Talk to Al Jazeera - Slavoj Zizek
Interview · Al Jazeera English ·
2011-10-29 · 0:25:17 · 3,394 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologyrevolution-violencefascism-populismrace-antisemitismdemocracygeopolitics-warsexuality-genderreligion-theologyeconomicsethics
An Al Jazeera interview (late 2011) in which Žižek discusses the London riots, the Arab Spring, Occupy, and the state of the left. He argues that 20th-century communism was an ethical catastrophe worse than fascism, that the only true utopia is the fantasy that capitalism can go on as it is, and that the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over. He expands the notion of violence to include invisible systemic violence, diagnoses ideology at work in 'spiritualized hedonism' and the translation of racism into tolerance, and warns that Europe's anti-immigrant 'protectors' and 'anti-semitic Zionists' are the true dangers.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 10
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
His term for the lost automatic legitimacy of the system: the capitalist-democratic order no longer appears self-evidently as the only option, 'the field is open'.
as “true utopia”
His reversal: the only real utopia is the fantasy that the present capitalist-democratic system can go on indefinitely as it is.
as “true violence”
His distinction: real violence is systemic, aiming to stop the system functioning (Gandhi, Tahrir), not the physical violence (Hitler) that keeps it running.
The way you see things and don't see things so you can function in daily life; for him ideology is strongest precisely where people think they stand outside it.
as “spiritualized hedonism”
His term for the dominant implicit injunction today, not 'sacrifice yourself for a big cause' but 'be true to yourself, have a full life, realize your potentials'; ideology experienced as self-realization.
as “politics proper”
Disappears when real problems of racism and sexism are translated into questions of tolerance among naturalized cultural differences.
as “the protectors of europe”
His name for the anti-immigrant right who claim to defend Europe's Judeo-Christian legacy against Islam, they are themselves the danger they claim to fight.
as “anti-semitic zionist”
His coinage for the paradoxical figure, paradigmatically Breivik, also Glenn Beck and US Christian fundamentalists, who is anti-semitic yet fanatically pro-Israel.
His ironic term for the unspoken prohibition on asking what could replace capitalism, a taboo even the radical left obeyed until now.
His poetic name for authoritarian capitalism (China/Singapore), more efficient than Western liberal capitalism and severing the historical link between capitalism and democracy.
Stories he reaches for 2
King never asked whites to tolerate blacks; his problem was economic exploitation, legal rights, and everyday racism. Recasting racism as a problem of tolerance already accepts a vision of naturalized cultural differences and erases politics proper.
“look at martin luther king. he never practically mentions tolerance. for him, the problem was not, oh, whites should more tolerate us blacks.”
His famous provocation: the problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough, because Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. Hitler's violence kept the system running; Gandhi's nonviolence aimed to stop it. The point is to expand the notion of violence beyond the physical.
“gandhi was more violent than hitler. hitler's all violence was to make the system work. gandhi wanted to stop it.”
Works invoked 2
Atlas Shrugged book
Ayn Rand's 'ridiculous hymn to money', he finds it ridiculous yet concedes its point that money enables peaceful exchange and that without it direct brutal domination returns, illustrating the 20th-century communist experience.
The Guardian journal
Mentions he wrote there about the West Bank, condemning Palestinian terrorism but arguing that the real violence is the everyday suffocating bureaucratic Israeli occupation that registers as 'nothing happening'.
People invoked 8
Glenn Beck negative
Fired from Fox News for anti-semitic remarks yet absolutely pro-Zionist, exhibit B (after Breivik) for the 'anti-semitic Zionist' figure that he calls a nightmare and the basic attitude of US Christian fundamentalists.
Mahatma Gandhi positive
Deployed in the provocation 'Gandhi was more violent than Hitler': Gandhi's nonviolence aimed to stop the system functioning, which is the true violence he supports.
Ayn Rand positive
Totally opposed to her politically ('to whom i am of course totally opposed politically'), yet concedes her point that money/market enable peaceful exchange and that abolishing them brings back brutal domination, the lesson of 20th-century communism.
Francis Fukuyama negative
The 'end of history' thesis is the 'Fukuyama taboo' he wants broken, even radical leftists operated within it, demanding only more justice within the system. He grants 'fukuyama is not an idiot' and that 'in a way, we all were till now fukuyama'.
Used as a rhetorical device in the provocation 'the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough', Hitler's violence kept the system working, hence was less truly violent than Gandhi's.
Anders Behring Breivik negative
The Norwegian mass shooter as the paradigmatic 'anti-semitic Zionist', anti-semitic (Jews okay if negligible, too many is a problem) yet fanatically pro-Israel, not a lone madman but the embodiment of an emerging attitude.
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Cited as exemplar: King never mentioned tolerance, he framed racism as economic exploitation, legal rights, and everyday racism, the proper political framing now lost to the tolerance ideology.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cites Freud's old-age question 'Was will das Weib? / what does a woman want?' and redeploys it as 'what does Europe want?' to frame Europe's indecision.
What it argues
the system has lost its self-evidence and automatic legitimacy20th-century communism as authentic tragedy worse than fascismexpanding the notion of violence to the invisible and systemicideology operative in everyday 'spiritualized hedonism' and the tolerance framethe false protectors of Europe as the real dangeranti-semitic Zionism and Israel's deal with the devilthe marriage between capitalism and democracy is overthe battle to appropriate the energy of protestbreaking the Fukuyama taboo and asking what can replace capitalism
Dialectical moves 9
“the only true utopia for me is that things can go on indefinitely the way they are.”
Reverses utopia: the real utopian fantasy is the belief that the present system can continue forever.
“the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough... gandhi was more violent than hitler. hitler's all violence was to make the system work. gandhi wanted to stop it.”
Reverses violence: nonviolent disruption that halts the system is more truly violent than physical violence that keeps it running.
“in fascism we have bad guys who did bad things... in communism you have authentic tragedy”
Reverses the fascism-vs-communism hierarchy: communism is ethically worse than fascism precisely because it was an authentic tragedy of good intentions turning to nightmare, not mere villainy.
“we are in ideology. precisely. because ideology is for me the way you see things and you don't see things so that you can function in our daily lives.”
Reverses ideology: ideology is strongest exactly where people think they stand outside it.
“i don't fear muslims in europe. i fear protectors of europe.”
Reverses the threat: the true danger to Europe is its self-proclaimed defenders, not the Muslims they oppose.
“the true victims of middle east conflict, of this catastrophic politics, will be in any case, i claim, jews themselves.”
Reverses victimhood: the supposed beneficiaries of Zionist politics, Jews, are its true victims.
“the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.”
Reverses the liberal faith that capitalism necessarily brings democracy in its train.
“berlin wall fell but there are new walls, new divisions. rising up everywhere within most of the states.”
Reverses the post-1989 opening: the fall of the Wall produced more internal walls and divisions, not fewer.
“sigmund freud, when he was old, asked this ridiculous, naive question, Was will das Weib? what does a woman want? i claim, no, today it's the problem. what does europe want?”
Reframes Europe's crisis from the technical question of debt to the psychoanalytic question of Europe's own desire and indecision.
Claims 24
asserts
The London rioters had no demands and could not formulate a cause; their only agenda was to imitate consumerism through pure violence.London riots / consumerism
asserts
20th-century communism was perhaps the greatest ethical catastrophe in human history, worse than fascism, precisely because it began with authentic hopes and ended in nightmare rather than being straightforward villainy.communism
reframes
The only true utopia is the belief that things can go on indefinitely the way they are.utopia / capitalism
asserts
We do not know what effective form can replace the capitalist democratic system; the tragedy is that no one yet has the answer.capitalism / post-capitalism
reframes
Ayn Rand has a point: money and the market enable peaceful exchange, and abolishing them — as 20th-century communism did — brings back direct brutal domination with a vengeance.money / market / communism
reframes
True violence is not physical violence but the violence that aims to stop the system functioning; in this sense Gandhi was more violent than Hitler.violence
asserts
We must expand our notion of violence to include invisible, systemic violence — Congo, the West Bank occupation — that passes unnoticed because it is part of the system.violence
asserts
We live in ideology most where we think we are outside it; ideology is the way we see things so that we don't see things and can function in daily life.ideology
asserts
The implicit injunction of today's society is not 'sacrifice yourself for a cause' but 'be true to yourself, realize your potentials' — a spiritualized hedonism that is ideology experienced as self-realization.ideology / everyday life
asserts
Translating real problems of racism and sexism into problems of tolerance is ideology: it naturalizes cultural difference and makes politics proper disappear.tolerance / ideology
asserts
Martin Luther King framed racism as economic exploitation, legal rights, and everyday racism — never as a demand that whites tolerate blacks.MLK / racism / tolerance
reframes
The false protectors of Europe who defend its Judeo-Christian legacy against Islam are themselves the danger to that legacy.Europe / anti-immigrant right
asserts
He fears the protectors of Europe, not the Muslims in Europe.Europe / Islam
asserts
Breivik is the paradigmatic anti-semitic Zionist, and this is the basic attitude of American conservative Christian fundamentalists such as Glenn Beck.antisemitism / zionism
asserts
Israel has sold its soul to the devil, allying with anti-semitic Western forces so it may do unto Palestinians what those forces do to minorities at home.Israel / antisemitism
asserts
Zionist politics is turning Jews into just another narrow land-grabbing nation, and the true victims of the catastrophic Middle East politics will be Jews themselves.Zionism / Jews
asserts
The marriage between capitalism and democracy is over; authoritarian Asian capitalism will not democratize as the liberal hope predicted.capitalism / democracy / China
asserts
The Arab Spring produced exactly the secular democratic movement the West claimed Arabs could not produce.Arab Spring
asserts
The danger in Egypt is a perverse pact in which the Muslim Brotherhood gets ideological control (schools) while the army keeps its privileges and corruption.Egypt / post-revolution
asserts
The central political battle today is who will appropriate the energy of protest; in the US the Tea Party already speaks the language of workers' protest.protest / politics
asserts
The system has lost its self-evidence and automatic legitimacy; the field is open, and that opening is itself an achievement.capitalism / system legitimacy
asserts
If we do nothing we will gradually approach a new type of authoritarian society, not old fascism but something new.authoritarianism
reframes
Europe cannot decide what it wants: a pure technocratic Brussels vision of global competitiveness versus nationalist anti-immigrant movements — a sad alternative.Europe
asserts
The only global alternatives on offer — Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism or Chinese authoritarian capitalism — are both inadequate; the world is asking for a real alternative.capitalism / geopolitics
Quotes 13
“the system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy. and now the field is open.”Slavoj Žižek · system legitimacy collapsing
“the only true utopia for me is that things can go on indefinitely the way they are.”Slavoj Žižek · reversal of utopia
“20th century communism was, precisely because it started with such hopes and ended in a nightmare, was maybe the greatest catastrophe, ethical catastrophe, i'm almost tempted to say in the history of humanity, more than fascism.”Slavoj Žižek · communism as ethical catastrophe
“the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough. but then the second part in the sense in which gandhi was more violent than hitler. hitler's all violence was to make the system work. gandhi wanted to stop it.”Slavoj Žižek · true vs formal violence
“we are in ideology. precisely. because ideology is for me the way you see things and you don't see things so that you can function in our daily lives.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology as the unseen structuring of perception
“i don't fear muslims in europe. i fear protectors of europe.”Slavoj Žižek · the true danger to Europe
“the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism-democracy divorce
“sigmund freud, when he was old, asked this ridiculous, naive question, Was will das Weib? what does a woman want? i claim, no, today it's the problem. what does europe want?”Slavoj Žižek · Europe's indecision
“may you live in interesting times. we certainly are approaching interesting times.”Slavoj Žižek · the coming turbulence
“the true victims of middle east conflict, of this catastrophic politics, will be in any case, i claim, jews themselves.”Slavoj Žižek · Zionist politics harms Jews
“berlin wall fell but there are new walls, new divisions. rising up everywhere within most of the states.”Slavoj Žižek · new divisions after 1989
“they basically sold their soul to the devil. by this i mean this. they made a deal with those political forces in the west who are almost, i would say, by definition anti-semitic”Slavoj Žižek · Israel's deal with anti-semitic forces
“the zionist politics is turning them just into another narrow land-grabbing nation.”Slavoj Žižek · Zionism diminishes the Jews
Transcript 37 turns
Slavoj Žižek
please.
please.
·
strong. we ask the question, what is needed? thank. from the middle east to the streets of london. and in america's cities, a discontent with the status quo. whether it's with the iron grip of entrenched governments, or with the widening economic divide between the rich and those struggling to get by. but where are those so hungry for change heading? how profound is their long-term vision to transform society?
strong. we ask the question, what is needed? thank. from the middle east to the streets of london. and in america's cities, a discontent with the status quo. whether it's with the iron grip of entrenched governments, or with the widening economic divide between the rich and those struggling to get by. but where are those so hungry for change heading? how profound is their long-term vision to transform society?
Slavoj Žižek
the system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy. and now the field is open.
the system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy. and now the field is open.
·
the concerns of slovenian-born philosopher Slavoj Žižek, whose critical examination of both capitalism and socialism has made him an internationally recognized intellectual, popular among the wall street occupiers here in new york, for example.
the concerns of slovenian-born philosopher Slavoj Žižek, whose critical examination of both capitalism and socialism has made him an internationally recognized intellectual, popular among the wall street occupiers here in new york, for example.
Slavoj Žižek
i.
i.
·
ab al jazeera sat down with Slavoj Žižek and we began by asking him about the violent riots this summer in london and whether the protesters there had a political agenda.
ab al jazeera sat down with Slavoj Žižek and we began by asking him about the violent riots this summer in london and whether the protesters there had a political agenda.
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
·
the way
the way
Slavoj Žižek
the protests looked the way they acted there. repeatedly i spoke with participants there, with people who saw it the thing, no, there on the streets, there were no demands. they are not even able to formulate a cause which can be utopian communist, which can be religious, but just pure violence and the only cause, or however you call it, agenda is imitate consumerism. well.
the protests looked the way they acted there. repeatedly i spoke with participants there, with people who saw it the thing, no, there on the streets, there were no demands. they are not even able to formulate a cause which can be utopian communist, which can be religious, but just pure violence and the only cause, or however you call it, agenda is imitate consumerism. well.
·
here in the united states, do you see any kind of coherent ideological...
here in the united states, do you see any kind of coherent ideological...
Slavoj Žižek
no, but i don't blame them. listen, i am not a naive communist. i'm the first to say. this really made me many enemies when i said, let's face it, 20th century communism was, precisely because it started with such hopes and ended in a nightmare, was maybe the greatest catastrophe, ethical catastrophe, i'm almost tempted to say in the history of humanity, more than fascism. you know why? because let's be very simple. in fascism we have bad guys who... said our program is to do this and these bad things no and what a surprise, they took power, they did bad things. in communism you have authentic tragedy, which is why you have dissidents, you have always inner struggles so but nonetheless, it is over. that. and what does this mean? this means that let's not bluff. we see the limitations of the existing system. i stand here at my basic position, which is when people say, oh, you are utopian. sorry, the only true utopia for me is that things can go on indefinitely the way they are. just you know, the way it looked at the beginning of 2008 financial breakdown. okay, our legislation concerning banks was not good. enough we change that a little bit everything will be okay. no, it's not that. so something will have to be done. but let's face it openly the tragedy is that i don't know, we don't know what effective form can replace capitalist democratic system the way we have it now. now i will quote someone to whom i am of course totally opposed politically, but sometimes she is not stupid. ayn rand, you know, Atlas Shrugged, when in her ridiculous hymn to money, she says money is in a way a means of liberty in the sense of we have to divide. things, exchange and so on. he says, money means we can do it peacefully. i pay you, you sell it to me only if you want to. if not money, then there has to be some kind of direct domination, brutal. extortion, whatever. i don't agree with her here, but doesn't she have here a point in the sense that isn't a big experience of 20th century communism that they wanted to abolish market money and direct brutal domination masterhood returned with vengeance.
no, but i don't blame them. listen, i am not a naive communist. i'm the first to say. this really made me many enemies when i said, let's face it, 20th century communism was, precisely because it started with such hopes and ended in a nightmare, was maybe the greatest catastrophe, ethical catastrophe, i'm almost tempted to say in the history of humanity, more than fascism. you know why? because let's be very simple. in fascism we have bad guys who... said our program is to do this and these bad things no and what a surprise, they took power, they did bad things. in communism you have authentic tragedy, which is why you have dissidents, you have always inner struggles so but nonetheless, it is over. that. and what does this mean? this means that let's not bluff. we see the limitations of the existing system. i stand here at my basic position, which is when people say, oh, you are utopian. sorry, the only true utopia for me is that things can go on indefinitely the way they are. just you know, the way it looked at the beginning of 2008 financial breakdown. okay, our legislation concerning banks was not good. enough we change that a little bit everything will be okay. no, it's not that. so something will have to be done. but let's face it openly the tragedy is that i don't know, we don't know what effective form can replace capitalist democratic system the way we have it now. now i will quote someone to whom i am of course totally opposed politically, but sometimes she is not stupid. ayn rand, you know, Atlas Shrugged, when in her ridiculous hymn to money, she says money is in a way a means of liberty in the sense of we have to divide. things, exchange and so on. he says, money means we can do it peacefully. i pay you, you sell it to me only if you want to. if not money, then there has to be some kind of direct domination, brutal. extortion, whatever. i don't agree with her here, but doesn't she have here a point in the sense that isn't a big experience of 20th century communism that they wanted to abolish market money and direct brutal domination masterhood returned with vengeance.
·
okay, but i've read some of what you've said, and what you've said is fascism of the left, if that's the means necessary, so be it, right? so what do you mean?
okay, but i've read some of what you've said, and what you've said is fascism of the left, if that's the means necessary, so be it, right? so what do you mean?
Slavoj Žižek
my was to provoke my liberal friends who are, i like, you know, i like to provoke. like there are much worse things that i said. for example, i've said, and it gave almost a...
my was to provoke my liberal friends who are, i like, you know, i like to provoke. like there are much worse things that i said. for example, i've said, and it gave almost a...
·
we we don't take you literally, is that what you're saying?
we we don't take you literally, is that what you're saying?
Slavoj Žižek
uhuh... why not? because you know all the problem is the problem of violence. of course i am opposed to violence when by it we mean killing, torturing people and so on. but for me, true violence which i support is not physical violence, but violence when you say like the violence of... egyptian demonstrators on Tahrir square. they were violent in the formal sense that they didn't just shoot and so on. they wanted the whole system to stop functioning. this is why my famous statement which brought me so many enemies is the first part. the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough. but then the second part in the sense in which gandhi was more violent than hitler. hitler's all violence was to make the system work. gandhi wanted to stop it. so this is for me the problem this. obsession with. violence,emonization of violence, of course it should be demonized violence, but before doing that, we should also see all the forms of violence. we should see violence which is invisible, not because i'm not a paranoid, because some bad media are controlled by i don't know whom prevent us seeing it. but just think, for example, you want to talk about violence? talk about republic of congo today. millions dying. the whole state doesn't function. warlords dominate. you have drugged child warriors and so on. this is the violence which we don't notice too much because it's part of the system. so all i'm saying is let's expand our notion of violence. the same thing i wrote about in guardian, the british daily newspaper, about west bank. okay, i unambiguously condemned violence of palestinian or whichever terrorism there but my point was what happens there when nothing happens by nothing happens changes yeah nothing big for the media no one is killed blah blah this everydayocating suffocating bureaucratic occupation of israel you know poisoning wells burning trees slowly pushing palestinians out this is the reality without getting this background you don't get get whole picture.
uhuh... why not? because you know all the problem is the problem of violence. of course i am opposed to violence when by it we mean killing, torturing people and so on. but for me, true violence which i support is not physical violence, but violence when you say like the violence of... egyptian demonstrators on Tahrir square. they were violent in the formal sense that they didn't just shoot and so on. they wanted the whole system to stop functioning. this is why my famous statement which brought me so many enemies is the first part. the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough. but then the second part in the sense in which gandhi was more violent than hitler. hitler's all violence was to make the system work. gandhi wanted to stop it. so this is for me the problem this. obsession with. violence,emonization of violence, of course it should be demonized violence, but before doing that, we should also see all the forms of violence. we should see violence which is invisible, not because i'm not a paranoid, because some bad media are controlled by i don't know whom prevent us seeing it. but just think, for example, you want to talk about violence? talk about republic of congo today. millions dying. the whole state doesn't function. warlords dominate. you have drugged child warriors and so on. this is the violence which we don't notice too much because it's part of the system. so all i'm saying is let's expand our notion of violence. the same thing i wrote about in guardian, the british daily newspaper, about west bank. okay, i unambiguously condemned violence of palestinian or whichever terrorism there but my point was what happens there when nothing happens by nothing happens changes yeah nothing big for the media no one is killed blah blah this everydayocating suffocating bureaucratic occupation of israel you know poisoning wells burning trees slowly pushing palestinians out this is the reality without getting this background you don't get get whole picture.
·
but you're not talking about any ideological solution to, for example, the israeli-palestinian conflict, are you?
but you're not talking about any ideological solution to, for example, the israeli-palestinian conflict, are you?
Slavoj Žižek
what do you mean by ideological solution?
what do you mean by ideological solution?
·
well, you're talking about when things don't change there, then it's regarded as the norm.
well, you're talking about when things don't change there, then it's regarded as the norm.
Slavoj Žižek
and we should see violence in that normal state.
and we should see violence in that normal state.
·
right, but is there an ideological approach to responding to this rather than what looks to everyone else as a nationalistic or maybe a religious conflict?
right, but is there an ideological approach to responding to this rather than what looks to everyone else as a nationalistic or maybe a religious conflict?
Slavoj Žižek
you know, the whole problem here is what does the term ideology mean? for me, ideology is present more and more at the level of daily lives. we live in a very strange era where, at least in the west, people think they are outside ideology like take average people today what is the. implicit injunction that you get from society. in education, whatever. it's not sacrifice yourself for a big cause. it's something like be true to yourself, have a full life, realize your potentials. it's a kind of a what i call spiritualized hedonism. so people don't experience it as ideology, but i think we are in ideology. precisely. because ideology is for me the way you see things and you don't see things so that you can function in our daily lives. for example, the fact that we cannot imagine a change means ideology. or to give you another example. did you notice how today... problems of racism and sexism, which are very real problems, are automatically translated into problems of tolerance. this is ideology. look at martin luther king. he never practically mentions tolerance. for him, the problem was not, oh, whites should more tolerate us blacks. the problem was what? economic exploitation, legal rights, everyday racism and so on. to perceive this problem as the problem of tolerance thanks. you already accept a certain vision of society where, you know, there are almost naturalized cultural differences and we should learn to tolerate each other and so on and so on. politics proper disappears here.
you know, the whole problem here is what does the term ideology mean? for me, ideology is present more and more at the level of daily lives. we live in a very strange era where, at least in the west, people think they are outside ideology like take average people today what is the. implicit injunction that you get from society. in education, whatever. it's not sacrifice yourself for a big cause. it's something like be true to yourself, have a full life, realize your potentials. it's a kind of a what i call spiritualized hedonism. so people don't experience it as ideology, but i think we are in ideology. precisely. because ideology is for me the way you see things and you don't see things so that you can function in our daily lives. for example, the fact that we cannot imagine a change means ideology. or to give you another example. did you notice how today... problems of racism and sexism, which are very real problems, are automatically translated into problems of tolerance. this is ideology. look at martin luther king. he never practically mentions tolerance. for him, the problem was not, oh, whites should more tolerate us blacks. the problem was what? economic exploitation, legal rights, everyday racism and so on. to perceive this problem as the problem of tolerance thanks. you already accept a certain vision of society where, you know, there are almost naturalized cultural differences and we should learn to tolerate each other and so on and so on. politics proper disappears here.
·
do you see anywhere in the world where that... concept of the left is actually try to actuate that, actualize that.
do you see anywhere in the world where that... concept of the left is actually try to actuate that, actualize that.
Slavoj Žižek
are slow happening. i mean, but our media are here. not covering it enough. for example, i was surprised, just take how the media cover india and china. china is the bad guy, everybody knows bad communists and so on, terrorizing tibet. but do you know that in india from time to time you get a note, but it's not reported enough. you have a mega maoist Naxalite rebellion. according to most of the estimates we are talking about, okay, india is big, but nonetheless it's a number even for india. over one million armed rebels. horrible things are happening when indian new capitalism is trying to expand into these tribal areas to get access to mining. and we simply don't see it. so there is a rebellion there. there are things happening now even in europe. these things are very serious. it's not just the superficial things or will greece pay its debt. or not. it's basically to put it in one of possible ways first it is that europe, i like to quote this metaphor, you know, sigmund freud, when he was old, asked this ridiculous, naive question, Was will das Weib? what does a woman want? i claim, no, today it's the problem. what does europe want? europe cannot decide. on the one hand, we have this pure technocratic brussels vision. we should just organize ourselves with regard to global market to be competitive. then we have this nationalist anti-immigrant movements it's very sad if this is the only alternative. i think that today the world is asking for a real alternative. look, would you like, i wouldn't, to live in a world where the only alternative is either? anglo-saxon neoliberalism or chinese singaporean, as we poetically call it, capitalism with asian values, which means authoritarian capitalism, which is now turning even more effective. then western liberal capitalism. so something will have to be done and that's the tragedy of europe. that's the first one. the second one, i'm such a pessimist unfortunately in europe. how europe is regressing. look, one incident. you know that european union basically didn't want to allow in turkey. for not being democratic enough, whatever.
are slow happening. i mean, but our media are here. not covering it enough. for example, i was surprised, just take how the media cover india and china. china is the bad guy, everybody knows bad communists and so on, terrorizing tibet. but do you know that in india from time to time you get a note, but it's not reported enough. you have a mega maoist Naxalite rebellion. according to most of the estimates we are talking about, okay, india is big, but nonetheless it's a number even for india. over one million armed rebels. horrible things are happening when indian new capitalism is trying to expand into these tribal areas to get access to mining. and we simply don't see it. so there is a rebellion there. there are things happening now even in europe. these things are very serious. it's not just the superficial things or will greece pay its debt. or not. it's basically to put it in one of possible ways first it is that europe, i like to quote this metaphor, you know, sigmund freud, when he was old, asked this ridiculous, naive question, Was will das Weib? what does a woman want? i claim, no, today it's the problem. what does europe want? europe cannot decide. on the one hand, we have this pure technocratic brussels vision. we should just organize ourselves with regard to global market to be competitive. then we have this nationalist anti-immigrant movements it's very sad if this is the only alternative. i think that today the world is asking for a real alternative. look, would you like, i wouldn't, to live in a world where the only alternative is either? anglo-saxon neoliberalism or chinese singaporean, as we poetically call it, capitalism with asian values, which means authoritarian capitalism, which is now turning even more effective. then western liberal capitalism. so something will have to be done and that's the tragedy of europe. that's the first one. the second one, i'm such a pessimist unfortunately in europe. how europe is regressing. look, one incident. you know that european union basically didn't want to allow in turkey. for not being democratic enough, whatever.
·
okay,.
okay,.
Slavoj Žižek
being islamic or
being islamic or
·
yeah, do it.
yeah, do it.
Slavoj Žižek
but let me tell you something. did you notice this? this summer. there was in istanbul a big gay parade. 10,000 of homosexuals demonstrating, no incidents. try to do this in a post-communist east european country which is part of european union. there was recently in split, the southern zagreb, sorry, the southern croatian city, a gay parade. you know how it looked. 700 gays protected by 2,000 policemen, protecting them from 10,000 local people trying to lynch them and so on. i mean, this, so i am saying, to provoke my friends, another of my provocations. yes, i agree with right-wingers, european legacy, judeo-christian legacy, legacy is in danger. but they. the false protectors of europe against islam and so on, they are the danger. i don't fear muslims in europe. i fear protectors of europe. and even my jewish friends, i'm telling them, beware, are you aware what is happening? did you notice something about this breivik, the guy who went on a shooting spree in norway? you know, he is the clear case of some something which is emerging now. something paradoxical, and i mean it literally. anti-semitic zionist. on the one hand, he was clearly anti-semitic. he says, in western europe, except england, it's okay, we don't have too many jews, so we can manage it. he said england, especially united states, too many jews so you know, this standard, nation-state vision, jews are okay if they are negligible, if too much, blah blah. at the same time he was absolutely pro-israel, pro-zionist. now you will say this is a alone madman. haha! i think this is the basic attitude of american conservative christian fundamentalists. you remember the scandal at fox news, glenn beck. he was fired for anti-semitic remarks, but at the same time he was absolutely pro-zionist. and this for me is a nightmare. representatives of the state of israel aware what they are doing. they basically sold their soul to the devil. by this i mean this. they made a deal with those political forces in the west who are almost, i would say, by definition anti-semitic, telling them you can play your racial games there, just allow us to do same with the palestinians here. i really worry about jews here. jews are a great nation. the zionist politics is turning them just into another narrow land-grabbing nation. the true victims of middle east conflict, of this catastrophic politics, will be in any case, i claim, jews themselves. they will lose their uniqueness and greatness.
but let me tell you something. did you notice this? this summer. there was in istanbul a big gay parade. 10,000 of homosexuals demonstrating, no incidents. try to do this in a post-communist east european country which is part of european union. there was recently in split, the southern zagreb, sorry, the southern croatian city, a gay parade. you know how it looked. 700 gays protected by 2,000 policemen, protecting them from 10,000 local people trying to lynch them and so on. i mean, this, so i am saying, to provoke my friends, another of my provocations. yes, i agree with right-wingers, european legacy, judeo-christian legacy, legacy is in danger. but they. the false protectors of europe against islam and so on, they are the danger. i don't fear muslims in europe. i fear protectors of europe. and even my jewish friends, i'm telling them, beware, are you aware what is happening? did you notice something about this breivik, the guy who went on a shooting spree in norway? you know, he is the clear case of some something which is emerging now. something paradoxical, and i mean it literally. anti-semitic zionist. on the one hand, he was clearly anti-semitic. he says, in western europe, except england, it's okay, we don't have too many jews, so we can manage it. he said england, especially united states, too many jews so you know, this standard, nation-state vision, jews are okay if they are negligible, if too much, blah blah. at the same time he was absolutely pro-israel, pro-zionist. now you will say this is a alone madman. haha! i think this is the basic attitude of american conservative christian fundamentalists. you remember the scandal at fox news, glenn beck. he was fired for anti-semitic remarks, but at the same time he was absolutely pro-zionist. and this for me is a nightmare. representatives of the state of israel aware what they are doing. they basically sold their soul to the devil. by this i mean this. they made a deal with those political forces in the west who are almost, i would say, by definition anti-semitic, telling them you can play your racial games there, just allow us to do same with the palestinians here. i really worry about jews here. jews are a great nation. the zionist politics is turning them just into another narrow land-grabbing nation. the true victims of middle east conflict, of this catastrophic politics, will be in any case, i claim, jews themselves. they will lose their uniqueness and greatness.
·
at what point do you think, or what point would you notice that there was some glimmer of real change, revolutionary change, anywhere in the world then? because you're lamenting the fact that the left really hasn't got a global remedy or a global approach to dealing with a lot of these problems. where would you see the glimmers of some kind of a change there.
at what point do you think, or what point would you notice that there was some glimmer of real change, revolutionary change, anywhere in the world then? because you're lamenting the fact that the left really hasn't got a global remedy or a global approach to dealing with a lot of these problems. where would you see the glimmers of some kind of a change there.
Slavoj Žižek
no, i think... that already what is happening now is a reason for modest optimism. don't expect miracles in the sense of all of a sudden there will be a magical solution. the beginning is simply that people should become aware that the difficulties we are confronting are not just the difficulties caused by bad, greedy guys in an otherwise good system, but that we have to ask certain questions about the system as such. and this awareness is raising. this is what all the protests here are about. and i think that at this stage, what is again important is not so much to offer fast solutions, but to break this, i call it ironically fukuyama taboo.
no, i think... that already what is happening now is a reason for modest optimism. don't expect miracles in the sense of all of a sudden there will be a magical solution. the beginning is simply that people should become aware that the difficulties we are confronting are not just the difficulties caused by bad, greedy guys in an otherwise good system, but that we have to ask certain questions about the system as such. and this awareness is raising. this is what all the protests here are about. and i think that at this stage, what is again important is not so much to offer fast solutions, but to break this, i call it ironically fukuyama taboo.
·
the idea.
the idea.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, i mean, fukuyama is not an idiot. like in a way, we all were till now fukuyama is. even radical leftists were not thinking about what can replace capitalism our state. they were demanding you know more social justice, more rights for women within the system. the time has come. to raise this more fundamental question the system has lost its self-evidence its automatic legitimacy and now the field is open. this is a very important achievement.
okay, i mean, fukuyama is not an idiot. like in a way, we all were till now fukuyama is. even radical leftists were not thinking about what can replace capitalism our state. they were demanding you know more social justice, more rights for women within the system. the time has come. to raise this more fundamental question the system has lost its self-evidence its automatic legitimacy and now the field is open. this is a very important achievement.
·
but the field is open. who's going to fill that vacuum? is it going to be... i. bob
but the field is open. who's going to fill that vacuum? is it going to be... i. bob
Slavoj Žižek
i totally agree with you. whenever let's not forget that we we know very well who filled in the opening in 1930s in europe and so on. no, this brings its own risks. but nonetheless we have to take a chance. why? because we see it more and more. through a series of phenomena like economic crisis becoming a kind of a permanent emergency state then i think a phenomenon which we should be very attentive to how even if worldwide economy is somehow progressing. but there are this is a nice paradox. berlin wall fell but there are new walls, new divisions. rising up everywhere within most of the states. you have stronger divisions, not just between simply rich and poor, but like in an exemplary way in latin america, people there who live in favelas or slums elsewhere are not simply poor. it's something much more radical. they are simply excluded from public space, political engagement, and so on and so on. so again, it's not a question of shall we take the risk or not. the opening is in a way imposed on us. that's my answer to those who tell me. why don't you just keep quiet and we silently go on the way it is. i claim if we do nothing, we will gradually approach kind of a new, it will not be old fascism, we have to be very specific here, but a new type of authoritarian society. here i see the world historical importance of what is happening today in china. till now, let's be frank, there was one good argument for capitalism. sooner or later, it brought a demand for democracy. you can have dictatorship for 10, 20 years, south korea, chile, but what i'm afraid is that with this capitalism with asian values, singapore, china, we get a capitalism much more efficient, dynamic than... it looks so at least in our western capitalism, but i don't share the hope of my liberal friends like, give them 10 years, another Tiananmen Square demonstration. no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.
i totally agree with you. whenever let's not forget that we we know very well who filled in the opening in 1930s in europe and so on. no, this brings its own risks. but nonetheless we have to take a chance. why? because we see it more and more. through a series of phenomena like economic crisis becoming a kind of a permanent emergency state then i think a phenomenon which we should be very attentive to how even if worldwide economy is somehow progressing. but there are this is a nice paradox. berlin wall fell but there are new walls, new divisions. rising up everywhere within most of the states. you have stronger divisions, not just between simply rich and poor, but like in an exemplary way in latin america, people there who live in favelas or slums elsewhere are not simply poor. it's something much more radical. they are simply excluded from public space, political engagement, and so on and so on. so again, it's not a question of shall we take the risk or not. the opening is in a way imposed on us. that's my answer to those who tell me. why don't you just keep quiet and we silently go on the way it is. i claim if we do nothing, we will gradually approach kind of a new, it will not be old fascism, we have to be very specific here, but a new type of authoritarian society. here i see the world historical importance of what is happening today in china. till now, let's be frank, there was one good argument for capitalism. sooner or later, it brought a demand for democracy. you can have dictatorship for 10, 20 years, south korea, chile, but what i'm afraid is that with this capitalism with asian values, singapore, china, we get a capitalism much more efficient, dynamic than... it looks so at least in our western capitalism, but i don't share the hope of my liberal friends like, give them 10 years, another Tiananmen Square demonstration. no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.
·
okay, so if china is not a good example or not very exemplary in the way you see this breaking open, is there anywhere else? because you're talking about, your complaint is in all of these cases that consumerism is the driving force of the ambition and the discontent. do you see any place where you can get beyond that? again, even
okay, so if china is not a good example or not very exemplary in the way you see this breaking open, is there anywhere else? because you're talking about, your complaint is in all of these cases that consumerism is the driving force of the ambition and the discontent. do you see any place where you can get beyond that? again, even
Slavoj Žižek
in china. you have attempts to organize civil society. in the sense of social movements like for ecology, for workers' rights and so on. and i think that especially in china, for example, this may be even more important than. some type of western democracy. at low level incredible things are happening in china. you know what can give you a hint of the explosive situation in china? remember at the last session of their rubber stamp parliament, everyone expected they will redouble their defense budget. no, they redoub the budget for internal security. china is now the only big country which spends more for internal security than for the army. so again, there are protests there. there are this arab spring. you know why i liked it so much? because we in the west were as we always are but we are not worse than others i'm getting a universal pessimist spontaneous racist no the clichliche was oh with the. arabs, all you can get if you want to mobilize people is kind of a racist, anti-semitic, nationalist or religious fundamentalist movement. you cannot get a nice secular movement for democratic opening where we got exactly that. now comes the crucial part. what happens after? and this is the saddest thing. i pray it will not happen, but some signs do point out in this sad direction that maybe, i hope not, maybe the final outcome will be a kind of a perverse pact between muslim brotherhood and the army. to put it in very simplified terms, muslim brotherhood gets a much stronger ideological role controllingrolling school, but the army gets in exchange what? it keeps all its privileges. corruption and so on and so on. but nonetheless, again, things are happening. or if you take it in europe. in europe, people first thought, made fun of greece, greece, those lazy, primitive mediterranean people. no, you have spain, you have england, it will spread, i claim. and as you said, i agree, this is crucial. the battle now is not will things go on or... will there be a revolution? what we should do is fight the most difficult struggle for who will, to put it naively, who will appropriate this energy of protest. look, even here in the united states. there is a great energy of protest but till now it was appropriated by tea parties. are we aware how, if you look at how they formulate their stuff, the parties look like workers' protests 50 years ago. you know, if you listen to their songs, i listened to one pop singer who supports t. he said, we are ordinary working people exploited, bad people in washington, wall street exploiters and so on and so on. here it will be the struggle. and it's a tough struggle. i have no illusions. there are great dangers. but you know what the chinese say when they really hate you? may you live in interesting times. we certainly are approaching interesting times.
in china. you have attempts to organize civil society. in the sense of social movements like for ecology, for workers' rights and so on. and i think that especially in china, for example, this may be even more important than. some type of western democracy. at low level incredible things are happening in china. you know what can give you a hint of the explosive situation in china? remember at the last session of their rubber stamp parliament, everyone expected they will redouble their defense budget. no, they redoub the budget for internal security. china is now the only big country which spends more for internal security than for the army. so again, there are protests there. there are this arab spring. you know why i liked it so much? because we in the west were as we always are but we are not worse than others i'm getting a universal pessimist spontaneous racist no the clichliche was oh with the. arabs, all you can get if you want to mobilize people is kind of a racist, anti-semitic, nationalist or religious fundamentalist movement. you cannot get a nice secular movement for democratic opening where we got exactly that. now comes the crucial part. what happens after? and this is the saddest thing. i pray it will not happen, but some signs do point out in this sad direction that maybe, i hope not, maybe the final outcome will be a kind of a perverse pact between muslim brotherhood and the army. to put it in very simplified terms, muslim brotherhood gets a much stronger ideological role controllingrolling school, but the army gets in exchange what? it keeps all its privileges. corruption and so on and so on. but nonetheless, again, things are happening. or if you take it in europe. in europe, people first thought, made fun of greece, greece, those lazy, primitive mediterranean people. no, you have spain, you have england, it will spread, i claim. and as you said, i agree, this is crucial. the battle now is not will things go on or... will there be a revolution? what we should do is fight the most difficult struggle for who will, to put it naively, who will appropriate this energy of protest. look, even here in the united states. there is a great energy of protest but till now it was appropriated by tea parties. are we aware how, if you look at how they formulate their stuff, the parties look like workers' protests 50 years ago. you know, if you listen to their songs, i listened to one pop singer who supports t. he said, we are ordinary working people exploited, bad people in washington, wall street exploiters and so on and so on. here it will be the struggle. and it's a tough struggle. i have no illusions. there are great dangers. but you know what the chinese say when they really hate you? may you live in interesting times. we certainly are approaching interesting times.
·
thank you very much for speaking with alazeera.
thank you very much for speaking with alazeera.
Slavoj Žižek
thank you.
thank you.