@@cosmicmusicreynolds3266 Your hearts in the right place comrde. Its good you care about people and respect : ) Ive made the same mistake. Its so easy to miss the tone, when you cant hear it. Zizeks great sense of humour such as his bridge between the East and West, means im sure he could handle the heat
Broke: storming the capitol, taking a selfie with Nancy Pelosi’s gavel, dying of a heart attack Woke: gathering less than a thousand people and so on and so on
@@sit-insforsithis1568lmfao yeah cause the right famously mounted an effective vanguard party and took over the government and totally didn’t get dog fucked for being half inbred idiots
@@disfuncionexe "game of thrones, season five episode eight" what he meant. (The joke is presumably that a character in that episode said something similar to Trotsky)
With all due respect, "Post, Telegraph, Telephone" is a classic Lenin's idea which doesn't have to do anything with Trotsky. "Our three main forces-the fleet, the workers, and the army units-must be so combined as to occupy without fail and to hold at any cost: (a) the telephone exchange; (b) the telegraph office; (c) the railway stations; (d) and above all, the bridges. The most determined elements (our "shock forces" and young workers, as well as the best of the sailors) must be formed into small detachments to occupy all the more important points and to take part everywhere in all important operations, for example: to encircle and cut off Petrograd; to seize it by a combined attack of the sailors, the workers, and the troops-a task which requires art and triple audacity; to form detachments from the best workers, armed with rifles and bombs, for the purpose of attacking and surrounding the enemy's "centres" (the officers' schools, the telegraph office, the telephone exchange, etc.). Their watch word must be: "Better die to a man than let the enemy pass!" Let us hope that if action is decided on, the leaders will successfully apply the great precepts of Danton and Marx. The success of both the Russian and the world revolution depends on two or three days' fighting" V. Lenin, "Advice of an Onlooker", October 8, 1917.
Not exactly a classic if this comes only a month before the uprising. Presumably (if Zizek is correct) Lenin wrote this after Trotsky and he talked it out.
@@valq10 1. Read Trotskiy's "Lessons of October", chapter 7 (1924). He admires Lenin for this exact idea and quotes his earlier letter to the party in September, where he already has said about telegraph and telephone and the urgent need for rebellion. 2. "Post, Telegraph, Telephone" is a widely known classic phrase in Russia (and all post-soviet countries), deeply associated with Lenin.
It was more generalized during the years preceding the fall of Yugoslavia. The locus of power was increasingly local police stations. They were the armories, often connected to other vital services like the post office and/or the railroads, and they were nearly unassailable by the political power structure that ostensibly oversaw them. So ... spend a few years flooding these departments with loyalists, militarize them as soon as you have a "threat" to fight against, and bam, you have prebuilt, pretrained, prearmed military bases all over the country.
It would be interesting to know when the discussions took place and to see wether Lenen wrote this before or after the discussion Zizek mentions between him and Trotsky. zizek always like to downplay certain things to mention interesting details, but sometimes it seems more like amusemment, then any real strategy.
I think maoism revolution tactics are also worth remembering. The russian revolution happened in very specific conditions, in which part of russian army supported the bolsheviks. Mao with his tactics was very sucessuful, because he slowly gained support and control over basic things of everyday life: lands, food, communications, etc. In this sense we need to learn from Trotsky's tactics but also with Mao.
I too believe we should rememeber this revolution. The greatest famine in history, the greatest infastructure failures in history, the novel ways to torture, demoralize, and starve a population. Only the revolution in the United States will be more brutal!
@@afoose You do not understand anything about Mao's revolution and rule. China in 1949 had a life expectancy of 44 years, this rose to 65 years in 1976(when Mao died). Free education and healthcare was enforced. The famine happened in a country that had an enormous population and a very primitive agriculture, that is extremely influenced by climate conditions. What you talked about torture and repression is all bullshit. The chinese revolution abolished milenar methods of torture and fighted against the opression of the woman. Finally they were granted equal rights to the man, and arranged marriages were abolished. The flood of the Yellow River, unfavorable temperature, lack of rain, and not to mention the Sino-soviet split, that retired all foreign assistance to China, caused this famine. Only people that do not know history or are part of the privileged classes in society are afraid of the revolution. The proletarians have nothing to fear, since the only thing they will loose is their chains.
@@luizhumberto8802 my friend, I am a friend of the revolution and only see starving reactionaries by the tens of millions as a good thing! Don't you agree?!
@@afoose In the absense of arguments, you used irony. I explained the causes of famine and I talked about the achievements of Mao. If you really care about people starving why you support a system that despite producing enough food to feed 11 billion people in a planet of 7 billion still has 3 million people dying from starvation every year? Anyway, coherence is not a strong characteristic of right wingers.
@@luizhumberto8802 wow you are so ignorant of the horrors of mao. In competition with Hitler for the most evil ruler in history bub. You realized the famine, though partly influenced by climate, happened because mao had to give grain to the Soviet’s to pay for a military industrial complex and to pay stakeholders that Mao had made promises to? Imagine murdering your own people by the MILLIONS to pay for some factories. Sickening. The torture is also extremely true. During the cultural revolution plenty were jailed and tortured, and even those intelligentsia who were spared jailing were stripped of their academia and sent to join the countryside peasants, setting China’s academic progress back by decades. And the totalitarian attempt to rewrite history and destroy all culture that was in direct opposition to their twisted regime happened on the regular. The proletariat was the primary victim of Mao, and only their ignorance and desire to remain unchains can account for their being willing to accept what was the most anti-proletariat regime in possibly the history of the world. Mao’s death was the greatest thing to happen to China.
No, because this issue is not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. When revolution finally breaks out, every law enforcement agency of every country will go and shut down all internet and telecommunication technology. Because that is their primary function: to protect the rich and powerfull. There is an urgent need for techology that cannot be shut down. Or tapped into.
The big, public movements will create dialogue. Clandestine cells will eventually engage in strategic disobedience. Could be happening right now. They won't televise it.
The revolution will not be televised...it will be posted on RUclips remember to subscribe and smash that like button over the heads of the ruling class.
Trotsky, In Defense of October, 1932 "The Italian writer Malaparte, who is something in the nature of a Fascist theoretician - there are such, too - not long ago, launched a book on the technique of the coup d’état. Naturally, the author devotes a not inconsiderable number of pages of his “investigation” to the October upheaval. In contradistinction to the “strategy” of Lenin which was always related to the social and political conditions of Russia in 1917, “the tactics of Trotsky.” in Malaparte's words, “were, on the contrary, not at all limited by the general conditions of the country.” This is the main idea of the book! Malaparte compels Lenin and Trotsky in the pages of his book, to carry on numerous dialogues, in which both participants together show as much profundity of mind as Nature put at the disposal of Malaparte alone. In answer to Lenin's considerations of the social and political prerequisites of the upheaval, Malaparte has his alleged Trotsky say, literally, “Your strategy requires far too many favourable circumstances; the insurrection needs nothing, it is self-sufficing.” You hear: “The insurrection needs nothing!” That is precisely the absurdity which must help us to approach the truth. The author repeats persistently, that, in the October Revolution, it was not the strategy of Lenin but the tactics of Trotsky which won the victory. These tactics, according to his words, are a menace even now to the peace of the States of Europe. “The strategy of Lenin” I quote word for word, “does not constitute any immediate danger for the Governments of Europe. But the tactics of Trotsky do constitute an actual and consequently a permanent danger to them.” Still more concretely, “Put Poincaré in the place of Kerensky and the Bolshevik coup d’état of October, 1917 would have been just as successful.” It is hard to believe that such a book has been translated into several languages and taken seriously."
I hope I never have to use most things I learn, this applies, stay open minded, respect and love and each other, or disregard whatever I said, love you anyway
I know that this is supposed to be favorable towards trotsky and I am a trot 100%, but...their approaches were not different neither then or today. lenin also recognized the necessity of these tactics, and IDC if this is supposed to be complimentary or illuminating of us, no thanks.
Marx was and remains a giant of economic thought, who understood the value for workers when they maintain mutual control over the surplus-value of their labor, separate from their individual thoughts and expressions. Bolshevism was the furnace that forged the Soviet State. A state having a corporate structure, it's foundation cast in ideological purity. An incindiary ideology that smothered any individual thought or expression through propaganda, intimidation and/or other means. When any elite, corporate, bureaucratic, religious, academic and so forth, thinks for us, compels our speech, we will have begun a perilous journey, inevitably descending into a neo-postmodern and/or neo-fascist inferno.
He was referring to Curzio Malaparte's "Coup d'etat: The technique of revolution". I am staunchly anti-communist but my free-information beliefs compel me to help you find what you need and translate Zizek's sniffling monologues.
@@theblackestvoid Yes but the State is such a brute fact of any society that it will never truly disappear, merely recede from view in some bunker complex of massive parallel processors, dictating changes to the classes of variables controlling the subtext of a totally invisible market. Everything is exchanged for one of two things: Time, and Energy. Nothing whatsoever can avoid this basic fact of physics. This is why Žižek is such an anti-ideologue, a kind of quasi-polemicist. He understands all too well that everything else is a Circus, and the Bread will continue to be rationed and engineered in such a way as to provide a smooth declination into the Abyss of an utterly technocratic planet, a global unfurling of Mbembe's Necropolitics into a plutocratic superorganism, higher even perhaps than any multinational corporation, international think tank, or union of polity. That's the big secret, you understand: people aren't mad about the world destroying itself due to human greed and shortsightedness, they aren't self-loathing unless it provides a mechanism to emulate fame via Internet parasocial relationships, and they refuse to acknowledge the brazen power-plays by those with insane amounts of control and influence. This is because every Western Fool, and I think to some extent every aspiring human in developing economies and even under Chinese authority, wishes to emulate these entities, christened by Harari collectively as Homo Deus. Žižek is all to aware that there is nothing short of a technical revolt by the scientific professionals, engineers, and their most promising grad students that will utterly destabilize the capitalist hypersystem , built such as it is on the quickest and most effective commodity of "thought" vis Instagram, Facebook, Google, and so on. They literally call this process monetization, which is merely the software engineer's equivalent of "tokenization", facing outward to the markets. The most sick and dangerous thing I can imagine is actually Chompsky's betrayal of a free and intellectually rigorous global network of educated individuals: that is to say, the embrace not only of physical obsolescence as a strategy, but entirely intellectual bankruptcy via knowledge obsolescence--link rot, perpetual revisions to the corpus, and a wholesale abandonment of a Wikepedia-styled universal system in favor of these totally corrupted networks, which any hacker worth their salt would immediately realize are honeypots.
Nietzsche accused Kant of oriental thinking, and I will demonstrate that his intuition has come to fruition. Slavoj Zizek refers to Hegel in his “The Sublime Object of Ideology”: “…the actuality reduced to a possibility…” x. And again paraphrases Hegel on page xi, “… becomes actual as potentiality, only through language...” It just takes a brief moment to cite Charles Sanders Peirce’s Categories, of which there are only three, to understand that trying to reduce one category to another, in this case actuality to possibility, is categorically unacceptable. Zizek’s thought is alien to western civilization. He finishes the preface by suggesting that the critics of Hegel need a laxative. In the age of “On Bullshit,” a liar understands truth and the bullshitter understand persuasion, so Zizek is the Thales of Fecal incontinence.
I hope this was ironically written because otherwise it's pseudo-academic drivel. Sanders Peirce is a completely irrelevant and defunct theorist ... Zizek is prominent Lacanian.
4chan through its endless self-criticism and hardcoded opposition to notoriety is pretty much impervious to ideology. Pretty much the only things that can happen there are things literally everyone with the intestinal fortitude to actually go to that site can agree upon.
@@israelcrane6424 You define a place by its worst factions, it's not very long before you hate the whole world. I don't rush to make value judgments about people personally. I just tune out the dumbasses and occasionally use my freedom of speech to try to enlighten them.
Trotsky is by far my favorite communist revolutionary, I agree with him on one basic concept, permanent revolution worldwide, after studying all communist ideologies, this method of achieving it seems the most realistic, as opposed to Stalin's socialism in one country. I always wondered what would have happened if Trotsky won the power struggle after Lenin's death, I honestly believe the Soviet Union would still exist, and communism would be much more widespread.
I completely agree... I think another funny factor is that occidental left parties have adapted so well to the capitalist/partisan mindset that it would be almost impossible to get people like Trotsky on power. That, accompanied by the fact that most occidental citizens are completely detached from "politics", have let us to, instead of having a constant ideological revolution, intermittent, unorganized "bursts" of discontent that are, sadly, relatively easy to control.
@Citizens Arrest You brought absolutely nothing to the theme the opening post talked about. All you said for your entire wall of gibberish is "bolsheviks bad duh". GJ on that
Joel Fry, is that why there is a great longing in Russia and the former Soviet republics to return to the CCCP? Even in far flung Tajikistan the longing is open and palpable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-45446494
Umm.. not even Tankies question the tactical mastermind of Trotsky and that is also what the video talks about. NOT WETHER Trotskyism works. Permanent revolutionary praxis in the 21st century? Please, tell me, how do yoi plan to achieve it?
how will they know to interfere if communications are controlled? how will they fill their cars if oil pipelines are cut? how will they even manage their goons when the power is out and the staffing server is down?
The October revolution was only possible in the context created by the February revolution. That was the only reason the Bolshevik party had the possbility of organising and arming openly in the streets, when the peasants and workers had already disarmed the Tsarist state and armed themselves in the process, by mutinying and deserting from the front. They had already established the soviets, in the army, the cities and villages, and big workplaces, through which the Bolsheviks could recruit openly on a large scale and begin to wield power at the community level. So that kind of organised, pinpoint strike against the co-ordinating knots (nodes) of modern society was just finishing a process already underway, by the workers and peasants, which was none of the Bolsheviks' doing, for a complete transfer of state power from the vestiges of the Imperial state in the Duma, to someone else. And unfortunately, it was the seizure of power not finally by the masses themselves, but by a self-appointed, sectarian clique with a de facto eltist conception, that correct consciousness was beyond the masses themselves to manifest, but had to be instilled by the coterie of dialectical materialist congnoscenti as if from on high, and who therefore had the right to rule over the proletariat, while pretending to rule in their name and with their acclaim.
po druhé svetové vojne nemal som vedomie smrť vôbec existuje v knihe som prvý krát v videl púšť hneď som videl vodu ovocie zelenú púšť farba sa zmenila otvoril som atlas v škole videl som obraz rozšíriť pevninu nad oceánom
Stalinism, for me, is a distortion and a horrible "socialistic" ideal. Trotskyism, on the other hands, make more sense to me. First, the concept of permanent revolution is a more realistic approach to the rise of socialism and even communism. This idea is to continue the spread of revolutionary sentiment united but independent. There are many reasons for this, and a big one is the cultural identity of such collective society. Trying to make one big nation under the rule of one original nation (in this case Russia or Soviet Union) is not going to properly work. One, because that government will not approach well cultural differences. Two, because the nations that are now under one country has different issues to resolve that those previously united under the nation and the original nation itself. However, if revolution is spread united but independent, these two issues would be such a big factor. Another point of such revolution is that it must be done by the proletariat, not the peasantry. Not only because the proletariat is more resourceful and more educated, but because the peasantry holds an anger bigger than the proletariat. This view is a realistic view from Aristotle in governance, in which he says: -"Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered, in which the middle class is large and larger if possible than both the other classes (rich and poor)". -"Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the other nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme... but it is not so likely to arise out of a middle and nearly equal condition". Finally, I also agree that there is no need to reach capitalism to then reach socialism or communism. One can reach the revolution regardless of the government type, which is something Trotsky's permanent revolution believe.
Here’s a challenge for people who think this guy isn’t a moron: try to describe one of his unique ideas here, from any book or video, in a few sentences. The catch is that you have to do it without reference to another philosopher or known philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only. Hint: nobody has been able to do this, not even once.
The fundamentals of what he's saying can be broken down rather effortlessly, but because you don't believe they can, there is no purpose in discussing this with you, is there? And if you're incapable of summarizing the whole of his statements then how would you be able to claim if I was incorrect or not when you yourself don't seem to believe there is an answer? It's that you've doubted that there is an answer to begin with shows there will never be sufficient enough explanation for you. I would say perhaps you're projecting your own inabilities to grasp concepts well enough to break them down to an easily explained principle or fundamental.
@Tavis Enderle Here’s Plato boiling down the concept of Forms in The Republic: “...the particulars are objects of sight but not of intelligence, while the forms are the objects of intelligence but not of sight.” Whether he’s right or wrong about that, he claimed something. He established a concept in one sentence. You can verify it, debunk it, etc. And because it is a coherent concept in and of itself, I can reformulate it for you in one sentence, in simple language, on the fly: “Plato’s forms are the objective parts of reality that we cannot directly perceive with our senses, but the closer we can get to perceiving them, the smarter we are.” See how that works? I can do this with a mountain of different philosophers, because most of them actually say something. Now you try with Zizek.
@@MrClockw3rk Was just a thought about the question and how unfeasible the catch is depending on what you meant by philosophical concepts, for example, particulars or intelligence. Also, it depends on whether one works in a tradition, does interpretive work, or has a silly idea of what constitutes progress such as ones where creating novel ideas is the only thing that matters while excluding contributing to various ways of understanding other thinkers. Meanwhile, Žižek’s popularity stems from bringing Hegel and Lacan together. I don‘t want to blast you with a wall of text, but here is the exercise despite the fact you can find similar claims throughout the German idealist tradition, Deleuze, Aristotle, and probably elsewhere. This doesn’t meet your criteria, which if you understand philosophy as footnotes to Plato, he was a good philosopher to pick because he’s the only person who had original thoughts by definition. 1) Problem Žižek is discussing, 2) my understanding of Markus Gabriel’s understanding of Žižek, 3) Žižek’s claim. For the background, by individuating or determining an object, one distinguishes it from that which it is not (the background/negation). The problem is that determining something requires the distinction between determinacy and indeterminacy while both rely on each other. Žižek believes that this distinction always fails because where one draws the distinction in thought is not represented in the thought as in the case of the distinction between forms and particulars in Plato you provided or identity/noncontradiction, appearance/reality, etc. To quote Gabriel from “The Mythological Being of Reflection” for understanding the point through mathematics as elements/sets: “Even if we think of the empty set, that which it contains, , is still distinguished from {}.” 3) If you're interested, here is Žižek’s original quote with his infamous style from Gabriel’s same essay found in Žižek’s For They Know Not What They Do. Enjoyment as a Political Factor: “reflection, to be sure, ultimately always fails - any positive mark included in the series could never ‘successfully’ represent/reflect the empty space of the inscription of marks. It is, however, this very failure as such which ‘constitutes’ the space of inscription. The ‘place’ of marks is nothing but the void opened by the failure of the re-mark. [...] the very act of reflection as failed constitutes retroactively that which eludes it."
@@luxaeterna8555 He never fought with the Red Army? He literally created and led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War lol You have Trotsky to thank for their even being a Soviet Union.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] August Producer's Letter](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JUTYpaV_4Ic/mqdefault.jpg)
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 love how this Zizek video starts with "to conclude"
To conclute*
*Tu Konklut
TU KONKLUUT *shniff* [speaks another 45 minutes]
Lol
😂😂😂
Zizek's nose is clearly a counter revolutionary
Sniffshevic
20 years from now:
Zizek murdered by his Nose
Nose: "i finally got him to stop touching me :@"
make sense , don t take the piss just because you can t put up an argument against what he s saying
@@cosmicmusicreynolds3266 bruh he's not even trying to argue against him 😂 it's a joke lmao 😂
@@cosmicmusicreynolds3266
Your hearts in the right place comrde. Its good you care about people and respect : )
Ive made the same mistake. Its so easy to miss the tone, when you cant hear it.
Zizeks great sense of humour such as his bridge between the East and West, means im sure he could handle the heat
Broke: storming the capitol, taking a selfie with Nancy Pelosi’s gavel, dying of a heart attack
Woke: gathering less than a thousand people and so on and so on
Lmao you are just jealous the right stormed the capitol and the left didn’t xD
@@sit-insforsithis1568 Zizek just explained why the Left wouldn't.
@@sit-insforsithis1568 and unsurprisingly, once they are in the seat of power, they do not know what to do.
How about neither?
@@sit-insforsithis1568lmfao yeah cause the right famously mounted an effective vanguard party and took over the government and totally didn’t get dog fucked for being half inbred idiots
It's always beautiful to hear Zizek quoting History... 1:44
Trotsky ("He says") : "But wait a minute"
Sounds exactly like something Trotsky would say though, as Lenin proceeds to attacc
: (
Sad Trotskyist. Were the largest communist org in England atm.
Type up Fiona Lali
“I don’t need an army, I need 20 good men” - Trotsky, GOT S05E08
tf is S05E08
@@disfuncionexe Game of Thrones (GOT) Season 5, episode 8
@@disfuncionexe "game of thrones, season five episode eight" what he meant. (The joke is presumably that a character in that episode said something similar to Trotsky)
@@TheMoldyMenace game of thrones more like gaym of thrones
Tell that to french 1940
He could have done with that whole speech in a minute by mentioning "Communist hackers".
With all due respect, "Post, Telegraph, Telephone" is a classic Lenin's idea which doesn't have to do anything with Trotsky.
"Our three main forces-the fleet, the workers, and the army units-must be so combined as to occupy without fail and to hold at any cost: (a) the telephone exchange; (b) the telegraph office; (c) the railway stations; (d) and above all, the bridges.
The most determined elements (our "shock forces" and young workers, as well as the best of the sailors) must be formed into small detachments to occupy all the more important points and to take part everywhere in all important operations, for example:
to encircle and cut off Petrograd; to seize it by a combined attack of the sailors, the workers, and the troops-a task which requires art and triple audacity;
to form detachments from the best workers, armed with rifles and bombs, for the purpose of attacking and surrounding the enemy's "centres" (the officers' schools, the telegraph office, the telephone exchange, etc.). Their watch word must be: "Better die to a man than let the enemy pass!"
Let us hope that if action is decided on, the leaders will successfully apply the great precepts of Danton and Marx.
The success of both the Russian and the world revolution depends on two or three days' fighting"
V. Lenin, "Advice of an Onlooker", October 8, 1917.
Thanks 👍
Not exactly a classic if this comes only a month before the uprising. Presumably (if Zizek is correct) Lenin wrote this after Trotsky and he talked it out.
@@valq10 1. Read Trotskiy's "Lessons of October", chapter 7 (1924). He admires Lenin for this exact idea and quotes his earlier letter to the party in September, where he already has said about telegraph and telephone and the urgent need for rebellion.
2. "Post, Telegraph, Telephone" is a widely known classic phrase in Russia (and all post-soviet countries), deeply associated with Lenin.
It was more generalized during the years preceding the fall of Yugoslavia. The locus of power was increasingly local police stations. They were the armories, often connected to other vital services like the post office and/or the railroads, and they were nearly unassailable by the political power structure that ostensibly oversaw them. So ... spend a few years flooding these departments with loyalists, militarize them as soon as you have a "threat" to fight against, and bam, you have prebuilt, pretrained, prearmed military bases all over the country.
It would be interesting to know when the discussions took place and to see wether Lenen wrote this before or after the discussion Zizek mentions between him and Trotsky. zizek always like to downplay certain things to mention interesting details, but sometimes it seems more like amusemment, then any real strategy.
I think maoism revolution tactics are also worth remembering. The russian revolution happened in very specific conditions, in which part of russian army supported the bolsheviks. Mao with his tactics was very sucessuful, because he slowly gained support and control over basic things of everyday life: lands, food, communications, etc. In this sense we need to learn from Trotsky's tactics but also with Mao.
I too believe we should rememeber this revolution. The greatest famine in history, the greatest infastructure failures in history, the novel ways to torture, demoralize, and starve a population. Only the revolution in the United States will be more brutal!
@@afoose You do not understand anything about Mao's revolution and rule. China in 1949 had a life expectancy of 44 years, this rose to 65 years in 1976(when Mao died). Free education and healthcare was enforced. The famine happened in a country that had an enormous population and a very primitive agriculture, that is extremely influenced by climate conditions. What you talked about torture and repression is all bullshit. The chinese revolution abolished milenar methods of torture and fighted against the opression of the woman. Finally they were granted equal rights to the man, and arranged marriages were abolished.
The flood of the Yellow River, unfavorable temperature, lack of rain, and not to mention the Sino-soviet split, that retired all foreign assistance to China, caused this famine.
Only people that do not know history or are part of the privileged classes in society are afraid of the revolution. The proletarians have nothing to fear, since the only thing they will loose is their chains.
@@luizhumberto8802 my friend, I am a friend of the revolution and only see starving reactionaries by the tens of millions as a good thing! Don't you agree?!
@@afoose In the absense of arguments, you used irony. I explained the causes of famine and I talked about the achievements of Mao. If you really care about people starving why you support a system that despite producing enough food to feed 11 billion people in a planet of 7 billion still has 3 million people dying from starvation every year? Anyway, coherence is not a strong characteristic of right wingers.
@@luizhumberto8802 wow you are so ignorant of the horrors of mao. In competition with Hitler for the most evil ruler in history bub.
You realized the famine, though partly influenced by climate, happened because mao had to give grain to the Soviet’s to pay for a military industrial complex and to pay stakeholders that Mao had made promises to? Imagine murdering your own people by the MILLIONS to pay for some factories. Sickening.
The torture is also extremely true. During the cultural revolution plenty were jailed and tortured, and even those intelligentsia who were spared jailing were stripped of their academia and sent to join the countryside peasants, setting China’s academic progress back by decades. And the totalitarian attempt to rewrite history and destroy all culture that was in direct opposition to their twisted regime happened on the regular.
The proletariat was the primary victim of Mao, and only their ignorance and desire to remain unchains can account for their being willing to accept what was the most anti-proletariat regime in possibly the history of the world. Mao’s death was the greatest thing to happen to China.
0:04 - title of that move: double sniff left-right combo with late finale.
so, you know what to do now.
Haahhaah Love it
Shoot the left?
@@SurzhenkoAndrii what left??? or maybe which left i should ask
@@SurzhenkoAndrii which left??
Yeß
So...Zizek says "learn to code"😂
No, because this issue is not a software problem, it's a hardware problem.
When revolution finally breaks out, every law enforcement agency of every country will go and shut down all internet and telecommunication technology. Because that is their primary function: to protect the rich and powerfull.
There is an urgent need for techology that cannot be shut down. Or tapped into.
Zizek spittin faccs
Looooooool
He's also just spitting
When i look at him, the 1st thing that come to my mind is: "so on, so on and so forth"
Thanks for the tutorial
How telling it is , after all it boils down to the control of resources .
This is immensly important
Finally Zizek konfirms me.
The big, public movements will create dialogue.
Clandestine cells will eventually engage in strategic disobedience.
Could be happening right now. They won't televise it.
The revolution will not be televised...it will be posted on RUclips remember to subscribe and smash that like button over the heads of the ruling class.
Mandela saved the WS from justice.
Zizek basically described Mr. Robot
Žižek ⭐
God bless you zizek
Any book recommendations to read more on this subject comrades?
Slavoj Zizek, Sam Hyde, and Christine Weston Chandler all wear the same red and blue striped polo
It's the most European shirt.
So basically Mr.Robot
Trotsky, In Defense of October, 1932
"The Italian writer Malaparte, who is something in the nature of a Fascist theoretician - there are such, too - not long ago, launched a book on the technique of the coup d’état. Naturally, the author devotes a not inconsiderable number of pages of his “investigation” to the October upheaval.
In contradistinction to the “strategy” of Lenin which was always related to the social and political conditions of Russia in 1917, “the tactics of Trotsky.” in Malaparte's words, “were, on the contrary, not at all limited by the general conditions of the country.” This is the main idea of the book! Malaparte compels Lenin and Trotsky in the pages of his book, to carry on numerous dialogues, in which both participants together show as much profundity of mind as Nature put at the disposal of Malaparte alone. In answer to Lenin's considerations of the social and political prerequisites of the upheaval, Malaparte has his alleged Trotsky say, literally, “Your strategy requires far too many favourable circumstances; the insurrection needs nothing, it is self-sufficing.” You hear: “The insurrection needs nothing!” That is precisely the absurdity which must help us to approach the truth. The author repeats persistently, that, in the October Revolution, it was not the strategy of Lenin but the tactics of Trotsky which won the victory. These tactics, according to his words, are a menace even now to the peace of the States of Europe. “The strategy of Lenin” I quote word for word, “does not constitute any immediate danger for the Governments of Europe. But the tactics of Trotsky do constitute an actual and consequently a permanent danger to them.” Still more concretely, “Put Poincaré in the place of Kerensky and the Bolshevik coup d’état of October, 1917 would have been just as successful.” It is hard to believe that such a book has been translated into several languages and taken seriously."
dayum. even Trotsky dissed this book. i think Zizek took an L on this one
First time I’ve heard anyone in English mention Curzio Malaparte!!
And so on and so on
This exact thing happend in Bangladesh in 19 July
The modern revolutionary is the system.
I hope I never have to use most things I learn, this applies, stay open minded, respect and love and each other, or disregard whatever I said, love you anyway
Since the Twitter files got released this video has taken on a new level of significance
Is the full lecture available on YT?
It is, there’s a link in the description
@@ilikelife2000 Thanks a lot.
I know that this is supposed to be favorable towards trotsky and I am a trot 100%, but...their approaches were not different neither then or today. lenin also recognized the necessity of these tactics, and IDC if this is supposed to be complimentary or illuminating of us, no thanks.
Well every good Trotskyist is a Leninist first no?
Is that Sam Hyde
How to start a revolution: "We're just gonna kill them!"
1917: Paradigm Shift
@@croisaor2308 unironically, yeah
Give the man a Sudafed please dear god
What book was he referring to?
Technique du coup d’Etat by Curzio Malaparte
Marx was and remains a giant of economic thought, who understood the value for workers when they maintain mutual control over the surplus-value of their labor, separate from their individual thoughts and expressions.
Bolshevism was the furnace that forged the Soviet State. A state having a corporate structure, it's foundation cast in ideological purity. An incindiary ideology that smothered any individual thought or expression through propaganda, intimidation and/or other means.
When any elite, corporate, bureaucratic, religious, academic and so forth, thinks for us, compels our speech, we will have begun a perilous journey, inevitably descending into a neo-postmodern and/or neo-fascist inferno.
This is what no dialectical materialism does to a mfer
Does this breakdown on revolution exist in a particular book?
He was referring to Curzio Malaparte's "Coup d'etat: The technique of revolution". I am staunchly anti-communist but my free-information beliefs compel me to help you find what you need and translate Zizek's sniffling monologues.
I would say just study several revolutions as well and find the parallels & correlations
@@Mahaveez communism is good. wanting a stateless, classless and moneyless society is a good goal.
@@theblackestvoid Yes but the State is such a brute fact of any society that it will never truly disappear, merely recede from view in some bunker complex of massive parallel processors, dictating changes to the classes of variables controlling the subtext of a totally invisible market.
Everything is exchanged for one of two things: Time, and Energy. Nothing whatsoever can avoid this basic fact of physics.
This is why Žižek is such an anti-ideologue, a kind of quasi-polemicist. He understands all too well that everything else is a Circus, and the Bread will continue to be rationed and engineered in such a way as to provide a smooth declination into the Abyss of an utterly technocratic planet, a global unfurling of Mbembe's Necropolitics into a plutocratic superorganism, higher even perhaps than any multinational corporation, international think tank, or union of polity.
That's the big secret, you understand: people aren't mad about the world destroying itself due to human greed and shortsightedness, they aren't self-loathing unless it provides a mechanism to emulate fame via Internet parasocial relationships, and they refuse to acknowledge the brazen power-plays by those with insane amounts of control and influence. This is because every Western Fool, and I think to some extent every aspiring human in developing economies and even under Chinese authority, wishes to emulate these entities, christened by Harari collectively as Homo Deus.
Žižek is all to aware that there is nothing short of a technical revolt by the scientific professionals, engineers, and their most promising grad students
that will utterly destabilize the capitalist hypersystem
, built such as it is on the quickest and most effective commodity of "thought" vis Instagram, Facebook, Google, and so on. They literally call this process monetization, which is merely the software engineer's equivalent of "tokenization", facing outward to the markets.
The most sick and dangerous thing I can imagine is actually Chompsky's betrayal of a free and intellectually rigorous global network of educated individuals: that is to say, the embrace not only of physical obsolescence as a strategy, but entirely intellectual bankruptcy via knowledge obsolescence--link rot, perpetual revisions to the corpus, and a wholesale abandonment of a Wikepedia-styled universal system in favor of these totally corrupted networks, which any hacker worth their salt would immediately realize are honeypots.
theblackestvoid your comment made me lose brain cells
Nietzsche accused Kant of oriental thinking, and I will demonstrate that his intuition has come to fruition. Slavoj Zizek refers to Hegel in his “The Sublime Object of Ideology”: “…the actuality reduced to a possibility…” x. And again paraphrases Hegel on page xi, “… becomes actual as potentiality, only through language...”
It just takes a brief moment to cite Charles Sanders Peirce’s Categories, of which there are only three, to understand that trying to reduce one category to another, in this case actuality to possibility, is categorically unacceptable. Zizek’s thought is alien to western civilization.
He finishes the preface by suggesting that the critics of Hegel need a laxative. In the age of “On Bullshit,” a liar understands truth and the bullshitter understand persuasion, so Zizek is the Thales of Fecal incontinence.
I hope this was ironically written because otherwise it's pseudo-academic drivel. Sanders Peirce is a completely irrelevant and defunct theorist ... Zizek is prominent Lacanian.
@@inco9943 I'm now assuming that _your_ comment is ironic
@@inco9943CSP, defunct 😂
Both men are respected in their given fields, but CSP has had a much greater impact.
@@alexjeffrey3981 You're right, it was a silly comment.
By now, I especially like what Deleuze does with CSP.
@@inco9943 respect for the growth!
What's the name of the author he mentions around :27?
curzio malaparte
Sounds legit
4:40 Zizek is basically saying "mobilize 4chan"
lol? fuck 4chan
4chan through its endless self-criticism and hardcoded opposition to notoriety is pretty much impervious to ideology. Pretty much the only things that can happen there are things literally everyone with the intestinal fortitude to actually go to that site can agree upon.
When 4chan started to mobilize we got anonymous
@@Mahaveez Due its nazis there what are you smoking?
@@israelcrane6424 You define a place by its worst factions, it's not very long before you hate the whole world. I don't rush to make value judgments about people personally. I just tune out the dumbasses and occasionally use my freedom of speech to try to enlighten them.
James May
Trotsky is by far my favorite communist revolutionary, I agree with him on one basic concept, permanent revolution worldwide, after studying all communist ideologies, this method of achieving it seems the most realistic, as opposed to Stalin's socialism in one country. I always wondered what would have happened if Trotsky won the power struggle after Lenin's death, I honestly believe the Soviet Union would still exist, and communism would be much more widespread.
I completely agree... I think another funny factor is that occidental left parties have adapted so well to the capitalist/partisan mindset that it would be almost impossible to get people like Trotsky on power. That, accompanied by the fact that most occidental citizens are completely detached from "politics", have let us to, instead of having a constant ideological revolution, intermittent, unorganized "bursts" of discontent that are, sadly, relatively easy to control.
The fourth international for life.
@Citizens Arrest You brought absolutely nothing to the theme the opening post talked about. All you said for your entire wall of gibberish is "bolsheviks bad duh". GJ on that
@Citizens Arrest you failed the exam for getting the topic wrong. better luck next time
@Citizens Arrest you are illiterate lul
*Sniff* *Sniff* (Says something interesting) *Sniff*
His nose OCD is funny af. He speaks the truth though
big boi slavoj lookin like chris chan
Listening to this while NATO Tornado warplanes fly over me
You can talk a lot of crap but it's the true feelings that count not pretencionism
Last few minutes rang true after seeing what happened with Trump. damn
This almost looks like giving power forewarning. I'm sure Trotsky didn't do that. It was think and act, but keep quiet.
GOD DAMN somebody get ur boi a tissue !
"Revolution is the affair of logical lunatics."--Wallace Stevens
Says the Trump supporter
You fool
@@googleacount3611 You're the fool who thinks the Soviet Union was a great place to live. It was NEVER a great place to live.
Joel Fry, is that why there is a great longing in Russia and the former Soviet republics to return to the CCCP? Even in far flung Tajikistan the longing is open and palpable.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-45446494
Tankies: "uUhH tRoTzKy bAd."
An actual intellectual:
Trotsky was based
Umm.. not even Tankies question the tactical mastermind of Trotsky and that is also what the video talks about. NOT WETHER Trotskyism works.
Permanent revolutionary praxis in the 21st century? Please, tell me, how do yoi plan to achieve it?
@@eshitvaprakash6681 you look like youve been in the community for one week
Stalinist: No StAlIn MaDE Go0D ThInG'S
Me a Communist Mexican Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist:
But what about the police? The will interfere with any control of the commons by the people?
how will they know to interfere if communications are controlled? how will they fill their cars if oil pipelines are cut? how will they even manage their goons when the power is out and the staffing server is down?
‘Forget about all that bullshit’
-Leon Trotsky
sniff
The October revolution was only possible in the context created by the February revolution. That was the only reason the Bolshevik party had the possbility of organising and arming openly in the streets, when the peasants and workers had already disarmed the Tsarist state and armed themselves in the process, by mutinying and deserting from the front. They had already established the soviets, in the army, the cities and villages, and big workplaces, through which the Bolsheviks could recruit openly on a large scale and begin to wield power at the community level. So that kind of organised, pinpoint strike against the co-ordinating knots (nodes) of modern society was just finishing a process already underway, by the workers and peasants, which was none of the Bolsheviks' doing, for a complete transfer of state power from the vestiges of the Imperial state in the Duma, to someone else. And unfortunately, it was the seizure of power not finally by the masses themselves, but by a self-appointed, sectarian clique with a de facto eltist conception, that correct consciousness was beyond the masses themselves to manifest, but had to be instilled by the coterie of dialectical materialist congnoscenti as if from on high, and who therefore had the right to rule over the proletariat, while pretending to rule in their name and with their acclaim.
po druhé svetové vojne nemal som vedomie smrť vôbec existuje v knihe som prvý krát v videl púšť hneď som videl vodu ovocie zelenú púšť farba sa zmenila otvoril som atlas v škole videl som obraz rozšíriť pevninu nad oceánom
this one gonna make the twitter ML’s so fucking mad
I guess he has a burguois noise!
Joe
Genesis of the Revolution!? Not the first stupid thing he has said. Or the last.
Incredible how I've only just heard about this guy like a few weeks ago and the nose jokes are already completely old and not funny! Go Internet!
Awww, so cute to see how europeans talk about the history of October revolution like a big revelation)
Wasn't it?
he's interesting but wtf is with his nose
Stalinists get mad at zizeks.
Am I the only one who's idk, how to describe it, zizeks speaking problem makes it impossible to enjoy his vids? It's like a kryptonite to my ears.
It's asmr to me
@@demiiiii intellectual mukbang
His running nose is a nuisance
Stalinism, for me, is a distortion and a horrible "socialistic" ideal. Trotskyism, on the other hands, make more sense to me. First, the concept of permanent revolution is a more realistic approach to the rise of socialism and even communism. This idea is to continue the spread of revolutionary sentiment united but independent. There are many reasons for this, and a big one is the cultural identity of such collective society. Trying to make one big nation under the rule of one original nation (in this case Russia or Soviet Union) is not going to properly work. One, because that government will not approach well cultural differences. Two, because the nations that are now under one country has different issues to resolve that those previously united under the nation and the original nation itself. However, if revolution is spread united but independent, these two issues would be such a big factor.
Another point of such revolution is that it must be done by the proletariat, not the peasantry. Not only because the proletariat is more resourceful and more educated, but because the peasantry holds an anger bigger than the proletariat. This view is a realistic view from Aristotle in governance, in which he says:
-"Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered, in which the middle class is large and larger if possible than both the other classes (rich and poor)".
-"Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the other nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme... but it is not so likely to arise out of a middle and nearly equal condition".
Finally, I also agree that there is no need to reach capitalism to then reach socialism or communism. One can reach the revolution regardless of the government type, which is something Trotsky's permanent revolution believe.
This comment is incredibly ironic coming from a person who has Che Guevara for their profile picture
@@jessl1934yeah somebody missed Che's promise sworn to a framed photo of comrade Stalin
@@alexjeffrey3981 I don't want to overstate my influence here but I think this comment made them change their profile picture lmao
Here’s a challenge for people who think this guy isn’t a moron: try to describe one of his unique ideas here, from any book or video, in a few sentences. The catch is that you have to do it without reference to another philosopher or known philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
Hint: nobody has been able to do this, not even once.
The fundamentals of what he's saying can be broken down rather effortlessly, but because you don't believe they can, there is no purpose in discussing this with you, is there? And if you're incapable of summarizing the whole of his statements then how would you be able to claim if I was incorrect or not when you yourself don't seem to believe there is an answer? It's that you've doubted that there is an answer to begin with shows there will never be sufficient enough explanation for you. I would say perhaps you're projecting your own inabilities to grasp concepts well enough to break them down to an easily explained principle or fundamental.
@I never look at replies lol so do it
Curious if including the catch makes it so nobody could do this challenge for any thinker?
@Tavis Enderle Here’s Plato boiling down the concept of Forms in The Republic: “...the particulars are objects of sight but not of intelligence, while the forms are the objects of intelligence but not of sight.”
Whether he’s right or wrong about that, he claimed something. He established a concept in one sentence. You can verify it, debunk it, etc. And because it is a coherent concept in and of itself, I can reformulate it for you in one sentence, in simple language, on the fly:
“Plato’s forms are the objective parts of reality that we cannot directly perceive with our senses, but the closer we can get to perceiving them, the smarter we are.”
See how that works? I can do this with a mountain of different philosophers, because most of them actually say something. Now you try with Zizek.
@@MrClockw3rk Was just a thought about the question and how unfeasible the catch is depending on what you meant by philosophical concepts, for example, particulars or intelligence. Also, it depends on whether one works in a tradition, does interpretive work, or has a silly idea of what constitutes progress such as ones where creating novel ideas is the only thing that matters while excluding contributing to various ways of understanding other thinkers. Meanwhile, Žižek’s popularity stems from bringing Hegel and Lacan together.
I don‘t want to blast you with a wall of text, but here is the exercise despite the fact you can find similar claims throughout the German idealist tradition, Deleuze, Aristotle, and probably elsewhere. This doesn’t meet your criteria, which if you understand philosophy as footnotes to Plato, he was a good philosopher to pick because he’s the only person who had original thoughts by definition. 1) Problem Žižek is discussing, 2) my understanding of Markus Gabriel’s understanding of Žižek, 3) Žižek’s claim.
For the background, by individuating or determining an object, one distinguishes it from that which it is not (the background/negation). The problem is that determining something requires the distinction between determinacy and indeterminacy while both rely on each other.
Žižek believes that this distinction always fails because where one draws the distinction in thought is not represented in the thought as in the case of the distinction between forms and particulars in Plato you provided or identity/noncontradiction, appearance/reality, etc. To quote Gabriel from “The Mythological Being of Reflection” for understanding the point through mathematics as elements/sets: “Even if we think of the empty set, that which it contains, , is still distinguished from {}.”
3) If you're interested, here is Žižek’s original quote with his infamous style from Gabriel’s same essay found in Žižek’s For They Know Not What They Do. Enjoyment as a Political Factor: “reflection, to be sure, ultimately always fails - any positive mark included in the series could never ‘successfully’ represent/reflect the empty space of the inscription of marks. It is, however, this very failure as such which ‘constitutes’ the space of inscription. The ‘place’ of marks is nothing but the void opened by the failure of the re-mark. [...] the very act of reflection as failed constitutes retroactively that which eludes it."
Trotsky!? A perfect model of the bourgeois lefty.
Like Lenin. He lived like a bourgois with the mather's heritage.
He never fought with red army. He was a pharisee.
@@luxaeterna8555 Like many others, nothing original or special about that. Grover Furr could tell you a lot more.
@@luxaeterna8555 He never fought with the Red Army? He literally created and led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War lol You have Trotsky to thank for their even being a Soviet Union.
When giving a microphone to a homeless goes too far.
Trash ideology