💊 Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

[Cool kitties club]

So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.

I think the premise of the debate was faulty too. Happiness: capitalism vs. communism doesn't really see right considering Peterson really isn't someone that comes to mind when I think of capitalist or free market capitalist philosophy or economics. Zizek isn't really a traditional marxist meaning his argument was less of a defense of communism but just a critique of capitalism. So the debate just felt like PragerU debunks communism against someone that actually understood philosophy beyond sparknotes.

 

[UngaWunga]

Didn’t help either that they both agree the usual Western concept of happiness and especially it being a goal in and of itself is both unattainable and a misunderstanding of what happiness actually is.

 

[murgatroid]

Apparently this is the mentally unhinged guy who rushed the stage at Jordan Peterson. His name is David Lingbao Xu.

All the youtube video comments about him being the next mass shooter type are gone.

I don't have a Facebook but somehow I was able to see below. Maybe he was committed after the JP stunt. When will people learn you can't pray crazy away.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Dude was probably hopped up on apple cider and had the stank of unwashed penis

 

[Gorilla Tessellator]

Apparently this is the mentally unhinged guy who rushed the stage at Jordan Peterson. His name is David Lingbao Xu.

View attachment 735804

That's surprising. I thought Asians do have fathers.

 

[RichardMongler]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=78BFFq_8XvM:1360
This might be the most memorable moment in the debate. Where Peterson wants to warn against bloody revolution and when he does, a couple of people start to cheer for bloody revolution.

Running circles around him is right.

I can only imagine what Peterson fans felt when they watched their hero struggle and finally just request Zizek to define Marxism when it was obvious Peterson had no idea what what going on.

When you have weeks to prepare and you end up just asking your 'opponent' to educate you... wellllp... it's not exactly an intellectual tour de force...

Blow-by-blow:
1:21 Welcome Slavoj Žižek and Jordan Peterson
3:46 Žižek's credentials
5:00 Peterson's credentials
7:36 Peterson's Opening Statement (about 30 minutes long)

• Tickets were higher priced than Leaf's game
• The Communist Manifesto

13:43 Hierarchical Structure is part of Biology and History.
16:36 A struggle for life in a cruel and complex world
19:30 The Demolition of The Kulaks
20:30 Binary Good/Evil, Proletariat/Bourgeois Identity Politics
24:37 1830's
26:21 What's wrong with profit?
27:14 How can you grow without prosperity?
28:35 Corruption, Proletarians rise up, overthrow. So, what now bucko?
31:08 Shallow Conception of A Person
31:57 Marx/Engels admit Capitalism is successful at quick production
34:42 You can't have an economic system without some inequality.
- Capitalism creates wealth and inequality, All others just produce inequality

Žižek's Opening Statement
38:55 Slavoj Žižek is tired of Left attacks on them
39:45 Happiness, Communism, Capitalism. Praise China. China combines (1) Strong State (2) Capitalist Merits (?)
41:10 Happiness from Psychoanalysis. Humans can and do sabotage their own happiness. Unreadiness to confront our true desire
43:00 Donald Trump Ego Trip. Profanity. "Trump is the ultimate Postmodern President"
44:12 Religion can make good people do bad things
46:23 Self Hatred/Degeneration is solved through multiculturalism/ "White multiculturalism Liberals embody the lie of Identity Politics." (?)
47:06 Pathological need for Jealousy to sustain Identity (The jealous husband. The Anti-Semitic Nazi. The Anti-Immigrant populists) The facts are true, the populist story is a lie
50:42 Daniel Bell Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism
53:15 "Evil is profoundly spiritual..."
55:00 Diminished arguments
55:45 Education and Equality.
57:00 Nature and Evolution. Like French Cuisine
59:19 T.S. Eliot. Art's effect on the past. "The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past"
1:01:38 Soren Kierkegaard. God, Christ
1:03:40 The Commons, The Forests. World Interconnectedness
1:06:51 Marx Thesis 11 and Changing Human Nature (Man and Machine. Digitization of the brain.)
1:07:55 Foreign political messiness. (1) Enclosure (2) Globalization
1:10:34 Capitalist Market does great things, needs regulation/limitation
1:11:32 Pessimistic View
1:12:21 Confronting Serious Problems: China

Peterson's Response 1:13:43
1:15:54 Reduction to Economic Competition is not the best way forward
People value Absence of Misery > Happiness (In Peterson's experience with Psychology)
1:18:45 Catastrophes of the struggle of human experience (1:19:47 Yang Gang?)
1:21:36 No good alternative for Capitalism
1:25:00 You have to clean your own room, bucko.

Žižek Response 1:25:40
1:26:45 Czechoslovakia. Happiness. Nostalgia/Fondness for the past
1:29:50 China scares Žižek
1:30:40 Fears dictator capitalism
1:31:30 Marx
1:32:24 Communism. Agrees with Peterson on many points. It's complex.
1:33:40 Oceans, International Action, Diminishing poverty, End of Apartheid, Race Card
1:34:58 Global Trade Corporation. Yemen
1:36:28 Disavow. Pessimism, no easy way out

Ending Questions/Audience Questions

1:39:15 "You're a strange Marxist to have a discussion with" you have an appeal to rebels
1:40:45 Why not promote Žižekism instead of old Marxism?
1:45:00 "We need Radical Openness"
1:46:58 Where are the Post-Modern Neo Marxists? Where is the Marxist factor in Post Modernism?
1:51:27, 1:52:35 1960's France Post-Modernism. Skepticism of Metanarratives. 1:54:13/1:55:07 (Michel Foucault)

What is True Human Happiness. How do we obtain it? (1:57:08)
1:58:23 J.P "You can't will yourself to be happy" The event happens, and in your reflection find happiness. Envision the ultimate good and live by those principles. "It's not happiness. It's meaning"
2:01:00 "Stand on the edge of what you know..."
2:02:23 S.Ž Falling in Love. Authentic Love.
2:05:30 Happiness is The Fall, The Struggle. (Movement. Not Stasis)
2:09:26 Confront your fears, Battle The Dragon. Save Your Father Pinocchio.
2:14:34 Carl Jung
2:17:34 The Fall in Christianity. Ideology. German Toilets
2:24:00 Man is so complex
2:27:00 Individual Responsibility. Be a good player in this game.
2:28:45 German Officers doing horrible things. Heinrich Himmler. Nazi Psyche
2:31:37 Zen Buddhist justification of Japanese Militarism in the 1930's
2:33:30 A Thought To Leave You With
J.P. The Power of Conversation and The Great Achievement of Free Speech
S.Ž Don't be Politically Correct. Trump is not a Fascist

 

[murgatroid]

That's surprising. I thought Asians do have fathers.

He looks like a happa to me. Maybe he has a white father who left.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think the premise of the debate was faulty too. Happiness: capitalism vs. communism doesn't really see right considering Peterson really isn't someone that comes to mind when I think of capitalist or free market capitalist philosophy or economics.

Maybe not capitalism, but Peterson is the first person that comes to mind when you think of happiness.

I can't think of anyone more mirthful. A natural expert on the subject.

 

[Truthspeaker]

you're right in principle. pragerU is little more than a public outlet for american conservative propaganda.
that said, "no serious accademic should associate with them" is a prety moot point imo. in a world where plenty of established academics gladly and frequently associate with partisan rags like WaPo, the NYT and the guardian, there is no basis for portraying petersons work for prager as particularly unethical or immoral.

This is nonsense.

Forget the politics for a moment. Peterson could do an interview for Perez Hilton, and it'd still be more respectable than a tenured professor from one of the top universities in North America associating with an institution that only exists to bullshit off the prestige of academia.

And even if it wasn't "but the left did it first" isn't a real argument. It's only brought up so Trump supporters can feel better about voting for the second American President ever credibly accused of rape.

 

[UngaWunga]

Morals aside, associating with PragerU just makes you look like a shill and a virgin.

 

[Truthspeaker]

it absolutely is.
like i said, if you think his work for prager discredits lobster man, then you would likewise have to consider the myriad of academics who appear at similarly partisan outlets on the other side of the spectrum to be discredited by their associations with these outlets. otherwise you're just a dishonest partisan shill.

I'm not calling PragerU out for being partisan.* I'm calling them out for pretending to be a university.

As just so I can make tribute to Žižek, name one other professor of a similarly prestigious school (UoT's produced ten Nobel Laureats) who's done this kinda thing.

* Though they are, and you're nuts for comparing NYT and WaPo to fucking PragrrU because they don't pretend our rapist POTUS isn't a blithering, unquslified sociopath. It's one thing to compare Salon or even modern-day Slate to PragerU (though they're still not as sleazy due to not literally being fake universities), but pretending your Seth Rich murder fantasies hold the same weight as the ghostwriter of Trump's biography is delusional.

 

[Cool kitties club]

I'm not calling PragerU out for being partisan.* I'm calling them out for pretending to be a university.

As just so I can make tribute to Žižek, name one other professor of a similarly prestigious school (UoT's produced ten Nobel Laureats) who's done this kinda thing.

* Though they are, and you're nuts for comparing NYT and WaPo to fucking PragrrU because they don't pretend our rapist POTUS isn't a blithering, unquslified sociopath. It's one thing to compare Salon or even modern-day Slate to PragerU (though they're still not as sleazy due to not literally being fake universities), but pretending your Seth Rich murder fantasies hold the same weight as the ghostwriter of Trump's biography is delusional.

Does anyone actually think prager u is university? I'm pretty sure most people know you aren't getting an accredited degree from prageru; it's like getting mad that Khan academy isn't a real university. Don't get me wrong I think Prager U is trash, but getting mad at it for no being a real university is a pretty nonsensical argument.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Does anyone actually think prager u is university? I'm pretty sure most people know you aren't getting an accredited degree from prageru; it's like getting mad that Khan academy isn't a real university. Don't get me wrong I think Prager U is trash, but getting mad at it for no being a real university is a pretty nonsensical argument.

What kind of comparrison is this?

Khan Academy teaches actual skills, often better and more conveniently than what most people actually get at accredited universities. Sure, you don't get accredited for it, but you can use them to help you get actual accredation from the bored Chinese adjunct who's just waiting for a job that actually pays the entire time he's supposed to be teaching a bunch of stoners what a differential is.

And just cause someone or something's been long exposed as fraudulent, no matter how publicly and embarassingly, doesn't mean they shouldn't still be blasted for being frauds for as long as they continue to behave in such a fashion (think of this as "the Jacob Wohl Rule").

If PragerU wants to stop getting blasted for this, they should either stop calling themselves "Prager University", or get actual accredation.

Crucially, neither of these steps would retroactively absolve Peterson producing content for, and associating with, a literal fake university for the same of advancing his political agenda. As I've said many times before, he has even less excuse than most of their content creators, given that he's a tenured professor from one of the top schools on the planet.

He actively lent legitimacy to people who were defrauding his profession just because he liked their politics. It's not the unintentionally-funniest thing he's done, but it's definitely the worst of what's currently known.

I presume the only reason you're currently contorting yourself to defend it is because you don't like to see right-wing politics being made fun of unless the target forces your hand. But each time you do that, you will defend worse and worse behavior, until the tape of Donald Trump at Jeffrey Epstein's statutory-rape parties comes to light, and all you talk about is how Bill Clinton also flew on thr Lolita Express.

 

[Cool kitties club]

Khan Academy teaches actual skills, often better and more conveniently than what most people actually get at accredited universities. Sure, you don't get accredited for it, but you can use them to help you get actual accredation from the bored Chinese adjunct who's just waiting for a job that actually pays the entire time he's supposed to be teaching a bunch of stoners what a differential is.

And just cause someone or something's been long exposed as fraudulent, no matter how publicly and embarassingly, doesn't mean they shouldn't still be blasted for being frauds for as long as they continue to behave in such a fashion (think of this as "the Jacob Wohl Rule").

If PragerU wants to stop getting blasted for this, they should either stop calling themselves "Prager University", or get actual accredation.

I'm just confused as to why your primary argument is that PragerU is that they aren't a real university when the only issue is that they don't teach useful things. You admit Khan academy calling itself an academy is okay because they actually teach you stuff while prageru is just trashy propaganda. I agree PragerU is riddled with factual inaccuracies and their audience is so muddled I have no idea who actually watches or is supposed to watch them. I just think it's odd that your primary problem is that they aren't a real university when prageru has other issues.

I presume the only reason you're currently contorting yourself to defend it is because you don't like to see right-wing politics being made fun of unless the target forces your hand. But each time you do that, you will defend worse and worse behavior, until the tape of Donald Trump at Jeffrey Epstein's statutory-rape parties comes to light, and all you talk about is how Bill Clinton also flew on thr Lolita Express

I don't like PragerU in fact here is a good right wing critique of PragerU:

 

[Drunk and Pour]

You overall make some good points, I don't 100% agree with you but there's nothing I can really take issue with except that I'd rather have people thinking the world's gonna end in 12 years than littering all over the damn place. The environmental movement was an objectively good thing until it accomplished enough of its goals that it had to let the crazies in to keep the money train flowing.

Well, that's kind of like most social movements. There is never a moment when they go, "We got our intended purpose, we are no longer needed. Bye". That's why feminism is so fucked up now, they are more concerned with letting biological males compete with biological females in athletics despite the biological difference. It's also why I distrust the common sense gun movement. The end goal is total outlawing of guns. Of course they can't say that out right, and I'm sure there are many liberal people that believe people should own guns with restrictions. But the end goal will always be total ban.

Sure, littering is bad, but the Earth will survive it. Saying the world is going to end in 12 years is just fearmongering, and they don't really care about the Earth because they would be in favor of clean nuclear energy, they just hate capitalism and America but they can't say that out right. So I'll take the littering over crazies trying to undermine our existence.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.

I'm glad it was friendly. I still haven't heard it. One of Peterson's "rules" is to assume the person you are speaking to knows more than you, so that's pretty par for the course.

They're losers, and they were never really reached out to and taught shit. I'm not going to accuse all JP fans of having Daddy issues, but it's more than apparent how many of them legitimately see the man as a father figure. The only thing I personally can take away from it is that it's the first time they've really been offered any form of advice from anyone who appeared concerned for them (compared to, say, PUA or dating assistance type communities, which give the impression of being more condescending).

Well, that's a problem in society right now, isn't it? One of many complaints about Peterson is that he's just spouting common knowledge. Yet if it's so common, why are so many people drawn to him? And I don't want to seem like I'm white knighting Peterson, I grew up with both my parents that I love and with a happy lower middle class childhood. I've known people without that. It totally makes sense why young men like him, and maybe society should focus on making Peterson as redundant as his critics think he is.

Thanks for this. I didn't tune into the debate, but it's been said that Jordan Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading The Communist Manifesto.

So what you're saying is, Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading what Karl Marx wrote?

Running circles around him is right.

I can only imagine what Peterson fans felt when they watched their hero struggle and finally just request Zizek to define Marxism when it was obvious Peterson had no idea what what going on.

When you have weeks to prepare and you end up just asking your 'opponent' to educate you... wellllp... it's not exactly an intellectual tour de force...

One of Peterson's "rules" is to assume the person you are speaking to knows more than you, so that's pretty par for the course.

I didn’t expect this thread to be so full of tender lads tough guy posturing and calling posters BOI because the absurdity of their prissy middle aged daddy man’s meat sweat drenched rant about how the Ice Lesbian is somehow bad because....the queers I guess?

Peterson fans are a trip.

It was such a treat to watch Zizek show him as what he is: a guy who read enough Wikipedia summaries that he was able to convince a certain breed of dullard that he’s smart.

You really think he's just a guy that reads Wikipedia? And dullards think he's smart? Yet you write, "I didn’t expect this thread to be so full of tender lads tough guy posturing and calling posters BOI because the absurdity of their prissy middle aged daddy man’s meat sweat drenched rant about how the Ice Lesbian is somehow bad because....the queers I guess?"

This reminds me of that one piece saying "Peterson is the stupid man's smart person" https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Ok.

I'm not calling PragerU out for being partisan.* I'm calling them out for pretending to be a university.

If PragerU wants to stop getting blasted for this, they should either stop calling themselves "Prager University", or get actual accredation.

Crucially, neither of these steps would retroactively absolve Peterson producing content for, and associating with, a literal fake university for the same of advancing his political agenda. As I've said many times before, he has even less excuse than most of their content creators, given that he's a tenured professor from one of the top schools on the planet.

He actively lent legitimacy to people who were defrauding his profession just because he liked their politics. It's not the unintentionally-funniest thing he's done, but it's definitely the worst of what's currently known.

I presume the only reason you're currently contorting yourself to defend it is because you don't like to see right-wing politics being made fun of unless the target forces your hand. But each time you do that, you will defend worse and worse behavior, until the tape of Donald Trump at Jeffrey Epstein's statutory-rape parties comes to light, and all you talk about is how Bill Clinton also flew on thr Lolita Express.

It's not pretending to be a university. Everybody knows it's not a university. Everybody knows it's a colloquial saying. Again, learning from the "school of hard knocks" is not a school. I knew a person who said, "I didn't get my education from Penn State, I got my education from the State Pen". It is what it is. The only people contorting themselves are people claiming it's trying to be a university.

 

[RichardMongler]

So what you're saying is, Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading what Karl Marx wrote?

Jordan Peterson would've done himself many more favors if he even read Das Kapital, which he apparently didn't read at all. Imagine a smug, fedora-tipping atheist who glosses over the Bible, reads some basic bitch atheist critique, smiles and then calls it a day. While JP doesn't possess half the hostility for Marxism the fedora tipper holds for Christianity, he cursorily researched the subject he supposedly spent months preparing for. Not even Marx and Engels coined the term "dialectical materialism," which is as fundamental towards Marxism and Communism as labor theory of value and surplus labor. At this rate, I'm willing to bet even ADF read more Marxist literature than JP.

Keep in mind I'm not entirely on board with Žižek's points. In fact, there are several I take great issue with, but it's obvious he won the debate.

 

[UngaWunga]

Jordan Peterson would've done himself many more favors if he even read Das Kapital, which he apparently didn't read at all. Imagine a smug, fedora-tipping atheist who glosses over the Bible, reads some basic bitch atheist critique, smiles and then calls it a day. While JP doesn't possess half the hostility for Marxism the fedora tipper holds for Christianity, he cursorily researched the subject he supposedly spent months preparing for. Not even Marx and Engels coined the term "dialectical materialism," which is as fundamental towards Marxism and Communism as labor theory of value and surplus labor. At this rate, I'm willing to bet even ADF read more Marxist literature than JP.

Keep in mind I'm not entirely on board with Žižek's points. In fact, there are several I take great issue with, but it's obvious he won the debate.

Bro I'm full gay fuck me in the butt communism and I haven't read Kapital, though I'm trying. As much as I dont care for Jorp, Das Kapital is a work people spend decades studying. Honestly his best bet would have been to avoid Marx as much as possible. "Better to remain silent and be called a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

This debate and the discussion aorund it has really interested me though. I think Zizek did a great job obliterating the retarded image of the left as a bunch of Stephen Universe writing pearl clutching Tublrinas. Zizek is popular wiht the left for a reason. The voices raised against hima re always the boiggest scolds, jealous of his priminence and who believe everything should be po'faced solemnity. Fuck that.

Zizek and Peterson basically agreeing that happiness is a red herring tickled me pink, because as great as happiness is, they're both right that it's a pleasant by-product of thoughtfuk, fulfilled living and not the goal.

This debate made me think there's actually way more chance to unite people together against forces that basically have built a system to make us existentially cucked and profit off our sense of despair and alienation.

 

[2 litre soda]

So what you're saying is, Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading what Karl Marx wrote?

The Communist Manifesto is a short propaganda pamphlet designed to get people excited about the possibilities of communism. It's an interesting historical curiosity in the vast body of Marx's copius output. If Peterson really wanted to engage with Marx's thought, but not slog through 800 pages of Das Kapital, vol 1, he should have read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, which is about historical analysis and which is were we get the phrase "First as tragedy, then as farce", or Friedrich Engels' Anti-Dühring, which is a basic survey of how communism is supposed to come about, function, and how it differs from socialism. Both are books one could finish easily in a weekend, and come away with a very clear understanding of the sort of thinking that Marx and Engels were writing about.

Though it was hilarious listening to Peterson basically admit that he couldn't understand Zizek's writing, and had to resort to the one book on communism that everyone's heard of.

 

[Koochiching]

The Communist Manifesto is a short propaganda pamphlet designed to get people excited about the possibilities of communism. It's an interesting historical curiosity in the vast body of Marx's copius output. If Peterson really wanted to engage with Marx's thought, but not slog through 800 pages of Das Kapital, vol 1, he should have read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, which is about historical analysis and which is were we get the phrase "First as tragedy, then as farce", or Friedrich Engels' Anti-Dühring, which is a basic survey of how communism is supposed to come about, function, and how it differs from socialism. Both are books one could finish easily in a weekend, and come away with a very clear understanding of the sort of thinking that Marx and Engels were writing about.

Though it was hilarious listening to Peterson basically admit that he couldn't understand Zizek's writing, and had to resort to the one book on communism that everyone's heard of.

And if Anti-Dühring is too much for him he can just read through Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, an excerpt of the former which like the Manifesto was published as a polemic meant for a large audience that has not previously read much about the topic.

Also interesting in my view (though not necessarily entirely relevant to his theories on socialism and communism) are Marx's frequent contributions to the New York Daily Tribune. They give you a little background into the politics of the day and a sense of what political context Marx was writing in. Some of them are available easily with Marx and Engels' other writings on marxists.org, including a couple articles by Zizek himself on Lenin. It shouldn't take too much digging for Peterson or any other enterprising theorist looking to analyze the writings of Marx and Engels or almost any prominent Marxist or otherwise left-wing writer to find what they need. It's one thing for Peterson to come into a debate on Marxism with little more than a normie-level understanding of what Marx was on about, but another thing entirely to come into said debate without even glancing at his interlocutor's work, with several months' time for preparation.

 

[Cool kitties club]

And if Anti-Dühring is too much for him he can just read through Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, an excerpt of the former which like the Manifesto was published as a polemic meant for a large audience that has not previously read much about the topic.

Also interesting in my view (though not necessarily entirely relevant to his theories on socialism and communism) are Marx's frequent contributions to the New York Daily Tribune. They give you a little background into the politics of the day and a sense of what political context Marx was writing in. Some of them are available easily with Marx and Engels' other writings on marxists.org, including a couple articles by Zizek himself on Lenin. It shouldn't take too much digging for Peterson or any other enterprising theorist looking to analyze the writings of Marx and Engels or almost any prominent Marxist or otherwise left-wing writer to find what they need. It's one thing for Peterson to come into a debate on Marxism with little more than a normie-level understanding of what Marx was on about, but another thing entirely to come into said debate without even glancing at his interlocutor's work, with several months' time for preparation.

He could also have read The Society of the Spectacle or One Dimensional Man for a more cultural critique of capitalism. Hell if he wanted a postmodern Marxist Jean Baudrillard would do.