Is Slavoj Zizek Any Good in An Emergency
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 เม.ย. 2024
- Fabio Vighi joins tSublation Media as we prepare to publish his next book: Emergency Capitalism: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy this year. In this episode Fabio critiques Slavoj Zizek's Capitalist Realism.
Watch the Full Episode on Rumble
rumble.com/v4p50qo-blackrocks...
Support Sublation Media on Patreon
patreon.com - บันเทิง
maybe i am the crazy one but i don't think that zizek even makes himself "seem" like a radical leftist (which in this discussion seems analogous with being a real "communist"). if you are aware of what he was doing around 2008 and a little before along with alain badiou, with the "idea of communism" and "lenin reloaded" conferences and related writing, it is not some kind of mystery why he decided to start calling himself a communist, which as far as i am aware, he did not actually do before that time. this is the same reason why i see it as kind of silly to attack him based on his positions in 1980, or the fact that he studied heidegger once, or a public political debate from 1990 and say "look, this is who zizek *really is*." even now, he openly qualifies the label of "communist" all the time. that he's not using this word the way some people want him to does not mean he is deceiving anyone deliberately about how radical he is. the truth would have to be something zizek is trying to hide for that to be the case.
Just fyi “a leftist” is a made up term by right wing media. It bears no meaning.
Fabio is exactly right. Slavoj Žižek's politics is about conservation, and that's how you should read his use of the word conservatism. In Robert Kurz's terminology, it's a kind of catch-up modernizer reasoning.
Most of these critiques, Vighi's included, seem to come from a rather comfortable dogmatic position. I would like to ask these people: where is your Leninism, as in "specific analysis for a concrete historical situation"? Is it not quite evident that even in that presidential debate clip alone, privatization has already been creeping in? So against the background of people's growing grievance against the existing communist rule, instead of proposing a controlled privatization, Zizek is supposed to, what, stick to the broken gun that is planned economy? I did not hear anything of substance against Zizek from this man other than some convenient dogmatic accusations and some devious attack on his character. Like 22:42, look pal, it was a television debate, maybe cut him some slack for appealing to the audience's nationalist sentiment. And yes Doug, your response to his BS was perfect. People like this guy fit perfectly the image of a stereotypical "radical leftist" intellectual who enjoys their marginalized position in academia, believes in some mystical virtue of poverty and scolds the poor for daring to become rich instead of rising up immediately. I would say more about how Zizek was already getting censored in mainstream media for his "pro-capitalism" position but I am too exhausted from disappointment and disgust at this guy.
Vighi’s main argument seems to boil down to a fight over a master signifier “radical leftist” or “communist”, which is indicative of the leftist tendency to always bicker over who’s “more leftist than thou”. I think Žižek was simply tapped into capitalist realism early on and, therefore, knew that there was no chance of revolution in the near future. Žižek would, thus, opt for a kind of social democratic incrementalism (make small changes until they result in a big one). However, if small changes are the only leftist changes available to us in capitalist realism, then aren’t they the most materially leftist options to pursue? Just a thought. Anyway, I’m somewhat sympathetic towards certain critiques that have been made of Žižek’s recent political views while still maintaining that Žižek’s heart beats for a postcapitalist, emancipatory future. The position of enunciation from which Vighi speaks seems to be one more motivated by personal dynamics than by actual theoretical disagreement, that is, this has Gabriel Rockhill vibes to me, which is a real bummer owing to the fact that Vighi has done some great work on Žižek’s thinking throughout the years.
Hi Doug, is there any opportunity in the future to look at Zizek’s position as a Marxist on the ‘proletariat subject’, as in he doesn’t think there is one. As he says in somewhat opposition to Badiou who thinks migrants are.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks
i think a lot of what seems "anti-radical" in Zizek is mostly pragmatism about "realistic" solutions, i.e. a judgement about the instrumental means rather than about the ultimate goal
Truly a good clickbait
If you go to a full Video you will see(maybe) an agreement both of them.
Do wish there was an alternative to Rumble. Wish you guys the best there though!
His popularity is soaring among a new, younger generation, who now parody him as a hero. In turn, he's instilling in them the belief that disrupting the system is essential for its survival, a natural course of their lives. Despite being celebrated as a radical by this generation, he now identifies as Hegelian more than a Marxist. He distances himself from the radical labels, suggesting they are intended to portray him as clownish rather than reverent.
19:00
This accusation that not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water is somehow selfish demonstrates an extreme lack of foresight for the Zizek critic.
One has to consider the societal level of harm that could be incurred by a revolutionary change into a system that hasnt been tried.
As it stands, most workers in capitalist systems can expect to die at an old age peacefully. Collapse the infrastructure and systems, and you may have the freedom to die of cholera at the ripe age of 25.
My god this video only gets worse.
Privatization of some aspects of the economy (when recovering from Soviet communism) is not the embracing of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is special in that it calls not just for privitisation... but the complete de-regulation, and the elimination of state involvement absolutely in as many parts of the market as possible.
Unless Zizek starts speaking about how regulation ruins the market (notably different from criticizing a command economy) I wouldn't call him a neoliberal.
As it stands climate change and ecological collapse will bring the destruction of organised society...Yes radicals are needed more than ever
Zizek is the first to accept that philosophy is useless in emergencies (Zizek! 2005) th-cam.com/video/7FItgC3H9xw/w-d-xo.html
i think Vighi is almost alone in arguing how in the second half of covid there was a HUGE land grab by the middle class/upper middle class, and capitalist class in region after region in the 'center'. how this is a push into a (somewhat new) rentier economy (or new level of debt economy, one might say a new distribution of finance capital). and has done some great work but i think the problem here is still a matter of how to orient in relation to this development? Simply prop up this generalized anti-nato/anti-imperialist rhetoric? what does that actually do , in the concrete dialectic at play?
is posssible to post the rumble discussion?
Thank you Doug for the Vighi series.
Before independence, Slovenians dreamed that Slovenia would be another Switzerland. This turned out to be a lie, although for those who see through such propaganda slogans, it was obvious from the start. Žižek is a Slovene who was always ashamed of Slovenian "narrow-mindedness", he loved the West and capitalism. But until recently he rarely spoke Slovene, he wanted nothing to do with Slovenia... Except for his salary, of course. And now in his old age, he began to think about health care, pensions, etc. It is obvious that he has always behaved like a bit simple opportunist.
But this is not important from a philosophical point of view. From the point of view of reflecting on the world we live in, what matters is whether Žižek has concepts that explain or illuminate the world. Does Žižek understand the workings of economics, history, psychology, etc.? Or can we learn something from him? Does he say something new, more refined, or does he just repeat platitudes and warmongering? Does he stand for the idea of universality or just for his own particularity? Philosophy is more than posturing and writing books in which no conclusion is reached. Psychoanalysis is more than that. Lacan was well aware of this, which is why he closed his school. Whereas Žižek has recently severed his ties with Lacan. What is left? Not very much. Less than nothing.
Hi, for someone out of the loop - when did Žižek sever his ties with Lacan?
@@willabbott3706 th-cam.com/video/RFwqc6Dky1E/w-d-xo.html For Žižek Lacan was: not enough a philosopher - which is the opposite of Lacanian psychoanalysis (analytic discourse), which is not and does not want to be philosophy. Of course Žižek still uses his conceptual apparatus, but this seems to me to be a crucial departure.
The problem with this type of argument against Zizek , that unconsciously what Fabio is trying to look for is 'the core' across Zizek's line of argumentation but that is exactly where he totally ignores Zizek's idea of 'always being suspicious of the universal'. Now one can redeem him to be a postmodern, but once again he has been very assertive of being a part of a society that hold certain dogmas. A dogma of a women should not be raped and so on.......that is exactly where he is trying to formulate an intersubjective stance, a space that exist between subjectivity and objectivity which makes him truly Hegelian.
the intellectuals will rise as the buzzards circle
primero y ultiimo
Vighi’s critique is quite cheap and unconvincing just like his conspiracies about covid, but I think he would make Žizek proud. The fact that he is still so unnerving for musty leftists means that he is doing something right. Žižek is a pain in the ass because he always mentions both Congo and Stalinism. And he always rejected both “capitalism bad” and “they want Gulags” slogans. That doesn’t mean that he is somehow above today's Left and Right. He is simply to the left of them.
Zizek isn't unnerving, lol. He's just become a regular, boring Western chauvinist. Nothing interesting about him anymore at all.
As someone who found Zizek's cultural criticism and critique of movies very interesting and captivating I find this analysis of hos political positions convincing. As a scholar of migration and refugees Zizek's book about refugees showed a lack of reading and understanding of the literature in that field. Sometimes I think faoumous intellectuals need to be more humble and not have an opinion on every single situation.
Disappointing, Doug
Im glad this guy has pointed out Zizeks support of the destruction of Yugoslavia. I think he has his good points, but is ultimately a snake that always seems to side with imperialism.
Think the destruction is because of Serbian far right government trying to invade and destroy other ethnic groups mostly…
The simultaneity of zizek's popularity & the death of the left was/is not a coincidence.
Anyone who says we should give Ukraine nukes has lost the plot, probably irretrievably so. I think it's hard to hold on as you age and the sources of information are dynamically changing. We've seen Amy Goodman and other leading once-progressive voices be totally manipulated by the new media. Zizek is entertaining to listen to while walking through a crowded city but he is no longer to be taken seriously.
As a Russian person I confirm that mr. Vighi completely misunderstand "complexity of the situation" with Russia and Putin.
This anti-Zizek stance is damaging you. Given that you rose to YT fame largely by interpreted him, you now seem like a pupil trying to oppose the teacher to cover the (unconscious) realization that the tutor is more clever than the apprentice. Or that apprenticeship and mastership are incompatible. Or whatever else...