Living in the End Times
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2010 · 0:50:10 · 5,872 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologydemocracyecology-climategeopolitics-warfascism-populismeconomicsliberalism-political-correctnessrevolution-violencehistory
Žižek analyzes the 2008 financial crisis as a systemic failure of liberal capitalism rather than a moral or regulatory failure, rejecting both the fundamentalist defense of pure capitalism and charitable depoliticization as responses. He surveys interconnected crises, economic, ecological, geopolitical (Afghanistan), democratic, arguing that neither the market nor the state can resolve them, and that the only adequate response requires reinventing communism as collective mobilization around the commons. He warns that the political vacuum left by a retreating left is being filled by right-wing nationalist populism and by authoritarian capitalism exemplified by China and Berlusconi's Italy.
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
Classical Schumpeterian capitalist term invoked by investor Jim Rogers to argue that government bailouts distort the natural self-correcting mechanism of capitalism.
as “canned laughter”
Žižek uses TV canned laughter as a model for how emotions can be 'objectivized', the apparatus performs the emotion on your behalf so you feel relieved without personally experiencing it, analogously to how capitalist greed is generated by the system rather than individual psychology.
Žižek's ironic name for charity under capitalism: like a product where the poison is also the cure, philanthropy (e.g. Gates giving billions back) is itself part of the system's logic, functioning to depoliticize problems rather than address their root causes.
as “irrationality of capitalism”
Žižek invokes this Marxist concept to argue that Obama's bailouts were not a free choice but a systemic necessity, the global system left no alternative, illustrating capitalism's collective irrationality despite individual rational actors.
Implicit in Žižek's argument that capitalism's crisis is systemic and objective, not reducible to individual psychological greed or moral failure.
as “infinite plasticity of capitalism”
Žižek's phrase for capitalism's capacity to survive and regenerate through crises, refuting naive hopes for an imminent final collapse.
Official euphemism for authoritarian capitalism practiced in Singapore and China, which Žižek decodes as meaning efficient capitalist exploitation without liberal democratic norms.
The geological era in which humanity itself becomes a geological factor, invoked to argue that human omnipotence over nature is uncontrolled and that 'nature' as balanced harmony does not exist.
Afghanistan is called the 'symptom' of what is wrong with US foreign policy, using the psychoanalytic concept to indicate that the manifest problem reveals a deeper structural malfunction.
as “socialism with a human face / global capitalism with a human face”
Žižek updates the old dissident dream of 'socialism with a human face' to mock today's mainstream left, which effectively only wants global capitalism with a human face, unable to imagine stepping outside the system.
as “Unbehagen in der Kultur / discontent in liberalism”
Adapting Freud's concept of cultural discontent, Žižek diagnoses a widespread dissatisfaction with liberal capitalism that the left fails to articulate, leaving the field to right-wing populism.
The process by which genuine political problems are re-coded as moral, technical, or charitable issues, neutralizing systemic critique; Žižek identifies charity and expert governance as key mechanisms.
Žižek's label for Berlusconi-style governance where political power presents itself as absurd self-mockery and spectacle while quietly installing emergency-state authoritarian measures beneath the surface.
Redefined by Žižek as being 'subjects deprived of our symbolic substance' under contemporary capitalism, extending the classical Marxist concept beyond its industrial-labor meaning.
as “commons”
The shared domain, ecological, biological, intellectual, whose management by neither market nor state motivates Žižek's insistence on retaining the word 'communism'.
Stories he reaches for 6
Watching shows like Cheers or Friends, you don't need to laugh; the TV laughs for you and you still feel relieved at the end. This 'objectivized emotion' illustrates how capitalist greed similarly is not a personal psychological attitude but a function outsourced to and generated by the system.
“you watch some stupid TV show tired in the evening, like 'Cheers', 'Friends', and you don't even have to laugh. The TV screen laughs for you.”
Forty years ago Afghanistan was among the most secular and tolerant Muslim states, with a modernizing king and a strong communist party. It became fundamentalist only through Cold War entanglement: US arming of Islamist insurgents to expel the Soviets. Illustrates that fundamentalism is a modern, globally generated phenomenon.
“forty years ago, Afghanistan was... the same Afghanistan was probably the most tolerant and secular of all Muslim, near Middle East states.”
Žižek claims he bought in California a product where chocolate, normally associated with constipation, functions as a laxative: the poison is its own cure. He uses this as an ironic emblem of charity under capitalism, where the same system that generates poverty 'cures' it through philanthropy.
“It exists as a product, I bought it in California myself. It's... we all know that the association of chocolate is of course constipation, but there you can buy chocolate which works as a laxative.”
Sloterdijk speculated that Lee Kuan Yew, inventor of 'capitalism with Asian values,' may be the figure of our era to whom monuments are built in the future, not Mandela or a democratic hero but an authoritarian capitalist modernizer. Illustrates the new hegemony of authoritarian capitalism.
“to which person from our time will they maybe be building monuments years from now? His answer is Lee Kuan Yew... who was the first to invent and very successfully practice... 'capitalism with Asian values'.”
Oil, humanity's main energy source, required a gigantic ecological catastrophe millions of years ago. Žižek uses this to show that nature itself is crazy and catastrophic, not a harmonious balance disturbed by humans.
“can we even imagine what kind of a gigantic ecological catastrophe had to have happened millions of years ago so that we have oil? This is nature.”
A Chinese geologist source reveals that the catastrophic central China earthquake may have been the first man-made earthquake, caused by the giant artificial lakes of the Three Gorges Dam sitting above fault lines. Illustrates the Anthropocene: human omnipotence we don't control.
“the big earthquake which hit central China... that it was the first man-made earthquake... these gigantic new artificial lakes... are precisely above the fault lines.”
Works invoked 4
Žižek refers to it as having a 'wonderful title' and uses its core concept to diagnose a present-day 'discontent in liberalism' that right-wing populism is articulating while the left fails to.
Cheers tv
Used as the exemplary instance of TV shows with canned laughter, to illustrate how emotions are objectivized by the apparatus and performed on the viewer's behalf.
Duck Soup film
Cited to coin 'Groucho Marx authoritarianism' for Berlusconi's governance style, buffoonery and self-mockery as the public face of real authoritarian power.
Friends tv
Paired with Cheers as another example of the canned-laughter phenomenon.
People invoked 13
Fareed Zakaria positive
American commentator cited to support the argument that liberal democracy is in crisis and risks delegitimizing itself if it cannot tackle hard long-term issues.
Silvio Berlusconi positive
Described as 'a living obscenity' who combines corrupted technocrat and populist; intellectually treated as the key example of future soft authoritarianism (Groucho Marx governance) and the danger of depoliticized spectacle-politics.
Lee Kuan Yew positive
Singled out as the inventor of 'capitalism with Asian values' / authoritarian capitalism; Žižek uses him analytically as evidence for the new hegemonic form but does not express personal admiration.
Bernard Madoff positive
Žižek defends Madoff against scapegoating: he did not act from personal corruption but embodied the systemic logic of capitalism more radically than others; making him the symbol of corruption is obscene because it personalizes a structural problem.
Joseph E. Stiglitz positive
Cited 'in a wonderful way' to support the argument that capitalism runs on trust/belief rather than objective economic foundations, thereby justifying the bailouts as a confidence-restoration measure.
Francis Fukuyama positive
Žižek insists Fukuyama 'is not an idiot' and that the end-of-history thesis is correctly interpreted as saying liberal democratic capitalism is the only remaining realistic option, which Žižek then uses to name the current crisis in 'Fukuyamaist terms'.
Cited as having admitted the crisis is a crisis of liberal capitalism, used to buttress Žižek's own diagnosis.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Described as 'my good friend'; Žižek approvingly cites his speculation that Lee Kuan Yew may be the most monument-worthy figure of our era as support for the thesis of authoritarian capitalism.
Lakhdar Brahimi positive
Former UN diplomat in Afghanistan cited to support the claim that the US went to Afghanistan purely for revenge with no real plan, and that Afghan support for the Taliban is growing.
Bill Gates positive
Used as the prime example of the 'chocolate laxative' logic: grab billions, give half back, become 'the greatest humanitarian'; intellectually useful as illustration of charity's depoliticizing function.
Jim Rogers negative
Investor whose 'creative destruction' defense of pure capitalism Žižek explicitly rejects as fundamentalist deflection of responsibility for the crisis.
Mentioned as having 'had no choice' but to give hundreds of billions in bailouts, used to illustrate the systemic irrationality of capitalism (no individual agency, just systemic necessity).
Sigmund Freud positive
Žižek invokes the title 'Unbehagen in der Kultur' (Civilization and its Discontents) to frame the current political moment as one of widespread discontent in liberalism.
What it argues
systemic critique of liberal capitalism vs. moralistic scapegoatingauthoritarian capitalism as the emerging global formthe left's abandonment of class politics for cultural identity politicscharity and philanthropy as ideological depoliticizationfundamentalism as generated by global processes, not pre-modern remnantscommunism redefined around the commonsright-wing populism filling the vacuum left by social democracy
Dialectical moves 10
“Images are the true reality today—if we discard the images, nothing remains, just some pure abstraction.”
Rather than images being a veil over reality, images ARE reality; stripping them away reveals not the real but an abstraction.
“It's not the crisis of state intervention—it is precisely the capitalist system running out of control that got us into this crisis.”
The standard capitalist defense (blame the state) is inverted: the crisis is produced by too little, not too much, state control of pure capitalism.
“It's not his psychology, it's not his personal corruption. Madoff just embodied the system.”
Personal moral failure is reframed as systemic expression: the swindler is not the exception but the most consistent enactment of capitalism's own logic.
“Charity is today part of the logic of the system itself—the function of depoliticizing the problems.”
What appears as capitalism's ethical self-correction (charity) is in fact the mechanism by which capitalism immunizes itself against genuine political challenge.
“Maybe paradoxically we should accept that nature doesn't exist.”
The ecological problem is reframed: nature as balanced harmony is itself a fiction; the crisis demands not a return to nature but confronting our radical alienation from it.
“Today's fundamentalism is not a dark remainder of the past—it is generated as part of the global process.”
Religious fundamentalism is not pre-modern but modern, produced by the very Western interventionism that claimed to oppose it.
“Far from demonstrating their power, if anything they demonstrated their impotence there.”
The US military intervention in Afghanistan, intended to project power, instead exposed the limits and incoherence of American geopolitical capacity.
“Not old communism coming back to power, but old communists who are there already in power, organizing a more efficient and exploitative capitalism than in the West.”
The real threat is not a communist return but that communist-party states have become capitalism's most efficient operators, inverting the Cold War ideological map.
“When I was young we were dreaming about socialism with a human face. It is as if today's large majority of the left is dreaming about global capitalism with a human face.”
The left's horizon of ambition has shrunk from transforming the system to merely humanizing it, revealing capitalist realism as the left's own unconscious.
“Liberalism is generating this nationalist populist, potentially racist reaction—and what is worth saving in liberalism will be saved only through a revitalized, more radical left.”
Liberalism's enemy (right-wing populism) is its own product; the only way to save liberal values is to go beyond liberalism toward the radical left.
Claims 22
asserts
The 2008 financial crisis is the crisis of liberal capitalism itself, not the result of too much state intervention or insufficient fidelity to capitalist principles.causes of the 2008 financial crisis
asserts
Blaming the crisis on inadequate adherence to capitalist fundamentals is structurally identical to how communist regimes blamed their failures on insufficient ideological purity.ideological fundamentalism
asserts
Capitalist greed is not a psychological problem but a structural effect generated by the objective social system.capitalist psychology vs. systemic critique
asserts
Charity functions as part of the system's own logic of depoliticization rather than as a genuine remedy to the evils capitalism produces.philanthropy and charity under capitalism
asserts
Bernard Madoff was not a personal aberration but an embodiment of what the system itself was pushing everyone to do.financial corruption and the system
asserts
Capitalism can never be finally defeated through crisis alone because of its infinite plasticity and capacity to regenerate through catastrophe.capitalism's resilience
asserts
Neither the market nor the state, nor any combination of states, can solve the converging crises of economics, ecology, poverty, and biogenetics.limits of market and state
asserts
China represents a new form of capitalism more efficient than Western liberal capitalism that no longer produces democratic pressure, refuting the standard argument for capitalism as democracy's vehicle.authoritarian capitalism in China
asserts
Nature as a balanced harmony does not exist; nature is itself a series of mega-catastrophes, and the solution to the ecological crisis is not a return to organic unity with nature but greater technological and social discipline.ecology and nature
asserts
Today's Islamic fundamentalism is not a dark pre-modern remnant but a contemporary phenomenon generated by global geopolitical processes, specifically US Cold War interventionism.origins of fundamentalism
asserts
The US invasion of Afghanistan demonstrated American impotence, not power, because they attacked a weak target while avoiding the real sources of Al-Qaeda (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia).US power and Afghanistan
asserts
A hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be as irresponsible as the original invasion; the left's moralistic call to simply leave masks a lack of ideas.Afghanistan exit strategy
asserts
The 20th century left in all its versions—state socialist, social democratic, and self-management—is over and must begin again from scratch.the future of the left
asserts
Liberal democracy as embedded in global capitalism is in deepening crisis and will become increasingly unable to address the hard long-term issues facing societies.liberal democracy
asserts
The political vacuum left by the collapse of social democracy is being filled by right-wing nationalist populism rather than the left.political polarization
asserts
Berlusconi's Italy, not old-style dictatorship, is the model of future authoritarianism: individual freedoms and spectacle left intact while emergency-state powers are quietly installed beneath.future authoritarianism
asserts
The word 'communism' must be retained, redefined around collective mobilization for the commons and stripped of Leninist party-state conceptions.communism redefined
asserts
The future political choice is starkly between Berlusconi-style authoritarian populism and a new communism.political futures
asserts
Liberalism is itself generating the nationalist-populist reaction it fears, and liberalism's best values can only be saved through a revitalized radical left.liberalism and its discontents
rejects
The moral framing of the crisis (ethical values, personal corruption) is precisely wrong; it is the system in its normal functioning that violates ethical rules.moral/ethical explanations of the financial crisis
asserts
The left has wrongly limited itself to cultural topics (gay rights, women's rights, ecology) and ceded class and popular appeal to the right.left identity politics vs. class politics
rejects
The imagined recovery of nature as balanced harmony before human interference is false; the correct ecological response requires accepting full alienation from nature.romantic ecology / return to nature
Quotes 15
“Images are the true reality today, I claim. We cannot simply say: discard the images and you see reality. If we discard the images, nothing remains, just some pure abstraction.”Slavoj Žižek · images as reality / spectacle ontology
“This is the fundamentalist answer. You never admit that the system is wrong. You try to put the blame on how we were not faithful enough to the fundamentals of the system.”Slavoj Žižek · ideological fundamentalism as defense mechanism
“It's not his psychology, it's not his personal corruption. Madoff just in a way embodied the system.”Slavoj Žižek · systemic vs. individual explanation of financial crime
“Charity is today, I claim, part of the logic of the system itself. It has a very specific function: the function of depoliticizing the problems.”Slavoj Žižek · charity as ideological depoliticization
“One should never underestimate the infinite plasticity of capitalism. You know, capitalism thrives through crisis.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism's resilience through crisis
“It's becoming more and more clear that neither the market nor the state, or combination of states, will do the job.”Slavoj Žižek · limits of market and state
“Maybe paradoxically we should accept that nature doesn't exist.”Slavoj Žižek · nature as myth / ecology requires alienation not return
“Today's fundamentalism is not a dark remainder of the past or whatever, it is generated as part of the global process.”Slavoj Žižek · fundamentalism as modern globally-produced phenomenon
“This is what I don't like about today's left: their only message is moralistically 'let's leave.' Just 'oh, then we have clear conscience' and they don't care what will happen there.”Slavoj Žižek · critique of moralistic left
“It is as if even the large majority of today's left is dreaming about global capitalism with a human face.”Slavoj Žižek · the left's capitalist realism
“I think that we will have to reinvent something that I'm still... I still want to call communism. Which has to be totally redefined of course.”Slavoj Žižek · communism as name for reinvented collective politics
“The future will be, to simplify it to the utmost: Berlusconi or new communism.”Slavoj Žižek · the stark political choice of the future
“Liberalism... will be saved only through a revitalized, more radical left.”Slavoj Žižek · radical left as liberalism's only savior
“Look at Italy if you want to see how our future authoritarianism will look. It's not the old style authoritarianism... All these small individual freedoms are left to us.”Slavoj Žižek · soft authoritarianism / Berlusconi as political template
“The left will have to begin from the beginning again.”Slavoj Žižek · the left must start over
Transcript 43 turns
unknown
Slavoj Žižek, the floor is yours. Any preliminary comments? I like this idea that
Slavoj Žižek, the floor is yours. Any preliminary comments? I like this idea that
Slavoj Žižek
you will bombard me with images from reality. Images are the true reality today, I claim. We cannot simply say: discard the images and you see reality. If we discard the images, nothing remains, just some pure abstraction. Images are reality for us today.
you will bombard me with images from reality. Images are the true reality today, I claim. We cannot simply say: discard the images and you see reality. If we discard the images, nothing remains, just some pure abstraction. Images are reality for us today.
unknown
Let’s start with the economic crisis. Jim Rogers is an investor who made millions on the American market before he moved to Singapore. Here’s his diagnosis of our economical perils.
Let’s start with the economic crisis. Jim Rogers is an investor who made millions on the American market before he moved to Singapore. Here’s his diagnosis of our economical perils.
unknown
Had capitalism been allowed to work, we wouldn’t be in this situation now. If back in or people had been allowed to collapse, we would not be... we wouldn’t have had the prosperity we had in the early part of this decade. On the other hand, we wouldn’t have the collapse that we have now. We had an artificial prosperity, now we’re having an artificial... an artificial decline, if you will. That’s... that’s government interference. That’s not capitalism that caused that. There are million Americans who now have to pay for the million financial people in the financial district and say the other million who did foolish things. I mean that’s absurd. It’s not the way the system’s supposed... the way the system’s supposed to work. Incompetent people fail. Competent people come along, take over their assets, reorganize, and the system starts over. It’s called creative destruction. It’s a capitalist kind of thing. But what’s happening now is the government is coming along and taking the money away from the competent people, giving it to the incompetent people and saying, “Now you compete with the competent people with their money.” I mean, so the whole system is weakened. That’s called socialism. You should recognize that... you should recognize that system. That’s what the socialists do. That’s what the communists tried to do. I really find this obscene and ridiculous. Not because I count myself as a communist,
Had capitalism been allowed to work, we wouldn’t be in this situation now. If back in or people had been allowed to collapse, we would not be... we wouldn’t have had the prosperity we had in the early part of this decade. On the other hand, we wouldn’t have the collapse that we have now. We had an artificial prosperity, now we’re having an artificial... an artificial decline, if you will. That’s... that’s government interference. That’s not capitalism that caused that. There are million Americans who now have to pay for the million financial people in the financial district and say the other million who did foolish things. I mean that’s absurd. It’s not the way the system’s supposed... the way the system’s supposed to work. Incompetent people fail. Competent people come along, take over their assets, reorganize, and the system starts over. It’s called creative destruction. It’s a capitalist kind of thing. But what’s happening now is the government is coming along and taking the money away from the competent people, giving it to the incompetent people and saying, “Now you compete with the competent people with their money.” I mean, so the whole system is weakened. That’s called socialism. You should recognize that... you should recognize that system. That’s what the socialists do. That’s what the communists tried to do. I really find this obscene and ridiculous. Not because I count myself as a communist,
Slavoj Žižek
but because, my God, one thing is clear. Those who got us into this crisis, at least here, it’s not social democrats, it’s not the state, it’s precisely the capitalist system running out of control, not being too much controlled by the state and so on and so on. This is what I find problematic here. Namely, from my communist youth I remember how the communists, when things obviously didn’t function in communist regimes, they reasoned exactly in the same way. They said, “No, no, no, this is not the crisis of the communist system, it’s because we were not pure enough as communists. We had too much... we allowed too many capitalist elements and so on and so on.” Here’s the same. This is the fundamentalist answer. You never admit that the system is wrong. You try to put the blame on how we were not faithful enough to the fundamentals of the system. So again, at least one thing we should admit: the crisis that we have now—Greenspan admitted it, my God—is the crisis of liberal capitalism, not the crisis of state intervention or whatever. The economic crisis manifested itself at first in the American housing market. Let’s listen to a young American banker whose family bank didn’t want to lend to people who couldn’t afford the costs. I should say something about what happened to a bank that I think loaned ethically for a long time,
but because, my God, one thing is clear. Those who got us into this crisis, at least here, it’s not social democrats, it’s not the state, it’s precisely the capitalist system running out of control, not being too much controlled by the state and so on and so on. This is what I find problematic here. Namely, from my communist youth I remember how the communists, when things obviously didn’t function in communist regimes, they reasoned exactly in the same way. They said, “No, no, no, this is not the crisis of the communist system, it’s because we were not pure enough as communists. We had too much... we allowed too many capitalist elements and so on and so on.” Here’s the same. This is the fundamentalist answer. You never admit that the system is wrong. You try to put the blame on how we were not faithful enough to the fundamentals of the system. So again, at least one thing we should admit: the crisis that we have now—Greenspan admitted it, my God—is the crisis of liberal capitalism, not the crisis of state intervention or whatever. The economic crisis manifested itself at first in the American housing market. Let’s listen to a young American banker whose family bank didn’t want to lend to people who couldn’t afford the costs. I should say something about what happened to a bank that I think loaned ethically for a long time,
unknown
which is the bank that my family owned,
which is the bank that my family owned,
unknown
which in we weren’t doing the kind of loans we’re all talking about today. The part of my family that owned the majority of the bank started knocking on the door saying, “Why aren’t we making the kind of money that all the other banks are making?” Ironically, by the time they finally fired my dad and approved the sale process, decided to put the bank on sale, the bank was so valuable because we had no bad loans. So then it became a situation where everybody wanted to buy the bank because they needed these quality assets. It’s incredibly difficult to operate ethically under the pressure that was created in the last years to make massive amounts of money. So you’re trying to do it and you just get sold.
which in we weren’t doing the kind of loans we’re all talking about today. The part of my family that owned the majority of the bank started knocking on the door saying, “Why aren’t we making the kind of money that all the other banks are making?” Ironically, by the time they finally fired my dad and approved the sale process, decided to put the bank on sale, the bank was so valuable because we had no bad loans. So then it became a situation where everybody wanted to buy the bank because they needed these quality assets. It’s incredibly difficult to operate ethically under the pressure that was created in the last years to make massive amounts of money. So you’re trying to do it and you just get sold.
Slavoj Žižek
I think we do touch here a central problem, which is that in this crisis it is absolutely ridiculous to refer to some ethical values, like even Vatican, the Pope or some person around the Pope said, “This is not the crisis of capitalism, it’s the crisis of our values, of our ethics” and so on. No, exactly not. It’s the system itself in its normal functioning, the global capitalist system, which is pushing you towards violating some elementary ethical rules. This is why I was strictly shocked at how that... the great swindler, Bernard Madoff, was elevated into the symbol of this corrupted banking speculator who ruined thousands of people and so on and so on. But my God, it’s not his psychology, it’s not his personal corruption. Madoff just in a way embodied the system, in the sense that he did maybe a little bit more in a more radical way than others what the system was pushing him. Here’s a guy whose financial products helped crash Wall Street. Making a lot of money is like taking a drug. It is the same... you get... what is it, pheromones or whatever, it’s... very when somebody hands you a million dollar check or a five million dollar check, you know, you feel good head to toe. It’s like... it’s very similar to a drug, and you want to... and you like to maintain that feeling. It’s something that, you know, you have to in your mind realize, “Hey, you know, there’s only... you know, life is short.” You want more? Yes. “Oh, if I’m making five million, I should be making fifty because I’m a genius.” You know, if somebody hands
I think we do touch here a central problem, which is that in this crisis it is absolutely ridiculous to refer to some ethical values, like even Vatican, the Pope or some person around the Pope said, “This is not the crisis of capitalism, it’s the crisis of our values, of our ethics” and so on. No, exactly not. It’s the system itself in its normal functioning, the global capitalist system, which is pushing you towards violating some elementary ethical rules. This is why I was strictly shocked at how that... the great swindler, Bernard Madoff, was elevated into the symbol of this corrupted banking speculator who ruined thousands of people and so on and so on. But my God, it’s not his psychology, it’s not his personal corruption. Madoff just in a way embodied the system, in the sense that he did maybe a little bit more in a more radical way than others what the system was pushing him. Here’s a guy whose financial products helped crash Wall Street. Making a lot of money is like taking a drug. It is the same... you get... what is it, pheromones or whatever, it’s... very when somebody hands you a million dollar check or a five million dollar check, you know, you feel good head to toe. It’s like... it’s very similar to a drug, and you want to... and you like to maintain that feeling. It’s something that, you know, you have to in your mind realize, “Hey, you know, there’s only... you know, life is short.” You want more? Yes. “Oh, if I’m making five million, I should be making fifty because I’m a genius.” You know, if somebody hands
unknown
you... you’re years old, hands you a million dollars or five million dollars, then not only do you feel good, but then you have... there’s no question in your mind that you are a genius and that the rest of the world owes... you know, you’re just so much better than everybody else. That happens. Nice point. But what I would have said is again, just to repeat what I already said: let’s not approach capitalism as a psychological problem. The solution is not we should somehow
you... you’re years old, hands you a million dollars or five million dollars, then not only do you feel good, but then you have... there’s no question in your mind that you are a genius and that the rest of the world owes... you know, you’re just so much better than everybody else. That happens. Nice point. But what I would have said is again, just to repeat what I already said: let’s not approach capitalism as a psychological problem. The solution is not we should somehow
unknown
overgrow or get rid of this addiction to money,
overgrow or get rid of this addiction to money,
Slavoj Žižek
“I want more and more and more.” The problem is to see, to analyze how this attitude is generated by what, in the old-fashioned Marxist terminology, we once called an objective social system, part of which are such attitudes. They are attitudes, they are generated by the system. And so again, let’s not make out of it a psychological problem. What do I mean by this? Here, we... I would like to mention an example that I find wonderful, irresistible. This is a strange phenomenon, you remember, called “canned laughter” on TV, when laughter is part of the soundtrack itself. And it’s very strange... a very strange thing. Like, you watch some stupid TV show tired in the evening, like “Cheers”, “Friends”, and you don’t even have to laugh. The TV screen laughs for you. The proof is that, at least it holds for me, I hope I’m not a unique idiot, that after seeing a show like “Cheers”, TV serial, even if I don’t laugh, the TV set laughs for me. At the end I am relieved, as if I have laughed. Here we have emotions, an emotional discharge, but it doesn’t happen psychological to me, it’s kind of objectivized, but nonetheless it works. It’s something the same like canned laughter, this capitalist greed. So again, let’s be precise here. Let’s not play the easy moralistic psychological game of how we should change. No. The most we can do within these coordinates is to engage in charity. To give money for the poor and so on and so on. But this for me is an obscene solution. It’s what I ironically called “chocolate laxative.” It exists as a product, I bought it in California myself. It’s... we all know that the association of chocolate is of course constipation, but there you can buy chocolate which works as a laxative. Like, you know that the poison is the cure to itself. And this is the function of charity today, I claim. What do people like Bill Gates do? First you grab all money you can, millions... billions, sorry, then you give half of it back and you are the greatest humanitarian in the history of mankind and so on and so on. Charity is today, I claim, part of the logic of the system itself. It has a very specific function: the function of depoliticizing the problems. The idea is that through charity, capitalism can redeem itself, can be itself the medicine to the evil it causes. And again, then we have... get all this rhetoric like socialism doesn’t work, let’s all get together through charity, let’s bring relief to poor people starving in Africa and so on and so on. I find this utterly disgusting, but again, a crucial ideological phenomenon. Dr. Marc Faber is another investor whose monthly newsletter is called “The Gloom, Boom Doom Report”. This is his take on our near future. The experiment of the central banks and the fiscal packages that have been enacted by Western governments will bitterly fail. But it may first work for a while in the sense that if you have cracks in a building and you put white paint on it, it looks better
“I want more and more and more.” The problem is to see, to analyze how this attitude is generated by what, in the old-fashioned Marxist terminology, we once called an objective social system, part of which are such attitudes. They are attitudes, they are generated by the system. And so again, let’s not make out of it a psychological problem. What do I mean by this? Here, we... I would like to mention an example that I find wonderful, irresistible. This is a strange phenomenon, you remember, called “canned laughter” on TV, when laughter is part of the soundtrack itself. And it’s very strange... a very strange thing. Like, you watch some stupid TV show tired in the evening, like “Cheers”, “Friends”, and you don’t even have to laugh. The TV screen laughs for you. The proof is that, at least it holds for me, I hope I’m not a unique idiot, that after seeing a show like “Cheers”, TV serial, even if I don’t laugh, the TV set laughs for me. At the end I am relieved, as if I have laughed. Here we have emotions, an emotional discharge, but it doesn’t happen psychological to me, it’s kind of objectivized, but nonetheless it works. It’s something the same like canned laughter, this capitalist greed. So again, let’s be precise here. Let’s not play the easy moralistic psychological game of how we should change. No. The most we can do within these coordinates is to engage in charity. To give money for the poor and so on and so on. But this for me is an obscene solution. It’s what I ironically called “chocolate laxative.” It exists as a product, I bought it in California myself. It’s... we all know that the association of chocolate is of course constipation, but there you can buy chocolate which works as a laxative. Like, you know that the poison is the cure to itself. And this is the function of charity today, I claim. What do people like Bill Gates do? First you grab all money you can, millions... billions, sorry, then you give half of it back and you are the greatest humanitarian in the history of mankind and so on and so on. Charity is today, I claim, part of the logic of the system itself. It has a very specific function: the function of depoliticizing the problems. The idea is that through charity, capitalism can redeem itself, can be itself the medicine to the evil it causes. And again, then we have... get all this rhetoric like socialism doesn’t work, let’s all get together through charity, let’s bring relief to poor people starving in Africa and so on and so on. I find this utterly disgusting, but again, a crucial ideological phenomenon. Dr. Marc Faber is another investor whose monthly newsletter is called “The Gloom, Boom Doom Report”. This is his take on our near future. The experiment of the central banks and the fiscal packages that have been enacted by Western governments will bitterly fail. But it may first work for a while in the sense that if you have cracks in a building and you put white paint on it, it looks better
unknown
for a while. The
for a while. The
Slavoj Žižek
problem will be that the interest payments on the government debt will go up dramatically in the US, so you could end up with essentially a structure where of tax revenues will eventually be used just to pay the interest on the government debt. At that time the system breaks down. Then you have to monetize, and then you go into hyperinflation. Hyperinflation usually is bad for the average household. The average household doesn’t participate, his real income goes down. And then the end is that, in order to distract the people from the problems, you go to war. Then people ask, “Where... where is the enemy?” Well, for sure the Americans will find someone somewhere. That for sure they can invent in somebody. Again, my reactions to this line of thoughts are mixed. On the one hand, yes, I’m also a pessimist. I think that one of the possible consequences of the crisis is that new wars on terror, on whatever, will have to be reinvented to keep the economy going. On the other hand, again, I don’t see an easy way out because even if we will have really to pay half of our tax money for interest rates and so on, what was the alternative? I claim that one... a year ago, from the standpoint of the system, it had to be done, what was done. Obama, by giving hundreds of billions of dollars and so on, didn’t have a choice there. That’s the global—if I use this old term—irrationality of capitalism. It’s not that we could have done something different. Why? Because it’s not even a matter of economic analysis. As everyone knows, capitalism today is a matter of everyday religion, in the sense of it’s built on trust. And as Joseph Stiglitz put it in a wonderful way, he said that even if the theoretical foundations, in economic sense of economic science, of these financial measures—even if theoretically they are problematic, wrong—they may work. Because the point is not their objective value, the point is: will they succeed in bringing back some kind of a basic trust? That’s how the system works. I think that you... one should never underestimate the infinite plasticity of capitalism. You know, capitalism thrives through crisis. You know that Maoist formula: from defeat to defeat to the final victory. Capitalism always regenerates itself. So I don’t think... I don’t think that we should look for any point when things will finally collapse. This is too naive. Tensions will gradually grow, and we will see where this will push us. The only thing... this is why I remain a communist. There is one thing, the only really important thing from all this: the basic message is that we are approaching a series of problems—economic, new apartheids, new poverty, new hunger, ecological problems, how to deal with biogenetics and so on and so on—and that it’s becoming more and more clear that neither the market nor the state, or combination of states, will do the job. If you’re right, Mr. Žižek, that current
problem will be that the interest payments on the government debt will go up dramatically in the US, so you could end up with essentially a structure where of tax revenues will eventually be used just to pay the interest on the government debt. At that time the system breaks down. Then you have to monetize, and then you go into hyperinflation. Hyperinflation usually is bad for the average household. The average household doesn’t participate, his real income goes down. And then the end is that, in order to distract the people from the problems, you go to war. Then people ask, “Where... where is the enemy?” Well, for sure the Americans will find someone somewhere. That for sure they can invent in somebody. Again, my reactions to this line of thoughts are mixed. On the one hand, yes, I’m also a pessimist. I think that one of the possible consequences of the crisis is that new wars on terror, on whatever, will have to be reinvented to keep the economy going. On the other hand, again, I don’t see an easy way out because even if we will have really to pay half of our tax money for interest rates and so on, what was the alternative? I claim that one... a year ago, from the standpoint of the system, it had to be done, what was done. Obama, by giving hundreds of billions of dollars and so on, didn’t have a choice there. That’s the global—if I use this old term—irrationality of capitalism. It’s not that we could have done something different. Why? Because it’s not even a matter of economic analysis. As everyone knows, capitalism today is a matter of everyday religion, in the sense of it’s built on trust. And as Joseph Stiglitz put it in a wonderful way, he said that even if the theoretical foundations, in economic sense of economic science, of these financial measures—even if theoretically they are problematic, wrong—they may work. Because the point is not their objective value, the point is: will they succeed in bringing back some kind of a basic trust? That’s how the system works. I think that you... one should never underestimate the infinite plasticity of capitalism. You know, capitalism thrives through crisis. You know that Maoist formula: from defeat to defeat to the final victory. Capitalism always regenerates itself. So I don’t think... I don’t think that we should look for any point when things will finally collapse. This is too naive. Tensions will gradually grow, and we will see where this will push us. The only thing... this is why I remain a communist. There is one thing, the only really important thing from all this: the basic message is that we are approaching a series of problems—economic, new apartheids, new poverty, new hunger, ecological problems, how to deal with biogenetics and so on and so on—and that it’s becoming more and more clear that neither the market nor the state, or combination of states, will do the job. If you’re right, Mr. Žižek, that current
unknown
problems, for instance our ecological troubles, cannot be solved within the parameters of capitalism, then what about this system?
problems, for instance our ecological troubles, cannot be solved within the parameters of capitalism, then what about this system?
Slavoj Žižek
This is probably a scene from China. And I think that China is the key. But not in the sense, “will we control China” and so on and so on. It is as if in today’s China all the inconsistencies of today’s capitalism are exploding. Let’s be frank: till now there was one big argument for capitalism, which is: maybe capitalism needs years here and there of dictatorship, but sooner or later it brings a pressure for democracy. But I think that something new is now emerging in Asia and expanding all around the world gradually. What? My good friend Peter Sloterdijk recently wrote something wonderful. He wrote that he asked himself a question: to which person from our time will they maybe be building monuments years from now in the future? His answer is Lee Kuan Yew, the president for long years of Singapore, who was the first to invent and very successfully practice what today we officially refer to in these poetic terms as “capitalism with Asian values” and which really means, if we cut off the poetry, “authoritarian capitalism.” What if effectively something is emerging in today’s China and Singapore and so on, which is a capitalism even more efficient, dynamic, productive in its own capitalist terms than our Western liberal capitalism, but a capitalism which no longer, as it were, naturally demands democracy but works even better with an authoritarian political structure? Well, it sounds
This is probably a scene from China. And I think that China is the key. But not in the sense, “will we control China” and so on and so on. It is as if in today’s China all the inconsistencies of today’s capitalism are exploding. Let’s be frank: till now there was one big argument for capitalism, which is: maybe capitalism needs years here and there of dictatorship, but sooner or later it brings a pressure for democracy. But I think that something new is now emerging in Asia and expanding all around the world gradually. What? My good friend Peter Sloterdijk recently wrote something wonderful. He wrote that he asked himself a question: to which person from our time will they maybe be building monuments years from now in the future? His answer is Lee Kuan Yew, the president for long years of Singapore, who was the first to invent and very successfully practice what today we officially refer to in these poetic terms as “capitalism with Asian values” and which really means, if we cut off the poetry, “authoritarian capitalism.” What if effectively something is emerging in today’s China and Singapore and so on, which is a capitalism even more efficient, dynamic, productive in its own capitalist terms than our Western liberal capitalism, but a capitalism which no longer, as it were, naturally demands democracy but works even better with an authoritarian political structure? Well, it sounds
unknown
nice, but I see a couple of problems. First, you know, this is the dream of state socialists: that the only way to cope with ecological crisis is within a more authoritarian political structure where you can avoid this endless procrastination of democratic debates and when a decision is made, it’s implemented. The point is: is the state, especially if it’s a one-party non-democratic state, can one trust such a state to really consequently pursue an ecologically sound politics? I have my doubts. And the argument is again China itself. Okay, maybe this eco-city or whatever will work. Let me mention the other Chinese gigantic project: the Three Gorges Dam. You know, a friend from China recently told me something pretty terrifying: namely
nice, but I see a couple of problems. First, you know, this is the dream of state socialists: that the only way to cope with ecological crisis is within a more authoritarian political structure where you can avoid this endless procrastination of democratic debates and when a decision is made, it’s implemented. The point is: is the state, especially if it’s a one-party non-democratic state, can one trust such a state to really consequently pursue an ecologically sound politics? I have my doubts. And the argument is again China itself. Okay, maybe this eco-city or whatever will work. Let me mention the other Chinese gigantic project: the Three Gorges Dam. You know, a friend from China recently told me something pretty terrifying: namely
unknown
that the large majority of Chinese geologists know—but it’s an information which the Chinese authorities try to keep secret—that the big earthquake which hit central China about, I think it was two or three years ago, that it was the first man-made earthquake. Why? Because the idea is that these gigantic new artificial lakes which were made by the big dams are precisely above the fault lines beneath the crust of the Earth which determine and trigger the earthquakes. So isn’t this something pretty terrifying? Not our impotence, but our almost—our of humanity—omnipotence, in the sense that we can even cause earthquakes, but we don’t know the scope of our omnipotence. Which is why some ecologists
that the large majority of Chinese geologists know—but it’s an information which the Chinese authorities try to keep secret—that the big earthquake which hit central China about, I think it was two or three years ago, that it was the first man-made earthquake. Why? Because the idea is that these gigantic new artificial lakes which were made by the big dams are precisely above the fault lines beneath the crust of the Earth which determine and trigger the earthquakes. So isn’t this something pretty terrifying? Not our impotence, but our almost—our of humanity—omnipotence, in the sense that we can even cause earthquakes, but we don’t know the scope of our omnipotence. Which is why some ecologists
unknown
have a
have a
unknown
very beautiful idea, which is I think crucial if we are to confront properly the ongoing ecological crisis: that today we are, you know how you... how you enumerate the geological eras, Pleistocene and so on and so on... that we are now on the threshold of a new era, they call it “Anthropocene”, where humanity is no longer just one among the living species, but it literally is becoming a geological factor. Here I think
very beautiful idea, which is I think crucial if we are to confront properly the ongoing ecological crisis: that today we are, you know how you... how you enumerate the geological eras, Pleistocene and so on and so on... that we are now on the threshold of a new era, they call it “Anthropocene”, where humanity is no longer just one among the living species, but it literally is becoming a geological factor. Here I think
Slavoj Žižek
we come to the next crucial conclusion. Maybe paradoxically we should accept that nature doesn’t exist. What do I mean by this? Not in any crazy subjectivist way, “there is no nature, we are just constructing nature through our spirit” or whatever, but in the sense that the image of nature that we spontaneously accept—nature as a balanced, harmonized circulation which is then destroyed through excessive human agency—that nature doesn’t exist. Nature is in itself a series of mega-catastrophes. Nature is crazy. Things go wrong all the time in nature. Just think about oil. Oil, our main energy source: can we even imagine what kind of a gigantic ecological catastrophe had to have happened millions of years ago so that we have oil? This is nature. What we should do? The first thing I claim is that we should accept our full alienation from nature. The problem is not science and technology. They may be part of the problem in the sense that they are causing problems, but at the same time they are the only solution. The solution is not to feel more organic with Mother Earth, to go to the forests and so on. We are already within technology. We should remain open and just patiently work. Work how? Also with much stronger social discipline. I’m not talking about state terror, but social discipline. I think that—and for me it’s not even a sad lesson—that maybe one of the consequences of ecological crisis will be that this basically American way of life vision of free spending, this individualist liberty, consumerism and so on and so on, we will have to get out of this and invent a new mode of living together as humans which will involve a much greater sense of solidarity and social discipline. I’m not afraid to say this. Another problem that’s keeping us busy is the security issue, now culminating in the war in Afghanistan. Here’s what former UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has to say about it. I think that, you know, the Americans mainly, frankly, were in Afghanistan for revenge. They were looking for the people who had attacked them, and they had no interest for Afghanistan. Now, not only the Taliban, but more and more Afghans are wondering: who are these... these Western troops here? What are they doing? They are bombing our villages, they are breaking into our houses, you know, roughing about our... our women and children. What is this? This is the Russians all over again. So I think, you know, you need... so exit strategy by all means. I think you need to tell the Afghans, “Look, this is what we are doing, this is why we are doing it, and we will be leaving.” You tell the Afghans that you are after Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore. Yes, I think Afghanistan effectively is—let’s call it with this bombastic term—the symptom of what is wrong with the United States’ politics. But first I would like to make a more general point about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is perceived today as the ultimate fundamentalist country: religious oppression of women and so on and so on. But my God, I’m old enough to remember: forty years ago, Afghanistan was... the same Afghanistan was probably the most tolerant and secular of all Muslim, near Middle East states. It had a King who was enlightened, pro-Western, modernizer. It had a very strong local communist party which even took power in a coup d’état. Then, when they started to crumble, Soviet Union intervened. To throw out the Soviet Union, Americans helped the future Al-Qaeda and so on, Islamist insurgents to throw... and it is through this process of getting caught into the global politics that Afghanistan became fundamentalist. So this is absolutely a crucial lesson: today’s fundamentalism is not a dark remainder of the past or whatever, it is generated as part of the global process. Now, I think the situation there is very complex. I agree that the Americans went there simply to find an easy target. I claim that far from
we come to the next crucial conclusion. Maybe paradoxically we should accept that nature doesn’t exist. What do I mean by this? Not in any crazy subjectivist way, “there is no nature, we are just constructing nature through our spirit” or whatever, but in the sense that the image of nature that we spontaneously accept—nature as a balanced, harmonized circulation which is then destroyed through excessive human agency—that nature doesn’t exist. Nature is in itself a series of mega-catastrophes. Nature is crazy. Things go wrong all the time in nature. Just think about oil. Oil, our main energy source: can we even imagine what kind of a gigantic ecological catastrophe had to have happened millions of years ago so that we have oil? This is nature. What we should do? The first thing I claim is that we should accept our full alienation from nature. The problem is not science and technology. They may be part of the problem in the sense that they are causing problems, but at the same time they are the only solution. The solution is not to feel more organic with Mother Earth, to go to the forests and so on. We are already within technology. We should remain open and just patiently work. Work how? Also with much stronger social discipline. I’m not talking about state terror, but social discipline. I think that—and for me it’s not even a sad lesson—that maybe one of the consequences of ecological crisis will be that this basically American way of life vision of free spending, this individualist liberty, consumerism and so on and so on, we will have to get out of this and invent a new mode of living together as humans which will involve a much greater sense of solidarity and social discipline. I’m not afraid to say this. Another problem that’s keeping us busy is the security issue, now culminating in the war in Afghanistan. Here’s what former UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has to say about it. I think that, you know, the Americans mainly, frankly, were in Afghanistan for revenge. They were looking for the people who had attacked them, and they had no interest for Afghanistan. Now, not only the Taliban, but more and more Afghans are wondering: who are these... these Western troops here? What are they doing? They are bombing our villages, they are breaking into our houses, you know, roughing about our... our women and children. What is this? This is the Russians all over again. So I think, you know, you need... so exit strategy by all means. I think you need to tell the Afghans, “Look, this is what we are doing, this is why we are doing it, and we will be leaving.” You tell the Afghans that you are after Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore. Yes, I think Afghanistan effectively is—let’s call it with this bombastic term—the symptom of what is wrong with the United States’ politics. But first I would like to make a more general point about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is perceived today as the ultimate fundamentalist country: religious oppression of women and so on and so on. But my God, I’m old enough to remember: forty years ago, Afghanistan was... the same Afghanistan was probably the most tolerant and secular of all Muslim, near Middle East states. It had a King who was enlightened, pro-Western, modernizer. It had a very strong local communist party which even took power in a coup d’état. Then, when they started to crumble, Soviet Union intervened. To throw out the Soviet Union, Americans helped the future Al-Qaeda and so on, Islamist insurgents to throw... and it is through this process of getting caught into the global politics that Afghanistan became fundamentalist. So this is absolutely a crucial lesson: today’s fundamentalism is not a dark remainder of the past or whatever, it is generated as part of the global process. Now, I think the situation there is very complex. I agree that the Americans went there simply to find an easy target. I claim that far from
unknown
demonstrating their power, if anything they demonstrated their impotence there. We have a wonderful joke in my country, but I think it’s an international joke, about an
demonstrating their power, if anything they demonstrated their impotence there. We have a wonderful joke in my country, but I think it’s an international joke, about an
unknown
idiot who looks under the streetlight for his lost key. And then a friend asks him, “Why are you looking for the... what are they doing?” He said, “I’m looking for the key.” Friend asked him, “But where did you lose the key?” He said, “Back there in the alley in the darkness.” And then the friend asks him, “But why then are you looking for the key here, not there where you lost it?” He said, “Because here there is more light, it’s easier to find the key.” It’s something like this about Afghanistan. They took on a small defenceless country because they all knew that where Al-Qaeda really is—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia—these are their allies, they cannot attack it. The problem that we have today in Afghanistan—which is a real problem, I understand Americans—it’s easy to say exit strategy, but we all know, with the corruption of the existing American puppet regime, if United
idiot who looks under the streetlight for his lost key. And then a friend asks him, “Why are you looking for the... what are they doing?” He said, “I’m looking for the key.” Friend asked him, “But where did you lose the key?” He said, “Back there in the alley in the darkness.” And then the friend asks him, “But why then are you looking for the key here, not there where you lost it?” He said, “Because here there is more light, it’s easier to find the key.” It’s something like this about Afghanistan. They took on a small defenceless country because they all knew that where Al-Qaeda really is—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia—these are their allies, they cannot attack it. The problem that we have today in Afghanistan—which is a real problem, I understand Americans—it’s easy to say exit strategy, but we all know, with the corruption of the existing American puppet regime, if United
Slavoj Žižek
States withdrew now, probably, probably in the latest a couple of months, Taliban takes over. And that’s a fiasco which United States cannot afford. I know these stories and you can play them endlessly, like in Islam they had democracy, human rights, Christians claim “we invented human rights” and so on and so on. But we should be very clear here: I think that all religions, if you look closely at them, are basically opportunistic, in the sense that you know, God or whoever wrote the text says something then, just to make it sure, he adds the opposite thing. Like “don't kill” but as Jesus said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak to buy a sword” and so on. So the problem is not: is today’s so-called Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism grounded in Islam? I mean, it’s a contemporary phenomenon. So again, all these stories about big democratic potential in Islam, they are true but the same goes practically for every religion. If we want to find this democratic potential of Islam, we should look for it elsewhere, I think. For example in Iran. There, there was an authentic explosion, part of the Khomeini revolution. It was later under the clerical regime oppressed. It is now gradually, through the organization of civil society, re-emerging. But to put a very simple question: should we stay or should we leave Afghanistan? Here it may surprise you what I will say. I mean, it may surprise you insofar as I count myself as a radical leftist communist and so on. I don’t think the solution is to simply, quickly leave. Because first you screw up totally the situation, change Afghanistan into a much more fundamentalist country than it ever was, and then you leave. I think... I don’t know how to do it, but at least one should have of course the prospect should be to leave Afghanistan. But again, after... if nothing else, after all that United States did there, as it was just described, all the catastrophe, ruining the entire country and so on and so on, now to simply leave it’s too easy a way out. This is what I don’t like about today’s left: their only message is
States withdrew now, probably, probably in the latest a couple of months, Taliban takes over. And that’s a fiasco which United States cannot afford. I know these stories and you can play them endlessly, like in Islam they had democracy, human rights, Christians claim “we invented human rights” and so on and so on. But we should be very clear here: I think that all religions, if you look closely at them, are basically opportunistic, in the sense that you know, God or whoever wrote the text says something then, just to make it sure, he adds the opposite thing. Like “don't kill” but as Jesus said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak to buy a sword” and so on. So the problem is not: is today’s so-called Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism grounded in Islam? I mean, it’s a contemporary phenomenon. So again, all these stories about big democratic potential in Islam, they are true but the same goes practically for every religion. If we want to find this democratic potential of Islam, we should look for it elsewhere, I think. For example in Iran. There, there was an authentic explosion, part of the Khomeini revolution. It was later under the clerical regime oppressed. It is now gradually, through the organization of civil society, re-emerging. But to put a very simple question: should we stay or should we leave Afghanistan? Here it may surprise you what I will say. I mean, it may surprise you insofar as I count myself as a radical leftist communist and so on. I don’t think the solution is to simply, quickly leave. Because first you screw up totally the situation, change Afghanistan into a much more fundamentalist country than it ever was, and then you leave. I think... I don’t know how to do it, but at least one should have of course the prospect should be to leave Afghanistan. But again, after... if nothing else, after all that United States did there, as it was just described, all the catastrophe, ruining the entire country and so on and so on, now to simply leave it’s too easy a way out. This is what I don’t like about today’s left: their only message is
unknown
moralistically “let’s leave.” Just “oh, then we have clear conscience” and they don’t care what will happen there and so on. I hate this easy moralistic left. They mask their lack of ideas by easy moralism, no? That’s catastrophe. In liberal democracy went global. As Francis Fukuyama said, “The end of history.” Speaking of democracy, let’s start by looking at history
moralistically “let’s leave.” Just “oh, then we have clear conscience” and they don’t care what will happen there and so on. I hate this easy moralistic left. They mask their lack of ideas by easy moralism, no? That’s catastrophe. In liberal democracy went global. As Francis Fukuyama said, “The end of history.” Speaking of democracy, let’s start by looking at history
Slavoj Žižek
before it’s end. Ceaușescu, eroism, România, comunism. Ceaușescu și poporul. Ceaușescu PCR. I don’t know what you want me to say now. Okay, my heart is warm when I see this, but my answer would have been that I’m the first to ad... I don’t see any realistic prospect and so on for this thing to return. The story of 20th century communism is over. If I... now if I am asked how to prevent that this will return... but it is returning in China! It is in power as the more efficient capitalism than Western capitalism itself. That’s what we should worry. Not old communism coming back to power, but old communists who are there already in power, organizing a more efficient and exploitative capitalism than in the West. How will you beat them? I claim, crazy and paradoxically as it may sound, that only the radical left can even provide a good theory of what went wrong with communism. The left didn’t yet fully realize to what extent the 20th century left, in all its versions—state socialism left, social democratic left, and all this self-management, local self-organization, more creative democratic left—it’s over. That game is over. The left will have to begin from the beginning again.
before it’s end. Ceaușescu, eroism, România, comunism. Ceaușescu și poporul. Ceaușescu PCR. I don’t know what you want me to say now. Okay, my heart is warm when I see this, but my answer would have been that I’m the first to ad... I don’t see any realistic prospect and so on for this thing to return. The story of 20th century communism is over. If I... now if I am asked how to prevent that this will return... but it is returning in China! It is in power as the more efficient capitalism than Western capitalism itself. That’s what we should worry. Not old communism coming back to power, but old communists who are there already in power, organizing a more efficient and exploitative capitalism than in the West. How will you beat them? I claim, crazy and paradoxically as it may sound, that only the radical left can even provide a good theory of what went wrong with communism. The left didn’t yet fully realize to what extent the 20th century left, in all its versions—state socialism left, social democratic left, and all this self-management, local self-organization, more creative democratic left—it’s over. That game is over. The left will have to begin from the beginning again.
unknown
And that’s the problem. We don’t yet see the clear contours, although we see a great need
And that’s the problem. We don’t yet see the clear contours, although we see a great need
Slavoj Žižek
for this. We live, this is why I think, we live in very difficult times. It may appear that things are going still relatively well, but I see very dark clouds on the horizon. But how to chase away these dark clouds? Let’s listen to American pundit Fareed Zakaria. And this is the great challenge for Western democracies: can democracies find a way to tackle the hard issues that they... that need to be tackled for the long-term survival and prosperity of their countries? Or and if they don’t, you will... you will delegitimize democracy, because people will say, “This is a useless system.” And you know, they’re already doing it in some places with declining voter roles and declining public participation and a decline of support for the mainstream political parties, you know, the rise of support for fringe elements. Yes, I think democracy, the way we know it—liberal democracy as an element of global capitalism—is in crisis and will be more and more in a crisis. What does this mean? The big dilemma that I see can also be put in what I call, ironically, Fukuyamaist terms. He
for this. We live, this is why I think, we live in very difficult times. It may appear that things are going still relatively well, but I see very dark clouds on the horizon. But how to chase away these dark clouds? Let’s listen to American pundit Fareed Zakaria. And this is the great challenge for Western democracies: can democracies find a way to tackle the hard issues that they... that need to be tackled for the long-term survival and prosperity of their countries? Or and if they don’t, you will... you will delegitimize democracy, because people will say, “This is a useless system.” And you know, they’re already doing it in some places with declining voter roles and declining public participation and a decline of support for the mainstream political parties, you know, the rise of support for fringe elements. Yes, I think democracy, the way we know it—liberal democracy as an element of global capitalism—is in crisis and will be more and more in a crisis. What does this mean? The big dilemma that I see can also be put in what I call, ironically, Fukuyamaist terms. He
unknown
wasn’t
wasn’t
unknown
an idiot. He is not an idiot. His point was not “it’s over, we reach the end of history.” His point is that with the rise of liberal democratic capitalism, a certain social and
an idiot. He is not an idiot. His point was not “it’s over, we reach the end of history.” His point is that with the rise of liberal democratic capitalism, a certain social and
unknown
political form remained as the only realistic option. Or to put it in ironic
political form remained as the only realistic option. Or to put it in ironic
Slavoj Žižek
terms: when I was young we were dreaming about socialism with a human face. It is as if even the large majority of today’s left is dreaming about global capitalism with a human face. Nobody asks the questions seriously: can we really step out of capitalism? Or is the state the way we know it here to stay? Can we imagine a society whose public life is not organized through state mechanisms? Nobody does this. All we do today is to think how to introduce new laws or whatever to make the state and our societies more tolerant towards sexual, ethnic, and so on minorities, more healthcare, more social justice and so on and so on, but within the system. So the big problem for me is: is this enough? Left-wing intellectuals believed always that they owned the vocabulary of freedom of speech and the... and the vocabulary of freedom and tolerance and that it was the enemy or the opposite side that could be described as bigoted or narrow-minded or exclusionary. So that when the tables are turned, when the keywords in the old Enlightenment liberal lexicon are taken over by let’s say the right wing and given slightly new definitions, left intellectuals don’t know what to do. They’re entirely discombobulated. They don’t realize that they are no longer the same words, the words that they used to march by. And the right wing seems to be infinitely better at taking over the vocabulary of the opponent and using it against the opponent, in this case using it against
terms: when I was young we were dreaming about socialism with a human face. It is as if even the large majority of today’s left is dreaming about global capitalism with a human face. Nobody asks the questions seriously: can we really step out of capitalism? Or is the state the way we know it here to stay? Can we imagine a society whose public life is not organized through state mechanisms? Nobody does this. All we do today is to think how to introduce new laws or whatever to make the state and our societies more tolerant towards sexual, ethnic, and so on minorities, more healthcare, more social justice and so on and so on, but within the system. So the big problem for me is: is this enough? Left-wing intellectuals believed always that they owned the vocabulary of freedom of speech and the... and the vocabulary of freedom and tolerance and that it was the enemy or the opposite side that could be described as bigoted or narrow-minded or exclusionary. So that when the tables are turned, when the keywords in the old Enlightenment liberal lexicon are taken over by let’s say the right wing and given slightly new definitions, left intellectuals don’t know what to do. They’re entirely discombobulated. They don’t realize that they are no longer the same words, the words that they used to march by. And the right wing seems to be infinitely better at taking over the vocabulary of the opponent and using it against the opponent, in this case using it against
unknown
the left. There is a deep moment of truth in it.
the left. There is a deep moment of truth in it.
unknown
Namely, the central event for me in the political process is how what was up to two, three decades ago one of the privileged domains of the leftist activity—mass mobilization of civil society for the struggle against racism, women’s rights and so on and so on—is now more and more integrated into the right-wing populist rebellions, let’s call them. And this is something that should worry us. This is part of a process where the left limited itself more and more to these cultural topics—gay rights, women’s rights, even ecology
Namely, the central event for me in the political process is how what was up to two, three decades ago one of the privileged domains of the leftist activity—mass mobilization of civil society for the struggle against racism, women’s rights and so on and so on—is now more and more integrated into the right-wing populist rebellions, let’s call them. And this is something that should worry us. This is part of a process where the left limited itself more and more to these cultural topics—gay rights, women’s rights, even ecology
Slavoj Žižek
and so on—leaving all this popular appeal, even the class appeal to the right-wingers. The danger I see for democracy in all this is what? I think there is another big shift going on. I think that till now the—with all variations of course—the basic formula of our politics was two big populist parties—populist not in the sense of populism, but in the sense of popular rather—aiming at the entire electoral body. A center-right and center-left party. Let’s say Christian conservative and liberal social democratic. This was the basic opposition. Now I think social democracy is disappearing, and then we are approaching a new dualism where on the one hand we have a centrist—it can be ex-social democrat, ex-conservative, it depends on strategic conditions like who will occupy this central place—a central, let’s call it technocratic liberal capitalist party, which is usually more open towards minorities and so on, and then the right-wing nationalist populist reaction to it. And this is dangerous. Why? Because, you know the wonderful title of the book of Freud, “Unbehagen in der Kultur”, “Discontent, uneasiness in culture.” Today we obviously live in an era of “Unbehagen”, discontent in liberalism. The problem is who will voice, who will articulate this discontent? Unfortunately, the
and so on—leaving all this popular appeal, even the class appeal to the right-wingers. The danger I see for democracy in all this is what? I think there is another big shift going on. I think that till now the—with all variations of course—the basic formula of our politics was two big populist parties—populist not in the sense of populism, but in the sense of popular rather—aiming at the entire electoral body. A center-right and center-left party. Let’s say Christian conservative and liberal social democratic. This was the basic opposition. Now I think social democracy is disappearing, and then we are approaching a new dualism where on the one hand we have a centrist—it can be ex-social democrat, ex-conservative, it depends on strategic conditions like who will occupy this central place—a central, let’s call it technocratic liberal capitalist party, which is usually more open towards minorities and so on, and then the right-wing nationalist populist reaction to it. And this is dangerous. Why? Because, you know the wonderful title of the book of Freud, “Unbehagen in der Kultur”, “Discontent, uneasiness in culture.” Today we obviously live in an era of “Unbehagen”, discontent in liberalism. The problem is who will voice, who will articulate this discontent? Unfortunately, the
unknown
only channel which functions for a more radical forms of discontent is the right-wing populism. Programma elettorale... all'unanimità... Presidente del Popolo della Libertà, l'onorevole Silvio Berlusconi. I think Berlusconi is one of the options for our... of our future. Namely, as I said, the only remaining tension seems to be a neutral
only channel which functions for a more radical forms of discontent is the right-wing populism. Programma elettorale... all'unanimità... Presidente del Popolo della Libertà, l'onorevole Silvio Berlusconi. I think Berlusconi is one of the options for our... of our future. Namely, as I said, the only remaining tension seems to be a neutral
unknown
technocratic liberal capitalist party and nationalist populism. Berlusconi made even a step further and combined the two. He is at the same time corrupted technocrat and a populist. But what makes him... if we have in Asia capitalism
technocratic liberal capitalist party and nationalist populism. Berlusconi made even a step further and combined the two. He is at the same time corrupted technocrat and a populist. But what makes him... if we have in Asia capitalism
Slavoj Žižek
with... democracy with Asian values, we have it here with Italian values. What does this mean? The first thing I want to emphasize about Berlusconi is his not only what everybody knows, that politics is rendered more and more an empty spectacles... spectacle... but there is another crucial dimension in this depoliticization of politics, where it as if political debate proper is disappearing. What remains is spectacle and expert or corrupted whatever concrete economic measures. On the one hand this systematic dismantling or self-destruction of the minimal dignity of state authority. I mean, Berlusconi everybody knows is a living obscenity. I don’t think this is just a joke. It’s something very strange going on where it’s as if the state or political power is discovering that it can function in a totally cynical way, making a joke of itself and so on and so on. But this is one side which shouldn’t blind us for the other side of Berlusconi. Are we even aware that for over a year now, from July Italy is formally in an emergency state? The in all Italy emergency state was proclaimed a year and a half ago. Why? Because this measure renders it possible for the government to deploy army within Italy itself and use it. And they did. They started against immigrants, then against mafia in Napoli. Now they want to use it in city parks and so on to prevent rapes, whatever. And the shocking thing is how people accepted this. This is an ominous image of our future. This is... look at Italy if you want to see how our future authoritarianism will look. It’s not the old style authoritarianism where all of a sudden you awaken one morning and a voice tells you all the freedoms are suspended and so on. No. All these small individual freedoms are left to us. You can engage in sex in all perversions, consumerism, you can make fun of everything, life is one big public
with... democracy with Asian values, we have it here with Italian values. What does this mean? The first thing I want to emphasize about Berlusconi is his not only what everybody knows, that politics is rendered more and more an empty spectacles... spectacle... but there is another crucial dimension in this depoliticization of politics, where it as if political debate proper is disappearing. What remains is spectacle and expert or corrupted whatever concrete economic measures. On the one hand this systematic dismantling or self-destruction of the minimal dignity of state authority. I mean, Berlusconi everybody knows is a living obscenity. I don’t think this is just a joke. It’s something very strange going on where it’s as if the state or political power is discovering that it can function in a totally cynical way, making a joke of itself and so on and so on. But this is one side which shouldn’t blind us for the other side of Berlusconi. Are we even aware that for over a year now, from July Italy is formally in an emergency state? The in all Italy emergency state was proclaimed a year and a half ago. Why? Because this measure renders it possible for the government to deploy army within Italy itself and use it. And they did. They started against immigrants, then against mafia in Napoli. Now they want to use it in city parks and so on to prevent rapes, whatever. And the shocking thing is how people accepted this. This is an ominous image of our future. This is... look at Italy if you want to see how our future authoritarianism will look. It’s not the old style authoritarianism where all of a sudden you awaken one morning and a voice tells you all the freedoms are suspended and so on. No. All these small individual freedoms are left to us. You can engage in sex in all perversions, consumerism, you can make fun of everything, life is one big public
unknown
spectacle and so on, but at the same time beneath
spectacle and so on, but at the same time beneath
Slavoj Žižek
it it’s again a kind of a new... it keeps itself in the background, new authoritarian state... to call it by its name: Groucho Marx authoritarianism. Really, what... isn’t Berlusconi something like Groucho Marx from “Duck Soup” in power? This is our future, I claim. I think that we will have to reinvent something that I’m still... I still want to call communism. Which has to be totally redefined of course. We have to forget all this Leninist ideas of party-state taking over whatever. But it’s still communism in the sense that—to put it in Marxist-Hegelian terms—that it is the core problem is that we are more and more emerging as subjects deprived of our symbolic substance. So even at this level we have some kind of a, how should I put it, proletarian position. In this sense I think again, we should redefine proletarian position, we should stick to communism. So we are back, the communists. Thank you very much. I hate that face, but that’s another problem. What I wanted to say here is something very simple. I don’t even have a precise idea how it will be done, certainly not in the old state socialism way. All I’m saying is that we are confronted problems which concern our commons. That’s why I keep the word communism. That only some kind of a popular mobilization outside state
it it’s again a kind of a new... it keeps itself in the background, new authoritarian state... to call it by its name: Groucho Marx authoritarianism. Really, what... isn’t Berlusconi something like Groucho Marx from “Duck Soup” in power? This is our future, I claim. I think that we will have to reinvent something that I’m still... I still want to call communism. Which has to be totally redefined of course. We have to forget all this Leninist ideas of party-state taking over whatever. But it’s still communism in the sense that—to put it in Marxist-Hegelian terms—that it is the core problem is that we are more and more emerging as subjects deprived of our symbolic substance. So even at this level we have some kind of a, how should I put it, proletarian position. In this sense I think again, we should redefine proletarian position, we should stick to communism. So we are back, the communists. Thank you very much. I hate that face, but that’s another problem. What I wanted to say here is something very simple. I don’t even have a precise idea how it will be done, certainly not in the old state socialism way. All I’m saying is that we are confronted problems which concern our commons. That’s why I keep the word communism. That only some kind of a popular mobilization outside state
unknown
and
and
Slavoj Žižek
outside the market can do the job. Every day we are getting new proofs, like the fiasco of the last Copenhagen ecological negotiations among big powers and so on, that neither the market nor the state can do it. And if I return to that problem of who will voice the discontent at liberalism... again the problem is that only the right-wing nationalist populist are effectively doing it. And I’m not so much against liberalism. My message to liberals is: are you aware that you—in the
outside the market can do the job. Every day we are getting new proofs, like the fiasco of the last Copenhagen ecological negotiations among big powers and so on, that neither the market nor the state can do it. And if I return to that problem of who will voice the discontent at liberalism... again the problem is that only the right-wing nationalist populist are effectively doing it. And I’m not so much against liberalism. My message to liberals is: are you aware that you—in the
unknown
sense not they personally, but your own
sense not they personally, but your own
Slavoj Žižek
dynamic of your own system—is generating this nationalist populist, potentially racist reaction and that the only way to save what is worth saving in liberalism—sense of freedoms, solidarity and so on, all that—liberalism what is worth saving in it, will be saved only through a revitalized, more radical left. I think the future will be, to simplify it to the utmost: Berlusconi or new communism. Thank you very much, Slavoj Žižek. Thank you for being the... offering me a mouthpiece for my propaganda.
dynamic of your own system—is generating this nationalist populist, potentially racist reaction and that the only way to save what is worth saving in liberalism—sense of freedoms, solidarity and so on, all that—liberalism what is worth saving in it, will be saved only through a revitalized, more radical left. I think the future will be, to simplify it to the utmost: Berlusconi or new communism. Thank you very much, Slavoj Žižek. Thank you for being the... offering me a mouthpiece for my propaganda.