Slavoj Zizek & Stephen Kotkin New York Public Library
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Public talk at NYPL March 31, 2015 titled "Stalin: Paradoxes of Power"
View original source and download a higher quality version here:
www.nypl.org/ev...
Two experts on Joseph Stalin - one a Marxist philosopher, the other a historian - come together to discuss the Soviet dictator's origins, and his painful mark on history.
I do not claim to own any of the Material shown in the footage, all rights to their respective owners
I feel privileged to live in a time where i am able to listen to these two brilliant minds even though I am thousands of miles away.
Kotkin's deadpan coherence is the perfect (and perhaps the only effective) foil to Zizek's overexcited incoherence.
exactly! but I wouldn't say foil. I think they complement and enhance each other.
Great talk. These two are a perfect awkward couple. Stephen Kotkin has patience and imagination to engage with Zizek, despite his annoyance, and the result is something fresh and illuminating.
Yah like Kotin isnt annoying as well. He speaks without a diaphragm and lip smacks between sentences. Drives me crazy. Cant sit through his yarn. Find it unbearable .
@@frankandstern8803 haha calm down! :)
@Ron Maimon How much is Putin paying you?
Ron Maimon that is the reason to call someone not a true leftist?
I love hearing dialog between Leftists and Anti-communists. The fact that conversations like these are even possible makes me appreciate liberal democracy.
Is it possible to add proper subtitles in this video? I´m hearing-impaired and the current sub is obviously not good enough. Thank you.
@Dick Fageroni fucking dead
Dick Fageroni 😂😂😂
@Dick Fageroni now thats a Dick move for ya
This conversation honestly feels like a comedy at points, which makes it even better
What do you mean by funny ?
@@9trogenta13
You're saying I amuse you?
This is water??! Hahaha the best part
@@pedrocarvalho3840
“This is water?”
“Sorry?”
“Nothing”
Aside from his incredible knowledge, Kotkin is a genuinely funny bloke. I don’t think I’ve seen him make an appearance without cracking at least one joke.
Slavoj could get a mega-endorsement from Kleenex that'd put LeBron James to shame.
Chris Rees
Hahaha!!!
Smoooth!
@Chris Rees That was very funny -- and pretty true. I can't believe you've only gotten 31 likes and 2 replies ...
There has never been a Soviet scholar in the West with Stephen's colossal reach. You only have to run through the bibliography/notes of his two volumes of Stalin and Magnetic Mountain to appreciate how much work he puts into his academic writing. As he say about Stalin, I am in awe of his capacity for hard work.
Ron Maimon - His analysis of the mid 30’s famine and resulting death toll?
@Ron Maimon can you give some instances of 'real research'
p.s. not opposing you just wanna find out
@Ron Maimon what parts of tottle's book do you consider untrue?
@Ron Maimon Conquest was a member of anti Communist bureau of British intelligence. It is no surprise that he had other motivations
@Ron Maimon how can I get access to the journals though?
This was a great talk, Zizek asked some nice questions, Kotin was clear. Verry nice, Thanks for this.
Thank god on high for my Americam Mickey Mouse Club Civilization. Continental Europe was and is a dead end. Anglo American civilization inherited Germanic witten and Athenian sentiments. Continental Europe inherited Roman Imperial absolute monarchism and latifundia serfdom.
They will soon accomodate Mecca.
@@davidrapalyea7727 there is certainly some merit to this analogy. However, what saves places like the US is their outstanding libertarian Constitution (which has nothing to do with the Athenian Democracy - the one that convicted Socrates, the wisest of them all, by majority). Take away the Constitution and make it a Democracy ("two wolves and a sheep voting for the menu") and you'll end up in the bin just like the EU is now heading to. The bureaucrats in the EU take themselves as patrons and smarter than the populous. That's a fatal error and it won't end well for anyone.
@@C_R_O_M________ Re: Athenian Democracy
I really like the menu analogy. We are in danger of socialist encroachments by coalition of the top 20% who take all the wages and the botton 40% who take all the hand outs.
As for Athens. Jordan Peterson takes it to the next level up. Specifically, both Greece and Christianity elevated the individual as sovereign. For instance, Paul wrote something like this: "Neither male nor female, neither Greek nor Jew, for we are all one in Jesus Christ. Peterson calls that a 'bloody miracle'.
David Rapalyea I follow JP’s thoughts and have been for over a year now. I think he is 99.999% right and that’s good enough for me.
@@C_R_O_M________ I need to make a point, Democracy was not Majority Rule, it was absolutely Constitutional and Democratic (not-Majoritarian) in it's government. However, the Criminal Justice System was not connected to the government, but to a mass of roughly 400 who did vote by majority... So if anything Athens wasn't Democratic enough.
However, we're not clearly better with our Criminal Justice System, so go figure, at least they didn't have lawyers and judges, so they might be a bit better in that aspect. But what they didn't have was liberal/libertarian individualism, they were definitely a family Patriarchy for better or worse. So the mob jury could be persuaded against Socrates who was uninvolved in the life of his own family because he took too much interest in shaping the minds of the children of other families.
Plato tried to blame it on the soft character of men under the luxury of Democracy who didn't have the mental toughness needed for surviving a Tyranny. But it doesn't matter if they were individually all geniuses, heros, criminals or saints, the problem is Majority Rule always leads to the dumbest decisions because of cognitive biases towards extremes in large group decisions, and Arrows Impossibility Theorem mathematically proves that a fair vote is ultimately impossible. The problem of Majority Rule is explained by The Iron Law of Oligarchy, and the Archaic Greeks invented Democracy to prevent the inevitable progression to Tyranny. It worked too, at least for Government, too bad they didn't apply it to the the Criminal Justice System.
Zizek is actually listening, awsome.
- sometimes listening
A very rare sight.
Unfortunately, Zizek is also talking.
This is the pinnacle of all youtube videos. 2 of the living geniuses of our time hapilly chatting, joking and discussing extremely deep stuff. What a time to be alive.
It’s quite refreshing to have Slavoj’s typical verbose ramblings punctuated by Kotkin’s logical prose. Strongly recommend both his volumes on Stalin.
Kotkin is revisionist bullshit
@@wildbilljones6348 ad hominem
It wasn't rambling at all. A great conversation and a good antidote to today's polarization.
Hey Arya. I actually agree now. I listened to it again a week later. Both have interesting things to say. Homemadehell - I am genuinely interested in why Kotkin is revisionist. Are there specific or general examples? Merry Xmas all.
@@borninvincible ???
I’d pay 10 roubles to hear zizek say ‘6 sexy satsumas’
One of the most illuminating conversations on Soviet history I have ever heard. Both Zizek and Kotkin are "characters," but it would be a mistake to discount their insights and scholarship because they break the tension with humor. Well worth one's while to surf through whatever of Stephen Kotkin's lectures and interviews are available on RUclips. Better than most ivy league courses in Soviet history.
Here is an interesting lecture about the great terror ruclips.net/video/GQzikjZP9a8/видео.html
Zizek talks too much
Omg I love both of them so deeply!!
I’m completely blown away by this encounter and this extraordinary book.
Can someone speak more technically and clearly than this professor? And can someone be more humble and adorable than Zizek?
Gotta love his Joe Pesci voice too.
Seth Daggett hahahahahahaha soooo true!!!!
I didn't realize Joe Pesci had a brother in academia!
Joe Pesci on prozac
Better version of .....
jajaja
It’s history...taught by Joe Pesci
He has lost a lot of weight. He looks like a different person now.
If Kotkin ever wants Zizek to be quiet he can always have Tweety Bird fly by.
Zizek will go chasing after him & Kotkin could have the floor.
"I tot I taw a Stalinist!
I did! I did taw a Stalinist!
Fantastic stuff, two brilliant minds with opposing characters.
1:23:29 -best part
Eh eh ehe eh ehe he eh....
7 years ago. Kotkin and Zizek spit fire.
Briefly met Kotkin at the LA Times Festival of Books. Really nice guy, even offered me the last seat at a panel where Matt Taibbi was speaking.
The film Zizek refers to at 38:40 is probably "Bamboozled" which released in 2000. www.imdb.com/title/tt0215545/
Love the way Zizek rolls his R’s and an insightful statement he makes there at the end 1:26:30: (when communists are more and more appearing as the most efficient managers of global capitalism)...”Global capitalism is approaching a stage where it less and less needs democracy. If it needs it, it is just more and more a kind of empty, purely ritualized democracy.”
I'd argue that many ideologies are needed. Communism and nazism aren't.
Worth watching again and again, this is a timeless conversation our progeny will forever cherish.
Oh God, stop idolising.
@@pamcam4385 merely making an observation about the quality of this conversation, i could care less about these two men.
it is a real wonder that Slavoj doesn't have calluses on the sides of his nostrils.....still, it was a good talk.
One of the best comments I've read in awhile 😂
Religion: "Good people doing bad things". Slavoj Zizek.
he was actually quoting Steven Weinberg.
8:36
14:22
51:14
55:04
1:23:29
1:23:40
1:26:42
Zizek constant nose👃snorting had made Kotkin think twice about inviting Zizek lmao 😂
In times of Covid, i believe nobody invites Slavoj Zizek to conversation. 😃
This needs to happen again
how was Poland a nasty regime in 1920 and the war with soviet russia as eximplifaction of this? either he is confusing things or manipulating, the said Piłsudsi regime was not installed untill 1926
Such an interesting debate. Almost comic in some moments, but overall really well done
@Ron Maimon You're right that it was not a debate. However the rest of what you had to say must have been meant for another video somewhere, since it had nothing to do with anything covered in this one.
Don't shake his hand Stephen; he keeps wiping his nose!
One item that was not mentioned about collectivization, is that it was used to industrialize the farming practices in the early Soviet Union. SU needed to compete against industrialized Western states, but most of the farming inside Soviet Union was still being done with the plough and the horse. For some reason, this is not mentioned in Kotkin's answers.
It's described in the book. Kotkin actually quite effectively argues that collectivization in no way helped that process and actually hindered it terribly. Not to mention the damage the "Shaxti trials" did.
It's still being done by horse and plough in many parts of Eurasia.
I'm from the Netherlands I've got a picture of my grandfather in 1960 ploughing with two horses, whas on earth are you talking about?
He is so wrong about so many things. I don’t even know were to begin....🤦🏽♀️
@@rubaf4742 please begin.
Sorry….
But isn’t Zizek here completely outclassed by Kotkin? Which becomes clear at the very end, as the situation became so loose and awkward for Kotkin, that he actually asks for help at that very end to get him out of Zizek’s uncontrolled questioning…?
I tried to understand Zizek as a person, but never really got the hype. This conversation made me see Zizek even more as a hype, a guy who knows a lot, but basically makes strange movie references which no one gets…
Is this just me here experiencing this…?
It’s so funny that you said that:
I first heard about Zizek like 6 years ago, and my introduction to him was a documentary he was in-That was basically analyzing possible allegories in classic films.
I thought that a lot of what he was saying, seemed like a total stretch. But, there was one “theory” of his, that I really found interesting: He was explaining why the Shark in “Jaws” could be viewed as a “monster made by capitalism”; He pointed out that the shark was not actually the villain in Jaws, the villain was “the mayor” (I think that’s what he was) that kept the beaches open despite the fact that there was a shark eating people; And he did that because it was in the best interest of the city, economically.
For some reason, I always thought that was so fascinating. I love allegory, symbolism, etc… but I had never thought to look at Jaws that way. Even though I don’t think the film was meant to be seen as a critique of capitalism, it still broadened my horizons and made me look at Film/Art differently.
All that is to say…
That’s probably the only thing I’ve ever heard Zizek say that really “wowed” me.
So, although I do think he’s a great character-your comment is literally exactly how I see him.
I think you're reading too much into it and this is coming from someone who knows little about zizek but has seen a tonne of kotkin videos and read his stalin books. It was your typical interviewer-interviewee dynamic so I don't see how outclassing would even work because kotkin got a majority of the speaking time and zizek wasn't trying to outclass him but asking genuinely good questions. As someone who's only really watched kotkin talking to other historians zizek was a breath of fresh air. he asked good questions because they were able to get great responses out of kotkin, not because he was being outclassed, and his weird rambling style worked with kotkin's straightforward clarity
Man, am I ever glad I wasn’t there in person.
Thanks to RUclips I can skip over Daffy Duck and get straight to Kotkin.
Markets and private property do not guarantee democracy or human rights, obviously. Likewise socialisation and even central planning do not ensure or require dictatorship. Dialectical materialists built one party dictatorships because they believed in doing so, as utopian socialists who had adopted Marx's terminology without understanding his philosophy, or Hegel's that Marx was in dialogue with and against. The whole quibbling about base vs superstructure in politics among Marxists about whether you are getting the balance between materialism and idealism right as to political cause and effect becomes moot once you have a democratic centralist party structure which defines and imposes a line. Once that exists, of course idealism prevails, rather than anything organic evolving from the material conditions. There is the line; it is imposed. "When comrade Stalin speaks, is no more a question." Fortunately Marx and Marxism are not confined to dialectical materialism and its massive disdain for human agency and thus of the proletariat as a potential collective agent and of open democracy as a source of sound decision-making, and its massive complacency and fatalism in the face of events, and nor need socialist politics and a post-capitalist future be confined to, and by dialectical materialism. "The kingdom of God is within you."
What is Stephen's opinion on the notion that historically the geopolitics of Russia due to geographical reasons will naturally be authoritarian....that governing such a vast reason with its core population in the far western European quadrant with various nationalities at it peripheries in Central Asia, the western borderlands, and along the trans siberian railroad naturally leads Russia towards an authoritarian trajectory.
Martinez Barbara Lee Sharon Garcia James
Before Lenin left for Switzerland he lived with his wife in Krakow - Galicia ( Poland) for 2 years . Stalin also lived in Krakow at the same time Lenin did.
Great conversation between mr schnif and professor Pesci
Kotkin is funny. But you need to be very careful about saying that to his face.
“This is water!”
If Slavoy ever wore a proper suit he would look much more in shape. Kotkin looks fine, but both are really awkward.
Lol you got them dude. Good for you
Trotsky believed in establishing 'dictatorship of the proletariats' and explained to Lenin that the middle class, who controlled production, will not give up easily and the fight will be ruthless. Lenin believed the theorist and saw the ruthless man in Stalin and chose him as his successor, later endorsed by the central committee. USSR was blessed by a leader who made miracles and his ruthlessness was a tiny price to pay.
LOL!!!!!
I still say Kotkin sounds like Joe Pesci at commencement...( and his wife really should talk to a lawyer )
Kotkin lost a lot of weight since this was shot!
Nowadays he almost looks a bit starved. I hope he's ok and that this colossal enterprise doesn't do him in. Some extra kgs never hurt:)
This has to be one of the greasiest conversations ever
Kinda boring, slavoj is amazing
It's a true privilege to be above GROUNDS beloved! Specially at this very moment. HEIRS! Yup you all! LANGUAGE is given unto. Who ever have an ear let them hear!!!!! Something about our innocents youngs sons and daughters LAUGHTERS SOOTHING unto all the HOSTS and own upon all the tribes of judah. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. LANGUAGE given LANGUAGE understood upon all the tribes of judah. I so love the weak! Chose to be a CHILD IN FRONT OF GOD. CLAY FEETS OF YESHUA JESUS CHRIST UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS. INTENSE HEAT OF HIGH PRESSURES OF LIFE. CLAY FEETS through the furnace of fire. MANY TEARS OF MANY, MANY, MANY PETITIONS UNTO GOD OF ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH is heard indeed. t's the reason highest priest left the highest sits upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world. Left to serve...Chose to dwell among the weak nor some will call gentiles MOST HATED! BECAUSE YESHUA JESUS CHRIST WAS HATED 1ST. But YESHUA Jesus christ WATERED the fallen BRANCHES. UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS FATHER GOD ALMIGHTY INDEED. Fallen twigs from the tree of life. Instead many murmured among themselves. Our reasons will not come back! Must well put curses on one another! For our REASONS WHY GIVEN? NOT COMMING BACK. AFTER GENERATIONS AND GENERATIONS!CAN SIT UPON THE SITS DON'T BELONG! fought over the highest priest sits!!!!!! Still going on today!!! Father God ALMIGHTY your will be done. Kings and priests upon all the tribes of judah. Noone will blame thee! LANGUAGE is given unto all flesh upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world. Intent, based, foundation, and where your heart will be also beloved! Is like innocents youngs sons and daughters I want to continue to hear the LAUGHTERS OF OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. I CAN DISAPPEAR! If only can uphold 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. DON'T GIVE REASONS FOR MANY KINGS AND PRIESTS LIKE ME TO BE "AWAKENED "!!!!!!!! Many do not understand what is utterance!!! If I say THIS IS MY KINGDOM!!!!!!!!!! REMEMBER WHEN JESUS SAID UNTO THE POWERFUL CURSES UPON ONE ANOTHER DISPLAYED. WILL THY FACE! Will you prefer? For thy faces? WILL NO LONGER LOOK UP!'ALL THESE ACCORDING TO THY INTENT. WILL BE GIVEN SAME MEASURED. CAN I HAVE A TEA! 1ST. LOVE GOD 2ND. LOVE THY NEIGHBORS AS THYSELF TRULY WITHOUT CEASING BUT DELIGHT!
Zizek is a fool. Communism/Socialism IS a religion. Both have a founder(s), leader(s), principle texts, liturgy and cult, a faith-based system around the leader(s) and their decisions, and a promised afterlife/heaven (to be achieved on this earth). In this sense, Marxism/Communism is a religion, albeit differently from what religion has been historically, but it certainly adapts features of religion to suit its mission. Political ideologies have a religious affinity, both structural and belief-wise: Structural differentiation between self and other, and demonization of other (in theistic religion, the differentiation usually depends on adherence to certain dogmas and social behaviors; in political religion, differentiation may be on grounds such as nationality, social attitudes, or membership in "enemy" political parties, instead); a transcendent leadership, either with messianic tendencies, often a charismatic figurehead; strong, hierarchical organizational structures the control of education, in order to ensure the security, continuation and the veneration of the existing system Belief a coherent belief system for imposing symbolic meaning on the external world, with an emphasis on security through faith in the system; an intolerance of other ideologies of the same type a degree of utopianism; the belief that the ideology is in some way natural or obvious, so that (at least for certain groups of people) those who reject it are in some way "blind"; a genuine desire on the part of individuals to convert others to the cause; a willingness to place ends over means - in particular, a willingness to use violence and fraud; fatalism - a belief that the ideology will inevitably triumph in the end. Jesus to Christians is like Marx to communists - you don't argue against them because they will never give up their respective faiths on how rosy Jesus' or Marx's intentions were to bring about "paradise". The Christians were the ancient world equivalent of communists: rule through fear, driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason, creating in them a 'good conscience' for the game they play. Christianity and communism wants to erect a 'moral' regime that believes that your life is not yours to live, that you owe your life to others (whether it's Jesus or Marx or Stalin). Private property was something the Christians were against in the beginning. They extracted money from people through various types of 'giving to the Church'. Both beliefs want you to give up pursuing reasoned ethical values. They want to strip away your ability to think for yourself. Christianity and communism wants you to be dependent on a select group of bureaucrats for everything in your life, whether it is the clergy or communist government officials. Socialism/communism is not only supposedly an economic theory. It can arguably be said it is more so a cultural/social theory. Just look at Western Europe today and how the socialists/communists are running things into the ground. Try telling them that Marxism is failing over there. Not only poverty, but social/cultural destruction is the goal. Marxism depends upon the rule of small elite who want to appear virtuous with their slogans as defenders of "the people" but who secretly look to exterminate them while in the process of collapse they gain more power to convince "the people" they do so to protect them.
material conditions dont have founders. to be in favour on capitalism specially how things are now l is to be an illiterate
This is such a treat
The moderator may be smart but he’s awful. How about simply asking a question and letting the other person respond instead of filibusterring…or just blustering?
If I was interviewing Stephen Kotkin , I would let him SPEAK! Just saying!
Stalin walked it like he talked it, he took the Leninist ball and ran it into the end zone. For now, Kotkin is the definitive Stalin biographer much as Kershaw is for Hitler.
@Ron Maimon so you are a Stalin apologist. Got ya.
@@bodbn Well, hes right that there was a famine ✔
The Black Book of Communism is still controversial ✔
Academics still argue over its validity
Stalin was unassuming, soft-spoken and uncharamatic✔
I love both of them.
Zizek makes me wanna get an 8 ball. 🤖 ARTI FISCHĹ
Politics formed Stalins personality? Building a dictatorship turned him into a paranoid mobster? Makes no sense! Puts the cart before the horse. You have to explain who Stalin was before he became dictator and why his personality made him - and no one rise - the supreme dictator. Stalin was a brutal, devious, ruthless character from the start. Otherwise he could never have become Lenin’s right-hand man and then dictator in the first place. Kotkin seems to think that Stalin was just a regular guy who woke up one morning and decided to join the Bolsheviks, rob banks and spend years in Siberia!
Aw man, was 8 years ago. Still substantial, but more recent things being more relevant.
Kotkin: the understatement
What is the meaning of the joke 2:11 "You know how many middle-aged men go out for milk and never come back? Not enough."
The idea they approach at the beginning is really interesting, about how the stories we tell assume that there must be some inner evil that makes historical figures generate terrible ideologies, instead of recognizing that a strong ideology can make otherwise ordinary people do terrible things.
Zizek babbles on far too long.
this gud video
When historians began to use psychological explanations on individual subjects, to explain big social processes, they usually are ignoring something that may doesn't work for their narrative.
Anyways, Kotkin is a good right wing historian, and it was a nice video.
@methecsgod he doesn't like Stalin. lol
nesa1126 that makes u right wing? 🤪
@@littlehandsgivescovfefe4837 I can't believe that I need to explain a joke...
@@nesa1126 lol.
I was impressed when he called Kotkin out for blaming The Great Terror on "The Demonic".
That just means Kotkin doesn't understand it
Nor does anyone else of course.
Ахах Быков!
Я не сразу сообразил. Его надо было на сцену тоже
Kotkin secretly regretting getting on stage with Slavoj.
*openly
I don't see any regret.
@@Brakvash
I agree. I would suppose that Kotkin was happy that he only had to talk a fourth of the time. Maybe less.
that guy at 16:20 is zizek's alterego
Kotkin looks like the SON OF SAMs responsible twin brother.
Kotkin is better than Conquest in terms of his novel writing, but that is a low bar.
Sylvester the Cat versus Joe Pesci.
I can’t understand the bearded guy
I feel like Zizek really wants Kotkin's approval here. I can't tell if Kotkin is annoyed by Zizek or if they're just talking cross-purposes.
Seems like a lot of people who interact with Kotkin seek his approval. I too wonder if he finds this annoying.
i don't think kotkin is annoyed at all. i think zizek is asking good question and kotkin is answering them rather plainly in a way which demonstrates respect for the questions. he might come across as cold or annoyed but i think he'd probably talk to his colleges or students in a similar way when asked similar questions. after all it's not easy to explore such deep topics and be the most charismatic person at the same time. and i don't think zizek is seeking approval necessarily either. i think he's using the oppertunity to talk with an expert on the mechanics of stalin's regime without pretending like he knows everything, because he clearly doesn't
Damn, I admire Zizek's patience..
Kotkin has thoroughly and scientifically presented his opinions in his books which I am reading right now. He's not ideologically possessed like Zizek. Stalin was also possessed by the Marxist ideas and we saw how all this ended up. The "this time is (going to be) different" approach was never proven in multiple similar communist experiments. Capitalism is the deal (because it works best).
@@C_R_O_M________ Funny how always when someone accuses someone else of being 'ideologically possessed', and postures as the one seeing things 'objectivelly' they end up revealing how they are the most 'ideologically possessed'. You are simply trading a communist ideological possession for a capitalist one. By positing capitalism as the 'pragmatic choice' beyond ideological communism you demonstrate that you are precisely the most ideologically possessed! This supposed position of an neutral pragmatic view is the heart of ideology! Scientific materialism and all that.
What's worse is that with capitalism being the hegemonic status quo as of today, that makes you infinitely more 'ideologically possessed' than any current communist, as you stand only for the system as it currently exists, you function de facto as the bulwark of our hegemonic ideology.
'les non dupes errent' quoting zizek quoting lacan
@@recoilAbs capitalism isn't a political ideology
@@meddlesomemusic Of course it is, else why would've Hayek wrote the 'road to serfdom' if not for ideology, why do so many capitalists like Ayn rand and her 'ethical egoism' or why do we hear so much about 'entreperneurship', 'bootstraps' and 'personal responsability'? Like Marx sayd every sociological system is made of an economic base and a cultural superstructure, capitalism is no different, and claiming that capitalism is 'simply economy' or even 'human nature' is a dead tell that you're living within (a capitalist) ideology.
Think about it this way, for capitalism to work you need private property, and how are you going to maintaing private property rights without coercion against infractions and violations? That coercion implies a politics, which was well understood by the very English liberals which first theorized about capitalism.
@@recoilAbs you're alluding to a type of ideology which often surrounds capitalism as many different ideologies do. but capitalism itself is not an ideology because it is not concerned with values at all. capitalism is an economic system that allows people to trade within the laws of the state. The Ideology is separate, and found where we as a society and state decide to draw and enforce the regulatory lines.
some times he is right
Excellent.
Zizek is like a really smart dog. ;)
Intelligent lecture most informative overhaul. Thanks for this contribution.
Interesting lecture overall but Stephen Kotkin looks like a monomaniac bookworm who disdainfully dismisses things he is not used to.
Why i hated about academic circles is the excessive rhetoric in the insults....you a good old "fuck you" would have worked.
I guess that's why the likes of Drumpf are en vogue nowadays....
Because people don't want to insult each other in the most pretentious ways?
At least he did not stabbed Zizek in the neck with a pen. Like Joe Peci. Very civilized & informative interview. Thank you
John Kosinski as he should have and that’d be good
Slavoj Zizek has a wonderful agent! Zizek is a bore, yet he gets interviews!
Watching Stephen and Slavoj together is like watching Stalin in conversation with Rasputin.
More than an author presenting his book this looks like a student presenting their thesis and their advisor walking them through.
If the advisor for you is Zizek then you have it all wrong.
Muy buen trabajo. 🏃♀️🏃♀️🏃♀️
I love Joe Pesci
This guy Zizek causes stampedes away from himself at parties as he drags snot out of his nose, hawks loads of phlem into his mouth, and pulls at his shirt. He looks like he smells. What a disgusting personal character, such a shame as he is interesting and smart. Quite the contrast here, Kotkin is calm & classy.
IMVHO: People over analyze Stalin; I'm to understand, that many Russians still, to this day, admire Stalin. A lot of people just, in the end, simply, and only, respect power and violence - and, not necessarily in that order!
Yes, many more people still worship Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan. They and Stalin are significantly psychopathic.
Thankfully we now live under a system that firmly ensures that there will be no more utopias, and therefore ensures our safety.
Who’s “we”? The Constitution doesn’t prevent the People from throwing it all away. Don’t take it for granted. Our society is free, and as such, we ought to moderate our democratic appetites.
“The legislative department is every where extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” -James Madison
We almost had an unconstitutional 2nd Trump administration. It was very close. Democracy is more facile than we want to believe.
Breaking a few myths and many historical and linguistic falsifications, the word “democracy” does not in fact come from only two words (demos, supposedly meaning “people” and kratos, supposedly meaning “power” or “rule,” giving rise to the term “rule by the people”). The word democracy in fact derives from three words: demiurgi, or craftsmen, geomori, or farmers, and kratos, or “State” (in ancient Greek - not “power,” a meaning it came to acquire later in the classical period for political reasons, to justify the social order in place at the time). From the merger of the first two words, demiurgi and geomori, the new word “demos” was formed, a word invented in the classical era, and thus a neologism, which did not exist when this socio-political order was first created. So from a fusion of words referring to craftsmen and farmers the word for “the people” was formed, to justify the new state apparatus and prop up the social order it imposed. Clearly, then, “the people” only refers to the craftsmen, merchants and farmers, and the new regime was made for their benefit. Anyone who wasn’t part of these classes wasn’t included in “the people.” So in fact democracy doesn’t mean “rule by the people,” but “craftsmen’s and farmers’ State.” this now traslate to the capitalists and whoever oppose their interests as history demostrate will face their true impositive face, to belive democracy is a thing good for the coomon men is a childish disorder
@@azliaheaven False; curious where you read that?
1:04:30
Cat in microwawe... good idea.
*STEP AWAY FROM THE MICROWAVE*
1:23:29
The dude at 2:33 is stand-up comedian. Thanks Bakunin, Merci.
Kotlin knowledge on this subject is vastly superior to Zizek.
mmm, no
@@skywillfindyou mmmm clearly yes.
A pity Slavoj wasn't able to experience gulag accommodations. Would have made him less theoretical and more Solzhenitsyn.
I wonder, if you pour enough whiskey (водка?) into Kotkin, will he break out of his relatively restrained composure and start yelling at the marxists and the leninists and the putinists and the socialists that seem to surround him in these lectures?
why does it seem like zizek is making fun of kotkin
He's nervous because he knows that Kotkin is the real deal and he's a laughable leftist militant.
@@Fidelio116 He's far from it. Being a leftist doesn't automatically mean someone is wrong. He promotes debate and dislikes your exact attitude of instant dismissal because you dont like his ideas.
Swurvin Creations being a leftist makes you someone who is unable to deal with reality and it proves you have a character problem.
@@Fidelio116 You are a simpleton and cant break free from right vs left. You are your own worst enemy.
@@hiddenknowledge2012 No, the left is done for. It's pathetic. It's become a habit for narcissistic middle class people.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/closing-liberal-mind
At 1:12:50 zizek says no nazi thinks hitler betrayed ns...look up strasserism..actually a big chunk of them did and viewed 1934 as a real breaking point when hitler was coopted by big capital. This wasnt a fringe..and remained a strain with life till well after the war.
Good point, but Žižek usually doesn't like facts that interfere with his models.
I believe he specified that communists "today" view Stalin as betraying the revolution, whereas Nazis today revere Hitler. The legacy and ideological underpinnings and each leader's adherence to them are viewed differently.
i like how zizek obviously didn't read the book, but only conclusion :D 50:44
The conversation here could benefit by referencing the early political and social writings of Cornelius Castoriadis, where he portrays the Soviet Union as a "deracinated worker's state" and the state-centralized, bureaucratic form of capitalism. These were written between 1947 and 1953.
It would have been difficult for the Soviet revolution to succeed, since the West made it difficult for the Soviet Union to receive foreign loans and credit from London, New York City, Zurich, and Berlin. Grigori Sokolnikov was a brilliant financial intellectual and Commissar of Finance.
I have tried to listen to Zizek's theories. They blew me away. I have never in my life listened to such intellectual rubbish. But what should one expect from a psychoanalyst.