the tweet:
https://twitter.com/GabrielRockhill/status/1699957902335746434#m
zizek's paywalled article:
https://archive.li/hY5oJ
The quote in question:
However, it is clear that the “anti-colonial” uprisings in Central Africa are even worse than French neocolonialism. The future they bring is that of failed states like Zimbabwe and Myanmar: authoritarian military rule; economic regression into new lows of poverty that profit only the new and corrupt elite; ideological fundamentalism combined with a pushback against “colonial” influences like gay rights.
Regarding Zimbabwe: This is a funny example for Zizek to use since Zimbabwe is largely impoverished because of western neocolonial IMF loans:
Regarding the narrative that LGBT rights are colonial. Obviously that is bullshit and it's interesting that both Russia and NATO liberals are pushing it, but for opposite reasons. Liberals in NATO countries are pushing it because it wants to be seen as the global vanguard of LGBT rights, when they are not, and never have been. Russia is pushing it because it wants to be seen as the vanguard of (for lack of a better term) "social conservatism" and "tradition" protecting the global south from "western decadence" or whatever other reactionary nonsense.
I'd argue caution about the recent uprisings in Africa because it's yet to be apparent whether they have popular backing and it's not forthcoming as to what character the new governments will take on until we see policy being enacted.
Pol Pot is a perfect example of the rhetoric not meeting the practical implementation in any way and this why I think it's prudent to withhold judgement as a westerner who has no expertise in Africa until there is solid evidence of what will transpire. After all, my support or opposition to these changes amounts to effectively zero because, speaking as a communist, we haven't seized the commanding heights of the political economy here and as such my sentiment towards African uprisings has no impact.
Which is a comfortable place to be in, at least in some respects.
There's a risk that seems to be exacerbated by the modern hot-take economy and that's expecting that everyone should have a fully developed opinion of current affairs as soon as they come to light and that's part of the distracting effect of The Spectacle™ imo.
While I support any country's move towards freeing themselves from colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism I want to see evidence of this before I shift from my position of being a well-wisher towards something more developed.
I hope that they truly are freeing themselves from the shackles of the system of capitalist exploitation, and especially heading down a path of socialism, but until I know more I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic and nothing more.
No investigation, no right to speak and all that.
With that lengthy disclaimer out of the way, this is yet another dogshit take from Zizek which should come as no surprise to people who have been watching closely.
I'd strongly recommend reading articles written by Gabriel Rockhill and if you want to go further with it, he has some good lectures on his YouTube channel as well.
Pol Pot was one of the most destructive leaders in world history [relative to the power available to him], but in the very early stages was a historically progressive force compared to French colonialism. The PRC wildly mishandled Cambodia and Vietnam after France was expelled, but it made sense in the initial stages to back the most powerful movement for Cambodian sovereignty.
China should have taken severe measures against them rather than Vietnam afterwards, though.
deleted by creator