Could COVID destroy capitalism?
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2021-01-19 · 0:58:27 · 6,604 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologyecology-climatefascism-populismdemocracyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warliberalism-political-correctnesstechnology-ai-cyberspaceeconomics
In this interview, Žižek argues that the COVID-19 pandemic is not merely a medical crisis but a socio-economic rupture that has accelerated tendential contradictions within capitalism, forcing even conservatives to adopt quasi-socialist emergency measures. He examines the rise of right-wing authoritarian capitalism (Hungary, Poland, Singapore/China model), the strategic position of the American democratic left under Biden, and the ideological stakes of returning to 'normality.' He also addresses ecology, digital commons privatization, and the proper left response to populist violence, contending that the left must go radical rather than centrist to build a genuine majority.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 14
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's framing of COVID as a 'Kill Bill'-style strike that exposes and accelerates latent tendencies of capitalist crisis rather than simply destroying capitalism outright.
as “tendential law (Tendenzgesetz)”
Marx's concept of the falling rate of profit as a tendency that triggers class struggle and counter-strategies rather than an automatic deterministic outcome; Žižek uses it to frame COVID as a tendency-blow to capitalism rather than its direct cause.
Žižek treats both leftist minority identity politics and rightist white identity politics as reactions to underlying tendential changes rather than autonomous political forces.
as “health egalitarianism”
Žižek's formulation for the minimal consensus forced by COVID: that vaccines and healthcare must be distributed globally and equally as a structural requirement, not a moral preference.
as “universal basic income”
Emergency pandemic checks distributed even under Trump, offered by Žižek as evidence that quasi-communist economic measures are being normalised under the pressure of crisis.
as “political economy”
Žižek insists the economy must become genuinely political again, that social control over the economy is a necessity, not an optional extra, given the convergence of pandemics and climate crisis.
as “new digital commons”
Žižek's extension of the Marxist concept of enclosure to the internet and digital infrastructure, where platforms like Microsoft, Twitter and Amazon privatize shared communicative space and extract rent from users.
as “rent over profit”
Drawing on Italian Marxists, Žižek argues that big digital capital increasingly profits not by exploiting workers' labour but by collecting rents from privatized commons (operating systems, platforms, distribution networks).
Mark Fisher's concept, the ideological horizon in which it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, invoked to ask whether COVID has broken that horizon.
Walter Benjamin's thesis, 'behind every fascism there is a failed revolution', which Žižek invokes to argue that today's authoritarian populism is a reaction to leftist revolutionary potential.
Following Greta Thunberg and Alenka Zupančič, Žižek argues that 'the impossible' means what is impossible within the existing socio-economic coordinates, not literally magical, and this is exactly what the left must demand.
as “ideological overdetermination of the possible”
Žižek (via Zupančič) notes that what counts as 'possible' or 'impossible' is ideologically determined: space travel is possible, raising taxes is not, this is the ideological horizon the left must break.
Žižek argues that the attitude of panic before ecological catastrophe is a perverse jouissance, people secretly enjoy watching the world fall apart because it excuses passivity.
Žižek approvingly cites Luis Arce's self-description as a 'socialist technocrat', a figure who combines radical economic objectives with technocratic competence, as a useful political type.
Stories he reaches for 5
Gates became one of the wealthiest men not by super-exploiting workers but by privatizing part of the digital commons, the shared communicative infrastructure, and collecting a small rent from the majority of humanity.
“He privatized part of our commons, of our common space...He owns part of our public media and for this we are all paying him a rent.”
After a right-wing coup in Bolivia, Evo Morales's third man Luis Arce, who defined himself as a 'socialist technocrat' and pointed to the country's record under socialist governance, won back power through elections, which Žižek presents as proof that radical politics can succeed.
“He defined itself as a socialist technocrat. Wonderful definition.”
Žižek argues that the authoritarian but economically efficient Singapore model, which Deng Xiaoping explicitly adopted for China, is the true origin of today's right-wing statist capitalism, not an exception to it.
“Lee Kuan Yew...the founder of modern efficient Singapore...Deng Xiaoping when he started his reforms, he visited Singapore...Singapore should be the model for all of China.”
During the Chilean uprising, the protesters' slogan was not 'if we take over the world will not fall apart' but 'we want another end of the world', which Žižek endorses as the correct left attitude to systemic collapse.
“We want another end of the world. That should be our slogan today.”
The QAnon shaman who stormed the Capitol wore a horned Viking helmet as a symbol of authentic white identity, but real Vikings never wore horned helmets, the image was invented by late Romanticism, possibly in early Wagner opera stagings.
“real Vikings never had these horns on their helmets. This was the invention of late romanticism...even think in stagings of some of the early Wagner's operas.”
Works invoked 4
Capital book
Cited for Marx's analysis of the tendential law of the falling rate of profit; described as 'wonderful terms' and 'fully, fully valid'.
Violence book
Žižek's own book, referenced when the interviewer asks how his concept of violence illuminates COVID-era changes.
Capitalist Realism book
Mark Fisher's book, invoked by the interviewer; the central phrase ('easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism') is attributed by Žižek to Jameson, not Fisher.
Kill Bill film
Used as a metaphor by the interviewer (and endorsed by Žižek) to describe COVID as a sudden devastating blow to capitalism analogous to the film's signature attack.
People invoked 23
Alenka Zupančič positive
Cited as 'good friend' who noted a decade ago that what is possible or impossible is ideologically overdetermined; Žižek draws on this to argue for doing the impossible.
Lee Kuan Yew positive
Cited as the founder of Singapore's authoritarian-efficient capitalism, which Deng Xiaoping adopted as a model for China; Žižek uses him to identify the true template of contemporary statist capitalism.
Luis Arce positive
Praised as a 'socialist technocrat' who won back Bolivia after the coup by pointing to the concrete improvements under the Morales government; presented as a positive model.
Deng Xiaoping positive
Cited as having explicitly modelled Chinese economic reforms on Singapore after visiting Lee Kuan Yew; used to show the genealogy of authoritarian capitalism.
Mike Davis positive
Cited for an analysis showing how the Democratic Party alienated surprising numbers of Black, Latino, and female voters; Žižek calls it 'a good analysis, a little bit boring, too many data but nonetheless'.
Donald Trump positive
Treated as the exemplar of postmodern cynical relativism despite his anti-postmodern rhetoric; Žižek sees his rise as tendentially useful for the American left but his rule as destructive.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Described as a 'great guy, serious theorist' whom Žižek is 'honoured to know'; cited as Morales's deputy and key intellectual figure of the Bolivian left.
Used as the prototype of the liberal centrist who exploits the threat of the far right to suppress the radical left; Žižek wrote about this 'years ago apropos Macron'.
Nathuram Godse negative
Gandhi's assassin is mentioned with shock as having been 'beatified' in Hindu nationalist circles, with a monument erected; cited as evidence of a global authoritarian tendency.
Fredric Jameson positive
Credited (correcting the interviewer) as the actual author of the phrase 'easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism'.
Bernie Sanders positive
Mentioned as likely Senate Budget Committee chair; his supporters' mobilisation credited with building the American democratic socialist movement.
Julian Assange positive
Cited as having been aware of the tendency to privatise digital commons before it became mainstream discussion.
Mark Fisher positive
Mentioned as having popularised (or possibly coined) the 'capitalist realism' phrase/concept; described by the interviewer as a 'late cultural theorist'.
Evo Morales positive
Mentioned as the leader of the Bolivian left who was overthrown in a right-wing coup but whose movement returned to power via Luis Arce; cited as an example of successful left resistance.
Angela Nagle positive
Cited approvingly ('not very popular now but she was onto something') for the point that the left should stop performing provocative transgression now that the right has appropriated transgression and violence.
Jacques-Alain Miller negative
Žižek says some former friends, including Lacanian circles around Miller in France, coined the term 'Le Pen-Trotskyist' to smear leftists who criticised Macron; Žižek rejects this as Stalinist blackmail.
Bill Gates positive
Used as the paradigmatic case of rentier digital capitalism, wealth extracted from privatizing the digital commons rather than from labour exploitation; 'great reset' ideology mocked.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Praised for immediately insisting after Biden's election that 'now the peace is over, now we have to strongly insist on our line', cited as a model of not surrendering to liberal blackmail.
Greta Thunberg positive
Quoted approvingly: 'it's not enough, let's do the impossible', Žižek endorses this as the correct political demand that breaks existing ideological coordinates.
Walter Benjamin positive
Cited for the phrase 'behind every fascism there is a failed revolution', which Žižek treats as proven again and again by contemporary authoritarian populism.
Jordan Peterson negative
Žižek debated him, aiming to convert his audience by showing that Trump, not the left, embodied the postmodern relativism Peterson's followers claimed to oppose.
Žižek is 'not a great believer in Biden'; sees him as likely to triangulate, use the left's votes without concessions, and attempt to restore a pre-2016 normality that was already broken.
Karl Marx positive
Invoked extensively for the tendential law of the falling rate of profit, the concept of political economy, and the analysis of enclosure of the commons; described as 'fully valid' on tendential laws.
What it argues
COVID-19 as tendential rupture in capitalismthe left's strategic position under Biden and after Trumpright-wing authoritarian statist capitalism as the default futureprivatization of digital commons as new enclosurethe impossibility of return to normalitythe necessity of radical politics over centrist pragmatismecology and nature's irreversible transformation
Dialectical moves 8
“Those who call for a return to old normality are themselves the worst expression of postmodern historicism and relativism — the very thing they claim to oppose.”
The reactionary defence of tradition is itself saturated by the postmodern irony it denounces, exposing its own performative contradiction.
“Trump is a more postmodern president than any postmodernist — he is the ultimate cynical relativist and ironist.”
The anti-postmodern right is embodied by the most cynically relativist figure imaginable, inverting the standard opposition.
“Even those who fight the tendency toward social control of the economy are already reacting to it — they are already inside it.”
The counter-tendency confirms rather than refutes the underlying tendency; resistance is already a form of acknowledgment.
“The only way to a popular majority is to go to an extreme — the paradox is that moderation loses while radicalism wins.”
In moments of great social upheaval, the dialectic reverses: the path to the majority runs through the extreme, not the centre.
“We don't want to prevent the end of the world — we want another end of the world.”
Instead of conserving the existing world against catastrophe, the left should embrace collapse as the occasion for building a different world.
“Panic is a perverse enjoyment: people secretly like catastrophe because it lets them watch the world fall apart and feel they can do nothing.”
Catastrophism presents itself as political urgency but is actually a form of jouissance that forecloses political agency.
“The pandemic is not simply a medical-scientific problem — that framing is already ideology.”
Presenting COVID as a purely technical matter depoliticizes what is at root a socio-economic process, serving the interests of the status quo.
“What counts as possible or impossible today is ideologically overdetermined — space travel is possible, raising taxes is not.”
The ideological horizon determines what appears as 'realistic', making the demand for the 'impossible' the genuinely realistic political act.
Claims 14
asserts
COVID is not simply a medical crisis but a tendential blow to capitalism that has accelerated structural contradictions that were already latent.COVID-19 and capitalism
asserts
There will be no return to pre-pandemic normality because mutating viruses, further pandemics, and global warming will sustain and deepen the crisis.post-COVID normality
asserts
The pandemic forced even conservative governments to adopt emergency measures (universal basic income, state intervention) that would previously have been dismissed as left-wing madness.emergency economics and ideological shift
asserts
The default future trajectory of capitalism, if left unchallenged, is not liberal democracy but authoritarian statist capitalism on the Singapore/China model.future of capitalism
asserts
Today's big digital capital (Microsoft, Twitter, Amazon) has shifted from profit to rent by privatising digital commons, which represents a new form of enclosure analogous to the 15th–16th century enclosure of farmland.digital capitalism and rent extraction
asserts
Calls for a return to 'authentic' traditions (e.g. white identity politics, Viking imagery) are themselves products of late Romanticism and postmodern historicism — the very things their advocates claim to oppose.right-wing identity politics and authenticity
rejects
The left should reject the liberal blackmail that says 'support us now to stop fascism and raise your demands later', because this cycle always defers radical change indefinitely.liberal–left electoral strategy
asserts
The left should go to an extreme — not mad factionalism, but stating its radical position honestly — because in moments of great social upheaval the only path to a popular majority runs through the extreme.left electoral and political strategy
rejects
Panic about ecological catastrophe is a perverse ideological enjoyment that functions to disable political agency; the correct response is to demand 'another end of the world' — to accept collapse as a chance.ecological panic and political passivity
rejects
The suspension of politics in favour of technocratic crisis management ('let's beat COVID first, politics later') is the worst possible mistake because we are living through a fundamentally political moment.depoliticisation under emergency management
reframes
Today the right-wing populist forces, not the left, constitute the true source of violence and lawlessness, so the traditional liberal challenge to the left about how far it is willing to go in violence should be turned back on the right.violence and political extremism
asserts
Trump's rise was accelerated, not caused, by the failure of the Democratic establishment to address the structural concerns of ordinary people, and without COVID he would likely have won re-election.Trumpism and its causes
asserts
Today's fascism is a reaction not against liberal capitalism as such but against leftist revolutionary potential — confirming Benjamin's thesis behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.fascism and revolutionary failure
asserts
Some form of social control over the economy — what Marxists called political economy — is now not a utopian demand but a structural necessity, and silently everybody already knows this.socialist economics as necessity
Quotes 10
“It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”unknown · capitalist realism / ideological horizon
“We want another end of the world. That should be our slogan today.”Slavoj Žižek · revolutionary acceptance of collapse as political opportunity
“Panic is for me a typical perverse position of enjoyment. People secretly like panic because it means let's just watch the world falling down, falling apart, I can't do anything.”Slavoj Žižek · panic as perverse jouissance / ecological passivity
“It's not enough, let's do the impossible. By impossible, of course she doesn't mean magic. She means impossible within the existing socio-economic and political context.”Slavoj Žižek · doing the impossible / breaking ideological coordinates
“Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.”Slavoj Žižek · fascism as reaction to revolutionary potential (Benjamin)
“He was the ultimate cynical relativist, ironist and so on — can you imagine a more postmodern president than Donald Trump?”Slavoj Žižek · Trumpism as postmodernism / anti-postmodern right's self-contradiction
“Somebody has to be consistently telling the truth. The truth should be heard about the need for a more radical change.”Slavoj Žižek · the left's obligation to radical honesty over tactical compromise
“The economy should become literally what Marxists said, political economy. I simply see this as a necessity and my point is that silently everybody agrees with it.”Slavoj Žižek · political economy as structural necessity / silent consensus
“It's possible Neuralink, our brains could be completely transparent...But to raise taxes, to give a percent more money to health care, no, that's impossible.”Slavoj Žižek · ideological overdetermination of the possible
“He defined itself as a socialist technocrat. Wonderful definition.”Slavoj Žižek · socialist technocrat as political model
Transcript 24 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I am very grateful to be here and I admire you. You must be doing something right for one simple reason, that today's media, I know, I was the victim of it, you know, like they say, oh, Western freedom, yeah, but if you go a little bit towards the direction which is not, which is not, which is not really, not tolerated by those who nonetheless dominate the public space, you can be excluded. I know, you remember we talked about it, like ten years ago I regularly appear in New York Times and so on, then slowly, slowly out, out. And I admire you sincerely how you were able to avoid this fate, you know, without making any compromises. Now I'm talking about you, not about this interview, you know. Please,
I am very grateful to be here and I admire you. You must be doing something right for one simple reason, that today's media, I know, I was the victim of it, you know, like they say, oh, Western freedom, yeah, but if you go a little bit towards the direction which is not, which is not, which is not really, not tolerated by those who nonetheless dominate the public space, you can be excluded. I know, you remember we talked about it, like ten years ago I regularly appear in New York Times and so on, then slowly, slowly out, out. And I admire you sincerely how you were able to avoid this fate, you know, without making any compromises. Now I'm talking about you, not about this interview, you know. Please,
unknown
please, I mean, when I interviewed you, I mean, obviously, huge admirer always, but interviewed you three years ago, it feels like a different.
please, I mean, when I interviewed you, I mean, obviously, huge admirer always, but interviewed you three years ago, it feels like a different.
Slavoj Žižek
I remember. Yeah,
I remember. Yeah,
unknown
we were on the roof of The Guardian, the sun was shining, we got attacked by a helicopter, I don't know if you remember that. But Slavoj, I'm going to ask you this. This is something which I've been thinking about a lot, so and it's something based on what you said recently. If we think back to the financial crisis, crisis of there was an element on the left who thought neoliberalism has self-evidently been discredited and from the rubble the left will re-emerge and at least for the first few years that didn't happen. But I know recently what you've said is the pandemic is, and say this in your own words, is like a Kill Bill attack on capitalism. So is this different from the financial crisis? Is this a crisis, and explain what you mean by a Kill Bill attack on capitalism? Okay,
we were on the roof of The Guardian, the sun was shining, we got attacked by a helicopter, I don't know if you remember that. But Slavoj, I'm going to ask you this. This is something which I've been thinking about a lot, so and it's something based on what you said recently. If we think back to the financial crisis, crisis of there was an element on the left who thought neoliberalism has self-evidently been discredited and from the rubble the left will re-emerge and at least for the first few years that didn't happen. But I know recently what you've said is the pandemic is, and say this in your own words, is like a Kill Bill attack on capitalism. So is this different from the financial crisis? Is this a crisis, and explain what you mean by a Kill Bill attack on capitalism? Okay,
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. I like that you directly attacked me apropos, no, not attack me, sorry, asked the right question apropos of a point which many people now mention regularly, ask, haha, admit it that at least here you were wrong. No, I think still that I am right. But you know in what sense. We should take the forthcoming crisis of capitalism, I think, in, I already developed this at some point publicly but I think this deserves to be repeated, with a category which is one of the great Marxist categories still very much of use today. The category of, how do you call it in English, tendential law, Tendenzgesetz, tendency of. Like as Marx explains in wonderful terms in Capital, here Marx is fully, fully valid, we have tendential law of the fall of profit rate. But this doesn't mean it is automatically falling. It means it's a tendency which is, which triggers a long-term struggle, ultimately class struggle, and the opposite side, the capital, uses all possible strategies to counter this, and Marx is not a determinist, it depends on the political struggle. So it can also happen, Marx himself makes this hint, that in the long, not even in the short term, for a considerable time the profit rate even raises, is getting up. But what we should not forget is that these temporary successes are nonetheless a reaction to this. You know, it's the same as another point to illustrate this category which makes me hated in some circles. When we talk about back to some primordial identity, identity politics, which can be given, I know, a leftist twist, minorities, minor races and so on, and a rightist twist, like basically the people who tried to occupy or did for some time Capitol, were doing their own version of white identity politics. People took power, but of course a close analysis shows that people took power meant upper, upper, okay, middle class was afraid of the moderate, as it was, progress with sexual rights, LGBT, against racial hatred and so on and so on, and was reacting to this. It was a reaction to a certain tendency. In this sense, I think, and those in power know it very well, that COVID is this type of a blow. The whole strategy of those in power is to, this is their formula, to return to some kind of normality and so on and so on. But this is already a mediated position. Everybody knows a radical break is here. Just look at how the structure of capitalism is changing. You know, I mentioned this a couple of times, I hope your public doesn't know it, but remember that idiot, that jerk, who, one of the guys most visible on the cameras, there are billionaires behind, we don't talk about them, who entered the Capitol with those stupid pseudo-Viking helmet, or rather it was a cap with horns, you know. Is this supposed to signal probably some white supremacy, return to authentic people's power. But you know what's the beautiful irony? Do you know, check it up on Wikipedia wherever you want, that real Vikings never had these horns on their helmets. This was the invention of late romanticism, some people, it's not clear where it appeared for the first few times, even think in stagings of some of the early Wagner's operas. So, so we should never forget that all, and this goes generally, all those calls for a return to old normality, our life is stolen, we want our life back and so on and so on, they are the worst possible expression of, let's call, what's the expression of the right-wingers, postmodern historicism, relativism, cynical irony and so on. Even in that unfortunate debate with Peterson, I insisted and that's why I went there, I wanted to convince some of his partisans, I told them, you are afraid of postmodern moral relativism, historicism, everything is irony and so on. Well, if you are critical towards this tendency, then overthrow Trump. Can you imagine a more postmodern in this sense only president than Donald Trump? He was the ultimate cynical relativist, ironist and so on and so on. So back to your question so that I don't lose track. In this sense I think that what happened with COVID, it's not simply the origin of all evil and it's not simply a medical scientific problem, this is already ideology. But it triggered some process which I think does announce a new stage of our social being. The options are clear. On the one hand is this new populist Trumpian barbarism which we don't know how it will end, even maybe in some kind of a new feudal society with safe zones, protected local civil wars everywhere. It may end in new technocracy. This is the Bill Gates dream of the great reset and so on and so on. But we all know, and that's for me nonetheless unique, that's what fascinated me from the beginning. Yes, big countries cheat, they buy much more vaccines and so on and so on, like if there is a guy who is not anti-Semitic it's me. But just it makes me very sad, just look at what Israel is doing now. They have a record on vaccinating people but West Bank Palestinians are practically excluded from it. But nonetheless it is very important that the great majority of people had to admit some obvious facts as principles at least. First, that the only solution to COVID is some kind of basic, basic health egalitarianism. We should fight against COVID globally, make vaccine to everybody as accessible as possible. Second thing, even when conservatives are in power, they had to make economic decisions, gestures which, if somebody were just to propose them a year or year and a half ago, he or she or it would be dismissed as leftist madman, are you crazy and so on. Even Trump had to do some kind of a very corrupted and of course twisted in the wrong way, it's a question whom he was helping, but nonetheless some kind of universal basic income, checks for everyone, some kind of more active control of the state, controlling not the state control over big industry and so on and so on. So it is clear that we all somehow know that the tendency is towards something that we usually designate, I use provocatively the term communism, but you know why. Because everybody is a socialist today. I don't believe in that word. It's nice that they succeeded, democratic socialism in the United States in rehabilitating it. But you know what makes me suspicious is that I think that in some interview, my god, even, even Bill Gates said in some sense I am a socialist. Yes, they mean just more social solidarity, all that bullshit and so on, you know. But basically it's clear that this is the tendency. Now I know what people immediately then reply to me. This is now when there is an emergency. But then of course regimes do this during big wars and so on. But then when things go back to normal it's the old order of exploitation and so on and so on. My answer to this is things, I'm simply more of a pessimist here, things will not so simply go back to normal. First, there are all the mutations long-term consequences of this pandemic. Then other pandemics are on the horizon. Then global warming will be a much greater problem. So I simply don't see any solution outside some kind of social control over economy. Economy should become literally what Marxists said, political, what Marxists said, political economy. I simply see this as a necessity and my point is that silently everybody agrees with it and even those who fight it are already reacting to it. It's a tendency of our time. We should face it, there will not be a return to normal, although incidentally I know what we are being deprived of. And I, this is my big obsession, I always try to understand the bad guys. Not simply dismissing them as neo-fascists and so on. Yes, they are that. But nonetheless it's a mystified expression of some concerns which I understand. Like, you know, ordinary people who claim we want our lives back, our freedom back and so on and so on. Okay, it's clear, as simple analysis demonstrates, that what they want back are their middle class, are their middle class privileges. And first, it's not just lower middle class, it's not just that part of a white middle class which feels threatened. But they are also as we know now more and more discreetly supported by a considerable part of billionaires of the big capital. But nonetheless, don't underestimate the everyday, not reasonableness, I don't agree with it, but the way this must sound normal to them. My god, American way of life means freedom to move around, you get drunk in a bar, you are personally, you think you are free, you have the right to own guns, to circulate freely and so on and so on, certain modes of socializing, social life and so on. And, you know, we shouldn't allow the new right to hegemonize this aspect. It's very important. Just the last thing then I finish with my long introduction. The only point not of sympathy, it's too obscene to say this, but of suspicion, and that's a dark potential. I'm not saying anything original, many people said it, I will just try to give it a Marxist twist. You remember when Facebook and Twitter shut off, cancelled Trump's accounts or websites and so on. It should have been done. What I just didn't like is this specific way they did it. You remember in the news it was Facebook or Twitter cancelled, blocked Donald Trump's site. Okay, who did it? Is there an ethical committee there or whatever? And this brings me back to my big Marxist point where I base my work on some Italian Marxists who pointed out that, probably you know the theory, that today not all, but a strong part of new big digital capital or capital which organizes distribution is moving back from profit to rent. My simple old example, it has to be repeated again and again. How did Bill Gates become one of the wealthiest men in the world? It's not that he is extra exploiting his workers. No, maybe he is even paying them relatively well. But he did something that Marx didn't see clearly, he couldn't at his time as a possibility. He privatized part of our commons, of our common space. Not only in pandemic now, already before, we are now communicating, probably I don't know, I am unfortunately through Microsoft and so on. He owns part of our public media and for this we are all paying him a rent. It's not a high rent, but it's from majority of us, so you become a billionaire. And this is the new thing now. Julian Assange was aware of this. This tendency of privatizing our commons. These new commons, not the old commons, the farmland, forests, they did it in 15th, 16th century, classical case described by Marx. But these new commons, like if you communicate on the web you go through Microsoft, if you want a more personal communication which is no longer personal today, you tweet, if you want to buy books other things it's Amazon and so on and so on. So we should treat this, I'm not talking just about nationalization in old sense, but we should establish some kind of private control, other, otherwise we will also end on that list. So what worries me is how Donald Trump was excluded. He should have been, but it wasn't even clear who did it. Twitter did it. Sorry, who? Do they have some committee, what criteria? If we don't raise this question now, we will be next on the list if nothing else on, because centrist liberals are now worried about balance. Some Republicans, even some of those who voted for Trump's impeachment, said but we must have a balanced approach, there is violence on both sides and so on and so on. So the situation is here very complex, not that I'm in any way, let's be serious, defending Trump. But I am not a great believer in Biden. But I've spoken too long, I'm sorry, you need my standard point joke I have to repeat it, you know, dress up as a lady and put black leather and a whip, you know, more like my dominatrix.
yeah. I like that you directly attacked me apropos, no, not attack me, sorry, asked the right question apropos of a point which many people now mention regularly, ask, haha, admit it that at least here you were wrong. No, I think still that I am right. But you know in what sense. We should take the forthcoming crisis of capitalism, I think, in, I already developed this at some point publicly but I think this deserves to be repeated, with a category which is one of the great Marxist categories still very much of use today. The category of, how do you call it in English, tendential law, Tendenzgesetz, tendency of. Like as Marx explains in wonderful terms in Capital, here Marx is fully, fully valid, we have tendential law of the fall of profit rate. But this doesn't mean it is automatically falling. It means it's a tendency which is, which triggers a long-term struggle, ultimately class struggle, and the opposite side, the capital, uses all possible strategies to counter this, and Marx is not a determinist, it depends on the political struggle. So it can also happen, Marx himself makes this hint, that in the long, not even in the short term, for a considerable time the profit rate even raises, is getting up. But what we should not forget is that these temporary successes are nonetheless a reaction to this. You know, it's the same as another point to illustrate this category which makes me hated in some circles. When we talk about back to some primordial identity, identity politics, which can be given, I know, a leftist twist, minorities, minor races and so on, and a rightist twist, like basically the people who tried to occupy or did for some time Capitol, were doing their own version of white identity politics. People took power, but of course a close analysis shows that people took power meant upper, upper, okay, middle class was afraid of the moderate, as it was, progress with sexual rights, LGBT, against racial hatred and so on and so on, and was reacting to this. It was a reaction to a certain tendency. In this sense, I think, and those in power know it very well, that COVID is this type of a blow. The whole strategy of those in power is to, this is their formula, to return to some kind of normality and so on and so on. But this is already a mediated position. Everybody knows a radical break is here. Just look at how the structure of capitalism is changing. You know, I mentioned this a couple of times, I hope your public doesn't know it, but remember that idiot, that jerk, who, one of the guys most visible on the cameras, there are billionaires behind, we don't talk about them, who entered the Capitol with those stupid pseudo-Viking helmet, or rather it was a cap with horns, you know. Is this supposed to signal probably some white supremacy, return to authentic people's power. But you know what's the beautiful irony? Do you know, check it up on Wikipedia wherever you want, that real Vikings never had these horns on their helmets. This was the invention of late romanticism, some people, it's not clear where it appeared for the first few times, even think in stagings of some of the early Wagner's operas. So, so we should never forget that all, and this goes generally, all those calls for a return to old normality, our life is stolen, we want our life back and so on and so on, they are the worst possible expression of, let's call, what's the expression of the right-wingers, postmodern historicism, relativism, cynical irony and so on. Even in that unfortunate debate with Peterson, I insisted and that's why I went there, I wanted to convince some of his partisans, I told them, you are afraid of postmodern moral relativism, historicism, everything is irony and so on. Well, if you are critical towards this tendency, then overthrow Trump. Can you imagine a more postmodern in this sense only president than Donald Trump? He was the ultimate cynical relativist, ironist and so on and so on. So back to your question so that I don't lose track. In this sense I think that what happened with COVID, it's not simply the origin of all evil and it's not simply a medical scientific problem, this is already ideology. But it triggered some process which I think does announce a new stage of our social being. The options are clear. On the one hand is this new populist Trumpian barbarism which we don't know how it will end, even maybe in some kind of a new feudal society with safe zones, protected local civil wars everywhere. It may end in new technocracy. This is the Bill Gates dream of the great reset and so on and so on. But we all know, and that's for me nonetheless unique, that's what fascinated me from the beginning. Yes, big countries cheat, they buy much more vaccines and so on and so on, like if there is a guy who is not anti-Semitic it's me. But just it makes me very sad, just look at what Israel is doing now. They have a record on vaccinating people but West Bank Palestinians are practically excluded from it. But nonetheless it is very important that the great majority of people had to admit some obvious facts as principles at least. First, that the only solution to COVID is some kind of basic, basic health egalitarianism. We should fight against COVID globally, make vaccine to everybody as accessible as possible. Second thing, even when conservatives are in power, they had to make economic decisions, gestures which, if somebody were just to propose them a year or year and a half ago, he or she or it would be dismissed as leftist madman, are you crazy and so on. Even Trump had to do some kind of a very corrupted and of course twisted in the wrong way, it's a question whom he was helping, but nonetheless some kind of universal basic income, checks for everyone, some kind of more active control of the state, controlling not the state control over big industry and so on and so on. So it is clear that we all somehow know that the tendency is towards something that we usually designate, I use provocatively the term communism, but you know why. Because everybody is a socialist today. I don't believe in that word. It's nice that they succeeded, democratic socialism in the United States in rehabilitating it. But you know what makes me suspicious is that I think that in some interview, my god, even, even Bill Gates said in some sense I am a socialist. Yes, they mean just more social solidarity, all that bullshit and so on, you know. But basically it's clear that this is the tendency. Now I know what people immediately then reply to me. This is now when there is an emergency. But then of course regimes do this during big wars and so on. But then when things go back to normal it's the old order of exploitation and so on and so on. My answer to this is things, I'm simply more of a pessimist here, things will not so simply go back to normal. First, there are all the mutations long-term consequences of this pandemic. Then other pandemics are on the horizon. Then global warming will be a much greater problem. So I simply don't see any solution outside some kind of social control over economy. Economy should become literally what Marxists said, political, what Marxists said, political economy. I simply see this as a necessity and my point is that silently everybody agrees with it and even those who fight it are already reacting to it. It's a tendency of our time. We should face it, there will not be a return to normal, although incidentally I know what we are being deprived of. And I, this is my big obsession, I always try to understand the bad guys. Not simply dismissing them as neo-fascists and so on. Yes, they are that. But nonetheless it's a mystified expression of some concerns which I understand. Like, you know, ordinary people who claim we want our lives back, our freedom back and so on and so on. Okay, it's clear, as simple analysis demonstrates, that what they want back are their middle class, are their middle class privileges. And first, it's not just lower middle class, it's not just that part of a white middle class which feels threatened. But they are also as we know now more and more discreetly supported by a considerable part of billionaires of the big capital. But nonetheless, don't underestimate the everyday, not reasonableness, I don't agree with it, but the way this must sound normal to them. My god, American way of life means freedom to move around, you get drunk in a bar, you are personally, you think you are free, you have the right to own guns, to circulate freely and so on and so on, certain modes of socializing, social life and so on. And, you know, we shouldn't allow the new right to hegemonize this aspect. It's very important. Just the last thing then I finish with my long introduction. The only point not of sympathy, it's too obscene to say this, but of suspicion, and that's a dark potential. I'm not saying anything original, many people said it, I will just try to give it a Marxist twist. You remember when Facebook and Twitter shut off, cancelled Trump's accounts or websites and so on. It should have been done. What I just didn't like is this specific way they did it. You remember in the news it was Facebook or Twitter cancelled, blocked Donald Trump's site. Okay, who did it? Is there an ethical committee there or whatever? And this brings me back to my big Marxist point where I base my work on some Italian Marxists who pointed out that, probably you know the theory, that today not all, but a strong part of new big digital capital or capital which organizes distribution is moving back from profit to rent. My simple old example, it has to be repeated again and again. How did Bill Gates become one of the wealthiest men in the world? It's not that he is extra exploiting his workers. No, maybe he is even paying them relatively well. But he did something that Marx didn't see clearly, he couldn't at his time as a possibility. He privatized part of our commons, of our common space. Not only in pandemic now, already before, we are now communicating, probably I don't know, I am unfortunately through Microsoft and so on. He owns part of our public media and for this we are all paying him a rent. It's not a high rent, but it's from majority of us, so you become a billionaire. And this is the new thing now. Julian Assange was aware of this. This tendency of privatizing our commons. These new commons, not the old commons, the farmland, forests, they did it in 15th, 16th century, classical case described by Marx. But these new commons, like if you communicate on the web you go through Microsoft, if you want a more personal communication which is no longer personal today, you tweet, if you want to buy books other things it's Amazon and so on and so on. So we should treat this, I'm not talking just about nationalization in old sense, but we should establish some kind of private control, other, otherwise we will also end on that list. So what worries me is how Donald Trump was excluded. He should have been, but it wasn't even clear who did it. Twitter did it. Sorry, who? Do they have some committee, what criteria? If we don't raise this question now, we will be next on the list if nothing else on, because centrist liberals are now worried about balance. Some Republicans, even some of those who voted for Trump's impeachment, said but we must have a balanced approach, there is violence on both sides and so on and so on. So the situation is here very complex, not that I'm in any way, let's be serious, defending Trump. But I am not a great believer in Biden. But I've spoken too long, I'm sorry, you need my standard point joke I have to repeat it, you know, dress up as a lady and put black leather and a whip, you know, more like my dominatrix.
unknown
On to dominatrices already minutes in. So I mean, Slavoj, what the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher, who I knew, he died about four years ago and he wrote a book called Capitalist Realism, and actually and there's two points two things I want to put to you. I mean, he he said he was partly either paraphrasing you or Fredric Jameson it's never been entirely clear, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. It's Jameson, it's Jameson, I refer to him, I must be very clear here. Okay. Well, that summed up the period he was writing about. I'm firstly asking are we still in that period? And the second is linked to the point you made about what, well great, one second because you've got I really want to hear your answer that, but the
On to dominatrices already minutes in. So I mean, Slavoj, what the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher, who I knew, he died about four years ago and he wrote a book called Capitalist Realism, and actually and there's two points two things I want to put to you. I mean, he he said he was partly either paraphrasing you or Fredric Jameson it's never been entirely clear, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. It's Jameson, it's Jameson, I refer to him, I must be very clear here. Okay. Well, that summed up the period he was writing about. I'm firstly asking are we still in that period? And the second is linked to the point you made about what, well great, one second because you've got I really want to hear your answer that, but the
unknown
other is linked to it which is about this new consensus you spoke about. Is there a danger look at for example the regime in Hungary or look at the regime in Poland. Hungary can't be called a democracy anymore. And what it is is a right-wing authoritarian regime which has raided some of the economic ideas of the left. They nationalized pension funds. In Poland they are very pro the welfare state, they have a policy of nationalizing the finance sector, Polonization they call it. So firstly that point about you know about capitalism and how hegemonic its ideology remains, but isn't the danger that in the aftermath of this a new right-wing authoritarian statist form of capitalism could emerge?
other is linked to it which is about this new consensus you spoke about. Is there a danger look at for example the regime in Hungary or look at the regime in Poland. Hungary can't be called a democracy anymore. And what it is is a right-wing authoritarian regime which has raided some of the economic ideas of the left. They nationalized pension funds. In Poland they are very pro the welfare state, they have a policy of nationalizing the finance sector, Polonization they call it. So firstly that point about you know about capitalism and how hegemonic its ideology remains, but isn't the danger that in the aftermath of this a new right-wing authoritarian statist form of capitalism could emerge?
Slavoj Žižek
Absolutely. I think that I see the good some good things about liberal democracy. We shouldn't underestimate them. It's nice to be able to have even if it's subtly marginalized your voice to be heard, plurality and so on. Don't forget that for example as critical as we should be on the Victorian England, but Marx was able to publicly organize the First International, to publish there and so on and so on. What I am afraid is that this liberal international global capitalism the way we knew it is gradually being eroded. That it will be, and it's not just, don't focus too much on those countries, rather look for the same tendencies elsewhere. For example what shocked me, did you read the news, I think yesterday I read it, I don't even know his name and I don't want to remember it, but you know the murderer of Mahatma Gandhi? You know that now he was beatified in Hindu circles. There is a monument to him, they claim he did the right thing that Gandhi was a traitor because although deeply religious in the Hindu sense, he always insisted on the equal rights of Muslims and so on and so on. So this is just another example of I think what is a general tendency. Full integration into global capitalism but accompanied by authoritarian state which is not necessarily economically inefficient. I think that the new formula of successful capitalism is the strong cooperation between big capital and the state. It's even not necessarily as ominous as it sound. For example, that's the mystery of North Korea, the model of all it, as I often wrote, is he's the true origin of what where we are today. You know Lee Kuan Yew, what, half a century ago, the founder of modern efficient Singapore. You know that Deng Xiaoping when he started his reforms, he visited Singapore. Every any public place they show you this video. That's their moment of pride. And they and he told publicly on screen Singapore should be the model for all of China. And not that I am against China, I think they did in economy in some at some level great stuff. They did till now. Now there are cracks appearing relatively very good against COVID. Although again don't focus just on China. Remember that although again I don't like them too much, but remember that Taiwan is even more successful. Don't forget Vietnam, very successful and so on and so on. But what I'm saying is that in different ways Putin, Russia, today's China, Turkey, even Trump and so on. This type of capitalism is if we just let things go their under quotation marks natural way I think this is our future. But I would quote precisely then as a proof of my thesis, I you must know this I always repeat this Walter Benjamin's phrase which some people claim Benjamin even never put it exactly in this terms, but behind every fascism there is a failed revolution. It's for me an old leftist idea but I think it's proven again and again today. That that that fascism is always by definition a reaction not against liberal capitalism as such but against some leftist revolutionary potential. This is I think the true struggle that is ahead of us. Which is why I also think of course we should make tactical or even strategic pacts pacts with left centrist sorry liberal democrats fighting for LGBT rights against racism and so on and so on. But at the end we should set limits to it. For example what I liked is that the democratic socialist, the left wing of American Democratic Party, concretely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez immediately said after the elections now the peace is over, now we have to strongly insist on our line. Because I've written about it already years ago apropos Macron, I think. I'm very afraid of this that the threat of this new rightist authoritarian populism will be appropriated by what Trump calls, I don't like the term, the deep state, the liberal establishment as the way to control more radical left. You know, like we allow them all the power then every four years or whatever when they need our votes in a general election they will say, oh, but listen, the enemy is now Le Pen, Trump, whoever, and now we must stand all together to prevent the danger, that danger. And some of my ex-friends, like some Lacanians in France, even went so far as to accuse those who, while of course preferring Macron to Marine Le Pen, but just pointed out that Macron is maybe even the best but the best within the existing establishment. You know what term was coined by Jacques-Alain Miller? Le Pen-Trotskyist. That they are Trotskyists who really, to use the Stalinist terms which are appropriate here, objectively is in the service of right. We shouldn't surrender to this blackmail more than ever and that's the lesson that we should took from don't you agree from Trump. What's Trump's success? You remember when he was making the first four years ago electoral propaganda he went more and more to this populist extreme and and some people in Republican Party said isn't he too radical? You know this obsession we must keep the center. No, he succeeded precisely by going to a certain type of fake of course extreme. We on the left should not be afraid with all the wisdom and moderation but nonetheless basically we should be doing this. There are situations of great social upheaval change and so on where it's a nice properly dialectical paradox, where the only way to popular majority is to go to an extreme, an extreme in this sense doesn't mean some mad factional leftism but stating basically honestly your radical
Absolutely. I think that I see the good some good things about liberal democracy. We shouldn't underestimate them. It's nice to be able to have even if it's subtly marginalized your voice to be heard, plurality and so on. Don't forget that for example as critical as we should be on the Victorian England, but Marx was able to publicly organize the First International, to publish there and so on and so on. What I am afraid is that this liberal international global capitalism the way we knew it is gradually being eroded. That it will be, and it's not just, don't focus too much on those countries, rather look for the same tendencies elsewhere. For example what shocked me, did you read the news, I think yesterday I read it, I don't even know his name and I don't want to remember it, but you know the murderer of Mahatma Gandhi? You know that now he was beatified in Hindu circles. There is a monument to him, they claim he did the right thing that Gandhi was a traitor because although deeply religious in the Hindu sense, he always insisted on the equal rights of Muslims and so on and so on. So this is just another example of I think what is a general tendency. Full integration into global capitalism but accompanied by authoritarian state which is not necessarily economically inefficient. I think that the new formula of successful capitalism is the strong cooperation between big capital and the state. It's even not necessarily as ominous as it sound. For example, that's the mystery of North Korea, the model of all it, as I often wrote, is he's the true origin of what where we are today. You know Lee Kuan Yew, what, half a century ago, the founder of modern efficient Singapore. You know that Deng Xiaoping when he started his reforms, he visited Singapore. Every any public place they show you this video. That's their moment of pride. And they and he told publicly on screen Singapore should be the model for all of China. And not that I am against China, I think they did in economy in some at some level great stuff. They did till now. Now there are cracks appearing relatively very good against COVID. Although again don't focus just on China. Remember that although again I don't like them too much, but remember that Taiwan is even more successful. Don't forget Vietnam, very successful and so on and so on. But what I'm saying is that in different ways Putin, Russia, today's China, Turkey, even Trump and so on. This type of capitalism is if we just let things go their under quotation marks natural way I think this is our future. But I would quote precisely then as a proof of my thesis, I you must know this I always repeat this Walter Benjamin's phrase which some people claim Benjamin even never put it exactly in this terms, but behind every fascism there is a failed revolution. It's for me an old leftist idea but I think it's proven again and again today. That that that fascism is always by definition a reaction not against liberal capitalism as such but against some leftist revolutionary potential. This is I think the true struggle that is ahead of us. Which is why I also think of course we should make tactical or even strategic pacts pacts with left centrist sorry liberal democrats fighting for LGBT rights against racism and so on and so on. But at the end we should set limits to it. For example what I liked is that the democratic socialist, the left wing of American Democratic Party, concretely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez immediately said after the elections now the peace is over, now we have to strongly insist on our line. Because I've written about it already years ago apropos Macron, I think. I'm very afraid of this that the threat of this new rightist authoritarian populism will be appropriated by what Trump calls, I don't like the term, the deep state, the liberal establishment as the way to control more radical left. You know, like we allow them all the power then every four years or whatever when they need our votes in a general election they will say, oh, but listen, the enemy is now Le Pen, Trump, whoever, and now we must stand all together to prevent the danger, that danger. And some of my ex-friends, like some Lacanians in France, even went so far as to accuse those who, while of course preferring Macron to Marine Le Pen, but just pointed out that Macron is maybe even the best but the best within the existing establishment. You know what term was coined by Jacques-Alain Miller? Le Pen-Trotskyist. That they are Trotskyists who really, to use the Stalinist terms which are appropriate here, objectively is in the service of right. We shouldn't surrender to this blackmail more than ever and that's the lesson that we should took from don't you agree from Trump. What's Trump's success? You remember when he was making the first four years ago electoral propaganda he went more and more to this populist extreme and and some people in Republican Party said isn't he too radical? You know this obsession we must keep the center. No, he succeeded precisely by going to a certain type of fake of course extreme. We on the left should not be afraid with all the wisdom and moderation but nonetheless basically we should be doing this. There are situations of great social upheaval change and so on where it's a nice properly dialectical paradox, where the only way to popular majority is to go to an extreme, an extreme in this sense doesn't mean some mad factional leftism but stating basically honestly your radical
unknown
view. Joe Biden, in advance, someone put a question to me to ask you, this is from Pippa Tandy, what good will come from Biden? I suppose there's two things. What do you think Bidenism will be? Will it just be an attempt because it presented itself as a return to a long-lost normalcy, a a pre-2016 idyllic era as far as lots of centrists were concerned, that wasn't the reality for millions of Americans hence partly Trump. Of course. But secondly do
view. Joe Biden, in advance, someone put a question to me to ask you, this is from Pippa Tandy, what good will come from Biden? I suppose there's two things. What do you think Bidenism will be? Will it just be an attempt because it presented itself as a return to a long-lost normalcy, a a pre-2016 idyllic era as far as lots of centrists were concerned, that wasn't the reality for millions of Americans hence partly Trump. Of course. But secondly do
Slavoj Žižek
you think the American left because the American left is a political force now in a way it wasn't previously. So that's very important and interrupted then immediately give you the verbal point. You see that's the only reason that I did the thing which cost me more enemies than anything else to say I exaggerated a little bit I mean I admit it to say Trump is better than Hillary. Trump intro- without Trump I doubt if democratic socialism what they call like this would gain such a force in United States. Because also don't forget another thing, also with COVID, you know we should learn not in a cheap manipulative way, but we should learn in a proper political way to, I don't like the word exploit, but to deal with COVID because on the one Trump towards COVID it's a very interesting antagonistic relationship. On the one hand it was basically the pandemic which ruined Trump. I'm afraid that without the pandemic Trump would have won again even in a relatively easy way. But on the
you think the American left because the American left is a political force now in a way it wasn't previously. So that's very important and interrupted then immediately give you the verbal point. You see that's the only reason that I did the thing which cost me more enemies than anything else to say I exaggerated a little bit I mean I admit it to say Trump is better than Hillary. Trump intro- without Trump I doubt if democratic socialism what they call like this would gain such a force in United States. Because also don't forget another thing, also with COVID, you know we should learn not in a cheap manipulative way, but we should learn in a proper political way to, I don't like the word exploit, but to deal with COVID because on the one Trump towards COVID it's a very interesting antagonistic relationship. On the one hand it was basically the pandemic which ruined Trump. I'm afraid that without the pandemic Trump would have won again even in a relatively easy way. But on the
unknown
other hand I think that
other hand I think that
Slavoj Žižek
that Trump's, how should I call it, anti-cognitive in the sense of don't worry in the sense of dismissing all the big problems that we are facing today to as part of a conspiracy theory to some enemy. Like what are the fears for ordinary people? China, unfair competition, pandemic, global warming, racial unrest and so on and so on. To this instead of confronting this problem to dis- to dismiss them. Then you get the leftist paranoiac theory. And I don't think by far that the battle is lost here. But sorry I interrupted you, please go on. Well no, I mean I was asking what concrete leverage do you think the American left could have? I mean it's been reported, well we know that Bernie Sanders is likely to become the Senate Budget Committee chair so a powerful position. The so-called squad of progressives, most famous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, but now revitalized Cori Bush is a new addition and they're obviously riding a wave, there's a wave that they've ridden. You know, and what's interesting is younger people, there's often this misconception of younger people they're they're more likely to be attracted to left-wing politics because of university life schools. Not true. I mean in the 1960s the most pro-Vietnam War generation were the young, the most hostile were the old. In the mid-80s the most pro-Reagan demographic were the young. In Amer- in Britain. You know I know this from firsthand, in late 80s, sorry to interrupt you but I cannot resist it. In early 80s, sorry late 80s early 90s I visited for the first time United States and I also visited Berkeley the symbol of 60s and I was told that the paradox is that the professor years later, a typical professor, not majority, but the most active part, were the old 60s leftists. And it was no longer the old conflict radical leftist students protesting conservative pro-Republican professors, it was the other way around. Professors much more left than students. Sorry go on. Yeah, so in terms of the leverage the US left is going to have, how much because some will argue that actually Joe Biden, you know he relied on the votes of Bernie Sanders' supporters in order to become president of the United States. Yeah, but a lot of votes he also lost. Did you read, sorry to interrupt you, that's my nature. Did you read a good analysis, a little bit boring too many data but nonetheless, did you read a good analysis by Mike Davis who demonstrated also a surprising number of Blacks, Latinos, even women, how Democratic Party alienated them. But go on, sorry. Yeah, well I just mean in concrete terms how much leverage do you think the US left will actually will actually be able to have? How many concessions do you think they'll be able to extract from the Biden administration or will the Biden administration just triangulate, take their votes for granted but give them very little in material in in practical material sense? I, I say that on the one hand one should of course be pragmatic. I don't like these pseudo-radical leftists who secretly even prefer that they lose and then from their safe academic post they can write complex analyses what mistakes we made. Yes, we should be pragmatic but not too much, you know, in what precise sense. Listen, the fact that now Democrats had even less of a majority in the Congress. But the number of so-called radical socialists is larger, they did very well where they were candidates. So one can predict what will happen probably in many cases, that Biden
that Trump's, how should I call it, anti-cognitive in the sense of don't worry in the sense of dismissing all the big problems that we are facing today to as part of a conspiracy theory to some enemy. Like what are the fears for ordinary people? China, unfair competition, pandemic, global warming, racial unrest and so on and so on. To this instead of confronting this problem to dis- to dismiss them. Then you get the leftist paranoiac theory. And I don't think by far that the battle is lost here. But sorry I interrupted you, please go on. Well no, I mean I was asking what concrete leverage do you think the American left could have? I mean it's been reported, well we know that Bernie Sanders is likely to become the Senate Budget Committee chair so a powerful position. The so-called squad of progressives, most famous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, but now revitalized Cori Bush is a new addition and they're obviously riding a wave, there's a wave that they've ridden. You know, and what's interesting is younger people, there's often this misconception of younger people they're they're more likely to be attracted to left-wing politics because of university life schools. Not true. I mean in the 1960s the most pro-Vietnam War generation were the young, the most hostile were the old. In the mid-80s the most pro-Reagan demographic were the young. In Amer- in Britain. You know I know this from firsthand, in late 80s, sorry to interrupt you but I cannot resist it. In early 80s, sorry late 80s early 90s I visited for the first time United States and I also visited Berkeley the symbol of 60s and I was told that the paradox is that the professor years later, a typical professor, not majority, but the most active part, were the old 60s leftists. And it was no longer the old conflict radical leftist students protesting conservative pro-Republican professors, it was the other way around. Professors much more left than students. Sorry go on. Yeah, so in terms of the leverage the US left is going to have, how much because some will argue that actually Joe Biden, you know he relied on the votes of Bernie Sanders' supporters in order to become president of the United States. Yeah, but a lot of votes he also lost. Did you read, sorry to interrupt you, that's my nature. Did you read a good analysis, a little bit boring too many data but nonetheless, did you read a good analysis by Mike Davis who demonstrated also a surprising number of Blacks, Latinos, even women, how Democratic Party alienated them. But go on, sorry. Yeah, well I just mean in concrete terms how much leverage do you think the US left will actually will actually be able to have? How many concessions do you think they'll be able to extract from the Biden administration or will the Biden administration just triangulate, take their votes for granted but give them very little in material in in practical material sense? I, I say that on the one hand one should of course be pragmatic. I don't like these pseudo-radical leftists who secretly even prefer that they lose and then from their safe academic post they can write complex analyses what mistakes we made. Yes, we should be pragmatic but not too much, you know, in what precise sense. Listen, the fact that now Democrats had even less of a majority in the Congress. But the number of so-called radical socialists is larger, they did very well where they were candidates. So one can predict what will happen probably in many cases, that Biden
unknown
would not be able to push a certain measure without their voices. He doesn't have in Congress enough of a majority. And I think democratic socialists, whatever you call them, should ruthlessly exploit this. No, you cannot just count automatically on our support. We don't accept this game to the end, you know. Oh, sorry, Trump is ultimate evil, so whatever you do anything we will forget about our principles. No, in short term this may work, but in
would not be able to push a certain measure without their voices. He doesn't have in Congress enough of a majority. And I think democratic socialists, whatever you call them, should ruthlessly exploit this. No, you cannot just count automatically on our support. We don't accept this game to the end, you know. Oh, sorry, Trump is ultimate evil, so whatever you do anything we will forget about our principles. No, in short term this may work, but in
Slavoj Žižek
the long term this is a catastrophe because I believe in just a little bit of historical memory. Somebody has to be consistently telling the truth. The truth should be heard about the need for a more radical change and so on and so on. And the most dangerous are situations where nobody is telling the truth. Listen, I had debates with some, let's call them conservative liberals and even they I was surprised how after the show when you I don't like long meals but just take a drink, they take a beer I take a coke and so on, and they told me I the usual answer I get is no, you are a dreamer, but yes in some sense you are right. It just cannot be done now. You know, so many of them admit it. They just have some worries or as she is now full age, a couple of days ago she was I think, Greta Thunberg, no. I quoted her she said something very nice, she said till now that those in power want to tell us about ecology and so on, we are doing all that's possible. Well, our answer should be, sorry, it's not enough, let's do the impossible. By impossible, of course she doesn't mean magic. She means impossible within the existing socio-economic and political context. We should in this sense be more radical. Don't accept the coordinates of the global situation the way it is. We
the long term this is a catastrophe because I believe in just a little bit of historical memory. Somebody has to be consistently telling the truth. The truth should be heard about the need for a more radical change and so on and so on. And the most dangerous are situations where nobody is telling the truth. Listen, I had debates with some, let's call them conservative liberals and even they I was surprised how after the show when you I don't like long meals but just take a drink, they take a beer I take a coke and so on, and they told me I the usual answer I get is no, you are a dreamer, but yes in some sense you are right. It just cannot be done now. You know, so many of them admit it. They just have some worries or as she is now full age, a couple of days ago she was I think, Greta Thunberg, no. I quoted her she said something very nice, she said till now that those in power want to tell us about ecology and so on, we are doing all that's possible. Well, our answer should be, sorry, it's not enough, let's do the impossible. By impossible, of course she doesn't mean magic. She means impossible within the existing socio-economic and political context. We should in this sense be more radical. Don't accept the coordinates of the global situation the way it is. We
unknown
have to begin to change it because as my good friend Alenka Zupancic noted a decade or more ago, what is possible or what is impossible today is ideologically overdetermined. For example, it's we are bombarded in the media by this news. It's possible Neuralink, our brains could be completely transparent, interact directly with computers, we can have prolonged lives, whatever, travel to other planets, that's possible. But to raise taxes, to give percent more money to health care, no, that's impossible and so on. You know these are very- in this sense we should do the impossible. If not, then I'm afraid we are lost. If we don't follow this line, even if it means not gaining power now or
have to begin to change it because as my good friend Alenka Zupancic noted a decade or more ago, what is possible or what is impossible today is ideologically overdetermined. For example, it's we are bombarded in the media by this news. It's possible Neuralink, our brains could be completely transparent, interact directly with computers, we can have prolonged lives, whatever, travel to other planets, that's possible. But to raise taxes, to give percent more money to health care, no, that's impossible and so on. You know these are very- in this sense we should do the impossible. If not, then I'm afraid we are lost. If we don't follow this line, even if it means not gaining power now or
Slavoj Žižek
being side-step manipulated, then I'm afraid that scenario that you hinted at, you know, that a new Trump, which I think will still be a demagogic clown, but more intelligent in the sense of organizing the background support of state organizations like secret police and so on, big capital and so on, may really come back. Because again Trump is specifically an American phenomenon but it's an American expression of a global trend today. Don't have any illusions here. Europe is just relatively lucky till now. It's
being side-step manipulated, then I'm afraid that scenario that you hinted at, you know, that a new Trump, which I think will still be a demagogic clown, but more intelligent in the sense of organizing the background support of state organizations like secret police and so on, big capital and so on, may really come back. Because again Trump is specifically an American phenomenon but it's an American expression of a global trend today. Don't have any illusions here. Europe is just relatively lucky till now. It's
unknown
clear that's one of the few I wouldn't say good news, there are no good news. But news which at least allow for some cautious optimism, that neither France nor Spain nor Germany and so on, at least for the time being, in none of these
clear that's one of the few I wouldn't say good news, there are no good news. But news which at least allow for some cautious optimism, that neither France nor Spain nor Germany and so on, at least for the time being, in none of these
Slavoj Žižek
countries this populist radical right can raise above, I think their limit is percent. And I think that's why political struggle is important. Even in the United States, I read, I don't know who did it, an analysis. This is for me the true danger of the United States, where they did a big opinion poll among the Democratic congressman and ordinary, sorry, Republican congressmen
countries this populist radical right can raise above, I think their limit is percent. And I think that's why political struggle is important. Even in the United States, I read, I don't know who did it, an analysis. This is for me the true danger of the United States, where they did a big opinion poll among the Democratic congressman and ordinary, sorry, Republican congressmen
unknown
ordinary and asked them what's their stance towards what happened in Capitol. Almost half of them supported the violent attack on Capitol. Now, if you do some simple mathematics, this means and extrapolate, this means that United States have now around million of people who consider a scenario
ordinary and asked them what's their stance towards what happened in Capitol. Almost half of them supported the violent attack on Capitol. Now, if you do some simple mathematics, this means and extrapolate, this means that United States have now around million of people who consider a scenario
Slavoj Žižek
like attacking the Capitol, which means right-wing mob in all its brutality as legitimate. And again, the problem is, and I think will they survive the demolition of Donald Trump, unfortunately I think they will. And I think that but the battle is not lost for a simple reason that pandemic, other struggles will go on. And I hope maybe I am in a too crazy way pessimist here, I think there will be again new problem, new problems, global warming. Are people afraid that people associate global warming with yes some forest is burning a little bit there and oh my god the last summer was a little bit hot. But did you or some of your viewers read my text where I quote a certain analysis which really shocked me. Germans began it with it, when Berlin was totally bombed also most of the plants grass was ruined. So they thought oh no problem, in a couple of years Berlin will be green again. Yes it happened, but another species better adapted to this horrible post-bombing condition, a lot of dust in the air and so on, recaptured the space. The same is happening now in on the American west after the bushfires. The same is happening in Australia and so on. So nature is already radically changing. I don't want to raise panic. All I am saying is we need some transparent social control. Not panic, we are lost. Panic is for me a typical perverse position of enjoyment. People secretly like panic because it means let's just watch the world falling down, falling apart, I can't do anything. But you know what's my answer here, sorry if you know it, in Chile friends told me that when there was the explosion of unrest in you know what was their slogan? Not, no, if we take over the world will not fall apart. But we want another end of the world. That should be our slogan today. Yes, the old world is falling apart. No return to normality and we have to accept it but accept it as a chance. There is a chance and you know why, not because I'm some crazy optimist, but first again, the pandemic itself, isn't it obvious. The pandemic itself is not simply biochemical or whatever process. No, the pandemic is also a socio-economic process and there we have a space for political activity. We should never forget this. And so it's again I repeat my point what- which I've written at least times, but it's important. The- one threat is this populist denialism, oh it's just a plot it's really not so dangerous. But another threat is a threat of science, but in a bad sense. Science in the sense of now at this moment we are in a state of emergency, so let's forget about all ideological divisions, our political struggle. We just have to focus to beat the COVID and it's a scientific problem and problem of rational administrations, so stop politics till some kind of normality is restored. This is the worst imaginable mistake at this point, where again capitalism is already changing. It's incredibly how in United States as we know class divisions exploded, the the very rich became even more rich and and so on. We know the story no need to repeat it. But what I think is that we are not in an emergency state in the sense of we should all just deal with this emergency and forget about politics. Even more than now we live in a political moment. Just finally, you've got a question here, this was put to me by Mark Judd who was very excited about me interviewing you and he said, how can your concept of violence, which obviously you wrote a book about, how could it be useful in better understanding the changes we've seen in the world due to COVID and this is partly you've covered but what are your predictions of what a post-COVID world will look like? About violence, in contrast to what some people think and maybe even but what I in maybe some of my unfortunate formulations triggered, I am not in any sense for violence, especially not today where here I at least to some degree agree with somebody who is not very popular now but I still think he was she was onto something, Angela Nagle, who said that you know when I was young, she refers to that period, the discourse of those in power was the discourse of peace, law and order, dignity and so on. And we the left like to act provocatively, you know you do like this in front of the camera, you use obscene words and so on. No, no. Now we are at a- in a moment where and this is in some sense a good sign, it gives us a chance. Now we are in a moment where the right-wingers, Trumpists everywhere, more and more have to rely either on this state half violence, it's not direct violence but it's state exerting brutal non-democratic control, Poland, Hungary and so on, or even on direct violence. That's why when people tell me you sound so pessimist give me one good example, I tell them it's easy. Bolivia. Wasn't this a triumph of, I'm not a great lover of just free elections, many things can be done on behalf of protecting democracy, but look the miracle, the right-wing did a coup and even in those difficult conditions when the the right-wing regime control the state apparatus, the Morales forces, the third man, people usually talked only about Evo Morales and Alvaro Garcia Linera whom I am honored to know, a great guy, serious theorist, but I now discovered the third guy, Luis Arce. He was during all the Morales years first whatever in power, he was minister of economy and he defined itself as a socialist technocrat. Wonderful definition. And he just reminded people again and again, admit it this years that I was minister of economy, the average people in Bolivia you never had in spite of all foreign attempts to destabilize the regime, you never had it so so good. So I think that today of course at some point we need violence hopefully in a not physically violent way, but general strikes, mass demonstrations, whatever. But I think that all this Trump stupidities, Antifa they are the truly violent,
like attacking the Capitol, which means right-wing mob in all its brutality as legitimate. And again, the problem is, and I think will they survive the demolition of Donald Trump, unfortunately I think they will. And I think that but the battle is not lost for a simple reason that pandemic, other struggles will go on. And I hope maybe I am in a too crazy way pessimist here, I think there will be again new problem, new problems, global warming. Are people afraid that people associate global warming with yes some forest is burning a little bit there and oh my god the last summer was a little bit hot. But did you or some of your viewers read my text where I quote a certain analysis which really shocked me. Germans began it with it, when Berlin was totally bombed also most of the plants grass was ruined. So they thought oh no problem, in a couple of years Berlin will be green again. Yes it happened, but another species better adapted to this horrible post-bombing condition, a lot of dust in the air and so on, recaptured the space. The same is happening now in on the American west after the bushfires. The same is happening in Australia and so on. So nature is already radically changing. I don't want to raise panic. All I am saying is we need some transparent social control. Not panic, we are lost. Panic is for me a typical perverse position of enjoyment. People secretly like panic because it means let's just watch the world falling down, falling apart, I can't do anything. But you know what's my answer here, sorry if you know it, in Chile friends told me that when there was the explosion of unrest in you know what was their slogan? Not, no, if we take over the world will not fall apart. But we want another end of the world. That should be our slogan today. Yes, the old world is falling apart. No return to normality and we have to accept it but accept it as a chance. There is a chance and you know why, not because I'm some crazy optimist, but first again, the pandemic itself, isn't it obvious. The pandemic itself is not simply biochemical or whatever process. No, the pandemic is also a socio-economic process and there we have a space for political activity. We should never forget this. And so it's again I repeat my point what- which I've written at least times, but it's important. The- one threat is this populist denialism, oh it's just a plot it's really not so dangerous. But another threat is a threat of science, but in a bad sense. Science in the sense of now at this moment we are in a state of emergency, so let's forget about all ideological divisions, our political struggle. We just have to focus to beat the COVID and it's a scientific problem and problem of rational administrations, so stop politics till some kind of normality is restored. This is the worst imaginable mistake at this point, where again capitalism is already changing. It's incredibly how in United States as we know class divisions exploded, the the very rich became even more rich and and so on. We know the story no need to repeat it. But what I think is that we are not in an emergency state in the sense of we should all just deal with this emergency and forget about politics. Even more than now we live in a political moment. Just finally, you've got a question here, this was put to me by Mark Judd who was very excited about me interviewing you and he said, how can your concept of violence, which obviously you wrote a book about, how could it be useful in better understanding the changes we've seen in the world due to COVID and this is partly you've covered but what are your predictions of what a post-COVID world will look like? About violence, in contrast to what some people think and maybe even but what I in maybe some of my unfortunate formulations triggered, I am not in any sense for violence, especially not today where here I at least to some degree agree with somebody who is not very popular now but I still think he was she was onto something, Angela Nagle, who said that you know when I was young, she refers to that period, the discourse of those in power was the discourse of peace, law and order, dignity and so on. And we the left like to act provocatively, you know you do like this in front of the camera, you use obscene words and so on. No, no. Now we are at a- in a moment where and this is in some sense a good sign, it gives us a chance. Now we are in a moment where the right-wingers, Trumpists everywhere, more and more have to rely either on this state half violence, it's not direct violence but it's state exerting brutal non-democratic control, Poland, Hungary and so on, or even on direct violence. That's why when people tell me you sound so pessimist give me one good example, I tell them it's easy. Bolivia. Wasn't this a triumph of, I'm not a great lover of just free elections, many things can be done on behalf of protecting democracy, but look the miracle, the right-wing did a coup and even in those difficult conditions when the the right-wing regime control the state apparatus, the Morales forces, the third man, people usually talked only about Evo Morales and Alvaro Garcia Linera whom I am honored to know, a great guy, serious theorist, but I now discovered the third guy, Luis Arce. He was during all the Morales years first whatever in power, he was minister of economy and he defined itself as a socialist technocrat. Wonderful definition. And he just reminded people again and again, admit it this years that I was minister of economy, the average people in Bolivia you never had in spite of all foreign attempts to destabilize the regime, you never had it so so good. So I think that today of course at some point we need violence hopefully in a not physically violent way, but general strikes, mass demonstrations, whatever. But I think that all this Trump stupidities, Antifa they are the truly violent,
unknown
no. Today we are in an epoch where the right this new populist right is the only serious threat of violence. We should always remember this and not accept this old liberal trap to us leftists, ah how far are you ready to go. We should tell
no. Today we are in an epoch where the right this new populist right is the only serious threat of violence. We should always remember this and not accept this old liberal trap to us leftists, ah how far are you ready to go. We should tell
Slavoj Žižek
them what are you talking about? The new right is already overstepping all the legal legal limitations and so on, you know. Slavoj, that's a huge honor. Very very wide-ranging, as eloquent as ever. It's a huge honor in these turbulent times for for you to... Yeah but can I be totally cynical in my sense. That I sometimes I sincerely apologize, talked so much that under some TV series where you know the episodes are just a quarter of a quarter of an hour long, you know. Well you could have watched one of the these episodes through my long. I think it would be physically impossible to cut this down but also an act of cultural vandalism, so we're not going to engage in it, we're going to keep the whole masterpiece which people are going to appreciate and so thank you so much for joining us. No, I am really, really grateful to you and I mean this sincerely. I am not involved in kissing the ass business of
them what are you talking about? The new right is already overstepping all the legal legal limitations and so on, you know. Slavoj, that's a huge honor. Very very wide-ranging, as eloquent as ever. It's a huge honor in these turbulent times for for you to... Yeah but can I be totally cynical in my sense. That I sometimes I sincerely apologize, talked so much that under some TV series where you know the episodes are just a quarter of a quarter of an hour long, you know. Well you could have watched one of the these episodes through my long. I think it would be physically impossible to cut this down but also an act of cultural vandalism, so we're not going to engage in it, we're going to keep the whole masterpiece which people are going to appreciate and so thank you so much for joining us. No, I am really, really grateful to you and I mean this sincerely. I am not involved in kissing the ass business of
unknown
flattering
flattering
Slavoj Žižek
public persons, but I admire you are doing the right thing. You do get through your radical message but you take care you do it in such a reasonable pragmatic way and here I if anything I I blame myself that often I get carried away to some unfortunate formulations. So please stay alive, go on working.
public persons, but I admire you are doing the right thing. You do get through your radical message but you take care you do it in such a reasonable pragmatic way and here I if anything I I blame myself that often I get carried away to some unfortunate formulations. So please stay alive, go on working.