Slavoj Žižek meets Yanis Varoufakis (Part 1)
Debate · How To Academy ·
2024-12-02 · 0:21:32 · 2,719 words
ideologyhegel-dialecticspsychoanalysiscapitalismcommunism-socialismfascism-populismsubjectivity
Žižek argues that Hegel is a philosopher of contingency and retroactive necessity, contrasting him with Marx’s teleology and Rosa Luxemburg’s determinism. He applies Lacanian psychoanalysis to Donald Trump, positing that Trump’s obscenity and lies function as a form of sincerity that reveals the failure of traditional leftist strategies of transgression. Finally, he critiques modern 'techno-feudalism' as a new privatization of the commons by digital giants.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 7
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “Hegel as philosopher of contingency”
Žižek’s reading of Hegel not as a determinist, but as one who sees history as open, where contingency is retroactively read as necessity only after the fact.
The process by which a present event or order imposes a necessary narrative onto a contingent past, making it appear as if it had to happen.
A concept from the Frankfurt School (Adorno) describing how the liberation of repressed desires leads to a more oppressive, vulgarized reality rather than freedom.
The psychoanalytic dimension of political subjectivity, where libidinal investments (like the enjoyment of Trump’s obscenity) structure political reality beyond rational arguments.
as “shame as political category”
Žižek’s proposal that the lesson of psychoanalysis today is not to get rid of repression, but to recover 'shame' (manners/limits) rather than obscene transgression.
Žižek’s term for the current stage of capitalism where digital giants (Google, Meta) privatize the very space of exchange, acting as new feudal lords over the commons.
The mechanism by which digital platforms control the infrastructure of social and economic interaction, distinct from old-style capitalist privatization of resources.
Stories he reaches for 4
Žižek compares his reaction to Aleksandr Dugin’s praise of J.D. Vance as a 'Lacanian intervention' to Tom and Jerry’s eyes popping out, highlighting the absurdity of claiming Trump/Vance are Lacanian subjects.
“my reaction was like you know in cartoons when Tom or Jerry see some thing your eyes go out and he said Vance is doing such a wonderful, J.D. Vance, Lacanian intervention”
A contingent event (slipping on a banana peel) leads to love, which is then retroactively interpreted as destiny, illustrating Hegel’s view of contingency and necessity.
“you slip on a banana peel, a lady comes helps you up, ah it's the love of your life. But once you are in it, you automatically reinterpret all the past as leading to this point.”
Žižek notes that conservative media allows him to publish things the 'fake progressive left-center media' bans, illustrating the radical center's role in annihilating figures like himself.
“moderately conservative mass media, I can publish there things which this fake progressive left-center media never publish.”
The governor of Kaliningrad claims Kant is the origin of all modern evils (socialism, freedom, war), which Žižek uses to illustrate Kant as a 'point of split' leading to Hegel.
“Russians have yes Kaliningrad have an governor there and he recently said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils”
Works invoked 4
Philosophy of Right book
Cited for the 'owl of Minerva' metaphor and the prohibition of speculations about truth, supporting the view of Hegel as non-deterministic.
Grundrisse book
Cited for Marx’s insight that capitalism provides the key to previous social formations, illustrating retroactive necessity rather than teleology.
Lenin's Testament book
Used to illustrate the importance of 'shame' and manners in politics, specifically Lenin’s critique of Stalin.
Seminar 1969-70 book
Lacan’s reaction to '68, where he argues protesters are missing 'shame' and will get a more obscene master, relevant to understanding Trump.
People invoked 19
Mentioned in Lenin’s testament as having been 'against October.'
Mentioned as a Democrat who 'doesn't look spontaneous' and gives prepared answers, contrasting with Trump’s perceived sincerity.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Praised for his 'testament' where he criticizes Stalin not for politics, but for lacking 'manners' and being 'shamelessly brutal,' illustrating the importance of shame.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Praised for introducing 'repressive desublimation,' aware of how vulgar liberation leads to a more oppressive world.
Mentioned in Lenin’s testament as having been 'against October.'
Jacques Lacan positive
Žižek argues Lacan is crucial for understanding Trump and the failure of leftist transgression, citing Lacan’s 1969-70 seminar on shame and protest.
Georgi Plekhanov negative
Described as 'the very bad Marxist for me,' used as a foil to contrast Napoleon’s contingency with Hegel’s retroactive necessity.
Mentioned alongside Balibar as having clarified that Marx missed the concept of political power/state power.
Mentioned in Lenin’s testament as someone who 'doesn't understand dialectic.'
Donald Trump positive
Used as a case study for Lacanian analysis; his obscenity and lies are analyzed as a form of sincerity and a new political subjectivity.
Mentioned alongside Althusser regarding the critique of Marx’s understanding of state power.
JD Vance negative
Cited by Dugin as making a 'Lacanian intervention,' which Žižek mocks as absurd.
Alexander Dugin negative
Described ironically as a 'great Russian philosopher' but mocked for his 'crazy reading of Lacan' and praise of Trump/Vance.
Rosa Luxemburg negative
Žižek agrees she breaks from deterministic paths but criticizes her for neglecting 'socialist barbarism' (Stalinism) and maintaining a sense of historical orientation.
Joseph Stalin negative
Cited in Lenin’s testament as lacking manners and being shamelessly brutal, serving as an example of the need for 'shame' in politics.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek respects Marx’s 'best moments' (Grundrisse) for understanding contingency, but critiques his implicit teleology compared to Hegel.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for his insight that 'nowhere is the unconscious more repressed... than in hysteria,' countering the 1968 protesters' anti-hysteria stance.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek considers Hegel 'more materialist than Marx' and a 'philosopher of contingency,' rejecting deterministic readings in favor of retroactive necessity.
Immanuel Kant positive
Žižek finds Kant’s complexity intellectually stimulating ('intellectual orgasm') and uses him as a starting point for the split to Hegel, despite the Kaliningrad governor's disdain.
Transcript 18 turns
unknown
Good evening. Good evening everyone. Good evening. Good evening. Welcome to the Royal Geographical Society which I'm very pleased to note is still going strong in the era of Google Maps. A delicious anachronism, a radical piece of conservatism which is the best venue given the subject matter, the subject of tonight's celebration of Žižek at himself a piece of remarkable brilliant marvelous radical anachronism, a moderately conservative communist as he calls himself, juxtaposing himself to what I called myself once a libertarian communist just to confuse both libertarians and communists. You know Slavoj, you know the brilliance that oozes out of his mouth, out of his books, you don't need me to say any of this. But there is an aspect of Slavoj which I'm sure he's going to hate me recounting, which you don't know. And that is Slavoj as a genuine loyal friend, independently of whether he agrees with you or not. We've had clashes, we've disagreed, we nearly hit each other. But I can tell you that behind this facade of the person who is suffering from serious verbal diarrhea and audacity and political incorrectness and all that, behind that facade there is a genuine sweetie-pie. And I know this from personal experience and I want to thank you Slavoj for this. Enough said on this. A living contradiction, a Hegelian has to be a living contradiction because contradiction is what fuels Slavoj. Slavoj, come to the stage, let's have an anarchic discussion. I thought we should start at the very beginning because Slavoj has three fixations in life: Hegel, Hegel, and Hegel. And therefore it's a grand another grand contradiction that he is so celebrated in this country. And I say this because in this country, if you ever study philosophy in any of the universities, they start with the ancient Greeks, then they move on to the Middle Ages, then they jump to Immanuel Kant, and then from Kant they go to Bertrand Russell, always bypassing Hegel because from the perspective Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic analytical philosophy, Hegel was the epitome of muddled thinking. So how come you're so celebrated as a Hegelian in a country which doesn't give a damn about Hegel?
Good evening. Good evening everyone. Good evening. Good evening. Welcome to the Royal Geographical Society which I'm very pleased to note is still going strong in the era of Google Maps. A delicious anachronism, a radical piece of conservatism which is the best venue given the subject matter, the subject of tonight's celebration of Žižek at himself a piece of remarkable brilliant marvelous radical anachronism, a moderately conservative communist as he calls himself, juxtaposing himself to what I called myself once a libertarian communist just to confuse both libertarians and communists. You know Slavoj, you know the brilliance that oozes out of his mouth, out of his books, you don't need me to say any of this. But there is an aspect of Slavoj which I'm sure he's going to hate me recounting, which you don't know. And that is Slavoj as a genuine loyal friend, independently of whether he agrees with you or not. We've had clashes, we've disagreed, we nearly hit each other. But I can tell you that behind this facade of the person who is suffering from serious verbal diarrhea and audacity and political incorrectness and all that, behind that facade there is a genuine sweetie-pie. And I know this from personal experience and I want to thank you Slavoj for this. Enough said on this. A living contradiction, a Hegelian has to be a living contradiction because contradiction is what fuels Slavoj. Slavoj, come to the stage, let's have an anarchic discussion. I thought we should start at the very beginning because Slavoj has three fixations in life: Hegel, Hegel, and Hegel. And therefore it's a grand another grand contradiction that he is so celebrated in this country. And I say this because in this country, if you ever study philosophy in any of the universities, they start with the ancient Greeks, then they move on to the Middle Ages, then they jump to Immanuel Kant, and then from Kant they go to Bertrand Russell, always bypassing Hegel because from the perspective Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic analytical philosophy, Hegel was the epitome of muddled thinking. So how come you're so celebrated as a Hegelian in a country which doesn't give a damn about Hegel?
Slavoj Žižek
A good point where I would as you hinted at, but in a way that you would agree with, where I would maybe a little bit disagree with you is Kant is has two faces. It's more complex. For example, and crazy things like this give me seriously an intellectual orgasm which at my age it's maybe better than real orgasm. Which is did you read a small note in news it was reported, you know that that Kaliningrad, ex-Königsberg small yeah there Russians have yes Kaliningrad have an governor there and he recently said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils: socialism, human freedom, women's
A good point where I would as you hinted at, but in a way that you would agree with, where I would maybe a little bit disagree with you is Kant is has two faces. It's more complex. For example, and crazy things like this give me seriously an intellectual orgasm which at my age it's maybe better than real orgasm. Which is did you read a small note in news it was reported, you know that that Kaliningrad, ex-Königsberg small yeah there Russians have yes Kaliningrad have an governor there and he recently said that they are not proud of Kant there because Kant is the origin of all modern evils: socialism, human freedom, women's
unknown
rights and he finished with that Kant is ultimately responsible for the Ukrainian
rights and he finished with that Kant is ultimately responsible for the Ukrainian
Slavoj Žižek
war. So I think that Kant is the point of split so why from Kant to Hegel? Because [unintelligible] I will not go into details just to be really brief, which is very difficult for me. I wonder if you would agree. For me paradoxically, it may sound crazy, but in some sense, my crazy sense, Hegel is in some sense, I repeat it, more materialist than Marx. What you find in Marx is still an implicit let's call it teleology. Maybe there will be socialism, maybe not, but we may be guilty if there will be no socialism, we can screw it up, but history there is a general sense of orientation. Or as Rosa Luxemburg put it, future will be socialist or barbarian. Not the same thing. Because when you say that it could be barbarian, this is not a sense of improvement. It's exactly the opposite. So I thought that Rosa Luxemburg was breaking from this deterministic path. Yes, but where I don't agree with her, no, but every good Marxist would say this. But I have another problem. When she says this, but what about what happened in Stalinism? Which was socialist barbarism, no, she somehow neglected. But what's my point? Hegel is that if there ever, if you want to hear more about this read my books, if there ever was a philosopher of contingency, totally open to the future, it's Hegel. Hegel is not a determinist. You know in for example his Philosophy of Right, he says thought always comes too late, like the owl of Minerva. He strictly prohibits any speculations about the truth. At each moment, that's I think the deepest insight of Hegel, at each moment we retroactively reconstruct the past, not in a magic sense. And today we are I think in such a position. If new authoritarianism will prevail, socialism will be just a blind alley and so on. So we have like in quantum physics a superposition of four, five options. And this is what fascinates me in Hegel again. It's not just necessity and contingency in the sense of, there is a general necessity, but then it actualizes itself in a contingent way. Plekhanov, the very bad Marxist for me, used here the example of Napoleon. There was a tendency toward imperial order in France, it was contingency that Napoleon did it. I think Hegel's point is to a large extent the exact opposite. Something happens contingently and retroactively when a new order is imposed, it's read as necessary. Let me give you my own pathetic example, although I've written a lot about it in politics and so on. Let's say you fall in love in the old-fashioned way, which is today almost considered politically... In the only way, you mean. In the only way, yes. What I wanted to say is that is that once... it may be totally contingent like the stupid, you know you walk on the street, story for stupidity, you slip on a banana peel, a lady comes helps you up, ah it's the love of your life. But once you are in it, you automatically reinterpret all the past as leading to this point. And Marx at his best moments knew this. You know the famous line from Grundrisse that capitalism, that in the same way that only the anatomy of man provides the key for the anatomy of apes, capitalism provides the key for all previous social formations. This is not teleological determinism. It's totally clear from Marx. Capitalism emerged in a contingent way. It could have not happened. But not just capitalism. We only understood the Bronze Age when we shifted to the Iron Age. Same thing. Yeah, and this I think again is Hegel at his best. Another thing... So I understand why you're Hegelian because I am Hegelian. What I don't understand and I will never understand... Eh, Central Committee will decide if you are really Hegelian. Let's where... Well yes, of course, the Central Committee meaning him. But why do I need to care about Lacan? Because the way I refer... whom I've never managed to
war. So I think that Kant is the point of split so why from Kant to Hegel? Because [unintelligible] I will not go into details just to be really brief, which is very difficult for me. I wonder if you would agree. For me paradoxically, it may sound crazy, but in some sense, my crazy sense, Hegel is in some sense, I repeat it, more materialist than Marx. What you find in Marx is still an implicit let's call it teleology. Maybe there will be socialism, maybe not, but we may be guilty if there will be no socialism, we can screw it up, but history there is a general sense of orientation. Or as Rosa Luxemburg put it, future will be socialist or barbarian. Not the same thing. Because when you say that it could be barbarian, this is not a sense of improvement. It's exactly the opposite. So I thought that Rosa Luxemburg was breaking from this deterministic path. Yes, but where I don't agree with her, no, but every good Marxist would say this. But I have another problem. When she says this, but what about what happened in Stalinism? Which was socialist barbarism, no, she somehow neglected. But what's my point? Hegel is that if there ever, if you want to hear more about this read my books, if there ever was a philosopher of contingency, totally open to the future, it's Hegel. Hegel is not a determinist. You know in for example his Philosophy of Right, he says thought always comes too late, like the owl of Minerva. He strictly prohibits any speculations about the truth. At each moment, that's I think the deepest insight of Hegel, at each moment we retroactively reconstruct the past, not in a magic sense. And today we are I think in such a position. If new authoritarianism will prevail, socialism will be just a blind alley and so on. So we have like in quantum physics a superposition of four, five options. And this is what fascinates me in Hegel again. It's not just necessity and contingency in the sense of, there is a general necessity, but then it actualizes itself in a contingent way. Plekhanov, the very bad Marxist for me, used here the example of Napoleon. There was a tendency toward imperial order in France, it was contingency that Napoleon did it. I think Hegel's point is to a large extent the exact opposite. Something happens contingently and retroactively when a new order is imposed, it's read as necessary. Let me give you my own pathetic example, although I've written a lot about it in politics and so on. Let's say you fall in love in the old-fashioned way, which is today almost considered politically... In the only way, you mean. In the only way, yes. What I wanted to say is that is that once... it may be totally contingent like the stupid, you know you walk on the street, story for stupidity, you slip on a banana peel, a lady comes helps you up, ah it's the love of your life. But once you are in it, you automatically reinterpret all the past as leading to this point. And Marx at his best moments knew this. You know the famous line from Grundrisse that capitalism, that in the same way that only the anatomy of man provides the key for the anatomy of apes, capitalism provides the key for all previous social formations. This is not teleological determinism. It's totally clear from Marx. Capitalism emerged in a contingent way. It could have not happened. But not just capitalism. We only understood the Bronze Age when we shifted to the Iron Age. Same thing. Yeah, and this I think again is Hegel at his best. Another thing... So I understand why you're Hegelian because I am Hegelian. What I don't understand and I will never understand... Eh, Central Committee will decide if you are really Hegelian. Let's where... Well yes, of course, the Central Committee meaning him. But why do I need to care about Lacan? Because the way I refer... whom I've never managed to
unknown
understand and I'm never going to start trying unless
understand and I'm never going to start trying unless
Slavoj Žižek
you explain Lacan.
you explain Lacan.
unknown
Why do I need Lacan to understand the exercise and pattern of power?
Why do I need Lacan to understand the exercise and pattern of power?
Slavoj Žižek
First, don't you agree many people with whom I otherwise don't agree, not you, they make it clear that even Althusser, Balibar, I don't agree with them often, but they made this clear that don't you think that Marx didn't really understand political power? Something is missing there to understand state power and so on in Marx. Sure,
First, don't you agree many people with whom I otherwise don't agree, not you, they make it clear that even Althusser, Balibar, I don't agree with them often, but they made this clear that don't you think that Marx didn't really understand political power? Something is missing there to understand state power and so on in Marx. Sure,
unknown
but why is Lacan the one who is going to elucidate it for us? Because let me... I mean Freud, I understand. Yeah.
but why is Lacan the one who is going to elucidate it for us? Because let me... I mean Freud, I understand. Yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
The whole concept of manufactured desire... of the subconscious... here, here, yeah. No, no, no, no, forget about that. The crucial insight, absolutely crucial today, people tend to forget it, is when Freud says I remember, I'm a little bit older than you probably, so I was there very young at '68. And I remember the hidden anti-feminism. The idea of young protesters was we are against hysteria, hysterical subjects, read between the lines women, they just protest, they don't really go to the end. While perverts go to the end. They realize what hysterics only dream about. Freud gave a proper answer to this which is nowhere is the unconscious more repressed, more inaccessible than in hysteria. And the best minds of Frankfurt School like Adorno were fully aware of this when they introduced a crucial notion of repressive desublimation. You desublimate in the common sense, do whatever you want vulgarly and so on, but the result is a nightmare, a much more oppressive world. Now to be very short that I don't get lost, I will make a mega quick jump here. Will you answer the question why do I care about Lacan? If you want to understand Trump, you should. Okay, explain to me why is Lacan elucidating Trump? I cannot, not you, we are on the same wave here. Of course. So when I take power, the people, that's me, don't worry you don't go to gulag, just [unintelligible] you know what's going to happen? Two years of re-education camps. He's going to send me no, he will send me to the gulag, but he will visit me often. No, no, I have precise plans. No, sorry, let's go on to Lacan, to Lacan here, yes. I, how could leftists, stupid leftists, not you, be so really stupid as to repeat the same mistake? You know they thought now we had caught Trump as it were with his pants down. He was caught lying, obscenities and so on. But that's how Trump, he
The whole concept of manufactured desire... of the subconscious... here, here, yeah. No, no, no, no, forget about that. The crucial insight, absolutely crucial today, people tend to forget it, is when Freud says I remember, I'm a little bit older than you probably, so I was there very young at '68. And I remember the hidden anti-feminism. The idea of young protesters was we are against hysteria, hysterical subjects, read between the lines women, they just protest, they don't really go to the end. While perverts go to the end. They realize what hysterics only dream about. Freud gave a proper answer to this which is nowhere is the unconscious more repressed, more inaccessible than in hysteria. And the best minds of Frankfurt School like Adorno were fully aware of this when they introduced a crucial notion of repressive desublimation. You desublimate in the common sense, do whatever you want vulgarly and so on, but the result is a nightmare, a much more oppressive world. Now to be very short that I don't get lost, I will make a mega quick jump here. Will you answer the question why do I care about Lacan? If you want to understand Trump, you should. Okay, explain to me why is Lacan elucidating Trump? I cannot, not you, we are on the same wave here. Of course. So when I take power, the people, that's me, don't worry you don't go to gulag, just [unintelligible] you know what's going to happen? Two years of re-education camps. He's going to send me no, he will send me to the gulag, but he will visit me often. No, no, I have precise plans. No, sorry, let's go on to Lacan, to Lacan here, yes. I, how could leftists, stupid leftists, not you, be so really stupid as to repeat the same mistake? You know they thought now we had caught Trump as it were with his pants down. He was caught lying, obscenities and so on. But that's how Trump, he
unknown
never loses votes because of being caught lying. I read a friend sent me from United States a wonderful analysis why people vote
never loses votes because of being caught lying. I read a friend sent me from United States a wonderful analysis why people vote
Slavoj Žižek
for Trump. They claim and up to a point they are right, Kamala Harris and Democrats don't look spontaneous, they gave this prepared answers and so on while they say Trump looks sincere. And then if you analyze it closely, there are two proofs of this sincerity: that he is obscene, dirty, indescribable filth what he is saying. I'm even me, a well-known tasteless guy, I am embarrassed here to repeat some of for example Trump's remarks about Kamala Harris. And that's the surprise: when he is caught lying, Trump voters read this as a sign of his sincerity. You know, he's not prepared by specialists and so on. So the paradox for me is this one and here Lacan enters that you know to understand Trump you have to take into account at the libidinal level, psychoanalytic, this tension. Officially he proclaims I'm a fundamentalist Christian, neo-conservative, moral values and so on. And the enemy is what he calls postmodernism, historicist relativism, inconsistency but... He doesn't know these words. He's never said, uttered the word postmodernism. I don't think he can, it can come out of his mouth. But by great Russian philosophers, I mean it ironically, Aleksandr Dugin, yeah he praises Trump and especially Vance. In his crazy reading of Lacan, he said, my reaction was like you know in cartoons when Tom or Jerry see some thing [sound] your eyes go out and he said Vance is doing such a wonderful, J.D. Vance, Lacanian intervention that probably he must have read Lacan. So what I'm saying is that that's the key to Trump. But in the mode he functions as a person, can you imagine a more radical caricatural version of let's say postmodernism? He cheats, lies, is inconsistent and so on and so on. So something really new, a new form of, not just of argumentation, Trump doesn't really argue, but of how political subjectivity functions and so on. Here you need somebody like Lacan to see what? To see that that liberation, sexual libidinal, is not simply open up yourself, your repressed desires and so on. If you do that, it can be even worse. Not to be too long, I advise you to read, I rediscovered now and I'm more stupid than you, which means when I say Lacan, it's like Hegel, I always begin with reading good interpretations and then maybe I read Lacan. But in his seminar from '69-'70, his reaction to '68, Lacan said something wonderful. He says protesters are missing something in their demand for sexual liberation and [unintelligible] they are missing a little bit of shame. The way they want liberation, they will get a new master which will be more obscene than themselves. And that's what we are getting today. That's why, I wonder if you would agree with this. Yes, privately I am obscene, we make jokes, but you know in what age we live? When I was young, I'm older than you, so before, do you remember the typical leftist strategy was do obscene gestures, say dirty words to those in power who pretend to be dignified and so on. While we protest, while those in power pretend to be dignified and so on, but now it's almost the opposite. It's those in power who are doing unimaginable things. So I think the lesson of psychoanalysis today is not get rid of repression but shame. Not shame as a sign of oppression like I'm ashamed of my dirty dreams, but shame in what sense? Here I hope we have here the same position. I'm very critical here and there about Lenin. But did people notice something which I find wonderful? We know all, old Marxist, Lenin's testament. You know he goes through all the contenders for the highest post and said Bukharin doesn't understand dialectic, Kamenev, Zinoviev were against October, he finds some political fault in everyone. But then the only guy he is really against is Stalin. But what's his reproach to Stalin? Just that he doesn't have manners, he is shamelessly brutal and so on. It I find this wonderful, this idea...
for Trump. They claim and up to a point they are right, Kamala Harris and Democrats don't look spontaneous, they gave this prepared answers and so on while they say Trump looks sincere. And then if you analyze it closely, there are two proofs of this sincerity: that he is obscene, dirty, indescribable filth what he is saying. I'm even me, a well-known tasteless guy, I am embarrassed here to repeat some of for example Trump's remarks about Kamala Harris. And that's the surprise: when he is caught lying, Trump voters read this as a sign of his sincerity. You know, he's not prepared by specialists and so on. So the paradox for me is this one and here Lacan enters that you know to understand Trump you have to take into account at the libidinal level, psychoanalytic, this tension. Officially he proclaims I'm a fundamentalist Christian, neo-conservative, moral values and so on. And the enemy is what he calls postmodernism, historicist relativism, inconsistency but... He doesn't know these words. He's never said, uttered the word postmodernism. I don't think he can, it can come out of his mouth. But by great Russian philosophers, I mean it ironically, Aleksandr Dugin, yeah he praises Trump and especially Vance. In his crazy reading of Lacan, he said, my reaction was like you know in cartoons when Tom or Jerry see some thing [sound] your eyes go out and he said Vance is doing such a wonderful, J.D. Vance, Lacanian intervention that probably he must have read Lacan. So what I'm saying is that that's the key to Trump. But in the mode he functions as a person, can you imagine a more radical caricatural version of let's say postmodernism? He cheats, lies, is inconsistent and so on and so on. So something really new, a new form of, not just of argumentation, Trump doesn't really argue, but of how political subjectivity functions and so on. Here you need somebody like Lacan to see what? To see that that liberation, sexual libidinal, is not simply open up yourself, your repressed desires and so on. If you do that, it can be even worse. Not to be too long, I advise you to read, I rediscovered now and I'm more stupid than you, which means when I say Lacan, it's like Hegel, I always begin with reading good interpretations and then maybe I read Lacan. But in his seminar from '69-'70, his reaction to '68, Lacan said something wonderful. He says protesters are missing something in their demand for sexual liberation and [unintelligible] they are missing a little bit of shame. The way they want liberation, they will get a new master which will be more obscene than themselves. And that's what we are getting today. That's why, I wonder if you would agree with this. Yes, privately I am obscene, we make jokes, but you know in what age we live? When I was young, I'm older than you, so before, do you remember the typical leftist strategy was do obscene gestures, say dirty words to those in power who pretend to be dignified and so on. While we protest, while those in power pretend to be dignified and so on, but now it's almost the opposite. It's those in power who are doing unimaginable things. So I think the lesson of psychoanalysis today is not get rid of repression but shame. Not shame as a sign of oppression like I'm ashamed of my dirty dreams, but shame in what sense? Here I hope we have here the same position. I'm very critical here and there about Lenin. But did people notice something which I find wonderful? We know all, old Marxist, Lenin's testament. You know he goes through all the contenders for the highest post and said Bukharin doesn't understand dialectic, Kamenev, Zinoviev were against October, he finds some political fault in everyone. But then the only guy he is really against is Stalin. But what's his reproach to Stalin? Just that he doesn't have manners, he is shamelessly brutal and so on. It I find this wonderful, this idea...
unknown
He wasn't wrong. He wasn't wrong to extrapolate from basic human behavior what he would do when he was an absolute dictator. But as communists, I introduced you as a reasonably or moderately conservative communist, that's what you call yourself. Okay. So let's shift from Lacan... But aren't we at the same level here? Because I
He wasn't wrong. He wasn't wrong to extrapolate from basic human behavior what he would do when he was an absolute dictator. But as communists, I introduced you as a reasonably or moderately conservative communist, that's what you call yourself. Okay. So let's shift from Lacan... But aren't we at the same level here? Because I
Slavoj Žižek
noticed we both were screwed up in Germany and so on. Do you know that I always remember when I look at your and also my fate, I also had not as big as you but some trouble after last year's Frankfurt Book Fair, that moderately conservative mass media, I can publish there things which this fake progressive left-center media never publish. Tell me about it. It's the radical center that effectively tries to annihilate people like me and you. Yeah. But let's go back to communism, right? We're both communists. Strange, weird, odd, you know. Not socialist, but communists. Yeah, I mean it literally. Yeah, a hugely contradictory communist and you know an reluctant communist. Yeah, but because the situation... Okay, in your communism, what happens to Google, Meta, and Mercedes-Benz? What do we do with them? Let's say you know, you are the leader now. Okay, now you want to be evil. Now I will ask you. I, I'm in the gulag, you don't visit me, right? What do we do about Google, Meta, Amazon, Mercedes-Benz, Alstom, British Aerospace?
noticed we both were screwed up in Germany and so on. Do you know that I always remember when I look at your and also my fate, I also had not as big as you but some trouble after last year's Frankfurt Book Fair, that moderately conservative mass media, I can publish there things which this fake progressive left-center media never publish. Tell me about it. It's the radical center that effectively tries to annihilate people like me and you. Yeah. But let's go back to communism, right? We're both communists. Strange, weird, odd, you know. Not socialist, but communists. Yeah, I mean it literally. Yeah, a hugely contradictory communist and you know an reluctant communist. Yeah, but because the situation... Okay, in your communism, what happens to Google, Meta, and Mercedes-Benz? What do we do with them? Let's say you know, you are the leader now. Okay, now you want to be evil. Now I will ask you. I, I'm in the gulag, you don't visit me, right? What do we do about Google, Meta, Amazon, Mercedes-Benz, Alstom, British Aerospace?
unknown
It is absolutely clear that although I am not able here I should learn from you, that we absolutely have to establish some sort of social control, to use your terms, defeudalize them. Because here we come to your topic of feudalism and would
It is absolutely clear that although I am not able here I should learn from you, that we absolutely have to establish some sort of social control, to use your terms, defeudalize them. Because here we come to your topic of feudalism and would
unknown
you agree
you agree
Slavoj Žižek
with me here? My key when I'm reading your stuff, not only this book, you were using this term for neo-feudalism, techno-feudalism, is that the key of this new mega corporate capitalism, digital and so on, is that it's a new form of the privatization of commons. But not the old style where what was common one capitalist grab this, the other that. No, take Bill Gates, take Jeff Bezos and so on. The very space in which even capitalists and workers and so on exchange stuff is controlled by them.
with me here? My key when I'm reading your stuff, not only this book, you were using this term for neo-feudalism, techno-feudalism, is that the key of this new mega corporate capitalism, digital and so on, is that it's a new form of the privatization of commons. But not the old style where what was common one capitalist grab this, the other that. No, take Bill Gates, take Jeff Bezos and so on. The very space in which even capitalists and workers and so on exchange stuff is controlled by them.
unknown
That's the feudal moment. I...
That's the feudal moment. I...