Coronavirus, Black Lives Matter, and Revolution
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2020-06-11 · 0:57:35 · 6,653 words
communism-socialismcapitalismideologyrace-antisemitismfascism-populismecology-climateliberalism-political-correctnessgeopolitics-wardemocracyeveryday-liferevolution-violencetechnology-ai-cyberspacehistory
In a wide-ranging conversation (likely mid-2020), Žižek argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a 'perfect storm' of overlapping crises, health, food, ecological, and racial, that capitalism's market mechanisms cannot resolve, requiring a form of 'war communism' involving state coordination, local community mobilization, and international cooperation. He critiques both right-wing populist denial (Trump/Bolsonaro) and the techno-digitalization vision (Gates/Schmidt) as inadequate responses. A substantial portion addresses the Black Lives Matter protests and anti-racism, where Žižek distinguishes genuine solidarity from liberal-paternalist identity politics, drawing on Malcolm X, Native American interlocutors, and his own Yugoslav dissident experience to argue for universalism over cultural relativism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 10
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek uses this term not in the historical Soviet sense but to describe pandemic-era emergency prioritization of health and subsistence over profit and market mechanisms, with potential temporary mobilization of labor.
Žižek uses this to describe the prolonged condition of crisis governance he predicts will persist for years, combining pandemic management with ecological and social emergencies.
as “perfect storm”
His phrase for the dangerous combination of simultaneous crises, pandemic, food shortages, ecological disasters, racial unrest, geopolitical conflict, whose convergence is more threatening than any single crisis alone.
as “symptom (acting out)”
Žižek invokes the Freudian notion of symptom-as-acting-out to explain violent protest outbursts: people explode physically because they cannot put their grievances into words.
Borrowed from Fredric Jameson, Žižek invokes it to describe the current lack of a basic conceptual orientation for understanding what China, or global capitalism, actually is today.
Žižek's running-gag formula for a social order that exercises necessary collective control but makes that control transparent, requiring whistleblowers like Assange to expose state secrets.
as “culturalization of racism”
Žižek's critical term for the liberal-left tendency to reduce racism to individual cultural attitudes and micro-aggressions rather than structural economic and political roots.
Žižek engages the sociological argument that immigration involves self-selection of more active and creative individuals to explain the success of Cuban and Korean immigrant communities, though he also gives weight to the counter-argument about community social fabric.
Žižek's phrase for the paternalist liberal stance that, while professing sympathy for minorities, treats them as mere products of circumstances rather than morally responsible agents, thereby reproducing a deeper racism.
Implicitly operative in Žižek's critique of identity politics: the liberal invitation to minorities to perform their cultural identity functions as an ideological hailing that keeps them in their place.
Stories he reaches for 3
A Native American told Žižek he prefers 'Indian' to 'Native American' because at least the name is a monument to the white man's stupidity, Columbus thought he was in India.
“We much prefer to be Indians, at least our name is a monument to white man's stupidity who thought they are in India.”
Žižek read an apartheid propaganda brochure that justified racial separation in almost Marxist cultural-diversity terms: mixing cultures would produce technological alienation, so separate development preserves cultural richness.
“it's precisely to keep the diversity of cultures that we need apartheid.”
Žižek quotes Tarkovsky's aphorism to argue that purely digital/disembodied communication is more spiritually deficient than naked bodily presence, affirming physical contact as the only real medium to the other.
“The soul without a body is even more sinful than a body without a dress.”
Works invoked 3
Malcolm X (film) film
Žižek refers to the scene where Malcolm X tells a white girl 'Nothing' when she asks how she can help, using it to illustrate anti-paternalism and self-emancipation.
Pandemic! book
Žižek references his own published arguments about war communism and the pandemic response throughout the conversation.
Žižek calls it great and says 'everyone should just always read Malcolm X.'
People invoked 18
Slobodan Milošević negative
Cited as the example of how a nominally leftist party monopolized nationalist politics in Serbia, in contrast to the Slovenian Communist Party which avoided this path.
Jair Bolsonaro negative
Žižek groups Bolsonaro with Trump as examples of populist failure in the pandemic, noting Bolsonaro is 'nonetheless much worse than Trump.'
Andrew Cuomo negative
Grouped with Gates and Schmidt as proponents of the digital-isolation pandemic model that Žižek considers unworkable.
Donald Trump negative
Žižek criticizes Trump not for being too authoritarian but for being insufficiently so, acting as a partisan rather than as a leader for the whole nation, thereby producing ideological civil war.
Alexis Tsipras positive
Žižek cites Tsipras directly as a source on Chinese purchase of Piraeus harbor and immediate abolition of trade unions, using this to support his claim about Chinese neocolonialism.
Fredric Jameson positive
Žižek refers to Jameson as a 'Marxist friend' and invokes his concept of 'cognitive mapping' to describe the current theoretical disorientation about China and global capitalism.
Bernie Sanders positive
Žižek treats Sanders as a figure who represented the necessary split within the Democratic Party and compares him to Trump in his break with the establishment, noting his disappearance from discourse during the crisis.
Julian Assange positive
Žižek has signed letters supporting Assange and uses him as the model for his formula 'communism with Julian Assange', necessary whistleblower transparency within a controlled state.
Van Jones positive
Žižek endorses Van Jones's CNN commentary that liberal multiculturalists who retain racist prejudices are more dangerous than open Ku Klux Klan members.
Malcolm X positive
Žižek strongly endorses Malcolm X's autobiography as essential reading and his 'Nothing' response as the correct anti-paternalist stance; also cites the significance of the 'X' as refusal of a stolen name.
Briefly mentioned as an example of someone who supported general financial reparations to Black Americans, a position Žižek is skeptical of without strongly endorsing or rejecting Hitchens personally.
Bill Gates negative
Žižek uses Gates as a symbol of the techno-digitalization response option, institutionalizing digital isolation, which he rejects as unfeasible for the large portion of people who must perform physical labor.
Janez Janša negative
Described as the right-wing nationalist currently in power in Slovenia who took over due to conflicts within the moderate left, though he cannot exceed a certain percentage of votes.
Ras Baraka positive
Described as an intelligent left-wing Black politician (mayor of Newark, son of poet Amiri Baraka) who argued that Black people cannot win with guns and must move 'from guns to books.'
Andrei Tarkovsky positive
Žižek quotes Tarkovsky's aphorism about the soul and body to affirm the necessity of physical contact over digital communication.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek invokes Marx's definition of communism ('from each according to ability, to each according to need') while also inverting his 11th Thesis on Feuerbach to argue for interpretation over transformation in the current moment.
Sigmund Freud positive
Žižek invokes the Freudian concept of symptom-as-acting-out to theorize protest violence as an inability to verbalize grievances.
Eric Schmidt negative
Grouped with Gates and Cuomo as representing the vision of a permanent digitalized bubble society, which Žižek rejects.
What it argues
COVID-19 as a trigger for 'war communism' and post-market coordinationthe 'perfect storm' of compounding global crisescritique of liberal-paternalist anti-racism versus genuine universalismpopulism's failure in the face of a real scientific problemMalcolm X's anti-paternalism as a model for emancipationbodily contact, sexuality, and re-enchantment of the physical in a digital agestate efficiency, local community, and international cooperation as the three-level solution
Dialectical moves 8
“It's not true that in liberal democracies you have freedom but chaos, while under totalitarianism you have order; beneath the surface of planned economies it was a big chaos.”
The apparent order of totalitarian planning conceals deeper disorder; the freedom/chaos vs. order binary is inverted.
“We act because we are not able to pronounce the correct word, to talk—quite often we act because we cannot speak.”
The anti-intellectual's charge ('you just talk, we act') is reversed: violent acting out is a symptom of the inability to speak, not a superior form of agency.
“In contrast to Marx, we should say: in the 20th century, we wanted to change the world too much and didn't interpret it properly. Our thesis today should be: instead of just wanting to change the world, let's interpret it.”
The famous 11th Thesis on Feuerbach is inverted: the present task is understanding, not transformation.
“My reproach to Trump is not that he is a too authoritarian leader, but that he is not enough that.”
The standard liberal critique of Trump as too authoritarian is reversed: his failure is being too little the state's leader and too much a partisan actor.
“The true core of everyday racism is masked as respect—identity politics and cultural admiration are where true racism hides.”
Overt racist contempt is less dangerous than liberal cultural celebration, which conceals condescension and the denial of equal moral agency.
“Apartheid justified itself in almost Marxist terms—to keep the diversity of cultures we need apartheid—so the rhetoric of cultural difference is already the language of the oppressor.”
The progressive vocabulary of protecting cultural diversity is revealed as historically the justification for apartheid.
“The first formula of anti-racism is: yes, we white liberals are consumerist and alienated—allow the poor also to become like us.”
Against the romantic elevation of minority cultures, the anti-racist demand is universal access to modernity, including its alienations.
“The soul without a body is even more sinful than a body without a dress.”
Quoting Tarkovsky, Žižek inverts the spiritual/bodily hierarchy: the purely spiritual is more problematic than the nakedly bodily, affirming the necessity of physical contact.
Claims 18
asserts
The COVID-19 pandemic requires a temporary form of 'war communism'—prioritizing health and subsistence over market mechanisms—including possible mobilization of labor for essential sectors like agriculture.pandemic response and post-market coordination
asserts
The pandemic will not end cleanly but will drag on and combine with food crises, ecological disasters, and social unrest to produce a lasting 'perfect storm.'the permanence of overlapping crises
asserts
The three top COVID failure states (USA, Russia, Brazil) share populist authoritarian leadership, demonstrating that populism cannot handle a real scientific problem.populism's inadequacy
rejects
The techno-digitalization solution (Gates/Schmidt/Cuomo) that envisions permanent digital bubbles fails because a large percentage of people must physically perform essential labor.digital-isolation as pandemic solution
asserts
The correct response to the pandemic requires three levels: an efficient state, local community mobilization, and international cooperation—not a supranational authority but coordinated nation-states.three-level pandemic governance
rejects
Centralized planned economies are not more ordered than liberal democracies—beneath their surface they are actually more chaotic, as evidenced by the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.the myth of totalitarian order vs. liberal chaos
asserts
Any vaccine against COVID-19 should be treated as common property of the entire world, with only limited profit allowed for producers.vaccine as global commons
asserts
Violent protest outbursts are symptoms in the Freudian sense: people act out because they cannot articulate their grievances in words, so the task is to help translate rage into political programs.BLM protests and political articulation
asserts
Liberal political correctness and identity politics are a more dangerous form of racism than direct prejudice because they mask condescension as respect and deprive minorities of moral agency.liberal racism and identity politics
asserts
True anti-racism means treating minorities as morally responsible adults, not as products of circumstances—the liberal sympathizer who excuses bad behavior as determined by exploitation enacts a subtle racism.universalism vs. cultural relativism in anti-racism
asserts
Malcolm X's answer 'Nothing' to the white girl who asked how she could help captures the correct stance: outsiders cannot do the work of self-emancipation for oppressed groups.self-emancipation and anti-paternalism
asserts
Apartheid justified itself in almost Marxist cultural-diversity language—preserving distinct cultures—showing that the rhetoric of respecting difference can serve the most racist ends.cultural relativism and apartheid
asserts
Chinese neocolonialism in Africa and Latin America is often more brutal than classical Western economic neocolonialism and must be named and criticized.Chinese neocolonialism
reframes
Trump's failure is not that he is too authoritarian, but that he is not authoritarian enough—he acts as a party partisan rather than as a leader who speaks for the whole nation.Trump and authoritarian leadership
asserts
The pandemic may paradoxically revitalize the intensity of physical/sexual contact precisely by making it rare and charged, rather than further digitalizing intimacy.embodiment, sexuality, and the pandemic
reframes
In contrast to Marx's call to change the world, the present situation demands that we first properly interpret it—we currently lack even a basic cognitive map of what China or global capitalism is.theory vs. praxis, cognitive mapping
asserts
The real COVID success cases in 'China' are Hong Kong and Taiwan—territories that want no part of China—showing you can manage the epidemic without totalitarian communist power.China's pandemic governance
asserts
What democratic societies need today is not a totalitarian state but a well-functioning, efficient state that citizens can trust, and that makes its control transparent.state trust and democratic legitimacy
Quotes 12
“Violent outbursts are always a symptom in the Freudian sense where symptom is an acting out. You cannot put it in words so you explode.”Slavoj Žižek · violence as failure of speech / symptom as acting-out
“In contrast to Marx, we should say: in the 20th century, we maybe wanted to change the world too much and we didn't interpret it properly. Our Thesis should be today: instead of just wanting to change the world, let's interpret it.”Slavoj Žižek · inversion of Marx's 11th Thesis on Feuerbach
“The soul without a body is even more sinful than a body without a dress.”Slavoj Žižek · embodiment and the insufficiency of pure spirituality / digital contact
“My formula is communism with Julian Assange. Tolerate—even needs—Assanges, people who bring out the state secrets.”Slavoj Žižek · communism with transparency / control must be accountable
“I am just saying I would like to know how I am controlled and to what purpose I am controlled. And this doesn't cancel control.”Slavoj Žižek · transparency of control vs. elimination of control
“My reproach to Trump is not that he is a too authoritarian leader, but that he is not enough that.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump as insufficient authority, not excess
“We much prefer to be Indians, at least our name is a monument to white man's stupidity who thought they are in India.”Slavoj Žižek · self-designation against liberal renaming / monument to colonialism's error
“If your boyfriend tells you 'you women have a more holistic approach to nature'—run away as quickly as you can. There you are lost.”Slavoj Žižek · cultural idealization as more dangerous than overt sexism
“it's precisely to keep the diversity of cultures that we need apartheid.”Slavoj Žižek · apartheid's use of cultural diversity rhetoric
“The first formula of anti-racism is: yes, we white liberals are consumerist, alienated. Allow the poor also to become like us.”Slavoj Žižek · universalism over cultural romanticism as anti-racism
“each of these conflicts taken by itself can be managed. I worry about the combination.”Slavoj Žižek · the perfect storm: compounding crises exceed the sum of their parts
“I would like to know how I am controlled and to what purpose I am controlled.”Slavoj Žižek · demand for transparency over abolition of control
Transcript 81 turns
unknown
What you
What you
Slavoj Žižek
said now, Samo, this is what in TV quiz shows they call the million dollar question, you know. So, to avoid all misunderstanding, already from the way I describe this communism as war communism, it's clear that I don't have in mind what Marx thought about communism, society of freedom and affluence and so on. I refer here to one of Marx's definitions of communism, which, incidentally, is almost literally taken from a passage from, I think, Gospel: "Each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." Now, this doesn't mean I want a Lamborghini car, I get it, and so on. It means that, and everybody agrees with it, that's why Trump sent checks to tens of millions and so on, that in such an emergency state, the priority is not profit, market mechanisms and so on, at least for some time. The priority is to control the health situation and to guarantee so that people don't starve, a minimum of existence. This thing should simply be absolutely prioritized. And I also make it clear that this is not just "I sit at home and get what I need." I think, maybe if the second wave will be even worse, I'm not afraid to say this, people will proclaim me a totalitarian or what. What if many people will have to be temporarily, not in a Stalinist way, mobilized? For example, I recently read about the troubles in agriculture, harvesting now. In Tennessee, they tested one farm with workers, all of them were positive. Similar in France, mines and
said now, Samo, this is what in TV quiz shows they call the million dollar question, you know. So, to avoid all misunderstanding, already from the way I describe this communism as war communism, it's clear that I don't have in mind what Marx thought about communism, society of freedom and affluence and so on. I refer here to one of Marx's definitions of communism, which, incidentally, is almost literally taken from a passage from, I think, Gospel: "Each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." Now, this doesn't mean I want a Lamborghini car, I get it, and so on. It means that, and everybody agrees with it, that's why Trump sent checks to tens of millions and so on, that in such an emergency state, the priority is not profit, market mechanisms and so on, at least for some time. The priority is to control the health situation and to guarantee so that people don't starve, a minimum of existence. This thing should simply be absolutely prioritized. And I also make it clear that this is not just "I sit at home and get what I need." I think, maybe if the second wave will be even worse, I'm not afraid to say this, people will proclaim me a totalitarian or what. What if many people will have to be temporarily, not in a Stalinist way, mobilized? For example, I recently read about the troubles in agriculture, harvesting now. In Tennessee, they tested one farm with workers, all of them were positive. Similar in France, mines and
unknown
slaughterhouses. Yeah,
slaughterhouses. Yeah,
Slavoj Žižek
but at the same time, I am I got my lesson. I was nonetheless kind of a dissident in the last decades of the ex-Yugoslavia. I was jobless for five years, unemployed and so on. So, I'm well aware that if simply the state centralizes it, you know, it's not simply efficient. Not only this is the ideal space for corruption and so on, but the paradox of this centralized systems is that beneath the surface, they are much more chaotic and disorganized.
but at the same time, I am I got my lesson. I was nonetheless kind of a dissident in the last decades of the ex-Yugoslavia. I was jobless for five years, unemployed and so on. So, I'm well aware that if simply the state centralizes it, you know, it's not simply efficient. Not only this is the ideal space for corruption and so on, but the paradox of this centralized systems is that beneath the surface, they are much more chaotic and disorganized.
unknown
For example, maybe you know the case, I read when I hope now it's better when China began to open a month, a month and a half ago, you know what happened in Wuhan? The order came: restart production. But they in factories didn't
For example, maybe you know the case, I read when I hope now it's better when China began to open a month, a month and a half ago, you know what happened in Wuhan? The order came: restart production. But they in factories didn't
Slavoj Žižek
have enough material to do it, supply didn't work. So, it's ironic, in the best old communist way, what they did is, they noted through some friends, that authorities measure production by how much electricity they spend for running. So they let the machines run through the night doing nothing. You see, that's the problem. So, it's not true that in liberal democracies you have freedom but chaos, under totalitarianism you have order and so on. I read a good economic history of Soviet Union, where they claim that in Brezhnev era, beneath the surface of planned economy, it was a big chaos. The factory, you have to use links, bribes to get the material, you falsify statistics all the time. So
have enough material to do it, supply didn't work. So, it's ironic, in the best old communist way, what they did is, they noted through some friends, that authorities measure production by how much electricity they spend for running. So they let the machines run through the night doing nothing. You see, that's the problem. So, it's not true that in liberal democracies you have freedom but chaos, under totalitarianism you have order and so on. I read a good economic history of Soviet Union, where they claim that in Brezhnev era, beneath the surface of planned economy, it was a big chaos. The factory, you have to use links, bribes to get the material, you falsify statistics all the time. So
unknown
I'm not simply saying let's return to that type of communism. I'm not crazy, it's inefficient. All I'm saying is that in some sense, at certain levels, decisions will have to
I'm not simply saying let's return to that type of communism. I'm not crazy, it's inefficient. All I'm saying is that in some sense, at certain levels, decisions will have to
Slavoj Žižek
be taken where how to reorient production and so on, and things will have to be prioritized. But this cannot be done simply through market mechanisms. Now, just a little bit, now I will not be so long. Now, second point. Okay, people thought at least at the beginning: yeah, okay, for half a year then things are back to normal. Well, I'm an atheist, but I pray it will be so. But I have my doubts. Did you notice that cases went up, then the formula which was "we reached the plateau" and the idea was then it will
be taken where how to reorient production and so on, and things will have to be prioritized. But this cannot be done simply through market mechanisms. Now, just a little bit, now I will not be so long. Now, second point. Okay, people thought at least at the beginning: yeah, okay, for half a year then things are back to normal. Well, I'm an atheist, but I pray it will be so. But I have my doubts. Did you notice that cases went up, then the formula which was "we reached the plateau" and the idea was then it will
unknown
go down. Yeah, but it goes very slowly, you know. This can
go down. Yeah, but it goes very slowly, you know. This can
Slavoj Žižek
drag on. Then what worries me further is how, and that's what I call "perfect storm", how this health crisis is combined with other crises. For example, why don't people worry more about it, food production? You know that locust catastrophe from Eastern Africa to Pakistan and India now? It's a nightmare.
drag on. Then what worries me further is how, and that's what I call "perfect storm", how this health crisis is combined with other crises. For example, why don't people worry more about it, food production? You know that locust catastrophe from Eastern Africa to Pakistan and India now? It's a nightmare.
unknown
Then swine flu and so on. So we have these problems. Not only this, but did you notice how precisely people
Then swine flu and so on. So we have these problems. Not only this, but did you notice how precisely people
Slavoj Žižek
who proposed things that would have been useful now, like Bernie Sanders
who proposed things that would have been useful now, like Bernie Sanders
unknown
and so on, also practically disappeared? Nobody, almost nobody talks about Bernie now. That's but this problem is not only now the coronavirus epidemic's problem. It began already earlier. It was that's why for me before, crucial conflict was within the Democratic Party between, and I don't mean this in an aggressive way, let's call them the establishment wing and Bernie Sanders. It was a serious split there. Bernie was almost a democratic Trump, because Trump also broke with at least part of the establishment of the Republican Party. I'm not an abstract stupid leftist who wants revolution and so on. I just think, and I hope we agree on this, what we are witnessing now with protests exploding, and that's very interesting, anti-racist protests exploding not only in the United States, but they are spreading all around the world, England, France, even Australia and so on. What worries me, because this is how political instability enters, is that there is obviously a certain rage, protest energy, which cannot be adequately captured by traditional political coordinates. So I think
and so on, also practically disappeared? Nobody, almost nobody talks about Bernie now. That's but this problem is not only now the coronavirus epidemic's problem. It began already earlier. It was that's why for me before, crucial conflict was within the Democratic Party between, and I don't mean this in an aggressive way, let's call them the establishment wing and Bernie Sanders. It was a serious split there. Bernie was almost a democratic Trump, because Trump also broke with at least part of the establishment of the Republican Party. I'm not an abstract stupid leftist who wants revolution and so on. I just think, and I hope we agree on this, what we are witnessing now with protests exploding, and that's very interesting, anti-racist protests exploding not only in the United States, but they are spreading all around the world, England, France, even Australia and so on. What worries me, because this is how political instability enters, is that there is obviously a certain rage, protest energy, which cannot be adequately captured by traditional political coordinates. So I think
Slavoj Žižek
that it's on behalf of the stability of our system to find a way for this energy to articulate itself. I will quote you here somebody... But you know what worries me? That it seems that all our life at different domains is turning in this direction. Something explosive happened, then since we watch too many bad Hollywood movies, we think a catastrophe is like a big
that it's on behalf of the stability of our system to find a way for this energy to articulate itself. I will quote you here somebody... But you know what worries me? That it seems that all our life at different domains is turning in this direction. Something explosive happened, then since we watch too many bad Hollywood movies, we think a catastrophe is like a big
unknown
explosion and then gradually the trauma is over, life returns. But conflicts just drag on. Remember the Ukraine war, Ukraine versus Russia? It goes on, it goes on. You know, you remember Libyan war? Or even better, Syrian war? Things just go on and go on. And what I'm afraid is that it's similar with the COVID epidemic. It's not a clear climax and then it just goes on. We are entering a new world. So, that I don't lose my track, immediately I will give you back the word, that's my answer to the big question: does this mean that capitalism, as any minimally intelligent system, knows when you make a compromise, you do even elements of universal basic income and so on? But then, when
explosion and then gradually the trauma is over, life returns. But conflicts just drag on. Remember the Ukraine war, Ukraine versus Russia? It goes on, it goes on. You know, you remember Libyan war? Or even better, Syrian war? Things just go on and go on. And what I'm afraid is that it's similar with the COVID epidemic. It's not a clear climax and then it just goes on. We are entering a new world. So, that I don't lose my track, immediately I will give you back the word, that's my answer to the big question: does this mean that capitalism, as any minimally intelligent system, knows when you make a compromise, you do even elements of universal basic income and so on? But then, when
Slavoj Žižek
things return to normal, you try to restart the old system. What worries me is that too many things are happening, again possible food crisis, all these protests, even international conflicts, and also other ecological catastrophes. For example, you remember in close to Norilsk, which incidentally was one of the biggest gulag sites in Russia, the dam or whatever of million tons of oil or whatever spilled in the sea. But you know what was the reason? I read about it. Global warming. Because this holding buildings were built on foundations which couldn't endure through in the time of built on permafrost, right, and the permafrost started melting and then the building collapsed. And that's the reason. That's the reason. So, what worries me is this. Each of these conflicts taken by itself can be managed. I worry about the combination. And just to conclude, back to the protests. I support them, of course. But I am not a naive guy who says: "Oh, even if they are looting my store, welcome, you are on the progressive side of history." Intelligent black people, like
things return to normal, you try to restart the old system. What worries me is that too many things are happening, again possible food crisis, all these protests, even international conflicts, and also other ecological catastrophes. For example, you remember in close to Norilsk, which incidentally was one of the biggest gulag sites in Russia, the dam or whatever of million tons of oil or whatever spilled in the sea. But you know what was the reason? I read about it. Global warming. Because this holding buildings were built on foundations which couldn't endure through in the time of built on permafrost, right, and the permafrost started melting and then the building collapsed. And that's the reason. That's the reason. So, what worries me is this. Each of these conflicts taken by itself can be managed. I worry about the combination. And just to conclude, back to the protests. I support them, of course. But I am not a naive guy who says: "Oh, even if they are looting my store, welcome, you are on the progressive side of history." Intelligent black people, like
unknown
the one who is very much to the left, but not an idiot, Ras Baraka, the son of the poet, the mayor, or he was, I don't know if he's still is, of Newark. He said to black people: "We cannot win with guns. We will always lose at that level. We have to move from guns to books."
the one who is very much to the left, but not an idiot, Ras Baraka, the son of the poet, the mayor, or he was, I don't know if he's still is, of Newark. He said to black people: "We cannot win with guns. We will always lose at that level. We have to move from guns to books."
Slavoj Žižek
Articulate our protests in an articulated way as a political program and so on and so on. I don't agree with those who think let's go and terrorize the system through violent measures and so on and so on. No, this is a total deadlock. It should be in the interest of all of us to help them even, but not in a patronizing way, the protesting blacks, to articulate their demand in more precise way, to look at the roots of racism and so on and so on. Because you know, violent outbursts are always a symptom.
Articulate our protests in an articulated way as a political program and so on and so on. I don't agree with those who think let's go and terrorize the system through violent measures and so on and so on. No, this is a total deadlock. It should be in the interest of all of us to help them even, but not in a patronizing way, the protesting blacks, to articulate their demand in more precise way, to look at the roots of racism and so on and so on. Because you know, violent outbursts are always a symptom.
unknown
Symptom
Symptom
Slavoj Žižek
in the Freudian sense where symptom is an acting out. You cannot put it in words so you explode. It's a nice paradox because usually anti-intellectuals tell us thinkers that: "You just talk, we need to act." No, quite often we act because we are not able to pronounce the correct word, to talk. That's what is happening. I am a pessimist here, as you probably know. My favorite paraphrase of Marx, I repeated this to the horror of my Marxist friends, is that in contrast to Marx, we should say: in the 20th century, we maybe wanted to change the world too much and we didn't interpret it properly. So our Thesis should be today: instead of just wanting to change the world, let's interpret it. You know, we are in some kind of what my friend, Marxist friend Fred Jameson calls lack of cognitive mapping. Listen, even if you talk with theorists, Marxists or right-wingers, what is China today? Some people say it's the old communist dictatorship that they just allow a little bit of capitalism. Others say it's neo-feudalism. Third people say it's already capitalism, party is just serving capital. We simply, and I don't mean a perfect dogma, but just a basic
in the Freudian sense where symptom is an acting out. You cannot put it in words so you explode. It's a nice paradox because usually anti-intellectuals tell us thinkers that: "You just talk, we need to act." No, quite often we act because we are not able to pronounce the correct word, to talk. That's what is happening. I am a pessimist here, as you probably know. My favorite paraphrase of Marx, I repeated this to the horror of my Marxist friends, is that in contrast to Marx, we should say: in the 20th century, we maybe wanted to change the world too much and we didn't interpret it properly. So our Thesis should be today: instead of just wanting to change the world, let's interpret it. You know, we are in some kind of what my friend, Marxist friend Fred Jameson calls lack of cognitive mapping. Listen, even if you talk with theorists, Marxists or right-wingers, what is China today? Some people say it's the old communist dictatorship that they just allow a little bit of capitalism. Others say it's neo-feudalism. Third people say it's already capitalism, party is just serving capital. We simply, and I don't mean a perfect dogma, but just a basic
unknown
orientation, we simply
orientation, we simply
Slavoj Žižek
don't have a basic orientation of what effectively is going on today. And the danger in such a situation is, although I'm not a total pessimist here, is that then populism explodes. You know, although would you agree Samo or not, you as a system theorist, that one of the nice surprises, it's cynical to use
don't have a basic orientation of what effectively is going on today. And the danger in such a situation is, although I'm not a total pessimist here, is that then populism explodes. You know, although would you agree Samo or not, you as a system theorist, that one of the nice surprises, it's cynical to use
unknown
this word, but nonetheless, of present situation is that what? That populism obviously
this word, but nonetheless, of present situation is that what? That populism obviously
Slavoj Žižek
didn't work. Look at the top three countries, I mean with infection: United States, Russia, Brazil. They all have a leader who tries to act in a populist, even a little bit authoritarian way, and they are the three great failures. Exactly. Populism is good in mystifying, mobilizing people for struggles, antagonisms. But here we have, in the most naive scientific way, a real problem: a stupid self-replicating virus. And here it doesn't it doesn't work. So, and you know why this is important on the other hand? Because it's fashionable for Marxists to be against state power, you know, alienated and so on. I think what we need like daily bread today is not a totalitarian state, but a state which is, as far as possible, well-functioning, efficient and that somehow you or me as an ordinary citizen trust. Trust. No, I I agree with it, and especially now that we have such an outcry, this phone mechanisms that they can track where you move and so on, you know. I claim what's the big fuss? If it really helps me to avoid contacts, go on. I worry much more about the fact that already before the epidemics, we know that all big countries China, United States, I know the case of Israel through friends were already listening, recording all phone conversations, all all all internet messages and so on and so on. At least this time they are controlling us in some sense for our own good, you know, that you avoid... It's much less than following my thoughts in my PC and so on and so on. But again,
didn't work. Look at the top three countries, I mean with infection: United States, Russia, Brazil. They all have a leader who tries to act in a populist, even a little bit authoritarian way, and they are the three great failures. Exactly. Populism is good in mystifying, mobilizing people for struggles, antagonisms. But here we have, in the most naive scientific way, a real problem: a stupid self-replicating virus. And here it doesn't it doesn't work. So, and you know why this is important on the other hand? Because it's fashionable for Marxists to be against state power, you know, alienated and so on. I think what we need like daily bread today is not a totalitarian state, but a state which is, as far as possible, well-functioning, efficient and that somehow you or me as an ordinary citizen trust. Trust. No, I I agree with it, and especially now that we have such an outcry, this phone mechanisms that they can track where you move and so on, you know. I claim what's the big fuss? If it really helps me to avoid contacts, go on. I worry much more about the fact that already before the epidemics, we know that all big countries China, United States, I know the case of Israel through friends were already listening, recording all phone conversations, all all all internet messages and so on and so on. At least this time they are controlling us in some sense for our own good, you know, that you avoid... It's much less than following my thoughts in my PC and so on and so on. But again,
unknown
I'm not afraid of this. I think worry about real prob worry about real problems, you know. On the other hand, if I may go into slightly more obscene waters,
I'm not afraid of this. I think worry about real prob worry about real problems, you know. On the other hand, if I may go into slightly more obscene waters,
Slavoj Žižek
which I like, I think that one possible benefit of it's horrible to talk like this, because I'm horrified, live in anxiety but of the epidemics will be passion and sexuality. I don't think the effect will be what people complain: sex will become digital, no personal contact. First, sex already became digital. I know, I follow the situation here in Slovenia, which your beloved President Trump would have put it as a small shithole of a country or whatever, no? Even here, I spoke with a head of the class of my younger son, who told me that she noticed that in last years sex life begins much later. We were much further years ago. Usually around pupils began to have sex life, now it's And as one friend of my son told me, why bother with a real partner? The most he is ready to do is one-night stand. Otherwise you masturbate in front of a of a of a screen, in two minutes or whatever you are over. I think that sex was already to a large degree digitalized and that bodily contact will become much more something that concerns passion. If you meet if you meet real love, passion, it has to be touch. And that's a deep insight that you find even with some movie makers like I like to quote Andrei Tarkovsky, who said: "The soul without a body is even more sinful than a body without a dress," you know. Our our only medium to to the other person is through the body. So maybe I think that paradoxically, I'm not a pessimist here, we will maybe rediscover all the intensity of the physical contact. I absolutely predict. Okay, now there are open questions. Wait a minute, I didn't run for the president. I ran for the presidency as a collective body. You
which I like, I think that one possible benefit of it's horrible to talk like this, because I'm horrified, live in anxiety but of the epidemics will be passion and sexuality. I don't think the effect will be what people complain: sex will become digital, no personal contact. First, sex already became digital. I know, I follow the situation here in Slovenia, which your beloved President Trump would have put it as a small shithole of a country or whatever, no? Even here, I spoke with a head of the class of my younger son, who told me that she noticed that in last years sex life begins much later. We were much further years ago. Usually around pupils began to have sex life, now it's And as one friend of my son told me, why bother with a real partner? The most he is ready to do is one-night stand. Otherwise you masturbate in front of a of a of a screen, in two minutes or whatever you are over. I think that sex was already to a large degree digitalized and that bodily contact will become much more something that concerns passion. If you meet if you meet real love, passion, it has to be touch. And that's a deep insight that you find even with some movie makers like I like to quote Andrei Tarkovsky, who said: "The soul without a body is even more sinful than a body without a dress," you know. Our our only medium to to the other person is through the body. So maybe I think that paradoxically, I'm not a pessimist here, we will maybe rediscover all the intensity of the physical contact. I absolutely predict. Okay, now there are open questions. Wait a minute, I didn't run for the president. I ran for the presidency as a collective body. You
unknown
must know this. It was part of Tito, Titoist mythology. They said after Tito died, nobody can replace him, so we need a collective body. But the real reason that I ran for that collective body, and this collective body had four members and a president, as always I ended fifth. A part of a percentage. The reason was to help my party, and many leftists even
must know this. It was part of Tito, Titoist mythology. They said after Tito died, nobody can replace him, so we need a collective body. But the real reason that I ran for that collective body, and this collective body had four members and a president, as always I ended fifth. A part of a percentage. The reason was to help my party, and many leftists even
Slavoj Žižek
are mad at me now, because it was liberal democratic, very moderate left party. But I'm not ashamed of it, you know why? At that point, we old leftists felt very well. The danger of this first wave of democracy is to get to allow one party or some kind of nationalist platform to basically
are mad at me now, because it was liberal democratic, very moderate left party. But I'm not ashamed of it, you know why? At that point, we old leftists felt very well. The danger of this first wave of democracy is to get to allow one party or some kind of nationalist platform to basically
unknown
monopolize, hegemonize the entire political field. It can be right-wing
monopolize, hegemonize the entire political field. It can be right-wing
Slavoj Žižek
party as in Croatia, it can be at least nominally left-wing party like Milošević in Serbia. The point was to keep yeah, we saw so it was to be you saw the transition from communism to to very extreme nationalism, and you considered the
party as in Croatia, it can be at least nominally left-wing party like Milošević in Serbia. The point was to keep yeah, we saw so it was to be you saw the transition from communism to to very extreme nationalism, and you considered the
unknown
liberal party as a brake on this. Our first task. We said to ourselves: forget about radical leftist programs, let's at least keep the space open for more pluralist democracy where there is place for everybody, for for alternative culture and so on and so on. And we almost, not quite, succeeded. For a long time, Slovenia avoided this type of rule of one big nationalist party, even now when Janez Janša, right-wing nationalist is in power, he cannot get above percent of the votes. It's he was able to take over because of the conflict that can also be very corrupted and so on, because
liberal party as a brake on this. Our first task. We said to ourselves: forget about radical leftist programs, let's at least keep the space open for more pluralist democracy where there is place for everybody, for for alternative culture and so on and so on. And we almost, not quite, succeeded. For a long time, Slovenia avoided this type of rule of one big nationalist party, even now when Janez Janša, right-wing nationalist is in power, he cannot get above percent of the votes. It's he was able to take over because of the conflict that can also be very corrupted and so on, because
Slavoj Žižek
of the conflict in the so-called moderate left. So-called. I think they're a simple liberal center and so on. This is why I have very nostalgic memories of that time, late 80s. It's because this was not only a specificity of Slovenia, but also of some other communist countries, one of the points of origin of dissidents, intellectual dissidents, was philosophy, social theory. Which is why you know our books were selling, ordinary people listen to us and so on, read philosophy. It was a wonderful intellectual moment. At the same time, communists in power were intelligent enough to see the writing of the wall. So
of the conflict in the so-called moderate left. So-called. I think they're a simple liberal center and so on. This is why I have very nostalgic memories of that time, late 80s. It's because this was not only a specificity of Slovenia, but also of some other communist countries, one of the points of origin of dissidents, intellectual dissidents, was philosophy, social theory. Which is why you know our books were selling, ordinary people listen to us and so on, read philosophy. It was a wonderful intellectual moment. At the same time, communists in power were intelligent enough to see the writing of the wall. So
unknown
you know, maybe it will be of some interest to some of our viewers, a comical detail that I love. After it was very difficult
you know, maybe it will be of some interest to some of our viewers, a comical detail that I love. After it was very difficult
unknown
to be prosecuted and arrested for being too critical. So some of my friends wrote violent critique of
to be prosecuted and arrested for being too critical. So some of my friends wrote violent critique of
Slavoj Žižek
Yugoslav Communist Party, "worse than Stalinism" and so on. And then they waited: where will they go,
Yugoslav Communist Party, "worse than Stalinism" and so on. And then they waited: where will they go,
unknown
get the invitation to appear at a court? Because they wanted this as a badge of honor of democracy, you know. Nothing happened. Friend of mine got an invitation to a debate to a Central Committee. He went there, said the same things and they told him: "So nice that you came to talk to
get the invitation to appear at a court? Because they wanted this as a badge of honor of democracy, you know. Nothing happened. Friend of mine got an invitation to a debate to a Central Committee. He went there, said the same things and they told him: "So nice that you came to talk to
Slavoj Žižek
us, come again," and so on. So I would say, I don't know what was your impression, but somewhere from even I would say early 80s, but definitely after the Communist Party, at least in Slovenia, behaved as if they knew that the game is over and their main concern was how to survive democracy. What to do, tolerate differences and especially play the nationalist game, "we protect in Belgrade Slovene interests" and so on, you know. The good thing is that they didn't do what Milošević did. They never tried succeeded in monopolizing from a nationalist standpoint the entire thing, like "we speak for Slovenia"
us, come again," and so on. So I would say, I don't know what was your impression, but somewhere from even I would say early 80s, but definitely after the Communist Party, at least in Slovenia, behaved as if they knew that the game is over and their main concern was how to survive democracy. What to do, tolerate differences and especially play the nationalist game, "we protect in Belgrade Slovene interests" and so on, you know. The good thing is that they didn't do what Milošević did. They never tried succeeded in monopolizing from a nationalist standpoint the entire thing, like "we speak for Slovenia"
unknown
and so on, you know.
and so on, you know.
Slavoj Žižek
I believe in open free debate. And he told me: "Of course I love it, but as a communist I know that open free debates should be especially well prepared in advance to stop any reactions." Sorry, go on. Again, I don't know enough because things which don't depend on our will but maybe of scientific knowledge and so on, like if there is a fast a fast vaccine or whatever it will relatively fast at the end of this year, it will change the situation. What I think, and I again as an atheist pray to God that I'm wrong, but what I fear is that, first, this epidemics will not just end, it will drag on in parts of the world. It will get a little bit better, then you never know what will happen. And especially it will be combined with other tensions. So I do think this for foreseeable times, I'm counting years, it some
I believe in open free debate. And he told me: "Of course I love it, but as a communist I know that open free debates should be especially well prepared in advance to stop any reactions." Sorry, go on. Again, I don't know enough because things which don't depend on our will but maybe of scientific knowledge and so on, like if there is a fast a fast vaccine or whatever it will relatively fast at the end of this year, it will change the situation. What I think, and I again as an atheist pray to God that I'm wrong, but what I fear is that, first, this epidemics will not just end, it will drag on in parts of the world. It will get a little bit better, then you never know what will happen. And especially it will be combined with other tensions. So I do think this for foreseeable times, I'm counting years, it some
unknown
kind of emergency state will go on. And the big choice is what to do. I
kind of emergency state will go on. And the big choice is what to do. I
Slavoj Žižek
see, don't be afraid, I will stop quickly, I will not get lost. I see now three main options. One is Trump-Bolsonaro,
see, don't be afraid, I will stop quickly, I will not get lost. I see now three main options. One is Trump-Bolsonaro,
unknown
Bolsonaro nonetheless much worse than Trump, which is brutally the main thing is that economy is moving and that our what we consider normal daily way of life, socializing remains. And they don't say this publicly, but the implication is: even if thousands are dying, let's do this. And let me tell you something. As much as I despise these politicians, in a way I understand
Bolsonaro nonetheless much worse than Trump, which is brutally the main thing is that economy is moving and that our what we consider normal daily way of life, socializing remains. And they don't say this publicly, but the implication is: even if thousands are dying, let's do this. And let me tell you something. As much as I despise these politicians, in a way I understand
Slavoj Žižek
their line of argument. Argue, are we aware what
their line of argument. Argue, are we aware what
unknown
a horrible change of our daily rituals this is? You cannot embrace people, touch people, you cannot go on, you cannot communicate. I totally understand one anti-quarantine protester who said: "No, I don't want to wear a mask, I'm no longer human. I'm
a horrible change of our daily rituals this is? You cannot embrace people, touch people, you cannot go on, you cannot communicate. I totally understand one anti-quarantine protester who said: "No, I don't want to wear a mask, I'm no longer human. I'm
unknown
like a dog, I
like a dog, I
Slavoj Žižek
lose my dignity" and so on. So this is one option. The other option that
lose my dignity" and so on. So this is one option. The other option that
unknown
I also don't like is the let's call it
I also don't like is the let's call it
Slavoj Žižek
Eric Schmidt-Cuomo-Bill Gates option. A vision of the new digitalized space where even I will do doctors' exams through the web, food will be brought to me to
Eric Schmidt-Cuomo-Bill Gates option. A vision of the new digitalized space where even I will do doctors' exams through the web, food will be brought to me to
unknown
to to institutionalize, not
to to institutionalize, not
Slavoj Žižek
necessarily in a totalitarian sense, our self-isolation so that we all will live in some kind of bubbles. My skepticism towards this, it's a well-known one, I'm not very original here, is that many of us can live like this, but a great percentage, at least percent of the people should nonetheless be out gathering harvest, delivering food, hospitals and so on and so on. So I don't think this works. What I see as a solution, I'm not afraid of self-isolation and so on, this it doesn't resolve all the problems. I follow around the world how they deal with epidemic. For example, where they were relatively successful lately,
necessarily in a totalitarian sense, our self-isolation so that we all will live in some kind of bubbles. My skepticism towards this, it's a well-known one, I'm not very original here, is that many of us can live like this, but a great percentage, at least percent of the people should nonetheless be out gathering harvest, delivering food, hospitals and so on and so on. So I don't think this works. What I see as a solution, I'm not afraid of self-isolation and so on, this it doesn't resolve all the problems. I follow around the world how they deal with epidemic. For example, where they were relatively successful lately,
unknown
in Spain. You know what we don't read enough? Local communities. Something beautiful happened in Spain, I was told. In parts
in Spain. You know what we don't read enough? Local communities. Something beautiful happened in Spain, I was told. In parts
Slavoj Žižek
of Madrid and Barcelona, local communities constituted a group, said: "Okay, this couple of blocks is our terrain. Let's check who is ill, who needs help." State cannot do everything. You need to mobilize local communities. So the state should be efficient but should do this, and the other thing is clear: we need a more, not the fear of right-wing populists some international authority beyond nation state. No, this opens an ideal space of new corruption. But nonetheless, international cooperation. It's okay, we all love now Australia and especially New Zealand, you know, three. But you know, this may work for
of Madrid and Barcelona, local communities constituted a group, said: "Okay, this couple of blocks is our terrain. Let's check who is ill, who needs help." State cannot do everything. You need to mobilize local communities. So the state should be efficient but should do this, and the other thing is clear: we need a more, not the fear of right-wing populists some international authority beyond nation state. No, this opens an ideal space of new corruption. But nonetheless, international cooperation. It's okay, we all love now Australia and especially New Zealand, you know, three. But you know, this may work for
unknown
a couple of months, this bubble idea. "We are safe." No, it doesn't work. We have to, even if we have isolation and so on, international authorities have to, sorry, nation states have to collaborate not only in health, if there is a vaccine everybody should get it and so on and so on, but also food. If there will be hunger,
a couple of months, this bubble idea. "We are safe." No, it doesn't work. We have to, even if we have isolation and so on, international authorities have to, sorry, nation states have to collaborate not only in health, if there is a vaccine everybody should get it and so on and so on, but also food. If there will be hunger,
Slavoj Žižek
coordination, all these problems can be solved but at these three levels: not only efficient state but help of local communities and above, above I mean international collaboration. I don't agree often with Chinese, no, because you know what's for me the best argument against China? They boast so much "we did it." No, the best case in China are precisely two very territories which don't want to be part of China. The true success are Hong Kong and Taiwan, you know. So you can do it without total communist power. But when they said, it seems to me so obvious, for example if there will be a vaccine, okay, you allow the company some profit, but nonetheless it should be basically considered the vaccine, if it will work, common property of the entire world and so on. You know, what people should see is that this is in the interest of all of us. It's not that I live in a safe country, across the border epidemic goes on. No no no, we cannot think like this. So to find a way very patiently, and that's why aren't you said for this, I think that today more than ever, all states and
coordination, all these problems can be solved but at these three levels: not only efficient state but help of local communities and above, above I mean international collaboration. I don't agree often with Chinese, no, because you know what's for me the best argument against China? They boast so much "we did it." No, the best case in China are precisely two very territories which don't want to be part of China. The true success are Hong Kong and Taiwan, you know. So you can do it without total communist power. But when they said, it seems to me so obvious, for example if there will be a vaccine, okay, you allow the company some profit, but nonetheless it should be basically considered the vaccine, if it will work, common property of the entire world and so on. You know, what people should see is that this is in the interest of all of us. It's not that I live in a safe country, across the border epidemic goes on. No no no, we cannot think like this. So to find a way very patiently, and that's why aren't you said for this, I think that today more than ever, all states and
unknown
even internationally, we need good leaders. We need leaders who tell the bitter truth but with some kind of not abstract hope like "together we can do it" and so on. And the now, it becomes a paradox, I like it
even internationally, we need good leaders. We need leaders who tell the bitter truth but with some kind of not abstract hope like "together we can do it" and so on. And the now, it becomes a paradox, I like it
Slavoj Žižek
to annoy my pseudo-leftist friends, my approach to Trump is not that he is a too authoritarian leader, but that he is not enough that, you know. He simply acts more and more as one side in a conflict. It would be so much more. Be be be really authoritarian, you know. That would be that would be my my reproach to Trump, you know. The the price he pays for this is that now United States is in a kind of ideological
to annoy my pseudo-leftist friends, my approach to Trump is not that he is a too authoritarian leader, but that he is not enough that, you know. He simply acts more and more as one side in a conflict. It would be so much more. Be be be really authoritarian, you know. That would be that would be my my reproach to Trump, you know. The the price he pays for this is that now United States is in a kind of ideological
unknown
civil war, not just the usual culture war between, as
civil war, not just the usual culture war between, as
Slavoj Žižek
they say with regard to epidemic, "masks or no masks." No, let's keep our ordinary way of life and this usually more liberal leftist self-isolation and so on. But don't forget that
they say with regard to epidemic, "masks or no masks." No, let's keep our ordinary way of life and this usually more liberal leftist self-isolation and so on. But don't forget that
unknown
these protests which are exploding now are outside this duality. It's not liberals. One of the black guys, he maybe simplified it a little bit too much, Van Jones I think in a in a commentary on CNN, he said that no,
these protests which are exploding now are outside this duality. It's not liberals. One of the black guys, he maybe simplified it a little bit too much, Van Jones I think in a in a commentary on CNN, he said that no,
Slavoj Žižek
Hillary Clinton liberal who pretends to be multicultural but still retains all these racist prejudices is much more dangerous than direct Ku Klux Klan member. So there is a lot of work to be done here. But again, what I already said, it's absolutely crucial that this protest energy gets transferred into some kind of consistent political program. If not, United States will just come closer to some kind of ideological civil war. It will hurt its image very much. You know, to go, I wonder Samo if you would agree, even a step further. The main result of Trump's presidency may well be that United States will lose whatever remained after George Bush of its international status, you know. Well, but it's not only that. It's very interesting how for example, and leftist friends are telling me this, how much China is now hated in parts of Africa and Latin America, where Chinese capitalists come, they're worse than any old-fashioned imperialist and so on. Did you read a couple of days ago again in Zambia in where they have copper mines I think, I'm not sure, in unrests they killed some Chinese managers and so on and so on. They are much more brutal in their exploitation. You know, Syriza, Tsipras himself told me, the Chinese bought bought the Piraeus harbor. The first thing they did is find a legal loophole, cancel abolish trade unions, fired half the people and so on and so on. It's time for us, with all my best wishes for the Chinese people, but to start talk also about Chinese neocolonialism, which can be often more brutal than the standard Western economic neocolonialism, you know. And this is very important what you said, it's not as simple as we thought "it's the moment of China, United States are out, China the only power." First we will see the real data. As I always said, what we use now, I hope we all agree, is a couple of Chinese Julians Assange. You know, I signed letters for Assange, I support him. But always I warn my friends that before yes we should criticize it's horrible what the United States are doing, but just imagine what would have happened to a Chinese Assange. We would not hear about him, his entire family up to second cousins would probably have disappeared and so on and so on. You know, so no... This is very important because I agree with you otherwise, these new necessities of state control and so on can of course also be terribly misused and so on. That's why I make this a running gag joke, maybe you know it: my formula is communism with Julian Assange, you know. Tolerate even needs Assanges, people like Assange who bring who bring out the state secrets and so on and so on. I mean secrets which are relevant. You see, I am not saying we shouldn't be controlled. I am just saying I would like to know how I am controlled and to what purpose I am controlled. And this doesn't cancel control, there can still be a lot of control, but control should be as much as possible transparent that you know what's going on. Like "honestly tell me what you want me to do" is what you're asking for. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think people, as the ongoing situation clearly demonstrates, don't you think that people are ready to to accept many things? They in Europe, precisely did you notice this irony that in Europe the most democratic countries made least problems with self-isolation, drones and all that stuff and so on and so on? When you have basic democratic trust, people are ready to accept many things. Nobody complained in Norway, in Finland. Sweden is another story. Can I tell you something, I love Sweden. But you know that there is from the very beginning a dark side in Sweden. Do you know that till early 60s, I think, Sweden was doing some genetic regulation, chemically castrating men who were considered too stupid to bring children and so on. And what friends, Swedish friends are telling me is that there is something of it going on now. That they knew the old people, ill will be dying, and they did consciously but not publicly sacrifice them. This is why they are paying the price now. You see now Norway and Norway opening borders but not to Sweden. You know, right. So it's a challenging moment, that's where I see politics today. I mentioned different options: Bolsonaro, then Cuomo-Eric Schmidt... Of course I'm very sorry, I talk too much, yeah. No worries, no worries. It's a complex question,
Hillary Clinton liberal who pretends to be multicultural but still retains all these racist prejudices is much more dangerous than direct Ku Klux Klan member. So there is a lot of work to be done here. But again, what I already said, it's absolutely crucial that this protest energy gets transferred into some kind of consistent political program. If not, United States will just come closer to some kind of ideological civil war. It will hurt its image very much. You know, to go, I wonder Samo if you would agree, even a step further. The main result of Trump's presidency may well be that United States will lose whatever remained after George Bush of its international status, you know. Well, but it's not only that. It's very interesting how for example, and leftist friends are telling me this, how much China is now hated in parts of Africa and Latin America, where Chinese capitalists come, they're worse than any old-fashioned imperialist and so on. Did you read a couple of days ago again in Zambia in where they have copper mines I think, I'm not sure, in unrests they killed some Chinese managers and so on and so on. They are much more brutal in their exploitation. You know, Syriza, Tsipras himself told me, the Chinese bought bought the Piraeus harbor. The first thing they did is find a legal loophole, cancel abolish trade unions, fired half the people and so on and so on. It's time for us, with all my best wishes for the Chinese people, but to start talk also about Chinese neocolonialism, which can be often more brutal than the standard Western economic neocolonialism, you know. And this is very important what you said, it's not as simple as we thought "it's the moment of China, United States are out, China the only power." First we will see the real data. As I always said, what we use now, I hope we all agree, is a couple of Chinese Julians Assange. You know, I signed letters for Assange, I support him. But always I warn my friends that before yes we should criticize it's horrible what the United States are doing, but just imagine what would have happened to a Chinese Assange. We would not hear about him, his entire family up to second cousins would probably have disappeared and so on and so on. You know, so no... This is very important because I agree with you otherwise, these new necessities of state control and so on can of course also be terribly misused and so on. That's why I make this a running gag joke, maybe you know it: my formula is communism with Julian Assange, you know. Tolerate even needs Assanges, people like Assange who bring who bring out the state secrets and so on and so on. I mean secrets which are relevant. You see, I am not saying we shouldn't be controlled. I am just saying I would like to know how I am controlled and to what purpose I am controlled. And this doesn't cancel control, there can still be a lot of control, but control should be as much as possible transparent that you know what's going on. Like "honestly tell me what you want me to do" is what you're asking for. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think people, as the ongoing situation clearly demonstrates, don't you think that people are ready to to accept many things? They in Europe, precisely did you notice this irony that in Europe the most democratic countries made least problems with self-isolation, drones and all that stuff and so on and so on? When you have basic democratic trust, people are ready to accept many things. Nobody complained in Norway, in Finland. Sweden is another story. Can I tell you something, I love Sweden. But you know that there is from the very beginning a dark side in Sweden. Do you know that till early 60s, I think, Sweden was doing some genetic regulation, chemically castrating men who were considered too stupid to bring children and so on. And what friends, Swedish friends are telling me is that there is something of it going on now. That they knew the old people, ill will be dying, and they did consciously but not publicly sacrifice them. This is why they are paying the price now. You see now Norway and Norway opening borders but not to Sweden. You know, right. So it's a challenging moment, that's where I see politics today. I mentioned different options: Bolsonaro, then Cuomo-Eric Schmidt... Of course I'm very sorry, I talk too much, yeah. No worries, no worries. It's a complex question,
unknown
because of course a radical leftist would have said "no, it's
because of course a radical leftist would have said "no, it's
Slavoj Žižek
not possible, capitalism always needs racism." Well, it's not absolutely necessary. I would say always look at the specific situation. For example, in the United States, of course, it's not just black people. It's this ambiguous relationship towards Latino immigrants, no? Trump talking against them all the time, but we know now that you cannot simply organize normal harvest without them and so on. You know, so it's simply part of this constellation. But what I where I agree with that guy Van Jones is that what I don't like about this liberal approach is this politically correct culturalization, you know. As if the problem with racism is you know I hate this politically correct endless, it's like Catholic confession at its worst form, self-examination. I used that word, was it maybe implicitly racist? Or a friend of mine, I was flying with him: "My God, look at that beautiful flight attendant," but then "Oh my God, was this already sexism" etc. Good. No, I in my ideal society, maybe it's a utopia, you can use all the dirty jokes, sexist and so on, but they will not function in a racist
not possible, capitalism always needs racism." Well, it's not absolutely necessary. I would say always look at the specific situation. For example, in the United States, of course, it's not just black people. It's this ambiguous relationship towards Latino immigrants, no? Trump talking against them all the time, but we know now that you cannot simply organize normal harvest without them and so on. You know, so it's simply part of this constellation. But what I where I agree with that guy Van Jones is that what I don't like about this liberal approach is this politically correct culturalization, you know. As if the problem with racism is you know I hate this politically correct endless, it's like Catholic confession at its worst form, self-examination. I used that word, was it maybe implicitly racist? Or a friend of mine, I was flying with him: "My God, look at that beautiful flight attendant," but then "Oh my God, was this already sexism" etc. Good. No, I in my ideal society, maybe it's a utopia, you can use all the dirty jokes, sexist and so on, but they will not function in a racist
unknown
way. That's how I function with my black African-American friends. And that's why my personal it's interesting that when I am attacked for racism, it's always
way. That's how I function with my black African-American friends. And that's why my personal it's interesting that when I am attacked for racism, it's always
Slavoj Žižek
by white liberals. With
by white liberals. With
unknown
black people, with Native Americans, I love them. Do you know my Montana
black people, with Native Americans, I love them. Do you know my Montana
Slavoj Žižek
story, it happened to me in Missoula, Montana? A Native American told me why he hates the term "Native American". Like what are you then "cultural Americans"? We are na he told me: "We much prefer to be Indians, at least our name is a monument to white man's stupidity who thought they are in India," you know. And they especially, that's a deep insight, my Native American friends told me they especially hate white liberals who come to visit them and say: "Oh, I admire you, you have this holistic approach to nature, you know, you don't exploit nature" and so on. And my Native American friend told me that he shouted back at them: "Look, come and live in my miserable hut and give me your LA suburb house and I would quite like to be alienated from nature there" and so on. That, you know what all Native Americans and blacks that I know and so on, they know very well how hypocritical and condescending this liberal respect for their way of life can be. They knew that here the true racism is hidden. That's why, to conclude, you will like this, I once and they applauded me, women in the hall and I told them: "Let's say you have a boyfriend who tells you 'here are my dirty socks, you are a woman wash them'." I told this ladies: "Okay, ladies generally don't drop him. If he says this, maybe you can retrain him. But let's say that you have a boyfriend who tells you
story, it happened to me in Missoula, Montana? A Native American told me why he hates the term "Native American". Like what are you then "cultural Americans"? We are na he told me: "We much prefer to be Indians, at least our name is a monument to white man's stupidity who thought they are in India," you know. And they especially, that's a deep insight, my Native American friends told me they especially hate white liberals who come to visit them and say: "Oh, I admire you, you have this holistic approach to nature, you know, you don't exploit nature" and so on. And my Native American friend told me that he shouted back at them: "Look, come and live in my miserable hut and give me your LA suburb house and I would quite like to be alienated from nature there" and so on. That, you know what all Native Americans and blacks that I know and so on, they know very well how hypocritical and condescending this liberal respect for their way of life can be. They knew that here the true racism is hidden. That's why, to conclude, you will like this, I once and they applauded me, women in the hall and I told them: "Let's say you have a boyfriend who tells you 'here are my dirty socks, you are a woman wash them'." I told this ladies: "Okay, ladies generally don't drop him. If he says this, maybe you can retrain him. But let's say that you have a boyfriend who tells you
unknown
'you know what, we men are caught in Cartesian dominating
'you know what, we men are caught in Cartesian dominating
Slavoj Žižek
technological mind, you women have more holistic approach, you don't exploit nature, you are in dialogue with nature'. I told ladies there, if your boyfriend tells you this, run away as quickly as you can." There you are lost, you know. And it's not a joke, I mean it seriously. Talk with real minorities people, Native Americans, blacks and so on. They know very well that the true core of everyday racism is masked as this respect, even identity politics is suspicious here. From South Africa friends told me when they were fighting for black votes against apartheid, you know who
technological mind, you women have more holistic approach, you don't exploit nature, you are in dialogue with nature'. I told ladies there, if your boyfriend tells you this, run away as quickly as you can." There you are lost, you know. And it's not a joke, I mean it seriously. Talk with real minorities people, Native Americans, blacks and so on. They know very well that the true core of everyday racism is masked as this respect, even identity politics is suspicious here. From South Africa friends told me when they were fighting for black votes against apartheid, you know who
unknown
advocated apartheid? "We blacks
advocated apartheid? "We blacks
Slavoj Žižek
should go our way." The king of one province there who was open paid by apartheid. Apartheid justified itself in almost Marxist term. I read an apartheid brochure where they say: "If we just give blacks the same right, it will be all the same technological alienated culture and so on, so it's precisely to keep the diversity of cultures that we need apartheid" and so on. The first formula in New Zealand, I said this they applauded me. The first formula of anti-racism is: yes, we white liberals are consumerist, alienated. Allow the poor also to become like us, don't terrorize the poor, you can't be yourself and so on. Here you must be very precise and define what you mean by greater outcome. You know, of course, I'm sorry to say but I'm here open, I talk like this to
should go our way." The king of one province there who was open paid by apartheid. Apartheid justified itself in almost Marxist term. I read an apartheid brochure where they say: "If we just give blacks the same right, it will be all the same technological alienated culture and so on, so it's precisely to keep the diversity of cultures that we need apartheid" and so on. The first formula in New Zealand, I said this they applauded me. The first formula of anti-racism is: yes, we white liberals are consumerist, alienated. Allow the poor also to become like us, don't terrorize the poor, you can't be yourself and so on. Here you must be very precise and define what you mean by greater outcome. You know, of course, I'm sorry to say but I'm here open, I talk like this to
unknown
my
my
Slavoj Žižek
black
black
unknown
friends. If I were to find myself on a street protest you are a white guy beat me, rob my car, whatever, of course I would even run for the police, I mean. I'm not this kind of a crazy leftist who would say: "Okay, we
friends. If I were to find myself on a street protest you are a white guy beat me, rob my car, whatever, of course I would even run for the police, I mean. I'm not this kind of a crazy leftist who would say: "Okay, we
Slavoj Žižek
exploited you so come beat me you have the right," you know. That's what I already said, I would return to that. I don't think we have here a certain energy of rage, protest, and it's open, it's I don't have a simple answer. Let's hope it will be articulated in some consistent program and it's not clear, even I don't have a simple formula how to do it. For example, some people like even Christopher Hitchens were for general reparations to black people, that I don't know how many trillions should be given so that every black guy gets something and so on and so on. I doubt if this would have worked. It would maybe stigmatize them even more, you know. Real racism which is not just embedded that's the problem of political correctness. They treat racism as if it's deep in their soul, some prejudices, and if a black guy for example robs you or beats you, they all of a sudden reify objectify him. They say "he's not responsible, he's a product of exploitation, circumstances." Many black friends complain to me, it's horrible what they are doing. They seem to show sympathy for us, but the fact is that they treat even the worst racist as morally responsible, that's why they are guilty, and they treat us blacks as just product of circumstances and so on. It's not it's a very complex process. Economic measures, logic of social recognition, but what I would especially emphasize is no liberal patronizing. You know, even affirmative action, I am for it. But often like I had a black friend who is excellent student, but he told me precisely his liberal white friends, he detected how they treat him as "ah yeah, you are here at Princeton because it's affirmative action, like otherwise we know you wouldn't be here." Black people it's not just their objective circumstances that we should change. They should be treated as as morally responsible adult people, not patronized. Let me conclude with another story that you will find amusing. I met in Paris years ago a guy from Nigeria, who told me that he read a book, an old travelogue by a British guy who said he visited Nigeria and he never saw people who were so evil, cheating him, stealing from him. And this guy said this was a good non-racist book. He treated them as normal evil people. "Yes, most of the people are egotist, evil and so on." There was none of this patronizing attitude in it. So that's the true key to anti-racism and the same thing I'm saying to my and they accept it, Muslim friends from Arab countries. Respecting you doesn't mean "oh you beat your wife, that's your way of life." No, respecting you means precisely not treat you as a as a child who doesn't know what are human rights, but openly addressing to you these questions: "Sorry, what you are doing with women is not right," and so on and so on. We shouldn't because then you get that absurd situation with some European leftists that on the one hand, you know, if I as a European look with a certain desire, do nothing, at a woman
exploited you so come beat me you have the right," you know. That's what I already said, I would return to that. I don't think we have here a certain energy of rage, protest, and it's open, it's I don't have a simple answer. Let's hope it will be articulated in some consistent program and it's not clear, even I don't have a simple formula how to do it. For example, some people like even Christopher Hitchens were for general reparations to black people, that I don't know how many trillions should be given so that every black guy gets something and so on and so on. I doubt if this would have worked. It would maybe stigmatize them even more, you know. Real racism which is not just embedded that's the problem of political correctness. They treat racism as if it's deep in their soul, some prejudices, and if a black guy for example robs you or beats you, they all of a sudden reify objectify him. They say "he's not responsible, he's a product of exploitation, circumstances." Many black friends complain to me, it's horrible what they are doing. They seem to show sympathy for us, but the fact is that they treat even the worst racist as morally responsible, that's why they are guilty, and they treat us blacks as just product of circumstances and so on. It's not it's a very complex process. Economic measures, logic of social recognition, but what I would especially emphasize is no liberal patronizing. You know, even affirmative action, I am for it. But often like I had a black friend who is excellent student, but he told me precisely his liberal white friends, he detected how they treat him as "ah yeah, you are here at Princeton because it's affirmative action, like otherwise we know you wouldn't be here." Black people it's not just their objective circumstances that we should change. They should be treated as as morally responsible adult people, not patronized. Let me conclude with another story that you will find amusing. I met in Paris years ago a guy from Nigeria, who told me that he read a book, an old travelogue by a British guy who said he visited Nigeria and he never saw people who were so evil, cheating him, stealing from him. And this guy said this was a good non-racist book. He treated them as normal evil people. "Yes, most of the people are egotist, evil and so on." There was none of this patronizing attitude in it. So that's the true key to anti-racism and the same thing I'm saying to my and they accept it, Muslim friends from Arab countries. Respecting you doesn't mean "oh you beat your wife, that's your way of life." No, respecting you means precisely not treat you as a as a child who doesn't know what are human rights, but openly addressing to you these questions: "Sorry, what you are doing with women is not right," and so on and so on. We shouldn't because then you get that absurd situation with some European leftists that on the one hand, you know, if I as a European look with a certain desire, do nothing, at a woman
unknown
I'm immediately sexual predator, if a Muslim guy covers his woman, oh it's not just exploitation, it can be a form of her to regain some... You know, I I believe I'm an old-fashioned universalist. I don't believe too much into cultural differences. I don't believe that we cannot understand my foreign
I'm immediately sexual predator, if a Muslim guy covers his woman, oh it's not just exploitation, it can be a form of her to regain some... You know, I I believe I'm an old-fashioned universalist. I don't believe too much into cultural differences. I don't believe that we cannot understand my foreign
Slavoj Žižek
cultures really. If you ask me naively, it's difficult to understand some culture, but if you make if you try it seriously you can do it. There are different ways. One way is ah, I will give you other examples although there are different theories why. For example, I read somewhere, maybe it's not true, I read a couple of years ago, do you know that Cuban immigrants are on average in United States as rich as Jews, even more? I don't mean it in an anti-semitic way. They are very successful. I read an explanation, what do you think Samo? You deal with this, maybe it works. That to emigrate from Cuba nonetheless involves certain risks and dangers, so it's clearly the those who are more active, creative and so on do it. So there is a certain positive selection. I don't think I think that there's an argument towards positive selection, but I think it's often the strength of these immigrant communities. So it's not the fact that they're filtered, but the fact that they are strong communities that exist in a different say hyper-atomized context that actually helps them a bunch. Right, so it is the social fabric between them. Definitely. So this would be one way, for example, you may correct me if I'm wrong, but with Koreans it's the same. Just in my domain, they have many very good philosophers, social scientists and so on. And that's the message, you know. It's not just with affirmative action and money donations we will help them. At some level they should also help themselves. That's why my favorite answer of Malcolm X, it's in the movie and I emphasized it... Malcolm X, the autobiography is great, everyone should just always read Malcolm X. You remember the scene in the movie when after giving a talk at some campus a white girl comes to him and said: "You impressed me so much, what can I do to help you?" and he said: "Nothing." But it was a refined the point is not "don't help us." The problem is "help us in our attempt to redeem ourselves." You will not do the work for us. Because if you adopt this "oh they need help," you are already in this liberal racist trap and Malcolm X saw this clearly. That's why as I always repeat it, I like already his idea of X, X means
cultures really. If you ask me naively, it's difficult to understand some culture, but if you make if you try it seriously you can do it. There are different ways. One way is ah, I will give you other examples although there are different theories why. For example, I read somewhere, maybe it's not true, I read a couple of years ago, do you know that Cuban immigrants are on average in United States as rich as Jews, even more? I don't mean it in an anti-semitic way. They are very successful. I read an explanation, what do you think Samo? You deal with this, maybe it works. That to emigrate from Cuba nonetheless involves certain risks and dangers, so it's clearly the those who are more active, creative and so on do it. So there is a certain positive selection. I don't think I think that there's an argument towards positive selection, but I think it's often the strength of these immigrant communities. So it's not the fact that they're filtered, but the fact that they are strong communities that exist in a different say hyper-atomized context that actually helps them a bunch. Right, so it is the social fabric between them. Definitely. So this would be one way, for example, you may correct me if I'm wrong, but with Koreans it's the same. Just in my domain, they have many very good philosophers, social scientists and so on. And that's the message, you know. It's not just with affirmative action and money donations we will help them. At some level they should also help themselves. That's why my favorite answer of Malcolm X, it's in the movie and I emphasized it... Malcolm X, the autobiography is great, everyone should just always read Malcolm X. You remember the scene in the movie when after giving a talk at some campus a white girl comes to him and said: "You impressed me so much, what can I do to help you?" and he said: "Nothing." But it was a refined the point is not "don't help us." The problem is "help us in our attempt to redeem ourselves." You will not do the work for us. Because if you adopt this "oh they need help," you are already in this liberal racist trap and Malcolm X saw this clearly. That's why as I always repeat it, I like already his idea of X, X means
unknown
no, we
no, we
Slavoj Žižek
will not... Gentlemen,
will not... Gentlemen,
unknown
I'm going to
I'm going to
Slavoj Žižek
jump in because we have
jump in because we have
unknown
run out of time.
run out of time.