For clarification, Žižek literally calls Lenin a radical opportunist in the interview.

@pedopeter4166

2 жыл бұрын

Why be disingenuous?

@electrosonicnebula

2 жыл бұрын

So what? Doesn't mean the video title (aka headline) wasn't misleading. I wonder if the person who wrote it missed the point or if it was essentially clickbait. Either way I think people expect more from this news source.

@weneedcriticalthinking

2 жыл бұрын

@@electrosonicnebula Stalin was FDR freind who won the WW2 and beat fascism. Stalin scared the crap out of the Nazi's and rescued the Jews from concentration death camps.

@weneedcriticalthinking

2 жыл бұрын

Lenin was a visionary and Marxist Leninism is good communism socialism that does not have evil imperlism per se.

@electrosonicnebula

2 жыл бұрын

@@weneedcriticalthinking Not talking about Stalin here, not sure what you're on about.

Jen: * asks question * Zizek, after having talked for literally 15 minutes: "...if I may _slowly_ progress now to your question..." 😂😂

@jakubb9498

2 жыл бұрын

I love it! I have to pause his videos so often to just process his ideas and knowlage.

@Ohana9999

2 жыл бұрын

I mean what did you expect his idol is HEGEL for God's sake😂😂

You cannot listen to this man without some small sense of amusement at all times

@vonwane

2 жыл бұрын

Especially when one's nose is running.

@jimgladwin7018

10 ай бұрын

And the nose seems to be running in perpetuity :) Or - maybe because of what some say - burnt out by coke...?@@vonwane

Before the British came, India resulted in 25% of the world GDP. When the British left, India had 4% of the worlds GDP. Imagine what that does to a billion ppl

@saarangnarayan123

2 жыл бұрын

This is actually slightly simplistic. The 25% figure is based on cotton textiles. There is a serious debate in Indian historiography about the whole deindustrialisation phenomenon under colonialism.

@Riotdrone

2 жыл бұрын

GDP sucks as a measure of people's well being, in fact even 'standard of living' is misleading, people can make more money on paper and have more services 'available' to them but still be struggling and unhappy

@derektorres3092

2 жыл бұрын

@@Riotdrone either way India was messed up by colonial rule in every way. From trillions in potential economic growth done of taken by the British Empire. Then their is the human cost of it all. From the bengal famine to the centuries of cash crop plantation.

@Riotdrone

2 жыл бұрын

@@derektorres3092 100% but i do find the human cost to be more to the point than the sort of capitalist framing of economic success in the world market

@taxsi

2 жыл бұрын

There was definitely the displacement and destruction of local traditional sectors but one dimension of this %4 of global gdp outcome was that the rest of the world (especially industrialized west) developed so much that the global gdp was several times larger than it was so India lagged behind (again blame can be on the British) and their share and prosperity declined both in relative terms and absolute terms.

Engels's nickname amongst the Young Hegelians was "the General" because of his interest in military history.

@jimtroy4380

2 жыл бұрын

True, Marx also was in contact with European military officers who flirted with Communism to the point of volunteering to the Union Army in the American civil war

@stealthy2375

2 жыл бұрын

I thought he was called “the General” because of his service in the 1848 revolution?

People seem to be misunderstanding the term 'opportunist' . in this context, Zizek means it in a good way. Lenin had insight and boldness at the opportune time.

@ff-qf1th

Жыл бұрын

it's just like an ML to get caught up in things like traditional connotations of terms and not appreciate an idea in it's own context

@Ali.Shamsedin

Жыл бұрын

As an ML I totally disagree. We should learn from Lenin's radical opportunism

@williamvance3271

2 ай бұрын

@@Ali.Shamsedin he was a dick, who crushed the working classes in russia and crippled them throughout the rest of the world.

I remember listening to Zizek on the street through an open window while he was speaking when I was in undergrad. What a gem!

@slofty

2 жыл бұрын

Oh wow. Where was this?

Ironically, many Western MLs might be too dazzled by Lenin's praxis to sufficiently adapt it to their situation.

Zizek is GOAT. Perfect combination of humor and knowledge.

@chrisfrank6625

2 жыл бұрын

I just wish he didn't have that annoying speech impediment.

@fortheh

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisfrank6625 I'm used to it now

Forget heinsenberg and escobar, queen victoria is the Michael Jordan of drug dealers.

@Chorismos

Жыл бұрын

I have been saying that for decades.

I really appreciate the patience and open mindedness of the other people on the call. I know it can be a little frustrating when one person seems to take the whole spotlight in what was supposed to be a dialect or a seemingly simple question you expected a shorter answer to, but I believe uninterrupted monologues definitely deserve their places at times if the person has the desire to speak for longer.

@Roeplala

2 жыл бұрын

They knew exactly who they invited. This conversations goes entirely as expected. Very satisfactory.

@Synochra

Жыл бұрын

They have Slavoj Zizek on, you want him to take up space. That's why you invite him.

Need more long form content like this from Žižek please. This video was great. I understand why Chomsky said he has no idea what Zizek believes. I think Zizek's ideas are all told as stories lol and to get a better idea of what he believes he needs to continue telling all of these stories he has pent up. I don't think he will ever give a straight and quick answer but I still find his story telling fascinating. Make Zizek a weekly or monthly segment 😁

@patrickgallagher1161

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. I would love to listen to him in person someday if I could ever get the chance.

@zah936

2 жыл бұрын

why won't he give a straight answer

@farzanamughal5933

Жыл бұрын

@@zah936 He does he just takes a while. He illustrates his points with jokes and stories and distracts himself with tangents sometimes. haha

@JAI_8

Жыл бұрын

@@zah936 Like Herodotus he makes frequent, sometimes long (but it must be stressed almost never pointless) multilevel diversions from a straight path though an argument or explanation. You as an intelligent and engaged listener must pay attention and keep track in your mind of what he’s already said and try to keep a mental image of the overall structure of his argument as he speaks. If you’re looking for easily chantable slogans of the kind the sheep bleat out in Animal Farm (“Four legs good … two legs baaaaaaad!”) you’ll mostly be disappointed. But … nevertheless … sniff sniff pinch nose … listening closely… uuuuhhhh … you will always hear important conclusions.

@SaladBowlz

Жыл бұрын

It's funny because if you listen closely over a his interviews, he's remarkably consistent. He just often goes about telling it in a really roundabout way, and has what seems to me like a strong commitment to embracing the ironic, and contradictory parts of things.

He started to make a point about the opportunity missed during the first years of 90s as the Eastern European communist regimes were collapsing, but do not make clear what was that about.. My guess he was going to say that that relative backwardness of these countries were also opportunities to establish a reformed democratic socialist states or at least social democracies that will stand against neo-liberal economic models created decades of poverty for the working class people of these former communist countries..

If I may now slowly progress to your question... After talking for about 15-20 minutes 🤣.. you just have to love Slavoj 🙌🏻

Clickbait title Lol. He meant opportunist in a positive way.

@user-zi4wx3uw1y

2 жыл бұрын

Opportunist can be either positive or negative

@TigerT242

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-zi4wx3uw1y Opportunist is famously usually coupled with a negative connotations. We don't exist in a vacuum.

@user-zi4wx3uw1y

2 жыл бұрын

@@TigerT242 and the context was that opportunist was being used with a positive connotation

@TigerT242

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-zi4wx3uw1y Yes. Exactly. In the video. But the title was clearly misleading using the pull of Zizek potentially saying something controversial in the Marxist tradition like denouncing Lenin as a opportunist. It played on that. Clearly. It's not that big of a deal - they want people to watch their videos and I'm glad I watched it, but nonetheless it was misleading.

@Fernando-nz3gm

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed opportunist , has a bad rap. A connotation like exploitive. Could be good or bad tho

Wow Zizek is fascinating and there's so much to unpack from the interview. It rings true that in order to understand the Russian Revolution you have to look at the socio-political climate before and during WW!. I will need to listen to Zizek's talk again for key take aways. Thanks Jacobin for bringing the interview to your subscribers.

Does anyone have a source for this letter by Engels Slavoj talks about in the beginning? Sounds like a good read!

@saarangnarayan123

2 жыл бұрын

I think all of Mrx and Engels' letters are online if you know where to look!

@alexandreseidy3577

2 жыл бұрын

maybe it is not, or it might be related but not exactly the one? or maybe he's mixing more than one reference, who knows lol. but this letter has the same gist of what Zizek said. a war throughout Europe, 3 to 10 years of respite and then a new revenge war on France while Russian people overthrow the Tsarism.

@danyalghaznavi6818

2 жыл бұрын

Walter Rodney references this quotation about the coming of war in his" The Russian Revolution- a view from the third world".

@johnwilsonwsws

5 ай бұрын

Below is the famous quote from Engel. I’ve never heard of Engels predicting a second war. (My guess is Zizek is confusing himself.) -- Frederick Engels 1887 Introduction to Borkheim Abstract Written: December 15, 1887; First published: as an Introduction, in S. Borkheim, Zur Erinnerung fur die deutschen Mordspatrioten. 1806-1807, Hottingen-Zurich, 1888. -- And, finally, the only war left for Prussia-Germany to wage will be a world war, a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other’s throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years’ War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of’ trade, industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle. Only one consequence is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class. That is the prospect for the moment when the development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe. And when no alternative is left to you but to strike up the last dance of war - that will be no skin off our noses. The war may push us into the background for a while, it may wrest many a conquered base from our hands. But once you have unleashed the forces you will be unable to restrain, things can take their course: by the end of the tragedy you will be ruined and the victory of the proletariat will either been achieved or else inevitable.

The word “opportunist” has negative connotations, yet Lenin was rightfully talked about in positive terms…was the title clickbait?

@venum17

2 жыл бұрын

The term clickbait, has a negative connotation, but did you enjoy the video?

@vietnamd0820

2 жыл бұрын

@@venum17 I did, yes 😁👍

@pedrofurtado2694

2 жыл бұрын

I think it was. They mislead me, but it is a great video.

@mvk4343

2 жыл бұрын

It's Jacobin, of course they would

@venum17

2 жыл бұрын

@@vietnamd0820 😁

Hi it's the first time I watch a preview from this channel. I really liked it. I'm wandering when you'll post the entire video.

@ethanstump

2 жыл бұрын

members content. it's infuriating, but there's enough channels out there that i don't really care.

@valeriobenedetti7791

Ай бұрын

​@@ethanstumpbruh what kind of leftists are they lmao

@ethanstump

Ай бұрын

@@valeriobenedetti7791 the kind that come from "backgrounds" instead of poverty. eh, personally i'd rather have these then any sort of unaware types. but even then, you get into nonsense about what is more or less empirical when it comes to actually how analyzing the lives of stalin's soldiers actually typifies the day to day ideology of soviet Russia more than any words out of linen's mouth. but then, that's even if you are in the same room as these people, which happens rarely.

Matt Christman has really let himself go.

@408sophon

2 жыл бұрын

Lmao

@willshogren1987

2 жыл бұрын

He's been riding himself pretty hard.

I could listen to him talk about this for hours.

@tmm4461

10 ай бұрын

Bring a raincoat

The revolution must be getting closer if Jacobin Magazine is so worried about Lenin’s legacy that have to have someone on who call him an “opportunist”. - Some of what Zizek didn’t say: 1. At conferences of the Second International in Stuttgart (1907), Copenhagen (1910) and the Basle (1912) resolutions were passed against militarism and imperialism. The 1907 resolution concludes “… In case war should break out anyway, it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to rouse the masses and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.” 2. In August 1914 almost all the sections of the Second International betrayed the working class and voted for war credits for “their” nation. The two who took the most principled stand were the Bolsheviks under Lenin and the Serbian section. -- The opportunistic politics of the DSP and Jacobin Magazine, especially their perspective that workers must remain tied to the capitalist Democratic Party, means they cannot have an honest account of history. Zizek does the same but on a global scale. It is urgent workers, students and youth study the history for themselves and learn its lessons. I recommend starting with the following on the WSWS: War and Revolution: 1914-1917 Nick Beams 10 April 2017

@Mrbarmitsoulo

13 күн бұрын

Zizek is the guy my man The ultimate opportunist, the one who asked for more bombing of Belgrade and spread a lot of propaganda against the Serbs in the 90s. NATO and Europe loved him! That is how he got his ticket to famous Universities of the West that is how he got his first invitations on media conglomerates, spreading their favourite imperialist narrative and a BONUS he is saying it as a "communist ". This guy is going to call Lenin an opportunist?

Wow you guys are now getting sock puppet accounts spamming about Bitcoin huh lol. Holy crap, I am so sick of all the Bitcoin ads and propaganda being flooded into every single video and every space on the internet now.

@RockyPondProductions

2 жыл бұрын

Every single bitcoin spam conversation in comments is the same. Getting annoyed seeing it over and over. 1. Crypto is awesome 2. I don't know, I am skeptical 3. Don't worry XYZ random person will take care of your funds and invest for you 4. Wow I use XYZ random person too, he's great 5. Ok let's all invest, here is his contact info

@leslieroeder8949

2 жыл бұрын

@Stefan Weiss lol

Love this

Please, please address Kronstadt

Zizek looks fried af in the thumbnail

Does anyone know the name of the letter that is mentioned at 2:32?

@addammadd

2 ай бұрын

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/12/15.htm

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the Italian socialists also opposed WW1 which is why Mussolini split from them.

@yaboi98

2 жыл бұрын

kinda... half-assedly because they were trying to follow the Lenin faction of the international. They had a real big debate and almost didnt decided on it, but even after were convinced to oppose the war, they didnt do anything do oppose it and just announce it in name only tldr didnt really do shit to organize war opposition. For more information read about the history of the 4 first congresses of the Comitern

can anyone source that letter of Engels which he mentions?

The biggest problem is in thinking that humanity or life progresses is some deterministic way even in reflexive systems. Physicists and anthropologists long ago ditched the idea. EG: the deterministic and mechanical theory of evolution of civilization didn’t survive contact with New World archeology. All of it was blown apart the evolution of South American cultures.

Lenin himself seemed unfazed by the Cheka killings. On 12 January 1920, while addressing trade union leaders, he said: "We did not hesitate to shoot thousands of people, and we shall not hesitate, and we shall save the country". Opportunist?

@jussim.konttinen4981

2 жыл бұрын

Thousands of workers. Meanwhile Aleksei Brusilov was alive and well in Moscow.

@tszirmay

2 жыл бұрын

@@jussim.konttinen4981 The Iron General who changed his uniform because it was opportunistic to do so. The slime of Politics.

@yaboi98

2 жыл бұрын

Ye okay ? but in this interview Zizek is talking about Lenin b4 and immediately after the revolution from Feb to October... so doesnt really see how your point contradict the interview he gave

@chegue1184

Жыл бұрын

The bolsheviks where fighting the white army until 1922.

One of the many paradoxical things about Lenin is that he both was and wasn't a dogmatic Marxist. When you look at his actions in power and read Marx it's VERY clear as Slavoj said that he deviated a lot from Marxism. But at the same time, Bertrand Russel described Lenin as being sort of the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell, in the sense that Lenin looked at Marx much the same way Cromwell and the puritans looked at the bible, that they took it word for word in the most literal sense and believed it so strongly to be true you could prove something just by showing the chapter and verse. So to Lenin, because Marx apparently wrote that the revolution would start from the most advanced society (which would have been Germany or the UK in Europe at the time) so he viewed the USSR as something of a place holder state for the real communist state. It's hard to imagine a person's reasoning being so ridiculous but the more I've read of how the man lived the more I actually believe it.

@thetumans1394

Жыл бұрын

This is some really good stuff -- would you mind telling me where I could read more?

@jamespuso1627

Жыл бұрын

@@thetumans1394 Lenin's book "The State and Revolution" is a start. There's been a ton written on the guy and he himself wrote a lot so it's hard to come up with a list lol. Bertrand Russell didn't write much about it but talked about it in interviews you can listen to on KZread

@thetumans1394

Жыл бұрын

@@jamespuso1627 I've read S&R, and I found it super useful. I was more meaning on the topic of analysis of Lenin as "overly dogmatic"; the thing you wrote about Lenin viewing the SSR as a place-holder is absolutely fascinating to me.

@DvornyashkaDiaries

Жыл бұрын

@@jamespuso1627 I think reading just one book of Lenin is not going to be enough especially if it's "State and revolution", cause he later dismissed a lot of even his own theories. Point of Lenin is that he was and steal is the most POLITICAL political theorist of all time. He had such great sense of social reality and how it worked, that he would without any problem adapt his theories to it immediately in order for them to be a theoretical support for action. He dissmised utilitarian perspective he made on State and Revolution on the basis of this being essentially a state of one nation dominating the other one (this his view is displayed in his work on national question). He then let New Economic Policy happen, when he understood that it is necessary and made a theoretical basis even for that, arguing that state capitalism is a best way we can move to socialism. He also trashed a lot of revolutionaries for being dogmatics and seeing Marxism as a bunch of biblical dogmas instead of a tool and an a general orienting theory for action. Point of Lenin is that he hated abstract definition of anything, he always strived for concrete truths. So there was no general truth for him. Just concrete analysis of certain situations.

@DimitarBerberu

7 ай бұрын

Lenin was far more influential & long-term successful in the world than Oliver Cromwell (temporarily/locally). Most don't know who is Oliver Cromwell, but Lenin is used as reference for the progress of socialism.

Engel's 1882 report about war in Europe with 10 million dead was indeed the work of a genius and the war in 1914 was mentioned by Zizek without mentioning the role of UK, which played the pivotal role in getting the Serbian murder of the crown prince, whose killer was never known. WW1 was the job of the No1.

You are not sure Zizek is describing himself?

@ff-qf1th

Жыл бұрын

that would be rather self-aggrandizing of him. He's giving Lenin a massive compliment here

This better be good..

it's so weird how an ideology whose greatest revolutions came during ww1 and ww2 looks at "opportunist" as a bad word

in a backward society, contradictions are more obvious, the legitimization of exploitation and the defence mechanisms of the hierarchy are less convoluted, which all contribute to a more clear understanding of the dynamics of the age.

Lenin was a Working Class Hero.

man those predictions by Engels are loco!

@2x94Z

Жыл бұрын

Marx used to play the stock market, and was decent at it apparently. Maybe they had a crystal ball?

Clickbait title. Don't stoop that low.

@thefausty5195

2 жыл бұрын

OMG, One of the Major Gigachads of the Breadtube, What a rare site, Greetings Comrade YUGOPNIK.

It's like ASMR for me to hear Žižek go off.

unrelated to this but since he mentioned him, slavoj is holding up to the test of time much better than chomsky, chomsky's takes are hard to listen to these days......

@MistaZULE

2 жыл бұрын

Also quite literally hard to listen to. I dont want to be agist (sp?), but he takes 2 minutes for each sentence. I lose track of the subject before he finishes his thought.

@ithemba

2 жыл бұрын

@@MistaZULE geez, people: check your weird commodified way of talking and thinking about scholars whose political commentary you consume. Chomsky is 93 years old. He is a human being and not some trained monkey to cater to our tastes. His enormous pensum of public appearances literally is only testament of his deep dread about the future of humankind because of climate change - he very literally gives his last breaths on this earth to this cause.

@MistaZULE

2 жыл бұрын

@@ithemba Sure, but am I not allowed to make statements based on how I percieve him? Yes he's a great scholar, but at some point if his words become impossible to understand due to his advanced age then I will not listen to his speaking tours. The same can be said of Slavoj. The guy takes 15 minutes to provide context to answer a simple question. Every scholar has quirks, and I believe Chomsky's advanced age makes him hard to listen to. No commodification involved, he's just old.

@clash5j

2 жыл бұрын

This has always been the problem with Chomsky. He never learned to make his message palatable. He was virtually banned from mainstream social/political/economic commentary in the USA because his message was considered dangerous to the powers that be, but also because he's just not that interesting to listen to. It's not a case of the populace having a short attention span, it's just that he's naturally boring. Ziek talks A LOT, but he never fails to keep the listener engaged.

@caspar_gomez

2 жыл бұрын

@@ithemba it's not so much his manner of speech, I can understand him fine, but I think as you get older the real you comes out. For all of Slavoj's jokes about his own stalinism, Chomsky starting to show his authoritarianism and disdain for the general public. Whereas when Zizek is 92 I think he's going to be cracking dick jokes and reviewing anime

✊🏼✊🏼

Rabbiih … Marx never had a linear thought of successive steps… anyone reads his anthology notebooks figures this out… Also, last thing ever printed in Marx’s life time was the sending Russian edition of the communist Manifesto in which he wrote new preface to the Russian readers addressing the question of revolution inside Russia .. Even Plekhanov pointed to this in his writings

This is a fantastic episode

He is a true genious i am a proud father of him :)

@gohyde

11 ай бұрын

Zizek is you son? Or Lenin?

@anaxe5392

11 ай бұрын

@@gohyde they are brothers :D

The title couldn’t be any more misleading (but this happens in almost every Zizek clip or video on Lenin so you’re the fool if you fell for it)

@electrosonicnebula

2 жыл бұрын

yeah i know what is up with that Jacobin is supposed to be the cream of news organizations

@DripEmpError

2 жыл бұрын

@@electrosonicnebula jacobin is pretty shit tbh, but they occasionally do great stuff and that’s all I need lol

@electrosonicnebula

2 жыл бұрын

@@DripEmpError Compared to what? Intercept and Daily Poster are pretty good. And Bad Faith and Some More News and Democracy Now. Then New York Times and NPR to see what the patriotic left wing is thinking. Anyway the analysis is usually pretty obvious. It's nice when they talk about actual legislation being passed or mix in some history, which this does- Zizek is entertaining although barely intelligible half hte time

No mention of Trotsky? Lenin took Trotskys yheorem of Permanent Revolution based on the 1905 revolution and applied it. Key is the concept of uneven and combined development. Trotsky as a result, along with his followers joined the Bolsheviks and Trotsky gave up on trying to reunite the Mensheviks and the Bolshevks. Not talking about this is a profound flaw.

Interesting discussion, but what is sadly missing here is The concept of transitional demands in a traditional transitional smog the number one slogan was peace near and then to the first world war seems simple and sensible but that was something that the bourgeois state a capitalist state in the imperial constellation could not possibly grant.

10:09 we have to apply the humanitarian intervention to prevent the fall of USA into uncivlized nation, like the Queen says.

The deepest, darkest moment of defeat any leftist can ever go through... reading Hegel 😂

Nice.

I do not need a shower. 😅

7:00... 16:30

Yes Lenin was a "radical opportunist". But he was not an opportunist in the sense he would accuse American (and European ) social democrats , especially the ones that play ball with the Democratic Party, of being. Wakey wakey "Jacobin"/Harringtonites.

I'm not sure what this means. Should we include antivaxxers or reactionary forces in our fight against capitalism?

engels did abandon revolution in his later years

10:25 14:31

And after watching this, I am more convinced than ever that we need a "new Lenin" today in the sense that we need someone to USE Marxism, not cosplay as a Marxist by using the aesthetics and language of Marxism or COOL BOLSHEVIKS OMG, but once again actually PRACTICE Marxism by getting back to the roots of a LIVING and critical scientific framework. Many people nowadays have this reified, concretized, sanitized version of Marxism that belongs in the material and cultural conditions of the 19th or 20th century but definitely not this one. We live in different circumstances. "Marxists" today make the mistake of not seeing Marxism as a set of tools to adapt to the shifting nature of the world around us, but as a kind of religion, a faith of ideals and of martyrs. Maybe it should be called by a different name or something, I don't know lol, but as long as the essence is still there, then it's still Marxism, right? Or am I wrong? Someone tell me.

@Ali.Shamsedin

8 ай бұрын

Late reply but yes, we have to be pragmatic and reach people in whatever way works to reach them. Marxism is a set of tools and we shouldn't be dogmatic. We should realize where we are right now, which is an extremely backwards capitalism with extreme disunity among the lower class, and so I think our rhetoric has to reflect that and be as anti-fascist as possible while being in language the population can understand. But this isn't an argument for not trying to find the weak point and pushing for overthrow of the capitalist imperial core or capitalist periphery states when the chances arise.

Zizek may have called Lenin an opportunist, but I think he meant he was tactically flexible, not opportunist in the way Socialists use the word. Jacobin wanted to make a clickbait video but the joke is on them; I will click on anything Zizek related because he entertains me so much. I would personally avoid using the word opportunist unless you actually meant it in its original context; a 'Socialist' that is willing to sacrifice principles for personal or career advancement.

Common Jacobin L

He was an oportunist, thats all.

This man spent the whole interview whattabouting. Not great.

Slavoj Zizek's is admiring Lenin for this and that but forgetting that his agenda turned out to establish state-capitalism. Lenin and the leftist parties were at that time as today run by intellectuals who came from the privileged strata and the higher classes. As an intelligentsia they took on the task to save their "own" country as historical 'agents' for "development" which in their view was statecapitalism. All power to a state apparatus was sold as socialism. The slogan of 1917 "All power to the Soviets" and the struggle for power to the working masses was only an opportunist tactic for something else: elites running a state so the class system of capitalism was not jeopardized. Zizek's idea of a great future for capitalism with peace and a functioning welfare state is eroding. The bourgeoisie can move the factories and transfer the surplus to countries with lower taxes. The national states will by this have less money for social welfare and be forced to compete against each other in a downward spiral of low taxes and guaranteed state subsidies. The end station means less social welfare and more to the big and semi-big corporations. This development will create huge tensions between the national states or blocks of states. Economic conflicts with a system of sanctions and wars are already introduced to secure their share on the world market. What is important to understand is that the Bolshevik party abandoned power to the workers and popular councils and established a state-capitalist system ruled by a party. This process was established several months before the outbreak of the civil war in the spring 1918. It evolved into a party dictatorship during the civil war and the years to come. [Read the '1918' chapter in the link below.] The concept of all power to a state apparatus automatically incorporated the workers and popular organisations and made them powerless. The new rulers of the means of production were the top party- and state elite as state-capitalists. This was organized by the state institutions Vesenka and Glavki - formally in charge from the end of December 1917. The employees were blocked from having a majority in the boards at the factories and main working places. The Bolshevik party established a system with 'one-man-dictatorship' on the working places - the technical manager - who answered to the state, not to the working population. This explains why the workers and sailors at the Kronstadt naval base in March 1921 were crushed by military units when they rose up for democratic elections to the soviets as they confronted a ruling class upper class which owned the economic surplus through 'their' state. At that time had the Bolshevik party already established a system with appointment from above in the whole society including in the ruling Bolshevik party. Marx did not favour any party dictatorship. However, Marx claimed it was possible to establish what he considered to be "socialism" as state ownership and the beginning to build this presumed socialism through the bourgeois parliaments such as the US Congress and the parliaments in Britain and Holland/Netherlands. Marxists and Bolsheviks support concentrating the main power in a state - a system inherited from the bourgeois French revolution - which was taken over by the social democracy as it was of no threat to capitalism. libcom.org/article/bolsheviks-and-workers-control-state-and-counter-revolution-maurice-brinton

Zizek actually praises Lenin but Jacobin writes the totally out-of-context click-baity headline that he was a "radical opportunist", which certainly has a basic negative connotation that has nothing to do with what Zizek is saying.

@JayFortran

2 жыл бұрын

In this context, neither 'radical', nor 'opportunist' are negative terms

Slavoj: Lenin was a radical opportunist.... and the Left should be too

Je kijkt rond. Je kijkt waar de gelegenheid zich voordoet en je zorgt voor een (politieke) ontwikkeling die de schematische overgang naar het socialisme wereldwijd met tientallen jaren bekort..

yay non dogmatic marxism i love it

That gymnasium story reminded me of a bit family guy did where hitler is at a gym working out and a big buff Jewish dude is getting all the female attention

the title of this video is MISLEADING. Zizek is ADMIRING Lenin's radical opportunism, NOT dissing it! And most of the video is about World War 2. I know Jacobin hates Leninism, but at least label your videos correctly.

MLs seething on twitter lmao

Slavoj Zizhek talks the talk and the way he speaks is refreshing but he isn't a good specialist in history.

@ben5154

2 жыл бұрын

Are there any criticisms you have on his historical takes in this particular video?

@lunaridge4510

2 жыл бұрын

@@ben5154 Yes, I do. He was asked about the WWI and he didn't answer the question at all. The historian Christopher Clark they should've interviewed in stead of this clown. He knows more about what precipitated the WWI then anyone ese on the planet, absolutely astonishing scholarship. His book: The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. Here is the gist of it for the Gresham College: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKeiu7N_k9zPqco.html&ab_channel=GreshamCollege

@MistaZULE

2 жыл бұрын

@@lunaridge4510 I don't think that's fair. You don't ask a philosopher about organic chemistry. Same way that you don't ask a historian about Hegelian Dialectics. If you don't know Slavoj then don't click on the video. He's not a historian he's a Marxist philosopher who primarily does media analysis, he's not and never claimed to be a historian.

@lunaridge4510

2 жыл бұрын

@@MistaZULE I do know Zizek and his specialty tho. My post was in response to a previous post about history which was replied to in the usual contemptuous, dismissive comrade manner. I consider myself a Marxist philosopher too. Until the left stops its internal sectarian warfare, we will achieve nothing.

@MistaZULE

2 жыл бұрын

@@lunaridge4510 Fair enough. I agree that this infighting among the Left is a huge problem, and it seems people just want to talk at each other rather than listen. Honestly, if these excahnged were in person I hgihly doubt the dismissive tones in coneying ideas would continue. The nature of speaking in person vs the anonymity of the internet leads to snide comments and the ignoring of major points. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I do agree with you.

Mr. Žižek got confused in terms of "radicalism" and "opportunism". Cheap fame spoils the brain. It seems that he never read Lenin ... or could not because of his inability to dialectical thinking. A sin common among real opportunists.

Content made by redliners and intended for redliners and fully crafted to maintain the redliner Petty bourgeoisie false consciousness.

So lenin was kind of an anarchist? :D

FWIW, Lenin never embraced any form of conservatism and traditionalism, 'local' or not, and he never postponed the proletarian struggle for the sake of 'peace and land reform', he just stressed the latter in his slogans in order to take power. Zizek sounds as if he is trying to make Lenin an excuse for and patron saint of post-1990 socialists morphing into either wokeists or fascists.

@whythelongface64

2 жыл бұрын

Well, as much of an enjoyment it is to hear Zizek, he is a leftcom bourgeois intellectual*

@levine4970

2 жыл бұрын

@@whythelongface64 you dont know what leftcom means or ever meant

@whythelongface64

2 жыл бұрын

@@levine4970 ok 👍

@dumupad3-da241

2 жыл бұрын

@@whythelongface64 I agree that he is a bourgeois intellectual, but calling him a leftcom is a compliment he doesn't deserve. Not all non-Stalinist or even non-Leninist communism is pro-capitalist and counterrevolutionary.

@whythelongface64

2 жыл бұрын

@@dumupad3-da241 wouldn't call him pro capitalist, but counter-revolutionary? Yes so much this

Ask Zizek if he supports voting Trump in 2024 to 'shake up the system' like in 2016.

all this guy can do is twist and turn his nose......knows nothing but pontificates.....who the hell wishes to hear him or even read him!

This makes Lenin seem like some mirror image of the Western élites-a kind of inside out Tony Blair

I like his point but Chomsky is not a Menshevik LMAO

@comradetrashpanda8777

2 жыл бұрын

Chomsky is 100% a menshivik

@stephenpedroza9123

2 жыл бұрын

They just don’t want to grapple with Chomsky’s point that Lenin’s decree on workers control destroyed any prospect for workers’ control of production and subordinated workers to state management. Capitalists got replaced by state managers, not by unions or factory councils of workers i.e. they never achieved anything resembling socialism.

@lunaridge4510

2 жыл бұрын

@@comradetrashpanda8777 What a demented statement. Chomsky is an anarchist, not communist. Both Mensheviks and Bolshevics were communists who saw anarchists as the political enemy #1 and the latter eventually murdered them all. They both belonged to a party that favoured hierarchy and top down decision making with tiny elite leadership on the top.

@lunaridge4510

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenpedroza9123 Lenin used the soviets to gain power, the same way he took over the democratic socialist's platforms that promised land to peasants---he had no desire to actually give them the land, it was a cynical plot. Sure enough, the Bolshevics took the land back almost right away and disabled the soviets politically thru bureaucracy and terror. They even took the peasant's citizenship away turning them into virtual serfs again; villagers had no passports until Hruschev gave them back (to those who had not been sent to Kazakhstan to die, of course). This was a preconceived plan by a bunch of brilliant sociopaths. Remember, Trotsky was also a Menshevik at first, but rose to become a perfect Bolshevik henchman. There was really no difference.

@LeonWagg

2 жыл бұрын

He didn't say Chomsky is a Menshevik. He said that Chomsky claimed Mensheviks are the true Marxists and not the Bolsheviks.

Like listening to a Russian Sylvester the Cat..

Basado y realist-pilled. Keep Marxism modern, keep the conversation contemporary sir.

Tedious

LENIN FOREVER

Lenin was a visionary and Marxist Leninism is good communism socialism that does not have evil imperlism per se. Stalin was FDR friend who won the WW2 and beat fascism. Stalin scared the crap out of the Nazi's and rescued the Jews from concentration death camps.

Yes, Lenin was an radical opportunist. A better term for him, really, is 'tyrant.' Another is 'false God.' You socialists should stop taking Lenin at his word and making excuses for his, and his successors', so-called "excesses." In this video Zizek said Lenin was charged with dogmatism in his time. Such a charge was and is accurate. He was a dogmatically orthodox Marxist. Really, look at his approach to religion. The slightest detour from Marx's views on the subject by Anatoly Lunacharsky, for example, was seen by Lenin as extremely harmful. No, to Lenin religion was something to be forcibly destroyed without mercy and damn any one who argues otherwise. What was that if not dogmatic? Ironically, Lenin, by his dogmatism and the immense power he wielded, himself became a God-like figure, one that is sadly still worshipped to this day. Zizek's passionate sermon in this video is a prime example of such worship. Lenin doesn't deserve it.

Content made by redliners and intended for redliners and fully crafted to maintain the redliner Petty bourgeoisie false consciousness.