What's his endgame?

and so on

A good reading of Hegel in his confy apartment

He seems to identify as a communist, and he jokes about Stalinism sometimes, but it seems to me that what he really wants is state socialism. He wants more socialism than we have now, and indeed thinks that the problems humanity is facing (environmental, etc.) will require centralized solutions beyond the market. On the other hand, he has no love for collectivism. He has often said that he doesn't like the idea of having to be close with all his neighbors, and he doesn't like the idea of having to go to endless meetings to decide everything about society.
One thing that's for sure is that he doesn't believe in the grassroots local economy sort of anarcho-communism. He's repeatedly said that he thinks the large-scale challenges of modern civilization cannot be handled sufficiently on only the local level.
When it comes to immigration, his stance is similar to my own. He is somewhat annoyed by impractical open borders policies and questions the dogma which holds that anyone who opposes them is an evil racist, etc. On the other hand, he views right-wing populism as being far more dangerous than anything immigration can do. Immigrants threaten Europe's body, but right-wing populism threatens its soul.
(and, I would add, ultimately also its body... compare how many Europeans were murdered by Islamists in the last 100 years to how many were murdered by right-wing populists).
That said, I certainly have criticisms of him. I think that he lets left-wing tyranny off too lightly, and so far at least I haven't seen him give a meaningful reaction to the problem of demographic shifts in Europe. He's also a bit out of his element when he talks about stuff like science. He has some interesting things to say about those issues on occasion, but comes off as a layman.
Interesting fellow. Very entertaining.

*sniffs heavily*
*speech impediment intensifies*

Without open border policies there wouldn't be roght wing populism

donuts

Not modelling

Well, to put it more precisely, without loose border policies, right wing populism wouldn't have its current strength. I'm pretty sure Zizek understands that. I know I do.
At the same time, I think we must acknowledge that there is something strange about the fact that opposition to loose border policies tends to come as part of a package with some other things like social conservatism, with an emphasis on the supposed virtues of religion, traditional gender roles, obedience to authority, and so on. To me it makes no logical sense. I am a socially liberal atheist and have not the slightest bit of use for social conservatism, yet I would like to preserve Europe as European. I see no contradiction there.
Quite the contrary - it is precisely the social tolerance, enlightened transcendence of religion, strong tradition of free-thought and questioning authority, and so on... that I want to preserve by controlling the borders. I view the the right-wing populists as being just Sharia-lite. They're not the authentic defenders of Europe - they don't even really understand what is great about Europe and worth defending - it's just that they're the biggest group talking sensibly about immigration issues.
There's a lack of imagination in the West's politics. We can't seem to imagine big, bold solutions that satisfy multiple requirements. For example, what if I want to help the immigrants yet not flood the West with them? Surely there are things that could be done. Buy out the inhabitants of some large island. Put the refugees there and support them with a police/military force and economic aid. I don't know, there's got to be something that can be done other than the present trajectory.

>I don't know, there's got to be something that can be done other than the present trajectory.
Turning them back rather than shipping them to EU shores might be a good place to start.

>He wants more socialism than we have now
>we have now

Rightly or wrongly, many people feel that the West owes something to the people of the MENA region because of the history of Western meddling there. I agree that shipping them en masse to EU shores isn't a good idea. There should be some kind of filtering process that prevents hardcore Islamic loons from coming in. But perhaps there are ways to help those people without, as right-wing populists put it, "flooding" Europe with them.

Sure. I don't mean "workers own the means of production" socialism, I mean "government regulation of and intervention in the economy" socialism. And we do already have a large degree of that in most Western countries.

This.

so a fascist :^)

Western commies don't understand that the typical Slavic "communist" is basically a nazi compared to them.

How specifically is he a reactionary, though? I'm not sure what you guys mean or whether you mean it as a bad thing.
I do see certain ways in which he can fairly be called a reactionary, but to me it seems that he is a reactionary on matters in which it makes sense to be a reactionary.

It's not just MENA that's coming. It's full on sub-Saharan niggers that are infesting all of Europe.

Basically being modern Nietzsche mixed with Spurdo.

>muuuh colonialism and white guilt
Then why are countries like Sweden, Denmark, or even fucking Poland and Hungary expected to take in refugees? They never participated in colonialism.
Furthermore, if the EU considers itself to be a refugee haven, why aren't they taking in asylum seekers from Ukraine or from among white South Africans en masse? Weirdly enough it's only non-white immigrants which are being shilled.

That's a rather... misleading and agenda-pushing image. The Nazis killed way more French than all the Islamists, sub-Saharans, etc. put together have in the last 100 years.

>Then why are countries like Sweden, Denmark, or even fucking Poland and Hungary expected to take in refugees? They never participated in colonialism.
Want to get the advantages of being in the EU? You have to help out and take on some of the disadvantages. Don't like the immigration policies? Use EU political processes to change those policies, or leave the EU. No-one is forced to stay in the EU.
>why aren't they taking in asylum seekers from Ukraine or from among white South Africans en masse?
What makes you think asylum seekers are treated unfairly depending on their place of origin? Are you implying that a Ukrainian who filed for asylum would be treated differently than an African?

>EU treaties explicitly state every EU country is responsible for its own borders and immigration policies
>Germany and France outright violating EU treaties by treating ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS as legitimate and even encouraging Italian navy
>then the same Germany and France threatening Hungary with sanctions for actually following EU guidelines
So basically we have situation where the EU top dogs are saying other EU countries should be severely punished because they're the ones actually following the law. This is pure comedy.
>Are you implying that a Ukrainian who filed for asylum would be treated differently than an African?
Not just would be, they ARE treated differently right as we speak.

The UK took in and continues to take in large number of Rhodesians and White South Africans. If you are a white african, you have no difficulty getting back to the UK.

>Ukranians

Ukranians can move without a visa in the EU and have immigrated enmasse to eastern europe. Ironically enough they are the carpenters and plumbers in Poland.

To your original question OP, he has no endgame. No realistic endgame at least and I think even he realizes it. Its far more fun and entertaining being the reactionary counter culture hero. Name dropping Hegelian and with Lacanian dialogue so fucking obtuse only someone who specifically studies it can comprehend his layers of complexity.

This could be funny as a hobby, on a mongolian throat singing forum or on a youtube comment section but its fucking useless in day to day life. Even Lenin wonder what his point ultimately is.

Make profits by selling his books.

It sucks if Germany and France are breaking the EU's own treaties. But the fact remains... if Hungary doesn't like it, it's free to leave the EU. The EU is a consensual pact of free nations, not a state that would try to hold on to its members by force. If that were ever to change, then it would be a different matter.
>Not just would be, they ARE treated differently right as we speak.
How so?
Also, again, keep in mind that any EU nation is free to leave the EU and make its own new immigration policies that, say, favor taking in only white people, or whatever else is desired.

Britain itself is actually turning Boers away, most of them move to Australia, New Zealand or even Argentina.

Fair enough

But my point still stands that Afrikaners have ways out if they so desire.

*sniffle*
hah got you
*rubs nose*
all talk-k-k-king about
*coughs*
immigration

That wasn't your point and it's hardly a point relevant to the discussion. The point was the EU is turning away white refugees while breaking its own rules to let nigger and Arab refugees in.

That wasn't the original point of discussion at all.

Ukranians are free to travel in the EU, which is even better than refugee status.

What other white refugees are there?

>No-one is forced to stay in the EU.

Are you kidding me? The EU is trying to use every weapon it can to punish the British for wanting to leave. Its exactly the same tactic violent biker gangs use to keep their members.

>The point was the EU is turning away white refugees
Are you aware of the million of Ukies in Poland?

I don't think you know what refugee status is.

>No-one is forced to stay in the EU.
"Britain must pay!" - Juncker

Wut
Violent biker gangs would, presumably, use violence to try to keep their members... otherwise I don't know why you'd make the comparison.
The EU just threatens Britain with changing the terms of various economic agreements, etc.
It's not even remotely comparable.
Want to see breakaway attempts resisted by violent force? Look at the American Revolution, or the US Civil War, or Yugoslavia, etc. etc.
The EU-Britain situation is so far from anything like that, the comparison is absurd.

Those have to prove they have Polish ancestors or ancestors who formerly resided in what used to be Poland. They don't have refugee status, I'm talking about people who are fleeing war from Donbass.

The UK can sit on their asses and agree to nothing and naturally get kicked out of the EU. Afterall a bad deal is better than no deal right?

Why the fuck should the EU reward them for leaving? Its a divorce, if the UK isnt ready for the court proceedings that's the UK's fault for not knowing how much custody of the children they want. Plus your example doesnt hold water, the EU isnt going to try and kill the UK (not that it could).

See: The idea that what the EU is threatening constitutes "force" is ridiculous.

Studying, lecturing and writing. He's aware of his own powerlesnes.

>presumably

Don't presume things. Biker gangs impose fines on people who want to leave. The EU wants to impose costs on the Brits for leaving, to the point where it even costs the EU more money. As long as they can give the signal that it hurts to leave the EU, they're happy.

Economic blackmailing and sanctions can do a lot more damage than tanks and bombs these days. Look at Russia after they annexed Crimea, their economy went to the shitter.

>Plus your example doesnt hold water, the EU isnt going to try and kill the UK (not that it could).

Neither do biker gangs try to kill people who want to leave. You are talking out of your fucking ass because it is literally impossible for a member state to get kicked out of the EU. There is no provision in any treaty that postulates a way for the EU to kick out a member state. The Brits can not be kicked out.

>Donbass

Russia can take them in and probably already does, I dont see why the EU has to care when that specific region when it made it clear it wants to remain in Russia's sphere of influence (which I think is well within their right).

But to your original point, its technically difficult for an individual to get a work visa but in practice any company that wanted to hire on a ukranian won't have much difficulty doing so. a Ukrainian software developer can find a job in any city in Europe provided he at least speaks either french, german or english.

brits have been getting special treatment in the eu
and now finally that actually leave, they have been threatning this for years, they have to pay
their fair share especially since they lost their leverage which was them remaining in the eu

tl,dr they get what they deserve good riddance

Then why did you make a point to compare the situation to "violent biker gangs"? How is their being violent relevant?
>The EU wants to impose costs on the Brits for leaving, to the point where it even costs the EU more money. As long as they can give the signal that it hurts to leave the EU, they're happy.
So what are some of these costs specifically, and do any of them amount to anything more than a party (the remaining EU members) deciding to voluntarily reformulate various agreements they had originally voluntarily entered into with Britain?

>Economic blackmailing
How is it blackmailing?
>sanctions
Sure, they do damage, but they aren't aggressive force. Sanctions aren't blockades. Sanctions are just the cessation of doing business with some other parties. You could argue that sanctions are unfair to those in the EU population who want to keep doing business with Russians... however, those people have the ability to alter sanctions policies through the democratic processes of their nations, or to give up citizenship and move to some other country which is not sanctioning Russia.
As far as I can tell, the EU is not threatening Russia with any offensive/aggressive measures.

Most people would prefer not to engage in behavior that is typical of violent biker gangs. I'm not sure how you are missing this point?

It is an openly stated fact that the EU, the European commission and the European parliament want Britain to pay for leaving the EU. Juncker was quite literal when he stated this. To ask me look up (mostly this isn't even known yet?) the specific ways to want to achieve this, seems unreasonable.

He might want socialism, but he did reject the idea of basic/universal income, calling it a trap that perpetuates capitalism.

Please clarify how exactly the EU is "imposing a fine on" Britain for leaving.
>To ask me look up (mostly this isn't even known yet?) the specific ways to want to achieve this, seems unreasonable.
It's reasonable for me to ask you to clarify what possible measures you think the EU wants to take against Britain that would constitute aggressive force.
Name me anything the EU would do that isn't simply leaving agreements voluntarily entered into in the first place, or that Britain couldn't just say "fuck off" to.
I mean, it's strange for me to be reading about the Iraqi government literally sending its military into Kirkuk in order to prevent separatism, in one tab, and then in the other tab reading you trying to argue that there's something aggressive and forceful about the EU response to Brexit.

he is british or retarded

>Please clarify how exactly the EU is "imposing a fine on" Britain for leaving.

The EU and the British don't even know this themselves. You expect me to walk into Juncker's office and ask him so I can tell this dude on Veeky Forums? The important point is that it is the EU's intention to do so.

seepropably its nigel farage shitposting

>It is an openly stated fact that the EU, the European commission and the European parliament want Britain to pay for leaving the EU

You signed a contract, you pay the leaving fees. Its smart and well within the EU's right to do this.

The UK doesnt have to pay dick if it really doesnt want to. This is the hard brexit version that some want.

Which contract are you referring to and which leaving fees are mentioned in said contract? None and none because you are pulling shit out of your ass.

>Economic blackmailing and sanctions can do a lot more damage than tanks and bombs these days.

Yeah if you ignore that a modern war would kill something like 150 million in the span of an hour.

Except that would literally never happen.

>never happen

Our entire planet's history since 1949 is that someone pulled the pin out of the grenade and now has had to hold onto the handle for dear life this whole time lest it pop and start the primer.

>Socialist-authoritarian utopia
That's an oxymoron user

sniffing

His final form

That's the same thing user

being gross

He doesn't have an endgame user. He is a Marxist, he strives towards a never achievable goal with ever shifting ideals. His philosophy makes a lot of sense and he realizes that and that's the reason he keeps it only as already mentioned - philosophy. Same with Marx - the second you start applying working philosophical principals and assigning subjective physical values to them then it no longer works. Because the fault of every utopia is perfection, in a perfect world there's no place for error while error is inherently a human quality. Slavoj is a smart man - he knows his castle is well above beautiful Lyublyana with its gates wide shut as long as his views pass on the tangent of real world application.

To be proven right in his film critique displaying the cultural marxist propaganda machinery at work.

Also he wants to be recognized as a postmodern philosopher of a generation.

Finally to be an expert of the bureaucratic thought police establishment in tthe upcoming communist regime.

cheeseburgers

>People are surely just gonna hand over their stuff

Being a senile, obese, communist retard.

>Socialist-authoritarian utopia
>That's an oxymoron user
You say that because of the socialist utopia part or the authoritarian utopian one?

Nazbolism

A challenger approaches.

socialism under one atmosphere