Slavoj Zizek: Lenin Was a Radical Opportunist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 жов 2021
- Slavoj Zizek discusses World War I and the other forces that shaped the Russian Revolution, and argues that Lenin's political strategy was one of "radical opportunism."
Subscribe to the channel and hit the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin for just $10: jacobinmag.com/subscribe/?cod...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey
Full livestream (members): • Slavoj Zizek: The Lega...
For clarification, Žižek literally calls Lenin a radical opportunist in the interview.
Why be disingenuous?
So what? Doesn't mean the video title (aka headline) wasn't misleading. I wonder if the person who wrote it missed the point or if it was essentially clickbait. Either way I think people expect more from this news source.
@@electrosonicnebula Stalin was FDR freind who won the WW2 and beat fascism. Stalin scared the crap out of the Nazi's and rescued the Jews from concentration death camps.
Lenin was a visionary and Marxist Leninism is good communism socialism that does not have evil imperlism per se.
@@weneedcriticalthinking Not talking about Stalin here, not sure what you're on about.
Jen: * asks question *
Zizek, after having talked for literally 15 minutes: "...if I may _slowly_ progress now to your question..."
😂😂
I love it! I have to pause his videos so often to just process his ideas and knowlage.
I mean what did you expect his idol is HEGEL for God's sake😂😂
You cannot listen to this man without some small sense of amusement at all times
Especially when one's nose is running.
And the nose seems to be running in perpetuity :) Or - maybe because of what some say - burnt out by coke...?@@vonwane
Before the British came, India resulted in 25% of the world GDP. When the British left, India had 4% of the worlds GDP. Imagine what that does to a billion ppl
This is actually slightly simplistic. The 25% figure is based on cotton textiles. There is a serious debate in Indian historiography about the whole deindustrialisation phenomenon under colonialism.
GDP sucks as a measure of people's well being, in fact even 'standard of living' is misleading, people can make more money on paper and have more services 'available' to them but still be struggling and unhappy
@@Riotdrone either way India was messed up by colonial rule in every way. From trillions in potential economic growth done of taken by the British Empire. Then their is the human cost of it all. From the bengal famine to the centuries of cash crop plantation.
@@derektorres3092 100% but i do find the human cost to be more to the point than the sort of capitalist framing of economic success in the world market
There was definitely the displacement and destruction of local traditional sectors but one dimension of this %4 of global gdp outcome was that the rest of the world (especially industrialized west) developed so much that the global gdp was several times larger than it was so India lagged behind (again blame can be on the British) and their share and prosperity declined both in relative terms and absolute terms.
Engels's nickname amongst the Young Hegelians was "the General" because of his interest in military history.
True, Marx also was in contact with European military officers who flirted with Communism to the point of volunteering to the Union Army in the American civil war
I thought he was called “the General” because of his service in the 1848 revolution?
I remember listening to Zizek on the street through an open window while he was speaking when I was in undergrad. What a gem!
Oh wow. Where was this?
People seem to be misunderstanding the term 'opportunist' . in this context, Zizek means it in a good way. Lenin had insight and boldness at the opportune time.
it's just like an ML to get caught up in things like traditional connotations of terms and not appreciate an idea in it's own context
As an ML I totally disagree. We should learn from Lenin's radical opportunism
@@Ali.Shamsedin he was a dick, who crushed the working classes in russia and crippled them throughout the rest of the world.
Ironically, many Western MLs might be too dazzled by Lenin's praxis to sufficiently adapt it to their situation.
Zizek is GOAT. Perfect combination of humor and knowledge.
I just wish he didn't have that annoying speech impediment.
@@chrisfrank6625 I'm used to it now
Does anyone have a source for this letter by Engels Slavoj talks about in the beginning? Sounds like a good read!
I think all of Mrx and Engels' letters are online if you know where to look!
maybe it is not, or it might be related but not exactly the one? or maybe he's mixing more than one reference, who knows lol. but this letter has the same gist of what Zizek said. a war throughout Europe, 3 to 10 years of respite and then a new revenge war on France while Russian people overthrow the Tsarism.
Walter Rodney references this quotation about the coming of war in his" The Russian Revolution- a view from the third world".
Below is the famous quote from Engel. I’ve never heard of Engels predicting a second war. (My guess is Zizek is confusing himself.)
--
Frederick Engels 1887
Introduction to Borkheim
Abstract
Written: December 15, 1887;
First published: as an Introduction, in S. Borkheim, Zur Erinnerung fur die deutschen Mordspatrioten. 1806-1807, Hottingen-Zurich, 1888.
--
And, finally, the only war left for Prussia-Germany to wage will be a world war, a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other’s throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years’ War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of’ trade, industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle. Only one consequence is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class.
That is the prospect for the moment when the development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe. And when no alternative is left to you but to strike up the last dance of war - that will be no skin off our noses. The war may push us into the background for a while, it may wrest many a conquered base from our hands. But once you have unleashed the forces you will be unable to restrain, things can take their course: by the end of the tragedy you will be ruined and the victory of the proletariat will either been achieved or else inevitable.
Forget heinsenberg and escobar, queen victoria is the Michael Jordan of drug dealers.
I have been saying that for decades.
He started to make a point about the opportunity missed during the first years of 90s as the Eastern European communist regimes were collapsing, but do not make clear what was that about.. My guess he was going to say that that relative backwardness of these countries were also opportunities to establish a reformed democratic socialist states or at least social democracies that will stand against neo-liberal economic models created decades of poverty for the working class people of these former communist countries..
I really appreciate the patience and open mindedness of the other people on the call. I know it can be a little frustrating when one person seems to take the whole spotlight in what was supposed to be a dialect or a seemingly simple question you expected a shorter answer to, but I believe uninterrupted monologues definitely deserve their places at times if the person has the desire to speak for longer.
They knew exactly who they invited. This conversations goes entirely as expected. Very satisfactory.
They have Slavoj Zizek on, you want him to take up space. That's why you invite him.
The word “opportunist” has negative connotations, yet Lenin was rightfully talked about in positive terms…was the title clickbait?
The term clickbait, has a negative connotation, but did you enjoy the video?
@@venum17
I did, yes 😁👍
I think it was. They mislead me, but it is a great video.
It's Jacobin, of course they would
@@vietnamd0820 😁
Clickbait title Lol. He meant opportunist in a positive way.
Opportunist can be either positive or negative
@@user-zi4wx3uw1y Opportunist is famously usually coupled with a negative connotations. We don't exist in a vacuum.
@@TigerT242 and the context was that opportunist was being used with a positive connotation
@@user-zi4wx3uw1y Yes. Exactly. In the video. But the title was clearly misleading using the pull of Zizek potentially saying something controversial in the Marxist tradition like denouncing Lenin as a opportunist. It played on that. Clearly. It's not that big of a deal - they want people to watch their videos and I'm glad I watched it, but nonetheless it was misleading.
Agreed opportunist , has a bad rap. A connotation like exploitive. Could be good or bad tho
Need more long form content like this from Žižek please. This video was great. I understand why Chomsky said he has no idea what Zizek believes. I think Zizek's ideas are all told as stories lol and to get a better idea of what he believes he needs to continue telling all of these stories he has pent up. I don't think he will ever give a straight and quick answer but I still find his story telling fascinating. Make Zizek a weekly or monthly segment 😁
I agree. I would love to listen to him in person someday if I could ever get the chance.
why won't he give a straight answer
@@zah936 He does he just takes a while. He illustrates his points with jokes and stories and distracts himself with tangents sometimes. haha
@@zah936 Like Herodotus he makes frequent, sometimes long (but it must be stressed almost never pointless) multilevel diversions from a straight path though an argument or explanation. You as an intelligent and engaged listener must pay attention and keep track in your mind of what he’s already said and try to keep a mental image of the overall structure of his argument as he speaks.
If you’re looking for easily chantable slogans of the kind the sheep bleat out in Animal Farm (“Four legs good … two legs baaaaaaad!”) you’ll mostly be disappointed. But … nevertheless … sniff sniff pinch nose … listening closely… uuuuhhhh … you will always hear important conclusions.
It's funny because if you listen closely over a his interviews, he's remarkably consistent. He just often goes about telling it in a really roundabout way, and has what seems to me like a strong commitment to embracing the ironic, and contradictory parts of things.
If I may now slowly progress to your question... After talking for about 15-20 minutes 🤣.. you just have to love Slavoj 🙌🏻
Matt Christman has really let himself go.
Lmao
He's been riding himself pretty hard.
Wow Zizek is fascinating and there's so much to unpack from the interview. It rings true that in order to understand the Russian Revolution you have to look at the socio-political climate before and during WW!. I will need to listen to Zizek's talk again for key take aways. Thanks Jacobin for bringing the interview to your subscribers.
Hi it's the first time I watch a preview from this channel. I really liked it. I'm wandering when you'll post the entire video.
members content. it's infuriating, but there's enough channels out there that i don't really care.
@@ethanstumpbruh what kind of leftists are they lmao
@@valeriobenedetti7791 the kind that come from "backgrounds" instead of poverty. eh, personally i'd rather have these then any sort of unaware types. but even then, you get into nonsense about what is more or less empirical when it comes to actually how analyzing the lives of stalin's soldiers actually typifies the day to day ideology of soviet Russia more than any words out of linen's mouth. but then, that's even if you are in the same room as these people, which happens rarely.
Does anyone know the name of the letter that is mentioned at 2:32?
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/12/15.htm
Wow you guys are now getting sock puppet accounts spamming about Bitcoin huh lol. Holy crap, I am so sick of all the Bitcoin ads and propaganda being flooded into every single video and every space on the internet now.
Every single bitcoin spam conversation in comments is the same. Getting annoyed seeing it over and over.
1. Crypto is awesome
2. I don't know, I am skeptical
3. Don't worry XYZ random person will take care of your funds and invest for you
4. Wow I use XYZ random person too, he's great
5. Ok let's all invest, here is his contact info
@Stefan Weiss lol
can anyone source that letter of Engels which he mentions?
Please, please address Kronstadt
Love this
Lenin was a Working Class Hero.
The revolution must be getting closer if Jacobin Magazine is so worried about Lenin’s legacy that have to have someone on who call him an “opportunist”.
-
Some of what Zizek didn’t say:
1. At conferences of the Second International in Stuttgart (1907), Copenhagen (1910) and the Basle (1912) resolutions were passed against militarism and imperialism.
The 1907 resolution concludes
“… In case war should break out anyway, it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to rouse the masses and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.”
2. In August 1914 almost all the sections of the Second International betrayed the working class and voted for war credits for “their” nation. The two who took the most principled stand were the Bolsheviks under Lenin and the Serbian section.
--
The opportunistic politics of the DSP and Jacobin Magazine, especially their perspective that workers must remain tied to the capitalist Democratic Party, means they cannot have an honest account of history. Zizek does the same but on a global scale.
It is urgent workers, students and youth study the history for themselves and learn its lessons.
I recommend starting with the following on the WSWS:
War and Revolution: 1914-1917
Nick Beams 10 April 2017
One of the many paradoxical things about Lenin is that he both was and wasn't a dogmatic Marxist. When you look at his actions in power and read Marx it's VERY clear as Slavoj said that he deviated a lot from Marxism. But at the same time, Bertrand Russel described Lenin as being sort of the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell, in the sense that Lenin looked at Marx much the same way Cromwell and the puritans looked at the bible, that they took it word for word in the most literal sense and believed it so strongly to be true you could prove something just by showing the chapter and verse. So to Lenin, because Marx apparently wrote that the revolution would start from the most advanced society (which would have been Germany or the UK in Europe at the time) so he viewed the USSR as something of a place holder state for the real communist state. It's hard to imagine a person's reasoning being so ridiculous but the more I've read of how the man lived the more I actually believe it.
This is some really good stuff -- would you mind telling me where I could read more?
@@thetumans1394 Lenin's book "The State and Revolution" is a start. There's been a ton written on the guy and he himself wrote a lot so it's hard to come up with a list lol. Bertrand Russell didn't write much about it but talked about it in interviews you can listen to on UA-cam
@@jamespuso1627 I've read S&R, and I found it super useful. I was more meaning on the topic of analysis of Lenin as "overly dogmatic"; the thing you wrote about Lenin viewing the SSR as a place-holder is absolutely fascinating to me.
@@jamespuso1627 I think reading just one book of Lenin is not going to be enough especially if it's "State and revolution", cause he later dismissed a lot of even his own theories. Point of Lenin is that he was and steal is the most POLITICAL political theorist of all time. He had such great sense of social reality and how it worked, that he would without any problem adapt his theories to it immediately in order for them to be a theoretical support for action. He dissmised utilitarian perspective he made on State and Revolution on the basis of this being essentially a state of one nation dominating the other one (this his view is displayed in his work on national question). He then let New Economic Policy happen, when he understood that it is necessary and made a theoretical basis even for that, arguing that state capitalism is a best way we can move to socialism. He also trashed a lot of revolutionaries for being dogmatics and seeing Marxism as a bunch of biblical dogmas instead of a tool and an a general orienting theory for action. Point of Lenin is that he hated abstract definition of anything, he always strived for concrete truths. So there was no general truth for him. Just concrete analysis of certain situations.
Lenin was far more influential & long-term successful in the world than Oliver Cromwell (temporarily/locally). Most don't know who is Oliver Cromwell, but Lenin is used as reference for the progress of socialism.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the Italian socialists also opposed WW1 which is why Mussolini split from them.
kinda... half-assedly because they were trying to follow the Lenin faction of the international. They had a real big debate and almost didnt decided on it, but even after were convinced to oppose the war, they didnt do anything do oppose it and just announce it in name only tldr didnt really do shit to organize war opposition. For more information read about the history of the 4 first congresses of the Comitern
Lenin himself seemed unfazed by the Cheka killings. On 12 January 1920, while addressing trade union leaders, he said: "We did not hesitate to shoot thousands of people, and we shall not hesitate, and we shall save the country". Opportunist?
Thousands of workers. Meanwhile Aleksei Brusilov was alive and well in Moscow.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 The Iron General who changed his uniform because it was opportunistic to do so. The slime of Politics.
Ye okay ? but in this interview Zizek is talking about Lenin b4 and immediately after the revolution from Feb to October... so doesnt really see how your point contradict the interview he gave
The bolsheviks where fighting the white army until 1922.
The biggest problem is in thinking that humanity or life progresses is some deterministic way even in reflexive systems. Physicists and anthropologists long ago ditched the idea. EG: the deterministic and mechanical theory of evolution of civilization didn’t survive contact with New World archeology. All of it was blown apart the evolution of South American cultures.
I could listen to him talk about this for hours.
Bring a raincoat
You are not sure Zizek is describing himself?
that would be rather self-aggrandizing of him. He's giving Lenin a massive compliment here
Zizek looks fried af in the thumbnail
unrelated to this but since he mentioned him, slavoj is holding up to the test of time much better than chomsky, chomsky's takes are hard to listen to these days......
Also quite literally hard to listen to. I dont want to be agist (sp?), but he takes 2 minutes for each sentence. I lose track of the subject before he finishes his thought.
@@MistaZULE geez, people: check your weird commodified way of talking and thinking about scholars whose political commentary you consume. Chomsky is 93 years old. He is a human being and not some trained monkey to cater to our tastes. His enormous pensum of public appearances literally is only testament of his deep dread about the future of humankind because of climate change - he very literally gives his last breaths on this earth to this cause.
@@ithemba Sure, but am I not allowed to make statements based on how I percieve him? Yes he's a great scholar, but at some point if his words become impossible to understand due to his advanced age then I will not listen to his speaking tours. The same can be said of Slavoj. The guy takes 15 minutes to provide context to answer a simple question. Every scholar has quirks, and I believe Chomsky's advanced age makes him hard to listen to. No commodification involved, he's just old.
This has always been the problem with Chomsky. He never learned to make his message palatable. He was virtually banned from mainstream social/political/economic commentary in the USA because his message was considered dangerous to the powers that be, but also because he's just not that interesting to listen to. It's not a case of the populace having a short attention span, it's just that he's naturally boring. Ziek talks A LOT, but he never fails to keep the listener engaged.
@@ithemba it's not so much his manner of speech, I can understand him fine, but I think as you get older the real you comes out. For all of Slavoj's jokes about his own stalinism, Chomsky starting to show his authoritarianism and disdain for the general public. Whereas when Zizek is 92 I think he's going to be cracking dick jokes and reviewing anime
Engel's 1882 report about war in Europe with 10 million dead was indeed the work of a genius and the war in 1914 was mentioned by Zizek without mentioning the role of UK, which played the pivotal role in getting the Serbian murder of the crown prince, whose killer was never known. WW1 was the job of the No1.
This better be good..
✊🏼✊🏼
in a backward society, contradictions are more obvious, the legitimization of exploitation and the defence mechanisms of the hierarchy are less convoluted, which all contribute to a more clear understanding of the dynamics of the age.
7:00... 16:30
it's so weird how an ideology whose greatest revolutions came during ww1 and ww2 looks at "opportunist" as a bad word
man those predictions by Engels are loco!
Marx used to play the stock market, and was decent at it apparently. Maybe they had a crystal ball?
Yes Lenin was a "radical opportunist". But he was not an opportunist in the sense he would accuse American (and European ) social democrats , especially the ones that play ball with the Democratic Party, of being. Wakey wakey "Jacobin"/Harringtonites.
It's like ASMR for me to hear Žižek go off.
Interesting discussion, but what is sadly missing here is The concept of transitional demands in a traditional transitional smog the number one slogan was peace near and then to the first world war seems simple and sensible but that was something that the bourgeois state a capitalist state in the imperial constellation could not possibly grant.
The title couldn’t be any more misleading (but this happens in almost every Zizek clip or video on Lenin so you’re the fool if you fell for it)
yeah i know what is up with that Jacobin is supposed to be the cream of news organizations
@@electrosonicnebula jacobin is pretty shit tbh, but they occasionally do great stuff and that’s all I need lol
@@DripEmpError Compared to what? Intercept and Daily Poster are pretty good. And Bad Faith and Some More News and Democracy Now. Then New York Times and NPR to see what the patriotic left wing is thinking. Anyway the analysis is usually pretty obvious. It's nice when they talk about actual legislation being passed or mix in some history, which this does- Zizek is entertaining although barely intelligible half hte time
The deepest, darkest moment of defeat any leftist can ever go through... reading Hegel 😂
10:25 14:31
Rabbiih … Marx never had a linear thought of successive steps… anyone reads his anthology notebooks figures this out… Also, last thing ever printed in Marx’s life time was the sending Russian edition of the communist Manifesto in which he wrote new preface to the Russian readers addressing the question of revolution inside Russia .. Even Plekhanov pointed to this in his writings
Nice.
I do not need a shower. 😅
No mention of Trotsky? Lenin took Trotskys yheorem of Permanent Revolution based on the 1905 revolution and applied it. Key is the concept of uneven and combined development. Trotsky as a result, along with his followers joined the Bolsheviks and Trotsky gave up on trying to reunite the Mensheviks and the Bolshevks.
Not talking about this is a profound flaw.
Zizek may have called Lenin an opportunist, but I think he meant he was tactically flexible, not opportunist in the way Socialists use the word. Jacobin wanted to make a clickbait video but the joke is on them; I will click on anything Zizek related because he entertains me so much.
I would personally avoid using the word opportunist unless you actually meant it in its original context; a 'Socialist' that is willing to sacrifice principles for personal or career advancement.
Clickbait title. Don't stoop that low.
OMG, One of the Major Gigachads of the Breadtube, What a rare site, Greetings Comrade YUGOPNIK.
10:09 we have to apply the humanitarian intervention to prevent the fall of USA into uncivlized nation, like the Queen says.
He is a true genious i am a proud father of him :)
Zizek is you son? Or Lenin?
@@gohyde they are brothers :D
This is a fantastic episode
I'm not sure what this means. Should we include antivaxxers or reactionary forces in our fight against capitalism?
engels did abandon revolution in his later years
Common Jacobin L
And after watching this, I am more convinced than ever that we need a "new Lenin" today in the sense that we need someone to USE Marxism, not cosplay as a Marxist by using the aesthetics and language of Marxism or COOL BOLSHEVIKS OMG, but once again actually PRACTICE Marxism by getting back to the roots of a LIVING and critical scientific framework. Many people nowadays have this reified, concretized, sanitized version of Marxism that belongs in the material and cultural conditions of the 19th or 20th century but definitely not this one. We live in different circumstances. "Marxists" today make the mistake of not seeing Marxism as a set of tools to adapt to the shifting nature of the world around us, but as a kind of religion, a faith of ideals and of martyrs. Maybe it should be called by a different name or something, I don't know lol, but as long as the essence is still there, then it's still Marxism, right? Or am I wrong? Someone tell me.
Late reply but yes, we have to be pragmatic and reach people in whatever way works to reach them. Marxism is a set of tools and we shouldn't be dogmatic. We should realize where we are right now, which is an extremely backwards capitalism with extreme disunity among the lower class, and so I think our rhetoric has to reflect that and be as anti-fascist as possible while being in language the population can understand. But this isn't an argument for not trying to find the weak point and pushing for overthrow of the capitalist imperial core or capitalist periphery states when the chances arise.
He was an oportunist, thats all.
Zizek actually praises Lenin but Jacobin writes the totally out-of-context click-baity headline that he was a "radical opportunist", which certainly has a basic negative connotation that has nothing to do with what Zizek is saying.
In this context, neither 'radical', nor 'opportunist' are negative terms
Slavoj: Lenin was a radical opportunist.... and the Left should be too
Je kijkt rond. Je kijkt waar de gelegenheid zich voordoet en je zorgt voor een (politieke) ontwikkeling die de schematische overgang naar het socialisme wereldwijd met tientallen jaren bekort..
yay non dogmatic marxism i love it
This man spent the whole interview whattabouting. Not great.
That gymnasium story reminded me of a bit family guy did where hitler is at a gym working out and a big buff Jewish dude is getting all the female attention
Mr. Žižek got confused in terms of "radicalism" and "opportunism".
Cheap fame spoils the brain. It seems that he never read Lenin ... or could not because of his inability to dialectical thinking. A sin common among real opportunists.
the title of this video is MISLEADING. Zizek is ADMIRING Lenin's radical opportunism, NOT dissing it! And most of the video is about World War 2. I know Jacobin hates Leninism, but at least label your videos correctly.
MLs seething on twitter lmao
Slavoj Zizhek talks the talk and the way he speaks is refreshing but he isn't a good specialist in history.
Are there any criticisms you have on his historical takes in this particular video?
@@ben5154 Yes, I do. He was asked about the WWI and he didn't answer the question at all. The historian Christopher Clark they should've interviewed in stead of this clown. He knows more about what precipitated the WWI then anyone ese on the planet, absolutely astonishing scholarship.
His book: The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. Here is the gist of it for the Gresham College: ua-cam.com/video/6snYQFcyiyg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GreshamCollege
@@lunaridge4510 I don't think that's fair. You don't ask a philosopher about organic chemistry. Same way that you don't ask a historian about Hegelian Dialectics.
If you don't know Slavoj then don't click on the video. He's not a historian he's a Marxist philosopher who primarily does media analysis, he's not and never claimed to be a historian.
@@MistaZULE I do know Zizek and his specialty tho. My post was in response to a previous post about history which was replied to in the usual contemptuous, dismissive comrade manner. I consider myself a Marxist philosopher too. Until the left stops its internal sectarian warfare, we will achieve nothing.
@@lunaridge4510 Fair enough. I agree that this infighting among the Left is a huge problem, and it seems people just want to talk at each other rather than listen.
Honestly, if these excahnged were in person I hgihly doubt the dismissive tones in coneying ideas would continue. The nature of speaking in person vs the anonymity of the internet leads to snide comments and the ignoring of major points.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I do agree with you.
FWIW, Lenin never embraced any form of conservatism and traditionalism, 'local' or not, and he never postponed the proletarian struggle for the sake of 'peace and land reform', he just stressed the latter in his slogans in order to take power. Zizek sounds as if he is trying to make Lenin an excuse for and patron saint of post-1990 socialists morphing into either wokeists or fascists.
Well, as much of an enjoyment it is to hear Zizek, he is a leftcom bourgeois intellectual*
@@whythelongface64 you dont know what leftcom means or ever meant
@@levine4970 ok 👍
@@whythelongface64 I agree that he is a bourgeois intellectual, but calling him a leftcom is a compliment he doesn't deserve. Not all non-Stalinist or even non-Leninist communism is pro-capitalist and counterrevolutionary.
@@dumupad3-da241 wouldn't call him pro capitalist, but counter-revolutionary? Yes so much this
all this guy can do is twist and turn his nose......knows nothing but pontificates.....who the hell wishes to hear him or even read him!
So lenin was kind of an anarchist? :D
Content made by redliners and intended for redliners and fully crafted to maintain the redliner Petty bourgeoisie false consciousness.
This makes Lenin seem like some mirror image of the Western élites-a kind of inside out Tony Blair
Ask Zizek if he supports voting Trump in 2024 to 'shake up the system' like in 2016.
Like listening to a Russian Sylvester the Cat..
I like his point but Chomsky is not a Menshevik LMAO
Chomsky is 100% a menshivik
They just don’t want to grapple with Chomsky’s point that Lenin’s decree on workers control destroyed any prospect for workers’ control of production and subordinated workers to state management. Capitalists got replaced by state managers, not by unions or factory councils of workers i.e. they never achieved anything resembling socialism.
@@comradetrashpanda8777 What a demented statement. Chomsky is an anarchist, not communist. Both Mensheviks and Bolshevics were communists who saw anarchists as the political enemy #1 and the latter eventually murdered them all. They both belonged to a party that favoured hierarchy and top down decision making with tiny elite leadership on the top.
@@stephenpedroza9123 Lenin used the soviets to gain power, the same way he took over the democratic socialist's platforms that promised land to peasants---he had no desire to actually give them the land, it was a cynical plot. Sure enough, the Bolshevics took the land back almost right away and disabled the soviets politically thru bureaucracy and terror. They even took the peasant's citizenship away turning them into virtual serfs again; villagers had no passports until Hruschev gave them back (to those who had not been sent to Kazakhstan to die, of course). This was a preconceived plan by a bunch of brilliant sociopaths. Remember, Trotsky was also a Menshevik at first, but rose to become a perfect Bolshevik henchman. There was really no difference.
He didn't say Chomsky is a Menshevik. He said that Chomsky claimed Mensheviks are the true Marxists and not the Bolsheviks.
Tedious
LENIN FOREVER
Basado y realist-pilled. Keep Marxism modern, keep the conversation contemporary sir.
Lenin was a visionary and Marxist Leninism is good communism socialism that does not have evil imperlism per se. Stalin was FDR friend who won the WW2 and beat fascism. Stalin scared the crap out of the Nazi's and rescued the Jews from concentration death camps.
Yes, Lenin was an radical opportunist. A better term for him, really, is 'tyrant.' Another is 'false God.' You socialists should stop taking Lenin at his word and making excuses for his, and his successors', so-called "excesses."
In this video Zizek said Lenin was charged with dogmatism in his time. Such a charge was and is accurate. He was a dogmatically orthodox Marxist. Really, look at his approach to religion. The slightest detour from Marx's views on the subject by Anatoly Lunacharsky, for example, was seen by Lenin as extremely harmful. No, to Lenin religion was something to be forcibly destroyed without mercy and damn any one who argues otherwise. What was that if not dogmatic?
Ironically, Lenin, by his dogmatism and the immense power he wielded, himself became a God-like figure, one that is sadly still worshipped to this day. Zizek's passionate sermon in this video is a prime example of such worship. Lenin doesn't deserve it.
Content made by redliners and intended for redliners and fully crafted to maintain the redliner Petty bourgeoisie false consciousness.