They look really comfortable, though. Fancy, expensive, 'good' chairs nowadays have stopped supporting good posture and comfort and have started supporting only status and visual masturbation.
@Chormerly Fucks you have that wrong! It should be "made under capitalists by slaves". Capitalism is about exploitation. Exploiting the working class, bailing out the rich and letting the poor fend for themselves and even die. The Corona pandemic is now showing you this is true
I've come to the conclusion that this entire conversation was less about learning Zizek's point of view and more about convincing him to stop calling himself a commie so that the other guy can be his friend
I don't get the hangup with the words "Communist" or "Conservative". Clearly Zizek is a critique of capitalism and markets and wants a new path forward that doesn't end up in the same problems as in the USSR and Maoist China, but the word communist is such a historically loaded term that while he uses it to describe himself because there's no other word that exists that accurately captures wanting to replace capitalism with a better system today, what his detractors are hearing is basically that he wants to resurrect the USSR.
Hooga I think we need better education on economic systems. Because like, Communist and Socialist are often conflated, and socialist often just refers to the ML vanguard states when there’s a bunch of variations. Bernie Sanders is probably helping a bit with the nuance of socialist ideology, though I wish he would actually explain what democratic socialism is so people stop trying to pin him as wanting to make the USSR again (Yes I know he’s campaigning on a social democrat platform, but with his platform it would actually be useful to educate the country better). Also calling Zizek conservative is just weird, last I checked he was pro-intersectionality (I think he is at least, doesn’t strike me as someone who’s against social progressivism regardless), which is an important part of progressivism that also helps unite the working class
@@Wyrdangus well the socialist or communist economic ideology isn't hard to understand, because it is just goverment intervention in the economy to "help against monopolies" but at the end it just creates another and worse
SpiderKnight No, that’s not it at all. A worker run state that controls the means of production is one style of socialism (Vanguard states), but you can also have worker ownership in the form of worker coops etc. with a weaker or nonexistent state, while communism goes much further and lacks any state, lacks money, and lacks classes. It has nothing to do with monopolies
@@jesusmods1 Well for Marxists the nationalization of the means of production is a step forward for the construction of communism, and the purpose of this isn't to crush monopolies. You need to read about Marxian crisis theory
except Bill Gates never said that. Bill Gates is socially progressive. Fine. And economically a capitalist pig. These things often go together hand in hand.
@@paulb7207 almost all the billionaires are socially progressive maybe exept elon but that doesn't mean he's a capitalist pig, he advocates for higher taxes vows to donate all his money.
@@shaheenshad5012 It is interesting phenomenon. My personal take is that billionaires aren't socialist or progressive at all. They do it for show. So they are likeable and nobody asks them inconvenient questions. If you read up Warren Buffet investment advise you will see stark contrast to the persona he is trying to sell publicly. Publicly he will claim it is a scandal he pays less taxes than his secretary. When lecturing other investors he will tell them it doesn't matter if a can of coke is drunk or disposed to trash. As long as he can turn profit on it. Bill Gates built huge monopoly. I don't believe he sincerely cares. Unless it is his bottom line or image. He wants to be remembered well by history, that's all. But he isn't Mother Theresa. Apple runs sweatshops in China akin to concentration camps, child labor included. But when you look at Tim Cook you think progressive because of gay rights. It is for show, nothing else. The same when they say they work 28 hours a day and sleep 15 minutes a week ;-) They always say that. Such a BS. I mean, come on, Musk spends waay too much time on twitter just think about it. I'm not that rich. I make "just" 500k. But even me, I work like 3 hours a day. I pay about 10-15% in taxes a year depending on the year. You think what do I say to friends, family? I tell them I work very, very hard. And I tell them that I pay a ton in taxes. Because, you know, how would they feel knowing I work less than them and pay less in taxes than them? And then I tell them how progressive I'm. Otherwise how can I employ people or have customers? By offending them? I don't think so. But then I go and vote for guys who will keep the things the way they are. Or make them even better for me. Which, honestly, doesn't even matter, neither party will change that. It's just part of life. In communism my grandfather (I'm from Poland originally) was a party apartchik. Also did nothing and had great life. He was some kind of Party Secretary in my hometown. Retired at 50 something. In every system there are people on the top. And people on the bottom. In social democracy I would be a trade union activist. Also doing nothing and having great life. This is called life. And these are good times. Because you can decide in which camp you'd like to be: top or bottom. This never changes. People who think this will change or is different in socialism/communism/fascism - I'm sorry - but are complete idiots. I don't care the system. As each system needs people working for it. And I'm ready to work for any system, become part of any ideology, to be on the top. Are you ready? Or you are a day-dreamer? In capitalism I'm a capitalist. In communism I would be a party member. In fascism I'd do my part too. And trust most people on top are exactly like that. You change the system next thing you know in that new system I'm on top too. And people who were on the bottom -- are still there. Because if you are a lazy idiot -- like most -- you are destined to work for others no matter the political system.
In Sweden and Finland we now have a lot of "forests". They are trees standing in perfect lines growing and waiting to be cut down. I don't call that a forest. I call that wood production.
Timber is needed. With plantations you're saving the real forests, the "production" is controlled, so you get the right kind of wood. And the trees still absorb carbon dioxide.
Jo Da plantations are not the same as forests in the sense the op was talking. There is comparatively no biological life going on in these plantations. You simply can’t exchange forests with these plantations in any sense more than just for industry or to decrease the rate of stagnation of carbon uptake.
@@spacefertilizer instead of cutting trees in plantations, you can obviously cut them in a normal forest. But I doubt that this is going to help the environment.
@@Tzimiskes969 I agree that we need timber. I just think it is problematic how we speak about forests. the concept of timber production is not simply interchangeable with the concept of forests. A forest is something that is "alive" more than just being thousands of trees of one kind growing in lines.
@@Tzimiskes969 Depends on what environment was there before the plantation. If you cut down a whole forest and start timber production there you didnt "save the forest". If you let a forests grow and cut timber in a sustainable, small scale manner they may have a better diversity - species richness - than a plantation.
They keep talking about Singapore without mentioning that the only resource they have is the land itself, and they nationalised it. Singapore has shown itself to not be afraid of removing or severely restricting free markets when they are deemed harmful to the well-being of the people. As far as I know, Singapore has had the same government since it’s creation in the 1960s. It is not a shining example of free market capitalism, but an example of tough utilitarianism and pragmatism. They have built themselves up using things that work, without paying attention to what side of the political spectrum they fall.
@@MrLcoop Yeah, but probably ironically accurate. While China hasn't followed the same model, it has used the same kind of logic. The west romanticises market economies way too much. It is like this love affair where you can't see the many faults of the object of your love. The Singapore government just went, a free property market on a small chunk of land is going to extort the economy, create slums and poverty, let's not do that. Knocking out the historic foundation of property rights, which is the bedrock of capitalism, because it is objectively shit. Even really progressive western governments would never have the balls to kill that sacred cow. Similarly, I think that China sees capitalism through a Marxist lens, and is using it as a tool to get where it wants to go, with no emotional attachment to it at all. Western politicians believe their own bullshit, and it makes them make weird decisions and assumptions.
The problem with city-states is exactly that: they are city-states. Throw in 30 million villagers on the size 200 times that od Singapore -- into the equation, then we will talk.
I prefer to read Zizek than to listen to him. When he speaks publicly he has difficulties in organizing his thoughts, being ordered and clear. This is a pity because makes him look awkward in front of the people he is debating with.
@@edhiepitz Dude its not that hes not a native speaker, its the way he is, it was hard to follow him even in his native language. Hes just 2 erratic when he gets excited. It also brings out a lot more ticks then when hes calm. I talk from experience here.
@@edhiepitz Me neither, but I am able to organize my thoughts when I am speaking in English. And pay attention to the following: he is very articulate and he has a wide vocabulary in English. I don't think it is a language problem. I believe it is the capacity of ordering your thoughts when you speak. Pay attention to his body language. That helps in understanding it.
Rafael Baère Without meaning time delve into armchair psychology, he almost feels like he’s got ADHD/ADD and/or is fairly ASD. Like I do the same shit, even when responding on CZcams I find myself repeating points and organising things properly, which leads to a lack of conciseness. Fortunately it’s not too hard to get the gist of what he’s saying if you listen to him enough, and make somewhat liberal use of rewinding at times
Well rich capitalist countries have always outsourced their production to poor capitalist countries which means they outsource pollution and destruction of the environment to those countries too so in reality capitalist countries have always and still do pollute more than socialist countries.
@@jlons5586 sure thing buddy! No one is forcing you to live in a socialist society :D I'd 9 out of 10 times rather live in a socialist country than in a capitalist country considering that most capitalist countries are poor af like Indonesia, Yemen, Haiti, Congo, Sri Lanka etc. Or even the richest capitalist country in the world U.S. has absolute horrible slums and sweat shops because spoiler alert their government doesn't give a shit about its people but only about profits which we can now see more bluntly than ever during this Covid crisis. Anyways have a nice day, stay safe and healthy! :)
@@josephcro2138 hmm no slums or hungry people in general yes, that's a fact. But in the same economic development socialist countries give/gave a better quality of life than capitalist countries 93 percent of the time, however we cannot ignore the crippling economic sanctions that were/are a real factor in socialist economies that really hurt them that sometimes made life in those countries hard considering common goods like tampons and meat for example were difficult to get. Mixed bag for sure, but if a country is terrorized by every means necessary I dont really give a shit if it's capitalist or not, I'll defend them from imperialism
@@josephcro2138 also dude you talking about slums or hunger, you cannot compare 1930s Soviet Union for example to modern U.S. or to any modern state for that matter. But still though they had universal healthcare back then and the U.S. still dont have that so what the fuck does that tell you about a system and how it works?! Please think about that. It's all about how you distribute wealth. If you're rich.... Well then it's a different thing and you should defend capitalism with all your soul and power... But for the rest of us we will not swallow your bullshit anymore
Communist revolutions always starts with students and intellectuals because they can see and describe so clearly the corruption in the current order. With just a small amount of violence, they can remove the plutocrats and then the workers can unite. Once the violence begins, the workers see that the intellectuals are the ones holding socialism back - so more violence is needed. Once the workers are in power, the truly psychopathic see an easy path to power and the violence becomes permanent.
@@atomicsmith Revolution is not about violence. It's about workers reclaiming their country. Stop making this into some weird fantasy of workers having to be crazy bloodthirsty maniacs.
Singapore is hell for the working class. Just read up on the reports from the unions and you will see. It’s not anywhere near a good goal for any society to strive at. Edit: For someone like the guy on the right, a well educated man from the west, it’s probably very wonderful to spend your time in Singapore. But it’s ridiculous to promote a country from that perspective.
But China is a paradize for the working class? It's worse. These countries are radical, no surprize there. But they have similar grounds, and the ones that picked capitalism instead of communism are doing better.
Rodrigue Grange China is an authoritarian state capitalist country, that’s probably arguably fascist. Their concentration camps, sorry “re-education camps” for Uyghr Muslims and political dissidents are a big fucking Yikes
@@Wyrdangus big fucking yikes is an understatement. China since the 50ies was a dump. Ever since they survived the war and invasion from Japan they became imperalist cockholsters themselves.
@@aaabbb-py5xd that doesnt even make sense.You cant speak english. Its so obvious you are a butthurt beta from Singapore. You need at least another year of english lessons. The whole world see's how dumb yall are, and you cant even see it. If you are so anti-drug, never drink caffeine or alcohol again, and kill anyone that does. But you dont even believe what you say. You dont support killing people for drugs. You just want to be edgy.
I like how Zizek directly try to engage Cowen, while he remains fully aware that he's talking to an audience an answers more to the audience than to Zizek.
@@Richallmight2 because communists seek no dividends in society like religion or ethnicity. But conservatives live by dividends, and they make these jokes to claim legitimacy. Humor is a very potent tool to explain feelings
This phenomenon can only be seen in America. Us slavs are much more vulgar so to say and socially conservative regardless of our political ideology. But i think this is just a view of most European people and people in the world in general it just seems to me Americans are much more ..lets say soft and liberal like
Conservatives: I believe in freedom from big government. Also conservatives: it’s ok that in Singapore you need a prescription to buy gum and if you drop it on the floor you go to jail
singapore is like 80% government owned housing, and 20% ridiculous billionaire condos, it's obviously taken care to confront the realities of how land ownership can't just be thrown to a free market.
I'm not sure you'd find many more conservatives that would side with this dude on his complacency reggarding that example of Singapore's over-controlling totalitarianism.
@- Joseph the weak aleays want a strong daddy to stort their shit for them. If they have to be daddy's bitch, so be it, as long as they get their shelter. 👍
@- Joseph the weak aleays want a strong daddy to stort their shit for them. If they have to be daddy's bitch, so be it, as long as they get their shelter. 👍
Cowen's appraisal of Singapore is quite revealing. Singapore is notorious for its violent suppression of poor and marginalized people. For these neoclassical creeps, "freedom" is just the ability of the rich and upper middle class to go about their lives with little interference, indulging in all of their preferred vices, while all the other poor, undesirable people have to live under the hammer.
maimed lord the exception kind of proved the rule I believe. Is your family from Singapore? Most poor workers there are immigrants from nearby countries with shit economies because of economic imperialism. The vast majority of people working these jobs don’t move up in the system because they are barely making enough to get by.
maimed lord Like half of the people in the United States don’t even have enough money for three months of savings expenses. I’m not really sure what economic freedoms you’re talking about. If anything, the capitalist countries that have those would be those such as Sweden and Denmark with strong social programs.
The biggest mistake of the west is to think that communism is "Liberal" in the western sense. Tyler Cowen, as eloquent he might be, also sees the matter one sided. All in all, a wasted discussion, without point.
I had high hopes for the galaxy brain takes this conservative was gonna have but he just ended up sounding like your average bad faith college Republican.
@@dannya1854 That's actually known issue with Zizek. Philosphy my a5s. He is just a cultural critic. There is no philosophy in his monologues. Philosopher tells you how you are supposed to live life. Not what the cultural problems are. The other guy is just economics professor and does what economics professors do. Talks about economy. Zizek is too confused to even know what the hell he is. PhD in psychoanalysis, thinks of himself as a philosopher while in reality he is a cultural critic. He doesn't talk about solutions. He talks only about the cultural problems without providing any solution. He is not serious that's for sure. And cynism isn't the answer to everything. His voice is important as in elegantly showcasing to wider public what the problems are in fascinating sometimes groundbreaking fashion. But this doesn't make him a philosopher. To be one he would need to tell what the solutions to the problems are. He is incapable of that. One can tell he'd love to be a philosopher. But he isn't. And he won't be memorized as one. That's the satisfaction I have.
@@paulb7207 bro a simple google search will tell you that culture is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline, not telling people how to live their lives. People tell themselves how to live, but that leads to another rabbit hole of control and free will. Solutions are difficult to formulate, and many factors have to be considered. Any simple solutions can be considered naive or reductionist. You know you can read his books? There is nothing wrong about disliking Zizek, but don't write entire paragraphs of non arguments. And since you show great disdain for cultural critics, you better not let me catch you watching the likes of ben shapiro, jordan peterson, or anyone who remotely talks about culture. By the way he has two doctorates; 1 in philosophy & sociology, and psychoanalysis. People like you make me want to give up on humanity and let them suffer under capitalism.
@@ljc6141 well in broader scope mathematics and physics are philosophy too. But they really aren't. And Zizek isn't a philosopher. Again, philosopher has recipes for life. This dude just sits there and bitches how bad Western culture is. And how bad capitalism is. That's not philosophy. That's bitching. Also, I have just ordered first book by him. I read Peterson, but I also read Pinkman. I read WSJ but I also watch CNN. I think that's the difference between you and me. I try my best not to let (any) ideology/religion close my mind. You seem not to be there (hopefully yet). I have excellent Marxist friends. I have excellent Conservative friends. You seem to priest in the church of Marx. Good for you! But if you can't make friends with someone from opposite ideological spectrum how will you ever find out when you went too far? Will you ever dare to read "The Gulag Archipelago" ? I have Marxist friends who do.
zizek is not 'simply' a conservative, just like habermas wasn't just a conservative. he is a thinker that expanded his mind (despite being a so called materialist) to a global level. and his favorite supreme philosopher is hegel. - a developmental philosopher. (another term for development is evolving, evolution). that can't be simply pin pointed into just one category, especially if you go with it for a long run just like how zizek has tried to do. all the thinkers that go with developmental thought for a long run arrive at something like a very expanded view of humanity, systems, problems. that is beyond even the relativistic and pluralistic view of post-modernity.
nick barsoum dont behave snobbishly. I know you dont know what zizek means, cause nobody does, even himself. His role as intellectual is similar to those court loonies in medieval times. He is confused incoherent but sparkly.Their job is to show perspectives to the ruling class and criticism in a funny digestible way. They will always ridicule and criticize and over analyze like zizek does, and for this role should we take him. Tyler is correct, he truly could be Called conservative or anything whatsoever, depends how he wakes up this day i presume. But i noticed he gathers around him a fellowship of people who think they can understand him and think that its chic and intellectual to boast that they support zizek who is a stereotypical figure of mad intellectual and dull western burgeois lefties think that makes them better than the rest. Ironical, zizek fans are nothing else than caricature he mocks most. Similar phenomen happened recently with American psycho writer Bret Easton Ellis, for book of whom all us dull lefties though is the ultimate gun against conservatives and Reagan and trump etc. but he said that the book actually mocks the liberals lol, the same folks who got fooled into thinking it shows their opponents.
@@nickbarsoum352 You don't understand what zizek is saying. You don't understand how the technology works that allows you to hold his opinion. You don't understand anything except that you are somehow entitled to a "means of production". Jure is 100% correct.
to sum up zizeks point: dont blame china for everything bad happening in china out of your moral ressentiment, because we basically do the same, thus its a problem of structural mechanism. Thats why in his words: maybe we need something much more radical!
All of American rhetoric on street level works this way. This is why Trump is so loved, he gives them the stupid dialogue they love, sanctions it so they can keep being racist and ignorant.
Keith Makan It probably comes from how Americans seem to view debate and interview. They’re obsessed with civility, and often coddle each other or go for gotchas in debates, while I think the perfect example of how they understand interviews would be the Andrew Neil - Ben Shapiro interview where Ben couldn’t wrap his head around the standard sort of pushback and questioning that UK interviewers employ to get a better understanding of their interviewee, so Ben started treating it as a debate and inevitably stormed out after making a fool of himself
@@Wyrdangus this means there is no American debate style it's either totally agreeing in different ways or out right shouting matches. People cannot handle actually having their views challenged and you can see this in issues like racism. People will layer their racism and avoid topics as hard as they can instead of developing their view points genuinely.
Keith Makan Yeah pretty much. “Debate” in American media is very theatrical, and internet culture lends itself to “gotcha” arguments. There’s also waaay too much “Person with extensive media training goes to university to “debate” unprepared but often passionate students with no media training or experience” and way too much emphasis on winning debates rather than actually debating to learn, educate, and form a conclusion. America needs proper moderated debates and interviewers that challenge their interviewees regardless of personal belief
Zizek needs nothing but someone who will occasionally steer him back on topic. People are angry at the conservative for his vapid criticism and questioning, but it's much better than most people who talk to Zizek. He'll ramble uninterrupted for thirty minutes if given the opportunity, but he's good at staying on topic for five of the thirty. Having someone to offer some surface-level and cheap push-back is very useful for him because it keeps him at least within the general proximity of the topic at hand.
I like some pieces of Peterson, but in that debate he clearly underachieved. I thin he didn't even prepare himself by watching one or two zizek videos...
Oners82 Even in his field of expertise he’s shit. If you’re a clinical psychologist and take socially conservative or traditionalist stances on things like LGBTQ+ and gender roles, you’re gonna do some damage to people. He fucking advocates for *more* corporal punishment for children, something that’s been objectively shown to cause long lasting psychological damage. I do legitimately feel sorry for him with his drug addiction and shit though, I would be hypocritical for shitting on him for that when I attack him for engaging in harmful behaviour
Tyler Cowan doesn’t seem to be willing to engage in honest and good-faith discussion, instead he make cheap and dismissive shot at zizek for bringing up communism, in addition to his right-wing Fukuyamaist view of the future
Hao Li It was a playful poke bro. They had a really good conversation and went over interesting stuff. I listed to the who podcast. It was good. You’re allowed to challenge people you disagree with in playful ways to give them an opportunity to respond intelligently. Doesn’t have to be so antagonistic.
@@mrdrsir3781 You're right, but still, that leveled down the conversation. For instance, when he was answering about the chew gum issue in Singapore, he just ignored the whole point, which is excessive government control over ''rights and wrongs''. This eventually can extend to broader areas in which defining right and wrong is simply an opinion. As a result, the government is no longer fixing an issue but adding another unnecessary element of control. I have a couple of friends from Singapour in my university. My data sample can be biased. Nonetheless, they generally do not like their government. There is a high level of systematic corruption in their system, and pressure over rural areas inhabitants. Furthermore, freedom of speech is in danger. I think this was what Zizek wanted to point out. Singapour is not only an exceptional nod in east Asia but it also not representing an exemplary government.
In order to follow Zizek views and standpoints one must put her/himself into postion of various phylosophical schools starting from Sokrates/Plato/Aristotel to Kant, especially Hegel and people like Hana Arendt + few others of modern era. He is extremely well familiarized with many text, books and writings, I belive so much more than most of his oponents. Many of which seem and appear to be simplyfying him to the level where they are at, and basically not hitting the point. Maybe his theories and thesis seem ridiculous, but he is by far much smarter than all those who face him. He is extremely skilful in pulling many aces from his sleeve, be it from the field of phylosophy, sociology and especially psychology. I am unaware about his personal larger theories, and brakes through, although I have read some of his work, but as I said, he is super witty and sharp when it comes to compiling many various informration and using it to proof his claiming. To me he is much like ancient greek phylosopers, sofists, who kept wondering arround and about, trying to use their arguments against others by simply pointing that they have more to offer and therefore are right about what they say, and others are notoriously wrong. This particular guy is simply not at his level and therefore cannot lead a proper conversation. Zizek questions so many things and by just picking one aspect of his standpoints is a dead end.
Lifehack: Play a video of Zizek + One of those videos of instrumental hip hop. You will get LO FI ZIZEK FOR STUDYING - SLEEPING - QUESTION CAPITALISM AND SO ON AND SO ON
It seems they're talking past each other, the person on the right seems to have a very basic understanding of political/economical ideologies, going on about "communist China" and it seems Zizek doesn't really see that he has to explain himself more.
Or rather Zizek knows, or rather they both know, the dude to the right is correct, so he isn't pressing too much. The problem with China is that they showed that capitalism+authoritarism work great. The problem with the US is that they think capitalism+democracy is loosing. While, in reality, they (USA) have said good bye to capitalism long time ago. Hence they're loosing. Capitalist China is winning with fascist USA. Capitalism only wins. USA forgot that lesson. I.e. fascism == corporationism. Corporationism is economical model of a fascist state. Corporationism is ineffective compared to capitalism. So on economical level US is loosing with China. And if they're loosing economically then them having democracy and China being authoritarian doesn't change much. As it is economy stupid that governs the world. Capitalism (China) > Corporationism (USA).
When did the research about forest areas take place? After last years catastrophic fires in Australia and the Amazon forest, I doubt the planet still possesses more forests than ever the last century.
Stratos Kat that was obviously a lie! Which really shows, whatever else he has to say/offer should be contemplated and examined with critical thought...
@@digiulio Yes its very plausible he did, because indeed there Is quite a good effort to reforest Europe (mostly in the west, In the east they dont give a dam)
@@dercaliascba In my country, France, we try to make it so the forests become more "natural", and the existing ones get expanded or sustained by replanting trees. So by definition they arent natural, but in practice they are.
Comparing Taiwan with China, is like a massive non sequitur. Something like comparing a village to a city. Small countries with smaller populations, can slash taxes and still cover state budgets, that is by becoming tax havens. All they have to do is attract capital flight, and the tax take is enough to cover health, law and order, pensions, education and the like. Taiwan being a favourite destination for many of Asia's rich to deposit their assets, not least China's wealthy. Whereas larger countries can never attract enough capital flight to cover state budgets. Even if every billionaire moved his money to China, it still wouldn't cover China's vast public expenditure. Hence China has a 45% top rate of income tax opposed to Taiwan's 17% Of course pockets of China can achieve similar development to Taiwan, but not the entire country. All large countries see similar social, political and economic vicissitudes as China. Rather China should be compared to other large countries in the developing world - such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico etc. Plus the larger a country, the more internal stresses and strains. If China was to move to a democratic free society. it would probably begin to fall apart. Which naturally would be music to the ears of China's great power rivals. And democracy and freedom have their successes, but also their massive failures in terms of Liberal social policies, particularly in large developing countries - i.e Modi, Duterte, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Putin etc. I think we need to dispel ourselves of the delusion that democracy always leads in a progressive liberal direction.
taiwan is also not exactly a small government country, it's only anti-communist in the sense that it literally opposes the communist party. That's mostly for historical reasons rather than out of ideological economics. income tax in Taiwan is also 45%, Taiwan just has slightly lower corporate taxes
Yeah you're right, Taiwan does have the same rate of upper band income tax, I meant Singapore. But lower corporation tax in Taiwan is still a factor in attracting inward investment. A tactic many smaller countries deploy around the world against their larger neighbours . Plus Taiwan has its defence needs taken care of it by the US. Saving it billions. And Taiwan in the post-war period received billions in Marshall Plan aid, plus it got very favourable trading terms with the US. As in free trade for America, protectionism for Taiwan. All of which was done in the battle against communism, which no doubt the US won in Asia and is still winning, however, at what cost to itself? It seems US workers have footed the bill for the great successes of Asian capitalism.
trev moffatt Doesn’t a higher voter turnout statistically favour progressives though? I would imagine that it’ll increase in favour of progressivism, even if it’s within the bounds of social democrats, still better than conservatives and helps shift the Overton Window to the left somewhat
@@Wyrdangus Or it can lead to the Right gaining control, all depends on the country really. It's a myth that democracy always leads in a progressive direction. Plus in crises of capitalism, many so called Liberal countries can suddenly take a lurch to the Right. Liberalism is really a product of social conditions, and not democracy. In fact, you could say democracy itself is a product of social conditions. It probably can only survive in stable, prosperous countries at the upper end of the World imperial order. As Marx claimed, the base generates the superstructure. The feudal base will generate kings and priests, the semi feudal base will produce dictators, strong men, the industrial base will generally produce democracy, at least in prosperous countries. As neither Taiwan or South Korea were democratic during their capitalist development. Democracy only came once a certain standard of living was achieved But the world order comes into play, which is still in a pretty feudal condition, might pretty much passes for right. It's probably the case, that the secondary powers, cannot afford the luxury of democracy, given it'll be used as a trojan horse by the great powers to enforce neo liberalism and neo imperialism, i.e. corrupt the political system, and buy up resources. Such as Russia's gas and oil was on the verge of being sold to Western corporations during Russia's brief democratic interregnum. China may also be scared America and Britain would support breakaway movements within its regions, not under the auspices of spreading democracy, but rather to gain economic and military hegemony under the guise of spreading democracy. Size matters - bigger countries being potential big power rivals, are treated differently to smaller countries. Plus geo politics and geo strategy play a role. And democracy outside of the First World, is not much to brag about. A by-word for corruption and organized crime.
My father who is Slovenian left Slovenia in 1970 he had absolutely no idea who Zizek was before I showed him a few videos, and was absolutely baffled by what he was saying, even in Slovene
@James R Once there was a village full of people socialized to be greedy and self-interested. One man in the village had an idea: he would be generous instead. He went out into the public square and professed his philosophy to the people there. "I have made these blankets. Come to me if you're cold and I'll give you one. In turn, please pass on this kindness to someone else." His first visitors lied and took all of his blankets, offering nothing in return, and paying nothing forward. The next day, the village's most respected sage appeared at his door, to offer him 'advice.' And that sage was James R. He told the man: "your philosophy is foolish, behold the consequences!" And so, the foolish man learned a great lesson, and, upon his eventual financial recovery, his stall became a famous center for the trade of blankets and fine materials. The man was happy, and none again ever indulged in the foolishness of generosity. Thus was the eternal lesson of the sage James R.
@James R One of singapore's most important institutions is its massive public housing board. maybe 80% of singaporeans live in public housing, and the like it. Part of the reason why its stable, because nobody gets jerked around for rent. This was a creation of the PAP, which was a left-wing party frequently accused of being "communist" by idiot conservatives in the 50s. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's famous semi-dictator, and the current reigning government, are actually the PAP. People like to ignore the marxist bent to these highly effective organizations. I wouldn't say the PAP was communist 50s, and definitely not today, but they do a good job running their country and I think it's because they don't bury their heads in the sand. Americans are so ideological that they decided to deny anything that Marx or other communists believed in, which simply leads to a ridiculous misreading of the economy.
Really tough too watch. Zizek brilliant as always, but this guy brings up ridiculous stuff just "win" the debate. He's not trying to learn anything, he is just attacking while he trys to show a friendly face. Too bad for him it didn't work out.
Communism has always had a problem regulating the over arching power that holds everyone else responsible for the problems they cause. Conservatism is a mixed bag. corruption is all around in both.
@@GIDEONgame Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Most democratic countries don't hold powerful people responsible because rampant capitalism has poisoned their societies. Plenty of genocides are committed in the name of conservatism.
@@GIDEONgame Marx was jew descendent... Point me where in what book Marx attacked jews! And not need to be "as much as Hitler", point me just one example.
@@GIDEONgame it is a lie? It was blaming them? When Napolion said that religion is just to keep the poor from killing the rich did he sent all religious people into camps to die? Did Marx defended the killing of the jews or blame them for the pain of white man as Hitler did? Your kind as a name: demagogues and that was what Hitler was for sure!
Yes, let's just take all billions of cars/boat and airplanes, scrap them and produce billions of electric ones! It's gonna be great for ecological reasons.
@@jeandarwin9143 Even if they are not scrapped and only modified we would still need to fill them with new engines and change a lot of stuff. there isnt enough materials, energy to do that and we cant do it without wrecking the environment totally
Zizek is indeed a communist but just for a sake of it. All in all, Zizek think that Communism today and then, either old school or new school, will not work at all. So what Zizek does is basically to challenge anyone out there to think about Communism again. Zizek always says this since his very early career, "don't act. Think!!!" Btw, Cowen's argument is lowkey a triggered libertarian who doesn't want to engage in the conversation at all. It's useless to have an argument with him,.
@transylvanian perhaps this would clarify his thought, czcams.com/video/IgR6uaVqWsQ/video.html And please don't be so narrow-minded and literally take his words without further thinking. Of course action is needed but what Zizek proposed here is to "think again" and reflecting your then decision to whatever had happened in the past. He just asks the new leftists to be more careful.
I was dragged to a Laibach concert by a friend. They used images of the holocaust in their set. There was no way they were endorsing fascism. Then my friend asked me if I thought different races should live in different countries. He was not joking. He wanted to know what I thought and he was arguing the case for this position. I think Laibach were a way for him to toy with Nazi ideology before he chose to own any views associated with them. He is a smart guy from a small town. He did a doctorate in astrophysics. I hope it was just a phase.
If there's a bowl of fruit, all of them bruised and in various states of rot or over-ripeness, but the most edible and appealing fruit in the bowl is an apple, that doesn't mean my favorite fruit is an apple.
Adis Šabović Very true, though I do personally know people who understand that communism involves things like a lack of a state, lack of money, lack of class structures, etc. but don’t feel that it’s a good idea regardless, often because they simply can’t wrap their heads around it (These people also tend to be socdems who think that a reformist approach to something like democratic socialism wouldn’t be that bad). It’s also interesting that there are people who fully agree with the foundational elements of socialism/communism but are put off by the name
Adis Šabović They generally seem to want everyone’s needs fulfilled as best as possible, if that’s what you’re asking. Socdems definitely *want* to help people, but can’t or won’t understand that bandaid solutions won’t actually solve the foundational problems
@@Wyrdangus Not really convinced socdems are able to help themselves in the first place, let alone others...unlike communists. In my book, they're just an extension of what stands behind them. Marionettes. On state or statelessness: there is absolutely no human need for state as such. Shut down (all) states - who's gonna protest? Right, it's the etatists. They don't exist without it. It's like an addiction. They don't know any better. And as long there are "other humans" with their states you need yours to defend yourself from "other people's" influences on you through their states. Money? Military? Classes? Same thing. To communists - state (money, military, class etc.) is an necessary evil, nothing more. :)
This Tyler Cowen sounds like a boomer without capacity for critical analysis. Seems to be more concerned with trashing China, than adressing capitalism problems.
I think the point is that communist countries have more problems than capitalist countries even by Zizek's own metrics. Zizek recognises this by not even trying to refute it. The question should be why doesn't Zizek have the intellectual honesty to admit communism is crap?
He didn't reply to the point about Taiwan...? He answered a question with multiple questions. Confusing. It's nice to see someone level headed try to pin down Zizek although in typical fashion he avoided everything.
Guy's a typical apathetic well to do capitalist economist, he don't care. The fact that Singapore is a soulless and hollow shiny corporate jungle that you can admire and enjoy food in is enough to validate the free market gospel.
I'm willing to bet that clown is intentionally omitting the fact that said "communist" (we're still calling the PRC communist in the 21st century, really?) offender in pollution was and still is the fucking #1 workhorse of commodity production of the Capitalist world... Can you imagine if Zizek actually burst his bubble by saying... all this shit you have right now... is because western conglomerates chose to build in or buy from China, to save a buck, not because western countries are "cleaner" by some sort of hidden virtue of Capitalism. Jeez, what a fucking disingenuous hack that dude is with every 2nd phrase he utters...
Identity politics may be influenced by some post Marxist, post modernist beliefs however I think they are mostly influenced by 70 years plus of extensive consumerism and market ideals. Erich Fromms concept of the ‘marketing man’ I feel goes along way to explain this. Some on the left confuse niche cliques for people power, confuse rights with power, confuse the fight for social justice with cultural hegemony. Worst of all some confuse debate and enquiry for oppression and Nazism. I would argue that identity politics is far more a consequence of capitalism than any Marxist tract. Of course I could be completely wrong, nonetheless I think identity politics fails to provide a robust enough check on power structures. It’s too myopic, self centred and superficial to have anything truly radical to say. They don’t want everyone to have a piece, they just want their piece. Maybe I’m just talking out of my arse.
ThePeanutButterCup13 exactly! but I have heard it said, I’m thinking of that snake oil merchant Jordan Peterson. To be fair to him I think he is referring to the break from traditional Marxism on the ‘left’ towards more single issue politics of race and gender in the 1970s.
The host is very righteous and thinks he knows everything and can therefore successfully deconstruct Zizek. For this reason he thinks of himself as a genius. Years ago when I was a bitter teenager freshman in High School I was babysitting a younger neighbor while the family was out. We walked to the local library and went to a magic show for kids. It was friday night and I wanted to watch a movie on TV and instead I had to take this kid to the library. I knew all the gags behind the tricks. So I volunteered for to participate for one of the gags which involved a fake thumb and pulling a flag from "nowhere." As I shook hands with the magician as part of the gag, I pulled the thumb off and the flag fell on the floor in front of a bunch of kids. The magician was a total pro and just steamrolled into the next gag and literally no-one recalled my shitty stunt of rebellion. At the end of the show, people shook hands with the magician and thanked him, the local librarian an older woman in her late 40s said "nice job" to me in a tone of voice that was flatter than a three-day-old-soda. I had to stick around and wait for my kid to shake hands with the magician. So I'm literally standing next to the man while the kid shakes his hand and is giggling. I couldn't even look the magician in the eye. He said nothing to me. And I deserved it for trying to take the magic away from everyone else, since I thought I already knew the answers-the only thing I proved was my own insecurity and how weak my spirit & character was when I was 14.
Way better than the discussion with Peterson. I agree with Cowen: Zizek is not a communist; or at least not a communist in the Marxist sense. When Zizek says in many of his videos (which I will not go through the trouble to find and quote) that he would rather stay at home and read and write books on philosophy than to think hard about the automated processes of a nation, I find that he forfeits much of his claims to speak too politically (as a communist). In this video Zizek skates around the basic questions and statements by Cowen to arrive at no solid point that was supposed to support his position as a communist. He did a poor job of defending himself, and now I'm more interested in exploring Cowen's ideas.
Zizek's communism is just branding at this point. There is nothing substantially communist about the ideas he defends if you take away the intellectual grand standing.
true, but nobody needs modernism anymore. the communists lost themselves in it just like everybody else. zizek is right to call himself a communist though, because in 2020, thinking that the communists were correct on certain occasions makes you a communist.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
If you go far enough left, you get to keep bashing liberals!
Going full communist to own the libs.
Communists never liked libs
@Mike Barbarich yes precisely
You think you Ronald and Donald fans have a monopoly on bashing libs? Think again, boys
If you go far enough right to qualify as liberal, and still consider yourself liberal, you might just deserve a bashing.
the conversation is just the vapid vehicle for the grotesque humor of those chairs
Idk they look pretty comfy
I was deciding between worrying about the chair or keeping up with the pace on the conversation
Libs aren't left at all.
Hahaha
Hahahahahaha
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
I laughed with reluctance for 5 minutes
"I am a fascist like Hitler was a painter."
I don't know about you but I find that statement quite funny.
it's one of zizeks favourite jokes
He's pointing that he's bad at it. :)
@@s3ntry948 All fascist art is bad art.
So he's a fascist, but he's not widely known for being a fascist?
@@casperchristiansen2458 What characterizes fascist art?
Those chairs are so ridiculous lol
I just thought intellectuals were really small.....
They are a physical metaphor of Communism
the peacock chair
They look really comfortable, though. Fancy, expensive, 'good' chairs nowadays have stopped supporting good posture and comfort and have started supporting only status and visual masturbation.
@Chormerly Fucks you have that wrong! It should be "made under capitalists by slaves". Capitalism is about exploitation. Exploiting the working class, bailing out the rich and letting the poor fend for themselves and even die. The Corona pandemic is now showing you this is true
I've come to the conclusion that this entire conversation was less about learning Zizek's point of view and more about convincing him to stop calling himself a commie so that the other guy can be his friend
Tyler Cowen is very very intelligent
"One thing I have against nostalgia is that I was jobless" was a very funny joke no one in the audience laughed at.
Prob not a joke
And one thing someone else might have is their grandparents died in Gulag.
Audience was dead. Zizek even paused for some reaction, none bzzzz
I don't get the hangup with the words "Communist" or "Conservative". Clearly Zizek is a critique of capitalism and markets and wants a new path forward that doesn't end up in the same problems as in the USSR and Maoist China, but the word communist is such a historically loaded term that while he uses it to describe himself because there's no other word that exists that accurately captures wanting to replace capitalism with a better system today, what his detractors are hearing is basically that he wants to resurrect the USSR.
Hooga I think we need better education on economic systems. Because like, Communist and Socialist are often conflated, and socialist often just refers to the ML vanguard states when there’s a bunch of variations. Bernie Sanders is probably helping a bit with the nuance of socialist ideology, though I wish he would actually explain what democratic socialism is so people stop trying to pin him as wanting to make the USSR again (Yes I know he’s campaigning on a social democrat platform, but with his platform it would actually be useful to educate the country better).
Also calling Zizek conservative is just weird, last I checked he was pro-intersectionality (I think he is at least, doesn’t strike me as someone who’s against social progressivism regardless), which is an important part of progressivism that also helps unite the working class
They're struggling to do the mental juggling act you so clearly laid out in that paragraph.
@@Wyrdangus well the socialist or communist economic ideology isn't hard to understand, because it is just goverment intervention in the economy to "help against monopolies" but at the end it just creates another and worse
SpiderKnight No, that’s not it at all. A worker run state that controls the means of production is one style of socialism (Vanguard states), but you can also have worker ownership in the form of worker coops etc. with a weaker or nonexistent state, while communism goes much further and lacks any state, lacks money, and lacks classes. It has nothing to do with monopolies
@@jesusmods1 Well for Marxists the nationalization of the means of production is a step forward for the construction of communism, and the purpose of this isn't to crush monopolies. You need to read about Marxian crisis theory
6:46 "Bill gates says he is a socialist" You can feel his pain while saying that
But it's hilarious. I just love listening to him.
except Bill Gates never said that. Bill Gates is socially progressive. Fine. And economically a capitalist pig. These things often go together hand in hand.
@@paulb7207 almost all the billionaires are socially progressive maybe exept elon but that doesn't mean he's a capitalist pig, he advocates for higher taxes vows to donate all his money.
@@shaheenshad5012 It is interesting phenomenon. My personal take is that billionaires aren't socialist or progressive at all. They do it for show. So they are likeable and nobody asks them inconvenient questions. If you read up Warren Buffet investment advise you will see stark contrast to the persona he is trying to sell publicly. Publicly he will claim it is a scandal he pays less taxes than his secretary. When lecturing other investors he will tell them it doesn't matter if a can of coke is drunk or disposed to trash. As long as he can turn profit on it. Bill Gates built huge monopoly. I don't believe he sincerely cares. Unless it is his bottom line or image. He wants to be remembered well by history, that's all. But he isn't Mother Theresa. Apple runs sweatshops in China akin to concentration camps, child labor included. But when you look at Tim Cook you think progressive because of gay rights. It is for show, nothing else. The same when they say they work 28 hours a day and sleep 15 minutes a week ;-) They always say that. Such a BS. I mean, come on, Musk spends waay too much time on twitter just think about it. I'm not that rich. I make "just" 500k. But even me, I work like 3 hours a day. I pay about 10-15% in taxes a year depending on the year. You think what do I say to friends, family? I tell them I work very, very hard. And I tell them that I pay a ton in taxes. Because, you know, how would they feel knowing I work less than them and pay less in taxes than them? And then I tell them how progressive I'm. Otherwise how can I employ people or have customers? By offending them? I don't think so. But then I go and vote for guys who will keep the things the way they are. Or make them even better for me. Which, honestly, doesn't even matter, neither party will change that. It's just part of life. In communism my grandfather (I'm from Poland originally) was a party apartchik. Also did nothing and had great life. He was some kind of Party Secretary in my hometown. Retired at 50 something. In every system there are people on the top. And people on the bottom. In social democracy I would be a trade union activist. Also doing nothing and having great life. This is called life. And these are good times. Because you can decide in which camp you'd like to be: top or bottom. This never changes. People who think this will change or is different in socialism/communism/fascism - I'm sorry - but are complete idiots. I don't care the system. As each system needs people working for it. And I'm ready to work for any system, become part of any ideology, to be on the top. Are you ready? Or you are a day-dreamer? In capitalism I'm a capitalist. In communism I would be a party member. In fascism I'd do my part too. And trust most people on top are exactly like that. You change the system next thing you know in that new system I'm on top too. And people who were on the bottom -- are still there. Because if you are a lazy idiot -- like most -- you are destined to work for others no matter the political system.
@@paulb7207 thank you for writing that
I have started using "and so on" much more frequently in my spoken language thanks to this man.
Poor habit
@@emizerriIt gives an opportunity for more dialogue
if Zizek got the covid 19 is it equivalent to flamethrower?
🤣
yasir Kz yes if that flamethrower is taped to a nuke... and another flame thrower
He would spit constantly, and so on, and so on. . .
bio weapon
In Sweden and Finland we now have a lot of "forests". They are trees standing in perfect lines growing and waiting to be cut down. I don't call that a forest. I call that wood production.
Timber is needed. With plantations you're saving the real forests, the "production" is controlled, so you get the right kind of wood. And the trees still absorb carbon dioxide.
Jo Da plantations are not the same as forests in the sense the op was talking. There is comparatively no biological life going on in these plantations. You simply can’t exchange forests with these plantations in any sense more than just for industry or to decrease the rate of stagnation of carbon uptake.
@@spacefertilizer instead of cutting trees in plantations, you can obviously cut them in a normal forest.
But I doubt that this is going to help the environment.
@@Tzimiskes969 I agree that we need timber. I just think it is problematic how we speak about forests. the concept of timber production is not simply interchangeable with the concept of forests. A forest is something that is "alive" more than just being thousands of trees of one kind growing in lines.
@@Tzimiskes969 Depends on what environment was there before the plantation. If you cut down a whole forest and start timber production there you didnt "save the forest". If you let a forests grow and cut timber in a sustainable, small scale manner they may have a better diversity - species richness - than a plantation.
They keep talking about Singapore without mentioning that the only resource they have is the land itself, and they nationalised it.
Singapore has shown itself to not be afraid of removing or severely restricting free markets when they are deemed harmful to the well-being of the people.
As far as I know, Singapore has had the same government since it’s creation in the 1960s. It is not a shining example of free market capitalism, but an example of tough utilitarianism and pragmatism. They have built themselves up using things that work, without paying attention to what side of the political spectrum they fall.
Death Penalty for ''trafficking" 500 grams of cannabis. I guess we don't all agree on what is a pragmatic decision.
That's a great point. The idea that Singapore could be a model for China to follow to liberalize is pretty funny.
@@MrLcoop Yeah, but probably ironically accurate. While China hasn't followed the same model, it has used the same kind of logic.
The west romanticises market economies way too much. It is like this love affair where you can't see the many faults of the object of your love.
The Singapore government just went, a free property market on a small chunk of land is going to extort the economy, create slums and poverty, let's not do that.
Knocking out the historic foundation of property rights, which is the bedrock of capitalism, because it is objectively shit.
Even really progressive western governments would never have the balls to kill that sacred cow.
Similarly, I think that China sees capitalism through a Marxist lens, and is using it as a tool to get where it wants to go, with no emotional attachment to it at all.
Western politicians believe their own bullshit, and it makes them make weird decisions and assumptions.
China make goods from all over the world -> blame china for pollution
The problem with city-states is exactly that: they are city-states. Throw in 30 million villagers on the size 200 times that od Singapore -- into the equation, then we will talk.
I prefer to read Zizek than to listen to him. When he speaks publicly he has difficulties in organizing his thoughts, being ordered and clear. This is a pity because makes him look awkward in front of the people he is debating with.
Don't be an asshole, he isn't native english speaker
@@edhiepitz Dude its not that hes not a native speaker, its the way he is, it was hard to follow him even in his native language. Hes just 2 erratic when he gets excited. It also brings out a lot more ticks then when hes calm. I talk from experience here.
@@edhiepitz Me neither, but I am able to organize my thoughts when I am speaking in English. And pay attention to the following: he is very articulate and he has a wide vocabulary in English. I don't think it is a language problem. I believe it is the capacity of ordering your thoughts when you speak. Pay attention to his body language. That helps in understanding it.
He prefers to write than speak.
Rafael Baère Without meaning time delve into armchair psychology, he almost feels like he’s got ADHD/ADD and/or is fairly ASD. Like I do the same shit, even when responding on CZcams I find myself repeating points and organising things properly, which leads to a lack of conciseness. Fortunately it’s not too hard to get the gist of what he’s saying if you listen to him enough, and make somewhat liberal use of rewinding at times
Well rich capitalist countries have always outsourced their production to poor capitalist countries which means they outsource pollution and destruction of the environment to those countries too so in reality capitalist countries have always and still do pollute more than socialist countries.
Me personally every single time will choose to live in a capitalist society than a socialist one, every single time...
@@jlons5586 sure thing buddy! No one is forcing you to live in a socialist society :D I'd 9 out of 10 times rather live in a socialist country than in a capitalist country considering that most capitalist countries are poor af like Indonesia, Yemen, Haiti, Congo, Sri Lanka etc. Or even the richest capitalist country in the world U.S. has absolute horrible slums and sweat shops because spoiler alert their government doesn't give a shit about its people but only about profits which we can now see more bluntly than ever during this Covid crisis. Anyways have a nice day, stay safe and healthy! :)
@@juliusaugustino8409 you talk like there are no slums or hungry people in socialist states
@@josephcro2138 hmm no slums or hungry people in general yes, that's a fact. But in the same economic development socialist countries give/gave a better quality of life than capitalist countries 93 percent of the time, however we cannot ignore the crippling economic sanctions that were/are a real factor in socialist economies that really hurt them that sometimes made life in those countries hard considering common goods like tampons and meat for example were difficult to get. Mixed bag for sure, but if a country is terrorized by every means necessary I dont really give a shit if it's capitalist or not, I'll defend them from imperialism
@@josephcro2138 also dude you talking about slums or hunger, you cannot compare 1930s Soviet Union for example to modern U.S. or to any modern state for that matter. But still though they had universal healthcare back then and the U.S. still dont have that so what the fuck does that tell you about a system and how it works?! Please think about that. It's all about how you distribute wealth. If you're rich.... Well then it's a different thing and you should defend capitalism with all your soul and power... But for the rest of us we will not swallow your bullshit anymore
I think he calls himself a communist because he wants to challenge the current value form more than anything else.
Possibly. I want to talk to him so I can convince him to not capitulate in any matter and reinvigorate his faith in communism.
My thoughts, too.
Communist revolutions always starts with students and intellectuals because they can see and describe so clearly the corruption in the current order.
With just a small amount of violence, they can remove the plutocrats and then the workers can unite. Once the violence begins, the workers see that the intellectuals are the ones holding socialism back - so more violence is needed. Once the workers are in power, the truly psychopathic see an easy path to power and the violence becomes permanent.
@@atomicsmith Revolution is not about violence. It's about workers reclaiming their country. Stop making this into some weird fantasy of workers having to be crazy bloodthirsty maniacs.
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 Not a fantasy, history.
Singapore is hell for the working class. Just read up on the reports from the unions and you will see. It’s not anywhere near a good goal for any society to strive at.
Edit: For someone like the guy on the right, a well educated man from the west, it’s probably very wonderful to spend your time in Singapore. But it’s ridiculous to promote a country from that perspective.
But China is a paradize for the working class? It's worse. These countries are radical, no surprize there. But they have similar grounds, and the ones that picked capitalism instead of communism are doing better.
Rodrigue Grange China is an authoritarian state capitalist country, that’s probably arguably fascist. Their concentration camps, sorry “re-education camps” for Uyghr Muslims and political dissidents are a big fucking Yikes
@@Wyrdangus big fucking yikes is an understatement. China since the 50ies was a dump. Ever since they survived the war and invasion from Japan they became imperalist cockholsters themselves.
@@Wyrdangus are you implying it's bad? i'd do the same
@@bubblegumgun3292 idk if that counts as implying tbh
8:45 "Singapore does not has Fascism"
*laughs in someone getting executed for having a plant on them*
Lol is that plant a drug? If so, I support whatever it is that you have called fascism
@@aaabbb-py5xd Its only a drug for pussys like you ;)
@@BaronUnderbite lol, because your stupidity is the opposite of pussy?
@@aaabbb-py5xd that doesnt even make sense.You cant speak english. Its so obvious you are a butthurt beta from Singapore. You need at least another year of english lessons.
The whole world see's how dumb yall are, and you cant even see it. If you are so anti-drug, never drink caffeine or alcohol again, and kill anyone that does.
But you dont even believe what you say. You dont support killing people for drugs. You just want to be edgy.
@@aaabbb-py5xd just give me all the drugs, I'll make sure they're good or bad or whatever you want.
This video is basically showing you how well you can criticize the sins of others if you don't recognize none of your own.
that's basically true also for fascist vs communist debate. Imagine wearing a t-shirt with svastika at a university campus....
I like how Zizek directly try to engage Cowen, while he remains fully aware that he's talking to an audience an answers more to the audience than to Zizek.
Having a sense of humour means you're conservative apparently.
that's what I'm figuring lately. Only non communists can make dirty social jokes.
@@Richallmight2 because communists seek no dividends in society like religion or ethnicity. But conservatives live by dividends, and they make these jokes to claim legitimacy. Humor is a very potent tool to explain feelings
It's not that. Liberals are no-fun-allowed kind of people, with all that PC, cancel culture, inclusive stuff.
Commies want a drab, grey, “equal” society with no color or humor or beauty.
This phenomenon can only be seen in America. Us slavs are much more vulgar so to say and socially conservative regardless of our political ideology. But i think this is just a view of most European people and people in the world in general it just seems to me Americans are much more ..lets say soft and liberal like
Conservatives: I believe in freedom from big government. Also conservatives: it’s ok that in Singapore you need a prescription to buy gum and if you drop it on the floor you go to jail
singapore is like 80% government owned housing, and 20% ridiculous billionaire condos, it's obviously taken care to confront the realities of how land ownership can't just be thrown to a free market.
I'm not sure you'd find many more conservatives that would side with this dude on his complacency reggarding that example of Singapore's over-controlling totalitarianism.
@- Joseph the weak aleays want a strong daddy to stort their shit for them. If they have to be daddy's bitch, so be it, as long as they get their shelter. 👍
@- Joseph the weak aleays want a strong daddy to stort their shit for them. If they have to be daddy's bitch, so be it, as long as they get their shelter. 👍
You don't actually go to jail tho
Cowen's appraisal of Singapore is quite revealing. Singapore is notorious for its violent suppression of poor and marginalized people. For these neoclassical creeps, "freedom" is just the ability of the rich and upper middle class to go about their lives with little interference, indulging in all of their preferred vices, while all the other poor, undesirable people have to live under the hammer.
@maimed lord What
maimed lord Just read the guy’s comment lmao did you literally read anything OP wrote?
maimed lord the exception kind of proved the rule I believe. Is your family from Singapore? Most poor workers there are immigrants from nearby countries with shit economies because of economic imperialism. The vast majority of people working these jobs don’t move up in the system because they are barely making enough to get by.
maimed lord Like half of the people in the United States don’t even have enough money for three months of savings expenses. I’m not really sure what economic freedoms you’re talking about. If anything, the capitalist countries that have those would be those such as Sweden and Denmark with strong social programs.
The biggest mistake of the west is to think that communism is "Liberal" in the western sense. Tyler Cowen, as eloquent he might be, also sees the matter one sided. All in all, a wasted discussion, without point.
Communism is a traditionally leftist mentality
Yes it's leftist but not liberal, I doubt most liberals are actually leftists or have read any leftist theory idk what the hell they're on
I had high hopes for the galaxy brain takes this conservative was gonna have but he just ended up sounding like your average bad faith college Republican.
Possibly he isn't there to entertain commies....
@@paulb7207 I thought he was there to entertain honesty, rationality, reason, and critical thinking, but like you he was a disappointment.
@@dannya1854 That's actually known issue with Zizek. Philosphy my a5s. He is just a cultural critic. There is no philosophy in his monologues. Philosopher tells you how you are supposed to live life. Not what the cultural problems are. The other guy is just economics professor and does what economics professors do. Talks about economy. Zizek is too confused to even know what the hell he is. PhD in psychoanalysis, thinks of himself as a philosopher while in reality he is a cultural critic. He doesn't talk about solutions. He talks only about the cultural problems without providing any solution. He is not serious that's for sure. And cynism isn't the answer to everything. His voice is important as in elegantly showcasing to wider public what the problems are in fascinating sometimes groundbreaking fashion. But this doesn't make him a philosopher. To be one he would need to tell what the solutions to the problems are. He is incapable of that. One can tell he'd love to be a philosopher. But he isn't. And he won't be memorized as one. That's the satisfaction I have.
@@paulb7207 bro a simple google search will tell you that culture is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline, not telling people how to live their lives. People tell themselves how to live, but that leads to another rabbit hole of control and free will. Solutions are difficult to formulate, and many factors have to be considered. Any simple solutions can be considered naive or reductionist. You know you can read his books? There is nothing wrong about disliking Zizek, but don't write entire paragraphs of non arguments. And since you show great disdain for cultural critics, you better not let me catch you watching the likes of ben shapiro, jordan peterson, or anyone who remotely talks about culture. By the way he has two doctorates; 1 in philosophy & sociology, and psychoanalysis. People like you make me want to give up on humanity and let them suffer under capitalism.
@@ljc6141 well in broader scope mathematics and physics are philosophy too. But they really aren't. And Zizek isn't a philosopher. Again, philosopher has recipes for life. This dude just sits there and bitches how bad Western culture is. And how bad capitalism is. That's not philosophy. That's bitching. Also, I have just ordered first book by him. I read Peterson, but I also read Pinkman. I read WSJ but I also watch CNN. I think that's the difference between you and me. I try my best not to let (any) ideology/religion close my mind. You seem not to be there (hopefully yet). I have excellent Marxist friends. I have excellent Conservative friends. You seem to priest in the church of Marx. Good for you! But if you can't make friends with someone from opposite ideological spectrum how will you ever find out when you went too far? Will you ever dare to read "The Gulag Archipelago" ? I have Marxist friends who do.
"Hitler cared for society, I don't care" - Slavoj Zizek
He can put that besides the Stalin portrait in his house lmao
zizek is not 'simply' a conservative, just like habermas wasn't just a conservative. he is a thinker that expanded his mind (despite being a so called materialist) to a global level. and his favorite supreme philosopher is hegel. - a developmental philosopher. (another term for development is evolving, evolution). that can't be simply pin pointed into just one category, especially if you go with it for a long run just like how zizek has tried to do. all the thinkers that go with developmental thought for a long run arrive at something like a very expanded view of humanity, systems, problems. that is beyond even the relativistic and pluralistic view of post-modernity.
Since when is Habermas a conservative?
Zizek definitely has conservative tendencies on his thoughts.
@@superpipi1342 how so?
I want to know more about this subject, but am not eager to pick up Hegel. Do you recommend an easier source to start with?
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia
Slavoj Zizek's book _First as Tragedy, Then as Farce_
@@Synodalian Thanks for the recommendation!
Zizek intellectually outclasses this guy by a mile, it’s almost as hard to watch as the Peterson debate
exactly
nick barsoum dont behave snobbishly. I know you dont know what zizek means, cause nobody does, even himself. His role as intellectual is similar to those court loonies in medieval times. He is confused incoherent but sparkly.Their job is to show perspectives to the ruling class and criticism in a funny digestible way. They will always ridicule and criticize and over analyze like zizek does, and for this role should we take him. Tyler is correct, he truly could be Called conservative or anything whatsoever, depends how he wakes up this day i presume. But i noticed he gathers around him a fellowship of people who think they can understand him and think that its chic and intellectual to boast that they support zizek who is a stereotypical figure of mad intellectual and dull western burgeois lefties think that makes them better than the rest. Ironical, zizek fans are nothing else than caricature he mocks most. Similar phenomen happened recently with American psycho writer Bret Easton Ellis, for book of whom all us dull lefties though is the ultimate gun against conservatives and Reagan and trump etc. but he said that the book actually mocks the liberals lol, the same folks who got fooled into thinking it shows their opponents.
Jure Gubanc you’re wrong sorry
@@nickbarsoum352 You don't understand what zizek is saying. You don't understand how the technology works that allows you to hold his opinion. You don't understand anything except that you are somehow entitled to a "means of production".
Jure is 100% correct.
Caleb Taylor no he’s actually completely wrong as well as being incorrect and also not right
This is the one Zhizhek monologue in which I became totally lost. And I binge-watched this guy for a year lol
to sum up zizeks point: dont blame china for everything bad happening in china out of your moral ressentiment, because we basically do the same, thus its a problem of structural mechanism. Thats why in his words: maybe we need something much more radical!
because he got nervous as he knew he didn't have good answers. Good thing the opponent was friendly enough and wasn't pushing too much
"I just want to meet at a food stall in Singapore for God's sake!"
Coronavirus experts "Whatever you do, don't touch your face with your hands". Zizek "lol"
Whoever chose those chairs is truly dangerous.
lol dude can't keep up with Zizek at all. Slavoj wants to talk big issues and all he can manage is lame gotchas and pretending they're friends.
All of American rhetoric on street level works this way. This is why Trump is so loved, he gives them the stupid dialogue they love, sanctions it so they can keep being racist and ignorant.
Keith Makan It probably comes from how Americans seem to view debate and interview. They’re obsessed with civility, and often coddle each other or go for gotchas in debates, while I think the perfect example of how they understand interviews would be the Andrew Neil - Ben Shapiro interview where Ben couldn’t wrap his head around the standard sort of pushback and questioning that UK interviewers employ to get a better understanding of their interviewee, so Ben started treating it as a debate and inevitably stormed out after making a fool of himself
@@Wyrdangus this means there is no American debate style it's either totally agreeing in different ways or out right shouting matches. People cannot handle actually having their views challenged and you can see this in issues like racism. People will layer their racism and avoid topics as hard as they can instead of developing their view points genuinely.
Keith Makan Yeah pretty much. “Debate” in American media is very theatrical, and internet culture lends itself to “gotcha” arguments. There’s also waaay too much “Person with extensive media training goes to university to “debate” unprepared but often passionate students with no media training or experience” and way too much emphasis on winning debates rather than actually debating to learn, educate, and form a conclusion.
America needs proper moderated debates and interviewers that challenge their interviewees regardless of personal belief
@@Wyrdangus can you link a good example of a debate? i'm curious and serious
Zizek needs nothing but someone who will occasionally steer him back on topic. People are angry at the conservative for his vapid criticism and questioning, but it's much better than most people who talk to Zizek. He'll ramble uninterrupted for thirty minutes if given the opportunity, but he's good at staying on topic for five of the thirty. Having someone to offer some surface-level and cheap push-back is very useful for him because it keeps him at least within the general proximity of the topic at hand.
"[...] Hitler cared for society, I don't care." Lmfao
Where can I read a transcript of this?
This is much more intellectually engaging than Zizek vs. Peterson.
I like some pieces of Peterson, but in that debate he clearly underachieved. I thin he didn't even prepare himself by watching one or two zizek videos...
@@hansolafsen77
On politics, religion, the environment and social issues he is horrendous, he should stick to his field of expertise.
@@hansolafsen77 Of course he didn't, hes a grifter.
Oners82 Even in his field of expertise he’s shit. If you’re a clinical psychologist and take socially conservative or traditionalist stances on things like LGBTQ+ and gender roles, you’re gonna do some damage to people. He fucking advocates for *more* corporal punishment for children, something that’s been objectively shown to cause long lasting psychological damage.
I do legitimately feel sorry for him with his drug addiction and shit though, I would be hypocritical for shitting on him for that when I attack him for engaging in harmful behaviour
That was a farce my friend
Wtf 15 seconds in and no sniffing??
So, what did he say about Rammstein?
Zizek was going to be joining Laibach in North Korea? I hope he had a rap feature.
To be fair, his verse on worldwide choppers was fire.
Can someone make this vid of them on a jacuzzi?
I’ve never seen Zizek so antagonized !
Whoever chose those chairs and made them have this talk in that sort of t-pose needs a raise
Those chairs though 😂👌
Tyler Cowan doesn’t seem to be willing to engage in honest and good-faith discussion, instead he make cheap and dismissive shot at zizek for bringing up communism, in addition to his right-wing Fukuyamaist view of the future
Hao Li It was a playful poke bro. They had a really good conversation and went over interesting stuff. I listed to the who podcast. It was good. You’re allowed to challenge people you disagree with in playful ways to give them an opportunity to respond intelligently. Doesn’t have to be so antagonistic.
@@mrdrsir3781 You're right, but still, that leveled down the conversation. For instance, when he was answering about the chew gum issue in Singapore, he just ignored the whole point, which is excessive government control over ''rights and wrongs''. This eventually can extend to broader areas in which defining right and wrong is simply an opinion. As a result, the government is no longer fixing an issue but adding another unnecessary element of control. I have a couple of friends from Singapour in my university. My data sample can be biased. Nonetheless, they generally do not like their government. There is a high level of systematic corruption in their system, and pressure over rural areas inhabitants. Furthermore, freedom of speech is in danger. I think this was what Zizek wanted to point out. Singapour is not only an exceptional nod in east Asia but it also not representing an exemplary government.
In order to follow Zizek views and standpoints one must put her/himself into postion of various phylosophical schools starting from Sokrates/Plato/Aristotel to Kant, especially Hegel and people like Hana Arendt + few others of modern era.
He is extremely well familiarized with many text, books and writings, I belive so much more than most of his oponents. Many of which seem and appear to be simplyfying him to the level where they are at, and basically not hitting the point. Maybe his theories and thesis seem ridiculous, but he is by far much smarter than all those who face him. He is extremely skilful in pulling many aces from his sleeve, be it from the field of phylosophy, sociology and especially psychology. I am unaware about his personal larger theories, and brakes through, although I have read some of his work, but as I said, he is super witty and sharp when it comes to compiling many various informration and using it to proof his claiming.
To me he is much like ancient greek phylosopers, sofists, who kept wondering arround and about, trying to use their arguments against others by simply pointing that they have more to offer and therefore are right about what they say, and others are notoriously wrong.
This particular guy is simply not at his level and therefore cannot lead a proper conversation. Zizek questions so many things and by just picking one aspect of his standpoints is a dead end.
I'd like to have those chairs .
A good counter to european trees
Is maybe us talking about the lack of them was present in the policies made to protect them.
Lifehack: Play a video of Zizek + One of those videos of instrumental hip hop.
You will get LO FI ZIZEK FOR STUDYING - SLEEPING - QUESTION CAPITALISM AND SO ON AND SO ON
Pablo Ledesma underrated hahaha
This is great!
instead of saying extended version on songs
you can just add 'and so and so on'
Amazingly great idea!!
It seems they're talking past each other, the person on the right seems to have a very basic understanding of political/economical ideologies, going on about "communist China" and it seems Zizek doesn't really see that he has to explain himself more.
Or rather Zizek knows, or rather they both know, the dude to the right is correct, so he isn't pressing too much. The problem with China is that they showed that capitalism+authoritarism work great. The problem with the US is that they think capitalism+democracy is loosing. While, in reality, they (USA) have said good bye to capitalism long time ago. Hence they're loosing. Capitalist China is winning with fascist USA. Capitalism only wins. USA forgot that lesson. I.e. fascism == corporationism. Corporationism is economical model of a fascist state. Corporationism is ineffective compared to capitalism. So on economical level US is loosing with China. And if they're loosing economically then them having democracy and China being authoritarian doesn't change much. As it is economy stupid that governs the world. Capitalism (China) > Corporationism (USA).
I appreciate both of the writings of these 2 scholars.
Just as a heads up, you said "citing" twice in a row in the description. "Citing citing China", is how the second sentence begins
When did the research about forest areas take place? After last years catastrophic fires in Australia and the Amazon forest, I doubt the planet still possesses more forests than ever the last century.
Stratos Kat that was obviously a lie! Which really shows, whatever else he has to say/offer should be contemplated and examined with critical thought...
I think he might've been specifically referencing forest sizes in Europe
@@digiulio Yes its very plausible he did, because indeed there Is quite a good effort to reforest Europe (mostly in the west, In the east they dont give a dam)
A man made forest is not the same as a natural forest!!!!
@@dercaliascba In my country, France, we try to make it so the forests become more "natural", and the existing ones get expanded or sustained by replanting trees. So by definition they arent natural, but in practice they are.
don’t touch your face zizek :)
he suffers from rhinitis
So on and so on
The chair seems very uncomfortable
Comparing Taiwan with China, is like a massive non sequitur. Something like comparing a village to a city.
Small countries with smaller populations, can slash taxes and still cover state budgets, that is by becoming tax havens. All they have to do is attract capital flight, and the tax take is enough to cover health, law and order, pensions, education and the like. Taiwan being a favourite destination for many of Asia's rich to deposit their assets, not least China's wealthy.
Whereas larger countries can never attract enough capital flight to cover state budgets. Even if every billionaire moved his money to China, it still wouldn't cover China's vast public expenditure. Hence China has a 45% top rate of income tax opposed to Taiwan's 17%
Of course pockets of China can achieve similar development to Taiwan, but not the entire country. All large countries see similar social, political and economic vicissitudes as China.
Rather China should be compared to other large countries in the developing world - such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico etc.
Plus the larger a country, the more internal stresses and strains.
If China was to move to a democratic free society. it would probably begin to fall apart. Which naturally would be music to the ears of China's great power rivals.
And democracy and freedom have their successes, but also their massive failures in terms of Liberal social policies, particularly in large developing countries - i.e Modi, Duterte, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Putin etc.
I think we need to dispel ourselves of the delusion that democracy always leads in a progressive liberal direction.
I'd say that progressive and liberal are oxymorons, because economically liberalism is regressive and tribal in its individualism.
taiwan is also not exactly a small government country, it's only anti-communist in the sense that it literally opposes the communist party. That's mostly for historical reasons rather than out of ideological economics. income tax in Taiwan is also 45%, Taiwan just has slightly lower corporate taxes
Yeah you're right, Taiwan does have the same rate of upper band income tax, I meant Singapore.
But lower corporation tax in Taiwan is still a factor in attracting inward investment. A tactic many smaller countries deploy around the world against their larger neighbours .
Plus Taiwan has its defence needs taken care of it by the US. Saving it billions. And Taiwan in the post-war period received billions in Marshall Plan aid, plus it got very favourable trading terms with the US. As in free trade for America, protectionism for Taiwan.
All of which was done in the battle against communism, which no doubt the US won in Asia and is still winning, however, at what cost to itself?
It seems US workers have footed the bill for the great successes of Asian capitalism.
trev moffatt Doesn’t a higher voter turnout statistically favour progressives though? I would imagine that it’ll increase in favour of progressivism, even if it’s within the bounds of social democrats, still better than conservatives and helps shift the Overton Window to the left somewhat
@@Wyrdangus Or it can lead to the Right gaining control, all depends on the country really. It's a myth that democracy always leads in a progressive direction.
Plus in crises of capitalism, many so called Liberal countries can suddenly take a lurch to the Right.
Liberalism is really a product of social conditions, and not democracy. In fact, you could say democracy itself is a product of social conditions. It probably can only survive in stable, prosperous countries at the upper end of the World imperial order.
As Marx claimed, the base generates the superstructure. The feudal base will generate kings and priests, the semi feudal base will produce dictators, strong men, the industrial base will generally produce democracy, at least in prosperous countries. As neither Taiwan or South Korea were democratic during their capitalist development. Democracy only came once a certain standard of living was achieved
But the world order comes into play, which is still in a pretty feudal condition, might pretty much passes for right.
It's probably the case, that the secondary powers, cannot afford the luxury of democracy, given it'll be used as a trojan horse by the great powers to enforce neo liberalism and neo imperialism, i.e. corrupt the political system, and buy up resources. Such as Russia's gas and oil was on the verge of being sold to Western corporations during Russia's brief democratic interregnum.
China may also be scared America and Britain would support breakaway movements within its regions, not under the auspices of spreading democracy, but rather to gain economic and military hegemony under the guise of spreading democracy. Size matters - bigger countries being potential big power rivals, are treated differently to smaller countries. Plus geo politics and geo strategy play a role.
And democracy outside of the First World, is not much to brag about. A by-word for corruption and organized crime.
Great end lol
Dude:"We can't know the counter factual"
Zizek: "I love that!"
I feel like these guys only gripe is one wants a slow progression and the other wants it fast.
What does zizek means when he says that something more radical will happen?
Humor and interruption are Zizek's weapons against actually being listened to.
Stay safe Zizek 😭
7:47 thought he said "the singapore pork", made me laugh
My father who is Slovenian left Slovenia in 1970 he had absolutely no idea who Zizek was before I showed him a few videos, and was absolutely baffled by what he was saying, even in Slovene
Singapore is modern Amsterdam, this is a trade hub, and therefore cannot be repeated.
#GlobalDemocraticCommunism
@James R Once there was a village full of people socialized to be greedy and self-interested. One man in the village had an idea: he would be generous instead. He went out into the public square and professed his philosophy to the people there. "I have made these blankets. Come to me if you're cold and I'll give you one. In turn, please pass on this kindness to someone else." His first visitors lied and took all of his blankets, offering nothing in return, and paying nothing forward. The next day, the village's most respected sage appeared at his door, to offer him 'advice.' And that sage was James R. He told the man: "your philosophy is foolish, behold the consequences!" And so, the foolish man learned a great lesson, and, upon his eventual financial recovery, his stall became a famous center for the trade of blankets and fine materials. The man was happy, and none again ever indulged in the foolishness of generosity. Thus was the eternal lesson of the sage James R.
@James R One of singapore's most important institutions is its massive public housing board. maybe 80% of singaporeans live in public housing, and the like it. Part of the reason why its stable, because nobody gets jerked around for rent. This was a creation of the PAP, which was a left-wing party frequently accused of being "communist" by idiot conservatives in the 50s. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's famous semi-dictator, and the current reigning government, are actually the PAP. People like to ignore the marxist bent to these highly effective organizations. I wouldn't say the PAP was communist 50s, and definitely not today, but they do a good job running their country and I think it's because they don't bury their heads in the sand.
Americans are so ideological that they decided to deny anything that Marx or other communists believed in, which simply leads to a ridiculous misreading of the economy.
Really tough too watch. Zizek brilliant as always, but this guy brings up ridiculous stuff just "win" the debate. He's not trying to learn anything, he is just attacking while he trys to show a friendly face. Too bad for him it didn't work out.
Classical sceptic. Sceptical of thinking and considering other people's points. Just there to push his narrative.
These chairs haven't grotesque humor when they are fulfilled with the one you love beside you...
how about per capita emissions???
Communism is about holding powerful people responsible for the problems they cause, conservatism is about blaming those problems on powerless people.
Communism has always had a problem regulating the over arching power that holds everyone else responsible for the problems they cause.
Conservatism is a mixed bag.
corruption is all around in both.
@@GIDEONgame Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Most democratic countries don't hold powerful people responsible because rampant capitalism has poisoned their societies. Plenty of genocides are committed in the name of conservatism.
@@GIDEONgame Marx was jew descendent... Point me where in what book Marx attacked jews! And not need to be "as much as Hitler", point me just one example.
Attacked or blamed jews. Not talk about them.
@@GIDEONgame it is a lie? It was blaming them? When Napolion said that religion is just to keep the poor from killing the rich did he sent all religious people into camps to die? Did Marx defended the killing of the jews or blame them for the pain of white man as Hitler did? Your kind as a name: demagogues and that was what Hitler was for sure!
I was waiting for Cowen to exclaim: "Inconceivable!"
😂🤣😂
Is there any sense between the “and so on and so on”?
Mom! The uncles are drunk and arguing again!
"singapore is a wonderful country" lmfao
Four-eyes wants to be ordered around by robot dogs. Liberals really are just fascists with a flayed human's facial skin attached to them.
Ladies and gentleman we have identified patient zero.
The chairs
Why is the other guy vincini from princess bride ?
Yes, let's just take all billions of cars/boat and airplanes, scrap them and produce billions of electric ones! It's gonna be great for ecological reasons.
Or just maybe use less of them
@@jeandarwin9143 exactly
@@kallepunkken But nobody said that we should scrap cars. And if they think we can scrap a million cars then they are idiots.
@@kallepunkken Though
@@jeandarwin9143 Even if they are not scrapped and only modified we would still need to fill them with new engines and change a lot of stuff. there isnt enough materials, energy to do that and we cant do it without wrecking the environment totally
Zizek is indeed a communist but just for a sake of it. All in all, Zizek think that Communism today and then, either old school or new school, will not work at all. So what Zizek does is basically to challenge anyone out there to think about Communism again. Zizek always says this since his very early career, "don't act. Think!!!"
Btw, Cowen's argument is lowkey a triggered libertarian who doesn't want to engage in the conversation at all. It's useless to have an argument with him,.
too true. cowen basically demonstrates the same amount of knowledge as like, an above average redditor. shameful stuff
@@SlimeJime Unempathetic privileged rich people see nothing wrong with the world.
@transylvanian perhaps this would clarify his thought, czcams.com/video/IgR6uaVqWsQ/video.html
And please don't be so narrow-minded and literally take his words without further thinking. Of course action is needed but what Zizek proposed here is to "think again" and reflecting your then decision to whatever had happened in the past. He just asks the new leftists to be more careful.
@transylvanian ok boomer
I was dragged to a Laibach concert by a friend. They used images of the holocaust in their set. There was no way they were endorsing fascism. Then my friend asked me if I thought different races should live in different countries. He was not joking. He wanted to know what I thought and he was arguing the case for this position. I think Laibach were a way for him to toy with Nazi ideology before he chose to own any views associated with them. He is a smart guy from a small town. He did a doctorate in astrophysics. I hope it was just a phase.
If there's a bowl of fruit, all of them bruised and in various states of rot or over-ripeness, but the most edible and appealing fruit in the bowl is an apple, that doesn't mean my favorite fruit is an apple.
Cowen is not a conservative, he’s a free-market fundamentalists. He worships capitalism. That’s not true conservatism. Big difference.
Alternate title: Tyler Cowen misunderstands Communism completely. End.
Only communists understand it, it's that simple. Non-comunist on communism is like cow on balet. :)
Adis Šabović Very true, though I do personally know people who understand that communism involves things like a lack of a state, lack of money, lack of class structures, etc. but don’t feel that it’s a good idea regardless, often because they simply can’t wrap their heads around it (These people also tend to be socdems who think that a reformist approach to something like democratic socialism wouldn’t be that bad). It’s also interesting that there are people who fully agree with the foundational elements of socialism/communism but are put off by the name
@@Wyrdangus What do they say about satisfying human needs - satisfy or depress? Satisfy human or inhuman needs (communism or barbarism)? :)
Adis Šabović They generally seem to want everyone’s needs fulfilled as best as possible, if that’s what you’re asking. Socdems definitely *want* to help people, but can’t or won’t understand that bandaid solutions won’t actually solve the foundational problems
@@Wyrdangus Not really convinced socdems are able to help themselves in the first place, let alone others...unlike communists. In my book, they're just an extension of what stands behind them. Marionettes.
On state or statelessness: there is absolutely no human need for state as such. Shut down (all) states - who's gonna protest? Right, it's the etatists. They don't exist without it. It's like an addiction. They don't know any better. And as long there are "other humans" with their states you need yours to defend yourself from "other people's" influences on you through their states. Money? Military? Classes? Same thing.
To communists - state (money, military, class etc.) is an necessary evil, nothing more. :)
So I appreciate the I’m a fascist as hitter was a painter. I’m curious if I’m communist as Stalin was an aristocrat works as well?
the hero we need and deserve plus he is a lovely character gotta love slavoj
My immediate reaction to "honest, inteligent, modest, sceptic conservative" was: pick two. Two is the most world can offer.
This Tyler Cowen sounds like a boomer without capacity for critical analysis. Seems to be more concerned with trashing China, than adressing capitalism problems.
I think the point is that communist countries have more problems than capitalist countries even by Zizek's own metrics. Zizek recognises this by not even trying to refute it. The question should be why doesn't Zizek have the intellectual honesty to admit communism is crap?
That host has something in his voice that trigger my anger
He didn't reply to the point about Taiwan...? He answered a question with multiple questions. Confusing. It's nice to see someone level headed try to pin down Zizek although in typical fashion he avoided everything.
actually China has a political plan structured to clean the air in the next two years, so the comment of the "challenger" was not entirely accurate.
Guy's a typical apathetic well to do capitalist economist, he don't care. The fact that Singapore is a soulless and hollow shiny corporate jungle that you can admire and enjoy food in is enough to validate the free market gospel.
I'm willing to bet that clown is intentionally omitting the fact that said "communist" (we're still calling the PRC communist in the 21st century, really?) offender in pollution was and still is the fucking #1 workhorse of commodity production of the Capitalist world... Can you imagine if Zizek actually burst his bubble by saying... all this shit you have right now... is because western conglomerates chose to build in or buy from China, to save a buck, not because western countries are "cleaner" by some sort of hidden virtue of Capitalism. Jeez, what a fucking disingenuous hack that dude is with every 2nd phrase he utters...
Its hard to challenge Zizek considering he never actually says anything of substance to challenge
As a NS i find this (interesting)..
wtf is going on with these chairs??
Im surprised he didn't contest the China being communist point.
Identity politics may be influenced by some post Marxist, post modernist beliefs however I think they are mostly influenced by 70 years plus of extensive consumerism and market ideals. Erich Fromms concept of the ‘marketing man’ I feel goes along way to explain this. Some on the left confuse niche cliques for people power, confuse rights with power, confuse the fight for social justice with cultural hegemony. Worst of all some confuse debate and enquiry for oppression and Nazism. I would argue that identity politics is far more a consequence of capitalism than any Marxist tract. Of course I could be completely wrong, nonetheless I think identity politics fails to provide a robust enough check on power structures. It’s too myopic, self centred and superficial to have anything truly radical to say. They don’t want everyone to have a piece, they just want their piece. Maybe I’m just talking out of my arse.
Which post modern Marxists beliefs suggest identity politics
ThePeanutButterCup13 exactly! but I have heard it said, I’m thinking of that snake oil merchant Jordan Peterson. To be fair to him I think he is referring to the break from traditional Marxism on the ‘left’ towards more single issue politics of race and gender in the 1970s.
the biggest winner are the chairs
The host is very righteous and thinks he knows everything and can therefore successfully deconstruct Zizek. For this reason he thinks of himself as a genius.
Years ago when I was a bitter teenager freshman in High School I was babysitting a younger neighbor while the family was out. We walked to the local library and went to a magic show for kids. It was friday night and I wanted to watch a movie on TV and instead I had to take this kid to the library.
I knew all the gags behind the tricks. So I volunteered for to participate for one of the gags which involved a fake thumb and pulling a flag from "nowhere."
As I shook hands with the magician as part of the gag, I pulled the thumb off and the flag fell on the floor in front of a bunch of kids.
The magician was a total pro and just steamrolled into the next gag and literally no-one recalled my shitty stunt of rebellion. At the end of the show, people shook hands with the magician and thanked him, the local librarian an older woman in her late 40s said "nice job" to me in a tone of voice that was flatter than a three-day-old-soda.
I had to stick around and wait for my kid to shake hands with the magician. So I'm literally standing next to the man while the kid shakes his hand and is giggling. I couldn't even look the magician in the eye. He said nothing to me.
And I deserved it for trying to take the magic away from everyone else, since I thought I already knew the answers-the only thing I proved was my own insecurity and how weak my spirit & character was when I was 14.
Way better than the discussion with Peterson. I agree with Cowen: Zizek is not a communist; or at least not a communist in the Marxist sense. When Zizek says in many of his videos (which I will not go through the trouble to find and quote) that he would rather stay at home and read and write books on philosophy than to think hard about the automated processes of a nation, I find that he forfeits much of his claims to speak too politically (as a communist).
In this video Zizek skates around the basic questions and statements by Cowen to arrive at no solid point that was supposed to support his position as a communist. He did a poor job of defending himself, and now I'm more interested in exploring Cowen's ideas.
Peterson is the greatest intellectual of our time
Catherine Whitaker lmao
@@QueenKrystina Peterson is an academic and a professor of psychology. You are an uneducated dipshit. Now fuck off troll
@@catherinewhitaker6226 Here's your genius... czcams.com/video/wklypvFKuaU/video.html
@@catherinewhitaker6226 Jordan, stay off youtube comments you should be in a coma right now!
Zizek's communism is just branding at this point. There is nothing substantially communist about the ideas he defends if you take away the intellectual grand standing.
true, but nobody needs modernism anymore. the communists lost themselves in it just like everybody else.
zizek is right to call himself a communist though, because in 2020, thinking that the communists were correct on certain occasions makes you a communist.
Idk a channel called The Radical Revolution posting mainly Zizkek clips doesnt seem so revolutionary or radical to me...
These seats are designed for uncomfortable conversation.