So he is saying that populism is inherently adversarial? That there is always a "them" that "we" the good guys must oppose? Sounds about right. I would also point out that populism is so tribal and those outside our group are so distrusted that any criticism, even of the plainly constructive variety, is dismissed offhand. "We" are good and rational and "they" are always irrational and evil so anything that doesnt completely toe our line *must* be false. Thus, there is an inherent rejection of nuance within populism (left and right) that I find disturbing. I cant tell you how often I have offered constructive criticism and/or tried to offer a nuanced argument to, say, fellow liberals (left-leaning independent here) only to be accused of being a Republican or alt-right or fascist.
I've had the same thing. I am left leaning and always have been but I feel there are many 'orthodoxies' which need to be challenged and discussed openly. There is a growing atmosphere in which you are quickly labelled if you question the party line.
The loss of nuance seems to be an extremely widespread symptom of the current society. Not just in politics but every remark would get hard snapped into one of two directly opposing groups with nothing in between
You put Bernie and Trump together in the thumbnail as if they are both populists, but Zizek explicitly states in the video he does not consider Bernie a populist. Trump obviously is a populist. Why did you decide to include them both? I find that quite misleading.
Part A) Populism means taking care for the people. We need national sovereignty. It is based on peoples sovereignty. Based on a cultural and ethnical tradition. Communism we don' t need. We need national sovereignty, nation state who controls the transnationals or crash them. Precondition for communism part 4 and 7 in Part B):
Probably, Zizek is wrong about Left Populism if we go by what Chantal Mouffe has to say. It's about the coalition built on transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice, and not about constructing a personified enemy.
I disagree with you because essentially what the coalition built on the transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice means is that the periphery of our society joins forces to fight some kind of injustice. (Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to fight for equality if everybody is equal). Oppressed vs Oppressor. The original leftist vision is of course based on abstract injustice (freedom, equality, prosperity), but the easiest way, and that is how it was done by the majority of leftists from Lenin to the modern European left-wing is to construct a source of this injustice, and because the strongest emotion is fear, the source of injustice is concentrated in this semi-abstract oppressor. You could argue that it is because politicians are lazy and too hungry for votes to create personified enemies and not that the idea of left populism is fundamentally wrong, what I would agree with, but again that is what Zizek is saying, he criticizes left-populist politicians (if 99% git it wrong, it is probably not a good idea). To add something to this, I think it is not possible to go with left populism by fighting abstract inequalities instead of fabricating enemy, simply because the target audience of leftist are simple people and working-class, where you can not expect highly elaborated abstract thinking, meaning if it is not a politician that will form this enemy, it is gonna be a different politician to fill the gap or people themself. "we have to fight against those who profit on your poverty"... "yeah so the rich"
Probably, Zizek is wrong about Left Populism if we go by what Chantal Mouffe has to say. It's about the coalition built on transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice, and not about constructing a personified enemy.
Mouffe actually says that that coalition can only be held together if (potential) members of that coalition understand that they share the same enemy (or rather, adversary) - namely, the establishment. That is, those marginalized groups enter into that coalition not just because they want justice, but because they accuse the same group of people of perpetuating injustice. Mouffe arrives at this conclusion, in part, as a result of her interpretation of Carl Schmitt and work with Laclau (whom Zizek references in this video).
@Joseph Norm Actually yes, it isn't hard to memorise a discourse. I think both go together, if we look at institutional feminism it has both an oversimplistic enemy and a complicated theory behind it, this transversal feminism and so on and so on. It does nothing to help anyone but the people holding a charge yet it gets a lot of support.
@Joseph Norm You may start by researching political, economic, and social theories, such as constructivism, realism (IR), functionalism, etc. Then go to z-lib and search for free articles that debate discourses related to social struggle (Marx), economic liberalism (Hayek), protectionism (Keynes), and combine them with social thinkers or philosophers of our time and before our time. It is all on the internet. I wish I had the same access to this much information back in the 80's and 90's. I do not want to indoctrinate your mind. There are left and right wings. Both are good and bad in many ways. Maybe we should divide fundamentalists and moderates. There is Sartre, Humphrey, etc just google "famous philosophers after 1950s". You will find so much to read. it is amazing!!!
@Joseph Norm In the previous comment I did not mention my concept of populism. I inferred how to get a clearer knowledge of political-economic theories in a way to get a better perception of the foundation of the concept of populism and where it may come from. Many minds have different concepts about the roots of populism. Some may say it comes from personalistic dictatorships. Others may say it comes from the "populist parties and social movements often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the 'voice of the people." I would be happy to defend that populism would be based on good results from political measures created by an innovative political leader that really contributes to the economy and society.
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
He said that Bernie Sanders is quite far from being a populist, yet he is in the thumbnail.
anything to get clicks, right?
It's a trash channel, that happens to to show great speeches by great people.
Bernie Sanders is kind of a populist though, not as good as Trump as a populist but still a populist.
your right, he owns this channel and uploaded this video. I am sure the irony was totally lost on him.
I thought he was Chomsky
So he is saying that populism is inherently adversarial? That there is always a "them" that "we" the good guys must oppose? Sounds about right. I would also point out that populism is so tribal and those outside our group are so distrusted that any criticism, even of the plainly constructive variety, is dismissed offhand. "We" are good and rational and "they" are always irrational and evil so anything that doesnt completely toe our line *must* be false. Thus, there is an inherent rejection of nuance within populism (left and right) that I find disturbing. I cant tell you how often I have offered constructive criticism and/or tried to offer a nuanced argument to, say, fellow liberals (left-leaning independent here) only to be accused of being a Republican or alt-right or fascist.
I've had the same thing. I am left leaning and always have been but I feel there are many 'orthodoxies' which need to be challenged and discussed openly. There is a growing atmosphere in which you are quickly labelled if you question the party line.
The loss of nuance seems to be an extremely widespread symptom of the current society. Not just in politics but every remark would get hard snapped into one of two directly opposing groups with nothing in between
No, but that's just ideology.
Based
@@foodchewer Blessed!
new game: one shot of vodka everytime Zizek touches his nose.
And chug a beer everytime he says "so on".
Fuck if you did this you'd die
No one can survive that.
reported for roblox/self injury
Death by alcohol poisoning lol
He stole James May's shirt.
You mean Freddy Krugger
I want a debate between Slavoj Zizek and Aleksandr Dugin.
yes please
Lesgoo
dugin is a smooth brain with no original thought.
You put Bernie and Trump together in the thumbnail as if they are both populists, but Zizek explicitly states in the video he does not consider Bernie a populist. Trump obviously is a populist. Why did you decide to include them both? I find that quite misleading.
whys he dressed like chris chan?
Is this where Chris Chan got his polo shirt from? ;)
Why did u stop uploading?
Where's the uploads??? :(
What’s your opinion on James Connolly?
Many regards
where are these clips from i wanna see the whole thing
this clip is from this video: ruclips.net/video/JCUQS7TgkEs/видео.html
Why dont you make videos anymore :(
Knows what his talking about 🤔
Shaman on YT.
I think Zizek needs a Kleenex
He has several involuntary nervous ticks. He sniffs and touches his nose, he pulls at this clothes and he touches his face. He can't help it.
Part A) Populism means taking care for the people. We need national sovereignty. It is based on peoples sovereignty. Based on a cultural and ethnical tradition.
Communism we don' t need. We need national sovereignty, nation state who controls the transnationals or crash them.
Precondition for communism part 4 and 7 in Part B):
Tissues
Use them
Probably, Zizek is wrong about Left Populism if we go by what Chantal Mouffe has to say. It's about the coalition built on transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice, and not about constructing a personified enemy.
I disagree with you because essentially what the coalition built on the transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice means is that the periphery of our society joins forces to fight some kind of injustice. (Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to fight for equality if everybody is equal). Oppressed vs Oppressor. The original leftist vision is of course based on abstract injustice (freedom, equality, prosperity), but the easiest way, and that is how it was done by the majority of leftists from Lenin to the modern European left-wing is to construct a source of this injustice, and because the strongest emotion is fear, the source of injustice is concentrated in this semi-abstract oppressor. You could argue that it is because politicians are lazy and too hungry for votes to create personified enemies and not that the idea of left populism is fundamentally wrong, what I would agree with, but again that is what Zizek is saying, he criticizes left-populist politicians (if 99% git it wrong, it is probably not a good idea). To add something to this, I think it is not possible to go with left populism by fighting abstract inequalities instead of fabricating enemy, simply because the target audience of leftist are simple people and working-class, where you can not expect highly elaborated abstract thinking, meaning if it is not a politician that will form this enemy, it is gonna be a different politician to fill the gap or people themself. "we have to fight against those who profit on your poverty"... "yeah so the rich"
That's less populism and more intersectional conflict theory.
I stand with EUROPEAN NATIONALISM
I take it you either didn't watch or disagreed with the video?
So all yr saying is that . . . I take cocaine & I think & speak better?
what the hell is wrong with this dude lol, what is wrong with his nose
It’s a nervous tick exacerbated by speaking English.
Probably, Zizek is wrong about Left Populism if we go by what Chantal Mouffe has to say. It's about the coalition built on transverse mode of multiple marginalities, based on the principle of social justice, and not about constructing a personified enemy.
Yup
Mouffe actually says that that coalition can only be held together if (potential) members of that coalition understand that they share the same enemy (or rather, adversary) - namely, the establishment. That is, those marginalized groups enter into that coalition not just because they want justice, but because they accuse the same group of people of perpetuating injustice. Mouffe arrives at this conclusion, in part, as a result of her interpretation of Carl Schmitt and work with Laclau (whom Zizek references in this video).
@Joseph Norm Actually yes, it isn't hard to memorise a discourse. I think both go together, if we look at institutional feminism it has both an oversimplistic enemy and a complicated theory behind it, this transversal feminism and so on and so on. It does nothing to help anyone but the people holding a charge yet it gets a lot of support.
@Joseph Norm You may start by researching political, economic, and social theories, such as constructivism, realism (IR), functionalism, etc. Then go to z-lib and search for free articles that debate discourses related to social struggle (Marx), economic liberalism (Hayek), protectionism (Keynes), and combine them with social thinkers or philosophers of our time and before our time. It is all on the internet. I wish I had the same access to this much information back in the 80's and 90's.
I do not want to indoctrinate your mind. There are left and right wings. Both are good and bad in many ways. Maybe we should divide fundamentalists and moderates. There is Sartre, Humphrey, etc just google "famous philosophers after 1950s". You will find so much to read. it is amazing!!!
@Joseph Norm In the previous comment I did not mention my concept of populism. I inferred how to get a clearer knowledge of political-economic theories in a way to get a better perception of the foundation of the concept of populism and where it may come from. Many minds have different concepts about the roots of populism. Some may say it comes from personalistic dictatorships. Others may say it comes from the "populist parties and social movements often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the 'voice of the people." I would be happy to defend that populism would be based on good results from political measures created by an innovative political leader that really contributes to the economy and society.
Why does he keep touching he noise and fidgeting? Some tie his hands down😠😠😠