/lit/ - Literature

I'm not hip to leftist in-fighting, so I must ask: how has he avoided being exiled by the social justice people? To say he is blasphemous would be a huge understatement...

>>7359842
>leftist in-fighting
Zizek transcends ideology.
>avoid being exiled by SJWs
He doesn't care.

Read this one too:
inthesetimes.com/article/18385/slavoj-zizek-european-refugee-crisis-and-global-capitalism

>>7359731
Time for based Žžk

>>7359847
i think its because the guy is an old school communist.

>>7359731
That was quite an article.

>>7359842
>muh ess-jay-double u's control the left

You Americans are hillarious, with all your dumb assumptions. Next you'll be telling me Houellbecq is a social critic.

>>7359847
If he transcends ideology why does he spend the whole article spouting Marxist ideology?

>We encounter here the old problem: What happens to democracy when the majority is inclined to vote for racist and sexist laws? I am not afraid to conclude: Emancipatory politics should not be bound a priori by formal-democratic procedures of legitimization. No, people quite often do NOT know what they want, or do not want what they know, or they simply want the wrong thing. There is no simple shortcut here.
Well, if he concludes like this, there is absolutely nothing worth reading.

>>7359900
I saw that too and came to the same conclusion. The level hubris in that line is spectacular.

>>7359731
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x72w_69yS1A

>>7359731
Jesus, how can just one man be so based

>>7359900
>>7359904
>hubris
Is he wrong? People don't know what they want and most people are idiots.

>>7359904
He may have expressed the idea in a way where he comes across as an elitist asshole, but more and more often lately you see people essentially voting (and convicting others to vote) against their own interests and with the intention of curbing their own rights

What kind of conclusion should you take away from that? That people are rational?

>>7359909
If you have a governemnt paid by the people, it should respect what the people want.
If you don't want that, remove the governement (and welfare, regulations, etc...).

You can't have both. "People pay for the governemnt, but we'll do what we want." That's tyranny of the highest order.

>>7359900
>>7359904
read antigone

>>7359918
Or maybe, "we'll do what's best for them"

Just a thought

>>7359918
Then again, there's no reason any government should fall into the hands of an intentionally miseducated majority that thinks it's possible the earth is 3000 years old.

>>7359920
How do you know what's best for them? Mass immigration has already been declared as a failure by Merkel herself.
And now we want 1 million "refugees" (most of them are not war refugees by the way)

>>7359921
I agree. I condemn democracy for this single reason. Voting is a fraud. But putting the power in the hand of very few people is arguably even more dangerous as we've seen last century.

>>7359918
Do you think the current system respects what people want?

And do you seriously believe that a country in which a significant portion of people are abjectly wrong or misinformed about several pertinent issues such as the basics behind how the government or economy works or the policies of candidates running for a particular office can run properly if the people's wishes are completely heard?

>>7359926
No it doesn't. I am just saying that you can't have both.

>>7359883
SJW are real Communists. You obviously have no understanding of Communism.

>>7359933
(You)

>>7359847
>Zizek transcends ideology.
That's like saying he transcends weight and height. Either you have principle or you're a shapeshifting sophist.

>>7359847
Zizek would disagree with you on the first one.

Doesn't the current state of the West kind of make the case for a classic, Platonic aristocracy? The expansion of democracy has led to such an extreme level of governmental dysfunction, particularly in the United States.

>>7359933
Using modern terms of SJW, no, they are not like communists at all

>>7359953
The US isn't even a democracy anymore.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

>Right-wingers are twisting this tragedy to serve there own arguments!
>Meanwhile, I will twist this tragedy to serve my own arguments.
pure ideology

>>7359963
>The US isn't even a democracy anymore.
the US was never a democracy

>>7359957
Lenin defined being socialist/communist as supporting socialist politics (equality)

inb4 >Lenin

>>7359988
(You)

>>7359988

lenin also said that the term 'socialist' had been so tainted by kautsky's opportunism that the term communist ought to be used instead.

marx argued that bourgeois equality 'in principle' was far from equality in content, and considering that lenin was a marxist, i don't have to complete this sentence

>>7360012
"marx argued that bourgeois equality 'in principle' was far from equality in content"

In what context? Are you taking this out of context do support your own views of inequality? Are you claiming Marx would not support social justice movement?

>>7360019
(You)

>>7359916
>What kind of conclusion should you take away from that? That people are rational?
On the 'more and more often lately' point, that web media needs to be held to much higher standards if it's to be salvageable at all.

>>7360023
What are you doing, lol

>>7359731
>Riemer's final critique is: “Zizek’s fantasy that refugees pose a threat to the ‘Western’ ‘way of life’ that may be remedied by better kinds of military and economic ‘intervention’ abroad is the clearest illustration of how the categories in which analysis is conducted can open the door to reaction.” As for the danger of military interventions, I am well aware of it, and I also consider a justified intervention almost impossible. But when I speak of the necessity of radical economic change, I of course do not aim at some kind of “economic intervention” in parallel with military intervention, but of a thorough radical transformation of global capitalism that should begin in the developed West itself. Every authentic leftist knows that this is the only true solution—without it, the developed West will continue to devastate Third World countries, and with fanfare mercifully take care of their poor.

FULL COMMUNISM NOW

>>7360019

>in what context?

in the context of bourgeois democratic legalism, which is the context in which you operate and theorise.

>are you taking this out of context to support your own views of inequality

no, i'm applying it in context. read critique of the gotha programme. i think its around the teens that he deals with 'equality'.

>Are you claiming Marx would not support social justice movement?

absolutely. they are liberal idealists, not communists. they aren't even socialists.

>>7360036
Global capitalist imperialism caused this mess in the first place.

>>7360037
You don't think communists/socialists support equality? That's strange

>>7360043
Yes, that's the point.

>>7360054
(You)

>>7359842
He HAS been exiled by the SJ crowd, but note he very much belongs to the institutuonalised left whuch the SJ crowd takes pride in denigrating. It's quite funny actually, they really believe he's actually a fascist

>>7360060
He does agree he has fascist tendencies though. I think at his recent talk at NYU, he said something like he was a "fascist at heart" and he enjoys discipline.

>>7360019
Marx would support social justice, but be sure to point out that "social justice" is a factor based on material relations and can't be fixed through the means of reform.

>>7360063
He would be opposed to vertical identity. He literally said that he was against patriarchy.

>>7360060
>It's quite funny actually, they really believe he's actually a fascist

Here is a book that Zizek is editing.

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/538649/an-american-utopia-by-fredric-jameson-edited-by-slavoj-zizek/9781784784522/

>>7360043
That is a gross simplification and plays right into the common contemporary anti-western ideology.

>>7360054

i don't think you understand marxist theory. equality does not exist. some people are smarter, others stronger, some are more attractive and others less so. if we are talking about equality, then you have to ask equality of what? faculties? rights? rights are the product of bourgeois society, legitimised solely by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. 'equality' is purely formal and legalistic. it is a construct developed by bourgeois theorists, not a timeless law of reality. it is attractive to 'social justice' activists because it panders to their milquetoast centrism, while making them feel as though they are progressive.

maybe two hundred years ago.

as for 'supporting equality', no, communists do not support formal liberal equality, but rather acknowledge inequality and persevere to establish conditions which allow people to develop freely. this will not be achieved by imposing a false, abstract equality over real inequality. if you can't understand how 'equality' has a class character then you are not a marxist. call yourself a 'leftist' if it pleases you.

>>7360084
Marxism inherently supports equality. In the Communist Manifesto Marx said he was opposed to Patriarchy. Try again. At least source the shit you say, maybe I would actually support what you are saying

>>7359731
>Col. Muammar Gaddafi said: “Now listen you, people of NATO. You’re bombing a wall, which stood in the way of African migration to Europe and in the way of al Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You’re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa.”


FUUUUUUUUUUCCKKKK

>>7360094
Inconsistencies in the writings of Marx? Say it ain't so!
>>7360099
Baathists (and Gaddafi) should have been our allies, but the faggot kikes running EU and US foreign policies apparently hate proud nations and native europeans.

>>7360094

>he says, making uncited claims

i already said critique of the gotha programme. sit down and read for about twenty pages and you'll see it.
also you need to read the german ideology, and maybe anti-duhring.

nothing i wrote there is 'anti-feminist'. also don't Capitalise things like that you fucking idolatrous librul babby.

CAN'T SIEGE THE ŽIŽ

>>7360109
I'm not liberal. Marxism is opposed to liberalism. Marxism is in favour of equality and is radically feminist, keep living in some white male fantasty where Marxism is only about class because you can't accept that you are privileged and that people are oppressed due to other factors than class such as race, sex.

>>7360123

>where Marxism is only about class

it is only about class. you have a reductive understanding of what class society entails. you don't get the ltv so you don't get marxist positions on women's emancipation and you don't understand the bourgeois-liberal roots of intersectional theory.

also, nice use of american ethnic labels formulated in a particular american context, it really brings out your liberal academic background, what with your raging lust for universalised abstractions.

why does patriarchy exist?

>>7360160
Marxism is about inequality. Marxism supports emancipation. It is feminist.

Please tell me about the "bourgeois liberal roots" of intersectional theory.

>>7359900
He means it in the abstract. The implication is not that he knows what is right - he admits that right now he does not.

>Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization.

>While Europe is now fighting for full gay and woman's rights (the right to abortion, the rights of same-sex married couples, etc.), should these rights also be extended to gays and women among the refugees even if they are in conflicts with “the customs they bring with them” (as they often obviously are)? And this aspect should in no way be dismissed as marginal: from Boko Haram to Robert Mugabe to Vladimir Putin, the anti-colonialist critique of the West more and more appears as the rejection of the Western “sexual” confusion, and as the demand for returning to the traditional sexual hierarchy.

>Capitalism needs “free” individuals as cheap labor forces, but it simultaneously needs to control their movement since it cannot afford the same freedoms and rights for all people.

>What is not acknowledge is that such anti-racism is in effect a form of covert racism since it condescendingly treats Pakistanis as morally inferior beings who should not be held to normal human standards.

>Interestingly, the same motif underlies the “radical” leftist critique of Bernie Sanders: What bothers his critics is precisely his close contact with small farmers and other working people in Vermont, who usually give their electoral support to Republican conservatives. Sanders is ready to listen to their worries and cares, not dismiss them as racist white trash.

>What makes the liberal West so unbearable is that they not only practice exploitation and violent domination, but that, to add insult to injury, they present this brutal reality in the guise of its opposite—of freedom, equality and democracy.

Greatest philosopher breathing desu senpai.

>>7359918
>it should respect what the people want
Easier said than done, when people's desires can be very locally variable.

isn't slavoj a communist? why do smart people think communism will ever work? at some point you have to choose the lesser of the evils and advocate for change that's actually possible instead of communist fairy tale land with equal distribution of all resources

>>7360228
He is not that kind of communist anon. stfu if you don't know what you are talking about.

>>7360261
what other kind of communist is there? why is it that every communist I talk to has a different definition of it?

>>7360168

>asks for sources
>gets them
>squeals about it

marxism recognises inequality and seeks to remedy it through practical measures, whereas liberals like you declare that it doesn't exist, that it matters whether you 'support equality' or not.

answer my question and i'll explain.

>>7360214
He's so fucking based, man.

>>7360273
"Read this book and look for it" isn't a way of sourcing. What do you mean "liberals like you declare that it doesn't exist"?
What was your question? Also, don't post those old memes, faggot, they're really cringe-worthy.

>>7359731

I like that he is starting to bite back at the turbo-keked "we must make reparations" left.

Truly I don't care about these bullshit reasons; people pretending colonialism or eurocentric values are bad.
The only thing the west owes anyone is to stop fucking around with their governments and to stop bombing them.

These countries are in a hegelian lower class state and they are suspended there.
If anyone actually wants radical revolution the only answer is for the west to safeguard itself until the rest of the world catches up.
Immigration will just destroy the only precious thing the west ever did in creating a space where a radical individual can conceive of anything.
If this space is destroyed it does not matter if the world is united, it will never be united correctly and will perpetually exist in some sub-human state.


There must be a new radical revolutionary force which takes traditional western values, and is self-protecting and none interfering.

trying to force the next stage after capitalism is impossible. The west should wall up. insulate. become as green as possible and not do a single thing for the rest of the world.

>>7360278

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
>This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.
> It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
>Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

chapter fucking one of a short work that is available free online, the name of which i have already given. poor show, comrade.

also,
>macro is a meme

current year. art attempts to approach universality, and gene wilder is an artist. The question was 'why does patriarchy exist?' Alternatively 'where does it come from?'

>>7360298
Thank you for the source, I'll read it tomorrow night when I'm not busy, maybe you are actually right. FYI, I'm not a radical feminist, I don't believe in privilege or any of that shit, I just play devils advocate to get answers out of people. I don't know why patriarchy exists, I don't know where it comes from either.

>>7359988
actions are more important than statements

Just saw a talk with Zizek (and Varoufakis and Julian Assange) where he expressed similar sentiments and received huge applause from the auditorium. I don't think his ideas are that controversial. I think they are a good meeting point between conservative anger and liberal humanitarianism.

By the way: During the Q&A session at the end, a woman from the audience suggested that as a solution to the global crisis we should "teach our children to love" or some such nonsense. Zizek said that people like her should probably be burned in the way of progress and was applauded by the whole room.

>>7360334
Could you please provide a link to that talk? It sounds interesting

>>7360334
>During the Q&A session at the end, a woman from the audience suggested that as a solution to the global crisis we should "teach our children to love" or some such nonsense. Zizek said that people like her should probably be burned in the way of progress and was applauded by the whole room.


what the fuck??????? why would he disagree with this

>>7360168
>Marxism is about inequality
>Marxism is inherently feminist
You're not wrong but you're not truly right, either. Marxism isnt really about inequality, its about capitalism, and the transition to socialism. In that transition class is supposed to be destroyed, class primarily and with it other things such as institutionalized racism and sexism. It's "feminist" but to say that Marx spent that much time worrying about it, and that he would support modern feminist movements would not be right. Also your posts read more like a /pol/ browser than a triggered feminist marxist, so idk mane.

>>7360381
Marxism views vertical structures as wrong, not only in economics, it would be silly to say that it's exclusively economic.

>>7360380
People like you should probably be burned in the way of progress.

>>7360228
>why do smart people think communism will ever work?
Because they understand it and you don't.

>>7359918
My own dear country has recently elected a government who wish to strip us of our welfare state, although to be fair they do want more laws enacted upon us, but so as not to restrict our freedoms they're also reducing the number of police on the streets.
The people have voted against their interests, not even just against the interests of those poorer than them, against their own wellbeing. People do not always make the right decisions, especially when the people who benefit from the wrong decisions happen to be rich and far more capable of shaping the public consciousness. Moreover, many people are just swines. As Zizek says: look at the mass support (except, largely, in intellectualist circles) for the action against Greece. Action which is not just harsh, but downright damaging (to our own bloody pocket if nothing else).
You can say that even for all that a democracy absolutely led by the masses is better and you may not even be wrong, it could lead to an improvement in their political consciousness, but you've got to accept the crass ignorance and bastardism of the mean.

>>7360375
http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/europe-is-kaput-long-live-eur-94011

I think that they have filmed the whole talk and will make the video available online in a week, so you can watch it then. Julian Assange made an unexpected appearance via livestream half-way through, which was great.

>>7360380
Because it's not really a solution. The woman came across as a little bit ignorant, to be honest. Her comments were all wishy-washy liberal hug-and-make-friends platitudes without any actual substance. Zizek had already talked at length about how much he hates this kind of pathetic humanistic liberalism, and it was a stupid question to ask. People like him because he doesn't resort to these platitudes.

>>7360334
>>7360380
>>7360390
max keks

>what the fuck??????? why would he disagree with this
Because it's idealist clap trap and PYURR IDEEOLOGEE. Such an idea might be good advice for child-rearing but it doesn't solve the problem of material relations under capitalism- in fact it exacerbates it. Consider how charity is believed to be an act of kindness and good yet is part of a wider system of exploitation that both makes charity possible and utilizes charity to propel itself forward.

>>7360385
I dont know if youre just trying to bait me or genuinely misread what i said, but i never said such a thing. Nonetheless, it centers a lot on economics, with his whole theory being that economics shape most of society (German Ideology). Accordingly, he states that if women and minority races want to be truly "liberated" or whatever, the system must be changed. Doesnt mean that these causes should be stumped out, just that it probably (or absolutely will not, depending on how you look at it, since marxism isnt a doctrinal religion like some memers like to think it is) wont be fully achieved without socialism, and economic structure. Seriously, i cant help but suspect you're baiting me horribly, anon, please try not to, i am responding sincerely here.

Entertaining as always, but Zizzy's response to the Jacobin critique (the one I thought made the strongest case against him) is just silly unless you really think there's a substantial chance of refugee immigration leading to repressive caliphates ruling Europe. Which, let's be honest, if unless you are insane or Houellebecq or both, you don't think is a serious possibility.

>>7360434
You literally just ignored my point that Marxism is opposed to vertical power structures and then said "no marxism is about economics" when I said it's about both. Marxism as defined by Lenin contains socialist politics as well. Marxism is about equality.

>>7359925
>failure
>mitigate Germany's demographic shift and open up a precedent for Europe to finally put in practice their human rights rhetoric

lol

>>7360434
I think he is suggesting that the violence within those communities would be intolerable to our sensibilities, as our wishy-washy 'do what thou wilt (except to other people)' would be to them. And unless we go full 15th century ghetto on them that is an unsustainable relationship which will cause deep antagonism.

>>7360474
Not that guy but no one is disagreeing with you, but it is putting a horse (smashing patriarchy, smashing racism) before a cart (smashing capitalism), which was how Marx himself saw it.

>>7360511
*but instead pointing out that you are putting a horse... etc.

>>7360283
Jesus, just call it self preservation, no need to conceal your fear at being left behind when the next stage comes around

>>7360317
>damage control

>>7360471
Houellbecq was being sarcastic

>>7360474
i bet you are the kind of person to get offended when people generalize communism into the policies of the soviet union, and similarly if someone tries to explain to you why they believe in the policies of fascism you call them a nazi

>>7360060
>they really believe he's actually a fascist
well, he is

>The Most Electrifying Man in Philosophical Entertainment
thx 4 laffs

>>7360228
>at some point you have to choose the lesser of the evils
what do you think 'communism' is/was you stupid faggot

>>7360557
...RedKahina?

>>7360547
Someone better tell his fans.

>>7360571
i wish

>>7360575
Eh, it's generally only the Americans that take him seriously

>>7360547
I haven't actually read the book, I was just joking. But based on people's reactions I'm not sure most of his readers realize he was being sarcastic, assuming he was.

you're an idiot if you put any weight in authorial intent, but since this is a pleb board I guess it's still an issue of great import

>>7360609
It's an opinion piece though mate.

>>7360283
It's too late to wall up. Central Europe will be outbreeded (that would be true even 20 years ago, without the sociological causes leading to more state supported NEETs now), leading to changing political parties.

So my question is: where should this Western safe space be created?

You must integrate the people, and their generation. So the only way to preserve the values is to Westernize the Eastern people inside Europe - this certainly also means to "make" them moderates w.r.t. their religious.

I like the Zizek rants (for entertainment I guess), but apart from military actions and more obvious dismissal of peoples voice (democracy), none of his proposals (in this or the last article) can be realized in relevant time.
He speaks about Marxism or whatever, and his funny movie critiques ... but what's the point. If there's gonna be chance it must be now, and everything he proposes is too radical, too far removed from anyones individual interest. So what's left is actually his proposal for a state that just uses its military what it (the few ruling) want.

>>7360622
>pleb board

>>7360283
You misunderstood the Ziz

>>7359899

Marxism is by definition an objective, scientific approach to the world -- slightly different to what is meant by 'ideology' here.

Like in the sense that if you had showed Marx himself reasons why he was wrong he would have scrapped his analysis and started over (which he did, a couple of times).

Although it's not played out perfectly, the Marxist ideal of scientific inquiry is taken pretty serious by actual Marxists.

>>7360380
coddling begets laziness.

>>7360684
No I understand what he advocates, I just don't think mudslimes are possible proletariat.

Literally nobody not western has even culturally evolved enough to produce authentic revolution.

>>7360676
in 50 years most kids won't know the difference between the internet and real life

>>7360713
>Although it's not played out perfectly, the Marxist ideal of scientific inquiry is taken pretty serious by actual Marxists.

Please, who do you think you're kidding?

>>7360731
I think that's happening now. Our children will be doomed.

>>7360737
It's no more pathetic than when anyone else thinks that their ideology provides an objective, logical or reason-based way to view the world.

>>7360713
If this is even slightly true, point out one single error in all 3000 pages of Capital that Marx's scientific followers have found and agreed on?

I like a lot of Marxist analysis, but I think the idea that Marxism is subject to falsification is objectively incorrect.

>>7360745
Not who you are replying to but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Empirically the historical average profit rate (in terms of price) has been relatively constant but of course you're going to find arguments over this and the true essence of what's going on.

>Falsification
If you want to "get" Marxs approach to science read this:
Marx Critique of Science and Positivism: The Methodological Foundations of Political Economy
http://bookzz.org/book/2239153/19f2ad

>>7360745

Marx didn't made any errors in Capital desu senpai :^)

>>7360783
Oh I would agree with you on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, but 99% of Marxists I have ever encounter still think this is an objectively correct law.

>>7359933
SJWs are the end result of capitalism.

A bastard child of identity politics and the attitude of WHUTEVA ILL DO WHUT I WANT

>>7360824
Maybe if you're only looking at market price and not asking why use-value and exchange-value is at this point in time radically diverging. Mainstream economists ignoring the essence of what's going on and embrace a naive empiricism, they only study market price. There's more going on behind the scenes.

Mainstream economists try to not take state intervention, central banks manipulating interest rates and money being fiat currencies as opposed to commodity money seriously. The state plays a massive role in artificially inflating the average profit rate. That's what the business community wants from government, higher profit rates. The bourgeois state manages all economies today and they look after the interests of capital.

>>7360744
Ideology is not reason-based, it is tribal and religious.

>>7360869
>Mainstream economists try to not take state intervention, central banks manipulating interest rates and money being fiat currencies as opposed to commodity money seriously.

This is an absolutely bizarre assertion...the two most important economists of the last century, Keynes and Friedman, worked on exactly this issue: how CBs should set interest rates, why, the effects of monetary policy, how it interacts with fiscal policy, etc.

>>7360869
I'm not really interested in arguing the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, for exactly the same reason I brought up before, that I do not really think Marxists consider any possibility that any part of Capital might be wrong. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist that part of the Bible might be wrong.

But outside of that - since Keynes became modern orthodoxy, a huge amount of economics has rejected money neutrality. Some more conservative interpretations of Keynes still sneak it in the backdoor, but the idea that mainstream economics still take the commodity money view is, as >>7360897 points out, completely incorrect.

>>7360414
>>7360405
just to be clear, he probably does support "that idea" in some overall sense

it's just right now in history it's time for analysis and not synthesis

>>7360390
ayyyyy

>>7359905
I really like this anthem
.

Can I save the link?

I just came here to read the memes

>Norway’s mass murderer Andres Breivik was right in his choice of target

What does he mean by this?

>>7362154
He wanted to stop the islamization, to achieve this you must kill the root, which is not muslims themselves but the leftists who import them and bend over backwards to please them.

>>7362136

Save it, it's pure ideology my friend!

>>7362154
I vill ask my goot friend Peter Sloterdijk, who vee both know ish, even if he is a coin-servateeve, not keeding himself here.

>>7359731

Same message as always.
I honestly am turning into a Landian fascist the more I see Zizek's whole project be limited to a group of nobodies. I feel like all his doomsday scenario's will come true and there's nothing worth investing in saving this crashing plane with no survivors.

>>7359731
>(Media already gleefully reported that two of the terrorists entered Europe through Greece as refugees.)

any time the media reports a fact you don't like it does so "gleefully" of course! cliche using shitlord...

>>7359731
wait, this guy claims to be an intellectual but he actually used the Foxnews term "islamo-fascist"? man, zizek is like the dfw of philosophy, guy is a megahack

>>7359731
wow that whole article was awful and stupid, no wonder the only place that would publish it was the obscure "In These Times" and not any mainstream media

sounds like Zizek knows deep down that the multicultural project has failed but he can't outright say it because that would betray his ideology (and destroy his career)

>>7360897
>>7360910
They approach the concept of the profit rate in the wrong way. The way they empirically study the average rate of profit leads to very naive conclusions. They only think of it in terms of monetary price.

A declining rate of profit is only logical in a competitive market economy, the only question should be why isn't profit declining? Of course the business community and investors will think profit rates should just indefinitely hover around some fixed percentage point that they deserve. Mainstream economics at this point is just ideology to hide the role of the state in managing the rate of profit for their national business interests

>the common affairs of the entire bourgeois class include a concern that no industries which play an important role in the economy and in which large property interests are involved should be either too profitable or too unprofitable. Extra large profits are gained not only at the expense of consumers but also of other capitalists

Friedmans "natural rate of interest" is bull; the rate of interest in a market economy will always be above zero and just below the rate of profit and is determined by competition between money capitalists and industrial/commercial capitalists.

I read mainstream Keynesians like Krugman saying only "conspiracy theorists" are actually interested in thinking about issues like money.

This is why Piketty can come to such weird conclusions and convince himself higher taxes will fix everything wrong with capitalism.

>>7362444
>destroy his career

actually it looks to me like he wants to take his career to the next level and become a talking head on foxnews like nial ferguson, that whole article was perfectly tailored for a foxnews talking head i.e. "marxist professor from europe says crypto-republican shit"

>>7362452
>A declining rate of profit is only logical in a competitive market economy

If you say so it must be true.

>>7362456
maybe he just sees the writing on the wall

>>7360488
the human rights rhetoric is retarded though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
dunno about the deomgraphic shift but bringing in people who refuse to assimilate will cause more problems than it will solve

>>7362457
Guy A opens a burger joint. He's getting a respectable return on his investment. Then Guy B opens a burger joint next door to his, what will happen to Guy A's profit?

The whole point of (progressive) capitalism is to drive down prices to the costs of production. If profit isn't declining then not even "muh consumers" are really benefiting from (parasitic) capitalism at this point. We must have entered into it's monopoly stage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital

>>7362478
But there's obviously an equilibrium point where the return on capital will be too low for someone to come along and open another burger joint. The market for capital is like any other market; there is a limited amount of capital to go around and it is deployed where it can get the maximum return (that's obviously crude, there are many other considerations such as risk, etc).

And it's not like a certain return on capital is somehow guaranteed. Tons of burger joints close because they were unprofitable.

>>7360731
Dude you're overgeneralising, most intelligent kids have adjusted fine to the internet age and will continue to do so

>>7359918
>If you have a governemnt paid by the people, it should respect what the people want.

Are you shitting me? There is no people, there are taxes. You pay them because you are forced to, you elect the candidate you are given or suffer in silence. Does force encourage respect? Are you in free, voluntary society of equals? No.

You are a slave, if you are capable, you desire privilege, if you are not, you desire safety and easy answers.

Also, this is has nothing to do with /literature.

>>7362444

>>7360084
precisely.

>>7362488
>But there's obviously an equilibrium point where the return on capital will be too low for someone to come along and open another burger joint.
Ya, this is why there exists an average rate of profit from the micro prospective but at the macro level profit on average should still be pushed downwards; employees want to work for those who will pay them the most, there exists many other pressures that should push down the average rate of profit towards 0 in a competitive market economy.

>there is a limited amount of capital to go around and it is deployed where it can get the maximum return
Capital isn't a fixed entity, when it's wanted it can be brought into existence. Also a burger grill can't REALLY "transmigrate" into a transport vehicle to get the maximum return it theoretically could once it's created [even if it was an "unprofitable" decision], the effect will last.

>And it's not like a certain return on capital is somehow guaranteed. Tons of burger joints close because they were unprofitable.
Those unprofitable burger joints end up having an effect on the average profit rate of all other burger joints and how they have to operate. An "unprofitable" business can actually survive for a long time in the real world.


The move towards lower profit rates in a successful economy is the key contradiction of capitalism. All real world capitalists know this at least on an unconscious level. Only state intervention can make business enterprise profitable, that's why the capitalists class collectively call for bail-outs in times of crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

>>7360054
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Critique of the Gotha Programme - Karl Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>7362478
Guy A's profit might do anything. You're holding an absurd amount of other variables constant - for instance, population growth.

This is far from a closed issue and the only people who pretend it is are Marxists, so I'm not sure why you're treating it as if the answer is obvious and everyone agrees on it.

>>7363117
it's fairly closed on both sides, since both sides are equally idealistic

neoclassicals would just say one business would be forced out since that's the result of competition

>>7360837
So is a lot of postcolonial theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vzk5QBg9a8

Come to think of it, Maoist Third-Worldists are the biggest spoiled brats on the contemporary Left.

>>7363133
No, neoclassicals would say businesses enter or exit until the rate of return on capital is bid down to the equilibrium rate, which is still positive in the long run.

Like I said, way earlier in this thread, I like a lot of Marxist analysis. But many Marxists have a habit of presenting their economic schema as if it is the only one imaginable, which it is not.

>>7363117
Increased competition amongst capitalists can only result in lower profit rates. Anyone who has real world experience in business would know this is exactly what happens. It's funny the most intense ideologues for capitalism don't have any experience in real world business generally.

Of course the direction of population growth will have an effect on the average rate of profit and interest rates long-term but I wasn't talking about that.

>>7359898
>assumptions
>you americans
Lel looks like you're insulting someone not much simpler than yourself

>>7363170
stop mindreading m8 and just stick to arguing points

"it's not even what they say that bothers me, it's their... attitude"

>>7363187
I'm not an ideologue for capitalism at all, I'm a socialist. But I don't like the presentation of a question as if it is already answered when empirically it's not.

As I said already here >>7363170, the neoclassical contention is that in the long run (where, I might add, things like population growth are important) the only net additions to a given industry are businesses that move the rate of return on capital towards the overall equilibrium rate, which is still, in the long run, positive.

>>7363209
Thanks for keeping this on track by making it about the arguments.

>>7363214
you're welcome m8

>>7359900
Why the fuck did he phrase it like this? Reminds of high school students who try to sound erudite.

>>7363240
He phrases everything like this.

>>7363210
No one is saying that profit is somehow going to become negative (why would business pay to operate?) but under the conditions of free competition market price should move towards the costs of production.

People generally misread (intentionally or not) Marx through the lens of general equilibrium theory without properly understanding Marx's value theory which will lead to all kinds of mind-fucking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Profitability_in_mainstream_economics

>>7363168
Sounds like her beef is with Edward Said specifically. Fanon doesn't seem to fit the issues she has with PoCo.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/pitfalls-national.htm

I'm about 3 paragraphs in and I already disagree with most of this.

>It is easy to imagine what will follow: paranoiac search for ISIS agents among the refugees. (Media already gleefully reported that two of the terrorists entered Europe through Greece as refugees.
Wrong, the liberal media in my country went into maximum damage control mode when this was found out. headline: "There are terrorists and there are refugees, they're not the same thing".
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/carinabergfeldt/article21766713.ab

>The greatest victims of the Paris terror attacks will be refugees themselves, and the true winners, behind the platitudes in the style of je suis Paris, will be simply the partisans of total war on both sides.
Once again, the 'refugees' are 70% men who left the women and children back in the War zone, and half of them aren't even from Syria.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891219/Refugee-crisis-Many-migrants-falsely-claim-to-be-Syrians-Germany-says-as-EU-tries-to-ease-tensions.html

>There should be no “deeper understanding” of the ISIS terrorists (in the sense of “their deplorable acts are nonetheless reactions to European brutal interventions”); they should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin.
Except ISIS is an international force that conducts mass executions, conquers cities, recruits actively and is being fought by global intelligence. European neo-nazis are a handful of individuals who occasionally get into fights after drinking.

Slavoj is full of shit as usual. He says nothing controversial or out of line with leftist orthodoxy.

>>7359966
Underrated.

>>7363273
But this is the same as saying that the rate of profit tends toward zero unless both real wages and employment decline, correct? Is this empirically verifiable?

Good link, Wikipedia was quite good there and cleared some things up for me.

>>7363312
>);

>>7363312
The real winners are the white liberals who get to use the pending anti-Islamic backlash as an opportunity to show how "caring" and "enlightened" they are.

Already, there are white libs making points like: "If France didn't ban the burqa, these attacks wouldn't have happened!" As if the burqa ban is what this whole thing is reducible to.

>>7363312
This post:
>anecdote
>strawman
>strawman
>wah wah I don't get it. why don't people believe the things I do? :(

>>7363312
>Once again, the 'refugees' are 70% men who left the women and children back in the War zone, and half of them aren't even from Syria.

This has literally no bearing on Zizek's point

>>7363334
>The real winners are the white liberals who get to use the pending anti-Islamic backlash

Fucking liberals man, they think they're so superior to people who are going to take part in an indiscriminate backlash against innocent people

>>7363361
They are all tools who just want to think they're superior to others, which is why me and Zizek are superior to them.

>>7363334
The real winners are the capitalist imperialists who have crafted this situation and much of what has built up to it, as they derive from it whatever benefits they can find.

>>7360036
Ya no, I will gals blow the heads off of any red shit that tries at revolution.

>>7363349
The claim 'the refugees are the losers' implies that all the people making it Europe refugees. The real refugees are stuck back in the middle east. Only migrants with resources can make it to Europe and get the welfare bucks. My country cut the foreign aid budget (ie giving life saving medical aid and shelter to people in war zones) in order to accomodate more migrants. So the claim that refugees will be the losers from a backlash isn't entirely true, as the most vulnerable people are either back in Syria or in refugee camps in neighboring countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/swedens-self-inflicted-nightmare.html

>>7363372
>hurr durr i go on this board bc i want to participate in political arguments :D
>hurr durr the last book i read was donald trump's shitty one xD
>i like acting tough on the internet bc it makes me feel better about my shitty life :3

>>7360391
Riiiight.

>>7363380

>>7363382
>i am smart too xD
>i read all these works and have a good understanding of these ideas
>just trust me :(

>>7363388
Because thinking a shit ideal like Communism will work, means someone is smart. Hilarious, now back to Reddit with you.

>>7363394
>i'll use le strawman like /pol/ taught me xD

>>7363378
>The claim 'the refugees are the losers' implies that all the people making it Europe refugees.


You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it true. There are plenty of Syrian refugees making their way across Europe. It doesn't matter who is with them, the fact is that they will be walking into a Europe that is more hostile. This isn't their fault, it's the fault of the same violent radicalism that contributed to the destruction of their livelihoods back home.

Even the people in the camps, when they are transported into Europe through refugee programs are going to be subject to this same increased scrutiny. Already today the UK government had to qualify up-front that the 200 refugees arriving in Glasgow were rigorously checked.

>>7363399
>Implying I've been to Pol
>implying it's a straw man and not a truth proven by history

You have to be 18 to post here kiddo.

>>7363399
99% of people with a brain grow out of the edgyteen marxist phase of their life and become functioning adults.

>Fun fact
Every currently successful and prosperous country on the entire planet is capitalist. I wonder why?

Face it. Communism revolution is never going to happen democratically, and never going to happen popularly.

>>7363394

Thinking that communism is an 'ideal' that will either work or won't work, as if it were some complicated graded plan, misses the point of communism.

It's a reorganisation of productive forces along the most simple lines possible. The difficult part is the dissolving of our current capitalist system that actively prevents this rational reorganization.

If you were to write a plan of how capitalism was supposed to function and put it next to communism, it would be capitalism that would seem the most absurd pie-in-the-sky proposition. (Virtual money? Unlimited growth??)

>>7363421
There are billions of people both in poverty and living in capitalist countries.
Capitalism makes people desperately poor at the same time as it makes people rich.

Marx could have told you this 150 years ago

>>7363421
This guy gets it. To expand, If people wanted communism they would try their dampest for it. Turns out there they did it self immolated and took 100 million lives with it. People want capitalism, plain and simple. And plus it functions economicly, which communism can't do.

>>7363438
But you are always going to get the poor and the rich, so laying the blame on capitalism for that is moronic. Also capatalism has done more to get people out of poverty, then communism ever had, hell communism put more people into poverty then take them out. Plus Marx was wrong, he predicted the capitalist nations would transition in his time, to communism. That didn't happen.

>>7363421
>billions of people live in abject poverty and horrid living conditions even in the most "successful" capitalist countries
>capitalism is a success goys!

>>7363404
Yes it's a tragedy that so many are forced to travel through the war-torn nations of Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, and Denmark to get to safety here in Sweden or via France to get to UK.

Europe could save millions of people if our financial resources weren't tied up trying to deal with the thousands who are migrating through Europe right now.

>>7363429
But in order for it to function, and prove that it is a better system, communism has to first... work. Not sure how that is hard to understand. Regardless communism failed, and if you knew a damn about economics you would think communism, was the pie in the sky ideal.

>>7363421
>>7363445
>>7363449
Samefag or there are too many stupid people on this board. It has nothing to do with your point. Your argument and your way of articulating it depict you as an idiotic ideologue.

>>7363450
And yet, more people are brought out of poverty by capitalism, then communism ever did. Sorry red, but people want the market.

>>7363455
First only two of those are mine. Second, this is typical, reds can't form an argument because t hey know they are wrong and so resort to childish antics.

>>7363452
i like how saudi arabia and israel are conveniently cropped out

>>7363464
idk, if you want to capitalism-booster go do it in another thread, you're clearly not having any sort of constructive discussion here either for you or for the people you're yelling your points at

it's totally cool if you want to take this as "they can't contend with my arguments," literally no one itt will be annoyed if that's your takeaway

>>7363404
Regardless if it is their fault or not, the reality is it is not sustainable or safe for Europe in the long run to accept every so called "refugee" who illegally sneaks into Europe. Not all migrants are terror threats, but even 0.1% present a huge threat (as we have seen) and it is not logistically possible to screen an oncoming mass of undocumented unregulated flow wandering around Europe who believes EU states owe them a living

>>7363452
Turkey has taken many refugees. Eastern European nations aren't offering assistance to those fleeing the conflict while Western European ones are so obviously they will move towards countries offering a place to stay and the opportunity for work.

>>7363449
>But you are always going to get the poor and the rich

Most PURE IDEOLOGY I've ever seen on this board. You're sucking the teet of capitalism so hard that you can hand-wave billions of desperately poor people away.

Read more books

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18615/in-defense-of-fantasy-a-response-to-slavoj-zizek
sam kriss's counter-rebuttal

>>7363449
>Plus Marx was wrong, he predicted the capitalist nations would transition in his time, to communism. That didn't happen.

He was wrong on some things, of course. He was living in a particular time and place. Darwin was also wrong on many things, but we don't throw the Origin of Species in the trash.

Marx got things wrong but he did, however, predict capitalism's endless desire for growth, its unchanging irresponsibility, and it's inevitable conquest of the globe.

>>7363453
>communism has to first... work

Communism has to first... exist.

If someone gives you a recipe for a sandwich, you don't get two slices of bread, some cheese, then randomly decide to shit in it and claim its a terrible recipe.

The Soviet Union was born out of a specific reading of Marx that by no means follows Marx to the letter. Indeed it never could, because Russia at that period of time had never become a capitalist state on the level of Britain or France.

>>7363474
Greece, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Austria, France ARE offering assistance to refugees since its required by law, what we seen is they do not want to register, they insist on going to germany and the UK where assistance is better. That's the point, they're shopping for the best benefits. Cameron is cutting the benefits, but that won't stop them coming here, because they come to settle in ghettos with their own communty, where they can work illegally and have less incentive to integrate and learn the language

>>7363477
>if I say PURE IDEOLOGY this makes me both smart and funny

Thought you had to be 18 to post here? Anyway, ya I can hand wave them away, that's what people do, including you. However then it becomes a question of improving people's lives, and capitalism has done that, you are so blind to your own ideology that you refuse to accept that. Then throw in some economic illiteracy as well, on your part.

>>7363503
I don't know what economic literacy means to you, but for me it doesn't involve "there will always be the poor and the rich"

laughable

>>7363501
If certain countries offer better assistance, then why wouldn't they go there? And why wouldn't they want to settle in a community familiar to them? And many nations have been providing work opportunities to refugees months after arrival and in some instances years so many will try to find other illegal ways to feed themselves.

It's like you think self-interest is a bad thing even though you're an avowed supporter of global capitalism.

>>7363499
Looks like that "conquest" of the globe was one of the best things to happen to the world.

And yes communism did exist. Those nations set out to create communism and the resulted horror is the idea in practice. I would say out of all of them, Pol Pot was the most logically consistent.

>>7363517
>I fell for le state propaganda and parrot it like a good ideologue! xD
Good for you. ^_^

>>7363513
Not really, that's just how the world works, both in nature and man. You will have betters and lessers, hell even in communism you would have that.

>>7363521
>understanding of economics is propaganda
>but Marx isn't

>>7363524
>billions of people in abject poverty
>food crises
>lack of infrastructure in several places across the planet
>horrid living conditions and lack of suitable drinking water for billions of people
>economic colonialism and foreign interference in domestic affairs leading to bloodshed
lol it's just how it is! deal with it! xD
it could have been worse after all! :p

>>7363532
And how is all that the fault of capitalism again?

>>7363517
>Looks like that "conquest" of the globe was one of the best things to happen to the world.

The most bloody wars in history, billions of people in poverty and impending ecological catastrophe is the 'best thing to happen in the world'?

Odd

>So what if Europe should accept the paradox that its democratic openness is based on exclusion. In other words, there is “no freedom for the enemies of freedom,” as Robespierre put it long ago? In principle, this is, of course, true, but it is here that one has to be very specific. In a way, Norway’s mass murderer Andres Breivik was right in his choice of target: He didn’t attack the foreigners but those within his own community who were too tolerant towards intruding foreigners. The problem is not foreigners—it is our own (European) identity.

Shiiiieeeet son, Zizek bringing the heat

>There is an idea circulating in the underground of the disappointed radical Left that is a softer reiteration of the predilection for terrorism in the aftermath of the 1968 movement: the crazy idea that only a radical catastrophe (preferably an ecological one) can awaken masses and thus give a new impetus to radical emancipation. The latest version of this idea relates to the refugees: only an influx of a really large number of refugees (and their disappointment since, obviously, Europe will not be able to satisfy their expectations) can revitalize the European radical Left.

Zizek confirmed as shilling for /pol/

>>7363533
Oh right. It's solely because those people are genetically inferior to Europeans and Americans. Let's ignore the economic problems, poverty, and corporate governmental interference in Europe and America as well. :)

>>7363516

Because refugee's flee war, supposidly they are primarily seeking refuge from violence, not economic wealth. The refugee's fleeing the world wars are very different to the so called "refugees" we have now, it's gone from primarily women, children and OAP's to primarily young, able bodied men with a specific view of what they want in Europe

>an avowed supporter of global capitalism.
I am not, interesting though you think it is impossible to be anti-Neoliberalism and Globalisation and not for an open gate policy to all migrants

>>7363485
I don't get his argument at all. It's based on very tenuous assertions and it doesn't answer the majority of Zizek's points.

It latches onto Zizek's claim that there are some inherent ideological differences between people of different cultures which Kriss doesn't argue except by claiming that these are fascist ideas and then the other claim that the belief in this fantasy that migrants chase after is ridiculous to which Kriss responds that this does not fit within a Lacanian perspective.

His counter-rebuttal seems shitty but maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/01/alain-de-benoist-on-the-charlie-hebdo-massacre/

It's a funny world when a so called fascist is calling for greater reflection on the West than a so called communist

>>7359842
>I'm not hip to leftist in-fighting, so I must ask: how has he avoided being exiled by the social justice people? T
He hates them, and they hate him. He doesn't seem to like or agree with the New Left

>>7363538
> In a way, Norway’s mass murderer Andres Breivik was right in his choice of target: He didn’t attack the foreigners but those within his own community who were too tolerant towards intruding foreigners. The problem is not foreigners—it is our own (European) identity.

Jesus. He's right, of course, but this is the kind of stuff no one wants to say out loud any more.

The Laissez Faire capitalist model that existed when Marx was politically active was very different to the one that was implemented later during The Great Depression, when Roosevelt passed The New Deal to confront the fact that left alone by the state, Capitalism isn't aggressively expansive or rampant in its consumerism. By itself it doesn't produce new labour markets for culture-constructed frivolities (cosmetics, tourism, etc.) that are largely responsible for crippling excess of waste produced in the 21st century. The capitalist model most people know and hate has been created by governments which tax successful business ventures to provide subsidies to less successful ventures in order to provide labour positions for the working class - which is exactly what Marx advocated, falsely asserting that people could only be happy so long as they are working and extract meaning from undertaking labour. The similar derivatives born out of the Keynesian economic system are based on the idea that everyone needs to be a part of society, but those with the greatest ability to produce money must to work hard for less reward to support those who have less ability or a less worthy function. but still Need. A good historical example of how this failed was at New Harmony, an American colony based on early Marxist adaptations of the Socialism. The fact is no-one uses Capitalism correctly, though economies overcome the parasitism of taxation in some places better than others, and so these nations are called 'Capitalist'.

It's beside the point, really. All socio-economic systems will suffer so long as they fixate on assigning money to people, because there are more people with each passing year and money is devalued when you try to make more of it. Every time someone gives birth, there's one less dollar to go around. The only sustainable socio-economic theory is one that keeps society in check, not the economy. It's a war that's fought by convincing people there's more to life than breeding, and that it's okay to fuck anything that agrees to be fucked, even if it doesn't have sperm or a womb.

Zizek is interesting because he exposes people to psychoanalysis, which is of great benefit to our understanding of conceptual patterns. But every indication is that he's a poor philosopher and a worse economist.

>>7359731

>This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego

this is why I hate Zizek

>>7363551
Not him, but I assume many of the refugees left with plans to send for their families. That's why employment is important to them.

Not to mention the fact that Germany and Britain need immigrants anyway. Incidentally, I do agree with your point about cultural enclaves. The idea that one can be a Brit or an American without having learned English, or a German without knowledge of that awful teutonic tongue, is ridiculous.

>>7360214
Is this all in the linked article? I haven't finished it yet.

>>7363445
>they would try their dampest for it
>their dampest for it
>dampest

>>7363695
Yes.

GLOBAL CAPITALISM BTFO

>>7363516
It's wrecking the welfare states of these countries. Less than half of immigrants findwork in Sweden after 10 years, and why should they when the tax-payers provide everything. So I doubt they're coming here for the work opportunities (8% unemployment).

>>7363516
>If certain countries offer better assistance, then why wouldn't they go there?


Because once there is a certain amount of people the benefits will dry out. Unless there is good reason for them to settle there (family, etc) they should accept the country they allocated to.


I'm with Zizek here, there should be a military intervention for the organization of those refugees.

>The mooost ELECTRIFYING MAN IN SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT!!!

>>7363719
>>7363729
>Why aren't people acting rationally and chasing false hopes instead of looking at the reality of the situation?
:|

>>7362443
>if muh state controlled news media won't publish it, it's obviously bad

>>7363692
So they send their strongest and mos able and leave their vulnerable family members to fend for themselves in a warzone? Do you not realise how utterly ridiculous this notion is?

>That's why employment is important to them.
It's important to the citizens of the EU aswell, let's not forget though the national emplyoment rates of most EU states has been in the shitter for a long time now. Somehow that translate into economic prospersity when we take in destitute uneducated migrants - ffs how many times do we need to look at Sweden to see this shit has failed and failed again

>Germany and Britain need immigrants anyway
Germany I don't know, but Britain needs educated and skilled migrants to be productive, not more strain on the system

>>7363734
Humanity in a nutshell, I guess.

>>7360870

Yes you're right. Ideology is anything with a rigorous set of practices, which must be followed lest you be expelled from the dominant group. Which reminds me: ideologies engage in a lot of group think. Generally what is agreed on by the loudest voices of the ideological community tends to become consensus pretty quickly. Not to mention, ideologies usually try to recruit people to their body of 'believers,' if you will, and usually involve teleological thinking— notions of progress, a goal humanity is working towards, and the ideological community tries to situate itself at the vanguard of that progress. and you're definitely right about them not being reason-based— any reasoning, no matter how valid, that doesn't sit nicely within the narrow worldview outlined by the ideology is thrown out immediately.

>>7363168
I don't think her argument flows. She says postcolonial theorists employ the same methods as their (former) colonizers, which doesn't debunk anything they argue. She's also willfully ignorant of the difference between form and content. A Palestinian being militantly nationalistic and moralistic is not the same thing as a Zionist doing the same.

Religion of the oppressor vs. religion of the oppressed is a thing.

>>7363544
Some people are better then others yes, and indeed there are problems. Yet are you honestly going to say that after the good capitalism has done, and the evil that communism has done, you are honestly still going to suggest communism?

>>7359731
>Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture. In short, things explode...

kekekekekekekehue

>>7363312
>racism
>bad

This is why people should know what they're talking about before they parrot retarded shit like "anti-immigration racists".

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/terrorism-quotient/

>>7363989
No man, Islam is like super-progressive.

>>7363334
There is literally nothing wrong with being liberal.

>>7364037
nice meme

>>7360298
>>7360317

Literally fucking rekt.

>>7360228
>equal distribution of all resources

I'm tired of this liberal meme.

>>7360266
>m-muh definitions
There are no different definitions, just different interpretations. Why do you think there are so many different schools of feminism, conservatism, etc.? Educate yourself.

>>7360334
>Zizek said that people like her should probably be burned in the way of progress and was applauded by the whole room.
>mfw

>>7363984
>Religion of the oppressor vs. religion of the oppressed is a thing.
Yes, and orthodox Islam is in no way akin to Liberation Theology.

>>7359940
I think what he meant is that Zizek is too self aware to constrain himself to a general ideology like the vague ideas brought up just by the term "liberal". Identifying yourself as a liberal doesn't mean you subscribe to every ideological facet of liberalism; especially not the brand of liberalism we see today.

>>7363517
He never argued they weren't communist, m8. But they're human institutions and human institutions are prone to failure. Even capitalist nations, or quasi-capitalist nations, are prone to dramatic failure, despite the modern globalist desire for bailouts.

>>7359988
lmao no he didn't

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>>7363984
>muh nakhba

>>7364401
JIDF pls go

>>7360216
then chop it the fuck up