It's basically like a small child fighting against their parent. Ironically of course that this combative quality Skipped a few generations (re: enlightenment >> American/French Revolutions)
@@rickstevens1167 basically like a parent who doesn't care if the child grows up at all. And why would the parent care as long as it knows that itself *had* grown up...
... because capitalism can't be fought. Wanting to fight capitalism is like wanting to drown the ocean. You can do it of course. And as long as you remember that it, in the end, does neither work nor matter, people will happily pretend with you together, that you are on 'the right side of history'.
KidKat * it‘s sad how capitalistic ideology is your whole train of thought. Maybe you should listen to zizek talking about ideology... and if you simply don’t like zizek, just think about the fact, that you’re considering a theory as „the only truth“ without even listening to new thoughts with any serious intention. You could say „It is impossible to fly, it’s like wanting to drown the ocean“ but people who are not that limited in their view of the world still managed to invent flying machines. Considering things (*any* thing) as the *only* truth and therefore closing your eyes to other views, is and always will be one of the most stupid things to do.
@@ntn-oy9qe You are right, of course. I mean,... what was I thinking!? Commenting a comment under a youtube video which raises the question of the problem of the radical left today by basically tuning in with the point made in said video and making a caricature of the comment I was commenting on. Not only was that sad, so sad. It also was stupid. For one focussing on the problematic term used. And for two, I could have easily foreseen, that someone else will comment my comment by not getting my point. I probably really should listen to more Zizek, maybe even watch his two pervert's guides; for he is an easy to follow speaker who always gets his points across cristal clear...
This has been an insult in America, more or less generally, since the 50s - especially from the right, and the further the right, the more insulting it's supposed to be.
@@crepituss9381 Socialists of various stripes have mass murdered over 100 million innocent civilians in the last century. The scientific socialists alone cracked the 100 million mark. Of course it is an insult just like calling someone a national socialist. Why wouldn't it be?
What I don´t understand is why in 1864 there was an International Workingmen's Association but now in the digital era there isn´t. I don´t belive that it would be difficult to achieve something like that today, especially with Coronavirus. We could unite in a common agenda, like a more democratic United Nations Organization, this isn´t an impossible utopian revolution. " Comrades, come rally, for this is the time and place The Internation ideal unites the human race"
"Working class" in its sense of the 18th till 20th c. lost their strategic social position due to machines and tech development. Now all the left have deterministically become social democrats as they have subconsciously realised time for proletariat dictatorship was over. Now things happen by themselves as triggered in the past for the present, and everyone's responsibility is to be hidful of economical manipulations by ideological power.
The internet has made us lazy, instead of marching in protest, lining up outside wherever we may be needed. We post on facebook, instagram, comment on youtube videos.
@Batterson Society It's very funny and a little frightening to see these ready-made talking points penetrate society to the point that they're parroted by people who would have otherwise been harmless, if obviously imbalanced, weirdos like you.
Thank you Zizek for tracking profound issues of life and humanity. 'I understand, I understand' is a frustrating reply which I found it rather chilling, conveying loss of recognition. It is like the listener knows it before I explain it in my own term. The juice of onversation, that shared effort to explore something fresh dies out right there.
I think he makes a good point. Most leftists I know have no clear goal. To be honest I have to identify goals for myself since my desire was a bit more nebulous than was useful. I always learn something from this man.
I've been thinking a lot about the "most people don't even care enough to want a say in everything" argument lately, specifically as a problem for market socialism, and I think the real issue is that we're scared to make technology the backbone of these changes. For example, in a retail workplace, you have to take dozens of "online trainings". Using that same type of infrastructure, give employees of a worker-operated business a categorized, tagged list of all the things they can vote on. They can vote "defer" on entire categories that they don't care about all at once, since they've been appropriately sorted and tagged, but it is their vote to relinquish. I think largely the same idea would work in organizing a truly democratic socialist society. The voting process could be restored to being direct, but filterable. It doesn't have to be communal debate villages. We have the technology to actually scale these things up now, we're just uncomfortable with doing it.
Workers deciding on which services to render in a store, where customers come with specific demand. That is surefire way to failed operation. The whole idea behind the market is customers, those with demand, seek supply and successful business is aware in provision of supply. If your argument is, yes, but the workers should consult the demand and make the action. Successful business uses data to determine what is in demand. A janitor is not a business director nor is a cashier. If the decisions suck, there come no customers. This type of inefficiency only works in authoritarian communes snd gov systems that shun demand for defined supply. We had this exact market socialism in Yugoslavia, highly democratic in production but authoritarian wholly in gov, and it failed due to inherent inefficiency. My dad and his family had nothing in stores, had to labor in poverty just to live. Cities had supply but extremely limited selection. Markets need decentralized function to work and grow. Due to economic failures of socialism, befor collapseć, Yugoslavia adopted increasingly capitalist systems which jumpstarted growth and prevented regress. To you, uncomfortable must mean "don't want to starve and collapse."
@@syfiliskerino1998 I think you misunderstand the concept. Largely, workers would have no interest in matters that don't involve their expertise. They would defer these choices automatically. But they always have the RIGHT to vote on them. If the supply chain director wants to change egg suppliers, mostly no one would have any reason to contest them on that. But if they want to change to an insipid factory farm that violates animal rights to make profit, maybe a group of employees would make a stink to veto it, *and they wouldn't have to risk their jobs and strike to get it done*. Historic worker-operated systems failed because they made people vote when they don't care. I'm suggesting a system where people don't have to vote if they don't care, but ALWAYS have a right to vote if they do. This matters because real people in real life have interests besides profit generation. In business-speak, these still get considered-they're called "externalities"-but they're a PR concern, a "we'll make people mad if we do this", because the current business framework is essentially amoral: anything is fine if its profit pays for its repercussions. A good business needs things that it WILL continue to do, and WON'T ever do, on principle. Not even just for the moral fiber of a culture, but for the differentiation of a business itself. In traditional firms these values ALWAYS get corroded over time. If workers are a check to the process, that's one more step to prevent that from happening.
For making administrative decisions for society, I think sortition would be the best way to give everyone a chance to have their voice heard while limiting access to power for people who want power to achieve their own ends.
The point about Zizek I feel is that he tries, and is good at, finding a narrative that attempts to deal with the contradictions and paradoxical problems with all or most of the relevant narratives that are being put to work by those who are not philosophical but merely opinionated. The point is not to give an answer in a sage way, although i believe he does manage to achieve that, but to find a better, yet still uncertain narrative, that provides temporary solace to organic reasoners, rather than leave it up to odin or the bogeyman.
I always feel a deep melancholic feeling whenever I watch this. His pessimism seems more justified day after day. Nothing has been done to curtail world threatening events like global warming which is now in a positive feedback loop, covid-19, genocide, proxy wars, the fallout and chaotic subjugation of the third world, the neo fascists gaining power, and the international left is pretty much in shambles and shows no signs of building up. All our heroes are dying out and there's no one left to fill their shoes, only chaotic demonstrations, fundraisers, and hashtags with no goals.
Given earth was a lot hotter in the time of the dinosaurs, global warming literally is not the end of the world. Covid is a shambles that may teach us how to sort ourselves out. Genocide, proxy wars and the condition of the third world are no worse than in other generations. Heroes are often only identified in reverse as we take a bird's eye view of history. So no worries in any of those.
Although Idk about Europe, but fascism is most definitely NOT an issue in the US. Trump is extremley anti-imperialistic and tends to be liberal for a republican. THe anti-imperialism focus of his administration alone makes him not fascist. Trump doesnt exactly propose putting the state/race above the individual either. Trump litterally supports the same hyper-individualism that reagan supports. Trump is more of a sensationalist/populist. He talks big, but hes new to politics and doesnt have the magic wand to do alot of shit. Alot of shit he says and does, is also to gain popularity. Trump has spent alot of money advertising and donating money to fight climate change before presidency, but made it not a priority during his administration. Trump also supported free health-care before his administration, but deemed it a non-priority during his administration. The thing is, Fascism by definition is something that woudl NEVER happen in the US for a multitude of cultural reasons. Your average right-winger stocks up 9000 guns in his basement over fear of the gov coming for them. Your average right-wing despises congress and the gov, and considers America to be a people/idea, not a government. Your average right-winger is so against "the globalist agenda" and has such extreme support for shit like free speech, that censoring someone you disagree with is seen a pussy move within their circle. There is a rise in popularism and hatred of career politicians. But a rise in fascism is just plain stupid. Id say the only countries that are truly fascist, are China and Russia nowadays, as putting the state power structure above your individuality is "common sense" there.
To all the people commenting on his face-touching in the middle of a pandemic, read the description! This was filmed a year ago. (Though no doubt he's still doing it today as well lol.)
The left once fought for workers rights. Today, rather than fight for more workers rights and build upon those sorts of ideas and rights we have to fight not lose those rights and it sadly seems we are losing that fight.
I love Zizek but I want to see him debate an Anarcho-Syndicalist Theorist like Chomsky. And the point he makes about about independent communities cooperating rather than full integration won’t that be better realized in direct democracy than todays states ?
First of all, Chomsky isn't about shit. He doesn't have a theory or anything. He only speaks in simple sentences from a general -- dare I say vague -- idea. You ask him a direct question and he will give you a canned answer for something you didn't ask. I can't say enough bad things about the guy. Second, they already clashed before on the subject of Khmer rouge, where, in my opinion, Chomsky was in the right. I would love to write an entire article on why Chomsky is not the Anarchist some of y'all think he is some of the time. But if you want to research for yourself, start with Participatory Economics and James Herod's critique of it (which, IMO, is very lacking but still insightful) and contrast that with what Chomsky had to say about ParEcon.
@@_smhmd Chomsky loves the idea of a socialist breeding ground like Revolutionary Catalonia that assembles a hierarchy that recognizes a class of intellectuals
Simohamed why is that a bad thing that he doesn’t feel the need to use overly complicated sentences ? He himself has said that he doesn’t like philosophers that overcomplicate things. I don’t know what you mean by Anarchist but if it means democracy in workplace, factories, etc whiteout government intervention then he’s an Anarchist
Noellex yeah i know that he doesn’t take Zizek seriously. Maybe not Chomsky but someone who has a good understanding of Syndicalism. Because Zizek always dismisses anything resembling Anarchism without being specific about why
We fight capitalism with a collective reaction to the broken system. with stronger and new unions, employee owner businesses, and more class consciousness in political calculations. I don’t have a lot of knowledge on the subject but I like to think we can’t be afraid of progressive reforms that look like socialists to reactionaries.
- What do you really want? - A flawless victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie in a tournament called Mortal Kombat. And all Nazis being dead.
People focus way too much on the nazis. We get it, they were bad. Now, let's do a little mind game where we zoom out of all the political spectrums and ideologies. See the structures. Yes, even your own political spectrum. Then we deconstruct them. There, now you see everything clearly and don't have to focus on only one thing which constantly blinds you.
"I want some efficient anonymous machine, which somehow in a reasonable way - state machine, whatever you want - takes care of it so that I can enjoy my isolated life." YES PLEASE.
Here I think Zizek misunderstands participatory democracy and localism. To have a complex system of any kind, we will need to divide and conquer, this will necessitate processes that aren't participated by the general public, but just the workers and stakeholders. Without getting into too much details, many collective anarchists want an organic community where people have the ability to work together (and by by themselves) in an organic way(an without coercion) to meet their needs. This does not require constant general assemblies and tedious parliamentarian processes, these are products of a state and we wish to abolish these.
@@riverhp3324 You're saying that we don't need assemblies or parliamentarian processes, but what are you replacing them with? Small groups of people who "just know" what the right thing to do is? The scale of the decisions they make will widely affect a broad range of stakeholders, how do you ensure that those stakeholders' needs are met in good faith?
@@ihatetobethatguybut7175 How does that work for problems which affect large groups of people, or are you assuming that this system forgoes economy of scale entirely? If it does, how are you outcompeting systems which have that advantage?
Right now it is easier for many Americans to imagine dying for our socio-economic system than a small change like UBI. I picture Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons stepping on rake after rake
Haha and on the rakes are labeled like "capitalism", "socialdemocracy", "libertarianism", "free market", "liberalism" etc * smack, smack, smack, smack *
Small change like UBI? It’s obvious that you’ve been conned into taking handouts from the government. You are willing to give up more of your freedom for perceived financial security. This will back fire on you, like it has everyone whose thought it before. Let me ask, if the caveat for the UBI, was a disarmament, would you still be in support of it?
@@AlwaysPeacefulMaDeuce ???? No one is suggesting disarmament for UBI. What is that hysterical nonsense. It gives you more Freedom for your government to owe you money and it is funded fairly through taxation. UBI increases freedom for those who need it most an immense amount. But chill dude no one is taking your guns away, that isnt even a popular position on the left that you are so scared of
Clarence Weatherwax People like yourself are why the Fed can keep printing money to devalue yours, without any repercussions. It’s fucking laughable to hear you bitch about a regular person “Taking handouts from the government”, while our GDP is greatly inflated by the billion dollar handouts to the war machine. What is our government supposed to tax us for if it is inescapable, and how do we make sure the tax money is used properly instead of spent on million dollar “CIA cats”? At least with UBI you don’t depend on another institution that could be easily corrupted, unlike 99% of governmental programs which are all defined by how defunct they are in action. Just really seems like a better plan than systems like welfare/unemployment/disabilities, when their government handout doesn’t allow them to make more, so they stay under budget by either not working or working less. UBI would just simply be there no matter how hard you decide to work, and that means an incentive for more actual work because a good amount of the busy work will fall to the wayside through technology no matter how big in the economy (self checkout/amazon package distribution/paralegal work/etc.)
I think he would simply destroy a tissue so quickly you’d deplete a box in minutes? That sort of fidgeting is a subconscious cover developed by people who are fabricate inconsistent ideas. It’s a physical distraction away from their words.
ill be honest, i love zizek and i often agree with him, but he really did pull the ''no, not everyone can be understood, would you try to understand hitler?'' card
Of course I would try to understand an enemy. The problem here if that there is fast and loose use of definitions leading to fallacious equivocation between meaning. There is use of the word "understand" to mean both "ken beliefs" and "sympathize with". One can understand without sympathizing.
I love that Zizek is complaining about the moralism of the left after a few years ago arguing that the left must become the new moralists to counter the obscenity of the radical right.
What he means is that the left should present itself to the majority of people as a defender of social decency and basic politeness to counter the vulgarity of the right. But ”moralism” in this video he means political correctness. Zizek believes that the left abandon political-economic issues to focus on something like language and culture is a catastrophe.
@@LeonWagg The problem here is that, while what you're saying is true, the fact of the obsession with political correctness suggests that the left has already been operating under this presumption that they are the defenders of decency, politeness and morality, and they think that's all they're doing. In that sense, political correctness is a mere product of this pursuit. Political correctness is the mere trace of the virtue they seek to emulate, and in so doing they operate without the praxis that engenders such virtue to begin with, with predictable results.
@@LeonWagg The exact opposite is true however. It is socialists, democrats, and their constituents who are the most socially indecent in so many ways. From walking up to random families eating dinner demanding they say black lives matter to burning down random peoples businesses because some felon got shot by the police.
Hrrm, not satisfied with his point on the enemy segment. Sure, we need to accept the fact that there are enemies (which I think most people do), but we need to know why they are our enemies, as such, listening to ”their story” is indeed something we should do. Otherwise we select our enemies because someone else tells us to, and that makes us sheep. I may have misunderstood him, Im not an avid zizek follower, but with my superficial knowledge about him, its easy to make the interpretation I just did.
This is a perfectly reasonable response in the context of us vs them type issues, but from what I understand about Zizek he was using it as an example of how the liberal idea of multiculturalism is a dream that really doesn’t need to be pursued when polite but uninvolved acceptance is just fine for having a decent civil society.
True. It depends only on private philanthropy (especially now in coronavirus), the sacrifice of old nurses who should already be retired and the economic growth thanks to which more money (in percentage is the same) goes to health care. PiS literally crushes all strikes (teachers or doctors) because it hates social criticism.
“How can we understand each other when we do not understand ourselves?” Is it not easier to understand a person other than yourself? You can view another person more objectively than yourself because you are not being constantly invaded by their subjective internal thoughts, whereas you cannot escape your own thoughts. They come to you without your saying so. It’s judgement can be both unjustly biased for and against you at times.
I don t agree with Zizek at all ,how do you keep a bureacratic system from forming different classes like it did in the eastern block , say nomenclatura
"I want some efficient anonymous machine...so that I can enjoy my isolated life." "Moderate, reasonable alienation," overseen by "transnational regulation." Sounds like Zizek is making a timely pitch for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset.
I only recently heard about the reset and what I've read so far just seems like talking points, no actual laws or plans. What do you think it'll result in?
@@visoriannull832 They're rolling out the infrastructure for it, from 5G to power smart cities and the internet of things within total information awareness grids of surveillance and security, to the mRNA and nanotechnological 'vaccines' to colonize our bodies and minds as genetically modified digital slaves. And that's just a few of the goodies coming our way with their Fourth Industrial Revolution, thanks to Covid-19(84) ushering in the New Normal's technofascist system of AI algogarchy, a capitalist coup revolutionizing the forces and relations of production made possible by the false flag scamdemic/plandemic. As WEF founder and chair Klaus Schwab has put it, "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world." In other words, a useful crisis to socially engineer shock therapy of disaster capitalism and lead the masses to their "final solution" (Doktor Bill Gates), which does include genocidal agenda of eugenics (already unfolding especially in the global south with lockdowns leading to famine). For further information, see: Global Research, Off-Guardian, Swiss Policy Research, The Last American Vagabond (Ryan Cristian, Whitney Webb, Derrick Broze), Children's Health Defense (RFK, Jr.), The High Wire/ICAN (Del Bigtree), The Corbett Report.
Some day we will unite in 5-th international. Greetings from Russia! I've discovered that there is no english wikipedia page about international while writing this comment. WTF??
For starters, I would change a single representative into a council that represents the various districts of the state, so no more single heads of power as concentrated power among those who agree is a prime situation for corruption. I would change it so that anyone working for a company would be a shareholder and reap benefits as such in addition to their living wage. I would regulate capitalism and make various business tactics that cause harm and deceive mislead and fleece people illegal with not just fines but actual jail time and no more paying your way out of justice. I would cut military spending by renegotiating all government contracts with private companies. There are programs now that have the taxpayers paying 7k for a single bolt. I would create a basic income for all citizens because I believe the preamble to the declaration is a great idea. I would set term limits, cut the representative's pay, and tie their local reps' pay to the average low end of their district thus incentivizing them to raise that average as it is tied to their own, ie turn greed into a benefit for all in that district. I would change the common core to include things like self-development and practical information in addition to the current core, I would also add gun safety to that core as we have a constitutional right to guns we should be informed on the dangers and how to properly utilize these rights in a way that promotes safety and wisdom in favor of life. I would raise taxes on those who can afford it as they owe a debt to the society that made that wealth possible. There is much more but to give an idea, in a nutshell, make society more equitable and help all citizens to flourish because they are our future providing aid in housing food medical, and education, combat greed, and putting in place policies to change a business person from a tumor on society to a benefit. Fundamentally I do not believe in force so all of these policies would be enacted in a way to respect that and the rights of individuals in all cases would be enshrined. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all would be the driving factor behind endeavors. I am independent, not a liberal, not a conservative.
I like what he had to say & truly enjoyed his the unvarnished comment pointing out the hypocrisy of "being nice" optional clause in the social contract. 🤣😝
2:01 Žižek brings this up a lot, but I think the left 1. Means this sociological-anthropological terms, not in political terms or any other terms, and 2. I lterally haven't hear anyone from the left say this since 2013/14.
We need a left that is not bound to any dogma, it has to be a type of Centrism with in the movement.it must support Revolution and Reform at the sometime, it must be a balance between libertarian and state socialism and it should have the ability to have civil discourse with even reactionaries.
Yes, I completely agree. However some of the reforms that are needed will only be possible in a revolutionary context. We cannot do anything without popular will, and so we have to be wary of everything that divides the working class like lgbtq rethoric, liberal feminism, political correctness. This does not mean of course that we should not fight for lgbtq rights or gender equality, but we should find a way that does not make us an easy target for the reactionaries. In order to do all this, we must be radical but also liberal, just like you said.
luca montermini The left needs lgbtq rhetoric and feminism. Today's world needs a left that fights for every oppressed group, including sex workers, inmates, immigrants, lgbtq. Actually, each group needs to fight for themselves and work together with all the other groups. We all need to support each other's battles but we can't try to appropriate and direct them as some intellectuals that hold all the truths to this world. Waiting for a wise one to come and change everything is exactly the problem with the liberal left. We can't tell indigenous people how to live and fight, we can put force a dogma on anyone. Each society, group, tradition need to fight for their liberation. Of course that cannot be achieved without intersectionality. But here is the thing, we can't mix up intersectionality with liberal identity politics. Real feminism, for example, does not get integrated into the system and truly serves the interests of women (and trans and men and everyone that gets oppressed by patriarchy, which has successfully been used by capitalism to conquer and divide us). Liberal feminism on the other hand supports that women simply deserve a better position in this system of exploitation, and usually doesn't include the minorities/the poor etc, but only middle class white women.
Jack Burt Great. Now it‘s up to you to get the “left” to agree on what “real feminism” is, then convince poor, white laborers that make up the bulk of the working class why they should care about any form of feminism to begin with.
zizeks talks reveal the real problem in this our world: "common sense" is no longer common. it's gone and replaced by arbitrariness. imho he displays nothing more than common sense - and that has become spectacular. because neither common sense nor "brains" are any longer required for a happy life, consumism is fully sufficing.
What italian government is he talking about? One year ago a big coalition which included all the parties except the right wing formed the government, there were the moderate left, the populist left, the liberals and the right, so the right was a minority, two years ago we only had the left and the populist left so what right-wingers is he talking about?
We understand ourselves through our interactions with others. That pressure to understand others in necessity. Only then can we really understand that Hitler is our enemy; rather than we group Craig, Muhammad, Adrik, Zhuang, and Kwame under that same banner.
My friend went to a factory, and that's the majority of cases. Zizek is all over the place here, conflating moralism with mundane policy. I'll stick with Matt Christman.
Has anyone seriously confronted Zizek with the alternative way of Georgism? "Seizing" the land (as a separate means of production alongside capital) instead of seizing the capital (which clearly doesn't work, as he points out). I'd be interested in hearing what he as a self-declared pessimistic Socialist/Marxist would have to say about it - why is this not a route, a middle way in some sense, that could be tried? (Instead of having this apocalyptic view on the future).
Seizing the land does happen in countries like China, Laos and Ethiopia, and it often involves the forcing of people off that land with threat of violence. Don’t mean to dismiss your point, but how would any socialist system avoid that same action?
@@johnmartin4233 In a Georgist system, you're not actually seizing the land. That's why I put it into quotation marks. Instead you tax the value of the land. It's the first and by far the most important step towards taxing all economic rents (unearned incomes) and thus eradicating rent-seeking. What this will lead to, if you follow it through, is a system where the "owners" retain the rights to the land, i.e. the rights to use it and trade it - but they pay for the privilege according to the opportunities that this (society) gives them (and which they are withholding from others by that exclusive right). In the end, this will tend to make the prices of land go towards zero - and thus when you're trading in real estate you're only trading the capital on the land (buildings and improvements). We will see no more speculation in land (of course here meaning the broad economical definition of land) and we will encourage proper use of the land (no vacant lots, less sprawl, etc.). The other beneficial effects are too many for me to list here, but let's just say that Henry George considered this the solution to the problem why "progress" did not raise "real wages" (since it was swallowed by rent) - and thus amid the progress of the industrialisation he saw widespread poverty, when the logic outcome of increased productivity should be better living standards. This is becoming even more pressing as we're moving towards an automated production, but we'll leave that for another time...
Gustavus Nicolaus Almost all countries already tax land ownership and have property taxes on top of that. Increasing the tax would surely just increases the rents?
@@johnmartin4233 The tax on unimproved land value (LVT) is only present in a few countries like Taiwan, Singapore, and Denmark - and only at low rates. This tax is very different in effect compared to the tax on property as a whole (which includes improvements, and thus, among other things, decreases incentive to improve). The fact that an increased tax on land can't be transferred to the rent was established by Ricardo's law of rent.
"An enemy is just someone whose story you didn't hear" - Slavoj Zizek, Violence: Big Ideas/Small Books I really like this argument, because it critises the concept of good and evil which is to me just a superficially and ignorantly created concept by the society in order to avoid comprehensive thought and a certain amount of self-reflection ....
I totally agree, they want to push there ways on people. And one thing I have to say, is that we are Republic a Repubilic style of goverment is, let's say you bought a bike and other people want to share. In a Republic you have your right to a bike. While in a democracy is where everyone votes in the town and they decide they can all borrow your bike that you paid for.
one of the most dangerous things is saying "the left ...." or "the right...." these general stereotypical simplifications just invite everyone to dump there stereotypes and hates without realizing he is talking about millions/billions of individual people with a lot of differents shades of greys.
Sounds kinda weird. Why would we strive for isolation rather than achievement of class conciousness that would help keeping capital from accumulating in hands of bourgeois
It feels so good to hear intelligent non dogmatic arguments from somebody who's a leftist. I almost forgot what it was. I used to be a leftist myself, you now? Now I don't see the differece between a marxist and a puritan.
@@tributetolost the marxist to islamist pipeline is what created abominations like Hizbut Tahrir or Qutbism,which is hated by both religious ultraconservatives and marxists You only achieve true enlightenment once you realized that the essence of religion exist independently of the existence of God.
I like Zizek, but this argument against communes is a bit weak, atleast for this one point. You don't debate if you don't want to, you don't expect the community to talk about, and switch the water pipes after every debate. There are more important things to talk about, and one isn't forced to be part of it.
I know I didn’t vote for bernie sanders after I became aware that his “living up” to his beliefs had actually resulted in him becoming fiscally conservative to justify them. This dude’s rebel movement is all over my you tube and won’t f off.
Forget questions of charisma! The problem with Zizek (apart from the spelling of his name) is that he doesn't really propose solutions. Instead he explains how everything is complicated. And connected. I agree with his proposition that most people would rather live in a managed economy. I disagree with his statements about autonomy. Zizek may not like to have a meeting every day to discuss kindergartens with his neighbours, but that is in part due to his unique personality and his aversion to other people. He likes his own voice best and that might get a bit tiring. As Marx said, the point is to change the world and Zizek does not believe in that. But that is also a clue to his personality and limitations, his position is one of faith, or a lack of it. The mistake here is expecting the change we need to come rapidly rather than incrementally.
They're always like "We need to compromise with the center!", we have already compromised to muc, and now the slightest shift to the left is seen as radical.
When the left remains reasonable instead of being triggered emotionally. Zizek is a lefty that is actually worth a listen. " The Left TODAY, That's the tragedy. " Slavoj coming through. Cant lie to himself here.
6:26 anyone have any interesting ideas or thoughts on how a transnational regulatory agency could exist? We clearly need this as he says for global issues. Trade penalties seem to be the only plausible means of enforcement for such a coalition of nations. But certainly for global pandemics, climate change, workers rights, corporate taxation etc we need global cooperation with repercussions for breaches. This is a main problem of the Paris Climate Accord in my view, it's necessarily based on the goodwill of nations' leaders to meet the goals (the goals themselves are besides the point) but this is clearly a problem.
Rampant individualism, something the 'conservative' right shares the mantra of, then ignores as a cause when nothing changes for the better the one rightful group of a historically hemogenous culture, scoiety and Country.
Things constantly change for the better and they change more for the better in places in which people have more freedom. American right wingers sometimes stress conservatism, sometimes liberty, because they are a coalition of religious people, libertarians, nationalists, etc.
I'll have to look into it, but I've heard from other sources that Bernie's proposed health plan actually would cover more than most other countries' plans.
I'm conservative and I despise progressive and the left in general. But I respect Slavoj big time. At least he is honest, true to his principles, and very realistic and objective. If all left-wingers were this way, the world would have been a much nicer place tbh.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I bet the question he was asked here was: _"So .. How are you, Slavoj? Enjoyed the trip to Wilmington?"_
Love the comment
Isn't it the most Slavic answer he could have given for the question ?
The long man?
"It was a surplus enjoyment" , of he would have said .•°
I love Slavoj, and so on and so on...
*chniff*
*touches face*
*squeezes nose*
😂😂👍😂😂 I love your comment, and so on and so...
He's impossible to listen to and more impossible to not listen to.
isn't that the definition of Morbid? 🤣🤣🤣
Listening to Zizek is a dialectical certainty
great description lol
The perfect contradiction
I like listening to him, call me crazy
In the West .. "fighting capitalism" is pretty much a form of entertainment and style choice. It's a video game mentality, not a serious world view.
It's basically like a small child fighting against their parent.
Ironically of course that this combative quality Skipped a few generations (re: enlightenment >> American/French Revolutions)
@@rickstevens1167 basically like a parent who doesn't care if the child grows up at all. And why would the parent care as long as it knows that itself *had* grown up...
... because capitalism can't be fought. Wanting to fight capitalism is like wanting to drown the ocean. You can do it of course. And as long as you remember that it, in the end, does neither work nor matter, people will happily pretend with you together, that you are on 'the right side of history'.
KidKat * it‘s sad how capitalistic ideology is your whole train of thought. Maybe you should listen to zizek talking about ideology... and if you simply don’t like zizek, just think about the fact, that you’re considering a theory as „the only truth“ without even listening to new thoughts with any serious intention. You could say „It is impossible to fly, it’s like wanting to drown the ocean“ but people who are not that limited in their view of the world still managed to invent flying machines. Considering things (*any* thing) as the *only* truth and therefore closing your eyes to other views, is and always will be one of the most stupid things to do.
@@ntn-oy9qe You are right, of course. I mean,... what was I thinking!? Commenting a comment under a youtube video which raises the question of the problem of the radical left today by basically tuning in with the point made in said video and making a caricature of the comment I was commenting on.
Not only was that sad, so sad. It also was stupid.
For one focussing on the problematic term used. And for two, I could have easily foreseen, that someone else will comment my comment by not getting my point.
I probably really should listen to more Zizek, maybe even watch his two pervert's guides; for he is an easy to follow speaker who always gets his points across cristal clear...
Anyone else notice the hand gesture at 1:53 when he says “isolated life” lmao
:)
Well spotted!
LMAO good catch
How are we supposed to understand each other when we don't even understand ourselves? I think that's a fair point.
yeah that one hit hard
It’s interesting that he says “to provoke people I call it communism.”
This has been an insult in America, more or less generally, since the 50s - especially from the right, and the further the right, the more insulting it's supposed to be.
@@crepituss9381 Socialists of various stripes have mass murdered over 100 million innocent civilians in the last century. The scientific socialists alone cracked the 100 million mark. Of course it is an insult just like calling someone a national socialist. Why wouldn't it be?
Whats the difference between an ancap and a libertarian? An ancap is still in highschool and the libertarian isn’t allowed near a highschool
lol
"living together with various peoples all politely ignoring each other" --- That's already life for me here in the Texas Suburbs
Sounds like the consumerist multi racial society
I'm in Dallas. I've talked to maybe like 4 or 5 people in like the 2 months I've been here.
banning abortion isnt politely ignoring someone. texas has a deep history of not politely ignoring specific groups of people.
Ive started saying “and so on and so on” in my everyday life as a Zizek reference
What I don´t understand is why in 1864 there was an International Workingmen's Association but now in the digital era there isn´t. I don´t belive that it would be difficult to achieve something like that today, especially with Coronavirus. We could unite in a common agenda, like a more democratic United Nations Organization, this isn´t an impossible utopian revolution.
" Comrades, come rally, for this is the time and place
The Internation ideal unites the human race"
Evan Richards ok, lets hear it.
@@evan2173 local communist party? Where do you live, on Mars?
"Working class" in its sense of the 18th till 20th c. lost their strategic social position due to machines and tech development. Now all the left have deterministically become social democrats as they have subconsciously realised time for proletariat dictatorship was over. Now things happen by themselves as triggered in the past for the present, and everyone's responsibility is to be hidful of economical manipulations by ideological power.
The internet has made us lazy, instead of marching in protest, lining up outside wherever we may be needed. We post on facebook, instagram, comment on youtube videos.
The fact it doesn't exist seems to me like proof it is not desired by workers themselves.
What's wrong with the left and with the right, is we've failed to give and take constructive criticism.
Thank you Zizek.
@Batterson Society It's very funny and a little frightening to see these ready-made talking points penetrate society to the point that they're parroted by people who would have otherwise been harmless, if obviously imbalanced, weirdos like you.
Lmao, right on cue.
@Batterson Society they can take the D, though
lmao, all the left does is give each other constructive criticism. maybe a little bit less of that
@@coolbutnotverycool1440 criticism yes, but constructive? No.
Thank you Zizek for tracking profound issues of life and humanity. 'I understand, I understand' is a frustrating reply which I found it rather chilling, conveying loss of recognition. It is like the listener knows it before I explain it in my own term. The juice of onversation, that shared effort to explore something fresh dies out right there.
Everytime I click on a Slavoj video I end up with more Marx in my spirit and spit in my ears.
I think he makes a good point. Most leftists I know have no clear goal. To be honest I have to identify goals for myself since my desire was a bit more nebulous than was useful. I always learn something from this man.
I've been thinking a lot about the "most people don't even care enough to want a say in everything" argument lately, specifically as a problem for market socialism, and I think the real issue is that we're scared to make technology the backbone of these changes.
For example, in a retail workplace, you have to take dozens of "online trainings". Using that same type of infrastructure, give employees of a worker-operated business a categorized, tagged list of all the things they can vote on. They can vote "defer" on entire categories that they don't care about all at once, since they've been appropriately sorted and tagged, but it is their vote to relinquish.
I think largely the same idea would work in organizing a truly democratic socialist society. The voting process could be restored to being direct, but filterable. It doesn't have to be communal debate villages. We have the technology to actually scale these things up now, we're just uncomfortable with doing it.
Brilliant observation
Workers deciding on which services to render in a store, where customers come with specific demand. That is surefire way to failed operation. The whole idea behind the market is customers, those with demand, seek supply and successful business is aware in provision of supply. If your argument is, yes, but the workers should consult the demand and make the action. Successful business uses data to determine what is in demand. A janitor is not a business director nor is a cashier. If the decisions suck, there come no customers. This type of inefficiency only works in authoritarian communes snd gov systems that shun demand for defined supply. We had this exact market socialism in Yugoslavia, highly democratic in production but authoritarian wholly in gov, and it failed due to inherent inefficiency. My dad and his family had nothing in stores, had to labor in poverty just to live. Cities had supply but extremely limited selection. Markets need decentralized function to work and grow. Due to economic failures of socialism, befor collapseć, Yugoslavia adopted increasingly capitalist systems which jumpstarted growth and prevented regress. To you, uncomfortable must mean "don't want to starve and collapse."
@@syfiliskerino1998 I think you misunderstand the concept.
Largely, workers would have no interest in matters that don't involve their expertise. They would defer these choices automatically. But they always have the RIGHT to vote on them. If the supply chain director wants to change egg suppliers, mostly no one would have any reason to contest them on that. But if they want to change to an insipid factory farm that violates animal rights to make profit, maybe a group of employees would make a stink to veto it, *and they wouldn't have to risk their jobs and strike to get it done*. Historic worker-operated systems failed because they made people vote when they don't care. I'm suggesting a system where people don't have to vote if they don't care, but ALWAYS have a right to vote if they do.
This matters because real people in real life have interests besides profit generation. In business-speak, these still get considered-they're called "externalities"-but they're a PR concern, a "we'll make people mad if we do this", because the current business framework is essentially amoral: anything is fine if its profit pays for its repercussions.
A good business needs things that it WILL continue to do, and WON'T ever do, on principle. Not even just for the moral fiber of a culture, but for the differentiation of a business itself. In traditional firms these values ALWAYS get corroded over time. If workers are a check to the process, that's one more step to prevent that from happening.
For making administrative decisions for society, I think sortition would be the best way to give everyone a chance to have their voice heard while limiting access to power for people who want power to achieve their own ends.
@@justinwatson1510 I guess that's fair enough. I just don't see why it would ever really be necessary to wholly surrender the right to referendum.
“So that I can enjoy my isolated life”. - My man!
The point about Zizek I feel is that he tries, and is good at, finding a narrative that attempts to deal with the contradictions and paradoxical problems with all or most of the relevant narratives that are being put to work by those who are not philosophical but merely opinionated. The point is not to give an answer in a sage way, although i believe he does manage to achieve that, but to find a better, yet still uncertain narrative, that provides temporary solace to organic reasoners, rather than leave it up to odin or the bogeyman.
I agree. It's the opinionated (whom I think are generally less concerned about facts and more about appearances) that zizek rightfully challenges.
Yes. Clearly explained.
I always feel a deep melancholic feeling whenever I watch this. His pessimism seems more justified day after day. Nothing has been done to curtail world threatening events like global warming which is now in a positive feedback loop, covid-19, genocide, proxy wars, the fallout and chaotic subjugation of the third world, the neo fascists gaining power, and the international left is pretty much in shambles and shows no signs of building up. All our heroes are dying out and there's no one left to fill their shoes, only chaotic demonstrations, fundraisers, and hashtags with no goals.
Given earth was a lot hotter in the time of the dinosaurs, global warming literally is not the end of the world. Covid is a shambles that may teach us how to sort ourselves out. Genocide, proxy wars and the condition of the third world are no worse than in other generations. Heroes are often only identified in reverse as we take a bird's eye view of history. So no worries in any of those.
The left has died out sadly.
I couldnt have said it any better.
Although Idk about Europe, but fascism is most definitely NOT an issue in the US.
Trump is extremley anti-imperialistic and tends to be liberal for a republican. THe anti-imperialism focus of his administration alone makes him not fascist.
Trump doesnt exactly propose putting the state/race above the individual either. Trump litterally supports the same hyper-individualism that reagan supports.
Trump is more of a sensationalist/populist. He talks big, but hes new to politics and doesnt have the magic wand to do alot of shit.
Alot of shit he says and does, is also to gain popularity.
Trump has spent alot of money advertising and donating money to fight climate change before presidency, but made it not a priority during his administration.
Trump also supported free health-care before his administration, but deemed it a non-priority during his administration.
The thing is, Fascism by definition is something that woudl NEVER happen in the US for a multitude of cultural reasons.
Your average right-winger stocks up 9000 guns in his basement over fear of the gov coming for them.
Your average right-wing despises congress and the gov, and considers America to be a people/idea, not a government.
Your average right-winger is so against "the globalist agenda" and has such extreme support for shit like free speech, that censoring someone you disagree with is seen a pussy move within their circle.
There is a rise in popularism and hatred of career politicians. But a rise in fascism is just plain stupid.
Id say the only countries that are truly fascist, are China and Russia nowadays, as putting the state power structure above your individuality is "common sense" there.
@@honkhonk8009 Bruh...
To all the people commenting on his face-touching in the middle of a pandemic, read the description! This was filmed a year ago.
(Though no doubt he's still doing it today as well lol.)
Its a nervous tick. He cant help it. I think it'll take either behavioural therapy or hypnotherapy to "fix it"
Muh face touching
@@roromina2783 You sure it isn't from a cocaine habit?
The part about people keeping a polite distance is pretty much the norm in Sweden.
"And we politely ignore each other in a very respectful way." He just described Canada to a tee. The quintessential postmodern state
He is totally right. We really need to discuss in detail what to change about capitalism and what entails the change and Revolution we want to see.
The left once fought for workers rights. Today, rather than fight for more workers rights and build upon those sorts of ideas and rights we have to fight not lose those rights and it sadly seems we are losing that fight.
I love Zizek but I want to see him debate an Anarcho-Syndicalist Theorist like Chomsky. And the point he makes about about independent communities cooperating rather than full integration won’t that be better realized in direct democracy than todays states ?
Chomsky has stated he doesn't want to debate Zizek.
First of all, Chomsky isn't about shit. He doesn't have a theory or anything. He only speaks in simple sentences from a general -- dare I say vague -- idea. You ask him a direct question and he will give you a canned answer for something you didn't ask. I can't say enough bad things about the guy. Second, they already clashed before on the subject of Khmer rouge, where, in my opinion, Chomsky was in the right.
I would love to write an entire article on why Chomsky is not the Anarchist some of y'all think he is some of the time. But if you want to research for yourself, start with Participatory Economics and James Herod's critique of it (which, IMO, is very lacking but still insightful) and contrast that with what Chomsky had to say about ParEcon.
@@_smhmd Chomsky loves the idea of a socialist breeding ground like Revolutionary Catalonia that assembles a hierarchy that recognizes a class of intellectuals
Simohamed why is that a bad thing that he doesn’t feel the need to use overly complicated sentences ? He himself has said that he doesn’t like philosophers that overcomplicate things. I don’t know what you mean by Anarchist but if it means democracy in workplace, factories, etc whiteout government intervention then he’s an Anarchist
Noellex yeah i know that he doesn’t take Zizek seriously. Maybe not Chomsky but someone who has a good understanding of Syndicalism. Because Zizek always dismisses anything resembling Anarchism without being specific about why
We fight capitalism with a collective reaction to the broken system. with stronger and new unions, employee owner businesses, and more class consciousness in political calculations. I don’t have a lot of knowledge on the subject but I like to think we can’t be afraid of progressive reforms that look like socialists to reactionaries.
4:01 into the answer..... "but back to our question"
- What do you really want?
- A flawless victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie in a tournament called Mortal Kombat. And all Nazis being dead.
People focus way too much on the nazis. We get it, they were bad. Now, let's do a little mind game where we zoom out of all the political spectrums and ideologies. See the structures. Yes, even your own political spectrum. Then we deconstruct them. There, now you see everything clearly and don't have to focus on only one thing which constantly blinds you.
Ok. By the standards of some radical leftists even liberal leftists are nazis. Kill them too? Ahh we have a Mao fan right here.
I like how he has ideals but being very concrete in his presentation, doesn’t talk while putting on pink glasses.
Slavoj Zizek: a light in the dark. And so on......
"I want some efficient anonymous machine, which somehow in a reasonable way - state machine, whatever you want - takes care of it so that I can enjoy my isolated life."
YES PLEASE.
Here I think Zizek misunderstands participatory democracy and localism. To have a complex system of any kind, we will need to divide and conquer, this will necessitate processes that aren't participated by the general public, but just the workers and stakeholders. Without getting into too much details, many collective anarchists want an organic community where people have the ability to work together (and by by themselves) in an organic way(an without coercion) to meet their needs. This does not require constant general assemblies and tedious parliamentarian processes, these are products of a state and we wish to abolish these.
@@riverhp3324 You're saying that we don't need assemblies or parliamentarian processes, but what are you replacing them with? Small groups of people who "just know" what the right thing to do is? The scale of the decisions they make will widely affect a broad range of stakeholders, how do you ensure that those stakeholders' needs are met in good faith?
@@IanDoesMagic the small groups of people are the stakeholders
@@ihatetobethatguybut7175 How does that work for problems which affect large groups of people, or are you assuming that this system forgoes economy of scale entirely? If it does, how are you outcompeting systems which have that advantage?
I completely understand him and agree with him
Right now it is easier for many Americans to imagine dying for our socio-economic system than a small change like UBI. I picture Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons stepping on rake after rake
Haha and on the rakes are labeled like "capitalism", "socialdemocracy", "libertarianism", "free market", "liberalism" etc
* smack, smack, smack, smack *
Small change like UBI? It’s obvious that you’ve been conned into taking handouts from the government. You are willing to give up more of your freedom for perceived financial security. This will back fire on you, like it has everyone whose thought it before. Let me ask, if the caveat for the UBI, was a disarmament, would you still be in support of it?
@@AlwaysPeacefulMaDeuce ???? No one is suggesting disarmament for UBI. What is that hysterical nonsense. It gives you more Freedom for your government to owe you money and it is funded fairly through taxation.
UBI increases freedom for those who need it most an immense amount.
But chill dude no one is taking your guns away, that isnt even a popular position on the left that you are so scared of
Clarence Weatherwax guns are dumb so yes
Clarence Weatherwax People like yourself are why the Fed can keep printing money to devalue yours, without any repercussions. It’s fucking laughable to hear you bitch about a regular person “Taking handouts from the government”, while our GDP is greatly inflated by the billion dollar handouts to the war machine. What is our government supposed to tax us for if it is inescapable, and how do we make sure the tax money is used properly instead of spent on million dollar “CIA cats”? At least with UBI you don’t depend on another institution that could be easily corrupted, unlike 99% of governmental programs which are all defined by how defunct they are in action. Just really seems like a better plan than systems like welfare/unemployment/disabilities, when their government handout doesn’t allow them to make more, so they stay under budget by either not working or working less. UBI would just simply be there no matter how hard you decide to work, and that means an incentive for more actual work because a good amount of the busy work will fall to the wayside through technology no matter how big in the economy (self checkout/amazon package distribution/paralegal work/etc.)
Get this man a tissue
I think he would simply destroy a tissue so quickly you’d deplete a box in minutes?
That sort of fidgeting is a subconscious cover developed by people who are fabricate inconsistent ideas. It’s a physical distraction away from their words.
@@neue01 you sure he ain't just tweaking on something?
ill be honest, i love zizek and i often agree with him, but he really did pull the ''no, not everyone can be understood, would you try to understand hitler?'' card
Of course I would try to understand an enemy. The problem here if that there is fast and loose use of definitions leading to fallacious equivocation between meaning. There is use of the word "understand" to mean both "ken beliefs" and "sympathize with". One can understand without sympathizing.
I love that Zizek is complaining about the moralism of the left after a few years ago arguing that the left must become the new moralists to counter the obscenity of the radical right.
What he means is that the left should present itself to the majority of people as a defender of social decency and basic politeness to counter the vulgarity of the right. But ”moralism” in this video he means political correctness. Zizek believes that the left abandon political-economic issues to focus on something like language and culture is a catastrophe.
@@LeonWagg The problem here is that, while what you're saying is true, the fact of the obsession with political correctness suggests that the left has already been operating under this presumption that they are the defenders of decency, politeness and morality, and they think that's all they're doing. In that sense, political correctness is a mere product of this pursuit. Political correctness is the mere trace of the virtue they seek to emulate, and in so doing they operate without the praxis that engenders such virtue to begin with, with predictable results.
@@LeonWagg The exact opposite is true however. It is socialists, democrats, and their constituents who are the most socially indecent in so many ways. From walking up to random families eating dinner demanding they say black lives matter to burning down random peoples businesses because some felon got shot by the police.
Listen to this guy, people. He's one of the very few who's not mad.
Hrrm, not satisfied with his point on the enemy segment.
Sure, we need to accept the fact that there are enemies (which I think most people do), but we need to know why they are our enemies, as such, listening to ”their story” is indeed something we should do. Otherwise we select our enemies because someone else tells us to, and that makes us sheep.
I may have misunderstood him, Im not an avid zizek follower, but with my superficial knowledge about him, its easy to make the interpretation I just did.
This is a perfectly reasonable response in the context of us vs them type issues, but from what I understand about Zizek he was using it as an example of how the liberal idea of multiculturalism is a dream that really doesn’t need to be pursued when polite but uninvolved acceptance is just fine for having a decent civil society.
Hell, give the man a tissue!
What Zizek is describing is a DAO (decentralized autonomous organization)
He is touching his nose constantly. Coronavirus is happy.
solothesolos I’m pretty sure he has Tourette’s
Healthcare in Poland is ruined by Law and justice. Absolutely. Im from Poland.
True. It depends only on private philanthropy (especially now in coronavirus), the sacrifice of old nurses who should already be retired and the economic growth thanks to which more money (in percentage is the same) goes to health care. PiS literally crushes all strikes (teachers or doctors) because it hates social criticism.
The Muppet Show Philosopher.
“How can we understand each other when we do not understand ourselves?”
Is it not easier to understand a person other than yourself? You can view another person more objectively than yourself because you are not being constantly invaded by their subjective internal thoughts, whereas you cannot escape your own thoughts. They come to you without your saying so. It’s judgement can be both unjustly biased for and against you at times.
I don t agree with Zizek at all ,how do you keep a bureacratic system from forming different classes like it did in the eastern block , say nomenclatura
"I want some efficient anonymous machine...so that I can enjoy my isolated life." "Moderate, reasonable alienation," overseen by "transnational regulation." Sounds like Zizek is making a timely pitch for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset.
I only recently heard about the reset and what I've read so far just seems like talking points, no actual laws or plans. What do you think it'll result in?
@@visoriannull832
They're rolling out the infrastructure for it, from 5G to power smart cities and the internet of things within total information awareness grids of surveillance and security, to the mRNA and nanotechnological 'vaccines' to colonize our bodies and minds as genetically modified digital slaves. And that's just a few of the goodies coming our way with their Fourth Industrial Revolution, thanks to Covid-19(84) ushering in the New Normal's technofascist system of AI algogarchy, a capitalist coup revolutionizing the forces and relations of production made possible by the false flag scamdemic/plandemic.
As WEF founder and chair Klaus Schwab has put it, "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world." In other words, a useful crisis to socially engineer shock therapy of disaster capitalism and lead the masses to their "final solution" (Doktor Bill Gates), which does include genocidal agenda of eugenics (already unfolding especially in the global south with lockdowns leading to famine).
For further information, see: Global Research, Off-Guardian, Swiss Policy Research, The Last American Vagabond (Ryan Cristian, Whitney Webb, Derrick Broze), Children's Health Defense (RFK, Jr.), The High Wire/ICAN (Del Bigtree), The Corbett Report.
@@correspondencecommittee5746 dude go to therapy
@@visoriannull832
'Dude', wake up.
@@visoriannull832 Listen to the words of Scwaab and the WEF.
Some day we will unite in 5-th international. Greetings from Russia!
I've discovered that there is no english wikipedia page about international while writing this comment. WTF??
For starters, I would change a single representative into a council that represents the various districts of the state, so no more single heads of power as concentrated power among those who agree is a prime situation for corruption. I would change it so that anyone working for a company would be a shareholder and reap benefits as such in addition to their living wage.
I would regulate capitalism and make various business tactics that cause harm and deceive mislead and fleece people illegal with not just fines but actual jail time and no more paying your way out of justice. I would cut military spending by renegotiating all government contracts with private companies. There are programs now that have the taxpayers paying 7k for a single bolt. I would create a basic income for all citizens because I believe the preamble to the declaration is a great idea.
I would set term limits, cut the representative's pay, and tie their local reps' pay to the average low end of their district thus incentivizing them to raise that average as it is tied to their own, ie turn greed into a benefit for all in that district.
I would change the common core to include things like self-development and practical information in addition to the current core, I would also add gun safety to that core as we have a constitutional right to guns we should be informed on the dangers and how to properly utilize these rights in a way that promotes safety and wisdom in favor of life.
I would raise taxes on those who can afford it as they owe a debt to the society that made that wealth possible. There is much more but to give an idea, in a nutshell, make society more equitable and help all citizens to flourish because they are our future providing aid in housing food medical, and education, combat greed, and putting in place policies to change a business person from a tumor on society to a benefit.
Fundamentally I do not believe in force so all of these policies would be enacted in a way to respect that and the rights of individuals in all cases would be enshrined. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all would be the driving factor behind endeavors.
I am independent, not a liberal, not a conservative.
Slavoj is spot on!!!
Love to see Eric Weinstein and Zizek have a 10 hour chat.
I like what he had to say & truly enjoyed his the unvarnished comment pointing out the hypocrisy of "being nice" optional clause in the social contract. 🤣😝
Spitten facts
God dammit give the man a tissue!
2:01 Žižek brings this up a lot, but I think the left 1. Means this sociological-anthropological terms, not in political terms or any other terms, and 2. I lterally haven't hear anyone from the left say this since 2013/14.
Glub,glub,slurp,slurp goes the “ Slashtubitch”,covering me in some kind of green,sticky ectoplasm .
Makes his points sound great , and on and on … but nothing works or has ever worked like this...
We need a left that is not bound to any dogma, it has to be a type of Centrism with in the movement.it must support Revolution and Reform at the sometime, it must be a balance between libertarian and state socialism and it should have the ability to have civil discourse with even reactionaries.
Yes, I completely agree. However some of the reforms that are needed will only be possible in a revolutionary context.
We cannot do anything without popular will, and so we have to be wary of everything that divides the working class like lgbtq rethoric, liberal feminism, political correctness.
This does not mean of course that we should not fight for lgbtq rights or gender equality, but we should find a way that does not make us an easy target for the reactionaries. In order to do all this, we must be radical but also liberal, just like you said.
luca montermini The left needs lgbtq rhetoric and feminism. Today's world needs a left that fights for every oppressed group, including sex workers, inmates, immigrants, lgbtq. Actually, each group needs to fight for themselves and work together with all the other groups. We all need to support each other's battles but we can't try to appropriate and direct them as some intellectuals that hold all the truths to this world. Waiting for a wise one to come and change everything is exactly the problem with the liberal left. We can't tell indigenous people how to live and fight, we can put force a dogma on anyone. Each society, group, tradition need to fight for their liberation. Of course that cannot be achieved without intersectionality. But here is the thing, we can't mix up intersectionality with liberal identity politics. Real feminism, for example, does not get integrated into the system and truly serves the interests of women (and trans and men and everyone that gets oppressed by patriarchy, which has successfully been used by capitalism to conquer and divide us). Liberal feminism on the other hand supports that women simply deserve a better position in this system of exploitation, and usually doesn't include the minorities/the poor etc, but only middle class white women.
Jack Burt Great. Now it‘s up to you to get the “left” to agree on what “real feminism” is, then convince poor, white laborers that make up the bulk of the working class why they should care about any form of feminism to begin with.
Jack Burt My dude if you want to be taken seriously never use the word patriarchy in an non-ironical statement.
@@user-tk8bk9ww9q indeed.
When the pressure to understand one another is sus
ZuZu talks and talks and talks, yet nothing ever comes out.
zizeks talks reveal the real problem in this our world: "common sense" is no longer common. it's gone and replaced by arbitrariness. imho he displays nothing more than common sense - and that has become spectacular. because neither common sense nor "brains" are any longer required for a happy life, consumism is fully sufficing.
7:30 One more sniff, and then no more, as he warns of catastrophe.
Enemies yes. But we need to be careful how we use the word evil. It's too easy to fall into these I'm good, you're bad type of thinking
im here bc i was watching young sheldon and i wanted to know what a word meant
What italian government is he talking about? One year ago a big coalition which included all the parties except the right wing formed the government, there were the moderate left, the populist left, the liberals and the right, so the right was a minority, two years ago we only had the left and the populist left so what right-wingers is he talking about?
We understand ourselves through our interactions with others. That pressure to understand others in necessity. Only then can we really understand that Hitler is our enemy; rather than we group Craig, Muhammad, Adrik, Zhuang, and Kwame under that same banner.
New England is well-known for people politely ignoring each other, move here!
My friend went to a factory, and that's the majority of cases. Zizek is all over the place here, conflating moralism with mundane policy. I'll stick with Matt Christman.
This is the juiciest slavoj ever!
Has anyone seriously confronted Zizek with the alternative way of Georgism? "Seizing" the land (as a separate means of production alongside capital) instead of seizing the capital (which clearly doesn't work, as he points out). I'd be interested in hearing what he as a self-declared pessimistic Socialist/Marxist would have to say about it - why is this not a route, a middle way in some sense, that could be tried? (Instead of having this apocalyptic view on the future).
Seizing the land does happen in countries like China, Laos and Ethiopia, and it often involves the forcing of people off that land with threat of violence. Don’t mean to dismiss your point, but how would any socialist system avoid that same action?
@@johnmartin4233 In a Georgist system, you're not actually seizing the land. That's why I put it into quotation marks. Instead you tax the value of the land. It's the first and by far the most important step towards taxing all economic rents (unearned incomes) and thus eradicating rent-seeking. What this will lead to, if you follow it through, is a system where the "owners" retain the rights to the land, i.e. the rights to use it and trade it - but they pay for the privilege according to the opportunities that this (society) gives them (and which they are withholding from others by that exclusive right). In the end, this will tend to make the prices of land go towards zero - and thus when you're trading in real estate you're only trading the capital on the land (buildings and improvements). We will see no more speculation in land (of course here meaning the broad economical definition of land) and we will encourage proper use of the land (no vacant lots, less sprawl, etc.).
The other beneficial effects are too many for me to list here, but let's just say that Henry George considered this the solution to the problem why "progress" did not raise "real wages" (since it was swallowed by rent) - and thus amid the progress of the industrialisation he saw widespread poverty, when the logic outcome of increased productivity should be better living standards.
This is becoming even more pressing as we're moving towards an automated production, but we'll leave that for another time...
Gustavus Nicolaus Almost all countries already tax land ownership and have property taxes on top of that. Increasing the tax would surely just increases the rents?
@@johnmartin4233 The tax on unimproved land value (LVT) is only present in a few countries like Taiwan, Singapore, and Denmark - and only at low rates. This tax is very different in effect compared to the tax on property as a whole (which includes improvements, and thus, among other things, decreases incentive to improve).
The fact that an increased tax on land can't be transferred to the rent was established by Ricardo's law of rent.
These two videos explain that very well:
ruclips.net/video/ZXDuuvSOPDw/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/jiGKwi43R0Q/видео.html
"An enemy is just someone whose story you didn't hear" - Slavoj Zizek, Violence: Big Ideas/Small Books I really like this argument, because it critises the concept of good and evil which is to me just a superficially and ignorantly created concept by the society in order to avoid comprehensive thought and a certain amount of self-reflection ....
Is that an OCD tick or something or is his nose really that itchy?
I totally agree, they want to push there ways on people. And one thing I have to say, is that we are Republic a Repubilic style of goverment is, let's say you bought a bike and other people want to share. In a Republic you have your right to a bike. While in a democracy is where everyone votes in the town and they decide they can all borrow your bike that you paid for.
In the first minute he's describing the film The Firemen's Ball.
Not one of Zizek’s most coherent rants...
He has coherent rants?
Best Zizek intervention!
Take a shot every time he wipes his nose!
one of the most dangerous things is saying "the left ...." or "the right...." these general stereotypical simplifications just invite everyone to dump there stereotypes and hates without realizing he is talking about millions/billions of individual people with a lot of differents shades of greys.
People forget that nuances exist
Sounds kinda weird.
Why would we strive for isolation rather than achievement of class conciousness that would help keeping capital from accumulating in hands of bourgeois
It feels so good to hear intelligent non dogmatic arguments from somebody who's a leftist. I almost forgot what it was. I used to be a leftist myself, you now? Now I don't see the differece between a marxist and a puritan.
The Marxist to Islamist pipeline is the only intellectually honest path to take
@@tributetolost the marxist to islamist pipeline is what created abominations like Hizbut Tahrir or Qutbism,which is hated by both religious ultraconservatives and marxists
You only achieve true enlightenment once you realized that the essence of religion exist independently of the existence of God.
EXACTLY what I want! HE is my hero!!!
That Goldwin point was gold xD
I didn't expected he give a Poland as example
Thank god for youtube's auto-generated subtitles
There is a specific neural engine that RUclips employs just for Zizek's unique speech pattern.
I like Zizek, but this argument against communes is a bit weak, atleast for this one point.
You don't debate if you don't want to, you don't expect the community to talk about, and switch the water pipes after every debate. There are more important things to talk about, and one isn't forced to be part of it.
Zizek talking about Reddito di Cittadinanza in Italy :3 Which didn't work, of course.
why not?
I know I didn’t vote for bernie sanders after I became aware that his “living up” to his beliefs had actually resulted in him becoming fiscally conservative to justify them. This dude’s rebel movement is all over my you tube and won’t f off.
Forget questions of charisma! The problem with Zizek (apart from the spelling of his name) is that he doesn't really propose solutions. Instead he explains how everything is complicated. And connected. I agree with his proposition that most people would rather live in a managed economy. I disagree with his statements about autonomy. Zizek may not like to have a meeting every day to discuss kindergartens with his neighbours, but that is in part due to his unique personality and his aversion to other people. He likes his own voice best and that might get a bit tiring. As Marx said, the point is to change the world and Zizek does not believe in that. But that is also a clue to his personality and limitations, his position is one of faith, or a lack of it. The mistake here is expecting the change we need to come rapidly rather than incrementally.
Well, he is a self proclaimed pessimist. Solutions don't matter, because humans are unable anyway to ever figure out, what the actual problem is.
Main problem that Left today not radical enough.
They're always like "We need to compromise with the center!", we have already compromised to muc, and now the slightest shift to the left is seen as radical.
You mean "Guillotine" 😂
Yes it is cozy
The ‘nose’ thinking of Slavoj that always points out to the demolition of the World not as ‘it is’ but as ‘we are’.
I think I'd appreciate Zizek a little bit more if I could just bloody understand what he's saying!
there are subtitles on youtube u know
@@MrSoskiKrota will youtube subtitles also include the nervous ticks and t-shirt pinching?
what do americans want. for you to leave us alone. let us do what we want. thats what we want. that is what we always want
We just need liberal democracy with minor fixes, like a proportional voting system instead of winner-takes-it-all voting system.
When the left remains reasonable instead of being triggered emotionally. Zizek is a lefty that is actually worth a listen. " The Left TODAY, That's the tragedy. " Slavoj coming through. Cant lie to himself here.
6:26 anyone have any interesting ideas or thoughts on how a transnational regulatory agency could exist? We clearly need this as he says for global issues. Trade penalties seem to be the only plausible means of enforcement for such a coalition of nations. But certainly for global pandemics, climate change, workers rights, corporate taxation etc we need global cooperation with repercussions for breaches. This is a main problem of the Paris Climate Accord in my view, it's necessarily based on the goodwill of nations' leaders to meet the goals (the goals themselves are besides the point) but this is clearly a problem.
I'd rather read this than see it. He is disconcerting to watch.
Don't watch, just tab out and listen lmao
FYI Epoch Times is showing on your ads
Rampant individualism, something the 'conservative' right shares the mantra of, then ignores as a cause when nothing changes for the better the one rightful group of a historically hemogenous culture, scoiety and Country.
Things constantly change for the better and they change more for the better in places in which people have more freedom.
American right wingers sometimes stress conservatism, sometimes liberty, because they are a coalition of religious people, libertarians, nationalists, etc.
I'll have to look into it, but I've heard from other sources that Bernie's proposed health plan actually would cover more than most other countries' plans.
Impossible. In most of the coutries in Europe public health covers everything.
I'm conservative and I despise progressive and the left in general. But I respect Slavoj big time. At least he is honest, true to his principles, and very realistic and objective. If all left-wingers were this way, the world would have been a much nicer place tbh.