People keep making comments on his nose touching because it's gross and funny. And it's never not going to be gross and funny. I love hearing this man speak and have listened to him for hours, but I still pick up on it and it's distracting. I'm willing to ignore it because of the quality of his words, but it's annoying. And don't try to pretend it's not annoying because then you're just lying to yourself.
I kinda like it in a way. It is a comedic relief to pretty hard topics and themes, but he will not think them to the end, which forces you to think further. He has written books and articles about all of it, where he elaborates all of his ideas, but a speach or presentation in this intellectual topic should be exactly like this.
bomber9912 well I disagree, he should elaborate them more so we can understand what he's saying without any reinforcements. Imagine if teachers didn't explain things well and then saying don't worry it's in the book.
His voice makes my eyes water uncontrollably. I don't know why, it's weird, and I don't like it. It got so bad it was like I was weeping, streams of tears running down my face. I had to stop listening, which is unfortunate because I would have liked to hear what he had to say.
It takes time to filter that. As mamals we are wired to repel and reject signs of sickness, and his ticks, to our unconsciousness, which does not care about medicine books or psychology literature, his ticks indicate he's sick or has some problem. The further he is, the less chance we got to catch whatever he has. Unconsciousness, something Marx didn't seem to know about, our behavior is driven by our instincts, feelings and genes, with some luck we can put some reazon into some of our actions. Capítalism is nothing but an observation of how we work and tells you the optimus way to maximize profit and growth in the material world, but it doesn't say you have to exploit your employees. Actually, today it is well known that less hours of work and happier employees contribute more, which ultimately increase profit. A bad practice of capitalism is not of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, simply doesn't work, it's based on untrue facts such as human behavior
Westerners are a disgrace to yoga. They strip away it’s necessary Hinduism and make it secular There is no secular yoga. That’s just called doing uncomfortable poses Lol
As a trans person its a little silly that this point even needs to made - of course my transition is not revolutionary, its an individual action with little impact on other people and done for only my own sake. Thus, it becomes a consumer group for markets to target, despite mine or anyone elses chagrin. Zizek is correct as usual. I hope as few as my trans brothers and sisters as possible fall under the pretention it is revolutionary.
The problem isn't transgenderism, it's the total infiltration of transgenderism into the mainstream and the militant approach the movement has taken to get everyone to recognize a lifestyle choice that objectively only a small percentage of the population engages in
Making identity the main point of your doctrine is a poor move. Many are probably too narcissistic to admit it or incapable of grasping that identity is inherently anti-emancipatory
@@alicepractice9473 - making identity the main point of a doctrine is evil and effective. Identities are vehicles of group interest and if you break their creation process by interferring at an early age - like modern marxism does - you can then easily indoctrinate a malleable mass of pathologized young - as seen all around.
Zizek is a great thinker, but to speak on behalf of myself and my friends; I don't think most LGBTQ people want their gender or sexual identities to be politicized or viewed as a radical statement- they simply want to exist. The emergence of more people in the west openly identifying as such, is the result of lots of of contributing factors- a big one of course being social media and online communities; we have more resources than ever to understand ourselves and seek validation and support from others. So yes economic growth has facilitated the emergence of more active, informed LGBTQ communities, and allowed the discourse around gender and sexuality to develop. And of course big tech giants want to capitalize off this. But our identities are not inherently political, and regardless of political context, Gender and sexual fluidity has existed for thousands of years (take a look at Ancient Greece, and Native American culture), we are not new or radical, we just have more visibility now.
they do simply exist. they politicize them selves by interacting with this pathetic thing. its fun to participate for these people, they are literally boring people who have spent their entire lives either on the fringe of fitting in or just never being a part of anything whatsoever. this is their chance for attention. not one of them knows what its like to be cool or popular, and this is an avenue for that. literally. the same thing for 45 year old women who are just getting blue hair for the first time, or finding an identity on twitter surrounding some rage filled idea of teenager politics. its a hollow attempt at finding a surrogate personality using contemporary identity politics. its easy to scream and fight for things when you have an army of mainstream news outlets arguing for you. if these people found a skill that wasnt drawing furry cartoons or making childish art they would know what its like to have something to offer society and be rewarded for, and wouldnt feel so desperate to reach out and compromise their dignity for attention. its really not complicated, were seeing this pattern over and over literally millions of times. basically ugly and or boring people just looking for the limelight and pretending like the world is attacking them. its extremely cliche and probably the most cringe thing you can find in this decade
Bullshit. Most "LGB" Folks don't want their sexuality (Not their 'identities, their literal 'sexualities') not to be politicized anymore because those have been politicized, and the majority of things that where to be achieved had been achieved. Discrimination was made illegal, marriage was permitted, equal access to the workforce, and equal access to legislative rights including medical support. the 'TQ+' Fraction of that (which just "Bandwagoned" on the political platform having inherently zero to do with them), are the ones that basically poisoned the entire fucking progress with their retarded ideology and strictly reality-denying, anti-scientific, biology-antagonizing horseshit, by trying to 'normalize' lifestyles that would be largely impossible without severe, violent modification and altering of the human body through absolutely unnecessary, often times life-threatening surgeries and hormonal experimentation that does more harm then it does good. And the consistent presence and uncovering of fucking child molesters amongst their ranks and pedophiles trying to introduce highly pornographical/kink based material into school curriculums and trying to disguise it as 'Sex-Ed' is only the tip of that Iceberg. Or the Presence of "MAP" acceptance advocates in the 'TQ+' fraction. Homosexual, Bisexuality, Lesbianism can all be considered natural. Nature has enough of examples of it occuring, and we've had enough of historical precedents proving that people 'did' lead those lifestyles in one way or another. the 'TQ+' Nonsense is absolutely invented out of thin air on shoddy pseudo-science from liberal arts degrees, rooted in sociology and philosophy far more then any hard science out there.
Conflating queerness and pedophilia (regardless of era) is a dangerous game, and we see this narrative a lot from far-right christian conservatives (not to suggest that you fit this category). It's very important to acknowledge and address issues of pedophilia and child abuse abuse- both historic and current, but remember to exercise nuance and be aware of potentially damming and accusatory associations. @@markbranham7355
Agreed. The whole problem is that, instead of prescribing the simple extension of feminine and masculine rather than male and female, we implant sexuality as the root argument. There are both men and women who carry both feminine and masculine traits. THAT is the primary issue. Some carry those tendencies to include sexuality. Those that do are now mired in a conversation that has no purpose and is utterly missing the point. It is the Native American idea of "two spirits." We all carry both.
The reason Zizek would characterize the LGBTQ identities/movements as radical revolution is becuase he is a harsh criticist of essentialism, the belief that one should or should not "be" considered "something", that something being a concept such as "man", "woman", "trans", etc. (of course, here I refer to the conceptual and not biological terms) Hence he does not believe in gender fluidity or spectrum or any of those terminologies, but instead he praises the LGBTQ movement in its attempt to revolt and establish radical changes.
With respect to Zizek, a much pithier way of putting it was in the form of a joke I saw once: Socialist: "Eight men own as much wealth as half the population of Earth." Liberal: "I agree, that is disgusting! Four of them should be black women!" Clearly, racism and sexism (and transphobia, and any number of different things) are bad things, and we should fight against them. But speaking out against them is fundamentally not threatening for the structures of power, in the way that speaking out against class inequality and worker exploitation would be. Sticking up a few Pride flags in the office costs a company pennies; restructing the entire company and society so that workers are no longer exploited is catastrophic for the owner class. So we are presented with the illusion of companies caring about inequality in all the ways that are non-threatening to them.
I disagree. I think that is to fail to understand how patriarchal and colonial structures actually reinforce capitalism. When you complain at work about long hours, and you are called a "sissy" or something like this, that is the power of patriarchal norms stifling dissent against capitalism. If people - and men especially - were to suddenly be able to express their feelings and needs openly, I believe we would have a socialist revolution before the end of the month. The masculine ban on communicating about your feelings means that workers cannot know what others are struggling with, meaning that they cannot see that they are all struggling in the same way, meaning that they can't reach class consciousness. Of course the progressive liberal appropriation that goes something like the quote you have given is horrible, but I don't think we should dismiss the movements on the left that are challenging these structures of power.
@@noor5x9 If your reasoning as to why a socialist revolution doesn't (and can't) happen is correct, then how do you explain previous socialist revolutions all over the world, dating back to the 18th century? In environments and societies where masculinity and patriarchy were far more pronounced, in fact not even challenged in the slightest? Not to mention that 'feelings' seem to be secondary concerns when you're struggling to meet your basic needs as a result of exploitation and inexcusably low wages.
@@allweknowisfalling7322 That's a fair point about earlier revolutions, and I'd love to learn how people were able to find connection with each other and build a movement in that patriarchal context. We did see feminism appear also in many other socialists revolutionary movements though. For example, abortion was decriminalised in the early soviet Union, along with homosexuality. That said, we have also seen a re-emergence of strong hierarchical orders after socialist revolutions. I suspect that it is precisely because we change the economic order without challenging the cultural pressupositions that both give rise to such an order and reinforce it
His point is pretty straightforward. We should fully support transgender people, but there's nothing revolutionary about it, which means that it doesn't threaten the existing global capitalism.
The fluidity of ideas and stances is in the postmodern age of late capitalism at its peak, so it shouldn’t surprise you that even so solid natural things as gender or environment are not given anymore, according to Zizek’s reading of the Marx’s critique of capitalism. Clear?
i was a it aprehensive because of the title of the video, but in the end i completely agree with zizek. i'm trans, and there are some people that put's 'transgenderism' as part of the 'transhumanist' ideology. some people think transgender people will bring the end of gender, and that's ridiculous. what happens is that gender roles and expectations modify and adapt according to the changing in social values. and the transgender umbrella includes so many different groups of people that it becomes hard to pinpoint which ones are the revolutionaries. i don't think we are. having surgery to change your body to make yourself more comfortable with your body isn't revolutionary, people have done it for a long time. men wearing skirts may appear to confront gender stereotypes, but the concepts of gender are evolving parallel to that, so in some years, the gender categories will just be a bit different than they're now, but they probably won't disappear or anything. transgender people adapt themselves to society, but there are many ways this can be done, but the power structures will probably continue to exist, they'll just hide themselves in a different manner.
@@unCivilizedInfanta "Abolish gender" or abolish the structures in society which cause gender to matter more than it should (which is nil)? We can't just wish away gender. That in and of itself isn't revolutionary at all but rather idealism in its most basic form. Working towards class [and gender] equality will effectively dissolve all ideas of gender and its perceived roles and place in society -- rendering them meaningless beyond reproduction. As it should be. Edit: This will cause a paradigm shift, not back to the status quo, but rather towards a place where a man or woman can be comfortable as man or woman without any preconceived notions about what it means to be one. Thus, no need for a gender spectrum.
This obviously does not deal with transgenderism (man to woman and vice versa) because to me that is still binary. My comment deals with the debate around gender as a whole, and the massive gray area in the middle that seems to be the bulk of the pseudo-revolution.
@@GhoulsWinnfield humm, some people who transition, or partially transition, still may feel conflicted emotions about their gender, so they may feel that they belong somewhere in the middle, instead of falling in the binary. i respect that, i just let it be. but yeah, binary transgender people are somewhat easier to understand
@@beatrizkarwai6763 I guess my main point is that I agree that gender, and all of the ideas and debates surrounding it, as an overemphasized thing, should be done away with, but I vary in my conclusion on how. We can decide that gender doesn't exist in a metaphysical way and impose that idea on society, or we can actually create a world where its existence is irrelevant. The former being idealist and the latter obviously being materialist. I understand people have more immediate needs and mine is a long-game strategy. As far as societal impact, I just believe that the issue of gender as a concept is most often a matter of the inherent perceptions, prejudices and the discrimination and oppression that comes with it (man vs woman historically for example) and less about outward expression of the inner self. I don't personally care about how people express themselves, that's a part of the organic evolution of culture etc, I'm more concerned with the impact that expression has on the individual and society as a whole. This particulat debate creates a new contradiction in itself between trans women and cis women which is very much worth discussion.. and I'm not sure people are ready for it on either side. My wife being one of them. Btw, I have two teens, one of which is trans and the other leans nonbinary. And I'm still learning a lot about it; what I want to find is a principled Marxist analysis on the matter that enhances the strategy. Not at all easy
My main problem is that Judith Butler shouldn't own the lgbtq movement. "Judith Butler went to Yale to be a lesbian" is funny joke to lgbtq people because it distills how little lgbtq as we instinctively understand it fits with Yale traditionally. But Zizek is right here, she did a great job at assemilating it into capitalism. I think theres an alternative theory of lgbtq to be found that fits better into a wider range of lgbtq experiences, but it is a type of subjectivity and mode of communal relationships that academia and capitalism is designed to filter out. Academia especially is at the forefront of the classification of "good brain vs bad brain" and "good human vs bad human" and we as leftists keep finding ways to say "what if 'x' psychological trait is actually good brain" or "what if 'x' identity is actually good human", when we should instead be throwing away such valuations altogether. I think the only real judgement we should give validity is "are they acting in solidarity or are they not, and why". This is actually how you ascend capitalist subjectivity. I'm certainly interested in figuring out "why am i trans, really" on some level, but I know its not a conscious choice to like, dismantle society leaving only capital relations. More like, it feels like censoring myself to increase my own capital value feels like a dismantling of society. "gender is a social construct", so lets openly celebrate our genders, not try to eat away at the concept gender.
Well, gender is not a social construct... gender fashion is... I do agree with your idea that celebration instead of denialism should be the propper way to go about the subject...
Gender debate is subjective boomerang to such an extent that debating over it puts layers to it nevermind demystifying any rational behind it. In the school of rationality where the argument corroborates scientific rigour, Gender is a fashion period.
He has a good point here. He just goes about stating it poorly. Late stage capitalism is inherently fluid and subjective. Which is to say transgenderism fits perfectly within the system instead of being a revolutionary aspect. Transgenderism being almost wholly subjective and fluid is about as revolutionary to the system as fixed interest loans...
Same. This will probably get alot of backlash, but I believe not all transgenders are in fact transgender. In Thailand, alot of men have sex surgery so they can prostitute themselves as women, because there are no other jobs on the market. In Europe, there have already been cases of children who had sex change surgery and regret it, so now they are working on an underage sex change ban. We must admit that transgender identity is a real thing, but we also have to admit that people might use the tolerance towards transgender identity to escape their own reality and simply exploit their bodies for a better economic position or, like superheroes, they saw something on television and want to live out their fantasies.
@@rockpunk52 I see it this way: 1-bread and circuses, helps as a distraction having people fighting over it 2-helps rich and powerful wrap themselves in a shroud of fake virtue, fucking over real people with legitimate grievances
I think I dislike the framing (the title) in this video more than I dislike or disagree with Zizek. He doesn‘t say a lot about trans identities anyway. That identities get incorporated into the capitalist framework is nothing new (rainbow capitalism) and this is a legit criticism by Zizek and by many other LGBTQ+ activists. There can‘t be real liberation without economic liberation and a lot of minorities have this topic as a major cause for their fight. Trans people especially suffer under the consequences of capitalism where access to healthcare and unemployment are one of the worst things that trans people are affected by. Many trans people are socialists, many trans intellectuals are socialists but of course not everybody is a socialist or even understands this. The identity in itself is not revolutionary (although breaking the binary is in itself a gender revolution but not a marxian one).
I have to add that people who focus on his ticks annoy me too. It‘s just part of his person and shouldn’t really distract you from what he says although he is hard to follow sometimes and jumps a lot in his thoughts but that‘s just his style of presentation.
Well said! The difficulties that trans people face within capitalism, much like racism, can be understood as a product of the system, and as such, can shine more light on the severe shortcomings of the system. Black and LGBT movements sometimes walk hand in hand in Western countries because they are so marginalized, and I have seen groups of these movements that have become armed revolutionaries. Patriarchal relations are generally very beneficial to traditional capitalism, and to this day are responsible for a lot of oppression, so even in a neoliberal utopia I don't think these oppressions will vanish just because capitalism sees identity as a market of sorts. But idk, this is a confusing topic because theorizing endlessly tends to be more confusing than observing what really happens
“Liberation” is an Utopia. We may get less cohertion compared to past - that’s all. People can’t stand life in its total nihilistic meaningless way. Myths are always needed (being Revolutions, Liberations, Hollywood, etc)
I'm trans and I think the identity politics-bread cancel culture in our community has gotten out of hand. But I mostly want to know where he gets his amphetamine.
I think the so called "left" is just a sibsitute for real, socialist leftists. They make up problems that don't exist and if a problem really does exist, it's even worse, because it cannot be addressed because terms like "racist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "imperialist" etc have been used so inflationary that noone takes real discrimination serious. And that's why Bezos, Gates, Cook etc fully support it, they want people to keep the masses confused so that we don't mind that they're controlling us. Divide et impera. Century old concept, works all the time. That's also why Gates and Buffet support social democracy, they absolutely like to pay a little bit more taxes if it means that the whole system can go on without uprisings. All they do is control us, and all this political correctnes cancel culture thing is just a cheap trick to establish a "new left" which is rather center-left because it ultimately supports the status quo, but claims that it doesn't. Just like what we call the "right" is in favor of traditional values and religion and focuses on national issues but at the end of the day they all support a globalized, unregulated market system in which the big banks and big businesses are free to treat the globe however they please. I mean, I'm bisexual myself and I do support the full emancipation of people with whatever sexuality, but I don't think it's in any way relevant for politics. The schools and restaurants and enterprises have to decide how many bath rooms they want, and you will never turn any intolerant person into a tolerant one by insulting them or forcing them, all we can do is do business as usual and show people that life goes on. The US needs to have a serious discussion about global warming, poverty, violence etc. You guys got a huge legal opioid problem and the US has the most imprisoned per capita in the world.
spiritual eco-syndicalist hero of the working class you bring up some interesting points but I don’t think I agree when you say identity has no place in politics. Like the civil rights movement and feminism were inarguably political, and also focused on identity. I agree completely that America desperately needs a real politically relevant socialist movement, and that corporations and the liberal state will try to, as Malcolm X said, give gestures to emancipation of marginalized groups to try to distract from real progress. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also push for anti-discrimination laws and cultural acceptance. Basically we need economic leftism and social progressivism.
@@aberfork6031 Absolutely agree. My point was that one's sexuality (just like one's religion, nationality etc) is a very personal thing and that we must not have a debate about what counts as sexuality, what's normal and what's not, how we should treat them etc. That's completely irrelevant. What we must do is realize that all of this doesn't matter once we accept that people are different not because they're made that way but because they are that way. I don't need people telling me how proud I am for coming out, and I don't want people hating me for that. Vice versa, I don't think women who like to stay at home, do the housework, raise the children etc instead of working are outdated and old-fashioned. If that's what they like, then let them. I don't think it's progressive when women choose to go to work and have a career instead. It's just what they prefer to do. It's the other way around, in the past women have been raised to be housewives, that's not progressive. In that sense, an individual cannot be progressive. But the way the individual is treated, that's progressivism for me. And of course it all comes back to individual behavior, since society is nothing but a collective of individuals. For me, a single individual cannot be truly progressive, and that's non-political for me. We shouldn't walk up to someone and tell him how to behave.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 regardless socialism doesn’t work it doesn’t matter if you are against the modern left you’re still a socialist. It’s stupid.
@E A Youre rationalizing the hatred of independent judgment and the fear of social disapproval. Consciousness is derivative, merely the consciousness OF reality. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Its mans basic method of survival.
Reading these comments about his idiosyncratic behavior is disappointing. This focus on what he does physically and with his sniffing that is abnormal of course is a symptom of a materialistic culture where individuals have their value measured on how normal their appearance and mannerisms are rather than on the content of their ideas.
All cultures shunned people who were physically unusual, if they weren’t outright killed at birth. It has nothing to do with materialism. It’s a human trait. (More than human - even animals do this)
It's been challenging for me to get through one of his concepts because of his animated nature. I decided not to watch him speak but to open a second window and listen to ambient sound design while listening to him speak, this helped isolate his information.
My dad is Japanese, but given that Idk Japanese, we speak in English. I always thought his way of speaking English was somewhat funny. Here I am listening to someone from a completely different country speaking English in the EXACT. SAME. WAY. I've grown to find this speech pattern (can you call it a speech pattern?) very charming tbh and maybe I prefer it over regular English.
"Forms of hysteria are almost always specified". This isn't a trivial observation by Zizek because he's basically saying that every epoch has its prevailing taboos/aspirations. He captures that with his example of how marital infidelity used to be perceived (at least half a century ago) and how its now literally the reverse. I find that interesting because it may tie into the "peaks and troughs" theory of group ethos. There will be some centuries that lean heavily towards conservatism and others to liberalism. Maybe that's the greater message. I may be wrong though.
It's fascinating how in universities in Europe there's many mamy graffities about end the cistem, kill cis scum... I can't imagine MOST of the people doing graffiti doing it about this. They gotta be paid
when it (along with his horrifically slobbery vocals) makes it extremely difficult to discern what the man is even saying, I'd say the comments are warranted.
Is it possible to get Zizek to focus and develop his main points for longer than 3 minutes? He’s always dishing out interesting points (or at least interestingly labelled points), but I rarely get to hear them beyond the initial labels
I have exactly the same observation. He never does, because he's just an ADHD Marxist standup performer. He obviously does rarely have such longer trains of thought - maybe it's drugs or just lack of mental capabilities. He only deals in episodic observations and jokes.
One thing that I can agree with the marxista is that the revolution needs to be made on a class basis. Not on the way that they propose it of course. But I also think that every kind of ways the human can liberate himself from social hierarchies such as political, sexual, or even collective hierarchies should at least be considered as necessary for the revolution.
I mean yeah, I'm trans because of dysphoria making my life hell without transitioning! It's not a statement, not a revolution, and it is absolutely not political. It's just for my own wellbeing. The only "political" aspect of it is forced on me because of some parties who put a desire to at best stop me from having that wellbeing or at worst have me dead at the forefront of their politics. If they went away, nothing about me being transgender would be any more political than any other medical issue.
So? We all have struggles, what should I do? Cry my eyes out because you function differently? Guess what, so do I, nothing special about that. Those individual push things onto you and you push things onto them - you don't want them, they don't want yours, yet you both keep on doing it.
@@princeargon6508 I uh, don't think you understood the point, I was saying it's not revolutionary it's just how I am. Not lookin for pity or whatever you may have thought? And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever lol
I think my life would be much more enjoyable and fulfilling if I was thoroughly able to embody his absolutely immeasurable level of indifference when it comes to how much he actually cares about how others perceive him and his wonderfully belligerent antics... It's almost comedy, and I say that with respect and admiration. I wish I had the balls to get up and speak my mind while shamelessly choking back ungodly amounts of that gackity gack, drippity drip drool, not giving a damn if they think me a fool.
@@westondeloney8306 You got a chuckle, but really, no. You know Donald Trump takes himself -- particularly his appearance and identity -- very seriously. He is proud of his hair, fingers, speech-patterns, etc. and usually offended at critical comments about them rather than self-deprecating or even apologetic like Zizek.
@@Wisstihrwas Marx was also supposedly hegelian, yet he wasn't. Zizek is a wasted talent because he is either focusing on wrong things or the good things with the extremly bad perception. Here and there he knows to be correct, but most of the times im surprised that there is so much people agreeing with him.
Half of the comments are about his tics. The other half of them are about why those comments are disappointing and we should instead talk about the subject matter. They don't talk about it either. And I'm just a stupid guy critisizing the comment section. I mainly agree with him about most of the things he pointed out btw.
Sure It’s actually pretty normal when you think about it Marx isn’t the end all be all for every aspect of reality, BUT I hate when people say things like “progressive politic is Marxism applies to everything “ as of those people know anything of Marx or ever read a line of his books
@@MrAlRats fun didn't hurt anyone, but I have seen some comments that are mean spirited or dismissive of what he says simply because of his ticks. That is what pains me. But nothing that a line of coke with the man cannot fix.
There's nothing inherently revolutionary about any political ideology or social identity. How revolutionary an ideology or way of existing is depends completely on the context of it's creation. In the context of the existing Dominant paradigm of Binary Gender, Transgender or Non-binary identities can be radical, so long as the continue to attempt to dismantle the dominant paradigm. In the context of Marxist analysis, no its not necessarily radical, unless it also takes up the mantle of class struggle, which a number of gender fluid people do. But yes the politics of identity do run the risk of (and are currently) being co-opted and commodified; Especially by the existing Capitalist telecommunication industries (Mass Media networks). But also, a Marxism isn't the end all be all of theories of oppression; Racial, Gendered, Ethnic, and Dynastic/State/Imperial oppression has existed for centuries before global capitalism, and they can continue to exist after its inevitable collapse.
exactly! but capitalism has done that with everything, that’s what it’s designed to do. Coopting is in the capitalist nature, it excels in this. Syndicalism, ecology, feminism, gender theory, decolonization, black liberation, even communism itself - all taken, capitalized, commodified and commercialized. That doesn’t automatically remove the revolutionary potential in all of these.
I find Marx knew very little about human behavior, only his judgement of it, he saw racism but never understood why it exists. At that time humans were perceived as something totally different from animals, out of the animal kingdome, as if we were rational beings with feelings. Today it is proven and concluded that we are driven by feelings and instinct and some times some are smart enough to look back and think about, reazonable, what we did and with some luck, undertand the actual reasons. No wonder he proposed the "new man" as if our mind was only shaped by culture and learning and there wasn't a subconsciousness evolved thousand of years to keep us alive and reproduce, injecting chemicals into our body to make us walk away from things it perceives dangerous or harmful and make us prone to repeat things it perceives as good with endorphines and dopamine
So Revolutionary only applies to economic systems? Seems kind of a narrow definition. By that logic there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about Revolutionary Girl Utena even though it questions some of the basic modes of human existence.
@E A Corporate America’s embrace of wokeness is merely of the surface level affectations, not of the actual ideologies that underpin those revolutionary actions. If corporate co-option is the rubric for assessing the “genuine” nature of a revolutionary act, then socialism and communism were co-opted into the machine a long time ago with “I’d like to teach the world to sing”. Thus, they are not truly revolutionary any more. Which is bs logic. This purely economic/property/labour-based context for revolution is too narrow to be fully useful any more. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its uses, of course it does, but while we have to look beyond capitalism we also have to look beyond patriarchy. I’m not particularly interested in substituting one economic model for another while leaving the underlying power structure (that has brought us to disaster over and over again) intact.
I think it’s the idea that you can’t really take down patriarchy, racism, etc without also taking down the main structure that holds and creates them. So it’s all a deviation of the real issue. At least it’s how my average brain manages to understand this, but I could be really wrong.
But I think the beauty of the communist revolution is that it WILL remove the old vestiges of power, once we remove private ownership of business it will be a huge step to removing the rich and powerful from their positions. We can remove the patriarchy by roving their ownership of the current systems
Zizek suffers from nasal problems, and nervous ticks while lecturing or presenting, and on the other corner we have the high-school comedians here being witty about it who would probably gladly imitate an disabled person if asked
Why does transness have to be revolutionary? it's not about that. Ofc it's not inherently revolutionary it's about addressing gender dysphoria it's not a political statement.
This might be the first video ever where I wished written text was read by google translator instead. I just can't listen to him propperly. I'm interested in what he has to say, but I just can't overlook the sideshow. It's sad.
There are also Trans people who are poor and do not belong to the middle class. Being Trans is not some decadent luxury, it is a reality and should be regarded with the legitimacy and empowerment that it deserves.
In every one of these videos it feels like he’s building up to a point until he randomly switches to a different topic without addressing the first. It’s a shame.
The quote is act 2 scene 2, aka Balcony scene, Romeo and Juliet. He quoted my favourite Shakespearean line in the exact opposite sense I quote it in part of my thesis as she is asking why (wherefore) is he Romeo not why is she herself Juliet. So it's not a question about her own identity, not even in the lacanian sense, it's more a question of her own love and the possibilities of naming something
It makes me sad that instead of listening to him speak and learn, you all wanna immaturely talk about this intelligent man's hand movements.... these guys talk about this sort of behaviour and how it honestly makes you an idiot. This man is a modern day intellect.
@@kyoshinka Um, cool you're a *socialist*? I don't get what that has to do with my point of people focusing on his vocal flaw, rather than the substance of his speech? But okay. My point still stands. Cheers
If we can learn anything from Communication Theory is that you can have the most brilliant message to share, but if you choose a channel with a lot of inherent noise, it will not get through. This is to say that public speaking is definitely not the best way for Žižek to share his ideas.
I have noticed that his tics seemed to only be present when he speaks English. I have the opinion that Zizek should just speak in Slovenian from now on and we just read the English subtitles on youtube
Oh that's too late. It's his USP. What would Zizek be without his ticks. Just another boring looking philosopher. :) Though sometimes it's hard to focus...
Noise reduction tools in audio software are absolutely capable of this. You need to provide a sample of noise you want to edit out ("Schniff") and it will remove the rest automatically
Y’all saying any identity is anti revolution…but is it so? Aren’t there identities that force one to at least lean revolutionary, like belonging to oppressed class, or religion? Identifying “out” if being oppressed isn’t that simple, despite having freedom to call yourself anyway you wish. Correct me if I’m wrong
Trans people's existence is not revolutionary, but it's not supposed to be nor do I think we should want it to be. I still don't know if Zizek thinks that so called "transgenderims" (honestly I don't even know exactly what he means by that term) is a product of capitalism... if he thinks that then I disagree with him. I think that the fluidity and subjective experience of gender identities just so happen to fit within capitalism, but is not a product of it, and that's why it's being 'allowed' to be expressed within capitalism but it would exist either way. My worry is that a lot of people here in the comment section seem to have arrived to a fairly transphobic conclusion with this whole "the subjective fluidity of gender identity is not revolutionary" thing. I've seen some people here argue stuff like "transgenderism" as an ideology is making people _believe_ that they can just decide to switch gender but otherwise they wouldn't (basically suggesting that being trans is just make-believe), or that "transgenderism" has negative connotations because is not revolutionary or is pro-capitalist... stuff that Zizek never said. There's just no data to suggest that there's this ideology that makes people just _believe_ that they are the other gender, all evidence points out to something initiated internally, and then expressed by imitating gender as a social construct (that's the subjectivity), but you're not going to become trans by being exposed to trans acceptance in general. So yeah, trans people expression and existence fit withing capitalism and they alone won't bring the end of it... to that I say, whatever.
By the way, before anyone points out supposed evidence of many or some trans people regretting transition, know that studies have shown that most, the overwhelming majority, of detransition cases happen because of lack of access to healthcare needed to transition or because of social stigma for being trans, and we are already talking about a insignificant minority that detransition cases represent in the overall cases of transitioning, almost all trans people do not decide to detransition.
I couldn't imagine you or various youtube commenters are any closer to 'the point' then Zizek. In fact you would likely be very far behind his understanding
@@opiliones4202 Authority can be justified in certain fields due to knowledge. I would take the advice and knowledge of a professional tailor rather then my own if I was to get clothing made. So why would anyone think they better understand the point of modern society then a well educated philosopher if they are not educated? If you are going to state there is an objective 'point' rather then a subjective idealogy (in which your perspective is just as valid as Zizek's) then it is obvious to assume he has a better understanding then you. Otherwise you get people like 'uhhh, I could have thought of the stuff the greeks thought of, I am just as smart.' When there is no doubt the thoughts of people like them (and I assume you) are extremely unoriginal
In the sense that "revolutionary" can be used to mean 'involving or causing a complete or dramatic change' (the primary definition of the word) the rise of transgenderism has been revolutionary in the way that people now view gender as a choice instead of a prescription. In the way that communists tend to use the word transgenderism is not revolutionary, Zizek is correct, however that is not the only way to use that word.
well he means the second definition obviously. He is saying it isn't revolutionary in that sense. Yeah, I guess if you use a different definition of revolutionary you could say it is that, but that's just playing a semantic game not actually engaging with the substance here.
It doesn't make any sense to say "transgenderism is revolutionary" and parse it through the 2nd definition of the word. There are no transgender movements looking for a change in the way states are governed (except possibly underground in some theocratic states, but those are non-western states) it seems ridiculous to assume that anyone means that. But then it is also clear that he isn't using the 2nd definition when we look at this phrase: "...there is nothing inherently revolutionary about the #metoo and transgender movements, because they do not question the underlying economic system as such." Revolutions as per the 2nd definition do not occur when economic systems change, but when political systems are overthrown, sometimes they are coupled with a change of the economic system, but not always or even usually. I suspect he is using a 3rd definition of the word yet to be found in the dictionary. One that ties "revolutionary" to communist revolution alone. - Communists have a habit of not calling revolutions against communist governments "revolutionary" but rather "counter-revolutionary, even if the government they run wasn't put in place by a revolution. Yes this is semantics, but all speech, especially complicated speech, is dependent on the common understanding of words for it to be of any use to anyone.
@@studio1988. If you think that you are so intellectually superior to someone, then it's better to prove that through argumentation rather than playground insults. The latter only proves the opposite.
It's not very difficult to understand what he's saying. Just focus on the words and not his body movements. His sniffing is also not very had to simple ignore
@@enes207 looking at the comments I genuinely thought I was the only one thinking this. I have ocd and sensory overload is an issue for me yet I could understand what this man was trying to say by simply ignoring his tics
Sorry but there are tons of societies throughout time which were not capitalist and still had broader gender definitions than modern capitalist societies. Additionally these same modern capitalist societies have equally powerful groups attempting to enforce binary gender roles…so his argument that transgender is inevitable in late stage capitalism doesn’t hold water
It might not be inherently revolutionary economically, but isn’t the reconstruction of understandings of gender revolutionary (inherently) in the realm of gender roles, family structures, social relations? Could we have a radical ruptures in one domain of life while other domains stay the same?
Yeah that's what I was thinking It may not be revolutionary in the context of Marxism But trans people have experienced life from two different perspectives where most people have not and can bridge the gaps of understanding between the sexes But the problem now is that nobody wants to face these problems and instead want to push that knowledge back into ignorance. The world isn't ready to let go of it's sexism right now
I think you’re getting at the root of this issue. Modern bourgeois morality, although adaptable, has foundations in heteronormativity & the gender binary. Therefore, people who do not fit with these traditional expectations are seen as radical outsiders to that system, and are particularly alienated by it. Although trans people & their movements aren’t inherently revolutionary, I do think that the current social position of transness tends to engender a certain kind of radical, even revolutionary consciousness. Just look at STAR & the GLF from back in the day. While trans rights & LGBTQ+ issues in general are currently being co-opted by certain sectors of Capital, I don’t think that necessarily negates these factors, just complicates them. In the same way that corporations cashing in on the Black Power movement didn’t make the Black Panthers any less radical, for example. Capitalists just want to cash in regardless of the social conditions. But to regard transgender politics as an extension of capitalism because of that is just plain wrong.
Denying biological reality isn't revolutionary lmao its just retarded. It's like saying "cutting my own arm off for fun is revolutionary" Yeah but is it? It's fucking weird and bizzare and stupid, but just because it's something new doesnt mean its revolutionary
I don’t know, but I do know the answer is that it’s not a bad thing. Living in the past is not good (uncle rico) and wanting to make the present like the past is a sign of a will turned toward death.
@@ludlowaloysius but fighting against humanity,s basic instinct never turns out good ,were either going towards a full reset our the extinction of our race and it cant be blamed on one thing only
@@Mclovinsnutt123 yes, fighting against humanity worst impulses does work. It has been working for hundreds of years now. We live better lives than people in the past. Period.
@@ludlowaloysius then why do we feel the need to change social norms ,why are we now in a constant state of fearmongering all the while the rest of the world watches western countries such as the us loose control over its own people falling back onto tribalism over gender constructs and guns .
He may or may not be spitting facts, but he is undoubtedly spitting.
10/10
Best comment
Yeah this joke has got pretty repetitive at this point...
@@sykocode8530 So has the spitting.
😂😂
When you spend decades making unique contributions to psychoanalysis and philosophy and all anyone can focus on is your facial ticks.
"unique contributions" sure buddy..
@@mobspeak the Peterson debate was enough for him to earn that.
People keep making comments on his nose touching because it's gross and funny. And it's never not going to be gross and funny. I love hearing this man speak and have listened to him for hours, but I still pick up on it and it's distracting. I'm willing to ignore it because of the quality of his words, but it's annoying. And don't try to pretend it's not annoying because then you're just lying to yourself.
@@mobspeak this video is a perfect example of his unique contributions
@@thebeatcreeper Zizek is a """"""leftist"""""" as well yet he can and will shit talk mercilessly (in a loving way). Grow up bro.
The problem with Zizek is that when he's finally reaching the point, he tells a joke, turns and then gets into another subject.
I kinda like it in a way. It is a comedic relief to pretty hard topics and themes, but he will not think them to the end, which forces you to think further. He has written books and articles about all of it, where he elaborates all of his ideas, but a speach or presentation in this intellectual topic should be exactly like this.
bomber9912 well I disagree, he should elaborate them more so we can understand what he's saying without any reinforcements. Imagine if teachers didn't explain things well and then saying don't worry it's in the book.
"The problem"
@@bomber9912 i like to cook a good diner and right before eat it. I throw it all in the trash...
bro we just know that when there’s a video entitled a certain subject done by Zizek it’s gonna be 80% other points
Ah yes, my favourite Shakespeare quote: "What's in that name, am I that name, and so on and so on."
you probably shouldn't misquote the guy, this being your favorite Shakespeare quote,
Jason Unruhe, Dankey Kang, Jesse Grant and the Pink Triangle
ua-cam.com/video/3YdP4HMi-WA/v-deo.html
Mine is "Now… something, something, something"
I would love to see a live retelling of Shakespeare as recalled off-hand by by Zizek
@@Letmegetthatforyou hahaha
Seems people in this comment section have never heard of neurological tics before...
Cocaine or tics?
I've heard of it but have never witnessed it.
sweet anita
No we've heard of them, I have them but it's still funny.
@@mrbrown1159 found someone who never heard of a neurological tic
90% of people who watch Zizek just make the same unfunny joke about him touching his nose
It’s better to point out he’s just a gross person in general.
I made the funny joke about him wearing the Freddy Krueger shirt. Imagine if he had the glove too. OUCH!!!!
@@timolsen3494 stfu
*sniff*
The jokes may be unfunny but his behaviour is fucking hilarious.
Zizek referring to Tim Cook as “the other apple guy” is so unbelievably relatable.
It's good but not as good as Tim Apple
LMFAO
The most annoying thing about Zizek is that mainstream reception reduces him to his ticks.
people see what they can understand
Not just him, Eastern Europeans in general and I fucking hate it
His voice makes my eyes water uncontrollably. I don't know why, it's weird, and I don't like it. It got so bad it was like I was weeping, streams of tears running down my face. I had to stop listening, which is unfortunate because I would have liked to hear what he had to say.
He should make a tictoc 😉
Oh wait, he's already there :)
It takes time to filter that. As mamals we are wired to repel and reject signs of sickness, and his ticks, to our unconsciousness, which does not care about medicine books or psychology literature, his ticks indicate he's sick or has some problem. The further he is, the less chance we got to catch whatever he has.
Unconsciousness, something Marx didn't seem to know about, our behavior is driven by our instincts, feelings and genes, with some luck we can put some reazon into some of our actions. Capítalism is nothing but an observation of how we work and tells you the optimus way to maximize profit and growth in the material world, but it doesn't say you have to exploit your employees. Actually, today it is well known that less hours of work and happier employees contribute more, which ultimately increase profit. A bad practice of capitalism is not of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, simply doesn't work, it's based on untrue facts such as human behavior
''The problem with Marx is that precisely where he was right, he was right to such an extent, he couldn't even imagine how right he is''
-Slavoj Zizek
The problem with Zizek is he is fucked in the head. - Me.
@@mobspeak
3 edgy 5 you m9
@@bazkervillerouge750 His retarded followers speak worse gibberish than he does, it's not a surprise.
@@mobspeak
Riveting.
@igor šajinović And the fact that you follow people like this tells me that you belong in a mental institution.
“Enlightened western Buddhism” “spiritual hedonism” those are great terms for this white influence yoga craze
xdddddddddddddddd
Westerners are a disgrace to yoga.
They strip away it’s necessary Hinduism and make it secular
There is no secular yoga. That’s just called doing uncomfortable poses
Lol
@@deanmccrorie3461 Yoga is lame. Mobility training is more effective.
@@BrObstreperous lololol.
I guess but effective at what?
@@deanmccrorie3461 wait so I cant practice this stuff thats been immeasurably helpful because I don’t practice hinduism? Tf?
I find it insulting that the comments are mainly about his appearances, and not about the subject itself.
Who cares?
@@user-dz8pg5sw6s Not the likes of you, who can't grasp what he is talking about, obviously.
You're dealing with the majority of the population that's low IQ but has access to the internet
And you made it worse pointing it out so shut up
@@robergarcia11 He didn’t make it worse. It is insulting.
As a trans person its a little silly that this point even needs to made - of course my transition is not revolutionary, its an individual action with little impact on other people and done for only my own sake. Thus, it becomes a consumer group for markets to target, despite mine or anyone elses chagrin. Zizek is correct as usual. I hope as few as my trans brothers and sisters as possible fall under the pretention it is revolutionary.
based
worded very eloquently!
@@killdracula526 But still shit!
The problem isn't transgenderism, it's the total infiltration of transgenderism into the mainstream and the militant approach the movement has taken to get everyone to recognize a lifestyle choice that objectively only a small percentage of the population engages in
Would you be the trans brother or sister then?
Identity is never revolutionary in general
It depends how you're identified and where you are living when you're being identified.
Destroying identities is a way to destroy society, i.e. push forward the creeping revolution through the superstructure
Making identity the main point of your doctrine is a poor move. Many are probably too narcissistic to admit it or incapable of grasping that identity is inherently anti-emancipatory
@@alicepractice9473 - making identity the main point of a doctrine is evil and effective. Identities are vehicles of group interest and if you break their creation process by interferring at an early age - like modern marxism does - you can then easily indoctrinate a malleable mass of pathologized young - as seen all around.
@Frederick Röders - who are those?
"Schniff" - Slavoj Zizek
Underrated
snorted a booger at this 😂
Šniff
yo the man has nervous tics, don't be mean
and so on and so on
Final Boss of Google's caption machine learning.
It works perfectly for me
JAJAJAJAA
It do work. Except when it comes to questioning "pressure positions"
@@LiliS319 Lol
Hahahahahahaha omg this comment wins the comment section
I always get the sense that Zizek understands more than he can convey. And he conveys quite a bit.
is like a sidewalk stone he conveys... or a potato
@@hayleyberry3437 The man writes so many books but UA-cam people don't read so this is all they get.
The speed of his mind exceeds the speed of his speech
@@onisuryaman408that's exactly how ADHD feels
not his mother language
Zizek is a great thinker, but to speak on behalf of myself and my friends; I don't think most LGBTQ people want their gender or sexual identities to be politicized or viewed as a radical statement- they simply want to exist. The emergence of more people in the west openly identifying as such, is the result of lots of of contributing factors- a big one of course being social media and online communities; we have more resources than ever to understand ourselves and seek validation and support from others. So yes economic growth has facilitated the emergence of more active, informed LGBTQ communities, and allowed the discourse around gender and sexuality to develop. And of course big tech giants want to capitalize off this.
But our identities are not inherently political, and regardless of political context, Gender and sexual fluidity has existed for thousands of years (take a look at Ancient Greece, and Native American culture), we are not new or radical, we just have more visibility now.
they do simply exist. they politicize them selves by interacting with this pathetic thing. its fun to participate for these people, they are literally boring people who have spent their entire lives either on the fringe of fitting in or just never being a part of anything whatsoever. this is their chance for attention. not one of them knows what its like to be cool or popular, and this is an avenue for that. literally. the same thing for 45 year old women who are just getting blue hair for the first time, or finding an identity on twitter surrounding some rage filled idea of teenager politics. its a hollow attempt at finding a surrogate personality using contemporary identity politics. its easy to scream and fight for things when you have an army of mainstream news outlets arguing for you. if these people found a skill that wasnt drawing furry cartoons or making childish art they would know what its like to have something to offer society and be rewarded for, and wouldnt feel so desperate to reach out and compromise their dignity for attention. its really not complicated, were seeing this pattern over and over literally millions of times. basically ugly and or boring people just looking for the limelight and pretending like the world is attacking them. its extremely cliche and probably the most cringe thing you can find in this decade
Bullshit.
Most "LGB" Folks don't want their sexuality (Not their 'identities, their literal 'sexualities') not to be politicized anymore because those have been politicized, and the majority of things that where to be achieved had been achieved. Discrimination was made illegal, marriage was permitted, equal access to the workforce, and equal access to legislative rights including medical support.
the 'TQ+' Fraction of that (which just "Bandwagoned" on the political platform having inherently zero to do with them), are the ones that basically poisoned the entire fucking progress with their retarded ideology and strictly reality-denying, anti-scientific, biology-antagonizing horseshit, by trying to 'normalize' lifestyles that would be largely impossible without severe, violent modification and altering of the human body through absolutely unnecessary, often times life-threatening surgeries and hormonal experimentation that does more harm then it does good.
And the consistent presence and uncovering of fucking child molesters amongst their ranks and pedophiles trying to introduce highly pornographical/kink based material into school curriculums and trying to disguise it as 'Sex-Ed' is only the tip of that Iceberg. Or the Presence of "MAP" acceptance advocates in the 'TQ+' fraction.
Homosexual, Bisexuality, Lesbianism can all be considered natural. Nature has enough of examples of it occuring, and we've had enough of historical precedents proving that people 'did' lead those lifestyles in one way or another. the 'TQ+' Nonsense is absolutely invented out of thin air on shoddy pseudo-science from liberal arts degrees, rooted in sociology and philosophy far more then any hard science out there.
Conflating queerness and pedophilia (regardless of era) is a dangerous game, and we see this narrative a lot from far-right christian conservatives (not to suggest that you fit this category). It's very important to acknowledge and address issues of pedophilia and child abuse abuse- both historic and current, but remember to exercise nuance and be aware of potentially damming and accusatory associations. @@markbranham7355
Agreed. The whole problem is that, instead of prescribing the simple extension of feminine and masculine rather than male and female, we implant sexuality as the root argument. There are both men and women who carry both feminine and masculine traits. THAT is the primary issue. Some carry those tendencies to include sexuality. Those that do are now mired in a conversation that has no purpose and is utterly missing the point. It is the Native American idea of "two spirits." We all carry both.
The reason Zizek would characterize the LGBTQ identities/movements as radical revolution is becuase he is a harsh criticist of essentialism, the belief that one should or should not "be" considered "something", that something being a concept such as "man", "woman", "trans", etc. (of course, here I refer to the conceptual and not biological terms) Hence he does not believe in gender fluidity or spectrum or any of those terminologies, but instead he praises the LGBTQ movement in its attempt to revolt and establish radical changes.
With respect to Zizek, a much pithier way of putting it was in the form of a joke I saw once:
Socialist: "Eight men own as much wealth as half the population of Earth."
Liberal: "I agree, that is disgusting! Four of them should be black women!"
Clearly, racism and sexism (and transphobia, and any number of different things) are bad things, and we should fight against them. But speaking out against them is fundamentally not threatening for the structures of power, in the way that speaking out against class inequality and worker exploitation would be. Sticking up a few Pride flags in the office costs a company pennies; restructing the entire company and society so that workers are no longer exploited is catastrophic for the owner class. So we are presented with the illusion of companies caring about inequality in all the ways that are non-threatening to them.
I disagree. I think that is to fail to understand how patriarchal and colonial structures actually reinforce capitalism. When you complain at work about long hours, and you are called a "sissy" or something like this, that is the power of patriarchal norms stifling dissent against capitalism.
If people - and men especially - were to suddenly be able to express their feelings and needs openly, I believe we would have a socialist revolution before the end of the month. The masculine ban on communicating about your feelings means that workers cannot know what others are struggling with, meaning that they cannot see that they are all struggling in the same way, meaning that they can't reach class consciousness.
Of course the progressive liberal appropriation that goes something like the quote you have given is horrible, but I don't think we should dismiss the movements on the left that are challenging these structures of power.
@@noor5x9 If your reasoning as to why a socialist revolution doesn't (and can't) happen is correct, then how do you explain previous socialist revolutions all over the world, dating back to the 18th century? In environments and societies where masculinity and patriarchy were far more pronounced, in fact not even challenged in the slightest? Not to mention that 'feelings' seem to be secondary concerns when you're struggling to meet your basic needs as a result of exploitation and inexcusably low wages.
@@allweknowisfalling7322 That's a fair point about earlier revolutions, and I'd love to learn how people were able to find connection with each other and build a movement in that patriarchal context. We did see feminism appear also in many other socialists revolutionary movements though. For example, abortion was decriminalised in the early soviet Union, along with homosexuality.
That said, we have also seen a re-emergence of strong hierarchical orders after socialist revolutions. I suspect that it is precisely because we change the economic order without challenging the cultural pressupositions that both give rise to such an order and reinforce it
What about a company owned by the workers? Are the workers them working class or owner class?
There is no actual logical argument for legitimizing transgender.
Ima be honest I enjoyed that but I couldn’t tell you his main point at all
Lemwell7 My main point is this one. *sniffs philosophically*
The point is we should support trans people and defend them, but their struggle is not revolutionary in the Marxist meaning of revolution.
His point is pretty straightforward. We should fully support transgender people, but there's nothing revolutionary about it, which means that it doesn't threaten the existing global capitalism.
Hey man welcome to zizek!
The fluidity of ideas and stances is in the postmodern age of late capitalism at its peak, so it shouldn’t surprise you that even so solid natural things as gender or environment are not given anymore, according to Zizek’s reading of the Marx’s critique of capitalism. Clear?
i was a it aprehensive because of the title of the video, but in the end i completely agree with zizek.
i'm trans, and there are some people that put's 'transgenderism' as part of the 'transhumanist' ideology. some people think transgender people will bring the end of gender, and that's ridiculous. what happens is that gender roles and expectations modify and adapt according to the changing in social values. and the transgender umbrella includes so many different groups of people that it becomes hard to pinpoint which ones are the revolutionaries. i don't think we are. having surgery to change your body to make yourself more comfortable with your body isn't revolutionary, people have done it for a long time. men wearing skirts may appear to confront gender stereotypes, but the concepts of gender are evolving parallel to that, so in some years, the gender categories will just be a bit different than they're now, but they probably won't disappear or anything. transgender people adapt themselves to society, but there are many ways this can be done, but the power structures will probably continue to exist, they'll just hide themselves in a different manner.
You're right. We should abolish gender, but trans identities just enforce it. Nothing revolutionary there.
@@unCivilizedInfanta
"Abolish gender" or abolish the structures in society which cause gender to matter more than it should (which is nil)? We can't just wish away gender. That in and of itself isn't revolutionary at all but rather idealism in its most basic form. Working towards class [and gender] equality will effectively dissolve all ideas of gender and its perceived roles and place in society -- rendering them meaningless beyond reproduction. As it should be.
Edit: This will cause a paradigm shift, not back to the status quo, but rather towards a place where a man or woman can be comfortable as man or woman without any preconceived notions about what it means to be one. Thus, no need for a gender spectrum.
This obviously does not deal with transgenderism (man to woman and vice versa) because to me that is still binary. My comment deals with the debate around gender as a whole, and the massive gray area in the middle that seems to be the bulk of the pseudo-revolution.
@@GhoulsWinnfield humm, some people who transition, or partially transition, still may feel conflicted emotions about their gender, so they may feel that they belong somewhere in the middle, instead of falling in the binary. i respect that, i just let it be. but yeah, binary transgender people are somewhat easier to understand
@@beatrizkarwai6763
I guess my main point is that I agree that gender, and all of the ideas and debates surrounding it, as an overemphasized thing, should be done away with, but I vary in my conclusion on how. We can decide that gender doesn't exist in a metaphysical way and impose that idea on society, or we can actually create a world where its existence is irrelevant. The former being idealist and the latter obviously being materialist. I understand people have more immediate needs and mine is a long-game strategy.
As far as societal impact, I just believe that the issue of gender as a concept is most often a matter of the inherent perceptions, prejudices and the discrimination and oppression that comes with it (man vs woman historically for example) and less about outward expression of the inner self. I don't personally care about how people express themselves, that's a part of the organic evolution of culture etc, I'm more concerned with the impact that expression has on the individual and society as a whole. This particulat debate creates a new contradiction in itself between trans women and cis women which is very much worth discussion.. and I'm not sure people are ready for it on either side. My wife being one of them.
Btw, I have two teens, one of which is trans and the other leans nonbinary. And I'm still learning a lot about it; what I want to find is a principled Marxist analysis on the matter that enhances the strategy. Not at all easy
My main problem is that Judith Butler shouldn't own the lgbtq movement. "Judith Butler went to Yale to be a lesbian" is funny joke to lgbtq people because it distills how little lgbtq as we instinctively understand it fits with Yale traditionally. But Zizek is right here, she did a great job at assemilating it into capitalism.
I think theres an alternative theory of lgbtq to be found that fits better into a wider range of lgbtq experiences, but it is a type of subjectivity and mode of communal relationships that academia and capitalism is designed to filter out.
Academia especially is at the forefront of the classification of "good brain vs bad brain" and "good human vs bad human" and we as leftists keep finding ways to say "what if 'x' psychological trait is actually good brain" or "what if 'x' identity is actually good human", when we should instead be throwing away such valuations altogether.
I think the only real judgement we should give validity is "are they acting in solidarity or are they not, and why". This is actually how you ascend capitalist subjectivity. I'm certainly interested in figuring out "why am i trans, really" on some level, but I know its not a conscious choice to like, dismantle society leaving only capital relations. More like, it feels like censoring myself to increase my own capital value feels like a dismantling of society. "gender is a social construct", so lets openly celebrate our genders, not try to eat away at the concept gender.
holy shit, this deserves way more likes.
Well, gender is not a social construct... gender fashion is... I do agree with your idea that celebration instead of denialism should be the propper way to go about the subject...
Gender is grammatical, sex is biological and there are only two and they determine society.
@@bulkingup if you are saying that there are only two sexes, then what about intersex?
Gender debate is subjective boomerang to such an extent that debating over it puts layers to it nevermind demystifying any rational behind it.
In the school of rationality where the argument corroborates scientific rigour, Gender is a fashion period.
In the Age of COVID, how the f*ck do you keep Zizek from touching his face 2000000 times per min?
We simply get him to do what we are all being asked to do, wash hands, or sanitiser and good personal hygiene. I think that he does all that.
@spiro futue te ipsum. If you're not braindead, you should know what it means.
cover his hands in chili powder
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
@@philoz08 you murdered him
He has a good point here. He just goes about stating it poorly. Late stage capitalism is inherently fluid and subjective. Which is to say transgenderism fits perfectly within the system instead of being a revolutionary aspect.
Transgenderism being almost wholly subjective and fluid is about as revolutionary to the system as fixed interest loans...
Same. This will probably get alot of backlash, but I believe not all transgenders are in fact transgender. In Thailand, alot of men have sex surgery so they can prostitute themselves as women, because there are no other jobs on the market. In Europe, there have already been cases of children who had sex change surgery and regret it, so now they are working on an underage sex change ban.
We must admit that transgender identity is a real thing, but we also have to admit that people might use the tolerance towards transgender identity to escape their own reality and simply exploit their bodies for a better economic position or, like superheroes, they saw something on television and want to live out their fantasies.
Warms my heart to see level-headed people on my opposite end of the aisle.
obvious example being that large corporations and fortune 500 promoting the transgender narrative
Transgenderism is more active in highly capitalistic societies so he may be onto something.
@@rockpunk52 I see it this way:
1-bread and circuses, helps as a distraction having people fighting over it
2-helps rich and powerful wrap themselves in a shroud of fake virtue, fucking over real people with legitimate grievances
I think I dislike the framing (the title) in this video more than I dislike or disagree with Zizek. He doesn‘t say a lot about trans identities anyway. That identities get incorporated into the capitalist framework is nothing new (rainbow capitalism) and this is a legit criticism by Zizek and by many other LGBTQ+ activists. There can‘t be real liberation without economic liberation and a lot of minorities have this topic as a major cause for their fight. Trans people especially suffer under the consequences of capitalism where access to healthcare and unemployment are one of the worst things that trans people are affected by. Many trans people are socialists, many trans intellectuals are socialists but of course not everybody is a socialist or even understands this. The identity in itself is not revolutionary (although breaking the binary is in itself a gender revolution but not a marxian one).
I have to add that people who focus on his ticks annoy me too. It‘s just part of his person and shouldn’t really distract you from what he says although he is hard to follow sometimes and jumps a lot in his thoughts but that‘s just his style of presentation.
you put it into great terms!! thank you!!
Well said! The difficulties that trans people face within capitalism, much like racism, can be understood as a product of the system, and as such, can shine more light on the severe shortcomings of the system. Black and LGBT movements sometimes walk hand in hand in Western countries because they are so marginalized, and I have seen groups of these movements that have become armed revolutionaries. Patriarchal relations are generally very beneficial to traditional capitalism, and to this day are responsible for a lot of oppression, so even in a neoliberal utopia I don't think these oppressions will vanish just because capitalism sees identity as a market of sorts. But idk, this is a confusing topic because theorizing endlessly tends to be more confusing than observing what really happens
“Liberation” is an Utopia. We may get less cohertion compared to past - that’s all. People can’t stand life in its total nihilistic meaningless way. Myths are always needed (being Revolutions, Liberations, Hollywood, etc)
I'm trans and I think the identity politics-bread cancel culture in our community has gotten out of hand.
But I mostly want to know where he gets his amphetamine.
I think the so called "left" is just a sibsitute for real, socialist leftists. They make up problems that don't exist and if a problem really does exist, it's even worse, because it cannot be addressed because terms like "racist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "imperialist" etc have been used so inflationary that noone takes real discrimination serious.
And that's why Bezos, Gates, Cook etc fully support it, they want people to keep the masses confused so that we don't mind that they're controlling us. Divide et impera. Century old concept, works all the time. That's also why Gates and Buffet support social democracy, they absolutely like to pay a little bit more taxes if it means that the whole system can go on without uprisings. All they do is control us, and all this political correctnes cancel culture thing is just a cheap trick to establish a "new left" which is rather center-left because it ultimately supports the status quo, but claims that it doesn't. Just like what we call the "right" is in favor of traditional values and religion and focuses on national issues but at the end of the day they all support a globalized, unregulated market system in which the big banks and big businesses are free to treat the globe however they please.
I mean, I'm bisexual myself and I do support the full emancipation of people with whatever sexuality, but I don't think it's in any way relevant for politics. The schools and restaurants and enterprises have to decide how many bath rooms they want, and you will never turn any intolerant person into a tolerant one by insulting them or forcing them, all we can do is do business as usual and show people that life goes on.
The US needs to have a serious discussion about global warming, poverty, violence etc. You guys got a huge legal opioid problem and the US has the most imprisoned per capita in the world.
spiritual eco-syndicalist hero of the working class you bring up some interesting points but I don’t think I agree when you say identity has no place in politics. Like the civil rights movement and feminism were inarguably political, and also focused on identity. I agree completely that America desperately needs a real politically relevant socialist movement, and that corporations and the liberal state will try to, as Malcolm X said, give gestures to emancipation of marginalized groups to try to distract from real progress. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also push for anti-discrimination laws and cultural acceptance. Basically we need economic leftism and social progressivism.
@@aberfork6031 Absolutely agree. My point was that one's sexuality (just like one's religion, nationality etc) is a very personal thing and that we must not have a debate about what counts as sexuality, what's normal and what's not, how we should treat them etc. That's completely irrelevant. What we must do is realize that all of this doesn't matter once we accept that people are different not because they're made that way but because they are that way. I don't need people telling me how proud I am for coming out, and I don't want people hating me for that. Vice versa, I don't think women who like to stay at home, do the housework, raise the children etc instead of working are outdated and old-fashioned. If that's what they like, then let them. I don't think it's progressive when women choose to go to work and have a career instead. It's just what they prefer to do.
It's the other way around, in the past women have been raised to be housewives, that's not progressive. In that sense, an individual cannot be progressive. But the way the individual is treated, that's progressivism for me. And of course it all comes back to individual behavior, since society is nothing but a collective of individuals. For me, a single individual cannot be truly progressive, and that's non-political for me. We shouldn't walk up to someone and tell him how to behave.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 Well spoken!
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 regardless socialism doesn’t work it doesn’t matter if you are against the modern left you’re still a socialist. It’s stupid.
00:00
We live in a society
Society is in reality.
@E A
Youre rationalizing the hatred of independent judgment and the fear of social disapproval. Consciousness is derivative, merely the consciousness OF reality. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Its mans basic method of survival.
We live in an economy. -The Marxer
@@Nina-cd2eh marxer..
We live in crazee taims
Zizek speaks the same way, whether he is addressing a single person or a full room.
Every time I watch this guys videos I think I know what's going on but by the end I have no clue what he's about.
Right there with you man... 🤷🏼♂️
My condolences 🌸
How do I put this in a nice way?
Maybe it's just not for you
I understand you just gotta also understand Marx
The picture you've chosen seems deliberately curated in order to make additional implications to what Zizek claims. C'mon man.
Got to pull in people somehow.
It’s to get the clicks, because capitalism hahaha
the right wing hate machine can spin a dove into hitler if it means someone gets paid.
@@adammchugh5456 Right wing?
@@lomouche Not me, mate. And....?
Reading these comments about his idiosyncratic behavior is disappointing. This focus on what he does physically and with his sniffing that is abnormal of course is a symptom of a materialistic culture where individuals have their value measured on how normal their appearance and mannerisms are rather than on the content of their ideas.
You're on youtube, you really shouldnt be expecting a bunch of philosophy students in the comments
yea
All cultures shunned people who were physically unusual, if they weren’t outright killed at birth. It has nothing to do with materialism. It’s a human trait. (More than human - even animals do this)
It's been challenging for me to get through one of his concepts because of his animated nature. I decided not to watch him speak but to open a second window and listen to ambient sound design while listening to him speak, this helped isolate his information.
I do the same.
I figure it’s a philosophical style: Make yourself more difficult to understand in order to get the listener to work towards it
You can read his books. They are much better than his extemporaneous talks.
His gestures are definitely distracting. And funny. In a good way. Well funny is always good, right?
@@arcachata4137 I don't find his gestures to be distracting. Just the sound of his nose is louder than his speech.
The capitalistic development of our society is so fast nowadays that you can't even stop to blow your nose.
or touch it for that matter
The nose is no longer solid it’s liquid
Kinda creeps me out that my father has the exact same shirt and I've NEVER seen it on anyone else but on him.
Have you ever seen your Dad and Zizek in the same room ?
@@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314 N-nope...
Oh no! O.O
Shall I introduce you to Chris Chan?
He and Zizek are lovers, dummy
@@sergeibelozorov4428
Zizek is a historical phenomenon, deep respect for his great contributions to philosophy and psychoanalysis as a whole.
@I'm not getting banned again Mixing dirty jokes with communism
@I can't swim Unlike us he’s at least trying to do something by talking about serious actual problems of society publicly.
Isn't psychoanalysis a pseudoscience?
@@JoseEchoes378yes
Historical phenomenon, along with the like of? Please name more historical phenomenons as examples
A room full of people and no one hands this man a tissue smh
I'm thinking hand him the whole box.
pretty sure he wants whatever is causing him to sniff to stay where it is
its difficult to be distracted by his ticks because what he says actually makes my brain think
Ikr
My dad is Japanese, but given that Idk Japanese, we speak in English. I always thought his way of speaking English was somewhat funny. Here I am listening to someone from a completely different country speaking English in the EXACT. SAME. WAY. I've grown to find this speech pattern (can you call it a speech pattern?) very charming tbh and maybe I prefer it over regular English.
japanese english is quite different from his english.
I feel like his nose is just an absolute hard-right capitalist trying to shut his host down.
Agree or disagree with him this man is never afraid to speak his mind and listen with his ears.
Two things he is extremely competent in using.
The titel is a bit click baity
"Forms of hysteria are almost always specified".
This isn't a trivial observation by Zizek because he's basically saying that every epoch has its prevailing taboos/aspirations. He captures that with his example of how marital infidelity used to be perceived (at least half a century ago) and how its now literally the reverse. I find that interesting because it may tie into the "peaks and troughs" theory of group ethos. There will be some centuries that lean heavily towards conservatism and others to liberalism. Maybe that's the greater message.
I may be wrong though.
It's fascinating how in universities in Europe there's many mamy graffities about end the cistem, kill cis scum... I can't imagine MOST of the people doing graffiti doing it about this.
They gotta be paid
One of the best minds of our time and every comment is about his neurological ticks, mankind is doomed...
YES!!
i mean those are some very noticeable and distracting ticks
when it (along with his horrifically slobbery vocals) makes it extremely difficult to discern what the man is even saying, I'd say the comments are warranted.
"Do you have Oedipal problems, bla bla." Classic Zieezy
You Know? MY Gott!
Can you imagine this guy just doing lines and reading history books
Continental philosophy books*
I am watched it right now for 10 minutes and 3 seconds straight.
hahahaha I'd fucking pay for that.
What do you think gave him the runny nose and post nasal drip? He's clearly done a fuck ton of drugs up the nose.
@@FreakTechnics u right my b
Zizek is a global treasure - we need to preserve him at all costs, Chomsky's almost gone.
"Recently--not so recently, years ago..."
Gem.
Is it possible to get Zizek to focus and develop his main points for longer than 3 minutes? He’s always dishing out interesting points (or at least interestingly labelled points), but I rarely get to hear them beyond the initial labels
read his books, they are big and dense :o
I have exactly the same observation. He never does, because he's just an ADHD Marxist standup performer. He obviously does rarely have such longer trains of thought - maybe it's drugs or just lack of mental capabilities. He only deals in episodic observations and jokes.
Zizek never says anything. It’s not a timescale issue.
Leonard Peikoff, in _DIM Hypothesis_, says modern culture is conceptually disintegrated as a result of Kantian nihilism.
@@TeaParty1776 - it's the effect of Marxist anti-cultural critical theory implemented in academia and top-down since decades
One thing that I can agree with the marxista is that the revolution needs to be made on a class basis. Not on the way that they propose it of course. But I also think that every kind of ways the human can liberate himself from social hierarchies such as political, sexual, or even collective hierarchies should at least be considered as necessary for the revolution.
marxista reads likes maxanista lol
I mean yeah, I'm trans because of dysphoria making my life hell without transitioning! It's not a statement, not a revolution, and it is absolutely not political. It's just for my own wellbeing. The only "political" aspect of it is forced on me because of some parties who put a desire to at best stop me from having that wellbeing or at worst have me dead at the forefront of their politics. If they went away, nothing about me being transgender would be any more political than any other medical issue.
So? We all have struggles, what should I do? Cry my eyes out because you function differently? Guess what, so do I, nothing special about that.
Those individual push things onto you and you push things onto them - you don't want them, they don't want yours, yet you both keep on doing it.
@@princeargon6508 I uh, don't think you understood the point, I was saying it's not revolutionary it's just how I am. Not lookin for pity or whatever you may have thought? And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever lol
I think my life would be much more enjoyable and fulfilling if I was thoroughly able to embody his absolutely immeasurable level of indifference when it comes to how much he actually cares about how others perceive him and his wonderfully belligerent antics... It's almost comedy, and I say that with respect and admiration. I wish I had the balls to get up and speak my mind while shamelessly choking back ungodly amounts of that gackity gack, drippity drip drool, not giving a damn if they think me a fool.
I've heard my father say the exact same thing about Donald Trump
@@westondeloney8306 You got a chuckle, but really, no. You know Donald Trump takes himself -- particularly his appearance and identity -- very seriously. He is proud of his hair, fingers, speech-patterns, etc. and usually offended at critical comments about them rather than self-deprecating or even apologetic like Zizek.
@@crimsonmask3819 Agreed, Trump seems the exact opposite. Deeply, deeply insecure.
@@westondeloney8306 Haha don't let trump hear about what your dad said, he would implode
LMAo
While I agree with him, I still cought a cold listening ...
*coughed
@@wildzwaan caught
@@ghostfjdgcsusvsgsj It was a pun...
@@ghostfjdgcsusvsgsj You didn't catch it.
"If it's hysterical, it's historical" - Trixie Mattel/Slavoj Žižek
Mirin that Chris Chan outfit
LMAO DIDNT THINK ABOUT IT
Even more ironic considering the topic he’s discussing
Chris Chan.... Sam Hyde... Slavoj Zizek.. they all wear the polo
I am *schniff* looking for a *schniff* boyfriend-free girl, and so on and so forth.
I don’t really agree with communism but this man atleast makes you listen to what he has to say
What makes you think he's an actual communist? (I mean he's left obviously)
what does that even mean??
Zizek is Hegelian, He picks all the good aspects of all ideologies but also criticizes the bad of those ideologies.
1. Zizek is no communist (he even says it repeatingly). He's more of a hegelian- lacanian (french psychoanalyst).
2. Everybody can learn from his work
@@Wisstihrwas Marx was also supposedly hegelian, yet he wasn't. Zizek is a wasted talent because he is either focusing on wrong things or the good things with the extremly bad perception. Here and there he knows to be correct, but most of the times im surprised that there is so much people agreeing with him.
Half of the comments are about his tics. The other half of them are about why those comments are disappointing and we should instead talk about the subject matter. They don't talk about it either.
And I'm just a stupid guy critisizing the comment section. I mainly agree with him about most of the things he pointed out btw.
Sure
It’s actually pretty normal when you think about it
Marx isn’t the end all be all for every aspect of reality, BUT I hate when people say things like “progressive politic is Marxism applies to everything “ as of those people know anything of Marx or ever read a line of his books
Am I the only one who think his clothes are cute?
Chris Chan
this is his fav shirt
Yes
Man this guy is smart but it's freaking hard to stay focused with the comments.🤦🏻♂️
i keep waiting for him to slap himself.
Hahahaha
Lmfaos!
😂😂😂😂
Hahahahha
lol
I agree, but I also think that there's nothing remotely revolutionary in Žižek.
Not a fan of Zizec but it pains me to see people make fun of his tics.
Why? Don't you like fun?
@@MrAlRats fun didn't hurt anyone, but I have seen some comments that are mean spirited or dismissive of what he says simply because of his ticks. That is what pains me. But nothing that a line of coke with the man cannot fix.
@Good Goy hahahahaha "now that we have discussed all this Hegelian stuff why don't we go powder our noses".
Trying to explain my law degree to policemen after a coke binge
😂😂
There's nothing inherently revolutionary about any political ideology or social identity. How revolutionary an ideology or way of existing is depends completely on the context of it's creation. In the context of the existing Dominant paradigm of Binary Gender, Transgender or Non-binary identities can be radical, so long as the continue to attempt to dismantle the dominant paradigm.
In the context of Marxist analysis, no its not necessarily radical, unless it also takes up the mantle of class struggle, which a number of gender fluid people do. But yes the politics of identity do run the risk of (and are currently) being co-opted and commodified; Especially by the existing Capitalist telecommunication industries (Mass Media networks).
But also, a Marxism isn't the end all be all of theories of oppression; Racial, Gendered, Ethnic, and Dynastic/State/Imperial oppression has existed for centuries before global capitalism, and they can continue to exist after its inevitable collapse.
exactly! but capitalism has done that with everything, that’s what it’s designed to do. Coopting is in the capitalist nature, it excels in this. Syndicalism, ecology, feminism, gender theory, decolonization, black liberation, even communism itself - all taken, capitalized, commodified and commercialized. That doesn’t automatically remove the revolutionary potential in all of these.
I find Marx knew very little about human behavior, only his judgement of it, he saw racism but never understood why it exists. At that time humans were perceived as something totally different from animals, out of the animal kingdome, as if we were rational beings with feelings. Today it is proven and concluded that we are driven by feelings and instinct and some times some are smart enough to look back and think about, reazonable, what we did and with some luck, undertand the actual reasons.
No wonder he proposed the "new man" as if our mind was only shaped by culture and learning and there wasn't a subconsciousness evolved thousand of years to keep us alive and reproduce, injecting chemicals into our body to make us walk away from things it perceives dangerous or harmful and make us prone to repeat things it perceives as good with endorphines and dopamine
zizek:
touches nose
internet:
and I took that personally
5:32 people just can't resist the laugh.
Damn I almost feel bad for laughing
If I ever meet a gnome, I expect it to look like Zizek but with a pointy hat and smaller.
I love him but I'm not shaking his hand!
So Revolutionary only applies to economic systems? Seems kind of a narrow definition. By that logic there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about Revolutionary Girl Utena even though it questions some of the basic modes of human existence.
@E A Corporate America’s embrace of wokeness is merely of the surface level affectations, not of the actual ideologies that underpin those revolutionary actions. If corporate co-option is the rubric for assessing the “genuine” nature of a revolutionary act, then socialism and communism were co-opted into the machine a long time ago with “I’d like to teach the world to sing”. Thus, they are not truly revolutionary any more.
Which is bs logic. This purely economic/property/labour-based context for revolution is too narrow to be fully useful any more. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its uses, of course it does, but while we have to look beyond capitalism we also have to look beyond patriarchy. I’m not particularly interested in substituting one economic model for another while leaving the underlying power structure (that has brought us to disaster over and over again) intact.
I think it’s the idea that you can’t really take down patriarchy, racism, etc without also taking down the main structure that holds and creates them. So it’s all a deviation of the real issue. At least it’s how my average brain manages to understand this, but I could be really wrong.
@@sarahfernandes3140 Patriarchy, and arguably racism, existed before capitalism
But I think the beauty of the communist revolution is that it WILL remove the old vestiges of power, once we remove private ownership of business it will be a huge step to removing the rich and powerful from their positions. We can remove the patriarchy by roving their ownership of the current systems
Zizek suffers from nasal problems, and nervous ticks while lecturing or presenting, and on the other corner we have the high-school comedians here being witty about it who would probably gladly imitate an disabled person if asked
When its funny, its funny. Stop being a bitch.
not based and blue pilled
@@TaarLpsSorry your presidential candidate didn't make it for their second term
Sorry yours likes little girls.
This is why your country is fucked, cause you think automatically two sided politics. Hey good luck for the next 4 years
Why does transness have to be revolutionary? it's not about that. Ofc it's not inherently revolutionary it's about addressing gender dysphoria it's not a political statement.
missing the point!!!!
Uh...
the students look a little uncomfortable when he starts questioning transgender politics lol
yes
I find it uncomfortable when people slap bass.
Yeah, because they watch a lot of mainstream media and netflix
“It is not a joke, unfortunately” 😂
This might be the first video ever where I wished written text was read by google translator instead. I just can't listen to him propperly. I'm interested in what he has to say, but I just can't overlook the sideshow. It's sad.
i love how the crowd is so confused and challenged :)))
i can barely hear what hes saying with all the sniffing and his accent
The ones who are making jokes about him are actually making those jokes to insult and mock him because they don’t agree with his views. Sad.
Seems to be that way. Sad indeed. But it is what is expected.
@@santosturmio8189 yes exactly.
There are also Trans people who are poor and do not belong to the middle class. Being Trans is not some decadent luxury, it is a reality and should be regarded with the legitimacy and empowerment that it deserves.
In every one of these videos it feels like he’s building up to a point until he randomly switches to a different topic without addressing the first. It’s a shame.
yeah. its like hes just talking and doesnt really have a point. thou he challenges all leftist points.
The quote is act 2 scene 2, aka Balcony scene, Romeo and Juliet. He quoted my favourite Shakespearean line in the exact opposite sense I quote it in part of my thesis as she is asking why (wherefore) is he Romeo not why is she herself Juliet. So it's not a question about her own identity, not even in the lacanian sense, it's more a question of her own love and the possibilities of naming something
where is the rest of the talk? It cuts off just when it was getting interesting.
It makes me sad that instead of listening to him speak and learn, you all wanna immaturely talk about this intelligent man's hand movements.... these guys talk about this sort of behaviour and how it honestly makes you an idiot. This man is a modern day intellect.
You know, I am a socialist, but it is hard to listen to him sometimes.
@@kyoshinka Um, cool you're a *socialist*? I don't get what that has to do with my point of people focusing on his vocal flaw, rather than the substance of his speech? But okay. My point still stands. Cheers
@@stevenrevan3028 Dude chill
@@djvrim8557 I am chill, the people complaining about this guys speech aren't and it's annoying as he actually has some good stuff to say lol
@@stevenrevan3028 Bro yn´t you contribute something interesting if the jokes bother you?
This deserves a better title tbh
If we can learn anything from Communication Theory is that you can have the most brilliant message to share, but if you choose a channel with a lot of inherent noise, it will not get through.
This is to say that public speaking is definitely not the best way for Žižek to share his ideas.
I have noticed that his tics seemed to only be present when he speaks English. I have the opinion that Zizek should just speak in Slovenian from now on and we just read the English subtitles on youtube
Nah you just dont understand the metaphysical commentary of his tics libtard
Love watching him but MY GOSH he needs a speech coach or something!!
Oh that's too late. It's his USP. What would Zizek be without his ticks. Just another boring looking philosopher. :) Though sometimes it's hard to focus...
we need an algorithm to automatically edit out the sniffs. i feel like that'd be possible right?
Noise reduction tools in audio software are absolutely capable of this. You need to provide a sample of noise you want to edit out ("Schniff") and it will remove the rest automatically
@@ThePceee goodbye every word with an s
Y’all saying any identity is anti revolution…but is it so? Aren’t there identities that force one to at least lean revolutionary, like belonging to oppressed class, or religion? Identifying “out” if being oppressed isn’t that simple, despite having freedom to call yourself anyway you wish. Correct me if I’m wrong
why is he wearing the chris chan shirt
Trans people's existence is not revolutionary, but it's not supposed to be nor do I think we should want it to be. I still don't know if Zizek thinks that so called "transgenderims" (honestly I don't even know exactly what he means by that term) is a product of capitalism... if he thinks that then I disagree with him. I think that the fluidity and subjective experience of gender identities just so happen to fit within capitalism, but is not a product of it, and that's why it's being 'allowed' to be expressed within capitalism but it would exist either way. My worry is that a lot of people here in the comment section seem to have arrived to a fairly transphobic conclusion with this whole "the subjective fluidity of gender identity is not revolutionary" thing. I've seen some people here argue stuff like "transgenderism" as an ideology is making people _believe_ that they can just decide to switch gender but otherwise they wouldn't (basically suggesting that being trans is just make-believe), or that "transgenderism" has negative connotations because is not revolutionary or is pro-capitalist... stuff that Zizek never said. There's just no data to suggest that there's this ideology that makes people just _believe_ that they are the other gender, all evidence points out to something initiated internally, and then expressed by imitating gender as a social construct (that's the subjectivity), but you're not going to become trans by being exposed to trans acceptance in general. So yeah, trans people expression and existence fit withing capitalism and they alone won't bring the end of it... to that I say, whatever.
By the way, before anyone points out supposed evidence of many or some trans people regretting transition, know that studies have shown that most, the overwhelming majority, of detransition cases happen because of lack of access to healthcare needed to transition or because of social stigma for being trans, and we are already talking about a insignificant minority that detransition cases represent in the overall cases of transitioning, almost all trans people do not decide to detransition.
Maybe Marx and Slajov ignores that in many not western cultures, third sex identity has been existed before capitalism
when watching zizek i always feels like he knows a lot about modern society yet still misses (or is in search of) the point
I must admit I struggle to see the point of modern society myself
I couldn't imagine you or various youtube commenters are any closer to 'the point' then Zizek. In fact you would likely be very far behind his understanding
@@penguinwolf3330 fair.
@@penguinwolf3330bootlicker
@@opiliones4202 Authority can be justified in certain fields due to knowledge. I would take the advice and knowledge of a professional tailor rather then my own if I was to get clothing made.
So why would anyone think they better understand the point of modern society then a well educated philosopher if they are not educated? If you are going to state there is an objective 'point' rather then a subjective idealogy (in which your perspective is just as valid as Zizek's) then it is obvious to assume he has a better understanding then you. Otherwise you get people like 'uhhh, I could have thought of the stuff the greeks thought of, I am just as smart.' When there is no doubt the thoughts of people like them (and I assume you) are extremely unoriginal
In the sense that "revolutionary" can be used to mean 'involving or causing a complete or dramatic change' (the primary definition of the word) the rise of transgenderism has been revolutionary in the way that people now view gender as a choice instead of a prescription.
In the way that communists tend to use the word transgenderism is not revolutionary, Zizek is correct, however that is not the only way to use that word.
well he means the second definition obviously. He is saying it isn't revolutionary in that sense. Yeah, I guess if you use a different definition of revolutionary you could say it is that, but that's just playing a semantic game not actually engaging with the substance here.
It doesn't make any sense to say "transgenderism is revolutionary" and parse it through the 2nd definition of the word. There are no transgender movements looking for a change in the way states are governed (except possibly underground in some theocratic states, but those are non-western states) it seems ridiculous to assume that anyone means that.
But then it is also clear that he isn't using the 2nd definition when we look at this phrase: "...there is nothing inherently revolutionary about the #metoo and transgender movements, because they do not question the underlying economic system as such."
Revolutions as per the 2nd definition do not occur when economic systems change, but when political systems are overthrown, sometimes they are coupled with a change of the economic system, but not always or even usually.
I suspect he is using a 3rd definition of the word yet to be found in the dictionary. One that ties "revolutionary" to communist revolution alone. - Communists have a habit of not calling revolutions against communist governments "revolutionary" but rather "counter-revolutionary, even if the government they run wasn't put in place by a revolution.
Yes this is semantics, but all speech, especially complicated speech, is dependent on the common understanding of words for it to be of any use to anyone.
my transness means that the status quo wants me dead, to be trans in an anti-trans is revolutionary
Stupid logic from stupid liberals thinking they are marxists
@@studio1988. If you think that you are so intellectually superior to someone, then it's better to prove that through argumentation rather than playground insults. The latter only proves the opposite.
It's not very difficult to understand what he's saying. Just focus on the words and not his body movements. His sniffing is also not very had to simple ignore
Liam Kelley people are just using his physical ticks as an excuse not to engage with what he’s saying
Yes well put. 🙂
@@enes207 looking at the comments I genuinely thought I was the only one thinking this.
I have ocd and sensory overload is an issue for me yet I could understand what this man was trying to say by simply ignoring his tics
Slavoj must’ve gotten Covid 10 times over by now
Sorry but there are tons of societies throughout time which were not capitalist and still had broader gender definitions than modern capitalist societies. Additionally these same modern capitalist societies have equally powerful groups attempting to enforce binary gender roles…so his argument that transgender is inevitable in late stage capitalism doesn’t hold water
Wearing his best Chris-chan shirt, I see.
😂😂
Bravo Slavoj. Always brave to say the truth
Paisanoooooo
in the art and sport of saying everything and nothing all at once, Zizek prevails - and when it comes to the 'nothing' no one comes close
-StevenBrennanGuitar, the most prolific and well-known philosopher of our time
Okay, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.
Skill issue
It might not be inherently revolutionary economically, but isn’t the reconstruction of understandings of gender revolutionary (inherently) in the realm of gender roles, family structures, social relations? Could we have a radical ruptures in one domain of life while other domains stay the same?
Yeah that's what I was thinking
It may not be revolutionary in the context of Marxism
But trans people have experienced life from two different perspectives where most people have not and can bridge the gaps of understanding between the sexes
But the problem now is that nobody wants to face these problems and instead want to push that knowledge back into ignorance. The world isn't ready to let go of it's sexism right now
Capitalism already dismantles gender roles and family structures, so transgenderism is not revolutionary to do so.
I think you’re getting at the root of this issue. Modern bourgeois morality, although adaptable, has foundations in heteronormativity & the gender binary. Therefore, people who do not fit with these traditional expectations are seen as radical outsiders to that system, and are particularly alienated by it. Although trans people & their movements aren’t inherently revolutionary, I do think that the current social position of transness tends to engender a certain kind of radical, even revolutionary consciousness. Just look at STAR & the GLF from back in the day. While trans rights & LGBTQ+ issues in general are currently being co-opted by certain sectors of Capital, I don’t think that necessarily negates these factors, just complicates them. In the same way that corporations cashing in on the Black Power movement didn’t make the Black Panthers any less radical, for example. Capitalists just want to cash in regardless of the social conditions. But to regard transgender politics as an extension of capitalism because of that is just plain wrong.
Denying biological reality isn't revolutionary lmao its just retarded. It's like saying "cutting my own arm off for fun is revolutionary" Yeah but is it? It's fucking weird and bizzare and stupid, but just because it's something new doesnt mean its revolutionary
Is the uprooting of traditional, patriarchal and social norms a bad thing?
I don’t know, but I do know the answer is that it’s not a bad thing. Living in the past is not good (uncle rico) and wanting to make the present like the past is a sign of a will turned toward death.
@@ludlowaloysius but fighting against humanity,s basic instinct never turns out good ,were either going towards a full reset our the extinction of our race and it cant be blamed on one thing only
@@Mclovinsnutt123 "humanity,s basic instinct" lmao mein gott pure ideology
@@Mclovinsnutt123 yes, fighting against humanity worst impulses does work. It has been working for hundreds of years now. We live better lives than people in the past. Period.
@@ludlowaloysius then why do we feel the need to change social norms ,why are we now in a constant state of fearmongering all the while the rest of the world watches western countries such as the us loose control over its own people falling back onto tribalism over gender constructs and guns .
Quentin Crisp said it better: Find in yourself what is uniquely you, and polish it until it becomes your style.
I love this quote.
Fuck bro, I wish someone would subtitle what he says, it's really hard to understand him at times.