>fat
>mentally ill
>can't even stay on topic
>interrupts everyone constantly
>can't even finish a thought
>can't even fully explain a point
How is this guy a "Leftist intellectual"? I'm not a leftist, but he sucks so bad I almost wonder if liberals prop him up to make leftism look bad
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
2deep4u
You see to understand zizek you must already have an idea of what hes talking about, hes like some sort of oracle, to be interpreted rather than understood.
All the ideologies have been loaded into his mind, ALL of them! Every single one. This made him incomprehensible, but from the swirling chaos insight leaks out.
Speaking as someone who was quite into zizek 10 or so years ago the reason is this - Zizek was the last memorable figure before the 2007-2008 IDpol apocalypse of the left, most intelligent leftists or Bernie bro types secretly hate the sjw left but are just seething because they can’t say anything. They cling to Zizek because he’s the last thinker before the left closed it’s doors and became full globocorp IDpol shills, and there won’t be any more coming either.
t. jordan peterstein fanboy
Okay but what is the point of what he's doing? Why can't he just finish a fucking thought or clarify what he's saying?
I just think he's mental, he doesn't even make that many references to philosophical terminology
Whats his take on Kautsky? On Reed? Is he a run of the mill Lenin apologist or what?
Isn't he a commie loving faggot?
He's Estonian. What do you
>sniiiiiiif
want from him?
Nobody on the left 'secretly' hates sjw, they openly hate the sjw 'left' and openly condemn them as liberals. Any who dont are themselves liberals.
no he's just repeating the same fucking shit every commie does after you get to the bottom of it
>trust me guys if i was in power socialism would totally have worked
He doesnt really have takes, he has ideas. See he knows everything, he just cant figure out what to make of it. Entertaining ideas occur to him and he tells people. Its up to us to try and figure it out
of course, anyone who knows what marx actually said is a marxist, hes also studied a lot of theology and does fun things like spend hours and hours doing apologetics while insisting he is in fact an atheist.
A treasure.
Yes maybe real commies don't, but you do realise how small of a number they are. Just like the alt right calling themselves fascist when they aren't at all. also fuck commies
*sniffs*
Perhaps Marxism is dispensable, but collectivism is humanity's state of nature and it doesn't simply go away just because MI6 runs a shitposting campaign in the global MSM.
A lot of the economic scholarship on the left has moved toward deprecating money as a store of value, which only serves to reward lazy thieves.
Kill yourself, neoliberal shill.
He's smart and well read I guess, but he isn't a serous person, so I don't waste time listening to him.
I guess you could appreciate him as a sort of performance artist, but I'm not into that sort of thing personally.
>of course, anyone who knows what marx actually said is a marxist
The only good thing he did was his critique and denouncement of capitalism as a bad system that erodes the people
>I'm not a leftist, but he sucks so bad I almost wonder if liberals prop him up to make leftism look bad
i wonder the same thing about peterson and the right
This. It's just that the non-SJW left is openly ignored
Ive bairly even heard him talk about socialism, of course it can be infered when he condemns capitalism, like when he explained how the west will adopt a form of buddhism to let them continue being capitalist while pointing out how society sees the material world as less real and not important but then values these perspectives and new age meditative memes with the expectation that distancing themselves from the material will make them even better at being fully committed and capable to obtaining their wealth and worldly possessions.
I think he is a stand-up comedian
>like when he explained how the west will adopt a form of buddhism to let them continue being capitalist while pointing out how society sees the material world as less real and not important but then values these perspectives and new age meditative memes with the expectation that distancing themselves from the material will make them even better at being fully committed and capable to obtaining their wealth and worldly possessions.
Spengler was right again
Surprisingly well written for a commie.
Meet the modern communist, a slave of the corporotocracy
*thought
Isn't Spengler (almost) always right though?
A lot of the things he says and examples he gives you have to take with a grain of salt.
What you have to understand is that he is a philosopher in the tradition of Lacanian psycho-analysis. A lot of the weird stuff he says is basically applying Lacan to pop culture.
A really important point Zizek (and I think Lacan) makes is that the Symbolic is more real than the "scientific" worldview. If you begin to understand this Zizek starts to make a lot of sense.
I think people shouldn't underestimate Zizek. I don't agree with his politics at all but he is still worth reading. He criticizes the left as much as the right. He has become a meme because he is so easily memeable and people don't understand him because it takes a lot of effort to understand - just like any big philosopher.
Peterson's a liberal.
Or actively fought like in Germany.
It's the constant spittle that I can't stand personally. It just sounds disgusting, you can hear the spittle in his mouth
I laughed too hard at this!
have my (you) of appreciation!
>sniff
capitalishm ish alot like a cocainea
>sniff
you havsh to shniff it to feelsh the full effectsh
>sniff
Slovenian.
Commies are only that far end of the spectrum, the socialists are a little less kooky but their idealizations are all such blue skies thinking that is pretty much doomed to backfire. They also do a lot of backstabbing and petty infighting among each other.
Some policies generally to the left are ok, e.g. workers' rights, antitrust policies, open source/copyleft. Generally anything that respects private property and doesn't involve any kind of forced redistribution of wealth is fine. Welfare policies are ok to some extent but require actual oversight, means testing, and agreement to certain social conditions.
The one thing that gets ignored is the role of state planning - everyone just talks about muh gibs, rather than the merits of whether certain aspects of an economy should be planned. That is because lefties and most people in general are retarded about economics. State control is necessary for things vital to defense and economic security, and arguably useful when dealing with natural monopolies (privately owned companies can become rent seekers that leech off people) but beyond that inefficiencies start to creep up and you end up with bread lines.
Peterson isn't on the right, he's a part of the individualist classic liberal bull shit that Sargon conceived, it's basically the liberal agenda just slowed down slightly so people will calmly accept their countries being torn apart from the inside.
But he IS a communist though?
Zizek is a postmodernist and their literature is rife with obscurantism. This is partly to make their writings seem inaccessible to all but the most learned intellectuals, and lefties really love their circlejerks. Zizek in particular is such a meme that even leftists acknowledge it and appreciation of his writing is always taken as tongue-in-cheek or with a grain of salt - it's like that "lol I was only trolling you" shit that edgy retards do.
Obscurantism also adds some degree of plausible deniability and vagueness to the actual point he's making and allows for diverse interpretation instead of unambiguity. That allows other postmodernists to cite and review his work until the end of time, which makes him popular.
If you think Zizek is bad, try opening a page of Baudrillard. At least some of the stuff he writes is almost like poetry even if he might not be saying anything:
>"The end of history is, alas, also the end of the dustbins of history. There are no longer any dustbins for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values. Where are we going to throw Marxism, which actually invented the dustbins of history? (Yet there is some justice here since the very people who invented them have fallen in.) Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history, this is because History itself has become a dustbin. It has become its own dustbin, just as the planet itself is becoming its own dustbin."
nice avatar of yourself idiot
>2deep4u
Thread.
Could say the same about someone with Down syndrome.
>Isn't Spengler (almost) always right though?
yup
I don't. Before I listen to any ideologue, figure or philosopher I look at their life. Is their life shit?
If the answer is yes, then nothing they have to say has value.
>inb4somefaggotcriesabouttheiralcoholicbachelorphilosopher
keep listening to losers and you'll become one
so... when is a life shit?
Only leftist with nuts
Typically abstract but he's fun
His disillusioned peeps are our future Nazbols
Q predicted this
I am a professor at a top Russian university, and I have a strict rule about never using materials from individuals who have killed themselves. My colleagues find it atrocious.
And what is your idea of a not shit life?
Zizek speaks and you listen to him. Its hard to not listen to zizek, when ever i hear him talking i am compelled to continue listening until he is finished because with zizek you always get this sense that any minute now hes going to actually get around to saying something.
kys
>>"The end of history is, alas, also the end of the dustbins of history. There are no longer any dustbins for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values. Where are we going to throw Marxism, which actually invented the dustbins of history? (Yet there is some justice here since the very people who invented them have fallen in.) Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history, this is because History itself has become a dustbin. It has become its own dustbin, just as the planet itself is becoming its own dustbin."
this is your brain on post-modernism ...
not even once!
>Its hard to not listen to zizek
I find the opposite to be the case
thats a shitty life
waiting for someone to say something meaningful
>Muh 2deep4u
Top kek
zizek is like music, someone will link me something and say "listen to what he says at timestam" and ill listen to it and then notice that was only half way through the talk and ill have to sit there and listen to the rest of it as well. You cant just cut off zizek.
Thats actually how im here right now, 8 hours ago someone linked me zizek, waiting for it to finish i started browsing Jow Forums and ive been here ever since.
It's okay to appreciate it if you treat it like poetry, because it reads just like poetry.
Also, if you know how to regurgitate or interpret po-mo literature correctly, you seem deep and introspective to pseudo-intellectual thots and that's useful if you want to hatefuck a liberal hipster chick or something.
On the other hand we associate Nietzsche with edgy teens and undergrads because his writing is expressive, understandable, and accessible-ish and therefore not 2deep4u. Since then a lot of continental philosophy has slowly evolved into masturbatory dogshit where everyone tries to one-up each other with crazier terms and concepts.
He is a communist and this is where I disagree with him. But he is not a communist in the traditional sense and his critique of communism is very interesting.
I hope I understood him correctly but he says that everyone who claims to know what communism will be like after the revolution is an idiot and the revolution will fail, because people keep defining communism from a capitalist perspective.
One example he uses in almost every book is the movie They Live. In the movie this guy finds sunglasses and when he wears them he sees that a lot of people are actually ayy lmaos. The point he makes about this movie is that the common conception that we watch the "real world" through the lense of ideology is wrong: actually we see the world through ideology and if you want to see the world as it is you have to wear the sunglasses.
Because we are raised in a capitalist ideology we can only define communism through the lense of capitalism, and this is why communism never worked.
>I hope I understood him correctly but he says that everyone who claims to know what communism will be like after the revolution is an idiot and the revolution will fail, because people keep defining communism from a capitalist perspective.
That's kind of a fair point. It won't be something we typically think of as communism, or it would be difficult or impossible to imagine. A very basic and superficial example would be Star Trek's Federation, which is essentially a communist society, but it doesn't have red banners or hammers and sickles everywhere and private property seems to be respected.
If communism is ever possible it'd probably require transhumanism, fusion power, AI or some other magic singularitarian tech to be viable. More likely it will require insane amounts of creepy social engineering to get everyone on board. We have the technological capacity to sustain a communist society, the problem is political or with human nature itself.
>private property
A perfect example of what Zizek meant.
Also "human nature" is very malleable. Look up Ifcher's paper on Homo economicus. Spoiler: it's a meme
Adding, as for politics, direct democracy is the only system of government that does not devote its practice to the preservation of a jewing ruling class.
>private property seems to be respected.
I dont recall there being any private property in trek.
You do realize private property is land and factories and such, not houses or things you use for a hobby, right? Thinking of TNG i can think of picards family orchard but honestly that could fall under hobby since they can just replicate food and drink by that point. When everyone owns everything and we are post scaricy there is no reason to say you must move from this piece of land, and houses are not private property in socialism but personal property.
The only real capitalistic stuff you see in trek is outside of the federation.
What a retard. Communism won't work because the ideologues don't survive the power vacuum. The people willing to murder, opportunistically using the ideology, do.
Our "human nature", is just a product of the capitalistic system we live in. If everyone had their fair share since birth there would be no need to be greedy. Once a state like that is achieved we can have communism. But to get to that we need socialism to teach people to not be cunts.
>But to get to that we need socialism to teach people to not be cunts
That was the point of religion, how the fuck can you write that sentence and not have that dawned on you.
Thanks for the infographic Now I know why the Left is so retarded
Obviously it didn't work because it enabled a ruling class of cunts who knew better.
Before communism can be transitioned into everywhere is made self sufficient anyway, everything you need would be there already and the things elsewhere would not be anything you could not obtain locally. You dont need to try and shape human nature that much for communism to work, communism is the easy part, its surviving early socialism thats tricky because there are still capitalistic elements at play that can try to undermine it. Once you have global socialism you have it made. It will take quite some time under a global proletarian dictatorship before communism is set up and ready however.
>that pic
>he thinks mind uploading, superintelligence, post-scarcity, etc will eventually become a reality, but neuroscience won't ever get advanced enough to get rid of the agony created by chemical reactions in your brain
Yes, opportunists who use ideology as a tool to get what they want will, in the end, win over the people who have no such drive. I explained it already here
I think Zizek would argue that in order for a revolution to succeed there can't be ideologues in the first place. Also Zizek would be the first to say that a revolution will probably be very violent.
He's not a retard, if you read between the lines he is pretty nuanced.
I called him a retard because he mollycoddles around the reason why communism fails with elaborate bullshit.
communism has never failed, because communism has never been tried
Or society doesn't survive attempts at communism.
The elaborate bullshit is not made up just to explain why communism fails. He applies Lacanian psycho-analysis to various phenomena, one of them communism, and shows that this worldview can also explain why communism failed.
Your family photo?
Retard
The reason is much simpler. It's elaborate bs because having biases color your experience has is unavoidable.
>mentally ill
>Leftist intellectual
you answered your own question mate
i admire him
Communism can only be attempted after a global socialist proletarian dictatorship. Communism is as different from socialism as socialism is from capitalism.
Capitalism is a state enforced class based society
Socialism is a state enforced classless society
Communism is a stateless, classless society.
It is precisely because people ARE selfish that you can not transition directly from capitalism to communism, even when capitalism might have the means to do so. The capitalist class will never give up their power, even if they must throw away the things they produce just so they can produce more. Marx understood this element of human nature, so before you can eliminate the state you must eliminate class. Under socialism you have a state which functions the same way as a state functions under capitalism; to enforce the interests of the ruling class. However, since under socialism class distinction has been abolished, a state being 'corrupted' towards the interest of the ruling class, is in fact still just functioning in the interest of all people. Eventually this pursuit of self interest will result in the conditions for communism to be transitioned into, and because this transition will not result in any power transition since the people are already the ones in charge, it will just happen when possible, perhaps with out even any formal change over.
It is this tendency i mentioned early, where capitalists will start even throwing away product just to sustain capitalism, that is the very reason we must get rid of capitalism, it will consume endlessly. You see it already; "They dont make things like they used to"? This is a sign, the quality of goods and services are declining while peoples ability to buy them is also dwindling, this is because rate of profit is getting very low.
yeah it does get annoying *sniff* over time
what's quintessential zizek material?
can anyone recommend books and videos?
how to read lacan
He gets so much hate from leftist for being politically incorrect I really don't understand why he isn't regarded a hero on pol
Yes, he just argues that it is much deeper than just a bias.
There is no power vacuum when people form vigilante gangs to kill those who think they are somehow more essentiallybetter than others.
Communism doesn't fail without trillions of dollars being spent against it.
Shouldn't you kill yourself for being a cripple-dicked cripple-brained neoliberal jew who actually takes aristocrat shills like (((Mises))) and Hayek seriously?
Because you jewniggers are paid to conflate liberals with leftists and pretend that liberals aren't right-wingerfs that you have more in common with than you don't.
I enjoy this little snippet of zizek from a documentary
youtube.com
In it he defends extremism as a concept. Very useful for anyone not satisfied with the status quo suffering from the programming that you should just accept it and try to vote away the problems.
>checked for truth
I don't hate zizek despite his marxist nonsense
gas yourself anyway, commie
How to read Lacan for getting the framework. It is only like 100 pages and very cheap, and it already has some good stuff.
I think some good entry level books are Event, Trouble in Paradise, Violence, Welcome to the Desert of the Real. But make sure to read those after the one on Lacan.
When you start reading them, don't try to understand everything yet, just go with it
>You do realize private property is land and factories and such, not houses or things you use for a hobby, right?
So in other words, capital or any kind of claim to it. But then again, where exactly do you make the distinction between something which is acceptable to own and what isn't?
Suppose I have my own personal automated robotic factory that makes widgets for cheap. Maybe these are sold, or given out freely to people who need them. Maybe it makes things that I need. Maybe my hobby is making bespoke widgets. And let's assume that I don't have to exploit anyone or screw anybody else to keep it running. Shouldn't I at least desire to have the expectation that someone isn't going to come along and fuck with it, or to not feel threatened by anybody who might be able to do so?
I can also think of at least one other ethical/practical basis on having a system of enforceable ownership: ecological or historical conservation. But in many cases those rely on various systems of collective/abstracted ownership.
>since they can just replicate food and drink by that point.
What is a replicator but something that creates goods? Surely that homes in ST must have at least one sitting around. Sure maybe you can exclude it since that its very existence rules out a market entirely, but it basically is a mini factory. Perhaps it's more that the distinction essentially becomes meaningless for all the small stuff.
>When everyone owns everything
Who is everyone? Like, how far does that collective ownership reach and how is it exercised? Or more generally, the collective interest of the body politic, like determining things like laws and such, since it amounts to practically the same thing.
>Adding, as for politics, direct democracy is the only system of government that does not devote its practice to the preservation of a jewing ruling class.
Can't disagree with that.
Socialism doesn't get to the abolished class phase. In come a bunch of blue haired retards that create new classes based on gender or sex preference or skin color. Animal farm achieved.
Zizek has several ideological problems, one of which is that he's still unironically clinging to the idea that Marxism is a scientific analysis of history when it objectively isn't. He's almost a stereotype: He's great at tearing down other peoples' analysis, he completely BTFO'd Noam Chomsky and that was hilarious, but he just can't self-analyze his own position, he isn't capable of it.
His blasting of Chomsky really was fucking hilarious though everyone should watch it.
I've had to listen to him quite a lot, he talks bollocks.
Thanks for replying now I know you're retard
>implying neoliberal bourgeois jewniggers are commies
Kill yourself, neoliberal.
A power vacuum is the phase between established governing bodies.
Bias isn't necessarily superficial. There are biases you are unaware of.
marxism is the true redpill fyi
Opportunists use ideology to get what they want and win over people with no such drive. That is the only point I have been making you retarded crayon eater.
Theodor W. Adorno said: "The forgotten Spengler takes revenge by ending up being right. [...] It is a testament of intellectual helplessness, comparable to that of the political Weimar Republic in the face of Hitler. Spengler hardly ever met an opponent to rival him. Him being forgotten appears as if people gave up and fled."
Based
Zizek is useful in that he introduces communism to edgy social studies students.
It is sad that these people will grow into thinking that psychoanalysis could help bring about socialism or that Marx was a philosopher but hey, Marxism isn't for everyone and especially social studies students.
>where exactly do you make the distinction between something which is acceptable to own and what isn't?
You have to fall back on imperfect things like laws and rules laid down by the government of the people. When does a hammer become means of production? Maybe when you pay someone else to swing it for you, this line of thinking was employed on a few occasions.
>replicator
if everyone has access to a replicator in their house, does it matter whether the replicator is owned by the individual or if it is one of many communally owned things of which everyone has one? The distinction wouldn't matter, so nobody would bother thinking about it.
>laws
socialism tends to use a representative system, where the representatives are themselves workers. Typically in socialism you can not escape some full time beurocrats/politicians. This is a problem that has been aknowledged from the beginning. The only real solution is that the enviornment it occurs in is so 'socialisty' that it doesnt get out of hand, and the worker body retains control. Typically in socialist states this administrative body has been tasked with miner day to day things and important laws can not be made with out the worker counsel voting on them.
>Socialism doesn't get to the abolished class phase
It abolishes economic class right away, everyone gets paid the same and so nobody can possibly have the kind of influence on government you get in capitalism. Which is to say if you are going to get disproportionate influence you at least have to do it politically instead of simply buying it.
>In come a bunch of blue haired retards that create new classes based on gender or sex preference or skin color
No those are liberals and they are already shot :^) Identity politics is bourgeois
Kekked and checked.