Is he right?
Zizek is never right.
He seems to be correct.
It is a fact that Capitalism is inherently unstable, unstable in the sense that jobs, stocks, investments etc. are always reallocating and going up and down.
As a result, communities suffer (the working class of which tend to be the biggest victims). This leads to Fascism as a sort of temporary solution, a re-establishment of old hierarchical values whilst there being no tensions between sectors of society but the problem herein lies in the fact such a thing cannot survive for long and requires a scapegoat to survive.
Slavoj Žižek is a Jew, his original name is Slavoj Židek but he changed it during the 1980s because of anti-semitism.
1. False
2. Even if it was true, falling for the jew meme
kys
>Slavoi Zizek
>Ever right
You make me laugh just like soldiers in Slovenia used to user
>It is a fact that Capitalism is inherently unstable, unstable in the sense that jobs, stocks, investments etc. are always reallocating and going up and down.
Life is inherently unstable.
We've never experienced such economic stability as we have in capitalism.
End yourself marxist cuck.
>I can't take a joke
>>>/reddit/
in my defense, half of the morons on this board are /pol/ cucks.
No.
>We've never experienced such economic stability as we have in capitalism.
*Smacks lips*
Wow, I guess my economics professor employed by the government was wrong when he told me the economy was inherently unstable!
I'll listen to you (a brainlet) instead!
hes right about chomsky being a retarded faggot
He was somewhat right about the definition but
>Capitalism = Unstable
lmfao
>>Capitalism = Unstable
Capitalism is inherently unstable, retard. What do you think unstable means?
Refer to: , idiot.
You do realise saying Capitalism is unstable doesn't equate to saying Communism is stable correct?
Nothing Zizek says stands up in the real world.
What Jew meme?
The Jews are satanic. Objectively true.
Pretty close. Though im not sure why he is implying that fascism needs to be only anti semetic, any outsider enemy will do.
Zizek is never wrong.
I don't think he was implying that fascism specifically needs to be antisemitic, he's just using antisemitism as an example to go along with the Nazi propaganda he was commenting on.
>>>/analyticalphilosophy/
I guess thats kind of the videos inherent problem, a bit too vague. I think it left out that fascism also needs to shut up opposition so free press cant really be a thing.
Implying fascism only works in a capilist society is kind of silly too, it can work in any system and can be left or right leaning. Its an ideology that constantly changes to fit the society and times it is in.
>Its an ideology that constantly changes to fit the society and times it is in.
Wrong.
Fascism explicitly states that the state shapes the nation, not the other way around.
Fascism can't work in any system, it has specific defining traits.
>humanity doesn't live in utopia yet so we should give absolute power to revolutionary intellectuals so they try to achieve utopia again
Revolutionaries should be lined up and shot.
If you want to improve the world, do something for your neighborhood, stop trying to take absolute political, cultural and economical power just so you can enact your totalitarian political reforms.
Who are you quoting, friend?
oh idk i didn't watch the video
capitalists look for holes in the regulatory system to exploit
they state can only plug the hole after the capitalists flood everything
>Things were okay until Jews penetrated our social body; the way to restore the health of our social body is to eliminate the Jews.
Yes.
Yes. His point is that the business cycle inherent in capitalism causes uncertainty, but what we want is certainty and consistency; this is what the fasicists exploited: they created symbolic certainty, "...at least the trains ran on time." It's also important to remember why: power.
Zidek isn't even a Jewish name you retarded /pol/ack
Žid means Jew in Slavic languages. Guess you're the retard now.
>falling for the bait
And how about some sauce for where you got this information from? You must be pretty well learned to have read through old Yugoslav birth records.
>I-I was just pretending
lelmaw
>Still no sauce
lelmaw
>the working class of which tend to be the biggest victims
The middle class tends to be the biggest victims, not the working class as whole. The poor are generally the least affected by economic crises as their situation tends to remain the same. Middle-class standard of living goes way down and becomes comparably unliveable. It's the reason why fascism appeals most to the middle class.
...
Except in the very early 1900s there was no fully developed middle-class as we have now today.
There absolutely was a firmly entrenched middle class in Germany, you lying cunt. There had been since the 1890s.
>Make claim about man being Jewish
>Someone ask for proof
>Double down and claim it was just a joke
I know where you belong
Holy fuck. That's it, Veeky Forums is just too fucking daft, I'm done with this place
Guys, I clearly clarified my sentence at the end with "...as we have now today."
>said it was a joke long before you asked your dumbass question
>HURR DURR WHERE'S DA PROOF
You're embarrassing yourself lmao
How is the middle class different than 100 years ago other than their occupations, their earnings, a far smaller working class, etc.
>Makes a dumbass claim
>Calls others dumbass
Keep your autism away from me please
kek.
Literally google Žid
>How is the middle class different than 100 years ago other than all the things that make them different
>digging your hole.
Dude you're stupid af
>meme arrows will save me
Which is wrong. Contemporary and late 19th-century middle classes are made up the same people: the professional and managerial classes. The Middle class of today is much larger (thanks to a lesser need of a working class and greater number of professional and managerial roles) than the one of the 19th century, but that does not make them different. They're made up of the same people.
Not an argument.
He may as well be talking about "reactionaries" (or later, Jews) in socialism in one country. Nicky Land got it right: dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/the-f-word/
At its core how is it different you retard
Don't know but i love the way he says Donald Trump
leftists can never be right
>Commies
>right
Pick one.
Wow, truly the peak of discourse.
For the nth time.
How the fuck can a movement - like fascism in this case - who has an idea of a NEW MAN be anything but modernist, revolutionary, anti-conservative and so on?
...
>fascism
>conservative
Mussolini and Gentile were Anarcho-Syndicalists that became National-Syndicalists after the Bolshevik revolution failed. Marxist theoretician, Plekhanov, predicted its failure. Since Russia had not industrialized any revolution would become a 3rd world dictatorship. Mussolini and the fascists knew from the Russian experience that a communist revolution would fail and so became National-Syndicalists or "fascists". Mussolini would later say "we are not conservatives", the futurists were modernists.
Raven Thomson, the Rosenberg of the BUF, was an ex-communist, and also saw fascism as the solution to the failures of communism. Note, the BUF advocated the emancipation of the working class, the equality of women (many suffragettes were fascist card-carriers), and absolute state organisation of capitalism. If Zizek actually bothered to read Thompson's "The Coming Corporate State", he would know that fascism is anti-capitalist, or at least advocates a heavy state control of it. Fascist theoreticians have much in common with Marx. Indeed, Strasser and Feder advocated what Spengler loosely described as "Prussian Socialism". The fascists view markets as inherently unstable, inefficient, and prone to crisis. Corporatism is not capitalism as #woke spastics might have you believe. Prussian Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, etc are not capitalist.
>Hitler
>capitalist
>conservative
Destroys the bourgeois/aristocracy and says "we are anti-capitalists", Evola writes Fascism Viewed From the Right as a response. Hayek writes: theroadtoemmaus.org
He did not mention Franco or Metaxas, the schism and coup in the Falangelist party, Leon Degrelle, and GOD! he didn't even mention Codreanu. He skipped over the Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran who was a fascist in his youth. He also implies that every hierarchical society is fascist, and that fascist ideology is uniquely antisemitic.
He's a fucking hack.
This one is better:
youtube.com
In essence: Fascism's appeal is that you don't have to adhere to the restrictive rules civilization imposes on you (respecting human life, property, dignity etc.). You briber your consciousness with this spook of your race or nation and can act like a barbarian without consequences.
Modern right-wing fundamentalism is basically the same but without the explicit violence, now the promise is just that you can be a bigot without others trying to stop you.
Why can't you brainlets realise that Slavoj isn't saying Fascism = Conservatism?
He is clearly stating that many FASCISTS are acting upon Conservative notions.
Also, check em
There was actually an intellectual movement called Revolutionary Conservatism. Hitler and his thugs stole some ideas from them and then even burned some of their books after 1933.
en.wikipedia.org
This guy was even murdered.
Nice video, he articulated precisely what I've been feeling.
they're not though, unless you argue that hierarchies are inherently "conservative" again false since Anarcho-Capitalists are not conservative while supporting naturally occurring inequality and hierarchy. You're the brainlet, mate.
Order and Hierarchy are historically Conservative principles.
Go watch a Molyneux video, dork.
>He is clearly stating that many FASCISTS are acting upon Conservative notions
Why can't you brainlet understand that I'm saying they are clearly not doing so?
Have you ever read anything written by Mussolini? Do the things he's saying look like the kind of thing fucking Burke was saying?
No.
>Arthur Moeller van den Bruck was the dominant figure of the conservative revolution in the Weimar republic.[2] Rejecting reactionary conservatism, he proposed a new state, a 'Third Reich' which would unite all classes under authoritarian rule[3] based on a combination of the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.[4]
Did the Nazis have a single original thought?
>Have you ever read anything written by Mussolini? Do the things he's saying look like the kind of thing fucking Burke was saying?
I read the Doctrines of Fascism, brainlet. I'm talking about the supporters, not the actual leaders themselves. Supporters don't function on theoretical grounds.
>Does a *syncretic movement* have an original thought?
No, it's a syncretic movement, it takes different things other people invented and puts them together.
Which supporters? My grandfather for whom fascism was basically socialism for people who aren't pussies? Industrialsits? Traditionalists who tried to sway the movement towards their direction?
It's not a homogeneous blob, generalizations are very risky.
"......as we have today"
Wew autists
Satan is a myth
>fascism
>conservative
Nope.
Is he implying that eliminating the Jews *didn't* save and revitalize the Weimar's economy? lol
communist fascism is anti-capitalist for example
>confusing income classes with real classes, based on one's relation to the means of production
found the liberal
'middle class' are working class in most cases
A system that demands perpetual growth in a finite world is unstable as fuck
>murder the left wing of the nazi party the moment they took power
>prohibit unions
wtf hitler is a socialist now
>Commenting on the level of discourse is not an argument
Wow! Someone stop the presses!
capitalism doesn't though. not really. it just demands perpetual market, which there will always be. the only thing perpetual growth does is increase wealth and more notably increase wealth difference.