Slavoj Žižek: "Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine"

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

Quote:

The least we owe Ukraine is full support, and to do this we need a stronger Nato

And here we have it. When push comes to shove Marxists will always side with the capitalist West over the enemies of ZOG. How can these cretins still call themselves "radical" or "revolutionary"?

Article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/21/pacificsm-is-the-wrong-response-to-the-war-in-ukraine

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Every anti-anti-war person needs to get drafted to fight for their guys, be it Ukraine or Russia.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Zizek isn't a Marxist. It is very strange to see him take this position on the conflict, though. I had taken him for a radical leftist but he seems to be some sort of heterodox left liberal instead.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's not as strange considering Yugoslavia waged a war on his country and neighbouring countries which tried to secede from it. He most definitely sees usefulness in NATO when you're left on your own against the army tanks rolling in and invaders killing your people, just like Putin does in Ukraine (ignoring the "higher" motives at play).

Žižek is your typical 80s-90s Yugo-nostalgic. To him the glory of Yugoslavia isn't as much as in what Tito did regarding worker self-management, if you asked him, the good part of Yugoslavia were the 80s and the 90s, which is when Yugoslavia embraced social libertinism, porno magazines, rock and roll lifestyle, etc. He isn't very fond of coming Slobodan Milošević era either, he's just anti-authoritarian personality kind of guy.

To be honest, most of modern "socialists" from this area are like that, minus the few autistic Titoists.

Basically he's a leftist Dugin, somewhat of an astroturfed and mythical figure at the same time, with some interesting things to say as well.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on Dugin, because to the best of my knowledge he is very different from the description you gave for Zizek.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitik is a meme taken seriously by no one besides Russian neo-Nazis and hysterical westerners who think they've found Putin's foreign policy Bible.

Dugin also believes that the world is ruled by ancient clans of vampires. And that e.g. UNESCO is a continuation of the Freemason order. Just saying.

It's all in his numerous books and articles. I've skimmed through some of them in the past, out of interest. It's, like, Aleister Crowley meets the Protocols of Zion meets /r/conspiracy. Some of the books titles alone could be a hint.

Also, a seemingly good semi-academic article about his supposed influence - "The West Overestimates Aleksandr Dugin’s Influence in Russia".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've only read Conspirology by him (I don't think it's translated into english, it's titled Конспирология - Konsporologija).

It's full of quackery and it's the worst book I've ever read, but not because it's badly written, quite the opposite. Dugin merely describes the existing conspiracy theories regarding secret societies (bankers, freemasons, jews, bolsheviks, sects and mondialists), and he goes really deep into it, it's just that I'm not fond of conspiracist view of the world, I don't think the world is ruled by secret societies (quite the opposite, jews and bankers rule it pretty openly), that they steer the wheel of history, etc., and book is full of symbology which is only self-serving (one secret society in France was represented by Sun and the opposing one by Moon, and their favourite number was 4 and the other one's was 5, trust me bro).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Only the last sentence applied for Dugin. I said "leftist Dugin" because that's the main difference, Dugin is for traditionalist society and Žižek is for social libertinism. I only meant to say they're both astroturfed by the media ("the most dangerous philosopher in the world" versus "the communist superstar") and media always gives them some aura of mystery when writing articles about them (people always experience the moment of hyperreality there when they decide to watch their videos on YouTube and realize they're nothing special).

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I thought Zizek was an organic phenomenon, but now that you mention it, perhaps he is being promoted deliberately. If for all his talk of socialism he is basically a pro-NATO left liberal, it makes perfect sense why he gets so much attention, just like Jordan Peterson - it's a type of system approved dissent. Dugin also gets a disproportional amount of media attention, since Western and especially American media seems to use him for "red baiting" without any of the "red", so to speak.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, although what's odd about Žižek is always presented as old-school style communist, true Marxist, etc. even though he has more in common with Marcuse and Adorno.

Media has abandoned his love for Žižek when he came out against mass immigration into Europe, but yknow, times change, they love him again now that he's fully pro-NATO.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How is he not a Marxist?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To my knowledge, he is a leftist Hegelian. He rejects Marx's intellectual system.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know much about Zizek. I find him difficult to understand. I did see a clip of him recently bringing up the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal.

https://files.catbox.moe/etdsxz.webm

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

relevant tweet

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I can't see it.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

open ya eyes nigga

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lol! No, it looks like I have to create a Twatter account. Not doing that.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i gotchu

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sad that people lime u and keith woods still carry water for them.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

At this point the critiques of Keith Woods that I see do not even make sense anymore. I thought he was supposed to be a Third Worldist anti-Atlanticist Duginist who wants to destroy NATO and Western civilisation. Now you seem to be suggesting that he is in the same camp as jingoistic, system-loving, pro-NATO leftists like Vaush etc. Which one is it? Both can't be true.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I didn't say he was any of those. It's just that people like Woods and Spencer are way too sympathetic to leftists and often try to excuse their behavior or they're sympathetic to marxism in general. Just because the main enemy today is capitalism doesn't mean that marxists are good guys to be loved.

I think Keith is this way due to his IRA symapthies. It's unfortunate that the face of Irish nationalism is occupied by a marxist terrorist organization.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I can't comment on Spencer but I just don't see how Woods is sympathetic to Marxism or to leftists. Woods has offered some very in-depth, elaborate critiques of both Marxism as an intellectual movement and the shapeless, practical woke leftism of today. I think that there are some problems with certain views he holds about politics and morality in the context of imperialism, colonialism, nationalism etc which could possibly be attributed to his Irish nationalist background, but that's a very different thing from having a pro-leftist bias.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like me?