Unpacking Jordan Peterson's Misunderstanding of Karl Marx: Why His Criticisms Fall Short

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist and cultural critic who has gained significant popularity in recent years for his outspoken criticisms of progressive politics and what he views as the dangers of left-wing ideology. One of the topics that Peterson has frequently addressed in his public lectures and interviews is Karl Marx and Marxist theory. However, it is apparent from his comments and critiques of Marx that he has not fully grasped the nuances of Marx's ideas and has likely not given the Communist Manifesto a thorough reading. Here are several points to support this argument:

Firstly, Peterson frequently refers to Marx's concept of the "class struggle" as evidence of his belief that Marx's philosophy is founded on a simplistic and reductionist view of human nature. However, this criticism ignores the fact that Marx's understanding of class struggle is far more complex and multifaceted than Peterson acknowledges. Marx believed that class struggle was an inherent aspect of capitalist society, but he also recognized that the struggle between classes was not the only driving force of historical change. Peterson's characterization of Marx as a one-dimensional thinker who reduces everything to a simple dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the complexity of Marx's ideas.

Secondly, Peterson often argues that Marx's ideas are responsible for the atrocities committed by communist regimes in the 20th century. While it is true that many communist regimes have committed terrible acts of violence and oppression, it is unfair and inaccurate to blame these atrocities solely on Marx's ideas. In fact, Marx believed that a socialist society could only be achieved through the democratic participation of the working class. The violence and oppression that occurred in communist regimes were often the result of factors such as historical circumstances, geopolitical conflicts, and the actions of specific leaders, rather than an inherent flaw in Marxist theory.

Thirdly, Peterson frequently misrepresents Marx's ideas in his critiques. For example, he often refers to Marx's concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as evidence of his belief that Marx's ideas are fundamentally authoritarian. However, Marx's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not meant to be a totalitarian regime in which the working class oppresses other classes. Rather, it referred to a transitional phase between capitalism and socialism in which the working class would take control of the means of production and create a democratic society that would eventually wither away as class distinctions disappeared.

Fourthly, Peterson has demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the Communist Manifesto itself. In a 2018 interview with journalist Cathy Newman, he claimed that the Manifesto was "absolutely bloody obvious" and that he had "already understood it when [he] was 18 years old." However, his subsequent comments revealed a lack of understanding of the Manifesto's contents. For example, he argued that the Manifesto advocates for the abolition of private property, which is a common misinterpretation of Marx's ideas. In fact, Marx believed in the abolition of private property as it existed under capitalism, but he also recognized the importance of personal property and the need for workers to have control over the means of production.

In conclusion, Jordan Peterson's criticisms of Karl Marx and Marxist theory are based on a flawed understanding of Marx's ideas and a lack of familiarity with his texts. While it is certainly valid to critique Marxist theory and its practical applications, it is important to do so in a manner that accurately represents the ideas being critiqued. Peterson's misrepresentations of Marx's concepts and ideas do a disservice to the broader intellectual debate surrounding Marxism and its relevance in the modern world.