Zizek Debates Horowitz

I wanted to force Horowitz into a pit full of Palestinians but it was a funny debate. You beat me to the post by a matter of minutes.

i have to agree red, what bothers me the most is his rejection of a small authority, also his idealism is quite disturbing in my opinion.

That was painful to watch..

David Horowitz managed to successfully use every anti-socialist cliché during his interview without Slavoj Žižek raising a single solid objection to them. This confirms my longstanding suspicion that Žižek is merely a liberal capitalizing on the contemporary Left's passion for philosophical blather. Žižek simply adores the hysteria caused by his occasional statements in defense of authoritarianism, but he hasn't got the courage in his convictions to actually describe how his so-called "communism" is supposed to function or even come into being (because it's likely all just a joke to him).

Even by reactionary standards, Horowitz's ignorance is remarkable. On the one hand, he claims that "war is the natural state of mankind"—forget the fact that the anthropological record doesn't vindicate this position, and that every major war in contemporary history has had to resort to conscription and governments' intentionally misleading their citizenry—but later in the video claims that the American people are 'too happy and busy partying to seriously contribute to a war effort.' The contradiction never dawns on him. Horowitz is a pathetic huckster, who is only paid attention to today because he happens to be one of the New Left communists turned neo-conservative. If anyone is interested in further exploring the profound depths of his imbecility, I suggest reading this debate between him and Michael Albert on the topic of socialism.

David Horowitz is a dimwitted reactionary piece of shit, and Žižek is either completely indifferent to leftist politics or is simply a liberal who enjoys controversy.