Philosopher #slavojzizek #zizek Interview with T-cup
Interview · T-cup ·
published 2022-10-20 · 0:34:05 · 3,732 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
democracycapitalismcommunism-socialismgeopolitics-warecology-climateideology
Žižek argues that Western multi-party liberal democracy is in deep crisis, unable to handle long-term global problems like climate change or pandemics due to short electoral cycles and public apathy. He critiques the 'failed state' narrative, arguing that many so-called failed states (e.g., Congo, Angola) are actually fully integrated into international capitalism, benefiting from corruption and resource extraction. He concludes that liberal capitalism is failing to manage 'the commons' (health, environment), necessitating a 'war communism' or new form of socialized production to address existential threats.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 7
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
A term coined by the speaker to describe the simultaneous dying of democracy and the global spread of crises (pandemics, climate, war) that democracy is structurally unable to manage.
A political style, exemplified by Macron, where a technocratic center presents itself as 'efficient government' while bypassing traditional partisan politics, effectively depoliticizing the electorate.
A state lacking efficient central authority; Žižek argues this label is misleading because such states are often fully integrated into international capitalism, benefiting warlords and foreign dealers.
as “commons”
Referencing Marx, things that should be accessible to all and not privatized (e.g., healthcare, environment), which liberal capitalism fails to protect.
A proposed future form of communism that is not based on abundance, but on the socialization of production and agriculture under state control during states of emergency, war, or catastrophe.
A formula for ideological denial: rationally knowing a truth (e.g., climate change) while subjectively/emotionally acting as if one does not, a mechanism sustained by capitalist precariousness.
A form of capitalism characterized by permanent activity and lack of job security, which paradoxically makes society rigid and unable to effect change.
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek cites the Yellow Vests in France and Podemos in Spain as examples of social dissatisfaction that either faced state resistance or were neutralized by integrating into the system, losing their explosive political dimension.
“Look at what is happening in France, Spain, other Western European countries where you have a vast social dissatisfaction.”
People invoked 6
Boris Johnson negative
Cited as a leader who was removed, yet evokes 'nostalgia' among leftist friends because the successor (Truss) is worse.
Liz Truss negative
Described as a 'mega-catastrophe' elected in the UK, illustrating democratic failure.
Mario Draghi positive
Cited in the context of the Italian government's disintegration, where parties from left to right (except Meloni) opposed him.
Emmanuel Macron negative
Cited as an example of a 'techno-populist' leader who arrived from nowhere with no clear program, sweeping away traditional parties and depoliticizing the system.
Alain Badiou positive
Friend who proposed the formula that African countries are 'cursed' by their natural resources.
Giorgia Meloni negative
Cited as the 'extreme right, neo-fascists' who opposed Draghi and have the greatest chance to become prime minister in Italy.
Transcript 24 turns
unknown
Hello, I'm Tanvirul Glass Shuvon, the most controversial host in the East and I'm with Slavoj Žižek, Professor Slavoj Žižek, the most dangerous philosopher in the West. Slavoj, thank you for joining me, Tikka.
Hello, I'm Tanvirul Glass Shuvon, the most controversial host in the East and I'm with Slavoj Žižek, Professor Slavoj Žižek, the most dangerous philosopher in the West. Slavoj, thank you for joining me, Tikka.
Slavoj Žižek
It's an honor for me also. Thank you very much.
It's an honor for me also. Thank you very much.
unknown
Please, can you tell me one thing, how do you enjoy your title "The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the West"?
Please, can you tell me one thing, how do you enjoy your title "The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the West"?
Slavoj Žižek
I think it is a fake, it is a way to neutralize me, to present me as an interesting commodity, provocative and so on. I think the, this is how Western societies functions. The moment you get such a label, the implication is that maybe people look at you to get amused and so on, but they ignore what you are really trying to do, they ignore the basic message of your work, because if you hear from someone that he is the most dangerous philosopher in the world, you are looking for some provocative statements, like that democracy is limited, that we cannot fully allow on Western-type of democracy and so on. So the message is, the way I read it with such titles, you can look at him, you will be amused, provoked, but don't take it seriously.
I think it is a fake, it is a way to neutralize me, to present me as an interesting commodity, provocative and so on. I think the, this is how Western societies functions. The moment you get such a label, the implication is that maybe people look at you to get amused and so on, but they ignore what you are really trying to do, they ignore the basic message of your work, because if you hear from someone that he is the most dangerous philosopher in the world, you are looking for some provocative statements, like that democracy is limited, that we cannot fully allow on Western-type of democracy and so on. So the message is, the way I read it with such titles, you can look at him, you will be amused, provoked, but don't take it seriously.
unknown
Okay, Slavoj, you said in a TV show, "Democracy needs to be reinvented." Intellectual democracy or political democracy practices, people cannot choose their right leaders. When does the type of democracy ultimately fall, and how can democracy be reinvented?
Okay, Slavoj, you said in a TV show, "Democracy needs to be reinvented." Intellectual democracy or political democracy practices, people cannot choose their right leaders. When does the type of democracy ultimately fall, and how can democracy be reinvented?
Slavoj Žižek
It's a very difficult question, I don't have a simple answer. All I know is the following: first, when I talk about democracy, I don't mean some abstract notions of democracy means active people, I mean the specific form of Western multi-party liberal democracy. And I think this democracy is in a crisis in itself. I'm not just playing the multicultural game and claiming "Okay, maybe it's good for Western Europe, but not for I don't know which third-world country." No, I think even here, just two examples. Look at what is happening in France, Spain, other Western European countries where you have a vast social dissatisfaction. We had some years ago in France the Gilets Jaunes, the "Yellow Vests" movement. It was a tremendous protest, and one must say the state administration, Macron, the president, was pretty open. He said, "Come, we will negotiate." But there was some radical discord, they couldn't find the same language. It was the same with Podemos in Spain. When they integrated politics, this explosive dimension disappeared; they are now just one ordinary, even very modest center-leftist party. So there is in the same, not to mention United States, where democracy obviously doesn't work. They are now approaching, for the time being still cold, only ideological civil war. They cannot even unite about the rules of elections, who is the winner and so on and so on. So this is my first point. Something in today's society resists Western multi-party democracy. It cannot catch, it cannot integrate and deal with what people think is the core social problematic. So it's not just that we Europeans can patronize the third world, you know, you should become more like us, become democratic. Our democracy is in a crisis. Second problem: we are now at a time when problems are not only global, but also long-term problems. And the difficulty with this multi-party democracy is you have some elections every four years, in many countries every two years and so on. And this form renders impossible long-term planning. Okay, I'm not pro-Chinese, but at least they have one big advantage: they, because they don't worry, don't have to worry who will be elected really, they can afford planning till at least. And this gives a totally different perspective to those in power. You can calmly plan what will come, consequences of global warming, of international situation. In Western democracy, you simply cannot afford this. It's one immediate topic. There may be an ecological crisis, too much heat, or war with Ukraine, but it's crucial for us to see the interconnection, these catastrophes. For example, it's clear that war in Ukraine is also the war for who will control the best land in future.
It's a very difficult question, I don't have a simple answer. All I know is the following: first, when I talk about democracy, I don't mean some abstract notions of democracy means active people, I mean the specific form of Western multi-party liberal democracy. And I think this democracy is in a crisis in itself. I'm not just playing the multicultural game and claiming "Okay, maybe it's good for Western Europe, but not for I don't know which third-world country." No, I think even here, just two examples. Look at what is happening in France, Spain, other Western European countries where you have a vast social dissatisfaction. We had some years ago in France the Gilets Jaunes, the "Yellow Vests" movement. It was a tremendous protest, and one must say the state administration, Macron, the president, was pretty open. He said, "Come, we will negotiate." But there was some radical discord, they couldn't find the same language. It was the same with Podemos in Spain. When they integrated politics, this explosive dimension disappeared; they are now just one ordinary, even very modest center-leftist party. So there is in the same, not to mention United States, where democracy obviously doesn't work. They are now approaching, for the time being still cold, only ideological civil war. They cannot even unite about the rules of elections, who is the winner and so on and so on. So this is my first point. Something in today's society resists Western multi-party democracy. It cannot catch, it cannot integrate and deal with what people think is the core social problematic. So it's not just that we Europeans can patronize the third world, you know, you should become more like us, become democratic. Our democracy is in a crisis. Second problem: we are now at a time when problems are not only global, but also long-term problems. And the difficulty with this multi-party democracy is you have some elections every four years, in many countries every two years and so on. And this form renders impossible long-term planning. Okay, I'm not pro-Chinese, but at least they have one big advantage: they, because they don't worry, don't have to worry who will be elected really, they can afford planning till at least. And this gives a totally different perspective to those in power. You can calmly plan what will come, consequences of global warming, of international situation. In Western democracy, you simply cannot afford this. It's one immediate topic. There may be an ecological crisis, too much heat, or war with Ukraine, but it's crucial for us to see the interconnection, these catastrophes. For example, it's clear that war in Ukraine is also the war for who will control the best land in future.
unknown
Is this a totally war of
Is this a totally war of
Slavoj Žižek
ego? I think it's a totally war of ego, Ukraine and Russia war, I think it's a war of ego. Yes, yeah. And again, this is, I'm not against democracy in the sense of voice of the people. And okay, my third argument, please don't take it as totalitarian. I don't know how it is in your country, but the way I see it, especially in West, in Western Europe, I will say something horrible. People don't really want to decide. If you live in a state like a typical Western European state, United States, you don't feel now, we will see what will be, you don't start, you can afford a life of small satisfaction. Life is not great, but it's not too bad. You can just go on. And people don't want to be bothered with big decisions. They want somehow to decide with elections, but basically, it's horrible what I will say, they want to be told by some leader what really to do. They want a leader, and this is not a bad thing. We are lazy people, spontaneously. I am, at least. Somebody... no, lazy for real thing. You know what I mean? We need somebody to awaken us, as it were. To tell us, to make us aware of our problems. Most people are spontaneously deniers, denying COVID, denying global warming, if of course you are not in a mega-catastrophe yourself. So for all these things, I think that, I don't know how it will be done, but we need to invent new political forms which will be in contact with trends of actual what people actually worry about, but at the same time, which should be, sorry for using this term... No problem. ...aggressive in a good, sorry, authoritarian in a good sense, not in the sense of putting people in prison and so on, but in the sense of trust, that you feel they know what they are doing, that you see they have a vision. And I don't know again how it is in your country, but in the, in Western Europe look at what is happening now in, in United Kingdom. Now they got rid of Boris Johnson. What they get now? Liz Truss is a mega-catastrophe. My leftist friends already have a nostalgia for Boris Johnson. Such a democracy where even in the time of crisis, everybody knows it's a time of crisis, you cannot elect a leader who stands for solution. You elect a leader who simply avoids the real problem. This is a catastrophe. Then it's not only, sorry, Tanvirul, it's not only the problem of democracy within a certain state. We need to invent not "big international state" like the world as a big state. That would have meant terrible corruption, but forms of international cooperation which would have been much more obligatory. What do you do, for example, you in Bangladesh had that problem with immigrants from the north of Myanmar. Yes, yes, yes. We have a issues. Forms of international cooperation so that somehow international community must be ready for such crisis. And I consider it unfair when, the way I read, Myanmar just let you Bangladesh, already an over-populated country, worry about it, do what you want. You were very civilized, you Bangladesh, because in other cases, such a solution would have led to war. You know? So what I mean is, can you even imagine solving the problem of mass migrations, which will develop with global warming, not only problems of war, but mass migrations, floods, too much water, at the same time not enough water, chaotic situations, pandemics. Pandemics absolutely need stronger international cooperation. Okay, may I advance a question? Like, we may call it the "Democratic Epidemic," if I include these questions. May we call it the Democratic Epidemic? What do you mean by this term? I didn't quite get it. Democratic epidemic, in the sense that... Yes, like democracy is dying, I think, or democracy is in crisis. I agree in this sense that it's dying. Yes. Although it may appear that it's not dying, but even if it survives, I agree, it's getting more and more, and I'm talking about big Western countries, it's getting more and more irrelevant. You know how you see this depoliticization? That we have now in the West leaders who are even maybe not for the existing system such bad leaders. Like look at Emmanuel Macron in France. He just arrived from nowhere, he was a little bit known before, with no clear program, just kind of a moderate center, and swept away the traditional opposing parties: Left Socialists and Right Republicans or whoever. So now the result is that instead of some normal political scene, moderate left, moderate right and so on, we have big center, which is in some sense depoliticized and technocratic. They present themselves as "we just want efficient government" and so that some critics are already talking of techno-populism. Usually, people oppose populism, trying to arouse, to
ego? I think it's a totally war of ego, Ukraine and Russia war, I think it's a war of ego. Yes, yeah. And again, this is, I'm not against democracy in the sense of voice of the people. And okay, my third argument, please don't take it as totalitarian. I don't know how it is in your country, but the way I see it, especially in West, in Western Europe, I will say something horrible. People don't really want to decide. If you live in a state like a typical Western European state, United States, you don't feel now, we will see what will be, you don't start, you can afford a life of small satisfaction. Life is not great, but it's not too bad. You can just go on. And people don't want to be bothered with big decisions. They want somehow to decide with elections, but basically, it's horrible what I will say, they want to be told by some leader what really to do. They want a leader, and this is not a bad thing. We are lazy people, spontaneously. I am, at least. Somebody... no, lazy for real thing. You know what I mean? We need somebody to awaken us, as it were. To tell us, to make us aware of our problems. Most people are spontaneously deniers, denying COVID, denying global warming, if of course you are not in a mega-catastrophe yourself. So for all these things, I think that, I don't know how it will be done, but we need to invent new political forms which will be in contact with trends of actual what people actually worry about, but at the same time, which should be, sorry for using this term... No problem. ...aggressive in a good, sorry, authoritarian in a good sense, not in the sense of putting people in prison and so on, but in the sense of trust, that you feel they know what they are doing, that you see they have a vision. And I don't know again how it is in your country, but in the, in Western Europe look at what is happening now in, in United Kingdom. Now they got rid of Boris Johnson. What they get now? Liz Truss is a mega-catastrophe. My leftist friends already have a nostalgia for Boris Johnson. Such a democracy where even in the time of crisis, everybody knows it's a time of crisis, you cannot elect a leader who stands for solution. You elect a leader who simply avoids the real problem. This is a catastrophe. Then it's not only, sorry, Tanvirul, it's not only the problem of democracy within a certain state. We need to invent not "big international state" like the world as a big state. That would have meant terrible corruption, but forms of international cooperation which would have been much more obligatory. What do you do, for example, you in Bangladesh had that problem with immigrants from the north of Myanmar. Yes, yes, yes. We have a issues. Forms of international cooperation so that somehow international community must be ready for such crisis. And I consider it unfair when, the way I read, Myanmar just let you Bangladesh, already an over-populated country, worry about it, do what you want. You were very civilized, you Bangladesh, because in other cases, such a solution would have led to war. You know? So what I mean is, can you even imagine solving the problem of mass migrations, which will develop with global warming, not only problems of war, but mass migrations, floods, too much water, at the same time not enough water, chaotic situations, pandemics. Pandemics absolutely need stronger international cooperation. Okay, may I advance a question? Like, we may call it the "Democratic Epidemic," if I include these questions. May we call it the Democratic Epidemic? What do you mean by this term? I didn't quite get it. Democratic epidemic, in the sense that... Yes, like democracy is dying, I think, or democracy is in crisis. I agree in this sense that it's dying. Yes. Although it may appear that it's not dying, but even if it survives, I agree, it's getting more and more, and I'm talking about big Western countries, it's getting more and more irrelevant. You know how you see this depoliticization? That we have now in the West leaders who are even maybe not for the existing system such bad leaders. Like look at Emmanuel Macron in France. He just arrived from nowhere, he was a little bit known before, with no clear program, just kind of a moderate center, and swept away the traditional opposing parties: Left Socialists and Right Republicans or whoever. So now the result is that instead of some normal political scene, moderate left, moderate right and so on, we have big center, which is in some sense depoliticized and technocratic. They present themselves as "we just want efficient government" and so that some critics are already talking of techno-populism. Usually, people oppose populism, trying to arouse, to
unknown
address masses, and technocracy. Now
address masses, and technocracy. Now
Slavoj Žižek
these are technocratic populists. It's the same, but now it fell apart in Italy with Mario Draghi government which disintegrated. All parties, from left to right, except the extreme right, Meloni, neo-fascists, opposed to him. And now they have elections where Meloni has the greatest chance to become prime minister. It's deep instability. So I think the time has come, I cannot speak for you,
these are technocratic populists. It's the same, but now it fell apart in Italy with Mario Draghi government which disintegrated. All parties, from left to right, except the extreme right, Meloni, neo-fascists, opposed to him. And now they have elections where Meloni has the greatest chance to become prime minister. It's deep instability. So I think the time has come, I cannot speak for you,
unknown
for us developed countries, not to behave
for us developed countries, not to behave
Slavoj Žižek
in this arrogant way we looked at from Ukraine to Congo, Angola and say, "Oh you still have a lot of work to do, you must
in this arrogant way we looked at from Ukraine to Congo, Angola and say, "Oh you still have a lot of work to do, you must
unknown
catch
catch
Slavoj Žižek
us, you must..." No, we have to change ourselves. We, we are in a crisis. Maybe even more than you. Everybody in crisis. Everybody in crisis, actually. But nonetheless, I agree with you, saying that everybody is in a crisis is a general structural feature, but it doesn't mean that we are all in the crisis in the same way. Those who were ruling till now, the developed West, for them crisis means that their model of global domination no longer works. So they, for them the way out of the crisis is to persist in their old model of domination, which is why it is crucial today not to focus on direct modes of domination, like the old direct colonialism, but to focus onto how one country can be exploited by others, can be de facto colonized just with economic, financial measures and so on and so on. I mean, I still think we live in colonialism, but I think that this colonialism cannot be grasped through these old categories: arrogant colonial master is telling you what to do. One of the forms in some African countries is that international companies bribe the local elite, and the local elite oppresses people but profits from international capital. I know very well examples like Nigeria, even in the north Algeria, or in the southwest of Africa, Angola. Angola is maybe the clearest example. You have two, three percent of the people who, according to some analysis, have the highest standard of living in the world. Prices are there in Luanda, capital, the highest, incredible luxury and so on. And you have percent of the people who live in the same absolute poverty as when Angola was still Portuguese colony. And you know what's the key, what offers the key to this? The main money for Angola is oil and gas. You know what happened some already years ago? Somebody looked at the budget of Angola, state budget, and there it says Angola is getting per year from international oil drilling companies eight billion. Then some whistleblower rendered public the documents of the main oil companies. From them, it was clear that they give to Angola every year
us, you must..." No, we have to change ourselves. We, we are in a crisis. Maybe even more than you. Everybody in crisis. Everybody in crisis, actually. But nonetheless, I agree with you, saying that everybody is in a crisis is a general structural feature, but it doesn't mean that we are all in the crisis in the same way. Those who were ruling till now, the developed West, for them crisis means that their model of global domination no longer works. So they, for them the way out of the crisis is to persist in their old model of domination, which is why it is crucial today not to focus on direct modes of domination, like the old direct colonialism, but to focus onto how one country can be exploited by others, can be de facto colonized just with economic, financial measures and so on and so on. I mean, I still think we live in colonialism, but I think that this colonialism cannot be grasped through these old categories: arrogant colonial master is telling you what to do. One of the forms in some African countries is that international companies bribe the local elite, and the local elite oppresses people but profits from international capital. I know very well examples like Nigeria, even in the north Algeria, or in the southwest of Africa, Angola. Angola is maybe the clearest example. You have two, three percent of the people who, according to some analysis, have the highest standard of living in the world. Prices are there in Luanda, capital, the highest, incredible luxury and so on. And you have percent of the people who live in the same absolute poverty as when Angola was still Portuguese colony. And you know what's the key, what offers the key to this? The main money for Angola is oil and gas. You know what happened some already years ago? Somebody looked at the budget of Angola, state budget, and there it says Angola is getting per year from international oil drilling companies eight billion. Then some whistleblower rendered public the documents of the main oil companies. From them, it was clear that they give to Angola every year
unknown
billion dollars. Which means that
billion dollars. Which means that
Slavoj Žižek
eight billion simply disappear in the corrupted elite. And it's the same story in Zimbabwe, in Nigeria and so on. This is a very tragic situation. I especially have sympathies for Africa because we have a formula, my friend Alain Badiou proposed it years ago: we have a formula that these are countries which are not blessed, but cursed from too much natural resources. Literally. If Congo, total tragedy of a country, if Congo were to be with less natural resources, all those precious metals, the life of the majority would have been much better probably there. Isn't this the madness of our world? Where your natural wealth is a curse. Yeah, we got it, we got it. And Slavoj, my next question is that you said a failed state makes their citizens refugees and moreover, superpower state, superpower state invest in the failed states. Like if we say or we can say Myanmar, and the failed states are turning the biggest industry without their citizens. Even the failed states make their citizens refugees. You said also. And the failed states are created because of superpower states. So what is your opinion on it, actually? I, I totally agree with you that it's not just as the Western some observers claim from their Western spectacles that there are states who are not simply well-organized enough, or you can be overly racist, people are stupid there, they cannot run a state and so on. No, what you when you have a failed state, maybe there are exceptions but even there I am not sure, like Somalia, the mess it is there, this may be one of the few examples but even there I doubt, of an really simply failed state. But it's still because of the ethnic tensions and so on. But with many other failed like Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, usually mentioned as a failed state. But in South Asia and Southeast Asia, the problem, the crisis, the facing crisis... Uh, there already you have to go into international political and economic relations. But look at Congo. It's at the same time a state which is best integrated into international commerce and exchange. It does... it's not even operative as a one United States covered by the same laws and so on. The trick is that warlords, military commanders in different regions are making direct deals with international metal, gold, whatever dealers, and this is more profitable for them, they keep the profit, and for international dealers, you don't have to do with state democracy or organized state even, you break all the laws. So the first thing to ask for me when you have a failed state is how is this state nonetheless fully integrated into international system, but integrated in such a way that being failed, lacking efficient central authority and so on, profits international capitalism. So here I am, it may surprise some of my leftist friends, here I am for state. In our, what I mean by this, in our complex civilization, so many things going on, so many needs, healthcare, education and so on, all these things can be provided only by, I'm not saying
eight billion simply disappear in the corrupted elite. And it's the same story in Zimbabwe, in Nigeria and so on. This is a very tragic situation. I especially have sympathies for Africa because we have a formula, my friend Alain Badiou proposed it years ago: we have a formula that these are countries which are not blessed, but cursed from too much natural resources. Literally. If Congo, total tragedy of a country, if Congo were to be with less natural resources, all those precious metals, the life of the majority would have been much better probably there. Isn't this the madness of our world? Where your natural wealth is a curse. Yeah, we got it, we got it. And Slavoj, my next question is that you said a failed state makes their citizens refugees and moreover, superpower state, superpower state invest in the failed states. Like if we say or we can say Myanmar, and the failed states are turning the biggest industry without their citizens. Even the failed states make their citizens refugees. You said also. And the failed states are created because of superpower states. So what is your opinion on it, actually? I, I totally agree with you that it's not just as the Western some observers claim from their Western spectacles that there are states who are not simply well-organized enough, or you can be overly racist, people are stupid there, they cannot run a state and so on. No, what you when you have a failed state, maybe there are exceptions but even there I am not sure, like Somalia, the mess it is there, this may be one of the few examples but even there I doubt, of an really simply failed state. But it's still because of the ethnic tensions and so on. But with many other failed like Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, usually mentioned as a failed state. But in South Asia and Southeast Asia, the problem, the crisis, the facing crisis... Uh, there already you have to go into international political and economic relations. But look at Congo. It's at the same time a state which is best integrated into international commerce and exchange. It does... it's not even operative as a one United States covered by the same laws and so on. The trick is that warlords, military commanders in different regions are making direct deals with international metal, gold, whatever dealers, and this is more profitable for them, they keep the profit, and for international dealers, you don't have to do with state democracy or organized state even, you break all the laws. So the first thing to ask for me when you have a failed state is how is this state nonetheless fully integrated into international system, but integrated in such a way that being failed, lacking efficient central authority and so on, profits international capitalism. So here I am, it may surprise some of my leftist friends, here I am for state. In our, what I mean by this, in our complex civilization, so many things going on, so many needs, healthcare, education and so on, all these things can be provided only by, I'm not saying
unknown
dictatorial but nonetheless well-organizing, well-functioning state. It's very fashionable today to be against the state. But I think all nations, ethnic groups need to be part of a well-functioning state. Again my point, as you said about failed state, it's not that they are isolated. It's that as a rule, they are well included into global market but in a way which privileges just a small elite there and totally ignores large majority
dictatorial but nonetheless well-organizing, well-functioning state. It's very fashionable today to be against the state. But I think all nations, ethnic groups need to be part of a well-functioning state. Again my point, as you said about failed state, it's not that they are isolated. It's that as a rule, they are well included into global market but in a way which privileges just a small elite there and totally ignores large majority
Slavoj Žižek
which lives in poverty. Awesome. Slavoj, can you can may you tell me shortly that, you know, the world saw the communism help various countries become independent. Now communism is invading countries, building colonies and acting as a backbone for fascist to stay in power to torture the innocent people. How do you consider this matter? I think that, that the sad paradox of communism, even if it had its achievement, you know, if you go to Cuba, they always tell you healthcare, education, whatsoever. But economically as communism, it failed. And the sad thing is that, as if I read it correctly your question indicates, the sad thing is that there are communism, but by communism I mean now state power, which is still the Communist Party, where it really thrives is that it, it Communist power functions as a best protector of capitalist development. That's how I experience the situation from my friends I get the news in China, for example, where you know, the most dangerous thing almost that you can do there now is trying to organize trade unions who help workers outside of the official state trade unions, which are inefficient, totally subordinated to the party and so on and so on. So isn't it a paradox that China, a communist country nominally, is most afraid of the independent of the independent workers' movement, movement for protection of workers and so on and so on. It's similar in Vietnam and so on. So I think that the communism, then why do we need it at all? I see a terrible need for communism because for a very simple reason. Look at the problems at which we are today. Pandemics, global warming, wars, new forms of digital control and so on and so on. We are here always as I repeat dealing with commons. Commons in the Marx sense of what should be accessible to all of us, what nobody should privatize or where privatization should be under the strict public control. How to fight pandemic? You cannot leave it to the market. There must be social organization to deal with it. How to deal with global warming? There must be mega-organization and so on. Here I think there is a need for new communism, and by this I simply mean liberal capitalism cannot deal with the problems we have now. And it's becoming clearer and clearer. Look now with problems with gas from Russia. Western Europe is now forced to come together, although
which lives in poverty. Awesome. Slavoj, can you can may you tell me shortly that, you know, the world saw the communism help various countries become independent. Now communism is invading countries, building colonies and acting as a backbone for fascist to stay in power to torture the innocent people. How do you consider this matter? I think that, that the sad paradox of communism, even if it had its achievement, you know, if you go to Cuba, they always tell you healthcare, education, whatsoever. But economically as communism, it failed. And the sad thing is that, as if I read it correctly your question indicates, the sad thing is that there are communism, but by communism I mean now state power, which is still the Communist Party, where it really thrives is that it, it Communist power functions as a best protector of capitalist development. That's how I experience the situation from my friends I get the news in China, for example, where you know, the most dangerous thing almost that you can do there now is trying to organize trade unions who help workers outside of the official state trade unions, which are inefficient, totally subordinated to the party and so on and so on. So isn't it a paradox that China, a communist country nominally, is most afraid of the independent of the independent workers' movement, movement for protection of workers and so on and so on. It's similar in Vietnam and so on. So I think that the communism, then why do we need it at all? I see a terrible need for communism because for a very simple reason. Look at the problems at which we are today. Pandemics, global warming, wars, new forms of digital control and so on and so on. We are here always as I repeat dealing with commons. Commons in the Marx sense of what should be accessible to all of us, what nobody should privatize or where privatization should be under the strict public control. How to fight pandemic? You cannot leave it to the market. There must be social organization to deal with it. How to deal with global warming? There must be mega-organization and so on. Here I think there is a need for new communism, and by this I simply mean liberal capitalism cannot deal with the problems we have now. And it's becoming clearer and clearer. Look now with problems with gas from Russia. Western Europe is now forced to come together, although
unknown
they resisted it till now, and to organize distribution of gas and especially electricity, the big next crisis in Europe is electricity, in what I cannot but designate some kind of communist way. Different states coming together, coordinating production, it's no longer market. It, we were
they resisted it till now, and to organize distribution of gas and especially electricity, the big next crisis in Europe is electricity, in what I cannot but designate some kind of communist way. Different states coming together, coordinating production, it's no longer market. It, we were
Slavoj Žižek
literally like making a test on ourselves. For a couple of days, they allowed freely floating electricity prices. You know that they went up percent in a couple of days? Then the state had to intervene to bring them down. Because they simply discovered that if electricity and energy supply is left to the market, this means such a crisis in economy because companies will no longer be able to pay electricity bills. And never forget: with electricity supply, we always associate with, "Oh will I get the reduction of electricity," but private consumers spend I think only about percent of electricity. The big spenders is still big industry and so on. And you cannot solve this through the market. As you say, communism will be reborn because China enjoys communism funerals. When will communism be reborn? I don't know, I know only this, that communism which will be reborn will be some kind of war communism. It will not be, unfortunately, first communism of abundance, you know, like... No, it will be the way you have communism will mean the way you socialize production, putting it, production, agriculture, under some kind of social control, in, in states of emergency, in catastrophic conditions like war, natural disasters and so on. This will be communism that will be needed. I'm not dreaming about the old idea of communism. Slavoj, how can be artificial intelligence destroy the future of human, of humans, and will it pose a threat to human existence? Please make just one minute answer, please. I am a very much a pessimist here in the sense that I would like to use here this formula that we have in Europe, I don't know how it is with you, of denial. This "I know very well but..." You may rationally know something, but subjectively in your emotional sense, you are ready to ignore it. I think that the majority of the people, although we hear all the time about impending catastrophe and so on, still don't really take it seriously. We have even in Europe around percent if not more of people are pandemic denier, they are global warming deniers and so on and so on. And I think this is not just a phenomenon of human stupidity. It is how capitalism makes you work and think. Capitalism is such a dynamic system, but in a bad sense. You have to be active all the time. Look at the new forms of capitalism, this precarious work. You never know how will your work go, you don't have permanent job, you are so much caught in permanent activity that this permanent activity itself makes the situation rigid. You cannot change things because
literally like making a test on ourselves. For a couple of days, they allowed freely floating electricity prices. You know that they went up percent in a couple of days? Then the state had to intervene to bring them down. Because they simply discovered that if electricity and energy supply is left to the market, this means such a crisis in economy because companies will no longer be able to pay electricity bills. And never forget: with electricity supply, we always associate with, "Oh will I get the reduction of electricity," but private consumers spend I think only about percent of electricity. The big spenders is still big industry and so on. And you cannot solve this through the market. As you say, communism will be reborn because China enjoys communism funerals. When will communism be reborn? I don't know, I know only this, that communism which will be reborn will be some kind of war communism. It will not be, unfortunately, first communism of abundance, you know, like... No, it will be the way you have communism will mean the way you socialize production, putting it, production, agriculture, under some kind of social control, in, in states of emergency, in catastrophic conditions like war, natural disasters and so on. This will be communism that will be needed. I'm not dreaming about the old idea of communism. Slavoj, how can be artificial intelligence destroy the future of human, of humans, and will it pose a threat to human existence? Please make just one minute answer, please. I am a very much a pessimist here in the sense that I would like to use here this formula that we have in Europe, I don't know how it is with you, of denial. This "I know very well but..." You may rationally know something, but subjectively in your emotional sense, you are ready to ignore it. I think that the majority of the people, although we hear all the time about impending catastrophe and so on, still don't really take it seriously. We have even in Europe around percent if not more of people are pandemic denier, they are global warming deniers and so on and so on. And I think this is not just a phenomenon of human stupidity. It is how capitalism makes you work and think. Capitalism is such a dynamic system, but in a bad sense. You have to be active all the time. Look at the new forms of capitalism, this precarious work. You never know how will your work go, you don't have permanent job, you are so much caught in permanent activity that this permanent activity itself makes the situation rigid. You cannot change things because
unknown
you are working all the time within the existing system. You are not given the chance. And here comes again my pessimism.
you are working all the time within the existing system. You are not given the chance. And here comes again my pessimism.
Slavoj Žižek
It is good that now also the developed West is feeling the crisis. War in Ukraine, global warming, political crisis in the United States. Because for us in the West, crisis was something that happened out there, and you see it on TV screens. And now we are almost in that magic moment, you know, I like movies surrealist where you see something on the screen, a monster, but then the
It is good that now also the developed West is feeling the crisis. War in Ukraine, global warming, political crisis in the United States. Because for us in the West, crisis was something that happened out there, and you see it on TV screens. And now we are almost in that magic moment, you know, I like movies surrealist where you see something on the screen, a monster, but then the
unknown
monster steps, steps from the screen into your reality. Okay? And this is, although it's very painful for us more developed, this
monster steps, steps from the screen into your reality. Okay? And this is, although it's very painful for us more developed, this
Slavoj Žižek
is maybe a good thing. Good thing in the sense that it will mobilize us more in the West. Until we in the West really feel the crisis, there is no way out. We will still treat you as, you know, those crazy people who don't know how to organize their life, they are not able to rule and so on and so on. Right. Thank you, Slavoj, for your valuable words and time. Thanks very much to you.
is maybe a good thing. Good thing in the sense that it will mobilize us more in the West. Until we in the West really feel the crisis, there is no way out. We will still treat you as, you know, those crazy people who don't know how to organize their life, they are not able to rule and so on and so on. Right. Thank you, Slavoj, for your valuable words and time. Thanks very much to you.