Interview with David Feldman
Interview · zizekpodcast.com ·
2022-03-07 · 1:28:31 · 12,293 words
with David Horowitz
democracyfascism-populismideologyliberalism-political-correctnessecology-climatecommunism-socialismgeopolitics-warhegel-dialecticspsychoanalysiscapitalismhistoryeveryday-life
Žižek participates in a wide-ranging panel discussion covering democracy, fascism, right-wing populism, the pandemic, ecology, China, leadership, and the role of ideology. He argues that concrete freedom requires accepting shared rules, that Trump is a symptom of liberal-democratic failure rather than classic fascism, and that global coordination (which he provocatively calls communism) is necessary to address climate change. The conversation also touches on jokes, stereotypes, political correctness, and the productive but dangerous power of partial, one-sided interpretations.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 15
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The idea that the best interpretations (of Hegel, or of any complex reality) are those that take one aspect and press it to its limit, rather than covering everything neutrally.
Freedom that is only possible against a background of accepted shared rules and social constraints, enabling actual participation in public life.
Formal freedom from constraint (e.g. refusing vaccination) that paradoxically undermines the real conditions of exercising freedom in practice.
The most dangerous form of unfreedom, illustrated by the United States, where subjects feel free while being deeply controlled and manipulated.
Trump is described as a symptom of what went wrong with the liberal-democratic consensus, requiring diagnosis of that consensus rather than mere rejection of Trump.
A leader who does not dictate what to do but awakens subjects to their own capacity for action ('yes you can'), distinguished from authoritarian leaders who claim to know what is good for you.
A position Žižek engages with, acknowledging that market unpredictability may be preferable to centralized state planning, which tends toward corruption.
Arendt's concept of bureaucratic evil without ideological conviction, which Žižek discusses as a correct notion applied to the wrong empirical example (Eichmann).
Arendt's strict concept, which Žižek notes she applies with precision to Stalinism only from the late 1940s, distinguishing it from fascism/Nazism.
Used here as the symbolic order of public authority and shared values, whose disintegration produces conspiracy theories and retribalization.
The social fragmentation and retreat into closed identity groups that results from the collapse of the big Other / shared public space.
A shared framework of social norms and authority that Žižek defends as a precondition of actual freedom, against both libertarian and authoritarian alternatives.
Implied in the discussion of how ideology functions materially in social relations, as when capitalist exploitation is systemic rather than personally willed.
as “authoritarian leader”
A leader whose motto is 'I know better than you what is good for yourself', as opposed to an authentic leader who solicits the subject's own agency.
as “hypocrisy as critical space”
The argument that bourgeois hypocrisy (formally proclaiming freedoms one does not fully grant) is preferable to cynical dismissal because it opens space for demands to be taken seriously.
Stories he reaches for 3
According to a friend of Deng's daughter, Deng's proudest act was resisting the temptation to go all the way to multi-party democracy, Žižek treats this seriously as a possible response to China's regional complexities.
“when Deng Xiaoping was dying...he said no to resist at that point the temptation to go all the way to multi-party democracy”
Arendt argued that even if parental authority has been eroded by social processes, parents still must act with authority; confessing impotence fails the child. Žižek extends this to politics.
“heroically even if this is true you must act with authority even if your authority is not justified this is not fascism this is the only way to be a good parent”
Bayard's book defends the intellectual value of not reading books in full; Žižek uses this to argue that comprehensive scholars of Hegel often produce worse interpretations than partial readers.
“Pierre Bayard wrote among other things a wonderful book called How to Write About Books That You Haven't Read”
Works invoked 7
Arendt's book is discussed via Bayard: the concept of banality of evil is correct and important, even though Eichmann himself was the wrong example (a fanatical antisemite, not a banal bureaucrat).
Pierre Bayard's book cited repeatedly and approvingly to defend partial interpretation and the productive force of not reading everything.
Larry David's post-Seinfeld show admired for its willingness to court controversy and use dark humor, nearly getting him 'prohibited'.
Heaven in Disorder book
Žižek's third volume of political writings, noted as forthcoming at the time of the conversation.
Nomadland film
Criticized (without being seen) alongside Black Widow as an example of films Žižek is critical toward.
Žižek's own book plugged at the end of the conversation; second in a series of political writings.
Black Widow film
One of several recent 'big hit' films Žižek wrote critically about in New Statesman or Spectator without having seen them, cited as an example of his Stalinist right to critique films unseen.
People invoked 26
Paul Mason positive
British friend whose analysis of right-wing populism as the disintegration of the neoliberal character (updating Arendt via Fromm) Žižek endorses enthusiastically.
Brazilian friend who proposed alternative scenarios for US withdrawal from Afghanistan, including using moderate Muslim countries as peacekeepers.
Mary Wollstonecraft positive
Cited as an example of how formal bourgeois freedoms were extended through political struggle, women demanding the same rights proclaimed for men.
Described as one of the original bad guys of American politics, a proto-Trump populist who championed ordinary people while conducting genocide against Native Americans.
Referenced via a follower's book on 'left Hayekianism', which Žižek engages with to acknowledge that market unpredictability may be preferable to centralized state planning.
Pierre Bayard positive
Repeatedly cited with approval; his books on reading books one hasn't read and on fictions that produce correct ideas are used to illustrate the productive force of partial interpretation.
Extremely critical of Xi's authoritarianism and narrowing of public space in China, but notes he is addressing income inequality and concentration of wealth, though Žižek is skeptical of success without genuine popular feedback.
His deathbed claim that his greatest act was resisting multi-party democracy is taken seriously by Žižek as a possible response to China's regional complexities, not dismissed as mere cynicism.
Analyzed as a symptom of liberal-democratic failure rather than a classical fascist; his populist logic is seen as distinct from authoritarian fascism, and his lesson about the need for sharp division is taken seriously even if negatively evaluated.
Larry David positive
Admired up to a certain level for his willingness to use dark humor about the Holocaust in ways that work precisely because the absurdity is obvious.
Étienne Balibar positive
Cited for the observation that the focus on individual responsibility (e.g. recycling) is a way capitalism reproduces itself by deflecting structural critique.
Oscar Wilde positive
Cited for the witty advice that reviewing a book one has read risks making the review partial, used to endorse partial, one-sided interpretation.
Chinese leftist philosopher cited for the anecdote about Deng Xiaoping's dying words on multi-party democracy.
Bernie Sanders positive
Mentioned with no illusions but as a sign of hope, the mass leftist movement he represents is seen as meaningful even if Sanders himself is not idealized.
Julian Assange positive
Defended against critics; his achievement condensed into the insight that the most dangerous unfreedom is the one experienced as freedom.
Yanis Varoufakis negative
Described as a good friend but criticized for being tempted to celebrate the fall of Kabul as a defeat of imperialist neocolonialism, a position Žižek finds too simple.
Erich Fromm positive
Referenced via Paul Mason's article as a psychological framework for understanding right-wing populism and the disintegration of character structure.
Mentioned as a European example of right-wing government that Europeans rightly oppose but whose success reflects failures of the liberal-democratic consensus.
Many things Mao did genuinely horrified Žižek, but his early Cultural Revolution call 'you have the right to rebel' is cited as the kind of mobilizing gesture needed today.
Hannah Arendt positive
Initially harsh toward her, Žižek now appreciates her precision on authority and totalitarianism; praises her insight that parents must act with authority even without justification, and notes her careful distinction between Nazism and Stalinism. Engages critically with her Eichmann argument via Bayard.
Some economic measures acknowledged grudgingly ('through clenched teeth') as not so bad; Biden's inauguration criticized for the fantasy of returning to pre-Trump normalcy.
Barack Obama negative
Accused of misusing and domesticating Mandela's message of 'yes you can' after his election, turning an authentic call to agency into a centrist gesture.
Nelson Mandela positive
Cited as an example of an authentic leader whose message is 'yes you can', awakening agency rather than dictating content, though Žižek finds him too soft and insufficiently radical.
Karl Marx positive
Invoked for the insight that bourgeois freedoms, though formal, opened space for deeper emancipatory claims; also for the Marxist critique of 'common good' as ideologically loaded.
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited for the Enlightenment formula 'think freely but obey' to illustrate that concrete freedom requires accepting shared rules.
John Locke negative
His progressive property theory, that property is limited to what one productively uses, is shown to have been weaponized to justify dispossession of Native Americans, illustrating how leftist ideas can serve brutal ends.
What it argues
abstract versus concrete freedomTrump as symptom of liberal-democratic failureright-wing populism and the disintegration of neoliberal consensusglobal coordination (communism) as response to ecological crisisChina's authoritarianism and the problem of feedbackthe productive force of partial, one-sided interpretationsjokes, stereotypes, and the limits of political correctness
Dialectical moves 9
“the most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom”
Subjective sense of freedom can mask deeper structural control; the absence of felt constraint is precisely the mechanism of the most effective domination.
“formal unfreedom — you have to be vaccinated — which enables my actual freedom to communicate with others”
The inversion of the intuitive relation: accepting a constraint on abstract choice is the condition of exercising real, concrete freedom.
“too much of a choice can paradoxically even limit the true choice”
The proliferation of consumer options within fixed parameters crowds out the genuine freedom to alter the parameters themselves.
“Trump is not the cause but the symptom — to really get rid of Trump one must ask what was not radical enough in the liberal democratic consensus”
Attacking the symptom without diagnosing the underlying malaise reproduces the conditions that generate the symptom.
“the large unity which mobilizes people requires first a strong act of division”
Inclusive centrism produces weak mobilization; genuine collective identity is formed through exclusion and sharp boundary-drawing.
“a correct notion applied to a wrong example can nonetheless be the only way to propose what will later become correct”
Theoretical truth sometimes precedes and requires the wrong empirical illustration, because the right example does not yet exist or cannot yet be perceived.
“the ruling ideology of communist countries functioned only if it was not taken seriously by its subjects”
The paradox of an ideology that requires cynical distance to reproduce itself, belief is not necessary; performance and disavowal are enough.
“I am for hypocrisy in so far as it sustains a certain critical space”
Formal proclamation of rights that are not yet real is preferable to cynical abandonment because it creates the normative leverage for future demands.
“precisely when Enlightenment thinkers were obsessed against slavery, actual slavery exploded”
The ideological fight against metaphorical slavery coincided with and enabled the expansion of literal slavery, progressive form served brutal content.
Claims 17
asserts
Concrete freedom is only possible against a background of accepted shared rules; refusing vaccination in the name of freedom is an abstract, self-defeating freedom.abstract versus concrete freedom
asserts
Trump is a symptom of the failures of the liberal-democratic consensus, and to get rid of Trump one must diagnose what was wrong with that consensus.Trump and right-wing populism
rejects
Trump is not a classical fascist; his logic is populist and he carefully avoids stepping outside the liberal frame into direct dictatorship.Trump as fascist
asserts
The most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom experienced as freedom, where subjects are controlled without being aware of it.freedom and surveillance in the United States
asserts
Global ecological crisis requires some form of global coordination (provocatively called communism) beyond the free market, though not traditional state centralization.ecology and communism
rejects
The liberal left uses the term 'fascism' too easily, applying it to anything disliked and thereby obscuring the real analysis.liberal left use of the term fascism
asserts
Authentic political mobilization requires a strong act of division rather than all-inclusive centrism; Trump's lesson is that clear identity attracts more than big-tent moderation.political strategy and leadership
asserts
China's problem is not the absence of multi-party democracy per se but the absence of genuine feedback mechanisms from the people to power.China's political system
rejects
Focusing on individual responsibility for ecological problems is a hegemonic ideological strategy that deflects from systemic critique of capitalism.individual responsibility and ecology
asserts
Bourgeois formal freedoms, though hypocritical and limited, have historically been the condition of possibility for more radical emancipatory demands.bourgeois freedoms and emancipation
asserts
The ruling ideology of communist countries functioned only by not being taken seriously by its subjects, a paradox of cynical distance as ideological glue.ideology in communist regimes
asserts
Clichés and stereotypes cannot simply be prohibited; the most effective anti-racist strategy is to mockingly undermine them from within rather than ban them.political correctness and stereotypes
reframes
The right-wing populist surge is best understood as the disintegration of the neoliberal character structure, not as the return of classical fascism.right-wing populism and fascism
asserts
The early enlightenment obsession with metaphorical slavery coexisted with and enabled the expansion of literal chattel slavery, demonstrating how progressive ideas can serve reactionary ends.Enlightenment and slavery
asserts
To be a good parent (and by analogy a good authority), one must act with authority even if that authority is not fully justified, rather than confessing impotence.authority and parenting
asserts
The best readings of Hegel are partial and one-sided, not comprehensive scholarly surveys; productive distortion reveals more than neutral coverage.interpretation and scholarship
asserts
True freedom is not freedom of choice between existing options but the freedom to change the terms of the choice itself.freedom and consumer choice
Quotes 10
“the most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom — you are not even fully aware how controlled manipulated you are”Slavoj Žižek · unfreedom experienced as freedom
“think freely but obey — do publicly whatever you want but when there is a social agreement about basic rules you have to obey”Slavoj Žižek · Kantian enlightened freedom requires submission to shared rules
“the true freedom is for me the freedom to change the terms of the choice — I don't want just a Coke and Pepsi and their subdivisions”Slavoj Žižek · true freedom versus consumer choice
“the large unity which mobilizes people require first a strong act of division — not we cover all but sorry we are not that”Slavoj Žižek · political identity requires division before unity
“a true Stalinist intellectual has the right and duty to write about films he didn't see”Slavoj Žižek · productive partial interpretation
“I am for hypocrisy in so far as it sustains a certain critical space”Slavoj Žižek · bourgeois hypocrisy as enabling emancipatory critique
“the paradox of the market is that today without strong state intervention market would already have been self-abolished by big companies”Slavoj Žižek · free market requires the state to survive
“heroically even if this is true you must act with authority even if your authority is not justified — this is not fascism this is the only way to be a good parent”Slavoj Žižek · authority must be performed even without full justification
“by communism to provoke people I just mean more global coordination — yes use the market where it's productive but some forms of global coordination will be needed”Slavoj Žižek · communism as global coordination for ecological crisis
“the best readings of Hegel are those partial one-sided — you take one aspect and you say that's the crucial thing — I believe in productive force of partial one-sided approach”Slavoj Žižek · productive force of partial, one-sided interpretation
Transcript 98 turns
Slavoj Žižek
You hear me now Yes I do sir thank you Professor Zizek Yeah don't tell me don't tell me you know to be vulgar if we were I hope to be friends no when somebody calls me Professor my answer is Russell must know what what did I do to you to insult me like that did I rape your mother in public or what if no I have a name you know Professor is for me [unintelligible] well we have to turn your video on let's get your video on please sir am I not on video am I ah start video fuck it why in and out do you see my another vulgarity do you see my cunt face now yes if you could can we see you were would you mind lowering your wait a minute I will so like this and now you should see my face and now I followed Russell I also have books behind me to pretend to be an intellectual no I mean exactly no but you Russell you look better more intellectual you know everything is covered with books behind you this is fake it's just a backdrop it's not real so I know I know I like that but as I already told you I had friends who have books and then they hired a student to just go through a book and in a totally convincing way sign somewhere sorry underline somewhere write a remark so that it appears that these books are really read you know although what is my dream this is where we are intellectuals today you know when we were young we were telling pretend that you study you have Hegel's logic just a cover inside it's pornography now in today's world you almost have to do the opposite you know if you want to read Hegel's logic in peace you have to put some cover of erotic adventures of a lady or whatever sorry how do we begin I heard before all those can you ask me screw you you can ask whatever you want not a problem for me okay maybe but I don't want to monopolize the debate by God you know that's my only problem well I'm here to debate you on the issues I think I'm not as bright as Jordan Peterson I haven't read one tenth of the Communist Manifesto so I'm not equipped do you think I have I only wrote about it I mean you have to make a basic choice like recently New Statesman or Spectator published my polemics against three ongoing kind of big hits Black Widow Nomadland and so on and I'm very critical towards these movies and I haven't seen them of course I mean you know I believe that a true Stalinist intellectual has the right and duty to write about films he didn't see you know who is my mentor here you know what Oscar Wilde said when you are asked to write a review of a book don't read that book if you do it may make your review partial you know don't read it I mean but now stop joking maybe to tell something for our viewers that they may like the French guy that I often quote Pierre Bayard B-A-Y-A-R-D wrote among other things a wonderful book called How to Write About Books That You Haven't Read and in a wonderful way wait a minute it's not a joke reason I know relatively well the domain of Hegel studies no and guys who obviously know all of Hegel they they are afraid to miss something like oh but I know Hegel says something slightly different there it's another accent they are usually the worst totally scholar without any idea interpretations the best readings of Hegel are those partial one-sided you take one aspect and you say that's the crucial thing I believe in productive force of partial one-sided approach okay but please please David first screw democracy democracy only works if there is a leader David are you the leader okay
You hear me now Yes I do sir thank you Professor Zizek Yeah don't tell me don't tell me you know to be vulgar if we were I hope to be friends no when somebody calls me Professor my answer is Russell must know what what did I do to you to insult me like that did I rape your mother in public or what if no I have a name you know Professor is for me [unintelligible] well we have to turn your video on let's get your video on please sir am I not on video am I ah start video fuck it why in and out do you see my another vulgarity do you see my cunt face now yes if you could can we see you were would you mind lowering your wait a minute I will so like this and now you should see my face and now I followed Russell I also have books behind me to pretend to be an intellectual no I mean exactly no but you Russell you look better more intellectual you know everything is covered with books behind you this is fake it's just a backdrop it's not real so I know I know I like that but as I already told you I had friends who have books and then they hired a student to just go through a book and in a totally convincing way sign somewhere sorry underline somewhere write a remark so that it appears that these books are really read you know although what is my dream this is where we are intellectuals today you know when we were young we were telling pretend that you study you have Hegel's logic just a cover inside it's pornography now in today's world you almost have to do the opposite you know if you want to read Hegel's logic in peace you have to put some cover of erotic adventures of a lady or whatever sorry how do we begin I heard before all those can you ask me screw you you can ask whatever you want not a problem for me okay maybe but I don't want to monopolize the debate by God you know that's my only problem well I'm here to debate you on the issues I think I'm not as bright as Jordan Peterson I haven't read one tenth of the Communist Manifesto so I'm not equipped do you think I have I only wrote about it I mean you have to make a basic choice like recently New Statesman or Spectator published my polemics against three ongoing kind of big hits Black Widow Nomadland and so on and I'm very critical towards these movies and I haven't seen them of course I mean you know I believe that a true Stalinist intellectual has the right and duty to write about films he didn't see you know who is my mentor here you know what Oscar Wilde said when you are asked to write a review of a book don't read that book if you do it may make your review partial you know don't read it I mean but now stop joking maybe to tell something for our viewers that they may like the French guy that I often quote Pierre Bayard B-A-Y-A-R-D wrote among other things a wonderful book called How to Write About Books That You Haven't Read and in a wonderful way wait a minute it's not a joke reason I know relatively well the domain of Hegel studies no and guys who obviously know all of Hegel they they are afraid to miss something like oh but I know Hegel says something slightly different there it's another accent they are usually the worst totally scholar without any idea interpretations the best readings of Hegel are those partial one-sided you take one aspect and you say that's the crucial thing I believe in productive force of partial one-sided approach okay but please please David first screw democracy democracy only works if there is a leader David are you the leader okay
unknown
yeah all right screw democracy here in the United States it looks like whatever democracy we had is in danger
yeah all right screw democracy here in the United States it looks like whatever democracy we had is in danger
Slavoj Žižek
ah there's another problem I'm also critical towards Biden but some of the measures economic especially that he tried to impose were seriously I had to admit it through my clenched teeth not so bad you know it's serious money for ecology and so on and so on so yes I agree with you democracy is in danger but not only in the United States and it's an ambiguous situation because I claim precisely through this opposition to Trump and so on we got if nothing else in the last two years one of the results of the pandemic is that the world the sorry the word socialism is legitimized like if you add democratic blah blah and so on you can you can you can use it you know when you mention sorry can I just briefly develop this when now I'm getting old fashioned Hegelian Stalinist almost but I don't know how it is in the States in my country also you know we Europeans are often arrogant towards the United States you know for a long time I thought you are bad but Canada Canada is like all the best the best from United States combined with the best from Europe wait a minute when I read now what they were doing in Canada and I knew it already for years I have some friends there with what they were doing with those indigenous children in reform I mean it's absolute nightmare it's absolute nightmare so and we Europeans also you know like vaccination some journalist in Slovenia looked at the government office which who the duty of which is to promote vaccination and to organize it and so on and to around people who work there and he discovered that much less than half of them are vaccinated you know even those supposed to organize it are not no what I want to say is that it's a beautiful example I like examples of where you link a very concrete problem like do we have the right to oppose vaccination and so on with a very abstract problem like you know some radical liberals on the left and on the right claim that to enforce vaccination is like non-democratic it's against your human rights and so on and so on but I think that here we should introduce Hegel's distinction I will immediately explain it between abstract and concrete freedom for example I think that concrete freedom not in any mystical Hegelian sense like freedom which means that actually you can act as a free being is only possible against the background of accepting certain rules for example I want to be free to publicly say what I mean to debate with friends for this we all need to accept the rules of language okay we can try to change these rules but not in the way political correctness did it but like you know because there is an ideology in language but rules are literally the base of freedom every freedom is freedom to move freely within a certain regulated space like I want to have the freedom to walk around the city yes but I must suppose that people whom I will meet will be mostly decent people they will be punished in punished if they attack me and so on and so on and in the same way I think in my last published somewhere on the web I forgot where text I took the example of this resistance to vaccination I think this is an abstract freedom because if you are not a paranoiac and claims that all the scientists are part of a plot who are lying then of course if you have to get vaccinated in some abstract sense of course if you are not free to choose this is limitation of your freedom you have to do it but isn't it that today as far as we know from science and so on you can actually be free I can go out talk with friends and so on only if only if I am vaccinated so this is a nice example of unfree of a formal unfreedom you have to be vaccinated which enables my actual freedom to communicate with others and so on and so on that's why I quoted that wonderful saying about freedom and enlightenment by Immanuel Kant who says the message of enlightened freedom is not don't obey do whatever you want no it is do publicly whatever you want but when there is a social agreement about basic rules you have to obey so think freely but obey and I think this is the lesson that we need to take today it sounds a harsh lesson but just think if this global warming will go on will we not need even harsher limitations and so on so I think again that what really matters is concrete freedom freedom which means under what conditions rules regulations can I exercise my freedom of speech and so on and so on you must have media you must have a public space and so on and so on so I I think that that's the problem with let's call it abstract liberalism you know which example I like to use here here I'm a little bit I'm not anti-American it's still my favorite country just not all of the United States you know wouldn't it be nice to imagine United States in Latin America now this will be ugly towards all those in Trumpland like the combination of two Chile you know Chile is like a worm on the west side of Latin America so let's say we have the west coast and imagine another Chile on the east coast and screw all that Trumpland in the middle that would have been my ideal United States you know what I mean no so again you know what we have to be aware the same goes for our social space democracy including free dialogue and so on only works if all sides accept certain basic rules these rules can be limited I'm the first one to say that till ten years ago maybe even a little bit less basic rules were determined by this bipolarity no Republicans Democrats but that's why it worked but what's happening today when we get Trump and the liberal establishment I don't think there is any reconciliation possible here somebody will have to win you are and we are also quickly catching up we in Europe we are already in a some kind of an ideological civil war there if you speak with our opponents there is simply no shared space where we can even reasonably argue you know we are that's why I think we are in a dangerous situation okay but I talked too much I'm sorry we are it does feel like we're in a dangerous situation I'm going to ask you one question then I'm going to ask Professor Anne Lee to ask you a question and then Professor Hussein and then Professor Burgess but I like the man sorry Hussein is he an Arab terrorist who escaped here and was Ahmed but then he quickly changed from Ahmed Ahmed into Adnan to cover up his sorry sorry I cannot you see now I will not see what happened now you've outed us you know as a as a cell and you know my cover is gone this is you know this is really a disaster gotta fold up the operation now exactly so how are you doing is your uncle now some minister in in Kabul of the new Taliban government or whatever no we should talk also about Afghanistan
ah there's another problem I'm also critical towards Biden but some of the measures economic especially that he tried to impose were seriously I had to admit it through my clenched teeth not so bad you know it's serious money for ecology and so on and so on so yes I agree with you democracy is in danger but not only in the United States and it's an ambiguous situation because I claim precisely through this opposition to Trump and so on we got if nothing else in the last two years one of the results of the pandemic is that the world the sorry the word socialism is legitimized like if you add democratic blah blah and so on you can you can you can use it you know when you mention sorry can I just briefly develop this when now I'm getting old fashioned Hegelian Stalinist almost but I don't know how it is in the States in my country also you know we Europeans are often arrogant towards the United States you know for a long time I thought you are bad but Canada Canada is like all the best the best from United States combined with the best from Europe wait a minute when I read now what they were doing in Canada and I knew it already for years I have some friends there with what they were doing with those indigenous children in reform I mean it's absolute nightmare it's absolute nightmare so and we Europeans also you know like vaccination some journalist in Slovenia looked at the government office which who the duty of which is to promote vaccination and to organize it and so on and to around people who work there and he discovered that much less than half of them are vaccinated you know even those supposed to organize it are not no what I want to say is that it's a beautiful example I like examples of where you link a very concrete problem like do we have the right to oppose vaccination and so on with a very abstract problem like you know some radical liberals on the left and on the right claim that to enforce vaccination is like non-democratic it's against your human rights and so on and so on but I think that here we should introduce Hegel's distinction I will immediately explain it between abstract and concrete freedom for example I think that concrete freedom not in any mystical Hegelian sense like freedom which means that actually you can act as a free being is only possible against the background of accepting certain rules for example I want to be free to publicly say what I mean to debate with friends for this we all need to accept the rules of language okay we can try to change these rules but not in the way political correctness did it but like you know because there is an ideology in language but rules are literally the base of freedom every freedom is freedom to move freely within a certain regulated space like I want to have the freedom to walk around the city yes but I must suppose that people whom I will meet will be mostly decent people they will be punished in punished if they attack me and so on and so on and in the same way I think in my last published somewhere on the web I forgot where text I took the example of this resistance to vaccination I think this is an abstract freedom because if you are not a paranoiac and claims that all the scientists are part of a plot who are lying then of course if you have to get vaccinated in some abstract sense of course if you are not free to choose this is limitation of your freedom you have to do it but isn't it that today as far as we know from science and so on you can actually be free I can go out talk with friends and so on only if only if I am vaccinated so this is a nice example of unfree of a formal unfreedom you have to be vaccinated which enables my actual freedom to communicate with others and so on and so on that's why I quoted that wonderful saying about freedom and enlightenment by Immanuel Kant who says the message of enlightened freedom is not don't obey do whatever you want no it is do publicly whatever you want but when there is a social agreement about basic rules you have to obey so think freely but obey and I think this is the lesson that we need to take today it sounds a harsh lesson but just think if this global warming will go on will we not need even harsher limitations and so on so I think again that what really matters is concrete freedom freedom which means under what conditions rules regulations can I exercise my freedom of speech and so on and so on you must have media you must have a public space and so on and so on so I I think that that's the problem with let's call it abstract liberalism you know which example I like to use here here I'm a little bit I'm not anti-American it's still my favorite country just not all of the United States you know wouldn't it be nice to imagine United States in Latin America now this will be ugly towards all those in Trumpland like the combination of two Chile you know Chile is like a worm on the west side of Latin America so let's say we have the west coast and imagine another Chile on the east coast and screw all that Trumpland in the middle that would have been my ideal United States you know what I mean no so again you know what we have to be aware the same goes for our social space democracy including free dialogue and so on only works if all sides accept certain basic rules these rules can be limited I'm the first one to say that till ten years ago maybe even a little bit less basic rules were determined by this bipolarity no Republicans Democrats but that's why it worked but what's happening today when we get Trump and the liberal establishment I don't think there is any reconciliation possible here somebody will have to win you are and we are also quickly catching up we in Europe we are already in a some kind of an ideological civil war there if you speak with our opponents there is simply no shared space where we can even reasonably argue you know we are that's why I think we are in a dangerous situation okay but I talked too much I'm sorry we are it does feel like we're in a dangerous situation I'm going to ask you one question then I'm going to ask Professor Anne Lee to ask you a question and then Professor Hussein and then Professor Burgess but I like the man sorry Hussein is he an Arab terrorist who escaped here and was Ahmed but then he quickly changed from Ahmed Ahmed into Adnan to cover up his sorry sorry I cannot you see now I will not see what happened now you've outed us you know as a as a cell and you know my cover is gone this is you know this is really a disaster gotta fold up the operation now exactly so how are you doing is your uncle now some minister in in Kabul of the new Taliban government or whatever no we should talk also about Afghanistan
unknown
because I am so shocked by the attitude I don't know how it is
because I am so shocked by the attitude I don't know how it is
Slavoj Žižek
with you in the States but in Europe of leftist liberals you know they some of them even more or less openly like my good friend Varoufakis were nonetheless tempted to celebrate the fall of Kabul as big defeat of global imperialism neocolonialism and so on and so on but it may shock you but as a leftist I'm saying it's not as simple as that it's not only empirically that the the the scandalous way the United States withdrew but I think that even in principle you know United States intervened there yes they screwed it up after years and spending one trillion dollars Taliban is stronger than ever there but precisely for this reason you occupied you ruined half of the country on the other side we should be frank as leftists here true leftists things that are happening there woman's rebellion sorry woman's liberation it's a whole movement there some even some kind of civil society and so on and so on let's face it this was an collateral
with you in the States but in Europe of leftist liberals you know they some of them even more or less openly like my good friend Varoufakis were nonetheless tempted to celebrate the fall of Kabul as big defeat of global imperialism neocolonialism and so on and so on but it may shock you but as a leftist I'm saying it's not as simple as that it's not only empirically that the the the scandalous way the United States withdrew but I think that even in principle you know United States intervened there yes they screwed it up after years and spending one trillion dollars Taliban is stronger than ever there but precisely for this reason you occupied you ruined half of the country on the other side we should be frank as leftists here true leftists things that are happening there woman's rebellion sorry woman's liberation it's a whole movement there some even some kind of civil society and so on and so on let's face it this was an collateral
unknown
effect but nonetheless an effect of the American intervention there and we should not be ashamed to say this to simply withdraw there were other options like my Brazilian friend Safatle Vladimir with whom I had the
effect but nonetheless an effect of the American intervention there and we should not be ashamed to say this to simply withdraw there were other options like my Brazilian friend Safatle Vladimir with whom I had the
Slavoj Žižek
debate he said what if there were other options like what if United States were try to try to get some moderate Muslim countries maybe Egyptians Morocco and so on to send their
debate he said what if there were other options like what if United States were try to try to get some moderate Muslim countries maybe Egyptians Morocco and so on to send their
unknown
soldiers there
soldiers there
Slavoj Žižek
you know so that you don't have this clear opposition United States versus Taliban and so on but I think the other
you know so that you don't have this clear opposition United States versus Taliban and so on but I think the other
unknown
thing that bothered me is that typical reaction of the West was now where does the sorry of the liberal left in the West where
thing that bothered me is that typical reaction of the West was now where does the sorry of the liberal left in the West where
unknown
do they feel good when you have victims and you
do they feel good when you have victims and you
Slavoj Žižek
have to save victims you know but okay victims are fighting why didn't they tell to those who are now victims fight no no leftist would have said that it was an imperialist war whatever and I find horrible this liberal left stance of whenever there are victims we should help them what about a positive project now you will say these projects are not possible there are possible later we can go into it to offer people not simply the expansion of Western values but nonetheless a different form of Western values I talked too much you should kill me now you go you are the boss okay let me ask you let me ask you one question and then we'll go to Professor Anne Lee the creeping fascism here in the United States I wonder if it's creeping I wonder if it's already here from your observation is this country is America equipped to combat fascism the people are we equipped no let me say something yeah are we I will say something that nobody will like probably often I think the liberal left uses the term fascism in an all too easy way you have something you don't like oh then it must be fascism
have to save victims you know but okay victims are fighting why didn't they tell to those who are now victims fight no no leftist would have said that it was an imperialist war whatever and I find horrible this liberal left stance of whenever there are victims we should help them what about a positive project now you will say these projects are not possible there are possible later we can go into it to offer people not simply the expansion of Western values but nonetheless a different form of Western values I talked too much you should kill me now you go you are the boss okay let me ask you let me ask you one question and then we'll go to Professor Anne Lee the creeping fascism here in the United States I wonder if it's creeping I wonder if it's already here from your observation is this country is America equipped to combat fascism the people are we equipped no let me say something yeah are we I will say something that nobody will like probably often I think the liberal left uses the term fascism in an all too easy way you have something you don't like oh then it must be fascism
unknown
you know we neglect nonetheless I'm
you know we neglect nonetheless I'm
Slavoj Žižek
not saying that Trump was much better but his logic was different first I don't think in spite of all rumors that Trump really wanted to make a coup d'etat as typical populist he at the same time dismisses representative democracy party politics as corrupt partial controlled by elites but he's very careful not to step out of its frame into a direct dictatorship and that's what maybe makes Trump even more dangerous Trump doesn't want to step out of liberalism and once when I spoke about Julian Assange and somebody asked me can you condense Assange's achievement into one sentence I said it's simply that the most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom you are not even fully aware how controlled manipulated you are that was also my defense when Assange was attacked for accepting the help of Putin and so on and so on my argument is yes Putin is to be criticized China and so on but there people don't have any illusion you know you are controlled regulated the horrible thing about United States the most dangerous is that not only in spite of Trump you feel free ordinary people all those who work but but you even in some sense accept that against some abstract state regulation big corporation and so on that Trump effectively stands for freedom of ordinary people and so on and so on so my first I it's if it is fascism whatever it's not the old style of fascism with this disciplinary military rule and no Trump thrives in this media corruption manipulations and so on and so on second thing as I always repeat we should never forget that sorry to use this blah blah term misused that Trump is a symptom of what went on with liberal democratic consensus in the United States so to really get rid of Trump one must ask what was not radical strong enough and so on in this liberal democratic consensus why this consensus didn't succeed in mobilizing people more because you know what made me sad in Afghanistan this how their armed forces simply
not saying that Trump was much better but his logic was different first I don't think in spite of all rumors that Trump really wanted to make a coup d'etat as typical populist he at the same time dismisses representative democracy party politics as corrupt partial controlled by elites but he's very careful not to step out of its frame into a direct dictatorship and that's what maybe makes Trump even more dangerous Trump doesn't want to step out of liberalism and once when I spoke about Julian Assange and somebody asked me can you condense Assange's achievement into one sentence I said it's simply that the most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom you are not even fully aware how controlled manipulated you are that was also my defense when Assange was attacked for accepting the help of Putin and so on and so on my argument is yes Putin is to be criticized China and so on but there people don't have any illusion you know you are controlled regulated the horrible thing about United States the most dangerous is that not only in spite of Trump you feel free ordinary people all those who work but but you even in some sense accept that against some abstract state regulation big corporation and so on that Trump effectively stands for freedom of ordinary people and so on and so on so my first I it's if it is fascism whatever it's not the old style of fascism with this disciplinary military rule and no Trump thrives in this media corruption manipulations and so on and so on second thing as I always repeat we should never forget that sorry to use this blah blah term misused that Trump is a symptom of what went on with liberal democratic consensus in the United States so to really get rid of Trump one must ask what was not radical strong enough and so on in this liberal democratic consensus why this consensus didn't succeed in mobilizing people more because you know what made me sad in Afghanistan this how their armed forces simply
unknown
disintegrated and so on and so on that's the strength overall in the world of this new right-wing populism and it's not enough just to attack them as proto-fascists we must ask ourselves what was wrong with the hegemonic liberal democratic model that's the problem
disintegrated and so on and so on that's the strength overall in the world of this new right-wing populism and it's not enough just to attack them as proto-fascists we must ask ourselves what was wrong with the hegemonic liberal democratic model that's the problem
Slavoj Žižek
of Europe today even more than United States in Europe we all hate Orban Polish government and so on and so on we are not asking the question what we the enlightened Brussels bureaucracy and so on what we were doing wrong and I think that quite naively that I don't have any illusions about Bernie Sanders and so on but this leftist mass movement is a sign of hope let's see what will happen but I think still that that the only thing that we should okay but we should learn the lesson of Trump you remember when Trump was during his first electoral campaign when he was attacking opponents many moderate
of Europe today even more than United States in Europe we all hate Orban Polish government and so on and so on we are not asking the question what we the enlightened Brussels bureaucracy and so on what we were doing wrong and I think that quite naively that I don't have any illusions about Bernie Sanders and so on but this leftist mass movement is a sign of hope let's see what will happen but I think still that that the only thing that we should okay but we should learn the lesson of Trump you remember when Trump was during his first electoral campaign when he was attacking opponents many moderate
unknown
Republicans tell him no you are too
Republicans tell him no you are too
Slavoj Žižek
exclusive you should open towards the middle he did exactly the opposite and he won and the so-called democratic left shouldn't be afraid to do the same they are this is maybe the Obama mistake this fear which was already Bill Clinton's fear you know my God are we losing this middle middle class moderate and so on no the paradox Trump taught us this is that the large unity which mobilizes people require first a strong act of division not we cover all but sorry we are not that clear division defines who we are it's leadership somebody we're all looking for somebody to march in one direction and even if it's the wrong direction most of us will follow because we crave leadership so that's why Trump you know what I will tell you here now another horrible thing for liberals I'm I have nothing against strong leaders there are two type of leaders there are I will define them exactly authoritarian leaders whose motto is I know better than you what is good for yourself you know they know it but if you take more authentic leaders okay let's take one who was for my notions even too soft who should have been a little bit more radical but everybody at least officially loves him Nelson Mandela authentic leader is just his message is and Obama later when he was elected abused this message his message is yes not we can yes you can an authentic leader awakens you he doesn't tell you what to do but he gives you the courage you can do it fight for your freedom because you know in our everyday life with this liberal everyday hedonism we are not really free we have to be somehow called to freedom and we need an authentic leader I think also because you you know leader which doesn't tell you in detail what you have to do but a leader who solicits you here although I'm very critical of Mao Zedong at the beginning of Cultural Revolution when he said to young people you have the right to rebel something like this is needed today we need leaders who will mobilize people not only for the pandemic but for ecology that's why I to provoke people like to use the term communism to provoke them but my message is very simple listen back to Chile what I learned now is that there is a terrifying drought in the south of Chile agriculture almost ruined and so on but it's not there the result of what they did it's way out in the in the Pacific Ocean there is a kind of a condensed bubble of hot air being there already for two three years and this bubble is of course the result of global perturbation of nature and so on it's the same when you had this terrifying it was a horror for me you remember in Vancouver Seattle that area almost degrees Celsius when a month ago something like that I was horrified because I love Vancouver and so on no but what I want to say is that it's stupid to say you have to take care of that no it's a global perturbation of natural circulation which by total contingency produced an effect there and it wasn't even only there the true horror is that you know Verkhoyansk a city in Northern Siberia which has the official title of being the coldest city on Earth well this summer it was degrees Celsius so isn't it clear that we can I'm not saying abolish the market privatize everything no I'm not crazy this brings new corruption and so on I'm saying some kind of global not just in a state social coordination is needed look because of perturbations in weather it's quite a realistic prospect that in a couple of years we will have to move millions of people there are regions of Earth like the wealthiest like Emirates and so on where now you have regular temperatures in summer over degrees even the Arabs allegedly used to live there cannot do it people will have to be moved this happened in the past it was resolved through war now we cannot afford it and so on by communism to provoke people I just mean more global coordination yes use the market where it's productive and so on but some forms of global coordination will be needed could I ask David is it okay if I ask a jump ahead and ask a quick question about that because I've heard you say that before Slavoj and I've always been curious you know because because you talk about you know communism and you know talk about global coordination for sort of society-wide planet-scale problems but you also say well of course you know count on the market and I guess what I'm curious about that is whether you know you think that to actually have communism in your sense we would still need some sort of structural economic changes maybe something like what people sometimes think of as market socialism or whether you just think that's a separate issue no it's not but here I am now I will say something for which if you don't have other reasons you will now you will now abolish me you know okay well I'm not going to abolish you for the first I forgot the guy's name but some Slovene very leftist politician told me that he's now reading didn't some follower of Hayek yes Hayek that one one of his followers wrote a book called left Hayekianism something like that the idea being that this the centralization the way Marx imagined it through some transparent through some head of public authority which in a totally transparent way regulate social production that this not only that it's in a simple sense non-efficient but it opens a space for incredible additional corruption and so on so for me market simply means but it never means simply that of course that there is a certain unpredictability non-transparency of social life but I think that market will have to be nonetheless what the Chinese are trying to do although I'm extremely critical of them there has to be a public authority which not controls the market in this violent sense of this commodity should cost that and so on but to think very well we can need this we can leave this domain to market we can we should control it prevent monopolies and so on and so on because the paradox of the market of the free market is that today without strong state intervention market would already have been self-abolished no by big companies and so on and so on not all the market but some parts so I don't I don't think that what because of my living in socialist past I am what I don't want to engage in is to oppose market with traditional state centralization and so on but China in some ways like in some ways China in a really weird way is what a lot of Western socialists have always advocated which is that you have like a bunch of state planning at the high levels of the economy kind of the commanding heights and then you have a lot of market interactions a lot of other places it's just a very unequal and very politically undemocratic version of that but just quickly and right now as we speak Xi is addressing the same problems we're facing here in the United States the concentration of wealth income inequality and will I think by taking over the commanding heights of capitalism or whatever China is it's I think he'll succeed you think I'm you know why I'm skeptical for at micro level personal experiences no you remember that the hero who was for me a kind of the closest you can get to Chinese Assange that guy who was one of the first who identified COVID and then he was dying no he died almost in front of the camera and among his last words were something like I don't remember the exact words but something like those in power should get a feedback should listen to the people so for me it's not just a multi-party and so on it's a kind of an authentic feedback and I don't think you get this in China I have another proof you know that two around two years ago I was for a couple of months prohibited there my books disappeared translations from books why because the most tragic thing in China now is the fate of some young students who were forced to read Mao in this new Xi orientation and then they took it too seriously they said okay Mao workers' interests and then they discovered that in the suburbs of Beijing there are a couple of chemical factories totally non-protective workers dropping from from pollution and so on dropping dead and
exclusive you should open towards the middle he did exactly the opposite and he won and the so-called democratic left shouldn't be afraid to do the same they are this is maybe the Obama mistake this fear which was already Bill Clinton's fear you know my God are we losing this middle middle class moderate and so on no the paradox Trump taught us this is that the large unity which mobilizes people require first a strong act of division not we cover all but sorry we are not that clear division defines who we are it's leadership somebody we're all looking for somebody to march in one direction and even if it's the wrong direction most of us will follow because we crave leadership so that's why Trump you know what I will tell you here now another horrible thing for liberals I'm I have nothing against strong leaders there are two type of leaders there are I will define them exactly authoritarian leaders whose motto is I know better than you what is good for yourself you know they know it but if you take more authentic leaders okay let's take one who was for my notions even too soft who should have been a little bit more radical but everybody at least officially loves him Nelson Mandela authentic leader is just his message is and Obama later when he was elected abused this message his message is yes not we can yes you can an authentic leader awakens you he doesn't tell you what to do but he gives you the courage you can do it fight for your freedom because you know in our everyday life with this liberal everyday hedonism we are not really free we have to be somehow called to freedom and we need an authentic leader I think also because you you know leader which doesn't tell you in detail what you have to do but a leader who solicits you here although I'm very critical of Mao Zedong at the beginning of Cultural Revolution when he said to young people you have the right to rebel something like this is needed today we need leaders who will mobilize people not only for the pandemic but for ecology that's why I to provoke people like to use the term communism to provoke them but my message is very simple listen back to Chile what I learned now is that there is a terrifying drought in the south of Chile agriculture almost ruined and so on but it's not there the result of what they did it's way out in the in the Pacific Ocean there is a kind of a condensed bubble of hot air being there already for two three years and this bubble is of course the result of global perturbation of nature and so on it's the same when you had this terrifying it was a horror for me you remember in Vancouver Seattle that area almost degrees Celsius when a month ago something like that I was horrified because I love Vancouver and so on no but what I want to say is that it's stupid to say you have to take care of that no it's a global perturbation of natural circulation which by total contingency produced an effect there and it wasn't even only there the true horror is that you know Verkhoyansk a city in Northern Siberia which has the official title of being the coldest city on Earth well this summer it was degrees Celsius so isn't it clear that we can I'm not saying abolish the market privatize everything no I'm not crazy this brings new corruption and so on I'm saying some kind of global not just in a state social coordination is needed look because of perturbations in weather it's quite a realistic prospect that in a couple of years we will have to move millions of people there are regions of Earth like the wealthiest like Emirates and so on where now you have regular temperatures in summer over degrees even the Arabs allegedly used to live there cannot do it people will have to be moved this happened in the past it was resolved through war now we cannot afford it and so on by communism to provoke people I just mean more global coordination yes use the market where it's productive and so on but some forms of global coordination will be needed could I ask David is it okay if I ask a jump ahead and ask a quick question about that because I've heard you say that before Slavoj and I've always been curious you know because because you talk about you know communism and you know talk about global coordination for sort of society-wide planet-scale problems but you also say well of course you know count on the market and I guess what I'm curious about that is whether you know you think that to actually have communism in your sense we would still need some sort of structural economic changes maybe something like what people sometimes think of as market socialism or whether you just think that's a separate issue no it's not but here I am now I will say something for which if you don't have other reasons you will now you will now abolish me you know okay well I'm not going to abolish you for the first I forgot the guy's name but some Slovene very leftist politician told me that he's now reading didn't some follower of Hayek yes Hayek that one one of his followers wrote a book called left Hayekianism something like that the idea being that this the centralization the way Marx imagined it through some transparent through some head of public authority which in a totally transparent way regulate social production that this not only that it's in a simple sense non-efficient but it opens a space for incredible additional corruption and so on so for me market simply means but it never means simply that of course that there is a certain unpredictability non-transparency of social life but I think that market will have to be nonetheless what the Chinese are trying to do although I'm extremely critical of them there has to be a public authority which not controls the market in this violent sense of this commodity should cost that and so on but to think very well we can need this we can leave this domain to market we can we should control it prevent monopolies and so on and so on because the paradox of the market of the free market is that today without strong state intervention market would already have been self-abolished no by big companies and so on and so on not all the market but some parts so I don't I don't think that what because of my living in socialist past I am what I don't want to engage in is to oppose market with traditional state centralization and so on but China in some ways like in some ways China in a really weird way is what a lot of Western socialists have always advocated which is that you have like a bunch of state planning at the high levels of the economy kind of the commanding heights and then you have a lot of market interactions a lot of other places it's just a very unequal and very politically undemocratic version of that but just quickly and right now as we speak Xi is addressing the same problems we're facing here in the United States the concentration of wealth income inequality and will I think by taking over the commanding heights of capitalism or whatever China is it's I think he'll succeed you think I'm you know why I'm skeptical for at micro level personal experiences no you remember that the hero who was for me a kind of the closest you can get to Chinese Assange that guy who was one of the first who identified COVID and then he was dying no he died almost in front of the camera and among his last words were something like I don't remember the exact words but something like those in power should get a feedback should listen to the people so for me it's not just a multi-party and so on it's a kind of an authentic feedback and I don't think you get this in China I have another proof you know that two around two years ago I was for a couple of months prohibited there my books disappeared translations from books why because the most tragic thing in China now is the fate of some young students who were forced to read Mao in this new Xi orientation and then they took it too seriously they said okay Mao workers' interests and then they discovered that in the suburbs of Beijing there are a couple of chemical factories totally non-protective workers dropping from from pollution and so on dropping dead and
unknown
they tried to organize them oh they just disappeared and the beautiful irony is that one who disappeared had a mother who inquired into why did my son disappear it's like a bad joke you know what happened she disappeared the next day you know and this is the problem with China yes they try to regulate ecology and all that stuff but it is look let's take the pandemic yes they are doing it now the harsh way but with a little bit more openness and backward information maybe many specialists think they would have been able to prevent pandemic at the beginning they lost crucial month or two months at the beginning if they were to act then if they were to listen to those scientists probably it would have
they tried to organize them oh they just disappeared and the beautiful irony is that one who disappeared had a mother who inquired into why did my son disappear it's like a bad joke you know what happened she disappeared the next day you know and this is the problem with China yes they try to regulate ecology and all that stuff but it is look let's take the pandemic yes they are doing it now the harsh way but with a little bit more openness and backward information maybe many specialists think they would have been able to prevent pandemic at the beginning they lost crucial month or two months at the beginning if they were to act then if they were to listen to those scientists probably it would have
Slavoj Žižek
remained a local event there so no I don't yes I find sympathetic what you mentioned but the problem is this interaction with people yes we
remained a local event there so no I don't yes I find sympathetic what you mentioned but the problem is this interaction with people yes we
unknown
need strong power and so on
need strong power and so on
Slavoj Žižek
but there has to be strong interaction with people you have to have public space and if anything in China now the public space is narrowing disappearing Professor Anne Lee you have a question please I'm glad to hear you so that at least it will not be only men talking you know at least yeah please well no following up on that it you know in in China one of the issues is people aren't quite so concerned about achieving status and stuff and I recall that you referred to liberals as communists with diplomas and and in some ways that Orban said this sorry Orban said this oh alright I'm sorry I don't mean to misquote you yeah yeah but that seems to be the big problem is status that you know a lot of what normally would be important institutions have now become more more corrupted or more rigid yeah now I am I am let me be clear I am for certain degree of rigidity which can simply mean that you have a certain firm authority which is not simply at the disposal of contingent market or whatever forces but not that kind of rigidity look isn't this maybe you if you know the situation from the first hand can correct me here isn't it so sad that now students are obliged there to read Mao but with a silent understanding don't take it seriously you know just read it as a symbolic gesture Mao is now and I have no illusions about Mao many things genuinely horrified me in what Mao did but nonetheless I'm afraid of this functioning of ideology where the supreme authority is really not important and this reminds me of my youth you know just I'll put it like this the general problem with communist countries I lived in one is not that the authorities want to
but there has to be strong interaction with people you have to have public space and if anything in China now the public space is narrowing disappearing Professor Anne Lee you have a question please I'm glad to hear you so that at least it will not be only men talking you know at least yeah please well no following up on that it you know in in China one of the issues is people aren't quite so concerned about achieving status and stuff and I recall that you referred to liberals as communists with diplomas and and in some ways that Orban said this sorry Orban said this oh alright I'm sorry I don't mean to misquote you yeah yeah but that seems to be the big problem is status that you know a lot of what normally would be important institutions have now become more more corrupted or more rigid yeah now I am I am let me be clear I am for certain degree of rigidity which can simply mean that you have a certain firm authority which is not simply at the disposal of contingent market or whatever forces but not that kind of rigidity look isn't this maybe you if you know the situation from the first hand can correct me here isn't it so sad that now students are obliged there to read Mao but with a silent understanding don't take it seriously you know just read it as a symbolic gesture Mao is now and I have no illusions about Mao many things genuinely horrified me in what Mao did but nonetheless I'm afraid of this functioning of ideology where the supreme authority is really not important and this reminds me of my youth you know just I'll put it like this the general problem with communist countries I lived in one is not that the authorities want to
unknown
impose some brutal communist ideology no it's that like in my country ex-Yugoslavia you know I had a couple of friends who were sincerely orthodox Marxists sincerely they lost their job because the authorities were well aware that if you take Marxism too seriously you will sooner or later discover that my God what we have here is not in any meaningful sense a democratic socialist
impose some brutal communist ideology no it's that like in my country ex-Yugoslavia you know I had a couple of friends who were sincerely orthodox Marxists sincerely they lost their job because the authorities were well aware that if you take Marxism too seriously you will sooner or later discover that my God what we have here is not in any meaningful sense a democratic socialist
unknown
Marxist regime so that's so horrible for me about all these countries communist countries that the ruling ideology always
Marxist regime so that's so horrible for me about all these countries communist countries that the ruling ideology always
Slavoj Žižek
combined a strong measure of cynicism
combined a strong measure of cynicism
unknown
distance and so on and
distance and so on and
Slavoj Žižek
so on it's a beautiful
so on it's a beautiful
unknown
paradox of a ruling ideology which only was able to function if it was not taken seriously by its subject and I knew examples I knew examples like this you know so for me again the problem with China is not this multi-party necessarily and so on but the
paradox of a ruling ideology which only was able to function if it was not taken seriously by its subject and I knew examples I knew examples like this you know so for me again the problem with China is not this multi-party necessarily and so on but the
Slavoj Žižek
problem is the feedback a genuine feedback from the people and this is what what do you think is my perception wrong I'm not sure you obviously know more no I hardly but I think it's just a question in China of scale that it is so large that it allows these kinds of regional you know resistance or fractions and it's just the fact that it is very large and unwieldy it's just a matter of size that I totally agree with you you know do you know Wang Hui the Chinese one of the leftist philosophers I hope I will not compromise him by saying that you know he told me that he met a guy who was friendly with Deng Xiaoping's daughter you know when Deng Xiaoping was dying she was just whispering and only his daughter was only able to understand and he said that when Deng Xiaoping was dying all those his big shots guys came to him celebrating him and they often asked him the question what do you think was your greatest political act everybody thought he will say it's opening China to market economy and he said no to resist at that point the temptation to go all the way to multi-party democracy now people usually say this was authoritarian cynicism but as you said I take this seriously you know what if because of all these regional differences and so on China would would maybe even fall apart would not have functioned the way it is I don't trust liberals when they say oh they did an economic miracle but with full democracy they would have made even a greater miracle I'm not so sure maybe not so I'm not talking necessarily about no central authority and so on I'm just talking about a greater degree of feedback great Professor Adnan Hussein ah the my our Taliban friend perfect yes yes sorry I don't mean to be affirm any stereotypes yeah yeah I like stereotypes stereotypes I know that's the problem yes that's right I know you love them so you know um but actually you know it does relate to this question of aspects of character and presumptions about them there's so many interesting points to bring up I kind of wanted to come back to that question of fascism and you were suggesting that we can't just you know stereotypically condemn everything that the left wants to oppose by labeling it fascism fascism you raised the issue of um right-wing populism so it seems that maybe you would suggest that this era where we're seeing the resurgence of different movements of right-wing populism globally around the world can't necessarily be captured by just talking about it as fascism and I read an interesting article by Paul Mason the English I know him my British friend yes yes yes and so and because you're you know interested in the psychoanalytic dimensions as well he had a kind of interesting talk about Erich Fromm's ideas and he
problem is the feedback a genuine feedback from the people and this is what what do you think is my perception wrong I'm not sure you obviously know more no I hardly but I think it's just a question in China of scale that it is so large that it allows these kinds of regional you know resistance or fractions and it's just the fact that it is very large and unwieldy it's just a matter of size that I totally agree with you you know do you know Wang Hui the Chinese one of the leftist philosophers I hope I will not compromise him by saying that you know he told me that he met a guy who was friendly with Deng Xiaoping's daughter you know when Deng Xiaoping was dying she was just whispering and only his daughter was only able to understand and he said that when Deng Xiaoping was dying all those his big shots guys came to him celebrating him and they often asked him the question what do you think was your greatest political act everybody thought he will say it's opening China to market economy and he said no to resist at that point the temptation to go all the way to multi-party democracy now people usually say this was authoritarian cynicism but as you said I take this seriously you know what if because of all these regional differences and so on China would would maybe even fall apart would not have functioned the way it is I don't trust liberals when they say oh they did an economic miracle but with full democracy they would have made even a greater miracle I'm not so sure maybe not so I'm not talking necessarily about no central authority and so on I'm just talking about a greater degree of feedback great Professor Adnan Hussein ah the my our Taliban friend perfect yes yes sorry I don't mean to be affirm any stereotypes yeah yeah I like stereotypes stereotypes I know that's the problem yes that's right I know you love them so you know um but actually you know it does relate to this question of aspects of character and presumptions about them there's so many interesting points to bring up I kind of wanted to come back to that question of fascism and you were suggesting that we can't just you know stereotypically condemn everything that the left wants to oppose by labeling it fascism fascism you raised the issue of um right-wing populism so it seems that maybe you would suggest that this era where we're seeing the resurgence of different movements of right-wing populism globally around the world can't necessarily be captured by just talking about it as fascism and I read an interesting article by Paul Mason the English I know him my British friend yes yes yes and so and because you're you know interested in the psychoanalytic dimensions as well he had a kind of interesting talk about Erich Fromm's ideas and he
unknown
was trying to revive them to interpret the contemporary moment a little better and one formulation he came up with was a rejoinder to Arendt's response to the suggestion that fascism was something endemic to the German character and she said no it was the disintegration of German
was trying to revive them to interpret the contemporary moment a little better and one formulation he came up with was a rejoinder to Arendt's response to the suggestion that fascism was something endemic to the German character and she said no it was the disintegration of German
Slavoj Žižek
character and so what Paul Mason was suggesting is that at this moment what we're witnessing
character and so what Paul Mason was suggesting is that at this moment what we're witnessing
unknown
is the disintegration of neoliberal character and it's yes precisely I sign it with as they did it when they wanted to congratulate Saddam you know a person who always won was that he draw a portrait of Saddam with his blood instead of pencil so with my blood I'm ready to write that what you said just now is absolutely so important yes a certain hegemonic model is disintegrating and that's why that's what I didn't like you
is the disintegration of neoliberal character and it's yes precisely I sign it with as they did it when they wanted to congratulate Saddam you know a person who always won was that he draw a portrait of Saddam with his blood instead of pencil so with my blood I'm ready to write that what you said just now is absolutely so important yes a certain hegemonic model is disintegrating and that's why that's what I didn't like you
Slavoj Žižek
remember in the inauguration of of Biden which was as if okay this nightmare will be over let's return to the situation before Trump ruined it I don't think it's possible but I'm sorry I interrupt you please oh no that's that I was again no no that's exactly right I was interested in your response to whether that's an accurate analysis and it and it led Paul Mason in this essay to suggest a few things that we need to do in trying to confront the contemporary right-wing populism because it's really the failure of neoliberalism to provide any answers yes so some of the things but I will tell you something yeah go ahead which may interest you interest you here I was always harsh against Hannah Arendt but now I begin to appreciate her you know speaking about authority and so on I recently read something that she wrote I find it very important apropos authority she wrote already way back in the early sixties I think that today today because of the social processes influence of peers and so on family no longer has an authority parents are really rather impotent and so on but then she says something ingenious she says but this doesn't give the right to your father mother to tell you when you are perplexed what's going on listen we are also victims of social processes we cannot help it it's all shit we don't control anything no heroically even if this is true you must act with authority even if your authority is not justified this is not fascism this is the only way to be to be this is the only way to be a good parent another thing which may interest you even more the guy whom I already mentioned Pierre Bayard wrote now a book about the importance of tales narrative stories which never happened how the posi how they can play a very positive role and you know what's his main example I love it Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem because another some she Pierre Bayard says something very interesting he says on the one hand this idea of banality of evil bureaucrats who do evil it's a very pertinent important idea it tells something but she used the wrong example and he demonstrates by documents and so on that sorry whatever you think about Eichmann he was a fanatic well conscious brutal anti-semite he was not the banality of evil and the irony is that although she used a wrong example she nonetheless
remember in the inauguration of of Biden which was as if okay this nightmare will be over let's return to the situation before Trump ruined it I don't think it's possible but I'm sorry I interrupt you please oh no that's that I was again no no that's exactly right I was interested in your response to whether that's an accurate analysis and it and it led Paul Mason in this essay to suggest a few things that we need to do in trying to confront the contemporary right-wing populism because it's really the failure of neoliberalism to provide any answers yes so some of the things but I will tell you something yeah go ahead which may interest you interest you here I was always harsh against Hannah Arendt but now I begin to appreciate her you know speaking about authority and so on I recently read something that she wrote I find it very important apropos authority she wrote already way back in the early sixties I think that today today because of the social processes influence of peers and so on family no longer has an authority parents are really rather impotent and so on but then she says something ingenious she says but this doesn't give the right to your father mother to tell you when you are perplexed what's going on listen we are also victims of social processes we cannot help it it's all shit we don't control anything no heroically even if this is true you must act with authority even if your authority is not justified this is not fascism this is the only way to be to be this is the only way to be a good parent another thing which may interest you even more the guy whom I already mentioned Pierre Bayard wrote now a book about the importance of tales narrative stories which never happened how the posi how they can play a very positive role and you know what's his main example I love it Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem because another some she Pierre Bayard says something very interesting he says on the one hand this idea of banality of evil bureaucrats who do evil it's a very pertinent important idea it tells something but she used the wrong example and he demonstrates by documents and so on that sorry whatever you think about Eichmann he was a fanatic well conscious brutal anti-semite he was not the banality of evil and the irony is that although she used a wrong example she nonetheless
unknown
proposed a very important correct notion and then Bayard uses two other examples you remember it's one of American urban not even urban only legends Orson Welles staging of War of the Worlds as the radio show the myth
proposed a very important correct notion and then Bayard uses two other examples you remember it's one of American urban not even urban only legends Orson Welles staging of War of the Worlds as the radio show the myth
Slavoj Žižek
is at least ten thousand of people got into a panic roads were packed and so on and so on a guy then went to check hospital police records and so on no mostly people did it he went through police records and so on there was no there were no mass movement no higher number nothing in police records and so again I think that the result was a right one as we see today even more than at that point this conspiracy theories these but as if there is this painful paradox that at the beginning to propose a correct notion which will become correct only in the long term you have to use a wrong example and sorry I will immediately end up with the third example you know who was Kitty something I forgot a lady who was stabbed to death in front of her sorry Kitty Genovese Kitty Genovese Kitty Genovese is a bit of a myth too now I checked it up you know it's a myth yes there were no people who saw it only three people saw it and all of them did try to reach police but nonetheless did try to call police but nonetheless it's a correct example which was later triumphantly confirmed by empirical tests how if you
is at least ten thousand of people got into a panic roads were packed and so on and so on a guy then went to check hospital police records and so on no mostly people did it he went through police records and so on there was no there were no mass movement no higher number nothing in police records and so again I think that the result was a right one as we see today even more than at that point this conspiracy theories these but as if there is this painful paradox that at the beginning to propose a correct notion which will become correct only in the long term you have to use a wrong example and sorry I will immediately end up with the third example you know who was Kitty something I forgot a lady who was stabbed to death in front of her sorry Kitty Genovese Kitty Genovese Kitty Genovese is a bit of a myth too now I checked it up you know it's a myth yes there were no people who saw it only three people saw it and all of them did try to reach police but nonetheless did try to call police but nonetheless it's a correct example which was later triumphantly confirmed by empirical tests how if you
unknown
witness a guy beating somebody else if
witness a guy beating somebody else if
Slavoj Žižek
you are alone you will probably call police if there are
you are alone you will probably call police if there are
unknown
others
others
unknown
with you you will oscillate much more like why aren't others calling and so on but you see this wonderful paradox you know and also as an old Stalinist I'm saying this you know people forget this that Hannah Arendt is much more precise she never simply equates fascism and Nazism and Stalinism she is very specific saying that in the strict sense she says Stalinism was totalitarian just I think she puts it from to late 40s I don't know she is much more precise here because this is what always fascinated me but to go back to what you said yes it's what I would have said this in Lacanian terms very brutally disintegration of the big other of the public authority and I think that we should openly say public authority not in some mystical sense of I don't know higher authority but in the sense of we need some common space of shared values and so on we can debate this but within this space and so on what we are getting now is simply in conspiracy theories and other is that it's really some kind of retribalization and so on no and we shouldn't be afraid here to call for I'm using a horrible term public discipline as a condition of our actual freedom I think that there is no contradiction in Trump being this ruthless liberal conspiracy theories you think whatever you want and the authoritarian side of Trump which was already with was there of course yeah that's interesting it suggests you know just as a follow-up to that I'm wondering then since this gets back to the beginning of the conversation in some ways about the rule-based requirements
with you you will oscillate much more like why aren't others calling and so on but you see this wonderful paradox you know and also as an old Stalinist I'm saying this you know people forget this that Hannah Arendt is much more precise she never simply equates fascism and Nazism and Stalinism she is very specific saying that in the strict sense she says Stalinism was totalitarian just I think she puts it from to late 40s I don't know she is much more precise here because this is what always fascinated me but to go back to what you said yes it's what I would have said this in Lacanian terms very brutally disintegration of the big other of the public authority and I think that we should openly say public authority not in some mystical sense of I don't know higher authority but in the sense of we need some common space of shared values and so on we can debate this but within this space and so on what we are getting now is simply in conspiracy theories and other is that it's really some kind of retribalization and so on no and we shouldn't be afraid here to call for I'm using a horrible term public discipline as a condition of our actual freedom I think that there is no contradiction in Trump being this ruthless liberal conspiracy theories you think whatever you want and the authoritarian side of Trump which was already with was there of course yeah that's interesting it suggests you know just as a follow-up to that I'm wondering then since this gets back to the beginning of the conversation in some ways about the rule-based requirements
Slavoj Žižek
for actual freedom versus sort of theoretical freedom and so I'm wondering if in terms of vaccination policy for example you know how you would imagine applying exactly that insight that you just had about um you know how you create a sense of public discipline that is not going to be so frail as to be undermined by you know that sense of it being imposed and contravening people's theoretical freedom you know yeah but now I don't have a concrete answer but my answer is precisely the one provided by you in how we react to pandemic here we see the actual consequences of what you just called this disintegration of the public space and so on so that's how I think we should talk with
for actual freedom versus sort of theoretical freedom and so I'm wondering if in terms of vaccination policy for example you know how you would imagine applying exactly that insight that you just had about um you know how you create a sense of public discipline that is not going to be so frail as to be undermined by you know that sense of it being imposed and contravening people's theoretical freedom you know yeah but now I don't have a concrete answer but my answer is precisely the one provided by you in how we react to pandemic here we see the actual consequences of what you just called this disintegration of the public space and so on so that's how I think we should talk with
unknown
people sorry if this sounds patronizing but to ordinary people you know when we talk about public space big other blah blah we are not talking about abstract things my God we are talking about things which concern their daily life with us in Slovenia as I already said I'm absolutely not anti-American here because in Slovenia we are now
people sorry if this sounds patronizing but to ordinary people you know when we talk about public space big other blah blah we are not talking about abstract things my God we are talking about things which concern their daily life with us in Slovenia as I already said I'm absolutely not anti-American here because in Slovenia we are now
Slavoj Žižek
getting even much worse if you have it also in the states it's a kind of almost globalized indifference you know like now Slovenia and it's as your beloved president ex-Trump would have put it we are a shithole of a country with just million people but now we are again at over thousand new infections per day but people are somehow tired they are not ready to take it seriously on the street you see almost nobody with a mask sometimes in some strange way people are people are tired of it all and I understand people because as I always repeat what is threatened what is under threat today but I don't think it's a big corporate threat is the limitation gradual disappearance of our common sense daily way of life you know you go out talk with others and so on communicate and so on and I don't think this is just a big capitalist corporate threat I think that the tragedy is this one if I may just finish on the one hand we have you know the Pegasus software program and so on so people are becoming aware of how to an incredible level our lives are controlled everything is written and so on and programs which control us are getting more and more precise and individualized it's no longer that just some generalities and so on but I think people who feel this in some sense wrongly applied this to the to the pandemic you know this general fear against big corporations and so on and so on so when people tell me do you agree about all those with all those programs that for example follow where you move I said I have no problem with that this is a very limited control I worry much more about how I already am controlled with with other programs which you know like simple thing you are are you aware I know from my wife who buys Kindle on Kindle books are you aware that when you read a Kindle book not only Amazon gets to know what you are reading but also in what rhythm are you reading on which pages you are and so on I mean we are with incredible capacity of today's mega computers it is possible to get two things first a police state which is really effective which in pre-digital times it wasn't possible but at the same time which doesn't don't the police state it doesn't openly encroach or limit your freedom superficially so obviously we have to limit no limit our freedom we have to rethink our freedom I think we lived for too long a time under this impression that you know freedom means freedom of choice no I think too much of a choice can paradoxically even limit the true choice the true freedom is for me the freedom to change the terms of the choice you know like I don't want just a Coke and Pepsi and their subdivisions like some shitty organic Coke or whatever and so on and so on we have to redefine our freedom what do we mean in everyday life not as an at an
getting even much worse if you have it also in the states it's a kind of almost globalized indifference you know like now Slovenia and it's as your beloved president ex-Trump would have put it we are a shithole of a country with just million people but now we are again at over thousand new infections per day but people are somehow tired they are not ready to take it seriously on the street you see almost nobody with a mask sometimes in some strange way people are people are tired of it all and I understand people because as I always repeat what is threatened what is under threat today but I don't think it's a big corporate threat is the limitation gradual disappearance of our common sense daily way of life you know you go out talk with others and so on communicate and so on and I don't think this is just a big capitalist corporate threat I think that the tragedy is this one if I may just finish on the one hand we have you know the Pegasus software program and so on so people are becoming aware of how to an incredible level our lives are controlled everything is written and so on and programs which control us are getting more and more precise and individualized it's no longer that just some generalities and so on but I think people who feel this in some sense wrongly applied this to the to the pandemic you know this general fear against big corporations and so on and so on so when people tell me do you agree about all those with all those programs that for example follow where you move I said I have no problem with that this is a very limited control I worry much more about how I already am controlled with with other programs which you know like simple thing you are are you aware I know from my wife who buys Kindle on Kindle books are you aware that when you read a Kindle book not only Amazon gets to know what you are reading but also in what rhythm are you reading on which pages you are and so on I mean we are with incredible capacity of today's mega computers it is possible to get two things first a police state which is really effective which in pre-digital times it wasn't possible but at the same time which doesn't don't the police state it doesn't openly encroach or limit your freedom superficially so obviously we have to limit no limit our freedom we have to rethink our freedom I think we lived for too long a time under this impression that you know freedom means freedom of choice no I think too much of a choice can paradoxically even limit the true choice the true freedom is for me the freedom to change the terms of the choice you know like I don't want just a Coke and Pepsi and their subdivisions like some shitty organic Coke or whatever and so on and so on we have to redefine our freedom what do we mean in everyday life not as an at an
unknown
abstract
abstract
Slavoj Žižek
theoretical level right Ben you didn't yet attack me Russell all the others our Taliban friend the Ben Burgess Ann Russell you didn't yet attack me the reason Apple is so successful is it has you it offers fewer choices this is what you're going to get take it or leave it Professor Ben Burgess um yeah I was actually curious about maybe going back to the beginning of the conversation about fascism although I did want to say while you're talking about China earlier I was thinking about a few years ago I taught a summer class at Jilin University in China and uh and when people said you know they had to take Marxism classes you know as like a Gen Ed requirement essentially there uh you know super curious about this and I remember one student telling me this may be an exaggeration or one particular teacher or something but they said that the that they were told that you didn't actually need to read the primary sources in Marxism class because the the Chinese Communist Party had synthesized it all so well it was no longer it was now redundant to have to read the sorry to interrupt you then you can go on you know what would be my point here the subtle message we don't have to read is even maybe it's better for you not to read it you know yeah well I also actually talked to a Marxism professor at Jilin and uh and it was a really strange conversation like they said like the things they were trying to or I guess this was one of the students but it was part of the same conversation uh that the big things they got out of the Marxism class were about individual responsibility and everybody's efforts to build up the Chinese nation I thought man so those two things that Karl Marx constantly wrote about individual responsibility and Chinese nationalism you know that's what you're learning in your in your Marxism class no but I this to interrupt again but this is yes I agree with you this is horrible what you were told because you see today with regard to ecology
theoretical level right Ben you didn't yet attack me Russell all the others our Taliban friend the Ben Burgess Ann Russell you didn't yet attack me the reason Apple is so successful is it has you it offers fewer choices this is what you're going to get take it or leave it Professor Ben Burgess um yeah I was actually curious about maybe going back to the beginning of the conversation about fascism although I did want to say while you're talking about China earlier I was thinking about a few years ago I taught a summer class at Jilin University in China and uh and when people said you know they had to take Marxism classes you know as like a Gen Ed requirement essentially there uh you know super curious about this and I remember one student telling me this may be an exaggeration or one particular teacher or something but they said that the that they were told that you didn't actually need to read the primary sources in Marxism class because the the Chinese Communist Party had synthesized it all so well it was no longer it was now redundant to have to read the sorry to interrupt you then you can go on you know what would be my point here the subtle message we don't have to read is even maybe it's better for you not to read it you know yeah well I also actually talked to a Marxism professor at Jilin and uh and it was a really strange conversation like they said like the things they were trying to or I guess this was one of the students but it was part of the same conversation uh that the big things they got out of the Marxism class were about individual responsibility and everybody's efforts to build up the Chinese nation I thought man so those two things that Karl Marx constantly wrote about individual responsibility and Chinese nationalism you know that's what you're learning in your in your Marxism class no but I this to interrupt again but this is yes I agree with you this is horrible what you were told because you see today with regard to ecology
unknown
Etienne Balibar I think made the remark how this and you know this line of thought of mine I think how this focus on individual responsibility is one of the ways of the hegemonic ideology and capitalism to reproduce themselves and function smoothly like I often was witness to this debate I criticize some big companies and then they tell me yeah it's easy to criticize but did you do your
Etienne Balibar I think made the remark how this and you know this line of thought of mine I think how this focus on individual responsibility is one of the ways of the hegemonic ideology and capitalism to reproduce themselves and function smoothly like I often was witness to this debate I criticize some big companies and then they tell me yeah it's easy to criticize but did you do your
unknown
individual duty did you put all cans of Coke in one bag all all newspapers in another and so on so then all of a sudden instead of radical critical thinking you are and all left liberals love this you are at this infinite you know left
individual duty did you put all cans of Coke in one bag all all newspapers in another and so on so then all of a sudden instead of radical critical thinking you are and all left liberals love this you are at this infinite you know left
Slavoj Žižek
liberals enjoy being feeling guilty and probing deep into their guilt like oh my God I used that expression was I maybe sexist or racist you know you always and it's the same with this did you do enough no we have to become aware of proper proportions here how one big corporation pollutes the environment more more than a million people in ordinary lives and so on and so on the pro we should precisely not put things here at the level of individual responsibility and it's strange when you said Ben that they got this as a lesson because if there is a point in Marx it is that maybe in an even too simple way that in some sense even capitalists for their exploitation are not individually responsible you know yeah it's not and also when you said that common good do you work for common good Marx would have exploded at this idea of opposing individual responsibility working for common good where the elementary Marxist move here is and it's still very useful today it's okay but define common good are there any ideological biases in the common good you know like how exactly do you define common good there ideology is there that's why I'm you know which thing I most like from when I was young I spoke with a guy he visited Ljubljana who was an American congressman left Democrat and then this was about Watergate era whatever I as a total idiot raised the question of corruption and so on and he said you know that there are very honest Republicans who are not personally corrupted but do much less good than some corrupted Democrats you know so I'm not saying we should ignore corruption absolutely not but what I'm saying is that we shouldn't moralize in this false way policy yeah and I mean I mean this is something that Michael Brooks always used to point out you know talking about things like the prosecution of Lula in Brazil that the thing about anti-corruption politics is that it's kind of a-political it's uh you know you can use it to to advance anything because there's there's no real ideology there and this goes back to the point about the Chinese you know pseudo-Marxism class because it's just about individual moral virtue um so uh I did I did want to go back real quickly just to to where we started because I'd be curious about your take on this I think that there is like an interesting tension in a lot of American progressive views about Trump and Trumpism because on the one hand uh there is a correct critique I think we all agree with that like Trump's response to the pandemic was criminally negligent and you know and and there should have been uh lots of you know like a much more thorough you know lockdown there should have been tested trace you know all this stuff and then the other on the other hand there's all this uh analysis of Trump as you know as a as a as a fascist you know and and and it seems like an actually authoritarian leader uh like if if that was the big problem with Trump if the big problem with Trump wasn't just that he was doing what Romney would have done if he was president you know deregulating appointing conservatives who would overturn abortion you know but if the big problem with Trump is that he was this radical new authoritarian break then it's very confusing how he responded to the pandemic because you think this would be the golden opportunity for an authoritarian consolidation of power I mean this yeah but it's clear why he didn't do it because in Slovenia the present right-wing government is try to do this although at the beginning they were following Trump and proclaiming that the
liberals enjoy being feeling guilty and probing deep into their guilt like oh my God I used that expression was I maybe sexist or racist you know you always and it's the same with this did you do enough no we have to become aware of proper proportions here how one big corporation pollutes the environment more more than a million people in ordinary lives and so on and so on the pro we should precisely not put things here at the level of individual responsibility and it's strange when you said Ben that they got this as a lesson because if there is a point in Marx it is that maybe in an even too simple way that in some sense even capitalists for their exploitation are not individually responsible you know yeah it's not and also when you said that common good do you work for common good Marx would have exploded at this idea of opposing individual responsibility working for common good where the elementary Marxist move here is and it's still very useful today it's okay but define common good are there any ideological biases in the common good you know like how exactly do you define common good there ideology is there that's why I'm you know which thing I most like from when I was young I spoke with a guy he visited Ljubljana who was an American congressman left Democrat and then this was about Watergate era whatever I as a total idiot raised the question of corruption and so on and he said you know that there are very honest Republicans who are not personally corrupted but do much less good than some corrupted Democrats you know so I'm not saying we should ignore corruption absolutely not but what I'm saying is that we shouldn't moralize in this false way policy yeah and I mean I mean this is something that Michael Brooks always used to point out you know talking about things like the prosecution of Lula in Brazil that the thing about anti-corruption politics is that it's kind of a-political it's uh you know you can use it to to advance anything because there's there's no real ideology there and this goes back to the point about the Chinese you know pseudo-Marxism class because it's just about individual moral virtue um so uh I did I did want to go back real quickly just to to where we started because I'd be curious about your take on this I think that there is like an interesting tension in a lot of American progressive views about Trump and Trumpism because on the one hand uh there is a correct critique I think we all agree with that like Trump's response to the pandemic was criminally negligent and you know and and there should have been uh lots of you know like a much more thorough you know lockdown there should have been tested trace you know all this stuff and then the other on the other hand there's all this uh analysis of Trump as you know as a as a as a fascist you know and and and it seems like an actually authoritarian leader uh like if if that was the big problem with Trump if the big problem with Trump wasn't just that he was doing what Romney would have done if he was president you know deregulating appointing conservatives who would overturn abortion you know but if the big problem with Trump is that he was this radical new authoritarian break then it's very confusing how he responded to the pandemic because you think this would be the golden opportunity for an authoritarian consolidation of power I mean this yeah but it's clear why he didn't do it because in Slovenia the present right-wing government is try to do this although at the beginning they were following Trump and proclaiming that the
unknown
threat of pandemic is a leftist exaggeration to impose socialist dictatorship now they turned around the disk the music and now
threat of pandemic is a leftist exaggeration to impose socialist dictatorship now they turned around the disk the music and now
unknown
they claim that that leftists are anti-vaxx are against vaccination to prevent to prevent the operability of their government and so on but don't you think the problem with Trump is this one that a strong that his real okay he had many bases which he represented there was there were many big corporations and so on but but maybe the key component of his support was what was this middle class even some lower class individuals who perceive the state as infringing on the and all that and it's very difficult to get that American type of populism into a proper authoritarian fascist frame you know what Trump was doing would have been unaccept- unacceptable for a true
they claim that that leftists are anti-vaxx are against vaccination to prevent to prevent the operability of their government and so on but don't you think the problem with Trump is this one that a strong that his real okay he had many bases which he represented there was there were many big corporations and so on but but maybe the key component of his support was what was this middle class even some lower class individuals who perceive the state as infringing on the and all that and it's very difficult to get that American type of populism into a proper authoritarian fascist frame you know what Trump was doing would have been unaccept- unacceptable for a true
Slavoj Žižek
fascist I think maybe I'm wrong I'm not sure sounds right to me so Professor Sbriglio do you have a question and how are we doing on
fascist I think maybe I'm wrong I'm not sure sounds right to me so Professor Sbriglio do you have a question and how are we doing on
unknown
time sir yes you can call him Professor because I hate him he's my best friend but yes call him Professor not me yes okay Professor Sbriglio up yours oh jeez no well you know I was just thinking about the discussion we were having earlier about the question of leadership and um but and I was also thinking about that along the same lines of the um the Chinese students who were who were disappeared for reading for reading Marx and or reading Mao and taking it taking it too seriously um there's there's a connection there I think but um I don't buy any of the um and it's also a
time sir yes you can call him Professor because I hate him he's my best friend but yes call him Professor not me yes okay Professor Sbriglio up yours oh jeez no well you know I was just thinking about the discussion we were having earlier about the question of leadership and um but and I was also thinking about that along the same lines of the um the Chinese students who were who were disappeared for reading for reading Marx and or reading Mao and taking it taking it too seriously um there's there's a connection there I think but um I don't buy any of the um and it's also a
Slavoj Žižek
kind of callback Slavoj to your earlier point about having to like admit this like you know gritting your teeth that some of the things that Biden has done um aren't so bad I think I think Biden himself um as far as leadership goes um is I wouldn't give him a very high grade but the degree to which the and it's actually kind of tied into what what Adnan was asking you about the degree to which this sort of the the erosion of the neoliberal consensus has pushed um Biden to um you know spend we've spent a I mean not nearly enough but to have spent you know over what was what was the coronavirus package trillion and now you know who knows what's going to happen with the reconciliation bill that now that you know Manchin is threatening to to hold it up because he's here I become a Stalinist sorry to interrupt you don't you think that one should liquidate the in aren't there four five members of the Democratic Party in the Senate and they are the danger well I mean and it's more from you know it's apparently more than just Manchin and Sinema they're just happy to take the you know to take the press and to take the hit for other people like maybe Chris Coons but um but to what degree is it I'm not saying that it doesn't matter uh that it's it's Biden but to what degree is it the fact that political imagination um and you know
kind of callback Slavoj to your earlier point about having to like admit this like you know gritting your teeth that some of the things that Biden has done um aren't so bad I think I think Biden himself um as far as leadership goes um is I wouldn't give him a very high grade but the degree to which the and it's actually kind of tied into what what Adnan was asking you about the degree to which this sort of the the erosion of the neoliberal consensus has pushed um Biden to um you know spend we've spent a I mean not nearly enough but to have spent you know over what was what was the coronavirus package trillion and now you know who knows what's going to happen with the reconciliation bill that now that you know Manchin is threatening to to hold it up because he's here I become a Stalinist sorry to interrupt you don't you think that one should liquidate the in aren't there four five members of the Democratic Party in the Senate and they are the danger well I mean and it's more from you know it's apparently more than just Manchin and Sinema they're just happy to take the you know to take the press and to take the hit for other people like maybe Chris Coons but um but to what degree is it I'm not saying that it doesn't matter uh that it's it's Biden but to what degree is it the fact that political imagination um and you know
unknown
regardless
regardless
Slavoj Žižek
of what centrist Democrats want to do um their their hand is being forced um regardless and I'm saying you know the forces of reaction will always be there but um it's almost like the problem for somebody like like Biden is similar to the problem with the you know the the old authority like oh these these people are taking it too seriously it's like we can't just use Black Lives Matter as a slogan we actually have to try um you know we're going to be pushed to actually implement this or we can't just take Medicare for All as this sort of
of what centrist Democrats want to do um their their hand is being forced um regardless and I'm saying you know the forces of reaction will always be there but um it's almost like the problem for somebody like like Biden is similar to the problem with the you know the the old authority like oh these these people are taking it too seriously it's like we can't just use Black Lives Matter as a slogan we actually have to try um you know we're going to be pushed to actually implement this or we can't just take Medicare for All as this sort of
unknown
popular
popular
Slavoj Žižek
slogan where things are moving in that in that direction however slowly so I guess this isn't so much a question as a reflection on to what degree has the the political terrain itself or world historic sort of Hegelian world historical events um the politician politicians we still haven't caught up with it yet I agree but here again maybe I'm too much of a
slogan where things are moving in that in that direction however slowly so I guess this isn't so much a question as a reflection on to what degree has the the political terrain itself or world historic sort of Hegelian world historical events um the politician politicians we still haven't caught up with it yet I agree but here again maybe I'm too much of a
unknown
cynical realist although I don't consider myself cynical in any serious sense namely I still prefer this hypocritical strategy you know we must be for healthcare for all although we always find an excuse but hypocrisy at least opens up the way for criticism you know then then you can say no we have to take it seriously and so on and so on so I am for hypocrisy in so far as it sustains a certain critical space this was always Marxist position stupid leftist only quote that Marx you know bourgeois freedoms are just formal freedoms you know yeah but out of this form many very positive things happened yes first they were just formal freedoms but then Mary Wollstonecraft women said we also want it then a world historical event black slaves in Haiti said we also want it workers said actual freedom why not also social freedom and so on and so on you know for me the most beautiful example of this it was told to me maybe you know it by a Mexican friend you know that Virgin of Guadalupe of course the black virgin which appeared already around I don't know many in Mexico no at the beginning Christianity was just imposed by the colonizers what happened
cynical realist although I don't consider myself cynical in any serious sense namely I still prefer this hypocritical strategy you know we must be for healthcare for all although we always find an excuse but hypocrisy at least opens up the way for criticism you know then then you can say no we have to take it seriously and so on and so on so I am for hypocrisy in so far as it sustains a certain critical space this was always Marxist position stupid leftist only quote that Marx you know bourgeois freedoms are just formal freedoms you know yeah but out of this form many very positive things happened yes first they were just formal freedoms but then Mary Wollstonecraft women said we also want it then a world historical event black slaves in Haiti said we also want it workers said actual freedom why not also social freedom and so on and so on you know for me the most beautiful example of this it was told to me maybe you know it by a Mexican friend you know that Virgin of Guadalupe of course the black virgin which appeared already around I don't know many in Mexico no at the beginning Christianity was just imposed by the colonizers what happened
Slavoj Žižek
with that appearance of a black virgin is
with that appearance of a black virgin is
unknown
that the very religion of colonizers was creatively reappropriated to express the deep discontent horror of the life of those enslaved and so on so again I am all for
that the very religion of colonizers was creatively reappropriated to express the deep discontent horror of the life of those enslaved and so on so again I am all for
unknown
hypocrisy in so far as it is the first step towards more
hypocrisy in so far as it is the first step towards more
Slavoj Žižek
awareness like this is how we should criticize bourgeois modernity as some critical race guys did it put it in a wonderful way you know the big thing of modernity from 16th 17th century was against slavery nobody should be slave we should but how strangely exactly at that period because capitalism necessitated it actual slavery exploded in that 16th 17th century so isn't the paradox that precisely when of the early enlightenment thinkers the obsession was against slavery the sense was in the strict legal sense metaphorical slavery a worker is a slave women are slaves and so on but they tolerated literal slavery and here maybe I should I'm getting tired tell you a story of how that's my historical pessimism how even the most progressive ideas can be used for bad purposes you remember for me one of the original bad guys of American politics Andrew Jackson kind of proto-Trump populist for ordinary people but kill the natives you know move west but you know which
awareness like this is how we should criticize bourgeois modernity as some critical race guys did it put it in a wonderful way you know the big thing of modernity from 16th 17th century was against slavery nobody should be slave we should but how strangely exactly at that period because capitalism necessitated it actual slavery exploded in that 16th 17th century so isn't the paradox that precisely when of the early enlightenment thinkers the obsession was against slavery the sense was in the strict legal sense metaphorical slavery a worker is a slave women are slaves and so on but they tolerated literal slavery and here maybe I should I'm getting tired tell you a story of how that's my historical pessimism how even the most progressive ideas can be used for bad purposes you remember for me one of the original bad guys of American politics Andrew Jackson kind of proto-Trump populist for ordinary people but kill the natives you know move west but you know which
unknown
idea there
idea there
Slavoj Žižek
was something like leftist genocide of Native Americans and you know who was their reference a very leftist thought of I think it was not David Hume it was
was something like leftist genocide of Native Americans and you know who was their reference a very leftist thought of I think it was not David Hume it was
unknown
John Locke who said meaning of course the European capitalist constellation but Locke already applied it to the United States his reasoning was this one very leftist one there should be a limited amount of private property but only if you can effectively work on it productively use it you know but then Locke went on and he said but look at the natives in America they have this immense territory which they don't use productively they just vegetate on it so we need actual workers to use that which is why screw them the natives go and colonize it it's a very dangerous this is for me ideology at its best which means most horrible no how this progressive idea no property should be limited and and linked to your productivity can be used in a directly brutal racist way to justify genocide well you've been very generous with your time and and I would love to have you come back with this esteemed panel Professor Adnan Hussein went on Twitter asked his followers and my followers our followers what questions you would like to ask Zizek and there was one question
John Locke who said meaning of course the European capitalist constellation but Locke already applied it to the United States his reasoning was this one very leftist one there should be a limited amount of private property but only if you can effectively work on it productively use it you know but then Locke went on and he said but look at the natives in America they have this immense territory which they don't use productively they just vegetate on it so we need actual workers to use that which is why screw them the natives go and colonize it it's a very dangerous this is for me ideology at its best which means most horrible no how this progressive idea no property should be limited and and linked to your productivity can be used in a directly brutal racist way to justify genocide well you've been very generous with your time and and I would love to have you come back with this esteemed panel Professor Adnan Hussein went on Twitter asked his followers and my followers our followers what questions you would like to ask Zizek and there was one question
Slavoj Žižek
okay give me the last one yeah so there was one question from a MW von Walter who asked you how do we go about making new cliches and the reason that is interesting to me is because Professor Hussein intimated that you like stereotypes so what is the difference
okay give me the last one yeah so there was one question from a MW von Walter who asked you how do we go about making new cliches and the reason that is interesting to me is because Professor Hussein intimated that you like stereotypes so what is the difference
unknown
between or the what is the difference between a cliche and a stereotype and can comedy exist can jokes exist without cliches and stereotypes they cannot but my own country ex-Yugoslavia is for me a
between or the what is the difference between a cliche and a stereotype and can comedy exist can jokes exist without cliches and stereotypes they cannot but my own country ex-Yugoslavia is for me a
unknown
model of how don't ask me this is too theoretical now to give you an exact definition of the difference between stereotype and cliche but I remember before nationalism it's my old story sorry if some of you know it before nationalism exploded in mid-80s and then the war in early 90s when we met with friends from other republics we joyfully mockingly repeated all the cliches and so on and the point was to mobilize the racist cliches but in such a beautiful ironic way you know that it was the most efficient way again to undermine racism like I don't know Montenegrin people were supposed to be lazy Bosniak Bosniaks were supposed to be too sexually obsessed we Slovenes were supposed to be how do
model of how don't ask me this is too theoretical now to give you an exact definition of the difference between stereotype and cliche but I remember before nationalism it's my old story sorry if some of you know it before nationalism exploded in mid-80s and then the war in early 90s when we met with friends from other republics we joyfully mockingly repeated all the cliches and so on and the point was to mobilize the racist cliches but in such a beautiful ironic way you know that it was the most efficient way again to undermine racism like I don't know Montenegrin people were supposed to be lazy Bosniak Bosniaks were supposed to be too sexually obsessed we Slovenes were supposed to be how do
Slavoj Žižek
you call it misers stingy don't want to pay the bill well that one's true that one's true no absolutely I think when I visit the country the only cognitive mapping that you get is cliches and I think all good things happened when I noticed when I was with Scotland you know sorry in Scotland Scottish people are supposed to be misers and they were always so generous to me paying the bill but it was clear that it was a reaction to cliches they knew this is their cliche you know even in Germany today Germany is today much less racist than although you have also worrisome tendency there tendency there much less racist than than than than France or England precisely because there is all the time in the background that of course Nazi horror and and just to tell another thing who who was it there one who was it was it Hussein or who said that about Hannah Arendt that the Nazism was against the true German tradition yes at time and there is a wonderful detail which people forget which sort of confirms it you know it was this popular association Prussian officers' discipline no Prussia that region they were too elitist officers they didn't like Nazism Nazism the roots of Nazism were mostly in this southern decadent enjoy the life Bavaria you know no I think we should rehabilitate almost against Nazism the the Prussian military spirit and so on so but back to sorry back to the back to the cliches you know we need cliches as a as a some kind of basic orientation a language without cliches is simply a lifeless language I'm not saying of course that we should accept cliches but it's a wonderful anti-racist experience to mockingly undermine cliches but the cliches have to be there to do it that's my problem with political correctness I think that in some sense the way they fight racist and other cliches in some sense by prohibiting them in right way it in the long term it only it only reconfirms racist prejudices and so on and so on do you see my my my last question is Michael Brooks who it's a sacred name on this show and among our group he was a big fan of a show called Ctown which was severely profane they didn't traffic their their speech and it was a relief to him and me and I and my friends to be able to hear jokes unbridled whatever politically incorrect I absolutely agree sorry I don't know that one but you know whom I up to a certain level but nonetheless admire Larry David you know he just barely escaped being prohibited for his post-Seinfeld show where there was I think this brought him so much trouble where there was uh it was so intelligent but people took it as mocking the Holocaust did you see one episode where two guys yeah that was on Saturday Night Live you're talking about when he was he was hosting Saturday Night Live or was it this one where he had two people one actual Holocaust survivor and one winner of the Survivor show TV and they they struggle who suffered more and of course the survivor of the reality show wins I don't think this in any sense really downplays the horror of the Holocaust the whole joke works precisely because we know that the situation is totally absurd that of course Holocaust cannot be and I was so delighted from my Israeli friends to learn you know that Jews had a whole series of Holocaust jokes which were as they told me the only way for them to survive when things were really horrible immediately after World War II or even for example in Poland itself you couldn't afford this
you call it misers stingy don't want to pay the bill well that one's true that one's true no absolutely I think when I visit the country the only cognitive mapping that you get is cliches and I think all good things happened when I noticed when I was with Scotland you know sorry in Scotland Scottish people are supposed to be misers and they were always so generous to me paying the bill but it was clear that it was a reaction to cliches they knew this is their cliche you know even in Germany today Germany is today much less racist than although you have also worrisome tendency there tendency there much less racist than than than than France or England precisely because there is all the time in the background that of course Nazi horror and and just to tell another thing who who was it there one who was it was it Hussein or who said that about Hannah Arendt that the Nazism was against the true German tradition yes at time and there is a wonderful detail which people forget which sort of confirms it you know it was this popular association Prussian officers' discipline no Prussia that region they were too elitist officers they didn't like Nazism Nazism the roots of Nazism were mostly in this southern decadent enjoy the life Bavaria you know no I think we should rehabilitate almost against Nazism the the Prussian military spirit and so on so but back to sorry back to the back to the cliches you know we need cliches as a as a some kind of basic orientation a language without cliches is simply a lifeless language I'm not saying of course that we should accept cliches but it's a wonderful anti-racist experience to mockingly undermine cliches but the cliches have to be there to do it that's my problem with political correctness I think that in some sense the way they fight racist and other cliches in some sense by prohibiting them in right way it in the long term it only it only reconfirms racist prejudices and so on and so on do you see my my my last question is Michael Brooks who it's a sacred name on this show and among our group he was a big fan of a show called Ctown which was severely profane they didn't traffic their their speech and it was a relief to him and me and I and my friends to be able to hear jokes unbridled whatever politically incorrect I absolutely agree sorry I don't know that one but you know whom I up to a certain level but nonetheless admire Larry David you know he just barely escaped being prohibited for his post-Seinfeld show where there was I think this brought him so much trouble where there was uh it was so intelligent but people took it as mocking the Holocaust did you see one episode where two guys yeah that was on Saturday Night Live you're talking about when he was he was hosting Saturday Night Live or was it this one where he had two people one actual Holocaust survivor and one winner of the Survivor show TV and they they struggle who suffered more and of course the survivor of the reality show wins I don't think this in any sense really downplays the horror of the Holocaust the whole joke works precisely because we know that the situation is totally absurd that of course Holocaust cannot be and I was so delighted from my Israeli friends to learn you know that Jews had a whole series of Holocaust jokes which were as they told me the only way for them to survive when things were really horrible immediately after World War II or even for example in Poland itself you couldn't afford this
David Horowitz
historical awareness oh my God you can only tolerate it through jokes it's the same in Bosnia with the Srebrenica massacre there is a whole sub-species of of jokes although I admit there are jokes and jokes I don't believe generally in abstract redeeming power of laughter we should never forget that there is also a specific arrogant humor of for example in socialist country of upper level bureaucrats making fun of the lower class stupid naive people even in China from my friends I learned that there is a couple of there's a whole series of jokes making fun of stupid provincial
historical awareness oh my God you can only tolerate it through jokes it's the same in Bosnia with the Srebrenica massacre there is a whole sub-species of of jokes although I admit there are jokes and jokes I don't believe generally in abstract redeeming power of laughter we should never forget that there is also a specific arrogant humor of for example in socialist country of upper level bureaucrats making fun of the lower class stupid naive people even in China from my friends I learned that there is a couple of there's a whole series of jokes making fun of stupid provincial
Slavoj Žižek
lower level party secretaries in a small town or a factory but these are strictly upper level higher state bureaucracy jokes about so I don't believe that in general jokes are necessarily subversive no there are jokes and jokes there are also extremely brutal arrogant racist jokes and so on and so on I admit it well I agree with you it I won't say it's an honor to have you on the show please don't say this don't state it actually it's been an inconvenience and a pleasure yes yes yes and you know what you should say I would love you to say this that next time if we meet on the street you will look and if you see me on one side of the street you will pray to God that you will see me early enough to
lower level party secretaries in a small town or a factory but these are strictly upper level higher state bureaucracy jokes about so I don't believe that in general jokes are necessarily subversive no there are jokes and jokes there are also extremely brutal arrogant racist jokes and so on and so on I admit it well I agree with you it I won't say it's an honor to have you on the show please don't say this don't state it actually it's been an inconvenience and a pleasure yes yes yes and you know what you should say I would love you to say this that next time if we meet on the street you will look and if you see me on one side of the street you will pray to God that you will see me early enough to
unknown
quickly
quickly
Slavoj Žižek
cross the street and go to the other side you know to me it often happens this and then of course I'm a pure hypocrite and I say how nice to meet you and all that bullshit right well some people some people say Zizek is the Elvis of cultural theory that's what we call no you know what's my paradox and Russell although I hate him again but he got this that and I'm glad that we move in the same direction that people claim I'm a post no I'm not a crazy postmodernist I want to return to classical big philosophy I'm very orthodox here I'm tired of this endless postmodern games and so on you know I like more and more clear great philosophical theses political theses and so on and so on so no now I will say something for which you can kill me for a long time I haven't had such a nice conversation than the one with you and David I like you especially because when I first saw you I hoped here we are not normal people like Ben and Russell you look to me as a serious guy my God you will discipline us or whatever now I suspect you are the dirtiest of all of us and that's why yeah thanks very much it was nice thank you so much thank you let me plug your book that's the least I can do so you can because you have two you've written books the most recent is Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World which is that's the second one now these days it will be out but only for print on demand I'm very mad at that the third volume the title is Heaven in Disorder
cross the street and go to the other side you know to me it often happens this and then of course I'm a pure hypocrite and I say how nice to meet you and all that bullshit right well some people some people say Zizek is the Elvis of cultural theory that's what we call no you know what's my paradox and Russell although I hate him again but he got this that and I'm glad that we move in the same direction that people claim I'm a post no I'm not a crazy postmodernist I want to return to classical big philosophy I'm very orthodox here I'm tired of this endless postmodern games and so on you know I like more and more clear great philosophical theses political theses and so on and so on so no now I will say something for which you can kill me for a long time I haven't had such a nice conversation than the one with you and David I like you especially because when I first saw you I hoped here we are not normal people like Ben and Russell you look to me as a serious guy my God you will discipline us or whatever now I suspect you are the dirtiest of all of us and that's why yeah thanks very much it was nice thank you so much thank you let me plug your book that's the least I can do so you can because you have two you've written books the most recent is Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World which is that's the second one now these days it will be out but only for print on demand I'm very mad at that the third volume the title is Heaven in Disorder
unknown
part of my political writings but life goes on okay it was a pleasure for me yes I have one question I ask of everyone what is your reading hygiene what is your reading discipline each day please two a two I need two texts one easier one a detective novel and one difficult one so that when I get tired with the one I
part of my political writings but life goes on okay it was a pleasure for me yes I have one question I ask of everyone what is your reading hygiene what is your reading discipline each day please two a two I need two texts one easier one a detective novel and one difficult one so that when I get tired with the one I
Slavoj Žižek
jump to the other I jump here and there how many hours do you spend reading not enough because I had some eye inflammation problems and so on but still I have this scout boy scout logic you know every day I have to read something I have to write a little bit if I don't do it I feel guilty and how many hours are we talking about I because of small obligations here and there I have to to make breaks all the time but like if I'm active less than five hours I would if in Stalinist Russia I would have volunteered for Gulag you know like I'm so if you don't read for five hours a day you no read and write read and write for five days yeah but not in one not in in not at once like one hour here one hour there I'm very flexible here I can work on airplanes in trains and so on and so on as a matter of fact I remember years ago now it's horrible because on many planes if you fly business class and because of my age I have to you have to you get free internet but really I hate it because what I like about these really long flights not United but from Europe here to Latin America to Australia isn't there something wonderful you are like hours out of contact with reality right and what is your baseline what do you have to read each day is there a newspaper no no is there a website that you go to that you have to go to every day just quickly follow news on CNN Guardian and some other sites no no it must
jump to the other I jump here and there how many hours do you spend reading not enough because I had some eye inflammation problems and so on but still I have this scout boy scout logic you know every day I have to read something I have to write a little bit if I don't do it I feel guilty and how many hours are we talking about I because of small obligations here and there I have to to make breaks all the time but like if I'm active less than five hours I would if in Stalinist Russia I would have volunteered for Gulag you know like I'm so if you don't read for five hours a day you no read and write read and write for five days yeah but not in one not in in not at once like one hour here one hour there I'm very flexible here I can work on airplanes in trains and so on and so on as a matter of fact I remember years ago now it's horrible because on many planes if you fly business class and because of my age I have to you have to you get free internet but really I hate it because what I like about these really long flights not United but from Europe here to Latin America to Australia isn't there something wonderful you are like hours out of contact with reality right and what is your baseline what do you have to read each day is there a newspaper no no is there a website that you go to that you have to go to every day just quickly follow news on CNN Guardian and some other sites no no it must
unknown
be a little bit of serious theory philosophy
be a little bit of serious theory philosophy
Slavoj Žižek
political
political
unknown
theory and so on I am absolutely
theory and so on I am absolutely
Slavoj Žižek
you don't trust a specific you don't trust the New York Times to tell you I don't even follow New York Times I'm somewhere between but not because I like them but because they are most practical for quick news just to get what is going on and here we are more used to CNN and Guardian in Europe
you don't trust a specific you don't trust the New York Times to tell you I don't even follow New York Times I'm somewhere between but not because I like them but because they are most practical for quick news just to get what is going on and here we are more used to CNN and Guardian in Europe
unknown
but I'm saying absolutely
but I'm saying absolutely
Slavoj Žižek
not they are they are they are they are the best is there no value to an organization that is gathering news and then telling you each day this is important we have we have the brightest people in our newsroom and we believe no I'm not I'm not aware of it you don't think that there's any value to like a BBC probably no no no probably it is I'm not saying there is not you know I'm just saying that I am not aware if you have a suggestion that there is a a domain or whatever
not they are they are they are they are the best is there no value to an organization that is gathering news and then telling you each day this is important we have we have the brightest people in our newsroom and we believe no I'm not I'm not aware of it you don't think that there's any value to like a BBC probably no no no probably it is I'm not saying there is not you know I'm just saying that I am not aware if you have a suggestion that there is a a domain or whatever
unknown
website where you click there and you learn all that is really important I would like to know it you know the comment section on Pornhub
website where you click there and you learn all that is really important I would like to know it you know the comment section on Pornhub
Slavoj Žižek
for me always gets me through the Pornhub like but how can you skip the other part of I mean oh he only goes
for me always gets me through the Pornhub like but how can you skip the other part of I mean oh he only goes
unknown
there recon now you're a dirty old man if they no what I mean is that if
there recon now you're a dirty old man if they no what I mean is that if
Slavoj Žižek
they catch you looking at naked women or whatever is there
they catch you looking at naked women or whatever is there
unknown
you say
you say
Slavoj Žižek
no this was by mistake I'm really just for the news there they have the best comment section when I
no this was by mistake I'm really just for the news there they have the best comment section when I
unknown
was young
was young
Slavoj Žižek
I must say many people but sincerely they were not lying were telling me that in Playboy years ago and more they had quite good long interviews and so on
I must say many people but sincerely they were not lying were telling me that in Playboy years ago and more they had quite good long interviews and so on
unknown
you know it wasn't all bullshit in there there's an interview
you know it wasn't all bullshit in there there's an interview
Slavoj Žižek
with Thomas Pynchon from like a Playboy from the early 70s yeah that I read for the articles uh-huh yeah and the review section in Hustler was magnificent I'm kidding okay thank you so much thank you so much and I really appreciate I really enjoyed it and keep in touch even with you Russell and Ben my two greatest enemies we still keep in touch oh good bye I
with Thomas Pynchon from like a Playboy from the early 70s yeah that I read for the articles uh-huh yeah and the review section in Hustler was magnificent I'm kidding okay thank you so much thank you so much and I really appreciate I really enjoyed it and keep in touch even with you Russell and Ben my two greatest enemies we still keep in touch oh good bye I
unknown
appreciate that because I am your
appreciate that because I am your
Slavoj Žižek
enemy and you want to spite me by by intruding by yourself into into my life you should respond to the email from the other day
enemy and you want to spite me by by intruding by yourself into into my life you should respond to the email from the other day
unknown
I will I will I will I want to tell you
I will I will I will I want to tell you
Slavoj Žižek
this you will get a reply I will suggest a date you know sounds good okay thanks very much bye bye thank you thank you
this you will get a reply I will suggest a date you know sounds good okay thanks very much bye bye thank you thank you
unknown
it
it
Slavoj Žižek
must have
must have
unknown
been
been
unknown
an honor for you to talk to me thank you
an honor for you to talk to me thank you