/lit/ - Literature

>When asked to comment on Zizek explicitly, Chomsky pulls out his old criticism of the Slovenian philosopher. At the end of the interview, the interviewer asks Chomsky to respond to a 2009 comment Zizek made about Chomsky in the New Statesmen.
>CH: Slavoj Žižek, in an interview to the New Statesman in 2009 said, and I quote: “My friend told me Chomsky said something very sad. He said that today we don’t need theory. All we need to do is tell people, empirically, what is going on. Here, I violently disagree: facts are facts, and they are precious, but they can work in this way or that. Facts alone are not enough. You have to change the ideological background…I’m sorry…I’m an old-fashioned continental European. Theory is sacred and we need it more than ever.” How would you respond to Zizek’s claim?
>NC: First of all, I quite agree that just spewing out facts means nothing. In our discussion here we haven’t just been spewing out facts, it’s within a framework, a frame of understanding, principles and so on. The European intellectuals he is talking about have a concept of theory, which in my view, is largely divorced from facts and from theory, in any serious sense of the notion. It’s mostly big, complicated words that may be fun for intellectuals to throw around to each other but most of it, I think, is gibberish to tell you the honest truth. It’s not theory in any sense that I understand and I have been involved most of my life in the sciences where there are theories and so on. So sure, if you can find a theory that has some real principles which are of some interest and you can draw conclusions from them which you can apply to interpreting the actual world around you then sure, that’s wonderful. If there are such theories, I am happy to see them. I don’t find them when I read Paris Post-Modernist talk. What I see is intellectuals interacting with one another in ways which are incomprehensible to the public and, to be frank, incomprehensible to me. So sure, let’s have theories that have some intellectual content, some consequences, can be refined, change and lead us to better understanding.

#teamzizek

>CH: There was a recent article in January 2013 by Alan Johnston, writing for the telegraph and he accused Žižek of being a left-fascist, promulgating this view of totalitarianism and violence that is justified within the left tradition and something that we should reclaim in the twenty first century. How does this fascination with violence, terror and hegemony stem from the radical left tradition? Do you think that it’s a part of it or is it some offshoot?
>NC: You know, there are a lot of radical left traditions. The ones that made any sense, in my view, were not committed to violence except in self defense. So, if you manage to carry forward significant changes and progressive changes, maybe radical, institutional changes, and you start to function and there is an attack on them by former centers of power, by outside powers and so on, then you defend yourself. As I said, I am not a pure pacifist; I don’t think you should stop defending yourself when you are under attack, but under very special circumstances. The idea of overthrowing existing forces by violence is a very questionable one for pretty good reasons I think. People who talk about revolution, it’s easy to talk about, but if you want a revolution, meaning a significant change in institutions that’s going to carry us forward, rather than backwards, then it has to meet a couple of conditions. One condition is it has to have dedicated support by a large majority of the population. People who have come to realize that the just goals that they are trying to attain cannot be attained within the existing institutional structure because they will be beaten back by force. If a lot of people come to that realization then they might say well we’ll go beyond the, what’s called reformism, the effort to introduce changes within the institutions that exist. At that point the questions at least arise. But we are so remote from that point that I don’t even see any point speculating about it and we may never get there. Maybe Marx is right that within parliamentary democracies you can use the institutions themselves to go to a sharp institutional change. In fact, I think there is some evidence for that. So for example, in the United States there are the beginnings of germs of what might be a real socialist or communist society like worker owned enterprises. It’s the beginnings of industrial democracy, you know popular democracy in all institutions. How far can it go, well you know, if it keeps going and there is violent resistance to it, then you can raise the question of using violence to defend it, but if it keeps going and it doesn’t meet violent resistance, then we will just continue it.
Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QrT5xtDSDBo

>>13557810
for someone as accomplished and intelligent as Chomsky is, he sure does say some retarded shit in public.

>>13558201
>You know, there are a lot of radical left traditions. The ones that made any sense, in my view, were not committed to violence except in self defense.
Zizek advocates symbolic violence, which means an attack on the objective violence which underlies the system and which we are blind to. He says in this way the self-defense of Ghandi was far more violent than anything Hitler ever did, and that if Hitler wanted to be successful he should have been more violent (that is, tried to attack the underlying objective violence of Germany's social norms (e.g. antisemitism) rather than bolstering them through national socialism). If this level of theory is incomprehensible to Chomsky than he is a fool, and Chomsky is no fool. He has never engaged with Zizek. He hears "Lacanian-Hegelian" and sees his credentials from Paris-IIIV and writes him off. It's a shame because Zizek has plenty of good things to say about Chomsky, and takes the idea of manufactured consensus very seriously.

>>13557810
He's right.

Zizek simply frightens people with the size of his books, but they're just the ramblings of a cocaine addict.

>>13558222
he says very little else

I'd pick a degenerate materialist (((anglo))) over a Hegelian

>>13558222
It's a living

>>13558269
Zizek’s books arent that long lol. The Sublime Object of Ideology is only a little more than 300 pages

Has Chomsky provided anything beneficial as his role as an intellectual? It seems like every time I hear about him he's doing some retard shit, like denying cambodian genocide or this gay shit.

>>13558269
>uh duhh ramblings

I'm so close to filtering this word, along with "nonsensical", "incoherent", "postmodern neomarxist", and "pseudo-intellectual"

>>13558301
it too complicated for me though, take me ages to read

>>13558279
I'll have you know Zizek is both a materialist and a degenerate

>>13558304
don't forget "obscurantist"

>>13558317
How could I? Also, "incoherent", "drivel", and "teenage stoner"

Does anyone remember Zizek talking about the red room? I'm not sure if it's from the guide to cinema or ideology.

>>13558309
Why does he switch to first person in the middle of it?

>>13558386
guess

>>13558304
weak defense of his work.

>>13558175
>I think, is gibberish to tell you the honest truth. It’s not theory in any sense that I understand and I have been involved most of my life in the sciences where there are theories and so on. *Sniff*

>Thug Life cue

>>13557810

>chomsky
>zizek

>>13559199
And what is this quote for?

chomsky is the biggest bitch on earth, and if you have ever felt inclined to read his liberal drivel i encourage you to not waste time on babbys first left thought and just read parenti like an adult

literally for all of his stupidity and problems, i would take zizek 100000000 times over chomsky

>>13559157
it was a weak attack

ITT: Not a single refutation

>>13559240
lol ok senpai, here's one: go explain ontological incompleteness to a 12 year old and come back to us

>>13559210
>a pseudo-anarchist hypocrite and a self declared radical leftist
>there's people who follow and take their ideology and examples seriously

>>13559240
Cope

>>13559222
Alright, but can you use your words to explain why and not this childish tone?

should've asked him about the cambodian genocide

>>13559255
You pseudo-people just love to make shit up.
Keep your feces smears to yourself

>>13559259
You want the explanation anon? Again?

But wouldn’t a MList side with Pol Pot?

>>13559264
There goes the cult follower to protect his idols, like pottery.

>>13559257
if you don’t know now you never will xD, sucks to have a leftie woman brain :P

>>13557810
Chomsky is right again. People only like Zizek because he appears like a dangerous radical but in reality never suggests any action that needs to take place, so he appeals to the armchair left. These "theories" that surround philosophy are really just attempts at models for understanding reality, but the models don't work, so they need to be made increasingly complicated. That clearly removes all utility they have as models, especially if they don't explain data. So much philosophy is just verbal sandcastle. Chomsky is simply rejecting that by following the method of philosophy taught at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus: to simply repeat scientific verifiable facts which could poke holes in contemporary frames of viewing the world. He has my absolute respect.

>>13559279
t. never read Zizek

>>13559257
why chomsky is a spineless liberal? i mean just read his work. he is good at analyzing the ugly nature of american/capitalist society in decay, and yet spends so much of his writing and time lionizing capitalism as better than actual revolutionary states. his popularity among the upper echelons of media/academia are exactly due to this; he provides a comfortable counter-revolutionary line, while at the same time touting some idea of discontent with the status quo and capitalism. in this, his body of work becomes the perfect tool to placate any sense of revolutionary theory penetrating mainstream left thought in america. he challenges imperialism, and then condones it. he challenges capitalism, then condones it. he is a comfortable, bourgeois academic who presents no actual revolutionary action. zizek is more or less in the same boat as chomsky, but at least he has provided some lucid critical theory on ideology.

on the other hand, michael parenti tackles the exact same subjects chomsky does, often before chomsky, and also provides revolutionary alternatives and support for real revolutions. if anyone reading this is at all concerned with left thought (i know we're on 4chan so i can expect to be called a communist faggot or whatever), please for the love of god ditch radlib/anarchist drivel like chomsky and read parenti if you want a current academic, or lenin and mao if you want truly excellent works on left thought.

>>13559279
I don't think you understand Zizek, Chomsky, or Wittgenstein; that's impressive

>>13559288
based, what does parenti suggest?

>>13559280
I'm generalizing zizek's writings with the French pseuds that Chomsky is roasting. They're all the same to me.

>>13559295
>I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about

We know.

>>13557810
Zizeks a Hegelian- how could he aspire to anything but obsfuscate and overcomplicate what is essential feel-good pop-philosophy
not a huge fan of Chomsky, but at least the guy is results oriented. one could reasonably call him a scientist, whereas Zizek is just a living clickbait buzzfeed article

>>13559288
>lenin and mao
Chomsky ditches your kind because you tout psychopathic mass murderers who created totalitarian states ruled by a dictator, and then called it a road to Marx's communism.

There is zero indication that those 'socialist' states would ever progress to be communist societies without class. They were dictatorships with weird economic policies.

>>13557810
in all seriousness, the only thing anyone can ever say that zizek has postulated on his own is "ontological incompleteness of being" which, when people go on to explain, really just sounds like an over-complication of the idea of the difference between being/becoming

>>13559293
like what to read by him, or what he puts forward as thought?

for readings, i suggest Inventing Reality, and Democracy for the Few. also, his lectures are great.

as for his ideas, i think he does an excellent job of analyzing post modernism through a marxist lens, without falling into the traps that a lot of the french post modern thinkers/critical theory people fell into.

i also recommend Empire by michael hardt!

>>13559313
Zizek's writings on Hegel are some of the most lucid in the biz.

>>13559313
>Hegel
>feel-good pop-philosophy
Hegel was famously depressive, and wrote the Phenomenology during a period of deep desolation. The is the man who wrote that the absolute Lord of consciousness was the fear of death.

>>13559324
how is that?

>>13559316
excellent job having both
a. no material understanding of marxism, history, or "dictatorship". unless of course you did mean dictatorship of the proletariat. (i can recommend you some readings on this subject if you're actually willing to engage!)
b. literal german nazi propaganda as your basis of understanding the ussr! that is epic.

what do you propose we do to, after a revolution, to combat counterrevolutionary action, pro-capitalist insurgencies, and outside capitalist aggression in a socialist confederation, without the state? do you think that individually aligned autonomous communes that lack a cohesive military force will be able to combat these issues alone? serious questions, because it is always the biggest pitfall of anarchist revolutions

>>13559333
being centered on Hegel is what limits the practical utility of his ideas
>>13559336
that was a confusing sentence but what I meant was zizek is the one with a feel-good philosophy and then obfuscates it.

>>13559288
>and yet spends so much of his writing and time lionizing capitalism as better than actual revolutionary states
Never heard this once.
>he provides a comfortable counter-revolutionary line
This, in the form of his vote as left as you can advice, I am well aware of.
> but at least [Žižek] has provided some lucid critical theory on ideology.
All of which is as fairly byzantine as it is worthless to the masses.
But I see you’re just as critical. Chomsky was my intro to anarchism, and I’d thank him for his clarity, though I move beyond him.
I do Like Parenti and plan to read some of his work. Thanks for the polite reply and pardon for my bluster. I get so much of it here.
Donno about “ditching radlib/anarchism” is all about. I’m just a regular anarchist

>>13559344
you think the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat? You seriously believe this? It was a dictatorship of Lenin and then Stalin, individual men.
>>13559344
>do you think that individually aligned autonomous communes that lack a cohesive military force will be able to combat these issues alone?
You have just btfod the concept of a stateless society forever, and implicitly argued for right wing organization through hierarchy, you fucking imbecile.

>>13559346
Zizek is the farthest thing from feel good philosophy now I'm positive you haven't read him. Don't let his jocular demeanor fool you. The man is a philosopher of the void through and through

>>13559344
You clearly have NOT read Marx,else you would understand what the USSR was doing.

>>13559355
>The man is a philosopher of the void

Ask me how I know you're an ugly undergraduate student.

>>13559348
>Thanks for the polite reply and pardon for my bluster.
The polite reply of someone who hasn't seriously read Chomsky but decides to make up some wild interpretations of his work anyway.

>>13559374
ask me how I know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

>>13559355
>Now I'm positive you haven't read him
Why is it so difficult for you to believe someone didn't like the same author you liked? Zizek is totally a feel-good philosopher, just like Sarte. He writes in a way that deliberately panders to young leftists (a pathologically unhappy group, so "feel-good" looks different to them). He is an arm chair philosopher who will say anything to stay in the spotlight

>>13559353
>you think the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat? You seriously believe this? It was a dictatorship of Lenin and then Stalin, individual men.
yes, i dont really just "believe" it though, because my belief has no affect on the fact that this is how the country was legitimately ran lol. like, i literally do not think you have ever researched the political system of the ussr so i dont see how we can have a balanced discussion about this.
>You have just btfod the concept of a stateless society forever, and implicitly argued for right wing organization through hierarchy, you fucking imbecile.
lol what? read material conditions, answer the questions. stateless societies cannot exist until capitalism hegemony is toppled. that is just the literal truth, that is literally a simple historically material analysis that you clearly have not even tried to understand. again, how is a stateless, autonomous region supposed to defend itself from the overwhelming hegemony of capitalism? like, literally how? i would love to know, if you can convince me then i am willing to hear it.

>>13559348
i mean chomsky makes it extremely clear that he saw the fall of the ussr as a good thing, which leads to the argument that the liberalization of the former soviet states was preferable, something that is completely refutable by liberal data points themselves (quality of life fell drastically after the fall, for example). he has voiced support for US research being done on his campus, and often leaves his most radical suggestions of praxis as "vote left", as you said.

as for zizek, yeah he is completely unnecessary as a figure of "left" thought (he is not really a leftist even), but like chomskys interesting insight on linguistics, zizek offers something of note on how post modern ideology opperates at least.

>>13559397
Yeah, Less Than Nothing, what a feel good work. Just stop you mongoloid.

I half-agree. Zizek has some great ideas but his language is couched too far in Lacanian baggage. He belongs too much into the French tradition to be remembered as a truly great writer. Noam, on the other hand, writes books which are immediately accessible by anyone with a basic college education. Zizek isn't actually writing anything more complicated than Chomsky, he's only using the over-precise terminology of French post-structuralism. Chomsky's critique of Zizek has more to do with his writing.

The only reason Zizek is more popular currently than other continental post-structuralist Marxists is because he has made an active effort to be more accessible, putting cute jokes in his texts and trying to explain obscurantist concepts on the way as the reader progresses. But he doesn't take the extra step and exit the obscurantist framework to begin with.

>>13559400
>how is an autonomous region supposed to defend itself from the overwhelming hegemony of capitalism
Yeah it can't, you know why? Because it's not as powerful and can never supplant it. Liberal capitlaism supplanted the ancien regime because it was more powerful, communism has never even vaguely come into being.

I also can't believe you think the proles in the USSR, many of whom were randomly murdered, were controlling the actions of the state, and not the dictators and Lenin. Were they fucking voting lmao?

Learn what a capital letter is you fucking twitter faggot

>>13559402
Completely unabsorbed my comment. I'll rephrase. Zizek writes books that appeal to total cynics. The hopelessness, the dirty jokes, the obsession with movies, the shock value phrasing, the obscurantism, and the refusal to actually do anything are all essential elements in appealing to that type of demographic. Zizek is almost all style, and what little substance he has you could explain in five minutes to a twelve year old.

>>13559437
Please explain any one of these: the lamella, the objet petit a, his materialist dialectic reading of Hegel, his criticisms of Kant (through Hegel, this one should be easy), and one or two salient features of his materialist theology.

Thanks. If none of these are familiar to you then stop wasting yours and everyone's time.

>>13559400
>Quality of life fell drastically after the fall
Yeah, that's because there was an economic collapse. The USSR dissolved because there was an economic collapse arising. You're cherry picking data here

>>13559429
well masks off i guess lol

>communism has never even vaguely come into being
i mean that is just so functionally not true, but again i expect at this point you've never read any communist theory and are relying off of high school level ideas on what the concept means, so i guess we're just having two different conversations here!

given that this is the lit board, i'll leave you with a couple readings (or, moreso, for anyone who isnt a brainlet that is reading the thread and interested in actually learning practical left thought)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm

>>13559464
>a leftist doesn't explain his position or argue against the opposition but says 'read these things because i refuse to summarize their content such as it relates to the debate we are having'
there are indeed no new things under the sun

>>13559470
>being too much of a brainlet to read simple theory that has been accessible and beneficial to both illiterate workers and academics alike
there are indeed no new things under the sun

>>13559476
You really misunderstand how a debate works, you have to reply to the points a person said. Saying 'you are wrong and know nothing, and you are wrong because of x text that proves you wrong' is the furthest thing imaginable from an argument,

What are you even doing, are you posting only so that people agree with you unquestioningly in your shared reading of literature?

You were making motions towards arguing, you said a few things vaguely resembling reason, and then you leave with this trite 'im not going to defend my views, just read x' bullshit.

You are better than this honestly, you have potential to not be this much of a faggot, I really think you do, you dont sound actually retarded.

>>13559346
Slavoj "happiness is stupid" Zizek?
Slavoj "I'm not human I'm a monster" Zizek?
Slavoj "flowers are disgusting" Zizek?

>>13559437
>feel-good pop-philosophy
>no he doesn't
>w-well Zizek is a total pessimistic cynic b-but that makes some other cynic feel good m-maybe

>>13559483
what do you want me to do, explain dialectics to you? historical materialism? contradictions? how contradictions make resisting capitalism as a socialist society difficult and what that realistically entails? like, okay sure i can spend my entire night doing mental legwork for you, or i can expect that the denizens of /lit/ to do the one thing i can at least hope we all do here, and read! the longest of those reads would take 4-6 hours of dedicated time tops, with the majority being capable of being read and understood in probably like 2 hours. they're antiquated, but plain language texts, and i am positive that you can get through them if you read chomsky. we can sit around circling the drain, but you dont understand fundamental, and honestly entry level points about marxism, so how are we supposed to have the debate you want? you literally dont know what you're talking about here.

lmao who gives a fuck about fraudsky? he hasn't done anything except get his jewish cousin to get some absolutely worthless grammatical clause after him that is literally never used outside of pedantry. ZIZEK is a superb entertainer, comedian, thinker and writer. what did cucksky ever do? except support war criminal commies...kek i have never seen anyone who isnt a homosexual speak of virginsky in a positive light. fuck that kiddo.

>>13559511
holy BASED

>>13559511
truly based

>>13559500
if you want to argue with people, you have to defend your points, it's really that simple. If you want to just circlejerk there are a lot of other websites for you, youd probably be happier there

To be once again so clear I feel like im talking to a 5 year old, saying 'read this text' is not an argument

>>13559500
I feel you might need even more coaxing so here goes, you can definitely explain dialectics if it relates to why you think the person you're talking to is wrong. If we are retards and you're intelligent it is presumably easy for you to explain the concept in a way that counters our idiotic disagreements.

Saying 'you dont understand' is not and never will be any kind of actual conversation. You have to explain why, for fuck's sakes how do you not understand this?

If you think it's too tiring to explain the ideas then dont fucking post about them on 4chan, where you will be inevitably called out if you dont defend yourself, just fuck off to some website that abides by the appeal to authority you think qualfiies as debate.

>>13559458
The Soviet state system collapsed and the capitalist replacement *worked like a charm* so that only a few made bank.

>>13559400
you have to do more than "topple the hegemony" of capitalism, you have totally deracinate it and crush anyone who attempts to reinstate it. how do you think it got its hegemony in the first place

>>13558269
Why do you say this? Have you read them? I'm no Hegelian expert but I think he brings forth some really good ideas. He does have an odd way of writing. I wouldn't say it's tryhard or anything, maybe it's just how his Slovenian brain works in English. I also speak English 99% of the day, but I grew up speaking Romanian, so I'll still structure a sentence in a way that doesn't sound quite right to an English speaker, even though I don't even think in Romanian anymore. I wonder how Zizek work reads in Slovenian by comparison. Maybe some Slovene-anon can say something about that.

>>13557810
Chomsky is a hack. Not just as a philosopher, but in all subjects he ever produced work in, with the most damage done in the field of linguistics.
The face that he is taken seriously sickens me

DUDE SYNDICALISM LMAO

>>13557810
chomsky is an anglo. he's just too retarded to ever understand serious philosophy

>>13557810
>Žižek’s theories never go "beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old
that is unironically a good thing

>>13557810
Chomsky knows pilpul when he see's it. We should trust his special insight on this.

>>13559738
He rambles and dribbles on a million tangents. Only Nordics like Socrates, Plato, Kant, and Hegel can think and communicate with the precision and rigour philosophy requires.

>>13559177
>Butterfly post
>Curb your enthusiasm cue

>>13558309
>one knows
>enters my body

>>13559279
>in reality never suggests any action

Like what? Applauding massacres?

Chomsky won the Zizek-Peterson debate, desu.

>>13558175
Chomsky sounds like a pseud

>>13557810
This is like the reverse Feynman, who believed that if you couldn't explain something to a child, then you didn't really understand it.

>>13558175
Jew absolutely btfos slavcuck itt

>>13558222
Ironic when you're talking about Zizek

>>13559336
Yeah, Hegel is feel-good phil for traumatized narcissists. #SpinozaGang

Chompy is crotchety, anti-American buffoon. His one capability is to point out things America has done wrong, without any further contextualizing or elaboration. Had he stuck to linguistics it may have been a different story, but instead, he spends his time on America bashing.

>>13557810
>never go "beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old".
Why is it bad? To be simple is a desirable quality.

>>13559491
Zizek “wears a dirty t shirt and tells gross jokes every appearance he gets” zizek

Can’t believe pseuds actually fall for the edge

>>13560747
Zizek is self-aware, he makes you laugh with him, not at him.

>>13560947
>Zizek "..." zizek
not how that works anon

>>13558303
he pushed linguistics in a retarded direction for a few decades, if you count that as beneficial

>>13559271
>But wouldn’t a MList side with Pol Pot?
No? wtf

>>13561784
Some seem to, others call him a CIA plant. I donno what to believe from them anymore.
But I do know Chomsky was only pointing out the news coverage mishandling, not supporting the guy

>>13561675
>prescriptive linguistics
the tolérant left, amirite?

>>13561805
Chomsky intentionally downplayed the genocide in Cambodia to try and get people focused on East Timor, which, while also a terribly violent conflict, was not nearly as devastating as Cambodia. He basically put his chips on the idea that America lies and those escaping American oppression don't. Had he just talked to a Cambodian refugee he would have understood the US media didn't over play a thing; Pol Pot killed almost a third of the entire population. Honestly all this is forgivable so long as he admitted he was wrong, but he didn't, he still claims that he was correct "according to the facts of the time" which is a very strange approach to bring the the idea of facts and correctness

>>13561812
The rules of Slovinian naming conventions were not created by leftists. It's first name then last name, just like most European names.

>>13558222
Are you referring to anything specific in OP's quotes or something else?

LOVE it when Chomsky btfos leftist pseuds desu. If I remember rightly he hated the likes of Foucault and the other French pseuds, and made similar criticisms of them.

>>13559646
Or multiple people could come in and say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and haven't met the prerequisites to enter a debate on this topic. Your frame reference is so far removed from the conversation that you are unable to participate.

Now go do your homework.

>>13561845
Oh wow look, we have a so called "genocide" expert here. All what Chomsky did was reasonably look at both sides and not uncritically accept claims coming from refugees who always have an incentive to lie. He actually communicated with experts on South East Asia like Serge Thion and took the work of Malcolm Caldwell seriously not just the propaganda being put out by the clowns at the US State Department who not so much longer would be working to protect Pol Pot from prosecution themselves. You see that's what the New York Times didn't see fit to print. How many of those bodies and bones from supposed "genocide" victims on display are really just collateral damage from the American terror bombing campaign??? The more archives are opened up the more bad it's looking:
https://thewalrus.ca/2006-10-history/

How many Americans today even know the basic contours of East Timor? Are you being paid by Henry Kissinger or something?

>>13560858
Being needlessly complex to make yourself appear smarter, when you're aware that the same argument can be expressed more simply, is a pretty undesirable quality

>>13561805
Are you distinguishing ML from MLM.

Cambodia was aligned with China but I'm not sure how much support China had for Cambodia. Vietnam was aligned with them and shut them down when Pol-Pot came to power. Are you saying hard line Stalinists MLs sided with Pol-Pot over China?

If this is the case the USSR would have been sending Kampuchea supplies when they were fighting against Vietnam I think there would be a record.

Unless its just Nazbol larping.

>>13561854
I’m yanking yer tits m8; I made a silly typo- it was my bad but I am sure you got my meaning regardless
ease up on that autism my dawg

>>13561990
I’ve no idea. It’s hard enough trying to keep up with Syria.

>>13561939
>How many of those bodies and bones from supposed "genocide" victims on display are really just collateral damage from the American terror bombing campaign???
This comes off as conspiracy theory but I am very intrigued because of certain less known facts.

>Between 1965 and 1973, the U.S. dropped 2.7 million tons of explosives -- more than the Allies dropped in the entirety of World War II -- on Cambodia, whose population was then smaller than New York City's.

>From 1964 to 1973, as part of the Secret War operation conducted during the Vietnam War, the US military dropped 260 million cluster bombs – about 2.5 million tons of munitions – on Laos over the course of 580,000 bombing missions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal#Cambodian_deaths_caused_by_U.S._bombing

etc

ITT: HACKS

>>13562043
>>13561939
the US was bombing Cambodia long before the genocide started, it would be foolish to think that the massive spike in deaths was fakes. Seriously, Cambodians are still alive that went through it, listen to a some of their stories. And yes, I do know about East Timor, I did a project on it when I was taking my degree in political science

holy fuck deleuze btfo

>>13561918
only because he lost the debate with Foucault
It's on youtube

>>13561805
He outright said the claims were false

>>13561939
>took the work of Malcolm Caldwell seriously
That's the stupidest thing to do; Caldwell was an useful idiot that got iced by the people he trusted.

>>13562063
Ya and there's Shoah survivors with all kinds of stories about personally seeing all kinds of things that couldn't have physically possibly happened as well. The term "genocide" should be a very contentious topic
https://archive.org/details/MartinJamesJosephTheManWhoInventedGenocide.o/page/n71

>>13562127
He offers alternative explanations of why cities had to be evacuated which had every reason to be taken serious.

>got iced by the people he trusted
No solid proof of what really went down there

Even mainstream politicians like Thatcher defended the khmer rouge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G4dHRN2Dug&feature=youtu.be&t=221

President Reagan’s Address to Chinese leaders at the Great Hall of the People where he denounces the crushing of Democratic Kampuchea
https://youtu.be/plH5P4NRa8Y?t=360

I just can't wrap my head around how Zizek and others see economic logistics as the crux of modern thought and the need to frame everything as a power game, and how social organization and analysis of the individual is now the only legitimate goal of philosophy.

Is it just the late 20th century making everyone obsessed with the big war and its false dichotomy?

>>13560262
How are hellenic greeks like Socrates and Plato "nordics"?

>>13562182
>Ya and there's Shoah survivors with all kinds of stories
right, but anyone who isn't retarded can parse out those accounts. you wouls have to be a total retard to thin those accounts disprove the Holocaust. do you think everyone who experiences war should have an accurate account of what happened? most people don't even have an accurate account of what they ate for breakfast. expecting every refugee to have a perfect and objective account of an atrocity is a ridiculous level of verification which is pretty much self defeating, as we would expect someone who is able to remain objective and detached through a genocide would be at the very least deeply psychologically troubled

>>13558222
>chomsky says retarded shit

not an argument

>>13562584
>you wouls have to be a total retard to thin those accounts disprove the Holocaust
You would be retarded to use those accounts to prove a holocaust.

>everyone who experiences war should have an accurate account of what happened
Now you're talking about victims of a "war" not people witnessing a supposed orchestrated policy of "genocide". Of course no one would expect everyone caught up in the middle of warfare to be able to deconstruct the full ideological contours of what's occurring right in front of them but that's what you're claiming is possible.

>expecting every refugee to have a perfect and objective account of an atrocity is a ridiculous level of verification which is pretty much self defeating
I would like some sort of verifiable theory of "genocide" anyhow without reference to every emotionally loaded tale coming from privileged individuals losing their social status during a revolution. Atrocity stories are constantly created and used politically, it doesn't matter if it's Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators or Kim Jong Un feeding his uncle to piranhas.

>we would expect someone who is able to remain objective and detached through a genocide would be at the very least deeply psychologically troubled
Sure but you keep using the term "genocide" and from what I can tell no such thing occurred. Pol Pot didn't design and orchestrate any plan to kill all Cambodians. Some people surely died but how and why and who's to blame is very complex. Some "genocides" have really been orchestrated and executed by such groups as the Jews against the Canaanites and Anglo policy against various aboriginal populations in locales such as Tasmania.

The truth is Pol Pot is one of the most censored individuals historically speaking. Very few people have read him let alone understand him.

>>13562720
the accounts don't prove anything, we have so much more evidence than some inconsistent refugee accounts you literal mong.
> Of course no one would expect everyone caught up in the middle of warfare to be able to deconstruct the full ideological contours of what's occurring right in front of them
oh good then, we agree. you can play the definition game of what is and isn't a genocide all day long if you want, I don't really think it matters at all. he killed a third of the population, it doesn't make it any better if you can prove it wasn't a genocide (he specifically targeted ethnic groups though, such as the Chinese and the Vietnamese, so good luck trying to do those gymnastics). also: spacing; go back.

>>13562635
>n-not an argument
You're right, it's a proposition. If you'd like to start an argument over it then start one.

>>13562782
>we have so much more evidence than some inconsistent refugee accounts
Perhaps this may be so in the current year but it wasn't the case in the late 70s. Whatever "evidence" you want to cite can be problematized when it comes to the narrative you're trying to put forth here.

>oh good then, we agree. you can play the definition game of what is and isn't a genocide all day long if you want, I don't really think it matters at all. he killed a third of the population, it doesn't make it any better if you can prove it wasn't a genocide (he specifically targeted ethnic groups though, such as the Chinese and the Vietnamese, so good luck trying to do those gymnastics). also: spacing; go back.
It's not a "game" since such accusations carry very real legal ramifications. When it comes to cases of supposed "mass murder" the international legal community aren't taken aback as much as when allegations of "genocide" are brought forth. Now to claim "he", that is Pol Pot, killed a third of the population I think to be a massive simplification and that in fact you don't really have any "evidence" which would logically back up that claim. When it comes to the role ethic minorities play in this story one can surly muster a long list of complainants who are willing to make such accusations throughout various states in South East Asia.

>>13558258
Here's the unedited version in case someone missed it.

>>13559255
Just answer the question, anon.

>>13563188
>if "I" put enough "terms" in "quotation marks", maybe people will think my "ideas" are worth paying attention to
spacing; go back.