Zizek, Lacan and Hegel general

Marx doesn't really owe as much to him as is advertised. Marx rejected all that nonsense after he grew up.

>Marx rejected all that nonsense after he grew up
well, he thought he did, but Marxism is still basically a secularized religion based on Hegelian idealism

You want a hugbox, huh? Well, kid, this place is not like reddit. We are not afraid to say the word nigger here. We are not afraid to call women worthless whores. And we're not afraid to call out the cultural marxist plot to breed out whiteness.
These are all controversial opinions in a world in which the rich capitalist Jews who own everything and have all the power want to overthrow the system and institute world-wide communism and thus relinquishing their fortunes and power.

You will learn. You will find out. You will see how deep the rabbit hole really goes

You've never actually read Capital, have you? It's a sober-minded empirical analysis of capitalism as it existed in his time. There's nothing religious or mystical about it.

>capitalism is bad we are all equal xD
>sober-minded

pick one

liar!

Marx picked the latter. He was not a moralist. If you actually read Capital, he doesn't pass judgment on capitalism. He simply offers an abstract model of how it works.

>We are not afraid to say the word nigger here. We are not afraid to call women worthless whores. And we're not afraid to call out the cultural marxist plot to breed out whiteness.
>These are all controversial opinions in a world in which the rich capitalist Jews who own everything and have all the power want to overthrow the system and institute world-wide communism and thus relinquishing their fortunes and power.
Lol, look at this guy

>It's a sober-minded empirical analysis of capitalism as it existed in his time
>sober-minded
>empirical

>If you actually read Capital, he doesn't pass judgment on capitalism

oh fuck you, you idiotic continental speculative idiot. i bet you believe in patriarchy and white privilege, fucking take the redpill already and you will wake up

Haven't read Capital, have you?

I have, actually. Sober and empirical my fucking arse. Marx writes with all the 'even-handedness' of a Televangelical; which is perhaps appropriate given that Marxism relies on spooks like 'surplus labour'.

...

Daily reminder that Zizekposting is best posting.

youtube.com/watch?v=xQbEgg_pEG0

youtube.com/watch?v=2jpnLoBQgGw

youtube.com/watch?v=IveT0e0Vo84

And sho on and sho on...

Cite an example passage.

Please, master,Zizekpost som more. I find it difficult to do on my own, but i love me some delicious Zizekposting.

wew

...

...

...

...

...

...

Oops, linked the wrong post. Have a bonus Lacan.

>There's nothing religious or mystical about it.
that's what secularized means

So in what way is it a religion if it isn't religious?

>Religion has to be religious

I asked a question, why don't you answer it?

the idea that society progresses towards a certain tipping point when the entire world order is overturned and a new econo-political system under which everyone is equal reigns across the globe is basically Christian eschatology, just recast as "secular" and "materialist".

except it's substantially different. The fact that a philosophy or ideology proposes an Utopian vision does not turn it into a religion.

saying it's substantially different does not prove to me that it's substantially different.

>The fact that a philosophy or ideology proposes an Utopian vision does not turn it into a religion
it requires a leap of faith that isn't justified by empirical evidence, and presupposes an idealized vision of the world

for the record, I like Hegelianism, I like Marxism, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade. I just don't have any qualms about the nigh religious faith they require.

There are countless unsustainable arrangements in nature, its hardly a wild claim that social arrangements can be the same

That's not what Marx believed. Not even close.

>saying it's substantially different does not prove to me that it's substantially different.
Neither does saying they are basically the same.

>it requires a leap of faith that isn't justified by empirical evidence, and presupposes an idealized vision of the world

Abstraction does not mean an idealized version of the world. ''Spooks'' as you named them, such as Surplus value aren't secularized mythologies, but rather the result of a materialist analysis of economical structures and laws.

Marx didn't propose a "utopian vision". He wasn't some moral philosopher. He was an economist who constructed a model of capitalism. You may disagree with the model, but you can't claim that's not what he was doing.

Keep moaning about people "not reading Capital", or "not reading it in the way I'd like, reaching the conclusions I reached", which is what you really mean.

Makes you sound like some Mufti forever moaning about people not reading the Koran in the original Arabic.

>but you can't claim that's not what he was doing

We can, because he invoked all sort of spooky mystical concepts like 'muh surplus labour'

Fuck you my friend we're not enemies. Cunt. We stick to the critique and the critique alone as we forge the empirical transcendental. Are you fucking deluded? Do you think that's illogical? You fuck. Kant couldn't answer it. Hegel couldn't answer it. These dipshits Lacan and Zizek don't know they need to answer it. We have to combine your erecetion for logic with the infantile reckless questioning of the unverifiable unfalsifiable.

tl'dr Kant

that's dialectical materialism and the communist manifesto, entry level marxism.

>Neither does saying they are basically the same.
I outlined the ideas about history presented in the communist manifesto in a way that mirrors the dogma of the resurrection of christ and his subsequent reign. you still haven't presented any argument besides "you're wrong because I don't want you to be right"

>'Spooks'' as you named them,
that wasn't me, but thanks.

>but rather the result of a materialist analysis of economical structures and laws.
filtered through Marx's own presumptions about how economics work. Marx wasn't some scientist doing experiments, he looked at collections of essentially arbitrary data and applied a narrative to it that may or may not actually be there.

Again, I'm not trying to discredit Marx, I like Marxism.

Surplus labor is simply "labor performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker". There's nothing "spooky" about it.

>Keep moaning about people "not reading Capital"
Don't need your permission, but thanks anyway.

Spoken like a true cuck. You've been cucked into pathological disobedience because "muh redpill". Zizek is wrong about politics, but he's still great imo. Hegel shouldn't be responsible for retarded commie wrote a shitty book. Fuck I'm assmad about this.

>I outlined the ideas about history presented in the communist manifesto in a way that mirrors the dogma of the resurrection of christ and his subsequent reign.

You claimed that
1. Society progresses towards a certain tipping point
2. where the entire world order is overturned
3. And a new econo-political system under which equal everyone is equal reigns across the globe

1 and 3 are in no way comparable to christian eschatology. With 3 we could argue about a ''secular'' version. But a secular version of the end of the world seems a bit paradoxical.

Outside of claiming that 1,2 and 3 are basically the same as christian eschatology, you could maybe explain how they are the same?

>filtered through Marx's own presumptions about how economics work. Marx wasn't some scientist doing experiments, he looked at collections of essentially arbitrary data and applied a narrative to it that may or may not actually be there.

This is literally the same for a scientist. How basic can you even be? Science is incapable of surpassing speculative theories, which improve in their accuracy as time progresses. The same holds true for Marxism which has developed substantially since it's original emergence

*with 2

1. Society progresses towards a certain tipping point
2. The entire world order is overturned
3. and a new econo-political system under which everyone is equal reigns across the globe

1. the world continues to live and die, forced to choose between sin and virtue as a result of the fall
2. until the entire world order is overturned and christ returns to judge the living and the dead
3. and a new kingdom of peace reigns across the world

>secular version of the end of the world seems a bit paradoxical.
it's obviously not a literal end of the world, but it's a dogma about the destiny of humankind.

>This is literally the same for a scientist. How basic can you even be?
ad hominem aside, this may be true, but there are aspects of Marxism that are unfalsifiable (i.e. what exactly is "value"? why is history driven by economic forces? why this blind faith in "progress"?)

But marxism is not a dogma about the destiny of mankind. And I see substantial differences in the comparison that makes it incompatible with each other. You also got 3 wrong, the kingdom of heaves doesn't reign across the world.

>but there are aspects of Marxism that are unfalsifiable (i.e. what exactly is "value"? why is history driven by economic forces? why this blind faith in "progress"?)

What value is, is explain in his work, and has been explained and reflected upon in many economical works. The second and third are also explained in his work.

Marxs predictions or the consequences that he drew from the second and third, have been falsified by the way. Marxism has moved on from his conclusions in many ways, retained them in others. They do not stand as unfalsifiable laws just because he believes in their validity. They are result of a lifelong dedication towards the analysis of interpretation of data, that was certainly not chosen arbitrarily.

>all the butthurt itt

Reading Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History basically shattered my "orthodox" marxism by pointing to historical materialism as a simulacra of christian eschatology... I converted to Catholicism around the same time.

>the kingdom of heaves doesn't reign across the world
jesus christ dude thats a matter of semantics

>The second and third are also explained in his work.
where?

i'm so done with your sophistry

that was me, and i'm a lapsed catholic which probably explains my sympathy towards marxism despite its shortcomings

It's not far off. Alan Macfarlane has suggested that Marx conceived of himself as a prototypical Jewish prophet, preaching fire and brimstone to an uncaring wayward society. He was definitely a revolutionary firebrand. Hayden White describes Marx's view of history, the classical Marxist view, as progressing in the Comic mode, i.e. premised on a reconciliation of conflict at the end, with definite utopian overtones, the idea of which was available to Marx precisely because of Christian eschatological views of history (see Butterfield e.g.).

Whether or not Marxism is inherently a religion is a different question. Plenty of forms of communism need to be separated from state or party communism, and from vague post-Marxian social critique.

Party communism as it manifested historically was and is basically an entire apocalyptic worldview and religion. Soviet Communism was just a totalitarian religion, obviously. "Marxism is the opiate of the masses." Most people acknowledge that now. But the trendy form of Western communism (e.g., so common in France up to the '60s) was basically piggybacking on a vague utopian faith in magical socialism, and caused a lot of towering intellectuals to apologise unabashedly for Stalinist and other Soviet atrocities, naively "withholding judgment" even when horrible shit was happening and they knew about it. Even modern Trots on Western university campuses are just insane retard cultists who literally refuse to read books that aren't written by commies.

Vague post-Marxian social critique is different. It's mostly an attitude or set of attitudes toward history and society. Most major scholars operating in what should fairly be called a Marxian critical framework are pretty open-minded. But the millions of retard undergrads that they teach are basically a new religion of slacktivists. They have just as much absolute faith in "whitey is the root of all problems," and just as fuzzy knowledge of the particulars of what they believe, as the dialectical materialist haruspices of Communist China, and the "it's just a little genocidal, it's still good, it's still good!" French and *cough*Chomsky*cough* type leftists of the Cold War.

this was supposed to quote

This thread is far too serious, not enough Zizposting.