Slavoj Zizek Interview & Book Launch - Freedom: A Disease Without A Cure
Interview · ŽIŽEK & SO ON PODCAST ·
2023-10 · 0:57:05 · 5,350 words
ideologyfreedomhistoryphilosophy-general
Žižek addresses the paradox of modern political discourse, arguing that explicit knowledge often functions as a fetish that blocks action, while the subjective position implied by speech reveals a contradictory reality (e.g., cancel culture excluding those it claims to include). He then deconstructs the concept of freedom, distinguishing between abstract 'freedom' (madness/liberty) and concrete 'liberty' (rules), arguing that constraints are necessary for actual freedom. Finally, he discusses the retroactive rewriting of history, using the Opium War and Shakespeare to illustrate how the meaning of events is determined by their later symbolic status rather than their immediate content.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 10
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The paradox where the explicit, open confession of a problem (like ecological crisis) blocks actual mobilization, functioning as a fetish that sustains the status quo by giving the illusion of engagement.
Wittgenstein's term for what 'shows itself', the subjective position or form implied by speech, which reveals the true meaning (e.g., exclusion) behind an explicit message (e.g., diversity).
as “states which are essentially by-products”
Jon Elster's concept, utilized by Žižek, referring to values like dignity or honesty that cannot be directly claimed in the first person but must 'show themselves' through one's actions or speech.
The implicit, unwritten rule in social spaces where one is 'given freedom to choose on condition that you make the right choice,' revealing the obscene, racist, or antifeminist undercurrents of liberal society.
A distinction Žižek draws (referencing German/French/Slovenian terms) where 'freedom' is the abstract, radical, self-destructive 'madness' or openness to question rules, while 'liberty' is the concrete, stable set of laws and constraints that sustain actual daily freedom.
The title of Žižek's book, referencing the idea that madness/freedom is an incurable condition inherent to social orders, conditioned by both the freedom itself and the reaction to stabilize it.
Hegel's term for the radical, self-destructive 'madness' or freedom that questions all existing rules, which Žižek identifies as the necessary constitutive component of true freedom.
The idea that 'freedom' is a term that encompasses many contradictory meanings (capitalist, religious, libertarian) and becomes a site of struggle precisely because its content is not fixed.
as “formal subsumption vs. positive subsumption”
Marx's distinction where formal subsumption leaves the productive process unchanged (just adding capital), while positive subsumption restructures the productive process itself; used here to argue that form is crucial, not just content.
as “retroactive rewriting of history”
The process by which the meaning of a historical event (like the Opium War or Shakespeare's texts) is not fixed at the time but is determined by its later symbolic status and reinterpretation by subsequent epochs.
Stories he reaches for 5
Žižek jokes about the title of his guest's show, 'Žižek and So On,' interpreting 'so on' speculatively: he is merely a byproduct of the 'so on,' implying the host is the primary subject.
“Žižek and So On. That's wonderful that's what i like not Žižek and Hegel and Žižek and that but and so on and because i think that we have to read this in a speculative way it's not and blah blah the key element is that so on i'm just a byproduct of that so on.”
Žižek uses Hugh Grant's character in 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' as an example of a 'perfect love letter' that is suspicious because it declares love too perfectly; true love shows in the failure to declare it perfectly.
“A perfect love letter that's my eternal example from that stupid movie Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral. A perfect statement of love is suspicious.”
Žižek recalls the disintegration of communism in Slovenia, noting that every group (conservatives, religious, liberals) had its own notion of freedom, and the confusion about what freedom meant was the very reason for the struggle.
“every group that participated in the movement had so clearly its own notion of freedom for conservatives it was freedom of capitalism for religious conservatives it was freedom of the church which was oppressed under communism for liberals it was this libertarian freedom”
Žižek argues that cancel culture's speech about 'diversity and inclusion' is a fetish; what 'shows itself' through this speech is a position of radical exclusion against those who don't fit their narrow definition.
“So that you know their speech argues for diversity and inclusion but what Wittgenstein uses the German term zeigt sich what shows itself through their speech is precisely a position of radical exclusion.”
Žižek cites a Glasgow climate meeting featuring Prince Charles, arguing that while they 'said everything' about the crisis, their subjective position was one of disengagement, delivering a message that 'it's enough to talk about it.'
“that you know their speech argues for diversity and inclusion but what Wittgenstein uses the German term zeigt sich what shows itself through their speech is precisely a position of radical exclusion.”
Works invoked 7
Capital book
Marx's work, cited for the distinction between formal and positive subsumption under capital, and the idea that capitalism is a symptomatic point for understanding history.
Don Giovanni opera
Cited for the end of Act One, where different classes sing 'Viva la libertà' with different meanings, illustrating freedom as an empty signifier.
Described as 'that stupid movie,' but used positively to illustrate how a 'perfect' declaration of love is suspicious, and true love shows in failure.
Wittgenstein's work, cited for the concept 'zeigt sich' (what shows itself) regarding the subjective position implied by speech.
Free book
Lea Ypi's book, cited for describing how the arrival of freedom in post-communist Albania led to civil war and chaos.
Disease Without Cure book
Žižek's own book, referenced for its subtitle and argument that madness/freedom is an incurable condition inherent to social orders.
Jon Elster's work, cited for the concept of states like dignity that cannot be directly claimed but must show themselves through action.
People invoked 18
Prince Charles negative
Cited as an example of a figure at a Glasgow climate meeting who 'said everything' but whose subjective position was one of disengagement.
Lea Ypi positive
An Albanian writer whose book 'Free' describes the chaos of post-communist freedom in Albania, illustrating the self-contradiction of the notion of freedom.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Described as 'my good friend'; Žižek refers to her argument about knowledge as a fetish.
Hugh Grant positive
Actor in 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'; used as an example of a character whose 'perfect' declaration of love is suspicious, illustrating how true love shows in failure.
Donald Trump negative
Criticized not for violating explicit rules, but for systematically violating the unwritten, implicit rules (the 'forced choice') of democracy.
Ron DeSantis negative
Criticized for passing a law in Florida prohibiting aid to uninsured, ill people under the guise of 'freedom' (lower taxes), which Žižek sees as destroying the material conditions for actual freedom.
Michel Foucault negative
Used as a foil; Žižek claims Hegel is 'more radical than' Foucault regarding the necessity of madness/freedom in social orders.
Jon Elster positive
A Norwegian rational choice theorist whose concept of 'states which are essentially by-products' (like dignity) is used to illustrate Wittgenstein's point.
Bill Maher negative
Described as a 'pure libertarian' who hates neocons and political correctness, wanting to open space for victimization rather than control public space.
Walter Benjamin positive
Cited for the metaphor of a great work of art being like a film for which the developing chemical was not yet invented, requiring later generations to develop its meaning.
Mentioned as a French classicist who overshadowed Shakespeare until the Romantics rediscovered him.
William Shakespeare positive
Described as 'whom i love'; used as an example of an 'open' text that allows for retroactive rewriting of history by later interpretations.
Mentioned as a French classicist who overshadowed Shakespeare until the Romantics rediscovered him.
Karl Marx positive
Cited for his theory of 'formal' vs. 'positive' subsumption under capital, and for the idea that to understand history, one must begin with capitalism (capitalism as a symptomatic point).
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Referenced for his concepts of 'concrete freedom,' 'liberty,' and 'death drive' (madness as a necessary component of social order); Žižek claims Hegel is 'more radical than Michel Foucault.'
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited for the idea that every social order is conditioned by freedom and the reaction to stabilize it.
Jean-Paul Sartre positive
Cited for the provocative statement that Frenchmen were 'never more free' under German occupation, illustrating how constraints can force true, radical freedom.
Ludwig Wittgenstein positive
Cited for his concept of 'zeigt sich' (what shows itself) in the Tractatus, which Žižek uses to explain how subjective position is revealed by speech.
Transcript 27 turns
unknown
Hey how you doing
Hey how you doing
unknown
Pete? Pretty good yeah excited to talk to Žižek. We're talking about his new book got a title on that? Freedom: A Disease Without a Cure releasing soon. Soon? Yeah we've decided soon October. Yeah we're going to talk about freedom with Žižek and we want to thank Bloomsbury Publishing for putting this together and giving us the advance copy of the book which is really great and maybe thank our other recent guests recently Jack Black it was great having Jack on talked about sports football soccer who else? We've had heaps this year. Yeah Adrian Johnston Matthew Flisfeder Russ
Pete? Pretty good yeah excited to talk to Žižek. We're talking about his new book got a title on that? Freedom: A Disease Without a Cure releasing soon. Soon? Yeah we've decided soon October. Yeah we're going to talk about freedom with Žižek and we want to thank Bloomsbury Publishing for putting this together and giving us the advance copy of the book which is really great and maybe thank our other recent guests recently Jack Black it was great having Jack on talked about sports football soccer who else? We've had heaps this year. Yeah Adrian Johnston Matthew Flisfeder Russ
unknown
yeah Robert Faller Clint Burnham Sophie Fines who are we forgetting?
yeah Robert Faller Clint Burnham Sophie Fines who are we forgetting?
unknown
Ryan Engley of Why Theory. Ryan Engley yeah. Sophie Fines the it's in production right now the new Pervert's Guide film right? Yeah. Cool. He mentions opera in this new book Don Giovanni.
Ryan Engley of Why Theory. Ryan Engley yeah. Sophie Fines the it's in production right now the new Pervert's Guide film right? Yeah. Cool. He mentions opera in this new book Don Giovanni.
unknown
Always throwing a Don Giovanni around hey?
Always throwing a Don Giovanni around hey?
unknown
It's my favorite Mozart opera. Oh yeah?
It's my favorite Mozart opera. Oh yeah?
unknown
Actually no The Marriage of Figaro i think is actually my favorite. Yeah we're also thinking about doing a small reading group on the Freedom book with patrons so for those that are keen you can sign up on the Patreon Discord and we're also going to have the second part of the conversation with Slavoj which will be released at the same time and many more
Actually no The Marriage of Figaro i think is actually my favorite. Yeah we're also thinking about doing a small reading group on the Freedom book with patrons so for those that are keen you can sign up on the Patreon Discord and we're also going to have the second part of the conversation with Slavoj which will be released at the same time and many more
unknown
episodes yeah sign them up helps keep the podcast going so that'd be nice.
episodes yeah sign them up helps keep the podcast going so that'd be nice.
Slavoj Žižek
I did video with you one is in Australia one
I did video with you one is in Australia one
unknown
there. Yeah
there. Yeah
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. I'm in Toronto. Yeah. What's your time now? Past midnight? No three in the morning no.
yeah. I'm in Toronto. Yeah. What's your time now? Past midnight? No three in the morning no.
unknown
Uh Michael's past midnight i'm middle of the afternoon one o'clock in the afternoon.
Uh Michael's past midnight i'm middle of the afternoon one o'clock in the afternoon.
Slavoj Žižek
How can Michael survive this then?
How can Michael survive this then?
unknown
He's a madman. We'll work it out we'll work it out. Yeah
He's a madman. We'll work it out we'll work it out. Yeah
Slavoj Žižek
yeah yeah. Mhm. You i see you now the black bearded guy you are Michael. Yeah. You are being screwed in Australia. Yes that's right. I really really really i want to give you a part of me which is worth your attention so please what's the title of your show? Žižek and So On. That's wonderful that's what i like not Žižek and Hegel and Žižek and that but and so on and because i think that we have to read this in a speculative way it's not and blah blah the key element is that so on i'm just a byproduct of that so on. Yeah yeah. Let's not bullshit let's do it.
yeah yeah. Mhm. You i see you now the black bearded guy you are Michael. Yeah. You are being screwed in Australia. Yes that's right. I really really really i want to give you a part of me which is worth your attention so please what's the title of your show? Žižek and So On. That's wonderful that's what i like not Žižek and Hegel and Žižek and that but and so on and because i think that we have to read this in a speculative way it's not and blah blah the key element is that so on i'm just a byproduct of that so on. Yeah yeah. Let's not bullshit let's do it.
unknown
Alright so this is the fourth time you've been on the podcast and we recently had our 100th episode on your work which we did on The Mask. So first question we've got for you in these times of hyperactivity we are enjoined to act but how does the knowledge we have about the biggest issues we face like global warming etc etc serve as a fetish that allows us to disavow the reality known to us?
Alright so this is the fourth time you've been on the podcast and we recently had our 100th episode on your work which we did on The Mask. So first question we've got for you in these times of hyperactivity we are enjoined to act but how does the knowledge we have about the biggest issues we face like global warming etc etc serve as a fetish that allows us to disavow the reality known to us?
Slavoj Žižek
Ah that's a very good and precise question i don't want to sound patronizing but yes it strikes at the heart of what i want to say. First you know yes there is an obvious paradox here like the media don't cover up ecological crisis and so on they all the time talk about it and nonetheless it doesn't have the mobilizing force. It's in this sense a fetish but again i just repeat my argument as Alenka Zupančič my good friend to whom i refer here said in what sense is knowledge as such a fetish? It is that as if by the very not hiding it not relativizing it but the very act of saying it the very panic it's supposed to cause blocks our activity. So i have here how does this paradox work? A double explanation. The first one is that this apparent open confessions yes we are a crisis and they can even assume as you know an anti-capitalist form like it's fashionable today to criticize capitalism everywhere it doesn't change anything. My answer will be again apparently contradictory but i think the contradiction is in the thing itself. Because first it's not true that knowledge which serves as a fetish tells everything. No something is still excluded by this knowledge. As a rule it's for example let's take contemporary critics of capitalism critics which don't mobilize people. You can easily see how they avoid the radical notion of i wouldn't say class struggle social antagonism. It's always you blame the rich capitalists who are too greedy and so on. You know in some sense the basic antagonism is avoided. Second thing i don't think that it is just knowing that we should focus just on that's the contradictory part that we should focus just on content like they didn't say it all and so on and so on. No even if they say all the problem is i will say in a very naive way the subjective engagement or the social position of those who talk about this. Okay i will give you a very complex i think it's complex explanation referring to that wonderful development many of our viewers maybe don't know about it in Wittgenstein Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus where he says what cannot be said can [unintelligible] zeigt sich zeigt sich it shows itself. Now Wittgenstein is here often read in a totally wrong way as if he wants to indicate that there is some mysterious unspeakable dimension that we can only intuitively grasp that it's beyond our reason. No no what shows itself is the form or rather the subjective position implied by what we are saying. Wittgenstein himself gives a wonderful example of honesty and dignity like states this is the term of a very good rational choice theorist he was maybe more well known years ago Jon Elster a Norwegian guy i think. i think that his theory explains clearly what Wittgenstein was aiming at. It's the term states which are essentially by-products. You cannot directly target them. For example dignity. If you say i am dignified it's ridiculous. You know you cannot first person claim i am dignified. Dignity must be something which shows itself or transpires through your act and your speech and so on and so on you cannot assume it in first person. Or sorry this is already Wittgenstein he takes the case of honesty you know he says when somebody repeats too much i'm an honest man it makes you suspicious you must act in a way so that honesty transpires. Now there are many many other similar examples here it's available online i advise my potential viewers those who listen now to look at this wonderful text Jon Elster again states which are essentially by-products. It's the same for example with love. A perfect love letter that's my eternal example from that stupid movie Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral. A perfect statement of love is suspicious. If you precisely because of your passion fail to declare your love perfectly your love shows in how you speak. So my problem is and now i go to the most evil example that's my problem with a certain kind of cancel culture. They talk all the time about diversity and inclusion but all that they are actually doing is excluding those who don't fit their very narrow definition of diversity and inclusion. So that you know their speech argues for diversity and inclusion but what Wittgenstein uses the German term zeigt sich what shows itself through their speech is precisely a position of radical exclusion. And in this sense i think it's not simply they didn't say it all those i like the example i think i mentioned it in the book about the two years ago now or even more already the Glasgow meeting against global warming with at that point still Prince Charles and so on yeah they said everything blah blah blah but the subjective position was not that of authentic subjective engagement. That is to say they were saying it yes five minutes to twelve we should engage ourselves but the very way they were talking about this delivered a different message a message of disengagement a message of it's enough to talk about it and so on and so on. And it's the same i think also with many critiques of neocolonialism today and so on and so on you know you can say it but the very way it is said undermines the message. Also and i even think it's a more subtle topic that often today's fight against racism appears to be against racism but in a very refined way for example through a patronizing style it is said and so on. You know basically protecting the alleged victims as if they are not mature and so on and so on so in a much more refined way the way the message is delivered runs against it. So again to recapitulate my god we are losing time a it's not true that everything is said you know not at all precisely when we pretend to say openly and so on and so on especially with today's feminism as we all know this focus on pronouns how we say something and so on and so on i think it leaves in shadow the horrible economic and so on situation of women so first it's not true that we say everything in the fetish second thing it's the very subjective position the way speech functions which undermines the alleged message.
Ah that's a very good and precise question i don't want to sound patronizing but yes it strikes at the heart of what i want to say. First you know yes there is an obvious paradox here like the media don't cover up ecological crisis and so on they all the time talk about it and nonetheless it doesn't have the mobilizing force. It's in this sense a fetish but again i just repeat my argument as Alenka Zupančič my good friend to whom i refer here said in what sense is knowledge as such a fetish? It is that as if by the very not hiding it not relativizing it but the very act of saying it the very panic it's supposed to cause blocks our activity. So i have here how does this paradox work? A double explanation. The first one is that this apparent open confessions yes we are a crisis and they can even assume as you know an anti-capitalist form like it's fashionable today to criticize capitalism everywhere it doesn't change anything. My answer will be again apparently contradictory but i think the contradiction is in the thing itself. Because first it's not true that knowledge which serves as a fetish tells everything. No something is still excluded by this knowledge. As a rule it's for example let's take contemporary critics of capitalism critics which don't mobilize people. You can easily see how they avoid the radical notion of i wouldn't say class struggle social antagonism. It's always you blame the rich capitalists who are too greedy and so on. You know in some sense the basic antagonism is avoided. Second thing i don't think that it is just knowing that we should focus just on that's the contradictory part that we should focus just on content like they didn't say it all and so on and so on. No even if they say all the problem is i will say in a very naive way the subjective engagement or the social position of those who talk about this. Okay i will give you a very complex i think it's complex explanation referring to that wonderful development many of our viewers maybe don't know about it in Wittgenstein Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus where he says what cannot be said can [unintelligible] zeigt sich zeigt sich it shows itself. Now Wittgenstein is here often read in a totally wrong way as if he wants to indicate that there is some mysterious unspeakable dimension that we can only intuitively grasp that it's beyond our reason. No no what shows itself is the form or rather the subjective position implied by what we are saying. Wittgenstein himself gives a wonderful example of honesty and dignity like states this is the term of a very good rational choice theorist he was maybe more well known years ago Jon Elster a Norwegian guy i think. i think that his theory explains clearly what Wittgenstein was aiming at. It's the term states which are essentially by-products. You cannot directly target them. For example dignity. If you say i am dignified it's ridiculous. You know you cannot first person claim i am dignified. Dignity must be something which shows itself or transpires through your act and your speech and so on and so on you cannot assume it in first person. Or sorry this is already Wittgenstein he takes the case of honesty you know he says when somebody repeats too much i'm an honest man it makes you suspicious you must act in a way so that honesty transpires. Now there are many many other similar examples here it's available online i advise my potential viewers those who listen now to look at this wonderful text Jon Elster again states which are essentially by-products. It's the same for example with love. A perfect love letter that's my eternal example from that stupid movie Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral. A perfect statement of love is suspicious. If you precisely because of your passion fail to declare your love perfectly your love shows in how you speak. So my problem is and now i go to the most evil example that's my problem with a certain kind of cancel culture. They talk all the time about diversity and inclusion but all that they are actually doing is excluding those who don't fit their very narrow definition of diversity and inclusion. So that you know their speech argues for diversity and inclusion but what Wittgenstein uses the German term zeigt sich what shows itself through their speech is precisely a position of radical exclusion. And in this sense i think it's not simply they didn't say it all those i like the example i think i mentioned it in the book about the two years ago now or even more already the Glasgow meeting against global warming with at that point still Prince Charles and so on yeah they said everything blah blah blah but the subjective position was not that of authentic subjective engagement. That is to say they were saying it yes five minutes to twelve we should engage ourselves but the very way they were talking about this delivered a different message a message of disengagement a message of it's enough to talk about it and so on and so on. And it's the same i think also with many critiques of neocolonialism today and so on and so on you know you can say it but the very way it is said undermines the message. Also and i even think it's a more subtle topic that often today's fight against racism appears to be against racism but in a very refined way for example through a patronizing style it is said and so on. You know basically protecting the alleged victims as if they are not mature and so on and so on so in a much more refined way the way the message is delivered runs against it. So again to recapitulate my god we are losing time a it's not true that everything is said you know not at all precisely when we pretend to say openly and so on and so on especially with today's feminism as we all know this focus on pronouns how we say something and so on and so on i think it leaves in shadow the horrible economic and so on situation of women so first it's not true that we say everything in the fetish second thing it's the very subjective position the way speech functions which undermines the alleged message.
unknown
Right. Yeah i was uh i'm in Canada and the CBC like the national news organization uh was talking about the housing crisis here and the only people that they interview about it are lobbyists for housing and likewise with climate change they're talking to lobbyists for oil and gas companies so they say all the right things but their subject position is completely
Right. Yeah i was uh i'm in Canada and the CBC like the national news organization uh was talking about the housing crisis here and the only people that they interview about it are lobbyists for housing and likewise with climate change they're talking to lobbyists for oil and gas companies so they say all the right things but their subject position is completely
Slavoj Žižek
contrary. Yeah that's it. Yeah.
contrary. Yeah that's it. Yeah.
unknown
To turn to your book specifically Freedom: A Disease Without a Cure the title brings to mind the immediate obvious stupid question in what way is freedom to
To turn to your book specifically Freedom: A Disease Without a Cure the title brings to mind the immediate obvious stupid question in what way is freedom to
Slavoj Žižek
be understood as a disease? I must interrupt you here. Stupid questions are often the true hard philosophical questions. This obvious problem that stares you in face they are the most difficult questions. For specialists it's easy to answer a complex question you quote some obscure source some detail and so on so good beginning yes please go on and i will try to give you in the same sense a stupid answer please
be understood as a disease? I must interrupt you here. Stupid questions are often the true hard philosophical questions. This obvious problem that stares you in face they are the most difficult questions. For specialists it's easy to answer a complex question you quote some obscure source some detail and so on so good beginning yes please go on and i will try to give you in the same sense a stupid answer please
unknown
go on. Okay thanks for the confidence boost. Uh you write about how both Kant and Hegel understood freedom to be a kind of madness so is there a link between the societal perception of madness and that society's notion of freedom?
go on. Okay thanks for the confidence boost. Uh you write about how both Kant and Hegel understood freedom to be a kind of madness so is there a link between the societal perception of madness and that society's notion of freedom?
Slavoj Žižek
Ah but first here i will have to proceed in two three steps because you know why? Because you are right in all your question to emphasize the inconsistency multiplicity of my answers and so on i agree but that's my point that precisely the notion of freedom is in itself ambiguous self-contradictory and so on and now comes my next point some more analytically oriented thinkers would have said yes then simply clarify introduce this distinction say freedom in A1 freedom i think this exactly cannot be done because the inconsistency is immanent. Let's go to this point of freedom madness and so on you know in what sense it's here i will give you in a good sense i hope also a stupid simple answer i don't think in our actual social life that there is a tension between freedom and constraints rules and so on. Aren't rules the space and maybe even at least in our normal daily life the necessary space for our freedom? What do i mean by this? I think in the book i give this simple example: I walk along a street freely and let's say meet you and we engage in our that's an ironic step of both of us in our stupid conversation. But is it uh what i mean is simply are you aware how many constraints rules we have to obey to be able to do this? Certain if i walk freely on the street i have to imply that i will not be attacked that there is a certain behavior and so on that all people will expect and language itself is in this sense a constraint which is a condition of freedom. Why? Our most obvious intimate notion of freedom is you can have me in prison whatever but in my head i think what i want. Yeah but i think in language and language is a very complex set of rules with all its ambiguities and so on and so on. So yes only in some modern poetry or subversive act this basic constraints rules are undermined but you know it would be horrible to live a life like this it would have been total anxiety where we would have to negotiate rules again and again. If we talk fluently freely it means we both share and obey a certain set of rules that's the obvious point and i can develop it more in a in a good sense this time i don't mean this ironically liberal socialist way i don't despise the liberal notions of freedom of the press human rights and so on and so on but as i say i think so in the book what i insist on is that this freedoms in order to be actual freedom have to be sustained by a whole set of not so much rules as practical conditions. What help is it to you to have freedom of the press if you don't have the resources the access to media and so on and so on? Or let's say the freedom to have a decent everyday life. For me maybe i have here a narrow European in the old Scandinavian sense social democratic tradition you remember the Republican attacks against Obamacare they say this is they evoked freedom you remember like we you limit our freedom and so on and so on but sorry in my view it's a price worth to pay a basic affordable healthcare available to all means precisely that at least i think so it makes me much more free i don't have to live in a permanent anxiety what if somebody in my family or myself gets a cancer and so on how there are there are in this sense limitations which makes you free which sustain your freedom. Now uh second thing so this is one thing but of course things are not so simple i like to complicate things. Second thing i emphasize this is the eternal obsession on my work the tension between explicit rules and regulations which let's say sustain our space of freedom and the implicit unwritten rules i'm obsessed with this topic how quite often we are allowed to do something even solicited to do it but between the lines the message is i'll put it in an elementary way you are given this freedom to choose on condition that you make the right choice so and condition don't choose that's the whole basis of our social space and i don't think it's simply a neofascist trick or whatever there is this is the basic forced choice of every community so as i often repeat without this innuendos or obscene meetings between the lines you especially cannot understand how racism and antifeminism oppression of women and of trans and so on function today it's not so much at the level of explicit message there we all agree freedom blah blah blah but then you get this silent constraints obscenities and so on and as i put it i think so in the book here is my problem with my problem ha ha who doesn't have a problem with him but my reproach to Trump no it's not so much that he was violating the explicit rules but in every developed democracy with all its limitations and so on you know rules have to be sustained by a whole set of unwritten rules like we prescribe this but we expect you not to misuse it Trump was precisely systematically doing this violating the unwritten rules. So third thing which i repeat again and again in my book you know freedom is by definition not a specific well-defined term with every historical epoch you get a different notion of freedom. So today we have a big fight against this neo-conservative libertarians of what freedom means you know who is for me here it shocked me an old cynic since how open he is it shocked me what Ron DeSantis said you know i read what is now going in Florida and this is the tragedy of manipulation today DeSantis maybe you know more about it passed a law in Florida which prohibits the state to finance or to come financially to help of those who are not who doesn't have any health insurance but are all of a sudden affected by heavy illness and according to some estimates this will affect about two million old people in Florida they are from poor family many of them don't have relatives and they are dying of cancer or whatever and DeSantis prohibited this why? On behalf of freedom. He appealed that's the tragedy to the so-called working class he told them listen this measure giving support to those who are don't have health insurance mean this measure means that you will just have to pay higher taxes and so on that you are again deprived of the freedom of choice all that. Now i will be precise my first point is when we talk about freedom let's be very precise what we mean about it because the struggle for freedom is always the struggle for what freedom means you know often what for a socialist in the broader sense because i hope we all agree my most elementary definition of socialism is the awareness that yeah all that liberals are saying freedoms are a wonderful thing but to be actualized they have to be sustained by a whole series of laws state measures even manners and so on and so on so here we have the big gap what for us is a condition of freedom for some other people is limitation of freedom. But nonetheless let me conclude now slowly this is not the whole story and here comes you want to ask me later i know the distinction between freedom and liberty you have it in English i don't know how it is with other languages i asked friends in Germany in France they don't have it they just have Freiheit or liberté we small as your beloved president ex-Trump would have put it shithole of a nation Slovenia we had svoboda prostost two terms and the way i read them is that freedom is what you evoked as this Hegelian radical madness concrete freedom is what we call liberty all the laws that guarantee that you are free blah blah is this explicit freedom in concrete circumstances but in critical situations when we have social revolution unrest and so on and so on this freedom disintegrates no longer function and that's the point of liberty this radical openness where rules are no longer or constraints just something that sustains freedom you question them openly yes maybe this rules but no those rules we have to rethink the rules and so on and so on so this is why i think what Hegel talks about madness or this abstract freedom is a necessary constitutive component of freedom and this is how i read that famous provocative statement by Sartre that never were the Frenchmen more free than under German occupation yes of course they didn't have many liberties they were totally controlled and so on but this forced them to act truly in a free way by questioning all explicit rules they were aware that they have to reinvent a new concrete form of freedom. This is for me so important because today again all the struggles are the struggle for what freedom means for example for neo-conservatives simply no freedom means we know what for Trump and so on it also has its own inconsistency but we know. For pure libertarians those who like how do you pronounce that name Bill Maher M-A-A-E-R yeah Maher guys like that who hate neocons but also the politically correct crowd they want to be pure libertarians better to open up the space for possible victimization people are wounded and so on than to control the public space. For of course the politically correct or rather this is a general term let's say cancel culture of course if you were to ask them but you are limiting my freedom you prohibit this word that word their answer would have been of course no only in this way also the potential victim or everybody will be effectively free. Now i don't provide here a simple answer i'm just saying that we cannot solve this problem by simply that's my problematic point maybe by simply choosing one meaning of freedom and we say this is the true one. No freedom is inherently caught in this type of multiplicity but again to play this game you have that's the ironic subtext of the title or subtitle of my book disease without cure no there is and Hegel of all people says this he is more radical than Michel Foucault he says that madness as he puts it in a passage that i quote in the book this doesn't mean that we are all necessarily mad but that every social order with relative stability is conditioned by this freedom and at the same time reaction to it a way to stabilize the madness. Kant already has the same and so on and so on you see what's my basic point in today's shitty complex situation in today's situation i don't think we can play this game of but this is true freedom no the only radical freedom is this self-destructive madness all other things are relative incidentally Hegel's term for this madness was death drive which has nothing to do with i want to die and so on different things but what i want to say is that i think i quote in the book this is what i want to say you know i like classical music at the at the end of act one of Mozart's Don Giovanni when they have that big feast everybody sings Viva la libertà long live freedom but you have there Don Giovanni himself singing it the wounded aristocrats three-four who are there to kill him singing this pure servants singing this and so on it's obvious that they don't mean the same thing no that's my point. Nonetheless you get kind of imaginary unity you know and i think that this is not just now you will say ah ha it's easy for you to refer to an opera no no i remember from years even a little bit more ago when in Slovenia we got well communism was disintegrating we were all for freedom but you know what's so interesting every group that participated in the movement had so clearly its own notion of freedom for conservatives it was freedom of capitalism for religious conservatives it was freedom of the church which was oppressed under communism for liberals it was this libertarian freedom and so on and so on so what fascinates me is that the confusion about freedom the fact that freedom was up to a point an empty signifier which covered or encompassed many contradictory even meanings and this became clear once we got so-called freedom this was not simply an obstacle but the very reason that struggle for freedom was a
Ah but first here i will have to proceed in two three steps because you know why? Because you are right in all your question to emphasize the inconsistency multiplicity of my answers and so on i agree but that's my point that precisely the notion of freedom is in itself ambiguous self-contradictory and so on and now comes my next point some more analytically oriented thinkers would have said yes then simply clarify introduce this distinction say freedom in A1 freedom i think this exactly cannot be done because the inconsistency is immanent. Let's go to this point of freedom madness and so on you know in what sense it's here i will give you in a good sense i hope also a stupid simple answer i don't think in our actual social life that there is a tension between freedom and constraints rules and so on. Aren't rules the space and maybe even at least in our normal daily life the necessary space for our freedom? What do i mean by this? I think in the book i give this simple example: I walk along a street freely and let's say meet you and we engage in our that's an ironic step of both of us in our stupid conversation. But is it uh what i mean is simply are you aware how many constraints rules we have to obey to be able to do this? Certain if i walk freely on the street i have to imply that i will not be attacked that there is a certain behavior and so on that all people will expect and language itself is in this sense a constraint which is a condition of freedom. Why? Our most obvious intimate notion of freedom is you can have me in prison whatever but in my head i think what i want. Yeah but i think in language and language is a very complex set of rules with all its ambiguities and so on and so on. So yes only in some modern poetry or subversive act this basic constraints rules are undermined but you know it would be horrible to live a life like this it would have been total anxiety where we would have to negotiate rules again and again. If we talk fluently freely it means we both share and obey a certain set of rules that's the obvious point and i can develop it more in a in a good sense this time i don't mean this ironically liberal socialist way i don't despise the liberal notions of freedom of the press human rights and so on and so on but as i say i think so in the book what i insist on is that this freedoms in order to be actual freedom have to be sustained by a whole set of not so much rules as practical conditions. What help is it to you to have freedom of the press if you don't have the resources the access to media and so on and so on? Or let's say the freedom to have a decent everyday life. For me maybe i have here a narrow European in the old Scandinavian sense social democratic tradition you remember the Republican attacks against Obamacare they say this is they evoked freedom you remember like we you limit our freedom and so on and so on but sorry in my view it's a price worth to pay a basic affordable healthcare available to all means precisely that at least i think so it makes me much more free i don't have to live in a permanent anxiety what if somebody in my family or myself gets a cancer and so on how there are there are in this sense limitations which makes you free which sustain your freedom. Now uh second thing so this is one thing but of course things are not so simple i like to complicate things. Second thing i emphasize this is the eternal obsession on my work the tension between explicit rules and regulations which let's say sustain our space of freedom and the implicit unwritten rules i'm obsessed with this topic how quite often we are allowed to do something even solicited to do it but between the lines the message is i'll put it in an elementary way you are given this freedom to choose on condition that you make the right choice so and condition don't choose that's the whole basis of our social space and i don't think it's simply a neofascist trick or whatever there is this is the basic forced choice of every community so as i often repeat without this innuendos or obscene meetings between the lines you especially cannot understand how racism and antifeminism oppression of women and of trans and so on function today it's not so much at the level of explicit message there we all agree freedom blah blah blah but then you get this silent constraints obscenities and so on and as i put it i think so in the book here is my problem with my problem ha ha who doesn't have a problem with him but my reproach to Trump no it's not so much that he was violating the explicit rules but in every developed democracy with all its limitations and so on you know rules have to be sustained by a whole set of unwritten rules like we prescribe this but we expect you not to misuse it Trump was precisely systematically doing this violating the unwritten rules. So third thing which i repeat again and again in my book you know freedom is by definition not a specific well-defined term with every historical epoch you get a different notion of freedom. So today we have a big fight against this neo-conservative libertarians of what freedom means you know who is for me here it shocked me an old cynic since how open he is it shocked me what Ron DeSantis said you know i read what is now going in Florida and this is the tragedy of manipulation today DeSantis maybe you know more about it passed a law in Florida which prohibits the state to finance or to come financially to help of those who are not who doesn't have any health insurance but are all of a sudden affected by heavy illness and according to some estimates this will affect about two million old people in Florida they are from poor family many of them don't have relatives and they are dying of cancer or whatever and DeSantis prohibited this why? On behalf of freedom. He appealed that's the tragedy to the so-called working class he told them listen this measure giving support to those who are don't have health insurance mean this measure means that you will just have to pay higher taxes and so on that you are again deprived of the freedom of choice all that. Now i will be precise my first point is when we talk about freedom let's be very precise what we mean about it because the struggle for freedom is always the struggle for what freedom means you know often what for a socialist in the broader sense because i hope we all agree my most elementary definition of socialism is the awareness that yeah all that liberals are saying freedoms are a wonderful thing but to be actualized they have to be sustained by a whole series of laws state measures even manners and so on and so on so here we have the big gap what for us is a condition of freedom for some other people is limitation of freedom. But nonetheless let me conclude now slowly this is not the whole story and here comes you want to ask me later i know the distinction between freedom and liberty you have it in English i don't know how it is with other languages i asked friends in Germany in France they don't have it they just have Freiheit or liberté we small as your beloved president ex-Trump would have put it shithole of a nation Slovenia we had svoboda prostost two terms and the way i read them is that freedom is what you evoked as this Hegelian radical madness concrete freedom is what we call liberty all the laws that guarantee that you are free blah blah is this explicit freedom in concrete circumstances but in critical situations when we have social revolution unrest and so on and so on this freedom disintegrates no longer function and that's the point of liberty this radical openness where rules are no longer or constraints just something that sustains freedom you question them openly yes maybe this rules but no those rules we have to rethink the rules and so on and so on so this is why i think what Hegel talks about madness or this abstract freedom is a necessary constitutive component of freedom and this is how i read that famous provocative statement by Sartre that never were the Frenchmen more free than under German occupation yes of course they didn't have many liberties they were totally controlled and so on but this forced them to act truly in a free way by questioning all explicit rules they were aware that they have to reinvent a new concrete form of freedom. This is for me so important because today again all the struggles are the struggle for what freedom means for example for neo-conservatives simply no freedom means we know what for Trump and so on it also has its own inconsistency but we know. For pure libertarians those who like how do you pronounce that name Bill Maher M-A-A-E-R yeah Maher guys like that who hate neocons but also the politically correct crowd they want to be pure libertarians better to open up the space for possible victimization people are wounded and so on than to control the public space. For of course the politically correct or rather this is a general term let's say cancel culture of course if you were to ask them but you are limiting my freedom you prohibit this word that word their answer would have been of course no only in this way also the potential victim or everybody will be effectively free. Now i don't provide here a simple answer i'm just saying that we cannot solve this problem by simply that's my problematic point maybe by simply choosing one meaning of freedom and we say this is the true one. No freedom is inherently caught in this type of multiplicity but again to play this game you have that's the ironic subtext of the title or subtitle of my book disease without cure no there is and Hegel of all people says this he is more radical than Michel Foucault he says that madness as he puts it in a passage that i quote in the book this doesn't mean that we are all necessarily mad but that every social order with relative stability is conditioned by this freedom and at the same time reaction to it a way to stabilize the madness. Kant already has the same and so on and so on you see what's my basic point in today's shitty complex situation in today's situation i don't think we can play this game of but this is true freedom no the only radical freedom is this self-destructive madness all other things are relative incidentally Hegel's term for this madness was death drive which has nothing to do with i want to die and so on different things but what i want to say is that i think i quote in the book this is what i want to say you know i like classical music at the at the end of act one of Mozart's Don Giovanni when they have that big feast everybody sings Viva la libertà long live freedom but you have there Don Giovanni himself singing it the wounded aristocrats three-four who are there to kill him singing this pure servants singing this and so on it's obvious that they don't mean the same thing no that's my point. Nonetheless you get kind of imaginary unity you know and i think that this is not just now you will say ah ha it's easy for you to refer to an opera no no i remember from years even a little bit more ago when in Slovenia we got well communism was disintegrating we were all for freedom but you know what's so interesting every group that participated in the movement had so clearly its own notion of freedom for conservatives it was freedom of capitalism for religious conservatives it was freedom of the church which was oppressed under communism for liberals it was this libertarian freedom and so on and so on so what fascinates me is that the confusion about freedom the fact that freedom was up to a point an empty signifier which covered or encompassed many contradictory even meanings and this became clear once we got so-called freedom this was not simply an obstacle but the very reason that struggle for freedom was a
unknown
massive massive movement because precisely you had this pathetic unity freedom freedom and we were all mobilized in it. So again the message of my book is that freedom as i often say is a complex self-contradictory thing it's not in the simple old Stalinist way to oppose formal bourgeois freedom to actual freedom yes we should
massive massive movement because precisely you had this pathetic unity freedom freedom and we were all mobilized in it. So again the message of my book is that freedom as i often say is a complex self-contradictory thing it's not in the simple old Stalinist way to oppose formal bourgeois freedom to actual freedom yes we should
Slavoj Žižek
up to a point but nonetheless Marx never said this Marx as nonetheless educated by Hegel by Hegel's texts knew very well that a form is very important never neglect the form. You remember what Marx says in chapter one of Capital on commodity form he says that the mystery of the commodity is not in its hidden content it's in the form of commodity itself so even you know in a wonderful passages about the so-called primordial accumulation of capital Marx says the exact opposite that at the beginning of capitalism first we had only formal subsumption under capital for example you were a weaver you had your weaving machine at home and just instead of doing it yourself and then selling it capitalist came gave you some money the stuff you as but the productive process remained the same. Only after this formal subsumption came the positive subsumption where capital restructured the very productive process so as you can see from this i'm sorry if i disappoint you i just like to complicate things. I just read but it was published two years ago i think a book by an Albanian woman very interesting Lea Ypi Free and she describes in a wonderful way how under the communist dictatorship in Albania till which was very dark oppressive they were all longing for freedom. Then once freedom came in its actuality it meant even civil war for a couple of weeks in total chaos. She points out in a very nice way this immanent self-contradiction of the very notion of freedom please go on. And part of that is rewriting the past you were saying. I'm an old-fashioned materialist i don't i'm not talking about changing the past and so on although there are now interesting theories i'm now in dialogue with some of the guys at least popularizers of quantum physics no and this idea what can you do changing the blah blah in this quantum universe that's another question. For me changing the past occurs of course at the level of symbolic status of an event. Let's say so many millions of people died let's not take this usual they are horrible but nonetheless even events like like Holocaust and then to be more honest towards leftist horrors you add Gulag or whatever no let's take for example which is i think an event of such terrifying proportions that we cannot even imagine it the Opium War in around the Western countries' intervention into China. You know that till not per capita but in its totality China was by far the strongest economy in the world three times stronger than England and or whatever what's called at that point not yet United Kingdom British Empire then after this humiliating defeat you know what tragedy materially was this for China Chinese economy collapsed and in a couple of years it it fell down for over one half all of a sudden China old China the best organized economy okay now this happened i'm not saying let's reinterpret it in a postmodern way it didn't happen but what happened there you can read it in a liberal progressive way yeah they were victims but it was a historical necessity it was nonetheless a sign of progress China was included into the world market of course i don't buy this to give you maybe you know it a very cynical example you know what was the British justification for the attack on China Chinese Emperor as you probably know was desperate because it was a mega business the British colonialist growing in Bengal especially tons of opium and selling it to China now this was a nightmare for China and the Chinese emperor quite correctly desperately tried to stop it he wrote to Queen Victoria who even didn't answer him you know like please yeah and when the British didn't react he just prohibited the import of opium into China. The reasoning of of British powers was that free trade is the base of basis of civilization any country which limits free trade is a barbarian country and has to be brought into civilization even by arms now you know why i'm saying this because once i was applauded in Latin America i said that maybe this is the lessons that Mexican and Colombian cartels should take you know like United States trying to limit it wait a minute they are limiting freedom we have the right to attack United States this is the abstract reasoning of the capital. So what i wanted to say is that how do we interpret this event we can interpret it even Marx is sometimes tempted to do this as a simple unfortunate element of nonetheless necessary historical progress we can read it in a more popular struggle version of a exemplary case of of colonialism which ruins a country and so on and so on you see what i'm saying like that when something so horrible happens its meaning is not fixated every epoch reads it in a new way
up to a point but nonetheless Marx never said this Marx as nonetheless educated by Hegel by Hegel's texts knew very well that a form is very important never neglect the form. You remember what Marx says in chapter one of Capital on commodity form he says that the mystery of the commodity is not in its hidden content it's in the form of commodity itself so even you know in a wonderful passages about the so-called primordial accumulation of capital Marx says the exact opposite that at the beginning of capitalism first we had only formal subsumption under capital for example you were a weaver you had your weaving machine at home and just instead of doing it yourself and then selling it capitalist came gave you some money the stuff you as but the productive process remained the same. Only after this formal subsumption came the positive subsumption where capital restructured the very productive process so as you can see from this i'm sorry if i disappoint you i just like to complicate things. I just read but it was published two years ago i think a book by an Albanian woman very interesting Lea Ypi Free and she describes in a wonderful way how under the communist dictatorship in Albania till which was very dark oppressive they were all longing for freedom. Then once freedom came in its actuality it meant even civil war for a couple of weeks in total chaos. She points out in a very nice way this immanent self-contradiction of the very notion of freedom please go on. And part of that is rewriting the past you were saying. I'm an old-fashioned materialist i don't i'm not talking about changing the past and so on although there are now interesting theories i'm now in dialogue with some of the guys at least popularizers of quantum physics no and this idea what can you do changing the blah blah in this quantum universe that's another question. For me changing the past occurs of course at the level of symbolic status of an event. Let's say so many millions of people died let's not take this usual they are horrible but nonetheless even events like like Holocaust and then to be more honest towards leftist horrors you add Gulag or whatever no let's take for example which is i think an event of such terrifying proportions that we cannot even imagine it the Opium War in around the Western countries' intervention into China. You know that till not per capita but in its totality China was by far the strongest economy in the world three times stronger than England and or whatever what's called at that point not yet United Kingdom British Empire then after this humiliating defeat you know what tragedy materially was this for China Chinese economy collapsed and in a couple of years it it fell down for over one half all of a sudden China old China the best organized economy okay now this happened i'm not saying let's reinterpret it in a postmodern way it didn't happen but what happened there you can read it in a liberal progressive way yeah they were victims but it was a historical necessity it was nonetheless a sign of progress China was included into the world market of course i don't buy this to give you maybe you know it a very cynical example you know what was the British justification for the attack on China Chinese Emperor as you probably know was desperate because it was a mega business the British colonialist growing in Bengal especially tons of opium and selling it to China now this was a nightmare for China and the Chinese emperor quite correctly desperately tried to stop it he wrote to Queen Victoria who even didn't answer him you know like please yeah and when the British didn't react he just prohibited the import of opium into China. The reasoning of of British powers was that free trade is the base of basis of civilization any country which limits free trade is a barbarian country and has to be brought into civilization even by arms now you know why i'm saying this because once i was applauded in Latin America i said that maybe this is the lessons that Mexican and Colombian cartels should take you know like United States trying to limit it wait a minute they are limiting freedom we have the right to attack United States this is the abstract reasoning of the capital. So what i wanted to say is that how do we interpret this event we can interpret it even Marx is sometimes tempted to do this as a simple unfortunate element of nonetheless necessary historical progress we can read it in a more popular struggle version of a exemplary case of of colonialism which ruins a country and so on and so on you see what i'm saying like that when something so horrible happens its meaning is not fixated every epoch reads it in a new way
unknown
and my favorite example here as you probably
and my favorite example here as you probably
Slavoj Žižek
know is Shakespeare whom i love blah blah yeah he is the greatest but i think it's wrong to treat Shakespeare as a kind of a self-enclosed whole and then you can play this mystical games nobody really knows what Shakespeare meant and so on of course this is true but it means Shakespeare himself also didn't know what he means you know and Shakespeare's text was open so i don't believe this bullshit you have to study in detail Elizabethan culture to understand Shakespeare i'm almost tempted to say to put it the other way around you have to read Shakespeare if you want really to understand Elizabethan England and later interpretations of Shakespeare can be much more accurate productive than what Shakespeare maybe meant it's what is for me a nice example of rewriting history. Do you know that already towards the end of his life Shakespeare's time was running out he was gradually overshadowed for example by later by so-called French classicism Racine Molière and so on and do you know that till early romanticism till late 18th century Shakespeare was considered a secondary too popular vulgar author and so on only the early romantics rediscovered Shakespeare and my point here is that you cannot say okay they were wrong they didn't see what is in Shakespeare no i think that precisely again Shakespeare is the case of how fertile this retroactive reimagining can be we i think that it's not enough to say and that's another space of freedom it's not enough to say Shakespeare we are projecting today's experience into Shakespeare it's not as simple as that because Shakespeare in himself was incomplete open you probably know i quote here often that Walter Benjamin's famous pre-pre-something that sometimes a great work of art it's like a film for which how do you call it the developing stuff chemical was not yet invented and only later generations can and Marx is here saying the same in his theory of capitalism Marx is not saying in historicist way capitalism developed out of more primitive societies so that or feudal slave whatever so to understand capitalism we have to begin with prehistory Marx is saying the exact opposite that to understand history you have to begin with capitalism capitalism is a symptomatic point where some type of antagonism which characterized all of history became visible only in capitalism so these are the paradoxes or even in your example of the Opium Wars how understanding that
know is Shakespeare whom i love blah blah yeah he is the greatest but i think it's wrong to treat Shakespeare as a kind of a self-enclosed whole and then you can play this mystical games nobody really knows what Shakespeare meant and so on of course this is true but it means Shakespeare himself also didn't know what he means you know and Shakespeare's text was open so i don't believe this bullshit you have to study in detail Elizabethan culture to understand Shakespeare i'm almost tempted to say to put it the other way around you have to read Shakespeare if you want really to understand Elizabethan England and later interpretations of Shakespeare can be much more accurate productive than what Shakespeare maybe meant it's what is for me a nice example of rewriting history. Do you know that already towards the end of his life Shakespeare's time was running out he was gradually overshadowed for example by later by so-called French classicism Racine Molière and so on and do you know that till early romanticism till late 18th century Shakespeare was considered a secondary too popular vulgar author and so on only the early romantics rediscovered Shakespeare and my point here is that you cannot say okay they were wrong they didn't see what is in Shakespeare no i think that precisely again Shakespeare is the case of how fertile this retroactive reimagining can be we i think that it's not enough to say and that's another space of freedom it's not enough to say Shakespeare we are projecting today's experience into Shakespeare it's not as simple as that because Shakespeare in himself was incomplete open you probably know i quote here often that Walter Benjamin's famous pre-pre-something that sometimes a great work of art it's like a film for which how do you call it the developing stuff chemical was not yet invented and only later generations can and Marx is here saying the same in his theory of capitalism Marx is not saying in historicist way capitalism developed out of more primitive societies so that or feudal slave whatever so to understand capitalism we have to begin with prehistory Marx is saying the exact opposite that to understand history you have to begin with capitalism capitalism is a symptomatic point where some type of antagonism which characterized all of history became visible only in capitalism so these are the paradoxes or even in your example of the Opium Wars how understanding that