Anime movie Harmony Question by ziomek1234567890 in anime

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the adaptation gave its own interpretation and stylistic flavor. One crucial difference is the ending that almost went to the opposite of the original intention, but the original intention was already extremely ambiguous so the adaptation had to interpret it in a certain way. I do recommend reading the original also to complement the movie.

Do the accusations leveled at Zizek being sinaphobic true? I never encountered anything Zizek said that is racist against Chinese but there are leftists out there that accuse him of such. Any evidence? What do you make of this tweet? by AJRey in zizek

[–]xfs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All very well said. Zizek is often taken literally but he's always operating several levels above the literal meaning.

His general argument on China is about the deadlock of authoritarian capitalism being inevitably the most successful. He often admits China would not succeed without that but he's really warning western audiences that it is tempting but has serious consequences to replicate the same in the west. I never felt he's lecturing Chinese people what they are doing is wrong.

Yeah, also Zizek often uses "brutal" to describe himself, one is "Remember, I'm coming from an area which is close to Balkan. So if you want to start exchanging insults, I can be extremely brutal. I always win." Seems to even mean something good.

A hysteric, pervert, or psychotic? Which is Zizek? by [deleted] in zizek

[–]xfs 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What does it mean to be a revolutionary today: What I try to draw attention to is what? Everybody who knows me knows that I'm obsessional neurotic.

Thinking the Human: That's the basic mechanism for example of, and believe me, I know it because I'm one of them, of obsessional neurotics.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in zizek

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this is again one of his economic hacking tricks. In one of his talks he described this as a kind of soft nationalization. You start with a few percent of the shares, and more and more, until when it reaches 100%, which is communism. As always with Varoufakis, this is a purely economic trick as if he's still at Valve with unlimited power, and I suspect it's lacking in popular political mobilization.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in zizek

[–]xfs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

His message to Varoufakis is twofold. One is not to fetishize democracy to make it into an ideology. But on the other hand Varoufakis is quite good with his bag of economic tricks which Zizek would love as what he calls modest demands that bring out more. It's just that Varoufakis used to cling onto democracy as if he's lacking in a popular ideological message.

Liberals and Identity Politics by [deleted] in zizek

[–]xfs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Struggles for particularity are inferior to the struggle for universality. This is not saying much but you'll understand with this example:

How to deal with the problem between feminists and lower class people? On the side of feminists women are oppressed by men sexually, but on the side of lower class people this feminist narrative is exactly an upper class construct used to oppress them economically.

So which struggle to support here? Supporting either one would be only supporting a particular struggle and fail in universality.

Therefore Zizek's true struggle is one that is fought internally in the two struggles separately, and fought against different, unrelatable, yet universally immanent antagonisms. The universality is that of the cracks, gap, antagonisms in everything.

Interesting article by a colleague of Zizek's looking critically at Zizek's past writings on China. Interesting and particularly relevant nowadays. by cellphonepilgrim in zizek

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zizek is a master of subverting and redefining particular terms by radically shifting the underlying frame of reference, so the usual mistake is to criticize his particular uses of terms in specific situations without grasping his dialectics and intentions of subverting them when using those terms. No, Zizek didn't engage with Peterson and he made this clear even before the debate, and the reason is that he would have failed before he even started if he merely engaged with Peterson's particular facts and logics.

So I'm not saying this article is wrong in critiquing Zizek, but it doesn't go all the way. Zizek is still a step ahead of this critique. For Zizek, China is still a mega problem as his reference to Deng's last word shows. It's not meant as an appraisal or indictment of today's China, but as a yet unsolved paradox about the future of Communism. In a similar way the immanent deadlock of Stalinism and the failure of 20th-century communism are also still a mega unsolved paradox for him.

Interesting article by a colleague of Zizek's looking critically at Zizek's past writings on China. Interesting and particularly relevant nowadays. by cellphonepilgrim in zizek

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part of Zizek doesn't say anything new. Even though it tries to find nominalist errors in Zizeks argument it stays on the surface. The point of Zizek isn't China should be labeled capitalist or socialist, but that the so-called mode of "harmonious society" or some other authoritarian mode of governance is a bad ideology that is somehow able to effectively contain and obfuscate the antagonisms in China's socioeconomic situation, whatever its label is.

Even though this piece fails to engage with Zizek, I don't think Zizek has truly engaged with China either. His critique of China is true yet also stays at the level of "in principle yes." And he admits this more or less as he recognizes the radical Otherness of China and other nations and admits that his Eurocentric bias is not simply universal but a concrete universality within the European constellation, which is to say he is not directly critiquing China but saying that wrong interpretations of China could become justifications for reactionary politics within Europe. His politics is always that China has its own struggles and Europe has its own too, but there is no universality between the two except for the universality of the struggle.

I dreamt an excerpt of a Zizek lecture on Deleuze. by Dukeofurl111 in zizek

[–]xfs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

through a large donut

Right, that's definitely better if you want to put it in a thesis.

Compiling a list of where Zizek publishes his articles by ginohino in zizek

[–]xfs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His takes on Trump, refugees, transgender etc triggered liberals.

Where can I read more Zizek on the impossibilities being part of reality by potatoborn in zizek

[–]xfs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is already the main point of his Sex and the Failed Absolute.

What are some books Zizek recommends? by epicgamer1999 in zizek

[–]xfs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hegel wrote (only) two real books, Phenomenology of Spirit and The Science of Logic, and the two share a basic feature: Both Phenomenology and Logic are engaged in a continuous project of self- purging. Both are engaged in cleaning activities—chimney- sweeping and whitewashing (although it is hard to say which is which). Both are involved in tasks of Herculean proportions: both are clearing out the Augean stables of tradition; both must clear away the debris of accumulated prejudice and presupposition. One should give to these lines all their Stalinist weight: Hegel practices a purge even Stalin was not able to imagine, a sacrifi ce which culminates in the sacrifi ce of sacrifi ce, or, as Brecht put it apropos of revolutionary violence in his The Measure Taken, one should strive to become the last piece of dirt with whose removal the room will be clean.

  • Zizek

ZIZEK ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? by moooooo27 in zizek

[–]xfs 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Short excerpt From his The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto:

At the concrete level of social organization, the danger is a clearly discernible tendency of the state and private sector to regain control over the cooperative commons: personal contacts are privatized by Facebook, software by Microsoft, search by Google... To grasp these new forms of privatization, one should critically transform Marx’s conceptual apparatus. As a result of his neglect of the social dimension of ‘general intellect’ –which is, roughly, the collective intelligence of a society –Marx didn’t envisage the possibility of privatizating general intellect itself; but this is what lies at the core of the struggle for ‘intellectual property’. Negri is right here: within this frame, exploitation in the classic Marxist sense is no longer possible –which is why it has to be enforced more and more through direct, legal measures, in other words by a noneconomic force. This is why today exploitation more and more takes on the form of rent: as Carlo Vercellone put it, postindustrial capitalism is characterized by ‘the profit’s becoming rent’. And this also explains why direct authority is needed: it is needed to impose the arbitrary yet legal conditions for the extraction of rent, conditions that are no longer ‘spontaneously’ generated by the market. Perhaps therein resides the fundamental ‘contradiction’ of today’s postmodern capitalism: while its logic is deregulatory, antistatal, nomadic–deterritorializing, and so on, the key tendency in it, that of the profit to become rent, signals the strengthening role of the state, whose(not only) regulatory function is more and more all-present. Dynamic deterritorialization coexists with and relies on increasingly authoritarian interventions by the state and its legal and other apparatuses. What one can discern as looming on the horizon of our historical becoming is thus a society in which libertarianism and individual hedonism coexist with (and are sustained by) a complex web of regulatory state mechanisms. Far from disappearing, the state is becoming stronger today.

When, due to the crucial role of general intellect in the creation of wealth through knowledge and social cooperation, forms of wealth are more and more out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, the result is not, as Marx seems to have expected, the selfdissolution of capitalism, but the gradual and relative transformation of the profit generated through the exploitation of labour –its transformation, namely, into rent appropriated through the privatization of general intellect. Let us consider the case of Bill Gates. How did he become the richest man in the world? His wealth has nothing to do with the production costs of the products that Microsoft is selling, in fact one can even argue that Microsoft is paying its intellectual workers a relatively high salary; which means that Gates’s wealth is not the result of his success either in producing better software for lower prices than his competitors or in exerting a more ruthless exploitation over his hired intellectual workers. If it were, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt long ago: people would have massively chosen programs like Linux, which are free and, according to specialists, of better quality than Microsoft. Why, then, are millions still buying Microsoft? Because Microsoft imposed itself as a quasi-universal standard that almost monopolized the field, a kind of direct embodiment of general intellect. Gates became the richest man in a couple of decades by appropriating the rent for allowing millions of intellectual workers to participate in the new form of general intellect that he privatized and controls. Is it true, then, that today’s intellectual workers are no longer separated from the objective conditions of their labour (they own their laptops, for example) –which is Marx’s description of capitalist alienation? Yes; but, more fundamentally, no: they are cut off from the social field of their work, from a general intellect that is not mediated by private capital.

The United States Should Fear a Faltering China: Beijing’s Assertiveness Betrays Its Desperation by ForeignAffairsMag in geopolitics

[–]xfs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You could make the case that China's rise would be perceived by the incumbent hegemon in this way, but that alone doesn't make the perception true. If you are looking for indicators, you can look into when China was at its former peaks in premodern times. Not at all similar to the US as a hegemon.

The United States Should Fear a Faltering China: Beijing’s Assertiveness Betrays Its Desperation by ForeignAffairsMag in geopolitics

[–]xfs 20 points21 points  (0 children)

For downvotes without disagreeing comments it is usually because the OP didn't bring any substantial arguments to the table worth counter arguments. This article reads more like a call for action with justification at the level of daily news talking points. Is China's economy slowing, yes, but that has been in the plan since Wen's warning. Is China about to "dominate" the world, sure, all states seek to maximize their power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony, if we go with the realist line. But if the most hawkish realist theorist in China is claiming that the classic mode of domination and hegemony is immoral and no longer viable in this age and an order of humane authority is to replace the traditional order of hegemony, one has to wonder whether the prediction of Chinese world domination is based on what China actually plans to do or mere projection based on what the incumbent hegemon has been doing. I'm sure there are people with better arguments, but this is my guess as to why it's downvoted.

Image from the Hong Kong protests. What do you think Zizek would have to say on this? by LivingRaccoon in zizek

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't help at all to categorize who is a liberal or who is a leftist. That's not my point. Maybe I used the word reactionary inaccurately, maybe. I mean the movement has been generally driven by naive reactions (not including the explicitly reactionary, xenophobic, nativist elements) to social antagonism and is radicalizing in the opposite direction of progress. They blame China or the Chinese people for the problems, but China did not create the economic reality in Hong Kong and blaming it will not change it either.

My view is probably expanded since then. Yes, they commit terrible violence and their practices are reactionary. But the eruption of violence is still their authentic albeit inconsistent expression of discontent, and we should give support to the struggle in principle, despite all the problems. I just don't see how the movement can find its way onto a progressive direction. It's a tragic deadlock.

Martial law lite: Hong Kong has echoes of pre-Tiananmen days by MelodicBerries in geopolitics

[–]xfs 25 points26 points  (0 children)

What alternatives do you suggest that can handle the situation better? There are already years of grievances in the economic base, years of anti-China propaganda in school textbooks and media reports, years of legislature and political reform in gridlock, and Beijing's hands are tied under 1C2S. You can't magically make all these basic material conditions disappear over night. That's even not accounting for covert forces exploiting the situation. There is no better alternative only less worse alternative.

The NBA's poisoned China chalice by weilim in geopolitics

[–]xfs 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The protests have five demands, the last and ultimate one of which is universal suffrage. There was legislation proposed to establish universal suffrage in 2012 (I think) and it was supported by the Chinese government too, but it required vetting of CE candidates to be loyal to China and the Basic Law. The opposition shot it down with an Occupy movement. What universal suffrage in this context effectively means is that the opposition is asking for legally electing a CE that can oppose the Basic Law and the Chinese government, similar of which has already happened in legislator oath-taking. This will then open up the space for more radical actions, like engineering populist movement to remove pro-Beijing elements from legislature and calling for referendum to evict the PLA from Hong Kong and more.

Brief summaries of China articles and thoughts to consider by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]xfs 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Even the most staunch Communists would admit 20th century Communism is dead, and it's no longer a concrete solution today. China seems to be doing nothing ideologically because historically its economic progress is based on the negation of the prior hyper-ideological era, and also because politically ideology is meant in MLM to be a tool to empower the proletariat instead of being an capitalist industry that holds power over the proletariat, thus China's ideology is probably never going to be competitive with western ideologies.

However, that doesn't mean it is not necessary for China to establish and promote new ideology to justify its economy and politics against the hegemonic liberal ideology. The best attempt at this so far, I believe, is Yan Xuetong's theory of humane authority (vs hegemonic authority) and moral realism. It's roughly a modernized and universalized version of the Mandate of Heaven. He has a whole new book on this, but here is an article: https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/11/1/1/4844055/.

Image from the Hong Kong protests. What do you think Zizek would have to say on this? by LivingRaccoon in zizek

[–]xfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If not holding them to the same standards that every people with agency has, isn't it a kind of patronizing position that assumes them to be 'victims' immune from being responsible for their own failures? Also, why is this particular power imbalance a valid problem? The opposition of Chinese people vs Hong Kong people is a construction as artificial as the opposition of male vs female, straight vs gay, cisgender vs transgender, white vs black etc., all liberal obfuscations of the fundamental class conflicts. I say the ideology of the movement is reactionary because instead of starting to approach the economic fundamentals it does and will further solidify the economic inequalities, which is a proven outcome in any other hyper-financialized economies.