Slavoj Zizek: Redeem the Jacobins!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лип 2021
- Philosopher Slavoj Zizek joins The Jacobin Show on Bastille Day to discuss the radical legacy of the French Revolution and what liberals get wrong about Robespierre and the Terror.
Tune into The Jacobin Show every Wednesday at 6 PM ET on this channel.
Full video here: • The Legacy of the Fren...
Subscribe to the channel and press the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin for just $10: jacobinmag.com/subscribe/?cod...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey
Patreon: / jacobinmag
That was a great talk! It was hilarious when Zizek’s phone went off and he just started yelling over it lol
the ringtone was... unexpected. i assumed it would've been wagner
Love listening to Zizek. Shoutout jacobin for always booking the best guests!
Hearing Zizek trying to redeem the Jacobins is like hearing Richard Spencer trying to redeem the Nazis.
@@DrCruel Seriously? Stfu. Those two are not even close to analogous.
Ridiculous.
@@alexloomis2398 Aww. The Internazis are trying to deny their old "working people's comrades." That's so precious.
@@DrCruel 😅😅😅😅😅😅
I got a boss baby ad before this
A guy who confuses that ringtone with the Polish song and fights back tears every time he hears it.
People are fallible, but ideas that work will work forever.
The idea of revolution is valid even if individuals are fallible. Just learn from the mistakes of previous generations.
People made mistakes throughout history. Don't make a religion of your dogma. We don't need glory and pride, we need rationality and innovation.
We don't need romantic virtue signals, we need physical collectivism that fills the peoples needs.
Needs over greed. Needs over pride.
Perhaps I'm cynical but people are tribal, and we have shown to continue to repeat our mistakes with ghastly consequences, intended or otherwise.
The writings of the Jacobins were destroyed by the Thernidorians. The Jacobins were against slavery and defended the poor.
Their bread subsidies probably saved thousands of lives. Had they made peace and enacted the constitution of 1793, there would have been potential for a more progressive world today.
11:44 "some stupid tribal songs..." he nailed the situation he was in, in that very moment! lol
You know what's the true stupid tribal song? French Anthem!
✊🏼✊🏼
what is the polemic against Hannah Arendts' analysis of th American Revolution Zizek mentions? i can't make it out
She didn’t like that the French Revolution addressed the ‘social question’, ie real needs of the poor. She thought it confused social policy with politics. Wrong of course
RIP citizen Robespierre, the reformer with result
21:50 anyone know what book he is talking about?
Have you found it?
I think it might be
General VM Moltchanoff's Oral Memoirs
But I’m not sure
I’m pretty sure the books is “with the Russian Army 1914-1917” by Major General sir Alfred Knox . It comes in 2 volumes. Volume 2 covers his time fighting with Kornilov
Jacobin ends with a track saying: "yeah, we got that fuxking good shyt"
The auto generated captions are so far off what the guest is saying. Please consider using a profess captioning service. It expands your wonderful work to a wider audience & promotes universal design principles
That’s just youtube, nobody uses those
and tbh transcribing Zizek's speech is a tall order. (though probably easier for a human, still)
Do a mutualism and submit a transcript yourself.
Honestly the French Monarchy destroyed itself
All it had to do was accept the National Assembly and tax the nobles a certain amount
Lol, If only it had been that easy! That was what Louis XVI was trying to do since 1787! But major noble and clergy opposition to being taxed on a more equal footing caused the Assembly of Notables to fail to approve Calonne's tax and financial reforms leading to major crises in 1787-1788, which ultimately led to the the convening of the Estates in 1789, and the rest is history...
@@sebastienflynn Louis XVI cross dressing was a fashion Nightmare
Unfortunately the unfiltered and indeed unromantic truth is, elites get off on being ABOVE OTHERS MATERIALLY. Untill this is widely understood, nothing will change.
Those in power want to keep that power. That's why you never give any authority direct power over your capacity to survive/ be healthy. Because that power Will never be relinquished without a fight
Even the French King couldn't constrain or reform the insane tax system the elite class had created for itself. It was so complex and corrupt that the only way to end it was with an overthrow of the whole thing.
Thank God for Zizek.
Can anyone recommend a good book that makes, more or less, similar points to what Zizek does about the French Revolution?
“Redeem the Jacobins !”
Ha !
In Praise of Folly !
You should bring on Marc James Leger to talk about class struggle as redeeming the emancipatory project of the left in the context of left-liberal identity struggle(s) focus!
I think the Jacobins truly freed the French public from the unfairness of Ancien Regime. Had the revolution stopped at some sort of Constitutional Monarchy, which the National Assembly was looking to create, and the Kingship preserved, the monarchists and nobility might have made a comeback, with the support of foreign partners. No, instead , it had to be all torn out root and branch ; thus followed the Legislative assembly, then the National Convention and the Council of Public Safety..
Article 17 (my bad)
Article 5 is also good for you Jacobin, “Levellers”
And you guillotine types.
Totally useless talk.
So basically be Social Democrats?
If you want to destroy a nation yes. Socialism pr communism doesnt work
@@caughtinthevoidfloyd5821 Yes, I share your concern with the destruction and plight of nations like Sweden, Norway and Germany, brought on by stupid social democratic policies like having basic concern for their citizens and granting them Universal Health Care. Such imbeciles right ?
I don't think Zizek realised this, but at the end he is very closely describing China.
The Jacobins were jackals
I believe the term Jacobin is deliberately misappropriated.
Some of Zizek's historical facts are wrong.
- Napoleon never sent his brother to command the army in Haiti. He sent General Charles Leclerc
- Napoleon never suggested killing off the black population in Haiti. It was his General Leclerc who suggest it about Guadaloupe, saying: the revolutionary fever was too strong and to destroy it they would need to kill the entire population. (Which Napoelon never took seriously nor authorized, ultimately)
I'm always hesitant to take his telling of history as fact, it often seems shotty
I too am often reluctant to accept many of Zizek's historical details, but in this case his facts are fine.
-Leclerc was Napoleon's brother-in-law. He married Napoleon's sister, Pauline Bonaparte, in 1797. So it's not that outlandish to say Napoleon sent his brother to command the army in Haiti.
-According to Marlene L. Daut, a historian of the Haitian Revolution, Napoleon explicitly ordered the French Army to "annihilate the government of the Blacks" (his exact words) by killing all people of color who had ever "worn an epaulet" (his words again). In a New York Times article published on 18 March 2021, Daut also explains that the French colonists openly discussed how they could repopulate the island with Africans from the continent after the "extermination."
Ok.
in every video i see of him he plays with his nose
Marx was not a Marxist. a fanatic is one who does what they believe their leaders would do, if their leaders were as smart as fanatics believe they are.
Says the 'princess'
Marx, was not a marxist. Hmm....I guess a Labrador is not a dog.
@@marcusmaynard1526 The poster was quoting Marx's famous remark toward the end of his life: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." One only wishes more of his followers had taken heed of it.
Did they get rid of that imperialist Ana? Yaaay!
To me it just seems so comical that this guy is considered an intellectual. I mean he seems nice and funny, but he's incoherent hard to understand (which I get, English is a 2nd language to him so fair enough) and he never really makes a point. He just seems to dodge critique because no one can understand him in the first place. ..And this is a side note but his sticking his hands under his armpits and doing just gross stuff and spitting and making disgusting noises and so on and so on... He has all these theories but no real world experience ..And his historical knowledge is limited to the rhetoric supporting instances only. ..Really, take a look at the guys who cite him and follow him. They're all schoolchildren who just think anyone foreign and eccentric MUST be brilliant. And so on and so on... But in the end you have the same kind of ridiculousness you have in Chomsky if you aimed way lower. ..What kind of person today still looks up to Hegel (Except for young Marxist ideologues, who never have known Communism first hand.
The same ridiculousness that you find in Chomsky?
Yeah, I think that's fair to say. He is a wonderful linguistics professor and he's a great researcher. I used to be a fan of his, but that guy hates everyone with the exception of Greta Thunberg (sp?) and AOC. Those are the only people I have ever heard him speak highly of. Look at his climate predictions. Look at any of his predictions. The guy is a hater, he's never right he pushes Fascism. Not Fascism in the pejorative sense but/Anarcho Syndicalism, which is the same system that started both Spanish and Italian Fascism. @@renevega2
Certain figures of the French Revolution were good early Socialists, like Brissiot, Babeuf, Marchel, Bonneville, Condorcet, the women who don't get talked about enough.
But there is no redeeming Robespierre, he was a Fascist.
a Fascist before Mussolini invented Fascism.......... use the correct names as today every word is inflated and everyone is a Fascist, Fascism is more an economic and social system and is mistaken today by the classic and old concept of Autoritharianism and Tyranny described in ancient Greece, Fascism derives from Fascio which in Italian means scarf that embodies every social class that are still diveded but instead of having a single class society and the Marxist class war you have a system in which every class cooperates without conflict and everyone gets a fair share from this cooperation and thus removing the class repression of pure capitalistic societies in order to solidify the nation and trying to avoid nefarious conflicts that can destroy a society......... now it was enforced by a dictatorship but it was a political and istitutional tyranny which was very typical during the 20s and 30s of the XX century
@@fegeleindux3471 Mussolini didn't invent anything new, the gist of what Fascism is goes back to Ancient Sparta.
The only "fascism" Rovespierre indulged to, was rejecting the "ultras" of the Revolution, who were proto-Communist/Syndicalist, and his obsession with freemasonic "Virtue". Rovespierre and Saint-Just's Constitution was still the most progressive of its time for centuries, despite of the Terror. In fact, those that came after Rovespierre were 100x times more Terrorist, but they got to rewrite History to their liking.
PS: And Ancient Sparta was against class inequality and undue accumulation of wealth, and gave their women unprecedented rights for their time. They were to the Left of modern Fascism. They were like the schizo Democrats of USA in the era when they were both a progressive party and the party of the Klan simultaneously. Early (1800's) Sparta romanticists were pro-Greek Revolution, hardly a Fascist position.
@@nektariosorfanoudakis2270 Correct, the Centrist Directory was no better. But they still following the precedent that was set before.
@@viktor7475 I called Robespieere's administration Fascist not the whole Revolution. Part of the problems is fictionalizations treating him as if he was a leader from the start, when it started no one even knew who he was. He in fact lead the way in killing the original leaders of the Revolution like Brissiot.
Slavoj Zizek -clown.