[Slavoj Zizek] What Is to Be Done for Politics? - Q&A
Lecture · Kyung Hee University ·
2012-06-27 · 0:48:49 · 5,644 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologyreligion-theologyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warphilosophy-generalethicshistory
A Q&A session (likely in Korea, given the questioner's references to Korean translations and Buddhism) in which Žižek defends his continued use of class struggle and the name communism, critiques Mahayana Buddhism's bodhisattva ideal and Zen's complicity with Japanese militarism, and offers a Pascal-derived account of communism as a secret for believers. He argues Marx's notion of communism is still a capitalist notion, that 20th-century totalitarianism failed by remaining within the capitalist frame, and that Gandhi was 'more violent' than Hitler because true violence interrupts the system rather than keeping it running. He locates hope not in ontological guarantee but in local 'miracles' (Egypt, Syriza) and warns of an authoritarian-capitalist future.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 24
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “decaffeinated coffee”
His figure for the modern capitalist subject: coffee without caffeine, something deprived of its core substance, a subject without its substance.
as “constitutive antagonism”
A deadlock that is structural to society, which is what class struggle names for him today.
Not the old 19th/20th-century working-class subject, but a constitutive antagonism or deadlock of society itself.
His preference for a single over-determining economic antagonism over a postmodern multiplicity of struggles.
as “over-determination”
The economic antagonism of global capitalism over-determines and structures the other struggles, rather than sitting at the same level as them.
The Mahayana figure who postpones liberation to save others; he reads it as introducing a sacrificial logic and an unneeded metaphysical duality.
Not escaping this world but remaining fully here in a different mode; hence the bodhisattva's return becomes meaningless.
Japanese Zen term for enlightenment; Suzuki honestly admits it carries no necessary ethical guarantee.
A secret in the Pascalian sense: a tautology for believers who read events (Tahrir, Occupy) as signs of communism, with no objective necessity behind it.
For Pascal, a miracle appears only to the believer who recognizes it; Žižek uses this to define 'communism will win' as a sign read by those in the struggle.
Truth is universal but nonetheless partial: in social affairs it emerges only for those interested in emancipatory truth, not from a neutral gaze.
The Lacanian split between what one consciously wants and what one unconsciously desires; applied to the people's relation to communism.
His 'other secret': communism arrives as an unintended consequence, even possibly produced by people fighting it, because what is desired is not what is wanted.
Ecology, brain sciences, and intellectual property pose the problem of the commons, which global capitalism cannot resolve and may be ruined by.
Names like freedom, justice, socialism are in advance appropriated by the ruling ideology; communism is harder to recuperate.
Why keep the name communism: it constantly reminds you that you are playing with fire and that the project can end in catastrophe.
His (self-flagged as racist European) name for the emerging authoritarian-capitalist future with new apartheids, walls, and distinctions.
as “capitalism without the form of capitalism”
How he characterizes Marx's dream: to drop the capitalist frame (private property) while letting capital's wild dynamism explode freely, a fantasy, since that dynamism is possible only within the capitalist frame.
as “the obstacle as condition of what it was the obstacle of”
Hegelian reversal: what Marx misperceived as an obstacle to communist development was paradoxically the very condition of that development.
as “third way”
The notion of balancing freedom/productivity from capitalism with solidarity/community from communism; he rejects it because there was never even a proper second way.
His refusal of the proper balance or middle ground between capitalism and totalitarianism.
Hitler's killing was in service of keeping the system running; true (positive) violence interrupts the system, which Hitler never did.
Gandhi's aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning, whereas Hitler killed millions to guarantee the smooth functioning of the German state.
as “structural violence”
The violence that is part of the normal state of things, as opposed to the visible physical violence of revolt.
Stories he reaches for 4
Syriza exploded from 1-3% to nearly the strongest party in Greece, panicking all of Europe; Slovene diplomats reported Brussels was preparing to let Greece return to the drachma, isolate it, and watch its ruin as an exemplary warning to the left.
“The idea was, let the Greece get back to their drachma, isolate them economically and then sit and watch their ruin and so on.”
Stalin, who admired the United States to the end, defined the ideal Bolshevik as a person combining Russian passion with American pragmatism, evidence that Stalinism remained within the capitalist dream of total productivity.
“a person who combines Russian passion with American pragmatism and so on.”
The most popular books in Europe today are ones that publicly tell secrets (like those The Da Vinci Code is based on), to be truly popular for the wide public you must pretend to tell a secret.
“It's paradoxical how to be really lit to be really popular for the wide public you must pretend to tell a secret.”
Gandhi's aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning, whereas Hitler killed millions to guarantee the smooth functioning of the German state; so Gandhi was more violent in the relevant (systemic) sense.
“Gandhi's aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning. Hitler killed millions on the contrary, to to continue guarantee the smooth functioning of the German state.”
Works invoked 4
The Da Vinci Code book
Cited as the paradigm of popular pseudo-scientific literature that pretends to tell a secret to be widely read, a foil for the paradox of public secrets.
Zen at War book
Brian Victoria's book on Japanese Zen's complicity with imperialism in the 1930s-40s; 'it did affect me very deeply'.
Marx's concrete analysis of the 1848 French Revolution, cited as containing ingenious insights alongside Marx's lack of a proper theory of power.
Cited to show Marx's limits: he dismissed the square root of minus one as pure nonsense.
People invoked 14
Mahatma Gandhi positive
Used as the example of true (positive, systemic) violence: his aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning.
Blaise Pascal positive
His Jansenist theory of miracles (miracles only for those who recognize them) is the model for Žižek's account of 'communism will win' as a secret.
Tenzin Gyatso negative
The questioner attributes to Žižek a displeasure with the Dalai Lama's New Age 'be happy' message; Žižek does not deny it and pivots to the broader critique of Buddhism.
Brian Victoria positive
Author of Zen at War, a book that 'affected me very deeply', documenting Japanese Zen's complicity with imperialism.
Francis Fukuyama negative
His end-of-history thesis is answered, Žižek says, by the paradox that ex-communists are the best managers of capitalism.
Mentioned only to note that for the Greek Communist Party the enemy is not even Gorbachev but Khrushchev.
Hosni Mubarak negative
Cited as the ruler who hypocritically offered dialogue ('you are all my sons') to Tahrir Square protesters, whom his supporters attacked with physical violence.
Adolf Hitler negative
The foil in the violence reversal: he killed millions to keep the German state running smoothly, and so 'wasn't violent enough'.
Cited as the 'first traitor' in the eyes of the pro-Stalinist Greek Communist Party.
D. T. Suzuki positive
Žižek 'loves him for that' honesty in admitting enlightenment carries no ethical guarantee; but also cites Suzuki's proto-fascist bayonet advice to the Japanese army.
Ernesto Laclau negative
Cited as arguing that no struggle has an a priori central position; Žižek rejects this in favour of the over-determining economic antagonism.
Joseph Stalin negative
Stalinism is the nightmare outcome of the October Revolution; Stalin admired the US and his ideal Bolshevik combined Russian passion with American pragmatism.
Karl Marx positive
To be a Marxist today is to radically reconstruct Marx, not return to him; Žižek identifies fundamental flaws in Marx's notion of communism while staying within the Marxist tradition.
The Buddha positive
Cited as the authentic enlightened one who remained fully acting here, against the later Mahayana metaphysical duality.
What it argues
Class struggle as constitutive antagonism versus multiculturalist multiplicity of strugglesCritique of Mahayana Buddhism: the bodhisattva ideal as sacrificial logic and metaphysical dualityZen Buddhism and the lack of ethical implication in enlightenment (Suzuki, Zen at War)Communism as a Pascal-style secret: miracles only for those who recognize them; truth as universal but partialThe Lacanian split between wanting and desiring communism: people desire it but do not want itMarx's limitations: his communism is still a capitalist notion, dreaming capitalism without the form of capitalismFour reasons to keep the name communism despite its catastrophesRedefining violence: Gandhi was more violent than Hitler; physical violence is a sign of impotenceHope without ontological guarantee: Egypt, Syriza, and the threat of authoritarian capitalism
Dialectical moves 8
“What Marx misperceived as an obstacle was at the same time paradoxically a condition of what it was the obstacle of.”
The capitalist frame is simultaneously the obstruction to and the enabling condition of the dynamic development Marx wanted to free from it.
“The problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough; in the relevant sense Gandhi was more violent than Hitler.”
Reverses the common measure of violence: the true violence is the systemic interruption, not the killing that keeps the system running.
“Communism will win is a secret only for those who believe in communism — a masked tautology.”
Recasts an eschatological promise as a Pascalian sign read by believers, stripping it of objective necessity.
“People do not want communism, but they desire it; what we desire we usually do not want.”
Splits the apparently unified wish for communism into a Lacanian want/desire gap, so its arrival can be unwilled yet desired.
“China's communists are today the best managers of capitalism — the communist answer to Fukuyama.”
Inverts the Cold War polarity: the former enemies of capitalism turn out to be its most efficient administrators.
“Twentieth-century communism failed not because it went too far, but because it remained too much within the frame of capitalism.”
Reverses the standard liberal reading: totalitarianism is a symptom of insufficient escape from capitalism, not of excess.
“To be a Marxist today means not to return to Marx but to radically repeat and reconstruct him.”
Fidelity to Marx is achieved through critical reconstruction rather than restoration.
“If you look neutrally you see nothing; truth in social affairs emerges only if you are interested in emancipatory truth.”
Objectivity is not neutrality; the partisan stance is the condition of access to social truth.
Claims 34
asserts
Class struggle today does not name the old industrial proletariat but a constitutive antagonism or deadlock of society as such.class struggle
asserts
The economic antagonism of global capitalism has a more substantial, over-determining position than the multiplicity of cultural struggles, against Laclau's view that no struggle has a priori centrality.binary logic versus multiplicity of struggles
rejects
He refuses the language of happiness and does not offer communism as a future happier society.communism as happiness
rejects
Mahayana introduced a false notion, the bodhisattva, which smuggles in a sacrificial logic and an unneeded metaphysical duality.Mahayana bodhisattva ideal
asserts
Authentic Buddhism means remaining fully in this world in a different mode, not escaping it; hence the bodhisattva's return becomes meaningless.authentic Buddhism
asserts
There is no necessary ethical implication of reaching enlightenment; Suzuki was honest enough to admit one can be a fascist, communist, or liberal in satori.ethics and enlightenment
asserts
Japanese Zen Buddhism, far from being inherently pacific, theoretically justified imperial expansion in Korea and China, as documented in Brian Victoria's Zen at War.Zen and Japanese militarism
asserts
Suzuki's bayonet advice shows that enlightenment can be mobilized to make soldiers more efficient murderers, by reframing the killer as a detached observer of a cosmic dance.Suzuki's advice to the Japanese army
asserts
He does not conclude from this that Zen Buddhism is the ideology of Japanese militarism.scope of the Zen critique
asserts
Buddhist tradition tries to mask the gap between spiritual enlightenment and doing good for others, which is the target of his critique.Buddhist masking of the ethical gap
reframes
'Communism will win' is a secret in the Pascalian sense — a sign read only by believers, with no objective necessity behind it.communism will win
asserts
Truth in social affairs is universal but partial: it emerges only for those interested in emancipatory truth; a neutral gaze sees nothing.Marxist theory of truth
asserts
People will not want communism, but it will come as an unintended consequence — possibly even produced by people fighting it.the arrival of communism
reframes
People desire communism but do not want it, exploiting the Lacanian gap between want and desire.want versus desire for communism
asserts
China's communists are today the best managers of capitalism — the communist answer to Fukuyama's end-of-history thesis.China and capitalism
asserts
Successful capitalism less and less requires democracy as its political form, a tendency that should worry everyone.capitalism and democracy
asserts
There are four reasons to keep the name communism: it names the problem of the commons; it cannot be easily recuperated by ruling ideology; it stays faithful to an egalitarian rebel tradition; and it warns of the danger of the project.the name communism
asserts
The October Revolution ended in nightmare (Stalinism, North Korea), and North Korea is maybe worse than fascism.twentieth-century communism
rejects
There is no ontological guarantee that communism will arrive; left to its spontaneous course, history is progressing towards catastrophe.Marxist historical teleology
asserts
Egypt's uprising was a miracle: a secular, pro-democratic, non-anti-Semitic mass rebellion that nobody predicted, and whose awakening of civil society is a non-zero result despite the coup.Egypt and Tahrir Square
asserts
Europe was preparing a gigantic punishment operation for Greece had Syriza won, to give an exemplary warning to the left.Syriza and the European establishment
asserts
The Greek Communist Party is pro-Stalinist, publishes Stalin's complete works, regards Khrushchev (not Gorbachev) as the first traitor, and perversely voted with New Democracy against Syriza.the Greek Communist Party
asserts
The future is either authoritarian capitalism with new apartheids and walls, or something new; the relatively free prosperous capitalist democracy cannot go on indefinitely.the political future
reframes
To be a Marxist today is not to return to Marx but to repeat and radically reconstruct his analysis, including fundamental flaws in his notion of communism.what it means to be a Marxist today
asserts
Marx's notion of communism is still a capitalist notion: he dreamed of capitalism's dynamism continuing without the capitalist frame, not seeing that the obstacle (the frame) was the condition of that dynamism.Marx's limitation on communism
asserts
Marx did not develop a proper analysis of power and domination, which is why Stalinism cannot be explained by critical Marxism.Marx's limitation on power
rejects
Western Marxists who blame Stalinism on the revolution happening in primitive Asiatic Russia are wrong, even openly racist; he is more sympathetic to Russian conservatives calling communism a western import.explanations of Stalinism
reframes
Twentieth-century totalitarianisms, communism included, failed not because they went too far but because they remained too much within the capitalist frame of total productive mobilization.the failure of totalitarianism
asserts
Stalin admired the United States to the end and defined the ideal Bolshevik as combining Russian passion with American pragmatism.Stalin and American pragmatism
rejects
He rejects the term 'third way' because there was never even a proper second way — twentieth-century communism was not a serious alternative.the third way
asserts
Physical violence is always a sign of failure or impotence, a desperate way out of a deadlock, as in Stalinist forced collectivization.the meaning of physical violence
asserts
Positive violence is the dogmatic, anti-systemic act of occupying a space and preventing things from going on as normal, as at Tahrir Square.positive violence
asserts
One must consider not only the violence of change but the immense structural and direct physical violence that is part of the normal state of things today.violence of the normal order
asserts
All dictatorships are legitimized as a return to peace and normal functioning.dictatorship and legitimation
Quotes 14
“Class struggle for me means that a certain antagonism, deadlock, is constitutive of society.”Slavoj Žižek · class struggle as constitutive antagonism
“I don't think people will ever be more happy than now.”Slavoj Žižek · rejection of the language of happiness
“Buddha was enlightened and as such he was still fully acting here.”Slavoj Žižek · authentic Buddhism remains in this world
“What we desire we usually don't want it.”Slavoj Žižek · Lacanian want/desire split
“China today, communists are in power and it looks as if communists are today the best managers of capitalism, more efficient than liberals.”Slavoj Žižek · communists as best capitalists
“today's capitalism no longer or less and less requires democracy as its ideal political form.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism decoupling from democracy
“The problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough.”Slavoj Žižek · reversal of the measure of violence
“in the sense in which Mahatma Gandhi was more violent than Hitler.”Slavoj Žižek · Gandhi's systemic violence versus Hitler's
“I never like the proper balance, I like extremes.”Slavoj Žižek · rejection of the third way
“What he misperceived as an obstacle was at the same time paradoxically a condition to what it was the obstacle of.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegelian reversal of obstacle and condition
“I'm not saying there will be bright future. I'm saying if something doesn't happen there will be a very dark future.”Slavoj Žižek · no ontological guarantee
“All the dictatorships are always made legitimized as a return to peace.”Slavoj Žižek · dictatorship legitimated as restored normalcy
“communism will come although people will not want it.”Slavoj Žižek · communism as unintended consequence
“truth is universal, but it's nonetheless partial. Truth is not the truth about society is not I look objectively, neutrally and see.”Slavoj Žižek · universal yet partial truth
Transcript 18 turns
unknown
Professor Žižek, okay, my question is
Professor Žižek, okay, my question is
unknown
theory-oriented since we talk about culture difference run by bureaucracy and your view of our modern capitalistic society. I'm going to ask questions, two questions related to your theory. First of all, I can summarize what you taught about this modern subject in capitalistic society of today as decaffeinated coffee. Subject of decaffeinated coffee, coffee without caffeine. In your book you said about this as something without core, you know? However, what you just said about communism being different from North Korea regime and radical communist, and your communist idea is rather maybe a coffee without caffeine. It is very soothing to the capitalist people of today. However, it can be a little different from your first phase of your theory, you know? When you faced the problem of capitalism today, you kind of still focused in the past, the need to emphasize the class struggle above all things. That's what I understand. However, you may have changed your viewpoint a little and more soothing to the modern subjects of capitalist society. So I would rather consider your view of communism more moderate, good to listening, but still cannot be much of much help to solve problems in confrontation with any terroristic or, you know, capitalistic society, Islam or American or whatever. So that's my question first. Second question goes to the religious aspect. Here many audience are familiar with your books because many of your books have been translated in Korean, so they know what I'm talking about. My question is about Dalai Lama and Buddhism. I really believe that your view of Buddhism and also Dalai Lama are very negative to oriental people like me. I consider the, you know, views very Lacanian. However, as a truly Hegelian, there can be some point that this negative aspect of Dalai Lama going for happiness only in dealing with the political problems. You are not happy with Dalai Lama just saying good old things as a, you know, New Age philosophy, you know, being happy is the most important thing. Dalai Lama, that's what you understand about Dalai Lama, and you are not happy according to my reading of your books. And especially these days, you are still dubious of Buddhism. Buddhism representing too militaristic for the self in dealing with this problem of society. They are caring only for the self, not for the, you know, others. They are going against the grain as they represent, they talk about, the Buddhist are supposed to talk about the suffering of others, but being too ascetic, being too kenotic, they are only taking care of the self. So you are against Buddhism according to what I read. So can you, at in the future phase of your theoretical life, can do you think there be a kind of Hegelian point where you can see positive side of Buddhism? I expect that in the future in your books. Okay, that's my two questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. These are, the only problem is that these are very serious questions and to answer, of course, at least the second one seriously, it would have meant another talk, no? So I will try to... First, concerning class struggle, communism and so on. I still stick to class struggle without identifying
theory-oriented since we talk about culture difference run by bureaucracy and your view of our modern capitalistic society. I'm going to ask questions, two questions related to your theory. First of all, I can summarize what you taught about this modern subject in capitalistic society of today as decaffeinated coffee. Subject of decaffeinated coffee, coffee without caffeine. In your book you said about this as something without core, you know? However, what you just said about communism being different from North Korea regime and radical communist, and your communist idea is rather maybe a coffee without caffeine. It is very soothing to the capitalist people of today. However, it can be a little different from your first phase of your theory, you know? When you faced the problem of capitalism today, you kind of still focused in the past, the need to emphasize the class struggle above all things. That's what I understand. However, you may have changed your viewpoint a little and more soothing to the modern subjects of capitalist society. So I would rather consider your view of communism more moderate, good to listening, but still cannot be much of much help to solve problems in confrontation with any terroristic or, you know, capitalistic society, Islam or American or whatever. So that's my question first. Second question goes to the religious aspect. Here many audience are familiar with your books because many of your books have been translated in Korean, so they know what I'm talking about. My question is about Dalai Lama and Buddhism. I really believe that your view of Buddhism and also Dalai Lama are very negative to oriental people like me. I consider the, you know, views very Lacanian. However, as a truly Hegelian, there can be some point that this negative aspect of Dalai Lama going for happiness only in dealing with the political problems. You are not happy with Dalai Lama just saying good old things as a, you know, New Age philosophy, you know, being happy is the most important thing. Dalai Lama, that's what you understand about Dalai Lama, and you are not happy according to my reading of your books. And especially these days, you are still dubious of Buddhism. Buddhism representing too militaristic for the self in dealing with this problem of society. They are caring only for the self, not for the, you know, others. They are going against the grain as they represent, they talk about, the Buddhist are supposed to talk about the suffering of others, but being too ascetic, being too kenotic, they are only taking care of the self. So you are against Buddhism according to what I read. So can you, at in the future phase of your theoretical life, can do you think there be a kind of Hegelian point where you can see positive side of Buddhism? I expect that in the future in your books. Okay, that's my two questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. These are, the only problem is that these are very serious questions and to answer, of course, at least the second one seriously, it would have meant another talk, no? So I will try to... First, concerning class struggle, communism and so on. I still stick to class struggle without identifying
unknown
it with concrete classes and so on. Like class struggle
it with concrete classes and so on. Like class struggle
Slavoj Žižek
does not mean for me that today we still have the old nineteenth, twentieth century working class proletarian as a subject. Class struggle for me means that a certain antagonism, deadlock, is constitutive of society. And that the so again, I think that this is for me the big difference between the position of class struggle and this multiculturalist multiple struggles and so on and so on, where the problem is that of recognition. The problem is like how can we recognize or be recognized by, I don't know, homosexuals, women, other religions and so on and so on. I don't, I think that that this is why I'm still for what some people call binary logic against this multiplicity of struggles. I still think that our so you know, some postmodern theoreticians prefer to claim that in our societies now, we have a multiplicity of struggles: working struggle for better conditions, women's struggle for their rights, sexual minorities, oppressed religious people. And the idea is, to simplify it, but for example, Ernesto Laclau argues like this, that there none of these struggles have has an a priori central position. That it's all a matter of strategic considerations. Like there is nothing deeper, more substantial, for example, in economic struggle of the workers than women's struggle, than cultural struggle and so on and so on. I still think, maybe in a more traditional Marxist way, that the economic antagonism, which is precisely not simply economic, let's call it the politico-economic antagonism which defines global capitalism is not at the same level as these other struggles. That struggle with global capitalism has a more substantial position of over-determining structuring other struggles. As what you said about communism, in a way, I agree with you, but again, I am not offering communism in any positive way as a future better society or whatever. I even refuse to use this language. My language is not the language of happiness. I don't think people will ever be more happy than now. And if anything, when you quoted Dalai Lama, no, my problem was not personal or impersonal or whatever. I even here, if you read me carefully you should know that I even think that the origin of the fall of Buddhism for me is Mahayana. I think that what was the original one? No, Theravada is then the worst, it's the Tibetan for... what? No, no, no, Hinayana is just opposite to Mahayana. But what Mahayana did is it introduced a notion which is for me a totally false one, a notion of bodhisattva. A notion that somehow you were already there liberated, but then out of the compassion with humanity you, as it were, came back into this world of suffering so that you as it were postpone your liberation till all others will be also liberated. I think that this introduces a certain form of sacrificial logics and so on. I'm always distrustful of politicians, social workers, thinkers who are ready to sacrifice themselves for you. I think that the original version of Buddhism, which may appear much more egotist, is much more authentic. First thing that I find wrong in this idea of of Mahayana. Mahayana idea, sorry, of bodhisattva. Is but wait a minute, here I give all the recognition to Buddhism. For me, a truly authentic Buddhism, as we all know, does not mean that the enlightenment, nirvana or whatever, is that you go somewhere up or whatever out of this world. You remain fully here, just in a different mode. In this sense I totally agree with those defenders of Buddhism who said authentic Buddhism has nothing to do with obscurantist European spiritualisms, you know, where somehow you have to get out of... no, you remain here just with a different attitude, as it were. You fully remain here. So if this is true, why then, then already if you fully accept this, then the idea of bodhisattva becomes meaningless for me. But when you are in nirvana you are still here. I think this idea of you know, enlightened Buddhist who is like in this eternal trance, it's a fake idea. It's already over, this is not Buddha. Buddha was enlightened and as such he was still fully acting here. The very idea I think of of bodhisattva introduces a certain metaphysical duality which is not needed. The second thing about Buddhism is that, and this is just an observation. You must know this, no? I'm not saying that Buddhism is any worse. I'm just making this... ah, now I will make maybe this is of some interest to you, so let me go into this. You know, I read many good Buddhists who for me very good, who admitted something. What? The whole Buddhism is fighting with this problem. If you in order to achieve the inner whatever we call it, I know that already to call it inner enlightenment it's false, but let's call it the state of enlightenment, nirvana or whatever. I agree with those honest ones who claim there is no necessary ethical implication in this. Here, the one with whom I totally disagree because he was a proto-fascist in Japan, Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki. He was honest enough to claim Buddhism is about Zen Buddhism, meditation, satori. In your life you can be a fascist, a communist, a liberal. There is no ontological guarantee that reaching satori in Japanese sense or nirvana I don't know how you call it here, that reaching this poses, implies any ethical guarantee that you will be a kind good person caring for others and so on and so on. As Suzuki himself writes there very honestly and I love him for that, that you can also be a Buddhist claiming in nirvana you see the just you see the just apparent insubstantial nature of all reality and then you tell yourself, okay, let's just enjoy the moment, why even care about others and so on and so on. I think that in this sense I accept in a more tragic way the gap between the two. The gap between doing good for others and spiritual enlightenment. And I know that all Buddhist tradition try to mask this gap. That's what my critique. As if somehow in order to reach spiritual enlightenment, you know, you have to go through a you have to first start by being good and so on and so on. Here Zen was honest enough, Zen Buddhism at its most radical. Where they openly claim, no, there is no necessity, there is no necessary connection. Maybe, but even this can be debated, that there is some marginal preference like most of the people who reach who strive to reach nirvana will probably be better. But even this I doubt. Because you know maybe you know the book, it did I must admit affect me very deeply, a book written by some guy who himself is a Buddhist monk, Brian Victoria, Zen at War. Well, it's a horrible book. It describes the Japanese Zen Buddhist community in thirties and forties. and its attitude towards Japanese imperial expansion in Korea, China and so on. And he admits that except from for literally ten fifteen let's call them dissidents among the, I think, around ten fifteen millions, all other not only supported Japanese imperialism but theoretically justified it. Let me give you two examples. The same Suzuki, who was well known in hippie times as a popularizer, he said he gave wrote a kind of advisory text to Japanese army claiming that let's imagine I'm facing an enemy in battle. And of course it's difficult for me to kill him. But he claims that if I reach the level of enlightenment, and if I see that I am not, he says he takes the case of bayonet knife and he says, if I still remain within the false reality of appearances, caught into it, then I perceive myself as the active subject pushing a knife into another human being who will be the victim. But he says if you reach Buddhist enlightenment, then you no longer perceive yourself as agent of your acts. You perceive, you become an observer of yourself. I quote him almost literally now. You see the knife not as something moved by you but a kind of a cosmic dance where the knife moved in space and my victim somehow falls on the knife. And he gives this as an advice to the Japanese army how people who are enlightened Buddhist will be much more efficient as murderers and so on and so on. Now, let me be clear here. I'm absolutely not saying that this makes Zen Buddhism the ideology of Japanese militarism, absolutely not. Okay. Thank you, Professor Žižek, I'm very glad to meet you. And I have a question. Someday you were asked the question, "Please tell us a secret," then you said, "Communism will win." Still do you think so? And another question is, in this place, in this time, tell us the another secret, do not repeat "Communism will win." Thank you. It's a nice, nasty, aggressive question. I like them. Okay. You know, like, I think that communism will win is, you know, my god, I don't have time to go into it. It's crucial that this is a secret, not in the secret in the sense that there is a communist plot and so on. But I would have to go too much here into theological theory of miracles by Pascal, the great Jansenist Catholic theologian, where he claim there are miracles, but miracles only for those who recognize the miracle. Like for Pascal, miracles are not for everyone. Something that appears to majority as just a natural accident appears as a miracle as a divine sign to a believer. In this sense for me, communism will win means that we who are engaged in the struggle for communism can read events as signs of communism. For example, for me, Tahrir Square or Occupy Wall Street and so on is all signs which point towards a possible communism, but there is absolutely no there is absolutely no guarantee that it will that it will happen and so on and so on. It's a secret in this sense that there is no objective necessity of it. It's secret in the sense that communism will win for those who believe in communism. It's in a way a masked tautology. But I don't think this is superstition. Now I will have to go deeply, I would have to go deeply into theory of ideology to explain why for me truth is not a neutral objective truth. Here I remain a Marxist. Truth is univer... truth is universal, but it's nonetheless partial. Truth is not the truth about society is not I look objectively, neutrally and see. No, if you look
does not mean for me that today we still have the old nineteenth, twentieth century working class proletarian as a subject. Class struggle for me means that a certain antagonism, deadlock, is constitutive of society. And that the so again, I think that this is for me the big difference between the position of class struggle and this multiculturalist multiple struggles and so on and so on, where the problem is that of recognition. The problem is like how can we recognize or be recognized by, I don't know, homosexuals, women, other religions and so on and so on. I don't, I think that that this is why I'm still for what some people call binary logic against this multiplicity of struggles. I still think that our so you know, some postmodern theoreticians prefer to claim that in our societies now, we have a multiplicity of struggles: working struggle for better conditions, women's struggle for their rights, sexual minorities, oppressed religious people. And the idea is, to simplify it, but for example, Ernesto Laclau argues like this, that there none of these struggles have has an a priori central position. That it's all a matter of strategic considerations. Like there is nothing deeper, more substantial, for example, in economic struggle of the workers than women's struggle, than cultural struggle and so on and so on. I still think, maybe in a more traditional Marxist way, that the economic antagonism, which is precisely not simply economic, let's call it the politico-economic antagonism which defines global capitalism is not at the same level as these other struggles. That struggle with global capitalism has a more substantial position of over-determining structuring other struggles. As what you said about communism, in a way, I agree with you, but again, I am not offering communism in any positive way as a future better society or whatever. I even refuse to use this language. My language is not the language of happiness. I don't think people will ever be more happy than now. And if anything, when you quoted Dalai Lama, no, my problem was not personal or impersonal or whatever. I even here, if you read me carefully you should know that I even think that the origin of the fall of Buddhism for me is Mahayana. I think that what was the original one? No, Theravada is then the worst, it's the Tibetan for... what? No, no, no, Hinayana is just opposite to Mahayana. But what Mahayana did is it introduced a notion which is for me a totally false one, a notion of bodhisattva. A notion that somehow you were already there liberated, but then out of the compassion with humanity you, as it were, came back into this world of suffering so that you as it were postpone your liberation till all others will be also liberated. I think that this introduces a certain form of sacrificial logics and so on. I'm always distrustful of politicians, social workers, thinkers who are ready to sacrifice themselves for you. I think that the original version of Buddhism, which may appear much more egotist, is much more authentic. First thing that I find wrong in this idea of of Mahayana. Mahayana idea, sorry, of bodhisattva. Is but wait a minute, here I give all the recognition to Buddhism. For me, a truly authentic Buddhism, as we all know, does not mean that the enlightenment, nirvana or whatever, is that you go somewhere up or whatever out of this world. You remain fully here, just in a different mode. In this sense I totally agree with those defenders of Buddhism who said authentic Buddhism has nothing to do with obscurantist European spiritualisms, you know, where somehow you have to get out of... no, you remain here just with a different attitude, as it were. You fully remain here. So if this is true, why then, then already if you fully accept this, then the idea of bodhisattva becomes meaningless for me. But when you are in nirvana you are still here. I think this idea of you know, enlightened Buddhist who is like in this eternal trance, it's a fake idea. It's already over, this is not Buddha. Buddha was enlightened and as such he was still fully acting here. The very idea I think of of bodhisattva introduces a certain metaphysical duality which is not needed. The second thing about Buddhism is that, and this is just an observation. You must know this, no? I'm not saying that Buddhism is any worse. I'm just making this... ah, now I will make maybe this is of some interest to you, so let me go into this. You know, I read many good Buddhists who for me very good, who admitted something. What? The whole Buddhism is fighting with this problem. If you in order to achieve the inner whatever we call it, I know that already to call it inner enlightenment it's false, but let's call it the state of enlightenment, nirvana or whatever. I agree with those honest ones who claim there is no necessary ethical implication in this. Here, the one with whom I totally disagree because he was a proto-fascist in Japan, Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki. He was honest enough to claim Buddhism is about Zen Buddhism, meditation, satori. In your life you can be a fascist, a communist, a liberal. There is no ontological guarantee that reaching satori in Japanese sense or nirvana I don't know how you call it here, that reaching this poses, implies any ethical guarantee that you will be a kind good person caring for others and so on and so on. As Suzuki himself writes there very honestly and I love him for that, that you can also be a Buddhist claiming in nirvana you see the just you see the just apparent insubstantial nature of all reality and then you tell yourself, okay, let's just enjoy the moment, why even care about others and so on and so on. I think that in this sense I accept in a more tragic way the gap between the two. The gap between doing good for others and spiritual enlightenment. And I know that all Buddhist tradition try to mask this gap. That's what my critique. As if somehow in order to reach spiritual enlightenment, you know, you have to go through a you have to first start by being good and so on and so on. Here Zen was honest enough, Zen Buddhism at its most radical. Where they openly claim, no, there is no necessity, there is no necessary connection. Maybe, but even this can be debated, that there is some marginal preference like most of the people who reach who strive to reach nirvana will probably be better. But even this I doubt. Because you know maybe you know the book, it did I must admit affect me very deeply, a book written by some guy who himself is a Buddhist monk, Brian Victoria, Zen at War. Well, it's a horrible book. It describes the Japanese Zen Buddhist community in thirties and forties. and its attitude towards Japanese imperial expansion in Korea, China and so on. And he admits that except from for literally ten fifteen let's call them dissidents among the, I think, around ten fifteen millions, all other not only supported Japanese imperialism but theoretically justified it. Let me give you two examples. The same Suzuki, who was well known in hippie times as a popularizer, he said he gave wrote a kind of advisory text to Japanese army claiming that let's imagine I'm facing an enemy in battle. And of course it's difficult for me to kill him. But he claims that if I reach the level of enlightenment, and if I see that I am not, he says he takes the case of bayonet knife and he says, if I still remain within the false reality of appearances, caught into it, then I perceive myself as the active subject pushing a knife into another human being who will be the victim. But he says if you reach Buddhist enlightenment, then you no longer perceive yourself as agent of your acts. You perceive, you become an observer of yourself. I quote him almost literally now. You see the knife not as something moved by you but a kind of a cosmic dance where the knife moved in space and my victim somehow falls on the knife. And he gives this as an advice to the Japanese army how people who are enlightened Buddhist will be much more efficient as murderers and so on and so on. Now, let me be clear here. I'm absolutely not saying that this makes Zen Buddhism the ideology of Japanese militarism, absolutely not. Okay. Thank you, Professor Žižek, I'm very glad to meet you. And I have a question. Someday you were asked the question, "Please tell us a secret," then you said, "Communism will win." Still do you think so? And another question is, in this place, in this time, tell us the another secret, do not repeat "Communism will win." Thank you. It's a nice, nasty, aggressive question. I like them. Okay. You know, like, I think that communism will win is, you know, my god, I don't have time to go into it. It's crucial that this is a secret, not in the secret in the sense that there is a communist plot and so on. But I would have to go too much here into theological theory of miracles by Pascal, the great Jansenist Catholic theologian, where he claim there are miracles, but miracles only for those who recognize the miracle. Like for Pascal, miracles are not for everyone. Something that appears to majority as just a natural accident appears as a miracle as a divine sign to a believer. In this sense for me, communism will win means that we who are engaged in the struggle for communism can read events as signs of communism. For example, for me, Tahrir Square or Occupy Wall Street and so on is all signs which point towards a possible communism, but there is absolutely no there is absolutely no guarantee that it will that it will happen and so on and so on. It's a secret in this sense that there is no objective necessity of it. It's secret in the sense that communism will win for those who believe in communism. It's in a way a masked tautology. But I don't think this is superstition. Now I will have to go deeply, I would have to go deeply into theory of ideology to explain why for me truth is not a neutral objective truth. Here I remain a Marxist. Truth is univer... truth is universal, but it's nonetheless partial. Truth is not the truth about society is not I look objectively, neutrally and see. No, if you look
unknown
neutrally you see nothing. Truth in social affairs is something that emerges only if you are interested in truth in a certain mode of truth, emancipatory truth, freedom or whatsoever. So if you want then another secret, and I'm well aware of the paradox that I'm talking about secrets, but this was the irony meant there, but I'm talking about secrets to the wide public, you know. This is a little bit like did you notice the same paradox in today's
neutrally you see nothing. Truth in social affairs is something that emerges only if you are interested in truth in a certain mode of truth, emancipatory truth, freedom or whatsoever. So if you want then another secret, and I'm well aware of the paradox that I'm talking about secrets, but this was the irony meant there, but I'm talking about secrets to the wide public, you know. This is a little bit like did you notice the same paradox in today's
Slavoj Žižek
popular literature, at least in Europe? The most popular, this not literature, but even literature and pseudo-scientific books are books which publicly tell secrets, like like those books on which The Da Vinci Code is based and so on. It's paradoxical how to be really lit to be really popular for the wide public you must pretend to tell a secret. And now I'm trying to answer your second question, which is what would have been what would have been another secret. Okay, that people will never want communism. But nonetheless it will come. But not in the sense of people will not want it and it will come through some new universal Kim Il-sung or whatever imposing it. No, people don't want it but nonetheless they will create it as an unintended consequence. Maybe even by people who will be fighting communism. Because you know what today we call communism, it's for me a wonderful paradox. China today, communists are in power and it looks as if communists are today the best managers of capitalism, more efficient than liberals. I think this is maybe the communist answer to Fukuyama. Yes, you were right, capitalism won, but we ex-communists are the best, not even ex-communists, we are the best managers of today's capitalism. And this is a very serious problem. My thesis developed in last books is that today's capitalism no longer or less and less requires democracy as its ideal political form. The capitalism successful capitalism which is emerging today less and less needs democracy. And I think this is a tendency which should worry all of us. So again, people will not want communism, but it's not that again, that they will get it as a revenge or whatever. What I'm playing here is this Lacanian in Lacanian psychoanalysis gap between want, what you want and what you desire. I didn't say, I was tricky here, as you know if you are Lacanian, I didn't say say people don't desire communism. I claim they desire it but they don't want it. What we desire we usually don't want it. Didn't you notice this? This is the elementary lesson of psychoanalysis like people all their time think they desire something, but when they come close to it they discover that it's the most horrible thing that it's better not not to have it. I think that what you want it's not the same as what you desire. So okay, it's not a big secret, but it's a nice secret, maybe. I repeat it, communism will come although people will not want it. Okay. It's not a great thing, it's what I tried. But it all depends what you mean by communism, my god. I don't know, I only know that there is a problem of the commons. Look at ecology, look at brain sciences, look even at intellectual property. It's ruining capitalism. Capital cannot deal with intellectual property, I claim, economically. This problem will either brought ruin or new authority, that's all I'm saying. I'm not I know what bothers you or maybe you, that I still use... Okay. May I do this just very briefly? Because it's important. The obvious stupid question: if nonetheless communism meant something in the twentieth century with all its horrors and so on, why still keep this stupid name? This is, I admit it, an obvious question. Why don't use another name? I can give you four reasons. Maybe this is suspicious. First one, that it names the right problem, the problem of commons, something that cannot be resolved within global capitalism. Second thing, it's at least a name which cannot be easily recuperated. If you say freedom, if you say justice, if you say socialism, you are in advance lost appropriated by the ruling ideology. Third reason, there is a certain communist tradition in all countries, you know, from these ancient rebellions of poor farmers, this egalitarian so-called in Europe millenarian rebellions. I think we should in some sense remain faithful to this tradition. And, this may sound cynical but it's almost crucial for me. We all know to what horrible results political projects can lead. Like October Revolution is a case, they wanted something great, it ended up in a nightmare, Stalinism and now your northern brothers which is maybe even worse than fascism and so on. But I'm tempted to say, maybe, so maybe if we want a new radical movement, it's good to have a name which all the time warns you about the danger, you know. That you are playing with fire, that what you are doing can end up very badly. I like this name which is not just an enthusiastic name, "Oh, communism" and so on, but the name which will always tell me, are you sure we can do this? What if in an unintended way this will turn into a new catastrophe and so on. I stop before you shoot me. Thank you, Professor Žižek for addressing us. I really appreciate it. I'm a big admirer of yours. In light of what's happening in Egypt with the regression of their revolution, the Wisconsin election with Scott Walker, Paraguay just had a parliamentary coup about a week ago, with the ecological catastrophes that make the news, you know, almost on a daily basis, where do you locate a sense of hope? Because it seems to me that one of the biggest impediments of the communist project, even if in its ideal sense, is really something to do with I hesitate to say human nature, but people. And perhaps you say they don't they desire it, but they don't really want it. But isn't that a key problem? So I just want to know where where you think a positive future lies. Thank you. First, I must tell you that here I'm not even a great optimist. I don't see any kind of ontological guarantee in the traditional Marxist sense, you know, where they claim nonetheless the fundamental logic of history is pushing us from capitalism to socialism. No, if history left left to its own, as it were, spontaneous course, is progressing towards a catastrophe, I think. So it's not this. What I'm nonetheless saying is that there are, what referring to theology I refer to as this miracles here and there. Look precisely at Egypt. Yes, okay, it happened what it happened, and it was even very probable that this will happen. But nonetheless, remember two a year before, nobody would have even believed that something like this could have happened. Our common racist view was that to arouse large crowds in Arab countries, you can only do it by nationalism, anti-Semitism or religious fundamentalism. And then a big rebellion happened which was secular, pro-democratic, without any trace of anti-Semitism and so on and so on. Something exploded. And I, in spite of the catastrophe okay, yes, in a way military coup d’état and who knows what will happen happened. The result is not zero, I claim. What my friends from Egypt are telling me is that nonetheless, you should not underestimate the awakening of the civil society in Egypt. How, you know, trade unions, women, students, where there was almost nothing before, a minority of small communist party, Muslim
popular literature, at least in Europe? The most popular, this not literature, but even literature and pseudo-scientific books are books which publicly tell secrets, like like those books on which The Da Vinci Code is based and so on. It's paradoxical how to be really lit to be really popular for the wide public you must pretend to tell a secret. And now I'm trying to answer your second question, which is what would have been what would have been another secret. Okay, that people will never want communism. But nonetheless it will come. But not in the sense of people will not want it and it will come through some new universal Kim Il-sung or whatever imposing it. No, people don't want it but nonetheless they will create it as an unintended consequence. Maybe even by people who will be fighting communism. Because you know what today we call communism, it's for me a wonderful paradox. China today, communists are in power and it looks as if communists are today the best managers of capitalism, more efficient than liberals. I think this is maybe the communist answer to Fukuyama. Yes, you were right, capitalism won, but we ex-communists are the best, not even ex-communists, we are the best managers of today's capitalism. And this is a very serious problem. My thesis developed in last books is that today's capitalism no longer or less and less requires democracy as its ideal political form. The capitalism successful capitalism which is emerging today less and less needs democracy. And I think this is a tendency which should worry all of us. So again, people will not want communism, but it's not that again, that they will get it as a revenge or whatever. What I'm playing here is this Lacanian in Lacanian psychoanalysis gap between want, what you want and what you desire. I didn't say, I was tricky here, as you know if you are Lacanian, I didn't say say people don't desire communism. I claim they desire it but they don't want it. What we desire we usually don't want it. Didn't you notice this? This is the elementary lesson of psychoanalysis like people all their time think they desire something, but when they come close to it they discover that it's the most horrible thing that it's better not not to have it. I think that what you want it's not the same as what you desire. So okay, it's not a big secret, but it's a nice secret, maybe. I repeat it, communism will come although people will not want it. Okay. It's not a great thing, it's what I tried. But it all depends what you mean by communism, my god. I don't know, I only know that there is a problem of the commons. Look at ecology, look at brain sciences, look even at intellectual property. It's ruining capitalism. Capital cannot deal with intellectual property, I claim, economically. This problem will either brought ruin or new authority, that's all I'm saying. I'm not I know what bothers you or maybe you, that I still use... Okay. May I do this just very briefly? Because it's important. The obvious stupid question: if nonetheless communism meant something in the twentieth century with all its horrors and so on, why still keep this stupid name? This is, I admit it, an obvious question. Why don't use another name? I can give you four reasons. Maybe this is suspicious. First one, that it names the right problem, the problem of commons, something that cannot be resolved within global capitalism. Second thing, it's at least a name which cannot be easily recuperated. If you say freedom, if you say justice, if you say socialism, you are in advance lost appropriated by the ruling ideology. Third reason, there is a certain communist tradition in all countries, you know, from these ancient rebellions of poor farmers, this egalitarian so-called in Europe millenarian rebellions. I think we should in some sense remain faithful to this tradition. And, this may sound cynical but it's almost crucial for me. We all know to what horrible results political projects can lead. Like October Revolution is a case, they wanted something great, it ended up in a nightmare, Stalinism and now your northern brothers which is maybe even worse than fascism and so on. But I'm tempted to say, maybe, so maybe if we want a new radical movement, it's good to have a name which all the time warns you about the danger, you know. That you are playing with fire, that what you are doing can end up very badly. I like this name which is not just an enthusiastic name, "Oh, communism" and so on, but the name which will always tell me, are you sure we can do this? What if in an unintended way this will turn into a new catastrophe and so on. I stop before you shoot me. Thank you, Professor Žižek for addressing us. I really appreciate it. I'm a big admirer of yours. In light of what's happening in Egypt with the regression of their revolution, the Wisconsin election with Scott Walker, Paraguay just had a parliamentary coup about a week ago, with the ecological catastrophes that make the news, you know, almost on a daily basis, where do you locate a sense of hope? Because it seems to me that one of the biggest impediments of the communist project, even if in its ideal sense, is really something to do with I hesitate to say human nature, but people. And perhaps you say they don't they desire it, but they don't really want it. But isn't that a key problem? So I just want to know where where you think a positive future lies. Thank you. First, I must tell you that here I'm not even a great optimist. I don't see any kind of ontological guarantee in the traditional Marxist sense, you know, where they claim nonetheless the fundamental logic of history is pushing us from capitalism to socialism. No, if history left left to its own, as it were, spontaneous course, is progressing towards a catastrophe, I think. So it's not this. What I'm nonetheless saying is that there are, what referring to theology I refer to as this miracles here and there. Look precisely at Egypt. Yes, okay, it happened what it happened, and it was even very probable that this will happen. But nonetheless, remember two a year before, nobody would have even believed that something like this could have happened. Our common racist view was that to arouse large crowds in Arab countries, you can only do it by nationalism, anti-Semitism or religious fundamentalism. And then a big rebellion happened which was secular, pro-democratic, without any trace of anti-Semitism and so on and so on. Something exploded. And I, in spite of the catastrophe okay, yes, in a way military coup d’état and who knows what will happen happened. The result is not zero, I claim. What my friends from Egypt are telling me is that nonetheless, you should not underestimate the awakening of the civil society in Egypt. How, you know, trade unions, women, students, where there was almost nothing before, a minority of small communist party, Muslim
unknown
Brotherhood, there is now quite complex texture of civil society, again, feminists, trade unions, students,
Brotherhood, there is now quite complex texture of civil society, again, feminists, trade unions, students,
unknown
intellectuals and so on and
intellectuals and so on and
unknown
so on. And it's interesting how even those who manipulated them had to up to a point to accept their language. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood new brotherhood new president has to speak the language of, you know, we will allow others, it will not be Islamic blah blah blah. How the scene has changed. And even the very fact that now there will be at least the struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, when you know when the enemy is split and fighting, there is a hope. The same thing I would say about Europe. Are we aware what miracle almost happened in Greece? That a radical left party, Syriza, which usually gets like one two maybe three percent, exploded to almost the strongest
so on. And it's interesting how even those who manipulated them had to up to a point to accept their language. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood new brotherhood new president has to speak the language of, you know, we will allow others, it will not be Islamic blah blah blah. How the scene has changed. And even the very fact that now there will be at least the struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, when you know when the enemy is split and fighting, there is a hope. The same thing I would say about Europe. Are we aware what miracle almost happened in Greece? That a radical left party, Syriza, which usually gets like one two maybe three percent, exploded to almost the strongest
Slavoj Žižek
party. The whole Europe was in a panic. And maybe, I'm saying this with great sadness, it's even better that they lost because they were very honest, very realistic, they were not dreamers. But from what I learned from my friends, Slovene diplomats in Brussels, Europe in the case of Syriza victory was already preparing a gigantic punishment operation. The idea was, let the Greece get back to their drachma, isolate them economically and then sit and watch their ruin and so on. I mean, if Syriza were to win, European establishment would probably have organized a kind of exemplary failure to give a warning once and for all to leftists. And you know another irony, who was the most ferocious opponent of Syriza? The Communist Party. Which is the old, the only existing in the world serious Communist Party, by serious I mean it usually got between eight and ten percent of the votes, which is still purely pro-Stalinist, which still publishes regularly Stalin's complete works, for them the enemy is not even Gorbachev, is Khrushchev as the first traitor. And the irony is that in a perverse way usually they were voting with New Democracy in the parliament, that is to say with conservative. So I would say, no, I don't see any great hope. I just see new crisis, more disorders and so on, which maybe they will push people towards something new, maybe things will be even worse. All I'm sure, this is my dogma, is that what we still have now up to a point, the relatively free prosperous capitalist democracy, which is not so bad as long as it lasted, that this cannot go on indefinitely. This is my naive belief. The future is either what in Europe we call in a racist way "capitalism with Asian values," which has nothing to do with Asia, but a to cut long story short authoritarian capitalism with new apartheids, new walls, new distinctions, or something new. And I don't have any ontological guarantee, history is not on our side, whatever. I'm not saying there will be bright future. I'm saying if something doesn't happen there will be a very dark future. That's all I'm saying. If I can, because it's a it's a it's a good question. You know, again, your problem is the problem with science fiction, like what if I mean which Marx would we revive? If Marx the way he was one hundred and fifty years ago, if we were to revive him, now he wouldn't understand anything. He was very limited in this sense. Remember that in his mathematical manuscripts he dismissed the the imaginary number, you know, the square of minus one as pure nonsense and so on. So I don't what I think is the following thing. I don't I am not ready to and when you said Marx had his prescription, I don't think he had any prescription. He was totally confused. In positive forms, formulas, he oscillated. Once he was for more state centralism, then there was Paris Commune he said oh finally we found it and so on and so on. But it's not only a question, it's not only this one. The question is for me that to be a Marxist today means to not to return to Marx, but to in a radically critical way return to and repeat totally reconstruct radically his analysis. It's not just a question of some details and so on. It's a question of fundamental flaws that we can see today in his very notion of communism. I think for example that Marx's notion of communism is still a capitalist notion. What do I mean by this? Marx saw capitalism as the most most revolutionary dynamic system in the history of humanity. You know capitalism can only survive through endless self renovation, self revolutionizing. But then Marx thought that at a certain point capitalist frame becomes a limitation, so we should draw the form of capital private property and then this wild development will explode freely and continue. I think that
party. The whole Europe was in a panic. And maybe, I'm saying this with great sadness, it's even better that they lost because they were very honest, very realistic, they were not dreamers. But from what I learned from my friends, Slovene diplomats in Brussels, Europe in the case of Syriza victory was already preparing a gigantic punishment operation. The idea was, let the Greece get back to their drachma, isolate them economically and then sit and watch their ruin and so on. I mean, if Syriza were to win, European establishment would probably have organized a kind of exemplary failure to give a warning once and for all to leftists. And you know another irony, who was the most ferocious opponent of Syriza? The Communist Party. Which is the old, the only existing in the world serious Communist Party, by serious I mean it usually got between eight and ten percent of the votes, which is still purely pro-Stalinist, which still publishes regularly Stalin's complete works, for them the enemy is not even Gorbachev, is Khrushchev as the first traitor. And the irony is that in a perverse way usually they were voting with New Democracy in the parliament, that is to say with conservative. So I would say, no, I don't see any great hope. I just see new crisis, more disorders and so on, which maybe they will push people towards something new, maybe things will be even worse. All I'm sure, this is my dogma, is that what we still have now up to a point, the relatively free prosperous capitalist democracy, which is not so bad as long as it lasted, that this cannot go on indefinitely. This is my naive belief. The future is either what in Europe we call in a racist way "capitalism with Asian values," which has nothing to do with Asia, but a to cut long story short authoritarian capitalism with new apartheids, new walls, new distinctions, or something new. And I don't have any ontological guarantee, history is not on our side, whatever. I'm not saying there will be bright future. I'm saying if something doesn't happen there will be a very dark future. That's all I'm saying. If I can, because it's a it's a it's a good question. You know, again, your problem is the problem with science fiction, like what if I mean which Marx would we revive? If Marx the way he was one hundred and fifty years ago, if we were to revive him, now he wouldn't understand anything. He was very limited in this sense. Remember that in his mathematical manuscripts he dismissed the the imaginary number, you know, the square of minus one as pure nonsense and so on. So I don't what I think is the following thing. I don't I am not ready to and when you said Marx had his prescription, I don't think he had any prescription. He was totally confused. In positive forms, formulas, he oscillated. Once he was for more state centralism, then there was Paris Commune he said oh finally we found it and so on and so on. But it's not only a question, it's not only this one. The question is for me that to be a Marxist today means to not to return to Marx, but to in a radically critical way return to and repeat totally reconstruct radically his analysis. It's not just a question of some details and so on. It's a question of fundamental flaws that we can see today in his very notion of communism. I think for example that Marx's notion of communism is still a capitalist notion. What do I mean by this? Marx saw capitalism as the most most revolutionary dynamic system in the history of humanity. You know capitalism can only survive through endless self renovation, self revolutionizing. But then Marx thought that at a certain point capitalist frame becomes a limitation, so we should draw the form of capital private property and then this wild development will explode freely and continue. I think that
unknown
Marx was here dreaming about in a way capitalism without the form of capitalism. He didn't
Marx was here dreaming about in a way capitalism without the form of capitalism. He didn't
Slavoj Žižek
see to what extent this
see to what extent this
unknown
very dynamism
very dynamism
unknown
is
is
Slavoj Žižek
possible only within
possible only within
unknown
the capitalist frame. Marx didn't see how what he misperceived as an obstacle was at the same time paradoxically a condition to what it was the obstacle of. So this is the first radical limitation. Second limitation, Marx did not have he had ingenious insights here and there in his analysis of the eighteen forty-eight French Revolution, eighteen Brumaire and so on, concrete analysis, but as any people noticed about the
the capitalist frame. Marx didn't see how what he misperceived as an obstacle was at the same time paradoxically a condition to what it was the obstacle of. So this is the first radical limitation. Second limitation, Marx did not have he had ingenious insights here and there in his analysis of the eighteen forty-eight French Revolution, eighteen Brumaire and so on, concrete analysis, but as any people noticed about the
unknown
proper dynamics of power, power, domination and so on, Marx didn't develop that properly. Which is why the phenomenon of Stalinism, I don't think you can the horrors of twentieth century communism, I don't think you can explain them through some critical Marxism. I noticed how often the Marxist fall into open racism even. For example some western Marxist claim Stalinism occurred because the revolution happened in the wrong place, in primitive Asiatic Russia instead of developed western Europe. Which is totally wrong. Here I am even more sympathetic to Russian conservatives who claim no, communism was western import to our authentic Russian tradition and so on and so on. So but the reason I don't like the term third way if it's it's for me too close to this idea of either social democracy of or fascism like you know third way in the sense of somewhere in between like not this not that but let let's keep the freedom the freedom from capitalism and productivity but social solidarity and community from communism and so on and so on.
proper dynamics of power, power, domination and so on, Marx didn't develop that properly. Which is why the phenomenon of Stalinism, I don't think you can the horrors of twentieth century communism, I don't think you can explain them through some critical Marxism. I noticed how often the Marxist fall into open racism even. For example some western Marxist claim Stalinism occurred because the revolution happened in the wrong place, in primitive Asiatic Russia instead of developed western Europe. Which is totally wrong. Here I am even more sympathetic to Russian conservatives who claim no, communism was western import to our authentic Russian tradition and so on and so on. So but the reason I don't like the term third way if it's it's for me too close to this idea of either social democracy of or fascism like you know third way in the sense of somewhere in between like not this not that but let let's keep the freedom the freedom from capitalism and productivity but social solidarity and community from communism and so on and so on.
Slavoj Žižek
I think this is too easy because I think that if if you want the third way, I will ask you what is the second way? Okay, the second way can be totalitarianisms, twentieth century totalitarianisms, fascism, communism. But I claim that these twentieth century totalitarianisms, communism included, failed not because they went too far, but because they remained too much within the frame of capitalism. Their dream was basically the capitalist dream of this instant productivity, total productive mobilization and so on. It is so clear this for example in Stalinism which is why Stalin immensely admired United States to the end. When Stalin was asked what is the ideal figure of Bolshevik, he said a person who combines Russian passion with American pragmatism and so on. So what I'm saying is that I don't like to talk about the third way because there even wasn't the second way proper. The the nineteen ninety the fall of communism means precisely that twentieth century communism wasn't even a serious second way. So precisely because of this I am I don't like this terminology which is for me too much of this idea of we have extremes but we need the proper balance. No, I never like the proper balance, I like extremes. And what you said about violence, you know this is a very complex question. Of course I am against violence in the sense of killing people and so on. But as I wrote apropos Egypt, there is another type of violence. For example, this is why I wrote and people almost shot me at some point seriously when I wrote the problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough. And then I made things even worse when I said in the sense in which Mahatma Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. What did I mean by this? Hitler killed millions. Why? Because in a way it was the only way to solve the capitalist system. He was afraid to do real social change. And this is always the violence. Violence in the sense of physical violence, deadlock and so on is for me always a sign of failure, impotence. Even Stalinist violence of forced collectivization, it was a desperate way out of a total deadlock. In Egypt, let's go to Egypt. There was a tremendous violence in what the protesters did on Tahrir Square. Of course not physical violence, but they stop interrupted the entire functioning of the state. And the the physical violence of Mubarak supporters, shooting, attacking demonstrators and so on was a violence which was clearly aimed at restoring social order, at making things function again. And I'm of course all for the first type of violence. So again, when I what where I don't agree with those who just attack I mean are afraid of violence, I share this with them, but two things should be added. First that it's not that we live in peaceful times and then some crazy revolutionaries start violence. Are we aware of the amount of violence going on today not just in North Korea, China, but also in Congo, Russia here and there? It's immense violence and so on. Direct physical violence, structural violence. So again, not bear in view not only the violence for the change but the violence which is here as part of the normal state of things. Second, my second point, that again for me the positive violence is the violence of just occupying a space and making preventing things to go on as normal. In this social sense again, Tahrir Square or Gandhi in India was much more violent than Hitler, because Gandhi's aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning. Hitler killed millions on the contrary, to to continue guarantee the smooth functioning of the German state. And here here we should be clear. There is something violent in demonstrators. They were in a way very dogmatic. We shouldn't be afraid to say this. When people came to Tahrir Square, they didn't say oh we want creative dialogue and so on. No, did you notice how those in power, even if hypocritically, Mubarak says oh you are all my sons, let's talk. It was the protester who said no, no talk, you must go and so on, no dialogue. This is positive violence for me, you dogmatically in a very dogmatic way we should rehabilitate this violence. But never forget that this is not the violence of killing people, this is the anti-systemic violence. And it's they, those in power, who then precisely in order as they say to bring things back to normal that they then resort to real violence. Did you know even with you when you had your coup d’état Park and so on general? I don't know what he justified it, but he probably said I suspended democracy so that things will finally start to function normally and so on and so on. All the dictatorships are always made legitimized as a return to peace. Okay, whatever, no. Thank you very much, I'm really grateful for your incredible patience. Thank you.
I think this is too easy because I think that if if you want the third way, I will ask you what is the second way? Okay, the second way can be totalitarianisms, twentieth century totalitarianisms, fascism, communism. But I claim that these twentieth century totalitarianisms, communism included, failed not because they went too far, but because they remained too much within the frame of capitalism. Their dream was basically the capitalist dream of this instant productivity, total productive mobilization and so on. It is so clear this for example in Stalinism which is why Stalin immensely admired United States to the end. When Stalin was asked what is the ideal figure of Bolshevik, he said a person who combines Russian passion with American pragmatism and so on. So what I'm saying is that I don't like to talk about the third way because there even wasn't the second way proper. The the nineteen ninety the fall of communism means precisely that twentieth century communism wasn't even a serious second way. So precisely because of this I am I don't like this terminology which is for me too much of this idea of we have extremes but we need the proper balance. No, I never like the proper balance, I like extremes. And what you said about violence, you know this is a very complex question. Of course I am against violence in the sense of killing people and so on. But as I wrote apropos Egypt, there is another type of violence. For example, this is why I wrote and people almost shot me at some point seriously when I wrote the problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough. And then I made things even worse when I said in the sense in which Mahatma Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. What did I mean by this? Hitler killed millions. Why? Because in a way it was the only way to solve the capitalist system. He was afraid to do real social change. And this is always the violence. Violence in the sense of physical violence, deadlock and so on is for me always a sign of failure, impotence. Even Stalinist violence of forced collectivization, it was a desperate way out of a total deadlock. In Egypt, let's go to Egypt. There was a tremendous violence in what the protesters did on Tahrir Square. Of course not physical violence, but they stop interrupted the entire functioning of the state. And the the physical violence of Mubarak supporters, shooting, attacking demonstrators and so on was a violence which was clearly aimed at restoring social order, at making things function again. And I'm of course all for the first type of violence. So again, when I what where I don't agree with those who just attack I mean are afraid of violence, I share this with them, but two things should be added. First that it's not that we live in peaceful times and then some crazy revolutionaries start violence. Are we aware of the amount of violence going on today not just in North Korea, China, but also in Congo, Russia here and there? It's immense violence and so on. Direct physical violence, structural violence. So again, not bear in view not only the violence for the change but the violence which is here as part of the normal state of things. Second, my second point, that again for me the positive violence is the violence of just occupying a space and making preventing things to go on as normal. In this social sense again, Tahrir Square or Gandhi in India was much more violent than Hitler, because Gandhi's aim was to stop the British colonial state functioning. Hitler killed millions on the contrary, to to continue guarantee the smooth functioning of the German state. And here here we should be clear. There is something violent in demonstrators. They were in a way very dogmatic. We shouldn't be afraid to say this. When people came to Tahrir Square, they didn't say oh we want creative dialogue and so on. No, did you notice how those in power, even if hypocritically, Mubarak says oh you are all my sons, let's talk. It was the protester who said no, no talk, you must go and so on, no dialogue. This is positive violence for me, you dogmatically in a very dogmatic way we should rehabilitate this violence. But never forget that this is not the violence of killing people, this is the anti-systemic violence. And it's they, those in power, who then precisely in order as they say to bring things back to normal that they then resort to real violence. Did you know even with you when you had your coup d’état Park and so on general? I don't know what he justified it, but he probably said I suspended democracy so that things will finally start to function normally and so on and so on. All the dictatorships are always made legitimized as a return to peace. Okay, whatever, no. Thank you very much, I'm really grateful for your incredible patience. Thank you.