Slavoj Zizek vs Vivek Chibber: What Is Ideology?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2025
- Slavoj Zizek and Vivek Chibber debate the role of ideology in promoting capitalist stability. Does capitalist ideology prevent workers from rising up? Or does the class structure within capitalism make non-collective forms of resistance, or worse, resignation, more likely than collective action?
Subscribe to the channel and hit the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin in print for just $10: jacobinmag.com...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey
"Vivek and Zizek" sounds like a czechoslovakian cartoon from the 70s
Lolek and Bolek
Filopat and Patafil from Eastern Germany.
Its a common name in India
@@zilvinasbaranauskas8505 Pat and Mat
Sounds like Elder Scrolls 6
I am very new to Zizek's theory of ideology and to Vivek's Catalyst project (Thanks to @The Dangerous Maybe's teachings that I am still trying to understand). For this Jacobin discussion between Vivek and Zizek I am putting in my timestamps and editing them as I come back-and-forth to this video in case it helps anyone else:
00:30 - Slavoj Zizek - philosopher and critic, published over 50 books (first book is Sublime Object of Ideology, "Jeremy says 'cured me of post-modernism'")
01:22 - Vivek Chibber: The Class Matrix - editor of Catalyst Journal, professor of sociology at New York University. "Locked In Place", "Post-Colonial Theory", "Spectre of Capital"
02:30 - The Class Matrix - Vivek's new book!
02:45 - "Failure of revolutions", most Western Marxists view culture and ideology and ideological indoctrination to values of this system keeps it in place. Vivek's argument contests that claim
03:37 - VIVEK BEGINS
03:58 - heart of social materialism is a doctrine that social action is governed by people's material interests, when people pursue politics or economic goals, they are guided by their interests,
12:35 - the problem with Marx and Lenin is that they didn't sufficiently develop the implications of their own materialism, they didn't raise it to the level of theory. New Left tried to raise to the level of theory but they wrongly reached for ideology. Ideology is not the source of stability
13:15 - is there any role of ideology at all? Vivek says there are two roles: 13:20 ideology plays the role of rationalizing and motivating. Ideology helps people live with the choices they made, ideology is the cement/glue that fills in the holes where the material constraints of workers are doing the deeper more fundamental work of stability, and 14:20 - "I flip the New Left and culturalists On their Head", ideology is important in generating the destabilizing factors
16:20 - Vivek is trying to restore materialism essential to social Marxist theory, where social formations come and go based on material considerations of the classes, not through ideology per se. But then Vivek doesn't erase importance of ideology, he re-assigns it. In mobilizing workers, it's a crucial factor
17:15 - New Left thought ideology stabilizes a system, Vivek is saying ideology is part of destabilizing package of collective struggles
17:30 - ZIZEK BEGINS - "crazy postmodern guy making dirty jokes" is Zizek just showing inconsistency in reality itself
18:33 - Zizek addresses Vivek: in their political practice, their descriptions, they "smelled" something missing in
20:19 - psychoanalysis was unfortunately used in western marxist tradition as Vivek described ideology: Marxist economic analysis is correct but there is no revolution, no collective organization. "and then you invoke all the obscurity death drive, perversion, and so on, and we will get the answer there?" - that's the tempation we should resist!
21:27 - for Zizek, the formative experience with precarious workers in London a couple of times with Uber, how it exploits workers.
26:30 - Uber drivers sees themselves as their own boss and autonomy
33:50 - the moment that workers try to organize, if Uber drivers try to organize themselves, "no we live in a post ideological world, you are anachronistic, if you mention trade unions you are talking about the old industrial capitalism"
34:40 - the category of anachronism is crucial here
37:42 - "a systematic description of everything", "a good section on how to take a shit"
42:20 - for the first time in a century, the white working class in the US is having shortening life expectancy (opioid crisis), "deaths of despair", where political parties and intelligentsia doesn't care
50:10 - it's astounding that the left thinks that theories of false consciousness are to be tested in elections"
57:22 - when you're cynical, you're natural next step is to opt out, give up, not try to change anything, Chomsky said the genius of the American system is doesn't try to take away rights, it makes it impossible and pointless to try to exercise those rights
you don't need authoritarianism in America, half of everyone is too cynical to vote
1:02:05 - workers will come out of it not when you wag your finger, through organizing around people's material interests, not by shaming them, and they will tell you what hteir interest are
1:03:00 - Point #2 - a lot of work of ideological critique is undoing the damage of the intelligentsia
"no one is going to read the class matrix" filled with garbage, virtue siganlling, middle class politics,
1:04:35 - try to get parts of intellentsia to see the ideology in their work, unlike workers who have a material interest in ditching non-sensical notions, intellectuals do not
1:14:30 - principled opportunism
1:15:00 - we are both now talking about ideology critique in intelligentsia, you find it two different ways: 1: interests coming out in narrowing of what ambitions are for social change, narrowing it so social change becomes upward mobility for the middle class. What we call idpol today is not any longer anti-oppression politics, it is incrasing the chances for mobility for minority and women politicians and leaders, etc.
1:16:00 - Bernie Sanders wants to make community colleges free for everyone, but in New York Cty the debates are why aren't black students in the most selective high schoohl in the city, in universities the debate is why Harvard/Yale/Princeton doesn't have a more diverse student body, not about why schools for working class people are crumbling.
1:16:27 - "This movement for social justice is really a movement for elites within the sections of the population, a naked expression of class interests"
1:16:50 - "contempt for the poor" - today's identarianism is contempt for working class blacks and women by elites.
1:17:20 - "it absolves you of the responsiblity of trying to do anything, you're sitll waiting for that perfect moment, omvement, perfect upheaval, exoticism"
1:18:00 - Orientalism, post-colonial theory imposible to understand? Because they are racists, they openly say "dark people can't do math", it sounds a lot like 19th centruy colonianlists, "so they have to couch it in an impenentrable language to give it the appearnce of perfundity, whereas its just garden-variety racism"
1:24:45 - Vivek and Zizek - rhyming names😂🤣
I am neuroatypical and I want to thank you for doing this work, making the video and the speakers thoughts more accessible.
i also had the impulse to extract the potent sharp edges of this talk.
and attaching wooden handles.
(thinking more along the lines of digital samples. or something.)
thanks for sharing this work!
I would point out that Zizek wasn’t saying he himself was showing inconsistency in reality it was him being flabbergasted by a post modern Marxist who defended his work by saying his inconsistency is just reflecting the contradictions of reality.
Good work
Wow Vivek's opening 10 minutes is the clearest explication of the class structure and ideology I have ever heard
he's good
absolutely blown away
He definitely doesn't get enough attention on the left. He is one of the most direct, straightforward, and logical leftists I've seen. He describes complex theories and Marxist concepts in a way that almost anyone can understand, which we desperately need if we are going to communicate these ideas to the rest of the working class and achieve a higher level of class consciousness.
Wow, this is such a powerful talk. What I really like about Vivek is that there's absolutely no nonsense about him. He's always accurately on point, every time. Zizek's also superb.
What does this mean? I see how people react to this aesthetic Vivek puts on, but why? Why is his disposition so impressive to people? What makes it more than a meaningless veneer? What results has his supposedly incisive analysis actually produced? None of which I'm aware.
@@Disentropic1 I have an inkling that you understand exactly why, and that is precisely why you have posed the question. Chibber's hardcore materialism can be quite unsettling for some people. Results? probably just as much as the obsession with ideology for the past 50 or so years have produced. meaning none, but I hope that it will. Make Marxism materialist again!
@@Disentropic1 U mad bro? It's not his disposition that is impressive but his analysis. Listen to the video to understand his analysis.
@@juechhakchhuak4979 Right, well I'm telling you I don't know and I'd appreciate a straightforward answer that doesn't presume the opposite, if possible.
@@Disentropic1 It's his hardcore materialism that is impressive here, it's really not that subtle! His entire talk is already as straightforward as a talk can be.
I often enjoy Jacobin content but rarely do I pump my fists in the air and cheer! Vivek Chibber is a f*@#ing fireball!!!
I was halfway through this before I realized Chibber founded Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy. Respect goes up several points beyond the already high regard built through the first half of the stream. So I look up his books and see the things he has written on and I am so taken with this man now. I need to read everything he has written.
This "Vivek/Zizek" discussion has taught me a lot and helped me respect all the theorists out there encouraging the intelligentsia to engage and learn, I can't wait to deep dive into Vivek Chibber's "The Class Matrix" book (which I think is driving a lot of the discussion in this video)
same
Definitely do, he's amazing.
Chibber is one of the best (if not the best) communicator of Marxist theory and tremendously underrated imo. He explains complex theories and Marxist concepts in a way that is succinct, straightforward, and easy to understand. This is is essential if we are to achieve material change.
Although I do enjoy reading and listening to Zizek, I believe he does a poor job explaining theory and is often more about style over substance. This is not so much of an issue when it comes to communicating with fellow leftists, but it is problematic when the goal is to spread class consciousness and organize workers.
Zizek's weakness as a communicator of Marxist theory was most evident when he "debated" Jordan Peterson. I'm certain that Vivek Chibber, Taimur Rahman, Richard Wolff, or a score of other Marxist academics would have swept the floor with Peterson and utterly embarrassed him.
the "vs" is certainly misleading. The agree furiously 95% of the time. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It was a discussion not a debate. Jacobin must know that "DeBaTe" is going to get way more clicks than Discussion. 😂
clearly Vivek DESTROYED Zizek!!!1!
@@zaloo the donkey head is never lacking to say inconsistencies
@@withewolf8295 case in point
@@zaloo He argues what is the point at which he "destroys" zizek? Because the only thing I saw was the differences they have to see in how capitalism expresses itself through merchandise and the other through ideology.
That was brilliant. Zizek I’ve followed for years but this is the first time I’ve encountered Vivek. What a powerhouse.
What powerhouse?
Incredible interview, thank you Vivek, Zizek and Jacobin for hosting this brilliant dialogue.
What? My friends and I just want to manage the narrow path, in order to secure a place in heaven…we are all in the cleaners culture and there are so many obstacles that affect the way we face life as a part of the society, citizens, cparents, brothers and siters to others maybe in worse of situation than our and so on and so on. These employers we work for in general hate whate we do and they dont care whether we like cleaning or not. All they seem to conclude is we are moneyless and therefore grindinging which is true. I personally love grinding especially because its when I am grinding i get to listen i access minds like these two which my employers only wish to because their day as they fit in the capitalist structure are left gasping for both mental and physical energy. They are stressed and while they are not in their respective places of work where they meant to display their last spot of their coloured feather to attract success in what they do, they are human beings. They suffer rejection from their partners, domination, neighbour aches, inlaws griefs and grievances and what surprices us cleaners is that they are willing to use us as shoulders to cry, when drugs are not working which confuses the relationship of boss and cleaner. They put us in a situation where we see them as sharing the common denominator which is suppering. We are all experiencing humanity and it does not exempt anyone despite their level of intellect theology understanding etcetera so money can relief us all but No! When we attempt deliver our issues, especially money issues they call it another stress. We must settle for what is already determined for us. Hard life. Some people own all the money and other are left holding on a believe, that there is that other world where we shall have a chance to ENJOY life and the rich will be too ‘fat’ to get through the narrow road and therefore will construct their highway with their big fast eletric charged machines and eventually come to their well earned destination. I am sorry they cause to sin by wishing them an unfair eternity. Fairness does not need a dictionarry. The needs to live on this world that we all find ourselves dont care whether your read all the books and become a walking wikipedia but when it comes to NEEDS no one ought fair better that how I see it. I am sorry claeners, I know most of you are freaked out about exposing our day to day challenges but respoect to this show. It just shows how challenging it is ti bring about change as every ones concsioussness is made of their contents experiences in this life and ofcouse like well argued here, ones ideology. My I recommend JKrishnamurti on the question change, he is a breath of fresh air for people who wants a different approach to change.
56:10 spot on Vivek, how barbaric is a system, where if you fall ill you lose everything you have.
It was at that point that one realised Vivek is not simply philosophising, but identifies with the poor and marginalised.
This is so spot on, actually experience this
Definitely one of the better videos I’ve seen on jacobin in a long time. Something it left me wondering about: what are the material conditions that are driving the middle class into socialist politics, and is it possible to create an ideology within the middle class that allows them (us) to see ourselves as working class?
Good question, I was asking it myself: why middle class people would join union? I have two partial answers. One: because they are not feeling like they have positions in society they deserve. All corporate talk about realization is secure but empty. So they are urged to take some actual power and make some real and dangerous choices.
Second is that they are attacked by capital and in risk of losing limited position they have. So they are radicalized by fear and anger. This is usually base of fascism but can be base for socialist movement. Somebody maybe Luxembourg said that fascism is revolution that got bitter - meaning there was potential but it was lost and turned into something ugly and manageable by capital.
The lower middle class tends to be involved in more subordinated salaried work, while the higher middle class tends to be either in positions of ownership of small or middle size businesses, in confortable positions as independent professionals, or in positions in middle or large businesses of someone else but in administrative positions over workers and with high salaries within the middle class, which incentivates in them positions in more solidarity and convergence with the owners of the company and the higher class. From that point of view the lower middle class can tend to have more solidarity and willigness to cooperate with the lower class perhaps even assuming leaderships roles in organizations such as trade unions or left wing parties. As such the middle class should be analysed in their lower and their higher parts but also from the point of view of individual or group situations of existing economically within wage labour or outside that. Middle class people have often lead trade unions and even revolutionary socialist parties and guerrillas but their subjectivity should always be seen as split within the choices of being in solidarity with the lower class out of fear of descending socially to the lower class or with the higher class within aspirations of social ascension towards the higher middle class or even the higher class. From that point of view the middle class within socialist organizations and parties could be seen as tending either conciously or unconciosly towards seeing those as individual means of social ascension. In recent literature it has been observed that the turn towards centrism and neoliberalism within leftist parties has been influenced highly by the tendency of those parties to come under the leadership of middle class and even higher class people over people from the lower class and so the shift in leftist parties in recent decades away from economic redistribution and towards identity politics, cultural wars or very middle class ecologist politics can be explained by that
First, to your question "what are the material conditions that are driving the middle class into socialist politics": I think it's a simple answer, the capitalist system steps on everyone beneath it. It's quite clear to many people, especially now with the recent Roe v Wade overturn scandal, that the ones who rule, are not the people of USA. The power lays in the hands of very few and I think capitalism exposes itself too much. The middle class population sees it's own exploitation, regardless of employment (i.e. they may not be, say, warehouse workers, but maybe they are electrician or truck driver, there is still a strong power structure), and it brings them to a form of class consciousness where they see themselves as working class. Now this can be extended to, say, small business owners, and while they are capitalists themselves, they are still victims of the system since the free market is, frankly, a joke. I think the easiest way for anyone to become class concious is to look who benefits and who is hurt in an economic depression: The '08 crisis, all the wealthy got off without any punishment, any responsibility, and with bonuses. The middle and lower classes suffered with lost pensions, houses, mortgages etc.
The second part of your question about creating an ideology for the middle class: First of all, I don't know if Marx has talked about this in his works, I suspect he has, but I will give my own spontaneous opinion. It would be highly contradictory and foolish to create a separate ideology to convince the middle class that they are working class. Even if they are not working class, this does not mean they can not fight for the working class. The point of Socialism as an ideology, is to get everyone to fight for the liberation of the proletariat (and, not to be too exclusionary, the liberation of all peoples from capitalism). And that, in my mind, includes capitalists. We shouldn't focus on creating separate ideologies to convince others that they are on our side, we should instead get them on our side and let them help in the fight.
I don't know if anyone will read this, I hope it makes sense.
Agreed but the core issue is getting past alienation cynicism
I think the material conditions of the middle class driving them into politics generally is the reality of "losing everything". In the US, making one mistake, lose your job through thathealth insurance, one illness and you could be on the streets -- the reality is how fast people can fall through the webs of civilization. I think realizing that the precaeriate is a lot bigger than we think is important. For middle class ppl there is just one catastrophe more that needs to happen. This is frightening so ppl either accept that fear and organize or they are want to build idealogical walls between them and the working class to show how different they are.
I think the more generations one has been middle class the more the latter is likely
SMART MARKETING on Jacobin's part for framing this discussion as a DEBATE.
It's really a wonderful DIALECTICAL conversation between two true intellectuals each agreeing on a singular problem to advance in understanding and solvency!
Hopefully some *debater bros* were covertly made smarter by watching this!😂
it is possible for you to have an agreement on a debate, but i feel you, afterall they need SMART MARKETING as an enterprise
🙄
“Debate bros bad” is such a myopic, counterproductive and self-gratulatory doxa in the current online left.
@@jakob8884 it's aight he's definitely just 20 or just poisoned by left wing twitch streamers lol
Yeah almost like how Zizek and Peterson debate was marketed
it doesn't look bad that zizek agrees with everything vivek is saying. the nice thing is that vivek is able to localize a lot of zizek's commentaries and relate it back in a more colloquial manner for us 'muricans. this was beautiful. thank you so much for posting.
Vivek's so right about the exhausted workers on the one hand and, on the other, the futility of the middle-class Left's endless granular theorising - In fact, there's quite a lot of it on Jacobin - and hip posturing.
lol. well, they got to talk about something!
Haha, I feel like we can partly blame that on Ana Kasparian and friends.
@@dionysianapollomarx haha if you don’t like her or other media figures just say it don’t imagine she’s part of the intelligentsia Chibber is speakijg of
We live in a content economy
Thank you Vivek, your points were crystal clear and of great value. I can see better now, you cleared the clutter away. Žižek's contribution is that his fame and clickability brought me to you. Thank you Vivek, Jacobin and Žižek!
Brilliant discussion and spot on. Great to be introduced to Vivek.
🤯 Amazing discussion!
Thanks Jacobin for inviting the philosophical discussion about Ideology.
Zizek is always entertaining, but Chibbers is spectacularly smart. His explications are so clean, crisp and coherent that I'm invariably impressed.
Every Uber driver I have ever talked to has told me about how deeply exploited they are by Uber and how difficult to get out the contract to go to work for a competitor. The gig economy sucks.
I don’t believe you
i trust you beyond belief
@@neo69121 I think you should, I have been doing the job for a while. "get out of the contract to go work for a competitor" doesn't mean anything. The gig economy does suck but it sucks for real reasons.
Only if they depend solely on that. Most work in more than one area and Uber is supplemental income they can control.
@@joanofarc33 bro I work Uber, I work Lyft, I worked instacart. You guys don’t know what your talking about. It’s contract work. You can work anytime for any company I have both the apps on all the time.
49:15 “Free trade man. Free trade is like the laws of gravity. There’s nothing you can do. You lost your job? Tough shit. Suck it up and go find a better job!” market liberalism in a nutshell :D
You can really tell Jacobin is a quality journalistic institution with this debate. What other news organization would host such an esoteric yet vital conversation? Even though the two here agreed, I think when this is compared to other contributors to Jacobin you get a sense of real intellectual diversity
Vivek really went OFF!! and I'm so glad he did.
He really did. (I started laughing when he got to “sexual mores of Bolivian peasants” around 59:00.)
Did he sneeze?
Not a fan. Zizek is next level.
Thank you for this excellent and intelligent dialogue between two masters drilling down to the grounds of working class consciousness and the role of material circumstances to driving forward Capitalism and of ideology in generating both cynicism/fatalism and solidarity and organization. Yeah!
I arrived anticipating a debate but was in the end just completely in awe of Chibber's lucid and masterful analysis of the dynamics of contemporary Western society.
Have to say it: Zizek is looking so much like Freud!! Big thank you to Jacobin for putting this together
Chibber starting at 56:00, and right after mention of Chomsky, wow, spot on!
Great clippable moment. I stopped in the middle of working to rewind and listen again.
more of this. I'm very happy to see Zizek looking well. Would love to see a collaboration of some kind between these two.
Worker here. I haven't listened to anything other than Vivek's opening statement yet, but I have to say I largely agree. I suppose it's that it's materially hard to organize that keeps my workplace from doing so, and that's what provides some semblance of stability to capitalism; although in the long run as we run up against the climate etc. I wonder just how stable Capitalism really is. And that ideology becomes a secondary justifying force. Although I'll just say not from a theory perspective, but just from personal experience, it's pretty hard to organize people, when it's not only materially hard, but then on top of that ideologically, those people are completely propagandized by Jordan Peterson etc., and or ridiculous conspiracy theories. Like, how do I even begin to talk to people when they are so far gone? Ya know? I agree that centering ideology by academics is extremely pedantic and unhelpful and can be cringy, but at the same time.....holy shit the level of stupid shit I have to listen to and try to push back against in my workplace every single day is mind boggling. It's like the people know they're being screwed over, and yet they're caught up in reactionary views that only hamper they're ability to fight back against what is already a materially hard fight. I guess that's my job as an organizer to push back against all of it, but man is it hard. Like, I'm just so exhausted by all of the crap I have to listen to....the irony is of course, if material circumstances were different, they're ideas would be different.
I'm going to go ahead and hold my opinions until I've at least seen the other person open their mouth, thanks.
@@JakeChinatown just my initial thoughts about what I was watching. Sorry for sharing....like I'm still watching as I type this. (I'm a delivery driver and I'm listening in chunks when I get the chance)
Thank you so much for the snark btw. You'd think this would be a place where leftists could be kind to each other, but I guess I expect too much from people.
In the 40mins area now and everything Vivek is saying is so prescient. I have a BA, live in the midwest, and I delivery drive years after graduating (I'm 31). I attempted suicide on my 28th birthday out of complete despair (deaths of despair). My co-workers are wrapped up in opioid addictions living with their parents, and have ridiculous conspiracy theories about the election, vaccines, you name it, that never get at a critique of capitalism, because they believe the amorphous elites are all corrupt, etc. They're alone and sad, completely susceptible, and then they hear things (mostly propaganda from right wingers on YT) from liberal PMC types about how they are the problem, and that's the organizing tool for the right that pushes them further into reactionary holes. They know they're being fucked over by the owners and that they have all the power, and will even say so themselves, but I still can't convince them to unionize.
@@seattlesoundisgrunge don't give up on it. maybe now is not the time, but at some point they'll hit their own limits and hopefully be open to listen. people change when they're obligated to by great material circumstances at great scales. just look at Europe now turning into green energy because they can't import russian gas. maybe you can't create an opportunity now but keep your eyes open for when the context creates it. good luck!
Motivation, inspiration and education, in the sense of information is all you can do. Hard, for sure. But the alternative is to do nothing.
I think this spoke to me (Im a young liberal who calls himself a leftist) and it exposed many of the flaws in some of the opinions I hold. I'll work on it. This really was informative. I would have liked to ask zizek tho, since he has said that the failure of the 20th century left means that the left should focus in thinking more and acting less, how would this idea coexist with vivek's notion that ultra leftism is a form of confortable inactivity?
a tad irrelevant, given how Vivek's point can also be considered as a thinking piece in itself. Maybe Zizek was referring to the types of introspection that Vivek is doing here and in his book.
Zizek has said many times that it is not about acting less and just sitting down thinking while the world is burning. His idea is that the left must stop being too sure of itself and learn to interpret each situation according to its modern context so that the left can act efficiently.
As a suggestion, spend some time talking to various people. For example, I am a PhD archaeologist, in other words a petite bourgeoisie, but per my job I spend a lot of time around construction workers and tribal monitors (Indian/native American people who watch construction sites near places important to their tribe), and I get to have difficult discussions on every day of the week. Obviously that's not for everyone, but some but some form of it is possible for most. And they aren't always fun discussions, but if you let them go on and interject appropriately you can find out a lot about what peoples real concerns are
I reckon that they coexist perfectly well, this hyperactivity required by neoliberalism infers unto you the value of thinking more and thinking more leads you right where you are in this comment. Instead of falling into the soothing warm bath of becoming a braindead hasan viewer or watching shitty memes about colbert or some other dude doing their best trump voice youre here thinking a bit more.
Elsewhere he has said that the 20th century academics did too much. We don't need more productivity (apropos the increase of the tempo of living resulting from overstimulation), we need methods to direct productive activity in a smarter way. We need tools of activism that do not just change society indiscriminately, but changes it delicately and smartly.
Great conversation, thank you for bring this two minds together!
Chibber hasn't satisfyingly answered the question as to the persistence of capitalism. His refutation of post-Marxist explanations of false consciousness is warranted - but then he ends up in an implicitly neoclassical position - that the worker is responding to capitalism, rationally, through risk-benefit analysis within a simple game-theory framework. In a way, he's approaching a neoliberal rational expectations theory.
Ironically, neoclassical, neoliberal doctrine itself, is beginning to fade from fashion within business managerial circles, as many are now embracing 'behavioral economics' as a mode of understanding late capitalism. Its a business doctrine which in many ways takes seriously the idea of market capitalism as an unstable system (because agents’ strategic responses are more diverse ((and unpredictable)) than rational expectations theory suggest and thereby allow psychological, sociological and or political-ideological factors to enter into the evaluation).
This was the best Zizek talk I have seen, because he was kept in check by good moderating and by a conversation partner whose work is as interesting (if not more?) as his. Thank you Vivek and Zizek (I couldn't resist how these names rhyme).
You're telling me that you don't want to hear dirty jokes for an hour straight?
vivek zizek vivek zizek. It does rhyme!
I have a friend named vivek
@@olliew9487 I don't want to hear rambling.
Conversation gets good around 35 mins
Loving Slavoj’s new glasses. Can’t help but wonder if he got them to protect his eyes from constant rubbing
They do look good on him!
Damn that was great. Thanks for keeping this free. Breath of fresh air in comparison with the usual discourse offered by my fellow MLs.
Fantastic discussion! Much respect to all involved
26:26 Vivek places WAY too much emphasis on workers' autonomy in choosing the conditions of our labor. He suggests that workers have consciously chosen "self-employment" over working in factory.
Is he seriously suggesting gig economy workers were given this choice? The reality is that the gig economy was forced on the working class.
Vivek's appeal to simply trust workers' views of their own experience is equally off base. Workers have a very diverse view of their own circumstances - some are liberal, some are communist, some are reactionary, and some identify as apolitical. You may as well say "trust black women" - how is it possible to do that when black women themselves have a diverse view of their own experiences? Of course we should trust workers (and any marginalized group) in a general sense, but there isn't a unified view one can use as the basis of an argument, as Vivek does here.
The truth around worker organizing, and lack thereof, is much simpler than this. The state and capital actively repress labor organizing and class consciousness. When this repression is lessened or rendered ineffective, workers inevitably organize collectively.
If this wasn't true, the US wouldn't need to send CIA spooks in to every country with a left wing movement. The FBI wouldn't have needed to kill Fred Hampton. Ironically, Vivek is gaslighting us about our own reactions to classist oppression.
I agree. Vivek idealizes "gig" labor as a form of autonomy when it's actually a form of coercion. The Uber or Lyft driver is a dispossessed worker, nothing more than the contemporary day version of a jitney driver. He would do well to read August Wilson's stage play by the same name. It has to do with intergenerational precarity and the racial wealth gap.
You're arguing against a strawman. Vivek never said that the worker's ideologies are based correctly on their own experience. What he was saying was that, in the exact things that they exactly experience, they are the best experts of. Anything that strays off from their own experiences, they need experts, and ideologies function here as both rationalizations of their own predicaments, and propaganda told by political experts and agents with their own agendas.
How you missed his point is ridiculous here, given that I can tell from your text that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable. So how did you miss this? Were you distracted?
@@LuisManuelLealDias Well, I haven't read his books. But in this talk, Vivek does seem to be reducing workers' diverse reactions to their struggle into a simple view that he uses as the basis of his argument. I.e., that capitalism is self-regulating because workers rationally organize on an individual basis, or that workers will choose destitute self-employment over a factory job with an "overseer".
He says we should trust workers to be experts on their experience and then proceeded to speak for us, as if there is a single, generalized worker perspective to take, all while scolding other intellectuals for being paternalistic. I'm not necessarily talking about ideology. Some workers are pro unionizing, some are against, even at the same shop. So which worker-experts do we trust?
But regardless of whether or not you agree with that, Vivek's suggestion that gig workers consciously chose to be gig workers is just total idealism and shockingly out of touch. Material forces brought us the gig economy, and workers just don't have that kind of autonomy in their work, generally speaking. Not in my experience, and I've done both gig work and stable "factory" work (achieving the latter only due to privilege and a lot of luck).
@@LuisManuelLealDias I think he's got it right, it's not a strawman. I'm a gig economy driver who does it because I stopped finding similarly-paying work in manufacturing and logistics. In fact, loathe as I am to admit it, it pays better than my old mfg and warehouse jobs.
I don't need to couch the whole question in terms of the Marxist understanding of the relationship of social being to consciousness to tell you that I would never have entered the gig economy if not for seeking employment while coming up empty-handed during a low ebb in my material security. I don't feel like my own boss, I feel like a misclassified worker. So do plenty of other workers.
Chibber's claim seems to check out at first glance, and I'm broadly in agreement with his overall argument, but there's some weak points, and here he commits a certain kind of social democratic workerism that deserves critical examination.
Vivek does not say that workers chose the gig economy. He suggested that if you were given a choice between having a working day decided by yourself or being in a factory with a boss.
You would chose the former rather than latter. Assuming the wage and the same job.
OF COURSE UBER DRIVERS ARE EXPLOITED, BUT THE WORKER WHO IS COMPLETELY FREE IN THE BEST SITUATION THAT HE CAN IMAGINE HIMSELF TO BE IS ALSO EXPLOITED UNDER CAPITALISM. THAT'S THE POINT.
They have diverse view of the same experiences, BUT THEY ALL ARE EXPLOITED THE SAME.
COWORKERS DO THE SAME JOB, BUT THEIR IDEOLOGY WIDELY DIFFERS. That was his point not that everyone has the same political opinion, but that Marxist place way too much value on the role of ideology. The material reality of work is the fundemental element from which the discontent stems from, but ideology widely differs.
"The truth around worker organizing, and lack thereof, is much simpler than this. The state and capital actively repress labor organizing and class consciousness. When this repression is lessened or rendered ineffective, workers inevitably organize collectively."
That's literally what he said and compared it to the modern marxist that put the role of ideology into the reason why workers don't organize.
This is not a very cheritable comment.
When Vivek gave his opening remarks, which were remarkably clear and well reasoned, I just knew Slavoj could not disagree with this man. 😂 I absolutely enjoyed this conversation, both are extremely deep and nuanced thinkers who have a gift of presenting the results of their intellectual work in such a clear and convincing manner that it almost seems obvious. As in any field, the true masters make it look easy!
"The category of anachronism", as hinted by Vivek, and spelled out by Slavoj is a brilliant way of understanding the paradox of un-organized labor.
1:15:27 I don't know ANY activist that struggles for more diversity in elite universities or in higher management of large businesses. What Chibber is critiquing is the language that PR departments put on in order to seem emancipatory, not "the left" as a whole or any really existing part of "the left". Has Chibber ever been to a BLM Protest? Or to a radical lesbian reading group? Or to the North Dakota Pipeline protests? "Leftist identity politics" is much more seriously engaged with marxism then Chibber makes it seem. I don't get this strawman of the leftist identity politics. Yes we need more class politics, but why should it be one or the other? Dear Americans, please don't over identify with the two-party system. Politics is not Trump vs. Biden.
I also don't get why 68' and the role that culture has played within this moment is taking the blame for this presumed elitist identitarian ultra-leftism. As Zizek said: Look at what happened in Paris in May '68, the students went into the factories to convince the workers to go on strike. It was the unions that broke the strike because they were easily satisfied with a little bit higher wages, and the restructuring of the Sorbonne Université in order to break up the student movement. The moment of '68 was clearly not only a result of material economic conditions (which also implies a quite narrow understanding of historical materialism, I'd say) but also of what the left has called consciousness raising at the time, of counter culture, of occupying the university and other public spaces. You can think about this approach what you want, '68 has failed in a lot of regards, and it was plainly wrong in others, but you cannot deny the role that culture played in '68 and I think it would be wrong to deny that '68 was a profound moment within class struggle and probably the closest the left has been to class politics ever since.
The reason why the left has been in crisis ever since is not culture or identity politics or ideology critique, but the sheer inability of the left to invent new modes of struggle that counter the way that capitalism has adapted, has brought forth the atomized uber driver, has restructured public space, the university, media and so on, and the inability of the left to imagine alternatives to capitalism beyond modest social democracy after the violence and the subsequent failure of soviet communism. But this inability cannot be blamed on an overemphasis on culture or identity. If we can learn anything from '68, then it is that this vulgar staging of base vs. superstructure is not a sufficient model for activism.
A better statement than anything from Chibber.
Well said.
I have to disagree. Diversity = atomisation. I think the lefts cultural politics are contributing incredibly to the streamlining of capitalist exploitation. The successes of 20th century union leftists came from a people who shared a geographic, cultural, racial and somewhat historical unified identity, that made it far easier to organise and achieve a shared goal. We now have cultural relativism and ever changing identities, new ones being created all the time and all of them purposely flattened and without meaningful historical context aside from victim hood. Intersectionality is fuelling resentment, infighting, and dispersed value systems as opposed to any universalist ideal, it’s a perfect slave ideology. Notice how right leaning principles such as family structures, anti abortion and Protestant work ethic are some of the most demonised ideals in late western capitalist ideology. Whereas having infinite sexual partners through sexual liberation, doubling the workforce to include as many woman as possible thus increasing competition, and liberal drug use to sedate people are all principals of the ‘68 cultural revolution taken to their end logic today and its pushing people into severe depression. These 68 principles have been evident in other societies in history, but few actively endorsed these things like the left of today does. The contemporary left and it’s student wing of 68 politics stands for the most refined version of corporate power in the 21st century.
@@matchoftheday3 your argument is a perfect example of how identity politics prevents a common class struggle, not the identity politics of heterogeneity, but the identity politics of homogeneity. The working class is already diverse, you can not argue with that. History had enough moments of racially unified political movements, that were not only catastrophical for ethnic minorities, but also not particularly helpful for workers liberation, I'm from germany, racial unity didn't turn out well over here. History has proven you wrong, and the ALU is proving you wrong at the moment. It's such a shame because you point out issues that are important and relevant, but they can only be tackled by the many: The capitalist enclosure of feminism, womens inclusion into wage labour, can only be tackled by a common struggle towards a reduction of labour time and a just valuation of care labour. Atomization is real, recent research suggests that atomization has an impact on drug abuse, but the enemy is not diversity here, but the atomization of the individual, economically through sub-contracting and the hustle culture of self-employment (we're back to uber).
If you're only fighting for certain parts of the working class that's not class solidarity, that's bargaining, you might get something out of it, but only on the back of others.
This was such a beautiful conversation start to end
Zizek against Peterson: I am not marxist!
Zizek against Vivek: I am a psychoanalytic marxist!
He said that he is more hegelian than marxist.
Wow, this is by far the best interview/debate video I've seen from Jacobin and one of the most enlightening and insightful conversations I've seen in a very long time. I sincerely hope that Vivek's work gets the attention and credit it deserves.
12:17 *stability thru precarity* “It is a material property of the class structure to generate stability by raising the cost of collective action. This means that the fundamental flaw of the new left was this-they correctly understood that the class structure generates antagonism but they wrongly attributed to ideology the role of stability; the class structure does both.”
Vivek was very consistent and compelling. Zizek, as usual, had nothing new to say and simply blabbered the same old nonsensical words.
Pretty surprising Zizek agrees so much given the incompatibility of much of what Chibber says with Zizek's writings on ideology and materialism. Probably attests to Zizek's desire to bridge the gap between European Marxist philosophy and Anglo Marxist political economy, which seems to be the opposite of what Chibber is doing - arrogantly referring to any intellectual who disagrees with his new book as a middle class careerist who hates poor people.
Where does Vivek's understanding of materialism - people invariably being driven by 'material interests' - come from? This is not Marx's contention, who ironically argues the opposite, that beliefs do not arise from a transhistorical sense of reason or rationality, but from the material conditions and institutions of a given epoch. To be sure, workers invariably fight to maintain their reproduction, often through maintaining or increasing their wages - something which is physically necessary, but also culturally informed. Beyond reproduction, however, workers may embrace a range of beliefs concerning their work, e.g. by attributing religious virtues to asceticism, or by believing they'll eventually become wealthy through their hard work.
Also, the idea that 'middle class' (to say nothing of this concept overused but under scrutinized repeatedly by Chibber) must interpret and act on behalf of the working class was not dreamed up by the Frankfurt school. It was one of the central tenets of Lenin's political strategy (and subsequently of Leninism outside of the Soviet Union), which affirmed the necessity of an intellectual vanguard to make political (not just economic) strides for the working class. One can obviously problematize this strategy in light of the subsequent repressive politics of the Soviet Union, but the fact remains - as Chibber and Zizek agree upon - that workers under capitalism are structurally limited from gaining knowledge about their political circumstances when forced to complete repetitive, often low-skilled tasks for the majority of their waking lives.
Why does Chibber restrict ideology to collective organizing (building real ties), but suggests beliefs like cynicism are 'rationalizations'? (Probably because he conflates ideology with false consciousness, which most Marxist theorists of ideology have rejected since the mid 20th century.) Aren't these 'rationalizations' patently false when they posit that current social relations are natural and a better world is impossible? A socialist would have to disagree with this rationalization, meaning from the socialist's perspective the cynical worker is wrong (even if we can sympathize with and understand their reasoning). It would seem that this cynicism - which Zizek has many times described as a form of ideology - or other beliefs like nationalism, are integral component of capitalist reproduction, impeding collective progress or revolution. Nevertheless, since these are workers' rationalizations of their conditions, workers (considered by Chibber as a homogenous mass) are more or less aware of what's going on, while intellectuals (also considered a homogenous mass) are the real dupes, suffering the worst cases of ideology. As someone already mentioned, he here mirrors the postcolonial theorists who glamorize and romanticize victims of oppression, but does so with workers instead of indigenous people.
Chibber is obviously correct to criticize growing identarian trends on the left, and I sympathize with his frustration here. But Marxist ideology critique - alongside empirical political-economic study - remains integral for socialist strategy, and we shouldn't abandon it just because it's complex (otherwise let's throw Capital out as well) or because the academics we don't like are misusing it.
Zizek is just being lectured but due to his bizzare narcissism he presents himself as he already holds the same views and thus just agrees with Vivek.
@@AvadoNMod wouldn't a narcissist suggest he/she's right and everyone's wrong, much more like vivek's doing? This assumption that anyone you disagree with or don't like is a self-interested hack is far more conducive to dogmatism than to any meaningful dialogue
Chibber's interpretation of 'material interest' is consistent with Marx's theory of materialism. But Chibber has his way of articulating (or emphasizing) 'material interest'. In Marx (and in Classical economists) 'material interest' of capital explains accumulation, competitive mobility across profitable activities, exploitation of labour. Similarly 'material interest' of labour explains mobility of labour across profitable activities. Material interest is a fundamental force that expresses in the market processes. It expresses sociologically as well. It is not equivalent to Benthamite 'self interest'. And it doesn't preclude altruistic/moral/religious propensites of economic agents.
Also Marx writes that in capitalism material interest is further accentuated because if the agent doesn't accumulate he will lose the game. So accumulation expresses in competition as "external laws" coerced on the individual agent.
@@ben-dr3wf But Marx's writings on competitive pressures apply specifically to capitalists, not to humans in general. Capitalists indeed have to compete to ensure they don't fall behind and cease being capitalists, but workers are primarily concerned with consumption not accumulation (bearing the relation to commodities C-M-C rather than M-C-M'). Like I said, workers invariably have to fight for wages to ensure their subsistence and reproduction, but beyond this workers can take on a range of dispositions towards their wages and fellow workers. To assume bourgeois self-interest (an incessant and insatiable desire for ever more wealth and property) is universal, and that human behavior can be deduced from it, is exactly the ideological conception of political economy Marx contested throughout Capital.
OP is based.
This was a discussion not a debate.
(A profound one at that)
very very useful and intellectual discussion. Thank you Jacobin for this
I love how they’re both versions of the same man
The dialectics of liberation with Zizek & Vivek. In cinemas mow.
there's a stroke of brilliance buried in this discourse. it comes from Goethe: no man is so hopelessly enslaved as he who thinks he's free.
in the modern age capitalism is going to turn us all into tech serfs.
And now compare to what intelligencia here said about UBER drivers and their, if you asked me, falsely felt sense of freedom. Hahaha, I bet none of the discutants ever spent a single day as an uber man.
LoL
" Freedom, freedom, prison of the free " ?
Probably the most rational discussion I came across on UA-cam. You deserve a like and subscribe.
I came sane BUT went totally bananas after hearing Zizek.
Mr. Chibber has it all figured out. The class struggle is an exception to the rule.
It is the exception that makes the rule
@@LukeDruid Yes... but it's still an exception!
Chibber makes a lot of sense, love his closing thoughts around 1:19:00
Slavoj zizek always goes to these debates and ends up liking his “opponent” so much that he agrees with them
From experience in organizing strikes what Vivek said about worker’s choices is 100% true and about role of ideology as well. Workers might risk collective action but it must be viable option, risky as hell, but at least with promises of success. They they will do it and vote time after time 90-95% for strike. But the ideology is also very important when it’s not shit sauce of capital but when it’s actual and coherent idea of doing something against system. You cannot build socialist movement without socialist ideology. But ideology it’s not MY position on this and that - it’s more like a coherent perspective based in organization. There can be no ideology without real and active organization underneath. I come to realization that you cannot really discuss ideology without political participation.
Came to see Zizek discuss ideology and ended up really enjoying the conversation.
came to see Zizek, discovered Vivek.
Vivek: It's not about ideology, it's about material conditions.
Zizek: As I see it, ideology *is* a material force in the world.
Vivek: But it's not about ideology, it's about material conditions.
Zizek: But ideology is material; it is our spontaneous relation to our social world.
Vivek: But it's not about ideology, it's about material conditions.
That's what I was expecting from this, but Zizek barely disagreed on anything, or did I miss something? Maybe he knew from the outset that this could be the outcome, so he didn't even try to disagree, as this would only make him seem more like a crazy freudian self-legitimizing cultural theorist instead of the plain bread and butter socialist Vivek wants to see
@@angwantibo Yeah, I think we're on the same page. But Zizek has a lot of experience doing this, so I think he knew better than to take up the contrarian posture that Vivek would have charged at like a bull. He avoided Vivek's polemicism through his "I agree" strategy. That's how I heard it anyway.
Vivek is an armchair Marxist, as much as the filth of Analytical Marxism. The revolution is not carried out making semantic analyzes of capitalism in universities and not making a vanguard to break the capitalist structures. Vivek's "socialism" is as equal as the "socialism" of the Scandinavian countries
If workers use ideology to rationalize their place in this exploitative system, then ideology is clearly playing a role in maintaining the system, since rationalising their predicament is essentially a way of accepting it.
Precisely the point vivek makes is that such rationalisation is a product of the necessity to remain part of a system, exploitative yet functional nonetheless, which let's us maintain our livelihoods.
Yeah I think the point is that ideology helps reinforce and maintain the system by rationalizing and individualizing class position and the alienation and suffering that comes along with it. The point though is that there are material conditions that drive this ideology, which are the risk associated with any form of liberatory ideology that would change the material conditions that create the class structure. Given this workers are wise to avoid these ideologies unless they can see that the risk is worth it. With the knowledge that there are real risks it would change how you would approach fellow workers about organizing, by not treating them like ignorant people but rational actors with a lot to loose.
@andres masson I am sure that made sense to you but it didn’t to me.
@andres masson maybe this conversation is for rubes like me. Because what he said makes a whole lot of sense. And while there maybe better critiques of ideology is it functionally applicable to on the ground organizing or is it a philosophical circle jerk? If it applicable then it has to be boiled into a language that the average person can understand. Otherwise workers are going to just look at you like your from another planet and find no use for the entire conversation.
I think, at least in this debate, vivek only speaks about the ideology of the worker, I mean, ideology just when the person is working, but what about ideology of the consumer? Or the student who has not entered the work force but desires to do so, is that not ideology? So I agree with him but ideology is bigger than that
I couldn't have said it better; as someone working, it's been tough to maintain friendships (or even a position) in the current left. I truly wish more people get to see this and recognize that the scope of what the left is trying to achieve currently is very far off the initial goals. Some people can't even think about identity policy because the issue remains: basic income, health care, housing, and retirement. If you are open about the fact that you are indeed poor, the left finds a way to despise you and condemn you, due to fundamentally lacking the empathy required to understand what reality is for the lower classes and wholeheartedly believe that them being middle class or upper-middle class is the real struggle and has priority. Suppose you move toward embracing your situation and openly pursuing some financial stability as someone who grew up poor. In that case, you are marked as the enemy and are the next logical target. Wasn't the working class that should've been protected in the first place? How can I find any support if this is the attitude. It's very unfortunate, hopefully something changes. We probably need a total rethinking of the left or a separation within itself to cater to everybody's needs.
Not representative, but here's one conversation I had with an uber driver in Mexico City: he basically defended all the arguments about freedom and such, and disregarded all the issues about retirement, insurances and health benefits. His view of people in protests was something along the lines of "those are people who don't want to work, they'd rather be paid to go protest", and the objective he was pursuing while working under those conditions was to save money to send his daughter on a trip to Paris. I think he was receptive about my points of view, to which he had rarely been exposed before, but I do think that there's an ideological framework that has made him work against his interests (namely sending the daughter on vacation to Paris which would be a huge sacrifice for someone in his situation and would have a doubtful return on investment).
I was totally hooked, pls more Vivek chibber.
Zizek needs to teach me how he immidiately becomes friends with people through exchange of obscenities lmao
vivek is like the edge of a really sharp knife, just incredibly precise 🙂
The complete opposite of zizek.
We need more of this!
Vivek “The clear-headed and straight talking Punjabi” Chhibber!
Kudos to both of these intellectuals!
Very interesting. I am going to read Vivek - I did not know his works. Look very interesting. Thank you
Most chill thumbnail in the game
Woww Vivek is wonderful...I learned so much...thanks
15:46 *dual role of ideology-justification of status quo & justification for transcending status quo*
“Ideology therefore has two roles. It is the means through which workers and capitalists rationalize their entrapment in the system. […] The second role that ideology plays is that it is an essential component of the organizing tool, the organizing kits, that socialists and unions have for generating the identities that are essential to class mobilization.”
Great discussion, thumbs up for Zizek to talk to somebody who is kinda undermining his whole approach - critique of ideology. I think Zizek is survivor of maybe initial new left who wanted to answer the question of stable capitalism through studying ideology but whiteout losing Marxist base. If you look at eg Laclau or Negri it’s main focus is to lose base it’s like anti materialist left.
Dad’s back
Good points, from both, but (sharpening the knife) something important is missing here. Maybe Todd MacGowen, with his latest work, has something to say about. What if we cannot simply dismiss some of the theoretical insights of psihoanalisys, death drive, modes enjoyment and so on?
(Basing this on my reading of Capitalism and Desire, and viewing most of McGowan's videos...)
Actually, I think you have it backward--it's precisely a materialist account of contemporary capitalism that is missing from McGowan's work. Not the other way around. McGowan is precisely caught in the ideology critique that is wrong. Precarious workers like me don't believe in capitalism but there's no alternative, sometimes suicide sounds pretty good. That's why capitalism can continue to run. I've been well aware it was exploiting me for 25 years but there's no political force currently around that could oppose it. Since there is no other existing system to capitalism, it would actually be pretty weird for workers to embrace a mythological alternative when there is no evidence of any real world project that could actually bring about a change in the world. Most workers are--and quite rightly--highly cynical about politics. It doesn't matter how much ideology critique you do, because whatever resistance happens just happens on an individual level and is depoliticized.
But in terms of enjoyment and death drive, let me deal with those briefly.
In relation to enjoyment, because the split subject speaks, and language is already excessive, the truth is there are infinite ways to subjectively enjoy yourself as a human being. There is enjoyment in being a capitalist, a nazi, a communist, a realist, a christian, a satanist, an anarchist, a sadist, a masochist, etc. But since enjoyment is ubiquitous, I don't think it's important at the level of theory--I don't think it's a properly POLITICAL issue, except to the extent that I do accept fully the critique of the Schmittian form of enjoyment (enjoyment of politics as a struggle to the death against an other, and framing politics in terms of friend / enemy distinctions.) And the worst part of the theory of enjoyment, as far as I'm concerned, is that it represents a disavowal of the everyday violence that precarious workers around the world face. For those on the bottom, capitalism is maintained as much by pure brute force as by ideology.
As far as the death drive, is there really such a big lesson? Either are tendency to undermine ourselves is so severe that we can't act politically at all because we always do the opposite of what we intend (to be fair, this might be what Hegel thought but it is definitely not a leftist position), or death drive is just an aspect of the contingency of all human action--we don't always do what we think we do, sometimes we fail, sometimes we fail repeatedly. But humans knew this long before psychoanalysis, it's well known to the Greek poets and Shakespeare etc.
And often, we set out do things, and we do them. Furthermore, we can be satisfied in doing them. For instance, I often want to cancel my upcoming music performances before hand (death drive), and undermine my long term ability to perform music. But I haven't actually missed concerts. This happened recently, but I managed to stick it out, and play them, and the shows went well. So sure, you can't make a non-contradictory utopia, but you can potentially make realistic plans for the future and carry them out. Of course, crucial to the ability to perform at a concert under pressure, is the momentum created by the repetition of daily rehearsal, which is strong enough to ultimately over ride my self undermining tendencies (See Machiavelli's discussion of virtu versus fortuna in the Prince, in relation to this--developing ). I think the need for the development of virtuosity (virtue in the amoral sense as power to act under changing circumstances) is something totally missed by McGowan's approach.
In general I think McGowan ignores the materialist history of the recent period of capitalism, and because of this falls into non-dialectical idealism. I feel that he tries to go directly from notions of ideology, such as an ideology of capitalist accumulation, straight to imaginary psychoanalytic / capitalist abstract subjects, with no mediation of material conditions, money, work, class, or physical embodied existence. To me it feels like he ends up giving an ahistorical anthropological account of capitalism that isn't actually tied to any actual political / economic analysis, and perhaps unfairly, I see it as in practice essentially compatible with left-liberal ideology, since there is no real class project and all one basically needs to do is see the light of contradiction and realize that enjoyment and death drive are everywhere and the promises of capitalism are false--and then I guess capitalism is supposed to magically break for some reason? I guess too much of a materialist here, I think ideologies are not operating in such a causal fashion as McGowan supposes and tend to operate more as justification after the fact.
Very refreshing takes by Vivek.
A very enlightening and liberating encounter!
What Vivek says about why people voted for Trump I have commented for the past 5 years on left UA-cam analysts videos that they are missing this. And that I think the Democratic establishment knows it but refuses to change because they'd rather work for their rich donors who also own the Republican establishment. The voters understand this but unfortunately couldn't recognize that Trump was as big a liar as the establishment politicians because he is so unpolished.
continuing, Trump is a clear case of form over function as revolt.
I think the commodification of trust is more significant than the ideological component. If anything ideology is the poor surrogate that's never fit for purpose once capital exerts its full force.
This Vivek guy is the best no BS guy i've every heard! Go and stop "leftist intelectuals" bs.
lmfao
"No BS" is one view full of S. You could be, say, Tony Robbins and use that. I'm sure Vivek's better than that.
Ok, what in your opinion Vivek was wrong?
Not gonna lie, Slavoj Zizek and the Vivek Chibber would be a great name for a King Gizzard and the lizard wizard tribute band
Instantly ordered Chibbers book.
Public ideological space: Look at the radical leftists! The Marxist Santa complains about the cynicism and the detached left intellectual complains about the detached left intellectuals!
Mark Baum: Boom!
Thank you so much for the great discussion, Mr.Zizek, Mr.Chibber, Mr. Cohan !
Next time invite Cemil Çiçek too and let's make this a party
(I haven't actually watched the video yet I'm just really enjoying the name symmetry ok, sorry)
Guys named Zizek and he has a friend named Vivek, who writes this shit?
I think Covid Pandemic also gave the sense of individual autonomy to lot of company workers. Work from home slogan kind of distributes the sense of total control. In my conversation with a company worker, I found he is aware how the company is maximizing profit in work from home slogan but at the same he is enjoying his own relative autonomy, freedom and ease.
Slavoj Zizek vs Vivek Zlavoj. I'm sorry about that. Thanks for the video!
Came for Zizek found Vivvek! Wow, he is really smart dude! I listen him with face as Slovoj at 51:22
I always wondered what they have to say to each other! Because it seems to me they stand for two most distinct and often contradictory traditions of Marxism.
Vivek and Slavoj should write a book together
I wish I could understand this, I’m almost 40 & just learning many of these things for the first time! I bought “The ABCs of Capitalism” :)
vivek chibber is doing god's work. been a zizek fangirl for so many years, it is really refreshing to see him DESTROYED in this debate! feeling personally attacked lmao.
How is Zizek "destroyed" in this discussion?
I felt the same way, wondering if the age difference plays a part in their internal swag over the issues. It not as much destroyed as gleaned in the minute causes of generational critique. The pace of thought has an acute effect on the thinker, even in the minute of when which twin is born first...suffering accolades. My heart goes out to the work of literature both have an omnibus to account for, in other words, I felt Z to be somewhat defensive of V, but after he got interested in the language, realized they were respectable twins.
Like not understanding anything zizek said, The subject:
First of all, isn't the working class being given bad solutions to their problems, ideology preventing genuine action? Sure, they understand their problems well, much better than any intellectual, but the solutions that are given to them which prevent them from unionizing are highly ideological; their material reality dictates that they should unionize/revolt/whatever, but they don't. Zizek's anecdote of the Uber driver was a very good example of this.
So my question is: How is this NOT ideology?
Secondly: why do you fault the intellectual leftists - the "middle class" (a part of the working class that does non-manual labor, holds positions of relative power, and/or earns more on average) - for criticizing the "lower class" for believing the bourgeois propaganda they've been fed? This is exactly the same mechanism that causes the working class to believe the election was stolen/the vaccine contains microchips/the "middle class" is oppressive and wants everyone to turn trans or smth. Couldn't we also say that the "middle class" is technically right on a materialist level that they think they've outgrown the working class and that in turn they have to help and educate the "lower class" to become less bigoted? Because if you attain a managerial position, or start with a salary for which your father worked a lifetime to achieve, it's not strange that they believe they're not being oppressed anymore. The answer is "no", as you clearly pointed out with the 1968 strike example. But why is your answer "yes" when the Uber driver says he's not being exploited anymore? From a materialist perspective he is simply wrong. It's ideology that makes him believe that, and makes him act against his own interests. The mechanism is the same on both sides, and intended to channel the anger they feel (because of their materialistic conditions) towards each other. On the one hand fascism, on the other progressive liberalism. If you only selectively criticize one side, you're not being a leftist, you're simply choosing sides.
You ask "where should they get the right solutions from? Everything is a bourgeois institution around them". Well, from the leftists intellectuals that criticize them and tell them the cause of their problems is not gay black students, but their employer. But they've been socialized to this point to respond to that: "No, capitalism is completely fair, we should deregulate it even more". Just like progressive liberals knee-jerk respond to your words of revolution with "eh, I'm comfortable, we just need to regulate the system a bit, like the Swedish model". Why do you excuse the "lower class" fascists from everything, while criticizing the "middle class" progressives for even criticizing the "lower class" for falling for propaganda. If anything it's even more pandering to the "lower class" to expect so little of them, than what liberals are doing.
The taxi driver is not exploited, because the taxi driver feels not exploited. The fetishism of commodities, just extrapoliated towards work itself. Ideology itself only supports the feeling, which stem from the material reality. I think Vivek made it quite clear.
We need to look at the form of fascism of the working class not the content. It's a fascism of despair and misery. Something which stems clearly from capitalism. Our job is to understand and organize not to waggle our finger at them.
Middle-class "enlightened" liberals educating working classes is what was happening since 1960s and nothing happened.
Your comment is pretty uncherishable way to respond to Chibber. Most of those questions are answered in the video.
@@soggybottomboidenis It makes sense for people who are despairing and cynical about the system to opt out of politics altogether. What doesn’t make sense why despairing people who are cynical about the system actively support fascism. If they are not going to just opt out of politics, they have choices. They can become socialists or they can become reactionaries/fascists. So why do some working class people who are in despair and cynical about the system choose to support fascism? In some cases it may be that they believe socialism has been discredited as an alternative to the status quo. Even if they hate their jobs they may believe that the problem is not capitalism but *corrupt* capitalism. So this may lead them to support someone like Trump, if they believe he will “drain the swamp.” But I don’t think even this works as a full explanation in many cases. Trump does not hide his racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. So in order for people to follow Trump, they have to be okay with these things. Either they believe they are a legitimate part of fighting corruption or “impurity” in our society, or they recognize Trump’s bigotry is bad but support him anyway because they believe his agenda benefits them (in which case they are abandoning solidarity with workers who aren’t white and cishet). Both of these possible reasons for accepting Trump’s bigotry can be traced back to the bigoted attitudes that white people of all classes commonly learn. If you see Black people or Muslims or trans people as essentially “other” then it is easy to either scapegoat them or not care about what happens to them. So, the answer to the problem of working class people supporting fascism is not to abandon “identity politics,” but instead to develop intersectional analysis that includes class (rather than ignoring or downplaying class it as many mainstream liberals do). In other words, moving toward socialism has to involve both convincing people that socialism is a viable solution to the exploitation they experience *and* pushing people to abandon bigotry and develop class solidarity with people who are further marginalized because of their identity in addition to class (rather than scapegoating them or disregarding them).
@@soggybottomboidenis I don't know what video you watched but they clearly agreed that the uber driver IS being exploited (and don't know what kind of leftist would argue otherwise), just that the material conditions make it reasonable for him to believe he's not being exploited. My point is that at the same time you can use the same explanation as to why highly educated leftists turn into finger-wagging know-it-alls (and Vivek is basically finger-wagging at THEM at the moment). For some reason it's completely normal to expect more from highly educated left liberals than from lowly educated manual laborers. Almost like people like Vivek believe they are simply dumber, and therefore we cannot expect too much from them in contrast to liberals. Being highly educated just means you understand more about engineering, or psychology, or whatever, and probably that your ability to learn something new is faster on average, but it doesn't mean immediately that you have a better understanding of the world and politics. What prevents lower class people to become socialists is rather this attitude that they can't understand it which fascists have convinced them of (which Vivek is parroting here implicitly), and this reputation socialism has gotten of being something bourgeois (also caused by fascists).
We need to expect better from both sides, and to educate them. Vivek (and you) talks about the '60s and onward progressive movement as if they were already socialists but had the wrong strategy in mind; no, almost none of these were genuinely revolutionary, they were progressive liberals blinded by the word "freedom". Only John Lennon sort of turned into a genuine leftist in the '70s, and the fact that Iggy Pop could vote for Reagan shows just how much of an unfocused movement this was. Liberals are not already on our side; we need to educate them too. Is it condescending and finger-wagging? Sure. But that's the reality of being a socialist. Our movement doesn't stroke people's egos and tell them they are already perfect, anyone who thinks differently is the problem, or provide them with lone heroes; we offer people only the fucked-up reality and the unsexy way out of it: to stand in solidarity with other working class people - whose antics you might not like - and find strength in numbers. Be it your uncle that cracks racist jokes, or your blue-haired, short-haired niece, we have to realize that the people we have these types of personality based disagreements with, are not your enemy.
@@soggybottomboidenis Also: "middle class" people also despair. Think of psychology students who have sky-high debts and can't find a job. And often people who work jobs that involve manual labor are paid much better than people who are given some power inside the system by the capitalists, like manegerial jobs. These people let out their despair either by lashing out against the "lower class" who are so bigoted and what not, or by sucking up the neo-liberal narrative that they can make it in the capitalist world if they only work hard enough (respectively). These are also acts of despair which capitalism has given outlets for in the form of neo-/progressive liberalism, similar to how fascism gives outlets to "lower class" people's despair. These are all ideologies that cause working class people to turn against each other: Ideology preventing unity in the working class. I don't know how clear I can make it. Ideology is clearly one of the problems that prevents socialism from becoming a succesful movement.
Hey, thanks dude ! Excellent content.
I think the introduction of debts as a substitute to have access to money rather than labour is one major reason why capitalism has been sustained. It is rather a bubble economic that burst fro time to time.
You might interpret the lack of a collective ideology generating solidarity as the presence of an individualist, entrepreneurial ideology (like missing positive electric charges can be seen as negative charge). Many people seem to derive self worth from "doing better" than others (or their past selves) which welcomes the presence of others doing worse as a point of reference, as competition to the enterprise that is themselves.
best haircut I have seen on Slavoj. Vivek is so brilliant and clear. I think he has influenced Jacobin a lot, and Jacobin has had a really healthy influence on the US left - and gosh do I wish it was a stronger influence
re: Uber from what I understand a lot of restaurants have had trouble getting and keeping kitchen workers since rideshare and delivery apps have blown up, which is a good sign. cinch the labor market up tight!
Hi, I´m from Bolivia, so I like to say somethings about foreign ideology. This is a theory that I developed analysing the reality of my country.
-The "Colonialism of Morality":
The terms that determine the behavior of politicians and activists (in Bolivia) such as: imperialism, capitalism, socialism, communism, feminism, living well, patriarchy, are an example of what I call " Colonialism of Morality”. These terms, condensed in behavior, contain Western morals that, not being perceived by their executors, are used for the search for power (or control over others).
The Anglo-Saxon world builds its culture around a clear dualism: “Us against Them”. As in the legend of Saint George and the Dragon as well as in the biblical passages, the case of Ephesians 6:12, Western man needs the "evil" to be able to sustain his action as an individual and, there, build their identity.
For the Western world the "We" is the "legitimate heritage." A legacy based not only on blood but on values that were built to counteract the so-called "Evil".
The “Others”, or the “Negative” action, constitute people or ideas that corrupt the “legitimate inheritance” or the order of hierarchies established over time.
This duality arises from the horror that the Anglo-Saxon peoples faced and face.
Europe, compared to South America, is reduced in size. It is a tough territory, with complex and difficult climates to face. This territorial problem clearly shapes the Westerner. It forces him to gather in tribes (whether nation states or ideological tribes) that allows the subsistence of his identity in the face of constant siege from other men in Europe who also want to prosper in scarce lands with often unbearable climates.
Therefore, the West is plagued, at a historical level, with war, death and hatred towards “others”, generating there the basis of the dualism “Us against Them”.
This is different in the pre-colonial world of the Andes.
Like the Fox in Andean tales or Supay, the protective deity of the mountains, the pre-colonial Andean world is full of stories, myths and legends that demonstrate an extensive and complex dualism: “We are like Them and They are like Us”.
On the one hand, imperfection is vital in pre-colonial Andean stories. The fox, or also called Atoq, is not an antagonistic being that destroys the balance. In many of his stories, Atoq plays at being a playful creature who tries to show himself to others as he is: funny, challenging, wild and mobile. His intentions do not seek to subjugate others, much less impose an idea, it is, in many cases, to serve as an example of complexity in life.
Supay is another great model to study. The deity of the mountains is not bad, much less good: she is generous and demanding, she is a protector and annihilator. Supay is so complex that he even represents both male and female fertility.
Thus, the Andean precolonial culture has similarities with Asian cultures (India, China or Japan) that understand life beyond a dualism between black and white.
For this reason, when the actions of the people who live on these lands sustain an “Us against Them” attitude, we can clearly identify pain, horror and/or suffering as the main driver of these attitudes.
"Us against Them" is one more facet of human thought, perhaps even necessary to confront others who do not accept one's existence.
Thus, like the Tinku, a ritual of struggle and purification of pre-colonial origin, "Us against Them" must have its place and time in the action of people.
However, both politicians and activists in Bolivia use "Us against Them" as the main precept of their daily lives. It is the total justification of their identity: I am a socialist, I am a Capitalist, I am an indigenous person, I am a feminist... "I AM and they are NOT".
Therefore, it does not matter how many Andean symbols are recovered in everyday life, how beautiful speeches are written in favor of the integrality of the peoples, or even how many languages are regulated, if the identity, and therefore action, is built on the "We Against Them” the Western world, which teaches us to defend ourselves against others, but will continue to regulate how we treat others and even how we treat ourselves.
Thanks, All the best
I totally agree. However, I would add : Our moral is based on our religion, our understanding of the forces in nature , and in our selves as a product if those forces. When the Abrahamic religions (judism/Christianity and islam) created the consept of God and Devil, they also created the moral of «I am with God (I am good) against the Evil». Looking at animals, planets, water, plants etc (nature) I see a chain of life. Everyone dependent on others , everyone a part of a WE, and everyone mooving in its own circle of life. An australian Aboriginal has written a book called something like « How Aboriginal thinking can save the world». I think he is right. We need a new story about who we are, a new (or maybe and old) religion or philosophy. The west have told the story of freedom and rights (against the evil communists/barbarians). We need a story about connection and balance.
I have never seen Zizek NOT talk for so long!
Loved the episode but you might want to consider putting Debate in quotes. Lol