Marxism vs. Capitalism — Debate of the century, or a waste of time?

Žižek and Peterson could not have offered a more stark contrast.

If history repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce, the Chomsky vs. Foucault debate of 1971 was the tragedy and the Peterson vs. Žižek debate of 2019 was the farce.

To put it bluntly, this debate was an example of what happens when someone steps outside their realm of expertise and confronts someone who competes in an entirely different weight class. Slavoj Žižek has spent decades writing volumes of works synthesizing psychoanalysis, German Idealism, and Marxist thought.

While he is certainly not lacking in critics, particularly with regards to his views on “political correctness” and left-wing identity politics, few will deny that the so-called “Giant of Ljubljana” is a towering intellectual figure who has left a large footprint in the field of continental philosophy. There is even an academic journal dedicated to the study of his thought.

Jordan Peterson, on the other hand, is a psychologist by training who has only recently been launched into the public spotlight. Peterson without a doubt is qualified to speak about psychology and is in his element when offering self-help advice or giving Jungian interpretations of mythology.

He does not, however, offer any rigorous or intellectually serious criticism of the left-wing ideologies he groups together as “postmodern neo-Marxism” and “cultural Marxism.”

Peterson’s pseudo-intellectualism was brutally exposed when he was unable to mount any substantial critique of Marxist thought beyond an incredibly surface level analysis of The Communist Manifesto, a rudimentary criticism of an oppressed-versus-oppressor worldview, and the demand for ‘equality of outcome”.

Žižek, however, points out that these are simplifications and misinterpretations of what Marx actually believed, and at this point in the discussion it once again becomes evident that Peterson is debating someone far out of his league.

Based on this debate, I would be incredibly surprised to learn that Jordan Peterson has read any other Marxist writings besides Marx and Engels’ 30-page pamphlet.

It is also clear that he has not read much primary source material by Derrida and Foucault (two of his favorite targets), although it would perhaps be too optimistic to expect serious scholarly analysis from someone who has received most of their knowledge of philosophy from Stephen Hicks’ awful polemic.

Antsy as ever, Žižek acted fairly cordial but simultaneously couldn’t resist not-so-subtly suggesting that Peterson is not well read on the topics he speaks about.

Peterson, who is more accustomed to sparring with journalists and undergraduates, seemed flustered by the originality and complexity of Žižek’s arguments, even admitting that he struggled to comprehend the small portion of Žižek’s writing he attempted to consume. He hesitated to challenge Žižek throughout the debate, and at one point declined an offer from the moderator to issue a rebuttal.

Though Peterson claimed he lacked sufficient time to familiarize himself with Žižek’s work, a basic review of the philosopher’s public appearances would have prepared him for many of the core points and jokes Žižek made tonight.

Aside from his more specific criticisms of Peterson’s arguments, Žižek offered no revolutionary insights into his worldview. The majority of the statements he made about capitalism, Marxism, Stalinism, etc. are all reiterations of points he has made numerous times in his books and public talks.

At one point during the debate, Žižek seemed so disturbed by Peterson’s lack of humor despite his continuous joking that he explicitly called for the stoic Canadian to lighten up. Peterson, unsurprisingly, did not oblige. This occurrence underscored a broader trend in the debate, as Žižek appeared the whole time to be in a position of perceptual dominance.

He spoke confidently and consistently, often pleading for just a couple more minutes, while Peterson struggled to fill his time. Žižek’s punchlines repeatedly elicited laughter from the audience, while Peterson was visibly nervous and shaky at many points in the debate.

Žižek effortlessly brushed off Peterson’s points, and was unafraid to level attacks at his opponent, while Peterson frequently appeared to be in awe of Žižek’s intellectual prowess and was unable to resist repeatedly speaking in admiration of him.

There were few places in the debate where Peterson could avoid Žižek’s relentless onslaught of sharp criticism and analysis of his line of thinking, with their main area of agreement being on the danger of left-wing political correctness and opposition to free speech.

This was less of a debate and more of a lecture, with one online commenter remarking that “watching Peterson get radicalized left is pretty humorous.” Hopefully Jordan Peterson learned the most important lesson — he may have a devoted fan base and legions of followers, but he’s not the heavyweight public intellectual he pretends to be. Perhaps next time Peterson will think twice before challenging someone like Žižek.

Or, as Omar Little from HBO’s The Wire put it, “you come at the king, you best not miss.”

Additional reporting by Joanna Thornhill