29.04.2023 Leipzig Slavoj Žižek "Die Paradoxien der Mehrlust: Ein Leitfaden für die Nichtverwirrten"
Talk · Martin Lejeune ·
2023-04-29 · 0:45:24 · 5,344 words
ideologypsychoanalysisreligion-theologyfascism-populismrace-antisemitismliberalism-political-correctnessgeopolitics-wareveryday-lifecapitalismrevolution-violencesexuality-gender
Žižek argues that modern 'permissive' culture operates under a superegoic command to enjoy, resulting in impotence and guilt rather than liberation, a dynamic he illustrates with the 'ball crusher' joke and the story of the impotent Slovenian patient. He connects this 'Mehrlust' (surplus enjoyment) to historical atrocities like Goebbels' 'Totaler Krieg' speech and contemporary anti-Semitism, before concluding that true emancipation requires engaging with illusions rather than cynical clarity, citing Iranian women and Marek Edelman as ethical heroes. Žižek argues that contemporary capitalism maintains itself by bribing the exploited with a 'fake sense of freedom' (Mehrlust), masking neo-feudal rent extraction behind the illusion of choice. He critiques the 'Everything Everywhere All at Once' narrative of returning to the status quo, advocating instead for a 'no future' within existing coordinates, sustained by a 'proper dose of communism.' The excerpt concludes with audience interactions involving a joke about Fanta/Coca-Cola, a critique of Auschwitz tourism, and a defense of the Iranian 'Jin-Jiyan-Azadi' revolution against liberal hypocrisy.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 17
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “Über-ich (Superego) as agency of enjoyment”
The superego is not merely a moral prohibitor but an injunction to 'Enjoy!', which paradoxically sabotages enjoyment and produces guilt when obeyed.
The basic paradox of the superego: strict adherence to the command to enjoy or be tolerant generates intense guilt rather than satisfaction.
Enjoyment derived not from the object itself, but from the act of renunciation, prohibition, or suffering; the pleasure in the guilt of obeying the superego.
as “Desire for prohibition”
The psychoanalytic lesson that the prohibition of desire necessarily transforms into a desire for the prohibition itself.
as “Anti-Semitic Zionism”
A new phase of anti-Semitism where Jews are welcomed in Palestine as a tool against 'Oriental barbarism' while being expelled from Europe, echoing Heydrich's logic.
A provocative re-evaluation of Auschwitz as a sanitized, museum-like site compared to the raw, unmediated horror of camps like Sobibor or Treblinka, used to critique the commodification of suffering.
The modern ideological formula: 'We know very well what we are doing, but nevertheless, we are doing it,' where knowledge does not change practice.
A Lacanian/Hegelian paradox meaning 'Those who are not tricked are wrong'; those who refuse illusion and see everything clearly are precisely those who fail to engage with the truth.
A French distinction Žižek uses: 'futur' is what will be (continuation), 'avenir' is the 'to-come' (radical novelty/change).
as “pessimist-optimism”
Žižek's stance: pessimistic about the current order's viability, but optimistic that its collapse allows for a true 'avenir' (future to come).
The necessity of accepting 'no future' within the general coordinates of the existing order to force a radical break.
as “Mehrlust”
The 'surplus enjoyment' or extra-benefit the system offers (like 'freedom' in precarious work) to bribe the exploited and maintain the status quo.
as “neo-feudal order”
The current economic structure where power is based on 'rent' (control of digital clouds/data) rather than just profit.
as “object petit a”
Lacan's object of desire; here referenced as the name of a Dresden Technoclub, symbolizing the futile weekly chase for enjoyment.
The value derived from the act of visiting Auschwitz for a selfie, treating the site as a tourist attraction rather than a memorial.
The Kurdish slogan for the Iranian revolution (Woman, Life, Freedom), which Žižek cites as a model for leftist solidarity.
A paradoxical concept describing old Yugoslav inter-ethnic jokes that functioned as a form of solidarity rather than pure hatred.
Stories he reaches for 3
Old Yugoslavia was full of inter-ethnic jokes (Slovenians, Serbs, Albanians) told in a 'benevolent' way that fostered solidarity rather than division.
“It was full of racist jokes... made in a benevolent way... This worked as a wonderful solidarity.”
Žižek analyzes Joseph Goebbels' 1943 Sportpalast speech, where Goebbels promises unimaginable horrors with a face full of 'intense mystical enjoyment.' The crowd's enthusiastic 'Yes!' demonstrates 'Mehrlust', enjoying the prohibition/horror itself.
“He announces totaler Krieg. And it's an incredible speech. He doesn't even speak a lot about Endsieg. He just promises horrors with an incredible, full of intense mystical enjoyment expression on his face: Do you want totaler Krieg?”
Žižek recounts the story of Marek Edelman, a Jewish resistance leader, who refused to visit the Auschwitz museum, calling it a 'Gulag Disneyland' compared to the raw horror of Sobibor/Treblinka. Edelman insisted on being a 'stone' in the real camps, linking anti-Semitism with Palestinian rights.
“He said: forget Auschwitz. Auschwitz is—I'm totally provocative now—Auschwitz is a Gulag Disneyland today.”
Works invoked 8
Peter Sloterdijk's book, cited for the formula of modern ideology: 'We know what we are doing, but we are nonetheless doing it.'
Les non-dupes errent book
Title stolen by Žižek for his wife's book, exploring the idea that those who refuse illusion are wrong.
Critiqued as 'total fake' for reinforcing the idea that the current world is the best one, ignoring the need for radical change.
Fanta other
Described as 'Hitler's answer to Coca-Cola,' created when US exports were prohibited.
Maimonides' work, cited as the source of the title for Žižek's wife's book, representing guidance for the perplexed.
Coca-Cola other
Used in the Fanta anecdote to illustrate how capitalism adapts to political constraints (Nazi Germany).
A book by Herman Lang, gifted to Žižek by a friend, representing a 'fetish object' and intellectual connection.
Referenced as containing the deep message that the Holocaust was not a 'factory for good people.'
People invoked 26
Described as 'horrible,' but acknowledged as the source of the insight that Auschwitz was built in 1948, contrasting it with earlier camps like Sobibor.
Ruth Klüger positive
Holocaust survivor and author, cited as an ethical hero for arguing that the Holocaust was not a 'factory for good people' but ethically destroyed many.
Author of 'Das Sprachlose und das Unbewusste'; his book was found in a Ljubljana antiquarian shop and gifted to Žižek.
Brechtje A. Grotenhuis positive
Cited in the context of modern art and 'Entfremdung' (alienation), though noted as more complex.
Mahsa Amini positive
The woman killed in the city where the Iranian revolution began; her death is the catalyst for the 'Jin-Jiyan-Azadi' movement.
Moshe ben Maimon positive
Cited as the author of 'A Guide for the Perplexed,' which Žižek stole as a title for his wife's book, representing guidance for those who are perplexed rather than cynically clear.
Marek Edelman positive
Jewish Bundist and leader of the Ghetto and Warsaw uprisings, cited as a 'hero of the 20th century' for linking anti-Semitism with Palestinian rights and rejecting the 'Auschwitz Disneyland.'
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited for the concept of Über-ich (superego) as an agency of enjoyment and the phrase 'Les non-dupes errent' (Those who are not tricked are wrong).
Judith Butler positive
Described as a 'personally good friend but theoretically half enemy'; cited for the psychoanalytic lesson that prohibition changes into a desire for prohibition.
Donald Trump positive
Cited as enacting Heydrich's politics by supporting Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, reflecting the support base's anti-Semitic undertones.
Jeff Bezos negative
Cited as an example of the 'neo-feudal' rentier class who controls 'digital clouds' and manipulates desires.
Adolf Hitler negative
Cited in the Fanta anecdote as having created Fanta as a 'Coca-Cola' substitute in Nazi Germany.
Bernie Sanders positive
One of the 'only good guys' in the US, representing a movement towards solidarity.
Edoardo Weiss positive
Trieste psychoanalyst who wrote to Freud about the impotent Slovenian patient, used as a case study for the paradox of transgression and impotence.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Friend, though they disagree on Ukraine; Žižek agrees with his analysis of the 'neo-feudal order' and 'rent' vs. profit.
Joseph Goebbels positive
Used as a historical example of 'Mehrlust' through his 'Totaler Krieg' speech, where he promised horrors with mystical enjoyment.
Anders Behring Breivik positive
The Norwegian mass murderer, cited for expressing the same logic as Heydrich regarding Jews in Israel vs. Europe.
Michel Foucault negative
Mocked for going to Iran and claiming Western culture was infinitely more oppressive, illustrating the paradox of anti-colonial tolerance.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Described as a 'right-winger' but 'friend'; cited for his book 'Critique of Cynical Reason' and the formula 'we know what we are doing, but we are nonetheless doing it.'
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez negative
Criticized for 'playing some double game' compared to Sanders.
Reinhard Heydrich positive
Cited for a 1937 text proposing to expel Jews from Europe but support them in Palestine as a buffer against 'Oriental barbarism,' illustrating 'anti-Semitic Zionism.'
Used in a linguistic example regarding 'futur' vs 'avenir' (present/future president vs. president to come).
Identified as a Slovenian Nazi official who invented gas chambers, used to establish Žižek's 'Slovenian' identity and the 'worst' historical figures.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for his analysis of the Slovenian patient; Žižek critiques Freud's dismissal of the patient as 'good-for-nothing' and his failure to see the superegoic structure.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Cited for the idea that 'the path to truth goes only through illusions' and the source of Lacan's 'Les non-dupes errent.'
Fyodor Dostoyevsky negative
Critiqued for the statement 'If there is no God, then nothing is forbidden,' which Žižek reverses to 'If there is no God, then everything is forbidden.'
Transcript 16 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Ich verstehe Deutsch. Sie können Fragen auf Deutsch stellen, aber ich kann nicht gut genug Deutsch sprechen. Und jetzt wechsle ich die Sprache des Imperialismus und so weiter. Okay. I will do something, use even some jokes and stories that you may know because I really want to tell two anecdotes because I don't like to celebrate my names. But I think for Mehrlust, what this means and why is this concept actual today, we in Slovenia got the answer years ago already. It's not a nice story. You know, everybody celebrates Slovenia here, but I read now Nazi history because I will begin with it. You know who was maybe the worst single person? He invented gas chambers and so on, Odilo Globocnik. He is a Slovenian and he is the worst of them all, so we Slovenians know where we are. Let me begin by a story which maybe you know it, but it's my favorite story. Years ago, I was watching—I was reading—that Nazis in their camps had something that I find horrible. One of the ways of them to torture in the camps was to crush the testicles. And they had industrially made ball, testicle crushers. So before using this, I wanted to check it up and I put search Google, no, testicle crushers. And I found about companies offering them today. Some cost over euros. They are exquisitely made, very beautiful. You regulate how much you crush your testicles. Then you have special needles to put them in and—that's the publicity. Pick your poison from—for pleasure—from this ball torture group. Stainless steel ball crusher, stainless ball clamp torture, and so on and so on. This I think is where we are today. The passage from the ball crusher, the way Nazi used them as torture, now you have to buy it and we are supposed obviously to enjoy it. So my question is, how did we come to this today? Because my claim is here a pretty crazy, radical one. This awaits us at the end of today's—sorry. Yes, yes, yes. Okay, basically. One moment, please. Okay, I will go on here till that point. Okay. Okay. Ah, you don't want to be quoted as telling about ball crushing? No. I think, I have no doubt today, that there are some people who will celebrate this as—that's what I wanted to show you—as a sign of historical progress. Today, if you use one wrong word, which is considered too binary or whatever, you are cancelled, but no problem to do the ball crushing and so on. The serious problem behind this apparent joke is, my God, why—why are we today at this stage where with all the permissiveness, we get more and more frigidity and impotence? Pleasure is today almost order, as Über-ich, superego. You have to enjoy. And—it goes perfectly. And the result is true pain. So where do we Slovenians—Slovenia—have the answer? In a Trieste psychoanalyst, Italian, Edoardo Weiss, had written to Freud about his problem with two patients. One was a highly educated Italian whose wife had committed suicide, and this made him impotent. With a typical male chauvinist exception, except with prostitutes. But he was impotent. Then the second patient was a Slovenian, about years of age, a thoroughly immoral person. He cheated everybody. Like, the analyst learned, Weiss, that his father gave him the money for analysis, but this Slovenian told to his father a higher sum, so that he pocketed the difference and so on. But, that's my paradox. Yes, he was extremely corrupted, immoral, a liar, rogue, but at the same time he was completely impotent. So that's the paradox. The transgression of all ethical social laws did not lead to unbridled pleasure. It lead to its prohibition. The more everything is allowed, the more it is at a different level prohibited. Here, we do not have time to go into this today, but here, Lacan was right and Dostoevsky was wrong in this, I think, one of the most stupid statements in the history of human thought. If there is no God, then nothing is forbidden. No, the Slovenian shows that if there is no God, then everything is forbidden. What was Freud—Freud's advice to Weiss? He said the first patient okay, it's normal, he felt guilt for his wife's death, so he—you will cure him, it's normal moral pressure. But for Slovenian, I quote Freud, unfortunately in English: The Slovenian is obviously a good-for-nothing who does not warrant your effort. Our psychoanalytical art fails, fails when faced with such people. Our perspicacity alone cannot break through the dynamic relation which controls them. So did you notice the ambiguity of Freud? He said at the same time: he is worthless, ignore him, and: he is too complex, psychoanalysis is not enough developed. I think that Freud's mistake here was that he saw this guy as totally immoral and so on, but we should here introduce Lacan's notion of Über-ich as not the same as Ich-Ideal or moral law. Moral law prohibits. Über-ich, as Lacan put it very nicely, Über-ich, superego, is an agency of enjoyment. The basic order of superego is: enjoy fully. And precisely paradoxically, this sabotages most efficiently enjoyment. So this is I think where we are today. Our official culture, culture is: everything is permitted, but so that really everybody has access to enjoyment, we get so many regulations. What you are allowed, what not, and so on and so on. And this brings me to go quickly to the basic paradox of Über-ich, elaborated already by Freud. It is that the more you obey its orders, the more you feel guilty. It's not: okay, I did my duty, it's okay. No, we are caught in this circle of the more you obey it, the more you feel—the more you feel guilty. And this again I think happened to this Slovenian and again this is our superego culture today. Now I will say something that you will—that you will not like maybe, but I think this is the problem of, which is why I remain today especially—now I provoke you even more than with all those testicle stories—this is why I'm sorry to tell you as a leftist and communist I remain Eurocentrist. I claim that—don't we get it?—that the more the so-called leftist liberals criticize Eurocentrism—the most ridiculous here was Foucault, who went to Iran and claimed, ah, your culture is infinitely better, there is nothing more oppressive than Western European culture—but the paradox of this struggle against neocolonialism, Eurocentrism and so on is that we expect that if we behave in an anti-racist way, that we will be—this will be received by the other side benevolently. No, it's the opposite. The more we try to be tolerant, open to the other, the more we hear: you don't really like us, this is just hypocrisy, we want more, and so on and so on. So that's—and here comes—the—why then are we doing it? Here enters then—I will quickly finish—here enters I think the Über-ich und Mehrlust oder Mehrgenießen. When you—the more you feel guilty—sorry, the more you obey the order, the more you feel guilty. Why? Because this guilt is pleasure at its purest. And this is Über-ich as opposed to simple pleasure. I am so sorry we don't have time, it would be too complicated, but if you want to see one clip, what is Mehrlust, surplus pleasure, which is pleasure in renunciation itself. Mehrlust, it's not simply more lust, like—sorry for being tasteless—a lady says, or a man, whoever: I want to be fucked in this way, but if you do that more it will be even better. No, it's that you enjoy the very prohibition, the horror. The nicest example imaginably—I hope you know it, it's a true historical moment—look, Joseph Goebbels, you know that famous Berlin Sportpalast speech from early '43. He announces totaler Krieg. And it's an incredible speech. He doesn't even speak a lot about Endsieg. He just promises horrors with an incredible, full of intense mystical enjoyment expression on his face: Do you want totaler Krieg? Such a war that you cannot even imagine the horrors? The crowd shouts: Yes, we want it! Then Goebbels goes on: Do you want to suffer, to have hardship to—with regard to—what we suffered till now was nothing? Yes, we want it! and so on. That's where today especially psychoanalyse, psychoanalysis enters. Psychoanalysis, in psychoanalysis, Genuss, full pleasure is—that's the beautiful paradox—at the same time impossible, but at the same time impossible to get rid of it. For example, let's say something is prohibited, in classical Freudian terms, incest. It's never that what you really want. But then if you obey prohibitions, you start to enjoy prohibitions themselves. Or, as my personally good friend but theoretically half enemy Judith Butler likes to say, the lesson of psychoanalysis is that the prohibition of desire necessarily changes into a desire for prohibition. So no matter how you try to be puritan, to get rid of it, enjoyment returns. You see the paradox? It's impossible, you always miss it, but at the same time you cannot—you at the same time you cannot get rid of it. And to provoke you even more, although all my best friends—not the usual anti-Semitic statement: some of my friends are Jews—no, practically all of my friends are Jews. But that's why I'm telling you, here is superego logic at its worst. I was horrified to read in Der Spiegel, I think a year and a half or two years ago, they debated BDS, Boycott, Divest, Sanctions, whatever. And two big Jewish figures in Germany said something which for me is horrible. They said, I quote it in German: Wer Antisemit ist, bestimmt der Jude, und nicht der potenzielle Antisemit. My point: okay, I agree, but what if we apply the same to West Bank Palestine? Can we also say they will say when they are oppressed? The second thing, what about all those Jews who don't agree—and there are hundreds of thousand demonstrating—who don't agree with this oppression on the West Bank? Zionists had an expression, horrible: self-hating Jews, Jews who only pretend to be Jews but are not really Jews. And here to conclude, I give you what I see as a horror today. The term, I proposed it years ago, it's now accepted among Israeli left, whatever remains of it. We have a new phase of anti-Semitic Zionism. Literally. You know who is at the beginning of it? You should read him, horrible name, although not bad as—as bad as—Globocnik—we are the worst—Reinhard Heydrich. In '37, he wrote a text where he says: Jews are wonderful dynamic people, we would like to make Geschäfte with them and so on, just they don't belong here. Like, out of—they—we should throw them out from here, but they are more than welcome in Palestine where they will serve as a limit to Western—to Oriental barbarism. Then you remember that guy, what was his name, Breivik, the crazy guy in Norway? He said the same. He said: Jews in Europe—no, no, they make trouble. Jews in Israel—nothing better, we should support them. And the sad thing is take somebody like Donald Trump. He enacted this politics. He fully supported Israel there, told them to simply annex Golan Heights and so on. At the same time, if you look at his support base in United States, it's mostly people who were not even in a very covered way anti-Semitic. So, to really conclude, believe me or not, who is then my ethical hero? I will not quote her, it's—it's too long, but it's an incredible lady, Ruth Klüger. She wrote memoirs, she was as a young girl in Auschwitz or where, still alive, a girl Holocaust girl who remembered. And her message is very deep. I will condense it. Maybe it's in the book if you want to learn more. She says that she survived Holocaust. Then she went to Israel and was shocked at how some of her friends who also survived Holocaust were there extremely aggressive about Palestinians, like this is now our land, kill them and so on. And her explanation is very deep. She said, we are still victims of this prejudice that Holocaust—yeah, yeah, horrible blah, blah—but ethically it purified you. And she said no, Holocaust, it wasn't—if you survive it, you came out with a refined sense for justice or whatever. No, she said, the problem is that many were also ethically destroyed. Holocaust was not, for those who survived, a factory for good people and so on. So to really conclude, if there is a hero of 20th century for me, the first heroes of 21st century are the Iranian women, what they are doing now. Can you imagine anything more foreign to political correctness? But can you imagine anything more emancipatory? Women rejected to wear burka, all that, and they—the—they are supported—they insist—they risk their—they risk their lives. And what is important for me, the problem of political correctness is that it focuses on divisions. Like, if I were or if you were, much easier to judge me, you would say: okay, you pretend to be a leftist, but didn't you use that bad taste jokes, didn't you do that? It's divisive. While what women did now in Iran is the exact opposite. They are unspitchbar—wie sagt man?—triggering an incredible protest movement. All ordinary people, even many freedom-loving Muslims, said: yes, the lesson is our—our ayatollahs who are running—ruling—us are not true Muslims and so on. And it's very important that women did this. It's an incredible element. So really to conclude, my hero of the 20th century, remember this name, check it in Wikipedia or web, Marek Edelman. He was a Bund leftist Jew in Poland. He was one of the leaders of Ghetto uprising. By miracle he survived it. He was then one of the leaders of final Warsaw uprising. He survived that. After the war, he remained in Poland. And the authorities wanted him to go out. And he gave a beautiful explanation. He said, there are all those stones. And he was very precise here. He said: forget Auschwitz. Auschwitz is—I'm totally provocative now—Auschwitz is a Gulag Disneyland today. You know that—I learned this—David Irving—that's the only thing I learned from him, he is horrible—but you know that what you are shown as that chamber to gas people? It says there: it was built on '48, in '48 after. The true horrors are Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka and so on. They were top—so, he said, it's not important what I say. I feel like a stone in one of these camps. It's just my duty to be here. Then a true heroism. When Palestinians begin to revolt, he said, please don't use terror, but otherwise you are my brothers. It was an incredible ethical—and with this, I will really, really conclude the third time. You know, don't fall into this trap. The moment you do this, you sell your soul to the devil. If you say: okay, Israelis exaggerate a little bit, Palestinians exaggerate a little bit, let's find the right measure. No, if you balance it like this, you know, then you justify both. Israelis can say: we suffered Holocaust so you don't have any right to reproach us. Palestinians are saying: we suffer such a lot that we don't care about Holocaust, we suffer now. No. The only ethical position is: our fight against anti-Semitism, which is strong here in Europe, and our fight for West Bank Palestinian rights, should be logically consistently part of the same struggle. There is no balancing here. On this all—all depends. Wie sagt das—das Karl-May-Winnetou—Ich habe gesprochen. Ja, ja, hier brauche ich auch noch Saft. Also, meine Fragen sind beantwortet worden, ich reiche sie kurz nach. Ich wollte eigentlich fragen, was die Paradoxien sind, da haben wir jetzt einige Beispiele gehört. Ich wollte fragen, was die Mehrlust ist, das haben wir erklärt bekommen. Und jetzt wollte ich nochmal Slavoj fragen: Wer sind—was sind die Nicht-Verwirrten? Les non-dupes, ja? Also von—eine der schönsten—one of the most beautiful sayings of Jacques Lacan, but as everything you find it in Hegel—or in Hegel already—is that Lacan with a wonderful ambiguity says: Les non-dupes errent. Those who are not tricked, those who don't fall into the trap of illusion, those precisely those who want to know everything clear, they are—they are wrong. And your question was: Ah, Nicht-Verwirrten? I think that today we live in a totally crazy era. I explained this already yesterday a little bit where, you know, it's not so much that the truth is not told. Even those in power are saying at the level of content the right things. Like, look at the Glasgow conference two years ago about the—they said we are on the brink of a catastrophe, action is needed and so on and so on. But the way it functions is that we talk about doing things—things in a non-engaged way, in such a way that we guarantee that nothing will happen. Sorry to repeat myself. Yesterday I used the two examples where if I were to be a terrorist, I would bomb them immediately. Kassel und Venedig Art Biennales. Look at their program. You cannot imagine anything more leftist radical. We are a tool of capitalism, there is still Eurocentric racism, we are all exploited. It doesn't matter. They fit—this Biennales—perfectly into a global market. So our—this here I refer to your philosopher, who is a right-winger, but I wouldn't underestimate him, I still consider him my friend, Peter Sloterdijk, who years ago wrote a wonderful book about Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, where he said the formula today is: we know what we are doing, but we are nonetheless doing it. So, and here I refer to my wife, who unfortunately where is she—she is here—who is now writing a book, Les non-dupes errent, where she shows how what is wrong today is precisely this obsession with not falling into an illusion. Like, you know, the whole modern art is this—even Brecht, although with Brecht it's more complex—this idea of Entfremdung, don't take it too seriously and so on. I think that this is the main enemy today. I think that, as Hegel puts it, the path to truth goes only through illusions. You have to consciously engage yourself in something which may appear illusory. So of course to go back to the point, I stole this title from—I'm so old, senile—who wrote that famous book, A Guide for the Perplexed? Maimonides. Yeah, Maimonides, yes. Where the idea is you are perplexed, confused—no, today guidance need those who think in a very cynical way everything is clear. And then you get the conclusions: yes, the situation is catastrophic, but there—too everything that you do will turn things even worse. Like in spite of my irony against political correctness, I still absolutely—sorry—support its basic goals and LGBT and so on. For me, the problem is not they are too crazy, too radical. They are in some sense not radical enough. They don't address the true causes of women's subordination and so on and so on. It's—I really think, and many of my Marxist friends agree, that for example in United States, this politically correct wokeness and so on is strictly an upper-middle-class phenomenon. But let me not lose time here. My point—so this is the idea. Today we all think either in conspiracy theories or in global cynicism: don't take that seriously, everything goes wrong and so on and so on. No, we have to take the risk. Maybe
Ich verstehe Deutsch. Sie können Fragen auf Deutsch stellen, aber ich kann nicht gut genug Deutsch sprechen. Und jetzt wechsle ich die Sprache des Imperialismus und so weiter. Okay. I will do something, use even some jokes and stories that you may know because I really want to tell two anecdotes because I don't like to celebrate my names. But I think for Mehrlust, what this means and why is this concept actual today, we in Slovenia got the answer years ago already. It's not a nice story. You know, everybody celebrates Slovenia here, but I read now Nazi history because I will begin with it. You know who was maybe the worst single person? He invented gas chambers and so on, Odilo Globocnik. He is a Slovenian and he is the worst of them all, so we Slovenians know where we are. Let me begin by a story which maybe you know it, but it's my favorite story. Years ago, I was watching—I was reading—that Nazis in their camps had something that I find horrible. One of the ways of them to torture in the camps was to crush the testicles. And they had industrially made ball, testicle crushers. So before using this, I wanted to check it up and I put search Google, no, testicle crushers. And I found about companies offering them today. Some cost over euros. They are exquisitely made, very beautiful. You regulate how much you crush your testicles. Then you have special needles to put them in and—that's the publicity. Pick your poison from—for pleasure—from this ball torture group. Stainless steel ball crusher, stainless ball clamp torture, and so on and so on. This I think is where we are today. The passage from the ball crusher, the way Nazi used them as torture, now you have to buy it and we are supposed obviously to enjoy it. So my question is, how did we come to this today? Because my claim is here a pretty crazy, radical one. This awaits us at the end of today's—sorry. Yes, yes, yes. Okay, basically. One moment, please. Okay, I will go on here till that point. Okay. Okay. Ah, you don't want to be quoted as telling about ball crushing? No. I think, I have no doubt today, that there are some people who will celebrate this as—that's what I wanted to show you—as a sign of historical progress. Today, if you use one wrong word, which is considered too binary or whatever, you are cancelled, but no problem to do the ball crushing and so on. The serious problem behind this apparent joke is, my God, why—why are we today at this stage where with all the permissiveness, we get more and more frigidity and impotence? Pleasure is today almost order, as Über-ich, superego. You have to enjoy. And—it goes perfectly. And the result is true pain. So where do we Slovenians—Slovenia—have the answer? In a Trieste psychoanalyst, Italian, Edoardo Weiss, had written to Freud about his problem with two patients. One was a highly educated Italian whose wife had committed suicide, and this made him impotent. With a typical male chauvinist exception, except with prostitutes. But he was impotent. Then the second patient was a Slovenian, about years of age, a thoroughly immoral person. He cheated everybody. Like, the analyst learned, Weiss, that his father gave him the money for analysis, but this Slovenian told to his father a higher sum, so that he pocketed the difference and so on. But, that's my paradox. Yes, he was extremely corrupted, immoral, a liar, rogue, but at the same time he was completely impotent. So that's the paradox. The transgression of all ethical social laws did not lead to unbridled pleasure. It lead to its prohibition. The more everything is allowed, the more it is at a different level prohibited. Here, we do not have time to go into this today, but here, Lacan was right and Dostoevsky was wrong in this, I think, one of the most stupid statements in the history of human thought. If there is no God, then nothing is forbidden. No, the Slovenian shows that if there is no God, then everything is forbidden. What was Freud—Freud's advice to Weiss? He said the first patient okay, it's normal, he felt guilt for his wife's death, so he—you will cure him, it's normal moral pressure. But for Slovenian, I quote Freud, unfortunately in English: The Slovenian is obviously a good-for-nothing who does not warrant your effort. Our psychoanalytical art fails, fails when faced with such people. Our perspicacity alone cannot break through the dynamic relation which controls them. So did you notice the ambiguity of Freud? He said at the same time: he is worthless, ignore him, and: he is too complex, psychoanalysis is not enough developed. I think that Freud's mistake here was that he saw this guy as totally immoral and so on, but we should here introduce Lacan's notion of Über-ich as not the same as Ich-Ideal or moral law. Moral law prohibits. Über-ich, as Lacan put it very nicely, Über-ich, superego, is an agency of enjoyment. The basic order of superego is: enjoy fully. And precisely paradoxically, this sabotages most efficiently enjoyment. So this is I think where we are today. Our official culture, culture is: everything is permitted, but so that really everybody has access to enjoyment, we get so many regulations. What you are allowed, what not, and so on and so on. And this brings me to go quickly to the basic paradox of Über-ich, elaborated already by Freud. It is that the more you obey its orders, the more you feel guilty. It's not: okay, I did my duty, it's okay. No, we are caught in this circle of the more you obey it, the more you feel—the more you feel guilty. And this again I think happened to this Slovenian and again this is our superego culture today. Now I will say something that you will—that you will not like maybe, but I think this is the problem of, which is why I remain today especially—now I provoke you even more than with all those testicle stories—this is why I'm sorry to tell you as a leftist and communist I remain Eurocentrist. I claim that—don't we get it?—that the more the so-called leftist liberals criticize Eurocentrism—the most ridiculous here was Foucault, who went to Iran and claimed, ah, your culture is infinitely better, there is nothing more oppressive than Western European culture—but the paradox of this struggle against neocolonialism, Eurocentrism and so on is that we expect that if we behave in an anti-racist way, that we will be—this will be received by the other side benevolently. No, it's the opposite. The more we try to be tolerant, open to the other, the more we hear: you don't really like us, this is just hypocrisy, we want more, and so on and so on. So that's—and here comes—the—why then are we doing it? Here enters then—I will quickly finish—here enters I think the Über-ich und Mehrlust oder Mehrgenießen. When you—the more you feel guilty—sorry, the more you obey the order, the more you feel guilty. Why? Because this guilt is pleasure at its purest. And this is Über-ich as opposed to simple pleasure. I am so sorry we don't have time, it would be too complicated, but if you want to see one clip, what is Mehrlust, surplus pleasure, which is pleasure in renunciation itself. Mehrlust, it's not simply more lust, like—sorry for being tasteless—a lady says, or a man, whoever: I want to be fucked in this way, but if you do that more it will be even better. No, it's that you enjoy the very prohibition, the horror. The nicest example imaginably—I hope you know it, it's a true historical moment—look, Joseph Goebbels, you know that famous Berlin Sportpalast speech from early '43. He announces totaler Krieg. And it's an incredible speech. He doesn't even speak a lot about Endsieg. He just promises horrors with an incredible, full of intense mystical enjoyment expression on his face: Do you want totaler Krieg? Such a war that you cannot even imagine the horrors? The crowd shouts: Yes, we want it! Then Goebbels goes on: Do you want to suffer, to have hardship to—with regard to—what we suffered till now was nothing? Yes, we want it! and so on. That's where today especially psychoanalyse, psychoanalysis enters. Psychoanalysis, in psychoanalysis, Genuss, full pleasure is—that's the beautiful paradox—at the same time impossible, but at the same time impossible to get rid of it. For example, let's say something is prohibited, in classical Freudian terms, incest. It's never that what you really want. But then if you obey prohibitions, you start to enjoy prohibitions themselves. Or, as my personally good friend but theoretically half enemy Judith Butler likes to say, the lesson of psychoanalysis is that the prohibition of desire necessarily changes into a desire for prohibition. So no matter how you try to be puritan, to get rid of it, enjoyment returns. You see the paradox? It's impossible, you always miss it, but at the same time you cannot—you at the same time you cannot get rid of it. And to provoke you even more, although all my best friends—not the usual anti-Semitic statement: some of my friends are Jews—no, practically all of my friends are Jews. But that's why I'm telling you, here is superego logic at its worst. I was horrified to read in Der Spiegel, I think a year and a half or two years ago, they debated BDS, Boycott, Divest, Sanctions, whatever. And two big Jewish figures in Germany said something which for me is horrible. They said, I quote it in German: Wer Antisemit ist, bestimmt der Jude, und nicht der potenzielle Antisemit. My point: okay, I agree, but what if we apply the same to West Bank Palestine? Can we also say they will say when they are oppressed? The second thing, what about all those Jews who don't agree—and there are hundreds of thousand demonstrating—who don't agree with this oppression on the West Bank? Zionists had an expression, horrible: self-hating Jews, Jews who only pretend to be Jews but are not really Jews. And here to conclude, I give you what I see as a horror today. The term, I proposed it years ago, it's now accepted among Israeli left, whatever remains of it. We have a new phase of anti-Semitic Zionism. Literally. You know who is at the beginning of it? You should read him, horrible name, although not bad as—as bad as—Globocnik—we are the worst—Reinhard Heydrich. In '37, he wrote a text where he says: Jews are wonderful dynamic people, we would like to make Geschäfte with them and so on, just they don't belong here. Like, out of—they—we should throw them out from here, but they are more than welcome in Palestine where they will serve as a limit to Western—to Oriental barbarism. Then you remember that guy, what was his name, Breivik, the crazy guy in Norway? He said the same. He said: Jews in Europe—no, no, they make trouble. Jews in Israel—nothing better, we should support them. And the sad thing is take somebody like Donald Trump. He enacted this politics. He fully supported Israel there, told them to simply annex Golan Heights and so on. At the same time, if you look at his support base in United States, it's mostly people who were not even in a very covered way anti-Semitic. So, to really conclude, believe me or not, who is then my ethical hero? I will not quote her, it's—it's too long, but it's an incredible lady, Ruth Klüger. She wrote memoirs, she was as a young girl in Auschwitz or where, still alive, a girl Holocaust girl who remembered. And her message is very deep. I will condense it. Maybe it's in the book if you want to learn more. She says that she survived Holocaust. Then she went to Israel and was shocked at how some of her friends who also survived Holocaust were there extremely aggressive about Palestinians, like this is now our land, kill them and so on. And her explanation is very deep. She said, we are still victims of this prejudice that Holocaust—yeah, yeah, horrible blah, blah—but ethically it purified you. And she said no, Holocaust, it wasn't—if you survive it, you came out with a refined sense for justice or whatever. No, she said, the problem is that many were also ethically destroyed. Holocaust was not, for those who survived, a factory for good people and so on. So to really conclude, if there is a hero of 20th century for me, the first heroes of 21st century are the Iranian women, what they are doing now. Can you imagine anything more foreign to political correctness? But can you imagine anything more emancipatory? Women rejected to wear burka, all that, and they—the—they are supported—they insist—they risk their—they risk their lives. And what is important for me, the problem of political correctness is that it focuses on divisions. Like, if I were or if you were, much easier to judge me, you would say: okay, you pretend to be a leftist, but didn't you use that bad taste jokes, didn't you do that? It's divisive. While what women did now in Iran is the exact opposite. They are unspitchbar—wie sagt man?—triggering an incredible protest movement. All ordinary people, even many freedom-loving Muslims, said: yes, the lesson is our—our ayatollahs who are running—ruling—us are not true Muslims and so on. And it's very important that women did this. It's an incredible element. So really to conclude, my hero of the 20th century, remember this name, check it in Wikipedia or web, Marek Edelman. He was a Bund leftist Jew in Poland. He was one of the leaders of Ghetto uprising. By miracle he survived it. He was then one of the leaders of final Warsaw uprising. He survived that. After the war, he remained in Poland. And the authorities wanted him to go out. And he gave a beautiful explanation. He said, there are all those stones. And he was very precise here. He said: forget Auschwitz. Auschwitz is—I'm totally provocative now—Auschwitz is a Gulag Disneyland today. You know that—I learned this—David Irving—that's the only thing I learned from him, he is horrible—but you know that what you are shown as that chamber to gas people? It says there: it was built on '48, in '48 after. The true horrors are Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka and so on. They were top—so, he said, it's not important what I say. I feel like a stone in one of these camps. It's just my duty to be here. Then a true heroism. When Palestinians begin to revolt, he said, please don't use terror, but otherwise you are my brothers. It was an incredible ethical—and with this, I will really, really conclude the third time. You know, don't fall into this trap. The moment you do this, you sell your soul to the devil. If you say: okay, Israelis exaggerate a little bit, Palestinians exaggerate a little bit, let's find the right measure. No, if you balance it like this, you know, then you justify both. Israelis can say: we suffered Holocaust so you don't have any right to reproach us. Palestinians are saying: we suffer such a lot that we don't care about Holocaust, we suffer now. No. The only ethical position is: our fight against anti-Semitism, which is strong here in Europe, and our fight for West Bank Palestinian rights, should be logically consistently part of the same struggle. There is no balancing here. On this all—all depends. Wie sagt das—das Karl-May-Winnetou—Ich habe gesprochen. Ja, ja, hier brauche ich auch noch Saft. Also, meine Fragen sind beantwortet worden, ich reiche sie kurz nach. Ich wollte eigentlich fragen, was die Paradoxien sind, da haben wir jetzt einige Beispiele gehört. Ich wollte fragen, was die Mehrlust ist, das haben wir erklärt bekommen. Und jetzt wollte ich nochmal Slavoj fragen: Wer sind—was sind die Nicht-Verwirrten? Les non-dupes, ja? Also von—eine der schönsten—one of the most beautiful sayings of Jacques Lacan, but as everything you find it in Hegel—or in Hegel already—is that Lacan with a wonderful ambiguity says: Les non-dupes errent. Those who are not tricked, those who don't fall into the trap of illusion, those precisely those who want to know everything clear, they are—they are wrong. And your question was: Ah, Nicht-Verwirrten? I think that today we live in a totally crazy era. I explained this already yesterday a little bit where, you know, it's not so much that the truth is not told. Even those in power are saying at the level of content the right things. Like, look at the Glasgow conference two years ago about the—they said we are on the brink of a catastrophe, action is needed and so on and so on. But the way it functions is that we talk about doing things—things in a non-engaged way, in such a way that we guarantee that nothing will happen. Sorry to repeat myself. Yesterday I used the two examples where if I were to be a terrorist, I would bomb them immediately. Kassel und Venedig Art Biennales. Look at their program. You cannot imagine anything more leftist radical. We are a tool of capitalism, there is still Eurocentric racism, we are all exploited. It doesn't matter. They fit—this Biennales—perfectly into a global market. So our—this here I refer to your philosopher, who is a right-winger, but I wouldn't underestimate him, I still consider him my friend, Peter Sloterdijk, who years ago wrote a wonderful book about Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, where he said the formula today is: we know what we are doing, but we are nonetheless doing it. So, and here I refer to my wife, who unfortunately where is she—she is here—who is now writing a book, Les non-dupes errent, where she shows how what is wrong today is precisely this obsession with not falling into an illusion. Like, you know, the whole modern art is this—even Brecht, although with Brecht it's more complex—this idea of Entfremdung, don't take it too seriously and so on. I think that this is the main enemy today. I think that, as Hegel puts it, the path to truth goes only through illusions. You have to consciously engage yourself in something which may appear illusory. So of course to go back to the point, I stole this title from—I'm so old, senile—who wrote that famous book, A Guide for the Perplexed? Maimonides. Yeah, Maimonides, yes. Where the idea is you are perplexed, confused—no, today guidance need those who think in a very cynical way everything is clear. And then you get the conclusions: yes, the situation is catastrophic, but there—too everything that you do will turn things even worse. Like in spite of my irony against political correctness, I still absolutely—sorry—support its basic goals and LGBT and so on. For me, the problem is not they are too crazy, too radical. They are in some sense not radical enough. They don't address the true causes of women's subordination and so on and so on. It's—I really think, and many of my Marxist friends agree, that for example in United States, this politically correct wokeness and so on is strictly an upper-middle-class phenomenon. But let me not lose time here. My point—so this is the idea. Today we all think either in conspiracy theories or in global cynicism: don't take that seriously, everything goes wrong and so on and so on. No, we have to take the risk. Maybe
unknown
it will go wrong, but then we repeat it, it may be better. This was even Hegel's point, much more refined in his—because I'm an old Robespierre fan to the end—in his critique of French Revolution. It's not terror and so on. No, his point is that to arrive at—under quotation marks—normal bürgerliche Gesellschaft, you have to go through terror. You have to go through
it will go wrong, but then we repeat it, it may be better. This was even Hegel's point, much more refined in his—because I'm an old Robespierre fan to the end—in his critique of French Revolution. It's not terror and so on. No, his point is that to arrive at—under quotation marks—normal bürgerliche Gesellschaft, you have to go through terror. You have to go through
Slavoj Žižek
illusion. So today I would say we need more fictions, we need more alternate realities. Yesterday my wife mentioned a movie which we both agree—I often disagree with her, she's evil—but here I agree with her, that did you see the movie Everything Everywhere? That's a total fake. Because beneath this playing with alternatives, the result is: but the world in which we live is still the best one, return to this world. No, sorry, the world we live in is definitely not the best one imaginable. We have to take risks, so we have to—we have to be in some sense—you know, I will use another, I don't think I already use it in this book, I use it in one text. It doesn't work in your language, in my—Slovenian—so-so, but it works in French and maybe some others. It's a wonderful distinction between—you know, in French you have two words for future, Zukunft: futur and avenir. Futur means what will be. Avenir means something more. Like, if Biden will win, he will be the present and future president of America. But he will not be the president to come. It has to be different. And here comes my pessimist-optimism. We need to get the true avenir, would it be Ankunft or what, I don't know. We have to accept no future. By this I mean no future within the general coordinates of the existing order. In this sense again, don't ever underestimate—that's why I think the—today the system more and more reproduces itself by bribing us with different forms of Mehrlust. Look at precarious work. You almost cannot be more exploited. But you know where they bribe you? Many workers that I know, with Uber taxi drivers, they say: but I'm so free, I work only when I want, I—I—I can cancel weekends to be free, nobody controls me and so on. You see, this is a typical way how although exploitation is worse than ever today, the system presents this exploitation as new freedoms. They use a beautiful metaphor here, that we are all capitalists. If you are a poor worker and somehow put aside euros, you are a small capitalist because then you have to think: will I buy a cheap car and become—become the Uber driver, will I finance my son's studies, will we go to a holiday? So the idea is you just add a couple of zeros but it doesn't really matter. It gives you a fake sense of freedom. Which is why I think in some sense today the horror with freedom is that we ex—with unfreedom is that we experience it as freedom. And we are so mani—you know the story. I believe my friend, although often don't agree with him, especially with Ukraine, Yanis Varoufakis, who said we are already entering a new neo-feudal order where those who control the clouds—where the digital clouds where all the data are collected—you cannot understand them as—as people who are obsessed with profit. It's not—first it's not profit, it's rent. How—why is Bezos so rich? Because when you buy—it's not even you, it's mostly the publishers, no—to publish there it takes or whatever, you are paying him a rent. That's the horror today. You think you are in a free space choosing, I buy this, I buy that. It's all controlled by digital clouds which even then manipulate your choices, your desires and so on and so on. And we all work for them. You know how? By clicking, by making choices and so on. They know us, as we say, much better than we know ourselves. So my paradoxical conclusion is that, yes, it's a horrible situation, the liberal subject is disappearing. But a proper dose of communism—not the old dead-air Central Committee, but let's say socialized economy and so on—is the only way for what is worth fighting for in liberalism to survive. Genosse, gehen wir weiter. Eine Frage hätte ich—Wie heißt das auf Deutsch? Ich habe dieses Problem schon gestern. Es ist Genosse und Genossin. But what if I say fuck you, I'm non-binary? What in English you have to use they. Do you have here a version? How do you do it auf Deutsch? Bitte? Genoss-in. Bitte? Genoss-in. Yeah, but this is still binary. It means you are maybe man, maybe woman. But there are people who say we are neither. Okay, so I'm now expert-light, vice-human—No, no, no, it's not—sorry, let's keep it. Please, let's go on. Eine Frage hätte ich jetzt noch zum Schluss. Wir haben jetzt die Paradoxien—Das wollte ich. Ja, das. Ich könnte sagen mit alle Heuchelei, I—I would love to answer the question endlessly but unfortunately there is no time and so on. But at least symbolically one—we should allow one person or two to—um Gottes Willen—eine Frage noch zulassen, aber wir sind—Wir haben noch Minuten. Genau. Eigentlich wollte ich jetzt noch eine Frage stellen, aber das wäre jetzt natürlich unfair, wenn das Publikum nicht die Chance hätte. Einer darf jetzt was fragen. Sie sind der Erste, dann fragen Sie. Bitte. Deutsch oder Englisch? Was Sie wollen. Vielleicht können wir das Mikro hier—Das ist für mich eine Frage wie Coca-Cola oder Fanta. Aber ich wollte Fanta, aber dann habe ich gelernt—wissen Sie, was Fanta war? Wenn in '39 United States prohibited to sell Coca-Cola to Germany, it's Hitler's answer to Coca-Cola. Sorry, please, whatever you want. Okay, also ich habe einmal einen Kommentar zu dem Auschwitz Disneyland, das ist—also Gulag Disneyland—das ist genau meine Erfahrung gewesen, als ich dort war. Das erste, was ich gesehen habe, war ein Amerikaner, der ein Selfie gemacht hat vor dem Arbeit macht frei-Schild, und sie hat symbolisches Kapital dadurch, dass sie dann irgendwie in Auschwitz war und sagen kann, dass sie dort war. Anderes Disneyland: Wir haben in Dresden—ich komme aus Dresden—wir haben da einen Technoclub, und das ist ein Spielplatz für Erwachsene, da gibt's Techno bum bum bum, da gibt es—was weiß ich—Kunst, Kultur, Theater, und der Name von diesem Club heißt Objekt Klein a. Wirklich? Oh mein Gott. Genau. Und das heißt, wir gehen da jede Woche hin und versuchen, das Objekt klein a zu fangen, und wir kriegen es nicht, und dann müssen wir nächste Woche wieder hingehen. Das ist der Part. Und der zweite Teil von der Geschichte ist, ich habe dort meinen Geburtstag gefeiert im Januar, Jahre, und ich habe ein Geschenk gekriegt. Das war Herman Lang, Das Sprachlose und das Unbewusste. Ich weiß nicht—Und das war Ihr Buch. Und das war Ihr Buch, weil mein Freund hat das gefunden in einem Antiquariat in Ljubljana, wo ganz viele Bücher von Ihnen sind, und er hat sich diese Fetischobjekte gekauft, Stück, und hat uns eins davon—hat er mir geschenkt. Ja. Wir wollten uns eigentlich auf Fragen konzentrieren und nicht auf Koreferate, so interessant sie sein mögen. Jetzt wollen wir es noch mal—darf ich? Können Sie das Mikro gerade weitergeben? Nein, bitte. Die erste Frage war sehr interessant. Wir nachher—Yes, there is something totally false in the way Auschwitz functions. I think it's too hypocritical to say: oh, these are stupid tourists. Well, they made it like that. The way Auschwitz is structured is very clear, very clean. Like, when with my son I visited Dachau, they have one barack with nice newly made beds. And my son's reaction was: wait a minute, this is besser als einige diese Studentenhotel, I would quite like to stay there. Bitte. Ja, erstmal vielen Dank, dass Sie auch das Thema Iran angesprochen haben. Ich komme aus der Stadt, wo Jina Mahsa Amini getötet wurde und die Revolution begann, auch meine Heimatstadt. Aber wie sehen die Dinge jetzt? Ja, das ist genau—Ja, jetzt geht's weiter, die Revolution geht weiter. Ich meine, dass das ein Prozess ist und dann auch das vielleicht etwas länger dauert, als wir uns wünschen. Aber meine Frage wäre an Sie: Was können europäische Feministinnen oder europäische Linke
illusion. So today I would say we need more fictions, we need more alternate realities. Yesterday my wife mentioned a movie which we both agree—I often disagree with her, she's evil—but here I agree with her, that did you see the movie Everything Everywhere? That's a total fake. Because beneath this playing with alternatives, the result is: but the world in which we live is still the best one, return to this world. No, sorry, the world we live in is definitely not the best one imaginable. We have to take risks, so we have to—we have to be in some sense—you know, I will use another, I don't think I already use it in this book, I use it in one text. It doesn't work in your language, in my—Slovenian—so-so, but it works in French and maybe some others. It's a wonderful distinction between—you know, in French you have two words for future, Zukunft: futur and avenir. Futur means what will be. Avenir means something more. Like, if Biden will win, he will be the present and future president of America. But he will not be the president to come. It has to be different. And here comes my pessimist-optimism. We need to get the true avenir, would it be Ankunft or what, I don't know. We have to accept no future. By this I mean no future within the general coordinates of the existing order. In this sense again, don't ever underestimate—that's why I think the—today the system more and more reproduces itself by bribing us with different forms of Mehrlust. Look at precarious work. You almost cannot be more exploited. But you know where they bribe you? Many workers that I know, with Uber taxi drivers, they say: but I'm so free, I work only when I want, I—I—I can cancel weekends to be free, nobody controls me and so on. You see, this is a typical way how although exploitation is worse than ever today, the system presents this exploitation as new freedoms. They use a beautiful metaphor here, that we are all capitalists. If you are a poor worker and somehow put aside euros, you are a small capitalist because then you have to think: will I buy a cheap car and become—become the Uber driver, will I finance my son's studies, will we go to a holiday? So the idea is you just add a couple of zeros but it doesn't really matter. It gives you a fake sense of freedom. Which is why I think in some sense today the horror with freedom is that we ex—with unfreedom is that we experience it as freedom. And we are so mani—you know the story. I believe my friend, although often don't agree with him, especially with Ukraine, Yanis Varoufakis, who said we are already entering a new neo-feudal order where those who control the clouds—where the digital clouds where all the data are collected—you cannot understand them as—as people who are obsessed with profit. It's not—first it's not profit, it's rent. How—why is Bezos so rich? Because when you buy—it's not even you, it's mostly the publishers, no—to publish there it takes or whatever, you are paying him a rent. That's the horror today. You think you are in a free space choosing, I buy this, I buy that. It's all controlled by digital clouds which even then manipulate your choices, your desires and so on and so on. And we all work for them. You know how? By clicking, by making choices and so on. They know us, as we say, much better than we know ourselves. So my paradoxical conclusion is that, yes, it's a horrible situation, the liberal subject is disappearing. But a proper dose of communism—not the old dead-air Central Committee, but let's say socialized economy and so on—is the only way for what is worth fighting for in liberalism to survive. Genosse, gehen wir weiter. Eine Frage hätte ich—Wie heißt das auf Deutsch? Ich habe dieses Problem schon gestern. Es ist Genosse und Genossin. But what if I say fuck you, I'm non-binary? What in English you have to use they. Do you have here a version? How do you do it auf Deutsch? Bitte? Genoss-in. Bitte? Genoss-in. Yeah, but this is still binary. It means you are maybe man, maybe woman. But there are people who say we are neither. Okay, so I'm now expert-light, vice-human—No, no, no, it's not—sorry, let's keep it. Please, let's go on. Eine Frage hätte ich jetzt noch zum Schluss. Wir haben jetzt die Paradoxien—Das wollte ich. Ja, das. Ich könnte sagen mit alle Heuchelei, I—I would love to answer the question endlessly but unfortunately there is no time and so on. But at least symbolically one—we should allow one person or two to—um Gottes Willen—eine Frage noch zulassen, aber wir sind—Wir haben noch Minuten. Genau. Eigentlich wollte ich jetzt noch eine Frage stellen, aber das wäre jetzt natürlich unfair, wenn das Publikum nicht die Chance hätte. Einer darf jetzt was fragen. Sie sind der Erste, dann fragen Sie. Bitte. Deutsch oder Englisch? Was Sie wollen. Vielleicht können wir das Mikro hier—Das ist für mich eine Frage wie Coca-Cola oder Fanta. Aber ich wollte Fanta, aber dann habe ich gelernt—wissen Sie, was Fanta war? Wenn in '39 United States prohibited to sell Coca-Cola to Germany, it's Hitler's answer to Coca-Cola. Sorry, please, whatever you want. Okay, also ich habe einmal einen Kommentar zu dem Auschwitz Disneyland, das ist—also Gulag Disneyland—das ist genau meine Erfahrung gewesen, als ich dort war. Das erste, was ich gesehen habe, war ein Amerikaner, der ein Selfie gemacht hat vor dem Arbeit macht frei-Schild, und sie hat symbolisches Kapital dadurch, dass sie dann irgendwie in Auschwitz war und sagen kann, dass sie dort war. Anderes Disneyland: Wir haben in Dresden—ich komme aus Dresden—wir haben da einen Technoclub, und das ist ein Spielplatz für Erwachsene, da gibt's Techno bum bum bum, da gibt es—was weiß ich—Kunst, Kultur, Theater, und der Name von diesem Club heißt Objekt Klein a. Wirklich? Oh mein Gott. Genau. Und das heißt, wir gehen da jede Woche hin und versuchen, das Objekt klein a zu fangen, und wir kriegen es nicht, und dann müssen wir nächste Woche wieder hingehen. Das ist der Part. Und der zweite Teil von der Geschichte ist, ich habe dort meinen Geburtstag gefeiert im Januar, Jahre, und ich habe ein Geschenk gekriegt. Das war Herman Lang, Das Sprachlose und das Unbewusste. Ich weiß nicht—Und das war Ihr Buch. Und das war Ihr Buch, weil mein Freund hat das gefunden in einem Antiquariat in Ljubljana, wo ganz viele Bücher von Ihnen sind, und er hat sich diese Fetischobjekte gekauft, Stück, und hat uns eins davon—hat er mir geschenkt. Ja. Wir wollten uns eigentlich auf Fragen konzentrieren und nicht auf Koreferate, so interessant sie sein mögen. Jetzt wollen wir es noch mal—darf ich? Können Sie das Mikro gerade weitergeben? Nein, bitte. Die erste Frage war sehr interessant. Wir nachher—Yes, there is something totally false in the way Auschwitz functions. I think it's too hypocritical to say: oh, these are stupid tourists. Well, they made it like that. The way Auschwitz is structured is very clear, very clean. Like, when with my son I visited Dachau, they have one barack with nice newly made beds. And my son's reaction was: wait a minute, this is besser als einige diese Studentenhotel, I would quite like to stay there. Bitte. Ja, erstmal vielen Dank, dass Sie auch das Thema Iran angesprochen haben. Ich komme aus der Stadt, wo Jina Mahsa Amini getötet wurde und die Revolution begann, auch meine Heimatstadt. Aber wie sehen die Dinge jetzt? Ja, das ist genau—Ja, jetzt geht's weiter, die Revolution geht weiter. Ich meine, dass das ein Prozess ist und dann auch das vielleicht etwas länger dauert, als wir uns wünschen. Aber meine Frage wäre an Sie: Was können europäische Feministinnen oder europäische Linke
unknown
einfach
einfach
Slavoj Žižek
von dieser Jin-Jiyan-Azadi-Revolution lernen? Weil manchmal—ich studiere auch in der
von dieser Jin-Jiyan-Azadi-Revolution lernen? Weil manchmal—ich studiere auch in der
unknown
Uni und wenn ich manchmal bestimmte Debatten
Uni und wenn ich manchmal bestimmte Debatten
Slavoj Žižek
höre, dann denke ich mir: Worüber redet ihr? Ich verstehe. In these desperate days, I would say something very simple. Stop this divisive approach where the left—you know, most of this
höre, dann denke ich mir: Worüber redet ihr? Ich verstehe. In these desperate days, I would say something very simple. Stop this divisive approach where the left—you know, most of this
unknown
woke left doesn't even bother a lot to criticize true racists. They are what they are. But they have this hermeneutic of suspicion: Are you really? Are you not secretly a fascist? But you use that expression there and so on. You know? And I—I think
woke left doesn't even bother a lot to criticize true racists. They are what they are. But they have this hermeneutic of suspicion: Are you really? Are you not secretly a fascist? But you use that expression there and so on. You know? And I—I think
Slavoj Žižek
first lesson is a very naive one. What I—I don't idealize Iran, but what from what I know I admire there is this—the magical moment is
first lesson is a very naive one. What I—I don't idealize Iran, but what from what I know I admire there is this—the magical moment is
unknown
when something that appears a particular problem, women, burka, that it—it triggered a universal process. And so—sorry—to say this very cynical thing, but if I were those up—ayatollahs—wouldn't you do the same? I would say as a great gesture: okay, if you want, just something very small, you don't need burka and so on. And then—then comes the critical point where, but that's a complicated theory, here I think I'm a true feminist. You know people usually say feminism is hysterical. Yeah, but for Lacan, hysteria is the most authentic position. Hysteria knows about objet a and
when something that appears a particular problem, women, burka, that it—it triggered a universal process. And so—sorry—to say this very cynical thing, but if I were those up—ayatollahs—wouldn't you do the same? I would say as a great gesture: okay, if you want, just something very small, you don't need burka and so on. And then—then comes the critical point where, but that's a complicated theory, here I think I'm a true feminist. You know people usually say feminism is hysterical. Yeah, but for Lacan, hysteria is the most authentic position. Hysteria knows about objet a and
Slavoj Žižek
Mehrlust. The formula of
Mehrlust. The formula of
unknown
hysteria is: I want this from you, but even if you give me this, it is not that. And the question—it's not simply this insatiable desire: I want more, more, more. It's the hysterical truth is: no matter what you give me, I want more—not to kill you, but that you substantially change the very order in which you are in a position of giving me this crumbs, a little bit more freedom here,
hysteria is: I want this from you, but even if you give me this, it is not that. And the question—it's not simply this insatiable desire: I want more, more, more. It's the hysterical truth is: no matter what you give me, I want more—not to kill you, but that you substantially change the very order in which you are in a position of giving me this crumbs, a little bit more freedom here,
unknown
there, and so on and so on. So in the West, we should simply step out of these divisive struggles, you know?
there, and so on and so on. So in the West, we should simply step out of these divisive struggles, you know?
Slavoj Žižek
And—learn—this is—the only good guy, one of the few for me, is in United States, Bernie Sanders. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already playing some double game and so on. So this movement towards solidarity. You know, like let's say
And—learn—this is—the only good guy, one of the few for me, is in United States, Bernie Sanders. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already playing some double game and so on. So this movement towards solidarity. You know, like let's say
unknown
you are against abortion. I am of course absolutely for free abortion. But we should say, not: okay, we will agree with you—no compromise here. But what if in the first step we propose a measure which in the long term will help our cause? Like let's say, not you, but some of you is against abortion. Then my answer would not have been: oh, you
you are against abortion. I am of course absolutely for free abortion. But we should say, not: okay, we will agree with you—no compromise here. But what if in the first step we propose a measure which in the long term will help our cause? Like let's say, not you, but some of you is against abortion. Then my answer would not have been: oh, you
Slavoj Žižek
are a proto-fascist or whatever. But okay, but you know nobody likes abortion. But you know what is the cause of abortion? The first I would—the cause—not cause—first I would attack those—this is part of the ruling ideology—they always impose us this fake image that abortion, these are these middle-class spoiled women. No, they know about protection. The largest case of abortion is poor women, even unwanted sex, who already have three children, cannot afford anyone. So my proposal to you would be: let's then together, because abortion is painful and so on, fight the causes: better healthcare for families and so on. I don't make a compromise. I would never say, so okay, we make a compromise, no abortion. No, no, we stand there but look for larger solidarity. And the next thing, I cannot emphasize it enough, is a sense of elementary sense of irony. I always suspect that the fanaticism, be it the religious fundamentalist or woke, is a sign of inner weakness. You are really afraid of the enemy. For me, the true struggle against racism—and only here—I remember wonderfully old Yugoslavia before the eighties. It was full of racist jokes, but of one nation against the other, but made in a benevolent way. Like we Slovenians had jokes about ourselves, we were telling them to Serbs, Serbs had jokes about themselves, Albanians and so on. And this worked as a wonderful solidarity. We didn't idealize ourselves. You know.
are a proto-fascist or whatever. But okay, but you know nobody likes abortion. But you know what is the cause of abortion? The first I would—the cause—not cause—first I would attack those—this is part of the ruling ideology—they always impose us this fake image that abortion, these are these middle-class spoiled women. No, they know about protection. The largest case of abortion is poor women, even unwanted sex, who already have three children, cannot afford anyone. So my proposal to you would be: let's then together, because abortion is painful and so on, fight the causes: better healthcare for families and so on. I don't make a compromise. I would never say, so okay, we make a compromise, no abortion. No, no, we stand there but look for larger solidarity. And the next thing, I cannot emphasize it enough, is a sense of elementary sense of irony. I always suspect that the fanaticism, be it the religious fundamentalist or woke, is a sign of inner weakness. You are really afraid of the enemy. For me, the true struggle against racism—and only here—I remember wonderfully old Yugoslavia before the eighties. It was full of racist jokes, but of one nation against the other, but made in a benevolent way. Like we Slovenians had jokes about ourselves, we were telling them to Serbs, Serbs had jokes about themselves, Albanians and so on. And this worked as a wonderful solidarity. We didn't idealize ourselves. You know.