First of all, thank you for your lengthy comment and your effort of translating! I have to say that your point is not yet very clear to me. (and I have to admit that I do not know Deleuze that well) As I understand your comment, ideology is a mechanic assemblage of concepts and ideas, but in this we loose our human nature. But according to Deleuze there is a way for humans to exist without ideology, that is ideas or concepts? Also, what then is the critique on Zizek exactly?

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 My first intention was to point out that ideology, in the way Marx defines it, has to do with the battle of classes and the way that one class dominates over the other. But in the meantime “theory” received another concept that covers similar territory, namely Gramsci’s hegemony, which also had to do with domination. That, along with Althusser’s take, led to further “dithering”, equivocation of the concept. Today, after the death of all meta-narratives, the status of the concept of ideology is such that both Žižek and J. Peterson can legitimately use it “against the other side”, one as signifier that represents the cunning of the neoliberal capitalism, and other as the name for the “pending doom” in the hands of “postmodern-neo-Marxist” university professors from his dreams/nightmares. Deleuze’s and Guattari’s receipt for the fight against constantly renewed and ever more sophisticated means of capitalist state repression was always finding new, “transversal” tools for resistance. Creation of new concepts which clear up layers of historical dust that concepts accumulate. Finally, to answer your question (since my last sentence in the previous comment wasn’t very well thought out), my critique of Žižek is that he’s, imo, pretty reactionary. For example, one could find, in spite of apparent differences, many fundamental similarities with J. Peterson, like the taste for patriarchy, larger or lesser degree of transphobia and unhealthy appetite for the transcendent (Žižek’s atheist Christianisation featuring Hegel). What I personally can not forgive him is the constant straw-manning of Deleuze and Guattari, but nevertheless frequent use of their ideas in philosophical impasses in which he often falls into. He and his Trojka are priests of lack and negation, but didn’t Nietzsche say that, in the last instance, dialectics is nihilism.

@@exlauslegale8534 Thanks again for your reply! With regards to your statement about Zizek and Peterson I do think Zizek is more nuanced than you portray him here. I do agree that Peterson is mostly using Ideology in a negative context only when it suits the situation. But Zizek on the other hand uses it more generally. Whenever we have a motive or reason for something, this is the ideology. We create a version of the world in our mind according to which we think the world should be, and if the "reality" does not match this image, we call it "bad". In this way, Zizek is quite "harsh" on everybody, regardless which "side" you are on. He can both criticize the ideology against capitalism and the view that money should be the end goal, but he can also criticize Marx and his Ideology of class struggle. But the goal is not to criticize the Ideology, rather from a psychoanalyst perspective the goal is to make the person holding the Ideology aware of their views and the possible discrepancies with reality in order to avoid internal conflict (neurosis). You mentioned that Deleuze and Guattari fight against the renewed and ever more sophisticated means of capitalist state repression, but what do you mean here precisely? Is that a critique of the capitalist? With regards to your observation that Zizek straw-mans Deleuze and Guattari, I take your word. But I would like to know more of the works of Deleuze, so is there any particular book that you would recommend? :)

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 It’s not easy to paint a picture of such a vast and complicated philosophy such as DeluzeandGuattari’s in a few YT comments. Where to start reading? There is a short essay “Postscript on the Societies of Control” by Deleuze, but reading only that is similar to J.P.’s reading only “Communist Manifesto”. Another efficient tactic is to start reading from their last book “What is Philosophy?”, and gradually work your way through Deleuze’s “Logic of Sense”, their book on Kafka, D’s “Proust and Signs”, before jumping barefoot in fire of “Anti-Oedipus” and “A Thousand Plateaus”, not to mention “Difference and Repetition”, two books on Spinoza, Nietzsche, or even one of Guattari’s solo works (“Psychoanalysis and Transversality”). It won’t be easy but by reading just one of these I’m sure that you will catch the D&G virus. There is a nice channel on YT called “Quarantine Collective” where you can join in readings of “Anti-Oedipus” chapter by chapter (they are going through details). They have a Discord where they go through other works and connected philosophers: kzfaq.info You can also watch Deleuze’s “film theory” on my channel: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z7aTpcaAzZ2ulac.html Trojka vs. D&G: did you know that Guattari was deemed to succeed Lacan as head of the Lacanian school before nepotism brought Lacan’s son-in-law in Lacan’s place. From this fact you can deduce how well versed Guattari was in Lacanian psychoanalysis, so isn’t it suspicious how Trojka NEVER mentions his name in the course of their infinite theorizing? Lacan’s step up from Freud was in dealing with psychosis (neurosis that you mentioned is not a danger for capitalism) and that is the point where one can differentiate bourgeois from therapeutic analysis, and also this is the connection with schizophrenia (remember the subtitles of two famous books is “Capitalism and Schizophrenia I & II”), which is at the opposite pole of psychosis . Your innocent relationship with Žižek, especially if you are fond of Nietzsche, will be shattered when you catch up with all the details, and you will regard the story of the coffee without cream as a clear indication of nihilism. Try reading those four or five pages of Societies of Control essay, and then we’ll talk…

@@exlauslegale8534 Thank you for your recommendations! I will certainly read some off them! I do like the challenge! I don't know when, but I will get back to you after reading them. :)