"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." ...is another good qoute to describe what Oscar and Slavoj are talking about. Normally attributed to Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara,.
Leon Trotsky was the kind of guy who would refuse to tip a waiter. Not because he thought the waiter was a jerk, but because he felt that a man's job should not depend on how generous a customer is, but that man's job should provide his every need, and tipping him would only blind him to his situation. Charity, Zizek argues,,is like tipping, but on a global scale: it solves the basic needs of a person in the short term, but it does not change the environment that forces him to depend on handouts. We too are distracted from this environment when we see crates of food being dropped from planes. . Zizek does not offer a solution to global inequality but he says one can only come if we face the world rather than hide behind the wall that charity builds around us that keeps us from seeing the environments that millions languish in.
Nathan Seper well he did offer a solution, it was vague and im guessing the references to leninist communism was a possible alternative. But he exclaims that there should be a radical social change in which the conditions that allow for the poor to exist never occur.
Manveer Singh That part of the comment was written because I noticed a lot of people hated the video because Zizek wasn't offering a solution to global inequality. I felt that they missed the point of the video, which was that our system of charity has done little to prevent global inequality, and that a solution will only come if we think about society rather than send donations.
Nathan Seper i would just like to say that reading yt comments is one of my most idiotic habits, but reading yours has given me a little hope in humanity. well not humanity, but you being a nice human
Nathan Seper, He offers a solution in other videos here on TH-cam and I assume later in this talk. RSA animates only illustrate about 12 minutes of any given hour-long lecture.
I love you, RSA Animate. I like that Zizek tries to compress his long-ass books into sound bytes for other's benefit. He's an intellectual who actually tries to talk to the public by referencing popular culture and everyday life. Good way to reach people. We need for intellectuals to communicate complicated ideas like that these days.
I love how some people are taking this to believe that this is an argument against left wing social programs and pro unadulterated capitalism. His argument is more that social programs are the crumbs that capitalist societies will throw to the underclass so that they won't rise up and slaughter their oppressors in their beds. He's arguing in favor of a complete overthrow of the capitalist society, and the fastest way to reach that goal is to remove the social programs that keep the poor placated.
+retromancer It's not that simple. Zizek's ideals concern the massive, metaphysical structure of capitalism that exists in almost everything, even an extremely small act of charity. Ending social programs is a quick fix, and in itself, is a capitalist masquerade.
+retromancer what's the beauty of Zizeks abstract ideas.. they disguise themselves as something else and in turn fool all kinds of ppl into believing them for whatever means..
+retromancer He's not advocating accelerationism. He's saying that rather than focusing on charity and government programs, we should focus on transforming society to get to the root of the problem.
interesting. I actually think he's arguing in favor of capitalism but with a simple, yet healthy social safety net. Capitalism works but only if people in a society aren't starving, or in want of clothing. True poverty deprives people of dignity and has long-lasting effects on individuals and the children of said individuals. This is a very unique socialist thinker because he doesn't shy away from the benefits of capitalism in raising a country or society to a level that puts them on a playing field with the rest of the world. I suspect he's a conservative and he doesn't know it yet.
Tucker Weinmann no marxist will argue against the fact what capitalism is needed to build necessary industry and Infrastructure.. In their ideology it's just seen as one of the many stages of humanity's evolution, and not the last stop. They will argue what your vision of non-poverty in capitalism is a fantasy as witnessed even in most advanced capitalist states, poverty and huge gaps seem to be proportionaly rising with the economic growth, no matter what.. so question where do you go from where to solve the poverty, if the growth of economy does not solve anything in the long run..
Charity in itself is hypocrisy. We all buy-off our sense of guilt by not offering structural help but telling ourselves we do good by giving a small bit of our welfare to the less-lucky.
Tom te Riele I think you may be projecting, my friend. Or simply unaware of recent work in the biological sciences that hints at deep evolutionary mechanisms at work as regards empathy and charity.
+EyeLean5280 Yeah, I definitely think there is a lot of projection. I give to charity because I care and because I can. I didn't feel any guilt at any time. I don't know where Tom's head is at (actually I have a clue).
Devon Fritz I believe that some people are born emotionally blunted, can't empathize with those in need, and feel resentful of suggestions they should help in any way. Much like those with personality disorders, they don't realize they have a disability that clouds their judgment and decisions. They instead disparage those who are more pro-social. Classic example of negativity against that which isn't understood.
He is not making one hard statement or another but illustrating the unintended shortcomings and blissful ignorance baked into the system of global finance and production as it currently exists.
I am watching all of the RSA Animates again as I am redrawing some elements for a large artwork that explores the history of the RSA. I always liked this Zizek one.
"You know very well, there is a certain type of misanthropy which is much better as a social attitude than this cheap charitable optimism ... and so on..." Zizek Thats what I aspire to: useful misanthropy. I just didnt have Zizeks intelligence to verbalise it! I see so much "facebook charity" nowadays. Any tragedy or human suffering can now be integrated and used as a potential career move or profit drive or social status advancement campaign. The consumerist capitalist template has now soaked through to our bones. Edward Bearnays would be delighted. We are now as facile, shallow, childish, impulsive and easily swayed as he dreamed we would be. Everything and everyone is reduced to a resource and potential profit. No wonder they took "narcissism" out of the DSM as a category of mental illness, in a fundamentally narcisstic society it is "sane" and normal to be a narcissist, and diseased to not be one. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength... and now? Neurosis is sanity. Orwell's awful nightmarish vision did not go far enough. They dont need to employ men in jackboots rounding us up in the middle of the night. We do it all for them. Good. I await the zombie apocalypse with glee.
Jason Nung Yeah, I cant believe people buy into that in the first place. It's an insult to human intelligence. But I don't believe misanthropy is the correct way of dealing with things. I think the best way is to objectively look at all the problems we have and just do our best to solve them. This can be done from a altruistic standpoint..
Well, I run a blog called misanthropicanthropologist. it's at wordpress. Check it out, you just might like it. Misanthropy can be healthy. Instead of a knee-jerk impulse towards "compassion", which is very often just a perpetuation of the established rules of society, some introspection would be better. Why do we do this, and so on. (I've watched enough Zizekthat I've adopted some ofhis language. :) )
Jason Nung While a like does nothing, I really think its important that such post exist. Think about what is really being accomplished via social media. People are becoming aware of situations that normally they wouldn't know about or care about. A shotgun approach to 'charity', many people will just like and do nothing, but 1 person may decide to commit and do more.
I don't think this changes anything (the superficial charity). Those that are conscious of global problems are still inspiring others and doing their work, while those that haven't done anything now just get to look like they are doing something. It's a problem but I don't think it ends up in the conclusion the way you are explaining it.
Rich people give to charities for three reasons: It's tax deductible, reducing the amount of taxes they pay, it salves their guilty consciences for all the harm they do gathering wealth and they know that if the people are too hungry for too long they will be beating their ploughshares into swords and storming the castle. A basic income is certainly far better than our current system of welfare and so on, but it is still bound to the money system. The only way forward towards a true civilization is a resource based economy. Never heard of it? learn more at www.thevenusproject.com Peace.
+NoExitLoveNow Yes, they are human. I said "it salves their guilty consciences for all the harm they do". Some are honest and sincere, but there are psychopaths and many of them are CEOs at mega corporations. They don't care about the harm they do, indeed, many get some kind of sick pleasure from their actions. When they donate to charities it is for the reasons I stated.
Yes, but this video is making the point that it is hypocritical to be wealthy and believe oneself right, because e.g. paying fair wages - and believing they are good, is saying the have the right to have the power to decide things like that, and not admitting the OBVIOUS, UNDENIABLE truth, that they are no more entitled to control or resources than those people, and it is just utterly wrong to privatise power when everyone should equally be able to determine society and their own lives. It's like the kind slavers thing he said, just them being kind means they think it is okay to be a slaver, but no one should have the right to GIVE someone freedom as a priviledge, because people are supposed to belong to themselves.
8 ปีที่แล้ว
Philanthropy and charity are good PR. People are suckers for the one who gives.
Yes, I do wish it. America has fallen from its pedestal and landed hard on its ass. In addition electronis and robotics have advanced to the point where human labor is too slow, too inefficient and expensive. What will happen to all those people who don't have the skills this new century require? Should we let them starve? If you look around you, there are too many homeless already. The trouble is hungry people don't just crawl off to a corner to die; they get angry and enough angry people can quickly become a riot and riot can quickly become a bloody revolution. Is that what you want? There are some who do.
Thanks for posting. I had never heard of Slavoj Zizek but now I want more! My brain hurts from attempting to wrap my brain around the barrage of ideas he so cogently illustrates. Why are there no American philosophers with his point of view--maybe because we're strapped so tight into capitalism that no one can imagine breaking free from it's strangling bonds. BTW, you have a great website and are doing a great service to open the eyes of the sleeping American people. I also voted for you.
I think this --and all the RSA Animate videos I've seen so far-- are very excellent and the subject matter very thought provoking. The animation is not only entertaining; it illustrates the subject matter in a way that makes it easier to follow and understand. And the concepts they try to communicate are essential to the welbeing of the human family and the planet itself. They are a great contribution and I sincerely hope they bear fruit. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! --Stewart Vriesinga
Slavoj Žižek is a very interesting and unique thinker because he doesn't discount the good and glorious prospects and real results of capitalism, but doesn't shy away from places where it could be improved upon. He's the first thinker I've seen whose tinkering with the open market might actually make sense. I first saw his video from The Big Think about political correctness, but this is just as (if not more so) interesting.
He makes a very interesting leftist attack on charity: charity isn't bad per se, but you are not solving the hideous inequalities created by capitalism. We don't have systemic change, because we are excited when a billionaire engages in some small acts of magnanimity.
pfff I think you do not deserve to have an opinion or a right to disagree as your opinion is false if you are one of those naive (but secretly not) liberals with a unique point of view.
I think this --and all the RSA Animate videos I've seen so far-- are very excellent and the subject matter very thought provoking. The animation is not only entertaining; it illustrates the subject matter in a way that makes it easier to follow and understand. And the concepts they try to communicate are essential to the welbeing of the human family and the planet itself.Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! --Stewart Vriesinga
I had never heard of Slavoj Zizek but now I want more! My brain hurts from attempting to wrap my brain around the barrage of ideas he so cogently illustrates. Why are there no American philosophers with his point of view--maybe because we're strapped so tight into capitalism that no one can imagine breaking free from it's strangling bonds. BTW, you have a great website and are doing a great service to open the eyes of the sleeping American people. I also voted for you.
It is not just that. It is more like, the fish is living in a very polluted pond, but doesn't realize it because of a few charitable people who clean it up a bit. The point is, the pond is polluted, but the pretentious generosity of the few distracts the fish.
I'll be honest, I'm a little bit excited for finding this link/channel through the comment section of a TED talk that was linked by a FB friend I've not spoken to in a looong while. Oh Interwebs, much appreciated! Btw: Fascinating video, I'll be taking my sweet time digesting the content :)
Ha - well spotted! We can't pick and choose which ads pop up, but we're a charity, and the occasional ad here and there helps us to create more RSA Animates to share with the world...
@Raulthomas30 Zizek is a philosopher first and foremost and the essential nature of philosophy is to ask more questions than it answers. It is a problem posing study not a problem solving one. It empowers us with a new perspective and its up to us to act on this new found knowledge.
You shouldnt buy "organic" food because it is "better" but because it isnt sprayed with a dozen dangerous chemicals to guarantee perfect fruits at the cost of nature and water quality. And your health.
Aaaaaaand this is exactly why every country should stop dumping tens of billions of charity money into Africa every year. But we've been doing it for what, 60 years by now? Maybe it'll start working one day?
we shouldnt stop "helping" but we should stop exploiting them stealing their resources. If we didnt steal they wouldnt have the need for charity. Charity is just an ethical cover of crimes against third world. Charity is nothing compared with the bad we ve done there.
Nick Mpagleouras That is bullshit, my country isn't getting SHIT from Africa, not now not ever. And I'm not buying some conspiracy theory of stealing from them.
I take it you're Finnish. Finland's donations to overseas development run at around $1.3 billion a year (OECD figures). That's not tens of billions. Trade with Africa is a lot more variable, but oscillates around the $1 billion mark, while direct investment in Africa is at around $80 million (Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs). BTW: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just setting you straight on the numbers.
The funny thing is , the only way we can completely help impoverished Africans without being hypocrites is to change/replace the ruined post-colonial government with less corrupt one. But there are ethical problems with this and it sort of evolves into a "neo-colonial" cause. Should Western liberal democracies invade troubled African governments (much like France in 2013 in Northern Mali) ? or should we just leave them to their own devices...
The first step is to provide thoughtful critique , and that is what he is doing. Figure out where our actions are undermining our intentions and go on from there. We have to start somewhere and wherever we are going it is obvious that it must be a way of living that FORCES a more socially conscious mode of organization. Your attitude is one that stomps out all thought before it becomes developed enough to translate into meaningful action.
+Fernando Herrera Wait what? He's explicitly saying not to give out canned foods because it doesn't change the conditions which caused the poverty in the first place. The whole point of the book he quoted, Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism, is that: "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim." The answer isn't to hand out canned foods or implement basic income, it's to make it so such things are unnecessary.
h3lblad3 so a shift from the monetary system we have now? So long as we exchange goods and services with money I don't see a way around basic income to handle the problem of poverty.
Fernando Herrera You may be right, but step one would be the implementation of socialism. By putting people in control of their workplaces, we'd find that people don't export their jobs and leave themselves homeless, that people think really hard about whether or not to pour toxic waste into the water supply their kids drink from, and that people aren't going to overcompensate a CEO and leave themselves starving in the streets.
h3lblad3 I completely agree with that. He truth is beyond socialism, we don't have an answer. One thing is clear though. What we have now, isn't working. The framers and fathers of the U.S saw it and brought about change, why can't our generation do the same to better improve human life?
I think the issue revolves around the comforts and security that people maintain when generally conformed to the status quo of a social order. Zizek's critique is attempting to poke holes in that false sense of stability in the capitalist mindset. And whatever new social formations are possible for our generation are going to have to be organized and brought about by the collective itsef.
Couldn't identify a real proposed solution? Seems better to condition the majority to giving and therefore help allocate resources that would otherwise be spent on personal consumption or other status symbols (as charity can be). The Gates Foundation is a good counter-example; superrich individuals in history were more concerned with preserving their status and dynasty, and the poor didn't have the means nor will to effect change on that scale. It's not a perfect system, but I'd be more interested to hear
Ben Evans His point was more there is no solution currently but we will never find one if we keep propping up the illusion rather than address the reason charity even exists. Zizek is a philosopher and like most philosophers he doesn't give an answer rather he tries to ask the right questions.
On political and social issues, Zizek's main argument is that we create a variety of activities, both mental and behavioral, that absolves us of any responsibilities as contributing citizens. His basic piont by "capitalism with a human face" means creating measures that hide or obscure the deficiencies of the general system so we as citizens do not have to commit to recreating new institutional structures. It's an issue between choosing conformity or taking the risk of developing an alternative order of social organization.
I could not disagree more. In this world we have such incredible wealth So So So much wealth you could not imagine it. Millions of people live in luxury complete luxuries. We can Share and we don't need all 9 billion people to work. Some people can be uneducated and lazy and sit around and our world will continue to innovate and get better.
Yes we have an incredible wealth concentrated to the privileged few. Millions of people live in luxury while billions live in absolute proverty. Sharing does not solve the problems. Did you not understand what Zizek was saying? No our world will continue to get worse with growing inequality and the destruction of the environment. Even if it gets better is that an argument for captilaism? If yes, then that same arguemnt could be applied to State socialist societies that happened in the third world.
Yes, you can disagree all you want. But why would you argue against one of the greatest living minds? Unless you were an idiot. You clearly can't see the bigger picture.
Dan Holly, either you are the most optimistic person ever or the most naive. The top twenty five corporations pay no taxes at all at the expense of the middle class and working poor. In case you are unaware, 200 top corporations are fast-tracking a deal that would move all of our factory jobs to countries like Viet-Nam, at 28 cents an hour. Worse yet, American sovereignty is in jeopardy if this deal passes. In other words, we could not sew a company for killing one of our loved ones, due to undrinkable water or deadly materials used in manufacturing. An international secret court will hear these cases and of course they work for the muti-nationals--similar to our wonderful fisa courts but many times worse for working conditions in this country. I suggest watching Link TV, FSTV, or RT tv instead of our corporate owned propaganda stations. Fox, CBS, NBC all sputter nonsense. That is why we need Snowden and Wiki-leaks as we no longer have a free press--it just looks that way. Ed Shultz will soon lose his job for being brave enough to criticize Obama over the TPP. Google Trans Pacific Partnership. Oh, and the greedy billionaires who own more wealth than the bottom 60 percent of Americans are not going to share a dime of it
i'm sure he's said something useful but i don't care to listen because having to watch this for a school assignment has significantly decreased my attention.
I think there's a HUGE problem with how the world is working right now, that is impossible for the almost 4,000 people who have liked this video to solve. Doing things like sponsoring a kid in Africa to feed & educated him/her may just be alleviating the symptoms of this HUGE problem, but I believe that we still have a moral obligation to do good things that alleviate the symptoms. This world is never going to perfect. But with our time & money we can make bits of it better.
Charity exists as the only tool for individuals and corporations who must continue within the existing structure. Tough job to overhaul a national or a global structure of doing business, making products, making profits and so on. That said, it is never too late for a new generation to do things a little differently, one bit at a time. Give to charity if you can, but not as redemption for any sins. True charity is one that doesn't make you feel better for it. Good lecture Zizek
I am so glad there's thinkers like Zizek... I think to some extent we all feel this, there's an enormous need for change. I never know where to turn to do the right thing! I try to consume responsibly, in regards to the environement, social justice and all that, I feel very burdened by my.. opportunity, the fact we live in such opulence... We need to get rid of these short sighted, utilitarian driven views and ideas. Or that 'the bad guys will get what's coming to them', it's not up to fate.
I am trying to align myself with Zizek's call for a soft apocalyptic vision when I proclaim: "you can't choose until you choose." An apocalypse is a revelation of things hidden since the creation of the world. Etymologically it originates largely in a religious tradition in which a privileged source of meaning is perpetually veiled from mankind's sight. The revealed meaning, I argue, is what you call the "solution." You are asking me what the apocalypse will reveal, but mankind cannot know this.
@AgeOfScience I have heard of the 'Venus Project' but I'll have to look into it again and check out some of your videos. I am interested in these alternatives, maybe Bucky Fuller would be a figure of rbe? I am still interested in Zizek's alternatives/his critiques of capitalism. Cheers!
Is there an academic reference for this, as in, has Zizek written a paper on the same argument? Also interested in whether anyone knows how to directly reference this video in APA 6th Ed.
Yes, basically, but it needs to be continually said and that's part of what makes people like Zizek important. Almost all of the most important ideas of today are old. Ancient, even. But they need to be adapted to new events, and very few people are capable of doing the mental work necessary to do so. That's the role that these people play, and I think it's a necessary one.
Actually, I was asking you to look at things differently. That's maybe you're first correct extrapolation of this exchange. Bravo. Neither I nor Zizek are talking about a stateless society so...ok? Zizek, the philosopher, attempts to inspire us to think, because the fact is that none of us know what kind of an economic approach is necessary, but what's clear is that this system is eating itself, and we all need to put our minds to what that new system will be.
This is why I download movies and music, but will support the bands I enjoy by paying to see them perform. Those who refuse to download music (and etc) on moral or altruistic grounds are only delaying the inevitable change in the way those industries make money, and simultaneously deny the benefits that the internet and all it entails offers (consumer accessibility, a virtual soap box in front of billions and so on).
I've only read "Violence" by him - yet. It was pretty good. I do not necessarily agree with him on every argument in that book, but it's quite thought provoking - and that's the most important thing about reading, in my opinion. I would recommend to read his work with an open mind, since people in general are afraid to think outside of the box - especially when opinions do not contain any semi-buddhist moral.
He has merit and is very accurate in most areas. He may be a bit short on the diversity promoting aspects of not culling the weak. It will take some serious models to determine which strategy has the most value across different metrics and timescales
Also, demand and supply are two halves of the same coin. You produce so you can exchange the surplus for things produced by others. It's not the farmer's need for shoes that empoys the shoemaker, it's the farmer's surplus grain he can exchange for shoes that makes the shoemaker's job possible.
@kshariqm I'll determinedly disagree with your comment in one but crucial detail: Welfare = public property Charity = private property It is an (if not THE) essential point of his and his major reference, Oscar Wilde, that charity aggravates poverty, NOT welfare. The differentiation between those two is the basis of this "simple line of thought" as he puts it. Wilde refers explicitly to charity, not welfare, when writing of "feeding" and "amusing the poor."
My mom goes by something like this. She doesn't donate money to charities because you truly don't know where your money goes to. What she does is she actually donates her time to physically help someone in need whether it's volunteering at a soup kitchen,helping clean up after a disaster or helping someone get back on their feet in rough times. I'd rather donate my time than my money.
@ziglaus It takes systemic and collective effort to bring about institutional change. You can't force it upon the system nor can you force it upon other individuals. If you think the issue of neoliberalism is fixable through the grand efforts of a few who understand it's downfalls, you are seriously underestimating the grandeur of the system and the depth of it's roots in society. Philosophers theorize the initial problem and it's possible solutions. It takes an active audience to bring change.
This is my favorite video I've ever watched on the internet. I think this is one of the most important concepts we need to consider. Although, I do think he may be completely wrong on his take on organic foods unless I'm misunderstanding what he is saying. If he is saying that organic is not necessarily organic and we "are cynics there" then I agree with him but if he is saying that genuine organics aren't better than genetically modified and chemically enhanced food then I disagree.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
...is another good qoute to describe what Oscar and Slavoj are talking about. Normally attributed to Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara,.
Based Archbishop Camara ✝
"In the very consumerist act you buy your redemption from being only a consumer"
how true, and how well put!
Leon Trotsky was the kind of guy who would refuse to tip a waiter. Not because he thought the waiter was a jerk, but because he felt that a man's job should not depend on how generous a customer is, but that man's job should provide his every need, and tipping him would only blind him to his situation.
Charity, Zizek argues,,is like tipping, but on a global scale: it solves the basic needs of a person in the short term, but it does not change the environment that forces him to depend on handouts. We too are distracted from this environment when we see crates of food being dropped from planes.
. Zizek does not offer a solution to global inequality but he says one can only come if we face the world rather than hide behind the wall that charity builds around us that keeps us from seeing the environments that millions languish in.
Nathan Seper tip of the hat to you sir!
Nathan Seper well he did offer a solution, it was vague and im guessing the references to leninist communism was a possible alternative. But he exclaims that there should be a radical social change in which the conditions that allow for the poor to exist never occur.
Manveer Singh That part of the comment was written because I noticed a lot of people hated the video because Zizek wasn't offering a solution to global inequality. I felt that they missed the point of the video, which was that our system of charity has done little to prevent global inequality, and that a solution will only come if we think about society rather than send donations.
Nathan Seper i would just like to say that reading yt comments is one of my most idiotic habits, but reading yours has given me a little hope in humanity. well not humanity, but you being a nice human
Nathan Seper, He offers a solution in other videos here on TH-cam and I assume later in this talk. RSA animates only illustrate about 12 minutes of any given hour-long lecture.
I love you, RSA Animate.
I like that Zizek tries to compress his long-ass books into sound bytes for other's benefit. He's an intellectual who actually tries to talk to the public by referencing popular culture and everyday life. Good way to reach people. We need for intellectuals to communicate complicated ideas like that these days.
I love how some people are taking this to believe that this is an argument against left wing social programs and pro unadulterated capitalism. His argument is more that social programs are the crumbs that capitalist societies will throw to the underclass so that they won't rise up and slaughter their oppressors in their beds. He's arguing in favor of a complete overthrow of the capitalist society, and the fastest way to reach that goal is to remove the social programs that keep the poor placated.
+retromancer It's not that simple. Zizek's ideals concern the massive, metaphysical structure of capitalism that exists in almost everything, even an extremely small act of charity. Ending social programs is a quick fix, and in itself, is a capitalist masquerade.
+retromancer what's the beauty of Zizeks abstract ideas.. they disguise themselves as something else and in turn fool all kinds of ppl into believing them for whatever means..
+retromancer He's not advocating accelerationism. He's saying that rather than focusing on charity and government programs, we should focus on transforming society to get to the root of the problem.
interesting. I actually think he's arguing in favor of capitalism but with a simple, yet healthy social safety net. Capitalism works but only if people in a society aren't starving, or in want of clothing. True poverty deprives people of dignity and has long-lasting effects on individuals and the children of said individuals.
This is a very unique socialist thinker because he doesn't shy away from the benefits of capitalism in raising a country or society to a level that puts them on a playing field with the rest of the world. I suspect he's a conservative and he doesn't know it yet.
Tucker Weinmann no marxist will argue against the fact what capitalism is needed to build necessary industry and Infrastructure.. In their ideology it's just seen as one of the many stages of humanity's evolution, and not the last stop. They will argue what your vision of non-poverty in capitalism is a fantasy as witnessed even in most advanced capitalist states, poverty and huge gaps seem to be proportionaly rising with the economic growth, no matter what.. so question where do you go from where to solve the poverty, if the growth of economy does not solve anything in the long run..
Wow you actually gave me a diffrent perspective and in the end changed my views. Thank you.
Based
Charity in itself is hypocrisy. We all buy-off our sense of guilt by not offering structural help but telling ourselves we do good by giving a small bit of our welfare to the less-lucky.
But you can donate to help create structural change.
Tom te Riele I think you may be projecting, my friend. Or simply unaware of recent work in the biological sciences that hints at deep evolutionary mechanisms at work as regards empathy and charity.
+EyeLean5280 Yeah, I definitely think there is a lot of projection. I give to charity because I care and because I can. I didn't feel any guilt at any time. I don't know where Tom's head is at (actually I have a clue).
+Tom te Riele On the contrary, people who say this usually justify their lack of giving.
Devon Fritz I believe that some people are born emotionally blunted, can't empathize with those in need, and feel resentful of suggestions they should help in any way. Much like those with personality disorders, they don't realize they have a disability that clouds their judgment and decisions. They instead disparage those who are more pro-social. Classic example of negativity against that which isn't understood.
He is not making one hard statement or another but illustrating the unintended shortcomings and blissful ignorance baked into the system of global finance and production as it currently exists.
Goof-up: The cartoonist wrote "cluster" when Zizek said, "gesture." WHOOPS. Also, funny that RSA calls itself a "charity" right below this video.
I am watching all of the RSA Animates again as I am redrawing some elements for a large artwork that explores the history of the RSA. I always liked this Zizek one.
And so on and so on
cocaine and so on and o on
"You know very well, there is a certain type of misanthropy which is much better as a social attitude than this cheap charitable optimism ... and so on..." Zizek
Thats what I aspire to: useful misanthropy. I just didnt have Zizeks intelligence to verbalise it!
I see so much "facebook charity" nowadays.
Any tragedy or human suffering can now be integrated and used as a potential career move or profit drive or social status advancement campaign.
The consumerist capitalist template has now soaked through to our bones. Edward Bearnays would be delighted. We are now as facile, shallow, childish, impulsive and easily swayed as he dreamed we would be.
Everything and everyone is reduced to a resource and potential profit.
No wonder they took "narcissism" out of the DSM as a category of mental illness, in a fundamentally narcisstic society it is "sane" and normal to be a narcissist, and diseased to not be one.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength... and now? Neurosis is sanity.
Orwell's awful nightmarish vision did not go far enough. They dont need to employ men in jackboots rounding us up in the middle of the night. We do it all for them.
Good. I await the zombie apocalypse with glee.
Jason Nung Yeah, I cant believe people buy into that in the first place. It's an insult to human intelligence. But I don't believe misanthropy is the correct way of dealing with things. I think the best way is to objectively look at all the problems we have and just do our best to solve them. This can be done from a altruistic standpoint..
Well, I run a blog called misanthropicanthropologist. it's at wordpress. Check it out, you just might like it. Misanthropy can be healthy. Instead of a knee-jerk impulse towards "compassion", which is very often just a perpetuation of the established rules of society, some introspection would be better. Why do we do this, and so on. (I've watched enough Zizekthat I've adopted some ofhis language. :) )
Jason Nung While a like does nothing, I really think its important that such post exist. Think about what is really being accomplished via social media. People are becoming aware of situations that normally they wouldn't know about or care about. A shotgun approach to 'charity', many people will just like and do nothing, but 1 person may decide to commit and do more.
ClaytonLivsey man, you have a GREAT blog!!
I don't think this changes anything (the superficial charity). Those that are conscious of global problems are still inspiring others and doing their work, while those that haven't done anything now just get to look like they are doing something. It's a problem but I don't think it ends up in the conclusion the way you are explaining it.
Rich people give to charities for three reasons: It's tax deductible, reducing the amount of taxes they pay, it salves their guilty consciences for all the harm they do gathering wealth and they know that if the people are too hungry for too long they will be beating their ploughshares into swords and storming the castle.
A basic income is certainly far better than our current system of welfare and so on, but it is still bound to the money system. The only way forward towards a true civilization is a resource based economy. Never heard of it? learn more at www.thevenusproject.com Peace.
+Steven K Harrison Bullshit. Rich people often give for the same reasons less rich people do. They care. They are human you know.
+NoExitLoveNow Yes, they are human. I said "it salves their guilty consciences for all the harm they do". Some are honest and sincere, but there are psychopaths and many of them are CEOs at mega corporations. They don't care about the harm they do, indeed, many get some kind of sick pleasure from their actions. When they donate to charities it is for the reasons I stated.
Yes, but this video is making the point that it is hypocritical to be wealthy and believe oneself right, because e.g. paying fair wages - and believing they are good, is saying the have the right to have the power to decide things like that, and not admitting the OBVIOUS, UNDENIABLE truth, that they are no more entitled to control or resources than those people, and it is just utterly wrong to privatise power when everyone should equally be able to determine society and their own lives. It's like the kind slavers thing he said, just them being kind means they think it is okay to be a slaver, but no one should have the right to GIVE someone freedom as a priviledge, because people are supposed to belong to themselves.
Philanthropy and charity are good PR. People are suckers for the one who gives.
Yes, I do wish it. America has fallen from its pedestal and landed hard on its ass. In addition electronis and robotics have advanced to the point where human labor is too slow, too inefficient and expensive. What will happen to all those people who don't have the skills this new century require? Should we let them starve? If you look around you, there are too many homeless already. The trouble is hungry people don't just crawl off to a corner to die; they get angry and enough angry people can quickly become a riot and riot can quickly become a bloody revolution. Is that what you want? There are some who do.
This RSA might be the best yet. Amazing!
Thanks for posting. I had never heard of Slavoj Zizek but now I want more! My brain hurts from attempting to wrap my brain around the barrage of ideas he so cogently illustrates. Why are there no American philosophers with his point of view--maybe because we're strapped so tight into capitalism that no one can imagine breaking free from it's strangling bonds. BTW, you have a great website and are doing a great service to open the eyes of the sleeping American people. I also voted for you.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
I think this --and all the RSA Animate videos I've seen so far-- are very excellent and the subject matter very thought provoking. The animation is not only entertaining; it illustrates the subject matter in a way that makes it easier to follow and understand. And the concepts they try to communicate are essential to the welbeing of the human family and the planet itself. They are a great contribution and I sincerely hope they bear fruit.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! --Stewart Vriesinga
for the last two weeks i've been watching this video once a day
In the face of the great complexity of our current existence, the real problem is the inability to say anything at all.
+thomas ridge if that is the problem we should definitely stop listening to this guy
Awesome piece of work on this, thanks !
I love these types of drawings. There is an unique artform.
This is the greatest video on the internet.
Slavoj Žižek is a very interesting and unique thinker because he doesn't discount the good and glorious prospects and real results of capitalism, but doesn't shy away from places where it could be improved upon. He's the first thinker I've seen whose tinkering with the open market might actually make sense.
I first saw his video from The Big Think about political correctness, but this is just as (if not more so) interesting.
His view of capitalism in that regard actually makes him quite an orthodox Marxist. Admittedly it is a view many leftists do not share.
He makes a very interesting leftist attack on charity: charity isn't bad per se, but you are not solving the hideous inequalities created by capitalism. We don't have systemic change, because we are excited when a billionaire engages in some small acts of magnanimity.
Okay, that video is an absolute work of art!! Brilliant, just brilliant!
I found myself agreeing & disagreeing with various points, but it was interesting & worth listening to. :)
+Jimbo Jones I think this is the right way to take Zizek.
pfff I think you do not deserve to have an opinion or a right to disagree as your opinion is false if you are one of those naive (but secretly not) liberals with a unique point of view.
these RSAnimate videos are the best thing to watch when procrastinating
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why there are less poor and less hungry than 100 years ago, they call me a Capitalist."
I think this --and all the RSA Animate videos I've seen so far-- are very excellent and the subject matter very thought provoking. The animation is not only entertaining; it illustrates the subject matter in a way that makes it easier to follow and understand. And the concepts they try to communicate are essential to the welbeing of the human family and the planet itself.Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! --Stewart Vriesinga
Gotta love some good Zizek sniffs here and there
and that they did not mind to edit it out... ha ha ha
I had never heard of Slavoj Zizek but now I want more! My brain hurts from attempting to wrap my brain around the barrage of ideas he so cogently illustrates. Why are there no American philosophers with his point of view--maybe because we're strapped so tight into capitalism that no one can imagine breaking free from it's strangling bonds. BTW, you have a great website and are doing a great service to open the eyes of the sleeping American people. I also voted for you.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and well you know..
This is the point of the speach...
hahahhaa. Upvote this so everyone can see
It is not just that. It is more like, the fish is living in a very polluted pond, but doesn't realize it because of a few charitable people who clean it up a bit. The point is, the pond is polluted, but the pretentious generosity of the few distracts the fish.
The graphist is really good. Not stepping on the talker's toes and having the liberty nonetheless to produce something personal and enjoyable. Kudos.
gotta love it
Is there a transcript available for this?
im a libertarian but i must admit he has some very strong points there
+Pedro Vidal Jara Check out libertarian socialism, then.
Pedro Vidal Jara and so on so on
read marx
I'll be honest, I'm a little bit excited for finding this link/channel through the comment section of a TED talk that was linked by a FB friend I've not spoken to in a looong while. Oh Interwebs, much appreciated! Btw: Fascinating video, I'll be taking my sweet time digesting the content :)
You can hear him grabbing his nose
Ha - well spotted! We can't pick and choose which ads pop up, but we're a charity, and the occasional ad here and there helps us to create more RSA Animates to share with the world...
*sniff*
so Zizek is an accelerationist now?
He's been so for a while as far as i can tell.
@Raulthomas30 Zizek is a philosopher first and foremost and the essential nature of philosophy is to ask more questions than it answers. It is a problem posing study not a problem solving one. It empowers us with a new perspective and its up to us to act on this new found knowledge.
You shouldnt buy "organic" food because it is "better" but because it isnt sprayed with a dozen dangerous chemicals to guarantee perfect fruits at the cost of nature and water quality. And your health.
In other words: Because organic food is better!
neither is other food
Romulus Podhorský I think Zizek was saying it doesn't *taste* better, which is true.
i can watch this man over and over again
Aaaaaaand this is exactly why every country should stop dumping tens of billions of charity money into Africa every year. But we've been doing it for what, 60 years by now? Maybe it'll start working one day?
Maybe the goal is to keep them down.
we shouldnt stop "helping" but we should stop exploiting them stealing their resources. If we didnt steal they wouldnt have the need for charity. Charity is just an ethical cover of crimes against third world. Charity is nothing compared with the bad we ve done there.
Nick Mpagleouras
That is bullshit, my country isn't getting SHIT from Africa, not now not ever. And I'm not buying some conspiracy theory of stealing from them.
I take it you're Finnish. Finland's donations to overseas development run at around $1.3 billion a year (OECD figures). That's not tens of billions. Trade with Africa is a lot more variable, but oscillates around the $1 billion mark, while direct investment in Africa is at around $80 million (Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
BTW: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just setting you straight on the numbers.
The funny thing is , the only way we can completely help impoverished Africans without being hypocrites is to change/replace the ruined post-colonial government with less corrupt one. But there are ethical problems with this and it sort of evolves into a "neo-colonial" cause. Should Western liberal democracies invade troubled African governments (much like France in 2013 in Northern Mali) ? or should we just leave them to their own devices...
The first step is to provide thoughtful critique , and that is what he is doing. Figure out where our actions are undermining our intentions and go on from there. We have to start somewhere and wherever we are going it is obvious that it must be a way of living that FORCES a more socially conscious mode of organization. Your attitude is one that stomps out all thought before it becomes developed enough to translate into meaningful action.
This guy nails it! No to a basic income but yes to handing out canned foods lol
+Fernando Herrera
Wait what? He's explicitly saying not to give out canned foods because it doesn't change the conditions which caused the poverty in the first place. The whole point of the book he quoted, Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism, is that: "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim." The answer isn't to hand out canned foods or implement basic income, it's to make it so such things are unnecessary.
h3lblad3 so a shift from the monetary system we have now? So long as we exchange goods and services with money I don't see a way around basic income to handle the problem of poverty.
Fernando Herrera
You may be right, but step one would be the implementation of socialism. By putting people in control of their workplaces, we'd find that people don't export their jobs and leave themselves homeless, that people think really hard about whether or not to pour toxic waste into the water supply their kids drink from, and that people aren't going to overcompensate a CEO and leave themselves starving in the streets.
h3lblad3 I completely agree with that. He truth is beyond socialism, we don't have an answer. One thing is clear though. What we have now, isn't working. The framers and fathers of the U.S saw it and brought about change, why can't our generation do the same to better improve human life?
I think the issue revolves around the comforts and security that people maintain when generally conformed to the status quo of a social order. Zizek's critique is attempting to poke holes in that false sense of stability in the capitalist mindset. And whatever new social formations are possible for our generation are going to have to be organized and brought about by the collective itsef.
A definite eye-opener. The illustrations/animations really do help in presenting the ideas. Hooked on this series :)
Couldn't identify a real proposed solution? Seems better to condition the majority to giving and therefore help allocate resources that would otherwise be spent on personal consumption or other status symbols (as charity can be). The Gates Foundation is a good counter-example; superrich individuals in history were more concerned with preserving their status and dynasty, and the poor didn't have the means nor will to effect change on that scale. It's not a perfect system, but I'd be more interested to hear
Ben Evans His point was more there is no solution currently but we will never find one if we keep propping up the illusion rather than address the reason charity even exists. Zizek is a philosopher and like most philosophers he doesn't give an answer rather he tries to ask the right questions.
On political and social issues, Zizek's main argument is that we create a variety of activities, both mental and behavioral, that absolves us of any responsibilities as contributing citizens. His basic piont by "capitalism with a human face" means creating measures that hide or obscure the deficiencies of the general system so we as citizens do not have to commit to recreating new institutional structures. It's an issue between choosing conformity or taking the risk of developing an alternative order of social organization.
Incredible -- Never seen such an illuminating summary of Zizek's basic political perspective.
It's "FEATURE" not "FUTURE"
It's "GESTURE" not "CLUSTER"
Maybe have a native speaker do the transcript?
+supahacka I heard both correctly without any problem.
Haha - Sorry I'll get my ears washed out. Hopefully the meaning still remains, on the whole, in tact.
@@TheCognitiveMedia It's beyond epic! Thank you. :-)
Still relevant in 2023.
I could not disagree more. In this world we have such incredible wealth So So So much wealth you could not imagine it. Millions of people live in luxury complete luxuries. We can Share and we don't need all 9 billion people to work. Some people can be uneducated and lazy and sit around and our world will continue to innovate and get better.
Yes we have an incredible wealth concentrated to the privileged few. Millions of people live in luxury while billions live in absolute proverty. Sharing does not solve the problems. Did you not understand what Zizek was saying?
No our world will continue to get worse with growing inequality and the destruction of the environment. Even if it gets better is that an argument for captilaism? If yes, then that same arguemnt could be applied to State socialist societies that happened in the third world.
uhh the world is overpopulated by about 5 billion.
Yes, you can disagree all you want.
But why would you argue against one of the greatest living minds?
Unless you were an idiot.
You clearly can't see the bigger picture.
Dan Holly, either you are the most optimistic person ever or the most naive. The top twenty five corporations pay no taxes at all at the expense of the middle class and working poor. In case you are unaware, 200 top corporations are fast-tracking a deal that would move all of our factory jobs to countries like Viet-Nam, at 28 cents an hour. Worse yet, American sovereignty is in jeopardy if this deal passes. In other words, we could not sew a company for killing one of our loved ones, due to undrinkable water or deadly materials used in manufacturing. An international secret court will hear these cases and of course they work for the muti-nationals--similar to our wonderful fisa courts but many times worse for working conditions in this country. I suggest watching Link TV, FSTV, or RT tv instead of our corporate owned propaganda stations. Fox, CBS, NBC all sputter nonsense. That is why we need Snowden and Wiki-leaks as we no longer have a free press--it just looks that way. Ed Shultz will soon lose his job for being brave enough to criticize Obama over the TPP. Google Trans Pacific Partnership. Oh, and the greedy billionaires who own more wealth than the bottom 60 percent of Americans are not going to share a dime of it
RSA Animate needs to team up with the Santa Fe Institute immediately!
i'm sure he's said something useful but i don't care to listen because having to watch this for a school assignment has significantly decreased my attention.
Can I get a poster of this anywhere?! I would love it
I think there's a HUGE problem with how the world is working right now, that is impossible for the almost 4,000 people who have liked this video to solve. Doing things like sponsoring a kid in Africa to feed & educated him/her may just be alleviating the symptoms of this HUGE problem, but I believe that we still have a moral obligation to do good things that alleviate the symptoms. This world is never going to perfect. But with our time & money we can make bits of it better.
I am looking for such a good illustrator... any idea on where to find someone with these skills??? Thanks!
Thank you for putting into words (and animation) why I had some sinking feeling about giving money the more I gave money.
Charity exists as the only tool for individuals and corporations who must continue within the existing structure. Tough job to overhaul a national or a global structure of doing business, making products, making profits and so on.
That said, it is never too late for a new generation to do things a little differently, one bit at a time. Give to charity if you can, but not as redemption for any sins. True charity is one that doesn't make you feel better for it.
Good lecture Zizek
I am so glad there's thinkers like Zizek... I think to some extent we all feel this, there's an enormous need for change. I never know where to turn to do the right thing! I try to consume responsibly, in regards to the environement, social justice and all that, I feel very burdened by my.. opportunity, the fact we live in such opulence... We need to get rid of these short sighted, utilitarian driven views and ideas. Or that 'the bad guys will get what's coming to them', it's not up to fate.
@theRSAorg Hi, I tried the link but it got redirected to the Webby homepage... then I wasn't sure where to click to vote for RSAnimate
Great video, thanks,
"doing something for our pla.." loved this small detail in the illustration
1:55 “...in one and the same GESTURE”-rather than _cluster_
at 1:56 the word zizek uses is "gesture," but it's written as "cluster"
I am trying to align myself with Zizek's call for a soft apocalyptic vision when I proclaim: "you can't choose until you choose." An apocalypse is a revelation of things hidden since the creation of the world. Etymologically it originates largely in a religious tradition in which a privileged source of meaning is perpetually veiled from mankind's sight. The revealed meaning, I argue, is what you call the "solution." You are asking me what the apocalypse will reveal, but mankind cannot know this.
@AgeOfScience I have heard of the 'Venus Project' but I'll have to look into it again and check out some of your videos. I am interested in these alternatives, maybe Bucky Fuller would be a figure of rbe? I am still interested in Zizek's alternatives/his critiques of capitalism. Cheers!
what software and process is the artist using to maker these amazing videos?
this video needs to be watched more
Is there an academic reference for this, as in, has Zizek written a paper on the same argument? Also interested in whether anyone knows how to directly reference this video in APA 6th Ed.
Yes, basically, but it needs to be continually said and that's part of what makes people like Zizek important. Almost all of the most important ideas of today are old. Ancient, even. But they need to be adapted to new events, and very few people are capable of doing the mental work necessary to do so. That's the role that these people play, and I think it's a necessary one.
Actually, I was asking you to look at things differently. That's maybe you're first correct extrapolation of this exchange. Bravo. Neither I nor Zizek are talking about a stateless society so...ok? Zizek, the philosopher, attempts to inspire us to think, because the fact is that none of us know what kind of an economic approach is necessary, but what's clear is that this system is eating itself, and we all need to put our minds to what that new system will be.
Does anyone know if this video is from an excerpt of his book and if so, which pages is it on?
the animation alone on this is sick! excellent message
this wouldn't be nearly as good as it is without those remarkable animations..
This is most thought provoking, indeed!
This is why I download movies and music, but will support the bands I enjoy by paying to see them perform. Those who refuse to download music (and etc) on moral or altruistic grounds are only delaying the inevitable change in the way those industries make money, and simultaneously deny the benefits that the internet and all it entails offers (consumer accessibility, a virtual soap box in front of billions and so on).
1:11 why there are 6 seconds missing in the audio (woodstock)?
Really well done! Great argument by Zizek and gret animation. Makes it very easy to follow!
After some research I would like to reform my question: is the argument in this video one made in his book "First as Tragedy, then as Farce."
@theRSAorg done and done. fantastic vignettes..
Brilliant animation and drawing skills. Ty!
I've only read "Violence" by him - yet.
It was pretty good. I do not necessarily agree with him on every argument in that book, but it's quite thought provoking - and that's the most important thing about reading, in my opinion.
I would recommend to read his work with an open mind, since people in general are afraid to think outside of the box - especially when opinions do not contain any semi-buddhist moral.
@axeld93 You can find it on the right side -----------> Slavoj Zizek - First as tragedy , than as a Farce (29:25)
You guys should make a poster of this!!
Dude your drawings are awesome!!
He has merit and is very accurate in most areas. He may be a bit short on the diversity promoting aspects of not culling the weak. It will take some serious models to determine which strategy has the most value across different metrics and timescales
Also, demand and supply are two halves of the same coin. You produce so you can exchange the surplus for things produced by others. It's not the farmer's need for shoes that empoys the shoemaker, it's the farmer's surplus grain he can exchange for shoes that makes the shoemaker's job possible.
where can one find the complete drawing as graphic?
"People can't think critically anymore". Sadly, thinking critically is something we have never done.
@bloycey
What other Philosophers would you recommend?
@kshariqm
I'll determinedly disagree with your comment in one but crucial detail:
Welfare = public property
Charity = private property
It is an (if not THE) essential point of his and his major reference, Oscar Wilde, that charity aggravates poverty, NOT welfare. The differentiation between those two is the basis of this "simple line of thought" as he puts it. Wilde refers explicitly to charity, not welfare, when writing of "feeding" and "amusing the poor."
You can DOWNLOAD EngScript of this video at zizek society(齊澤克學會) and help us improve it.
Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
genius. simply genious thumbs up. i wish more people would think that way!
I believe that he said "gesture" not cluster. (T=2:00) Perhaps I am mistaken.
My mom goes by something like this. She doesn't donate money to charities because you truly don't know where your money goes to. What she does is she actually donates her time to physically help someone in need whether it's volunteering at a soup kitchen,helping clean up after a disaster or helping someone get back on their feet in rough times. I'd rather donate my time than my money.
genius...his very last line embodies his entire point.
@ziglaus It takes systemic and collective effort to bring about institutional change. You can't force it upon the system nor can you force it upon other individuals. If you think the issue of neoliberalism is fixable through the grand efforts of a few who understand it's downfalls, you are seriously underestimating the grandeur of the system and the depth of it's roots in society. Philosophers theorize the initial problem and it's possible solutions. It takes an active audience to bring change.
I love RSA Animate. You guys RULE!!!
Hi,
where can i find original record (Zizek's lecture?)
This is my favorite video I've ever watched on the internet. I think this is one of the most important concepts we need to consider.
Although, I do think he may be completely wrong on his take on organic foods unless I'm misunderstanding what he is saying. If he is saying that organic is not necessarily organic and we "are cynics there" then I agree with him but if he is saying that genuine organics aren't better than genetically modified and chemically enhanced food then I disagree.