Slavoj Žižek at 75 – A CelebrationLive In Conversation with Yanis Varoufakis
Interview · Jay Ceee Cuddlybear ·
2024 · 0:59:13 · 7,820 words
hegel-dialecticspsychoanalysisideologycapitalismcommunism-socialismfascism-populismdemocracygeopolitics-warliberalism-political-correctnesseconomicstechnology-ai-cyberspacehistoryrevolution-violencesubjectivity
A live public conversation at the Royal Geographical Society between Žižek and Yanis Varoufakis, covering Hegel's superiority to Marx as a thinker of radical contingency and retroactive necessity, and Lacan's indispensability for psychoanalysing Trump's libidinal appeal. The second half examines the structural failures of the liberal 'radical center' (Obama, Blair, Clinton) that produced Trump, techno-feudalism as a new privatization of the commons of exchange, and the Israel-Palestine conflict through the lens of failed states and internal contradictions. The talk closes on Yugoslavia, warlord feudalism in Sudan and Congo as the underside of Western techno-feudalism, and a Monty Python tribute to Varoufakis.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 18
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The implicit directional logic in Marx (and Rosa Luxemburg's 'socialism or barbarism') that Žižek criticizes as less materialist than Hegel's genuinely open contingency.
Hegel's core insight that historical events occur contingently, not by teleological necessity, opposed here to the implicit determinism Žižek finds in Marx and Plekhanov.
as “superposition of options”
Quantum physics metaphor for Hegel's open historical present: at any given moment there are four or five genuine alternative futures, not a single necessary path with contingent variation.
as “retroactive determination of necessity”
Once a contingent event installs a new order, the past is re-narrated as having led inevitably to it; illustrated by falling in love and by capitalism as the retrospective key to all prior formations.
Freudian: the position that fully enacts desire where hysterics only dream; cited in the context of 1968 activist hierarchies and their hidden misogyny.
Freudian: the 1968 anti-feminist move dismissed hysterical (implicitly female) protesters as not going to the end, while perverts were praised for fully enacting desire, Freud's own answer undermines this.
Lacanian framework for Trump's appeal: his obscenity functions as proof of sincerity at a psychoanalytic level, not merely ideologically, the key that standard liberal analysis misses.
Adorno/Frankfurt School: vulgar sexual liberation from repression produces a more oppressive world rather than genuine freedom, invoked to explain why 1968-style liberation failed.
Lacan (Seminar XVII, 1969-70): not shame as oppressive internalization but as a necessary restraint, protesters who demand liberation without it will get a new, more obscene master.
as “privatization of the commons (new form)”
Unlike old enclosures, digital feudalism privatizes the very space in which exchange happens, so all capitalists and workers must pass through Gates/Bezos's infrastructure, the qualitatively new moment.
His own term for the ground rent extracted by digital platforms (Amazon, etc.) from small producers who must sell through them, the specifically feudal extraction in techno-capitalism.
Freudian/Lacanian: the last object seen before castration anxiety; applied to Trump as the last thing the radical center perceives before it would have to confront class struggle and social antagonism.
as “Trump as fetish figure”
His specific formulation: Trump functions as the radical center's Freudian fetish object, the last thing they see before being forced to acknowledge class struggle and social antagonism.
His phrase for liberal centrist politics (Obama Democrats, Blair Labour, Reeves Labour) that effectively annihilates genuine left alternatives while claiming progressive credentials.
Structural class conflict that the radical center's demonization of Trump serves to screen from view, the 'castration' behind Trump-as-fetish.
His definition: a state that can no longer reproduce itself without openly relying on illegal gangster or bandit forces, exemplified by Israel (Ben-Gvir) and by Western states tolerating Proud Boys.
Varoufakis's concept (explicitly cited and endorsed by Žižek): mega-digital corporations function as feudal lords controlling the commons through which all economic activity flows.
His synthesis: advanced techno-feudalism in the West is structurally coupled with brutal local warlord feudalism in resource-rich regions (Congo, Sudan), not exception but condition of the former.
Stories he reaches for 6
In Lenin's Testament, finding political faults with all other contenders, Lenin's sole truly personal reproach against Stalin was that he was shamelessly brutal and lacked manners, a moral-aesthetic judgment that proved prophetic.
“the only guy he is really against is Stalin. But what's his reproach to Stalin? Just that he doesn't have manners, he is shamelessly brutal.”
A Marxist friend from Congo argued that if all the natural wealth disappeared, Congo would be poor but much happier, contrasted with Singapore which has no natural resources but thrives; illustrates how Western techno-feudalism is sustained by brutal local resource extraction.
“If all the natural wealth mines and so on, diamonds were to disappear from Congo, it would have been poor but much happier country.”
In his 1969-70 seminar responding to May '68, Lacan warned that the protesters' demand for liberation was missing a little shame, and they would therefore get a new master more obscene than themselves, exactly what has arrived with Trump.
“Lacan said something wonderful... they are missing a little bit of shame. The way they want liberation, they will get a new master which will be more obscene than themselves.”
Trump's voters read his lying and obscenity not as disqualifying but as evidence that he speaks spontaneously and sincerely, unlike prepared political professionals, the more obscene, the more authentic.
“When he is caught lying, Trump voters read this as a sign of his sincerity. You know he is not prepared by specialists and so on.”
The governor of Kaliningrad (ex-Königsberg, Kant's birthplace) declared Kant the origin of all modern evils, socialism, women's rights, even the Ukrainian war, taken as absurd proof that Kant is the genuine split point between old and new.
“the governor there said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils: socialism, human freedom, women's rights, etc.”
When a BBC interviewer asked Thatcher why she disliked Blair who had copied all her policies, she replied that Blair was her greatest success because he turned the Labour Party into a version of the Tory Party, structurally explaining why the center-left always loses.
“She said: Yeah, this was my greatest success in my career because he turned the Labor Party into a version of the Tory party.”
Works invoked 6
Philosophy of Right book
Hegel's text; cited for the owl of Minerva passage, thought comes too late, retrospective only, as key evidence for Hegel's anti-teleological stance.
Grundrisse book
Marx's text; cited for the 'anatomy of apes' passage, capitalism as retrospective key to all prior formations, read as non-teleological and proto-Hegelian.
'What have the Romans done for us?' scene used as the structural template for Žižek's closing tribute-joke about Varoufakis's contributions.
Lenin's Testament paper
Lenin's assessment of potential successors; Žižek finds it 'wonderful' that the sole truly personal reproach to Stalin was lack of manners, illustrating shame as a communist value.
Lacan's 1969-70 seminar responding to May '68; the shame/obscene-master passage is the most cited single source in the talk, used to explain both the failure of 1968 liberation and the Trump phenomenon.
Varoufakis's book (referred to as 'your book on techno-feudalism'); Žižek endorses its core thesis that digital platforms act as feudal lords privatizing the commons of exchange.
People invoked 37
Mentioned as one of Lenin's Testament entries, faulted for opposing the October Revolution.
Trump's direct outreach to Kim is cited as unexpected de-escalation, evidence against the view that Trump is automatically more warlike than Democrats.
Slobodan Milošević negative
Called 'a bastard from hell who killed communism in Yugoslavia', the original sin that destroyed Yugoslavia's fragile coalition of unwritten rules.
Kamala Harris negative
Dismissed as a vehicle for neocon war policy; her campaign's insistence that the economy was great while people suffered is cited as the mirror image of Trump's populist success.
Itamar Ben-Gvir negative
Key exhibit for the 'failed state' thesis: convicted by Israeli courts yet now holds the national security portfolio, 'even Hegel would get dizzy' at this irony.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. negative
Mentioned as 'Kennedy' appointed by Trump as health secretary, evidence that Trump fills posts with the most destructive possible figures. ASR inference: 'Kennedy' in this context = RFK Jr., confirmed by cabinet context.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited on tactical class alliances (NEP logic) and especially for the Testament where his only truly personal reproach to Stalin is lack of manners, found 'wonderful' as illustration of shame as communist value.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Frankfurt School's 'repressive desublimation' is invoked to explain why 1968-style sexual liberation produced a more oppressive world; cited as one of 'the best minds' of the Frankfurt School. Diarization note: the sentence introducing repressive desublimation is split across a Žižek turn and an adjacent 'unknown' turn, attributed here to Žižek given content and completion pattern.
Mentioned as one of Lenin's Testament entries, faulted for opposing the October Revolution.
Jacques Lacan positive
Indispensable for understanding Trump's libidinal appeal; Seminar XVII (1969-70) on shame and the obscene master is the most cited single source; Žižek admits he reads secondary literature on Lacan first.
Georgi Plekhanov negative
Dismissed as 'the very bad Marxist' for his Napoleon example, historical tendency plus contingent actualization, exactly the teleological reading of Hegel that Žižek rejects.
Mentioned as one of Lenin's Testament entries, faulted by Lenin for not understanding dialectics.
Žižek knew him personally; from 1985 on Kučan and the Slovenian leadership desperately tried to save Yugoslavia in a modified form and failed.
Donald Trump positive
Analyzed psychoanalytically as Freudian fetish figure whose obscenity signals sincerity to supporters; simultaneously a symptom of the radical center's failure. Žižek opposes simple demonization because it screens class dynamics.
Jill Stein positive
Cited as a legitimate electoral option for those who cannot vote for either Trump or Harris in conscience.
JD Vance negative
Target of Dugin's bizarre Lacanian praise; implicitly part of the Trump political formation analyzed throughout.
Jeremy Corbyn positive
Mentioned sympathetically as someone expelled from Labour who nonetheless faces the structural trap of the UK first-past-the-post system that condemns genuine left parties.
John Bolton negative
Called 'the true madman who is now of course on the democratic side'; wanted to bomb Tehran; Trump firing him when planes were airborne is treated approvingly. ASR note: 'Bolton' clearly identified.
Jeff Bezos negative
Co-cited with Gates as techno-feudal lord; Amazon extracts 'cloud rent' from small producers who must sell through it.
Bernie Sanders positive
Praised for his electoral strategy of targeting poor working-class whites rather than the centrist median voter; correctly stated that more than half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck; nomination was 'criminally stolen' from him by DNC/Clinton.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
The interlocutor; Žižek praises his techno-feudalism analysis, his sympathy for the third world without losing a global perspective, and his personal loyalty; closes with the Monty Python tribute joke.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Accused of needing the Gaza war to suppress mass internal opposition to his Supreme Court coup; cited as openly supporting Hamas financially for years to prevent a two-state solution.
Alexander Dugin negative
Called a 'madman' and 'crazy' Russian ultra-nationalist; cited ironically for claiming Vance must have read Lacan, producing a cartoon-style eye-popping reaction in Žižek.
Bill Gates negative
Cited as exemplar of techno-feudal lords who privatize the very space of economic exchange, not merely individual commodities.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez negative
Mentioned as 'the beautiful lady AOC' about whom Žižek and Varoufakis 'both have serious doubts politically'; should have risked building a third party years ago.
Rachel Reeves negative
Current UK Labour Chancellor; cited as proof that Labour is now a Thatcherite austerity party, having warned of austerity even before taking office.
Joe Biden negative
Called 'Genocide Joe' in reference to Gaza; faulted for celebrating a 'great economy' while people struggled and for immigration deportation numbers exceeding Trump's, cited as co-creator of Trumpism.
Hillary Clinton negative
The DNC and Clinton 'criminally stole' the nomination from Sanders; Sanders's subsequent endorsement of Clinton is described as a mistake.
Rosa Luxemburg positive
Her 'socialism or barbarism' is cited approvingly as a break from simple determinism, but Žižek pushes further: Stalinist 'socialist barbarism' showed even this formulation was inadequate.
Cited for the revealing anecdote that Blair turning Labour into a Tory Party was her greatest success, structurally illustrating the impossibility of radical-center electoral logic.
Barack Obama negative
Identified (in analysis Žižek affirms: 'yes, yes, precisely') as the proximate cause of Trump, bailed out banks while imposing austerity on voters, appointing Summers and Geithner; 'Trump is a symptom of Obama.'
Cited twice: Lenin's Testament reproaches him for shameless brutality; a Stalin paradox ('both deviations are equally bad, but both are worst') is noted as a 'nice paradox' despite Žižek explicitly disavowing Stalinism.
Karl Marx positive
Endorsed at his best moments (Grundrisse's anatomy of apes) but criticized for residual teleological determinism; Žižek finds Hegel's materialism more radical.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for the fetish concept (applied to Trump), for the hysteria/perversion distinction (applied to 1968 activism), and for the insight that the unconscious is most repressed in hysteria.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Central philosophical reference throughout: more materialist than Marx because he refuses teleology and insists on radical contingency; Philosophy of Right's owl of Minerva and retroactive necessity are his key citations.
Immanuel Kant positive
Identified as the genuine historical split point, the Kaliningrad governor's absurd denunciation of Kant as source of all modern evils is taken as proof of Kant's true radical significance.
Tony Blair negative
Exemplifies the radical center: by adopting Thatcher's policies he made Labour a Tory clone, providing voters no rational reason to prefer Labour over the real thing.
Transcript 81 turns
unknown
Good evening. Welcome to the Royal Geographical Society, which I'm very pleased to note is still going strong in the era of Google Maps. A delicious anachronism, a radical piece of conservatism, which is the best venue given the subject matter, the subject of tonight's celebration of Zizek at himself a piece of remarkable, brilliant, marvelous radical anachronism, a moderately conservative communist as he calls himself, juxtaposing himself to what I called myself once, a libertarian communist just to confuse both libertarians and communists. You know Slavoj, you know the brilliance that oozes out of his mouth, out of his books. You don't need me to say any of this, but there is an aspect of Slavoj, which I'm sure he's going to hate me for recounting, which you don't, and that is Slavoj as a genuine loyal friend. Independently of whether he agrees with you or not, we've had clashes, we've disagreed, we've nearly hit each other. But I can tell you that behind this facade of the person who is suffering from serious verbal diarrhea, audacity, and political incorrectness, and all that, behind that, there is a genuine sweetie pie. And I know this from personal experience and I want to thank you Slavoj for this. Enough said on this. A living contradiction. A Hegelian has to be a living contradiction because contradiction is what fuels Slavoj. Slavoj, come to the stage. Let's have a warm welcome. I thought we should start with right at the beginning because Slavoj has three fixations in life: Hegel, Hegel, and Hegel. And therefore it's a grand another grand contradiction that he is so celebrated in this country. And I say this because in this country if you ever study philosophy in any of the universities, they start with the ancient Greeks, then they move on to the Middle Ages, then they jump to Immanuel Kant, and then from Kant they go to Bertrand Russell, always bypassing Hegel because from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic analytical philosophy, Hegel was the epitome of muddled thinking. So how come you're so celebrated as a Hegelian in a country which doesn't give a damn about Hegel?
Good evening. Welcome to the Royal Geographical Society, which I'm very pleased to note is still going strong in the era of Google Maps. A delicious anachronism, a radical piece of conservatism, which is the best venue given the subject matter, the subject of tonight's celebration of Zizek at himself a piece of remarkable, brilliant, marvelous radical anachronism, a moderately conservative communist as he calls himself, juxtaposing himself to what I called myself once, a libertarian communist just to confuse both libertarians and communists. You know Slavoj, you know the brilliance that oozes out of his mouth, out of his books. You don't need me to say any of this, but there is an aspect of Slavoj, which I'm sure he's going to hate me for recounting, which you don't, and that is Slavoj as a genuine loyal friend. Independently of whether he agrees with you or not, we've had clashes, we've disagreed, we've nearly hit each other. But I can tell you that behind this facade of the person who is suffering from serious verbal diarrhea, audacity, and political incorrectness, and all that, behind that, there is a genuine sweetie pie. And I know this from personal experience and I want to thank you Slavoj for this. Enough said on this. A living contradiction. A Hegelian has to be a living contradiction because contradiction is what fuels Slavoj. Slavoj, come to the stage. Let's have a warm welcome. I thought we should start with right at the beginning because Slavoj has three fixations in life: Hegel, Hegel, and Hegel. And therefore it's a grand another grand contradiction that he is so celebrated in this country. And I say this because in this country if you ever study philosophy in any of the universities, they start with the ancient Greeks, then they move on to the Middle Ages, then they jump to Immanuel Kant, and then from Kant they go to Bertrand Russell, always bypassing Hegel because from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic analytical philosophy, Hegel was the epitome of muddled thinking. So how come you're so celebrated as a Hegelian in a country which doesn't give a damn about Hegel?
Slavoj Žižek
Good point. Where I would, as you hinted at, but in a way that you would agree, where I would maybe a little bit disagree is Kant is has two faces. It's more complex. For example, crazy things like this give me seriously an intellectual orgasm which with my age it's maybe better than common one. At least, did you read a small note in news, it was reported. You know that Kaliningrad, ex-Königsberg. Yeah, there is a little anomaly. Yeah, they have a governor there. And he recently said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils: socialism, human freedom, women's rights, etc. and etc. that Kant is ultimately responsible for the Ukrainian war. So I think that Kant is the point of split. So why from Kant to Hegel? Because, I will not go into detail just to be really brief, which is very difficult for me. I wonder if you agree, for me paradoxically, it may sound crazy but in some sense my crazy sense, Hegel is in some sense, I repeat it, more materialist than Marx. What you find in Marx is still an implicit let's call it teleology. Maybe there will be socialism, maybe not, but we may be guilty if there will be no socialism, we can screw it up, but history there is a general sense of orientation. Or as Rosa
Good point. Where I would, as you hinted at, but in a way that you would agree, where I would maybe a little bit disagree is Kant is has two faces. It's more complex. For example, crazy things like this give me seriously an intellectual orgasm which with my age it's maybe better than common one. At least, did you read a small note in news, it was reported. You know that Kaliningrad, ex-Königsberg. Yeah, there is a little anomaly. Yeah, they have a governor there. And he recently said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils: socialism, human freedom, women's rights, etc. and etc. that Kant is ultimately responsible for the Ukrainian war. So I think that Kant is the point of split. So why from Kant to Hegel? Because, I will not go into detail just to be really brief, which is very difficult for me. I wonder if you agree, for me paradoxically, it may sound crazy but in some sense my crazy sense, Hegel is in some sense, I repeat it, more materialist than Marx. What you find in Marx is still an implicit let's call it teleology. Maybe there will be socialism, maybe not, but we may be guilty if there will be no socialism, we can screw it up, but history there is a general sense of orientation. Or as Rosa
unknown
Luxemburg put it: the future will be socialist or barbarian. Not the same thing. Because when you
Luxemburg put it: the future will be socialist or barbarian. Not the same thing. Because when you
Slavoj Žižek
say that it will be barbarian, this is not a sense of improvement, it's exactly the opposite. So I thought that Rosa Luxemburg was breaking from this deterministic... Yes, but where I don't agree with her... No, but every good Marxist would say this. But I have another problem. When she says this, but what about what happened in Stalinism which was socialist barbarism? It was something new. But what's my point of Hegel is that if there ever... if you want to hear more about this, read my books. If there ever was a philosopher of contingency, totally open to the future, it's Hegel. Hegel is not a determinist. You know in for example his Philosophy of Right, he says thought always comes too late, like the owl of Minerva. He strictly prohibits any speculations about the truth at each moment. That's I think the deepest insight of Hegel. At each moment we retroactively reconstruct the past. Not in a magical sense. But, and today we are I think in such a position. If new authoritarianism will prevail, socialism will be just a blind alley and so on. So we have like in quantum physics a superposition of four or five options and this is what fascinates me in Hegel. Again, it's not just necessity and contingency in the sense of there is a general necessity but then it actualizes itself in a contingent way. Plekhanov, the very bad Marxist for me, used here the example of Napoleon. There was a tendency towards imperial order in France, it was contingency that Napoleon did it. I think Hegel's point is to a large extent the exact opposite. Something happens contingently and retroactively when a new order is imposed it's read as necessary. Let me give you my own pathetic example, although I've written a lot about it in politics and so on. Let's say you fall in love in the old-fashioned way, which is today almost considered oblivious. In the only way. Sorry? In the only way. In the only way, yes. I don't go into details. But what happens is that it may be totally contingent, like this stupid, you know, you walk on the street, stop for stupidity, you slip on a banana peel, a lady comes, helps you up. Ah, it's the love of your life. But once you are in it, you automatically reinterpret all the past as leading to this point. And Marx at his best moments knew this. You know the famous line from Grundrisse that capitalism... that in the same way that only the anatomy of man provides the key for the anatomy of apes, capitalism provides the key for all previous social formations. This is not teleological determinism. It's totally clear from Marx. Capitalism emerged in a contingent way, it could have not happened. But once it's there... Sorry? We only understood the Bronze Age when we shifted to the Iron Age. Yeah, same thing. Yeah, and this I think again is Hegel at his best. Another thing. You know I understand why you are Hegelian because I am Hegelian. What I don't understand, and I will never understand, why do I need Lacan? Why do I need Lacan? Because the way I refer to him, whom I've never managed to understand and I'm never going to start unless you explain, why do I need Lacan to understand the exercise and pattern of power? First, don't you agree many people with whom I otherwise don't agree, not you, they make it clear that even Althusser, Balibar, I don't agree with them of course, but they made this clear that don't you think that Marx didn't really understand political power? Something is missing there to understand state power and so on in Marx. But why is Lacan the one who is going to illuminate to us? I mean Freud, I understand. The whole concept of the manifestation of desire... Today, the crucial insight, absolutely crucial today, people tend to forget it, is when Freud says, I remember I'm a little bit older than you probably, so I was there very young at '68, and I remember the hidden anti-feminism. The idea of young protesters was we are against hysteria, hysterical subjects, read between the lines women, they just protest, they don't really go to the end, while perverts go to the end. They realize what hysterics only dream about. Freud
say that it will be barbarian, this is not a sense of improvement, it's exactly the opposite. So I thought that Rosa Luxemburg was breaking from this deterministic... Yes, but where I don't agree with her... No, but every good Marxist would say this. But I have another problem. When she says this, but what about what happened in Stalinism which was socialist barbarism? It was something new. But what's my point of Hegel is that if there ever... if you want to hear more about this, read my books. If there ever was a philosopher of contingency, totally open to the future, it's Hegel. Hegel is not a determinist. You know in for example his Philosophy of Right, he says thought always comes too late, like the owl of Minerva. He strictly prohibits any speculations about the truth at each moment. That's I think the deepest insight of Hegel. At each moment we retroactively reconstruct the past. Not in a magical sense. But, and today we are I think in such a position. If new authoritarianism will prevail, socialism will be just a blind alley and so on. So we have like in quantum physics a superposition of four or five options and this is what fascinates me in Hegel. Again, it's not just necessity and contingency in the sense of there is a general necessity but then it actualizes itself in a contingent way. Plekhanov, the very bad Marxist for me, used here the example of Napoleon. There was a tendency towards imperial order in France, it was contingency that Napoleon did it. I think Hegel's point is to a large extent the exact opposite. Something happens contingently and retroactively when a new order is imposed it's read as necessary. Let me give you my own pathetic example, although I've written a lot about it in politics and so on. Let's say you fall in love in the old-fashioned way, which is today almost considered oblivious. In the only way. Sorry? In the only way. In the only way, yes. I don't go into details. But what happens is that it may be totally contingent, like this stupid, you know, you walk on the street, stop for stupidity, you slip on a banana peel, a lady comes, helps you up. Ah, it's the love of your life. But once you are in it, you automatically reinterpret all the past as leading to this point. And Marx at his best moments knew this. You know the famous line from Grundrisse that capitalism... that in the same way that only the anatomy of man provides the key for the anatomy of apes, capitalism provides the key for all previous social formations. This is not teleological determinism. It's totally clear from Marx. Capitalism emerged in a contingent way, it could have not happened. But once it's there... Sorry? We only understood the Bronze Age when we shifted to the Iron Age. Yeah, same thing. Yeah, and this I think again is Hegel at his best. Another thing. You know I understand why you are Hegelian because I am Hegelian. What I don't understand, and I will never understand, why do I need Lacan? Why do I need Lacan? Because the way I refer to him, whom I've never managed to understand and I'm never going to start unless you explain, why do I need Lacan to understand the exercise and pattern of power? First, don't you agree many people with whom I otherwise don't agree, not you, they make it clear that even Althusser, Balibar, I don't agree with them of course, but they made this clear that don't you think that Marx didn't really understand political power? Something is missing there to understand state power and so on in Marx. But why is Lacan the one who is going to illuminate to us? I mean Freud, I understand. The whole concept of the manifestation of desire... Today, the crucial insight, absolutely crucial today, people tend to forget it, is when Freud says, I remember I'm a little bit older than you probably, so I was there very young at '68, and I remember the hidden anti-feminism. The idea of young protesters was we are against hysteria, hysterical subjects, read between the lines women, they just protest, they don't really go to the end, while perverts go to the end. They realize what hysterics only dream about. Freud
unknown
gave a proper answer to this, which is nowhere is the unconscious more repressed, more inaccessible than in hysteria. And the best minds of Frankfurt School like Adorno were fully aware of this when they introduced a crucial notion of repressive
gave a proper answer to this, which is nowhere is the unconscious more repressed, more inaccessible than in hysteria. And the best minds of Frankfurt School like Adorno were fully aware of this when they introduced a crucial notion of repressive
Slavoj Žižek
desublimation. You desublimate
desublimation. You desublimate
unknown
in the common sense, do whatever you want vulgarly and so on, but the result is a nightmare, a much more oppressive world. Now to be very short, so that I don't get lost,
in the common sense, do whatever you want vulgarly and so on, but the result is a nightmare, a much more oppressive world. Now to be very short, so that I don't get lost,
Slavoj Žižek
I will make a mega quick jump here. You
I will make a mega quick jump here. You
unknown
want to know why Lacan? To understand Trump, you should... Okay, explain to me why Lacan illuminates Trump. I cannot, not you, we are on the same side here of course. So
want to know why Lacan? To understand Trump, you should... Okay, explain to me why Lacan illuminates Trump. I cannot, not you, we are on the same side here of course. So
Slavoj Žižek
when I take power, the people, that's me, don't worry, you don't go to Gulag, just a two days of reeducation. He's going to send me to the Gulag. He will send me to the Gulag but he will visit me often. No, no. I have precise plans. No, sorry,
when I take power, the people, that's me, don't worry, you don't go to Gulag, just a two days of reeducation. He's going to send me to the Gulag. He will send me to the Gulag but he will visit me often. No, no. I have precise plans. No, sorry,
unknown
let's go on to Lacan. To Lacan here, yes. I... how could leftists, stupid leftists, not you, be so really stupid as to repeat the same mistake. You know they thought now we have caught Trump as it were with his pants down. He was caught lying, obscenities and so on. But
let's go on to Lacan. To Lacan here, yes. I... how could leftists, stupid leftists, not you, be so really stupid as to repeat the same mistake. You know they thought now we have caught Trump as it were with his pants down. He was caught lying, obscenities and so on. But
Slavoj Žižek
that's how Trump... he never loses votes because of being caught lying. I read a friend sent me from United States a wonderful analysis why people vote for Trump. They claim and at a point they are right, Kamala Harris and Democrats don't speak spontaneously, they give prepared answers and so on, while they say Trump looks sincere. And then if you analyze it closely, there are two proofs of this sincerity. That he is obscene, dirty, indescribable filth, what he is saying. And even me, a well-known tasteless guy, I... I am embarrassed here to repeat some of for example Trump's remarks about Kamala Harris. And that's the surprise. When he is caught lying, Trump voters read this as a sign of his sincerity. You know he is not prepared by specialists and so on. So the paradox for me is this one and here Lacan enters that you know to understand Trump you have to take into account at a libidinal level, psychoanalytic, this tension. Officially he proclaims I am a fundamentalist Christian, neoconservative, moral values and so on, and the enemy is what he calls postmodernism, historicist relativism, inconsistency
that's how Trump... he never loses votes because of being caught lying. I read a friend sent me from United States a wonderful analysis why people vote for Trump. They claim and at a point they are right, Kamala Harris and Democrats don't speak spontaneously, they give prepared answers and so on, while they say Trump looks sincere. And then if you analyze it closely, there are two proofs of this sincerity. That he is obscene, dirty, indescribable filth, what he is saying. And even me, a well-known tasteless guy, I... I am embarrassed here to repeat some of for example Trump's remarks about Kamala Harris. And that's the surprise. When he is caught lying, Trump voters read this as a sign of his sincerity. You know he is not prepared by specialists and so on. So the paradox for me is this one and here Lacan enters that you know to understand Trump you have to take into account at a libidinal level, psychoanalytic, this tension. Officially he proclaims I am a fundamentalist Christian, neoconservative, moral values and so on, and the enemy is what he calls postmodernism, historicist relativism, inconsistency
unknown
and so on. He doesn't know these words. He doesn't know
and so on. He doesn't know these words. He doesn't know
Slavoj Žižek
but he is at least it comes out of his but he's helped at at the word postmodernism. I'm not sure if he can come out of it. But by great Russian philosophers, I mean it ironically. You know I quoted somewhere that the real guy, madman, Alexander Dugin. Yeah, he praises Trump and especially Vance. In his crazy reading of Lacan, he said, my reaction was like you know in cartoons when Tom or Jerry see something, your eyes blow out and so on. He said Vance is doing such a wonderful, J.D. Vance, Lacanian intervention that probably he must have read Lacan. So what I'm saying is that that is the key to Trump. But in the mode he functions as a person. Can you imagine a more radical caricatural version of let's say postmodernism? Kitsch, lies, is inconsistent and so on and so on. So something really new, a new form of not just of argumentation, Trump doesn't really argue, but of how political subjectivity functions and so on. Here you need somebody like Lacan to see what, to see that liberation, sexual, libidinal, is not simply open up yourself, your repressed desires and so on. If you do that, it can be even worse. Not to be too long, I advise you to read, I rediscovered now and I'm more stupid than you, which means when I say Lacan it's like Hegel. I always begin with reading good interpretations and then maybe I read Lacan. But in his seminar from '69-'70, his reaction to '68, Lacan said something wonderful. He says protesters are missing something in their demand for sexual liberation and so on, they are missing a little bit of shame. The way they want liberation, they will get a new master which will be more obscene than themselves. And that's what we are getting today. That's why I wonder if you agree with this. Yes, privately I am obscene, we make jokes, but you know in what age we live. When I was young, I'm older than you, so before, do you remember the typical leftist strategy was do obscene gestures, say dirty words to those in power who pretend to be dignified and so on? While we protest... while those in power pretend to be dignified and so on. But now it's almost the opposite. It's those in power who are doing unimaginable things. So I think the lesson of psychoanalysis today is not get rid of repression, but shame. Not shame as a sign of oppression, like I'm ashamed of my dirty dreams, but shame in what sense? Here I hope we have the same position. I'm very critical here and there about Lenin. But did people notice something which I find wonderful? We know all old Marxists, Lenin's Testament. You know he goes through all the contenders for the highest post, etc. Bukharin doesn't understand dialectic, Kamenev, Zinoviev were against October, so he finds some political fault in everyone. But then the only guy he is really against is Stalin. But what's his reproach to Stalin? Just that he doesn't have manners, he is shamelessly brutal and so on. It's I find this wonderful this... He wasn't wrong. Sorry? He wasn't wrong, he extrapolated from basic human behavior... Yeah, what he would do when he was an absolute dictator. But as communists, yeah, I introduced you as a reasonably or moderately conservative communist, that's what you call yourself. Okay, but as communists, let's play at the same level here, because I noticed we were both in Germany and so on. Do you know that I always remember when I look at your and also my fate? I also had, not as big as you, but some trouble after last year's Frankfurt Book Fair. That moderately conservative mass media, I can publish there things which these fake progressive, left-center media never publish. Never publish. Yeah, the radical center that effectively tries to annihilate people like me and you. Yeah, so in but let's go back to communism, right? We're both communists. Strangely, very odd. Not socialists but communists. Yeah, hugely contradictory communists, you know, and reluctant communists. Yeah, but because the situation... but okay, in your communism, yeah, what happens to Google, Meta, and Mercedes-Benz? What do we do with them? Let's say you are the leader guy. Okay, now you want to be evil. I'm in the Gulag, you're on the street. Fine, what do we do about Google, Meta, Amazon, Mercedes-Benz, Alstom? If it's still alive. It is absolutely clear that although I am not able here I should learn from you that we absolutely have to establish some sort of social control to use your terms, defeudalize them. Because here we come to your topic of feudalism. Would you agree with me here? My key, where I reading your stuff, not only this book, you were using this term for neofeudalism, techno-feudalism, is that the key of this new mega-corporative capitalism, digital and so on, is that it's a new form of the privatization of commons. But not the old style where what was common one capitalist grabbed this, the other that. No, take Bill Gates, take Jeff Bezos and so on, the very space in which even capitalists and workers and so on exchange stuff is controlled by them. That's the feudal moment. I and so I agree with you and now I ask you a question. Aha, opposing! In your book on techno-feudalism, you even give a hint, and I would say why not, that at a tactical level, maybe at some point, the left should even risk a tactical alliance with some small capitalists against the big corporations and so on. I shouldn't be afraid of this. That's Lenin too. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, precisely. Although let's say, if you're a small-scale capitalist producing electric bicycles and you're selling them through Amazon.com or any of these platforms, you know, Jeff Bezos is taking of the price. So essentially you pay ground rent, cloud rent I call it, to the techno-feudal lord. So there is scope for an alliance, but of course the alliance needs a political party too that's going to be the vanguard. And we don't have, we don't have the Labor Party here as such. No, the let's I wouldn't you agree with, now I will now be really evil in that. United Kingdom now has a big radical center party which is more oriented towards the right, but right-center, and it's called Labor Party. They have, they have, they have the proper Thatcherite party in government now because Rachel Reeves, the moment even before she was elected, dared to say to you folks, warn you of the austerity which is now imposing on you that the contrast to the beautiful lady AOC with about whom we both have serious doubts politically. But that you said that she already when did she begin eight, ten years ago then, she should have risked a third party. The big problem with Democrats among others is that they all the time focus on this fear if we move too much to the right we will lose the centrist workers. But I think... The left, if we move too much to the left. To the left, yeah, we will lose but Bernie already fifteen years or how much ago gave a proper answer to this. I find it ingenious. He said: No, our target
but he is at least it comes out of his but he's helped at at the word postmodernism. I'm not sure if he can come out of it. But by great Russian philosophers, I mean it ironically. You know I quoted somewhere that the real guy, madman, Alexander Dugin. Yeah, he praises Trump and especially Vance. In his crazy reading of Lacan, he said, my reaction was like you know in cartoons when Tom or Jerry see something, your eyes blow out and so on. He said Vance is doing such a wonderful, J.D. Vance, Lacanian intervention that probably he must have read Lacan. So what I'm saying is that that is the key to Trump. But in the mode he functions as a person. Can you imagine a more radical caricatural version of let's say postmodernism? Kitsch, lies, is inconsistent and so on and so on. So something really new, a new form of not just of argumentation, Trump doesn't really argue, but of how political subjectivity functions and so on. Here you need somebody like Lacan to see what, to see that liberation, sexual, libidinal, is not simply open up yourself, your repressed desires and so on. If you do that, it can be even worse. Not to be too long, I advise you to read, I rediscovered now and I'm more stupid than you, which means when I say Lacan it's like Hegel. I always begin with reading good interpretations and then maybe I read Lacan. But in his seminar from '69-'70, his reaction to '68, Lacan said something wonderful. He says protesters are missing something in their demand for sexual liberation and so on, they are missing a little bit of shame. The way they want liberation, they will get a new master which will be more obscene than themselves. And that's what we are getting today. That's why I wonder if you agree with this. Yes, privately I am obscene, we make jokes, but you know in what age we live. When I was young, I'm older than you, so before, do you remember the typical leftist strategy was do obscene gestures, say dirty words to those in power who pretend to be dignified and so on? While we protest... while those in power pretend to be dignified and so on. But now it's almost the opposite. It's those in power who are doing unimaginable things. So I think the lesson of psychoanalysis today is not get rid of repression, but shame. Not shame as a sign of oppression, like I'm ashamed of my dirty dreams, but shame in what sense? Here I hope we have the same position. I'm very critical here and there about Lenin. But did people notice something which I find wonderful? We know all old Marxists, Lenin's Testament. You know he goes through all the contenders for the highest post, etc. Bukharin doesn't understand dialectic, Kamenev, Zinoviev were against October, so he finds some political fault in everyone. But then the only guy he is really against is Stalin. But what's his reproach to Stalin? Just that he doesn't have manners, he is shamelessly brutal and so on. It's I find this wonderful this... He wasn't wrong. Sorry? He wasn't wrong, he extrapolated from basic human behavior... Yeah, what he would do when he was an absolute dictator. But as communists, yeah, I introduced you as a reasonably or moderately conservative communist, that's what you call yourself. Okay, but as communists, let's play at the same level here, because I noticed we were both in Germany and so on. Do you know that I always remember when I look at your and also my fate? I also had, not as big as you, but some trouble after last year's Frankfurt Book Fair. That moderately conservative mass media, I can publish there things which these fake progressive, left-center media never publish. Never publish. Yeah, the radical center that effectively tries to annihilate people like me and you. Yeah, so in but let's go back to communism, right? We're both communists. Strangely, very odd. Not socialists but communists. Yeah, hugely contradictory communists, you know, and reluctant communists. Yeah, but because the situation... but okay, in your communism, yeah, what happens to Google, Meta, and Mercedes-Benz? What do we do with them? Let's say you are the leader guy. Okay, now you want to be evil. I'm in the Gulag, you're on the street. Fine, what do we do about Google, Meta, Amazon, Mercedes-Benz, Alstom? If it's still alive. It is absolutely clear that although I am not able here I should learn from you that we absolutely have to establish some sort of social control to use your terms, defeudalize them. Because here we come to your topic of feudalism. Would you agree with me here? My key, where I reading your stuff, not only this book, you were using this term for neofeudalism, techno-feudalism, is that the key of this new mega-corporative capitalism, digital and so on, is that it's a new form of the privatization of commons. But not the old style where what was common one capitalist grabbed this, the other that. No, take Bill Gates, take Jeff Bezos and so on, the very space in which even capitalists and workers and so on exchange stuff is controlled by them. That's the feudal moment. I and so I agree with you and now I ask you a question. Aha, opposing! In your book on techno-feudalism, you even give a hint, and I would say why not, that at a tactical level, maybe at some point, the left should even risk a tactical alliance with some small capitalists against the big corporations and so on. I shouldn't be afraid of this. That's Lenin too. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, precisely. Although let's say, if you're a small-scale capitalist producing electric bicycles and you're selling them through Amazon.com or any of these platforms, you know, Jeff Bezos is taking of the price. So essentially you pay ground rent, cloud rent I call it, to the techno-feudal lord. So there is scope for an alliance, but of course the alliance needs a political party too that's going to be the vanguard. And we don't have, we don't have the Labor Party here as such. No, the let's I wouldn't you agree with, now I will now be really evil in that. United Kingdom now has a big radical center party which is more oriented towards the right, but right-center, and it's called Labor Party. They have, they have, they have the proper Thatcherite party in government now because Rachel Reeves, the moment even before she was elected, dared to say to you folks, warn you of the austerity which is now imposing on you that the contrast to the beautiful lady AOC with about whom we both have serious doubts politically. But that you said that she already when did she begin eight, ten years ago then, she should have risked a third party. The big problem with Democrats among others is that they all the time focus on this fear if we move too much to the right we will lose the centrist workers. But I think... The left, if we move too much to the left. To the left, yeah, we will lose but Bernie already fifteen years or how much ago gave a proper answer to this. I find it ingenious. He said: No, our target
unknown
should not be this center, our target should be those poor white people who otherwise vote for Trump today. And he he proved that this can work in in Vermont. Who are his voters? Those poor small farmers. But to make the basic point that's important. Don't you think
should not be this center, our target should be those poor white people who otherwise vote for Trump today. And he he proved that this can work in in Vermont. Who are his voters? Those poor small farmers. But to make the basic point that's important. Don't you think
Slavoj Žižek
that now when we have this nightmare in power, the solution should not be what radical liberal moderate, they think they are not center, leftist center try to convince us: now we have all to stick together. No, now it's the time to risk a third party, which a genuine leftist party which simply says openly what it has to be done. I see no problem with this whatsoever and Bernie Sanders had the right instinct, when he was saying that more than of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. In a country where if you go... if you fall ill, you become bankrupt and you fall out of the, you know, the the point of view of society, you become completely marginalized, you become a non-person. And therefore the majoritarian views within society, because let's face it we leftists are in the majority when it comes to our position. You know if you were to go out there here in London and you were to say to people, you know what do you prefer: billion to be spent on nuclear submarines that we can't even use because we don't have the keys, the Americans have not passed them on to us from whom we bought the nuclear submarines, or should
that now when we have this nightmare in power, the solution should not be what radical liberal moderate, they think they are not center, leftist center try to convince us: now we have all to stick together. No, now it's the time to risk a third party, which a genuine leftist party which simply says openly what it has to be done. I see no problem with this whatsoever and Bernie Sanders had the right instinct, when he was saying that more than of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. In a country where if you go... if you fall ill, you become bankrupt and you fall out of the, you know, the the point of view of society, you become completely marginalized, you become a non-person. And therefore the majoritarian views within society, because let's face it we leftists are in the majority when it comes to our position. You know if you were to go out there here in London and you were to say to people, you know what do you prefer: billion to be spent on nuclear submarines that we can't even use because we don't have the keys, the Americans have not passed them on to us from whom we bought the nuclear submarines, or should
unknown
we put them in, you know, social housing so that we ameliorate the fact that, you know, young people cannot afford to buy a house or to to rent a house? deep down they would say of course that nuclear submarine is a waste of time, especially if we don't have the keys to them. If you take one question after the other, our positions are majoritarian and yet the center-right parties never adopt them, never adopt them, and that's where Trump, they are thinking that if they become like the right but a right that is light, you know,
we put them in, you know, social housing so that we ameliorate the fact that, you know, young people cannot afford to buy a house or to to rent a house? deep down they would say of course that nuclear submarine is a waste of time, especially if we don't have the keys to them. If you take one question after the other, our positions are majoritarian and yet the center-right parties never adopt them, never adopt them, and that's where Trump, they are thinking that if they become like the right but a right that is light, you know,
Slavoj Žižek
racist light, pro-capitalist light, that it doesn't work. And Margaret Thatcher was the one that answered the question because I remember she was being interviewed in just before Tony Blair was elected and the interviewer, BBC interviewer I think it was, said to her: But Mrs. Thatcher, why don't you like
racist light, pro-capitalist light, that it doesn't work. And Margaret Thatcher was the one that answered the question because I remember she was being interviewed in just before Tony Blair was elected and the interviewer, BBC interviewer I think it was, said to her: But Mrs. Thatcher, why don't you like
unknown
this young man Tony Blair? He has copied everything you've ever done and he's adopted completely your ideology. She said: Yeah, this was my greatest success in my career because he turned the Labor Party into a version of the Tory party. And then
this young man Tony Blair? He has copied everything you've ever done and he's adopted completely your ideology. She said: Yeah, this was my greatest success in my career because he turned the Labor Party into a version of the Tory party. And then
Slavoj Žižek
spontaneously said: But if you are going to vote for the Tory party, why not vote for the actual one? And this is why, you know, the center-left loses time after time after time. So Bernie Sanders... I mean I understand why if you are in the Labor Party now you're Jeremy Corbyn, you've been thrown out yet, as Jeremy was, why not going against the grain of of the first-past-the-post system which will condemn you to effectively ruin even if you get of the people. This is the the tragedy of the electoral system. I can understand this.
spontaneously said: But if you are going to vote for the Tory party, why not vote for the actual one? And this is why, you know, the center-left loses time after time after time. So Bernie Sanders... I mean I understand why if you are in the Labor Party now you're Jeremy Corbyn, you've been thrown out yet, as Jeremy was, why not going against the grain of of the first-past-the-post system which will condemn you to effectively ruin even if you get of the people. This is the the tragedy of the electoral system. I can understand this.
unknown
But Bernie in had volunteers and a lot of money that was
But Bernie in had volunteers and a lot of money that was
Slavoj Žižek
collected. The nomination was stolen from him, stolen from him in a criminal fashion by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. And he comes out and supports Hillary Clinton. That was a mistake. Yeah, because he still again thought you know like one of my books I hope you will agree with the metaphor I one of my books I said Trump is not just a bad guy obviously but he is literally in Freudian sense a fetish figure. You know this meta- notion
collected. The nomination was stolen from him, stolen from him in a criminal fashion by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. And he comes out and supports Hillary Clinton. That was a mistake. Yeah, because he still again thought you know like one of my books I hope you will agree with the metaphor I one of my books I said Trump is not just a bad guy obviously but he is literally in Freudian sense a fetish figure. You know this meta- notion
unknown
of fetish in
of fetish in
Slavoj Žižek
Freud which may appear too simple but it's more complex, let's drop this, where he says fetish is in principle the last thing you see before seeing castration. No, that's why it's hair or feet or whatever before the guy undresses. Okay, let's not go into what Freud meant. What I want to say is that for this new pseudo-welfare politically correct radical center, Trump is the last thing they see before they would see class struggle, social antagonism. That's why they need this demonization of Trump. Now I am not against demonizing Trump but would you agree or not we should never forget... I am against demonizing Trump because Trump is such a poor excuse for human nature that you do not need to demonize him, you just talk bluntly about the fact that he's making promises to the dispossessed. What he's very good at, at the Lacanian level whatever, he connects with people. He tells them I feel your pain, there is carnage in America, you have been fucked by this elite. Which is true, which is true! And then he makes promises which he never intends to see through. He takes the CEO of Goldman Sachs and makes him treasury secretary. He takes all the bastards from the real estate sector and makes them responsible for housing. He takes Kennedy and makes him responsible for health. So why
Freud which may appear too simple but it's more complex, let's drop this, where he says fetish is in principle the last thing you see before seeing castration. No, that's why it's hair or feet or whatever before the guy undresses. Okay, let's not go into what Freud meant. What I want to say is that for this new pseudo-welfare politically correct radical center, Trump is the last thing they see before they would see class struggle, social antagonism. That's why they need this demonization of Trump. Now I am not against demonizing Trump but would you agree or not we should never forget... I am against demonizing Trump because Trump is such a poor excuse for human nature that you do not need to demonize him, you just talk bluntly about the fact that he's making promises to the dispossessed. What he's very good at, at the Lacanian level whatever, he connects with people. He tells them I feel your pain, there is carnage in America, you have been fucked by this elite. Which is true, which is true! And then he makes promises which he never intends to see through. He takes the CEO of Goldman Sachs and makes him treasury secretary. He takes all the bastards from the real estate sector and makes them responsible for housing. He takes Kennedy and makes him responsible for health. So why
unknown
do you need to demonize him? Just say that... No, but but the Democrats cannot say this because they are the ones that were part of completely destroying of the American population. Yeah, so again I totally agree that's my point what you said now. It's that we should never forget while of course fighting Trump together with whomever when he will infringe on LGBT, women's rights and so on, that Trump is a symptom of the failure of this radical center. He's a symptom of Obama. Yes, yes, precisely. He's a creation of Obama. Remember Obama was elected at the height or the depth of the worst capitalist crisis since So you had the bankers who had absolutely wrecked the lives of millions of Americans and he gets up there and says: Yes, we can. Yes, we can do what? Punish the Wall Street bastards who created the circumstances of the gloom and doom of the American people and the European and and and so on. And and support the victims of this crisis. What does he do? He takes Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the man, the two men that Bill Clinton had appointed to unleash the toxic powers, the demonic powers of Wall Street upon the American people, and he makes them responsible for two things: bailing out the bankers, yeah, and also imposing austerity on the people who voted for him. So the result is Trump. And you know yeah absolutely and you know what's the irony here, cruel irony, that you know all this just focusing on Trump, horror, deportation of immigrants. But look at the numbers. Under Obama's rule, there were more deportations just done more discreetly than Obama was
do you need to demonize him? Just say that... No, but but the Democrats cannot say this because they are the ones that were part of completely destroying of the American population. Yeah, so again I totally agree that's my point what you said now. It's that we should never forget while of course fighting Trump together with whomever when he will infringe on LGBT, women's rights and so on, that Trump is a symptom of the failure of this radical center. He's a symptom of Obama. Yes, yes, precisely. He's a creation of Obama. Remember Obama was elected at the height or the depth of the worst capitalist crisis since So you had the bankers who had absolutely wrecked the lives of millions of Americans and he gets up there and says: Yes, we can. Yes, we can do what? Punish the Wall Street bastards who created the circumstances of the gloom and doom of the American people and the European and and and so on. And and support the victims of this crisis. What does he do? He takes Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the man, the two men that Bill Clinton had appointed to unleash the toxic powers, the demonic powers of Wall Street upon the American people, and he makes them responsible for two things: bailing out the bankers, yeah, and also imposing austerity on the people who voted for him. So the result is Trump. And you know yeah absolutely and you know what's the irony here, cruel irony, that you know all this just focusing on Trump, horror, deportation of immigrants. But look at the numbers. Under Obama's rule, there were more deportations just done more discreetly than Obama was
Slavoj Žižek
deporting the parents of American citizens, of
deporting the parents of American citizens, of
unknown
children whose parents were American citizens. I mean
children whose parents were American citizens. I mean
Slavoj Žižek
even now Biden has has created more
even now Biden has has created more
unknown
draconian conditions at the border separating America from Mexico than they were under Trump. Okay, now I ask you a provocative, I don't provocative question in the sense that how should I reply some of my friends who will join you in Gulag what so I don't agree with them but who say: But nonetheless didn't Biden like the first president who went to support auto workers strike, some of didn't he nonetheless in economy did some not so bad things in economy? Or I want a reply to you so that I can answer my critics. Absolutely he did. He did some interesting things. But they were for show. They were not for substance. He did, I mean symbolically it was important to go and join the picket line at the auto workers strike. I salute that. But what was his policies regarding housing? What were his policies regarding the the vast number of people who, as I said before, once they fall ill, they go bankrupt and they simply are annihilated? Nothing. He was always in the pocket of of the pharmaceutical industry, of the medical-industrial
draconian conditions at the border separating America from Mexico than they were under Trump. Okay, now I ask you a provocative, I don't provocative question in the sense that how should I reply some of my friends who will join you in Gulag what so I don't agree with them but who say: But nonetheless didn't Biden like the first president who went to support auto workers strike, some of didn't he nonetheless in economy did some not so bad things in economy? Or I want a reply to you so that I can answer my critics. Absolutely he did. He did some interesting things. But they were for show. They were not for substance. He did, I mean symbolically it was important to go and join the picket line at the auto workers strike. I salute that. But what was his policies regarding housing? What were his policies regarding the the vast number of people who, as I said before, once they fall ill, they go bankrupt and they simply are annihilated? Nothing. He was always in the pocket of of the pharmaceutical industry, of the medical-industrial
Slavoj Žižek
complex. He always bent over backwards to accommodate the needs of the rentiers, of the financiers. So when it comes to making a choice between the two sides... Look, I understand look. I wish both of them had lost the election, right? I wish both of them had lost. I would not have voted for either of them. I do not condone anyone who says that because Kamala Harris is X, Y, Z and so on, I'm going to vote for Trump. There's always Jill Stein, there's always abstention where you can express yourself and there's always political activism to create an
complex. He always bent over backwards to accommodate the needs of the rentiers, of the financiers. So when it comes to making a choice between the two sides... Look, I understand look. I wish both of them had lost the election, right? I wish both of them had lost. I would not have voted for either of them. I do not condone anyone who says that because Kamala Harris is X, Y, Z and so on, I'm going to vote for Trump. There's always Jill Stein, there's always abstention where you can express yourself and there's always political activism to create an
unknown
alternative.
alternative.
Slavoj Žižek
But especially in you and I were in different camps. Do you remember? Where with regard... with regard to the American
But especially in you and I were in different camps. Do you remember? Where with regard... with regard to the American
unknown
election, because you were saying you know vote for Trump, you had said it once in Yeah, and I still think I was right but that's another I can make an argument. But Noam Chomsky and I were on stage at the New York Public Library and somebody asked us and we said both of them, we were not coordinated, we said if you are in a safe seat, in a safe constituency, vote for the for Jill Stein, vote for the third party. But if you are in a swing state, hold your nose like that and vote for Clinton so as to avoid a Trump presidency. This was the but now, absolutely I would in the election, my point was:
election, because you were saying you know vote for Trump, you had said it once in Yeah, and I still think I was right but that's another I can make an argument. But Noam Chomsky and I were on stage at the New York Public Library and somebody asked us and we said both of them, we were not coordinated, we said if you are in a safe seat, in a safe constituency, vote for the for Jill Stein, vote for the third party. But if you are in a swing state, hold your nose like that and vote for Clinton so as to avoid a Trump presidency. This was the but now, absolutely I would in the election, my point was:
Slavoj Žižek
Genocide Joe, the Joe Biden and
Genocide Joe, the Joe Biden and
unknown
the Kamala Harris who looked at the American people who were struggling and demanded of them that they celebrate a great
the Kamala Harris who looked at the American people who were struggling and demanded of them that they celebrate a great
Slavoj Žižek
economy, they were telling them you're wrong, inflation is finished, why are you complaining you fools? Whereas Trump would say I feel your pain. Now at that point, I think the radical position and the democratic position and the
economy, they were telling them you're wrong, inflation is finished, why are you complaining you fools? Whereas Trump would say I feel your pain. Now at that point, I think the radical position and the democratic position and the
unknown
ethical position and the dialectical position is to say neither nor. No, I totally agree with you and you know whom you quote here, it's not meant only by irony, from time to time, I'm not a Stalinist,
ethical position and the dialectical position is to say neither nor. No, I totally agree with you and you know whom you quote here, it's not meant only by irony, from time to time, I'm not a Stalinist,
unknown
sorry, Stalin from time to time produced a nice paradox. You know in late '20s he was asked which deviation is worse: rightist or leftist? He said: No, both are equally bad, but they are both worst. And that should be Kamala and Trump, they are both worst. So it's where maybe you know where I oscillated. Now we are not attacking each other, but I sincerely want practical guidelines for you. Many people with whom I had contact there they said: Okay, but at an ordinary daily level
sorry, Stalin from time to time produced a nice paradox. You know in late '20s he was asked which deviation is worse: rightist or leftist? He said: No, both are equally bad, but they are both worst. And that should be Kamala and Trump, they are both worst. So it's where maybe you know where I oscillated. Now we are not attacking each other, but I sincerely want practical guidelines for you. Many people with whom I had contact there they said: Okay, but at an ordinary daily level
Slavoj Žižek
if Trump wins we will be deprived of abortion, more racism and so on. So nonetheless should we... On the question of abortion, on the question, I mean I have enormous sympathy for every woman of reproductive age in the United States because the the removal of basic human rights
if Trump wins we will be deprived of abortion, more racism and so on. So nonetheless should we... On the question of abortion, on the question, I mean I have enormous sympathy for every woman of reproductive age in the United States because the the removal of basic human rights
unknown
for women under that Supreme Court and under the Trump administration is a major defeat for humanity. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt about that. But we cannot think on a single issue. Kamala Harris in my view because she simply would not be in
for women under that Supreme Court and under the Trump administration is a major defeat for humanity. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt about that. But we cannot think on a single issue. Kamala Harris in my view because she simply would not be in
Slavoj Žižek
control over her own policy, it would be the neocons behind, would be a clear and present threat to world peace. The Democrats, they have never seen, the people who are amongst the cabal that is ruling the Democratic Party now, are the neocons, you know all the Cheneys and the Wolfowitzes that have moved from the Republican
control over her own policy, it would be the neocons behind, would be a clear and present threat to world peace. The Democrats, they have never seen, the people who are amongst the cabal that is ruling the Democratic Party now, are the neocons, you know all the Cheneys and the Wolfowitzes that have moved from the Republican
unknown
Party and into the the Democratic Party. These
Party and into the the Democratic Party. These
Slavoj Žižek
people have never seen a war they don't like. And I very much fear however
people have never seen a war they don't like. And I very much fear however
unknown
mad and sad and bad Trump is, that under the Democrats the rest of the world would be in much greater peril under the Democrats. I tend to agree with you and let me give you a proof. No way in whatever we can make in whatever way we can make fun of Trump and so on, but sorry although it failed, by simply contacting Kim Jong Un, North Korea, the tension was eased. Trump did a surprising thing, you remember when there was tension in Korea, the true madman who is now of course on democratic side John Bolton, of course, wanted oh we send thousand and Trump fired him! Said: No, I don't want a war and so on. Not only that, he stopped the US Air Force, the planes were in the sky about to bomb Tehran and Trump woke up in the middle of the night and stopped them. My great fear is that he may not prevent a clash between the United States armed forces and the Chinese ones. That because the whole of the American system, even those who disagree with the prosecution of the Ukrainian war, even those who disagree with the continuing genocide in Palestine, by the way it is remiss of us not to have mentioned the genocide in Palestine which is unfolding as we speak with a whole people being pulverized. Even those people, they are gun-ho about the possible confrontation, even a military one, with China. And that is completely bipartisan in the United States. That's a great and present danger. But let me let me because we
mad and sad and bad Trump is, that under the Democrats the rest of the world would be in much greater peril under the Democrats. I tend to agree with you and let me give you a proof. No way in whatever we can make in whatever way we can make fun of Trump and so on, but sorry although it failed, by simply contacting Kim Jong Un, North Korea, the tension was eased. Trump did a surprising thing, you remember when there was tension in Korea, the true madman who is now of course on democratic side John Bolton, of course, wanted oh we send thousand and Trump fired him! Said: No, I don't want a war and so on. Not only that, he stopped the US Air Force, the planes were in the sky about to bomb Tehran and Trump woke up in the middle of the night and stopped them. My great fear is that he may not prevent a clash between the United States armed forces and the Chinese ones. That because the whole of the American system, even those who disagree with the prosecution of the Ukrainian war, even those who disagree with the continuing genocide in Palestine, by the way it is remiss of us not to have mentioned the genocide in Palestine which is unfolding as we speak with a whole people being pulverized. Even those people, they are gun-ho about the possible confrontation, even a military one, with China. And that is completely bipartisan in the United States. That's a great and present danger. But let me let me because we
unknown
talk about Lacan, let me give you a slight disagreement here, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm trying in a very friendly way we can talk normally to bring out a possible not even difference, but you know okay I'll put it like this. I was once in Japan and I was told if you
talk about Lacan, let me give you a slight disagreement here, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm trying in a very friendly way we can talk normally to bring out a possible not even difference, but you know okay I'll put it like this. I was once in Japan and I was told if you
Slavoj Žižek
don't agree with a guy,
don't agree with a guy,
unknown
how do you say it there? And I was told, probably a lie, that the polite Japanese way is to say:
how do you say it there? And I was told, probably a lie, that the polite Japanese way is to say:
Slavoj Žižek
I totally agree with you, I would just maybe put a slightly different accent. Which I will say now and tell you: But you know why maybe we made some different formulations, although I paid my price for supporting Palestinians, that Frankfurt Book Fair, not as heavy price as you but I'm also now absent from the media in Germany. It's a badge of honor. Yeah, yeah, but look. You I am not in contrast to you maybe, I'm not sure, critical of Hamas from this standard liberal position and so on. My problem is this one. I see definitely here Israel, now it's becoming absolutely clear, the main culprit and this war absolutely unconditionally
I totally agree with you, I would just maybe put a slightly different accent. Which I will say now and tell you: But you know why maybe we made some different formulations, although I paid my price for supporting Palestinians, that Frankfurt Book Fair, not as heavy price as you but I'm also now absent from the media in Germany. It's a badge of honor. Yeah, yeah, but look. You I am not in contrast to you maybe, I'm not sure, critical of Hamas from this standard liberal position and so on. My problem is this one. I see definitely here Israel, now it's becoming absolutely clear, the main culprit and this war absolutely unconditionally
unknown
served Israel. Israel literally needed this war. Here I draw a parallel, would you agree, between Israel and Iran? In both countries we have the same problem. Do you remember, it's absolutely clear to remember it. Do you remember what happened in Iran a year before this crisis? Mahsa Amini, that Kurdish woman killed, and then this triggered a feminist movement much more authentic and radical than all the Western upper-class liberal politically correct feminism because it triggered a general movement. All the Kurds joined it, ordinary Iranians joined it. And as my friends told me there, I have strange connections everywhere in Iran, that it was clear that Iranian nomenklatura needed also a new tension with not a war like now but with Israel to control the situation. But wait a minute. The same goes for Israel. Remember what went on in Israel just a couple of months before
served Israel. Israel literally needed this war. Here I draw a parallel, would you agree, between Israel and Iran? In both countries we have the same problem. Do you remember, it's absolutely clear to remember it. Do you remember what happened in Iran a year before this crisis? Mahsa Amini, that Kurdish woman killed, and then this triggered a feminist movement much more authentic and radical than all the Western upper-class liberal politically correct feminism because it triggered a general movement. All the Kurds joined it, ordinary Iranians joined it. And as my friends told me there, I have strange connections everywhere in Iran, that it was clear that Iranian nomenklatura needed also a new tension with not a war like now but with Israel to control the situation. But wait a minute. The same goes for Israel. Remember what went on in Israel just a couple of months before
Slavoj Žižek
October attack? Hundreds of thousands of people mega-demonstration against Netanyahu's attempt to take over Supreme Court and so on and so on. And they they they needed this war. That's why here I have a tough question for you. Maybe you will have you always know how to squeeze out of my tough questions. You know what I would like just to know more. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but what goes on as it were behind the scenes.
October attack? Hundreds of thousands of people mega-demonstration against Netanyahu's attempt to take over Supreme Court and so on and so on. And they they they needed this war. That's why here I have a tough question for you. Maybe you will have you always know how to squeeze out of my tough questions. You know what I would like just to know more. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but what goes on as it were behind the scenes.
unknown
For example, this is confirmed, it's not paranoia. Friends from Israel, authentic anti-Zionists, played to me the the audio clips. Do you know that till two years ago, Israel fully supported financially Hamas? For years they did. Yeah, for years they did. Why? But they said it was very clear, Netanyahu himself explains it on YouTube. He said because it is the only way of ensuring that we will convince the Americans that there will never be a two-state solution if Hamas represented the, you know, the the people. Allow me a Hegelian answer here, if I can. Let me try it out. Today I'm in a
For example, this is confirmed, it's not paranoia. Friends from Israel, authentic anti-Zionists, played to me the the audio clips. Do you know that till two years ago, Israel fully supported financially Hamas? For years they did. Yeah, for years they did. Why? But they said it was very clear, Netanyahu himself explains it on YouTube. He said because it is the only way of ensuring that we will convince the Americans that there will never be a two-state solution if Hamas represented the, you know, the the people. Allow me a Hegelian answer here, if I can. Let me try it out. Today I'm in a
unknown
good mood, so you can. Okay. You see this is... I'm sorry, now a mega very serious remark. You think we are joking, but that's the spirit that we bring. We can be
good mood, so you can. Okay. You see this is... I'm sorry, now a mega very serious remark. You think we are joking, but that's the spirit that we bring. We can be
Slavoj Žižek
radically ethical, sacrifice our lives and so on. But if this type of simple benevolent evil irony disappears, we are in a world where I don't want to live. Sorry, anyway. Look. Firstly, a point of principle. Hamas, like every Palestinian, Fatah individuals, had a duty to attack the fence that fences them in in a concentration camp. Gaza is not a country, it is a concentration camp created in Anyone subsisting in it, not living, had a duty to themselves, like POW, prisoners of war, people have the a duty according to the Geneva Convention to escape. They had a duty to attack that fence and the sentries of the IDF that were there fencing them in. They had no right to attack civilians because this is a war crime. So I'm making this point directly. But I think that Hamas were absolutely right to to attack the fence when they did. For the reasons that you are advocating. Because this conflict in the Middle East which begins with a project of white settlement ethnic cleansing, which is the project of the State of Israel, which insists of being a Jewish state. Like imagine saying today that we want England to be a Christian state. I mean it's only you know the Robinsons of the world and the ultra-fascists who are talking about that in this way. Or Greece, a Christian state. Late we have the following situation. You described very well the inner contradictions within Iranian society. As Hegelians, yeah, and Marxists, we have simultaneously to support the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and not side with the imperialist attempt to subjugate Iran from the United States perspective of regime change. Now I want to ask you... Well let me let me finish because the Hegelian thing has three components. So you have the inner contradictions of Iran, which need to be played out. Then you have the inner contradictions of Israel. Because in Israel you had a gigantic clash between the original Ashkenazi European um pseudo-social democratic conception of the nation-state that is Israel versus the brutish, fascistic settlers of Judea. So you have the Jewish state versus the Judea state. This is a clash within Israel. And then you have the Arab world, where Donald Trump was very successful in his first term to create the Abraham Accords, which is essentially to take six Arab states and manage to have a deal with Netanyahu's Israel that essentially freezes the Palestinians out. So most of the Arab world agreed that the Palestinians can be allowed to wither, to die
radically ethical, sacrifice our lives and so on. But if this type of simple benevolent evil irony disappears, we are in a world where I don't want to live. Sorry, anyway. Look. Firstly, a point of principle. Hamas, like every Palestinian, Fatah individuals, had a duty to attack the fence that fences them in in a concentration camp. Gaza is not a country, it is a concentration camp created in Anyone subsisting in it, not living, had a duty to themselves, like POW, prisoners of war, people have the a duty according to the Geneva Convention to escape. They had a duty to attack that fence and the sentries of the IDF that were there fencing them in. They had no right to attack civilians because this is a war crime. So I'm making this point directly. But I think that Hamas were absolutely right to to attack the fence when they did. For the reasons that you are advocating. Because this conflict in the Middle East which begins with a project of white settlement ethnic cleansing, which is the project of the State of Israel, which insists of being a Jewish state. Like imagine saying today that we want England to be a Christian state. I mean it's only you know the Robinsons of the world and the ultra-fascists who are talking about that in this way. Or Greece, a Christian state. Late we have the following situation. You described very well the inner contradictions within Iranian society. As Hegelians, yeah, and Marxists, we have simultaneously to support the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and not side with the imperialist attempt to subjugate Iran from the United States perspective of regime change. Now I want to ask you... Well let me let me finish because the Hegelian thing has three components. So you have the inner contradictions of Iran, which need to be played out. Then you have the inner contradictions of Israel. Because in Israel you had a gigantic clash between the original Ashkenazi European um pseudo-social democratic conception of the nation-state that is Israel versus the brutish, fascistic settlers of Judea. So you have the Jewish state versus the Judea state. This is a clash within Israel. And then you have the Arab world, where Donald Trump was very successful in his first term to create the Abraham Accords, which is essentially to take six Arab states and manage to have a deal with Netanyahu's Israel that essentially freezes the Palestinians out. So most of the Arab world agreed that the Palestinians can be allowed to wither, to die
unknown
slowly and perish in silence. So this breakthrough, when when the Hamas fighters went through the fence, essentially allowed the Hegelian dynamic in Israel, in the Arab world, and in Iran to play itself out. How is it going to play itself out?
slowly and perish in silence. So this breakthrough, when when the Hamas fighters went through the fence, essentially allowed the Hegelian dynamic in Israel, in the Arab world, and in Iran to play itself out. How is it going to play itself out?
Slavoj Žižek
We know that at the moment a
We know that at the moment a
unknown
whole people are being pulverized, South Lebanon is becoming again killing fields. The Israeli society is totally
whole people are being pulverized, South Lebanon is becoming again killing fields. The Israeli society is totally
Slavoj Žižek
tormented. What you know progressive Israelis are abandoning the
tormented. What you know progressive Israelis are abandoning the
unknown
country, they
country, they
Slavoj Žižek
are emigrating, leaving it to the fascistic settlers. This in the end cannot end well for Israel. Yeah, I tend to agree with you and let me give you a proof. No, no, no, this cannot end well for Israel. No, I tend to allow yeah, although I'm more and more by old age a common
are emigrating, leaving it to the fascistic settlers. This in the end cannot end well for Israel. Yeah, I tend to agree with you and let me give you a proof. No, no, no, this cannot end well for Israel. No, I tend to allow yeah, although I'm more and more by old age a common
unknown
sense man, and a little bit of tired, this guy all the time mentions Hegel. No, seriously, I mean with contrast. Would you then agree with me another idea came to me. You know reactionaries often used to to to annihilate to to criticize in a brutal racist way so-called, I don't like the term, 'failed states', no? I say why don't we use this term. I will try to give you a precise definition of a failed state, very naive in bourgeois terms. Failed state is for me a state which no longer can reproduce itself without openly relying on illegal gangster bandit forces. Now of course every conservative will: 'Of course, look at Haiti, primitive state, is controlled by gangs.' I say okay, but let's go on. Israel is doing is a failed state in this sense. Look who is Ben-Gvir. Are you aware that Ben-Gvir, who is now that unimaginable irony even Hegel would get dizzy in this, he is now responsible for security, public security on
sense man, and a little bit of tired, this guy all the time mentions Hegel. No, seriously, I mean with contrast. Would you then agree with me another idea came to me. You know reactionaries often used to to to annihilate to to criticize in a brutal racist way so-called, I don't like the term, 'failed states', no? I say why don't we use this term. I will try to give you a precise definition of a failed state, very naive in bourgeois terms. Failed state is for me a state which no longer can reproduce itself without openly relying on illegal gangster bandit forces. Now of course every conservative will: 'Of course, look at Haiti, primitive state, is controlled by gangs.' I say okay, but let's go on. Israel is doing is a failed state in this sense. Look who is Ben-Gvir. Are you aware that Ben-Gvir, who is now that unimaginable irony even Hegel would get dizzy in this, he is now responsible for security, public security on
Slavoj Žižek
the West...
the West...
unknown
years ago he was condemned as a criminal by the Israeli court. Convicted, not condemned. Convicted by the Israeli court. Convicted by the Israeli court. So settlers, I agree with you, they are basically a form of violent gangsterism, which was deftly manipulated, now
years ago he was condemned as a criminal by the Israeli court. Convicted, not condemned. Convicted by the Israeli court. Convicted by the Israeli court. So settlers, I agree with you, they are basically a form of violent gangsterism, which was deftly manipulated, now
Slavoj Žižek
it's openly
it's openly
unknown
supported for decades by the State of Israel. Formally
supported for decades by the State of Israel. Formally
Slavoj Žižek
they distance themselves
they distance themselves
unknown
from it and so on. And I think same things you find all around. In Russia it was similar with Wagner Group. Yeah, first they said: 'No, no, it's independent.' Then we learn and even in the United States, you know the paradox of Trumpists and other is that yeah, for example Proud Boys and so on, you have groups here that should awaken you. If you are have some sympathy towards authentic Judaism maybe we both have, who are these the new American populist right? Many of them... in four minutes you will have to come up with decent questions or indecent questions. No, what I'm saying is that Proud Boys and so on, they are paradoxically anti-Semitic and at the same time anti-Arab, anti- they are a nightmare but nonetheless the state more and more tolerates them. This is for me the true problem. Another problem. I wrote a text, would you
from it and so on. And I think same things you find all around. In Russia it was similar with Wagner Group. Yeah, first they said: 'No, no, it's independent.' Then we learn and even in the United States, you know the paradox of Trumpists and other is that yeah, for example Proud Boys and so on, you have groups here that should awaken you. If you are have some sympathy towards authentic Judaism maybe we both have, who are these the new American populist right? Many of them... in four minutes you will have to come up with decent questions or indecent questions. No, what I'm saying is that Proud Boys and so on, they are paradoxically anti-Semitic and at the same time anti-Arab, anti- they are a nightmare but nonetheless the state more and more tolerates them. This is for me the true problem. Another problem. I wrote a text, would you
unknown
agree, why so we live in a world more and more of failed states, failed states, we don't have to look for them in poor so-called third world. We get them here in the developed so-called West. Second point, your idea of neofeudalism. I wrote a short text maybe you know... Techno-feudalism. I know, I know. Here we will in Gulag when I will visit you we will establish. I'm too much human being quite often. Okay.
agree, why so we live in a world more and more of failed states, failed states, we don't have to look for them in poor so-called third world. We get them here in the developed so-called West. Second point, your idea of neofeudalism. I wrote a short text maybe you know... Techno-feudalism. I know, I know. Here we will in Gulag when I will visit you we will establish. I'm too much human being quite often. Okay.
Slavoj Žižek
You know what, would you agree or not? You know I I always try to ask myself: 'Okay, big conflicts Gaza, Ukraine and so on, but horrors are also going on everywhere around now, like in Sudan, mega-war and there is, would you agree or not, that's the idea came to me: We have techno-feudalism, big corporations and so on, ultra-developed, but is it not that in many so-called, sorry for the term, third world countries, which are I use this term consciously, cursed by too much natural wealth?' The best explanation a Marxist friend from Congo gave me: 'If all the natural wealth mines and so on, diamonds were to disappear from Congo, it would have been poor but much happier country.' Okay. What I'm saying is like Singapore for instance has no natural resources. Yeah, so my point is simply I will be over very quickly. This idea that I studied a little bit the situation in Sudan, not South Sudan, that's another nightmare. You have simply so-called, it's a suspicious term, but I use it because they in media, a 'warlord' really as a feudal master controls a certain domain and of course sells to big Western companies. So would you agree or not the same thing is that we have this big ultra-developed techno-feudalism, which is more and more accompanied by even more brutal than in the developed Middle Age, brutal true local feudalism. You have a warlord who totally controls. So even this feudalism has two sides. We should never forget how our wealth in the West is sustained by extremely brutal conditions and local dictatorships and local mirror images of the oligarchies of the West. Yeah, of the North. Yeah. Because we need to go to the Q&A part of our meeting. Can I share with you something that I you know, you now want to be, you now want to be secretary, you will stay Q&A I will ask you the first question. I am the lord and it has been bestowed upon me this duty of controlling those like Slavoj. Look, Slavoj, we come from a very problematic part of the world, the Balkans. I miss Yugoslavia. Do you? Yes and no. And I'm not trying to squeeze out. I'll tell you what. Maybe we will disagree here. I was there and since Slovenia is as our new beloved president, not yours but the Donald Trump once said about some country, shithole of a country, no? Slovenia was in a good sense when it became independent shithole of a country, in the sense that you know like even under communism, general secretary of the party was not a guy who once a year you saw in a limousine protect- it was a guy whom you could meet on the street even without bodyguards, this decentralization. Yeah and all that. So I knew that you know I think maybe you will disagree that the original sin was Milošević who Yugoslavia worked as a certain fragile coalition with many unwritten rules. Why would I disagree? I think Milošević was a bastard from hell who killed communism in Yugoslavia and so on. Yeah, that's my point. So I don't buy this usual story from some leftist, 'You Slovenians are even the worst. I know Slovenia again is a shithole of the country.' I knew personally at that point general secretary Milan Kučan and others. From '85 on they were desperately trying to save Yugoslavia in some slightly different form and they failed. So I agree when you say this I agree. So we agree again. To inject
You know what, would you agree or not? You know I I always try to ask myself: 'Okay, big conflicts Gaza, Ukraine and so on, but horrors are also going on everywhere around now, like in Sudan, mega-war and there is, would you agree or not, that's the idea came to me: We have techno-feudalism, big corporations and so on, ultra-developed, but is it not that in many so-called, sorry for the term, third world countries, which are I use this term consciously, cursed by too much natural wealth?' The best explanation a Marxist friend from Congo gave me: 'If all the natural wealth mines and so on, diamonds were to disappear from Congo, it would have been poor but much happier country.' Okay. What I'm saying is like Singapore for instance has no natural resources. Yeah, so my point is simply I will be over very quickly. This idea that I studied a little bit the situation in Sudan, not South Sudan, that's another nightmare. You have simply so-called, it's a suspicious term, but I use it because they in media, a 'warlord' really as a feudal master controls a certain domain and of course sells to big Western companies. So would you agree or not the same thing is that we have this big ultra-developed techno-feudalism, which is more and more accompanied by even more brutal than in the developed Middle Age, brutal true local feudalism. You have a warlord who totally controls. So even this feudalism has two sides. We should never forget how our wealth in the West is sustained by extremely brutal conditions and local dictatorships and local mirror images of the oligarchies of the West. Yeah, of the North. Yeah. Because we need to go to the Q&A part of our meeting. Can I share with you something that I you know, you now want to be, you now want to be secretary, you will stay Q&A I will ask you the first question. I am the lord and it has been bestowed upon me this duty of controlling those like Slavoj. Look, Slavoj, we come from a very problematic part of the world, the Balkans. I miss Yugoslavia. Do you? Yes and no. And I'm not trying to squeeze out. I'll tell you what. Maybe we will disagree here. I was there and since Slovenia is as our new beloved president, not yours but the Donald Trump once said about some country, shithole of a country, no? Slovenia was in a good sense when it became independent shithole of a country, in the sense that you know like even under communism, general secretary of the party was not a guy who once a year you saw in a limousine protect- it was a guy whom you could meet on the street even without bodyguards, this decentralization. Yeah and all that. So I knew that you know I think maybe you will disagree that the original sin was Milošević who Yugoslavia worked as a certain fragile coalition with many unwritten rules. Why would I disagree? I think Milošević was a bastard from hell who killed communism in Yugoslavia and so on. Yeah, that's my point. So I don't buy this usual story from some leftist, 'You Slovenians are even the worst. I know Slovenia again is a shithole of the country.' I knew personally at that point general secretary Milan Kučan and others. From '85 on they were desperately trying to save Yugoslavia in some slightly different form and they failed. So I agree when you say this I agree. So we agree again. To inject
unknown
a little bit of interest in this boring consensus of ours, the floor is yours. Let's have some lights on and we have a question from the back of the downstairs room,
a little bit of interest in this boring consensus of ours, the floor is yours. Let's have some lights on and we have a question from the back of the downstairs room,
Slavoj Žižek
actually no, I mean you will decide. In freedom and in liberty.
actually no, I mean you will decide. In freedom and in liberty.
unknown
It's nine o'clock and I've been told that we have to be thrown out out of respect for the workers in this building, which of
It's nine o'clock and I've been told that we have to be thrown out out of respect for the workers in this building, which of
Slavoj Žižek
course we have on our lazy leftists, when they are stressing overpaid lazy leftists invoke some poor cleaning ladies who must go home. So ladies and gentlemen, let's all give a round of applause... Slavoj is going to be signing, and he and if you would like to have your book signed or to say hello, the book signing queue is going to be out that door. Can I ask that you stay in your seats while Slavoj and Yanis leave the stage. Buy a book, carry Slavoj out... And thank you so much for
course we have on our lazy leftists, when they are stressing overpaid lazy leftists invoke some poor cleaning ladies who must go home. So ladies and gentlemen, let's all give a round of applause... Slavoj is going to be signing, and he and if you would like to have your book signed or to say hello, the book signing queue is going to be out that door. Can I ask that you stay in your seats while Slavoj and Yanis leave the stage. Buy a book, carry Slavoj out... And thank you so much for
unknown
coming. One point, repeating a joke about him which
coming. One point, repeating a joke about him which
Slavoj Žižek
I think is my best. You remember from Ljubljana. What did he give us really, Yanis? Nothing. Okay, I will allow
I think is my best. You remember from Ljubljana. What did he give us really, Yanis? Nothing. Okay, I will allow
unknown
him, I will play the game of you know that Monty Python, you know, when someone says: 'What have the Romans done for us?' 'Yes, what?'
him, I will play the game of you know that Monty Python, you know, when someone says: 'What have the Romans done for us?' 'Yes, what?'
Slavoj Žižek
And then
And then
unknown
somebody says:
somebody says:
Slavoj Žižek
'But they gave us roads.' Another said: 'But they gave us water,
'But they gave us roads.' Another said: 'But they gave us water,
unknown
aqueducts.'
aqueducts.'
Slavoj Žižek
And then at the end, the leader of the party says: 'Okay, disregarding water, safety, blah blah blah, what did Rome did for us? Nothing.' So I would say what did Yanis do? He threw a new light on what today's capitalism is, how it's no longer capitalism. He had incredible insights into corruption in developed capitalism. He always took care of sympathy with the third world, but without falling into this trap of... so he did practically everything. And apart from that, what did he do for us? Nothing.
And then at the end, the leader of the party says: 'Okay, disregarding water, safety, blah blah blah, what did Rome did for us? Nothing.' So I would say what did Yanis do? He threw a new light on what today's capitalism is, how it's no longer capitalism. He had incredible insights into corruption in developed capitalism. He always took care of sympathy with the third world, but without falling into this trap of... so he did practically everything. And apart from that, what did he do for us? Nothing.
unknown
I repeat here you know Hitler, Himmler... sorry, anyway. Slavoj's going to be signing... (applause).
I repeat here you know Hitler, Himmler... sorry, anyway. Slavoj's going to be signing... (applause).