Slavoj Žižek: We are addicted to chaos
Interview · UnHerd ·
2022-08-04 · 0:57:05 · 7,283 words
with Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologypsychoanalysishegel-dialecticsecology-climatereligion-theologysexuality-genderfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-wareconomicshistorysubjectivityeveryday-lifephilosophy-general
An UnHerd interview with Slavoj Žižek centered on his book "Surplus Enjoying: A Guide for the Non-Perplexed." Žižek ties Lacan's surplus enjoyment to Marx's surplus value (Mehrwert) as the restless logic of capitalism, arguing that liberation must go through capitalism rather than back to a balanced natural state, and that ecology makes humans universal caretakers rather than modest animals. The talk then pivots to geopolitics (Putin's Russia as neo-fascism, support for arming Ukraine, the danger of a Trump-Putin-Christian-right coalition), criticizes politically correct "fake radicalism" as avoiding real leftist struggle, and closes by redefining communism as the global coordination we already know is necessary for pandemics, climate, and immigration.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 19
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Lacan's notion, developed only in the last 15 years of his life with strict reference to Marx's Mehrwert; here, the perverse pleasure by which the system bribes us so that we don't act.
as “surplus value / Mehrwert”
Marx's concept that capitalism doesn't produce for enjoyment or stable use but earns money in order to earn more money, the endless 'more surplus' defining modern capitalism.
The paradox of ecological modesty: in claiming to be just one species among others we assume a universal caretaker position, since only we can be responsible for the rights of plants, animals and rivers.
as “my eternal dogma (no natural balance)”
His repeated thesis, called 'my eternal dogma', that there is no natural balance to return to; nature is catastrophic, not nurturing.
as “Sitten”
Hegel's term for collective mores, mostly unwritten standards forming the substance of our being, which is what real freedom is lived within.
as “new form of communism”
His term for the global coordination of healthcare, data, and consumption beyond the market that the pandemic demanded; not nationalization or secret police but doing what we already know must be done.
as “fascism as modernization without liberalism”
His definition of (neo-)fascism: you want modernization but without the destructive liberal effect of too much individualism, exactly Putin's Russia introducing traditional standards against LGBT.
His dark half-joke that, given Trump's young reactionary Supreme Court judges locking in reaction for decades, 'maybe we need a progressive pelican brief' to organize a mortal accident.
His name for the authoritarian pact (e.g. Taliban-China) where each side agrees not to interfere with the other's abuses, a clinically neutral, brutal tolerance.
His name for the oppressive rule-system of PC/cancel culture, where you never know what will happen if you say the wrong thing.
Rights that began as the rights of independent white men but were universalized by Wollstonecraft (women), Haiti (blacks), and the workers' movement (socialism).
His diagnosis of political correctness/cancel culture: not too radical but a fake radicalism, a way to avoid true problems while changing nothing in real exploitation.
as “good dogma”
His provocation that we need MORE dogma, a good one, making progressive gains (anti-racism, women's sexual freedom, abortion) unquestionable rather than perpetually re-debated.
as “cynicism (sad cynical times)”
Our condition: we know where the crisis is and even what must be done, but that very awareness functions so that we go on not doing it.
as “fetishism (of plurality/choice)”
The fetishistic multiplication of choices (coke/pepsi, the two US parties) that masks the absence of the real, structural choice.
as “the identification of freedom with choice is a fake”
His formulation against the fetish of choice: more choices can mask the real choice, so identifying freedom with choice is a fake.
as “good alienation”
A positive, agreeable alienation in which basics like electricity and gas are simply provided by the state, so we don't have to debate every purchase, 'fight for good alienation!'
Not supernatural wonders but something you thought could not happen that all of a sudden happens, the genuinely new that emerges precisely in deep trouble.
His self-ironic closing persona: beneath the liberal appearance the stalinist self should come up; in his stalinism Facebook and Instagram would be prohibited, and mistakes earn only a year or two of re-education, no hard labor.
Stories he reaches for 8
At the Glasgow climate summit everyone agreed in principle on the need for global cooperation, but nothing actually happened, a paradigm of sad cynicism.
“all that they said in principle was true. we need global cooperation, blah, blah, blah. nothing happened.”
After taking Afghanistan the Taliban made a brutal pact with China: leave us alone with what we do to women, and we won't mess with what you do to the Uyghurs.
“you leave us alone, taliban said, what we want to do here with women and so on. don't mesh. and we will not mess with what you are doing to muslims, uyghurs.”
Two weeks before an election a TV poll named Blair the UK's most unpopular person; he then won the general election, the gap between representation and discontent.
“who is the most unpopular person? in the uk, tony blair won. the most unpopular. two weeks afterwards, he won the general election.”
Rejecting the idea of natural balance by noting the mega-catastrophes that had to happen on earth to produce our resources (oil, gold); nature is violent, not nurturing.
“if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother, you know i don't believe in any natural balance!”
The main argument against Obamacare was the false claim that the state would order you which doctor to take and so deprive you of choice.
“the main argument against obamacare, that it deprives you of a choice. they painted this false danger the state will order you which doctor to take”
Massive popular dissatisfaction, the yellow vests in France, Podemos in Spain, that was impossible to translate into the normal multi-party political system.
“gilets jaunes, the yellow vests. an incredible dissatisfaction, it was impossible to translate it into the terms of our normal multi-party political system.”
Closes by telling the host that beneath her liberal appearance her stalinist self should come up; in his stalinism Facebook and Instagram would be prohibited, and mistakes earn only a year or two of re-education, no hard labor.
“beneath your beautiful liberal appearance now your stalinist self should come up.”
In announcing the war Putin singled out Lenin, claiming Ukraine was Lenin's invention, and ironically offered 'decolonization' to Ukrainians tearing down Lenin statues.
“ukraine was lenin's invention”
Works invoked 3
Communist Manifesto essay
Marx and Engels; read as showing capitalism's liberating, emancipatory fluidification of everything, the ground for 'liberation goes through capitalism.'
The Pelican Brief film
Referenced to frame his dark half-joke about needing a 'progressive pelican brief' to remove Trump's reactionary Supreme Court judges.
His own new book, the frame for the whole interview; defines surplus enjoyment and its problems.
People invoked 20
Mary Wollstonecraft positive
Her 'why not women?' is the first universalization of human rights beyond their origin as the rights of independent white men.
Alenka Zupančič positive
A friend; the smoker example, 'I'm free, I can stop any time', is taken from her and used to illustrate surplus enjoyment and sad cynicism.
David Graeber positive
Cited among 'slightly revisionist historians' showing medieval times were less dark than assumed and homosexuality was more tolerated; fixed sexual difference is a thing of modernity.
Ivan Ilyin negative
The philosopher who is Putin's main reference; in the 1920s formulated a concept of Russian fascism, claiming authentic fascism could only come out of Russia.
Referenced via Putin, who blamed Lenin for inventing Ukraine; Žižek rejects that framing as obscene propaganda.
Jacques Lacan positive
Developed the notion of surplus enjoyment only in the last 15 years of his life, with strict reference to Marx's Mehrwert, the book's anchoring concept.
Donald Rumsfeld negative
Began the de facto legitimation of torture (waterboarding) over the last two decades, a regression of values that should instead be unquestionable.
Donald Trump negative
Systematically violated the implicit rules that make democracy work; his three young Supreme Court picks lock in reaction for decades; the Trumpian right risks a pact with Putin.
Álvaro García Linera positive
A good friend; under Morales as VP of Bolivia he argued the pandemic shows both corporate profiteering and the need, amid collapse, for an efficient state.
Jeremy Corbyn positive
Represents, despite compromises, the renovated left; denounced as worse than a socialist, yet regular postwar social democracy was much further left than him.
Bernie Sanders positive
Alongside Corbyn, represents the renovated left worth saving within the liberal tradition.
Yanis Varoufakis negative
A friend, but his first reaction to the Taliban victory, hailing it as a defeat of western imperialism while Afghan women suffer, is, for Žižek, the worst old leftist logic.
Alexander Dugin negative
Mentioned dismissively as 'too popular' within Russian ideological circles; part of the neo-fascist ideological ambient.
Olof Palme positive
Named as an example of how, even short of his extremity, regular European social democracy half a century ago was much further left than Corbyn or Sanders today.
Sergey Lavrov negative
Russian foreign minister who openly said that, except maybe the United Kingdom, all of Europe should be neutralized for Russia to be safe.
Jordan Peterson negative
After formally condemning the Russian attack, effectively sides with Russia in anti-liberal, anti-LGBT terms, casting woke culture as a new communism and Russia as fighting for Christian values.
Vladimir Putin negative
Neo-fascist modernizer denying Ukraine's right to exist; cited Lenin critically as having invented Ukraine; pursues a Russian sphere of influence across Europe.
Karl Marx positive
Source of surplus value (Mehrwert) as the model for surplus enjoyment; saw clearly that capitalism never aims at a stable state. Žižek adds 'we should also criticize Marx.'
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
His notion of Sitten, collective, mostly unwritten mores forming the substance of our being, is the 'good Hegelian rule' for understanding lived freedom.
Tony Blair negative
Exemplar of the representation gap: voted the UK's most unpopular person two weeks before an election, then won the general election.
What it argues
surplus enjoyment as the restless surplus-logic of capitalismliberation through capitalism, not retreat to natural balanceecology: humans as universal caretakers, not modest animalsPutin's Russia as neo-fascist modernization-without-liberalismthe pandemic as requiring a new communism of global coordinationwoke/cancel culture as fake radicalism that avoids the real leftist taskthe Trump-Putin-Christian-right coalition as the true geopolitical dangerthe radical gap between multi-party politics and popular discontentgood alienation and the efficient state vs. the fetishism of choicesad cynicism: we know what to do but go on not doing it
Dialectical moves 13
“the only liberation goes through capitalism”
Far from escaping capitalism, emancipation must pass through its fluidification; there is no step back to balance.
“in this very modesty of saying we are just one species, we are made universal caretakers”
The ecologist's modesty secretly reasserts a universal human position, only we can be responsible for the rights of plants and animals.
“if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother”
The nurturing-nature image is inverted: nature is catastrophic (mega-catastrophes produced our resources), so there is no natural balance to return to.
“freedom is freedom of thought... i have to totally subordinate myself to rules of language”
Freedom of thought is constituted by submission to the rules of the language one thinks in, freedom is rule-governed.
“you have to learn the second level, unwritten rules which tell you how to deal with the explicit rules”
Rules function only together with their coded transgression; the surplus is the unwritten meta-rule.
“all those who occupy a country are always sincerely pacifist... peace means they can swallow it in peace”
The occupier's pacifism is the very condition for swallowing the territory, pacifism is inverted into the instrument of annexation.
“political correctness... is a fake radicalism. a way to avoid true problems”
The apparent radicalism is the very form of avoidance, what looks like the radical gesture is how real problems are kept at bay.
“modern neoliberal capitalism... did more to destroy families... than all the gay propaganda together”
The right's family-values charge is inverted onto capitalism itself, which is the real destroyer of family and communal life.
“we need more dogma... a good one”
The anti-dogma reflex is inverted: progressive gains should be made unquestionable dogma rather than perpetually re-debated.
“the true threat to the world order today will be a confusion in the united states themselves”
The external geopolitical danger is grounded in an internal US crisis, the true threat is at the center, not the periphery.
“precisely because we know what has to be done, we go on not doing it”
Awareness of the crisis and the solution produces inaction rather than action, knowledge is the obstacle.
“i'm free, i can stop at any moment... and precisely because of this you will never stop”
The very freedom to stop is what prevents stopping, freedom is the trap of addiction.
“the multiplicity of choices can mask the real choice”
More choices obscure the structural choice that isn't offered, abundance of choice is the form of its absence.
Claims 49
asserts
Capitalism's defining feature is that it never aims at a stable, normal state but constantly pursues surplus, surplus value.the nature of capitalism
rejects
The way out of surplus enjoyment is NOT a conservative return to a more modest, balanced way of life.the deep-ecologist/conservative return to balance
asserts
The only liberation goes through capitalism; its permanent fluidification is emancipatory, so there is no step back.capitalism and emancipation
reframes
The ecological answer is not to be just one modest species but to recognize that our very modesty makes us universal caretakers.deep ecology and the status of the human
rejects
There is no natural balance to return to; the resources we depend on were produced by mega-catastrophes.the myth of natural balance
asserts
The pandemic confronted us with the most basic philosophical question of what it means to be a free human being.the pandemic and freedom
asserts
Freedom in ordinary life is only possible within a network of implicit, mostly unwritten rules.freedom and rules
asserts
Freedom of thought requires totally subordinating oneself to the rules of language, since we think in language.freedom and language
asserts
Social life has a basic paradox: you have explicit rules, but you are expected to violate them in a very precise, codified way.the surplus of rules / Sitten
asserts
Covid demanded a new form of communism — not forceful vaccination but global coordination of healthcare and data beyond the market.the pandemic and global coordination
asserts
We will need more and more global measures for climate and immigration, and either we coordinate or there will be a global war.global coordination, climate, immigration
asserts
Putin's Russia is a form of neo-fascism: modernization without liberal individualism, against LGBT, with traditional values.Putin's Russia as neo-fascism
asserts
Putin's main philosophical reference is Ivan Ilyin, who in the 1920s formulated a concept of Russian fascism.Putin's ideological sources
rejects
Putin's claim that Ukraine was Lenin's invention is an obscene propaganda move; Ukraine's right to exist is denied.Putin's framing of Ukraine
asserts
Pacifism is not always a virtue: occupiers are sincerely pacifist because peace means they can swallow the territory in peace.pacifism and occupation
asserts
In 1940 Germany spent millions supporting pacifism in the United States to keep the West out of the war.pacifism as a tool of aggressors
asserts
Putin's war is not really about a small piece of Ukraine; Russia claims a geopolitical sphere of influence across Europe.Putin's war aims
asserts
Arming Ukraine and setting clear limits is paradoxically the only way to prevent a much larger war.Ukraine strategy and deterrence
asserts
Peterson effectively sides with Russia in anti-liberal, anti-LGBT terms, casting woke culture as a new transformation of Marxism and communism.Peterson and Russia
asserts
The catastrophic long-term prospect is an alliance of the Trumpian Republican right with Putin and other authoritarian states.the Trump-Putin coalition
asserts
Trump's three young Supreme Court picks lock in reaction for 20 to 30 years.Trump and the US judiciary
asserts
The true threat to the world order today would be a confusion in the United States themselves.US internal crisis as world threat
asserts
Republican states now position themselves to declare election results unclear and simply nominate their own delegates.US election integrity
reframes
The left has to discover a positive use of state power; the new fundamentalisms organize in civil society better than the liberal left.left strategy and the state
asserts
Russian propaganda is succeeding across Latin American, African, and many Asian countries.Russian propaganda in the global south
asserts
The Taliban-China pact is a brutal, clinically neutral tolerance: each side agrees not to interfere with the other's abuses.authoritarian coalitions
rejects
The old leftist logic that the main thing is that the enemy loses, even if Afghan women suffer, is the worst old leftist logic.anti-imperialist leftism
asserts
Political correctness / cancel culture is a fake radicalism, a way to avoid true problems.PC and cancel culture
asserts
Liberalism should not be dismissed as mere neoliberalism; feminism and socialism emerged out of the liberal tradition.liberalism and the left
asserts
Human rights began as the rights of independent white men and were universalized by Wollstonecraft, Haiti, and the workers' movement.the universalization of human rights
asserts
Around 90% of people are straight/binary, and implicitly making them guilty of oppression is a wrong strategy.LGBT political strategy
asserts
Firing a mid-level corporate executive for an inappropriate act, with great fanfare, changes nothing in real exploitation.corporate PC as fake radicalism
asserts
Trump's invention was the systematic violation of the implicit rules that make democracy work.Trump and democracy
reframes
The left should win the white silent majority by showing neoliberal capitalism destroyed families more than all the gay propaganda together.left strategy and the family
asserts
Fixed sexual difference is a modern formation, not a medieval inheritance; homosexuality was more tolerated in medieval times.sexuality and history
asserts
Torture was de facto legitimized over the last two decades, beginning with Rumsfeld and waterboarding.the legitimation of torture
asserts
Certain values — anti-racism, women's sexual freedom, abortion — should become unquestionable, like a good dogma.progressive values as dogma
asserts
Modern global capitalism is immanently multicultural, in a bad sense: it likes each group to keep in its own space.capitalism and multiculturalism
asserts
Regular European social democracy half a century ago was much further left than Corbyn or Sanders today.social democracy and the Overton window
asserts
Radical changes are possible: the pandemic showed trillions can be spent when the official dogma said even small tax rises on the rich were impossible.political possibility
asserts
The Ukrainian war can be used as a pretext to take green-economy steps that were necessary in any case.the green transition
asserts
Communism means simply the system able to do what we already know must be done: global cooperation regulating oil and coal beyond market necessities.communism redefined
asserts
We live in sad cynical times: we know the crisis and what must be done, but precisely because we know, we go on not doing it.sad cynicism and inaction
asserts
The smoker who says 'I'm free, I can stop any time' will never stop precisely because of that freedom.freedom and addiction
asserts
There is a radical gap between the multi-party political space and public dissatisfaction — Blair, gilets jaunes, Podemos.the crisis of political representation
asserts
The multiplicity of choices can mask the real choice; identifying freedom with choice is a fake.choice and freedom
asserts
We need good alienation: the state provides basics like electricity and gas so we don't have to debate every purchase.the state and good alienation
asserts
Local democracy debating every issue is insufficient for today's complex world; we need cooperation at a level above the state.the scale of governance
asserts
Something genuinely new emerges precisely when we are in deep trouble; he believes in materialist miracles.hope and crisis
Quotes 24
“the only liberation goes through capitalism.”Slavoj Žižek · liberation through capitalism
“if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother, you know i don't believe in any natural balance!”Slavoj Žižek · no natural balance
“freedom is freedom of thought. it means because we think in language. that i have to totally subordinate myself to rules of language.”Slavoj Žižek · freedom as submission to language
“even more than to learn the rules, you have to learn the second level, unwritten rules which tell you how to deal with the explicit rules”Slavoj Žižek · the surplus of rules
“we have rules, but at the same time you are expected to violate these rules in a very precise, codified way.”Slavoj Žižek · coded violation of rules
“pacifism is not always a virtue.”Slavoj Žižek · pacifism
“all those who occupy a country are always sincerely pacifist.”Slavoj Žižek · the occupier's pacifism
“peace means they can swallow it in peace.”Slavoj Žižek · peace as annexation
“the true threat to the world order today will be a confusion in united states themselves.”Slavoj Žižek · US internal crisis as world threat
“it's a fake radicalism. a way to avoid true problems.”Slavoj Žižek · fake radicalism of PC
“don't just dismiss liberalism as neoliberalism. never forget that feminism, socialism, they emerged out of liberal tradition.”Slavoj Žižek · the liberal tradition
“modern neoliberal capitalism beginning with reagan. did more to destroy families and local communal life than all the gay propaganda together.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism destroys the family
“we need more dogma, dogmaticism, bad, careful, a good one.”Slavoj Žižek · good dogma
“radical changes are possible.”Slavoj Žižek · political possibility
“we really live in sad cynical times in the sense that we know where the crisis is.”Slavoj Žižek · sad cynicism
“precisely because we know what it has to be done, we go on not doing it.”Slavoj Žižek · knowing and not doing
“i'm free. i can stop at any moment if i want. and precisely because of this you will never stop.”Slavoj Žižek · the freedom trap
“communism is simply the system which will be able to do this.”Slavoj Žižek · communism redefined
“the multiplicity of choices can mask the real choice.”Slavoj Žižek · fake choice
“the identification of freedom with choice. is a fake.”Slavoj Žižek · freedom is not choice
“i want to live in a society where... a good, agreeable alienation. somehow electricity is provided, somehow gas is provided.”Slavoj Žižek · good alienation
“fight for good alienation!”Slavoj Žižek · good alienation
“i believe in materialist miracles.”Slavoj Žižek · materialist miracles
“beneath your beautiful liberal appearance now your stalinist self should come up.”Slavoj Žižek · closing stalinist joke
Transcript 59 turns
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
hello and welcome to unheard ideas. i'm florence reid. we live in strange times, there's no denying it, but who can help us see through the mists? well, we think we found someone. he is a Lacanian psychoanalyst, philosopher, and author of a new book, surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed. his name is Slavoj Žižek and he joins us live from his home in ljubljana, slovenia. hi, slavoy.
hello and welcome to unheard ideas. i'm florence reid. we live in strange times, there's no denying it, but who can help us see through the mists? well, we think we found someone. he is a Lacanian psychoanalyst, philosopher, and author of a new book, surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed. his name is Slavoj Žižek and he joins us live from his home in ljubljana, slovenia. hi, slavoy.
Slavoj Žižek
thanks very much. it's an honor for me to be here. to be ironic, forget about unheard. i like to be a part of your gang, of your herd here.
thanks very much. it's an honor for me to be here. to be ironic, forget about unheard. i like to be a part of your gang, of your herd here.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
we're in the danger zone of becoming tribal before we've even started. so let's start with surplus enjoyment. your book outlines the problems with surplus enjoyment. what are they?
we're in the danger zone of becoming tribal before we've even started. so let's start with surplus enjoyment. your book outlines the problems with surplus enjoyment. what are they?
Slavoj Žižek
the important thing and Jacques Lacan, when he developed the notion of surplus enjoyment, he really developed it only in the last 15 years of his life. but it's interesting with strict reference to marx to marxist notion of mehrwert, surplus value. because marx so clearly, we should also criticize marx and so on. but he saw clearly that. the basic feature which makes capitalism so different is that. it doesn't aim at a stable, normal state. it's always more surplus, surplus. you don't produce. in order to enjoy consumption. or you don't earn money, you earn money in order to earn more money, to put it like this. this type of... extensive surplus, more and more, is what defines modern capitalism. but i don't think the way back is the conservative one which is. we hear often even from so-called deep ecologists today, which is we have to return to some more more modest. balanced way of life.
the important thing and Jacques Lacan, when he developed the notion of surplus enjoyment, he really developed it only in the last 15 years of his life. but it's interesting with strict reference to marx to marxist notion of mehrwert, surplus value. because marx so clearly, we should also criticize marx and so on. but he saw clearly that. the basic feature which makes capitalism so different is that. it doesn't aim at a stable, normal state. it's always more surplus, surplus. you don't produce. in order to enjoy consumption. or you don't earn money, you earn money in order to earn more money, to put it like this. this type of... extensive surplus, more and more, is what defines modern capitalism. but i don't think the way back is the conservative one which is. we hear often even from so-called deep ecologists today, which is we have to return to some more more modest. balanced way of life.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
what is the way out of this then if we are not doing the conservative return to tradition, how do we exit this state of.
what is the way out of this then if we are not doing the conservative return to tradition, how do we exit this state of.
Slavoj Žižek
a marquis. in the sense that. the only liberation goes through capitalism. capitalism as marx wrote in communist manifesto together with engels but especially elaborated it later there is something nonetheless so liberating, emancipatory in this fluidification of everything, permanent, dynamic, and so on and so on. and we there is no... step. beck from this is no return to balance and let me give you a plastic example, simple one. you know, when many, not only deep ecologists, generally ecologists, today they like to say we have to come to terms with the fact that we are just one of the living species on our earth. that we are not in any way privileged and so on. but are they, and then they talk, and i'm in sympathy with that, even about the idea of taking into account the rights of other animals, of plants even, of rivers, of beautiful canyons, whatever. but are they aware? death. when they talk like this, although the content of what they are saying, is modesty be just what you are? they at the same time assume that we humans are able to take end i were un... elevated universal positions. we are made in this very modesty a kind of universal caretakers because plants, animals are not aware of their rights. we are. we should be responsible as it were for everything. and i think at the level of ecology, this is the solution. yes, on the one hand, be more modest, because we are more and more aware that we can only survive within certain natural parameters, enough oxygen in the air, not too warm and so on and so on. but at the same time, because of wild capitalist development in the last half a century, we are universal beings. we screwed it up. and here i go in two directions even further. it's not just that we simply screwed it up. you must have heard what is my eternal dogma when people say, nature has a certain balance and we humans with our hubris screwed it up. now, look at nature as far as we know about it from before there were human beings. are we aware our main source of energy? oil, gold. are we even aware what kind of megaatarophes had to happen on our earth? for us to get those. sy, so. sorry for tasteless remark. if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother, you know i don't believe in any natural balance! which is dangerous and sad news for us. i don't think there is any natural balance to which we can you. you know why i was fascinated? with the whole debate about the pandemic and so on. because it was one of those beautiful examples. where you cannot say, now it's not a time for philosophy, now we are dealing with real problems. our dealing with the pandemic, didn't it confront us with the most basic philosophical question? in the sense of those who resisted wearing masks, vaccination, social lockdowns and so on. wasn't that idea a certain notion of human beings as free beings and their notion their implicit idea was. what the state authority is asking for us is something that encroaches upon that limits in some basic sense what does it mean to be a human? being. now! aye! and more as you and i proudly assume the term. now let me add some provocations to you to make it more spicy. first! are we aware? death. to be free, not in the abstract sense of suicidal explosion like in revolutions and so on. but to be free in our daily ordinary life. means that you are free only within a certain network of implicit and explicit. but especially implicit, unwritten often rules. what does it mean freedom? or mostly, freedom is freedom of thought. it means because we think in language. that i have to totally subordinate myself to rules of language. i have to think fluently in language. what does it mean social freedom? it means that i expect others to obey certain basic rules. if i pass them on the street, they will not spit at me or beat me or whatever. so that's for me a good, not so much marxist as hegelian returning to hegel rule. hegel's notion of what he calls in german sitten. it's collective morse. mostly unwritten standards which form the substance of our being and here, to return to our topic, you know where surplus enters? you british should know it, you are the masters of this, of what? we usually think when i'm in certain... social circles or i try to become member of it. that i have to learn the rules. no. even more than to learn the rules, you have to learn the second level, unwritten rules which tell you how to deal with the explicit rules isn't the basic paradox of our social life. de. we have rules, but at the same time... you are expected to violate these rules in a very precise, codified way.
a marquis. in the sense that. the only liberation goes through capitalism. capitalism as marx wrote in communist manifesto together with engels but especially elaborated it later there is something nonetheless so liberating, emancipatory in this fluidification of everything, permanent, dynamic, and so on and so on. and we there is no... step. beck from this is no return to balance and let me give you a plastic example, simple one. you know, when many, not only deep ecologists, generally ecologists, today they like to say we have to come to terms with the fact that we are just one of the living species on our earth. that we are not in any way privileged and so on. but are they, and then they talk, and i'm in sympathy with that, even about the idea of taking into account the rights of other animals, of plants even, of rivers, of beautiful canyons, whatever. but are they aware? death. when they talk like this, although the content of what they are saying, is modesty be just what you are? they at the same time assume that we humans are able to take end i were un... elevated universal positions. we are made in this very modesty a kind of universal caretakers because plants, animals are not aware of their rights. we are. we should be responsible as it were for everything. and i think at the level of ecology, this is the solution. yes, on the one hand, be more modest, because we are more and more aware that we can only survive within certain natural parameters, enough oxygen in the air, not too warm and so on and so on. but at the same time, because of wild capitalist development in the last half a century, we are universal beings. we screwed it up. and here i go in two directions even further. it's not just that we simply screwed it up. you must have heard what is my eternal dogma when people say, nature has a certain balance and we humans with our hubris screwed it up. now, look at nature as far as we know about it from before there were human beings. are we aware our main source of energy? oil, gold. are we even aware what kind of megaatarophes had to happen on our earth? for us to get those. sy, so. sorry for tasteless remark. if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother, you know i don't believe in any natural balance! which is dangerous and sad news for us. i don't think there is any natural balance to which we can you. you know why i was fascinated? with the whole debate about the pandemic and so on. because it was one of those beautiful examples. where you cannot say, now it's not a time for philosophy, now we are dealing with real problems. our dealing with the pandemic, didn't it confront us with the most basic philosophical question? in the sense of those who resisted wearing masks, vaccination, social lockdowns and so on. wasn't that idea a certain notion of human beings as free beings and their notion their implicit idea was. what the state authority is asking for us is something that encroaches upon that limits in some basic sense what does it mean to be a human? being. now! aye! and more as you and i proudly assume the term. now let me add some provocations to you to make it more spicy. first! are we aware? death. to be free, not in the abstract sense of suicidal explosion like in revolutions and so on. but to be free in our daily ordinary life. means that you are free only within a certain network of implicit and explicit. but especially implicit, unwritten often rules. what does it mean freedom? or mostly, freedom is freedom of thought. it means because we think in language. that i have to totally subordinate myself to rules of language. i have to think fluently in language. what does it mean social freedom? it means that i expect others to obey certain basic rules. if i pass them on the street, they will not spit at me or beat me or whatever. so that's for me a good, not so much marxist as hegelian returning to hegel rule. hegel's notion of what he calls in german sitten. it's collective morse. mostly unwritten standards which form the substance of our being and here, to return to our topic, you know where surplus enters? you british should know it, you are the masters of this, of what? we usually think when i'm in certain... social circles or i try to become member of it. that i have to learn the rules. no. even more than to learn the rules, you have to learn the second level, unwritten rules which tell you how to deal with the explicit rules isn't the basic paradox of our social life. de. we have rules, but at the same time... you are expected to violate these rules in a very precise, codified way.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
what happens to those who commodify that relationship? because that's what i'm interested in when it comes to the pandemic. if you're an anti-capitalist, you know, you look at something like big pharma. pfizer being a good example of a company who's managed to commodify a crisis here in the last few years and they've particularly made money out of commodifying the fear of the unvaccinated. so by pressuring, putting pressure on those who do not follow the social rules surrounding vaccination, public health. they have been able to profit hugely over the last few years. what do you say to that? can you it.
what happens to those who commodify that relationship? because that's what i'm interested in when it comes to the pandemic. if you're an anti-capitalist, you know, you look at something like big pharma. pfizer being a good example of a company who's managed to commodify a crisis here in the last few years and they've particularly made money out of commodifying the fear of the unvaccinated. so by pressuring, putting pressure on those who do not follow the social rules surrounding vaccination, public health. they have been able to profit hugely over the last few years. what do you say to that? can you it.
Slavoj Žižek
here maybe we don't share the same view about vaccination, but basically my answer here would have been a very simple one. uh. covid was, for me, something that i even put this openly, many people laughed at me, that really demanded as an answer something that i call a new form of communism, which means to... established not so much to vaccinate people forcefully, but to establish some kind of not only nationally universal, but even global healthcare exchange of data and so on. we need some type of global coordination which will not be left to market alone. i'm not talking about abolishing the market. today a world government. probably would have meant even more corruption or whatever. but things have to be coordinated at some level. and here. the system failed. i think death. with some it was not a necessary corruption of the system. we will need more and more this type of let's call it global measures. just imagine effects of global warming. are you aware that a whole there are parts of the world which are already becoming non-inhabitable. like, i have... fr... i know people in some arab countries and they tell me, listen, the whole area south of iraq, emirates and so on. they reach up to 55 degrees celsius every summer. and even for them who are born there, no, this is toak. parts are non-inhabitable. on the other hand, who knows what is happening now in northern siberia. with a melting of permafrost, it can be a catastrophe. it is releasing already in the air more poisonous gases than all the cars that run on the earth. but at the same time, new fertile areas and so on and so on. so, to cut a long story short, we ain't seen nothing yet with regard to immigration movement. and either we will somehow coordinate it or there will be only for this, a global... war. we need coordination here. the only show up
here maybe we don't share the same view about vaccination, but basically my answer here would have been a very simple one. uh. covid was, for me, something that i even put this openly, many people laughed at me, that really demanded as an answer something that i call a new form of communism, which means to... established not so much to vaccinate people forcefully, but to establish some kind of not only nationally universal, but even global healthcare exchange of data and so on. we need some type of global coordination which will not be left to market alone. i'm not talking about abolishing the market. today a world government. probably would have meant even more corruption or whatever. but things have to be coordinated at some level. and here. the system failed. i think death. with some it was not a necessary corruption of the system. we will need more and more this type of let's call it global measures. just imagine effects of global warming. are you aware that a whole there are parts of the world which are already becoming non-inhabitable. like, i have... fr... i know people in some arab countries and they tell me, listen, the whole area south of iraq, emirates and so on. they reach up to 55 degrees celsius every summer. and even for them who are born there, no, this is toak. parts are non-inhabitable. on the other hand, who knows what is happening now in northern siberia. with a melting of permafrost, it can be a catastrophe. it is releasing already in the air more poisonous gases than all the cars that run on the earth. but at the same time, new fertile areas and so on and so on. so, to cut a long story short, we ain't seen nothing yet with regard to immigration movement. and either we will somehow coordinate it or there will be only for this, a global... war. we need coordination here. the only show up
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
so if we're talking about coordination, we've got these two wars then. we've got the war against climate change, which needs a coordinated effort to push back. and then we've got the war against the pandemic, covid-19, which as we've seen over the last few years, has created this kind of global allegiance between countries. there's this third war that's the actual war that's going on between russia and ukraine and you have been surprisingly soft, i would say, on nato, the coordinated body that is. instigating the defense against russia in ukraine. do you see that there is a comparison there between these three?
so if we're talking about coordination, we've got these two wars then. we've got the war against climate change, which needs a coordinated effort to push back. and then we've got the war against the pandemic, covid-19, which as we've seen over the last few years, has created this kind of global allegiance between countries. there's this third war that's the actual war that's going on between russia and ukraine and you have been surprisingly soft, i would say, on nato, the coordinated body that is. instigating the defense against russia in ukraine. do you see that there is a comparison there between these three?
Slavoj Žižek
this, i know. this position of mine. costet me. dearly, i was already proclaimed an official ideology ideologist of nato war machine of industrial military complex and so on and so on. no, i think you know what is the problem that i see here? why i fully support ukraine with all the critical points about it. we don't have time. i could go through in detail through the list of what they are making. wrong, but... where is any doubt? about who is basically right. look putin, when he announced the war on 23rd of february. did you notice that he mentioned just one name critically, lenin. and he said,. explicitly. ukraine was lenin's invention and he even, it was a very obscene statement, he referred ironically to ukrainians tearing down lenin statue and he said, ah, you want decolonization? wait for us, we will bring decolonization to the end there. you know what is such a strange thing for me? if you read at not only at what russians are doing, but their ideology. it is. explicit something that what cannot but designate, not even in this purely abstract term, but a form of neo-fascism. fascism means you want modernization but without the destructive liberal, too much individualism effect. isn't this exactly what they are doing, introducing traditional ethical standards against lgbt, lgbt, and so on and so on? and you don't have to read between the lines. not only Dugin who is too popular, but the philosopher who is the main reference of putin is ivan ilyin who in 1920s created, he called it like that, a concept of russian fascism. he says no, italian german fascism later are two europeans still marked by protestantism, catholicism and authentic fascism can come out only out of russia. and here we i see what putin is doing not as some kind of irrationality, but he explicitly this refers to the russian imperial tradition. to the spheres of influence and so on and so on and simply denies the right of a nation to exist. as was this nato. expansion and so on. look, i'm part of this polemics all i can tell you is this i see it almost in the opposite way namely in the sense that look even in slovenia, not to mention countries like bulgaria and so on, baltic countries. they are scared. like shit. they are terribly afraid. and when people oppose nato, i say, also but. i say, okay, but russia is a threat, not an implicit threat. they openly are claiming this is also our part of influence. they are scared. offer them another another option for safety. so to go back to your question
this, i know. this position of mine. costet me. dearly, i was already proclaimed an official ideology ideologist of nato war machine of industrial military complex and so on and so on. no, i think you know what is the problem that i see here? why i fully support ukraine with all the critical points about it. we don't have time. i could go through in detail through the list of what they are making. wrong, but... where is any doubt? about who is basically right. look putin, when he announced the war on 23rd of february. did you notice that he mentioned just one name critically, lenin. and he said,. explicitly. ukraine was lenin's invention and he even, it was a very obscene statement, he referred ironically to ukrainians tearing down lenin statue and he said, ah, you want decolonization? wait for us, we will bring decolonization to the end there. you know what is such a strange thing for me? if you read at not only at what russians are doing, but their ideology. it is. explicit something that what cannot but designate, not even in this purely abstract term, but a form of neo-fascism. fascism means you want modernization but without the destructive liberal, too much individualism effect. isn't this exactly what they are doing, introducing traditional ethical standards against lgbt, lgbt, and so on and so on? and you don't have to read between the lines. not only Dugin who is too popular, but the philosopher who is the main reference of putin is ivan ilyin who in 1920s created, he called it like that, a concept of russian fascism. he says no, italian german fascism later are two europeans still marked by protestantism, catholicism and authentic fascism can come out only out of russia. and here we i see what putin is doing not as some kind of irrationality, but he explicitly this refers to the russian imperial tradition. to the spheres of influence and so on and so on and simply denies the right of a nation to exist. as was this nato. expansion and so on. look, i'm part of this polemics all i can tell you is this i see it almost in the opposite way namely in the sense that look even in slovenia, not to mention countries like bulgaria and so on, baltic countries. they are scared. like shit. they are terribly afraid. and when people oppose nato, i say, also but. i say, okay, but russia is a threat, not an implicit threat. they openly are claiming this is also our part of influence. they are scared. offer them another another option for safety. so to go back to your question
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
yeah, i want to know what's happened to the anti-war left. i mean, this feels like... a movement that has just disappeared and how are we going to get it back after the war in ukraine, if we have given in the likes of nato, i mean, how do we resuscitate that movement now? or is it dead? is it gone?
yeah, i want to know what's happened to the anti-war left. i mean, this feels like... a movement that has just disappeared and how are we going to get it back after the war in ukraine, if we have given in the likes of nato, i mean, how do we resuscitate that movement now? or is it dead? is it gone?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, i will say something really evil. don't be mad. i think that, you know, pacifism is not always a virtue. in what sense? remember, for example, that all those who occupy a country are always sincerely pacifist. i totally believe the state of israel that they want the peace on the west bank because peace means they can swallow it in peace. it's the same with russia today. they sincerely want peace in ukraine, but peace means for them let's occupy it. so i will now give you and i wonder sincerely how you will answer to this. do you know that in 1940, when the world war ii was declared and there was a strong tendency of the leftists in united states, in the west, claiming this is an imperialist war. it doesn't concern us. we should. stay. out of it. okay. in this sense, you know that germany uh... spent millions supporting pacificism in the united states. so i think i accept this. paradox death. okay, when you say anti-war, pacifism and so on, what is your message to ukrainians then?
yeah, i will say something really evil. don't be mad. i think that, you know, pacifism is not always a virtue. in what sense? remember, for example, that all those who occupy a country are always sincerely pacifist. i totally believe the state of israel that they want the peace on the west bank because peace means they can swallow it in peace. it's the same with russia today. they sincerely want peace in ukraine, but peace means for them let's occupy it. so i will now give you and i wonder sincerely how you will answer to this. do you know that in 1940, when the world war ii was declared and there was a strong tendency of the leftists in united states, in the west, claiming this is an imperialist war. it doesn't concern us. we should. stay. out of it. okay. in this sense, you know that germany uh... spent millions supporting pacificism in the united states. so i think i accept this. paradox death. okay, when you say anti-war, pacifism and so on, what is your message to ukrainians then?
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
i suppose my question here is, is this a proper... comparison between 40s germany and present day ukraine. are we looking at a situation where putin sweeps across europe? to take other countries in the way that hitler did in the 1940s? is that really what we're looking at here?
i suppose my question here is, is this a proper... comparison between 40s germany and present day ukraine. are we looking at a situation where putin sweeps across europe? to take other countries in the way that hitler did in the 1940s? is that really what we're looking at here?
Slavoj Žižek
of course putin is not hitler directly. but if you read. there plans, statements and so on. it's clear! maybe i'm too crazy here. it's clear that the war is not really about a small piece of ukraine. i'm... deeply pessimist or sorry deeply opposed to this view, let's make a deal. let putin swallow a part of southeastern ukraine and we have peace. but they are saying it again and again. Lavrov. their foreign minister. do you know that he at some point even said openly when they asked him, okay, where is the limit? he openly said, basically, except maybe united kingdom, all of europe should be neutralized. even only then will russia be be safe and so on. so no, i'm not saying it's the same with hitler because as hitler, because with hitler it was clear. it wasn't enough to stop hitler. he had to be. destroyed. but i think that here, because there's, you know what, when i'm in panic now, i don't know if it was reported in your newspapers, but... two days ago. when some uh small disorders happened in the north of kosovo. where there is the majority. already they started to talk. some russian media end. some guys in the serb parliament that the time is also approaching to denazify kosovo. then, already in Republika Srpska, in bosnia and so on and so on. what i find so worrying is that russia is making it more and more clear that it's not just about ukraine, it's about a geopolitical sphere of influence.
of course putin is not hitler directly. but if you read. there plans, statements and so on. it's clear! maybe i'm too crazy here. it's clear that the war is not really about a small piece of ukraine. i'm... deeply pessimist or sorry deeply opposed to this view, let's make a deal. let putin swallow a part of southeastern ukraine and we have peace. but they are saying it again and again. Lavrov. their foreign minister. do you know that he at some point even said openly when they asked him, okay, where is the limit? he openly said, basically, except maybe united kingdom, all of europe should be neutralized. even only then will russia be be safe and so on. so no, i'm not saying it's the same with hitler because as hitler, because with hitler it was clear. it wasn't enough to stop hitler. he had to be. destroyed. but i think that here, because there's, you know what, when i'm in panic now, i don't know if it was reported in your newspapers, but... two days ago. when some uh small disorders happened in the north of kosovo. where there is the majority. already they started to talk. some russian media end. some guys in the serb parliament that the time is also approaching to denazify kosovo. then, already in Republika Srpska, in bosnia and so on and so on. what i find so worrying is that russia is making it more and more clear that it's not just about ukraine, it's about a geopolitical sphere of influence.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
but you are a specialist in propaganda. i mean, you must appreciate that to propagandize well, you have to make something feel global, feel universal. it cannot just simply be a matter of russia. they have to, at the very least, convince russians that this is a matter of the world. that's an old propaganda trick, isn't it?
but you are a specialist in propaganda. i mean, you must appreciate that to propagandize well, you have to make something feel global, feel universal. it cannot just simply be a matter of russia. they have to, at the very least, convince russians that this is a matter of the world. that's an old propaganda trick, isn't it?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but if you look closely at... is this just a propaganda trick? look what they already did in gria, georgia. look how it begin with crimea and so on and so on. and so i think that it's not just a propaganda trick where they really want just that part. just just. a to get southern ukraine. maybe this will be to keep a paradox for you, but i would have said that paradoxically it. the only way to... prevent! a much larger war. ich du. set up certain limits to say you know, we are all the time too obsessed with, oh my god, if we give these guns to ukraine, is this too much? will putin be mad and so on and so on, be angry, explode.
yeah, but if you look closely at... is this just a propaganda trick? look what they already did in gria, georgia. look how it begin with crimea and so on and so on. and so i think that it's not just a propaganda trick where they really want just that part. just just. a to get southern ukraine. maybe this will be to keep a paradox for you, but i would have said that paradoxically it. the only way to... prevent! a much larger war. ich du. set up certain limits to say you know, we are all the time too obsessed with, oh my god, if we give these guns to ukraine, is this too much? will putin be mad and so on and so on, be angry, explode.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
when we say putin, it might explode. we might say the whole world could explode if he explodes. isn't that a fair fair thing to be?
when we say putin, it might explode. we might say the whole world could explode if he explodes. isn't that a fair fair thing to be?
Slavoj Žižek
but i know you are consciously playing with this fear. you know, now i will tell you something else which may interest you. my source are not western media. i don't trust them. even i'm very clear. who knows what's really happening in ukraine? there are many honest people fighting and so on but we don't get any clear account what's happening with all the billions that go there, what's happening with arms. do some parts some of these arms are obviously disappearing somewhere else. i uh. i fully admit all this. problem. but isn't this something absolutely unique? you have a country of 40 million people, a little bit over. another country. attack. claiming this country doesn't exist. isn't this a mega dangerous? presidente.
but i know you are consciously playing with this fear. you know, now i will tell you something else which may interest you. my source are not western media. i don't trust them. even i'm very clear. who knows what's really happening in ukraine? there are many honest people fighting and so on but we don't get any clear account what's happening with all the billions that go there, what's happening with arms. do some parts some of these arms are obviously disappearing somewhere else. i uh. i fully admit all this. problem. but isn't this something absolutely unique? you have a country of 40 million people, a little bit over. another country. attack. claiming this country doesn't exist. isn't this a mega dangerous? presidente.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
well, what happens when next week, god forbid, china decides that that is the case in taiwan? do we... go to taiwan's.
well, what happens when next week, god forbid, china decides that that is the case in taiwan? do we... go to taiwan's.
Slavoj Žižek
i have a... different position. i'm not speaking in generalities and so on. although, of course, taiwan is also an economic miracle, why not leave them alone and so on. but i would say that china, sorry, taiwan. is really everybody admits this a part of china. i want to tell you something else. you know what for me the true tragedy of this war. three things i think are really dangerous. the first the first problem. russia claims ukrainians are really... one ofage, blah blah. but didn't they now? through there. invasion create hatred which really didn't exist till now of ukrainians for russians. they, if some of my ukrainian friends who are quite sympathetic to russia said, maybe till now russia had a point, now now they screwed it up. the second thing that i fear. is that because left is in some sense afraid of more supporting. russia, if somehow ukraine will survive. that it will be pushed into this. conservative post-communist visegrad group of east europeans who are much more iliberal. you know, what now... ukrainians are also fighting for their own identity in some sense. it's not clear what ukraine, if it survives, will be.
i have a... different position. i'm not speaking in generalities and so on. although, of course, taiwan is also an economic miracle, why not leave them alone and so on. but i would say that china, sorry, taiwan. is really everybody admits this a part of china. i want to tell you something else. you know what for me the true tragedy of this war. three things i think are really dangerous. the first the first problem. russia claims ukrainians are really... one ofage, blah blah. but didn't they now? through there. invasion create hatred which really didn't exist till now of ukrainians for russians. they, if some of my ukrainian friends who are quite sympathetic to russia said, maybe till now russia had a point, now now they screwed it up. the second thing that i fear. is that because left is in some sense afraid of more supporting. russia, if somehow ukraine will survive. that it will be pushed into this. conservative post-communist visegrad group of east europeans who are much more iliberal. you know, what now... ukrainians are also fighting for their own identity in some sense. it's not clear what ukraine, if it survives, will be.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
this is what putin claims, is that he is protecting ukraine against the wokeism of the west. so let's maybe speak about that because that links up to your surplus enjoyment, doesn't it?
this is what putin claims, is that he is protecting ukraine against the wokeism of the west. so let's maybe speak about that because that links up to your surplus enjoyment, doesn't it?
Slavoj Žižek
here are the problems. wokeism, if by wokeism you mean all this complex political correctness, cancel culture and so on.
here are the problems. wokeism, if by wokeism you mean all this complex political correctness, cancel culture and so on.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
yes, he even uses it in his propaganda. he says, you know, you can come to russia to escape cancer culture.
yes, he even uses it in his propaganda. he says, you know, you can come to russia to escape cancer culture.
Slavoj Žižek
you know, that's what really worries me as the long-term catastrophic prospect. that's why, although. i don't have any contact with kim. i reacted now to a new. podcast by hoo jordan peterson, with whom i had a debate. you know, he, after formally condemning a russian attack, he! basically simply fully takes side of russia and you know in what terms in the terms of western anti-liberal and anti-lgbt position. he... claim. de. a mad logic.
you know, that's what really worries me as the long-term catastrophic prospect. that's why, although. i don't have any contact with kim. i reacted now to a new. podcast by hoo jordan peterson, with whom i had a debate. you know, he, after formally condemning a russian attack, he! basically simply fully takes side of russia and you know in what terms in the terms of western anti-liberal and anti-lgbt position. he... claim. de. a mad logic.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
he claims
he claims
Slavoj Žižek
death. modern multicultural woke culture, or whatever we call it, cancer, is really a new transformation of marxism and communism. so his crazy thesis is that united states are still fighting, but canada and western europe are in this deeper sense already communist. so he says, russia, and then he goes into these ridiculous details, they are building many new churches, putin is personally probably sincerely christian and so on, that russia is fighting for the same values as trump in the united states. that this is an attempt to discipline europe to save. christianity from all this. now if this becomes reality, this is if you ask me my mega problem. i agree with peterson, but in the opposite sense of him, when he says that the so-called civil war in the united states civil war. for the time being, civil war. between. the new republican party, trump one and more liberal establishment. for him, it's the same as the fight. in ukraine. if these two forces get together. if. trians! come back to power. and made pact with. putin and other authoritarian states, then it's very bad not just for what is still worth saving in europe. europe still has a great tradition. we should criticize europe, yes, but be afraid that. sorry, be aware that the categories which we use to criticize europe. are the european tradition of feminism, marxism and so on and so on. so back to, i don't lose time to my central point. it's not just ro versus way. this is just the beginning. not only will it go further, that is to say many other difficulties like contraception and so on, but what really worries me is this. do you know what is now happening? with this... it was a much greater catastrophe. then i thought, trump's presidency, the key element was that he nominated three supreme court judges. who are young. yank, we are stuck. with them for 20, 30 years. do you remember the movie? pelican brief, eup it. some reactionary big guy. kill, no? maybe we need, it's horrible what i will say, and i hope you will say it the way i mean as a bad joke, maybe we need a progressive pelican brief to somehow organize. the kind of a mortal accident of this because otherwise we are lost. you know what's the truly dangerous thing? think, you know that now many states. claim? debt. the right? debt. if the result of elections, even these midterm elections now, is in any way not clear and right-wingers can always claim it's not clear. debt. the state administration, i don't know which one, maybe the local congress. have the right simply to nominate delegates. now, and the position of most republican states is now, it's no longer biden is our enemy, it is that biden is not a legitimate president. i think it's no exaggeration to say de. the true threat to the world order today will be a confusion in united states themselves.
death. modern multicultural woke culture, or whatever we call it, cancer, is really a new transformation of marxism and communism. so his crazy thesis is that united states are still fighting, but canada and western europe are in this deeper sense already communist. so he says, russia, and then he goes into these ridiculous details, they are building many new churches, putin is personally probably sincerely christian and so on, that russia is fighting for the same values as trump in the united states. that this is an attempt to discipline europe to save. christianity from all this. now if this becomes reality, this is if you ask me my mega problem. i agree with peterson, but in the opposite sense of him, when he says that the so-called civil war in the united states civil war. for the time being, civil war. between. the new republican party, trump one and more liberal establishment. for him, it's the same as the fight. in ukraine. if these two forces get together. if. trians! come back to power. and made pact with. putin and other authoritarian states, then it's very bad not just for what is still worth saving in europe. europe still has a great tradition. we should criticize europe, yes, but be afraid that. sorry, be aware that the categories which we use to criticize europe. are the european tradition of feminism, marxism and so on and so on. so back to, i don't lose time to my central point. it's not just ro versus way. this is just the beginning. not only will it go further, that is to say many other difficulties like contraception and so on, but what really worries me is this. do you know what is now happening? with this... it was a much greater catastrophe. then i thought, trump's presidency, the key element was that he nominated three supreme court judges. who are young. yank, we are stuck. with them for 20, 30 years. do you remember the movie? pelican brief, eup it. some reactionary big guy. kill, no? maybe we need, it's horrible what i will say, and i hope you will say it the way i mean as a bad joke, maybe we need a progressive pelican brief to somehow organize. the kind of a mortal accident of this because otherwise we are lost. you know what's the truly dangerous thing? think, you know that now many states. claim? debt. the right? debt. if the result of elections, even these midterm elections now, is in any way not clear and right-wingers can always claim it's not clear. debt. the state administration, i don't know which one, maybe the local congress. have the right simply to nominate delegates. now, and the position of most republican states is now, it's no longer biden is our enemy, it is that biden is not a legitimate president. i think it's no exaggeration to say de. the true threat to the world order today will be a confusion in united states themselves.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
to return to your idea of this strange coalition between the... american right wing and the russian the
to return to your idea of this strange coalition between the... american right wing and the russian the
Slavoj Žižek
i listen.
i listen.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
sounds like russia gate. this sounds like what people were saying about trump the first time round on the election. do you not think that there is something to be said there for a certain amount of red scare around this moment?
sounds like russia gate. this sounds like what people were saying about trump the first time round on the election. do you not think that there is something to be said there for a certain amount of red scare around this moment?
Slavoj Žižek
i'm talking about something much more dangerous. so-called they call it usual name by commentators is christian revolt. and new. christianity in united states, which is nationalist and at least implicitly racist, white racist. and it's dumb the tragedy is this one here with the left. i will now shock you even more. have to discover a positive use of state power, the strength of these new fundamentalisms. is's not in the state apparatus, it's more in civil society. they are much better organized than the liberal. left or however we. called them. i hear the true danger. if trump or a trumpian wins next elections, you know that. in republican party, it's now already getting stronger and stronger the idea this kind of a geopolitical understanding which says, okay, russia has its own right there, it's not our war, keep out of it. and so on and so on and my worry is then the next one. i hope we agree here. don't underestimate the extent to we. racha! is successful in its propaganda in latin american countries, african countries, and many asian. countries.
i'm talking about something much more dangerous. so-called they call it usual name by commentators is christian revolt. and new. christianity in united states, which is nationalist and at least implicitly racist, white racist. and it's dumb the tragedy is this one here with the left. i will now shock you even more. have to discover a positive use of state power, the strength of these new fundamentalisms. is's not in the state apparatus, it's more in civil society. they are much better organized than the liberal. left or however we. called them. i hear the true danger. if trump or a trumpian wins next elections, you know that. in republican party, it's now already getting stronger and stronger the idea this kind of a geopolitical understanding which says, okay, russia has its own right there, it's not our war, keep out of it. and so on and so on and my worry is then the next one. i hope we agree here. don't underestimate the extent to we. racha! is successful in its propaganda in latin american countries, african countries, and many asian. countries.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
these are many christian countries as well, i presume.
these are many christian countries as well, i presume.
Slavoj Žižek
also, but also non-christian countries. for example, you know what's for me the model of this? more authoritarian russian, let's call it, i simplified it, russian chinese model prevails. you remember what happened in afghanistan after taliban took over. immediately they made a pact with china, a brutal egotist pact. you leave us alone, taliban said, what we want to do here with women and so on. don't mesh. and we will not mess with what you are doing to muslims, uyghurs. in your own country. this kind of a very brutal clinical neutral. tolerance.
also, but also non-christian countries. for example, you know what's for me the model of this? more authoritarian russian, let's call it, i simplified it, russian chinese model prevails. you remember what happened in afghanistan after taliban took over. immediately they made a pact with china, a brutal egotist pact. you leave us alone, taliban said, what we want to do here with women and so on. don't mesh. and we will not mess with what you are doing to muslims, uyghurs. in your own country. this kind of a very brutal clinical neutral. tolerance.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
how does the west actually push back against this potential dangerous coalition that you're speaking about? because putin would argue that the culture wars happening in the west are the things that are weakening them to being able to. successfully defend against russia in ukraine. so is just do you have any agreement with him there?
how does the west actually push back against this potential dangerous coalition that you're speaking about? because putin would argue that the culture wars happening in the west are the things that are weakening them to being able to. successfully defend against russia in ukraine. so is just do you have any agreement with him there?
Slavoj Žižek
putin as much as putin warrants against the west and so on. he secretly. secretly, not even secretly. i think that putin's great insight came after afghanistan fiasco. he thinks that the west is too... weak that the west doesn't have the will to. relig? and here i also disagree with some people who are otherwise my friends. here i am, my gott, der feminist. you remember my friend, Yanis Varoufakis, his first reaction to that to the taliban victory in afghanistan was, yeah, we should help we them, women be in trouble, but nonetheless, this was a great defeat of western imperialism, you know. ah, i don't like this logic, which is, i think, the worst old leftist logic, which is the main thing is that is that the enemy loses and then if women or which group suffers, okay, we should say to women, afghani women, what, sorry girls. you have to suffer a little bit. the main thing is to you know, what the west should do? here i'm more radical. i think that the great problem, i'm not saying anything original, in the west is this obsession with this new form of anti-racist, antiaxist struggle, let's call it whatever you want. cancel political correctness and so on and so on. it's a new hypernormativity. which i think... blurs and... spoils the true actual leftist. task which is for me, in spite of all compromises, represented by people like, up to a point, i'm critical of them, but nonetheless. Jeremy Corbyn, bernie sanders and so on and so on. maybe i'm too naive here, but i think hey! there are things we. are not bad in liberal tradition. don't just dismiss liberalism as neoliberalism. never forget that feminism, socialism, they emerged out of liberal tradition. yes, first you had human rights, which were, i agree, secretly sp. they meant really the rights of independent white men. but then mary wollstonecraft said, why not women? then blacks in haiti said, why not blacks? then workers said. that's socialism! yes, human rights, but you can only enjoy human rights in certain material conditions, healthcare, education and so on and so on. so i think that. only this! type of renovated, left. can save what is worth saving in liberalism liberalism will remain this type of this type of... this politically correct insistence of rules, you say something wrong, you never know what will happen and so on. i'm not morally against it. i'm purely politically against it because i had contacts with them and look, let me, now i will say something for which i will be lynched and so on. but listen, yes, absolutely, for lgbt rights and so on. you know, i have many supporters. there i meet with them regularly. but let's face it. around 90% of people are. what is usually called today straight binary no and so on. don't! don't act as if you are at least implicitly making them guilty, you know? as if if you are straight. you somehow participate in oppression and so on and so on. the whole strategy is wrong here and i'm more and more convinced. dead. that uh... so called! political correctness, my problem with it is not that it's too radical and so on. but it's a fake radicalism. a way to avoid true problems. i know so many examples friends are sending them to me all the time from united states where you know this is no big corporate practice. you find somebody not quite on the top, but a little bit. below the top of a corporation who did something inappropriate and with all the pomposity you fire him and then oh you did your great duty and nothing changes in real exploitation. and so on and so on. i mean,... i mean, what is, i think that aren't this. trump all-right, vulgarians, tasteless guys. and why tasteless? because back to unwritten rules. you know what was trump's great invention for me? a living democracy more or less works. only if all sides accept, respect implicit rules. how do you do something and so on. trump was systematically violating these rules. you know what's the paradoxical result? would you agree or not? i would say that would be my alliance of lgbt blacks with. white silent majority? when conservatives say... family values. we shouldn't just play this marginal game. what about polyamory? what about? we should say, who are you to say about it? you can demonstrate with simple analysis that. modern neoliberal capitalism beginning with reagan. did more to destroy families and local communal life than all the gay propaganda together. they are ruining families. so my idea would be, you see how i will change the terrain.
putin as much as putin warrants against the west and so on. he secretly. secretly, not even secretly. i think that putin's great insight came after afghanistan fiasco. he thinks that the west is too... weak that the west doesn't have the will to. relig? and here i also disagree with some people who are otherwise my friends. here i am, my gott, der feminist. you remember my friend, Yanis Varoufakis, his first reaction to that to the taliban victory in afghanistan was, yeah, we should help we them, women be in trouble, but nonetheless, this was a great defeat of western imperialism, you know. ah, i don't like this logic, which is, i think, the worst old leftist logic, which is the main thing is that is that the enemy loses and then if women or which group suffers, okay, we should say to women, afghani women, what, sorry girls. you have to suffer a little bit. the main thing is to you know, what the west should do? here i'm more radical. i think that the great problem, i'm not saying anything original, in the west is this obsession with this new form of anti-racist, antiaxist struggle, let's call it whatever you want. cancel political correctness and so on and so on. it's a new hypernormativity. which i think... blurs and... spoils the true actual leftist. task which is for me, in spite of all compromises, represented by people like, up to a point, i'm critical of them, but nonetheless. Jeremy Corbyn, bernie sanders and so on and so on. maybe i'm too naive here, but i think hey! there are things we. are not bad in liberal tradition. don't just dismiss liberalism as neoliberalism. never forget that feminism, socialism, they emerged out of liberal tradition. yes, first you had human rights, which were, i agree, secretly sp. they meant really the rights of independent white men. but then mary wollstonecraft said, why not women? then blacks in haiti said, why not blacks? then workers said. that's socialism! yes, human rights, but you can only enjoy human rights in certain material conditions, healthcare, education and so on and so on. so i think that. only this! type of renovated, left. can save what is worth saving in liberalism liberalism will remain this type of this type of... this politically correct insistence of rules, you say something wrong, you never know what will happen and so on. i'm not morally against it. i'm purely politically against it because i had contacts with them and look, let me, now i will say something for which i will be lynched and so on. but listen, yes, absolutely, for lgbt rights and so on. you know, i have many supporters. there i meet with them regularly. but let's face it. around 90% of people are. what is usually called today straight binary no and so on. don't! don't act as if you are at least implicitly making them guilty, you know? as if if you are straight. you somehow participate in oppression and so on and so on. the whole strategy is wrong here and i'm more and more convinced. dead. that uh... so called! political correctness, my problem with it is not that it's too radical and so on. but it's a fake radicalism. a way to avoid true problems. i know so many examples friends are sending them to me all the time from united states where you know this is no big corporate practice. you find somebody not quite on the top, but a little bit. below the top of a corporation who did something inappropriate and with all the pomposity you fire him and then oh you did your great duty and nothing changes in real exploitation. and so on and so on. i mean,... i mean, what is, i think that aren't this. trump all-right, vulgarians, tasteless guys. and why tasteless? because back to unwritten rules. you know what was trump's great invention for me? a living democracy more or less works. only if all sides accept, respect implicit rules. how do you do something and so on. trump was systematically violating these rules. you know what's the paradoxical result? would you agree or not? i would say that would be my alliance of lgbt blacks with. white silent majority? when conservatives say... family values. we shouldn't just play this marginal game. what about polyamory? what about? we should say, who are you to say about it? you can demonstrate with simple analysis that. modern neoliberal capitalism beginning with reagan. did more to destroy families and local communal life than all the gay propaganda together. they are ruining families. so my idea would be, you see how i will change the terrain.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
so we would return to family. so in some way we would return to tradition. you spoke at the beginning about you reject the conservative idea of returning to tradition, but here you're advocating for the family. i would say.
so we would return to family. so in some way we would return to tradition. you spoke at the beginning about you reject the conservative idea of returning to tradition, but here you're advocating for the family. i would say.
Slavoj Žižek
which tradition? you know that even in medieval times and so on, here i was convinced by these slightly revisionist historians like David Graeber and so on. you know that? the dark times were not at all level as dark as we think. for a long time, dan discreetly and we should not do that, i know. homosexuality was much more tolerated and so on and so on. this fixed sexual difference. is a thing of modernity. unfortunately we must admit it. it's not something that is dragging on from medieval times and so on and so on.
which tradition? you know that even in medieval times and so on, here i was convinced by these slightly revisionist historians like David Graeber and so on. you know that? the dark times were not at all level as dark as we think. for a long time, dan discreetly and we should not do that, i know. homosexuality was much more tolerated and so on and so on. this fixed sexual difference. is a thing of modernity. unfortunately we must admit it. it's not something that is dragging on from medieval times and so on and so on.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
i would say is this. i hope you will agree.
i would say is this. i hope you will agree.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, with this formula. another madness. we need more dogma, dogmaticism, bad, careful, a good one. look
okay, with this formula. another madness. we need more dogma, dogmaticism, bad, careful, a good one. look
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
but we can all say that. we can all say we want a good dogma that agrees with ours and makes us happy.
but we can all say that. we can all say we want a good dogma that agrees with ours and makes us happy.
Slavoj Žižek
they exist, i will demonstrate it to you. do you notice the question of torture? Rumsfeld began with it. this boarding or waterboarding is not taught all that stuff. torture was in the last decade or two de facto legitimized. i would like to leave, this is my positive dogma. in a society where certain values. for which we were fighting for a long time. exclusion of racism. total sexual liberation of women, not in this oppressive sense. i agree with this critique of the first generation feminist. for them, sexual freedom means we can sleep with many men, blah, blah, blah, which then men took over and so on. so, freedom also in the sense of not choosing sex, at least not normative sex. all that. that should become unquestionable. and what is happening now is that, and that's horrible, that's a regression. we have again to debate about this. do we have the right to abortion? what does it mean rape? isn't it sad to live in a society where you even have to debate all these questions?
they exist, i will demonstrate it to you. do you notice the question of torture? Rumsfeld began with it. this boarding or waterboarding is not taught all that stuff. torture was in the last decade or two de facto legitimized. i would like to leave, this is my positive dogma. in a society where certain values. for which we were fighting for a long time. exclusion of racism. total sexual liberation of women, not in this oppressive sense. i agree with this critique of the first generation feminist. for them, sexual freedom means we can sleep with many men, blah, blah, blah, which then men took over and so on. so, freedom also in the sense of not choosing sex, at least not normative sex. all that. that should become unquestionable. and what is happening now is that, and that's horrible, that's a regression. we have again to debate about this. do we have the right to abortion? what does it mean rape? isn't it sad to live in a society where you even have to debate all these questions?
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
but it feels that we are living in a society where there is so much... intertra-fighting, there is so much culture war that we have to go back to square one on these questions because people have lost so much meaning about why they live. what does it mean to live? i think that fundamentally, lots of people are starting to ask that again, where they used to have institutions like religion or the family that gave them purpose. they no longer have purpose. i mean, to return to surplus surplus enjoyment, they have too much and they also have nothing.
but it feels that we are living in a society where there is so much... intertra-fighting, there is so much culture war that we have to go back to square one on these questions because people have lost so much meaning about why they live. what does it mean to live? i think that fundamentally, lots of people are starting to ask that again, where they used to have institutions like religion or the family that gave them purpose. they no longer have purpose. i mean, to return to surplus surplus enjoyment, they have too much and they also have nothing.
Slavoj Žižek
it will have to be a new form of solidarity. i don't believe in neoconservatives who want simply to return to some old values, you know, modern global capitalism is immanently multicultural. in a bad sense. it likes each group to keep in its own space what you do there is your problem and so on and so on i think that we lost so much ideologically in the last two decades. another reason i will give you. you know how corbyn in the uk or bernie sanders are denounced as worse than socialists, secretly communists and so on. do a simple experiment. look at european, not extreme like Olof Palme, but regular social democracy half a century ago. they were much more to the left than bernie sanders or corbyn today. so, uh, and if... and another important thing we learned. from ukraine war, from the pandemic and so on. the thing we learned is that radical changes are possible till the pandemic. the official ideology was telling, no, we cannot afford this. if we raise the taxes for half a percent to the rich, everything will collapse. then, all of a sudden, in the last two years, we were able to spend trillions and so on. so don't believe the official dogma. radical changes are possible.
it will have to be a new form of solidarity. i don't believe in neoconservatives who want simply to return to some old values, you know, modern global capitalism is immanently multicultural. in a bad sense. it likes each group to keep in its own space what you do there is your problem and so on and so on i think that we lost so much ideologically in the last two decades. another reason i will give you. you know how corbyn in the uk or bernie sanders are denounced as worse than socialists, secretly communists and so on. do a simple experiment. look at european, not extreme like Olof Palme, but regular social democracy half a century ago. they were much more to the left than bernie sanders or corbyn today. so, uh, and if... and another important thing we learned. from ukraine war, from the pandemic and so on. the thing we learned is that radical changes are possible till the pandemic. the official ideology was telling, no, we cannot afford this. if we raise the taxes for half a percent to the rich, everything will collapse. then, all of a sudden, in the last two years, we were able to spend trillions and so on. so don't believe the official dogma. radical changes are possible.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
now in hanover in germany, they are turning off the hot water at the swimming pools because they are having such a terrible gas crisis because of the situation in ukraine. are we not seeing now the beginnings, just the very, very beginnings of the price we're going to have to pay for these decisions?
now in hanover in germany, they are turning off the hot water at the swimming pools because they are having such a terrible gas crisis because of the situation in ukraine. are we not seeing now the beginnings, just the very, very beginnings of the price we're going to have to pay for these decisions?
Slavoj Žižek
i have here, here we will maybe again disagree, my position is here the one of some radical german green people who say, what if we use the ukrainian war as a pre-tech? to do some things like regulate consumption and so on for some steps into green economy which in any case will be necessary.
i have here, here we will maybe again disagree, my position is here the one of some radical german green people who say, what if we use the ukrainian war as a pre-tech? to do some things like regulate consumption and so on for some steps into green economy which in any case will be necessary.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
maybe you'll call these people conspiracy theorists, but you will have people there asking, are you not using capitalizing, to use an ironic term, on a crisis to impose your dogma on people? is this not the fear that people have?
maybe you'll call these people conspiracy theorists, but you will have people there asking, are you not using capitalizing, to use an ironic term, on a crisis to impose your dogma on people? is this not the fear that people have?
Slavoj Žižek
i will try to prove you, let me conclude with this, that it's not a dogma. when people ask me, are you nuts communism and so on? i tell them this. remember! one of the most disgusting events that i witnessed in the last year, i wasn't there, saw it on the media, that glasgow meeting against global warming. all that they said in principle was true. we need global cooperation, blah, blah, blah. nothing happened. for me, communism... doesn't mean i have a secret plan to nationalize or gaks. it simply means in some sense we know what has to be done. global cooperation regulating certain the consumption of certain things, oil, coal, beyond market necessities and so on, this will have to be done in one way or another. i call communism is simply the system which will be able to do this. by this, i don't mean any secret dark plans, secret police or what. i simply mean what officially, the media are even telling us that we... should do. and that's the saddest thing. i hope we will at least agree here to end for me today. death. as many theorists pointed out, we live not in just general terms, cynical times, we really live in sad cynical times in the sense that we know where the crisis is. we even in some sense know what has to be done. but in some sense, being aware of this functions in such a perverted way that precisely because we know what it has to be done, we go on not doing it. let me give you an example which is my favorite one. i took it from my friend Alenka Zupančič. you know, let's say you are smoking. you know what's the usual excuse of a person? who? doesn't want to stop smoke. he or she says, but wait a minute, i'm free. i can stop at any moment if i want. and precisely because of this you will never stop.
i will try to prove you, let me conclude with this, that it's not a dogma. when people ask me, are you nuts communism and so on? i tell them this. remember! one of the most disgusting events that i witnessed in the last year, i wasn't there, saw it on the media, that glasgow meeting against global warming. all that they said in principle was true. we need global cooperation, blah, blah, blah. nothing happened. for me, communism... doesn't mean i have a secret plan to nationalize or gaks. it simply means in some sense we know what has to be done. global cooperation regulating certain the consumption of certain things, oil, coal, beyond market necessities and so on, this will have to be done in one way or another. i call communism is simply the system which will be able to do this. by this, i don't mean any secret dark plans, secret police or what. i simply mean what officially, the media are even telling us that we... should do. and that's the saddest thing. i hope we will at least agree here to end for me today. death. as many theorists pointed out, we live not in just general terms, cynical times, we really live in sad cynical times in the sense that we know where the crisis is. we even in some sense know what has to be done. but in some sense, being aware of this functions in such a perverted way that precisely because we know what it has to be done, we go on not doing it. let me give you an example which is my favorite one. i took it from my friend Alenka Zupančič. you know, let's say you are smoking. you know what's the usual excuse of a person? who? doesn't want to stop smoke. he or she says, but wait a minute, i'm free. i can stop at any moment if i want. and precisely because of this you will never stop.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
so we are addicted to chaos. we are addicted to the system we're in.
so we are addicted to chaos. we are addicted to the system we're in.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah, yeah. i think. yes, yes. so,. here, the question to ask back to the title of my book, surplus enjoyment. in the sense of how a system bribes us through perverse pleasures and so on and so on. that we don't act. again, the big mystery today is the mystery of this radical gap, that's how i see it, between our political space and some kind of... let's call it public dissatisfaction. maybe you know it. my big problem is when was it the last election that tony blair won? i was in the uk and i remember two weeks before elections there was a big opinion poll on tv, it's a big show, tens of thousands of people voted. who is the most unpopular person? in the uk, tony blair won. the most unpopular. two weeks afterwards, he won the general election. wasn't it the same in france? gilets jaunes, the yellow vests. an incredible dissatisfaction, it was impossible to translate it into the terms of our normal multi-party political system. the same with podemos in spain and so on and so on. that's what really worries me. it's not just let's defend liberal democracy. it's that we are approaching problems now where the political space, multi-party space that we have now. is. no longer effective enough, not measured by some mystical sublime standards but by even recapture court. the discontent among ordinary people which is then brewing and threatening to explode and so on and so on. we live in very dangerous times.
yeah, yeah, yeah. i think. yes, yes. so,. here, the question to ask back to the title of my book, surplus enjoyment. in the sense of how a system bribes us through perverse pleasures and so on and so on. that we don't act. again, the big mystery today is the mystery of this radical gap, that's how i see it, between our political space and some kind of... let's call it public dissatisfaction. maybe you know it. my big problem is when was it the last election that tony blair won? i was in the uk and i remember two weeks before elections there was a big opinion poll on tv, it's a big show, tens of thousands of people voted. who is the most unpopular person? in the uk, tony blair won. the most unpopular. two weeks afterwards, he won the general election. wasn't it the same in france? gilets jaunes, the yellow vests. an incredible dissatisfaction, it was impossible to translate it into the terms of our normal multi-party political system. the same with podemos in spain and so on and so on. that's what really worries me. it's not just let's defend liberal democracy. it's that we are approaching problems now where the political space, multi-party space that we have now. is. no longer effective enough, not measured by some mystical sublime standards but by even recapture court. the discontent among ordinary people which is then brewing and threatening to explode and so on and so on. we live in very dangerous times.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
the symbols of surplus enjoyment. coca-cola, mcdonald's, starbucks have all fled from russia after the invasion of ukraine. should we be getting rid of them from america and europe as well?
the symbols of surplus enjoyment. coca-cola, mcdonald's, starbucks have all fled from russia after the invasion of ukraine. should we be getting rid of them from america and europe as well?
Slavoj Žižek
that's's a... that's a good question. on the other hand, you know uh i never was a fetishist of plurality in the sense of not one big company but many. you know how many choices that we have are false choices? in the sense of you are given a basic choice but which is meaningless. like up till now in the united states, republican democratic party like coke or pepsi, mcdonald's or whatever and so on. i think that sometimes. the multiplicity of choices can mask the real choice. the identification of freedom with choice. is a fake. remember that modest as it was, you remember obamacare. it was modest, but maybe it was a little bit better than nothing. okay. then when trump abolished it, you know what was all the time the main argument against? obamacare, that it deprives you of a choice. they painted this false danger the state will order you which doctor to take and so on and so on. and we have to accept this. i don't want too many choices. i want to live in a society where, i even call this to provoke my friends, a good, agreeable alienation. somehow electricity is provided, somehow gas is provided. i don't want to debate every afternoon. from whom to buy it. that's the state at its best. and even my good friend, i am honored to say it. Álvaro García Linera, under Morales, the vice president of bolivia. he has shown this. he said that the lesson of pandemic is yes, on the one hand, the corruption of the system, how. rich corporations use this to get even richer. but at the same time, we saw that in that, you remember the panic of the first month, of all the confusion and so on. death. when everything is falling apart, we need something like an efficient state. so, fight for good alienation! uh,,... be careful how to use the state. i am deeply suspicious of this idea we need local democracy where people debate all the issues and so on and so on. no, in today's complex world, if anything, we will need even more. cooperation at the higher level above the state. how otherwise you would deal with millions of immigrants and so on. we are approaching a very difficult. situation but there is hope, you know why? because it may sound an empty phrase, but you know that. something really new emerges precisely when we are in deep trouble. it can be a catastrophe, but magic things happen at that point. so i believe in materialist miracles. by miracle i don't mean realist wonder, unnatural, but something that you thought it could not happen. all of a sudden, it happens.
that's's a... that's a good question. on the other hand, you know uh i never was a fetishist of plurality in the sense of not one big company but many. you know how many choices that we have are false choices? in the sense of you are given a basic choice but which is meaningless. like up till now in the united states, republican democratic party like coke or pepsi, mcdonald's or whatever and so on. i think that sometimes. the multiplicity of choices can mask the real choice. the identification of freedom with choice. is a fake. remember that modest as it was, you remember obamacare. it was modest, but maybe it was a little bit better than nothing. okay. then when trump abolished it, you know what was all the time the main argument against? obamacare, that it deprives you of a choice. they painted this false danger the state will order you which doctor to take and so on and so on. and we have to accept this. i don't want too many choices. i want to live in a society where, i even call this to provoke my friends, a good, agreeable alienation. somehow electricity is provided, somehow gas is provided. i don't want to debate every afternoon. from whom to buy it. that's the state at its best. and even my good friend, i am honored to say it. Álvaro García Linera, under Morales, the vice president of bolivia. he has shown this. he said that the lesson of pandemic is yes, on the one hand, the corruption of the system, how. rich corporations use this to get even richer. but at the same time, we saw that in that, you remember the panic of the first month, of all the confusion and so on. death. when everything is falling apart, we need something like an efficient state. so, fight for good alienation! uh,,... be careful how to use the state. i am deeply suspicious of this idea we need local democracy where people debate all the issues and so on and so on. no, in today's complex world, if anything, we will need even more. cooperation at the higher level above the state. how otherwise you would deal with millions of immigrants and so on. we are approaching a very difficult. situation but there is hope, you know why? because it may sound an empty phrase, but you know that. something really new emerges precisely when we are in deep trouble. it can be a catastrophe, but magic things happen at that point. so i believe in materialist miracles. by miracle i don't mean realist wonder, unnatural, but something that you thought it could not happen. all of a sudden, it happens.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
with that little glimmer of hope, i think i'll liberate you to your afternoon.
with that little glimmer of hope, i think i'll liberate you to your afternoon.
Slavoj Žižek
it's's small.
it's's small.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
but it's there and that's the most important thing. thank you so much for your time, slavoy.
but it's there and that's the most important thing. thank you so much for your time, slavoy.
Slavoj Žižek
thank you and please remember that beneath your beautiful liberal appearance now your stalinist self should come up. i wish you all the best. the media like yours are one of the few things that made internet podcasts desirable, you know. otherwise, i still i don't have facebook and i don't have instagram. in my stalinism they would be prohibited, you know.
thank you and please remember that beneath your beautiful liberal appearance now your stalinist self should come up. i wish you all the best. the media like yours are one of the few things that made internet podcasts desirable, you know. otherwise, i still i don't have facebook and i don't have instagram. in my stalinism they would be prohibited, you know.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
well, i'm glad that we at least will not be got rid of under your program.
well, i'm glad that we at least will not be got rid of under your program.
Slavoj Žižek
no, no, no, you will not. still you will be censored and you will get okay, as the sign of my benevolence, i can tell you. if you do some mistake, you will just get a year or two of re-education, not.
no, no, no, you will not. still you will be censored and you will get okay, as the sign of my benevolence, i can tell you. if you do some mistake, you will just get a year or two of re-education, not.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
okay's okay, no hard labor, no hard labor.
okay's okay, no hard labor, no hard labor.
Slavoj Žižek
no hard labor.
no hard labor.
Florence Read (host, UnHerd)
that was slavojk, philosopher and author of the new book, surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed. i'm not sure i feel any less perplexed after talking to him, but it certainly was an interesting conversation. i hope you enjoyed it. thanks for watching. this was unheard ideas.
that was slavojk, philosopher and author of the new book, surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed. i'm not sure i feel any less perplexed after talking to him, but it certainly was an interesting conversation. i hope you enjoyed it. thanks for watching. this was unheard ideas.