Slavoj Žižek would vote for Trump

[Exterminatus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA
So, to move away from this disgusting debate regarding animals and ecology, what does everyone make of this? I can't tell if Zizek is trolling here just to piss off the public or if he's serious because he did make some problematic statements regarding refugee crisis and so on. Now, what he says here regarding Hillary is of course true, but do we really need to hope for Trump victory to trigger this "radicalization" he speaks of? And can we even know that this radicalization won't swing far to the right and result in new fascism instead of reviving leftist politics?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Damn, you beat me to it!
I didn't hear him say a thing about "radicalism" in this video, though. What he did say was it would disturb the typical process for how leaders/presidents are chosen in the two-party system.

I do think it's a sign that the "anti-establishment" vacuum on the left is being exploited by the pseudo "anti-establishment"/"alt-" right. The question is whether the current political equilibrium is something on which a disturbance from either left or right to open up the gates to genuine revolutionaries. I'm actually inclined to agree.

Of course there's a danger, as Zizek says. There's an element of "danger" when you disrupt status quo realism, but it's a worthwhile risk if it means creating space for actual as well as false alternatives.

On the other hand, does the kind of disruption created by Trump's campaign make space for a leftist alternative, in theory or practice? Not really. If anything, it's the Clinton campaign's apparent limits in terms of the focus and extent of its criticism of Trump which creates space for the radical left.

In short, it's less about Trump directly opening up space for radical political discussion than about the tepid, declawed nature of supposed alternatives to Trump within bourgeois boundaries. With that in mind, no leftist should be voting for Hillary, as this is the ultimate concession whether within the radical left, or as we saw with Bernie Sanders, even within a 'reformist' camp. As far as I've seen, the latter immediately lost its flame with the Clinton endorsement despite Sanders's earlier claims to be creating a movement that went beyond his own candidacy. The former has yet to gather the firewood, let alone kindle a flame, and that's not going to happen through making the same silent, myopic concession to "political necessity" being embraced by the pseudo-left.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's easy for Zizek to say considering that he is not someone for whom a "change of the status quo" in this case drastically increases his chance of being detained by the state and deported.

[Antiochus]

There is no such thing as "establishment", this obsession that pervades American society and now, the world, is about as meaningful as electing a president that "will have a beer with you". The notion that a multi-billion dollar vampiric monkey with some of the most reactionary beliefs out there is AGAINST RULING IDEOLOGY is a canard, at best. I mean, yeah, the Nazis were also "anti-establishment", but only in the realm of aesthetics, not ideology. Furthermore, I think its quite clear at this point that Marx was simply wrong when it came to accelerationism. Historically speaking, I haven't actually seen any examples of "things getting worse" and then boom, a genuine Communist movement springing forth. The Bolsheviks survived in the Russian Empire the way cockroaches do: Merely by scrounging by. Indeed, things were 'getting better' as far as mild liberal reforms there went. I just don't think its correlated at all.

Things really weren't all that bad in the Middle Eastern dictatorships (I am speaking in the full breadth of modern history). Nor were they that bad during the French and English revolutions. Most revolutions, again historically, seem to happen when there is already a conscious, well-organized movement that exists during a time of relative tranquility (for the ruling elites I mean) and then that tranquility is shattered by some sort of acute crisis, but a crisis that merely exposed class-issues. The crisis itself is usually laughably benign for the ruling elites (a fight whether the nobility should pay a 5% tax income; whether the king had the right to close down parliament; rising bread prices).

The focus now needs to be creating a militant worker's party that is actively engaged in concrete issues, both legal and illegal, not whether some cataclysmic eschatological event, like a Trump presidency, occurs: Which would make us no fucking different than some jihadist waiting for Jesus to descend and ride out to Jerusalem to fight the anti-Christ.

PS: No real leftist should ever "vote for Trump" to "make things spiral out of control" any more than a leftist could vote for Hitler or Mussolini or whatever and still have the dignity to look at a Jew or 'targeted' group in the eye.

[Riot]

Zizek seems to be more responding to the extreme "Trump is Hitler" talk that is quite common with the general left than endorsing Trump in any meaningful way. He's been talking this way about Trump since the primaries (sometimes in almost the same exact words as used here), though this is the first I've seen him comment directly on the Trump vs Clinton opposition, instead of Trump vs other conservatives. Comrade Zizek isn't one to be wishy-washy about issues, and is known to prefer direct, seemingly-controversial, and committed answers. He's right about Trump shaking up the parties more than Clinton would, and that Clinton represents inertia. This is not the core content of what he's saying, more providing him the occasion to explain why Trump and Hillary are both horrible, yes, but that he is still looking forward and doesn't think disenfranchisement/apathy is the correct attitude here. His answer "Trump" is so fast because I'm imagining that's his canned answer to his students. He's also in part trying to make the best of a bad electoral situation by stimulating thought among his audience, getting people out of the "Trump is Hitler" rut, reminding people that Clinton is hardly a better "choice", and providing the discourse of dismissing Trump as a "disgusting opportunist", who would elect a right-winger to the supreme court -- all which is perfectly true. Obviously "shaking things up" is a shoe-string of a reason for voting for a candidate -- and I'd bet 90% of his audience know this, which is why he says this -- so he can move on to talking about how he's against the "Trump is Hitler" people he talks to, which is also a large part of his audience.

This seems more an attempt at rehabilitating disenfranchised liberals and to re-orient the discussion towards revolution (with language like inertia, shake things up, etc.) than anything else.

[ComradeAllende]

There is no such thing as "establishment", this obsession that pervades American society and now, the world, is about as meaningful as electing a president that "will have a beer with you". The notion that a multi-billion dollar vampiric monkey with some of the most reactionary beliefs out there is AGAINST RULING IDEOLOGY is a canard, at best. I mean, yeah, the Nazis were also "anti-establishment", but only in the realm of aesthetics, not ideology. Furthermore, I think its quite clear at this point that Marx was simply wrong when it came to accelerationism. Historically speaking, I haven't actually seen any examples of "things getting worse" and then boom, a genuine Communist movement springing forth. The Bolsheviks survived in the Russian Empire the way cockroaches do: Merely by scrounging by. Indeed, things were 'getting better' as far as mild liberal reforms there went. I just don't think its correlated at all.

There is such as thing as the "Establishment", although its nowhere near as monolithic as everybody claims it is. The political "Establishment", at least in the US, is nothing more than the Overton's window of post-Fordist capitalism (or "late capitalism", as the pomos call it). It's the neoliberal Clinton Democrats, the bipartisan-worshipping centrists, and the center-right elements of the GOP, plus their various supporters in the ruling and upper-middle classes. Now it's all about tax credits, public-private partnerships, and entitlement reform; before that it was environmental regulation, wage and price controls, and plain-vanilla social democracy (or pseudo-social democracy).
Also, the Nazis had a far less comprehensive ideology than the reactionary conservatives in Weimar Germany. The monarchists and traditionalists had a whole basic platform of goals and priorities: restoring the Hohenzollern dynasty, protecting the Bismarckian cartels and feudal estates, subduing and domiciling the working class trade unions and their representatives in the SPD and KPD, etc. They were apoplectic about their views and wouldn't budge a single inch, which was why they supported the fascists in the hopes of crushing the SPD and KPD. The Nazis were more focused on turning the world into one big diorama of the Origin of Species, with Germany playing the role of Homo sapiens and Europe's Slavs and Jews playing the role of the Neanderthals (imperfect analogy, I know). They didn't care if they needed to nationalize the commanding heights (which, interestingly enough, they privatized) or kowtow to the concerns of the petty bourgeois and the peasants (which they did until the Strasserites got too serious); all that mattered was the eventual triumph of the "master race".


Things really weren't all that bad in the Middle Eastern dictatorships (I am speaking in the full breadth of modern history). Nor were they that bad during the French and English revolutions. Most revolutions, again historically, seem to happen when there is already a conscious, well-organized movement that exists during a time of relative tranquility (for the ruling elites I mean) and then that tranquility is shattered by some sort of acute crisis, but a crisis that merely exposed class-issues. The crisis itself is usually laughably benign for the ruling elites (a fight whether the nobility should pay a 5% tax income; whether the king had the right to close down parliament; rising bread prices).
To be honest Middle Eastern dictatorships (post-Nasserite Egypt, Baathist Syria and Iraq, etc) were pretty bad. They were the corrupt and anachronistic remnants of the old secular nationalist and pan-Arabic movement that swept the Middle East in the 1960s and 70s (before the rise of Sunni fundamentalism); they couldn't break out of the core-periphery paradigm that pervades throughout the Middle East and stake out an alternative path to economic development and industrialization. Also, I would argue that the eventual collapse of the Arab Spring was the product of its unorganized nature: rather than utilizing the organizational capacities of a matured bourgeois class or militant trade unions, most revolutions in the Arab Spring were driven by the (impoverished) urban masses and the pragmatism of the military. They kinda remind me of the old coups that occurred during the late Roman Empire, which were propelled by the plebeian mob and executed by mutinying legions and the Praetorian Guard.

[GLF]

I'd also rather have Trump win. But I won't vote - that gives legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Yes, Trump is scary. But Hillary is downright terrifying.

If Trump wins, there will be no fascism. The American system of checks and balances is virtually impenetrable. Not even the republicans want to do business with Trump. Trump would basically turn the office into a spectacle not unlike reality TV. None of his solutions are viable. Everything about him is a joke.

If Trump loses there will be conflict. He'll call the election rigged, and millions of working class white people will experience permanent disillusionment. These people are armed and very dangerous. It could get very ugly very quick. Worst case scenario is we have a situation/state of emergency which, out of necessity, ends up yielding even more power to the Clinton regime.

There is also the "worse is better" angle. I feel that Trump would do such a horrible job that America would throw rocks at the next far-right populist - which is good because the next one might really be dangerous.

Hillary is actually much more a fascist than Trump. Trump is a fascist in a very superficial way. Hillary in a not so superficial way. She is all about corporatism, class-collaboration, third-way politics, and cronyism. She is corrupt - crooked to the very core.

Trump is a buffoon, but Hillary is dangerous.

[John Nada]

With a Clinton victory, Trump's right-wing populism won't go away. It'll likely persist into the midterm election. Another rightist populist, probably an even bigger asshole than Trump, will get nominated for the Republican presidential candidate. And she a neoliberal imperialist warmonger. She's basically trying to out-hawk the Republicans.

With a Trump victory, he's awful in every regard. I don't think his isolationist rhetoric will translated into less interventionism than under Clinton. There will then be a push from the Democrats to oppose the Republicans, like under Bush. A lot of the left will likely tail it, liquidating itself in the process.

There should be a plan for either outcome.

[GLF]

I'd also rather have Trump win. But I won't vote - that gives legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Yes, Trump is scary. But Hillary is downright terrifying.

If Trump wins, there will be no fascism. The American system of checks and balances is virtually impenetrable. Not even the republicans want to do business with Trump. Trump would basically turn the office into a spectacle not unlike reality TV. None of his solutions are viable. Everything about him is a joke.

If Trump loses there will be conflict. He'll call the election rigged, and millions of working class white people will experience permanent disillusionment. These people are armed and very dangerous. It could get very ugly very quick. Worst case scenario is we have a situation/state of emergency which, out of necessity, ends up yielding even more power to the Clinton regime.

There is also the "worse is better" angle. I feel that Trump would do such a horrible job that America would throw rocks at the next far-right populist - which is good because the next one might really be dangerous.

Hillary is actually much more a fascist than Trump. Trump is a fascist in a very superficial way. Hillary in a not so superficial way. She is all about corporatism, class-collaboration, third-way politics, and cronyism. She is corrupt - crooked to the very core.

Trump is a buffoon, but Hillary is dangerous.

What was I smoking? I can't believe it has come to this. I took a Clinton presidency for granted and jumped into anti-Clinton mode a little too soon - I never dreamed Trump would be the leader of the "free" world.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What was I smoking? I can't believe it has come to this. I took a Clinton presidency for granted and jumped into anti-Clinton mode a little too soon - I never dreamed Trump would be the leader of the "free" world.

Uh yeah then it happens and you have some billionaire who thought it would be fun to play fascist for a few years running the most powerful country on the planet. Don't take the stupidity and inanity of fascists for granted, they can still win :(

[GLF]

At this point we have to hope like hell that Trump and the repubs don't actually want fascism, and we have to believe in the millions of Americans that would fight them to do the death if it turns out that they do.

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, in light of Trump's victory, I think this is worth sharing:

https://www.facebook.com/inthenow/videos/712162798934092/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED


The true loser is the liberal elite, which simply lost contact with anxieties and so on of the ordinary people.

Unfortunately, the "alt right" has picked up on those anxieties and will manipulate them.

I've asked, in other threads, how the left can create space for an alternative. People's suggestions can be summed up as: educate and organize.

Unfortunately, that only seems to shift the question, which then becomes: How do we do that? The problem is twofold: First, existing organizations, even those espousing minimalist goals, seem to be struggling to hold themselves together. Second, even those that can hold themselves together can't build on what they have and make a serious impact toward revolutionary goals.

The radical left can't just sit around biding its time and timidly restraining its speech or its immediate aims. Even surviving reforms weren't achieved as initial goalposts set by workers' movements. Capitalists moved those goalposts as much as they could get away with it, and conceded where they did to stave off intensification of struggle. It's cyclic, of course.

The point is, if we want revolution, we need to push for revolution. If we want the most impactful immediate reforms possible, we still need to push for revolution. Democratic workers movements have fizzled out as they've been integrated into the system (electoralism, bureaucratization of unions, self-proclaimed workers' states etc.), or just outright violently suppressed enough by it.

The only way forward is to refuse to give ground and build stubbornly democratic institutions with overtly revolutionary aims. Any movement that can be co-opted by the state, or non-state reactionary groups, or even by reformists for that matter, will fail. That's not an idealistic sentiment...it's a clear tactical lesson the left needs to learn and build itself around.

If the left has to be pushed down into further obscurity, let it burn out, not fade away. If the blunt, shameless call for revolution doesn't resonate now, it might on another day, but it never will if we stop calling for it because it doesn't resonate today.

[contracycle]

I don't really understand the question. Or at least, I don't understand why the answer isn't "the old fashioned way". Paper sales, contacts with unions, involvement with campaigns, public meetings, mobilisation for demo's.

[Raul Castro]

How i feel is that Trump won't actually go on any of his promises, he really is just a buisness man who tapped into right wing reactionarism to get elected, he has no intention of "shaking things up", He probably will just be another Bush but be crueler in illegal immigration which I personally think will just strengthen the right. We have to hope that the stock market of capitalism crashes while Trump is president, because unless Trump completely bombs as president, his anti immigrant views will just create a worse right wing and will create a weaker left wing. Before we consider revolution and battle the right wing we need to make sure not just communists but the left wing in general is stronger and not whiny like liberals. The reason Trump one was because people felt bullied by the liberals everyone hate them as SJWs and annoying hypocritical people which they are. We need to find some way to distract people and take away from the disgusting liberals and find a new way to make a better left wing