NOTE: I no longer support using the term 'neo-Marxism' to describe this ideology. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.
Jordan Peterson and Natalie Wynn are two of the most influential figures today in the online political discourse, as I discussed a while back in my episode about Cults Of Personality. Furthermore, Natalie's video on Jordan Peterson had a lot of views, and was often used to so-called 'debunk' Peterson by the left. It would be interesting to hear what Peterson may have to say on the things Natalie said in that video.
Natalie stated in the video that this cannot represent a coherent concept, because postmodernism is skeptical of grand narratives of history, and Marxism has a grand narrative of history. Jordan Peterson has not satisfactorily responded to this point so far, in my opinion. However, I think that Natalie's simple view of the matter is also missing something. I have actually been thinking about this quite a lot in the past year. At first, I sort of defended Peterson, because many people seem to know quite well what he means by the term, even if it may be technically incorrect. I also remember seeing a left-wing professor say they sort of agree that what Peterson describes is a thing, even if the terminology may not be correct. But of course, this wouldn't be a good enough way to settle it. So I kept thinking.
In April this year, the concept was again revisited during the Peterson vs Zizek debate, where Peterson mentioned something about Foucault but Zizek simply stated the fact that Foucault was not a Marxist, thus apparently winning the argument. But this really didn't resolve anything. At that time, I made another video, explaining that while Foucault was definitely post-Marxist, there are plenty of contemporary self-identified Marxists who nonetheless use Foucauldian ideas in their activism, and even attempt to reconcile Foucault and Marx. I wondered if Peterson meant to describe these particular people with the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', which would sort of make sense. I don't think Natalie has ever addressed the existence of this faction of the New Left, and how Peterson's term might apply to them. Still, this doesn't resolve whether the term itself could be correct or not.
Even more recently, I came to have an alternative hypothesis: that perhaps neo-Marxism was supposed to mean critical theory. The use of this terminology has precedent even among academics; I mean, I have seen sociology textbooks describe critical theory as 'neo-Marxism'. Or perhaps Peterson was referring to the conflict theory of sociology as a whole, which overlaps quite a lot with critical theory. It would be reasonable to describe conflict theory as neo-Marxism, because it was basically rooted in Marxism, even though it is applied to many cultural matters. Either way, because neither critical theory nor conflict theory are necessarily tied to the Marxist grand narrative of history, the incompatibility with postmodernism raised by Natalie is gone. Thus, 'postmodern critical theory' is indeed a thing. There is no inherent compatibility between the ideas of people like Foucault and Derrida on one hand, and critical theory or conflict theory on the other hand. If Peterson agrees that this is how he uses the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', it would be sound.
In her video, Natalie raised the possibility that Peterson could be confused about the wide variation of views in left-wing politics, and hence lumped conflicting ideologies together. This suspicion isn't entirely without ground, seeing how right-leaning people often misunderstand the left, and vice versa. However, if 'postmodern neo-Marxism' is indeed defined the way I suggested, that is, it means either postmodern critical theory or postmodernism-inspired conflict theory, then so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists' would represent only a faction of the wider left, and certainly wouldn't include most Democrats, old-school leftists, and the like. With this precise definition, it also becomes practical to mount a sound critique of so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists', based on a critique around things like social construction theory, structure vs agency, moral relativism, the biological determinants of human nature, the potential paranoia around cultural hegemony, the wisdom of tradition, and the like. This critique wouldn't apply to, and would indeed be entirely separate from, the beliefs of people like Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, Bret Weinstein and Sam Harris, even if they are generally considered quite left-wing. On the other hand, it would apply very well to some of the politics we see on college campuses today. This would make 'postmodern neo-Marxism' a valid and useful concept indeed.
