What does it mean to be a Revolutionary today? Marxism 2009

Slavoj Žižek and Alex Callinicos debate the current prospects for revolutionary thought and action. Central to the talk is the question of what Marxism, Hegelianism and materialist dialectics can contribute to understand the modern revolutionary context.

And, there is lots of talk about "cutting off balls". And there's debating wheter it is anti-feminist to tell a joke about raping. Find out for yourself!

Since for my personal tastes this board is a bit too one-sided, I decided to post some of my favorite talks and lectures in a series to expose ATS to some new, non-libertarian ways of thinking about politics and economics. I hope you guys enjoy...

Read about Slavoj here: en.wikipedia.org...

You can see a list of his publications here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Anyways - If anyone is interested in watching this talk and then debating points mentioned - I'll be back to participate. Let's try to focus on the contents and only post if we really want to discuss something :-)




[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

You will be accused of posting communist propaganda, and confusing Capitalism with corporatism, but I really enjoyed the video. Reminded me of being in University Lecture theatre's, where you really have to work hard to understand what is being said.

With regards to cutting off the balls, I would have thought the best solution is to try and not let the horseman rape your wife in the first place?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Haha. That was a very good post. As I've mentioned in the post, I am quite aware that I am going against the established paradigm of this board. But sometimes change is a good thing... *lol*.. (wait until someone sees this as evidence for my being Obamaphile :-) )

On first thought I would completely agree with you; the goal is not the let him rape your wife. But the implication seems to be that he is doing so right now - if so, would you consider the man's strategy as something of a moral victory by his own terms or is it simply the self-delusion of victory by someone who was actually defeated?

I find the question - and the metaphor - quite intruiging. Are we constantly just letting the balls get dusty while our wife is raped? Are we entangled in moral-pseudo victories on some obscure points while we are losing the battle?

Your answer baffles me because I never took the metaphor the way you did. It's quite witty to say that the point is to prevent the raping from taking place in the first place. But can we do that?
I mean, on a personal level - I guess we could. The question is wheter the raping is something that is going on on a personal level - is it something we can personally prevent?
Or is the raping part of the metaphor something that is already taking place? I've always understood it that way.

But ... star for you.. You gave the wittiest answer to the metaphor that I have heard up to now. great post! Thank you very much!

may i suggest that reconsidering things like marxism can only help us understand the role of sreading psycopathic and inhuman ideas around the world, to come to the evil seen today?

www.ponerology.com...

reply to post by mutante


The talk is not about reconsiderng Marxism.

It is about what Marx, Hegel and others offer to help us analyze wat is going on in today's world, and especially what Marxism/Leninism teaches us about the nature of Revolutions and the role of the state.

I'm trying to find some exceprts from the book you linked to, although I already have some reservations...

Try to follow the example of the first poster and actually comment on the content of the lecture - all else seems futile as I am not interested in an ideological debate.

"Marxism" in this context does not mean the Soviet Union or anything like that, here it simply denotes the writing of Marx and his inspirators.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
Since for my personal tastes this board is a bit too one-sided, ,

I am quite aware that I am going against the established paradigm of this board.

The very first thing a leftist will do - anywhere he is - is establish himself as a "minority" or "victim" of the "powers that be".

That is not only what you are doing with these statements ("I am going against the established paradigm of the Board") but incidentally all anti-establishment-theorists also love establishing themselves as the "minority against the evil oppressors".

Therefore you are not at all in the minority here on ATS.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Skyfloating]

Yeah, in order to be fair to your OP I listened to the Video. What an extremist. He openly admits that liberals and socialists are not going far enough and he states that the Ultimate Goal of Marxism is the Destruction of "traditional values" and "capitalism" (which he misrepresents).

All the while I was wondering when the last time was he washed his hair.

reply to post by Skyfloating


So you're calling me a leftist while refusing to comment on the content of the video?

Quite interesting. Can you please look for another thread to go and play these name calling games?

What is the basis of your calling me a leftist? Isn't it possibly that I'm quite the agnostic when it comes to politics but that I have noticed that the Austrians have a comfortable majority on this board?

that is all I was trying to say. It's not that I want to change the "paradigm" of this board - it's not that I want to change the majority. All I wanted to provide was some change of lead theme, you know, as that is healthy for the intellectual climate most of the times?

All that I was trying to imply was that a different angle of view (as opposed to the often discussed Austrian views) might be fruitful in order to stimulate the debate on this board.

How having a taste that prefers a diversity of views to discuss is leftist baffles me. I didn't say I preferr one version or the other, I simply said I think that some diversity may be more entertaining for the debate on this board. Gosh.

And I was naiv enough to laugh at the notion that such a thread must per definition degrade into a witch hunt against "leftists" and "communists"?

I really can't help but notice that all you did was write a knee-jerk response to what you think I believe when the topic of the thread clearly is a debate of what the concept of revolution means after the 20th century.

Feel free to participate as soon as you find something other than a supposed label to comment on.
As for a debate on your perception of my political stance based on this one introduction that I wrote to a youtube video - I'm not interested.

There's plenty of theoretical and practical points made about the nature of a modern revolution in the video - I'd be happy to discuss (not defend) any and all of these points.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yeah, in order to be fair to your OP I listened to the Video. What an extremist. He openly admits that liberals and socialists are not going far enough and he states that the Ultimate Goal of Marxism is the Destruction of "traditional values" and "capitalism" (which he misrepresents).

All the while I was wondering when the last time was he washed his hair.

So the only thing you got from the lecture was an impression on his personal hygiene and one introductory blanket statement about Marxism?

Oh, yes, I totally believe that you're interested in debating and not just looking for a fight. Yawn. As I said, I'll be happy to have a discussion about non-austrian talking points in this board anytime - but I didn't mean talks about shampoo and the communist bogeyman.

I get that the mere mentioning of Marxism irks you. But that shouldn't be the point. Please don't let us get caught up in a silly discussion about the supposed evils of Marxism etc. ... There's plenty of threads for that.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I did look at the video. It contains the same talking points every Marxist brings forth. It contains the same vocabulary and rheotric. I could not make out any difference to countless other marxist-theorists.

If you want my opinion about the video from a neutral standpoint, I think he is doing himself a disservice by denouncing other marxists, socialists and liberals as "not radical enough" for the "real" Revolutionary.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


So you tell me: How does his message differ from that of other marxists in History?

In that it finally gives up the notion of the Soviet Union being a model for Marxism?

But what is a Model? Venezuela?

I can't help the notion that you've already labeled me a Marxist, which I am not.

If you are not I apologize. But everything you have said thus far indicates that you sympathize with Marxism. Which is fine. Dont worry, Im not trying to oppress you.

Im just trying to find out how this "real revolutionary" differs - something you have partially answered.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Skyfloating]

I would have thought that the most interesting points made revolve around his revision of Walter Benjamins thesis that every fascism is the product of a failed revolution applied to Kansas, Colorado and Afghanistan.

Another point I found highly interesting was the framing of the ecological issues of this century as just another aspect of proletarization. It's a quite intruiging idea.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

In some weird glitch my post appears as yours, so I am reposting here.

In that it finally gives up the notion of the Soviet Union being a model for Marxism?

But what is a Model? Venezuela?

I can't help the notion that you've already labeled me a Marxist, which I am not.

If you are not I apologize. But everything you have said thus far indicates that you sympathize with Marxism. Which is fine. Dont worry, Im not trying to oppress you.

Im just trying to find out how "revolution today" differs from "revolution yesterday" - something you have partially answered.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Wow.. Talk about freaky things.. lol-...

Firstly... No, I am not a Marxist. I have read Marx though and I do believe that he was spot on regarding some things - but I also believe that he was quite naive, teleological and too ideological when it comes to others.

Also, I think you are misreading the gist of this lecture. These are not Marxist-Politicians that want to get elected or be the leaders of the revolution. The gist of the lecture is analytical, it is not about making a revolution but more about what can be learned from a Marxist perspective about the nature of Revolutions now that the 20th century is over. You should regard it as critical analysis more than propaganda - these are not politicians.

And no, they do not want to emulate any country. Not the Soviet Union, not Venezuela. I remember attending a talk by Zizek 2 years ago where he mocked Chavez to be a bona fide case of Bonapartism, which, in Marxist terminology, is about the harshest accusation that can be made.

You should not confuse the writings of Marx with the actions of Lenin and Stalin.

Zizek, in this debate, delves into the question how the writings of Marx can help us to contextualize modern struggles that have revolutionary implications such as globalization and the whole ecological issue. They are not promoting themselves as politicans or as leaders. This is armchair-revolutionism, trying to get to cope with the theoretical implications and lessons that revolutions, or, their non-existence pose to us.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]