Economically maybe but psychologically absolutelly not as life just became more chaotic going down the 20th century.

>fascism made a very good attempt at fixing things
Yeah, destroying the entire continent of europe really did the trick. The choice between fascism and capitalism was always a false one.

My grandmother was a wielder in one of those factories. The fact remains that using those women gave the US a comparative edge in wartime production over the axis powers. That is your precious logic of competition at work.

To say there is nothing preventing that in communism is true, but unlike in capitalism, there's also an opportunity for women to stay home and care for children. Capitalism has stolen that opportunity from many modern day women. If you are correct that is their natural inclination, then there will be no problem. You have a far better chance of getting the patriarchal relations at home that you want in communism, than capitalism.

>Feminism on the other hand is just a consequence of the insertion of women in the workforce, which is in itself a consequence of the failings of capitalism as it is no longer sustainable with only male labor.
It's the opposite, capitalism is less sustainable with female labor. Current wages are too low to support stable families, and this is due to the increase in worker supply that comes with female employment. It was capitalist market forces that made capitalism unstable, but it was feminism that poisoned capitalism in the first place.

thanks

what was the point of the hammer and sickle anyway

Hah, grow the fuck up faggot

>there's also an opportunity for women to stay home and care for children
There is no opportunity for women to stay home and take care of their children in wartime. If the male dominated front doesn't receive the ammunition it needs from female dominated factories, it dies. In any other capitalistic society without American ideals of freedom, females would have gone to their original roles instead of promoting feminism. By exploiting our principles to become on par with men, females have stolen that opportunity from themselves.

>females would have gone to their original roles
Post wartime.

Also, fascism was never a atempt to bring back traditional values, this was just the facade. The conservative radicals were always present, what happened post ww1 was that those movements were picked by the rulling class to crush the manny emergent socialist movements. Once they did their job they were properly disposed with internal or external forces.

>That is your precious logic of competition at work.
War time competition isn't a capitalist ideal, it is the law of survival. The soviets understood this far better than you.

she's nazbol catgirl, represents the ideology of national Bolshevism

>Yeah, destroying the entire continent of europe really did the trick.
That's almost entirely the fault of the western countries. Hitlers initial demands to Poland were very reasonable. There's a good chance that there wouldn't have been a war at all if Britain didn't stick it's nose into things that they had nothing to do with.

Fuck you commie.
If there's a boot stamping on my face, it's because I paid a dominatrix to do it under a capitalist system, not because I'm an intellectual midget who worships a failed ideology.

I dont know if its patriarchal, ill have to be presented with institutionalised examples as such. I think whats more important is the hegemony of the dominant ideology rather than hegemony off a sex

>Also, fascism was never a atempt to bring back traditional values, this was just the facade.
It was an attempt to bring back traditional social values, not traditional economic ones. As much as you want them to be intertwined, they're not.

This guy can't shill any harder

i think you're missing the process at work that develops these things. Capitalism was created when large numbers of landless peasants were put to work in factories, in this case, the factory was the first great innovation of capitalism, which had strict divisions of labor within it, unlike the guilds of medieval society. In order to get greater profits, you must continuously create machines which increase the productivity of labor, and this is where most capitalist innovation comes from. But also creating new markets by creating new products, by expanding into realms previously untouched by commercial relations, creates many of these technologies.

In a general sense, Each assemblage of infrastructure and technology contingently required the assemblage before it

>Capitalism was created when large numbers of landless peasants were put to work in factories
Capitalism was created when humanity switched from a barter system to a currency system.

>exploiting freedom
nigga, it ain't freedom if people can't do things you don't like.

So you're saying the left can't meme?

There never was a ""barter system"", that's been a myth for a long time. And anyway, dismiss the economic history of capitalism at you're own peril. By your account, slavery was the first instance of capitalism.

The fascists were socially conservative, yes but thats not what brought them to power. Socially conservative groups were always present. They just happened to be the group who the bourgeoisie chose to fight back the socialist movements. Long term their conservative goals were irelevant as they were still submissive to the rulling class that is not concerned with those matters.

lmao sure thing sour kraut

there has never been barter. Its literally too inefficient to function. Theoretically Transactions are merely the creation and mitigation of debts, so it makes sense that the earliest economies were debt economies. Observation of primitive tribes supports this

>debating connotation
They used American principles of freedom and individualism to argue that they had the same rights that men did. Considering American principles give everyone equal rights regardless of skill or intelligence, that makes logical sense.

I only use the communist flag for its symbolism, Marx and Lenin and Stalin all had their failings. If I had to list a thinker I was closest too, it'd probably be althusser.

But don't mind me, keep telling yourself you only got that foot there because you want it.

Capitalism existed in ancient Rome.

What abbout when plants and animals were used as currency for trade before coins? does it count as capitalism?, also for most of history coins had value on heir own making them not so different from trading animals.
Besides that, Capitalist society has a lot of intricacies that set it apart from other systems.

Then capitalism existed the moment that people used currency to keep track of debt.

It's economy was built on slavery, and ownership of slaves, not ownership of capital. To call it capitalism would be a great misnomer.

It's a reference to George Orwell's 1984, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

But thanks for proving that you're an intellectual midget.

To equate markets with capitalism is to oversimplify all of economic history, and to discard any question of "economic systems" at all. Everything from the soviet union to ancient Babylon to medieval India to modern day Canada would be capitalism.

I know the reference. He would have considered capitalism that boot just as much as stalinism.

>commie flag
>doesn't even know Orwell
checks out
OP is a faggot and this thread is cancer
>in all fields

yeah because being an intelectual is all about memorizing quotes and making ebin references

Patriarchy is a positive establishment, women are subject to their men. A bitch will say otherwise.

I feel like this thread will become dead or unbearable soon.

The quote references fascism, which is the subject of 1984.
The last time I saw a commie dig a hole this deep, he was at Vorkutlag.

currency is necessary for capitalism but is not equivalent to it.

>he talks around and shills for the whole thread
>complains that others made it unbearable

actually you are wrong and he has a point

Probably. Fucking smoothbrains

and why not? you are against freedom of speech after all

hol up is there really any difference between capitalism and feudalism? After all in feudalism the means of production (fields and shit) are owned by the lords and the peasants merely have their labour

1984 was about both stalinism and fascism

thedailybeast.com/george-orwells-letter-on-why-he-wrote-1984

I had assumed as a reactionary, you were fond of the first interpretation.

In what way?

Not at all.

Peasants work for their own subsistence instead of a wage, and a certain amount of their surplus gets turned over to the lords. That agriculture and industry split and created cities/towns on the one hand and the countryside on the other, shows the nature of the difference. Land is very different from capital, and the interests of landlords are fundamentally different from capitalists as a result.

lol

>What abbout when plants and animals were used as currency for trade before coins? does it count as capitalism?
Capitalism is a system where people exchange debt contracts (currencies) for goods and services. It does this through the marketplace instead of the government. Plants and animals are poor debt contracts because they are easy to produce, require maintenance, and expire quickly.

>also for most of history coins had value on heir own making them not so different from trading animals.
Coins made from precious metals usually have more value as a debt contract than as a natural resource.

>22 posts by this id
jesus your wife must be super loose if tyrone is taking this long to cum

>It's economy was built on slavery, and ownership of slaves, not ownership of capital.
Proofs? It's economy was boosted by slavery, not built on it. You could even argue that America was formed because of capitalist ventures in England.

But capitalism was sustainable with only male labor; we had cultural barriers that were abolished by war but then were never re-established because the remainig men actually thought “ i want my daughters to obey their boss and not their husband”

If anything, the current cultural and economic climate is due to inherent cuckold ideology ingrained in beta males, who flourished in a (relatively) post scarcity generation

The economy of ancient rome was often very much dependent on slaves, but these were used to generate wealth, in a similar respect to how colonists in the americas did, tho more intensely, and on a much larger scale. It was this wealth that powered the empire as it paid for the armies and infrastructure, which despite the use of slaves, is not actually free.

>Peasants work for their own subsistence instead of a wage, and a certain amount of their surplus gets turned over to the lords
Lol completely forgot about this

Are there any non capitalist systems that use currency?

>Not at all.

commies are such hypocrites

I was referring to ancient rome, not the US

slaves were always used to generate wealth, this doesn't mean it was capitalism. we see tendencies towards accumulation in most non primitive economies.

currency is a stepping stone for capitalism and a necessary one for its creation, however just the existence of currency does not imply capitalism for example in feudalism currency existed, but as the other dude pointed out, feudalism was not capitalism

Contracts that can only be used between a citizen and the government don't count.

or maybe we're just not one person, user. There is a long tendency of supporting free speech by marxists, better to see what our enemies our planning in plain daylight than let them fester in secrecy.

Ahahaha, what a story Mark

The elements of feudalism that were not capitalist did not use currency.

it seems to me that you are saying that the existence of a large slave class somehow negates all of the free men that existed and worked for people.

anyway how's your sex life?

No, women are still working because it's profitable. If all females stopped working the economy would crash. By the way women were already working in factories way before the war, marx even mentions it in the manifesto almost a century before the war, it just became more common along the XX century.

feudalism is a complete system. There are no capitalist elements to feudalism, there is only feudalism

...

that pic is so fucking gay, why is her jacket not on her shoulders? its just impractical to do that

In other words, it's a hybrid capitalist system, or a capitalist system that only applies to the ruling class. That separates it from today's brand of capitalism, but it is still capitalist.

No, I'm not saying it negates it, I'm simply saying that was what was central to their economy. It was why they needed to constantly expand the empire.

Fuck off kike
We will not be your slaves
All communists deserve the rope

Gee, can't a guy have some fun debating economics and their social implications. you're all such wet blankets.

Capitalist systems with basic income are a complete system, but they are still capitalist systems with socialist elements.

No such thing as a socialist element. Thats definitely redistribution, but not socialist

There was no bourgeoisie, social positions were moslty hereditary (patricians, plebeians), families were tha main organizational unit even for economic purposes. Roman economy was basically families trading resouces directly.

Current civilization can't even replace its own numbers

meant for