Link to the video to which I am referring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0iL0ixoZYo



In today’s critique we’ll be looking at how Jordan Peterson uses the Pareto principle (or Pareto distribution) to “critique” Marxism.

The video is entitled, “Marxism is ignorant of the Pareto principle”. This is the statement which I will be refuting, among other things that Peterson claims in the video.

“This is the problem that seems to emerge as the function of some really fundamental force that we don’t quite understand. And that’s this phenomena that I’ve been referring to as the Pareto distribution.”

Right off the bat, if we go back to the claim asserted, that Marxism is ignorant of the Pareto principle (or distribution), then we’ve already seen a problem. If the Pareto distribution is “some really fundamental force that we don’t quite understand”, of what use is it in evaluating the validity of theories of reality? The same could be said about some superstitious shit like karma. Similar to the Pareto distribution, karma also happens to be “some really fundamental force that we don’t quite understand”. This is precisely what makes karma an utterly useless tool to make observations and predictions of reality. There is simply no explanation to show how karma functions.

Anyways, Peterson goes on to describe the Pareto distribution as the phenomenon in which the large majority is unsuccessful, a small minority is successful, and a hyper minority is hyper successful (think wealth distribution). It’s not just wealth distribution though, Peterson argues. He says that this is an underlying natural law everywhere!

He then says, “And so what Marx observed was that capital tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people and he said that’s a flaw of the capitalist system. That’s wrong. It’s a feature of every single system of production that we know of no matter who set it up and how it operates.”

There’s a lot wrong with this.

First of all, he misses something in the first bit “And so what Marx observed was that capital tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people”. Marx also explained how this accumulation occurs and by what means this accumulation occurs (among other things). I shall explain why this is relevant soon.

“He said that’s a flaw of the capitalist system.” Citation needed. He didn’t say that it was a flaw of the capitalist system. What he did say was that the underlying functions of capitalist society — the functions which cause this disproportionate accumulation of capital — are a point of instability (not a flaw) within the system (i.e. a contradiction). He did not, however, say that the accumulation of capital itself is a flaw of capitalist society.

“That’s wrong. It’s a feature of every single system of production that we know of no matter who set it up and how it operates.“ Marx saw that too, dummy. Come on, Jordan! This is in the first page of the Communist Manifesto, the pamphlet which you blabber on so much about. Looks like Peterson and Marx share the same analysis. You wouldn’t happen to be a postmodern neo-Marxist, would you, Peterson?

Anyways, I digress. Peterson then goes on till the end of the video with some unsubstantive drivel about “being successful once makes the possibility of you being successful again higher [paraphrasing]”, which, as far as I’m concerned, is some bullshit he made up.

To sum things up, Marxism is not ignorant of the Pareto distribution. In fact, it may actually be an elaboration of the Pareto distribution, as it explains how and why disproportionate accumulation of capital occurs. Either way though, Marxism doesn’t need to take into account the Pareto distribution (nor should any other social theory) because, as Peterson admits himself, “we don’t quite understand [it]”.