[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1655873087483.jpg (88.59 KB, 1080x885, 20220622_004117.jpg)

 No.1026884[Last 50 Posts]

I had my misgivings about Zizek's willingness to shit on communism in his debate with Jordan Peterson, but look at this fucking travesty of liberal cowardice. Can't see him recovering from this one.


Zizek is slovenian, so he got buckbroken by the yugoslav war and the nato bombings of serbia.


you guys took zizek seriously? i thought he was always a meme





LOL remember 2015-2018 /leftypol/ where every other poster unironically worshiped Zizek, to the point where people would call themselves Zizekian-Leninists?


File: 1655874062774.png (202.95 KB, 720x489, om7qh38rvoj21.png)



The fact that he took up psychoanalysis was always off putting for me.


Can someone give me a QRD on Zizekianism?


Is there a passage in Lenin's writings on imperialism that demarcates the appropriate amount of capital export required before we can accuse a state of bourgeois belligerence?


Reminder that the infracels want to cancel Taryn because she's in the CPUSA and took a giant dump on Zizek to his face at the Left Forum years ago because he's not a leftist. Apologize


In our limited defense, it was an online group of imageboard users trying to work their way backwards into socialism, and we still don't really have it down on the board. It's like giving the former egoists shit.
"lacan deeze nutz haha got em let's go watch Lethal Weapon"


That's embarrassing. I'm guessing that he wasn't writing much about international relations
That is the only thing he's really good for, how he understands ideology, otherwise he is far too popular. I have to say that I also enjoy that stuff despite understanding it poorly
Every capitalist state is bourgeois, but understanding the war should not be limited to a referendum on Russia, and certainly should not lead to support of NATO


Contrarian Trotskyism


There's no way this is real right? I inew this cunt was controlled op lmao


How do you think he funds his habit? *sniff*


of course because you were allowed to hear about him, same as chumpsky


>and took a giant dump on Zizek to his face at the Left Forum years ago because he's not a leftist.
Wasn't that Molly Klein aka Red Kahina?


Hegelianism taken to its logical end.


Feeling good, vindication feels good


Reminder to almost never listen to Zizek's modern political commentary. He's stated before that he practically just writes whatever his editor and publisher would like him to write about, and that any effort on his part is in his works about psychology/psychoanalysis in relation to capitalism. He literally has no idea what he is talking about otherwise, and he doesn't care to.

So basically, take a gigantic bucket of salt with you when reading anything not relating to or mentioning Lacan. He's flat out self-admittedly talking out of his ass, and you need to dig through heaps of shit to find something with potential merit.


File: 1655875888403.png (149.24 KB, 636x549, ClipboardImage.png)

Actually read beyond the headline and honestly it only gets worse from there to literally vomit-inducing levels of bullshit.


Every single word of this article is just straight up projection and apologia for an attempt at Euro soft supremacy.
Genuinely hope the fucker dies of a stroke.


Those last two lines are reaching ideology levels that we never thought possible with Zizek


File: 1655876494641.png (126.81 KB, 628x461, ClipboardImage.png)

Every fucking word of this shit.


Jesus fucking Christ


Well that's just disappointing.
though to be fair, it's not going to make me hate the man overall, seeing as every leftist theorist/ revolutionary has had their fair share of bruh moments


Haz is vindicated again

Infrared rising

Dugin> zizek


File: 1655877011376.png (37.32 KB, 614x132, ClipboardImage.png)

He's going well beyond a "bruh" moment and straight up into euro supremacist liberalism.
"Russia are le nazis" included.


File: 1655877028264.png (12.33 KB, 487x97, 534759834759873454.png)

Infrared's whole thing was "we are students of Zizek" (of course they are, which is why they suck)


Haz has been shitting all over zizek for a while now


he gets to go [redacted] with the rest of his FBI unit


Congratulations on catching up with the rest of us!


File: 1655877793280.png (20.03 KB, 490x226, 64590684590684056.png)


What does it mean to stand behind Ukraine? And why does realizing that Russia had genuine reasons make one the same as a nazi?


At this point I agree with Kissinger and Chomsky more than Zizek. Weird times.


File: 1655877913560.jpg (157.42 KB, 595x841, IMG_20220622_010439.jpg)


Has Anal Water been doing the same?


Protip: taking the Hegel pill will always lead you to supporting Western imperialism in some form. I remember years ago when the Platypus Society (whose ideology is some weird mashup of Hegel, Trotsky, and Adorno – don't ask) was revealed to be supporters of Israel on the basis that Israeli occupation of Palestine was the "rational kernel" of some shit; they also support US/NATO imperialism in Afghanistan on the basis that said imperialism would transform Afghanistan from a tribal country into a capitalist one therefore setting the stage for socialism in the future.

Reminds me a lot of Second Internationale bullshit TBH.


Forgot to add that it all comes down to Hegelian teleology, "the real is rational", and the idea that "all the bloodshed was for the good" in the end.


kinda funny since zizek is totally against the idea of ascribing a value to the unfolding of events, while keeping with the hegelian idealism

zizek is seriously contradicted, and idk if it's because he actually doesn't realize, or if he wants to keep some commercial success or popularity, or what

actually on the point of zizek's idealism, he calls himself both a materialist, a german idealist, and a dialectical materialist. I havent read Less Than Nothing so i can't say he never fully explains this, but in Incontinence of the Void he brings up materialism for a second, and goes off into some other tangent while not explaining how he's actually materialist after all.


He wants to have his cake and eat it too, as you said, he wants all of the Hegel without actually having the Hegelanism.


File: 1655879959782.png (38.54 KB, 536x200, ClipboardImage.png)


He's either lurking or there's a crossposter here.


Haz is a retard. I hope he sees this


Oh he absolutely posts on here sans nom.


File: 1655880373250.png (162.76 KB, 667x528, 1641152943041.png)

literally who?



1. Vulva "hole"
2. Skene gland no. 1 "hole"
3. Skene gland no. 2 "hole"
4. Bartholin's gland no 1. "hole"
5. Bartholin's gland no 2. "hole"
6. Urethra "hole"
7. Bladder "hole"
8. Vagina "hole"
9. Cervix "hole"
10. Ovary no.1 "hole"
11. Ovary no.2 "hole"
12. Anus "hole"


Link? I don't see that tweet anywhere.


File: 1655880974603.png (302.9 KB, 476x598, 45349859837598345.png)

Apologize Haz


>Chomsky has a better take on this than Zizek


Bizarro World


>to the point where people would call themselves Zizekian-Leninists?
that was muke and no one else


So his overall point is to make some independent NATO or be sucked into two competing spheres from Russia and America? Okay I guess…


I've asked this before but I forgot the answer. Why do Communists support Russia again? Is it only because they're Anti-West? Far right support Russia for the same reason and Putin is obviously not pushing for Communism so why support them so strongly?


Not supporting NATO or the crypto-fascist Ukrainian state isn't supporting Russia.


for the ones that support russia, it's "multipolarity"
it's just lesser-evilism or accelerating the contradictions, but for twitter cheerleading


What I've seen from Communists seem to be support but let's say you're right then if what Zizek is saying is true why would his position be wrong? Do we really want Russia controlling food production or really gaining any more power?


File: 1655883254142.png (32.21 KB, 485x156, haz.png)


communism is when you do special operations, the more special operations you do the more communist you are


>Do we really want Russia controlling food production or really gaining any more power?
In opposite to what? The west controlling food production?


>Do we really want Russia controlling food production or really gaining any more power?
Do you think the US or EU is a force for good? That really decides where you will come down on this question. I personally think Russia wouldn't do worse than the US/EU already does. And competition between blocs is likely to be to the benefit of those on the fringes (multi-polarity).

The other aspect of this is that even if I thought that Russia gaining control over Ukrainian food production would be some massive negative, I think that the Western intervention will have knock-on effects that are far worse than just letting Russia have the win. See Syria, Iraq, and Libya for recent examples. Funding and arming far right nationalist groups is not going to end well for European liberals.


Yes. I think if I asked which would be more stable everyone would agree the West.


>The second contradiction is the contradiction among the various financial groups and imperialist Powers in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for foreign territory. Imperialism is the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, the frenzied struggle for monopolist possession of these sources, the struggle for a re-division of the already divided world, a struggle waged with particular fury by new financial groups and Powers seeking a "place in the sun" against the old groups and Powers, which cling tenaciously to what they have seized. This frenzied struggle among the various groups of capitalists is notable in that it includes as an inevitable element imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign territory. This circumstance, in its turn, is notable in that it leads to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general, to the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical necessity of this revolution.
After the Cold War, there has only been one world superpower in the USA. This means that all other powers from capitalists to socialists had to compromise, such as China and Vietnam opening markets, Cuba and the DPRK suffering large food shortage, etc.
With the growth of opposing capitalists, the forces of the USA will no longer be spent entirely on maintaining imperialism and crushing socialism. Rather, opposing imperialists will antagonize each other, giving rise to certain potential for revolution and perhaps even giving the chance for socialist countries opportunistic short-term alliances with capitalist countries in antagonism with a country that they are at odds with. Kinda like how Lenin managed the antagonisms between the Entente and Germany while both sides were trampling on Russia during WWI after Brest-Litovsk and managed to preserve the revolution thanks to it.


Recent history prove otherwise


I'm guessing you are young. I remember the "stability" in the '90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union.


What makes you think the USA wouldn't just coup the first chance they get and take control. It's risky but it's what we do best. Much preferable to leaving the world in the hands of Putin or any other country.


What are you referring to?


>Reminds me a lot of Second Internationale bullshit TBH.
How does it remind you of the Second International? I ask because the most common Original Sin theory that supposedly explains the Second International's failure to oppose WWI comes from their lack of Hegelian philosophy. Seeing it argued the other way just confirms my view that studying Hegel is neither beneficial nor harmful, just a complete waste of time.


You really think the world will be more stable in the hands of a single dictator in an Anti-West country who already threatened to shut off all support to the west and send nuclear bombs? That will be more stable for us in the west??????




Why did they put sanctions?


I like this fantasy where Putin plans to conquer the entire world but it started with a small portion of Ukraine. His ambitions are to take over the world!!! Lol.


>You really think the world will be more stable
I said nothing about "stability". If you want "stability" you should be for eliminating democracy itself.

What stability was there in invading Iraq? Or funding and supporting Islamist groups in Syria and Libya? Or constantly pushing NATO east instead of coming to an arrangement with Russia? The West has never ever stood for stability. They are the primary driver of division and chaos in the world as weapons against their enemies.


I think at least he wants Russia to be what it used to be but I don't doubt he would like to take control of the world if he could. Don't you? Why wouldn't you? Makes it much more stable for you if you control everything.


Irrelevant tangent


>What stability was there in invading Iraq? Or funding and supporting Islamist groups in Syria and Libya? Or constantly pushing NATO east instead of coming to an arrangement with Russia? The West has never ever stood for stability.

The stability in these things are for us in the west not for them. We go to war for profit and to stop anyone who threatens our control of the world. Both of those are stability for us in the West.


Putin can dream whatever he wants. Russia doesn't have the economic ability or demographic potential to support some global empire. A vast portion of the military material the Soviet Union left as an inheritance to Russia is being destroyed to make some minor territorial gains.



You don't need economic ability to control the entire world. You just need power.


>The stability in these things are for us in the west not for them.
Right, so you are just a Western chauvinist. Marxism at its core is internationalist. I would gladly see my country abased if it meant the victory of communism.


Although all of this is irrelevant everyone knows what I said is true and giving power to someone who is Anti-West is not good for the west lol.


Your beliefs are irrelevant as to whether or not the West strives for stability which is what we are talking about. Our operations in the middle east are to keep things stable so it doesn't come back on us


Economic is the basis of power. Russia can only afford fighting a country with 1/3rd the population because of all the left-over Soviet military material. They have (or had) thousands of T-72s but only a handful of modern T-14 Armata tanks.

America is the dominant military power because of their economic might.


You don't need economics to gain power though. We aren't talking about running through a country with tanks. The US has done full scale coups which implemented US controlled dictators for $5000


>Our operations in the middle east are to keep things stable so it doesn't come back on us
Except it did? Islamic terrorism is the result of the material conditions created by Western military intervention and ideology from Western ally Saudi Arabia.

The West lurches from crisis to crisis because it has lost the ability for long term planning due to focusing on quick profits and electoral populism.


So how does Ukraine matter then? Why didn't Putin just keep up the charade and take the $5000 from the West for Russian gas and use it to fund coups?

Ukraine can only matter if you think it will be a net economic benefit to Russia.


I think they're smarter than you think


He had followers…


I didn't say every country could be easily couped with $5000 I'm saying it's not about military force in our days. There are many other ways to gain power and control. Behind the scene kinda stuff


Can you fucking faggots take your e-celeb bullshit back to the e-celeb containment thread.


>There are many other ways to gain power and control. Behind the scene kinda stuff
Which all comes down to economics. You need the economic power to buy off the local capitalist elite. And again how does Ukraine matter to that? Putin had far more influence by funding rightwing and anti-US groups in the West before the recent sanctions cut off most of that money and Russia state media access.


>There are many other ways to gain power and control. Behind the scene kinda stuff
Which all comes down to economics. You need the economic power to buy off the local capitalist elite.

Not really. You seen US politicians selling out for $500. It's not that hard to take control. Power, blackmail, coups, paramilitary groups. etc etc. You don't need 5000 tanks to take control of countries. Russia already has control of many countries and he didn't need war to get them


I'd rather have putin, at least he's a sane bourgie and not totally deranged
no, and that's why it would be better
it's good for the west since any de-stabilization is de-stabilization of the bourgeois governments


>it's good for the west since any de-stabilization is de-stabilization of the bourgeois governments

So you admit it's worse for stability you just prefer less stability. Thanks for agreeing with me.


And again, what does that have to do with Ukraine? Putin could do all those things without Ukraine, and in fact it was easier for him.

I'm done. Go back to reddit.


The other anon is pointing out that the West creates chaos. Just because you don't experience it, doesn't mean it doesn't.

You're implying that Putin is creating chaos. That is not the case.


He tried many times and failed. This was last resort.


The chaos the West creates is for the benefit of the West.


You really are an odious little bougie bootlick. I hope the MIC grinds you into dust.


What I'm saying is objective fact. You can be an accelerationist and want chaos in the West but we don't live longs as humans and I don't want to live like "The Road" for the few decades I have left so I prefer it stays stable.


Yeah. That's what they did in Ukraine and Russia. But the benefit it brings to the west isn't stability, it is econonic profit to the bourgeoisie.


why do you sound pissy lol. We do, in fact, agree on the mechanics of the situation.
not everything has to be some argument
but ig you're some lib who found ur way here huh?
are you the one asking about the naxalites?


I hope you live your last decade in the gutter as the global proletariat strips your country as reparations.


Stability is what the bourgeoisie wants. If money is worthless than they have nothing. Putin wants chaos in the West


I apologize. I was prepared for a bunch of retards to say actually Putin controlling food would be better for the west.


No, you are wrong on both claims. The bourgeoisie don't want stability first and foremost. They want profit.
And Putin does not want chaos in the west. Where did you get this silly idea?


Won't happen because the US has bases in every country and the combination of our military power and the EU/NATO make it so we can never be touched by anyone including Putin.


Really sad read. I've defended a lot of shit positions by Zizek over the years, but this one is rough. I still consider him a great philosopher, but his geopolitics have always been sort of iffy.


File: 1655886211217.jpg (335.2 KB, 1417x1395, 1654731229313.jpg)

People still take him seriously after he endorsed Trump?


What good is profit is money becomes worthless? All those numbers in the bank account mean nothing when money is worthless. No one will work for you when money is worthless. Pure chaos. People with pitchforks on the front lawn not good for bourgeoisie. Stability is what they want. Money stable. Continue to work etc etc.


He never did any such thing, you imbecile.


The US is goose stepping towards civil breakdown if not civil war. All that military power will be turned inward.


>And Putin does not want chaos in the west. Where did you get this silly idea?
Online bots and hackers? You think that was just a hobby for civilians Russians


Just ideologybrain retardation that people have been saying for a hundred years. It's not happening.


oh sorry for the misunderstanding, we do still disagree on the value aspect. Yes it would be destabilizing, and destabilizing would be good. Putin controlling the food would be good for the west, since communist revolution would be good for the west, and burgoids rapidly proletarianizing would raise the chances of this


Neither party can just lose an election gracefully now. At the very least I think the US will pull a France and end up in such chaos that they'll need to do a 2nd US republic.


>all these accelerationists
I remember when they said that capitalism or at least neo liberalism is done after 2008 financial crisis. Both of them are still the dominant ideology in the west.


Why would money be useless with instability. What is the precedent for this fantasy future you're inagjnin Putin is capable of enforcing?
What? What are you talking about? Online bots gave you the idea that Putin wants instability in the west?


No offense but I wonder how many people on here would be willing to stick their principles when war, poverty, and chaos was on our doorstep. Starvation, lack of water, death, loss of resources. It's easy to say you want to better the world but once you actually have to live like that for the short time you live on earth you'll likely change your mind.


Even the neoliberals are wringing their hands over the loss of confidence in neoliberalism. Another major depression or even just stagflation and another ideology will have to replace it.


Did you forget the 1960's/1970s? JFK being shot. Political shootings on the daily. The Weather Underground. We have now is nothing. People always say the sky is falling for the tamest shit


Just accept you are a fascist.


well i think once i get to death, i wont be worried about loss of resources anymore, but thank you for considering all angles


Why would there be those things? There are certain things that are in motion that you can't stop. If starvation is coming then its coming. No amount of shilling for NATO will stop it.


You know economy crashes during instability? If it was a serious crisis it's likely to be worse than anything we've seen in our entire history.

>What? What are you talking about? Online bots gave you the idea that Putin wants instability in the west?

Why are you debating this? I thought this was well known and a thing praised by supporters of Russia? I think you are just arguing to argue.


That's exactly what I'm talking about? Keynesian economics was replaced by neoliberalism. Now neoliberalism is in crisis and will be replaced by something else even if it is still capitalism.


>You know economy crashes during instability?
LOL where did you get this silly idea?
>I thought this was well known and a thing praised by supporters of Russia?
Not at all. Again, where did you get this idea?


I'm actually a socialist I just don't think revolution is going to help anything. Just make our lives worse.
You are what 24 now? Are you ready to throw your entire life away so the next generation can be happy? Call me selfish but I'd rather not.


I concede. When the US is ready to collapse the dollar will actually be worth more. You win


File: 1655887086468.png (41.8 KB, 436x264, sergey.png)


Instability does no have to equal Mad Max. What a weird conclusion you arrived at.
>I'm actually a socialist
A profoundly unread one, that has never organized a day in their life. I don't think the term "socialist" even applies to be honest.


>taking the Hegel pill will always lead you to supporting Western imperialism in some form
I'd just say "so much the worse for 'imperialism' as a concept," if it can't survive a reading of Hegel, but this isn't even true. Losurdo, Lukacs, Ilyenkov, and Lenin all had some appreciation for Hegel, and I'm not sure if you want to condemn all of them as "imperialists."

Virtually all Marxist thinkers of value have regarded Hegel at least as a serious opponent, and that still requires reading and comprehending Hegel. I don't define myself as a Hegelian, but you aren't getting anywhere without seriously tackling his views.

Anyway, the worst thing about Zizek's shit Guardian article is that it provides yet another excuse here for people not to read anything, Zizek, Lacan, Hegel or otherwise. Zizek wrote an article last year for Jacobin that was almost as awful, driven by his concerns over climate change, and this one also seems partially driven by the same concerns. I was disappointed by that article and the current one, but I'd still recommend reading his early work and some of his later work.

>Seeing it argued the other way just confirms my view that studying Hegel is neither beneficial nor harmful, just a complete waste of time.
You're posting on /leftypol/, so completely wasting your time can't bother you too much. At least with Hegel you'll understand where Marx, Engels and many other Marxists are coming from better.

It is true that the Second International had a fairly weak understanding of Hegel, however. Their understanding was generally through others, mainly Engels (much of Marx's philosophical work wasn't published until later) and Plekhanov. At the time, it was revisionists like Bernstein that had the greatest antagonism toward Hegel, although Orthodox Marxism overall had a vulgar "scientific" orientation. The figures and groups closest to Engels and Plekhanov (including the Bolsheviks themselves) were the more "Hegelian" at the time, relatively speaking.


You are naive if you think the US collapsing doesn't mean the world collapses. Do you think that's just going to be another Tuesday?
>A profoundly unread one, that has never organized a day in their life. I don't think the term "socialist" even applies to be honest.
I think I'm likely the only real and serious socialist on this entire website.


>I think I'm likely the only real and serious socialist on this entire website.


>muh essence


Why would the US collapsing mean the world collapses too? Why do you take this a self evident truth? I don't see why your claim is necessarily true at all. Explain how you came to this conclusion.
>I think I'm likely the only real and serious socialist on this entire website.
You made me laugh, surely you're joking.


>radlib "critique" of zizek



>You made me laugh, surely you're joking.

Not joking although maybe a bit hyperbolic. Maybe 3% of the website are real and serious socialists. The majority of socialists think they're serious. They read theory, they debate on imageboards, they make twitterposts but they wouldn't dirty their shoes for socialism. It's a fashion statement and time waster. Worldbuilding and fanfiction. Now there are some very few socialists who are serious about it and are actually dedicating time in their life towards real life organizing not just yaas queen marches but actually trying to unionize companies and so forth. Those people are very very rare. I think I'm more serious and a real socialist because I actually care about what can feasibly change society not what seems like it makes sense in a fanfiction post. Feasibility is not of interest to most socialists when it's the most important thing because what is feasible is what will happen. People who care about feasibility are the ones who actually change things.


I've theorised for some time that he got too comfortable with his celebrity lifestyle. As soon as he got cancelled he started turning into a lib to regain favour.


I just want to say one thing.

Literally every fucking member of the intelligentsia that participated in the regime change from socialism to capitalism was and always will be suspect, no matter how "leftist" they proclaim themselves to be. No exceptions.

If you participated in bringing down socialism, you will always be the enemy of the working class. No matter how you rationalize this shit to yourself. People died because of you. Working people.


>Losurdo, Lukacs, Ilyenkov, and Lenin all had some appreciation for Hegel,
None of them were dogmatic Hegelians who took Hegel's logic to its final conclusions.


Nobody here was even alive when socialism fell.


I doubt you do any of the things you say "real socialists" do. Feasibility is a foolish tangent. It has nothing to do with our discussion. It is also not a thing that people who organize are concerned with because what is feasible is limited to the actions that can be taken. Orgs don't plan unfeasible things because they start with what they have. You're engaging in the same fantasy world building you claim to be exempt of. It is entirely obvious that you don't do organizing that you demand others do.
>what is feasible is what will happen.
Nor do you do any reading whatsoever.

You're hardly a socialist and I am suspicious of your intentions here in this board. I suspect you know you aren't a socialist but are pretending to be one for nefarious purposes.


i mean…. hegel's logic taken to its conclusions would mean the undoing of hegel
which is what we see
though maybe its more fair to say they take the progressive and novel aspect of hegel and take that to its conclusions, rather being stuck as hegelians

anyways i just find it pretty funny any time someone talks about "X person was a hegelian" - "No, they went beyond hegel!" cause like that's the point


> because they start with what they have.
That's feasibility though? I don't get what you're saying. These people don't go "oh socialism will come when the entire US collapses" and then go back to video games. They sweat to make socialism happen. They sweat to give power to the people now. Collapse doesn't even enter there mind. It's the now they care. How do change things now. That's feasible. That's feasibility. Doing nothing but quoting theory and saying worldwide revolution will come soon is not feasibility. That's fanfiction.


don't forget he also has a million similarly shitty articles on philosophysalon

i think it's just his hustle tbh


To add this idea of we don't need feasibility is so retarded. Everyone acts like not only is worldwide revolution coming it's coming with my specific brand of fringe extreme ideology. And they don't think. They know. The US is collapsing and Anarchism WILL happen. The US is collapsing and Marxist-Leninism will happen. The US is collapsing and fascism will happen. The US is collapsing and the theocracy will happen.

Every retard points to the flaws in our current society and act like that's factual proof that the collapse will come soon and bring my utopia. It's really retarded thinking


literally no one says that
more proof you're as internet psyoped as you claim everyone else is, and are not in fact serious


>None of them were dogmatic Hegelians who took Hegel's logic to its final conclusions.
No, but, in a sense, you do have to drive Hegel's logic to the very end to arrive at a "Hegelian" Marxism worthy of either name. That doesn't mean you just sit around with this moment of ultimate "dialectical suspense," if it can be called that. This moment, by itself, is basically ambiguous. This ambiguity is even captured by his infamous "what is actual is what is rational, and what is rational is what is actual," and why Hegelianism was not able to serve as state ideology for long after Hegel's death. Generally, Marxists sympathetic to Hegel have appreciation for such a moment, even though its function is mainly instrumental (rather than ontological) for Marxists.


>No offense but I wonder how many people on here would be willing to stick their principles when war, poverty, and chaos was on our doorstep.
I think you'd be surprised.


The ONLY person claiming that instability in the west means Mad Max and also world collapse, is YOU. Are you schizophrenic? A fed? A bot? All of the above?


What? I've spend god how many hours of my lifes talking to socialist's and that's the most common line when talking about how socialism will actually come about in the future.


File: 1655889806490.jpg (247.97 KB, 1233x1507, 1650610868582.jpg)

For fucking years I was attacked on /leftypol/ for critiquing Žižek, I guess I'm fucking vindicated now that y'all recognize your golden boy calls for a strengthening of NATO and calls Chinese Communists "oriental despots".

The funny thing is, Žižek never hid his stances!? He always was an outspoken anti-communist liberal. It was /leftypol/ that made some sort of meme out of him, le funny Slovenian sniff man who hides his powerlevel.

As for the rest of his work, I rest my case this way - the "Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis" was a grift of a few Slovenian dissident professors to gain traction amongst an American audience, especially Californians (by touring California like a band Žižek started his career In the early 90s). There is an international initiative by actual Slovenian psychoanalyst Nina Krajnik to expose them for fraud and plagiarism. Not a far-fetched attempt, considering that Žižek is known for writing works that have nothing to do with title and don't have footnotes.

>dude, he has a fucking Stalin portrait in his apartment! I saw that in the Vice clip!

>ah, he ran for the liberal party dialectically, just like Laibach!
>he BTFO'ed feminism by saying he can't jerk off to feminists in the ultra-right Swiss newspaper NZZ. Based!
>have you seen his analysis of Kung Fu Panda?
>AKSHUALLY the opposite is true… (this is dialectics)
>my good neocon friends like Peter Sloterdijk
Get fucked, cucks. There needs to be a special military operation to remove all the Eastern European "dissident philosophers" grifting amongst young Westerners.


That post isn't about Mad Max. It's just saying these fringe ideologies rely on collapse for their system to take power. As long as the US and the west are stable socialism will never happen in them. They need societal collapse and they say this. I guarantee I can get you to admit in this less than three posts.


Could you point to a communist state that has come about due to societal collapse?
>I guarantee I can get you to admit in this less than three posts.
I doubt it. Feel free to try.
Your confidence in your sophistry is hilarious because you've shown to have no idea what you're talking about.

Next you'll say that socialists want the US to lose hegemony and that means societal collapse of the entire world and somehow this isn't unhinged fantasy worldbuilding.


>Could you point to a communist state that has come about due to societal collapse?
Maybe we are misunderstanding terms. I don't mean apocalypse when I say societal collapse I think I'm using the term wrong I mean a destruction of the current political system. Societal collapse in the US would mean the collapse of the idea of the President, Congress, Constitution etc. and a new form of political system/government brought in.
>I doubt it. Feel free to try.
Well explain how you see feasibly see socialism coming to the US and the west.


>he BTFO'ed feminism by saying he can't jerk off to feminists in the ultra-right Swiss newspaper NZZ. Based!
Really? Source?


Zizek in Manhattan: An intellectual charlatan masquerading as “left”
Bill Van Auken, Adam Haig
12 November 2010


I'm partial to
>He's only doing it to insert Assange's persecution into the Ukraine narrative

It *is* really weird how that shows up in the article apropos of nothing.

Also why would he just brand himself a traitor this publicly over Ukraine. He has to know that this war is just a pretext and that Ukraine wont win nor hold no matter how much support NATO gives it. In a few months the propaganda will be talking about other proxy conflicts and China and no one will give a shit about Ukraine.

So why die on this hill? Even if he was going to completely cash out… it makes no sense to do a full throated apologia of NATO and killing all his credibility instantly, rather than being the dissident leftist that can launder US state department propaganda through "anti-tankie" rhetoric.


>I think I'm using the term wrong
No shit. It would happen less if you knew what you were talking about.
>Societal collapse in the US would mean the collapse of the idea
Bruh, you're a liberal. Please for the love of God, READ.
>Well explain how you see feasibly see socialism coming to the US and the west.
<please engage in fantasy worldbuilding
Fuck off lol.


Lol got a W in one post. It would have been less embarrassing if you stopped responding.


Sure you did, buddy. Nice work!


Thank you


I don't know if I've ever been a huge Zizek defender, but I started having serious doubts around the debate with Jordan Peterson. He was supposed to be defending Marxism, but just straight up called the entire history of the eastern bloc one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history.


For anyone else reading I just want to point how hilarious this is. He knew he was caught and went straight to adhom after an hour and a half of good conversation. I said three posts was all I needed and he went full adhom salty retard on the first post. Good stuff


>act like a retard
>get called a retard
>how could this happen


I asked two basic questions and we've been having a good conversation for 2 hours. Why adhom now? Why not just answer the questions?


not me
there is no way to advance this "discussion", you think Congress disappearing is collapse
Nothing about your worldview makes any sense to anyone with basic education
as the other guy said, read


You don't think the USA and it's government not existing anymore doesn't count as collapse of the system? What are you smoking?


governments change all the time
do you legit have brain damage, is this the advanced stage of liberalism?


You've done nothing but dodge questions.

You have denounced the idea of fantasy world building but then you demand I do it, it makes no sense and therefore my answer was appropriate.

You're not a good sophist at all. As I said before, I doubt you consider yourself a socialist. I doubt you are so confident in your ignorance. It is evident that you haven't done even the basic reading, you don't organize either, you've proven to be a liberal and think in liberal terms, so my guess is you're acting in bad faith.

Just shut up and read. Stop being so confident.


So if we got rid of the USA, burned the constitution, no more three branches. Nothing we took over and called it Leftypol you would not consider that the collapse of the United States of America????


How many times are you going to post without answering the questions? I will concede right now if you just answer the questions.


Fuck the definitions.. That doesn't matter. Just explain to me how socialism will come to the US in the future? Basic question. I concede on everything else. Just answer that one basic question.


You have no idea what constitutes a state in the first place.
by socialists taking over
now beat it lib



Why act bad faith? It's childish. Just answer seriously.


just read


He responded multiple times to Peterson after he made absurd claims about the Eastern Bloc that are to the right of liberals and conservatives and straight out consisted of historical revisionisms with "of course, I agree with you, but…"

After Peterson made a caricature out of Marx and the Communist Manifesto by straight out repeating PragerU level mischaracterizations Žižek responded in his "rebuttal" with "of course, you are completely right, but…"

The "but" was always followed up by ramblings on theology.


>I'm guessing that he wasn't writing much about international relations
Yeah, he only talked/wrote about the concept of ideology, how it can be a detriment to someone's thought process etc. He generally kept out of geopolitics back then.


Zizek shits on everything. He shat on Tony Negri for supporting Universal Basic Income, he shat on Prague spring, charity, liberalism, capitalist welfare states, China, whatever. He doesn't really believe in anything, only that he's some kind of a Marxist.


I’ve been calling out zizek since forever btw. Since I learned he literally stood as a Liberal Democrat.

Also proves the thesis that anybody who talks about lacan is basically a pseud and physco analysis when tacked on to leftist thought is bunk.

He’s just popular with hipsters because he does film crit and he name drops a bunch of hifilutin people which makes them feel special.

Hazbate. Which is gonna be funny cos he worships the guy


>I’ve been calling out zizek since forever btw
Holy shit, really? Omg, wow. You're so special. I am now just seeing how great you are. Thank you for telling us this piece of information. What a blessing of a namefag you are. Truly Lenin's heir!!!
Btw your name suits you so well!! Did you know sage means "wise teacher"? I can't wait for your next post.


he's right. pacifism and diplomatic 4d chess the past 8+ years didn't stop russia from committing a genocidal invasion, and yet you have supposed leftist geniuses like chomsky saying "oouhh don't hurt daddy pootin too much just a little booboo and that's it ;3" while cities are turning into rubble with tanks and assault rifle-slinging shock troops patrolling over them for any survivors


don't give it attention


good bait


yeah it's also bait when pootin and his friends rape the soviet union and then turn around and pander to garden variety tankies and you take it like dead-eyed cows, because it's all bait


I liked him for like 2 videos, but then the ideological shit just overflew and I didn't even want to touch his shit since then. Don't even know what's the problem is with him. Can we just ignore the fucker? Let him be forgotten


who are you arguing against


good bait


File: 1655898180966.png (18.35 KB, 600x530, 8d5[1].png)


Zizek has always been on the CIA payroll.


He doesn't need to be paid, he is a dissident of Yugoslavia who had to escape due to staunch anti-communism with a audience of almost entirely Western edgelords and pseuds.

So, he does it for free.


Kek, based


Zizek has always had some interesting ideas while being on theoretically shaky ground. He was always better as something equivalent to a creative writing prompt for theory than an actual source of theory.


Malding philosophy student.

Btw does anyone have that recording of someone from leftypol at a zizek talk referencing a “funny meme they saw on leftypol” when asking him a question ?

It may be long dead now, I think it was like 2015/16 this happened


Probably grifted the westoid leftists with the Stalin pic. That way if someone mentions he got kicked out of his job for non-Marxist writings they can just say it was the dirty Yugoslav revisionists fearing a true communist in their ranks.
Slovene mountain uyghurs are the most pro-western and rich of the Yugoslav nationalities, people should have seen it coming a mile away.


>guys look I am a real leftist because I totally care about the Soviet Union and everything!
Also we should stand with the fascists in Ukraine and support Western intervention against Russia


Also remember those videos he did with Julian Assange but also… David Horowitz? I feel like politics was a lot less depressing and more fun when i was libcucked and liked that sort of thing


File: 1655900054155-0.png (265.92 KB, 673x721, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1655900054155-1.png (598.7 KB, 1073x1173, ClipboardImage.png)

>1. Vulva "hole"
We are very loosely defining the term "hole" here.
>2. Skene gland no. 1 "hole"
>3. Skene gland no. 2 "hole"
>4. Bartholin's gland no 1. "hole"
>5. Bartholin's gland no 2. "hole"
>6. Urethra "hole"
These are all actual holes.
>7. Bladder "hole"
That's the same as the urethra, unless you are counting the opening inside the bladder as separate, in which case there are too many holes to count once your are dealing with internal organs. The bladder alone has two more holes to receive urine from the kidneys. And all of these "holes" (tubes) are smaller than the femoral arteries and veins. Even if we forget about the various digestive organs (hole connecting small and large intestine for example), there's the lymphatic system to consider. And while we're here, what about all the pores on the skin?
>8. Vagina "hole"
>9. Cervix "hole"
>10. Ovary no.1 "hole"
>11. Ovary no.2 "hole"
Same issue with the other internal organs.
>12. Anus "hole"
True, but there are multiple sphincters inside the anus as well.


I've got Sublime Obect of Ideology on my shelf and reading list. Is it still worth it?


>The funny thing is, Žižek never hid his stances!? He always was an outspoken anti-communist liberal. It was /leftypol/ that made some sort of meme out of him, le funny Slovenian sniff man who hides his powerlevel.
Zizek repeatedly called himself a communist. It's not hard for someone to believe that if their exposure to him is the memes and his talks about ideology. As someone else pointed out, he didn't really talk about geopolitics while he the board's love for him was at its height.


Zizek was an anticommunist in 80s and early 90s. He is still a liberal at heart



>So, precisely as a Leftist, my answer to the dilemma "Bomb or not?" is: not yet ENOUGH bombs, and they are TOO LATE. In the last decade, the West followed a Hamlet-like procrastination towards Balkan, and the present bombardment has effectively all the signs of Hamlet's final murderous outburst in which a lot of people unnecessarily die (not only the King, his true target, but also his mother, Laertius, Hamlet himelf…), –because Hamlet acted too late, when the proper moment was already missed.– So the West, in the present intervention which displays all the signs of a violent outburst of impotent aggressivity without a clear political goal, is now paying the price for the years of entertaining illusions that one can make a deal with Milosevic: with the recent hesitations about the ground intervention in Kosovo, the Serbian regime is, under the pretext of war, launching the final assault on Kosovo and purge it of most of the Albanians, cynically accepting bombardments as the price to be paid. When the Western forces repeat all the time that they are not fighting the Serbian people, but only their corrupted regime, they rely on the typically liberal wrong premise that the Serbian people are just victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, manipulated by him. The painful fact is that Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support of the large majority of the population - no, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the bad nationalist spell.

Funny that this is his logic in Serbia, but he can't apply it to Ukraine. Hmm let's see, foolishly thinking they could be negotiated with. It's not just the leaders who are fascists, it's a significant portion of the populace. Hmmm.

>Which is why the protests against bombing from the reformed Communist parties all around Europe, inclusive of PDS, are totally misdirected: these false protesters against the NATO bombardment of Serbia are like the caricaturized pseudo-Leftists who oppose the trial against a drug dealer, claiming that his crime is the result of social pathology of the capitalist system.


This is the wrong framing. What we're finding out is that the West can't always dictate to the lesser countries it relies on for cheap goods, they have to play nice. Sanctions will backfire on the West if these exports are important enough. So the west controlling Russian resources could only come after victory in a war, probably a war that the West is fighting directly, not by proxy. If that sounds horrifying to you then you have to do real diplomacy with Russia, China, and the rest.


>The rightist position is that Ukraine fights for white people, the leftist position is that Ukraine fights for all people (somehow) so the synthesis is a left-right alliance to all support Ukraine, left here meaning liberalism and right here meaning fascists to right liberals; anyway yes we should all love Ukraine
What the actual fuck?


then i hope you're thrown into hell.


Definitely a good read. Dont fall into cancelling philosophers just because you disagree with one of their stances, cuz then you won't give a go at anything


Not everyone lives your "stable" life in your country.
Hah. So you're just a jingoist. Lol. Go and be with your kind. >>>reddit


>And now, I will provoke you


So just another hot take, clout chasing, lolcow?


Zizeks old stuff is good. But he has become a hack recently.



Oops linked the wrong article. This article is from 1999 BTW.


File: 1655904595292.png (197.46 KB, 762x604, Zizekyan platform.png)

>Can someone give me a QRD on Zizekianism?
2016 coomin' at ya


"castro should be forgotten as soon as possible" - zizek, on 'based' RT, btw


Maybe Zizek's brain doesn't work so good anymore. He can make lots of words but not be coherent.


Oh no no no no the absolute state of zizekucks


what is it with funny internet pictures and things nobody has ever said?


>calls Chinese Communists "oriental despots"
That's tru tho.



there's at least one schizo on here that talks like that. Check like two oc threads ago. Fag talked about "ruraloids". Urban scum


his programming is glitching out


Seems like you're the one being a whiny fag tbh


>Urban scum
just say the n word bro


I do. Good times.


Was a fun era of /leftypol/ tbh. At least there was more discussion of philosophy back then


Sounds like an Indian accent, not Slovenian.


it's just Hegel put through the blender of Lacan, it works for what it is I suppose, you don't need to subscribe to every bit of word that comes out of Zizek mouth to get some juice out of his framework.


is this what they call inter-imperialist conflict




I think he's accusing you of having "fantasy world building " because you care about feasibility.


Zizek always was kind of like Mao. He wrote some good leftist philosophy, but you should take everything he says and does in the real world with a massive grain of salt.


He was always fash lol, told you years ago.


File: 1655932021492.png (348.65 KB, 460x515, ClipboardImage.png)



>What makes you think the USA wouldn't just coup the first chance they get and take control. It's risky but it's what we do best. Much preferable to leaving the world in the hands of Putin or any other country.


Russia or China in charge of the world would literally be incapable of handling international geopolitics as badly as the US does, let alone any worse, because the US is able to avoid most of the consequences of what it does.


Pacifism = Tolerance of NATO hegemony


He's one of those "edgy" leftists who criticizes cliches within the left. Which could be good because the left is driven forward by internal disagreements, and occasionally he does achieve that. But over time Žižek just ends up pandering to liberal hegemony more and more in the bid to get liberals to "our" side. He's better thought of as a self-critical and self-conscious liberal, but still a liberal.

Slovenians engaged in their own little ethnic cleansing through legal means. Look up "the erased".


File: 1655941458298.png (5.41 MB, 4096x2160, ClipboardImage.png)

This is a really terrible, neocon tier take. I'm kind of disappointed because I really enjoy his talks. I overlooked the liberalism and pro-NATO stuff in the 90s because 1) I never researched what he really said and 2) everyone can make a mistake. But this is just… bad… it doesn't seem like the outgrowth of anything he talks about, any of his philosophy. Just being the willing organ for the Western war machine. Which he must know is the only reason they publish this crap.
Idk, maybe they blackmailed him.


the full article is somehow worse than the headline. I went in thinking the headline was just typical zizekian bait but no, literal west chauvinist war dog shit inside.


I think the cause of this article might be the two recent public letters in Slovenia on Ukraine war.

The 1st letter opposes NATO expansion and sending more weapons to Ukraine. It is signed by two former presidents of (post-socialist) Slovenia and some based Marxist and lefty academics. One of these presidents was previously the president of the communist party of Slovenia, he's a liberal but presided over the national bourgeoisie project in the 90s. The other has balanced views on Russia (he's "pro-Russian" in the current climate).

The 2nd letter was basically written as a reaction to the 1st, it is pro-NATO and pro-war and is signed by a colorful bunch of people, including both right-wing and liberal compradors, their intelligentsia, and among them Žižek's ex-wife who is also kinda part of the Lacanian circle in Slovenia.

Also, Žižek likes to cry about how he doesn't get published in MSM propaganda outlets, maybe that's another factor driving his pandering in recent years.


Depending on what you mean by "left", if it goes from Nancy Pelosi to Enver Hoxha, the anti-imperialist camp is clearly a small minority in the West. Zizek stomping on them all the fucking time (he even shittalked Cuba) isn't a cliche in the broader left, he singles out anti-imperialists and Leninists and mocks them, even not so explicitely.


I became really suspicious when people like Muke and Bat'ko started to become Zizek shills.


>That's embarrassing. I'm guessing that he wasn't writing much about international relations
The board back then was dominated by anarchists, Bookchinites and left-coms who were worshipped as "the real theory guys". I guess since then a lot of people just grew up or logged off.


Wtf have I just saw? Is Zizek paid by CEOs to write this?!?!


Haz is on maximum copium mode


copium oxide


File: 1655970332570.gif (859.17 KB, 245x150, martystare.gif)

On one hand he's not exactly wrong. I think Haz does have some ways of thinking that are interesting, problem is he comes to whack conclusions.

On the other hand, why the fuck is he looking to Dugin for? Is this for similar reasons he's looking to Heidegger?
What am I looking at? What's the appeal?


Western culture equal liberalism
Eastern culture equals based collectivism


nicollai bombaci is that you


He’s always held this view tbh. You should read what he has to say about “Asian values.” It’s funny to read people defending him on these statements (he’s made them for more than a decade) and see perfectly cromulent left-wing communities have members become 19th century anthros in order to explain why it’s fine that he’s using “Asian” to mean “worse”, or just be in completely denial and at he couldn’t possibly mean that. Zizek helped hammer out the “Western good, Asian bad” axiom into the more comfortable rhetorical authoritarian vs democratic axis.


> The funny thing is, Žižek never hid his stances!? He always was an outspoken anti-communist liberal. It was /leftypol/ that made some sort of meme out of him, le funny Slovenian sniff man who hides his powerlevel.

I challenge that it wasn’t /leftypol/ that did this. Since before there as a /leftypol/, or even a /pol/, Zizek discussions would consistent of people rephrasing his writings and lectures into what they assumed he must be saying, (given he’s a communist, like us) and that was necessary because his rambling and trollish arguments confused the fuck out of people. This article on NATO is probably one of the most concrete things he’s written.


this is why all obscurantists should be thrown out


Haz and his orbiters are unironically the modern equivalent of the weird socialists-with-reactionary-characteristics that went on to form the early nucleus of Italian fascism.


File: 1656023994291-0.png (142.28 KB, 423x863, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1656023994291-1.png (44.37 KB, 500x500, ClipboardImage.png)


I really hate all of you. Zizek is expressing the geopolitics of the (central) europe and it's future, and I'd die in a revolution to seat him as the new europresident.

Embrace the future of the multipolar world. Remember, USSR was a shit economically if you compare it to advanced economies of the GDR or ČSSR. Stronger EU does not necessarily mean 1000 years of counter-revolutions, or what the fuck are those 15ruble posts are trying to suggest. Divided Europe is what will not empower any worker movement. I can't believe that europarlament would get mandate to federalize without standing on stronger democratic principles than current superpowers.

What exactly would be bad about EU becoming more centralized power? It's the only "country" that have actual marxists in the parliament. US is liberal fuckfest, Chinese parliament have out dated view on the free speech and protests.

This is different topic from discussing if Ukraine have/had fascist laws (it does and not even russians care about them)





>What exactly would be bad about EU becoming more centralized power?
<What exactly would be bad about a capitalist organization becoming more centralized power?
Hmm, I wonder, couldn't be the capitalism part being bad.


>tfw Chomsky is better on this issue and Zizek is straight up wrong


I’m not carrying water for Zizek anymore. The “NATO, but not as an arm of the US” is stupid deceit, nothing more.


The fabled "eurocommunism" that is nothing but eurochauvinism.
Next you'll shill for how the US needs to be hegemonic for World Peace.


Finally read the article. He's such a bad writer holy shit. There was literally no point the entire article nothing but gish galloping. I swear to god I've read better posts by King Lear and Grillpilled Schizo on here.

>So while putting Bush on trial is no less illusory than bringing Putin to the Hague tribunal, the minimum to be done by those who oppose Russian invasion of Ukraine is to demand Assange’s immediate release. Ukraine claims it fights for Europe, and Russia claims it fights for the rest of the world against western unipolar hegemony. Both claims should be rejected, and here the difference between right and left enters the stage.


>embracing fascist position because there is no EU wide communist revolution
fucking lefcoms
>The “NATO, but not as an arm of the US” is stupid deceit, nothing more
Why? What is he trying to hide?
>Next you'll shill for how the US needs to be hegemonic for World Peace.
How the fuck did you come to this conclusion? It's (you), the people strongly standing on the new Tzar's side by proclaiming neutrality who enlarges USA's army(thus also political) grip on the europe. If EU would build an army capable of defending all it's countries and counterattack other superpowers, NATO would lose it's meaning and US and EU could isolate from each other.

I might be eurochavunist, as you say. Not sure how is it possible with my strong materialist ideology, but country getting flooded by refugees will affect your political views. Anyway, it's non-argument, you can call anyone chavunist and be technically correct.


File: 1656063853305-0.png (557.73 KB, 720x703, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1656063853305-1.png (180.15 KB, 625x317, ClipboardImage.png)

>More than focus on particular issues (is Russia really just “returning”, and to what?) we should read carefully Putin’s general justification of his claim: “In order to claim some kind of leadership – I am not even talking about global leadership, I mean leadership in any area – any country, any people, any ethnic group should ensure their sovereignty. Because there is no in-between, no intermediate state: either a country is sovereign, or it is a colony, no matter what the colonies are called.”

>The implication of these lines, as one commentator put it, is clear: there are two categories of state: “The sovereign and the conquered. In Putin’s imperial view, Ukraine should fall into the latter category.”

Hilarious what he took away from these words. I saw nothing but praise from Africans and around the world for Putin's statement. You can call it a platitude, or say he's a hypocrite, or whatever, but to think this is literally the meaning he took away. Lololol.



I don't think anyone ITT understands what Zizek's point is in writing these articles. He's not an idiot, read the article closely and you'll find that he's criticizing the hypocrisy of liberals. Anyone who has looked at Zizek's various commentaries over the years should understand this point, but /leftypol/ is illiterate so I'm not at all surprised.


That's such a mind-bogglingly bad faith interpretation of Putin's statement that even if Zizek wrote it just to "le trick liberals" without actually believing it, it reflects poorly on him.



File: 1656065010282.jpg (70.36 KB, 720x709, Žižekian commentary.jpg)


"NATO without the US" is completely impractical mental masturbation that serves as nothing more than an excuse with zero practical means of achieving it.
I'm glad to be hated by an easily decieved retarded liberal. Fuck you.


File: 1656073713078.png (1.77 MB, 1366x768, Untitled-design-4.png)

just saw this new article by Jonathan Cook on MintPressNews, haven't read it yet

A Lemming Leading the Lemmings: Slavoj Zizek and the Terminal Collapse of the Anti-War Left


>double down on NATO and kick out the Americans!
>vote biden and push him left!
And other v.aush-grade takes


Lmao are Haztards defending the EU now?


lol I just read that picture, word for word fascist "third positionism" aimed at repainting capitalism
>independent Europe against American degenerate capitalism and Asiatic Bolshevik Authoritarian Barbarism!
The man is a fat fascist cunt.


a record high of brainworms in this post


Matt Christman has been vindicated once more


Fuck you. Central Europe has never produced anything but the most brutal aristocratic regimes in the world, the most insufferable liberal henchmen for the American empire, and now the most perpetually butthurt meme nations suckling at the EU's teat that I have ever seen. You fags need another stomping to put you in your place.


File: 1656135811018.jpg (194.57 KB, 912x1024, 19020493275.jpg)

Ultras might not like it, but a stronger EU independent from the US is good for multipolarity, which in turn is the best hope for the working class. Don't get all the butthurt at this post, honestly.


Zizek is still better than chapo lol


Can't say Zizek wasn't an important influence to me when I first got here, especially from 2015 to 2017. I remember catching A Pervert's guide to ideology one day late at night (the movie where he analyzes They Live) and it really left me thinking (this was circa 2014 and I had no knowledge of politics/was a generic lib). I think it was one of the reasons I got interested in philosophy and later leftism. Then I found this board, I remember the Zizek generals and all. But everyone was always aware he had some retarded takes.


Solidarity with Comrade Von Der Leyen and austerity.


exactly why I opposed Brexit, strong federal EU is the only hope for freedom from total american control


lololol the EU has spent the last few months loyally lining up behind the USA to sanction Russia and impoverish the proletariat across Europe.


I thought the chapos used to suck Zizek off


I honestly still have a hard time believing he wrote this crap. It checks off all the typical NATO shill boxes.


>a stronger EU independent from the US
Do you think that the US withdrawing from NATO means that Europe and the Us will be pitted against each other? Delusional, nothing would change economically. America should still withdraw from NATO but it doesn't mean much, really.


Pacifism is certainly not the problem its the murder and genocide enjoyers of ukrainian civilians.


saboteur hands wrote this


What about murder and genocide enjoyers of Donbass civilians?


File: 1656242748595.jpg (425.44 KB, 1030x1200, 699445.jpg)

The last sentence bothers me the most

>Ukraine fights for global freedom, inclusive of the freedom of Russians themselves. That’s why the heart of every true Russian patriot beats for Ukraine.

Naive beyond belief. This is an ethnic war. Many Ukrainians already don't care if you are a virtuous anti-war activist, for them you are a russian and thus an enemy.

And it's not like some social media thing. Even TV stations like 24 kanal are pushing this "there are no good russians" narrative. In this worldview there are 3 groups of russians: 1) the ones who actively support the Special War Operation, 2) the passive supporters (people who do nothing, 3) the people who oppose the war, because they know that Ukraine will definitely win (lol) and are affraid that they will be punished. They don't even think russians can have an honest motivation to oppose the war.

Literally, the same narrative like in the nazi "Der Giftpilz" book for children: "There aren't any decent Jews."

What kind of russian patriot would support that?


what does the text in the video say


fuck, i meant picture.


>People always say about us jews, that we always deceive other people. That we lie and cheat. Nothing of that is true. We jews are the most decent people there are.


Can someone explain WHY zizek is doing this? Rather than just saying he's retarded? We know he's not retarded. So what is this? Does someone have a gun to his head? Why would he publish in the Guardian when they wouldn't publish his shit for the last 6 years? What is going on here?


>Can someone explain WHY zizek is doing this? Rather than just saying he's retarded? We know he's not retarded.


He's criticizing liberal hypocrisy.


He tried to 5d chess a pro-Assange message into a major natoid rag but in a true Zizek fashion went off of the deep end trying to be subversive


dismissing him as plain retarded is just silly

his first article seemed like, "at least in the West we have the pretense of freedom, and we must fight for that, versus russian nationalism/materialism, where there is no pretense of freedom", but who cares about the pretense, anyone with a brain knows we don't have actual freedom in the west and things are getting worse and worse, we are ruled by racist fascist neocons.
so how exactly does that argument make sense?

and then in the second article, i don't know i'm not exactly the smartest person, but Putin's explanation of his invasion at least makes sense, and I've never heard anyone in the West engage in it. So according to zizek, putin should just allow the US to put as many missiles/biolabs in ukraine as they want, and if Putin ever retaliates, he's "always wrong" for doing that? i really feel like zizek's entire argument must be going over my head because that doesn't seem to make much sense.


Anon, read the entire article closely and you'll see that he uses NATOid rhetoric to conclude that the typical NATOid positions on the Iraq war or the treatment of Assange is ultimately hypocritical. This is just how he writes his political commentaries.


>this position is hypocritical
<but i'm going to tell people to give it unwavering support, in fact, they're not supporting it enough


I don't like his method of critique either.


>. Even TV stations like 24 kanal are pushing this "there are no good russians" narrative.


File: 1656282908559.png (392.2 KB, 1620x824, wash bullets 1.png)

>America should still withdraw from NATO
why the hell would america withdraw from the very statebuilding apparatus they set up to control europe and destroy communism?


are you suggesting that reading his article and concluding “this doesn’t make sense” is his actual intended strategy writing these articles?


No, the sort of conclusion he's aiming at is something along the lines of "you're a hypocrite because you don't truly want what you desire".


but zizek has said many time things along the line of…

the left needs to be more appealing to offer an alternative to right wing nationalism. and he praises bernie for this. he has even praised aoc although i forget why, and that was another very confusing thing.

so obviously zizek is not an idiot. so why would he offer no compelling argument at all for why we should prefer the west to russian domination, considering the leaders in the west are all about as bad as people can possibly be, what difference does it really make.

zizek, the guy who claims he hates hames joyce for being narcissisticly obtuse, and praises Beckett for his simplicity, zizek is going to, on the precipice of ww3, make these bad arguments like we should prefer the west because of its “universality”? when anyone living in the west could tell you we don’t have that anymore, if we ever did. it doesnt seem characteristic of him to be making such an obscure argument that only 1 or 2 ppl on this entire leftist forum will even attempt to defend. and just saying hes an idiot is also an idiotic criticism, at least explain how someone so thoughtful and genius could be pumping out stuff that even his biggest fans can’t find a way to defend


He's making such arguments because he needs to use the language of a NATOid shill in order to perform his immanent critique.
Obviously, he believes in what he is saying to some extent, but if thats the case then can the same also be said when he when he hangs a Stalin poster over his bed or when he calls himself a Marxist, communist, etc?


This is just how he writes his political commentaries.

could you provide an example? some people may argue his political writing has been more clear until just recently




Talking of Afghanistan


>And why does realizing that Russia had genuine reasons make one the same as a nazi?
because russia is the nazis of our time



Zizek will always be based to me. idk what he's saying half the time though and some of his points are just going to lost on me. and ya know what? that's okay.


just linking/googling zizek articles doesn’t support your argument “this is just how he writes political articles”.


His Occupy Wall Street speech turned me into a commie. Not even ashamed to admit it, it's such a good speech.


is anyone going to make an attempt to explain why he wrote of these guardian articles other than saying "his political writing has always been like this" which it obviously hasn't and that's why people are shocked by the guardian articles and not the stuff he published in RT?


apparently he voiced support for NATO bombing his own country in the 90s, which if true means this isn't really surprising. he rarely writes about international relations

Unique IPs: 116

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]