Zizek-Lotta Debate ?

[Manulearning]

So it was supposed to be today....

Did it happen ? Any news ?

[Narodnik]

Does it matter? Anyone who debates Zizek automatically wins.

[RedHal]

No it is delayed because Zizek had to cancel his entire US tour.

[Tenka]

No it is delayed because Zizek had to cancel his entire US tour.

Why? Health issues?

[Rafiq]

Does it matter? Anyone who debates Zizek automatically wins.

You're a moron

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I have a pretty good idea how it'll go. Lotta will start off with lauding the merits of Mao's China and go into dispelling the petty myths about it, Zizek will reply with some vague, abstract bullshit that doesn't mean anything, then once it looks like Lotta is about to win he'll praise the glory of Bob Avakian and Zizek will automatically be declared the victor. And another day will go by where the revolutionaries of our day will walk past the homeless and the poor and mutter something about the "lumpen". Perhaps a member of one of those third-worldist collectives that are so popular in Harvard will spit on a prole and call him a petty bourgeois.

So basically the same thing that happens with every other "debate" on the left.

[Crixus]

Does it matter? Anyone who debates Zizek automatically wins.
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/13459893/Slavoj+Zizek+zizek+bed.jpg

[goalkeeper]

Does it matter? Anyone who debates Zizek automatically wins.

You would think so but Raymond Lotta is part of the Bob Avakian cult so my money would be on Zizek

[L.A.P.]

Anyone who says Zizek will make a bunch of abstract and meaningless statements doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about at all. He's not Badiou, Zizek for the most part speaks concisely and straight-forward even if you don't like what he says.

The minute that weirdo starts praising the glories of Mao's China, Zizek will make an ideological example out of him. I don't know if any of you have read Zizek refuting someone, but the way he presents their own position to the point that the reader gets caught up in actually agreeing with it and then goes "but it's not radical enough...." and rips it apart makes it seem silly to be so quick to dismiss him. Especially when he's debating an Avakian quack-job.

EDIT: Like guys, c'mon. Just look at how Zizek makes a fool of that guy

EkdIGjMkOGo

I could see Zizek cancelling his whole tour just to avoid this guy and stay home to watch some old movie

[Crixus]

(Edit,changed CPUSA to RCP, brain fart) I'd like to start a debate in this thread, should Marxists debate anyone from the RCP or should Marxists turn those potential debates into a platform for interventionist deprogramming? A sort of exersize in "exit counseling"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_counseling

[Os Cangaceiros]

Does Zizek do a bunch of blow or something? He's always rubbing his nose. He does this weird thing where he pulls on his shirt, though, too, so maybe it's just a weird tic of his.

[L.A.P.]

dude's got major tics

I pull on my shirt and touch my nose out of anxiety all the time

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'd like to start a debate in this thread, should Marxists debate anyone from the CP-USA or should Marxists turn those potential debates into a platform for interventionist deprogramming? A sort of exersize in "exit counseling"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_counseling

Good discussion topic.

I'd say yes. The Houstan, Oklahoma, and other branches have split from the CP-USA to reclaim it. Here is a video of theres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDepCfE36I

So I'd recommend that you show them the info from the good branches

[Crixus]

Good discussion topic.

I'd say yes. The Houstan, Oklahoma, and other branches have split from the CP-USA to reclaim it. Here is a video of theres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDepCfE36I

So I'd recommend that you show them the info from the good branches
Sorry, I meant RCP, I edited the post in question. As far as the CP-USA (or the guy in the video you posted) I'm weary of anyone calling themselves anti-revisionist these days, as in, support for Stalin. They're about as silly as anyone from the RCP.

[Orange Juche]

Does Zizek do a bunch of blow or something? He's always rubbing his nose. He does this weird thing where he pulls on his shirt, though, too, so maybe it's just a weird tic of his.

I think he gets anxiety speaking, so it's kind of a tic like at debates when candidates constantly sip at water. I think I remember him saying something about having that anxiety somewhere.

[Manulearning]

Thanks all for replying.

I am not taking this as "So who won?" question. I am agreeing with the good question that Zizek put " The way it ended as it ended, points to something that was there before" , though i know academicians then go on to dismiss everything that happened. That is why i am looking forward to see Lotta(as someone here said) taking the "left" out of Zizek.

Secondly i dont really understand why people here are so anti-RCP. I dont except their Bob cult at all, i think it is the upsurge that creates leaders from within and not at all like they are doing with Bob and i am pretty sure there might be split soon in RCP on this question. BUT i dont really appreciate this response either - Anyone who debates them is a moron or anything. I think they have done a good job in bringing important facts to light from Cultural Revolution and Revolution Books(if it is run by rcp) publishing them. So i admire that.

Thanks

[KurtFF8]

Anyone who says Zizek will make a bunch of abstract and meaningless statements doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about at all. He's not Badiou, Zizek for the most part speaks concisely and straight-forward even if you don't like what he says.

The minute that weirdo starts praising the glories of Mao's China, Zizek will make an ideological example out of him. I don't know if any of you have read Zizek refuting someone, but the way he presents their own position to the point that the reader gets caught up in actually agreeing with it and then goes "but it's not radical enough...." and rips it apart makes it seem silly to be so quick to dismiss him. Especially when he's debating an Avakian quack-job.

EDIT: Like guys, c'mon. Just look at how Zizek makes a fool of that guy

EkdIGjMkOGo

I could see Zizek cancelling his whole tour just to avoid this guy and stay home to watch some old movie

A similar exchange happened in the "Communism a New Beginning" conference last year in NY where Lotta challenged Zizek for calling Communism a failure at Zucotti park. Zizek went on to bash Avakian claiming that he has read him and found "no original ideas in his work" or something along those lines.

Say what you want about Zizek, but he's pretty good at battling with RCP in that they seem to actually take him seriously as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and yelling about Bob Avakian as they do with most other Leftists.

Here's the video http://youtu.be/JEuV7DMKess?t=35m44s

(And in case embedding doesn't add the correct start time, it's at 35 minutes and 44s)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Does Zizek do a bunch of blow or something? He's always rubbing his nose. He does this weird thing where he pulls on his shirt, though, too, so maybe it's just a weird tic of his.

He could have Tourette syndrome. Personally I think it adds to his charisma (then again, I'm a bit of a lunatic myself)

[TheEmancipator]

Does it matter? Anyone who debates Zizek automatically wins.


You're right, another Maoist relic of the 1950s vs the Lacan of the Balkans.


No contest.

[Agathor]

Don't know why Zizek agreed to this. I dislike most of his work but I thought he was straight enough to just say 'no I don't debate lunatics'.

[Narodnik]

He's a lunatic himself. Literally, he's not lucid, he can't speak coherently.

[KurtFF8]

He's a lunatic himself. Literally, he's not lucid, he can't speak coherently.

Most critics of Zizek would disagree. He is quite coherent, has cogent arguments (amongst his frustratingly tangential style). He has a particular interpretation of Hegel and Lacan in his understanding of Marxism. It certainly has some serious issues, but to call it incoherent or to call him a lunatic isn't only "not being charitable" but it's not really all that accurate.