Zizek On Trump

[Leo Gura]

Nice short little video:

 

[Soulbass]

but leo...

what if the current trend on earth right now, is that each individual is being more conscious that "what is really important" is it-self.

within a few years, it will shock nobody that people speak their own "true" (different trues co-exist).

when trump says "global warming is a scam" maybe he's not lying, but he's just speaking his own vision/world.

accepting someone's else "true" is enlarging your world.

[Aeris]

5 minutes ago, Soulbass said:

but leo...

what if the current trend on earth right now, is that each individual is being more conscious that "what is really important" is it-self.

within a few years, it will shock nobody that people speak their own "true" (different trues co-exist).

when trump says "global warming is a scam" maybe he's not lying, but he's just speaking his own vision/world.

accepting someone's else "true" is enlarging your world.

step up above turquoise

___

I kind of hardly can follow the video, his tongue slap too much in his mouth, sadly his voice is a bit annoying, will try to go through.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Aeris

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Soulbass said:

accepting someone's else "true" is enlarging your world.

Accepting Fox New propaganda shrinks your world.

[Forestluv]

I think he offered a nice view at the global level regarding international agreements/laws vs. fragmented global nationalism. I think he was off the mark regarding the type of commentary that resonates with the liberal left. He gave John Oliver as an example of how the liberal left enjoys mocking "ordinary people" through comedy lacking substance. I suppose this is true for a portion of the left and it depends on how one defines "liberal". We could make a distinction between liberal and progressive. Yet the strongest resonance with progressives is not late show comedy, although it may provide relief. I would put the "liberal" group Zizek refers to as more upper Orange / lower Green. I'd put progressives at solid Green and they would resonate much stronger with independent news sources like TYT, Rebel HQ, Majority Report etc. At times they may delve into surface level mockery - yet it is with a cutting edge. Someone like Emma Vigeland is a prototypical solid progressive and she is all gravitas. This is where the depth, energy and passion is within the democratic party driving the transformation Zizek mentioned. I'm not sure if he is unaware how strong this segment is or if his point was that there are too many democrats within the "liberal left" that need to shift over to the "progressive left". I can see clear distinctions between corporate democrats and liberal/progressive democrats - yet I don't see clear distinctions between so-called liberal and progressive playing out. Progressives call out and rally against corporate democrats.

Regarding his Democratic transformation, we are seeing it play out right now: Biden vs. Sanders/Warren. . . And Biden will not be the nominee, even with the support of mainstream media.

[Leo Gura]

@Serotoninluv Zizek is a supporter of Bernie. His position is that he's very much against Neo-Liberal Third Way corporate Democrats such as Joe Biden, Hillary, etc. He wants serious progressivism / social democracy.

Zizek is basically more leftist than even TYT.

[Leo Gura]

Here's a great interview:

 

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura Gotcha - he is criticizing liberals from the left. 

How would you differentiate "liberal" and "progressive"? I did a bit of research and it looks like the main difference is in economics. I found the following definition for liberal:

"Liberals believe the greatest economic value to the populace can be gained from an economy based around private entities owning the means of production (what we call a business) for the express purpose of profit. A key tenet of liberalism is that it endorses the capitalist notion that profit equals value creation"

And a definition of progressive: 

"a progressive is essentially opposed to the central tenets of capitalism, and challenging the assertion that the best way to create maximum economic value is to maximize profits"

So, a liberal would believe private industry should take the lead, while a progressive would believe government should take the lead.

For example, Warren supports an idea to require workers to represent 40% of all boards: capitalism can work when worker power is written into the social contract, but at 40%, capital ultimately still runs the show. This would seem to be a classic liberal view, yet liberalism has shifted so far to the right that  40% social : 60% capital seems progressive. Yet Bernie seems to have a more New Deal style in which workers would have a lot more than 40% of boardrooms. It goes further than a capitalist-lead vision for the economy and that's what makes it progressive. Corporations could probably stomach Warren, yet would be repulsed by Bernie.

Would you consider this a fair view in terms of economics?

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Serotoninluv Of course it's all relative and there's a spectrum. People are free to define these terms however they want.

I would say progressives are usually more left than liberals and progressives really care about making structural reforms to the system without too much concern for maintaining the old norms. One of those old norms is the dogma that capitalism is the only viable system and an absolute good.

To me a progressive cares most about making serious changes to society to improve it. A progressive sees not making enough change as more dangerous than making too much change. Which is the polar opposite of a conservative. A progressive has a vision for how great society could be if we get our shit together and act big as a unit.

Here's a good analysis of this issue:

I consider Kim, Zizek, Bernie, Warren, and TYT progressives.

Definitely not Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. They are centrists.

Basically a progressive understands the inherent limitations and injustice of capitalism. Whereas everyone else is in denial about it.

I consider myself a progressive, but I don't consider myself a socialist. I think there are some serious problems with socialism which socialists are in denial about as well.

[Leo Gura]

Some more:

 

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura So Kim Iverson is saying it's best to focus on economic populism as the top priority and in doing so, social inequalities will improve. This sounds like a good strategy to me. Based on the 2016 election, voters are split into three groups: 1) Economically liberal, socially conservative, 2) Economically liberal, socially liberal and 3) Economically conservative, socially conservative. There are virtually no economically conservative voters, socially liberal voters (which establishment/corporate democrats are chasing). 2/3 of voters are economically liberal - so it is best to have economic populism as top priority. In the chart below, Trump's base of white nationalism is hyper socially conservative, above the 0.5 line on the Y axis ("red meat" conservatives). Economically, he is on the right as he shifts money toward the wealthy, yet isn't afraid to go economically left to cover his ass (he supports subsidies for farmers getting screwed over the China trade war).

It seems the best strategy is go solid economic populism (wealth tax, medicare for all, minimum wage increase) and social moderation - for example, reaffirming now socially moderate positions such as same-sex marriage, basic LGBTQ rights, gender equality. Yet, de-emphasizing socially liberal positions such as decriminalizing illegal immigration and reparations. From the billionaire/corporate perspective, it would be best to suppress authentic economic populism and amplify social division, so the election is decided only on the social X axis. Yet, Trump is way too high up the X axis into white nationalism - hence many Republicans, like Scarramucci and Joe Walsh, saying that Trump is too socially extreme. 

If Democrats can excite the bottom left quandrant primarily with economic populism and win half the upper left quandrant - they win in a landslide. It seems the DNC/corporate democrats are chasing moderates near 0/0 and the right quandrant - there aren't many votes there and it would suck the energy left of the Y axis.

[Leo Gura]

Yes, indeed, populism (aka, democracy) is a good thing. The problem is when right-wingers get a hold of populism. They turn it into ethnocentrism, a la the Nazis in WWII. Trump's populism is a fake populism because of course he doesn't give a shit about fixing systemic income inequality. He's using populism to create a culture war. This is a perversion of populism, which is supposed to be about increase democracy. But the culture war against the SJWs has blinded the right wing so much that they cannot see that democracy is being undermined. While the right wingers satisfy themselves on hating the SJWs, they overlook how the rich are just using this distraction to get richer. The right has misidentified the problem as globalist elite liberals, when in fact the problem is the systemic inequalities of the capitalism status quo. But right wingers cannot see this because they are traditionalists who blindly defend the status quo even if it harms their economic self-interest.

The problem is the status quo needs to change. But conservatives, by their very nature, do not like change. They want to keep things as it was in "the good old days". But because society evolves we cannot ever go back to "the good old days", and they were never really good to begin with for many people. Conservatives create a fantasy/myth of the good old days and deny the reality of a rapidly evolving society. It's no accident that many conservatives deny evolution. They really don't like change. They want the safety of the past. But this cannot happen in an ever-globalizing world. We cannot go back to living as individual isolated nations. The world is too interconnected via technology & trade. The solution is to embrace change and take conscious control of it, rather than letting it unconsciously blindside us. What we need is proactive government, but we aren't getting it because conservatives have demonized proactive government as "big government", "communism", "government overreach", "world domination by liberal elites", etc.

What we need is FDR style government that makes massive investments in domestic improvements and big picture coordination, similar to what we had for the space race. Government can do amazing things like moon landings if they are properly funded and given a clear vision. This requires good leadership.

[kieranperez]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Here's a great interview:

 

There’s a really powerful thing in there where he quotes a friend of his @ 12:09 into this video “a vote for Makron today is a vote for Lepen 4 years from now.” 

I had to pause that and think about that as a voter and also how we look at strategic systematic change down the road.

I thought for example: How Trump for the world actually is progress in that he shows the world certain truths about the nature of selfishness, ethnocentricism, opportunism, division, and much more which brings rise to more collective awareness to the very problems of those issues. Which will create greater inner turmoil within the collective until there’s a collapse and fall of some kind that requires greater unification than prior. As Hegel put it, “break down or break through.” 

He seems to be someone that has a good understanding of the oppprtunity and progress within seemingly ugly times. A bit of a character to watch talk but I think what I find most interesting is the lense at which he looks at things. How it is he’s viewing things. Good political philosophers/scientists (though rare) have a very unique view like that at how they’re framing geopolitical issues. 

[Leo Gura]

He's a very nuanced thinker. Which is a breath of fresh air.

[CreamCat]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nice short little video:

Relativism, Leo. 8 minutes are not short for me.

[CreamCat]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

the inherent limitations and injustice of capitalism

Another instance of relativism. The toxicity of capitalism is relative to era and level of technological development. It is a lot more humane than it used to be around industrial revolution when capitalism was literally toxic industrial materials and weapons for colonizers.

Vulture capitalism is still more humane than colonial-era capitalism.

It seems socialism is also more humane than it used to be between 1900 and 1970.

Pick your poison.

Edited August 25, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But the culture war against the SJWs has blinded the right wing so much that they cannot see that democracy is being undermined. While the right wingers satisfy themselves on hating the SJWs, they overlook how the rich are just using this distraction to get richer.

It's expected. SJWs are loud and conspicuous. Capitalism hides in plain sight.

When you paint yourself as a target and attack others loudly, you will get attacked.

When you become a mosquito and suck blood out of human cows, human cows will just remain lazy. Mosquitos want you to remain as lazy consumers who consume facebook feeds mindlessly and neglect responsibilities like lifting weights and making your body fit.

SJW = Loud targets that want attention

Capitalists = mosquitos that don't want attention

In my point of view, SJWs and lazy consumers both need personal development in order for them to stop complaining and start taking responsibilities for their own lives. They are doing poor job of becoming independent.

Edited August 25, 2019 by CreamCat

[Apparition of Jack]

@Leo Gura Just out of curiosity, where would you put him on the Spiral? You said before in the Zizek vs. Peterson debate that he was most likely stage Green, but would you say he a large degree of Yellow to him, or not really?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

@Leo Gura Just out of curiosity, where would you put him on the Spiral? You said before in the Zizek vs. Peterson debate that he was most likely stage Green, but would you say he a large degree of Yellow to him, or not really?

He's a very complex thinker. Yeah, somewhere between Green & Yellow.

He's probably as high as one can go without direct mystical experiences. That's what he's missing.

[Revolutionary Think]

I like his lisp.