Rage, Rebellion, Organizing New Power: A Hegelian Triad
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2016-05-22 · 2:23:30 · 18,063 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologypsychoanalysishegel-dialecticsecology-climatesexuality-genderrace-antisemitismfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warsubjectivityethicseveryday-life
Žižek delivers a wide-ranging lecture on the triad of rage, rebellion, and new power as stages in emancipatory politics, arguing that the contemporary left is trapped between impotent social democracy and abstract radicalism. He diagnoses four fundamental antagonisms of global capitalism (cultural commons, ecological commons, biogenetic commons, and the commons of humanity itself) that cannot be resolved within the capitalist frame, and argues that the left must choose modest but strategically chosen demands that can unleash further change. The talk also covers the European refugee crisis, the ideological function of political correctness and multiculturalism, the rise of right-wing populism, sexual difference and transgenderism through a Lacanian lens, and the ethics of obscene humor as a vehicle for solidarity.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 17
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The widely repeated claim that we live beyond ideology, which Žižek treats as itself ideological: the absence of any utopian program in the 2005 Paris riots is not post-ideological but reveals an ideology so deep it has no positive content left.
Walter Benjamin's concept invoked by Žižek to describe outbursts of rage, such as the 2005 Paris riots or Palestinians stabbing Israelis, that are brutally unjust by conventional standards yet cannot simply be condemned as crimes because they bear witness to a situation that must be overcome.
as “parafenna / para-center of power”
Žižek's term (seemingly Slovenian/Greek hybrid) for the informal inner circle around Tsipras that made decisions before the official SYRIZA structures, effectively bypassing the popular base and enabling the capitulation to Brussels.
Žižek identifies four domains of the commons threatened by capitalism: cultural/immaterial capital, external nature (ecology), internal nature (biogenetics), and humanity's shared social/political space, and argues their enclosure is a form of proletarianization.
The logic by which profit gives way to rent in cognitive capitalism: Bill Gates earns not through exploitation of labor but through controlling a common space (software/internet) and extracting rent from everyone who uses it.
as “regression from profit to rent”
Žižek's diagnosis of late capitalism's key economic fact: the dominant mode of accumulation has shifted from extracting surplus value through production to extracting rent by controlling shared cognitive commons (software, internet, intellectual property).
as “proletarianization through enclosure of the commons”
Žižek's extension of the Marxist concept: when any of the four commons is enclosed, culture, ecology, biogenetics, social space, those excluded from it are proletarianized, deprived of their own substance.
Following Lacan's point about jealousy, Žižek argues anti-immigrant paranoia (and anti-Semitism) is pathological regardless of whether its factual claims are true: the true question is not 'are they really a threat?' but why we need the figure of the threatening immigrant to sustain our identity.
as “negative version of white man's burden”
Žižek's label for the anti-racist self-humiliation of liberal Europeans who attribute every third-world problem to colonialism: this reverses the old 'burden' formula but covertly reserves the position of universal subject for whites by denying others genuine agency.
as “putan / de putis”
Žižek's neologism condensing Putin and Erdogan into a single figure representing the new authoritarian leader who combines global market neoliberalism with nationalist/religious traditionalism.
Lacanian concept Žižek uses to argue that transgender people's desire to abolish bathroom segregation misidentifies the problem: sexual identity is always constituted through an irreducible uncertainty (castration anxiety) that no symbolic rearrangement can remove.
Hegel's concept of ethical life, the thick background of unwritten social rules, which Žižek argues is currently disintegrating as previously unsayable things (torture, crude racism) become publicly acceptable.
Žižek's ironic label for modest, apparently reformist political demands (e.g. universal healthcare) that look naive to the radical left but are strategically chosen because insisting on them, within an increasingly ossified neoliberal system, will force further and further concessions.
Žižek (attributing the phrase to Trotsky) describes how liberal democracy functions through producing consensus that channels people into safe choices; this machinery is now breaking down, creating the opening exploited by right-wing populists.
as “solidarity of struggle”
Žižek's formula for the only authentic universality: people from different cultures recognizing they are on the same side not through cultural understanding but through shared emancipatory struggle against a common enemy.
as “UNESCO questions”
Žižek's dismissive label for culturalist questions about respecting diverse traditions and achieving multicultural harmony, which he contrasts with the only real solidarity: solidarity of struggle.
Implicit in the discussion of ideology: the extra libidinal investment that keeps ideological formations (like anti-immigrant paranoia or political correctness) in place beyond rational interest.
Stories he reaches for 9
The film ends with the crowd taking parliament while Žižek is left asking 'so what?', he would sell his mother into slavery to see V for Vendetta Part 2, showing what the people do the day after. Used to critique spectacular insurrectionism that ignores the question of reorganizing everyday life.
“i'm ready to sell my mother into slavery in order to see a movie with the title v for vendetta part 2. what would happened the day after the victory of the people.”
Native Americans Žižek met rejected the term 'Native American' (why 'Native'? as if they are nature while whites are culture), preferring 'Indians' because at least that name is a monument to white men's stupidity, a use of the demeaning name that ironically affirms identity.
“they told me, at least our name is then a monument to white men's stupidity.”
Lacan noted that even if a jealous husband's suspicions about his wife are factually correct, the jealousy is still pathological, because the real question is why he needs jealousy to maintain his identity. Žižek applies this to anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant paranoia.
“even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife… that she sleeps around with other man. even if this is all true. his jealousy is still pathological.”
The 1804 Haitian constitution declared Haiti a black republic but stipulated that all citizens, regardless of skin color, were black. Žižek holds this up as a model for how particular identity can be universalized without erasing difference.
“haiti is a black republic. citizens of haiti. independently of the color of their skin are black.”
In former Yugoslavia, each nation had a clichéd identity in jokes (Slovenes misers, Montenegrins lazy, Bosnians sex-obsessed); exchanging these jokes ironically and proudly was a form of solidarity, and their disappearance in the early 1980s coincided with the emergence of real ethnic hatred.
“the moment in the early 80s that real racist hatred emerged in ex-yugoslavia. digtok disappeared.”
A survivor of Srebrenica (where the mass graves are) asks the price of a plot of land and is asked 'with or without bones?', a riff on the old Yugoslav butcher's 'with or without bones?' for meat. Žižek uses this as an example of obscene humor as the only way to process extreme trauma.
“because you know srebrenica is full of buried people… want want it with or without bones.”
A journalist asked Reagan whether it was true that his dinner guests included Holocaust deniers; Reagan replied that whenever someone at his table denied the Holocaust, he always protested. Žižek uses this to point out what it says about the company Reagan kept that he had to defend the Holocaust at dinner.
“whenever at my dinner table somebody denies holocaust, i always protest and claim. there were concentration camps. of course, the question is, but what kind of people reagan has for dinner”
SYRIZA won a triumphant 'no' vote in the Greek referendum, then capitulated to the troika literally the next day. Žižek uses this to show how even genuine popular mandates are neutralized when the left has no theory of transforming state mechanisms.
“there is a standard narrative… the triumphant vote no in the referendum literally a day after. total capitulation to bros.”
Boko Haram members Žižek met at a London debate explained their control of women as a form of anti-colonialism: they experience the disintegration of traditional family structures as the destructive effect of globalization, and keeping women 'in their place' is their form of resistance.
“they told me... keeping women under control is our forum of fighting colombism.”
Works invoked 7
V for Vendetta film
The film's utopian ending, the people take parliament and the film ends, is dismissed as a 'cheap insurrection' that avoids the real question of reorganizing everyday life; Žižek says he would sell his mother into slavery to see Part 2.
Roots book
The bestselling book (and TV series) is dismissed as exemplifying the wrong model of Black emancipation: finding your tribal roots, which Žižek contrasts unfavorably with Malcolm X's X (no roots, universal subject).
The X-Files tv
The show's tagline 'The truth is out there' is deployed approvingly: the truth of Nazism is in the brutality of what they did, not in the beautiful myths they told themselves; the external facts, not the inner experience, tell the truth.
An American Utopia essay
Praised for imagining communism not as harmonious utopia but as a society where envy, resentment, and jealousy would be the fundamental problems, a more honest psychoanalytic reckoning with what comes after capitalism.
Kolyma Tales book
Called 'the real book on the Gulag' in contrast to 'sentimental blah blah'; Žižek uses it as a litmus test for Russians, insisting it captures the genuine horror of the camps.
Cited as a popular work showing how digitalization threatens capitalism and how new forms (parallel currencies, cooperatives, Wikipedia) are emerging; supports Žižek's argument about forces vs. relations of production.
Buñuel's film where eating and defecating are socially reversed is used to describe the ethical degradation of public discourse: Republican debates and the statements of authoritarian leaders are like public defecation.
People invoked 33
Alberto Toscano positive
Cited approvingly for his 'wonderful formulation' that today's radical left is 'condemned to fight tooth and nail for social democracy it cannot work'.
Paul Mason positive
His book (presumably Postcapitalism) cited approvingly as a popular work dealing with the threat posed to capitalism by digitalization and the reshaping of work, production, and value.
Udi Aloni positive
Jewish Israeli friend cited as evidence of tight media censorship: the New York Times threatened not to cover the Palestinian Freedom Theatre event unless he dropped the word 'binational' from his book title.
Walter Mignolo negative
Attacked Žižek ferociously and in the same text rejected the term 'communism' as Eurocentric while pleading for local traditions, Žižek sees this as exemplifying how anti-Eurocentrism functions as rejection of emancipatory legacy.
Mahatma Gandhi negative
Cited critically as 'upper class stuff' despised by untouchables; used in a vulgar anecdote to illustrate how obscene humor can break through class barriers that respectful liberalism cannot.
Narendra Modi negative
Described as the model figure of today's dominant politics: simultaneously total global market neoliberal and Hindu nationalist, the dangerous fusion of capitalism and traditional authoritarian identity.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited approvingly multiple times: the exchange with Trotsky before October, and his defense of the Easter Rising against leftist orthodoxy; Žižek identifies as 'a Maoist' in a related spirit.
Jacques Lacan positive
Žižek calls Lacan his 'second teacher' and deploys his theory of jealousy/pathology, the anxiety of castration, and the theory of interpretation throughout the talk.
Abdullah Öcalan positive
PKK leader praised for reading Foucault in prison and turning strongly toward feminism; Žižek tells an absurd anecdote of Öcalan writing from prison to a Turkish newspaper to agree with Žižek's provocative interview answer.
Edward Said positive
Referred to via his point about the absence of detailed maps of the West Bank in mainstream media, used to illustrate the tight control of information about the Palestinian situation.
Ted Cruz negative
Explicitly said to be more dangerous than Trump because his positions are ideologically consistent and genuine rather than opportunistic.
Varlam Shalamov positive
Žižek calls Kolyma Tales 'the real book' on the Gulag, in contrast to what he dismisses (implying Solzhenitsyn) as 'sentimental blah blah'; used as a test question for Russians.
Called 'disgusting' and compared to public defecation (Buñuel), but Žižek argues Trump is a 'confused opportunist' who sometimes says things that are 'not totally wrong' (talking with Russia, Israel-Palestine balance), he fears Ted Cruz more.
Nancy Fraser positive
Cited approvingly for a recent book arguing that mainstream American feminism has been co-opted by neoliberalism.
Antonio Negri negative
Mentioned as having loved the film V for Vendetta, used ironically as an example of a leftist who is satisfied with spectacular insurrection without confronting the day-after problem.
The Dutch anti-immigrant politician (killed ca. 10 years before the talk) cited as a paradox: he defended his anti-immigration position not through cultural essentialism but through liberal values, gay rights, women's rights, which makes current anti-immigrant politics different from classical fascism.
Alexis Tsipras negative
Criticized for centralizing SYRIZA and leading the capitulation to the troika through an informal para-center of power rather than genuine popular democratic structures.
Žižek suspects his exclusion from the London Review of Books is due to tension with 'great old men' of the British left like Tariq Ali, though he offers this only as a hypothesis.
Mentioned by an audience member (son of Bookchin) as an influence on Öcalan and the Kurdish struggle; Žižek acknowledges having heard the name but not having read him.
Leon Trotsky positive
Cited in the pre-October anecdote about failure vs. success, and attributed with the phrase 'manufacturing consent' (though this is typically attributed to Bernays/Chomsky).
Fredric Jameson positive
Endorsed for his essay 'American Utopia' and its proposal about militarization and for his honest account of communism as a site of envy, resentment, and hatred rather than harmony; also cited as advocating the line of supporting social democracy knowing it will fail.
Bernie Sanders positive
Despite being a naive social democrat by Žižek's standards, Sanders represents a 'wrong choice' worth supporting because he triggered a process and reached many people, a Lacanian interpretation of his campaign as unleashing change.
Julian Assange negative
Debated by Žižek; Žižek argues Assange was wrong that WikiLeaks teaches people new things, people already knew but chose comfortable disavowal.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan negative
Included in Žižek's list of public defecators (alongside Trump, Netanyahu) and paired with Putin in the 'putan/de putis' formulation; Žižek says he is afraid to visit Turkey because of his statements.
Žižek refers to him as a good friend but disagrees with his position that the EU should become more democratically transparent, arguing Greece would have fared worse under full public democratic scrutiny.
Malcolm X positive
Cited as grasping the Marxist point that freedom passes through the zero level of capitalism destroying particular identity: X = no family name, rejecting roots-seeking as the path to Black emancipation.
Michel Foucault positive
Mentioned as the text Öcalan read in prison that turned him toward feminism, indirect positive reference.
Angela Merkel positive
Argued to have been right to admit one million refugees without a democratic referendum, used to argue for the limits of democracy when majority opinion is reactionary.
Walter Benjamin positive
Invoked for his concept of 'divine violence' to theorize outbursts of unjust rage, and for the thesis that behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.
Vladimir Putin negative
Paired with Erdogan as the 'putan/de putis' figure, embodying the hybrid of neoliberal capitalism and nationalist traditionalism; cited for his reaction to the Eurovision bearded lady.
Winston Churchill positive
Cited as an example of actually reading one's enemy carefully: Churchill read Nazism in 1933 and immediately recognized it as more dangerous than the Soviet Union.
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Used positively: King never framed the civil rights struggle as a matter of tolerance but of rights and exploitation, in contrast to how liberal discourse has subsequently reformulated racial justice.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Invoked for the Sittlichkeit concept and for the dialectical principle that 'truth only emerges through illusion', which Žižek applies to political strategy: modest demands are the mediated path to radical truth.
What it argues
rage, rebellion, and new power as a dialectical triad of emancipatory politicsthe four commons antagonisms that capitalism cannot containthe left's deadlock between social-democratic reformism and abstract revolutionary waitingthe refugee crisis and the ideological pathology of anti-immigrant paranoiapolitical correctness as ideological mystification masking class and racial hierarchiesthe Lacanian theory of sexual difference and the limits of transgender politicsobscene humor and dirty jokes as vehicles for genuine solidarity
Dialectical moves 11
“Rage is not only at the beginning but also at the end — the outcome of failed emancipatory projects.”
The triad rage–rebellion–new power does not progress linearly; failed rebellions return to rage, so rage is both origin and result of the cycle.
“The real utopia is in power today — those who think capitalism can go on indefinitely are the true utopians.”
The charge of utopianism is reversed: it is not communists but the defenders of endless capitalism who hold the irrational utopian position.
“The most ideologically pure encounter with ideology is not with those who deny global warming but with those who fully endorse it yet give it a conservative 'mother nature' twist.”
The real ideological threat is not obvious denial but the acceptance that secretly reinstates ideological premises (natural homeostasis, human hubris) in a progressive register.
“Even if all Nazi claims about Jews were true, their anti-Semitism would still be pathological — the true question is not whether the claims are true but why they need the figure of the Jew.”
The inversion separates factual truth from ideological function: an ideological formation can be pathological even when its object-level claims are accurate.
“Far from being post-ideological, the absence of any program in the burning Paris suburbs is ideology at its purest.”
The very disappearance of ideological content is itself an ideological symptom: the claim to have exited ideology is ideology's most complete form.
“The real threat to European emancipatory legacy is not immigrants but today's anti-immigrant populist protectors of Europe.”
Those who claim to defend Europe are its actual destroyers; the inversion identifies the true enemy as internal rather than external.
“The moment of real democracy — when people had a real choice (Trump vs. Bernie) — was presented by hegemonic media as the crisis of democracy.”
What establishment consensus calls democratic crisis is actually the moment of genuine democratic choice; democracy's enemies are its self-proclaimed protectors.
“To demand today what was modest central social democracy fifty years ago requires you to be the radical left.”
The leftward drift of the Overton window means that the same content now occupies an entirely different political position; radicalism is relative to the hegemonic baseline.
“The truth only emerges through illusion — we should begin with modest demands (apparent illusions) that, if insisted upon, will unleash the truth.”
Hegelian epistemology applied to strategy: the mediated/indirect path through limited demands is the only genuine path to radical change; direct calls for revolution are the real illusion.
“Apparently self-humiliating white anti-racists who renounce their roots secretly reserve for themselves the position of the universal subject.”
The gesture of self-abnegation is the most refined form of the very privilege it claims to relinquish: by giving up particular identity, whites claim to be the universal.
“The more tightly things are controlled, the more those in power get panicked and the more easily they are destabilized — censorship inadvertently creates value.”
Power's attempt to suppress opposition amplifies it: suppression is self-undermining and can be strategically exploited.
Claims 20
reframes
The contemporary left is condemned to fight for social democracy even while knowing it cannot work, which is a tragic predicament with no viable alternative model between Stalinist statism and social-democratic parliamentarism.the left's political horizon
asserts
Global capitalism generates four fundamental antagonisms — cultural commons, ecological commons, biogenetic commons, and the commons of humanity — that cannot be resolved within a capitalist framework.the limits of capitalism
asserts
The key economic fact of contemporary capitalism is the regression from profit to rent: Bill Gates does not primarily exploit labor but extracts rent from controlling shared cognitive commons.cognitive capitalism and rent
reframes
The right-wing endorsers of ecology who invoke 'mother nature' are more dangerous ideologically than climate deniers, because they posit a false homeostatic natural stability that humans have disrupted.ecology and ideology
reframes
The anti-immigrant panic in Europe is an ideological pathology: the true question is not whether refugees pose a real threat but what this obsession reveals about the state of Europe itself.European anti-immigrant politics
asserts
Angela Merkel was right to admit refugees without a democratic referendum, because there are moments where an ethico-political position must be enforced non-democratically; democracy should not be fetishized.democracy and the refugee crisis
rejects
Today's anti-immigrant populism in Europe is not fascism: mislabeling it with old formulas shows the left lacks a proper theory of what is actually happening.anti-immigrant populism as fascism
reframes
The struggle against anti-colonialism framed as resistance to feminism (as in Boko Haram) exemplifies the paradox in which controlling women becomes the alibi for resisting globalization.anti-colonialism and sexual politics
reframes
Transgender activism correctly fights segregation but conflates sexual difference (an irreducible Lacanian antagonism/castration anxiety) with prescribed social sex roles, so abolishing bathrooms cannot remove the underlying anxiety.transgender politics and psychoanalysis
asserts
Silicon Valley's enthusiastic support for transgender bathroom rights is ideologically suspicious: it substitutes cheap symbolic recognition for any challenge to Apple's exploitation of Foxconn workers.corporate co-optation of identity politics
asserts
The left should not wait for revolution but should identify specific modest demands which — if insisted upon in today's ossified neoliberal system — will trigger a chain reaction of further changes.left strategy
reframes
The critique of Eurocentrism has become popular today precisely because it dismisses the emancipatory European legacy (women's rights, universalism, equality) that most interferes with today's hybrid of global capitalism and local authoritarian tradition.Eurocentrism and anti-colonialism
rejects
Reformulating racial problems as questions of tolerance rather than economic exploitation and political rights is itself an ideological operation that depoliticizes the question.liberal tolerance discourse
asserts
Malcolm X's rejection of roots-seeking (the X = no family name) is the correct model for Black emancipation: freedom passes through the zero-level dissolution of particular identity under capitalism, not through return to tribal roots.Black emancipation and identity
asserts
Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution: the current rise of the populist racist right feeds on the energy of a disintegrated left that failed to organize rage into genuine emancipatory rebellion.fascism and failed revolution
rejects
The 'enemy is someone whose story we were not ready to listen to' is the most stupid politically correct sentence: there are real enemies, and understanding their inner experience does not exonerate their acts.empathy-based anti-racism
reframes
Political correctness and the language of harassment often function as class-coded exclusion — keeping the vulgar and dirty at proper distance — rather than genuine anti-racism.political correctness and class
asserts
Solidarity among different groups can only be achieved through shared struggle, not through multicultural recognition of each other's stories, traditions, or UNESCO-style cultural respect.solidarity and multiculturalism
asserts
Capitalism's most efficient contemporary form is the mixture of global market neoliberalism with traditional authoritarian structures (Confucianism in China, Hindu nationalism in India, etc.), which is why critique of Eurocentrism often serves capital.capitalism and traditional values
reframes
The disintegration of the bipartisan consensus machinery of American and European democracy is not simply a crisis but also an opening the left must seize before the right colonizes it.democratic crisis
Quotes 16
“The real utopia is in power today — those who think capitalism can go on indefinitely are the true utopians.”Slavoj Žižek · reversing the charge of utopianism
“i'm ready to sell my mother into slavery in order to see a movie with the title v for vendetta part 2. what would happened the day after the victory of the people.”Slavoj Žižek · the morning-after problem of revolution
“what interests me is the morning kafka. yeah. what happens then? how will we change everyday life?”Slavoj Žižek · the question of reorganizing life after rebellion
“without this ultimate reference to class. we may well find ourselves in a world in which bill gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting about poverty and rupert murdoch the greatest environmentalist.”Slavoj Žižek · class as the indispensable reference point
“whenever i hear mother nature, i reach for my gun. because there is a very specific ideology here, as if... there is a basic homeostasis stability of nature which we humans through our hubris. undermin it.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology of natural homeostasis
“the fact that there was no program in the burning. paris suburbs is in itself a fact to be interpreted. he tells us a great deal about our predicament.”Slavoj Žižek · the post-ideological void as itself ideological
“behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.”Slavoj Žižek · Benjamin's thesis applied to right-wing populism
“there is great disorder under heaven, so the situation is excellent.”Slavoj Žižek · Maoist optimism in crisis
“they don't need opening our fucking hearts. they need concrete help.”Slavoj Žižek · critique of sentimental humanitarianism toward refugees
“solidarity is the solidarity of struggle. if we abstract of the struggle, if we don't make our struggles the moment of the same struggle… we will never find unity.”Slavoj Žižek · solidarity of struggle as the only real universality
“interpretation is not tested by a truth that would decide by yes or no. interpretation unleashes truth as such.”Slavoj Žižek · Lacanian theory of interpretation applied to political strategy
“what if i privately think something else, so much the worse for me because what matters is what i do publicly not privately.”Slavoj Žižek · the primacy of public act over private sincerity
“i give you complete freedom to agree with me.”Slavoj Žižek · totalitarian formulation / self-irony about authority
“the only path to freedom is through this. zero level hell of capitalism which undermines your particular identity.”Slavoj Žižek · Marx's insight about capitalism as destructive universalism
“poverty doesn't make noble people. poverty destroys you also. from from we did!”Slavoj Žižek · rejecting the romanticization of the poor
“torture torture becomes enhanced interrogation technique. i can guarantee you soon rape will become enhanced sed.”Slavoj Žižek · euphemism as normalization of atrocity
Transcript 303 turns
Host
okay, so i am here to introduce our next speaker, slavoy jk is kind of also needs no introduction. he's a philosopher and psychoanalyst. professor of philosophy at the european graduate school, egs, senior researcher at the institute for sociology and philosophy at the university of ljublana, global distinguished professor of german at nyu, international director of the burtbeck institute for the humanities, and founder and president of the society for theoretical psychoanalysis. he's written countless books and essays. he's called the most dangerous philosopher in the west. he's a leanian rock star. who can you say that about? he has been called the eldest of cultural theory. please join me in welcoming slavoj jjak.
okay, so i am here to introduce our next speaker, slavoy jk is kind of also needs no introduction. he's a philosopher and psychoanalyst. professor of philosophy at the european graduate school, egs, senior researcher at the institute for sociology and philosophy at the university of ljublana, global distinguished professor of german at nyu, international director of the burtbeck institute for the humanities, and founder and president of the society for theoretical psychoanalysis. he's written countless books and essays. he's called the most dangerous philosopher in the west. he's a leanian rock star. who can you say that about? he has been called the eldest of cultural theory. please join me in welcoming slavoj jjak.
Slavoj Žižek
remember, i'm coming from an area which is close to but's god. so, if you... want to start exchanging insults, i can be extremely brutal. i always win. okay. rage, rebellion and new power. it looks like a kind of a dialectical triad of revolutionary process. first, there is a chaotic rage. people are dissatisfied. they show it in a more or less violent way. without any clear goal or organization. then, when this rage gets organized, we get rebellion with a more or less clear awareness of who the enemy is and what is to be changed. finally, if rebellion succeeds, oh. organizing a new society. remember the wonderful anecdote about the exchange between lenin and trotsky just prior to the october revolution. lenin said, what will happen with us if we fail? trotsky replied, and what will happen if we succeed? the problem is that we almost never get. this triad in its logical progression. first, chaotic rage. then normal progress, organization and so on. chaotic rage gets diluted or turns into rightist populism. rebellion succeeds. but loses steam and gets compromised in multiple ways. the never-ending story of the contemporary left is that of a leader or party elected with universal enthusiasm. promising a new world. mandela, lula, jras and so on. but then sooner or later, usually after a couple of years, they stumbled upon the key dilemma. that's one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms.
remember, i'm coming from an area which is close to but's god. so, if you... want to start exchanging insults, i can be extremely brutal. i always win. okay. rage, rebellion and new power. it looks like a kind of a dialectical triad of revolutionary process. first, there is a chaotic rage. people are dissatisfied. they show it in a more or less violent way. without any clear goal or organization. then, when this rage gets organized, we get rebellion with a more or less clear awareness of who the enemy is and what is to be changed. finally, if rebellion succeeds, oh. organizing a new society. remember the wonderful anecdote about the exchange between lenin and trotsky just prior to the october revolution. lenin said, what will happen with us if we fail? trotsky replied, and what will happen if we succeed? the problem is that we almost never get. this triad in its logical progression. first, chaotic rage. then normal progress, organization and so on. chaotic rage gets diluted or turns into rightist populism. rebellion succeeds. but loses steam and gets compromised in multiple ways. the never-ending story of the contemporary left is that of a leader or party elected with universal enthusiasm. promising a new world. mandela, lula, jras and so on. but then sooner or later, usually after a couple of years, they stumbled upon the key dilemma. that's one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms.
Host
or.
or.
Slavoj Žižek
does one decide to play the game. if one disturbs. the mechanisms. one is very swiftly punished. by market perturbations, economic chaos and the rest. just think about venezuela today. this is why... re! is not only at the beginning, but also at the end. the outcome of failed emancipatory projects. just remember. the french suburban riots of autumn 2005 with thousands of cars burning and a major outburst of public violence. around paris mostly. what strikes the eye in these protests is, or was, the almost total absence of any positive utopian prospect. if may sixty68 was a revolt with a utopian vision the 2005 revolts in france were outbursts. without even a pretense of having a conviction. if the oft-repeated commonplace that we live in a post-ideological era has any sense, it is here. the fact that there was no program in the burning. paris suburbs is in itself a fact to be interpreted. he tells us a great deal about our predicament. what kind of universe is it that we inhabit?
does one decide to play the game. if one disturbs. the mechanisms. one is very swiftly punished. by market perturbations, economic chaos and the rest. just think about venezuela today. this is why... re! is not only at the beginning, but also at the end. the outcome of failed emancipatory projects. just remember. the french suburban riots of autumn 2005 with thousands of cars burning and a major outburst of public violence. around paris mostly. what strikes the eye in these protests is, or was, the almost total absence of any positive utopian prospect. if may sixty68 was a revolt with a utopian vision the 2005 revolts in france were outbursts. without even a pretense of having a conviction. if the oft-repeated commonplace that we live in a post-ideological era has any sense, it is here. the fact that there was no program in the burning. paris suburbs is in itself a fact to be interpreted. he tells us a great deal about our predicament. what kind of universe is it that we inhabit?
Host
which
which
Slavoj Žižek
the universe celebrates itself as a society of choice. but in which the only option available to the enforce democratic consensus is a blind acting out. are such violent demonstrations not often unjust? many of my liberal, not friends, acquaintances claim, but listen, when people demonstrate, burn cars, whatever, isn't this vi isn't this violent? do they not hurt? die inner. i, glenn. that. it's a much more complex. situation. i claim that when we witness these outbursts of rage, we have something that walter benjamin called divine violence. which is in a way brutally unjust. it is often something terrifying. not a sublime intervention of divine goodness or justice. for example, to be brutal. a left liberal friend of mine from the university of chicago told me of a sad experience. when his son reached high school age, he enrolled him into a high school just north from university of chicago campus, close to a black ghetto with a majority of black kids. not long after, his son was returning home with bruises or broken teeth. so what should he have done? put his son into another school. with the white majority or keep him in this school. the point is that this dilemma is wrong. it cannot be solved at this level. sh. davic.
the universe celebrates itself as a society of choice. but in which the only option available to the enforce democratic consensus is a blind acting out. are such violent demonstrations not often unjust? many of my liberal, not friends, acquaintances claim, but listen, when people demonstrate, burn cars, whatever, isn't this vi isn't this violent? do they not hurt? die inner. i, glenn. that. it's a much more complex. situation. i claim that when we witness these outbursts of rage, we have something that walter benjamin called divine violence. which is in a way brutally unjust. it is often something terrifying. not a sublime intervention of divine goodness or justice. for example, to be brutal. a left liberal friend of mine from the university of chicago told me of a sad experience. when his son reached high school age, he enrolled him into a high school just north from university of chicago campus, close to a black ghetto with a majority of black kids. not long after, his son was returning home with bruises or broken teeth. so what should he have done? put his son into another school. with the white majority or keep him in this school. the point is that this dilemma is wrong. it cannot be solved at this level. sh. davic.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
between private interest, safety of my son, and global justice. bears witness to a situation which has to be overcome. and the same holds for palestinians stabbing israelis with knives. maybe i think another case of... divine violence. of of course, to be. clear. i. if let's say i am an ordinary citizen then i walk around jerusalem which i... don't do regularly. and somebody mistakes me for a zionist, whatever attacks me with a knife. let's not bullshit. of course i would have, i don't know, run away, defended myself or whatsoever. of course i would have experienced that as an... injustice. but my point is, nonetheless, i don't have the moral right to simply condemn this as a crime.
between private interest, safety of my son, and global justice. bears witness to a situation which has to be overcome. and the same holds for palestinians stabbing israelis with knives. maybe i think another case of... divine violence. of of course, to be. clear. i. if let's say i am an ordinary citizen then i walk around jerusalem which i... don't do regularly. and somebody mistakes me for a zionist, whatever attacks me with a knife. let's not bullshit. of course i would have, i don't know, run away, defended myself or whatsoever. of course i would have experienced that as an... injustice. but my point is, nonetheless, i don't have the moral right to simply condemn this as a crime.
Host
amen.
amen.
Slavoj Žižek
so let's jump now from this rage 2 the opposite extreme, the construction of the new power. i think the most terrifying incident which symbolizes our sad predicament is that famous moment when was it? three quarters of a year ago we remember this sudden shift of syriza government in athens. first, the triumphant vote no in the referendum literally a day after. total capitulation to bros. so what happened? there is a standard narrative. with which i don't agree, but i will tell you this narrative. the idea is the thing began to go wrong already years ago in the summer of 2012 when after the elections it became clear that at some point shisha will take power. at this moment, the tsipras leadership made a series of decisions. not only about the party life. but also about the type of party they needed. they advocated the transformation of syriza from a coalition of disparate organizations and civil mov into a unified centralized party. the great number of members of its central committee made it sure that de facto decisions were made in advance in the narrow informal circle around tsras. the paras center of power. no wonder then that the surrender to the brussels pressure. was decided by this parafenta. and it shocked syriza's popular base, which mostly withdrew into despair and passivity. so i was told that now all these popular base, civil movements and so on is just at a distance. and again, we are back range. there is no clear counter program and so on. however, i don't totally agree with this narrative. why not? one has to be very clear when one talks about the loss of contact. with the social movement base. the position of pressure and representation. presence are authentic social movements and then representation is the alienated ossified party mechanisms, state apparatuses and so on and so on. so the idea is that the left in power should at all costs keep alive its popular br. i think that t mantra. when the left is in power, they should keep their link with popular social movements and so on, covers up the true problem. how to transform state mechanisms, how to make them function in a different way. instead of just supplementing them with popular pressure from below. in short, it seems clear that apart from two great models, social democratic acceptance of parliamentary democracy and the stalinist state, the left has no other practical mode to offer. all the talk about active popular participation, self-organization of the people or multitude in social movements, i think ultimately serves to obfuscate this. left. ich denn? today's radical left ring! i repeat here a wonderful formulation by alberto toscano, condemned to fight. tooth and nail for social democracy. to it cannot work. i found this an extremely tragic predicament. even some of my well-known friends, maybe he was sometimes here, fred json, advocated this line. he said, the left cannot do anything today. all we can do is... support social democratic measures. knowing well in advance that they will fail and hoping that people will learn something from this failure. my god, if this is all that we can do, then... let's close the stock. what's the problem for me? in the final scene of a film which was popular even by some leftists. tony negri loved it, i know. you probably saw it, v for vendetta. you remember the ending of the film. thousands of unarmed launder wearing guy fawkes masks. march towards parliament without orders. the military allows the crowd to pass. and... the people take over. and then... end of the film. a nice ecstatic moment, but i'm tempted to say, so what? i'm ready, now i talk. i'm ready to sell my mother into slavery in order to see a movie with the title v for vendetta part 2. what would happened the day after the victory of the people. and how would they reorganize their daily life? that's what we should remember today more than ever. these cheap insurrections where we have, you know, we all cry with them. it's so wonderful. oh my god, 1, one million people on tahrrin square, on geza square. my heart is with them. we cried together. i'm more and more totally non-inter. what interests me is the morning kafka. yeah. what happens then? how will we change everyday life? how will people feel the change? if not, then if we don't confront openly this question, then we are ultimately just playing the game of those in power. especially in france. can. every right-wing politician always likes to say, you know, in 68 i was on the barricades, you know. like, you know, you cannot be a pa rightinger if. as they say in france, your heart is on the left, but your money should be in the right pocket. and again, this is for me the big. problem. but if the picture is so bleak, why then not call it a del and resign ourselves to modest reform? okay. liberal democratic capitalism is the only game in town. let's try to make it a little bit better. thank you. the problem is... i think that global capitalism confronts us with a series of tensions, antagonisms, whatever you call them. which cannot be controlled. or even contain. within the frame of capitalist democracy. the only true question today is, do we endorse the predominant acceptance of capitalism as a fact of nature, or does today's global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms to prevent its indefinite reproduction? and. my answer is. there are antagonisms. when they claim we who still insist on some utopian, for me not, vision of communism, my answer is a very simple one. those who think that things can go on indefinitely the way they are now, maybe with a little bit of accommodation, but basically, you know, as they tell a child when it's a scary night, don't look too much around flashlight. look straight, go on. don't they are! real utopia is in power. today which are these antagonisms? i will just repeat my old mantra, but it's good to be clear at this point. they all concern what? marx, goldolt and others comments. first there are what maybe we should call the commons of culture in the broadest sense. the so-called immaterial capital. immediately socialized forms of cognitive capital or means of communication and education. not to mention, of course, the financial sphere with the absurd consequences of uncontrolled virtual money circulation. the only way capitalism is able to reproduce itself in these conditions is through the regression from profit to rent. this is, i think, the key. economic fact. today, which is not taken into account enough. take a very simplified example, somebody like bill gates. how did he become the wealthiest man? i don't think it works. through the concept of exploitation. i don't even think he, compared with other big owners, capitalists, exploits. much more than others is working. no, it's rent. that's the tragedy. bill gates controls more or less, not quite monopolistically, but more or less, one of our cons. if i exchange email with you, if i participate. in. common space, through. internet and so on, i have to pay him a rent. which is why, did you ever ask yourself how is the price of microsoft? programs determine. it's not... in the old profit capitalist way. it's not so much it costed me to produce it and so on. works! 's on rent. we are paying again. rent, this antagonisms. uh. are very interesting because they i claim. what is already common knowledge. they! at the same time... they bring us clothes. they open up a gate towards a certain type of communication. i mean here something very simple. described more and more even in popular books like take paul mason's the end of capitalism, which deals with the threat posed to capitalism by the digital. revolution. what we are witnessing today is radical reshaping. of our familiar notions of work, production, value. an economy based on markets and private ownership. gradually disappears. so new forms are already emerging. parallel currencies, cooperatives, self-managed online space, even wikipedia and so on. i claim that one can even mobilize here the most traditional marxist couple of forces of production and relations of production. we. digitalization. capitalist relations of production. can no longer contain the development of the forces of production. intellectual property is the death toll of capitalism. you simply cannot do it... this is... one. opening where again i simply think that at an immanent level of economic organization and so on, in the long term capitalism will not be able to dealing with this. then we have of course the commons of second commons of external nature. ecologie. we are threatened by pollution, exploitation and so on and so on. this is also an important political and ideological struggle. because not only are, as we just heard from amy, not only are often clearly here denied like... there is no... global warming or at least we are not sure and so on and so on. the problem is that ideology at its purest, we encounter it here. much more than those idiots who deny global warming. i fear those who fully endorse it. but give it... however you call it, conserv. right-wing twist like they say oh whenever like to be brutal. like, sorry for this tasteless metaphor. you know, goebbels said, whenever i hear blah, blah culture, i reach for my gun. well, whenever i hear mother nature, i reach for my gun. because there is a very specific ideology here, as if... there is a basic homeostasis stability of nature which we humans through our hubris. undermin it. no, there is no mother nature. or if there is some other nature she. heavy beach or whatever. we have no place, that's what i'm trying to tell you. we have no stability to return to. it's a much more tragic predicament than. the commons of internal nature. biogenetic inheritance. are we aware of what is going? on now with biogenetic technology. the creation of a new man. in the literal sense of changing human nature is already a realistic prospect. at some stupid conference, i encountered one of the high bosses of chinese biogenetic development and he gave me... translated translated into english the program of social goals and so on of biogenetics in china and already the first sentence tells it all. it says, the goal of development of biogenetics in china is the regulation of biological and psychological welfare of the chinese people. so can you imagine what will happen if biogenetics is left to private corporations and states? then. last but not least, of course. the commons of humanity itself. of our shared social and political space. the more capitalism gets global, the more new walls and apartheid are emerging. sh those who are in from those who are out. not not to mention new geopolitical thank you. this is, i think, a beautiful paradox today. global capitalism, commodities circulate freely, but people, i hope you notice it circulate less and less freely. it is this reference to commons. because you see, in all these cases, commons are threatened. it is this reference to commons which justifies the continuing reference to comm. it enables us to see. the progressive enclosure of the commons is a process of proletarization of those who are thereby excluded from their own substance. however, in the series of four antagonisms outlined. the one between the included and the excluded is the crucial one. without it, all others lose their subversive edge. ecology turns into a problem of sustainable development. intellectual property turns into a complex legal challenge. biogenetics turns into an ethical issue. and then, you know, you have all this debate with catholic church and so on. is man just a biological machine whom we can manipulate or does man have an eternal soul? and i hope you noticed here we have ideology at its purest. i hope you noticed this paradox how the same cath who claim man has an immortal soul. oppose biogenetic or other intervention into our brain. they are totally non-consequent here. my god, listen, if i believe that i have an immortal soul, wouldn't it be logical for me to say, fuck you, do whatever you want with my brain. i am not there. you know, we don't give time to go. just shoot it. you can see what happens here. so, one can sincerely fight for ecology, one can defend a broader law of intellectual property. one can oppose copywriting of genes. without confronting today's form of clash between those included and those. exclude that. corporations like whole food. and starbucks. continue to enjoy favor among some leftists. even if they engage in anti-union activities. the trick is to sell products with a progressive spin. you buy coffee made with beans bought at above market, at fair market value. you drive hybrid vehicle, you buy from companies that provide good benefits for their customers and so on and so on. in short, without this ultimate reference to class. we may well find ourselves in a world in which bill gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting about poverty and rupert murdoch the greatest environmentalist. it. at this point refuge. those from the outside who want to penetrate inside. uh. enter. they bear witness to the commons of humanity itself. threatened by a global capitalism which precisely generates new walls and other forms of apartheid. yeah. what is happening here? in this fight we meet new challenges. jacques lacom, my second teacher, wrote that. even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife, sorry for this example, we can also turn it around, that she sleeps around with other man. even if this is all true. his jealousy is still pathological. why? because the true question is not, is his jealousy well grounded, but why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity? along the same lines, for example. one could say that even if most of the nazi claims about the truth were true. but of course they are not, but i'm saying provocatively even if. their anti-seemitism would still be and was pathological. the true question is not... wait a minute, nazis are making all these statements about jews. are they true? the moment you accept this premise, you are lost. because the true problem is not is this true or not? the problem is why do the nazis in order to sustain them if we may, call this worldview view why do they need the figure. immigrants all around. europe, which is getting worse and worse. the latest news. i don't know, maybe some of you know it even better, but at 5 p. the latest news from austria is that the right winger narrowly, narrowly dig me. so, you know, this is quite a historic date then. the the line of those cases mentioned by amy, that for the first time a direct anti-immigrant racist becomes the president of a state. so to extrapolate it to the extreme. even if most of our prejudices about the refugees were proven to be true, they are hidden fundamentalists, terrorists, they rape and steal. i'm not saying it's true, quite on the opposite. but i'm saying! we shouldn't debate at this level because even if this were to be true, the paranoiac talk about the immigrant threat is still an ideological pathology. it tells more about us, europeans, than about immigrants. the true question is not, are immigrants a real threat to europe? but what does this obsession with the immigrant tell tell us about today's... europe. so there are two dimensions here which should be kept apart. one is the atmosphere of fear of the incoming struggle against the islamization of europe with its own obvious absurdities. refugees who flee terror are equal with terrorists. are escaping from. obvious fact that there are among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals. i i mean this in a totally neutral way. of course there are. so what? wait. but nonetheless, oh, wait a minute. you see that's the problem. that's what i'm radically opposed to and because of this attitude. the right wing is winning in europe. if the left doesn't... something it's this beatification of the refugees. they are good, they are nice people. my god, we are in reality. we are not in a frank capra movie the worst of hollywood ideology where the poor people are always good. you are underestimating the first. the horror of poverty. the true horror of poverty is also an ethical one. i'm sorry to tell you, poverty doesn't make noble people. poverty destroys you also. from from we did! let me get you an... come on, calm down. . so what i'm saying is that it's true. oh. that this problem of immigrant. why europe experiences this as a problem? strictly because of imminent reasons, i claim. the new economic crisis, the disintegration of welfare state and so on and so on. so a suspicious gaze always finds what it is looking for. proofs are everywhere, even if half of them are proven to be fakes later. one should especially emphasize this point today when all around europe the fear of refugees invasion is reaching parano proportions. people who haven't seen not even one actual refugee. react aggressively. to the very proposal of establishing a refugee center in their proximity. and this reminds me of the basic paradox also of anti-semitism in nazi germany. i read a study incredibly convincing which demonstrates how if you compare the percentage of antiemmites in nazi germany, it was the the relationship was an inverted one. in parts of germany where there really were many jews, anti-seemitism was minimal. the most violent anti-seemitism was seen on bavarian countryside and so on, where there were practically no jews there. so this is why i claim. now you can shout again because now i'm coming to a very problematic part. this is why i claim in europe now we have a debate. some people claim even if refugees are making problems here and there. stealing grapes, whatever. we should not talk about that publicly. because we are only feeding. right wings. we should just. ignore it and so on and so on. my idea from my personal experience is, yes, nice, you go on this way, you end up like austin. i think that first this is in such a refined way racist towards their refugees, as if they are children who are not really responsible for their acts and so on and so on. treat them as other normal people. debate with them openly. the catastrophe of europe is that because some big liberal media were under-reporting this. the result was dead. people. that the right-wing anti-immigrant racist propaganda appeared as you know, only there you learn the truth and so on and so on. i claim this is a catastrophe. i claim speak openly about it. and then especially involving immigrants themselves. made it all public. this should not be just a debate among us. are we threatened by immigrants or not? and then you soon get the real picture. thatbt. it's a minority debt, but also, and this is my point. also that. there is a problem here. not the problem in the sense that we europeans are right or whatsoever. but let's face it. there are cultural. iifferences even don't want to call them culture. because when you say culture, you think about something abstract and so on. culture, or rather, i prefer the term ideology. is something that structures our daily life. ideology, schau! sexes relate to each other in everyday life. it's not what do you think about women's equality. it's who cooks, who cleans the cows? how do you relate? at all this... at this everyday level. ideology and cultural differences are a real factor, that's all i'm saying, that we shouldn't. ignore. wirklich weil. another problematic point. uh. i think i am always suspicious of this. excessive self-humiliation of anti-racist. europeans, you know i claim again to provoke you, please start shouting. i claim that whenever i hear this attitude, we have a negative version of white men's burden. you know, in the old days it it's us white men who have the historical destiny to rule the others. now it is. whenever something is wrong in a third world country, it must be our fault. there has to be some consequence of colonialism and so on and so on. and i have a friend in south africa, i will not compromise him by telling him his name he is black. and who got this? he told me, this is the most brutal racism. you white people, you do not even allow us to be really black. oh you can be bad. if we do something wrong, we are like children who were seduced by circumstances and so on and so on. let me give you another... attitude of this racism. did you notice how in the so-called politically correct universe, how they treat ethnic identity? the further you are from wasps, white protestant men, the more cultural identity is supported. if native americans, i call them indians, why? because all the native americans there know hate the term native american. they at least know that i know. they claimed a. why native? you are culture, we are nature or what? and they gave me the most funny, beautiful argument for the term indians. they told me, at least our name is then a monument to white men's stupidity. you know what the text one of them gave me? a professor in missoula, montana. a wonderful tr. about proving how... indians killed more buffaloes and burned more forests than all white people together. what wascribed? his point, he detected. the hidden racism of this idea, you know, we white people destroy, exploit nature, other races, especially native americans, have a more holistic, organic relationship. like when they mine a mountain, they first ask the spirit of the mountain for permission and so on, whatever. i mean, my italian friend... is so disgusted by this. étitude. she is totally, but what i wanted to say is that with indians she's okay. with blacks it's also okay. let them return to their roots and so on and so on. and all white racists like this. the blacks should return to the roots, not come too close to us. this is why i claim that you remember the best-selling book and tv series years ago, alex sh, i think, the roots. this is what col does. what we should do is what malcolm x. no. x means no. we are universal subject without family name. we don't need our. group. the true problem of black emancipation is not find your tribal roots, but how to get rid of your roots even more than white people. okay, let me go on. so then the closest you come white, prote attack. the more it gets problematic. ital . gerans, it gets. species and so on. but if white anglo-saxon protestant says, i want my roots. it's a... h. especially whatever. what's my problem with this? no, no, it is post-fascism. i agree. my problem is just that. the secret! operation at work here is dead. we white people apparently humiliate ourselves. but secretly, by renouncing our route we reserve for ourselves the position of universal. yeah. the most self-humiliating white man still claims precisely because i am prohibited to search for my roots, it means i am universal and i can and i witnessed this often in the above mentioned missula montada i was at a public debate where indians rejected the term native americans. and the white politically correct blah blah supporter of them basically started to terrorize them. what are you doing? don't you know you're humiliating yourself and so on and so on? until one indian friend of mine exploded like, sorry, will you at least allow us to call ourselves the way? you want, who and so on and so on. so not to get lost, let me go on. so bad. when i talk about which is usually where people start to shout european emancipatory legacy or critique of eurocentrism. yes, my position is problematic here, but let me explain to you. why? i claim that. a critique of neurocent. is so popular today. what? precisely it's a sign of something. very obvious. what critiques of eurocentrism until now i debated in for hours in russia, in china about this. what bothers them is really the european emancipatory legacy, women's rights, equality, universalism, and so on and so on, which they try quickly to dismiss as colonialist legacy. for example, in india, i got into a big fight when i mentioned egalitarianism and criticized cast. and i was told, why do you terrorize us with these colonialist notions. equality, women's rights and so on and so on. so i'm saying that the fact that a critique of eurocentism is so popular today. is a sign of something which would worry us. it's that today. global capitalism. more and more. functions much better than with. some we threw a reference to some ancient tradition. corporate tradition usually. you can have capitalism with so-called asian values, which have nothing to do with asia, but much more with. certain authoritarian patriarchal structure, you have the same. i think that today, again, that's the reality. the most efficient capitalism today. ich usually this type of mixture of global market capitalism with some traditional structure. for example, in china today, in total contrast to bao is confucianism, which is practically the official ideology. for me, a figure of today model politician is modi, the prime minister of india. who is at the same time total global market neoliberal and at the same time a hindu nationalist. this is our future. russia, putin, the same game. erdogan in turkey, the same game. which is why now i'm afraid to go to iraq to visit turkey, because i was already attacked there because i claim that the opposition between russia and turkey is a fake one. they are very similar to each other and their leader is, i coined this name which condenses the two, putan and erdogan. de putis. the new leading figure, this kind of authoritarian figure shown and so on. so... to make it very... clear. this is what makes me suspicious in this. sudden acceptability of critique of eurocentrism. for example, a guy who attacked me ferociously, maybe you know him, walter mignon. that in the text where he attacks me, weally reject the term communism s. youcentric. and... pleads for a mixture of these local traditions and so on and so on. i don't think here you have to make a decision if you really want to be still in any meaningful sense a communist. i claim that today if we are ready to confront to confront global capitalism. again, sorry, confused. the choice is this one. do you do it from a position of some original cultural, whatever, ancient tradition, identity which resists globalization? or do you remain minimally a marxist? and the apc of marxism is the ambiguity of capitalism, what malcolm x got so like. dead. the only path to freedom is through this. zero level hell of capitalism which undermines your particular identity. why? because i think reference to some original local tradition. not only doesn't help fighting. global capitalism but it functions perfectly with global capital. global capitalism more and more functions like that. another point problematic for europe. uh with relation to this. mixture of cultures and so on and so on. okay, another thesis to provoke. i was thinking about the most stupid. the most stupid sentence that i ever heard, politically correct or humanitarian, and it came to me that is this one. i cannot imagine anything more stupid. then this. the enemy is someone whose story we were not ready to listen. you know, like we fetishize the enemy because we are not open to him, but if you read, if you try to understand him, you will see he's not just a monster and so on and so on. well, my first reaction is nice to know. so, haha, hitler was our enemy because we didn't really listen to him whatever. no, we have to accept here two things. first, of course, not racially but politically. there are real enemies. and that's why we should read them. for example, although he was a conservative, but winston churchill. his big thing was that already in 33 he was reading nazism. and became immediately aware this is more dangerous than soviet union, than communism and so on. so that's my that's my first point. and i'm here much more of a pessimist. okay! you listen to the other and usually they all, the more they are ethnic. involved in ethnic cleansing, i think to you, the more you can find poets writing beautiful poems about that and so on and so on. the insight of the most brutal criminals. always some kind of beautiful poetry. wow, i know this from my own experience, ex-yugoslavia. it's not only kar in bosnia. every nation has its own caric. because i don't think that the insight, how you experience your situation. tells some inner truth. no. the insight is your ideological sense experience. which is formed precisely so that it obfuscates. the truth of what you are doing outside. i follow here x-files. the truth is out there. our. the truth of nazism is in the brutality of what they were doing, not in the beautiful myths. that they were telling themselves about what they were doing and so on and so on. okay. uh. so that i will not talk too long, i will start to cut it short a little bit. it is against this background of deadlocks of globalization that i want to approach another problem. the ongoing struggle for sexual difference. interesting how this functions. how as many people notice, it's a simple fact but very important, that the progress of gay struggle, women's rights, abortions, that may be a reaction to it. we have in many third world countries new homophobia stronger and don't underestimate. for me! the symbol of this uh. i didn't know if it was... rendered public here, but it was an interesting ideological phenomenon. a couple of years ago, on this most stupid, boring, popular culture thing that you can imagine, eurovision contest, an austrian contestantita voted, a man with a beard dressed up like a lady. one. and it was incredibly interesting to listen to the reaction of russia. putinch. putin said immediately, in the bible i read there are two sexes. now, what is this for a monster? or for example, example, dimitry roovsky. if... prime minister. said that eurovision result from supporters of european integration, their european future, a bearded girl like this is europe and so on. and i think that... we shouldn't laugh at boko haram the way we usually do. they just bring this tendency to its radical conclusion. think about boko haram, you know, the movement in northern nigeria. what a strange phenomenon this is. it is a kind of a radical political movement. it wants to restructure the entire corrupted society, providing new foundations. and what is the very basic premise of the entire system? bokoaram, no foreign education for women should remain at their proper place. but what makes things? really tragic here, and i know because i met some of their partisans at some debate in london, is that they experience this as their form of anti-colonialism. that's the paradox. they told me... at our everyday life level, destructive effect of globalization. we sense it precisely. in how our traditional family structures, traditional communities are disintegr. and again, the most visible aspect of this for us is women. control of their family living family and so on and so on. so they claim keeping women under control is our forum of fighting colombism. now, isn't this an incredible paradox? how fixating sexual difference. becomes... the alima. r short off. anti-colonialist. politics. on the other hand, again, another shouting match maybe, so i don't want to get involved too much into it, but nonetheless it's interesting to note, i think, how here in the united states and also in europe, you have now this movement, i know, for ending urinary segregation, toilets and so on and so on. of course, i totally sympathize with transgender people and so on in their goal. i just have two problems with this, to be very clear. the first question that. easiness with wit big capital supports this struggle. should make us suspicious a little bit. you know that letter of 80 silicon valley executives, zuckerberg, tim cook, and so on and so on, they signed a letter where they write, the business community has consistently communicated to lawmakers that total support and so on. i can understand why tim cook likes to support deseggregated toilets because you know, it's much easier and cheaper to do this than to do something about hundreds of thousands of workers in foxconn that apple is. exploited that. but you know what's my problem? let me be frank. with again, i totally support this struggle. justcht. there is an ideological mystification in it. let me do it in a very simple way. d. confrontez. no, sorry, let's call it primordial sea. t week don. want to abolish segregated. toilets is this one. let's say a transgender person. in any shape. sexual roles. masculin, fé. feels anxiety like, my god, am i not excluded? where do i belong? the problem is this one. they, okay. sorry for this arrogance. i will say they didn't treat properly likecon. in what. i think that... they confuse sexual difference or rather antagonism and prescribed sexual roles. following laccon, all our sexual identities are based on the same uncertainty. an die ich. even part of the most standard sexual identification. my god, to be vulgar. i'm not transgender, but i get this experience all the time. like whenever i enter, or not always, but often, when i enter a male, masculine toilet, i ask myself, my god, but how do i know? am i really a man or whatever? i'm not joking here. this type of doubt. part of our sexual identity. sexual identity is not just a simple assignation of roles. why? because i don't have time to go now into lachenian theory, but the basic premise is that what transgender people really want to get rid of is what laccon in his jargon calls the anxiety of castration. that you are by entering symbolic order, you are deprived of them. and i claim you are always. deprived even with most open toilets. this is, i think the in use of. transgenderism. of course! okay. the problem is not they feel. segregated, of course we should do this but remember that. anxiety. if there is a good lesson of psychoanalysis, it's this one. that an anxiety and the most basic part of our symbolic social identity. basically, you don't know what you are and to cover this up, you escape into a symbolic identity. the real problem is this. but okay. let me go on. why all these problems today? i'm sorry, i speak too long. i will start to try to cut it short a little bit. uh. uh. i want to address with example what amy was addressing, donald trump. problemble. you know, my problem is only this one. i think trump is... disgusting like you know, with trump, i became a racist. like, is this really why? uh-h. no problem with blacks, jews, arabs, but i a problem. not being gracious towards trump. but my point is another one. i think she is a confused opportunist and i fear, if you ask me frankly, i wonder if you would agree. i fear much more somebody like ted cruz in the white house. because with trump you can see clearly how he improvises those disgusting statements, but then she counteracts with things which are not totally wrong. he said we should talk with russia. she put a more balanced suggested a much more balanced attitude in the conflict israel-palestine. she said that he wants basically, didn't he say that he wants health care to be even? explained that he is for rising minimal wage and so on and so on. i'm not saying he has any deep convictions. and just saying that, she's playing a certain opportunistic game. and i don't think... there is really some. evil person behind it's much more in somebody like ted cruz. just look at ted gross statement. but nonetheless, something is going on with. what. do you remember? i always like this example. a wonderful scene from louis buel's film fantôme de liberté, phantom of freedom, where it short scene the relations between eating and cheating are. t up. so that you remember, so that people are invited at the home and in the living room around the big table, there are toilets. they sit there, they deecate, and then one child asks the mother, mommy. i have to go to that place where he means eating. and mother said, no, no, no, don't talk about this publicly, go there discreetly. and he locks himself in a room and quickly eats sandwiches. so i was always thinking, at this scene, when? donald trump was unflatteringly compared to a man who noisily defecate in the corner of a room. i. i claim... are others really any? better. whereen't republican debates like this scene from? fromôme de liberté,. all detonating there. and i'm referring to this as to a general. tend! it's not just hear that republicans are defecating in public. is erdogan not doing the same? putin not doing the same. mos netanyahu not doing the same. when he claimed that it was that husini, a palestinian mufti, who suggested to hitler to burn the jew and so on and so on. i think something is happening here which should effectively worry us. disintegration and here we the left should not be afraid to take over from the right-wingers the topic which is their favorite topic, the ethical degradation and so on and so on. what hegel called schittlichkeit, not morality, but morals, cast. the thick background of unwritten rules. is effectively lately disintegrating. whoop! was prohibited to say publicly 10, 20 years ago, like for example advocating torture. now it's more and more. that that's how i read amy when he said that about ku klux klan and so on and so on. and why is this, for me at least, so important? because... you may say, but who cares about manners today? don't we? we have much more precious problems. no, mangos. m. here also, as amy said, works. meta. and here what we need again to provoke you is... a new dogmatism. in what sense? let me take the example of rape. i wouldn't like to live in a society where i had to argue all the time that rape shouldn't be done. i would like to live in a society where at gut level, spontaneously as an unquestionable dogma. re is. out of the question. i would very, very much, if i were to be in a society where i would have to argue all the time again and again against rape. this reminds me of a wonderful anecdote. i it really happened. i showed it tv when ronald reagan was president. some journalist in one of the few conferences speeches that he gave, some journalist asked him about is it true that shamos the people he invited for his dinner are holocaust deniers and he said, no, whenever at my dinner table somebody denies holocaust, i always protest and claim. there were concentration camps. of course, the question is, but what kind of people reagan has for dinner if he all the time has to defend their? no so what i'm saying is that we need them, or it's the same with torture. of course people talk. i'm here totally open. who knows, in a totally desperate situation, i would maybe have tortured someone. i cannot guarantee. but it's absolutely crucial. to remain hypocritical enough here. not to make it publicly accepted. you know, the moment you legalize torture. legalize in the sense that today is half. legalize, render it publicly acceptable, it's the end. why is this happening? here we come and then i will immediately finish to the central problem. that i keep this ethical decay or whatever. we call it, and there is another, sorry, wonderful film here. did you notice how if you are old enough, i am. in the 60s, all that upheaval and so on, usually the radical protesters were using dirty words to shock the establishment. now it's almost the opposite. the more you can go, you go to the right wing, the more they are vulgar. and i think we should probably accept. shamelessly exploit this fact. no, today. oui! the left, whatever of it, are the only true defenders of simple common decency and so on. we are! okay, let me go on quickly to finish. what is happening today is something absolutely incredible. what troonsky called manufacturing conent. the way our democracies effectively function is falling apart. because you know how our democracies function, one should be open and describe it in a critical way. for many people, they don't really want substantial democracy. they want the appearance of democracy, but with clear indication how you should vote. consent is manufactured and don't underestimate. dich attitude which i found the most terrifying attitude. we. the attitude of... like i had even a debate with julian assange with this. because he still thinks that by bringing out through wikileaks, whatever, he's teaching people something new. basically, i don't think so. in a way, we all knew it. the problem is that we knew it but decided to ignore it. we wanted to act as if we don't know it. people accept that. publicly they are against torture, but i claim even maybe the majority of the people would have said something like, okay, okay, some things had to be done, but let's do it discreetly. i want to be able to pretend that i don't know about it and so on and so on. and this is what wikileaks and things like this prevent you from. so this pro, and why is this so ironic? because when this manufacturing consensus the traditional way, for example, in the united states, the democratic process function but through this two big parties mechanisms were established. when this is now falling, more or less apart. so crazy because you see, that's the perversion of our democracy. precisely when people have an actual choice and if, but we don't live in an ideal world, if the only true election would have been, of course, we all know, trump versus bern sand no. de been a real charge. but did you notice, and that's the perversion of ideology, how? from the hegemonic public opinion by the big media. the moment of real democracy. when people had a real choice, icholt. the crisis of democracy. like it's no longer clear and so on and so on. so again, we should hear we should hear this moment of what goes on today. disintegration of the basic form of manufacturing democratic consent, which root in the states, this duality republicanocratic party, in europe, of course, in europe also. here we should be very careful. i am for democracy. absolutely. but democracy, now another provocation. i wonder how you will react if i tell you. democracy in itself doesn't mean. a lot. take! europe. if by democracy you mean people are enraged and they express der will. against those in power. die. free vote. well, then you get re is anti-immigrant in power. and the most ambiguous, disgusting argument that i heard against immigration in germany was the following. we are supposed to be a democratic country. how come then that angela merkel decided to invite one million people to germany without democratic. consultation. who gave her the right? to do this. and the tragic point is that i'm not saying they are right. i'm absolutely opposed to them. but if angela merkel were to call a referendum, unfortunately, i must tell you, at least 60% of the people would have voted against. so what i'm saying is that this doesn't, you know, like my position here is radical. angela merkel was right. but i draw the conclusion from this. we shouldn't fetishize democracy. there are moments where you, when you have a certain ethico-political position, for example, immigrant rights and so on, you should even enforce it in a non-democratic. wait. and i think that not simply the majority is not always right and so on and so on. we see this in europe today. here i have a disagreement with my good friend varufakis. he said in europe, you know, this democratization of europe. but i told him, is he aware he blames this centralized european anonymous bureaucracy for screwing the greeks? but if the process were to be transparent, greece would have fared even worse. i know from my friends in brussia who told me many politicians from different european countries were able to exert a pressure to be more gentle towards greece. because it was done discreetly. the moment they have to vote publicly. they knew that they were under pressure from their own population. t tough to work greece. because you cannot imagine how pervasive this attitude was, you know, lazy greeks, blah, blah, we spent money of them, right? so this doesn't mean, of course, i am against democracy. this nonetheless means that, you know, we have to change democracy itself. to talk about, like today in europe, my god, to talk just about transparency, people's will should be heard. unfortunately, today in europe this means anti-immigrant. pop are in power. so. the problem is a very real one. so what should we do today? again, now i'm really at the end. oh. i claim that. we should avoid both tracks. one threat would be this social democratic simple reformism, forget the big goals, just let's do it modestly, these dead. the other one which is also false is a kind of an abstract radical position. we need to wait for the revolution, we cannot do anything, we just have to wait for the big crisis and so on and so on. well, you wait and then when there is a crisis, usually... the new fascism will be. but even there i have problems. for example, sorry if i make the but important. it's very popular to say in europe, to designate these anti-immigrant populists simply as new fascists or fascism is reigning in europe. no. typical manner of the worst traditional left when when they see something that they don't really understand, they don't have a good theory of it. the easiest way to apply the old formula, or it's fascism. no. the symptom of what is going on now in e. ich. you remember him? he was killed, i think some 10 years ago. team for the dutch anti-immigrant politician. you know why he is such a paradox?
so let's jump now from this rage 2 the opposite extreme, the construction of the new power. i think the most terrifying incident which symbolizes our sad predicament is that famous moment when was it? three quarters of a year ago we remember this sudden shift of syriza government in athens. first, the triumphant vote no in the referendum literally a day after. total capitulation to bros. so what happened? there is a standard narrative. with which i don't agree, but i will tell you this narrative. the idea is the thing began to go wrong already years ago in the summer of 2012 when after the elections it became clear that at some point shisha will take power. at this moment, the tsipras leadership made a series of decisions. not only about the party life. but also about the type of party they needed. they advocated the transformation of syriza from a coalition of disparate organizations and civil mov into a unified centralized party. the great number of members of its central committee made it sure that de facto decisions were made in advance in the narrow informal circle around tsras. the paras center of power. no wonder then that the surrender to the brussels pressure. was decided by this parafenta. and it shocked syriza's popular base, which mostly withdrew into despair and passivity. so i was told that now all these popular base, civil movements and so on is just at a distance. and again, we are back range. there is no clear counter program and so on. however, i don't totally agree with this narrative. why not? one has to be very clear when one talks about the loss of contact. with the social movement base. the position of pressure and representation. presence are authentic social movements and then representation is the alienated ossified party mechanisms, state apparatuses and so on and so on. so the idea is that the left in power should at all costs keep alive its popular br. i think that t mantra. when the left is in power, they should keep their link with popular social movements and so on, covers up the true problem. how to transform state mechanisms, how to make them function in a different way. instead of just supplementing them with popular pressure from below. in short, it seems clear that apart from two great models, social democratic acceptance of parliamentary democracy and the stalinist state, the left has no other practical mode to offer. all the talk about active popular participation, self-organization of the people or multitude in social movements, i think ultimately serves to obfuscate this. left. ich denn? today's radical left ring! i repeat here a wonderful formulation by alberto toscano, condemned to fight. tooth and nail for social democracy. to it cannot work. i found this an extremely tragic predicament. even some of my well-known friends, maybe he was sometimes here, fred json, advocated this line. he said, the left cannot do anything today. all we can do is... support social democratic measures. knowing well in advance that they will fail and hoping that people will learn something from this failure. my god, if this is all that we can do, then... let's close the stock. what's the problem for me? in the final scene of a film which was popular even by some leftists. tony negri loved it, i know. you probably saw it, v for vendetta. you remember the ending of the film. thousands of unarmed launder wearing guy fawkes masks. march towards parliament without orders. the military allows the crowd to pass. and... the people take over. and then... end of the film. a nice ecstatic moment, but i'm tempted to say, so what? i'm ready, now i talk. i'm ready to sell my mother into slavery in order to see a movie with the title v for vendetta part 2. what would happened the day after the victory of the people. and how would they reorganize their daily life? that's what we should remember today more than ever. these cheap insurrections where we have, you know, we all cry with them. it's so wonderful. oh my god, 1, one million people on tahrrin square, on geza square. my heart is with them. we cried together. i'm more and more totally non-inter. what interests me is the morning kafka. yeah. what happens then? how will we change everyday life? how will people feel the change? if not, then if we don't confront openly this question, then we are ultimately just playing the game of those in power. especially in france. can. every right-wing politician always likes to say, you know, in 68 i was on the barricades, you know. like, you know, you cannot be a pa rightinger if. as they say in france, your heart is on the left, but your money should be in the right pocket. and again, this is for me the big. problem. but if the picture is so bleak, why then not call it a del and resign ourselves to modest reform? okay. liberal democratic capitalism is the only game in town. let's try to make it a little bit better. thank you. the problem is... i think that global capitalism confronts us with a series of tensions, antagonisms, whatever you call them. which cannot be controlled. or even contain. within the frame of capitalist democracy. the only true question today is, do we endorse the predominant acceptance of capitalism as a fact of nature, or does today's global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms to prevent its indefinite reproduction? and. my answer is. there are antagonisms. when they claim we who still insist on some utopian, for me not, vision of communism, my answer is a very simple one. those who think that things can go on indefinitely the way they are now, maybe with a little bit of accommodation, but basically, you know, as they tell a child when it's a scary night, don't look too much around flashlight. look straight, go on. don't they are! real utopia is in power. today which are these antagonisms? i will just repeat my old mantra, but it's good to be clear at this point. they all concern what? marx, goldolt and others comments. first there are what maybe we should call the commons of culture in the broadest sense. the so-called immaterial capital. immediately socialized forms of cognitive capital or means of communication and education. not to mention, of course, the financial sphere with the absurd consequences of uncontrolled virtual money circulation. the only way capitalism is able to reproduce itself in these conditions is through the regression from profit to rent. this is, i think, the key. economic fact. today, which is not taken into account enough. take a very simplified example, somebody like bill gates. how did he become the wealthiest man? i don't think it works. through the concept of exploitation. i don't even think he, compared with other big owners, capitalists, exploits. much more than others is working. no, it's rent. that's the tragedy. bill gates controls more or less, not quite monopolistically, but more or less, one of our cons. if i exchange email with you, if i participate. in. common space, through. internet and so on, i have to pay him a rent. which is why, did you ever ask yourself how is the price of microsoft? programs determine. it's not... in the old profit capitalist way. it's not so much it costed me to produce it and so on. works! 's on rent. we are paying again. rent, this antagonisms. uh. are very interesting because they i claim. what is already common knowledge. they! at the same time... they bring us clothes. they open up a gate towards a certain type of communication. i mean here something very simple. described more and more even in popular books like take paul mason's the end of capitalism, which deals with the threat posed to capitalism by the digital. revolution. what we are witnessing today is radical reshaping. of our familiar notions of work, production, value. an economy based on markets and private ownership. gradually disappears. so new forms are already emerging. parallel currencies, cooperatives, self-managed online space, even wikipedia and so on. i claim that one can even mobilize here the most traditional marxist couple of forces of production and relations of production. we. digitalization. capitalist relations of production. can no longer contain the development of the forces of production. intellectual property is the death toll of capitalism. you simply cannot do it... this is... one. opening where again i simply think that at an immanent level of economic organization and so on, in the long term capitalism will not be able to dealing with this. then we have of course the commons of second commons of external nature. ecologie. we are threatened by pollution, exploitation and so on and so on. this is also an important political and ideological struggle. because not only are, as we just heard from amy, not only are often clearly here denied like... there is no... global warming or at least we are not sure and so on and so on. the problem is that ideology at its purest, we encounter it here. much more than those idiots who deny global warming. i fear those who fully endorse it. but give it... however you call it, conserv. right-wing twist like they say oh whenever like to be brutal. like, sorry for this tasteless metaphor. you know, goebbels said, whenever i hear blah, blah culture, i reach for my gun. well, whenever i hear mother nature, i reach for my gun. because there is a very specific ideology here, as if... there is a basic homeostasis stability of nature which we humans through our hubris. undermin it. no, there is no mother nature. or if there is some other nature she. heavy beach or whatever. we have no place, that's what i'm trying to tell you. we have no stability to return to. it's a much more tragic predicament than. the commons of internal nature. biogenetic inheritance. are we aware of what is going? on now with biogenetic technology. the creation of a new man. in the literal sense of changing human nature is already a realistic prospect. at some stupid conference, i encountered one of the high bosses of chinese biogenetic development and he gave me... translated translated into english the program of social goals and so on of biogenetics in china and already the first sentence tells it all. it says, the goal of development of biogenetics in china is the regulation of biological and psychological welfare of the chinese people. so can you imagine what will happen if biogenetics is left to private corporations and states? then. last but not least, of course. the commons of humanity itself. of our shared social and political space. the more capitalism gets global, the more new walls and apartheid are emerging. sh those who are in from those who are out. not not to mention new geopolitical thank you. this is, i think, a beautiful paradox today. global capitalism, commodities circulate freely, but people, i hope you notice it circulate less and less freely. it is this reference to commons. because you see, in all these cases, commons are threatened. it is this reference to commons which justifies the continuing reference to comm. it enables us to see. the progressive enclosure of the commons is a process of proletarization of those who are thereby excluded from their own substance. however, in the series of four antagonisms outlined. the one between the included and the excluded is the crucial one. without it, all others lose their subversive edge. ecology turns into a problem of sustainable development. intellectual property turns into a complex legal challenge. biogenetics turns into an ethical issue. and then, you know, you have all this debate with catholic church and so on. is man just a biological machine whom we can manipulate or does man have an eternal soul? and i hope you noticed here we have ideology at its purest. i hope you noticed this paradox how the same cath who claim man has an immortal soul. oppose biogenetic or other intervention into our brain. they are totally non-consequent here. my god, listen, if i believe that i have an immortal soul, wouldn't it be logical for me to say, fuck you, do whatever you want with my brain. i am not there. you know, we don't give time to go. just shoot it. you can see what happens here. so, one can sincerely fight for ecology, one can defend a broader law of intellectual property. one can oppose copywriting of genes. without confronting today's form of clash between those included and those. exclude that. corporations like whole food. and starbucks. continue to enjoy favor among some leftists. even if they engage in anti-union activities. the trick is to sell products with a progressive spin. you buy coffee made with beans bought at above market, at fair market value. you drive hybrid vehicle, you buy from companies that provide good benefits for their customers and so on and so on. in short, without this ultimate reference to class. we may well find ourselves in a world in which bill gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting about poverty and rupert murdoch the greatest environmentalist. it. at this point refuge. those from the outside who want to penetrate inside. uh. enter. they bear witness to the commons of humanity itself. threatened by a global capitalism which precisely generates new walls and other forms of apartheid. yeah. what is happening here? in this fight we meet new challenges. jacques lacom, my second teacher, wrote that. even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife, sorry for this example, we can also turn it around, that she sleeps around with other man. even if this is all true. his jealousy is still pathological. why? because the true question is not, is his jealousy well grounded, but why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity? along the same lines, for example. one could say that even if most of the nazi claims about the truth were true. but of course they are not, but i'm saying provocatively even if. their anti-seemitism would still be and was pathological. the true question is not... wait a minute, nazis are making all these statements about jews. are they true? the moment you accept this premise, you are lost. because the true problem is not is this true or not? the problem is why do the nazis in order to sustain them if we may, call this worldview view why do they need the figure. immigrants all around. europe, which is getting worse and worse. the latest news. i don't know, maybe some of you know it even better, but at 5 p. the latest news from austria is that the right winger narrowly, narrowly dig me. so, you know, this is quite a historic date then. the the line of those cases mentioned by amy, that for the first time a direct anti-immigrant racist becomes the president of a state. so to extrapolate it to the extreme. even if most of our prejudices about the refugees were proven to be true, they are hidden fundamentalists, terrorists, they rape and steal. i'm not saying it's true, quite on the opposite. but i'm saying! we shouldn't debate at this level because even if this were to be true, the paranoiac talk about the immigrant threat is still an ideological pathology. it tells more about us, europeans, than about immigrants. the true question is not, are immigrants a real threat to europe? but what does this obsession with the immigrant tell tell us about today's... europe. so there are two dimensions here which should be kept apart. one is the atmosphere of fear of the incoming struggle against the islamization of europe with its own obvious absurdities. refugees who flee terror are equal with terrorists. are escaping from. obvious fact that there are among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals. i i mean this in a totally neutral way. of course there are. so what? wait. but nonetheless, oh, wait a minute. you see that's the problem. that's what i'm radically opposed to and because of this attitude. the right wing is winning in europe. if the left doesn't... something it's this beatification of the refugees. they are good, they are nice people. my god, we are in reality. we are not in a frank capra movie the worst of hollywood ideology where the poor people are always good. you are underestimating the first. the horror of poverty. the true horror of poverty is also an ethical one. i'm sorry to tell you, poverty doesn't make noble people. poverty destroys you also. from from we did! let me get you an... come on, calm down. . so what i'm saying is that it's true. oh. that this problem of immigrant. why europe experiences this as a problem? strictly because of imminent reasons, i claim. the new economic crisis, the disintegration of welfare state and so on and so on. so a suspicious gaze always finds what it is looking for. proofs are everywhere, even if half of them are proven to be fakes later. one should especially emphasize this point today when all around europe the fear of refugees invasion is reaching parano proportions. people who haven't seen not even one actual refugee. react aggressively. to the very proposal of establishing a refugee center in their proximity. and this reminds me of the basic paradox also of anti-semitism in nazi germany. i read a study incredibly convincing which demonstrates how if you compare the percentage of antiemmites in nazi germany, it was the the relationship was an inverted one. in parts of germany where there really were many jews, anti-seemitism was minimal. the most violent anti-seemitism was seen on bavarian countryside and so on, where there were practically no jews there. so this is why i claim. now you can shout again because now i'm coming to a very problematic part. this is why i claim in europe now we have a debate. some people claim even if refugees are making problems here and there. stealing grapes, whatever. we should not talk about that publicly. because we are only feeding. right wings. we should just. ignore it and so on and so on. my idea from my personal experience is, yes, nice, you go on this way, you end up like austin. i think that first this is in such a refined way racist towards their refugees, as if they are children who are not really responsible for their acts and so on and so on. treat them as other normal people. debate with them openly. the catastrophe of europe is that because some big liberal media were under-reporting this. the result was dead. people. that the right-wing anti-immigrant racist propaganda appeared as you know, only there you learn the truth and so on and so on. i claim this is a catastrophe. i claim speak openly about it. and then especially involving immigrants themselves. made it all public. this should not be just a debate among us. are we threatened by immigrants or not? and then you soon get the real picture. thatbt. it's a minority debt, but also, and this is my point. also that. there is a problem here. not the problem in the sense that we europeans are right or whatsoever. but let's face it. there are cultural. iifferences even don't want to call them culture. because when you say culture, you think about something abstract and so on. culture, or rather, i prefer the term ideology. is something that structures our daily life. ideology, schau! sexes relate to each other in everyday life. it's not what do you think about women's equality. it's who cooks, who cleans the cows? how do you relate? at all this... at this everyday level. ideology and cultural differences are a real factor, that's all i'm saying, that we shouldn't. ignore. wirklich weil. another problematic point. uh. i think i am always suspicious of this. excessive self-humiliation of anti-racist. europeans, you know i claim again to provoke you, please start shouting. i claim that whenever i hear this attitude, we have a negative version of white men's burden. you know, in the old days it it's us white men who have the historical destiny to rule the others. now it is. whenever something is wrong in a third world country, it must be our fault. there has to be some consequence of colonialism and so on and so on. and i have a friend in south africa, i will not compromise him by telling him his name he is black. and who got this? he told me, this is the most brutal racism. you white people, you do not even allow us to be really black. oh you can be bad. if we do something wrong, we are like children who were seduced by circumstances and so on and so on. let me give you another... attitude of this racism. did you notice how in the so-called politically correct universe, how they treat ethnic identity? the further you are from wasps, white protestant men, the more cultural identity is supported. if native americans, i call them indians, why? because all the native americans there know hate the term native american. they at least know that i know. they claimed a. why native? you are culture, we are nature or what? and they gave me the most funny, beautiful argument for the term indians. they told me, at least our name is then a monument to white men's stupidity. you know what the text one of them gave me? a professor in missoula, montana. a wonderful tr. about proving how... indians killed more buffaloes and burned more forests than all white people together. what wascribed? his point, he detected. the hidden racism of this idea, you know, we white people destroy, exploit nature, other races, especially native americans, have a more holistic, organic relationship. like when they mine a mountain, they first ask the spirit of the mountain for permission and so on, whatever. i mean, my italian friend... is so disgusted by this. étitude. she is totally, but what i wanted to say is that with indians she's okay. with blacks it's also okay. let them return to their roots and so on and so on. and all white racists like this. the blacks should return to the roots, not come too close to us. this is why i claim that you remember the best-selling book and tv series years ago, alex sh, i think, the roots. this is what col does. what we should do is what malcolm x. no. x means no. we are universal subject without family name. we don't need our. group. the true problem of black emancipation is not find your tribal roots, but how to get rid of your roots even more than white people. okay, let me go on. so then the closest you come white, prote attack. the more it gets problematic. ital . gerans, it gets. species and so on. but if white anglo-saxon protestant says, i want my roots. it's a... h. especially whatever. what's my problem with this? no, no, it is post-fascism. i agree. my problem is just that. the secret! operation at work here is dead. we white people apparently humiliate ourselves. but secretly, by renouncing our route we reserve for ourselves the position of universal. yeah. the most self-humiliating white man still claims precisely because i am prohibited to search for my roots, it means i am universal and i can and i witnessed this often in the above mentioned missula montada i was at a public debate where indians rejected the term native americans. and the white politically correct blah blah supporter of them basically started to terrorize them. what are you doing? don't you know you're humiliating yourself and so on and so on? until one indian friend of mine exploded like, sorry, will you at least allow us to call ourselves the way? you want, who and so on and so on. so not to get lost, let me go on. so bad. when i talk about which is usually where people start to shout european emancipatory legacy or critique of eurocentrism. yes, my position is problematic here, but let me explain to you. why? i claim that. a critique of neurocent. is so popular today. what? precisely it's a sign of something. very obvious. what critiques of eurocentrism until now i debated in for hours in russia, in china about this. what bothers them is really the european emancipatory legacy, women's rights, equality, universalism, and so on and so on, which they try quickly to dismiss as colonialist legacy. for example, in india, i got into a big fight when i mentioned egalitarianism and criticized cast. and i was told, why do you terrorize us with these colonialist notions. equality, women's rights and so on and so on. so i'm saying that the fact that a critique of eurocentism is so popular today. is a sign of something which would worry us. it's that today. global capitalism. more and more. functions much better than with. some we threw a reference to some ancient tradition. corporate tradition usually. you can have capitalism with so-called asian values, which have nothing to do with asia, but much more with. certain authoritarian patriarchal structure, you have the same. i think that today, again, that's the reality. the most efficient capitalism today. ich usually this type of mixture of global market capitalism with some traditional structure. for example, in china today, in total contrast to bao is confucianism, which is practically the official ideology. for me, a figure of today model politician is modi, the prime minister of india. who is at the same time total global market neoliberal and at the same time a hindu nationalist. this is our future. russia, putin, the same game. erdogan in turkey, the same game. which is why now i'm afraid to go to iraq to visit turkey, because i was already attacked there because i claim that the opposition between russia and turkey is a fake one. they are very similar to each other and their leader is, i coined this name which condenses the two, putan and erdogan. de putis. the new leading figure, this kind of authoritarian figure shown and so on. so... to make it very... clear. this is what makes me suspicious in this. sudden acceptability of critique of eurocentrism. for example, a guy who attacked me ferociously, maybe you know him, walter mignon. that in the text where he attacks me, weally reject the term communism s. youcentric. and... pleads for a mixture of these local traditions and so on and so on. i don't think here you have to make a decision if you really want to be still in any meaningful sense a communist. i claim that today if we are ready to confront to confront global capitalism. again, sorry, confused. the choice is this one. do you do it from a position of some original cultural, whatever, ancient tradition, identity which resists globalization? or do you remain minimally a marxist? and the apc of marxism is the ambiguity of capitalism, what malcolm x got so like. dead. the only path to freedom is through this. zero level hell of capitalism which undermines your particular identity. why? because i think reference to some original local tradition. not only doesn't help fighting. global capitalism but it functions perfectly with global capital. global capitalism more and more functions like that. another point problematic for europe. uh with relation to this. mixture of cultures and so on and so on. okay, another thesis to provoke. i was thinking about the most stupid. the most stupid sentence that i ever heard, politically correct or humanitarian, and it came to me that is this one. i cannot imagine anything more stupid. then this. the enemy is someone whose story we were not ready to listen. you know, like we fetishize the enemy because we are not open to him, but if you read, if you try to understand him, you will see he's not just a monster and so on and so on. well, my first reaction is nice to know. so, haha, hitler was our enemy because we didn't really listen to him whatever. no, we have to accept here two things. first, of course, not racially but politically. there are real enemies. and that's why we should read them. for example, although he was a conservative, but winston churchill. his big thing was that already in 33 he was reading nazism. and became immediately aware this is more dangerous than soviet union, than communism and so on. so that's my that's my first point. and i'm here much more of a pessimist. okay! you listen to the other and usually they all, the more they are ethnic. involved in ethnic cleansing, i think to you, the more you can find poets writing beautiful poems about that and so on and so on. the insight of the most brutal criminals. always some kind of beautiful poetry. wow, i know this from my own experience, ex-yugoslavia. it's not only kar in bosnia. every nation has its own caric. because i don't think that the insight, how you experience your situation. tells some inner truth. no. the insight is your ideological sense experience. which is formed precisely so that it obfuscates. the truth of what you are doing outside. i follow here x-files. the truth is out there. our. the truth of nazism is in the brutality of what they were doing, not in the beautiful myths. that they were telling themselves about what they were doing and so on and so on. okay. uh. so that i will not talk too long, i will start to cut it short a little bit. it is against this background of deadlocks of globalization that i want to approach another problem. the ongoing struggle for sexual difference. interesting how this functions. how as many people notice, it's a simple fact but very important, that the progress of gay struggle, women's rights, abortions, that may be a reaction to it. we have in many third world countries new homophobia stronger and don't underestimate. for me! the symbol of this uh. i didn't know if it was... rendered public here, but it was an interesting ideological phenomenon. a couple of years ago, on this most stupid, boring, popular culture thing that you can imagine, eurovision contest, an austrian contestantita voted, a man with a beard dressed up like a lady. one. and it was incredibly interesting to listen to the reaction of russia. putinch. putin said immediately, in the bible i read there are two sexes. now, what is this for a monster? or for example, example, dimitry roovsky. if... prime minister. said that eurovision result from supporters of european integration, their european future, a bearded girl like this is europe and so on. and i think that... we shouldn't laugh at boko haram the way we usually do. they just bring this tendency to its radical conclusion. think about boko haram, you know, the movement in northern nigeria. what a strange phenomenon this is. it is a kind of a radical political movement. it wants to restructure the entire corrupted society, providing new foundations. and what is the very basic premise of the entire system? bokoaram, no foreign education for women should remain at their proper place. but what makes things? really tragic here, and i know because i met some of their partisans at some debate in london, is that they experience this as their form of anti-colonialism. that's the paradox. they told me... at our everyday life level, destructive effect of globalization. we sense it precisely. in how our traditional family structures, traditional communities are disintegr. and again, the most visible aspect of this for us is women. control of their family living family and so on and so on. so they claim keeping women under control is our forum of fighting colombism. now, isn't this an incredible paradox? how fixating sexual difference. becomes... the alima. r short off. anti-colonialist. politics. on the other hand, again, another shouting match maybe, so i don't want to get involved too much into it, but nonetheless it's interesting to note, i think, how here in the united states and also in europe, you have now this movement, i know, for ending urinary segregation, toilets and so on and so on. of course, i totally sympathize with transgender people and so on in their goal. i just have two problems with this, to be very clear. the first question that. easiness with wit big capital supports this struggle. should make us suspicious a little bit. you know that letter of 80 silicon valley executives, zuckerberg, tim cook, and so on and so on, they signed a letter where they write, the business community has consistently communicated to lawmakers that total support and so on. i can understand why tim cook likes to support deseggregated toilets because you know, it's much easier and cheaper to do this than to do something about hundreds of thousands of workers in foxconn that apple is. exploited that. but you know what's my problem? let me be frank. with again, i totally support this struggle. justcht. there is an ideological mystification in it. let me do it in a very simple way. d. confrontez. no, sorry, let's call it primordial sea. t week don. want to abolish segregated. toilets is this one. let's say a transgender person. in any shape. sexual roles. masculin, fé. feels anxiety like, my god, am i not excluded? where do i belong? the problem is this one. they, okay. sorry for this arrogance. i will say they didn't treat properly likecon. in what. i think that... they confuse sexual difference or rather antagonism and prescribed sexual roles. following laccon, all our sexual identities are based on the same uncertainty. an die ich. even part of the most standard sexual identification. my god, to be vulgar. i'm not transgender, but i get this experience all the time. like whenever i enter, or not always, but often, when i enter a male, masculine toilet, i ask myself, my god, but how do i know? am i really a man or whatever? i'm not joking here. this type of doubt. part of our sexual identity. sexual identity is not just a simple assignation of roles. why? because i don't have time to go now into lachenian theory, but the basic premise is that what transgender people really want to get rid of is what laccon in his jargon calls the anxiety of castration. that you are by entering symbolic order, you are deprived of them. and i claim you are always. deprived even with most open toilets. this is, i think the in use of. transgenderism. of course! okay. the problem is not they feel. segregated, of course we should do this but remember that. anxiety. if there is a good lesson of psychoanalysis, it's this one. that an anxiety and the most basic part of our symbolic social identity. basically, you don't know what you are and to cover this up, you escape into a symbolic identity. the real problem is this. but okay. let me go on. why all these problems today? i'm sorry, i speak too long. i will start to try to cut it short a little bit. uh. uh. i want to address with example what amy was addressing, donald trump. problemble. you know, my problem is only this one. i think trump is... disgusting like you know, with trump, i became a racist. like, is this really why? uh-h. no problem with blacks, jews, arabs, but i a problem. not being gracious towards trump. but my point is another one. i think she is a confused opportunist and i fear, if you ask me frankly, i wonder if you would agree. i fear much more somebody like ted cruz in the white house. because with trump you can see clearly how he improvises those disgusting statements, but then she counteracts with things which are not totally wrong. he said we should talk with russia. she put a more balanced suggested a much more balanced attitude in the conflict israel-palestine. she said that he wants basically, didn't he say that he wants health care to be even? explained that he is for rising minimal wage and so on and so on. i'm not saying he has any deep convictions. and just saying that, she's playing a certain opportunistic game. and i don't think... there is really some. evil person behind it's much more in somebody like ted cruz. just look at ted gross statement. but nonetheless, something is going on with. what. do you remember? i always like this example. a wonderful scene from louis buel's film fantôme de liberté, phantom of freedom, where it short scene the relations between eating and cheating are. t up. so that you remember, so that people are invited at the home and in the living room around the big table, there are toilets. they sit there, they deecate, and then one child asks the mother, mommy. i have to go to that place where he means eating. and mother said, no, no, no, don't talk about this publicly, go there discreetly. and he locks himself in a room and quickly eats sandwiches. so i was always thinking, at this scene, when? donald trump was unflatteringly compared to a man who noisily defecate in the corner of a room. i. i claim... are others really any? better. whereen't republican debates like this scene from? fromôme de liberté,. all detonating there. and i'm referring to this as to a general. tend! it's not just hear that republicans are defecating in public. is erdogan not doing the same? putin not doing the same. mos netanyahu not doing the same. when he claimed that it was that husini, a palestinian mufti, who suggested to hitler to burn the jew and so on and so on. i think something is happening here which should effectively worry us. disintegration and here we the left should not be afraid to take over from the right-wingers the topic which is their favorite topic, the ethical degradation and so on and so on. what hegel called schittlichkeit, not morality, but morals, cast. the thick background of unwritten rules. is effectively lately disintegrating. whoop! was prohibited to say publicly 10, 20 years ago, like for example advocating torture. now it's more and more. that that's how i read amy when he said that about ku klux klan and so on and so on. and why is this, for me at least, so important? because... you may say, but who cares about manners today? don't we? we have much more precious problems. no, mangos. m. here also, as amy said, works. meta. and here what we need again to provoke you is... a new dogmatism. in what sense? let me take the example of rape. i wouldn't like to live in a society where i had to argue all the time that rape shouldn't be done. i would like to live in a society where at gut level, spontaneously as an unquestionable dogma. re is. out of the question. i would very, very much, if i were to be in a society where i would have to argue all the time again and again against rape. this reminds me of a wonderful anecdote. i it really happened. i showed it tv when ronald reagan was president. some journalist in one of the few conferences speeches that he gave, some journalist asked him about is it true that shamos the people he invited for his dinner are holocaust deniers and he said, no, whenever at my dinner table somebody denies holocaust, i always protest and claim. there were concentration camps. of course, the question is, but what kind of people reagan has for dinner if he all the time has to defend their? no so what i'm saying is that we need them, or it's the same with torture. of course people talk. i'm here totally open. who knows, in a totally desperate situation, i would maybe have tortured someone. i cannot guarantee. but it's absolutely crucial. to remain hypocritical enough here. not to make it publicly accepted. you know, the moment you legalize torture. legalize in the sense that today is half. legalize, render it publicly acceptable, it's the end. why is this happening? here we come and then i will immediately finish to the central problem. that i keep this ethical decay or whatever. we call it, and there is another, sorry, wonderful film here. did you notice how if you are old enough, i am. in the 60s, all that upheaval and so on, usually the radical protesters were using dirty words to shock the establishment. now it's almost the opposite. the more you can go, you go to the right wing, the more they are vulgar. and i think we should probably accept. shamelessly exploit this fact. no, today. oui! the left, whatever of it, are the only true defenders of simple common decency and so on. we are! okay, let me go on quickly to finish. what is happening today is something absolutely incredible. what troonsky called manufacturing conent. the way our democracies effectively function is falling apart. because you know how our democracies function, one should be open and describe it in a critical way. for many people, they don't really want substantial democracy. they want the appearance of democracy, but with clear indication how you should vote. consent is manufactured and don't underestimate. dich attitude which i found the most terrifying attitude. we. the attitude of... like i had even a debate with julian assange with this. because he still thinks that by bringing out through wikileaks, whatever, he's teaching people something new. basically, i don't think so. in a way, we all knew it. the problem is that we knew it but decided to ignore it. we wanted to act as if we don't know it. people accept that. publicly they are against torture, but i claim even maybe the majority of the people would have said something like, okay, okay, some things had to be done, but let's do it discreetly. i want to be able to pretend that i don't know about it and so on and so on. and this is what wikileaks and things like this prevent you from. so this pro, and why is this so ironic? because when this manufacturing consensus the traditional way, for example, in the united states, the democratic process function but through this two big parties mechanisms were established. when this is now falling, more or less apart. so crazy because you see, that's the perversion of our democracy. precisely when people have an actual choice and if, but we don't live in an ideal world, if the only true election would have been, of course, we all know, trump versus bern sand no. de been a real charge. but did you notice, and that's the perversion of ideology, how? from the hegemonic public opinion by the big media. the moment of real democracy. when people had a real choice, icholt. the crisis of democracy. like it's no longer clear and so on and so on. so again, we should hear we should hear this moment of what goes on today. disintegration of the basic form of manufacturing democratic consent, which root in the states, this duality republicanocratic party, in europe, of course, in europe also. here we should be very careful. i am for democracy. absolutely. but democracy, now another provocation. i wonder how you will react if i tell you. democracy in itself doesn't mean. a lot. take! europe. if by democracy you mean people are enraged and they express der will. against those in power. die. free vote. well, then you get re is anti-immigrant in power. and the most ambiguous, disgusting argument that i heard against immigration in germany was the following. we are supposed to be a democratic country. how come then that angela merkel decided to invite one million people to germany without democratic. consultation. who gave her the right? to do this. and the tragic point is that i'm not saying they are right. i'm absolutely opposed to them. but if angela merkel were to call a referendum, unfortunately, i must tell you, at least 60% of the people would have voted against. so what i'm saying is that this doesn't, you know, like my position here is radical. angela merkel was right. but i draw the conclusion from this. we shouldn't fetishize democracy. there are moments where you, when you have a certain ethico-political position, for example, immigrant rights and so on, you should even enforce it in a non-democratic. wait. and i think that not simply the majority is not always right and so on and so on. we see this in europe today. here i have a disagreement with my good friend varufakis. he said in europe, you know, this democratization of europe. but i told him, is he aware he blames this centralized european anonymous bureaucracy for screwing the greeks? but if the process were to be transparent, greece would have fared even worse. i know from my friends in brussia who told me many politicians from different european countries were able to exert a pressure to be more gentle towards greece. because it was done discreetly. the moment they have to vote publicly. they knew that they were under pressure from their own population. t tough to work greece. because you cannot imagine how pervasive this attitude was, you know, lazy greeks, blah, blah, we spent money of them, right? so this doesn't mean, of course, i am against democracy. this nonetheless means that, you know, we have to change democracy itself. to talk about, like today in europe, my god, to talk just about transparency, people's will should be heard. unfortunately, today in europe this means anti-immigrant. pop are in power. so. the problem is a very real one. so what should we do today? again, now i'm really at the end. oh. i claim that. we should avoid both tracks. one threat would be this social democratic simple reformism, forget the big goals, just let's do it modestly, these dead. the other one which is also false is a kind of an abstract radical position. we need to wait for the revolution, we cannot do anything, we just have to wait for the big crisis and so on and so on. well, you wait and then when there is a crisis, usually... the new fascism will be. but even there i have problems. for example, sorry if i make the but important. it's very popular to say in europe, to designate these anti-immigrant populists simply as new fascists or fascism is reigning in europe. no. typical manner of the worst traditional left when when they see something that they don't really understand, they don't have a good theory of it. the easiest way to apply the old formula, or it's fascism. no. the symptom of what is going on now in e. ich. you remember him? he was killed, i think some 10 years ago. team for the dutch anti-immigrant politician. you know why he is such a paradox?
Host
because he was at its purest.
because he was at its purest.
Slavoj Žižek
the paradox of uh.
the paradox of uh.
Host
end
end
Slavoj Žižek
eante. political correctness.
eante. political correctness.
Host
h!
h!
Slavoj Žižek
opposition to immigrants. was not, or they they are was not there a threat to our european culture and so on? no, it was we want to live in a democratic country where gays lesians should be free, abortion and so on. and they are a threat to this. it was and what i claim simply is that the problem is real. it's an extremely important. king two fights somehow together. the fights of the immigrants and so on. for dirk reich,
opposition to immigrants. was not, or they they are was not there a threat to our european culture and so on? no, it was we want to live in a democratic country where gays lesians should be free, abortion and so on. and they are a threat to this. it was and what i claim simply is that the problem is real. it's an extremely important. king two fights somehow together. the fights of the immigrants and so on. for dirk reich,
Host
end.
end.
Slavoj Žižek
our side for women's rights and so on and so on, then we are lost. and that's a mega tragedy today because from both sides we get problems. on one side we get what i already mentioned to you, how sometimes struggle against feminism is perceived as anti-colonialist struggle.
our side for women's rights and so on and so on, then we are lost. and that's a mega tragedy today because from both sides we get problems. on one side we get what i already mentioned to you, how sometimes struggle against feminism is perceived as anti-colonialist struggle.
Host
and not even without reasons.
and not even without reasons.
Slavoj Žižek
nancy fraser, i think, published a year ago a wonderful book about how mainstream american feminism was co-opted by neoliberalism. so on. there are problems here. so again, what can we do? we wait for the revolution. okay, we have to be ready. things will explode. but what to do now? here. i claim de. the worst thing is to do nothing, just to wait. you know, we have to be good strategic thinkers. we have to insist on particular issues, but those issues which have a potential to unleash, to set in motion further changes. and we can be here very modest. this is why, with all my criticism of obama and so on. i think that idea of universal healthcare. it was a compromise, i know. but this is maybe one good thing he did. why? because it's a totally acceptable demand. most of european states have it, canada have it, so you cannot accuse him of being communist or whatever. the contract it is obviously something that is... non- acceptable for today's predominant american ideology. you know that. republicans brought him to supreme court or whatever and so on and so on. so what i'm saying is that we should just insist on spifique. dem. on this, on that, which may appear, and they should appear, totally innocent. but... we will discover that in order to do this, you will have to do more and so on and so on. we shouldn't be ashamed to appear social democratic. the legend here is syriza. you know, people don't notice that. verouakakis knows this very well that. the program of shirisha. was something that 50 years ago in europe, it would have been not even a radical, but a very modish. central social democracy. and today... so in order to demand today, what? it was part of the cent social democracy fifty years ago you were supposed to be radical left. so let me just now really conclude with a simple metaphor. from what i like, which are all science fiction movies, you know, this idea you are in a room many buttons and you press the wrong button. button and you think nothing, just the light will go on but then the whole room starts to fall apart or whatever. really. i think we should find demand like d. specific demand which may appear modest. but since our system getting more and more ossified in a neoliberal way. if we insist on this demand, more more will appear and so on. so to conclude with the hegelian paradox, hele always emphasized how the truth only emerges through illusion. i would have said... yes, our goal should be radical transformation of society. but if you say this directly, it is meaningless. it means you just sit and wait. no, we should. begin with. mod. dem. with choices which... if you are a radical revolutionary marxist, may appear wrong, illusion.
nancy fraser, i think, published a year ago a wonderful book about how mainstream american feminism was co-opted by neoliberalism. so on. there are problems here. so again, what can we do? we wait for the revolution. okay, we have to be ready. things will explode. but what to do now? here. i claim de. the worst thing is to do nothing, just to wait. you know, we have to be good strategic thinkers. we have to insist on particular issues, but those issues which have a potential to unleash, to set in motion further changes. and we can be here very modest. this is why, with all my criticism of obama and so on. i think that idea of universal healthcare. it was a compromise, i know. but this is maybe one good thing he did. why? because it's a totally acceptable demand. most of european states have it, canada have it, so you cannot accuse him of being communist or whatever. the contract it is obviously something that is... non- acceptable for today's predominant american ideology. you know that. republicans brought him to supreme court or whatever and so on and so on. so what i'm saying is that we should just insist on spifique. dem. on this, on that, which may appear, and they should appear, totally innocent. but... we will discover that in order to do this, you will have to do more and so on and so on. we shouldn't be ashamed to appear social democratic. the legend here is syriza. you know, people don't notice that. verouakakis knows this very well that. the program of shirisha. was something that 50 years ago in europe, it would have been not even a radical, but a very modish. central social democracy. and today... so in order to demand today, what? it was part of the cent social democracy fifty years ago you were supposed to be radical left. so let me just now really conclude with a simple metaphor. from what i like, which are all science fiction movies, you know, this idea you are in a room many buttons and you press the wrong button. button and you think nothing, just the light will go on but then the whole room starts to fall apart or whatever. really. i think we should find demand like d. specific demand which may appear modest. but since our system getting more and more ossified in a neoliberal way. if we insist on this demand, more more will appear and so on. so to conclude with the hegelian paradox, hele always emphasized how the truth only emerges through illusion. i would have said... yes, our goal should be radical transformation of society. but if you say this directly, it is meaningless. it means you just sit and wait. no, we should. begin with. mod. dem. with choices which... if you are a radical revolutionary marxist, may appear wrong, illusion.
Host
but...
but...
Slavoj Žižek
d ! if we insist on them, it will be more and more empty. more. in other words, we should not be afraid to endorse what i ironically call wrong choices, wrong in the sense of naive, moderate demands. but they should be well chosen. by beginning this, we get more and more and more. uh. this is, i think, the only marxist way. that's how i read jacques lacan. who wrote, interpretation is not tested by a truth that would decide by yes or no. interpretation unleashes truth as such. it is only true. inasm much as it is truly follow. this is, i think, what marx meant by his thesis 11. we should not interpret the world. but the truth. interpretation is's not the one which is simply more in accordance with the object. but it is the one which unleashed! change in its addresses and that's why being fully aware of his ideological limitations and so on and so on, i still from what i now support bernie sanders. because it's easy to play the game oh he's naive social democrat, whatever. but he triggered a process. trigger change. reached many people.
d ! if we insist on them, it will be more and more empty. more. in other words, we should not be afraid to endorse what i ironically call wrong choices, wrong in the sense of naive, moderate demands. but they should be well chosen. by beginning this, we get more and more and more. uh. this is, i think, the only marxist way. that's how i read jacques lacan. who wrote, interpretation is not tested by a truth that would decide by yes or no. interpretation unleashes truth as such. it is only true. inasm much as it is truly follow. this is, i think, what marx meant by his thesis 11. we should not interpret the world. but the truth. interpretation is's not the one which is simply more in accordance with the object. but it is the one which unleashed! change in its addresses and that's why being fully aware of his ideological limitations and so on and so on, i still from what i now support bernie sanders. because it's easy to play the game oh he's naive social democrat, whatever. but he triggered a process. trigger change. reached many people.
Host
many think
many think
Slavoj Žižek
will happen there more and more. it's absolutely crucial to. get things moving. and precisely in today's time with the rise of the new right, racism and so on and so on. we should never forget that. what benjamin said that behind every fascism there is a failed revolution. that is to say, this disintegration of today's the mode of manufacturing consent. exploited wonderfully by the. wonderful in a terrifying way, but the populist racist right.
will happen there more and more. it's absolutely crucial to. get things moving. and precisely in today's time with the rise of the new right, racism and so on and so on. we should never forget that. what benjamin said that behind every fascism there is a failed revolution. that is to say, this disintegration of today's the mode of manufacturing consent. exploited wonderfully by the. wonderful in a terrifying way, but the populist racist right.
Host
also, open.
also, open.
Slavoj Žižek
opens up a space. us we use these trench or not? of course, tanks are dangerous. times are extremely dangerous today. there may be a world war, whatever. but we shouldn't be afraid of it because i remain a maoist here. you know, with all problems, withao, my favorite saying, which is now totally unmentionable in china, is, you know. there is great disorder under heaven, so the situation is excellent.
opens up a space. us we use these trench or not? of course, tanks are dangerous. times are extremely dangerous today. there may be a world war, whatever. but we shouldn't be afraid of it because i remain a maoist here. you know, with all problems, withao, my favorite saying, which is now totally unmentionable in china, is, you know. there is great disorder under heaven, so the situation is excellent.
Host
don
don
Slavoj Žižek
there is great disorder today in american ideological machinery. it's our check. thanks very much. yeah.
there is great disorder today in american ideological machinery. it's our check. thanks very much. yeah.
Host
what a fantastic way to end the conference. thank you so much for that. and i'm reminded of... a number of things.
what a fantastic way to end the conference. thank you so much for that. and i'm reminded of... a number of things.
Slavoj Žižek
the... no. no, it was working fine. it was working fine.
the... no. no, it was working fine. it was working fine.
Host
and. okay. maybe my ear went out. anyway, the idea that you fight to open more space and then... and there'll be more space another day.
and. okay. maybe my ear went out. anyway, the idea that you fight to open more space and then... and there'll be more space another day.
Slavoj Žižek
i think it's important also
i think it's important also
Host
100 the.
100 the.
Slavoj Žižek
you you're better off with the mic.
you you're better off with the mic.
Host
it's the 100th anniversary of the easter rising, which they did not think they were going to win or take power, but they knew that what mattered was to act. and it opened up all kinds of spaces. and even in so-called losing, they fought.
it's the 100th anniversary of the easter rising, which they did not think they were going to win or take power, but they knew that what mattered was to act. and it opened up all kinds of spaces. and even in so-called losing, they fought.
Slavoj Žižek
you know who wrote a wonderful text on it? it's an incredible text, short text by len. who said he defended isra rising against all those radical leftists who said, but this is even catholic churches behind and irish nationalism. and lenin wrote a wonderful text where he said, it doesn't matter. it started, it triggered a movement.
you know who wrote a wonderful text on it? it's an incredible text, short text by len. who said he defended isra rising against all those radical leftists who said, but this is even catholic churches behind and irish nationalism. and lenin wrote a wonderful text where he said, it doesn't matter. it started, it triggered a movement.
Host
and i think that's the way we need to think now. and i also like this idea of, you know, there's so many things i'm reminded of in what you were talking about. one is this new study that came out that showed that indians don't actually give a crap what the washington d.c. team calls their football team because it's not all about what white people do. it's not all about what the nfl does in terms of their own identity and how they see themselves. and then also this idea of the pun. film i think this is fantastic. the bunwal film that you were...
and i think that's the way we need to think now. and i also like this idea of, you know, there's so many things i'm reminded of in what you were talking about. one is this new study that came out that showed that indians don't actually give a crap what the washington d.c. team calls their football team because it's not all about what white people do. it's not all about what the nfl does in terms of their own identity and how they see themselves. and then also this idea of the pun. film i think this is fantastic. the bunwal film that you were...
Slavoj Žižek
again.
again.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
no, this was my association when i watched a republican debate. just cheating.
no, this was my association when i watched a republican debate. just cheating.
Host
and, you know, i've heard it said that that if we lived in a society where eating was as repressed as sexuality is, you might have a little bit of loosening up around the edges, but the idea of a restaurant.
and, you know, i've heard it said that that if we lived in a society where eating was as repressed as sexuality is, you might have a little bit of loosening up around the edges, but the idea of a restaurant.
Moderator
would be the most
would be the most
Host
obscene thing in the world, you know, if eating was the way, you know, sex is. anyway, what i'd like to do is open up to the questions. so
obscene thing in the world, you know, if eating was the way, you know, sex is. anyway, what i'd like to do is open up to the questions. so
Slavoj Žižek
how about people back who want to go. i hear some some.
how about people back who want to go. i hear some some.
Host
how folks have you guys self-organized into a line? is that what this is? okay. would you self-organize into a line? and then...
how folks have you guys self-organized into a line? is that what this is? okay. would you self-organize into a line? and then...
Moderator
you know have questions.
you know have questions.
Host
of said, i assume people are gonna. she's not here. she had to leave.
of said, i assume people are gonna. she's not here. she had to leave.
Moderator
question here.
question here.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Moderator
i have a question here.
i have a question here.
Host
okay, great. what's your question?
okay, great. what's your question?
Moderator
um... thank you. i really enjoyed your comments.
um... thank you. i really enjoyed your comments.
Host
they're asking.
they're asking.
Moderator
you want to.
you want to.
Host
repeat the question. if mind you.
repeat the question. if mind you.
Moderator
maybe we should put a light there and have a line so that...
maybe we should put a light there and have a line so that...
Host
yeah, here you go. how about yeah, i'll hold it and you just go ahead and i'll be the microphone.
yeah, here you go. how about yeah, i'll hold it and you just go ahead and i'll be the microphone.
Moderator
i really appreciated your comments. at one point you said, i thought, something very interesting and useful, which is trying to bring together the politics of, i'm not going to get it exactly, but transformation and defending immigrants or refugees. and i'd like you to elaborate on that, because i think many people who are not anti-immigrant, nevertheless would acknowledge that there's an extreme tension. in advancing an agenda of social democracy between being able to achieve some of those goals for a polity while at the same time having to accommodate anyone who may be in need of moving to another country. so if you see what i'm getting at, if you could speak to this very practical tension between meeting the needs of an exploited domestic population while at the same time arguing for the pro-refugee settlement and accommodation.
i really appreciated your comments. at one point you said, i thought, something very interesting and useful, which is trying to bring together the politics of, i'm not going to get it exactly, but transformation and defending immigrants or refugees. and i'd like you to elaborate on that, because i think many people who are not anti-immigrant, nevertheless would acknowledge that there's an extreme tension. in advancing an agenda of social democracy between being able to achieve some of those goals for a polity while at the same time having to accommodate anyone who may be in need of moving to another country. so if you see what i'm getting at, if you could speak to this very practical tension between meeting the needs of an exploited domestic population while at the same time arguing for the pro-refugee settlement and accommodation.
Slavoj Žižek
and your
and your
Moderator
thank.
thank.
Slavoj Žižek
this here, okay, i'm getting into difficult, how do you call it, stormy waters for me, now? but this is why i made a totally crazy proposal. for which i was already physically attacked. militarization. i of course don't mean the army should protect europe. i don't give a damn about that. i always repeat. if there is anything worse protecting. now, if there is... if you. ich. does have some authentic emancipatory legacy, then the only real threat to it are today's protectors of europe. anti-immigrant populists and so on. they are the real threat to you. if people like this take power, europe. the europe of, i don't know, human rights, whatever you call them. i know these notions are problematic. yeah. oh. . it's over. whatang saying? what i'm... what i'm saying is this. i don't know why this was done, but i was shocked. i think it was part of a racist plot. to allow this uncontrolled flow of immigrants. through balkan countries to germany. the result was totally predictably catastrophic. there was paranoia, fear, and rumors were spreading. it would have been so... easy to do something like you mobilize military so that at least they can do something useful. you establish reception camps in turkey, syria, libya. you process refugees, air bridges to europe. it would have been so easy to do this. i still don't get it? right? it happened in such a way, the only explanation i have is a moderately paranoidanoiac one. that somebody really wanted to create this tension. and there are so many other problems. clarify here. for example, to understand the so-called terrorist attacks. and they claim, oh, this is why refugees are a threat and so on and so on. but practically all. if one is to believe the big media, which i doubt more and more.
this here, okay, i'm getting into difficult, how do you call it, stormy waters for me, now? but this is why i made a totally crazy proposal. for which i was already physically attacked. militarization. i of course don't mean the army should protect europe. i don't give a damn about that. i always repeat. if there is anything worse protecting. now, if there is... if you. ich. does have some authentic emancipatory legacy, then the only real threat to it are today's protectors of europe. anti-immigrant populists and so on. they are the real threat to you. if people like this take power, europe. the europe of, i don't know, human rights, whatever you call them. i know these notions are problematic. yeah. oh. . it's over. whatang saying? what i'm... what i'm saying is this. i don't know why this was done, but i was shocked. i think it was part of a racist plot. to allow this uncontrolled flow of immigrants. through balkan countries to germany. the result was totally predictably catastrophic. there was paranoia, fear, and rumors were spreading. it would have been so... easy to do something like you mobilize military so that at least they can do something useful. you establish reception camps in turkey, syria, libya. you process refugees, air bridges to europe. it would have been so easy to do this. i still don't get it? right? it happened in such a way, the only explanation i have is a moderately paranoidanoiac one. that somebody really wanted to create this tension. and there are so many other problems. clarify here. for example, to understand the so-called terrorist attacks. and they claim, oh, this is why refugees are a threat and so on and so on. but practically all. if one is to believe the big media, which i doubt more and more.
Moderator
thank
thank
Host
all
all
Slavoj Žižek
the terrorists are...
the terrorists are...
Moderator
second!
second!
Slavoj Žižek
generation immigrant
generation immigrant
Moderator
hush.
hush.
Slavoj Žižek
parents were already fully integrated. so this is why it's so stupid when liberals are saying we have to enable refugees to get integrated. obviously, there was something deeply wrong. with the type of integration offered to them. because again, what all the terrorists come from well-integrated families and this is their rebellion against their integrated parents and so on and so on. are so again to answer your question just a general answer instead i will have another lecture. and what's so crucial. i don't like it if we put it in these terms, conflict or collaboration of cultures and so on. we will never find unity at this level. i claim our starting point should be this one. we in our societies have our strles. political progressive struggles.
parents were already fully integrated. so this is why it's so stupid when liberals are saying we have to enable refugees to get integrated. obviously, there was something deeply wrong. with the type of integration offered to them. because again, what all the terrorists come from well-integrated families and this is their rebellion against their integrated parents and so on and so on. are so again to answer your question just a general answer instead i will have another lecture. and what's so crucial. i don't like it if we put it in these terms, conflict or collaboration of cultures and so on. we will never find unity at this level. i claim our starting point should be this one. we in our societies have our strles. political progressive struggles.
Moderator
we have
we have
Slavoj Žižek
. the only unity that i see is the unity of a struggle. and didn't this happen? illusory as it was, do you remember tahrir square in egypt? we immediately knew. we are on the same side. when they were protesting against mubarak. we didn't need any of these cultural theory explanations, but how do we know that they mean the same thing as me when they use these words and so on and so on? so, solidarity is the solidarity of struggle. if we abstract of the struggle, if we don't make our struggles the moment of the same struggle. for example, what does this mean concretely? i'm involved in another. what goes now on the west bank? well. palestine. it's an important movement among. palestinians themselves. against so-called honor killings and so on and so on. they see very well that it's not simply israel is a secular progressive country. i think incidentally, israel is now becoming one of the most fundamentalist. religious countries that you can imagine but okay the.
. the only unity that i see is the unity of a struggle. and didn't this happen? illusory as it was, do you remember tahrir square in egypt? we immediately knew. we are on the same side. when they were protesting against mubarak. we didn't need any of these cultural theory explanations, but how do we know that they mean the same thing as me when they use these words and so on and so on? so, solidarity is the solidarity of struggle. if we abstract of the struggle, if we don't make our struggles the moment of the same struggle. for example, what does this mean concretely? i'm involved in another. what goes now on the west bank? well. palestine. it's an important movement among. palestinians themselves. against so-called honor killings and so on and so on. they see very well that it's not simply israel is a secular progressive country. i think incidentally, israel is now becoming one of the most fundamentalist. religious countries that you can imagine but okay the.
Moderator
israel
israel
Slavoj Žižek
and then primitive palestinians. no, not only is the struggle going on among palestinians, but you can see
and then primitive palestinians. no, not only is the struggle going on among palestinians, but you can see
Host
it clearly how
it clearly how
Slavoj Žižek
israel is discreetly helping conservatives. not really. for example, when you have other killings, i was told by my friend, israeli police or controlled palestinian police controlled by israel, they don't really even investigate, they tolerate that. why? now we come to the crucial point. to my point about coincidence between conservative national identities and global capitalism and so on and so on. listen,
israel is discreetly helping conservatives. not really. for example, when you have other killings, i was told by my friend, israeli police or controlled palestinian police controlled by israel, they don't really even investigate, they tolerate that. why? now we come to the crucial point. to my point about coincidence between conservative national identities and global capitalism and so on and so on. listen,
Host
this
this
Slavoj Žižek
strategy of colonialism from the very beginning. colombia
strategy of colonialism from the very beginning. colombia
Host
the't say you should all be kind like ourselves.
the't say you should all be kind like ourselves.
Slavoj Žižek
and eat hamburgers, whatever. colonialism was always, it's much easier to control them by allowing them their own traditional in in india, for example, one of the most terrifying books of all times for me, the loss of man. which prescribes in detail caste system. you know what i learned from my indian friends? before british colonization, this book was half forgotten. it was literally resuscitated by the british colonizers to give a stable traditional system to those that they want to colonize. so again, to cut short, otherwise i will get lost, my point is find the shame str is the only solidarity. and all these other questions about these are what i ironically refer to as unesco questions.
and eat hamburgers, whatever. colonialism was always, it's much easier to control them by allowing them their own traditional in in india, for example, one of the most terrifying books of all times for me, the loss of man. which prescribes in detail caste system. you know what i learned from my indian friends? before british colonization, this book was half forgotten. it was literally resuscitated by the british colonizers to give a stable traditional system to those that they want to colonize. so again, to cut short, otherwise i will get lost, my point is find the shame str is the only solidarity. and all these other questions about these are what i ironically refer to as unesco questions.
Audience Member 2
you know.
you know.
Slavoj Žižek
all of humanity is one wonderful family where each has its own struggle. no. solidarity must be solidarity of str. this is the only actual universalality.
all of humanity is one wonderful family where each has its own struggle. no. solidarity must be solidarity of str. this is the only actual universalality.
Audience Member 1
i agree with you on the return to tradition in our times seems to complement global capitalism as evidenced by modi being a hindu nationalist and a neoliberal, but it seems like there are some movements trying to do it on the left differently, like the kurdish struggle in rojava. they're trying to find a way to mediate a return to cultural traditions while also not giving up on emancipatory projects. and in a certain sense, it's almost like an invented tradition because they take progressive aspects. of their old culture and throw away the bad ones. so what's your opinion on the rojava revolution and the kurdish struggle in that respect? don.
i agree with you on the return to tradition in our times seems to complement global capitalism as evidenced by modi being a hindu nationalist and a neoliberal, but it seems like there are some movements trying to do it on the left differently, like the kurdish struggle in rojava. they're trying to find a way to mediate a return to cultural traditions while also not giving up on emancipatory projects. and in a certain sense, it's almost like an invented tradition because they take progressive aspects. of their old culture and throw away the bad ones. so what's your opinion on the rojava revolution and the kurdish struggle in that respect? don.
Slavoj Žižek
let me be very clear here. i know how careful one has to be with universalism. if you simply oppose universalism to local traditions. then you tend to forget how. every concrete universalism is, as a rule, colored by a certain local tradition, which is why i'm not saying to blacks, forget about your roots, endorse, assume our universalism. my model here is, i mean it with a little bit of irony, but not really. what the independent haiti did in 1804. when they published their endorsed their constitution. they wanted to be on the one hand. uh. they wanted to be a black state. but at the same time, they want to be open to all who helped them, even if they were white. like, you know, the polish napoleon soldiers were crucial. they changed. so, you know what? paragraph you find literally, i will quote it almost literally in haiti constitution. haiti is a black republic.
let me be very clear here. i know how careful one has to be with universalism. if you simply oppose universalism to local traditions. then you tend to forget how. every concrete universalism is, as a rule, colored by a certain local tradition, which is why i'm not saying to blacks, forget about your roots, endorse, assume our universalism. my model here is, i mean it with a little bit of irony, but not really. what the independent haiti did in 1804. when they published their endorsed their constitution. they wanted to be on the one hand. uh. they wanted to be a black state. but at the same time, they want to be open to all who helped them, even if they were white. like, you know, the polish napoleon soldiers were crucial. they changed. so, you know what? paragraph you find literally, i will quote it almost literally in haiti constitution. haiti is a black republic.
Audience Member 1
all.
all.
Slavoj Žižek
citizens of haiti. independently of the color of their skin are black. i find this totally, okay, it's a trick, but it's a totally correct. the problem is that if you don't add this, then your universalism will remain. and it's the same with kurubs. i have connections with them incidentally. my trip was already planned to go what town do they have in northern syria? in northern syria, not in iraq, because i know everything about that politics, more or less. iraqi girk are more. gia orient american why? deep. the enclaves they have, the kurds in northern syria are much more progressive and they already have a small university there. they teach classes and so on. but because of this last round of turkish terror, i had to cancel the visit. so i would say ugh. again, i'm not saying they should erase, but the way they refer to their tradition is you put it like. precisely they reinterpret through modernity there, everybody knows this in turkey. kurds are not some primitive superstitious minority. they you know how nice secular, this was my experience. go to a kurdish restaurant in istanbul. and do something superstitious like ask for a coffee to read your destiny, they will throw you out. i witness.
citizens of haiti. independently of the color of their skin are black. i find this totally, okay, it's a trick, but it's a totally correct. the problem is that if you don't add this, then your universalism will remain. and it's the same with kurubs. i have connections with them incidentally. my trip was already planned to go what town do they have in northern syria? in northern syria, not in iraq, because i know everything about that politics, more or less. iraqi girk are more. gia orient american why? deep. the enclaves they have, the kurds in northern syria are much more progressive and they already have a small university there. they teach classes and so on. but because of this last round of turkish terror, i had to cancel the visit. so i would say ugh. again, i'm not saying they should erase, but the way they refer to their tradition is you put it like. precisely they reinterpret through modernity there, everybody knows this in turkey. kurds are not some primitive superstitious minority. they you know how nice secular, this was my experience. go to a kurdish restaurant in istanbul. and do something superstitious like ask for a coffee to read your destiny, they will throw you out. i witness.
Audience Member 1
they say, no, sorry, this is for you muslims. superstit.
they say, no, sorry, this is for you muslims. superstit.
Slavoj Žižek
they are the most they're not the primitive man. they're the most secular, the most progressive ethnic group there. which is why, and again, it's so sad what is happening to them and people are telling me but they manipulate one. conflict against the other. fuck you what should have done? of course they are doing it.
they are the most they're not the primitive man. they're the most secular, the most progressive ethnic group there. which is why, and again, it's so sad what is happening to them and people are telling me but they manipulate one. conflict against the other. fuck you what should have done? of course they are doing it.
Audience Member 2
even it's very interesting.
even it's very interesting.
Slavoj Žižek
to follow their leader. ochala! who is now in prison. but you know that in prison he started to read foucault again and he took a strong term. towards... feminism? so that now it's wonderful.
to follow their leader. ochala! who is now in prison. but you know that in prison he started to read foucault again and he took a strong term. towards... feminism? so that now it's wonderful.
Audience Member 1
explicit feminism is
explicit feminism is
Slavoj Žižek
part of the pkk whatever country, so he's a weird guy. to add and then i will stop talking, a very amusing detail. you know what happened to me in turkey? this happened a couple of years ago when öcelan already was allowed to read turkish newspapers. a turkish newspaper asked me a couple of questions, which were stupid provocative, so i gave provocative answers. like one question was, what would be the ideal situation in which you would like to find yourself? okay, i sat naked in bed with a beautiful girl and debating with her.
part of the pkk whatever country, so he's a weird guy. to add and then i will stop talking, a very amusing detail. you know what happened to me in turkey? this happened a couple of years ago when öcelan already was allowed to read turkish newspapers. a turkish newspaper asked me a couple of questions, which were stupid provocative, so i gave provocative answers. like one question was, what would be the ideal situation in which you would like to find yourself? okay, i sat naked in bed with a beautiful girl and debating with her.
Audience Member 1
i.
i.
Slavoj Žižek
i. but then... two days later, it's not a joke. ocham from prism. wrote a letter to that newspaper claiming i agree with philosophers, i would also like to be push. thank.
i. but then... two days later, it's not a joke. ocham from prism. wrote a letter to that newspaper claiming i agree with philosophers, i would also like to be push. thank.
Audience Member 1
i mean, what i'm saying is that of course
i mean, what i'm saying is that of course
Slavoj Žižek
not it is a dirty joke, but what i'm really saying is that. don't take kurds as just some ethnic minority there. there is important, not to abandon your particular struggles. but...
not it is a dirty joke, but what i'm really saying is that. don't take kurds as just some ethnic minority there. there is important, not to abandon your particular struggles. but...
Audience Member 1
to give them
to give them
Slavoj Žižek
the right universalist emancipatory because you know... it can also be the opposite. we should never forget that in
the right universalist emancipatory because you know... it can also be the opposite. we should never forget that in
Audience Member 1
south africa, apartheid south africa.
south africa, apartheid south africa.
Slavoj Žižek
those who were for separate development, let's not meet with blacks. where bhutanese were the ones who were directly paid by the apartheid people. i was horrified. this was one of my basic experiences. i remember when there was still apartheid, somebody gave me an official brochure defending apartheid. it was. incredible.
those who were for separate development, let's not meet with blacks. where bhutanese were the ones who were directly paid by the apartheid people. i was horrified. this was one of my basic experiences. i remember when there was still apartheid, somebody gave me an official brochure defending apartheid. it was. incredible.
Audience Member 2
he said something like
he said something like
Slavoj Žižek
list. if we simply in open universal equality democracy.
list. if we simply in open universal equality democracy.
Audience Member 1
what would have happened with all those...
what would have happened with all those...
Slavoj Žižek
wonderful ancient cultures like buschmann, hottentot, etc., they would all become vulgar materialists. technological-oriented consumerist like. i mean, this was always neocolonialism at its best. sustaining racism with extremely respectful elevation of the spirit. spirituality of the other, every self-respecting brit british colonialist in india was always ready to save.
wonderful ancient cultures like buschmann, hottentot, etc., they would all become vulgar materialists. technological-oriented consumerist like. i mean, this was always neocolonialism at its best. sustaining racism with extremely respectful elevation of the spirit. spirituality of the other, every self-respecting brit british colonialist in india was always ready to save.
Audience Member 2
mike
mike
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Audience Member 2
so're so vulgar.
so're so vulgar.
Slavoj Žižek
from the west. we are just care about material goods. i remember one of the most brutal butchers in india. british general at the same time wrote something like when i see an ordinary poor hindu saint, i feel so poor compared to him, you know. there is infinitely more wisdom in him. that's no problem. t. part of the neo-colonialist game today is to immediately, before you even ask for it. to admit the spiritual superiority. of the other, the colonist.
from the west. we are just care about material goods. i remember one of the most brutal butchers in india. british general at the same time wrote something like when i see an ordinary poor hindu saint, i feel so poor compared to him, you know. there is infinitely more wisdom in him. that's no problem. t. part of the neo-colonialist game today is to immediately, before you even ask for it. to admit the spiritual superiority. of the other, the colonist.
Audience Member 2
this question is about political correctness and the dismantlement of the left. one of the most vital components of a vital left would be, say, an anti-war movement. we don't have that anymore in america. and the conspiracy theorist in me says that the push a few years back to allow gays in the military and women in combat roles somehow was a cynical push by the ruling class in order to sort of neutralize the two last remaining groups who could be counted on to be anti-war. how can you protest to be included in war and then the next week protest against war? so essentially the last two groups were swiped away. and somehow, the question i'm asking is, when politically correctness reared its z head, say, 30 years ago in a big way in this country, it was almost reviled by the intellectual intelligencia, say, of the left and of the right, but especially on the left. nowadays we see more and more in its grip. can this be used by the ruling power structures essentially to use tools of like equality or non-judgmentalism to completely disempower the left actually.
this question is about political correctness and the dismantlement of the left. one of the most vital components of a vital left would be, say, an anti-war movement. we don't have that anymore in america. and the conspiracy theorist in me says that the push a few years back to allow gays in the military and women in combat roles somehow was a cynical push by the ruling class in order to sort of neutralize the two last remaining groups who could be counted on to be anti-war. how can you protest to be included in war and then the next week protest against war? so essentially the last two groups were swiped away. and somehow, the question i'm asking is, when politically correctness reared its z head, say, 30 years ago in a big way in this country, it was almost reviled by the intellectual intelligencia, say, of the left and of the right, but especially on the left. nowadays we see more and more in its grip. can this be used by the ruling power structures essentially to use tools of like equality or non-judgmentalism to completely disempower the left actually.
Slavoj Žižek
this is, i know, very hot topic. i may say something wrong and so on, but you know, first let me make some things clear. when i criticize political correctness and multiculturalism, of course! i... i am for multiculturalism in the sense of. in the sense of tolerance, coexistence of different cultures, of course i am for political correctness in the sense of not humiliating others verbally and so on and so on. but i think... there is also another dimension here. what interests me is how, even when political correctness is apparently, progressgressiveive, how you can see the ideological twist. for example, one observation. that i always like to make. how, almost. i've written about this a lot, almost automatically today. the topic of... r
this is, i know, very hot topic. i may say something wrong and so on, but you know, first let me make some things clear. when i criticize political correctness and multiculturalism, of course! i... i am for multiculturalism in the sense of. in the sense of tolerance, coexistence of different cultures, of course i am for political correctness in the sense of not humiliating others verbally and so on and so on. but i think... there is also another dimension here. what interests me is how, even when political correctness is apparently, progressgressiveive, how you can see the ideological twist. for example, one observation. that i always like to make. how, almost. i've written about this a lot, almost automatically today. the topic of... r
Audience Member 1
ethnicism or ethnic hatred.
ethnicism or ethnic hatred.
Slavoj Žižek
interpreted eh? translated into the topic of tolerance. go through. down all the speeches of a text of martin luther king. you will look in vain, almost he never mentions tolerance. the would never have been that blacks, white should tolerate us more black or white. for him, the problem is not tolerance. because by... bite. by formulating it as a matter of tolance. you first in a subtle way cultureultural like it, you know. all of a sudden the problem is not economic exploitation, political rights, the problem is why don't we tolerate black? is it that we project our traumas on them so like look deep into yourself and so on. it all becomes this kind of very fishy. cultural problem this is my first the second problem even more for example i always had a problem with sorry, i always had a problem with karla. of course i'm against harassment. we're dealing with real harassment. but did you notice how often harassment even he clear! class edge against so-called lower classes. i claim that the way, at least in academic circles, fear of harassment works if. let's not allow those who are vulgar and dirty to come too close to us. and i am ready to problematize, although i don't smoke, i hate smoking companies, but i claim it's even something wrong with this obsession of the danger of smoking. i am opposed to smoking. i don't smoke. but this's absolute fear. my god, what they're doing, just smoking and so on and so on. there is something speechless in the sense of harassment almost for me fear of harassment is a forum of intolerante. trilly ming. ne should stay at the proper distance. you know what is de facto harassment today?
interpreted eh? translated into the topic of tolerance. go through. down all the speeches of a text of martin luther king. you will look in vain, almost he never mentions tolerance. the would never have been that blacks, white should tolerate us more black or white. for him, the problem is not tolerance. because by... bite. by formulating it as a matter of tolance. you first in a subtle way cultureultural like it, you know. all of a sudden the problem is not economic exploitation, political rights, the problem is why don't we tolerate black? is it that we project our traumas on them so like look deep into yourself and so on. it all becomes this kind of very fishy. cultural problem this is my first the second problem even more for example i always had a problem with sorry, i always had a problem with karla. of course i'm against harassment. we're dealing with real harassment. but did you notice how often harassment even he clear! class edge against so-called lower classes. i claim that the way, at least in academic circles, fear of harassment works if. let's not allow those who are vulgar and dirty to come too close to us. and i am ready to problematize, although i don't smoke, i hate smoking companies, but i claim it's even something wrong with this obsession of the danger of smoking. i am opposed to smoking. i don't smoke. but this's absolute fear. my god, what they're doing, just smoking and so on and so on. there is something speechless in the sense of harassment almost for me fear of harassment is a forum of intolerante. trilly ming. ne should stay at the proper distance. you know what is de facto harassment today?
Audience Member 1
slightly mon.
slightly mon.
Slavoj Žižek
movies movies make fun of this how. typical white men today, they are of course anti-racism. but then they say, but nonetheless, why do the blacks have to shout so loudly? why do they play that stupid music all the time? den mehr they feel harassed. extra. we are again. at the level of everyday racism.
movies movies make fun of this how. typical white men today, they are of course anti-racism. but then they say, but nonetheless, why do the blacks have to shout so loudly? why do they play that stupid music all the time? den mehr they feel harassed. extra. we are again. at the level of everyday racism.
Audience Member 1
d. every self-respectful
d. every self-respectful
Slavoj Žižek
liberal is of course against racism. but nonetheless, the others should stay. et proper dis. and i went.
liberal is of course against racism. but nonetheless, the others should stay. et proper dis. and i went.
Audience Member 1
go here so far. now, another
go here so far. now, another
Slavoj Žižek
written for you to hate me.
written for you to hate me.
Audience Member 1
even
even
Slavoj Žižek
claim that. don't laugh or shout that racist jokes can play here a moderately progressive role.
claim that. don't laugh or shout that racist jokes can play here a moderately progressive role.
Audience Member 1
because...
because...
Slavoj Žižek
let's say i'm from one race, you are from another. country whatever.
let's say i'm from one race, you are from another. country whatever.
Audience Member 1
how do we...
how do we...
Slavoj Žižek
really communicate with each other. we can play this multicultural games. oh my god, what interesting food you have, what wonderful songs, that bulls. real communication enters when you tell me a dirty joke, when we exchange obsc. i claim i can give you wonderful example from my own country, always repeating. in yugoslavia x. there was no racism. enter. big the was in a wonderful way enacted through racist jokes the way they function. der not. against the other. but when i met a serb mont a bosnian friend, each of our nations was identified with a certain racist clichliche. we slovenes were misers, montenegrins were lazy, bosnians are sex obsessed, and so on and so on. and the point was not this stupid game of, oh, we are not that clichliche, we are much more rich personality. the point was to gladly, ironically assume this identity and make fun of it. so it was a kind of a wonderful competition like. i told a joke against slovenes you know, but through this exchange of obscenities, a wonderful solidarity established itself. and it... i have even approved that these jokes played a wonderful role. the moment in the early 80s that real racist hatred emerged in ex-yugoslavia. digtok disappeared. in. don't don't uh... don't underestimate. the way... it's not just you make jokes. because life is easy. now, sometimes obscene humor. the only way to survive a really terrifying foruation example, you remember the city of srebrenica where there was a big slaughter, practically all of them were killed. now i have a bosnian linguist, a friend. who is doing sociolinguistics. research and he told me something wonderful. that among the survivors of srebrenica. jokes are now exploding. about their own predicate. extremely dirty jokes like... maybe you know it myself. a bosnian guy who emigrated to germany returns to srebrenica and wants to buy a parcel to build a house there. and he asks, what's the price there for? space to build a house, you just should know something. in old yugoslavia and before, were you. by meat. when when you bought meat usually the ask asked you with or without bones. miki de. if you throw in some bones, no? that's the joke. okay the joke is this.
really communicate with each other. we can play this multicultural games. oh my god, what interesting food you have, what wonderful songs, that bulls. real communication enters when you tell me a dirty joke, when we exchange obsc. i claim i can give you wonderful example from my own country, always repeating. in yugoslavia x. there was no racism. enter. big the was in a wonderful way enacted through racist jokes the way they function. der not. against the other. but when i met a serb mont a bosnian friend, each of our nations was identified with a certain racist clichliche. we slovenes were misers, montenegrins were lazy, bosnians are sex obsessed, and so on and so on. and the point was not this stupid game of, oh, we are not that clichliche, we are much more rich personality. the point was to gladly, ironically assume this identity and make fun of it. so it was a kind of a wonderful competition like. i told a joke against slovenes you know, but through this exchange of obscenities, a wonderful solidarity established itself. and it... i have even approved that these jokes played a wonderful role. the moment in the early 80s that real racist hatred emerged in ex-yugoslavia. digtok disappeared. in. don't don't uh... don't underestimate. the way... it's not just you make jokes. because life is easy. now, sometimes obscene humor. the only way to survive a really terrifying foruation example, you remember the city of srebrenica where there was a big slaughter, practically all of them were killed. now i have a bosnian linguist, a friend. who is doing sociolinguistics. research and he told me something wonderful. that among the survivors of srebrenica. jokes are now exploding. about their own predicate. extremely dirty jokes like... maybe you know it myself. a bosnian guy who emigrated to germany returns to srebrenica and wants to buy a parcel to build a house there. and he asks, what's the price there for? space to build a house, you just should know something. in old yugoslavia and before, were you. by meat. when when you bought meat usually the ask asked you with or without bones. miki de. if you throw in some bones, no? that's the joke. okay the joke is this.
Audience Member 1
okay ask, what?
okay ask, what?
Slavoj Žižek
the price of piece of land and the answer is, well, because you know srebrenica is full of buried people
the price of piece of land and the answer is, well, because you know srebrenica is full of buried people
Audience Member 1
ah, do you want...
ah, do you want...
Slavoj Žižek
want want it with or without bones. this is not making fun. the point is that it's still for them so traumatic. that that's the only way to deal with it. too comfortable to say, oh, they suffer, we are all from srebrenica and so on. no, they have to live it and sometimes through obscene drugs is the only way to do it. sorry, i talked too much. .
want want it with or without bones. this is not making fun. the point is that it's still for them so traumatic. that that's the only way to deal with it. too comfortable to say, oh, they suffer, we are all from srebrenica and so on. no, they have to live it and sometimes through obscene drugs is the only way to do it. sorry, i talked too much. .
Audience Member 1
hi, professor, my name is shahid krad and i'm a secretary general of pakistan--us free forum. you see that we are open to listen to anybody, even the character like you, like a secretaryaturday night like professor. it's wonderful. what do you mean by saturday night light? the way i speak popularly or what.
hi, professor, my name is shahid krad and i'm a secretary general of pakistan--us free forum. you see that we are open to listen to anybody, even the character like you, like a secretaryaturday night like professor. it's wonderful. what do you mean by saturday night light? the way i speak popularly or what.
Slavoj Žižek
so. yeah.
so. yeah.
Audience Member 1
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
but nonetheless, can i just and then you can finish your question. remind yourself which people always forget. this i do out of some kind of a shiv duty, but what i really do is write books of over 100,0 pages on hegar. no.
but nonetheless, can i just and then you can finish your question. remind yourself which people always forget. this i do out of some kind of a shiv duty, but what i really do is write books of over 100,0 pages on hegar. no.
Audience Member 1
there's the condition of... the philosopher. and the teacher in western countries like america and europe, who they doing the right job? just like the philosopher, writer, they go against the fascism. physically. do we have enough power to tell the truth? especially as a journalist and as a writer. i just need your opinion and i know you know how to get the editors, how to sell the books, because everything is controlled. so that's my question that in this environment. which is a called. controlled environment by the money. how we can save our innocent thoughts and spread it. and i feel that we are not talking about, we're just talking about just like american in this country. that people hate us. but we never know that why the people hate us. we never try to question it. because that's the failure of the education system, because we don't want to know beyond why the people hate us. because when you support the occupation, in israeli occupation, indian the indian occupation in kashmir,
there's the condition of... the philosopher. and the teacher in western countries like america and europe, who they doing the right job? just like the philosopher, writer, they go against the fascism. physically. do we have enough power to tell the truth? especially as a journalist and as a writer. i just need your opinion and i know you know how to get the editors, how to sell the books, because everything is controlled. so that's my question that in this environment. which is a called. controlled environment by the money. how we can save our innocent thoughts and spread it. and i feel that we are not talking about, we're just talking about just like american in this country. that people hate us. but we never know that why the people hate us. we never try to question it. because that's the failure of the education system, because we don't want to know beyond why the people hate us. because when you support the occupation, in israeli occupation, indian the indian occupation in kashmir,
Slavoj Žižek
right.
right.
Audience Member 1
i don't think so that you will not gain. and when they putting the dictator like mishar to sell their own citizen. and he's giving the lecture $15, $20,000 in this country. and you, professor, i don't think so the professor mich is anything. so this is that. this is a shame for my country. that we have. giving the money in this way in the name of lectureship. to the dictator.
i don't think so that you will not gain. and when they putting the dictator like mishar to sell their own citizen. and he's giving the lecture $15, $20,000 in this country. and you, professor, i don't think so the professor mich is anything. so this is that. this is a shame for my country. that we have. giving the money in this way in the name of lectureship. to the dictator.
Slavoj Žižek
i see a point i don ask many about pakistan, but i know what you are talking about. it's interesting, for example, the western cliché, that unfortunate feeling which i hate with ben king the gandhi. where gina, your founder, he's the bad guy. but every objective indian historian would have told you that nehru and especially gandhi were not so clean in that affair. it's much more complex.
i see a point i don ask many about pakistan, but i know what you are talking about. it's interesting, for example, the western cliché, that unfortunate feeling which i hate with ben king the gandhi. where gina, your founder, he's the bad guy. but every objective indian historian would have told you that nehru and especially gandhi were not so clean in that affair. it's much more complex.
Audience Member 1
i wanted
i wanted
Slavoj Žižek
what i wanted right. to say is... first first, i wouldn't... talk about so much about inos. or whatever you know because if by innocence you mean... staining out. keeping your hands clean that this is for me, these are the people who should be the first to be shot in, if i may put it in my italian way. no, we should be ready to dirty our hands to the end. but another thing i wanted to say. first, when you said controlled environment,
what i wanted right. to say is... first first, i wouldn't... talk about so much about inos. or whatever you know because if by innocence you mean... staining out. keeping your hands clean that this is for me, these are the people who should be the first to be shot in, if i may put it in my italian way. no, we should be ready to dirty our hands to the end. but another thing i wanted to say. first, when you said controlled environment,
Host
it this
it this
Slavoj Žižek
control. rick. let me admit to you some strange things about me. maybe some of you are stupid enough to know my book travel in paradise. you know that the original subtitle of the book was communism after the end of history. and the publisher openly told me, sorry, we don't want to publish a book where the word communism is in the title of subtitle in a positive way. so, okay, maybe i was unprincipled, i made the subtitle from the end of history to the end of capitalism. but how often this... or or for example, some of you may be aware that for over two years now, i didn't appear in new york times. i learned from my spies there, it was, i don't know which israeli lobby or which one, but it was, now i'm even excluded. you know, i'm a good stalinist guy. it's always good to have spies in different committees where they tell you, now i'm excluded from york times, i don't care about that. then i am excluded, maybe you have noticed it, a much weirder exclusion. from london review of books, now and for a year and a half excluded. from from the guardian.
control. rick. let me admit to you some strange things about me. maybe some of you are stupid enough to know my book travel in paradise. you know that the original subtitle of the book was communism after the end of history. and the publisher openly told me, sorry, we don't want to publish a book where the word communism is in the title of subtitle in a positive way. so, okay, maybe i was unprincipled, i made the subtitle from the end of history to the end of capitalism. but how often this... or or for example, some of you may be aware that for over two years now, i didn't appear in new york times. i learned from my spies there, it was, i don't know which israeli lobby or which one, but it was, now i'm even excluded. you know, i'm a good stalinist guy. it's always good to have spies in different committees where they tell you, now i'm excluded from york times, i don't care about that. then i am excluded, maybe you have noticed it, a much weirder exclusion. from london review of books, now and for a year and a half excluded. from from the guardian.
Host
and so on and so on. why the london review? sorry? why the london review?
and so on and so on. why the london review? sorry? why the london review?
Slavoj Žižek
aye!
aye!
Host
don't know.
don't know.
Slavoj Žižek
i only know. dead. many texts which i then published elsewhere. with the great echo. was first sent to them. and i immediately got an answer which was ridiculously artificial, like, you know, because i was often an editor and i know how you get rid of the people.
i only know. dead. many texts which i then published elsewhere. with the great echo. was first sent to them. and i immediately got an answer which was ridiculously artificial, like, you know, because i was often an editor and i know how you get rid of the people.
Host
all sorry.
all sorry.
Slavoj Žižek
the last issue just went into press, now we don't have time. oh sorry, we already have another text on this.
the last issue just went into press, now we don't have time. oh sorry, we already have another text on this.
Host
al right.
al right.
Slavoj Žižek
claim it may be the tension, this is my hypothesis, that is between me and some great old men, tariq ali and so on of the british left. if it's not this, i cannot explain it because again, my spies are good spies.
claim it may be the tension, this is my hypothesis, that is between me and some great old men, tariq ali and so on of the british left. if it's not this, i cannot explain it because again, my spies are good spies.
Host
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
i really get confidential stuff. i get private emails from those people. so i'm not bluffing. what is happening with the guardian, i think it's a mixture. on the one hand, there was around a year ago, a right-wing coup d'etat, masked, of course, as always, through pure commercial concerns. they said too many political comments, we should... we have more comments about lifestyle and so on. so the only invitation that i got from guardian is what is the meaning of your beard? what does it mean? they might prefer for me to write about that. no, i mean what i'm saying here is that. you know, we have at some formal level freedom of press, you can say what you want, but the system works so magnificently how to keep things marginalized. like for example, old story by edward sa.
i really get confidential stuff. i get private emails from those people. so i'm not bluffing. what is happening with the guardian, i think it's a mixture. on the one hand, there was around a year ago, a right-wing coup d'etat, masked, of course, as always, through pure commercial concerns. they said too many political comments, we should... we have more comments about lifestyle and so on. so the only invitation that i got from guardian is what is the meaning of your beard? what does it mean? they might prefer for me to write about that. no, i mean what i'm saying here is that. you know, we have at some formal level freedom of press, you can say what you want, but the system works so magnificently how to keep things marginalized. like for example, old story by edward sa.
Host
how bad?
how bad?
Slavoj Žižek
rarely do you find in our big media, a very simple thing. a precise map of the west bank. with clear delimitation, what is the palestinians really control, where are the settlements and so on and so on. the moment you see that, you know it's over. there will never be if there is not some more radical change, west bank palestinian state and so on and so on.
rarely do you find in our big media, a very simple thing. a precise map of the west bank. with clear delimitation, what is the palestinians really control, where are the settlements and so on and so on. the moment you see that, you know it's over. there will never be if there is not some more radical change, west bank palestinian state and so on and so on.
Host
so you know, the trick is... nope!
so you know, the trick is... nope!
Slavoj Žižek
debt. we don't... learn things. one thing is something is available somewhere there, but it's important what becomes part of home. the public space, common duct.
debt. we don't... learn things. one thing is something is available somewhere there, but it's important what becomes part of home. the public space, common duct.
Host
death.
death.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. maybe even more controlled than ever. i. even my friend, a jewish friend, whodi lord. she made recently an analysis for example, how the media. report there was one text in new york times where they reported about the violence on the west bank. and it was officially and equal dispatch text deploring all violence, but it has a sentence like this. it was a tragic month. you. different verb. i mean, it's incredible what... you cannot imagine the tight control. udi aloni told me that when he invited the palestinian freedom theater group to new york, they asked him for his self presentation. and he said, udi aloni, author of the book, what does the jew want on earth, how do you call that, multiple, what's the term for one state with two nations?
yeah. maybe even more controlled than ever. i. even my friend, a jewish friend, whodi lord. she made recently an analysis for example, how the media. report there was one text in new york times where they reported about the violence on the west bank. and it was officially and equal dispatch text deploring all violence, but it has a sentence like this. it was a tragic month. you. different verb. i mean, it's incredible what... you cannot imagine the tight control. udi aloni told me that when he invited the palestinian freedom theater group to new york, they asked him for his self presentation. and he said, udi aloni, author of the book, what does the jew want on earth, how do you call that, multiple, what's the term for one state with two nations?
Host
two states.
two states.
Slavoj Žižek
bin for binational state. they told him clearly. the word binational should not even be mentioned. they told him clearly, he doesn't... dro! b. title of his book, not any argument. the whole report about that j freedom theater, and it was a big text, more than half a page of new york times, will not appear. so, plus... be aware, you know. how tightly we are controlled, but on the other hand, you know.
bin for binational state. they told him clearly. the word binational should not even be mentioned. they told him clearly, he doesn't... dro! b. title of his book, not any argument. the whole report about that j freedom theater, and it was a big text, more than half a page of new york times, will not appear. so, plus... be aware, you know. how tightly we are controlled, but on the other hand, you know.
Host
what?
what?
Slavoj Žižek
is not as hopeless as it may appear. because, you know, precisely the more things are tightly controlled, the more those in power get panicked and in a more easy way they are going. that's the beauty of censorship.
is not as hopeless as it may appear. because, you know, precisely the more things are tightly controlled, the more those in power get panicked and in a more easy way they are going. that's the beauty of censorship.
Host
that's my experience from...
that's my experience from...
Slavoj Žižek
m. because... a communist yoslav. you know, later. once we published in some small, half-dident journal a poem, which was totally apolitical but one line who were the true fathers of our freedom. we read is between the lines. . ich.
m. because... a communist yoslav. you know, later. once we published in some small, half-dident journal a poem, which was totally apolitical but one line who were the true fathers of our freedom. we read is between the lines. . ich.
Host
something intense
something intense
Slavoj Žižek
birth. this issue of our journal appeared two months before this incident. nobody do care. the issue was forgotten. then at some point some high member of central committee attacked us. you see the paradox? nothing would have happened if they were just... remain shut. but by attacking k. some people even claim that maybe we solicited that because it helped us immensely. everybody was talking about us and so on and so on. so... in a way, we should. thank. no. perfect. tomorrow. our enemy controls the public space the more it is valued.
birth. this issue of our journal appeared two months before this incident. nobody do care. the issue was forgotten. then at some point some high member of central committee attacked us. you see the paradox? nothing would have happened if they were just... remain shut. but by attacking k. some people even claim that maybe we solicited that because it helped us immensely. everybody was talking about us and so on and so on. so... in a way, we should. thank. no. perfect. tomorrow. our enemy controls the public space the more it is valued.
Host
and you know what, on the other hand, you know what my argument?
and you know what, on the other hand, you know what my argument?
Slavoj Žižek
okay. one of the critiques against me that, i appear to be a marxist, whatever, but really i am a right-wing nationalist, whatever, fascist wellists fascism me all the time
okay. one of the critiques against me that, i appear to be a marxist, whatever, but really i am a right-wing nationalist, whatever, fascist wellists fascism me all the time
Host
what i wanted to say is this.
what i wanted to say is this.
Slavoj Žižek
it's wrong! approach because people think that you are doing one thing publicly. and then secretly you are something else. no in intellectual life, the only thing that matters is what you do or say publicly. what you think privately, i don't care. i don't want sincerity. i don want because i claim that again, that was the point of my knowing about poetry and so on and so on.
it's wrong! approach because people think that you are doing one thing publicly. and then secretly you are something else. no in intellectual life, the only thing that matters is what you do or say publicly. what you think privately, i don't care. i don't want sincerity. i don want because i claim that again, that was the point of my knowing about poetry and so on and so on.
Host
people are in.
people are in.
Slavoj Žižek
great! inventive in constructing narratives to themselves which justify the horrible things they are doing.
great! inventive in constructing narratives to themselves which justify the horrible things they are doing.
Host
so you shouldn't ask
so you shouldn't ask
Slavoj Žižek
what in i read. okay, i totally accept. that. das dank. but not... you are not really dead.
what in i read. okay, i totally accept. that. das dank. but not... you are not really dead.
Host
and.
and.
Slavoj Žižek
what! if i privately think something else, so much the worse for me because what matters is what i do publicly not privately.
what! if i privately think something else, so much the worse for me because what matters is what i do publicly not privately.
Host
thank you. i'd like to address the organizers.
thank you. i'd like to address the organizers.
Slavoj Žižek
of this conference, please.
of this conference, please.
Host
so he was talking about racist jokes earlier and how that is good to build rapport with people, but he used a different ending to that.
so he was talking about racist jokes earlier and how that is good to build rapport with people, but he used a different ending to that.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry. why i'm just going to finish off.
sorry. why i'm just going to finish off.
Host
you
you
Slavoj Žižek
egg.
egg.
Host
in a different audience, right? so he was saying yeah. uh last.
in a different audience, right? so he was saying yeah. uh last.
Slavoj Žižek
you.
you.
Host
we were very friendly already, but not really. but then i risked and told him, it's a horrible thing, i warn you. is it true that you blacks, you know, have a big penis, you know? but that would, i'm sorry, do you want to stop? this is for. i'll go for it. bl blazing. so i'm finishing off what he said. is it true that you blacks, know have a big penis? no. but that you can even work it so that if you have it on your leg above your knee and a fly, you smash it.. of. i. i don't know the quote. the organizers that given his racist statements, given his misogynist statements, given his most recent statements against the refugees in europe, how much money was it that you guys paid for him to come here and why is it that you want to bring this kind of discourse to? i'd like to speak to that actually, because i looked at, and a number of us looked at all of the things that critics were talking about, and i have to say, i think that there's certain, and listen, i think you're clear that there's a lot of provocation in the things that you're saying. you say things to be provocative, but edward? yeah,. say that when people accept us. thanks. i. i want to say something. i think there's a subtlet that the critiques are missing and that has animated this entire conversation so far and should continue to animate it. it's been at a really cool level and it's just, this is just not, it's... this kind of critique takes things out of context and misses subtle to look. is context is it okay to say those things? don't read his quotes out of context. what context is it okay to say that? the book. you know the. yeah. ! k! what's about context? you. so he's going respond and you go next? so. okay, everybody down. we're gonna have a response. can i help?
we were very friendly already, but not really. but then i risked and told him, it's a horrible thing, i warn you. is it true that you blacks, you know, have a big penis, you know? but that would, i'm sorry, do you want to stop? this is for. i'll go for it. bl blazing. so i'm finishing off what he said. is it true that you blacks, know have a big penis? no. but that you can even work it so that if you have it on your leg above your knee and a fly, you smash it.. of. i. i don't know the quote. the organizers that given his racist statements, given his misogynist statements, given his most recent statements against the refugees in europe, how much money was it that you guys paid for him to come here and why is it that you want to bring this kind of discourse to? i'd like to speak to that actually, because i looked at, and a number of us looked at all of the things that critics were talking about, and i have to say, i think that there's certain, and listen, i think you're clear that there's a lot of provocation in the things that you're saying. you say things to be provocative, but edward? yeah,. say that when people accept us. thanks. i. i want to say something. i think there's a subtlet that the critiques are missing and that has animated this entire conversation so far and should continue to animate it. it's been at a really cool level and it's just, this is just not, it's... this kind of critique takes things out of context and misses subtle to look. is context is it okay to say those things? don't read his quotes out of context. what context is it okay to say that? the book. you know the. yeah. ! k! what's about context? you. so he's going respond and you go next? so. okay, everybody down. we're gonna have a response. can i help?
Slavoj Žižek
last one.
last one.
Host
guys, guys, come on, our guests wants so for response. question's question from the audience. yes. yeah. go ahead, sir. . that.
guys, guys, come on, our guests wants so for response. question's question from the audience. yes. yeah. go ahead, sir. . that.
Slavoj Žižek
okay. perfect. let could have gone here step by step, for example, on women. quote from bibich, allegedly anti-feminist. what renders a report of a raped woman? or any other narrative of a trauma, truthful, it's very factual unreliability, it's confusion, it's inconsistency. regularly. i'm talking here about i've spoken with doctors who are dealing with victims of rape in in balkan war in the early 90s. the fact is this one that of course, when women are extremely vulnerable, traumatized and they report on their experience, of course, they get caught into inconsistencies as a rule and so on. i point exactly that. the fact that, of course. the woman is traumatized or a man. that if you don't get a perfect cold objective narrative then you... should not hold this against st. because when you are then...
okay. perfect. let could have gone here step by step, for example, on women. quote from bibich, allegedly anti-feminist. what renders a report of a raped woman? or any other narrative of a trauma, truthful, it's very factual unreliability, it's confusion, it's inconsistency. regularly. i'm talking here about i've spoken with doctors who are dealing with victims of rape in in balkan war in the early 90s. the fact is this one that of course, when women are extremely vulnerable, traumatized and they report on their experience, of course, they get caught into inconsistencies as a rule and so on. i point exactly that. the fact that, of course. the woman is traumatized or a man. that if you don't get a perfect cold objective narrative then you... should not hold this against st. because when you are then...
Host
this is all i...
this is all i...
Slavoj Žižek
me that. death. the.
me that. death. the.
Host
arctic impact.
arctic impact.
Slavoj Žižek
demon
demon
Host
stre.
stre.
Slavoj Žižek
from the very...
from the very...
Host
thank you.
thank you.
Slavoj Žižek
then you are caught into it. that you cannot report on it objectively and so on. that. well. anti-feminism is here, i don't see. above quote, is explains that opening our hearts to welcome from imperial will make things worse for the refugees. the idea is not that we should but rather sorry. this is a game. first, i... opening our hearts to welcome refugees. this for me, don stupidity to say in europe.
then you are caught into it. that you cannot report on it objectively and so on. that. well. anti-feminism is here, i don't see. above quote, is explains that opening our hearts to welcome from imperial will make things worse for the refugees. the idea is not that we should but rather sorry. this is a game. first, i... opening our hearts to welcome refugees. this for me, don stupidity to say in europe.
Host
first
first
Slavoj Žižek
you see sentimentalization. sorry, it's not a matter of. what are you talking about? it's a matter of their human, of their basic rights if you love them or not. that is my phone! oh my god, but they are nice people. sorry, they are people like us. ah, you mean if they are not nice, they shouldn't come? no. hence my goal. no they don't need opening our fucking hearts. they need concrete help. and. just opening europe, i repeat this in my book, didn have a blankmate. they need europe to stop doing. interventions in neocolonial exploitation. which is the true source. without doing that, this is what humanitarians like. it's not a problem what we are doing. now we have refugees. we should open our hearts and everything will be okay. well, that millions will come from syria and then everything will be okay. no, it's not that we should leave this issue later. of course we should also do today on a much larger scale humanitarian aid. but what i'm saying is, and this is the example,, what is happening in last week. beneath all this apparent ethnic sh straps. it's usually western companies and so on behind. for example, com. it's not a heart of darkness in the sense of being excluded from international community
you see sentimentalization. sorry, it's not a matter of. what are you talking about? it's a matter of their human, of their basic rights if you love them or not. that is my phone! oh my god, but they are nice people. sorry, they are people like us. ah, you mean if they are not nice, they shouldn't come? no. hence my goal. no they don't need opening our fucking hearts. they need concrete help. and. just opening europe, i repeat this in my book, didn have a blankmate. they need europe to stop doing. interventions in neocolonial exploitation. which is the true source. without doing that, this is what humanitarians like. it's not a problem what we are doing. now we have refugees. we should open our hearts and everything will be okay. well, that millions will come from syria and then everything will be okay. no, it's not that we should leave this issue later. of course we should also do today on a much larger scale humanitarian aid. but what i'm saying is, and this is the example,, what is happening in last week. beneath all this apparent ethnic sh straps. it's usually western companies and so on behind. for example, com. it's not a heart of darkness in the sense of being excluded from international community
Host
there are a few companies.
there are a few companies.
Slavoj Žižek
in the world, more included, more included into international market than today's com. it's a totally ruined country. the that's the tragic. the best thing that could have happened to kongong is with a magic trick, all their mineral wealth disappears. they would be purer, but i can guarantee you all the terror, the nightmare would have stopped and so on and so on. so, what i say is this. instead of asking these more fundamental questions, is this transformation into a problem of opening our hearts and so on and so on? no, again, they don't need our sympathy. they did concrete. from us to help them materially now and especially be to change the situation. and here i think we should ask also unpleasant questions. for example. for example. uh. ugh. what about saudi arabia? why i don't mean this in this simple sense we should not receive the saudi arabia food but listen, isn't this a deep symptom of something?
in the world, more included, more included into international market than today's com. it's a totally ruined country. the that's the tragic. the best thing that could have happened to kongong is with a magic trick, all their mineral wealth disappears. they would be purer, but i can guarantee you all the terror, the nightmare would have stopped and so on and so on. so, what i say is this. instead of asking these more fundamental questions, is this transformation into a problem of opening our hearts and so on and so on? no, again, they don't need our sympathy. they did concrete. from us to help them materially now and especially be to change the situation. and here i think we should ask also unpleasant questions. for example. for example. uh. ugh. what about saudi arabia? why i don't mean this in this simple sense we should not receive the saudi arabia food but listen, isn't this a deep symptom of something?
Host
check sound.
check sound.
Slavoj Žižek
the war area.
the war area.
Host
also.
also.
Slavoj Žižek
irak sh. we have a couple of extremely rich arab countries. let's name them, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar and iraq, which simply don't accept. i take this. and they are... total allies of the west, the greatest abomination. is for me saudi arabia, which is a
irak sh. we have a couple of extremely rich arab countries. let's name them, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar and iraq, which simply don't accept. i take this. and they are... total allies of the west, the greatest abomination. is for me saudi arabia, which is a
Host
same time!
same time!
Slavoj Žižek
reliefless is okay, pretends to be. fundamentalist religious country. but it's really a big mafia financial family. the mother for saudi arabia is a large. family, family with the king as how we call it, couple. cap.
reliefless is okay, pretends to be. fundamentalist religious country. but it's really a big mafia financial family. the mother for saudi arabia is a large. family, family with the king as how we call it, couple. cap.
Host
the.
the.
Slavoj Žižek
we this is what
we this is what
Host
what makes me nervous.
what makes me nervous.
Slavoj Žižek
all the problem is now. oh. europe, are you open enough and so on? but what about all that goes around when people start to change that?
all the problem is now. oh. europe, are you open enough and so on? but what about all that goes around when people start to change that?
Host
ah's go on.
ah's go on.
Slavoj Žižek
the best one. on. ah! this is wonderful. this discusses boko haram. now you will say if you are a racist, i not here at least you will say all those stupid niggers. so. . is it not clear that i hear? imitate what race. books have set.
the best one. on. ah! this is wonderful. this discusses boko haram. now you will say if you are a racist, i not here at least you will say all those stupid niggers. so. . is it not clear that i hear? imitate what race. books have set.
Host
h
h
Slavoj Žižek
now you will say if you are a racist. and then... so i'm mockinged the races. about that. example. f. the take example from radio, probably true. den it. this was an extreme example. yes! but i still like that example. that about you know. you blacks, don't you, your penisies and so on and so on. conious and not only it was not problematic, i will not name him. for the guy black. with whom i was talking. his reaction was that he embraced me and told me now you can call me an. and then she explained to me, this means i truly accept you and so on and so on. it was an extreme example. the only thing i can absolutely guarantee you is that it didn't bother him because i will rather not go into how it was extreme vulgarity. i admit it.
now you will say if you are a racist. and then... so i'm mockinged the races. about that. example. f. the take example from radio, probably true. den it. this was an extreme example. yes! but i still like that example. that about you know. you blacks, don't you, your penisies and so on and so on. conious and not only it was not problematic, i will not name him. for the guy black. with whom i was talking. his reaction was that he embraced me and told me now you can call me an. and then she explained to me, this means i truly accept you and so on and so on. it was an extreme example. the only thing i can absolutely guarantee you is that it didn't bother him because i will rather not go into how it was extreme vulgarity. i admit it.
Host
how
how
Slavoj Žižek
the conversation went. then which boss? you shouldn't have had a him then. the guy
the conversation went. then which boss? you shouldn't have had a him then. the guy
Host
go and. want
go and. want
Slavoj Žižek
you may find you may find it problematic ethically. you don't talk about that. i allow you to say this.
you may find you may find it problematic ethically. you don't talk about that. i allow you to say this.
Host
what time? i that.
what time? i that.
Slavoj Žižek
if there ever was a moment. of non-racism, it was that one. because that's... that's precisely the strength of racism is not. we don't use the n word. no, this is your right liberal anti. and to bless him. thank. that way will be clear to everyone including yes, sir. to the one you are talking to that you don't mean it, that it's not at all in that sense. and that's my problem with this cleansing of language. like, you know, torture torture becomes enhanced interrogation technique. i can guarantee you soon rape will become enhanced sed. i mean sorry, i talk too much, but again, i totally defend. d. i claim that that's how you may find it problematic or whatever. but certainly! is not in any sense racist. a usually politically correct guy who uses all the correct terms, you know, african americans and so on, whatever, never black, is as a rule in the way i know them, much more racist. i know most of them. i.
if there ever was a moment. of non-racism, it was that one. because that's... that's precisely the strength of racism is not. we don't use the n word. no, this is your right liberal anti. and to bless him. thank. that way will be clear to everyone including yes, sir. to the one you are talking to that you don't mean it, that it's not at all in that sense. and that's my problem with this cleansing of language. like, you know, torture torture becomes enhanced interrogation technique. i can guarantee you soon rape will become enhanced sed. i mean sorry, i talk too much, but again, i totally defend. d. i claim that that's how you may find it problematic or whatever. but certainly! is not in any sense racist. a usually politically correct guy who uses all the correct terms, you know, african americans and so on, whatever, never black, is as a rule in the way i know them, much more racist. i know most of them. i.
Host
and
and
Slavoj Žižek
.
.
Host
see when
see when
Slavoj Žižek
a black guy. who is not? part of their excluded act academic domain.
a black guy. who is not? part of their excluded act academic domain.
Host
you can see they.
you can see they.
Slavoj Žižek
sim. they don't communicate.
sim. they don't communicate.
Host
yeah
yeah
Slavoj Žižek
it's another world. i always ask people who are god. bye. are they ready? let me give you another example which is even more brutal. bah. yeah. i was in a car with a guy, taxi driver, who i later learned what? part of that house is called n. the communist guerrilla.
it's another world. i always ask people who are god. bye. are they ready? let me give you another example which is even more brutal. bah. yeah. i was in a car with a guy, taxi driver, who i later learned what? part of that house is called n. the communist guerrilla.
Host
in.
in.
Slavoj Žižek
and he heard me talking with my publisher in english and got it that we talk about soitics he turned through my as a translator publisher and don't me i will show you a picture of gandhi. can you tell? it was the well-known picture of late gandhi. with a big stick and tunic walking from one city to another.
and he heard me talking with my publisher in english and got it that we talk about soitics he turned through my as a translator publisher and don't me i will show you a picture of gandhi. can you tell? it was the well-known picture of late gandhi. with a big stick and tunic walking from one city to another.
Host
now.
now.
Slavoj Žižek
this was an ordinary guy, so i knew exactly what he wanted. because, you know, that's big news for you.
this was an ordinary guy, so i knew exactly what he wanted. because, you know, that's big news for you.
Host
four!
four!
Slavoj Žižek
untouchable in india. they hate us. gandhi's upper class stuff. what gandhi did say to untouchables, you are also children of god. . mind i told him, he's approaching a village, this big stick is a call there, get ready for a boy there to fuck me in my ass. if not, i will have to fuck myself with this stick.
untouchable in india. they hate us. gandhi's upper class stuff. what gandhi did say to untouchables, you are also children of god. . mind i told him, he's approaching a village, this big stick is a call there, get ready for a boy there to fuck me in my ass. if not, i will have to fuck myself with this stick.
Host
he.
he.
Slavoj Žižek
the car, the guy. stop the taxi! went to me, embraced me and said, now we can talk. and then we talked for three hours. not so exchange of dirty jokes. we talk about very serious politics. but you see... that extremely vulgar remark, but sorry, i was among ordinary people and obviously i am one among them, worked wonderfully as an icebreaker. you. i. tbreaker. ex
the car, the guy. stop the taxi! went to me, embraced me and said, now we can talk. and then we talked for three hours. not so exchange of dirty jokes. we talk about very serious politics. but you see... that extremely vulgar remark, but sorry, i was among ordinary people and obviously i am one among them, worked wonderfully as an icebreaker. you. i. tbreaker. ex
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
no what i'm saying is that you see what i meant. he wanted.
no what i'm saying is that you see what i meant. he wanted.
Host
this.
this.
Slavoj Žižek
or that.
or that.
Host
i. i.
i. i.
Slavoj Žižek
he wanted for me a confirmation that i'm not some kind of a white snob or whatever. and again, that's the important thing. it wasn't an opening to main chauvinism or whatever, or homophobia or whatever. no! thank. after that point, our conversation was extremely polite and so on, and i was surprised by the political wisdom of that guy. but obviously he needed this time of. exp a. it's's a bikebreaker.
he wanted for me a confirmation that i'm not some kind of a white snob or whatever. and again, that's the important thing. it wasn't an opening to main chauvinism or whatever, or homophobia or whatever. no! thank. after that point, our conversation was extremely polite and so on, and i was surprised by the political wisdom of that guy. but obviously he needed this time of. exp a. it's's a bikebreaker.
Host
okay thank you very much, professor t.
okay thank you very much, professor t.
Slavoj Žižek
don't say something more wrong, no.
don't say something more wrong, no.
Host
i've just heard they're literally going to come in and arrest us. i would let this go all night. i'm not even kidding. i put it off as long as.
i've just heard they're literally going to come in and arrest us. i would let this go all night. i'm not even kidding. i put it off as long as.
Slavoj Žižek
as.
as.
Host
i don't know, i just hear the man's going to come and they're like physically effective. should we step around?'s.
i don't know, i just hear the man's going to come and they're like physically effective. should we step around?'s.
Slavoj Žižek
donald trump is coming. no.
donald trump is coming. no.
Host
my apologies to those folks.
my apologies to those folks.
Slavoj Žižek
donald trump what people accuse me of. as a liberal hypocrite. i will say, let's leave quickly and then let's complain, but why didn't we?
donald trump what people accuse me of. as a liberal hypocrite. i will say, let's leave quickly and then let's complain, but why didn't we?
Host
ha.
ha.
Slavoj Žižek
no, he did not watch my car. please surprise you, but although i am a fan. thank. why not?
no, he did not watch my car. please surprise you, but although i am a fan. thank. why not?
Host
can you imagine? i.
can you imagine? i.
Slavoj Žižek
i. yeah. patiently listening to another guy forgotten what made.
i. yeah. patiently listening to another guy forgotten what made.
Host
so i'm not a practical. okay? sl.
so i'm not a practical. okay? sl.
Slavoj Žižek
le.
le.
Host
that's a good idea.
that's a good idea.
Slavoj Žižek
no, sorry, i just wanted to answer sorry. i think that psychoanalysis is often used in a total... for example,
no, sorry, i just wanted to answer sorry. i think that psychoanalysis is often used in a total... for example,
Host
i don't's many.
i don't's many.
Slavoj Žižek
life. why? because it enables them to cover the failure of their social analysis. according to the social analysis, proletariat, there should be a revolution. then you ask them, but why isn't there a revolution? and then they say, oh, ask for oh for psychological manipulation or whatever. you know what i mean. there is also a total misuse of try that. i'm. directly. sup by cha. but few...
life. why? because it enables them to cover the failure of their social analysis. according to the social analysis, proletariat, there should be a revolution. then you ask them, but why isn't there a revolution? and then they say, oh, ask for oh for psychological manipulation or whatever. you know what i mean. there is also a total misuse of try that. i'm. directly. sup by cha. but few...
Host
i very.
i very.
Slavoj Žižek
i definitely am not a fraud. in.
i definitely am not a fraud. in.
Host
i think where cap analysis is.
i think where cap analysis is.
Slavoj Žižek
y. you will see, i will know everything is already g. you know drinks some crazy text, american utopia. where he proposes the formula of militarization of society. uh.
y. you will see, i will know everything is already g. you know drinks some crazy text, american utopia. where he proposes the formula of militarization of society. uh.
Host
there he had something.
there he had something.
Slavoj Žižek
very deep, i think.
very deep, i think.
Host
he says this even if he
he says this even if he
Slavoj Žižek
imagine communism. it will not be a harmonious society where we no, he said envy, resentment, jealousy will be the basic absolute problem. hatred will explode. oh. a wonderful youth
imagine communism. it will not be a harmonious society where we no, he said envy, resentment, jealousy will be the basic absolute problem. hatred will explode. oh. a wonderful youth
Host
and i think we should...
and i think we should...
Slavoj Žižek
we should approach these problems. you know why i voted him off. i hate that. but at one point he said something intelligent. when he said, once he was the world change but capitalism is not just life. you work like crazy are done, but because of market fluctuation, you go bankrupt, i prosper. i says, but that's why capitalism.
we should approach these problems. you know why i voted him off. i hate that. but at one point he said something intelligent. when he said, once he was the world change but capitalism is not just life. you work like crazy are done, but because of market fluctuation, you go bankrupt, i prosper. i says, but that's why capitalism.
Host
p.
p.
Slavoj Žižek
because he said, even if i lose. i can always say to myself, yeah, because that guy was loud to, no way work. that a adjusted capitalism. capitalism where only those who really work hardly would become rich, would explode immediately, would be narcissistically intolerant. so it's very, it's a nice insight. and i think that... this is one big mistake. it's a crucial question today and people are so i'm sure, for example david car, i love
because he said, even if i lose. i can always say to myself, yeah, because that guy was loud to, no way work. that a adjusted capitalism. capitalism where only those who really work hardly would become rich, would explode immediately, would be narcissistically intolerant. so it's very, it's a nice insight. and i think that... this is one big mistake. it's a crucial question today and people are so i'm sure, for example david car, i love
Host
let them kick us out if they like.
let them kick us out if they like.
Slavoj Žižek
boss.
boss.
Host
you.
you.
Slavoj Žižek
for nuts. yeah, yeah, yeah, but i don't got a theory about it. i mean sorry, sorry. thank you.
for nuts. yeah, yeah, yeah, but i don't got a theory about it. i mean sorry, sorry. thank you.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
i live in my own world. i read books about hegel, i watched old movies, i download them, probably i should be 10 times arrested on. i theory. about what?. ha. i don't get it. i haven't seen one of the films with myself, perfect guy, none of them. why? no, i i saw immediately. i look at it for five seconds and when i see myself with all my personal teeth and so on, i get disgust.
i live in my own world. i read books about hegel, i watched old movies, i download them, probably i should be 10 times arrested on. i theory. about what?. ha. i don't get it. i haven't seen one of the films with myself, perfect guy, none of them. why? no, i i saw immediately. i look at it for five seconds and when i see myself with all my personal teeth and so on, i get disgust.
Audience Member 3
i just.
i just.
Slavoj Žižek
ha. yeah.
ha. yeah.
Audience Member 3
thanks.
thanks.
Slavoj Žižek
i will be again that. now i will again sorry, sorry, sorry, please.
i will be again that. now i will again sorry, sorry, sorry, please.
Audience Member 3
you talked about aj you've been obviously written about it and you just didn't write. but when you talked, you didn't mention, you mentioned foucault and, but you didn't mention oalan says most no. this guy, murray bookchin. and so i'm going to give you this book as a gift. he's my father.
you talked about aj you've been obviously written about it and you just didn't write. but when you talked, you didn't mention, you mentioned foucault and, but you didn't mention oalan says most no. this guy, murray bookchin. and so i'm going to give you this book as a gift. he's my father.
Slavoj Žižek
oh my god, yeah, really?
oh my god, yeah, really?
Audience Member 3
have you ever heard the name?
have you ever heard the name?
Slavoj Žižek
no, i've heard, but i haven't read... oh my god, yes. what? can i ask you a racist question?
no, i've heard, but i haven't read... oh my god, yes. what? can i ask you a racist question?
Audience Member 3
how
how
Slavoj Žižek
what nationality is this? i r.
what nationality is this? i r.
Audience Member 3
yeah,.
yeah,.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Audience Member 3
can you? thank you.
can you? thank you.
Slavoj Žižek
very much. yes.
very much. yes.
Audience Member 3
sorry.
sorry.
Slavoj Žižek
do you agree on one point? that's my test of all russians. gak i hatein varlam sham is the real one. book on kak. so you need is sentimental blah blah blah, varlam shalom of is the real book, the horror of kak. i think...
do you agree on one point? that's my test of all russians. gak i hatein varlam sham is the real one. book on kak. so you need is sentimental blah blah blah, varlam shalom of is the real book, the horror of kak. i think...
Audience Member 3
do you want me to agree with you?
do you want me to agree with you?
Slavoj Žižek
okay, now i'll put it in my totalitarian way. i give you complete freedom to agree with me.
okay, now i'll put it in my totalitarian way. i give you complete freedom to agree with me.
Audience Member 3
but i am hoping
but i am hoping
Slavoj Žižek
we can continue this outside. no, i have.
we can continue this outside. no, i have.
Audience Member 3
let me out on the street.
let me out on the street.
Slavoj Žižek
rev revolutions happen.
rev revolutions happen.
Audience Member 3
. we'll have to disperse. we may have to leave. that difference is everything.
. we'll have to disperse. we may have to leave. that difference is everything.
Slavoj Žižek
use the. see in bed card much better guy.
use the. see in bed card much better guy.
Audience Member 3
it would be.
it would be.
Slavoj Žižek
in big i.
in big i.
Audience Member 3
it.
it.
Slavoj Žižek
in. for my mother.
in. for my mother.
Audience Member 3
i have been.
i have been.