Me at the beginning of video: I like zizek but I think he's just trolling with this Me at the end of video: he is right I am buying ideology with my coffee
@@mika274 anyone who buys water in disposable bottles is already irreparably stupid, and should just go lay their empty disposable head down in a landfill and wait to be buried, because that’s where they belong
@@sonybluraydisk I understand that/them, but living in the 1st world, and seeing the number of bottles that those around me go through for no good reason is digusting. There needs to be heavy taxes on plastic bottled drinks in general, and especially heavily on bottled water everywhere that the tap water is good. We have the technology that is reusable cups and relatively efficient technology of mass dishwashing.
No... you have to drink a shot for each item in the list that the “so on and so on” alludes to. One drink for every subject/issue/entity for which his use of “so on and so on” represents.
Aside from the consumerist geopolitical aspect of Starbucks coffee, my is contention is that it's a form a leisure, and leisure is actually a necessity. Unfortunately, leisure is a necessity available only to the rich and sometimes the middle class if they spend half their yearly savings. After 16 hours of manual labour, I can't write a cogent, rigorous, and well-researched paper on philosophy with a completely novel thought or study to get an A on my next chemistry test. It's more than just physical exhaustion. I need to engage in some bourgeois bullcrap like drink overpriced iced coffee while reading at a local park. If I don't do that, the malaise lasts for more than a few hours, maybe a few days. I would WANT people in abject poverty, considering I've been fortunate to no longer be in such a state, to have this much needed uselessness of leisure that well-read cosmopolites think we should self-flagellate for.
No person can have an an original philosophicall thought while reading a book in park and drinking coffee. Someone would need an education on history of philosophicall thought, and then if he is lucky to be a genius, try to find that incremental historical improvement we call originality. In the meantime you would need some kind of sponsorship to support your endeavors. Leisure is thus not a condition for intellectual activity. Marx would probably agree it is byproduct of alienation from your work. When you come home from meaningless wage labour in front of computer, or phisicaly exhausting work for some burgoaisie douche you NEED to spend the remaining day in Leasure. Plastic Pills chanel has a very nice video on how Culture Industry exploits even this part of our "free" time.
The solution is not buy local instead of global, you missed the point of the video, you must actually do something, the status quo, the sale of commodities must be ended. Buying stuff will not solve anything, buying from a 'mom and pop' shop (which is probably just a larger chain owned by starbucks designed to look independent) only serves to make you feel better
@@DaviAreias because at the core of *producing* commodities (not merely exchanging them) is surplus labour. Aka it means there must be an alienated worker producing them, being paid the means of subsistence (a wage, so not the value of the fruits of their labour) according to the whims of capital, without any set plan or goal to the construction of society. Aka read Marx
Even if the worker manages to own the means of production, and produce stuff for a common goal, how does that imply that what he produced is not a commodity anymore? Are you going to abolish all trade?
@@DaviAreias Because it is being produced to realise a direct use value, not exchange value, commodity production and trade is not synonymous, unless you want to argue that trade didn't exist until sometime in the 1600s. Under feudal industry most of what is produced is also not a commodity
@@kzr_1613 obviously you're okay with it since you're probably typing this on an iPhone or some other smartphone. I mean you're commenting on RU-vid decrying capitalism. You can either get real or keep doing what you're doing.
@@danwatts9537 The point is that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Morons like you use this as some sort of "gotcha" cause you're stupid.
Shouldn't it be called an ideological justification for ideology itself? The theory of Marx explains that the way we look at nature within our society the products of our hands, wether iron ore, wood, tables, or whatever take the form of something having "value" as if its inherent to itself and thereby turning it onto a commodity with a price. Naturally speaking it doesnt actually exist within nature, and therefore our relationship towards nature is ideological. "Buying a starbacks coffee" is allready an ideological act, but Zizek adds to it that theres another ideological justification for buying the coffee, which doesnt exist in fact either. Thats how I read Zizek. Any thoughts?
Zizek's theory of ideology is in some ways post-Marx (which is why he regards himself more as a Hegellian), since the whole thing takes a transcendental step beyond the simple dialectic of economic classes, prices, wages, and so on, which described Marx's own 19th century zeitgeist better than our current one.
Interesting. Though I will say....he admits to drinking it all the time? Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate when someone will talk about their imperfections and not act all high and mighty, but like....there's sooooooooooooooo many coffee places or you can just make your own, seems like you can quite easily just not buy starbucks lol Like yeah no one wants that person who rides their high horse and Im glad hes honest but like, make this big great point and you actively support them financially? IDK Zizek lol
i don't think at any point of his opinions he said it's a bad thing to do or a good thing.......... he just tells you how and why of the high price....... you want an answer for whether it is right to consume Starbucks........ see the difference???
in a nutshell that encapsulates who Zizek is. A lot of criticism of our modern world, but yet he still lives in it and may even enjoy the spoils of it. My main issue with him is that he has a lot to complain about consumerism, capitalism, and the state of the modern world but he rarely provides any alternatives. What are we supposed to do, try communism again? Haha yeah no thank you.
A lot of people tend to conflate socialism with romanticism. You're dissatisfied with the current way in which industrial production is managed, therefore you're against industry entirely? If that were the case, we'd all just move to the woods with the right wing libertarians. Rather, under socialism, something akin to Starbucks would still exist, just organized as a cooperative or state-run enterprise. Consumers likely wouldn't even notice the difference. And if your only complaint is that Zizek is somehow bankrolling Starbucks by buying coffee from them, then you're an idiot. Starbucks isn't going to care if they lose one customer. Zizek does far more damage to their brand through his public speaking, and he enjoys their genuinely solid product on top of that. Even if a mass boycott of Starbucks were organized, and the entire company went out of business, one of capitalism's most insidious strengths is its flexibility in the face of collapse. Thousands would lose their jobs, but a new, hardier company would just fill the void, and the social order would remain exactly the same.
Again yes maybe - good intention or not we know there are Great Planners who are designing our planet to their desires and yes possibly they do coincide with ours but this is probably not how to do it as merely an appendage or something
All true! Terrible life we lead when we exchange money for coffee!! But in the old days of pure , dialectical Marxism, you felt bad when.... You would be sent to a Siberian labor camp for making a joke about Stalin's moustache!!!
Yet he loves it, and consumes it regularly. It's not hypocrisy, it's weakness, and lack of sense. I understand you do not choose to live in a capitalist society, but you can choose to consume a secondary banality like Starbucks coffee or not. You are not anti capitalist if you consume these truly unnecessary banalities often; it demonstrates that you do not have the mental strength to go out of your way to experience your own ideology purely, so you should not preach it.
@Professional Chav Starbucks is not a human need, you're justifying his mediocrity. He should not preach if he does not practice. You do not need Starbucks to eat, drink, or entertain yourself, it's a banality that he does not need, only consumes it out of mental weakness
@@iltoni6895 You just further prove my point with this braindead take of yours. Who ever said that we completely hate capitalism? I certainly don't want the government to fabricate my clothes. What we need is a healthy mix of publicly and privately owned businesses. I didn't know that I have to live in a hut to convince people like you with your parochial way of thinking that I'm serious.
@@Dennis_The_Dude You should cut the childish sarcasm and communicate like an adult. It is a fact that Starbucks is a capitalist magnate, a billionaire business that's overall harmful, and zizek does NOT need it. You do NOT need Starbucks in the least. By contributing to it, zizek is demonstrating weak will, weak mind and lukewarm ideology. Cut the insults too. ChiId. Don't strawman either.
I have never once in my life bought something, any product at all and then felt somewhat better in the sense that my purchase did some greater good. I’ve never given a shit about a “fair trade,” label….. I buy the specific goods and services I do because I think they’re quality products, not because I want or need to feel better about the plight of some people or poor community somewhere.
This is what slavoj means by ideology. Ideological belief for slavoj is always belief in the third person. Other people believe this stupid thing but of course not me.
@@dornishred6033 The example Slavoj always uses is christmas and Santa clause. He claims that no one believes in Santa clause in the first person and this is precisely what is required for the belief to actually function. Ask the parents if they believe in Santa clause and they'll say "No of course not I just pretend for the kids." Ask the kids and they'll say "Of course not, I'm not a stupid baby. I just pretend to believe so that my parents will buy me things." If anyone actually believes in the first person, then christmas doesn't materialize. But everyone has to believe in the third person. A similar thing happens with fiat currency. One of the things slavoj often comes back to is that the form of ideology today is: "I don't believe, only those other stupid people actually believe." And yet often times these "other people" don't exist--nevertheless--the effect of the belief manifests simply by the skeptics belief that other people believe. He talks about this in many places but this is my favorite way he puts it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ims9qUURMYI.html&ab_channel=Strom%C5%BEivota I didn't mean to insult you. Obviously I'm in the same boat as you. I've never personally felt that way either, and yet, I can't deny that its a phenomenon that happens and I can't shake the feeling there must be people out there who are affected by this sort of marketing. The anxiety behind slavoj's production is that we are all so very hopelessly ensnared by ideology today. No amount of personal cynicism can prevent our beliefs from functioning to aid the dominant ideology of capitalism/consumerism.
I'm very curious where exactly that money ends from all the charities which supposedly help Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong but the amount of charities and companies supporting Africa all over the world not only the US for decades even a rough estimate would be a couple of 100's of millions of US $. Then having that in mind pick any country within Africa any city and have a look what they have. They don't have proper technology, businesses, infrastructure etc. Nothing and we are in 2021. This is the number one reason I'm not supporting charities at all. "Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime".
think about what he said for a moment. Its as if starbucks had developed the "vaccine" to anti-consumerism. By including a little bit of anti-consumerism within their product, which you pay the extra cost for, starbucks no longer has to worry that consumerist guilt will lead to any less cups of coffee actually being sold and consumed.
@@raultoichoa1574 it's beautiful isn't it? Commodification of the hatred of commodification. But I also don't see how it's a bad thing. I don't see how a value judgement would come into play when one is simply describing a system.
I'm 14 and this is deep. When companies show that they are better corporate citizens, all that is is an excuse to sell. YES. AND it's more than that. If you ignore the good ... WOAH all that's left is bad. So it's bad (if you choose to ignore the good). Willful ignorance starts so many deep thoughts.
Stopped listening after he said he drinks it regularly. It is shitty coffee, and overpriced. Only reason he buys it is because of the brand. That's pathetic, even if he admits it in this video.
Is capitalism better than feudalism? Certainly. Is it the best political system that could ever possibly exist? Will Adam Smith still be regarded as absolute truth ten million years from now? No. That's why history is a dialectic.
OF COURSE NOT HE IS ON STARBUCKS COFFEE!!! WHICH IS BAAAAAADDDD!!!! DON'T BE A SHEEP! DON'T BE BAAAAAADDDDD..... ah nevermind, this comment won't change anything, just like this video.... it's all utterly pointless :)
Occasionally I’ll go to Starbucks are purposely order a small black coffee. This triggers the based boi tremendously. They want to use the Frog words and they don’t like a white boi saying “black”
These comments are hilarious, not because they are funny, but because it's hilarious how idiots like you repeat the same tired joke thinking it's funny.
i'm confused. im a capitalist and i choose not to buy starbucks because i don't like it. i go to a small local owned store that do their own roasting because they make a better product.
Starbucks isn't exactly the focal point of what he's arguing here. Ultimately, what he's saying is that capitalist ideology dictates our consumer habits. You choose the local coffee shop because you think it provides a better product, but also, probably (at least implicitly) because it is local. In that scenario, you are also buying and buying into the ideological belief that supporting small businesses is a noble endeavour. Really, that is capitalism at its finest. Even if this isn't the case, and you simply buy the coffee there because you think it is superior, you are still doing so under the ideology of capitalist consumerism.
@@isaiahmcgahee672 first let me say that i am new to the subject (discussions about capitalism etc) i would like to understand how getting coffee from a local shop instead of Starbucks is considered pure capitalism . Thanks
@@antaapotkut8798 thanks for the question. I actually just had this conversation with my girlfriend this morning. Capitalism is more than an economic system, capitalism is an ideology. With that in mind, what is the purpose of capitalism? To accrue capital, which involves people buying things. When we look at Starbucks as Zizek refers to, we have to consider their image and their customer base. By and large, Starbucks’ base is white liberals. They shop at Starbucks not necessarily because they believe they’re getting a superior cup of coffee, but because of what Starbucks as a company “means” (standing up for social justice issues, paying their workers a semi-decent wage, their stance against organized religion, sustainability, etc.). Because of capitalism’s global stronghold, executives of Starbucks are privy to this, thus maintain this image by supporting the aforementioned causes not because of a vested interest in them, but because they know it will help them sell coffee by appealing directly to their base. Therefore, they’re not selling coffee, they’re selling ideology. Starbucks knows the social and political interests of their base, and consequently, exploit them to ensure committed customers. Simply put, Starbucks does not care about any progressive or liberal causes, they simply care about accumulating capital and do so by appealing to their base’s desire. On the flip side, for individuals who understand what Starbucks is doing and choose not to feed into the capitalist machine and instead decide to shop at a small, local coffee shop, they do not understand that still, they are buying ideology. The mere fact that they are buying a local, more “sustainable” product indicates that there is a market for green, local products. This is the parasitic nature of capitalism: any product is a commodity, and because they mean different things to consumers, means that EVERY commodity will be fetishized by someone in some way. Coffee is the perfect example in this case because it demonstrates consumer habits and fetishization based upon what their cup of coffee represents ideologically. I hope this helps!
