Holy Shit I didn't know Zizek was such a Liberal!

youtube.com/watch?v=U7JgfB8PaAk

He claims that all forms of leftism are bankrupt - and communism is as "bad" as the others, and it was actually socdems who got it right, meanwhile it allowed for all advancement of labour to exist in the first place that ever happened in the world.

Even worse - he claims that fucked up Neoliberal mass migration is great - and goes as far as claiming Angela Merkel is a great and visionary politician for ignoring the opinion of majority to set up said mass migration in Europe.

Holy shit. I never knew that meme spitting man is just another Radlib lapdog. I guess I should have seen it coming simply due to him being promoted in Mass Media.

Attached: pa-11126552_0.jpg (1180x585, 212.44K)

Other urls found in this thread:

qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/introducing-zizeks-mule.html?m=1
qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/wielding-clubs-guns-and-chainsaws.html?m=1
huffpost.com/entry/is-the-us-military-a-soci_b_252526
247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/103782/Contents/Is-the-US-Military-a-form-of-Socialism-72163126/
medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialist-model-already-thriving-in-the-united-states-the-u-s-military-40b31c9d2d9a
chinafile.com/library/nyrb-china-archive/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao
mercatornet.com/features/view/maria-yudina-the-woman-who-killed-stalin/21530
nytimes.com/1988/04/14/world/soviet-ends-silence-on-stalin-wife-s-suicide.html
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007758296336330753?lang=en

Mass migration is a painful topic, IMO. It supports egalitarian shifts in global wealth distribution. It also enriches a lot of people who are already stupidly rich and absolutely are intentionally exploiting people.

Why do I feel like I'm going to watch this, and be mad at how out of context you took it?

Zizek is a stupid liberal, but migration is good you idiot labor aristocrat nationalist scum.

This comment from the video sums it up perfectly

Why? It's mostly the young and educated who already had it better than most in their countries who move to the first world to have it even better, leaving the poorer in their country who financed their education stuck in a braindrained shithole. They are opportunists and deeply reactionary as they "made it by themselves".

It is, indeed, an important topic to discuss, just to expose Neoliberal hypocrisy and smoke and mirrors contained in it.

You simply need to ask - who benefits? Not native Labour, not the migrants, and certainly not the 3rd world states - which only become more ruined. Only the capitalists and corporations at the fault of everyone above mentioned.
The only ones who actually helped the 3rd world was the Soviet Union - it created Islamic Socialist block, it educated specialists for 3rd world countries and industrialized them - now that was an egalitarian shift, not a Neoliberal bullshit.

Well, how so, then?

How do they not benefit?

I suppose they do in some very short term way, until their employers garnish the wages and labour rights, with them being the vanguard of the reserve army of labour

I mean yeah, that is a bad thing, but what does that have to do with immigration? Is this a good thing when it happens to the native population?

It gives employers an effectively limitless edge over the Labour, limited only by the amount of said immigration

Yep, and he's absolutely right. The left is complete shit in the west.
I have no idea where you got this from. Do you mean when he said that the 20th century is over and communism failed? Unless you've been in a coma for 30 years this should be obvious.
Not what he said at all. He said he agreed with *how* Merkel acted, no what she actually did. He claims that the majority is not always right, and the mark of a good leader is to be able to go against popular will to do what needs to be done.

Which isn't a fault of ideas, but rather a stranglehold of the ruling class that he himself is serving to, directly or indirectly. A revolution can only happen at times of collapse and disorganisation of the state.

The failure of Communism is no different to the failure of Revolutionary France. It is a temporary defeat, a period of reaction. Zizek himself adopts a Euro"communist" stance in general. He rejects communism and adopts nihilism. "Welp, since communism doesn't work and there is nothing else that works, there's just nothing we can do other than for one welcome our capitalist overlords"

Really?

Okay, whatever? The modern left is shit. Period.
Why do you lie like this? Watch the last two minutes again.

Yes, really. You even transcribed it, how fucking stupid are you?

Do I really? This is fucking literally what he is saying!!!

It obviously is not everything he implies, but most certainly one of the things he does.

Premise: The modern left is shit and cannot do anything about capitalism
Conclusion: We need a new left to do something about capitalism
Durrrr?

Yep, don't act, just think. In other words, be passive, do not engage in practice, do not try to change the world, do not be Marxist.

No.

No, in other words, (this is obviously from another video) don't try to alleviate the symptoms of capitalism, develop of a theory of transcending capitalism.

Go read an actual Zizek book. He's known for continuing Badiou's stance of "not giving up on communism".

...

Who is Zizek

Oh he's some guy who calls himself a communist from Slovenia? Well, someone should probably tell him the Cold War is over and the Berlin Wall fell – what a loser!

Perhaps, it is, indeed, a matter of greater context and interpretation. Still, what is the message of this video in practice regarding theory? Marxism is unfit, Communism is obsolete action against capitalism is impossible - temporarily - but there is nothing more permanent than temporary.

On s sideline, Liberal Representative Republic is the greatest thing there is, and woke Liberal Leaders are stunning, brave and wise.

The purpose of the video, and other videos and talks he does on large liberal platforms (his platform should always be considered when discussing the context), is provoking liberals into more radical positions.

brainlet OP btfo by NUANCE and GOOD FAITH

He literally said nothing wrong. Tankies are just buthurt.

He used the forbidden S-word

S-word?

st*linism

He literally repeats all the anticommunist propaganda that you see everywhere in the west, he just helps manufacture consent from his "communist" standpoint.

t. no arguments
he says literally nothing wrong or anti-communist.

He's an anti-materialist psuedo intellectual promoted by and for the liberal establishment.

What exactly did you expect?

He repeats what's true.

So is technically most of what is on cnn. Propaganda is mosrly how you present it and what you chose to talk about in the first place. There is a reason he is on fucking vice etc.

But tell me what did he say wrong? It's not like Marxism Leninism has proven itself successful. In the west they are hated for propaganda reasons. In east opinions about Marxism Leninism are very mixed and differ from country to country, and they have good reasons for that. Answer me this: do you honestly believe there some kind of future for Marxism Leninism outside maybe of Greece and India?

Scorching take. Is it because he reads Hegel?

So now Zizek is an anticommunist because of saying the truth about the wrong things? Or presenting it wrong? What does it say about your conception of communism when it cannot face realism?
Consider that perhaps you're a retarded baby and prefer to be comforted by some shitty 'time-honoured' orthodoxies than face up to the material conditions you inhabit

Yes his reading of Hegel has something to do with it. He explicitly attempts to stand Marxist materialism on its head and reconstruct a neoliberal idealist dialectic.

Oh damn you said 'explicitly, time to source me up fam.

To be fair, Vice from 5 years ago was very different from today.

More than eurocommunism. It actually did get pretty far and the correct approach is to develop something successful further by adapting it like cockshott does and not desperately try to distance yourself from it because muh authoritarianism offends his western liberal audience.

He is not realistic. He distorts (former) socialist nation to fit this dystopian caricature while embellishing the west as something far better than it is. Regardless the point of PR is to achieve a goal and he clearly is furthering those of the liberal middle and ruling class. Only an idiot would believe that he just wants to find out truth.

I mean just go read Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism and Absolute Recoil: Towards a New Foundation of Dialectical Materialism. What I said is basically the whole thesis of both these books. Theyre also utter garbage so excuse me if I don't feel like quoting them or even disusing them.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (645x729, 105.45K)

k

Nice image you got there. Shame it's not an argument.

proof other than your hurt feelings?
so clear you're unable to muster any evidence or argument for it?

Word salad devoid of evidence or reasoning doesn't merit arguments pseudo-leftist

It only appears to be word salad because you're illiterate m8.

It collapsed under it's own weight, and look what's there now. We have rise of fascism with eastern European characteristics. It utterly failed at giving a socialist alternative to liberal capitalism. Calling Cockshott a Marxist-Leninist is going too far. He at the end of TANS rejects the Leninist party structure and it stance on ruling society. I'm not saying Euro communism is the future. It is less so than Marxism Leninism.

Attached: 8CB10A51-F4E7-4FF0-AC4C-AE3937E8F29E.jpeg (900x635, 78.04K)

It may not be word salad, but he's right you didn't present an argument, just a postulate

Another thread by an angry tankie who misinterprets something and doesn't read.

Yes that's true I wasn't making an argument but simply trying to answer a question. If you want the full argument I suggest you read the attached pdf particularly chapter 2: Materialism without Materialism: Slavoj Žižek and the disappearance of Matter by Adrian Johnston.

zLiZeK iS bAnKrUpT

But Marx did read Hegel too, that does not mean he was an idealist, you can read Hegel and be a marxist, like Marx and Zizek.

Reading Hegel does not in and of itself make you an idealist. Reading Hegel and not understanding or being unwilling to understand that his version of the dialectic is precisely upside down does make you an idealist and also makes you not a Marxist (as is the case of Žižek)

Okay so I read that chapter now. The author doesn't seem to even vaguely imply what you're claiming Zizek's position is. There's a lot of psychoanalytic lingo in the book that I don't understand, but as far as I understood, he's not (and definitely not "explicitly") an idealist. He calls for a return to Hegel, to study Hegel's idealism to improve on our materialism.

Attached: 59613-004-FF09F9D8.jpg (720x301, 77.64K)

Althusser proves that there are still idealist elements in Marx. Zizek proves that Hegel at times is more materialist than Marx is.

Go read a fucking book.

do we just call everybody a liberal once they say something we dont like?

The author is very generous to Žižek but still does a good job outlining how he distorts dialectical materialism and is anti-Leninist based on bad misunderstandings of modern math and QT. "Pushing Idealism to its limits" is about as explicit as you can get with Žižek and the question you should generally ask is for what purpose would you do that if not to justify doing what he does in the OP which I can only describe as manufacturing consent and philosophical justification for neoliberal *anti-communist* institutions and policies. If you disagree then please offer some other rationalization for why a supposed Marxist would praise Angela Merkel and never seems to point out that her "courageous" policy towards refugees was only ever necessary in the first place because of the imperialist nature of the west including the EU.


I take issue with your second sentence and haven't found anything within Žižek's writing that would substantiate that claim. If I am wrong please point me to where I could find it I'll be happy to read.

it used to be trotskyist but that doesn't have as much of a bite these days

He's not just liberal, he is a fascist.

What uneducated retards spread this meme in Zig Forums that only the bouj benefit from immigration
Migrants tend to occupy blue-collar professions this benefits both the employers (who tend to be both large capitalist and petit bouj fags) but also the consumers, that’s why migrant artisans make a living even in xenophobic states
Now that in the long-term is bad as you said but saying it has no benefits is incorrect

Well migrants don’t leave their states only from themselves
Many leave with their families and immigrant children tend to have it better than their parents
Not as good as the average native child but still have "a better" future
Migration does help the state of origin sometimes (but still brain drain is a negative)
See southern europe after ww2

Now i live in a shithole but i decided to stay here and fight for a better future and yes socialism will make things better from everyone

Attached: 0491594171b4732f8d34c46c832fff89500f432280ebd4952e809f8256972502.jpeg (640x870, 199.41K)

Taking OP seriously here is very dishonest. He has been proven wrong on every point he tried to make about this video.
As I pointed out to OP, he did not praise Merkel for what she did, but how she did it. He used Merkel as an example of a leader who went against the general will of the people and retroactively gained support for her policies.
But he does point out the imperialist origin of the refugee crisis in many of his talks.

Only in the same "very short term way" that every single worker benefits from having a job.
If you're arguing for a universal strike then I'm in agreement, but you seem to be making a false distinction between immigrant labor and non-immigrant labor.

Are you intentionally reading his statement in bad faith or are you actually just retarded/not paying attention?
He doesn't praise angela merkel, he explicitly says he is 'on her side in the very precise sense' wherein he supports the on principle that it is sometimes of great importance that decisions be made regardless of whether they have majority support, that democracy should not be fetishised as sacred or infallible, that it should be ignored. This is an entirely leninist and bolshevik insight that liberal ideology oftentimes abhors.
Your indignation at an endorsement of merkel which never happens and at him not going off on a tangent about the causes of mass migration when it isn't what he is talking about is clownish, especially in light of him frequently doing just the thing when he is actually addressing the refugee crisis and he like.

Attached: tired.jpg (807x659, 41.62K)

Zizek is only good when it comes to critically analyzing liberal ideology.

He suffers partially from the same problem many of the 20th century French philosophers did: that he's become something of a celebrity and if he becomes too radical he'll lose that status and become a pariah. The other problem is that he suffers from the same problem most philosophers have since time immemorial, as Marx put it "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." and he has basically no real theory of change and his conceptualization of communism is essentially just Socialist Yugoslavia.

Attached: on.jpg (656x767, 57.22K)

It's clearly generous to imply they even 'watch' videos in any meaningful sense, they just blankly stare at the screen until they get triggered by zizek using a bad word or using an example. The mirror image of sjws who think zizek is 'problematic' for his jokes or for his insights into the ontology of LGBT as a community.

If that is indeed his point then its a mundane one but otherwise not one I have a problem with. I do, however, question why he chose that example when there are plenty to choose from that wouldn't have the effect of appearing to side with liberals.


Liberal ideology doesn't abhor the concept of its elected leaders implementing unpopular policies at all. In fact it celebrates them (when it benefits the bourgeoisie). The fact that he didn't use a better example, if his point was indeed the one he states (which I am not necessarily willing to grant), shows that he is beholden to the neoliberal establishment even if it is simply a case of not wanting to lose what little position he has. Forgive me for being suspicious of the man who called for the imperialist intervention which utterly wrecked his own country.

...

He literally stood as a liberal candidate i don't know why anybody is surprised.

Hes for people who like to think they are ascended professors because they read some Jacobin articles or something

I really don't know why such "enlightened leftists" on this board liked this OBVIOUS fraud. Probably the same people who promoted Bookchin for years. Sad fucking weasels.

Attached: 1553518367449.jpg (502x591, 122.65K)

How the FUCK do you come to the conclusion that Zizekians and Bookchinites are at all similar?

Attached: what.jpg (900x900, 57.8K)

They're both liberal retards from reddit.

Yes, liberal ideology is selective like that, but it does fetishise democracy and demands democratic mandates frequently, Leninism on the other hand does not, it boldly proclaims its intent to enforce the class interest of the proletariat, this is a good thing and a necessary thing which is why Zizek is defending such a principle.
Now you're blatantly floundering for arguments and are reduced to why he didn't use a different example, you claim there are better ones yet you do not mention any. I think it is a very good and topical example given this is a video from 2016 when the migrant crisis was the dominant topic of european politics. Your assertion that use of this example makes him 'appear to side with the liberals' is particularly moronic since it only appeals that way to you and OP, two morons who have demonstrated plentifully that you are either incapable of parsing his statements intelligibly or are intentionally reading him in bad faith.

he's a newfag pathologically dropping inane references with no context to try blend in while contributing nothing

He was a pretty attractive dude, shame he fell for the gender meme.

Though, admittedly, becoming a tranny did wonders for his YouTube career. His channel was small and controversial when he was just a sweet transvestite, joining the ranks of the most recent cause célèbre was probably key to making his channel blow up and becoming e-famous.

I love this cope.

qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/introducing-zizeks-mule.html?m=1

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

Attached: aae51d7abb5c9d82d057d9315b92d9d7cd07c2ed330e7e4802a453a03fad7b3c.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

my god, your retarted

reddit raus

You say I'm reading him in bad faith, I say you're being entirely too generous. I will say that I disagree with OP as far as the spirit of the policy goes even though it was almost entirely ineffective. If my position is truly moronic then I suppose I apologize but a little skepticism never hurt anyone.

why do people think he is a Marxist anyway? iirc he clarified his left Hegelian position during the Peterson debate

He is though. Why would confirming facts make you reddit?

The Peterson "debate" was just Zizek trying to appeal to the retards in the audience and push them ever so slightly towards the Left. I wouldn't use it as an example of his positions.

He also did call himself a Marxist, and elaborated by saying Marx gave the most comprehensive analysis of capitalism.

ITT people who aren't willing to accept that history has passed their ideology by and there needs to be an organization of a new left movement distinct from all previous ones while still retaining the knowledge of past generations of communists

He's always been a liberal. Its just he distracts you with psychobabble so you don't clock on.

That's the extent of Zizek's "racial prejudice," which the author exploits for lack of anything better to condemn him with.

The second article conflates racism per se with Zizek's recognition of the dimensions of the "racism" in practice being based on class relations (and problems) transformed into racial issues, with liberals pooh-poohing the racism and having nothing to offer to that community or to the gypsies beyond rhetoric, so things continue much as they did before.

It's not leninism tho, it's Carl Schmitt and Carl Schmitt's reading Lenin. This is one of Zizek's rhetorical games, attributing fascist ideas to Lenin that calling himself Leninist.

kek

based dubs

we shouldn't read ANYTHING by *problematic* individuals like zizek and jew-hating marx. I read on Reddit that zizek is no longer kosher so I'm literally buying books right now, just to throw them away and post a pic on Twitter of them in the trash.
can anyone help expand this no-read list?
marx: hates jews (despite being one), calls them niggers.
zizek: I can't understand him, but he said that communism of the 20th century failed, like, no, I'm on the DSA and we have meetings every week??? and said immigration in neoliberalism is inevitable and will cause cultural tensions. *right wing alert*
Paul Cockshott: um sweaty, have you heard what he has to say about trans?
badiou: wrote the anti-Semitic book "The Uses of the Word 'Jew'", to the trash you go, liberal
Adorno: literally privilege embodied, was against jazz, which used to be a POC music, just shows the racism and hidden fascism in his works.
Freud: drug user and promoter. nuff said.
Hegel: this might go over your head, since he's so hard to understand, but he said that slaves NEED masters to give them a reason to exist. yikes.
Stalin: extremely homofobic, made being gay illegal. do no read.
Engels: wrote a whole book about how families were no longer """"traditional"""" enough. bye bye liberal.

will you admit that you sound exactly like the Zig Forums niggers that complain gavin mcangus and lauren southern say that some jews are good?

zizeck is a selfish person.. like all people.. and he only wants whatever gives him the easiest most pleasurable life which is reasonable and he knows that he is making a killing from writing and speaking and this allows his comfortable lifestyle

marx also profited from markets.. do you think that alcoholic marx really would have condoned what happened with stalin and north korea and mao's great leap forward?

in fact the only reason the october revolution took off was from 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸german🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸) investors supporting them because they wanted to weaken russia from within during ww1… Trotsky and Lenin were both heavily in debt to these people

AND THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU FANTASIZE ABOUT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS BECAUSE YOUR LIFE LACKS MEANING AND YOUR FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN AND YOU DREAD THE DAY WHEN YOUR MOMMY FORCES YOU TO GET A JERB!!!

JUST

LIKE

Zig Forums

huffpost.com/entry/is-the-us-military-a-soci_b_252526

AND YOU CONVENIENTLY ASCRIBE ALL THESE POSITIVE TRAITS TO STALIN JUST LIKE Zig Forums DOES WITH HITLER AND YOU THINK THAT IF ONLY COMRADES WOULD SEND YOU TO BOOTCAMP YOUR LIFE WOULD BE OK.. YET YOU ARE TOO FUCKING PUSSY TO JOIN THE AMERICAN MILITARY NOW WHICH IS THE LARGEST SOCIALIST INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET

247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/103782/Contents/Is-the-US-Military-a-form-of-Socialism-72163126/

medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialist-model-already-thriving-in-the-united-states-the-u-s-military-40b31c9d2d9a

Will you at least admit that you aggrandize stalin the same way Zig Forums aggrandize hitler?

Will you at least admit that your desire for a revolution is purely selfish?

Will you at least admit that you are a worthless human otherwise if you really wanted to live a socialist lifestyle you would make your own voluntarist socialist communist on a piece of remote property, ie a commune?

Will you at least admit that Marx was a capitalist and profited immensely from markets and in a communist country an author criticizing the system such as him would be sent to the gulag?

chinafile.com/library/nyrb-china-archive/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao

mercatornet.com/features/view/maria-yudina-the-woman-who-killed-stalin/21530
nytimes.com/1988/04/14/world/soviet-ends-silence-on-stalin-wife-s-suicide.html

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007758296336330753?lang=en

Attached: i90u80h80hn.jpg (600x400, 51.17K)

(me)

nice. marx added to the do not read list.
so marx never ran a company nor worked a day in his life but was a capitalist, ffs the worst of both worlds.
nice, didn't know the #1 imperialist country in the world had a hidden socialist republic. who would've know. any place I can donate money towards the cause? I'm not American.

Not gonna lie, quality shitpost.

He both wrote for and published multiple newspapers, the New York Daily Tribune among them. He was literally exiled for his publication of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.