As far as the assertion of post- modernism being ‘marxism in disguise’ (forming the basis of his thesis):
⁃ Marxism was alive and well in Europe in 1961-1967 when seminal post-modern texts were written
⁃ Marxism is not taboo (unless you’re a conservative), influential philosophers alive today are Marxist—and these often have harsh criticisms of post-modernism
⁃ He claims class conflict was replaced with oppressed/oppressor. Rich vs poor is not the only tenant of marxism, otherwise not only are liberals are Marxist, but by this logic any ideology involving group conflict is Marxist, fascists who identify oppressive societal elements are Marxist, and any use of the word becomes meaningless.
⁃ Neomarxism =/= postmodernism
⁃ Rather than simply draw parallels between the two, he attributes malicious intent where there is no evidence of it, persecutionary. Uses words like ‘treacherous’ to describe historical thinkers
His critiques of Derrida and focault are factually incorrect
⁃ claims they reject science
⁃ claims that they don’t believe in the individual, when they actually say that ‘the individual subject is not a simple rationally autonomous and transparent being… Must be able to place yourself in a discursive practice’. Derrida said the subject is indispensable but needs to be situated, the issue is ‘Where it comes from, and how it functions’, (which is the question at hand about Peterson, really).
⁃ JP claims they are pro-group: Derrida himself is critical of group alligences not just because they exclude, but because any binary distinction will be sustained by its own negation. And therefore group identities are not set in stone and should be questioned.
– Focoult states identities (EG race, sexuality) are defined by the powers that discriminate against them. Power is the ability to affect society or individuals, and can be good or bad