The Australian writer Bob Ellis contended that "charisma", as we know it today, was invented by the Democratic Party to elect JFK. I think the notion of charisma is misleading because the world is made up of plenty of people that can excite, interest, provoke, or inspire you that aren't good looking or speak with clean rhetoric. Often the best thinkers are horribly uncharismatic.
Externally he's cute in his clumsiness, reminding a child, that's why he evokes sympathy. Yet his speech is charismatic because of his ability to use tone and accents.
5 actually! - Ones related to his sniffing - Ones related to his appearance - Ones arguing about politics - Ones typifying types of comments - This meta comment.
Stalin adopted the habit of joining the applause in order to control it. When he was introduced, Stalin got frenzied applause which lasted for minutes, and was constantly renewed by someone shouting "Long Live the Great Stalin" or some other slogan, which caused everyone to keep applauding, and applauding. The Soviet press characterized this as "stormy, prolonged applause.". Stalin found this kind of thing annoying. He would make gestures indicating "That's enough already!:, or "Stop it!" but someone would yell another tribute and the "stormy prolonged applause" started again. Of course, it was not advisable to be the first one to stop applauding... Finally the applause died down and Stalin made his speech and left the podium, returning to sit as one of the Politburo members behind and above the podium. How to control this problem? They tried ringing a bell, but it didn't work. So Stalin adopted the practice of applauding with the audience. When he stopped, they stopped. So, let them get it out of their systems for a while, then stop the noise and make your speech. See "Stalin Angry" ua-cam.com/video/1YsL4HXZN9E/v-deo.html
@@juancpgo What Zizek says sounds very contrived indeed but I also think it seems part of the communist spirit is the tendency to pretend the ruling class is "just like you" whilst Fascist leaders were supposed to only be in their position because of their very special capacity to fulfill their functions, a position of differentiation which was accepted and expected in such a hierarchical system. Communists were as hierarchical and in fact believed even more in the capacity of technocrats, but in the public eye they were supposed to be perceived as "another comrade". It was absolute BS because they despised the "morally philistine" working class, the useless and uneducated lumpen proletariat.
You know who else applauds with his crowd and stops to get them to stop as well as using other gestures? Donald Trump. I think this is just a case of zizek looking too much into a thing which is really just how different people with intense cults of personality perform public speaking. You can find plenty of stalin speeches where he doesnt clap at all.
djrichter he’s stated on record that he’s more of a Hegelian than a Marxist, see the Jordan Peterson debate and probably a lot of other times. I’m no expert but the difference I think is that Marxism examines material dialectics (i.e. conflicts between different economic classes) whereas Hegelianism examines ideological dialectics (i.e. conflicts between ideologies and class positions within ideologies).
Anonymous Misnomer yeah ur right. my not-well-researched understanding of him being a leftist or ML lead me to assume that he identified moreso with marxist philosophy over hegelian philosophy. if he's said that, so be it. ur differentiation between the two is basically right i think. i think the difference between the two is a little bit more general though. i thought marx and engels found hegel too idealist in analyzing the relationship man has in the world and vice versa, and more so continued his philosophy to develop dialectical materialism. but then again i'm also not done reading socialism: utopian and scientific, and i'm also not well read at all in hegel :p
it has an impact on how u perceive his words, thus, it matters. your image is part of the message, that u send to the world. one can try to forget about it, but non-standard appearance will still be a distraction.
@@JudoMateo Those are ticks you dummy. He's always done them. He always grabs his shirt, touches his hair, and pinches his nose. It's how he's always been. You clearly don't know much about Zizek or cocaine. I'll gladly listen to your opinions about guarding a bar door, though.
@@ThwartedVillainy Yeah, yeah OJ's inoncent too, wonder if Zizek ever parties with Ed Buck? Fact is he's an admitted commie who bears many of the distinguishing characteristics of an abuser(His friends even think he's an addict myheartwillgoonandsoonandsoon.blogspot.com/2015/10/have-you-ever-taken-cocaine-or-any.html . Given communisms loooong history of producing murderous liars he's not trustworthy, cokeheads too are notoriously untrustworthy as well , so his testimony is less than credible brother. Do you think your personal insults effective or appropriate? It appears you're far too emotionally invested to be objective, quite typical of hegeians I've found. You are right about one thing though I've little experience with booger sugar outside of busting up moronic, troublemaking cokeheads when I was younger, are you an expert on the subject?
@trident3b "look like a 'dealer'." BWAHA! You hegelians are so easily triggered, and in your case apparently unknowingly racist. How exactly does one "look like a 'dealer'." ?!
This comment section is a goldmine of the edgy hot takes of people who think that they're geniuses for denouncing Nazis while simultaneously using Nazi propaganda to denounce the Soviet Union.
well, I mean, I think the holodomor, gulag, breadlines, KGB speak for them selves. While things got much better after desalination its still a train wreck of a country.
@@parus6422, holodomor speaks for itself? What the hell has happened with sanity? I don't know if you know, but there a huge consensus about how gulags were comparible to the Nazi concentration camps, although CIA itself attested that there were reading and join spaces to the prisioners on Gulags. And, of course, just pointining that attention on different features from two historical phenomena does not imply into SUPPORT one or another, oh right buddy?
@@tdtyyuf I certainly doubt that sir but I'll be glad to learn about this, so could you please mention the book Or article from where you got this idea.
Lots of Americans i've met automatically think of Stalin, gulags, the chinese army, Red choir blablabla when you ask them if they're communists or socialism lol it's sad
@@dipanshmandaar hopefully a 30 second attention span won’t stop you from reading all this: are you kidding me read Karl Marx. Problem is you only look at sources that shy away from Marx’s overall work and focus on only certain things which form a certain kind of narrative, especially effecting young people like you. The proletariat dictatorship and the death of all that is old, he has several quotes perpetuating violence. Do your homework dude I’m not doing it for you. And fun fact Marx’s father actually called his son a demon, do your homework look at primary sources such as journals that are actually from the 19th century kept in libraries in Germany, you don’t know nothing. I’ll give you a few quotes from Marx, “our generation like the Jews that Moses lead out of the wilderness must conquer a New World the generation must perish in order to make room for the people who are fit for a new world.” “in order to achieve communist consciousness man himself must suffer massive change this change must come through a revolution a process of overthrowing the old filthy yolk and finding a new society.” He uses the word terror a lot. He was also quite prejudice against Jews and black people, do your own research. Those are some of many quotes and of course you won’t find this on your leftist Reddit website talking points. I’m Ukrainian and I’m Cuban I know what the ideology is my friend. And remember this young man not everybody has the same image of an ideal world, your image of an ideal world may not be the same as the person next to you. Communism wants and ultimately forces everybody, particularly through propaganda via state apparatus, to live in the same image of thought and life and what must be right and wrong and all else is a threat, that’s where the importance of freedom comes in. To destroy any counter revolution for allegiance must be to the state party apparatuses utopia. The proletariat dictatorship (communism) becomes much like a hardened religion, that’s part of the reason why they hated religion cause it has its own allegiances already. Who else will own the many aspects of our world if not a person outside the state or in it? Nobody? Leaders of the revolutionary party will arise and everything that is done must be done for their cause no matter the circumstance, for everybody. Assuming you didn’t grow up in a dictatorship of the proletariat a.k.a. socialist/communist state do you really think that you know what this ideology is more so then somebody who grew up with it since they were born? Such as Cubans or many other examples of nations throughout every continent of the world in which it’s been tried. All of this is basically a long way of saying…..it’s a dictatorship. And socialism is a whole system in and of itself, it’s not just moving some tax dollars around or putting more governmental funds into something then before.
What I gathered from this is that under a totalitarian state that has adopted a communist ideology, there is a complex facade that needs to be maintained, and there isn’t an equivalent for this in fascism. Fascism is more direct and in a way honest about its goals and the hierarchy that exists. Stalinist leaders had to put on a show and pretend like they weren’t above everyone else.
Stalinism wasn't communism. Russia turned form a poor communist state in the middle of a civil war and transformed to an aristocratic bureaucracy after Lenin's death
@@joscarmichael8341 stalinism was absolutely communism, exactly like all forms of communism. Even if they differ from the marxist concept of communism, all of them are communism because they all tried to create a government/society based on marxist ideals. The fact that almost all of these countries (China,Korea,Cuba, you pick one) developed differently from the original marxist idea is merely because of the impossibility of actually applying those ideals, which were so vague that their interpretation led to some of the worst totalitarism of history.
I watched him interact with people tonite at a book signing. The man is as funny and lovely to the individual as he is to the crowd. I love listening to and I love beholding him in action.
Tired of dumb people making fun of his tics instead of listening to his words and talking about those. Reminds me of an old saying, "When you point at the stars, the idiot stares at your finger"
Those sniffs of thine from mine have sniffest salt sniffs. Was ever a sniff in this humor sniff'd? O, I have sniff'd a miserable sniff. A blessed sniffing, my most sovereign sniff. Have I a sniff to doom my brother's sniff? I cannot sniff, if to sniff in silence. My sniff, this sniffs consciense in your sniff.
Seeing him clap at himself in the beginning (or rather to join in the applause of the common cause) was great. There is something charming about this 'narcissism for the cause' or what you might call it. If i'm ever in a similar situation i'd now be hard pressed not to clap myself lol.
It's a common courtesy gesture. When you see Mussolini gesturing while he's being applauded he looks like a douche. Which suits him well since he was also called the Duce. The problem is that applauding when you're a despot like Stalin looks a bit fake to say the least
the way he described the first 10 minutes of a balcanian meet-up is spot on. I even do it with my mom and dad. Just 10 minutes of insulting each other before we get to act like decent human beings to each other. I know it sounds weird but Balcan is the sanest place on earth
A bell had to be rang so people knew when to stop clapping after a Stalin speech, because everyone was afraid of being the first one to stop. I wonder what Zizek would make of that.
@@jonathanshepherd7075 A really stupid equivalence. Not being able to dissent because of the Party threatening to kill you and send your family to a labour camp in Siberia, with having signs asking people to do X on TV.
@@danpetru Huh? He obviously meant to discredit OP's argument. Doing it in a "funny" way doesn't make it just a joke and somehow shield it from criticism.
Marxist-communism and totalitarianism are diametrically opposed. one requires the existence of a state, the other inherently seeks to abolish the state altogether
@@b1bbscraz3y That's what is claimed in marxist theory. We now know it was/is a stupidly naive assumption, if not an intentional lie. The amount of social engineering required for full socialism, necessitates a state apparatus that dwarfs all other types of government and suffocates like no other. So in practice they become the most totalitarian. And would you believe it!?.. they never seem to transition from socialist control to communist utopia. Fancy that.
@@dribblesg2 actually, no it's not a lie. that's what Marx put in his ideology. he died in 1883. people who came after interpreted things their own way. if an ideology says to do a thing, and you do not do that thing, you are not following the ideology. if Christianity says "do not murder", and you murder, you are not following the ideology. if Christianity says to believe in Yahweh, and you do not believe in Yahweh, are you following the ideology? obviously not "So in practice they become the most totalitarian" >because they subvert what the ideology says. again, if Christianity says to believe Jesus existed and was the son of god, and you do not believe that, you are not following the ideology. and just with religion, Marxism has multiple schools of thought within it. when discussing Christianity, a person needs to be able to tell the difference between Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc. if I am debating against a Christian person, and they tell me they are a Catholic, would it make sense for me to have all my arguments be against Protestantism? no. and conversely, the different schools within Marxism; there's Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. why? same reason there's different ones in Christianity. a Catholic won't follow all the same tenets of Christianity that a Protestant would. a Baptist won't follow all the same tenets of Christianity that a Lutheran or Calvinist would. and as follows, a Stalinist won't follow the same tenets of communism that a Marxist would. a Maoist won't follow the same tenets of communism that a Leninist might. because they are different. call them as they are, not as you wish they were. Stalin's Russia was Stalinist, a reinterpreted and subverted school of Marxism. Mao's China was Maoist, a reinterpreted and subverted school of Marxism. there has never been a communist country. USSR was not communist. China was not communist. as communism inherently includes "abolition of the state, abolition of classes, abolition of profit/money". and no country has had this these types of things matter in politics to differentiate different schools of thought. hence why there's a difference between things like classical liberalism versus different forms of liberalism. just as there are different forms of anarchism. Marxist-communism (as envisioned by Marx, and not followed in history) is anarcho-communism. there are schools of thought that say communism can only exist in anarchy, as it inherently involves abolishing the state Marx himself despised governments. he argued that the state will always act in the interest of the elite ruling class at the most, some of those countries could be called "socialist" to some degree. but even then it wouldn't be accurate, as "socialism" according to Marx, means social/worker control of the means of production. no country has ever had this either
@@b1bbscraz3y 1. You can't prove that Marx wasn't lying ie. knew too well that his communist utopia was a necessary pipe dream to seduce the working class into taking power. Maybe he just wanted to fuck over the bourgeoisie. But I'm happy to assume the best of him and simply go with naive. 2. Unlike most anti-socialists, I do actually agree with you that the often used "true socialism hasn't been tried" is a legitimate argument. It's a very weak argument, but it is logical. 3. But my argument is that these are the inevitable sociopolitical results when you try to implement 'full socialism'. The utopian dream is just that - a dream. There hasn't been 'true socialism/communism' because its a mirage. It will never happen. It fails to account for so many factors of human nature. And when you do add those human variables to Marxist theory, when you actually try to put into practice what Marx envisioned, you get red terrors, gulags, industrial scale murder, one class permanent and totalitarian governments, mass scarcity and starvation etc.. Marxists want to argue that Marx envisioned the most perfect, equitable, secure, stable, satisfying society human beings were capable. In fact, he argued this society wasn't just possible, but inevitable. But somehow, this system that is so wonderful AND inherently natural to us, not only cannot be implemented properly, but when we try the results are utterly vile. Every time. How do you account for this? How is it that when we pursue capitalist modes which are so evil, we inadvertently produce so much good, and when we pursue socialism which is so beautiful, we inadvertently produce so much evil?
Stalinism wasn't and isn't communism. Russia turned form a poor communist state in the middle of a civil war and transformed to an aristocratic bureaucracy after Lenin's death
Zizek has literally said nothing that historians of the period haven't been arguing for two decades. He even failed to make the real point. Opting to hide his lack of insight behind a bodily tick. As always...this man is telling you nothing.
@@martinledermann1862 The twitches are an obvious distraction. It might take a bit of training/getting used to in certain cases, to attentively follow the substantial qualities of the information that he speaker is communicating. Everyone perceives differently, and audible disturbances during speeches clearly take some effort to ignore for some of us listeners. I can't help but point out your ignorant reply has little to no actual insight in the IQ value of the commentator above you. I apologize for a possibly unnecessary long post.
@maxdclxvi It certainly was an unnecessarily long post and completely over-the-top. The reality is, however sad it might be and however much the masses like to deny the significance of IQ, there can be no doubt that people with medium or high IQ should be able to follow this man's words without being distracted by his physical mannerisms. Especially when nobody forces anyone to actually watch the video, it should be obvious to anyone who wants to listen to a philosopher that visuals should not matter and thus it makes much more sense to treat such videos as podcasts while doing some manual tasks in the kitchen or elsewhere in the meantime. Which doesn't change the fact that I never had a problem watching this man at all, and since it's not like everybody is commenting solely about him being either on coke or forgetting to use a Kleenex tissue, it appears that there are actually many people intelligent or wise, if you will, enough to not be disturbed by such petty insignificant quirks.
No, he was called "primus inter pares", in english "the first between the equals" because the emperor role wasn't istitutionalized yet, but It doesn't mean he was equal to citizens, but that he was the first guy speaking in every senate discussion (and senators had to discuss around his points and not against).
@@bestgrill9647 I think @CoronaVirusRespecter was referring to his political title, which was "Princeps Senatus", which translates to roughly "first senator" or "prime senator"
@@bestgrill9647 I think the original user already knows Augustus was a dictator. What he meant is that he wasn't formally one, since they kept the official republican titles and institutions moreless. It was all propaganda, just like Stalin wasn't a dictator, he was just such a "great guy" that everyone in the USSR wanted him to lead them
William Baric language evolves. The word bourgeoisie no longer has the same meaning. And I think it is pretty obvious in which context they are using the word here. I think the only dumb person is here
Stalinism is not = Communism. It is not even Socialism. Communism is the eventual outcome desired once a Socialist Society is achieved. The USSR never even attained Socialism let alone Communism. Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed anyone who does not understand this does not get the basic definitions of either system. You can dislike both but they are vastly different.
communism is one corporation capitalism, classless society (ruled by bureacratic caste), while socialism is rule of working class, totally different... even stalinism is best model
Who doesn't dislike both? Most people, thank you very much. Vastly different with vastly similar outcomes. It's nationalist communism? "wasn't real communism" It got corrupted? "not real communism" It ends in death? "not real communsim. Does fascism end in death? Well, yeah duh. But like communist, the fascist would have the same excuses. Socialsm is bad too. Always makes the people unhappy, no sense of independence and the welfare system moves towards overload. That's the future. State, state and more state. And don't forget the depopulation by the elites. I don't like the cause, Comrade.
The only thing he would've written is his signature validating another corpse for a gulag. As much as I loathe communism, even Stalin wouldn't have been able to put up with the sniffling, babbling, disorganized speech. Discourteous notions aside, he sounds like a schizophrenic that got his hands on a few free college courses.
Richard Alpert what percentage of people have studied as much as he has or have spent as much time in universities or writing. not quite a few, he is atleast in the top .01% (read top 700,000) in the world
From Wikipedia "In political and social sciences, communism(from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]" That is the basic definition, a wonderful idea that should not be given up on. Soviet Union was based on a specific ideology mixed with the circumstances of its time, the countries geopolitics and materials available. Everytime people try to close down communism by citing USSR, Stalin, Gulag, collapse. They are performing an ideological attack to shut down any talk of Communism as an idea and do not give any nuance to the scenerio. It would be like me saying, how many more times does capitalism need to fail (recession, failure to remove all unemployment, contradictions with ecology of the planet) before people give up on it. "Capitalism equals George Bush, imperialist wars, economic collapse, austerity." "Capitalism equals Churchill, empire, colonialism, World wars." We can all do it. Difference is capitalism gets given nuance and dynamic discussion with a complete historical analysis when people discuss its failures and success. Communism, a broad concept, idea. Doesn't. It gets shut down with bad historicity in a linear succession of propagandist dogma. It's not healthy to any political debate. It's only helpful as a tool of anti-communists or anti-socialists. People need to start challenging it.
@@lordz00 yeah, just look at Poland now. A dive, full of far right extremists and half of its population keeps leaving to go to work in other countries because its done so well post communism in accepting capitalism.
@Goyrl Gone Wild you call me naive whilst writing some half arsed completely incorrect attempt at telling me what marxism is. A. The point of my post was what the basic definition of Communism is. A very simple concept. Marxism is a specific doctrine but not the definition of Communism. Although his writings are very insightful. As for you using dictatorship of the proletariat. Again. You show you lack of understanding as to what he ment by that.
Goyrl Gone Wild Your analysis are very delusional, really. I’m an anti-statist and totally opposed to socialist authoritarianism and totalitarianism throughout history, but you literally implied that in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” society is suddenly separated and sectarized with rich people in one side and the working class in the other? The difference between a fascist regime, where people are separated depending on their ethnicy, something they can’t change, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, where separation is by class, is that class is a personal choice, every individual can willingly choose wether they want to be part of the working class or the oppressors, which exploit the working class. That is the essence. It’s like the “Blue lives matter” fallacy opposed to the “Black lives matter” movement. Class is a choice. Choosing to follow an oppressive system is oppression. Nationality, ethnicy, isn’t. Also, nationalist exposure is chauvinism. Chauvinism is the first step towards fascism. Your countries are invented. Fighting for them is primitivist. Sincerely, you just showed how much more you need to learn about the systems that conduct power to individuals and vice-versa.
"he common ownership of the means of production " -- Thanks and thats so STUPID. What means of production? Marx wrote his shh in 1848 and we think it was yesterday
Quite an incentive to not have a big prison population. It wouldn't have been possible under Hitler, because 1) it would have requiterd the inmates to be literate, 2) to be well enough to write, and 3) to be alive.
Despite all his drivel, Zizek does get the message out. When Stalin claps it is because he preaches communistic equality and becomes part of the audience, since at the Plenum which he represents most clearly of all, it is absolute reason - the dialectic of Enlightenment - which is preached. In the case of Fascism there is instead a fundamental instinctual and correct understanding that the world is NOT as the Enlightenment or Marxists preach. The world is fundamentally disordered, hence Marx's Human Species Being (das Gattungswesen des Menschen) is a trivial feature of the world so that instead what matters is differential human personality (as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf as the distinguishing feature of Nazism from Marxism), thus the Leader's right to be clapped for his greater insight into the human condition - his (rarely her) superior personality manifested by his contribution or speech, and clapped by the grateful. I.e. Fascism only died out because of its racism. Any genuine right-wing revival will not be racist but rather emphasize the polluting effect of culture, including religious as well as Marxist-egalitarian and Western-egalitarian attitudes.
Marxism is pseudo-rational. It starts in intuition of a supernatural realm , just as Nazism starts. And, as Marxs early ideas show, never leaves it. Capitalism is the only Enlightenment politics because it applies rational individualism.
This comment, like all attempts to sanitize fascism, makes no sense. Franco and Pinochet’s state died out too. The world being ‘fundamentally disordered’ is a bold statement. The physical laws of the natural world are orderly. Human behavior isn’t. Any attempt to fully control human behavior and eliminate individuality will backfire horrifically. Fascists suppresses the individual for the sake of the state, and this enforced ‘collectivism’ is similar to communism. The ultranationalism of fascism usually always leads to vehement racism too.
For me this demonstrates that communism is simply more hypocritical than facism, while they were both guilty of massive atrocities, communism always acted under the guise of doing "good" while facism outright discarded such notions of good and evil, and were more concerned with power, honour, and the health of the nation. All this rituals ofcommunism were simply the mask of equality and justice. If anything this simply demonstrates that facism, if nothing else, is honest, while communism is anything but, and lies evey step of the way in its seizure of power, pantomining morality through a slaughter they deem justified.
And then the fact that Zizek participates in the Stalinist behavior with his applause and then insists, "I'm not saying one is better than the other"...smells rotten to me.
Science isn't just about ranking different positions in better and worse, it's also about explaining the positions and their differences. You don't have to say "fascism is worse than stalinism" to say "fascism isn't stalinism". Many people say that they are two sides of a coin, but that is wrong and missleading. They are both dangerous, brutal and totalitarian, but in a different way (which also means that you have to treat their followers differently when defending democracy). That's the point, Zizek does here.
@@azarael77 i agree for the most part, except -> science isn't about ranking different ideological positions AT ALL. that would be ideological reasoning. sure, one can say [...]ism is better than [...]ism, because [insert reason here], but that's still ideological, even if the reasoning is perfectly sound to most people. it's still a belief. one can however still research and analyze different ideologies, if one is methodologically well equipped and avoids ideological speech in the process of analysis. this however doesn't mean, that scientists can't have and express their own set of beliefs themselves, but using them in their scientific reasoning, would undermine their professionality.
But if Stalin is thinking the same thing as Hitler but clapping along like he's not then where are we at? Wouldn't that be a sort of faux universalism? In that situation you could say that Hitler is being more genuine in soaking up the applause.
@Electro_blob This is a widespread but incorrect view, that National Socialism was a german version of fascism. In a decree of Stalin in 1936, the term "National Socialism" was replaced by "Hitler fascism" to avoid the word part socialism. The term lasted until the dissolution of the Soviet Union; but still finds imitation in the equation of National Socialism and fascism. The Western European nations and the US, on the other hand, often spoke of "Nazism." National Socialism is related to fascism in the authoritarian structure of the state, however, there are great ideological contradictions regarding the rejection of liberalism and parliamentarism, racial issues and the fight against Marxism. The commitment to the people (Blood and Soil) is opposed to the state thinking of fascism. The latter represents a decided imperialist conception.
@@derlinksfaschist8136Both represent imperialism. ‘Blood and Soil’ was directly related to ‘living space/Lebensraum’ as the Germans wanted to expand their territory into Central and Eastern Europe. Those with so-called ‘good blood’ would be Germanized while the rest would be expelled or murdered.
Zizek makes a very shallow analysis. Because Zizek understands a little about the Soviet reality of that times. His success is based on the fact that his "western" audiences, in front of which Zizek reforms, usually know NOTHING about that times. The comparison between "Hitlerism" and "Stalinism" is impossible. Let assume both were personal styles of leadership. Then, Hitler had unchallenged personal power, while Stalin did not lead by himself. For Stalin, there were Politburo and Central Party Committee which resolutions Stalin had to take under consideration. Stalin could not put through many of his ideas with these two collective bodies. Hitler was a "servant" to the big financial and industrial capital not only in Germany but in Britain and the US as well as some of the European aristocracy. Hitler was very "creative" in his following someone else's agenda. Therefore, in general, Hitler did not have the general freedom to act. For example, he had to ask the west not to attack him militarily while he was fighting with the USSR. On the contrary, Stalin was implementing an idea about how the society had to be and otto develope. Hitler was working in a friendly internal and international environment. Stalin's work was obstructed by internal opposition and hostile foreign ideological, economic, and political surrounding. And more and more differences are there.
It’s quite shocking to see how many try and justify a monster like Stalin. Just goes to show the power of propaganda to reverberate for decades on weak minds.
> Hitler was a "servant" to the big financial and industrial capital not only in Germany but in Britain and the US as well as some of the European aristocracy. Hitler had guns. Capitalists dont. Your Marxism is intellectuals sleaze.
Leon Trotsky about Stalin : " The vengeance of history is more powerful than the vengeance of any powerful general secretary . " How history proved Trotsky right . RIP leon .
@@NikolaAvramov Stalin did many bad things but also did many great things. History could be completly different without him, in a bad way. Many people are just so narrowminded and filled with their own wicked ignorant personalities that they don't wanna see beyond their own long nose.
@@e.s.g.5997 The world would have been a better place without Stalin. My capitalist country neighbored the USSR and we were better off because of capitalism. Whereas tens of millions died under communism.
@@mikeyytu9283 Is Good faith with minions part of the Dialectic scheme. Is the end game, synthesis, a complimentary blend of both left and right or just two left feet. A clumsy knock off or a repeat of the old Monarchs, inbred blue bloods.
It's funny he talks about applause. People had to applaud basically until the oldest fainted of exhaustion after a speech from Stalin. Because being the first one to stop may have you reported to the regime by one of your fellow human beings...
I think this video should be titled the difference between Nazism and Stalinism because that’s what he’s really talking about, Fascism and Communism aren’t quite one in the same as either of those things, Stalinism being a branch of Communism and National Socialism being influenced by the ideology of Mussolini who was in turn implemented some of the ideas of Giovanni Gentile. I believe it’s a common mistake to conflate the broad fascists movements with the peculiar racialist and supremacist ideas of Adolf Hitler, the key being in Fascist ethos the sense and preservation of a National Being where in Hitlers philosophy it took on a racial dimension that came to mean the blood of a people defining the nation rather than the other way around.
there is no difference they both lead overt authoritarianism/ totalitarianism, they just employ different means to the same end tyranny, imprisonment, and death. they both preserve the idea of the state / community as a whole being more important the rights of the individual.
Not to mention that Mussolini, Gentile and D'Annunzio all took inspiration from Lenin, and that the racialist views of Hitler were all philosophically explained by Rosenberg and Chamberlain in their works years before the Third Reich happened.
I've been wondering why it's so rare to hear China called fascist. Extreme nationalism, holy cults of personality around their perfect leaders, deep rallying of the masses, maintaining old gender inequalities, heavy emphasis on symbols, a general worship of the state as the highest religion, etc. Based on this talk, two things come to mind. The clips I've seen of thunderous applause for Chinese leaders show them not joining in the applause, similar to European fascists. However, the part about a trial in which confessions were elicited from a perspective of 'universal reason' sounds similar to the sorts of 'interrogations' and 'show trials' in Chinese history - the sorts that didn't have a place in European fascism. Is that the only difference we can offer, save that fascist states don't usually fight each other and during WWII, China suffered at the hands of Japanese fascism?
china in the outset of WW2 was neither communist or fascists- some say democratic but that also isn’t quite accurate as Shek was essentially a dictator. China was in a state of essentially civil war during WW2 and Japan took advantage of their long hated neighbors
I love Zizek, but why does he feel the need to explicate the power relations at play in communism versus fascism? They are so obviously different complex governmental and ideological systems that a need to compare the two is not obvious to me.
They are both two very different types of evil, but comparing and contrasting the two is not only fascinating, but it also aids in the analysis and understanding of the two
1. The difference between Nazism and Communism has been well established, the Nazi's were ultranationalist and ultimately racist at the center. The socialist policies or statist policies of all kinds including socialist like measures were a support of this, not the goal as in Communism. 2. Not all Socialists were Marxists, this fact is tangential here, but is something usually overlooked entirely. 3. The hybridization of ideologies can and does happen.
National Bolshevism was a popular idea in Russia in 1990s to combine both Nazi and Communist ideology)) Limonov, the leader of the party, even used combination of both symbols. Personally, i think he was a nutjob. Non Marxist socialists never got anywhere because they were too extreme or too orthodox. Revolutionary Socialists are a good example in Russian Empire before 1917. They were even more extreme than Bolsheviks and believed in personal terror against government officials. Needless to say, they never got anywhere after the civil war despite being on friendly terms with Marxcists at first.
Another tactic school teachers use is to simply start talking and everyone will shut up if they want, and/or hush those around them to listen. Interesting stuff though. On a side note, I’m going to guess those “tics” are from the physical manifestations of tourette syndrome, which can vary greatly. I had a friend in high school and his father and brother all had Tourette’s and all manifested differently; head nods, blinking, shirt pulling, hand gestures...trust me, they get how distracting it can be. Just ignore it and learn something
The most successful authoritarian regime in the 20th century was fascist: Pinochet's Chile. In a mere 15 years, Pinochet lifted Chile's economy from the second lowest rank in South America to the second-highest. He threw the oligarchs in prison, and brought in advisors from the University of Chicago (which has one of the best Economics departments on Earth). He then actually listened to what his advisors said and followed their advice, despite his personal ideological differences (can you picture Castro or Chavez doing that?). As a result, the 80s & 90s were decades of enormous prosperity in Chile, and even to this day it's economy is strong. Pinochetism is fascism done RIGHT.
Same. And that's the beauty of not having to associate with a camp, or at least being open minded. If you look at the critics who are openly disgusted of either Peterson and Zizek, its typically people who dont really know their work that well.
Because their political ideologies are completely opposite to each other in every way. Communism is internationalist and anti-discriminatory (I’m talking stated beliefs here, not necessarily real-world practice) whereas fascism is based on extreme national-chauvinism and the belief in the inherent superiority/inferiority of certain peoples. Communism envisages a free society in which there are no social classes and property is shared in common, whereas fascism believes in a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian order in which everyone knows their place and resources are concentrated in the hands of the ruling class. On the level of first principles, communism and fascism are absolute opposites. Of course, in 20th Century history, certain forms of communism degenerated into a totalitarian horror that had little or nothing to do with the utopian dreams I set out above. Although, in principle, communism is the antithesis of fascism, in practice, they often resembled each other in terms of how awful they ended up being. North Korea, for example, is certainly more fascist than communist, even at the theoretical level. Since the end of the Cold War, there has, in fact, been a bizarre convergence between certain groups identifying with the actual practices of 20th Century communism (rather than its theoretical/philosophical basis) and self-identified fascists. The convergence between the extreme authoritarian wing of communism and the nationalist hysteria of fascism have led to abominations such as “National-Bolshevism” which openly combines Stalinism with Hitlerism. So, although “true” communists and fascists stand for totally opposite things, the reality of the 20th Century experiment with “communism” means that totalitarian movements inspired by both the “left” and far-right, may not actually always be enemies at all. Communist parties such as the French Communists, the Japanese Communists, or the Indian Communist Party (Marxist) are fully committed to liberal democracy, have long ago renounced revolution, and function in every way as democratic parties that oppose nationalism, racism, war and other things communism is meant to oppose in principle, and these parties are devoutly anti-fascist and pro-democracy. on the other hand, the North Korean and Chinese Communist Parties have no adherence at all to any actual “communist principles” and are, in both practice and theory, very close to the spirit of fascism. Parties such as the National-Bolsheviks in Russia have openly embraced fascism and put it together in an unholy marriage with the worst of Stalinism, which, in any case, also resembles fascism in every way that counts. Stalinists were largely against fascism (except when they weren’t) for largely practical reasons and because they weren’t willing to tolerate a rival ideology, rather than because they represented a better system. Life under Stalin was every bit as awful as life under Hitler and both states had the same totalitarian features.. The real reason Stalinists ultimately became die-hard anti-fascists wasn’t because they were any morally better, but rather because the interests of the USSR and Germany had come into conflict. Until then, Stalinists were happy enough to ally themselves with fascists against the democratic socialists. The hostility between certain faces of communism and fascism has, therefore, been inconsistent at best, although, on the philosophical level, they remain night and day.
Doesn't this quite clearly show that essentially Hitler is a new perverse version of paganism and that Stalin is a new perverse version of Christianity? It reflects not only their behavior, but also what they were culturally interested in.
YES SIR. Right on the spot. Communism is exactly a perversion of Christianity replacing moral agency and freedom with tiranny and fear. It substrascts the joy and compassion of sharing to add a coercive, terror-driven distribution of goods
You gave what I consider an overly simple answer to an extremely complex question, and my usual (very Žižekian) response to such situations is a huge critical rant. Sorry if I bore you, but here it goes: Stalinism (roots of which are already present in Leninism, roots of both already being present in the Tsarist state system) is a perverted dystopian mode of communism, and it's not like Christianity hasn't had its own fair share of ways to replace moral agency and freedom with tyranny and fear, quite often justifying lying and violence in fighting against the "enemies of faith", which in this context is exactly the same as ideological enemies. Yes, 20th century communism was way more violent than 20th century Christianity, but the levels of violence in, say, 5th century AD, crusades or the period of counter-reformation ARE comparable, because those are the times when Christianity was constituting its own institutional monopolies and it violently crushed, not only non-Christians, but also the "wrong kind" of Christians in enormous quantities. Both Christians and communists should be very aware that people did extremely violent acts in order to enact their utopian visions, preserve their respective identities and determine what is the "true" Christianity / communism. And there is no better critic of such behavior from a deeply human perspective than Jesus himself. The main point of the Good Samaritan parable is not about being kind to strangers, it's about seeing kind individuals among foreigners, usual suspects and "enemies by default" as better friends and neighbors than unkind people "of your own kind". It's obvious from Jesus' wording that the main point is not about being the Samaritan, it's about being the beaten, bloody Jew who realizes what truly matters. As Solzhenitsyn said in Gulag Archipelago, criticizing not just communism, but also what is wrong with violent modes of all belief systems: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” That's a good historical and spiritual lesson for both communists AND Christians, and I agree that Christianity has a much better tradition of saying such moral truths. However, thinking that there is (or ever will be) a belief system which finally resolves that question absolutely defeats the purpose of that brilliant quote. On the other, more practical and secular side of things: before, during and after the period of Christian cultural supremacy, the state has been CONSTANTLY used to distribute goods, mostly upwardly. Despite the radical anti-slavery message of Jesus, it was only in the 16th century that Catholics banned, not slavery in general, but just sale of Christian slaves to non-Christians, and even that didn't work everywhere immediately. A couple of centuries later, many countries started banning slavery by Law. Just like capitalists today, many slave owners claimed that manumission should be an act of charity, although there is nothing charitable in simply abolishing grave injustice. Communism should not replace compassionate and free acts of charity, but should replace INJUSTICES that are already present in the systems of distribution (economic and/or political) with justice, while still allowing charity to occur - knowing very well that communism is about social justice, NOT charity. It should be about giving people what is already theirs and taking away means to control people from those who exploit others en masse - not about forcing people to share anything that isn't already in some way shared (For instance, we all share obligations towards the state, all workers and managers share obligations towards their workplaces, the question is which obligations make sense for all involved, or at the very least, for the majority). Communism is about applying lessons from the "kingdom of heaven" to the "kingdoms of earth", while also maintaining that communism is essentially about the kingdom of earth. It should NEVER be about fooling yourself that you can make kingdoms of earth into the kingdom of heaven. It should only "Render unto Caesar", but why not improve our legal and economic systems with lessons from "Rendering unto God", i.e. from our intuitions about higher principles at hand? If you want to always and at all costs strictly separate what is Caesar's and what is God's, then you should advocate legalizing slavery and allow it to be just a matter of charity. If you do not want to legalize slavery, then you should acknowledge that Law may be used to bring about basic levels of equality, a process which classical liberalism started, but I believe only communism can improve further. Christianity is in my opinion (and I don't think that Žižek would massively disagree) greatest school of moral thought (of course, IF APPLIED PROPERLY, but that's always a caveat for morality, as Hegel often reminds us). Communism is inherently more limited when it comes to universal morality, but is simply better at criticizing the "modern Caesar", i.e. modern secular systems, than Christianity. Lenin and Marx have more to learn from Jesus, Dostoevsky and Chesterton than the other way around, but ordinary modern humans still have a lot they need to learn from Lenin and Marx when it comes to our shared secular values.
I have to say its exciting to see the changes in the comments section to Zizek... Years ago nobody gave a rats ass about him, save a few of us... Now he brings out all the liberals and righties to feel attacked by his hard-line. He must be doing something right
Fun fact: the american incarceration rate is higher than it was in the soviet union under Stalin. Maybe if we start calling prisons gulags, more people will care
German national socialism started out pretty differently from Italian fascism but took large inspiration from it as time went on, and Hitler effectively killed off the more revolutionary characters of his party in an agreement with the german military forces, and became a repressive force towards the working class in exchange for support by the german bourgeoisie once they started worrying about a revolution. To them Hitler was the politician with the authority and power to keep their workers in line so they offered monetary support to him in exchange. So yeah Hitler became similar to fascism over time (not like he was any less insane earlier, having read the political part of the Mein Kampf I can assure you that much lol), was authoritarian from the start but with a few ideals that were pretty far from what he became later
Hitler and his National Socialists were more interested in the ‘supremacy’ of the Germanic race, while Mussolini’s state was less inclined to repress or eliminate different ethnic groups initially based purely off ethnicity. His racial laws were introduced primarily to appease Hitler, and his imperialist policies seem more like an attempt to recreate the ‘glory’ of the Roman Empire.
Well that explains a lot because Slavoj isn't either. He's just a typical liberal. He criticises capitalism but then says "but the left and the right are both equally shit, right?" Zizek just seeks attention and gets way too much of it. The simple fact that he describes himself as a "Hegelian" in the 21st century should already make people sceptical of him
2:50 This isn’t completely true. Let’s not ignore the show trials in Nazi Germany under Roland Freisler, Judge President of the People's Court (Präsident des Volksgerichtshofs), who was also one of the attendees of the Wannsee conference, back then in the function of a state secretary, one of the main architects of the Holocaust. Hitler even called Freisler “our Vyshinsky”, who was state prosecutor of the Soviet Union in the 1930’s. Hitler also called Freisler (who was a fervent national socialist) a Bolshevik, as Hitler always despised lawyers and judges. I guess also because Freisler joined the Bolshevists when he was a prisoner of war in Russia in WW1. Most of the time it’s not so clear cut.
@@removies3653 Are you saying you didn’t read my comment? I’m saying that Freisler and the show trials under his direction existed in nazi Germany. Freisler was notorious for his hateful rants and constant screaming during the “trials” he presided: ua-cam.com/video/D3qsImhAswo/v-deo.html
@@albedoshader You kinda answered yourself. Freisler made those trials, not Hitler. Freisler brought that practice to Germany from Russia. Freisler was not a pure nazi, but a nazi with Bolshevik traces in his worldview. Also, fascists tend to steal practices, symbols and names from everybody else. Even their names.
@@GerBessa It’s strange to hold Freisler alone accountable for the show trials, as he was the State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and President of the People's Court under Hitler. He didn’t get these posts because he just decided to do the jobs. Also, he was an attendee of the Wannsee conference, which also was a very exclusive event. If Hitler or the regime in general didn’t condone Freisler, he would have never been able to do any of this. What he did was very much condoned and supported by the regime and did not happen in a vacuum.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
Zizek always gets me wondering how can you simultaneously have no charisma at all and still be so charismatic.
The Australian writer Bob Ellis contended that "charisma", as we know it today, was invented by the Democratic Party to elect JFK. I think the notion of charisma is misleading because the world is made up of plenty of people that can excite, interest, provoke, or inspire you that aren't good looking or speak with clean rhetoric. Often the best thinkers are horribly uncharismatic.
@@CatastrophicalPencil, very cool, indeed!
I could not resist. Very good point, though! Or should I say ... very cool point??? Thanks!!!
It's *precisely* that *snob* *snob*
Zizek is charismatic idk what you're talking about
Externally he's cute in his clumsiness, reminding a child, that's why he evokes sympathy. Yet his speech is charismatic because of his ability to use tone and accents.
His nose is fighting a real cold war.
Its called cocaine.
humorous 🤣🤣
@@manuelred5465 he has ticks, that doesn't undermined what he is trying to say.
@@manuelred5465 He's spoken about his Tourette's many times before. This joke is getting old.
H0rs :2 no the context of what he’s saying does that.
There are three types of comments:
- Ones related to his sniffing
- Ones related to his appearance
- Ones arguing about politics
5 actually!
- Ones related to his sniffing
- Ones related to his appearance
- Ones arguing about politics
- Ones typifying types of comments
- This meta comment.
I like your profile pic. Never understood why the 3 arrows included communism.
@@cornsockgabz Isn't the last point only a generic term for the one before? Lol
@@cornsockgabz 1 actually
the one attempting to be clever in order to get artificial serotonin points and monkey brain approval
@@algumnomeaihehe so did it work for you then?
NEVER SHAKE HANDS WITH THIS MAN!
Robert Bright ahahahahahaha
He has Tourette syndrome
Peterson shook his hand though lol, it was brave of him
😂😂😂
A fellow germaphobe I see.
Stalin adopted the habit of joining the applause in order to control it. When he was introduced, Stalin got frenzied applause which lasted for minutes, and was constantly renewed by someone shouting "Long Live the Great Stalin" or some other slogan, which caused everyone to keep applauding, and applauding. The Soviet press characterized this as "stormy, prolonged applause.".
Stalin found this kind of thing annoying. He would make gestures indicating "That's enough already!:, or "Stop it!" but someone would yell another tribute and the "stormy prolonged applause" started again. Of course, it was not advisable to be the first one to stop applauding...
Finally the applause died down and Stalin made his speech and left the podium, returning to sit as one of the Politburo members behind and above the podium.
How to control this problem? They tried ringing a bell, but it didn't work. So Stalin adopted the practice of applauding with the audience. When he stopped, they stopped. So, let them get it out of their systems for a while, then stop the noise and make your speech. See "Stalin Angry" ua-cam.com/video/1YsL4HXZN9E/v-deo.html
the idea is they were all afraid of being the first one to stop applauding also
"Long live Stalin, he loves you,/Sing these words, or you know what he'll do!"
Thus Zizek is full of shite.
@@juancpgo What Zizek says sounds very contrived indeed but I also think it seems part of the communist spirit is the tendency to pretend the ruling class is "just like you" whilst Fascist leaders were supposed to only be in their position because of their very special capacity to fulfill their functions, a position of differentiation which was accepted and expected in such a hierarchical system.
Communists were as hierarchical and in fact believed even more in the capacity of technocrats, but in the public eye they were supposed to be perceived as "another comrade". It was absolute BS because they despised the "morally philistine" working class, the useless and uneducated lumpen proletariat.
You know who else applauds with his crowd and stops to get them to stop as well as using other gestures? Donald Trump.
I think this is just a case of zizek looking too much into a thing which is really just how different people with intense cults of personality perform public speaking. You can find plenty of stalin speeches where he doesnt clap at all.
Love him or hate him you can’t say he isn’t interesting.
Or that he doesn't touch his face enough
“When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.”
He's not. Typical marxist shit talk.
An intellectual who does not participate in production. Pretty lacking for praxis.
Only 2 choices???? I guess I love him then.... Oh come on!
audience: *claps*
slavoj: *claps*
so i want to begin with a joke, as you have seen i have joined the aplause, thats because i hate totalitarianism
Awesome joke!!
Someone get Hegelian Mark Hamill some allergy medicine
It's a complication of trying to pronounce English words and sounds. He doesn't do any of that when he's speaking Slovenian.
shouldn't it be marxist
djrichter he’s stated on record that he’s more of a Hegelian than a Marxist, see the Jordan Peterson debate and probably a lot of other times. I’m no expert but the difference I think is that Marxism examines material dialectics (i.e. conflicts between different economic classes) whereas Hegelianism examines ideological dialectics (i.e. conflicts between ideologies and class positions within ideologies).
Anonymous Misnomer yeah ur right. my not-well-researched understanding of him being a leftist or ML lead me to assume that he identified moreso with marxist philosophy over hegelian philosophy. if he's said that, so be it. ur differentiation between the two is basically right i think. i think the difference between the two is a little bit more general though. i thought marx and engels found hegel too idealist in analyzing the relationship man has in the world and vice versa, and more so continued his philosophy to develop dialectical materialism. but then again i'm also not done reading socialism: utopian and scientific, and i'm also not well read at all in hegel :p
You sir, have Made me laugh.
So many comments about his appearance like it matters at all
It does 80%
it has an impact on how u perceive his words, thus, it matters.
your image is part of the message, that u send to the world.
one can try to forget about it, but non-standard appearance will still be a distraction.
@@yehor_ivanov You sound like a shallow American or Canadian.
Day C it matters. He's very hard to listen to because the sniffling is fucking nasty
What is it about he's apparecce?
His dealer must be earning a fortune
He has Tourette syndrome
Adamantius Cloudcat Daan’s right, your boy hitting that devils dandruff! I worked the door in a bar for years, he’s always giving off signs.
@@JudoMateo Those are ticks you dummy. He's always done them. He always grabs his shirt, touches his hair, and pinches his nose. It's how he's always been. You clearly don't know much about Zizek or cocaine. I'll gladly listen to your opinions about guarding a bar door, though.
@@ThwartedVillainy Yeah, yeah OJ's inoncent too, wonder if Zizek ever parties with Ed Buck? Fact is he's an admitted commie who bears many of the distinguishing characteristics of an abuser(His friends even think he's an addict myheartwillgoonandsoonandsoon.blogspot.com/2015/10/have-you-ever-taken-cocaine-or-any.html . Given communisms loooong history of producing murderous liars he's not trustworthy, cokeheads too are notoriously untrustworthy as well , so his testimony is less than credible brother. Do you think your personal insults effective or appropriate? It appears you're far too emotionally invested to be objective, quite typical of hegeians I've found. You are right about one thing though I've little experience with booger sugar outside of busting up moronic, troublemaking cokeheads when I was younger, are you an expert on the subject?
@trident3b "look like a 'dealer'." BWAHA! You hegelians are so easily triggered, and in your case apparently unknowingly racist. How exactly does one "look like a 'dealer'." ?!
Title: Difference between Communism and Fascism.
Video: Difference between Stalinism and Fascism.
Comments: Haha funny man go sniff sniff!
Stalinism and Nazism
@@marshmelows actually what he says largely applies to most fascist movements
@@roryxo4623 nazism is not fascism, two different political ideologies
"Difference between Stalinism and Fascism." There's a difference???
@@mikeenocksson3406 Nazism was born out of fascism just like Stalinism was born out of Communism
This comment section is a goldmine of the edgy hot takes of people who think that they're geniuses for denouncing Nazis while simultaneously using Nazi propaganda to denounce the Soviet Union.
well, I mean, I think the holodomor, gulag, breadlines, KGB speak for them selves. While things got much better after desalination its still a train wreck of a country.
Now this is a proper edgy hot take by someone who is a real genius.
EXACTLY!!
@@parus6422, holodomor speaks for itself? What the hell has happened with sanity? I don't know if you know, but there a huge consensus about how gulags were comparible to the Nazi concentration camps, although CIA itself attested that there were reading and join spaces to the prisioners on Gulags.
And, of course, just pointining that attention on different features from two historical phenomena does not imply into SUPPORT one or another, oh right buddy?
@@SuperSl4Sh I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out things with objective evidence that can no be simply dismissed by "Nazi propaganda."
The title of the video should've been stalinism vs Fascism, zizek would be disappointed if you think communism and stalinism are same😂
Yeah, and he says Stalinist leader in the video, not communist
Marx’s explanations on the proletariat dictatorship match quite a bit with what Stalin (and Lenin) and other communist leaders did.
@@tdtyyuf I certainly doubt that sir but I'll be glad to learn about this, so could you please mention the book Or article from where you got this idea.
Lots of Americans i've met automatically think of Stalin, gulags, the chinese army, Red choir blablabla when you ask them if they're communists or socialism lol it's sad
@@dipanshmandaar hopefully a 30 second attention span won’t stop you from reading all this: are you kidding me read Karl Marx. Problem is you only look at sources that shy away from Marx’s overall work and focus on only certain things which form a certain kind of narrative, especially effecting young people like you. The proletariat dictatorship and the death of all that is old, he has several quotes perpetuating violence. Do your homework dude I’m not doing it for you. And fun fact Marx’s father actually called his son a demon, do your homework look at primary sources such as journals that are actually from the 19th century kept in libraries in Germany, you don’t know nothing. I’ll give you a few quotes from Marx, “our generation like the Jews that Moses lead out of the wilderness must conquer a New World the generation must perish in order to make room for the people who are fit for a new world.” “in order to achieve communist consciousness man himself must suffer massive change this change must come through a revolution a process of overthrowing the old filthy yolk and finding a new society.” He uses the word terror a lot. He was also quite prejudice against Jews and black people, do your own research. Those are some of many quotes and of course you won’t find this on your leftist Reddit website talking points. I’m Ukrainian and I’m Cuban I know what the ideology is my friend. And remember this young man not everybody has the same image of an ideal world, your image of an ideal world may not be the same as the person next to you. Communism wants and ultimately forces everybody, particularly through propaganda via state apparatus, to live in the same image of thought and life and what must be right and wrong and all else is a threat, that’s where the importance of freedom comes in. To destroy any counter revolution for allegiance must be to the state party apparatuses utopia. The proletariat dictatorship (communism) becomes much like a hardened religion, that’s part of the reason why they hated religion cause it has its own allegiances already. Who else will own the many aspects of our world if not a person outside the state or in it? Nobody? Leaders of the revolutionary party will arise and everything that is done must be done for their cause no matter the circumstance, for everybody. Assuming you didn’t grow up in a dictatorship of the proletariat a.k.a. socialist/communist state do you really think that you know what this ideology is more so then somebody who grew up with it since they were born? Such as Cubans or many other examples of nations throughout every continent of the world in which it’s been tried. All of this is basically a long way of saying…..it’s a dictatorship. And socialism is a whole system in and of itself, it’s not just moving some tax dollars around or putting more governmental funds into something then before.
The title should probably be, "The Difference Between Stalinism and Nazism".
easy deism theres a difference between stalinism and communism lol
@Inimigo Público zizek is a communist
@A Liberdade vai cantar! What a colossal misunderstanding of the English language. I am truly impressed.
A Liberdade vai cantar! You are dumb
A Liberdade vai cantar! Oh didnt see your pp.I’d not even answer if I did...
Man I love Zizek, and so on and so on...
I would prefer not to...
What I gathered from this is that under a totalitarian state that has adopted a communist ideology, there is a complex facade that needs to be maintained, and there isn’t an equivalent for this in fascism. Fascism is more direct and in a way honest about its goals and the hierarchy that exists. Stalinist leaders had to put on a show and pretend like they weren’t above everyone else.
Stalinism wasn't communism. Russia turned form a poor communist state in the middle of a civil war and transformed to an aristocratic bureaucracy after Lenin's death
@@joscarmichael8341 Stalinism was communist, a special strand of communism tho, it was far more conservative and logic than trotskysm
That wasn't the point.
@@joscarmichael8341 stalinism was absolutely communism, exactly like all forms of communism. Even if they differ from the marxist concept of communism, all of them are communism because they all tried to create a government/society based on marxist ideals. The fact that almost all of these countries (China,Korea,Cuba, you pick one) developed differently from the original marxist idea is merely because of the impossibility of actually applying those ideals, which were so vague that their interpretation led to some of the worst totalitarism of history.
@@handle112 Giuseppe Palermo, il comunismo è completamente diverso da quello che sono diventati Russia, Nord Corea, Cuba eccetera
I watched him interact with people tonite at a book signing. The man is as funny and lovely to the individual as he is to the crowd. I love listening to and I love beholding him in action.
Tired of dumb people making fun of his tics instead of listening to his words and talking about those. Reminds me of an old saying, "When you point at the stars, the idiot stares at your finger"
At least they are hear and I think imitation is flattery even if baffoonish.
SNIFF, SNIFF AND SO ON AND SO ON.
He's 70 Years old he can Talk
Those sniffs of thine from mine have sniffest salt sniffs.
Was ever a sniff in this humor sniff'd?
O, I have sniff'd a miserable sniff.
A blessed sniffing, my most sovereign sniff.
Have I a sniff to doom my brother's sniff?
I cannot sniff, if to sniff in silence.
My sniff, this sniffs consciense in your sniff.
@@han3wmanwukong125 hilarious
@@han3wmanwukong125 and very talented
Sylvester the cat as a philosophy professor.
Hahaha 😂😂😂
Ahahahahhahahahahhah
Seeing him clap at himself in the beginning (or rather to join in the applause of the common cause) was great. There is something charming about this 'narcissism for the cause' or what you might call it. If i'm ever in a similar situation i'd now be hard pressed not to clap myself lol.
It's a common courtesy gesture. When you see Mussolini gesturing while he's being applauded he looks like a douche. Which suits him well since he was also called the Duce. The problem is that applauding when you're a despot like Stalin looks a bit fake to say the least
@@jmiquelmb Are you saying Mussolini was not a despot?
@@davidwuhrer6704 Of course I didn't meant that
@@jmiquelmb But it is what you said, isn't it.
@@davidwuhrer6704 Try to read it again
I like the way he say fascist, it makes me feel comfortable.
5:29 Zizek overload
precisely
😂 He is a very interesting person though.
Hahahahahhahaha
I'm dying laughing! 😂 I'm from China and when he joins the clapping, I immediately noticed that's stalinist style
How are you on UA-cam???
@@bharatsharma1026 vpn 🤓
@@rxx396 you sly dog 😂
@@rxx396 based
@Y X How is China? Might visit it sometime.
the way he described the first 10 minutes of a balcanian meet-up is spot on. I even do it with my mom and dad. Just 10 minutes of insulting each other before we get to act like decent human beings to each other. I know it sounds weird but Balcan is the sanest place on earth
A bell had to be rang so people knew when to stop clapping after a Stalin speech, because everyone was afraid of being the first one to stop. I wonder what Zizek would make of that.
@@pandroop5582 I concede that the comparison was a little silly. OP still has a point though
And talk shows have a sign telling people to clap and to stop-- American talk shows are pure evil, confirmed.
@@jonathanshepherd7075 A really stupid equivalence. Not being able to dissent because of the Party threatening to kill you and send your family to a labour camp in Siberia, with having signs asking people to do X on TV.
@@agustinl2302 joke
@@danpetru Huh? He obviously meant to discredit OP's argument. Doing it in a "funny" way doesn't make it just a joke and somehow shield it from criticism.
Thanks zizek. Cant wait to pull out that fine anecdote at the office christmas party.
There is one more big difference between the two. Their leaders shape their mustaches differently.
Slurp slurp slurp communism. Slurp slurp slurp totalitarianism. Slurp slurp slurp.
Marxist-communism and totalitarianism are diametrically opposed. one requires the existence of a state, the other inherently seeks to abolish the state altogether
@@b1bbscraz3y That's what is claimed in marxist theory. We now know it was/is a stupidly naive assumption, if not an intentional lie. The amount of social engineering required for full socialism, necessitates a state apparatus that dwarfs all other types of government and suffocates like no other.
So in practice they become the most totalitarian. And would you believe it!?.. they never seem to transition from socialist control to communist utopia. Fancy that.
@@dribblesg2 actually, no it's not a lie. that's what Marx put in his ideology. he died in 1883. people who came after interpreted things their own way. if an ideology says to do a thing, and you do not do that thing, you are not following the ideology. if Christianity says "do not murder", and you murder, you are not following the ideology. if Christianity says to believe in Yahweh, and you do not believe in Yahweh, are you following the ideology? obviously not
"So in practice they become the most totalitarian"
>because they subvert what the ideology says. again, if Christianity says to believe Jesus existed and was the son of god, and you do not believe that, you are not following the ideology.
and just with religion, Marxism has multiple schools of thought within it. when discussing Christianity, a person needs to be able to tell the difference between Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc. if I am debating against a Christian person, and they tell me they are a Catholic, would it make sense for me to have all my arguments be against Protestantism? no.
and conversely, the different schools within Marxism; there's Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. why? same reason there's different ones in Christianity. a Catholic won't follow all the same tenets of Christianity that a Protestant would. a Baptist won't follow all the same tenets of Christianity that a Lutheran or Calvinist would. and as follows, a Stalinist won't follow the same tenets of communism that a Marxist would. a Maoist won't follow the same tenets of communism that a Leninist might. because they are different. call them as they are, not as you wish they were. Stalin's Russia was Stalinist, a reinterpreted and subverted school of Marxism. Mao's China was Maoist, a reinterpreted and subverted school of Marxism.
there has never been a communist country. USSR was not communist. China was not communist. as communism inherently includes "abolition of the state, abolition of classes, abolition of profit/money". and no country has had this
these types of things matter in politics to differentiate different schools of thought. hence why there's a difference between things like classical liberalism versus different forms of liberalism. just as there are different forms of anarchism. Marxist-communism (as envisioned by Marx, and not followed in history) is anarcho-communism. there are schools of thought that say communism can only exist in anarchy, as it inherently involves abolishing the state
Marx himself despised governments. he argued that the state will always act in the interest of the elite ruling class
at the most, some of those countries could be called "socialist" to some degree. but even then it wouldn't be accurate, as "socialism" according to Marx, means social/worker control of the means of production. no country has ever had this either
@@b1bbscraz3y
1. You can't prove that Marx wasn't lying ie. knew too well that his communist utopia was a necessary pipe dream to seduce the working class into taking power. Maybe he just wanted to fuck over the bourgeoisie. But I'm happy to assume the best of him and simply go with naive.
2. Unlike most anti-socialists, I do actually agree with you that the often used "true socialism hasn't been tried" is a legitimate argument. It's a very weak argument, but it is logical.
3. But my argument is that these are the inevitable sociopolitical results when you try to implement 'full socialism'. The utopian dream is just that - a dream. There hasn't been 'true socialism/communism' because its a mirage. It will never happen. It fails to account for so many factors of human nature. And when you do add those human variables to Marxist theory, when you actually try to put into practice what Marx envisioned, you get red terrors, gulags, industrial scale murder, one class permanent and totalitarian governments, mass scarcity and starvation etc..
Marxists want to argue that Marx envisioned the most perfect, equitable, secure, stable, satisfying society human beings were capable. In fact, he argued this society wasn't just possible, but inevitable. But somehow, this system that is so wonderful AND inherently natural to us, not only cannot be implemented properly, but when we try the results are utterly vile. Every time. How do you account for this?
How is it that when we pursue capitalist modes which are so evil, we inadvertently produce so much good, and when we pursue socialism which is so beautiful, we inadvertently produce so much evil?
@@b1bbscraz3y, oh really? And how prey tell does the marxist propose to enforce the required behaviours, without strong handed governmental organs?
Stalinism wasn't and isn't communism. Russia turned form a poor communist state in the middle of a civil war and transformed to an aristocratic bureaucracy after Lenin's death
The title should be: 'difference between Stalinism and Fascism.'
If you believe violent communism is limited to Stalin or isn’t still alive today, you don’t know history.
I respect Slavoj for many things but his double-, tripple- and multi-sniff combos are top of the list!
The sniffling, sputtering, snorting and wiping, plus the stuff he sputters ( pun intended) are such a turn off
Zizek has literally said nothing that historians of the period haven't been arguing for two decades. He even failed to make the real point. Opting to hide his lack of insight behind a bodily tick. As always...this man is telling you nothing.
Basically , you can sniff the difference between the two a mile away
If you took away Zizek's cold you'd be taking away his career.
Like if you somehow fixed Owen Wilson's nose.
Wow...
More like coughcaine than cough.
@@politechjunky half his face is literally paralyzed from bells palsy.
Žižek clapped in the beginning. Žižek ist Stalin confirmed!
When you read zizek too much, the first thing your inner-zizek observe is his sudden clapping at the start of the speech.
I just can't get pass his bodily sounds.
Indeed, low IQ people do suffer from such problems.
@@martinledermann1862 The twitches are an obvious distraction. It might take a bit of training/getting used to in certain cases, to attentively follow the substantial qualities of the information that he speaker is communicating.
Everyone perceives differently, and audible disturbances during speeches clearly take some effort to ignore for some of us listeners. I can't help but point out your ignorant reply has little to no actual insight in the IQ value of the commentator above you. I apologize for a possibly unnecessary long post.
@maxdclxvi It certainly was an unnecessarily long post and completely over-the-top. The reality is, however sad it might be and however much the masses like to deny the significance of IQ, there can be no doubt that people with medium or high IQ should be able to follow this man's words without being distracted by his physical mannerisms. Especially when nobody forces anyone to actually watch the video, it should be obvious to anyone who wants to listen to a philosopher that visuals should not matter and thus it makes much more sense to treat such videos as podcasts while doing some manual tasks in the kitchen or elsewhere in the meantime. Which doesn't change the fact that I never had a problem watching this man at all, and since it's not like everybody is commenting solely about him being either on coke or forgetting to use a Kleenex tissue, it appears that there are actually many people intelligent or wise, if you will, enough to not be disturbed by such petty insignificant quirks.
Mr_Hassell the curse of many great minds.
@@martinledermann1862 Not only them. A lot highly intelligent people often considered as nerds do so too.
Octavian also was called “first citizen” when he was emperor.
No, he was called "primus inter pares", in english "the first between the equals" because the emperor role wasn't istitutionalized yet, but It doesn't mean he was equal to citizens, but that he was the first guy speaking in every senate discussion (and senators had to discuss around his points and not against).
@@bestgrill9647 I think @CoronaVirusRespecter was referring to his political title, which was "Princeps Senatus", which translates to roughly "first senator" or "prime senator"
@@JoostJGJ Basically the "prime minister" in a dictatorship.
@@bestgrill9647 I think the original user already knows Augustus was a dictator. What he meant is that he wasn't formally one, since they kept the official republican titles and institutions moreless. It was all propaganda, just like Stalin wasn't a dictator, he was just such a "great guy" that everyone in the USSR wanted him to lead them
Thought it was Dan Harmon until he started talking
Zizek clearly emphasized it's Stalinism, not communism
@William Baric No woosh just your bad joke...
William Baric language evolves. The word bourgeoisie no longer has the same meaning. And I think it is pretty obvious in which context they are using the word here. I think the only dumb person is here
Which most of this world are learned to read as communism skillfully and to assume all evil to it.
William Baric “this was not sarcasm nor a joke, this was truth” I don’t think wooosh means what you think it means
Stalinism is not = Communism. It is not even Socialism. Communism is the eventual outcome desired once a Socialist Society is achieved. The USSR never even attained Socialism let alone Communism. Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed anyone who does not understand this does not get the basic definitions of either system. You can dislike both but they are vastly different.
communism is one corporation capitalism, classless society (ruled by bureacratic caste), while socialism is rule of working class, totally different... even stalinism is best model
Who doesn't dislike both? Most people, thank you very much.
Vastly different with vastly similar outcomes. It's nationalist communism? "wasn't real communism"
It got corrupted? "not real communism"
It ends in death? "not real communsim.
Does fascism end in death? Well, yeah duh. But like communist, the fascist would have the same excuses.
Socialsm is bad too. Always makes the people unhappy, no sense of independence and the welfare system moves towards overload. That's the future. State, state and more state. And don't forget the depopulation by the elites.
I don't like the cause, Comrade.
so which country was truly communist or socialist
Couldn't agree more with the original comment. But also, estranged ideologies of the past if you finally put all the cards on the table.
Stalinism doesn't exist.
Listening to him speak makes me physically uncomfortable. He sounds like he is suffocating.
I have no idea what he just said. His gesticulations and nasal problems dominated the entire presentation.
Can you imagine Stalin writes an essey on Žižek?
The only thing he would've written is his signature validating another corpse for a gulag. As much as I loathe communism, even Stalin wouldn't have been able to put up with the sniffling, babbling, disorganized speech. Discourteous notions aside, he sounds like a schizophrenic that got his hands on a few free college courses.
Nox zizek is literally one of the most well educated people in the world he has wrote dozens of books and is highly highly respected
@@azu1394 "most well Educated people on the world"? I get you like Zizek but that is just an exaggerated statement.
Richard Alpert what percentage of people have studied as much as he has or have spent as much time in universities or writing. not quite a few, he is atleast in the top .01% (read top 700,000) in the world
Stalin's essay on Zizek:
"This man deserves gulag.
Thank you and have a nice day."
Fascists: **Just stands and receives the applause**
Stalinists: **Always return the applause**
NAZBOLS: 🤔😳😔
This short clip explains so much about his style of argumentation.
Yes it does. Convoluted hyper rationalism in service of a will to power.
At 0:06 - 0:13, he said two Ses in a row, properly, without his trademark lisp! Was just so weird to hear him say "notice" and "applause" properly....
From Wikipedia "In political and social sciences, communism(from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"
That is the basic definition, a wonderful idea that should not be given up on. Soviet Union was based on a specific ideology mixed with the circumstances of its time, the countries geopolitics and materials available.
Everytime people try to close down communism by citing USSR, Stalin, Gulag, collapse. They are performing an ideological attack to shut down any talk of Communism as an idea and do not give any nuance to the scenerio.
It would be like me saying, how many more times does capitalism need to fail (recession, failure to remove all unemployment, contradictions with ecology of the planet) before people give up on it.
"Capitalism equals George Bush, imperialist wars, economic collapse, austerity."
"Capitalism equals Churchill, empire, colonialism, World wars."
We can all do it. Difference is capitalism gets given nuance and dynamic discussion with a complete historical analysis when people discuss its failures and success.
Communism, a broad concept, idea. Doesn't. It gets shut down with bad historicity in a linear succession of propagandist dogma.
It's not healthy to any political debate. It's only helpful as a tool of anti-communists or anti-socialists.
People need to start challenging it.
@John Smith the best capitalist economies were planned economies though
@@lordz00 yeah, just look at Poland now. A dive, full of far right extremists and half of its population keeps leaving to go to work in other countries because its done so well post communism in accepting capitalism.
@Goyrl Gone Wild you call me naive whilst writing some half arsed completely incorrect attempt at telling me what marxism is. A. The point of my post was what the basic definition of Communism is. A very simple concept. Marxism is a specific doctrine but not the definition of Communism. Although his writings are very insightful.
As for you using dictatorship of the proletariat. Again. You show you lack of understanding as to what he ment by that.
Goyrl Gone Wild
Your analysis are very delusional, really.
I’m an anti-statist and totally opposed to socialist authoritarianism and totalitarianism throughout history, but you literally implied that in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” society is suddenly separated and sectarized with rich people in one side and the working class in the other? The difference between a fascist regime, where people are separated depending on their ethnicy, something they can’t change, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, where separation is by class, is that class is a personal choice, every individual can willingly choose wether they want to be part of the working class or the oppressors, which exploit the working class. That is the essence. It’s like the “Blue lives matter” fallacy opposed to the “Black lives matter” movement.
Class is a choice. Choosing to follow an oppressive system is oppression.
Nationality, ethnicy, isn’t.
Also, nationalist exposure is chauvinism. Chauvinism is the first step towards fascism. Your countries are invented. Fighting for them is primitivist.
Sincerely, you just showed how much more you need to learn about the systems that conduct power to individuals and vice-versa.
"he common ownership of the means of production " -- Thanks and thats so STUPID. What means of production? Marx wrote his shh in 1848 and we think it was yesterday
How the heck did they make all the prisoners sign the telegram? Wouldn't that been excessive long?
Quite an incentive to not have a big prison population.
It wouldn't have been possible under Hitler, because 1) it would have requiterd the inmates to be literate, 2) to be well enough to write, and 3) to be alive.
Despite all his drivel, Zizek does get the message out. When Stalin claps it is because he preaches communistic equality and becomes part of the audience, since at the Plenum which he represents most clearly of all, it is absolute reason - the dialectic of Enlightenment - which is preached. In the case of Fascism there is instead a fundamental instinctual and correct understanding that the world is NOT as the Enlightenment or Marxists preach. The world is fundamentally disordered, hence Marx's Human Species Being (das Gattungswesen des Menschen) is a trivial feature of the world so that instead what matters is differential human personality (as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf as the distinguishing feature of Nazism from Marxism), thus the Leader's right to be clapped for his greater insight into the human condition - his (rarely her) superior personality manifested by his contribution or speech, and clapped by the grateful. I.e. Fascism only died out because of its racism. Any genuine right-wing revival will not be racist but rather emphasize the polluting effect of culture, including religious as well as Marxist-egalitarian and Western-egalitarian attitudes.
Marxism is pseudo-rational. It starts in intuition of a supernatural realm , just as Nazism starts. And, as Marxs early ideas show, never leaves it. Capitalism is the only Enlightenment politics because it applies rational individualism.
"Racism" is ok, but nazis supersedes the limits
Well, i think that reaction is far better than fascism
@@TeaParty1776 😂😂 you're an idiot
This comment, like all attempts to sanitize fascism, makes no sense. Franco and Pinochet’s state died out too. The world being ‘fundamentally disordered’ is a bold statement. The physical laws of the natural world are orderly. Human behavior isn’t. Any attempt to fully control human behavior and eliminate individuality will backfire horrifically. Fascists suppresses the individual for the sake of the state, and this enforced ‘collectivism’ is similar to communism. The ultranationalism of fascism usually always leads to vehement racism too.
But whenever i watched a communist leader joining the applause it seemed to me as if he/ she was mocking the audience.
Title is misleading. Zizek never says communism. He instead used the word , Stalinism.
For me this demonstrates that communism is simply more hypocritical than facism, while they were both guilty of massive atrocities, communism always acted under the guise of doing "good" while facism outright discarded such notions of good and evil, and were more concerned with power, honour, and the health of the nation. All this rituals ofcommunism were simply the mask of equality and justice. If anything this simply demonstrates that facism, if nothing else, is honest, while communism is anything but, and lies evey step of the way in its seizure of power, pantomining morality through
a slaughter they deem justified.
And then the fact that Zizek participates in the Stalinist behavior with his applause and then insists, "I'm not saying one is better than the other"...smells rotten to me.
> facism is honest
> Literally had Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
Pick one.
ClassicAntiZero fucking fascist
So Stalin was saying, "It's not about me"?
my mom say's that everyday it's not about me it's about the best for you 😂😂😂
“I’m not saying which one is better”-what are you saying then Zizek?
broaden your horizons young juan, there is more to life than either/or
Science isn't just about ranking different positions in better and worse, it's also about explaining the positions and their differences. You don't have to say "fascism is worse than stalinism" to say "fascism isn't stalinism". Many people say that they are two sides of a coin, but that is wrong and missleading. They are both dangerous, brutal and totalitarian, but in a different way (which also means that you have to treat their followers differently when defending democracy). That's the point, Zizek does here.
@@azarael77 i agree for the most part, except -> science isn't about ranking different ideological positions AT ALL. that would be ideological reasoning. sure, one can say [...]ism is better than [...]ism, because [insert reason here], but that's still ideological, even if the reasoning is perfectly sound to most people. it's still a belief. one can however still research and analyze different ideologies, if one is methodologically well equipped and avoids ideological speech in the process of analysis. this however doesn't mean, that scientists can't have and express their own set of beliefs themselves, but using them in their scientific reasoning, would undermine their professionality.
Juan if you listen one more time i think you'll get what he is saying.
@@azarael77
Democracy? Which one?
Also, Zizek doesn't mention here but capitalism can (and does) end in some very unhappy time.
Have you noticed how president Trump often joins the applause during his speeches
But if Stalin is thinking the same thing as Hitler but clapping along like he's not then where are we at? Wouldn't that be a sort of faux universalism? In that situation you could say that Hitler is being more genuine in soaking up the applause.
@Electro_blob Only 3 words. German Working Front (Deutsche Arbeiterfront). What I am saying is that Nationalsocialism is not fascism.
@Electro_blob This is a widespread but incorrect view, that National Socialism was a german version of fascism. In a decree of Stalin in 1936, the term "National Socialism" was replaced by "Hitler fascism" to avoid the word part socialism. The term lasted until the dissolution of the Soviet Union; but still finds imitation in the equation of National Socialism and fascism. The Western European nations and the US, on the other hand, often spoke of "Nazism." National Socialism is related to fascism in the authoritarian structure of the state, however, there are great ideological contradictions regarding the rejection of liberalism and parliamentarism, racial issues and the fight against Marxism. The commitment to the people (Blood and Soil) is opposed to the state thinking of fascism. The latter represents a decided imperialist conception.
@@derlinksfaschist8136 Blood and soil sounds more like race and territory but whatever
Edit: Oh nevermind you are a nazbol. Big oof
@@thatguy2377 I ain't a NazBol.
@@derlinksfaschist8136Both represent imperialism. ‘Blood and Soil’ was directly related to ‘living space/Lebensraum’ as the Germans wanted to expand their territory into Central and Eastern Europe. Those with so-called ‘good blood’ would be Germanized while the rest would be expelled or murdered.
And no one stops clapping, you do not be the first to stop clapping
Zizek makes a very shallow analysis. Because Zizek understands a little about the Soviet reality of that times. His success is based on the fact that his "western" audiences, in front of which Zizek reforms, usually know NOTHING about that times. The comparison between "Hitlerism" and "Stalinism" is impossible.
Let assume both were personal styles of leadership. Then, Hitler had unchallenged personal power, while Stalin did not lead by himself. For Stalin, there were Politburo and Central Party Committee which resolutions Stalin had to take under consideration. Stalin could not put through many of his ideas with these two collective bodies. Hitler was a "servant" to the big financial and industrial capital not only in Germany but in Britain and the US as well as some of the European aristocracy. Hitler was very "creative" in his following someone else's agenda. Therefore, in general, Hitler did not have the general freedom to act. For example, he had to ask the west not to attack him militarily while he was fighting with the USSR.
On the contrary, Stalin was implementing an idea about how the society had to be and otto develope. Hitler was working in a friendly internal and international environment. Stalin's work was obstructed by internal opposition and hostile foreign ideological, economic, and political surrounding.
And more and more differences are there.
The international environment was hardly friendly towards Hitler.
armzngunz what about Times Man of the Year?
@@JacatackLP What about it? www.romper.com/p/6-time-person-of-the-year-winners-who-prove-the-title-isnt-always-honor-24369
It’s quite shocking to see how many try and justify a monster like Stalin. Just goes to show the power of propaganda to reverberate for decades on weak minds.
> Hitler was a "servant" to the big financial and industrial capital not only in Germany but in Britain and the US as well as some of the European aristocracy.
Hitler had guns. Capitalists dont. Your Marxism is intellectuals sleaze.
Leon Trotsky about Stalin : " The vengeance of history is more powerful than the vengeance of any powerful general secretary . "
How history proved Trotsky right . RIP leon .
CIA isn't history.
And, Stalin's quote: "After I die, they will throw manure over my grave. But the winds of history will blow it all away."
@@NikolaAvramov Stalin did many bad things but also did many great things. History could be completly different without him, in a bad way. Many people are just so narrowminded and filled with their own wicked ignorant personalities that they don't wanna see beyond their own long nose.
@@e.s.g.5997 Sure that is a common affliction due to so much disinformation and professional liars repeating mantras.
Lots of peer pressure as well.
@@e.s.g.5997 The world would have been a better place without Stalin. My capitalist country neighbored the USSR and we were better off because of capitalism. Whereas tens of millions died under communism.
More like Stalinism vs Nazism
Hitlerism more so.
Stalinism and hitlerist
Yackoff Smirnoff made a good point. Communism pretends to be inclusive where as Nazism is unabashedly exclusive. Different approaches to the same end.
ok buddy
@@mikeyytu9283 Is Good faith with minions part of the Dialectic scheme. Is the end game, synthesis, a complimentary blend of both left and right or just two left feet. A clumsy knock off or a repeat of the old Monarchs, inbred blue bloods.
"And so on and so on" Slavoj Zizek
It's funny he talks about applause. People had to applaud basically until the oldest fainted of exhaustion after a speech from Stalin. Because being the first one to stop may have you reported to the regime by one of your fellow human beings...
he Just described how the Stalinist lie is so much more monstrous ..
It kills you but makes you feel ur part of it. Thads why many of Stalins victims died saying 'Long live Stalin'
I think this video should be titled the difference between Nazism and Stalinism because that’s what he’s really talking about, Fascism and Communism aren’t quite one in the same as either of those things, Stalinism being a branch of Communism and National Socialism being influenced by the ideology of Mussolini who was in turn implemented some of the ideas of Giovanni Gentile.
I believe it’s a common mistake to conflate the broad fascists movements with the peculiar racialist and supremacist ideas of Adolf Hitler, the key being in Fascist ethos the sense and preservation of a National Being where in Hitlers philosophy it took on a racial dimension that came to mean the blood of a people defining the nation rather than the other way around.
Marx influenced stalin and some others like dzierzynski or trocki, lenin, rose luxemburg. Revolutionist who wanted to ban Tzar .
there is no difference they both lead overt authoritarianism/ totalitarianism, they just employ different means to the same end tyranny, imprisonment, and death.
they both preserve the idea of the state / community as a whole being more important the rights of the individual.
Not to mention that Mussolini, Gentile and D'Annunzio all took inspiration from Lenin, and that the racialist views of Hitler were all philosophically explained by Rosenberg and Chamberlain in their works years before the Third Reich happened.
Why is the top comment always a nose comment?
I've been wondering why it's so rare to hear China called fascist. Extreme nationalism, holy cults of personality around their perfect leaders, deep rallying of the masses, maintaining old gender inequalities, heavy emphasis on symbols, a general worship of the state as the highest religion, etc. Based on this talk, two things come to mind. The clips I've seen of thunderous applause for Chinese leaders show them not joining in the applause, similar to European fascists. However, the part about a trial in which confessions were elicited from a perspective of 'universal reason' sounds similar to the sorts of 'interrogations' and 'show trials' in Chinese history - the sorts that didn't have a place in European fascism. Is that the only difference we can offer, save that fascist states don't usually fight each other and during WWII, China suffered at the hands of Japanese fascism?
china in the outset of WW2 was neither communist or fascists- some say democratic but that also isn’t quite accurate as Shek was essentially a dictator. China was in a state of essentially civil war during WW2 and Japan took advantage of their long hated neighbors
I love Zizek, but why does he feel the need to explicate the power relations at play in communism versus fascism? They are so obviously different complex governmental and ideological systems that a need to compare the two is not obvious to me.
Both very similar - German Nazism, Soviet "Red-ism"
Because his talks are never hardcore serious
I think it is important to try and describe a distinction because a large amount of people foolishly think they are one and the same
@@OleNesie good point...Zizek is a people's philosopher after all
They are both two very different types of evil, but comparing and contrasting the two is not only fascinating, but it also aids in the analysis and understanding of the two
As long as you aren't a centrist...
“Stalin was a fascist and the Nazis were on the left.”
~ Ben Shapiro
😂😂😂
Why is Stalins hand looking like a birth defect in the thumbnail?
1. The difference between Nazism and Communism has been well established, the Nazi's were ultranationalist and ultimately racist at the center. The socialist policies or statist policies of all kinds including socialist like measures were a support of this, not the goal as in Communism. 2. Not all Socialists were Marxists, this fact is tangential here, but is something usually overlooked entirely. 3. The hybridization of ideologies can and does happen.
National Bolshevism was a popular idea in Russia in 1990s to combine both Nazi and Communist ideology)) Limonov, the leader of the party, even used combination of both symbols. Personally, i think he was a nutjob. Non Marxist socialists never got anywhere because they were too extreme or too orthodox. Revolutionary Socialists are a good example in Russian Empire before 1917. They were even more extreme than Bolsheviks and believed in personal terror against government officials. Needless to say, they never got anywhere after the civil war despite being on friendly terms with Marxcists at first.
Different silly hats?
"The son of my boss will be the boss of my son"
Zizek always acts very angry, even when he is not.
Nah just enthusiastic
Another tactic school teachers use is to simply start talking and everyone will shut up if they want, and/or hush those around them to listen. Interesting stuff though. On a side note, I’m going to guess those “tics” are from the physical manifestations of tourette syndrome, which can vary greatly. I had a friend in high school and his father and brother all had Tourette’s and all manifested differently; head nods, blinking, shirt pulling, hand gestures...trust me, they get how distracting it can be. Just ignore it and learn something
The most successful authoritarian regime in the 20th century was fascist: Pinochet's Chile.
In a mere 15 years, Pinochet lifted Chile's economy from the second lowest rank in South America to the second-highest. He threw the oligarchs in prison, and brought in advisors from the University of Chicago (which has one of the best Economics departments on Earth). He then actually listened to what his advisors said and followed their advice, despite his personal ideological differences (can you picture Castro or Chavez doing that?). As a result, the 80s & 90s were decades of enormous prosperity in Chile, and even to this day it's economy is strong.
Pinochetism is fascism done RIGHT.
i think Peterson and Zizek are both interesting to listen to. am i crazy?
nah you're just centrist.
i don't feel like a centrist. i feel mostly right-wing.
i don't feel like a centrist. i'm mostly right-wing. i just like different perspectives.
Same. And that's the beauty of not having to associate with a camp, or at least being open minded. If you look at the critics who are openly disgusted of either Peterson and Zizek, its typically people who dont really know their work that well.
No, you're probably too gullible to refute many of their ignorant points.
Because their political ideologies are completely opposite to each other in every way. Communism is internationalist and anti-discriminatory (I’m talking stated beliefs here, not necessarily real-world practice) whereas fascism is based on extreme national-chauvinism and the belief in the inherent superiority/inferiority of certain peoples. Communism envisages a free society in which there are no social classes and property is shared in common, whereas fascism believes in a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian order in which everyone knows their place and resources are concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.
On the level of first principles, communism and fascism are absolute opposites. Of course, in 20th Century history, certain forms of communism degenerated into a totalitarian horror that had little or nothing to do with the utopian dreams I set out above. Although, in principle, communism is the antithesis of fascism, in practice, they often resembled each other in terms of how awful they ended up being. North Korea, for example, is certainly more fascist than communist, even at the theoretical level.
Since the end of the Cold War, there has, in fact, been a bizarre convergence between certain groups identifying with the actual practices of 20th Century communism (rather than its theoretical/philosophical basis) and self-identified fascists. The convergence between the extreme authoritarian wing of communism and the nationalist hysteria of fascism have led to abominations such as “National-Bolshevism” which openly combines Stalinism with Hitlerism.
So, although “true” communists and fascists stand for totally opposite things, the reality of the 20th Century experiment with “communism” means that totalitarian movements inspired by both the “left” and far-right, may not actually always be enemies at all. Communist parties such as the French Communists, the Japanese Communists, or the Indian Communist Party (Marxist) are fully committed to liberal democracy, have long ago renounced revolution, and function in every way as democratic parties that oppose nationalism, racism, war and other things communism is meant to oppose in principle, and these parties are devoutly anti-fascist and pro-democracy. on the other hand, the North Korean and Chinese Communist Parties have no adherence at all to any actual “communist principles” and are, in both practice and theory, very close to the spirit of fascism. Parties such as the National-Bolsheviks in Russia have openly embraced fascism and put it together in an unholy marriage with the worst of Stalinism, which, in any case, also resembles fascism in every way that counts.
Stalinists were largely against fascism (except when they weren’t) for largely practical reasons and because they weren’t willing to tolerate a rival ideology, rather than because they represented a better system. Life under Stalin was every bit as awful as life under Hitler and both states had the same totalitarian features.. The real reason Stalinists ultimately became die-hard anti-fascists wasn’t because they were any morally better, but rather because the interests of the USSR and Germany had come into conflict. Until then, Stalinists were happy enough to ally themselves with fascists against the democratic socialists. The hostility between certain faces of communism and fascism has, therefore, been inconsistent at best, although, on the philosophical level, they remain night and day.
👆👆👆
You were doing so well in the first paragraph, bu then had to resourt to a caricature of the soviet union equating it to nazism.
The title says communism but he's talking about Stalinism
Doesn't this quite clearly show that essentially Hitler is a new perverse version of paganism and that Stalin is a new perverse version of Christianity? It reflects not only their behavior, but also what they were culturally interested in.
YES SIR. Right on the spot. Communism is exactly a perversion of Christianity replacing moral agency and freedom with tiranny and fear. It substrascts the joy and compassion of sharing to add a coercive, terror-driven distribution of goods
You gave what I consider an overly simple answer to an extremely complex question, and my usual (very Žižekian) response to such situations is a huge critical rant. Sorry if I bore you, but here it goes:
Stalinism (roots of which are already present in Leninism, roots of both already being present in the Tsarist state system) is a perverted dystopian mode of communism, and it's not like Christianity hasn't had its own fair share of ways to replace moral agency and freedom with tyranny and fear, quite often justifying lying and violence in fighting against the "enemies of faith", which in this context is exactly the same as ideological enemies. Yes, 20th century communism was way more violent than 20th century Christianity, but the levels of violence in, say, 5th century AD, crusades or the period of counter-reformation ARE comparable, because those are the times when Christianity was constituting its own institutional monopolies and it violently crushed, not only non-Christians, but also the "wrong kind" of Christians in enormous quantities.
Both Christians and communists should be very aware that people did extremely violent acts in order to enact their utopian visions, preserve their respective identities and determine what is the "true" Christianity / communism. And there is no better critic of such behavior from a deeply human perspective than Jesus himself. The main point of the Good Samaritan parable is not about being kind to strangers, it's about seeing kind individuals among foreigners, usual suspects and "enemies by default" as better friends and neighbors than unkind people "of your own kind". It's obvious from Jesus' wording that the main point is not about being the Samaritan, it's about being the beaten, bloody Jew who realizes what truly matters.
As Solzhenitsyn said in Gulag Archipelago, criticizing not just communism, but also what is wrong with violent modes of all belief systems:
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
That's a good historical and spiritual lesson for both communists AND Christians, and I agree that Christianity has a much better tradition of saying such moral truths. However, thinking that there is (or ever will be) a belief system which finally resolves that question absolutely defeats the purpose of that brilliant quote.
On the other, more practical and secular side of things: before, during and after the period of Christian cultural supremacy, the state has been CONSTANTLY used to distribute goods, mostly upwardly. Despite the radical anti-slavery message of Jesus, it was only in the 16th century that Catholics banned, not slavery in general, but just sale of Christian slaves to non-Christians, and even that didn't work everywhere immediately. A couple of centuries later, many countries started banning slavery by Law.
Just like capitalists today, many slave owners claimed that manumission should be an act of charity, although there is nothing charitable in simply abolishing grave injustice. Communism should not replace compassionate and free acts of charity, but should replace INJUSTICES that are already present in the systems of distribution (economic and/or political) with justice, while still allowing charity to occur - knowing very well that communism is about social justice, NOT charity. It should be about giving people what is already theirs and taking away means to control people from those who exploit others en masse - not about forcing people to share anything that isn't already in some way shared (For instance, we all share obligations towards the state, all workers and managers share obligations towards their workplaces, the question is which obligations make sense for all involved, or at the very least, for the majority).
Communism is about applying lessons from the "kingdom of heaven" to the "kingdoms of earth", while also maintaining that communism is essentially about the kingdom of earth. It should NEVER be about fooling yourself that you can make kingdoms of earth into the kingdom of heaven. It should only "Render unto Caesar", but why not improve our legal and economic systems with lessons from "Rendering unto God", i.e. from our intuitions about higher principles at hand? If you want to always and at all costs strictly separate what is Caesar's and what is God's, then you should advocate legalizing slavery and allow it to be just a matter of charity. If you do not want to legalize slavery, then you should acknowledge that Law may be used to bring about basic levels of equality, a process which classical liberalism started, but I believe only communism can improve further.
Christianity is in my opinion (and I don't think that Žižek would massively disagree) greatest school of moral thought (of course, IF APPLIED PROPERLY, but that's always a caveat for morality, as Hegel often reminds us). Communism is inherently more limited when it comes to universal morality, but is simply better at criticizing the "modern Caesar", i.e. modern secular systems, than Christianity.
Lenin and Marx have more to learn from Jesus, Dostoevsky and Chesterton than the other way around, but ordinary modern humans still have a lot they need to learn from Lenin and Marx when it comes to our shared secular values.
@@theinternet1424 this responds is classic average zizekian analysis
one won the war and the other lost, thats about it.
People win wars not ideologies
I have to say its exciting to see the changes in the comments section to Zizek...
Years ago nobody gave a rats ass about him, save a few of us... Now he brings out all the liberals and righties to feel attacked by his hard-line.
He must be doing something right
everyone talks about gulags but doesn’t talk about the American Prison system
Fun fact: the american incarceration rate is higher than it was in the soviet union under Stalin. Maybe if we start calling prisons gulags, more people will care
bs title, it's stalinism vs facism
I can almost hear all the anarcho-commies REEEing over the title
Lukewarm coke? I t ' s n o t c o k e
When you roll 3 comeliness and 18 charisma.
Different question: what’s the difference between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism?
German national socialism started out pretty differently from Italian fascism but took large inspiration from it as time went on, and Hitler effectively killed off the more revolutionary characters of his party in an agreement with the german military forces, and became a repressive force towards the working class in exchange for support by the german bourgeoisie once they started worrying about a revolution. To them Hitler was the politician with the authority and power to keep their workers in line so they offered monetary support to him in exchange. So yeah Hitler became similar to fascism over time (not like he was any less insane earlier, having read the political part of the Mein Kampf I can assure you that much lol), was authoritarian from the start but with a few ideals that were pretty far from what he became later
Hitler and his National Socialists were more interested in the ‘supremacy’ of the Germanic race, while Mussolini’s state was less inclined to repress or eliminate different ethnic groups initially based purely off ethnicity. His racial laws were introduced primarily to appease Hitler, and his imperialist policies seem more like an attempt to recreate the ‘glory’ of the Roman Empire.
Brilliant mind! I could listen to him for hours. Great professor, too. And his nose is cute 😍
How does a brilliant mind end up giving excuses for totalitarian assholes?
i love this guy in every angle
I'm not even a leftist
Same
Yes he has the vibe of a funny uncle
Well that explains a lot because Slavoj isn't either. He's just a typical liberal. He criticises capitalism but then says "but the left and the right are both equally shit, right?"
Zizek just seeks attention and gets way too much of it. The simple fact that he describes himself as a "Hegelian" in the 21st century should already make people sceptical of him
@@angryyordle4640 nah
2:50
This isn’t completely true.
Let’s not ignore the show trials in Nazi Germany under Roland Freisler, Judge President of the People's Court (Präsident des Volksgerichtshofs), who was also one of the attendees of the Wannsee conference, back then in the function of a state secretary, one of the main architects of the Holocaust.
Hitler even called Freisler “our Vyshinsky”, who was state prosecutor of the Soviet Union in the 1930’s.
Hitler also called Freisler (who was a fervent national socialist) a Bolshevik, as Hitler always despised lawyers and judges. I guess also because Freisler joined the Bolshevists when he was a prisoner of war in Russia in WW1.
Most of the time it’s not so clear cut.
You're saying that you know history better than someone who taught in Princeton university? Oooookkkkeee
@@removies3653
Are you saying you didn’t read my comment?
I’m saying that Freisler and the show trials under his direction existed in nazi Germany.
Freisler was notorious for his hateful rants and constant screaming during the “trials” he presided:
ua-cam.com/video/D3qsImhAswo/v-deo.html
@@albedoshader You kinda answered yourself. Freisler made those trials, not Hitler. Freisler brought that practice to Germany from Russia. Freisler was not a pure nazi, but a nazi with Bolshevik traces in his worldview.
Also, fascists tend to steal practices, symbols and names from everybody else. Even their names.
@@GerBessa
It’s strange to hold Freisler alone accountable for the show trials, as he was the State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and President of the People's Court under Hitler.
He didn’t get these posts because he just decided to do the jobs. Also, he was an attendee of the Wannsee conference, which also was a very exclusive event. If Hitler or the regime in general didn’t condone Freisler, he would have never been able to do any of this.
What he did was very much condoned and supported by the regime and did not happen in a vacuum.
Apparently you get free unlimited cocaine in his country but no tissue.
The difference between them = everything
The difference is fascism starts out fascist whereas communism turns into facism.
Ok neo-liberal
Example?
This guy is clearly levels above most current thinkers.
A lot of the west will struggle with his delivery, not me though
there is none
comment made by the nazbol gang
🙋🏼♂️
its not a phase mom!!!
Both Hitler and Stalin would have thought those ‘people’ were insane.
"How much cocaine do you want before going on stage?"
"Yes."
Spitting facts