Slavoj Žižek: Why There Are No Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism | Big Think

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@novkorova2774]

Podemos are a bunch of corrupted clowns.

[@리주민]

Perhaps the new wave will not be money-based, but land based. Each citizen gets 1 hectare. 20 ares reserved for self and the other 80 ares can be invested in businesses. Instead of money, each persons investment would entitle them to a share of the goods amd services from the businesses. The land exchanges permit trades of this. For example: Tony invests 0.00005 ares (50 microares) of land shares in McDonald's. This investment along with others allows McDonald's to gain more land for future building. As long as Tony owns the shares, he gets a share of the goods and services of McDonald's. Let's say the share is calculated every month: McDonald's (entire company - forget the franchise thing for now) made 500,000 burgers (forget fries and other goods) that month. Tony would be entitled to 25 burgers that month. What are your thoughts?

[@limitlesssky3050]

Your thumbnail is really inaccurate.

[@mohinderkumar7298]

he recycles in nostrils. 😃

[@WhatWhy42]

What if I told u I figured out how to do it?... *Now I'm a target* 🤦‍♂️

[@Dperezer]

Great video, but the title is misleading. He wasn't necessarily saying there is no alternative to unbridled capitalism. It's more like he was saying that, as yet, the left hasn't articulated a strong alternative to capitalist liberal democracy--a very different stance from what the title implies. I know, click bait get the videos in front of eyeballs, but this one borders on misrepresentation.

[@robrechwithoutzaza7992]

What is so bad about liberal democratic open society? I still dont get it.

[@Norpan506]

@@robrechwithoutzaza7992 Nothing, USA is perfect :)

[@adoroitreni]

@@robrechwithoutzaza7992 read Mark Fisher and you'll get it

[@robrechwithoutzaza7992]

@@adoroitreni Ok, Ill buy some of his books, but you first read some of Soros books, and you will get it.

[@metamr]

It is a different stance, but what you said and what the title implies are not exclusive to each other.

[@victorvalerio3059]

"I would sell my mother into slavery to See a movie called V for Vendetta - part II" - Slavoj Zizek

[@andreysantos6660]

The greatest phrase of all time

[@ProlificThreadworm]

V for voluntary 👌

[@tabinekoman]

All hail V, all Hail V

[@elfoxy1997]

Really? @@oscardighton8580

[@oscardighton8580]

elfoxy I think so

[@Drew_Hurst]

I wish this level of complexity of ideas and discussion was more mainstream. Especially compared to the drivel we see politics reduced to on TV.

[@TeaParty1776]

CNN and Fox are disintegrated.

[@commentpost907]

That level of nuance can’t be reflected. The people don’t want it. They want division. Also they aren’t likely wise enough to see through the hate nor intelligent enough to want it.

[@cr6458]

Sounds like you should talk to more communists and anarchists

[@LafemmebearMusic]

@@cr6458 maybe but honestly I’d like to find more poc anarchists as tooooo often I find the folx who are white turn out to come from such comfort filled backgrounds that it feels like there’s a wall between their beliefs and their reality, which means when we talk it’s like they don’t know, what they don’t know, but speak so strongly while often experiencing a level of comfort and resources they’ve never not had. So how do they as anarchists who come from comfort understand the world I’ve come from that they were protected from? They throw themselves into these ideals of anarchy but don’t realize they’ve never lived the life that leads to a fight for change, so it always seems as the world really hits the fan, I’m watching alootttt of these types of anarchists pull back from anarchism… just giving my specific black experience with anarchism. Yes In this context the race part did matter . It’s fine if you don’t agree this will remain my experience

[@cr6458]

@@LafemmebearMusic 100% valid. To be honest, the critique applies to a huge amount of western leftists. For what it's worth, marxist-lenninists and Maoists tend to be a lot less white and a lot more sensitive to intersectional experiences in politics. You're definitely right that it's a huge issue though

[@elasri11]

As a muslim in the middle east, I'm stunned how your example about islamic fundamentalism applies perfectly And even more stunned than no one seems to made that liaison before! (As far as I know) You would not believe how much extreme left was THE THING here in the 60s-70s

[@ihaka3925]

Problems with revolution/democratisation and secularism/extremism is well documented, studied, predicted and fairly well understood in political science. Iran is a case study in power vacuums left by failed secular progressivism

[@silvanvanderhorst7366]

@@ihaka3925 You forgot the US cold war intervention in 1953 and the establishment of a capitalist dictatorship, which was very unpopular. Which lead to a revolution, lead mainly by Muslim conservatives, creating a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy. You can say that Iran is a case study of 'failed secular progressivism", but you forget to mention which role western powers played in that failure. Mohammed Mossadeq and his moderately progressive policies were actually very popular when he came to power. He wanted Iran to modernize and wanted to establish a secular democratic republic. BUt to achieve this he wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. Mostly because this industry was dominated by the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and so most of the profits of this industry went to Brittain, not the Iranian economy. So in order to become fully independent and self-reliant, he wanted to nationalise the oil industry. And again, this was very popular, both among nationalists, socialists and even muslims because it secured Iranian sovereignty and also accomplished a couple of progressive goals on the left. The reason that it failed, was because Brittain was unhappy with this decision and started to boycot Iranian products and put embargos on Iran. This hurt the Iranian economy, not because Mossadeqs policies failed, but because another country was purposefully sabotaging them. After Eisenhower came to power, the US and UK worked together to overthrow Mossadeq and install a pro-western dictatorship. Eisenhower was afraid that the Soviets, with the help of Iranian communists, might stage a coup, and so the idea was that the US and UK stage a coup first, to beat the communists at it. Now there is no real reason to suspect a communist coup was coming, but that didn't stop the Allies from deposing a democratically elected prime minister for an unelected, authoritarian monarch who protected their interests.

[@ari333prod]

@@silvanvanderhorst7366 they can type 1 short paragraph containing several lies or misrepresentations and to disprove it you have to type several long paragraphs. lying is so easy

[@TechGeForce585]

​@@ari333prod Your point then

[@xiiir838]

​@@silvanvanderhorst7366the real problem there is why does leftists leaders always lead their countries directly to the mouth of the lion by actively antagonizing western (or any) super power? Something similar to this happened to us, Latin Americans, during the cold war. Lots of our governments were demolished by America because our governments at the tim were either anti "!mper!aIists" (as if the USSR wasn't one lol) or actively went against US interests even though it was obvious that Americans were not going to sit down waiting for their business to go down or the red virus to spread near them. As you pointed out how the secular government wanted to nationalise their oil industry to be self reliant: aren't leaders supposed to take care of their citizens? Things like NOT putting the entire nation in danger by going against the interests of super powers that your country cannot defeat?

[@snicks34]

This title doesn't seem very accurate. Zizek isn't saying that there are no politically viable alternatives to unbridled capitalism. In fact, the most politically viable power structures the moment *are* restricted capitalist systems. Additionally, Zizek's main assertion in this interview isn't that a new Leftist ideology for government is impossible, it's simply that the Left hasn't provided a solution in any sort of cohesive way.

[@AdamW655]

and hes almost completely 100% right

[@TieDef]

Yeah, a more accurate title would be "Where Are the Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism?" He no where says that alternatives are impossible, he simply criticizes the unimaginativeness of most current leftist movements.

[@MrCrashDavi]

The Left doesn't have a solution. We'd been saying Revolution for decades but now people just point at Russia and the debate is over. It's not the movements or the politicians that are unimaginative, it's the people themselves and they hide their doubts under empty jargon.

[@snicks34]

***** Right you are. That doesn't mean that the Left *couldn't* have a solution for it. It just hasn't come to light yet.

[@jtotherobble]

How would you put forward planet altering schemes, even if a viable solution existed?

[@indyshome]

"How is that guy called from Tesla boss Elon Musk or what" great phase

[@TENNSUMITSUMA]

I don't get it

[@indyshome]

@@TENNSUMITSUMA It just cracked me up the way he said that

[@kurtzcharlatan5368]

Are you a redditor

[@rtx2080ubermacht]

he's a quirky redditor

[@AR-ql4tj]

He is a based redditor

[@Nokkenbuer]

Unless one is familiar with Žižek and his nuance, the average person will probably interpret him as saying that socialism and communism are failed ideologies and systems of social organization-a claim he'd almost certainly vehemently reject. It doesn't help that the title of this video is incredibly misleading and I doubt Žižek would agree with it.

[@joem3082]

Yep, i don't doubt a lot of people would come here and think that he is somehow praising the new populist wave rising throughout the world.

[@almoslataan8185]

Although I agree that Zizek is quite pessimistic here, I think the purpose is provocation. There are always alternate models, but the system has now become so large and complex that is difficult or even dangerous to propose large scale system change. Gradual change is probably preferable, but it is easy to interrupt and arrest such movements. Unfortunately, though, time is of pressing concern. As Zizek alludes to, there is great danger in the coming future with the advent of AI, Automation, and Genetics that absolutely require major new thinking and changes now. We may potentially be on the brink of mass human irrelevance in terms of human socio-economic value, and if so, then that is a major change that humanity has not had to deal with so far. People need to see the relation between human value, economy, and quality of life. If something can replace the humans in this equation, then quality of life is not guaranteed, depending on who is in control.

[@JeremyBell]

I agree with Diego... Slavoj isn't supporting/praising the populist resurgence, but he's very clearly placing the blame where it belongs - the failed left. It's not about "some hill-billy's and neo-nazis in the Midwest" - the greatest tragedy is how the leftist ideology completely fell apart and became absorbed into the dominant power structures.

[@shmackatrotsky5394]

the fact of the matter is that capitalist imperialism, via the usa, has crushed all efforts of other countries to attempt different forms of socialism. heck, even within capitalism, the normal structures of democracy have been so uniformly coopted by corporate power structures, so that, in effect, we are living in a bastardized, quasi-fascist version of capitalism. the truly creative expression of people to take back the power structures and create a new system of governance simply cannot take place in the current setting of police state, militaruzed, globalized economic hegemony over the worlds populations. we are in a vice grip stranglehold of brutality. zizek knows these things, but doesnt bring any of that up in here.

[@luciencron6655]

shmackatrotsky Your reply nailed it!

[@atrant2180]

"People quite often are not right" - Slavoj Zizek

[@En_A_B]

Brexit was chosen by the majority of the English people. See the consequences they are facing! Yes, the majority is not always right.

[@andrejbarth1141]

Zizek sticking to the topic, presenting a coherent argument with a conclusion and not quoting either Hegel, Freud or Lacan: what is happening here? #soconfused

[@travisheldreth5021]

He wants Chomsky to he he likes him.

[@andrejbarth1141]

I don't think Chomsky will never take Zizek seriously and that is a shame. I would watch an extended conversation between the two about the state of the world.

[@renand3z]

Who cares honestly, most of the things Choamsky are superficial, my sister love him. "they are controlling us", "government is evil"

[@gcarlson]

Not familiar but interested in his point of view. Recommend any other vids? Chomsky has an elitism disgust with the world that I find irritating.

[@torn1147]

Steven Lee No, Chomsky understands a speaker like zizek who can’t make a clear arguement is someone who can’t be argued against, via lacking any clear propositions to refer to. Everything put forth in his irrationalist tradition is a vague mess and can only be referenced in vague terms, a method that cannot result in any incisive insights.

[@Muffinfordinner]

Title of video: "No alternatives to Capitalism" 5:50 "Private property will no longer work." 6:01 "The model of Capitalism is reaching it's limits." The title of the video is precisely incorrect.

[@xstrawarot]

Yeah they corrected it :D

[@oliverallen5324]

should definitely listen again. It's titled correctly.

[@Mitchell471]

You can not elect somebody who will change the entire economic system within a capitalist society.

[@AdamantSeraph]

This is not an analytic clip...it is triggering the left while bringing back in the spotlight the fears that gave birth to comunism - "obsolete system for the technological progress", "private property will not function" bla bla. Again, is ment to trigger left ambitions in the charecteristic perverted style. Old school propaganda. Anybody wants some half of century , half of the world in censorship - state property - compeled thinking (!!! Not only speech)..? I guess so. In one sentence - build a "new" political structure, bassed on fear and frustration. Rensentment entitlement. And yep ! PLEASE be self oriented and achieve what you wany. PLEASE do think about your trash. And PLEASE defend yourself as an individual. This is what freedom means.

[@douglasphillips5870]

We can identify the flaws of capitalism, but he doesn't agree with the solutions.

[@austinpw4061]

His pessimism is important. Yes what does happen the day after revolution? Well you start farming. If there’s anything we have learned it’s that food is more important than steel.

[@someguycalledgabe230]

Honestly if you haven't already started securing your food and livestock you're already too late. There's simply too much to learn in too short a time frame to survive if you're not already prepared and producing enough food to feed your family.

[@GuitarOwnsDrums]

Secure the bread comrade

[@Razaiel]

This is where the expression, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" comes into play.

[@TheFlutecart]

Yea, like China under Mao?

[@ricksflicks-]

Sigh...no guys. He isn't talking about how you manage your post apocalypse fantasies. He's saying that people on the left only think as far as the revolution but don't really have a well structured idea about the socio-economic system they hope to replace the old system with. It's probably going to have to be something a little more fleshed out then "start farming". Otherwise you probably shouldn't be tearing down the current structure.

[@Namari12]

If you're unfamiliar with what he's referring to when he discusses Fukuyama near the end of the video, he's referencing a very famous paper (and later book) called 'The End of History' by Francis Fukuyama. It's worth a read and adds a lot of context to what he means there. Just thought I'd mention

[@faridundavlatov2234]

Thank you.

[@ElectronicCalifornia]

Talking and sneezing at the same time is impossible, but I'm convinced this guy could do it.

[@gurjotsingh8934]

I gave you the hundredth

[@6teezkid]

Andrewlina Jolie - Lol! Haha!

[@kefsound]

Shut up

[@beatricebrown8221]

LOL

[@TheSarcMark]

😂😂😂😂

[@darkgenesis611]

he keeps all his philosophies in his nostrils.

[@KaceyRightman2023]

God damn it! You almost made me puke lol

[@davisbeam8181]

DarkGenesis it’s like he has a coke problem tweaking his nose all the time

[@mike53153]

@@@davisbeam8181 He looks like the Catcher that can't make up his mind at a Baseball game.

[@ChollieD]

In Lithuania, they don't have nose-hair trimmers or Claritin-D.

[@0r14n583lt]

As Rick James once said, Cocaine is one hell of a drug!

[@jan-owennugent1932]

“I’m allergic to cats, but I can’t stay away from them” -Slavoj Zizek

[@Phyoomz]

same :-(

[@victorhopper6774]

mental illness is rough

[@massivecumshot]

Here puss puss puss

[@leopheard]

"I just did few lines" - Zizek

[@pearljamfan3870]

@@leopheard 🤣 yes. . .👃

[@ralphacosta4726]

A good reminder that a democracy must not only hear the wishes of the majority, but must also protect minorities against that majority, else it becomes mob rule. Totally agree with the anecdote about V for Vendetta. It's happened many times that the people who "win" a revolution are not the ones who end up in charge; they seem to forget that the goal is not to overthrow the existing regime, but to be prepared to run the government after the regime is overthrown. Often some other group is organized and prepared to do the second part, typically leading to another oppressive regime. Good talk.

[@ze-gustavo]

Do you know what else leads to oppressive regimes? Years of soul crushing civil war and capitalist sieges.

[@MrZaborskii]

Exactly! We end up with one corrupt government falling and another corrupt government rising to take its place.

[@KufLMAO]

A democracy that protects the rights of those in the ideological (or any other, but especially ideological) minority isn’t necessarily a “good” democracy - its a constitutional one. And that’s fine with me, constitutional democracies are far superior to absolute democracies.

[@potatoheadhaoy]

I think Zizek is asking a great question here that nobody wants to answer, and people like Rawls and Sen made a truly valiant effort trying to answer it. Both in terms of framing societal issues, and defining what a just society is, their ideas and approaches to solving the injustice of circumstance just may have the key to address the very problem of "after the revolution." Rawls wasn't strictly concerned with this gross reappraisal of the working class, or a cultural revolution of tolerance and values, but rather what an institution in which competition could be justified, or where we can minimize unmerited contingencies, etc... would look like. It might sound a bit idealist, but I really think they're onto something and I'm a bit sad nobody really talks about them.

[@williamtell5365]

Well, I'm a fan of Rawls myself. He has a huge influence on American political and legal thinking, though that has ebbed. But I think his ideas are still very compelling and relevant, especially as we confront this new wave of neofascism

[@jonspengler5891]

@@williamtell5365 😂

[@mmclxxii]

well, then you do! talk what you would like to hear be spoken, and maybe we'll speak of your name as one of the great thinkers of the 21st century

[@satyestru]

@@williamtell5365 Would you recommend something good by Rawls to read on this subject, please? :)

[@jo31b]

Thumbs up for V for Vendetta II. I like this sniffly man with all his flaws and face touching.

[@puskajussi37]

Troll Guy He makes my nose itch

[@KhashayarBazyar]

he is right, what about the morning after. but I do believe in Allen badiou's idea, the 4 structures.

[@NathanComstockFuzzyWuzzy]

Such a twitchy MFer, lisping his way to some critical ideas

[@nashwise4everGM]

I guess there's a book for it, read Animal Farm by George Orwell and you will look revolution differently.

[@MrCrashDavi]

Orwell was a Socialist.

[@ale58301]

I wish more people would watch stuff like this to form their political opinions, as opposed to Buzzfeed and Huffington

[@antoniolewis1016]

This guy genuinely sucks balls.

[@a.u5161]

as if this isn't just the buzzfeed of social theory...

[@themaximus144]

I'm not sure I think watching a video like this is the best way to form an opinion. Ideally I'd have everyone find as completely unbiased a news source as humanly possible, and then based on the cold hard facts have them form their own opinion. Only after having them form their own opinion first would I have them look to actual philosophers, and political scientists for modifications, or drastic changes to their already formed opinions. In this way the world would get the benefit of mass inovation from the sheer mass of new ideas being formed, while simultaneously having all of these ideas being politely trimmed, and added too by the smartest among us.

[@saeedbaig4249]

No news source is unbiased. I would think that a better way to have an informed political opinion, rather than trying to guess which news sources are unbiased (which can be difficult, as effective news are subtle in how they serve their bias) is to read different news sources which you KNOW are biased, but from different sources (i.e. mix of left wing and right wing news).

[@themaximus144]

Saeed Baig I did say ideally, meaning not in reality, but in an ideal scenario. That said, I don't think it's impossible for news to be unbiased. Imagine a website which is simply a long boring list of things that have happened without any descriptive vocabulary. For example on 9/11 it might read: "plane struck twin towers". Simple as that. As more concrete details came out it might cite the number dead etc... Just a list of facts. That's something I wish news was more like. And then rather than talk shows with random journalists and people, I would have in depth discussions between leading philosophers and experts and things. and that would be all news would be. just those two things. a list of facts, and philosophical discussion.

[@gaugemix]

watching this 5 years later... it feels more relevant than ever

[@WwarGun]

I don't think so...a lot of his ideas are seen from a "continental philosophy" point of view, which would make him biased against a lot of perspectives. Although I agree with him on the criticism of the left, which seems obvious now seeing CRT in the US and the green deals and thesubversion of a free society and so on and so forth, he seems to unexplicably have pessimism towards the future whilst the right, at least the libertarian "zone" has optimism, especially among the intellectuals. Also, his understanding of technology and the general trends present in the underground movements tend to offer an opportunity for something which might have no precedent if the power grab of the authoritarian "NewWorlders" a.k.a. WEF goes bottoms-up. Also, I don't think he can imagine what will happen when we will get to Mars...

[@EdeYOlorDSZs]

@@WwarGun I see, although his pessimism is justified. In my eyes governments are the agents that have to subvert the negative effects of mature capitalism. Governments have not been proactive enough to battle issues like climate change and wealth inequality (which branches into other societal problems). Zizek ended with a fitting dilemma, we have to reimagine liberal capitalist democracy or face the dire consequences of staying on the same path where economic growth is the absolute greatest good.

[@WwarGun]

@@EdeYOlorDSZs well I'd argue economic growth IS the most important thing from a human perspective since wealth in the nation results in wealth for the people. With the risk of arguing from my limited perspective, I'd like to ask you why & how should we trust the government to accomplish the things you mentioned more than we trust ourselves to do so? Also, having asked that, given the historical precedent of government, how can you trust that: 1. an elected group of officials represents your interests-trying to solve given problem 2. their decision is rationally and unequivocally aimed at solving it. If I may pronounce myself, I strongly believe that inequality isn't even affordable in terms of human cost, since the only place where we're and should be equal is in front of the law and climate change is a stolen scientific concept(most of the proof of global warming is blindly believed by the public while the most important thing, the scientific method, was thrown into the trash). I'd even go further into conflicts of interests and sketchy decisions, but it's too much of a bother for a yt comment, hopefully you can understand.

[@lusigia]

@@WwarGun is quite contradictory don't having enough trust in the goverment to resolve problems but still hoping in his capabilities to enforce the law

[@WwarGun]

@@lusigia "the law" isn't a function of government, it's a function of society. You just presume the opposite because of our current situation.

[@Phi1618033]

If Dracula and Sylvester the Cat had a child he would sound like Zizek.

[@niqhtt]

omg, that is perfect

[@DSoverPSP]

I was thinking William Murderface, but Sylvester works too.

[@deanerhockings-reptilianhu8701]

Perfect!

[@undergroundindy]

Omglol

[@DanEMO592]

His jaw is way too small for his tounge. Could be a contributor. I have the same general facial structure (with too small a jaw) and I have severe sleep apnea. Hopefully he gets checked for it. :o

[@petertaylor6384]

I've rarely heard words so well put together about the state of capitalism and where we are on that particular journey.what a wise guy.

[@thesuccessfulone]

What a wise guy

[@roborbiettinoisgone392]

They call him the west's most dangerous philosopher for a reason

[@Bladerunner5146]

Why did I read that in the Italian mobster accent

[@emiliofajardo6785]

I agree, what an idiot.. oh, I'm sorry, I forgot I'm the only one on this comment section who lived through communism... that's why I think he is an idiot. But go on, keep idealizing the stupidity that keeps proving over and over that doesn't work :)

[@bobcornwell403]

"20% live in the privilege zone, and everyone else is out." That's the past. The 20% are what I call 'the natural middle class', which is a class that appeared in the late middle ages, and has stubbornly existed ever since. These are the professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, and to some extent, skilled tradesmen, whom the ruling class is always willing to pay more, due to supply and demand. The average serf, such as myself, is much more easily replaced, and therefore can be safely paid near subsistence wages. The problems come from two sources: 1.) the tendency of humans to always seek greater privileges for themselves at the expense of others, and 2.) The fact that, in any kind of democracy, the serfs are going to have the majority of the votes. It is for this reason that there is a powerful natural conflict between a market economy and democracy. Market economies are never even handed, because those who have more wealth, not only naturally have much more opportunity, but also can be counted to work very hard to make sure their access to opportunities is not spread out to others, beyond their own family and present peers. In the present day USA, this is becoming more and more painfully obvious. This is not going to be solved by any revolution. Such will merely create a new ruling class (as what happened after the Bolshivic Revolution in Russia, and the similar one in China.) A third problem is that power, in its many forms, is highly addictive. A plain market economy never takes this into account. Nor does communist one. In both cases, the ruling classes become so powerful that they are completely unaccountable. I believe the mid-20th century model, as unsatisfyingly ideologically impure as it may be, is probably the most realistic way to deal with this conflict. A deal is struck: The serfs, such as myself, accept the existence of a privileged class, in exchange for real access to opportunity, and a guaranteed standard of living beyond mere subsistence. Also, I might add, in exchange for this privileged class accepting real accountability, from those beneath them, when they get too greedy and power hungry. We had this, at least to some extent, in the non-communist world, but we failed to admit what it really was, so we could go on believing fairy tales about an inherently self-regulating market place.

[@chicagofineart9546]

Bob, you've got it. The past can offer us many models for improvement. Just because it's past doesn't mean it's obsolete. I'm surprised Zizek had nothing to say about trade unions. This is the backbone of middle class economic security in Europe and conversely the reason why Americans are so at sea financially. For 40+ years American employers has persistently underpaid its employees. Even most of the so called "professional class", the 20% you identified earlier are feeling stretched these past 20 years, certainly since 2008, and are in fear for their children's future. Zizek throws around the word "Democracy" a lot. But in our advanced complex society our democracies must be representational and several degrees removed. How to make it fairly representation, and include minorities and minority opinions fairly is the difficult task ahead.

[@myreadingmapped]

What you describe with your 20% analogy is the Pareto 80-20 Principle where 80% of the wealth or income come from 20% of the population or customers. It is a growing marketing concept because focusing on the 20% means you can make more money by addressing the needs of a wealthier more affluent customer and reduce staff in the process. The rest of your analysis can be related to conservative Senator Barry Goldwater's claim in his book "Without Apologies" that the business lobbying groups the international Trilateral Commission and the US domestic Council on Foreign Relations are working together with politicians to form a one world government with business in control. Having been an elected GOP common councilman I saw how the system is rigged on power. Once elected you become part of an elite group that people seek out for whatever they want and that makes you feel superior and part of a privileged class. You cannot avoid it. Politicians like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul and Elizabeth Warren and I all got into politics thinking we can make a difference. In the end they and I were all isolated and ineffective because the system will not allow it. On the other hand those presidents that allowed corporate CEOs on their cabinets like Secretary of the Treasury succeeded to bail the banks out in the 2008 financial crisis and the wealthy were spared the pain of what the middle class experienced. What the one world government activists expect is that we will eventually accept them as our rulers in order to avoid the chaos they make in our lives. Like how giving us the Internet and social media made us so polarized that fascism is fast replacing a Republic with Democratic principles.

[@lVideoWatcherl]

Your argument is wrong on it's very foundation, because your assumptions are wrong. They are repeated over and over, that it's human nature to always strife for more for oneself, however that is _not automatically_ the case. It's a result of western society, which was, as most sofieties were, built on rigid power structures. But anthropologists today are redefining the idea of inequity and how it even came to be. For example, native american tribes had social structures where they cared for everybody in the tribe, no matter their contribution. The arguments they delivered to European settlers are what influenced many ideas of enlightenment, with some of the prominent intellectuals of the time directly admitting to being influenced by indian ideas and arguments. It seemes as though those tribes had built a far more egalitarian and supportive civilization, in which they elected their leaders and didn't blindly follow them anyhow, but only did so when they saw fit/followed their leader's arguments. In short: greed doesn't have to be part of human society. It is because we let it be.

[@MrXaeb]

@@lVideoWatcherl And we will continue to let it be because it is the inherent nature of human beings to be greedy, to desire conflict and to hold dogmatic beliefs above common sense. I've seen nothing to convince me that those proclivities will change.

[@bens5859]

@@lVideoWatcherl In the indigenous societies you reference, what were the key factors that prevented those with power from abusing it? Was it perhaps the relatively small scale of these societies? If so, I don't see how it can useful as a social model for modern humanity. Societies have to be complex and large in scale. Otherwise, we forfeit centuries of technological advancement in e.g. medicine.

[@michaelpalin8953]

"20% live in the privileged zone, the majority is out, that's the future" Hmm?, that's how capitalism has worked since, I don't know, the 20's at least. I don't think those movies are bringing anything new. In fact, the reason why so many people are showing surprise now at how poorly capitalism is working is because inequality is becoming painfully transparent in the wealthiest countries of the world too, while it was only a problem for the third world before.

[@lordblazer]

NightReaper775 you are way too sheltered.

[@harshitmadan6449]

There is not much difference between 19% and 21%. There are no rigid boundaries. It's a continuous gaussian distribution of wealth, in accordance with capitalist predictions.

[@thelstan8562]

That's not true. If you looked at past, the income inequality was not this large in the 50s and 60s where the US was at its heyday.

[@danielm5161]

I am left leaning but it bugs me when I hear fellow lefty's be "Anti-Establishment". There is a contradiction for a left leaning person to demand MORE from the government while simultaneously being Anti-Establishment. If we want government to cover M4A, UBI, incentivize clean energy, tax corporations more etc.....none of that is "Anti-Establishment". In fact it's suggesting we should increase the income and budget control of the united states governing establishment.

[@abraxasarchon]

@@danielm5161 Exactly, they do not know how it works, they use it to get attention but do not know that the left SHOULD be about working for what you want.

[@technomage6736]

I just wanna hear him say "She sells sea shells by the sea shore" 😆

[@teteteteta2548]

The entire country of Lichtenstein implodes

[@joshua.merrill]

It's just white noise

[@christopherestrada2474]

Fuck you haha. I have the “s” lisp and people would ask me that shit.

[@cloroxbleach7554]

But the value of these shells will fall

[@technomage6736]

@@christopherestrada2474 Ha! 😄

[@j.d.4241]

Zizek: speaks Comments: talks about his gestures Ah, I see how capitalism *redirect* us from being woke here.

[@BlakeZeb]

And so on and so on.

[@lefenec]

"woke"

[@MrCmon113]

Capitalism ate my homework.

[@richardbuckharris189]

"What I believe is a process rather than a finality." ~ Emma Goldman

[@gcgrabodan]

This is brilliant. For someone like me who comes from the left but feels somehowe that they are unable to address todays problems, this sheds a lot of light on the situation.

[@freddynovember5842]

This fellas point is valid

[@fredericklehoux7160]

The left unfortunately attract the disgruntled, unskilled and dysfunctional. The right attract the skilled, selfish and performers. Naturally the right will always outperform the left because their structure is more efficient. That's kinda the message of this video. Don't let the unskilled of the left slow down the ideas and stop them because it end up with wishful thinking and give power to incompetents. The left will win when they will find the leaders that can be on top of their hierarchy and still be just.

[@christopherveld]

That's because you can't just formulate the answer on your own. This isn't a left or right problem, it's a national problem that requires all of us to work on a solution together. That's why I've been pushed away from the left, most of not all are completely unwilling to compromise or even consider a rational conversation with someone that has a different life experience and opinion.

[@freddynovember5842]

@@christopherveld nice! Stay strong. The world needs influences like yours. When we can't get others to really hear the meaning of words we are saying it can be tough. Its refreshing to see someone who us being rational.

[@SantiBernhardt]

and so on

[@mvnkycheez]

and so on

[@ignacioandrade6898]

and so on

[@alrecks619]

and so on

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

@@alrecks619 You folks should look into AA... "AndOnAndOn Anon" :)

[@filip_filso]

and so on

[@LiveLXStudios]

I wonder how many of the internet dwellers yelling "leftist" in the comments actually watched the video. Because this is an incredibly different outlook that the stereotypical 4chan neckbeard definition of them.

[@adamp_]

LX I love how people here think that liberals are leftists.

[@factzilla1868]

Merely using the pejorative "leftist" (a catch-all term for anything non-US-alt-right deriving from Breitbart caricatures) is a pretty good indication you're not exactly dealing with someone open to intelligent discussion or nuance.

[@TehIdiotOne]

That's mostly the american definition of leftism. Since the american political spectrum is so ridicilously far to the right already, pretty much everyone from centrist liberals to revolutionary communists are considered leftists by americans. By doing that, you're putting an awful lot of different views into the same category, which is just plain inaccurate and counterproductive. As far america's problems, it is indeed only going to get worse. Capitalism simply does not have a mechanism to cope without moving to something like a basic income. As you said, these jobs are not coming back, even if they wanted to. Why? Beacuse of automation.

[@messianen]

This is false. In fact there's evidence liberals at this point are much more excluding and close-minded. I talk about things like firing dissenters, judging one's child for dating a partner from another party, etc. - just everyday bigotry. Or, you know, your comment. You just refuse the opponents any semblance of respect. This is more of a position of power than mere pride, so I'm genuinely curious as to what happens next, when liberalism loses its state-enforced influence.

[@messianen]

This is not really an inquisitive approach. You're just parroting things. One could argue that liberals of a very particular sort dominate academia and media, than trace it back to aftershocks of WWII and a small group of intellectuals. Such dominance, once established by luck, tends to self-sustain by means of peer pressure; it's not because a dominating worldview is objectively better, or at least better suited for academia/media. Rural areas are of lesser economic interest and less exposed to influence of liberal institutions, so we might be mixing up cause and effect here. Eventually, cultural inferiority prompts conservatives to resort to anti-intellectualism in their rhetoric, which further divides the population. Etc. The notion of dumbness strikes me as unconvincing. What's the observable difference? 1 IQ point on average, or something in this ballpark (there's some controversy)? By this snobbish logic, liberals should consider African-Americans pure animals, but... well, let's stop here. From where I stand, the differences you guys pride yourselves on are laughable. As for your later point. All that happened is people who considered themselves greatly more intelligent found out they don't know jack squat about their country and were living in an echo chamber. Intelligence is, among other things, an ability to make accurate predictions, so this should have been a humbling experience. But I guess nothing can fix a learning disability. You just found even more confidence in your moral greatness. The problem with racism is you useful idiots made this word impotent with your bullshit accusations, and you're continuing to worsen the situation. Come real racist, you'd be out of words to call him. I advise you read one Scott Alexander guy, a left-leaning Jewish psychiatrist, who summarised the flaws of your position in his post "you're still crying wolf", with great number of proofs and careful reasoning as to why demonising Trump actually is a bad (i.e. dangerous for the people you might not want to hurt) idea. You can find it at slatestarcodex.com. No, really. Look, you can keep making yourself feel good, attacking me with trite talking points about racism, for supposedly having white friends or not enough "Phillipino etc." ones, or voting Trump. But I live in Moscow, Russia (as in, 15 minutes from Putin's place), so this is all kind of absurd (I'm only interested in your politics since I have family in WA). You have no idea how dictators gain power, boy. And how ludicrous even considering the possibility of dictatorship in USA sounds. Or you could learn something new, for change of pace. The choice is yours, but I can guess which you'll make, despite claims of being accepting or whatever.

[@luciferangelica4827]

it seems to me that all revolutions end with the worst faction taking power, because the government involves itself so deeply in the supply chain, or probably more accurately the masters of the supply chain also control government, so when you knock one over the other falls too, so rather than surrendering to defeatism, we need to develop a grass roots system of distribution that won't be disolved by the failure of the dominant power structure

[@sillybillybob123]

"Socialism won't work becase greed is human nature" We may as well decriminalize murder bcause anger is human nature ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@kristbane]

Greed is the reason socialism is needed.

[@sillybillybob123]

***** Lol your definition of greed is quite absurd to say the least. The progression of human morality is repressing our animalistic nature if that means it will put others at harm. That is why murder is illegal. That is why rape is illegal. That is why slavery is illegal even tho it is the cheapest source of labour. That is why a system that exploits vulnerable workers and childrens in developing nations because of greed should be one we work ceaselessly to replace.

[@Inconsecuente]

Anger is temporal, greed is "always" present

[@sillybillybob123]

HOD0R "Never"? I did not declare absolute limits on the human condition.

[@joshuamullins198]

Socialism is, at it's very core, about equality. Now this isnt necessarily a bad thing if taken in moderation, for instance roads, things all pay for and all enjoy, but when you look at situations that most socialists now adays preach, like for example the government makes it so all people make the same income or all people are treated the same regardless of skill or talent whats the point of being exceptional or working hard when someone who does absolute shit at their job makes the same as you? Whats the point of being a doctor and saving lives if all the lives are photo copies and no one cares?

[@matthewheadland7307]

I love this show. They have such a diverse group of people on.

[@jercaldin318]

Ever since Children of Men, I have loved listening to to this man. His ticks are worsening, but he is such a genius. My only concern is that his thoughts on how one can take down the system, or we can overpower the system is preposterous.

[@reanetsemoleleki8219]

What's his connection with Children of Men?

[@jercaldin318]

@@reanetsemoleleki8219 He does a bit on the DVD making of children of men.

[@Oppaletix]

What's his take on overpowering the system? I'm curious lol

[@jhurricanec]

There's no point in taking down a system without one equally cruel or less cruel to make up for one thats objectively taken a vast swathe of people out of ground level proverty. peterson iirc argued that exact point to Zizek in a debate and before Peterson there was Friedman.

[@gregtaylor9806]

Too few are legitimate builders: the hardest work is always the actual design and implementation of any system. Even Zijech, who names the problem exactly, does not provide a solution either. This is a universal problem. On the right and left, inside of politics and outside of politics. So few have the capacity or motivation to actually build something real or to even design something real. Yet,we have endless capacity to fantasize, criticize, argue, ruminate, and blather on about the surface level details of everything. Learn to build things and learn to identify + call out all the empty phrases and nonsense (10:50)

[@tts626]

The title is only slightly off I think. Zizek actually does say "why" there are no alternatives, because people are stuck in 20th century thinking. And he follows with that either we'll invent something new, or we'll be literally living the Hunger Games. Good old Slavoj, always such a ray of sunshine ;)

[@brajeshsingh2391]

I had a brief touch with Zizek in my sociology class. good to know he is alive

[@joecaner]

"20% of people live in the privileged zone. The majority is out. That's the future." No Mr. Žižek. That's the present. The future could be so much worse.

[@Alehzinhah]

The majority is not yet out. But already being led into it. The big question is: how to avoid it? The only perspective we have is either socialism/communism, but I agree that the Marxist theory isn't the answer too. We're lacking new answers.

[@georg3489]

That's actually not very true. I understand that the sensationalised media presentation of world poverty makes it seem like the world is getting more and more poor, and while that seems true on paper, as in, wealth is in a phase of reconcentrating on a smaller group of people similarly to how it did prior to WWI, just to then start dispersing again during the Cold war (in the west), living standarts around the world are rapidly increasing. The book "factfullness" by Hans Rosling expertly shows how inclined humans are to think negatively regardless of societal status or even education, although the truth is often much brighter. But, in fact, living standarts, as in the actual purchasing power of individuals even in developing countries (a category that, as Rosling shows, is presently becoming redundant) is greatly increasing. Thus, the future is in fact looking positive, under free market capitalism, might I add, while living standarts declined under Marxist Socialism.

[@joecaner]

@@georg3489 _“That's actually not very true.”_ - Do you mean…false? Unlike _“free market capitalism”_ *AND* _“Marxist Socialism,”_ *True* and *False* are binary. Don’t equivocate. Own up to your opinions. So the future is bright; we live in the best of all possible worlds, and a rising tide lifts all boats? Whatever you say Candide.

[@georg3489]

@@joecaner Isn't it fun that purely because you have a negative gut reaction to what I am saying as it collides with your negative view on free market capitalism you had to find something in that text that you needed to pounce on? You know what would be productive? Try to find a counter-arguement, use sources, and maybe I will regard you as more than a toxic idiot who can't see over the proverbial edge of his little ideological bubble, where every "fact" needs to nicely sit in it's place so the entire thing doesn't collapse under slight scrutiny. Instead of cooking up your sarcastic counter, (that is devoid of any meaning, as it's message is purely "I don't think so" without any back-up, you maybe should've done some research and try to find contrary evidence.) But you have made writing this comment immeasurably easier by pretty much writing 2 lines that equate to 6 words: "Fuck you, I don't think so."(great line of argumentation there, bravo). Life is a learning experience, and reacting with vitrial to a opposing opinion will not get you anywhere.

[@squamish4244]

Always so upbeat, is Slavoj Zizek. He's been on this "the world is going to hell" train for literally longer than I can remember.

[@levyloup-noe6187]

The world is almost literally going to hell though, wait 50 years and a big portion of the earth will simply be unhabitable.

[@butchcassidy9791]

@@levyloup-noe6187 that's bullshit. The inhabited parts of the world will shift, but the eart won't be mostly uninhabitable. Yes, nature is going to change beyond recognition, but that is not a death sentence. There will be water where there was barren land before, and there will be drought in places once flush with water. The tundra will bloom, for example. It's called climate *change*, not climate cataclysm and for good reason. Of course nearly all of us are going to die or fall into yet **another** dark age of technology, because we will be too busy sucking off our billionaire messiahs and consuming product rather than adapting to the changes in nature, but the earth will be no more or less habitable than before.

[@MrCmon113]

@@levyloup-noe6187 More and more of the world is made habitable all the time. More habitat for humans is exactly what environmentalists complain about.

[@andrewsmith3257]

It is. It's already hell but it will be worse and that is a certainty.

[@ari333prod]

@@MrCmon113 how??

[@dvor3d616]

Zizek Impression: "You thee..." *Rubs nose* *Rubs eyes* *Shakes hands menacingly* *Unbuttons shirt* " ...on the vahn hend ..."

[@djuro14]

__________________👃

[@xPainZzx]

And so on and so on

[@zciliyafilms5508]

I think instead of a debate, he and Peterson should have a hand gesture battle.

[@gregoryborton6598]

pure ideology and sho on

[@jesusislordsavior6343]

DVOR3d It looks more like a tic disorder than something to laugh at.

[@allisonschempf2230]

Thank you for this. America is finally waking up to the fact that the 20th century Western economy was an extreme anomaly. We got more than a little complacent, to say the very least.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@JC P No. It should be galvanizing.

[@humboldthammer]

Borrow + Bomb = The False Profit we the people still follow. The average America IQ is 88 -- sub normal and that's HALF. We are immature, animal-origin evolutionary creatures -- naturally bellicose and quarrelsome, still largely subject to stimulus and response --- until we evolve further. Our immediate supervisors await the day that we take our next HUGE evolutionary step. Epochal Eclipse April 8th 2024. Don't stare at the sun. Matthew 16: 4 Jonah 3: 4-5, 9 Jonah 4: 11

[@derekcraig3617]

Really? Because what's changed? 🤔

[@kamchatmonk]

@Prasanth Thomas Root? Nazi scientists and dollar printer were the root. Of course your country will be at the cutting edge of science if you can print infinite money and just buy scientists and technologies from other countries, while obstructing progress in the rest of the world at the same time, like with sabotaging Iran nuclear program or buying microchip companies and forbidding them to sell tech to China.

[@kamchatmonk]

@Prasanth Thomas Actually necessity being a mother of invention is a myth. Every significant discovery, like internal combustion engine or aviation, are just tiny capstones upon pyramids of iterations that could span centuries into the past. So many inventions could come decades, if not centuries earlier, and so many were forgotten and rediscovered. Besides, my argument still stands: was nuclear power and space exploration borne from free market? Nope, Soviet Union did both first. Most other technological breakthroughs of 20th century were due to arms race, all-government initiatives. Nobody "handed out" nukes to Iran, they were on the verge of coming to that themselves. But that one country that dropped two nuclear bombs on cities fill of civilians, did not want fair play. Because the only thing that is more powerful than greed, is fear of death. Only fear of annihilation can stop imperial ambitions, and only countries with nuclear shield can be safe from predatory warmongering. It's like second amendment, but on a global scale. TSMC is located in Taiwan, that's why USA is heating up the region, preparing it for war. China can produce microchips, but this far they're at 14nm, but the quantity is not sufficient, SMIC covers only about 5% of Chinese market, they rely on TSMC, ASML, and such. And those are practically under American control. TSMC is building a factory in Arizona. Now, if (or rather, when) war over Taiwan is triggered, the factories will be destroyed, and Taiwanese specialists will move where? To USA. Meanwhile, USA is putting sanctions on all microchip companies they control to forbid selling China anything related to production of 10nm microchips or less. Case closed. USA has the exclusive right to dominate microchip manufacturing, while China has to swallow dust and somehow manage by itself. Ukraine war was about access to resources and ability to trade them, while Taiwan war will be about access to technologies. That's how "free market" works. War and government intervention are an integral part of it.

[@marksmod]

... Penetrates the British Parliament *licks lips*

[@suumcuique4530]

This is the real problem and Slavoj Zizek does an amazing job stating the problem and bringing it out to people with fire in their hearts who might postulate an alternative. People have to gather, we need a gathering of people from as many occupations as possible to come together and have a discussion, how an alternative to liberal capitalism could look like. We are in need of a new manifesto.

[@simulacro]

The interviewer didn't want to shake hands with Zizek

[@리주민]

Hes from the future - post covid = no handshakes 😋

[@JimJamTheAdmin]

@@리주민 I love this so much. No pressure to hug, shake hands, or make any physical contact.

[@mphoramathe1801]

It's intriguing that we keep trying to frame the modern world in ideas that are over a hundered years old. It maybe time to recognise the big 3 as just another box we can look outside of

[@emilymcplugger]

Yep. I get tired of hearing criticism of Capitalism’s flaws as “SO YOU WANT COMMUNISM, THEN?” Capitalism is a human construct, a system, one with a variety of flaws. The proponent of the values of capitalism seem to forget that one of capitalism’s supposed strengths is that, if you see something flawed try and create a better version. The world isn’t just socialism or capitalism, it’s what we make it into.

[@akshatsingh5528]

@@emilymcplugger But what do we replace the current systems with? Isn't that the more important question?

[@emilymcplugger]

@ Akshat Singh A better version. Unregulated, unrestricted capitalism is cancerous in its current form. We were told growing up that the people there were super smart and earned it. Too often we have seen this either a) isn’t true or b) their success corrupts them and they think they can deny/manipulate reality causing massive damage to the average man and woman in the street. The safeguards on the current system is inadequate, polluted by lobbyist cash. The bonus structures are ridiculously inflated, bosses think they earn their money when it’s only through their workers efforts that the money rolls in (the exception being artists or sole traders). We need better and we need it now.

[@lindagivembackmychildren109]

@@emilymcplugger well said👍

[@TheFallinhalo]

@@emilymcplugger Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, are much like Foods and ingrediants, on their own, they arent all that great, sometimes even deadly, But mix em together? and you have something splendid, much like foods, its a matter of finding what goes well with what and how much of a certain "ingrediant" otherwise youre results Will vary.

[@icgantshat]

Let me "decode" Zizek and explain all of this in less than "five minutes" at the level of a "twelve-year-old." 'Historically, if during revolutions the left doesn't offer people an alternative, right wing solutions are chosen. Since all 20th century forms of the 'left', anarchism, social democracy and communism are insufficient answers to the inevitable fall of capitalism, we will have to imagine and create a new system that doesn't exist yet. Either we will make this new system soon or disaster will result.' Good luck trying to find out why he thinks none of those alternatives are possible.

[@nicholasmilton8492]

the 20th century has shown these models have failed. At best we have mixed economies. We either come up with a new solution or radically reinvent the 20th century solutions.

[@nuance9000]

icgantshat sooooooo ... thinking in a historical context ... the Enlightenment was in the 17th century, more or less. But Enlightenment ideas didn't become policies until he 18th century (us and French revolutions {and Haiti}). Similarly, the 20th century had a whole wave of different ideas, and now I'd say we have to put it together and make it work. And the problem isn't as simple as Communism v Capitalism since that's China and Vietnam's game now

[@icgantshat]

+Benjamin Krantz I agree mostly. Everything except the description of China as communist.

[@icgantshat]

+TheGkmasta I agree. I don't understand why and he never justified his claim.

[@Miyuki2319]

+icgantshat This video is responding to and trying to explain the violent populist backlash that has been concurrently erupting in many European nations. The unexpected Brexit decision, the elections of conservative leaders across multiple countries, and the sudden rise in nationalist sentiments in these countries are all evidence that there is some generalized discontent among Europe's population. If you question the reasoning of the people involved in these movements and look for commonalities, the largest one is economic. A considerable percentage of people in Europe believe that their current economic system is insufficient to meet their needs. Most of the countries with high economic dissatisfaction have economies that follow liberal ideas, some form of socialism/communism. Therefore, it logically follows that the economic dissatisfaction experienced is caused by a failure of the liberal economies to meet the people's needs. Hence, the creation of this video to discuss the need for alternative solutions.

[@williamtell5365]

I spent time in the Soviet Union during it's last decade. One word that comes to mind immediately is dissipation. There was a general lack of drive and focus, and that seemed to infect all aspects of life. I'm very much a leftist myself, but I've often thought about how a society can keep people motivated the right amount without the grinding problems and viciousness of straight capitalism.

[@cdcanada7182]

He has tourettes or some kind of ticks. It's not his fault. For Christs sake get over it and grow up (everyone who is making fun). Have some fucking empathy! I guess the ones who are making fun are so perfect or something? i fucking doubt it. I am goddamn tired of internet assholes and trolls. This guy is a genius and you only wish you had half his mental capacity.

[@guineapig55555]

you're beautiful

[@publicfigure8272]

Christine D. We're only fucking around. I personally love Zizek.

[@rctecopyright]

+Malaise damn it man!! i wanted to make the thirsty comment. oh well. guess I'll just listen to the content of the video clip. 😞

[@guineapig55555]

Nick Morgan I am thirsty because I know what it is like to be sated ;)

[@arthurobrien7424]

Comments a video of a postmodernist. "Grow up". Sure. Maybe he does attract his intellectual kin, ever thought about that? Also, if he looks like a genius from your prespective , how did you even learn how to write? Could it be you play dumb here?

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

Every time I listen to Zizek, I have to ask myself how is it possible that everyone hasn't come to the same conclusions. His ideas are common sense once you've shed the ideological distractions blinding you to the obvious.

[@matswessling6600]

and common sense is always right?

[@matswessling6600]

? we have "old social democratic wellfare state" in sweden and that works great. We have other problems but that isnt it.

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

@@matswessling6600 No, common sense isn't always right, of course.

[@rogerxavier18]

He’s a philosopher. And nobody cares for philosophy.

[@matswessling6600]

@@rogerxavier18 That is not true. or a catastrophy if it was true. Philosopher has shaped the modern civilization. We need wether we want it or not.

[@patrickholt2270]

There's no concrete social or economic analysis here, so his assertions about what is going on are mere assertions. He may be right, but it's all just a personal impression. In terms of what comes after a toppling of existing power structures, there is no guidebook, and there never has been. Marx left the question open, because his whole idea was collective self-emancipation, not people continuing to be told what to do by someone else claiming to know better, even himself. That's why he preferred the Narodniks to the crass materialist clique around Plekhanov and Vera Zazulich which grew into the RSDWP which split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. They were all about telling the proletariat what to believe and what to do, and inevitably created first a centralised undemocratic party and then a dictatorship. If the idea is collective self-emencipation, then there cannot be a specific plan. You have to enable and encourage masses of people to make the decisions, collectively, for themselves, in the hope and reasonable expectation that they will act sensibly and humanely toward the common good, because they are the common people. Also, people get to learn by trial and error, and making mistakes is the human normal, and even necessary, because it is impossible always to know in advance what is best, and if the public making the workplace decisions, the investment decisions, the policy decisions and so on, get this and that wrong, well, how is that worse than the same propensity to screw up in decison-making by our current elites and power structures, who are only serving their own interests at the expense of the rest of society and the planet? So democratisation is the revolution, and is all the plan there can be. As soon as you demand a pre-set plan, you are setting the stage for the elevation of a new elite and a new form of non-democracy, and the failure both to achieve equality and to do away with oppression. The other thing, as usual, is terminological clarity about what and who is left and what and who is not. Most of the confoundedness and lack of alternative goals and vision of the "left" is caused by the capture of once left political parties by the bourgeoisie, so that they are not in fact left any more, at least for the present, although their reformation or replacement is at last underway. So, the problem is not the left as such, but the right masquerading as left in control of parties like the American Democrats and the French and German Socialist parties, systematically misreading the situation and reacting in exactly the wrong ways.

[@TanveerAhmed]

Great explanation. Much appreciated and very relevant in context of AJK.

[@transsylvanian9100]

No. Marx never agreed with Narodniks. They were delusional, regressive utopians who believed they could turn back time to before capitalism and have some sort of agrarian socialist feudalism, some kind of traditional rural paradise. This was utterly moronic. Marx's views instead align perfectly with those of Lenin and the Bolsheviks because they actually make sense. Lenin was right about nearly everything he wrote just like Marx. If you want socialism in an agrarian, yet undeveloped pre-capitalist, pre-industrial society, Mao is the guy to look to. His theory is consistent with Marxism and his methods have been used successfully or semi-successfully in many less developed countries like those of South America or South East Asia.

[@simonebulletti5092]

Thank you. This is a great comment :)

[@vincentchapa2086]

this is all...I think. From one who grew up under eastern European drudgery. There are alternatives but to get past the money and power that rules and profits from the status quo' is basically impossible to overcome.

[@syfiliskerino1998]

I honestly cannot help but laugh at leftists who call to abolish money or capital seen as the root cause of corruption and oppression when the root cause is human nature over any form of power, be it money or law. The proposition to centralize it is ti seep direct oppression on all via law, whether the government be democratically elected or not. Abolishion of human rights to individualism and property can never exist in democratic practice and it never will.

[@figthorn]

I wish translations were enabled. I wanted to add a Spanish translation because this content is highly relevant to what is happening in PR right now.

[@wdirtymonkey]

8:30 - absolutely on the nail about corporate distraction from issues of pollution.

[@PHOENIXDude57]

" I would sell my mother into slavery..." I

[@damienmarsic]

This is typical Balkan humor :)

[@SuviTuuliAllan]

Indo-Europeans suck arse. Uralics FTW!

[@alamandrax]

Suvi-Tuuli Allan this is so randomly and specifically racist, I love it!

[@PHOENIXDude57]

Damien Marsic I'm aware, I happen to be Balkan. It was just unexpectedly funny

[@jasonbelstone3427]

Slavoj out of context

[@alexanderkim2599]

COVID-19 must had been especially difficult for this gentleman. I pray for his well-being.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

If you don't care about health every disease gets you. That's the only reason diseases exist. Healthy don't get sick.

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

Nah, that's just how he is normally.

[@gomezmario.f]

ikr, he'll be like a covid collector

[@kenmiller3727]

Is he on cocaine?

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

It’s a neurological tic.

[@jonathanymok]

"I would have sold my mother into slavery for a V for Vendetta Part 2" LOL

[@lefenec]

@@G0nxsf Bakounine, Makhno etc..

[@Angelo-uo2gj]

Once you get past the accent, lisp, and nose gestures he actually makes great points

[@T.O.1988]

That could be almost impossible haha

[@mr85grim]

Really? What are those great points you speak of? All I hear is rhetorical posturing. And the way he talks in circles that never go anywhere is painful to listen to.

[@daptor1427]

Even though I may not agree with everything he said, it was interesting to hear what he had to say and how he has a nuanced opinion. Like this guy, I'm not sure yet on whether revolutions work as intended. It probably depends on what kind of revolution it is and whether the people know what to do afterwards. In my opinion, society should be structured to have human needs as the main priority, instead of profit, but it will probably take time to make such a drastic change. I'm still learning about political movements, while being critical of some ideas and interested in others. One example I find interesting to think about is the anarchist idea that we can stop having rulers but still have leaders. Society is so incredibly complicated that I find it hard to stick to a single political ideology. By now, I've learned a small bit about what things could use some change in current society, but I still want to know how people want to fix the problems, so I'll probably do more reading on that. Also one of the points this guy made about majority decisions in democracy is valid: When we listen to the majority, what will happen to the opinions of the minority? It may be a majority of only 51%. If there's one thing we have to remember it's to keep listening to those minorities too. People want to be heard, but it seems like most people talk rather than listen and try to truly understand each other. People also want to feel connected and be involved, so they should be able to express their thoughts and join discussions instead of just praying some people at the top will do the right things. If they can't do those things, it creates more apathy among society, which can be alienating and also very dangerous. If you ask me, I would say we should focus on fixing loneliness as one of our top priorities, since that's where so much misery and suffering comes from. I know this is really vague, but there are several ways to fill this in. Anyway, these are my chaotic ramblings. I'm always interested in hearing other peoples' thoughts about the whole subject.

[@カスカディア国人]

Vertigo Don't worry comrade, i'm working on exactly what Zizek talked about, a new left ideology, you can probably tell by my name what a big basis for my ideas come from, someone who is relatively less known in communist, anarchist, and socialist thinking is Daniel DeLeon, I think he has some smart ideas for America at least, I also believe it or not think Lenin had some really good ideas that could be combined with DeLeon's along with some already existing institutions when it comes to structure of government, of course it's important to remember these guys lived 100 years ago and their situation was different, still I think some ideas of theirs or similar ones would be really good for us, another guy I really want to learn more about on how his policies worked on a nuts and bolts level is Thomas Sankara, the man is a hero, he was a Marxist Leninist,

[@カスカディア国人]

Vertigo oh any way my point was check out Daniel

[@カスカディア国人]

And Thomas. He had some amazing accomplishments in such a short time and I want to learn exactly how he pulled it off.

[@カスカディア国人]

As always don't forget these are humans, and they are flawed individuals just like anyone else, not all of their ideas were good in my opinion, and of course some of the darker things about Lenin in particular may make you uncomfortable, but it's really important to understand what happened to him, why he had to do some of those things, and what civil wars in particular can do to people, especially when you are up against everything the communists had to face from their inception, countries were scared of them because before it was implemented they really thought it would end capitalism around the world, that other countries citizens would follow the Russians, this of course didn't work out that way really, like all of the imperialist countries around the world tried to stop the communists in Russia right after the revolution and they failed, they attempted to economically blockade the Soviets too in order to make everything much more difficult for them, communism in a vacuum would've turned out beautifully, but we don't live in a vacuum, and hence communism as it's been applied needs reforms, some of the things worked beautifully and probably should be retained, others may have to be modified, removed, or completely replaced with something that accomplishes the goal of that policy better. I worry that when we attempt to replace the system that we are going to face some of the same challenges that the communists did. I worry how these challenges might affect us. And I worry about the things we may have to do for the sake of our country's sovereignty and survival if we are opposed the way the communists were. We can't be afraid of radical and uncomfortable solutions to dealing with our oppressors and enemies, we may have to do some illiberal things, kind of how he alludes to here about not always listening to the majority.

[@tantarudragos]

Not human, but maybe the collective or the workers as the main priority. The profit motive is at its core still human centered, but on the individual rather than the collective.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

As a former rightwinger, I've spent the last six or seven years trying to figure out what happened to me as an individual, as well as the broader shift. I think the biggest systemic problem is that oligarchs on the right don't see rightwing politics as a "political" question but business in another form. Spending millions of dollars annually on think tanks and marketing gurus to figure out how to unify the right and fragment the left is just a business decision. At the same time their money creates an intellectual ecosystem where political activity isn't just what people believe or are passionate about, it's their full time job. And rightwing thought leaders are backed by oligarchs' resources. For example, the NYT bestseller list included an annotation for Ben Shapiro's book that a large part of the sales were bulk purchases, and Ayn Rand's writing isn't exactly compelling stuff even when I was a rightwinger. The other side of this is that these things seem cyclical. After the Great Depression there was a worldwide leftward shift. And it wasn't just ordinary people but the elites too saw that change was necessary. And it looks to me that as the existential crises we face today become apparent, that we things oligarchs who lean leftward may be seeing the need for change as no longer merely political in nature. There are absolutely successful leftwing political models. The new deal and its postwar evolutionwas a massively successful socialized-capitalist system, and Nixon almost pushed UBI in the 70s.

[@recarras]

But zizek is still right, the left offers one and some policies, its not an articulated model by itself. I think its because they cling to the class conflict that they cant define a model where cooperation is needed, they focus in the victim issues and not in what makes a victim. In the other hand, right wing views focus on the status quo and the benefit of the winner, where we know that there is only one winner.

[@shepherdsson]

Nice Ukraine flag, you they’re fascist?

[@Seth-Halo]

@@shepherdsson That's not a Ukrainian flag. It's a field of yellow plants under a blue sky. It just happens to look like one. But also Ukrain is not a fascist nation so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by saying "you they are fascist" unless you forgot to say know but since they arnt fascist that can't be it.

[@olivierglowacz1925]

@@Seth-Halo The entire nation isn't fascist but they have plenty of fascist military regiments swimming in Nazi paraphernalia. Also Michael Life is absolutely correct about the Ukrainian flag, which the avatar clearly alludes to, and its use by J.F. Fisher is no surprise since leftists always operate as a collective entity and jump from bandwagon to bandwagon. Currently they are on the Ukrainian bandwagon, hence the Ukrainian flag. In 2020 it was BLM and Artsakh and in 2019 it was Hong Kong and Rojava.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@recarras I do agree with this, with reservations. I have felt for some time that a greater degree of liberal demagoguery is necessary. Unfortunately any ideology that is simple enough to articulate, is less than completely honest. And any ideology that is sufficiently further simplified enough to be taken up as a rallying cry by the masses is even less so.

[@ExistentialMan]

Spot on! Its as if we need a consortium of people from all sides to sit down and hash out every fine detailed idea against eachother. The largest thread ever and perhaps come to a new system of organisation

[@KiDChAoS2k]

I'd like to point out a couple of things I noticed from watching this video. First bigthink.com is a liberal corporate backed entity. Just look at the investors who funded big think " The concept for Big Think, which has been described as a KZbin for ideas, was first developed by Victoria Brown (Co-Founder and CEO) and Peter Hopkins (Co-Founder and President). The pair met while working together at PBS on the Charlie Rose show in 2006. Among the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel of PayPal, Tom Scott of Nantucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers" all of that from the big think wiki. That's the reason they would give such a title to this video. To discourage those that are asking questions about different ideologies ( socialism ). A form of propaganda if you ask me. The problems have become so systemic economically that we now have to ask ourselves is capitalism dying. The reality is capitalism in the advanced economies in the world is stagnant at best, their is no growth. Any attempt to replicate the new deal ( FDR-Social Democracy-Bernie Sanders ) is only a temporary solution at best. Capitalism needs to consume things, if it doesn't it consumes itself. Or as Vladimir Lenin put it " Fascism is Capitalism in decay ". Slavoj Zizek is correct when he says that the left often have their revolutions and provide no real alternative to change. The change that was produced in the 20th century was Stalinism or some form of it. Let me break it down to you that is really " State Capitalism ". Even Vladimir Lenin said that what they achieved in the Soviet Union was that as well. The state gets rid of the private capitalist and now the state decides what to do with the profits. It was a very strict form of it. It was only a matter of time before that type of system broke down too, now the market system as Slavoj says is reaching it peak as well. Id also like to point out that the right doesn't have any real answers either except for replicating old systems of power just like the left is. To quote Mussolini " Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power". The current Chinese model will eventually fail in time as well. They continue to liberalize their banks and markets which in turn open themselves up to more speculation, no longer representing the real economy. The economy globally is slowing down. So the elites have two choices to maintain power and wealth become full blown fascist or create a new economic theory/system. I would suggest people look up a Professor and Marxist economist by the name of Richard Wolff at least he is one of a handful of people that are providing new ideas and directions for a new economic system to emerge. This is really what the left has to do, to talk about things like this. This is how real change can come about. Slavoj, Walter Benjamin is good but why not mention the work of Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno from the Frankfurt school they were better. Finally last but not least, to call the system we are in " Unbridled Capitalism " is a conservative answer in my opinion. It's just plain old capitalism, this is the nature of capitalism period. If you study history you would see these problems pop up over and over again. It's become so global now that they may very well pick a fight with Russia to try and keep the system alive. Only time will tell I suppose.

[@PaulMEdwards]

StArCrAfT2K it seems your prediction is coming true concerning picking a fight with Russia...

[@onetwothree4148]

People have been predicting the imminent collapse of "capitalism" for hundreds of years. The system never collapses. Only the players collapse. The game has hardly changed at all, because none of Marx's condradictions were actually contradictions; they were just things he didn't understand, because he assumed commodities had hidden objective values. They don't. He was completely wrong.

[@MrCmon113]

Capitalism is just the absence of a gang of thugs that prevents you from having a business and the absence of a gang of thugs that prevents you from trading. It's not a "system" in any but the most trivial sense in which everything is a system. You people act as if capitalism was some sort of allele for an economics gene.

[@anarkijex]

what he's basically saying is that, Honorable Ned Stark tried to start a revolution to challenge the status quo, but his revolution was hijacked by the more powerful and influencial Lannisters(GOT Elites), and then the Lannisters controlled the narrative and branded Ned Stark as a traitor. and the common people are stuck with the same old masters who try to perpetuate more of their power.

[@ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869]

Ned wasn’t trying to start a revolution. He was looking for proof that Sercei’s children were not Robert’s. Remember, Eddard was all about honor and duty. Sercei knew the outcry from that if it was public, so she had Eddard put in the black cells, (Geoffrey having him beheaded was his own affair) then gave Robert fortified wine. She also had Lord Jon Arryn murdered as well.

[@aidancaughran]

There is no plan because we are individualized in atomized communities due to capitalism in the digital age. The only way we can develop a plan is by coming together to have actual discourse and create synthesis of ideas. No one person can do it alone, and we have been conditioned to believe that they will.

[@MisterDutch93]

I firmly believe that capitalism is a social/economic paradigm that needs to be replaced, but at the same time we've not yet reached the point where we're capable to invent a new structure. Capitalism has many flaws and few virtues, yet right now it's the only social structure capable of maintaining a (somewhat skewed) balance in our civilization. Our views on the capitalist model will be tested in the future, and I feel at some point we will either fall in stagnation defending it, or take a large hit and recover some time later while trying to change it.

[@scobie187]

SO ITS LIKE BEING IN AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH STRIPPER. YOU TOLERATE AND ACCEPTED IT; NOT BECAUSE ITS GREAT FOR YOU, BUT BECAUSE ITS THE BEST THING YOU MAY HAVE GOING. AND WITH DUE TIME, YOU EVENTUALLY MATRICULATE TO BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH A HORE!

[@MrCmon113]

Capitalism is not a "paradigm", "social structure" or "model". It's just the absence of a law that says that you can't have a business and the absence of a law that says you can't trade.

[@terrorist_nousagi8747]

@@MrCmon113 Capitalism is the acceptance of provate property which causes the disconnection of the workers to the means of production. There is still trade and businesses in any other valid model, and that happens because those things are brought by markets, markets are emergent and no valid economic model that wants markets to stop are worth a grain of salt. Even in a moneyless society you do still trade, maybe you trade your work for resources or the production for services. (Also production for production, etc) And collective owned business are still businesses. Markets, that is business and trades, did exist long before capitalism, ancient Rome did that, capitalism is a idea that did begin not long after the Industrial Revolution, where the workers, that is, for example the shoemakers now were disconnected from the whole process of making the product, shoes, and no worker owned the final product, instead being owned by the owner of the factory (The capitalist class) For some there is no middle, low or high class, only those two class The Proletariat - Which makes their money using its labour The Capitalists - Which makes their money using labour from the workers A Revolution normally ends badly, so it's not a idea I'm a big fan of and it's true we have no viable alternatives to the actual system But the critical opinion against capitalism is not an opinion against market based economics

[@shannow77]

Someone must have been drunk when they came up with the title for this video.

[@djd8e8edjdj]

Not drunk at all,just good old clickbait.

[@randomstuff6006]

He belongs in a south park episode

[@humanaesthetic]

When I first saw this video back in 2016, I barely understood what he was saying, but with all that's happened from then 'til now, his arguments are much clearer and, uncomfortably, seem much more relevant today than before.

[@Oppaletix]

He's a quick learner

[@11thboris]

for all of u that are annoyed by tics of his, i would like u to say that when u are listening to Stephen Hawking

[@messianen]

Well, what? Hawking has little in the way of tics.

[@polymphus]

I think the point is to focus on what is being said, instead of how it's being said.

[@impalabeeper]

Listen to him as you would on a radio.

[@RyanMcIntyre]

Hawking has zero tics and that badass voice.

[@davidsolt9669]

to compare this coke head to Hawkings is hilarious

[@mrage22r]

One way socialism breaks down is when you ask the question: How do you distribute the means of production fairly, equitably, or however you want to phrase is, among the workers? This necessarily requires some form of hierarchy to make these decisions, else you have chaos. In addition, a so-called 'worker's party' would ultimately atomize into special interest groups vying for themselves because people are inherently different. Once you've created a hierarchy, you've essentially given away the power of the worker's to an institution where you have to place your trust that they will do the "right" thing and not abuse their power.

[@TWrecksGaming]

All I can say is I'm glad I turned my notifications on for this channel.

[@Some-RANDOM-IDIOT-On-YouTube]

Can we as a people of this earth imagine a different economic governing structure? My idea, and I have not heard anyone else talk about it, is a redesign of government in that leaders (instead of chosen through elections) are chosen from the people like jury duty (how jurors are chosen) according to a country's demographics. The purpose is to inject new minds or different people into lawmakers positions. This guy is correct in that there is no new ideas on how we as people of this earth can move forward. The old models have failed. Like religion. The big world religions have failed too. And how do we as a people of this earth move forward without destroying the entire planet and ourselves too. People don't talk anymore. We need to start talking to each other. Because the idea on how to move forward is here (someplace on this earth).

[@peanuttasty247]

You should listen to what Yanis Varoufakis has to say maybe. He agrees with you about the use of a "jury-like" system for some governmental positions, similar to ancient Athens. He also has lots of ideas about creating a new form of economy. He's someone who is bringing forth alternative ideas, even if you may disagree with some of them.

[@peanuttasty247]

I forgot that Zizek actually mentions him in the video. While they have disagreements, I think he's worth listening to and understanding.

[@die_lokki287]

It's basically a soviet system.

[@peanuttasty247]

@@die_lokki287 Are you responding to me, or to William James?

[@die_lokki287]

@@peanuttasty247 OP

[@nosafetyswitch9378]

The DAY AFTER V FOR VENDETA! Very good approach.Majority is very often wrong, especially when rationality and logic must be employed to reach some conclusion.

[@HannesRadke]

There's an alternative system: Basic Income + Worker Directed Enterprises (Cooperatives). SOLVED!

[@zeroxcliche]

There are always some great gems but it never goes anywhere with Zizek, he is the movie and needs to find his own sequel.

[@TheHumanPurpleTape]

I was just saying this! He always starts off strong, then he starts to meander & by the end, he's just sniffing his own farts. If there's an audience, it happens even quicker than usual.

[@fernandochueca4213]

It is very interesting because this same problem, of the majority not always being right, was already thought of as early as 1836 (don't know if that is the exact date but around that time) by Alexis de Toqueville in his book The democracy in America.

[@alanlight7740]

Oh, it's much older than that. This is why democracy was rejected over and over again for two thousand years, and why the United States were founded as republics rather than democracies.

[@RedDrowned]

It was thought of as early as Ancient Greece during the trial of Socrates :)

[@silviuvirgil12]

... Is the minority right more often than the majority then? Exactly which minority? How do you select these people? Should they select themselfs, raise their hands? Maybe we should vote for them... Reminds of something

[@tabu123]

To answer his question about what to do after a revolution: Money out of politics would be a good start. A resource based economy would be an extraordinary goal.

[@mouthpiece200]

Resource based economy is trash.

[@tabu123]

mouthpiece200 How so?

[@mouthpiece200]

The problems with resourced based economy depends on how its implemented. But there is no need for resource based economy. For any problem you're trying to solve, there are much easier ways. Based on what I've heard, resource based economy requires central control of resources, which is simply not possible, even with computers. But the exact criticisms depend on exactly what you would plan to do.

[@tabu123]

Well, my inspiration comes from the venus project and the zeitgeist movement. But the idea isn't to have ALL global resources placed in one area. Rather, have resources placed in local city centres. The transportation patterns of commodities in the global market are REALLY wasteful. Especially if you consider our mass consumption based market-economy, where making durable technology isn't profitable, and therefore isn't the top priority for businesses. Today we have the technology and abundance to provide every person in the world with power, food and housing. The problem is that the economic system we have today is based on profits, not the well being of people. Therefore it will be impossible to achieve sustainability, and decent living conditions for everyone, since what is always prioritized before this is monetary gain. I can't say a resource based economy is fool-proof. However, I think it would work a lot better than the market-based economic system we are currently living under.

[@mouthpiece200]

BSGU1 There is no need to send resources to city centers. Nobody knows exactly what resources a city needs except the free market, based on how much people are willing to pay for the resource. There is nothing wrong with current transportation methods. Companies that transport efficiently are more likely to beat companies that don't. If sending resources to city centers was the most efficient way, then people would already be doing it, because it would be profitable. No system can direct the flow of resources better than the free market. Free markets only send resources where they are needed, and only the most efficient routes possible. Very very few companies can profit while purposely sabotaging the durability of their products. If you make a poor-quality product, you're not going to get repeat business when the product breaks. People will buy from your competitors next time around, and your reputation for bad quality will kill your company. People almost always have choices, and if customers want quality, someone will profit by offering it. Plenty of companies offer durability in their products. For solving problems of inequality, there is no need for resourced based economy. If you want wealth spread around more, there is a very easy solution - spread the money around more! It is entirely possible to spread wealth more evening without ruining the market system which created much of the wealth in the first place. Free markets are needed to create the economic incentive to produce, and to ensure maximum efficiency. Lands which embrace free markets over centralized control always get richer.

[@ryanwernlein7653]

I can tell he's a genius but I'm thankful for this transcript

[@Koettnylle]

Everybody: focusing on the title phrasing being misleading Nobody: describes a viable alternative to unbridled capitalism

[@EVL624]

Zizek makes some very good points here, but his understanding of anarchism (which I presume he is alluding to as the third socialist alternativr) is not very strong and seems to conflate actual leftism with progressive liberalism.

[@SadisticSenpai61]

Where did all of our political and economic theories originate? Not with politicians, but with philosophers. So hey, philosophers! Get on that already!

[@Darksilverjesse]

i'm just glad there is a link to the full transcript. with his speech slurred and ticks it's kinda hard to understand him. but he makes an excellent point.

[@LiveLXStudios]

Closed Captioning works.

[@ownedbymykitty270]

Darksilver jesse - I love his quirks!

[@friederkumpf8158]

I totally Agree with the notion of needing new Ideas on the left, even though I still have my problems with sizeks Systemic approach to each problem.

[@danielm5161]

I am left leaning but it bugs me when I hear fellow lefty's be "Anti-Establishment". There is a contradiction for a left leaning person to demand MORE from the government while simultaneously being Anti-Establishment. If we want government to cover M4A, UBI, incentivize clean energy, tax corporations more etc.....none of that is "Anti-Establishment". In fact it's suggesting we should increase the income and budget control of the united states governing establishment.

[@curanki8868]

@@danielm5161 but the only reason that people support giving the government more power (through m4a and all the other things you mentioned) is because those people believe that these programs would make it easier to live in our current society, and I have to agree with them; but that's not the main goal, it's just a way to make capitalism more bearable, the main goal would be to get rid of the state and have these things managed by the society itself (or come up with a better option than this without the need for a state); so I'm pretty sure you can be anti-establishment while still supporting these kinds of programs

[@skydragon23101979]

@@curanki8868 But that is exactly what the presenter is saying you don’t have a coherent plan to get where you want you just know what you don’t want.

[@AlbinosaurusR3X]

@@curanki8868 As someone closer to center-right, though I agree with progressives on some issues, I actually understand the impulse to think capitalism is the problem (since I used to be extremely progressive). However, age/experience, education, and reason gradually pulled me away from such thinking because what you eventually realize is that to date humanity has not seen a better alternative. Anarchism, socialism, tribalism (indigenous; not political), etc are all failures by comparison. Humanity has moved further forward and in record time on the back of capitalism than compared to any other alternative. Even the poorest people in developed capitalist nations are richer than the huge majority of people in other nations. Sure, it can be challenging to live in, but it's considerably easier than any other system (for various reasons, depending on which you compare it to). I'm not going to pretend it's a perfect system, but I do think we would do better to find ways to address its weaknesses than to just throw our hands up and declare the whole thing a lost cause. I also think a healthy reality check would go a long way toward putting things in the proper perspective, because somethings are just pipe dreams: income equality, gender equality, a society and/or government that is free of corruption, etc. Keep in mind too that equality and fairness are nothing alike. If something can be truthfully categorized as one, it is certainly not the other. The only way to make everyone equal is to chop them down to the lowest common denominator, which is what socialism has done in the past with its massive genocides. Fairness is a much more complex idea, but I think all this emphasis on CRT, CGT, or any other C_T you can think of has moved us extremely far from that pursuit. These ideas are founded in bigotry. We'd be better off moving back toward MLK's idea of judging people by the content of their character, for starters, rather than their race, sex, sexuality, income level, or any other identitarian strata.

[@diamondbolton2944]

If human decency is revolutionary then there’s a bigger problem not being discussed but overlooked. True revolution breeds humanity.

[@_Azagoth_]

I think he answered himself - the new technology is forcing change. so surely, sticking with this liberal capitalist model and allowing it to progress gradually will eventually mean that the things Marx and such advocated for will happen, socially, through capitalism, like he suggested? things like UBI seem inevitable, so even people on the right will soon have to accept it. as for private property having private property is something i see as valuable personally, but if it must go, it must go, the current state of communal living is horrendous but it may yet improve. Personally i believe in compassionate capitalism, like the Nordic model, as the system we should stick to as of right now, and that as he says much of the new left does not have a coherent plan and stick to the forceful revolutions of the past. we saw that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and so on tried to force the revolution too quickly, too ruthlessly, when the country was in no state to achieve it, and the latter two too obsess with themselves and were horrendous induviduals. i believe that the means justify the ends, and i think the means by which we can achieve a better world is through moral virtue - build yourself up as an individual, lead by example, pursue what is meaningful. if we all do that, then technology, society, economy will all progress, and naturally the odious corruption and failings of capitalism - and other systems - will reduce, the people on top will become less and less corrupt, why? because with more knowledge we are capable of being more effectively altruistic, not out of pride or ego, but through discovering ways serving ourselves serves others. it is true of the individual, and it is true of the community, and the nation. im not a Marxist, nor a socialist, and i think Marx was too materially focused, and frankly i think the whole perception of history as entirely a class struggle is focused too much on resentment, of focusing on war against another class, rather than the spontaneous, liberal, moral, unorganized revolutions people like say MLKjr ignited - ones based on moral virtue, and finding solidarity among common humanity. no one, not a soul, supports or enjoys corruption, perversion, and the corporatism and monopolies of today - not even the right. i think the answer lies, for both sides, progressing through life as individuals living up to your most moral self, as that means we gain more knowledge, more stability, more solidarity, and thus our society, technology, and economy advance. thus many of the dreams Marx spoke of would be achieved in a realistic, gradual, way that everyone can get on board with(think, even right now, with the accessibility of so much knowledge, its easier than ever to build up our own business and repute, and be the fisherman and critic and the other examples he listed) aside from the fringe narcissists, corrupt bigots, and so on, and a way which actually does cohere with humanity. it will never be perfect, because humans are not perfect. but it is a principle that allows for endless growth and progress, because there is always more to learn, and better, more moral things to do. thats why im optimistic for the future, and thats why i think the system we live in right now does allow for and is allowing this kind of progress, overall. like i said, not perfect, but its better than igniting a total revolution and grinding things to a halt. Marx said that "revolution is the locomotive of history" well what better revolution, than the social, unorganized, spontaneous revolution as living your daily life as an open minded, moral, responsible individual. that is how we achieve a better world, and it is a way by which everyone can partake in. the only obstacles? time, and disruption. Thats my perspective, feel free to dispute.

[@thetwiceapostle6175]

yes, but the problem to your scenario is that, according to what zizek is saying, liberal capitalism is reaching a state in which it is forced to give people a UBI, to provide for healthcare etc because it is the way for them to stay in power, and keep the populace in check. people need healthcare, and there is no money to be gained from exploiting dead people. therefore, capitalism will provide the basic necessities for people to sustain themselves, but at the same time limit this to such an extent that individual development and moral virtue become increasingly rare and scattered. essentially, because the welfare state would be approached from the needs of the corporations down to the individual, instead of the other way around, the UBI and healthcare will be as minimal as possible while retaining the ability to make as much of a profit. yanis varoufakis, who he mentioned in this video, uses the term technofeudalism, which I find very interesting. look it up if youre interested.

[@themajority4374]

这种想法有些幼稚。你主张通过个人的革命实现社会进步，但现实是，不平等的社会和非自由的思想互为因果，同时阻碍社会进步。令人遗憾的是，不用说不平等的社会了，即使是不自由的思想也并不是能轻易改造的。社会存在决定社会意识，社会意识进而影响你个人的意识。思想和社会只能先改造其中一个、再改造另一个，每一次都不可能一蹴而就，如此循环往复才能推动进步。

[@jo31b]

His accent is also easier to understand if you play it at 1.5 speed.

[@HighDeafRadio]

THANK YOU!

[@TeaParty1776]

His accent hides his absurdity.

[@sithlorddread8721]

okay I'm one of the first persons to say the subs(subtitles) are a bit much but this guy deffly needs them because he is highly intellectual and is speaking real shiz

[@sithlorddread8721]

yeah... ...this guy HAS to be coked out af

[@Watcher863]

*sniffs*

[@hugoehhh]

I heard that its a tick and that hes been like that forever.

[@jacobpike5661]

How does an unorganized group of populists administer a massive nation-state after the revolution? They don’t. I think Zizek really cleared something up when he critiques leftist populism and says that the majority isn’t always right from POV of a statesperson. I also think it’s interesting how he abstains from central marxist ideas like a workers’ revolution or centralized party, but also embraces the marxist doctrine of the means of production surpassing the current social organization. It makes you think that any sort of revolution or often-praised “transformation” has to be based on more than just numbers within a nation-state. Anti-imperialism coupled with public appropriation across national boundaries, at once in the global north (specifically the US given the mentioned state of the left in Europe) and the global south, has to take place. There was something in state and rev about the combining of local communes into national ones, which could hypothetically administer those high-tech, abstract means of production like biotech. But barring a revolution in Western countries whose populations are objectively right-skewed the only way for that to happen is pressure from the centers of global extraction and production-China, India, the whole of Africa-which in turn will be suppressed by western powers, domestic capitalists, and govt leaders. Honestly this whole thing is a mess sorry guys.

[@harlockz]

I appreciate Zizek's contribution to unravel the knot of "what you believe will be the society in the future", although he just challenges people to go through what he thinks is an impossible challenge, the reorganization after the revolution. He does not take into consideration the historical contribution of france, spain and USA's revolutionary impulses,(but there is more than these examples) and how it was destroyed by oligarchic power, nor he addresses how to avoid that democracy becomes an oligarchy, which is currently the problem. Marxism is not wrong in its analysis of the historical materialism, might be wrong on the solution: I agree that it goes in the direction of an obstructive force w.r.t. the people creativity, i.e. control. But Zizek cannot, for a moment, express how a highly educated generation could generate mechanisms of thrive out of the capitalistic paradigm: he does not see the enormous amount of human potential which is blocked by the access to the credit. Limited mental ability i say, too much involvement in the current structure: our generation is far more better than his.

[@esotericbeep5923]

And yet where is the solution, what has our generatiom come up with? I don't think we can claim our generation is better without any results.

[@harlockz]

@@esotericbeep5923 This generation is expressing early forms of rebellion and incompatibility with the system they live in, for the moment limited to the use of the information technology -which is going to be amongst the most powerful weapons in the future- and has understood the importance of taking care of their environment and other social themes far different from the superficial movements arose in 68's. The new tendencies of the youth will come up after they elaborate their uprising, but it would not surprise me if they will tackle the challenges of globalization with some sort of regionalism.

[@murraymadness4674]

We had a well working political model in the 50's, corporations tended to stay in their lane and out of politics, the rich were highly taxed, people had jobs and pensions. Perfect not at all, but in terms of capitalism it was working.

[@es-yy2cm]

"corporations tended to stay in their lane and out of politics" Brother I think you need to read more history.

[@PeterEhik]

Working for who though? Wasn’t working for the countries that were under colonialism, people in the imperial core talk about how great the 50s were but they were only great for white people in the west. A lot of that wealth coming in the form of raw materials from the global south. Eventually you reach a growth threshold and there’s 2 options, either you redistribute wealth or you expand to other regions ergo NAFTA and other forms of market expansion also known as globalization not just to sell goods but to get even cheaper labor. You see capitalism needs endless growth, it can’t stop trying to drive down the cost of production and seeking endless exploitation

[@Alehzinhah]

Thing is: you're only considering the western side of the world. People had jobs because there were not as many machines to substitute people, and there were less people too. Now, most production was sent east, and even there people won't be as necessary soon. It's impossible to reproduce the same political structure there was in 50s in US to the whole world.

[@Searchforfulltruth911]

Rich were taxed highly😂😂 bro you really need to read history rich were taxed 1% of income tax and only for top 1% rich people like Rothschild Rockefeller etc and only rich were taxed usa only had high income tax during WW2 because government needed money once they didn't they were supposed to go back to 1% but government decided not to.

[@distortingjack]

V for Vendetta part 2: Watch Mr. Robot season 2.

[@jebremocampo9194]

I am a huge LIBERTARIAN. I mean pure Free Market Capitalism, abolish all nationalised welfare and nationalised health care, destroy the publuc education (or at the very least make it a voucher syatem- but just abolish it), ending all licensing laws, the whole nine yards. But I seem to like this guy. He is someone I could debate against for an entire night and still have him over for a barbeque

[@atomicsmith]

Maybe the best Zizek video I've seen.

[@infxmhc]

Politics are like a tug of war were you're trying to pull your opponent away from an extreme that they don't want to go to themselves.

[@Teralek]

I have to agree with him fully here in this more recent video. Although he doesn't explain himself very well at times. I only think the Nordic social democratic model deserves more praise and hope for the future, than he gives them...

[@sokarsokar]

why in the flying fuck would you do go on and do something that stupid. Last election the biggest party was the racist one. We have just had a liberal minister for "integration (internment)" stealing peoples shit at the, newly borderized, border. Not to mention the liberal social minister who basically told a journalist that non-citizens who were homeless would just have to die in the street. Not her problem.

[@sokarsokar]

I don't know if you know how cold it gets here.

[@WolfieboyMachi]

He's talking about the economic model. Also, the the problems that you're mentioning are problems connected to the political climate and the people's dissatisfaction, not the economic model.

[@andrewjackson7511]

SYNDICAIDRAMON Even the economic model does not deserve praise, atleast not here in Sweden. The right and the left have embraced market liberalism and our civic institutions has sunk to the bottom as A result of mass immigration - since welfare is now tied to citizenship (which is Easy to receive) and not work/taxes payed.

[@DarthKaujas]

our "model" is dying and we are very much as good as neoliberal today. the socdems are bassicly rightist in the cover of leftism as to date

[@bjarbj944]

I would love to hear him dissect the reasons communism has failed so many times in the past and how he sees it being successful in the future. I see some validity in what he’s saying about the majority not always being right, but also cannot overlook the atrocities of former communist states. I wonder how he separates that in a future ideal state.

[@CountingStars333]

He is one of the smartest men addressing the problems of both right/left. Give us an alternative. I wish he was younger ..but okay, I'll read his stuff.

[@ansharora7566]

He have written 75 books.

[@hotrod4d]

There are no alternatives because capitalism has made sure to squash any competition

[@be.stoic1985]

lol. Come on dude, really ? Because communism and fascism were beacons of democracy and brotherhood of nations maybe ? There are no alternatives to capitalism because that's the best we have come up with until now. It sure does not mean it's the best OVERALL, but it sure as hell better than communism or fascism. Capitalism offers SOME free enterprise, A LOT of free speech, SOME government and A LITTLE welfare. Communism and fascism offer NO free enterprise, NO free speech, TOTAL government, A LOT of welfare conditioned by ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE. So, friend, be careful what you wish for....

[@MrCmon113]

The CIA ate my homework.

[@912silver]

There are actually some crucial things the left could do... we do have some concrete ideas... The issue is that if mediatic personalities say that we don't, as done here, people won't even bother to search for those... Some exemples coming from France : - put in place the same borderless taxation as Americans. - declare a maximum revenue and a maximum capital, the rest is taxed. The amount must be variable and decided by an institution itself somewhat independent from the government as is our healthcare. - the constitution needs to be reworked with, for instance, less presidential power (aka less ways for him to bypass existing checks and balances) and another voting systems for better representation (condorcet could work, but there is a debate to have inside the randomly selected constitutional assembly which will rewrite it)... - rebuild the police (better formation, removal of some forces and enhancing others) to be investigating organised crime rather than patrolling and scaring everyone in the hope of catching people red handed. Remove their present goals of numbers of criminal to catch, which incite them to run after the numerous dealers rather than the critical supply lines. - redirect the money from investing in companies to public research, education, and public services. - use the communication plateform of the government and a fraction of school time to explain the social security system, so that citizens can know what rights they have. - lower the controls on wealthfare, as people abusing it cost monumentally less socially than people who should use it and don't. I could go on, and I could be more specific on any of those points about how to do and what exactly to implement. Please... stop saying we don't know what we need to do. We do. The problem is that those in power use all their might to silence and ridicule any credible alternative, and that people believe them and thus go to the old solutions, thus fascists get in power. The problem is not that there is no alternative. The problem is that centrists prefer concentration camps to redistribution.

[@plantfuelled8912]

Politics should now be apolitical as the needs of our continued existence are interwoven with the health of our biosphere. Questions of who or which idealogoy controls the means of our destruction have become largely irrelevant. At this stage I would accept nearly any political system that can give my children a healthy future.