/lit/ - Literature

>>13364260
What the fuck is wrong with him? I mean, I rub my nose a lot but it's because I'm a drug addict. If it gets runny I blow it with a fucking tissue, especially if I'm about to go in front of a camera

>>13364260
Yeah I was curious about leftism and was looking into it for a bit. When I actually saw this guy speak I couldn't believe it was unironic.

Somehow the miserable resentful leftist ideology manifests itself into reality with someone who fits the physiology of the ideology

The fact that the left once again holds up some shitty pop-philosophy hack as their leader is embarresing. You'd think they would have learned after foulcault made his deal with the devil. The peterson "debate" is perfect because it puts zizek in the same category of cult of personality brainlets that follow peterson. Zizek is the lefts equivalent of scientism fags who love bill nye/tyson

>>13364260
>contemporary
He's a boomer
>contemporary
Time is a rule no more
>How are leftists supposed to make this ideology
Left can only make it if they leave behind the human think. Now, you can only think left in the terms of Moldbug, and I dig it. Nothing human makes it out of the near future.

>>13364260
You might be trolling but Orwell already realized this in the '30s.

"A dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking to the smell of “progress” like bluebottles to a dead cat"

>>13364267
>>13364326
you're mistaken if you believe that zizek is important to leftist ideology and leftists in general. he's very much considered to be this weird guy on youtube with quirky psycho-analysis takes on pop culture. that is, unimportant to what lies at the heart of leftist ideology.

i'm sure twitter and reddit says otherwise, but i can assure you he hasn't had nearly as great an impact as peterson has had among his disciples

>>13364351
where is this high-minded leftist forum that has this overarching opinion of zizek?

>>13364351
I've never met a genuine marxist who disliked Zizek, but there are tons of right-wingers who hate Peterson.

I've never understood why leftists rage over Peterson so much, he seems pretty inconsequential to me. His entire ideology is ripped apart by the right wing on a regular basis

>>13364363
it is my understanding from college that leftists are more interested in the works of Laclau, Mouffe, Hardt, Negri, Butler, Mark Fisher etc., and more recently radical environmentalists.

>>13364371
>but there are tons of right-wingers who hate Peterson.
>His entire ideology is ripped apart by the right wing on a regular basis
where can I find this?

>>13364389
where do you go to college and what do you study? I'm honestly curious, because I go to a pretty left wing Canadian uni and haven't had any of them assigned in any of the libarts courses I've taken

>>13364389
>where can I find this
Any reactionary right ecelebs are regularly making fun of him and ben Shapiro, they’re basically just punching bags at this point. Off the top of my head you have Nicholas Fuentes, Richard Spencer, Vox Day, And Black pigeon speaks has made videos bashing him. These types are usually deconstructing classical liberalism when bashing Peterson

I’m sure you’ve seen Vox Day’s book “Jordanetics” which is just an entire book dedicated to laughing at Peterson for being a mentally ill hack

>>13364342
Based orwell

They both turn people to the alt-reicht

>>13364260
He's banned from the most of major left media. What can we do more?

Just have mommy gf tits on the opposite page of every modern book on marxism

>>13364342
Are namefags on the rise? Jesus....

>>13364371
>I've never met a genuine marxist who disliked Zizek
I enjoy reading his Hegelian and especially Lacanian stuff, but he gets some basics of Marx wrong and others he completely rejects, so in that way I dislike him (or rather completely oppose him).
t. communist
(unless by "genuine Marxists" are to be understood some academic hacks who themselves largely reject Marx, if that's the case then disregard what I wrote)

>>13364260
>>13364260
he is brilliant and consistently emerges out of any battle as the winner. just remember his fight against chomsky, simon critchley and for that matter peterson. also he publishes for 40 years straight and even his books from the early 90s are still worth reading.
ticks develop from triebversagung. when you reject being urvater or some pathetic public intellectual, when you insist on questioning your public symbolic mandate, ticks are inevitable.
by contrast it is laudable for the left that he is our global spokesperson. if only the socdem party left would read him..

>>13364260
jokes and pop culture references

>Zizek
>leftist

>>13365070
>he gets some basics of Marx wrong
extrapolate

>>13366129
He believes that the law of value is going to function in a lower stage of communism, which is practically a sure signal that he can't possibly understand what capitalism and communism are (for Marx) beyond superficialities. This agrees with his personal understanding of communism as some vague, undeterminate global co-operation that's necessary to deal with problems like climate change, "neuralink", etc.

>>13366185
>lower stage of communism
You mean socialism? Cuz I usually read Marx in Spanish/French and maybe there's differences in the translation, and what I would understand for the lower stage of communism is socialism.

If so, Laws of value objectively works in socialism, it worked in the USSR and China for example, even tho Stalin rejected that evidence, while Mao recognized it

>>13366685
Some people referred to all stages of communism as socialism (Marx), while others just to a lower one (Lenin).

>it worked in the USSR and China for example,
Yes, it certainly did.

>If so, Laws of value objectively works in socialism
No. The law of determination of value by labour-time is the basis of capitalism. It ceases to function in communism (from the very start, which includes its lower stage), since in communism products of labour are no longer even assigned values.

Engels:
>From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. [...] Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”.

>>13366762
>No. The law of determination of value by labour-time is the basis of capitalism. It ceases to function in communism (from the very start, which includes its lower stage), since in communism products of labour are no longer even assigned values.

Following that way of thinking, real socialism never happened, which to me, thinking the whole III international got it all wrong is not a serious analysis of the most relevant socialist experiences.

>>13365070
>but he gets some basics of Marx wrong
I'm going to leave this as "you're wrong" as he's extremely familiar and has a deep understanding of Marx that few could match. Where he gets a little controversial is with his reading of Hegel, it's similar to the controversy with Chomsky's reading of thinkers like Adam Smith in that it's against the current orthodox view but very much based on direct and deep reading of the source material.

>>13364260
Honest to god, all arguments aside the man is fucking revolting spitting up all over himself and squirming like a coke addict
>inb4 he’s le quirky
He wears exclusively dirty t-shirts- it’s the most planned quirk I’ve ever seen

>>13366797
Your tshirts would be dirty if you stored them in your kitchen.

>>13364266
I think its more of a nervous tick than a permacold. It's his alternative to tugging on his beard in that stupid "philosophising" way

>>13364260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxDozuzfVuY

>>13366787
That's fine. You can take it slow and then maybe read Marx once you're ready to get over your feelings. The third international got many things right at first, but then it got transformed from an instrument of the proletarian revolution into an instrument of furthering the interests of the Russian state.

>>13366792
As I said, you can't have deep understanding of Marx if you don't understand his very fundamental claim about what distinguishes communism from capitalism. He's clearly read him a lot, but only for the purpose of borrowing some of his ideas and fitting them into his framework. He doesn't understand Marx as Marx. But that's kinda a given with philosophers. They all proceed in the fashion of this borrowing/misreading.

only American red scare nuts think Zizek is a socialist

>>13367113
You pretentious cunt, don't assume the amount of reading I've made for disagreeing with you.

>The third international got many things right at first, but then it got transformed from an instrument of the proletarian revolution into an instrument of furthering the interests of the Russian state.

Nobody cant deny this.

>>13367399
Zizek isn't a socialist really, he's a communist.
>>13367113
Zizek understands Marx quite well, he just doesn't always agree with him. Do you know how many Marxist philosophers disagreed with Marx? Literally fucking all of them. What are you even trying to say, I'm having a hard time following,that Zizek doesn't understand the ltv?

>>13367670
I'm saying that he doesn't understand what the revolutionary transition from the capitalist to the co-operative society consists in for Marx, as evidenced by his claim that, according to Marx, in the latter the law of value still functions (for a limited time), which runs contrary to pretty much everything that Marx wrote on the nature of communist society, either positively or negatively (that is through his description of capitalism with the law of value as one of its fundamental laws).
That he disagrees with Marx is not my concern. My point is that he often fundamentally misunderstands what it is he disagrees with. That is not in itself a problem if one views it from a philosophical perspective, as exploratory work (which is strictly not meant as a serious evaluation of this or that thinker). However, my initial post was written not from this perspective, but from a communist one.

>>13367769
>I'm saying that he doesn't understand what the revolutionary transition from the capitalist to the co-operative society consists in for Marx
I say he does. Yours seems spotty.

>>13367808
Incorrect intuitions about Marx can always be remedied by reading Marx.

>>13364334
>He's a boomer
Reminder that Zizek is not American/Western you dipshits.

>>13367857
The entire world is Western

>>13364260
Marx never bathed and was covered in nasty boils. Leftists don't care about stuff like that.

>>13364728
>Richard Spencer
>Vox Day
>Black Pigeon Speaks
>right wing
Is that what passes as right wing? Holy shit

The tactic that has worked the best for leftists is indoctrinating the educated caste so leftism seems "smart". It kind of backfired from around 2013-2016 when modern colleges were exposed, largely by centrists, as a joke though. Increasingly only the hyper-priveleged or favored victim groups will be able to afford or be sent into these colleges anyway though. The big new thing is allying with the biggest capitalists and technocrats in the world, sort of like the Soviet-U.S alliance in WWII. The commonality of materialism will make them learn to love each other despite pretending to be opposed parties.

>>13368995
i wouldnt call that apu shocked exactly, it has an excited incredulous look

>>13369020
Oh wait, this was the image I meant to post here.

>>13368995
Spencer is unironic full white supremacist fascist to the extreme, self-admittedly many times over.
What is more right to spencer, sargon?