this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
askchapo
22753 readers
273 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a very good reason that Jordan Peterson accepted a 'debate' with him, even while zonked through the gourd on benzos. Zizek is ultimately, like Jordan Peterson, a culture critic. Not an academic. Not an activist. Not a revolutionary. Basically the dumb smart guys equivalent of a YouTube movie reviewer. As such, they both understand that in the world of criticism, content is king. That doesn't mean quality of content or quality of engagement, that means the most eyeballs on your content at all time, in whatever form possible, with the major goal to get them to buy your book(s) and tickets to your debates, because that is where you really make your money. Like the only reason Peterson fell off as much as he did was because he went into a coma for nearly a year and people moved on to guys like Andrew Tate.
I have a soft spot for Zizek as a pipeline for leftists, the trashcan of ideology is a fantastic metaphor for modern media consumption, but I am also very glad I didn't seriously engage with any of his works until after I seriously read through most of Marx, Lenin, Nietzsche, Camus, Popper, Hegel, Kant, McLuhan, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Baudrialluad, Butler, Foucault, Shelley, etc and other assorted histories of socialism and socialist states. Otherwise he would have been overwhelmingly smart to me and I likely would have just taken him at his word.
The reason for this is that Zizek is an incredibly well read, far more than me, but due to his own life experiences, deeply unserious person, even by continental philosopher standards. His method of surviving the collapse of the USSR as a public intellectual has basically been to be a 'Marxist' who tells liberals that they were right about everything, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, by deflecting with incredibly obscure and empirically unprovable theories. Occasionally, he will have a correct point, such as 'people get off on being outraged as much if not more as they get off on being happy' as a way to make fun of first world activists, but then ignores the fact that material stability is empirically dropping everywhere but China and China is one of the few places in the world that is experiencing a rise in general happiness. Sure, maybe people prefer to be outraged, but clearly people become happier regardless with material stability and losing that makes it easier to 'indulge' in outrage.
I guess he chose personal profit over communism. Sad to think people would do it, especially after they’ve learnt so much.
Also:
Holy motherfucking shit.
No, he recognized what his material interests were and has unabashedly followed them. This is a point he himself reiterates over and over again throughout his works. Make hay while the sun shines. He is ironically and absurdly as, if not more, pragmatic than Stalin, because at least Stalin still tried to work and think within the framework of the Soviet councils. Zizek is wholely libertarian in that regard.
With Zizek though, it is difficult to say if he himself believes his own ideology (hence why I consider him unserious) given how many times he has contradicted himself. I will not praise him for it, but I continue to have a soft spot for him regardless of this Nazi turn because he is literal embodiment, an avatar of proof, of the ideological genuflection you have to do to be considered a Marxist AND still be published within mainstream government circles. He is literally Parenti's "Inventing Reality", as a Slovenian raccoon man who probably did way too much cocaine after the fall of the Soviet Union. Fucking hilarious regardless if it's intentional or not.
However, in order to really get this joke you also have to read a stupid amount of old books, so idk if it's worth it. But also, it's not really that impressive imo, I'm pretty old by online western leftist standards.
Edit: I honestly should be nicer here. I'm just a very tired person most of the time. While technically correct, thinking like a Marxist means that"abandoning communism" is not really something you can do. Communism is a theoretical state of production that subsumes and overtakes capitalism, you can't abandon it, it just happens eventually.
If you are a Marxist-Leninist you can either try to accelerate the process or do damage control (depending on the overarching situation) on the fallout of the inevitable crisises that occur within capitalism, but material interests still dominate ideology, and the entire Western part of the world is designed to insulate itself from the fallout of those issues. That being said, the treats are starting to get abit more expensive and the majority of U.S. has zero idea of what it's like to live like the rest of the world. Potentially a very explosive, likely reactionary, situation. Idk though, I just know my area is generally financially fine, so if the cities go off like they usually do during a cost of living crisis, alot of people are gonna be willing to shoot their poorer fellow citizens and that is a recipe for disaster for long term civil stability.