Is Žižek anti-natalist?

Is Žižek anti-natalist?

Wikipedia lists him in the anti-natalist category:
But I can't find anything about it in the article itself or anywhere else on the Internet other than a few passing comments on how he hates his life.

Other urls found in this thread:

I think so. Though he has a kid. Probably unwanted and natal-cucked mum wanted to keep him.

His seed is just too strong.

pic related, zizek's seed

it was probably this exchange(of his "communism will win" interview)

Maybe because he talks about societal collapse (Living in the End Times) as capitalism tailspins into its penultimate crisis as well as and the effects on humanity that will result form the Anthropocene? One might infer from that that he is opposed to the idea of creating more people that will suffer in industrial civilization's waning years. I can't say I've ever heard him be explicitly anti-natal though.

He could have plenty of reasons to think his birth was a mistake while not being anti-natalist.

Mein gott

Seems like you have some spooks that you need to get rid of.

Anti-natalism is fucking ideology, there's no way Zizek unironically believes in that.

Do you even know what ideology is

Cultural or inherent bias that warps your perception, right?
I guess delusion would be more accurate, as Anti-Natalism presupposes absolute mountains of shit. It's almost as bad as most religions with how many axioms it stands on.

You're absolutely right in your assumption of the ideological nature of anti-natalism; however, Zizek does have some of its tendencies. Hardly in keeping with the far more neoliberal perch of "maintain your youthful commitment to work ad infinitum // consistent self-reinvention is impossible with a child" and other such injunctions - borne of the modern day complete servitude to the self-reproduction of both capital and its necessary presuppositions - Žižek stands on the ground that to continuously indulge the fantasy of love and conception is to re-embrace the entropy of the universal existence without making any attempt at all of understanding ones condition in relation to it, that is to say that it is a matter of phantasmatic and ideological distancing (petit objet a per Lacan) that only serves to solidify and re-introduce the illusory subject into the means of their enchainment to the dominant ideology.

Shouldn't his Marxism be a pretty hard counter to that? Marx and Engels were both very happy with the concept of the healthy family.

Well in all fairness it's possible that Zizek might be holding the view that one should not breed, until a solution is found to capitalism. Honestly, I wouldn't blame him as this world is currently fucked enough that having children does seem pretty immoral if you ask me.

Well, typically you would be right, but for him - the major centerpiece of the establishment of a new Marxian struggle (which he says remains the only true contradiction with global capital) is the re-embracing of Hegel with the critique that though Marx was the progenitor of the communist idea, that his ideal communism functioned as a sort of "capitalism without capitalism" as such, a system maintenanced by all the same forces of the exponential development of productive power without the paradoxical class distinctions. This, of course, not meaning a distancing from the ideal, but rather a re-imagining such that the new unconscious goal is to establish a new universality which will only come with communism. On the healthy family point, he one hundred percent is in support but maintains a critical skepticism of the conditions under which one may emerge if they would proceed to unflinchingly subject their progenies to the system of capitalism (which he and Althusser develop as a system depriving man of his very centre as a subject)

Natalism is ideology, anti-natalism is not.

Marxism confirmed for cult


That's moralistic as fuck, though.

" without the paradoxical class distinctions"
Well, yes, that's the point, communism is the negation of capitalism. Arguably there's no reason why communism shouldn't in itself have contradiction that leads to another qualitative change in the direction Zizek wants to address but the ideal is always subject to the material.

Per Badiou, Natalism represents a cogent human necessity though its virtues are usually marred in ideological compulsions but that is not to say child bearing should be abandoned. Just as we confront a new "fascism" we should be wary of classifying all those hallmarks of the birth of the fascist edifice as "proto-fascist" as a great number were stolen from the movements for socialism and social democracy! Anti-Natalism on the other hand, as the modern dominant injunction of capitalist ideology, well - one should be wary of it. I'd recommend all the books on this site but read "The True Life" by Alain Badiou, an excellent sexuation of the modern predicament and a rapprochement with philosophical tradition as a means of constructing an alternative to capitalist dominance

You are right, we should let people die of curable sicknesses because it's the "material default" and medicine is "reactionary."

It is moralistic, but you have to remember that we are talking about a man who takes a lot from Christianity so it's not really a shock that he figures morality into the equation.

You write like a retard.

But Zizek is trying to, in one move, spurn the pessimism of the post-modern left as to the ability to construct a challenge to the parameters of global capital, but at the same time assure that we will not proceed in some Freudian debacle, creating a death drive to replicate the failure of the communist projects of the 20th century (of course not to say that their achievements are not wholly laudable in the pursuit of human development). It ties very well into the examination of the deterioration of the "workers states" into the bulwarks of a new authoritarian capitalism in the modern age

Medicine is dialectical, it negates the contradiction of illness. Anti-natalism is reactionary in that it directly opposes life itself, as opposed to negating its contradictions.

That's always been my least favorite aspect of Zizek, he seems to take Hegel's idealism WAY to seriously and his psychoanalysis fetish only makes it worse.

That's not how dialectics work, sorry.

Further, you really cannot argue, in good faith, that 20th century socialism destroyed itself.

English isn't my first language, I apologize - you faggot

Medicine is "reactionary," it directly opposes the illness itself, it does not sublate it.

Hardly, you'd be a retard for arguing such. But nonetheless, the projects failed as they no longer exist; however, in their destruction by the intervention of western forces, we've saved the myth of the rebirth of the socialist state. I don't mean to argue on the dialectics part, it was much less the point I meant to make

No it doesn't, medicine exists to promote health, illness and health are a contradiction and so medicine resolves illness.
Anti-Natalism does not and cannot promote anything, as it sets out to reduce suffering, but does not resolve what causes suffering. Rather, Anti-Natalists try to remove the conditions that lead to suffering.

*Rather, Anti-Natalists try to remove the conditions that allow suffering to exist, sorry

If by Rebirth of the Socialist State you mean the trend of just straight up "bring back the USSR", I agree that's misguided, even in a Leninist reading a modern socialist state would be different that older socialist states due to the changes in material conditions.

If medicine was dialectical it wouldn't remove illness, it would lead to a new state that preserves both health and illness and overcomes both at the same time.

No? When communism negates the contradiction between the working class and private capital it doesn't preserve private capital.


It does