It's rare to have him answer questions like this moving from topic to topic. This format suits him well. An invisible Oz holding a philosopher captive, forcing him to move on from one societal problem to another. We ought to heed Slavoj and not "mask our lack of ideas with easy moralism"

I think this is Zizek's best video on KZread. Makes great points, especially on Lee Kwan Yu and Berlusconi.

@MrMikkyn

5 жыл бұрын

Lee Kuan Yu, Berlusconi, China, Afghanistan. Everything’s pointing into the direction authoritarian capitalism. And he’s suggesting a more radical left to counter the nationalist right. Its all very interesting

The beginning: they show his own reflection on the screen and he says "Omg I hate that idiot." The funniest of them all.

He somehow fits my imagined image of Socrates. or Homer (the poet)

This was very interesting, great upload. Zizek is intellectually overwhelming at times but his ideas and the way he analyzes everything is absolutely fascinating.

This reminds me of a statement: "Theory and practice are the same in theory, they are just different in practice". The problem is: who & how makes & enforces law. Our nature makes communism unstable - there are enough people (most actually) that succumb to authority, and there are people who want to control others and assume power whenever possible. That is why idealists who fought for communism, were distraught to see their revolutions overtaken tyrants and their colleagues purged.

I actually happen to think the points he is trying to make are always pretty clear….I am not sure why people comment that "there is no content" or "he never makes a point". Really don't.

@shaemcparland6456

9 жыл бұрын

One of his more interesting ideas - to redefine and reestablish a kind of "new communism". Taking back a word that has many negative connotations (not a good idea, he should call it something different - learn a thing or two from the marketing industry). So he doesn't believe in reforming the current system, but how does one practically start from scratch? Form a new left - use pop culture concepts to make conveying complex ideas easier - you need a new "brand" for your political and social revolution. Maybe we call it Zizekism?

@HoRostam

9 жыл бұрын

cause they are cocky and arent paying attention

@MrMikkyn

5 жыл бұрын

Shane McParland That’s really funny that you mention that because in his recent debate with Jordan Peterson, Zizek was asked that very question, why doesn’t he call his philosophy Zizekism? Because Zizek contains original thinking which strays from typical Marxist thought.

this is the most important video on youtube. Everyone should see this, it needs to be broadcast on every channel everywhere.

Having read a few of his books, I think Zizek is a genius. That doesn't mean that he's right. As Oscar Wilde said, it is the easiest thing in the world to be right. Zizek thinks in two ways, major and minor. It is what he says to one side - in the minor mode - which is so insightful and penetrating. He has no answers in the major mode and he recognises he doesn't, But he has so many questions, it's almost bewildering. I would criticise him on account of the fact that he remains too firmly entrenched within the Marxist tradition. In Spain that had already been surpassed with the emergence of anarchism as a major force in the civil war and reconstitution of society. I would like to hear him say more about that, also about the anarchist opposition to Lenin in the Russian Revolution - in Ukraine especially, under the inspiration of Nestor Machno, and, of course, what happened at Kronstadt. Zizek should adopt a larger radical perspective. On the left, of course, but somehow with less bias towards Marxism.

@serioustruth3692

7 жыл бұрын

yeah the anarchists in the Spanish civil war...they didn't want state power and they didn't get it! They handed it to the far right!!! LMAO damn, you cant critique the ZIZ when your argument is Marxism was "surpassed" with the "emergence" of anarchism as a "major force" when it was the Francoists who actually reconstituted the society of Spain and still today it is a haven for reactionary behavior all throughout its society. "In Francoist narrative, authoritarianism had defeated anarchy and overseen the elimination of "agitators", those without God and the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy." Sometimes you need some structure of Hegelian and materialist dialectics and so on and so on, sniff, to keep him grounded. I think the ZIZ covers the major, majorly. Sorry to negate your negation but maybe you need to see the bigger picture.

@josephcandito1538

6 жыл бұрын

He is an entertainer.

@agdgdgwngo

6 жыл бұрын

Agree, even as a fan I just can't work what his actual idea is. Lets say Zizek is a boat that sinks and he and the other survivors wash up on an insland. They elect him leader, what would happen? All I see in these videos are an endless critique of everything but no manifesto

@anarchoskum

6 жыл бұрын

Andrea LF I think you have profoundly misunderstood anarchism, im sorry to say. you seem to be confusing postmodern ideas with modern ideas. for example how can anarchism have a Frederic Jameson? that's besides the point of anarchism, if not entirely outside the purview of anarchist thought. Does anarchism have an aesthetic theory? anarchism is decidedly anti-aesthetic, thus anarchism's connection to no-wave and punk and so on, but and so you won't find an elaborated aesthetic theory in anarchist circles like those of Adorno on the left or Roger Scruton on the right. ultimately I dont think your critique of anarchism, based on its perceived deficits, discredits anarchism as a system of political thought. And in any case anarchism, to me, is something of a supplemental politics, thus the debate of anarchism with and without adjectives. Perhaps read Emma Goldman to see what anarchism without adjectives is about, but for the most part people are anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-commumists, etc etc

@MrMikkyn

5 жыл бұрын

Richard Livermore Maybe that IS what he’s suggesting when he proposes a new type of communism, and a more radical left to counterract the nationalist right. Anarchist seems pretty radical left.

this is a really amazing format!

Where do some of the images in the background come from? That one with the dancing light-figure with the word BUY on its chest is interesting. What is it?

@Marenqo your comment captures my thoughts perfectly! Zizek is not talking about economic policies ( pros vs. cons in terms of economic health), but the social and economic systems which make said policies necessary (politically).

off topic but does anyone know who made the background sounds?

Genius response to our current relationship to temporal and meaningless objects

can someone tell me, what movie they are playing in the background from 8:50 onwards?

@T1Brit Is the Journal of Law and Economics a good enough source? I'll send you a link as a PM.

And so on and so on.

His perspective on things have been a real challenge for my old views. This doesn't mean I just chew up his views. But he is one of the greater minds today, in the likeness of Foucault, Bourdieu, Deleuze etc.

So after seeing quite a few Zizek-videos, I think his philosophy is mainly a critique of capitalism with a human face. This is what he returns to. This is what he develops. This is the sun in the Zizek universe. He's an Oscar Wilde with the elegance of an orangutang.

@ercanpeker

5 жыл бұрын

:D

Loved this thank you

One form of economics, capitalism, HAS been in full blossom for a long time now. This is my major point: that we have seen capitalism quite well in all it's manifestations from the United States, Europe, to China. Communism we saw at THE MOST extreme times in human history, mostly during World War Two, and the chaos left afterwords in the east. This is no way to judge it.

Love him, an absolute mental giant of a man.

3:38 My Got!

Great!

He was exactly correct about technocratic centrists vs national populists. It sounds strangely contemporaneous at 39:00 - 42:00.

His analysis of Italy is a good example of brillant scholarship.

A GENIUS. Nothing more to say

in order to go out of it we need first go the whole way throuogh it

Charity is like a chocolate laxative. I've never made that association before, thank you Mr. Zizek.

@stefankangas Thanks for the intelligent response. Two questions: 1.) Anyone can buy commodities mix them with his or her own labor and produce a more valuable product. No purchase of some other's labor is necessarily required, right? 2.) How can the capitalist simply take her money? First, she must have a valuable intellectual contribution which requires labor coordination. Second, she must offer a competitive wage. Without such contributions, technological advancement is impossible.

preach on bro, preach on

Zizek's analyses are for the most part spot on. Where I strongly disagree with him is on his views surrounding ecology and environmental ethics, and his claim that we need more technological alienation rather than less...how this is a good thing is beyond me, unless he means that we need it to become more alienated so that we can see it for what it is (which I think would be unlikely).

This was a really interesting lecture and dialog. I usually find him irritating, not this time

love this guy

this was excellent

When he refers to technocracy, does anyone know whether he has a specific author in mind?

he's brilliant

A Big Brother for intellectuals!!!

Can I translate this video in Spanish an re upload it? It's a very interesting discussion.

Ziziek's opening lines remind me fiercely of Brian O'Blivion in Videodrome (who was meant as a parody of Marshall McLuhan) :)

46:15 "Groucho Mark authoritarianism ... Berlusconi is something like Groucho Marx in Duck Soup in power. This is our future" LOL! Jesus Christ! Zizek is brilliant.

Turn on closed captions at 29:50

@vproextra3443

6 жыл бұрын

Sausage is retarded! HAHAHA You gotta love the auto-generated subtitles. :D Well spotted.

I agree. But I also think that not only our nature is realized through the systems we live in, but also that those systems are realized through our nature - it goes both ways, so systems will reflect our nature, forever evolving. My argument was that both totalitarian communism and run-away capitalism are a reflection of our nature, which contains some anti-social destructive elements. It is something that not easily fixed, but will probably evolve for the better over time.

As long as the structure of production is not uprooted and there is a group of people who produce the surplus and another who appropriate it, there is no socialism. If private capitalists at the top of the business hierarchy are replaced with state commissars, there is no socialism, because the people who produce the surplus and those who appropriate it are not the same, and class still exists. Class is based on very real and empirical observations.

Like most of Zizek's commentary except the part about catastrophes being responsible for oil creation. The consensus amongst geologists is that the slow and constant accretion of small organisms in shallow seas over millennia deposited in sediments and slowly cooked by earth's internal heat results in petroleum if held at a relatively constant pressure and temperature under anoxic conditions.

I think putting money back into system is crucial. They know that ultimately people have to spend money somewhere. And where do they spend it? Buying commodities sold by those same corporations. I think we should look at this in this way, even the recent bailouts of Greece etc. and all the loans that created the need for bailouts :)

This guy is my new hero for the week. I understand his point. Look at the paper today about Tom Delay saying he is innocent. Just suppose whatever he did was proven to be legal, still, was it ethical?

@Reido2828 As for Social Democracy... yes, it has been tried and very successfully in places like France, Canada, Germany, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, etc. They have implemented very common-sense and strong social safety nets and worker's rights and with GREAT results. Their countries are also freer, happier, healthier, taller, more intelligent, more equal, more peaceful, and more competitive than we are in many ways.

@PostProto How did Zizek get you thinking about Rogers and Faber? He offered no argument against them, only disgust... Or am I missing something?

@charlesdarwin321 Since you only read wikipedia, here are couple of quotes. TRY to understand what they mean. 1. Central banks have the task of executing the monetary policy and often acting independently of the executive. 2. There are several monetary policy tools available to a central bank to expand the money supply of a country: decreasing interest rates by fiat; increasing the monetary base; and decreasing reserve requirements. All have the effect of expanding the money supply.

a brilliant man

One things seems certain: We must change the way we are governed and the way we do business! Democracy we know has become dysfunctional. Darwin's theory of evolution proved that the way forward is through collaboration (symbiosis), not competition, as capitalist would have us believe. Capitalist collaborate when it makes financial sense, but I'd rather see us collaborate, because we have grown into advance human beings... I call it Responsible Co-creation. Saying this, Darwin's theory of evolution had itself become extinct, for it doesn't account for the complexity of consciousness and it can't be accurately applied to social structures. Zizek talk a lot of sense, but his is a constructive debate, not a competition or criticism, as (again) capitalist like to label anything which goes again their values. Capitalism is reaching its end. This is becoming ever more obvious. The question remains - what will replace it?

@nils8584

9 жыл бұрын

The problem with your 'Responsible' Co-creation is that everyone has a different interpretation of what to be responsible for, and for what ends. Every person has it's own desires as to that outcome. The only way for this idea to work is to have ONE idea of what these values are for wich we are supposed to be responsible. This becomes exclusive by it's definition and thereby destroys the "co" in front of your creation. Also, you assume we are advanced human beings? I think our system has advanced, our culture has, but in my pessimistic view I think we are still and maybe forever bound to our petty ego's. desires and in effect our self destructiveness. Humanity will hereby swing like a pendulum, from destruction to creation/chaos to order and vice versa. I think Slavoj knows this and tries to break this pattern trough communism. He doesn't get very specific or solution minded, that's true. But well, at least he helps us become more aware instead of just swinging along with the pendulum.

"[I]n our everyday experience of reality, the "big Other" --the thick symbolic texture of knowledge, expectations, prejudices, and so on --continuously fills the gap of our perception." [Living in the End Time, page 338 of Zizek's latest book] The chances that we can see through our misconceptions in time is very unlikely. Yet it's not necessary to see the world as Zizek's Marxism portrays it, to understand that we need to see through our preconceptions before it's too late. It's difficult

@brchful Great comment. Really, couldn't have said it more clearly myself.

"The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power." - Aneurin Bevan, British Labour Party leader

zizek is brilliant but is his ethical sense applicable today?

@T1Brit You have correctly illustrated my point with your example; there is no legal equality without economic equality; we cannot speak of liberty until we speak of equality. Why would the majority wish to develop laws which are dis-favourable to them; such as in the case of the destitute man versus the wealthy man? Furthermore, why would people favour a legal system which favours property and business when the great masses of people have neither?

@trdi Not the third one, the link doesn't work precisely, scroll down and read the article by NEIL H. BUCHANAN "Financial Fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and Legitimate Economic Policies: Misunderstandings of, and Overreactions to, the Financial Crisis and the Great Recession"

@smaloreno Have you read any of his books, or did you just watched the video?

@Reido2828 Oh wait... if I remember correctly, I think youtube messed up and I accidentally double-posted, so I removed the copy. Hah! it should all be there...

Regarding the housing market crash, he can say 'the system is broken' all day long, and he'll be correct... However he makes no comment on how or why. I'd like to hear him talk about the role of government backed Fanny-Freddie, or loan-seekers' foolish money management leading up to 2008, and enlighten us as to how capitalism is involved there.

@Tougemaster06 The history is rather complicated between right and left. However, I think we should be able to agree that the beginnings of modern libertarianism are found in reactions against monarchies and feudalism - the American and French revolutions immediately come to mind. Those revolutions, even staunch Marxists would admit, were for free market economies and of course count as an advancement over the preceding "epoch." (continued..)

@charlesdarwin321 As for the "as long as the system keeps growing, it doesn't matter" - you are correct. Do I REALLY need to continue with this rebuttal? If the system stops growing... yes?...yes...? Fed is not the enemy here. If there are problems, they are because of the bad monetary policy. However, printing money IS taking debt, because part of the money goes to owners of the Fed. If the economy grows, gov is able to pay back the loan AND interest AND maybe even make some extra. If not...

@charlesdarwin321 Regarding the second part. Banks don't have control over you personally. You are not forced to take loan from a bank if you want to build a house. However if you do, you will have to pay it back with interest. So banks are perfectly fine by not "controlling" anyone or anything. When somebody needs their services, they will make profit. US government can decide that they don't need more money, maybe going into saving mode. However if they do decide they need more money...

slavoj is prophetic...as always!

@trdi Provide a citation specifically for what you are arguing here. That a certain percentage of money goes to the fed, a certain percentage goes to everyone, so you need to be more specific and provide proof. It's precisely that which is fueling growth, and improving people's livelihoods, a problem will certainly arise if growth begins to slow, but that is evident no matter what the system, unless all people's needs are meet.

Therefore the highest stake and challenge that lies ahead of us, most probably beyond our reach, is to change our attitudes, behavior, bad habits towards the others. In other words, this is necessary for us globally to become at the least human and well-cultured. Achieved can it only be after this process from within is effectively accomplished. Facebook was a well-assumed idea aiming at that, but You know, we should create an institution like this in a real world.

Oh my God! I think he`s right!

You appear to have missed Zizek's point completely. He is saying we DO have a choice. However, ultimate "freedom" is not having to make a choice. We are to understand this ideologically via Lacan, in order for emancipation to be at the least bit feasible.

Regardless of which system is used - there will be crises and periods of prosperity. Such is the cyclical nature of things. Anything accumulates mistakes over time that cause a downward turn - once the pieces are sufficiently reshuffled, it springs up again. The problem is not with "capitalism" it's with people's obsession with wealth (which both fueled the bubble and deregulated the financial markets). That can't be solved by a system - this will take generations of upbringing and awareness.

I am not crazy about socialism. Matter of fact I really don't care for it at all but I am enjoying this guys philosophy.

slav's face at 3:30 is priceless

indeed :)

I'd like to see him answer a question about an image of switzerland or denmark.

@Xephon212 Why would it be German, when they are speaking Dutch? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was from the Netherlands?

@T1Brit Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, the state, laws, and agencies are not neutral players; these institutions serve the interest of capitalism as a function of their design. (I'll not argue against the need for a government and laws; I will, however, argue that the state is never a neutral actor, but is rather a tool of class suppression. In the case of the United States, it is a tool of suppression against working people for the benefit of the wealthy.)

35:07 bravo! exactly

1) As a PR Stunt to look good in the eyes of the public 2) to put money back into the system that fuels capitalist profits i know it sounds cynical man, but I buy heavily into that philosophy. Question the motives of these guys, the situation is a lot worse than we think....

@MrGooseberries It is Arafat English, as Slavoj himself says.

@bapyou by the way...I'm perfectly happy with collectivist anarchism, as long as the state isn't telling me I have to be a collectivist. Everything is compatible with anarchism except the state forcibly coercing individuals against their wishes...

That's putting it under that light of psychology. Zizek is say that by punishing "financial criminals" you're doing nothing about the system that creates these activities.

@Reido2828 Look up Social Democracy then. Countries like France, Germany, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc.) have this style of system and it seems to work better than ours in many key ways. Providing ample social safety nets is quite good for people and actually ends up REDUCING risk taken on by entrepreneurs starting their own businesses... if you don't have to worry about food/shelter/medical care/higher education... then you can start a biz w/ less worry.

"I am not afraid to say this." Slavoj Zizek

A fundamental flaw in the philosophy of Zizek is his continued downplaying of colonialism and neo-colonialism. He doesn't seem to know or recognize that neo-colonialism drives all relationships on a global scale -- it's the well from which all contradictions spring. For that reason, he had to 1/2 ass it on the question about Afghanistan (at 31:42). Zizek answer could be the stock answer for just about any imperial country, "we certainly can't leave now because we screwed up things too much."

@jmonroe64 -- It is "the end of capitalism" in the sense that we are realizing that the growth cycle necessary to maintain a capitalist economy is unsustainable. The 3% growth that we needed was easy when Western Civilization was first industrializing/conquering the world, but it is becoming impossible to keep that cycle going without financial manipulation.

@charlesdarwin321 And directly to the 3 points: 1. No, not necessarily growth. And if not growth, it MUST increase debt, doesn't it? What do you think, during last decades has American money printing added more to growth or increasing debt? 2. Fed is also privately owned. Every year the private institution owners pay themselves 6% and return the rest to the budget. So no, Fed "money" is NOT government money. 3. Banks don't need to have the money they loan. This is however too complicate for you

already own what's being given away you see that it is separate from production, it's already produced, so now you can see that it does no extra harm...but actually contains elements of good...because the only element that differs is consumption... you're not the one consuming, you are gifting that to someone else...

@Reido2828 While innovation/tech advancement is admirable and has brought us some very notable rewards... we must also consider its double-edge. Industrialization, mass-society, and super-advanced technologies have presented exponentially-increasing pandora's boxes of wonders, solutions, and yet MORE problems to solve. I think we must be careful in our techno-obsession and lust for endless consumption... as the saying goes-- "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

@bluebettle Yeah I first thought he was a total crazy person. Now I have several of his books and am a big fan. lol

@Reido2828 And yes, lust for power is a problem in ALL utopian systems. Any system which expects humans to be better than they naturally ever have been is a utopian system doomed to failure. Which is why I'm an Anarchist. Anarchist society would prevent humans from having significant wealth/power over and above other people (or creatures).

@IngeniousEpithet A good point that I agree with. Unfortunately the author removed why? Communist. I do agree that centralizing wealth and power is bad business for society as a whole and that is why communism fails and capitalism/corporatism like in America fails to. I still think we need wealth/incentive because competition is what makes us humans thrive. Rewards for innovation is what makes people innovate at levels way above communists.

as for proof it is about you planning your week rather than enriching a business man or government. “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes it is possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” - Karl Marx.

21:35 whoa

47:30 " i hate that face but that's another problem" :))) perfect !

Slavoj Zizek is the first to point out that communism was "perhaps the most catastrophic happening in all of humanity". Despite this, it's misuse had to do with the times, and the faces behind past communist regimes. Capitalism will follow suit. Just watch. When it does, communism will rise up to the challenge if anarchy doesn't come first.

Does anybody agree with what he says about Italian government, namely Burlesconi as the exemplary figure of future politics? I'd love to hear your opinions...

When did I say that profit-motive is the only motivator for creativity?? I actually believe that the profit-motive PERVERTS true creativity into what can be watered down, built cheaply and sold in mass production. Creativity in the market is not the same as pure artistic/scientific/philosophical/stylistic/musical/idealistic/technological/etc. creativity... it's just a conduit through which pure creativity can make money, usually by compromising itself.

good

Koji kralj

This would have been broadcast on TV channels, but those were busy playing more important Plastic Surgery shows.