'We should also talk about the United States, even if the control is worse in China, Russia, and so on. Because there is one problem, and I can tell you, I was in China and in Russia. There, people are well aware of the limitation of their freedom. Nobody in China has the illusion that they are actually free.' Wow, so powerful.
We have nothing but freedom in this country and that's the problem. There is no sense of social solidarity or the common good. The strong oppress the weak because of decades of individualism and deregulation. Capitalists like Ron Paul are against global american military intervention and mass incarceration even though they support an economic system that causes it. Capitalists and socialists call each other fascists because they don't agree on each other's definition of liberty.
I'd argue the chinese are more free than Americans. I went to the states last year and china several months ago and I found the surveillance state to be rather comforting after the abundance of crime I witnessed in the United states, in comparison to a country where the government has been brutally affective in suppressing criminal activity
I cant tell if I am stupid or what I honestly can't listen to him without asking what are you talking about if I dont i might not get my own conclusions
@@GodsWheat Not just you. He says things in a way that implies "Hey! How about that?!" without giving any context. Also, I wish he'd blow his nose. 🤧 DD
Zizek's mind is so powerful that he can totally ignore the bugs he's hallucinating and keep them out of his nose while speaking eloquently about 5 subjects at once.
"Marx said 'religion is the opiate of the people'. I think it's time to drop that. Today, there are two opiates of the people: the first is opium itself. The majority of people are taking some substance just to function in society, from various prescription drugs all the way up to opium itself. The second opiate of the people is _the people_ themselves...as we see in populism." I loved that one. Taken from one of his talks at Cambridge.
@ 5:22 I don't think the "local' vs "global" distinction is important. Both exist, and both can be exploited when appropriate by citizens. Here, a false dichotomy
In some ways, his over the top comic persona takes the pressure off the ideas. If you don't feel like you have to take him seriously, you can listen and post some stupid comment about his accent and nose-wiping tics, but you aren't confronting the content. We ARE at a dead end now politically and culturally, _globally_, and no one has a solution yet. Who is happy, contented, safe, now? Who sincerely thinks that a slightly better smartphone is a serious mode of progress? No one. What paths are open to us to make an actual difference? None, without breaking with business as usual in some way.
***** Every country, however subtly, is moving towards austerity. (In the US nowadays it mostly takes the form of public sector union-busting rather than direct obvious cuts to the social wage, but eventually it amounts to the same thing.) That's the outcome of the liberal-capitalist centrist consensus now. And even when there's a semi-serious challenge, as in Syriza in Greece, it gets absolutely nowhere, because the levers of power have already been entirely removed from democratic control. They couldn't do anything because the EU institutions already had the power to shut them down at will. This too shall pass? Sure, probably. Nothing can stop the clock from ticking. But is there any conceivable path toward improvement with the institutions we currently have? They've already shown us what they want, demand. We're fools if we don't see what's in front of our faces.
+HebaruSan The dissatisfaction is biological. The Genesis story of humans being cursed to toil unhappily is more accurate than this desperate flailing about how we're at some new dead end, as if people were way more happy before capitalism. The Genesis story is probably more wrong in thinking that Neanderthals or the people on North Sentinel Island were/are happier than us than in thinking happiness is ephemeral. The grass is always greener on the other side, and yet people fear and hate change, just as how the body must maintain homeostasis, and yet be regularly exercised and pump blood ceaselessly. Either people develop emotional resilience and buy into stagnating stories about how things won't get much better once they realize repeating patterns of history, or someone blinds them to the past and agitates them into a frenzy. "What paths are open to us to make an actual difference? None, without breaking with business as usual in some way." How vague. It's like how the Occupy crowd couldn't agree on goals because everyone knew that if X or Y was achieved they'd still be pissed off and depressed. Religions can at least deal with the endless yearning of our brains by saying we can be at peace after death and then accept the inevitable imperfections of life while working to improve things in someways. But when you allow an alien government's propaganda arm to ruin your autonomic nervous system's functioning, the road to hell is paved with vague, or even no intentions. If you feel like you want to watch a movie, and have a great variety of them in front of you, but you find a problem with all of them, the problem is with you. Decision fatigue or depression could be the culprit. It's the same thing with politics and culture. If you can't even come up with a clear idea of what you'd like to see, your exhaustion is what is evident.
+ggeatworld It's not that "you" or "you" or anyone else are worried. It is the system that worries everyone who understands it and its consequences. I am truly sorry if it is not yet common knowledge - it soon will be.
Gyula Csapó The Epic of Gilgamesh, Ecclesiastes, the system of life and death worries those for whom it is fresh and those who fantasize of alternatives.
+HebaruSan I don't think anyone has bitched about his accent, but they make jokes about his tics. Also, i think a lot of peopl making those jokes are communists lol
I always found it amusing how so many people think x form of government or capitalism could never fail. If there's one thing history has taught is that everything eventually fails somehow.
The history you know is fake. 10 of the most rich people who control 90% of wealth are always come to agreement of how to manipulate you and everything that you know. .
"If there's one thing history has taught is that everything eventually fails somehow" yup. and the fall of the USSR is a good example of that in regards to communism. not so sure about the capitalist nations that have been capitalist since the middle ages and still are tho.
People who lived in the middle ages looked around at saw their systems as the pinnacle of human achievement. At the time, they were, but obviously we have moved far beyond those times and the ideas that they had. Why is our age any different? Why do people assume that we are finished growing? I don't know what is coming next as far as general political systems, but I know that there will be something new eventually. There is always room for refinement.
Government during the Middle Ages wasn't even close to the pinnacle of human achievement at the time. They were in most ways worse than the Roman Empire.
Finally common sense. I remember my latin teacher telling me the romans thought they were supercivilized and technologically developed. They were IT. Boy, they were wrong... There's always change
You're right, just switch Middle Ages with Roman Empire and the point remains. I was talking about from the perspective of someone who was experiencing the middle ages, who may well have been ignorant of the Romans and thought that the things they were doing were as advanced as things could get.
I really enjoy Zizek, but I notice he is better at critiquing things than he is at actually formulating solutions. Which is fine, criticism is important and his criticisms are thought provoking. Just an observation.
I think he admitted that he dont know the exact communist solutions. He knows and can argue why capitalism doesnt work and comunism could. But real efficient solutions and simulations require genial economists and psychologists/philosophers... probs too much for one guy/lifetime to formulate
Filip Maxin just think about it. You spend the majority of your week at the workplace. The structure of the workplace is hierarchical, verging on totalitarian control by a board of directors (non-democratic). Assuming that you live in a democratic society, can that society be said to be truly democratic if the place where we spend the majority of our fruitful hours is in a strictly non-democratic setting? Of course not. If you actually democratize the workplace, you obviously allow for greater socioeconomic equality which can then lead to greater political involvement from the population among other things. These sorts of worker co-ops have been shown to significantly improve worker productivity, happiness, and fulfillment. Put simply, people work better when they feel appreciated and that they actually control their own fate (actual autonomy).
Wow I love the fact that some people are commenting on this video without actually watching and understanding it. Like jeez guys it's painfully obvious you just saw Žižek and immediately commented something about 100 million dead from Communism. Žižek is not supporting Stalinism, Maoism, Jucheism, etc. That was the entire point of the very beginning of the video.
@Sam Farza I am pretty much a Churchillian democrat. Its only saving grace is that any other system is worse or offers no protection whatsoever against taking a turn for the worst.
He's still propagating pacifism to an economy based on material commodity, like communism and socialism are any different than capitalism in any way except for the terminology they use.
Hes admitted that if he was given power he would be a stalinist, the guys out of his mind and he somehow fools eveyone into thinking he's smart with his nonsensical ramblings.
even if it were true that communism killed 100 million people, capitalism kills 10 million from poverty and hunger every year. every single decade, capitalism enacts a century of communist destruction.
3:35 "Eternal marriage between democracy and capitalism is coming to an end" 4:38 Ecology 8:30 Finances & intellectual properties 9:44 Biogenetics 11:54 New form of apartheid
Summary: Which big communist projects/leftist solutions have failed and how? 1. China, Vietnam: Their communists in power appear to be the most efficient managers of a very wildly productive capitalism. 2. Keynesian welfare state model: It proposes to increase government expenditures and lower taxes so that demand is stimulated enough to pull the global economy out of the depression. It works only in the presence of a strong nation state that can impose fiscal policies. But in the presence of global market it doesn’t work. 3. Local grass root democracy: Here people immediately engage in locally managing their affairs. It doesn't work because people cannot be engaged in local communitarian politics all the time. So? Is Fukuyamaism a solution? Fukuyamaism: We look for if not the best formula at least the least bad formula (e.g., liberal democratic capitalism with elements of rebel state, i.e., accept the system but keep fighting for rights). The problem: Liberal democratic capitalism not the universal model and the economic success (that was attained under Lee Kuan Yew's more than 30 year long rule) in Singapore shows that "ironically eternal marriage between democracy and capitalism it’s coming to an end" (the point emerges). Why will democracy and capitalism split up? Because the duo cannot solve a lot of contemporary problems: 1. Emergence of the forms of capitalism that are efficient and doesn't need democracy. 2. Problems of commons, e.g., ecology: Local democracy cannot solve it, needs glocal solution. On the other hand, capitalism in this regard blames the consumers and tries to make money by capitalizing on their guilt (e.g., buy eco-friendly products etc). 3. Finances: The way banks function today doesn't work and new set of regulations is needed (Zizek didn't elaborate on this point). 4. Intellectual property: Capitalism cannot control illegal download. 5. Biogenetics: It's advancing so much that it can tinker with the wiring of our brain and can be used to control society. Global control and regulation are needed. 6. Apartheid: The United States vs. Mexico. West Bank vs. Israel occupied territories, full citizens vs. immigrants etc. Two claims form Zizek: 1. "All these problems are the problems of commons." 2. "New forms of circulation of knowledge even of commodities which no longer follow the market model." We can download stuff for free which is like communism. But on the other hand, WikiLeaks tells that people are not free and being surveilled by taking advantage of the free flow of data. So, the people in West experiences unfreedom ("The unfreedom which is not even aware of itself as unfreedom. Unfreedom which is experienced as freedom.") in contrast with people in China and Russia, who are well-aware of the limitation of their freedom. TISA agreement: New regulations of markets, exchange of data etc in neo-liberal line, but the agreement is done in secrecy. We need actual freedom, which is the freedom to regulate the very basic coordinates of your life, rather than only making superficial choices ("You have a choice between this and that but how is the entire field which offers you these choices and not other choices - how is it structured?").
I was not a Fukuyamaist in the 90s... When the wall came down, within a few months I was working on the idea that the French Revolution had just been defeated and in fact -- not being a Hegelian at that point -- we were returning to feudalism... And so it was... the greed unleashed by Reagan's policies, by trickle down economics, was creating a class of superrich people whose connection to human life was tenuous at best., and we were returning to a feudal society...Those lords are named Gates, Bezos, Arnault, Cook, Zuckerberg, Crow, Singer, etc...
Why do communists focus on the super rich rather than seeing if the middle class and working class have it reasonable or not? Why do you care of someone started an enterprise which the public loves and results in that person becoming extremely wealthy? Who starts these enterprises when there is no incentive to invent? Even communist governments use the tools from enterprising economies. A leader or a politiburo can’t just image useful stuff. You need the market to do that and people decide what wins and what doesn’t. There is no way to do this in a state run society. Also communism requires force or it doesn’t work.
@@Pezzerd What does this have to do with Communism. I am talking about a return to feudalism. Nothing to do with Communism. Why don't you open a few books, like Lichthein's Marxism, or a few biographies written by people who lived in communist countries? I actually visited several countries of the East Bloc, and correcting a market to avoid huge corporations occupying the market is perfectly in the free market mode. When companies like Facebook or Amazon or (especially) Google totally dominate a market, it's bad for the market. Don't be so narrow-minded as to think that everything can be passed through the anti-Communist filter.
I like how Big Think creates space for all ideas, does not matter how crazy:D I grew up in "communism" and I can only shake my head. Marx was mandatory here, but still we could not get it to work. You can remove the Planned Economy part of communism, exchange it with capitalism insert as much computing power as you want (so you can dabble in the planned economy nonsense again), but you won't change human nature which is impulsive and sometimes greedy or stupid. Take his Starbuck example. I think it is a bad example, because he just brushed over one critical fact. He didn't mention how do you use this small percentage from the price of the drink to support your planet when those consumerist donates. And I think it could be perfectly used to show some flaws in his logic. Let's say the money goes to a gold miner in the jungle who pollutes it with chemicals. You will give it to him, as a good communist, as subsidy, just like that so he has something to live off. Do you think he will stop mining? And do you think that your money on its way to him won't get chewed on by local governments, some local landlords? How do you want to enforce it, do you go into the jungle, or hire some locals? We tried all that, we are doing all this measures, do you think illegal gold mining declines? And what if capitalism kicks in and customers start to avoid Starbucks because the percentage they are donating is too high, maybe somebody offered starbucks quality coffee, but cheaper. Are we all that rich, can we really all donate every day? The gold miners would all need to be intelligent and conscious of this jungle as our commons, in a free wealthy society, to make it work. How do you get them there? By having drones monitoring them 24hours a day or showering them with money? To make communism work, people all need to be intelligent at once (unrealistic, this is a long term process and I am not sure it will ever happen) or you really need to clamp down, and that creates a vertical of power that will be misused and will create a bunch of fat lazy bureaucrats with too much power. I nearly forgot them. How do you deal with all these entrepreneurs looking for every mean to gain success and power, legal or illegal, folks that have the urge to hoard money? Do you think they will disappear? Do you want live like in china? Or are you planning to replace them with computers? I am an idealist, I like to listen to this, but when I get down to earth, I am glad this is just a idea. Stick with Democracy and capitalism. Hey, I am in the mood for an idea, here is a wild one on my end, maybe I can match Slavoj. Lets say we are looking for a huge bunch of money so we can support our planet, what if we would just annex all the tax havens on this planed and pull out the useless money hoarded there illegally and just use it for some good cause, maybe stopping all the coal seam fires of this world, wouldn't that be nice project, reducing CO2, wouldn't that be wonderful? Hehe just joking, just an idea, don't worry our elites, we are not touching your tax havens;)
I noticed that you're saying that on a computer that was built thanks to capitalism and through an ISP that charges for it's services like a capitalist company does. In capitalism, information and ideas are not property. They are under socialism and communism though.
Joe11Blue Pardon me where are u getting your information, To quote Karl Marx " In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of property". www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Amir Farookh Qazi Why does RU-vid exist? Google? Yahoo? Facebook? It's not because some guys got appointed and funded by the government to create a system for sharing videos, finding websites, and socializing with friends. It's because a few highly intelligent and highly-motivated people were able to create innovation that they knew would make themselves very rich. That's not to say that they didn't have some personal reasons for pursuing the websites mentioned, but there's no way they would have grown to the size they have without the help of venture capitalists that invested millions of their own dollars for the sole purpose of making many times that amount back by owning a percentage of the corporation that seeing it go up in value over time.
I believe in capitalism. But this man makes a lot of good points. It makes myself to question the way we live. I think he’s brilliant. Things these days are so black and white... I enjoy gray.
I can't believe in capitalism because money limited actually power, how got the money, they got the power. But how many destruct have been produced by this? From spirital to cultural. We will need to change this because resoruces are limited too and the ilusion of freedom is actually dictated by money and power.
I would like to know as well OP. As someone who appears to not be fully indoctrinated by capitalism (indicated by your comment as far as I’m concerned) yet still prefers it, I would enjoy to hear your perspective on why you’d still prefer it. The typical pro capitalist perspective that I hear is from people unwilling to acknowledge the kinds of points Slovaj makes in this video
What does this even mean? You believe that working towards the ends of profit is the same as working towards the ends of everyone else? What would be reasonable (but still unimaginative) is if you said you think capitalism is the least worst system.
@@tylerb4723 Because capitalism is essential to freedom and every other system hinders freedom. Now that's a fact, you can argue that said freedom shouldn't exist but I don't believe so, I love and fight for freedom.
Ecology, intellectual property, biogenetics, banking, and immigration (which he refers to as apartheid) are large scale problems that capitalism is going to struggle with. Greedy governments want to strengthen borders but as Zizek points out these are global problems. I just hope we are able to maintain or increase our freedom, safety, and health along the way.
He mentioned very relevant points, good critics. But I think that problems he mentioned are often general problems of the whole world and it just happened that we are having capitalism at this time. Why would be a biogenetics problem of capitalism? Communist countries don't do biogenetics? Of course there is a risk of abuse of these technologies, but it would be in every system. Problem like pollution isn't problem of capitalism either. It is a general problem of all systems. Building walls against migration? Because people want to emigrate into the most capitalist state USA? Capitalist countries are so terrible that everybody wants to emigrate to them? At least he admits that he doesn't have better solution.
@@MyArtsProduction They are problems in a capitalist society because they put huge amounts of power and control in the hands of people motivated by profit. In any other case, there is a chance that those powers might be wielded improperly, but under capitalism? It's not a chance, it's guaranteed.
So what can we do to move forward? I think the place that's getting better now is California/Oregon/Washington. We have lots of immigration, strong personal freedoms, a fearless regulatory regime, and relatively good local democracy (often derided as NIMBYism). How did it become so great? Idealism, radical activism, immigration, and education.
His point about no need for democracy I found very interesting. I find that politics nowadays is just a game of painting a different looking facade so that people will easily see what party they are voting for. But this is just a facade and really comparing the last eight years being red or blue would not be any different. In the 20th century politics was essential since we had to choose between two widely different systems. Now we have reached a new equilibrium and politics is loosing the it's relevance.
Maybe it’s a problem of identity. You make the point that Fukuyama is no longer a “Fukuyamaist”-neither was Marx a Marxist, or Jesus a Christian, for that matter-but the guy who just gave his entire company, Patagonia, for ecological efforts to save the planet, shows that even an arch-Capitalist isn’t only a Capitalist, either. The implied lesson is that what’s in the head can change, suddenly and definitively.
I think independently if one is conservative or leftist Žižek makes some incredible work by crossing crucial points that any ideology can share.. In a way, he exposes the current or future issues of the economy or the social medium in a way we can all join as a unified collective disregarding ideology. That's brilliant
To recap all of today's big problems are problems of commons, data behaves "communistically", we need new regulation of emerging technologies to specifically prevent them from being used to orchestrate horrors and there's less and less freedom in the structure of markets. On point in each one.
I love this man. Ticks..who gives a fuck. He makes great points about our society that need to be considered, whether or not you agree. I believe that capitalism is not the answer...see his Fukuyama argument!
Problem is not in capitalism but in democracy. He said it himself, capitalism functions best in non-democratic societies. Why? Because West has universal suffrage. Morons electing wolves who deliver their rights and interests to highest bidder. Asian communists are much more like monarchies, their attention spans are longer so their policies are more rational. West needs to abolish universal suffrage and reserve democracy for people who understand it and contribute to it. Or hello idiocracy.
As George Carlin once said: "You think you are free? With 2 or 3 banks, 5 to 6 insurrance companies, 3 oil companies which will soon become 2? But you have 23 flavours of bagel, so you think you have a choice."
Awww how cute! Right wingers and so called "Libertarians" (In America) trying to pretend they understand Zizek. haha. Trust me guys.. He's a bit more sophisticated and complicated than Ron Paul LOL.
The idea of free markets was always branded in combination with civil freedoms so as to galvanize the common man and lend support to a movement that was really about overthrowing the monarchy.
so you're saying capitalism, which really solidified as a social system at the intersection of the industrial revolution and european colonial expansion, predates democracy, which was first thought up by the ancient greek patricians in the 6th century BC, yes, good point
The Greeks used capitalism too. And the Egyptians. And the Mesopotamians, Mayans, ancient Chinese etc etc. Almost as far back as we've been able to find a language that could talk about money, we've also found the use of money to facilitate trade.
capitalism isn't some placeholder term you can use to refer to any economic system or social order which utilizes money, nor is the use of currency unique to capitalism. please learn more about these things before you go and run your mouth over the internet.
He's 100% right that all of the big problems today are problems of commons. Therefore we need better systems of collective sensemaking and choice making, which are not 'communism' in the historical sense. It just needs to be something where more people listen, understand, and contribute to solving these problems. But it's going to take new systems of communication, info sharing, problem solving, and policy making.
I agree, we need to share more, listen more and be free to problem solve by creating a better socio-economic system structure. One of the most oppressive forces we still have today is the oppression of labor in a monetary-market based society where labor is required for income, we are not free until everybody is free from labor-for-income. It may seem radical, but to be non-radical at this point is to accept status quo misery and environmental destruction. We should talk about a Natural Law resource based economy system. It means we don't have or need politicians to pretend to represent us and then not actually help us. We can use the methods and tools of science to solve problems, ensure our basic needs are met. We can create localized, self-sustaining regions of the world. The basic needs are met by using automation wherever possible and increasing sharing systems. This can be done. And it would only get better the more people that helped create the change in system.
i mean, anarcism is still available, just not palatable to authoritarians. more people would be able to listen understand and contribute. it isn't that what your saying will take new technology or new science, it's that it will take not only new policy, but new policy maker types as well. then again, capitalism would rather suicide through MAD than even let state capitalists take power, let alone communists, let alone anarchists.
This talk would have given me a powerful sense of validation if, for example, I had been sharing 'pirated' content since the early days of 56K internet availability. It is interesting in the context of Žižek's ideas about 'the commons' that in the capitalist IT industry itself the unregulated territory where hackers and pirates roam is commonly referred to as 'in the wild'. Occupy the planet.
I'm pretty cool with just choosing where to live, what to buy, and where to work. If you had to choose from an array of different options that each determined how those choices were offered to you it would be a game of 4D chess on hard mode.
Democracy will ultimately fail if our current flavor of Capitalism continues. At least in the United States, we have two crony parties. Both cause some kind of monopoly, they just favor different kinds. Now, we all know that monopolies are incredibly inefficient and bad for society. Concentrated wealth has a tendency to increase its power. High levels of inequality (due to corporate wealth) increase the influence of big money in governments. This decreases the "purchasing power" of each vote, and the average citizen, now disenfranchised, abstains from democracy. If Capitalism continues in this fashion, Democracy will dwindle away. In order for Democracy to thrive, you need an inclusive society governed by the free market (or some combination of the free market and socialism). Now, the possibilities for establishing such a society are endless, from anarchism (although a government wouldn't exist per se) to third way socialism. But whatever way you think it should be done, the goal is to reduce monopoly power and make markets more competitive.
Spencer Chudyk Well, voters are indirectly forced to vote for one of the two due to strategic voting. Take the Bush v. Gore campaign. Many people voted Nader of the Green Party. However, had these people's second choice would be Gore, who has somewhat similar views on the environment to the Green Party. So, in essence, they "stole" votes that would have otherwise gone to Gore, causing him to lose. Nader voters now are worse off, because Bush (their least favorite candidate) won. Next election they vote Democrat. The US has had many "third-parties," but they all die out or have minimal influence. You could solve the issue through political reform. Germany, for example, has a great voting system that eliminates the need for choosing the candidate that you like most who is most likely to win (strategic voting). Allowing citizens to rank their choices and have two effective votes is why Germany has many major parties. However, it still doesn't address the fundamental issue of lobbying and money.
I find Slavoj a very good speaker, even with his lisp, but he jumps too quickly from large ideological proof to large ideological proof. For example, he talks about his own different definition of freedom, without explaining it clearly.
Democracy and capitalism are not doomed to split up, these are not the same thing. These are two separate things that can go hand in hand but doesn't mean they will. One doesn't equal the other.
@@Laroac Its on my list the second summer ends. I guess i fell for the label media put on him, and as a huge JP fanboy i should know how hard they mislabel people they don't understand.
He isnt communist. I mean, i’m a dengyst myself, but he is just a revisionist. He want to adapt the communist ideology to the bourgeoise and nowadays imperialist power.
I like his ending statement on the understanding of freedom... I will say they system’ at its core is the claim of ownership and possession of private property of the land, this is what essential the US government at its inception was regulating, the buying and selling of land and then taxing the person who has the title of ownership of the land, and that is why the US functions as more of a economic business corporation vs a public service agency for the rights of the people. And that is humanities true problem at hand, the restriction and regulation of access to water, food, land, and shelter; that is what is truly unequal within the social economic community of the people. You have one person with access to a house and land with the best view, huge house, etc.. then you have a foreign business man buying property/homes which automatically displaced another with access to shelter/home/safety... than you have people paying rent within apartment complexes to people who have ownership over buildings, etc... the entire system is set up as a game of monopoly, but the game was set up so the players of the game must give up any natural moral instinct, and is forced to play a competitive strategy that sacrifices their own quality of character. So you see the problems in the world are complex, but only because the system has set up a psychological warfare on intellectual property, and it is here in the intellect that we are all compromised, because we will sacrifice the goodness of our own character, just to protect our intellectual identity...
People take broad grey definitions like Capitalism and Socialism and try very, very hard to make them pitch black and white. How Capitalistic and Socialistic a country is varies greatly and literally every major country and most minor countries in the world are blends of both Capitalism and Socialism. People who try and caste these issues in pure black and white are misrepresenting the truth for some agenda they are pushing, whether they fully understand it or not.
Though they are broad terms that describe entire families of economic models you have the same bedrock. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are owned by those who own capital while socialism is any system where the workers own them. Zizek's point is that the core logistics that are the bedrock of any capitalist system is getting increasingly less compatible with democracy. There's cases where you can be specific and cases where you can use a broad stroke. Neither is correct or incorrect by default. It just so happens that usually a case by case analysis is most times more accurate. However if you are referring to intrinsic shared properties of a family of systems that are leading every last one of them in the same direction then yes you can use a broad stroke.
@@fl00fydragon In a true pure capitalism, the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated privately.... which means only the private owner controls it, no regulations or control from anyone else over that private ownership. In a true pure socialism, the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole… which means everyone within that community gets some say in the ownership and regulation of it, which requires a true pure democracy where everyone votes. First off, there is no truly 100% socialistic country that I know of, because every country I know of has some fraction of people in it that are not allowed to vote. Second off, there is no truly 100% capitalistic country I know of, except for possibly North Korea, which gets into the problem with a truly 100% capitalism. Without any restrictions upon capitalism, those who win became more able to win, while those who lose become less able to win, and when run through time long enough 1 individual will own everyone and thus become a Supreme Leader Dictator to everyone else. Thirdly, and socialistic country can democratically decide how the ownership and regulation of production, distribution, and exchange works… including deciding that way should be very capitalistic in nature. Fourthly, capitalism does not require socialism and dictatorships where the dictators own and control production, distribution, and exchange is a form of extreme capitalism. Fifthly, every democracy, including a democratic republic like the USA is a socialist system, though not pure because not everyone votes. Sixthly, even a country like Russia under Stalin and China under Mao had a form of Capitalism. The truth is that countries which often are declared loudly as socialistic or communistic countries were really not what they were called, because of the extreme lack of any democracy… while those in power did in fact have capitalistic like ownership. *** All countries which have a democracy strong enough to call being a democracy are blends of socialism and capitalism. The USA had a very healthy blend of socialism and capitalism for most of the middle of last century. Then, in the 1980s, the USA began strongly trending towards being more purely capitalistic, as can be seen by graphing the changes of the balance of wealth and the percentage of people incarcerated, which are related. An extreme capitalistic system cannot last as a democracy, because without social regulation it will turn into a dictatorship with fewer and fewer people who own and control virtually everything. But successful socialistic countries do also have capitalism, but regulated capitalism, keeping it under control.
Let me get on my academic soapbox for a moment: You would think that a channel with an intellectual and occasionally academic focus would have *a* meaningful and satisfying comments section with a robust discussion of ideas. You would be horribly wrong. Edited for grammar
Most people watching RU-vid simply aren't intellectually capable of partaking in constructive dialogue, and most people capable of said dialogue aren't watching RU-vid.
Comment boards are off the cuff out of guts: but don't need too much research to see zizek knows nothing about China or America. Trump is the best we have not zizek. America is OK for the moment. Intellectuals got nothing to offer.
I'm not worried about the environment, inequality, the banks or jobs, as long as people are left alone in a free market solutions will emerge, and technology will evolve to solve problems in ways that prior generations, or even people just a few years prior, would have found inconceivable. I am, however, worried about politicians and intellectuals seizing on these as "alleged crises" that "necessitate intervention" which is code word for increasing power and control in the hands of the few. The issues themselves are not the real potential crisis because we all have incentives to solve these issues without direction. Humanity *will* solve these problems without massive political intervention because technologies we can't even conceive of right now will arise with the expansion of science, mathematics, engineering, and the general diffusion of knowledge throughout society. The real danger we should be aware of is the descent into tyranny. Zizek is a fascinating character and entertaining. I also find his honesty and frankness refreshing. His description of the desire for an alienated machinery that "just works" so we can all live our lives without having to worry about it is very poignant. The trouble of course, perhaps according to classical liberalism, is that this is fundamentally an abdication of personal responsibility. While appealing, we know for a fact that it comes with serious problems. Perhaps serious isn't even the word - perhaps "inevitably fatal" is a more appropriate phrase. [There's an interesting side note here. If you look at the communists of the 20th century, their ultimate goal was indeed to create some sort of utopian state of the kind perhaps that Zizek imagines or describes. The irony is that if you look at the reality of the revolutions, it was made impossible - by the very people trying to erect the revolutionary machinery - for you to in fact _be_ some kind of alienated bystander who just benefitted from the new governmental structure that would just take care of your needs while you had fun. It was quite the opposite, in fact. These regimes had to assume extreme control of most of the most intimate aspects of your life, and in many cases even your own private mind was made to be the product under control of the system. This notion of "just having an alienated structure that takes care of our needs while we do what we want" has lead to the most polar opposite outcome of that in countless instances, at least, perhaps, where socialism was revolutionarily implemented in the 20th century. More can be said about this but that is indeed a side note.] Perhaps you disagree about the assertion I made that humanity will solve these problems on their own without a heavy political hand. Perhaps you might think that this necessitates more governmental intervention. Obviously this is a matter that is not subject to confirmation because the truth is only out there in the future. However, I would point out that if you think that "humanity" on its own is incapable of actually solving these problems, then how exactly is "the government" - which is just a very small part of "humanity" - going to solve the problem? Especially through political organization? Such thinking, to me, is fundamentally illogical. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that social organization is categorically unnecessary or undesirable. I just tend to lean more towards classical liberal thought in which coercive socio-political organization (i.e. government) should be minimized. That being said, and as I mentioned before, whether or not "humanity" unaided by politics will solve the problems of the environment etc. is something that nobody can actually know. It is a matter of belief and so discussion on the issue is open to varied opinions. My opinion is that what fundamentally drives solutions to grave "social problems" - at least as long as the social problem is not being sustained by the government - is technology, not political organization. Starvation wasn't solved by political organization. It is being solved by technological advancements in agriculture. (Ironically, the famines of the 20th century, as Thomas Sowell points out, were not due to lack of food or productive capacity, but rather were man-made disasters). Disease isn't solved with political action. Is there not even a plausible case to be made that the Covid shutdowns - which were the "political solution" to the pandemic - were more costly than they were worth? (That's another topic worth investigating). Politics isn't the solution here either - science was the answer to combating disease. Antibiotics and vaccines, along with all the other technology we are developing in healthcare, are how you actually _solve_ disease. Was illiteracy solved by governments? Fundamentally, no. It was Gutenberg who invented the printing press, and within a few generations people began to become literate (not to mention the scientific revolution was precipitated in the wake of the printing press). People remained illiterate into even recent years but the rise in literacy was (probably) primarily due to the reduced cost of book production and decreased cost of education, which made it possible for parents to educate their own children at low cost. Fundamentally, of course, teaching somebody to read is a _social act_ but the driving forces of the solution to literacy were, again, technological, not socio-political. In fact, there were religious and social barriers erected in Europe _against_ the literacy of the people, discouraging them from reading so that they wouldn't read the Bible and become a "pope unto themselves." I'm not an expert on this and I have heard that certain socialist regimes in the 20th century placed significant focus on expanding literacy in their communities after they came to power, perhaps doing so with success. I need to investigate that further but it should go without saying that the mere fact that literacy rose in the country when a particular regime came to power does not imply that the best route for increasing literacy rates was, in fact, what that regime did. The fundamental suggestion I wish to emphasize I will repeat here: future generations will create technologies we can't even conceive of, and those technologies will solve problems that are literally impossible for us to solve right now. They will also create problems, of course, resulting in the cyclical drive for innovation and development to continue. But the fundamental state of human society and nature is *adapt or die.* Political organization cannot solve our fundamental issues because these issues are, in fact, *actually unsolvable* _without certain kinds of technology._ The political organization you choose to promote the solution to a problem is not really the key factor. If you want to get from Houston to New York there are any number of routes you can take and it doesn't ultimately matter. One way might save you a little bit of time or money more than the other, but fundamentally the route is not the important thing. You need a car. You need petroleum. You need roads. In other words, again, technology is the solution to your needs, while the rest is just style. There is one topic that does concern me though. That is biogenetic technology. But that is something I'll have to leave to write about some other time.
To my understanding of reality, in the levels and multiplicities of the world, this Slavoj is a caricature of an intellectual, or an intellectual of caricatures of thinking. In the context - and extend of a commend, we (humans) have to grasp the physical reality (i.e. hard sciences), the interpersonal realities (i.e. psychology, sociology), the economics in the history of societies. A vast territory of knowledge nobody really can undertake. Most of the people here, do not have, even a distant exposure to the ideas of Karl Marx, and have at best seen the tragedies and contradictions of left ideologies. This is not so, (and I cannot even try to persuade anybody), as, an unbiased observer can tell that churches are entirely different to christianity. All Marx has said is that reality in societies is created by the ruling class for their benefit. A truth so obvious, and so obscured for the sake of stability of the ruling class. Capitalism has destroyed the lower class. In effect it has destroyed homo sapiens to homo economicus. It is now completing the destruction of the natural environment. Collapse is ahead. Is there anybody out there with a proposition on how to avoid this ? (I can't hear any more of green. Green is the colour of the money).
Capitalism was never synonymous of Democracy. This idea was just recently pushed during the last 5 decades, and we all know why. Who holds the Capital is who ultimately takes the decision. That is totally opposed to the concept of Democracy.
Yeah well, power is only an abstraction of capital and if you want to organize at all you can't get rid of power. So you options are either capitalism in which part of the power is disconnected from the governing body or you simply place all of the power in the governing body. That governing body will obviously and inevitably manipulate the public into supporting whatever they want, likely they'll start a war in some form, claim emergency powers and then brutally crush any protestors, a tale as old as time. I'd rather run with the conception under fair doctrine -> corruption over the course of a few hundred years -> probable decline into eventual collapse that capitalism has offered rather than roll a losing dice on not getting genocided again. We haven't even reached collapse yet, there's always the chance that capitalism sorts out it's corruption and returns to a more fair system but even if it stagnates this state is still the far class-mobility we've ever seen. Ever.
@TheInfectous wrf are you talking about. My comment was about Capitalism does not equal Democracy and this ridiculous idea was pushed during the last decades. The only thing I can get from your comment is that you will gladly accept a dictatorship as long as it is under capitalism, which is ridiculous.
Easiest way to enjoy the video, simply scroll down, and focus on the audio. He's got some good points. I mean, capitalism is not out to help your better man. It's purpose is to maximize profits, and nothing more. It doesn't care if it destroys all things in it's path unless it would cut into profits.
Agreed. Freedom is certainly not free, it's not a free choice and is being regulated behind closed doors. Glad to hear that even F. Fukuyama isn't Fukuyamist any more. 👍
Brilliant. U need not agree. But Slavoj’s arrival at his beliefs are arrived at via a rigorous academic & philosophical study. His atheism is informed by a lifelong study of the world’s religions. It’s always a fascinating listen when Slavoj pontificates. You may be on the opposite side of an issue/belief... but if u are patient enough to listen... u’ll fully understand why & how Slavoj believes as he does. Lastly no political or ideological ‘hero’ is above Slavoj’s critique... which is refreshing.
I see what Kalama T Films meant by the comments on the vid being worthless. So lets look at the problem and figure out how to be optimistic about this situation. Problem: People are replying and upvoting certain comments while nobody is pointing out the true flaws in them, flaws so bad that these comments are not worth arguing against. baianoise called Zizek a "Thug", which is completely irrelevant and distracts us from the relevant arguments, hence this person is manipulative and obviously bias. The ONLY ONE out of 75 replies was that pointed out the use of the word "thug" was HaqqAttak. upvoted! Another problem comment:Joichard made a comparison between Capitalism and Democracy. You CANNOT compare the two, one is a form of government, they other is a type of economic policy... Check wiki people. Well done chivenyc !!! The only response that was paying attention and pointed out Joichard's problem!! (To check out these people's good-replies hit "View all replies" on the problem comments mentioned above and then press control+F and type the good-replier's name.)
I've acalled him a thug, because is what he is: he is a notorious hardcore communist; and so, he is in favor to steal the product of other person's work at the point of the gun, in my book it's a thug.
Do you know that Belgium (or some other European country) tried an experimental system with two houses of government, one of politicians and the other of a random selection of population. It worked better.
always enlightening Slavoj Zizek, and kind of terrifying. I think what the world really needs is Waber's Charismatic leader/Plato's Philosopher King, with a brutish violent style succession practice so its very easy to kill and remove despots.
This guy is amazing. How did he learn so much about such a vast number of topics. I wish his health was better so he could talk more freely. I totally agree about how people in general are not aware of the secret agreements that limit their freedoms and they consider themselves totally free. That's how the US government gets people to vote in things that are against their best interest. They just don't trick us into believing it is good, they get us to campaign for it and silence those who oppose it as if the detractors are somehow evil.
If he stopped doing coke 50 times a day he'd probably be able to go then more 10 seconds without fiddling his nose. 🐽. He might be a little less brain dead as well
Capitalists no longer produce tissue papers because the profit margin is thin no matter how essential it is. So now the necessity of his nose becomes a problem. And the government leave it to the market forces; it wouldn't intervene. Allah Akber!
The first time I tried to watch Zizek, I paused the video. I thought "I can't watch or listen to this guy." But give it time, focus on what he's saying, and after several videos his idiosyncratic movements won't be so distracting. In his own peculiar way Zizek actually comes off as quite charismatic.
Eh i lost respect for him on this one. Critiquing direct democracy with strawmans of isolationism and mandatory council attendance is ridiculous. Especially when you have yet to offer a better solution. Hes good at critiquing, but not so much proposing anything. Its pretty easy to make normative claims when you dont have to make prescriptive claims.
Demiurge Shadow I've noticed that with Zizek, as well, that he doesn't offer alternatives to the social ills he critiques. If I recall correctly, I heard him say somewhere that he considers the duty of philosophers as being to point out and dissect what's wrong with society. I don't know if this is a Hegelian standpoint or what, but yeah he definitely focuses on critiquing rather than finding alternatives. Of course, it could be (and I'm just speculating) that he thinks alternatives will present themselves organically when enough people enter the discussion of what's wrong. Then again, isn't it also a Hegelian position that all social "solutions" are only temporary arrangements that eventually must be found lacking and be overthrown? I'm just brainstorming here.
@@nolives I agree he doesn't really offer any solutions. I don't see any issue with that though. As he often sais himself, Zizek isn't traying to establish some new philosophical ideology, he isn't interested in "zizekism". He is first and foremost a critic of culture and ideology.
@@noliveswell you have to be honest: democracy DOES NOT SCALE. It always degenerates into populism and identitarianism (if it even gets that far). Just ask Occupy or the Arab Spring.
Yes but when "some invisible alienated machinery takes care of things it always goes wrong. This is why people on the right believe in individual responsibility.
Limitation is that we have to work? That we are bound by laws? Are those perhaps the limitations he's referring to? I'm new to his views what are this limitations he's thinking of? Or is he just complayining about our happiness and freedom being built by illusions?
