Anarchists destroyed in less than five minutes

youtube.com/watch?v=uwUDEOAxLlc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=g_Rh3PbnAdw.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2ozMbvldw
youtube.com/watch?v=NizgVKR7z7Q
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism#toc4
davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Is Zizek even a letist? All I hear him talk about is the problems with leftists and leftism.

idk about now, but he used to be an anti-communist iirc

Yes.

One could, however, say that he's similar to the ultra-left in that the only thing he likes to critique more than capitalism and reaction is the left itself. Someone the other day said that Zizek bears a resembles to the left wing of communism from the early 20th century; generally supportive of Marxist communist and anarchist movements but all the while very critical of them.

...

Just like Holla Forums

Individualist anarchists and other special snowflake meme anarchist tendencies aren't really worth critiquing. The fact that no spontaneously sprung up union of egoists or post-left anarchist insurrection has popped up to do something of relevance should be a critique enough, let alone the fact that nobody with the desire to overthrow capitalism and took someone like Stirner seriously really ever brought word to town. I guess you can put being successfully the most obnoxious type of shitposter on icognito pottery barn websites on your list of achievements.

he is so leftcom that he even shits on leftcoms

This is why you need to put on the glasses

Oh yeah, Zizek was literally a CIA agent that single handedly brought Yugoslavia down with a single secret speech.

How so? He ran for president under a Slovenian liberal democratic party (which, for the record, not a single sane ex-Yugo will tell you is not more desirable than the abject failure that was Yugoslavia) once and dropped out, before which he had already studied and published a buttload of work on Hegel, Marx and Lacan as well as got taught by Lacan himself, writing books with anti-capitalist themes or outright communist ones. The guy wrote in praise of Lenin in the '80s, for fuck's sake.

Zizek's own convinced subscription to the communist cause started long before the fall of Yugoslavia and it was perhaps the total failure of the Yugoslav experiment and its worsening regression towards liberalism that motivated him to desire more and better.

We all know how those pesky anarchists are always on about how we need daily democratic conventions to decide how to allocate water supply and other basic necessities. I believe it was in chapter 1 in Proudhon's What is Property?

Lacan wasn't a communist and for that matter, neither was Hegel. And learning Marx was (if not literally a legal requirement) heavily encouraged by the state. And it's not like other communists in his country took to it very well – he was accused of being a non-marxist when he attempted to publish his master's thesis.

he's all about critique of ideology, not creating new ideology

Lacan may never have aligned himself with any politics, but he was a good acquaintance and friend of Althusser and with him supported philosophical structuralism and by extension structural Marxism. Lacan's work is also heavily influenced by Hegel and in his critique of the then emerging DSM psychiatry comes a very much anti-capitalist edge which should not be ignored.

Hegel, of course, was not a communist (albeit far from a reactionary, who had great admiration for the French revolution). The point is, right-Hegelians ceased to exist at the end of the 19th century and any student of Hegel is a student of his philosophy for, at the very least, non-partisan poltics if not simply what is the majority of the time the case: at least a left-leaning individual.

In Yugoslavia? Hah. No it wasn't. Yugoslav ideology may have had many similarities to Stalinism, but it was not at all into using Marx and Marxist idolatry. Yugoslav curiculi were not in any relevant way containing Marxist references, twisted as propaganda by and for the Yugoslav state or not, unlike in the USSR and its satellites.

Anti-socialist, against "the People(tm)", etc. but not anti-Marxist. There is a big difference there.

Zizek may have at some point not been a communist, but he was never a right winger or a reactionary. At best he was the kind of crypto-liberal everyone else in Yugoslavia was becoming, but definitely on the revolutionary edge.

You should research the contents of the Yugoslav ideological and repressive apparatuses more.

Zizek is just another useless academic who can't survice outside university and can't talk to the real working class people.
Meanwhile myself, an anarkiddie, i am not affraid of getting my hands dirty having worked in factories, hotels and convinced my coworkers to join the union or even to join the strikes and protests.

BTFO academics. Stay inside your university walls talking about useless theories which only work in your vapid brain.

gulag yourself

sure


Yeah this is a bit of a stretch.

Being a Marxist was part of french intellectual life during a large part of the 20th century. Yes. Lacan surrounded himself with communists. No, he was not himself a communist. Alain Badiou attested to that and he never joined a communist organization nor was he politically active in any meaningful sense. I mean Wittgenstein was also surrpunded by all sorts of Marxists, but we don't generally think of Wittgenstein as a radical leftist.

Zizek argues that we wouldn't like to be daily directly engaged with the managment of utilities.

But I believe I'd enjoy that a lot.

Are you the guy that punches people who disagree with you?

Nothing wrong with bicycles or dumpster diving!

That's what happens when you take the idealism pill.

have you ever worked on a committee to make something?

it is fucking awful in all possible ways and you get to see the worst of people. and that is just making like a shitty student newspaper

just imagine how hyped up anarchists, who are already emotional as hell, would get when you start debating their water and vegetables and children's education.

This would be hell

zizek obviously supports Fully Automatic Luxury Communism. the water, electricity, and so on, will just be there.

truly the most patrician way to organize society ni the future : )

No, he believes it should be organised centrally, probably by civil servants.

This. People do not know that they all secretly enjoy, on a fundamental level, a very basic degree of alienation from the specific workings of every day life. He once used the example of what will seem very typical of him: taking a shit. Do people truly have any additional desires in knowing exactly how and where their shit is treated when it leaves through some tube down the toilet? No. It is exhausting and incredibly mundane to engage into things for the sake of it. People want to guide their desires to there where they are piqued. The mundaneness of organization when it serves no immediate transformating function is nothing more than that: mundane. A necessity, like all basic labor, we must all partake in. Those who do sewage will do sewage, just like those who will take part in things partaking to what would otherwise be direct democracy, etc. This obsession with multitudes and direct participation is what Zizek has called the last but also very operative remnants of liberal ideology. In insisisting that everyone be part of everything, anarchists paradoxically take to the extreme the liberal conception of the atomized individual who has as a duty to partake in everything he can as to maximize his own interests. But this undermines the very collective interest of a societal sittlichkeit; where things are done for one another without one another's knowledge, if not simply to ensure the stability of the commons for the collective.

Where does Bakunin say this?

mfw rafiq actually paraphrased this

Dude went on record praising Trump. He is more interested in sniffing his way into controversy than constructive discourse.

...

Literally all he said is that he thinks Trump will at worst be Hillary Clinton, but that he will be Hillary Clinton with an ugly face which means the Democratic party and the left at large has an opportunity to create a proper counter-sound to and reconfigure political coordinates. This was always accompanied by reminders that he thinks Trump is a disgusting opportunist. What triggers the wider liberal left is that he refuses to follow their dance and doesn't call Trump a fascist, which he isn't; Trump is at best an almost crypto-fascist.

No. Zizek made a completely ridiculous argument based on accelerationist assumptions. The best the left can do now is fight for whatever basic muh privileges the state has given us in the past 100 years.

>>>/reddit/

No what? Articulate yourself with more than just feelz>realz-ridden opinion or go back to reddit like the guy above me suggested.

Zizek was right you little consumerist abomination. Hillary is a literal fascist, far moreso than Trump. His argument was Democratic victory sealed "absolute inertia" which was correct, not "LET'S JUST KICK THIS SHIT INTO FAST FORWARD LMAO". Fuck your "progressive causes" you first world neoliberal parasite. I hope Pence takes over and electrocutes you just for being a retard.

Why does he imply that it would be mandatory for everyone to take part in all discussions on all subjects? Why wouldn't each subject be debated only by the people with knowledge and interest on them? For example, only people genuinely interested in education would discuss education. That way, people who want to be alienated wouldn't have to discuss every subject while still enjoying all those services.

Not an anarchist, I'm just curious.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What even is all the insurrections in south america and south europe and all the TAZ's. Jesus christ lefty/pol/ how to show your distance from real life every single day.

I sincerely think people have a blind unhealthy worship for this guy. He has awful political opinions and he often says things just to get a rise out of people. So endorses Trump in a bold way, then later says he would have abstained from voting. He says multiculturalism is a bad thing, but that we need to accept more refugees. The guy is absurd and people should have the critical thinking skills to pick apart when he's right and wrong.

I don't think having a political cabinet in the office that thinks climate change is a hoax is a good thing. I don't think having someone who is putting members of the alt-right, conservatives, libertarians, etc in his admin. is an improvement on Obama. It's stupid to think otherwise and I did make an argument. You should be able to tell the difference – it's not a matter of feels or reals. Let's be a little adult about it. It is a big deal.

what a normie-core understanding of Anarchism. I hope someone assassinates this fool.

Come to think of it, does anyone know of his opinions on left communism?

Nope your analysis is shit-tier and people are right to be skeptical of the climate change lobby after all the bullshit it pulled.

Because statists do not understand the term "voluntarily"

Yeah. I guess when Zizek fans say things like this. I do get a little skeptical of whether they have critical thinking skills.

Popular fronts, if anarchist they were civil or platformist anarchists. There was nothing individualist or egoist about these events.

Idem, but here it was platformists collaborating with Marxist communists under an almost uniformly syndicalist (platformist) economic theory, which is at its core collectivist anarchist and Marxist in its inception. Once again, no individualism or egoism to be found.

Squatopia: the claim to fame of individualist revolutionaries. Why has the left forgotten about this true gem of a strategy? Truly, we have to go back: youtube.com/watch?v=g_Rh3PbnAdw.


In a sense, true.

No, his opinions are alright, but he often oversteps his trademark provocative attitude and remarks.

He never in any sense "endorsed" Trump. In no other way than that Marx "endorsed" laissez-faire neoliberalism in this text: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/. Use your noggin.

He always abstains from voting altogether. He is a communist; bourgeois electoralism and participation in it is a non-sequitur. Furthermore, he cannot vote for anything US-related as a Slovenian.

These are not contradictory. Zizek critiques multiculturalism as the means to emancipating different people, not the emancipation of people altogether. Zizek is also more than usually concise in what he suggest as an alternative, which would be sittlichkeit and a return to a more militarized handling of the logistics of the crisis and a real look at the primal conflict in the crisis.

Where Zizek can be critiqued is in his vagueness and often times inability to properly communicate his ideas or alternatives, and he sometimes does not (seem to) have them at all. Otherwise, he has solid thinking and in general good pedagogy. His popularity and respect among peers and leftist movements should attest to that.

?

Hahaha

If you say you're going to vote Trump. That is an endorsement. Any other wiggling around it is being in bad faith – you know what you're doing. It's not unlike republicans saying "I'll vote for Trump, but I won't support him". It's absurd. And I think he later realized this because he would go on to say that he would abstain (of course he would – but why would he say he would vote for Trump at all?)

My point isn't that he can't hold nuanced positions. But that he often speaks in a way to intentionally incite controversy. It's fine. But people have to know when he's wrong. He made a lot of false assumptions about what a Trump presidency would be like and I think the current trend shows that he was completely off.

Marx ironically "endorsed" laissez-faire capitalism because he thought it would hasten the revolution and so on. From the second literature I read, he actively sought to avoid laissez-faire solutions and criticized Ricardian socialists heavily for their liberal outlook. It's not meant to be a serious endorsement.

The same can't be said of Trump's "yes", when he also claimed that Hillary Clinton was "the true danger". I think his calculus was just wrong on what Trump would be like, but he should have known better.

By that logic, wouldn't you have endorsed Hillary and all she stands for?

What monopoly corporate/CIA rag did you osmotically absorb this opinion out of?

Reminder that Hillary endorsement was only as uncontroversial as this fag makes it out to be among those totally embedded in the system.

I didn't even vote! My point is that if I said I would vote for Clinton – then yes she had my support and I endorsed her over another candidate.


If you want to get your climate change research from the Koch brothers. Please be my guest. I'm not sure what to tell you.


It's a figure of speech.

But he didn't. He said that if he had to choose, he'd choose Trump over Hillary because of stated reasons.

It isn't.

No, kill yourself.

Yes. This is instrumental to his approach to discourse. He's never insincere though, and when he is he makes it clear.


Such as? Reminder that Trump has yet to actually do anything and that time will tell whether or not the Trump presidency does which Zizek hopes it might, which is give the left opposition an impulse to reconfigure itself.

Yeah. You yourself here put the quotation marks around "endorsed". You know you're wrong and are now exclusively being a pedant about it.

Clinton's an experienced individual when it comes to planning remote democides and manipulating state fiscal matters. She's more than proven to be a garguantuan piece of human garbage. At worst Trump can attempt to match what she did in her life time in politics in four years, but with an ugly face. There's your calculus.


Even Sanders, who Zizek explicitly said was the true hope for America and the option the Democratic party cheated out of viability out of its own vanity and cockiness?

Haha yeah the Koch bros are true evil because they're wrong, that's how ideology works right, not like the vast capitalist empire around your cargo cult of presumed "intelligence".

I don't understand what you said that was new here that I didn't already comment on. He did endorse Trump. And also his reasons for doing it were wrong. Why didn't he go Stalin's route "they are both worse"?

That seems pretty harsh because I used a word you didn't like. But maybe you weren't aware that it also meant "to avoid something".


Typically quotation marks (when things aren't being quoted) are used when people want to show irony. The quotations are to demonstrate that the word is being used in two different ways.

...

Again I didn't vote for Hillary. I don't think she would have been great, or even good choice. But Trump is a disaster. I mean whoever heard of getting a guy to be head of the EPA who doesn't believe in climate change. I'm not going to pretend this is a good thing. I think it's unlikely that Hillary or any other democrat would have made a similar choice.

Well I think this is fair position if your sole reason is climate change, but I think this clouding your overall judgment. I think Hillary was a disasterous choice for the medium term, Zizek also said "of course Trump is dangerous" mind you. The ship has largely sailed on much meaningful climate reforms IMHO, hitting panic mode now is a bit late in the piece when people haven't given a shit for a long ass time. There's very good reasons to doubt the catastrophic projections, when the sensationalist MSM is now operating as a pure propaganda arm and still publishes "Too late to stop global firestorm wiping out all life", I certainly don't blame skeptics for having an alternative view. The problem is systematic, friendo.

Come on, don't hold up nonsensical obscurantist 🍀🍀🍀developments🍀🍀🍀 of Marxism as the thing itself.
Next you're probably going to use "positivist" as a snarl word.


Foucault is an even better example of this.


ECONOMIES OF SCALE DECREASES SNLT
Honestly socialization of labor is the entire basis of civilization in general and the capitalist epoch in particular. The historical necessity of capitalism lies precisely in its development of the productive forces and the mass socialization of labor. The difference between a communist society and a group of reeking apes living in swamps, eating raw fish and dying of cholera at 25 is this development. Proposing we "take an active role" in every aspect of our lives is ahistorical in the extreme.

I can't stay mad at you guys ;_;

I think Zizek's philosophy is fantastic (when I can understand it). But I sincerely think people give him too much credit for his off-the-cuff remarks. He speaks provocatively and I think it's a problem to take it at face value.

Months ago he said he would have never vote Trump and that Trump is a bad sign for the state of the republican party… and then later said he would vote for him … and then said he wouldn't vote for either of them. I'm simply saying of these three positions, we should be careful with which position we identify ourselves with – because Zizek does this a lot (from what I have seen).

I probably should not have questioned people's critical thinking skills. But that one guy that that is skeptical of climate change is obviously still wrong.

What do you mean?

He's trying to make us more Hegelian than Hegel, so we can get over our oedipal attachment to his shadow, or something.


Nobody in his right mind would call Foucault a Marxist, but he was part of the very same sort of """radical""" millieu and was taught by self-professed "Marxists," among them Althusser.
French theory just makes me nauseous after too long
youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2ozMbvldw

I can barely be arsed to keep up with local events passively, why the hell would I want to spend my free time managing what goes on?

...

nuh uh fuck outta mah face with that shit nigga you dumb shit fuck y'all

CULTURAL MARXISM IS REAL. PROOF:
youtube.com/watch?v=NizgVKR7z7Q

Most people are apathetic and selfish and only think in terms of short term gains. So you'd have a situation where people never show up to any meetings except for when the issue at stake is of direct personal importance to them, in which case they'll vote for some corrupt measure that improves their personal situation regardless of whether or not it's actually a good decision on the long term or for others. Alternative, they just vote for whatever the local demagogue has convinced them is needed.

Zizek's argument is that he doesn't understand how confederate decision making in anarcho-syndicalist theory works because he never bothered to read about it and he would prefer to just sit in his armchair being an 'important thinker' and have an invisible elite who are magically guaranteed to be 100% competent and 'just work' to make decisions for him and everybody else.

Anarchism totally destroyed.

So people only care about themselves and also they don't care about anything?

Not at all what Zizek posits, and most people are not simply "apathetic and selfish" a priori; there are structural causes that apply influence on people's desires and intentions.


Where do I get your psychic mind reading powers?

Seriously dude he's personally acquainted with the likes of Negri who basically lead the modern popular equivalent of anarchism and multitude theory and has written loads on anarchism with Badiou who also knows anarchist theory inside out.

As always when Zizek gives a critique, he purposefully addresses the subject he critiques towards those who are already, like him, familiar with the subject as to then propose very broad and general critique of it. This is why he is a pedagogue; because he elucidates very broad points of reference and makes a very easy to understand point out of it.

Oh, no, I totally believe you that an academic ``simply hasn't read`` the theory of something he critiques. They're all a bunch of Steven Crowders, really

god dammit how do i italicpost

Use two regular brackets (two of these: ') on each side.

((testing))

I meant quotation marks. The single, simple ones, like this one:

'

Put two of them before and after some text.

Wut? Negri is a fucking liberal. Badiou only flirts with 'post-anarchism'.
Zizek doesn't understand how anarcho-syndicalist workers could coordinate work in their places of work without hierarchical leadership and imagines that in libertarian communism every aspect of work and production would be its own little island incapable of coordinating with the other or steadily functioning without daily assemblies.
I will state it again. He doesn't understand even the basics of anarchist theory.

Nice bait, but I'm not having any of it.

So Zizek making casual statements about things he doesn't understand with no references is always scientific fact because he's an 'academic'.

okay

Are you actually guesing? if they were Oh my god are you actually so uninformed?

Wew nice paper, litteraly nothing.

tip top kek, lefty/pol/ tier old left dead anarchist fetishism garbage at it again.

Well that's a joke.

Where can I find some of this cutting edge anarchist work? Legit curious.

Can we stop talking about this postmodern shit

...

Read Bookchin tbh fam
Also,
Get on my level son

who the fuck is rafiq

some revleft autist that he thinks is important for some reason

opposed to

>>>Holla Forums

Not 'cutting edge' but a succinct summary like this theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism#toc4
should have been enough to dispel Zizek's ignorance of the anarcho-syndicalist methods of structural coordination.

...

Where can I find Bordiga's cutting-edge critique of anarcho-syndicalism? And how is Rudolf Rocker 'eclectic narcho theory'? He's as lucid and direct as it gets.

...

Fuck Zizek I hope he dies soon

lel

Anarchists don't study their own fucking history more like.


davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/

I'm going to learn more about sewage treatment right now.

he's not a leftist, he's a philosopher who often comes similar conclusions as those claimed by the 'left'

Pretty much, this stupid idea came from Guattari who wanted to apply Deleuze's idea of multiplicity on the social level.

But the idea itself is vague and uninteresting, Deleuze idea could apply to biology for example. It can describe animals, humans etc. It's not a special claim to authentic political acts.

Another thing anarchists misunderstand is that Anti-Oedipus was not a call for a grass-roots awakening. Schizo-analysis was not an individualist practice, but analyzing the symptoms of the effects of the deterritorialization Capitalism causes on society.

That's an argument against akratists not anarchists. A lelinist could form a better argument.

ur qt mr. absurdity

Thats just plain embarrassing.

he's a self-described communist, not a leftist

he despises the "left"

Žižek's argues that micro-scale planning is fastidious and pulls people away from large-scale projects. The anarchists he describes argue that micro-scale planning the best way to ensure accountability.

They are both projecting.

Mundane day to day events aren't interesting, but the low level aspects of city management, like:

- garbage collection;
- planning and building;
- the supply of electricity, water, gas and telecom

are things which deserve careful attention and a lot more resources. You'll notice that in poor countries, these public infrastructures are the things that are mostly lacking and therefore reduce quality of life a lot., because they are the background of daily life.

And since they're so important I find them very exciting to work on.

I guess that as an engineer, I'm more interested in these things (check out this idpol).

sounds like a leftcom to me

egoism is more of a personal ethics than a political program. an egoist would probably be opposed to most authoritarian projects though, unless they know they'll be in charge.

I agree with most of his points besides direct democracy. Everyone should have the credible opportunity to participate in creating laws, although this doesn't mean everyone HAS to, you can be alienated if you want to.

Pic is a strawman

and
Spooky.

Yes, they were. Not that people really had a deep understanding of Marxism, of course not, but it was a sort of state "religion" and to have an unorthodox interpretation of Marxism that was against the status quo was a heresy.

*heresy for the authorities.

...

...