Zizek's right-wing bigotry exposed on refugee question

[QueerVanguard]

In his own words - http://genius.it/www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n18/slavoj-zizek/the-non-existence-of-norway

There we have it, folks. A guy openly supporting borders and rigid immigration practices, demonizing muslims, and that's all on top of his usual bullshit critiques of Feminism and "Politically Correct speech". Why we let this shitball have a platform to poison the left, and why we don't call this asshole out on being the furthest thing from a Communist really gets me wondering.

Here's a little more of his anti-refugee shit in a talk and he gets called out by Udi Aloni. start watching @ 1:02:02 for the action

eW4Rya8zHDk

tl;dr fuck Zizek

[Aslan]

From what I've read I don't really think Zizek is actually against immigration. Since he says that opening the borders will result in a anti-immigrant populist uprising. I actually agree with him on some points, yes we are fucked. Because this was all the fault of capitalist expeditions into Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. If we do allow immigrants to enter into Europe (which I'm not necessarily against) we'll experience a growth in the far-right as we have never seen before! One thing is for certain, an opening of Europe's borders will never happen!

And his conclusion is that nationhood should be more plastic and nomadic (which is very weird in my opinion) and that the current concept of nationhood should be abandoned.

WE'RE FUCKED! :unsure:

[OGG]

His first conclusion seems like a logical extension of globalization.
His second conclusion seems like something a center-right politician would say.
I don't understand his third conclusion. When he says intervention, does he mean humanitarian aid?
Obviously his fourth conclusion is something we can all get behind.

The piece strikes me as a policy guide for those who oppose a rise in far-right support. Possibly an attempt at pragmatism.

[QueerVanguard]

Let me put it this way: you know you're not a Communist when fuckin Angela Merkel is to your Left on the refugee question. The only proletariat position on the matter is clear: no fucking borders, period, end of story. Workers or the WORLD Unite, the proletariat has no motherland. Anyone who starts making excuses for borders, tries being "pragmatic" about immigration, or whatever else is playing bourgeois politics and ain't fuckin' red.

[QueerVanguard]

From what I've read I don't really think Zizek is actually against immigration. Since he says that opening the borders will result in a anti-immigrant populist uprising

don't you see where this kind of bullshit logic ends? "We can't have integration, it'll just make the Klan stronger. I love black people, that's why I support Jim Crow, because integrating will just lead to more lynchings!" Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[ComradeAllende]

don't you see where this kind of bullshit logic ends? "We can't have integration, it'll just make the Klan stronger. I love black people, that's why I support Jim Crow, because integrating will just lead to more lynchings!" Sorry, doesn't work that way.

While I disagree with Zizek's conclusions, it must be said that admitting these refugees will strengthen far right movements. Of course, one can admit that and still support asylum. But I think your characterization of Zizek's argument misses the point. The refugee crisis is not in any way comparable to the plight of black Americans under Jim Crow, chiefly because black Americans were not foreigners and were thus an active party in the situation and could thus be mobilized to assert their interests. The refugees are not active in discussions of asylum because they are refugees; their fates are despairingly linked to the political calculations of Eurocrats in Brussels and national politicians across the continent.

[QueerVanguard]

While I disagree with Zizek's conclusions, it must be said that admitting these refugees will strengthen far right movements.

that's bullshit, listen to Udi Alonia. Europe is becoming Fascist without the refugees.


But I think your characterization of Zizek's argument misses the point. The refugee crisis is not in any way comparable to the plight of black Americans under Jim Crow, chiefly because black Americans were not foreigners and were thus an active party in the situation and could thus be mobilized to assert their interests. The refugees are not active in discussions of asylum because they are refugees; their fates are despairingly linked to the political calculations of Eurocrats in Brussels and national politicians across the continent.

It is comparable, you just didn't understand it. I was trying to say that the correct stand on a issue isn't determined by what the consequences *might be* but what the correct class line is. The proletariat is international or it is nothing, and borders are a force of bourgeoisie reaction. As long as there are borders, there is capitalism and as long as we have "immigration policies", we don't have the proletarian might to bring down the Capitalism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yeah, "we shouldn't open the borders because this will strengthen the far-right" sounds an awful lot like Justin Trudeau's mental gymnastics of justifying Liberal support for increased state surveillance on grounds that opposing it would "allow the Conservatives to make political hay of the issue."

The reality is, any substantial gains for an international workers' movement will lead to greater backlash from reactionaries. The solution is not to stand still because we're afraid of being pushed back when we step forward.

If the point is, however, that opened borders must be the result of a popular movement and not merely state policy, then sure.

[QueerVanguard]

If the point is, however, that opened borders must be the result of a popular movement and not merely state policy, then sure.

Even if the state is foolish enough to open borders, it can only help us. the state hasn't though, even in Europe, which is what we should be fighting for.

[ComradeAllende]

that's bullshit, listen to Udi Alonia. Europe is becoming Fascist without the refugees.

That is true, and has been for some time. Far-right parties like Jobbik and Golden Dawn are profiting from the collapse of the periphery eurozone economies from core-imposed austerity, while UKIP, PEGIDA, and the National Front have benefited from the recent terrorist attacks in France and the stagnation of local economies. But the refugee crisis will greatly exacerbate these trends, as disaffected working class and lower-middle class individuals turn away from the established parties (none of which offer a compelling alternative to the other) and toward reactionaries promising a restoration of the welfare state and a preservation of "Western civilization". You don't have to be a fascist apologist to understand this; any student of history knows that mass immigration tends to cause a nativist backlash, especially if the immigrants possess a culture different than that of their new country.


It is comparable, you just didn't understand it. I was trying to say that the correct stand on a issue isn't determined by what the consequences *might be* but what the correct class line is. The proletariat is international or it is nothing, and borders are a force of bourgeoisie reaction. As long as there are borders, there is capitalism and as long as we have "immigration policies", we don't have the proletarian might to bring down the Capitalism.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but the logic within your metaphor was highly flawed. Blacks in the South were an active party in the Jim Crow years and could thus be mobilized to defend their interests (as they did via self-defense militias and, eventually, the Civil Rights movement). The refugees are NOT active because they are REFUGEES; they have little political connection to their new countries and thus are effectively isolated from any means of participation or mobilization. Imagine the refugees banded together and formed an armed group to resist hate crimes and state repression. They'd be branded as instigators/terrorists and thrown out of the continent.

[blake 3:17]

I think the paper from the LRB is great.

His primary point is that communists must fight to abolish the conditions that produce refugees.

[QueerVanguard]

I think the paper from the LRB is great.

His primary point is that communists must fight to abolish the conditions that produce refugees.

yea no shit, that doesn't mean we simultaneously support borders and locking out fellow workers in their most desperate time of need just because we're scared of fascists stirring up hate. real shit internationalism on your part.

[Luís Henrique]

yea no shit, that doesn't mean we simultaneously support borders and locking out fellow workers in their most desperate time of need just because we're scared of fascists stirring up hate. real shit internationalism on your part.

On the other hand, "supporting open borders" while at the same time being unable to stop imperialist aggression that produces refugee influxes isn't the most brilliant kind of internationalism either.

Luís Henrique

[QueerVanguard]

On the other hand, "supporting open borders" while at the same time being unable to stop imperialist aggression that produces refugee influxes isn't the most brilliant kind of internationalism either.

Luís Henrique

We fight on both fronts, against imperialism AND borders, that's the class line, that's Communism. The King of White/mansplaining Zizek pretends to support fighting against imperialism WHILE ALSO putting his support behind the far right who oppose letting in refugees and the bourgeoisie who keep up their fucking borders.

[Rudolf]

The irony is that with this talk of whether or not to support open borders fortress Europe's border controls are crumbling and will continue to do so. The movement of migrants and refugees will only continue to grow in the coming decades of climate change influenced global conflicts. the correct political position to take is obvious: the immediate destruction of all border controls. Anything else puts you on the wrong side of history.

[Luís Henrique]

We fight on both fronts, against imperialism AND borders, that's the class line, that's Communism.

If we do so, that's fine. But do we?

What I see is that "Third World" countries get bombed by central countries military, or have their governments toppled, or are harrassed into adopting policies in the interest of companies based in the central countries... and "we" quabble among ourselves, either supporting shitty tyrannies "against imperialism" and dismissing popular movements as pawns of imperialism, or supporting imperialist intervention in the name of democracy, or "opposing both" in a way that disarms people both in central and peripheric countries.


The King of White/mansplaining Zizek pretends to support fighting against imperialism WHILE ALSO putting his support behind the far right who oppose letting in refugees and the bourgeoisie who keep up their fucking borders.

I don't think he does that, at all. Though it may be his fault that he makes provocative comments without realising that people will appreciate them from their own black-and-white perspectives.

Luís Henrique

[QueerVanguard]

If we do so, that's fine. But do we?

If we don't, we should. Most the European Left - who Zizek fucking hates with a passion - is, so I don't know what you're on about.


I don't think he does that, at all.

the second you start making excuses for borders -especially on flimsy ass grounds that you're scared of fascists gaining popularity, when fascism is already growing with or without refugees (see Aloni on this)- and support the conservative talking points of preserving "European values" and having a "orderly migration policy", you are objectively supporting the enemy.

[Lord Testicles]

If we don't, we should. Most the European Left - who Zizek fucking hates with a passion - is, so I don't know what you're on about.


Give over, most of the European left is a fucking pathetic disgrace, it couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag let alone fight against both against imperialism and borders in any meaningful or practical way.

[QueerVanguard]

Give over, most of the European left is a fucking pathetic disgrace, it couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag let alone fight against both against imperialism and borders in any meaningful or practical way.

So your idea is that we just say "fuck the refugees" let 'em rot until we can figure out how to end imperialism, like Zizek? Noted. Great internationalism.

[Luís Henrique]

So your idea is that we just say "fuck the refugees" let 'em rot until we can figure out how to end imperialism, like Zizek? Noted. Great internationalism.

That's the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Luís Henrique

[Lord Testicles]

So your idea is that we just say "fuck the refugees" let 'em rot until we can figure out how to end imperialism, like Zizek? Noted. Great internationalism.

I don't remember typing that... I just remember pointing out that what you wrote was pish, just like the above.

[blake 3:17]

American senators scrutinize Canada’s plans to settle Syrian refugees
U.S. Senate committee for homeland security is studying implications for U.S. security of Canada’s refugee program.


By: Alexander Panetta The Canadian Press, Published on Wed Feb 03 2016
WASHINGTON—Canada’s resettlement plan for Syrians came under scrutiny Wednesday in the U.S. Congress. The hearing took place amid a hothouse election-year atmosphere, one where American politics is split over the welcoming of Muslim refugees.
It became apparent just moments into a hearing of the Senate’s Homeland Security committee that this conversation was as much between Americans as it was between countries.
In his opening remarks, the committee’s top Republican, Ron Johnson, said of the Trudeau plan to bring in 25,000 refugees: “That’s a pretty significant ramp-up. Will there be short-cuts taken?”
The top Democrat, Tom Carper, countered by quoting Pope Francis: “I think we should support our ally Canada in doing the right thing in the most secure manner possible,” he said.
The context for this meeting was unfolding elsewhere.
Up the highway in Baltimore, Barack Obama visited a mosque for the first time in his presidency and warned against anti-Muslim bigotry.
His Republican opponents have hammered him for planning to bring in 10,000 refugees — some want zero; some want only non-Muslims, and Donald Trump wants a total freeze on Muslim travel to the U.S.
The Canadian government was invited to participate in the hearing, but declined, citing the historical precedent of avoiding that partisan chamber.
A veteran Washington lobbyist called that a wise move.
Former Canadian diplomat Paul Frazer said he hasn’t heard a single lawmaker raise Canada’s refugee plan as a serious concern.
Frazer said the Canadian government should keep on eye on the discussion, communicate with U.S. counterparts on security and stay out of the political fray.
“This is a particularly partisan year. Canada has nothing to gain by jumping into the pool,” Frazer said.
“This is not really about Canada . . . . Senate and House hearings serve many purposes and often serve a variety of agendas. Hearings are often political theatre.”
One senator used the hearing to promote a bill she’s trying to pass.
At one point, two of the six senators present were border state representatives who’ve co-sponsored a bipartisan bill calling for more resources and customs agents in their states.

Full article: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/03/american-senators-scrutinize-canadas-plans-to-settle-syrian-refugees.html

[blake 3:17]

double post

[Luís Henrique]

First things we ought to say, that no one seems to have been able to articulate yet, are:


those people are refugees because they are fleeing something;
that thing they are fleeing is, specifically, a civil war;
that civil war was provoked by foreign intervention;
that foreign intervention was American intervention;
that American intervention was proposed, fostered, and feted by those same people who now oppose accepting refugees.


You cannot be gung-ho imperialist interventionists when dealing with other people's problems, and then become isolationists when your intervention creates worse problems than those it "solved". You have to accept responsibility for the wrongs you make.

Luís Henrique

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

First things we ought to say, that no one seems to have been able to articulate yet, are:


those people are refugees because they are fleeing something;
that thing they are fleeing is, specifically, a civil war;
that civil war was provoked by foreign intervention;
that foreign intervention was American intervention;
that American intervention was proposed, fostered, and feted by those same people who now oppose accepting refugees.


You cannot be gung-ho imperialist interventionists when dealing with other people's problems, and then become isolationists when your intervention creates worse problems than those it "solved". You have to accept responsibility for the wrongs you make.

Luís Henrique

Only 40% are refugee's, rest are migrants.

edit: source (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to-europe-are-not-refugees-eu-official-says-1.2511133) Dunno how trustworthy he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

[Guardia Rossa]

Only 40% are refugee's, rest are migrants.

edit: source (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to-europe-are-not-refugees-eu-official-says-1.2511133) Dunno how trustworthy he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

Long term effects of colonization anyone?

[QueerVanguard]

Only 40% are refugee's, rest are migrants.

edit: source (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to-europe-are-not-refugees-eu-official-says-1.2511133) Dunno how trustworthy he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

Are you reading the same reactionary rubbish Zizek is now?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

No, someone posted on a forum.

A forum filled with shitty neoliberal techies.

[blake 3:17]

There's nothing wrong with folks fleeing a country due to starvation as opposed to ethnic cleansing or genocide.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Agreed. I was just correcting Luís Henrique point. We can't just call all immigrants poor guys who fled from war, we should accept them because they should have the right to come for whatever reasons they have, not just specifically because they're fleeing from war. Otherwise it seems we're only accepting refugee's, not economic migrants, when everyone should be able to come and go as they please.

I still have problems with proven criminals and Islamist extremists, we can't ignore that problem, those have to go away. And I'm finally going to reply to a post from another topic in December:

And prison doesn't cost money for his country of origin?
Yes, it does, but we can't ignore present conditions, it makes more sense for a criminal who wants to implement sharia law being sent to a country that accepts his views than in one that doesn't and would have to support his prison costs, don't you think?

[Alan OldStudent]

If one is born as a human on the face of this earth, one should have the right, as a human, to walk on the face of this earth.

[QueerVanguard]

Looks like WSWS was influenced by my critique of Zizek: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html

[Luís Henrique]

Long term effects of colonization anyone?

Indeed. The French complain about the "invasion" of Maghrebian people. It isn't like France ever invaded, conquered and colonised the Maghreb, now is it? Oh wait.

The last huge transnational movement of people in which the receiving end of the movement had nothing to do with the reasons that made people move from one country to another was the European Great Migration of the second half of the 19th century. From them on, it has always been the backlash of colonialism.

The above is simple to the point even a Donald Trump supporter can understand, it is true, easy to document and demonstrate, and follows directly from a leftist comprehension of colonialism and imperialism. And yet the left systematically fails to make the point. To the extent that you point it out in a leftist forum, and the response you get is "but not all those people are fleeing bombs, some are fleeing starvation too". As if famines had nothing to do with colonialism, go figure.

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

A pro refugee group has asked that Canada accept less refugees for the moment because there is no housing for them. That's the harsh reality.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Then build. Aren't capitalists in love with 'job creations'?

[blake 3:17]

Refugees' needs expose Canada’s housing crisis
Lack of affordable housing has left refugees stuck in hostels and hotels, delaying their chance to settle into Canadian life.

By: Sharad Kerur Published on Fri Feb 05 2016
Canadians are a generous people. In the late 1970s, we welcomed 50,000 Vietnamese “boat people” who were fleeing the horrific aftermath of the Vietnam War. Community groups and non-profit organizations played a key role in helping to settle these refugee families and easing their transition to a new life.
More than 25 years later, Canadians want to be generous again. Last October, we elected a federal government committed to bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada. But a lack of affordable housing has left hundreds of refugees stuck in hostels and hotels, delaying their opportunity to settle into Canadian life. Earlier this month, settlement agencies in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa asked for a break in the arrival of refugees until permanent housing could be found for the refugees who had already arrived.
The shortage of affordable homes isn’t just a problem for newcomers. The urgent need of Syrian refugees shines a light on a much larger housing crisis. Across Canada, 40 per cent of renter households spend much more than they can afford on housing. Families struggle to pay rent and put food on the table. Even in a country as wealthy as ours, 235,000 people experience homelessness each year.
The private sector hasn’t built the homes needed by low and moderate-income Canadians. Since 2001, rental housing has accounted for only 10 per cent of annual housing starts in Canadian cities. At the same time, the few rental units that are built may not be appropriate for families. For incoming refugee families of up to 10 people, for example, finding a home that is affordable and a decent size is especially challenging.
When the private market doesn’t respond, it’s the government’s job to step in and help families find a safe and secure place to live. But over the past 25 years, the federal government has decreased funding for affordable housing by 46 per cent. The result: in Ontario alone, more than 168,000 households are on waiting lists for affordable housing. Many of these families will wait as long as 10 years.
Ensuring every Canadian has access to an affordable home requires transformative change. Our federal and provincial governments must commit to flexible, long-term funding for affordable housing that will create a range of options for Canadians.
The Trudeau government has said it will invest $20 billion in social infrastructure over the next decade. We believe that the creation of new affordable housing units must be a priority for investment. Homelessness costs our economy an estimated $7 billion each year, while the high cost of housing keeps families in poverty, limiting growth by $25 billion annually.
A safe and affordable home is a prerequisite for healthy people and communities. Access to affordable housing helps students perform better at school and makes it possible for parents to upgrade their skills and education. It reduces family stress and improves mental health and well-being. It helps lower health-care costs and provides security and peace of mind for seniors on fixed incomes. And it stimulates local economies, improving worker productivity and creating thousands of jobs in construction and renovation.
That’s why the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has joined housing organizations across Canada in calling on the federal government to commit to building 100,000 new affordable homes over the next five years. Through an annual investment of $1.5 billion, the government will help reduce homelessness, decrease wait times for affordable housing units, and stimulate economic growth through housing construction.
At the same time, many of the affordable homes that ONPHA’s members operate are more than 40 years old and badly in need of repair. In Ontario alone, the capital needs of the social and affordable housing sector total more than $2.6 billion. If the federal and provincial governments don’t commit to preserving these community assets, we will lose the few affordable homes we have left. Investing in capital repairs and improvements will also help create job opportunities and revitalize neighbourhoods.
A well-funded housing system would have the resources and flexibility to respond to emergencies and ongoing demand, at home and abroad. Non-profit housing providers operate in communities across Canada and are well-suited to helping families integrate into the community. These organizations stand ready to provide permanent, affordable homes to newly arrived refugees and to families that have lived in Canada for decades. But without the government’s help, their generosity can only go so far.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/05/refugees-needs-expose-canadas-housing-crisis.html

[Luís Henrique]

Then build. Aren't capitalists in love with 'job creations'?

It doesn't look like they are, no. Instead, they seem to prefer "austerity".

Luís Henrique