Can Holla Forums debunk this webm?

wow you're so smart

Throw a packet of salt at me. Come on, do it. Oh, you missed? We now we know I can never be touched by salt packets.

...

Who are you quoting?

youtube.com/watch?v=h4ftiL4c_CA

excuse me if it's written wrong, english is not my first language

I forgive you.

He's quoting you, obviously.

What do we do about these people?

Hard mode: no gulag

Look at how he spells "USSR" - it's with the Spanish acronym (Union de Republicas Socialistas Sovieticas), hence English probably isn't his first language. He's clearly well versed in English regardless and knows how to communicate an argument in it. Clearly, the same can't be said of you
>>>/reddit/
(OP)
What needs to be debunked specifically? The entire thing's ridiculous because Marx didn't say what socialism would even look like - he didn't say "the state should own everything and have a Politburo", at the least. Marxism (if there is even such a thing) is a theory of societal change and approach to revolution. It's many things - eschatological, unscientific, etc. - but not anything remotely approaching the massive straw man which the guy in the webm attacks. I'm not a Marxian communist (probably a better term for the body of ideas) and I recognize that.
Why does he feel the compulsive need to be like this when he's clearly never read anything by Marx except for maybe a couple pages of the Communist Manifesto to back up his preconceived notions (by the way, don't read that book - it was made as a specific platform for a specific time, whereas Marxian communism in general is a method of critique rather than a cut-and-dry, universally applicable set of policy solutions like most people seem to think). At its core, it's little more than a way of criticizing material relations (most notably that of the wage laborer to capital) and their manifestations in accepted ideology (to continue with the former example, Marx's most comprehensive work is subtitled in modern English "A Critique Of Economics" - he was not an economist) to uncover the underlying mechanisms which gave rise to them and track their development through history.
Tankies and other types of Leninists (perhaps other varieties of Marxism out of the Second International as well to a lesser degree) are going to have different criticisms of the video because it's actually on-spot for them, but they're not Marxist because they deviate heavily from the methodology and cannot be considered Marxian communists from a strict perspective.

And that's not even taking into that
1.He assumes all Marxists are MLs and ignores the criticism from Marxists such as Mensheviks who by the way they probably would choke Peterson to death if they heard the sentence "when they say that it wasn't real Marxism then they're saying that if I was in Stalins place then they would have done it right even though they would have gotten shot because someone else would have wanted to take power" directed at the Soviet Union.

2.He blatantly ignores the fact that Russia was a feudal shithole before hand and that heavily influenced how the Soviet Union ran ie from a Marxist view one can't go directly from feudalism to socialism so they decided to get around that first with Lenin after WWI destroyed the Soviet economy with his idea of State Capitalism which was basically central planning with limited privatization and then Stalin took over stealing the position of power and went on by killing the private element and making it a bureaucratic state that held complete power which is not surprising since it worked in the interest of Stalin and another reason why Peterson is wrong to assume every Marxist is saying that they would fix everything if it was them instead of Stalin because guess what not every Marxist wants to create an ML state that gives those in power the incentive to just kill anyone who wants to be the "leader

3.By blaming Marxism for the Soviet Union and acting like that every attempt will end like he is misrepresenting Marxism whether purposeful or not and forgetting that Marx had no straight forward plan for socialism and in fact Marx straight up said that it would be impossible to plan socialism because MATERIAL CONDITIONS WOULD BASICALLY MAKE IT SO THAT EVERY PLACE THAT HAS A REVOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO DO THINGS QUITE DIFFERENTLY TO ADAPT TO CERTAIN MATERIAL CONDITIONS. The closest that Marx got to a plan was the Communist Manifesto, but even then he rejected quite a bit from it later and he wrote it on the fly thinking that what he was proposing was what would be best for the revolts that were happening at the time. And even if Marx was a full on Tankie that's ignoring the fact that the most important thing is his analyses of capitalism's problems which wouldn't automatically be invalidated if he was a Tankie. This is not even considering Marx's more libertarian views later in his life such as his praise of the Paris Commune though again I most repeat that Marx didn't have a concrete plan because of his materialist views, but I must point it out because it shows that Marx's philosophy and the Soviet Union seem to contradict heavily.

4.This not taking into account that not every socialist and communist is a Marxist and since his critique was directed at Marxists this invalidates the idea that he killed communism and the "don't think that your special brand of communism will work." [LAUGHS IN CATALAN]

5.He ignores every time applications of Marx's ideas haven't result in Soviet style See the list specifically the EZLN, Burkina Faso, and the Soviet Republic under Luckacks

By his own logic, capitalism cannot be good ever because of similar capitalist leaders.

Jordan Memerson is a remnant of the old Canada, the type of accent he has is still used in some rural isolated communities in eastern Canada.

Reminder.

Laogai.

Jordan "I would say I don't think facts are necessarily true… Haha!" Peterson debunks himself.

Yes he actually said this, look up the Sam Harris interview where Harris BTFOs him twice I might add.

Uh, is there an interview where Peterson is BTFO by a human instead?

Confront them about Solzhenitsyn's overt antisemitism - JP hand waves it away or says he isn't aware of it which seems like bollocks

what a quality tweet

whatcha reckon? is the book folk tales or was her take on it a KGB PLOT?

I don't understand.

If the KGB wanted to discredit the book, couldn't they have done a lot more than falsify his wife's memoirs? Or at least have her say something more damning than pointing out the obvious criticism.

It's okay mate, you are right, just don't cry please!