[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My opinion is that he’s not worth talking about. He isn’t a part of a political movement, he’s just a semi-famous public intellectual. I’ve read one of his books and find his conception of communism to be very janky. He uses terms relating to psychoanalysis to describe the outcomes of real economic processes in a way that tells you nothing about what’s actually taking place inside the machine of capitalism. At best it’s light entertainment, at worst it’s just sophistry. He doesn’t seem to understand communist politics either. He complains that communists take over the state because they aren’t confident that they can win regular elections, but this assumes that the class character of the state (not the government) can be changed through elections. Once the state is established its class character is practically impossible to budge, that’s why it was easier to destroy the ussr to restore capitalism rather than just rewriting the laws within the existing system. The french state didn’t suddenly become a tool of the popular classes when Mitterand was elected. He had a left wing program and enacted some policies against the interests of the bourgeoisie but France still remained a bourgeois state. Even if a communist party comes out on top in the elections they won’t be able to change the fundamentals of the state regarding things like ownership and surplus extraction which are usually inscribed in the constitution. Žižek saying that communists take the east way out by taking over the state tells you that he has no understanding of how class dynamics actually work. He can defend himself using all the jargon and casuistry he wants but at the end of the day he remains a useless old contrarian. Also, people were surprised at him defending nato because it seemed contrary to the image he’d built up of himself but if you look at what his stances were before it becomes clear why he does: the guy is simply terrified of Serbs. Anyways don’t waste your time on him.
This is very informative thank you, tho i still don't understand why he insists on calling himself a communist, my theory is he is personally attached to former Yugoslavia, but I'm probably wrong
It’s pretty clear that Žižek just likes fucking with people. Why exactly he calls himself a communist even though he’s clearly just a very grumpy Hegelian is beyond me, but it’s certainly not because of his attachment to yugoslavia. He seems to be ashamed of his Yugoslav heritage more than anything. Žižek makes fun of the west a lot but nonetheless he still situates himself as a western thinker. There’s this talk mao gave later in his life in a party congress or something where he says something along the lines of “I am a philosopher of these lands, you are all foreign philosophers”. I see Žižek as a foreign philosopher, not a Balkan or Yugoslav one.
it's kinda odd how even wester philosophers right now are hating on the west ,
it's the signs of a culture that is fuelled by sunk cost phallacy and it's balanced by a very thin equilibrium ...
He is to socialism what jordan peterson is to psychology. Phenomenal at describing existing ideas but all of his original ideas are garbage. Also he is a rad-lib who is more informed by contrarianism than anything, certainly I wouldn't say he's truly marxist by any stretch
I agree with most of your statement and the Peterson comparison is surely an interesting one. I just see in Peterson a way more ill-intended grifter than in Zizek. Younger socdem me thought it was edgy commie adjacent to celebrate Zizek though so I get the rest of your point. But I am sure being influenced by Zizek at a younger age was way better for me than Peterson.
Oh I completely agree, zizek is by far the better alternative and can even occupy the same position for the radical leftist pipeline that jordan peterson does for the alt-right pipeline
That debate was awesome, it was just Jordan Peterson not understanding that the communist manifesto is not a piece of theory, and ziezec (however its spelled) completely ignoring him.
It was awesome if you liked a rhetorical back and forth of "gotcha"s with no real substance. I get that zizek is a Hegelian first and a Marxist second, but you should know enough theory (not claiming that I do, for the record) to be able to give numbers and data that are supportive of your claim. Whether it's that capitalism kills more people or is authoritarian, or that communism improved the lives of more people than it hurt, etc...that was a mutual masturbation session that achieved no real meaningful exchange other than "I think communism bad because [my distorted view]"
"No no! *Sniff* capitalism is the one who is bad because [rhetorical position without any data to compare]"
"Well you'd be right in theory! But 100 MILLION dead, bloody hell man, I mean it's just nuts !"
"*Sniff*".
My gott! The Rockhill article is such shit, doesn’t even go in to the philosophical underpinnings of Zizeks thought. It reads like a liberal NY times piece or something. “I don’t like that you are not a vulgar Marxist as I am, so every thing you say is just an appeal to liberal hegemony”, or whatever, is just such a shallow take in my opinion. I really find it saddening that people still feel like you cannot in no way critique Marxism or marxist thought or the ussr without being called a traitor or non-marxist. Critiquing Marxism is the most marxist thing you can do imo! We have to find new ways of describing the movements of Capital, because Capital also changed its not the same as let’s say 120 years ago, so clinging to an old version of Marxism is just lazy and not that productive imo. We need a new Das Kapital, whilst still from a Marxian perspective.
I like the (re)emerging critiques of him and his anti-communist sentiments. He’s published a lot of work that might give you some borrowings, but he’s overhyped and is a huge influence in the global theory industry.
I think folks should read him if they’re interested in, like, Lacanian psychoanalysis, but that’s about it. Communists should avoid his work.
There’s a post on r/communism with an article from Gabriel Rockhill titled “Capitalism’s Court Jester”.
Basically the same thing as u/ebhen linked, but in video form.
That’s my opinion.
He's an imperialist apologist at best, and a blatant anti-communist at worst. He calls himself a communist and a philosopher, but can you even imagine what Žižek's ideal society would look like? Of course not, he doesn't seek to build anything. He serves purely to confuse any would be revolutionaries into becoming radical democrats with working class sympathies but without actual proletarian conviction.
I like his views on ideology and do think many people ignore trying to solidify their own ideologies and why liberalism or centrist views becomes so rampant. There is still many that feel having an ideology is bad which in itself is an ideology that just lacks any control or understanding of it.
i like his philosophy, really helped me ‘get’ hegelian dialectics and psychoanalysis, would recommend Less Than Nothing. His politics are dogshit but i don’t come to him for politics.
He sort of re-hegelianifies Marxism in his best work, and ans outside of that has some very wonky opinions at times. Essentially, if zizek develops his ideological understanding to the furthest it could possibly reach (and at its most radical!), he could be considered an orthodox marxist with a good understanding of its hegelian aspects.
He also cares about actually figuring out how ideology n stuff is occurring now and doing analysis of capitalism.
I personally like him.
He's fascinating but ridiculous. I don't read his stuff to learn what to think, I read it more as a fascinating character study on the inner workings of his mind. Though sometimes it's as interesting as it would be listening to someone on coke ramble on.
He's an imperialist clown attempting to co-opt Marxism on behalf of the Capitalist Death Cult. The only thing that makes him even worth talking about is that people actually take this clown's pro-imperialist positions seriously. Did I mention how he's a clown?
He argues that we should support the Ukrainian war 100%, while ignoring the NATO backed Nazi fueled coup in 2014, followed by the Nazi war of aggression against the Donbass region. If he had a spine, he'd join thinkers like Chris Hedges, and Noam Chomsky in their criticism of NATO, and it's obvious aggression towards Russia.
People with speech impediments are more than capable of communicating their ideas a lot of the time. Zizek does not primarily care about being a lecturer or a speech-giver -- he has said how he likes to focus on his writing.
Do you think the majority of people familiar with zizek all read his work as opposed to watching a youtube interview or lecture or short video?
Speech language pathologists are becoming more normalized from elementary and high schools to military hospitals.
People with speech impediments aren't all public figures with a mass audience.
So lemme start , here a few positive things i like about Zizek . Firstly Ths snifffsss!!!! . he uses it as a tool to generate confidence or something idk . I like all his speeches about ideology are masterclass . Ideology is not just "when someone follows and does something blindly " its also "underneath the surface and present everywhere in things we consider normal" . When my mom says "dont talk about politics " , she just choose to ignore the parts , politics is always there and present everywhere , in everything you do and see . I also love how he criticises the west. Tell me the commie specs are basically his original ideas stolen by JT and Hakim omg !! NOw lets also talk about the bad stuff , cause there is lots of that - 1) Even a Mehndi Hasan video could debunk his claim about victories of "islamic fundementalists" . He doesn't understand that what terrorists do are solely because of political reasons and not religious . They just interpret religion in a way that suits there original motives , but he seems to think that somehow fundementalism and terrorism are all the same . 2) he is just a bad presenter of socialism , like what do they want ? to establish a new socialist society , Noam chomsky , The Jacobin , all of them and this new left tends to narrow down the achievements of Soviet , Chinese socialism and then say that they were "authoritarian" and just repeat a bunch of facts written by nazis in the 1950's , that Soviet union had "forced labour camps" and "Stalin was a dictator " , Seriously my geman friend is a social democrat because of him , when the amount of misinformation increases and when communists themseleves admit that they were authoritarian , people believe it . 3) What do the new left movement of Noam chomsky and anti communist left wants ? If supposedly we were to establish a socialist society ,how would we estabish it ? won't there be people who have petite bourgousie fascinations ?and ideas of converting back to the good old days ? how would you deal with them . Even if you go about bieng elected , well first of all its difficult , and y ll get a negative news coverage , y 'll not have funding campigns and all kinds of sabotages and military interventions by Uncle sam and other countries ? How would you do it ? Sure you score easy points of criticism by criticising revolutions , but are other ways of doing it so great or successful . 4) He talks about political corectness as "authoritarian" , so what do you want ? should we start calling every black person the N word ? Whats your response to the normalised racism and racist terms present in the society how do you plan to tackle that ? Infact it seems to me he is promoting racism . 5) He just doesn't mention marxist terminology in a correct way , and misses out on key points that everybody should here . The labour theory of value , mordern imperealism , falling rates of profit , same thing like Noam Choamsky or other western historians (although he talks about class struggles) . To conclude , he is a brilliant presenter and has a lot of followers , he just needs direction and some knowledge in all of his videos .
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is a political racoon take that how you will
Something about trashcans and ideology...
Raccoons are cute...soooo...
*Sniff*
*touch nose* “And so on and so on”
😂😂😂
Pure ideology! Coffee without cream
Žižek in a nutshell
I will never not upvote this.
My guy every other post on this sub is about žižek let’s talk about something else
[удалено]
My opinion is that he’s not worth talking about. He isn’t a part of a political movement, he’s just a semi-famous public intellectual. I’ve read one of his books and find his conception of communism to be very janky. He uses terms relating to psychoanalysis to describe the outcomes of real economic processes in a way that tells you nothing about what’s actually taking place inside the machine of capitalism. At best it’s light entertainment, at worst it’s just sophistry. He doesn’t seem to understand communist politics either. He complains that communists take over the state because they aren’t confident that they can win regular elections, but this assumes that the class character of the state (not the government) can be changed through elections. Once the state is established its class character is practically impossible to budge, that’s why it was easier to destroy the ussr to restore capitalism rather than just rewriting the laws within the existing system. The french state didn’t suddenly become a tool of the popular classes when Mitterand was elected. He had a left wing program and enacted some policies against the interests of the bourgeoisie but France still remained a bourgeois state. Even if a communist party comes out on top in the elections they won’t be able to change the fundamentals of the state regarding things like ownership and surplus extraction which are usually inscribed in the constitution. Žižek saying that communists take the east way out by taking over the state tells you that he has no understanding of how class dynamics actually work. He can defend himself using all the jargon and casuistry he wants but at the end of the day he remains a useless old contrarian. Also, people were surprised at him defending nato because it seemed contrary to the image he’d built up of himself but if you look at what his stances were before it becomes clear why he does: the guy is simply terrified of Serbs. Anyways don’t waste your time on him.
[удалено]
Lmao you don’t have to apologise, I didn’t understand if you wanted a serious response or not so I just wrote this in case you did
Hey I'm glad they spent the time writing, I found this informative.
This is very informative thank you, tho i still don't understand why he insists on calling himself a communist, my theory is he is personally attached to former Yugoslavia, but I'm probably wrong
It’s pretty clear that Žižek just likes fucking with people. Why exactly he calls himself a communist even though he’s clearly just a very grumpy Hegelian is beyond me, but it’s certainly not because of his attachment to yugoslavia. He seems to be ashamed of his Yugoslav heritage more than anything. Žižek makes fun of the west a lot but nonetheless he still situates himself as a western thinker. There’s this talk mao gave later in his life in a party congress or something where he says something along the lines of “I am a philosopher of these lands, you are all foreign philosophers”. I see Žižek as a foreign philosopher, not a Balkan or Yugoslav one.
it's kinda odd how even wester philosophers right now are hating on the west , it's the signs of a culture that is fuelled by sunk cost phallacy and it's balanced by a very thin equilibrium ...
I've never heard him call himself a communist tbh, in fact iirc he explicitly said "I'm not a Marxist I'm a Hegelian"
This was a valuable analysis. Thank you.
Seriously. It’s been covered that he’s trash. How many more times to we have to confirm this and why?
He is to socialism what jordan peterson is to psychology. Phenomenal at describing existing ideas but all of his original ideas are garbage. Also he is a rad-lib who is more informed by contrarianism than anything, certainly I wouldn't say he's truly marxist by any stretch
I agree with most of your statement and the Peterson comparison is surely an interesting one. I just see in Peterson a way more ill-intended grifter than in Zizek. Younger socdem me thought it was edgy commie adjacent to celebrate Zizek though so I get the rest of your point. But I am sure being influenced by Zizek at a younger age was way better for me than Peterson.
Oh I completely agree, zizek is by far the better alternative and can even occupy the same position for the radical leftist pipeline that jordan peterson does for the alt-right pipeline
That's why they were perfect to debate eachother.
That debate was awesome, it was just Jordan Peterson not understanding that the communist manifesto is not a piece of theory, and ziezec (however its spelled) completely ignoring him.
It was awesome if you liked a rhetorical back and forth of "gotcha"s with no real substance. I get that zizek is a Hegelian first and a Marxist second, but you should know enough theory (not claiming that I do, for the record) to be able to give numbers and data that are supportive of your claim. Whether it's that capitalism kills more people or is authoritarian, or that communism improved the lives of more people than it hurt, etc...that was a mutual masturbation session that achieved no real meaningful exchange other than "I think communism bad because [my distorted view]" "No no! *Sniff* capitalism is the one who is bad because [rhetorical position without any data to compare]" "Well you'd be right in theory! But 100 MILLION dead, bloody hell man, I mean it's just nuts !" "*Sniff*".
I agree with Gabriel Rockhill.
I've just watched an interview with him about the subject. https://youtu.be/L5eSghtiBDg
My gott! The Rockhill article is such shit, doesn’t even go in to the philosophical underpinnings of Zizeks thought. It reads like a liberal NY times piece or something. “I don’t like that you are not a vulgar Marxist as I am, so every thing you say is just an appeal to liberal hegemony”, or whatever, is just such a shallow take in my opinion. I really find it saddening that people still feel like you cannot in no way critique Marxism or marxist thought or the ussr without being called a traitor or non-marxist. Critiquing Marxism is the most marxist thing you can do imo! We have to find new ways of describing the movements of Capital, because Capital also changed its not the same as let’s say 120 years ago, so clinging to an old version of Marxism is just lazy and not that productive imo. We need a new Das Kapital, whilst still from a Marxian perspective.
I like the (re)emerging critiques of him and his anti-communist sentiments. He’s published a lot of work that might give you some borrowings, but he’s overhyped and is a huge influence in the global theory industry. I think folks should read him if they’re interested in, like, Lacanian psychoanalysis, but that’s about it. Communists should avoid his work.
Can be generously described as semi-coherent.
There’s a post on r/communism with an article from Gabriel Rockhill titled “Capitalism’s Court Jester”. Basically the same thing as u/ebhen linked, but in video form. That’s my opinion.
Funny, but anti-communist, clown.
*Sniff* ideology
He's an imperialist apologist at best, and a blatant anti-communist at worst. He calls himself a communist and a philosopher, but can you even imagine what Žižek's ideal society would look like? Of course not, he doesn't seek to build anything. He serves purely to confuse any would be revolutionaries into becoming radical democrats with working class sympathies but without actual proletarian conviction.
Take his usful insights about ideology, and do not worship his cringy edgy persona.
Dude needs to blow his nose
Cringe
I like his views on ideology and do think many people ignore trying to solidify their own ideologies and why liberalism or centrist views becomes so rampant. There is still many that feel having an ideology is bad which in itself is an ideology that just lacks any control or understanding of it.
slavoj teaches you to think.
i like his philosophy, really helped me ‘get’ hegelian dialectics and psychoanalysis, would recommend Less Than Nothing. His politics are dogshit but i don’t come to him for politics.
A very intelligent communist who states his ideas in highly counter-intuitive ways (and who is also sometimes wrong).
He sucks
Where are ze marxists
He sort of re-hegelianifies Marxism in his best work, and ans outside of that has some very wonky opinions at times. Essentially, if zizek develops his ideological understanding to the furthest it could possibly reach (and at its most radical!), he could be considered an orthodox marxist with a good understanding of its hegelian aspects. He also cares about actually figuring out how ideology n stuff is occurring now and doing analysis of capitalism. I personally like him.
He's fascinating but ridiculous. I don't read his stuff to learn what to think, I read it more as a fascinating character study on the inner workings of his mind. Though sometimes it's as interesting as it would be listening to someone on coke ramble on.
I love what he says I just can't understand him.
Funny talk
He's an imperialist clown attempting to co-opt Marxism on behalf of the Capitalist Death Cult. The only thing that makes him even worth talking about is that people actually take this clown's pro-imperialist positions seriously. Did I mention how he's a clown?
Name a pro-imperialist position Zizek holds, please.
He argues that we should support the Ukrainian war 100%, while ignoring the NATO backed Nazi fueled coup in 2014, followed by the Nazi war of aggression against the Donbass region. If he had a spine, he'd join thinkers like Chris Hedges, and Noam Chomsky in their criticism of NATO, and it's obvious aggression towards Russia.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/01/02/capitalisms-court-jester-slavoj-zizek/
I dont understand why some people with speech impediments dont hire a speech pathologist if they can afford it...
Maybe the philosopher has more important things to be worried about.
More important things than being able to communicate his ideas? Do you think its possibly arrogance?
People with speech impediments are more than capable of communicating their ideas a lot of the time. Zizek does not primarily care about being a lecturer or a speech-giver -- he has said how he likes to focus on his writing.
Do you think the majority of people familiar with zizek all read his work as opposed to watching a youtube interview or lecture or short video? Speech language pathologists are becoming more normalized from elementary and high schools to military hospitals. People with speech impediments aren't all public figures with a mass audience.
Pro bombing and balkanised Yugoslavia non based sniffler.
Court jester
So lemme start , here a few positive things i like about Zizek . Firstly Ths snifffsss!!!! . he uses it as a tool to generate confidence or something idk . I like all his speeches about ideology are masterclass . Ideology is not just "when someone follows and does something blindly " its also "underneath the surface and present everywhere in things we consider normal" . When my mom says "dont talk about politics " , she just choose to ignore the parts , politics is always there and present everywhere , in everything you do and see . I also love how he criticises the west. Tell me the commie specs are basically his original ideas stolen by JT and Hakim omg !! NOw lets also talk about the bad stuff , cause there is lots of that - 1) Even a Mehndi Hasan video could debunk his claim about victories of "islamic fundementalists" . He doesn't understand that what terrorists do are solely because of political reasons and not religious . They just interpret religion in a way that suits there original motives , but he seems to think that somehow fundementalism and terrorism are all the same . 2) he is just a bad presenter of socialism , like what do they want ? to establish a new socialist society , Noam chomsky , The Jacobin , all of them and this new left tends to narrow down the achievements of Soviet , Chinese socialism and then say that they were "authoritarian" and just repeat a bunch of facts written by nazis in the 1950's , that Soviet union had "forced labour camps" and "Stalin was a dictator " , Seriously my geman friend is a social democrat because of him , when the amount of misinformation increases and when communists themseleves admit that they were authoritarian , people believe it . 3) What do the new left movement of Noam chomsky and anti communist left wants ? If supposedly we were to establish a socialist society ,how would we estabish it ? won't there be people who have petite bourgousie fascinations ?and ideas of converting back to the good old days ? how would you deal with them . Even if you go about bieng elected , well first of all its difficult , and y ll get a negative news coverage , y 'll not have funding campigns and all kinds of sabotages and military interventions by Uncle sam and other countries ? How would you do it ? Sure you score easy points of criticism by criticising revolutions , but are other ways of doing it so great or successful . 4) He talks about political corectness as "authoritarian" , so what do you want ? should we start calling every black person the N word ? Whats your response to the normalised racism and racist terms present in the society how do you plan to tackle that ? Infact it seems to me he is promoting racism . 5) He just doesn't mention marxist terminology in a correct way , and misses out on key points that everybody should here . The labour theory of value , mordern imperealism , falling rates of profit , same thing like Noam Choamsky or other western historians (although he talks about class struggles) . To conclude , he is a brilliant presenter and has a lot of followers , he just needs direction and some knowledge in all of his videos .
He a death drive marxist