Why do they hate eachother?

Because they are are a representation of the Pepe-Wojak dialectic.

Zizek is extroverted (he just hates people) and Chomsky is an introvert. Zizek seems to have no moral commitments and generally plays fast and loose "I would throw you *sniff* in, errm, a gulag, yesh?", whereas Chomsky has deep personal convictions. This tension is reflected in the Pepe-Wojak tension.

In Jungian terms, Zizek's Ne-Ti is conflicting with Chomsky's Ni-Fe. This is mirrored in Trump-Bernie.

Concerning a specific point of their spat, why does Chomsky refuse to admit he was wrong about the Khmer Rouge and Cambodian Genocide? All he ever does is deflect when it's brought up; what about East Timor, the US was responsible for destabilizing Cambodia, it wasn't really a genocide, what about the pre- and post-Khmer Rouge victims?

Before overwhelming evidence got out about the genocide actually got out, he and Ed Herman were suggesting the reports of killings were anti-socialist propaganda and actually said you couldn't necessarily trust all the refugees who were fleeing. This always struck me as a black eye for someone who is usually so thorough in documenting sources for issues like Israel-Palestine and the Central American conflicts of the 80s.

nobody likes to admit they're wrong

kek and memetics have gone too far

Why cant all leftists be like based zizek. I was born in le wrong generation.

>Concerning a specific point of their spat, why does Chomsky refuse to admit he was wrong about the Khmer Rouge and Cambodian Genocide? All he ever does is deflect when it's brought up; what about East Timor, the US was responsible for destabilizing Cambodia, it wasn't really a genocide, what about the pre- and post-Khmer Rouge victims?
He has invested far too much of himself in the project at this point.

Have you ever been or seen someone being a dumbass on Veeky Forums, and they don't necessarily have to be a dumb guy, but they're absolutely wrong about something, But they've already spent like 40 minutes arguing about it, so it's not like they're gonna back out gracefully now?

Chomsky has been that idiot for forty fucking years. At this point, defending the Khmer Rouge is part of who he is.

The analogy made me chuckle, but it's exactly this

Sadly, this is probably true; I like Chomsky, but it's hypocritical that he won't admit he's wrong on this one when he has made a career out of pointing out factual errors, even minor ones, in other people's arguments and accusing them of being cynical or partisan.

Dan Harmon and Bernie Sanders have never met.

>why does Chomsky refuse to admit he was wrong about the Khmer Rouge and Cambodian Genocide?
Pol Pot was a good boi who dindu nuffin you fucking revisionist scumbag

Meme Chomsky isn't even a real anarchist. Shittier Gore Vidal desu.

whats the deal with autists defining themselves like anarchists
>yeah dude no state :~~DDD
fucking retards

It's mainly because they have to hate capitalism and private property but they also realize that authoritarian communism/socialism has ended in hilarious failure every time it was tried(the transitional period that Marx talked about has never ended in actual Communism).

Also, the dumber ones of the bunch get to blame everything bad in society happening because of the state.

Anarchists are divided into either useless punks whose activism consists of pointless displays of rebellion towards the state and laidback intellectuals who don't do much apart from imagine what anarchist societies look like.
There have been some attempts(at least influenced by) at anarchism(Kibbutz, Rojava) but these have had mixed results.

They really hate each other?

>Zizek
>ENTP
Checks out

Chomsky is a nothing but a grubby empiricist in the worst way; he comes off a a nitpicker.

Niggers are targeting whites.

On the left, memelord and Marxist/ philosophical rockstar.

On the right is le fake anarchist

They don't it's just that Zizek is literally a fraud and has nothing to contribute to society and Chomsky simply points that out.

Zizek would be a fantastic guest on Harmontown. The drunken rambling would be glorious

Did you see their debate? Man the Veeky Forums thread when it happened were fantastic

What would be a non-pointless display of rebellion towards the state?

Your mother

Which part of society doesn't socialists hate at this point?

They hate capitalists, Jews, lumpenproles, centrists, liberals, fascists and nationalists in general.

There's literally no one left for socialists to hate other than themselves.

Socialists hate themselves plenty. It's why they PURGE so hard when they get the chance.

Where can i watch it?

>capitalists, Jews, lumpenproles, centrists, liberals, fascists and nationalists in general.
who doesnt hate them tbqh

Zizek is trash.

You are trash.

We're both trash.

does Chomsky have anything to contribute to society?

+

quality post

Trash is the essence of modern society, our desire to remove what we do not want from our lives. It is pure ideology. SNIFF

so you are saying chomsky is a infp? what a cuck, how is he allowed?

Something that goes beyond symbolic gestures that only serve anarchists. Something that would inspire people who aren't anarchists to go against the state/capitalism. Smashing small stores and petty vandalism doesn't really inspire shit.

I don't have a particular hatred of anarchists, they are theorywise the best leftists. It's just the issue of starting the revolution gets turned into "any action against the state and system is good." As a result people are content with minor acts of rebellion. This, of course, is effectively useless since the system takes much more abuse from other sources and still moves forward.
To be really honest, I don't know. Anarchist writers and anarchists I've met in real life all can give me descriptions of what anarchist society would be like but I've never heard a convincing plan for actually setting up a revolution to create an anarchist state. While tankies are bloodthirsty af and often would flout marxist principles if they had to at least their steps for creating a communist state make sense.

And capitalists don't? Pfft

What's the difference between a capitalist and a normal person engaging in free trade?

You say that like all of them, including the Socialists, aren't worth hating.

The quickening

Go to Wall Street and see for yourself

>They don't it's just that Zizek is literally a fraud
>my experience with Zizek is Veeky Forums memes and youtube videos

How is Zizek a fraud? Why does a philosopher have to contribute anything?

I've been there and all I saw were chinese families rubbing the metal balls of the bull.

>katana
>trenchcoat

This was literally cool in the 80s