"I'm not saying: "let's fight this extremist thinking". I'm saying: "let's fight the causes that generate this"." Marxist Zizek is the one I like the most.
"If you don't want to talk critically about liberalism, then shut up about fascism." - Horkheimer. Wow. Holy. That's what I've been trying to find words to say.
But communists don't want to talk critically about communism so what was the point? There's all of this attack on liberalism (God forbid people support freedom and liberty) but once there's criticism of communism, all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"
@@lights473 what do you mean by " talk critically about communism"? "all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"" - so you define critical talk as one after witch you get called all these things, do i understand correctly?
@@Stret173 no. I'm saying if you criticize or challenge the ideas of communism, the advocates of this ideology often label their critics as fascists and racists for daring to challenge their ideology.
@@lights473well indeed that over zealousness for a political identity is a problem that politics as a whole experiences right now, and, indeed, communists are not immune, if you want you can trow all those criticism you have and never get heard in earnest my way and i hope ill be able to take them in good faith, and definitely not emptily ridicule them
ew, pseudo-intellectuals are gross. i was referring not to the content of his speech or his syntax, but to the qualities he possesses as an individual that seem to create some turbulence in his delivery. he's a bit choppy, carries a generally perturbed tone, and also brings a level of intensity that only serves to reduce his clarity in otherwise clearly constructed ideas. i wasn't insulting him as a being, so chill out.
2:58 "Now that we old people cannot offer a solution, we are now fetishizing the young generation. "Oh! They will do it!" I wanted to hear more about that point.
A coping technique older people use once they start to accept their dwindling competency combined with the realization the world isn’t as good as they thought it’d be. Rather than address anything they are still capable of affecting change in, they usually just resort to THE YOUTH A much more nihilistic “eh the next person will pick up,” situation
He expands on "my past is of me" in A Left That Dares To Speak Its Name by claiming that the future is what is set in stone, not the past. Our actions are dictated by our understanding of events in the past. We cannot change the future, but we can change how we understand the past. The past is more malleable.
Our actions aren't dictated by our understanding of the past but by our actions in the present which are influenced by our actions in the past and our understanding of them. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
@@tribalwarscrazyi think he was playing on the fact that people are comparing this to ancient greek dialogues. And in ancient greek plays there was always a chorus who reactes, sang, narrated, etc.
@not a real person it is not true in any degree, how enlightened was "the young generation" in 1939-1945? what did they learn from their predecessors? a reversal is always looming, and to pretend that the future generation is the vehicle for "change" in this sense, is foolish.
@@hsynsrky he meant that we expect the new generations to fix all our problems magically, like they were some kind of mystical beings who are incapable of having wrong perceptions about the current situation of the world.
I feel like to be Zizek, or any famous person in academia opens you up to having to deal with random gunslingers looking to make their mark. Even throwing shit would "count" as a confrontation with all the attention that comes with it.
No, this man's pain is justifiable. I find when I give lectures often there will be an elderly Jewish person who will always bring it back to the Holocaust. And I never contradict them. There are a few things that are not inappropriate to become a topic in any meeting. And that's one of them. Their pain is too deep and too profound.
We only select "facts" that confirm our world view to some extent. This is why I hate this narrative of "fact checking" or, the common idea of suggesting that "everyone has google, you go do your own research!". Yeah, you can find just about any "fact" on google you want. It's a fruitless endeavor. What do you even think "true facts" are anyways? My idea of true facts may be different than yours!
@@TallOndatra To me they appear slightly hysterical. But I could be wrong, that's a prime possibility... for anybody, always. Which makes getting hysterical over certain believes the more funny.
I'm like the guy in the left wearing leather jacket and not caring about anything but girls and only bats an eye when someone says pornograohy or self harming. And all the guys in comment section are the guy in the right wearing white shirt, pretending to comb his hair while listening to other people talking and proving some point in mind.
I really want to understand what they are talking about, but before everything else, my english-capability does not let me. Can someone please make subtitles?
We are all agents history, we are not observers of it, all of us are horribly responsible and also completely incompetent for the task ahead almost by definition, we can’t tell the future. From there history is less about facts as we just observe facts, as in they are unmovable, and more about responsibility, as they are something we act on. We can say slavery is a fact of history, but that is meaningless in any sense of action, action happened because people believed they had a responsibility for their own and others freedom, freedom being a completely subjective idea. If we all acted on fact than history would be pointless, there is nothing to learn from it as the only thing to do is act on the facts of history. Something might be a fact but our response to it is always subjective.
And here we have our Zeitgeist in a nutshell. "Let's fight the causes which generate this!" (= faults of our recent society - universal spoken) - followed by such an almost idiotic response "Hitler was also our product!". A paradox. Not just a regressive point, but he also negates the prior intention, the pillar upon the value of these facts was built. Many people are irritated by Zizek's outspoken manner, but I hardly believe a philosopher who's observing and analysing beyond the rigidity of upheld facts, which opponents often limit to a contingent use, though he always understands their relations in a coherence far more complex, such man as an individual and empathetic human being doesn't want to act in couth but hardheaded objectivity over the subject matter. His harsh and nervous nature is reasonable, otherwise he would have talk to the wall.
But communists don't want to talk critically about communism so what was the point? There's all of this attack on liberalism (God forbid people support freedom and liberty) but once there's criticism of communism, all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"
@@lights473 Because communism is totally a unitary concept every communist agrees with with serious political power... lol. Every politician on earth these days is a liberal and you are worried about unconnected critics.
Really the only thing every young person must be exposed to from young age is critical thinking - every other knowledge is always self-learned, even if tutors are there to impose the discipline of work. However this (critical thinking) precisely goes against the whole natural principle of survival, because as you see in developed societies - the first critical point established by young intellectuals is to refute this primitive logic of survival, and rebel against reproduction - which always is the most direct tool of social and state control - the prime example victim being the single mother. That is why highly educated societies always meet population decline. That is why also education will always be structured as ideological training into obedient citizenship and reproduction. If it is not the society simply collapses from lack of voluntary births. Nature is incompatible with reason - it is called the absurdity of existence. Life exists against reason, and only the unfortunate unreasonable ones are destined to prolong it.
Your final statement is the core of every religious ideology - all religious people make this claim in some way or the other - some of them claim it's all logical because the god made it so with his mind, some just believe it's logical out of itself. Obviously when the evidence explicitly reveal the aimlessness and disorder of all processes there is always an "enlightened" wise guy like you that pulls his divine knowledge out of his lower abdominal cavity. There is nothing that spells better the idiocy of religion that claiming contrary to all evidence the complete opposite - because it feels better. Logic is a primitive process rooted in quite simplistic linguistic performance. The world can't be logical, because logic rests upon arbitrary concepts like "unity" or "infinity"which do not exist outside the human cerebral calculator, and in themselves are tautological, that is to say claim that world is logical is a claim it is tautological in origin. That's why quantum dynamics needs the tautology of singularity - it is the tautology of the very mathematical language used to describe nature, which in itself is not mathematical, least to say logical. I hate people who make religion out of logic, they are the worse kind of bastards, because they try to pose as logical, while the basic concepts in logical thinking are things like Russels paradox, or the Gödels theorem. Logic is a primitive tool, even if the best we have by now, still painfully limited, and in most cases, which not revolve around mechanics, plainly stupid.
Exactly this. The most powerful force which dulls the critical thinking is this survival. ie. the need of reproduction. A person until parenthood is and may exercise going against the regime, but as soon as the means of survival kick in it is either you stick to the plan or are gonna end up powerless and discarded by the society. That is if we are talking about the average person. Working at an university or other similar institutions may prolong this aforementioned condition but only few of them make it, and those who do, half or even more than half fall under direct or indirect pressure from the means of survival and mostly take the dominant narrative. There are many preconditions one must be in to be able to question the world around himself and express his discontent. In my opinion, socialist societies offer these preconditions more so than capitalist burgeiouse ones by the very fact that in Marxist though the notion of ideology is stressed out and compromises one of the primary spheres of the wider intellectual tradition. Of course I am not saying that this notion only had its preconditions to be in marxist-socialist societies but also in free market ones, but the way it is laid out is more "comprehendable" by ordinary men. It is also an advantage but can act as an downfall as we know from experience that socialist societies have been dismantled in an hasty manner by no other than the very same intellectuals they created (masses of proletariat class and their off springs getting educated, having a flat, social security, ...)
The opponent was a fascist in his conduct Typical soulless intellectual masquerading as a philosopher You can't argue with zizek because he plays the no holds barred game
I honestly don't understand what they're saying. Can someone please explain what they're saying? (I'm not a native English speaker and their accent is really heavy)
Ukrainians were more victims of the holocaust than perpetrators to begin with. many groups in Eastern Europe like Ukrainians and Eastern European Muslims saw Poles, Russians, or Serbs as their occupiers.. so they took the opportunity to work with whoever their mutual enemy was and in those years these were the Nazis. Most of these people had no clue what the Nazis would do to them or others in retrospect. Also most victims of the UPA were ethnic Poles and now there are millions of Ukrainians in Poland and they have moved on.. despite Ukrainians still worshipping the likes of Bandera, but most Ukrainians do not see him as a Nazi collaborator but as a liberator so it's complicated.
@@umut967 I hope you are joking, because any young person with a properly functioning brain that denies the necessity of Marxism in understanding reality (let alone changing it), is only deluding themselves. If you don't know what Marxism is though, that's another story.
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 I know what marxism is and thanks I don't need it respectfully. Also, there is no such thing as a single truth in the universe. If we look at it as a political philosophy, Marxism may be superior to other ideas, but this still does not change that Marxism is just a political philosophy. It doesn't reveal the secrets of the universe, it just says how the means of production should be used for the benefit of humanity. So I'm not anti-communist, but I don't need Marxism either. In any case, communism will one day replace capitalism. People will live in better conditions. Then what? We will all die under whatever system we are under, and there will be no other life after death. We will be gone forever. The life we live has no significance in eternity. Therefore, if there is only one truth, it is that life is meaningless. And so I cannot take Marxism as the only truth
@@umut967 Modern science can likely provide some form of immortality, but that's besides the point. Because we are in a pointless capitalist society you don't see the point in life, because under capitalism there isn't much of one. Marx said communism is actually the beginning of society and history, once the basis of real freedom has been laid (socialism), then society will fully be able to return to its communal nature, with the advanced production that capitalism provides. This basis then provides humanity with the ability to actually fulfill its true desires, which are suppressed and limited by class society, and backwards production and social relations. So, history can only begin once the masses take it into their hands and change. Only then can the narrow horizons of the old and decaying society be surpassed. Only then can we transform into full and enlightened beings. But it is not a peaceful or easy process. It will rip many people's worldviews and lives apart. But it is necessary.
@@LucianoClassicalGuitar No, it's a flawed claim. Yes, the scale of the Holocaust in the Baltics was massive and some locals participated willingly, but they were relatively few and it was organized from above by the fully German SD/Wehrmacht/Einsatzgruppe A. If the majority was indifferent, is that "worse than Nazis"? Also - only occupied Estonia was claimed "judenfrei", and the majority of its Jews managed to flee to the USSR. So basically Žižek promotes a Nazi propaganda claim made by Walter Stahlecker. Nice. :)
This man didn't even scratch his nose. Berserk mode
Berserk mode (Special Ability):
- 100% Facial Touching
+ 200% Damage Output
🤣🤣🤣
When the girl comes up at the end and wants to talk about China and he says "which China?" Truly the modern Diogenes
As in "Maoist China" and "Dengist China"?
@@theskeptic7713 I think he was most probably referring to republic of china (Taiwan) or People's Republic of China (China)
@@theskeptic7713 Probably this
@@theskeptic7713 deng?!?!?!?!?!?!? GET OUT OF MY HEAD
This really brings up the ancient-Greece-dialogue vibes for me
ikr, even the people around listening
lost cutlure we need back.
"I'm not saying: "let's fight this extremist thinking". I'm saying: "let's fight the causes that generate this"."
Marxist Zizek is the one I like the most.
i just watched a rap battle
my nigga zeezy hittin a juug
We call this fliptop battle in the philippines.
"If you don't want to talk critically about liberalism, then shut up about fascism." - Horkheimer. Wow. Holy. That's what I've been trying to find words to say.
But communists don't want to talk critically about communism so what was the point? There's all of this attack on liberalism (God forbid people support freedom and liberty) but once there's criticism of communism, all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"
@@lights473 what do you mean by " talk critically about communism"? "all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"" - so you define critical talk as one after witch you get called all these things, do i understand correctly?
@@Stret173 no. I'm saying if you criticize or challenge the ideas of communism, the advocates of this ideology often label their critics as fascists and racists for daring to challenge their ideology.
@@lights473well indeed that over zealousness for a political identity is a problem that politics as a whole experiences right now, and, indeed, communists are not immune,
if you want you can trow all those criticism you have and never get heard in earnest my way and i hope ill be able to take them in good faith, and definitely not emptily ridicule them
@Ayy Leeuz freedom with government is an illusionary form of freedom indeed
Old men arguing about philosophy. I could watch that for hours.
Zizek is really with good fit for an 70+ years man, sometimes i forget how old he is.
It's weird, he looks like a man in his late 50s who's ageing badly, but he's actually a man in his 70s who's ageing well.
@@zachgravatt5571 perfectly described
Up until this comment, I thought Zizek is in his 50s...
Does anyone know his diet
Its because he checks his shit
The reincarnation of Plato vs the reincarnation of Diogenes
zizek is difficult to listen to and decipher, but once you do, it's well worth it.
ew, pseudo-intellectuals are gross. i was referring not to the content of his speech or his syntax, but to the qualities he possesses as an individual that seem to create some turbulence in his delivery. he's a bit choppy, carries a generally perturbed tone, and also brings a level of intensity that only serves to reduce his clarity in otherwise clearly constructed ideas. i wasn't insulting him as a being, so chill out.
Ryan Bergen r/iamverysmart
I think his intensity is at times engaging.
Facts
@@Dirtgut I hope to god Ryan saw that at some point
i love that the last words are "Which China?"
Which China?
looooooool
I love how this ends.
Lolllll
This is gold
It’s like watching Greek philosophers
That's what I thought lol
2:58 "Now that we old people cannot offer a solution, we are now fetishizing the young generation. "Oh! They will do it!"
I wanted to hear more about that point.
A coping technique older people use once they start to accept their dwindling competency combined with the realization the world isn’t as good as they thought it’d be. Rather than address anything they are still capable of affecting change in, they usually just resort to THE YOUTH
A much more nihilistic “eh the next person will pick up,” situation
He expands on "my past is of me" in A Left That Dares To Speak Its Name by claiming that the future is what is set in stone, not the past. Our actions are dictated by our understanding of events in the past. We cannot change the future, but we can change how we understand the past. The past is more malleable.
"my past is ahead of me"*
Well said
Our actions aren't dictated by our understanding of the past but by our actions in the present which are influenced by our actions in the past and our understanding of them. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
@@nzbg1132 you just said the same thing in more confusing language
Literally the most intense shit I've seen on UA-cam...
tru dat
I wish I was the guy in 2:02 taking a selfie with the second socrates in action
More like Diogenes
😂
2:40 is literally all the world needs to hear right now
Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School
thats it. so much of zizeks politics are in that statment.
wow...
@@norzers123 very subversive.
@@zzmoonz Yeah? They were subversive.
"Their future is in front of them"
_chorus of laughter_
*Collective laughter
@@tribalwarscrazyi think he was playing on the fact that people are comparing this to ancient greek dialogues. And in ancient greek plays there was always a chorus who reactes, sang, narrated, etc.
Don't fetishise the young generation!
what did he mean there?
true, it could bring you into jail
@not a real person it is not true in any degree, how enlightened was "the young generation" in 1939-1945? what did they learn from their predecessors? a reversal is always looming, and to pretend that the future generation is the vehicle for "change" in this sense, is foolish.
@@hsynsrky Gençleri fazla göğe çıkarma demek istiyor. Yani her geçen gün artan “gençlik çözecek” algısını reddetiyor.
@@hsynsrky he meant that we expect the new generations to fix all our problems magically, like they were some kind of mystical beings who are incapable of having wrong perceptions about the current situation of the world.
get involved, listen to these guys, they are doing work.
LOL
tristan volk why?
I loved the loud "which China?" right at the end
That dude on the right brought platitudes to a gun fight
And what you did is just called ideology
"My past is ahead of me" #bars
How did any of the viewers in the comments actually follow this debate, with all the ambient noise?
I find it funny how UA-cam chose to autogenerate Dutch captions for this video
"My past is ahead of me - new album just dropped by alt-diva slajoyza zi- im not sure how to pronounce it" - anthony fantano.
I love his passion ;)
I feel like to be Zizek, or any famous person in academia opens you up to having to deal with random gunslingers looking to make their mark. Even throwing shit would "count" as a confrontation with all the attention that comes with it.
No, this man's pain is justifiable. I find when I give lectures often there will be an elderly Jewish person who will always bring it back to the Holocaust. And I never contradict them. There are a few things that are not inappropriate to become a topic in any meeting. And that's one of them. Their pain is too deep and too profound.
I swear Zizek has decendency from ancient Greece like from Socrates or something, he even looks Greek.
Bald guy be taking selfies with Zizek discoussin in the background... i want one of those too!
There is no vodka on this table, do you know anyone else here?
Zizek is right, are we able to check facts?
we can choose any facts we want is the problem
We have always been able to do that as well. It is intrinsic to human psychology.
@@solaria5513 I think we are unable to select true facts
We only select "facts" that confirm our world view to some extent. This is why I hate this narrative of "fact checking" or, the common idea of suggesting that "everyone has google, you go do your own research!". Yeah, you can find just about any "fact" on google you want. It's a fruitless endeavor. What do you even think "true facts" are anyways? My idea of true facts may be different than yours!
@@solaria5513 yes this is my point also, and Baudrillard's
If you find yourself talking over a guy like Zizek, just take a step back and collect yourself. One at a time please.
Don't fetishize authority. "Talking over a guy" is no problem. It's how communication works.
@@solaria5513 agreed, I like zizek but this is informal discourse at its best.
Optimism bad- Slavoj Zizek
“I am a pessimist here”
SOME NATIVE SPEAKER CAN WRITE WHAT THEY SAID PLEASE???
This is what philosophy is
An overrated struggle to convince others that your perception of the world is the right one?
@@markhornbogen4682 "overrated"?
Also, where is the struggle here? It's mutual exchange, not war
@@TallOndatra To me they appear slightly hysterical. But I could be wrong, that's a prime possibility... for anybody, always. Which makes getting hysterical over certain believes the more funny.
certainly not what a paradigmatic case of analytical philosophy looks like
@@die_schlechtere_Milch it's almost like zizek is a continental philosopher
I'm like the guy in the left wearing leather jacket and not caring about anything but girls and only bats an eye when someone says pornograohy or self harming.
And all the guys in comment section are the guy in the right wearing white shirt, pretending to comb his hair while listening to other people talking and proving some point in mind.
I really want to understand what they are talking about, but before everything else, my english-capability does not let me. Can someone please make subtitles?
1:03 they were the first to make what?? Can someone write the word.
Žižek (1:03): "They were the first to make judenfei."
Žižek (1:03): "They were the first to make judenfrei".
We are all agents history, we are not observers of it, all of us are horribly responsible and also completely incompetent for the task ahead almost by definition, we can’t tell the future. From there history is less about facts as we just observe facts, as in they are unmovable, and more about responsibility, as they are something we act on. We can say slavery is a fact of history, but that is meaningless in any sense of action, action happened because people believed they had a responsibility for their own and others freedom, freedom being a completely subjective idea. If we all acted on fact than history would be pointless, there is nothing to learn from it as the only thing to do is act on the facts of history. Something might be a fact but our response to it is always subjective.
This clickbait tittle xD
Is it just me or are most of the women in the room pretty hot
eat a sneakers
What a patience...
Always talk about Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in case of emergency.
both
And here we have our Zeitgeist in a nutshell. "Let's fight the causes which generate this!" (= faults of our recent society - universal spoken) - followed by such an almost idiotic response "Hitler was also our product!". A paradox. Not just a regressive point, but he also negates the prior intention, the pillar upon the value of these facts was built. Many people are irritated by Zizek's outspoken manner, but I hardly believe a philosopher who's observing and analysing beyond the rigidity of upheld facts, which opponents often limit to a contingent use, though he always understands their relations in a coherence far more complex, such man as an individual and empathetic human being doesn't want to act in couth but hardheaded objectivity over the subject matter. His harsh and nervous nature is reasonable, otherwise he would have talk to the wall.
Thurian Wanderer stop writing the way you do. It's obtuse and unnecessary.
You don't sound any smarter for doing it.
@@dipjonrd4874 lmao get his ass
@@dipjonrd4874 great comment !! Some people they only want to talk than make a clear point.
And so on *sniff*
‘If you don’t want to talk critically about liberalism shut up about fascism’
But communists don't want to talk critically about communism so what was the point? There's all of this attack on liberalism (God forbid people support freedom and liberty) but once there's criticism of communism, all of a sudden you're labeled a fascist and a racist and a pejorative label of "neolib"
@@lights473 Because communism is totally a unitary concept every communist agrees with with serious political power... lol. Every politician on earth these days is a liberal and you are worried about unconnected critics.
@@lights473 Besides, communists like zizek are massively openly critical, he admits fully the left has no solution and that is ultimately the problem.
fetishizing generations
Neoliberals in 1920s >> Facism in 1930s
Neoliberals in 2020 >>> OH MY GOD! *8'{*
Only there is no soviet union to save us this time
@@daca8395 Profound
which china?
One thing about žižek, he’s will be wearing that grey sweater everywhere he goes
It is interesting to speculate that attractive young women are libidinally drawn to intellectual spotlights.
i suggest you take your totalised evolutionary psychology magic hypothesis crap and shove it back in your ass
@@blank6794 let him make his statement, we need you to state your opposition.
where's the part about, what we need is utilitarian egoism? wasn't that in this video?
Matthew D utilitarian egoism is contradictory unless zizek said it. I'm sure he has some way of having it make sense
what’s the context here?
''which china?''
Where did this exchange take place?
See description.
Oops. Tks.
so many pretty girls...
I didn’t even notice, in the presence of the great Zizek
The Human Stain by Philip Roth irl
why not both
2:47 dudes face on that tko lol, if you dont wanna talk critically about liberalism then shut up about fascism.
Really the only thing every young person must be exposed to from young age is critical thinking - every other knowledge is always self-learned, even if tutors are there to impose the discipline of work. However this (critical thinking) precisely goes against the whole natural principle of survival, because as you see in developed societies - the first critical point established by young intellectuals is to refute this primitive logic of survival, and rebel against reproduction - which always is the most direct tool of social and state control - the prime example victim being the single mother. That is why highly educated societies always meet population decline. That is why also education will always be structured as ideological training into obedient citizenship and reproduction. If it is not the society simply collapses from lack of voluntary births. Nature is incompatible with reason - it is called the absurdity of existence. Life exists against reason, and only the unfortunate unreasonable ones are destined to prolong it.
chłodne jabłka I agree with what you said, but nature IS compatable with reason. Everything is logical, even if not at first glance.
Your final statement is the core of every religious ideology - all religious people make this claim in some way or the other - some of them claim it's all logical because the god made it so with his mind, some just believe it's logical out of itself. Obviously when the evidence explicitly reveal the aimlessness and disorder of all processes there is always an "enlightened" wise guy like you that pulls his divine knowledge out of his lower abdominal cavity. There is nothing that spells better the idiocy of religion that claiming contrary to all evidence the complete opposite - because it feels better. Logic is a primitive process rooted in quite simplistic linguistic performance. The world can't be logical, because logic rests upon arbitrary concepts like "unity" or "infinity"which do not exist outside the human cerebral calculator, and in themselves are tautological, that is to say claim that world is logical is a claim it is tautological in origin. That's why quantum dynamics needs the tautology of singularity - it is the tautology of the very mathematical language used to describe nature, which in itself is not mathematical, least to say logical. I hate people who make religion out of logic, they are the worse kind of bastards, because they try to pose as logical, while the basic concepts in logical thinking are things like Russels paradox, or the Gödels theorem. Logic is a primitive tool, even if the best we have by now, still painfully limited, and in most cases, which not revolve around mechanics, plainly stupid.
Exactly this. The most powerful force which dulls the critical thinking is this survival. ie. the need of reproduction. A person until parenthood is and may exercise going against the regime, but as soon as the means of survival kick in it is either you stick to the plan or are gonna end up powerless and discarded by the society. That is if we are talking about the average person. Working at an university or other similar institutions may prolong this aforementioned condition but only few of them make it, and those who do, half or even more than half fall under direct or indirect pressure from the means of survival and mostly take the dominant narrative. There are many preconditions one must be in to be able to question the world around himself and express his discontent. In my opinion, socialist societies offer these preconditions more so than capitalist burgeiouse ones by the very fact that in Marxist though the notion of ideology is stressed out and compromises one of the primary spheres of the wider intellectual tradition. Of course I am not saying that this notion only had its preconditions to be in marxist-socialist societies but also in free market ones, but the way it is laid out is more "comprehendable" by ordinary men. It is also an advantage but can act as an downfall as we know from experience that socialist societies have been dismantled in an hasty manner by no other than the very same intellectuals they created (masses of proletariat class and their off springs getting educated, having a flat, social security, ...)
That was very interesting, thanks for posting it!
The opponent was a fascist in his conduct
Typical soulless intellectual masquerading as a philosopher
You can't argue with zizek because he plays the no holds barred game
hi journalist from china.. which china ? lol
Battle of egos
Yes......😶
The girl behind Zizek is hooot.
And she has an interest in marxist philosophy?
Hmmmm
Don't be a rightwinger. She has the most usual face ever.
Welcome to Europe
Zizek has a hot wife lmao
Most average men do both simultaneously
"Which China?!"
Naphta contra Settembrini.
I honestly don't understand what they're saying. Can someone please explain what they're saying? (I'm not a native English speaker and their accent is really heavy)
the people who ask you 10 boosts and still take all your freedom and property
Ukrainians were more victims of the holocaust than perpetrators to begin with. many groups in Eastern Europe like Ukrainians and Eastern European Muslims saw Poles, Russians, or Serbs as their occupiers.. so they took the opportunity to work with whoever their mutual enemy was and in those years these were the Nazis. Most of these people had no clue what the Nazis would do to them or others in retrospect. Also most victims of the UPA were ethnic Poles and now there are millions of Ukrainians in Poland and they have moved on.. despite Ukrainians still worshipping the likes of Bandera, but most Ukrainians do not see him as a Nazi collaborator but as a liberator so it's complicated.
Y'all need Marx
Nah
@@umut967 I hope you are joking, because any young person with a properly functioning brain that denies the necessity of Marxism in understanding reality (let alone changing it), is only deluding themselves. If you don't know what Marxism is though, that's another story.
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 I know what marxism is and thanks I don't need it respectfully. Also, there is no such thing as a single truth in the universe. If we look at it as a political philosophy, Marxism may be superior to other ideas, but this still does not change that Marxism is just a political philosophy. It doesn't reveal the secrets of the universe, it just says how the means of production should be used for the benefit of humanity. So I'm not anti-communist, but I don't need Marxism either. In any case, communism will one day replace capitalism. People will live in better conditions. Then what? We will all die under whatever system we are under, and there will be no other life after death. We will be gone forever. The life we live has no significance in eternity. Therefore, if there is only one truth, it is that life is meaningless. And so I cannot take Marxism as the only truth
@@umut967 Modern science can likely provide some form of immortality, but that's besides the point. Because we are in a pointless capitalist society you don't see the point in life, because under capitalism there isn't much of one. Marx said communism is actually the beginning of society and history, once the basis of real freedom has been laid (socialism), then society will fully be able to return to its communal nature, with the advanced production that capitalism provides. This basis then provides humanity with the ability to actually fulfill its true desires, which are suppressed and limited by class society, and backwards production and social relations. So, history can only begin once the masses take it into their hands and change. Only then can the narrow horizons of the old and decaying society be surpassed. Only then can we transform into full and enlightened beings. But it is not a peaceful or easy process. It will rip many people's worldviews and lives apart. But it is necessary.
are you 13 or 30?
Both are wrong
Jaffa situation and territories
Israel and palestine
B
What do you mean? 🐧
what did he say about latvians?
They were worse than Nazis back in Nazi times. This is true
@@LucianoClassicalGuitar No, it's a flawed claim. Yes, the scale of the Holocaust in the Baltics was massive and some locals participated willingly, but they were relatively few and it was organized from above by the fully German SD/Wehrmacht/Einsatzgruppe A. If the majority was indifferent, is that "worse than Nazis"? Also - only occupied Estonia was claimed "judenfrei", and the majority of its Jews managed to flee to the USSR.
So basically Žižek promotes a Nazi propaganda claim made by Walter Stahlecker. Nice. :)
@@ivario based Zizek.