Slavoj Žižek with Tavis Smiley (March 1, 2017)
Interview · Zizek Comedy ·
2017-03-01 · 0:23:59 · 3,652 words
capitalismideologyfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencerace-antisemitismgeopolitics-wareconomicsethicseveryday-lifephilosophy-general
An interview around Trump's early presidency in which Žižek defends (with hedging) his pre-election claim that a Trump victory could trigger a 'big awakening' in American politics. He argues Trump is an effect, not a cause, of the failures of mainstream liberal politics, praises Bernie Sanders' mobilization of disaffected white workers, and diagnoses the left's central problem as the 'post-alcoholic nightmare' of the morning after, having no plan for reorganizing daily life once protest succeeds. He closes with calls for the left to reclaim the 'true moral majority', an asymmetric analysis of police violence, and the thesis that liberalism can survive only through a move to the left.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 6
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
His label for Trump's populism as a reactive effect of what was wrong with mainstream liberal politics, not an authentic popular movement.
He borrows the medical term for treating symptoms rather than causes; fighting Trump directly without cutting off the liberal failures that produced him is symptomatic healing.
as “family values”
He inverts the conservative slogan, arguing Reaganomics destroyed family values more than LGBT leftists, so the left should claim the term.
as “true moral majority”
His reclamation of the Christian-right phrase: the left should present itself as the voice of ordinary decency, good sense, and even Christian/family values.
His term for the morning after a victorious uprising, when the real test of a progressive force begins: how to reorganize ordinary daily life so people feel the difference.
as “Zionist anti-Semites”
His name for the tendency around Trump: antisemitic toward Jews at home while ardently pro-Israel abroad, signaling a restructured political map.
Stories he reaches for 2
At the end of V for Vendetta the people penetrate and take over the British Parliament, and the film ends. Žižek would sell his mother into slavery to see a sequel showing what the people actually do once in power.
“I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery, God bless her, she is dead so I can say it, to see a movie called V for Vendetta Part”
The reply 'all lives matter / blue lives matter' is a dirty lie: it is generally true but erases the specific violence of the system that is graspable only in the case of Black lives.
“in general this is of course true, but the specific violence of the system you can grasp it only in that case of Black lives.”
Works invoked 3
V for Vendetta film
Deployed as a set-piece: the film ends where the people take over Parliament, exactly the morning-after problem the left has no answer to.
One of his own texts being re-released that year; introduced by the interviewer.
Lenin book
His re-released Lenin book, used to frame the discussion of Bannon's Leninist self-identification and Žižek's preferred post-revolution Lenin.
People invoked 11
Vladimir Lenin positive
The Lenin Žižek likes is the post-revolution Lenin who faced the problem of reorganizing daily life after winning the civil war, and who miserably failed at it.
Quoted by the interviewer saying he is a Leninist who wants to destroy the state and bring the establishment crashing down; Žižek uses the quote as a prompt to distinguish his own preferred Lenin.
Nancy Pelosi negative
Criticized for renormalizing the situation by saying 'our time will come back' as with Reagan or Bush, which Žižek denies.
Donald Trump negative
A threat to world peace whose fake populism is an effect of liberal failure; degrades public discourse; surrounded by Zionist anti-Semites; yet Žižek half-hoped his win would trigger a 'big awakening'.
Bernie Sanders positive
A big fan; Sanders mobilized precisely the disappointed white workers who otherwise voted for Trump, doing what everyone thought impossible.
Samuel Beckett positive
Žižek aligns himself with Beckett's formula: try again, fail again, fail better.
Mentioned as starring in V for Vendetta, the film used to illustrate the morning-after problem.
Hillary Clinton negative
Acknowledged as possibly a nicer person, but her rainbow coalition stood for what was wrong with Democratic politics, PC concessions that avoided the economic question; a win would have meant complacent satisfaction.
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Cited as having seen in his last years that liberal tolerance alone was insufficient without addressing economic causes.
Noam Chomsky positive
Žižek says he totally agrees with Chomsky's diagnosis that Trump is a threat to world peace and the future of humanity.
Ronald Reagan negative
Cited for 'family values' rhetoric; Žižek inverts it, arguing Reaganomics destroyed family values more than LGBT leftists did.
What it argues
Trump as symptom of mainstream liberal failureThe impotence of the liberal left-centerBernie Sanders and the missing economic leftThe 'morning after' problem of revolutionDegradation of public discourse under TrumpAsymmetry of state violence and the 'all lives matter' lieZionist anti-Semites around Trump and the new political mappingLiberalism survives only through a move to the left
Dialectical moves 6
“The way to really fight Trump is not just to fight Trump.”
Fighting the symptom leaves the disease intact; one must attack the liberal root causes that produced Trump, or another Trump follows.
“We left should propose ourselves — we are the true moral majority.”
Invert the right's claim to moral majority: the left, not the right, stands for the ordinary decency and common sense of common people.
“If you mean anything minimally serious by family values, then Reaganomics did more to destroy family values than all the LGBT leftists together.”
The right's professed value is best realized by its opposite, leftist economics, so the left should reclaim the slogan.
“The true horror is not an ordinary guy shooting a policeman but a policeman shooting an ordinary person: the agent of the law acts as a common criminal.”
The two acts look symmetric but are not wrong in the same way; state violence is the true catastrophe because it disintegrates law and order from within.
“What was best in liberalism — tolerance, women's rights — can only survive through a move to the left.”
Liberalism survives only by negating itself; without a left turn its achievements will be lost.
“It is easy to gather one million people; the real question is what happens the morning after — V for Vendetta ends exactly where the true problem begins.”
The revolutionary moment is the easy part; the morning-after reorganization of daily life is where the left has no answer.
Claims 26
asserts
Trump is a threat to world peace and possibly the future of humanity on Earth, agreeing with Chomsky's diagnosis.Trump
reframes
Trump is an effect, not a cause: his fake populism is a reaction to all that was wrong with mainstream liberal politics.Trump's rise
rejects
Hillary Clinton's 'rainbow coalition' — from Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street — stood for what was wrong with Democratic politics: PC concessions that avoided the key economic question.Clinton / Democratic politics
asserts
Bernie Sanders mobilized precisely the disappointed white workers who otherwise voted for Trump, doing what everyone thought impossible.Bernie Sanders
asserts
The key problem today is the disintegration and impotence of the liberal left-center, which is now the predominant force across Silicon Valley and the establishment.liberal left-center
asserts
Silicon Valley progressives are progressive on LGBT and PC causes but will not touch capitalism.Silicon Valley liberalism
asserts
Only a modest push to the left — healthcare, human rights, workers' rights — is needed, not any naive communist revolution.political change
asserts
If the Democratic Party remains the liberal establishment and we only mobilize around Trump, beating this Trump still produces another Trump.anti-Trump strategy
rejects
The liberal-left's humanitarian framing of immigrants, instead of addressing true causes, produced the catastrophe now unfolding in Germany, France and England.immigration politics
asserts
Trump's style is an incredible degradation and vulgarization of public discourse — one of the true catastrophes of Trump.public discourse
asserts
The left should position itself as the true moral majority standing for ordinary decency and common sense.left strategy
rejects
A Hillary win would have produced mere satisfaction — 'we avoided the worst, we can go on as we did' — rather than the deeper change needed.Clinton
asserts
His real fear is that Trump may succeed for a couple of years via short-term dirty deals with Mexico, Putin and others.Trump
asserts
Reaganomics did more to destroy family values than all the LGBT leftists combined, so the left should answer Reagan's family-values talk with leftist economics.family values
asserts
Just keeping Trump at bay and protecting mainstream liberalism is not enough; we keep sliding toward catastrophe.anti-Trump strategy
asserts
The Lenin he likes is the post-revolution Lenin who faced the problem of how to reorganize daily life after winning the civil war.Lenin
reframes
The true test of progressive forces is the morning after — how ordinary people feel the difference once protest euphoria fades and normality returns.the left's central problem
rejects
The 'all lives matter / blue lives matter' reply is a dirty lie because the specific violence of the system can be grasped only in the case of Black lives.Black Lives Matter
reframes
There is no symmetry between an ordinary person shooting a policeman and a policeman shooting an ordinary person: when a state agent acts as a common criminal, the whole law-and-order disintegrates — that is the true horror.police violence
asserts
Around Trump there is a real tendency of Zionist anti-Semites: antisemitic toward Jews at home, fanatically pro-Israel abroad.Trump's circle
rejects
This new situation cannot be beaten by simply remaining faithful to liberal values.liberal values
rejects
Nancy Pelosi's renormalizing claim that 'our time will come back' like Reagan or Bush is false — it will not come back on its own.Pelosi
asserts
The disconnect of good white liberals from everyday people is mostly economic in origin.white liberals
reframes
Politically correct white liberals exaggerate at the formal level because they secretly know they are not touching the real problems.political correctness
reframes
Liberalism itself will not survive unless the whole scene moves toward the left; what was best in liberalism can only survive through a move to the left.liberalism
asserts
He stands with Samuel Beckett: try again, fail again, fail better — repeated failure is not a reason to stop.pessimism and perseverance
Quotes 8
“I am well, but otherwise I'm in a bad mood.”Slavoj Žižek · opening self-description
“Trump is an effect. It's an effect of all that was wrong with mainstream liberal politics.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump as symptom
“we are the true moral majority, we stand for the ordinary decency, good sense of common people”Slavoj Žižek · left as moral majority
“I'm with you and Samuel Beckett: try again, fail again, fail better.”Slavoj Žižek · pessimism and perseverance
“the true test of progressive forces is what I call this post-alcoholic nightmare: The morning after.”Slavoj Žižek · morning after problem
“there is no symmetry here... they are not wrong in the same way. The true catastrophe is police doing it”Slavoj Žižek · asymmetry of state violence
“What was best in liberalism, all the lessons of tolerance, women's rights and so on, can only survive through a move to the left.”Slavoj Žižek · liberalism survives via left move
“I'm not talking any naive bullshit about communism or whatever. I'm very modest, just a little bit of a push towards the left”Slavoj Žižek · modest leftism
Transcript 23 turns
unknown
I am pleased to welcome Slavoj Zizek back to this program. The public intellectual has been called the most dangerous philosopher in the West, and he’s published more than books in different languages. He’s re-releasing a number of those texts this year, including the re-release of his text In Defense of Lost Causes and Lenin later this spring. I am always honored to have on this program the brilliant philosopher Slavoj Zizek. How are you, sir?
I am pleased to welcome Slavoj Zizek back to this program. The public intellectual has been called the most dangerous philosopher in the West, and he’s published more than books in different languages. He’s re-releasing a number of those texts this year, including the re-release of his text In Defense of Lost Causes and Lenin later this spring. I am always honored to have on this program the brilliant philosopher Slavoj Zizek. How are you, sir?
Slavoj Žižek
I am well, but otherwise I’m in a bad mood. I’m well because I’m very glad to be here with you. Otherwise
I am well, but otherwise I’m in a bad mood. I’m well because I’m very glad to be here with you. Otherwise
unknown
you’re in a bad mood, but I’m glad to have you here anyway. I want, let me, I’m going to put you in a further bad mood, maybe, I don’t know. I want to start with—I was surprised, and then again maybe not knowing how your mind works, to see this from you. So just before the election of Donald Trump, we are told that you gave an interview to Channel in the UK, and in that interview you were asked if you were a US citizen whether or not you would vote for Donald Trump, and you said you would. I’m quoting now from Slate: The most prominent living Marxist philosopher in the world is rightfully horrified, your word horrified, at Trump, but as a sort of a bright side he posits that handing him the keys to the Oval Office and the nuclear codes would trigger a big awakening, your words, a big awakening in American politics. Why do you think that handing Mr. Trump the keys to the nuclear codes, which he now has, would be or is now a big awakening for American politics?
you’re in a bad mood, but I’m glad to have you here anyway. I want, let me, I’m going to put you in a further bad mood, maybe, I don’t know. I want to start with—I was surprised, and then again maybe not knowing how your mind works, to see this from you. So just before the election of Donald Trump, we are told that you gave an interview to Channel in the UK, and in that interview you were asked if you were a US citizen whether or not you would vote for Donald Trump, and you said you would. I’m quoting now from Slate: The most prominent living Marxist philosopher in the world is rightfully horrified, your word horrified, at Trump, but as a sort of a bright side he posits that handing him the keys to the Oval Office and the nuclear codes would trigger a big awakening, your words, a big awakening in American politics. Why do you think that handing Mr. Trump the keys to the nuclear codes, which he now has, would be or is now a big awakening for American politics?
Slavoj Žižek
Well, I simply think first that Trump is—I totally agree here with Noam Chomsky’s diagnosis—Trump is a threat to world peace, maybe to future of humanity on the Earth and so on and so on. But I think I’m much—I’m a pessimist in a much deeper sense. I think that where we were all, not just United States, world’s moving, we are moving towards a certain end point. Problems with refugees, threat of new economic catastrophes, new racisms exploding, not just in the United States—Europe is much worse now and so on. And maybe I—it was a mistake, I’m ready immediately to change my mind. I just think that we should never forget one thing: Trump is an effect. It’s an effect of all that was wrong with mainstream liberal politics. Trump, his fake populism is a reaction to it. So the way to really fight Trump is not just to fight Trump. If you just fight Trump, you are doing what in medicine they call, if I get it correctly, symptomatic healing. You have some serious illness, but you just take pills to ease the pain. We must cut off the causes of it. Look, and that’s what bothered me, although he may be a nicer—she may be, Hillary Clinton, a nicer person and so on. But her coalition, her rainbow coalition, let’s call it, was an incredible one, from Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street. Everybody was there, and I think she stood for what was wrong with Democratic politics. You make all the concessions to politically correct causes and so on and so on, just not to address the key economic question. And that’s what gave birth to Trump. That’s why, incidentally, I’m also a big fan of Bernie Sanders. One may disagree with this or with that about Bernie Sanders, but you know, he did what everyone thought it’s not possible. He mobilized precisely those disappointed white workers who otherwise voted for Trump. That’s why I think it’s so—again, back to, sorry, back to Trump. My idea is that if Democratic Party remains what it is, this liberal establishment, let’s call it, even if we win over this Trump, there will be another Trump. In Europe we have the same problem, my God. The key problem today is the disintegration, the impotence, whatever you call it, of this let’s call it even liberal left center, whatever. This—this is the predominant force today, you know, all the big names from Silicon Valley and so on. They are all very progressive about LGBT and so on, but you don’t touch capitalism and so on. We have to do this, that’s the key to our survival. I’m not talking any naive bullshit about communism or whatever. I’m very modest, just a little bit of a push towards the left in the sense of healthcare, human rights, workers’ rights and—if we don’t do that, if we don’t mobilize also ordinary working people and so on, then it doesn’t matter if we get rid of this Trump, another Trump with—will come. Europe is full of Trumps and so on and so on. And I’m pretty desperate here, you know. I really think that we are approaching a catastrophe—again, ecological, social catastrophe, immigrants and so on. Here I’m desperate about the mistakes liberal—look at Europe. This politically correct approach of liberal left. Let’s just talk in abstract about immigrants, but let’s change it into a humanitarian issue. Do we Europeans have a heart to help them? Instead of addressing the true causes of all this, then you get what, the catastrophe that is now Europe—in Germany, in France, in England. I don’t think—but maybe I was wrong—it was not a principled decision, this crazy old pseudo-Marxist logic: always vote for the worst guy because in this way you will help to the revolution. No, I thought, maybe I’m wrong, that nonetheless with all its faults, United States are a great country with many civil institutions and so on and so on, and things are happening. There was a great debate within the Democratic Party. Another thing—things are beginning to happen, for example, an extremely important thing, this revitalization of women in their millions as political factor. It wasn’t only here—Women’s March—it’s all around the world and so on and so on.
Well, I simply think first that Trump is—I totally agree here with Noam Chomsky’s diagnosis—Trump is a threat to world peace, maybe to future of humanity on the Earth and so on and so on. But I think I’m much—I’m a pessimist in a much deeper sense. I think that where we were all, not just United States, world’s moving, we are moving towards a certain end point. Problems with refugees, threat of new economic catastrophes, new racisms exploding, not just in the United States—Europe is much worse now and so on. And maybe I—it was a mistake, I’m ready immediately to change my mind. I just think that we should never forget one thing: Trump is an effect. It’s an effect of all that was wrong with mainstream liberal politics. Trump, his fake populism is a reaction to it. So the way to really fight Trump is not just to fight Trump. If you just fight Trump, you are doing what in medicine they call, if I get it correctly, symptomatic healing. You have some serious illness, but you just take pills to ease the pain. We must cut off the causes of it. Look, and that’s what bothered me, although he may be a nicer—she may be, Hillary Clinton, a nicer person and so on. But her coalition, her rainbow coalition, let’s call it, was an incredible one, from Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street. Everybody was there, and I think she stood for what was wrong with Democratic politics. You make all the concessions to politically correct causes and so on and so on, just not to address the key economic question. And that’s what gave birth to Trump. That’s why, incidentally, I’m also a big fan of Bernie Sanders. One may disagree with this or with that about Bernie Sanders, but you know, he did what everyone thought it’s not possible. He mobilized precisely those disappointed white workers who otherwise voted for Trump. That’s why I think it’s so—again, back to, sorry, back to Trump. My idea is that if Democratic Party remains what it is, this liberal establishment, let’s call it, even if we win over this Trump, there will be another Trump. In Europe we have the same problem, my God. The key problem today is the disintegration, the impotence, whatever you call it, of this let’s call it even liberal left center, whatever. This—this is the predominant force today, you know, all the big names from Silicon Valley and so on. They are all very progressive about LGBT and so on, but you don’t touch capitalism and so on. We have to do this, that’s the key to our survival. I’m not talking any naive bullshit about communism or whatever. I’m very modest, just a little bit of a push towards the left in the sense of healthcare, human rights, workers’ rights and—if we don’t do that, if we don’t mobilize also ordinary working people and so on, then it doesn’t matter if we get rid of this Trump, another Trump with—will come. Europe is full of Trumps and so on and so on. And I’m pretty desperate here, you know. I really think that we are approaching a catastrophe—again, ecological, social catastrophe, immigrants and so on. Here I’m desperate about the mistakes liberal—look at Europe. This politically correct approach of liberal left. Let’s just talk in abstract about immigrants, but let’s change it into a humanitarian issue. Do we Europeans have a heart to help them? Instead of addressing the true causes of all this, then you get what, the catastrophe that is now Europe—in Germany, in France, in England. I don’t think—but maybe I was wrong—it was not a principled decision, this crazy old pseudo-Marxist logic: always vote for the worst guy because in this way you will help to the revolution. No, I thought, maybe I’m wrong, that nonetheless with all its faults, United States are a great country with many civil institutions and so on and so on, and things are happening. There was a great debate within the Democratic Party. Another thing—things are beginning to happen, for example, an extremely important thing, this revitalization of women in their millions as political factor. It wasn’t only here—Women’s March—it’s all around the world and so on and so on.
unknown
I just expect more of this. I guess the—the question though is, let me just back up, I hear your critique Slavoj, I hear your critique of American liberalism. I would make one distinction: the Democratic Party is hardly a bastion of American liberalism,
I just expect more of this. I guess the—the question though is, let me just back up, I hear your critique Slavoj, I hear your critique of American liberalism. I would make one distinction: the Democratic Party is hardly a bastion of American liberalism,
Slavoj Žižek
and it certainly—and it certainly has
and it certainly—and it certainly has
unknown
very little room for progressives, and that was played out in this debate we just
very little room for progressives, and that was played out in this debate we just
Slavoj Žižek
had about the Democratic Party. But that’s my point! How to push—that’s my only goal. I hear that, and I hear that, I hear that as a goal. I guess the question is
had about the Democratic Party. But that’s my point! How to push—that’s my only goal. I hear that, and I hear that, I hear that as a goal. I guess the question is
unknown
whether or not the ends justify the means, which is to say in the first month or so of his presidency, have you started to rethink whether or not your initial thought was correct or incorrect, given what you’ve seen him do so far? No, I mean I think— You still think giving him the keys was a good idea? Wait a minute, things are here more complex. I think this—this idea I don’t take it seriously that Trump is simply a madman who will just as another of his narcissistic jokes press the button. There are arguments and so I will now show to you that I’m aware of them of why I’m sincerely horrified by Trump. Let’s forget about all the content, but the style of how he talks. It’s an incredible degradation, vulgarization of public discourse. How we are allowed to publicly speak. And here I am for, I’m sorry to say this, for good manners. Maybe you had the same experience when we were young—I’m older than you, I remember, you know, official politicians were talking this—this
whether or not the ends justify the means, which is to say in the first month or so of his presidency, have you started to rethink whether or not your initial thought was correct or incorrect, given what you’ve seen him do so far? No, I mean I think— You still think giving him the keys was a good idea? Wait a minute, things are here more complex. I think this—this idea I don’t take it seriously that Trump is simply a madman who will just as another of his narcissistic jokes press the button. There are arguments and so I will now show to you that I’m aware of them of why I’m sincerely horrified by Trump. Let’s forget about all the content, but the style of how he talks. It’s an incredible degradation, vulgarization of public discourse. How we are allowed to publicly speak. And here I am for, I’m sorry to say this, for good manners. Maybe you had the same experience when we were young—I’m older than you, I remember, you know, official politicians were talking this—this
Slavoj Žižek
pseudo-pseudo-noble language and we leftists were provoking them with F-words, whatever. But now it’s almost the opposite. More you go to the right, Breitbart and this is a unique chance we left should propose ourselves—we are the true moral majority, we stand for the ordinary decency, good sense of common people and so on and so on. So that’s for me one of the true—one among true catastrophes of Donald Trump, this incredible degradation of public discourse. And it’s not only Trump. How things that till some five, ten years ago were simply prohibited in public space—you couldn’t say them—now we can tell them. I think we—that’s my pessimism. Let’s say Hillary were to win. Of course it would have been better in many domains, but isn’t it that it would be this satisfaction: Okay, we avoided the worst so we can go on the way we did? I’m too much of a pessimist for that, if you ask me. But I can be, again, this is—I can be converted. I mean it was not a principled decision, again, always vote for the bad guy because the system will be in a crisis. I just hoped, maybe I was wrong, that it—but you know what’s my fear now, this may interest you and our public. I have now another fear, and this would be a true argument against me. My God, what we—what if, at least for a couple of years, Trump will succeed? Somehow he will manage in short term economy, he will not totally break with Mexico, with Putin, he will do some dirty deals and so on, and it may work for a couple of years, you know.
pseudo-pseudo-noble language and we leftists were provoking them with F-words, whatever. But now it’s almost the opposite. More you go to the right, Breitbart and this is a unique chance we left should propose ourselves—we are the true moral majority, we stand for the ordinary decency, good sense of common people and so on and so on. So that’s for me one of the true—one among true catastrophes of Donald Trump, this incredible degradation of public discourse. And it’s not only Trump. How things that till some five, ten years ago were simply prohibited in public space—you couldn’t say them—now we can tell them. I think we—that’s my pessimism. Let’s say Hillary were to win. Of course it would have been better in many domains, but isn’t it that it would be this satisfaction: Okay, we avoided the worst so we can go on the way we did? I’m too much of a pessimist for that, if you ask me. But I can be, again, this is—I can be converted. I mean it was not a principled decision, again, always vote for the bad guy because the system will be in a crisis. I just hoped, maybe I was wrong, that it—but you know what’s my fear now, this may interest you and our public. I have now another fear, and this would be a true argument against me. My God, what we—what if, at least for a couple of years, Trump will succeed? Somehow he will manage in short term economy, he will not totally break with Mexico, with Putin, he will do some dirty deals and so on, and it may work for a couple of years, you know.
unknown
This is the—well, but there’s—well, but there—I hear your point, and in American politics, as you well know, there’s always this notion that whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, no matter how left or right they might be, they always tack back to the middle. So my sense has always been that Donald Trump at some point is going to tack back to the middle and act with good sense in some measure and get something done. What that looks like I do not know, but I’ve always believed that from the very beginning. Here’s the question that you raise though for me. And I think you’re right. If—if—if—if he has so degraded and demonized the very nature of how we engage in public discourse, assuming that it takes public discourse, that we have to have some sort of conversation in the public square to get this thing right, if that well has been poisoned, how do you even have the conversation? If all the rules—if all the rules of how we engage in conversation with our leaders has changed, how do you have a conversation? I—my crazy hope, maybe I’m wrong, is that precisely as a reaction to Trump there is a unique chance that a little bit more radical progressives, they should shamelessly address also ordinary decent people who are otherwise afraid of the left
This is the—well, but there’s—well, but there—I hear your point, and in American politics, as you well know, there’s always this notion that whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, no matter how left or right they might be, they always tack back to the middle. So my sense has always been that Donald Trump at some point is going to tack back to the middle and act with good sense in some measure and get something done. What that looks like I do not know, but I’ve always believed that from the very beginning. Here’s the question that you raise though for me. And I think you’re right. If—if—if—if he has so degraded and demonized the very nature of how we engage in public discourse, assuming that it takes public discourse, that we have to have some sort of conversation in the public square to get this thing right, if that well has been poisoned, how do you even have the conversation? If all the rules—if all the rules of how we engage in conversation with our leaders has changed, how do you have a conversation? I—my crazy hope, maybe I’m wrong, is that precisely as a reaction to Trump there is a unique chance that a little bit more radical progressives, they should shamelessly address also ordinary decent people who are otherwise afraid of the left
Slavoj Žižek
and so on and so on. Our message should be: listen, Trump is a decadent, we are the true voice of moral majority, Christian values and so on, even family values. This was already an excellent argument, I remember years ago when Reagan spoke about family values. And many of my leftist friends dismissed him as: No, these are conservative Christian values. I told them: No, the leftist answer should be: if you mean anything minimally serious by family values—supporting family, children support and so on—then Reaganomics did more to destroy feminist—sorry, family values than all the—the LGBT leftists or whatever you want, all of them together. I—I just think, you see, that’s the crux of the matter. I think that just keeping Trump at bay and protecting this mainstream liberal is not enough. Then we are still sliding towards a catastrophe. Let me—let me read this. Your Lenin book is coming out later this year. I wanted to read a quote from Steve Bannon, who you—we all know very well, in the White House. This is a quote from—from Bannon about Lenin. Bannon says and I quote: I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment, close quote. That’s what Bannon felt about Lenin and that’s what he feels about the establishment in the USA.
and so on and so on. Our message should be: listen, Trump is a decadent, we are the true voice of moral majority, Christian values and so on, even family values. This was already an excellent argument, I remember years ago when Reagan spoke about family values. And many of my leftist friends dismissed him as: No, these are conservative Christian values. I told them: No, the leftist answer should be: if you mean anything minimally serious by family values—supporting family, children support and so on—then Reaganomics did more to destroy feminist—sorry, family values than all the—the LGBT leftists or whatever you want, all of them together. I—I just think, you see, that’s the crux of the matter. I think that just keeping Trump at bay and protecting this mainstream liberal is not enough. Then we are still sliding towards a catastrophe. Let me—let me read this. Your Lenin book is coming out later this year. I wanted to read a quote from Steve Bannon, who you—we all know very well, in the White House. This is a quote from—from Bannon about Lenin. Bannon says and I quote: I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment, close quote. That’s what Bannon felt about Lenin and that’s what he feels about the establishment in the USA.
unknown
What do you make of that comment? Uh, I—the Lenin I like—and he miserably failed—is the
What do you make of that comment? Uh, I—the Lenin I like—and he miserably failed—is the
Slavoj Žižek
Lenin after the revolution and civil war when the Bolsheviks in power faced this simple problem: Okay, now we won the war. How do we reorganize the daily life? The big misery of today’s left for me, from Venezuela to everywhere, is even in Greek—Greece, Syriza and so on is they are big at bringing together one million people, we all cry with them, but you know, for me the true test of progressive forces is what I call this post-alcoholic nightmare: The morning after. It’s easy to gather one million people, but at some point—yes, at some point things return to normal. How will ordinary people then feel the difference? That’s the problem. Does the left have an actual answer here? They protest. Okay, how to reorganize society and so on? I will give you an example. Did you see the movie, maybe many of our viewers did see it, it was popular a couple of years ago with Natalie Portman, V for Vendetta? You remember, at the end people penetrate the British Parliament, people take over and what happens then? The end. As I like to say, sorry for tasteless metaphor, I’m ready to sell my mother into slavery, God bless her, she is dead so I can say it, to see a movie called V for Vendetta Part But what happens then when the people take over? What measures do they do? Do they nationalize, what what they do? I think this is really the crux of the matter, the big problem of today’s left. But
Lenin after the revolution and civil war when the Bolsheviks in power faced this simple problem: Okay, now we won the war. How do we reorganize the daily life? The big misery of today’s left for me, from Venezuela to everywhere, is even in Greek—Greece, Syriza and so on is they are big at bringing together one million people, we all cry with them, but you know, for me the true test of progressive forces is what I call this post-alcoholic nightmare: The morning after. It’s easy to gather one million people, but at some point—yes, at some point things return to normal. How will ordinary people then feel the difference? That’s the problem. Does the left have an actual answer here? They protest. Okay, how to reorganize society and so on? I will give you an example. Did you see the movie, maybe many of our viewers did see it, it was popular a couple of years ago with Natalie Portman, V for Vendetta? You remember, at the end people penetrate the British Parliament, people take over and what happens then? The end. As I like to say, sorry for tasteless metaphor, I’m ready to sell my mother into slavery, God bless her, she is dead so I can say it, to see a movie called V for Vendetta Part But what happens then when the people take over? What measures do they do? Do they nationalize, what what they do? I think this is really the crux of the matter, the big problem of today’s left. But
unknown
there are a lot of people on the left who would ask you, and I will stand in their stead and ask you: what do they do? If the Republicans control the House, the Republicans control the Senate, they’re about to—about to control the Supreme Court, they control the White House, the average ordinary citizen doesn’t feel empowered. They don’t feel that they have the agency to actually do anything about this until there’s another election in a couple of years. What do people do? Okay, my first counterpoint would have been: but people already felt that they are not in power under previous Democratic administrations and that’s why Trump won. That’s why I’m only saying, that’s my mantra: a deeper change is needed. It’s not just enough to swing it back. That’s why I was horrified by what Nancy Pelosi said a couple of weeks ago, I think. She basically renormalized the situation. She said: Listen, it happens from time to time, we had Reagan for eight years, we have Bush the younger for eight years, it—our time will come back. No, it will not. I want to see cornered in a tight position
there are a lot of people on the left who would ask you, and I will stand in their stead and ask you: what do they do? If the Republicans control the House, the Republicans control the Senate, they’re about to—about to control the Supreme Court, they control the White House, the average ordinary citizen doesn’t feel empowered. They don’t feel that they have the agency to actually do anything about this until there’s another election in a couple of years. What do people do? Okay, my first counterpoint would have been: but people already felt that they are not in power under previous Democratic administrations and that’s why Trump won. That’s why I’m only saying, that’s my mantra: a deeper change is needed. It’s not just enough to swing it back. That’s why I was horrified by what Nancy Pelosi said a couple of weeks ago, I think. She basically renormalized the situation. She said: Listen, it happens from time to time, we had Reagan for eight years, we have Bush the younger for eight years, it—our time will come back. No, it will not. I want to see cornered in a tight position
Slavoj Žižek
Democratic Party, maybe it will not happen, and realizing it had to move more to the left. But—wait, wait, wait, but here’s the problem. When Bernie tried that, who you and I both like— Yeah, yeah. He failed. Almost failed, but he began something. It was the first mass mobilization— I got—I got—and the—and the next test was for the Democratic Party just days ago when they had their election— In the— And they failed again. So the point is, I’m all for fighting, I’m—I’m with you and Samuel Beckett: try again, fail again, fail better. Try again, fail again, fail better. I’m with Beckett on that. But when people keep having these fights and they keep
Democratic Party, maybe it will not happen, and realizing it had to move more to the left. But—wait, wait, wait, but here’s the problem. When Bernie tried that, who you and I both like— Yeah, yeah. He failed. Almost failed, but he began something. It was the first mass mobilization— I got—I got—and the—and the next test was for the Democratic Party just days ago when they had their election— In the— And they failed again. So the point is, I’m all for fighting, I’m—I’m with you and Samuel Beckett: try again, fail again, fail better. Try again, fail again, fail better. I’m with Beckett on that. But when people keep having these fights and they keep
unknown
trying to use the agency that they do have, and at this level they keep getting beaten down because Nancy Pelosi normalizes, or the DNC fight doesn’t come out in their favor, or Bernie gets picked on by the Democratic Party, they lose hope. And that’s your real problem, hopelessness is the real problem.
trying to use the agency that they do have, and at this level they keep getting beaten down because Nancy Pelosi normalizes, or the DNC fight doesn’t come out in their favor, or Bernie gets picked on by the Democratic Party, they lose hope. And that’s your real problem, hopelessness is the real problem.
Slavoj Žižek
Yes, but still, I agree with you, I’m basically a pessimist, but—but what’s the solution? We have to—if we are condemned to Democratic Party the way it is, this party, as the only alternative to Donald Trump, then we are lost. There must be—we should go on Bernie, the crucial thing now I think is to bring Bernie, what Bernie stands for, Our Revolution or whatever, together with all Black movements and so on, and we have to do a great long-term pedagogic work here. For example, another point that may interest you: remember Black Lives Matter and then the answer of Donald Trump and some others: not just Black lives, all lives matter. Blue lives matter, all lives matter. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s a dirty lie. You know why? Because in general this is of course true, but the specific violence of the system you can grasp it only in that case of Black lives. And I will give you another example here that so that you will not think that I have any respect for Donald Trump. You remember when it was that debate about who is more guilty: either—either Black demonstrators where some madman also shot a couple of policemen or white policemen who overstepped their—and Trump, he explicitly talked about it. Trump’s idea was: no, the ultimate crime is when people are shooting policemen because they attack the law. No, I claim the ultimate horror is if policemen shoot ordinary—you know why? Because if an ordinary guy shoots a policeman it’s deplorable, it shouldn’t be done, but it’s still somebody outside the law attacks the agent of the law. But if the—an agent of the law attacks, it’s—the whole law and order disintegrates. The state agent acts as a common criminal. That’s the true horror. That’s why there is no symmetry here. You see, this is one of those nice situations where it’s too easy to say they are both wrong, demonstrators attacking policemen. No, they are not wrong in the same way. The true catastrophe is police doing it and so on and so on. Let me give you—this may be of some interest to your viewers—what is happening now in Europe. I consider it so ridiculous that if it wouldn’t be the ultimate horror I would be laughing. You know what’s now—and the tragedy is this is no some no longer some marginal nuts, this is a theory reported in white media. They claim that the conflict between Arabs or Palestinian and Israelis is a fake. It is made to cover up the fact that immigrants who are invading Europe are organized by Jews to ruin Christianity. So it’s this totally crazy idea. Now you will say, but this is marginal, what has this to do with Trump? It has a lot, because with some people around Trump I detect a tendency which is terrifying. It’s not a paradoxical notion—it’s a reality—Zionist anti-Semites. The same people who are against Jews here, they are exploiting us, blah blah blah, are absolutely for Israel there. And this is what people around Trump are doing and so on. The whole political, how should I put it, political mapping is changing. With Trump something really new emerged. And again, my point is just this one, I repeat it again, we cannot beat this by simply—by simply remaining faithful to liberal values. Let me—
Yes, but still, I agree with you, I’m basically a pessimist, but—but what’s the solution? We have to—if we are condemned to Democratic Party the way it is, this party, as the only alternative to Donald Trump, then we are lost. There must be—we should go on Bernie, the crucial thing now I think is to bring Bernie, what Bernie stands for, Our Revolution or whatever, together with all Black movements and so on, and we have to do a great long-term pedagogic work here. For example, another point that may interest you: remember Black Lives Matter and then the answer of Donald Trump and some others: not just Black lives, all lives matter. Blue lives matter, all lives matter. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s a dirty lie. You know why? Because in general this is of course true, but the specific violence of the system you can grasp it only in that case of Black lives. And I will give you another example here that so that you will not think that I have any respect for Donald Trump. You remember when it was that debate about who is more guilty: either—either Black demonstrators where some madman also shot a couple of policemen or white policemen who overstepped their—and Trump, he explicitly talked about it. Trump’s idea was: no, the ultimate crime is when people are shooting policemen because they attack the law. No, I claim the ultimate horror is if policemen shoot ordinary—you know why? Because if an ordinary guy shoots a policeman it’s deplorable, it shouldn’t be done, but it’s still somebody outside the law attacks the agent of the law. But if the—an agent of the law attacks, it’s—the whole law and order disintegrates. The state agent acts as a common criminal. That’s the true horror. That’s why there is no symmetry here. You see, this is one of those nice situations where it’s too easy to say they are both wrong, demonstrators attacking policemen. No, they are not wrong in the same way. The true catastrophe is police doing it and so on and so on. Let me give you—this may be of some interest to your viewers—what is happening now in Europe. I consider it so ridiculous that if it wouldn’t be the ultimate horror I would be laughing. You know what’s now—and the tragedy is this is no some no longer some marginal nuts, this is a theory reported in white media. They claim that the conflict between Arabs or Palestinian and Israelis is a fake. It is made to cover up the fact that immigrants who are invading Europe are organized by Jews to ruin Christianity. So it’s this totally crazy idea. Now you will say, but this is marginal, what has this to do with Trump? It has a lot, because with some people around Trump I detect a tendency which is terrifying. It’s not a paradoxical notion—it’s a reality—Zionist anti-Semites. The same people who are against Jews here, they are exploiting us, blah blah blah, are absolutely for Israel there. And this is what people around Trump are doing and so on. The whole political, how should I put it, political mapping is changing. With Trump something really new emerged. And again, my point is just this one, I repeat it again, we cannot beat this by simply—by simply remaining faithful to liberal values. Let me—
unknown
Let me ask you this: why do you think that so many good white folk on the left have the right values but are disconnected from the everyday lives
Let me ask you this: why do you think that so many good white folk on the left have the right values but are disconnected from the everyday lives
Slavoj Žižek
of everyday people? I think the—the reasons are mostly simply economic reasons in what sense? I think that’s the lesson of—of Bernie Sanders for me. You know, even if they are, these white liberals and so on, they may be sincere. But you know what always bothered me? If you look at these politically correct people who claim not LGBT, LGBT+... They’re all politically correct, I get it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the point is that what makes me so suspicious is this extra urgency, how they insist on all these—it is as if they secretly know that they are not touching the real problems, that’s why they have to exaggerate at this formal level and so on. There is something so terribly fake about all these white liberals who when I call my friend like you Black and not African American, I’m already a racist and so on and so on. It’s such a comfortable position to focus on this problem and avoid true problems. You know who saw it? You must know this better than me. In the last years, Martin Luther King. Of course. He—and again, I’m not arguing for this out of some crazy twisted radical leftist idea. No, I’m just saying that if we don’t move the whole scene a little bit towards the left, liberalism itself will not survive. What was best in liberalism, all the lessons of tolerance, women’s rights and so on, can only survive through a move to the left.
of everyday people? I think the—the reasons are mostly simply economic reasons in what sense? I think that’s the lesson of—of Bernie Sanders for me. You know, even if they are, these white liberals and so on, they may be sincere. But you know what always bothered me? If you look at these politically correct people who claim not LGBT, LGBT+... They’re all politically correct, I get it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the point is that what makes me so suspicious is this extra urgency, how they insist on all these—it is as if they secretly know that they are not touching the real problems, that’s why they have to exaggerate at this formal level and so on. There is something so terribly fake about all these white liberals who when I call my friend like you Black and not African American, I’m already a racist and so on and so on. It’s such a comfortable position to focus on this problem and avoid true problems. You know who saw it? You must know this better than me. In the last years, Martin Luther King. Of course. He—and again, I’m not arguing for this out of some crazy twisted radical leftist idea. No, I’m just saying that if we don’t move the whole scene a little bit towards the left, liberalism itself will not survive. What was best in liberalism, all the lessons of tolerance, women’s rights and so on, can only survive through a move to the left.
unknown
I’ll leave it there. I feel—I feel like I’m just getting started on that last point, but I think you take his point. I’m always honored to have you on this program, my friend. I’m very glad to
I’ll leave it there. I feel—I feel like I’m just getting started on that last point, but I think you take his point. I’m always honored to have you on this program, my friend. I’m very glad to
Slavoj Žižek
be here. I—I consider you, I’m not saying this in vain, although we met just briefly, one of the few people whom I—whom I see as my authentic friends here. I am so sick of this career-pursuing academia and so on and so on. I just, even if I’m an atheist, I’m praying to God that you will survive here, you know. And that’s why we’re friends. And that’s why you’re welcome back on this show anytime,
be here. I—I consider you, I’m not saying this in vain, although we met just briefly, one of the few people whom I—whom I see as my authentic friends here. I am so sick of this career-pursuing academia and so on and so on. I just, even if I’m an atheist, I’m praying to God that you will survive here, you know. And that’s why we’re friends. And that’s why you’re welcome back on this show anytime,
unknown
Slavoj. And we will always continue to have these conversations. No, I’m so glad. That’s our show for tonight. Thanks for watching and as always, keep the faith.
Slavoj. And we will always continue to have these conversations. No, I’m so glad. That’s our show for tonight. Thanks for watching and as always, keep the faith.