Slavoj Zizek on Trump, Brexit and fake news
Interview · Channel 4 News ·
published 2017-02-13 · 0:23:59 · 3,235 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
ideologycapitalismfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-war
Žižek analyzes the contemporary crisis of 'fake news' and the collapse of trust in official media, arguing that this is not merely a technical issue but a symptom of a deeper breakdown in 'cognitive mapping' and the manufacturing of consent. He contrasts the short-term success of populist figures like Trump with the long-term necessity of a new leftist vision, critiquing the liberal left's reliance on political correctness and mockery as symptoms of their inability to offer a substantive alternative to global capitalism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 9
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Chomsky's concept of the thick web of implicit rules and customs that manufacture political consensus, which Žižek argues is currently breaking down.
The ability to locate oneself in society; Žižek argues we have lost the prevalent narrative or orientation regarding where we are and where society is going.
In psychoanalytic jargon, the neutral authority or big Other (like the BBC) that guarantees truth; Žižek argues this figure has disappeared, leaving no arbiter of reality.
A cultural relativism where every subject, especially victims, has a right to their own truth, rendering rational argumentation suspicious or superfluous.
The paradox that rage and revolution occur not when situations are worst, but when they are improving, because expectations rise and the gap between expectation and reality becomes painful.
The argument that populist figures are reactions to deeper ecological and political failures of elites, rather than the primary origin of the crisis.
as “symptal healing”
Treating a symptom (Trump/fake news) with palliative care (fighting him) without addressing the underlying cause (the failure of the political system/elites).
as “left Fukuyama-ism”
Žižek's ironic term for the exhausted liberal democratic capitalism model that promised freedoms but left people feeling impotent regarding the general direction of society.
The paradox of modern life where individuals have extensive personal choices (lifestyle, travel) but feel powerless to influence the general economic and social constellation.
Stories he reaches for 1
Hitler was laughed at initially but abolished unemployment in his first four years, illustrating that populists can deliver short-term results despite being inconsistent demagogues.
“remember hitler, everybody was laughing at him. but for first four years of his rule, he did practically abolish unemployment”
Works invoked 2
Chomsky's work; Žižek uses the concept to describe the breakdown of the implicit web of political consensus.
Fukuyama's prediction of liberal democratic capitalism; Žižargues this model is now exhausted.
People invoked 11
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced as the source of the psychoanalytic jargon 'the Other' used to describe the missing neutral media authority.
John Oliver negative
Cited as a successful liberal commentator/comedian whose mocking of Trump undermines the movement by making supporters bitter.
Nancy Pelosi negative
Described as the 'bad guy' and 'voice of renormalization' in the Democratic Party, promoting the illusion that things will return to normal after Trump.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Criticized for predicting the 'end of history' and for the current 'left Fukuyama-ism' which has exhausted the liberal democratic model.
Jon Stewart negative
Cited alongside Oliver as a liberal commentator who mocks Trump rather than offering an alternate vision.
Donald Trump negative
Horrified by Trump, not supporting him, but analyzes him as a symptom/effect of deeper systemic failures rather than just a cause.
Used as a historical example of a populist leader who was laughed at but delivered short-term economic results (abolishing unemployment).
Julian Assange positive
Cited as an example of someone who provided fake news accusations but never actually provided fake news himself, embodying the distrust of official media.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Cited as planting fake news about the Mufti of Jerusalem, illustrating how conspiracy theories penetrate big media.
Cited as ruling China under 'much harsher' conditions than today, illustrating that rage is not simply proportional to oppression.
Noam Chomsky positive
Cited as the originator of 'manufacturing consent'; Žižek agrees with the concept of the implicit web of political consensus.
Transcript 21 turns
Interviewer
Mr. Žižek, let's begin by talking about fake news. why do you think we suddenly seem to live in an era in which political lying seems more acute and more obvious than ever and people seem to be lapping it up, even though we are wiser and better informed?
Mr. Žižek, let's begin by talking about fake news. why do you think we suddenly seem to live in an era in which political lying seems more acute and more obvious than ever and people seem to be lapping it up, even though we are wiser and better informed?
Slavoj Žižek
a very precise question. already, which is to say a lot, agree with your question. the point is not that news were for most of the time fake. false news were all of the time in the media. they are part of our political discourse. so the question is what is happening, what is effectively happening today? and at least i think there is a double answer to this question. what changed recently? first is the obvious answer, which is the new technique media, internet, facebook and so on, tweeting, where people can organize themselves, each can present his or their own position, and there seems to be no higher authority to regulate it. this is a very paradoxical position, i claim, because on the one hand, one would have thought, oh, finally, we have an opening for ordinary people to organize themselves, to say openly what they think, non controlled by the state media. but you know, this also opens up the space, this new technology for fake news. second thing, important. the distrust into, let's call it official public space and each version of events. i mean, uh... the ongoing rise of populism. is grounded for many ordinary people precisely in this growing experience of don't believe in what government or public media are telling you. it's this general mistrust into it. and i think this is a quite justified mistrust. for example, this is also the lesson of wikipedia. what assange did and no one, with all the criticism of assange, no one ever accused him of providing fake news. but wikileaks embodies precisely this idea, don't trust the official media. government, public authorities are not telling us everything. but it's not just the question of manipulating news against. again, this went on all the time. happening today. ich that... i would like to use the term re-actualized by noam chomsky, manufacturing consent, political life. it's not just the explicit rules, but it's a whole thick web of implicit rules, customs and so on, of how political consensus is manufactured. and that is breaking down. we are really becoming, i just wanted to say this like china. when i was in china, they told me there are many rumors circulating in china about some terrible accident, about some bribery and so on. and they have a proverb that you don't know is it true or not. but the only way to know that it's true is when the government denies it, that it's not true. we are becoming a little bit like that. another term i want to use is cognitive mapping. never till now was there a situation where er... there was not one prevalent, let's call it narrative to give you general orientation where we are, where are we going, not just in a narrow political sense, but like in what society do we live and so on. and i think the reason this is happening if... a pretty paradoxical one we should not just blame. the right wingers. usually the right is accused of exploding with fake news and so on and so on. unfortunately, i must say the left is doing the same. not only at the level of spinning, of giving a spin to news. for example, in europe i can see this all the time. now that we have this problem with immigrants. on the one hand, the nationalist right-wing media exaggerate everything small incident. on the other hand, the left mainstream media censored the news. for example, there was a pretty scary thing that happened in Malmö in Sweden where i think a couple of guys immigrants were raping a swedish woman and they were transmitting the rape through facebook and so on. in official media, it was not made clear that they were immigrants. i very open towards immigrants and so on and so on. i'm just saying that if you give a spin in this way to the news, then of course ordinary people don't trust the media, they don't have anyone whom they can trust.
a very precise question. already, which is to say a lot, agree with your question. the point is not that news were for most of the time fake. false news were all of the time in the media. they are part of our political discourse. so the question is what is happening, what is effectively happening today? and at least i think there is a double answer to this question. what changed recently? first is the obvious answer, which is the new technique media, internet, facebook and so on, tweeting, where people can organize themselves, each can present his or their own position, and there seems to be no higher authority to regulate it. this is a very paradoxical position, i claim, because on the one hand, one would have thought, oh, finally, we have an opening for ordinary people to organize themselves, to say openly what they think, non controlled by the state media. but you know, this also opens up the space, this new technology for fake news. second thing, important. the distrust into, let's call it official public space and each version of events. i mean, uh... the ongoing rise of populism. is grounded for many ordinary people precisely in this growing experience of don't believe in what government or public media are telling you. it's this general mistrust into it. and i think this is a quite justified mistrust. for example, this is also the lesson of wikipedia. what assange did and no one, with all the criticism of assange, no one ever accused him of providing fake news. but wikileaks embodies precisely this idea, don't trust the official media. government, public authorities are not telling us everything. but it's not just the question of manipulating news against. again, this went on all the time. happening today. ich that... i would like to use the term re-actualized by noam chomsky, manufacturing consent, political life. it's not just the explicit rules, but it's a whole thick web of implicit rules, customs and so on, of how political consensus is manufactured. and that is breaking down. we are really becoming, i just wanted to say this like china. when i was in china, they told me there are many rumors circulating in china about some terrible accident, about some bribery and so on. and they have a proverb that you don't know is it true or not. but the only way to know that it's true is when the government denies it, that it's not true. we are becoming a little bit like that. another term i want to use is cognitive mapping. never till now was there a situation where er... there was not one prevalent, let's call it narrative to give you general orientation where we are, where are we going, not just in a narrow political sense, but like in what society do we live and so on. and i think the reason this is happening if... a pretty paradoxical one we should not just blame. the right wingers. usually the right is accused of exploding with fake news and so on and so on. unfortunately, i must say the left is doing the same. not only at the level of spinning, of giving a spin to news. for example, in europe i can see this all the time. now that we have this problem with immigrants. on the one hand, the nationalist right-wing media exaggerate everything small incident. on the other hand, the left mainstream media censored the news. for example, there was a pretty scary thing that happened in Malmö in Sweden where i think a couple of guys immigrants were raping a swedish woman and they were transmitting the rape through facebook and so on. in official media, it was not made clear that they were immigrants. i very open towards immigrants and so on and so on. i'm just saying that if you give a spin in this way to the news, then of course ordinary people don't trust the media, they don't have anyone whom they can trust.
Interviewer
but.
but.
Slavoj Žižek
seem to be putting now i want to go to my trust.
seem to be putting now i want to go to my trust.
Interviewer
i.
i.
Slavoj Žižek
in the on.
in the on.
Interviewer
let me just stop you a second. i just want to break this up a little bit. you seem to be putting together the whole question of trust with fakery. isn't there a difference between media that concentrates on a particular aspect or may leave something out and media that is completely fabricated or based on lies intended to deceive? there is a difference between good journalism that is inconvenient and bad journalism and fake news, which is completely made up and designed to... mislead you.
let me just stop you a second. i just want to break this up a little bit. you seem to be putting together the whole question of trust with fakery. isn't there a difference between media that concentrates on a particular aspect or may leave something out and media that is completely fabricated or based on lies intended to deceive? there is a difference between good journalism that is inconvenient and bad journalism and fake news, which is completely made up and designed to... mislead you.
Slavoj Žižek
i totally agree, but what worries me is that the usual domain of fake news, which was still now something limited to totally marginal right-wing conspiracy theorists, yellow press and so on is more and more penetrating the big media. look, take, okay not just the obvious example, donald trump. i think that he's approaching the point where you even cannot do a parody of him. imagine if somebody were to do a show talking like donald trump. talks now, ten years ago, everybody would thought this is a parody and a parody which could never have been true and so on and so on. second thing, but let me give you another example. for example, do you remember, i think a couple of months ago, benjamin netanyahu planted some big fake news claiming that Husseini, that Mufti of Jerusalem, talked hitler into doing the holocaust and so on. what i'm saying is this, i heard this rumor already before, but it was part of this obscure underground of racist myths, political conspiracy theories and so on. the big question is why is this penetrating penetrating the big media. i totally agree with you. there is a tremendous interest between serious journalism, which also can go wrong, and this marginal fake media manipulators. but the line is getting blurred, which is terrible news for honest journalists. why? because you do not have what in my psychoanalytic jargon, i would have called the other, some kind of a neutral media to which you turn and which then decides. oh, if they say this, it's serious. it must be true. i remember when i was young, for example, still in communist yugoslavia, when we were listening to western news, we didn't trust the voice of america. this was suspicious for us. too much, too spun. but i remember clearly how our the point was bbc. if bbc says it, it was... it must be true and so on and so on. and we seem no longer to have what once was called bbc. but again, let me return. i still have to make two big main points. one main point would have been that this is not just about the media. this is how our entire culture is changing. today more and more in our public debate, we have this... multicultural, multi-truth approach. the idea is it's oppressive even to mention that sometimes there is one truth. each subject, especially if they are victims, has the right each subject has the right to say his her own truth and we have no right to disqualify it and so on. so this very culture of identity politics and so on creates this kind of relativization where you are no longer simply to dismiss, criticize someone. you always get the reply, but what if they are victims? they have the right to say their own version. let me tell, it may interest your viewers, what happened to me. half a year ago at new york, a black student protested she wasn't satisfied with the line of thought. i presented in my class. and i tried to reason to her rationally like, sorry but i meant this, this, this and she simply interrupted me, i was quite shocked and told me, listen, i am a black lesbian but also i don't know how single mother with aids and i'm hurt by what you are saying as if describing her victim position renders argumentation. suspicious superfluous we don't have to argue so one thing is this one how if you. claim! that a certain position, even if it's stating the facts, has simply universal value, you are immediately suspected of being, i don't know, imperialist, imposing your story and so on. the other absolutely crucial point, and you hinted at it, that's why i liked in your introductory question. it's that. you know... it's not so much that people are naive today. no, people are not stupid. they don't really believe. it's not that people... simply are stupid. you can tell them fake news and so on and so on. i think, okay, there may be some naive people, but with most of the people, something much more mysterious is going on. in a certain way, they don't even care about the truth. i have friends of mine who listen vigorously to all this fake news and they tell me, of course i know it's not true, but it tells you a lot about society it's much more interesting, and so on
i totally agree, but what worries me is that the usual domain of fake news, which was still now something limited to totally marginal right-wing conspiracy theorists, yellow press and so on is more and more penetrating the big media. look, take, okay not just the obvious example, donald trump. i think that he's approaching the point where you even cannot do a parody of him. imagine if somebody were to do a show talking like donald trump. talks now, ten years ago, everybody would thought this is a parody and a parody which could never have been true and so on and so on. second thing, but let me give you another example. for example, do you remember, i think a couple of months ago, benjamin netanyahu planted some big fake news claiming that Husseini, that Mufti of Jerusalem, talked hitler into doing the holocaust and so on. what i'm saying is this, i heard this rumor already before, but it was part of this obscure underground of racist myths, political conspiracy theories and so on. the big question is why is this penetrating penetrating the big media. i totally agree with you. there is a tremendous interest between serious journalism, which also can go wrong, and this marginal fake media manipulators. but the line is getting blurred, which is terrible news for honest journalists. why? because you do not have what in my psychoanalytic jargon, i would have called the other, some kind of a neutral media to which you turn and which then decides. oh, if they say this, it's serious. it must be true. i remember when i was young, for example, still in communist yugoslavia, when we were listening to western news, we didn't trust the voice of america. this was suspicious for us. too much, too spun. but i remember clearly how our the point was bbc. if bbc says it, it was... it must be true and so on and so on. and we seem no longer to have what once was called bbc. but again, let me return. i still have to make two big main points. one main point would have been that this is not just about the media. this is how our entire culture is changing. today more and more in our public debate, we have this... multicultural, multi-truth approach. the idea is it's oppressive even to mention that sometimes there is one truth. each subject, especially if they are victims, has the right each subject has the right to say his her own truth and we have no right to disqualify it and so on. so this very culture of identity politics and so on creates this kind of relativization where you are no longer simply to dismiss, criticize someone. you always get the reply, but what if they are victims? they have the right to say their own version. let me tell, it may interest your viewers, what happened to me. half a year ago at new york, a black student protested she wasn't satisfied with the line of thought. i presented in my class. and i tried to reason to her rationally like, sorry but i meant this, this, this and she simply interrupted me, i was quite shocked and told me, listen, i am a black lesbian but also i don't know how single mother with aids and i'm hurt by what you are saying as if describing her victim position renders argumentation. suspicious superfluous we don't have to argue so one thing is this one how if you. claim! that a certain position, even if it's stating the facts, has simply universal value, you are immediately suspected of being, i don't know, imperialist, imposing your story and so on. the other absolutely crucial point, and you hinted at it, that's why i liked in your introductory question. it's that. you know... it's not so much that people are naive today. no, people are not stupid. they don't really believe. it's not that people... simply are stupid. you can tell them fake news and so on and so on. i think, okay, there may be some naive people, but with most of the people, something much more mysterious is going on. in a certain way, they don't even care about the truth. i have friends of mine who listen vigorously to all this fake news and they tell me, of course i know it's not true, but it tells you a lot about society it's much more interesting, and so on
Interviewer
well, this is the question i want to examine. this whole question of. we live in an era in which living standards have improved historically, people are better educated, there are more democratic freedoms, and yet there seems to be more political anger. across the western world and across democracies. and i wonder why that is.
well, this is the question i want to examine. this whole question of. we live in an era in which living standards have improved historically, people are better educated, there are more democratic freedoms, and yet there seems to be more political anger. across the western world and across democracies. and i wonder why that is.
Slavoj Žižek
hmm oh, i think to this i can give you a simple answer. the first sad lesson from history is that anger, rage and so on don't explode. i'm almost tempted to say they almost never explode. when the situation is really horrible or when we have total oppression and so on. all big revolutions more or less happened in a relatively open society. french revolution. my god, the king's authority was in decline for some time and so on and so on. look at china today. the situation is much more fragile today than it was under much harsher mao rule and so on. rage is always a question of comparative dissatisfaction. rates means that people have higher standards of expectation and also they feel the difference. that's the big problem today. how ordinary people experience the situation. they read all the time how our standards improved and so on and so on. okay, they have better education. they expect a job that would fit their education. they don't get it and so on and so on. so i think that again, rates does not explain when the situation is really bad. but when the situation is getting better, this getting better then makes expectations explode and that's the dangerous situation. that's why i repeat my point. for example, today is the dangerous situation for something to happen in china. not in north korea, where they would have had much more reasons to be in total rage.
hmm oh, i think to this i can give you a simple answer. the first sad lesson from history is that anger, rage and so on don't explode. i'm almost tempted to say they almost never explode. when the situation is really horrible or when we have total oppression and so on. all big revolutions more or less happened in a relatively open society. french revolution. my god, the king's authority was in decline for some time and so on and so on. look at china today. the situation is much more fragile today than it was under much harsher mao rule and so on. rage is always a question of comparative dissatisfaction. rates means that people have higher standards of expectation and also they feel the difference. that's the big problem today. how ordinary people experience the situation. they read all the time how our standards improved and so on and so on. okay, they have better education. they expect a job that would fit their education. they don't get it and so on and so on. so i think that again, rates does not explain when the situation is really bad. but when the situation is getting better, this getting better then makes expectations explode and that's the dangerous situation. that's why i repeat my point. for example, today is the dangerous situation for something to happen in china. not in north korea, where they would have had much more reasons to be in total rage.
Interviewer
and what about in america after trump? expectations after trump are very, very high, aren't they? expectations after trump's election amongst his electorate are very high, almost too high for him to deliver on. so again, is there a danger there in america after this election? yeah, but
and what about in america after trump? expectations after trump are very, very high, aren't they? expectations after trump's election amongst his electorate are very high, almost too high for him to deliver on. so again, is there a danger there in america after this election? yeah, but
Slavoj Žižek
it. i hope so. that's why i mockingly, although i'm horrified at trump, not supporting him. Trump can trigger, maybe his electing trump can give a boost to a new left in united states. but you know what worries me with trump? don't underestimate him. often, quite often. it happens that even if a leader like trump is a populist demagogue and so on, at least in the short term, he will be maybe able to deliver. you know, it is as if these left liberal commentators who are typically the most successful are comedians like john oliver, Jon Stewart and others, they don't see that by mocking trump in this way, really undermine him. they just render bitter and more fanatical those who support trump. and this is very sad. instead of proposing an alternate vision of how to change things, all the liberal left is doing, or at least what is it doing in the most convincing way is making fun, demonstrating the stupidity and so on and so on. so what i'm really afraid of now is that what if at least for some shorter period of time, but this i mean a couple of years, trump will be a relative success. it may happen. the world is already slowly accommodating to trump and so on. populism in short term also works. remember hitler, everybody was laughing at him. but for first four years of his rule, he did practically abolish unemployment and so on and so on. i'm not saying this will happen. i'm just saying that if a politician like trump is inconsistent, and he clearly is inconsistent, it's ridiculous. he proclaims to be the voice of the poor, exploited, those in shadow, and then the measure he's doing now is what? more monopoly, more freedom to big banks and so on and big banks and so on and so on. but it doesn't automatically mean that he will fail. i'm a pessimist here.
it. i hope so. that's why i mockingly, although i'm horrified at trump, not supporting him. Trump can trigger, maybe his electing trump can give a boost to a new left in united states. but you know what worries me with trump? don't underestimate him. often, quite often. it happens that even if a leader like trump is a populist demagogue and so on, at least in the short term, he will be maybe able to deliver. you know, it is as if these left liberal commentators who are typically the most successful are comedians like john oliver, Jon Stewart and others, they don't see that by mocking trump in this way, really undermine him. they just render bitter and more fanatical those who support trump. and this is very sad. instead of proposing an alternate vision of how to change things, all the liberal left is doing, or at least what is it doing in the most convincing way is making fun, demonstrating the stupidity and so on and so on. so what i'm really afraid of now is that what if at least for some shorter period of time, but this i mean a couple of years, trump will be a relative success. it may happen. the world is already slowly accommodating to trump and so on. populism in short term also works. remember hitler, everybody was laughing at him. but for first four years of his rule, he did practically abolish unemployment and so on and so on. i'm not saying this will happen. i'm just saying that if a politician like trump is inconsistent, and he clearly is inconsistent, it's ridiculous. he proclaims to be the voice of the poor, exploited, those in shadow, and then the measure he's doing now is what? more monopoly, more freedom to big banks and so on and big banks and so on and so on. but it doesn't automatically mean that he will fail. i'm a pessimist here.
Interviewer
and so do you think it was perhaps wishful thinking? when you said you know wanted trump to win because of what would come after trump. and that that may not happen.
and so do you think it was perhaps wishful thinking? when you said you know wanted trump to win because of what would come after trump. and that that may not happen.
Slavoj Žižek
ah, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. yes, many people are telling this to me. aren't you proven wrong now? i say no, because, you know, my god, i wasn't talking in short term, like a week after. this is a long process. it may take a year or two. and i see hopeful signs. for example, are we aware something beautiful that happened not only in the united states, but in poland most of the countries where moral, so-called catholic christian moral majorities getting strong. mega mobilization of women as a political factor. hundreds of thousands, millions of women demonstrating in the united states. in poland, big women's movement which already blocked some very reactionary proposals by the government and so on and so on. in the long term, i'm not pessimist. what is happening is precisely what i predicted. there already is a split in the democratic party. the bad guy, if i may put his choice for me nancy pelosi. she is the voice of renormalization. she made recently a speech where she said, don't get into a panic. trump will stay maybe for eight years, but it's like after reagan, after bush, then we will come again and so on and so on. that's the big illusion and so on. now things are there is happening within democratic party and all this is sustained by a mega popular mobilization. it will take time. i'm not talking about a week or two and trump will be out. but you know what we should nonetheless take into account, and that's my point, all the big problems that we see today, why did new populism explode? ecological problems and so on and so on. trump is the reaction to these problems. that's my big motive. trump is, as they say, an effect, not a cause. fighting just trump means doing what doctors call symptomal healing. you know, you feel because of some serious illness a pain, you take pills to diminish the pain, but not the cause. trump is an answer to something. to the way how elites didn't get the point, the failure of our political elites. we have to change things there. well, we will just fight trump. in the long term, it will not work.
ah, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. yes, many people are telling this to me. aren't you proven wrong now? i say no, because, you know, my god, i wasn't talking in short term, like a week after. this is a long process. it may take a year or two. and i see hopeful signs. for example, are we aware something beautiful that happened not only in the united states, but in poland most of the countries where moral, so-called catholic christian moral majorities getting strong. mega mobilization of women as a political factor. hundreds of thousands, millions of women demonstrating in the united states. in poland, big women's movement which already blocked some very reactionary proposals by the government and so on and so on. in the long term, i'm not pessimist. what is happening is precisely what i predicted. there already is a split in the democratic party. the bad guy, if i may put his choice for me nancy pelosi. she is the voice of renormalization. she made recently a speech where she said, don't get into a panic. trump will stay maybe for eight years, but it's like after reagan, after bush, then we will come again and so on and so on. that's the big illusion and so on. now things are there is happening within democratic party and all this is sustained by a mega popular mobilization. it will take time. i'm not talking about a week or two and trump will be out. but you know what we should nonetheless take into account, and that's my point, all the big problems that we see today, why did new populism explode? ecological problems and so on and so on. trump is the reaction to these problems. that's my big motive. trump is, as they say, an effect, not a cause. fighting just trump means doing what doctors call symptomal healing. you know, you feel because of some serious illness a pain, you take pills to diminish the pain, but not the cause. trump is an answer to something. to the way how elites didn't get the point, the failure of our political elites. we have to change things there. well, we will just fight trump. in the long term, it will not work.
Interviewer
and.
and.
Slavoj Žižek
catastrophe.
catastrophe.
Interviewer
if trump. it was a reaction.
if trump. it was a reaction.
Slavoj Žižek
the cultural catastrophe, whatever you want.
the cultural catastrophe, whatever you want.
Interviewer
if trump is a reaction to the failure of democracy, does democracy hold the answer, both in america and in europe?
if trump is a reaction to the failure of democracy, does democracy hold the answer, both in america and in europe?
Slavoj Žižek
well, ultimately, i think. it ich! a crisis of what i ironically like to refer to as left fukuyama-ism. you know fukuyama who predicted the end of history. he had in mind a certain image of. liberal, democratic capitalism with a certain degree of all things that we like, health care, freedoms and so on and so on. obviously that model is exhausted. i am not definitely not saying we should move we should move beyond democracy. but we should do something with democracy. when you told me, for example, here we should take a closer look at things, you said we have more freedoms than ever. yes, but there are more and more freedoms of choice of your personal lifestyle and so on, but people feel more and more impotent of in any way influencing let's call it the general orientation of society. we are getting personal freedoms within a thick framework which is here which we cannot influence. the paradox is that the more we feel personally free, yes, the paradox is that the more we feel personally free, you read what you want, you can travel what you want, you can pick up the job that you want, if you get it, and so on, the more the whole social situation, constellation, economic crisis, general direction of society is experienced as something that we cannot in any way influence. and this, i think, also feeds people's rage. also, the lack of a vision. here i'm extremely critical of today's left because when you mention this rage, isn't this an even greater paradox with this rage for me? how? yes, there is this rage, even among wide circles of population in europe, rage on the left and on the right, nationalists and unemployed students and so on and so on. but the more we have this rage, the less we have on the left a realistic alternate vision of what to do with the system. that's why i think liberal left is so keen on political correctness, this excessive worry of it approaches sometimes madness. like if you call a woman beautiful, you are already a sexist. how dare you to notice their beauty without noticing her her beauty without noticing her intellect or whatever. so i think this exaggeration here is a negative, an effect. of this failure and impotence to do to even have a vision. i will put it like this. for me. a recent explosion of populism and the rage there is for me ultimately an effect of the crisis of the global liberal capitalist system and of the failure of the left. to make our freedoms and so on. more relevant in the sense of having an impact on our daily lives and so on and so on. so the solution is not just fight trump, fight fake news. the solution is a new global leftist vision. i'm not talking about communism stalinism. i'm talking about like in the same way that in 45 liberal left was able to provide welfare state and so on, we need a strong reinvention of the
well, ultimately, i think. it ich! a crisis of what i ironically like to refer to as left fukuyama-ism. you know fukuyama who predicted the end of history. he had in mind a certain image of. liberal, democratic capitalism with a certain degree of all things that we like, health care, freedoms and so on and so on. obviously that model is exhausted. i am not definitely not saying we should move we should move beyond democracy. but we should do something with democracy. when you told me, for example, here we should take a closer look at things, you said we have more freedoms than ever. yes, but there are more and more freedoms of choice of your personal lifestyle and so on, but people feel more and more impotent of in any way influencing let's call it the general orientation of society. we are getting personal freedoms within a thick framework which is here which we cannot influence. the paradox is that the more we feel personally free, yes, the paradox is that the more we feel personally free, you read what you want, you can travel what you want, you can pick up the job that you want, if you get it, and so on, the more the whole social situation, constellation, economic crisis, general direction of society is experienced as something that we cannot in any way influence. and this, i think, also feeds people's rage. also, the lack of a vision. here i'm extremely critical of today's left because when you mention this rage, isn't this an even greater paradox with this rage for me? how? yes, there is this rage, even among wide circles of population in europe, rage on the left and on the right, nationalists and unemployed students and so on and so on. but the more we have this rage, the less we have on the left a realistic alternate vision of what to do with the system. that's why i think liberal left is so keen on political correctness, this excessive worry of it approaches sometimes madness. like if you call a woman beautiful, you are already a sexist. how dare you to notice their beauty without noticing her her beauty without noticing her intellect or whatever. so i think this exaggeration here is a negative, an effect. of this failure and impotence to do to even have a vision. i will put it like this. for me. a recent explosion of populism and the rage there is for me ultimately an effect of the crisis of the global liberal capitalist system and of the failure of the left. to make our freedoms and so on. more relevant in the sense of having an impact on our daily lives and so on and so on. so the solution is not just fight trump, fight fake news. the solution is a new global leftist vision. i'm not talking about communism stalinism. i'm talking about like in the same way that in 45 liberal left was able to provide welfare state and so on, we need a strong reinvention of the
Interviewer
left today.
left today.