To conclute*

*Tu Konklut

TU KONKLUUT *shniff* [speaks another 45 minutes]

Lol

😂😂😂

Sniffshevic

20 years from now: Zizek murdered by his Nose Nose: "i finally got him to stop touching me :@"

make sense , don t take the piss just because you can t put up an argument against what he s saying

@@cosmicmusicreynolds3266 bruh he's not even trying to argue against him 😂 it's a joke lmao 😂

​@@cosmicmusicreynolds3266 Your hearts in the right place comrde. Its good you care about people and respect : ) Ive made the same mistake. Its so easy to miss the tone, when you cant hear it. Zizeks great sense of humour such as his bridge between the East and West, means im sure he could handle the heat

Sounds exactly like something Trotsky would say though, as Lenin proceeds to attacc

: ( Sad Trotskyist. Were the largest communist org in England atm. Type up Fiona Lali

Lmao you are just jealous the right stormed the capitol and the left didn’t xD

@@sit-insforsithis1568 Zizek just explained why the Left wouldn't.

@@sit-insforsithis1568 and unsurprisingly, once they are in the seat of power, they do not know what to do.

How about neither?

@@sit-insforsithis1568lmfao yeah cause the right famously mounted an effective vanguard party and took over the government and totally didn’t get dog fucked for being half inbred idiots

tf is S05E08

@@disfuncionexe Game of Thrones (GOT) Season 5, episode 8

​@@disfuncionexe "game of thrones, season five episode eight" what he meant. (The joke is presumably that a character in that episode said something similar to Trotsky)

@@TheMoldyMenace game of thrones more like gaym of thrones

Tell that to french 1940

Thanks 👍

Not exactly a classic if this comes only a month before the uprising. Presumably (if Zizek is correct) Lenin wrote this after Trotsky and he talked it out.

@@valq10 1. Read Trotskiy's "Lessons of October", chapter 7 (1924). He admires Lenin for this exact idea and quotes his earlier letter to the party in September, where he already has said about telegraph and telephone and the urgent need for rebellion. 2. "Post, Telegraph, Telephone" is a widely known classic phrase in Russia (and all post-soviet countries), deeply associated with Lenin.

It was more generalized during the years preceding the fall of Yugoslavia. The locus of power was increasingly local police stations. They were the armories, often connected to other vital services like the post office and/or the railroads, and they were nearly unassailable by the political power structure that ostensibly oversaw them. So ... spend a few years flooding these departments with loyalists, militarize them as soon as you have a "threat" to fight against, and bam, you have prebuilt, pretrained, prearmed military bases all over the country.

It would be interesting to know when the discussions took place and to see wether Lenen wrote this before or after the discussion Zizek mentions between him and Trotsky. zizek always like to downplay certain things to mention interesting details, but sometimes it seems more like amusemment, then any real strategy.

I too believe we should rememeber this revolution. The greatest famine in history, the greatest infastructure failures in history, the novel ways to torture, demoralize, and starve a population. Only the revolution in the United States will be more brutal!

@@afoose You do not understand anything about Mao's revolution and rule. China in 1949 had a life expectancy of 44 years, this rose to 65 years in 1976(when Mao died). Free education and healthcare was enforced. The famine happened in a country that had an enormous population and a very primitive agriculture, that is extremely influenced by climate conditions. What you talked about torture and repression is all bullshit. The chinese revolution abolished milenar methods of torture and fighted against the opression of the woman. Finally they were granted equal rights to the man, and arranged marriages were abolished. The flood of the Yellow River, unfavorable temperature, lack of rain, and not to mention the Sino-soviet split, that retired all foreign assistance to China, caused this famine. Only people that do not know history or are part of the privileged classes in society are afraid of the revolution. The proletarians have nothing to fear, since the only thing they will loose is their chains.

@@luizhumberto8802 my friend, I am a friend of the revolution and only see starving reactionaries by the tens of millions as a good thing! Don't you agree?!

@@afoose In the absense of arguments, you used irony. I explained the causes of famine and I talked about the achievements of Mao. If you really care about people starving why you support a system that despite producing enough food to feed 11 billion people in a planet of 7 billion still has 3 million people dying from starvation every year? Anyway, coherence is not a strong characteristic of right wingers.

@@luizhumberto8802 wow you are so ignorant of the horrors of mao. In competition with Hitler for the most evil ruler in history bub. You realized the famine, though partly influenced by climate, happened because mao had to give grain to the Soviet’s to pay for a military industrial complex and to pay stakeholders that Mao had made promises to? Imagine murdering your own people by the MILLIONS to pay for some factories. Sickening. The torture is also extremely true. During the cultural revolution plenty were jailed and tortured, and even those intelligentsia who were spared jailing were stripped of their academia and sent to join the countryside peasants, setting China’s academic progress back by decades. And the totalitarian attempt to rewrite history and destroy all culture that was in direct opposition to their twisted regime happened on the regular. The proletariat was the primary victim of Mao, and only their ignorance and desire to remain unchains can account for their being willing to accept what was the most anti-proletariat regime in possibly the history of the world. Mao’s death was the greatest thing to happen to China.

Haahhaah Love it

Shoot the left?

@@SurzhenkoAndrii what left??? or maybe which left i should ask

@@SurzhenkoAndrii which left??

Yeß

Looooooool

He's also just spitting

No, because this issue is not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. When revolution finally breaks out, every law enforcement agency of every country will go and shut down all internet and telecommunication technology. Because that is their primary function: to protect the rich and powerfull. There is an urgent need for techology that cannot be shut down. Or tapped into.

The revolution will not be televised...it will be posted on KZfaq remember to subscribe and smash that like button over the heads of the ruling class.

Mandela saved the WS from justice.

It's the most European shirt.

dayum. even Trotsky dissed this book. i think Zizek took an L on this one

It is, there’s a link in the description

@@ilikelife2000 Thanks a lot.

How to start a revolution: "We're just gonna kill them!"

1917: Paradigm Shift

@@croisaor2308 unironically, yeah

curzio malaparte

Technique du coup d’Etat by Curzio Malaparte

He was referring to Curzio Malaparte's "Coup d'etat: The technique of revolution". I am staunchly anti-communist but my free-information beliefs compel me to help you find what you need and translate Zizek's sniffling monologues.

I would say just study several revolutions as well and find the parallels & correlations

@@Mahaveez communism is good. wanting a stateless, classless and moneyless society is a good goal.

@@theblackestvoid Yes but the State is such a brute fact of any society that it will never truly disappear, merely recede from view in some bunker complex of massive parallel processors, dictating changes to the classes of variables controlling the subtext of a totally invisible market. Everything is exchanged for one of two things: Time, and Energy. Nothing whatsoever can avoid this basic fact of physics. This is why Žižek is such an anti-ideologue, a kind of quasi-polemicist. He understands all too well that everything else is a Circus, and the Bread will continue to be rationed and engineered in such a way as to provide a smooth declination into the Abyss of an utterly technocratic planet, a global unfurling of Mbembe's Necropolitics into a plutocratic superorganism, higher even perhaps than any multinational corporation, international think tank, or union of polity. That's the big secret, you understand: people aren't mad about the world destroying itself due to human greed and shortsightedness, they aren't self-loathing unless it provides a mechanism to emulate fame via Internet parasocial relationships, and they refuse to acknowledge the brazen power-plays by those with insane amounts of control and influence. This is because every Western Fool, and I think to some extent every aspiring human in developing economies and even under Chinese authority, wishes to emulate these entities, christened by Harari collectively as Homo Deus. Žižek is all to aware that there is nothing short of a technical revolt by the scientific professionals, engineers, and their most promising grad students that will utterly destabilize the capitalist hypersystem , built such as it is on the quickest and most effective commodity of "thought" vis Instagram, Facebook, Google, and so on. They literally call this process monetization, which is merely the software engineer's equivalent of "tokenization", facing outward to the markets. The most sick and dangerous thing I can imagine is actually Chompsky's betrayal of a free and intellectually rigorous global network of educated individuals: that is to say, the embrace not only of physical obsolescence as a strategy, but entirely intellectual bankruptcy via knowledge obsolescence--link rot, perpetual revisions to the corpus, and a wholesale abandonment of a Wikepedia-styled universal system in favor of these totally corrupted networks, which any hacker worth their salt would immediately realize are honeypots.

theblackestvoid your comment made me lose brain cells

Well every good Trotskyist is a Leninist first no?

I hope this was ironically written because otherwise it's pseudo-academic drivel. Sanders Peirce is a completely irrelevant and defunct theorist ... Zizek is prominent Lacanian.

@@inco9943 I'm now assuming that _your_ comment is ironic

​@@inco9943CSP, defunct 😂 Both men are respected in their given fields, but CSP has had a much greater impact.

@@alexjeffrey3981 You're right, it was a silly comment. By now, I especially like what Deleuze does with CSP.

@@inco9943 respect for the growth!

This is what no dialectical materialism does to a mfer

lol? fuck 4chan

4chan through its endless self-criticism and hardcoded opposition to notoriety is pretty much impervious to ideology. Pretty much the only things that can happen there are things literally everyone with the intestinal fortitude to actually go to that site can agree upon.

When 4chan started to mobilize we got anonymous

@@Mahaveez Due its nazis there what are you smoking?

@@israelcrane6424 You define a place by its worst factions, it's not very long before you hate the whole world. I don't rush to make value judgments about people personally. I just tune out the dumbasses and occasionally use my freedom of speech to try to enlighten them.

I completely agree... I think another funny factor is that occidental left parties have adapted so well to the capitalist/partisan mindset that it would be almost impossible to get people like Trotsky on power. That, accompanied by the fact that most occidental citizens are completely detached from "politics", have let us to, instead of having a constant ideological revolution, intermittent, unorganized "bursts" of discontent that are, sadly, relatively easy to control.

The fourth international for life.

@Citizens Arrest You brought absolutely nothing to the theme the opening post talked about. All you said for your entire wall of gibberish is "bolsheviks bad duh". GJ on that

@Citizens Arrest you failed the exam for getting the topic wrong. better luck next time

@Citizens Arrest you are illiterate lul

how will they know to interfere if communications are controlled? how will they fill their cars if oil pipelines are cut? how will they even manage their goons when the power is out and the staffing server is down?

Trotsky was based

Umm.. not even Tankies question the tactical mastermind of Trotsky and that is also what the video talks about. NOT WETHER Trotskyism works. Permanent revolutionary praxis in the 21st century? Please, tell me, how do yoi plan to achieve it?

@@eshitvaprakash6681 you look like youve been in the community for one week

Stalinist: No StAlIn MaDE Go0D ThInG'S Me a Communist Mexican Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist:

Says the Trump supporter You fool

@@googleacount3611 You're the fool who thinks the Soviet Union was a great place to live. It was NEVER a great place to live.

Joel Fry, is that why there is a great longing in Russia and the former Soviet republics to return to the CCCP? Even in far flung Tajikistan the longing is open and palpable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-45446494

Wasn't it?

This comment is incredibly ironic coming from a person who has Che Guevara for their profile picture

​@@jessl1934yeah somebody missed Che's promise sworn to a framed photo of comrade Stalin

@@alexjeffrey3981 I don't want to overstate my influence here but I think this comment made them change their profile picture lmao

It's asmr to me

@@demiiiii intellectual mukbang

Like Lenin. He lived like a bourgois with the mather's heritage. He never fought with red army. He was a pharisee.

@@luxaeterna8555 Like many others, nothing original or special about that. Grover Furr could tell you a lot more.

@@luxaeterna8555 He never fought with the Red Army? He literally created and led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War lol You have Trotsky to thank for their even being a Soviet Union.

The fundamentals of what he's saying can be broken down rather effortlessly, but because you don't believe they can, there is no purpose in discussing this with you, is there? And if you're incapable of summarizing the whole of his statements then how would you be able to claim if I was incorrect or not when you yourself don't seem to believe there is an answer? It's that you've doubted that there is an answer to begin with shows there will never be sufficient enough explanation for you. I would say perhaps you're projecting your own inabilities to grasp concepts well enough to break them down to an easily explained principle or fundamental.

@I never look at replies lol so do it

Curious if including the catch makes it so nobody could do this challenge for any thinker?

@Tavis Enderle Here’s Plato boiling down the concept of Forms in The Republic: “...the particulars are objects of sight but not of intelligence, while the forms are the objects of intelligence but not of sight.” Whether he’s right or wrong about that, he claimed something. He established a concept in one sentence. You can verify it, debunk it, etc. And because it is a coherent concept in and of itself, I can reformulate it for you in one sentence, in simple language, on the fly: “Plato’s forms are the objective parts of reality that we cannot directly perceive with our senses, but the closer we can get to perceiving them, the smarter we are.” See how that works? I can do this with a mountain of different philosophers, because most of them actually say something. Now you try with Zizek.

@@MrClockw3rk Was just a thought about the question and how unfeasible the catch is depending on what you meant by philosophical concepts, for example, particulars or intelligence. Also, it depends on whether one works in a tradition, does interpretive work, or has a silly idea of what constitutes progress such as ones where creating novel ideas is the only thing that matters while excluding contributing to various ways of understanding other thinkers. Meanwhile, Žižek’s popularity stems from bringing Hegel and Lacan together. I don‘t want to blast you with a wall of text, but here is the exercise despite the fact you can find similar claims throughout the German idealist tradition, Deleuze, Aristotle, and probably elsewhere. This doesn’t meet your criteria, which if you understand philosophy as footnotes to Plato, he was a good philosopher to pick because he’s the only person who had original thoughts by definition. 1) Problem Žižek is discussing, 2) my understanding of Markus Gabriel’s understanding of Žižek, 3) Žižek’s claim. For the background, by individuating or determining an object, one distinguishes it from that which it is not (the background/negation). The problem is that determining something requires the distinction between determinacy and indeterminacy while both rely on each other. Žižek believes that this distinction always fails because where one draws the distinction in thought is not represented in the thought as in the case of the distinction between forms and particulars in Plato you provided or identity/noncontradiction, appearance/reality, etc. To quote Gabriel from “The Mythological Being of Reflection” for understanding the point through mathematics as elements/sets: “Even if we think of the empty set, that which it contains, , is still distinguished from {}.” 3) If you're interested, here is Žižek’s original quote with his infamous style from Gabriel’s same essay found in Žižek’s For They Know Not What They Do. Enjoyment as a Political Factor: “reflection, to be sure, ultimately always fails - any positive mark included in the series could never ‘successfully’ represent/reflect the empty space of the inscription of marks. It is, however, this very failure as such which ‘constitutes’ the space of inscription. The ‘place’ of marks is nothing but the void opened by the failure of the re-mark. [...] the very act of reflection as failed constitutes retroactively that which eludes it."