Most people are in the majority (by definition). You are a person. Therefore you are most likely in the majority, and thus often wrong-just like me ;-)
@Snorting Roses tssst! Most people might have the ability, just not the courage to be unpopular. They're a bunch of television watching cows who think the way corporate America tells them.
Absolutely right, a good example is the UK Labour governments of the 60's and 70's, who against popular opinion legalized homosexuality, abortion and so on and so on.
Socialist countries, such as Žižek's, had legal (and free!) abortion, homosexuality was a crime only under Stalin, not before nor after him (as opposed to Great Britain who persecuted Oscar Wilde and drove Alan Turing to suicide, to name just the most famous ones) and there were even cases of gender reassignment surgery under Lenin. So, no. You're wrong.
@@cirimpufka I think you miss understood OP. His point was that the Labour govt pushed through those laws despite their lack of populist appeal. I don't think they were making the point that legalising homosexual relationships and abortion were purely the domain of western democratic societies.
Democracy is a class issue. In capitalist society the finance capitalists have their class dictatorship over workers and democracy for the finance capitalist class.
@@cirimpufka That's not true, homosexuality was a crime in the USSR since Stalin up until its dissolution. Neither Khruschev nor any soviet leader after him did decriminalise it.
This is very true. And very dangerous. But I repeat you are correct and I profoundly agree. The problem is of course getting elected politicians (in the vote business) to be open about it.
How do we know if popular sentiment is even truly popular if academics in focus groups are continually working to normalize their own perspectives through the lens of media in the symbols they exude through it?
@Joseph Norm at least a church is candid in telling you that they're professing to you from a theological perspective and if you know what government means etymologically you shouldn't be surprised that they're trying to affect how you think. The issue with critical theory and intersectionality is that the people who adopt this worldview forget they ever needed that proverbial lens to see in the first place and it becomes a seamless part of their lived experience, forcing them to make fatalistic determinations about people on the basis of perceived power differentials on the basis of superficial traits.
@Joseph Norm additionally there's also a field of study known as "symbol systems theory" which is an academic theory that a dyadic relationship is formed between the message content provided by the media and the individual who witnesses it. To consciously witness such a system provides a yoke of control for academics whom may be attempting to initiate a political dialectical through manipulating our psychology. If they are aware that their consumer base will inevitably drive changes in the content of the media based on how they associate with the symbols presented in it they can attempt to provide enough context to ensure that there's only one particular way the majority of people will react to such a thing, ensuring they can control the political reaction through social alchemy.
@Joseph Norm they're only doing a shitty job if you're sure you know what their ultimate goal is from a consequentialist perspective of the positions they normalize.
@Joseph Norm algorithmic subjectivation for the purposes of providing context to get you to accept an idea really just repurposes the machine learning and data mining practices used to maximize sales to instead sell you on a perspective. They want your attention, make sure you control yours deliberately.
@Joseph Norm critical race theory is wrong because it neglects the existential core of a group of people that binds them in a common Identity and perspective. Geertz's theory of religion as a cultural framework for the creation of racial groups makes more sense than judging people exclusively on the basis of power differentials. I care about what people believe in and the consequences of that belief more than I care about what they are. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form, what you call a new discovery is a failure to integrate ancient wisdom (in this case the Buddhist heart sutra).
That's one of the problems with democracy: politicians being unwilling to make unpopular, but correct and necessary decisions. For instance what is good for people on an individual basis can be catastrophic for society as a whole, like the collapse of the Newfoundland cod fisheries in 1992, when minister John Crosbie had to pose a moratorium on cod fishing against the will of the fishermen, but in their own best long term interest. Also a decision that is unpopular in the beginning, can become accepted and therefor popular after it has been implemented, like the smoking bans implemented in Germany for bars and restaurants since 2005. Ultimately a state catering to every whim of its people is like a parent giving its kids everything they want, they may make themselves popular but lose their respect and harm them in the long term.
Populists in Power: Perils and Prospects in 2021 Brett Meyer - Paper Posted on: 18th January 2021 "Our definition follows the Ideational Approach to the study of populism. Populists are united by two claims: first, that a country’s “true people” are locked into a moral conflict with “outsiders”, and second, that nothing should constrain the will of the “true people”... Anti-elitism always features highly in populist rhetoric, and the moral conflict between the “good people” and the “corrupt elite” is one of the most important threads through populist narratives." Source - Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
I am pro direct democracy for divisive macro issues as we wouldn't have a lot of the chaos international finance, mass immigration, moral legalism and unrestricted liberty (especially regarding sexual perversions) brings. This has all helped lead to a dysgenic society that majorities never really wanted, it's antithetical to minoritarian strategies for supremacy who are usually groups of hubristic subversives or maladaptive outliers.
This is the called problem of Verificationism, and the two thinkers who truly tried to address it in the 20th century have been despised through neglect, hated actively under breaths and otherwise put on the back burner. Both approach the idea of God, so it does make sense. Of German thought, who but Godel and Habermas asked "HOW do we know?" Not a thing known, but the very nature of our knowing. In words and in math. Hand wave, economy, bloviation as intelligence. Nice academia you got there. Are you planning on doing anything true and useful with it?
@@albioninexile6610 Words are error, I did the math model fix under NLP to make true and useful statements verifiable; the POV of speaker is the Habermas issue. In binary, we have NP Completeness reduced to the moveable Quantum Supremacy goal post. Still stuck in Tesla's world myself. Resources to build the right world are talked away with the time metric.
@@albioninexile6610 Hammurabi's Code was a direct result of the computation that made a builder accountable if the house he built fell on the occupants. From an absence of mathematical rigor, we have no basis for accountability of economically valued effort.
@@albioninexile6610 I am waiting to make an antimatter generator as Tesla did all of his manipulation mentally. Ignore the actual challenge to keep philosophizing. It is economic and mathematical. ETHICALLY. Is this thing on? Is English suddenly not working?
There must be a way to make "good" leaders. Idk but with bad leaders no system would work. And with good leaders probably every system would work better.
@@diegoperezsommariva2509Our current leaders are also "good" in the sense that they operate as they should, reimagining and curating the Capitalist, imperialist and downright inhumane framework we exist under (German myself 🙋🏾♂️). We need good leaders that DO good by the people and we as people need to educate ourselves and connect even more. A catastrophe is pending .
@@UnknownSoldier1917 If you eliminate enough social groups through forced deportation, encouraged migration and other means of population control, you can limit the number of people (and, more importantly), groups to an artificial limit, thus allowing you to exercise more control and guarantee that their needs are fulfilled, as: 1. The fewer groups there are, the fewer needs per group there are, making it easier for the leader to find a solution that benefits everyone. 2. You’ll limit social atomisation and inspire a feeling of greater unity, which helps the leader execute his decision without organized resistance. 3. The employment of such measures, which all good men regard to be tyrannical and unjust, is expected to inspire fear and obedience within the population, which would maximize the autocrat’s power. 4. Dispensing those whose very existence threatens the interests of the population at large is a valid defense of said interests of the nation.
0:30 but it should be by choice, and should be in turn limited the majority should be at all times in some way inc ontrol, debate and intenral insitutional openness destabilises oppressive majorities, compare this to the traditionalistic and therefore conservative democratic insitutions in switzerland, compare them to radical breaks
This interesting. Ive met Venezuelans that also claimed Hugo Chávez simply threw oil money and problems and he got used to that. The problems began when oil price went down and the throw money at problems approach could not be used as effectively
That's actually really provocative. Increased direct democracy would probably make everyone's lives more tedious and alienating. I never considered that. How useful is democracy if the people are often wrong? A strong progressive state is probably optimal but there would need to be safeguards against corruption and so on.
There's a reason why democracy is called "dictatorship of the dumb", if all the dumb people vote in the dumb candidate, the smart ones will have to endure all the "hell" that comes along.
Voting and participating at town hall is not compulsory here in the US, nor should it be. The problem is that everyone is encouraged to participate, and also encouraged to only vote for the top two candidates. That is obnoxious and counterproductive. That being said, I believe there is great value in the ability of anyone in society to voice their opinion to city hall. Democracy seems chaotic, but things are more fair across the board for the citizenry IMO due to checks, balances, and opposing forces rather than a single entity running everything from a possibly distant capitol city. My two cents.
@Joseph Norm If everyone dumber than the global average is a ‘dumb person’, and if everyone smarter than the global average is a ‘smart person’, that would mean that the ratio of dumb and smart people would be 1:1.
@@farrider3339 As much as it’s fun to rail on Trump, what makes Biden’s administration so much better for ‘the intellectuals’? Biden is a neoliberal, the country hasn’t changed that much since he took office. Children are still being detained at the border, there’s no racial equality, ordinary peoples’ lives haven’t improved, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats isn’t being mended. I feel as though Biden’s alleged electoral success’ only public goal was to keep Donald J. Trump out of office. If that’s the only reason you were to support him, or if that were the only concrete benefit you’ve perceived till today, that means that the president was essentially elected simply because he was marginally better than his rival. That doesn’t make him a good leader or a strong president, and such it would be intellectually impossible to defend him in that regard. Thus, if we consider Biden’s weak profile and his de facto ineligibility, it’s impossible for any virtuous, intelligent man to defend him, thus making his rule a ‘dictatorship of the dumb’, if you will. Regardless, that’s just my opinion.
Slavoj is basically saying that the majority is sometimes/often wrong and that just by listening to them we would have ended up throwing out immigrants (as an example). So he believes that sometimes leaders have to make unpopular, perhaps dictatorial moves, which is not compatible with populism - hence why he's against it. Zizek's speeches and debates often times end up deviating a lot from the subject so I'd advise just keeping track of the wider picture.
I disagree, right or wrong is decided by whom? How can you label any thing happening in any geography similar to what happened europe? Everything has its history and needs to be understood from that context. Populism is something that exists all the time, all political leaders are populist, even Biden sanders Trump and what not. They pander to different notions and views but all are populists. Jacinda ardern too and greta thunberg too. Populism will exist in the framework that exists today whether of left or right especially after the introduction and growth of digital technology. Ideally you might say populism bad but it will exist, that is how every state works. The bureaucrats make policies, the politicians advertise it and show the vision to the country. Politicians by very nature need to connect to people and have basic knowledge. They don't need to be philosopher's or intellectuals. Globalism is needed but the globalism being pushed today us a very nasty populist one. You cannot deny it. The balance of power also rests in the hands of west or global north. The global south are basically are subject to misreported to spread their agenda in global north. All stories have to be shown in a way to suit their readers in global north. In fact the global north their media houses love the misery and things happening in global south as a poverty porn without any intention of remorse for their global north viewers. Aren't they doing politics? Aren't they involved in this sort of populism of spreading their agenda? We don't need a politician speaking in a rhetorical way, we can have media houses pretending to be vestiges of free speech democracy and liberalism but push their regressive views banning hate speech and misrepresenting global south to do confirmation bias of their viewers. It is the system and this is world, come up with better system until then populism is there everywhere
Maoism isn't pure populism. The party and the masses play on each other. The party takes recurring problems, recurring ideas, and refines them through Marxist analysis. I know Slavoj knows this much better than I could hope to, but I would like to throw it out there for the rest of us.
When there are too many people doing the same thing in the same way under the same ideology under similar pretenses - something is definitely wrong with it. For example, everyone on the planet is preached into marriage.
@@papergaery5257 That is not true. I could impregnate four women everyday - that's the easy part. Who would take care of the child after it is born? Why would a woman even want to bear the burden of pregnancy for 9 months, if sex is all it takes? Human babies are a burden for at least 2 years after they're born, and 9 months before.
Everytime I listen to this guy I become confused and of course part of this is how he speaks but a lot of it is from how incoherent his various positions are. Does he even have an ideology?
He is a just a liberal larping as communist. He built his entire career in disputing real progressive leftism and was instrumental in dismantling socialism in Yugoslavia (at least in Slovenia, but it had impact elsewhere) and he was making conscious effort to purge it of socialistic or revolutionary elements, instead rooting for privatization, liberalization and some form or social democratic system, thus capitalism. His whole schtick is just that: a schtick. He embraced the persona he hated as a sort of comic relief and realized this "radical" image gave him a lot of following, both in academia and by regular folks, mostly for his eccentric antics and presentation. Maybe he changed his view and began questioning his old worldview, but I don't know about that. What I do know is that all his proposals or examples of good government, system or economy is nowhere near leftism as is understood in most circles.
One can compare running a civilization to flying a plane, when it is small and not very developed the pilot(i.e the people) can fly alone, but when things get bigger and more complex assistance is needed. A full autopilot(totalitarian government) would lead to disaster in the event that some eletronic component is broken(corruption). A better alternative would be a fly-by-wire(representative democracy) system where the inputs of the pilot are filtered throug the computer in order to steer the plane according to the pilot's will without doing a manouver that would crash the plane
@@Ishamv3 In both cases the US air force would have to be involved, but jokes aside that is where a balance between the will of the people and the power of the government should be struck. When there is a valid reason for the ruling body disregard the input of the people(such as a civil war, or a huge part of the population being alienated peasants) some kind of temporary totaliarianism should occur. The catch is if this totaliarins does not dismantle itself when things stabilize the nation would go to ruin just like happened in the USSR and in all south american dictatorships
@@guilhermemuratore5352 My issue here is the opposite: when there ISN'T a valid reason for the ruling body to disregard the input of the people, but it still does...what's the solution then?
@@Ishamv3 Unfortunatly, revolution, if the ruling body is incopetent sooner or later the civilisation will fall to ruin, therefor it is the responsibility of an intelectual vanguard to topple down the regime as to guarantee the continuation of civilisation
The Populists and the Pandemic Aline Burni "At first glance, it may seem that the coronavirus has dealt populist governments a blow. Yet a closer look reveals how many have managed to capitalize on the pandemic. And the causes of populism will if anything be further exacerbated by the crisis." internationalepolitik.de/en/populists-and-pandemic
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/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
Poor Slavoj was clearly added against his will to a local community WhatsApp group.
I mean, most intellectual live among local community whatsapp group so it is inevitable for them to face them.🥲
"The majority is simply often wrong." Yep.
Most people are in the majority (by definition). You are a person. Therefore you are most likely in the majority, and thus often wrong-just like me ;-)
This opinion doesn't proves anything, though. The minority is often wrong too, LOL.
you can critique elitism and still realize that democracy basically means mob rule.
@@yoshikatsumi Human beings have a tendency toward conformity and an inability to think critically. They herd eschews reality.
@Snorting Roses tssst! Most people might have the ability, just not the courage to be unpopular. They're a bunch of television watching cows who think the way corporate America tells them.
The guys at his sides r giving expressions as if Zizek is reciting Mein Kampf
They are looking so uneasy 😂😂😂
Not really: thats just how Peter Bratsis looks all the time😅
lmao
Absolutely right, a good example is the UK Labour governments of the 60's and 70's, who against popular opinion legalized homosexuality, abortion and so on and so on.
Socialist countries, such as Žižek's, had legal (and free!) abortion, homosexuality was a crime only under Stalin, not before nor after him (as opposed to Great Britain who persecuted Oscar Wilde and drove Alan Turing to suicide, to name just the most famous ones) and there were even cases of gender reassignment surgery under Lenin. So, no. You're wrong.
@@cirimpufka I think you miss understood OP. His point was that the Labour govt pushed through those laws despite their lack of populist appeal. I don't think they were making the point that legalising homosexual relationships and abortion were purely the domain of western democratic societies.
Democracy is a class issue. In capitalist society the finance capitalists have their class dictatorship over workers and democracy for the finance capitalist class.
@@cirimpufka That's not true, homosexuality was a crime in the USSR since Stalin up until its dissolution. Neither Khruschev nor any soviet leader after him did decriminalise it.
This is very true. And very dangerous. But I repeat you are correct and I profoundly agree. The problem is of course getting elected politicians (in the vote business) to be open about it.
Stalin is strong with this one.
Zizek is not a Maoist, but all Maoists love Zizek. That's how charming he is.
Can confirm. Slavoj is a whole mood.
How do we know if popular sentiment is even truly popular if academics in focus groups are continually working to normalize their own perspectives through the lens of media in the symbols they exude through it?
@Joseph Norm at least a church is candid in telling you that they're professing to you from a theological perspective and if you know what government means etymologically you shouldn't be surprised that they're trying to affect how you think. The issue with critical theory and intersectionality is that the people who adopt this worldview forget they ever needed that proverbial lens to see in the first place and it becomes a seamless part of their lived experience, forcing them to make fatalistic determinations about people on the basis of perceived power differentials on the basis of superficial traits.
@Joseph Norm additionally there's also a field of study known as "symbol systems theory" which is an academic theory that a dyadic relationship is formed between the message content provided by the media and the individual who witnesses it. To consciously witness such a system provides a yoke of control for academics whom may be attempting to initiate a political dialectical through manipulating our psychology. If they are aware that their consumer base will inevitably drive changes in the content of the media based on how they associate with the symbols presented in it they can attempt to provide enough context to ensure that there's only one particular way the majority of people will react to such a thing, ensuring they can control the political reaction through social alchemy.
@Joseph Norm they're only doing a shitty job if you're sure you know what their ultimate goal is from a consequentialist perspective of the positions they normalize.
@Joseph Norm algorithmic subjectivation for the purposes of providing context to get you to accept an idea really just repurposes the machine learning and data mining practices used to maximize sales to instead sell you on a perspective. They want your attention, make sure you control yours deliberately.
@Joseph Norm critical race theory is wrong because it neglects the existential core of a group of people that binds them in a common Identity and perspective. Geertz's theory of religion as a cultural framework for the creation of racial groups makes more sense than judging people exclusively on the basis of power differentials. I care about what people believe in and the consequences of that belief more than I care about what they are. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form, what you call a new discovery is a failure to integrate ancient wisdom (in this case the Buddhist heart sutra).
Ooh we got one 'and so on and so on and so on'.
A rare triple combo.
That's one of the problems with democracy: politicians being unwilling to make unpopular, but correct and necessary decisions.
For instance what is good for people on an individual basis can be catastrophic for society as a whole, like the collapse of the Newfoundland cod fisheries in 1992, when minister John Crosbie had to pose a moratorium on cod fishing against the will of the fishermen, but in their own best long term interest.
Also a decision that is unpopular in the beginning, can become accepted and therefor popular after it has been implemented, like the smoking bans implemented in Germany for bars and restaurants since 2005.
Ultimately a state catering to every whim of its people is like a parent giving its kids everything they want, they may make themselves popular but lose their respect and harm them in the long term.
Populists in Power: Perils and Prospects in 2021
Brett Meyer - Paper Posted on: 18th January 2021
"Our definition follows the Ideational Approach to the study of populism. Populists are united by two claims: first, that a country’s “true people” are locked into a moral conflict with “outsiders”, and second, that nothing should constrain the will of the “true people”...
Anti-elitism always features highly in populist rhetoric, and the moral conflict between the “good people” and the “corrupt elite” is one of the most important threads through populist narratives."
Source - Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
I am pro direct democracy for divisive macro issues as we wouldn't have a lot of the chaos international finance, mass immigration, moral legalism and unrestricted liberty (especially regarding sexual perversions) brings. This has all helped lead to a dysgenic society that majorities never really wanted, it's antithetical to minoritarian strategies for supremacy who are usually groups of hubristic subversives or maladaptive outliers.
This is the called problem of Verificationism, and the two thinkers who truly tried to address it in the 20th century have been despised through neglect, hated actively under breaths and otherwise put on the back burner. Both approach the idea of God, so it does make sense. Of German thought, who but Godel and Habermas asked "HOW do we know?" Not a thing known, but the very nature of our knowing. In words and in math. Hand wave, economy, bloviation as intelligence. Nice academia you got there. Are you planning on doing anything true and useful with it?
@@albioninexile6610 Words are error, I did the math model fix under NLP to make true and useful statements verifiable; the POV of speaker is the Habermas issue. In binary, we have NP Completeness reduced to the moveable Quantum Supremacy goal post. Still stuck in Tesla's world myself. Resources to build the right world are talked away with the time metric.
@@albioninexile6610 Keep typing. And let Elon do it for you. Normative economics of cognitive miserliness.
@@albioninexile6610 Hammurabi's Code was a direct result of the computation that made a builder accountable if the house he built fell on the occupants. From an absence of mathematical rigor, we have no basis for accountability of economically valued effort.
@@albioninexile6610 I am waiting to make an antimatter generator as Tesla did all of his manipulation mentally. Ignore the actual challenge to keep philosophizing. It is economic and mathematical. ETHICALLY. Is this thing on? Is English suddenly not working?
There is one question that stays in my mind: but how does this dicatoriash leader know what everyone need?
Maybe your expectations are a bit too high? I don’t think any government ever knew what *everyone* needed.
There must be a way to make "good" leaders. Idk but with bad leaders no system would work. And with good leaders probably every system would work better.
@@UnknownSoldier1917 how would he know what ANYONE needs is more in the spirit of the question.
@@diegoperezsommariva2509Our current leaders are also "good" in the sense that they operate as they should, reimagining and curating the Capitalist, imperialist and downright inhumane framework we exist under (German myself 🙋🏾♂️). We need good leaders that DO good by the people and we as people need to educate ourselves and connect even more. A catastrophe is pending .
@@UnknownSoldier1917 If you eliminate enough social groups through forced deportation, encouraged migration and other means of population control, you can limit the number of people (and, more importantly), groups to an artificial limit, thus allowing you to exercise more control and guarantee that their needs are fulfilled, as:
1. The fewer groups there are, the fewer needs per group there are, making it easier for the leader to find a solution that benefits everyone.
2. You’ll limit social atomisation and inspire a feeling of greater unity, which helps the leader execute his decision without organized resistance.
3. The employment of such measures, which all good men regard to be tyrannical and unjust, is expected to inspire fear and obedience within the population, which would maximize the autocrat’s power.
4. Dispensing those whose very existence threatens the interests of the population at large is a valid defense of said interests of the nation.
0:30 but it should be by choice, and should be in turn limited
the majority should be at all times in some way inc ontrol, debate and intenral insitutional openness destabilises oppressive majorities, compare this to the traditionalistic and therefore conservative democratic insitutions in switzerland, compare them to radical breaks
This interesting. Ive met Venezuelans that also claimed Hugo Chávez simply threw oil money and problems and he got used to that. The problems began when oil price went down and the throw money at problems approach could not be used as effectively
oh boi... here comes the stalinist zizek again... and I love it
This is not news for anybody. Ibsen wrote a play about it 100 years ago.
Why shouldn't we want to throw the immigrants out?
Fraud detected 😂🤭
That's actually really provocative. Increased direct democracy would probably make everyone's lives more tedious and alienating. I never considered that. How useful is democracy if the people are often wrong? A strong progressive state is probably optimal but there would need to be safeguards against corruption and so on.
There's a reason why democracy is called "dictatorship of the dumb", if all the dumb people vote in the dumb candidate, the smart ones will have to endure all the "hell" that comes along.
@@RuiLuz remember 🇺🇸 last 4 years , I say ☝️°°°
Voting and participating at town hall is not compulsory here in the US, nor should it be. The problem is that everyone is encouraged to participate, and also encouraged to only vote for the top two candidates. That is obnoxious and counterproductive. That being said, I believe there is great value in the ability of anyone in society to voice their opinion to city hall. Democracy seems chaotic, but things are more fair across the board for the citizenry IMO due to checks, balances, and opposing forces rather than a single entity running everything from a possibly distant capitol city. My two cents.
@Joseph Norm If everyone dumber than the global average is a ‘dumb person’, and if everyone smarter than the global average is a ‘smart person’, that would mean that the ratio of dumb and smart people would be 1:1.
@@farrider3339 As much as it’s fun to rail on Trump, what makes Biden’s administration so much better for ‘the intellectuals’?
Biden is a neoliberal, the country hasn’t changed that much since he took office. Children are still being detained at the border, there’s no racial equality, ordinary peoples’ lives haven’t improved, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats isn’t being mended. I feel as though Biden’s alleged electoral success’ only public goal was to keep Donald J. Trump out of office. If that’s the only reason you were to support him, or if that were the only concrete benefit you’ve perceived till today, that means that the president was essentially elected simply because he was marginally better than his rival. That doesn’t make him a good leader or a strong president, and such it would be intellectually impossible to defend him in that regard. Thus, if we consider Biden’s weak profile and his de facto ineligibility, it’s impossible for any virtuous, intelligent man to defend him, thus making his rule a ‘dictatorship of the dumb’, if you will.
Regardless, that’s just my opinion.
Could somebody please explain me again why he is against populism? I still don't get it tbh...
Slavoj is basically saying that the majority is sometimes/often wrong and that just by listening to them we would have ended up throwing out immigrants (as an example). So he believes that sometimes leaders have to make unpopular, perhaps dictatorial moves, which is not compatible with populism - hence why he's against it. Zizek's speeches and debates often times end up deviating a lot from the subject so I'd advise just keeping track of the wider picture.
Well, this perfectly expresses the divide between authoritarian and libertarian leftists. I love how brutally honest Zizek is.
Yep, I love zizek. What are you Auth or lib left?
I disagree, right or wrong is decided by whom? How can you label any thing happening in any geography similar to what happened europe? Everything has its history and needs to be understood from that context. Populism is something that exists all the time, all political leaders are populist, even Biden sanders Trump and what not. They pander to different notions and views but all are populists. Jacinda ardern too and greta thunberg too. Populism will exist in the framework that exists today whether of left or right especially after the introduction and growth of digital technology. Ideally you might say populism bad but it will exist, that is how every state works. The bureaucrats make policies, the politicians advertise it and show the vision to the country. Politicians by very nature need to connect to people and have basic knowledge. They don't need to be philosopher's or intellectuals. Globalism is needed but the globalism being pushed today us a very nasty populist one. You cannot deny it. The balance of power also rests in the hands of west or global north. The global south are basically are subject to misreported to spread their agenda in global north. All stories have to be shown in a way to suit their readers in global north.
In fact the global north their media houses love the misery and things happening in global south as a poverty porn without any intention of remorse for their global north viewers. Aren't they doing politics? Aren't they involved in this sort of populism of spreading their agenda? We don't need a politician speaking in a rhetorical way, we can have media houses pretending to be vestiges of free speech democracy and liberalism but push their regressive views banning hate speech and misrepresenting global south to do confirmation bias of their viewers.
It is the system and this is world, come up with better system until then populism is there everywhere
Maoism isn't pure populism. The party and the masses play on each other. The party takes recurring problems, recurring ideas, and refines them through Marxist analysis.
I know Slavoj knows this much better than I could hope to, but I would like to throw it out there for the rest of us.
People in the comments unwittingly demonstrating Slavoj's point
"Populism" can be a counter weight to the kind of ruthlessness displayed by (just for example) louie st just.
This is ironic.
Adding the Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi in the thumbnail would be perfect.
2:39 😂
When there are too many people doing the same thing in the same way under the same ideology under similar pretenses - something is definitely wrong with it. For example, everyone on the planet is preached into marriage.
Marriages are fundamental to human survival; nothing wrong about it, right? Is sex also wrong, then?
@@Ishamv3 Sex is needed for propagation. Not the institution of marriage.
@@papergaery5257 That is not true. I could impregnate four women everyday - that's the easy part. Who would take care of the child after it is born? Why would a woman even want to bear the burden of pregnancy for 9 months, if sex is all it takes? Human babies are a burden for at least 2 years after they're born, and 9 months before.
@@Ishamv3 oh wow, so wise and so ethical a response. Ok you win :)
@Joseph Norm 😀😀😀
Everytime I listen to this guy I become confused and of course part of this is how he speaks but a lot of it is from how incoherent his various positions are. Does he even have an ideology?
He is a just a liberal larping as communist. He built his entire career in disputing real progressive leftism and was instrumental in dismantling socialism in Yugoslavia (at least in Slovenia, but it had impact elsewhere) and he was making conscious effort to purge it of socialistic or revolutionary elements, instead rooting for privatization, liberalization and some form or social democratic system, thus capitalism. His whole schtick is just that: a schtick. He embraced the persona he hated as a sort of comic relief and realized this "radical" image gave him a lot of following, both in academia and by regular folks, mostly for his eccentric antics and presentation. Maybe he changed his view and began questioning his old worldview, but I don't know about that. What I do know is that all his proposals or examples of good government, system or economy is nowhere near leftism as is understood in most circles.
0:24
🤣
and so on and so on
Certified Kallipolis moment
One can compare running a civilization to flying a plane, when it is small and not very developed the pilot(i.e the people) can fly alone, but when things get bigger and more complex assistance is needed. A full autopilot(totalitarian government) would lead to disaster in the event that some eletronic component is broken(corruption). A better alternative would be a fly-by-wire(representative democracy) system where the inputs of the pilot are filtered throug the computer in order to steer the plane according to the pilot's will without doing a manouver that would crash the plane
What if the pilot is a terrorist (corrupt)? Checkmate, representative democracy.
@@Ishamv3 In both cases the US air force would have to be involved, but jokes aside that is where a balance between the will of the people and the power of the government should be struck. When there is a valid reason for the ruling body disregard the input of the people(such as a civil war, or a huge part of the population being alienated peasants) some kind of temporary totaliarianism should occur. The catch is if this totaliarins does not dismantle itself when things stabilize the nation would go to ruin just like happened in the USSR and in all south american dictatorships
@@guilhermemuratore5352 My issue here is the opposite: when there ISN'T a valid reason for the ruling body to disregard the input of the people, but it still does...what's the solution then?
@@Ishamv3 Unfortunatly, revolution, if the ruling body is incopetent sooner or later the civilisation will fall to ruin, therefor it is the responsibility of an intelectual vanguard to topple down the regime as to guarantee the continuation of civilisation
The Populists and the Pandemic
Aline Burni
"At first glance, it may seem that the coronavirus has dealt populist governments a blow. Yet a closer look reveals how many have managed to capitalize on the pandemic. And the causes of populism will if anything be further exacerbated by the crisis."
internationalepolitik.de/en/populists-and-pandemic
3:12