Jordan Peterson WRONG On 'Profit Is Theft'

Reacting to a Jordan Peterson video called "Marxism Debate: Is Profit Theft?", uploaded on his official channel. Peterson lies and attributes the phrase "profit is theft" to Marx despite offering nothing that supports this claim. Then painfully describes how hard it is to be successful in business, like that is some how relevant to Marx or profit being theft. He then goes on to bash the idea of a proletarian revolution.
@JordanBPeterson
#jordanpeterson #marxism #marxist #karlmarx #capitalism #profit

[SupremeGrand-MasterAzrael]

I'm curious what your position is regarding how "value" is determined. This is the my first watch on this channel and I haven't finished the video yet and will delete this question if it is answered later on.
Suppose a factory worker operates a machine that produces iron nails. How would you determine the value of the labor the worker provides? You said at around 3 minutes that profit is exploitative. What if you sell a product for more than the value of the labor that produced it? That seems like profit without exploitation to the worker at the very least. None of this matters though, if we cannot determine the value of something. What a worker is paid in a "capitalist" system is based upon the supply of labor relative to demand for said labor. Thus surgeons are paid more than construction workers. Because there is more demand for surgeons than there are surgeons to provide service. In a communist system, how would you determine any of this without supply and demand? What should a communist surgeon be paid for their "labor"? (surgeons are valued for their knowledge and expertise not for their physical labor) Because the "labor" of gaining such expertise is only done a single time. You do not have to perform that labor for each surgery. And a surgery is far less physically demanding then digging holes or pouring concrete.

To summarize my questions into a concise list:
How do you determine value in a communist system both of products and labor independently of supply and demand?
How do you ensure the supply of labor for a given field meets demand in such a system without the incentive of greater wealth?
Assuming you can determine value properly, how do you enforce these determinations?
Who is responsible for enforcing them in such a system?
My final question is far less academic in nature. Why do you support the ideas of Karl Marx about economics when there is nothing to suggest Marx was competent in the field?
Marx was routinely in dire financial situations and was in debt almost his entire adult life, despite a large allowance from his father until his fathers death. Despite the wealth of his wife of noble birth and his and his wife's inheritances. Marx was only ever educated in philosophy, not economics. Why should I support ideas about economics from a man who clearly did not understand them? As his history of financial strife and constant debt seem to suggest. Marx was unemployed more of his life than he wasn't by a vast degree so how would he know anything at all about the plight of the average worker?
I hope you can find the time to discuss what I have said here as you seem like an intelligent person and I know very little about your stances on any of this.
Edit: I can't stand Peterson and appreciate that take downs of that whiney sponge of a person are awesome regardless of whether I fully agree or not. Got to excited to ask questions and forgot to thank you lol

[nicholasmccune]

Love that you hide your face so you dont get exposed because u know the truth.

[InfiniteHarbinger]

1) The analysis of the "worker being paid less than they produce is a form of exploitation" is fundamentally wrong. Workers do not provide their own materials, tools nor liability should an enterprise fail.
2) Assigning a value judgement to the word theft is correct but pretending that the word exploitation doesn't is absurd. In fact, the term exploitation is a stronger term implying a power dynamic as opposed to a crime of opportunity.
3) Technology does not "squeeze more labor out of workers" it makes things more efficient which is the opposite. It is a force multiplier not in and of itself exploitative.
4) Communist/Marxist countries are notorious for corruption. There isn't a single communist state in history that wasn't rife with it.
5) The communist/Marxist system requires some form of economy AKA a market. Thus prices must be set and who would do that other than the state?
6) So Marx predicates a system that he doesn't know will function and assumes that workers have an intrinsic understanding of market supply demand and the entire process of bringing goods to market? That's a half baked premise at best.
7) Communism has consistently failed to meet people's basic sustenance needs.
8) People under communism still experience economic pressures.
9) You entirely miss the point of Dostoevsky his premise is that people need outlets and focus and many find that in work. Work is something evident in people's identities. It's one of the first things we ask about people. "what do you do for work?"
10) Marx was influential, you're correct on that. His ideology is one of the most destructive forces humanity has ever encountered.
11) How does Marxism add to the human race? Every regime instituting his ideology invariably leads to repression and control.