So according to Zizek the left should be the guardians of good moreals and values

And why should any of these things be considered valuable?

in so far as the help others and 'humanity'

so no?

Uh huh. How?

Has a tankie ever done anything other than establish state capitalism?

You say this, but funnily enough Bentham at one point proposed that all the poor people be locked into prisons where they would work for the profit of shareholders, breed with fellow prisoners and produce children that would take up their roles as prison labour once they die. You can use any moral system as support for just about anything with enough work, because the defining characteristic of a moral system is that it is put ahead of the individual interest. On the contrary, I think that the left should abolish morality and attempt to demonstrate how pro-social behaviour is in everyone's inherent interest on a logical basis.

I didn't say spook!

Society is a contract, morals are not just the frontiers beatween the persons but a system that is supposed to enrish the individual for the well being of society.
Pretty much everything nihilists don't like.

Spot the liberal.

spot the liberal

Not an argument

The Bolsheviks never gave the Soviets control over the means of production. The USSR wasn't in any sense of the word socialist - even if it was an improvement over Tsarist Russia

You're using Rousseau's Social Contract theory to justify your assertions that a set of things you like ought to be enforced by an institutionalized authority. Literally not even a communist or socialist.

sorry that individual worker didn't own there won means of production but it was owned collectively

It was a figure of speech, stop taking everything so literal.

Except they didn't own them collectively either. The Bolsheviks had representatives at the workplaces to manage the workers. They controlled production; there was no democratic ownership of the by the workers.

You're invoking the same logic. Whether or not you consciously chose to is irrelevant.

A figure of speech has no logic of its own, the later argument is the main thing

"enforced by an institutionalized authority" is putting words in my mouth

You're still using the same general concept or idea that existing in society is something that an individual chose and ought to be held accountable to. And you're assuming in that position an authority that enforce the values you think are correct. You're in denial m8

Stop assuming my arguments and stop putting words in my mouth you dickhead.

Call me a spooked fuck etc. etc. but I get upset with a lot of parent-child relationships these days. My parents had no retirement saved up and after '08 they got evicted. Yet, my faggot sister who is pretty damn wealthy doesn't let them live in her house and only gives a bit of money sometimes and so they live in my tiny ass apartment with myself now.

There isn't an actual need for retirement funds and savings etc. etc. That's what your family is for. It's meant to be a mutual relationship, and yet so many nowadays don't even so much as speak to thier parents. Maybe its capitalism that has alienated us to such a degree that things like a 401k are necessary.

Personally, I don't make enough money to be able so save a lot, and I probably won't ever have kids either (because of the costs to raise them).

So I'm basically fucked, as are a lot of people my age. The social contract is broken and I'm going to die on the streets as a 70 y/o beggar

You have no way of refuting what I'm saying. Quit being a child and be critical of the opinions you hold instead of just assuming that they're right.

You haven't refuted anything of what I said either, you have not even let me develope my arguments, you just shouted "liberal" and called it a day. Quit being a child and be critical of the opinions you hold instead of just assuming that they're right.

There's nothing to argue about. I already called you out for invoking social contract theory, and instead of trying to demonstrate why you aren't (even though you are) or argue in favor of it, you've just been denying that you have been and that it was "just a figure of speech". And now you're parroting back at me.

You legit sound underaged tbh

calling out is not an argument, you have derailled all this conversation with your pedantic turns.
How about we start again and you read the rest of the first argument I gave

morals are not just the frontiers beatween the persons but a system that is supposed to enrish the individual for the well being of society.

And stop assuming you know where I am coming from with my discourse.

spooked af

Тrump IS a confused opportunist, Žižek is right.
I'm kinda glad he got picked over someone like Ted Cruz tbh.

Dont see how chastity does that.

A lot of people just had kids because society forced/pressured them to do so. So the relations arent exactly good, Molyneux talks a lot about that. Same for families, a lot of people were forced to do so. Why in the US anerican whites wanted to GTFO as soon as possible for freedom if possible.

Chastity on the Thomist sense means autocontrol in general not just in the sexual meaning.

I disagree completely. Trying to stay within the brackets of acceptable political discourse is something that has never worked for the Left. The mechanisms of public opinion are tied to class interests that are antithetical to our own, and if we accept their terms of the debate we'll always be fighting an uphill battle.

This is a bit outside what Zizek is talking about, but I think there's some connection between it and the question of polite speech: look at our attitude towards foreign policy. You'll notice that when it comes to foreign policy, the Left is never in favor of anything or anyone, because that usually implies coming to the defence of leaders, countries and organizations that have been demonized in our culture, so we choose not to risk losing the moral high ground and focus, instead, on questioning the conduct of the war when it comes to civilian deaths, drone warfare, etc. And we do that while having a firmer grasp of international politics than most people, knowing that the patterns and guidelines of Euro-American foreign policy have been set long before any particular person or group came along, but they make the debate about those people and these groups because it's benefitial for them, and we dodge it.

I think this is exactly what they want. Zizek's analogy of rape is perfect here: he doesn't want to live in a world where he was to debate that something bad like rape is bad, just like the owning classes don't want to live in a world where they have to debate if Assad or Gaddafi are really bad enough to deserve being overthrown. But if the Left doesn't have the balls, the message discipline and the social influence to make society question things like that, we'll never have the means to make them question capitalism, bourgeois democracy, the class system, or anything else of significance. We should be forcing the terms of the debate, not staying by the margins trying to humanize the agenda of our enemies.

And this is where vulgarity has its role to play. Zizek has also said that when the Left and the more humanitarian liberals accepted to debate torture, the pro-Torture side had already won, because until then it was something that you wouldn't even think about debating, and they succeeded in making it a topic of conversation. But the torture side didn't win by talking about the pragmatic nature of torture, by quoting studies and delving into ethics (like we, stupidly, tried to): they succeeded by capitalizing on the general feeling that people had of wanting to know that terrorists and sympathizers were suffering painful deaths. And you don't make use of, let alone create this feeling if you're trying to be polite and humanitarian all the time. We can use a similar technique, but for a good cause. We should attack, mock, defame and dehumanize our opponents until we can have a "conversation" about the merits of arresting people who seek tax havens and hanging Kissinger even that late in life.

Anyway, Amber says it better than I can:
currentaffairs.org/2016/05/the-necessity-of-political-vulgarity

...

morning bump