/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Does anyone even take this guy seriously anymore after his NATO proxy war pisstake?

>>483670
Feel free to also post clips of zizek fails, just mark it as such

One of my favourites (also very topical!)

>>483680
Certified banger.

Seeing Assange happy and unmolested there threw me for a trip. Never knew they made a video together.

>>483667
>classical music in the background
This is art.

>>483683
Man, there's so much shit the radlibs throw at Assange and Snowden nowadays. They used to be national heroes.

>>483670
the irony is that zizek is going against his own position here, though even his writing on ukraine wasnt so simple, for example he attacked the ukranian state for demolishing the lenin statues and defended the ussr when putin criticized the soviets for their policy towards ukrainian nationality (коренизация)
i think a lot of people unfairly dismiss zizek when they focus on his takes or public persona instead of his actual works

>>483670
>Does anyone even take this guy seriously anymore after his NATO proxy war pisstake?
Cancelling Zizek over his take on Ukraine is kinda petty tbh. He's completely in the right for calling out Putin. We can argue on whether it's good to support Ukraine but when it comes to Putin Zizek pretty much nailed it unlike many shitlibs who make a caricature of him.

>>488909
>kinda petty
An entire generation of Ukrainian men are lying at the bottom of artillery craters while the world was pushed to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Influencers like Zizek funneled sections of the anti-capitalist left into extremely damaging and compromising positions in support of imperialist adventures. About a dozen leftist orgs in the US alone completely destroyed their credibility over supporting the Ukrainian and Syrian wars in recent years. It's not petty.

>>488911
>Influencers like Zizek funneled sections of the anti-capitalist left into extremely damaging and compromising positions in support of imperialist adventures
Wasn't he anti-war though?

>>488913
Not at all. Just read this fucking trash:
https://archive.is/kKgy1

It's loaded with all the standard misinformation, euphemistic equivocation, and propaganda from a NATO shill.

>>488917
While I like zizek for his philosophy he's eating out of the ideological trash can here. Nato involvement wasn't good for Ukraine. They were used.

>>488925
It's such an on-the-nose display of the liberal ideological bullshit that Zizek is famous for critiquing that I remember wondering if it was ghostwritten by someone else.

>>488926
It does seam out of character, maybe he was replaced by an AI.

>>488909
>We can argue on whether it's good to support Ukraine
Nobody supported Ukraine, especially not the people that gave them weapons to keep the fight going that destroyed so many of their people.

>Zizek pretty much nailed it unlike many shitlibs who make a caricature of him.
I don't know what he said, but you have to keep in mind the timing, did he really have to criticize Russia when the neocons needed everybody to dunk on their designated enemy.


>>488911
>>488917
>>488925
Yeah Zizek did some good work on ideology, but the Ukraine thing broke him.

>>488960
what broke people harder, COVID (vaccines, lockdowns) or Ukraine/Russia/NATO?
what about Israel/Palestine/Gaza)?

>>488961
I don't think you'll find two people even on this board that will align on all three.

I can start:

vaccines and lockdowns bad/Nato bad ukraine victim/israel bad.

The last one is is a consensus pretty much everywhere that's not astroturfed but the other two are controversial as hell.

>>488960
>did he really have to criticize Russia when the neocons needed everybody to dunk on their designated enemy
Dear God, this shit again. You can't criticize anything anymore, everyone tells you to shut up because "the enemy might be listening." It's so frustrating, it's literally how radlibs think when it comes to criticizing Ukraine. That's exactly what the bourgeois governments want: for everyone to stay quiet.

>>488961
Seems like an odd question, id say it depends on geography.
Some countries got through covid pretty well, while others not so much.
Natoism bricked Europes economy, while the US didn't take that much damage.

The genocide in Gaza, i think we can't yet fully gauge the full extend of the damage, but probably the worst one yet.

Could you elaborate how this ties back to sniff-man ?

>>488962
For covid it seems like everybody got it wrong. We don't really have a effective counter to a plague. Like what do we do ? Assuming that we don't just want to role the dice on the next plague and hope it's not a black death that kills off 70% of the population.

As for the other too, the correct course of action would have been for Ukraine to stay neutral, and obviously Isreal bad.

>>488963
I think it's a bit unfair to equate the too.
-Staying quite on Ukraine aligns with the mainstream narrative
-while avoiding Russia criticism goes against the mainstream narrative.

That said you are not wrong, that my position of exempting the neocon designated enemies from criticism is compromising on principle.

But how would you criticize Russia without yielding any ground to neocon warmongers ?
You know the goal is to get real diplomacy going again.

>>488966
>while avoiding Russia criticism goes against the mainstream narrative.
That is absolutely wrong. Criticizing Ukraine goes against the "mainstream" (in the US) narrative.
>But how would you criticize Russia without yielding any ground to neocon warmongers ?
A consistent Marxist position of "ruthless criticism of all that exists" ofc. We shouldn't be afraid of seeking the truth 'cause only that way can we combat ultranationalist narratives… unless you wanna be a Duginite.

I understand that Zizek is biased and I do not defend his biases. But ultimately criticizing only NATO and its allies will lead to giving leaway to some real ultraconservative, fascist groups. Since when fascism and para-fascism became preferable to American imperialism? I do not understand that, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were victims of Western imperialism too but in the end turned out to be just as vicious.

>>488969 (me)
Trotskyists always get shat on for Trotsky's fascist collaborationism but you don't even notice how you become fascist collaborators yourselves. This is ultimately the ultimate manifestation of capitalist realism: you are only allowed to support one bourgeois regime or the other, building any alternative is seen as impossible.

>>488965
>Like what do we do ?
You could start with actually scientific, experimentally validated contagion procedures. Masks and distancing rules were based on medical dogma but not actual medical science. After that, you can try not to let your government get captured by pharmaceutical interests, not censor and blackball work on non-patentable drugs, and not force experimental treatments on people while allowing them to evade normally strict quality control trials, all so that the pharmaceutical industry can create a bunch of new billionaires off of the death and suffering from a pandemic.

>>488969
<while avoiding Russia criticism goes against the mainstream narrative.
>That is absolutely wrong. Criticizing Ukraine goes against the "mainstream" (in the US) narrative.
I think you misread this maybe ? Because i don't see how you would interpret what i wrote as opposition to criticizing Ukraine.

>A consistent Marxist position of "ruthless criticism of all that exists" ofc. We shouldn't be afraid of seeking the truth 'cause only that way can we combat ultranationalist narratives… unless you wanna be a Duginite.
The tactic of not criticizing the neocon designated enemies during the warmonger-salesmanship phase comes from Noam Chomsky, which considers him self as an anarchist if i'm not mistaken.

Dugin isn't that they guy whose daughter got murdered by the Ukrainian secret service ? I know he's some kind of public intellectual, that did debates. His main thesis was called "€ur@sianism". I can't really tell you much about it. I think it entailed Europe and Russia forming a geo-political and military strategical alliance, along side with a bunch of other countries. I would have to look this up, i might be telling you nonsense. I'm a bit confused, why is that guy on your mind ?

>But ultimately criticizing only NATO and its allies will lead to giving leaway to some real ultraconservative
How ? and what is that ?

>Since when fascism and para-fascism became preferable to American imperialism?
US imperialism supported the Azov Battalion and the Banderites in Ukraine, which were groups that aligned them selves with Hitler in ww2. Why do you think US imperialism isn't in bed with fascism and "para fascism" ?

>I do not understand that, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were victims of Western imperialism too but in the end turned out to be just as vicious.
Wait you think fascism during ww2 wasn't imperialism ?
I'm stunned.
Go look up who funded Hitlers political party and mercenary gangs.

>>488971
>you don't even notice how you become fascist collaborators yourselves.
Those are fighting words.

>This is ultimately the ultimate manifestation of capitalist realism: you are only allowed to support one bourgeois regime or the other, building any alternative is seen as impossible.
You can build an alternative but that means fighting off an imperial invasion. The US has overthrown like 50 or 70 countries, many of which didn't even go socialist, they just tried to do social democracy. In many places it's not plausible to go beyond national liberation, because the material conditions don't allow for adequate defense. You need some kind of opening to bootstrap socialism.

Once the US empire has declined to the point that they can't just smash countries, there's going to be a 20 year period where countries can build something new without any capitalist power being able to snuff it out in the early stages. That's the opening.

>>488972
>You could start with actually scientific, experimentally validated contagion procedures. Masks and distancing rules were based on medical dogma but not actual medical science. After that, you can try not to let your government get captured by pharmaceutical interests, not censor and blackball work on non-patentable drugs, and not force experimental treatments on people while allowing them to evade normally strict quality control trials, all so that the pharmaceutical industry can create a bunch of new billionaires off of the death and suffering from a pandemic.
That sounds great, how do we do that ?
Should we arm scientists and have firing squats to deal with the pharma lobby ?

"Not rigorous" Bang !

>>488973
>I think you misread this maybe ?
I said avoiding the criticism of Russia isn't necessarily politically charged. Say, a person is apolitical. Do they support Russia by not criticizing it?
>The tactic of not criticizing the neocon designated enemies during the warmonger-salesmanship phase comes from Noam Chomsky, which considers him self as an anarchist if i'm not mistaken.
Am I supposed to agree with Chomsky on everything?
>why is that guy on your mind ?
Duginites support Russia because they view it as a force against NATO.
>How ? and what is that ?
Okay, let's say Russia wins. Then what? Then we'll have to deal with the ultraconservative para-fascist superpower instead. Unconditionally supporting one "side" only strengthens their hegemonic power.
>US imperialism supported the Azov Battalion and the Banderites in Ukraine, which were groups that aligned them selves with Hitler in ww2.
I… know? It doesn't matter if you view it as American imperialism vs fascists or fascists vs fascists, it doesn't really change what I said.
>Wait you think fascism during ww2 wasn't imperialism ?
What? No. I said their revanchism was the pretext for imperialism. How do you have such an extraordinary ability to misinterpret what I said? Are you a fed or somethin'?
>>488974
>You can build an alternative but that means fighting off an imperial invasion.
By militarizing para-fascists? You just cut one head of a hydra so the other one grows in its place.

>>488978
>I said avoiding the criticism of Russia isn't necessarily politically charged. Say, a person is apolitical. Do they support Russia by not criticizing it?
The neocons operate on the logic of "if you're not with me, you're against me."
So they certainly do see it that way.

>Am I supposed to agree with Chomsky on everything?
What ? I'm just telling you where i got my political tactic from ?

>Duginites support Russia because they view it as a force against NATO.
You have strange political theories, i would have to go read a bunch of Dugin books to even try to make sense of what you are saying. That's too much effort.
Do you think Russia shouldn't push back against Nato expansion ?

>Okay, let's say Russia wins. Then what?
Which they probably will, at least in Ukraine. I guess Ukraine gets divided in 2 states, and then we create a demilitarized zone with international observers that make sure there is no re-armament. And that'll be the end of it.

Maybe the neocons loose power and instead of burning all the money on wars and we can have nice things like a public sector industry and more social services.

>Then we'll have to deal with the ultraconservative para-fascist superpower instead.
Fascism comes from reactionary imperialist finance capital, that grows during the late monopoly stage of capitalism. Russian capitalism isn't in that stage. Why do you think Russia is fascist or fascist adjacent ?

>I… know? It doesn't matter if you view it as American imperialism vs fascists or fascists vs fascists, it doesn't really change what I said.
I don't understand why you think the Russians are fascist ?

>What? No. I said their revanchism was the pretext for imperialism.
I don't think that ww2 fascism was caused by revanchism (it certainly was the motivation of many people) but systemically i just see it a particularly aggressive form of imperialism trying to expand to overcome internal contradictions.

>How do you have such an extraordinary ability to misinterpret what I said? Are you a fed or somethin'?
I'm not a glowy lol, but you are right i do find it very difficult to understand what you mean. Sorry if that is causing you frustration.

>By militarizing para-fascists? You just cut one head of a hydra so the other one grows in its place.
I don't really know what you mean with "para-fascist" ?
If a country has a socialist revolution or in some cases just a social democratic reformation, that usually means CIA regime change stuff gets activated and if that is not enough, the next step usually is military hard-power. So building socialism means that you need defenses, or you choose to support the national bourgoisie of a country until there is an opening, like for example if the imperial hegemon stalls out.

idk why this became a ukraine vs russia thread, we already have one. this is about zizek. again, zizeks perspective on ukraine isnt so simple as "russia bad, west good" but he also appears to be contradicting his own past position especially wrt the "double blackmail". i dont think we are grasping the weirdness of zizeks defense of ukraine.
for example, he argued that the desire for a complex analysis of the war masks a sort of denial that lets us psychologically distance ourselves from the tragedy. but he doesnt talk about people who do the opposite and cover up their anxiety about the complexity with simple moralistic narratives.
another example, he asks people about what they should say to ordinary ukraianians. telling them to suck it up give russia what it wants, while theyre seeing their friends and family being killed by russian soldiers, is kind of deranged and psychotic. but he doesnt talk about the people in donetsk and luhansk, or the crimean people who pushed hard to get more autonomy from ukraine.
he also criticizes ukraine for demolishing lenin statues and banning communist parties. its hypocritical because the communists did a lot to encourage a cultural revival of ukraine. but he doesnt address how much of this happened after lenins death (korenizatsiia started during the stalin era) and was paired with the trauma of the great soviet famine and the renewed dominance of russian culture throughout the ussr.

>>488980
>idk why this became a ukraine vs russia thread, we already have one. this is about zizek.
Sorry, thanks for the reminder.

>i dont think we are grasping the weirdness of zizeks defense of ukraine.
you got that right

>he asks people about what they should say to ordinary ukraianians. telling them to suck it up give russia what it wants, while theyre seeing their friends and family being killed by russian soldiers, is kind of deranged and psychotic.
The advice "we" gave was:
take the Minsk 1 deal
then it became take the Minsk 2 deal
then it became take the Istanbul agreement

All of which would have prevented the destruction of Ukraine, and preserved most of it's territory and political autonomy, and the death toll would have remained at 14'000 that occurred during what's usually referred as the "Donbass civil war".

We do not have to explain the result of the neocon advice, which was, "here take some weapons, go fight the Russians." That was kind of deranged and psychotic. Any question about dead soldiers can be referred to the neocons, is Boris Johnson still available ?, he was their messenger last time.

And what we are saying now is: save those people that are still alive, don't continue sacrificing more people.

I don't understand why Zizek imagines we'd be in a difficult spot.

>>488982
i feel like youre missing zizeks point. how do you convey that message? will it resonate with their perspective? this isnt as simple as telling people to make a pragmatic geopolitical choice. this is something that the neocons understand.
suppose the US invades your country. youre an ordinary person, you live most of your life outside of geopolitical affairs. you dont understand whats going on, it looks like a total mess. all you can be certain of is that your friends and family are suffering. then someone comes up to you and says "you should accept a peace deal with the US invaders, it's better than dying. yes the deal gives them concessions but its better than dying in a war". meanwhile youre being bombarded with the worst images from the war, talk about ethnic cleansing and dictatorship, ceasefires being broken, et cetera.
this is even disregarding the experience of euromaidan. people are being put under immense psychological pressure. there is moral blackmail from all sides. furthermore there is no movement with substantial power that has built solidarity across national boundaries before the war. you cant trust anyone with a political background, you can only make cynical allegiances.
is it so hard to feel like the people advocating for peace are just mouthpieces for the enemy?

>>488909
>its petty to call out imperialist propaganda
Championing imperialism is absolutely the worst thing a self proclaimed "communist" can do. I was never surprised by his Ukraine take considering he literally supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Check out his interview with Piers Morgan. Piers is shocked by how much he agrees with Žižek on Ukraine and Palestine.

>>488986
>i feel like youre missing zizeks point. how do you convey that message? will it resonate with their perspective? this isnt as simple as telling people to make a pragmatic geopolitical choice. this is something that the neocons understand.

The neocons are liars, they sell wars with lies.
If you want to sell peace, you have to tell people the truth.

I get the impression that you are asking me how to trick the Ukrainians into accepting a peace without them also realizing that all the hardship they endured was completely pointless and that all the people died for nothing. That's not possible, all wars end on that note.

>>488973
>US imperialism supported the Azov Battalion
>Go look up who funded Hitlers political party and mercenary gangs.
By the way, I really wish lefties would bring up more often the fact that the Azov Battalion was literally funded by a Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire. It brings to bear so many amazing points about the nature of fascism, Zionism, and ruling class interests.

>>488989
no dude, seriously? im literally just telling you about the dilemma that zizek is raising, i never gave an argument in favor of one conclusion or another, why are you just assuming what i believe
please god im begging you people to just engage with zizek here instead of treating this like some kind of breadtuber debate ffs

>>488990
Honestly, this was a really weird thing when I put two and two together about how it could be significant.

>>488976
When I'm general secretary of the United Socialist States of America we will have a secret program that is basically a staged repeat of covid. Creat a panic, rush out a vaccine, don't publish trial data, make up bullshit public health protocols, stage an illegal transfer of wealth.

Then question, strip of title, and re-educate anyone going along with this. Oh you're a doctor and you were okay giving this vaccine? Lose your license. Oh you agreed to give this vaccine to your kids? Maybe you need to take a class.

You're a community leader and you didn't organize against this? Step down.

In fact a socialst government should practice changing leadership by force: every so often people will be required to arm themselves and storm the parliament and depose of the previous government. If they're willing to step downw it will all be staged. If not the people will have practiced for this.

>>489012
>socialist government
>the parliament
Sorry anon we're going to try actual democracy this time.