Slavoj Zizek Hardtalk 3/3
Lecture · dstpfw ·
published 2009-11-25 · 0:07:25 · 1,339 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
communism-socialismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyecology-climatetechnology-ai-cyberspaceideologysubjectivity
Žižek argues that escaping the current crisis requires moving further into liberalism and communism rather than retreating to pre-modern communitarianism. He redefines communism not as a failed historical project but as the necessity of inventing new forms of collective activity to address ecological and technological crises, rejecting both market and state bureaucracy. He critiques standard multi-party democracy, suggesting that people desire the appearance of choice while relying on elites, and warns that biogenetic and technological advances are breaking the boundary between inside and outside, requiring a fundamental rethinking of subjectivity and politics.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 6
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “Hegelian answer”
The proposition that to save the best of liberalism, one must move further into its logic (and beyond) rather than retreating, following the dialectical movement of sublation.
The idea that the failures of 20th-century communism (like Stalinism) were not just deviations but were present in the roots of Marx's own thought.
The core definition of communism for Žižek: inventing a mode of organization that is neither market nor state bureaucracy, necessitated by the ecological crisis.
The breakdown of the distinction between internal subjective experience and external reality caused by biogenetics and brain sciences, where machines can read thoughts and control behavior.
The observation that in modern democracy, people do not actually want to make decisions but prefer the illusion of choice while being told what is right by elites.
Žižek's self-description as someone who rejects the comforting narrative of inevitable historical progress (the light at the end of the tunnel) in favor of a pessimistic view of potential doom.
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek cites statistics showing that more people were guillotined in the weeks following the Thermidor (after the Jacobin Terror) than during the Terror itself, challenging the notion that the Terror was an aberration or uniquely bad phase.
“Look at the statistics. How many people were guillotined before and after the so-called Jacobin terror? And you will see in two-three weeks after the Thermidor, more people were guillotined than under.”
Works invoked 1
Žižek mentions his upcoming book (at the time of the talk) as the venue for his argument that we are approaching a limit, not necessarily catastrophic but significant.
People invoked 4
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited alongside Robespierre as a figure associated with the origins of Soviet terror, requiring detailed analysis rather than simple condemnation.
Maximilien Robespierre positive
Used as a historical example to analyze the nature of terror and violence, with Žižek defending the statistical reality of the period against moralistic simplifications.
Joseph Stalin negative
Mentioned as the 'bad guy' in the simplistic view that communism was good but badly realized, which Žižek rejects as insufficient.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek argues that the roots of communism's failure are present in Marx's own thought, treating Marx as a serious starting point for critical analysis rather than a simple hero or villain.
Transcript 21 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Which is why I am deeply skeptical about those who think we can get out of the present crisis by moving back. More communitarianism, more pre-modern forms. Forget about it. So
Which is why I am deeply skeptical about those who think we can get out of the present crisis by moving back. More communitarianism, more pre-modern forms. Forget about it. So
unknown
I'm running out of ideas for what your model for society is because it seems to me you are a classic case of a thinker, an academic who has thrived in a liberal environment. I mean your writings are fascinating not just because you deal with political theory, you also deal with culture and cultural theory and you love movies. You've written The Pervert's Guide to Cinema for God's sake. I mean you're a man who represents the very best of liberalism, an individual free thinker free to think whatever the hell he likes.
I'm running out of ideas for what your model for society is because it seems to me you are a classic case of a thinker, an academic who has thrived in a liberal environment. I mean your writings are fascinating not just because you deal with political theory, you also deal with culture and cultural theory and you love movies. You've written The Pervert's Guide to Cinema for God's sake. I mean you're a man who represents the very best of liberalism, an individual free thinker free to think whatever the hell he likes.
Slavoj Žižek
Okay, my answer would be and you will not like it here a Hegelian one. It would be that precisely if we want in the face of all these threats save what is best in liberalism, we must move further. We will have to move further. Otherwise we are slowly approaching a new apartheid. When you say further you mean further
Okay, my answer would be and you will not like it here a Hegelian one. It would be that precisely if we want in the face of all these threats save what is best in liberalism, we must move further. We will have to move further. Otherwise we are slowly approaching a new apartheid. When you say further you mean further
unknown
to a new form of communism and I say what is there in communism that allows you to believe that you would ever under a communist system which seems to me to be anti-individualistic, how would you ever be able to guarantee the freedoms of thought, freedoms of expression, freedoms of the press, freedom to vote that you hold so dear?
to a new form of communism and I say what is there in communism that allows you to believe that you would ever under a communist system which seems to me to be anti-individualistic, how would you ever be able to guarantee the freedoms of thought, freedoms of expression, freedoms of the press, freedom to vote that you hold so dear?
Slavoj Žižek
I will put it in this way, it all depends my God on what you mean by communism. I'm not playing the simple game of oh communist idea was good it was just badly realized. It's absolutely clear to me that if you really critically analyze the experience of the 20th century communism, you see that it's not just oh Stalin was the bad guy and so on. It's already in Marx and so on at least the roots of it. The roots of going wrong? The roots of going wrong, yes. But what I-
I will put it in this way, it all depends my God on what you mean by communism. I'm not playing the simple game of oh communist idea was good it was just badly realized. It's absolutely clear to me that if you really critically analyze the experience of the 20th century communism, you see that it's not just oh Stalin was the bad guy and so on. It's already in Marx and so on at least the roots of it. The roots of going wrong? The roots of going wrong, yes. But what I-
unknown
so you're saying to me even going back to Marx and the origins of communist thought there is not one single exemplar of a thinker or a doer, a political communist or an abstract thinking communist who you say represents the ideal. Why should I believe
so you're saying to me even going back to Marx and the origins of communist thought there is not one single exemplar of a thinker or a doer, a political communist or an abstract thinking communist who you say represents the ideal. Why should I believe
Slavoj Žižek
this ideal exists? No, no, no. It's a little bit more complex here. I claim that all of them were deeply contradictory in the sense that they were going after something but the way they formulated it and so on. Now you will say the obvious question, but why to stick to it when it was so obviously wrong? Uh, we don't talk enough about the following thing. Again, I see problems today which and this is all that is for me communism. It's not we will have a new gulag central committee or whatever. It means a very precise thing. We will have to invent, already ecological crisis makes this clear. And I'm even to go sorry to the end, I'm even well aware that if I even talk and I don't talk a lot about revolution, we should totally forget you know this kind of old fashioned barricades. Well
this ideal exists? No, no, no. It's a little bit more complex here. I claim that all of them were deeply contradictory in the sense that they were going after something but the way they formulated it and so on. Now you will say the obvious question, but why to stick to it when it was so obviously wrong? Uh, we don't talk enough about the following thing. Again, I see problems today which and this is all that is for me communism. It's not we will have a new gulag central committee or whatever. It means a very precise thing. We will have to invent, already ecological crisis makes this clear. And I'm even to go sorry to the end, I'm even well aware that if I even talk and I don't talk a lot about revolution, we should totally forget you know this kind of old fashioned barricades. Well
unknown
in the past you've said and again I'm quoting a quote from yourself, Robespierre, Lenin, I'm a fan of all of them you
in the past you've said and again I'm quoting a quote from yourself, Robespierre, Lenin, I'm a fan of all of them you
Slavoj Žižek
said. I am, but in their own times. Robespierre and the terror? Lenin and the origins of the Soviet terror? Wait a minute, now we would have to go into detailed analysis but listen, Robespierre, let's be serious. Look at the statistics. How many people were guillotined before and after the so-called Jacobin terror? And you will see in two-three weeks after the Thermidor, more people were guillotined than under. Well I'm struggling now because
said. I am, but in their own times. Robespierre and the terror? Lenin and the origins of the Soviet terror? Wait a minute, now we would have to go into detailed analysis but listen, Robespierre, let's be serious. Look at the statistics. How many people were guillotined before and after the so-called Jacobin terror? And you will see in two-three weeks after the Thermidor, more people were guillotined than under. Well I'm struggling now because
unknown
you say it is this new brand of communism which you've yet to define which is the only philosophy that can take on the existential threats that we face and you've mentioned
you say it is this new brand of communism which you've yet to define which is the only philosophy that can take on the existential threats that we face and you've mentioned
Slavoj Žižek
the ecological threat. Yes, no, let me define it very briefly now I will not get lost. It's something like we need to invent some new form of collective activity which will be neither market nor state bureaucracy. If anything I'm the first to concede that for example for ecology communist countries did even much worse than capitalism, but capitalism also doesn't work. Well you say we need to do this. Am I right in thinking that actually a big part of you Mr. Zizek doesn't believe it's possible. I mean you're about to publish a book I believe which is entitled in English Living in the End Times. Yes, I think we are approaching some kind of not in this sense but in the sense of we are approaching a certain limit. Nothing catastrophic about it. Maybe it's the chance
the ecological threat. Yes, no, let me define it very briefly now I will not get lost. It's something like we need to invent some new form of collective activity which will be neither market nor state bureaucracy. If anything I'm the first to concede that for example for ecology communist countries did even much worse than capitalism, but capitalism also doesn't work. Well you say we need to do this. Am I right in thinking that actually a big part of you Mr. Zizek doesn't believe it's possible. I mean you're about to publish a book I believe which is entitled in English Living in the End Times. Yes, I think we are approaching some kind of not in this sense but in the sense of we are approaching a certain limit. Nothing catastrophic about it. Maybe it's the chance
unknown
of a new begin-
of a new begin-
Slavoj Žižek
ecologically, genetically, don't underestimate this. What goes on now and I'm fascinated with biogenetics, brain sciences, my God the barrier between inside and outside how I experience myself reality is getting broken. Machines can also elementarily read our thoughts, we can control our behavior properties, we will have to rethink everything. And what
ecologically, genetically, don't underestimate this. What goes on now and I'm fascinated with biogenetics, brain sciences, my God the barrier between inside and outside how I experience myself reality is getting broken. Machines can also elementarily read our thoughts, we can control our behavior properties, we will have to rethink everything. And what
unknown
I'm getting from you is a message that democracy which is in the end one of the pillars of mainstream liberal thought, democracy you think
I'm getting from you is a message that democracy which is in the end one of the pillars of mainstream liberal thought, democracy you think
Slavoj Žižek
won't deliver, won't save us or ourselves. It all depends what do you mean by democracy. I don't think that the standard multi-party democracy that we have will deliver, but let me add another thing that people don't listen to me. Let's be brutally frank. How does democracy today effectively function? Let me tell you something brutal. I don't think people really want to decide. People want the appearance of deciding but effectively they want to be told what is right, what to decide. If I may say
won't deliver, won't save us or ourselves. It all depends what do you mean by democracy. I don't think that the standard multi-party democracy that we have will deliver, but let me add another thing that people don't listen to me. Let's be brutally frank. How does democracy today effectively function? Let me tell you something brutal. I don't think people really want to decide. People want the appearance of deciding but effectively they want to be told what is right, what to decide. If I may say
unknown
so this is where your philosophy becomes rather arrogant. I mean you've dismissed in the past most people as boring and stupid. I don't think you believe that most people deserve the right to have a real say in their. I'm even more pessimist than you think here.
so this is where your philosophy becomes rather arrogant. I mean you've dismissed in the past most people as boring and stupid. I don't think you believe that most people deserve the right to have a real say in their. I'm even more pessimist than you think here.
Slavoj Žižek
Than you think because I I I think that how should I put it? It's not that the majority is confused and so on and don't know but that there is an elite which knows. This we have to renounce. This is one of the things of the 20th century communism that we have to reject. This idea of you know we communists are the privileged ones who see where the train of history is running. Well there's never been any form of human society without elites, has there? No, but we are not talking here just about scientific and so on elites. We are talking about a social elite in a precise sense of an elite which justifies itself as we know where history is
Than you think because I I I think that how should I put it? It's not that the majority is confused and so on and don't know but that there is an elite which knows. This we have to renounce. This is one of the things of the 20th century communism that we have to reject. This idea of you know we communists are the privileged ones who see where the train of history is running. Well there's never been any form of human society without elites, has there? No, but we are not talking here just about scientific and so on elites. We are talking about a social elite in a precise sense of an elite which justifies itself as we know where history is
unknown
going. And if that is the reality and we're almost out of time and you believe that the end times are approaching,
going. And if that is the reality and we're almost out of time and you believe that the end times are approaching,
Slavoj Žižek
we're doomed. What? Are we doomed? Maybe we are not, maybe we are. I'm much more of a pessimist here. I don't have easy solutions. I'm not a communist in the sense of oh the future is bright. When you tell me oh but there is the train approaching us in the tunnel that we see the end of we see the end of the light in the tunnel I say yes maybe another train is approaching us, no? I'm not a cheap optimist here. Look that's all what I wanted to say. Don't you agree that this is needed today? Just let's not take it too easily. There are new explosive problems, we have to keep open
we're doomed. What? Are we doomed? Maybe we are not, maybe we are. I'm much more of a pessimist here. I don't have easy solutions. I'm not a communist in the sense of oh the future is bright. When you tell me oh but there is the train approaching us in the tunnel that we see the end of we see the end of the light in the tunnel I say yes maybe another train is approaching us, no? I'm not a cheap optimist here. Look that's all what I wanted to say. Don't you agree that this is needed today? Just let's not take it too easily. There are new explosive problems, we have to keep open
unknown
the possibility that we don't have the answers. And we have to take the possibility we've run out of time. Slavoj Zizek, I want to thank you very much for being on HARDtalk. Thank
the possibility that we don't have the answers. And we have to take the possibility we've run out of time. Slavoj Zizek, I want to thank you very much for being on HARDtalk. Thank
Slavoj Žižek
you. Thank you for tolerating me and my excesses. Thank you.
you. Thank you for tolerating me and my excesses. Thank you.