Slavoj Žižek — Charlie Rose
Interview · Remembrance of Things Past ·
published 2020-03-12 · 0:32:31 · 5,025 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologypsychoanalysishegel-dialecticsreligion-theologysexuality-genderrace-antisemitismfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencetechnology-ai-cyberspacecinema-art-culturescience-physicsconsciousness-mindhistorygeopolitics-wareconomicssubjectivityethicslanguageeveryday-lifephilosophy-generalother
Žižek critiques modern media and European intellectual life while offering a complex, non-standard reading of Stalinism as a suicidal, self-consuming regime rather than simple fanaticism. He discusses his personal history in Yugoslavia, his views on anti-Semitism and Zionism, and analyzes films like Titanic and Kung Fu Panda to illustrate the cynicism of contemporary ideology. The talk concludes with reflections on the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, and the rise of state capitalism in China, arguing for a new form of communism focused on the 'commons' rather than 20th-century models.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 9
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “anti-Semitism is for me the primordial zero-level form of ideology”
Žižek defines anti-Semitism not just as prejudice but as the fundamental ideological mechanism of resolving social conflict by blaming an outside intruder/scapegoat.
as “Zionist anti-Semite”
A paradoxical figure (like Breivik or Glenn Beck) who supports the State of Israel while holding anti-Semitic views, revealing a pact between hardline Zionists and Christian fundamentalists.
Referenced in the context of Titanic, where the lower-class character provides vitality/enjoyment to the rich girl before disappearing.
The core of modern cynicism: one acts according to ideological rituals (horseshoe, Santa Claus) not out of belief, but because the belief functions socially regardless of subjective conviction.
Žižek's claim that philosophy's role is not to provide answers but to ask the right questions regarding new ethical dilemmas (abortion, biogenetics) where old wisdoms fail.
as “communism is for me the name of these problems which are problems of the commons”
A redefinition of communism away from 20th-century state models toward the management of common resources (ecology, nature) and deep systemic deadlocks.
Žižek's critique of Russian oligarchic capitalism, which relies on selling natural resources rather than productive industry, contrasting it with China's more intelligent privatization.
The paradox where science deems destructive experiments possible, while social welfare (taxes, healthcare) is deemed impossible, highlighting the limits of current capitalism.
as “magician showing you all the time rabbit never comes out”
Žižek's self-deprecating metaphor for his work: he does not offer a magical solution (the rabbit) but exposes the trick/mechanism itself.
Stories he reaches for 8
Physicist Niels Bohr hung a horseshoe for luck. When asked why a scientist would believe in superstition, he replied that he doesn't believe in it, but 'it works even if you don't believe in it.'
“He said, of course I don't believe in it, that it—but I have it there because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it.”
Žižek admires Kung Fu Panda for making fun of its own ideology (Oriental mystique) while the ideology survives, exemplifying how cynicism functions today.
“What is so fascinating is that although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives.”
Parents don't believe in Santa but buy gifts; children know parents don't believe but pretend to believe to not hurt parents, showing belief functions as a social category even without subjective belief.
“You ask the parents, do you believe in Santa Claus? They will tell, oh not crazy, I buy the—then you ask the child, do you believe? He will say, no, I'm not crazy, I just pretend not to hurt my parents.”
Anders Breivik supported Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians while being anti-Semitic, illustrating a 'Zionist anti-Semite' who makes a pact with Christian fundamentalists.
“He had a consistent ideological vision. Do you notice that he is a strange case of Zionist anti-Semite?”
Žižek told Occupy protesters not to 'fall in love with themselves' but to think about the day after, emphasizing the need to translate immediate freedom into concrete changes.
“my basic message was, and I think it was totally correct, that they shouldn't fall in love with themselves.”
Stalin defined the ideal Bolshevik as a combination of Russian tenacity and American dynamic pragmatic spirit, which Žižek finds fascinating despite Stalin's terror.
“a combination of Russian tenacity, fidelity to a cause, and American dynamic pragmatic spirit.”
Žižek shares how hardline communists in Slovenia prevented him from getting a job, leading to years of unemployment, which ironically gave him freedom and a marginal institute job with 'permanent sabbatical' status.
“For six, seven years I was unemployed, but it wasn't too bad. I was doing translations and so on, supported by my parents.”
Žižek analyzes the scene where Rose pushes Jack's body away, interpreting it not as love but as a reactionary motif where the lower-class vitality restores the rich girl's ego and then disappears.
“she pushes him away into the water while shouting, I will never let you go, I will never let you go. It’s a crazy—and from here I propose crazy but I think accurate reading of the film.”
Works invoked 6
The first film in the series, which did 'relatively well' and established the formula.
Kung Fu Panda film
Admired for illustrating how cynicism functions: the movie makes fun of its own ideology, yet the ideology survives.
Titanic film
Analyzed for its reactionary motif where the lower-class character restores the rich girl's ego and then disappears.
A documentary film directed by Sophie Fiennes, which Žižek enjoys making as it gives a twist to well-known films.
Captains Courageous book
Referenced as the reactionary motif underlying Titanic, where a rich girl is saved by lower-class vitality.
Avatar film
Žižek states he 'didn't like too much' this film by James Cameron.
People invoked 18
Bill Clinton negative
Cited as saying protests should translate into concrete demands, which Žižek finds 'well-meant' but too shallow.
Glenn Beck positive
Cited alongside Breivik as a 'Zionist anti-Semite' who fires anti-Semitism while being pro-Zionist.
Sophie Fiennes positive
Director of The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, with whom Žižek repeats the documentary formula.
Lee Kuan Yew positive
Singapore's leader whose reforms Deng Xiaoping studied.
Lavrentiy Beria positive
Used as an example of the Stalinist regime's self-consuming nature; Beria knew he was next to be shot.
Deng Xiaoping positive
Cited as having started reforms by visiting Singapore, illustrating the model of state capitalism.
Libya's leader who was lynched by the mob, with no sympathy shown by the West.
Kate Winslet positive
Actor in Titanic, whose character pushes DiCaprio's body away.
Mikhail Gorbachev negative
Thought he could reform communism, which Žižek implies was a failure of understanding.
Egypt's leader whose army eventually abandoned him during the Arab Spring.
Boris Yeltsin negative
Criticized for implementing capitalism in a 'very chaotic way' by starting with banks and natural resources.
Fredric Jameson positive
Friend whose observation that 'we can imagine the end of the world... but not the end of capitalism' is quoted to highlight the limits of current thinking.
Leonardo DiCaprio positive
Actor in Titanic, whose character's function is to bring lower-class vitality to the rich girl.
James Cameron positive
Director of Titanic, whose film is analyzed for its reactionary motifs.
Anders Behring Breivik positive
Cited as a 'Zionist anti-Semite' whose ideology reveals a dangerous pact between hardline Zionists and Christian fundamentalists.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
German friend who asked a 'beautiful question' about which contemporary figures will have monuments built for them.
Niels Bohr positive
Cited as an 'extraordinary spirit' whose anecdote about the horseshoe best exemplifies the cynicism of modern ideology.
Joseph Stalin positive
Žižek finds Stalin's definition of the ideal Bolshevik fascinating, but views the Stalinist phenomenon as terrifying and a 'fiasco' that requires a new theory of understanding.
Transcript 60 turns
unknown
Slavoj Zizek is here. He is a philosopher who describes himself as a complicated communist. The New Republic once described him as the most dangerous philosopher in the West. He has written on topics ranging from Karl Marx to the animated film Kung Fu Panda. Earlier this month he spoke at Occupy Wall Street. I am pleased to have him here at this table. In this initial conversation, we'll try to understand not only where he came from, but what does he believe, and his observations on what he sees today in terms of the political environment. So welcome. Thanks very much. I am honored to be here. It’s a pleasure to have you here.
Slavoj Zizek is here. He is a philosopher who describes himself as a complicated communist. The New Republic once described him as the most dangerous philosopher in the West. He has written on topics ranging from Karl Marx to the animated film Kung Fu Panda. Earlier this month he spoke at Occupy Wall Street. I am pleased to have him here at this table. In this initial conversation, we'll try to understand not only where he came from, but what does he believe, and his observations on what he sees today in terms of the political environment. So welcome. Thanks very much. I am honored to be here. It’s a pleasure to have you here.
Slavoj Žižek
For a long time I watch PBS. It's much better than all those other channels. Well, on behalf
For a long time I watch PBS. It's much better than all those other channels. Well, on behalf
unknown
of PBS, I thank you. We're pleased to have you in the audience. I hope occasionally you'll be amused, occasionally you'll learn something, occasionally you will find reasons to throw something at your television. No, no, I will tell you very seriously that I
of PBS, I thank you. We're pleased to have you in the audience. I hope occasionally you'll be amused, occasionally you'll learn something, occasionally you will find reasons to throw something at your television. No, no, I will tell you very seriously that I
Slavoj Žižek
learned through channels like PBS to get rid of this European arrogance, you know. We
learned through channels like PBS to get rid of this European arrogance, you know. We
unknown
Europeans, true intellectuals, vulgar United States. No, you don't get, especially
Europeans, true intellectuals, vulgar United States. No, you don't get, especially
Slavoj Žižek
in this present turn towards towards towards education or whatever, public TV which should more serve social needs, so that, you know, they are cutting off all intellectual stuff from TV programs. Europe is much worse than United States. In terms of its intellectual
in this present turn towards towards towards education or whatever, public TV which should more serve social needs, so that, you know, they are cutting off all intellectual stuff from TV programs. Europe is much worse than United States. In terms of its intellectual
unknown
arrogance. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no.
arrogance. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no.
Slavoj Žižek
In terms simply of the true vivacity of intellectual life. Don't be ashamed even intellectually to be Americans. Do you like America? Why not? I’m saying this absolutely sincerely. Although I must add, as an amusing remark, please don't take it too seriously, you know who was absolutely fascinated with America? Who? Stalin. You know when he was asked in late twenties can he define the ideal profile of a Bolshevik communist, he said: a combination of Russian tenacity, fidelity to a cause, and American dynamic pragmatic spirit. Why are you fascinated by Stalin? It's a very sad story. Far from me being in any way crypto-stalinist, I think that the Stalinist phenomenon in the 20th century was something so terrifying, things went so monstrously wrong, that we don't yet really have a theory, a real understanding of what went wrong. I don't buy all these standard explanations, you know, fanatics ready to sacrifice living people for the idea or whatever. All this is way too simple for me. Things went so terribly wrong in a totally different way from
In terms simply of the true vivacity of intellectual life. Don't be ashamed even intellectually to be Americans. Do you like America? Why not? I’m saying this absolutely sincerely. Although I must add, as an amusing remark, please don't take it too seriously, you know who was absolutely fascinated with America? Who? Stalin. You know when he was asked in late twenties can he define the ideal profile of a Bolshevik communist, he said: a combination of Russian tenacity, fidelity to a cause, and American dynamic pragmatic spirit. Why are you fascinated by Stalin? It's a very sad story. Far from me being in any way crypto-stalinist, I think that the Stalinist phenomenon in the 20th century was something so terrifying, things went so monstrously wrong, that we don't yet really have a theory, a real understanding of what went wrong. I don't buy all these standard explanations, you know, fanatics ready to sacrifice living people for the idea or whatever. All this is way too simple for me. Things went so terribly wrong in a totally different way from
unknown
fascism. And they hated everybody. You know, it was a process, there wasn't any specific group, it was everybody, including each other. Absolutely. This is for
fascism. And they hated everybody. You know, it was a process, there wasn't any specific group, it was everybody, including each other. Absolutely. This is for
Slavoj Žižek
example already one thing that people don't get. It was a suicidal regime. I mean, are we aware of the monstrosity? At the climactic point of the Stalinist terror, mid-thirties, you know what was absolutely the most dangerous place to be? A member of Central Committee. Look at the names in the Central Committee from to One by one, boom, boom, boom. Eighty percent, boom, boom. What? So, you know, it's not—this is already the wrong perception, some elite group of fanatical communists killing ordinary people. No, killing each other.
example already one thing that people don't get. It was a suicidal regime. I mean, are we aware of the monstrosity? At the climactic point of the Stalinist terror, mid-thirties, you know what was absolutely the most dangerous place to be? A member of Central Committee. Look at the names in the Central Committee from to One by one, boom, boom, boom. Eighty percent, boom, boom. What? So, you know, it's not—this is already the wrong perception, some elite group of fanatical communists killing ordinary people. No, killing each other.
unknown
In fact, the man who was doing the killing, Beria,
In fact, the man who was doing the killing, Beria,
Slavoj Žižek
they went boom, boom to him. Ah, this is why, yeah, at the end. But this is why Beria probably, if not organized the death of Stalin, prevented doctors' help because Beria knew what Stalin was doing. When Stalin nominated a new secret police boss, he immediately nominated someone who was formally just second-in-command, but whose task was to prepare a dossier to get rid at a later stage even of him. So Beria knew he is next, he is next in the line to be shot. Right. So tell me what you do. I am lucky. I'm not kidding, there is irony in it, and my ironically gratitude goes to communist regime. You know why? In the early 1970s, when I finished my postgraduate studies, I was already accepted to be assistant professor to make a career there. This was where? Ljubljana, Slovenia, Ex-Yugoslavia. Then immediately afterwards, a couple of months after, there was a counter-offensive of hardline communists, the last Indian summer of hardline communism. So I didn't get a job. For six, seven years I was unemployed, but it wasn't too bad. I was doing translations and so on, supported by my parents. And then a miracle happened. Then they got me a job at some marginal Institute for Social Sciences. The idea was, I'm not a complete idiot, so let's—they gave me a job, but marginal institute to prevent public influence and contact with students. I'm still there. It means permanent sabbatical. I have absolutely all the freedom to do
they went boom, boom to him. Ah, this is why, yeah, at the end. But this is why Beria probably, if not organized the death of Stalin, prevented doctors' help because Beria knew what Stalin was doing. When Stalin nominated a new secret police boss, he immediately nominated someone who was formally just second-in-command, but whose task was to prepare a dossier to get rid at a later stage even of him. So Beria knew he is next, he is next in the line to be shot. Right. So tell me what you do. I am lucky. I'm not kidding, there is irony in it, and my ironically gratitude goes to communist regime. You know why? In the early 1970s, when I finished my postgraduate studies, I was already accepted to be assistant professor to make a career there. This was where? Ljubljana, Slovenia, Ex-Yugoslavia. Then immediately afterwards, a couple of months after, there was a counter-offensive of hardline communists, the last Indian summer of hardline communism. So I didn't get a job. For six, seven years I was unemployed, but it wasn't too bad. I was doing translations and so on, supported by my parents. And then a miracle happened. Then they got me a job at some marginal Institute for Social Sciences. The idea was, I'm not a complete idiot, so let's—they gave me a job, but marginal institute to prevent public influence and contact with students. I'm still there. It means permanent sabbatical. I have absolutely all the freedom to do
unknown
whatever I want. I have— But you're known around the world. American students, I mean, you're high up on the list of sort of people that they want to hear. Yeah, to
whatever I want. I have— But you're known around the world. American students, I mean, you're high up on the list of sort of people that they want to hear. Yeah, to
Slavoj Žižek
hear it's okay, but I don't like to lose to lose too much time with debates. I'm very misanthropic, you know. I think that most—most of the people are boring, stupid and so on. I don't like to lose time. They told me, oh, you should debate with students, you will discover new ideas. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it will be just loss of
hear it's okay, but I don't like to lose to lose too much time with debates. I'm very misanthropic, you know. I think that most—most of the people are boring, stupid and so on. I don't like to lose time. They told me, oh, you should debate with students, you will discover new ideas. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it will be just loss of
unknown
time, you know. Well, isn’t there a dance place named after you in Buenos Aires? This is such a brutal
time, you know. Well, isn’t there a dance place named after you in Buenos Aires? This is such a brutal
Slavoj Žižek
irony. It's not a joke what I will tell you now. People think, oh, I am extrovert, half crazy, but I have my problems. Never in my life—and never is not a metaphor for just once a year—never did I dance or sing. I’m psychologically unable to do it. You never could dance? You don't have this motor skill? No, no, it's too obscene. It's too—no, no,
irony. It's not a joke what I will tell you now. People think, oh, I am extrovert, half crazy, but I have my problems. Never in my life—and never is not a metaphor for just once a year—never did I dance or sing. I’m psychologically unable to do it. You never could dance? You don't have this motor skill? No, no, it's too obscene. It's too—no, no,
unknown
it's the obscenity of gestures. I cannot do it. Yeah. So why do they think you're the most dangerous philosopher in the West? Or at least why did one writer for the New Republic say that? What is it you do or say that makes people think you're dangerous? It’s some things that
it's the obscenity of gestures. I cannot do it. Yeah. So why do they think you're the most dangerous philosopher in the West? Or at least why did one writer for the New Republic say that? What is it you do or say that makes people think you're dangerous? It’s some things that
Slavoj Žižek
I wrote about violence connected with what the author misread as my sympathy, which is absolutely not here, for Stalinism and tough regimes, which is madness. Sorry, but I was some kind of a dissident, not the hard one, but enough not to get a job, no. Plus, my—although it's very ambiguous—my critical stance towards politics of the politics of the state of Israel towards Palestinians. Although my position is there very differentiated. I totally agree with those who claim that you never should compromise with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is for me the primordial zero-level form of ideology. You have certain social conflict and you try to resolve it by blaming some outside intruders and so on. Looking for a scapegoat. Yeah. You know why I am—brought out this dangers of the Zionist politics? Look, something—I see something terrible happening lately. I hope you and other intelligent people also noticed it. First, it was Breivik, the crazy guy from Oslo, who was not so crazy, unfortunately. He had a consistent ideological vision. Do you notice that he is a strange case of Zionist anti-Semite? On the one hand, he totally supported the state of Israel, throw out the Palestinians, Arabs. At the same time, he is clearly anti-Semitic. For example, he writes that in Europe there are not too many Jews, it's okay. In United States, that's in his manifesto, you have six million Jews, oh, it's too much and so on, so you will have to deal with it. And—but wasn't something similar, for example, here on Fox TV with Glenn Beck? He was firing anti-Semitism at the same time totally pro-Zionist. And what I really am terrified with is that some hardline Zionists in the state of Israel are ready to make a pact with this kind of Zionist anti-Semite, for example American Christian fundamentalists. The idea is we tolerate your internal anti-Semitism if you allow us to play the same game with Palestinians. And it makes me very sad for the Jewish people whom I like immensely. I think that something that—the way they are treating Palestinians will decide their character. Will they become just another nation-state or will what made them so great in the history of humanity survive. But again, something—we live in crazy times. This is misread as oh, I’m anti-Semitic or whatever. I hear you. Tell me about this film that you have, the forthcoming film, it’s called The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, directed by Sophie Fiennes. No, we did the first one, which did relatively well, Pervert’s Guide to Cinema. And now we repeat the same formula. We take—mostly the formula is documentary clips or clips from well-known films, and just giving a twist to them. For example, one with—ideologico-critical axis. For example, one that we really liked, it worked well, is we all saw James Cameron's Titanic. Indeed, and then we saw Avatar. Avatar I didn't like too much. But in Titanic, you remember the final moment when Leonardo DiCaprio character is dying and freezing, then when Kate Winslet notices that he is dead, she pushes him away into the water while shouting, I will never let you go, I will never let you go. It’s a crazy—and from here I propose crazy but I think accurate reading of the film. That it's not really even a love story. It’s a variation on that reactionary motive of Captains Courageous. A rich spoiled girl is in a life crisis, and the function of Leonardo DiCaprio is to bring some of the lower-class vitality to restore her ego. Literally, he draws the image of her. And then after doing this, he can disappear. It's a little bit like E.T. goes home, but he goes down, no. Yeah. And so I love doing this, which is why you mentioned it very kindly of you. I also—I'm not saying I love the movie, but in a way I admired Kung Fu Panda. It appears just as a stupid cartoon. No. It's—what I admire in the movie is the following. Everyone noticed it. On the one hand, the movie mobilizes, you know, all that, let's call it, Oriental military mystique, Kung Fu, faith, warrior, discipline, all that stuff. At the same time, the movie is totally ironic, making fun of its own ideology. What is so fascinating is that although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives. And this is how cynicism functions. If I am permitted to tell my favorite story, a wonderful anecdote about Niels Bohr, the Copenhagen guy, which best exemplifies this cynicism. The nuclear scientist. Yeah, that one. Yeah. No, he was an extraordinary spirit. He once a friend visited him in his country house, farmer's house, where he went for the weekend to rest, dacha in Russian. And—the friend noticed there above the entrance to the house a horseshoe, which in—I don't know how it is here, in Europe it's a superstitious item preventing evil spirits to enter the house. Yes. You see it on barns throughout the South. Yeah, in Europe also. Yeah. So the friend asked Niels Bohr, wait a minute, aren't you a scientist? Do you believe in this? Niels Bohr said of course I’m not crazy, I don’t. So friend asked him, why do you have it there? You know what Niels Bohr answered? No, I can’t wait to find out. Yeah, yeah. He said, of course I don't believe in it, that it—but I have it there because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's unfortunately our ideology today. Or I’m hedging my bets. Yeah, yeah. Like you know, you don't have to believe in it, but belief still functions. Like think about another thing which always fascinated me. Things like Santa Claus. You ask the parents, do you believe in Santa Claus? They will tell, oh not crazy, I buy the—then you ask the child, do you believe? He will say, no, I'm not crazy, I just pretend not to hurt my parents. And you know, so a belief functions as social category even if no one believes in it. I think this is crucial to understand how things function today. What’s the role of philosophy you think in the 21st century today? I don't exaggerate it, but also I don't underestimate it. Let me be very clear. First, I claim that the time of philosophy is coming. Why? Look just at the ethical questions we are debating. Abortion, is it permissible or not? Biogenetic manipulations. These are simply new dilemmas where let's face it, you cannot simply apply old traditional wisdoms or rules. We have to think. At the same time, I don't think philosophers can bring ready-made answers. But philosophers can do something very important today. They can—and this is no less important than correct answers—they can allow us to ask the right questions. Exactly. That's exactly what you do. Because isn't it that often today, look at for example ecology, look at racism, tolerance. We know we have a serious problem. But the very way we formulate the problem, it's part of the problem. For example, for example, tolerance. You're singing my song. Yeah. But you see, and here how you ask the question determines the answer. Yeah, and this I think is our task. So when friends who even laugh at me as a philosopher, nonetheless with some kind of a superstitious respect, some ask me: but tell us. Or at Wall Street they asked me: but tell us, what to do? What no, I don't know what to do. I don't have ready-made answers. You told them in fact you went down to speak to the people at Occupy Wall Street and they all want to know: tell us, you know,
I wrote about violence connected with what the author misread as my sympathy, which is absolutely not here, for Stalinism and tough regimes, which is madness. Sorry, but I was some kind of a dissident, not the hard one, but enough not to get a job, no. Plus, my—although it's very ambiguous—my critical stance towards politics of the politics of the state of Israel towards Palestinians. Although my position is there very differentiated. I totally agree with those who claim that you never should compromise with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is for me the primordial zero-level form of ideology. You have certain social conflict and you try to resolve it by blaming some outside intruders and so on. Looking for a scapegoat. Yeah. You know why I am—brought out this dangers of the Zionist politics? Look, something—I see something terrible happening lately. I hope you and other intelligent people also noticed it. First, it was Breivik, the crazy guy from Oslo, who was not so crazy, unfortunately. He had a consistent ideological vision. Do you notice that he is a strange case of Zionist anti-Semite? On the one hand, he totally supported the state of Israel, throw out the Palestinians, Arabs. At the same time, he is clearly anti-Semitic. For example, he writes that in Europe there are not too many Jews, it's okay. In United States, that's in his manifesto, you have six million Jews, oh, it's too much and so on, so you will have to deal with it. And—but wasn't something similar, for example, here on Fox TV with Glenn Beck? He was firing anti-Semitism at the same time totally pro-Zionist. And what I really am terrified with is that some hardline Zionists in the state of Israel are ready to make a pact with this kind of Zionist anti-Semite, for example American Christian fundamentalists. The idea is we tolerate your internal anti-Semitism if you allow us to play the same game with Palestinians. And it makes me very sad for the Jewish people whom I like immensely. I think that something that—the way they are treating Palestinians will decide their character. Will they become just another nation-state or will what made them so great in the history of humanity survive. But again, something—we live in crazy times. This is misread as oh, I’m anti-Semitic or whatever. I hear you. Tell me about this film that you have, the forthcoming film, it’s called The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, directed by Sophie Fiennes. No, we did the first one, which did relatively well, Pervert’s Guide to Cinema. And now we repeat the same formula. We take—mostly the formula is documentary clips or clips from well-known films, and just giving a twist to them. For example, one with—ideologico-critical axis. For example, one that we really liked, it worked well, is we all saw James Cameron's Titanic. Indeed, and then we saw Avatar. Avatar I didn't like too much. But in Titanic, you remember the final moment when Leonardo DiCaprio character is dying and freezing, then when Kate Winslet notices that he is dead, she pushes him away into the water while shouting, I will never let you go, I will never let you go. It’s a crazy—and from here I propose crazy but I think accurate reading of the film. That it's not really even a love story. It’s a variation on that reactionary motive of Captains Courageous. A rich spoiled girl is in a life crisis, and the function of Leonardo DiCaprio is to bring some of the lower-class vitality to restore her ego. Literally, he draws the image of her. And then after doing this, he can disappear. It's a little bit like E.T. goes home, but he goes down, no. Yeah. And so I love doing this, which is why you mentioned it very kindly of you. I also—I'm not saying I love the movie, but in a way I admired Kung Fu Panda. It appears just as a stupid cartoon. No. It's—what I admire in the movie is the following. Everyone noticed it. On the one hand, the movie mobilizes, you know, all that, let's call it, Oriental military mystique, Kung Fu, faith, warrior, discipline, all that stuff. At the same time, the movie is totally ironic, making fun of its own ideology. What is so fascinating is that although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives. And this is how cynicism functions. If I am permitted to tell my favorite story, a wonderful anecdote about Niels Bohr, the Copenhagen guy, which best exemplifies this cynicism. The nuclear scientist. Yeah, that one. Yeah. No, he was an extraordinary spirit. He once a friend visited him in his country house, farmer's house, where he went for the weekend to rest, dacha in Russian. And—the friend noticed there above the entrance to the house a horseshoe, which in—I don't know how it is here, in Europe it's a superstitious item preventing evil spirits to enter the house. Yes. You see it on barns throughout the South. Yeah, in Europe also. Yeah. So the friend asked Niels Bohr, wait a minute, aren't you a scientist? Do you believe in this? Niels Bohr said of course I’m not crazy, I don’t. So friend asked him, why do you have it there? You know what Niels Bohr answered? No, I can’t wait to find out. Yeah, yeah. He said, of course I don't believe in it, that it—but I have it there because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's unfortunately our ideology today. Or I’m hedging my bets. Yeah, yeah. Like you know, you don't have to believe in it, but belief still functions. Like think about another thing which always fascinated me. Things like Santa Claus. You ask the parents, do you believe in Santa Claus? They will tell, oh not crazy, I buy the—then you ask the child, do you believe? He will say, no, I'm not crazy, I just pretend not to hurt my parents. And you know, so a belief functions as social category even if no one believes in it. I think this is crucial to understand how things function today. What’s the role of philosophy you think in the 21st century today? I don't exaggerate it, but also I don't underestimate it. Let me be very clear. First, I claim that the time of philosophy is coming. Why? Look just at the ethical questions we are debating. Abortion, is it permissible or not? Biogenetic manipulations. These are simply new dilemmas where let's face it, you cannot simply apply old traditional wisdoms or rules. We have to think. At the same time, I don't think philosophers can bring ready-made answers. But philosophers can do something very important today. They can—and this is no less important than correct answers—they can allow us to ask the right questions. Exactly. That's exactly what you do. Because isn't it that often today, look at for example ecology, look at racism, tolerance. We know we have a serious problem. But the very way we formulate the problem, it's part of the problem. For example, for example, tolerance. You're singing my song. Yeah. But you see, and here how you ask the question determines the answer. Yeah, and this I think is our task. So when friends who even laugh at me as a philosopher, nonetheless with some kind of a superstitious respect, some ask me: but tell us. Or at Wall Street they asked me: but tell us, what to do? What no, I don't know what to do. I don't have ready-made answers. You told them in fact you went down to speak to the people at Occupy Wall Street and they all want to know: tell us, you know,
unknown
help us understand what to
help us understand what to
Slavoj Žižek
do. And you said no, no, no. What did you tell them though? What was your message to those people that are down there? That it's time to think. That—my basic message was, and I think it was totally correct, that they shouldn't fall in love with themselves. By this I mean: oh, what nice time we have here, this immediate freedom, ecstatic, back to old hippie days. No, the true problem is the day after. What of this will be translated into our daily lives, really make some changes and so on. And for this, there are no fast
do. And you said no, no, no. What did you tell them though? What was your message to those people that are down there? That it's time to think. That—my basic message was, and I think it was totally correct, that they shouldn't fall in love with themselves. By this I mean: oh, what nice time we have here, this immediate freedom, ecstatic, back to old hippie days. No, the true problem is the day after. What of this will be translated into our daily lives, really make some changes and so on. And for this, there are no fast
unknown
answers. Which is why on the other hand, I also don't totally agree, although
answers. Which is why on the other hand, I also don't totally agree, although
Slavoj Žižek
it was probably well-meant, with what President Bill Clinton said. These protests are okay, but they should translate into concrete demands what they want. No, it's a little bit deeper. We all know that our societies are approaching some deeper deadlocks, dilemmas, from ecology to you know status of capitalism, intellectual property, biogenetics. These are deep problems. And I am only—I want to take this very—make this very clear so that I will not be perceived as a kind of a nostalgic idiot. I’m only a communist in the sense that communism is for me the name of these problems which are problems of the commons, like you know nature out there is our common ground and so on. Your common—I got you. I'm not communist at the level of answers. I'm the first to admit 20th century— You're not a communist in the area of Marxism-Leninism. We can learn something of Marx, but not in the sense of easy solutions, like the Leninist party is certainly not the answer. The 20th century communism was—it did some good things here and there, universal education, blah blah, but basically let's face it, it was a fiasco. And we have to— Why was it a fiasco in your judgment? I don't have a clear theory, and this is why I’m so obsessed with the Stalinist phenomenon. But because I
it was probably well-meant, with what President Bill Clinton said. These protests are okay, but they should translate into concrete demands what they want. No, it's a little bit deeper. We all know that our societies are approaching some deeper deadlocks, dilemmas, from ecology to you know status of capitalism, intellectual property, biogenetics. These are deep problems. And I am only—I want to take this very—make this very clear so that I will not be perceived as a kind of a nostalgic idiot. I’m only a communist in the sense that communism is for me the name of these problems which are problems of the commons, like you know nature out there is our common ground and so on. Your common—I got you. I'm not communist at the level of answers. I'm the first to admit 20th century— You're not a communist in the area of Marxism-Leninism. We can learn something of Marx, but not in the sense of easy solutions, like the Leninist party is certainly not the answer. The 20th century communism was—it did some good things here and there, universal education, blah blah, but basically let's face it, it was a fiasco. And we have to— Why was it a fiasco in your judgment? I don't have a clear theory, and this is why I’m so obsessed with the Stalinist phenomenon. But because I
unknown
think it's really mysterious how something which—here I disagree with right-wing or liberal critics. Look, at the beginning,
think it's really mysterious how something which—here I disagree with right-wing or liberal critics. Look, at the beginning,
Slavoj Žižek
October Revolution did have a tremendous emancipatory potential. It did have. It liberated women, society exploded, and then we know into what it turned. It was something much more terrible than fascism. Let me simplify it. Fascists were bad guys who said they plan to do bad things, and then what a surprise, they did it. Yes. So, but this is why in fascism, or especially Nazism, you don't have the figure of Nazi dissidents. While Stalinist communism even all the time had to fight with disappointed communists who, you know—at the same time, let me be clear— The Gulags started early. Yeah. But at the same time, I'm not saying: oh, at the beginning everything was okay and so on. You know, this Trotskyist story. If only Lenin were to survive two years more, made a pact with Trotsky against Lenin—no, no, no. There was a kind of a at least general tendency that Leninism had to become Stalinism. I have no illusions there. But that's what makes it truly tragic. You have no illusions that Leninism had to become Stalinism. No, yeah, it had to, in a way. I don't think there was a real alternative in the sense of oh, if only— Gorbachev thought he could reform communism. That was his own motivation. Then Yeltsin comes along and says: no, you can't reform it, you have to you know throw it down. Yeah, but the problem with Yeltsin, I think, is— What was the problem with Gorbachev though? Was
October Revolution did have a tremendous emancipatory potential. It did have. It liberated women, society exploded, and then we know into what it turned. It was something much more terrible than fascism. Let me simplify it. Fascists were bad guys who said they plan to do bad things, and then what a surprise, they did it. Yes. So, but this is why in fascism, or especially Nazism, you don't have the figure of Nazi dissidents. While Stalinist communism even all the time had to fight with disappointed communists who, you know—at the same time, let me be clear— The Gulags started early. Yeah. But at the same time, I'm not saying: oh, at the beginning everything was okay and so on. You know, this Trotskyist story. If only Lenin were to survive two years more, made a pact with Trotsky against Lenin—no, no, no. There was a kind of a at least general tendency that Leninism had to become Stalinism. I have no illusions there. But that's what makes it truly tragic. You have no illusions that Leninism had to become Stalinism. No, yeah, it had to, in a way. I don't think there was a real alternative in the sense of oh, if only— Gorbachev thought he could reform communism. That was his own motivation. Then Yeltsin comes along and says: no, you can't reform it, you have to you know throw it down. Yeah, but the problem with Yeltsin, I think, is— What was the problem with Gorbachev though? Was
unknown
it reformable in your
it reformable in your
Slavoj Žižek
judgment? That communism, no, absolutely not. Absolutely not. On the other hand, you know, the problem with Yeltsin was that he did it in a very chaotic way. Like if you look at how the Chinese did it, they started privatization, capitalism, in a very intelligent way. They started with small consumerist industry, tested it there, then slowly expanded it. The Russians did it exactly the opposite. They started it with banks and natural resources, so they got the most non-productive capitalism which you can imagine. New rich guys, tycoons whose capitalism was not productive, they just were selling their natural resources and so on. They became the oligarchs. The oligarchs, yeah. Now here's an idea that you have propounded, which is the notion that while often capitalism and democracy have gone hand in hand, you're suggesting that with the rise of China with a kind of state capitalism, you may very well not see for the first time in history or— Yeah, yeah. —democracy follow. And that that may be a threat to the—the order in itself. Yeah. No, what I’m saying is that again, I'm not just blindly anti-capitalist. Let's be serious. Capitalism is the most productive social order in the history of humanity. And let me be very clear now, some radical leftist will lynch me for saying this, but can you imagine in the entire in the entire history of yeah humanity, an era in which so many people lived such relatively free lives and safe lives in relative welfare as, let's say, in Western Europe in the last years. So let's, as they put it in the church, let's recognize to the devil what belongs to the devil. What I’m saying is that these times are passing. And what— what times are passing? These times of democracy being sorry capitalism able to claim that it is a forerunner to democracy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That what happens for me in China is that we have, let's be clear, we have a capitalism
judgment? That communism, no, absolutely not. Absolutely not. On the other hand, you know, the problem with Yeltsin was that he did it in a very chaotic way. Like if you look at how the Chinese did it, they started privatization, capitalism, in a very intelligent way. They started with small consumerist industry, tested it there, then slowly expanded it. The Russians did it exactly the opposite. They started it with banks and natural resources, so they got the most non-productive capitalism which you can imagine. New rich guys, tycoons whose capitalism was not productive, they just were selling their natural resources and so on. They became the oligarchs. The oligarchs, yeah. Now here's an idea that you have propounded, which is the notion that while often capitalism and democracy have gone hand in hand, you're suggesting that with the rise of China with a kind of state capitalism, you may very well not see for the first time in history or— Yeah, yeah. —democracy follow. And that that may be a threat to the—the order in itself. Yeah. No, what I’m saying is that again, I'm not just blindly anti-capitalist. Let's be serious. Capitalism is the most productive social order in the history of humanity. And let me be very clear now, some radical leftist will lynch me for saying this, but can you imagine in the entire in the entire history of yeah humanity, an era in which so many people lived such relatively free lives and safe lives in relative welfare as, let's say, in Western Europe in the last years. So let's, as they put it in the church, let's recognize to the devil what belongs to the devil. What I’m saying is that these times are passing. And what— what times are passing? These times of democracy being sorry capitalism able to claim that it is a forerunner to democracy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That what happens for me in China is that we have, let's be clear, we have a capitalism
unknown
which is more dynamic, productive, at least it looks now, than Western capitalism. And democracy in the United
which is more dynamic, productive, at least it looks now, than Western capitalism. And democracy in the United
Slavoj Žižek
States is in a sense of paralysis over
States is in a sense of paralysis over
unknown
making decisions that are in the
making decisions that are in the
Slavoj Žižek
interest— And again, I don't I don't believe those who say: oh, if China were to have democracy, it would have been even better. Unfortunately, it wouldn't, because it's not just China. Look at Singapore is the key, I think. Do you know that when Deng Xiaoping started his reforms, he visited Singapore? Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew, ah, here you are touching a key point. My German friend Peter Sloterdijk, a philosopher, when he asked himself a beautiful question: can we imagine to which person from our time they will be building monuments years from now in the
interest— And again, I don't I don't believe those who say: oh, if China were to have democracy, it would have been even better. Unfortunately, it wouldn't, because it's not just China. Look at Singapore is the key, I think. Do you know that when Deng Xiaoping started his reforms, he visited Singapore? Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew, ah, here you are touching a key point. My German friend Peter Sloterdijk, a philosopher, when he asked himself a beautiful question: can we imagine to which person from our time they will be building monuments years from now in the
unknown
future? He said Lee Kuan Yew. Because he invented so-called capitalism with Asian values, which means to cut things short, authoritarian capitalism. He invented the formula. And even I mean Deng Xiaoping said, said: this is a model for all China. That’s exactly— And this is what I would worry about. And more than that, he sent lots of Chinese to Singapore
future? He said Lee Kuan Yew. Because he invented so-called capitalism with Asian values, which means to cut things short, authoritarian capitalism. He invented the formula. And even I mean Deng Xiaoping said, said: this is a model for all China. That’s exactly— And this is what I would worry about. And more than that, he sent lots of Chinese to Singapore
Slavoj Žižek
to study what they had done in order to bring it back. Yeah, yeah. So again, I'm not saying you liberals are traitors. I'm saying if you are a sincere liberal, start thinking about this. How really to save the freedoms that we enjoy. Let me move you to the Arab Spring and how—what your observations are about what's happened from Tunisia to Libya to Egypt. Basically I think it's an extremely positive thing. Because you know we in Western Europe at least and here, all the time we dismissed Arabs as: oh, those guys you can mobilize them en masse only on anti-Semitism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism. No, here we got what we wanted. A secular revolt for freedom, democracy and so on. Not about ideology at all. Okay, here maybe
to study what they had done in order to bring it back. Yeah, yeah. So again, I'm not saying you liberals are traitors. I'm saying if you are a sincere liberal, start thinking about this. How really to save the freedoms that we enjoy. Let me move you to the Arab Spring and how—what your observations are about what's happened from Tunisia to Libya to Egypt. Basically I think it's an extremely positive thing. Because you know we in Western Europe at least and here, all the time we dismissed Arabs as: oh, those guys you can mobilize them en masse only on anti-Semitism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism. No, here we got what we wanted. A secular revolt for freedom, democracy and so on. Not about ideology at all. Okay, here maybe
unknown
I disagree because what do you mean by
I disagree because what do you mean by
Slavoj Žižek
ideology? Well, I don't know you tell me. But it was about dignity, it was about responsibility, it was about— Freedom, solidarity, all those things. It was a wonderful event. And okay— But it wasn't had no—wasn't religiously based, it wasn't— No, no, it clearly wasn't. There was no ism
ideology? Well, I don't know you tell me. But it was about dignity, it was about responsibility, it was about— Freedom, solidarity, all those things. It was a wonderful event. And okay— But it wasn't had no—wasn't religiously based, it wasn't— No, no, it clearly wasn't. There was no ism
unknown
behind it. Or not. Yeah, what do you mean by ism now? Because you know— Communism, fascism, some other kind of ism. You know what's
behind it. Or not. Yeah, what do you mean by ism now? Because you know— Communism, fascism, some other kind of ism. You know what's
Slavoj Žižek
my problem? That I don't believe in this, like for me ideology often—like I don't think there is some kind of innocent, out of all ideologies consciousness or whatever. Aren't we all the time in ideologies? In the sense of, of course you can say no ism, but if you look closely at what people were demanding then. You can clearly see what they took from the Arab tradition, from the Western tradition. I don't believe in this— So then you think they're defining some new— Potentially. —potentially of socialism could have been another ism. Yeah, yeah. So the Arab Spring may very well evolve some new idea of— May, may, and what will prevent it from doing that in your judgment? The combination of I think, instead of fully supporting it, all the compromising stance of the West. For example, it's clear in Egypt that now, I'm not saying it has to happen, but the most probable, the most probable outcome—and I pray that it will not happen—is as friends from Egypt are telling me, an obscene pact between
my problem? That I don't believe in this, like for me ideology often—like I don't think there is some kind of innocent, out of all ideologies consciousness or whatever. Aren't we all the time in ideologies? In the sense of, of course you can say no ism, but if you look closely at what people were demanding then. You can clearly see what they took from the Arab tradition, from the Western tradition. I don't believe in this— So then you think they're defining some new— Potentially. —potentially of socialism could have been another ism. Yeah, yeah. So the Arab Spring may very well evolve some new idea of— May, may, and what will prevent it from doing that in your judgment? The combination of I think, instead of fully supporting it, all the compromising stance of the West. For example, it's clear in Egypt that now, I'm not saying it has to happen, but the most probable, the most probable outcome—and I pray that it will not happen—is as friends from Egypt are telling me, an obscene pact between
unknown
Muslim Brotherhood and the army. A kind of obscene exchange where Muslim Brotherhood gets ideological hegemony in exchange the army keeps
Muslim Brotherhood and the army. A kind of obscene exchange where Muslim Brotherhood gets ideological hegemony in exchange the army keeps
Slavoj Žižek
its corrupted privileges and so on, gets the power. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because remember something. The army is still percent the old Mubarak army. Indeed. Yeah.
its corrupted privileges and so on, gets the power. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because remember something. The army is still percent the old Mubarak army. Indeed. Yeah.
unknown
So the people who are in control of the army were there put there by Mubarak.
So the people who are in control of the army were there put there by Mubarak.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, totally, totally. So you see here we have an example of how a space— But but they did not come to his aid at the crucial moment. They did not come to save him at the crucial moment. Because they made probably a correct judgment that this would require then to— Or as they say, they knew which way the wind was blowing. Yeah, yeah, to too much of their pressure. What I’m afraid is that again the West will again do it wrong and for me, for example, how can you—you know, Arabs are quite right of being sensitive to this. How can you preach democracy to Arabs and
Yeah, totally, totally. So you see here we have an example of how a space— But but they did not come to his aid at the crucial moment. They did not come to save him at the crucial moment. Because they made probably a correct judgment that this would require then to— Or as they say, they knew which way the wind was blowing. Yeah, yeah, to too much of their pressure. What I’m afraid is that again the West will again do it wrong and for me, for example, how can you—you know, Arabs are quite right of being sensitive to this. How can you preach democracy to Arabs and
unknown
fully stand behind Saudi Arabia? I mean, I'm sorry to tell you— There’s a contradiction there.
fully stand behind Saudi Arabia? I mean, I'm sorry to tell you— There’s a contradiction there.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, I'm sorry to
Yeah, I'm sorry to
unknown
tell you but when we speak about personal freedoms, the role of women, sexual freedoms, Iran is a paradise compared with Saudi Arabia. And do you remember in Bahrain there was a genuine revolt? Yes. It was crushed down high.
tell you but when we speak about personal freedoms, the role of women, sexual freedoms, Iran is a paradise compared with Saudi Arabia. And do you remember in Bahrain there was a genuine revolt? Yes. It was crushed down high.
Slavoj Žižek
Saudi Arabia intervened there. I don't remember any big— Well, you know what the administration, the Obama administration would say and others would say, you know, the European administration would say: you have to judge these on a country-by-country basis. Yeah, but this is just a nice way a mask as wisdom to say ruthless opportunism and so on. And it's so typical how the West intervenes. But you can’t find one you—it does not have to be a philosophy that has no exceptions to it, does it? No, but nonetheless it's typical that where the West did intervene—
Saudi Arabia intervened there. I don't remember any big— Well, you know what the administration, the Obama administration would say and others would say, you know, the European administration would say: you have to judge these on a country-by-country basis. Yeah, but this is just a nice way a mask as wisdom to say ruthless opportunism and so on. And it's so typical how the West intervenes. But you can’t find one you—it does not have to be a philosophy that has no exceptions to it, does it? No, but nonetheless it's typical that where the West did intervene—
unknown
Yeah. —was precisely the wrong place, Libya. Why? Let me be clear. I have no sympathy
Yeah. —was precisely the wrong place, Libya. Why? Let me be clear. I have no sympathy
Slavoj Žižek
whatsoever even when we were witnessing these horrible scenes of Gaddafi being basically lynched by the mob. No sympathy whatsoever for him. But wasn't it clear that in contrast to Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, where we had a clear democratic people's movement with program, wasn't it blurred from the very beginning in Libya? It wasn't clear who these rebels are, what. And you see where you get. Now we learn two, three weeks ago that the main military commander of the Libyan resistance is kind of a ex-jihadi, Al-Qaeda man. So where we ended is NATO arming Al-Qaeda. Thanks very
whatsoever even when we were witnessing these horrible scenes of Gaddafi being basically lynched by the mob. No sympathy whatsoever for him. But wasn't it clear that in contrast to Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, where we had a clear democratic people's movement with program, wasn't it blurred from the very beginning in Libya? It wasn't clear who these rebels are, what. And you see where you get. Now we learn two, three weeks ago that the main military commander of the Libyan resistance is kind of a ex-jihadi, Al-Qaeda man. So where we ended is NATO arming Al-Qaeda. Thanks very
unknown
much for such— No, they should have been a little bit more restrained, not in the sense of supporting Gaddafi. Oh, but if they hadn't come in at the time, there would have been a huge massacre. That was their argument. That it was going—the army, the Gaddafi army was was marching on to
much for such— No, they should have been a little bit more restrained, not in the sense of supporting Gaddafi. Oh, but if they hadn't come in at the time, there would have been a huge massacre. That was their argument. That it was going—the army, the Gaddafi army was was marching on to
Slavoj Žižek
Benghazi and if they had not— That was a humanitarian—but but in fact, the humanitarian turned into something else. Yeah, and this is—this is the problem. What will—no, but what what is so horrible for me is how precisely the case where the revolt was not a clearly democratic secular revolt, precisely there the West intervened. It’s it's sad. What’s going to happen to this movement that you see that’s developing in terms of what happened at Wall Street, happening in cities? Is—it does it have, as they say, legs? Does it have the capacity to grow into something
Benghazi and if they had not— That was a humanitarian—but but in fact, the humanitarian turned into something else. Yeah, and this is—this is the problem. What will—no, but what what is so horrible for me is how precisely the case where the revolt was not a clearly democratic secular revolt, precisely there the West intervened. It’s it's sad. What’s going to happen to this movement that you see that’s developing in terms of what happened at Wall Street, happening in cities? Is—it does it have, as they say, legs? Does it have the capacity to grow into something
unknown
that has power? It’s not yet decided. It's not sure yet. It's not sure, which is why I think now it's not yet the time to make it utopian in the bad
that has power? It’s not yet decided. It's not sure yet. It's not sure, which is why I think now it's not yet the time to make it utopian in the bad
Slavoj Žižek
sense. You know, the time to make plans for power or
sense. You know, the time to make plans for power or
unknown
whatever. It's time for reflection. It's time to ask the basic questions. Do we even— This is for me the
whatever. It's time for reflection. It's time to ask the basic questions. Do we even— This is for me the
Slavoj Žižek
tragic thing. We all feel something is wrong with the system. Because of income disparity, because of a whole range of things. Yeah. And we know it cannot just be solved by a little bit of social democratic legislation or— It has to be what? A more radical, I claim. And what would radical be? It's very clear. Some deep transformation of the capitalist system itself in the long term. Into? Ah, here problems begin. I don't think there is a clear idea. But you know, we will have to think about it because what I’m afraid that you can say: okay, we cannot even imagine it. Ah, here I have two problems. They may amuse you. First one is: did you notice how in what a strange way today the terms possible/impossible function? Like if you speak about science, everything is becoming
tragic thing. We all feel something is wrong with the system. Because of income disparity, because of a whole range of things. Yeah. And we know it cannot just be solved by a little bit of social democratic legislation or— It has to be what? A more radical, I claim. And what would radical be? It's very clear. Some deep transformation of the capitalist system itself in the long term. Into? Ah, here problems begin. I don't think there is a clear idea. But you know, we will have to think about it because what I’m afraid that you can say: okay, we cannot even imagine it. Ah, here I have two problems. They may amuse you. First one is: did you notice how in what a strange way today the terms possible/impossible function? Like if you speak about science, everything is becoming
unknown
possible. You know, like like through biogenetic or cloning we will be able to live forever, replacing our organs, blah blah, whatever you want. Stem cell and all that. Everything will be accessible to us through iPhone, blah blah, in clouds. So here everything is
possible. You know, like like through biogenetic or cloning we will be able to live forever, replacing our organs, blah blah, whatever you want. Stem cell and all that. Everything will be accessible to us through iPhone, blah blah, in clouds. So here everything is
Slavoj Žižek
possible. But when you say let's raise the taxes and spend a little bit more money for healthcare, impossible. So it's like my friend Fred Jameson, Fredric Jameson said: we can
possible. But when you say let's raise the taxes and spend a little bit more money for healthcare, impossible. So it's like my friend Fred Jameson, Fredric Jameson said: we can
unknown
well imagine, we do it daily, all the catastrophe movies, we can well imagine the end of the earth, asteroid hitting earth, but we cannot imagine a small change in capitalism, no. And the the important thing is not to engage
well imagine, we do it daily, all the catastrophe movies, we can well imagine the end of the earth, asteroid hitting earth, but we cannot imagine a small change in capitalism, no. And the the important thing is not to engage
Slavoj Žižek
in some crazy destructive experiments, but to open up the space of thinking. It's difficult this because we know how the 20th century attempts failed. I'm not—I don't have any big formula. I even ironically, in a self-mocking way, often say that because people accuse me, I'm kind of a demagogue, stand-up comedian, magician. I say if I'm a magician, I'm a magician which is showing you all the time
in some crazy destructive experiments, but to open up the space of thinking. It's difficult this because we know how the 20th century attempts failed. I'm not—I don't have any big formula. I even ironically, in a self-mocking way, often say that because people accuse me, I'm kind of a demagogue, stand-up comedian, magician. I say if I'm a magician, I'm a magician which is showing you all the time
unknown
the hat but the
the hat but the
Slavoj Žižek
rabbit never comes out, you know, the formula. I'm modest here. I'm just saying this is why I like intelligent conservatives. Not reactionaries, conservatives. Honest conservatives are the ones who openly confront the deadlock and don't—don't play games with some easy
rabbit never comes out, you know, the formula. I'm modest here. I'm just saying this is why I like intelligent conservatives. Not reactionaries, conservatives. Honest conservatives are the ones who openly confront the deadlock and don't—don't play games with some easy
unknown
solutions or whatever.
solutions or whatever.
Slavoj Žižek
Thank you for coming. I hope we can do this again. I am really proud proud to be here and I hope I at least helped in dispelling some of these ideas that me and my friends have some I don't know dark terrorist plans. We are much more modest than it may appear. We are just saying we are approaching a crisis. It's not no cause for panic, emergency or whatever, but to start thinking. And to ask the right questions. Yes. Thanks very much.
Thank you for coming. I hope we can do this again. I am really proud proud to be here and I hope I at least helped in dispelling some of these ideas that me and my friends have some I don't know dark terrorist plans. We are much more modest than it may appear. We are just saying we are approaching a crisis. It's not no cause for panic, emergency or whatever, but to start thinking. And to ask the right questions. Yes. Thanks very much.