Rest of the worlds opinion is žižek

Personally I think he's a giant insult to this country

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4
youtube.com/watch?v=mRkNDHW3nog&t=1s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

he's a funny meme, the leftist version of Molyneux

sorry slavoj, i can't understand a word you're saying

I'll have an opinion of him once he's capable of making a coherent argument.

[rambles in speech impediment]

...

also mandatory I guess
youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4

I agree, he's just a massive compilation of non-arguments and incoherent rambling made popular by his eccentricity.

I think he's an entertaining thinker.
Can easily explain complex theory to an idiot like myself
Mostly a provocateur and contrarian.
Good assessment of the function of ideology.
He's a necessary antidote to popular liberal leftism.
Little to no solid theory which one can pin down, other than he is most likely an accelerationist.

I'm curious to know why you have a low opinion of him? I heard he was not well liked in Slovenia.

this

>massive
>compilation
>non-argument
>incoherent rambling
>eccentricity

Whoah so big words coming from you, fucking faggot.

All this with that ridiculously pompous sentence structure, eh.

You must also have an IQ of at least 100, am I right, you deluded nigger?

Go fuck yourself you cunt.

[sniffs internally]

I prefer Aleksandr Dugin.

literally who?

based

...

His pop stuff is pretty good. His Lacanian/Hegellian books are dense as fuck though

I wonder if he does cosplay.

>triggered by vocabulary

What, not enough accent and sniffing sounds for you?

i think he's a good sport.

Spat out my drink desu

I was actually telling my friends this last night

Like him or not. He is one of the last old guard communists before it was hijacked by sjws.

you mean in the old guard of the phase in between, after it had been hijacked by the jews before it was hijacked again?

Communists were always SJWs, although communism was at one time hijacked by classic Russian imperialists (giving it the typical Russian virile aesthetic it's still recognized by). One of the major causes of starvation in the USSR was adherence to the dogma that genetics has no role in agriculture since everyone is equal after all (Lysenkoism). Such bullshit isn't new-age SJeWery, it's been part of the program from the beginning.

This. Marxist thought is the bedrock of the SJW mindset.

Wrong, Marx was socially conservative. Marxism has and always will be about a class based struggle. Don't conflate liberal SJWs with Marxist economic theory, even if they appropriate elements of it.

difference is zizek is an actual academic

>advocated abolition of the family
>socially conservative

That's absurd never minding the fact that social conservatism is entirely incompatible with the abolition of private property.

Most SJWs are still capitalists not marxists. They complain that there are not enough female CEOs when an actual marxist would be saying all CEOs need to be executed by firing squad.

Why is he so fat and grumpy?
Is he mad over the fact that he is a gigantic meme?

Basically a town drunk, you can find guys like him in ex Yugoslavia in every local watering hole.

The only thing that sets him apart are the dubious secret service ties that somehow got him high positions as a "dissident" academic, which later pushed him into world fame.

That's like saying libertarians aren't pro-capitalist because they just want to minimize the state rather than outright remove it.

They did not advocate the literal dismantling of the family m8, but the family construct which existed under Capitalism. In fact, he praises the feudalistic and pre-feudalistic family structure and advocates a return to more traditional familial ties that are unperverted by capital. He is ultra-conservative in this sense, even reactionary.

I think he's basically 100% fucking great.

I love Zizek. People who say he's just rambling etc are too fucking stupid to read what he's saying and don't have the brains to comprehend the style he's talking in. FACT.

That said, he's not exactly a philosopher like Heidegger or something, he's more like a cultural critic who uses all different fields to analyze current events and uses philosophy in his analysis -

He isn't on the same page as me entirely, but for a liberal/leftist he's about as great as it can possibly get. If 10% of liberals actually listened to what Zizek says, I might actually be able to get on with them.

The only living Marxist I respect.

[citation needed]

[1] Engels: On the Origin of the Family

With the herds and the other new riches, a revolution came over the family. To procure the necessities of life had always been the business of the man; he produced and owned the means of doing so. The herds were the new means of producing these necessities; the taming of the animals in the first instance and their later tending were the man’s work. To him, therefore, belonged the cattle, and to him the commodities and the slaves received in exchange for cattle. All the surplus which the acquisition of the necessities of life now yielded fell to the man; the woman shared in its enjoyment, but had no part in its ownership. The “savage” warrior and hunter had been content to take second place in the house, after the woman; the “gentler” shepherd, in the arrogance of his wealth, pushed himself forward into the first place and the woman down into the second. And she could not complain. The division of labor within the family had regulated the division of property between the man and the woman. That division of labor had remained the same; and yet it now turned the previous domestic relation upside down, simply because the division of labor outside the family had changed. The same cause which had ensured to the woman her previous supremacy in the house – that her activity was confined to domestic labor – this same cause now ensured the man's supremacy in the house: the domestic labor of the woman no longer counted beside the acquisition of the necessities of life by the man; the latter was everything, the former an unimportant extra.

This, but he's a proper philosopher

SNIFF

1. That's Engels.

2. He doesn't praise the feudal family

3. He doesn't advocate for a return to feudal family structures.

4. Although he doesn't explicitly advocate that one either, what kind of a dumb fuck would want a return to hunter-gatherer societies (other than Varg)?

definitely
>ourguy

. Although he doesn't explicitly advocate that one either, what kind of a dumb fuck would want a return to hunter-gatherer societies
What's wrong with hunter-gatherer societies?

Coked out retard that thinks his ideas are worth more than they are. I know a few socialist cucks who retweet his shit from time to time.

Do libertarians want to live in a stateless society? I thought that was just ancoms

..and so on, and so forth

He makes normie leftists mad and is entertaining so I like him.

marxism proposed statelessness

Libertarians just don't want to pay taxes

Are you serious? Why do you think we gave them up in the first place?

No agrarianism, no beer

hunter-gatherers BTFO

Answer my question first, then I'll tell you why.

Libertarians also believe in the NAP, but often make an exception when it comes to minimal state.

How is a system where a man is not entitled to the fruits of his labor possible without a coercive apparatus?

well there is nothing necessarily wrong or right about them it's just a trade-off. To In the modern world you can only pull it off on a small scale unless you want to kill a shitload of people, in that case, you would be a good communist ;^)

Who can hate a man who has as much fun as žižek? He's basically a stand-up comedian whose jokes are all about European philosophy and history. People take him seriously because they don't understand him - think he's making deep philosophical pronouncements when he's in fact satirizing the Continental philosophical tradition. Good for him.

yeah this is my feeling as well. He butt blasts a lot of people

not a libertarian or a marxist, but according to those libs, it's the magic invisible hand of the free market that solves everything

Just more utopian tripe

This meme is missing "And so on".

>How is a system where a man is not entitled to the fruits of his labor possible without a coercive apparatus?
Why is not being entitled to the fruits of your labor bad? Why is this being enforced by a coercive apparatus bad?

Do you oppose capitalism, which has the exact same system too?

So there's nothing wrong with them. Why the initial kneejerk reaction then?

Also, in modern society, it could be done on a large scale just fine, if the switch would be ideological - since you obviously have people living in those stupid hippie communes and preppers trying to be self-sufficient in the desert and shit like that, obviously you *can* sell that kind of ideology to people, it's just that the ideology currently being sold to them is more profitable for their masters.

They produce less resources and can maintain a much, much smaller population.

Even if everyone went hunter-gatherer tomorrow in a year people would have to start herding and breeding animals because there just wouldn't be enough wild ones to go around.

And then they would start growing crops to have something to feed their animals with and a little something extra for themselves.

...

Bashically *sniff* and sho on

Alex Jones used to be sexy af

pix or you are a lie

it would not be able to sustain large populations.

>Why is not being entitled to the fruits of your labor bad?
Why is this being enforced by a coercive apparatus bad?
Because then you have no reason to produce. As all living creatures we seek to increase our chances of reproduction, and busting your ass off to feed a bunch of parasites doesn't really do that.

Capitalism gives the reproductive edge to those best at managing resources. Communism gives the edge to those best at stealing resources, creating an unsustainable system as parasites need something to feed off and damaging the genetic makeup of the groups involved in this experiment as well (see ex-USSR for reference).

>Do you oppose capitalism, which has the exact same system too?
How does capitalism have the exact same system?

>tfw confused you for the other Croatian poster, why does Zizek attract Croats to the thread like this

>They produce less resources and can maintain a much, much smaller population.
Why is this a problem? A ridiculously huge population means that individual people are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, it separates classes to such an extent that they don't even have to think about each other (this is mostly one-directional though), it kills culture, art, religion, tradition, craft, etc.

It seems that you're imagining a modern hunter-gatherer society as people using wooden spears and picking random berries?

...

>Rob

Lol. No one's forcing you to trade anything

diamonds

>"If he dies, he dies"

clown

professional bullshitter

>Because then you have no reason to produce.
Yet people in capitalism still produce. Explain.

>Capitalism gives the reproductive edge to those best at managing resources.
No, that would be the ideal "ethical capitalism" with the "invisible hand", which doesn't exist in reality, never has, and never will.

>Communism gives the edge to those best at stealing resources, creating an unsustainable system as parasites need something to feed off and damaging the genetic makeup of the groups involved in this experiment as well
This is the exact description of current crony capitalism.

>How does capitalism have the exact same system?
A worker is not entitled to the fruits of his labor. He gets the very least his master can give him for squeezing the most out of him. Capitalist transactions are by nature asymmetrical, someone always loses out. The society is set up in such a way that you either accept this, or feel the power of the coercive apparatus.

I can't to do coke with that fucker. he's so spastic it would be hilarious. coke driven rants and spasms. ah the joy

Ultimately he's a cuck but he's not as bad as other leftists. Occasionally he says sensible things.

He's pretty cool in my book.

youtube.com/watch?v=mRkNDHW3nog&t=1s

nice digits

>Why is this a problem? A ridiculously huge population means that individual people are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,

The small individual is more relevant in the grand scheme of things today than he ever was. His economic activity decides which companies fail and which survive, even his shitposting might be a crucial factor in determining who wins the elections in the world's most powerful country.

>it separates classes to such an extent that they don't even have to think about each other (this is mostly one-directional though)

The rich have to think about the poor because they are their customers. The poor have to think about the rich because they are their bosses.

>, it kills culture, art, religion, tradition, craft, etc.

So you like the cave drawings in Lascaux better than pic related?

Why is he constantly touching his nose

zizek has a questionable hygiene

>A worker is not entitled to the fruits of his labor. He gets the very least his master can give him for squeezing the most out of him. Capitalist transactions are by nature asymmetrical, someone always loses out. The society is set up in such a way that you either accept this, or feel the power of the coercive apparatus.

Starvation isn't a coercive apparatus, work isn't a moral necessity but a natural one.

All value is subjective, the worker clearly values what he gives to his employer less than what his employer gives him in return or he would not agree to such a transaction.

>This is the exact description of current crony capitalism.
>No, that would be the ideal "ethical capitalism" with the "invisible hand", which doesn't exist in reality, never has, and never will.
>Yet people in capitalism still produce. Explain.

For all the faults of crony capitalism, there is still a big fucking difference in you doing pretty much what you want and the state stealing half your profits and you doing whatever the state commands you to and only getting enough to live off no matter your ability.

>thinking academies are still relevant in 2016

"and scho on, and scho forth"

PURE

This. The Marxist "conspiracy" against the family is propaganda from the American far right.

I thought he was a philosopher?

...

...

Can't take him seriously at all
Not an argument after not an argument after not an argument after not an argument, then sometimes he says a half-truth, then returns to non-arguments

...

Marx, Freud and Lacan were all bullshitters, so as a Marxist-Freudian-Lacanian or whatever, most of his philosophy is bullshit too.

That said, his insights on modern culture and politics are interesting and pretty unique compared to the soft-capitalism and identity politics which dominates the left nowadays.

...

Guy's a batshit crack addict, but he's got the kind of actual conviction and gusto for his beliefs that sorta compels you to respect his goals.

...

Insert compulsive nose-grabbing, hair-combing, and beard-stroking and you're 100% correct.

Sleep tight, Žižer

This. He might charm you at first but then you realize he's just another """expert""" to lead normies

i hi how he speaks... why does he have to touch his nose so much. disgusts me. i cant care what he is saying.

Who? Idk. He looks like a swell goy.

>muh ideology
Really user?

Zizek is absolutely loveable. He's not entirely coherent as far as I can tell, but he's one of those intelligent charlatans who can often accidentally say something that astounds you in the midst of all the posturing.