Hell, that last questioner had some fair line of arguments and did you notice that undisturbed silence while he was unfolding his points ? Who was that ? Anyone . . .? And Zizek as always, maybe too few obscenities, but however brilliant 🎉
2- Luxemburg did not trascend more into 20th century socialism precisely because she did not understand the novel character of Lenin and Trostky's renovation of the dead 2nd international socialism; Roa's last attempt was precisely to make a worker's uprising that fail-- for several reasons-- and was not precisely in a "democratic" way...
Marx said the Paris Commune failed because of its 'good nature'. Which you might extend to later leftist movements in the West - i.e. Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal. Whereas Lenin and Stalin took Marx at his word, and were more ruthless than the bourgeois. Marx's prediction also came true about Britain, given the 1945 Labour government nationalized coal, steel, electricity- built masses of social housing and introduced socialized medicine. Such a program on the continent would've led to a coup
Billions of dollars? Today research and development is so capital intensive that it is hard to innovate in a capitalist system. Look at how much money it takes to develop a new surgical technique for instance. There is a billion people starving and this won't be solved with a bunch of jars for change that you see at cafes.
Left/Council Communism and Soc-democracy are completely opposite socialist tendencies. The first is revolutionary and marxist to the core, the second is reformist parliamentary minimalism mixed with burgeious economic outlook. The reason marxist soc-demoracy broke down is becouse it was completely impotent and illusionary since it gradually abandoned it's revolutionary discourse. Thats why bolsheviks gained high ground, coz there were no other substantial alternative to them.
While contemporary mythology has it otherwise, the market is not a distinct phenomenon: it is what exists when people interact and otherwise voluntarily transact with each other. The broad definition of the market is simply what people (choose to) do when they are not forced to do otherwise. So it is not surprising that even the Soviet Union, “despite” its anti-market rhetoric, fundamentally relied on markets: foreign markets for prices to guide planners’ economic calculation, and domestic black markets for resource allocation and goods distribution according to people’s real needs and preferences. The black market, indeed, was “a major structural feature” of the Soviet economy. mises.org/daily/6649/The-Market-is-Taking-Over-Swedens-Health-Care
But there is no atomized (individual) natural state agency from which to deduce markets as a minimal natural choice in absence of "external" (supra-individual) "forces". It is exactly a John Lockean "tabula rasa" mythology of autonomous individuals spontaneously going into commercial contracts between each other. Soviet markets obviously were just expression of oligarchical state-capitalism structures of this state - Castoriadis was right.
"autonomous individuals spontaneously going into commercial contracts between each other" Well said, that's exacltly what the market is. See, you participate in it every day yourself, doing your job and going to the shop. I have no idea what you mean by "John Lockean tabula rasa mythology ".
From the fact that I am practically coerced into various contracts (merely because the cost of being not contracted is hugely negative) does not follow that contractarianism is "natural" and not a social-cultural artefact, or "spontaneous". You, as other freemarketeers just proclaim factual state of things to be primordial norm. Facts of capitalism are not norms of humanity. Lock thought of, basically, an individual self owning her/himself as a property and rationally employing or exchanging the parts of it (for example time, knowledge, attention, work etc.) on the basis that we are basically free of any obligations or relationships to anyone, free of any social or generally mental content, "blank slates" (tabula rasa) - so we discover, possess and employ ourselves at our "free, autonomous" will. This is simply wrong. "Individual" and especially it's "autonomy" is a huge abstraction - we are relational, biologically and socially embodied and enmeshed beings - and all historically accumulated facts prove it.
Agreed, we are relational, biologically and socially embodied and enmeshed beings. How does it disporve "free will"? You suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of your actions. If you eat too much chocolate you get fat and ill minded, if you work out you become energetic. Is this example not enough? There is no need to over intellectualize simple mechanics. Those who learn how to use simple truths to their advantage thrive and have a good life. Can't tell you more.
This is true but we do need people who can do theory, to convince the intellectuals that this is the path we need to go down. They just will not be the 'leaders' of the movement you describe. I would be interested in knowing what the works are that have convinced you of what you say, and what are the social or creative manifestations of it that you have seen?
There is money here. Profit in the form of giving masses of left behind people a ground on which to stand, enabling them to become members of society and breaking an old heavy chain of oppression. Reducing these things would be a profit to society writ large.
false also: Marx knew the limits of liberal-bourgeois capitalism and how dominant capitalist class were upon the working class; he was not for despotism but for the dictatorship of the proletariat: a formulation meaning a government controlled by workers over the weakening bourgeois class.
1- when dealing with realizing real, actual socialism (or communism), we don't have the situation of a man at the delicatessen who ask himself if he wants a special kind of ham or cheese: the real socialism has to be constructed with the real elements than real capitalism let you use; since when you can jump out of reality and its determinations to invent out of nothing; Kautsky failed to be a real revolutionary when long time before 1914 he did not sensed a way out of capitalism in crisis; Rosa
4 ปีที่แล้ว
This time it will work, believe me. We won't kill millions of people that Linin, Mao, or Castro did. We won't put millions in labor camps. Four times the people have risen up, The American, French, Russian, China only One did not result in millions dead and millions more in labor camps. I know which one I want.
Yea, let's leave out the genocide, slavery, and (colonialism, by French) that made France and the US what it is. Let's leave out the statistics that count the deaths of millions each year globally because of deplorable living conditions in not only 3rd world coumtries, but in the capitalist US as well. What contributes to these deaths? Lack of Healthcare, housing, and yes ever today, lack of clean drinking water that leads to cancer (in parts of the US and canada as well.)
Marx acknowledge industrialized workers were more inclined to be corrupted by nationalism than internationalism, and that was one large hurdle a transition to socialism in the East did not have to overcome where industrial workers were a minority like they were in Russia and China. There the proletariat's new found power in those revolutions was to pull Russia and China out of backwardness. This epic sense of responsibility of being part of the construction of a new society must have been a very remarkable feeling for the ordinary person of that generation much like our own WWII generation felt ridding the world of real evil. That era is closed. In the former country a restoration of capitalism in the latter country capitalism is reformed. Marxists want to set free the working class intellectually to act for themselves so they can finally end philosophy with Anti-Philosophy, or political action. The opposition bourgeoisie want to set free the working class to act for 'itself' as a working class. The objective is to get everyone around the idea of rejecting the idea of a working class as wage labor and therefore end capitalism. Only then can we deal with the problems humanity can solve which at this state of science, would be far greater than previous attempts in creating a new society.
If Marx could see modern western societies- he would no doubt call them communist. Free State Education and healthcare, subsidized agriculture, graduated income taxes, pensions, state banks, trade unions financing political parties. Eastern Block countries obfuscated our perception of communism. I think Marx would see the main battle took place in the West. And its still taking place. If we only opened our eyes we'd see the battle is still raging. The means of production - Public v Private.
Capitalism is the most successful form of economic organization only under conditions of scarcity. But what do you do when there is overproduction. This is where you need Edward Bernay.
communism is better because you don't want to work for money only. where I live many people don't. if working for fiat or gold is ok then capitalism is better
socialism is never practical, why because people will lose interest when their productive people are not awarded accordingly. And that is my friend is impossible.
Why do these people *always* sit in frame, and they never have anything to say, only situate themselves in view--oblivious to how random people might see them. They look awkward, scribble their pens sometimes, that's it. I can't help but suspect we're seeing someone so desperate for attention, they'll seize, and savor any pathetic opportunity to prop themselves up in front of anyone.
What a mind?! Man, I love being alive in his time!
At 12:20 is a rare moment of Zizek reading a poem, namely “Stranger” by Charles Baudelaire to make an ingenious point about “clouds”
Slavoj on Kant is worth listening to....the value of 'public space of thinking'
7:16 "it's not Jungian bullshit, we aren't talking about collective unconscious"
Zizek's always hating on Jung...
He's so cute when he quotes Schwarzenegger.
If it wasn't for my cloud, I wouldn't have been able to listen to this...
brilliant.
Hell, that last questioner had some fair line of arguments and did you notice that undisturbed silence while he was unfolding his points ?
Who was that ?
Anyone . . .?
And Zizek as always, maybe too few obscenities, but however brilliant 🎉
2- Luxemburg did not trascend more into 20th century socialism precisely because she did not understand the novel character of Lenin and Trostky's renovation of the dead 2nd international socialism; Roa's last attempt was precisely to make a worker's uprising that fail-- for several reasons-- and was not precisely in a "democratic" way...
Marx said the Paris Commune failed because of its 'good nature'. Which you might extend to later leftist movements in the West - i.e. Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal. Whereas Lenin and Stalin took Marx at his word, and were more ruthless than the bourgeois. Marx's prediction also came true about Britain, given the 1945 Labour government nationalized coal, steel, electricity- built masses of social housing and introduced socialized medicine. Such a program on the continent would've led to a coup
Billions of dollars? Today research and development is so capital intensive that it is hard to innovate in a capitalist system. Look at how much money it takes to develop a new surgical technique for instance. There is a billion people starving and this won't be solved with a bunch of jars for change that you see at cafes.
Arnold Schwanzenegger !!!😂
Automatic subtitles: Greek
Left/Council Communism and Soc-democracy are completely opposite socialist tendencies. The first is revolutionary and marxist to the core, the second is reformist parliamentary minimalism mixed with burgeious economic outlook. The reason marxist soc-demoracy broke down is becouse it was completely impotent and illusionary since it gradually abandoned it's revolutionary discourse. Thats why bolsheviks gained high ground, coz there were no other substantial alternative to them.
While contemporary mythology has it otherwise, the market is not a distinct phenomenon: it is what exists when people interact and otherwise voluntarily transact with each other. The broad definition of the market is simply what people (choose to) do when they are not forced to do otherwise. So it is not surprising that even the Soviet Union, “despite” its anti-market rhetoric, fundamentally relied on markets: foreign markets for prices to guide planners’ economic calculation, and domestic black markets for resource allocation and goods distribution according to people’s real needs and preferences. The black market, indeed, was “a major structural feature” of the Soviet economy.
mises.org/daily/6649/The-Market-is-Taking-Over-Swedens-Health-Care
But there is no atomized (individual) natural state agency from which to deduce markets as a minimal natural choice in absence of "external" (supra-individual) "forces". It is exactly a John Lockean "tabula rasa" mythology of autonomous individuals spontaneously going into commercial contracts between each other. Soviet markets obviously were just expression of oligarchical state-capitalism structures of this state - Castoriadis was right.
"autonomous individuals spontaneously going into commercial contracts between each other"
Well said, that's exacltly what the market is. See, you participate in it every day yourself, doing your job and going to the shop.
I have no idea what you mean by "John Lockean tabula rasa mythology ".
From the fact that I am practically coerced into various contracts (merely because the cost of being not contracted is hugely negative) does not follow that contractarianism is "natural" and not a social-cultural artefact, or "spontaneous". You, as other freemarketeers just proclaim factual state of things to be primordial norm. Facts of capitalism are not norms of humanity.
Lock thought of, basically, an individual self owning her/himself as a property and rationally employing or exchanging the parts of it (for example time, knowledge, attention, work etc.) on the basis that we are basically free of any obligations or relationships to anyone, free of any social or generally mental content, "blank slates" (tabula rasa) - so we discover, possess and employ ourselves at our "free, autonomous" will. This is simply wrong. "Individual" and especially it's "autonomy" is a huge abstraction - we are relational, biologically and socially embodied and enmeshed beings - and all historically accumulated facts prove it.
Agreed, we are relational, biologically and socially embodied and enmeshed beings. How does it disporve "free will"? You suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of your actions. If you eat too much chocolate you get fat and ill minded, if you work out you become energetic. Is this example not enough? There is no need to over intellectualize simple mechanics. Those who learn how to use simple truths to their advantage thrive and have a good life. Can't tell you more.
Thank you! After escaping a 20 year prison of Soviet Union, I am appalled at western civilization being enamored with this vile sick mind poison.
This is true but we do need people who can do theory, to convince the intellectuals that this is the path we need to go down. They just will not be the 'leaders' of the movement you describe. I would be interested in knowing what the works are that have convinced you of what you say, and what are the social or creative manifestations of it that you have seen?
Where was this event please? I am actually searching for a record of the Idea of Communism Conference held in Berlin.
that's exactly the problem: there's no money in eradicating hunger and extreme poverty but from my point of view it's a worthy goal
There is money here. Profit in the form of giving masses of left behind people a ground on which to stand, enabling them to become members of society and breaking an old heavy chain of oppression. Reducing these things would be a profit to society writ large.
false also: Marx knew the limits of liberal-bourgeois capitalism and how dominant capitalist class were upon the working class; he was not for despotism but for the dictatorship of the proletariat: a formulation meaning a government controlled by workers over the weakening bourgeois class.
One has to wonder what Slavoj has been consuming as he constantly fusses with his shirt.
+Mike Ballard He's got a condition.
I agree , democratic socialism has no chance in the west.
1:26:33 There's the obligatory kook of the Q&A.
wow, if money isn't a concern for you I'm very happy
1- when dealing with realizing real, actual socialism (or communism), we don't have the situation of a man at the delicatessen who ask himself if he wants a special kind of ham or cheese: the real socialism has to be constructed with the real elements than real capitalism let you use; since when you can jump out of reality and its determinations to invent out of nothing; Kautsky failed to be a real revolutionary when long time before 1914 he did not sensed a way out of capitalism in crisis; Rosa
This time it will work, believe me. We won't kill millions of people that Linin, Mao, or Castro did. We won't put millions in labor camps. Four times the people have risen up, The American, French, Russian, China only One did not result in millions dead and millions more in labor camps. I know which one I want.
Yea, let's leave out the genocide, slavery, and (colonialism, by French) that made France and the US what it is. Let's leave out the statistics that count the deaths of millions each year globally because of deplorable living conditions in not only 3rd world coumtries, but in the capitalist US as well. What contributes to these deaths? Lack of Healthcare, housing, and yes ever today, lack of clean drinking water that leads to cancer (in parts of the US and canada as well.)
So what do we do with the bad guys when there is no government. Or are you planning to keep only the police?
sehr shone sprech hier
so now we have 500 years of world history missing... lot of platonist thinkers here, what exists is ideas !!!
who is the last speaker/question?
There has to be some form of non material reward
Politics doesn't work. Time to think outside the box. Support the Venus project and the Zeitgeist Movement.
OK pervert.
neither communism nor socialism have never truly been tried
19th century? you sure?
Marx acknowledge industrialized workers were more inclined to be corrupted by nationalism than internationalism, and that was one large hurdle a transition to socialism in the East did not have to overcome where industrial workers were a minority like they were in Russia and China. There the proletariat's new found power in those revolutions was to pull Russia and China out of backwardness. This epic sense of responsibility of being part of the construction of a new society must have been a very remarkable feeling for the ordinary person of that generation much like our own WWII generation felt ridding the world of real evil.
That era is closed. In the former country a restoration of capitalism in the latter country capitalism is reformed.
Marxists want to set free the working class intellectually to act for themselves so they can finally end philosophy with Anti-Philosophy, or political action. The opposition bourgeoisie want to set free the working class to act for 'itself' as a working class. The objective is to get everyone around the idea of rejecting the idea of a working class as wage labor and therefore end capitalism. Only then can we deal with the problems humanity can solve which at this state of science, would be far greater than previous attempts in creating a new society.
Science is just another belief system
If Marx could see modern western societies- he would no doubt call them communist. Free State Education and healthcare, subsidized agriculture, graduated income taxes, pensions, state banks, trade unions financing political parties. Eastern Block countries obfuscated our perception of communism. I think Marx would see the main battle took place in the West. And its still taking place. If we only opened our eyes we'd see the battle is still raging. The means of production - Public v Private.
ha qualche tic!??
Zizek is a court jester, a joke. He’s controlled opposition.
lol
Capitalism is the most successful form of economic organization only under conditions of scarcity. But what do you do when there is overproduction. This is where you need Edward Bernay.
except for imperiling the planet ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
communism is better because you don't want to work for money only. where I live many people don't. if working for fiat or gold is ok then capitalism is better
Capitalism crises is a worst joke...
Suffering suckatass
socialism is never practical, why because people will lose interest when their productive people are not awarded accordingly. And that is my friend is impossible.
Why do these people *always* sit in frame, and they never have anything to say, only situate themselves in view--oblivious to how random people might see them. They look awkward, scribble their pens sometimes, that's it. I can't help but suspect we're seeing someone so desperate for attention, they'll seize, and savor any pathetic opportunity to prop themselves up in front of anyone.
modern societies communist????!!!!!!! Marx would never agree on your superficial, false statement.
Marx didn't even agree with Matx.
зря потратил почти 2 ч жизни на вот... это...
им нечего сказать нового...
дерриду читать и смотреть видео гораздо интереснее