Slavoj Žižek on Julian Assange, Bolsonaro & yellow vests (Apr. 2019)
Interview · Ippolit Belinski ·
2019-04-05 · 0:13:52 · 1,790 words
ideologyfascism-populismcommunism-socialismtechnology-ai-cyberspacegeopolitics-wardemocracy
Žižek argues that modern surveillance constitutes a dangerous 'unfreedom experienced as freedom,' using the WikiLeaks/Assange case to illustrate how digital control replaces overt state terror. He critiques conservative attempts to equate communism with Nazism, distinguishing Stalin’s formal legalism from Nazi biological essentialism, and analyzes the rise of right-wing populism in Europe as a failure of the technocratic left to address popular discontent, urging self-criticism within the liberal establishment.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 6
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The paradoxical state where surveillance and control are masked by the illusion of total liberty (e.g., surfing the web), making them more insidious than overt totalitarianism.
Julian Assange’s characterization of Google, which Žižek cites to argue that private corporations now perform the surveillance functions of state security agencies.
The Nazi logic where Jews are condemned not for actions or political affiliations, but for their biological essence, requiring no trials or proof.
The conservative political strategy of equating socialism with Nazism to delegitimize modern leftist movements and save 'softer' fascist figures like Mussolini.
Alain Badiou’s phrase meaning 'all that moves/agitates is not red,' used to describe how protest energy is now appropriated by the populist right rather than the left.
Žižek’s description of popular protest energy, which lacks a coherent program and can be appropriated by either left or right forces.
Stories he reaches for 3
Cites Julian Assange’s book arguing that Google functions as a private, corporate version of the NSA, illustrating the merger of state and corporate surveillance.
“Julian Assange himself wrote a wonderful book on Google, well, he treats Google as a corporate private version of NSA, National Security Agency.”
Ironically invokes Stalin’s dictum that 'self-criticism should be self-criticism' to argue that the liberal establishment must critique its own failures (multiculturalism, technocracy) to close the space for right-wing populism.
“The first step is—sorry if I sound here Stalinist, when Stalin says the—what moves things in socialism—self-criticism should be self-criticism.”
Contrasts Stalin’s show trials, where victims were formally accused of concrete crimes (like being a British spy), with the Nazi regime, which had no trials for Jews because their 'guilt' was biological and inherent.
“The horror of Nazi anti-Semitism is that... You don't have to prove anything. You are directly guilty for what you are biologically: for being a Jew.”
Works invoked 1
Described as 'wonderful'; used to illustrate the equivalence of Google and the NSA in surveillance.
People invoked 13
Matteo Salvini negative
Italian Minister of Interior, cited for claiming Mussolini was mostly good except for joining Hitler, representing the criminalization of the left.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Referenced to note that the early Soviet Politburo was majority Jewish, refuting claims of inherent anti-Semitism in communism.
Donald Trump positive
Ironically credited with pushing the US Democratic Party toward socialism (Bernie Sanders, AOC) by provoking a reaction.
Benito Mussolini negative
Cited via Salvini’s defense as a 'softer' fascist whose alliance with Hitler was the only mistake, illustrating conservative revisionism.
Mentioned as an example of state repression (solitary confinement) used to force cooperation with WikiLeaks.
French President, whose election and handling of protests are analyzed as opening space for populism due to technocratic failure.
Alain Badiou positive
Friend and philosopher, quoted for the insight that protest energy is no longer exclusively left-wing.
Bernard-Henri Lévy negative
Cited as a liberal who claims 'if anti-Semitism has a future, it will be left anti-Semitism,' a view Žižek dismisses.
Adolf Hitler negative
Represented as the extreme of Nazism, which conservatives like Salvini claim 'went too far' to save other fascist figures.
Bernie Sanders positive
Cited as a leader of Democratic Socialists whose strength is partly a reaction to Trump.
Julian Assange positive
Cites Assange’s book on Google as 'wonderful' and defends him against espionage charges, noting his Australian citizenship and the injustice of his treatment.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Cited alongside Sanders as part of the Democratic Socialist movement gaining strength.
Condemned for Stalinism’s horrors, but used ironically here to highlight the formal legalism of his trials compared to Nazi biological guilt.
Transcript 14 turns
unknown
...expelled is just an attention-grabbing stunt. Is that possible? And if so, why would WikiLeaks upset the country hosting Assange by making this sort of false statement?
...expelled is just an attention-grabbing stunt. Is that possible? And if so, why would WikiLeaks upset the country hosting Assange by making this sort of false statement?
Slavoj Žižek
Eh, I'm very glad to be here, thanks very much. Well, first, we have to make something clear. Don't focus on Ecuador. Of course I condemn if this is true what Ecuador is doing now, but never forget under what terrifying economic and political pressure Ecuador is at this moment. Point two, I think the battle about WikiLeaks and Assange is absolutely crucial for today's constellation, for the place freedom has in our societies. You know, till now, control, terror, were outside us. I almost remember with nostalgia the old Communist times when control meant you walk on the street, you turn your head around, ooh, some suspicious guy probably from secret police is following you. Today we have unfreedom which appears in the very form of freedom. You do whatever you want, surf the web and so on and so on, but you are monitored, controlled, manipulated. The most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom experienced as freedom. And this is the battle going on today. And here, WikiLeaks plays a crucial role. We often make fun of the Chinese, yes, they have this patriotic standing and so on. But okay, we should criticize this, but don't forget, we in the West are doing exactly the same, maybe in a slightly more subtle way. So yes, this is maybe the crucial struggle today. Who will control the WikiLeaks? And in this sense, since all our lives, even at their most material aspect, are regulated by digital space, who will control our lives?
Eh, I'm very glad to be here, thanks very much. Well, first, we have to make something clear. Don't focus on Ecuador. Of course I condemn if this is true what Ecuador is doing now, but never forget under what terrifying economic and political pressure Ecuador is at this moment. Point two, I think the battle about WikiLeaks and Assange is absolutely crucial for today's constellation, for the place freedom has in our societies. You know, till now, control, terror, were outside us. I almost remember with nostalgia the old Communist times when control meant you walk on the street, you turn your head around, ooh, some suspicious guy probably from secret police is following you. Today we have unfreedom which appears in the very form of freedom. You do whatever you want, surf the web and so on and so on, but you are monitored, controlled, manipulated. The most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom experienced as freedom. And this is the battle going on today. And here, WikiLeaks plays a crucial role. We often make fun of the Chinese, yes, they have this patriotic standing and so on. But okay, we should criticize this, but don't forget, we in the West are doing exactly the same, maybe in a slightly more subtle way. So yes, this is maybe the crucial struggle today. Who will control the WikiLeaks? And in this sense, since all our lives, even at their most material aspect, are regulated by digital space, who will control our lives?
unknown
Now when it comes to WikiLeaks, opponents insist its work is about invading people's privacy and not about investigative journalism. Do you think that there's validity to that argument?
Now when it comes to WikiLeaks, opponents insist its work is about invading people's privacy and not about investigative journalism. Do you think that there's validity to that argument?
Slavoj Žižek
Well, of course, I cannot answer directly, I don't know the details. But knowing the entire history of WikiLeaks, I think this is simply incredible. We know the amount of how state agencies and private corporations connected with them, like Julian Assange himself wrote a wonderful book on Google, well, he treats Google as a corporate private version of NSA, National Security Agency. With all that going on, to now claim that WikiLeaks, Assange, are agents of espionage is ridiculous. Second thing, we tend to forget that Assange is not an American citizen. He—this already should make us suspicious. My God, he is an Australian citizen. What did Australia do, if anything, in the last years to defend one of its own citizens? Nothing. That should make us suspicious. And another ominous development. You know that now Chelsea Manning is arrested, held in solitary confinement precisely in order to force her to give data on her contacts with WikiLeaks. What is in preparation, we know well, is not just to punish Assange, it's to proclaim WikiLeaks and the activity with which WikiLeaks is associated as, to put it bluntly—we know this—as a new form of terrorism. This is what those in power on the global scene will try to do now: to criminalize this type of independent news sharing whose symbols are WikiLeaks. While we have you on the program, we want to touch on a couple of other topics as well. So moving from Ecuador issues to Brazil, its president has compared modern socialists to Nazis. What do you make of that? Okay, it's an old ridiculous thesis of the alt-right. I know he claimed that Holocaust was performed, done by the left. This is so ridiculous, but it deserves some comment. First, you
Well, of course, I cannot answer directly, I don't know the details. But knowing the entire history of WikiLeaks, I think this is simply incredible. We know the amount of how state agencies and private corporations connected with them, like Julian Assange himself wrote a wonderful book on Google, well, he treats Google as a corporate private version of NSA, National Security Agency. With all that going on, to now claim that WikiLeaks, Assange, are agents of espionage is ridiculous. Second thing, we tend to forget that Assange is not an American citizen. He—this already should make us suspicious. My God, he is an Australian citizen. What did Australia do, if anything, in the last years to defend one of its own citizens? Nothing. That should make us suspicious. And another ominous development. You know that now Chelsea Manning is arrested, held in solitary confinement precisely in order to force her to give data on her contacts with WikiLeaks. What is in preparation, we know well, is not just to punish Assange, it's to proclaim WikiLeaks and the activity with which WikiLeaks is associated as, to put it bluntly—we know this—as a new form of terrorism. This is what those in power on the global scene will try to do now: to criminalize this type of independent news sharing whose symbols are WikiLeaks. While we have you on the program, we want to touch on a couple of other topics as well. So moving from Ecuador issues to Brazil, its president has compared modern socialists to Nazis. What do you make of that? Okay, it's an old ridiculous thesis of the alt-right. I know he claimed that Holocaust was performed, done by the left. This is so ridiculous, but it deserves some comment. First, you
unknown
know about this link repeated today
know about this link repeated today
Slavoj Žižek
by all liberals, this link between communism and anti-Semitism, or even radical left and anti-Semitism. Like Bernard-Henri Lévy likes to say, if anti-Semitism has a future, it will be left anti-Semitism. Well, thanks for this. First, listen. If—whatever you think about Lenin and the first Soviet government—it was the only case in the history of a Christian nation where the governing body, Lenin's government, Politburo, was composed more or less the majority were Jews. So to talk about some kind of immanent anti-Semitism is ridiculous. Second point, when these new conservatives claim that basically Nazism is a version of socialism, as they say cynically, it just replaces class struggle with struggle between races. Okay, strictly condemning all the horrors of Stalinism, nonetheless, one should add, this is not the same. In Stalinism, that's why they had show trials, monster trials, you still were—it was all a fake, I know—but nonetheless, at least formally, condemned for what you did. There were concrete accusations: you had contacts with Trotsky, you were a British spy or whatever. The horror of Nazi anti-Semitism is that, and that's why there were no trials against Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't have to prove anything. You are directly guilty for what you are biologically: for being a Jew. So to confuse things here is, I think, one of the most disgusting strategies of contemporary conservatives. What is behind, I think, is a way to criminalize the left. The strategy is this one—it's also clear from statements by Italian Minister of Interior, I think Salvini and so on. You sacrifice Nazism, you say, yeah, yeah, Hitler went too far and so on. And then you try to redeem, to save, other so-called softer versions of fascism: Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, claiming, okay, at the end, Salvini said this recently, Mussolini made a mistake when he went to war on Hitler's side, but it wasn't so bad, all of it and so on. What is behind this is again an attempt to criminalize the modern left and to rewrite history in the sense of saving fascism. You talk about the criminalization of the left. It's also under fire from many other leaders, not least of which being President Trump, who's calling on all countries to quote, resist socialism. Why do you think we're seeing this attack on the left right now? Ah, because—and that's why I ironically said maybe it's good for the United States if Trump is elected president—because I think Trump, unknowingly, of course, gave a push to the left turn at least in part of the Democratic Party in the United States. I claim probably without Trump as president, they, the so-called Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on, wouldn't be as strong as
by all liberals, this link between communism and anti-Semitism, or even radical left and anti-Semitism. Like Bernard-Henri Lévy likes to say, if anti-Semitism has a future, it will be left anti-Semitism. Well, thanks for this. First, listen. If—whatever you think about Lenin and the first Soviet government—it was the only case in the history of a Christian nation where the governing body, Lenin's government, Politburo, was composed more or less the majority were Jews. So to talk about some kind of immanent anti-Semitism is ridiculous. Second point, when these new conservatives claim that basically Nazism is a version of socialism, as they say cynically, it just replaces class struggle with struggle between races. Okay, strictly condemning all the horrors of Stalinism, nonetheless, one should add, this is not the same. In Stalinism, that's why they had show trials, monster trials, you still were—it was all a fake, I know—but nonetheless, at least formally, condemned for what you did. There were concrete accusations: you had contacts with Trotsky, you were a British spy or whatever. The horror of Nazi anti-Semitism is that, and that's why there were no trials against Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't have to prove anything. You are directly guilty for what you are biologically: for being a Jew. So to confuse things here is, I think, one of the most disgusting strategies of contemporary conservatives. What is behind, I think, is a way to criminalize the left. The strategy is this one—it's also clear from statements by Italian Minister of Interior, I think Salvini and so on. You sacrifice Nazism, you say, yeah, yeah, Hitler went too far and so on. And then you try to redeem, to save, other so-called softer versions of fascism: Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, claiming, okay, at the end, Salvini said this recently, Mussolini made a mistake when he went to war on Hitler's side, but it wasn't so bad, all of it and so on. What is behind this is again an attempt to criminalize the modern left and to rewrite history in the sense of saving fascism. You talk about the criminalization of the left. It's also under fire from many other leaders, not least of which being President Trump, who's calling on all countries to quote, resist socialism. Why do you think we're seeing this attack on the left right now? Ah, because—and that's why I ironically said maybe it's good for the United States if Trump is elected president—because I think Trump, unknowingly, of course, gave a push to the left turn at least in part of the Democratic Party in the United States. I claim probably without Trump as president, they, the so-called Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on, wouldn't be as strong as
unknown
they are getting now. So, but to see the irrationality of this accusation that this is socialist danger, just look for example at Bernie Sanders' program and compare it with what was in Europe half a century ago considered not a radical but a normal standard social democracy. You will see that Bernie Sanders is not even that. They repeat all the time, right-wingers, even some centrist liberals, attacking Democratic Socialists: yeah, you mean you want socialism, oh, you want
they are getting now. So, but to see the irrationality of this accusation that this is socialist danger, just look for example at Bernie Sanders' program and compare it with what was in Europe half a century ago considered not a radical but a normal standard social democracy. You will see that Bernie Sanders is not even that. They repeat all the time, right-wingers, even some centrist liberals, attacking Democratic Socialists: yeah, you mean you want socialism, oh, you want
Slavoj Žižek
Venezuela and so on and so on. Sorry, but Democratic Socialism in the sense of social democracy is behind maybe the greatest success story, one of the greatest in world history. Was there ever such a large group of people which enjoyed relative freedom, welfare, safety and so on as in the golden era of welfare state in Western Europe? So we should be very worried about this criminalization of the left.
Venezuela and so on and so on. Sorry, but Democratic Socialism in the sense of social democracy is behind maybe the greatest success story, one of the greatest in world history. Was there ever such a large group of people which enjoyed relative freedom, welfare, safety and so on as in the golden era of welfare state in Western Europe? So we should be very worried about this criminalization of the left.
unknown
So let's move on. You've called France's Yellow Vests part of a traditional left-wing politics, yet President Macron's government claims that movement is far-right. Is the government wrong, or is this just a ploy to try and discredit them?
So let's move on. You've called France's Yellow Vests part of a traditional left-wing politics, yet President Macron's government claims that movement is far-right. Is the government wrong, or is this just a ploy to try and discredit them?
Slavoj Žižek
I don't want to sound ironic, but I think we are both right, Macron and me, in the sense that it's not really left, it's just an explosion of popular discontent. But—and this brings us to the tragedy in which we live today. Till now, you usually had a government running things more or less efficiently, technocracy, and then when people had enough they explode. This protest energy was usually appropriated, channeled by the more radical left. Today, at least in Western Europe, it seems that the new populist right is much more efficient in doing this. Or as my friend French philosopher Alain Badiou put it in French—I will translate it immediately—tout ce qui bouge n'est pas rouge. All that moves, agitates, brings energy of protest is no longer from the left. It can also be from the right. And that's the problem of today's populism. And I think that the worst thing for the left to do is to engage in some kind of a popular political version of MeToo. Oh, if populism is working for the right, why not also us? No, as experiences show, yes, we should listen to people's discontents. Now I will say something for which I will get many—much hate mail. But I think it's the bitter truth. Yes, people feel troubles, they have anxieties, they protest and so on and so on. But I don't believe in some kind of ordinary people's deeper insight, wisdom, you know, in the old Maoist style: listen to the ordinary people, try to get what they want. No, you will not get a program from them. We intellectuals are needed more than ever. Okay, another point is that we also quite often do not know. But let's not fall into this trap of seeking for some ultimate wisdom in so-called ordinary people. Yes, they protest, but their protests are, how should I put it, free-floating, confused, contradictory, and it's totally open who will appropriate them. French reports claim that Macron is trying to create a moralizing image of a battle between good and evil in society, that he's progressive and those who oppose him are dismissed as populist. Do you get that impression that that's what he's trying to do? No, no, I think that—and I warned this when Macron was elected with such large support and so on—while I of course condemned this
I don't want to sound ironic, but I think we are both right, Macron and me, in the sense that it's not really left, it's just an explosion of popular discontent. But—and this brings us to the tragedy in which we live today. Till now, you usually had a government running things more or less efficiently, technocracy, and then when people had enough they explode. This protest energy was usually appropriated, channeled by the more radical left. Today, at least in Western Europe, it seems that the new populist right is much more efficient in doing this. Or as my friend French philosopher Alain Badiou put it in French—I will translate it immediately—tout ce qui bouge n'est pas rouge. All that moves, agitates, brings energy of protest is no longer from the left. It can also be from the right. And that's the problem of today's populism. And I think that the worst thing for the left to do is to engage in some kind of a popular political version of MeToo. Oh, if populism is working for the right, why not also us? No, as experiences show, yes, we should listen to people's discontents. Now I will say something for which I will get many—much hate mail. But I think it's the bitter truth. Yes, people feel troubles, they have anxieties, they protest and so on and so on. But I don't believe in some kind of ordinary people's deeper insight, wisdom, you know, in the old Maoist style: listen to the ordinary people, try to get what they want. No, you will not get a program from them. We intellectuals are needed more than ever. Okay, another point is that we also quite often do not know. But let's not fall into this trap of seeking for some ultimate wisdom in so-called ordinary people. Yes, they protest, but their protests are, how should I put it, free-floating, confused, contradictory, and it's totally open who will appropriate them. French reports claim that Macron is trying to create a moralizing image of a battle between good and evil in society, that he's progressive and those who oppose him are dismissed as populist. Do you get that impression that that's what he's trying to do? No, no, I think that—and I warned this when Macron was elected with such large support and so on—while I of course condemned this
unknown
anti-immigrant and so on populism, we
anti-immigrant and so on populism, we
Slavoj Žižek
should never forget that the space for this type of populism was opened up by what ordinary people perceived and still perceive as the failure of the technocratic liberal establishment. Something broke here. So the first step towards getting rid of anti-immigrant, racist and so on populism is not just to focus on them. The first step is—sorry if I sound here Stalinist, when Stalin says the—what moves things in socialism—self-criticism should be self-criticism. What did we left-liberal establishment with all our multiculturalism, gay rights, abstract solidarity and so on, what did we do wrong to open up the space for right-wing populism? We should begin with criticizing ourselves.
should never forget that the space for this type of populism was opened up by what ordinary people perceived and still perceive as the failure of the technocratic liberal establishment. Something broke here. So the first step towards getting rid of anti-immigrant, racist and so on populism is not just to focus on them. The first step is—sorry if I sound here Stalinist, when Stalin says the—what moves things in socialism—self-criticism should be self-criticism. What did we left-liberal establishment with all our multiculturalism, gay rights, abstract solidarity and so on, what did we do wrong to open up the space for right-wing populism? We should begin with criticizing ourselves.
unknown
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek, thank you so much for your time and your comments.
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek, thank you so much for your time and your comments.
Slavoj Žižek
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.