Reality Check for Leftypol from Zizek!

WEW LAD

Marxists agitators at that time weren't larpers like you guys, dear user, they were an actual threat.

you people are indistinguishable from parody.

lol

Every. Time.

Are you forgetting about the literal millions that have starved under Communism?

Not to mention all the African Communist states that used to exist that had plenty of starving African children in them too, which have all fallen apart now.

That's just propaganda. And they were kulaks anyway.

literal billions died under capitalism

...

Famine killed 7 million people in USA
pravdareport.com/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/

and if you take the numbers given in the wiki article on the hololdomor
name me one reason why i should consider anything but numbers with hard facts behind it and go with "estimations"

because if you look at population estimates it doesnt match the numbers given by the USSR in terms of deaths (it still doesnt support 30 million)

it does

history.stackexchange.com/questions/12297/how-many-people-in-the-us-starved-to-death-during-the-great-depression
keep being a crackpot.

lmao
one of the rare moments I can enjoy Zizek

He criticises Negri and Hardt, but not orthodox marxists, from what I watched.

He crtiisizes orthodox marxists.
You are completely denying the reality that Zizek criticized orthodox marxists, and said you guys are delusional. Guess what, your workers revolution will never happen, Zizek rationally accepts this.
You will die shit posting on this board long before your revolution will happen, if it ever does.

Uh do you see any orthodox Marxists around here buddo? Two thirds of this board are anarcho-snowflakeists, Titoists, socdems, and various flavours of socialist and anarchist. I think that the majority of posters would agree with Zizek on this particular point, among others.

Why exactly would you think that one Marxist's criticism of a particular sect within that philosophy would somehow discredit Marxism as a whole? Are you retarded?

While this is a problem in the Left, no doubt, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with capitalist apologists, left and right, who still act as though our crumbling, struggling post-crisis capitalism is still the vibrant powerhouse and seeming force for progressive change it was in the 20th century. Social democrats still act like they're the force of the future even as their welfare states are eaten away by neoliberal austerity, and conservative market fundamentalists still act like Lord Market will still save us even as a globalized capitalism leaves the West behind, moving ever forward to a condition where poverty is universalized for all but an elite few, a condition that only worsens with each new austerity measure.

The Left merely struggles with nostalgia and how to reach people in the information age. It's liberalism that's undergoing an extreme case of denial about current conditions.

>reality check for leftypol
I get that pol is often very uneducated on pretty much anything left related, but you're in the wrong place if you think anyone here (besides the few post-leftists and anarkiddies, jej) are autonomists who think the revolution will 'just happen'. In fact, most of us here oppose that prospect entirely, as most people here are civil or platformists anarchists, market socialists or some type of Leninist (like Zizek is a Leninist), whom are all very against the utopian idea of insurgency just 'happening'.

He criticizes syndicalism and worker-coops as the sole solution, quite heavily (but while saying it's conceptually good, but that the lack of a central structure is illogical especially in today's world, where large organizational - central - structure is required to address global issues), he criticizes a lot of old tactics (doesn't really have any solutions, though). Makes some comments about the global environment and what the 'elite' is trying to do with it.
He criticizes the market, saying it can't address the issues either, alongside the same lines. (but also talks about how it should be used, sometimes)

Talks about how to address them, after arguing for why he thinks that large scale organization (and centrally planned, implied), is required to address them. Talks about how China is structured, and addresses it. Local (to China) environmental issues. (lots of news injects from 3 years ago)

Here's a direct quote:
"So here, I'm a pessimist, again this is for me communism. Not dream of a future world, communism are these problems which concern US, commons, and we will need radical global mechanisms for large scale action. I don't have easy answers [unelligble] all I know is that, and this is my pessimism, this is my answer to liberal friends who claim ' uhh but are you aware, but aren't you utopian ', no as far as it functions, I have nothing against a good efficient welfare state - social democratic. [cut, the next line is not about what he just spoke of - edited cut]"

He then goes on a rant against liberals, says the future will either be authoritarian rightwing/dictate related, or a communist solution,
and here's another direct transcript:

"If, this should be our message to liberals, if you really want freedom [another edited cut, but his continuation seems related] - only we, a more radical left, can provide it. Otherwise, liberalism will lose the battle with new forms of authoritarianism."

Then he talks about how extreme right wing parties used to be seen 20-30 years ago as having no place, whatsoever, in government, and how it was normalized and 'accepted' gradually (kind of skips the whole era of most governments working hand in hand with the extreme right, killing off leftist parties and communists - and blaming the radical left for terrorism in false flag operations, but Zizek is zizek, just like Chomsky on those matters). Talks about how cultural battles are fought, now, as some sort of charade of democracy. All the big issues, ecology, etc, are being ignored.
How we're getting lifestyle bullshit solutions. About how humans are made to feel guilty individually, to be made into consumer 'ethical chosers', and that this will (in the charade we're given) somehow solve these big issues that our democracies aren't even touching upon. Etc.

And… that's the end of it.

Um.
I was more or less just writing out crap as I was watching the video.
As far as I can tell the quote, at least verbatim, of OP - does not exist in the video. Paraphrased, it doesn't really exist, either.
I think you just want people to watch the video to get their head filled with some zizek with a few little political injections?
I like Zizek, I also think he's full of shit half the time. And then I like him again, and then I think he's a joker again.
He always is a running commentary on things, someone who can survive as a commentator - from the sidelines, under any system.

OP did you really just want to post that one video, but couldn't find a reason for it? I could have done without watching it. It's one I'll file under "stuff by Zizek I don't give a shit about."

I only watched the youtube video, but yes, after watching the first link he said that; the context, however, is completely missing. Fortunately, it had a youtube link to a bit more.

youtube.com/watch?v=-K9z5J6-kx4

He's repeating a very tired old critique, as common from the right as from the left, that capitalism has fundamentally changed and therefore the labor theory of value no longer applies because there's no more "classical" industrial proletariat. As far as I'm aware, Zizek has never bothered to demonstrate this in any kind of article or book; but I never really bothered with him anyway. So perhaps someone here could post it so I could read it. I'd be interested.

Now, the industrial proletariat, as many here should be aware, has not disappeared. Capitalism has recreated it in the former third world and former communist regimes like China. In case people don't know, China hasn't been communist since Deng Xiaoping instituted market reforms in the late 1980s, similar to what Gorbachev and Yeltsin did in the former USSR.

Anyway, in the first world Zizek alludes to the so-called knowledge economy which is something right out of a TED talk so I'm really surprised he's swallowed that uncritically. Perhaps its an allusion to immaterial labor, but that would be confusing since he's criticizing Negri and Hardt when they would advance that point of view as well. In any case, the fact is such knowledge does not generate itself and it does not serve any other logic than that of capital accumulation – and most importantly, it's not the bourgeoisie that are generating knowledge, it's those who are paid a wage or salary to do so.

On another level, if he's referring to Big Data, then, all the same, that knowledge is only manageable because many, many people are employed to make it so. Databases, not to mention the technological infrastructure required, are not built off of anything other than wage labor. So I don't believe his critique is valid in that sense.

Is he correct to criticize those who are literally stuck not only in the 20th century but the early 20th century, like Marxist-Leninists? Absolutely. But this generic "orthodox" Marxist – I've never met one. Perhaps Trotskyists could fill the gap, but then why not say so? Just sounds like him running his mouth tbh.

I don't care if Zizek actually said it, if he actually meant it or whatever.

Let me RealityCheck you in return: what's your alternative?

Didn't realize they were different videos, figured it was just two links to the same talk.

(I'm )

Not your fault comr8. Who goes to some random link instead of youtube?

In that case the 20th century left would still be relevant, no?

Instead, "traditional" neoliberalism is already on its way out, being transformed by the Silicon Valley ideology of algorithmic regulation of social systems. Big data and all that shit. The US and UK government, as well as the EU, already have concrete plans and projects to realize that.
Nobody really believes in competition anymore, instead they believe in monopolies like Uber, Airbnb, Facebook, etc… that organize the whole of their domain as a self-regulating information-based system. And people actually want to be controlled by algorithms, they see this as progress. Efficiency and stability is slowly replacing the liberalism's 20th century ideology of freedom.

I.e. we won't need ~5 years of NEP after the revolution and can proceed straight to Planned Economy. That's the only consequence of the Grand Changes you think might happen.

Because it's not about competition. It's about private property. It doesn't matter what plans you have, as long as there is a shmuck who can (and will) sabotage the whole plan for his own benefit. Which is why "efficiency" never replaced private ownership in the West neither before, nor after WWII.

Liberal freedom was always a phrase that implied efficiency and stability of markets. It's no different today.

Good effort lads. One reply of topic and the rest bitching about a bait image.

The top-right picture for capitalism is "99 Cent", a famous art photograph taken by Andreas Gursky that was specifically designed to evoke the sense of purposeless consumerism associated with late capitalism.

I guess the choice between two brands of potato chips really is what capitalists assume to be the ultimate form of freedom.

It's what they offer as freedom. I assure you, actual capitalists want (and have) much more freedom.

nigger, do you even shop?

OP turned out to be a faggot, not reason to even prove his argument is flawed

so all you have to counter this article is an ask blog with butthurt replies?
kek, classic murrican

The only answer on that site that is critical of your position is being opposed with the argument that "America is a democracy, unlike other countries". Sounds like a bunch of brainwashed people who believe the official propaganda.

I would argue that there was never really that much of a difference between the two, but regardless, all the data in the world won't save you if you refuse to recognize what the problem is.

>pravdareport.com/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/
It's making the point that estimating loss of life based on demographic trends is exactly how historians estimate the loss of life during the 1932-33 famine. When that same method is applied to the United States during the Great Depression, similar numbers appear. And this is with census data more complete than what we have for famine in the USSR.

First, abandon all childish notions of "worker revolution". Adopt the reformist that Zizek advocates, which involves locating the weak points of a society, and making demands in the language of the enemy. For example, demand universal healthcare in the USA, and use the "muh freedom" argument against the right.
Certainly more realistic than autistic tankies and anarchists with their vandalism and "worker revolution" babble.

I simply pointed out that Zizek is correct in that the Left needs to abandon the childish, utopian dream of a workers revolution.
Otherwise you will die posting on this shit image board, still waiting for a revolution that will never happen.

I wasn't posting that video simply because i'm bored. I find too many people here are delusional edgy teenagers that think the revolution will come, or the anarchist teenagers will fight nazis on the streets, throwing bricks at small businesses,etc.
I find most of you cannot accept that, maybe, just maybe, most people enjoy capitalism, they simply want to remove corrupt corporations, raise taxes, raise wages, lower tuition costs, pull the military out of the Middle East,etc.

If anything, I still don't see a concrete plan from marxists when you talk a big game about revolution. There's no plan about how utilities will be run. What makes you think that people will want to run the waste treatment facilities, clean the sewage systems, clean toilets for no money?

Eliminating money is stupid, as you either resort to labour vouchers, or an idealistic notion that people will work for free and share.

How will you create competition in your society?
If you have a centralized state, what will prevent them from becoming corrupted and morphing into the USSR?

If you have localized regions, with direct democracy, how will you determine necessities without constantly voting for every detail?
Ideally, abolishing the state would be a huge advancement for the human race.

sowell opposes marxism

Among youth, most people disapprove of capitalism. I'm wondering when you say this, by most people you mean the trendy college kids in socdem countries who buy clothes from H&M made in Cambodia by small children. Or the periodic market crashes that destroy peoples livelihoods that are now often at the behest of the global market.

Yes, which is why the left should not rule out reformism. Dogmatically ruling it out will leave us stuck on this shit image board.

The goal to move to a non-accumulative currency is just that - a goal. It does not mean we go full CNT and abolish money. I hope you're not the OP, because it seems like you've been trying to talk knowledgeably about that which you possess no knowledge, as if a future where we transition to a non-accumulative currency within a planned economy is somehow pejorative to our moral.

If you have a centralized state, what will prevent them from becoming corrupted and morphing into the USSR?

Why would we want competition? Markets are only good for judging a firms performance, not for allocation of resources(as most firms in the USSR allocated resources as efficiently as most Western ones). Once we either can: accurately simulate a market, or automate the majority of service jobs(preferably both) there is no reason to not move from a market economy to a planned one.

Bottom-up socialism.

Ideally, abolishing the state would be a huge advancement for the human race.

People would most likely be elected to take care of stuff like that, as they are now. Government would not disappear, just the State. Important decisions could be done via direct democracy using computers, but it makes no sense to have the sewage industry decentralized, for example.

Though I will say: Zizek is right about a lot of things, including the concept of exploitation being rethought.

kek

that's the joke

TBH I'm not even more in favor of a workers revolution than anything else but he's talking about obnoxious faggots that preach revolution but are sitting on their hands waiting for class consciousness to naturally reach the desired levels which will never happen if they aren't doing anything about it.

I'm new to leftypol; who is that guy?

I couldn't tell. Most tankies say that shit unironically.

This is the first time I have ever seen my meme reposted on here

Although I can't into photoshop so only the words were mine some other based user actually made the picture

tyrone

he isn't a meme from /lefty/ tho

Our memes are way better!

yeah like guevarism

holy kek

guevara poster getting M E M E' D on hard as fuck

As far as I can tell, Zizek's proposed approach - he usually uses the analogy of a science fiction film where there is a big console covered in buttons and a character presses them until he hits one that causes the facility to start falling apart - is functionally identical to the traditional Trotskyist transitional program. Make demands within the system that will seem reasonable to large numbers of working people but that the system and ruling class cannot or will not sustain.

lol maybe i noscoped him a little too hard there, i just hate some of the stuff he posts and he seems like a larper to me