>Also, I really hate all of this politically correct, cultural studies bullshit. If you mention the phrase “postcolonialism,” I say, “Fuck it!” Postcolonialism is the invention of some rich guys from India who saw that they could make a good career in top Western universities by playing on the guilt of white liberals.
Is Zizek right?
Other urls found in this thread:
salon.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
In general? No. In this case? Yes.
he never said that
He did.
It sounds like something he'd say
salon.com
Yes he did.
Yes. It's all nonsense meant to drive minorities into the arms of oligarchs and plutocrats and give boring intellectuals a career.
he actually did it, the absolute madman
lets celebrate
youtube.com
Is this for real? Is there really an indian academic who come up with the word?
If so May I ask who is it?
Nice song.
pajeet poopoo or something like that
>Is Zizek right?
In this case - yes, absolutely.
Is dedicated to Zizek for being a real nigga
>Is Zizek right?
Almost always, but I feel like he doesnt realize it
I think his analysis of the world is so right that it drove him insane (or maybe the other way around), either way it's sad.
I just dont get why does he still call himself a communist or a leftist
If you understood Zizek then you would be a Marxist. He meshes Hegel with Lacan which is dialectical materialism which is the foundation that Marxist thought is built on.
understanding != getting brainwashed
I can tell you don't understand what I'm talking about.
How can one man be so based?
Also he's probably right, cultural studies for instance were born in England with the help of upper middle class immigrants like Stuart Hall
>it drove him insane
why do you say that? he seems to be just like always
>You write that we need to think more and act less. But in the end you identify with Lenin: a famed man of action.
Yes, but wait a minute! Lenin was the right guy. When everything went wrong in 1914, what did he do? He moved to Switzerland and started reading Hegel.
lel
I think he was naturally inclined to be neurotic (you can tell from his own admissions that he is not all right in his mind) but the Marxist and Lacanian way of viewing the world that he has developed, or purposed to his own world, can easily drive someone to feel like they are schizophrenic as we live in Lacan and Marx's nightmare world where images have completely replaced objects.
Also, he became popular after he went down the rabbit hole so it's not fair to say that he is just like always since the only Zizek we know is post red pill Zizek.
You're a pretty good guy Zizek I like you.
*takes a big sniff*
thanks but I don't enjoy praise
Zizek is very intelligent, sad he's a commie though.
>Zizek is just another "m-muh identity politics" brocialist
Colour me surprised.
I mean we already knew about it from his transgender stuff. This just seals the deal though.
Shut the fuck up.
So he's the exact opposite of what he claims to be?
...
No.
He is what he claims to be: an orthodox Hegelian-Lacanian Marxist/Communist who can't come to terms with the fact that identity politics is the next step in its evolution.
>Le Tumblr meme
>uses the word "brocialist"
>not from tumblr
Pick one.
> He is what he claims to be: an orthodox Hegelian-Lacanian Marxist/Communist who can't come to terms with the fact that identity politics is the next step in its evolution.
Neither Hegel, Lacan or Marx go that well with identity politics as opposed to some other more fundamental principle (dialectics, original repression, class struggle, etc.). Identity politics might be the next step, but it is closer to post-Marxism or post- anything else than orthodox stuff. It just seem arbitrary that he has to "come to terms" with it.
He did say it, and honestly it's one of the reasons many people don't consider him a Communist nor a Marxist.
People don't understand that even as Communists, people from Eastern European countries are almost always conservative in temperament, even if they are politically Left.
It's the same thing here in Norway. Most people here are some peculiar amalgamation of Fabian 60s socialist and nationally-romantic Old Guard Conservatives.
>H-He uses a word I d-don't like
>Must be from T-Tumblr!!11!1!!
>It just seem arbitrary
Considering that brocialists like to ignore the concerns of minorities by dogmatically insisting upon the 'class struggle' alone, it's not arbitrary at all.
>Marx does not go well with identity politics
>basic idea of marxism is the separation of proletariat and bourgeoise based solely on class and not political platform or ideology
Marx is predicated on identity politics and his ideas arguably lead to the rise of identity politics theory in the West.
too bad he is still shilling marxism, the left needs to find another alternative
Read the whole thing I wrote, I said identity politics vs. class struggle rather than the identities of class struggle.
Post-Marxists might agree with you, but for a classical Marxist the focus is on class struggle and all other ways of forming identities are secondary (although not dismissed obviously).
> Considering that brocialists like to ignore the concerns of minorities by dogmatically insisting upon the 'class struggle' alone, it's not arbitrary at all.
True, but it seems like it's jumping from ignoring the concerns of minorities to ignoring the concerns of the working class (as vague as such terms might be today). It certainly reminds me of the US election in any case.
If you've watched his longer lectures he pretty often subscribes to conspiracy theories regarding geopolitics, and he's always saying he likes the fascist discipline.
> brocialist
lol, Marxism is a dead-end
have fun fighting amongst yourselves, adhering to a theory that never properly understood finance, and is empirically wrong when it comes to the supposed stages of history
> he's always saying he likes the fascist discipline
I don't know if he's ever called it that though, as opposed to just the vague "order" that can be found acceptable by almost anyone due to it's imprecise nature.
he's said he admires "Fascist discipline"
and he's said a bunch of /pol/ tier shit about the current situation in the middle east
...
> adhering to a theory that never properly understood finance, and is empirically wrong when it comes to the supposed stages of history
Nobody does that though, at best a classical Marxist reading is presented as a pedagogical exercise. It's no less true that the Left doesn't really have an alternative though, aside from all kinds of abstract workers' self-management plans that don't really count.
Slavoj "My God, the Hitler Youth is very admirable" Zizek
> /pol/ tier shit about the current situation in the middle east
Any examples? I've listened to most of his recent stuff, but nothing struck me as really /pol/. Unless you mean the US working with the rich Muslim countries that don't take immigrants, but that's hardly news.
...
Nobody adheres to Marxism? Or no Marxists know that Marx was simply not that smart when it comes to finance, and feudalism and capitalism never emerged as distinct stages and always co-existed?
It's a bunk theory, made even worse by the inclusion of Leninist delusions.
I'm saying that nobody, not even Zizek despite what some seem to think, is a full on "Marx was right about everything" type Marxist. They pick and choose.
IS that the philosophy board? I thought it was
I'm saying, nobody, not even Zizek, is making actual critiques of Marx. It's always, "well, he was wrong about this, b-but actually the solution was already in Marx, he just didn't know it!"
Always half-ass critiques.
Maybe. The philosophical literature of Slavoj Zizek is fascinating though.
The "distinct stage" of capitalism or feudalism is the period of their dominance as a mode of production. They can only really be called modes of production so long as they are dominant over economic actvitity. That capitalism developed within feudalism is a trivial point. As for finance, Marx understood that fictitious capital would continue growing, just as monopolization would, and that this is in part a response to a long-term falling rate of profit putting greater pressure on the production and appropriation of value.
But it really helped Edward Said though. I think we should remember how it helped him, which I think was the point of Academia in the first place.
>identity politics is the next step in its evolution
What is identity politics supposed to solve? Don't get me wrong: I don't have much of a problem in principle with inter ethnic warfare, but why do you want it?
When is Zizek going to have a Molly-tier breakdown and go full 1488?
...
>not being able to tell the difference between classical marxism and /r/socialism ala
Blablabla
> slavoj will die in your lifetime
go back to reeEEEEEEddit
Not if I can help it
"""Brocialists""" donuts exist. They're a spook cooked up by the same rich brown neoliberals to delegitimize marx
Stop mansplaining, please.
Mansplaining was made up by rich white women to delegitimize modes of argument with which their foucaultian lens does not permit them to deal