Is Zizek becoming a reactionary?

I honestly thought that until I actually read zizek. His worldview is a lot more nuanced than can be communicated in a lecture where he spends most of time making racist jokes

don't listen to them. zizek is 100% pure commie
when he analyses right-wing ideology, liberals try to say that's what he believes
He's commie without being a tankie, and he's fighting for dem commonz

...

Zizek is literally the greatest philosopher.

Can you blame him with how most of the surviving Left is so uneducated and ingrained with Idpol bullshit.

no. hes based as fuck

inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its

He's an anti immigrant transphobe, you tell me.

I'm sensing that there are some differing opinions here.

The pussified cucked mainstream left is not worth saving, I don't know why Zizek even bothers anymore with contemporary politics.

This era is entirely gone to the dogs, and it won't be until a long time from now that emancipatory class politics mature.

You should read what he has to say, rather than going off on snippets.

why are feminists so illogical?

But he isn't anti trans or anti Muslim (it's a lot more nuanced than that). Engaging in a critque of x does not mean you are a hater of x, that's liberal sjw logic

exactly, he's offering solutions to refugee crisis instead of

He's going down that path.

alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2016/4/21/zizek-on-immigration-and-the-hypocrisy-of-the-left

So criticizing and pointing out how stupid the modern left is, how hypocritical it is somehow makes him a "reactionary"?
Fuck, leftists can't handle criticism. And I thought liberals were just stupid.

fucking eh

Nope no bias to be found here!

also
kill yourself

yes

He just needs to watch what he says is all, he's drawing in the wrong kind of people as of late

HEIL ZIZEK

Hello, Ahmed.

I always find it weird when I see this meme since my name is actually Ahmed kek

I wasn't the poster you were replying to btw

Social-chauvunist left-wing of capital
Conservative ( muhhh European ) socdem who was candidate for president of Slovenia as a member of liberal party.

There's nothing wrong with being a SocDem if there's no other option to get into power in a post-communist country.
Also

No. Fuck you.
Zizek is what true, unadulterated left looks like.
He's the patron saint of Holla Forums.

this tbh fam
his psychoanalysis and use of hegel is on point

Did you copy that straight from WSWS or something?

Zizek is by no means either a nationalist or conservative (and I honestly expected a left-com to be literate enough to get that), but as other's have pointed out - he's really nothing more than a 'democratic socialist' (i.e. socdem revivalists) though maybe his theory might have more worth than the man himself. His idea of "Repeating Lenin" (while sadly way too vague) is generally what the communist project should strive for today - to dare establishing a grand narrative.

...

Only by assmad liberals and tankies

This stems from the false notion that social liberalism is a leftist duty of sorts.

This is due to the outdated belief that muh patriarchal capitalism is oppressive towards minorities/outcasts where it's actually pragmatist in its seach to exploit and harness everyone.

Capitalism is truly the most inclusive ideology there is.

He's pretty inconsistent, but I think it comes with trying to constantly shock everyone.

This isn't actually true. But even the phrasing is retarded. Capitalism is the most inclusive ideology because it seeks to oppress everyone equally…. Except if you have capital. Well then shit it's the most exclusive ideology isn't it?

This is where the problems arise. It's when socially liberal neo-progressive bourgeois try to convince poorer people that their problems are not because of capitalism per se, but that theyr'e opressed by other groups of people. This is why progressive stack fails, because it fails to put class(capitalism) in it's core of problems, but it rather tries to put minorities against majorities, wether it's sexual minoirtiy rebeling against sexual majortiy or ethnic minoirties rebelling against a majortiy people in a nation. It's a never ending cycle of perpetual bullshit where nobody ends up being happy.

I just have a thing with simple turns of phrases. This is something Zizek does often that really serves no good purpose and confuses whatever arguments his actually making. And like that other user, you should realize that what sounds deep when you do a turn of phrase is actually literally stupid.

Usually it goes something like: "But wait a minute… And here I disagree… Isn't the opposite true, you know…" Or something along those lines. And then he'll make a completely retarded but superficially profound-sounding claim. "Christianity is the most atheist religion there is." And people eat it up because "le Lacanian Slovenian Leninist" told a follow up chicken joke.

Žižek explicitly defends European capitalism with its millions of unemployed and its dramatic inequality. “I do not want to bad-mouth capitalism in principle,” he says. “The European model” is “threatened by two types of capitalism, both undemocratic,” by the “fundamentalist market radicalism of the American model” and by “Asiatic-authoritarian capitalism, as practiced mainly in China.” But “Europe’s capitalism,” on the other hand, has “something to offer to the world.”

I recently thought that maybe I was wrong to dismiss him from just what I heard in his talks and the two (short) books of his that I've actually read. And then I thought… For a guy that doesn't agree with postmodernism, he sure draws from a lot of the same sources and sure writes like one. And then I think if I wanted to learn more about Marxism and socialism in general, it's probably not a good idea to start with a guy that disagrees with Marx's statement: "hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it" and proposes that "philosophers have not interpreted the world enough"… Nice turn of phrase and all (it sure sounds good) but I don't want that to be the starting point of socialism.

the only people that think he's a reactionary are the same stupids that don't really understand what he's saying to begin with

Why do retards like you have to take what he says out of context to criticize him?

that wasn't taking anything out of context, get his dick out of your mouth you pathetic faggot

Sure thing my man, pasting several quotes with no citations to the context is a totally legitimate way to criticize.

translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.welt.de/kultur/article151496775/Maenner-hatten-Spass-Erniedrigung-zu-inszenieren.html&edit-text=&act=url

there's your citation faggot, show me how he's being taken out of context

Besides the fact that you actually had to a non english article to prove your point, he's referring to the fact that the way capitalism runs in several parts of Europe (welfare state, far better working conditions) compared to America where you get all the ideology in one package (muh American Dream while you get exploited in worse conditions) and Asia (China's nightmarish sweatshops and Singapore, for example). If you think picking tastier food out of a dumpster rather than picking the worst food is settling with eating from a dumpster you're a retard.

Don't jump to conclusions, faggot.

there are no proper english translations of the whole article that i know of, the language he gave the interview in is hardly relevant
it's ignoring the fact that the relative luxury of european social democracy couldn't exist without the more brutal capitalism seen in other parts of the world. if you think that the style of capitalism in europe is something that the rest of the world could just choose to adopt then you are a moron and a terrible marxist, but this is apparently what zizek thinks when he says that "europe has something to offer the world"

also i don't know how you defend the statement "I do not want to bad-mouth capitalism in principle" probably the most damning thing he says

I don't get the hate Zizek gets for views that are clearly of pragmatic value
He said some things against the sexual revolution of the 60s, Freudian commercializing of psychology and argued for alot of pro-family unit stuff. I don't see why you can't be both a communist AND a social conservative. Or being against open borders (in this pre-communist word) since it only helps globalist capitalism to push around cheap labour like they want while never having to address workers rights in any given country. Alot of the left has been spooked into dogmatic thinking and are being used by social democrats like lapdogs.

For example on the refugee thing. Isn't the whole refugee/immigration thing at the moment nothing more than reverse Out-sourcing? A way for EU elites to keep companies within europe? Merkel and the other capitalist leaders of western europe cut financial aid to the syrian refugee camps in turkey by 70% in 2014. Then all those starving people march torwards europe. Suddenly Merkel developed a heart and wants to help those poor souls she just ripped off? Arriving in europe they are stripped of their nationality and made citizens as soon as possible (even though refugees only have temporary right to stay) and are encouraged to work for the most basic and cheap jobs. In Germany there is a new 'integration' policy that states people who were denied official asylum in germany can stay if they work for 80c/hour in a factory. Not only that - but the goverment is now also allowed to resettle any refugee population to regions that is "in need of labour".
So all that happened is that in order to keep all the companies that are leaving in the country the neo-conservative CDU lowered the taxes and invited millions of exploitable workers into germany to work in 'Leiharbeit' which are temporary short term jobs with are paid under the minimum wage. And the german left was tricked into reading this situation as a victory of humanitarianism - all those people on the train stations clapping and welcoming their new exploited slave-class without knowing it. The great allies of the EU: Israel - Saudi Arabia wont take refugees. These workers were basically forced to risk their life to come to europe - lose any chance to ever build up their country and now have to work for cheap like dogs for big capital in europe while becoming the next ghetto worker class for the next hundret years.
Meanwhile the media creates a false dichotomy - either you agree with the obviously insane, aggressive and outraged right-wing (that the media scared by releasing all kinds of emotional stories about refugee crimes) OR you are a good moral citizen that stops thinking and repeats after Merkel: refugees welcome! Of course noone wants to be an evil nazi and so people forget to think about potential other and more humane solutions to this problem. Without this artificial and false dichotomy there probably would have been a sane and moderate debate about what options there are. Maybe people would have noticed that Lebanon proposed to give away some of its land to let the west build a proper refugee city right next to Syria making it possible for Syrians to have safety and rebuild their country once the fighting is over.

The left wingers who have seen what is happening here have been scolded by their own party (Die Linke). I've been kicked out of my little private socialist network at the Ruhr Universität Bochum for even starting to talk about what will/ and is happening with workers from Syria. Also for implying that it MIGHT not be possible to reform the EU from within into a Workers Union™.

It's allways interesting to see how many people I know treat what they see as black sheeps. Pic related

I don't think this because I know it is impossible.

I don't know what he meant by this and it is pretty much a waste of time to dwelve on such a statement, but this doesn't mean he became a capitalist.

I am going to bet he was talking here about capitalism as a theory.

This isn't that surprising since a non-trivial segment of the left cares more about atoning for guilt over third-world living conditions than actually changing anything. In an immigration thread a few weeks ago we had someone explicity defend third-world mass immigration because third-worlders will be better off under Euro/American capitalism than they would in their home country, that the workers in the first world can and should take the hit, and if they don't like it they need to start the revolution already. This is precisely the logic that the ruling class uses, minus the "just start the revolution" bit.

As a feminist, Zizek has a excellent opinions about identity politics. He is a brocialist scum!

reactionary doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you

God you are fucking stupid

Did I say that? Learn to read.

TOP KEK!

Great autocorrect is great!

is anyone a fan of Alain Badiou? currently reading the communist hypothesis and from the little of read of his i prefer him for his pragmatism. not as fun to listen to but i think if we are to actually want to move forward we should look more to him then zizek but its important to keep in mind zizeks critiques

Sizek has no theory he just comments liberal popular culture and turns blind eye on the real class conflict.

Can we stop making these threads, they only serve to tick Zizek off during his bi-weekly browsing of this board.

"feminism-anarchism". his has to be the dumbest flag i've ever seen in my entire life. you must be some angsty18 year old pink haired bourgeoisie scum

We have pornography and books from that period, people put things in their butts back then of course, but there is absolutely no record of fisting before the 1960s. It is the only sexual invention, every other sexual practice has been documented for millenia.

If you think communism has nothing to do with the struggles of oppressed people then you are straight up ignorant of actual communist history. Only kinds of people who tried to keep class struggle 'pure' were also the reactionary fucks at the AFL and other such trade unions that busted the radical rank and file and lined up with the company and the state.

.t Revisionist

Daily reminder that "anarcho-femism" isn't just a random mishmash of the two ideologies, but a Scientology-tier conspiracy theory/religion which posits that sexual dimorphism is the Original Sin of hierarchy, that all hierarchical relationships are merely derivatives of Patriarchy, and that all types of oppression are merely forms of Rape.

That is not Kropotkin, but you're not far off

Badiou is pretty good. And Zizek sees him as both a friend and a "competitor" in the philosophical sense.

I was reading his "Plato's Rebuplic" awhile ago, and it's very gud.