^^^^

Although I'm not even sure I'm a moderate. Like fairly extreme groups like the 3% and OK hate the ethnats.

It's kinda universal.

Well ANYWAYS, all of this is irrelevant. Sorry.

I misused a term lol

NO I mean I was more or less agreeing with your point about Zizek...

Yeah, I meant @Tero .

But socialist is the wrong term for Zizek

Damn, this third way shit is difficult to define

it is

I don't find it that complicated but I'm fairly conservative (as Sowell would define it not FOX).

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1121575498067398657

@Jym A point Zizek made, is that from his perspective 'cultural Marxism' and political correctness are a byproduct of a materialistic society, and the free market itself.

What's your take on that?

@Fitzydog

My take has a sort of background count. firstly that I have spent a lot of time arguing with Socialists so I'm fairly familiar with their rhetorical tricks. and secondly I would consider Zizek a Fabian not a Marxist. Fabians are sort of frog-in-the-pot socialists. They recognize that arguing directly for socialism won't work so they argue unrelated problem than offer socialist programs as the solution to them.

This particular spin is familiar. Very often socialists blame all sorts of ills on capitalism because money changed hands at some point in the chain of events. Like calling Leopold in the Congo "capitalist" because he used money. Nevermind he was a King under a feudal system. Never mind that money changing hands took part in nearly every human interaction in recorded history.

@Jym Are you watching the debate?

I listened to it at work the other day. Technology is lovely I can throw my pone on the charger, turn on the bluetooth, and listen to lectures and roundtables all day at work.

@Fitzydog

lol nice

idk, I don't agree with your assessment of the situation.

OK but listen critically with my theory that he is a Fabian. Like the bit where he brings up ecology. Notice the the utility he sees in environmentalism is that it justifies a sort of central planning. Not that I think he is correct even about that. But isn't it interesting that he had nothing else of substance to say about ecology other than it could be used to justify socialist programing?

Yes, I'm not denying that he's in favor of centralization and planned economies, or market regulations

Yeah that's Fabian. Arguing for socialist structures without directly arguing for socialism....

Socialism is just one form of a centralized economy

You seem to be conflating the two terms

Again this may be a perspective issue. But I am more or less in agreement with Hayek here that they are all akin. He used to refer to the soviets and nazis as "The Russian socialists and the German socialists"

You could, sure. You'd be wrong on a deeply philosophical level, and minimizing both to a epithet, but you could

No offense but I take the unsupported assertion that I (and Hayek) are wrong on this matter with a grain of salt.

Okay

What is the goal of the socialist?

In general to collectivize the product of a nation, people, or culture. There are of course variations on the theme but they are common to both German and Russian socialism.

*But why?* What is their goal? For what purpose do they seek to attain this?

Sadly they most often believe it is "for the greater good" however they define it. They are wrong of course but good intentions an bad ideas are the greatest source of harm known to mankind.

Yeah yeah, I get that

I'm practically an AnCap lmao

Oh I'm not. I mean I agree with the premise that government is a (limited) monopoly on force. I just know enough about human nature to be wary of freelance force....

What I'm asking is, what is their primary motivation?

For the left-wing socialist, it's to equalize society and erase hierarchical structures

For the right wing central planner, it's to preserve the hierarchical structure, from the bottom to the top, because every level is important to the other levels. If the lowest on the rung are unable to support the classes above, the whole thing collapses.

Right they have different definitions of 'The greater good". I do not consider these differences substantive because the method is wrong. It's like.... hate crimes. I do not see why it should be any less of a crime to assault a man because you do not like the hat he is wearing than if you do not like the dress he is wearing. The crime is the assault not his reason for doing so.

Well yeah, I agree both will fail, but that's beside the point

Not just that they will fail but that the method itself is wrong.

Okay, sure yeah

Like for Fabians the method is more important than the motive. Somewhat similar to the Frankfurt School.

Look, we keep going off track.

My argument: Zizek is actually right-wing

How are you defining right-wing? In some European sense?