Why are you doing this to me :hesitation-2: ,
-
Armchair marxist stanning imperialism ✅
-
Boomer having never heard of intersectional marxism ✅
-
Blaming idpol for neoliberalism like the idiot Francis Fukuyama ✅
-
Cishet man not understanding that patriarchy has not been ended, but merely transformed ✅
-
Hyperprivileged academic proving why professors being beaten to death with sticks during cultural revolution was unfortunate, but necessary ✅
Maybe we only need to beat him with a comically large hard-rubber hotdog for a while
that could help, but remember that Zizek is a hotdog dual wielder, it would need to be at least two comically large hard-rubber hotdogs (Danish style, with both roasted and fresh onions).
Who the fuck is Zizek reading these days? Is he reading fucking anyone? Is he involved in literally any party?
Man is high on his own supply. Post-patriarchy? Fuck off Zizek.
What do you expect from an author who got into controversy of self quoting in his own books?
The problem with ‘woke’ libs isn’t that they believe in gender liberation, its that they use it as a smokescreen. Seems like Zizek has an issue with liberals weaponizing feminism, but also feminism in of itself? Article is kind of all over the place tbh, but Zizek’s opinion pieces tend to be.
If he’s talking about liberals, why does he use “woke left” in the title?
He is talking both about liberals and leftists. I think his shit flinging at leftists is the dumb part.
Western political correctness (“wokeness”) has displaced class struggle, producing a liberal elite that claims to protect threatened racial and sexual minorities in order to divert attention from its members’ own economic and political power.
This Iine is a pretty clear condemnation of liberals, saying they’ve coopted the rhetoric of the ‘woke’ left. Something I would largely agree with.
As Marx and Engels wrote more than 150 years ago in the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto:
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. … All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
This observation is studiously ignored by leftist cultural theorists who still focus their critique on patriarchal ideology and practice. Yet surely the critique of patriarchy has reached its apotheosis at precisely the historical moment when patriarchy has lost its hegemonic role – that is, when market individualism has swept it away. After all, what becomes of patriarchal family values when a child can sue her parents for neglect and abuse (implying that parenthood is just another temporary and dissolvable contract between utility-maximizing individuals)?
Of course, such “leftists” are sheep in wolves’ clothing, telling themselves that they are radical revolutionaries as they defend the reigning establishment. Today, the melting away of pre-modern social relations and forms has already gone much further than Marx could have imagined. All facets of human identity are now becoming a matter of choice; nature is becoming more and more an object of technological manipulation.
This is the critique of the ‘woke’ leftists invoked in the title, something I do not agree with. Insert Parenti quote about western leftists not being able help themselves from bashing left.
surely the critique of patriarchy has reached its apotheosis at precisely the historical moment when patriarchy has lost its hegemonic role – that is, when market individualism has swept it away
I hope somehow we get Zizek to do an AMA here. I want to bait him into spouting this ivory-tower stupidpol horseshit so that the mods ban his rich eurolib ass.
It’s also such a dishonest reading of Marx. There is a difference between “patriarchy” in the sense of the basic social order of primitive agrarian societies, in which men and women were essentially the primary caste distinction, and “patriarchy” in the sense of the institutionalized sexism of the modern day, which is a vector of class oppression rather than a hard distinction.
Marx talks about the other form of patriarchy in the Manifesto too, when he talks about marriage. The primary reason marriage is such a point of consternation for Marx and Marxists is that it is a patriarchal institution!
Mind you, there is a lot more wrong with what he said than just that, but the fact that the very same text he is quoting – which is both short and simple – clearly contradicts him demonstrates that he is either deeply illiterate (which I doubt) or intentionally dishonest.
