We Need Further Catastrophes to Awaken Us
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2021-12-23 · 1:12:33 · 10,310 words
capitalismideologycommunism-socialismgeopolitics-wardemocracyrace-antisemitismliberalism-political-correctnesshistoryecology-climaterevolution-violenceeconomicseveryday-life
Žižek and an American podcast host discuss the failures of the Biden administration and the strategic dilemmas of the left, debating whether giving Democrats a conditional chance was the right move and what comes next. They range across geopolitics (Ukraine, China, Taiwan), COVID vaccine politics and mandates, the transformation of capitalism beyond neoliberalism into something like neofeudalism, and race and immigration. The talk closes with historical detours through the Haitian Revolution and the Jesuit missions in Paraguay as illustrations of the paradox that attempts to escape colonialism often reproduce its worst features.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 14
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's provocative self-description for the radical left: because those in power are gambling recklessly with civilisation, the genuine realists and moderates are now the socialists.
Žižek's term for the structural bind in which the left is repeatedly forced to support inadequate Democrats under threat of something worse (Trump), preventing genuine political alternatives from emerging.
as “socialism with a human face”
Žižek invokes the Cold War progressive slogan ironically to frame Biden as 'Trump with a human face', exploiting the structural parallel.
as “Trump with a human face”
Žižek's inversion of the 'socialism with a human face' formula: Biden is essentially Trump but with controlled manners, while Trump is paradoxically 'Biden with a human face', the raw, unfiltered version of the same underlying politics.
Žižek uses this to mean acting against the spontaneous tendency of history toward catastrophe rather than trusting that progress is inevitable; he calls for a voluntarist left that intervenes rather than waits.
Žižek treats civil society as an ambivalent site of political energy that can be mobilised progressively (as in the Slovenian river-shore referendum) but can also be corrupted, fascism itself began as a civil society movement.
as “the true moral majority”
Žižek's provocative counter-hegemonic slogan for the left: instead of ceding values language to conservatives, the left should claim that its programme is the only long-term guarantee of social peace and stability.
as “neofeudalism / corporate neofeudalism”
Žižek (crediting Jodi Dean and Yanis Varoufakis) uses this to name the emergent form of capitalism in which financial speculation is decoupled from production and mega-corporations like Meta function as private lords over the commons.
as “pseudo-individualist liberal discourse of human rights”
Žižek's label for the ideological framework that frames vaccine mandates as violations of bodily autonomy, occluding the social conditions of freedom and reducing freedom to purely private self-ownership.
as “freedom as a social phenomenon”
Žižek insists that real freedom requires socially guaranteed conditions, order, infrastructure, health, and is not reducible to the liberal notion of freedom from interference with one's body or property.
as “conspiracy theory vs. conspiracy”
Žižek distinguishes actual capitalist conspiracies (real coordination between corporations) from conspiracy-theory thinking, rejecting the latter while affirming that real conspiracies exist.
Žižek's term for the perverse monetary policy in which states print vast sums of money that never reach ordinary consumers but circulate only in the financial sphere, as when Deutsche Bank used ECB funds to buy back Volkswagen's own stock.
as “free but indebted”
Žižek's formula for the capitalist subject who is formally free yet structurally pacified by debt, which colonises their attention and prevents political mobilisation.
Implied in the discussion of financial capital circulating in the sphere of pure speculation disconnected from material production, as when ECB money moves from banks to stock buybacks without touching production.
Stories he reaches for 2
Žižek describes how in 17th-century Paraguay the Jesuits organised indigenous people into economically thriving, culturally rich 'missions' that printed books in Guaraní, exported violins, and organised defence against slave traders, a proto-communist miracle. When Voltaire's criticism led the Vatican to disband the Jesuits, Spanish and Portuguese colonisers destroyed the missions. The paradox: a European 'reactionary' force played the most progressive role in the Americas.
“Paradoxically, Jesuits already began to print in Guarani... If Jesuits were allowed to stay there, the whole image of Latin America would have been different.”
Žižek recounts how Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the general who actually won Haitian independence after Toussaint Louverture's capture, proclaimed Haiti a black republic where all citizens regardless of skin colour are 'black', a genuinely universal formula. But then Dessalines ordered the killing of all remaining white people and declared himself emperor, reproducing European authoritarian structures and eventually continuing a form of slavery.
“All people of Haiti, citizens, independent of their color of their skin are black. This is a wonderful formula... But when he did this... exploitation returned with force. He became emperor.”
Works invoked 4
Philosophical Salon journal
Žižek directs listeners to Vighi's Philosophical Salon pieces for the detailed argument that COVID was instrumentalised for capitalist financial stabilisation, an argument he ultimately rejects.
Žižek calls it 'the neofeudal manifesto' and says it is more horrifying than any Stephen King novel, a private individual's blueprint to own the commons.
The Mission (film) film
Žižek references the De Niro / Scorsese film as a popular source most people know for the story of the Jesuit missions in Paraguay, using it to ground the historical anecdote he tells.
Žižek mentions he likes Pet Sematary and considers some King novels progressive, as a passing comparison before saying Zuckerberg's Meta manifesto is even more horrifying.
People invoked 16
Žižek admires Dessalines's constitutional formula ('all citizens are black') as a model of concrete universality but criticises him for ordering the killing of white Haitians and for becoming an emperor who reproduced European authoritarianism and exploitation.
Madison (James Madison) negative
Žižek reads Madison and the founding fathers as deliberately designing the US electoral system to prevent popular will from being adequately translated into political outcomes.
Pétion (Alexandre Pétion) positive
Žižek presents Pétion's southern Haitian republic, land redistribution, abolition of plantation system, communal life, as the more genuinely progressive alternative to Dessalines/Christophe's authoritarian north.
Fabio Vighi negative
Žižek rejects Vighi's radical thesis (published in Philosophical Salon) that COVID was a minor virus inflated to justify a capitalist lockdown needed for financial stabilisation, though he takes seriously the general point about strange financial operations during the pandemic.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Žižek describes himself as 'Leninist' in insisting that disciplined political organisation (not violent cells, but coordinated structures) is indispensable for the left.
Jodi Dean positive
Žižek names Dean as one of the friends playing with the concept of 'corporate neofeudalism', a thesis he is not yet fully converted to but takes seriously.
Mentioned as the first leader of the Haitian Revolution, kidnapped by Napoleon and killed in France, whose successor Dessalines completed the revolution but reproduced colonial structures.
Žižek sees Trump as structurally identical to Biden, paradoxically the 'more human' (vulgar, unfiltered) face of the same politics; he once controversially suggested a Trump win might be better for the left and does not retract that entirely.
Mark Zuckerberg negative
Žižek describes Zuckerberg's Meta manifesto as 'a nightmare', 'more horrible than all Stephen King novels', calling it 'the neofeudal manifesto': a private person wanting to construct and privately own the full commons.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Cited alongside Dean on corporate neofeudalism; also credited with documenting the Deutsche Bank / Volkswagen stock-buyback case as an instance of anti-Keynesian financialisation.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez negative
Žižek uses AOC as a marker of the limit the left should not cross, full integration into the Democratic Party apparatus, while giving Biden a conditional chance.
Walter Benjamin positive
Žižek twice invokes Benjamin's motif of the progressive task as pulling the emergency brake on the train of history, and cites his claim that every fascism is a sign of a failed revolution.
Joe Biden negative
Žižek treats Biden as a structural equivalent of Trump ('Trump with a human face'), criticises his failure to fulfil campaign promises on student debt, vaccines and climate, and sees him as representing the bankruptcy of the neoliberal Democratic centre.
Vladimir Putin negative
Žižek criticises Putin's expansionism over Ukraine but insists the picture is complicated by the West's broken promise not to expand NATO.
Noam Chomsky negative
Žižek notes he was 'almost cursed by Chomsky' for his earlier suggestion that a Trump win might serve the left; implies Chomsky represents the lesser-evil electoral orthodoxy he wants to challenge.
Voltaire negative
Žižek notes that Voltaire's criticism of the Jesuits as obscurantists contributed to the Vatican disbanding them, which then opened Paraguay to colonial devastation, an irony in which a key Enlightenment figure enabled colonial regression.
What it argues
strategic dilemmas of the left vis-à-vis the Democratic Partycapitalism's mutation beyond neoliberalism toward neofeudalismCOVID vaccine politics and the corruption of 'trust in science'race, identity and the asymmetries of liberal multiculturalismhistorical paradoxes of anti-colonial revolution reproducing colonialismstudent debt and ideological pacification of the indebted subjectthe coming danger of geopolitical war (Ukraine, China/Taiwan)
Dialectical moves 8
“In this crazy situation, we are the moderate common sense realists — those in power are the ones playing with our fate, they are the crazy ones.”
Žižek inverts the conventional mapping: the radical left is the party of realism and moderation, while the neoliberal centrists are recklessly gambling with civilisation.
“Biden is Trump with a human face — or rather, Trump is Biden with a human face.”
By inverting the 'socialism with a human face' formula twice, Žižek shows that Biden and Trump are structurally the same, with Trump's vulgarity being the 'more human' version of the same underlying politics.
“Every fascism is an effect, a sign of a failed revolution — they only thrive where we fail.”
Žižek (citing Benjamin) reverses the usual causal framing: fascism is not an autonomous force but the product of the left's own failure to offer an alternative.
“Black Lives Matter are more universal than All Lives Matter because 'All Lives' is already overdetermined by white standards.”
The ostensibly universal ('All') is exposed as a false universal, while the particular ('Black') is the genuine universal move today because it names the constitutive exclusion.
“Capitalists like you free but indebted — not a slave, free but indebted.”
Freedom and debt are not opposites but complements in the capitalist system: formal freedom is structurally neutralised by debt, which colonises the subject's attention and blocks politicisation.
“Dessalines, in trying to rid Haiti of colonialism, precisely imitated the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy — the form of the state was reproduced even as its content was changed.”
The anti-colonial revolution, at the moment of its apparent victory, recapitulated the very structure it sought to negate, showing how pure negation can become its own opposite.
“What in Europe was a reactionary force (the Jesuits), in Paraguay played a relatively progressive role.”
Žižek inverts the European ideological verdict on the Jesuits: the same institution was reactionary in one context and proto-communist in another, exposing the context-dependence of political labels.
“The task of progressive forces today is not to ride the train of history but to pull the emergency brake.”
Žižek invokes Walter Benjamin to reverse the progressivist image of history as a forward-moving train the left should board; instead, the left must stop the runaway train heading toward catastrophe.
Claims 18
asserts
The radical left, in the current situation, occupies the position of moderate common-sense realists, because those actually in power are behaving recklessly and gambling with civilisation.left political identity and strategy
asserts
Giving Biden a conditional chance was the correct strategic move, not because it would succeed but to avoid the left being blamed as dogmatic sectarians who sabotaged any progressive initiative.left electoral strategy under Biden
asserts
The US-China confrontation is fundamentally about American monopoly over digital infrastructure and software, not about democracy versus authoritarianism.US-China geopolitical conflict
reframes
The West broke its post-Soviet promise not to expand NATO, which complicates the simple narrative that Putin alone is the aggressor in the Ukraine conflict.Ukraine war and NATO expansion
asserts
Capitalism is today developing into something for which neoliberalism is no longer the adequate term, moving toward a form of corporate neofeudalism.capitalism's current transformation
asserts
Anti-Keynesianism — printing money that circulates only in the financial sphere rather than reaching ordinary people — is what is actually happening in contemporary monetary policy.contemporary monetary and fiscal policy
asserts
Capitalists prefer workers who are free but indebted because debt prevents politicisation, making student loans ideologically functional for capital.student debt and ideological control
rejects
History is not on the side of progress; global development today tends toward suicidal catastrophe and requires voluntarist political intervention rather than trust in historical momentum.Marxist faith in historical progress
asserts
Every fascism is an effect and sign of a failed revolution — the right only thrives where the left fails.the structural cause of fascism
rejects
The vaccination debate was infected by pseudo-individualist human-rights discourse ('my body, my choice'), which misrepresents freedom as purely private rather than as a social condition.anti-mandate / bodily autonomy discourse
asserts
Vaccine mandates can be justified if convincingly presented as the least-worst option, and opposition based on personal bodily autonomy is ideologically confused.vaccine mandates
rejects
Conspiracy theories must be distinguished from actual conspiracies: capitalism is full of real conspiracies, but that does not validate the specific conspiratorial claim that COVID was invented to justify lockdown.COVID origin conspiracy theories (Fabio Vighi's position)
asserts
White liberals' apparent self-humiliation (championing minorities' cultural identity while denying their own) actually keeps racial others confined to a particular role while whites retain the position of universality.white liberal multiculturalism
asserts
The Haitian Revolution's tragedy is that Dessalines, in overthrowing colonialism, reproduced the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy in the new Haitian state.paradox of anti-colonial revolution
asserts
The Jesuit missions in Paraguay constituted a proto-communist economic and cultural miracle, and their destruction by European colonial powers was a historical catastrophe for Latin America.Jesuit missions in Paraguay as historical alternative
asserts
The American founding electoral system was deliberately designed to prevent popular initiatives from being adequately translated into politics.structural defects of US democracy
asserts
Black Lives Matter is more universal than All Lives Matter because the latter's 'all' is already overdetermined by white standards — true universality today requires naming the excluded particular.universality and the politics of race
asserts
The left must step outside the hegemonic political space of Democrats and Republicans if it wants to keep open the possibility of real change.left political strategy
Quotes 10
“In this crazy situation in which we are today, we are the moderate common sense realists. Those in power are playing with our fate. They are crazy.”Slavoj Žižek · radical left as the true realists
“Every fascism is an effect, a sign of a failed revolution. They only thrive where we fail.”Slavoj Žižek · fascism as product of left failure (Benjamin)
“Capitalists always like you free but indebted. Not a slave, free but indebted, you know.”Slavoj Žižek · debt as ideological pacification of formal freedom
“Biden is Trump with a human face — or rather, Trump is Biden with a human face.”Slavoj Žižek · structural identity of Biden and Trump / inversion of 'human face' formula
“Freedom is a social phenomenon. To be free you need to have certain social conditions guaranteed.”Slavoj Žižek · socialist conception of freedom as socially conditioned
“The task of the progressive forces today is not to ride the train of history but to pull the emergency brake.”Slavoj Žižek · Benjamin's voluntarist politics against historical progressivism
“We are not some madmen importing some crazy radical notion. Look, you are admitting that this is needed. We address common sense.”Slavoj Žižek · left strategy of holding power to its own stated goals
“White liberals want to limit the racial other to their particular role. But they maintain for themselves the role of universality.”Slavoj Žižek · critique of white liberal multiculturalism as covert universalism
“All people of Haiti, citizens, independent of their color of their skin are black — this is a wonderful formula.”Slavoj Žižek · Dessalines's universalist constitution of Haiti as model of concrete universality
“Capitalism is now developing into something for which neoliberalism is no longer the adequate term. Something horrible is happening.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism's mutation beyond neoliberalism
Transcript 59 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I will tell you my conclusion. But I still think, even if we skeptics were proven right, it was nonetheless not a mistake to give Biden and people around him a chance because now nobody can accuse us of being that kind of dogmatic sectarian leftist who just comfortably, like you and me with all the books, wait for the big revolution but just denounce all proposals. No, we acted honestly. We played an extremely—we who said okay, allow Biden if he can to do something good—it’s very, we gave him a chance. And as you beautifully said, we are not now enthusiastic that we were proven right, that Democrats didn’t meet the [unintelligible]. But it's very important if we want in the long term to achieve I don't know what, anything, that we are not perceived as these usual academic radicals who are very quick to denounce every measure as a compromise. No, we should—now this will shock you, you know that I like this almost perverted, perverse line, but I think I’m correct. In this crazy situation in which we are today, we are the moderate common sense realists. The measures that we—should insist on this, those in power are playing with our fate. They are crazy.
I will tell you my conclusion. But I still think, even if we skeptics were proven right, it was nonetheless not a mistake to give Biden and people around him a chance because now nobody can accuse us of being that kind of dogmatic sectarian leftist who just comfortably, like you and me with all the books, wait for the big revolution but just denounce all proposals. No, we acted honestly. We played an extremely—we who said okay, allow Biden if he can to do something good—it’s very, we gave him a chance. And as you beautifully said, we are not now enthusiastic that we were proven right, that Democrats didn’t meet the [unintelligible]. But it's very important if we want in the long term to achieve I don't know what, anything, that we are not perceived as these usual academic radicals who are very quick to denounce every measure as a compromise. No, we should—now this will shock you, you know that I like this almost perverted, perverse line, but I think I’m correct. In this crazy situation in which we are today, we are the moderate common sense realists. The measures that we—should insist on this, those in power are playing with our fate. They are crazy.
unknown
That’s true. That’s true. But it is also
That’s true. That’s true. But it is also
Slavoj Žižek
true how it bothers you to strike back.
true how it bothers you to strike back.
unknown
Regardless of how measured we are in our early critiques, regardless of how much we frame the issues as we want Joe Biden just to fill his campaign promises. I'm not rooting against Biden, right? That’s the posture that I took. I'm not rooting for Biden to fail, I'm rooting for him to succeed. I'm warning him as to what is going to happen down the pike. Regardless of the moderation of my own tone, I am still—and people who took this approach are still characterized as radicals. And at the same time, I would argue the fact that no one out there is speaking more radically and truthfully about what’s going on and willing to say this is actually corruption afoot. That Joe Biden of course is not going to do the right thing. He hired Steve Ricchetti, a former oil lobbyist as his senior advisor. He’s got Cedric Richmond from the most polluted district in America as a senior advisor. We know what this game is. He told him that, you know, he said in a leaked meeting to a bunch of donors nothing would fundamentally change. Like, the fact that there was—that that level of tone, that level of analysis wasn't a bigger part of the conversation enabled the corporate media to get away for the last months with pretending like Biden was going to be something he wasn't. And only now people are reaching out to me for interviews talking about, oh well what could he do now? What should the left say? I'm like, where were you six months ago when you were writing screeds about how Biden was going to be the next FDR and casting people like myself as completely unreasonable, disgruntled Bernie Bros? You know, there’s a time and a place for this kind of criticism and now it’s all too late. And this is what happens. The media will open itself up to the kind of criticism that is necessary after the fact. I will
Regardless of how measured we are in our early critiques, regardless of how much we frame the issues as we want Joe Biden just to fill his campaign promises. I'm not rooting against Biden, right? That’s the posture that I took. I'm not rooting for Biden to fail, I'm rooting for him to succeed. I'm warning him as to what is going to happen down the pike. Regardless of the moderation of my own tone, I am still—and people who took this approach are still characterized as radicals. And at the same time, I would argue the fact that no one out there is speaking more radically and truthfully about what’s going on and willing to say this is actually corruption afoot. That Joe Biden of course is not going to do the right thing. He hired Steve Ricchetti, a former oil lobbyist as his senior advisor. He’s got Cedric Richmond from the most polluted district in America as a senior advisor. We know what this game is. He told him that, you know, he said in a leaked meeting to a bunch of donors nothing would fundamentally change. Like, the fact that there was—that that level of tone, that level of analysis wasn't a bigger part of the conversation enabled the corporate media to get away for the last months with pretending like Biden was going to be something he wasn't. And only now people are reaching out to me for interviews talking about, oh well what could he do now? What should the left say? I'm like, where were you six months ago when you were writing screeds about how Biden was going to be the next FDR and casting people like myself as completely unreasonable, disgruntled Bernie Bros? You know, there’s a time and a place for this kind of criticism and now it’s all too late. And this is what happens. The media will open itself up to the kind of criticism that is necessary after the fact. I will
Slavoj Žižek
maybe appear too much of a conformist for you, but my counterpoint would have been, not even counterpoint, I agree with you. Did we have a choice? Unfortunately, but correct me immediately if I’m wrong. As I put it cynically, you can even correct me even if I am right, you know. But don't you think that not doing this, not pretend to—even if we know how it will come out—not to pretend to give Biden a chance wouldn't change anything? We would just not only appear as sectarians who even wanted Biden to fail, it would even be possible to blame us. You know that you see, you contributed to this, you were too tough and so on and so on. We—I think we can, we were not—we never, as you pointed out nicely, we just say okay, he’s saying some things which in present desperate constellation are not totally bad. Let’s see what he will do. We never crossed that faithful line into AOC like. I agree with you and that’s why I mean—did
maybe appear too much of a conformist for you, but my counterpoint would have been, not even counterpoint, I agree with you. Did we have a choice? Unfortunately, but correct me immediately if I’m wrong. As I put it cynically, you can even correct me even if I am right, you know. But don't you think that not doing this, not pretend to—even if we know how it will come out—not to pretend to give Biden a chance wouldn't change anything? We would just not only appear as sectarians who even wanted Biden to fail, it would even be possible to blame us. You know that you see, you contributed to this, you were too tough and so on and so on. We—I think we can, we were not—we never, as you pointed out nicely, we just say okay, he’s saying some things which in present desperate constellation are not totally bad. Let’s see what he will do. We never crossed that faithful line into AOC like. I agree with you and that’s why I mean—did
unknown
it. I did the thing that you are arguing for. So obviously on some level I thought that was the best approach. I guess my frustration is that there is no lefter flank. I don't think that me and all of my bourgeois sensibilities should be anywhere close to the left flank of discourse happening in this country. And it frustrates me that there aren't people somewhere—you know, I have a certain level of, for lack of a better word, like political credibility that I think is valuable on its own that I want to protect. But somebody somewhere it seems to me should be making the much harder line argument, especially members of the press who have access to people like Jen Psaki who recently caused another little firestorm over student loan debt. This is not something that’s going away because again to your point, this is something that was a Biden campaign promise. And then the left in all of its measured reasonableness hasn't been broadly saying okay, Joe Biden cancel all student debt—we all know he never promised that—but he did promise to cancel for everybody in full debt cancellation for everybody who makes under a year and went to a public university. That has been memory holed. Nobody is talking about that in the public sphere. And unfortunately, the press secretary is able to get up and get away with Joe Biden not fulfilling that very basic campaign promise and instead turning student loan payments back on in an election year at the same time that the child tax credits are ending. And she gets away with it because reporters refuse to ask her. They assume and they will refuse to assume in the question that Biden has the authority to cancel student debt, which of course he does. So Jen Psaki can get away with saying for months oh, we’re waiting for an advisory letter. And then when the advisory letter got leaked, entirely redacted by the way, but the existence of the letter has existed since April. Then the pivot was to oh, well there’s no bill on my desk. A bill on your desk? The whole point of this is that it’s something you can do by executive order. But because the questions aren't framed as such, because the questions aren't framed in a more adversarial, visceral way, she will probably get away with this until February 1st, at which point we will all be paying our debt again unless there is a debt strike. And she’ll be saying oh, well we can't reverse it, it’s already a done deal. And that’s what I'm saying. I'm saying that sometimes I think we don't realize that another level of discourse and aggression is necessary until it’s too late. And everyone thinks they can do this consensus building and even though I'm an outsider, even though so many of us in the independent media are outsiders, we’re still behaving as though we’re playing an inside game like we are AOC.
it. I did the thing that you are arguing for. So obviously on some level I thought that was the best approach. I guess my frustration is that there is no lefter flank. I don't think that me and all of my bourgeois sensibilities should be anywhere close to the left flank of discourse happening in this country. And it frustrates me that there aren't people somewhere—you know, I have a certain level of, for lack of a better word, like political credibility that I think is valuable on its own that I want to protect. But somebody somewhere it seems to me should be making the much harder line argument, especially members of the press who have access to people like Jen Psaki who recently caused another little firestorm over student loan debt. This is not something that’s going away because again to your point, this is something that was a Biden campaign promise. And then the left in all of its measured reasonableness hasn't been broadly saying okay, Joe Biden cancel all student debt—we all know he never promised that—but he did promise to cancel for everybody in full debt cancellation for everybody who makes under a year and went to a public university. That has been memory holed. Nobody is talking about that in the public sphere. And unfortunately, the press secretary is able to get up and get away with Joe Biden not fulfilling that very basic campaign promise and instead turning student loan payments back on in an election year at the same time that the child tax credits are ending. And she gets away with it because reporters refuse to ask her. They assume and they will refuse to assume in the question that Biden has the authority to cancel student debt, which of course he does. So Jen Psaki can get away with saying for months oh, we’re waiting for an advisory letter. And then when the advisory letter got leaked, entirely redacted by the way, but the existence of the letter has existed since April. Then the pivot was to oh, well there’s no bill on my desk. A bill on your desk? The whole point of this is that it’s something you can do by executive order. But because the questions aren't framed as such, because the questions aren't framed in a more adversarial, visceral way, she will probably get away with this until February 1st, at which point we will all be paying our debt again unless there is a debt strike. And she’ll be saying oh, well we can't reverse it, it’s already a done deal. And that’s what I'm saying. I'm saying that sometimes I think we don't realize that another level of discourse and aggression is necessary until it’s too late. And everyone thinks they can do this consensus building and even though I'm an outsider, even though so many of us in the independent media are outsiders, we’re still behaving as though we’re playing an inside game like we are AOC.
Slavoj Žižek
I agree with you and I will add here, I think we will agree, two points concerning all this. First, a more general critical point, which in today's situation where I really think, I don't want to take too much of your time by this, I've written a short text, I even forgot where it was published. But you know what’s happening today, I really think that it’s not a dream. There is on the horizon clearly a war. A war either in Europe around Ukraine and in the Far East, Taiwan-China. And that’s another question. I also have to criticize Putin, criticize the Chinese. I list all the problematic things China is doing, this new wave of repression, nationalist rhetoric, boosting the military. It’s very interesting to see, I just saw some clips, China just put on the market their biggest movie hit. It turned in China itself almost one billion, which celebrates a foreign intervention of China into North Korea [unintelligible] and so on. But I’m not just blaming China or Putin. You know where Biden totally follows Trump and goes even further in his boycott of China, in his anti-Chinese policy? In what sense? I think a very simple analysis. United States still have a more or less monopoly on software, hardware, digital space, all those companies and so on. And it wants absolutely to retain this monopoly. Europe can't do it, nobody else, China is the only competitor. I find this so horrible, how the whole situation is slowly—I will not bore you again with all the details, but some of the details are fascinating. This how on the one hand China is right to feel encircled, more and more. On the other hand, China is getting ready. Like, I have a friend in China with whom I communicate and he sends me emails through foreign links, he’s afraid things are censored there. But you know that regularly now in Chinese military journals, which are still not secret journals, public debates of how military should be organized in China, they regularly mention that United States has one advantage with regard to China. They always were engaged in small wars like small, not total wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, to train their army in real battle experience, while Chinese didn't. The last was that short intervention years ago or when it didn't work well into Vietnam to punish it for invading Kampuchea. So they claim we need a real battle, we need a small war and all other symptoms. It’s and that very mysterious—this is things that make me afraid. Did you notice this news? It was not secret, it was in all the media in China. The government called on ordinary people, families, that in view of—they didn't specify a possible chaos, troubles—that every family should gather at home, provide themselves with food supplies for at least two months. There are dark things and but my point is I'm not simply blaming China here. I think the whole situation and even with Ukraine where the thing appears to be clear. Like, Putin wants to expand. But it’s not as simple as that because I remember, you are too young, I’m unfortunately not, how when Soviet Union fell apart, there was a clear deal between Russia and the West. Russia, Yeltsin at that point, accepts the disintegration of Soviet Union into autonomous fully sovereign republics on condition that, on condition that the West solemnly promised that none of these new states will join NATO. The West is breaking this promise also. So it’s and now this is what really disappoints me. One would have thought, you know, that the logic would be my God, we are now fighting epidemic and then global warming, at least wars and this kind—no! Usually we have a stupid saying in Slovene: "When the devil has children young, he usually had a lot of them in one small period." It’s as if that precisely because we are in such a global crisis, sorry, there is even a greater danger of war. And this makes me pessimist. But back to your point, Biden and so on. What I still don't see is—okay, I'll put it like this so that I don't get confused—nonetheless, don't be all in all too much of a just of a pessimist. I begin with this then I will make the pessimist conclusion. Don't you think that the fact that we have now, that we even have this debate, we have a little bit at least more serious left, which is limited but nonetheless a political agent. And we can debate should we strategically support some of the things Biden is doing, others not, means that things are moving slowly somewhere.
I agree with you and I will add here, I think we will agree, two points concerning all this. First, a more general critical point, which in today's situation where I really think, I don't want to take too much of your time by this, I've written a short text, I even forgot where it was published. But you know what’s happening today, I really think that it’s not a dream. There is on the horizon clearly a war. A war either in Europe around Ukraine and in the Far East, Taiwan-China. And that’s another question. I also have to criticize Putin, criticize the Chinese. I list all the problematic things China is doing, this new wave of repression, nationalist rhetoric, boosting the military. It’s very interesting to see, I just saw some clips, China just put on the market their biggest movie hit. It turned in China itself almost one billion, which celebrates a foreign intervention of China into North Korea [unintelligible] and so on. But I’m not just blaming China or Putin. You know where Biden totally follows Trump and goes even further in his boycott of China, in his anti-Chinese policy? In what sense? I think a very simple analysis. United States still have a more or less monopoly on software, hardware, digital space, all those companies and so on. And it wants absolutely to retain this monopoly. Europe can't do it, nobody else, China is the only competitor. I find this so horrible, how the whole situation is slowly—I will not bore you again with all the details, but some of the details are fascinating. This how on the one hand China is right to feel encircled, more and more. On the other hand, China is getting ready. Like, I have a friend in China with whom I communicate and he sends me emails through foreign links, he’s afraid things are censored there. But you know that regularly now in Chinese military journals, which are still not secret journals, public debates of how military should be organized in China, they regularly mention that United States has one advantage with regard to China. They always were engaged in small wars like small, not total wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, to train their army in real battle experience, while Chinese didn't. The last was that short intervention years ago or when it didn't work well into Vietnam to punish it for invading Kampuchea. So they claim we need a real battle, we need a small war and all other symptoms. It’s and that very mysterious—this is things that make me afraid. Did you notice this news? It was not secret, it was in all the media in China. The government called on ordinary people, families, that in view of—they didn't specify a possible chaos, troubles—that every family should gather at home, provide themselves with food supplies for at least two months. There are dark things and but my point is I'm not simply blaming China here. I think the whole situation and even with Ukraine where the thing appears to be clear. Like, Putin wants to expand. But it’s not as simple as that because I remember, you are too young, I’m unfortunately not, how when Soviet Union fell apart, there was a clear deal between Russia and the West. Russia, Yeltsin at that point, accepts the disintegration of Soviet Union into autonomous fully sovereign republics on condition that, on condition that the West solemnly promised that none of these new states will join NATO. The West is breaking this promise also. So it’s and now this is what really disappoints me. One would have thought, you know, that the logic would be my God, we are now fighting epidemic and then global warming, at least wars and this kind—no! Usually we have a stupid saying in Slovene: "When the devil has children young, he usually had a lot of them in one small period." It’s as if that precisely because we are in such a global crisis, sorry, there is even a greater danger of war. And this makes me pessimist. But back to your point, Biden and so on. What I still don't see is—okay, I'll put it like this so that I don't get confused—nonetheless, don't be all in all too much of a just of a pessimist. I begin with this then I will make the pessimist conclusion. Don't you think that the fact that we have now, that we even have this debate, we have a little bit at least more serious left, which is limited but nonetheless a political agent. And we can debate should we strategically support some of the things Biden is doing, others not, means that things are moving slowly somewhere.
unknown
But that’s not quite the debate, Slavoj. I don't feel like there’s anybody on the left who’s ever really been antagonistic to anything in Biden's agenda. There is nobody, and this is part of my point, maybe there should be someone who was kind of radically out there rooting for Biden to fail. But on the whole, everyone would be—there are so many people on the left who would be the first to stand in line and bend the knee and congratulate the guy for doing the bare minimum. And he won't even do what he has professed he would do. And the left is being still blamed to your earlier point for any failure. The left will be blamed for the losses in Claire McCaskill and all of them are already testing their excuses for how somehow the completely neutered and non-existent left is going to be to blame for this. And so what do we have to show for our restraint?
But that’s not quite the debate, Slavoj. I don't feel like there’s anybody on the left who’s ever really been antagonistic to anything in Biden's agenda. There is nobody, and this is part of my point, maybe there should be someone who was kind of radically out there rooting for Biden to fail. But on the whole, everyone would be—there are so many people on the left who would be the first to stand in line and bend the knee and congratulate the guy for doing the bare minimum. And he won't even do what he has professed he would do. And the left is being still blamed to your earlier point for any failure. The left will be blamed for the losses in Claire McCaskill and all of them are already testing their excuses for how somehow the completely neutered and non-existent left is going to be to blame for this. And so what do we have to show for our restraint?
Slavoj Žižek
I see, no, no, no, I see your point and I will even go further. Now comes my pessimist conclusion. That as you were justified to point out, what I fear is that in it will be the same emotional as it were blackmail. They will say yes, Biden didn't do it all, but listen do you want Trump back? And we will be blackmailed into again playing—and I’m aware of this, that’s why you remember I was almost cursed by Chomsky and all of them when I said maybe it’s better for the left for Trump to win. I wouldn't say this again in Because why not? I think that I’m much more of a pessimist in the sense that not only in United States but all around that there are simply signs that a basic social pact in the sense of a civil order is slowly disintegrating, that this is a very speculative thesis, that we are moving into a new tribal societies where like, isn't it clear that—and I agree here with you, isn't it clear that with Trump people, extreme, all these conspiracy theories and so on and so on, it’s nonsense to say we need a dialogue with them. No, ultimately somebody will have to win. Some people would say that the extradition of Julian Assange is evidence that there is an alignment when it comes to some of the most coercive anti-free speech fascistic elements that Trump had with Biden. And you've written in your book, how do you put it, that Biden is Trump with a nice face or something along those lines? I don't want to misquote you. No, I refer, sorry, I refer to that old ironic idea when progressives in the 60s, 70s were calling for socialism with a human face. In a sense that Biden is Trump with a human face. Right. Would you agree, now I would say even the opposite, that if we use the term human in the sense of all the vulgarity of everyday manners when you relax, you get drunk, you are vulgar, it’s almost that Trump is Biden with a human face. In Trump you get all these dirty jokes, vulgarity. Biden is just more controlled, everything is controlled, he is and so on. But you know nonetheless I don't, I’m a little bit here more optimist than you. I think that if the left should draw this conclusion of course that to really not bring a change but at least keep the space open for the change which is needed, that it cannot be done within the hegemonic political space, Democrats, Republicans and so on and so on. That we have to step out somehow. But it's nonetheless important how to do this, that’s my obsession. Well how, how do we do that? Because that is also my obsession as well. I was clear here, I support sincerely, not because some calculations, I support—that’s incidentally I think it’s in the book, in this book, my favorite moment where I unite
I see, no, no, no, I see your point and I will even go further. Now comes my pessimist conclusion. That as you were justified to point out, what I fear is that in it will be the same emotional as it were blackmail. They will say yes, Biden didn't do it all, but listen do you want Trump back? And we will be blackmailed into again playing—and I’m aware of this, that’s why you remember I was almost cursed by Chomsky and all of them when I said maybe it’s better for the left for Trump to win. I wouldn't say this again in Because why not? I think that I’m much more of a pessimist in the sense that not only in United States but all around that there are simply signs that a basic social pact in the sense of a civil order is slowly disintegrating, that this is a very speculative thesis, that we are moving into a new tribal societies where like, isn't it clear that—and I agree here with you, isn't it clear that with Trump people, extreme, all these conspiracy theories and so on and so on, it’s nonsense to say we need a dialogue with them. No, ultimately somebody will have to win. Some people would say that the extradition of Julian Assange is evidence that there is an alignment when it comes to some of the most coercive anti-free speech fascistic elements that Trump had with Biden. And you've written in your book, how do you put it, that Biden is Trump with a nice face or something along those lines? I don't want to misquote you. No, I refer, sorry, I refer to that old ironic idea when progressives in the 60s, 70s were calling for socialism with a human face. In a sense that Biden is Trump with a human face. Right. Would you agree, now I would say even the opposite, that if we use the term human in the sense of all the vulgarity of everyday manners when you relax, you get drunk, you are vulgar, it’s almost that Trump is Biden with a human face. In Trump you get all these dirty jokes, vulgarity. Biden is just more controlled, everything is controlled, he is and so on. But you know nonetheless I don't, I’m a little bit here more optimist than you. I think that if the left should draw this conclusion of course that to really not bring a change but at least keep the space open for the change which is needed, that it cannot be done within the hegemonic political space, Democrats, Republicans and so on and so on. That we have to step out somehow. But it's nonetheless important how to do this, that’s my obsession. Well how, how do we do that? Because that is also my obsession as well. I was clear here, I support sincerely, not because some calculations, I support—that’s incidentally I think it’s in the book, in this book, my favorite moment where I unite
unknown
pure philosophy with everyday political analysis. Why Black Lives Matter are more universal than All Lives Matter? All Lives Matter appear universal. But they are a fake because this all is already overdetermined by white standards and so on. To be universal today you have to say Black Lives Matter because they are—I even believe here in the deep lesson of so-called, how are they called? Afro-pessimists and so on. You know those guys
pure philosophy with everyday political analysis. Why Black Lives Matter are more universal than All Lives Matter? All Lives Matter appear universal. But they are a fake because this all is already overdetermined by white standards and so on. To be universal today you have to say Black Lives Matter because they are—I even believe here in the deep lesson of so-called, how are they called? Afro-pessimists and so on. You know those guys
Slavoj Žižek
who claim that anti-black racism is not the same as other racism, it’s at a more basic level. But don't you think that if we want our speech to have any effect—now I will expose myself, you should attack me—that if we want our speech to have any effect, we should endlessly repeat this point. That first, what we want are not some eccentric remarks: "Ooh Communism, New Communist Party, whatever." We just basically want to take seriously what those even those in power are forced under pressure of circumstances to announce as their goals. For example, take which was for me mega-fiasco, take the Glasgow conference. What they were saying there, yeah it’s true, we need—it was the scandal now with Omicron which becomes clear. The scandal is triple. First, in some European countries they have now even too many vaccines and since their, how do you call it, date of use is over, they are destroying them. Nobody thought at least this, that before that date was reached let’s ship them quickly to third world countries. There was no serious cooperation. Third thing, they are saying this, those in power. What about free licensing, no copyright for the vaccines? And you can get even a very good logical pro-capitalist even justification for this because as we know, the private corporations, pharmaceutical, got billions of dollars of state support for developing vaccines. Why don't they owe something to society? They will still
who claim that anti-black racism is not the same as other racism, it’s at a more basic level. But don't you think that if we want our speech to have any effect—now I will expose myself, you should attack me—that if we want our speech to have any effect, we should endlessly repeat this point. That first, what we want are not some eccentric remarks: "Ooh Communism, New Communist Party, whatever." We just basically want to take seriously what those even those in power are forced under pressure of circumstances to announce as their goals. For example, take which was for me mega-fiasco, take the Glasgow conference. What they were saying there, yeah it’s true, we need—it was the scandal now with Omicron which becomes clear. The scandal is triple. First, in some European countries they have now even too many vaccines and since their, how do you call it, date of use is over, they are destroying them. Nobody thought at least this, that before that date was reached let’s ship them quickly to third world countries. There was no serious cooperation. Third thing, they are saying this, those in power. What about free licensing, no copyright for the vaccines? And you can get even a very good logical pro-capitalist even justification for this because as we know, the private corporations, pharmaceutical, got billions of dollars of state support for developing vaccines. Why don't they owe something to society? They will still
unknown
earn enough and so on. So what I would have done is this, to compromise in for you, is to insist
earn enough and so on. So what I would have done is this, to compromise in for you, is to insist
Slavoj Žižek
we are not some madmen importing some crazy radical notion. Look, you are admitting that this is needed. Not to mention even global warming. People know there has to be international cooperation, there will be food crises and so on. We should emphasize that we are not radical madmen. We address common sense. Right. And I’m with you and that’s what we've all been doing and look what happens. Somebody asked recently Jen Psaki at a press conference why we can't ship tests to every American. She scoffed and laughed at the idea like it was completely absurd and said how much would this cost? And when the reporter pointed out that other countries managed to do it all over the world, she says well we share the same values and goals, we’re just going to go about it differently. Meanwhile biggest military budget in American history. No one’s asking how we’re going to pay for it. So my point is not that I disagree with that approach, my point is that we've all been taking that approach and it hasn't been working. And so I want to ask about your optimism because in your book you talk about how even Podemos and the yellow jackets, the Gilets Jaunes, they there were these moments where they seemed to be riding on a real wave of radical potential change. And then there was this moment where they were actually given a voice within parliament and in your telling that effectively neutered or took a lot of the air out of the energy of the movement. The critical fate for me is Podemos in Spain. You remember three four years ago, hundreds of thousands of people, incredible mobilization. Now they are just one very modest traditional but modest social democratic party. Right. But you know what’s my—okay, let me provoke you further. I will say something horrible so that you will see that I’m not a fake optimist, like let’s support Biden, something will come out of it. I think the way we screwed it up, we simply are not yet there desperate enough. I’m not a leftist fanatic like some of my leftist friends, I will not name them, even claim the only thing would be to maybe even provoke some catastrophe, explode an atomic a nuclear plant or whatever. No, but obviously, and I don't worry that this will not happen, obviously, you know what’s the problem? Sorry that I jump. The problem is that in old Marxist way—I’m still basically a Marxist but a critical one—in the old Marxist way we were used to trust history. History is on our side, moving in progress and so on. No, I don't think so. I think that the global development today goes towards a suicidal catastrophe. And we have to act in a voluntarist way. By voluntarist I mean we just have to do something to prevent the catastrophe. I always quote that Walter Benjamin, the task of the progressive forces today is not to ride the train of history but to pull the
we are not some madmen importing some crazy radical notion. Look, you are admitting that this is needed. Not to mention even global warming. People know there has to be international cooperation, there will be food crises and so on. We should emphasize that we are not radical madmen. We address common sense. Right. And I’m with you and that’s what we've all been doing and look what happens. Somebody asked recently Jen Psaki at a press conference why we can't ship tests to every American. She scoffed and laughed at the idea like it was completely absurd and said how much would this cost? And when the reporter pointed out that other countries managed to do it all over the world, she says well we share the same values and goals, we’re just going to go about it differently. Meanwhile biggest military budget in American history. No one’s asking how we’re going to pay for it. So my point is not that I disagree with that approach, my point is that we've all been taking that approach and it hasn't been working. And so I want to ask about your optimism because in your book you talk about how even Podemos and the yellow jackets, the Gilets Jaunes, they there were these moments where they seemed to be riding on a real wave of radical potential change. And then there was this moment where they were actually given a voice within parliament and in your telling that effectively neutered or took a lot of the air out of the energy of the movement. The critical fate for me is Podemos in Spain. You remember three four years ago, hundreds of thousands of people, incredible mobilization. Now they are just one very modest traditional but modest social democratic party. Right. But you know what’s my—okay, let me provoke you further. I will say something horrible so that you will see that I’m not a fake optimist, like let’s support Biden, something will come out of it. I think the way we screwed it up, we simply are not yet there desperate enough. I’m not a leftist fanatic like some of my leftist friends, I will not name them, even claim the only thing would be to maybe even provoke some catastrophe, explode an atomic a nuclear plant or whatever. No, but obviously, and I don't worry that this will not happen, obviously, you know what’s the problem? Sorry that I jump. The problem is that in old Marxist way—I’m still basically a Marxist but a critical one—in the old Marxist way we were used to trust history. History is on our side, moving in progress and so on. No, I don't think so. I think that the global development today goes towards a suicidal catastrophe. And we have to act in a voluntarist way. By voluntarist I mean we just have to do something to prevent the catastrophe. I always quote that Walter Benjamin, the task of the progressive forces today is not to ride the train of history but to pull the
unknown
[unintelligible] break, the emergency. So what’s pulling the break? Have you been following any of the third party movements, the Andrew Yang deciding to put his energy behind starting another third party and focusing on rank choice voting and ballot initiatives? What do you make of that? You know what, I was always skeptical about this like Podemos, social movements and so on. But again, I don't know enough about the United States but we even in Slovenia and in other European countries now apart from the official corrupted left which is no left, our version of Bidens and so on, there is an incredible awakening of—I don't like this name it’s so much misused but civil society. Civil society can also be extremely corrupted. Fascism began as a civil society movement. But things happen. For example in Slovenia, the government wanted to change the law regulating where on the shores of rivers and sea can you build, can you construct new buildings? Why? To it would be a catastrophe, it would be very profitable but a catastrophe for clean water and so on and so on. You know what happened? Everybody thought this will
[unintelligible] break, the emergency. So what’s pulling the break? Have you been following any of the third party movements, the Andrew Yang deciding to put his energy behind starting another third party and focusing on rank choice voting and ballot initiatives? What do you make of that? You know what, I was always skeptical about this like Podemos, social movements and so on. But again, I don't know enough about the United States but we even in Slovenia and in other European countries now apart from the official corrupted left which is no left, our version of Bidens and so on, there is an incredible awakening of—I don't like this name it’s so much misused but civil society. Civil society can also be extremely corrupted. Fascism began as a civil society movement. But things happen. For example in Slovenia, the government wanted to change the law regulating where on the shores of rivers and sea can you build, can you construct new buildings? Why? To it would be a catastrophe, it would be very profitable but a catastrophe for clean water and so on and so on. You know what happened? Everybody thought this will
Slavoj Žižek
be or people. It was incredible. It was of the people voted, the highest turnout, it was just a referendum and government lost by around against. Now my fear is that this will remain one issue point of mobilization. The big task is to politicize them in some way like to find a way to retain—this is where Syriza in Greece failed. The moment after the compromise with EU that they took power, they destroyed their entire civil society base, all those autonomous non-governmental organizations. Here I see, maybe I’m too optimist, but there are signs that this is possible. And some of these organizations, they are moving in this direction, you know, in the sense that they don't want just to become another party, but they want to influence the elections. There are now a couple of groups in Slovenia which are very strong locally, and they decided to avoid totally these big debates not against global warming but, do you are you for—they are asking the parties—are you for or against a new nuclear plant? What is minimal wage and so on? All these demands they are just moving to concrete topics and this mobilizes people. So I’m not afraid that nothing will happen. My God look what’s happening already in the United States. Don't you think that at a certain point with pandemic and even more with global warming and all these catastrophes up and down, people will be shattered. And at that point maybe we have... Yeah, I think that people are already fed up and I think that when you talk about politicizing issues, the right is doing a very good job of it. COVID in particular, I think we’re only seeing the beginning of the extent to which this is the litmus test for conservative candidates. We recently did an episode on a TV personality named Dr. Oz who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania, largely charting a new path forward somewhere between COVID skepticism and vaccine [unintelligible] pharmaceutical skepticism, which I think a lot of Americans across the aisle feel. And so liberals
be or people. It was incredible. It was of the people voted, the highest turnout, it was just a referendum and government lost by around against. Now my fear is that this will remain one issue point of mobilization. The big task is to politicize them in some way like to find a way to retain—this is where Syriza in Greece failed. The moment after the compromise with EU that they took power, they destroyed their entire civil society base, all those autonomous non-governmental organizations. Here I see, maybe I’m too optimist, but there are signs that this is possible. And some of these organizations, they are moving in this direction, you know, in the sense that they don't want just to become another party, but they want to influence the elections. There are now a couple of groups in Slovenia which are very strong locally, and they decided to avoid totally these big debates not against global warming but, do you are you for—they are asking the parties—are you for or against a new nuclear plant? What is minimal wage and so on? All these demands they are just moving to concrete topics and this mobilizes people. So I’m not afraid that nothing will happen. My God look what’s happening already in the United States. Don't you think that at a certain point with pandemic and even more with global warming and all these catastrophes up and down, people will be shattered. And at that point maybe we have... Yeah, I think that people are already fed up and I think that when you talk about politicizing issues, the right is doing a very good job of it. COVID in particular, I think we’re only seeing the beginning of the extent to which this is the litmus test for conservative candidates. We recently did an episode on a TV personality named Dr. Oz who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania, largely charting a new path forward somewhere between COVID skepticism and vaccine [unintelligible] pharmaceutical skepticism, which I think a lot of Americans across the aisle feel. And so liberals
unknown
identifying themselves so strongly with 'I believe in science, don't question me, Dr. Fauci is King' method forecloses I think a lot of really organic and sincere skepticism of the corporate nature of
identifying themselves so strongly with 'I believe in science, don't question me, Dr. Fauci is King' method forecloses I think a lot of really organic and sincere skepticism of the corporate nature of
Slavoj Žižek
the pharmaceutical industry and the exploitative history of it that everyone understands and we’re being gaslit now about because to acknowledge that is in some ways to be seen as being an anti-vaxxer or siding with the right. Meanwhile, the right is now given this huge opportunity to take a kind of pseudo-anti-corporate pseudo-populist posture that also neatly dovetails with a kind of anti-vax sentiment that is already existing on the right and there’s no end to how many benefits that’s going to pay off. But to your point in the book, it does feel like there are three parties. There’s a neoliberal center, there’s a leftist small little flint of a fragment, and there is an alignment between the far right and the center right in a way that makes it inordinately more powerful. And that is why there’s so much focus and why I’m so obsessed with the idea that there needs to be a more serious conversation had about how to budge the neoliberal left and to co-opt the neoliberal left the way that the far right had managed to do to the neoliberal right. But I will tell you now something shocking, totally provocative. You know that now it’s a mental experiment more, don't take it too seriously. But I notice that this pseudo-humanitarian liberal left is sometimes so corrupted in love with itself that sometimes there are people whom I call, don't kill me for saying this, moderate conservatives. There is one good Lenin wrote this. There is one good things about, at least in Europe, maybe United States is different, about some type of conservatives. You know, left liberals often like this logic big declarations then they lose, you blame the enemy. But there is a certain type of conservatives, very moderate, who take the game seriously and are aware we have to deliver. And I wouldn't be afraid to propose very limited tactical alliances with them. In United States probably it doesn't work, I know. But in Europe... What’s the basis of that alliance? Let’s just talk it through because the reason I think it doesn't work is not because I'm one of those people who is like, oh no they voted for Trump, they're tainted, they’re in the trash can, that’s not my approach. But you have to be willing to offer something meaningful that is more attractive than this whole cultural and rhetorical edifice the right has done such a good job building over all this time. And I don't see it happening because there’s so little trust in the Democratic party. Democrats don't like the Democratic Party. So even the person who is moderate... But I have a concrete answer, you maybe not agree with it, that it’s again I’m provoking a little bit,
the pharmaceutical industry and the exploitative history of it that everyone understands and we’re being gaslit now about because to acknowledge that is in some ways to be seen as being an anti-vaxxer or siding with the right. Meanwhile, the right is now given this huge opportunity to take a kind of pseudo-anti-corporate pseudo-populist posture that also neatly dovetails with a kind of anti-vax sentiment that is already existing on the right and there’s no end to how many benefits that’s going to pay off. But to your point in the book, it does feel like there are three parties. There’s a neoliberal center, there’s a leftist small little flint of a fragment, and there is an alignment between the far right and the center right in a way that makes it inordinately more powerful. And that is why there’s so much focus and why I’m so obsessed with the idea that there needs to be a more serious conversation had about how to budge the neoliberal left and to co-opt the neoliberal left the way that the far right had managed to do to the neoliberal right. But I will tell you now something shocking, totally provocative. You know that now it’s a mental experiment more, don't take it too seriously. But I notice that this pseudo-humanitarian liberal left is sometimes so corrupted in love with itself that sometimes there are people whom I call, don't kill me for saying this, moderate conservatives. There is one good Lenin wrote this. There is one good things about, at least in Europe, maybe United States is different, about some type of conservatives. You know, left liberals often like this logic big declarations then they lose, you blame the enemy. But there is a certain type of conservatives, very moderate, who take the game seriously and are aware we have to deliver. And I wouldn't be afraid to propose very limited tactical alliances with them. In United States probably it doesn't work, I know. But in Europe... What’s the basis of that alliance? Let’s just talk it through because the reason I think it doesn't work is not because I'm one of those people who is like, oh no they voted for Trump, they're tainted, they’re in the trash can, that’s not my approach. But you have to be willing to offer something meaningful that is more attractive than this whole cultural and rhetorical edifice the right has done such a good job building over all this time. And I don't see it happening because there’s so little trust in the Democratic party. Democrats don't like the Democratic Party. So even the person who is moderate... But I have a concrete answer, you maybe not agree with it, that it’s again I’m provoking a little bit,
unknown
but that we shouldn't be afraid to take over not in a racist way, very clearly in a pro-feminist way and so on, but our motto
but that we shouldn't be afraid to take over not in a racist way, very clearly in a pro-feminist way and so on, but our motto
Slavoj Žižek
should be probably
should be probably
unknown
I said this a year ago: we are the true moral majority. We want to bring to people basic—the changes we propose are really in the long term the only way to have basic social peace and stability and so on. All these values we shouldn't be afraid to assume. I agree with you, but I just believe that the Democratic Party doesn't have the authority to do that. I mean this past week Nancy Pelosi—the whole media cycle this past week was Nancy Pelosi getting on the podium and defending the right of lawmakers to do insider trading. Like, that’s the hill she wants to die on is literally defending the right of Congress members to insider trade. So what like on what planet—the decades it would take to rehabilitate the Democratic Party at this point, I just don't see it. And that is why despite some understandable skepticism about people like Andrew Yang, I can't help but be interested in and invested in some part in what they’re able to do in terms of carving out a new lane where we can test somebody's messages and can test the extent to which we can get some moderate voters who I think probably rightfully distrust the Democratic Party but haven't yet gotten to a point where they understand how much more pernicious the Republican Party is. But you know what I would just add here, that all intelligent analysts who know much more than me are aware that the problem here is the American electoral system. The original sin are your founding fathers, the sin is at the origins. Isn't it clear if you read Madison and all those guys that the whole electoral system was made to prevent popular initiatives to be translated adequately into politics? The whole system is made like that. I think this is the problem. While at least formally it doesn't amount to a lot, but in some European countries
I said this a year ago: we are the true moral majority. We want to bring to people basic—the changes we propose are really in the long term the only way to have basic social peace and stability and so on. All these values we shouldn't be afraid to assume. I agree with you, but I just believe that the Democratic Party doesn't have the authority to do that. I mean this past week Nancy Pelosi—the whole media cycle this past week was Nancy Pelosi getting on the podium and defending the right of lawmakers to do insider trading. Like, that’s the hill she wants to die on is literally defending the right of Congress members to insider trade. So what like on what planet—the decades it would take to rehabilitate the Democratic Party at this point, I just don't see it. And that is why despite some understandable skepticism about people like Andrew Yang, I can't help but be interested in and invested in some part in what they’re able to do in terms of carving out a new lane where we can test somebody's messages and can test the extent to which we can get some moderate voters who I think probably rightfully distrust the Democratic Party but haven't yet gotten to a point where they understand how much more pernicious the Republican Party is. But you know what I would just add here, that all intelligent analysts who know much more than me are aware that the problem here is the American electoral system. The original sin are your founding fathers, the sin is at the origins. Isn't it clear if you read Madison and all those guys that the whole electoral system was made to prevent popular initiatives to be translated adequately into politics? The whole system is made like that. I think this is the problem. While at least formally it doesn't amount to a lot, but in some European countries
Slavoj Žižek
you can form a more radical leftist party and you have even a chance then to blackmail more effectively those in power. Otherwise, the way I said, that’s the true horror. Again, I think we are speaking here the same language. The true horror is that in some perverse very marginal sense Trumpian populists are right. The true ultimate danger are the big corporations and so on. And I see here very good analysis, I don't agree literally with how they put things, but my friends like Jodi Dean, Yanis Varoufakis and so on who they didn't yet fully convert me who are playing with terms like corporate neofeudalism and so on. I'm not yet converted. Why not? But they are right in something, that capitalism is now developing into something for which neoliberalism is no longer the adequate term. Something horrible is happening. Money functions in a totally different way, financial speculation disconnected from and then we have these let’s call them, for example, neocorporate feudal lords. For example, I know one
you can form a more radical leftist party and you have even a chance then to blackmail more effectively those in power. Otherwise, the way I said, that’s the true horror. Again, I think we are speaking here the same language. The true horror is that in some perverse very marginal sense Trumpian populists are right. The true ultimate danger are the big corporations and so on. And I see here very good analysis, I don't agree literally with how they put things, but my friends like Jodi Dean, Yanis Varoufakis and so on who they didn't yet fully convert me who are playing with terms like corporate neofeudalism and so on. I'm not yet converted. Why not? But they are right in something, that capitalism is now developing into something for which neoliberalism is no longer the adequate term. Something horrible is happening. Money functions in a totally different way, financial speculation disconnected from and then we have these let’s call them, for example, neocorporate feudal lords. For example, I know one
unknown
shouldn't overestimate his influence but if there is a text of nightmare horror more horrible than all Stephen King novels, and some of them are progressive, I like them, I like Pet Sematary and so on, but more horrible is—did you read, I couldn't listen even to all of it but Zuckerberg's that Meta manifesto? It’s a nightmare. This is the neofeudal manifesto. A private person wants to construct the full place of commons which will be privately owned by him. That’s the horror. And I even think that here Trumpian populists have a point here. And
shouldn't overestimate his influence but if there is a text of nightmare horror more horrible than all Stephen King novels, and some of them are progressive, I like them, I like Pet Sematary and so on, but more horrible is—did you read, I couldn't listen even to all of it but Zuckerberg's that Meta manifesto? It’s a nightmare. This is the neofeudal manifesto. A private person wants to construct the full place of commons which will be privately owned by him. That’s the horror. And I even think that here Trumpian populists have a point here. And
Slavoj Žižek
I still believe in this old Walter Benjamin motto: "Every fascism is an effect, a sign of a failed revolution." They only thrive where we fail. So it’s a very complex situation and I this is so sad what I will say because I hate this logic of the worse it is in the long term all the better for us. But obviously ideology in everyday level is so strong. For example, let’s go where ideology is operative. The horror of vaccination for me is that on the one hand of course corporations playing their own games, profiteering and so on and so on. But on the other hand, it was also a catastrophe that something that of course is
I still believe in this old Walter Benjamin motto: "Every fascism is an effect, a sign of a failed revolution." They only thrive where we fail. So it’s a very complex situation and I this is so sad what I will say because I hate this logic of the worse it is in the long term all the better for us. But obviously ideology in everyday level is so strong. For example, let’s go where ideology is operative. The horror of vaccination for me is that on the one hand of course corporations playing their own games, profiteering and so on and so on. But on the other hand, it was also a catastrophe that something that of course is
unknown
not just a medical emergency, socially conditioned but nonetheless something that is also a medical
not just a medical emergency, socially conditioned but nonetheless something that is also a medical
Slavoj Žižek
emergency, you need an open debate
emergency, you need an open debate
unknown
what to do, vaccination and so on, was infected by this pseudo-individualist liberal discourse of human rights. Like you know, isn't it like it’s my body, does the state have the right to intervene into it? You know what happened to me when I criticized some anti-vaxxers? It’s not a joke. You know what I was compared to? Joseph Mengele in Auschwitz. I was called worse than Mengele because they said Mengele was at least doing experiments just with prisoners in Auschwitz, now big corporations are doing experiments with billions of people and so on and so on. This is, this is for me the horror. Well does that attitude knowing that that sentiment is out there, does that affect your belief about how we should approach
what to do, vaccination and so on, was infected by this pseudo-individualist liberal discourse of human rights. Like you know, isn't it like it’s my body, does the state have the right to intervene into it? You know what happened to me when I criticized some anti-vaxxers? It’s not a joke. You know what I was compared to? Joseph Mengele in Auschwitz. I was called worse than Mengele because they said Mengele was at least doing experiments just with prisoners in Auschwitz, now big corporations are doing experiments with billions of people and so on and so on. This is, this is for me the horror. Well does that attitude knowing that that sentiment is out there, does that affect your belief about how we should approach
Slavoj Žižek
the conversation around mandates? I mean what do you feel about mandates? Here maybe we also have a disagreement because with all not only support but urgency into take a look into the links between big corporate interests, social control interests and so on and so on. I think that at a certain level I am not against mandates. But if they are convincingly presented as the least worst version or whatever, I think that it’s not good to—yes we should politicize this issue but in your sense of interest of big corporations, state control, not in this stupid sense of my body’s my own life. I was recently in a debate in Amsterdam before this last half lockdown where a lady stood up and said 'vaccine is for me like being raped', you know. I mean I something—there is something that I don't accept in this discourse of personal freedom, way of life and so on and so on. We shouldn't be afraid to say something which is an old socialist point, that freedom is a social phenomenon. To be free you need to have certain social conditions guaranteed. I am free if I am free to... what does this mean? This means that I know when I go out that there is certain minimal order, civility and so on and so on. I would change the debate into this direction. You know, okay can I—I already repeated some of this—I like the stories. Would you agree can I end up with a not vulgar, don't be afraid, but nonetheless slightly vulgar yes example? Look, imagine—this will be horrible. You use it or not if you want. This is my nature to talk like this. Imagine we are married. Imagine I’m a very bad husband and beat you regularly on your back. Okay you would kill me, I agree with you, I give you my [unintelligible]. But imagine then that you eat a steak and the meat gets stuck in your throat, you are suffocating. And then I do automatically the right thing. I put your, push your head forward and beat you on your back to throw it out. Wouldn't it be stupid for you to complain at this point against me? Because it would be easy for me to defend myself. Look, I did what was necessary, I saved your life. And sometimes I think that those who complain about social control vaccine and so on are doing the same thing. Like, I explode when I hear this about how everything is digitalized, we are controlled. Yes, but we were already much more controlled even before vaccines. Don't take this example, take examples where we are really totally controlled. But Žižek, doesn't that depend on what your perception is of the benefit of the vaccine? If in your example, and I’m obviously not arguing against it, but I want to be honest about how people are coming to this issue so we can understand their reasoning better. If wait a minute, if you’re beating my back because you've diagnosed that I have something stuck in my throat, but my perception is that I didn't have something stuck in my throat, I just was coughing a little bit, it wasn't that big a deal and you giving me the Heimlich ended up cracking one of my ribs when I didn't even need it, then obviously it does make sense for me to go ahead and ring up the cops and say you know I need my restraining order against you. Yeah what I’m just saying that when people are saying that those who are for vaccines are dogmatic, trust in science, sorry. What I read in the media is even in the scientific circles, public media, isn't there quite a lot of skepticism today? Slogans are no vaccines don't solve everything, this that and so on. There is a great mess. I don't see even any great dogmatism on the side of those... No, I think the problem was that very early on there was a left dogmatism because it got politicized around the issue of the election. So Democrats, Joe Biden came out very strongly saying you know, Trump doesn't you know, he’s not doing a good enough job, he’s not doing all the things he needs to be doing to resolve the COVID crisis. There was a lot of back and forth around the utility of masks. They intentionally, you know Fauci later admitted that they intentionally misrepresented the value of masks because they were afraid there
the conversation around mandates? I mean what do you feel about mandates? Here maybe we also have a disagreement because with all not only support but urgency into take a look into the links between big corporate interests, social control interests and so on and so on. I think that at a certain level I am not against mandates. But if they are convincingly presented as the least worst version or whatever, I think that it’s not good to—yes we should politicize this issue but in your sense of interest of big corporations, state control, not in this stupid sense of my body’s my own life. I was recently in a debate in Amsterdam before this last half lockdown where a lady stood up and said 'vaccine is for me like being raped', you know. I mean I something—there is something that I don't accept in this discourse of personal freedom, way of life and so on and so on. We shouldn't be afraid to say something which is an old socialist point, that freedom is a social phenomenon. To be free you need to have certain social conditions guaranteed. I am free if I am free to... what does this mean? This means that I know when I go out that there is certain minimal order, civility and so on and so on. I would change the debate into this direction. You know, okay can I—I already repeated some of this—I like the stories. Would you agree can I end up with a not vulgar, don't be afraid, but nonetheless slightly vulgar yes example? Look, imagine—this will be horrible. You use it or not if you want. This is my nature to talk like this. Imagine we are married. Imagine I’m a very bad husband and beat you regularly on your back. Okay you would kill me, I agree with you, I give you my [unintelligible]. But imagine then that you eat a steak and the meat gets stuck in your throat, you are suffocating. And then I do automatically the right thing. I put your, push your head forward and beat you on your back to throw it out. Wouldn't it be stupid for you to complain at this point against me? Because it would be easy for me to defend myself. Look, I did what was necessary, I saved your life. And sometimes I think that those who complain about social control vaccine and so on are doing the same thing. Like, I explode when I hear this about how everything is digitalized, we are controlled. Yes, but we were already much more controlled even before vaccines. Don't take this example, take examples where we are really totally controlled. But Žižek, doesn't that depend on what your perception is of the benefit of the vaccine? If in your example, and I’m obviously not arguing against it, but I want to be honest about how people are coming to this issue so we can understand their reasoning better. If wait a minute, if you’re beating my back because you've diagnosed that I have something stuck in my throat, but my perception is that I didn't have something stuck in my throat, I just was coughing a little bit, it wasn't that big a deal and you giving me the Heimlich ended up cracking one of my ribs when I didn't even need it, then obviously it does make sense for me to go ahead and ring up the cops and say you know I need my restraining order against you. Yeah what I’m just saying that when people are saying that those who are for vaccines are dogmatic, trust in science, sorry. What I read in the media is even in the scientific circles, public media, isn't there quite a lot of skepticism today? Slogans are no vaccines don't solve everything, this that and so on. There is a great mess. I don't see even any great dogmatism on the side of those... No, I think the problem was that very early on there was a left dogmatism because it got politicized around the issue of the election. So Democrats, Joe Biden came out very strongly saying you know, Trump doesn't you know, he’s not doing a good enough job, he’s not doing all the things he needs to be doing to resolve the COVID crisis. There was a lot of back and forth around the utility of masks. They intentionally, you know Fauci later admitted that they intentionally misrepresented the value of masks because they were afraid there
unknown
would be a run on the bank as it were and that they wanted to preserve a limited quality of masks for health professionals. So instead of just saying that, they told everybody that masks
would be a run on the bank as it were and that they wanted to preserve a limited quality of masks for health professionals. So instead of just saying that, they told everybody that masks
Slavoj Žižek
weren't effective and that in fact it might be harmful for you to use a mask. There was a focus from the Trump administration on treatments as opposed to just the vaccine. Obviously the vaccine was in the works and everyone should remember that it was largely developed under the Trump administration, I mean I think you have to acknowledge that. Even though by the way at the time Kamala Harris was asked during the campaign if Donald Trump gets a vaccine will you take it? And she said I don't know, I don't trust anything coming out of Trump. So you had the same skepticism on the left that you do now on the right of vaccines depending on who’s seen as being in charge of it. You had the Trump administration focusing a lot on treatments before the vaccine and every time they came up with something that you know there was a nod to, you know obviously there was a focus on things that were not clinically proven to be useful. But as certain medications were targeted as potentially beneficial, 'oh let’s look into this let’s research that', it was framed by much of the left, the liberal media as 'this is crazy, they’re trying to use stuff that doesn't work, they’re trying to deny the reality of the problem' when they were simply—some people in some instances were simply nodding to the fact that 'oh there’s promising research here let’s see what happens', right? And so there was always from the beginning a push and pull that made it so that it wasn't entirely clear that the liberal- that liberals weren't politicizing this just as much if not more as Republicans. And someone brought this up to me recently: during the primary still when there was a conversation about how safe it was for people to go and vote, Joe Biden's press secretary Simone Sanders got on TV the day of the last debate, March 15th, and told people that the CDC said it was okay to vote. And that was literally hours after the CDC had just said it was not safe to aggregate in groups of or more, which obviously basically forecloses every polling place outside of some outpost in Juneau Alaska or whatever. So this is, this is the backdrop of all of this. So when conservatives say that you know they’re distrustful and liberals are out here just saying trust science as though they haven't been playing their own little do-si-do dance with the facts here, you know to me I I’m frustrated obviously by a lack of compliance in some of these things, but I also completely understand why people are skept- are skeptical and why therefore a mandate
weren't effective and that in fact it might be harmful for you to use a mask. There was a focus from the Trump administration on treatments as opposed to just the vaccine. Obviously the vaccine was in the works and everyone should remember that it was largely developed under the Trump administration, I mean I think you have to acknowledge that. Even though by the way at the time Kamala Harris was asked during the campaign if Donald Trump gets a vaccine will you take it? And she said I don't know, I don't trust anything coming out of Trump. So you had the same skepticism on the left that you do now on the right of vaccines depending on who’s seen as being in charge of it. You had the Trump administration focusing a lot on treatments before the vaccine and every time they came up with something that you know there was a nod to, you know obviously there was a focus on things that were not clinically proven to be useful. But as certain medications were targeted as potentially beneficial, 'oh let’s look into this let’s research that', it was framed by much of the left, the liberal media as 'this is crazy, they’re trying to use stuff that doesn't work, they’re trying to deny the reality of the problem' when they were simply—some people in some instances were simply nodding to the fact that 'oh there’s promising research here let’s see what happens', right? And so there was always from the beginning a push and pull that made it so that it wasn't entirely clear that the liberal- that liberals weren't politicizing this just as much if not more as Republicans. And someone brought this up to me recently: during the primary still when there was a conversation about how safe it was for people to go and vote, Joe Biden's press secretary Simone Sanders got on TV the day of the last debate, March 15th, and told people that the CDC said it was okay to vote. And that was literally hours after the CDC had just said it was not safe to aggregate in groups of or more, which obviously basically forecloses every polling place outside of some outpost in Juneau Alaska or whatever. So this is, this is the backdrop of all of this. So when conservatives say that you know they’re distrustful and liberals are out here just saying trust science as though they haven't been playing their own little do-si-do dance with the facts here, you know to me I I’m frustrated obviously by a lack of compliance in some of these things, but I also completely understand why people are skept- are skeptical and why therefore a mandate
unknown
in this context is off-putting to people. I see this, I see this, I see all this. But nonetheless you know where I don't agree—this type of skepticism I totally buy it. But the problem for me is when it moves into conspiracy theory. And let me be very careful here. Conspiracy theory, my critique of conspiracy theories does not amount to saying there are no conspiracies. No, I'm sorry capitalism is full of conspiracies. Conspiracies between big companies and so on and so on. I just think that the mess is real in the sense of—I don't think the COVID virus was invented
in this context is off-putting to people. I see this, I see this, I see all this. But nonetheless you know where I don't agree—this type of skepticism I totally buy it. But the problem for me is when it moves into conspiracy theory. And let me be very careful here. Conspiracy theory, my critique of conspiracy theories does not amount to saying there are no conspiracies. No, I'm sorry capitalism is full of conspiracies. Conspiracies between big companies and so on and so on. I just think that the mess is real in the sense of—I don't think the COVID virus was invented
Slavoj Žižek
here there. It was a shock for
here there. It was a shock for
unknown
the system. I don't follow
the system. I don't follow
Slavoj Žižek
here some of my leftist friends like Fabio Vighi who claimed that the causality is even opposite. You’re not a Wuhan lab guy? You’re not with Thomas Frank that there’s a legitimate, there’s a legitimate possibility that this was gain of function research that was leaked, or you just object to the idea that it was leaked intentionally? Intentionally, yes. No what I totally accept is this idea that
here some of my leftist friends like Fabio Vighi who claimed that the causality is even opposite. You’re not a Wuhan lab guy? You’re not with Thomas Frank that there’s a legitimate, there’s a legitimate possibility that this was gain of function research that was leaked, or you just object to the idea that it was leaked intentionally? Intentionally, yes. No what I totally accept is this idea that
unknown
something went wrong and there are other possibilities but what I’m saying what I’m saying is that I don't buy the story, the radical one, that the system—and Fabio Vighi quotes very convincingly some analysis which prove that already in the spring of some obscure but crucial economic research centers were giving warnings that the production that capitalism needs a kind of a world capitalist system a kind of lockdown. If it doesn't happen, then it will be a fiscal crisis worse than worse than that. Well how did they come to that conclusion? What would be the benefit, what is the economic benefit of a lockdown? Inflation and so on. He says look at or our readers look at this Philosophical Salon, put Vighi V-I-G-H-I and he gives a detailed analysis. So his conclusion is a very radical one, I cannot accept that. That the virus was maybe some minor form of flu but the virus was invented to justify lockdown and all these financial measures. Where I am skeptical in the sense that not believing the official version is that things that are happening now with printing money, giving it for free, this strange distribution of money where the majority doesn't go to people, like what Trump did per family or whatever. The majority goes to big companies which then is not even Keynesian operation. It’s not that it reaches ordinary people to enhance their purchase power. No, it just circulates in the financial sphere. For example, in Germany, this is pure case of today’s capitalism. That European Bank whatever over there printing euros gave the bank Deutsche Bank, Bank of Germany—Varoufakis told me this story, he has it documented—gave the Bank of Germany an enormous sum. Germany got like around one trillion of dollars with even negative interest rates. Of course, of course Deutsche Bank took it and they gave a couple of hundreds of millions or even more than billion, I don't know, to Volkswagen, the carmaker. You know what did Volkswagen do with this? They simply went to the stock market and bought their own stocks which were owned by others back to them. It’s something we have here what I call anti-Keynesianism. You print a lot of money but not to boost consumption and in this way production, you print money knowing in advance that it will not reach the ordinary consumers who will live a little bit better. I don't understand what’s going on, I don't only know that very strange things are happening today in economy. And then it’s crucial to know why what is what capitalism is turning into now, it’s no longer what we so comfortably called neoliberalism and so on and so on. If nothing else, the nation states are getting stronger. That this was the neoliberal dream, it’s just big corporations, states are just puppets. No, it’s a much more complex image. I don't know, I’m not qualified to say what is
something went wrong and there are other possibilities but what I’m saying what I’m saying is that I don't buy the story, the radical one, that the system—and Fabio Vighi quotes very convincingly some analysis which prove that already in the spring of some obscure but crucial economic research centers were giving warnings that the production that capitalism needs a kind of a world capitalist system a kind of lockdown. If it doesn't happen, then it will be a fiscal crisis worse than worse than that. Well how did they come to that conclusion? What would be the benefit, what is the economic benefit of a lockdown? Inflation and so on. He says look at or our readers look at this Philosophical Salon, put Vighi V-I-G-H-I and he gives a detailed analysis. So his conclusion is a very radical one, I cannot accept that. That the virus was maybe some minor form of flu but the virus was invented to justify lockdown and all these financial measures. Where I am skeptical in the sense that not believing the official version is that things that are happening now with printing money, giving it for free, this strange distribution of money where the majority doesn't go to people, like what Trump did per family or whatever. The majority goes to big companies which then is not even Keynesian operation. It’s not that it reaches ordinary people to enhance their purchase power. No, it just circulates in the financial sphere. For example, in Germany, this is pure case of today’s capitalism. That European Bank whatever over there printing euros gave the bank Deutsche Bank, Bank of Germany—Varoufakis told me this story, he has it documented—gave the Bank of Germany an enormous sum. Germany got like around one trillion of dollars with even negative interest rates. Of course, of course Deutsche Bank took it and they gave a couple of hundreds of millions or even more than billion, I don't know, to Volkswagen, the carmaker. You know what did Volkswagen do with this? They simply went to the stock market and bought their own stocks which were owned by others back to them. It’s something we have here what I call anti-Keynesianism. You print a lot of money but not to boost consumption and in this way production, you print money knowing in advance that it will not reach the ordinary consumers who will live a little bit better. I don't understand what’s going on, I don't only know that very strange things are happening today in economy. And then it’s crucial to know why what is what capitalism is turning into now, it’s no longer what we so comfortably called neoliberalism and so on and so on. If nothing else, the nation states are getting stronger. That this was the neoliberal dream, it’s just big corporations, states are just puppets. No, it’s a much more complex image. I don't know, I’m not qualified to say what is
Slavoj Žižek
happening. I'm just a pessimist. And unfortunately to conclude in a very pessimist way to return to that, I admit it but that’s my nature, extremely bad taste remark, I totally agree with you about that. What if you just had a slight cough and I used it. Let’s beat the lady. Right. So I mean I think I just bring that up just to say that I would prefer if we sometimes could be having a conversation about why it is that people don't believe, but so often it’s just, you know conservatives are crazy, they’re stupid, they’re ignorant, they’re racist, whatever, all the descriptors are thrown in. But the motive that you did find in my book, I think at some level the situation is even much
happening. I'm just a pessimist. And unfortunately to conclude in a very pessimist way to return to that, I admit it but that’s my nature, extremely bad taste remark, I totally agree with you about that. What if you just had a slight cough and I used it. Let’s beat the lady. Right. So I mean I think I just bring that up just to say that I would prefer if we sometimes could be having a conversation about why it is that people don't believe, but so often it’s just, you know conservatives are crazy, they’re stupid, they’re ignorant, they’re racist, whatever, all the descriptors are thrown in. But the motive that you did find in my book, I think at some level the situation is even much
unknown
more tragic in the sense that you know, as the result of all this, not just pandemic but global warming and so on and so on, what conservatives call our way of life, our everyday freedoms and so on,
more tragic in the sense that you know, as the result of all this, not just pandemic but global warming and so on and so on, what conservatives call our way of life, our everyday freedoms and so on,
Slavoj Žižek
which include nice things that we all like. Like we'll meet in a cafeteria, we walk around, all that. But more than this, also you know between or beneath this 'our way of life' we know are many racial, sexist privileges and so on and so on. That is threatened. And I think they are totally sincere here in this desire to protect a way of life because we will be forced to question things which we consider a basic part of our daily normality. Yeah you noted this in the book talking about immigration. And it was a really interesting part of the book because you point to the fact that there’s something, you know when the left talks or the broad left, liberals included,
which include nice things that we all like. Like we'll meet in a cafeteria, we walk around, all that. But more than this, also you know between or beneath this 'our way of life' we know are many racial, sexist privileges and so on and so on. That is threatened. And I think they are totally sincere here in this desire to protect a way of life because we will be forced to question things which we consider a basic part of our daily normality. Yeah you noted this in the book talking about immigration. And it was a really interesting part of the book because you point to the fact that there’s something, you know when the left talks or the broad left, liberals included,
unknown
talk about immigration, there is a desire, you know, conservatives
talk about immigration, there is a desire, you know, conservatives
Slavoj Žižek
want immigrants to assimilate, blend in. The left says there’s something valuable and unique about their cultural identity and at the same time tells conservatives who want to preserve the culture of the country, whatever that is, tells them there’s nothing there to preserve. So there’s this kind of asymmetry with the value of the idea of a cultural identity and how and whether or not it’s worth protecting. And you kind of question the so-called humanitarian impulse behind a left immigration policy and suggest that it is in some ways self-interested and not really rooted in something more sincere. There's something kind almost paternalistic about it. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. What was your argument about immigration there? No, what I try to prove is this apparent self-humiliation of the white liberals. Like, we are prohibited implicitly to do what we support other—like if a Native American or black people if they want to retain their cultural identity we are all for it. Then closer you are getting to whites, more is this prohibited. So is this a kind of a justified guilt feeling? No. Because my experience is that the white liberals in this way want to limit the racial other to their particular role. But they maintain for themselves the role of universality. They want to be universal. And I experience this in practice how when minority representatives at round table said something that white liberals didn't like, they immediately attack them: 'no you are here a victim of racism' and so on and so on. You know what would have been for me a true post- or anti-racist situation? Where white people would have said what they usually claim today: 'we want to retain our cultural identity'. And it would have meant just that. Yes, have if you are German your stupid identity, drink beer or whatever and so on and it’s just one among the identities. I mean... Yeah, I mean I think that we've been having some conversations about race and identity and what whiteness is and whether we should speak in the terms of whiteness and whether whiteness is constructive on this show. And it strikes me when I read that example, I think that the problem isn't the idea—I think that there is perfect symmetry with the idea that white immigrants
want immigrants to assimilate, blend in. The left says there’s something valuable and unique about their cultural identity and at the same time tells conservatives who want to preserve the culture of the country, whatever that is, tells them there’s nothing there to preserve. So there’s this kind of asymmetry with the value of the idea of a cultural identity and how and whether or not it’s worth protecting. And you kind of question the so-called humanitarian impulse behind a left immigration policy and suggest that it is in some ways self-interested and not really rooted in something more sincere. There's something kind almost paternalistic about it. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. What was your argument about immigration there? No, what I try to prove is this apparent self-humiliation of the white liberals. Like, we are prohibited implicitly to do what we support other—like if a Native American or black people if they want to retain their cultural identity we are all for it. Then closer you are getting to whites, more is this prohibited. So is this a kind of a justified guilt feeling? No. Because my experience is that the white liberals in this way want to limit the racial other to their particular role. But they maintain for themselves the role of universality. They want to be universal. And I experience this in practice how when minority representatives at round table said something that white liberals didn't like, they immediately attack them: 'no you are here a victim of racism' and so on and so on. You know what would have been for me a true post- or anti-racist situation? Where white people would have said what they usually claim today: 'we want to retain our cultural identity'. And it would have meant just that. Yes, have if you are German your stupid identity, drink beer or whatever and so on and it’s just one among the identities. I mean... Yeah, I mean I think that we've been having some conversations about race and identity and what whiteness is and whether we should speak in the terms of whiteness and whether whiteness is constructive on this show. And it strikes me when I read that example, I think that the problem isn't the idea—I think that there is perfect symmetry with the idea that white immigrants
unknown
could
could
Slavoj Žižek
maintain their cultural identity. I think that there is no hostility or very little hostility today at least, obviously things were different in the past, against the idea of Irish-American or Italian-American. You know friend of the show Matt Bruenig likes to tweet these pictures of I think Danish folks in traditional garb that looks very similar to, you know, we our modern eye doesn't see Europeans in native dress as frequently as we do people from other parts of the world and he does this kind of tongue-in-cheek, you know photo blast of these Nordic folks in
maintain their cultural identity. I think that there is no hostility or very little hostility today at least, obviously things were different in the past, against the idea of Irish-American or Italian-American. You know friend of the show Matt Bruenig likes to tweet these pictures of I think Danish folks in traditional garb that looks very similar to, you know, we our modern eye doesn't see Europeans in native dress as frequently as we do people from other parts of the world and he does this kind of tongue-in-cheek, you know photo blast of these Nordic folks in
unknown
their tribal costumes in a way that I think has a really constructive flattening effect about how everyone is like this, you know. But instead of that, what we get in America is this whiteness instead of all those European cultural identities. All of the white European identities are subsumed into this thing called whiteness,
their tribal costumes in a way that I think has a really constructive flattening effect about how everyone is like this, you know. But instead of that, what we get in America is this whiteness instead of all those European cultural identities. All of the white European identities are subsumed into this thing called whiteness,
Slavoj Žižek
which then becomes a creation that is political by nature and destructive by nature. So then you have people attacking whiteness, but to the uninitiated ear it does sound like you’re attacking someone’s kind of physiognomic personal cultural identity even though there is no white cultural identity in any meaningful way outside of being German-American or I'm a white New Yorker or from Montana or whatever it is, all these regional and cultural and more niche differences. And the lack of specificity when we’re talking about white versus some specific cultural or national identity is part of what’s happening here and why there seems to be some
which then becomes a creation that is political by nature and destructive by nature. So then you have people attacking whiteness, but to the uninitiated ear it does sound like you’re attacking someone’s kind of physiognomic personal cultural identity even though there is no white cultural identity in any meaningful way outside of being German-American or I'm a white New Yorker or from Montana or whatever it is, all these regional and cultural and more niche differences. And the lack of specificity when we’re talking about white versus some specific cultural or national identity is part of what’s happening here and why there seems to be some
unknown
inconsistency. I totally agree with you here concerning all this stuff, whiteness and so on. But you know what’s the problem? The problem is—and here I support Black Lives Matter, maybe I quoted it a year ago. You know my idealist here, okay he did some things which were too rough. You know who followed in Haiti to Toussaint Louverture? Dessalines. The second president after Toussaint Louverture was kidnapped by Napoleon and basically killed, died in France. The one who won the Haiti revolution was Dessalines. A general and in his constitution of Haiti in it’s very interesting that he provided the formula that maybe we need today. He said Haiti is a black republic and then he added: all people of Haiti, citizens, independent of their color of their skin are black. This is a wonderful formula because you can be white, black, whatever, but the standard is set by black. He knew why. Because you know equality is never
inconsistency. I totally agree with you here concerning all this stuff, whiteness and so on. But you know what’s the problem? The problem is—and here I support Black Lives Matter, maybe I quoted it a year ago. You know my idealist here, okay he did some things which were too rough. You know who followed in Haiti to Toussaint Louverture? Dessalines. The second president after Toussaint Louverture was kidnapped by Napoleon and basically killed, died in France. The one who won the Haiti revolution was Dessalines. A general and in his constitution of Haiti in it’s very interesting that he provided the formula that maybe we need today. He said Haiti is a black republic and then he added: all people of Haiti, citizens, independent of their color of their skin are black. This is a wonderful formula because you can be white, black, whatever, but the standard is set by black. He knew why. Because you know equality is never
Slavoj Žižek
neutral equality. If white people say white equality always means others have to integrate our—this is the liberal notion. We shouldn't be exclusive, everybody should enter our definition of equality. But equality, one thing is standard European equality. When others, blacks, colonized talk about equality, it’s not just a simple extension of European notion of equality. One has to be very careful here. But there is another paradox there which makes me very sad, which I think renders visible the paradox of all this. You know that Dessalines did another thing which wasn't quite nice. He ordered in when he proclaimed himself an emperor, simply the killing of all white people who were still there with the exception of people of Polish origin because they supported... Right. But you know what’s the tragedy? That precisely in doing when he did this, apparently get rid of colonialism, people who still support colonialism, in the form of the state of Haiti he imitated the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy and exploitation returned with force. He became emperor under different name. He even continued with slavery.
neutral equality. If white people say white equality always means others have to integrate our—this is the liberal notion. We shouldn't be exclusive, everybody should enter our definition of equality. But equality, one thing is standard European equality. When others, blacks, colonized talk about equality, it’s not just a simple extension of European notion of equality. One has to be very careful here. But there is another paradox there which makes me very sad, which I think renders visible the paradox of all this. You know that Dessalines did another thing which wasn't quite nice. He ordered in when he proclaimed himself an emperor, simply the killing of all white people who were still there with the exception of people of Polish origin because they supported... Right. But you know what’s the tragedy? That precisely in doing when he did this, apparently get rid of colonialism, people who still support colonialism, in the form of the state of Haiti he imitated the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy and exploitation returned with force. He became emperor under different name. He even continued with slavery.
unknown
All workers were basically no longer slaves, but they were obliged to remain where they were and work for the state for a couple of reasons and so on and so on. So that was that was the tragedy for me, how also this brutal attempt to make Haiti black, precisely when they tried to do this at the level of the form of the state, they imitated the worst of Europe. But you know to conclude with another crazy paradox, just to annoy our listeners. You know towards whom I’m more and more sympathetic? The Jesuits in Paraguay. Did you see the movie, most people know that with Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese—Mission. The movie about those. You know that Paraguay in 17th century was a miracle. Jesuits run the country but in a kind of a people don't know this proto-communist way. They organized local people in missions where not only they spoke their own language, they solicited them because every mission a thousand two thousand people, aborigines, there was a Jesuit priest or two overlooking it. And they organized the local population against slave traders who were invading from Brazil and Argentina. But the point is this: paradoxically, Jesuits already began to print in Guarani, the language there, print books in that language. Isn't this a beautiful paradox? If Jesuits were allowed to stay there, the whole image of Latin America would have been different. Guarani would have been an official language of literature and so on and so on. And in one of the worst paradoxes at that point the end of 17th century a little bit earlier, Jesuits
All workers were basically no longer slaves, but they were obliged to remain where they were and work for the state for a couple of reasons and so on and so on. So that was that was the tragedy for me, how also this brutal attempt to make Haiti black, precisely when they tried to do this at the level of the form of the state, they imitated the worst of Europe. But you know to conclude with another crazy paradox, just to annoy our listeners. You know towards whom I’m more and more sympathetic? The Jesuits in Paraguay. Did you see the movie, most people know that with Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese—Mission. The movie about those. You know that Paraguay in 17th century was a miracle. Jesuits run the country but in a kind of a people don't know this proto-communist way. They organized local people in missions where not only they spoke their own language, they solicited them because every mission a thousand two thousand people, aborigines, there was a Jesuit priest or two overlooking it. And they organized the local population against slave traders who were invading from Brazil and Argentina. But the point is this: paradoxically, Jesuits already began to print in Guarani, the language there, print books in that language. Isn't this a beautiful paradox? If Jesuits were allowed to stay there, the whole image of Latin America would have been different. Guarani would have been an official language of literature and so on and so on. And in one of the worst paradoxes at that point the end of 17th century a little bit earlier, Jesuits
Slavoj Žižek
were decried by Voltaire as obscurantists and so on. So Vatican for a couple of decades disbanded them and this justified from south Argentina, Spain still a colony, from north Brazil to invade Paraguay, ruin all the missions and basically turn them into slaves. It was a horrible regression. This is a crazy paradox of how what in Europe was a reactionary force, there it played a relatively, relatively for that time absolutely progressive role. Paraguay was an economic miracle even. They discovered that because they dealt a lot with wood, carving wood, that young people there have just such gentle sense for work with knives on wood, they were making the best violins in Paraguay, exporting them into Europe, etc. They wrote already dictionaries of Guarani and of the language and so on. It was a whole cultural revival but the beautiful irony is organized by colonizers and then these colonizers, Jesuits were considered too soft, they were mostly had to withdraw, were killed, and Paraguay even today it feels the consequence, it’s one of those lowest states there. So you started by talking about the lesson that Haiti could offer to the United States or other places. What do you take from that? Because it did seem to devolve into a criticism, the criticism that they ended up behaving too similarly to the colonizers in choosing to kill white people there. But did you see that there was some lesson in the... I would even buy that they kill the white people. But when they then had a chance to build their own state in the way they want, the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy and exploitation returned with force. It’s interesting that Haiti was in around for two three decades divided. In the north it was Dessalines and then Christophe, another guy, the emperor. Authoritarian, industrialized. In the south there was a general, black of course, called Pétion, I think, who did something incredible. He disbanded all plantations, gave land to ordinary farmers and it was a kind of a return to more primordial communal life. But they were too much for all of them so in one or two decades they lost. I guess maybe it’s my fault for constantly looking for you to give me a nice neat answer wrapped up in a bow or to be so solution-oriented. I don't this is so sad, I would love to. I expect this from you, you are there. You know the situation in Slovenia is even worse. It’s a total nightmare. Corrupted moderate left and the right-wing nationalists in power which are really doing in the best Stalinist style, the right-winger, a total purge. You know like cleansing the institutions, taking over TV stations and so on. It’s people are so depressed. And by depressed I don't mean a sublime political feeling, I mean like the birth rate is dropping down. Most of young people think what kind of a world is this, who wants to give birth to new inhabitants, to children in this situation. It’s really a mega depression. No, my lesson is on the one hand again the politicization of this dissatisfied civil society and this I’m so sad to say this because it goes against everything that I believe, but maybe we need further catastrophes to awaken us more. Well this is the thing I’m confused, I’m confused because on some level you say that you’re not an accelerationist, that you’re not willing to go that far. You have these friends who say a bomb needs to be dropped for something to happen and you reject that premise and I understand why that’s very extreme. At the same time you are advocating to kind of pressure Biden and neoliberals in charge in a way that demonstrates some faith in their ability to do better and to say that we’re wanting them to succeed. Okay, but now you’re saying that on some level you think it needs to get a lot worse before it gets better. So do you believe that the left should be part of that project of making it worse or it’s immoral and we should just keep our hands off and wait for it to happen naturally? No, that’s my pessimism. I think if things will follow their own dynamic, they will get worse if you ask me. Because... So we just wait? We just wait? We sit and wait for things to get worse? No, we don't just wait. We warn people, we get ready, we organize ourselves. Here I am a Leninist. It’s absolutely crucial to expand, not in a violent way, not secret organizations making bombs, but some form of political
were decried by Voltaire as obscurantists and so on. So Vatican for a couple of decades disbanded them and this justified from south Argentina, Spain still a colony, from north Brazil to invade Paraguay, ruin all the missions and basically turn them into slaves. It was a horrible regression. This is a crazy paradox of how what in Europe was a reactionary force, there it played a relatively, relatively for that time absolutely progressive role. Paraguay was an economic miracle even. They discovered that because they dealt a lot with wood, carving wood, that young people there have just such gentle sense for work with knives on wood, they were making the best violins in Paraguay, exporting them into Europe, etc. They wrote already dictionaries of Guarani and of the language and so on. It was a whole cultural revival but the beautiful irony is organized by colonizers and then these colonizers, Jesuits were considered too soft, they were mostly had to withdraw, were killed, and Paraguay even today it feels the consequence, it’s one of those lowest states there. So you started by talking about the lesson that Haiti could offer to the United States or other places. What do you take from that? Because it did seem to devolve into a criticism, the criticism that they ended up behaving too similarly to the colonizers in choosing to kill white people there. But did you see that there was some lesson in the... I would even buy that they kill the white people. But when they then had a chance to build their own state in the way they want, the worst of European authoritarian aristocracy and exploitation returned with force. It’s interesting that Haiti was in around for two three decades divided. In the north it was Dessalines and then Christophe, another guy, the emperor. Authoritarian, industrialized. In the south there was a general, black of course, called Pétion, I think, who did something incredible. He disbanded all plantations, gave land to ordinary farmers and it was a kind of a return to more primordial communal life. But they were too much for all of them so in one or two decades they lost. I guess maybe it’s my fault for constantly looking for you to give me a nice neat answer wrapped up in a bow or to be so solution-oriented. I don't this is so sad, I would love to. I expect this from you, you are there. You know the situation in Slovenia is even worse. It’s a total nightmare. Corrupted moderate left and the right-wing nationalists in power which are really doing in the best Stalinist style, the right-winger, a total purge. You know like cleansing the institutions, taking over TV stations and so on. It’s people are so depressed. And by depressed I don't mean a sublime political feeling, I mean like the birth rate is dropping down. Most of young people think what kind of a world is this, who wants to give birth to new inhabitants, to children in this situation. It’s really a mega depression. No, my lesson is on the one hand again the politicization of this dissatisfied civil society and this I’m so sad to say this because it goes against everything that I believe, but maybe we need further catastrophes to awaken us more. Well this is the thing I’m confused, I’m confused because on some level you say that you’re not an accelerationist, that you’re not willing to go that far. You have these friends who say a bomb needs to be dropped for something to happen and you reject that premise and I understand why that’s very extreme. At the same time you are advocating to kind of pressure Biden and neoliberals in charge in a way that demonstrates some faith in their ability to do better and to say that we’re wanting them to succeed. Okay, but now you’re saying that on some level you think it needs to get a lot worse before it gets better. So do you believe that the left should be part of that project of making it worse or it’s immoral and we should just keep our hands off and wait for it to happen naturally? No, that’s my pessimism. I think if things will follow their own dynamic, they will get worse if you ask me. Because... So we just wait? We just wait? We sit and wait for things to get worse? No, we don't just wait. We warn people, we get ready, we organize ourselves. Here I am a Leninist. It’s absolutely crucial to expand, not in a violent way, not secret organizations making bombs, but some form of political
unknown
coordination. Although part of me is even sympathetic towards—this is horrible what I will say now—something like New Weathermen, you know. Weathermen were for me good terrorists. You know that their politics was don't kill people. Their typical terrorist act was they phone some state
coordination. Although part of me is even sympathetic towards—this is horrible what I will say now—something like New Weathermen, you know. Weathermen were for me good terrorists. You know that their politics was don't kill people. Their typical terrorist act was they phone some state
Slavoj Žižek
organization, there bomb will explode there in half an hour, please move all the people out and so on. Now I know how risky is this because as all my friends warn me, this can then trigger a terrible reaction from the right, violent, much more brutal reaction. But I think that we are not yet at the point where people are—they rationally know people we are in deep shit, the data global warming, but basically at least in the West, somehow daily life still more or less goes on. The big dream is still return to normality. You know, we will have to abandon that dream. A change is needed. Sometimes I
organization, there bomb will explode there in half an hour, please move all the people out and so on. Now I know how risky is this because as all my friends warn me, this can then trigger a terrible reaction from the right, violent, much more brutal reaction. But I think that we are not yet at the point where people are—they rationally know people we are in deep shit, the data global warming, but basically at least in the West, somehow daily life still more or less goes on. The big dream is still return to normality. You know, we will have to abandon that dream. A change is needed. Sometimes I
unknown
think that that’s why student debt is going to be the tipping point.
think that that’s why student debt is going to be the tipping point.
Slavoj Žižek
Absolutely, I cannot tell you how much I agree with this. It is the people affected are not actually affluent, right? But they are the cohort that is more likely to have had the last gasp of the American dream, the last expectation that the American dream could be fulfilled. There are a whole cohort of people, half the country, who’s been over it a long time ago and who largely doesn't vote anyway. But this kind of middle class tier or aspiring middle class tier who took out debt and either wasn't- weren't able to graduate or took out debt and the job market and wages haven't kept up
Absolutely, I cannot tell you how much I agree with this. It is the people affected are not actually affluent, right? But they are the cohort that is more likely to have had the last gasp of the American dream, the last expectation that the American dream could be fulfilled. There are a whole cohort of people, half the country, who’s been over it a long time ago and who largely doesn't vote anyway. But this kind of middle class tier or aspiring middle class tier who took out debt and either wasn't- weren't able to graduate or took out debt and the job market and wages haven't kept up
unknown
with the rising costs of education, who thought they were doing the right thing, who you know submitted to the dogma that unless you went to college you were going to fail and did everything they were supposed to do and then saw themselves faced with usurious interest rates, see the government profiting off of their loans, saw a light at the end of the tunnel with the Bernie administration- the Bernie campaign saying they were going to cancel and then even Biden saying he was going to cancel a little bit and then seeing that door shut
with the rising costs of education, who thought they were doing the right thing, who you know submitted to the dogma that unless you went to college you were going to fail and did everything they were supposed to do and then saw themselves faced with usurious interest rates, see the government profiting off of their loans, saw a light at the end of the tunnel with the Bernie administration- the Bernie campaign saying they were going to cancel and then even Biden saying he was going to cancel a little bit and then seeing that door shut
Slavoj Žižek
harder in their face. That’s a cohort that was the last cohort that could possibly
harder in their face. That’s a cohort that was the last cohort that could possibly
unknown
still believe in the
still believe in the
Slavoj Žižek
system and Joe Biden wants to screw them over too. Yeah, but you know now again here you are again you maybe a little bit more pessimist than me because where I see a progress is that even if they are hypocritical, even our objective enemies Biden and so
system and Joe Biden wants to screw them over too. Yeah, but you know now again here you are again you maybe a little bit more pessimist than me because where I see a progress is that even if they are hypocritical, even our objective enemies Biden and so
unknown
on
on
Slavoj Žižek
had to declare that they want to do the right thing. You know like abolish this student debt that you return it, but don't you also think that this student loan whatever they are and so intelligent from the standpoint of capitalist reproduction? Because then they prevent your politicization. Your problem then is how to repay debt, you are... That’s why capitalists always like you free but indebted. Not a slave, free but indebted, you know.
had to declare that they want to do the right thing. You know like abolish this student debt that you return it, but don't you also think that this student loan whatever they are and so intelligent from the standpoint of capitalist reproduction? Because then they prevent your politicization. Your problem then is how to repay debt, you are... That’s why capitalists always like you free but indebted. Not a slave, free but indebted, you know.
unknown
That’s
That’s
unknown
the formula to take.
the formula to take.