Horowitz-Zizek: Episode Two
-
-
Cypherpunks: Episode Eight, full version, pt.2 -
Cypherpunks: Episode Eight, full version, pt.1 -
Ibrahim: Episode Eleven -
Chomsky-Ali: Episode Ten -
Khan: Episode Nine -
Cypherpunks: Episode Eight, pt.2 -
Cypherpunks: Episode Eight, pt.1 -
Occupy: Episode Seven -
Correa: Episode Six -
Begg-Qureshi: Episode Five -
Rajab & Abd El-Fattah: Episode Four -
Marzouki: Episode Three -
Nasrallah: Episode One -
Revealed: Assange pre-show full interview -
Warning: Assange! Controversy! -
Episode Two: Teaser -
Assange: Official trailer -
Unravelling: Promo Two -
Hourglass: Promo One
Comments
d00dsauce
April 24, 2012, 19:57
it seems like none here knows what communism is. Stalin wasn’t communist. Obama isn’t communist. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist (or socialist for that matter).
I’ll break it down for you guys, coming from someone who really has studied communism. Communism, in short, is a society where there is no ruling state, there is no class stratification, and there is no monetary system, or proprietary ownership and in which goods and services are provided by the people (with no monetary restriction) based on the needs of the people.
The USSR/China have/had a state (obviously a dictator is a state figure), they have/had a class system (few wealthy on top, majority poor on bottom) and obviously they had a monetary system which is how they perpetuated their class and state system. USSR and China are more accurately described as "State Capitalism", I encourage everyone to read up on that and get a better understanding of world history. In the same way the Hitler and the Nazis touted the word ’socialist’ which is quite the opposite of fascism, which is the extreme privatization of enterprise, to get the working class’ support in the midst of a period of a striving for social equality and working class freedom, Stalin and Mao did the same with their respective countries. There has never been a communist country, in the history of the industrialized world.
Noam Chomsky put it best when he said ’the fall of the soviet union was a small victory to socialists’ meaning that true socialism/communism no longer had that immediate association with an authoritarian oppressive style of government which is contradictory to what it really means to be socialist/communist. Of course the myth persists because the wealthy who own the media/industry/property would not want a system like Marxist communism to exist as they could no longer control the world with their money.
I’ll break it down for you guys, coming from someone who really has studied communism. Communism, in short, is a society where there is no ruling state, there is no class stratification, and there is no monetary system, or proprietary ownership and in which goods and services are provided by the people (with no monetary restriction) based on the needs of the people.
The USSR/China have/had a state (obviously a dictator is a state figure), they have/had a class system (few wealthy on top, majority poor on bottom) and obviously they had a monetary system which is how they perpetuated their class and state system. USSR and China are more accurately described as "State Capitalism", I encourage everyone to read up on that and get a better understanding of world history. In the same way the Hitler and the Nazis touted the word ’socialist’ which is quite the opposite of fascism, which is the extreme privatization of enterprise, to get the working class’ support in the midst of a period of a striving for social equality and working class freedom, Stalin and Mao did the same with their respective countries. There has never been a communist country, in the history of the industrialized world.
Noam Chomsky put it best when he said ’the fall of the soviet union was a small victory to socialists’ meaning that true socialism/communism no longer had that immediate association with an authoritarian oppressive style of government which is contradictory to what it really means to be socialist/communist. Of course the myth persists because the wealthy who own the media/industry/property would not want a system like Marxist communism to exist as they could no longer control the world with their money.
Juan Grunwaldt
April 24, 2012, 19:49
Im sorry, I have to make this comment. There are no Dictators in south america at the moment. I am uruguayan. We have one of the greatest democracies in the world, if we understand democracy as a government in representation of mayorities and minorities of people living under a certain territory. If anything, dictatorships come in another way now. dictatorships appear when the people who vote dont have the necesary true information and education in order to descide properly. And by properly, i mean what they would vote if they knew everything that happens in politics. So yes, you have people like chavez in venezuela. He is a goriila, but an elected gorilla. The problem is not the left or the right. The problem is that everyone in power or trying to access it are playing the same game. Democracy as we live it is ani-democratical. A political reform is necesary in the sense of how the power is distributed. Scince Montesquieu we havnt had a big reform in that sense.
Jim Evans in Worcester
April 24, 2012, 19:44
sherywrote on April 24, 2012, 19:25
It showed nothing of the sort. The show is illuminating in revealing the conservative Zionist-Fascist thinking from the mouth of a man called Horowitz who is filled with unabated hate toward the %99. Keep up the great job!!!
What it did begin to show that Horowitz is a sensitive and principled cynic who would have been better interviewed by someone with his depth of understanding of the world.
What we had by contrast with Horowitz was a clown who could not speak English being restrained by Assange rather like one tries to control a spoiled brat and precocious immature child.
I feel embarrassed by the pantomime and angry with RT for allowing it to go ahead in this form.
Jim Evans in Worcester
April 24, 2012, 19:29
who’ s controlling this site?
You are missing the point...the Zionists are anarchists and fascist all jumbled together as Israel`s dangerous unstable behaviour proves .....and Horowitz might have demonstrated if that other chap from Central Casting had not let him off the hook.
Assange seems to know nothing about interviewing people...rather like the clowns at the BBC......but it`s probably not deliberate anarchism or designed to misinform...it`s the fact that the media are not interested in conflict resolution....it`s not "good television" John.
You are missing the point...the Zionists are anarchists and fascist all jumbled together as Israel`s dangerous unstable behaviour proves .....and Horowitz might have demonstrated if that other chap from Central Casting had not let him off the hook.
Assange seems to know nothing about interviewing people...rather like the clowns at the BBC......but it`s probably not deliberate anarchism or designed to misinform...it`s the fact that the media are not interested in conflict resolution....it`s not "good television" John.
Canadian
April 24, 2012, 19:25
I liked the first episode, and I was looking forward to this one, but I have to admit I was pretty disappointed. I don’t know if it’s the way the show was edited or if Assange’s moderation was the problem, but the discussion seemed borderline-incoherent throughout. They didn’t stay on any topic long enough for anyone to develop any arguments or make any solid points. Instead, they just shouted over each other and made cheap jokes - perhaps this is good for promo-soundbites, but I was hoping for more substance. I know Zizek is definitely capable of laying out rational arguments. I don’t know about Horowitz, but I would have liked to see him try.
It was a good hook having them both on the same episode given their backgrounds, but it’s pretty obvious it would have resulted in a more substantive discussion if Assange had just interviewed them separately.
It was a good hook having them both on the same episode given their backgrounds, but it’s pretty obvious it would have resulted in a more substantive discussion if Assange had just interviewed them separately.
shery
April 24, 2012, 19:25
The show is illuminating in revealing the conservative Zionist-Fascist thinking from the mouth of a man called Horowitz who is filled with unabated hate toward the %99. Keep up the great job!!!
AesSedai
April 24, 2012, 19:21
Julian, you are and always will be a hero to me. So called journalists could learn much from you. The Guardian and NYT showed their as*es with their negative comments of your show. I’m so glad that they did. Those of us who thrive on, and need TRUTH in these perilous times need to know who is truly for the People and the Truth.
And, I just learned, thanks to another wiki leak, that the Invisible Children NGO in Ca. (the infamous ’get kony’) was working with the Sudan government? (oh the poor child warriors and little girls being raped the most watched YT video ever cried out to us). I bought it, hook, line and sinker and shed tears, many. Apparently IC’s aim is to get American boots on Africa’s soil for their substantial minerals? (that’s my take so far).
And, I learn today that NGO’s like Amnesty International and Human Rights International were sending out unsubstantiated rhetoric to push the Libyan situation in a particular direction and that they are doing it again now with Syria. Wow. We need to really be careful about who we trust!
Well, I know one person I trust, completely. YOU!
Thank you, from my heart.
And, I just learned, thanks to another wiki leak, that the Invisible Children NGO in Ca. (the infamous ’get kony’) was working with the Sudan government? (oh the poor child warriors and little girls being raped the most watched YT video ever cried out to us). I bought it, hook, line and sinker and shed tears, many. Apparently IC’s aim is to get American boots on Africa’s soil for their substantial minerals? (that’s my take so far).
And, I learn today that NGO’s like Amnesty International and Human Rights International were sending out unsubstantiated rhetoric to push the Libyan situation in a particular direction and that they are doing it again now with Syria. Wow. We need to really be careful about who we trust!
Well, I know one person I trust, completely. YOU!
Thank you, from my heart.
john (RSA)
April 24, 2012, 19:09
who’ s controlling this site?
john (RSA)
April 24, 2012, 19:05
Rt im getting tired of ur childishnes lecturing me about being offfensive
Angry network node
April 24, 2012, 18:49
Really Horowitz. . ?
The US did not occupy Iraq under Daddy Bush because that was not the aim of the "desert storm." The aim was what we can observe: The de-facto occupation of Saudi Arabia and the gulf states -and to justify that occupation, we needed to leave the "villian" Saddam in a position where the narrarative could be leveraged and the occupation justified.
Now Saddam is gone, we have left a country and people in ruin and chaos, so the "villian" narrative has been shifted to Iran for the same reason -and others
The US did not occupy Iraq under Daddy Bush because that was not the aim of the "desert storm." The aim was what we can observe: The de-facto occupation of Saudi Arabia and the gulf states -and to justify that occupation, we needed to leave the "villian" Saddam in a position where the narrarative could be leveraged and the occupation justified.
Now Saddam is gone, we have left a country and people in ruin and chaos, so the "villian" narrative has been shifted to Iran for the same reason -and others