"Fuck them stupid Koreans."

Well, there's no future for Communism, all countries that tried it never even got out of state capitalism. No one is itching to try Communism again. Anarchism was an even greater failure. All that's left is centrist liberalism with transfer payments.

The entire left-wing program was built on erroneous economic theory and would require power structures at least as authoritarian as the status quo to maintain itself, it needs to just die already.

What about Distributism?

Well he supported Trump for one and that seems to be all it takes.

I have no idea what precisely this entails - I thought it was just social democracy but with Christian characteristics. Does it ban private property, production for profit, or abolish the state? If not it's just a different veneer of social democracy, imo

With that said, it's possible that more explicitly religious societies could make people happier and make them feel a greater sense of purpose in life.

He's said a bunch of /pol/ sounding shit from "the Hitler Youth is very admirable" to "vegetarians are degenerates" to "I call my black friends 'nigger'" to more conspiracy shit about terrorism in the middle-east that doesn't deserve a mention.

But let's be honest, Zizek is secretly a liberal. What, it's not a fucking secret, he campaigned as a liberal, he writes for liberals, his solutions are always some dumb Hegelian-Lacanian dialectic which amounts to "Look, we shouldn't be Liberal, but, I mean, absolutely we should be Liberal, but what I'm saying is we need to more be Liberal."

I like some of his movie critiques and other cultural stuff, but did he ever say anything really insightful about politics? It all seems so basic.
I don't think you can be an honest philosopher and unironically talk about popular politics, which is a very lowbrow topic pretty much by definition.

>Does it ban private property, production for profit, or abolish the state? If not it's just a different veneer of social democracy, imo

I can't stand you Marxists. You don't understand money (honest Marxists like David Harvey will point out that Marx fundamentally did not understand banking) and yet you sit around acting like you own the monopoly on all anti-capitalist thought and revolution.

I'm not saying Marx has no value, only that Marxists have their head deep up their own asses.

Well he's no Peterson i'll tell you that.

He's the most likable of e-celebs.

I'm not a Marxist, I don't even think Marxist theories are correct. The point is, if you want to define "leftist = anti-capitalist" then distributism would not be leftist, since, as far as I can tell, goods are still produced for profit, there is still private property, and it is still enforced by the state. The core elements of capitalism are still there. More egalitarian capitalism is probably preferable, though.

youtu.be/REiqkK3ckiM?t=7m1s

starts at minute 6

Capitalism is one of those bogey terms that encompasses enough disparate and loosely-affiliated concepts that people use it to cherry pick meanings.

"Understanding money" implies yielding to the (Archonic) idea of money.

>politics is lowbrow

I use it to mean the following:

>Goods are produced for profit, to be exchanged on the market for money
less importantly:
>private property exists and is backed by the state, though there are some variations on this like state capitalism

I said popular politics and yes.
If you want to engage in the typical dichotomies like right vs. left, Clinton vs Trump, open vs close borders and so on you need to simplify and generalize to ridiculous levels.
On top of that all these discussions end up relying on certain assumptions ("spooks") which are supposedly shared by everyone and never questioned.
I cannot imagine an honest intellectual wasting time with this.

Even an accessible book like pic related has way more insight into popular politics than anything Žižek ever said. He'd probably learn something from reading it too.

>Zizek is a liberal
you take that back

It means not strawmaning an entire system and then insisting you have scientific proof that it will collapse in the ways you claim, despite you not understanding the system. Marx was flat-out wrong where it counted the most and many smart Marxists came to see this (Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci).

> The point is, if you want to define "leftist = anti-capitalist"

No one wants to do this except dumb Marxists and dumb /pol/ types. Marx never even described himself as being on the "left." Left/Right, as it's perceived today, came after Marx. And neither was Marx the first "socialist" or critic of capitalism.

> In the first free elections in 1990, he ran as the Liberal Democratic Party's candidate for Slovenian presidency

Show me how all his solutions/critics of culture/politics are not wholly liberal.

Why are his eyes yellow?

hepatitis