@@kolamoose8717 You know 1+1 is 2、2+2 is 4,4 + 4 is 8 ,8 + 8 is I dont know.you dont know?eeeerrrrrrr,I don't knwo,you dont know? eerrrrr and so on and so on
It's exactly that. The best thing about Parasite is how the film denies to idealize the workers. They are human beings under a wheel of opression; morality is subjective when you have to face choices to survive. Rich people can afford the time to make themselves "cool" and "nice".
Morality for the working poor is precisely not 'subjective' for the very reason you state. It is materially imposed, or outright impossible, which amount to the same. The (mythical) free subjectivity is the preserve of the wealthy as Zizek aptly points out.
You'll find that "innate goodness" eroding pretty quickly when you're starving. There are no innate virtues in the face of cruelty and oppression,there is just survival. To say he was kind while he was suffering and died with a smile on his face is more pathetic to me than he who goes down swinging and screaming.
@@thefierce4324 I see violence has been normalized in you. I blame movies and TV. The man who swings and screams is common and extremely pathetic in the face of starvation, we recognize he who shares and co-operates under the direst pressure, not just because it's rare, but because it's so valuable. Survival is a very low bar, germs survive.
In fact we know men in dire survival situations aren’t like the lord of the flies type, we are capable of being the most kind and sacrifice ourselves to others in the worst kinds of situations, because if you think about it that’s the best and only way to assure long term survival, to work together
@@thefierce4324 Meh. History is full of satories of people being good under the most hideous of pressures. Yes, even starving, even facing a painful and undignified death.
Love that... don't expect oppressed people to remain stoic and passively accept their position, rather expect they will become brutal to some degree as a means of asserting control and grasping for a bit of social/economic/political power -- its a sensible, human response to a gilded cage or iron chains.
That’s the problem, things fall apart when you don’t remain stoic honest and fair. And things fall much further apart if you’re dishonest and scheming, this is also something that the same movie shows, a movie which people applaud for all the wrong reasons. No matter how poor and downtrodden you are, the moment you start scheming, you start planning and when you start planning you have expectations. Things don’t go according to plan but you’re expectations never change and when reality hits, it hits fuckin hard. The problem was not that they were unfair, the problem was that they were disproportionately unfair.
@@vikramaditya8061 Imagine saying this to Harriet Tubman "scheming" to coordinate the underground railroad rather than remaining "stoic" and accepting the condition of slavery for herself and other black people. Why do we delegitimize revolutionary efforts as they occur? But, after the dust settles, we proclaim these resisters and dissenters as heroes?
@@alexey5481 why do you choose to compare capitalism to slavery? In a capitalist world you get paid for your labour and some companies give you actual perks. Slavery has no incentive, it is only obligation. Slavery has no growth, once a slave, always a slave. Capitalism incentivizes entrepreneurship, teaches you tricks of the trade and sets you up with an opportunity to build your own business, it incentivizes independence. So a class system in capitalism is ever-growing. I'm from an Indian family of 4 that's seen lows and highs. Before we (7 of us, my parents dad's bros and my grandparents used to live in quarter provided by the company my dad used to work in for a very low salary, today he's built his own house and lives in it. I'm proud to say he's an honest man, with no scheming intentions.
@@vikramaditya8061 I've seen the film, but I'm abstracting your value judgment and showing how useless and ridiculous it is in the face of oppressive forces. Capitalism being the oppressive force (and not the individual wealthy family) in the film... to tell people to roll over and accept their adversity is, to give an aesthetic judgment of such a sentiment, disgusting. I will never tell people to be complicit in their own exploitation, but rather use whatever ounce of power they have to overcome. Upward mobility in capitalism is a myth, a farce, and anyone born poor knows that.
A friend of mine told me they didn't like parasite because "it made [them] sympathize more with the rich than the poor, for example, the rich mom is really nice and cheerful and the poor mom is unnecessarily mean and dishonest and I just couldn't like her" Well, that is one way of reading it.
Because it challenges the usual rhetoric of nice poor people and rich snobs. The film is a lot closer to reality, and your friends are afraid to admit.
@@olympusdevil3013 yeah I agree, most people tend to assume an essential moral judgement is being passed on a group whenever a member of such group is depicted doing immoral things, but truth is we are all a product of our system, and a system that rewards dishonesty and selfishness with easy access to food, shelter and entertainment will reasonably produce selfish and dishonest people.
@@streq9199 Yes. But don't get me wrong, the rich elites aren't immune from criticisms either. All humans of different social class are equally likely to be selfish and immoral in their own ways, if given the chance to act on it. The question is whether people will revert back to their basic instincts when the opportunity arrives.
@@olympusdevil3013 I think it's a level deeper than you're saying here. Rich people can be superficially kinder, more virtuous, etc BECAUSE they are rich. This is an affordance granted to the rich. Zizek would argue against moralizing class issues because really the working class is not some perfectly good, kind, moral group of people, and that's apparent, but that does not mean that they are not oppressed. We shouldn't need evidence of kindness, moral behavior, or other such things to believe that people deserve the right to exist outside of wage slavery and liberal oppression. When it comes to which group is kinder, composed of better people, more moral, the rich bourgeois class is always going to win.
For me, it was only just now that I realized I'd never heard Zizek's take about this film, which immediately struck me as an act of outrageous negligence on part of the universe. A quick TH-cam search later, and I'm now reassured that Zizek's still a cinephile, and all's right with the world and so on and so on.
The way in which this logic, of poor people not being able to "afford to be nice", goes to the fullest extent is with the existence of criminals and gangs. Nevertheless rich people can afford to escape having to come into contact with that criminal sector and so criminals from poor backgrounds tend to affect mostly each other, their less violent neighbours and middle class people.
A great example of this is the concept of voluntary work. People who are poor can't work to help others for no pay, else they will starve to death, hence voluntary work and NGOs and the like are fundamentally bourgeois.
@@Hooga89 True but I wouldn't say "fundamentally". Only in the current social context. In contrast, I can imagine a world where voluntary work is the basis for collective prosperity.
@@Hooga89 It's not the only one. That's my point. Societies change, and we shouldn't limit out judgement of reality to the paradigms of specific periods. I strive to affect the direction of history for the better, and for that I have to imagine...
@@ittixen Yeah, and in an ideal world voluntary work to help the poor could be viewed as true altruism, but in a capitalist society it is simply the expression of class position. Voluntary work in capitalist society isn't designed to actually fix the source of the problem, it's simply to project that you are a better person than everyone around you, e.g it's about status and power.
AFAIK pretty much all the data ranging from proportion of income donated to charity, to how people behave when randomly allocated money in games of chance, to levels of racism (they know not to express these opinions publicly but in a clever recent experiment where the responses were pooled in such a way as the data was collectable but tests would not reveal their opinions to experimenters, along the lines "of these six opinions how many do you agree with?" high-income people with college degrees agreed more than low-income no degree with the statements along the lines of "the relative poverty of African Americans is due to genetic differences"), to people who drive expensive cars being three times more likely to leave a hit and run, pretty much shows a strong correlation between wealth levels and massive arseholery, if not outright sociopathy.
I was having a similar discussion just now, and I think your point makes some mechanical sense. To be rich you have to be comfortable with some degree of exploitation. Most people may not be as ideological as to call it exploitation, but there is a degree of distrust in the moral character of the rich (or idolatry, it really is split), or, maybe more important, a distrust of the mechanisms that get you rich, that there is something dishonest/imoral about them (and well, there is). So to achieve wealth you are much more likely to be comfortable with that exploitation/dishonesty (or simply oblivious to it), or likely your rich family passed these values (and wealth) down to you. If you rejected these values you wouldn't be as rich or you wouldn't be rich for very long, as the market mechanisms empower ruthlessness, as these permit maximum competivity. So the ones that reject the dishonesty/exploitation are mechanically more likely to be poor. Additionally, wealth not only benefits assholery but breeds it. When you end up rich (or middle class, really), and yet you know poverty or see it regularly, if you have any consciousness you end up feeling the need to morally & ideologically justify your privilege. One simple and common way to do it is equating market hierarchy to meritocracy - if you're richer it means you are better, more competent, more worthy as a person. Poorer people have less dignity in this view, are less human. Dehumanising is a sure way to assholery. If you somehow don't have a consciousness, you're a sure asshole anyway. So not to enshrine the poor, there's plenty of assholes (and plenty of mechanical incentives for assholery in poverty). But I think they are more likely to perceive and horizontality, an equity in human dignity, than the rich, that need to reject that equity to justify their wealth (like the racism study you pointed. Although there's other factors to take into account - if you're richer you may not interact with other ethnicities as much, for example). As my inductions show, I'm trying to stay way from "human nature" appeals, and analyse the mechanisms that may influence the different spread in assholery in the demographics. That's enough ranting hahaha Cheers
@@wernerbeinhart2320 What do you mean, need to justify my own position? As in responding to a post that had a similar stance? To add to it, why not. It's an interesting topic to me, and I'm assuming to the poster as well, so it's fun to theorize. I'm not arguing, just extending on a topic
Know what else is not genuine? Clinging to the belief that if you control for economic outcomes you will solve the problem of inequality. Some people turn out more competent and more productive than others, it's nature.
Oatmeal Guy What does that have to do with anything lol? Did I remark anything regarding what you just wrote? Im just talking about the movie here Sir.
@@oggeboijkpg7157 guess he was making the argument of a hypothetical rich person? But yeah the wealthy family seemed like vacant husks cradled in a deluded naivety
@@theDudeAbid3s and the poor family were supposedly intellectuals? Bunch of tools. My god, Marxists are the most radical debatists and so on and so on.
@@abhishekkamboj2791 nah, imo they're grifters taking advantage of "new money" merchant class family. I actually thought the movie was very cynical regarding the idea of intellectualism or just higher education.
No video. They only had it in podcast format here soundcloud.com/malm-bibblans-radio/forfattarscenen-med-slavoj-zizek?in=malm-bibblans-radio/sets/foerfattarscenen-3
Slavoj starts speaking - My mind: "Sniffs" so on and so on, "sniffs" (quite seriously this time) then so on and this and so on, "sniffs" "sniffs" and some more "Sniffs" (exaggeratedly) and so on....
It's getting to be a bit cumbersome confronting these heavily liked comments featuring slightly varying iterations of attempted humor regarding Zizek's unusual speaking style or caricaturized contingencies entailed therein. Not at all against humor, it is undoubtedly central to the very spirit of Zizek's expression and conscious self-representation, not against attempts at humor, or specific commentators,.. Not ruling out my own failure at recognizing the humor in the comments in question.. *sniffles* maybe repetition is 'preshishely' the provocation..
or that they would be that way because of the treatment they've received etc. he's not saying it's right he's saying they arw this way because of what they've been through and rather than complaining they're not nice or whatever ye should want to fix the factors that make them this way
@salome khrikadze well I do not think anyone has the RIGHT to oppress anyone today regardless of how you interpret the past. I guess its not so much that I didn´t understand it but more that I disagree with the concept of righting the wrongs of the past at someones expence today.
That makes no sense though 😭 there are so many people stricken with poverty that choose to be kind and nice and not focus on exploiting others to get ahead. What the hell is he even talking about? Life is not a political thought experiment where you can speak in extremes in this way, there is nuance.
Omg Woman i get Language barriers but how long can you take to ask a question i had to rewind three times to even understand what she was asking it was like an experiment on how Slow and Long Winded you could phrase something until people forget the Start of your sentence
The movie doesn't make the mistake of making the poor characters goody two shoes, but it does make the mistake of making them hyper-resourceful genius manipulators --- no way a family like that was chilling in the basement this whole time, they'd either be rich, in jail, or dead by the time the story takes place.
I think what the director wanted to potray is that poor people are opportunistic because they need to take every opportunity possible to survive in this capitalistic age. It also shows that class isnt all that black and white. Rich families aren't all evil and poor people aren't always the nice guys.
It is mentioned that the father had a (pastry? Might be wrong) business that eventually failed I think due to overcompetitive or something. It is also mentioned that the daughter is super good at forging documents she could go to an art school, the son passed the state exam 4 times (which in South Korea is very impressive) but couldn't afford to go to college, and the mother who was a decently successful athlete. So I don't think nessarily you are wrong by your catagorization that the family isn't hyper reasourceful, because they have had plans that fall through, but that doesn't nessarily mean that they would immediately end up rich, in jail, or dead.
I always kinda thought their last plan failed because reasons, and they were chilling in the basement waiting for the next time to strike. You don't get a rich friend being that poor without going outside and doing your best, the son has tried, extensively. I think that's the point, they are hardworking and intelligent and yet they are still in the semi basement, because sometimes is not about intelligence or hard work. Their last plans have failed, their plans were not going well... and so they striked at this opportunity.
@@tanren5432 A lot: I was marxist in past, so I learned and read the vast majority of marxist philosophers. I stopped being a Marxist, but Zizek is the only marxist philosopher that I still like.
It chills me that he essentially says that its okay, and even righteous for the poor, women, and any others who feel oppressed to viciously lash out at those they feel have oppressed them. It feeds into the idea that "if you feel you are being treated unfairly, you should give up on being a good person and simply rely on baser survival instinct." And that those of us who are not oppressed should excuse the negative behaviors of those of us who are. He is essentially advocating a dog eat dog world that i'd hope most of us would like to escape from and/or rise above. At least morally.
I think he's saying that sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures - just asking nicely to not be excluded and exploited is usually not enough.
Unfortunately, the exploitation in "lower" jobs is too brutal, especially in developing countries, it destroys a possible High moral standard of any Young Person... you need to be a Jesus, a martyr mentality, if you want to mantain a high moral Standard, when life is pushing moral nihilism in your throat, with repetitive suffering and humiliation, again and again and again...
There is no "natural law" that says people have the right to be brutal. In the prisoners dilemma, I would choose not to snitch as a kantian categorical imperative.
People like to demonize the powerful and “angelicize” the weak, because the reality of a genuinely good rich person in contrast to a genuinely awful poor person is just too harsh. We don’t like to think that those who have more than us can also be good, because if that were true, we’d be truly fucked.
Zizek just making it up as he goes along, as he always does. Does resisting a romantic view of the precariat really mean you have to endorse brutality and manipulation as legitimate strategies because people are oppressed by the system of capitalism? That is what he implies here and it is hard to see much in that that is constructive in his discourse toward the creation of a more just world, as it implies in turn that change can only be a negative cycle of exchanges of oppressor by oppressor. Every age gets the thinkers they deserve? We have Zizek....
jon780249 I’m pretty sure he just says that it’s good not to romanticise the “ the poor” as intrinsically noble. A modern thinker has a notion of levels of oppression like no other. it’s difficult to know about how oppression occurs, interchangeably, at every stage on several civilisations birth and demises, and still think justice will come from an inner nobility paradigm. It’s better to be practical and go for a balanced solution.
I hope that was him misspeaking because that’s some toxic shit. This also strike me as the psycho ID pol shit he goes off on. I also think he may have misspoke because I don’t think he would have agreed that that poor people have the right to hurt other poor people in order to survive.
RSB he doesn’t talk about anyone having any sort of “Right.” He just asserts that women manipulate as a response to oppression, and that poor people do bad things for the same reason; he does not assert that this is moral. Zizek does not believe that life / human nature is particularly moral at all, lol.
His last point is nonsense. Zizek is perpetuating reactionary ideas such as that identity politics should be tolerated. Groups who are socially/politically marginalized from a societal perspective still don't have the right to oppress people who belong to groups who aren't socially/politically marginalized from a societal perspective. That's just fucked up and perpetuates bourgeois discrimination.
Do you think it’s possible that he misspoke and meant something somewhat different? Maybe he used the word “right” by mistake. Maybe he meant for women under oppression it makes sense for them to deliver their complaints about misogyny in anger or unkind ways because anger is a natural consequence of their condition. OR that because of the the constraints faced by women in a misogynistic system it makes sense that many would often turn to furthering that system by oppressing other women or more vulnerable people in a bid to survive or to keep from falling further down from their place in the hierarchy. Maybe he meant that women aren’t perfect or even necessarily good people just because they are oppressed. Otherwise the analogy doesn’t really seem that strong.
@Artisan What does liberty in private property mean though? In order for any private property to exist at all you need a state to set the rules of the game and to define what the property rights are and then enforce those property rights. How we define property rights depends on what those who run the state are trying to accomplish. The definition of property rights can be used as a system of oppression against you by the people who get to decide what the property rights are. It can be used and has been used to rob you of ownership over the very genetic material that makes up your body.
He didn't say one group has a right to oppress others. He said it's natural for oppressed people to respond brutally, so shouldn't idolize them. His point is that what do you expect from people who have been oppressed? You expect them to be nice to their oppressors?
@@LeonWagg He is generalizing, thereby implying that all women are oppressed and all men are not oppressed and that women can therefore oppress men. No. They can't. Conversely, if there are women who oppress men, it follows that men from that moment on can oppress women. No. That's not how any of this works. Of course I will be expecting people who are oppressed not to oppress others. Acting brutally against their actual oppressors (i.e. the bourgeoisie who derive their power from the division of the proletariat and thrive of sexism, racism, religion, etc.) is what should be expected and accepted. Women oppressing men shouldn't be expected or accepted. Women rising up against capitalism is good and liberating. Women oppressing men is bad and bourgeois crap. If a man complains to Zizek about women oppressing him, the answer should be "Yes, that's terrible. Those women should fight capitalism and you should join them."
Are you ok, bro? When did he say, ”women can oppress men”? He was talking in the case of patriarchy that women have a right to resist men domination. He didn't say women should oppress men. It's just an example that he gave regarding a feminist world view of patriarchal society.
I don’t think Parasite was a good film. It’s depiction of class struggles wasn’t good to me. Atlantics, while having a different focus, did a much better job.
If your point is „X having ,stuff‘ does not necessarily exclude Y from having ,stuff‘ too“; then yes, of course. On the other hand: Being rich does not just mean „having stuff“. It also contains the notion of „Having more than others“. And is in this sense that in order for some people to be rich, others have to be poor. If everybody would be „rich“, or at least not pressured by poverty, you wouldn’t find somebody to mow your lawn, or clean your house. There is a reason why shit like „housemaids“ are very common in my native country Paraguay and very rare in a more egalitarian society like Germany, where I currently live. Daughters of hacendados never become maids
@@johnsinclair4621 i live in poland and many of my homies go to germany to do jobs like "housemate " or pickibg up blueberrys etc. Im just saying that it is like he (slavoj) does not want to notice that in some cases peaople are (or could be) poore becouse of Their characteristics not other way around.
Mr19pogo95 I don’t think that you would find this notion anywhere in Zizek‘s texts or even in Marx‘s. I know that it is a common claim on the right, but marxists are not egalitarians in the way you think. You could read Marx‘s „Critique of the Gotha Program“ to understand their position better.
@@johnsinclair4621 "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual production processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary their social existence determines their consciousness" Well that quote represents Basic aksjom of marxs ideology. Zizek calls himself A marxist. My claim is that The aksjom is wrong
Mr19pogo95 Okay, no problem, you can of course do that, although I would say that you are wrong about that. But it is a different claim from the one you made earlier, don’t you think?
Nick Belloruso I think you are misunderstanding what he’s saying. He is the first one to go against extreme nonsensical feminism. He is just saying that we shouldn’t idealize these groups of people that we try to protect, he is pointing at the danger of political correctness. By saying that they have the right to be brutal he just means that its natural for them to fight back in some way, we must not depict them as angels because they are not, they have no choice but to be “brutal”. Please tell me if I’m wrong and you meant something else.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I listened to this on headphones and I felt his saliva in my ears and so on
hahahahah
ASMR
@@user-ph4vr3rj3l 올 한국사람
...and so on
sir you made me laugh for 10 minutes thank you
Teacher: Slavoj, how much is 1+1?
Slavoj: Two and so on
'two and so on and so on' would be more accurate
You know 1+1 is 2、2+2 is three and so on and so on
@@kolamoose8717 You know 1+1 is 2、2+2 is 4,4 + 4 is 8 ,8 + 8 is I dont know.you dont know?eeeerrrrrrr,I don't knwo,you dont know? eerrrrr and so on and so on
It's exactly that. The best thing about Parasite is how the film denies to idealize the workers. They are human beings under a wheel of opression; morality is subjective when you have to face choices to survive. Rich people can afford the time to make themselves "cool" and "nice".
If workers are morally superior, why the hell would you even try to eradicate poverty
@@sturmgewehr4471 I believe he's saying rich people have more moral luck, not that workers are morally superior.
Morality for the working poor is precisely not 'subjective' for the very reason you state. It is materially imposed, or outright impossible, which amount to the same. The (mythical) free subjectivity is the preserve of the wealthy as Zizek aptly points out.
@@sturmgewehr4471 who said that worker morally superior idiot?
Archie Fisher I understand my comment wasn’t contradicting Zizeks’ claim simply reiterating it
Interesting...and so on...
@Terminator X Please stop saying science when you actually mean psychology, medicine or biology
like totally, yah!
It indeed is an interesting filem
FILEMsh
Yeep. Paraseet.
Isn't it the same concept as Happy as Lazarro.
And so on
phlegm
Nice is a posture, goodness is a quality.
You'll find that "innate goodness" eroding pretty quickly when you're starving. There are no innate virtues in the face of cruelty and oppression,there is just survival. To say he was kind while he was suffering and died with a smile on his face is more pathetic to me than he who goes down swinging and screaming.
@@thefierce4324 I see violence has been normalized in you. I blame movies and TV. The man who swings and screams is common and extremely pathetic in the face of starvation, we recognize he who shares and co-operates under the direst pressure, not just because it's rare, but because it's so valuable.
Survival is a very low bar, germs survive.
In fact we know men in dire survival situations aren’t like the lord of the flies type, we are capable of being the most kind and sacrifice ourselves to others in the worst kinds of situations, because if you think about it that’s the best and only way to assure long term survival, to work together
@@thefierce4324 Meh. History is full of satories of people being good under the most hideous of pressures. Yes, even starving, even facing a painful and undignified death.
Love that... don't expect oppressed people to remain stoic and passively accept their position, rather expect they will become brutal to some degree as a means of asserting control and grasping for a bit of social/economic/political power -- its a sensible, human response to a gilded cage or iron chains.
That’s the problem, things fall apart when you don’t remain stoic honest and fair. And things fall much further apart if you’re dishonest and scheming, this is also something that the same movie shows, a movie which people applaud for all the wrong reasons. No matter how poor and downtrodden you are, the moment you start scheming, you start planning and when you start planning you have expectations. Things don’t go according to plan but you’re expectations never change and when reality hits, it hits fuckin hard. The problem was not that they were unfair, the problem was that they were disproportionately unfair.
@@vikramaditya8061 Imagine saying this to Harriet Tubman "scheming" to coordinate the underground railroad rather than remaining "stoic" and accepting the condition of slavery for herself and other black people. Why do we delegitimize revolutionary efforts as they occur? But, after the dust settles, we proclaim these resisters and dissenters as heroes?
@@alexey5481 why do you choose to compare capitalism to slavery? In a capitalist world you get paid for your labour and some companies give you actual perks. Slavery has no incentive, it is only obligation. Slavery has no growth, once a slave, always a slave. Capitalism incentivizes entrepreneurship, teaches you tricks of the trade and sets you up with an opportunity to build your own business, it incentivizes independence. So a class system in capitalism is ever-growing. I'm from an Indian family of 4 that's seen lows and highs. Before we (7 of us, my parents dad's bros and my grandparents used to live in quarter provided by the company my dad used to work in for a very low salary, today he's built his own house and lives in it. I'm proud to say he's an honest man, with no scheming intentions.
@@alexey5481 in case you're wondering it was
@@vikramaditya8061 I've seen the film, but I'm abstracting your value judgment and showing how useless and ridiculous it is in the face of oppressive forces. Capitalism being the oppressive force (and not the individual wealthy family) in the film... to tell people to roll over and accept their adversity is, to give an aesthetic judgment of such a sentiment, disgusting. I will never tell people to be complicit in their own exploitation, but rather use whatever ounce of power they have to overcome. Upward mobility in capitalism is a myth, a farce, and anyone born poor knows that.
Agreed, it was a great feeluhm.
Pwnation98 Hahahahaha
and so on
Hahaha his wife says and so on... And so on.. hahaha fs
that's zizek effect and so on and so on
And SO FORTH
so the "so on" is contagious
Alejandro Carrillo and so forth
my gott, pure ideology.
I still can see him sniffing every 2 seconds
I was there! He did! It was great!
"I support feminism for wimin but nonetheless I feel sometimes brutally manipulated by wimin" lol
same zizek same
@@fernfaba he's not the one saying it
A friend of mine told me they didn't like parasite because "it made [them] sympathize more with the rich than the poor, for example, the rich mom is really nice and cheerful and the poor mom is unnecessarily mean and dishonest and I just couldn't like her"
Well, that is one way of reading it.
Because it challenges the usual rhetoric of nice poor people and rich snobs. The film is a lot closer to reality, and your friends are afraid to admit.
@@olympusdevil3013 yeah I agree, most people tend to assume an essential moral judgement is being passed on a group whenever a member of such group is depicted doing immoral things, but truth is we are all a product of our system, and a system that rewards dishonesty and selfishness with easy access to food, shelter and entertainment will reasonably produce selfish and dishonest people.
@@streq9199 Yes. But don't get me wrong, the rich elites aren't immune from criticisms either. All humans of different social class are equally likely to be selfish and immoral in their own ways, if given the chance to act on it. The question is whether people will revert back to their basic instincts when the opportunity arrives.
@@olympusdevil3013 I think it's a level deeper than you're saying here. Rich people can be superficially kinder, more virtuous, etc BECAUSE they are rich. This is an affordance granted to the rich. Zizek would argue against moralizing class issues because really the working class is not some perfectly good, kind, moral group of people, and that's apparent, but that does not mean that they are not oppressed. We shouldn't need evidence of kindness, moral behavior, or other such things to believe that people deserve the right to exist outside of wage slavery and liberal oppression. When it comes to which group is kinder, composed of better people, more moral, the rich bourgeois class is always going to win.
From what I remember, the rich mom was extremely stupid and detestable. We might have watched different movies...
I wanted to hear his take on the film since I saw it. Thank you for uploading it.
For me, it was only just now that I realized I'd never heard Zizek's take about this film, which immediately struck me as an act of outrageous negligence on part of the universe. A quick TH-cam search later, and I'm now reassured that Zizek's still a cinephile, and all's right with the world and so on and so on.
that strong emphasis on the "S" and so on...
I agree with something that he said, disagree with others... and so on.
The way in which this logic, of poor people not being able to "afford to be nice", goes to the fullest extent is with the existence of criminals and gangs. Nevertheless rich people can afford to escape having to come into contact with that criminal sector and so criminals from poor backgrounds tend to affect mostly each other, their less violent neighbours and middle class people.
A great example of this is the concept of voluntary work. People who are poor can't work to help others for no pay, else they will starve to death, hence voluntary work and NGOs and the like are fundamentally bourgeois.
@@Hooga89 True but I wouldn't say "fundamentally". Only in the current social context. In contrast, I can imagine a world where voluntary work is the basis for collective prosperity.
@@ittixen Well, the current social context is the only context that matters. We don't live in your ideal world.
@@Hooga89 It's not the only one. That's my point. Societies change, and we shouldn't limit out judgement of reality to the paradigms of specific periods. I strive to affect the direction of history for the better, and for that I have to imagine...
@@ittixen Yeah, and in an ideal world voluntary work to help the poor could be viewed as true altruism, but in a capitalist society it is simply the expression of class position. Voluntary work in capitalist society isn't designed to actually fix the source of the problem, it's simply to project that you are a better person than everyone around you, e.g it's about status and power.
The converse is also true about the rich! You get to see how naive and helpless and shockingly stupid they can be
I am just wondering ..in this pandemic how he is controlling his hand , he should not touch his face often
it's not real. he's said it before. ..just a state exercise for more control ; and at leastfor the US an excuse to bailout GE and lacking industries.
@@robroux6074 pure ideology innit
You know what I hate Indians
Gurjot Same. India is the most disgusting country.
he had to cut it off
Was wondering why tf this started with an ad about pickup artistry, and then I listened to the last part of the video lol
Definetly one of the best movies ever made
@Artisan lol
@Artisan lol
W E E M E E N
more like wimyn
AFAIK pretty much all the data ranging from proportion of income donated to charity, to how people behave when randomly allocated money in games of chance, to levels of racism (they know not to express these opinions publicly but in a clever recent experiment where the responses were pooled in such a way as the data was collectable but tests would not reveal their opinions to experimenters, along the lines "of these six opinions how many do you agree with?" high-income people with college degrees agreed more than low-income no degree with the statements along the lines of "the relative poverty of African Americans is due to genetic differences"), to people who drive expensive cars being three times more likely to leave a hit and run, pretty much shows a strong correlation between wealth levels and massive arseholery, if not outright sociopathy.
I was having a similar discussion just now, and I think your point makes some mechanical sense.
To be rich you have to be comfortable with some degree of exploitation. Most people may not be as ideological as to call it exploitation, but there is a degree of distrust in the moral character of the rich (or idolatry, it really is split), or, maybe more important, a distrust of the mechanisms that get you rich, that there is something dishonest/imoral about them (and well, there is).
So to achieve wealth you are much more likely to be comfortable with that exploitation/dishonesty (or simply oblivious to it), or likely your rich family passed these values (and wealth) down to you. If you rejected these values you wouldn't be as rich or you wouldn't be rich for very long, as the market mechanisms empower ruthlessness, as these permit maximum competivity. So the ones that reject the dishonesty/exploitation are mechanically more likely to be poor.
Additionally, wealth not only benefits assholery but breeds it. When you end up rich (or middle class, really), and yet you know poverty or see it regularly, if you have any consciousness you end up feeling the need to morally & ideologically justify your privilege. One simple and common way to do it is equating market hierarchy to meritocracy - if you're richer it means you are better, more competent, more worthy as a person. Poorer people have less dignity in this view, are less human. Dehumanising is a sure way to assholery. If you somehow don't have a consciousness, you're a sure asshole anyway.
So not to enshrine the poor, there's plenty of assholes (and plenty of mechanical incentives for assholery in poverty). But I think they are more likely to perceive and horizontality, an equity in human dignity, than the rich, that need to reject that equity to justify their wealth (like the racism study you pointed. Although there's other factors to take into account - if you're richer you may not interact with other ethnicities as much, for example).
As my inductions show, I'm trying to stay way from "human nature" appeals, and analyse the mechanisms that may influence the different spread in assholery in the demographics.
That's enough ranting hahaha
Cheers
@@Kidox110 Very informative rant
@@Kidox110 Why would you necessarily need to justify your own position?
@@wernerbeinhart2320 What do you mean, need to justify my own position? As in responding to a post that had a similar stance? To add to it, why not. It's an interesting topic to me, and I'm assuming to the poster as well, so it's fun to theorize. I'm not arguing, just extending on a topic
My nose itches just by listening... to him
Not working is superior to working
@Artisan you have the superior way of thinking it seems
Excellent point. I have thought and said this for a long time but didn't have the courage to articulate it.
Thanks for uploading this. Will there be a full video version of this talk?
Mark 0 link is in the description
My god and so on!
"Filem"
That's how it's pronounced in Malay lol.
For the german-speaking audience i highly recommend the analysis about "Parasite" from the channel "Schattenmacher".
And so on.
Pog Champ and so on.
I also love that filemm
What is the title of the full version for this video?
The rich in parasite may be nice, but not genuine. The lack of soul is disturbing to me in the movie (regarding the rich family).
Know what else is not genuine? Clinging to the belief that if you control for economic outcomes you will solve the problem of inequality. Some people turn out more competent and more productive than others, it's nature.
Oatmeal Guy What does that have to do with anything lol? Did I remark anything regarding what you just wrote? Im just talking about the movie here Sir.
@@oggeboijkpg7157 guess he was making the argument of a hypothetical rich person?
But yeah the wealthy family seemed like vacant husks cradled in a deluded naivety
@@theDudeAbid3s and the poor family were supposedly intellectuals? Bunch of tools. My god, Marxists are the most radical debatists and so on and so on.
@@abhishekkamboj2791 nah, imo they're grifters taking advantage of "new money" merchant class family.
I actually thought the movie was very cynical regarding the idea of intellectualism or just higher education.
i like every comment that includes _and so on_ and so on.
"Only the children of the fucking wealthy tend to be good-looking" The Stranglers, 1978.
Very interesting and so on 👍🏻
Brilliant!
I tako dalje
where is full video ?
No video. They only had it in podcast format here soundcloud.com/malm-bibblans-radio/forfattarscenen-med-slavoj-zizek?in=malm-bibblans-radio/sets/foerfattarscenen-3
Slavoj starts speaking -
My mind: "Sniffs" so on and so on, "sniffs" (quite seriously this time) then so on and this and so on, "sniffs" "sniffs" and some more "Sniffs" (exaggeratedly) and so on....
Wish someone sugest him "Ciudad de Dios". This fabelas brazilian film
Bong really showed
부자들은 나쁜 사람들이고 빈자들은 착한 사람들이라고 규정하는 것은 결국 한낱 차별에 지나지 않음
현실은 오히려 그 반대의 가정이 더 많지않나?😂
sowon
This is like listening Sylvester the Cat on a tape recorder 😃
bahar dan Sylvester the philosopher cat making it up as he goes along
2:28
50 cent over here
lmao
the rich are not that naive and the poor are not that cunning，this film comes from the gaze of the（absent from the film）middle
it doesnt come from the "middle" but from an external point of view
@@extraemontamontes3618 "(albeit absent from the film)"
Your response
And so on X45
oh my gott
It's getting to be a bit cumbersome confronting these heavily liked comments featuring slightly varying iterations of attempted humor regarding Zizek's unusual speaking style or caricaturized contingencies entailed therein. Not at all against humor, it is undoubtedly central to the very spirit of Zizek's expression and conscious self-representation, not against attempts at humor, or specific commentators,..
Not ruling out my own failure at recognizing the humor in the comments in question..
*sniffles* maybe repetition is 'preshishely' the provocation..
Emmm can someone explain that last point he made .
whats the problem you're having?
@@phoenixwright7802 why is it ok to be brutally manipulated by women
He means Natural Right. Like it's only natural that one would be brutal to survive.
or that they would be that way because of the treatment they've received etc. he's not saying it's right he's saying they arw this way because of what they've been through and rather than complaining they're not nice or whatever ye should want to fix the factors that make them this way
@salome khrikadze well I do not think anyone has the RIGHT to oppress anyone today regardless of how you interpret the past. I guess its not so much that I didn´t understand it but more that I disagree with the concept of righting the wrongs of the past at someones expence today.
An excellent fil-um
That makes no sense though 😭 there are so many people stricken with poverty that choose to be kind and nice and not focus on exploiting others to get ahead. What the hell is he even talking about? Life is not a political thought experiment where you can speak in extremes in this way, there is nuance.
He sounds like Nando
I got spat on through the phone...
flim
Omg Woman i get Language barriers but how long can you take to ask a question i had to rewind three times to even understand what she was asking it was like an experiment on how Slow and Long Winded you could phrase something until people forget the Start of your sentence
Sure, the movie might not be perfect, but calling the director "bong" and a "joon-hoe" -- whatever that means -- seems a bit much.
The movie doesn't make the mistake of making the poor characters goody two shoes, but it does make the mistake of making them hyper-resourceful genius manipulators --- no way a family like that was chilling in the basement this whole time, they'd either be rich, in jail, or dead by the time the story takes place.
I think what the director wanted to potray is that poor people are opportunistic because they need to take every opportunity possible to survive in this capitalistic age. It also shows that class isnt all that black and white. Rich families aren't all evil and poor people aren't always the nice guys.
It is mentioned that the father had a (pastry? Might be wrong) business that eventually failed I think due to overcompetitive or something. It is also mentioned that the daughter is super good at forging documents she could go to an art school, the son passed the state exam 4 times (which in South Korea is very impressive) but couldn't afford to go to college, and the mother who was a decently successful athlete. So I don't think nessarily you are wrong by your catagorization that the family isn't hyper reasourceful, because they have had plans that fall through, but that doesn't nessarily mean that they would immediately end up rich, in jail, or dead.
I always kinda thought their last plan failed because reasons, and they were chilling in the basement waiting for the next time to strike. You don't get a rich friend being that poor without going outside and doing your best, the son has tried, extensively. I think that's the point, they are hardworking and intelligent and yet they are still in the semi basement, because sometimes is not about intelligence or hard work. Their last plans have failed, their plans were not going well... and so they striked at this opportunity.
Could someone please tell me what's wrong with his pronunciation? It's hard to listen.
KrutoiPersonazh just a lisp
it seems that people mostly play video with Zizek because they want to make fun fffufn fun hahaha. ha. ha. ha. 🤷♀️
I think he spits a lot of while speaking...... Sylvester the cat
Zizek: the only marxist philosopher that I like and respect.
hes more hegelian
How many marxist philosopers do you know?
@@MultiFilip12 even marx is more hegelian than traditional marxist.
@@MultiFilip12 I mean, most Marxists are Hegelian anyway.
@@tanren5432 A lot: I was marxist in past, so I learned and read the vast majority of marxist philosophers. I stopped being a Marxist, but Zizek is the only marxist philosopher that I still like.
beyond good and evil
It chills me that he essentially says that its okay, and even righteous for the poor, women, and any others who feel oppressed to viciously lash out at those they feel have oppressed them. It feeds into the idea that "if you feel you are being treated unfairly, you should give up on being a good person and simply rely on baser survival instinct." And that those of us who are not oppressed should excuse the negative behaviors of those of us who are. He is essentially advocating a dog eat dog world that i'd hope most of us would like to escape from and/or rise above. At least morally.
I think he's saying that sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures - just asking nicely to not be excluded and exploited is usually not enough.
Unfortunately, the exploitation in "lower" jobs is too brutal, especially in developing countries, it destroys a possible High moral standard of any Young Person... you need to be a Jesus, a martyr mentality, if you want to mantain a high moral Standard, when life is pushing moral nihilism in your throat, with repetitive suffering and humiliation, again and again and again...
I'm talking about all kind of opressions, because of course the poorer the harder, in all aspects of life
There is no "natural law" that says people have the right to be brutal. In the prisoners dilemma, I would choose not to snitch as a kantian categorical imperative.
People like to demonize the powerful and “angelicize” the weak, because the reality of a genuinely good rich person in contrast to a genuinely awful poor person is just too harsh. We don’t like to think that those who have more than us can also be good, because if that were true, we’d be truly fucked.
Fi-lum
"I didn't understand the movie and so on..."
but he did lol
Zizek just making it up as he goes along, as he always does. Does resisting a romantic view of the precariat really mean you have to endorse brutality and manipulation as legitimate strategies because people are oppressed by the system of capitalism? That is what he implies here and it is hard to see much in that that is constructive in his discourse toward the creation of a more just world, as it implies in turn that change can only be a negative cycle of exchanges of oppressor by oppressor. Every age gets the thinkers they deserve? We have Zizek....
jon780249 I’m pretty sure he just says that it’s good not to romanticise the “ the poor” as intrinsically noble. A modern thinker has a notion of levels of oppression like no other. it’s difficult to know about how oppression occurs, interchangeably, at every stage on several civilisations birth and demises, and still think justice will come from an inner nobility paradigm. It’s better to be practical and go for a balanced solution.
Succulent succotash!
Parasite is a brutal critique to the poor
Women have the right to manipulate? lol
I hope that was him misspeaking because that’s some toxic shit. This also strike me as the psycho ID pol shit he goes off on. I also think he may have misspoke because I don’t think he would have agreed that that poor people have the right to hurt other poor people in order to survive.
I think he means that it doesn't delegitimize the movement itself.
he's not encouraging it, he's just saying it's a natural response to patriarchy
yes i said the word
RSB he doesn’t talk about anyone having any sort of “Right.” He just asserts that women manipulate as a response to oppression, and that poor people do bad things for the same reason; he does not assert that this is moral. Zizek does not believe that life / human nature is particularly moral at all, lol.
He doesn’t mention the “right” to manipulate. Read other comment :)
His last point is nonsense. Zizek is perpetuating reactionary ideas such as that identity politics should be tolerated. Groups who are socially/politically marginalized from a societal perspective still don't have the right to oppress people who belong to groups who aren't socially/politically marginalized from a societal perspective. That's just fucked up and perpetuates bourgeois discrimination.
Do you think it’s possible that he misspoke and meant something somewhat different? Maybe he used the word “right” by mistake. Maybe he meant for women under oppression it makes sense for them to deliver their complaints about misogyny in anger or unkind ways because anger is a natural consequence of their condition. OR that because of the the constraints faced by women in a misogynistic system it makes sense that many would often turn to furthering that system by oppressing other women or more vulnerable people in a bid to survive or to keep from falling further down from their place in the hierarchy. Maybe he meant that women aren’t perfect or even necessarily good people just because they are oppressed. Otherwise the analogy doesn’t really seem that strong.
@Artisan What does liberty in private property mean though? In order for any private property to exist at all you need a state to set the rules of the game and to define what the property rights are and then enforce those property rights. How we define property rights depends on what those who run the state are trying to accomplish. The definition of property rights can be used as a system of oppression against you by the people who get to decide what the property rights are. It can be used and has been used to rob you of ownership over the very genetic material that makes up your body.
He didn't say one group has a right to oppress others. He said it's natural for oppressed people to respond brutally, so shouldn't idolize them. His point is that what do you expect from people who have been oppressed? You expect them to be nice to their oppressors?
@@LeonWagg He is generalizing, thereby implying that all women are oppressed and all men are not oppressed and that women can therefore oppress men. No. They can't. Conversely, if there are women who oppress men, it follows that men from that moment on can oppress women. No. That's not how any of this works.
Of course I will be expecting people who are oppressed not to oppress others. Acting brutally against their actual oppressors (i.e. the bourgeoisie who derive their power from the division of the proletariat and thrive of sexism, racism, religion, etc.) is what should be expected and accepted. Women oppressing men shouldn't be expected or accepted.
Women rising up against capitalism is good and liberating. Women oppressing men is bad and bourgeois crap.
If a man complains to Zizek about women oppressing him, the answer should be "Yes, that's terrible. Those women should fight capitalism and you should join them."
Are you ok, bro? When did he say, ”women can oppress men”? He was talking in the case of patriarchy that women have a right to resist men domination. He didn't say women should oppress men. It's just an example that he gave regarding a feminist world view of patriarchal society.
Not his best take I fear, as the film is quintessentially a liberal depiction of class issues.
how do you mean that? it's liberals that tend to idolize the poor while marxists emphasize how material reality impacts behavior
In what way does the films “liberal depiction” betray reality? I’m genuinely interested what your view is
You think it's liberal just because it won at the oscars, don't you?
Wasteland Courier Please explain.
@vikedude 123 cringe
This woman is the perfect example of what a terrible speaker sounds like. I lost focus the moment she opened her mouth.
Zizek please be a good communist
I cant listen to this man, I only hear saliva
Overrated
Parasite is extremely overrated
Small brain club
@@dancooper8121 He can have an opinion,you don't have to label him as "small brain".
Just saying.
@@valsan1323 You can as it's also an opinion
@@ibrahimyange1528 I can also say you can't,as it's also an opinion.
I don’t think Parasite was a good film. It’s depiction of class struggles wasn’t good to me. Atlantics, while having a different focus, did a much better job.
This guy still doesn't know how to speak English correctly yet.
He's got a better grasp of the English language than most native English speakers imho
He can speak like four languages. How many languages can you speak?
Poor are not poore just becouse rich are rich. Have anyone here heard of something like multiple Factors that influence economic status?
If your point is „X having ,stuff‘ does not necessarily exclude Y from having ,stuff‘ too“; then yes, of course.
On the other hand: Being rich does not just mean „having stuff“. It also contains the notion of „Having more than others“. And is in this sense that in order for some people to be rich, others have to be poor. If everybody would be „rich“, or at least not pressured by poverty, you wouldn’t find somebody to mow your lawn, or clean your house. There is a reason why shit like „housemaids“ are very common in my native country Paraguay and very rare in a more egalitarian society like Germany, where I currently live. Daughters of hacendados never become maids
@@johnsinclair4621 i live in poland and many of my homies go to germany to do jobs like "housemate " or pickibg up blueberrys etc.
Im just saying that it is like he (slavoj) does not want to notice that in some cases peaople are (or could be) poore becouse of Their characteristics not other way around.
Mr19pogo95 I don’t think that you would find this notion anywhere in Zizek‘s texts or even in Marx‘s. I know that it is a common claim on the right, but marxists are not egalitarians in the way you think. You could read Marx‘s „Critique of the Gotha Program“ to understand their position better.
@@johnsinclair4621 "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual production processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary their social existence determines their consciousness"
Well that quote represents Basic aksjom of marxs ideology. Zizek calls himself A marxist.
My claim is that The aksjom is wrong
Mr19pogo95 Okay, no problem, you can of course do that, although I would say that you are wrong about that. But it is a different claim from the one you made earlier, don’t you think?
The movie does say it, though goes for irony and the character says the opposite: "They are rich *because* they are nice".
I'm pretty sure the exact quote is: "They are nice because they are rich".
The interviewer really struggles with English, the whole interview was just unbearable.
Sturmgewehr 44 well he took the time and effort to learn your language maybe you could do the same if you are so frustrated.
Lucas Martín English is not my mother tongue, I wasn’t putting her down btw it was just frustrating to listen to
It's his wife lol
Petrikor god fucking damn, the most unintelligible couple in history lol
Lucas Martín I think her English is not that bad. She has an accent, but you can definitely understand her.
That voice is disgusting. Can he not get speech therapy
Women have the right to be brutal? Well, no one's oppressing them anymore, so I have to disagree with you on that and so on.
Feminist women have the right to be brutal? What a joke this man is
Nick Belloruso I think you are misunderstanding what he’s saying. He is the first one to go against extreme nonsensical feminism. He is just saying that we shouldn’t idealize these groups of people that we try to protect, he is pointing at the danger of political correctness. By saying that they have the right to be brutal he just means that its natural for them to fight back in some way, we must not depict them as angels because they are not, they have no choice but to be “brutal”. Please tell me if I’m wrong and you meant something else.
vikedude 123 That’s why I would like him/her to answer.