What does Europe Want?
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2014-03-18 · 1:53:11 · 16,675 words
capitalismideologyliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyfascism-populismgeopolitics-wareconomicscommunism-socialismrevolution-violencerace-antisemitismhistorysubjectivityeveryday-life
A panel discussion at UCL (School of Slavonic and East European Studies) featuring Žižek and Croatian philosopher Srećko Horvat, centred on their book 'What Does Europe Want?'. The conversation covers the European Union's austerity politics and its irrationality, the rise of the extreme right across Europe, immigration and the hypocrisy of liberal-left responses to Lampedusa, the ideological function of debt and self-entrepreneurship, and the relationship between capitalism and democracy. Žižek argues that capitalism is divorcing itself from democracy and moving toward an authoritarian form with ethnic identitarian content, and that authentic emancipatory change requires a 'master' figure who calls people to their freedom rather than autonomous liberal subjectivity.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 11
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Neologism proposed in the discussion (not by Žižek) for the crime of mass youth unemployment produced by EU austerity, on analogy with feminicide and genocide.
Jean-Claude Milner's term, invoked by Žižek to describe protests that mobilize the comfortable middle class against moderate austerity while ignoring prior devastation of the real working class.
as “the big Other (market/God)”
Žižek uses the psychoanalytic concept of the big Other to describe how austerity politics functions as a superstitious appeal, suffering to demonstrate authentic guilt before the market/God so that things will improve.
Žižek's term for the model of capitalism that couples market brutality with ethnic-authoritarian ideology, which he sees not as a primitive obstacle to capitalism but as its emerging preferred form.
as “deracination as emancipation”
Žižek argues that losing one's cultural roots, exemplified by Malcolm X's embrace of the X rather than a return to African identity, is the very condition of genuine universalist emancipatory politics, not an obstacle to it.
Žižek's self-description: green on the outside (appearing ecological/mainstream), red on the inside (communist), as opposed to Joschka Fischer and Cohn-Bendit who are unripe melons, green outside, white inside.
as “authentic Master vs. fake Master”
Žižek distinguishes an authentic master who simply tells people 'you can do it, you are free' and kicks them toward their own freedom, from the fake/Stalinist master who knows better than you and enforces his will on you.
Lazzarato's concept, which Žižek endorses: the figure of the contemporary subject constituted by debt, whose indebtedness enables the ideological fiction that all are equally capitalists.
Drawing on Lazzarato and psychoanalysis, Žižek notes that creditors do not truly want the debt repaid, the point is to keep the debtor under permanent internal pressure, functioning as an ideal instrument of control.
The ideological operation by which indebted individuals are invited to see themselves as small capitalists allocating resources, thereby dissolving the worker/bourgeois distinction and naturalizing class relations.
The Dutch king's term for the replacement of the welfare state, which Žižek reads as the ideological repackaging of deprivation of state protection as individual freedom and consumer choice.
Stories he reaches for 2
Malcolm X's 'X' stands for the lost African family name, the trauma of being torn from roots. Rather than searching for those roots (like the TV series Roots), Malcolm X embraced the void to build a more emancipatory universality.
“His reaction was not let's search for let's try to recapture our African roots. No, his answer was but this very mega trauma, we being cut off from our roots gives us a unique chance to be more modern than Europeans themselves.”
Obama's universal health care, though a total compromise in practice, triggered a crucial debate that rendered visible the limits of American freedom, the Republican readiness to shut down the state showed the true stakes of the argument.
“He stirred up an incredibly crucial debate, which rendered visible the limits of American notion of freedom.”
Works invoked 6
Elysium film
Cited by Žižek as a Hollywood blockbuster that openly depicts class struggle, showing that Hollywood knows what politicians deny.
The Hunger Games film
Cited alongside Elysium as a Hollywood blockbuster about pure class struggle.
Roots tv
Žižek dismisses Roots as the wrong response to the trauma of slavery, a nostalgic search for African origins rather than Malcolm X's forward-looking embrace of the void.
Lazzarato's book that Žižek cites and plans to develop; analyses debt as superego control and shows how self-entrepreneurship ideology dissolves class identity.
Bülent Somay's doctoral thesis; cited for its analysis of Turkish veiled women's movement as postmodern identity politics rather than simple return to tradition.
The book co-authored by Žižek and Horvat that occasions this event; its article 'Margaret Thatcher of the Left' advocates for a new authentic Master figure on the left.
People invoked 23
Saroj Giri positive
Indian friend who told Žižek at a communist meeting in Korea about research showing that successful young Indian digital managers are privately more fundamentalist Hindu.
Udi Aloni positive
Israeli friend who showed Žižek that Badiou's formula on immigration could be weaponized by West Bank settlers.
Bülent Somay positive
Turkish leftist friend whose doctoral thesis 'The Orient Does Not Exist' Žižek cites on veiled women's movement in Turkey and on Erdoğan's electoral slogan.
Ayn Rand negative
Žižek condemns how Rand's objectivist ideology caused the 2008 crisis through Greenspan, yet is now recycled as its solution, the classic operation of ideology.
Edward Snowden positive
Žižek considers Snowden's revelations important not as anti-Americanism but as proof that total surveillance can coexist with the subjective feeling of freedom.
Srećko Horvat positive
Co-author of 'What Does Europe Want?' and interlocutor throughout; Žižek engages with and largely affirms his positions on Croatia, European movements, and austerity.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Žižek ironically agrees Fukuyama was right that liberal capitalism won, but notes that ex-communists became its best managers, undermining the liberal-democratic triumphalism.
Alan Greenspan negative
Card-carrying Ayn Rand objectivist whose liberal deregulation policies caused the 2008 meltdown; now the same ideology is sold as the solution.
Nadya Tolokonnikova positive
Žižek corresponded with her and supports Pussy Riot; they understand that Russian capitalism is fully integrated into world markets and that Western democracy co-produces Russian authoritarianism.
Called 'very good friend' but Žižek has a small problem with his formula 'Qui est ici est d'ici' on immigration, which he shows can be weaponized by Israeli settlers.
Alexis Tsipras positive
Žižek spoke with Tsipras and endorses his wisdom in opposing simple anti-European rhetoric while being aware Greece needs structural transformation; shares Tsipras's revelations about Russian overtures.
Jean-Claude Milner positive
Žižek borrows Milner's concept of 'revolt of the salaried bourgeoisie' to describe the Slovenian protests, while noting he 'otherwise doesn't agree' with Milner.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan negative
Model of a fake/bad master: patronizing, telling people how many children to have, extinguishing cigarettes from others' mouths, with the electoral slogan 'Shop and pray'.
Malcolm X positive
Žižek admires Malcolm X's embrace of deracination (the X) as generating a more radical universality rather than retreating to African roots, used as a model for emancipatory politics.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Usually dismissed as a right-winger but Žižek appreciates him; quotes his early prediction that Singapore is the future of capitalism.
Christopher Hitchens positive
Invoked as a non-communist who nonetheless showed the moral asymmetry between communism and Nazism through the presence of internal dissident critics within communist movements.
Kostas Douzinas positive
Common friend of Žižek and Horvat; referenced for a joke and his three conditions for political overthrow (desire, program, catalyst).
The Slovenian right-wing PM whom Žižek calls a personal enemy; protestors deposed him only to get a center-left government imposing even tougher neoliberal measures.
Mao Zedong positive
Mao's message 'You have the right to rebel' from the Cultural Revolution is cited as the exemplary message of an authentic master, even acknowledging 'all the horrors'.
Vladimir Putin negative
Implicitly criticized through Žižek's support for Pussy Riot; Putin's Russia is held up as a model of authoritarian capitalism that Europe risks converging toward.
Martin Luther King Jr. positive
Cited as evidence that great anti-racist leaders never used the term 'tolerance', racism must be fought through legal-economic demands, not pseudo-psychoanalytic appeals for tolerance.
Cited as an example that Venezuelan cooperative movements succeeded partly because they had a leader figure at the top, used to argue for the necessity of an authentic Master.
Maurizio Lazzarato positive
Žižek praises Lazzarato's work on the 'indebted man' and plans to develop it in his new book; the psychoanalytic reading of debt as superego control is borrowed from him.
What it argues
irrationality of austerity politics as ideological superstitionthe divorce of capitalism from democracythe rehabilitation of the European right and normalization of fascismimmigration, Lampedusa, and the hypocrisy of liberal-left responsesdebt as ideological tool of permanent control and self-entrepreneurshipthe need for an authentic Master vs. authoritarian false mastersderacination and universality as conditions for emancipation
Dialectical moves 10
“the true defenders of Europe are not the right-wing anti-immigrants who claim to defend it — they are its true threat; only those who fight for its universalist legacy actually defend Europe.”
Žižek refuses to cede the concept of 'Europe' to the nationalist right, arguing that Le Pen-style nationalism would destroy what is actually valuable in the European legacy.
“liberal individualist freedom is precisely the form in which we experience our non-freedom today.”
The paradox of liberal subjectivity: what presents itself as freedom (consumer autonomy, self-determination) is the very mode of contemporary subjection.
“the way you are deprived of your freedom is then presented to you as a new freedom — you are not just decided for by the state but free to choose your welfare.”
The replacement of the welfare state by 'participation society' repackages dispossession as empowerment.
“ex-communists turned out to be the best managers of liberal capitalism — so maybe Fukuyama was right that liberal capitalism won, but wrong about who would run it.”
The ironic fulfillment of Fukuyama's end of history: not by liberal democrats but by former communists who became the most efficient capitalist managers (China, Russia).
“family values: neoliberal politics did more to destroy authentic family life than all gay rights activists together — so conservatives who invoke family values are their own enemy.”
The right's defence of family values is undermined by the very economic policies it champions, which destroy the material conditions for family life.
“what in France is just 'comme d'habitude' (as usual), Americans think is 'My Way' — individual heroic self-assertion; to really do it your way, quite many things have to function as usual.”
American individualist ideology misrecognizes as personal achievement what is actually the dense social infrastructure that enables individual freedom.
“local cultures and traditions are not a defense against global capitalism — they are its perfect tool.”
The apparent refuge of cultural identity from capitalist homogenization turns out to be exactly what capital needs; only universalist deracination can break with it.
“Malcolm X's answer to being cut off from African roots was not to search for those roots but to embrace the void as a unique chance to be more modern than Europeans themselves.”
Trauma of deracination is recast as the condition of possibility for a more radical universality, not a loss to be mourned.
“Soviet economy was not too much planning — beneath the surface of total planning it was totally chaotic; the real Soviet problem was not order but disorder.”
The standard critique of totalitarianism (too much planning, not enough initiative) is inverted: Soviet planning was a facade over chronic improvisation and chaos.
“I lost because I won — Le Pen's electoral losses reflected the absorption of his themes by mainstream parties, meaning his real victory preceded his defeat.”
Electoral defeat can mask ideological victory; the extreme right wins when its agenda is normalized by mainstream parties even before it takes power.
Claims 15
asserts
Austerity politics is not a rational economic measure but an ideological-superstitious reaction — a collective guilt ritual of self-punishment that demonstrably does not work, as shown by Greece's rising debt despite years of cuts.EU austerity
asserts
The eternal marriage between capitalism and democracy is ending in divorce; capitalism is increasingly compatible with — and tends toward — authoritarian ethnic-nationalist state forms.capitalism and democracy
asserts
The Slovenian protest movement of 2012-13 was a revolt of the salaried bourgeoisie, not a genuine revolt of despair, and was co-opted by the center-left nomenklatura.Slovenian protests
asserts
The European liberal-left response to immigration (protesting Lampedusa deaths) is hypocritical because it never states clearly what it actually demands — open borders or something else.liberal-left immigration politics
asserts
Communist symbols should not be legally equated with fascist symbols because communism, unlike Nazism, always contained internal dissident movements that criticized its betrayal of its own emancipatory principles.moral equivalence of communism and fascism
asserts
The extreme right is not an outside threat to capitalism but is slowly becoming its preferred political form, and European right-wingers who monopolize the word 'Europe' are in fact the true threat to the European legacy.European right and capitalism
rejects
The term 'tolerance' should be rejected as the frame for anti-racist struggle because it depoliticizes racism, replacing analysis of legal-economic conditions with a pseudo-psychoanalytic question of individual psychology.tolerance as a left-liberal category
rejects
Local cultures and traditions are not a defense against global capitalism but its perfect ideological tool; only a full embrace of deracination and universality can break with capitalism.cultural identity as anti-capitalist
rejects
Liberal individualist freedom — bourgeois narcissistic subjectivity — is the very form in which we experience our non-freedom today; authentic freedom requires an external kick, a master who calls you to it.liberal individualist freedom
asserts
Debt functions ideologically not as a demand for repayment but as superego pressure that keeps people in permanent guilt and servitude, and through self-entrepreneurship it dissolves class identity into universal fictional capitalism.debt ideology
asserts
True political change never begins with a grand revolutionary program but with a small concrete demand that triggers an avalanche; the art of politics is to find that tiny lever point.revolutionary strategy and catalysts
rejects
The Yugoslav disintegration was not the catastrophe but the moment of truth: all the internal contradictions of Titoism exploded, and nostalgia for Yugoslav self-management is misplaced.nostalgia for Yugoslav socialism
asserts
If European neoliberalism continues unchecked, Europe will drift toward the Russian/Chinese/Gulf State authoritarian model; therefore only a more radical left can save sincere liberals.European neoliberalism and authoritarianism
reframes
Turkish atrocities (Armenia, Kurds) were products of modernization and the aspiration to become a western nation-state, not of Ottoman traditionalism.Turkish history and atrocities
asserts
The left's focus on political correctness and cultural identity struggles at the expense of economic analysis is a central catastrophe that allows the right to channel popular discontent.left strategy
Quotes 15
“I'm almost have a nostalgia for that time. Maybe Europe... the problem is that we don't have it. The problem is what? That the reaction of Europe to crisis, so-called austerity program.”Slavoj Žižek · nostalgia for a coherent ruling class
“Everybody knows that ideology rules today, Hollywood knows it. Can you name me one big blockbuster, recent ones, which is not about class struggle? Elysium, pure class struggle. Hunger Games, pure class struggle.”Slavoj Žižek · Hollywood as ideological barometer
“Austerity politics of course in some abstract sense may be true, but it's true in the same sense in which if you are...overweight...the safest way to lose weight if you shit more than you eat.”Slavoj Žižek · austerity as abstract irrelevance
“I lost because I won. That is to say I lost because nonetheless my topic was accepted by the mainstream parties.”Slavoj Žižek · ideological victory through electoral defeat (Le Pen)
“Communism was a failure, but it was a failed tragic project. It was a liberation project going terribly going wrong.”Slavoj Žižek · asymmetry between communism and fascism
“The eternal marriage between capitalism and democracy is not as eternal as it may seem to be. Now it's clearly approaching a divorce.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism-democracy divorce
“Local cultures traditions and so on are not a defense against global capitalism. No, they are its perfect tool. The only way to break out of capitalism is to accept fully endorse this deracination, losing roots, universality.”Slavoj Žižek · deracination as emancipatory condition
“Liberal individualist freedom I will be very radical here is precisely the very form we experience our non-freedom today.”Slavoj Žižek · liberal freedom as non-freedom
“The very term tolerance is suspicious here for me. Let's take a big example we all agree he was a great guy, Martin Luther King...he never uses the term tolerance. It would have been humiliating for me to say what we blacks want more tolerance from white people.”Slavoj Žižek · tolerance as depoliticization of racism
“Pessimists are the only happy people. You expect the worst and then usually things are not so absolutely bad and so you are happy.”Slavoj Žižek · pessimism as a strategy for happiness
“Authentic master is the one who just gives you a kick...The message of a master is just this one: You can do it. Do it. It just calls you up to your freedom.”Slavoj Žižek · the authentic Master
“We have to lose our roots. We have to be wounded. Only in this way we can liberate ourselves.”Slavoj Žižek · wound of deracination as emancipatory
“No, I don't have noble intentions.”Slavoj Žižek · rejection of humanitarian self-image
“Only a more radical left can save you. If you just go on the way you do with neoliberal measures and so on, we will slowly approach the same authoritarian regime.”Slavoj Žižek · radical left as last defense of liberalism
“The point, even from a rational capitalist politics, is to combine maybe some austerity with some other measures to set in motion production...But this is curiously lacking in all our country.”Slavoj Žižek · austerity without vision
Transcript 104 turns
unknown
This event is being organized by
This event is being organized by
unknown
the UCL Economics, oh sorry Economics, European Institute and School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Now many of you may not know what is this School of Slavonic and East European Studies, well you may be surprised we are now for more than years department of UCL. We have around students, we are offering BA, MA, PhD degrees in literature, culture, history, politics and economics of this part of the world. And knowing that, probably I guess you are not surprised that I'm extremely pleased, delighted today to welcome two intellectuals, very prominent figures from that part of the world. We have the great privilege to have with us Slavoj Žižek, who is probably one of the, well, the most prominent intellectual from that part of the world. And I'm very pleased that he has joined forces today with a young generation, with Srećko Horvat, author and philosopher from Croatia, on this exciting new project, book, What Does Europe Want? I've read it and I laughed even sometimes, and you will understand when you read the book why when you laugh, why that is a sign that the situation is very, very serious you know. And we'll find it out tonight. And the event tonight will be chaired by Bojan Aleksov who is our lecturer in history and Director of Center for South East European Studies. So Bojan, floor is yours, thank you.
the UCL Economics, oh sorry Economics, European Institute and School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Now many of you may not know what is this School of Slavonic and East European Studies, well you may be surprised we are now for more than years department of UCL. We have around students, we are offering BA, MA, PhD degrees in literature, culture, history, politics and economics of this part of the world. And knowing that, probably I guess you are not surprised that I'm extremely pleased, delighted today to welcome two intellectuals, very prominent figures from that part of the world. We have the great privilege to have with us Slavoj Žižek, who is probably one of the, well, the most prominent intellectual from that part of the world. And I'm very pleased that he has joined forces today with a young generation, with Srećko Horvat, author and philosopher from Croatia, on this exciting new project, book, What Does Europe Want? I've read it and I laughed even sometimes, and you will understand when you read the book why when you laugh, why that is a sign that the situation is very, very serious you know. And we'll find it out tonight. And the event tonight will be chaired by Bojan Aleksov who is our lecturer in history and Director of Center for South East European Studies. So Bojan, floor is yours, thank you.
unknown
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, good evening. Dame i gospodo, dragi prijatelji, prijateljice, dobro veče. Could you also, you already heard my name, I teach Balkan history and that's why this use of Serbo-Croatian. And I also chair our Balkan Center at SEES and we organize all sorts of events and you can join our mailing list and come to one of these events like this one. And tonight it's a special pleasure for me to talk about Europe in this particular setting and with these guests. And we will also give you the opportunity to raise questions in the second half of this event which is triggered by the appearance of this book. Let me just clarify that the Europe in the title of this book and in our event refers not to Europe as a whole but to the European Union project which is in crisis and which over what it wants, right? And why it's my pleasure, it's because we are in a way European outsiders first, as you heard SEES is the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, and our guests here at the panel like me were born in this country which is no more, which is a failed project that Europe or the European Union needs always to bear in mind. So my first question, and I want to give the speakers more time, so my first question goes out to Srećko who lives in Croatia which recently joined EU in the midst of its most serious crisis since its inception, I would say. So I want to ask Srećko about these circumstances and the celebration of Croatia entering the project in crisis. Was there any reason to celebrate? First of all, hello and thanks to Bojan and thanks to UCL for hosting and organizing this event. Yesterday when I arrived from actually Sarajevo where I live currently for the next month, I just read in the newspaper that the Monty Python reunited and they sold out in seconds. This was sold out in two days and I'm not sure if we will be like the Monty Python but you know my English is very bad, Bojan's is a bit better and Slavoj has of course the Žižekian accent so we are some sort of Monty Python show in a way. You have Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia and we will do our best tonight. Anyway when you ask me about Croatia's entrance to the European Union I'm spontaneously reminded of At the Circus, you know Chico Marx gave
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, good evening. Dame i gospodo, dragi prijatelji, prijateljice, dobro veče. Could you also, you already heard my name, I teach Balkan history and that's why this use of Serbo-Croatian. And I also chair our Balkan Center at SEES and we organize all sorts of events and you can join our mailing list and come to one of these events like this one. And tonight it's a special pleasure for me to talk about Europe in this particular setting and with these guests. And we will also give you the opportunity to raise questions in the second half of this event which is triggered by the appearance of this book. Let me just clarify that the Europe in the title of this book and in our event refers not to Europe as a whole but to the European Union project which is in crisis and which over what it wants, right? And why it's my pleasure, it's because we are in a way European outsiders first, as you heard SEES is the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, and our guests here at the panel like me were born in this country which is no more, which is a failed project that Europe or the European Union needs always to bear in mind. So my first question, and I want to give the speakers more time, so my first question goes out to Srećko who lives in Croatia which recently joined EU in the midst of its most serious crisis since its inception, I would say. So I want to ask Srećko about these circumstances and the celebration of Croatia entering the project in crisis. Was there any reason to celebrate? First of all, hello and thanks to Bojan and thanks to UCL for hosting and organizing this event. Yesterday when I arrived from actually Sarajevo where I live currently for the next month, I just read in the newspaper that the Monty Python reunited and they sold out in seconds. This was sold out in two days and I'm not sure if we will be like the Monty Python but you know my English is very bad, Bojan's is a bit better and Slavoj has of course the Žižekian accent so we are some sort of Monty Python show in a way. You have Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia and we will do our best tonight. Anyway when you ask me about Croatia's entrance to the European Union I'm spontaneously reminded of At the Circus, you know Chico Marx gave
unknown
some very good advice to his friend and he says, whenever you have a business trouble you should get a lawyer. Then you will have more business trouble but at least you will have a lawyer. And I think the same goes for Croatia's entrance to the European Union. Whenever you have business trouble join the European Union, then you will have even more business trouble but at least you will be part of the European Union. Of course I will leave more jokes to Slavoj or not, we will see. But this brings
some very good advice to his friend and he says, whenever you have a business trouble you should get a lawyer. Then you will have more business trouble but at least you will have a lawyer. And I think the same goes for Croatia's entrance to the European Union. Whenever you have business trouble join the European Union, then you will have even more business trouble but at least you will be part of the European Union. Of course I will leave more jokes to Slavoj or not, we will see. But this brings
unknown
me actually to one of the biggest problems not only of the European Union but also Croatia. According to Eurostat, today's research from August this year, two months ago, the rate of unemployment among young persons is in European Union million. And you probably know who is the first country, it's of course Greece with The second is of course Spain with and do you know who is the third country in this record? It's Croatia. It's So actually Croatia didn't join as they tried to convince us the center of the European Union, a prosperous community with lots of jobs and opportunities and so on, but Croatia actually joined the PIIGS you know, so they will have to invent another name, not the PIIGS, not the GYPSY, but something else. And this reminded me of another joke told by our common friend Costas Douzinas, who recently when we were at the debate in London as well told us this famous joke, it was famous in Serbia as well at one point of time but now the place where it is happening it's Greece. So a tourist comes to the Athens airport and the control officer who asks his passport asks him, what is your nationality? The tourist replies, German. And officer asks him, occupation? No, no, no, holidays. So you know what this joke tells us about Croatia's entrance to the European Union, it's actually a bit sad because you know the Germans and the Troika and the European Commission can really be on holidays when you have the Croatian government because the Croatian government is doing the job of the European Commission and the Troika instead of them without the pressure. I will just give you one example and then I will pass the floor. So recently when Margaret Thatcher died, a few days after the death of the Iron Lady, a famous Croatian economist who was the former Minister of Finance during Tuđman's government, published an article echoing the famous Heideggerian motto Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten, only a god can save us now. You know his title wasn't Only a god can save us now, but the title of the article was Only Margaret Thatcher can save Croatia. And in the article he gave a very detailed plan, you can find it on the internet and Google Translate and so on, and you can even find a very nice photo, you have Tuđman, you have this guy, and you have Margaret Thatcher drinking champagne together. Is it photomontage or... No, it's a real photo. And you know that the... it was Borislav Škegro. And the minister, the former minister said at one point of time, he said to the Iron Lady, you know many people in Croatia criticize me of being a Thatcherist, what shall I do? And you know what the Iron Lady replied? She said, Oh, that's a clear sign you're doing a good job, just continue with the job. And Margaret... that was '98, and Margaret Thatcher was in Croatia because she got a very rare honorary degree in Croatia, which no one else gets in Croatia for some reason, and Slavoj was there for seven times and many other intellectuals but they never got an honorary degree, but you have Margaret Thatcher getting an honorary degree. So what he said in this article which is not an obituary but actually a panegyric, he said, what we have to do in Croatia is to privatize more, we have to privatize everything. And what happened just one month ago, and it's irony or I
me actually to one of the biggest problems not only of the European Union but also Croatia. According to Eurostat, today's research from August this year, two months ago, the rate of unemployment among young persons is in European Union million. And you probably know who is the first country, it's of course Greece with The second is of course Spain with and do you know who is the third country in this record? It's Croatia. It's So actually Croatia didn't join as they tried to convince us the center of the European Union, a prosperous community with lots of jobs and opportunities and so on, but Croatia actually joined the PIIGS you know, so they will have to invent another name, not the PIIGS, not the GYPSY, but something else. And this reminded me of another joke told by our common friend Costas Douzinas, who recently when we were at the debate in London as well told us this famous joke, it was famous in Serbia as well at one point of time but now the place where it is happening it's Greece. So a tourist comes to the Athens airport and the control officer who asks his passport asks him, what is your nationality? The tourist replies, German. And officer asks him, occupation? No, no, no, holidays. So you know what this joke tells us about Croatia's entrance to the European Union, it's actually a bit sad because you know the Germans and the Troika and the European Commission can really be on holidays when you have the Croatian government because the Croatian government is doing the job of the European Commission and the Troika instead of them without the pressure. I will just give you one example and then I will pass the floor. So recently when Margaret Thatcher died, a few days after the death of the Iron Lady, a famous Croatian economist who was the former Minister of Finance during Tuđman's government, published an article echoing the famous Heideggerian motto Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten, only a god can save us now. You know his title wasn't Only a god can save us now, but the title of the article was Only Margaret Thatcher can save Croatia. And in the article he gave a very detailed plan, you can find it on the internet and Google Translate and so on, and you can even find a very nice photo, you have Tuđman, you have this guy, and you have Margaret Thatcher drinking champagne together. Is it photomontage or... No, it's a real photo. And you know that the... it was Borislav Škegro. And the minister, the former minister said at one point of time, he said to the Iron Lady, you know many people in Croatia criticize me of being a Thatcherist, what shall I do? And you know what the Iron Lady replied? She said, Oh, that's a clear sign you're doing a good job, just continue with the job. And Margaret... that was '98, and Margaret Thatcher was in Croatia because she got a very rare honorary degree in Croatia, which no one else gets in Croatia for some reason, and Slavoj was there for seven times and many other intellectuals but they never got an honorary degree, but you have Margaret Thatcher getting an honorary degree. So what he said in this article which is not an obituary but actually a panegyric, he said, what we have to do in Croatia is to privatize more, we have to privatize everything. And what happened just one month ago, and it's irony or I
unknown
don't know how to call it, it's farce, it's tragedy actually, on the day of independence of Croatia in October, the Croatian government announced the second round of privatizations in Croatia. So as you probably know during the first round of privatizations in the so-called transition period they privatized the Croatian banks. Currently of the banks in Croatia are not Croatian anymore, they are Austrian, Italian, Spanish, French, German banks. They privatized the telecommunications, which is now Deutsche Telekom and so on and so on. On the day of independence, and here I will soon finish, they announced the second and probably the final program of privatization. They said they will privatize four ports in Croatia, they said they will privatize the Croatian Post, they said they will privatize the Croatian Lottery and they said they will privatize the Croatian Airlines. And a few days ago they said they will privatize Croatian water. So what I wanted to say is actually, and of course this is no different than Greece or Spain or any other countries from the periphery. I see a hand there but I don't know what you want to add. Is there more privatization coming in the room or what? I hope you won't privatize something or... they actually look like people who will get privatized. Hello Mr. [unintelligible]. Anyway, to conclude, what I wanted to say by all of this and by the joke is that the Troika doesn't have to do anything in Croatia, the Croatian government is doing the job without pressure. So I see Bojan is a bit embarrassed or what? No, I didn't intend to interfere in your talks but when you spoke about the high rate of unemployment among European Union youth, and here I'm inspired by so many young and future unemployed people from the European Union and knowing how serious, seriously affecting one's health is unemployment and I really hope that someone at the Hague Tribunal or whatever international tribunal raises the charge against European Union because of high unemployment rate and to introduce as a crime, and I want to propose this word I haven't heard anyone proposing it yet, of juventicide. That's Juventus when you kill Juventus... No, when you kill the youth. Yeah, as they had feminicide and genocide and so on, so juventicide or juventicide in English. But I want to go next... yeah, Juventus, juventatus, I don't know what is the declension, Žižek might know. Juventus is juventicide. Am I right to propose this word on top of unemployment? I'm a primitive from Balkan, I don't know this language that you speak now, I know... No, but let me extend the question because you are from the Balkans and from Slovenia which now boasts... although every Slovene will tell you no, it's just south of Slovenia that Balkan begins, you know. We are still civilization. You can go to a Slovene river Krka and say out there it's Balkan. They rape women, they dance weird dances while we are civilization. He is Balkan. Yes. You are now more than a, or almost a decade in EU. Yes. And Slovenia is experiencing serious economic crisis, and some say it is because Slovenia changed the position in this new constellation from being a privileged most developed part of Yugoslavia to the periphery of EU. Would you agree? Good question. First, I don't want to bluff too much, more than necessary. So I cannot give you a precise answer here. The way I see it is, I would
don't know how to call it, it's farce, it's tragedy actually, on the day of independence of Croatia in October, the Croatian government announced the second round of privatizations in Croatia. So as you probably know during the first round of privatizations in the so-called transition period they privatized the Croatian banks. Currently of the banks in Croatia are not Croatian anymore, they are Austrian, Italian, Spanish, French, German banks. They privatized the telecommunications, which is now Deutsche Telekom and so on and so on. On the day of independence, and here I will soon finish, they announced the second and probably the final program of privatization. They said they will privatize four ports in Croatia, they said they will privatize the Croatian Post, they said they will privatize the Croatian Lottery and they said they will privatize the Croatian Airlines. And a few days ago they said they will privatize Croatian water. So what I wanted to say is actually, and of course this is no different than Greece or Spain or any other countries from the periphery. I see a hand there but I don't know what you want to add. Is there more privatization coming in the room or what? I hope you won't privatize something or... they actually look like people who will get privatized. Hello Mr. [unintelligible]. Anyway, to conclude, what I wanted to say by all of this and by the joke is that the Troika doesn't have to do anything in Croatia, the Croatian government is doing the job without pressure. So I see Bojan is a bit embarrassed or what? No, I didn't intend to interfere in your talks but when you spoke about the high rate of unemployment among European Union youth, and here I'm inspired by so many young and future unemployed people from the European Union and knowing how serious, seriously affecting one's health is unemployment and I really hope that someone at the Hague Tribunal or whatever international tribunal raises the charge against European Union because of high unemployment rate and to introduce as a crime, and I want to propose this word I haven't heard anyone proposing it yet, of juventicide. That's Juventus when you kill Juventus... No, when you kill the youth. Yeah, as they had feminicide and genocide and so on, so juventicide or juventicide in English. But I want to go next... yeah, Juventus, juventatus, I don't know what is the declension, Žižek might know. Juventus is juventicide. Am I right to propose this word on top of unemployment? I'm a primitive from Balkan, I don't know this language that you speak now, I know... No, but let me extend the question because you are from the Balkans and from Slovenia which now boasts... although every Slovene will tell you no, it's just south of Slovenia that Balkan begins, you know. We are still civilization. You can go to a Slovene river Krka and say out there it's Balkan. They rape women, they dance weird dances while we are civilization. He is Balkan. Yes. You are now more than a, or almost a decade in EU. Yes. And Slovenia is experiencing serious economic crisis, and some say it is because Slovenia changed the position in this new constellation from being a privileged most developed part of Yugoslavia to the periphery of EU. Would you agree? Good question. First, I don't want to bluff too much, more than necessary. So I cannot give you a precise answer here. The way I see it is, I would
unknown
be tempted not to put the blame on just European Union. I would say that the very situation which was in the early 90s, where we were boasting, like the big motto of left and
be tempted not to put the blame on just European Union. I would say that the very situation which was in the early 90s, where we were boasting, like the big motto of left and
unknown
right was, give us, you know like Hitler said in '33, give us four years and you will have no employment, our motto was give us four years and we will be Switzerland. Another Switzerland. We were so sure of
right was, give us, you know like Hitler said in '33, give us four years and you will have no employment, our motto was give us four years and we will be Switzerland. Another Switzerland. We were so sure of
unknown
ourselves economically and so on that the whole 90s and beginning of and the first five years of
ourselves economically and so on that the whole 90s and beginning of and the first five years of
unknown
the 21st century were spent in this arrogance, like we are on the top, we don't have to worry. And then all of a sudden we discovered that we missed the train. So again, I think in Slovenia it's a specific crisis, it's even I would say worse than usual in European Union. The second thing I want to say, which may sound problematic especially from some people in Slovenia, I think that the politico-ideological situation is so confused that like even if you try to formulate some genuinely leftist project it gets lost. As some of you maybe know in the, in the last winter, not this one but there was a large protest movement in Slovenia, tens of thousand sometimes on the street and so on. But I think the way it turned out it was a model of how to
the 21st century were spent in this arrogance, like we are on the top, we don't have to worry. And then all of a sudden we discovered that we missed the train. So again, I think in Slovenia it's a specific crisis, it's even I would say worse than usual in European Union. The second thing I want to say, which may sound problematic especially from some people in Slovenia, I think that the politico-ideological situation is so confused that like even if you try to formulate some genuinely leftist project it gets lost. As some of you maybe know in the, in the last winter, not this one but there was a large protest movement in Slovenia, tens of thousand sometimes on the street and so on. But I think the way it turned out it was a model of how to
unknown
screw
screw
unknown
things up. First the problem was and again I warn you, now I'm saying something that most of my Slovene friends would not agree with me, I think it was a model of what Jean-Claude Milner, with whom I otherwise don't agree, would have called the revolt of the salaried bourgeoisie. That is to say, when real,
things up. First the problem was and again I warn you, now I'm saying something that most of my Slovene friends would not agree with me, I think it was a model of what Jean-Claude Milner, with whom I otherwise don't agree, would have called the revolt of the salaried bourgeoisie. That is to say, when real,
Slavoj Žižek
real horrors happened earlier in Slovenia,
real horrors happened earlier in Slovenia,
unknown
already five years ago and more, tens of thousands of textile and other workers losing their jobs, real
already five years ago and more, tens of thousands of textile and other workers losing their jobs, real
Slavoj Žižek
despair, there was no big fuss, you know. Or and some terrible things happened, for example workers from ex-Yugoslav
despair, there was no big fuss, you know. Or and some terrible things happened, for example workers from ex-Yugoslav
unknown
republics all of a sudden not only lost their jobs but were not paid for over half a year back salaries and one of the
republics all of a sudden not only lost their jobs but were not paid for over half a year back salaries and one of the
Slavoj Žižek
replies of the Slovene state was, well you no longer have a job so you have to leave Slovenia and I mean it was a scandal. There was, okay, a little bit of solidarity marginal from some trade unions, but nothing happened. Then, when half a year a little bit more ago, the government announced some, and I'm not in no way defending the government, I'm just trying to build the contrast, relatively non-justified but relatively
replies of the Slovene state was, well you no longer have a job so you have to leave Slovenia and I mean it was a scandal. There was, okay, a little bit of solidarity marginal from some trade unions, but nothing happened. Then, when half a year a little bit more ago, the government announced some, and I'm not in no way defending the government, I'm just trying to build the contrast, relatively non-justified but relatively
unknown
moderate austerity measures, like you know the salaries of state employees will not raise with inflation but less and so on and so on, there was all of a sudden a big outcry. Where were all these people when tens of thousands were suffering before? So this revolt, so-called revolt, I think as many of my Slovene friends noticed it wasn't a genuine revolt of despair, it was more like a kind of a carnival, you know. Saturday, Sunday evening people gathered, some folk pop songs, they danced and so on, and then three, four hours later, well, they went home because they had a
moderate austerity measures, like you know the salaries of state employees will not raise with inflation but less and so on and so on, there was all of a sudden a big outcry. Where were all these people when tens of thousands were suffering before? So this revolt, so-called revolt, I think as many of my Slovene friends noticed it wasn't a genuine revolt of despair, it was more like a kind of a carnival, you know. Saturday, Sunday evening people gathered, some folk pop songs, they danced and so on, and then three, four hours later, well, they went home because they had a
Slavoj Žižek
nice afternoon, you know. What was lacking was that genuine despair that you can find in Greece, in Spain and so on and so on. And what makes me really sad, although I'm even a personal enemy of the right-wing government which was at that time in power, was that they were these protesters protesting measures and they succeeded in that the right-wing government headed by Janez Janša was deposed and there was a new, some people call it I wouldn't, center-left government which took over, which is now if anything imposing even tougher neoliberal and so on, whatever we call them, measures, but protests practically stopped. So what I think, and this is the original sin for this I'm very non-popular to claim, is that in Slovenia protesters were co-opted and manipulated by what is called in Slovenia the official center-left, which is simply mostly the old Communist nomenklatura and so on. They present themselves as leftists but they have absolutely no vision of anything that in any meaningful term, it's even worse than your Croat so-called left which is in power now. For example when one of representatives of this left was asked in what sense you are a leftist when you are a mega-rich capitalist, he said, I have a positive opinion of partisan struggle. He explicitly said that the main line which divides lefts from right in Slovenia is how you relate to World War Two. Are you for communist partisans or not? Now I have no problem with this but it's a pretty sad thing if in an ongoing crisis now here, you know the old conflict remains the main the main point of division. We do have now some groups, young people, intellectuals, even wider circles, elaborating a project of something they call democratic socialism, but for reasons that I will not go into now I also don't give too much of a hope to that. But okay, a little bit more if I can go on. The first thing I would have said more generally, because the situation is very complex. The joke you quoted that Marx brothers, no, you know that I used it when Slovenia proclaimed independence. Exactly in the same way it was published in Mladina at that point dissident journal. My joke was, do you have a problem? Proclaim independence, then you will have even more problems but you will have your independence to fight for and so on and so on. I did it the same. Although you mean this is already one division here. Now I may disappoint you. I'm not part of those nostalgic leftists who claim the self-management Yugoslav socialism was nonetheless something different, we should mourn its loss and so on and so on. And their usual argument is, did you see, the moment we broke with socialism we got the terrible war of the 90s and so on and so on. No, I'm sorry, this is not my opinion. Because I claim that throughout already the 70s and then 80s, Yugoslavia had hyperinflation, mega-crisis, which was again a specific Yugoslav crisis. Western Europe was not in crisis in such a crisis, not even Eastern Europe. And so I this is the fundamentally different reading. For some of my leftist friends, the catastrophe was the disintegration of Yugoslavia. I claim no, the disintegration of Yugoslavia towards which I was indifferent, I didn't take sides, but my point is that the disintegration of Yugoslavia was in a way the moment of truth. Well all contradictions, all that was false in the previous Titoist regime exploded. So I don't find any cause for, any cause for fascination, this western fascination with oh my god it was something specific, Yugoslav self-man... of course it was a little bit better at the level of personal freedoms and so on and so on, but it ended of internal, strong internal contradictions. Second thing I want to say is that you know I would just like to add one or two general remarks concerning the situation of Europe today. The sad thing for me is that and it's important to note this, the sad thing for me is that as I always repeat that European elite is losing its ability to to rule even. You know when I was young we leftists had this dream that there is some mysterious capitalist central committee meeting once a year somewhere between Washington and Wall Street and deciding everything, running things. Well I'm almost have a nostalgia for that time. Maybe Europe... the problem is that we don't have it. The problem is what? That the reaction of Europe to crisis, so-called austerity program. I claim it's not that, as they try to present it to us, they, powers in Brussels, that it's a necessary bitter pill to swallow to get better. No, I think it's a totally irrational politics. It obviously doesn't work. Take the case of Greece. Do you know that when austerity was imposed on Greece around five years ago, their debt was billions? Now five years later, with more than enough time to see the results, the Greek production fell for I think about I don't know, everything went wrong, but the debt is now billions. So it's, even if I were to be a Western enlightened capitalist to put it in this way, I would have said wait a minute, through austerity I will not get back any of my money and so on. I mean it's madness. And generally this austerity politics, if you ask me, this is not rational politics because politics doesn't work like that. Austerity politics I claim is effectively a kind of superstitious reaction. Like all of a sudden there is a crisis, things go bad, and then you know you have this automatic guilt feeling reaction: Oh my god, we must have done something wrong, so why don't we punish ourselves, you know. We must suffer a little bit to get better, so let's impose austerity. To give you an extremely vulgar metaphor, which is accurate here I think, austerity politics of course in some abstract sense may be true, but it's true in the same sense in which if you are let us say, or I am, okay, overweight, someone would have told me you know the safest way to lose weight if you shit more than you eat. I mean of course in some abstract way it's true no, but I wonder if it really works as politics. You know, the point, the point you know like, you know here again, the point, austerity in itself even from the standpoint of capitalist reproduction doesn't achieve anything. The point, even from a rational capitalist politics, is to combine maybe some austerity with some other measures to to set in motion production and so on and so on. But this is curiously lacking in all our country. We somehow expect that our suffering is a sign that we authentically feel guilty and somehow if the big other God, market, whoever, we see that we really suffer, things will somehow go better. I mean there is I don't know how it is in Croatia and Slovenia, there is absolutely no vision, no elementary vision which would include austerity measures as part of some relatively rational plan or whatever or whatever. No, I think we are really caught in this terrible cycle, another element of irrationality and a true triumph of ideology today. I mean everybody knows that ideology rules today, Hollywood knows it. Can you name me one big blockbuster, recent ones, which is not about class struggle? Elysium, pure class struggle. Hunger Games, pure class struggle. My god, let's just follow Hollywood. Hollywood knows that there is class struggle here what our politicians don't know. So what I want to say is that even in Slovenia now we are we have signs of the same thing that happened in the United States, that as the result of this crisis partisans of Ayn Rand, you know Ayn Rand the greatest, liberal and so on, are prospering. But are they crazy? Don't they know that the meltdown of was not as they are trying to convince us because we spent too much and so on, it was exactly the opposite. Alan Greenspan, you know who he was, he was a card-carrying objectivist, Ayn Rand follower. It was precisely the crisis of Randian liberal politics that caused this bre... and it's incredible how now they put the blame on it exactly, you know it wasn't that because some crazy nuts in in Washington were too much to the liberal left spending too much money for health care, it wasn't that which caused the crisis, it was exactly the opposite. And this demonstrates the strength of ideology, of how now precisely those who were guilty for the crisis are now selling again their own ideology as as solution. The more worrying thing is the general shift to the right out of the democratic consensus that defined up Europe, at least Western Europe after World War II, which was what? Which was anti-fascist unity. It was a kind of unwritten commitment, radical neo-fascist right is out. Okay, because we are a free society blah blah, we can tolerate them as a party but they should not be allowed to govern. This was clear. Now it's no longer clear. You can notice it. In Italy it began where neo-fascists became part of government, in Austria Haider and so on, it looks that the thing will go in the same direction in France, in other countries and so on and so on. So it's this legitimization of extreme right, and the idea the way it's usually formulated is that we have to balance the situation. Why condemn only fascist crimes, why not also condemn the symmetrical communist crimes? But I claim even I generally don't accept this, but even if we accept it, you can immediately see how they cheat. For example in Hungary, the government now corrected the old law which prohibits totalitarian fascist propaganda. They wanted to balance it, but wait a minute, how did they do it? They didn't say fascist as well as communist propaganda symbols are prohibited. They said Nazi and communist propaganda, and this distinction is crucial. It's the new strategy of the right wing, European right, where they are ready to sacrifice Nazism, it's a little bit difficult to deal with that, but the hidden goal is then to rehabilitate Franco, like Franco, great guy, he kept Spain out of World War II, big humanitarian and so on. They even try to rehabilitate Mussolini, like he did it pretty well, it was just a tragic mistake that in '39 whatever he joined Hitler and so on. You know so again, this this shift changes the changes all the coordinates. Because here, if you don't believe me, I will quote you a guy who certainly was no communist, Christopher Hitchens. He showed in a wonderful way how with all the crimes committed under Stalin, there is one thing that always differentiated communism from Nazism. From the very beginning, from Lenin's time, communism had strong internal critics. They always had these problems: Trotsky, democratic workers' opposition, whatever. So the tension, there was all the time this feeling in communist project that something went terribly wrong with Stalinism. What we tend to forget is that we didn't have to wait for Solzhenitsyn to know about Stalinist crimes. We all back in the 30s dissident communists were telling, were not only Trotskyists, also others, were telling in detail the story. The logic is totally different with fascism and Nazism. There were people who were accusing Stalin of betraying true principles of communism. They may they were naive I know, but at least they were there. Sorry, but I don't remember any movement in Germany where Nazis would have accused Hitler of betraying the true principles of Nazism and so on. You know, communism was a failure, but it was a failed tragic project. It was a liberation project going terribly going wrong. Which is why I think we are right when we say communist symbols shouldn't be treated in the same way as fascist symbols. You know like what the European right-wingers are saying today: If we prohibit swastika, let's also prohibit red star. No, sorry, because under the name of red star there were nonetheless authentic dissident critical movements going on. I'm not aware of any such movement under the other side. Another thing, I will stop slowly. Like life goes on, you know with me talking, yes. This rehabilitation of liberalism goes hand in hand with systematic devaluation of democracy. People accuse me of being non-democratic, but but just read, just like already years ago a guy called I forgot the the Christian names Tietmeyer at that point I think boss of Bundesbank or whatever. Said something wonderful, wonderful in a terrifying way of course. He said that we politicians and those who make decisions we are fo... we are confronted with two democratic processes. On the one hand there is the electoral democratic process, every four years people vote, but people are naive, they can be victims of demagoguery, we shouldn't trust this democratic process too much. But there is another permanent democratic process going on and it's called stock market, where we get all the time informations, it's much more open, it's out of control and so on, and we should listen to this process much more. That is to say are we aware that this is not just a joke, but that systematically democracy in any meaningful way is neutralized. It's simply and they are also you just have to listen to people from Brussels, in Italy, in Frankfurt, how they are saying now times are serious, which means people are not to be trusted, ordinary people we shouldn't trust democracy now it's for the serious, experts should decide and so on and so on. And I'm cynical, I would even say okay, if we really have experts, but we don't have them. I simply don't trust the European elite today. I think it's absolutely clear even in the interest, and that's what horrifies me, of let's call it naively enlightened capitalism, that a totally different strategy would have been necessary. I don't idealize China, but do you know why for example why China survived at least the first, immediately I stop. Can we wait with China because I want to connect to this talk about ideology? Okay, perfect. You are ignoring billion people. Okay, we wait. China, China yes. And then this big, they call it identity or cultural crisis which is reflected in the discussions and policies on migration or on Islam. We've seen the catastrophe of Lampedusa... Ah, later I want to talk about it. Heavy provocation, I warn you. Yeah, and you said it as well. According to many EU is bracing for the triumph of the right-wing or extreme right-wing forces in the next... I'm sorry to interrupt you, I'm more of a pessimist here. Le Pen said a wonderful terrifying thing when he explained one of his electoral losses and he said I lost because I won. That is to say I lost because nonetheless my topic was accepted by the mainstream parties. You know like they said okay we don't want to do it in a barbaric way like Le Pen but in a softer way they proclaimed what Le Pen is addressing true problems, immigrants... my fear is that the right will win, extreme right, and we will not even notice it, because it will be part of the mainstream. And I am here... I share your opinion and I want to ask you exactly because you come from Croatia and Slovenia... No from Europe and from Balkan, I know. And you mentioned Hungary, yes, and you mentioned Greece. And somehow I I have a feeling that these peripheral countries are more vulnerable to polarizations and to abuses in these identity debates. And we are witnessing it now with nationalist incidents in Croatia, with this fake referendum on on gay marriages and so on, and we've seen this scenario unfolding already in Hungary destroying Hungarian society, democratic institutions and damaging the economy. And what is what is your view and do you agree that these newcomers or peripheral countries are more vulnerable to this ideological and identity crisis and manipulation? I'll come back to to several Slavoj's points especially about the new movements and also the... In Slovenia I only... I will speak also about Croatia and other countries but what is interesting but I'll come back to that is also the line of demarcation: Partisans on the one hand and the Ustašas on the other hand. But what I'll start, I'll start by by a recent annual report by the European Commission, it was published I think one month ago. So they published a report on the enlargement and the neighboring countries of the European Union, namely six Balkan countries including Iceland and Turkey. And you know why it's interesting, because they name all the problems of all our countries. So you have Kosovo, the biggest problem in Kosovo is corruption. You have Serbia, the biggest problem of Serbia is of course corruption as well but also the the attitude towards sexual minorities. Then you have Turkey, the biggest problem the European Commission says of Turkey is police brutality on on Taksim Square and the lack of democratization. And what my proposal is just to turn it around and to apply these measures of the European Commission to Europe itself. So if we speak about corruption why wouldn't we speak about Christian Wulff who had to resign because of a corruption affair, why wouldn't we speak about and I'll come back right now to your question, why wouldn't we speak about Jacques Chirac? If we speak about police brutality at Taksim Square, why don't we speak about the Genoa protests, why don't we... we could spend the whole night here naming all the police brutality at all the protests from Spain, Greece, Portugal or even Croatia and so on. But when you ask me aren't the the peripheral countries more vulnerable to right-wing extremism, if I understood it right, I would say spontaneously I would say yes. But if we look closer I would say no. If we speak about the attitude towards sexual minorities in Serbia then we must unfortunately mention that in France in Paris we had hundreds of thousands people protesting against gay marriage. My country Croatia is now part of the European Union, so you have the European Commission criticizing Serbia because of their attitude towards sexual minorities but you have a part of the European Union, that's my country and I don't say it proudly, which in three or four days will have a referendum against gay marriages. So which... they'll probably they'll probably they'll win, the other side will win. That's important to to add because then will probably come another referendum. What is important to say that in Croatia we had only two referendums. The first referendum Slavoj remembers it very well, me not so much because I'm much younger, that was the referendum for independence after the collapse of Yugoslavia. The second referendum, and here is Croatia the new record holder, it has only of turnout, that was the referendum for the entrance to the European Union. So can you imagine you had two very important referendums. The first was the referendum for independence. The second was the referendum for the entrance of the European Union. Now in my country we have a third referendum, it's a referendum against gay marriages. At the same week the the Croatian government has a new labor, labor law and so on, you have austerity measures and so on and so on. And what will come now, and here I come back to to something we maybe finally or we will just act like the Monty Python where we disagree, is that after the referendum against gay marriages you will have probably a new referendum and it's a referendum against Cyrillic. As you probably know you know the Serbs that's the letter of the Serbs you know, it's not like our letter but whatever. But also the Croatian letter if you go back to history used Cyrillic. And then you have of course the city of Vukovar which was beside Dubrovnik and Sarajevo and Mostar and some other cities the most destroyed city during the war. And what they're doing now is actually they want to change the constitution that only if a minority has more than they can have their letter. Can you can you hear the paradox of it, if you have more than then of course you're not the minority anymore, you're the majority. So what they're doing now is they're collecting signatures in Konzum, and that's one of the richest guys in Croatia whose surname is incidentally or not Todorić, Todo-rich. They're collecting signatures in the shopping malls. What they did for the referendum against gay marriages they collected signatures in churches. So what you have in Croatia, and here I will slightly disagree but
nice afternoon, you know. What was lacking was that genuine despair that you can find in Greece, in Spain and so on and so on. And what makes me really sad, although I'm even a personal enemy of the right-wing government which was at that time in power, was that they were these protesters protesting measures and they succeeded in that the right-wing government headed by Janez Janša was deposed and there was a new, some people call it I wouldn't, center-left government which took over, which is now if anything imposing even tougher neoliberal and so on, whatever we call them, measures, but protests practically stopped. So what I think, and this is the original sin for this I'm very non-popular to claim, is that in Slovenia protesters were co-opted and manipulated by what is called in Slovenia the official center-left, which is simply mostly the old Communist nomenklatura and so on. They present themselves as leftists but they have absolutely no vision of anything that in any meaningful term, it's even worse than your Croat so-called left which is in power now. For example when one of representatives of this left was asked in what sense you are a leftist when you are a mega-rich capitalist, he said, I have a positive opinion of partisan struggle. He explicitly said that the main line which divides lefts from right in Slovenia is how you relate to World War Two. Are you for communist partisans or not? Now I have no problem with this but it's a pretty sad thing if in an ongoing crisis now here, you know the old conflict remains the main the main point of division. We do have now some groups, young people, intellectuals, even wider circles, elaborating a project of something they call democratic socialism, but for reasons that I will not go into now I also don't give too much of a hope to that. But okay, a little bit more if I can go on. The first thing I would have said more generally, because the situation is very complex. The joke you quoted that Marx brothers, no, you know that I used it when Slovenia proclaimed independence. Exactly in the same way it was published in Mladina at that point dissident journal. My joke was, do you have a problem? Proclaim independence, then you will have even more problems but you will have your independence to fight for and so on and so on. I did it the same. Although you mean this is already one division here. Now I may disappoint you. I'm not part of those nostalgic leftists who claim the self-management Yugoslav socialism was nonetheless something different, we should mourn its loss and so on and so on. And their usual argument is, did you see, the moment we broke with socialism we got the terrible war of the 90s and so on and so on. No, I'm sorry, this is not my opinion. Because I claim that throughout already the 70s and then 80s, Yugoslavia had hyperinflation, mega-crisis, which was again a specific Yugoslav crisis. Western Europe was not in crisis in such a crisis, not even Eastern Europe. And so I this is the fundamentally different reading. For some of my leftist friends, the catastrophe was the disintegration of Yugoslavia. I claim no, the disintegration of Yugoslavia towards which I was indifferent, I didn't take sides, but my point is that the disintegration of Yugoslavia was in a way the moment of truth. Well all contradictions, all that was false in the previous Titoist regime exploded. So I don't find any cause for, any cause for fascination, this western fascination with oh my god it was something specific, Yugoslav self-man... of course it was a little bit better at the level of personal freedoms and so on and so on, but it ended of internal, strong internal contradictions. Second thing I want to say is that you know I would just like to add one or two general remarks concerning the situation of Europe today. The sad thing for me is that and it's important to note this, the sad thing for me is that as I always repeat that European elite is losing its ability to to rule even. You know when I was young we leftists had this dream that there is some mysterious capitalist central committee meeting once a year somewhere between Washington and Wall Street and deciding everything, running things. Well I'm almost have a nostalgia for that time. Maybe Europe... the problem is that we don't have it. The problem is what? That the reaction of Europe to crisis, so-called austerity program. I claim it's not that, as they try to present it to us, they, powers in Brussels, that it's a necessary bitter pill to swallow to get better. No, I think it's a totally irrational politics. It obviously doesn't work. Take the case of Greece. Do you know that when austerity was imposed on Greece around five years ago, their debt was billions? Now five years later, with more than enough time to see the results, the Greek production fell for I think about I don't know, everything went wrong, but the debt is now billions. So it's, even if I were to be a Western enlightened capitalist to put it in this way, I would have said wait a minute, through austerity I will not get back any of my money and so on. I mean it's madness. And generally this austerity politics, if you ask me, this is not rational politics because politics doesn't work like that. Austerity politics I claim is effectively a kind of superstitious reaction. Like all of a sudden there is a crisis, things go bad, and then you know you have this automatic guilt feeling reaction: Oh my god, we must have done something wrong, so why don't we punish ourselves, you know. We must suffer a little bit to get better, so let's impose austerity. To give you an extremely vulgar metaphor, which is accurate here I think, austerity politics of course in some abstract sense may be true, but it's true in the same sense in which if you are let us say, or I am, okay, overweight, someone would have told me you know the safest way to lose weight if you shit more than you eat. I mean of course in some abstract way it's true no, but I wonder if it really works as politics. You know, the point, the point you know like, you know here again, the point, austerity in itself even from the standpoint of capitalist reproduction doesn't achieve anything. The point, even from a rational capitalist politics, is to combine maybe some austerity with some other measures to to set in motion production and so on and so on. But this is curiously lacking in all our country. We somehow expect that our suffering is a sign that we authentically feel guilty and somehow if the big other God, market, whoever, we see that we really suffer, things will somehow go better. I mean there is I don't know how it is in Croatia and Slovenia, there is absolutely no vision, no elementary vision which would include austerity measures as part of some relatively rational plan or whatever or whatever. No, I think we are really caught in this terrible cycle, another element of irrationality and a true triumph of ideology today. I mean everybody knows that ideology rules today, Hollywood knows it. Can you name me one big blockbuster, recent ones, which is not about class struggle? Elysium, pure class struggle. Hunger Games, pure class struggle. My god, let's just follow Hollywood. Hollywood knows that there is class struggle here what our politicians don't know. So what I want to say is that even in Slovenia now we are we have signs of the same thing that happened in the United States, that as the result of this crisis partisans of Ayn Rand, you know Ayn Rand the greatest, liberal and so on, are prospering. But are they crazy? Don't they know that the meltdown of was not as they are trying to convince us because we spent too much and so on, it was exactly the opposite. Alan Greenspan, you know who he was, he was a card-carrying objectivist, Ayn Rand follower. It was precisely the crisis of Randian liberal politics that caused this bre... and it's incredible how now they put the blame on it exactly, you know it wasn't that because some crazy nuts in in Washington were too much to the liberal left spending too much money for health care, it wasn't that which caused the crisis, it was exactly the opposite. And this demonstrates the strength of ideology, of how now precisely those who were guilty for the crisis are now selling again their own ideology as as solution. The more worrying thing is the general shift to the right out of the democratic consensus that defined up Europe, at least Western Europe after World War II, which was what? Which was anti-fascist unity. It was a kind of unwritten commitment, radical neo-fascist right is out. Okay, because we are a free society blah blah, we can tolerate them as a party but they should not be allowed to govern. This was clear. Now it's no longer clear. You can notice it. In Italy it began where neo-fascists became part of government, in Austria Haider and so on, it looks that the thing will go in the same direction in France, in other countries and so on and so on. So it's this legitimization of extreme right, and the idea the way it's usually formulated is that we have to balance the situation. Why condemn only fascist crimes, why not also condemn the symmetrical communist crimes? But I claim even I generally don't accept this, but even if we accept it, you can immediately see how they cheat. For example in Hungary, the government now corrected the old law which prohibits totalitarian fascist propaganda. They wanted to balance it, but wait a minute, how did they do it? They didn't say fascist as well as communist propaganda symbols are prohibited. They said Nazi and communist propaganda, and this distinction is crucial. It's the new strategy of the right wing, European right, where they are ready to sacrifice Nazism, it's a little bit difficult to deal with that, but the hidden goal is then to rehabilitate Franco, like Franco, great guy, he kept Spain out of World War II, big humanitarian and so on. They even try to rehabilitate Mussolini, like he did it pretty well, it was just a tragic mistake that in '39 whatever he joined Hitler and so on. You know so again, this this shift changes the changes all the coordinates. Because here, if you don't believe me, I will quote you a guy who certainly was no communist, Christopher Hitchens. He showed in a wonderful way how with all the crimes committed under Stalin, there is one thing that always differentiated communism from Nazism. From the very beginning, from Lenin's time, communism had strong internal critics. They always had these problems: Trotsky, democratic workers' opposition, whatever. So the tension, there was all the time this feeling in communist project that something went terribly wrong with Stalinism. What we tend to forget is that we didn't have to wait for Solzhenitsyn to know about Stalinist crimes. We all back in the 30s dissident communists were telling, were not only Trotskyists, also others, were telling in detail the story. The logic is totally different with fascism and Nazism. There were people who were accusing Stalin of betraying true principles of communism. They may they were naive I know, but at least they were there. Sorry, but I don't remember any movement in Germany where Nazis would have accused Hitler of betraying the true principles of Nazism and so on. You know, communism was a failure, but it was a failed tragic project. It was a liberation project going terribly going wrong. Which is why I think we are right when we say communist symbols shouldn't be treated in the same way as fascist symbols. You know like what the European right-wingers are saying today: If we prohibit swastika, let's also prohibit red star. No, sorry, because under the name of red star there were nonetheless authentic dissident critical movements going on. I'm not aware of any such movement under the other side. Another thing, I will stop slowly. Like life goes on, you know with me talking, yes. This rehabilitation of liberalism goes hand in hand with systematic devaluation of democracy. People accuse me of being non-democratic, but but just read, just like already years ago a guy called I forgot the the Christian names Tietmeyer at that point I think boss of Bundesbank or whatever. Said something wonderful, wonderful in a terrifying way of course. He said that we politicians and those who make decisions we are fo... we are confronted with two democratic processes. On the one hand there is the electoral democratic process, every four years people vote, but people are naive, they can be victims of demagoguery, we shouldn't trust this democratic process too much. But there is another permanent democratic process going on and it's called stock market, where we get all the time informations, it's much more open, it's out of control and so on, and we should listen to this process much more. That is to say are we aware that this is not just a joke, but that systematically democracy in any meaningful way is neutralized. It's simply and they are also you just have to listen to people from Brussels, in Italy, in Frankfurt, how they are saying now times are serious, which means people are not to be trusted, ordinary people we shouldn't trust democracy now it's for the serious, experts should decide and so on and so on. And I'm cynical, I would even say okay, if we really have experts, but we don't have them. I simply don't trust the European elite today. I think it's absolutely clear even in the interest, and that's what horrifies me, of let's call it naively enlightened capitalism, that a totally different strategy would have been necessary. I don't idealize China, but do you know why for example why China survived at least the first, immediately I stop. Can we wait with China because I want to connect to this talk about ideology? Okay, perfect. You are ignoring billion people. Okay, we wait. China, China yes. And then this big, they call it identity or cultural crisis which is reflected in the discussions and policies on migration or on Islam. We've seen the catastrophe of Lampedusa... Ah, later I want to talk about it. Heavy provocation, I warn you. Yeah, and you said it as well. According to many EU is bracing for the triumph of the right-wing or extreme right-wing forces in the next... I'm sorry to interrupt you, I'm more of a pessimist here. Le Pen said a wonderful terrifying thing when he explained one of his electoral losses and he said I lost because I won. That is to say I lost because nonetheless my topic was accepted by the mainstream parties. You know like they said okay we don't want to do it in a barbaric way like Le Pen but in a softer way they proclaimed what Le Pen is addressing true problems, immigrants... my fear is that the right will win, extreme right, and we will not even notice it, because it will be part of the mainstream. And I am here... I share your opinion and I want to ask you exactly because you come from Croatia and Slovenia... No from Europe and from Balkan, I know. And you mentioned Hungary, yes, and you mentioned Greece. And somehow I I have a feeling that these peripheral countries are more vulnerable to polarizations and to abuses in these identity debates. And we are witnessing it now with nationalist incidents in Croatia, with this fake referendum on on gay marriages and so on, and we've seen this scenario unfolding already in Hungary destroying Hungarian society, democratic institutions and damaging the economy. And what is what is your view and do you agree that these newcomers or peripheral countries are more vulnerable to this ideological and identity crisis and manipulation? I'll come back to to several Slavoj's points especially about the new movements and also the... In Slovenia I only... I will speak also about Croatia and other countries but what is interesting but I'll come back to that is also the line of demarcation: Partisans on the one hand and the Ustašas on the other hand. But what I'll start, I'll start by by a recent annual report by the European Commission, it was published I think one month ago. So they published a report on the enlargement and the neighboring countries of the European Union, namely six Balkan countries including Iceland and Turkey. And you know why it's interesting, because they name all the problems of all our countries. So you have Kosovo, the biggest problem in Kosovo is corruption. You have Serbia, the biggest problem of Serbia is of course corruption as well but also the the attitude towards sexual minorities. Then you have Turkey, the biggest problem the European Commission says of Turkey is police brutality on on Taksim Square and the lack of democratization. And what my proposal is just to turn it around and to apply these measures of the European Commission to Europe itself. So if we speak about corruption why wouldn't we speak about Christian Wulff who had to resign because of a corruption affair, why wouldn't we speak about and I'll come back right now to your question, why wouldn't we speak about Jacques Chirac? If we speak about police brutality at Taksim Square, why don't we speak about the Genoa protests, why don't we... we could spend the whole night here naming all the police brutality at all the protests from Spain, Greece, Portugal or even Croatia and so on. But when you ask me aren't the the peripheral countries more vulnerable to right-wing extremism, if I understood it right, I would say spontaneously I would say yes. But if we look closer I would say no. If we speak about the attitude towards sexual minorities in Serbia then we must unfortunately mention that in France in Paris we had hundreds of thousands people protesting against gay marriage. My country Croatia is now part of the European Union, so you have the European Commission criticizing Serbia because of their attitude towards sexual minorities but you have a part of the European Union, that's my country and I don't say it proudly, which in three or four days will have a referendum against gay marriages. So which... they'll probably they'll probably they'll win, the other side will win. That's important to to add because then will probably come another referendum. What is important to say that in Croatia we had only two referendums. The first referendum Slavoj remembers it very well, me not so much because I'm much younger, that was the referendum for independence after the collapse of Yugoslavia. The second referendum, and here is Croatia the new record holder, it has only of turnout, that was the referendum for the entrance to the European Union. So can you imagine you had two very important referendums. The first was the referendum for independence. The second was the referendum for the entrance of the European Union. Now in my country we have a third referendum, it's a referendum against gay marriages. At the same week the the Croatian government has a new labor, labor law and so on, you have austerity measures and so on and so on. And what will come now, and here I come back to to something we maybe finally or we will just act like the Monty Python where we disagree, is that after the referendum against gay marriages you will have probably a new referendum and it's a referendum against Cyrillic. As you probably know you know the Serbs that's the letter of the Serbs you know, it's not like our letter but whatever. But also the Croatian letter if you go back to history used Cyrillic. And then you have of course the city of Vukovar which was beside Dubrovnik and Sarajevo and Mostar and some other cities the most destroyed city during the war. And what they're doing now is actually they want to change the constitution that only if a minority has more than they can have their letter. Can you can you hear the paradox of it, if you have more than then of course you're not the minority anymore, you're the majority. So what they're doing now is they're collecting signatures in Konzum, and that's one of the richest guys in Croatia whose surname is incidentally or not Todorić, Todo-rich. They're collecting signatures in the shopping malls. What they did for the referendum against gay marriages they collected signatures in churches. So what you have in Croatia, and here I will slightly disagree but
unknown
in the end we will agree I think, is that you know two years ago I would be the first who would say you know nationalism and all this story is over, it won't happen again and we have to focus ourselves on political economy. And now I would of course say yes, we have to focus ourselves on political economy but unfortunately I think the 90s in ex-Yugoslavia are coming back. And we really have to to to put this line of demarcation between
in the end we will agree I think, is that you know two years ago I would be the first who would say you know nationalism and all this story is over, it won't happen again and we have to focus ourselves on political economy. And now I would of course say yes, we have to focus ourselves on political economy but unfortunately I think the 90s in ex-Yugoslavia are coming back. And we really have to to to put this line of demarcation between
Slavoj Žižek
not partisans but between the left and between the right wing. And we cannot just focus on political economy. I think now in Croatia it's even it's getting worse than than in Greece because it's legal. Okay, the
not partisans but between the left and between the right wing. And we cannot just focus on political economy. I think now in Croatia it's even it's getting worse than than in Greece because it's legal. Okay, the
unknown
Golden Dawn is a big party and so on, but in Croatia you will have two referendums and I think it's a real right-wing turn. Second point about the movements. Yes I completely
Golden Dawn is a big party and so on, but in Croatia you will have two referendums and I think it's a real right-wing turn. Second point about the movements. Yes I completely
Slavoj Žižek
agree with you when you say... But I only talked about Slovenia, I don't... Yes, yes, but I also agree with this if we speak about Croatia. You know before before Slovenia and I convinced you to support the protests because at one point they were really really going somewhere. Just one year before Slovenia we had huge protests in Croatia with tens of thousands of people on the street every two days and so on. What happened? The we get rid of the conservative government and now we got as Slavoj said an even more radical government when it comes to economy. But if we don't speak about Slovenia or Croatia I would say on the first glance the situation we could quote of course Visconti or Lampedusa and say everything must change in order so everything can stay the same because you know in Tunisia what you got after the Arab Spring you of
agree with you when you say... But I only talked about Slovenia, I don't... Yes, yes, but I also agree with this if we speak about Croatia. You know before before Slovenia and I convinced you to support the protests because at one point they were really really going somewhere. Just one year before Slovenia we had huge protests in Croatia with tens of thousands of people on the street every two days and so on. What happened? The we get rid of the conservative government and now we got as Slavoj said an even more radical government when it comes to economy. But if we don't speak about Slovenia or Croatia I would say on the first glance the situation we could quote of course Visconti or Lampedusa and say everything must change in order so everything can stay the same because you know in Tunisia what you got after the Arab Spring you of
unknown
course got the the killing of Chokri Belaïd and a huge crisis. What you got in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring and
course got the the killing of Chokri Belaïd and a huge crisis. What you got in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring and
Slavoj Žižek
so on. What you got what you got in Slovenia is a Janez Janša with a human face
so on. What you got what you got in Slovenia is a Janez Janša with a human face
unknown
and so on and so on. But what I would detect here and I'm asking you if you would agree is actually that all these movements failed because a fear of power. You know that the the Egyptian left failed because the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrain was much more successful giving medical aid, social welfare to the poor people and you know all the left was was fetishizing in a way direct democracy and saying okay the elections will come but we don't care about the elections and you know when the elections came the Muslim Brotherhood came. I I would say the same goes for the Occupy Wall Street
and so on and so on. But what I would detect here and I'm asking you if you would agree is actually that all these movements failed because a fear of power. You know that the the Egyptian left failed because the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrain was much more successful giving medical aid, social welfare to the poor people and you know all the left was was fetishizing in a way direct democracy and saying okay the elections will come but we don't care about the elections and you know when the elections came the Muslim Brotherhood came. I I would say the same goes for the Occupy Wall Street
unknown
in a way as well. Can I just reply to this Croat Ustaša guy? Sorry. He's my good friends and the only distinctive
in a way as well. Can I just reply to this Croat Ustaša guy? Sorry. He's my good friends and the only distinctive
Slavoj Žižek
mark is that I all the time humiliate good friends. Sorry, you're the... no,
mark is that I all the time humiliate good friends. Sorry, you're the... no,
unknown
sorry quite seriously. No I agree with you. But first an interesting thing to note back to Egypt that you mentioned, no. But here I'm a little bit more optimistic. I hope we also agree here that you know it's nonetheless too simple to say this is this liberal western smug attitude, so what was it worth to rebel against Mubarak, it's now even worse. No, it's not as simple as that. What my Egyptian friends are telling me is that nonetheless the social texture changed. Let's call it naively the civil society is alive. You have numerous you have trade unions, women organizations, students and so
sorry quite seriously. No I agree with you. But first an interesting thing to note back to Egypt that you mentioned, no. But here I'm a little bit more optimistic. I hope we also agree here that you know it's nonetheless too simple to say this is this liberal western smug attitude, so what was it worth to rebel against Mubarak, it's now even worse. No, it's not as simple as that. What my Egyptian friends are telling me is that nonetheless the social texture changed. Let's call it naively the civil society is alive. You have numerous you have trade unions, women organizations, students and so
unknown
on. You know the social body is not the same. There is a third force which is neither Muslim Brotherhood nor the old corrupted Mubarak nomenklatura. Second thing, now comes the the key point. What you said I totally agree that this focusing of economy doesn't win mean we simply leave those ideological struggles aside. But I will try to be as precise as possible. It's precisely if we just, this is the usual attitude of left liberal enlightened intelligentsia. You know for them big problems are gay rights and so on, and they silently pass over economy. But what we have to see is that if we formulate the problem in this way then a lot of workers' unrest, of ordinary people, is channeled precisely by this fundamentalist right. So my point is that if we of course we should fight against fascism blah blah. But if we do it just in this liberal multicultural way without connecting it to economic struggle... You're completely right of course. ...yeah, yeah, then we we end up in a situa... because again this is my big obsession. This is I think the central catastrophe of the last decades of European American politics. Of how the critical energy, which was the energy of right-wing, sorry, left-wing popular protest, is now taken over mostly with the exception of last year's protests by right... I mean if you say today popular discontent, in United States at least it's more often than not a right-wing populist protest. And I was quite shocked when a friend convinced me that if you look in the United States at the conflict between state and civil society, where as a leftist I'm on I'm for the state there, you know. Because it's usually civil society usually means a small mobilization of right-wing tea parties, they want either some openly racist measures or whatever. So I think it's crucial, yes I agree with you, gay marriage and so on, we should unconditionally insist on this. But we should we should nonetheless not forget about economy. We should have the two together. Otherwise we will always remain this minority fighting for gay rights and so on while the majority will do the scandalous things that you mentioned. We had the same shock already years ago in Slovenia. Where there was a similar referendum I think if lesbian mothers should be allowed to get impregnated blah blah. And we thought it's and then the right-wingers won like like to and so on. But again I claim that it's not that naturally people are so conservative. It's more that the way ordinary people perceive the situation, the the mistrust of the situation is overtaken by this ideological mobilization. This this seems to me pretty crucial. Now the provocation. When you mentioned Lampedusa and so on. I will say now something horrible. I want to accuse here the what I see as a hypocrisy of the liberal left intelligentsia who talk when you deal with immigrants as if okay they protest Italian measures. I claim it's hypocrisy. In the sense that they know very well that the what is their implicit demand? It's never clear to me. For example those who protest the Lampedusa deaths. What is their idea? That they should just treat more in a more human way those who try to immigrate? Because if they don't want this then this is nothing. Or do they want to simply open up the borders? Do they really mean it? I mean because sometimes some radical leftists talk as if we should open up the borders. But are they afraid that this can lead to a catastrophe? And I'm not talking now as a potential right-winger. I'm just saying that the typical leftist hypocrisy is to take a problem like immigrants and just
on. You know the social body is not the same. There is a third force which is neither Muslim Brotherhood nor the old corrupted Mubarak nomenklatura. Second thing, now comes the the key point. What you said I totally agree that this focusing of economy doesn't win mean we simply leave those ideological struggles aside. But I will try to be as precise as possible. It's precisely if we just, this is the usual attitude of left liberal enlightened intelligentsia. You know for them big problems are gay rights and so on, and they silently pass over economy. But what we have to see is that if we formulate the problem in this way then a lot of workers' unrest, of ordinary people, is channeled precisely by this fundamentalist right. So my point is that if we of course we should fight against fascism blah blah. But if we do it just in this liberal multicultural way without connecting it to economic struggle... You're completely right of course. ...yeah, yeah, then we we end up in a situa... because again this is my big obsession. This is I think the central catastrophe of the last decades of European American politics. Of how the critical energy, which was the energy of right-wing, sorry, left-wing popular protest, is now taken over mostly with the exception of last year's protests by right... I mean if you say today popular discontent, in United States at least it's more often than not a right-wing populist protest. And I was quite shocked when a friend convinced me that if you look in the United States at the conflict between state and civil society, where as a leftist I'm on I'm for the state there, you know. Because it's usually civil society usually means a small mobilization of right-wing tea parties, they want either some openly racist measures or whatever. So I think it's crucial, yes I agree with you, gay marriage and so on, we should unconditionally insist on this. But we should we should nonetheless not forget about economy. We should have the two together. Otherwise we will always remain this minority fighting for gay rights and so on while the majority will do the scandalous things that you mentioned. We had the same shock already years ago in Slovenia. Where there was a similar referendum I think if lesbian mothers should be allowed to get impregnated blah blah. And we thought it's and then the right-wingers won like like to and so on. But again I claim that it's not that naturally people are so conservative. It's more that the way ordinary people perceive the situation, the the mistrust of the situation is overtaken by this ideological mobilization. This this seems to me pretty crucial. Now the provocation. When you mentioned Lampedusa and so on. I will say now something horrible. I want to accuse here the what I see as a hypocrisy of the liberal left intelligentsia who talk when you deal with immigrants as if okay they protest Italian measures. I claim it's hypocrisy. In the sense that they know very well that the what is their implicit demand? It's never clear to me. For example those who protest the Lampedusa deaths. What is their idea? That they should just treat more in a more human way those who try to immigrate? Because if they don't want this then this is nothing. Or do they want to simply open up the borders? Do they really mean it? I mean because sometimes some radical leftists talk as if we should open up the borders. But are they afraid that this can lead to a catastrophe? And I'm not talking now as a potential right-winger. I'm just saying that the typical leftist hypocrisy is to take a problem like immigrants and just
unknown
let's open up the situation there, everyone can come and then what? Nothing would be changed. I think they mean intervention in Africa. Do they mean this? That's my problem. I am all the time asking them this. Raising the aid to the developed world. Intervening directly because now we know it's from Libya that these immigrants are coming. And the European intervention in Libya created chaos that now... Yeah, but these people mostly are not from Libya I think. No, no, a lot of people are from Libya. Are they from Libya? I thought they come further down. No what I wanted to add, you know what François Fillon when he was Prime Minister did after the intervention in Libya? What? He sent two planes of medical aid to Libya. And you know on the first glance it's a wonderful gesture of solidarity. But you know what he what he said afterwards? We sent the medical aid in order to prevent the waves of new immigrants to Lampedusa. Yes, of course. What the Italian government did after the after the Arab revolution after Tunisia they put navies around Lampedusa not to save immigrants but but actually to distract them. You know what they're what they're claiming now, I don't know if you saw that, that they want to implement drones in the Mediterranean Sea... To control where... ...yeah to control like not the drones with bombs like in Pakistan. Okay, but nonetheless now I ask you, okay, okay, we know all these horrors, what would you have done in Lampedusa? I would not give the Nobel Peace Prize, here I completely agree with you. There were some guys who were claiming we have to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Lampedusa. Did you know that? And that's exactly what you said, what you were criticizing the leftists who were claiming some sort of more humanist approach. In a way you wouldn't agree here with me, I would open the borders. I don't know why... Because I think you know the European project, Europe as such, was from the beginning founded on multiethnicity, multiculturalism, influences from other... and I'm not speaking now as you probably know like a multiculturalist. But it was founded on diversity, you know. And I don't know if you were in Italy, it was two years ago, in a small city called Lucca. They tried, no they didn't try, they banned all authentic food. You know they banned kebabs, falafel and so
let's open up the situation there, everyone can come and then what? Nothing would be changed. I think they mean intervention in Africa. Do they mean this? That's my problem. I am all the time asking them this. Raising the aid to the developed world. Intervening directly because now we know it's from Libya that these immigrants are coming. And the European intervention in Libya created chaos that now... Yeah, but these people mostly are not from Libya I think. No, no, a lot of people are from Libya. Are they from Libya? I thought they come further down. No what I wanted to add, you know what François Fillon when he was Prime Minister did after the intervention in Libya? What? He sent two planes of medical aid to Libya. And you know on the first glance it's a wonderful gesture of solidarity. But you know what he what he said afterwards? We sent the medical aid in order to prevent the waves of new immigrants to Lampedusa. Yes, of course. What the Italian government did after the after the Arab revolution after Tunisia they put navies around Lampedusa not to save immigrants but but actually to distract them. You know what they're what they're claiming now, I don't know if you saw that, that they want to implement drones in the Mediterranean Sea... To control where... ...yeah to control like not the drones with bombs like in Pakistan. Okay, but nonetheless now I ask you, okay, okay, we know all these horrors, what would you have done in Lampedusa? I would not give the Nobel Peace Prize, here I completely agree with you. There were some guys who were claiming we have to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Lampedusa. Did you know that? And that's exactly what you said, what you were criticizing the leftists who were claiming some sort of more humanist approach. In a way you wouldn't agree here with me, I would open the borders. I don't know why... Because I think you know the European project, Europe as such, was from the beginning founded on multiethnicity, multiculturalism, influences from other... and I'm not speaking now as you probably know like a multiculturalist. But it was founded on diversity, you know. And I don't know if you were in Italy, it was two years ago, in a small city called Lucca. They tried, no they didn't try, they banned all authentic food. You know they banned kebabs, falafel and so
Slavoj Žižek
on. Then in Milan where you have I don't know different restaurants and so on, they banned everything. And here I come to my thesis. Then you had a famous Italian cook who said, but you know there is no such thing as authentic Italian food. You know the tomato sauce came from Peru and our noodles came from Marco Polo who got it from China. So in a way you know this this openness of Europe, and I'm really not speaking as a naive multiculturalist, was actually the the foundation of Europe. And when we speak you know about Franco Berardi Bifo speaks about that the European continent is dying because of old people. Why don't you get younger people? Of course we have the unemployment of young people in Europe as well. But you know you could change the situation. So in a way I I would propose not completely opening the borders but to rethink that. You're already making the first step in the compromise. Because you know what's the problem for me? Like if we do what you say, okay. What I know this is pragmatic reasoning but what would have probably happened is that the moment there would be rumors we can enter Europe, this would probably explode into a large exodus. And then what I fear is that an immediate in an answer explosion of right-wing populist parties opposing it. But you have it anyway. No don't play with fate here. You have it anyway but it can be much worse. You know now you sound for me like those communists in '33 who they said who cares about Hitler even before we had it anyway bourgeois dictatorship. Yes, but there is a slight difference you know. No, but really, really what I mean is and then what? Then we will have western Europe and Africa will stay the way it is or whatever. But okay what would you do? I'm not advocate's diaboli, what would you do? I would the problem, first I am a pessimist as usual. I think that there simply is no simple solution here. But I would have been for what you mentioned. For some kind of coordinated, not so much aid as even if violently imposed help for example. Because in Africa we have such mega tragedies. Look a country that I always mention like Congo. I mean it's so rich in natural resources and so on and people are starving and the state doesn't function and so on and so on. I mean the first goal should be to make those states sustainable, I don't know how to somehow make them functional. Without that... but the problem this is not to avoid a misunderstanding. I'm not saying primitive barbarian Africans we should civilize them. I'm well aware that Congo precisely the way it is now, a non-functioning state, it's fully integrated into world market precisely the way it is, local warlords sending minerals for computers, you know all the story and so on and so on. I'm I'm just saying that I'm just what I'm just saying is that how ambiguous these simple formulas are. For example even with my very good friend Badiou I have a small problem here, you know his famous formula is against for immigrants 'Qui est ici est d'ici', the one who is here is from here. Like to reject this, you know we are authentic inhabitants here. But you know what then my Israeli friend Udi Aloni told me? Oh wonderful, Israeli West Bank settlers would greet immensely this formula of Badiou. That's what they are saying on the West Bank, they come and say we are here so we are from here and so on. You know and then immediately you get caught into these problems, what immigration is allowed, what not and so on and so on. My problem here if I may just continue is this one. When you mention this national identity Europe and so on. I agree with you if this were was your implicit answer that we shouldn't I agree with you but I would be afraid to just limit this phenomena to southern or even southeastern Europe. Look let's look at what in our ideological everyday perception is the most noble of what Europe has socially, Scandinavian countries. Sorry to inform you they have the same right-wing populism at its very violent. Remember Geert Wilders in in in Holland. Remember what in Sweden anti-immigrant violence and so on and so on. So I think unfortunately it's not just here. And where I am a pessimist is okay is that I don't my fear is the following one. I claim that this is my pessimist vision. And I like to be a pessimist, you know why? Because pessimists are the only happy people. You expect the worst and then usually things are not so absolutely bad and so you are happy. You see you see it's not so bad you know. So as a pessimist I would have said that some people are too naive when they project the image of global capitalism as nonetheless Fukuyama liberal enlightened
on. Then in Milan where you have I don't know different restaurants and so on, they banned everything. And here I come to my thesis. Then you had a famous Italian cook who said, but you know there is no such thing as authentic Italian food. You know the tomato sauce came from Peru and our noodles came from Marco Polo who got it from China. So in a way you know this this openness of Europe, and I'm really not speaking as a naive multiculturalist, was actually the the foundation of Europe. And when we speak you know about Franco Berardi Bifo speaks about that the European continent is dying because of old people. Why don't you get younger people? Of course we have the unemployment of young people in Europe as well. But you know you could change the situation. So in a way I I would propose not completely opening the borders but to rethink that. You're already making the first step in the compromise. Because you know what's the problem for me? Like if we do what you say, okay. What I know this is pragmatic reasoning but what would have probably happened is that the moment there would be rumors we can enter Europe, this would probably explode into a large exodus. And then what I fear is that an immediate in an answer explosion of right-wing populist parties opposing it. But you have it anyway. No don't play with fate here. You have it anyway but it can be much worse. You know now you sound for me like those communists in '33 who they said who cares about Hitler even before we had it anyway bourgeois dictatorship. Yes, but there is a slight difference you know. No, but really, really what I mean is and then what? Then we will have western Europe and Africa will stay the way it is or whatever. But okay what would you do? I'm not advocate's diaboli, what would you do? I would the problem, first I am a pessimist as usual. I think that there simply is no simple solution here. But I would have been for what you mentioned. For some kind of coordinated, not so much aid as even if violently imposed help for example. Because in Africa we have such mega tragedies. Look a country that I always mention like Congo. I mean it's so rich in natural resources and so on and people are starving and the state doesn't function and so on and so on. I mean the first goal should be to make those states sustainable, I don't know how to somehow make them functional. Without that... but the problem this is not to avoid a misunderstanding. I'm not saying primitive barbarian Africans we should civilize them. I'm well aware that Congo precisely the way it is now, a non-functioning state, it's fully integrated into world market precisely the way it is, local warlords sending minerals for computers, you know all the story and so on and so on. I'm I'm just saying that I'm just what I'm just saying is that how ambiguous these simple formulas are. For example even with my very good friend Badiou I have a small problem here, you know his famous formula is against for immigrants 'Qui est ici est d'ici', the one who is here is from here. Like to reject this, you know we are authentic inhabitants here. But you know what then my Israeli friend Udi Aloni told me? Oh wonderful, Israeli West Bank settlers would greet immensely this formula of Badiou. That's what they are saying on the West Bank, they come and say we are here so we are from here and so on. You know and then immediately you get caught into these problems, what immigration is allowed, what not and so on and so on. My problem here if I may just continue is this one. When you mention this national identity Europe and so on. I agree with you if this were was your implicit answer that we shouldn't I agree with you but I would be afraid to just limit this phenomena to southern or even southeastern Europe. Look let's look at what in our ideological everyday perception is the most noble of what Europe has socially, Scandinavian countries. Sorry to inform you they have the same right-wing populism at its very violent. Remember Geert Wilders in in in Holland. Remember what in Sweden anti-immigrant violence and so on and so on. So I think unfortunately it's not just here. And where I am a pessimist is okay is that I don't my fear is the following one. I claim that this is my pessimist vision. And I like to be a pessimist, you know why? Because pessimists are the only happy people. You expect the worst and then usually things are not so absolutely bad and so you are happy. You see you see it's not so bad you know. So as a pessimist I would have said that some people are too naive when they project the image of global capitalism as nonetheless Fukuyama liberal enlightened
unknown
and they see in this new anti-immigrant nationalisms and so on a kind of primitive obstacle to it. No, I think what is now slowly emerging and this is what worries me, is a capitalism
and they see in this new anti-immigrant nationalisms and so on a kind of primitive obstacle to it. No, I think what is now slowly emerging and this is what worries me, is a capitalism
Slavoj Žižek
which economically can be extremely brutal,
which economically can be extremely brutal,
unknown
liberal, but at
liberal, but at
Slavoj Žižek
the same time with strong racist ethnic identity
the same time with strong racist ethnic identity
unknown
authoritarian state and so on. And what I fear is that this will gradually evolve here. But can we... and I want to connect this to your China mentioning and billions of people who live differently let's say than we do in Europe. And in last couple of weeks you were very actively read here in in England your correspondence with Nadezhda Tolokonnikova from Pussy Riot. You know the joke about Berlusconi I like it. I was told in Moscow that immediately after Pussy Riot scandal, Berlusconi called Putin. Oh I want to visit Moscow. They asked him why? Because I saw on TV screen these these posters: Free Pussies, Free Pussies you know. Sorry go go on, just a multicultural reaction sorry go yes. No but with now Putin led Russia is is on the rise on all fronts. We've seen several successes of of Russia's in international diplomacy. More or less, yeah. So and Putin is doing increasingly well. So you see with your support of Nadezhda you seem to be waging a lost war. And my question is the Russian autocratic model, the Chinese autocratic model, or the Gulf States which are the worst, they are new slave societies, the Gulf States. No but we are constantly being threatened by power holders here and those promoting neoliberalism or austerity measures, if you don't like the alternative is Russia, China or or Gulf States. How can we on the left turn these against them so that it's not used as a threat but because they are so authoritarian and slave society we want Europe to be even better and not to accept the neoliberal austerity measures because there is worse. But how can we... My answer is very simple. Srećko would agree yes. My answer is simply that yes that's my pessimism in the terms of capitalism. Authoritarian neoliberal capitalism is the future. Yeah we have to tell them, if we go on doing what you are telling us to do we will end up as Russia, China or Gulf States so because of that we have to change. Yeah, yeah. I think there is a choice here. If if only like the the way I react to sincere liberals who are worried about freedoms and so on, I tell them you know only a more radical left can save you. If you just go on the way you do with neoliberal measures and so on, we will slowly approach the same the same the same authoritarian regime. Here I agree with a guy who is
authoritarian state and so on. And what I fear is that this will gradually evolve here. But can we... and I want to connect this to your China mentioning and billions of people who live differently let's say than we do in Europe. And in last couple of weeks you were very actively read here in in England your correspondence with Nadezhda Tolokonnikova from Pussy Riot. You know the joke about Berlusconi I like it. I was told in Moscow that immediately after Pussy Riot scandal, Berlusconi called Putin. Oh I want to visit Moscow. They asked him why? Because I saw on TV screen these these posters: Free Pussies, Free Pussies you know. Sorry go go on, just a multicultural reaction sorry go yes. No but with now Putin led Russia is is on the rise on all fronts. We've seen several successes of of Russia's in international diplomacy. More or less, yeah. So and Putin is doing increasingly well. So you see with your support of Nadezhda you seem to be waging a lost war. And my question is the Russian autocratic model, the Chinese autocratic model, or the Gulf States which are the worst, they are new slave societies, the Gulf States. No but we are constantly being threatened by power holders here and those promoting neoliberalism or austerity measures, if you don't like the alternative is Russia, China or or Gulf States. How can we on the left turn these against them so that it's not used as a threat but because they are so authoritarian and slave society we want Europe to be even better and not to accept the neoliberal austerity measures because there is worse. But how can we... My answer is very simple. Srećko would agree yes. My answer is simply that yes that's my pessimism in the terms of capitalism. Authoritarian neoliberal capitalism is the future. Yeah we have to tell them, if we go on doing what you are telling us to do we will end up as Russia, China or Gulf States so because of that we have to change. Yeah, yeah. I think there is a choice here. If if only like the the way I react to sincere liberals who are worried about freedoms and so on, I tell them you know only a more radical left can save you. If you just go on the way you do with neoliberal measures and so on, we will slowly approach the same the same the same authoritarian regime. Here I agree with a guy who is
Slavoj Žižek
usually dismissed as a right-winger but I appreciate him, Peter Sloterdijk. Who said this years ago. He said that Singapore is the future. This is where capitalism is moving. And I think this if anything gives us gives us a unique chance. Because we can sincerely say that as I always repeat this eternal marriage between capitalism and democracy is not as eternal as it may seem to be. Now it's clearly approaching a divorce. And that's what I found wonderful irony. My answer to Fukuyama is listen, maybe you were you were right, liberal capitalism won, but ex-communists turned out to be the best managers of this. Which is why, just a final point, this is my point. We are racist in a bad Eurocentric way when we dismiss this capitalism with Asian values countries as you know yeah because they are not so civilized they are more primitive they need some primitive authoritarian ideological structure to function. But when I was recently on our communist fourth meeting in Korea, Saroj Giri my Indian friend told me no that an investigation in India has shown that precisely these young managers whom you would have thought they are the tool of freedom, you know young successful postmodern digital guys and so on, that in their private lives they tend to be much more fundamentalist religious Hindu than otherwise. The problem is that the reference to the ethnic values and so on is already totally trans-functionalized by global by global capitalism. It's totally wrong to see that if we are western permissive liberal that we are somehow more more fit to practice digital capitalism. No we are if we remain at the level of capitalist dynamics we are lost. We have to and here I would say this is my reason maybe you again don't totally agree that I think maybe it's worth fighting for European legacy. I was shocked when I when I was in India and Saroj Giri gave me some documents how for example concerning English language. Do you know that the more you go up the social ladder, the Brahmin they talk all the time about Hindu traditions, Indian English colonialism is threatening us, the more you go down the more they are pro-English, the Dalits, the untouchables all like English. Why? Because as a foreign language it allows them an escape from all that Indian bullshit hierarchic traditions and so on and so on. And I think that this is the fundamental legacy of even capitalist modernity that we should accept. We have to lose our roots. We have to be wounded. Only in this way we can liberate ourselves. What do I mean with this, just my formula and then I go on. The example that I used often, that's why I admire Malcolm X. What did he do? You know Malcolm X, X stands for we don't have a family name, we were torn out of our African roots and so on. Okay, now how do you react to this? You have two ways. One is like that shitty TV series Roots, so let's go back and find our roots or whatever. Malcolm X's answer was exactly the opposite one. His reaction was not let's search for let's try to recapture our African roots. No, his answer was but this very mega trauma, we being cut off from our roots gives us a unique chance to be more modern than Europeans themselves. To build in this void a much more emancipatory universality and so on. And this is I think why I have a big mistrust of this idea local cultures traditions and so on are a defense against global capitalism. No, they are its perfect tool. The only way to break out of capitalism is to accept fully endorse this deracination, losing roots, universality. This would be my modern definition of Marxist proletarian position and so on and so on. No here I would agree, but first of all you mentioned the both you Bojan and you you mentioned Fukuyama several times. I would I would like to start with this and then answer your question actually to be to try to be not only pessimistic and pacifistic as you said but also constructive. I had the opportunity as I think Slavoj knows to to to meet Francis Fukuyama in Paris, I think it was We had a two-hour conversation or something like that. And you know at one point of time we of course spoke about the end of history. And I asked him do you really believe the end of history came? And you know
usually dismissed as a right-winger but I appreciate him, Peter Sloterdijk. Who said this years ago. He said that Singapore is the future. This is where capitalism is moving. And I think this if anything gives us gives us a unique chance. Because we can sincerely say that as I always repeat this eternal marriage between capitalism and democracy is not as eternal as it may seem to be. Now it's clearly approaching a divorce. And that's what I found wonderful irony. My answer to Fukuyama is listen, maybe you were you were right, liberal capitalism won, but ex-communists turned out to be the best managers of this. Which is why, just a final point, this is my point. We are racist in a bad Eurocentric way when we dismiss this capitalism with Asian values countries as you know yeah because they are not so civilized they are more primitive they need some primitive authoritarian ideological structure to function. But when I was recently on our communist fourth meeting in Korea, Saroj Giri my Indian friend told me no that an investigation in India has shown that precisely these young managers whom you would have thought they are the tool of freedom, you know young successful postmodern digital guys and so on, that in their private lives they tend to be much more fundamentalist religious Hindu than otherwise. The problem is that the reference to the ethnic values and so on is already totally trans-functionalized by global by global capitalism. It's totally wrong to see that if we are western permissive liberal that we are somehow more more fit to practice digital capitalism. No we are if we remain at the level of capitalist dynamics we are lost. We have to and here I would say this is my reason maybe you again don't totally agree that I think maybe it's worth fighting for European legacy. I was shocked when I when I was in India and Saroj Giri gave me some documents how for example concerning English language. Do you know that the more you go up the social ladder, the Brahmin they talk all the time about Hindu traditions, Indian English colonialism is threatening us, the more you go down the more they are pro-English, the Dalits, the untouchables all like English. Why? Because as a foreign language it allows them an escape from all that Indian bullshit hierarchic traditions and so on and so on. And I think that this is the fundamental legacy of even capitalist modernity that we should accept. We have to lose our roots. We have to be wounded. Only in this way we can liberate ourselves. What do I mean with this, just my formula and then I go on. The example that I used often, that's why I admire Malcolm X. What did he do? You know Malcolm X, X stands for we don't have a family name, we were torn out of our African roots and so on. Okay, now how do you react to this? You have two ways. One is like that shitty TV series Roots, so let's go back and find our roots or whatever. Malcolm X's answer was exactly the opposite one. His reaction was not let's search for let's try to recapture our African roots. No, his answer was but this very mega trauma, we being cut off from our roots gives us a unique chance to be more modern than Europeans themselves. To build in this void a much more emancipatory universality and so on. And this is I think why I have a big mistrust of this idea local cultures traditions and so on are a defense against global capitalism. No, they are its perfect tool. The only way to break out of capitalism is to accept fully endorse this deracination, losing roots, universality. This would be my modern definition of Marxist proletarian position and so on and so on. No here I would agree, but first of all you mentioned the both you Bojan and you you mentioned Fukuyama several times. I would I would like to start with this and then answer your question actually to be to try to be not only pessimistic and pacifistic as you said but also constructive. I had the opportunity as I think Slavoj knows to to to meet Francis Fukuyama in Paris, I think it was We had a two-hour conversation or something like that. And you know at one point of time we of course spoke about the end of history. And I asked him do you really believe the end of history came? And you know
unknown
what he
what he
unknown
said? I don't believe in it in it anymore because of two reasons. One
said? I don't believe in it in it anymore because of two reasons. One
unknown
is biogenetics... no, no, no, no, no. Here he mentioned only two other reasons. The first is right-wing extremism. He said this only one one month before Anders Breivik massacre. And here I agree actually with you that he still has this fantasy that right-wing extremism is not part of the system at the bottom of the
is biogenetics... no, no, no, no, no. Here he mentioned only two other reasons. The first is right-wing extremism. He said this only one one month before Anders Breivik massacre. And here I agree actually with you that he still has this fantasy that right-wing extremism is not part of the system at the bottom of the
Slavoj Žižek
system but that it's somehow outside which can you know ruin capitalism as such. And the second what he said that was very interesting. I asked him something about Al-Qaeda, do you think Al-Qaeda is still dangerous? And he said no I think China is even more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. What happened then is that I published this conversation in a in a famous Croatian not so
system but that it's somehow outside which can you know ruin capitalism as such. And the second what he said that was very interesting. I asked him something about Al-Qaeda, do you think Al-Qaeda is still dangerous? And he said no I think China is even more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. What happened then is that I published this conversation in a in a famous Croatian not so
unknown
famous but whatever actually now neoliberal weekly. After the interview the Chinese ambassador in Croatia gave a even bigger interview for for this weekly with a title 'Francis Fukuyama
famous but whatever actually now neoliberal weekly. After the interview the Chinese ambassador in Croatia gave a even bigger interview for for this weekly with a title 'Francis Fukuyama
Slavoj Žižek
is a banana man'. Which means we in China call all those people who are from outside yellow from inside white we call them banana
is a banana man'. Which means we in China call all those people who are from outside yellow from inside white we call them banana
unknown
people. And of course here I would be on Fukuyama's side because it's a completely racist argument without any coherence. And I would even go further and I would say actually that we should inverse this banana thesis or how to call it I don't know. That what we have today is that Europe is from outside, I don't know what's the fruit or vegetable for it, maybe you can remember, from outside it's white, from
people. And of course here I would be on Fukuyama's side because it's a completely racist argument without any coherence. And I would even go further and I would say actually that we should inverse this banana thesis or how to call it I don't know. That what we have today is that Europe is from outside, I don't know what's the fruit or vegetable for it, maybe you can remember, from outside it's white, from
Slavoj Žižek
inside it's yellow. I don't know if we have such a vegetable or not. What I claim to say is actually the same what you said
inside it's yellow. I don't know if we have such a vegetable or not. What I claim to say is actually the same what you said
unknown
in several of your texts is that the marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. What we have in Europe is actually capitalism without democracy as well. And here I turn to to your question to be more constructive. What I think was created in the last two years and of course Mike Davis in his article in New Left Review said at one point spring is the shortest season, but then he deconstructed not in the post-colonial way but he in a way criticized this thesis as well. I wouldn't say spring is the shortest season in that way. I think a lot of and I I really want to hear from you if you would agree actually that a lot of things were created
in several of your texts is that the marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. What we have in Europe is actually capitalism without democracy as well. And here I turn to to your question to be more constructive. What I think was created in the last two years and of course Mike Davis in his article in New Left Review said at one point spring is the shortest season, but then he deconstructed not in the post-colonial way but he in a way criticized this thesis as well. I wouldn't say spring is the shortest season in that way. I think a lot of and I I really want to hear from you if you would agree actually that a lot of things were created
Slavoj Žižek
maybe not in Slovenia maybe not in Croatia but what happened for example in Italy is Teatro Valle Occupato. It's a theater which which is occupied by by people who work in theater, by actors, by directors, choreographers and so on. In Greece you had the potato movement which may sound
maybe not in Slovenia maybe not in Croatia but what happened for example in Italy is Teatro Valle Occupato. It's a theater which which is occupied by by people who work in theater, by actors, by directors, choreographers and so on. In Greece you had the potato movement which may sound
unknown
ridiculous but for example in Croatia you could need a potato movement to
ridiculous but for example in Croatia you could need a potato movement to
Slavoj Žižek
get rid of this Todorić guy. You know it's it's a very simple idea, you don't sell the fruit to a distributor to a shopping mall but you sell it as in communist times remember you know when Roma people were coming to our apartments and screaming krumpira krumpira, you know you sell the vegetables directly to the people. You have for example okay this is not a result of of the movements you have Mondragon which is the fourth most powerful corporation in Spain which functions not as self-management as we knew it but as a sort of cooperative. And last but not least of course we have SYRIZA in Greece. So what we have actually in Greece and of course currently there are some some people even criticize you that you are a social democrat which I wouldn't agree of course. They say SYRIZA is now social democratic party because they want to grab the power. But what you have in Greece is actually that really a powerful force was created after the occupations unlike the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York unlike the occupations in Slovenia unlike the occupations in Croatia. So to conclude to answer your question is that what we have to do what is to be done is not only have the movements and not only have political parties. And I'm not fetishizing as many leftists do Latin America but but but the the participatory budget in Porto Alegre was created not because only of a movement but because they had also a political party. Of course Lula and so on afterwards. But why don't you would you be ready to go a step further and say not only movements not only political parties but state power where possible. Of course exactly that's what I'm saying. With all that comes now... here I don't agree no no not with Gulag and so on. Not with Gulag but a modest secret police, let me... But there is something you propose in this book here and and this is the last comment. I give you three minutes to make because we want to... but you know I fight metaphysical linear notion of time. So three minutes... No but he is like you know our some other friend with whom I... it's very short it's very short. One of the the arguments and the articles in this book is the is called Margaret Thatcher of the Left where you advocate this idea that we need Margaret Thatcher at the left or you ask for a new Master. So I find it very provocative and can you share with us before we open the floor to the audience? Nonetheless if I can answer quickly I agree with your fruit metaphor no. What's the fruit? No my fruit is watermelon of course. What? Green and red inside no. We pretend to be green mother nature blah blah we are red inside. But you mention Joschka Fischer and Cohn-Bendit? Sorry then you have Joschka Fischer and Cohn-Bendit or no? They are traitors both. They are they are unripe melon. Green a little bit red and then white in the middle so don't mention them. But nonetheless I want to make clear one point. You know with all and we are right criticizing radically Europe and so on. What I nonetheless insist and we simply shouldn't forget it is that even the tools with which the way we criticize Europe is come out of European legacy. For example my friend Bülent Somay from Turkey who will defend this Friday his doctor's thesis gives in his book a wonderful in his thesis The Orient Does Not Exist a wonderful example how in Turkey you had in the last decades against the Kemalist enforced modernization a movement of middle-class Muslim women who provoking the official ban on being veiled insist of having their right to wear veils. And he is right to point out that this is absolutely not simply a return to tradition. Of course it as to its content it may appear. But the way they do it it's a typical postmodern even identity politics stuff, you know we want to be recognized to show ourselves the way we want and so on and so on. And so again we should always be attentive to this. That Europe is always giving us at the same time the tools to criticize Europe itself. This is I mean what by Europe I mean what I mean precisely this universalist legacy and so on. And from here I draw a radical conclusion. My
get rid of this Todorić guy. You know it's it's a very simple idea, you don't sell the fruit to a distributor to a shopping mall but you sell it as in communist times remember you know when Roma people were coming to our apartments and screaming krumpira krumpira, you know you sell the vegetables directly to the people. You have for example okay this is not a result of of the movements you have Mondragon which is the fourth most powerful corporation in Spain which functions not as self-management as we knew it but as a sort of cooperative. And last but not least of course we have SYRIZA in Greece. So what we have actually in Greece and of course currently there are some some people even criticize you that you are a social democrat which I wouldn't agree of course. They say SYRIZA is now social democratic party because they want to grab the power. But what you have in Greece is actually that really a powerful force was created after the occupations unlike the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York unlike the occupations in Slovenia unlike the occupations in Croatia. So to conclude to answer your question is that what we have to do what is to be done is not only have the movements and not only have political parties. And I'm not fetishizing as many leftists do Latin America but but but the the participatory budget in Porto Alegre was created not because only of a movement but because they had also a political party. Of course Lula and so on afterwards. But why don't you would you be ready to go a step further and say not only movements not only political parties but state power where possible. Of course exactly that's what I'm saying. With all that comes now... here I don't agree no no not with Gulag and so on. Not with Gulag but a modest secret police, let me... But there is something you propose in this book here and and this is the last comment. I give you three minutes to make because we want to... but you know I fight metaphysical linear notion of time. So three minutes... No but he is like you know our some other friend with whom I... it's very short it's very short. One of the the arguments and the articles in this book is the is called Margaret Thatcher of the Left where you advocate this idea that we need Margaret Thatcher at the left or you ask for a new Master. So I find it very provocative and can you share with us before we open the floor to the audience? Nonetheless if I can answer quickly I agree with your fruit metaphor no. What's the fruit? No my fruit is watermelon of course. What? Green and red inside no. We pretend to be green mother nature blah blah we are red inside. But you mention Joschka Fischer and Cohn-Bendit? Sorry then you have Joschka Fischer and Cohn-Bendit or no? They are traitors both. They are they are unripe melon. Green a little bit red and then white in the middle so don't mention them. But nonetheless I want to make clear one point. You know with all and we are right criticizing radically Europe and so on. What I nonetheless insist and we simply shouldn't forget it is that even the tools with which the way we criticize Europe is come out of European legacy. For example my friend Bülent Somay from Turkey who will defend this Friday his doctor's thesis gives in his book a wonderful in his thesis The Orient Does Not Exist a wonderful example how in Turkey you had in the last decades against the Kemalist enforced modernization a movement of middle-class Muslim women who provoking the official ban on being veiled insist of having their right to wear veils. And he is right to point out that this is absolutely not simply a return to tradition. Of course it as to its content it may appear. But the way they do it it's a typical postmodern even identity politics stuff, you know we want to be recognized to show ourselves the way we want and so on and so on. And so again we should always be attentive to this. That Europe is always giving us at the same time the tools to criticize Europe itself. This is I mean what by Europe I mean what I mean precisely this universalist legacy and so on. And from here I draw a radical conclusion. My
unknown
conclusion is that the defenders of Europe today, the European right-wing anti-immigrants. I think we should not simply attack them from some vague universal oh you are too European you don't see we are part of a global world. No, why to to to leave to them why to allow them to monopolize the the word Europe. I would have said no they are the true threat to Europe. Can you imagine Europe where people like name them like Le Pen and Haider and Berlusconi rule. This would no longer be Europe if by Europe we mean
conclusion is that the defenders of Europe today, the European right-wing anti-immigrants. I think we should not simply attack them from some vague universal oh you are too European you don't see we are part of a global world. No, why to to to leave to them why to allow them to monopolize the the word Europe. I would have said no they are the true threat to Europe. Can you imagine Europe where people like name them like Le Pen and Haider and Berlusconi rule. This would no longer be Europe if by Europe we mean
Slavoj Žižek
what was great in
what was great in
unknown
Europe. So we should nonetheless fight for Europe they are the true threat to Europe. Don't the my point here is don't it's the same paradox that I like to repeat apropos for example family values. The usual left-liberal reply is, you want to ask a question? Yeah later on. Okay but you are noted by the authorities and so on and the secret police. No, sorry, what I want to say is the same with family values. I hate when leftists just reply family values oh reactionary Christian notion we need open marriages whatever. No my answer to conservatives is, but who are you to dare to talk about family values. The neoliberal politics did more to destroy authentic family life than my god than than all the gay rights activists together or whatever. You know that's my point. So but nonetheless to go on with that You Master. No I was even shocked that my text provoked such a violent reaction because my first argument would be purely empirical. Show me one radical emancipatory movement which didn't which didn't which didn't generate a leader figure. Like people told me in Venezuela it's wonderful in cooperatives people taking over blah blah. Yes because you have Chávez up on the top there and so on. And what I claim is that what I try to do maybe it's risky. I will try to do it now. Is to formulate the notion of what very naively I don't go into high theory now, what I would have called an authentic Master. As opposed to authoritarian bad Master. Bad master is the one who gives orders, who deprives you of your freedom, no. The bad master is who tells you like ora et labora, work and pray. Pray celebrate me. Or Erdoğan in Turkey. Wonderful I read in Bülent Somay's thesis. You know what was its wonderful the electoral mott slogan of Erdoğan's this Islamist party. Shop and pray. It's wonderful like consumerism plus a little bit of Muslim identity and so on. No so authentic master sorry the fake master is like Stalinists. They know better than you what is good for you and they are ready to enforce it on you. But for me an authentic master is the one who just gives you a kick to
Europe. So we should nonetheless fight for Europe they are the true threat to Europe. Don't the my point here is don't it's the same paradox that I like to repeat apropos for example family values. The usual left-liberal reply is, you want to ask a question? Yeah later on. Okay but you are noted by the authorities and so on and the secret police. No, sorry, what I want to say is the same with family values. I hate when leftists just reply family values oh reactionary Christian notion we need open marriages whatever. No my answer to conservatives is, but who are you to dare to talk about family values. The neoliberal politics did more to destroy authentic family life than my god than than all the gay rights activists together or whatever. You know that's my point. So but nonetheless to go on with that You Master. No I was even shocked that my text provoked such a violent reaction because my first argument would be purely empirical. Show me one radical emancipatory movement which didn't which didn't which didn't generate a leader figure. Like people told me in Venezuela it's wonderful in cooperatives people taking over blah blah. Yes because you have Chávez up on the top there and so on. And what I claim is that what I try to do maybe it's risky. I will try to do it now. Is to formulate the notion of what very naively I don't go into high theory now, what I would have called an authentic Master. As opposed to authoritarian bad Master. Bad master is the one who gives orders, who deprives you of your freedom, no. The bad master is who tells you like ora et labora, work and pray. Pray celebrate me. Or Erdoğan in Turkey. Wonderful I read in Bülent Somay's thesis. You know what was its wonderful the electoral mott slogan of Erdoğan's this Islamist party. Shop and pray. It's wonderful like consumerism plus a little bit of Muslim identity and so on. No so authentic master sorry the fake master is like Stalinists. They know better than you what is good for you and they are ready to enforce it on you. But for me an authentic master is the one who just gives you a kick to
unknown
return yourself to your like even with all the horrors of Cultural Revolution I always found touching you know that famous message from the beginning of Cultural Revolution when Mao wrote to students You have the right to rebel. That's for me the message of a true Master. You the true Master simply tells you You can. You can do it. You can do the impossible. And I claim for reasons that I will not go into theory now that somebody has to kick you from outside. I don't believe in autonomous subjectivity in the sense of you know you become aware of your freedom. No. Because when people claim I call for a new authority master I tell them your mistake is that you think that in our society which is allegedly without masters that you are free. But you are not free. Our paradox today is precisely our consumerist individualism however we call it it's a kind of a conformist resigned cynical blindness. And for me again the message of a master is just this one and this is what an authentic master does. Just the message is You can do it. Do it. It just calls you up to your freedom. What happens after I don't know. Many masters then go crazy and begin to believe that they are really masters so we liquidate them. I find no problem in that I mean. But you know what I mean, my pessimism is in this that I don't believe in this liberal autonomous notion of autonomous freedom you become aware of your freedom. No. Liberal individualist freedom I will be very radical here is precisely the very form we experience our non-freedom today. And that's why if I may make another jump that's why I find like
return yourself to your like even with all the horrors of Cultural Revolution I always found touching you know that famous message from the beginning of Cultural Revolution when Mao wrote to students You have the right to rebel. That's for me the message of a true Master. You the true Master simply tells you You can. You can do it. You can do the impossible. And I claim for reasons that I will not go into theory now that somebody has to kick you from outside. I don't believe in autonomous subjectivity in the sense of you know you become aware of your freedom. No. Because when people claim I call for a new authority master I tell them your mistake is that you think that in our society which is allegedly without masters that you are free. But you are not free. Our paradox today is precisely our consumerist individualism however we call it it's a kind of a conformist resigned cynical blindness. And for me again the message of a master is just this one and this is what an authentic master does. Just the message is You can do it. Do it. It just calls you up to your freedom. What happens after I don't know. Many masters then go crazy and begin to believe that they are really masters so we liquidate them. I find no problem in that I mean. But you know what I mean, my pessimism is in this that I don't believe in this liberal autonomous notion of autonomous freedom you become aware of your freedom. No. Liberal individualist freedom I will be very radical here is precisely the very form we experience our non-freedom today. And that's why if I may make another jump that's why I find like
Slavoj Žižek
Edward Snowden's revelations so important. It's not simply anti-Americanism. I'm well aware that for example that China is much worse
Edward Snowden's revelations so important. It's not simply anti-Americanism. I'm well aware that for example that China is much worse
unknown
at the level of how free you feel than United States. I
at the level of how free you feel than United States. I
Slavoj Žižek
mean but China has cynically one privilege. No one there even thinks that
mean but China has cynically one privilege. No one there even thinks that
unknown
they are free. Everyone knows you have Politburo standing you know who is the boss. The importance of Snowden is
they are free. Everyone knows you have Politburo standing you know who is the boss. The importance of Snowden is
unknown
that he showed us how there can be an extraordinary level of control regulation in a country where you are simply not aware of it, where you simply think that you are that you are free you don't see it and we can be controlled. That's that's the that's the
that he showed us how there can be an extraordinary level of control regulation in a country where you are simply not aware of it, where you simply think that you are that you are free you don't see it and we can be controlled. That's that's the that's the
Slavoj Žižek
importance of of his thing. So no I'm not calling for new Stalin or whatever. I just don't think that late my god this horrible term I will use late capitalist bourgeois individualism narcissistic subjectivity I don't think that this form of freedom is enough. I think that that you have to be as it were kicked out of it. You need an external... And on that note, external, the audience students have the right to ask. But now I talk as a Stalinist. But we speak for them, we know better. We already explained to them what is good for them. Okay sorry. Let's have three questions, collect them so that you have enough material. So we can not answer some questions of course. Yes. Okay so don't you think that the main error of the left nowadays is just focusing on the political correctness and tolerance rather than the economic situation? Because like I think most people don't really care and they are mostly neutral if like as regards the gay marriages and so on. But what they care is that they are unemployed. So given that the left is focusing on the gay rights and minorities' rights, they don't really like you know what I mean like left is just going into the wrong direction their emphasis is quite wrong. More questions are there... I have a great interest in a country which perhaps feels even more peripheral than the former republic of Yugoslavia, that's Bulgaria. Recently in BBC Radio they reported that of all medical students at Sofia University were planning to leave the country. You have a political vacuum there which has been created over a long long period, created tremendous cynicism which I would say is even more dangerous to that country than the extreme nationalism. There are demonstrations counter-demonstrations a bit like your bourgeois festival that you were describing. On the one hand and the counter-demonstrations which are paid paid for by the main parties of in power. And there is also I'm just I don't know how many Bulgarians there may be here perhaps there's somebody who knows Bulgaria better than I can. But there is an increasing paranoia being created on both sides by Russian influence the threat of Russian incursion economic interest in Bulgaria but also a tremendous amount of traditional racism against Turks which is a significant minority in Bulgaria already. What do you have any views on Bulgaria? Did you speak with Bulgarians about Macedonia? There how how do they relate to that. That's for me always the traumatic point. Do they admit the autonomy or they they treat Macedonians are their own as their own such pieces? Most Bulgarians obviously I mean you know you know the answer to this, most Bulgarians will see Macedonians as being Bulgarians as well. So they are not just victims no. They also have their own small... If you go to Macedonia you will see very very quick, if you go to Skopje you will see in their monuments fantastic projection of quite a lot... There I totally agree it's like it should be bombed. I mean there I would support NATO bombing of... Let's have another question so that here in... Thank you. Costas Douzinas yesterday during a book presentation here in London referred to the three main factors that must to be meet in order to in order to see an overthrow to you know to become real in a political overthrow. The first factor is strong political desire. The second factor is a very concrete radical political object... Sorry what do you mean by object? Program or what? Program, political platform and of course a party. Okay in the end. And the third factor according to... yesterday was a catalyst that is going to you know is going to work in order to help the other two factors to to see this overthrow to become real. So according to your point of view, Srećko and Slavoj as well, what is this catalyst for you in order to see an overthrow in a national but most importantly in a European level? Behind you there was another question. Fuck you you said three questions now is the fourth here. Yes. Just because the microphone was here. Yeah yeah this opportunist social democratic excuses yes. So this could be for the whole panel. Um you said economy you have to look at the economy and I would say this is the only way you can make sense of any of these questions. Uh you say austerity doesn't make any sense, which is true, because it ends up undermining the stability it's meant to prop up. But it's also clearly necessary for states to maintain their credit rating so that it can maintain quantitative easing and so the crisis doesn't happen again. I mean all of these political questions can sort of be pushed aside I think a bit when you have the the fact that um over the past years state debt to GDP ratios have risen pretty consistently um even during boom times. And like in from to US public debt rose from to of GDP. So what you have to say about that. I mean austerity is necessary but what what's the future? Yeah. You begin. No no no no. That that was you know when when you have to pay lunch then you say you begin and then I say no no please Slavoj. No no but but I will pay the lunch. Anyway, the first question very short answer: Yes. Because that that was the thing we were speaking all the time about, you know how political correctness and all these cultural identities and everything is actually you know if you don't think about political economy then you don't have you don't have the right critique anymore. But on the other hand as I said I think today we are in such dark times that we have to take care also of of other problems. The second question regarding Bulgaria and cultural heritage. Here I must be a bit you know skeptical and cynical as well. You know yes Serbia has a great cultural heritage but you know what's the product, the product is the rehabilitation of of the Četnici and so on. And I don't know if Bojan would agree, you know of the collaborators of fascism. Yes Croatia has a great cultural heritage but you know it was the country one of the ex-republics of Yugoslavia which had the biggest rate of destroyed anti-fascist monuments. So you have no anti-fascist cultural heritage anymore. You can add yeah. Let me add because I was in in Dubrovnik this summer and I was glad to read this review recently again which suggested people not to go to Dubrovnik. It's a beautiful place but it is destroyed by over-development and particularly these neoliberalist monopolist Konzum Todo-rich type of guys. You have four kinds of shops, you think you're in the labyrinth you go there are three shops and then suddenly the same shop comes again. And in Dubrovnik it's all in hands of four people. You cannot get anything handmade or produced locally in the whole city of Dubrovnik. It's a torture of neoliberal capitalism. So you know these heritage is a two-sided sword so to speak. No in a way it's a tool to get more money on the other hand it's a tool for for a legitimization of different sorts of whatever. But but the the I will come back to the catalyst actually I will ask you a question because obviously me and Slavoj weren't there at our friend's debate. What was the the answer of Costas? Who is the
importance of of his thing. So no I'm not calling for new Stalin or whatever. I just don't think that late my god this horrible term I will use late capitalist bourgeois individualism narcissistic subjectivity I don't think that this form of freedom is enough. I think that that you have to be as it were kicked out of it. You need an external... And on that note, external, the audience students have the right to ask. But now I talk as a Stalinist. But we speak for them, we know better. We already explained to them what is good for them. Okay sorry. Let's have three questions, collect them so that you have enough material. So we can not answer some questions of course. Yes. Okay so don't you think that the main error of the left nowadays is just focusing on the political correctness and tolerance rather than the economic situation? Because like I think most people don't really care and they are mostly neutral if like as regards the gay marriages and so on. But what they care is that they are unemployed. So given that the left is focusing on the gay rights and minorities' rights, they don't really like you know what I mean like left is just going into the wrong direction their emphasis is quite wrong. More questions are there... I have a great interest in a country which perhaps feels even more peripheral than the former republic of Yugoslavia, that's Bulgaria. Recently in BBC Radio they reported that of all medical students at Sofia University were planning to leave the country. You have a political vacuum there which has been created over a long long period, created tremendous cynicism which I would say is even more dangerous to that country than the extreme nationalism. There are demonstrations counter-demonstrations a bit like your bourgeois festival that you were describing. On the one hand and the counter-demonstrations which are paid paid for by the main parties of in power. And there is also I'm just I don't know how many Bulgarians there may be here perhaps there's somebody who knows Bulgaria better than I can. But there is an increasing paranoia being created on both sides by Russian influence the threat of Russian incursion economic interest in Bulgaria but also a tremendous amount of traditional racism against Turks which is a significant minority in Bulgaria already. What do you have any views on Bulgaria? Did you speak with Bulgarians about Macedonia? There how how do they relate to that. That's for me always the traumatic point. Do they admit the autonomy or they they treat Macedonians are their own as their own such pieces? Most Bulgarians obviously I mean you know you know the answer to this, most Bulgarians will see Macedonians as being Bulgarians as well. So they are not just victims no. They also have their own small... If you go to Macedonia you will see very very quick, if you go to Skopje you will see in their monuments fantastic projection of quite a lot... There I totally agree it's like it should be bombed. I mean there I would support NATO bombing of... Let's have another question so that here in... Thank you. Costas Douzinas yesterday during a book presentation here in London referred to the three main factors that must to be meet in order to in order to see an overthrow to you know to become real in a political overthrow. The first factor is strong political desire. The second factor is a very concrete radical political object... Sorry what do you mean by object? Program or what? Program, political platform and of course a party. Okay in the end. And the third factor according to... yesterday was a catalyst that is going to you know is going to work in order to help the other two factors to to see this overthrow to become real. So according to your point of view, Srećko and Slavoj as well, what is this catalyst for you in order to see an overthrow in a national but most importantly in a European level? Behind you there was another question. Fuck you you said three questions now is the fourth here. Yes. Just because the microphone was here. Yeah yeah this opportunist social democratic excuses yes. So this could be for the whole panel. Um you said economy you have to look at the economy and I would say this is the only way you can make sense of any of these questions. Uh you say austerity doesn't make any sense, which is true, because it ends up undermining the stability it's meant to prop up. But it's also clearly necessary for states to maintain their credit rating so that it can maintain quantitative easing and so the crisis doesn't happen again. I mean all of these political questions can sort of be pushed aside I think a bit when you have the the fact that um over the past years state debt to GDP ratios have risen pretty consistently um even during boom times. And like in from to US public debt rose from to of GDP. So what you have to say about that. I mean austerity is necessary but what what's the future? Yeah. You begin. No no no no. That that was you know when when you have to pay lunch then you say you begin and then I say no no please Slavoj. No no but but I will pay the lunch. Anyway, the first question very short answer: Yes. Because that that was the thing we were speaking all the time about, you know how political correctness and all these cultural identities and everything is actually you know if you don't think about political economy then you don't have you don't have the right critique anymore. But on the other hand as I said I think today we are in such dark times that we have to take care also of of other problems. The second question regarding Bulgaria and cultural heritage. Here I must be a bit you know skeptical and cynical as well. You know yes Serbia has a great cultural heritage but you know what's the product, the product is the rehabilitation of of the Četnici and so on. And I don't know if Bojan would agree, you know of the collaborators of fascism. Yes Croatia has a great cultural heritage but you know it was the country one of the ex-republics of Yugoslavia which had the biggest rate of destroyed anti-fascist monuments. So you have no anti-fascist cultural heritage anymore. You can add yeah. Let me add because I was in in Dubrovnik this summer and I was glad to read this review recently again which suggested people not to go to Dubrovnik. It's a beautiful place but it is destroyed by over-development and particularly these neoliberalist monopolist Konzum Todo-rich type of guys. You have four kinds of shops, you think you're in the labyrinth you go there are three shops and then suddenly the same shop comes again. And in Dubrovnik it's all in hands of four people. You cannot get anything handmade or produced locally in the whole city of Dubrovnik. It's a torture of neoliberal capitalism. So you know these heritage is a two-sided sword so to speak. No in a way it's a tool to get more money on the other hand it's a tool for for a legitimization of different sorts of whatever. But but the the I will come back to the catalyst actually I will ask you a question because obviously me and Slavoj weren't there at our friend's debate. What was the the answer of Costas? Who is the
unknown
catalyst? He didn't... he didn't answer. So you will ask him. Catalyst were social forces. Social forces. But as I said I think without social forces without a political party and a party without social
catalyst? He didn't... he didn't answer. So you will ask him. Catalyst were social forces. Social forces. But as I said I think without social forces without a political party and a party without social
Slavoj Žižek
forces that was the biggest
forces that was the biggest
unknown
mistake of the of the left movement I think in the past years. The answer behind and then I will pass the floor to to Slavoj. I think credit... the ideology of credit rating is pure bullshit, you know. You need to get a better credit rating in in order to get an even bigger debt. And our friend Maurizio Lazzarato has written a lot about and you know what the biggest banks in the US before the financial meltdown had the best credit rating just few days before the financial meltdown. So I think the credit rating
mistake of the of the left movement I think in the past years. The answer behind and then I will pass the floor to to Slavoj. I think credit... the ideology of credit rating is pure bullshit, you know. You need to get a better credit rating in in order to get an even bigger debt. And our friend Maurizio Lazzarato has written a lot about and you know what the biggest banks in the US before the financial meltdown had the best credit rating just few days before the financial meltdown. So I think the credit rating
unknown
and if you if you read books about the history of credit rating agencies you will see they rule the world actually with with
and if you if you read books about the history of credit rating agencies you will see they rule the world actually with with
Slavoj Žižek
the credit rating and that it is pure ideology which doesn't
the credit rating and that it is pure ideology which doesn't
unknown
make it doesn't have any any any
make it doesn't have any any any
Slavoj Žižek
connection with the GDP and so on. I mean it's like statistics when they speak about the GDP doesn't make any connection with the real lives of people in in some country. Slavoj. Okay, very briefly. I will try. Yes, I agree this point about credit I would even say that what I like in Lazzarato, yeah his book on the rise of the indebted man, is that he shows very well and we
connection with the GDP and so on. I mean it's like statistics when they speak about the GDP doesn't make any connection with the real lives of people in in some country. Slavoj. Okay, very briefly. I will try. Yes, I agree this point about credit I would even say that what I like in Lazzarato, yeah his book on the rise of the indebted man, is that he shows very well and we
unknown
should always be aware of it. This is a wonderful example of credit all the credit problem of the psychoanalytic notion of superego where you know it's like when they put pressure on you all the time repay your debt, repay your debt. They don't really want you to repay your debt. The whole point is to keep you in an internal under an internal pressure, it's an it's an ideal tool of permanent control, slavery and so on and so on. Do you know this debt? Control keeping you how are you meeting your debt and so on and so forth. And what Lazzarato also does, I will develop this in my new book referring to him, is how it's even at a personal level. We have it here already. At least Lazzarato yeah. A me... oh really? Oh my god. Okay whatever. No what I like is this idea of how even at a personal level today precisely the fact that all of us are more or less indebted enables a wonderful ideological operation. That all of us are, you know in old capitalism Marxism some of us were bourgeois some of us were workers or whatever. But we were all
should always be aware of it. This is a wonderful example of credit all the credit problem of the psychoanalytic notion of superego where you know it's like when they put pressure on you all the time repay your debt, repay your debt. They don't really want you to repay your debt. The whole point is to keep you in an internal under an internal pressure, it's an it's an ideal tool of permanent control, slavery and so on and so on. Do you know this debt? Control keeping you how are you meeting your debt and so on and so forth. And what Lazzarato also does, I will develop this in my new book referring to him, is how it's even at a personal level. We have it here already. At least Lazzarato yeah. A me... oh really? Oh my god. Okay whatever. No what I like is this idea of how even at a personal level today precisely the fact that all of us are more or less indebted enables a wonderful ideological operation. That all of us are, you know in old capitalism Marxism some of us were bourgeois some of us were workers or whatever. But we were all
Slavoj Žižek
formally equal as free citizens and so on. Now in the latest stage of ideology we are all capitalists. In what way? The key term here of this ideology is self-entrepreneurship. The idea is that let's say
formally equal as free citizens and so on. Now in the latest stage of ideology we are all capitalists. In what way? The key term here of this ideology is self-entrepreneurship. The idea is that let's say
unknown
you are a father of a family and you borrow money and then you can decide will you
you are a father of a family and you borrow money and then you can decide will you
Slavoj Žižek
invest it into your health, into your son's or daughter's education or whatever. The idea is that you are here dealing as a small capitalist. That through allocating your
invest it into your health, into your son's or daughter's education or whatever. The idea is that you are here dealing as a small capitalist. That through allocating your
unknown
debts
debts
Slavoj Žižek
you are basically at a smaller level the same as a big capitalist, you know. So you see I'm
you are basically at a smaller level the same as a big capitalist, you know. So you see I'm
unknown
simplifying it now but you know the idea is
simplifying it now but you know the idea is
Slavoj Žižek
then what's the problem?
then what's the problem?
unknown
There are no workers we are all capitalists we are just investing differently and so on and so on. It's a it's a wonderful... Can I just add two things to this. You know you will like the first thing, when I was one month ago in India, you know they they still have this good old colonialist habit they they put the newspapers under your door in the hotel room. But here I'm for colonialism, yeah yeah. Yeah yeah here I am as well because you can see what the enemy is is doing. So I got
There are no workers we are all capitalists we are just investing differently and so on and so on. It's a it's a wonderful... Can I just add two things to this. You know you will like the first thing, when I was one month ago in India, you know they they still have this good old colonialist habit they they put the newspapers under your door in the hotel room. But here I'm for colonialism, yeah yeah. Yeah yeah here I am as well because you can see what the enemy is is doing. So I got
Slavoj Žižek
the newspaper at seven in the morning anyway, it was the daily edition of Times of India, on the
the newspaper at seven in the morning anyway, it was the daily edition of Times of India, on the
unknown
cover page there was only one one motto: Every Indian can be an entrepreneur. It's exactly the thing what you are saying. And the other point I don't know if you've seen what what the King of of of Holland was was saying, I think it was two days, two months ago. So he gave an official address of the government on the national television to the Dutch people and he
cover page there was only one one motto: Every Indian can be an entrepreneur. It's exactly the thing what you are saying. And the other point I don't know if you've seen what what the King of of of Holland was was saying, I think it was two days, two months ago. So he gave an official address of the government on the national television to the Dutch people and he
Slavoj Žižek
said the welfare state is dead and what we have instead of
said the welfare state is dead and what we have instead of
unknown
the welfare
the welfare
Slavoj Žižek
state is the participation society. What it means is
state is the participation society. What it means is
unknown
that we we cannot rely on the state anymore. Everyone has to be as you said a small capitalist: If you want healthcare you have to buy it, if you want social security you have to buy it and so on. So I think these two examples actually confirm what you just said. And again the wonderful thing is that this way of being deprived of your freedom is then presented to you as a new freedom, like you know it's not just decided by state your welfare but you are free to choose: Do you want more welfare security, do you want more amusement or whatever. Yes, speaking about what you said the first question just briefly: Political correctness, tolerance, left. I agree with you. I would just like to add
that we we cannot rely on the state anymore. Everyone has to be as you said a small capitalist: If you want healthcare you have to buy it, if you want social security you have to buy it and so on. So I think these two examples actually confirm what you just said. And again the wonderful thing is that this way of being deprived of your freedom is then presented to you as a new freedom, like you know it's not just decided by state your welfare but you are free to choose: Do you want more welfare security, do you want more amusement or whatever. Yes, speaking about what you said the first question just briefly: Political correctness, tolerance, left. I agree with you. I would just like to add
unknown
your thing that one thing that you know as I often repeat the very term tolerance is suspicious here for me. Because I don't think it's a term we should use. Let's not you know I find it very suspicious how today every anti-sexist anti-racist struggle is automatically translated into the terms of tolerance. I don't find this necessary. Let's take a big example we all agree he was a great guy, Martin Luther King. I always repeat it: Go to the web, to the net and download his speeches and put that search find whatever, and you will see he never uses the term tolerance. It would have been humiliating for me to say what we blacks want more tolerance from white people or whatever. It's ridiculous. Tolerance... racism is translated into tolerance at a very precise moment when economy is depoliticized, you
your thing that one thing that you know as I often repeat the very term tolerance is suspicious here for me. Because I don't think it's a term we should use. Let's not you know I find it very suspicious how today every anti-sexist anti-racist struggle is automatically translated into the terms of tolerance. I don't find this necessary. Let's take a big example we all agree he was a great guy, Martin Luther King. I always repeat it: Go to the web, to the net and download his speeches and put that search find whatever, and you will see he never uses the term tolerance. It would have been humiliating for me to say what we blacks want more tolerance from white people or whatever. It's ridiculous. Tolerance... racism is translated into tolerance at a very precise moment when economy is depoliticized, you
unknown
are not allowed to talk about class issues, so all of a sudden instead of talking about legal, economic conditions of racism it become it becomes a kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic topic, you know. Why don't I tolerate you? What trauma of myself did I project onto you? So let's do collective psychoanalysis or what. Here I'm definitely anti-Freudian if this is it no. Just this point: Bulgaria. Yes I agree with your line, you
are not allowed to talk about class issues, so all of a sudden instead of talking about legal, economic conditions of racism it become it becomes a kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic topic, you know. Why don't I tolerate you? What trauma of myself did I project onto you? So let's do collective psychoanalysis or what. Here I'm definitely anti-Freudian if this is it no. Just this point: Bulgaria. Yes I agree with your line, you
unknown
know I wouldn't put Bulgaria in such a desperate position. What I'm always trying to think along the lines of line of political thinkers that I like from ancient Chinese legalists to to Malcolm X is to see things which may appear as weakness as an advantage. The way you describe Bulgaria. It can be a bad thing but maybe it it gives them much more freedom to reinvent themselves. Because I think that again the way we can boast also we Slovenes middle European traditions all that. But I think this doesn't help us a lot maybe it's even an obstacle. But I cannot resist that's
know I wouldn't put Bulgaria in such a desperate position. What I'm always trying to think along the lines of line of political thinkers that I like from ancient Chinese legalists to to Malcolm X is to see things which may appear as weakness as an advantage. The way you describe Bulgaria. It can be a bad thing but maybe it it gives them much more freedom to reinvent themselves. Because I think that again the way we can boast also we Slovenes middle European traditions all that. But I think this doesn't help us a lot maybe it's even an obstacle. But I cannot resist that's
unknown
my evil nature to tell you maybe you know it a wonderful story about Bulgaria. I read two three years ago it's not about Bulgaria it's about Western European racism really. I you know when Slovenia become member of European Union and some other new states some British newspaper did the
my evil nature to tell you maybe you know it a wonderful story about Bulgaria. I read two three years ago it's not about Bulgaria it's about Western European racism really. I you know when Slovenia become member of European Union and some other new states some British newspaper did the
unknown
opinion
opinion
unknown
poll about Western among British population which are the features that they identify a new member of European Union with. You know what were the two features most popular in identifying Bulgaria and I like it. The first one is you know don't they have that's the myth I'm talking about racism now. Don't you have in Bulgaria those people who are years old but if because they drink the right yogurt they still can fuck and so on and all that so that's the one thing about Bulgaria. The other is you remember in the 70s or what that well-known incident with Bulgarian umbrella you know. Everyone remembers Bulgarian... so I would say to Bulgarian friends why don't you start to produce those poisoning umbrellas and so on whatever. And the yogurt. And the yogurt, yogurt revolution yes and umbrellas. No but I'm quite serious. Maybe you know all these countries. I mean
poll about Western among British population which are the features that they identify a new member of European Union with. You know what were the two features most popular in identifying Bulgaria and I like it. The first one is you know don't they have that's the myth I'm talking about racism now. Don't you have in Bulgaria those people who are years old but if because they drink the right yogurt they still can fuck and so on and all that so that's the one thing about Bulgaria. The other is you remember in the 70s or what that well-known incident with Bulgarian umbrella you know. Everyone remembers Bulgarian... so I would say to Bulgarian friends why don't you start to produce those poisoning umbrellas and so on whatever. And the yogurt. And the yogurt, yogurt revolution yes and umbrellas. No but I'm quite serious. Maybe you know all these countries. I mean
Slavoj Žižek
really big tradition can be can be a burden. And what appears as a victim what can appear as a weakness can also always be can also always be a resort. The only thing I have a problem is when you mention this anti-Turkish resentment no. It got me into a lot of trouble with Turkish leftists when I emphasized you know my youth our youth... okay I'm older than you I remember it. How we were taught again and again Turks occupiers terrorizing us Slavic nations and so on. But if we look closely it was much different you know like according to all normal standards Turks were relatively relatively relatively easy soft occupiers. Like they never crushed the Christians, you just I think you had to pay a
really big tradition can be can be a burden. And what appears as a victim what can appear as a weakness can also always be can also always be a resort. The only thing I have a problem is when you mention this anti-Turkish resentment no. It got me into a lot of trouble with Turkish leftists when I emphasized you know my youth our youth... okay I'm older than you I remember it. How we were taught again and again Turks occupiers terrorizing us Slavic nations and so on. But if we look closely it was much different you know like according to all normal standards Turks were relatively relatively relatively easy soft occupiers. Like they never crushed the Christians, you just I think you had to pay a
unknown
little
little
Slavoj Žižek
bit more as in Muslim states a little bit more of a of a tax or whatever, but it was relatively open. I mean one thing I always quote it can give you the message I want to deliver. Only in comparison to Western European Empires. Yeah, it was oppression it was but they would never extinguish the Christians like they did with Jews and Muslims in Spain or France or Germany. That's what I want to say, yes the and you know what's so interesting? That when did the Turks commit their big crimes? That is to say Armenia and then Kurds. It was modernization. Yes when they wanted to become a western modern nation-state. So that's an interesting point here. So then about about about catalyst. You know what I would have said here. I always believe how do you start a process of change. You cannot predict it in advance. I
bit more as in Muslim states a little bit more of a of a tax or whatever, but it was relatively open. I mean one thing I always quote it can give you the message I want to deliver. Only in comparison to Western European Empires. Yeah, it was oppression it was but they would never extinguish the Christians like they did with Jews and Muslims in Spain or France or Germany. That's what I want to say, yes the and you know what's so interesting? That when did the Turks commit their big crimes? That is to say Armenia and then Kurds. It was modernization. Yes when they wanted to become a western modern nation-state. So that's an interesting point here. So then about about about catalyst. You know what I would have said here. I always believe how do you start a process of change. You cannot predict it in advance. I
unknown
don't think a catalyst can be an a priori category. For example okay it didn't develop into a big change but it was some kind of protest
don't think a catalyst can be an a priori category. For example okay it didn't develop into a big change but it was some kind of protest
Slavoj Žižek
movement
movement
unknown
in Turkey. Taksim Square, Gezi Park, you know. You know what was the motto I was told there? The motto was dignity. And this dignity was directed specifically, you know the big demand was not just end of capitalist corruption end of this end of whatever. No the motto was Erdoğan has to go. Why? Because his patronizing attitude. For example Erdoğan when at some round tables he saw someone smoking he approached him, took out of his mouth the cigarette, extinguished it and patted him on his shoulder
in Turkey. Taksim Square, Gezi Park, you know. You know what was the motto I was told there? The motto was dignity. And this dignity was directed specifically, you know the big demand was not just end of capitalist corruption end of this end of whatever. No the motto was Erdoğan has to go. Why? Because his patronizing attitude. For example Erdoğan when at some round tables he saw someone smoking he approached him, took out of his mouth the cigarette, extinguished it and patted him on his shoulder
Slavoj Žižek
and said don't do that it's not good for you and so on. I mean this was his general approach, you know telling people you had to have at least three children. But here we have some real story where when your son wanted to smoke what did you do? What? What did I do? I don't remember what you told me. You gave him the cigarette to try how bad it is and then he never smoked again. No it worked when my older son was six years old, yes. I even I even taught him that he should go to the store and tell it's for my dad and so on. But I did a good thing because again it was so di... no no never till till he was When under the pressure of colleagues and so on he started again to smoke. But I did succeed for a... no no no. To tell you a dirty private story: My children I educate them in my way. Like three days ago it happened. I was mad at my younger son and I told him you know in the Serb proverb you know jebo ti pas mater like let the dog fuck your mother. You know what was his answer? My a dog already did that and I am the result. Like that I am a dog who and so on. That's Marxist education. Okay but let's go on. No, the catalyst problem. You know what I claim here that you cannot so again the catalyst was not simply what they wanted to do with that Gezi Park and so on. But it was I think authentic revolutions always start at this. The catalyst can be a certain law which is not popular, a certain person and so on. And then a certain dynamic started. And if those in power are intelligent, but most of the time they are not, they immediately concede the point and prevent the explosion, you know like you have them okay okay you are right he should step down and so on and it's over. Because and I think that let me give you another example. People often ask me why I'm such a revisionist that I even still have certain sympathy for Obama. Ah, I claim again I repeat myself maybe some of you know the story. I think that his health care, universal health care program. I know the result is a total compromise, nothing. But obviously he stirred up an incredibly crucial debate, which rendered visible the limits of American notion of freedom. Which is why are you aware what a trauma his program is for, are you aware that American Republican right was ready to stop practically to ruin the entire state. And you see this would be a good catalyst, because the true art of politics I claim is you don't start with the big A, the big revolutionary program. You start with a small point, and then it triggers an avalanche and so on and so on. And the art is to find the proper tiny point. Like in Europe we consider this usual, universal health care. In America it's and can I tell you another story which I like here, very short one, yeah. I'm from Greece. I know, I noticed it. My Nazi instinct racial identification work well. Yeah because what I'm saying is that look I discovered a wonderful example to see what Americans don't see. You know the biggest American iconic pop song, Frank Sinatra's My Way. I'll do it my way. But do you know that this song is the American version of a French song, which is called Comme d'habitude, as usual. Isn't it irony that what in France is just as usual, stupid American think it's My Way individual and so on. What
and said don't do that it's not good for you and so on. I mean this was his general approach, you know telling people you had to have at least three children. But here we have some real story where when your son wanted to smoke what did you do? What? What did I do? I don't remember what you told me. You gave him the cigarette to try how bad it is and then he never smoked again. No it worked when my older son was six years old, yes. I even I even taught him that he should go to the store and tell it's for my dad and so on. But I did a good thing because again it was so di... no no never till till he was When under the pressure of colleagues and so on he started again to smoke. But I did succeed for a... no no no. To tell you a dirty private story: My children I educate them in my way. Like three days ago it happened. I was mad at my younger son and I told him you know in the Serb proverb you know jebo ti pas mater like let the dog fuck your mother. You know what was his answer? My a dog already did that and I am the result. Like that I am a dog who and so on. That's Marxist education. Okay but let's go on. No, the catalyst problem. You know what I claim here that you cannot so again the catalyst was not simply what they wanted to do with that Gezi Park and so on. But it was I think authentic revolutions always start at this. The catalyst can be a certain law which is not popular, a certain person and so on. And then a certain dynamic started. And if those in power are intelligent, but most of the time they are not, they immediately concede the point and prevent the explosion, you know like you have them okay okay you are right he should step down and so on and it's over. Because and I think that let me give you another example. People often ask me why I'm such a revisionist that I even still have certain sympathy for Obama. Ah, I claim again I repeat myself maybe some of you know the story. I think that his health care, universal health care program. I know the result is a total compromise, nothing. But obviously he stirred up an incredibly crucial debate, which rendered visible the limits of American notion of freedom. Which is why are you aware what a trauma his program is for, are you aware that American Republican right was ready to stop practically to ruin the entire state. And you see this would be a good catalyst, because the true art of politics I claim is you don't start with the big A, the big revolutionary program. You start with a small point, and then it triggers an avalanche and so on and so on. And the art is to find the proper tiny point. Like in Europe we consider this usual, universal health care. In America it's and can I tell you another story which I like here, very short one, yeah. I'm from Greece. I know, I noticed it. My Nazi instinct racial identification work well. Yeah because what I'm saying is that look I discovered a wonderful example to see what Americans don't see. You know the biggest American iconic pop song, Frank Sinatra's My Way. I'll do it my way. But do you know that this song is the American version of a French song, which is called Comme d'habitude, as usual. Isn't it irony that what in France is just as usual, stupid American think it's My Way individual and so on. What
unknown
Americans don't see is to be
Americans don't see is to be
unknown
really
really
unknown
able to do it my way, quite many things have to function
able to do it my way, quite many things have to function
Slavoj Žižek
comme d'habitude, you know. Like what they don't see is that really functioning democracy and dense social organization are not mutually exclusive. They are totally wrong when they think for example in totalitarianism there was too much planning not enough initiative. Are they crazy? I read some good books on Soviet economy under Brezhnev and discovered beneath the surface of total planning it was totally chaotic, nothing functioned, you know. Like you are in a state company producing for example chairs tables. You waited for according to the plan a certain company should send you should send you wood. Cut it wood. It doesn't work so you have to improvise and so on. On the contrary Soviet economy was extremely chaotic. So I think that what we should be aware of is
comme d'habitude, you know. Like what they don't see is that really functioning democracy and dense social organization are not mutually exclusive. They are totally wrong when they think for example in totalitarianism there was too much planning not enough initiative. Are they crazy? I read some good books on Soviet economy under Brezhnev and discovered beneath the surface of total planning it was totally chaotic, nothing functioned, you know. Like you are in a state company producing for example chairs tables. You waited for according to the plan a certain company should send you should send you wood. Cut it wood. It doesn't work so you have to improvise and so on. On the contrary Soviet economy was extremely chaotic. So I think that what we should be aware of is
unknown
that we need to be effectively free. Free in the sense you do what you want, you walk around you feel safe. We need an extremely dense organization. And that's the problem with Americans. They still think that
that we need to be effectively free. Free in the sense you do what you want, you walk around you feel safe. We need an extremely dense organization. And that's the problem with Americans. They still think that
Slavoj Žižek
to be free is to walk in the wild west with a gun or whatever, you know. So again you see in United States raising a thing like that which maybe for us is self-evident can be can be a catalyst to maybe trigger some I don't know where it would have happened but it would have totally changed the American political identity. And in different countries it's different. Like for example and that's my when they accuse me here social democratic revisionism of what. What I spoke with Tsipras is that not you should limit yourself to social democratic problem but that because of the specific situation of Greece, the immense state clientelism in the in in Greece, to really create a normal functioning state of law, sorry functioning state where laws are obeyed and so on, means a total revolution, a much more radical revolution than elsewhere and so on. Which is why Tsipras is a wise guy. He always opposed simple anti-European rhetorics. He has no illusions here. It's interesting to know this that it is New Democracy which the way I saw it you remember maybe the last electoral summit in the last election of New Democracy and I remember there New Democracy an old lady shouting 'Who are the Germans to tell us what to do? They were still playing football with human heads while we already had Aeschylus and Sophocles and so on.' You know while Tsipras is well aware that Greece also needs Europe and Tsipras has no illusions about looking for help elsewhere. Now I will tell you, I hope I will not embarrass again Tsipras, but he told me that representatives from Russia came to him and told him okay if you split with Europe we can help you, but they gave him a detailed list, Telecom this that what they want to buy plus of course they wanted a nice island for years military base. As to the Chinese, you must know that it's horror. The Chinese bought the port of Piraeus and they are there more brutal than any western company would have dared to do. So again or in Turkey a simple core for multicultural tolerance like admitting Armenian genocide, Kurds and so on. In Turkey it means a revolution and so on. So you see that's crucial. Capitalism is uneven. And sometimes you know like and this is why I support Nadezhda and the Pussies. That's their message and which is why they are less and less popular in the West. They are not the same as Kasparov and that liberal critics of no. They are not saying we are primitive in Russia we need to join western liberal capitalism. No. Their problem is precisely that are that I'm sorry this is not Nadezhda... Nadezhda. No no. They what they are fully aware is that Russian capitalism the way it is, it fits world market. That to bring true democracy to Russia it's not enough to play the West against Russia. That the West is in a way co-responsible for it. And this is why this is... so you see my point would have been catalysts are different here and there. But we should always be aware that a true process of change never begins with a big goal, communist revolution or whatever. You start with something small and then you get it. If we really want this we have to go a step further and a step further and so on. And this is a great final message. I want to thank once again our guests Srećko Horvat and Slavoj Žižek and to all of you. Wait a minute, one second. If I can I don't have time but I would love to to reply to this leaflet. Just two things. In second paragraph they impute to me some kind of a peace project. My god, me and peace project? No. And another one at the end they said I undoubtedly have noble intentions. No, I don't have noble intentions. Just to say thank you. This was live
to be free is to walk in the wild west with a gun or whatever, you know. So again you see in United States raising a thing like that which maybe for us is self-evident can be can be a catalyst to maybe trigger some I don't know where it would have happened but it would have totally changed the American political identity. And in different countries it's different. Like for example and that's my when they accuse me here social democratic revisionism of what. What I spoke with Tsipras is that not you should limit yourself to social democratic problem but that because of the specific situation of Greece, the immense state clientelism in the in in Greece, to really create a normal functioning state of law, sorry functioning state where laws are obeyed and so on, means a total revolution, a much more radical revolution than elsewhere and so on. Which is why Tsipras is a wise guy. He always opposed simple anti-European rhetorics. He has no illusions here. It's interesting to know this that it is New Democracy which the way I saw it you remember maybe the last electoral summit in the last election of New Democracy and I remember there New Democracy an old lady shouting 'Who are the Germans to tell us what to do? They were still playing football with human heads while we already had Aeschylus and Sophocles and so on.' You know while Tsipras is well aware that Greece also needs Europe and Tsipras has no illusions about looking for help elsewhere. Now I will tell you, I hope I will not embarrass again Tsipras, but he told me that representatives from Russia came to him and told him okay if you split with Europe we can help you, but they gave him a detailed list, Telecom this that what they want to buy plus of course they wanted a nice island for years military base. As to the Chinese, you must know that it's horror. The Chinese bought the port of Piraeus and they are there more brutal than any western company would have dared to do. So again or in Turkey a simple core for multicultural tolerance like admitting Armenian genocide, Kurds and so on. In Turkey it means a revolution and so on. So you see that's crucial. Capitalism is uneven. And sometimes you know like and this is why I support Nadezhda and the Pussies. That's their message and which is why they are less and less popular in the West. They are not the same as Kasparov and that liberal critics of no. They are not saying we are primitive in Russia we need to join western liberal capitalism. No. Their problem is precisely that are that I'm sorry this is not Nadezhda... Nadezhda. No no. They what they are fully aware is that Russian capitalism the way it is, it fits world market. That to bring true democracy to Russia it's not enough to play the West against Russia. That the West is in a way co-responsible for it. And this is why this is... so you see my point would have been catalysts are different here and there. But we should always be aware that a true process of change never begins with a big goal, communist revolution or whatever. You start with something small and then you get it. If we really want this we have to go a step further and a step further and so on. And this is a great final message. I want to thank once again our guests Srećko Horvat and Slavoj Žižek and to all of you. Wait a minute, one second. If I can I don't have time but I would love to to reply to this leaflet. Just two things. In second paragraph they impute to me some kind of a peace project. My god, me and peace project? No. And another one at the end they said I undoubtedly have noble intentions. No, I don't have noble intentions. Just to say thank you. This was live
unknown
streamed,
streamed,
Slavoj Žižek
this event was live streamed and you can see it again on our website if
this event was live streamed and you can see it again on our website if
unknown
you want. Thank you.
you want. Thank you.