Communist Philosopher Trashes Capitalism
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2020-05-16 · 1:19:50 · 11,963 words
communism-socialismcapitalismideologyhegel-dialecticsgeopolitics-warecology-climatehistorydemocracyreligion-theologycinema-art-culturephilosophy-general
Žižek appears on the Valuetainment podcast during the COVID-19 pandemic and defends his idiosyncratic use of the word 'communism' to describe emergency state coordination of healthcare, food, and infrastructure, not Stalinist central planning. The conversation ranges across his critique of 20th-century communism, China's authoritarian-capitalist hybrid, the relevance of Marx vs. Hegel, and rapid-fire assessments of figures from Trump and Putin to Ayn Rand, Lenin, Stalin, and Jesus. He positions himself as a 'moderately conservative communist' who prefers pragmatic state intervention to both market fundamentalism and totalitarian control, and stresses that the post-pandemic world will require irreversible structural changes.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 13
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's self-description (borrowed from Tyler Cowen) for a leftist who rejects Stalinist central planning, accepts market forces for daily life, but insists on state-directed coordination of healthcare, food, and infrastructure.
as “wartime communism (modest)”
A minimal, emergency-mode redefinition of communism as mobilizing public authority to guarantee health and decent life for all, not abundance or creative self-realization, but survival coordination.
Implicit in his discussion of how capitalist money-relations produce formal equality, monetary exchange as the democratic dimension Ayn Rand correctly identifies against direct domination.
Žižek's pun on 'Fidel Castro' to describe a political stance that clings to ideological purity while misery proves the failure, selling deprivation as a sign of faithfulness.
as “Chávez: Fidel Castro with too much money”
Žižek's capsule diagnosis of Chávez: like Castro he failed to invent a new principle of social-economic organization, but the oil money masked the structural failure until it ran out.
as “communist of a morning after”
Žižek's self-characterization: he is not interested in the magic enthusiastic moment of revolution but in what comes the next day, how to reorganize life efficiently after the uprising.
as “alienation (valued)”
Žižek argues paradoxically for a certain form of alienation, preferring an invisible public authority that takes care of basics over total communal transparency where citizens must constantly deliberate every collective decision.
The phase where capital buys politicians and the state-corporate nexus supersedes market competition, the genuine breakdown of capitalism in Žižek's account.
Žižek invokes this Marxian method: Marx criticizes capitalism not from an external standpoint of 'full human rights' but because capitalism fails to fulfill its own promises of freedom and equality.
as “cynicism”
The condition of knowing one is cheating or that a belief is false while still acting as if it were true, exemplified by Niels Bohr's horseshoe story and diagnosed as the ruling ideology of late Soviet society.
A playful formulation for a communism that nonetheless preserves space for fully autonomous individuals in the manner of Ayn Rand's architect-hero.
as “principled pragmatics”
A political disposition that combines commitment to emancipatory principles with strict realism about what can actually be achieved in a given conjuncture.
as “atheist Christianity”
Žižek's theological position: reading the crucifixion as the death of God himself (not merely his representative), leaving humanity as the collective bearer of the Holy Spirit with no transcendent guarantee.
Stories he reaches for 4
The physicist has a horseshoe over his door; asked why, since he doesn't believe in superstition, he answers: 'I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works.' Žižek uses this as the perfect definition of cynicism.
“I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works. That's why I have it. This is cynicism.”
Žižek wants V for Vendetta Part 2, where people have won and taken the Parliament, what do they do the next day? This is his metaphor for why he is a 'communist of the morning after' rather than a revolutionary enthusiast.
“I would sell my mother into slavery to see V for Vendetta Part 2. Okay, people won. What do they do next?”
French theorist Jean-Pierre Dupuy was in Japan days after Fukushima and revealed the government seriously contemplated evacuating all of Tokyo, a scale of catastrophe requiring global coordination that market logic cannot provide.
“for a couple of hours the Japanese government thought that they will have to evacuate the entire Tokyo area.”
In Cuba Žižek meets a pro-Castro man who proudly displays ruined buildings as proof of fidelity to the revolution; Žižek notes that the leader's name encodes the condition, Fidel = fidelity, Castro = castration.
“no wonder that your leader is called Fidel Castro, fidelity to castration. You are castrated in total poverty but you remain faithful to him.”
Works invoked 11
V for Vendetta film
Used to illustrate the problem of the 'morning after' revolution; Žižek would 'sell his mother into slavery' for a Part 2 showing what people do after winning.
Communist Manifesto book
Žižek explicitly says it 'was never my favourite text'; he pushes back on using it as the definition of communism and disputes several of its ten demands.
Mein Kampf book
Žižek calls it 'a very boring book' but read it to answer whether Hitler believed his own ideology; led to his insight about simultaneous knowing-deception and belief.
To Be or Not to Be film
Žižek calls it 'one of the greatest movies', a Lubitsch film he enthusiastically defends.
The Fountainhead film
Cited for the speech of Howard Roark, the moment even the hostile crowd feels free; used to formulate the idea of 'Howard Roark communism'.
Žižek's own book referenced in the interview; the interviewer's children were apparently offended by the Disneyland comment in it.
The Irishman film
Žižek did not like the De Niro Netflix film; notes its immense cost with no box office logic as an interesting anomaly of the Netflix model.
Doc Martin tv
British TV series Žižek watches to distract himself during COVID, emblematic of the way of life he is mourning.
Žižek finds Nietzsche's style 'rhetorically bombastic and pathetic'; he does not relate to the work.
We the Living book
Ayn Rand's novel set in early Soviet Union, Žižek calls it a much more ambiguous and interesting book than expected, noting its morally complex characters.
Will & Grace tv
Old US TV series Žižek watches as distraction during COVID lockdown, also part of the mourned pre-pandemic way of life.
People invoked 36
Fidel Castro negative
Used in the pun 'fidelity to castration', symbol of selling ideological misery as virtue; encountered one of his followers on a visit to Cuba who proudly showed ruined buildings.
Richard Nixon positive
Surprisingly positive: under Nixon social healthcare spending reached its high point, and he concluded peace with China; Žižek is skeptical of the Watergate narrative as the sole story.
Mentioned as a comedian Žižek knows; the interviewer references Gervais's Golden Globes speech about Hollywood competition.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
Described as 'my good friend' and 'excellent French theorist of catastrophes'; Žižek uses his account of being in Japan after Fukushima to illustrate the need for global crisis coordination.
Ayn Rand positive
Žižek published in a Rand studies journal; he endorses her insight that abolishing money restores direct domination, and her portrayal of Howard Roark as a model of full autonomy; he resists dismissing her as proto-fascist.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Admired for pragmatic opportunism, knowing when to totally change position; his last messages reveal he saw the game was lost; Žižek says Trump's stimulus is a 'Leninist' wager-confirmation.
Richard Wagner positive
Žižek loves Wagner's opera; his personal attachment is partly why he does not relate to Nietzsche, who turned against Wagner.
Deng Xiaoping positive
Called a 'genius in some sense', China's economic success cannot be imagined without Deng, in contrast to Russia where better management without Putin is imaginable.
G. K. Chesterton positive
Described as 'my favourite Catholic theologian'; cited for the claim that at the crucifixion God himself ceases to believe, foundational to Žižek's atheist Christianity.
Nikolai Bukharin positive
Mentioned as a pro-market Bolshevik who, together with Rykov, might have provided a less catastrophic path had their faction prevailed.
Žižek regrets his 2016 Leninist wager that Trump would provoke socialist reaction; now clearly says 'no Trump' on pandemic handling; notes administration members pursue more rational policies than Trump himself.
Jimmy Carter positive
Named as favourite US president despite being a presidential failure, a 'relatively decent good guy' whose soft anti-communism (Helsinki Agreements) did much to undermine Soviet power in the long term.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Žižek knew Linera and praises the Morales-Linera government in Bolivia as a success story that managed capital carefully without brutal alienation.
Paul Claudel positive
French Catholic writer cited for the formulation: 'the secret message of Christianity is not we are helpless without God, but that God is helpless without us.'
Mikhail Gorbachev negative
Given a positive role but puzzles Žižek: how could he be so naive as to believe perestroika would work in a system too clumsy for such reform?
Robert Sheckley positive
Author of 'The Store of the Worlds', used by Žižek to frame China as one possible solution among several offered to humanity.
Leon Trotsky negative
Diagnosed as arrogant, trusting fame rather than building apparatus, like Tom and Jerry's cat, he was walking on empty air in 1923 without realising it. Trotskyism was not a serious alternative.
Žižek read Mein Kampf to determine whether Hitler believed his own antisemitism; conclusion: a fascinating formula of simultaneously knowing one is lying and becoming caught in the lie.
Julian Assange positive
Cited as the source of knowledge about Google's institutional connections with the NSA, illustrating that systemic power links are deeper than personal corruption.
Evo Morales positive
Alongside Linera, praised for managing Bolivia's economy competently in a careful way that didn't alienate capital brutally.
Warren Buffett positive
Cited as another capitalist who acknowledges the market needs state intervention, supports Žižek's point about emergency coordination.
Ernst Lubitsch positive
Named as one of the great directors; Žižek co-wrote a book on him; To Be or Not to Be cited as one of the greatest movies.
Bill Gates positive
Cited as a 'progressive capitalist' who correctly acknowledges that capitalism cannot solve all problems and that some things should not be left to the market; Žižek says he doesn't fully trust Gates but takes the message seriously.
Identified as the truly evil figure of Nazism: his Armament Ministry efficiency prolonged the war until 1945 rather than mid-1944, causing millions of additional deaths, made worse by his post-war apologetic 'good Nazi' persona.
Described as a 'moderate right-wing friend' whose label 'moderately conservative communist' Žižek adopts with appreciation.
Žižek says 'now I would say Biden better than Trump' while calling Biden 'far from ideal', a purely pragmatic preference in context of the pandemic.
Michael Sorkin positive
Described as a 'wonderful eccentric' personal friend whose recent death left Žižek 'sad' and 'traumatized'.
Alfred Hitchcock positive
Žižek wrote a book on him; laments the destruction of the Hitchcock pavilion at Universal Studios as a personal tragedy.
Vladimir Putin negative
Russia could have done better without him; relying too much on KGB control is non-productive; even his own billionaires don't trust him and moved money abroad.
Hugo Chávez negative
Žižek had doubts from the beginning; diagnoses Chávez as 'Fidel Castro with too much money' who failed to invent any new principle of social-economic organization.
Nightmare and catastrophe, but Žižek warns against dismissing him as an idiot, he was a brilliant apparatus-politician who captured the party through cadre nominations by 1923.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek calls Marx 'ambiguous' and says Hegel is his real favourite; he values Marx's immanent critique of capitalism and his admiration for capitalism's productive power, while distancing himself from the Communist Manifesto and Marxist utopian schemas.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek explicitly names Hegel as his favourite philosopher over Marx; he values Hegel's pessimistic insight that even the best emancipatory ideas necessarily go wrong, and thinks we should return from Marx to Hegel.
Friedrich Nietzsche negative
Žižek does not relate to Nietzsche; finds the style of Zarathustra rhetorically bombastic and pathetic; also resents Nietzsche's ferocious turn against Richard Wagner.
Žižek acknowledges there is more to Smith than vulgar economics (he is also an ethicist in the Scottish tradition) but rejects return to Smith as a counter to monopoly capitalism.
Anti-Reagan friends credit him with one talent: knowing how to select the right people, a 'good kadrovik' in Stalinist sense.
What it argues
redefining communism as emergency state coordinationCOVID-19 as catalyst for structural change beyond market logicChina as authoritarian-capitalist hybrid, not genuine communismMarx vs. Hegel: pessimism, contingency, and the morning after revolutioncynicism as the ruling ideology of late communism and todaythe alienation paradox: preferring invisible public authority over organic community self-managementpragmatic politics versus utopian enthusiasm
Dialectical moves 8
“The true miracle of China is not China itself but the two parts that don't want to be part of China — Taiwan and Hong Kong.”
The official success story is inverted: the real evidence of what works is found in what the model excludes and suppresses.
“Far from being communist, China is simply capitalism combined with a strong authoritarian state — there is nothing specifically communist in what they are doing.”
The country that most loudly claims the communist label is its actual negation.
“What Trump is doing by distributing trillions of dollars no longer fits the capitalist model — it is already, in some sense, communist.”
The avowed anti-communist is enacting the very logic he opposes, communism is already happening under the enemy's banner.
“I like a certain form of alienation. What every leftist dreams of — transparent local self-management — would be hell to live in.”
The classical leftist utopia of de-alienation is reframed as its own dystopia; alienation, properly understood, is a condition of freedom.
“I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works — that's cynicism.”
The Niels Bohr horseshoe story crystallises the structure of cynical ideology: belief and disbelief coexist without contradiction.
“Fidel Castro: fidelity to castration — the very misery proves we are faithful, we are selling our misery itself as a success.”
Ideological purity is exposed as the symptom of failure: the castration is the condition of fidelity, not proof of virtue.
“At that point on the cross God himself doesn't believe — God becomes a non-believer.”
The crucifixion is the moment God's own faith collapses, leaving only the community of believers (Holy Spirit) as the bearer of meaning, God is not the guarantor but the abandonment of guarantee.
“The problem with communism was not too much party control but that this control was a fake — beneath it was extreme chaos.”
Totalitarian control and total disorder are not opposites but the same phenomenon: the show of control conceals the absence of real coordination.
Claims 16
asserts
The COVID pandemic makes clear that market mechanisms alone cannot allocate healthcare, food, and infrastructure — state coordination violating market logic is necessary and is already happening.capitalism's limits under crisis
asserts
What governments worldwide are de facto doing during COVID — distributing trillions, prioritizing healthcare, conscripting labour — is already a form of communism in Žižek's minimal sense.communism as present emergency reality
asserts
20th-century communism was a great ethical-political fiasco regardless of industrial successes, and that model is definitively over.20th-century Soviet-style communism
rejects
China is not an authentic communist model but an authoritarian-capitalist hybrid — the worst is that organizing workers there is the most dangerous act, inverting communism's basic premise.China as communist model
asserts
The ecological situation under classical communism was far worse than under capitalism because there was no free press to expose ecological data.communism's ecological record
asserts
Taiwan and Hong Kong are the true silent miracles of pandemic management — their success rested on trust between population and government, not authoritarian control.pandemic management and state legitimacy
asserts
Hegel is more important than Marx as a guide to the present because Hegel analysed how the best emancipatory ideas necessarily go wrong — a lesson the Bolshevik revolution confirms.Hegel vs. Marx
asserts
Cynicism is not subversive but is the dominant ideological mode of late Soviet rule and of today's society.cynicism as ideology
rejects
The utopian leftist ideal of totally transparent local self-management — where communities deliberate every collective decision — is the last element of traditional communism that must be abandoned.community self-management as leftist utopia
asserts
Ayn Rand correctly identifies that abolishing money would not produce communal abundance but would return brutal direct domination — the lesson of Soviet history confirms her warning.Ayn Rand's insight on money and domination
asserts
Marx's critique of capitalism is immanent — he judges capitalism by its own unfulfilled promises of freedom, not from some external standpoint of original human fullness.Marx's method of critique
rejects
There is a certain necessity to Stalinism — the naive Trotskyite story that Stalin was merely a contingent outcome if Lenin had lived longer is false.Trotskyite counter-factual on Stalinism
asserts
Albert Speer, not Hitler, is the truly evil figure of the Nazi regime because his armament efficiency prolonged the war by at least a year, causing millions of additional deaths.Albert Speer's historical culpability
asserts
The post-pandemic world will not simply return to the old normal — a new way of life is being created now, whether we want it or not.post-COVID structural change
asserts
Things will not return to normality; we are already beginning to mourn the old way of life where one could simply walk around and communicate freely.mourning the pre-pandemic form of life
asserts
Russia could have done better than Putin — a more intelligent Chinese-style state capitalism was possible without the KGB-dominated model that drives capital offshore and stifles productive industry.Russia's development under Putin
Quotes 13
“The name of the miracle is China. But aren't the two true miracles parts of China which don't want to be parts of China? Taiwan and Hong Kong.”Slavoj Žižek · inversion of the China success story
“I am the communist of a morning after. I say okay, nice, you have this enthusiastic moment. What interests me is what happens the morning after when this enthusiasm is over and life returns to normal.”Slavoj Žižek · communist of the morning after
“I would sell my mother into slavery to see V for Vendetta Part 2. Okay, people won. What do they do next? How do they reorganize life efficiently?”Slavoj Žižek · post-revolutionary pragmatism
“Chávez was Fidel Castro with too much money. It all fell apart when there was no longer money.”Slavoj Žižek · Chávez diagnosis
“I like alienation. I would like to have a certain invisible public authority which takes care of things — electricity, water, health — so that I can do my stupid things, read books or whatever.”Slavoj Žižek · defence of alienation over communal self-management
“There are only two types of people: complete idiots and not complete idiots.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's binary typology of persons
“The secret message of Christianity is not we are helpless without God, but that God is helpless without us.”Slavoj Žižek · atheist Christianity / God needs us
“The problem with communism was not too much party control — it was that this control was a fake. One level beneath it was extremely chaotic, nothing functioned.”Slavoj Žižek · totalitarian control as fake order
“Hegel is the greatest pessimist that you can imagine. You bring a wonderful idea, Hegel's reaction is always: yes, and I will show you why it has to go wrong.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel as pessimist
“Marx's relationship to capitalism is deeply a love-hate relationship. He was fascinated by it.”Slavoj Žižek · Marx's ambivalent relation to capitalism
“I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works. — That's cynicism.”Slavoj Žižek · cynicism: belief without belief
“We are already beginning to mourn a way of life where you simply walk around, communicate and so on. It makes me infinitely sad.”Slavoj Žižek · mourning the pre-pandemic form of life
“I would like to live in Howard Roark communism. In communism where there is a space for such fully autonomous individuals.”Slavoj Žižek · Howard Roark communism
Transcript 96 turns
Slavoj Žižek
With that being said, my guest today is Slavoj Žižek. Slavoj, thank you for being a guest on Valuetainment. I'm grateful for your kind invitation, thank you. Because you know, although I am some very strange type of communist, but as my more moderate right-wing friend Tyler Cowen wonderfully describes me, I am a moderately conservative communist. That is to say, I'm not an idiot, I'm not dreaming about a new Stalinist Central Committee and so on and so on. The 20th century is over. Did you notice what's the lesson of China and so on? If anything, communists who survived are mostly very efficient managers of today's capitalism. We live in a very weird time. And why do you say that? Because, because of China, the name of the miracle is China. One should not overestimate China. When many people say today, but look, they did deal with the pandemic successfully, okay, they screwed it up at the beginning, later in a very brutal way they controlled it. But you know, aren't the two true miracles parts of China which don't want to be parts of China? They are the true silent miracle, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They dealt with pandemic in a model way. No signs of second wave, life returning to normal and so on and so on. And that's our, we can talk about it more later, this is why I think now we are in an eminently political problem. I don't agree with those who claim, now it's not time for politics, we are under threat, all of us, so let's just trust the state to resolve this problem. No, we all know that things will not return to the old normal the way we remember it. And if I may jump, you should correct me a little bit, isn't this the saddest thing for me? That's what makes me depressed at everyday life. Many people have written about problems of mourning, melancholy, how to mourn all the dead and so on and so on. But isn't there another mourning also at work? We are already beginning to mourn a way of life where you simply, you know, walk around, communicate and so on and so on. It is becoming clear, and I'm not celebrating this, that's what makes me very sad and depressed, that again, as now all know, things will not simply return to normality, that this will just dissipate, disappear, pandemics as a bad dream. I think this is the beginning of a new period. Well, some form of distances, of social control and so on and so on, will be necessary. So, you know what makes me infinitely sad, how to distract myself? Stupid movies that I am watching, like, or old TV series like Will Grace, or the British TV series about that provincial autistic doctor, Doc Martin, and so on and so on. It makes me sad to think that this is already a way of life which is, at least for the time being, lost. You know, lost in the sense that, no, it's not lost, all the objects are there, restaurants are there, cars are there, public transport is there, but it doesn't function. It's a terrible situation, which is why I want to emphasize this, it's not only the health costs, how many people will die or suffer terribly, because you know, we should, wouldn't you agree, get rid of many illusions here. Even if you survive the COVID infection, it's not simply that you are reconstructed back at your health. There are some traces on your lungs, you get weaker and so on. But what about other things? Everybody knows this, I'm not saying anything original. First, all the other things that are neglected, all the other illnesses and so on, cancers and so on. Second thing, even your President Trump had to admit it, what happens with food production and distribution if too many people get infected? I mean, things have to function. And that's my idea of, I use this word with all provocation and ironically, why I use the word mostly to provoke, communism. It simply means, and I'm not original here, governments de facto admit it, Bill Gates admitted it, the situation is too serious to leave the solution to the market. Here public authorities should step in and simply prioritize certain things. First, health, healthcare should be not only universal but even global. All rational, not global, okay, I'm not a utopian, not global in the sense that we will have a, I don't know, a worldwide ministry of health, but in the sense of coordination. I mean, it's an illusion that we will have safe bubbles like now New Zealand and Australia, while hundreds of thousands will die in another world. Viruses moving up and down, so healthcare, absolute priority. Second priority, food distribution, how to not only produce it, how to give it to the people. Third thing, this basic elementaries of our daily life, which means electricity, water, sewage, trash disposal, and of course let's not forget the smooth functioning of phone and especially digital space, internet. These should be absolutely prioritized. So I've got a question if you don't mind, let's go back a little bit. Slavoj, when did you buy into the philosophy of communism? How old were you? No, ha ha ha ha, now comes the surprise. I didn't. When I was young and finished my studies in 1970s and early 1980s, I was a kind of a dissident. I was five years unemployed for being non-Marxist. I was very critical of communism. Even in China they don't accept me today. Because I think that China should precisely not be the model of us. Look, all liberal leftists in the 20th century hated in existing social order two things: A, unbridled brutal capitalist competition, and B, strong authoritarian state. Isn't the secret of the success of China that it precisely combines these two things? I think that China is one of the offers we get, referring to Robert Sheckley's story, in The Store of the Worlds. It's one solution offered to us. And my point is, it can be done, here I refer, they will not like this what I will say now in China, look at South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They did it, but without this full authoritarian functioning of the state. Because Chinese model is for me too much based on, to cut a long story short, on not trusting the people. People should be controlled. While I'm not idealizing Taiwan, no, Taiwan is part of China and so on, but these territories, I don't want to offend Chinese, they are part of China in some sense, these territories dealt better because nonetheless there was considerable trust between the population and the government. So I am here very critical of the 20th century communism. I think that the 20th century communism
With that being said, my guest today is Slavoj Žižek. Slavoj, thank you for being a guest on Valuetainment. I'm grateful for your kind invitation, thank you. Because you know, although I am some very strange type of communist, but as my more moderate right-wing friend Tyler Cowen wonderfully describes me, I am a moderately conservative communist. That is to say, I'm not an idiot, I'm not dreaming about a new Stalinist Central Committee and so on and so on. The 20th century is over. Did you notice what's the lesson of China and so on? If anything, communists who survived are mostly very efficient managers of today's capitalism. We live in a very weird time. And why do you say that? Because, because of China, the name of the miracle is China. One should not overestimate China. When many people say today, but look, they did deal with the pandemic successfully, okay, they screwed it up at the beginning, later in a very brutal way they controlled it. But you know, aren't the two true miracles parts of China which don't want to be parts of China? They are the true silent miracle, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They dealt with pandemic in a model way. No signs of second wave, life returning to normal and so on and so on. And that's our, we can talk about it more later, this is why I think now we are in an eminently political problem. I don't agree with those who claim, now it's not time for politics, we are under threat, all of us, so let's just trust the state to resolve this problem. No, we all know that things will not return to the old normal the way we remember it. And if I may jump, you should correct me a little bit, isn't this the saddest thing for me? That's what makes me depressed at everyday life. Many people have written about problems of mourning, melancholy, how to mourn all the dead and so on and so on. But isn't there another mourning also at work? We are already beginning to mourn a way of life where you simply, you know, walk around, communicate and so on and so on. It is becoming clear, and I'm not celebrating this, that's what makes me very sad and depressed, that again, as now all know, things will not simply return to normality, that this will just dissipate, disappear, pandemics as a bad dream. I think this is the beginning of a new period. Well, some form of distances, of social control and so on and so on, will be necessary. So, you know what makes me infinitely sad, how to distract myself? Stupid movies that I am watching, like, or old TV series like Will Grace, or the British TV series about that provincial autistic doctor, Doc Martin, and so on and so on. It makes me sad to think that this is already a way of life which is, at least for the time being, lost. You know, lost in the sense that, no, it's not lost, all the objects are there, restaurants are there, cars are there, public transport is there, but it doesn't function. It's a terrible situation, which is why I want to emphasize this, it's not only the health costs, how many people will die or suffer terribly, because you know, we should, wouldn't you agree, get rid of many illusions here. Even if you survive the COVID infection, it's not simply that you are reconstructed back at your health. There are some traces on your lungs, you get weaker and so on. But what about other things? Everybody knows this, I'm not saying anything original. First, all the other things that are neglected, all the other illnesses and so on, cancers and so on. Second thing, even your President Trump had to admit it, what happens with food production and distribution if too many people get infected? I mean, things have to function. And that's my idea of, I use this word with all provocation and ironically, why I use the word mostly to provoke, communism. It simply means, and I'm not original here, governments de facto admit it, Bill Gates admitted it, the situation is too serious to leave the solution to the market. Here public authorities should step in and simply prioritize certain things. First, health, healthcare should be not only universal but even global. All rational, not global, okay, I'm not a utopian, not global in the sense that we will have a, I don't know, a worldwide ministry of health, but in the sense of coordination. I mean, it's an illusion that we will have safe bubbles like now New Zealand and Australia, while hundreds of thousands will die in another world. Viruses moving up and down, so healthcare, absolute priority. Second priority, food distribution, how to not only produce it, how to give it to the people. Third thing, this basic elementaries of our daily life, which means electricity, water, sewage, trash disposal, and of course let's not forget the smooth functioning of phone and especially digital space, internet. These should be absolutely prioritized. So I've got a question if you don't mind, let's go back a little bit. Slavoj, when did you buy into the philosophy of communism? How old were you? No, ha ha ha ha, now comes the surprise. I didn't. When I was young and finished my studies in 1970s and early 1980s, I was a kind of a dissident. I was five years unemployed for being non-Marxist. I was very critical of communism. Even in China they don't accept me today. Because I think that China should precisely not be the model of us. Look, all liberal leftists in the 20th century hated in existing social order two things: A, unbridled brutal capitalist competition, and B, strong authoritarian state. Isn't the secret of the success of China that it precisely combines these two things? I think that China is one of the offers we get, referring to Robert Sheckley's story, in The Store of the Worlds. It's one solution offered to us. And my point is, it can be done, here I refer, they will not like this what I will say now in China, look at South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They did it, but without this full authoritarian functioning of the state. Because Chinese model is for me too much based on, to cut a long story short, on not trusting the people. People should be controlled. While I'm not idealizing Taiwan, no, Taiwan is part of China and so on, but these territories, I don't want to offend Chinese, they are part of China in some sense, these territories dealt better because nonetheless there was considerable trust between the population and the government. So I am here very critical of the 20th century communism. I think that the 20th century communism
unknown
was, at a certain level, yeah, industrialization, success and so on, but basically it was a great ethical-political fiasco. Just think of the purges and so on, all that happened. So I'm not in that sense a communist. I'm only communist in the sense that I think that the problems that
was, at a certain level, yeah, industrialization, success and so on, but basically it was a great ethical-political fiasco. Just think of the purges and so on, all that happened. So I'm not in that sense a communist. I'm only communist in the sense that I think that the problems that
Slavoj Žižek
we are approaching now, ecological problems, and I think that the ongoing epidemics of COVID is just the first in the series. There were other epidemics, there will be other epidemics, there will be other problems and so on. I don't think that global capitalism, the way it is functioning today, can, is strong enough in its mechanisms to enable us to cope with these problems. I think we need at three levels something stronger. First, at a local level. You know, which are wonderful moments that I observed? How from different, I mention this in my book, in different parts of the world, like in Spain I was told, in Madrid and Barcelona, people locally in blocks organize and try to identify who are the poor old people who live alone. No, it reminds me, but not in a brutal Cuban way, of what they call CDR, Committees of the Revolution, you know, in every block a group which controls the population. But here it's not done in that way. It's simply done to take care of those who are otherwise neglected. So we need local coordination. You know, which is the most beautiful story here? I was told by a friend from Rio de Janeiro that gangs who are usually fighting in favelas there, concluded immediately truce and organized themselves to help the poor and destitute in the favelas and so on. Second thing, the state. Again, the state has to take it over. And they are doing it. Even Trump will be forced to evoke, how it is called, that act from the fifties, Cold War, that the President can direct industry what to produce and all that stuff. The state will have to intervene here. Now I'm here very satisfied to give an ironic answer to people who tell me, oh you are an old communist and you want to use this moment to propagate. No, sorry, but what Trump did with distributing trillions of dollars. Okay, we can be very critical of how he did it, how many, of this money really went to the people, how much of this money went more to help big companies and so on. But are we aware that this type of distribution of enormous amounts of money is no longer something that fits the capitalist model? The logic was simply: millions of new unemployed could be starving, it's the duty of the state to enable them a minimally decent life. That's no longer capitalist logic. That's logic of some kind of a caretaker state, responsibility to and so on and so on. So wouldn't you agree in this definition of communism? Which is again a provocative word, I know. The old Marx in one of his texts says that in communism the formula, the principle of social life will be: to everyone according to his needs, or her of course of their needs, from everyone according to his, her, their abilities. Isn't this what we are even, even people like Trump, Boris Johnson, what we are doing now? You don't ask yourself, are you a productive member of society, if by productive we mean profitable and so on. We simply know people should not starve. It has nothing to do with economic logic, it has to be done. And on the other hand, I think, and it should be done in a transparent democratic way, but the state also, maybe, we don't know how things will develop, should have the right to maybe mobilize people for certain tasks. For example, again harvesting. I've written about it. In France, usually, now it's spring harvest, usually they rely on hundreds of thousands of seasonal workers from Spain, Portugal and so on. Borders are closed now, they cannot come. Even in England, which is certainly not a Communist Party, I read that they did something simple and efficient. You know all those waiters, waitresses, flight attendants and so on? They are employing them harvesting now. So when I say from everybody according to his abilities, to everybody according to his needs, I don't mean it in the sense of Marx, oh we will all have a comfortable life and pursue our creative job. No, it's more a modest wartime communism. We should mobilize our public authorities to enable some, to everybody some health and some minimal decent life. It's very modest, but so people don't starve, they are taken care of. And on the other hand, public authorities have the right to demand in a very as much as limited as possible, of course, certain public services. Now when people tell me this is utopia. No, people know very well. That's why even in England, when authorities ask for volunteers for public works, half a million people, young healthy people, offered themselves. Because you know we are in a unique situation where it's in our egotist interest that these things should be done. That's the miracle. That's during a pandemic. Different situation for us to do this but let me ask you this. Ah no, sorry, sorry, just to say and then immediately I give you the word, sorry. Yeah during the pandemic, but I think, and I hope pray to God that I'm wrong, but I think some kind of a crisis will last. There will not be full return to normal. I think, you think it will simply return to normal, I'm not saying it will be hell like this all the time, but there will always be fear, this combined with other ecological. So we will need, sorry, fear's also going to be controlled by the, let me ask you this. What is your basic definition of capitalism, socialism, communism? Socialism is meaningless for me, I don't like the word because everybody likes to be socialist today in a vague sense. Yeah, society should take care of everybody. I mean by communism, no, nothing totalitarian and so on, not Central Committee rules or whatever, but simply such a reorganization of economy which consciously violates market principles. That the motive of production is no longer profit. We should, for example, now when Trump is talking about getting out of the lockdown and start moving the economy. But my idea is of course we cannot sit all the time in a lockdown. But here already I have a first problem, I've written about it. For some of us to be safely in lockdown, quite many things have to go on, we discover this: healthcare, food distribution and so on and so on. But more important, we should, violating market principles, prioritize things on which our survival as a normal civilized society depends. It's what I say, healthcare. Forget about: are hospitals profitable and so on and so on. We need an immensely stronger healthcare system. We need to guarantee food distribution and so on. I'm just talking about this. And I'm not saying state should own everything and so on. No. Just it has to be somehow coordinated, socially coordinated. You talk about communism then, but then you're not talking about the communism that Marx and Engels are talking about in the Communist Manifesto. They were very ambiguous Marx and Engels. They were very ambiguous. Marx was fanatically insecure and never provided definitive formulas. You know his only moment of enthusiasm was the Paris Commune. But the Paris Commune was really more an anarchist thing, local communes and so on and so on and so on. No, but that's my irony. When you ask me about communism, I will tell you what the states are doing today, these are already elements of what I call communism. We don't have time for respirator, for masks, to play all the market game. This simply has to be done, it's a matter of survival. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah, but that's two different, so let me ask you this. I want to be specific with you here because the premise, the foundation of communism and the book Communist Manifesto, the points, you know the points. I'll go through them, I just don't think you agree with all these points. No. Number one is abolition of property and land and application of all rents and land to public purposes. A heavy progressive and graduated income tax, which I think you probably agree with. Abolition of all rights of inheritance, so inheritance you don't get any of it. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Equal liability of all to labor and establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. The gradual abolition of distinction between town and country. Free education for all children in public schools. Eliminating child labor, which you probably agree with. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. The state would control communication and transportation. The state factories and instruments of production would cultivate wasteland and improve the soil. Which of those do you disagree with? First I will tell you surprisingly with which I a little bit agree. All good ecologists admit that one of the reasons of our ecological predicament is this imbalance between city and countryside. When societies were organized in a more provincial way, all the sewage, waste and so on, all the minerals were basically returned to land. Now
we are approaching now, ecological problems, and I think that the ongoing epidemics of COVID is just the first in the series. There were other epidemics, there will be other epidemics, there will be other problems and so on. I don't think that global capitalism, the way it is functioning today, can, is strong enough in its mechanisms to enable us to cope with these problems. I think we need at three levels something stronger. First, at a local level. You know, which are wonderful moments that I observed? How from different, I mention this in my book, in different parts of the world, like in Spain I was told, in Madrid and Barcelona, people locally in blocks organize and try to identify who are the poor old people who live alone. No, it reminds me, but not in a brutal Cuban way, of what they call CDR, Committees of the Revolution, you know, in every block a group which controls the population. But here it's not done in that way. It's simply done to take care of those who are otherwise neglected. So we need local coordination. You know, which is the most beautiful story here? I was told by a friend from Rio de Janeiro that gangs who are usually fighting in favelas there, concluded immediately truce and organized themselves to help the poor and destitute in the favelas and so on. Second thing, the state. Again, the state has to take it over. And they are doing it. Even Trump will be forced to evoke, how it is called, that act from the fifties, Cold War, that the President can direct industry what to produce and all that stuff. The state will have to intervene here. Now I'm here very satisfied to give an ironic answer to people who tell me, oh you are an old communist and you want to use this moment to propagate. No, sorry, but what Trump did with distributing trillions of dollars. Okay, we can be very critical of how he did it, how many, of this money really went to the people, how much of this money went more to help big companies and so on. But are we aware that this type of distribution of enormous amounts of money is no longer something that fits the capitalist model? The logic was simply: millions of new unemployed could be starving, it's the duty of the state to enable them a minimally decent life. That's no longer capitalist logic. That's logic of some kind of a caretaker state, responsibility to and so on and so on. So wouldn't you agree in this definition of communism? Which is again a provocative word, I know. The old Marx in one of his texts says that in communism the formula, the principle of social life will be: to everyone according to his needs, or her of course of their needs, from everyone according to his, her, their abilities. Isn't this what we are even, even people like Trump, Boris Johnson, what we are doing now? You don't ask yourself, are you a productive member of society, if by productive we mean profitable and so on. We simply know people should not starve. It has nothing to do with economic logic, it has to be done. And on the other hand, I think, and it should be done in a transparent democratic way, but the state also, maybe, we don't know how things will develop, should have the right to maybe mobilize people for certain tasks. For example, again harvesting. I've written about it. In France, usually, now it's spring harvest, usually they rely on hundreds of thousands of seasonal workers from Spain, Portugal and so on. Borders are closed now, they cannot come. Even in England, which is certainly not a Communist Party, I read that they did something simple and efficient. You know all those waiters, waitresses, flight attendants and so on? They are employing them harvesting now. So when I say from everybody according to his abilities, to everybody according to his needs, I don't mean it in the sense of Marx, oh we will all have a comfortable life and pursue our creative job. No, it's more a modest wartime communism. We should mobilize our public authorities to enable some, to everybody some health and some minimal decent life. It's very modest, but so people don't starve, they are taken care of. And on the other hand, public authorities have the right to demand in a very as much as limited as possible, of course, certain public services. Now when people tell me this is utopia. No, people know very well. That's why even in England, when authorities ask for volunteers for public works, half a million people, young healthy people, offered themselves. Because you know we are in a unique situation where it's in our egotist interest that these things should be done. That's the miracle. That's during a pandemic. Different situation for us to do this but let me ask you this. Ah no, sorry, sorry, just to say and then immediately I give you the word, sorry. Yeah during the pandemic, but I think, and I hope pray to God that I'm wrong, but I think some kind of a crisis will last. There will not be full return to normal. I think, you think it will simply return to normal, I'm not saying it will be hell like this all the time, but there will always be fear, this combined with other ecological. So we will need, sorry, fear's also going to be controlled by the, let me ask you this. What is your basic definition of capitalism, socialism, communism? Socialism is meaningless for me, I don't like the word because everybody likes to be socialist today in a vague sense. Yeah, society should take care of everybody. I mean by communism, no, nothing totalitarian and so on, not Central Committee rules or whatever, but simply such a reorganization of economy which consciously violates market principles. That the motive of production is no longer profit. We should, for example, now when Trump is talking about getting out of the lockdown and start moving the economy. But my idea is of course we cannot sit all the time in a lockdown. But here already I have a first problem, I've written about it. For some of us to be safely in lockdown, quite many things have to go on, we discover this: healthcare, food distribution and so on and so on. But more important, we should, violating market principles, prioritize things on which our survival as a normal civilized society depends. It's what I say, healthcare. Forget about: are hospitals profitable and so on and so on. We need an immensely stronger healthcare system. We need to guarantee food distribution and so on. I'm just talking about this. And I'm not saying state should own everything and so on. No. Just it has to be somehow coordinated, socially coordinated. You talk about communism then, but then you're not talking about the communism that Marx and Engels are talking about in the Communist Manifesto. They were very ambiguous Marx and Engels. They were very ambiguous. Marx was fanatically insecure and never provided definitive formulas. You know his only moment of enthusiasm was the Paris Commune. But the Paris Commune was really more an anarchist thing, local communes and so on and so on and so on. No, but that's my irony. When you ask me about communism, I will tell you what the states are doing today, these are already elements of what I call communism. We don't have time for respirator, for masks, to play all the market game. This simply has to be done, it's a matter of survival. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah, but that's two different, so let me ask you this. I want to be specific with you here because the premise, the foundation of communism and the book Communist Manifesto, the points, you know the points. I'll go through them, I just don't think you agree with all these points. No. Number one is abolition of property and land and application of all rents and land to public purposes. A heavy progressive and graduated income tax, which I think you probably agree with. Abolition of all rights of inheritance, so inheritance you don't get any of it. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Equal liability of all to labor and establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. The gradual abolition of distinction between town and country. Free education for all children in public schools. Eliminating child labor, which you probably agree with. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. The state would control communication and transportation. The state factories and instruments of production would cultivate wasteland and improve the soil. Which of those do you disagree with? First I will tell you surprisingly with which I a little bit agree. All good ecologists admit that one of the reasons of our ecological predicament is this imbalance between city and countryside. When societies were organized in a more provincial way, all the sewage, waste and so on, all the minerals were basically returned to land. Now
unknown
products go from land, agricultural products to the city, so we have to fertilize land and on the other hand we have all the sewage, garbage and so on. So I don't think this is even a specifically communist
products go from land, agricultural products to the city, so we have to fertilize land and on the other hand we have all the sewage, garbage and so on. So I don't think this is even a specifically communist
Slavoj Žižek
demand this last one about. But again, don't focus too much on Communist Manifesto. It was never my favorite text. I define capitalism simply as a system of production where, and it was up to a point very successful, where the idea is that it will be most productive for society, most efficient to satisfy society's needs if the motive is profit, self-valuation, circulation of capital, expansion and so on and so on. I think we are now in a situation where we cannot rely on that. And I think it's not just a permanent, sorry, a short-time crisis like they say, but it was similar in World War II, Roosevelt has to order production of aircrafts, tanks, whatever. I think this situation will last. And I think, that's my secret hope, this does not mean, okay, we will all become China. It can be done in a more open, flexible way than the Chinese are doing. But I just don't hear you being a communist. You don't sound because, so I grew up, you know what's behind me. Let me show you this painting behind me. Do you see this painting behind me? You know that. Einstein, it's Kennedy I think, then it's Lincoln, then it's Martin Luther King on the other side, yes. Then you have in the middle they have two books. They have Communist Manifesto and they have Atlas Shrugged and they're debating these two philosophies, these two books. Okay, they're talking about forms of economy. Can I tell you something that will surprise our listeners? Please. Do you know that Ayn Rand is a very interesting author for me? I don't despise her. I published a
demand this last one about. But again, don't focus too much on Communist Manifesto. It was never my favorite text. I define capitalism simply as a system of production where, and it was up to a point very successful, where the idea is that it will be most productive for society, most efficient to satisfy society's needs if the motive is profit, self-valuation, circulation of capital, expansion and so on and so on. I think we are now in a situation where we cannot rely on that. And I think it's not just a permanent, sorry, a short-time crisis like they say, but it was similar in World War II, Roosevelt has to order production of aircrafts, tanks, whatever. I think this situation will last. And I think, that's my secret hope, this does not mean, okay, we will all become China. It can be done in a more open, flexible way than the Chinese are doing. But I just don't hear you being a communist. You don't sound because, so I grew up, you know what's behind me. Let me show you this painting behind me. Do you see this painting behind me? You know that. Einstein, it's Kennedy I think, then it's Lincoln, then it's Martin Luther King on the other side, yes. Then you have in the middle they have two books. They have Communist Manifesto and they have Atlas Shrugged and they're debating these two philosophies, these two books. Okay, they're talking about forms of economy. Can I tell you something that will surprise our listeners? Please. Do you know that Ayn Rand is a very interesting author for me? I don't despise her. I published a
unknown
text in, how do you call it, Journal of Objectivism
text in, how do you call it, Journal of Objectivism
Slavoj Žižek
or some Rand studies and so on. You know where she is right? When she says, and Soviet Union, the history of Soviet Union confirms this, that there is this democratic aspect in money. You pay me, which means we are on equal level, that money means we don't need direct violence, constraint in social relations. And she warns, Ayn Rand, she warns that if you abolish money, the danger is not that you will have like people imagine communism, you know, kind of a society of affluence, but that direct domination will lead, will return. There will be a much more brutal power functioning and so on because again money will not decide, so immediate relations of domination power will have to decide who gets what. And isn't this the lesson
or some Rand studies and so on. You know where she is right? When she says, and Soviet Union, the history of Soviet Union confirms this, that there is this democratic aspect in money. You pay me, which means we are on equal level, that money means we don't need direct violence, constraint in social relations. And she warns, Ayn Rand, she warns that if you abolish money, the danger is not that you will have like people imagine communism, you know, kind of a society of affluence, but that direct domination will lead, will return. There will be a much more brutal power functioning and so on because again money will not decide, so immediate relations of domination power will have to decide who gets what. And isn't this the lesson
unknown
of Soviet Union? Okay, they didn't abolish money, but money didn't function in the standard way. The result was a brutal return of social relations of domination. Not only this, even the social consequences, even the ecological consequences were much worse. With all the critique of capitalism how because you care only for profit you ignore ecological consequences. Well, if anything, in classical communism ecological situation was much worse because you didn't have free control, free press, all the data were. I know this, I'm following it. That's the irony of today's China, at least till this crisis. It was like this, friends were telling me, the really dangerous thing was not to be for more rule of law in the Western sense of freedom of capitalism. The two really dangerous things to do in China were: A, draw attention to ecological problems, try to write something about the problems they have with that gigantic Three Gorges Dam and the lakes there. That's the irony. Organizing workers. Some of my friends, Marxists there, got in contact with workers in some factories around Beijing and saw their poisoned illnesses, workers are dying, they were immediately arrested. What I mean is that, and it's immensely productive this capitalist machinery, I
of Soviet Union? Okay, they didn't abolish money, but money didn't function in the standard way. The result was a brutal return of social relations of domination. Not only this, even the social consequences, even the ecological consequences were much worse. With all the critique of capitalism how because you care only for profit you ignore ecological consequences. Well, if anything, in classical communism ecological situation was much worse because you didn't have free control, free press, all the data were. I know this, I'm following it. That's the irony of today's China, at least till this crisis. It was like this, friends were telling me, the really dangerous thing was not to be for more rule of law in the Western sense of freedom of capitalism. The two really dangerous things to do in China were: A, draw attention to ecological problems, try to write something about the problems they have with that gigantic Three Gorges Dam and the lakes there. That's the irony. Organizing workers. Some of my friends, Marxists there, got in contact with workers in some factories around Beijing and saw their poisoned illnesses, workers are dying, they were immediately arrested. What I mean is that, and it's immensely productive this capitalist machinery, I
Slavoj Žižek
claim we cannot afford it. I'm not saying we totally abolish it. I think we need in the long term some kind of socially controlled influence, like how will you decide today about producing respirators, healthcare and so on and so on. You cannot leave it to the market. Would you consider yourself a communist today? Yes, but that's my irony. Communist in the sense in which I see elements of communism in what today governments are forced to do. You mentioned from that list in Communist Manifesto, you mentioned nationalization of transport. Boris Johnson temporarily nationalized the British railways. Things have to be done in this way. But this again, I return to my basic point. I think that from the standpoint of capitalist logic giving people, to people trillions and so on, is it doesn't work. This money will never be returned and so on. See here's what I think about you though. I don't think you're a communist because, because I think you need to create a new philosophy called Žižekism, not communism. Because if the founder of communism is Karl Marx in whatever the timeline is, he came out with this 1840s, if he's the founder of it and he pretty much believes the government controls and the people, you know, follow the rules of the government and taxes is pretty much a hundred percent, you're not able to go out and create jobs, that's what the person thinks of my family, my mother's side they're communist they're from Baku and they shifted as they aged about getting away from communism my dad's family's imperialism I just don't think you're a communist because in the sense of communism, the way it's run when it comes down to taxes, control like you talk about China in your book and you highlight China being a great success story, you said this, these are your words, success. To a point, don't exaggerate. Don't exaggerate. I know, but it's a success story but at the same time. It's a unique combination of authoritarian communism with brutal capitalism. Sure, but is it fair to say that a true communist nation requires force for it to work? You can't give choices to people. Because if you have choices it cannot exist. It's gotta
claim we cannot afford it. I'm not saying we totally abolish it. I think we need in the long term some kind of socially controlled influence, like how will you decide today about producing respirators, healthcare and so on and so on. You cannot leave it to the market. Would you consider yourself a communist today? Yes, but that's my irony. Communist in the sense in which I see elements of communism in what today governments are forced to do. You mentioned from that list in Communist Manifesto, you mentioned nationalization of transport. Boris Johnson temporarily nationalized the British railways. Things have to be done in this way. But this again, I return to my basic point. I think that from the standpoint of capitalist logic giving people, to people trillions and so on, is it doesn't work. This money will never be returned and so on. See here's what I think about you though. I don't think you're a communist because, because I think you need to create a new philosophy called Žižekism, not communism. Because if the founder of communism is Karl Marx in whatever the timeline is, he came out with this 1840s, if he's the founder of it and he pretty much believes the government controls and the people, you know, follow the rules of the government and taxes is pretty much a hundred percent, you're not able to go out and create jobs, that's what the person thinks of my family, my mother's side they're communist they're from Baku and they shifted as they aged about getting away from communism my dad's family's imperialism I just don't think you're a communist because in the sense of communism, the way it's run when it comes down to taxes, control like you talk about China in your book and you highlight China being a great success story, you said this, these are your words, success. To a point, don't exaggerate. Don't exaggerate. I know, but it's a success story but at the same time. It's a unique combination of authoritarian communism with brutal capitalism. Sure, but is it fair to say that a true communist nation requires force for it to work? You can't give choices to people. Because if you have choices it cannot exist. It's gotta
unknown
be force and control for the philosophy of communism to exist. Wouldn't you agree? I doubt
be force and control for the philosophy of communism to exist. Wouldn't you agree? I doubt
Slavoj Žižek
if you find this really in Marx. I'm
if you find this really in Marx. I'm
unknown
not trying to save Marx. I'm not a naive guy. You know,
not trying to save Marx. I'm not a naive guy. You know,
Slavoj Žižek
many Marxist friends of mine try to define the moment when things went wrong. For Trotskytes Lenin is still good, it's with Stalin that things went wrong. For others
many Marxist friends of mine try to define the moment when things went wrong. For Trotskytes Lenin is still good, it's with Stalin that things went wrong. For others
unknown
it's Lenin, for some it's already Marx. No, I think in some sense, even if Marx didn't want, didn't have in his head the Soviet model, but nonetheless his philosophy, theory, grounded the
it's Lenin, for some it's already Marx. No, I think in some sense, even if Marx didn't want, didn't have in his head the Soviet model, but nonetheless his philosophy, theory, grounded the
Slavoj Žižek
Soviet model. I think that that type of communism is over. This is what the end of the Cold War meant. The 20th century is over, that type of communism, I don't believe it can be solved. I will even tell you a nice joke, I hope our viewers will appreciate it. You know when Fidel Castro died, it's a very nasty tasteless joke that I use, I define it. I remember when I visited Cuba once years ago, incidentally purely a private visit. I encountered on the street a guy who was pro-Castro and he proudly showed me this half-abandoned buildings in ruin and says, you see he didn't cover up the misery. But he says, you see, this is our greatness. Even if we suffer poverty, we don't betray our idea, we are faithful. The very misery proves that we are principle. And I told the guy, it didn't end well, ah no wonder that your leader is called Fidel Castro, fidelity to castration. You are castrated in total poverty but you remain faithful to him. You are trying to sell your misery itself as a success. And even I must say, you know who were for me good guys of even radical leftists in power so that you will not suspect. From the very beginning I had doubts about Hugo Chávez. Yes, Americans plotted against him, all that blah blah, it's all true. And this is a much more interesting story about Venezuela. Chávez, my definition of Chávez is he was Fidel Castro with too much money. Why? It all fell apart after when there was no longer money. Why? So I know because I knew people who were close to him, he desperately tried to invent an alternate model. State-run companies, giving companies to workers themselves to manage it and it didn't work. They did not really succeed in inventing a new principle of social-economic organization. You know, so my models, you know which was a success story? Here I beg to differ from predominant liberal version, I had good connections there, I knew Linera, Morales Vice President, they were not doing such a bad job, Linera and Morales. You know, economy was doing quite well and so on and so on. But they did it in a very careful way. They did not alienate brutally the capital, they knew how to play the game. Would you agree with me here? I despise radical leftists who are fascinated by this idea of you know, oh what an enthusiastic moment, one million people on some square, we were all crying together, you know on Syntagma Square, Tahrir Square, whatever. No, I'm a strange communist. I'm the communist of a morning after. I say okay, nice, you have this enthusiastic moment. What interests me is what happens the morning after when this enthusiasm is over and life returns to normal. How will ordinary people feel the change? And many leftists that I know are so fixated on this magic moment, you know, we were there one million people was united. Tell you another story, I hope similar. Did you see the movie, or I hope our viewers did, V for Vendetta? Yes. You know what happens at the end of the movie? People win. They break the barrier, they take over the Parliament. In one of my previous books, the introduction has the title V for Vendetta Part And as I put it in my tasteless way, I would sell my mother into slavery to see V for Vendetta Part Okay, people won. What do they do next? How do they reorganize life efficiently and so on?
Soviet model. I think that that type of communism is over. This is what the end of the Cold War meant. The 20th century is over, that type of communism, I don't believe it can be solved. I will even tell you a nice joke, I hope our viewers will appreciate it. You know when Fidel Castro died, it's a very nasty tasteless joke that I use, I define it. I remember when I visited Cuba once years ago, incidentally purely a private visit. I encountered on the street a guy who was pro-Castro and he proudly showed me this half-abandoned buildings in ruin and says, you see he didn't cover up the misery. But he says, you see, this is our greatness. Even if we suffer poverty, we don't betray our idea, we are faithful. The very misery proves that we are principle. And I told the guy, it didn't end well, ah no wonder that your leader is called Fidel Castro, fidelity to castration. You are castrated in total poverty but you remain faithful to him. You are trying to sell your misery itself as a success. And even I must say, you know who were for me good guys of even radical leftists in power so that you will not suspect. From the very beginning I had doubts about Hugo Chávez. Yes, Americans plotted against him, all that blah blah, it's all true. And this is a much more interesting story about Venezuela. Chávez, my definition of Chávez is he was Fidel Castro with too much money. Why? It all fell apart after when there was no longer money. Why? So I know because I knew people who were close to him, he desperately tried to invent an alternate model. State-run companies, giving companies to workers themselves to manage it and it didn't work. They did not really succeed in inventing a new principle of social-economic organization. You know, so my models, you know which was a success story? Here I beg to differ from predominant liberal version, I had good connections there, I knew Linera, Morales Vice President, they were not doing such a bad job, Linera and Morales. You know, economy was doing quite well and so on and so on. But they did it in a very careful way. They did not alienate brutally the capital, they knew how to play the game. Would you agree with me here? I despise radical leftists who are fascinated by this idea of you know, oh what an enthusiastic moment, one million people on some square, we were all crying together, you know on Syntagma Square, Tahrir Square, whatever. No, I'm a strange communist. I'm the communist of a morning after. I say okay, nice, you have this enthusiastic moment. What interests me is what happens the morning after when this enthusiasm is over and life returns to normal. How will ordinary people feel the change? And many leftists that I know are so fixated on this magic moment, you know, we were there one million people was united. Tell you another story, I hope similar. Did you see the movie, or I hope our viewers did, V for Vendetta? Yes. You know what happens at the end of the movie? People win. They break the barrier, they take over the Parliament. In one of my previous books, the introduction has the title V for Vendetta Part And as I put it in my tasteless way, I would sell my mother into slavery to see V for Vendetta Part Okay, people won. What do they do next? How do they reorganize life efficiently and so on?
unknown
That's the challenge today. I'm here extremely pragmatic. You think, you think people, free people would go towards communism more than they would go towards capitalism? It all depends what do you mean by communism. Of course not the with all the successes let's say of can you can you define communism in one sentence? Can you do it in one sentence? Return to what I already said, where what moves production is not profitability but in some sense social power directly violating the laws of the market, strong influence on on what should be produced and so on and so on. It's more an emergency state and I think we are forced to do this. My point is we are doing this today. Don't you see, this is what I'm afraid, go to the United States or even in Europe, now this opening up of the lockdown, even if there will be more people who die and so on and so on. I wish all the best to the American people,
That's the challenge today. I'm here extremely pragmatic. You think, you think people, free people would go towards communism more than they would go towards capitalism? It all depends what do you mean by communism. Of course not the with all the successes let's say of can you can you define communism in one sentence? Can you do it in one sentence? Return to what I already said, where what moves production is not profitability but in some sense social power directly violating the laws of the market, strong influence on on what should be produced and so on and so on. It's more an emergency state and I think we are forced to do this. My point is we are doing this today. Don't you see, this is what I'm afraid, go to the United States or even in Europe, now this opening up of the lockdown, even if there will be more people who die and so on and so on. I wish all the best to the American people,
Slavoj Žižek
but I doubt if if it will work. I think that stronger state control is needed, stronger global
but I doubt if if it will work. I think that stronger state control is needed, stronger global
unknown
cooperation is needed. I think that we need a new globalization, not. You just said, you just said you like the end of V for Vendetta where they people are free. No, I don't like them, it's a fake. I would like Part What happens then,
cooperation is needed. I think that we need a new globalization, not. You just said, you just said you like the end of V for Vendetta where they people are free. No, I don't like them, it's a fake. I would like Part What happens then,
Slavoj Žižek
next day? Okay, people are. Are you saying, are you saying free people will break things more than a controlled government will break things? It can also be a catastrophe. It's a great problem which is not resolved. Don't you again, I ask you, can you even imagine V for Vendetta Part What will they do? Okay, some kind of. We're living it, well we're living it though, I mean there's many examples of it all over the world. We are a byproduct of V for Vendetta Part Meaning, this isn't the first time where people have won and they've just said look, leave me alone, let me build my life. If I want to be a millionaire, let me be. If I want to be broke and just live a small life and go fishing every day and I just want to make enough money to buy food, let me do it. If I want to be a Christian, leave me alone. If I want to be. I don't have I don't have any problems with this. I don't have any problems with this. Communism is about force. Communism is a lot about force. What communism of the 20th century, I I agree. But but don't you think that again now you are too abstract for me. Let's return to today's situation. Just please try to imagine not a way out in the sense that the virus disappears, but a way out in the sense of some new way of life where we will somehow manage to have a decent life, daily life. I'm not talking about big models. Can you imagine it without again some kind of social control, not total control. I'm not saying state should determine what clothes you wear, what toothpaste and so on and so on. I'm saying these basics: healthcare, here it's much even worse than it. Now it's clear that we don't need only universal healthcare within state. We need some kind of not centralized but globally coordinated healthcare. If you have millions infected in Africa, Europe will not be safe and so on and so on. So healthcare, food distribution and so on. Market can survive especially for these small daily things and so on. I don't have any problems with this. Somehow it should be socially regulated. Tell me okay, what would you have done? Aren't governments now doing this? They tell me yes capitalism always does this but only at a local only for a limited time as long as the crisis is over. I think the problem is that this crisis will not be over so soon, that it will in one or another form last. So again, I think some kind of social coordination which still leaves open market forces and so on, just it will have to be coordinated in a different way. But that lies like multiple arguments, Slavoj, because the argument is you you put yourself as a communist. When somebody says you're a communist, are you offended when somebody says: my next guest is Slavoj Žižek, he's a communist. Are you offended by that label? Usually I am because what they do, like I had that strange exchange, I don't know if you follow it, with Brazilian foreign minister who reacted to my book and wrote an open letter like I'm using coronavirus to spread another even more dangerous virus. And of course what he did is communism, then he associated, we know what communism is from Stalin and so on, no? And this is what I want. My answer is: no, I just am looking at what governments are doing now all around the world. These are for me already in some sense communist measures. I get that, but what I'm saying is: are you still comfortable on the bottom right when it says Slavoj Žižek, for it to say communist? Do you? I I am not comfortable because usually people react to this in two opposite ways. Either they say oh deep in his heart he is still an old Stalinist, no, it's that communism. Or they say he is just joking, he doesn't mean it seriously. I can set more being Žižekism. Again, let me explain why. Because I I know, I study this I'm in the world, I was in the world where my mother's side everybody was, so everything for us was studying this world and understanding this world. You don't sound like a communist at all, you don't sound like. I don't care. I all all I care is that the things that I see that urgently has to be done will be done. Global healthcare, coordination of food distribution and so on. I think there will be tremendous challenges with global warming and so on. One, for example, my favorite example, maybe you know it. My good friend Jean-Pierre Dupuy, an excellent French theorist of catastrophes, was in Japan in Fukushima as member of a European delegation two three days after the catastrophe.
next day? Okay, people are. Are you saying, are you saying free people will break things more than a controlled government will break things? It can also be a catastrophe. It's a great problem which is not resolved. Don't you again, I ask you, can you even imagine V for Vendetta Part What will they do? Okay, some kind of. We're living it, well we're living it though, I mean there's many examples of it all over the world. We are a byproduct of V for Vendetta Part Meaning, this isn't the first time where people have won and they've just said look, leave me alone, let me build my life. If I want to be a millionaire, let me be. If I want to be broke and just live a small life and go fishing every day and I just want to make enough money to buy food, let me do it. If I want to be a Christian, leave me alone. If I want to be. I don't have I don't have any problems with this. I don't have any problems with this. Communism is about force. Communism is a lot about force. What communism of the 20th century, I I agree. But but don't you think that again now you are too abstract for me. Let's return to today's situation. Just please try to imagine not a way out in the sense that the virus disappears, but a way out in the sense of some new way of life where we will somehow manage to have a decent life, daily life. I'm not talking about big models. Can you imagine it without again some kind of social control, not total control. I'm not saying state should determine what clothes you wear, what toothpaste and so on and so on. I'm saying these basics: healthcare, here it's much even worse than it. Now it's clear that we don't need only universal healthcare within state. We need some kind of not centralized but globally coordinated healthcare. If you have millions infected in Africa, Europe will not be safe and so on and so on. So healthcare, food distribution and so on. Market can survive especially for these small daily things and so on. I don't have any problems with this. Somehow it should be socially regulated. Tell me okay, what would you have done? Aren't governments now doing this? They tell me yes capitalism always does this but only at a local only for a limited time as long as the crisis is over. I think the problem is that this crisis will not be over so soon, that it will in one or another form last. So again, I think some kind of social coordination which still leaves open market forces and so on, just it will have to be coordinated in a different way. But that lies like multiple arguments, Slavoj, because the argument is you you put yourself as a communist. When somebody says you're a communist, are you offended when somebody says: my next guest is Slavoj Žižek, he's a communist. Are you offended by that label? Usually I am because what they do, like I had that strange exchange, I don't know if you follow it, with Brazilian foreign minister who reacted to my book and wrote an open letter like I'm using coronavirus to spread another even more dangerous virus. And of course what he did is communism, then he associated, we know what communism is from Stalin and so on, no? And this is what I want. My answer is: no, I just am looking at what governments are doing now all around the world. These are for me already in some sense communist measures. I get that, but what I'm saying is: are you still comfortable on the bottom right when it says Slavoj Žižek, for it to say communist? Do you? I I am not comfortable because usually people react to this in two opposite ways. Either they say oh deep in his heart he is still an old Stalinist, no, it's that communism. Or they say he is just joking, he doesn't mean it seriously. I can set more being Žižekism. Again, let me explain why. Because I I know, I study this I'm in the world, I was in the world where my mother's side everybody was, so everything for us was studying this world and understanding this world. You don't sound like a communist at all, you don't sound like. I don't care. I all all I care is that the things that I see that urgently has to be done will be done. Global healthcare, coordination of food distribution and so on. I think there will be tremendous challenges with global warming and so on. One, for example, my favorite example, maybe you know it. My good friend Jean-Pierre Dupuy, an excellent French theorist of catastrophes, was in Japan in Fukushima as member of a European delegation two three days after the catastrophe.
unknown
And they told me you know that for a couple of hours the Japanese government thought that they will have
And they told me you know that for a couple of hours the Japanese government thought that they will have
Slavoj Žižek
to evacuate the entire Tokyo area. Then they decided not to.
to evacuate the entire Tokyo area. Then they decided not to.
unknown
But there will be more situations like this. And if you look at it with some kind of
But there will be more situations like this. And if you look at it with some kind of
Slavoj Žižek
abstract rationality, it would be easy even to solve this problem. To make a special deal with Russia, she gives to tens of millions of Japanese part of Siberia whatever, I don't know. We will need with geological, weather changes that are coming, we will need to do things. I don't know what. There will be catastrophes we have to get ready. But that's but to me is not communism. That just means. Okay, okay, okay, I'm not a You know why I use the word communism? I will also tell you, to signal that I'm nonetheless talking about a real change. And my problem with China is precisely that they are. Okay, it's too cheap to say I don't believe in some authentic communism and they are not. They are basically combining, it's
abstract rationality, it would be easy even to solve this problem. To make a special deal with Russia, she gives to tens of millions of Japanese part of Siberia whatever, I don't know. We will need with geological, weather changes that are coming, we will need to do things. I don't know what. There will be catastrophes we have to get ready. But that's but to me is not communism. That just means. Okay, okay, okay, I'm not a You know why I use the word communism? I will also tell you, to signal that I'm nonetheless talking about a real change. And my problem with China is precisely that they are. Okay, it's too cheap to say I don't believe in some authentic communism and they are not. They are basically combining, it's
unknown
not even communism, capitalism with a strong authoritarian state. It's as simple as that. And I don't see even anything specifically communist in what they are doing. You don't see them what they're doing, controlling the no free press, no free uh speech, you can't say anything about the regime, you
not even communism, capitalism with a strong authoritarian state. It's as simple as that. And I don't see even anything specifically communist in what they are doing. You don't see them what they're doing, controlling the no free press, no free uh speech, you can't say anything about the regime, you
Slavoj Žižek
that's not a form of communism. Why should do wait a minute, why should this be communism? This is not exclusive of communism, you have other forms of authoritarian government
that's not a form of communism. Why should do wait a minute, why should this be communism? This is not exclusive of communism, you have other forms of authoritarian government
unknown
and so on and so on. The state would control communication and transportation. That's from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. The state controlled communication. Okay, okay, okay but let let me let me ask you another thing in China. Let me give you another proof. As every communist country, they have a sacred book, a history of Chinese Communist Party, that everybody has to read. You know what happened some years ago when this free trade union movement started in China? A chapter disappeared from that book, a Chinese friend showed it to me. A chapter which describes part of the
and so on and so on. The state would control communication and transportation. That's from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. The state controlled communication. Okay, okay, okay but let let me let me ask you another thing in China. Let me give you another proof. As every communist country, they have a sacred book, a history of Chinese Communist Party, that everybody has to read. You know what happened some years ago when this free trade union movement started in China? A chapter disappeared from that book, a Chinese friend showed it to me. A chapter which describes part of the
Slavoj Žižek
history of Communist Party of China, which was quite honorable in the late
history of Communist Party of China, which was quite honorable in the late
unknown
twenties when there was fast economic development at least before Japanese
twenties when there was fast economic development at least before Japanese
Slavoj Žižek
invasion in the area of Shanghai and so on. Communists did pretty good job organizing workers for their rights and so on and so on. That chapter disappeared. You know why? Because that's the worst thing you can do today in China. To organize autonomously workers. Isn't the basic idea of communism workers should organize themselves? Where do you have even a minimal element of this in China? No, but here I am also at another level. Sorry, to I don't know, let me finish then you will be surprised. At another level I'm not a communist in the usual sense. This sounds horrible for an orthodox Marxist. I like a certain form of alienation. Can you imagine a greater hell than this now today that classical social democracy is out of fashion, traditional communism is out. What remains with some leftists are these ideas of local self-management, organic communities. People organize locally their life and so on and so on. This would be hell to live in a place like this. What every afternoon I have to have a collective debate how we organize school, food distribution whatever. I like alienation. I would like I like to have a certain invisible public authority which takes care of things, electricity, water, health, so that I can do and you can do if you want we can do our stupid things, you know, read books or whatever. I think that this idea of totally transparent society where we local communities run our own affairs
invasion in the area of Shanghai and so on. Communists did pretty good job organizing workers for their rights and so on and so on. That chapter disappeared. You know why? Because that's the worst thing you can do today in China. To organize autonomously workers. Isn't the basic idea of communism workers should organize themselves? Where do you have even a minimal element of this in China? No, but here I am also at another level. Sorry, to I don't know, let me finish then you will be surprised. At another level I'm not a communist in the usual sense. This sounds horrible for an orthodox Marxist. I like a certain form of alienation. Can you imagine a greater hell than this now today that classical social democracy is out of fashion, traditional communism is out. What remains with some leftists are these ideas of local self-management, organic communities. People organize locally their life and so on and so on. This would be hell to live in a place like this. What every afternoon I have to have a collective debate how we organize school, food distribution whatever. I like alienation. I would like I like to have a certain invisible public authority which takes care of things, electricity, water, health, so that I can do and you can do if you want we can do our stupid things, you know, read books or whatever. I think that this idea of totally transparent society where we local communities run our own affairs
unknown
is the last point of usual leftist utopia which have to be dropped. So no, I'm not the usual communist, so I hope you will not be afraid. I just don't think you're a communist. I just don't think you're a
is the last point of usual leftist utopia which have to be dropped. So no, I'm not the usual communist, so I hope you will not be afraid. I just don't think you're a communist. I just don't think you're a
Slavoj Žižek
communist, that's the only thing. I think because. It doesn't matter, just let's do things. I still what I still insist is on the list of the things that are necessary. So let me ask you a question. What what do you think about are you a sports guy? Do you like sports? Well look like one. Look, look. I used always I used [unintelligible] you know, I have a metaphysical problem here, it may amuse you. We Slovenians, okay before the global warming, we were doing a lot of skiing, you know. And I have a metaphysical problem with skiing. Why? You climb a mountain and then you slide down. What's the point? Stay down and read a good book, you know. For example, soccer, European football, no? I know I'm missing something, but I'm not interested in it. Look, what why should I care if one vulgar idiot kicks a ball better than another one? It doesn't fascinate me. I'm very conservative. I like classical music, I like classical
communist, that's the only thing. I think because. It doesn't matter, just let's do things. I still what I still insist is on the list of the things that are necessary. So let me ask you a question. What what do you think about are you a sports guy? Do you like sports? Well look like one. Look, look. I used always I used [unintelligible] you know, I have a metaphysical problem here, it may amuse you. We Slovenians, okay before the global warming, we were doing a lot of skiing, you know. And I have a metaphysical problem with skiing. Why? You climb a mountain and then you slide down. What's the point? Stay down and read a good book, you know. For example, soccer, European football, no? I know I'm missing something, but I'm not interested in it. Look, what why should I care if one vulgar idiot kicks a ball better than another one? It doesn't fascinate me. I'm very conservative. I like classical music, I like classical
unknown
literature. Even in art I like classical Hollywood. You know who are me the great guys? Ernst Lubitsch, for example. With
literature. Even in art I like classical Hollywood. You know who are me the great guys? Ernst Lubitsch, for example. With
Slavoj Žižek
friends we wrote a book on Ernst Lubitsch. Did you see To Be or Not to Be? Isn't this one of the greatest movies? Can you think ideal? Ernst Lubitsch, Alfred Hitchcock, we did books on him and so on and so on. I think I was always defending Hollywood. You know I hate those lefties: oh
friends we wrote a book on Ernst Lubitsch. Did you see To Be or Not to Be? Isn't this one of the greatest movies? Can you think ideal? Ernst Lubitsch, Alfred Hitchcock, we did books on him and so on and so on. I think I was always defending Hollywood. You know I hate those lefties: oh
unknown
Hollywood commercialized and then please spare me. There are so many well-meant movies from third world which are very progressive and so on but simply boring. Hollywood knows its job. It's a miracle. I wonder just how will Hollywood reinvent itself now. Don't you think there is a problem here?
Hollywood commercialized and then please spare me. There are so many well-meant movies from third world which are very progressive and so on but simply boring. Hollywood knows its job. It's a miracle. I wonder just how will Hollywood reinvent itself now. Don't you think there is a problem here?
Slavoj Žižek
There's gonna be a problem. They're gonna have a challenge. Yeah. What will they do? How will fiction, how will fiction be reinvented? Well, the challenge they're facing is a beautiful thing called competition. That's a beautiful thing. Did you watch Ricky Gervais's message at was it ESPYs or Oscars, which one was it when? Did you watch him give the Ricky Gervais the comedian gave the talk at Golden Globes that went viral and it got? No, no, but I know him, I know him, yes I I'll send you the link afterwards for you to watch. One of the things he talked about, the reason why Hollywood is not happy right now is because there is competition. And competition is Netflix. Now Hollywood used to be able to control that you could only there was only one way to get on TV on the big screen. There's so many ways today they don't like that. That is something communism doesn't like. Communism doesn't like competition. No I count this as part of my notion of communism my god. Netflix it's a very ambiguous thing. I'm not opposed to Netflix. I didn't like especially the movie how was it called with Robert De Niro about the murder of Jimmy Hoffa? Irishman? Irishman, yes. Did you notice something very strange about that movie? The costs were
There's gonna be a problem. They're gonna have a challenge. Yeah. What will they do? How will fiction, how will fiction be reinvented? Well, the challenge they're facing is a beautiful thing called competition. That's a beautiful thing. Did you watch Ricky Gervais's message at was it ESPYs or Oscars, which one was it when? Did you watch him give the Ricky Gervais the comedian gave the talk at Golden Globes that went viral and it got? No, no, but I know him, I know him, yes I I'll send you the link afterwards for you to watch. One of the things he talked about, the reason why Hollywood is not happy right now is because there is competition. And competition is Netflix. Now Hollywood used to be able to control that you could only there was only one way to get on TV on the big screen. There's so many ways today they don't like that. That is something communism doesn't like. Communism doesn't like competition. No I count this as part of my notion of communism my god. Netflix it's a very ambiguous thing. I'm not opposed to Netflix. I didn't like especially the movie how was it called with Robert De Niro about the murder of Jimmy Hoffa? Irishman? Irishman, yes. Did you notice something very strange about that movie? The costs were
unknown
immense, million, even more. There was no
immense, million, even more. There was no
Slavoj Žižek
box office receipt or whatever. They did it in a very strange way which in some sense no longer follows the commercial rules and so on. For me. That's the point, that's competition, that's they're going a different direction. Yeah but it's not commercial profit competition. In my communism there is all the place for this type of competition.
box office receipt or whatever. They did it in a very strange way which in some sense no longer follows the commercial rules and so on. For me. That's the point, that's competition, that's they're going a different direction. Yeah but it's not commercial profit competition. In my communism there is all the place for this type of competition.
unknown
That's why Netflix is doing a lot of garbage but also a lot of very good things. That's the big story of even HBO quality TV, HBO, Netflix and so on and so on. I think, I hope that Disney will lose and these guys, Netflix
That's why Netflix is doing a lot of garbage but also a lot of very good things. That's the big story of even HBO quality TV, HBO, Netflix and so on and so on. I think, I hope that Disney will lose and these guys, Netflix
Slavoj Žižek
and HBO will win. So now Slavoj, it you sound more socialist now. Now you're officially a socialist, you're not a communist. Okay, I don't care what you call it. I'm not a dogmatic here, I mean. I criticize Marx very much when it's needed and so on. My
and HBO will win. So now Slavoj, it you sound more socialist now. Now you're officially a socialist, you're not a communist. Okay, I don't care what you call it. I'm not a dogmatic here, I mean. I criticize Marx very much when it's needed and so on. My
unknown
point is only again I share Marx's admiration of capitalism, you know. Marx was Marx said two things which are true today. Yes,
point is only again I share Marx's admiration of capitalism, you know. Marx was Marx said two things which are true today. Yes,
Slavoj Žižek
we have to move over from capitalism that we know it. But only through capitalism. There is freedom only if you pass through capitalism. Marx was always opposed to all returns to some ancient more organic community authority and so on and so on. And this is why Marx's relationship to capitalism is deeply a love-hate relationship. He was fascinated by it. It has its destructive potentials, but at the same time Marx was well aware of this, all our notions of personal freedom and so on, emerged as part of the capitalist universe. Marx is not criticizing capitalism from some original full human right position, but the idea is that capitalism doesn't meet what doesn't fulfill its own promises. It's still an immanent critique what Marx is doing. That's why Marx would have been horrified by this idea of some Latino American leftists looking for some ancient Aztec, Sendero Luminoso you must know were doing this, some Aztec or or Inca community that should be our model. No, we had to go through capitalist modernity. Yeah I I think that capitalism doesn't work when the capitalist starts buying politicians and lobbying and then it becomes crony capitalism, then the government and the capitalist team up. That's definitely not the capitalism I'm talking about because that that that is what you call the highest level of monopoly when a company can buy votes and a company can buy politicians, that's when capitalism breaks down. So in that part I agree. Yeah, but you know what worries me more here? Don't think only at the level of personal corruption. It's more intricate how system are combined. Now we know, that's what I learned from Julian Assange, how Google is connected with NSA and so on and so on, you know. The links are deeper, are institutional. It's not just, you know, one one rich capitalist whatever is directly buying and so on. But what nonetheless fascinates me is how today some progressive, I don't know, I call them progressive capitalists like Bill Gates and so on, I don't totally trust them. But they see this. Warren Buffett, I saw, said a couple of days ago: market is great but we need a state. Bill Gates said: capitalism is great but there are things which should be not left to capitalist game and so on and
we have to move over from capitalism that we know it. But only through capitalism. There is freedom only if you pass through capitalism. Marx was always opposed to all returns to some ancient more organic community authority and so on and so on. And this is why Marx's relationship to capitalism is deeply a love-hate relationship. He was fascinated by it. It has its destructive potentials, but at the same time Marx was well aware of this, all our notions of personal freedom and so on, emerged as part of the capitalist universe. Marx is not criticizing capitalism from some original full human right position, but the idea is that capitalism doesn't meet what doesn't fulfill its own promises. It's still an immanent critique what Marx is doing. That's why Marx would have been horrified by this idea of some Latino American leftists looking for some ancient Aztec, Sendero Luminoso you must know were doing this, some Aztec or or Inca community that should be our model. No, we had to go through capitalist modernity. Yeah I I think that capitalism doesn't work when the capitalist starts buying politicians and lobbying and then it becomes crony capitalism, then the government and the capitalist team up. That's definitely not the capitalism I'm talking about because that that that is what you call the highest level of monopoly when a company can buy votes and a company can buy politicians, that's when capitalism breaks down. So in that part I agree. Yeah, but you know what worries me more here? Don't think only at the level of personal corruption. It's more intricate how system are combined. Now we know, that's what I learned from Julian Assange, how Google is connected with NSA and so on and so on, you know. The links are deeper, are institutional. It's not just, you know, one one rich capitalist whatever is directly buying and so on. But what nonetheless fascinates me is how today some progressive, I don't know, I call them progressive capitalists like Bill Gates and so on, I don't totally trust them. But they see this. Warren Buffett, I saw, said a couple of days ago: market is great but we need a state. Bill Gates said: capitalism is great but there are things which should be not left to capitalist game and so on and
unknown
so on. That's what I'm saying. And again, it
so on. That's what I'm saying. And again, it
Slavoj Žižek
can be done, not in the same way as it was done in Sweden and the golden era of social democracy, but that's the only that's the only direction that I
can be done, not in the same way as it was done in Sweden and the golden era of social democracy, but that's the only that's the only direction that I
unknown
see. Do you think those guys, even the Buffetts and the Gates, in order for them to protect
see. Do you think those guys, even the Buffetts and the Gates, in order for them to protect
Slavoj Žižek
their wealth, they have to also make sure they give respect to the state or else the state can make their life a living hell, so they have to make sure publicly they they kind of say hey state, please don't bother me. I I do think that's a very power play that they're making as well. They're smart people. I don't deny that about that. Of course, of course, but still, I don't care what dirty private motive they have. But their message is important. Which is again, market cannot do all the job. In critical moments, which now are not just a year or two, for decades state or maybe we will have to, I don't know, invent some other forms of social coordination, will have to play a much stronger role. One of the things that I was uh my kids were offended by your book. I want to tell you was very offensive, a part of your book. I had my eight-year-old, my six-year-old, I read them a part of the book, they were furious with you. I think it's very offensive. Which one which part? I'm gonna read it to you, it's very offensive, they were upset and they said Dad, please uh bring this up to them. There's a part in your book where you say: amusement amusement parks are turning into ghost towns, perfect. I cannot imagine a more boring and stupid place than Disneyland. What do you have against Disneyland? Ah, here I have a precise
their wealth, they have to also make sure they give respect to the state or else the state can make their life a living hell, so they have to make sure publicly they they kind of say hey state, please don't bother me. I I do think that's a very power play that they're making as well. They're smart people. I don't deny that about that. Of course, of course, but still, I don't care what dirty private motive they have. But their message is important. Which is again, market cannot do all the job. In critical moments, which now are not just a year or two, for decades state or maybe we will have to, I don't know, invent some other forms of social coordination, will have to play a much stronger role. One of the things that I was uh my kids were offended by your book. I want to tell you was very offensive, a part of your book. I had my eight-year-old, my six-year-old, I read them a part of the book, they were furious with you. I think it's very offensive. Which one which part? I'm gonna read it to you, it's very offensive, they were upset and they said Dad, please uh bring this up to them. There's a part in your book where you say: amusement amusement parks are turning into ghost towns, perfect. I cannot imagine a more boring and stupid place than Disneyland. What do you have against Disneyland? Ah, here I have a precise
unknown
answer, I was not bluffing. I love good amusement parks, but I was ten years ago for a week Orlando, Florida. It was boring, everything was totally predictable. No I was specific against Disneyland. Were you in Orlando? Okay. Many times. Yeah. Universal Studio was much more, not much
answer, I was not bluffing. I love good amusement parks, but I was ten years ago for a week Orlando, Florida. It was boring, everything was totally predictable. No I was specific against Disneyland. Were you in Orlando? Okay. Many times. Yeah. Universal Studio was much more, not much
Slavoj Žižek
better, but was
better, but was
unknown
much more interesting for me and so on. I'm with you, I'm more Universal Studios than Disneyland. Yeah, I will put it like this, now I will play your game. In Disneyland there is simply not enough competition. You have there free TV in your room and you get just stupid, not even the best, the best Disney cartoons we know are from the thirties and forties, the early Donald Duck and so on. You don't get that, all is repetitive
much more interesting for me and so on. I'm with you, I'm more Universal Studios than Disneyland. Yeah, I will put it like this, now I will play your game. In Disneyland there is simply not enough competition. You have there free TV in your room and you get just stupid, not even the best, the best Disney cartoons we know are from the thirties and forties, the early Donald Duck and so on. You don't get that, all is repetitive
Slavoj Žižek
and so on, so obviously artificial and so on and so on. So this is not against amusement parks, it's just Disneyland is, I don't get it, why? Even you know, did you visit Euro, the one near Paris? No. How it is called, Euro, there is a Disneyland in the suburbs of Paris. Oh yes, but I haven't been to it, yes. That one is a little bit better. So no no no. Now do you have a personal issue
and so on, so obviously artificial and so on and so on. So this is not against amusement parks, it's just Disneyland is, I don't get it, why? Even you know, did you visit Euro, the one near Paris? No. How it is called, Euro, there is a Disneyland in the suburbs of Paris. Oh yes, but I haven't been to it, yes. That one is a little bit better. So no no no. Now do you have a personal issue
unknown
with Mickey Mouse, like is there a personal vendetta or
with Mickey Mouse, like is there a personal vendetta or
Slavoj Žižek
challenge you have with them or no? Okay okay, as all intellectual friends of mine, I of course prefer prefer Donald Duck because he is nervous, hysterical like me and so on, you know. But no, again is what you mentioned this monopolization which makes it boring. You know. Something doesn't fit and maybe there must be I don't know other types of of but just that one. So tell your son don't go to Disneyland my god, go to go to Universal, go
challenge you have with them or no? Okay okay, as all intellectual friends of mine, I of course prefer prefer Donald Duck because he is nervous, hysterical like me and so on, you know. But no, again is what you mentioned this monopolization which makes it boring. You know. Something doesn't fit and maybe there must be I don't know other types of of but just that one. So tell your son don't go to Disneyland my god, go to go to Universal, go
unknown
to other parks and so on, you know.
to other parks and so on, you know.
Slavoj Žižek
Well here's what you need to know about us. By the way, Disneyland wasn't made for me and you, just so you know, Disneyland's made for, you know, five-year-olds. We're not the market of Disneyland. Myself, my kids, we like to go to Universal Studios twice a year. We're not a Disneyland family, we're a Universal Studios family because you can imagine stuff, it's creative, you know, your brain gets to moving. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I love that, my kids kind of like oh my gosh, did you see that, that's crazy. So I can you know what, you seem like the right kind of a person to go to Universal Studios with. I bet somebody's got to follow you with a camera and go to Universal Studios just to see your. But you know a tragedy happened there precisely when I was there ten years ago. Till that point there was a Hitchcock pavilion where you could look from the rear window and see the whole garden was recreated. They abolished it for some stupid Pirates of the Caribbean, I don't know which one, you know, this was a tragedy for me, you know. Obviously. Have you been to the one in LA? Have you been to the one in LA or no? Universal Studios? Also I was no Universal I was on only with my older son years ago in Disneyland LA. I highly recommend, I highly when the dust settles I highly recommend figuring out a way to go there because it's an incredible
Well here's what you need to know about us. By the way, Disneyland wasn't made for me and you, just so you know, Disneyland's made for, you know, five-year-olds. We're not the market of Disneyland. Myself, my kids, we like to go to Universal Studios twice a year. We're not a Disneyland family, we're a Universal Studios family because you can imagine stuff, it's creative, you know, your brain gets to moving. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I love that, my kids kind of like oh my gosh, did you see that, that's crazy. So I can you know what, you seem like the right kind of a person to go to Universal Studios with. I bet somebody's got to follow you with a camera and go to Universal Studios just to see your. But you know a tragedy happened there precisely when I was there ten years ago. Till that point there was a Hitchcock pavilion where you could look from the rear window and see the whole garden was recreated. They abolished it for some stupid Pirates of the Caribbean, I don't know which one, you know, this was a tragedy for me, you know. Obviously. Have you been to the one in LA? Have you been to the one in LA or no? Universal Studios? Also I was no Universal I was on only with my older son years ago in Disneyland LA. I highly recommend, I highly when the dust settles I highly recommend figuring out a way to go there because it's an incredible
unknown
experience right now. They've done a phenomenal job to it on how it's at. But Slavoj, we're at the end. The last part of the interview I'd like to do a speed round. I give you a name or topic, you give me one word that comes to your mind. You give me a name and a topic that comes to your mind. Okay? Okay. Michael Sorkin. He was a personal friend, so
experience right now. They've done a phenomenal job to it on how it's at. But Slavoj, we're at the end. The last part of the interview I'd like to do a speed round. I give you a name or topic, you give me one word that comes to your mind. You give me a name and a topic that comes to your mind. Okay? Okay. Michael Sorkin. He was a personal friend, so
Slavoj Žižek
I'm sad. And I loved his, good friend, so I'm too traumatized to do it. He was a wonderful eccentric guy, I loved him. Karl Marx. Ambiguous. If you ask me at a gunpoint, is Marx my favorite philosopher? I say no, Hegel. I think we should return from Marx to Hegel. Because Marx still hoped there will be a big event, revolution. Hegel's perspective is different. Revolution happened with French terror and so on, and so Hegel is always interested in how even the best ideas, emancipatory and so on, can turn wrong. I think Hegel would have been fascinated by how something which was not so bad, I still insist, Bolshevik popular uprising revolution, what did we get? Stalinism. And I don't buy this naive story because Lenin died too early. You know this Trotskite dream: if Lenin were
I'm sad. And I loved his, good friend, so I'm too traumatized to do it. He was a wonderful eccentric guy, I loved him. Karl Marx. Ambiguous. If you ask me at a gunpoint, is Marx my favorite philosopher? I say no, Hegel. I think we should return from Marx to Hegel. Because Marx still hoped there will be a big event, revolution. Hegel's perspective is different. Revolution happened with French terror and so on, and so Hegel is always interested in how even the best ideas, emancipatory and so on, can turn wrong. I think Hegel would have been fascinated by how something which was not so bad, I still insist, Bolshevik popular uprising revolution, what did we get? Stalinism. And I don't buy this naive story because Lenin died too early. You know this Trotskite dream: if Lenin were
unknown
to survive two years more and made a pact with Trotsky there would be no Stalinism. Well maybe, but there is a certain necessity in Stalinism. And we have critical so this is typical Hegelian theory. Hegel is the greatest pessimist that you can imagine. You bring a wonderful idea, Hegel's reaction is
to survive two years more and made a pact with Trotsky there would be no Stalinism. Well maybe, but there is a certain necessity in Stalinism. And we have critical so this is typical Hegelian theory. Hegel is the greatest pessimist that you can imagine. You bring a wonderful idea, Hegel's reaction is
unknown
always: yes, and I will show you why it has to go wrong. So, so did you ever study the
always: yes, and I will show you why it has to go wrong. So, so did you ever study the
Slavoj Žižek
philosophy of cynicism? Like, you know, the idea, you know, it's very similar to pessimism, pessimist. Yeah, but but with cynicism, the reason I'm skeptical towards cynicism is because of my socialist past, communist, whatever you call it, no? Cynicism was nothing subversive. This was part of how the Communist Party
philosophy of cynicism? Like, you know, the idea, you know, it's very similar to pessimism, pessimist. Yeah, but but with cynicism, the reason I'm skeptical towards cynicism is because of my socialist past, communist, whatever you call it, no? Cynicism was nothing subversive. This was part of how the Communist Party
unknown
elite perceived itself. They didn't really believe it. Privately they mocked their own ideas and so on and so on. Communist regime was maybe in Stalinism you still had some fanatics, but for example the last two decades of Soviet Union, Brezhnev and so on, this was a pure reign of cynicism. And even today, you know my joke, you must have heard it, which I all the time repeat. This is the greatest cynical joke, anecdote I'm
elite perceived itself. They didn't really believe it. Privately they mocked their own ideas and so on and so on. Communist regime was maybe in Stalinism you still had some fanatics, but for example the last two decades of Soviet Union, Brezhnev and so on, this was a pure reign of cynicism. And even today, you know my joke, you must have heard it, which I all the time repeat. This is the greatest cynical joke, anecdote I'm
Slavoj Žižek
sorry if even some of my viewers listeners now know it, a joke about Niels Bohr, who at the entrance of his datcha, wooden house in the suburb of Copenhagen, had a horseshoe. You know in Europe this is a superstitious item, if you have a horseshoe over the entrance evil spirits will not enter the house. And a friend tells him: but you are a scientist, you don't believe in this, why do you have this? That you know what Niels Bohr answers: I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works. That's why I have it. This is cynicism. Cynicism, there is nothing subversive in cynicism. We live in cynical era. Next, Ayn Rand, one word. Interesting, ambiguous, every leftist should read her. And I still think that there is a moment which is authentic, who is the Gary Cooper guy I refer to the movie in Fountainhead, Howard Roark or who, the architect. Yes.
sorry if even some of my viewers listeners now know it, a joke about Niels Bohr, who at the entrance of his datcha, wooden house in the suburb of Copenhagen, had a horseshoe. You know in Europe this is a superstitious item, if you have a horseshoe over the entrance evil spirits will not enter the house. And a friend tells him: but you are a scientist, you don't believe in this, why do you have this? That you know what Niels Bohr answers: I don't believe it, but I was told that even if you don't believe it, it works. That's why I have it. This is cynicism. Cynicism, there is nothing subversive in cynicism. We live in cynical era. Next, Ayn Rand, one word. Interesting, ambiguous, every leftist should read her. And I still think that there is a moment which is authentic, who is the Gary Cooper guy I refer to the movie in Fountainhead, Howard Roark or who, the architect. Yes.
unknown
Do you remember that at the end when he gives his speech, Ayn Rand has a wonderful description where he says even if they hated them but for a brief
Do you remember that at the end when he gives his speech, Ayn Rand has a wonderful description where he says even if they hated them but for a brief
Slavoj Žižek
moment they all felt free. I would like to live in Howard Roark communism. In communism where there is a space for such fully autonomous individuals. So I'm, I don't think I don't think Ayn Rand should be simply dismissed as crazy nuts right-wing proto-fascist and so on and so on. She is a much more ambiguous interesting person. Trump, one word. Did you see did you incidentally read and to my viewers his, I think first English novel, We the Living? No. It's it's a novel which takes place in Soviet Union
moment they all felt free. I would like to live in Howard Roark communism. In communism where there is a space for such fully autonomous individuals. So I'm, I don't think I don't think Ayn Rand should be simply dismissed as crazy nuts right-wing proto-fascist and so on and so on. She is a much more ambiguous interesting person. Trump, one word. Did you see did you incidentally read and to my viewers his, I think first English novel, We the Living? No. It's it's a novel which takes place in Soviet Union
unknown
in early twenties where you know who turns its beautiful lady torn between an old corrupted nobleman who is a little bit terrorized by communists and a KGB guy who also studies together with her. At the end the guy, the corrupted rich guy, simply gets co-opted by the new Bolshevik ruling elite and the honest communist kills himself, he is the honest guy. It's much more ambiguous, very interesting novel. No she should be taken seriously. Trump, one word. I made now I have to admit, you know when I said better Trump than Clinton, you know
in early twenties where you know who turns its beautiful lady torn between an old corrupted nobleman who is a little bit terrorized by communists and a KGB guy who also studies together with her. At the end the guy, the corrupted rich guy, simply gets co-opted by the new Bolshevik ruling elite and the honest communist kills himself, he is the honest guy. It's much more ambiguous, very interesting novel. No she should be taken seriously. Trump, one word. I made now I have to admit, you know when I said better Trump than Clinton, you know
Slavoj Žižek
my wager was a very brutal Leninist. With Trump there will be socialist reaction, Bernie Sanders and so on. I was maybe right there. But now with coronavirus, no no. No Trump. The only thing that gives me some hope is that it seems to me, don't you have this impression, that other people about Trump in
my wager was a very brutal Leninist. With Trump there will be socialist reaction, Bernie Sanders and so on. I was maybe right there. But now with coronavirus, no no. No Trump. The only thing that gives me some hope is that it seems to me, don't you have this impression, that other people about Trump in
unknown
administration nonetheless pursue a more rational politics
administration nonetheless pursue a more rational politics
Slavoj Žižek
and I'm not quite sure but that up to a point Trump is getting irrelevant
and I'm not quite sure but that up to a point Trump is getting irrelevant
unknown
up to a point. Like I know you have this move to against the lockdown and so on and so on. But nonetheless I think that difficult as as it is for me to say this, but now I would say Biden better than Trump. Although he is far from far from ideal. Far from ideal, but you know now we don't have time to dream about this. Now I think again our whole way of life is changing. And
up to a point. Like I know you have this move to against the lockdown and so on and so on. But nonetheless I think that difficult as as it is for me to say this, but now I would say Biden better than Trump. Although he is far from far from ideal. Far from ideal, but you know now we don't have time to dream about this. Now I think again our whole way of life is changing. And
Slavoj Žižek
it's important to have what I call, and I hope you will agree with this, principled pragmatics. People who are principled, follow certain ideas, decent life, freedom. At the same time in a very pragmatic sense, like what can we really do and so on and so on. There will be more of this with Biden. But let's hope that he will be able to do what friends who are absolutely anti-Ronald Reagan told me, that Ronald Reagan had one talent, you have to admit it, he knew how to select the right people to do in Stalinist sense good kadrovik to name to nominate the proper people, no? Who's who's your favorite U.S. President of all time? Who's your favorite president favorite favorite? I think that, and it makes me very sad, I think that precisely because he was considered a failure, you know, that it was a great misfortune for Carter that he didn't wasn't able to do more. Of course his presidency was a failure, but obviously he was a relatively decent guy. Good guy. Good guy, good man, good husband. Okay you can be now utter sinning and say that what this story proves is that we don't need good guys on
it's important to have what I call, and I hope you will agree with this, principled pragmatics. People who are principled, follow certain ideas, decent life, freedom. At the same time in a very pragmatic sense, like what can we really do and so on and so on. There will be more of this with Biden. But let's hope that he will be able to do what friends who are absolutely anti-Ronald Reagan told me, that Ronald Reagan had one talent, you have to admit it, he knew how to select the right people to do in Stalinist sense good kadrovik to name to nominate the proper people, no? Who's who's your favorite U.S. President of all time? Who's your favorite president favorite favorite? I think that, and it makes me very sad, I think that precisely because he was considered a failure, you know, that it was a great misfortune for Carter that he didn't wasn't able to do more. Of course his presidency was a failure, but obviously he was a relatively decent guy. Good guy. Good guy, good man, good husband. Okay you can be now utter sinning and say that what this story proves is that we don't need good guys on
unknown
top of the power. Yes, yes. I think don't underestimate him. All those Helsinki Agreements
top of the power. Yes, yes. I think don't underestimate him. All those Helsinki Agreements
Slavoj Žižek
and all that stuff, I think that Carter did quite a lot in the long term to undermine Soviet communism, you know. Don't underestimate him there. Sometimes soft anti-communism, you know. You conclude agreements but they undermine, don't he was not so. Carter is a complex guy. Others, ah another surprise. I'm not so much opposed to Richard Nixon. I think he some leftists told me if you measure left socialist left-wing how many I don't know for the unemployed, students, healthcare and so on, you know that under Nixon this healthcare social thing this was the high point then already Carter because of economic crisis had to reduce them and so on. So and then he concluded peace with China and so on and so on. I think Nixon I never believed that Watergate story, you know. Two honest journalists can overthrow the most powerful person in the world, you know. No, Nixon is again a much more ambiguous guy. I mean I'm not saying he is a sympathetic guy. No no I get it, believe me the two people you chose were two people I thought you would have chosen. I I thought you would have chosen. Really? Yeah, I thought you would have chosen Nixon and Carter. Ah then if I may put it like this, but don't take it personally, you are not complete idiot then. But let me tell you something. No in my view there are only two types of people, complete idiots and not complete idiots. Got it, all right. Then I'll take that as a compliment. I'm not a complete. Yes please thank you. All right how about Jesus Christ? My god. Crazy I I I wrote three books celebrating what I call my atheist Christianity. You know what happens on the cross. I've written books which even found some echo I learned in Vatican. What dies on the cross is not God's representative, it's God himself. You know crucial moment of Christianity this is that Eli Eli lama sabachthani? Father, why have you forsaken me? At that point, as my favorite Catholic theologian Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote, at that point God himself on the cross doesn't believe, becomes a non-believer. So the way I read it is: you have Father, you have Son, and what comes then? Holy Spirit, which is Communist Party, which is the group, egalitarian group of believers. That's the message of Christianity. As the great conservative French Catholic writer Paul Claudel wrote: the secret message of Christianity is not we are helpless without God, but that God is helpless without us. It all depends on us. The the message of Christianity is: I give you, I die and I give you the space of freedom. It's the greatest ethical revolution. I'm an atheist Christian. Gorbachev. Okay, positive role and so on, but still something disturbs me like: did he, how could he have been so naive? Did he really believe that that type of reform, perestroika, would work? The system was too clumsy, you couldn't do this with Soviet system. That's the deepest message if you read Soviet history. That you know people usually say everything was planned there, you didn't have any freedom. No, everything was planned and controlled at a superficial level. One level beneath it was extremely chaotic, nothing functioned. And that's one reason for open democratic societies that they are usually very well organized, you know. Communism, the problem with communism was not too much party control, was that this control was a fake. At a local level there was corruption, you had to break the rules. And what I don't see, cannot understand, once I almost met him when he no longer was president, I even planned to ask him, Gorbachev is: did he really believe it, that he will do this perestroika open system a little bit and so on and so on? It was to all of us so obvious that it didn't work, that it couldn't work. Interesting. Okay, Lenin and Stalin, one word for each. What I appreciate in Lenin, he was very ruthless and so on, I admit all that, but his again immense pragmatism. How quickly he totally changed his position. He was an opportunist in a good sense, you know. This has to be done he did it and so on and so on. But it is clear that at the end in the last two years of his life, if you read his last messages dictated, he was lived a terrifying life. He saw that the game is lost, you know. And you know his last attempt to overthrow Stalin and so on and so on. Concerning Stalin, yes a nightmare, catastrophe, whatever you want. But don't dismiss him as an idiot. Oh I don't think anybody does. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he he had for example you know he knew how to play the game. You know which was the crucial year in Soviet history? When Lenin was ill, out, and it was the struggle Trotsky-Stalin. And Trotsky approached it in a arrogant way, writing books about literature and so on, trusting his fame. You know what Stalin did in He nominated over cadre, people at minor position here and there. And Trotsky even didn't know it but notice but the game was lost at the end of The entire party apparatus was controlled by Stalin. If I may conclude another metaphor that I always use from comics. You know that wonderful moment in Tom and Jerry where a cat walks above the precipice, nothing beneath its legs, and only when it looks down and notices there is nothing it falls down, you know. That was Trotsky's position in He thought he didn't notice that he's already walking on empty empty air, that at any moment he will he will fall down. I don't think Trotskyism was a serious
and all that stuff, I think that Carter did quite a lot in the long term to undermine Soviet communism, you know. Don't underestimate him there. Sometimes soft anti-communism, you know. You conclude agreements but they undermine, don't he was not so. Carter is a complex guy. Others, ah another surprise. I'm not so much opposed to Richard Nixon. I think he some leftists told me if you measure left socialist left-wing how many I don't know for the unemployed, students, healthcare and so on, you know that under Nixon this healthcare social thing this was the high point then already Carter because of economic crisis had to reduce them and so on. So and then he concluded peace with China and so on and so on. I think Nixon I never believed that Watergate story, you know. Two honest journalists can overthrow the most powerful person in the world, you know. No, Nixon is again a much more ambiguous guy. I mean I'm not saying he is a sympathetic guy. No no I get it, believe me the two people you chose were two people I thought you would have chosen. I I thought you would have chosen. Really? Yeah, I thought you would have chosen Nixon and Carter. Ah then if I may put it like this, but don't take it personally, you are not complete idiot then. But let me tell you something. No in my view there are only two types of people, complete idiots and not complete idiots. Got it, all right. Then I'll take that as a compliment. I'm not a complete. Yes please thank you. All right how about Jesus Christ? My god. Crazy I I I wrote three books celebrating what I call my atheist Christianity. You know what happens on the cross. I've written books which even found some echo I learned in Vatican. What dies on the cross is not God's representative, it's God himself. You know crucial moment of Christianity this is that Eli Eli lama sabachthani? Father, why have you forsaken me? At that point, as my favorite Catholic theologian Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote, at that point God himself on the cross doesn't believe, becomes a non-believer. So the way I read it is: you have Father, you have Son, and what comes then? Holy Spirit, which is Communist Party, which is the group, egalitarian group of believers. That's the message of Christianity. As the great conservative French Catholic writer Paul Claudel wrote: the secret message of Christianity is not we are helpless without God, but that God is helpless without us. It all depends on us. The the message of Christianity is: I give you, I die and I give you the space of freedom. It's the greatest ethical revolution. I'm an atheist Christian. Gorbachev. Okay, positive role and so on, but still something disturbs me like: did he, how could he have been so naive? Did he really believe that that type of reform, perestroika, would work? The system was too clumsy, you couldn't do this with Soviet system. That's the deepest message if you read Soviet history. That you know people usually say everything was planned there, you didn't have any freedom. No, everything was planned and controlled at a superficial level. One level beneath it was extremely chaotic, nothing functioned. And that's one reason for open democratic societies that they are usually very well organized, you know. Communism, the problem with communism was not too much party control, was that this control was a fake. At a local level there was corruption, you had to break the rules. And what I don't see, cannot understand, once I almost met him when he no longer was president, I even planned to ask him, Gorbachev is: did he really believe it, that he will do this perestroika open system a little bit and so on and so on? It was to all of us so obvious that it didn't work, that it couldn't work. Interesting. Okay, Lenin and Stalin, one word for each. What I appreciate in Lenin, he was very ruthless and so on, I admit all that, but his again immense pragmatism. How quickly he totally changed his position. He was an opportunist in a good sense, you know. This has to be done he did it and so on and so on. But it is clear that at the end in the last two years of his life, if you read his last messages dictated, he was lived a terrifying life. He saw that the game is lost, you know. And you know his last attempt to overthrow Stalin and so on and so on. Concerning Stalin, yes a nightmare, catastrophe, whatever you want. But don't dismiss him as an idiot. Oh I don't think anybody does. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he he had for example you know he knew how to play the game. You know which was the crucial year in Soviet history? When Lenin was ill, out, and it was the struggle Trotsky-Stalin. And Trotsky approached it in a arrogant way, writing books about literature and so on, trusting his fame. You know what Stalin did in He nominated over cadre, people at minor position here and there. And Trotsky even didn't know it but notice but the game was lost at the end of The entire party apparatus was controlled by Stalin. If I may conclude another metaphor that I always use from comics. You know that wonderful moment in Tom and Jerry where a cat walks above the precipice, nothing beneath its legs, and only when it looks down and notices there is nothing it falls down, you know. That was Trotsky's position in He thought he didn't notice that he's already walking on empty empty air, that at any moment he will he will fall down. I don't think Trotskyism was a serious
unknown
alternative. Maybe, what could have provided a more, a little bit softer version would have been a pact between Nikolai Bukharin
alternative. Maybe, what could have provided a more, a little bit softer version would have been a pact between Nikolai Bukharin
Slavoj Žižek
who was more pro-market Bolshevik and Rykov who was the Prime Minister. They were both of course then liquidated by Stalin, no. If that faction were to win, I'm not saying it would be a flourishing democracy in our sense, but maybe something different. Maybe, I'm very
who was more pro-market Bolshevik and Rykov who was the Prime Minister. They were both of course then liquidated by Stalin, no. If that faction were to win, I'm not saying it would be a flourishing democracy in our sense, but maybe something different. Maybe, I'm very
unknown
skeptical. Adam
skeptical. Adam
Slavoj Žižek
Smith. I know it's popular to redeem him today that he
Smith. I know it's popular to redeem him today that he
unknown
is not today's capitalism another vision and so
is not today's capitalism another vision and so
Slavoj Žižek
on and so on. And I think yes there is much more to be found there in Adam Smith. And what people also often forget is that Adam Smith is part of that Scottish ethical thought and so on. He is not just an economist, he is also a theorist of ethics and so on and so on. I don't think that any return to him is productive today in the sense of that we should counter today's vulgar too brutal monopolizing capitalism with the return to Adam Smith. I don't, I don't believe that. Hitler. You know one thing which fascinates me, we were talked about cynicism. I read, it's a very boring book, I read Mein Kampf. Because one question only interested me: did Hitler believe or not in his own theory, in his own anti-. And you know what's the conclusion that I came, it's very disturb- came to, it's a very disturbing conclusion. At the same time he did and he didn't. Obviously he was cheating. He even says directly: repeat a lie often enough, blah blah blah blah. But then you can see how he gets caught into his own lie and starts to believe it. It's a very interesting formula of how you can know that you are cheating but nonetheless believe it. So this is what fascinate me. Otherwise I think that the really evil guy for me, if you ask and you probably know him, you read about him, is Albert Speer, the good guy, who apologized. But you know that he is personally responsible for the war dragging so long. One very good decision by Hitler was, was it early or even a little bit earlier, when he named Albert Speer Armament Minister. And the production went up, skyrocketed. Germany held even they produced even more arms till the fall of Without Albert Speer, the war would have ended definitely summer at the latest. He is the the truly evil guy. Evil guy in the sense of millions of people would have died less, would not
on and so on. And I think yes there is much more to be found there in Adam Smith. And what people also often forget is that Adam Smith is part of that Scottish ethical thought and so on. He is not just an economist, he is also a theorist of ethics and so on and so on. I don't think that any return to him is productive today in the sense of that we should counter today's vulgar too brutal monopolizing capitalism with the return to Adam Smith. I don't, I don't believe that. Hitler. You know one thing which fascinates me, we were talked about cynicism. I read, it's a very boring book, I read Mein Kampf. Because one question only interested me: did Hitler believe or not in his own theory, in his own anti-. And you know what's the conclusion that I came, it's very disturb- came to, it's a very disturbing conclusion. At the same time he did and he didn't. Obviously he was cheating. He even says directly: repeat a lie often enough, blah blah blah blah. But then you can see how he gets caught into his own lie and starts to believe it. It's a very interesting formula of how you can know that you are cheating but nonetheless believe it. So this is what fascinate me. Otherwise I think that the really evil guy for me, if you ask and you probably know him, you read about him, is Albert Speer, the good guy, who apologized. But you know that he is personally responsible for the war dragging so long. One very good decision by Hitler was, was it early or even a little bit earlier, when he named Albert Speer Armament Minister. And the production went up, skyrocketed. Germany held even they produced even more arms till the fall of Without Albert Speer, the war would have ended definitely summer at the latest. He is the the truly evil guy. Evil guy in the sense of millions of people would have died less, would not
unknown
have died without Albert Speer.
have died without Albert Speer.
Slavoj Žižek
Two more left of I'll give you the first one and then the last one. Nietzsche. I'm not so fascinated by Nietzsche. I know it's very fashionable to be for him and so on. I I think that even at the level of style, did you read Zarathustra and so on? No. It's something so rhetorically bombastic, pathetic and so on. And also because in opera I love Richard Wagner. And Nietzsche turned ferociously against Wagner,
Two more left of I'll give you the first one and then the last one. Nietzsche. I'm not so fascinated by Nietzsche. I know it's very fashionable to be for him and so on. I I think that even at the level of style, did you read Zarathustra and so on? No. It's something so rhetorically bombastic, pathetic and so on. And also because in opera I love Richard Wagner. And Nietzsche turned ferociously against Wagner,
unknown
no? So
no? So
Slavoj Žižek
no, Nietzsche although I know there are many of my friends who try to do another reading
no, Nietzsche although I know there are many of my friends who try to do another reading
unknown
of Nietzsche,
of Nietzsche,
Slavoj Žižek
but I simply don't relate relate to Nietzsche. And the last one. Putin. I can see that's the true tragedy of how Yeltsin laid the foundation for Putin. The true catastrophe were the nineties I think. Total economic fiasco, chaos, corruption and so on and so on. But in the long term I wonder how Putin will survive his predicament now. You know what's the problem? I don't, okay, they have oil industry, natural resources and they have armament industry. And that's basically all they have. They are not as genuinely successful as China economically. So I think that I can well imagine, I cannot imagine China doing better without Deng Xiaoping. He was a genius in some sense. But I can imagine Russia doing better without Putin. You think so? Yeah. Yeah. Based on what premise? Based on what premise? I am not saying some naive liberal democracy and so on, but a more intelligent Chinese style capitalism controlled by state. You're a big China fan. It's interesting. Maybe we can talk. No I'm not, I'm horrified. You know if for no other reasons for my personal interest, they okay they translated my books, some of them, then they were half prohibited, now they are tolerated. But basically all the philosophers I met there are basically most of them are very cynical, there is no authentic authentic humanist thought, social sciences and so on. They are very cynical and so on, it's they have good movies, good writers and so on, but not good social theory and so on. No no no, what do you think? You think that that Russia couldn't have done better without Putin? I think for that culture and that community for him to be able to manage it the way he has, to still keep a form of the capitalism because he's open the market, businesses are doing good, people are making money, but he is still kept the loyalty of the communist, I think that's a very complex thing to do. The loyalty of the big capital, yeah. Yeah because because it's very hard to both gain the vote of the capitalist and the communist. That's that's that's like being a pastor of a Christian church and going on, you know, to a Muslim it's very and he's been able to kind of do that because it's total polar opposite philosophies. That's the part that I can. Yeah but the pro- again, the problem is that the way he did it is that I spoke with some people who were close to Putin and then they were disappointed that they say he relies too much on, how is it now called, the new KGB control in in this KGB control is very non-productive. Even his own tycoons, billionaires, they don't trust him. You still have this tendency, okay now it's different till recently, move as much money as possible outside. Well I don't think any and I'm curious to know what you say about this, I don't think any billionaire is going to trust the president of any country they're part of because, you know, at that level you can't fully trust a person with that kind of authority and power. You know and especially when you have some people on the back end that they what you talk about in Russia, KGB, and US being some other people. I mean, who do you trust? Do you trust anybody a hundred percent? Do you trust any political leaders a hundred percent? Of course not, but with Putin it's a very rough game, you know what happened to all those billionaires who fell out of favor with him and so on. Oh yeah I know that. Yeah, but I don't, I'm not talking talking as a moralist now. I'm only talking as a, again in very pragmatic terms. I think that nonetheless economy could have been managed in a more efficient way. What my Russian friends are telling me, you know, forget about Moscow, Petersburg, these big cities. Go to the Russian province, to these small anonymous cities of
but I simply don't relate relate to Nietzsche. And the last one. Putin. I can see that's the true tragedy of how Yeltsin laid the foundation for Putin. The true catastrophe were the nineties I think. Total economic fiasco, chaos, corruption and so on and so on. But in the long term I wonder how Putin will survive his predicament now. You know what's the problem? I don't, okay, they have oil industry, natural resources and they have armament industry. And that's basically all they have. They are not as genuinely successful as China economically. So I think that I can well imagine, I cannot imagine China doing better without Deng Xiaoping. He was a genius in some sense. But I can imagine Russia doing better without Putin. You think so? Yeah. Yeah. Based on what premise? Based on what premise? I am not saying some naive liberal democracy and so on, but a more intelligent Chinese style capitalism controlled by state. You're a big China fan. It's interesting. Maybe we can talk. No I'm not, I'm horrified. You know if for no other reasons for my personal interest, they okay they translated my books, some of them, then they were half prohibited, now they are tolerated. But basically all the philosophers I met there are basically most of them are very cynical, there is no authentic authentic humanist thought, social sciences and so on. They are very cynical and so on, it's they have good movies, good writers and so on, but not good social theory and so on. No no no, what do you think? You think that that Russia couldn't have done better without Putin? I think for that culture and that community for him to be able to manage it the way he has, to still keep a form of the capitalism because he's open the market, businesses are doing good, people are making money, but he is still kept the loyalty of the communist, I think that's a very complex thing to do. The loyalty of the big capital, yeah. Yeah because because it's very hard to both gain the vote of the capitalist and the communist. That's that's that's like being a pastor of a Christian church and going on, you know, to a Muslim it's very and he's been able to kind of do that because it's total polar opposite philosophies. That's the part that I can. Yeah but the pro- again, the problem is that the way he did it is that I spoke with some people who were close to Putin and then they were disappointed that they say he relies too much on, how is it now called, the new KGB control in in this KGB control is very non-productive. Even his own tycoons, billionaires, they don't trust him. You still have this tendency, okay now it's different till recently, move as much money as possible outside. Well I don't think any and I'm curious to know what you say about this, I don't think any billionaire is going to trust the president of any country they're part of because, you know, at that level you can't fully trust a person with that kind of authority and power. You know and especially when you have some people on the back end that they what you talk about in Russia, KGB, and US being some other people. I mean, who do you trust? Do you trust anybody a hundred percent? Do you trust any political leaders a hundred percent? Of course not, but with Putin it's a very rough game, you know what happened to all those billionaires who fell out of favor with him and so on. Oh yeah I know that. Yeah, but I don't, I'm not talking talking as a moralist now. I'm only talking as a, again in very pragmatic terms. I think that nonetheless economy could have been managed in a more efficient way. What my Russian friends are telling me, you know, forget about Moscow, Petersburg, these big cities. Go to the Russian province, to these small anonymous cities of
unknown
people and there
people and there
Slavoj Žižek
you see it's still the old inertia and so on and so on. Slavoj, I've had such
you see it's still the old inertia and so on and so on. Slavoj, I've had such
unknown
a good time talking to
a good time talking to
Slavoj Žižek
you here today and I think we started off with you being a communist, we went to socialist, I think by the next time you're going to be a capitalist. I mean, this is a very good progress we're making together as we're going with these conversations. But final words, I'm gonna give you the final words. What are your final words before we wrap up
you here today and I think we started off with you being a communist, we went to socialist, I think by the next time you're going to be a capitalist. I mean, this is a very good progress we're making together as we're going with these conversations. But final words, I'm gonna give you the final words. What are your final words before we wrap up
unknown
this interview? This that, again very pathetic one, simple, that our life are changing, the challenges are immense. And that's why it's
this interview? This that, again very pathetic one, simple, that our life are changing, the challenges are immense. And that's why it's
Slavoj Žižek
important
important
unknown
to be aware that is not just a crisis that will fall, that our future is decided now. Now we are choosing a new world, de facto if we want it or not. Now it's
to be aware that is not just a crisis that will fall, that our future is decided now. Now we are choosing a new world, de facto if we want it or not. Now it's
Slavoj Žižek
decided: will it be Trump style of capitalism where it doesn't matter if tens of thousands die, will it be a new version of China totally controlled, let's hope that there will be other options but
decided: will it be Trump style of capitalism where it doesn't matter if tens of thousands die, will it be a new version of China totally controlled, let's hope that there will be other options but
unknown
it's not just a crisis and then things will return, again a new world is being created now. So be careful. And I will repeat you: trust no one. I think we finish it on that. By the way, we're going to put the link of your books that just came out below so people can
it's not just a crisis and then things will return, again a new world is being created now. So be careful. And I will repeat you: trust no one. I think we finish it on that. By the way, we're going to put the link of your books that just came out below so people can
Slavoj Žižek
see it. And with that being said Slavoj, again thank you so much for your time for being a guest on Valuetainment. And then if you want, we do another so that we fill in the gaps, no? I look forward to it, I look forward to it. I think that's a very good idea. Your guys will inform, we will propose some
see it. And with that being said Slavoj, again thank you so much for your time for being a guest on Valuetainment. And then if you want, we do another so that we fill in the gaps, no? I look forward to it, I look forward to it. I think that's a very good idea. Your guys will inform, we will propose some
unknown
dates and we do it, no?
dates and we do it, no?
Slavoj Žižek
That sounds
That sounds
unknown
good to
good to
Slavoj Žižek
me.
me.