Zizek thread

Unfortunately no.
t. Brit.

I should have just left it at providing material security and for the poor in particular, all other systems also being unequal. Shouldn’t have set the bait saying “raising people out of poverty.”

He's transphobic and racist. He's basically just a gross jorden Peterson

Attached: IMG_20190422_224508.jpg (1080x1021, 233.79K)

this, not a marxist just a vulgar pseud

Lol this was ironic. Get fucked cuck

...

Why is this board suddenly filled with trannies?

Zizek is the left's equivalent of Varg. He's weird and crazy but lovable anyways.

Attached: zizek cant believe its not butter.png (560x551, 378.99K)

Are you retarded? youtube.com/watch?v=inbGowesFcg

Stop falling for bait soyfag

None of you get zizek tbh.
He is just a grumpy old man that wants free infrastructure, healthy enviroment and a comfy society overall. He knows this can only achieved via leftwing ideas and that's all he cares.
His game is making pelople want the same thing.

...

Fuck you tranny. This isn't a safe space go back to whatever cockroach hole you crawled out from

Attached: vWp2P4r.jpg (620x311, 122.98K)

Fuck you, the only safe space is this fucking board. You're stupid ass gets triggered anytime someone comes into your hug box.

OK, but statistically you're still more likely to kill yourself before 30 so I'll just wait for nature to take its toll kek

yikes [IRONY WARNING]I'm making fun of the common lib phrase "yikes"[IRONY WARNING]

Maybe you should be his offical merch manager and penis swaddler since you’re the expert on exactly what his taint cheese tastes like.
Every faggot ever that whines about muh free speech and Zig Forums going down the drain also whines about safe spaces. I see faggots all the time on Zig Forums threads asking for people to be banned and filtered by id.

Wow! Such a likable and reasonable person.
Bet you must be driving hordes of people to the left, unlike zizek that dumb pseud.

What has zizek done to get you so mad?
And if you think he is not a good way to push people to the left tell me how it should be done.
Who

That's not an "un-marxist" thing to say, at least compared to the systems that preceded it. A modern worker has infinitely more material security than a medieval peasant, even though his life subjectively may not feel much better due to his position in the economic system. That said, "raising people out of poverty" is a stupid phrase. If you take a peasant who has never needed money in their life and dump them in an overcrowded city where they have to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop just to get by, that's "raising them out of poverty".

I'd just like to note, that neoconservatism as a theoretical position is a degenerate result of trotskyite entryism
When common people complain about being ruled by Marxists it is not a joke, it is a sincere and justified belief
Honk honk

Hahahahahahha read that in his voice, too.

There's a kind of resemblance between Trots and neocons since some of the neocons (including Christopher Hitchens) were college Trots and combining anti-Stalinism with permanent revolution can lead later in life to just identifying with liberalism and seeing your mission as spreading that everywhere. The neoconservatives of the Bush administration felt that they should launch liberal "revolutions" everywhere regardless of what the rest of the world thought; the only difference between them and the Clinton/Obama-style liberal internationalists is the latter thought it should done in a concert of allies rather than unilaterally.

But actual Trots like the Militant tendency were on the losing side of the Labour Party's battles in the 1980s.
My theory is that as an "ideology" it is a response to anti-communism, basically. Trotsky was a good military commander but had minimal impact in most of the world. But if you grow up in the imperial core then you hear your whole life that "real existing socialism" was a failure and not an option, so the tendency is to bin everything after 1917 as "not real socialism" and believe that if Trotsky hadn't gotten ice-picked then everything would have worked out – although in all likelihood the problem is with Leninism and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

I think a lot of "MLs" are kind of the mirror image of this, since they won't criticize anything about "real existing socialism." It's the "no fuck YOU and Stalin did nothing wrong and he should've killed more IMO" approach. Both are spinning their wheels.

Attached: Militant-1988-rally-stage.jpg (1000x675, 163.56K)

Libertarian Socialists are pussies lmao.

For all of you idiots confused about Zizek's approach to reform and revolution, watch the following clip:
youtube.com/watch?v=vYRJbBx7Nqk
Making modest demands is much more dangerous to the establishment than the cynical rejection of the whole system.

Trotsky was fine, moder trotskyists are shit.
There are some good trot groups too.

dont be rude, user.

Attached: 1550981944408.png (358x408, 263.23K)

All the people who are defending Žižek on the grounds that "people just don't get him" would not let that pass for someone like Peterson - but just like Peterson is Žižek an obscurantist, like so many who went down the psychoanalytic rabbit hole. He obscures his points, he constantly talks in Orwellian double speak, makes it deliberately hard for the audience to follow him, relies on jokes and resources anecdotes to make it entertaining and jumps from one topic to the other without actually finishing the train of thought for the former or providing some conclusion. His books are written in the same way.

Even the Žižek defenders in this thread can't even explain a single position of him, yes he's somehow vulgarily anti-IdPol and he doesn't like neolibs, but that's as far as the consensus goes. Even with people like Mark Fisher, who also jumped from topic to topic in Capitalist Realism are at least coherent enough that you "get" their point by the end of the book, but apparently Žižek is so fucking galaxy brained that not even the smartest people on the planet can figure out what he meant.

I guess Žižek can be useful if you want to understand some Lacan, but I wouldn't even trust this clown to break down Hegel for you. He's a clown because he became famous through lectures on YouTube that are basically stand-up comedy performances paired with maximum autism, in the Peterson debate he literally said he's been concerned with water splashing up your asshole when you take a shit. I repeat: In a debate with the topic of Marxism, capitalism and happiness which had a globally tending top ten Twitter hashtag and was watched all over the world he talked about how he got involved into thinking about toilet water splashing up your asshole when you take a shit. People made fun of Peterson when he said "you're a strange Marxist" but in fact Peterson wasn't even wrong here. Žižek has barely refuted anything Peterson said about the Manifesto, in fact he said he "totally agrees", constantly spouts anti-communist bullshit, believes in Solzhenitsyn and thinks we need to "regulate the world market".

His fans will go out of their way to defend him, which often isn't even dishonest but simply delusional because Žižek deliberately obscures his points, so when you like him or hate him you can make anything out of him: A staunch ML, a Leftcom, a fascist, a Trot, a liberal, a SocDem, etc. - people thought that the introduction of his talk against Peterson with China was somehow a praise of China; seriously, what levels of delusion are you on? At this point he's become a burden for the left, all he does is to make the left look humorously autistic, take that as you will.

And fuck the IdPol radlibs who think he's racist or whatever, but Žižek did have some pretty fucking reactionary takes lately. In the Neue Züricher Zeitung he wrote an article in German how feminism is bad because he can't jerk off to it.

Attached: IMG_20190303_161401.jpg (1112x731, 57.8K)

honestly just read a fucking book, start with Violence

Žižek cultists defend him because they want to see le ebin sniff man to trigger the libs, but even as that, if you really did down to it, his ideas are actually really fucking mainstream.

He's pro-refugees but thinks they are different and there should be a limit.

He's for some mild regulation of the global market.

He thinks 20th century communism was an absolute failure and tragedy.

I could expand this list endlessly, these are all pretty lukewarm liberal positions that you can easily find in most center-left parties in the West, his whole "the most dangerous philosopher" image is because he's calling himself a communist and makes "racist jokes".

Zizek is obvious some kind of Communist if you read his published works, but he is definitely not an orthodox Marxist. Zizek is a Eurocommunist, an authoritarian social-democrat. Stalinoid (though not Stalinist). Basically his tendency is analogous to Chavismo and the Latin American pink wave.

If you want to know his actual politics, him talking about Columbia is revealing: m.youtube.com/watch?v=CyHjCZr5O68

Lol. You don't need to be galaxybrained to understand Zizek. Plenty of people in this thread have explained Zizek's very concrete position on this question: >>2872399 .

he's the Alex Jones of Communism. He is litteraly a CIA shill who was a liberal who supported the collapse of Yugoslavia then rebranded himself into a the character of a whacky celebrity clown communist who looks kinda retarded and eccentric and drops hot takes about society like a groyper gaming account who is promoted and shilled everywhere all the time

wow that is so weird self contradictory seriousness and retarded. He's not a paid shill at all but a very deep thinker and philospher.

This is not a thing it has never been a thing because it's retarded. Its self contradictory special snowlakism and clownism which nobody should take seriously.

Based. Zizekfags can go fuck themselves.

I corrected that statement almost immediately. See—>

I acknowledged it was a poorly contstructed bait statement and that I was probably baiting myself. Guess I really can predict the future.

And sure it’s not an Unmarxist thing to say as far as Marx’s analysis and critique of capitalism goes. But to say Zizek is Marxist, that wouldn’t be a true statement.

Just refer to this. Honestly the only post on this thread you need to read. Save yourself the time and just refer to —>

yfw Jordan Peterson and Zizek become best friends and form a new ideological and political movement based on both of their ideas the Honk Honk Clown Party

I think Peterson framed it that way in the debate as bait to argue the numbers. It could have been easy to dunk on him with statistics about inflation and real poverty per capita increasing under capitalism as assets are privatized while industry builds up but its a much harder argument to make plebs understand in a spoken format alone and will just see conflicting data and try to both sides it. Sidestepping and pointing out that Marx agreed that capitalism is a necessary stage of development towards communism brings the discussion back to a historical perspective.

Zizek did this the whole debate where he framed things in marxist terms and then had Peterson agree with him while constantly hinting that he should just read marx.

Attached: 0QkJXhJ.jpg (1536x557, 221.76K)

He should just read what Zizek brought up in the debate. Critique of the gotha program, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and the civil war in france.
Literally, just that.

I like you.

He never really defended nor critiqued marxian economics at all though, did he? Discussed anything related at all?? I mean he loosely alluded to a few things, Marx’s writings on capitalism for one, sure. He never gave a defense of the communist manifesto, nor the muh gorillions meme, after Peterson’s intro. He kinda just lukewarm agreed with Peterson on just about everything and sprinkled his own mixed brand of autism on top of it. In my humble personal opinion, I think you’re giving Zizek way too much credit for something he didn’t really do. I definitely did not see that angle while watching the debate. I don’t think he was/is the spokesperson for Marxism in the way you want him to be. I mean I think you just mentioned more theory in that post than Zizek did the entire circle jerk. If anything you should just kick Zizek out the door altogether and be the messenger yourself.

He's a fucking fraud, he only appeals to young white men just like Peterson. No wonder the faggots on this board love him.

Fraudulent what? Marxist? Political thinker and philosopher altogether? I’m a young white male, neither of them appeal to me, and I’ve never worshipped Zizek as the poster boy for Marxism. Could you be so kind as to elaborate your thoughts?

Anyone noticed how the number of anti zizek posters has surged after the debate?
We are either being psyoped or some angry purists just engaged in self hate and envy when a slightly unorthodox leftist figure got under the spotlight.
or both

No, I'm not taking his tendency in abstraction, but in reference to real movements in history, past and present. What Zizek advocates isn't based on abstract principles, but on actually existing practice in the present, which he looks at soberly without illusion - he knows that these people aren't transforming capitalism, so he admits it.

Zizek is a pink wave Eurocommunist. All of the organizations he supports in the video are all either literally are (such as Sryzia and Podemos) or are products of (latin prink wave) Eurocommunism, which is just Social-Democracy draped in red. It's obvious that Zizek isn't an outright Stalinist, but his Popular Frontist Eurocommunism (both of which backed and were backed by the Stalinized USSR), the willingness to collaborate with bourgeois elements (especially with the state as it currently exists), is at the very least *Stalinistic*, therefore "Stalinoid". He openly professes the need for terror and advocates electoral means to get Leftists into power, together, in the video, advocating for (which is already happening by the way, again existing practice not abstract principle) for alliances between Left parties in power with existing organs of state power, the police and the military, ergo "authoritarian social-democracy". Hell, his belief in adherence to some "Master" (read: charismatic dictator-figure) is very Chavismo.

While I disagree with Zizek's positions, people attacking him in principle are ignoring that, for Marxists, there are no abstract principles that exist outside of history, but that the programme for socialist strategy emerges from conditions understood in practice. The way we address tendencies ignore the meaning of the term, as something you tend towards, in the context of a broader movement; tendencies aren't based on abstract principles but on a set of common beliefs within an existing movement.

All I read was Honk* Honk*

He's a fraudulent "leftist" in general let alone a marxist. Guy is a trojan horse for a lot of reactionary shit smuggled in a "leftist" veneer.

qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/wielding-clubs-guns-and-chainsaws.html?m=1

Nah I've always been here, I also shit up your threads about bookchin and one big US military base in Syria.

LOL, same. Just copy pasta that whole text

Also I can’t stop hearing the word tendency over and over in my head in zizek’s voice and it’s making me want to kill my brain.

Pop-Frontism is petty-bourgeois nonsense that collapses the political independence of the Left to anti-social elements and the electoral tactic of taking and maintain power through the bourgeois state will lead to the defeat of the Left, as bourgeois power will be consolidated and Leftist politicians in positions of power will have to make decisions that undermine popular support. All this will lead to will be mass disillusionment and the affirmation of a new fascism.

If you want to see were this kind of strategy leads to look at Venezuela, Greece, and Brazil. A country in crisis, Leftists doing the very thing they fought against, and an imperialist-fascist government. Zizek's pessimism blinds his own de facto optimism, tailing behind spontaneous movement rather than driving the movement forward. At least, unlike many of the so-called Left today, he is open and explicit about his actual politics.

what I said was
everything else ("Stalinoid" "Chavismo" etc) are all historical qualifiers

Not sure if it’s my self-diagnosed misophonia speaking but when he talks, it makes me want to stab babies and myself in the ears van gogh style simultaneously. I honestly would rather listen to Jordan Peterson speak for the rest of my life than ever hear him again and that’s a pretty edge-tier take, I’m aware. Even if his views were objectively the coolest and the dankest and he was the best there ever was, I wouldn’t be able to be on board him for even like .2 seconds, lmao. I unironically would rather he spoke in sign language and someone translated for him out loud. There’s nothing cute or loveable about that oaf.

I was under the impression that Zizek keeps his powerlevel in check whenever he's addressing an audience consisting of normal people.

I don't like empty criticism of Zizek's positions. His positions are symptoms of a more general illness. Positions on policy are only a means to an end, and what matters are the two questions: "To what ends?" and "Do the means lead to these ends?". The problem is that Zizek can never qualify the prior because he refuses to address the latter.

The problem with Zizek is the very basis of his understanding of politics - "the point is not to attempt to change the world, but to think about it". The fact of the matter is that theory is oriented by practice, theory without practice does the opposite of what theory is supposed to do. Rather than theory orienting practice, theory without practice is the same as practice without theory, "practice" as it currently exists orients theory. This "practice" is in effect just tailism, being swamped in the present rather than looking to the future. This can all be seen what Zizek says after Peterson couldn't respond with the names of actual Marxists - Zizek refers to two of his academic friends, Jameson and Harvey. To Zizek, authentic Marxism is made not through political practice but in obscure academic journals. So Zizek just dismisses Leftists on the ground because he refuses to see anything in terms of practice.

Zizek's very own pessimism obscures his own real optimism. His utopian dreaming of some future society, which places the social revolution into some distant world apart, means that there can be no revolution, only gradual incremental reforms. The problem is that he intuitively grasps this failure, understands that to reorient the Left needs the highest scientific theory, but refuses to connect theory with practice - so for Zizek there can never be a solution. All that he can do is cry about the excesses of political correctness rather than to really confront problems as they face the existing Left.

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (365x363, 39.94K)

liar

I know this is shallow, but can we finally get to the bottom of the mystery concerning his nervous tics?
It reminds me of tourettes, a bad reaction to medication, or a reaction to cocaine use.

...

retarded newfags

Reposting Zizek on NATO intervention:
idcommunism.com/2017/03/an-apologist-of-imperialism-slavoj.html

"Thus the worst anti-Serbian nationalist stands closer to Tito's legacy than the present Belgrade regime, which maintains itself, in the face of all "secessionists," as the legitimate and legal successor of the former Yugoslavia.
It Was Serbian Aggression Alone, and Not Ethnic Conflict, That Set off the War."

"So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to Clinton not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our…), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnavalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With poetry and music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying heroes (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets and that, consequently, they are safe!). This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social life…"

"even I did show some understanding for the NATO bombing of ex-Yugoslavia. Sorry, but this bombing did stop a terrible conflict. Some kind of humanitarian effort was perceivable, and the action had some kind of international legitimacy."

"So, precisely as a Leftist, my answer to the dilemma "Bomb or not?" is: not yet ENOUGH bombs, and they are TOO LATE."

"Yeah, but again, when a regime … revolution … legitimizes itself by this reference to suffering as you see, ‘even our economic decay proves our greatness,’ this is a very sad situation, which is why if I make a remark, which sounds maybe tasteless, but I think it’s deeply tragic … In psychoanalysis, we call this reference to renunciation ‘symbolic castration.’ So basically the regime’s legitimization was legitimization which … or fidelity to castration. Well, no wonder the leader was called Fidel Castro."
youtube.com/watch?v=fMjGxg4Dq34

you know he's fucking joking, right?

wow, he really comes out as unambiguously fascist in those quotes. what a piece of shit.

...

Zig Forums must have ruined your irony senses.

kys brainlet

Zizek is analyzing things through historical material dialectic all of his examples and jokes compare and contrast ideological ways to view the same material reality changing over time. The whole point of his shock character is to demonstrate ideological differences.

All of his criticism of neoliberalism and impotent moralization was a direct attack at Peterson's way of viewing the world. Peterson agrees because he agrees with the static snapshot of the conclusion but doesn't recognize that the process of getting there is "doing Marxism" because he thinks it means gulags and doesn't think of himself as a liberal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_affirmation

I've noticed a lot of people like Peterson don't recognize something, I'm not sure how to call it, but its present in debates on race, Autism Level, climate, economy etc

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms#Valid_propositional_forms

Modus ponens

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

Modus tollens

If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A.

Hypothetical syllogism
If A, then B
If B, then C
Therefore if A, then C

They just shutdown when you try to get them from A->C
If you say something has multiple factors or could be historically dependent they just reply "NO! A->B" and then point to a static snapshot of reality as they interpret it as proof they are correct

He's an idealist, so he is definitely not using the material dialectic.

no. and if you read zizek in little paragraphs youve seen on the internet, you wont know if he's taking a position he doesn't actually believe himself. zizek is a fan of taking other people's logic to their end, in order to show their absurdity.

Anyone have a running theory on this yet?

so what's this then

amazing how the zizek cultists are throwing a tantrum now that everyone else realizes he's full of shit. funny how this has happened after more Zig Forums posters were convinced to actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. idealists, your days are numbered

bells palsy

ok bud

you get to choose, that's what makes this fun

This thread just reinforces the well-known fact that people who hate Zizek are some of the most bitter, anti-fun fucks on the internet.

the liberals are the worst.

youtube.com/watch?v=_tt8zpTwFSk is so cringey but he owns her hard so its worth it

Fun is a buzzword.

Zizek isn't perfect as a leftist, and he's the first to acknowledge that. He's been trying to advance leftist thought for the past 30 years or so, and he's done a good job at developing a cultural critique that can be digested to the point of memes on facebook groups. He's never going to be the leader of the next revolutionary force, and that's okay, but the fact that he's the most recognizable marxist today is a sorry condemnation on the current state of the movement. The man clearly enjoys reveling in the poverty of philosophy and we should let him.

Thanks for proving my point. Not sure why you used "burger" as an insult though as your defining feature seems to be a schizophrenic hyper-obsession with the concept of race, which is also the defining feature of mainstream American politics and culture. Even if you weren't born here, you're more American than me.

...

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (312x499, 168.45K)

I bet you're the kind of Cuck that thinks Stalin was bad

It just means he is too high Autism Level for you to understand. Neither communism nor socialism are dogmatic ideologies but are instead materialist and don't have to fall in line with an infallible dogma.

Humour is a coping mechanism.

Jesus Christ this thread is filled with Kahinafags & Radlibs and you almost can't tell the difference between them lmao

Everything in that blog made me appreciate Zizek more. Not a Marxist? He's being punished precisely for framing it as an economic class issue.

Well sheesh user, I guess I totally missed the boat on that one. But thanks. Would have been a lot more blatant/plain to follow if I saw this in writing, to be fair. It felt like 90% of the time I was listening to him jump around making points and telling anecdotes, I was semi-confused and then going back and attempting to fill in the blanks based on the conclusion. That’s why it appeared to me more like plain aggreement than subtle nuance in following a train of thought. Felt more so like I was constantly trying to deduce how A and B related to C rather than the opposite. At the very least closed captioning could have been considered before hosting a Kermit the frog v a guy who can’t pronounce his own last name without showering you in his spit? Just throwing that out there for the next host

t. CIA

He's just an anxious fuck.

His point is that instead of encouraging tolerance, we should search for the actual goal of racism, the obfuscation of class struggle. At least this is what I heard from him in other places.