Slavoj Žižek: Why There Are No Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism

Slavoj Žižek: Why There Are No Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism

I still believe in the saying of this oath
Frankford School fellow traveler Marxist Valter Benjamin who said that behind every rise of
fascism there is a failed revolution. I think even if we strategically, I’m not
sure about it, accept this term Islam fascism for Islamic fundamentalist, this so called
Islam fundamentalism is strictly relative with the disintegration of secular Islamic
left, which was pretty strong in the ’50s, ’60s and so on, but then began to disintegrate. So I think we shouldn’t be too fascinated
with this phenomenon. We should rather ask what happened with the
left. I think this phenomenon of right wing populism
are strictly the obverse of something that did not happen. They didn’t just happen, they happened because
something else didn’t happen because the left didn’t provide a proper answer. And that’s for me the true tragedy today. On the one hand we are entering a period,
and we are already in this period for almost ten years, where rage, discontent are exploding
everywhere, even in our Western countries, Occupy Wall Street in Europe, the demonstrations
in France, Greece and so on. On the other hand it is as if the left, even
if it succeeds in, sometimes not always, in recapturing the energy of this rage cannot
really offer a new political model that would be not only seductive enough to mobilize millions
of people, but even in itself it doesn’t have enough consistency. What I’m saying is this, in Europe we didn’t
yet fully accept the fact that the 20th century is over. By this I mean the following: The 20th century
left, which had basically three strengths orientations, Stalinist communism, that’s
over. Not only it’s over, in a beautiful irony where
ex-communists are still in power they are mostly the most efficient agents of the most
ruthless new liberal global capitalism. Do you know what I mean? If you want to be a successful capitalist
today don’t go to Western Europe, go to China where every Chinese will tell you the main
function, almost, of the communist party is to prevent the formation of an independent
working movement trade unions to keep workers under control, Vietnam the same story and
so on. So, old Stalinism is no longer operative. Unfortunately because of the change economic
situation and so on, also we don’t have new social democracy. Social democracy in the sense of the old welfare
state it simply belongs to another era. It would have to be radically reinvented,
it didn’t happen. Which is why unfortunately some even right
wing analysts who claim that social democracy where it still exists is today the greatest
conservative force. In a way tragically they are right because
almost all the struggles of social democracy today is to keep the old rights, you know,
no they will not take from us, I don’t know, health insurance or whatever like to stick
to the rights which were gained 30/40 years ago. Now of course I absolutely sympathize with
it, but so many things are happening. Can you even imagine how our lives at all
levels were revolutionized through digitization, through new forms of science, new forms of
liberal capitalism? I don’t think that a simple return to old
social democratic welfare state can work. Then we have a third orientation subterranean
one, which still is popular among some people. This idea of rejecting big state representation
mechanism, political parties, state power and to opt for local democracy, transparent
local communities managing their affairs. I also think that we have to drop this last
dream. It doesn’t work. It’s good when it happens but if nothing else
today’s problems are global problems in a much more radical sense. Think about what is happening with capitalism. I know works that are popular at least in
Europe Jeremiah Ripken, Paul Basin, this idea which I find wonderfully attractive, although
I think they’re simply fighting a little bit too much, namely what is happening today with
digitalization, biogenetics and so on, is almost a new beautiful example of the most
orthodox Marxism when they say with the development of productive forces a new situation emerges
where old relationship production no longer can cope with, isn’t this happening today? Everybody knows even, the how is that guy
called from Tesla boss Elon Musk or what, he said recently private property will no
longer work. We will have to introduce some kind of citizens
general income plus government; we have to pay for it. So everybody knows that, at least the way
we know it the model of capitalism is reaching its limits. On the one hand with so-called cooperative
commons, free circulation and so on, it’s over. The market economy is approaching its limit. Of course, there are attempts, even very successful,
to re-privatize we took over again these commons. For example, Internet, ideal place of commons,
we all communicate and so on, but you know you have Facebook controlling private communication,
if you want to buy books and so on all this it’s controlled intellectual exchanges by, just name them, software controlled by Microsoft and so on. But nonetheless, it’s clear that capitalism
is approaching a limit. Okay, but I don’t believe in this simplistic
answer where they say oh this is this self-organization without central power and so on and so on. No, I think the big task today is precisely
to reinvent large-scale very strong social political agents structures with strong authority. Just think, for example, about biogenetics. Tremendous things are happening today. We really are on the edge of creating a new
man like reconstructing through biogenetic interventions our genetics and so on. Who will control this? Should these be privatized and so on? Intellectual property. Everybody knows it’s a mess, it’s ridiculous
how big companies try to control it. Ecology, it’s no longer this individualist
approach which is very intelligently supported I hope you noted this by big companies and
state apparatuses, the way to divest us or redirect us from really approaching the big
problems by addressing us as individuals, responsible individuals like let’s say, simply
by situation, you criticize big companies for polluting environment and a typical ideologist
today would tell you, but what did you do? Who are you to criticize it? Did you recycle all your Coke cans? Did you put all newspaper aside and so on
and so on? And this works wonderful. It redirects your attention to yourself and
then it makes you feel guilty, at the same time it offers you an easy way out, redirect,
buy organic food and so on and you can go on living the way you are. So back to the main points so I don’t lose
myself, it’s clear that we are approaching different levels a critical moment. But the left, and this should be the natural
terrain traditionally of the left. The left was thriving in such critical moments,
now let’s be frank, it doesn’t have a solution. Let me give you a metaphor that I always like
to use for this. I hope our viewers have seen a movie I think
about ten years ago it was popular V for Vendetta. I will not go into the story. The point is that at the end there is a revolution
in England, imagine England the crowd breaks through the police barrier penetrates the
British Parliament; the people take over and the end of the film. My idea is that, sorry for this vulgar expression
but it expresses precisely how I feel, I would like to see – I would sell my mother into
slavery to see a movie called V for Vendetta Part II. Okay guys, people took over. What would they have done a day later? How would they re-organize the power? The same stage how would they restructure
the power? This gap becomes like you could have touched
it. It becomes so obvious with here is a government,
big populous , they want referendum. No. A day later as you know, literally almost
a day later they capitulated, they make a deal with the European Union. Now for me it’s too easy to criticize them
traders; they betrayed it. What could they have done? Give me – accept from these empty phrases
of we need more true democracy; people’s voice should be heard, what does this mean? This is nonsense. Here I disagree softly with my otherwise good
friend I admire him, Yanie with his idea of DM democratize Europe. I always am telling him let’s take these two
cases how they dealt with the European Union, I mean the Greek state and immigrants. But if the European Union were to be more
transparent in the sense of democratically controlled, but in the simple sense of more
acting in accordance to the will of the majority, refugees would have been treated in a much
worse way. A big majority today in Europe of people,
I wouldn’t say how big majority, but clearly a majority are against any new immigrants
and so on. In this sense I write this about in the book
how this was a very simple but efficient right wing criticism of Angela Merkel, where is
her sense of democracy? She invited one million immigrants to enter
Germany. Who legitimized her in doing this? I am on her side but in a very precise sense. I think we should take this very painful lesson,
the majority is not automatically right. Now, I’m not saying there should be a communist
party which is always right, I’m just saying that a certain dose of healthy mistrust of
not democracy as such but will of the majority is for me totally legitimate. People quite often are not right. And I think Angela Merkel did something that
great politicians do, you enforce a measure knowing that the majority is against it hoping
that if you have enough time to enforce this measure retroactively through its success
it will become acceptable to the majority, but you have to take the risk. So, back to my big problem, I think that the
ultimate cause of all this populism and so on is the simple fact that we live in an era
of great dissatisfaction rage and so on, but the left doesn’t have a model, it’s all empty
praises. People should decide more through democracy,
blah, blah, blah, but what does it mean? Like what to do? How to re-organize the state? Because the big problem is this one, of course,
it’s still the old Fukuyama problem I claim. You know Francis Fukuyama have forgotten today,
and I don’t agree with him, but he was onto something in that sense. Even today the majority of the politicians,
even the leftists, are Fukuyamaists in what sense? They think that liberal democratic capitalism
is the ultimate form and all we can do is to render it better, you know, more health
service, more tolerance whatever you want, more welfare, but the basic model is accepted. No one is asking the questions that people
were asking 40/50 years ago like is capitalism the ultimate answer? Can we imagine social organization beyond
state and so on and so on? So that’s for me the big problem is this let’s
call it enlightened social democratic Fukuyamaism like what Tony Blair stood for in the United
Kingdom. Is this enough or is something more radical
needed? I think it is, not that I believe in any communist
revolution or whatever, but simply I think that the problems we are facing cannot be
resolved at this level. So, that’s my sad prediction. Either a new form of the left will be reinvented
or here is my simple but I love it answer, or look at Hollywood, I always trust Hollywood. Hollywood is warning us all the time Hunger
Games, Elysium and so on, that’s the society we are approaching. Twenty percent of people live in the privileged
zone, the majority is out. That’s the future.

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

100 thoughts on “Slavoj Žižek: Why There Are No Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism”

  • This guy has to be on coke. I'm sure he or someone with make excuses but the amount of snorts and him touching his face points towards heavy drug use. 🙂

  • UBI, taxation on international corporations that pays 0-1% , cancellation of national debts, reinstatement of glass-steagall act, stock speculation tax. What is so unclear? Financial deregulation since the 80's is the obvious culprit imo, we just need to reign in the monster. Or what?

  • Every video with Zizek in it i have to turn on CC and turn off the sound. His voice makes my fucking skin crawl.

  • Zizeks approach to a classless society: rotate everyone. He gave an example of a restaurant where theres no manager but all workers have meeting to determine what the restaurant will sell each day. Now you tell me whether you like to go to you favourite Chinese restaurant where you can get your fried rice or would you go to a restaurant where today it's taco made by a cook and tomorrow it's burnt toast made by a cashier.

  • I firmly believe that capitalism is a social/economic paradigm that needs to be replaced, but at the same time we've not yet reached the point where we're capable to invent a new structure.
    Capitalism has many flaws and few virtues, yet right now it's the only social structure capable of maintaining a (somewhat skewed) balance in our civilization. Our views on the capitalist model will be tested in the future, and I feel at some point we will either fall in stagnation defending it, or take a large hit and recover some time later while trying to change it.

  • Soon enough, there will be very little for most people to do, so it would make sense that instead of working class supporting the elite, the elite support the “working class”, ie, universal basic income, corporations pay far more tax than ordinary citizens and basically have a trickle down economy instead of the trickle up one we currently live in

  • I'm not going to talk to you – what I want is Carlyle – a very superficial writer – no, I'm bored. Neitzsche said 'I love' and then….

  • It's beat for everyone to stop breeding obviously.

    Before we existed – we never had a single problem.

    No people = no problems…

    So just stop creating problems (babies)

    And then we'll stop needing solutions…

  • Our goal is that all human beings no matter their social situation reach the auto-realisation and self-individuation state of living. Capitalism will never do that because in order to exist one group of indviduals has to dominate and submit another.

  • True democracy is never stable, it never lasts. Some group or other will eventually override the will of the people, either permanently or temporarily

  • I think the choices of the masses (he refers to Mercel overriding the will of citizenry to reject refugees) reflects a collective mental illness, a trauma, which they are determined to repeat without help. Anyone out there know if there's anyone addressing collective trauma of masses? – easily seen in Israel's occupation of Palestine for example. I think solutions for the masses are psychological in nature.

  • Zizek should stop doing coke. Also read up on modern economics, there are new alternative forms of capitalism and they'll be no alternatives to them because of climate change. He's plain ignorant here

  • I never use to appreciate Zizek, i feel like in recent years hes vered away from intentional obscufication for the sake of comedy and naval gazing to a more relatable and relevant intellectual. Kind of make me thinks he doesnt see it all as a joke anymore, perhaps hes worried about what were building.

  • This is not an analytic clip…it is triggering the left while bringing back in the spotlight the fears that gave birth to comunism – "obsolete system for the technological progress", "private property will not function" bla bla. Again, is ment to trigger left ambitions in the charecteristic perverted style. Old school propaganda. Anybody wants some half of century , half of the world in censorship – state property – compeled thinking (!!! Not only speech)..? I guess so.

    In one sentence – build a "new" political structure, bassed on fear and frustration. Rensentment entitlement.

    And yep ! PLEASE be self oriented and achieve what you wany. PLEASE do think about your trash. And PLEASE defend yourself as an individual. This is what freedom means. Unless you need you want to be living un unpredictable life with no choice or personal contribution

  • Oh, and one last wake up : organising in communities with out state being envolved too much – lovely. It is called capitalism. It is not about the state. It is only amd extension of the individual. Capitalism is not about being alone and opressed. It is about being able to say fk u to the state economy. About being financially independent. If you don't like that, think a bit about the reverse and tell me you don't feel like a cripple asking for help

  • According to Zizek, taking in a million (I'd love to see the recent numbers, we're probably going towards the two million mark right now) immigrants was a measure, which would "retroactively through its success […] become acceptable to the majority".
    Now I ask: Where is this success and where is this acception? The AfD, basically the voice of people discontent with immigration, is making big gains, especially in the eastern states, regardless of the insane propaganda the media spreads. And which 'success' would one hope for in taking such disproportionate numbers of islamic young men into the country, with 'integration' failing on all levels?
    I feel like his stance on politics is rather disconnected from the reality, even though I appreciate his philosophical efforts.

  • If you have the power to destroy, you have the power to rule. My answer to capitalism, no work, no children (in fact it doedn't let ne, ironically). If slaves stop working and reproducing, capitalism is screwed. Slaves can't even listen to laziness… they're that stupid, and stupidity is the true fuel if capitalism, not finances. Money have no value to people with will, or smart people

  • DUDE…!  Are you fucked up on opiates???  You keep wiping your face and nose like a nervous tic… like a junkie!

  • Wrong from the get go. Though it’s unfortunately a common theory.
    1) Secularism is not left, it’s not a political ideology. It’s just a way of organizing a government without a religious element.
    2) Secularism in the Middle East failed due to the meddling of foreign powers. Both the US (as they did in S America) and the Soviet Union successfully installed totalitarian puppet governments in many of those countries while undermining the democratically elected ones.
    3) Secularism in the US is being undermined by a misinformation and mischaracterization campaign a’la the religious liberty scam.
    4) Liberalism has not failed of it’s own accord. It too has been for many decades undercut and defunded by the right. They kill the roots, the tree falls. The only problem of the left has been a weakness in fighting these tactics.

  • Everybody commenting on Zizek as a person and discarding these words on the basis of attacks to his person is being prejudiced. Typical ad hominem. Yeah, he looks and sounds like a vampire. I agree doesn't mean he's wrong

  • Look at Yugoslavia, it worked. This video is mostly shit, but there is some truth, we leftist need to clean out out shit and start with a clean sheet

  • The "new left" is in fact the Green movement, which this guy failed to mention even once in his (at many points rather confusing) monologue. The Green movement is on the rise world-wide, and gradually replacing social democracy, by embracing the latter's objective of achieving social justice, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of tackling the climate crisis.

    Greens in fact aim to get two birds with one stone by promoting the huge economic potential of new jobs and opportunity that the much needed global energy transition to renewables will bring with it.

    Cynics and fatalists have never done anything to improve the world. We should of course not turn a blind eye to populist and nationalist sentiment that has been rearing its head lately, but we shouldn't let those populists and bigots control the narrative either. Join the peaceful Green revolution and for the sake of future generations: don't lose heart! 🙂

  • It seems like he’s on cocaine or maybe he just has really bad allergies but some one should tell him to stop fucking with his noes every three seconds if he wants his perspective/propaganda to be taken seriously

  • I really do not understand his criticism when he says essentially “Oh, they say they want democracy, that people should have a participatory role in decision-making, but they don’t say how they actually want to restructure social/political institutions.” Like, dude… That is a restructuring of institutions. This is like saying “Oh, the bourgeois revolutionaries of the 18th century say they want governments where the property-owning capitalist aristocracy holds state power through representative elections, but how do they actually want to restructure the feudal state?” That is one angle of describing how the institutions are organized— who has/should have power, who makes decision, who determines how the institutional resources are distributed/used… This has literally everything to do with how those institutions are organized… In the same way that saying “We want a system where workers as a universal class, rather than the capitalist class, make decisions about production, alllcate the use of surplus value, and so on,” that tells you quite a lot about the way they want to reorganize and restructure social institutions. They want a classless society, they want worker-run industry, and there are only so many specific ways that can be structured, all of which will have certain things in common. That description gives you enough to know that they want socialism, not capitalism. In the same way, it’s very clear that these people want a form of democracy rather than a bourgeois republic which was consciously designed to alienate regular working people from the levers of power. So I’m not sure what it is exactly that he wants.

    It seems to me that there is no shortage of specific theoretical models of how democratic political (or analogous socialist economic) institutions could/should specifically look and function in the details… The issue isn’t that people who favor democracy have never gotten specific— it’s that there are centuries of discourse among them (as in all political circles) debating exactly what would be ideal and most likely to work… But creating a consensus among all democrats about which model is ideal in theory is not a realistic goal whatsoever— it would be absurd to expect it. Practically speaking, this is a question that can only be answered by working to implement the models we think are likely to succeed and seeing how they go. I mean, look around the world at how many different particular iterations of the bourgeois republic exist. Did the capitalist class get together and insist that they all agreed on one and the same model before they struggled to transform their respective societies? Of course not, because in politics people have different values, different ideals, different rationales— that’s why there are a million and one different ideologies and theories within any umbrella whether it’s socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy, dictatorship… We can only reason for ourselves what we think is the best model and work towards organizing others around it and pushing for its implementation. Even if specific theoretical models of democracy didn’t exist, demanding that democrats come together and agree on one before their ideas are given consideration and credence would literally be no different than being like “Leninists haven’t put forward a plan that says exactly how many people should be in the Central Committee, exactly how many ministries there should be, exactly how many regional councils there should be per square mileage…” In actuality, every proposed mode of social organization is theorized in some level of abstraction, and then is implemented in specific, concrete forms in practice— forms which are never perfect, which virtually always require tinkering (and I’d argue that the flexibility and responsiveness required to improve them as needed in every specific region is something that democracy has in its favor over more autocratic forms of government or any which are designed to serve the interests of a particular elite class rather than involving and serving the populace as a whole)… It really seems like Zizek just doesn’t like the idea of democracy so he reaches to come up with criticisms that he wouldn’t levy at forms of organization he supports, even if they’re equally valid there.

  • So Saddam Huessain wasn't a fascist? Didn't he purge his political opponents on live TV and then put up murals of Stalin and Hitler everywhere?

  • Communism and Nationalism establish the state as corporate super-entity, which given the antisocial nature of bureaucracy, leads inevitably to a human rights crisis. Free-market Capitalism is an evolution of natural law, and like natural systems it tends toward balance. The problem is the introduction of corporate predation into the field, for these artificial entities are also bureaucratic monsters, profit-driven and without accountability. Corporate law allowed for rapid growth in the development of America, but with the infrastructure now in place that growth has become cancerous. Corporate actors bring into our democracy the same fascism that defined the failed communist empires, appointing unpopular politicians to advance unpopular legislation and run a private war machine beyond the will of the people.

  • basically the left is to criticise conservative ideas that don't work anymore (but worked in the past) and invent new ideas, and conservatives are to preserve old ideas that work and accept new ideas that the left has invented (but if the idea sucks, the role of conservatives is to reject it). Yet the left seems like it can't find any solution to the idea that they think doesn't work anymore

  • Is market socialism, a market economy based on cooperated businesses, a clear enough of a goal for leftists to advocate for and pursue?

  • I know how to build an alternative to the market-hierarchy dichotomy based on a type of peer-review reputation voting.

  • When Slavoj asks "Left — what happens the next day" and muses what the answer they might give, I immediately thought of George Orwell's "Animal Farm." The day of a successful Revolution, "All animals are equal." The day after a successful Revolution, "All animals are equal, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."

  • "What happens the day after the revolution?" Revolutions take place over a period of time, and the longer we choose to continue the revolution, the better off we all are in terms of prosperity, environmental sustainability, human rights, peace, etc..

  • Bolivia (with a socialist government) has greatly reduced crime and has had the fastest growing economy in Latin America for the past few years.

    China (with a socialist government) went from a backwards, largely uneducated and mostly feudal rural monarchy, much of it controlled by warlords, to a very educated and economically developed, industrial, global superpower.

    Cuba (with a socialist government) went from a backwards, largely uneducated and mostly feudal rural defacto colony of the USA, to a very educated nation with one of the best health care systems in the world and one of the longest lifespans of any country. Indeed, the WWF has declared that Cuba is the ONLY nation on Earth that has achieved sustainable development.

    Nicaragua (with a socialist government) has developed greatly, and (according to the international organisation that measures happiness) has achieved the biggest increase in happiness of any nation, since the people replaced a capitalist government with the current socialist government.

    Russia, as part of the USSR (a socialist union of nations), went from a backwards, largely uneducated and mostly feudal rural monarchy, to a very educated and economically developed, industrial, global superpower, which was the main force that defeated nazi Germany in WW2.

    Russia, under the US-preferred Yeltsin government, imposed unbridled capitalism on its people, and thus tens of millions of people were reduced to poverty (and many died of poverty or fled that poverty to other nations, drastically reducing Russia's population) to enrich a few foreign and local billionaires. Then Putin was elected and re-nationalised the gas and oil industries and regulated private corporations, enabling Russia to recover greatly from the unbridled capitalism and widespread poverty under Yeltsin.

  • It's actually really sad how libcucks are so delusional they can listen to a marxist talk about how capitalism is failing and somehow coming out thinking he meant the exact opposite

  • What is with the hyperbole on this channel. Came here to pretend to learn about science, not for all this fussin and a-fightin.

  • The thinkers of "the left" have stared into the abyss too deeply, and the abyss stared back. When the marxist literature was worn out, they turned to existentialism and postmodernism… Which is neither good nor bad (thats sort of the point…), but it drove 'em nuts, cause thats what abysses do, so now the left is left in a tragic confused condition when the shit starts to hit the fan like never before… it's actually kinda comical. No, it's a historic joke of biblical proportions…

  • It will have a natural death…. problem is someone should go through that shit first… a generation or two will pay for choosing that stupid communist idea. Then that huge let down will force people to throw it away by themselves…BUT the places which never had this stupidity …like a generation who has everything will think.."ohh poor guy he only has one CAR, I have two…let my neighbour who has three give his one and we can all have two"…will do the revolution and lose all cars and end up a real beggar and deprive the next generation of even a proper education. Thing is you cannot measure happiness, pain or greed.

  • After the revolution some of the first to go to the re-education camps or those designated for "relocation and re-settlement" will be the leftists.

  • Well, everything depends if we continue the usage of money.
    Unbridled capitalism Will eventually lead To oligarchy/anarchy/corporatism.
    And Roman Empire proved how oligarchy and capitalism aint gonna work I definetly.

  • to imigrant problem goverment cannot stop imigrant say to them to sorting imigrant to allow enter that state only WHO HAVE BENEFIT TO STATE.

  • Democracy isn't a form of government, it's a form of crowd control. Most people are ill-informed/ignorant. Half of the people are of average or below average intelligence. Do you want your live to be determined by a majority of ill-informed, ignorant and not to bright people? There is no logical argument for democracy as a form of government. Bread and circuses.

  • That's easy. People would be fighting over who maintains the nuclear power plants and nobody will want to do the job. Anyone who says it is a serious problem will be accused of working for the man and beaten to death.

    Either that or Russia and China take advantage of the chaos and just March in to claim their new territory.

  • fiat money is so out of wach I argue its not capitalism anymore.. if they intervine and do greenspan puts, QE and now just 'bond purchasing program, not QE' then mal-investments go unpunished and you end up with an unproductive economy.. laden in debt..

  • socialism can not create it can only take over and leech untill there's nothing left over ..
    so before we are in a post scarecity world .. socialism will NOT work and may be even then it will destroy the society due to a lack of goals since everything is provided because nothing is scarece any more

  • People are against immigrants because as cheap labour they take jobs plus there are now considerably more people who speak other languages all over the place. It feels very different and alien

  • Neoliberalism puts the majority of the people on a survival mode. The outcome is predictable, namely the war and further strife and suffering. It also denies and ignores the ecological threat. Thus. The end, when it comes, will be apocalyptic

  • I think the best idea would be to have a combination of the socialist council democracy model and the democratic commons.
    It would combine the best of the two systems.
    The individualistic character of the commons with all it's creativity and personal freedom with the power a centralized (yet democratic) state has in getting stuff done. With the socialist state serving as the material base, supplier and manager of the commons.
    I couldn't think of a better way to handle the challenges of humanity.

  • The future? 'If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.' George Orwell, 1984

  • Ironically the only brain damaged assholes who carp on about, and advocate, communism are the little rat weasel cunts living in capitalist jurisdictions.

  • C'mon, you guys, you know that the reason that Capitalism refuses to go away is because it works, and the reason that Socialism can't gain traction over the long haul is because it doesn't work.
    Capitalism as an intellectual framework for addressing the economic problem of human existence is able to accept economic reality as it really is and adjust accordingly; Socialism, on the other hand, lives in a fantasy world where economic reality doesn't exist but only political will.

    The whole idea of "unbridled Capitalism" is a straw man, because Capitalism does not have to be unbridled in the first place, and in truth it never is anyway. The main problem is the stupid ass Socialists waste all their time and energy trying to destroy Capitalism itself that they have no idea about how to actually improve Capitalism to make it be more fair and more just and work better. I'm thinking that the reason for this is because Socialists don't really want people to live better, I think Socialists want people to suffer a lot and then die.

  • Too often, the Revolution continues, grinding people into finer paste. This is a deep faith, professions of Atheism aside.

  • Ayn Rand gave you the answer so long ago, the government is not about the people, it's power should be so limited to ensure it is limited to a public service this ensuring it's monopoly of force is not used against us but to protect us. The goal is not endless wealth but boundless freedom.

  • So, the fear is of a radical inequality where one section of the population has a right to do with the other what is convenient for that minority. The dominion of a minority over the majority. That right essentially means that they control government institutions, especially the institutions that control the use of force with which to coerce individuals and intimidate the majority.

    Unless the majority can limit that use of force, it will always be used for the advantage of the minority that controls it. That's just the way it is.

    Qualitatively, the majority has no more moral merit to the dominion over the minority, as it is not always right, any more than a minority is, but it has just as much right as the minority to protect itself from the abuse and errors of others.

    The minority has nearly always had the advantage over the majority for the simple fact that the smaller a group is, the easier it is to get things done. The larger the group, the harder it is to agree and achieve results. Organization facilitates dominion.

    The core problem with giving the majority control over the use of force to coerce the minority can clearly be seen in the following thought experiment.

    Twenty people are stranded on an island. Protein is hard to come by and someone has the bright idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is cannibalism of the minority. The majority agrees to the plan and, by lot, someone, hopefully the one that suggested it, is chosen to be eaten so that the rest can survive. Nineteen remain and one is chosen for sacrifice again. Eighteen remain and the pattern is repeated until only two are left. Then what? The strongest prevails. Both are cases of might makes right.

    The same logic applies when the majority decides to tax billionaires. Tax them until there are no billionaires left, then move on to millionaires, then to those that make over a hundred thousand, until no one with any desire and ability to produce and distribute what everybody wants is left.

    The problem with capitalism is politicians who get to power promising stuff that will get them votes from the poor and donations from the rich. The middle class gets consumed; the rich, through protectionist laws, tariffs, etc., eliminate the competition, and the supply of jobs from which to choose from is reduced and, with a larger pool of workers, salaries drop, making the poor poorer and the rich richer until there's a revolution. Then, war destroys the means of production and the majority starve or those most willing and able to use violence get to power and make might right, again.

    At the core of politics is control of public force. Who should control it, what should it be used for, who should it be used against. Those who control it are the masters. They decide what it is used for and whom it is used against.

    Any system that allows public force to be used by one segment of the population against another is inherently unstable. The only way to maximize the probability for stability, legitimacy, and prosperity is for everyone to agree that might, be it in the form of voters, weapons, or dollars, should not make right. Only if we all give up the right to take what we want by force and we all contribute in some way in order to receive, with everyone taking responsibility for setting fair limits on the use of force can we hope to get what we need.

    The only realistic form of equality we can hope for is freedom from imposition. Any other kind of equality requires the use of force, where some have control over others, a situation utterly devoid of dignity and equality.

    Equal limits on access to another's life, liberty, and legitimate property, with legitimacy decided unanimously by impartial tribunals, small enough to come to an agreement, big enough to be representative, where everyone participates periodically is the most viable solution to might makes right and the dominion of a minority over the majority.

  • After the revolution we will redistribute the wealth, establish a living wage, make healthcare a right, make college free, demilitarize and attack climate change….

    The above is a bunch of cynical bs.

  • So the future is some sort of neofeudalitic society but the social-democracy is outdated because wanting free healthcare and education is not cool or something. Ok zizek