Slavoj Zizek: COVID, Tech Billionaires, Racism, and So On — 2021 Interview
Talk · Jacobin ·
2021-01-16 · 1:22:13 · 10,899 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologyhegel-dialecticsecology-climatefascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessrevolution-violencetechnology-ai-cyberspacegeopolitics-warrace-antisemitismethicssubjectivityphilosophy-general
In this Jacobin interview around the release of Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World, Žižek argues the pandemic is a 'Kill Bill-like hit to capitalism' that demands a provocative 'communism', the socialization of healthcare, ecology and economy, read through Marx's dialectical notion of tendential law (with the Capitol riot as its pseudo-populist counter-reaction). He defends Hegel's concrete universality via Black Lives Matter and the Haitian revolution, attacks Biden and the centrist Democratic establishment as the true enemy ('Trump with a human face'), and frames the choice as either Elysium-style elite bunkers or global cooperation.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 22
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
His metaphor for the pandemic as a blow that staggers capitalism and forces socialization, a provocation critics called crazy but he stands by.
as “what I provocatively call communism”
His rebranding of communism as the socialization of healthcare, ecological care and economy that the crisis makes necessary, not Soviet nostalgia.
Marx's dialectical notion (e.g. the tendential fall of the rate of profit): a tendency that provokes counter-movements, so the outcome is not predestined, the frame he uses for capitalism's drift toward communism.
as “state of exception”
The frame governments use to suspend politics in crisis, Žižek rejects it, insisting the pandemic is the most political moment, not a technical emergency.
Hegel's notion read politically: in each concrete situation one particular oppression gives the tone to the totality, so the particular demand (Black Lives Matter) can be the only truly universal statement.
A universal-sounding statement ('all lives matter') that secretly privileges a particular group, the hegemonic white middle-class standard.
Hegel's term for isolating COVID as a pure medical problem, detaching it from capitalism, ecology, injustice, the enemy's way of forcing depoliticized thought.
Marx's notion of shared social substance (communication platforms, infrastructure) that tech billionaires privatize and extract rent from.
Marx's distinction Žižek repurposes: today's billionaire wealth comes from rent (monopoly position) not profit from exploited labor, a return from profit to rent Marx did not foresee.
as “the most effective unfreedom is the unfreedom you experience as freedom”
His thesis on US ideological superiority over China: subjects who think they are free while being controlled are more thoroughly subjugated.
His exemplary instance of concrete universality: Haiti's constitution declaring every citizen black, regardless of skin color, universalizing the particular oppression.
as “the critique of ideology glasses”
His reuse of the They Live glasses: a device that reveals the alien/robot behind the ordinary human face, ideology made visible.
Half-ironic self-designation for his authoritarian impulses (prohibiting Twitter, banning billionaire bunkers), confessed as his 'petit bourgeois fascist tendency'.
His methodological maxim: reframing social problems into pragmatic/technical issues (Gates) is itself an ideological operation.
as “fake it till you make it (anti-racist practice)”
Borrowing the Alcoholics Anonymous formula (via Pascal's Jansenism) for anti-racism: change external practice, not inner soul-searching.
as “the true test of revolution is the everyday level”
His criterion: a revolution is real not in the big enthusiastic moment but in how ordinary life changes once the carnival ends.
as “the true historicist relativist”
His redirection of Peterson's 'loss of firm values' charge: Trump, not the postmodern left, is the cynical relativist without stable values.
The right's claim to stable values and common decency, Žižek inverts it: Bernie Sanders, not Trump, is the real moral majority.
Negri/Hardt's notion of carnival as the moment of freedom where social rules are suspended, Žižek insists suspension also releases the worst (lynching, Kristallnacht).
Reversal pair: Biden is the same big-capital order as Trump but with a civilized veneer; yet Trump, in his vulgarity, gave that order a kind of human face.
Inverting Marx's 'first as tragedy then as farce' via Marcuse on Nazism: the Capitol carnival-farce may be the precursor to a real fascist tragedy.
His framing of LGBT as a symptom of the whole social order that must be supported, not merely a particular identity to be tolerated.
Stories he reaches for 7
After Fukushima, Jean-Pierre Dupuy reported the Japanese government was for a day in total panic, fearing Tokyo's millions would need evacuation, only resolvable through a deal with Russia over Siberian territory, impossible without global cooperation.
“it looked that the entire Tokyo area, million people, would have to be evacuated.”
In John Carpenter's They Live, aliens live among us and special glasses reveal the alien/robot behind the human face. Žižek calls this the 'critique of ideology glasses' and uses it to read Biden-era capitalism.
“you put the glasses on you see he's just a robot working for the capital or whatever”
Haiti's constitution declared every citizen black regardless of skin color or religion, a gesture Žižek finds ingenious because it exposes the hidden white standard of patronizing liberal universalism.
“Every citizen of Haiti—it's not a joke, I checked it—in without regard of the color of his skin or religion, is black.”
When Napoleon's army (with Polish soldiers) approached the black army in Haiti, they heard singing, expected primitive African songs, and found the black army singing the Marseillaise, the Poles switched sides, and were later spared when whites were killed.
“they discovered the black army, they were singing Marseillaise. And then the Polish army... said, wait a minute, are we here on the right side?”
Žižek endorses Assange's thesis that Google is a privatized version of the NSA, gathering information on all of us, more significant even than the Iraq war logs WikiLeaks disclosed.
“The thesis is Google is a privatized version of NSA, gathering all the information etc.”
The October Chile protests' motto was not 'socialist revolution and all will be okay' but 'another end of the world is possible', refusing the single catastrophic end offered by the media. Žižek proposes it as today's motto.
“Not "we do a socialist revolution and everything will be okay," but "another end of the world is possible."”
The choice is figured by two films: Zardoz and Elysium (with Matt Damon), where the elite lives apart. Either Elysium-style elite escape or genuine global cooperation, no third way.
“So it's either Elysium or global cooperation, if you ask me.”
Works invoked 12
They Live film
John Carpenter's film whose glasses reveal the alien behind the human face, Žižek's standing 'critique of ideology glasses' example; an implicitly anti-capitalist movie he loves.
Elysium film
The Matt Damon film of an elite living apart figures one horn of the choice: Elysium-style elite escape or global cooperation.
Goldfinger film
James Bond film with the red-button eject-seat car, which Žižek asks the hosts to install for him to self-eject when he strays into obscene topics.
Beloved book
Toni Morrison's novel, the mother killing her child to avoid slavery is, for Žižek, the model of modern universal subjectivity emerging from a particular black situation.
Zardoz film
The older Sean Connery film named alongside Elysium as figuring the elite-bunker alternative to global cooperation.
Multitude book
Negri and Hardt's book whose thesis that carnival is the moment of freedom is the foil Žižek refutes via Kristallnacht and the lynching-carnivals of the American South.
Žižek's latest book at the time of the interview, the occasion for the conversation.
Advance's thesis that Google is a privatized version of the NSA, Žižek considers it more important than the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs.
La Marseillaise song
The French revolutionary anthem the black army in Haiti sang, Žižek claims the black slaves had more right to sing it than Napoleon's white soldiers.
Jacobin (journal) journal
Published his 'socialist reset' essay; the platform hosting this very interview.
His Jacobin essay setting up the corporate 'great reset' as a reaction to the tendential drift toward communism; contains the futurology line about doing the impossible.
Haiti constitution other
Declares every citizen black regardless of skin color or religion, Žižek's exemplary instance of concrete universality.
People invoked 27
Antonio Negri / Michael Hardt negative
Authors of Multitude; their thesis that carnival is the moment of freedom is the foil Žižek refutes via Kristallnacht and the lynching-carnivals of the American South.
Co-host/interviewer of the Jacobin show, addressed throughout; he jokes about her 'fixed category' race and discusses tolerance with her.
Thomas Jefferson negative
The hero of the American liberal left who nonetheless called Toussaint Louverture a barbarian and a savage, a symptom of liberal universalism's limits.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
A 'futurologist of catastrophes' who was at Fukushima two days after and reported the Japanese government's panic over a possible Tokyo evacuation.
Blaise Pascal positive
French Catholic Jansenism, fake it as if you believe and it will get you better, the source of the 'fake it till you make it' logic Žižek applies to anti-racist practice.
Toussaint Louverture positive
Hero of the Haitian revolution; the French Revolution became truly world-historical only through its repetition in Haiti under him.
Donald Trump mixed
A disgusting nightmare he hates, but the rift/tension Trump opened in the ruling hegemonic ideology is an opening for the left; Trump is the true historicist relativist.
Jeff Bezos negative
Extracts rent through Amazon's near-monopoly; can make or break a book, privatizes part of the commons of social communication.
Elon Musk negative
Named as a cheap science popularizer who promises mind-to-mind communication within ten years without knowing what he's talking about.
Bruno Latour positive
A philosopher he often disagrees with, but agrees here that this is only the beginning, pandemics and global warming will follow.
Bernie Sanders positive
The real moral majority and common decency; more moderate than mid-century European social democracy, showing the political regression.
Julian Assange positive
His book on Google (the privatized NSA thesis) is more important than the Iraq war logs; Žižek defends his focus on the US as the ideologically more dangerous regime.
Mark Zuckerberg negative
Facebook privatizes part of our social space; the unaccountable corporate power behind de-platforming is the deeper problem.
Napoleon negative
Sent an army to crush Haiti and ordered that all blacks be killed and replaced with new slaves; his army lost when Polish soldiers heard the Marseillaise and switched sides.
Bill Gates negative
Wealth comes from rent not profit (Microsoft monopoly); his pragmatic 'let's all come together' reframing is an ideological catastrophe.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Best strategic response so far: short-term Biden support for strategic reasons, now the fight against the Democratic establishment begins; genuinely brilliant.
Greta Thunberg positive
Endorses her 'trust science', hoping she means authentic science not cheap popularizers; wishes her happy 18th birthday.
Herbert Marcuse positive
Source of the inverted formula 'first as a farce then as a tragedy' applied to Nazism and now to the Capitol riot.
Jordan Peterson negative
His debate with Peterson framed the loss of firm values; Žižek accepts the premise but redirects it, Trump, not the left, is the true historicist relativist.
Joe Biden negative
A catastrophe for the left: 'Trump with a human face' who didn't learn Trump's lesson and will reproduce the conditions that birthed him.
Toni Morrison positive
Beloved is, for him, the model of modern universal subjectivity emerging from a hyper-specific black situation; some radical friends find her too liberal but he defends her.
Jürgen Habermas positive
Cited for the point that in the pandemic we learned not only new things but also how much we don't know, science won't simply tell us what to do.
Warren Montag positive
Marxist from California whose text on the Capitol riot Žižek engages, the fear that a more rational calculating successor to Trump could emerge.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt positive
Credited with the wartime/emergency rule that the state can order companies what to do, a precedent Trump himself was forced to evoke during the pandemic.
Noam Chomsky positive
Chomsky often attacks him, but Žižek agrees on the tweeting rhythm: the format prevents developing a line of thought.
Karl Marx positive
Source of the tendential law, the commons, and the rent/profit distinction Žižek extends, though he stresses Marx did not foresee the return from profit to rent.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Central theoretical resource: concrete universality and abstract thinking are deployed throughout to read BLM, Haiti and COVID.
What it argues
pandemic as a communist openingconcrete universality vs false universality (BLM, Haiti)rentier capitalism and the privatized commonsthe ideology of freedom as unfreedomBiden and the centrist Democrats as the true enemytolerance as ideological mystification of racismcarnival-fascism: farce before tragedy
Dialectical moves 9
“if you say Black Lives Matter, although it's in its form of appearance a particular statement, it is the only truly universal statement.”
A particular demand can be the only true universal; the apparently universal 'all lives matter' is secretly particular.
“Biden is Trump with a human face... at the same time in some vulgar sense, Trump is Biden with a human face.”
The centrist and the vulgarian stand for the same big-capital order; each is the other's human face.
“the most effective unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom.”
US ideological superiority over China: subjects who think they are free while being controlled are more thoroughly subjugated.
“the only way to build an effective majority is to go more to the extreme.”
Occupying the center loses; Trump's extremity was his strength and the left must do the same from the other side.
“the experience of fascism tells us first as a farce then as a tragedy.”
Inverting Marx's 'first as tragedy then as farce' (via Marcuse on Nazism): the Capitol carnival-farce may precede a real fascist tragedy.
“if there ever was a moral majority... it's Bernie Sanders.”
Accept the right's premise (loss of firm values) but redirect it: the figure accused of relativism is the one with stable decency; Trump is the true relativist.
“Every citizen of Haiti... is black.”
Universalizing the particular oppression rather than abstracting away from it is the truer universality.
“the way we formulate a problem is usually part of the problem.”
Reframing social problems into pragmatic/technical issues (Gates' 'let's all come together') is itself an ideological operation that depoliticizes.
“the true test of a revolution or social change is... how do ordinary people feel the change at the everyday level.”
The revolutionary moment is verified not in carnival enthusiasm but in ordinary life once the spectacle subsides.
Claims 27
asserts
The pandemic is a Kill Bill-like hit to capitalism that necessitates a provocative communism — the socialization of healthcare, ecological care and economy.pandemic and communism
asserts
Marx's tendential law is the right frame: history drifts toward communist socialization but counter-reactions (the Capitol riot) can occur — there is no predestined historical necessity.historical necessity and tendential law
rejects
The 'state of emergency, not the time for politics' motif is among the most dangerous ideologies — the pandemic is perhaps the most political moment of our lives.depoliticization of the pandemic
asserts
'All lives matter' is a false universality secretly privileging white middle-class life; 'Black Lives Matter', though particular in form, is the only truly universal statement.concrete universality and BLM
reframes
The populist demand 'we want our life back' secretly means the return of middle-class white life discreetly supported by background billionaires.populist resentment and 'our life'
asserts
We must heroically accept that the old normality is over; the return to normal is impossible and the political struggle over what comes next is already underway.return to normality
rejects
The corporate 'great reset' and Trumpist denial are two false reactions to the same tendential drift toward communism; both must be refused.corporate Great Reset and Trumpist denial
asserts
Big-tech billionaires (Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg) extract rent rather than profit, privatizing the commons in a return from profit to rent that Marx did not foresee.rentier capitalism and the commons
asserts
Facebook and Twitter are not simply private companies but own part of our social space; de-platforming Trump raises the unanswered question of who, concretely, excluded him.platform power and de-platforming
asserts
The most effective unfreedom is the one experienced as freedom; the US is ideologically more dangerous than China because its subjects believe they are free.ideology of freedom
asserts
The French Revolution became a truly world-historical event only through its repetition in the Haitian revolution.Haiti and universality
asserts
Haiti's constitution declaring every citizen black is the model of concrete universality, exposing the lie of patronizing liberal universalism that sets whiteness as the hidden standard.Haiti and concrete universality
reframes
Cultural appropriation should not be dismissed wholesale as neo-colonialism; in appropriating a form, the subaltern can make it more authentic than its originators.cultural appropriation
asserts
Trump's exclusion from Twitter and Facebook was deserved, but the unaccountable corporate power behind it is the deeper problem.de-platforming Trump
asserts
Biden is a catastrophe for the left because he did not learn Trump's lesson: the only way to build an effective majority is to go to the extreme, not to occupy the center.Biden and Democratic strategy
asserts
The Democratic centrist establishment is the ultimate enemy — not worse than Trump, but hegemonic and reproducing the conditions that gave birth to him.centrist Democrats as the true enemy
asserts
Bernie Sanders is more moderate than ordinary mid-century European social democracy, which shows the regression of the entire political space.Sanders and the Overton window
rejects
Reformulating the fight against racism as 'tolerance' is an ideological mystification that psychologizes a structural-economic problem.tolerance as ideology
asserts
Anti-racist practice should follow Alcoholics Anonymous logic — fake it till you make it through external behavior, not inner soul-searching with a psychoanalyst.anti-racist practice
asserts
We need serious global cooperation (not a world government) on pandemic and climate; the alternative is the Elysium logic of elite bunkers.global cooperation
reframes
The Capitol riot had a carnival moment; carnival is not inherently liberatory — Kristallnacht was also a carnival, and the American South's carnival was lynching.carnival and fascism
asserts
Trump is the true historicist relativist without stable values; Bernie Sanders, not the right, is the real moral majority and common decency.Peterson debate reframed
asserts
Fascism teaches 'first as a farce then as a tragedy': the Capitol was the farce; a more rational, calculating successor could become the tragedy.fascism and farce
reframes
The real question is not Trump vs Biden but what the Democratic establishment did wrong to enable something like Trump.the deeper question behind Trump
asserts
An efficient centralized state is necessary but insufficient; it must be supported by local community self-organization, as in Madrid, Vietnam and Taiwan.state and local communities
rejects
The right-wing slogan 'the medicine shouldn't be worse than the illness itself' must be rejected; the double game of protecting the economy while letting the pandemic run is unviable.COVID restriction skepticism
asserts
Malls and privatized promenades are pseudo-public spaces, privately controlled; the loss of genuinely public space is a key front of struggle.public space privatization
Quotes 13
“the pandemic is a Kill Bill-like hit to capitalism”Slavoj Žižek · pandemic as blow to capitalism
“what I provocatively call communism—some kind of socialization of healthcare, of our care for environment, of our economy and so on”Slavoj Žižek · his rebranding of communism
“if you say Black Lives Matter, although it's in its form of appearance a particular statement, it is the only truly universal statement.”Slavoj Žižek · concrete universality of BLM
“the most effective unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology of freedom
“Every citizen of Haiti—it's not a joke, I checked it—in without regard of the color of his skin or religion, is black.”Slavoj Žižek · Haiti as concrete universality
“the way we formulate a problem is usually part of the problem.”Slavoj Žižek · formulation as ideology
“the only way to build an effective majority is to go more to the extreme.”Slavoj Žižek · dialectical paradox of political strategy
“the true test of a revolution or social change is for me precisely when this big enthusiastic moment is over, how do ordinary people feel the change at the everyday level.”Slavoj Žižek · everyday level as test of revolution
“Biden is, Biden is as I put it in another text slightly provocatively Trump with a human face.”Slavoj Žižek · Biden as civilized Trump
“the experience of fascism tells us first as a farce then as a tragedy.”Slavoj Žižek · farce before tragedy
“another end of the world is possible.”Slavoj Žižek · refusing the single offered catastrophe
“Futurology deals with what is possible, we need to do what is from the standpoint of the existing global order impossible.”Slavoj Žižek · the impossible as the task
“I need a dominatrix, I need a woman to beat me to stop talking.”Slavoj Žižek · self-caricature of his logorrhea
Transcript 82 turns
unknown
Well, on that dour note, let’s get to our guest because I am extremely excited to welcome the one and only Slavoj Žižek onto the show. You of course know who Žižek is; he is a man so full of joie de vivre that you can’t help but fall in love. He’s also the author of many, many, many books, including the recent, his latest, Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World. Slavoj, welcome to the show, very excited to have you.
Well, on that dour note, let’s get to our guest because I am extremely excited to welcome the one and only Slavoj Žižek onto the show. You of course know who Žižek is; he is a man so full of joie de vivre that you can’t help but fall in love. He’s also the author of many, many, many books, including the recent, his latest, Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World. Slavoj, welcome to the show, very excited to have you.
Slavoj Žižek
I am very proud to be here. Thank you. And I’m sorry if today I’m not exactly excessively full of joie de vivre, you
I am very proud to be here. Thank you. And I’m sorry if today I’m not exactly excessively full of joie de vivre, you
unknown
know. Why, what’s going on? What, why not? Well,
know. Why, what’s going on? What, why not? Well,
Slavoj Žižek
as I wrote and I still stick to that metaphor—some people thought I am crazy—that the pandemic is a Kill Bill-like hit to capitalism, you know. I still think that now with the second wave and with what will follow, it is becoming more and more clear that what I provocatively call communism—some kind of socialization of healthcare, of our care for environment, of our economy and so on—will prove necessary. But as I wrote in a text which, I think it was in that one which Jacobin was kind enough to publish, you know, when we speak with, about our situation, where is it moving, I think the crucial term is a deeply dialectical notion of Marx which is tendency, tendential law. Like Marx spoke about the tendential law for the fall of rate of profit. But as Marx added, this is a tendency which can cause counter-gesture, a counter-movement, so the result is not predestined. And I think that for example what happened in Capitol was precisely a very strong reaction, pseudo-populist reaction to this tendency. So yes, in the long term, but not in the sense of predestination, it moves in our direction, the situation. But many things can happen in between. There is no big capitalized historical necessity. I hope just so that I say my prayer at the beginning, my mantra, I hope that you will all agree that one of the most dangerous ideological motives is that today it’s a state of emergency, it’s not the time for politics. We should forget about other problems, ecology or whatever, or maybe not forget them, but it’s a medical emergency which should be left to doctors, health administrations and so on and so on. I claim no, it’s
as I wrote and I still stick to that metaphor—some people thought I am crazy—that the pandemic is a Kill Bill-like hit to capitalism, you know. I still think that now with the second wave and with what will follow, it is becoming more and more clear that what I provocatively call communism—some kind of socialization of healthcare, of our care for environment, of our economy and so on—will prove necessary. But as I wrote in a text which, I think it was in that one which Jacobin was kind enough to publish, you know, when we speak with, about our situation, where is it moving, I think the crucial term is a deeply dialectical notion of Marx which is tendency, tendential law. Like Marx spoke about the tendential law for the fall of rate of profit. But as Marx added, this is a tendency which can cause counter-gesture, a counter-movement, so the result is not predestined. And I think that for example what happened in Capitol was precisely a very strong reaction, pseudo-populist reaction to this tendency. So yes, in the long term, but not in the sense of predestination, it moves in our direction, the situation. But many things can happen in between. There is no big capitalized historical necessity. I hope just so that I say my prayer at the beginning, my mantra, I hope that you will all agree that one of the most dangerous ideological motives is that today it’s a state of emergency, it’s not the time for politics. We should forget about other problems, ecology or whatever, or maybe not forget them, but it’s a medical emergency which should be left to doctors, health administrations and so on and so on. I claim no, it’s
unknown
maybe the most political moment of our lives.
maybe the most political moment of our lives.
Slavoj Žižek
Capitalism itself is changing tremendously. Now our future is decided. Now it’s the time for politicization. I agree with Greta Thunberg, which just incidentally I think she is eighteen now. A couple of days ago she had a birthday. You can marry her legally. Happy birthday, Greta. Yeah, you can marry her legally. Yeah, when she said trust science, but I hope she meant it in a true way, not trust cheap science popularizers like Elon Musk who promise in ten years, without even knowing what they are talking about, in ten years from now we will be able to communicate directly with our minds. You know how you recognize an authentic scientist? Is that, I quoted Habermas here, what we learned in the pandemic is not only many new things, we learned also so, we know now much more about what we don’t
Capitalism itself is changing tremendously. Now our future is decided. Now it’s the time for politicization. I agree with Greta Thunberg, which just incidentally I think she is eighteen now. A couple of days ago she had a birthday. You can marry her legally. Happy birthday, Greta. Yeah, you can marry her legally. Yeah, when she said trust science, but I hope she meant it in a true way, not trust cheap science popularizers like Elon Musk who promise in ten years, without even knowing what they are talking about, in ten years from now we will be able to communicate directly with our minds. You know how you recognize an authentic scientist? Is that, I quoted Habermas here, what we learned in the pandemic is not only many new things, we learned also so, we know now much more about what we don’t
unknown
know. And this doesn’t simply mean we are helpless. This means science will not simply tell us what to do. Politics is needed. I said my prayer, please, the scene is yours. Yeah, you know, I think that the United States often seizes on these moments that they call a state of exception and we see that as a way that they deal with
know. And this doesn’t simply mean we are helpless. This means science will not simply tell us what to do. Politics is needed. I said my prayer, please, the scene is yours. Yeah, you know, I think that the United States often seizes on these moments that they call a state of exception and we see that as a way that they deal with
Slavoj Žižek
crises,
crises,
unknown
whether they’re manufactured or natural. We saw that happen with so they passed, you know, unprecedented laws criminalizing their own citizens, killing people abroad because it was a state of exception, because there’s no time to question. I think the same thing is happening here. I think the same thing will happen after the, you know, riots in the Capitol. I was wondering if you could talk about your vision, which is about a new communism, a new global communism, and can you expand on what you wrote in your Jacobin article which is called “We Need a Socialist Reset, Not a Corporate 'Great Reset'”?
whether they’re manufactured or natural. We saw that happen with so they passed, you know, unprecedented laws criminalizing their own citizens, killing people abroad because it was a state of exception, because there’s no time to question. I think the same thing is happening here. I think the same thing will happen after the, you know, riots in the Capitol. I was wondering if you could talk about your vision, which is about a new communism, a new global communism, and can you expand on what you wrote in your Jacobin article which is called “We Need a Socialist Reset, Not a Corporate 'Great Reset'”?
Slavoj Žižek
Yes, yes, but you see, I think you may disagree that already this term, the great reset, is, falls into what I was telling about this tendential law. It's a reaction of a—obvious, everybody knows this—obvious tendency that the situation is pushing us towards some kind of what I call communism. So this is, I think, the reaction of the big business, big capital. There are two main reactions. One is this corporate reaction: we retain formally our freedoms but as isolated in our bubbles and so on, where already problems explode because, you know, for the privileged few of us to live in our bubbles, millions of people have still to run around and so on. But the other reaction, I wouldn't underestimate it, is what people often too easily dismiss as Trump's cognitive dissonance and so on. People who—and in a strange way I, not respect them, it's not the right word, just understand them, whatever—you know, I know that the truth of the phrase “we want our life back,” something was stolen from us and we want it back, elections, our way of life and so on. I know that basically, you know, as a Hegelian, I always look at a particular spin of universal notion. When somebody says give us our life back, our normality back, we always have to ask ourselves, let's take a closer look, what do they really mean by our life? And you see it's, to put it in a very, very general way, it's the middle-class white life discreetly supported by billionaires who prefer to stay in the background. And this is, if I may go into a little bit of a Hegelian political, don’t be afraid, reflection, this is how I understand, you see, the political use of Hegel's notion of concrete universality. If I say concrete universality, people react, oh, that madman Hegel who thought that universal idea generates all content out of itself. No, no, no, no, no. Let's take, I'm sorry some of you know it, but it's crucial today. Let's take another nice example: Black Lives Matter. Obviously, this privileges certain group. So the, even some centrist liberals and right-wingers made the counter-point: no, all lives matter. I say no, because if you read closely what Black Lives Matter means, it doesn't mean you other guys can drop dead. It means this: in every concrete situation, there is a certain type of oppression which gives the tone or the specific color to the totality. If you talk today about political violence, social violence, violence against other races, police violence, the way blacks are treated is the hidden particular model. It's the model of all violence. While when they say, apparently in a neutral way, all lives matter, no, they secretly—this all is a false universality—they really mean black middle-class value which are still hegemonic matter. So my Hegelian paradox is this one, it has very concrete political consequences. That if you say all lives matter, it appears to be a universal statement. Oh, humanism, we all matter. But secretly it privileges a certain group. But if you say Black Lives Matter, although it's in its form of appearance a particular statement, it is the only truly universal statement. To give you a simple example, if in Germany in the late 30s you wanted to talk about racism, you should put forward antisemitism, the situation of Jews. And today, in Israel and West Bank, I’m telling my friends, if you want really to be anti-racist and also faithful to Jewish legacy, ah, let's say what you were saying about Palestinians in the West Bank. So you see, this is also I think in a way the situation with COVID. It became that concrete universality. We all talk about it, but we should put it in its very complex context. Because, first, let's never forget that COVID, as I already said, is not, the pandemic is not simply a problem of health, of biochemistry and so on and so on. It's part of our situation of how today's global capitalism works, of our, the way we relate to nature and so on and so on. This is why I agree here with the philosopher with whom I otherwise often don't agree, Bruno Latour, who said this is only the beginning. What will follow is either other pandemics or global warming, signs are everywhere. So that's why I don't buy this formula of return to normality. No, by normality we secretly mean the good old life when, you know, that's where I have this minimum of—I don't like the word sympathy, but understanding—for those anti-mask, anti-vaccine protesters. They were used to a certain mode of everyday life. And it's not simply just that I understand them, you go out to a bar, you drink with friends, I will not go into all this. I think we have to accept heroically that this is over. And now we are already in the middle of the political struggle of where all this will go. So to conclude with another repetition of myself, I like to repeat jokes if they are good. The best joke that I heard along these lines, it’s not a joke, is in Chile when protests began in October. You know that their motto was a wonderful one. Not "we do a socialist revolution and everything will be okay," but "another end of the world is possible." Not the one that the media, and this should be our motto today. Yes, a certain way of life, it’s over. But let’s not, let’s not accept the alternative that is offered to us: either total digital and social control, or on the other side, this false, of Trump populist false denial. Because the logic of Trump and his followers is clear, is relatively clear here. You pretend to speak about, let’s cut of course the bullshit, simply about these middle classes who feel threatened. And they feel, that’s where conspiracy theory enters. They feel threatened on the one hand by COVID, it ruins their way of life. They feel threatened by immigrants, although here already I’m trying to be as realist as possible. Maybe at some level they have a point, but it’s very difficult to find these points because as we all know, at the same time immigrants are exploited. We know the situation in California at least, how they work without any social security, healthcare and so on and so on. And you see, this is a beautiful example of where post-colonial economic exploitation is connected with COVID. I remember in the summer when illegal Mexican or Latino American workers were much needed, they discovered catastrophic situation in many big farms. I remember one farm decided to test its somewhere in Tennessee I think, illegal immigrant workers, and you know how many tested positive? Well, to cut a long story short, all of them, you know. So you see, this already is a connection. So the way the enemy is attacking today is to forcing us into what Hegel would have called abstract thinking. Now it’s the time for COVID. No, COVID is inherently part of a much more complex situation where COVID is obviously linked to protests against injustice, to ecological crisis and so on and so on. But again, as now I’m finally, my god, I need a dominatrix, I need a woman to beat me to stop talking. Because finally to your Arielle question, why communism? Because you know why I put this provocative formula? Look, believe me or not, I don't like Trump. The only slight point, I hope you will agree here, where I find, again sympathy is totally wrong word. But what I find problematic in how he was excluded from—and he should have been—from tweeting, from Facebook and so on is, you know, they say for tweet, they say Facebook or Twitter excluded him. Sorry, can you personalize this? Which body, who excluded him? The problem is this one as I developed following some Italian Marxist economists already a decade ago. Think about what is happening today with big figures like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and so on. The problem is that something that was not quite predicted or even envisaged by Marx happened. Let's take, sorry my old example, Bill Gates. He is not exploiting his workers in any direct way. Maybe, so I hear he is even paying them relatively well. His wealth comes not from profit but from rent. Through his almost monopolist situation, we all by using Microsoft or by buying Amazon and so on, are basically paying him rent. He is exploiting even Jeff Bezos, I know how he treats his workers, but we have a strange return from profit to rent. What happens with this rent? That, and that's the tragedy, a private individual, or maybe many of them, doesn't matter, privatizes something that Marx called commons, which is our like, if you want to communicate you need Facebook or whatever, or you use Windows and so on. If you want to buy books, Amazon is incredible. For my type of books, social theory, I was told they cover more than of the sales. If they decide they can ruin or make a hit of a book. So what I’m saying is that, is that you see this is one situation when society has to take control. Today is the poor Trump, he fully deserved it. But don’t you agree that since de facto, even if they deny it, Facebook and so on, Twitter are not simply private companies? They are private companies which own part of our social space. And that’s what horrified me when they say again, sorry I’m repeating myself, Facebook excluded. Sorry, who excluded him? Do they have some ethical committee or whatever, you know. Yeah they have— Please. Well it’s not just that they own part of our social space. They actively try to undermine public space in every other sphere where it would be democratically available. And so you see with like protest, protest happens in the public sphere. We are lacking that, right? Socially we’re alienated in multiple meanings of the word, but we really don’t have a space to connect publicly and it’s been degraded over and over and over again and these companies have a monopoly on social connection and public space and then you see that where traditionally, you know, public space was a political arena for many people, it’s shifted to Facebook, it’s shifted to Twitter. So because our normal political arena that was democratically available, like you know a town square, right, or even like a Lions Club or a community center, or even a mall in the 90s, those were like our last
Yes, yes, but you see, I think you may disagree that already this term, the great reset, is, falls into what I was telling about this tendential law. It's a reaction of a—obvious, everybody knows this—obvious tendency that the situation is pushing us towards some kind of what I call communism. So this is, I think, the reaction of the big business, big capital. There are two main reactions. One is this corporate reaction: we retain formally our freedoms but as isolated in our bubbles and so on, where already problems explode because, you know, for the privileged few of us to live in our bubbles, millions of people have still to run around and so on. But the other reaction, I wouldn't underestimate it, is what people often too easily dismiss as Trump's cognitive dissonance and so on. People who—and in a strange way I, not respect them, it's not the right word, just understand them, whatever—you know, I know that the truth of the phrase “we want our life back,” something was stolen from us and we want it back, elections, our way of life and so on. I know that basically, you know, as a Hegelian, I always look at a particular spin of universal notion. When somebody says give us our life back, our normality back, we always have to ask ourselves, let's take a closer look, what do they really mean by our life? And you see it's, to put it in a very, very general way, it's the middle-class white life discreetly supported by billionaires who prefer to stay in the background. And this is, if I may go into a little bit of a Hegelian political, don’t be afraid, reflection, this is how I understand, you see, the political use of Hegel's notion of concrete universality. If I say concrete universality, people react, oh, that madman Hegel who thought that universal idea generates all content out of itself. No, no, no, no, no. Let's take, I'm sorry some of you know it, but it's crucial today. Let's take another nice example: Black Lives Matter. Obviously, this privileges certain group. So the, even some centrist liberals and right-wingers made the counter-point: no, all lives matter. I say no, because if you read closely what Black Lives Matter means, it doesn't mean you other guys can drop dead. It means this: in every concrete situation, there is a certain type of oppression which gives the tone or the specific color to the totality. If you talk today about political violence, social violence, violence against other races, police violence, the way blacks are treated is the hidden particular model. It's the model of all violence. While when they say, apparently in a neutral way, all lives matter, no, they secretly—this all is a false universality—they really mean black middle-class value which are still hegemonic matter. So my Hegelian paradox is this one, it has very concrete political consequences. That if you say all lives matter, it appears to be a universal statement. Oh, humanism, we all matter. But secretly it privileges a certain group. But if you say Black Lives Matter, although it's in its form of appearance a particular statement, it is the only truly universal statement. To give you a simple example, if in Germany in the late 30s you wanted to talk about racism, you should put forward antisemitism, the situation of Jews. And today, in Israel and West Bank, I’m telling my friends, if you want really to be anti-racist and also faithful to Jewish legacy, ah, let's say what you were saying about Palestinians in the West Bank. So you see, this is also I think in a way the situation with COVID. It became that concrete universality. We all talk about it, but we should put it in its very complex context. Because, first, let's never forget that COVID, as I already said, is not, the pandemic is not simply a problem of health, of biochemistry and so on and so on. It's part of our situation of how today's global capitalism works, of our, the way we relate to nature and so on and so on. This is why I agree here with the philosopher with whom I otherwise often don't agree, Bruno Latour, who said this is only the beginning. What will follow is either other pandemics or global warming, signs are everywhere. So that's why I don't buy this formula of return to normality. No, by normality we secretly mean the good old life when, you know, that's where I have this minimum of—I don't like the word sympathy, but understanding—for those anti-mask, anti-vaccine protesters. They were used to a certain mode of everyday life. And it's not simply just that I understand them, you go out to a bar, you drink with friends, I will not go into all this. I think we have to accept heroically that this is over. And now we are already in the middle of the political struggle of where all this will go. So to conclude with another repetition of myself, I like to repeat jokes if they are good. The best joke that I heard along these lines, it’s not a joke, is in Chile when protests began in October. You know that their motto was a wonderful one. Not "we do a socialist revolution and everything will be okay," but "another end of the world is possible." Not the one that the media, and this should be our motto today. Yes, a certain way of life, it’s over. But let’s not, let’s not accept the alternative that is offered to us: either total digital and social control, or on the other side, this false, of Trump populist false denial. Because the logic of Trump and his followers is clear, is relatively clear here. You pretend to speak about, let’s cut of course the bullshit, simply about these middle classes who feel threatened. And they feel, that’s where conspiracy theory enters. They feel threatened on the one hand by COVID, it ruins their way of life. They feel threatened by immigrants, although here already I’m trying to be as realist as possible. Maybe at some level they have a point, but it’s very difficult to find these points because as we all know, at the same time immigrants are exploited. We know the situation in California at least, how they work without any social security, healthcare and so on and so on. And you see, this is a beautiful example of where post-colonial economic exploitation is connected with COVID. I remember in the summer when illegal Mexican or Latino American workers were much needed, they discovered catastrophic situation in many big farms. I remember one farm decided to test its somewhere in Tennessee I think, illegal immigrant workers, and you know how many tested positive? Well, to cut a long story short, all of them, you know. So you see, this already is a connection. So the way the enemy is attacking today is to forcing us into what Hegel would have called abstract thinking. Now it’s the time for COVID. No, COVID is inherently part of a much more complex situation where COVID is obviously linked to protests against injustice, to ecological crisis and so on and so on. But again, as now I’m finally, my god, I need a dominatrix, I need a woman to beat me to stop talking. Because finally to your Arielle question, why communism? Because you know why I put this provocative formula? Look, believe me or not, I don't like Trump. The only slight point, I hope you will agree here, where I find, again sympathy is totally wrong word. But what I find problematic in how he was excluded from—and he should have been—from tweeting, from Facebook and so on is, you know, they say for tweet, they say Facebook or Twitter excluded him. Sorry, can you personalize this? Which body, who excluded him? The problem is this one as I developed following some Italian Marxist economists already a decade ago. Think about what is happening today with big figures like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and so on. The problem is that something that was not quite predicted or even envisaged by Marx happened. Let's take, sorry my old example, Bill Gates. He is not exploiting his workers in any direct way. Maybe, so I hear he is even paying them relatively well. His wealth comes not from profit but from rent. Through his almost monopolist situation, we all by using Microsoft or by buying Amazon and so on, are basically paying him rent. He is exploiting even Jeff Bezos, I know how he treats his workers, but we have a strange return from profit to rent. What happens with this rent? That, and that's the tragedy, a private individual, or maybe many of them, doesn't matter, privatizes something that Marx called commons, which is our like, if you want to communicate you need Facebook or whatever, or you use Windows and so on. If you want to buy books, Amazon is incredible. For my type of books, social theory, I was told they cover more than of the sales. If they decide they can ruin or make a hit of a book. So what I’m saying is that, is that you see this is one situation when society has to take control. Today is the poor Trump, he fully deserved it. But don’t you agree that since de facto, even if they deny it, Facebook and so on, Twitter are not simply private companies? They are private companies which own part of our social space. And that’s what horrified me when they say again, sorry I’m repeating myself, Facebook excluded. Sorry, who excluded him? Do they have some ethical committee or whatever, you know. Yeah they have— Please. Well it’s not just that they own part of our social space. They actively try to undermine public space in every other sphere where it would be democratically available. And so you see with like protest, protest happens in the public sphere. We are lacking that, right? Socially we’re alienated in multiple meanings of the word, but we really don’t have a space to connect publicly and it’s been degraded over and over and over again and these companies have a monopoly on social connection and public space and then you see that where traditionally, you know, public space was a political arena for many people, it’s shifted to Facebook, it’s shifted to Twitter. So because our normal political arena that was democratically available, like you know a town square, right, or even like a Lions Club or a community center, or even a mall in the 90s, those were like our last
unknown
public
public
Slavoj Žižek
spaces. Now what we have is Twitter, Facebook, social media and people are still fighting those political fights. Those are still spaces of this kind of feeling of democratic participation but these firms have unprecedented tech authoritarian control over them. And you know it’s troubling to see like the raw-raw-raw, like cheering it on because at the same time that we need to be potentially nationalizing these companies, we need to be fighting for like real public space and places to connect physically, socially. I cannot agree more with you because now I will go to, I’m also believe it or not not just a madman but also an ordinary man and as part of my bourgeois identity I like to go to these old fashioned public spaces like a crowded street with small bookstores, cafeterias and so on. And you know, maybe some of you know it, in, in Santa Monica, south of LA, there was, I think it was the third or the fourth street from the ocean, which was such an incredibly lively place. Cafeterias, a couple of bookstores and so on. Now it’s all privatized, it’s malls. And never forget, malls, shopping malls are a pseudo-public space. They are not really a public space, they are privately controlled. Some malls directly, for example, prohibit people who look homeless or too poor to enter and so on and so on. And this I think is a, but a tendency that we have to fight, why? Because at the same time, as we know, this, all these media, internet as such especially and so on, SMS on iPhones, play a tremendous role in today’s social organization, mobilization of us. I here agree with Julian Assange. I think that much more important than disclosing the data about what United States army, okay that was important but nonetheless was doing in Iraq and so on is his, he wrote a book on Google. The thesis is Google is a privatized version of NSA, gathering all the information etc. etc. And that’s the danger today. Like we who are talking today, we think we are just communicating in a public space. No, we are already controlled and that’s my answer, I hope we, I hope you will agree, against those who claim but Assange is unilateral, why does he focus only on the United States, why not more on China, Russia and so on? Well, I agree, I don’t defend Putin. I know some of my friends were arrested for, that’s the beautiful paradox, for acting in a Marxist way and trying to organize workers around Beijing. But you know what’s the point here? In China, people are well aware that they are controlled by state, that they are not free. The ideological attraction and danger of the United States is that people think they are free. And I claim the most effective unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom. What can be more free than searching on the web, looking at
spaces. Now what we have is Twitter, Facebook, social media and people are still fighting those political fights. Those are still spaces of this kind of feeling of democratic participation but these firms have unprecedented tech authoritarian control over them. And you know it’s troubling to see like the raw-raw-raw, like cheering it on because at the same time that we need to be potentially nationalizing these companies, we need to be fighting for like real public space and places to connect physically, socially. I cannot agree more with you because now I will go to, I’m also believe it or not not just a madman but also an ordinary man and as part of my bourgeois identity I like to go to these old fashioned public spaces like a crowded street with small bookstores, cafeterias and so on. And you know, maybe some of you know it, in, in Santa Monica, south of LA, there was, I think it was the third or the fourth street from the ocean, which was such an incredibly lively place. Cafeterias, a couple of bookstores and so on. Now it’s all privatized, it’s malls. And never forget, malls, shopping malls are a pseudo-public space. They are not really a public space, they are privately controlled. Some malls directly, for example, prohibit people who look homeless or too poor to enter and so on and so on. And this I think is a, but a tendency that we have to fight, why? Because at the same time, as we know, this, all these media, internet as such especially and so on, SMS on iPhones, play a tremendous role in today’s social organization, mobilization of us. I here agree with Julian Assange. I think that much more important than disclosing the data about what United States army, okay that was important but nonetheless was doing in Iraq and so on is his, he wrote a book on Google. The thesis is Google is a privatized version of NSA, gathering all the information etc. etc. And that’s the danger today. Like we who are talking today, we think we are just communicating in a public space. No, we are already controlled and that’s my answer, I hope we, I hope you will agree, against those who claim but Assange is unilateral, why does he focus only on the United States, why not more on China, Russia and so on? Well, I agree, I don’t defend Putin. I know some of my friends were arrested for, that’s the beautiful paradox, for acting in a Marxist way and trying to organize workers around Beijing. But you know what’s the point here? In China, people are well aware that they are controlled by state, that they are not free. The ideological attraction and danger of the United States is that people think they are free. And I claim the most effective unfreedom is the unfreedom that you experience as freedom. What can be more free than searching on the web, looking at
unknown
different clips from movies,
different clips from movies,
Slavoj Žižek
talking like with you today and so on and so on. But everything
talking like with you today and so on and so on. But everything
unknown
is not only registered but also manipulated today. So I agree with you not only that public space is one of the
is not only registered but also manipulated today. So I agree with you not only that public space is one of the
unknown
key points of struggle today, but also that, also that, also that like public space is never neutral. You know, I’m not laughing, a new, you know what is my next, sorry, you know what is my model of how in a non-racist way you should proceed? You know that in Haiti, okay they got stuck in problems after Toussaint Louverture, I’m talking about Haiti revolution, which was an incredible event. My thesis is that French Revolution became really a world historical event only through its repetition in Haiti. I agree, I agree. In they finally established a constitution. And although it may appear subtly racist, I think it was the right gesture. You know how they define citizens of Haiti? Every citizen of Haiti—it’s not a joke, I checked it—in without regard of the color of his skin or religion, is black. I find this ingenious. Why? Because it shows the lie of the previous constitution where de facto it meant, you know especially with patronizing liberals, yeah you black are also human, but this means but you have to work hard to become like us. Why? It was the hidden standard. And that’s why again precisely as a universalist, I
key points of struggle today, but also that, also that, also that like public space is never neutral. You know, I’m not laughing, a new, you know what is my next, sorry, you know what is my model of how in a non-racist way you should proceed? You know that in Haiti, okay they got stuck in problems after Toussaint Louverture, I’m talking about Haiti revolution, which was an incredible event. My thesis is that French Revolution became really a world historical event only through its repetition in Haiti. I agree, I agree. In they finally established a constitution. And although it may appear subtly racist, I think it was the right gesture. You know how they define citizens of Haiti? Every citizen of Haiti—it’s not a joke, I checked it—in without regard of the color of his skin or religion, is black. I find this ingenious. Why? Because it shows the lie of the previous constitution where de facto it meant, you know especially with patronizing liberals, yeah you black are also human, but this means but you have to work hard to become like us. Why? It was the hidden standard. And that’s why again precisely as a universalist, I
Slavoj Žižek
don’t think that Black Lives Matter is in any way close to what I’m really sometimes afraid of, so-called identity politics in the bad sense, which neglects universality. No, no, no, universality is not excluded, again we are back to Hegel but this is Hegel’s lesson for today. Universality, sorry, does not mean you should forget your roots. Every great universality is clearly rooted in a very even very specific situation. For example, was that—did she die recently? Sorry, it’s not a racist, it’s my simple senility. Who wrote Beloved? Oh, you know, the black lady. Toni Morrison. Toni Morrison. You know what's interesting? Some of my radical leftist friends have problems with her, that she is maybe too liberal, but I still say, I tell my students, if you want to learn what is modern universal subjectivity, look at Beloved. That in that gesture preferring to expose to death, kill her daughter I think just to avoid slavery and so on and so on, she acts as a universal subject. So you see, this is Hegel’s lesson and this should be ours who try to be honest white anti-racists to blacks. It's not that you have to make a choice between being truly universal and still sticking to your identity. No, because if our white universal identity excludes your black particular identity, this means it's in another way also particular even if it appears universal. But that's, that's the miracle, that's the miracle for me of that book. And other examples like that. For example for me, I still think that it was an incredible event which, you know the story, I like to repeat it, it almost made me cry. You know what happened with, after Toussaint Louverture's death, Napoleon sent a whole army to Haiti, no? Thousands of soldiers to crush the rebellion. And here we already see who are, sorry for the naivety, good white men and black, bad white men. My god, you see my racism if I want to say black white men. What I’m saying is that Napoleon was horrible there. He said that the case of Haiti, where blacks took power, is so dangerous that not only the revolution have to be defeated, but all have to be killed and new slaves brought. While in contrast to them, the Jacobins received them, the delegation from Haiti years before and said officially they are no less French citizens than ourselves and so on. But now the moment of beauty. You know why Napoleon's army lost? You know the story? It makes me cry, it's beautiful. When Napoleon's army was approaching black, the black army, you know that there were many Napoleon used them as this secondary force, many Polish soldiers. And they heard certain sounds from the black camp and they thought, oh, it must be some primitive African tribal songs whatever. And when they come closer, they discovered the black army, they were singing Marseillaise. And then the Polish army, Napoleon's, in Napoleon's army the Polish soldiers said, wait a minute, are we here on the right side? No! And they changed sides. This is why even if unfortunately in I don't know when, things went a little bit wrong and they decided to kill all white people in Haiti, they explicitly exempted the Poles. You know, so you see how I don’t agree when some people criticized me for, oh, but still Marseillaise was a model here. Yes, but it was a model fully appropriated by the black in the sense that I claim black slaves there have more right to sing, to sing Marseillaise than the white soldiers sent there by Napoleon. And if you apply just this criterion, okay how do you stand towards Haiti, even today, you know they are still paying the price for that, even today it remains the problematic point like the big hero of American liberal left, Thomas Jefferson, ah that was extreme, he said to Toussaint Louverture, that’s a barbarian, a savage, no debate, no debate with him and so on and so on, you know. So for me it's a, it's a, and also that’s also why I wonder, let’s go a little bit more into problematic waters. That’s why I’m not totally at ease with this topic of cultural appropriation as form of neo-colonialism. I see the tendency and I support it. But listen, if we play this game to the end, then are not in some sense the original black slave music or I don’t know to what extent it’s original soul and all those religious gospel song, so white or Jewish racists can also say oh they appropriated our stuff. Yes, maybe, but in appropriating it, they made it more authentic than the white people who were referring to the same topics and so on and so on. That’s why I love, they may appear singular, crazy, but I love this even genetic, all genetic investigations are not just bullshit racist. You discover different things, like an Israeli geneticist, maybe you know the story, discovered by DNA analysis, historical, no, that today’s, today’s that the, that the genetically the Jews of that time of around Jesus Christ were much closer genetically to today’s Palestinians than to today’s. This, these are interesting things for me, you know. This shows you how much of bullshit is said here. But nonetheless, I didn’t forget about it, your big question about why communism. I think that in some sense, that’s why I find so attractive, it's a horrible thing to say that today’s situation is attractive, but fascinating although tragic, that everybody had, has to accept that, a, at some level, at some level economy has to be socialized. Look at the lowest of the lowest, Donald Trump. He had de facto to practice some kind of universal basic income. Okay, he did it in a cheating way, much more money went to different big companies, institutions, but nonetheless he had to accept this, a, people should not starve as a principle and, b, this should cover all independently of race and so on and so on. How he cheated is other thing. So this is the first thing. The second thing, elements of socialization, didn’t even Trump was forced in a certain way to evoke that law or rule, I don’t know, which was I think first practiced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that in a wartime or a state of emergency, the state has to have the right to order companies what to do and so on and so on. In other words, you have to do things which should absolutely not be left to market regulation. That's one. The other thing, now I get more problematic, I mean this ironically of course, terror. Of course I am against terror in the Stalinist or fascist way, but some kind of social control, limitation is obviously necessary. Then egalitarianism, all countries are cheating, but we gained something, in principle they had to accept that it’s all of us or nobody that in principle the vaccine should be universally available and so on and so on. Trust of the people, so these are for me elements, not just people tell me you are utopian here, no it’s not so simple. Even those in power have in principle to accept these elements. This is what the situation demands and of course the hope of the establishment is that okay we do this for one year maximum, when the crisis is over we return to our old normality. No, this exactly I’m afraid to say because this involves a lot of, will involve a lot of pain, is not possible, will not happen. First we already have problems, what is the efficiency of the vaccine, obviously the pandemic will go on, I’m even afraid to think about other pandemics, about global warming and so on and so on. We unfortunately will just need some more traumatic, critical, shocking situation and more and more I hope it will become clear that we cannot play this double game, you know like, yeah yeah pandemic, but we shouldn’t hurt, or how do the right-wingers say, not only Trump, their popular phrase is "the medicine shouldn’t be worse than illness itself." You know, my answer to this is— Yes, sorry, go on. No no no, I’m curious because you, I agree with you that the, everything seems to be changing very dramatically and that this the coronavirus pandemic is a, is a, changes everything and on the other hand in the United States just elected Joe Biden like on a very explicit campaign to what you talk about, the return to normalcy, which we cannot do anymore. What do you make of Joe Biden as a political figure? You know, this was I think in the text for Jacobin, no, even where I used that one of my favorite, implicitly at least anti-capitalist movies is John Carpenter’s They Live, where aliens are already among us and you have to use special glasses to see that behind the human face there is really an alien, you know. I called in one of my old texts I called that the critique of ideology glasses, you know. You think it’s a living person, you put the glasses on you see he’s just a robot working for the capital or whatever, you know. And I so I think that that that’s why I made that terrible statement four years ago to which I still stick, but not in the sense, my god I was that I support Trump, that let’s be objective now, Trump is a disgusting nightmare and so on, but with him a certain rift tension appeared in the, to use the old-fashioned terms, the ruling class and even the ruling hegemonic ideology and this is an opening for us. For me in the long term, for me Biden is quite a catastrophe, because he didn’t take the basic lesson from Trump which we the left should take. You remember that also when Trump was doing the presidential campaign some so-called under quotation marks moderates in Republican party said but you are going too far, we should be careful not to lose the center. No, Trump from his dirty interests wisely went to the extreme and the more he went to the extreme, the more popular he became. And I think this is why it’s the most horrible thing and also in the long term a political mistake that I can imagine, this Biden strategy. Bernie Sanders is too much, let’s not go too far in that direction, let's not lose the center and so on. Bernie, I didn't meet him but I met some people who knew him, told me that Bernie was aware of this. Our, in the long term, the only chance for Democrats would have been Democratic Party not to occupy the center but to get Trump voters, those desperate—they are not all Trump voters, but many of them are—desperate lower-mid lower middle class farmers in Vermont and so on. And so sometimes, that's the dialectical paradox of political life, the only way to build an effective majority is to go more to the extreme. Another thing that I like to repeat again and again about Bernie Sanders when people say socialist, communist, whatever. Listen, if you compare Bernie's program with ordinary, not extreme, social democracy in Europe half a century ago, Bernie is more moderate than them. This shows the regression of our entire space and so on and so on. So I think that the left shouldn't now fall into this trap of now the fascist danger of Trump is the only big danger. No, now is the point to ask a deeper question: what were, what was the Democratic establishment doing wrong that something like Trump could have emerged? This is the crucial question. If, that's why I'm a moderate pessimist here if you ask me, if we will just try to restore normality, balance and so on, we will precisely in the long term be reproducing the situation which gave birth to, which gave birth to Trump. I think it’s, it’s the ultimate enemy for me, not that they are worse than Trump, I’m not saying this, is this Democratic centrist establishment. Because they are de facto hegemonic and whatever you say about Trump, I do hate him, he is incredibly vulgar and so on, but he disturbed this hegemonic center. Let’s do the same thing from the left. That’s our only chance I think. Yeah, you know it seemed like the Democrats felt that the threat coming from Bernie in terms of his destabilization was stronger than what came from Trump because Trump acted as a solidifying force for their base, um, including their donor base whereas Bernie could fracture it, um, and in that way presented a unique problem for them, particularly with their campaign efforts on the ground in down-ballot races. Did you read, sorry I’m interrupting, please go on, I interrupted you, I'm very sincerely sorry. No it’s okay, it’s okay. Well I wanted to ask you— Don't provoke me because if you say it's okay, I'm a man then I will say if it's okay then I will do it all the time. Okay. Maybe when I say it’s okay it means that I can, I can deal with it adequately and not have you stop talking. Yeah. Yeah. Well I wanted to ask you about something that you say in your Jacobin article where you’re talking about futurology and I wanted to kind of relate that to the two types of normals that you were talking to talking about before. One is the kind of, um, well it’s unclear if this was just like a turf-laying campaign, but the right-wing "let’s get back to normal" slogan that did resonate with a lot of people and I think their normal, what that signifier is, is very different than the Biden campaign’s normal. Um, and I think both are depending on what you define as like futurology and in your article you say quote, "Futurology deals with what is possible, we need to do what is from the standpoint of the existing global order impossible." Um, so we've seen, you know, two dominant calls for going back to what is possible, for, for debating a future based off what we believe is possible. You're calling for a departure there. Can you,
don’t think that Black Lives Matter is in any way close to what I’m really sometimes afraid of, so-called identity politics in the bad sense, which neglects universality. No, no, no, universality is not excluded, again we are back to Hegel but this is Hegel’s lesson for today. Universality, sorry, does not mean you should forget your roots. Every great universality is clearly rooted in a very even very specific situation. For example, was that—did she die recently? Sorry, it’s not a racist, it’s my simple senility. Who wrote Beloved? Oh, you know, the black lady. Toni Morrison. Toni Morrison. You know what's interesting? Some of my radical leftist friends have problems with her, that she is maybe too liberal, but I still say, I tell my students, if you want to learn what is modern universal subjectivity, look at Beloved. That in that gesture preferring to expose to death, kill her daughter I think just to avoid slavery and so on and so on, she acts as a universal subject. So you see, this is Hegel’s lesson and this should be ours who try to be honest white anti-racists to blacks. It's not that you have to make a choice between being truly universal and still sticking to your identity. No, because if our white universal identity excludes your black particular identity, this means it's in another way also particular even if it appears universal. But that's, that's the miracle, that's the miracle for me of that book. And other examples like that. For example for me, I still think that it was an incredible event which, you know the story, I like to repeat it, it almost made me cry. You know what happened with, after Toussaint Louverture's death, Napoleon sent a whole army to Haiti, no? Thousands of soldiers to crush the rebellion. And here we already see who are, sorry for the naivety, good white men and black, bad white men. My god, you see my racism if I want to say black white men. What I’m saying is that Napoleon was horrible there. He said that the case of Haiti, where blacks took power, is so dangerous that not only the revolution have to be defeated, but all have to be killed and new slaves brought. While in contrast to them, the Jacobins received them, the delegation from Haiti years before and said officially they are no less French citizens than ourselves and so on. But now the moment of beauty. You know why Napoleon's army lost? You know the story? It makes me cry, it's beautiful. When Napoleon's army was approaching black, the black army, you know that there were many Napoleon used them as this secondary force, many Polish soldiers. And they heard certain sounds from the black camp and they thought, oh, it must be some primitive African tribal songs whatever. And when they come closer, they discovered the black army, they were singing Marseillaise. And then the Polish army, Napoleon's, in Napoleon's army the Polish soldiers said, wait a minute, are we here on the right side? No! And they changed sides. This is why even if unfortunately in I don't know when, things went a little bit wrong and they decided to kill all white people in Haiti, they explicitly exempted the Poles. You know, so you see how I don’t agree when some people criticized me for, oh, but still Marseillaise was a model here. Yes, but it was a model fully appropriated by the black in the sense that I claim black slaves there have more right to sing, to sing Marseillaise than the white soldiers sent there by Napoleon. And if you apply just this criterion, okay how do you stand towards Haiti, even today, you know they are still paying the price for that, even today it remains the problematic point like the big hero of American liberal left, Thomas Jefferson, ah that was extreme, he said to Toussaint Louverture, that’s a barbarian, a savage, no debate, no debate with him and so on and so on, you know. So for me it's a, it's a, and also that’s also why I wonder, let’s go a little bit more into problematic waters. That’s why I’m not totally at ease with this topic of cultural appropriation as form of neo-colonialism. I see the tendency and I support it. But listen, if we play this game to the end, then are not in some sense the original black slave music or I don’t know to what extent it’s original soul and all those religious gospel song, so white or Jewish racists can also say oh they appropriated our stuff. Yes, maybe, but in appropriating it, they made it more authentic than the white people who were referring to the same topics and so on and so on. That’s why I love, they may appear singular, crazy, but I love this even genetic, all genetic investigations are not just bullshit racist. You discover different things, like an Israeli geneticist, maybe you know the story, discovered by DNA analysis, historical, no, that today’s, today’s that the, that the genetically the Jews of that time of around Jesus Christ were much closer genetically to today’s Palestinians than to today’s. This, these are interesting things for me, you know. This shows you how much of bullshit is said here. But nonetheless, I didn’t forget about it, your big question about why communism. I think that in some sense, that’s why I find so attractive, it's a horrible thing to say that today’s situation is attractive, but fascinating although tragic, that everybody had, has to accept that, a, at some level, at some level economy has to be socialized. Look at the lowest of the lowest, Donald Trump. He had de facto to practice some kind of universal basic income. Okay, he did it in a cheating way, much more money went to different big companies, institutions, but nonetheless he had to accept this, a, people should not starve as a principle and, b, this should cover all independently of race and so on and so on. How he cheated is other thing. So this is the first thing. The second thing, elements of socialization, didn’t even Trump was forced in a certain way to evoke that law or rule, I don’t know, which was I think first practiced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that in a wartime or a state of emergency, the state has to have the right to order companies what to do and so on and so on. In other words, you have to do things which should absolutely not be left to market regulation. That's one. The other thing, now I get more problematic, I mean this ironically of course, terror. Of course I am against terror in the Stalinist or fascist way, but some kind of social control, limitation is obviously necessary. Then egalitarianism, all countries are cheating, but we gained something, in principle they had to accept that it’s all of us or nobody that in principle the vaccine should be universally available and so on and so on. Trust of the people, so these are for me elements, not just people tell me you are utopian here, no it’s not so simple. Even those in power have in principle to accept these elements. This is what the situation demands and of course the hope of the establishment is that okay we do this for one year maximum, when the crisis is over we return to our old normality. No, this exactly I’m afraid to say because this involves a lot of, will involve a lot of pain, is not possible, will not happen. First we already have problems, what is the efficiency of the vaccine, obviously the pandemic will go on, I’m even afraid to think about other pandemics, about global warming and so on and so on. We unfortunately will just need some more traumatic, critical, shocking situation and more and more I hope it will become clear that we cannot play this double game, you know like, yeah yeah pandemic, but we shouldn’t hurt, or how do the right-wingers say, not only Trump, their popular phrase is "the medicine shouldn’t be worse than illness itself." You know, my answer to this is— Yes, sorry, go on. No no no, I’m curious because you, I agree with you that the, everything seems to be changing very dramatically and that this the coronavirus pandemic is a, is a, changes everything and on the other hand in the United States just elected Joe Biden like on a very explicit campaign to what you talk about, the return to normalcy, which we cannot do anymore. What do you make of Joe Biden as a political figure? You know, this was I think in the text for Jacobin, no, even where I used that one of my favorite, implicitly at least anti-capitalist movies is John Carpenter’s They Live, where aliens are already among us and you have to use special glasses to see that behind the human face there is really an alien, you know. I called in one of my old texts I called that the critique of ideology glasses, you know. You think it’s a living person, you put the glasses on you see he’s just a robot working for the capital or whatever, you know. And I so I think that that that’s why I made that terrible statement four years ago to which I still stick, but not in the sense, my god I was that I support Trump, that let’s be objective now, Trump is a disgusting nightmare and so on, but with him a certain rift tension appeared in the, to use the old-fashioned terms, the ruling class and even the ruling hegemonic ideology and this is an opening for us. For me in the long term, for me Biden is quite a catastrophe, because he didn’t take the basic lesson from Trump which we the left should take. You remember that also when Trump was doing the presidential campaign some so-called under quotation marks moderates in Republican party said but you are going too far, we should be careful not to lose the center. No, Trump from his dirty interests wisely went to the extreme and the more he went to the extreme, the more popular he became. And I think this is why it’s the most horrible thing and also in the long term a political mistake that I can imagine, this Biden strategy. Bernie Sanders is too much, let’s not go too far in that direction, let's not lose the center and so on. Bernie, I didn't meet him but I met some people who knew him, told me that Bernie was aware of this. Our, in the long term, the only chance for Democrats would have been Democratic Party not to occupy the center but to get Trump voters, those desperate—they are not all Trump voters, but many of them are—desperate lower-mid lower middle class farmers in Vermont and so on. And so sometimes, that's the dialectical paradox of political life, the only way to build an effective majority is to go more to the extreme. Another thing that I like to repeat again and again about Bernie Sanders when people say socialist, communist, whatever. Listen, if you compare Bernie's program with ordinary, not extreme, social democracy in Europe half a century ago, Bernie is more moderate than them. This shows the regression of our entire space and so on and so on. So I think that the left shouldn't now fall into this trap of now the fascist danger of Trump is the only big danger. No, now is the point to ask a deeper question: what were, what was the Democratic establishment doing wrong that something like Trump could have emerged? This is the crucial question. If, that's why I'm a moderate pessimist here if you ask me, if we will just try to restore normality, balance and so on, we will precisely in the long term be reproducing the situation which gave birth to, which gave birth to Trump. I think it’s, it’s the ultimate enemy for me, not that they are worse than Trump, I’m not saying this, is this Democratic centrist establishment. Because they are de facto hegemonic and whatever you say about Trump, I do hate him, he is incredibly vulgar and so on, but he disturbed this hegemonic center. Let’s do the same thing from the left. That’s our only chance I think. Yeah, you know it seemed like the Democrats felt that the threat coming from Bernie in terms of his destabilization was stronger than what came from Trump because Trump acted as a solidifying force for their base, um, including their donor base whereas Bernie could fracture it, um, and in that way presented a unique problem for them, particularly with their campaign efforts on the ground in down-ballot races. Did you read, sorry I’m interrupting, please go on, I interrupted you, I'm very sincerely sorry. No it’s okay, it’s okay. Well I wanted to ask you— Don't provoke me because if you say it's okay, I'm a man then I will say if it's okay then I will do it all the time. Okay. Maybe when I say it’s okay it means that I can, I can deal with it adequately and not have you stop talking. Yeah. Yeah. Well I wanted to ask you about something that you say in your Jacobin article where you’re talking about futurology and I wanted to kind of relate that to the two types of normals that you were talking to talking about before. One is the kind of, um, well it’s unclear if this was just like a turf-laying campaign, but the right-wing "let’s get back to normal" slogan that did resonate with a lot of people and I think their normal, what that signifier is, is very different than the Biden campaign’s normal. Um, and I think both are depending on what you define as like futurology and in your article you say quote, "Futurology deals with what is possible, we need to do what is from the standpoint of the existing global order impossible." Um, so we've seen, you know, two dominant calls for going back to what is possible, for, for debating a future based off what we believe is possible. You're calling for a departure there. Can you,
unknown
um, you know
um, you know
Slavoj Žižek
clarify that more and talk to our viewers about what you mean? Well, I am, I don't think this is good for me what I will say now, but I must openly admit that I cannot deliver, give you a precise point-by-point program. The only thing that I can conclude is that
clarify that more and talk to our viewers about what you mean? Well, I am, I don't think this is good for me what I will say now, but I must openly admit that I cannot deliver, give you a precise point-by-point program. The only thing that I can conclude is that
unknown
if we refocus
if we refocus
Slavoj Žižek
on the
on the
unknown
pandemic, it's clear that there is no solution without not only without an efficient state apparatus, we need it. But without the state being supported by a lower, lower in the sense of more basic, local communities. For example, friends were telling me the most touching story was that I heard from Madrid and Barcelona, but mostly Madrid. The state did, was doing very bad in March-April. Then people did locally something that in old communist jargon we called or in Cuba we call, or rather called, Local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.
pandemic, it's clear that there is no solution without not only without an efficient state apparatus, we need it. But without the state being supported by a lower, lower in the sense of more basic, local communities. For example, friends were telling me the most touching story was that I heard from Madrid and Barcelona, but mostly Madrid. The state did, was doing very bad in March-April. Then people did locally something that in old communist jargon we called or in Cuba we call, or rather called, Local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.
Slavoj Žižek
You know, locally people organized themselves without any tell anybody telling them how. Just people who were most active in a couple of blocks and they say okay, let's go through those who live in our small community, let's see are there any old people who need direct help, this, that and so on and so on. And without this the catastrophe would have been much worse. Friends from Vietnam are telling me because you know the miracle is not just as they like to emphasize a little bit too much, China. Never forget, I say this to annoy my pro-Chinese old Maoist friends, don't forget Taiwan which has an even better record than China and honor to communists who are in power still, don't forget Vietnam, where okay again it's not only the state, this old from the war against United States army, all this long tradition of local committees, local communities was remobilized. And on the opposite end, an authentic international cooperation. Everybody in principle agrees with this. But we will have to make a step further because it's clear that if you are not lucky the way New Zealand is, which is simply an island and so on, the only way is tight international cooperation. I don't believe as some people accuse me in directly passing to some kind of a global world government. No, in if we do this with present political structures, admit it that it would have been incredible global corruption, new forms of exploitation and so on and so on. But serious cooperation. For example what World Health Organization is trying to do, it should get much stronger. We need a central agency which at least gives us the proper statistic. We know so little how it happens. What is even with numbers, you know these numbers don't mean a lot that maybe we all read on Worldometer and so on and so on. Like, you know there are many countries which report as dead from COVID more people than the numbers say because Belgium, it's not as bad as it appears, they have this rule, if you die for whatever reason if you had COVID, it's counted as COVID death. Then there are other countries like Turkey, I hear from my friends and I hear also about Russia, where they try to keep the numbers of death low by re-categorizing it like many COVID cases are simply counted as pneu—as lung other lung diseases and so on and so on. So we need this type of global cooperation not just for pandemic, but for global warming. Look, an old story I repeat it all the time, I will repeat it again. You remember you are younger than me, but not so young, so young. Do you remember
You know, locally people organized themselves without any tell anybody telling them how. Just people who were most active in a couple of blocks and they say okay, let's go through those who live in our small community, let's see are there any old people who need direct help, this, that and so on and so on. And without this the catastrophe would have been much worse. Friends from Vietnam are telling me because you know the miracle is not just as they like to emphasize a little bit too much, China. Never forget, I say this to annoy my pro-Chinese old Maoist friends, don't forget Taiwan which has an even better record than China and honor to communists who are in power still, don't forget Vietnam, where okay again it's not only the state, this old from the war against United States army, all this long tradition of local committees, local communities was remobilized. And on the opposite end, an authentic international cooperation. Everybody in principle agrees with this. But we will have to make a step further because it's clear that if you are not lucky the way New Zealand is, which is simply an island and so on, the only way is tight international cooperation. I don't believe as some people accuse me in directly passing to some kind of a global world government. No, in if we do this with present political structures, admit it that it would have been incredible global corruption, new forms of exploitation and so on and so on. But serious cooperation. For example what World Health Organization is trying to do, it should get much stronger. We need a central agency which at least gives us the proper statistic. We know so little how it happens. What is even with numbers, you know these numbers don't mean a lot that maybe we all read on Worldometer and so on and so on. Like, you know there are many countries which report as dead from COVID more people than the numbers say because Belgium, it's not as bad as it appears, they have this rule, if you die for whatever reason if you had COVID, it's counted as COVID death. Then there are other countries like Turkey, I hear from my friends and I hear also about Russia, where they try to keep the numbers of death low by re-categorizing it like many COVID cases are simply counted as pneu—as lung other lung diseases and so on and so on. So we need this type of global cooperation not just for pandemic, but for global warming. Look, an old story I repeat it all the time, I will repeat it again. You remember you are younger than me, but not so young, so young. Do you remember
unknown
the Fukushima
the Fukushima
Slavoj Žižek
accident, you know? Yes. Yes. A friend of mine, a very good futurologist but in a good sense of catastrophes, was there, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, was there two days after and learned that you know that for for one day almost, the Japanese government was in total panic? Because it looked that the entire Tokyo area, million people, would have to be evacuated. Where? In a rational order of global cooperation, it's clear you have to make some deal with Russia, because now again because of global warming, you have vast territories in Northeastern Siberia which can be— But in today’s situation the the only solution would have been war or whatever, well you know the same they did it in in history. When some people were not able to continue living where they were living, they left and they went they left and then it was war, either they won killing the others or not and so on and so on. So what I'm saying is that today with chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and all that, the old way would lead to a global catastrophe sooner or later. So the only choice we have here is
accident, you know? Yes. Yes. A friend of mine, a very good futurologist but in a good sense of catastrophes, was there, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, was there two days after and learned that you know that for for one day almost, the Japanese government was in total panic? Because it looked that the entire Tokyo area, million people, would have to be evacuated. Where? In a rational order of global cooperation, it's clear you have to make some deal with Russia, because now again because of global warming, you have vast territories in Northeastern Siberia which can be— But in today’s situation the the only solution would have been war or whatever, well you know the same they did it in in history. When some people were not able to continue living where they were living, they left and they went they left and then it was war, either they won killing the others or not and so on and so on. So what I'm saying is that today with chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and all that, the old way would lead to a global catastrophe sooner or later. So the only choice we have here is
unknown
what I call the Zardoz, did you see the old was it Sean Connery or which movie? And there is the new one, I always forget the title, with Matt Damon I think where the elite lives on a— Elysium. Oh yeah. Elysium, yes. So it's either Elysium or global cooperation, if you ask me. It's clear that this is a
what I call the Zardoz, did you see the old was it Sean Connery or which movie? And there is the new one, I always forget the title, with Matt Damon I think where the elite lives on a— Elysium. Oh yeah. Elysium, yes. So it's either Elysium or global cooperation, if you ask me. It's clear that this is a
unknown
choice. And when people tell me you are utopian, I tell them wait a minute, already those in power, look at them what they are doing. They are
choice. And when people tell me you are utopian, I tell them wait a minute, already those in power, look at them what they are doing. They are
Slavoj Žižek
acting in such a way that it's
acting in such a way that it's
unknown
clear they don't believe their own predictions. Like the most
clear they don't believe their own predictions. Like the most
Slavoj Žižek
obscene thing I found
obscene thing I found
unknown
is and in a strange
is and in a strange
Slavoj Žižek
way this fascinates
way this fascinates
unknown
me, again my petit bourgeois fascist tendency, you know this reports about how in the abandoned wartime bunkers in the in the Rocky Mountains and so on rich are building whole underground cities and so on. Or for example my friends in New Zealand are telling me, you know that— I looked at some of the pamphlets for the luxury bunkers because I have another job working for a wealthy author and she received them and they were wild. They are wild. They seem to have everything except a therapist. And when you think of living through global collapse in a bunker with a couple other people, maybe like that aspect of things might be the most important, but they’re like no, big screen TV, heated pool, place for your dog. Yeah, yeah it's unbelievable. This is this is for me an obscenity and here this awakens my worst, I admit it, Stalinist instincts, you know. Like for example I will say okay, not for the new nomenclature, but somehow
me, again my petit bourgeois fascist tendency, you know this reports about how in the abandoned wartime bunkers in the in the Rocky Mountains and so on rich are building whole underground cities and so on. Or for example my friends in New Zealand are telling me, you know that— I looked at some of the pamphlets for the luxury bunkers because I have another job working for a wealthy author and she received them and they were wild. They are wild. They seem to have everything except a therapist. And when you think of living through global collapse in a bunker with a couple other people, maybe like that aspect of things might be the most important, but they’re like no, big screen TV, heated pool, place for your dog. Yeah, yeah it's unbelievable. This is this is for me an obscenity and here this awakens my worst, I admit it, Stalinist instincts, you know. Like for example I will say okay, not for the new nomenclature, but somehow
Slavoj Žižek
prohibit, I would prohibit this. They did one step towards this very wisely although I don't idealize them but nonetheless in New Zealand. You know they simply so many billionaires were buying houses there that they simply had to stop it. This is what I call what's the big a Vancouver phenomenon. Yeah. This central island which is beautiful, upper middle class, the paradise of all of us, you know. People who live there practically cannot afford buy an apartment there, you know. Yeah. So incidentally what you mentioned about Twitter and so on, I in my secret Stalinist dreams I am much worse than just controlling it socially, I don’t know. Okay, it will I don't mean it quite seriously, it's my dream. But I would prohibit Twitter in my hardline communist regime. I agree. There’s a lot of people— People are losing time there and so on, I wouldn't mind a kind of a secret police control, and if they found you using Twitter more than one hour per day, you have to do some work like cleaning toilets in the dirtiest hospital for one week, ten hours per day, you know. It's something is so wrong by it, although Chomsky often attacks me, you know. But one
prohibit, I would prohibit this. They did one step towards this very wisely although I don't idealize them but nonetheless in New Zealand. You know they simply so many billionaires were buying houses there that they simply had to stop it. This is what I call what's the big a Vancouver phenomenon. Yeah. This central island which is beautiful, upper middle class, the paradise of all of us, you know. People who live there practically cannot afford buy an apartment there, you know. Yeah. So incidentally what you mentioned about Twitter and so on, I in my secret Stalinist dreams I am much worse than just controlling it socially, I don’t know. Okay, it will I don't mean it quite seriously, it's my dream. But I would prohibit Twitter in my hardline communist regime. I agree. There’s a lot of people— People are losing time there and so on, I wouldn't mind a kind of a secret police control, and if they found you using Twitter more than one hour per day, you have to do some work like cleaning toilets in the dirtiest hospital for one week, ten hours per day, you know. It's something is so wrong by it, although Chomsky often attacks me, you know. But one
unknown
point I agree with him. He
point I agree with him. He
Slavoj Žižek
was asked once and he admitted it’s not just censorship, why doesn’t he more often appear on big TV—mhm—all these different talk shows, no? And he says because the rhythm is crazy, is the tweeting rhythm, you know. You you have usually less than one minute, you are already interrupted and so on, you cannot even develop a line of thought. Mhm. And that’s why I like to be here, you should interrupt me even more often, because I think that’s the most horrible thing. Even I caught myself on the way we live in digital universe now. Like I live in a small country where we are lucky, maybe maybe it's not good for me to say this, but big movie companies don't care if you download movies illegally. Because the whole of Slovenia is two thousand, who cares, they would have to invest too much, you know, to— so but you know I remember how this instant availability, you want to see even an old movie, you go you download it, in a strange way it affected the way I watch. I limit myself to a couple of clips and then I say oh but maybe I have another choice, better and so on. At the end I just take a look at a couple of clips and so on and so on. And I'm here an old-fashioned philosopher I think. What we need is precisely this slow, more peaceful, not peaceful in the sense of avoiding social contacts, but peaceful in the sense of that you take a step, because there is the right type of urgency, you know, like my god, catastrophe we have to do it. But admit it that our culture also often mobilizes the wrong kind of urgency. Like for example once years ago I listened to a debate with Bill Gates and he said why even deal, these are just big words with all this problem socialism, capitalism, why do we all honest people not simply come together and do something and so on, you know? This reformulation of basic problems into this practical pragmatic issues is a catastrophe. Because as I always repeat it, the way we formulate a problem is usually part of the problem. My example, I wonder if you Arielle would agree with me here, is that this often I repeat this point I’m sorry, is that did we notice how the fight against racism is usually in the liberal center reformulated in the terms of tolerance? Which I think is already an ideological mystification. Because tolerance tends to turn it into a psycho-ideological problem. Like let’s say that I hate you, black, with you I don’t know what you are, you have a strange name, what are you, Nando Vila? Are you Spanish, masking as white or what? Sorry I cannot— I get that all the time. You know that was my politically correctness, but you can be you should feel safe for one reason. My idea is be aggressive, humiliating, but this should be a sign of friendship, you know. This means we trust each other. With enemies I never talk like this. It’s called politeness, you know, you don’t you don’t talk with them. But okay sorry, I talk too much. Please ask me some questions. No, I I see what you mean. When you frame things as an issue of tolerance, what you’re saying is two things. One that it’s an affective issue. It’s about emotion, it’s about behavior. The other thing is that— It psychologizes it, sorry to interrupt, but in the end in the end the problem becomes why do I, which I don’t, why do I feel ill at ease at ease with you black people? The problem then all of a sudden is not ideological tradition, economic exploitation, but what is my psychological trauma? Go to psychoanalyst I should look deep into myself. That's why I’m here for the, and I really mean it, the if we really want to be against racism, our practice should be that of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is: fake it till you make it. No, don't spend hours with psychoanalyst what what, why don’t I like
was asked once and he admitted it’s not just censorship, why doesn’t he more often appear on big TV—mhm—all these different talk shows, no? And he says because the rhythm is crazy, is the tweeting rhythm, you know. You you have usually less than one minute, you are already interrupted and so on, you cannot even develop a line of thought. Mhm. And that’s why I like to be here, you should interrupt me even more often, because I think that’s the most horrible thing. Even I caught myself on the way we live in digital universe now. Like I live in a small country where we are lucky, maybe maybe it's not good for me to say this, but big movie companies don't care if you download movies illegally. Because the whole of Slovenia is two thousand, who cares, they would have to invest too much, you know, to— so but you know I remember how this instant availability, you want to see even an old movie, you go you download it, in a strange way it affected the way I watch. I limit myself to a couple of clips and then I say oh but maybe I have another choice, better and so on. At the end I just take a look at a couple of clips and so on and so on. And I'm here an old-fashioned philosopher I think. What we need is precisely this slow, more peaceful, not peaceful in the sense of avoiding social contacts, but peaceful in the sense of that you take a step, because there is the right type of urgency, you know, like my god, catastrophe we have to do it. But admit it that our culture also often mobilizes the wrong kind of urgency. Like for example once years ago I listened to a debate with Bill Gates and he said why even deal, these are just big words with all this problem socialism, capitalism, why do we all honest people not simply come together and do something and so on, you know? This reformulation of basic problems into this practical pragmatic issues is a catastrophe. Because as I always repeat it, the way we formulate a problem is usually part of the problem. My example, I wonder if you Arielle would agree with me here, is that this often I repeat this point I’m sorry, is that did we notice how the fight against racism is usually in the liberal center reformulated in the terms of tolerance? Which I think is already an ideological mystification. Because tolerance tends to turn it into a psycho-ideological problem. Like let’s say that I hate you, black, with you I don’t know what you are, you have a strange name, what are you, Nando Vila? Are you Spanish, masking as white or what? Sorry I cannot— I get that all the time. You know that was my politically correctness, but you can be you should feel safe for one reason. My idea is be aggressive, humiliating, but this should be a sign of friendship, you know. This means we trust each other. With enemies I never talk like this. It’s called politeness, you know, you don’t you don’t talk with them. But okay sorry, I talk too much. Please ask me some questions. No, I I see what you mean. When you frame things as an issue of tolerance, what you’re saying is two things. One that it’s an affective issue. It’s about emotion, it’s about behavior. The other thing is that— It psychologizes it, sorry to interrupt, but in the end in the end the problem becomes why do I, which I don’t, why do I feel ill at ease at ease with you black people? The problem then all of a sudden is not ideological tradition, economic exploitation, but what is my psychological trauma? Go to psychoanalyst I should look deep into myself. That's why I’m here for the, and I really mean it, the if we really want to be against racism, our practice should be that of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is: fake it till you make it. No, don't spend hours with psychoanalyst what what, why don’t I like
unknown
black black people?
black black people?
Slavoj Žižek
Is that I, I’m purely ironic here, is that when I was a small boy I saw a black guy having sex with my white mother? These type of primitive, no, no, no, I believe here I am in the tradition of French French
Is that I, I’m purely ironic here, is that when I was a small boy I saw a black guy having sex with my white mother? These type of primitive, no, no, no, I believe here I am in the tradition of French French
unknown
Catholic Jansenism, Pascal, who said you don't believe, fake it as if you believe it will get you better. I believe in good manners, they will not save us, no, I'm not a liberal idealist, you know. Yeah. But you still— do you know my old, you probably didn't read my book on Lenin introduction, the old one, where I use this example? It doesn't save the situation, but it's a beautiful example. An old friend from South Africa told me that in that epoch before before
Catholic Jansenism, Pascal, who said you don't believe, fake it as if you believe it will get you better. I believe in good manners, they will not save us, no, I'm not a liberal idealist, you know. Yeah. But you still— do you know my old, you probably didn't read my book on Lenin introduction, the old one, where I use this example? It doesn't save the situation, but it's a beautiful example. An old friend from South Africa told me that in that epoch before before
Slavoj Žižek
Mandela took over, when there was still Apartheid, he was at a demonstration, black and white together, demonstrated against Apartheid. Then police attacked and a black lady, who probably she wasn't too low class, doesn't matter, the problem is that she had high heels. Mhm. Running away, one of the high heels broke off so she had to stop and lost one, she lost one shoe. And then an ethical miracle happened. You know what happened? The white policeman, and it wasn't his inner goodness, he was probably it's just this basic superficial even male-chauvinist manner: you see a lady in trouble, you have to help. He, policeman, picked up the shoe and gave it to her, here you have it lady. And then they looked at each other and felt like idiots. Like what now, that I have a shoe we should start running again and playing the game? And they said politely: okay, all the best to you, and walked apart. You know, even this works. I think that we know why, because don’t you agree that today
Mandela took over, when there was still Apartheid, he was at a demonstration, black and white together, demonstrated against Apartheid. Then police attacked and a black lady, who probably she wasn't too low class, doesn't matter, the problem is that she had high heels. Mhm. Running away, one of the high heels broke off so she had to stop and lost one, she lost one shoe. And then an ethical miracle happened. You know what happened? The white policeman, and it wasn't his inner goodness, he was probably it's just this basic superficial even male-chauvinist manner: you see a lady in trouble, you have to help. He, policeman, picked up the shoe and gave it to her, here you have it lady. And then they looked at each other and felt like idiots. Like what now, that I have a shoe we should start running again and playing the game? And they said politely: okay, all the best to you, and walked apart. You know, even this works. I think that we know why, because don’t you agree that today
unknown
officially,
officially,
Slavoj Žižek
apart from Trump people, nobody is directly, or nobody, okay in United States now are directly racist. But what I fear more are these liberal polite racists. They are absolutely for the black, for, but then you ask them they have no black friends, they, they feel uneasy, they, and it's I have somewhere listed a whole list of these everyday racism reactions. Like they say I love
apart from Trump people, nobody is directly, or nobody, okay in United States now are directly racist. But what I fear more are these liberal polite racists. They are absolutely for the black, for, but then you ask them they have no black friends, they, they feel uneasy, they, and it's I have somewhere listed a whole list of these everyday racism reactions. Like they say I love
unknown
black people, when I was
black people, when I was
Slavoj Žižek
young, remember, we it wasn't yet—no, you don't remember you are too young, I hate you for that—you you we didn't have these earphones, you had those boomboxes that you carried. Yeah, I remember that! Yeah yeah. Oh really? My god, I thought the time was before you. Or are you super plastically operated or whatever, no. Let’s— I’m a robot. Glass on, I’m not real. Yeah. Yeah, that’s what they live, yeah, but then I will see another Trump’s daughter or what, sorry. No, seriously. What I want to say is that this was one of the typical white people’s reproach: just their music is too loud, or typical, they laugh too loudly, you know. This, this is, don’t underestimate the efficiency of this absolutely ordinary everyday racism, which is not even a part of ideology in the strict sense of a system of of theoretically grounded, as you’re prejudices on all this, but it’s just this everyday unease. Yeah. Or, in France it was discovered that in in subway in Paris, Metro, they asked people why they avoid Metro and their point was: bad people, I have nothing against them but they smell bad and so on, you know. Like this this is, don't underestimate the efficiency of this. I think that the true—that's why, would you also agree with this, and especially this is for me the lesson of Black Lives Matter and so on, that that the movement should go on like I’m from my European perspective, I’m sick and tired of these great events. You remember three years ago or when it was the book
young, remember, we it wasn't yet—no, you don't remember you are too young, I hate you for that—you you we didn't have these earphones, you had those boomboxes that you carried. Yeah, I remember that! Yeah yeah. Oh really? My god, I thought the time was before you. Or are you super plastically operated or whatever, no. Let’s— I’m a robot. Glass on, I’m not real. Yeah. Yeah, that’s what they live, yeah, but then I will see another Trump’s daughter or what, sorry. No, seriously. What I want to say is that this was one of the typical white people’s reproach: just their music is too loud, or typical, they laugh too loudly, you know. This, this is, don’t underestimate the efficiency of this absolutely ordinary everyday racism, which is not even a part of ideology in the strict sense of a system of of theoretically grounded, as you’re prejudices on all this, but it’s just this everyday unease. Yeah. Or, in France it was discovered that in in subway in Paris, Metro, they asked people why they avoid Metro and their point was: bad people, I have nothing against them but they smell bad and so on, you know. Like this this is, don't underestimate the efficiency of this. I think that the true—that's why, would you also agree with this, and especially this is for me the lesson of Black Lives Matter and so on, that that the movement should go on like I’m from my European perspective, I’m sick and tired of these great events. You remember three years ago or when it was the book
unknown
big moment of of
big moment of of
Slavoj Žižek
of Podemos in Spain. Half a million people persisted for days on the central square and all my friends were fascinated. And then I repeated my old joke, I told them: and what will happen then? You will return home and meet once a year in a cafeteria, oh my god how and remember that moment? And then in the middle of that, your phone will ring, you are needed in your bank and you will need [unintelligible]. Like the the true test of a revolution or social change is for me precisely when this big enthusiastic moment is over, how do ordinary people feel the change at the everyday level. And if I were black, that’s how I would have begun. Not "yeah yeah, we all demonstrate against racism," let’s see how you treat me at this everyday level. Yeah, unfortunately it’s been just completely subsumed into this liberal framework where exactly as you said, there’s a discomfort and people are starting to think that their own personal comfort and discomfort are a political terrain, which in my opinion
of Podemos in Spain. Half a million people persisted for days on the central square and all my friends were fascinated. And then I repeated my old joke, I told them: and what will happen then? You will return home and meet once a year in a cafeteria, oh my god how and remember that moment? And then in the middle of that, your phone will ring, you are needed in your bank and you will need [unintelligible]. Like the the true test of a revolution or social change is for me precisely when this big enthusiastic moment is over, how do ordinary people feel the change at the everyday level. And if I were black, that’s how I would have begun. Not "yeah yeah, we all demonstrate against racism," let’s see how you treat me at this everyday level. Yeah, unfortunately it’s been just completely subsumed into this liberal framework where exactly as you said, there’s a discomfort and people are starting to think that their own personal comfort and discomfort are a political terrain, which in my opinion
unknown
they’re
they’re
Slavoj Žižek
not. But they do try to make inroads or say— I mean I personally have gotten, I lived in Portland, Oregon which is like the Mecca of these people where they’d be like, "Oh I love your natural hair, you’re so exotic." You know? They’re trying to do things to prove that
not. But they do try to make inroads or say— I mean I personally have gotten, I lived in Portland, Oregon which is like the Mecca of these people where they’d be like, "Oh I love your natural hair, you’re so exotic." You know? They’re trying to do things to prove that
unknown
they have access to the social capital of tolerance. But tolerance presupposes a fixed category. And part of the experience of being black is that when you’re in the fixed
they have access to the social capital of tolerance. But tolerance presupposes a fixed category. And part of the experience of being black is that when you’re in the fixed
Slavoj Žižek
category, if someone’s like "into the fixed category" or not into it, it doesn’t matter because it denies you your humanity. You don't have any agency against the category they imagine they’re being tolerant or intolerant of. And and that personally feels quite terrible. I think for every black person in America they can relate to that no matter what side of the aisle or or political spectrum they're on, is this denial of self where you’re constantly trying to break that. Um, and you know we have had like incredible writing about this for decades and decades. Um, but I think what we're starting to see is because there's a political failure of the tolerance approach or boutique multiculturalism or the liberal approach: race as bad feeling, people are starting to look at the political terrain and I think that’s one of the things that underpins the defund argument is like what are the resources in a community and how do people actually gain access to them, or what is the effect of violence or state violence or symbols of state violence, how does that change the way people interact and feel. And I think those are the conversations that we need to be pushing because I'm sick of people telling me they like my natural hair but— You too, yeah yeah. I you know I had a similar experience and I think I did a wonderful thing. We were sitting at a table after some conference in New York, some ten people, with some of them were blacks and we did the politically correct thing, you know, like we went to some Ethiopian restaurant, you know, like anti-eurocentric. Yeah. And then and then there was black guy, not totally black, from Ethiopia there also, no? And I did something very risky. I said I hate this shitty Ethiopian food. You know what the Ethiopian guy said? I also hate it! So you went to we went out to an old fashioned hamburger place and enjoyed it totally, you we because you know this it's so important that's for me the limit of tolerant identity politics. That's why white liberals like you black to play your identity card. And here I see the opposition between that Haiti all citizens are black. No, they like you in your particularity but what you should do is what they tried to do in Haiti: to show how your particular identity, if taken seriously, implies a new form of universality. Yeah. Particularity I say I’m all for particularity. But what what this particular identity means in the terms of universality? You know, every particularity like it's clear that this our way they are stealing our way of life what Trump protesters claim they they imply of course they will not say we are racist but if you ask them what their position implies we are there. But I want to say something
category, if someone’s like "into the fixed category" or not into it, it doesn’t matter because it denies you your humanity. You don't have any agency against the category they imagine they’re being tolerant or intolerant of. And and that personally feels quite terrible. I think for every black person in America they can relate to that no matter what side of the aisle or or political spectrum they're on, is this denial of self where you’re constantly trying to break that. Um, and you know we have had like incredible writing about this for decades and decades. Um, but I think what we're starting to see is because there's a political failure of the tolerance approach or boutique multiculturalism or the liberal approach: race as bad feeling, people are starting to look at the political terrain and I think that’s one of the things that underpins the defund argument is like what are the resources in a community and how do people actually gain access to them, or what is the effect of violence or state violence or symbols of state violence, how does that change the way people interact and feel. And I think those are the conversations that we need to be pushing because I'm sick of people telling me they like my natural hair but— You too, yeah yeah. I you know I had a similar experience and I think I did a wonderful thing. We were sitting at a table after some conference in New York, some ten people, with some of them were blacks and we did the politically correct thing, you know, like we went to some Ethiopian restaurant, you know, like anti-eurocentric. Yeah. And then and then there was black guy, not totally black, from Ethiopia there also, no? And I did something very risky. I said I hate this shitty Ethiopian food. You know what the Ethiopian guy said? I also hate it! So you went to we went out to an old fashioned hamburger place and enjoyed it totally, you we because you know this it's so important that's for me the limit of tolerant identity politics. That's why white liberals like you black to play your identity card. And here I see the opposition between that Haiti all citizens are black. No, they like you in your particularity but what you should do is what they tried to do in Haiti: to show how your particular identity, if taken seriously, implies a new form of universality. Yeah. Particularity I say I’m all for particularity. But what what this particular identity means in the terms of universality? You know, every particularity like it's clear that this our way they are stealing our way of life what Trump protesters claim they they imply of course they will not say we are racist but if you ask them what their position implies we are there. But I want to say something
unknown
else. Did you notice this
else. Did you notice this
Slavoj Žižek
detail which is totally insignificant but I think it add a symbolic meaning? You know that total idiot jerk my god the the guy in the Capitol who had a kind of a Viking— Oh the, yeah, the QAnon Shaman. QAnon Shaman, yeah yeah. But you know the joke? I know this because I admit another part of my proto-fascist tendency I admired Nordic myth Vikings. You know that these helmets with horns they never existed! They are the early 19th-century cultural invention of late Romanticism. Some people think it in some late Carl Maria von Weber and early Richard Wagner's operas that they were first invented. So much about, you know, whites who want to defend their tradition. Also at another point do you think this is too risky what I will say now, but I think it's not. We radical leftists should not just be with all my support for LGBT—and I mean it seriously, I precisely defined why they are as it were the symptom of our all they should be supported—but I think that we should do something else. Uh, you know the idea came to me with that unfortunate debate with Jordan Peterson, no? Yeah. And he has this idea we lack firm values, post-modern historicism, relativism. Mhm. My point is not to accept the debate the way the enemy formulates it. And then you defend no there is no common decency, we all have our manners, but to say wait a minute, I agree with you but why are you then for Trump? Don't you agree that if there ever was a cynical relativist historicist without any stable values person it's Donald Trump? Yeah. He is the true in this critical sense, he is the true historicist relativist. And if there is somebody who really deserves the name moral majority, simple decency, is Bernie Sanders. Yeah. So we shouldn't
detail which is totally insignificant but I think it add a symbolic meaning? You know that total idiot jerk my god the the guy in the Capitol who had a kind of a Viking— Oh the, yeah, the QAnon Shaman. QAnon Shaman, yeah yeah. But you know the joke? I know this because I admit another part of my proto-fascist tendency I admired Nordic myth Vikings. You know that these helmets with horns they never existed! They are the early 19th-century cultural invention of late Romanticism. Some people think it in some late Carl Maria von Weber and early Richard Wagner's operas that they were first invented. So much about, you know, whites who want to defend their tradition. Also at another point do you think this is too risky what I will say now, but I think it's not. We radical leftists should not just be with all my support for LGBT—and I mean it seriously, I precisely defined why they are as it were the symptom of our all they should be supported—but I think that we should do something else. Uh, you know the idea came to me with that unfortunate debate with Jordan Peterson, no? Yeah. And he has this idea we lack firm values, post-modern historicism, relativism. Mhm. My point is not to accept the debate the way the enemy formulates it. And then you defend no there is no common decency, we all have our manners, but to say wait a minute, I agree with you but why are you then for Trump? Don't you agree that if there ever was a cynical relativist historicist without any stable values person it's Donald Trump? Yeah. He is the true in this critical sense, he is the true historicist relativist. And if there is somebody who really deserves the name moral majority, simple decency, is Bernie Sanders. Yeah. So we shouldn't
unknown
be afraid not in any compromises like okay we agree with you white white decent people, we shouldn't too much look for the care for the black people, no, to convince them that we who care for blacks, other races, feminism, we speak on behalf of common decency and so on. This is very important today because the first mistake of many leftists is to accept the terrain the way it is. Yeah, yeah, it’s framed by the right. Yeah yeah way the issues are stake formulated by the enemy. So if you ask me, did you read a good text by Warren Montag where he I forgot where, where from California, a Marxist who said that who on the one hand claimed that—and we shouldn’t, that’s to conclude one remark I want to make, very important I think that there was also some kind of a carnival moment in what happened in on the Capitol, you know this mob going wild and so on. And that’s what should give us to think, you know many
be afraid not in any compromises like okay we agree with you white white decent people, we shouldn't too much look for the care for the black people, no, to convince them that we who care for blacks, other races, feminism, we speak on behalf of common decency and so on. This is very important today because the first mistake of many leftists is to accept the terrain the way it is. Yeah, yeah, it’s framed by the right. Yeah yeah way the issues are stake formulated by the enemy. So if you ask me, did you read a good text by Warren Montag where he I forgot where, where from California, a Marxist who said that who on the one hand claimed that—and we shouldn’t, that’s to conclude one remark I want to make, very important I think that there was also some kind of a carnival moment in what happened in on the Capitol, you know this mob going wild and so on. And that’s what should give us to think, you know many
unknown
leftists think even Negri and Hardt developed this I think in their first book the big hit Multitude and so on that carnival is the moment of freedom where social rules are suspended. Yeah, but you know I’m very ambiguous about it. When the social rules are suspended, it’s also the worst of you that comes back. Sorry, but in American South in the 20s and later, the carnival was raping black women and lynching black men. Yeah. Kristallnacht, yeah, Kristallnacht
leftists think even Negri and Hardt developed this I think in their first book the big hit Multitude and so on that carnival is the moment of freedom where social rules are suspended. Yeah, but you know I’m very ambiguous about it. When the social rules are suspended, it’s also the worst of you that comes back. Sorry, but in American South in the 20s and later, the carnival was raping black women and lynching black men. Yeah. Kristallnacht, yeah, Kristallnacht
Slavoj Žižek
was also a carnival. And then— But the structure of that, I mean it’s not without structure, it’s not a space of freedom. It’s just— No, no, no, Arielle, I totally agree with you. Now at least— an inversion of decency, you know,
was also a carnival. And then— But the structure of that, I mean it’s not without structure, it’s not a space of freedom. It’s just— No, no, no, Arielle, I totally agree with you. Now at least— an inversion of decency, you know,
unknown
it’s just in
it’s just in
Slavoj Žižek
bad faith. Because now at least FBI once as if by mistake FBI is doing some I wouldn’t say good stuff but stuff that we can use. Yeah. And more and more it
bad faith. Because now at least FBI once as if by mistake FBI is doing some I wouldn’t say good stuff but stuff that we can use. Yeah. And more and more it
unknown
showed this wasn't just a
showed this wasn't just a
Slavoj Žižek
lower class crowd staging a carnival there. First they were most of them not only middle but even upper middle class. They and they even, I love these details, do you know that they
lower class crowd staging a carnival there. First they were most of them not only middle but even upper middle class. They and they even, I love these details, do you know that they
unknown
even flew mostly business
even flew mostly business
Slavoj Žižek
class to Washington and stayed in expensive hotels and elsewhere?
class to Washington and stayed in expensive hotels and elsewhere?
unknown
And
And
Slavoj Žižek
second thing— You can’t have deep state controls when you’re gonna go take down the US government, you’ve got to get that that leg room. Yeah. But okay, Warren Montag's problem is of course that even if Trump disappears the movement because according to some statistic estimates you now have almost half the Republican party which means all in all about million voters who agreed with the attack on the Capitol who support violent action. Okay this time hopefully it will also not it didn't work for them. But then Warren Montag has the fear what if in the next generation a more rational calculating intelligent guy will come? Yeah. Yes, but I just
second thing— You can’t have deep state controls when you’re gonna go take down the US government, you’ve got to get that that leg room. Yeah. But okay, Warren Montag's problem is of course that even if Trump disappears the movement because according to some statistic estimates you now have almost half the Republican party which means all in all about million voters who agreed with the attack on the Capitol who support violent action. Okay this time hopefully it will also not it didn't work for them. But then Warren Montag has the fear what if in the next generation a more rational calculating intelligent guy will come? Yeah. Yes, but I just
unknown
wouldn't
wouldn't
Slavoj Žižek
use these terms, because remember that people say Trump is crazy cognitively limited denying things but
use these terms, because remember that people say Trump is crazy cognitively limited denying things but
unknown
never forget that this was
never forget that this was
Slavoj Žižek
also the reason of his success, you know. Precisely this denialism and so on. So it’s not so simple. I think that if you look at successful right-wing fascist leaders like Hitler, he was even more hysterical and so on than Trump in the public, but at the same time he was more successful in getting the support of big industry and so on all that all that. You know, that's why the one would you agree here the one and if I say this I will immediately appear a sexist I know, like with a beautiful woman. The best reaction till now was AOC, no, who who said okay till now for strategic reasons short term we supported Biden, now the fight begins again immediately against the Democratic establishment. And the big danger I see, would you agree with it or not, is that Biden will try to blackmail you, you American left by saying but since our minority is now lower in in the Congress, if we want to pass that measure, you should we should all join to defeat the Republicans and so on and so on. No, here we should the so-called Democratic Socialism, whatever we call them, we should take some risks now because
also the reason of his success, you know. Precisely this denialism and so on. So it’s not so simple. I think that if you look at successful right-wing fascist leaders like Hitler, he was even more hysterical and so on than Trump in the public, but at the same time he was more successful in getting the support of big industry and so on all that all that. You know, that's why the one would you agree here the one and if I say this I will immediately appear a sexist I know, like with a beautiful woman. The best reaction till now was AOC, no, who who said okay till now for strategic reasons short term we supported Biden, now the fight begins again immediately against the Democratic establishment. And the big danger I see, would you agree with it or not, is that Biden will try to blackmail you, you American left by saying but since our minority is now lower in in the Congress, if we want to pass that measure, you should we should all join to defeat the Republicans and so on and so on. No, here we should the so-called Democratic Socialism, whatever we call them, we should take some risks now because
unknown
literally we stand
literally we stand
Slavoj Žižek
for the future. Biden is, Biden is as I put it in another text slightly provocatively Trump with a human face. Although I think I was wrong there because at the same time in some vulgar sense, Trump is Biden with a human face. Biden is a big big capital establishment but with all his obscenities, dirty jokes, Trump who stands for the same gave in the vulgar sense of "it's common to be vulgar" a kind of a human face to this. Yeah. Well I yeah no that makes total sense and I think that that’s a I think that that’s a place to wrap it up Slavoj, I don't want to take much more of your time, thank you so so much for being with us, this was so much fun, it’s always— Can I finish with a mega, one minute, less, mega provocation? Once when I praised AOC, some guy attacked me in a vulgar way claiming ah this is just beautiful and then he used the expression I will not repeat it here which is I think the usual vulgar American expression for a man wanting to have sex with a woman, you'd just like to "S" screw her brain out. Yeah. Admit it or not and especially to you Arielle Valsaint, I think I gave a very good
for the future. Biden is, Biden is as I put it in another text slightly provocatively Trump with a human face. Although I think I was wrong there because at the same time in some vulgar sense, Trump is Biden with a human face. Biden is a big big capital establishment but with all his obscenities, dirty jokes, Trump who stands for the same gave in the vulgar sense of "it's common to be vulgar" a kind of a human face to this. Yeah. Well I yeah no that makes total sense and I think that that’s a I think that that’s a place to wrap it up Slavoj, I don't want to take much more of your time, thank you so so much for being with us, this was so much fun, it’s always— Can I finish with a mega, one minute, less, mega provocation? Once when I praised AOC, some guy attacked me in a vulgar way claiming ah this is just beautiful and then he used the expression I will not repeat it here which is I think the usual vulgar American expression for a man wanting to have sex with a woman, you'd just like to "S" screw her brain out. Yeah. Admit it or not and especially to you Arielle Valsaint, I think I gave a very good
unknown
feminist answer.
feminist answer.
Slavoj Žižek
I said maybe
I said maybe
unknown
but I cannot do it because her brain, not just
but I cannot do it because her brain, not just
Slavoj Žižek
her looks, is really so big, it's very bright, it's brilliant what she's doing, that I'm too old to "S" out all her brain. You know? I think this was a vulgar but a beautiful answer, you know. Let's take let's accept the vulgar terrain but let's turn it around from within, you know. Yeah, self-deprecating. Yeah.
her looks, is really so big, it's very bright, it's brilliant what she's doing, that I'm too old to "S" out all her brain. You know? I think this was a vulgar but a beautiful answer, you know. Let's take let's accept the vulgar terrain but let's turn it around from within, you know. Yeah, self-deprecating. Yeah.
unknown
Yeah,
Yeah,
unknown
because I really
because I really
Slavoj Žižek
think no I was quite shocked at the beginning it was I admit I'm a male chauvinist her beauty but then I saw at some of her congressional hearings and so on, wait a minute, she is really bright to cut a long story short, you know. She is really bright, no? So I think that if really as she said she felt threatened that they wanted to kill her, where if I were the Viking guy or all those, you know, well I would begin by killing her if you ask me. The Viking guy really didn't didn't fulfill the the Viking prophecies there, he didn't kidnap or sell anyone into slavery, he— Yeah, but I think is that nonetheless I think it was meant more as a carnival, which doesn't mean that it's not serious. My formula here is I use it, you know Marx said first as a tragedy then as a farce. Yeah. But as already Herbert Marcuse said about Nazism, remember it began as a carnivalesque farce in the 20s in Germany. That the experience of fascism tells us first as a farce then as a tragedy. You had the farce now in spite of dead basically it was a carnival. But let's wait and see. Sorry I abused you. Is this live? Yes, it is live. It is live. Oh my god, so you cannot do the Stalinist censorship. Okay, I ask you I'm sorry that I don't smoke because of all that I've said here then I should have asked you send me cigarettes to prison, you know, but I'm beyond that I don't care. I'm really grateful. If you come
think no I was quite shocked at the beginning it was I admit I'm a male chauvinist her beauty but then I saw at some of her congressional hearings and so on, wait a minute, she is really bright to cut a long story short, you know. She is really bright, no? So I think that if really as she said she felt threatened that they wanted to kill her, where if I were the Viking guy or all those, you know, well I would begin by killing her if you ask me. The Viking guy really didn't didn't fulfill the the Viking prophecies there, he didn't kidnap or sell anyone into slavery, he— Yeah, but I think is that nonetheless I think it was meant more as a carnival, which doesn't mean that it's not serious. My formula here is I use it, you know Marx said first as a tragedy then as a farce. Yeah. But as already Herbert Marcuse said about Nazism, remember it began as a carnivalesque farce in the 20s in Germany. That the experience of fascism tells us first as a farce then as a tragedy. You had the farce now in spite of dead basically it was a carnival. But let's wait and see. Sorry I abused you. Is this live? Yes, it is live. It is live. Oh my god, so you cannot do the Stalinist censorship. Okay, I ask you I'm sorry that I don't smoke because of all that I've said here then I should have asked you send me cigarettes to prison, you know, but I'm beyond that I don't care. I'm really grateful. If you come
unknown
back, we we will send you cigarettes, we'll also if Jacobin can get a dominatrix to, you know, enforce some of these question
back, we we will send you cigarettes, we'll also if Jacobin can get a dominatrix to, you know, enforce some of these question
Slavoj Žižek
times. Yeah. Now there is another thing that you need with me. Did you see, but I don't like it, it no longer works, James Bond movie Goldfinger? Yeah. You remember that famous car with the red button? That you press the red button and your the guy sitting next to you, the idea is he is having a gun at you controlled, is thrown out no? We’ll— Well ask you next time when I
times. Yeah. Now there is another thing that you need with me. Did you see, but I don't like it, it no longer works, James Bond movie Goldfinger? Yeah. You remember that famous car with the red button? That you press the red button and your the guy sitting next to you, the idea is he is having a gun at you controlled, is thrown out no? We’ll— Well ask you next time when I
unknown
go in these obscene topics you need
go in these obscene topics you need
Slavoj Žižek
a red button. We’ll put the red button for self-eject. For me, yes! Thanks very much, really. Thank you so much, really
a red button. We’ll put the red button for self-eject. For me, yes! Thanks very much, really. Thank you so much, really
unknown
appreciate
appreciate
Slavoj Žižek
it. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
it. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.