Reality Check for Leftypol from Zizek!

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.