“Going high when they go low” isn’t a sound strategy when someone threatens to kill. This underestimation and softness is what leads to the authoritarianism on either side. Nothing wrong with dipping one’s hand into the mud once in a while without fully bathing one’s self into the mud. Even Slavoj Zizek advocated for having a “soft dictator” like Franklin Roosevelt to counter extremism.
Slavoj Zizek also advocated for voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and says that “transgenderism is incompatible with Freud”, so his advocacy doesn’t count for much AFAIAC.
Well, Freud was the first to say (or at least the first to popularise) ideas that - in retrospect - should be obvious, like that human behaviour is motivated by unconscious drives, or that past trauma influences your current behaviour. However most of his theories about how the unconscious works were basically unfalsifiable and based on nothing more that his own interpretation of what he’s noticed about his own patients (though to be fair, I think that’s mostly the case for most of psychology). I think a lot of the early psychology of Freud, Adler, and Jung is quite enmeshed with the philosophy of Nietzsche (who said some truly wild about human nature without providing a single source) and remains more popular than it should be for that reason.
I don’t know about his comment on transgenderism, but Slavoj advocating to vote Trump is more about shaking up the liberal status quo to wake them up and actually do a better job, rather than him supporting Trump, and also to do away with Democrat Party’s mantra of “vote blue no matter” and their proud label of “lesser evil”. Come Trump 2.0, his reasoning proved to be prescient and correct. The Democrat leadership are fighting harder to stop the progressive Zohran Mamdani taking power as New York Democrat mayor, than actually stopping the Republican fascist agenda. As we speak, the Democrat betting on the “voting blue no matter who” is starting to crumble from the POV of voters as outsider progressives are slowly gaining ground.
I don’t think his reasoning was prescient and correct, though.
If Trump wins, both big parties, Republicans and Democratics, would have to return to basics, rethink themselves, and maybe some things can happen there. That’s my desperate, very desperate hope, that if Trump wins—listen, America is not a dictatorial state, he will not introduce Fascism—but it will be a kind of big awakening. New political processes will be set in motion, will be triggered.
he will not introduce Fascism
Neither party rethought anything (your point about Mamdani shows just how little the Dems have rethought) and now the US is rounding people up to put them in camps.
And re. the transgenderism/Freud comment, I think it mostly serves to show that he puts way more stock in Freud than he should, because Freudian psychology is largely a load of wank.
(Yes, the use of a sexually based pejorative to disparage Freud was deliberate. Please appreciate my clever joke.)
To be honest, a lot of people including me did not expect Trump to go full fascist. His first term was described as fascist-lite at best and many wrongly thought he will continue with that approach. Of course, we were wrong and paying for it dearly.
Going back to the main point of the discussion. Zizek may have been wrong about Trump’s fascism, but his point overall about shaking up the status quo is correct. It is wake up call for implementing actual reform and reflection. Practically it did not happen in the way that Zizek and others may have anticipated, but it is still clear that the sign of times is meant for engaging practical and reform solutions towards betterment of ordinary folks. If you talk to many conservatives and on the right, many of them actually agree that wealth inequality is a problem and don’t believe in trickle down economics. Many on the right are actually willing to vote left if the left offers tangible solutionsbto bread and butter, or kitchen table issues. As we speak, Zohran Mamdani is getting popular support for his common sense policies. AOC and Bernie Sanders are continually drawing record crowds in their national tour even in Republican states.
This is a sign that what Zizek mentions about shaking things up by electing outsiders to prompt soul searching is working among ordinary voters, even if both Democratic and Republican party elites are not doing so because why would they.
Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we’re also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can’t find the source, I’m sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies “welfare”. [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek’s qualified support for Trump’s first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn’t worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.
Y’all both sound like children.
“Going high when they go low” isn’t a sound strategy when someone threatens to kill. This underestimation and softness is what leads to the authoritarianism on either side. Nothing wrong with dipping one’s hand into the mud once in a while without fully bathing one’s self into the mud. Even Slavoj Zizek advocated for having a “soft dictator” like Franklin Roosevelt to counter extremism.
OMG no one cares!
deleted by creator
Slavoj Zizek also advocated for voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and says that “transgenderism is incompatible with Freud”, so his advocacy doesn’t count for much AFAIAC.
Wasn’t Freud massively debunked?
Well, Freud was the first to say (or at least the first to popularise) ideas that - in retrospect - should be obvious, like that human behaviour is motivated by unconscious drives, or that past trauma influences your current behaviour. However most of his theories about how the unconscious works were basically unfalsifiable and based on nothing more that his own interpretation of what he’s noticed about his own patients (though to be fair, I think that’s mostly the case for most of psychology). I think a lot of the early psychology of Freud, Adler, and Jung is quite enmeshed with the philosophy of Nietzsche (who said some truly wild about human nature without providing a single source) and remains more popular than it should be for that reason.
I don’t know about his comment on transgenderism, but Slavoj advocating to vote Trump is more about shaking up the liberal status quo to wake them up and actually do a better job, rather than him supporting Trump, and also to do away with Democrat Party’s mantra of “vote blue no matter” and their proud label of “lesser evil”. Come Trump 2.0, his reasoning proved to be prescient and correct. The Democrat leadership are fighting harder to stop the progressive Zohran Mamdani taking power as New York Democrat mayor, than actually stopping the Republican fascist agenda. As we speak, the Democrat betting on the “voting blue no matter who” is starting to crumble from the POV of voters as outsider progressives are slowly gaining ground.
I don’t think his reasoning was prescient and correct, though.
Neither party rethought anything (your point about Mamdani shows just how little the Dems have rethought) and now the US is rounding people up to put them in camps.
And re. the transgenderism/Freud comment, I think it mostly serves to show that he puts way more stock in Freud than he should, because Freudian psychology is largely a load of wank.
(Yes, the use of a sexually based pejorative to disparage Freud was deliberate. Please appreciate my clever joke.)
To be honest, a lot of people including me did not expect Trump to go full fascist. His first term was described as fascist-lite at best and many wrongly thought he will continue with that approach. Of course, we were wrong and paying for it dearly.
Going back to the main point of the discussion. Zizek may have been wrong about Trump’s fascism, but his point overall about shaking up the status quo is correct. It is wake up call for implementing actual reform and reflection. Practically it did not happen in the way that Zizek and others may have anticipated, but it is still clear that the sign of times is meant for engaging practical and reform solutions towards betterment of ordinary folks. If you talk to many conservatives and on the right, many of them actually agree that wealth inequality is a problem and don’t believe in trickle down economics. Many on the right are actually willing to vote left if the left offers tangible solutionsbto bread and butter, or kitchen table issues. As we speak, Zohran Mamdani is getting popular support for his common sense policies. AOC and Bernie Sanders are continually drawing record crowds in their national tour even in Republican states.
This is a sign that what Zizek mentions about shaking things up by electing outsiders to prompt soul searching is working among ordinary voters, even if both Democratic and Republican party elites are not doing so because why would they.
Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we’re also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can’t find the source, I’m sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies “welfare”. [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek’s qualified support for Trump’s first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn’t worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.