Zizek and Maher: Your Favorite 'Marxist' Professor is a Liberal

[Nox Vox]

Yes, the unkempt, slovenly academic is entertaining. But for all his attacks on liberal 'tolerance' during Rotherham and Charlie Hebdo, it's worth remembering that no one hates a liberal more than a liberal. Bill Maher often attacks his fellow liberals for their sacrificing of liberal principles in favor of tolerance, as Zizek does. This does not make them not liberals; rather, in attacking the new wave of liberalism, they have made their attempts to preserve the old liberal democratic values obvious.

Of course, liberalism is deleterious, and behaves according to the law of diminishing returns. "It is free from something, not for something." This is why the liberals so often fight amongst themselves over 'free expression,' vs. 'Islamophobia.' Both are liberals, just of a different type. Zizek is in the former category. The newer liberals take their cue from Trotsky; they have the makings of the millennial-left. And Zizek, for all of his attacking 'liberals,' is really attacking leftists, and is himself just an old fashioned liberal-democrat.

[Futility Personified]

Damn Liberals, they ruined Liberalism!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I long for the days long passed when liberals were Liberals goddamnit and certain types of folk kept their mouths shut for fear of the secret police.

Care to engage with anything Zizek actually has to say or is assertion alone sufficient in your mind?

[Palmares]

I'm not a fan of Zizek, but I kinda see him a bit like ODB, both come out with some (but not all) insightful words, given how much drugs, alcohol and who knows what in pulsating through their veins. Provides some entertaining live performances.

Also, in Australia, the conservative party is called "The Liberal Party". :confused:

[Rudolf]

I've heard a couple of Zizek's talks and they didn't really strike me as liberal... OP, care to give an actual argument?

[DOOM]

Calling everything libruhl

http://i61.tinypic.com/fep3cw.jpg

[Palmares]

Is that Maher or Zizek? Or did you use one of those apps where you fuse two people's pictures together to see what their love-child would look like? :grin:

[Nox Vox]

I've heard a couple of Zizek's talks and they didn't really strike me as liberal... OP, care to give an actual argument?

Gladly. On subjects like Rotherham, Zizek often takes the opposite view of Western liberals, and often takes a stance against , 'liberal multiculturalism.' He doesn't take this stance because he's reviled by liberalism, or sees it as a sinking ship, etc., you get the idea. He does it as one of those social liberals such as Christopher Hitchens or Maher does, seeing themselves as the true liberals and the further left-liberals as the false ones.

"For these false Leftists," he says in his New Statesman column (Enough of a hint in that), "Any critique of Islam is denounced as an expression of Western Islamophobia; Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death, etc. The result of such stance is what one can expect in such cases: the more the Western liberal Leftists probe into their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam."

Of course the nature of liberalism is deleterious. There are diminishing returns. Zizek, here, in the most obvious sense, is defending bourgeois liberal principles.

[Nox Vox]

I'm not that overweight

[Luís Henrique]

Zizek and Maher?

I fear that a proper criticism of one would be way different from a proper criticism of the other.

[Buttress]

Zizek defends the emancipatory intent in liberal principles, doctrine. I don't think that makes him a liberal, just recognising that there is something good here (despite coming in the process of its own perversion). He's actually more consistently critiquing the liberal-fundamentalist ideology in his books and articles (and talks).

[Cliff Paul]

And Zizek, for all of his attacking 'liberals,' is really attacking leftists, and is himself just an old fashioned liberal-democrat.

In your 6 posts so far you've managed to use the world liberal over 20 times.

[Nox Vox]

Sorry, would you like me to get thesaurus?

To 'Buttress,' that's exactly the reason I think of him, as, a, uh, oh, fine, liberal. He's written about Islamism in Europe in the same way that ex-liberals on the right talk about them, and as neocons do. Zizek is of course against neoliberalism and the EU, etc. However he persists in trying to save liberalism from itself. The right is filled with recent converts from liberalism who have become alienated by ideas of 'tolerance.' Zizek writes: "Mainstream liberals are telling us that, when the basic democratic values are under threat by ethnic or religious fundamentalists, we should all unite behind the liberal-democratic agenda of cultural tolerance, save what can be saved. . . ."

He first implies, by using the phrase 'mainstream liberals,' that there are some hard-line enlightenment liberals out there who won't stand for this multiculturalism shit. He sounds like Maher or Hitchens, left-liberals alienated from other left-liberals for reasons of 'free speech'. Mainstream liberals? As opposed to what other kind?

"Liberals are prepared to recognise the class struggle in the sphere of politics, too, but on one condition—that the organisation of state power should not enter into that sphere. It is not hard to under stand which of the bourgeoisie’s class interests give rise to the liberal distortion of the concept of class struggle." (V.I.)

Zizek is against liberalism in its economic representations. But liberalism is free from, not free for, so the definition continues to change along with history. So as Zizek may be seen as an iconoclast, as so many 'ex'-liberals and liberals on the right--Hitchens, Maher, the college kids who like Rand Paul--decide to see themselves, he would have been a clear-cut left liberal fifty-years ago. He could have voted labour.

[Rafiq]

Yes, the unkempt, slovenly academic is entertaining. But for all his attacks on liberal 'tolerance' during Rotherham and Charlie Hebdo, it's worth remembering that no one hates a liberal more than a liberal. Bill Maher often attacks his fellow liberals for their sacrificing of liberal principles in favor of tolerance, as Zizek does. This does not make them not liberals; rather, in attacking the new wave of liberalism, they have made their attempts to preserve the old liberal democratic values obvious.


The confusion here relies on a lack of an understanding of the present political coordinates of power: For Communists, we have always taken a presumption of liberalism's achievements as a pre-condition for its destruction. For example, ISIS or Novorossiya might oppose liberalism, but from where? On what basis? This is what separates us from reactionaries. The lesson is that we do want to preserve things brought by liberalism (which did not exist before it) which are presently threatened: Democracy, a sense of egalitarianism, the relative formal freedoms we enjoy today - only through the destruction of Liberalism, i.e. Only through Communism can this be preserved.

Or perhaps you might underestimate what exactly it is we're up against. It isn't a bunch of spineless liberals it is a dark enlightenment.

[Tim Redd]

...He's [Zizek's] written about Islamism in Europe in the same way that ex-liberals on the right talk about them, and as neocons do. Zizek is of course against neoliberalism and the EU, etc. However he persists in trying to save liberalism from itself.

And in that way Zizek is not really opposed to neo-liberalism.


He [Zizek] first implies, by using the phrase 'mainstream liberals,' that there are some hard-line enlightenment liberals out there who won't stand for this multiculturalism shit.

How/why is multi-culturalism "shit"?


"Liberals are prepared to recognise the class struggle in the sphere of politics, too, but on one condition—that the organisation of state power should not enter into that sphere. It is not hard to under stand which of the bourgeoisie’s class interests give rise to the liberal distortion of the concept of class struggle." (V.I.)

Zizek is against liberalism in its economic representations. But liberalism is free from, not free for, so the definition continues to change along with history. So as Zizek may be seen as an iconoclast, as so many 'ex'-liberals and liberals on the right--Hitchens, Maher, the college kids who like Rand Paul--decide to see themselves, he would have been a clear-cut left liberal fifty-years ago. He could have voted labour.

I have read Zizek where he posits that conservative capitalist politics is equal to communism as a solution to humanity's current woes. That was enough for me to reject his thinking and place him among reactionaries verus progressives in the social movements of today.

[Bala Perdida]

Does this imply Maher is a socialist? I never thought of him as such. Also I don't much care for these people's opinions, despite them being funny sometimes. Mostly Zizek. I can't stand Maher for his credibility among centrists and shit.

[Luís Henrique]

How/why is multi-culturalism "shit"?

Whether it is "shit" or not, it is difficult to understand how someone can be so critical of liberals - to the point of decrying Zizek as a liberal - and not see what is wrong about "multi-culturalism".

Luís Henrique

[Tim Redd]

I guess it's better to not to expound on a left site why you dislike most cultures other than your own. I.e we don't need up front right wing talk in this part of the site.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Does this imply Maher is a socialist? I never thought of him as such. Also I don't much care for these people's opinions, despite them being funny sometimes. Mostly Zizek. I can't stand Maher for his credibility among centrists and shit.

He calls himself a socialist from time to time but it's really liberal shit, you know. Like I remember him saying the poor "get socialism"(as if it's something you hand out in a goody bag) because of Medicare and soldiers "get socialism" because of the VA. He's probably one of those assholes who goes around saying the cops are socialistic, he seems to believe if the government is involved it is socialism, a dangerous idea for actual socialists who want to educate people on what socialism is and how it really empowers people.

[Luís Henrique]

I guess it's better to not to expound on a left site why you dislike most cultures other than your own. I.e we don't need up front right wing talk in this part of the site.

So our options are,

1. to dislike most cultures other than our own; and
2. multiculturalism?

(or, in other words, conservatism or liberalism.)

On the same vein, one could ask if being against liberalism means we support feudalism, isn't it?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Luis, is your argument along the lines of that communists should thrive for the non-existence of cultures or their irrelevance in general so that multiculturalism becomes redundant, i.e. so that culture ceases to be a relevant social category as race or gender would?

[Puzzled Left]

How is multiculturalism equivalent
to liberalism?

[Luís Henrique]

How is multiculturalism equivalent
to liberalism?

How is dividing society among several ghettos a good thing?

It is liberalism driven to its logical conclusion: apartheid.

Luís Henrique

[willowtooth]

Yes, the unkempt, slovenly academic is entertaining. But for all his attacks on liberal 'tolerance' during Rotherham and Charlie Hebdo, it's worth remembering that no one hates a liberal more than a liberal. Bill Maher often attacks his fellow liberals for their sacrificing of liberal principles in favor of tolerance, as Zizek does. This does not make them not liberals; rather, in attacking the new wave of liberalism, they have made their attempts to preserve the old liberal democratic values obvious.

Of course, liberalism is deleterious, and behaves according to the law of diminishing returns. "It is free from something, not for something." This is why the liberals so often fight amongst themselves over 'free expression,' vs. 'Islamophobia.' Both are liberals, just of a different type. Zizek is in the former category. The newer liberals take their cue from Trotsky; they have the makings of the millennial-left. And Zizek, for all of his attacking 'liberals,' is really attacking leftists, and is himself just an old fashioned liberal-democrat.

I agree the new liberals are fairly censored and morally deprived

[Puzzled Left]

How is dividing society among several ghettos a good thing?

It is liberalism driven to its logical conclusion: apartheid.

Luís Henrique
First of all, who or what is dividing the society? You sound like if there is an authority that deliberately try to prevent cultural integration.
Second, if not multiculturalism, what else? There are multiple cultures that exist, how do you expect them to be spontaneously integrated within a short time. Culture is always evolving, and new culture evolve from the old; it is undesirable and impossible, to expect a society that somehow feature static, homogenous culture.
Third, it is a weird conclusion that multiculturalism give rise to the cultural apartheid. Such apartheid is usually the result of the racial construct within the system. Multiculturalism encourages interaction and communication among the cultures, thus helping individuals to break the social barriers. It is of course, not especially successful, as liberals try to implement such policies within a system that reinforce the social constructs. I do believe it is the desire to achieve cultural homogeneity that led to such ghetto, as each culture decide to isolate itself and compete with others. Culture is part of an individual's identity, any attempt to "mold" cultures together is futile.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, who or what is dividing the society? You sound like if there is an authority that deliberately try to prevent cultural integration.

It seems that there is, isn't it?


Second, if not multiculturalism, what else?

Integration, perhaps? The realisation that jazz isn't "Black" music, but good music for people of any colour? That Mozart isn't just for Whites, but for anyone who likes and understand music?


There are multiple cultures that exist,

....... for instance?


how do you expect them to be spontaneously integrated within a short time.

Five centuries is a short time?


Culture is always evolving, and new culture evolve from the old; it is undesirable and impossible, to expect a society that somehow feature static, homogenous culture.

Sure, and its evolution implies borrowing and mixing; it is not the miscigenation of culture that is static, but exactly "multiculturalism", which tries to pigeonhole people into the culture they are stereotypically supposed to belong.


Third, it is a weird conclusion that multiculturalism give rise to the cultural apartheid. Such apartheid is usually the result of the racial construct within the system.

A social construct of which multiculturalism is part and parcel.


Multiculturalism encourages interaction and communication among the cultures, thus helping individuals to break the social barriers.

Is it? Is there a unified movement of multiculturalism that does such things? That's not what I see; what I see is a foolish stereotyping of people, that naturalises foolish things such as Saint Patrick's day, or, even worse, Columbus day as part of a mythical pristine culture that has absolutely no relations with the past, but is an invention intended to segregate people, to reinforce, not to break, social barriers.


It is of course, not especially successful, as liberals try to implement such policies within a system that reinforce the social constructs.

Or, in other words, that is what multiculturalism actually is: a part of social constructs in which each "race", "ethnicity", and "culture" has its place, which is a place within a quite stolid hierarchy.


I do believe it is the desire to achieve cultural homogeneity that led to such ghetto, as each culture decide to isolate itself and compete with others.

This is contradictory. The decision to isolate and compete cannot be the same as the desire to achieve cultural homogeneity; either the ghetto is the result of the former, or, as it seems much more logical, of the latter, unless there is some hidden subject in your sentence.


Culture is part of an individual's identity

What the hell is that geistly "culture" that makes part of my "identity"? Should I love the tarantella because (some of) my forefathers danced it? Or the milonga because it was the popular music of the hinterland of the area in which I was born, or where some other of my forefathers hunted cattle down?

This is pure nonsense, and if I were to move to the United States, people would expect "Bossa Nova" and "soccer" to be part of my "identity" and try to kettle me into it, even if I happened to distaste both.


any attempt to "mold" cultures together is futile.

It usually happens quite naturally; I don't think any "attempt" was necessary to make me like Mozart or Enya or bekleua or sushi or Pink Floyd or Russian short stories at all.

As an individual, I reject all identities, I build my own culture, which rejects borders and traditional belongings, and I suggest that all of us should be wandering jews and stop pretending we are peasants rooted to ancestral homelands. If for no other reasons, because we actually aren't.

Luís Henrique

[Puzzled Left]

I would like to say that there are multiple seemingly contradicting trends of multiculturalism. I am arguing for interculturalism, which promote cultural diversity through interaction and communication of the established cultures.

It seems that there is, isn't it?
My bad, I didn't make myself clear. There is definitely some force within the authority that resist cultural integration, but it is neither the liberals nor multiculturalism doing the resistance.

Integration, perhaps? The realisation that jazz isn't "Black" music, but good music for people of any colour? That Mozart isn't just for Whites, but for anyone who likes and understand music?
Yes, absolutely, but freeing the bondage between races and cultures do not eliminate cultural diversity.

....... for instance?
Huh? What do you mean? Don't you agree that the current society does have different, isolated culture?

Five centuries is a short time?
I don't think multiculturalism has existed for five centuries. Not even liberalism has been established back then. Also, this is precisely my point, you simply cannot have a monolithic society without distinct cultures.

"multiculturalism", which tries to pigeonhole people into the culture they are stereotypically supposed to belong
I wouldn't say it's multiculturalism that's causing that problem.

Is it? Is there a unified movement of multiculturalism that does such things? That's not what I see; what I see is a foolish stereotyping of people, that naturalises foolish things such as Saint Patrick's day, or, even worse, Columbus day as part of a mythical pristine culture that has absolutely no relations with the past, but is an invention intended to segregate people, to reinforce, not to break, social barriers.
No, I do not think there is a powerful multicultural movement. All of the stereotypes are reinforced by the capitalistic social system, which simply does not tolerate interculturalism, despite the hopes of liberals. Of course, social constructs based on cultures cannot exist without a diverse body of cultures. But cultural diversity itself does not lead to social construct. Just like skin colors do not by itself lead to racial construct.

This is contradictory. The decision to isolate and compete cannot be the same as the desire to achieve cultural homogeneity; either the ghetto is the result of the former, or, as it seems much more logical, of the latter, unless there is some hidden subject in your sentence.
There are not the same. However, any attempt to achieve a monolithic body of culture is futile, as it faces resistance. Culture has a tendency to diversify, if one tries to converge it by force, it only leaves segregated, hostile "ghettos".

What the hell is that geistly "culture" that makes part of my "identity"? Should I love the tarantella because (some of) my forefathers danced it? Or the milonga because it was the popular music of the hinterland of the area in which I was born, or where some other of my forefathers hunted cattle down?

This is pure nonsense, and if I were to move to the United States, people would expect "Bossa Nova" and "soccer" to be part of my "identity" and try to kettle me into it, even if I happened to distaste both.
You have a very rigid view of "culture". It has nothing inherently to do with the background and condition that one grows up with, although they certainly can be influential factors. Culture is, in short, the habits and capabilities of groups of people that is more than just a label. It is in its nature extremely diverse and cannot be separated into discrete groups. If one does not embrace soccer, then one simply refuses of embracing that particular culture.

It usually happens quite naturally; I don't think any "attempt" was necessary to make me like Mozart or Enya or bekleua or sushi or Pink Floyd or Russian short stories at all.

As an individual, I reject all identities, I build my own culture, which rejects borders and traditional belongings, and I suggest that all of us should be wandering jews and stop pretending we are peasants rooted to ancestral homelands. If for no other reasons, because we actually aren't.
Yet you also recognized the social barriers that is rooted in the current form of social construct. We cannot reject "culture", we should actually liberate it, free it from constraints by race, class, ethnicity, nationality, etc. But in the end, there will always be people who like Mozart and those who don't, and there will always be different trends of human culture, but there won't be any "ghettos" thanks to interaction and the destruction of social constructs. There will be replaced debates, communication, understanding, and empathy. Multiculturalism, at least its offshoot interculturalism, is a simple concept of maintaining diversity through interaction and communication, making culture itself constantly evolving and relevant. It's like MMA, every fighter combine different styles and techniques to make them his/her own through learning and training, but nevertheless each style is distinct and relevant to the sport.
Liberals may come up the ideal of multiculturalism, but the principles only apply to a social system that does not reinforce social construct.

[thebishop]

Can you explain how the former category is influenced by Trotsky. I don't get that.

[Comrade Jacob]

Liberals, liberal, liberalism, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberalism, liberals.
Understand?

[Tim Redd]

...He first implies, by using the phrase 'mainstream liberals,' that there are some hard-line enlightenment liberals out there who won't stand for this multiculturalism shit....

How is "multiculturalism" shit? In fact multiculturalism is a positive means for moving society forward short term and long term. You really should be restricted to "Opposing Ideologies".

[Tim Redd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzzled Left http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2825483#post2825483)
How is multiculturalism equivalent
to liberalism?

How is dividing society among several ghettos a good thing?
It is liberalism driven to its logical conclusion: apartheid.
Luís Henrique

A key aspect of multiculturalism is that the cultural ideas from one area are promulgated into other areas. Doing so runs counter to and is quite the opposite of apartheid.