Thoughts on this man?
Some of his YouTube videos are enlightening.
>cocain
Pure ideology
>>1146948
and so forth
>>1146948
and so on
>>1147097
>Pure ideology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwWoZmBsn1c
>>1147297
>>1147249
Found the Americans.
Cis-het, problematic, xenophobe.
Overall a conservative using leftist language to sell his fascism
t. World Socialist Web Site
>>1146948
Windbag and charlatan
>>1147157
sccchlep and so forth
An entertainer and a pop philosopher.
>>1147391
/his/ was never good
>(Sniffs)
I haven't read any of his writings and have only seen that film on Ideology. He seemed like he was always building to a point and then switching topics as soon as he was about to come to any sort of conclusion, like he could build up all the pieces of an argument and connect together several ideas at once but ultimately reach no clear point.
Am I just a pleb or was my initial impression that he was more of a showman than a thinker actually correct?
>>1147249
>>1147297
>>1147327
>>1147337
>>1147394
>>1147399
Lol butthurt
zizek is fun but not someone to take 100 percent serious. it is nice to see someone from europe not running around and acting like trump is the next hitler but calling him what he is, a centrist democrat
>>1147448
>being triggered because people disagree with you
kek
I must have watched 10 of his lectures on Youtube and I barely understand what his is actually trying to convey - other than dirty jokes.
>>1147448
People like being contrarian here, just look at the amount of reactionaries.
Zizek proves, once again, Eastern European communists are infinitely more insightful and funner than Western Euro commies.
The latter are so full of shit and nauseating IdPol.
>>1146948
His ideas are quite nice.
>>1147495
>communism
>state
well memed!
>>1147579
Fuck off back to /pol/
>>1147495
>>1147249
Pretty much. Nothing good ever came from that why should I pay attention to retards who want to try again? To make another Venezuela?
>>1147613
>>1147629
>>1147632
>being THAT bootyblasted
Stay classy /his/
>>1147632
We don't even have to be that drastic. Just focus on lefty-oriented economics and how they devour themselves.
*sniff*
I don't come to /his/ often, but are these the average posters of this board?!
Because Jesus the fuck man.../pol/ wasn't able to contain the cancer.
Also, not even one post discussing the guy's ideas.
>>1147632
>Dissidents
>Innocents
Pick one, bourgeois scum
>>1147700
Anything that has something to do with either national or international socialism should be discarded
>>1147413
He doesn't like doing talks, he prefers writing. Said so in an interview (can't recall which one).
His books have better structure, but they can be fairly cryptic.
Overall, his talks are more interesting as a means to vehicle his opinion on current events & the books are better to dig into his ideas
Also, Pervert's Guide is GOAT pop culture
>>1147722
>Better bread than red
ftfy
>>1147722
It's precisely the opposite
>ITT reactionary teenagers with nothing else to do
Being a communist should be a bannable offense
>>1147774
>ITT communist teenagers buttblasted about people making fun of their crackpot ideology
socialism gave you the internet and communism gave you the free time to post.
>>1146948
Faggot
Truly enlightening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jpnLoBQgGw
exploiting people is good for the economy, who knew
>>1147700
No shit the most posters on /his/ are trash. Just take a peek into the Voltaire posting thread going on right now. I'm convinced there's a low amount of actual posters, when the lurkers find something 'funny' or personally disturbing they seep out of the cracks and start posting garbage.
He's more Lacanian than he is a marxist.
But if /his/ has problems reading Marx I don't expect them to understand Lacan, to the point to make a counter argument, they'll just reduce themselves to some ad hominems.
He's only right about not beign take seriously and making a clown of himself saved him from ostracism but get him associated with the worst kinds of people, popular sexually active people.
And we know how much /his/ hate those.
One of the consequences of having a small penis or a sexual disfunction.
>>1148081
t. Freud
>>1147700
>Everyone isn't a commie retard like /leftypol/
>WAA WAA HIS IS SHIT
>MY SANDBOX
>MY RULES
First rule if you want to be taken seriously.
Don't fail every time.
Marxism and Stalinism (which is what you are all referring to as "communism") have very little to do with each other.
>>1146948
Leftist without the cancerous SJW/PC shit
I like him
>>1148115
Still not able to discuss actual ideas, you retarded piece of shit ?
>>1148237
You realize every time there is any actual discussion about it, commie shit for brains get clobbered so hard they report to spamming memes and ignoring anything anyone ever says.
E.g.
>>1147421
>>1147641
Cry more baby boy
>>1148255
I was there during tons of "actual discussions" and what you describe never happened. People spam memes because most of the arguments right wing people make are old ones totally incoherent and empty ("human nature", "it has failed every time", "who would you be without capitalism"). I'm sure you find those convincing but that's only because you've never open a book written by someone of different ideas.
>>1148301
Lmao, so you're 12, and you get upset that you get BTFO and can't respond to the most simplistic of arguments, so you resort to crying about "right wing propaganda" and how nobody wants to listen to the delusions of some American who doesn't understand the effects of Marxist ideology on social systems and governance, or can even comprehend how communism can't exist in a scarce environment.
>>1148328
the only one i see crying here is you, anon
Marxists are all retards
>>1148328
Wow why are you talking like that ? Do you realise you sound ridiculous ?
None of what you are saying is implied in my post so I don't understand why it's coming out of you little brain.
I wasn't talking about myself anyway, I have other things to do than to debate this kind of things. But I'm glad you are finally making a few arguments after three shitposts.
Also I'm not american you self-centered piece of shit.
This thread is bretty terrible. Is anyone on /his/ interested in discussing things in good faith anymore??
>>1148328
>the effects of Marxist ideology on social systems and governance
elaborate pls
>communism can't exist in a scarce enviroment
elaborate pls
>>1148377
And by the way, when I say I have other things to do than debate with right wingers about things they don't know the theory of, I mean masturbate.
>>1148379
Not, if it involves leftists, blacks, hindus, new age, and puppies.
>>1148394
Well that's disappointing.
>>1148379
No, this board went to shit fast. History is barely discussed and "humanities" threads are just shitposting grounds for /pol/, /int/, and /lit/
moot was right
perfect
>>1148394
You realize you're just annoying right ? Just annoying. That's all.
>>1148430
You deserve it.
Some proper discussion wouldn't have hurt nobody.
>>1148379
It's literally just /pol/ and Christians who ruin this fucking board. If you try and discuss anything with a hint of anti-Conservative theme, like Zizek, you get "LOL COMMIE IDIOTS GET OUTTA HERE". If you try and discuss anything about Africa or evolution you get "EVOLUTION WAS DEBUNKED YEARS AGO, REPENT AND FEEL CHRISTS LOVE!"
There are some quality threads some times, but it's getting shitter by the day.
>>1148458
>It's literally just /pol/ and Christians who ruin this fucking board.
t. Marxist
>>1148455
I... I know ? I thought you were saying the opposite. I guess I'm too new to english yet to understand sarcasm every thime.
>>1147606
looks like your standard commie
>>1148458
I'm hesitant to attribute to any one group. 4chan seems to foster a culture of anti intellectualism in general.
>>1148467
>proving my point
Why does everything have to be political for you retards? Why are you so gripped by ideology and identity? Why are you so obsessed with an invisible enemy?
shitposting is through the roof. You are ruining this board.
>>1148479
>intellectualism
>good thing
>>1146948
I agree for the most part with his critiques. That's where he provides value. He also has good ideas about 'becoming the men we are waiting for' and so on and so on. What he lacks is an idea of how a better government would function. All he says is that he doesn't want to be bothered with micromanaging everything at the community level. Like a true communist he wants everything to just 'be taken care of.' That might work with AI but I haven't heard him say that. If anything he is scared of future technology. At least Chomsky had the balls to do his 'government in the future.'
Overall good critiques on modern western society and culture.
>>1148482
Literally nobody except Marxists themselves likes Marxists. The sooner you arrive at that realization the better.
>>1148476
in america maybe. That's a capitalist problem if you have shitty commies :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD6oDnm43HA
this is the best anthem try to prove me wrong
pro-tip, you can't
>>1148458
Its them and them!!! WUSS DEM!!!
>>1148486
Why is it bad?
>>1148490
You've literally accused me of being Marxist with the only basis that I don't like /pol/. You're like an animal who comes back with a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of bullshit ideology.
>>1148515
Why is it good?
>>1148486
Anti-intellectualism comes from the word anti-intellectual. It's not opposed to intellectualism, it's opposed to intellectual.
4chan is shit because /pol/ and other self righteous groups are dumbing everything down with peer-pressure. I mean it's one of the reasons it's shit.
>>1148490
That's called politics. Works for every consistant ideology.
(I posted the last post too, sorry for spamming)
>>1148521
>4chan is shit
Nobody's holding you here bucko. Go back to having your l'englightened fedora debates over on revleft if you don't want to be shitposted to oblivion.
>>1148525
>Any discussion which doesn't fit /pol/'s retarded conspiracy theories is instantly part of the /leftypol/ boogeyman
Do you know how stupid you sound? There are very few Marxists on this board.
>>1147448
>marxists of Reddit
I was unaware that the MRA and The Red Pill were the results of Karl Marx's teachings
>>1148533
The same with your /pol/ ad hominem shit, you have literally zero evidence that I'm from there and I indeed ain't. You just use it as a convenient crutch to label people who trouble your booty.
>>1148525
I'm actually a marxist (I'm saying that because of >>1148533) and I don't know what's revleft. I don't even come to 4chan anymore, it's not a place suited for anything else than shitposting, you're right. I'm here tonight out of curiosity, I wanted to check how that new board was doing. Like shit it seems.
Also stop writing like that. It's boring and childish.
>>1148390
How does communism resolve the fundemental economic problem?
>>1148554
>It's boring
Friendly reminder that I'm not here to entertain you, retard.
>>1148563
With condoms and birth control pills.
In the most extreme cases with abortions.
>>1148554
>I'm a smug "holier than though" shit from /leftypol/ trying to educate the "plebians" of this world
How is vanguardism not total hypocrisy
>>1146948
>>1148573
So with force, where does the communist extort this force?
>>1148488
>and so on and son on
That you, Slavoj.
Jk, thanks for the only good post in the thread
>>1148568
It's boring to everyone I think. Some people even take offense when they're not used to it. So really keep that in /b/.
>>1148576
I'm against vanguardism. Is that your first encounter with anything else than facebook stalinists ? Also everyone is shitting on 4chan, it's not a "smug" thing to do.
>>1146948
he talks funny
>>1148520
Well first off, keep in mind that when I speak of intellectualism I'm not talking about a misplaced faith in rationalism. So, when I talk about about anti-intellectualism I'm commenting on the blatant disregard for any sort of critical thinking. There is a predominance towards trendy memes over actual discussion.
>>1148588
>Some people even take offense
>>1148588
If you don't like it, leave.
Shitposting about how "shit 4chan is" is you contributing to how shitty it is.
Leave, faggot.
I love how meta this thread is, a bunch of ideological Marxist shits and a bunch of memers dukeing it out.
Zizek would be proud
>>1148580
Force?
You don't have to force people to have safe sex.
They want to have safe sex. They like sex.
>>1148488
The problem is that society can not have safety, productivity, and comfort without having surveillance, compliance, and boundaries.
We deserve these things, but must sacrifice freedom to get them. Some will always prioritize freedom, and so will fight tooth and nail even if it means eternally taking steps backwards. We cannot buy their compliance on any permanent basis. We cannot convince them of compliance, We cannot force compliance on them, or risk becoming a society other than the one we want.
So it's an insurmountable thing. New Jerusalem is always on the horizon, but infinitely far. The closer we approach, the further it gets.
>>1148563
You've failed to elaborate, but I'll entertain your question nonetheless.
>>1148563
>How does communism resolve the fundamental economic problem?
I'm not sure what exactly you think you are referring to. Do you believe that there is simply one overarching economic problem? Marxists point to several flaws inherent to capitalism. If I was to pick one to be the fundamental economic problem I suppose I would choose the extraction of surplus value. Communism solves this by shifting ownership of the means of production to the proletariat.
>>1148595
Yeah they do you stupid fuck. Wouldn't that board be a little better if people who aren't 12 and born in the fucking internet came ? Like, professors and shit like that ? I don't give a fuck if it's how everyone does on 4chan, you should have a brain for yourself ffs. All you're doing is making conversations shitty. How do you make it thru the day without sticking a toothbrush in your own eye ?
>>1148602
But I'll leave. Don't worry. & why does it matter if my contribution is shit ? I'm only shitting where shit goes ; this thread has been filled with stupid pollack from the beginning, & I just wanted to point out the problems I saw.
>>1147774
Sorry but you hold no intellectual high ground stay delusional
>>1148615
And if someone wishes not to?
You would have to exert force over them to do something against their will.
>>1148618
The most fundemental economic problem is scarcity, and the universe is a scarce environment. How does Communism solve the distribution of resources effectively, to meet the inherent demands of Humans?
Why is it often that these "inherencies" are entirely separate constructs of ideology that may not be actual flaws, but just inherencies?
Is Communism the ultimate utopia with no flaws ever? (Other than you know, the whole lack of consistent application or coherent presentation of its effects).
The question comes down to, why would communism be better than capitalism? And why would it not effectively liberalize and change from time to time like every other system has in history? How does it prevent the intrinsic nature of animals to compete for resources and form hierarchies or "classes"?
>>1148643
This post wreaks of ideology of a 12 year old American who listened to some anthems and was like
:DDDD GALG MARXZZ COMMUNISM
D:< WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T LIKE GOMMUNISM, REACTIONARY BABY, BECOME ENLIGHTENED WORKING CLASS, WORLD REVOLUTION
>>1148643
>Yeah they do you stupid fuck
Yeah and we don't care about their asspain.
>>1148688
What ? I don't even talk about communism in this post. I don't even know what to say anymore. You have brain damage.
>>1148694
& I already mentionned why it was a bad thing that you don't.
Btw, I don't understand how being an edgy fuck on the internet is fun to you. What do you get from this ?
>>1148680
in the case you wishes not to, you will generate progeny.
Here you will have an economic problem, because your private economy will need additional income, making you an easy target for someone with the means of production.
Other option is to become a proletarian, using your progeny to generate income, forcing them to be an slave for the owner for the means of production.
Communism solve this by telling you to use a condom. Until you are ready to generate progeny.
It fails every time.
>>1148714
I take offense to you going in our house and trying to change our culture. You have plenty of "safe spaces" on the internet where you can hole your pimply ass up.
>>1148717
Your post did not address any of my questions.
You basically admitted that communism has no viable solution to scarcity.
>mfw Zizek, Lacan or Badiou
I like the guy, and I'm fairly leftist in the marxist sense. But it all comes down who is right metaphysicaly.
The whole Marxist/Freudian analysis of ideology is in the end dependent on rigid anthropomorphisms or axiomatic thinking. What Deleuze discovered was how capitalism was immanent, a way to go beyond the set coded values, something he named deteriortorilization. This process is happening all around us and is signified by teh breaking of all cultural and social values that will eventually be overcoded by nomadic identities. The orgy of communication will cease and a new form of the social will cement itself that will be neither Capitalist nor socialist, but nomadic and vitalist. Zizek defends a romantic enlightenment cause that never existed and his marriage of Marxism with it is quite absurd, considering what Adorno or Agamben said about it. The final nail in the coffin for leftism will be globalization, san production, Zizek who is in essence a crypto-Habermasian doesn't see the incoming collapse and sticks his head in the sand assuming everything can go on with regards to the state as it was before. Therefore the new model of transnational political entities would be a disaster, a security megastate that will guard the forces of anti-production and manage an immense lumpenproletariat. But the new nomads would inevitably tear it down.
Either Marx is updated to include this immanent move in civilization, or Marxism will die.
>>1148723
Yes it has, don't make puppies, they take your resources.
It's not communism fault that you are obsessed with sex.
>>1148680
Post-scarcity society is fully realizable with the wealth of technology at our disposal. Today, we already are capable of producing enough food to end world hunger. Communism aims to solve the issues of distribution through the common ownership of the means of production. Private ownership of the means of production will inevitably lead to the centralization and accumulation of capital by a minority.
>Is Communism the ultimate utopia with no flaws ever?
No I have never pretended to believe this.
>why would communism be better than capitalism? And why would it not effectively liberalize and change from time to time like every other system has in history?
Communism is the outcome of capitalism's contradictions, a product of the material conditions proceeding it. There is no reason to believe that the material conditions under communism would lead to a reversion to a capitalist system.
>How does it prevent the intrinsic nature of animals to compete for resources and form hierarchies or "classes"?
Although I agree there is an intrinsic desire in animals to acquire resources, you mistake this for inherent need to subjugate. Furthermore, classes are rooted in the ownership of the means of production. With common ownership there is the abolition of class.
>>1148328
I dislike the Soviet Union and what it did to millions of innocent people as much as the next guy.
But I'd rather live in a state where I don't have to suffer bank loan sharks, the danger of poverty, and mindless and stupid consumerism. The idea of liberal freedom we have today is completely distorted, it's not freedom at all. Society has to be governed with regards to the total sum of political economy and the social, not with individuals abstracted from it.
Essentially I firmly believe Plato was right in the Republic.
>>1148718
I never said this board was shit because of that. Why are you talking so much shit ?
>>1148721
I'm not going into your house, nobody of my ideas is, I don't give a fuck about your culture (except you include capitalism in it).
Why would I give a fuck about a safe space you cunt ? I never said anything against insults or shit like that, I don't know if you've noticed (because my post weren't only made of that, as opposed to yours) but I've used quite a lot of them. It's the stupid fucking way you talk I mentionned as repulsive to anyone who isn't used to trashcans like you. And if you don't see what I mean by that it's really time you talk to someone other than on 4chan.
>>1148733
You are not taking reactionary forces into consideration, traditions, ownership of land, and very long etc..
>>1148791
The last line of defense for capitalism has been the state but even that falls down eventually when capitalism makes it obsolete.
What Deleuze, Guattari and Nick Land are describing is of course not something that will happen in the near future, but a long process of the complete destruction of the social and tradition. True reactionary forces are indeed always waiting to spring up and stop this process but now it's too late.
On this crucial point Deleuzes analysis of fascism solves the mystery problem why wasn't there a proletarian revolution in the 20th century. While Zizek simply assumes it was because of ideological forces distorting class consciousness, Deleuze tells as it was was because desire was reoriented into different subjectivations, the worker became "Aryan" etc. The problem of desire has always been a delirium of identities and subjectivations. It's not only ideology, ideology is a reductive term. It is the vectors and structural ways in which the state administers society. But chaos inevitably births new social formations
>>1148735
How do you enforce people not having sex, you didn't answer that.
>>1148753
>we can end world hunger
No we can't.
If we try, the means of distribution fails.
Every
Damn
Time.
It is impossible to achieve a post scarcity society today, and it probably will never be possible, until we hit something like Wall-E; where very one is fat, dumb, lazy and stupid because of how we allocated resources on earth to ourselves.
Common ownership does not solve distribution, and does not solve dissent.
>>1148877
So by force then, and how do you exert this force?
>Why "it" never works
What is "it"?
>>1148846
>Nick Land
>reactionary
>>1148882
One big solution to the scarcity problem, and many other societal problems is to reduce birth rates, taking into consideration that dumb/poor people breed the most.
My inner conspiracy nut wants to believe that aids was an artificial virus made to enforce the use of condoms, of course I have not proof of this but it will make sense.
>>1148876
>No we can't.
>If we try, the means of distribution fails.
>Every
>Damn
>Time.
This is fallacious for two reasons. First, there has been no coordinated global effort to end hunger, so to say that it has failed every time is dishonest. The second reason is that it cannot end within a capitalist system, they are invariably linked. To claim that we are not capable of adapting infrastructure, as well as creating it, as needed to end starvation is ridiculous and largely obscures the root of hunger which is not an incurable food deficit in some parts of the world.
>>1147708
I love how retards like you stay to your basements. Anything new or foreign is incomprehensible to you, so you take the faggot way out and cover your ears and shout "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Get off /his/, it has its fair share of retardation already.
>>1148753
>Post-scarcity society is fully realizable
No, no it isn't.
>>1148753
*nods respectfully*
>>1148766
4chan is our house you shitblubber.
>>1148978
Why isn't it?
>>1149001
How exactly have you made resources non-scarce?
>>1149024
Technology has, and will continue to, reduce the amount of socially necessary labor time that goes into the production of goods. Even within a capitalist system we are able to produce enough food to feed the worlds population. The majority of the issues associated with distribution are resolved when ownership of the means of production are communalized.
>>1148913
You will have to mathematically prove that post scarcity society is possible.
From then you have to prove it is possible within the realm of Humans and their actions.
>>1149054
Jacque Fresco
Love that guy, best part of watching the zeitgest movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo
Could work maybe not, he's completely away from our current view of society, but is undeniable how influent it can be.
>>1149080
It's actually feasible, but it's just not as fun and you'll expect it to be.
It could work as a last option or for the development of other planets when we start from the beggining, impossible to do in our modern worldview.
>>1149054
>necessary
Ah, yes. The "needs" obfuscation. "Needs" are nothing more than prescribed desires.
No, we're not in post-scarcity. We will not be there in the foreseeable future. Resources will always be limited. Wants, not "needs", which are only constrained by the imagination due to their nature, will always be unlimited. Until you violate some principle of physics which allows for infinite energy, we will live in scarcity.
>>1147638
fucking hell
im from Chile and the country is just as good as those girls on FB who post pics from just one angle because everything else makes her look like shit.
Comparing it with Venezuela is a meme.
>>1148989
Then I'm living here too. I've been on 4chan for years. It doesn't keep me from seeing the shitheads who inhabitate it.
It's funny how it sounds like nationalist reasoning tho, like "they cannot be criticizing the society they were born in, our glorious country cannot created disgusting traitors ! They must be influenced by foreign powers..." Do you even dialectic ?
>>1149115
Santiago es mierda.
;-:ctm.
>>1148081
Yeah, it's funny how the IEP article on him keeps comparing him to Edmund fucking Burke of all people.
>>1146948
>Thoughts on this man?
It's a pitty we barely get to see him in Episode VII.
>>1149115
Theoretically, Venezuela should be better off because lol oil.
Of course, it's never that simple in real life.
>>1149134
Es todo culpa de los simios de números que tienen Santiago lleno de edificios gigantes. Ludópatas de mierda.
>>1149152
Actually it's the opposite, if history means anything. Isn't it just the old Resource Curse ? I don't know the history of Venezuela (at all).
>>1148488
>What he lacks is an idea of how a better government would function.
Eh, I can spare him that one. In fact, it's one of my favorite things about Zizek. Because he focuses on the critique, he is a useful read for anyone. The critique amounts to more than 'you're not doing things the way I would do them.'
He's more interested in how Government does function, then it should function. And the thing is, if you follow his critique, it would be very hard for him to propose something that wouldn't just repeat the worst things he points out, just introducing a new signifier, and affirmations of the relation of the self, etc. etc.
>>1148488
>What he lacks is an idea of how a better government would function.
Thats what pretty much everyone lacks atm to be fair
>>1149192
And that's the great thing about Zizek. He explains how power manages to function when nobody believes it's doing any good anymore.
>>1149178
That doesn't make sense, the US and Canada have tons of resources and they're first world and pretty unfucked.
>>1149093
You tard. I'm not talking about creating matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postscarcity_economy
Read a bit before you post, please. Beyond that, "necessary" speaks to the amount of time it takes to create something. There is nothing arbitrary about socially necessary labor time, it denotes a real value.
>>1149228
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postscarcity_economy
I'm reading it, anon. This is real informative right here.
>>1149228
Gravity shielding.
"According to the account Podkletnov gave to Wired reporter Charles Platt in a 1996 phone interview, during a 1992 experiment with a rotating superconducting disc:
"Someone in the laboratory was smoking a pipe, and the pipe smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. So we placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc, attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted a nonmagnetic material, silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some of its weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect was increased"
Could solve the energy problem.
>>1149236
The link got fucked, literally just press "search for postscarcity economy in Wikipedia", you mong.
>>1149080
I am not a mathematician but this seems like a plausible thing for me to do. If I make a fool of myself you have no one but yourself to blame. To be clear, there are people better qualified to discuss mathematical proofs, but I will try.
Let us assume that we have a number of renewable resources. These resources are things such as food, clean water, and space. While there is certainly a finite amount at any one given time, the limits of these resources are constantly changing based on factors outside of our control, think natural disasters, weather etc.. Despite this, it is possible to assign them a constant value based on the amount that they average at.
My example of this is a small garden. In this garden there are 10 cabbages. With care, I am able to both harvest these cabbages every year and propagate the next crop. While the amount I harvest will undoubtedly change, perhaps deer eat some one year, I will still be able to plant ten more. In this manner we can express resources as a constant. Let us denote this as being R.
The purpose of our cultivation of resources is, of course, their use. I grow my cabbages so that I may eat them. Beyond that even, my survival is dependent on them. The drain on resource can be denoted as expenses, E.
If R is greater than or equal to E then clearly it is a viable system. Currently the earths carrying capacity, R, exceeds the expenses, E, as applied to earth’s population
http://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/
The rest is dependent on the advances we make in technology as well as our own self management.
>>1149318
Then what is the rational behind communism solving such a problem, is communism purely utilitarian?
>>1148896
If you think he is a traditionalist evola worshiping faggot, you don't know shit about him.
>>1148733
I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
>>1149540
I prefer to look at it as merely being the result of dialectical materialism. Trying to ascribe some sort of moral value to it is largely a waste of time, imo. If I must say, the rational behind communism is largely the same as the one that drives capitalism, self interest.
>>1149540
>is communism purely utilitarian
In what sense? As opposed to what?
>>1146948
Can someone explain why he makes fun of all ideologies but then says he is for communism?
I-isn't communism an ideology?
>>1149832
http://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/#Ha
Bam, here's a rundown on Zizek's views on ideology.
I think one reason he has come out as 'for' communism, is that it's pretty central to his thought that you don't escape ideology. When you think you're post-ideological, now you're just totally ensnared by the ideology.
>>1149886
cool this is helpful thanks
This is now a Zizek meme thread
>>1146948
>enlightening
kek
more like entertaining if anything
>>1147722
>sprouting a meme solves everything!
Also, spooky as fuck
>>1146948
I like his critiques of contemporary society, but he can't seem to string them together into one cohesive conclusion, he seems to jump around from topic to topic. His books are too cryptic really, though I can see where he tries to go with it. *sniffs*
Overall, the real problem with him is that he just can't seem to synthesize his ideas into a real theory. The guy's alright, certainly better than the SJW cancer that's plagued much of the rest of the left in the past few years.
I really respect Marxists for still having that grand vision that brings so many fields together to promote an integrated theory of things, even if I don't agree with their ends in general. Shit's just too postmodern nowadays.
>>1146948
Shitposting aside, though, I appreciate what he's trying to do, even if his writings strike me as a bit obscurantist, he makes some good points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtPghWHAQfs
He's alright when he doesn't get sidetracked so much.
Clown.
His bit on the refugees caused some butthurt, so I'll give him that.
He triggers the PC left, so he's alright in my book. He's fun, and thankfully isn't one of the more cancerous types of intellectuals.
/lit/ meme
>>1149541
I was implying the exact opposite. He's an accelerationist transhumanist cuck. Emphasis on cuck.
He's interesting. I tl;dr the whole thread.
Ideology:
His basic idea of ideology is that we can't analyse if from the regular "obfuscation of truth" since the correspondence theory of truth has itself become questioned. So instead he tries to use Lacanian psycho analysis to create a new concept of ideology. If I have understood it correct the Lacanian "Real" is somehow an ideology which we impose on others.
Truth:
In this way he is some kind of sceptic of objective truth. Whereas most realists assume that "a healthy individual" realises something, Zizek doesn't assume that. The human consciousness is imposing things by its very nature, and thus it is idealistic.
Is his alternative to correspondence theory of truth coherentism or dogmatism?
I'd say it is dogmatism. It is some kind of "We should dogmatically accept European Humanist Enlightenment principles."
In this way he isn't a rationalist who assumes that "As long we doubt everything it will be alright."
Metaphysics:
This leads to his metaphysics being idealistic. Specifically Hegelian idealistic where we impose a narrative onto things. He views the future as some kind of unrealised potential and the past as some kind of necessary thing to happen. This is his way to solve things like the problem of free will.
Before you have chosen your action you are free to do whatever, but when you have done it you all of a sudden were always determined to do so.
Criticisms of direct democracy:
I think this is the point where he is spot on. The left seems to thin that everything is solvable by a more utopian free society where we just need to follow more principles dogmatically. But I agree with him here. The way may be through stronger military forces present in places, less direct democracy and so on. I also agree that it is a bit of an internalisation of the neo-liberal guilt to think that the individual is responsible for all the shit the government does etc.
Cont.
>>1151092
Neoliberal guilt:
Sadly this idea isn't his. He is correct in seeing that it has been commercialised a lot. This kind of "buy this cup and you'll save a tree etc."
This idea of feminism, ecology, leftism, revolutionary ideals etc. being commercialised has existed for long. But it is just obvious how much impact it has today.
We see that feminism and identity politics has become totally independent on an actual economic analysis of society. It is like "Oh just if we vote in Hillary we will become more feminist", even if she doesn't support feminist attitudes.
General obfuscations:
Even though I think most of what he says seems pretty easy to understand if you just focus on it, there are some obfuscated parts of it. Like, most of the time, just a grab a notebook, read some pages, write down the terms he uses, look them up, read the pages again and try to make a summary on how they fit together.
However, things like his views on transgender bathrooms is like inane.
He seriously proposes some kind of "Transgenders represent gender as such."
What does that even mean? Do they walk around instantiating the very idea of gender?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How are they supposed to represent gender as such? I don't get it.
There are much better theories which try to explain transgenderism, which try to analyse how they should be respected, whether we should write laws on sex/gender and on what gender is. But his proposal just seems out of this world.
I don't know whether this is like some cop out or something.
Also, his ideas of "The Chicken" (kinda like his "spooks", but he doesn't think they are bad) of society and "Sublime Object of Ideology" are really useful when analysing why people do seemingly irrational stuff.
Zizek was right when he warned against listening to him as an alternative to thinking.
>>1148733
>nomadic and vitalist
Alright, but what would that look like in the physical world? Is it something desirable or just an indifferent inevitability that fucks you in the ass?
>>1146948
Do you know what is Yu-Gi-Okh? *sniffs*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HpuDmTqWaI&t=20m30s
>>1151120
This should be the default for every philosopher desu.
>>1151238
Cardgamesh *sniff* on motoshyclesh
>>1146948
he seems like he'd be a fucking based university lecturer
>>1147391
>implying /his/ wasn't always part of the ideology
>>1149093
... Having enough resources to sustain just about every human want and need isn't post-scarcity?
In a communist society, if we don't have enough of something, we research and get more from outside of the Earth. Without the retarded capital barrier (the same barrier that has allowed climate change to get this far) people can do anything.
Resources are only as scarce as capitalists (or the bourgeoisie, or CEOs, or land owners, whatever you want to call them, you know what I mean) decide them to be. We're not running out of oil, for example, the people that own the oil are simply constricting production to raise prices.
We're not limited by the total amount of resources, we're limited by the amount of resources available at one time. If there aren't enough we can just produce more.
What did he mean by this?
>>1154195
It's a joke.
>>1154195
it is not about the coke, it is about having a drink of coke, the journey not the destination, very deep
Looks insane and probably is
>>1148616
>The problem is that society can not have safety, productivity, and comfort without having surveillance, compliance, and boundaries.
>We deserve these things, but must sacrifice freedom to get them.
Your devout statism blinds you from seeing the truth that governments are the main source of violence and manipulation in societies. Civilization is not a consequence of state control, it is a natural social phenomenon and the state is its parasite. Freedom and civilization are not mutually exclusive, freedom is the ability of people to act in their own interests and a civilization built on it would organize itself.
Should I invest time in this guy or Chomsky?
>>1156705
Zizek > Chumsky
>>1152456
he is
>>1156317
>Your devout statism blinds you from seeing the truth that governments are the main source of violence and manipulation in societies.
There's a few things wrong with your reasoning here. Not only are there plenty of failed states where the state in fact isn't the main source of violence, if there even is one, but you assume because the state monopolizes violence once the state is gone violence won't emerge. In fact, it can be said historically when the state fails violence does emerge.
>Civilization is not a consequence of state control, it is a natural social phenomenon and the state is its parasite.
You're negating a causative relationship to fit your narrative where there in fact is. Civilization is the result of societal advances, including the state. And the state, by making laws, promotes and enforces social order, so it promotes civilization. Civilization as a phenomenon doesn't just "emerge" out of any single cause but is created by a series of conditions which help it come about, among them hierarchies of leadership.
>Freedom and civilization are not mutually exclusive, freedom is the ability of people to act in their own interests and a civilization built on it would organize itself.
Show me when this happens. And please abstain from subsistence farmers 2000 years before Christ, we're talking about something conceivable today.
>>1156705
Unless you're talking about linguistics, Zizek. Chomsky is just a guy with hot fucking opinions, bro. Zizek is actually a modern philosopher.
How has "Space is literally the most stupid thing there is" not been posted yet?
>>1146948
>enlightening
So, common sense truisms dressed with leftoid coatings are enlightening now?
>>1148733
10/10 post
even though that notion of nomadic identities ignores a vast ammount of deeply sedentary (in the Deleuzian sense) forces who are outright against globalization (much more than capitalism per se)
>>1149612
> the rational behind communism is largely the same as the one that drives capitalism, self interest.
Finally, someone fucking gets it
>>1159214
You certainly don't.
The force that drives life, existence, is self interest.
>>1146948
One of the few modern leftists I have a modicum of respect for
>>1148458
>MUH CHRISTIANNNNNNNNNNNNNS
>Cites a single shitposter who could not be more obviously a shyster trying to make religion absolutely despised on this board since the sticky allows discussion of religion
Okay
>>1148458
>implying /leftypol/ is better
He is 'interestin', but his books are a load of scat. I think its a bunch of nonsense. His nemesis Peter van Sloterdijk is even worse.
A new Zizek without psychoanalysis but with cognitive science would be muchos better.
But funny he is this Zizek Slavoj guy
>>1146948
A talentless hack in the lines of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and all the other talentless hacks who make up 20th century marxist philosophy.
>>1158108
>common sense
>>1149084
Interesting, but to bring some dialectical critique into it, when he says on one hand "technicians can't tell you how to live they merely manage resources etc." isn't there a contradiction? Like say I want to live in a tropical island with beautiful beaches, I have every material need where I currently live but yet I dream of living on a beach, so I go to the technicians council or whatever and tell them what I want, and immediately they're like "no you can't live in an island, currently all available islands already have the population they can sustain so you will have to wait for some inhabitant of this island to die so you can take his place etc." This is an stupid example maybe but hopefully you see where I am going, this idea that if you obliterate nation-states and local governments in favor of a global elite of scientists, I am not saying its a bad idea per se, but I am trying to point out the new antagonisms this society will inevitable engender, the ruling class of technicians versus everyone else.
Imagine something like the Holodomor happens, a big tragedy somewhere in the world, and the managerial elite is held responsible, then what? Do we overthrow the technicians? Do we demand democracy? Is clear mistakes will be made, no mode of human organization is perfect, what do we do when it happens? Do we take the current technician elite and replace it with another ruling class of technicians organized in an opposition party in a process that's pretty much identical to our current system of representative democracy?
>>1147391
Zizek is meme fodder.
>>1148458
keep crying bitch nigger
only people I see whining here are leftyfags
>>1162037
>Foucault
>Lacan
>Derrida
>Marxist
are you a fucking idiot? Literally none of those people are marxists and are all criticized by marxists.
>>1165062
He's a Cultural Marxist, I read it on an infographic.
>>1165062
Whatever they are, they're all massive faggots.
>>1148458
Christian Leftist here.
You, Marxist, are the problem.
>>1147700
This post is pure cancer
>>1147700
/pol/ is a great example of why containment boards don't work.
It didn't contain the retardation, it just acted as a giant incubator for future retards.
>>1148115
The problem with /his/ isn't a lack of communists.
It's that /his/ is one of the few boards were communists are overrepresented, but the quality of arguments against communism are literally /b/ tier.
Communists at least read their own philosophers.
Anti-communists don't read scholarly criticisms of communism, at best you will find Austrian schoolers who read ideologically pro-capitalist economists.
>>1165514
8/10
>rothschild
>margaret thatcher
Rothschild is just a meme and Thatcher didn't actually do anything wrong, surely Enrico Dandolo and Karl Marx would have been better
>>1168203
That would imply Karl Marx was anything short of a hero.
this >>1168182
I say this as an anti-communist, I have been put off participating in a few threads because I know my patrician ideals will be lumped in with "DUDE, NO ONE WANTS TO WORK FOR FREE LMAO"
he eats severed penises and balls with a knife and fork. Just picture it mentally you know its true
crypto habermasian
>>1147391
>Christ, what the fuck happened, /his/?
Pure Ideology is literally a first week of /his/ maymay.
>>1146948
Looks like a belligerent drunken asshole.
>>1168663
As he watches his 'fisting wall' which is huge amount of small televisions, covering one wall, each a different fisting scene on loop.
I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is /his/. The material force of /his/ makes me not see what I am effectively eating.
>>1149180
What I really like about his critique is that he approaches government from the cultural level. I agree with him that any significant change in government or economy would first require a significant change in culture. Approaching it from that angle makes sense.
People like to pit Chomsky against Zizek but I think they go together quite well. Chomsky focuses on the behaviour of the state, Zizek focuses on the behaviour of the culture. Together they make for a more complete picture.
>>1146948
living in the end times are good. But the some of the examples are miss, or used for generalization of whole topic
>>1148181
Roughly this? I watched Pervert's whatever, thought it was decent and found him amusing and entertaining and fairly sharp. If I figure out what he's written I might get around to grabbing something of his some day, though I'm an amerifat and don't really have much of a handle on how significant he is.
>>1168213
cuck
zizek is to philosophy what steven seagal is to cinema
>>1171077
Not an argument.
I go a phd in philosophy and I don't understand nor care to understand whatever the fuck this retarded loser is on about
>>1171685
A PhD in philosophy of race is as useless as toilet paper, senpai.
>>1171153
>the -frankfurt school wanted to destroy the West
Look it's 6 AM and I havent slept so I really can't be bothered, bu the tl;dr is:
>Hegel is bored
>Hegel invents dialectics
>Hegelian dialectics and Whig perception of history (now is better than before, basically [current year]) become the dominant views in their respective fields
>eventually USSR and Nazi Germany happen
>both work supposedly based on REASON/Rationalism and can be justified using Hegel
>Holocaust and Gulags happen
>a bunch of German jews start questioning if:
a) Hegel was right
b) history is a line of constant progress
>they eventually conclude that Reason as put forwards during the Enlightenment is an inherently despotic force (what is opposed to Reason is inherently bad)
>they decide to dismiss Reason
>they spend their entire carrer constructing philosophical tools to analyse and tear down any "ideology"
>they find out they have nothing to replace it with
>they eventually die off/retire without finding a solution
>today they're merely a footnote of history, except for some right wing memers.
Of course this is massively simplyfiying things. Here's a quick rundown of them:
>Horkheimer: consumerist culture and soft despotism ala modern USA is even worse than regular dictatorships because people dont realize they live in one
>Adorno: making art in the framework of the same society that birthed the Holocaust and Hiroshima is impossible
>Marcuse: neo-Lennisim lmao :DDD
Zizek has recently gotten an unexpected supporter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJQRGt4mjzU
>>1175580
those abandoned buildings constitute a miniscule proportion of capitalism
>communist
should literally be hung by the balls
