After watching the debate I feel that zizek has some good criticism on capitalism. Anyone else?

You commies are insufferable dumb cunt flaggots. The only solution for your kind is death.

Gee what a change for socialist faggots.

You didn't really watch it did you? Are you that big of a useful idiot?

Attached: npc demoralization.jpg (1024x620, 97K)

>smarer
unintentionally hilarious

See antifaggots and communists

so what arguments in favor of socialism did he make? (and not just against capitalism)

you told him, bro!

the same thing!

perfectly describes the state of MAGAfags

It's true. You can literally show communist flags on here all the evidence and facts you want, they will not listen. The point I'm making is that once any society has enough demoralized communists agitating for revolution, you have to kill them all or put them in reeducation camps.

>what are college educated workers
>what are immigrants from mexico
>what are females in the work force
explains 100% of the gap

>so what arguments in favor of socialism did he make?
I don't watch NPC theatre, sorry.

Attached: npc white genocide.jpg (720x546, 65K)

Not socialism as a whole but the regulatory structure such as in China which does a better job at approaching global scale issues. He gave an example of our polluted oceans and that the only way to approach this would be a multinational force. This can't be done with just a free market capitalism, because it's goals have a pure usefully limited scope. What I like is that he recognizes China's shortcomings and has no problem critiquing Marxism.

Attached: 1555485123794m.jpg (1024x576, 84K)

pure= purposeful*

fair enough, but socialism =/= regulated capitalism. i do agree that capitalism should be regulated, but then again, only ancaps would disagree

both are irrelevant and had nothing intresting to say about anything

But I have to disagree because regulated capitalism gives birth to common goals which give birth to specialized budgets

>China is socialist

Attached: 324.png (1100x740, 1.85M)

Your reading comprehension sucks

I'm a JBP fan, but I was disappointed by Peterson. But to be honest, Zizek was also equally nuts. His opening statement sounded like a sci-fi story to me.

The issue with the debate is that JBP thinks that postmodern philosophers were sneaky marxists because they were previously marxists. To him, postmodernism is just a sneaky way to continue marxism. Meanwhile, Zizek and other postmodernists claim that postmodern philosophers specifically created postmodernism because it was obvious Marxism was a flawed philosophy and we're trying to get away from Marxism. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

To JBP credit, there are a lot of elements of Marxism in postmodern writing. The oppressor vs. oppressed element is a key tenent, although it is framed as a dominant center inherently oppresses the fringe views/centers. On the other hand, postmodernism dismisses grand narratives, which Marxism happens to be.

If the debate was instead happiness, postmodernism and individualism we might have had a more interesting discussion. That being said, I'm not familiar with Zizeks work. He's definitely a character as JBP said during the debate

>elements of Marxism
>The oppressor vs. oppressed element is a key tenent, although it is framed as a dominant center inherently oppresses the fringe views/centers.
>elements

Attached: 5d82a28c6eef4e6bcf8612c8828de8c9.jpg (1103x893, 121K)

>Hourly compensation is down while productivity is up
>Still want immigrants
Almonds activated

if hourly compensations go down it's logical to push for more and more immigration since they are the ones willing to worm for shitty wages in the first place.

Attached: 1553274002138.png (625x773, 112K)

And what happens when you got more worker than jobs aside rise of unemployment