Slavoj Zizek: Trump is better for the American left than Clinton

[KingOrfeo]

And he may be right.

Last November, the Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek turned a lot of heads when he announced shortly before the 2016 presidential election that if he were American, he would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton — not because he thought Trump was the lesser evil, but precisely because he was the greater evil.

The Slovenian intellectual’s hope was that the election of a vulgar, right-wing extremist like Trump would “be a kind of big awakening” that would trigger “new political processes” in America. In other words, with a reactionary demagogue as transparently abhorrent and dangerous as Trump in the White House, a popular movement on the left would emerge to challenge not only Trump’s reactionary populism, but the neoliberal status quo that had long prevailed in Washington. Clinton, argued Žižek, stood for an “absolute inertia” that would stifle a populist movement on the left, and while there was great danger in a Trump presidency, there was also great danger in electing Clinton — especially in the long run.

<snip>

The current tension between progressive activists protesting on the street and the Democratic establishment was displayed by an interesting exchange last week between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and an NYU student at a CNN town hall. After pointing out that a majority of millennials no longer support the capitalist system, the young student asked Pelosi whether she felt that the Democratic Party could “move farther left to a more populist message, the way the alt-right has sort of captured this populist strain on the right wing,” and if the Democrats “could make a more stark contrast to right-wing economics?” The question — or, more explicitly, the statement that young people are rejecting capitalism — made Pelosi visibly uncomfortable, and the congresswoman felt it necessary to emphasize the Democratic Party’s loyalty: “I have to say, we’re capitalist ― and that’s just the way it is.”

This is understandable — after all, the Democratic Party does support capitalist party, and the House minority leader can’t be expected to make radical pronouncements. But Pelosi was so concerned with defending the sanctity of capitalism that she failed to answer whether the Democrats could or should espouse a more populist economic message, akin to the social-democratic platform that nearly carried Bernie Sanders to victory over Clinton.

That kind of Democratic resistance to economic populism is making many progressives question whether the party is ready to lead a viable resistance against right-wing populism. Some progressives are starting to join other left-wing organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Of course, it is a truism in American politics that third parties are not viable alternatives if the goal is to succeed in electoral politics — and as long as there is a winner-takes-all system in place, this will obstinately remain true. The pragmatic approach for the populist left is to work to transform the Democratic Party itself, as groups like Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats have set out to do, while sustaining a popular movement on the ground.

 

[Rightguide]

And he may be right.

More likely just full of crap like most lefties.

 

[Ms_Ann]

Uh-huh...


http://cdn.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/c6/c62cfc7d-26bc-4729-a6d7-b9920aae2ddb.jpg

 

[hashtag46]

A GB liberal who heard of and read the writings of a world renown intellectual and philosopher.

This is a first and I'm impressed.

*And the GB 'libs.' wonder why I hold AJ in such high regard.*

 

[Rightguide]

A GB liberal who heard of and read the writings of a world renown intellectual and philosopher.

This is a first and I'm impressed.

*And the GB 'libs.' wonder why I hold AJ in such high regard.*

A world renown "Marxist" philosopher impressed KingOrfeo with his tired but typical reasoning.

 

[Wrong Element]

Ah yes, "heightening the contradictions," a notion ever-popular with Marxist simpletons that nonetheless has a very bad track record for ever occurring in the real world. "Heightening the contradictions" was a popular reason for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. How the hell did that work out?

I suppose a Slovenian can be forgiven for not knowing the first thing about American politics or American society, but that's all the more reason for not paying any attention to him.

The last paragraph in the quote actually borders on making sense, so I suppose that's hopeful.

 

[Rightguide]

Truth is, instead of Trump helping the left, what we see happening before our eyes is the left helping Trump. When he bashes the media and they go nuts the American majority jumps to its feet in applause. They turn out in the tens of thousands to see and hear the man who had the balls to say and do what they've been thinking for so many years.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who the fuck is Slavoj Zizek?



Another member of the Obamanation?

 

[Rightguide]

Who the fuck is Slavoj Zizek?



Another member of the Obamanation?

He's a foreign Marxist Philosopher from Slovenia who's obviously sent a shiver up KingOrfeo's leg.

 

[hashtag46]

And he may be right.

Slavoj Žižek announced shortly before the 2016 presidential election that if he were American, he would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton — not because he thought Trump was the lesser evil, but precisely because he was the greater evil.

The Slovenian intellectual’s hope was that the election of a vulgar, right-wing extremist like Trump would “be a kind of big awakening” that would trigger “new political processes” in America.

In other words, with a reactionary demagogue as transparently abhorrent and dangerous as Trump in the White House, a popular movement on the left would emerge to challenge not only Trump’s reactionary populism, but the neoliberal status quo that had long prevailed in Washington.

Clinton, argued Žižek, stood for an “absolute inertia” that would stifle a populist movement on the left.
<snip>

That's not what Zizek said. The author of that article took things out of context.
This is the excerpt of the interview:



"Slayoj Zizek: “Of course, Trump is personally disgusting, bad racist jokes, vulgarities and so on.
But at the same time did you notice how Trump said some very correct things about Palestine and Israel? He said we should also see Palestinian interests and approach the situation in a more neutral way. He said we should not just antagonise Russia, find a dialogue there. He was even for higher minimal wages. He hinted that he would not like simply to cancel Obama’s universal health care, Obama care …”

Sergio Cantone: “He is a liberal centrist …”
Slayoj Zizek: “Yes! That’s my provocative thesis! That if you scrap this ridiculous and, I admit it, dangerous surface, he is a much more opportunist candidate and his actual politics perhaps will not be so bad.”


https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134505/slavoj-zizeks-take-donald-trump-zizek-y

 

[Rightguide]

That's not what Zizek said. The author of that article took things out of context:


"Slayoj Zizek: “Of course, Trump is personally disgusting, bad racist jokes, vulgarities and so on.
But at the same time did you notice how Trump said some very correct things about Palestine and Israel? He said we should also see Palestinian interests and approach the situation in a more neutral way. He said we should not just antagonise Russia, find a dialogue there. He was even for higher minimal wages. He hinted that he would not like simply to cancel Obama’s universal health care, Obama care …”

Sergio Cantone: “He is a liberal centrist …”
Slayoj Zizek: “Yes! That’s my provocative thesis! That if you scrap this ridiculous and, I admit it, dangerous surface, he is a much more opportunist candidate and his actual politics perhaps will not be so bad.”


https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134505/slavoj-zizeks-take-donald-trump-zizek-y

You mean KingOrfeo reported fake news?

 

[hashtag46]

You mean KingOrfeo reported fake news?

You immediately picked up on that lol.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's not what Zizek said. The author of that article took things out of context.
This is the excerpt of the interview:



"Slayoj Zizek: “Of course, Trump is personally disgusting, bad racist jokes, vulgarities and so on.
But at the same time did you notice how Trump said some very correct things about Palestine and Israel? He said we should also see Palestinian interests and approach the situation in a more neutral way. He said we should not just antagonise Russia, find a dialogue there. He was even for higher minimal wages. He hinted that he would not like simply to cancel Obama’s universal health care, Obama care …”

Sergio Cantone: “He is a liberal centrist …”
Slayoj Zizek: “Yes! That’s my provocative thesis! That if you scrap this ridiculous and, I admit it, dangerous surface, he is a much more opportunist candidate and his actual politics perhaps will not be so bad.”


https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134505/slavoj-zizeks-take-donald-trump-zizek-y

B-b-b-but, Cap'n McQueeg and KingO are declaring that Trump is a Commie.



Wouldn't a Commie recognize one of his own?

And why have we abandoned Fascist?

 

[Rightguide]

And why have we abandoned Fascist?

Because they don't know the difference.