Not necessarily. Russians are almost entirely depoliticized. As long Putin does not bother their lives, he has their mandate to do whatever. Trump, instead, is a disrupting force, and his followers are generally dissatisfied with how things are going. I'm not saying I agree with one or the other, I'm just pointing out that they aren't really the same.
The final line is quite interesting to me as a teacher. It does seem that out of the fact subservience of the patriachial role of family defined society for so long, the rejection of it has instead resulted in this unusual contract between the child and parent. This disintegratation of genuine family role is what drives this neo-conserative movement. Marx's cited criticism was very insightful regarding how the pursuit of capital itself results in this corporate (as in the meaning of corporeal being) structure of identity.
@@john.premose This is what I want. To me conservativism *naturally* opposes Laissez Faire Capitalism and it's supporting it only out of the result of the Neocon psyop before I was even born.
they don't the money need to fortify any border. they're accommodating immigrants because nobody works for a thousand dollars in the northern hemisphere anymore. 😅 case closed. forever.
Can someone explain to me. I m not at all a Jordan Peterson fan, but didnt he simply try to describe Putins's ideological reasoning behind attacking the West(Russian imperialism, preventing the spread of so-called wokeism etc) , which is not the same as aligning himself with that line of argumentation? And furthermore isnt Zizek himslef a regular critic of the woke extremists, as he refers to them?
You should listen to more Zizek if you're interested, it becomes more clear as you hear more positions. He talks very abstractly, and you get a sense of what he's saying as a whole only after seeing/reading several parts. Zizek is indeed critical of identity politics because it is spiritually capitalist because it still deals with wresting control from another; with replacing a class with another class. This is remarkably similar to the failed communist experiments, which he against agrees with Peterson about. Where they disagree is that Peterson feels that the solution lies in retreating to the past, to religious symbology and obscuring the meaning of truth with the feeling of truth. Just listen to him define "God" for a central example. Zizek feels that we cannot go back to that because it will only result in the same events as fin-de-siècle Europe, and all the horrors which ensued. We know God is something unknowable, we know the perception of truth is variable, do we must resist the feeling that anything is black or white, even if it is comfortable to do so
As for why Zizek claims an overlap with Peterson is because there is one. They both agree on the same rationality that Russia should be able to exert its power beyond its borders, even if that means invading an unwilling country. If they agree on that point, then they agree. Peterson doesn't have to explicitly verbalise his support for Putin for that point to be true. This is why Zizek says that the two positions are sliding towards one another, not that they are fully compatible yet.
There is a big difference between describing the ideological reasoning as it was the real reason behind the attack and describing it as a mere tactical purposed propaganda tool, used for achieving certain geopolitical goals, aligned with their grand strategy. One should talk about more Primakov and Gerasimov and less of clowns like Dugin... It was sad to see Peterson in the role of the so called 'useful idiot' as Stalin called those innocent, well-intentioned sentimental or/and idealists who aided the soviet agenda. Kinda reminded me of HG Wells, who was one of the greatest minds of his age when stalin basically made a fool of him during their meeting.
@@mr.fantastic7756what is "degrading" to you? And how would it rot inside if it already has to begin with? We already had trump and society didnt change. Putin hasnt changed society. We still live in patriarchy which is one of the biggest harms to humanity.
This is the reason I am fascinated with Russian orthodoxy. One of the first monarchies to collapse and the one which started the cultural revolutions of the 20th century, are now returning to their traditions while all other Western Nations becoming increasingly more liberal....... Even after their priests were murdered and shunned during the Bolshevik revolution and the Communists bloody dictatorship, still somehow the old ways are coming back.
There was no "bloody dictatorship". Get off the US propaganda. But you sound like you're very happy to be immersed in it. Please, move to Russia. That will open your eyes. Americans. 🙄
This is kind of a trick that people in philosophy use, pick one example that goes with your thesis and pretend you drill it down into abstraction by your own huge intellect. Then the abstraction becomes an attacking vector against other issue that appears similar while completely ignoring the details and complexity it involves. If you can do that with a few jargons, people call you genius these days.
Can you elaborate you claim or thesis with a detailed example? What you have in your comment is a fairly generic and open-ended sentiment that could be applied or mapped to any political position.
@@john.premoseOh yes, right wing politicians bad, left wing politicians good. They are monsters, therefore they are evil, therefore none of their positions are valid. Where did I see that one? Flashbacks to '39?
While I agree with Zizek that anti LGBTQ stand is shared by Putin and Western Right Wingers but I think it's better to look them as seperate problems. While their motives are the same they arise from different contexts so we are looking for something which is not there. While I also agree that Putin and Right Wing people belong to the sexually traditional bend but the reason to oppose LGBTQ is more sinister and petty. If we look them as seperate things we will have better chances of devising a plan against them .
@@mr.fantastic7756 A group of people who hate other groups of people and don’t think they should exist. It sounds vaguely familiar 🤔. Hm, can’t imagine why the global liberal order is opposed to that. Very bizarre. Irrational really. Stupid even. Can’t wrap me head around that one.
"Opposing a war" is a funny way of putting it. The war isn't going away if Ukraine doesn't get aid, you know that? It just means Russia will get the advantage in it.
How do you figure that? I am the polar opposite of his politics but I think he's talking about something that's true for his side of the political spectrum.
@sevaad I just see the tired same Red Scare playbook being used. The United States is a bigger threat. How many military bases does the US have around the world compared to any other country? Fear mongering about Putin aligning with the Right when the US constantly funds terrorists and proxy wars is a futile discussion and serves as a distraction. Where's the discussion about the US aligning with far-right Neo Nazis in Ukraine?
Critical theory generally requires that one critiques…Russian elites are not used to this concept. When someone criticizes Russia, someone else does the cesium shuffle
