watching what little I saw of that debate, it felt like when the two frequent failers in a school class have a debate over the topic of the class. Like two people who don’t understand long division trying to debate its uses, or when the two students who sleep through history class decide to have a strongly opinionated argument over the strength of Rome. Neither make good points, neither are good people to put forwards to explain the foundations of the topic, but heck is it hard to keep oneself from popping some popcorn and just enjoying the shitshow.

Yeah he’s one weird dude. I’ll never forget this one.

But ya here’s the article: https://inthesetimes.com/article/the-left-fidelity-castration-slavoj-zizek-fidel-castro-cuba-che-communism

One gem from it:

All of the above men­tioned sto­ries do not change the sad fact that the Cuban rev­o­lu­tion did not pro­duce a social mod­el rel­e­vant for the even­tu­al Com­mu­nist future. I vis­it­ed Cuba a decade ago, and on that vis­it I found peo­ple who proud­ly showed me hous­es in decay as a proof of their fideli­ty to the rev­o­lu­tion­ary ​“Event”: ​“Look, every­thing is falling apart, we live in pover­ty, but we are ready to endure it rather than to betray the Rev­o­lu­tion!” When renun­ci­a­tions them­selves are expe­ri­enced as proof of authen­tic­i­ty, we get what in psy­cho­analy­sis is called the log­ic of cas­tra­tion. The whole Cuban politi­co-ide­o­log­i­cal iden­ti­ty rests on the fideli­ty to cas­tra­tion — no won­der that the Leader is called Fidel Castro!