MK April 25, 2012, 07:47
I watched this show based on You Julian But This show was nothing but rants If you know the truth about the New world Order Speak about and inform people you know there is no left and right the agenda is all the same banker rule the new world order and enslavement of mankind by the elight
picki April 25, 2012, 07:44
Horowitz talks about fascism being on the left on the spectrum of political ideologies. Actually, fascism is on the far right of that spectrum such as the Tea Party, backed by the Koch brothers, such as the Zionist movement and any other nationalist entities having the business class on their side; the merger of corporate power with the political power is called fascism.
Horowitz points (blames) to the human nature for all our misfortunes but he ignores the fact that people make history under certain conditions that are not chosen by them or as Marx put it: "Men make their own history but they don’t make it just as they please; they make it under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. Moreover, all historical struggles (political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain) are more or less clear expression of struggles between social classes."
So, when Horowitz tries to simplify today’s political struggles (republican vs. democrats, communists vs. fascists, liberals vs. conservatives, etc.) as reflecting ’human nature’ shows that he is to easily cured by his own ignorance. Also, being a ’Panther’ supporter and then being a supporter of what the ’Panthers’ fought against, i.e. poverty, inequality, racism, shows a very unstable character.
On the other hand, Zizek is too complicated for Horowitz and not only unless he is familiar with his writings, in general which I think is clear it is not the case.
Zizek argues against today’s left which definitely is in trouble of articulating a solid and coherent political stance. Zizek, I think, referred to the utopian liberalism in the way Marx did it, namely that the classical political economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, John S. Mill, etc.) believed (it is just a belief...) that if the so-called free market is left to operate ’freely’ the pie will get bigger and everyone will benefit. Of course that didn’t happen and as critical political economists pointed, namely that if the ’free-market’ will operate ’freely’ the pie will get bigger but the share will be very skewed towards those who are in power. I refer here those that are in power for real, i.e. the capitalists (those who own and do not labour).
So, these debates between the left and the right are just a sad political spectacle because they do not address to the real problems which are systemic or structural, namely the capitalist system. There is no consistent disagreement between today’s left and right and as Zizek rightly put it in one of his articles that the utopia today is not a radical change of the capitalist system but to keep a welfare state within the current system which is what the political debates are about (how much should the state be involved in the public life). According to the capitalists and their neoliberal ideologues the state should only protect the private properties and those who own them from the those who are dispossessed of any means of productions and subsistence and cannot find jobs in order to sell their only asset, namely their labour-power thus fulfilling the liberal utopia of the ’self-regulating free-market’.
The left operates according to the same market fundamentalist principles putting, more or less a human face to the capitalist system. Even Warren Buffet tries to save capitalism by putting himself against the neoliberal principles (agreeing to pay more taxes) which sow the seeds of its own destruction. Actually the left today is doing a favour to capitalism with its neoliberal face by trying to alleviate its disastrous social, economical and political effects through bargaining workers rights whatever minimal they may be.
I think Zizek would agree that in order for a true social, economic and political change to happen, a radical change in the current economic capitalist structure must happen.
jovaret April 25, 2012, 07:03

The problem with Horowitz rhetorical question of who would you rather like running the world is that the US’s rule have been atrocious to many many people around the world. I mean, it wasn’t Disneyland for Filipinos under Marcos, or for Indonesians under Suharto, or for Nicaraguans under Somoza, or for Dominicans under Trujillo, and the list goes on and on and on... All US back brutal dictators who supported US policies.
ken.h April 25, 2012, 05:07
Horowitz did raise an interesting question, that being who do you want controlling the world if not the US? BRICS is an obvious first choice as it’s multi-national rather then a singular country, however, out of the five only Brazil seems like the best to have an alpha role versus the other four. I don’t think they have that role.
Ray April 25, 2012, 05:05
I just don’t see what bringing a lunatic fringe liar adds to a dialogue. I watched and listened until Horowitz made a statement about bodyguards to protect him from left wing fascists.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
Africa April 25, 2012, 04:45
Thank you brave Julian. Very interesting interviews. We are tired of seeing the same talking heads.
Judy April 25, 2012, 04:19
Good to see Julian smile. The show is interesting though I can’t say I agreee with either side in this wrangle. Some of the platitudinous ideas got broken down into rather shocking statements...which is good .. a bit of cold water in the face is refreshing.

Mark E. Smith April 25, 2012, 04:15
Horowitz says that, judging by his background, Obama is a Communist.

Okay, so judging by his own background, Horowitz is a radical leftist.
Patti Galle, Executive Editor, The Hacker News April 25, 2012, 04:05
Frankly, if Horowitz could not even turn off his cell phone to conduct an interview, I leave him to his mirror to talk out his opinions on humans, religion and politics. Ack! April 25, 2012, 04:02
I was active on the left myself, and had a very hard time, was badly hurt. Unlike Mr. Horowitz, however, when I found myself angry and feeling betrayed, and drifting to the right, I realized that I was just FLIPPING the form, that the hurt, angry ideology I had inside myself would not have changed. I then began to read and study, to try to find real answers. Now I am more like a social democrat. I believe in the synthesis of markets and social distribution on a case by case, pragmatic basis. I like what is happening in Russia and China, where pragmatism is overtaking ideology. I think we need to do that. I see no need for the horrors Horowitz imagines, if he would only drop the sort of zealot ideas, because a multipolar world will be a great thing for everyone.