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.
When Islamist forces staged a series of military coups in Central Africa – Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso – with the open support of Russians from the Wagner Group
Really banging that neocon dinner bell for all you're worth.
Any genuine emancipatory engagement of the people is a rare event which quickly disintegrates, and not just when it comes to Western democracy. Recall how, during the period of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong sent thousands of intellectuals to the agricultural communes to learn from ordinary farmers, whom he elevated into “subjects supposed to know”. One can argue that it was good for intellectuals to become acquainted with real life in the countryside – but they did not gain any deeper wisdom about society more broadly.
It's truly crazy to say this in light of the fact that the current and one of the most successful leaders of the Chinese state was one of those intellectuals out working on the farm 50 years ago.
Bombarded by conflicting reports on global warming, reading that even many scientists hold competing views, how can an ordinary, poor person decide to act? Should they fight for measures that will in the short term push them deeper into poverty? When immigrants arrive, how can we blame this same person for seeing in them a threat to their established way of life? Can we blame them if, in this person’s limited worldview, the idea that they are somehow complicit in the neocolonial exploitation of Third World countries makes no sense? This list goes on and on: can we blame our person for feeling confused and perplexed by the debates about “he/she/they” that abound in the media? And are most of us, intellectual elites included, not caught in similar loops, unable to arrive at what the philosopher Fredric Jameson has called a proper “cognitive mapping” of our situation?
Jesus Christ, I'm hearing a right wing fog horn of tropes in here. Zizek needs to get off the JBP debate stage and touch some fucking grass.
What possible competing theory of climate change is going to sublimate my $600 A/C bill when its been nearly three months since I've seen the weather dip under 100⁰? How is that not pushing me into poverty?
How are heat exhausted migrants along the border more threatening than the army of goons hiding behind hundreds of miles of sniper towers and razor wire waiting to seize them?
Why does anyone give a shit about pronouns? Ever?
Get out of the God damned ideological trash can Zizek.
It seems like Zizek's primary function is to sell whatever happens to be the current neoliberal desire to left-minded people who otherwise wouldn't buy into the bullshit narrative unless presented by someone vaguely leftish and academically respected.
Is this why YouTube recommends me so much Zizek? I stopped watching anything with him years ago, but the algos keep pushing it.
Makes me wonder...what other public figures are used to siphon energy on the left away from more radical ideologies or steer radical energy towards opinions more favorable for global north capital?
Is there any good literature on capital co-opting leftish figures, movements, & ideas to diffuse revolutionary energy or effective resistance to imperial/liberal desires? Anything modern-ish that takes algorithmic content curation into account?
Is there any good literature on capital co-opting leftish figures, movements, & ideas to diffuse revolutionary energy or effective resistance to imperial/liberal desires
Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher covers this, but I've also seen it subjected to criticism for various reasons.
According to Fisher, capitalist realism has so captured public thought that the idea of anti-capitalism no longer acts as the antithesis to capitalism. Instead, anti-capitalism is deployed as a means for reinforcing capitalism. This is done through modern media which aims to provide a safe means of entertaining anti-capitalist ideas without actually challenging the system. The lack of coherent alternatives, as presented through the lens of capitalist realism, leads many anti-capitalist movements to cease targeting the end of capitalism, but instead to mitigate its worst effects, often through individual consumption-based activities
I read it like 5 years ago but forget most of it.
ironically Fisher draws on Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology directly in Capitalist Realism
Zizek has some very insightful things to say, he just is so unprincipled that he will offer moronic lies just as readily
we all do, but he knows it and he thinks it's awesome
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.
it's actually preferable to have a remote colonial power instead of a sovereign local power for umm sniff cultural reasons
economic regression into new lows of poverty that profit only the new and corrupt elite
The problem, you schee, snort, ish that I am not friends with thish "new" elite. Only the old elite, as dogs of their European mashters, benefitsh myself and my cohortsh. And so on, and so forth.
Regarding the narrative that LGBT rights are colonial. Obviously that is bullshit
Wouldn't the scare quotes indicate he agrees?
