1 von 7

Debate Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek,

April 19th 2019

In February 2018, Slavoj Žižek wrote an article in the 'Independent',

addressing the astonishing popularity of Jordan Peterson. Therein
he conceded that Peterson points out "what many of us feel goes
wrong in the PC universe of obsessive regulation"; but he also dis-
sociated himself from Peterson by saying that "his crazy conspira-
cy theory about LGBT+ rights and MeToo as the final offshoots of
the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course,
ridiculous" (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peter-
son-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-
wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html). Nevertheless he agreed to
have a public debate on these issues, for which he was immediate-
ly criticized. In his justification he acknowledged that he dislikes
Peterson's claim to "interpret PC (and his other targets) as the ex-
treme outgrowth of 'cultural Marxism' (a block which comprises
Frankfurt School, the 'French' poststructuralist deconstructionism,
identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.)." He further wrote
that Peterson "seems to imply that 'cultural Marxism' is the result
of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or Communist) strategy: after Com-
munism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in
vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its
leaders decided to move the terrain to cultural struggles (sexuality,
feminism, racism, religion…), systematically undermining the cultu-
 2 von 7

ral foundations and values of our freedoms. In the last decades,

this new approach proved unexpectedly efficient: today, our socie-
ties are caught in the self-destructive circle of guilt, unable to de-
fend their positive legacy …“ (https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-
reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peter-
son/#_edn1).

During their discussion on April 19th, Žižek again elaborated on

this point by saying (at around 01:48): 

"I would ask you here, give me some names or whatsoever, where
are the Marxists here. I don't know any, who is a Marxist here.
Show me any big names of political correctness ..."

"What you describe as postmodern Neo-Marxism; where is really

the Marxist element in it? They are for equality, sorry where? ..."

"Do you see in them, in political correctness and so on, any genui-
ne will to change society? I don't see. I think its a hypermoralizati-
on, hypermoralization, which is a silent admission of a defeat ..."

"Who are, give me some names and so on, who are these postmo-
dern, egalitarian Neo-Marxists and where do you see any kind of
Marxism? I see in it mostly an impotent, an utterly impotent mora-
lization.“

In his response, Peterson first referred to a survey among social

scientists in the United States. Then he pointed out to the peculiar
relationship between postmodernism and Neo-Marxism, explaining
"the connection between the postmodernist types and the Marxists
as a sleight of hand that replaced the notion of the oppression of
 3 von 7

the proletariat by the bourgeoisie as the oppression by one identity

group by another." Here, Žižek totally agreed. Peterson continued
saying that "what happened, especially in France in the 1960-ies,
as the radical Marxists postmodern types like Derrida and Foucault
realized that they were loosing the moral battle, especially after the
information came out of the Soviet Union, in the manner that it
came out - the whole stalinist catastrophe, along with the entire
Maoist catastrophe - that they didn't really have a leg to stand on.
And instead of revising their notion that human history - and this is
a Marxist notion - should be regarded as the eternal class struggle
between the economically deprived and the oppressors, they just
recasted and said, well, it's not based on economics, it's based on
identity, but it's still fundamentally oppressor against oppressed.
And to me that meant that they smuggled the fundamental narrati-
ve of Marxism and many of its schools back into the argument, wi-
thout ever admitting that they did so." ... And then he continued
saying that “one of the hallmarks of postmodernism is skepticism
of meta-narratives; I know that perfectly well, and I also know that
Marxism is a meta-narrative, and so, you shouldn't be able to be a
postmodernist and a Marxist. But I still see the union of these two
things in the insistence that the appropriate way to look at the
world is to view it as the battleground between individuals defined
by a particular group identity, so that the group identity becomes
paramount. And then the proper reading is always oppressor ver-
sus oppressed. With the secondary insistence - and that's very si-
milar to the Marxist insistence upon the moral superiority of the
proletariat - that the oppressed are by definition - because they are
 4 von 7

oppressed - morally superior. And there is the call for - perhaps not
for a revolutionary change, although that comes up about - but for
change in the structure, so that this oppression disappears, so that
a certain form of equality comes about.“

So, in my opinion, Žižek is right in opposing the use of the term

'cultural Marxism' for all that (a block which comprises, according
to Žižek, Frankfurt School, the 'French' poststructuralist decon-
structionism, identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.). But
he cannot oppose Peterson's use of the term 'Neo-Marxism', as it
was explained by him and others before sufficiently (https://en.wi-
kipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism). 

Consequently, the discussion was not at all decided at this point

pro Žižek. Nor is it true that Žižek won a point and could have de-
cided the match, but left it undone, on formal or strategic grounds.

But indeed, there is a problem in Peterson's reply to the question

"What you describe as postmodern neo-Marxism; where is really
the Marxist element in it?" Peterson referred to Michel Foucault
and Jacques Derrida. But Foucault never adopted an orthodox
Marxist viewpoint. Later, he became disillusioned with communist
ideology, and was even considered to be a "violently anticommu-
nist".

And regarding Derrida, the originator of the deconstruction theory,

Peterson could have mentioned "Specters of Marx", where he wro-
te: "The ‘New International’ is an untimely link, without status ... wi-
 5 von 7

thout coordination, without party, without country, without national

community, without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a
class. The name of ‘New International’ is given here to what calls to
the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who ...
continue to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx or of
Marxism. It is a call for them to ally themselves, in a new, concrete
and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a par-
ty or a workers’ international, in the critique of the state of interna-
tional law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order
to renew this critique, and especially to radicalize it."

Moreover, he didn't mention the other big names of French Neo-

Marxism: L. Althusser, A. Gorz, H. F. Lefèbvre, N. Poulantzas and
J.-P. Sartre. And, he neither addressed the German Neo-Marxists
W. Abendroth, E. Bloch, R. Havemann, L. Kofler, O. Negt, nor the
renowned exponents of the Frankfurt School T. W. Adorno, J. Ha-
bermas, M. Horkheimer, H. Marcuse. So, this deficit probably trig-
gered the notion that "he doesn't know what he's talking about".

Along this line, we find in the German periodical ‘Spiegel Online‘ an

excessive critique saying:

"Dann will er (Žižek) gerne wissen, wer genau diese Marxisten sind,
die Peterson hinter den Umtrieben neulinker Identitätspolitiker und
LGBTQ-Aktivisten vermutet. Nichts. Peterson dreht an seinem Ehe-
ring.

Jetzt leistet Žižek sogar Hilfestellung, nennt die Namen einiger

randständiger Neomarxisten. Nichts. Peterson streichelt seinen
 6 von 7

verschlossenen Laptop, den er jetzt leider nicht aufklappen kann.

Worauf ihm Žižek mit grausamer Eleganz den Knock-out versetzt:
"Das ist keine rhetorische Frage, mit der ich freundlich impliziere,
dass Sie ein Idiot sind und keine Ahnung haben, wovon Sie reden".

Spätestens jetzt wissen die 3000 Menschen im Saal und die 6000
im Netz, spätestens jetzt dämmert auch Peterson, was er sich an-
gemaßt und dass er verloren hat. Er ist so eitel, mit dem Taschen-
messer zu einem Artilleriegefecht zu erscheinen.

Und spätestens jetzt rückt das gesetzte Thema des Abends voll-
ends in den Hintergrund - zugunsten einer denkwürdigen Lektion in
der Kunst, einen vernichtenden Sieg davonzutragen, ohne dem
Gegner auch noch die Würde zu nehmen.

Peterson rollt quasi auf den Rücken und fragt den 'charismati-
schen, einnehmenden' Žižek, wozu er denn noch diesen dummen
Marxismus nötig habe, wo er doch längst einen Žižekismus hätte
begründen können. Žižek hilft ihm auf und räumt ein, dass Marx
durchaus seine Fehler habe, er selbst sei eigentlich Hegelianer 'and
so on and so on’." (https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/sla-
voj-Zizek-vs-jordan-peterson-marxist-gewinnt-philosophenduell-a-
1263756.html).

PS: Mein Kommentar zum Spiegel-Artikel über das Philosophen-

duell Zizek vs. Peterson (20.04.19):

 7 von 7



Vereint gegen die Hypermoral der westlichen Leitmedien



Einseitiger und parteiischer hätte man die Debatte kaum zusam-
menfassen können. Da es das Video-Streaming nicht umsonst gab,
wird die Zahl der kritischen Stimmen überschaubar bleiben, und
der Autor (Arno Frank) seine Botschaft ziemlich ungestört an den
Mann bzw. die Frau bringen können: Die Linke lebt, der Marxismus
hält allen Anfeindungen stand, die Neue Rechte kann intellektuell in
keiner Weise mithalten, ihre Gehversuche sind gegenüber der Geis-
tesmacht der Linken geradezu lächerlich, usw. usf.

Wer die Debatte gesehen hat weiss aber, dass eher das Gegenteil
zutrifft. Zizek distanzierte sich von wesentlichen Positionen der Lin-
ken, er rückte deutlich ab von Marx und seinem Marxismus und
verortete sich philosophisch eher bei G.W.F. Hegel, dem Hauptver-
treter des deutschen (man höre und staune) Idealismus! Peterson
dagegen erhielt von Zizek immer wieder Beifall, und am Ende wa-
ren sich die beiden in nahezu allen Punkten einig (insbesondere in
ihrer Ablehnung der Hypermoral unsere Leitmedien).

Bei solchen (Arno Franks) Verdrehungen müsste die Redaktion ei-
gentlich korrigierend eingreifen!



https://www.spiegel.de/forum/kultur/philosophenduell-zizek-vs-pe-
t e r s o n - m i t - d e m - t a s c h e n m e s s e r- i n s - a r t i l l e r i e g e f e c h t -
thread-893089-13.html#postbit_74562440