/lit/ - Literature

>>11164699
Marxism isn't an ideology

>>11164704

he's also a communist post-modernist, so there

>>11164699
Zizek never claimed not to be outside of ideology, though. His whole point is that ideology continues to operate on us even when we believe ourselves freed from it, because every individual is convinced that their way is the non-ideological way and everyone else is just a sheep

>>11164705
zizek is neither a communist or a post-modernist

>>11164704
>MARXISM IS NOT THE PRIMEST EXAMPLE OF A POLITICAL/QUASI-RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY

>>11164699
Imagine being this retarded

>>11164699
ideology is bad only because it is unescapable. We are humans not machines.

>>11164699
It's more the omnipresence of ideology than the idea of you or him having an ideology.

>>11164699
But you're always within ideology, nobody is outside it
We are all eating from the trash can

>>11164704
In the world of marxism it isn't, yes.

>>11164763
Sure, he just discovered/described things that already existed in the capitalist world

>>11164823
>MARX WAS PURELY DESCRIPTIVE AND HIS DESCRIPTION WAS PURELY OBJECTIVE

>>11164830
Well no one is purely objective, apart from maybe mathematicians. But he wasn't just writing a book of "stuff wot I reckon", it's analysis of the existing material world (including plenty of tables where he works out a theory using actual data about commodity production in a certain year, etc).

>>11164699
Marx was one of the first people to analyze ideology. If you talked about ideology or false consciousness in the 50's you'd get McCarthy'd before you could say 'polit bureau'.

>>11164699
>>11164763
>>11164830
all me :^)

>>11164763
>>11164830
Communism is the ideological form of marxism, and can naturally be very dangerous. Marxism is just a mode of critique

>>11164919
>Communism is the ideological form of marxism
Marx called himself a communist and explicitly said he was not a Marxist...

>>11164850
So Adam Smith and Freidrich Hayek are also on the same vibe?

>>11164699
Thank you for making this thread.

>>11164850
And so do contemporary economists, who explicitly reject vast majorty of what was said by Marx via superior methodology.

>>11164852
He wasn't one of the first to criticize a false consciousness. That goes back to Plato.
>>11164850
His predictions are ideological. His premises are ideological. The use of dialectics is ideological.
>>11164823
The law of diminished returns that never came true? The revolution through the proletariate, that never happened?
the sole fact of stating the existence of a "thing" is ideological.
>>11164718
>>11164802
>>11164805
>>11164813
I can accept that.

>>11164926
Precisely. Being a marxist is not the same thing as being a "practising" communist, because communism is the implementation of marxist thought in society. Marxism is just a critical methodology, it doesn't provide a societal framework to counter the hegemony of capital. Marx was right about his criticism of capitalism, but he wasn't right about being a communist– the bloody 20th century history of the left has more than proven that

>>11164926
>explicitly said he was not a Marxist...
what context did he say that in you fuckin retard. do you remember

>>11164947
>the bloody 20th century history of the left has more than proven that
do you think marx would say they followed his words.

>>11164935
They were just too dumb to understand Marx, you see. If they were smart they would adhere to the labor theory of value and dialectics. If you disagree then read a book.

>>11164935
contemporary economists can't even work out that subprime loans are a bad idea

>>11165019
the subprime mortgage crisis was to a large degree caused to a large degree (but not entirely) by evolving enforcement of the Community Reinvestment act which more or less forced banks to lend to blacks and hispanics were rather unlikely to be able to pay back those loans, ever.

In many, many cases, the question "But why does America..." can be answered with "The Federal government did it for the sake of the blacks".

>>11164704
Lmao

>>11164919
>According to Engels, "ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces".

This line of thought is dangerous as it is an attempt to place itself outside what it sees as the "inside" when it in fact does not do anything of the sort. It is still "inside" what it claims to be outside of, and is only pretending to be outside of it with the deceptive use of language. There is no "false consciousness" — you are always evaluating from your own perspective and never from a "universal" "omnipresent" one. This is an inevitability of being human.

>>11165073
>Bankers were handing out loans to whoever walked in because whether or not they could pay the loans back was of no concern (when they are backed up by the Fed's $$$).
>This is somehow everyone else's fault

>>11165073
we swear it was the niggers, goyim, now gib bailout

>>11165111
Bankers were following incentives. The government originally cooked up this plan in the 70s but it wasn't really enforced until Clinton and Bush 2 with his Home Ownership Program thing that it really went into high gear. Almost no rational banker would want to lend to minorities because they are fucking broke and tend to go to jail at high rates.

>>11164704
TOP TIER BAIT

>>11164699
Ideology is inescapable, my friend. One simply must become increasingly conscious of its influences. By this one may minimize its unconscious influence and thereby cease, to an indeterminate degree, to be bound by it.

This is my interpretation of Zizek's exhortations.

>>11165097
You're right– It wasn't my intention to suggest marxism isn't ideological, marxism-as-ideology is just as capable of reproducing itself and its effects. The distinction I was trying to make is that marxism isn't in and of itself a call-to-arms in the same way that communism is– it always operates in a subtractive form, assuming the minor pole to capital's major by way of critique rather than bloody revolution, and therefore reproduces itself through coercion rather than violence. While its critiques can anger the proletariat into a revolt (and history has shown it certainly has), Marxism plays the long game, while communism is imbued with urgency and at once arrives too early (leading to a brutal collapse of ethics) and too late (always failing to overthrow the hegemony of capital).

>>11165171
didn't read, die bookfag

>>11165171
>marxism-as-ideology
There's no form of Marxism that isn't. Also, to sum it up, communism is really just the politically applied form of Marxism.

>>11164813
>Look at the video just to see what he says about NGE
>I got trolled by a shoop
I should have known, I've seen alot of shops before and the pixels are different

>>11164699
>>Ideology is bad

Way to completely misunderstand Zizek's work. Ideology is unavoidable, you turbopleb.

>>11164699
It's like spooks
He's not promising to cure you of them, only tell you about them. spooks are inescapable, so the best thing for you is to acknowledge the spook

>it’s a Marxists define themselves to be non-ideological within the framework of their own closed ideological framework episode.
This is the biggest reason I hate you people. Everything is just a closed feedback loop of “I’m right because I’m X, and X is right because X says so”

>>11164699
>Ideology is bad!
With this one simple sentence you make a complete fool of yourself by demonstrating you do not understand even the simplest of Zizek's points.

>>11165504
But that's not at all what he said you silly willy
He's saying that ideologies are everywhere, and that we're all, even zezik, eating from the trashcan of ideology
Watch a perverts guide to ideology and you'll understand what he means

>>11164699
He's rarely uses Marx because Marx wanted capitalism without exploitation. His change to the system wasn't radical enough. He's more into Hegel.

>>11164699
>Ideology is bad
You're a brainlet. Ideology is unavoidable. The only thing we can do is critique it.

>>11165557
Yes I know what Zizek means by it.
I wasn't referencing him so much as I was referencing people in this thread.

>>11164704
Delicious bait, you got me.

>>11164813
>He hasn't read the Lacanian analysis of NGE

http://crithit.org/kfharlock/?p=80

>>11165607
Holy fuck. Thanks anon

>>11164699
what is the difference between
>everything is ideology
and
>everything is mathematics
>everything is politics
>everything is social constructions
>everything is spiritual
>everything is god
>everything is competition
>everything is genes
>everything is evolution
>everything is science
<everything is psychological
>everything is sex
i mean, is just an obssesive and redundant and a kind of circular thinking.
if everything is ideology you have an ideological reason to say everything is an ideology, so your warning is not really a warning.

>>11165661
Uh-oh! Seems like you slipped when typing everything is psychological. I guess you believe it, but won't admit it. You're welcome. That'll be $100

>>11165151
>>11165111

I take money from the Fed and hand it out to as many people as possible. Hiding who exactly got it.

I rack up a huge amount of IOUs.

I find people to sell these IOUs to. People buy them because these loans have interest on them. Loans and interest goes to those that hold the IOUs.

I get my money back, plus a bit extra.

That was the scam.

>>11165661
There is a big difference between ‘everything is ideology’ and ‘there is no outside to ideology’

>>11164699
Pure Ideology refers to being so consumed by an ideology that you can't actively criticize it and have a flawed view of the world. it doesn't mean just having any kind of ideology at all.

>>11164946
Are you implying that there isn't a tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Just because 1945-73 was a period of stability means nothing. That existed due to a destruction of constant capital on a wide scale (due to WWI & WWII). We've been seeing signs of growing economic instability since the mid 70s.
The fact that people can just handwaive this reality is fucking absurd to me.

>>11164699
>I'm right

>>11165572
>Marx wanted capitalism without exploitation
But he said capitalism, like feudalism, was just a transitional stage on history's inevitavle march

>>11164997
Maybe he wouldn't have approved of engineered famines or mass deportations to Siberia, but he did advocate violent uprisings against the status quo. Honestly, he was a sociological brainlet in many ways.

>>11165755
Beautiful. I'm proud of you, my child.

>>11165928
>engineered famines

>>11165928
>but he did advocate violent uprisings against the status quo

how is this wrong? or are you such a dweeb that you unironically believe a ballot box can fix all your problems?

>>11165966
You know that old maxim "violence doesn't solve anything?" Well, it's true.

And that's not to say that the current system isn't rotten to the core and society needs a major overhaul ASAP if it's to have any chance of prospering into the future. Truthfully, I just think we're fucked, and there's little we can do about it.

>>11165928
>>11165983
So the American revolution should have never happened?

>>11164704
something seems slightly strange about this

>>11165987
Considering it was waged by wealthy landowners who didn't want to pay taxes (and were probably upset that the British were looking to outlaw slavery, but lets not talk about that) I'd say yeah, it wasn't all that justified.

>>11165983
Violence does solve a lot of things though, like successful revolutions and even something as elemental to survival as killing and eating animals shows :^)

>he doesn't realize marxism is a perspective/lens and a grand narrative over ideology
shaking my head, no wonder why the right doesn't gain any political grounds

>>11164705
>be post-modernist, reject grand narratives
>be marxist, believe in grand narrative

>>11166033
I'm talking in a social and political sense. Sure, fighting back a hungry wolf with a spear will probably "solve" the problem of not dying, but for 99.99% of human experience, we're not fighting back hungry wolves. Certainly not in our industrial societies.

>>11164699
>there are people on /lit/ who think Marxism, a method of analysis, is an ideology

You people watch too much Peterson/Shapiro/Tucker Carlson.

>>11166067
>I'm talking in a social and political sense
You do know that pretty much every thing good in modern life was paid at some point with blood, right? How can you seriously say that violence doesn't solve anything when history shows exactly the opposite? Your statement is just empirically false.

this whole thread is a bickering of language games resulting from the fact that OP conflated "ideology" in the everyday sense (meaning something like a certain worldview) and the Marxist/Althusserian sense

>>11166062
>the grand narrative that there are no grand narratives is not a grand narrative

>>11166081
>You do know that pretty much every thing good in modern life

Ok, so if I met a victim of some past genocide, I should tell them "hey don't worry about it, due a very elaborate set of inter-connected trends, your death will actually help lead to some fat nerds in the future being able to shitpost on a magic screen?"

>>11166106
The answer to any problem: from grand politics, to mastering the environment, to combating pseudo-intellectualism and the anonfag plague, is always one: death. Violence is the answer to every problem — the only answer. The first and last solution. Everything else is compromise; which is to say retreat, bargaining, defeat.

Why is violence always the solution? A solution is a way forward, and the way forward by definition flows. But violence is also flow. The proposition is a tautology: flow is always flow — and if you want to be even more obnoxiously obvious about it you could add, "because it flows". The best solution, because it flows the most.

All the things the subhumans vent their abysmal hatred on: violence, vindictiveness, etc., are precisely the reasons that they exist. Man was the most violent, hateful, vindictive animal. Fetishizing youth is the very reason we exist. Fetishizing beauty, the female form, muscles, etc. By hating the very REASONS THEY EXIST, the subhumans prove beyond doubt that they are degenerate humans, just like the fag who lambasts the "conformist" lifestyle of his heterosexual parents and attempts to foist on society his degenerate condition of a pathological mindless buggery that leads to sterility and death.

Violence is a form of communication, whatever the subhumans may say. It is indeed even its purest form; even a slab of stone can understand physical violence, but of course the mental kind is reserved for much higher beings.

>>11166106
Of course you should. Haven't you read your Hegel yet?

>>11166127
You very far gone. I hope you'll find the courage to drag yourself out of your spiritual crisis.

>>11166132
If he supports such obtuse notions, why should I bother?

>>11166106
how would you meet a victim of a genocide, can you talk to ghosts or something lmao

>>11166087
Checkmate post-modernists! Yes. YES. I see their heads turning inside out from this post alone!

>>11166144
lol
end it dawg

>>11165661
Same thing happens with egoism and philosophy. People are obsessed with obscuring further inquiry or the specificity of language by broadening definitions into meaninglessness. They take these words as their own idea of their (the words) principles or 'general feelings' rather than the actual content contained within them or resultant actions/things.

Why do you feel the need to make a thread about Zizek if you don't know anything about him