> equated charlie hebdo to holocaust denial (like people being gun down is the same as a silly law that rarely is acted like this.
>Moaist (fucking the rational Marxist intellectual is a Maoist)
>Believes debate is a waste of time.
>Makes a movie about why Hollywood is constantly putting anti-Marxist propaganda in their movies but accuses Jordan Peterson of believing the opposite.
This idiot is meant to be the reasonable modern lefty. Fuck me!
Not being sarcastic, but who is this?
Schlomoj Židek.
How can someone fundmentally misunderstand Zizek this much? Mein gott!
He's not a Maoist, where did that come from?
He is a Maoist. And believes the leap forward was a success. So your actually the one who misunderstood him.
le sniffing man. so epic.
He said that maos economical policies were ideal and that we should see the cultural revolution as a blessing because he believed it was the shake up the opened the eyes of the Chinese leadership. Which is true, but that is like saying the holocuast was a good thing because since then genocide is on the down.
Why is he practically the ONLY philosopher of the modern era known to a significant section of the public? Gee, I don't know. Could be because he's being pushed at us and pushed hard. Could be because his entire schtick ultimately revolves around making Marxism seem acceptable to the middle class.
>And believes the leap forward was a success.
>Their answer is that these are merely the portrayals of “bourgeois propaganda.” Now, some archives are opened, and they do demonstrate that it was a mega-tragedy, the Great Leap Forward, what happened there. But, crucially, for the Left, we need to deal with our heritage. I don’t like the Left that has the attitude that, “Yes, Stalinism was bad. But look at the horrors of colonialism!”
>Which is true,
So what are you whining about? That he is being edgy?
>Yes, Stalinism was bad
Sadly, the left no longer says this. The progressive liberals are silent on Stalinism and the far left now openly states that Stalinism was laudable and free speech is irrelevant. Gen z is fucking awful.
Are you mentally retarded? Anyone knows that after a massive tragedy there are some perks. His argument is no different to the people who argue that the holocuast was a good thing cause it made humans more consicouse about mass genocide. His reasoning is fucking dumb. He literally making excuses just to make even maos worse mistakes into something good just cause some people in the Chinese communist party thought we should relax abit. And Moas economical policies were not a success you fucking idiot.
can someone give me a video where he comes out saying that he definitely endorses one ideology over another?
I feel Zizek either calls himself a communist as a tongue and cheek joke, or just to throw off his scent trail.
I haven't really listened to zizek talk specifically about commuism but whenever he mentions it in passing I feels its with some derision.
He used fairly praise Mao's economical policies, but lately, i dont know. I think he probably knows that of he talks about that too much he will lose large percentage of his following. Christopher Hitchens was the same. He called himself a socialist in the 90s and early 200s, but after he became popular with a lot of libertarians. He stopped talking about it.
>the far left now openly states that Stalinism was laudable
Where?
Where did he made all these excuses you are complaining about?
In his interview on Al Jazeera, he said that cultural revolution was a good thing because it shook up the Chinese government, and lead to Xi Jinping. I mean only his views on the great leap forward are enough for a sane human being.
He's a reactionary antifeminist shitlord that is better off on /pol/ than on Veeky Forums.
>One should make a step further here: what if the Cultural Revolution was "negative" not only in the sense of clearing up the space and opening up the way for a new beginning, but negative in itself, negative as an index of the IMPOTENCE to generate the New?
So no source then? Here is what he actually written on the topic
Saying that the holocaust was a bad thing is a blood libel against Germany
>he is a communist and a Maoist
the absolute state of anglo perception of satire
How was 'The Last Jedi' about Marxism?
>is a communist and Maoist
Wrong. He's a fucking sophist.
That's the same thing
In other words:
>It's good because it's bad enough to demonstrate what is bad so it's good.
What faulty logic.
You dumbass he said it is bad coz it is not only trying to stall what is already going to happen, but proof that it can't create anything new
What terrible reading ability
Needless insults are a symptom of fear and insecurity, user. He literally states that it opens up the way for a new beginning. You're misunderstanding his use of the word negative. He's not using it in a pejorative sense. Part of the problem is that the author seems to actively want to construct the sentence in such a way as to be as obtuse as possible to create an illusion of higher intellegence. I hate sophists for this very reason.
Wrong, he's a fucking retard
Do you even analyse what you read? He said it opened up China. He said that the cultural revolution was a good thing in his interview on Al Jazeera. It led to the china of today. This kind of thinking can be applied to anything. Also, it could also be used selectively to minimize the atrocities people we liked committed. You can play with the world but at the end of the day. You know what he meant.
Please read his works instead of just watching his popular vids.
>hate sophists
>claims that Zizek's negative is not really so
Okay if you say so
>He said that the cultural revolution was a good thing in his interview on Al Jazeera
Which again where does he say that? In Mao Zedong: the Marxist Lord of Misrule, he described how CR eventually resulted in how China, with no mention of whether good or bad, except for that negative portion I quoted earlier.
He says a lot of nonsense and outrageous stuff for publicity to sell books, but occasionally he'll come out with some little story or quote that'll really make you think. He is a bit of a joke, but there is some kernel of wisdom in there.
Will Self said it best that Zizek is a describer, not a prescriber. If you're looking for answers from this guy you'll be deeply frustrated. But if you just want to hear a unique view about how we collectively think and act then he is fun to listen to.
>hurr... he used the word "negative" so that MUST mean he's saying it's bad
Failure to understand precise language. You're too stupid to actually parse the quote correctly. I'm sorry if this angers you, but multiple people have pointed out this mistake of yours.
he's a self-hating christian, but still a christian.
He was on TV last night.
youtube.com
He's not doing well, physically.
Does he have bell's palsy or something?
communists can't be christian.
these two things are diametrically opposed
Christians can be communists. What they can't be however is Marxist.
nope.
christians by definition are free market capitalists.
see: the Genesis curse on Adam
we have to work to survive because of our fallen condition.
communism is utopianism through man's efforts, which is what the Bible warns against because man will never bring about a utopia. only God can
>christians by definition are free market capitalists.
So what were christians in the 1200s?
you do realize the bartering/merchanting system is literally capitalism right?
Holy shit
>you do realize the bartering/merchanting system is literally capitalism right?
No it's not.
>i have something you want
>you have something i want
>we trade
>we both benefit
>private property and you actually own what you own
Mercantilism and a guild system are capitalist.
>The absolute state of libertarians.
no, its just the adverse effects of mental marxism
We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.
However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.
It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror is not grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior. This is why our condescending politically correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dose of that true ‘racist’ conviction of their own superiority
>The progressive liberals are silent on Stalinism
Liberals aren't marxists! There are no liberal marxists and there are no marxist liberals! Liberals are for democracy and market economies!
Oh nooooo...
He is right tho.
This is the most contrived way of thinking I've ever seen.
Laying aside the fact that communist theory is not about rendering work unnecessary, it ignores the fact that the early church encouraged the donation and redistribution of resources, which could easily be interpreted as a sort of voluntary socialism.
I'm both a christian and an ancap, but the two ideologies are completely independent of eachother.
>equated charlie hebdo to holocaust denial
what are you even saying?
I AGREE WITH ALL THAT HE IS SAYING
what is happening to me?
He is anti-communist. He wants a new kind of left.
What does it mean to be either a communist or a Marxist, but not both?
>trading = capitalism
Are all Americans this retarded or is it just you?
No. That's just Marxism. Blood is being equally distributed throughout his body, causing brain damage and catastrophic organ failure.
Not him but what's the difference?
*sniffs*
He's famous because he is likable. I like him anyway. But having read many of his books can't say I've learned a goddamn thing. They just seem to aggregate different leftist beliefs and expunge them in a very unsophisticated way.
I can't say I respect him. I'm sure he knows Hegel very well, but he does so at the expense of knowing other philosophers (and has said as much), and he's completely lacking in any kind of scientific training. The man fucking takes articles written in magazines about science and goes with them without so much as bothering to research whether the stuff in it was true or not before using it as a source in his writing. Disappointing.
He's the very definition of an ideologue and seems to take a sick pride in it. No doubt he's right in saying that communist ideals shouldn't be entirely abandoned and that it's useful to use them as a lens at times, but fuck me, they lead him to say the most retarded things.
I mean this is the man who said that immigrants are wretches and we shouldn't look upon them with any kind of affection at all, and should call them wretches outright, while at the same time saying we're obligated to open our gates to them and welcome them in. I don't know how much more contrarian you can get.
why are you here if you don't want to have an intellectually honest discussion?
He's right, user. He's always been right. Put on the glasses.
Does anyone truly understand Hegel or is it all a fraud?
Everything I've said there is true. What has the mainstream done to combat the likes of antifa other than to either act like they don't exist or tacitly pat them on the back?
>kung fu panda is a philosophical masterpiece
The ONE thing he got right
Kinda was compared to India
Also British and Belgians killed 40 millions people alone, holcoaust is laughable compared to that.
Debating is kinda a waste of time though. You will never convince the other person.
>What does it mean to be either a communist or a Marxist, but not both?
Marxism is an ideology that repudiates supernaturalism. It's a materialistic philosophy.
Communism however, is just a political theory.
How many of that 40 million were of British subjects?
over 20 millions in British India
and well over 10 millions in Kongo
I am going to assume you are american, antifa in the US is a fucking joke. mainstream yank culture is considered centre/far right in the rest of the west, if ur some panicked centrist/pol-fag you have little to worry about. Other than your precarious working conditions and 3rd world healthcare, but that shit get's little traction in the mainstream meteor
His works are hardly respectable, no theory at all, just frases one after the other.
debate is a waste of time, this board proves it
Kinda, debating with autistic spazmaloids who can't see other people's point of view is pointless
I blame humanities as always for bringing in so many stubborn spergs
Universities let them do what they like. Yet speakers are routinely either hamstrung or deplatformed outright thanks to these cunts. The societal impact might be relatively marginal, but it's crazy to think they're able to have an inhibitory effect on free speech on campus of all places, and pretty much every institution so far is either too afraid to actively compel them to fuck off for good or, worse, they implicitly condone what they're doing because administrative positions are now filled in many cases by dangerously cloistered "radicals."
>Zizek is fucking dying
This is truly an end of an era for the left, fuck. It's kinda sad seeing him this way..
did he have a stroke? poor guy looks fucking awful
The conclusion I draw from that panel is that Social Democracy is dead.
Capitalism is post-industrialism. What are you even doing on a literature board, retard?
this is what most people don't get. it's probably the same kind of people that call themselves capitalists as if it means believing in capitalism
>the absolute state of leftist intellectuals
fascists did nothing wrong
>And believes the leap forward was a success.
I mean, maybe in the super long term yes, but that kinda ignores all the suffering in the process.
In reality? Because he's a nice guy and writes good papers.
Liberals are not marxists, liberals are lined against the wall and shot by marxists.
Unlike a lot of philosophers out there, he isn't a giant douchebag.
>marxists are lined against the wall and shot by other marxists
Fixed, friend
coming from a Marxist that is a bit rich. Quoting Marx like his prophet Mohammad. Just reading Marxist philosophers. There is nobody more closed minded than a marixist.
They're both true
Did he have a stroke?
He has alot of great ideas, but most of them are unrelated to his political ideas. Having said that, his analysis of Mao Zedong's rule is very idealistic. His views on Leon Trotsky are also romantic at best. If he wasn't such a nice guy; he would have been rediculous for his Marxist views.
Well I mean that's kinda my point. People are more willing to listen to what someone has to say if they're a nice person.
I don't agree with a lot of things he says, but I always like hearing or reading what he has to say.
He tends to be right when talking about contemporary issues with Europe.
Reminder he is a GTA player
Because he's right. The left as it is will never win against the right, it has to reinvent and better itself.
We shoulda elected Sanders desu.
I pondered it but decided against it because of his ethnicity.