Response to Jordan Peterson’s Critique of the Communist Manifesto

Earlier this year, the prominent anti-communist Jordan B. Peterson released a video on himself “critiquing” our movement’s founding text, the Communist Manifesto. You may know him as a pop psychologist, a leading figure in the conservative movement, or, more recently, as the transphobe who appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Whatever he is to you, it’s clear his writings have impacts on the political leanings of millions.

Peterson structures his “critique” of the Manifesto into eight main arguments that attempt to undermine the thoughts of communists. While we recognize as Marxists that there may be some criticisms of the pamphlet (and combat dogmatism as we do so), we must also recognize that Peterson’s attack on our movement is composed mostly of twisted propaganda. His video is an obstacle to our efforts to mobilize the working masses. It is why workers around the world, all of whom we seek to revolutionize, hold some reactionary, anti-communist positions as they do. As such, a response to this sort of misinformation is a step in the direction of revolution.

“Ideas like Marxism are mostly wrong”

Ideas aren’t right or wrong just because they happen to be. There are quite a few “ideas” in this world. Some ideas, such as Flat Earth Theory, aren’t grounded in anything close to reality. Others, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, have been proven in 50 different ways and upheld by mathematicians around the globe. By Peterson’s logic, both of these ideas are as wrong as each other. A more reasonable conclusion is that what makes ideas are right or wrong isn’t some inherent quality of “rightness” or “wrongness” but the state of the world around them.

Modern philosophy differs from his claims too. Peterson’s entire outlook here is in the realm of metaphysics, which isn’t a good way of looking at things.

Clearly, the dialectical approach to the above example is hundreds of times more logical. It is nearly every time.

Marxism, moreover, isn’t just one idea, rather it’s a collection of ideas that build on top of each other. Peterson from his lack of study of Marxism fails to understand that. At the beginning of the video, he literally admits to not having read the Manifesto since college. Lenin couldn’t have written State and Revolution if he didn’t understand from Marx the capitalist structures behind bourgeoisie states. Mao’s On Contradiction is largely an expansion of earlier texts covering dialectical materialism. Marxism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for it building on top of itself, because as Peterson rightly says, most ideas independently are indeed wrong.

In Jordan Peterson’s view on the matter, “Marxism is wrong just because it’s wrong.”

He’s oblivious to the fact that it’s 10,000 years of human history that make all of Marxism true.

“History isn’t a class struggle like the commies say it is”

The idea Peterson is criticizing here, Historical Materialism, isn’t that history is “nothing but class struggles”. Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Joseph Stalin provides a detailed analysis of what the concept really is.

What, then, is the chief force in the complex conditions of material life of society that determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?

This force, historical materialism holds, is the method* of procuring the means of life* necessary for human existence, the *mode of production of material values* — food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. — which are indispensable for the life and development of society.

Nowhere, in this excerpt or the entire text, does Stalin allege that “history is nothing but a class struggle”. Historical Materialism is simply the belief that the *prime*, not the sole, determinant of history is our material conditions that manifest themselves in the form of a class struggle. Jordan Peterson seems to be throwing the whole concept of Historical Materialism out the window based on his perversion of this way of thought.

In the next part of this section, Peterson then provides alternative methods of struggle that supposedly surpass the economic.

Human beings struggle with themselves, with the malevolence that’s inside themselves, with the evil they’re capable of doing, with the spiritual and psychological warfare that goes on within them. We’re also actually, always at odds with nature. And this never seems to show up in Marx and it never seems to show up in Marxism in general. If human beings have a problem, it’s a class struggle that’s essentially economic.

Some of his claims are partially true; for example, humans actually do struggle with nature. We were stuck living in a primitive communal system for a long time, hundreds of thousands of years, because we couldn’t come out of this struggle. Marxism doesn’t ignore this. Only after we come on top in this struggle can class structures, and really societal development as a whole, come about. Engels’ Origins of the Family covers these topics in greater detail.

However, man’s struggle with nature doesn’t play as big of a role in society anymore. The lions and tigers that hindered the development of primitive societies have been hunted for hundreds of years and are now being driven to extinction. And some of our struggle with nature is essentially economic; just look at global warming. Even the Black Plague wouldn’t have happened for merchant ships not transporting fleas and rats all over the place. What does this show us? It’s simple, the economic struggle is the principal struggle of society that’s the prime determinant of much of what happens elsewhere.

Neither does man’s struggle with himself.

Our problems come not from the atrocities of tyrants, but silence from the people who make the majority; group thinkers. A single human really isn’t capable of doing much. 9/11, for example, only could happen because terrorists had the funds and training available to crash a plane into the Twin Towers. No genocide ever has been conducted without the social conditions being fit. If that were the case, white supremacists would be ruling the world. Societal struggles, not individual ones, are responsible for all of these things. And what mainly defines societal struggles are economic ones.

Historical Materialism is a valid world outlook, and it’s nothing close to Peterson’s lie that “history is nothing but a class struggle”.

“But communism goes against human nature”

Claiming that human nature is a clearly defined thing adheres to metaphysics and is wrong. We have always been hearing from the anti-communists this claim, which leads them to say that humans are naturally greedy so communism wouldn’t work. Since this argument is used so much in attacks on Marxism, it is addressed much in communist circles, such as in this LibCom article; Human Nature and Communism.

What anti-communists call “human nature” changes based on environmental factors and on economic ones. For example, it’s human nature to kill your rapist, though it isn’t normal human nature to kill your own spouse. That’s because most of the time we depend on our spouses for survival while being raped is a direct threat to our survival. Likewise, it’s human nature to steal food when you have none, but few if any billionaires are caught robbing liquor stores. This adheres to the principles that the universality of human nature is limited.

For the vast majority of history, human nature has evolved under the primitive communal system.

The highly developed sense of equality in hunter-gatherer society meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn’t have the right to order their children around; hence there were non-directive childrearing methods. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, “big man,” or chief.

People used to depend on each other for food, clothing, shelter, and other basic survival needs. The genes that comprise our “human nature” have gone through the vast majority of their evolution during that time. If there are any universal qualities of us *homo sapiens *that transcend other factors, then they will likely have come from the time when greed and selfishness weren’t a thing.

Peterson’s claims on human nature have some validity, however, and that is precisely why communists don’t believe in utopias anymore. We have learned over the development of Marxism that we can’t trust the ruling class to adopt socialism and put forward the best interests of humanity. In the same way, we know that revolution is necessary, for we can’t trust the bourgeoisie state machinery to end the oppression of the working masses. Because of human nature, we have to fight like hell if we want to achieve liberation. He is right that an unscientific approach to struggle and society is not going to get us anywhere, and that’s why Marxism is scientific both in theory and in practice.

Marx said that philosophy, which “human nature” is a part of, is meaningless without a practical application. Peterson seems to recognize this too. In the latter part of this argument, he connects his fringe theories on human nature to economics and society.

It’s actually not nearly a pessimistic enough description of the actual problem. The idea that the driving force of history is a hierarchical struggle is absolutely true. But it goes deeper than history, it’s biology itself, because organisms of all sorts organize themselves into hierarchies.

He is correct that hierarchies are actually an efficient way of distributing resources and developing productive forces. If it weren’t for the existence of slave labor, neither the Pyramids nor the Coliseum nor the Great Wall of China would have been built. While the class structures imposed on these societies may not have been desirable per se, they were in a sense necessary for society to keep progressing.

Marxist theory explains that productive relations correspond with productive forces. It is metaphysics to think that a certain set of hierarchial structures, i.e. capitalism, is to carry on forever. The existence of the belief that “hierarchies are a universal truth” is as well in the realm of metaphysics. One of the key principles of dialectics is that nature is in a continuous state of motion and change (from Dialectical and Historical Materialism). This applies to the hierarchies that control society as well. With all the problems it creates throughout the world, capitalism isn’t anymore in the best interest of humanity. Adhering to the principles of historical materialism, we know that society will one day be able to do away with class and hierarchy. Marxism-Leninism isn’t fundamentally opposed to the belief in human nature, rather it works within our human nature to transform our world into a better one.

“Class Distinctions Aren’t Binary”

Peterson here is implying that the concept of class struggle is obsolete. It fits into the narrative that Marxist theory is an obsolete concept that’s only relevant in propaganda departments.

He states that there are many people these days who don’t fit into the class categorizations of either bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

Marx also assumes that you can think about history as a binary with clear divisions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And that’s actually a problem because it’s not so easy to make a firm division between who’s an exploiter and who’s exploited. It’s not obvious, let’s say, in the case of small shareholders, whether or not they happen to be part of the oppressed or part of the oppressor.

Conditions have indeed changed some since the time of Marx. In this category also are the corporate executives who profit off of shares while also creating value through their executive work. Too, there are multimillionaire Hollywood celebrities who are in name proletarians due to being paid on salary. One without proper education and practical knowledge might think that these kinds of people make Marxism obsolete.

But the Marxist concept of class isn’t obsolete.

It evolves from the belief that capitalists are unfairly exploiting surplus value from their laborers. In simple words, the bourgeoisie only exists because of the value created by workers that surpasses the value needed to maintain them. Today, that hasn’t changed. Workers around the world are still being paid minimum wage no matter if they create twice, thrice, or ten times that amount in value. The same production relations created in the birth of the bourgeoisie are still alive today, solely because this principle carries on as well.

Peterson emphasizes the small shareholders that could be classified as either oppressor or oppressed. Marx doesn’t really go into detail about them because they weren’t as big a deal when he was around, and neither are they now. However, in his writings, he described these types of people as the *petty bourgeoisie. *This class, placed in between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie, has been the subject of much political discourse in and out of Marxism. A Marxist writer known as Innaja wrote an article explaining how Marxist theory views these folks.

Marx used the term to identify the lowest socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie, which comprised small-scale capitalists, such as the traditional small shop-keepers, but also the foremen: former proletarians who now managed, in this brave new industrialized era, the workers as well as the production means owned by their haut-bourgeois employers. The contempt of the (socialist) working classes towards these people wasn’t so much connected with their social or their economic position but was directed against the **ambiguity** of their political position. The term had acquired a political dimension. The *p’tit-boo had become the enemy.*

The petty bourgeoisie isn’t entirely in the camps of bourgeoisie or proletariat. Due to the expansion of monopoly, many petty bourgeoisie shop owners in U.S. states like Kentucky are in almost a poor economic condition as workers in the same region. The interests of these folks are vested in the interests of the working class. On the other hand, petty bourgeoisie mine owners in South Africa have it in their interests to continue capitalist exploitation. As the article above states, the petty bourgeoisie is divided into “oppressor” and “oppressed” through their political leanings. The term “political leanings” doesn’t mean whether they are conservative or a liberal; that’s purely electoral politics. Rather, it means how and if they ally themselves with the cause of the proletariat, and those who do are a part of the socialist movement.

Mao Zedong, in On New Democracy, further explains how the petty bourgeoise more often than not collaborates with the oppressed masses to combat the reactionary forces of feudalism and imperialism.

And if, instead of joining the Wang Ching-wei gang, someone wants to come into the “fight Japan” camp of the people but imagines that once the war is won he will be able to kick aside the people fighting Japan, seize the fruits of the victory of the fight against Japan and establish a “perpetual one-party dictatorship”, isn’t he just daydreaming? “Fight Japan!” “Fight Japan!” But who is doing the fighting? Without the workers and the peasants and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie, you cannot move a step.

The aforementioned concepts still hold true today. In order to have a successful revolution, socialists need to adhere to these theories to sift out the enemies from the masses.

However, capitalism has changed, and Peterson is not wrong in recognizing that the underlying class structures have too. Profits under the new, monopoly phase of capitalism and the division of the entire world among imperialist powers enable a small stratum of the proletariat to benefit from exploitation. Many imperialist countries these days have this kind of labor-aristocracy. Lenin explained this in many of his works, including *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*. labor aris This is the Marxist explanation for the existence of wealthy people who aren’t capitalists, like neurosurgeons or basketball players. For the most part, we can still group the interests of the labor-aristocracy with those of the bourgeoisie, and the label of proletarian is merely a word.

It’s also true that some capitalists do work. But, after all, they’re capitalists, so they usually don’t amass their fortunes from their own labor (or else they would be classified as the petty bourgeoisie). Elon Musk, arguably the most famous capitalist out there, collected no salary at all in 2020, confirms TESLA in recent statement. His shares in Tesla and SpaceX comprise the vast majority of his fortune. While e surely deserves more than $0 a year for his labor, most of the money he gets from stocks is unearned. This applies to most of the other capitalists (and especially billionaires) that are in a similar situation.

Musk is a rare case in terms of capitalists. Technological innovators like him are a minority in the class of billionaires. Many more are only recipients of profits from the monopolies that dominate the economies of the imperialist world.

If Peterson were to make a fairer argument here, he would too need to defend investors Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn and explain why they earned their whole fortunes. Since his whole case here is based on how capitalists work hard to earn their fortunes, that’s probably something he can’t do.

As such, the Marxist concept of class remains relevant.

“You can’t find someone’s moral worth with their economic standing.”

Marxism isn’t about individual morals. And it’s for a good reason. We won’t destroy capitalism nor do anything to create a better world if we only adhere to them. We’re much better off judging actions and people by both their intended and actual impacts on the world.

With regard to the morality of our economic and social conditions, Peterson further elaborates on the topic.

You have an implicit idea that all of the good is on the side of the proletariat and all the bad is on the side of the bourgeoisie. That’s classic group identity thinking and it’s one of the reasons why I don’t like identity politics. Once you divide people into groups and pit them against each other it’s very easy to assume that all of the evil in the world can be attributed to one group, the hypothetical oppressors, and all the good in the world can be attributed to the other, the hypothetically oppressed.

This is why I don’t like Identity Politics.

Marxist texts never say that all the good in the world is on the side of the proletariat, or all the bad in the world is on the side of the bourgeoisie. In fact, most of them don’t even mention “good” or “bad” because it isn’t relevant. Marxism is a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, not a dogmatic doctrine of universal morals.

Marxism is not necessarily opposed to ethicality. Most Marxists don’t think that it’s okay to kill another human being, nor is it okay to turn a blind eye to the killing of another human being. Neither do we think that stealing is permissible because harms the rest of society. As said earlier, it is Marxist to judge things by how they affect people rather than by some abstract moral doctrine. That is generally all we mean when we say that our movement is not about individual morals.

However, that quote (taken directly from the video) is only partially true. In some cases, you can find someone’s moral worth with their economic standing. Peterson probably doesn’t mean by this that slave owners are somehow good people. Neither is the openly defending the bureaucratic bourgeoisie of fascist states like Nazi Germany. The kulaks were morally wrong to burn grain surplus and kill livestock to avoid collectivization. Actions taken by socialist governments against these kinds of people aren’t “classicide”, nor are they identity politics, rather they were concrete initiatives to better the condition of the proletarian masses. While morality doesn’t define Marxism, the two can go together more often than they don’t as seen in practice.

Peterson next tries to explain why profit actually isn’t a form of theft and how the bourgeoisie isn’t merely a collection of thieves.

If the capitalist is adding value to the corporation and there’s some utility or fairness in him or her, extracting the value of their abstract labor, their thought, their abstract abilities, their ability to manage the company, their engagement in competition and product development, their treatment of the workers, if they create a profit well then they have a little bit of security for times that aren’t so good.

Marx theorized that profit is based on surplus value. All forms of profit are created by the workers. No matter how much labor a capitalist produces, he or she should not be entitled to the labor of anyone else. Problems such as poverty, war, and environmental destruction can be traced back to capitalists chasing maximum profits. The taking of someone else’s labor by itself isn’t a moral thing to do and the problem is only intensified by the wars that result from it. Although cannot find one’s moral worth with their economic standing, we may be able to find it through their actions resulting from it.

Peterson refuses to acknowledge any of this and begins to accuse us of identity politics. This means that yet another one of his arguments has lost validity and is down the drain of propaganda.

“Dictatorship of the Proletariat is still a Dictatorship”

In every stage of human civilization, the ruling class has used some throw-around words to describe their domination. Liberal democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy, whatever, really all of them are dictatorships whether of a person or of a class. Our mission as Marxists is to bring dictatorship to the masses.

Peterson here is criticizing that “dictatorship” of the masses.

Marx and Engels assume that this dictatorship of the proletariat which involves absurd centralization, the overwhelming possibility of corruption, and impossible computation that the proletariat now can’t rationally compute the manner in which an entire market economy could run which could not be done. It’s far too complicated for anyone to think through.

Marxism doesn’t cover how socialism would come into action, but further editions of it brought upon us by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did. To say that Marx and Engels should have understood how socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat would work would be similar to say how Isaac Newton should have known how to colonize Mars.

Lenin expanded Marxism to his relevant conditions and learned how the dictatorship of the proletariat could be enacted. He proposed that the working class unite under a revolutionary vanguard party in the struggle for socialism. It’s a much more effective means of revolution than terrorism, which won’t attract much support, or parliamentarian, which won’t get anything done. It too runs counter to the revolutionary spontaneity (the belief that the proletariat will liberate itself) of the Mensheviks, or their reactionary “productivity-first” theory that capitalism will just go away on its own. Since the proletariat will not be able to run a country where they can’t even run a revolution, the theory of the Vanguard Party is a key component of Marxism-Leninism and ensures the success of the DoTP.

Once the socialist system is established, the most widely accepted form of government by Marxist-Leninists is democratic centralism. Simply put, it means “freedom in discussion, unity in action”. Most of the government was elected by the workers themselves, through various councils or “soviets” that the Soviet Union obtained its name from. Workers were free to take part in decision-making through these organizations. The composition of the central government was controlled by the Soviets, thereby the workers as well. By “unity in action”, we mean that nobody in the party will try to subvert the interests of the working class. While Peterson says that centralization is impossible and that Marxists have no solution to implementing it, Lenin’s theory of Democratic Centralism shows how that is very much not the case.

Chairman Mao further expanded on the concept of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, namely with the theories of the Mass Line.

To combine the leadership with the masses was one of the methods which we communists must employ in whatever work we do.

- Chairman Mao’s Teachings on the Mass Line (Chairman Mao’s Teachings on the Mass Line)

The proletarian party will only survive the more connected it is to the workers of the nation. Workers themselves should be at the forefront of all political activism. It’s not the state but the people who have the dominant role in the struggle. Oppressive landlords are to be ousted by peasants, not police. While the economy is state-owned under socialism, production teams and collectives are to manage it. The Cultural Revolution, too, was driven first and foremost by the working masses dedicated to protecting and consolidating socialism. It is only upon the working masses of a country through these various concepts which the dictatorship of a proletariat is successful. These theories on government is not an “absurdity made up by the narcissists Marx and Engels” as Peterson says, but well-grounded additions to the doctrine of the liberation of the masses.

Another thing that needs to be made clear is that the Marxist term “dictatorship” isn’t what we normally understand as a dictatorship. To most people these days, the term means a nation or a state of affairs in which power is centralized in one person and people generally don’t have political freedoms. In Marxism, “dictatorship” means the economic and political domination of one class over another. Class dictatorship exists in every society with classes. Ancient Greek Republics were a dictatorship, in the Marxist sense, of slave-owning citizens. Western Europe during the Middle Ages was under the economic and political domination of the feudal aristocrats. Likewise, socialist countries are in the dictatorship of the proletariat only such that workers finally have the power to shape their own lives.

“Socialism Only Looks Good on Paper”

While socialism has only been tried twice, it has led to rapid development in both of these instances. This development not only occurred in the form of dollars, rubles, and yuan but as actual development in humanity.

The Soviet Union was the first country to experience such rapid and widespread development.

No capitalist country has achieved that level of development in so short of a time. As of now, over half of the capitalist world does not enjoy healthcare as a right. The elimination of homelessness in the USSR provides a stark contrast to the world today, where exist 70 million homeless people, mostly in capitalist countries. Furthermore, very few capitalist countries, especially in the third world, have ever tripled real income in the course of a decade-long economic transformation. The successes of the USSR show that if socialism only works on paper, capitalism only works in the minds of anti-communist wackos.

China too was highly developed under socialism. Starting out poor as current Afghanistan, socialism doubled the life expectancy, quadrupled literacy, quintupled GDP, and liberated women and minorities. While before people succumbed to diseases at a young age, the country was able to provide free, quality healthcare only a few years into socialism. The economy was out of the hands of the landlords and imperialists and into the hands of the workers in peasants who constituted the majority. Now, despite turning away from socialism in recent years, China is the second-largest economy on Earth that rivals even the imperialist west. Its successes during and after its socialist phase are the greatest example of how socialism works both on paper and in practice.

What’s further deteriorates Peterson’s argument that “socialism only works on paper” is that many of these capitalist criticisms of socialism are in fact criticisms of capitalism. A good example is this post found on Reddit.

Some even go as far as to use evidence from failing capitalist states like the U.S. and use it to critique socialism. This is not just a coincidence. Much of the right’s arguments towards socialism is that the centralization of the economy prevents competition and growth. In fact, it’s the centralization of the economy into monopoly syndicates that does the exact thing. The risk of corruption, too, comes up a fair amount in anti-socialist circles. What’s funny about that is that while socialists have purged corrupt officials, most of the capitalist world is politically dominated by a class beholden to corporate interests. All of this talk about combatting authoritarianism will remain hypocritical until the talkers join the socialist revolution.

Another ill-advised argument from the anti-communists is that nobody is going to work under socialism. In fact, it was socialist countries that eradicated unemployment before anyone else. Because of large-scale economic planning, the Soviet Union under Stalin was the first country to achieve full employment (with a 0% unemployment rate). In practice, socialism won’t make people lazy because they don’t need to work. Every able person in a socialist country is a productive member of the economy. This provides a stark contrast to capitalist countries, where thousands of homeless people are unable to create value because their employment wouldn’t make as much a profit.

Peterson doesn’t necessarily provide any evidence that socialism only works on paper. From how it worked in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the system has been proven to “work” in practice.

“Capitalism Makes Everyone Richer”

Human development makes everyone richer. Over the course of history, the quality of life has improved for everyone due to advancements in productive forces. Under the slave system, humans invented the wheel, the clay pot, and the existence of writing. It could be said that *slavery “*made everyone richer”. Feudalism “made people richer” with the development of the printing press and castle. In the same sense, capitalism “makes everyone richer” with the development of productive forces.

Peterson highlights that, under capitalism, the productive forces are developing at a rate they had never reached before.

From 1800 to 2017, income growth grew by over 40 times for production workers and 16 times for unskilled labor.

GDP rose by a factor of 0.5 from 180 CE to 1800 CE. From 180 CE to 1800 CE it was like nothing, flat. In the last 217 years, there’s been this upward movement in wealth and it doesn’t only characterize the tiny percentage of people at the top who admittedly do have most of the wealth.

The question is not only how much is the inequality the question is what’s happening to the absolutely poor at the bottom and the answer is that they’re getting richer faster now than ever before. And we’re eradicating poverty in countries that have adopted moderately free markets.

He is right on some fronts. Marx and Engels wrote that capitalism requires rapid development to stay alive (for further reading: Technology, Innovation, Growth, and Capitalism). Competition pushes capitalists to adopt more effective and profitable techniques if they wish to stay on the market. This will ultimately lead to innovation and the emergence of new technologies. If we lived in a feudal society rather than a capitalist one then people wouldn’t have the luxuries of driving cars or texting from iPhones.

Despite all that economic development and the creation of wealth, capitalism relies on the oppression of the global population to do so. As long as the economy is continued by the exploitation of labor, the situation for the oppressed masses likely won’t improve.

We cannot ignore the exploitation going on under capitalism simply because it develops productive forces. Coruscant from *Star Wars *may very well become reality if this is our belief. Despite all of the technological innovations ranging from humanoid protocol droids to planet-killing space weapons, the planet is still quite gloomy for the poor.

In a world where we let capitalism develop forever, rich people may have access to all the holograms and hyperdrive ships they want but those at the bottom still have to live in dumps and eat plankton for food, the economic system is clearly a failed one.

By centuries past, even today’s society would be considered a utopia. But for proletarians around the world, however, it’s the exact opposite of one.

Look at Syria. Imperialist development has led to the flattening of cities and the death of thousands. Now, over 8 out of 10 citizens of the country live in poverty. Is this what Peterson means by “richer”?

Look at Burkina Faso. Under socialist president Thomas Sankara , the government was able to vaccinate a majority of the children, move people out of slums, and plant millions of trees throughout the nation. After its return to capitalism, the African nation has undergone constant war and famine. 60% of the population lives in absolute poverty, and the literacy rate is one of the lowest in the world. Peterson is saying that despite all of the evidence against it, capitalism is making these people richer.

Look at America. Even workers at the imperialist core are suffering because of capitalism. Every year, tens of thousands of small businesses fall short of big corporations putting many people out of work in the process. 34 million Americans, are rent insecure, which means there is a possibility that they could become homeless at the strike of the next economic crisis. Peterson’s message probably isn’t going to reach the average person in Detroit, for example, where much of this is happening. Despite their supposed benefits from imperialist aggression, 72% of Americans think the U.S. moving in the wrong direction. There is a reason that swaths of the population vote right-wing because they are promised a return to the “good old days”. For the vast majority of Americans, a return to the good old days could only be brought about through socialism.

This isn’t to mention the environmental impacts of the current system. Because of capitalism, we have only ten years to avert catastrophe and possibly extinction. Since it is cheaper, therefore more profitable, to pollute rather than protect our planet, no large-scale initiative to protect the environment could coexist with capitalism. In places like India, smog from factories makes the air unbreathable for most citizens of course, other than the billionaires who live in air-conditioned skyscrapers. Cities around the world, including Dhaka and New Orleans, are succumbing to rising sea levels, everywhere except the walled cities of the rich. In many countries, bourgeoisie governments have failed to address, refuse to address, or outright deny the existence of a climate crisis. No matter who is elected, the system plays itself out and the globe continues to burn. Only revolution is sure to save us from the upcoming climate catastrophe.

Another possible cause of extinction this system creates is a nuclear war. It will most likely be between the imperialist powers of Russia, America, and possibly China. All three governments have already made it clear that nukes could be a very real response to aggressions made by the two others. Said aggressions only exist because imperialism makes for war. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine wouldn’t be happening if the government wasn’t in the hands of a few oligarchs. Neither would America’s constant military interventions around the world have happened had not oil and agricultural syndicates made a profit off of them. Unless the entire system is destroyed and we rid ourselves of our chains, peace cannot be achieved. Inevitably, the warlike trends of imperialism will soon go nuclear if we “let the system play itself out”, as Peterson suggests we do.

With the development of capitalism into new frontiers, these possibilities will only expand. Humanity will not survive if it undergoes so many capitalist-produced crises. If there are aliens seeking to destroy us, they will be relieved to know that we have adopted an economic system that will soon do exactly that.

With that comes the end of Peterson’s propaganda assault on Marxism. In the 30 minutes we had to listen to him, he had attempted to debunk historical materialism, ignore the merits of socialism, and justify capitalist oppression. While in Jordan’s video they seem to destroy the entire base of our movement, we see that everything he said was misinformation if not propaganda. After all, we are headed for extinction should we believe that capitalism rather than socialism will be humanity’s saving grace. We have shown that’s not true, and us having done so is a good thing. Our response washes away some of the filth he forced into the minds of proletarians around the world.

Despite everything he had to slam at our movement, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doctrine only grows stronger. Peterson and all reactionaries are simply paper tigers designed to protect the existence of capitalism and oppression. Past misinformation such as this critique, they have no substance to degrade us with. It is clear to us and it will be to them too that soon the working classes of the world will coalesce under the socialist revolution. Although socialism may be on the horizon, we must be that revolution. With reactionary paper tigers like Peterson out of the way, we can be the revolution. Everything we struggle for, from knocking on doors to debunking misinformative videos, is ultimately aimed at our revolutionary goal for the Workers of the World to Unite!