Cadsuane

[Kuya]

Do the points this guy is making seem legitimate to you?

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Which means that they—really, the extreme right imposed their topic onto everyone. But let me tell you now something which may surprise you. I, of course, don’t accept this horrible logic—we have to do it more modestly to prevent real outbursts—but I think there is a failure in this standard, liberal, multicultural vision, which means every ethnic group, whatever, to itself, all we need is a neutral legal framework guaranteeing the coexistence of groups. Sorry if I shock someone, but I think we do need what Germans call Leitkultur, leading culture. Just it shouldn’t be nationally defined. We should fight for that. Yes, I agree with right-wingers. We need a set of values accepted by all. But what will these values be, my god? We neglected this a little bit. You know that it’s not just this abstract liberal model: you have your world, I have my world, we just need a neutral legal network—how we will politely ignore each other.


My second point would have been that it’s absolutely crucial how this anti-immigrant explosion is linked to the withdrawal of leftist politics, especially in the matters of economy and so on. It is as if the left, being obsessed by the idea that we shouldn’t appear as reactionary in the economic sense, that is to say that "No, no, no, we are not the old trade union representatives of the working class, we are for postmodern digital capitalism" and so on. They don’t want to touch the working class or so-called lower ordinary people. And here right-wingers enter. Do you know, the horrible paradox is that, apart from some small leftist fringe parties, the only serious political force in Europe today which still is ready to appeal to the ordinary working people are the right-wing anti-immigrants? So you see, we, the leftists, we have no right, absolutely no right, to take this arrogant view of offended tolerant people who are horrored—no, we should ask the question, how we enabled what is going on.

We should ask more fundamental questions, like this is, for me, only part of a general shift, which I mention in the text you kindly referred to, how the whole political mapping of Europe is changing in a horrible way. To cut a long story short, very briefly, 'til now, we had the standard situation that you also have it up ’til now here: one big left-of-center party, one big right-of-center party—they are the only two parties which address the entire population—and then small fringe parties. Now, more and more in Europe, another polarity is emerging: a big liberal capitalist party, which can even be in social matters like abortion, women's rights, relatively progressive—pure, let’s call it, capitalist party—and the only serious opposition is the immigrant—anti-immigrant nationalists. It’s something horrible that has happened. The anti-immigrants are establishing themselves as the only authentic—of course, they are not authentic politically, but in the sense of really experienced as authentic—voice of protest. If you want to protest, the only way to do it effectively in Europe is this. So I think it’s a matter of life and death for a slightly more radical left to emerge.

You know what? Walter Benjamin, the great Frankfurt School fellow [inaudible], he said something which we should always bear in mind today. He said, "Behind every fascism, there is a failed revolution." It goes, more than ever, for us. Like, take—let’s take your own country, Kansas, which is now the bedrock of Christian fundamentalism. As Thomas Frank demonstrated in his book, my god, 'til twenty, thirty years ago, Kansas was the breeding ground of all radical socialist, and so on, mass movements. The same in Europe. This should worry us, not this arrogant—which always has a negative class connotation. When people attack common people's racism, it’s always like we upper-middle-class liberals dismissing ordinary people. We should start asking ourselves what we did wrong.

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: It’s a perfect example of what I was talking about. I had almost—I use the terms a little bit ironically, but nonetheless—a kind of epiphany moment when, a year ago or so, when they organized, grassroot Republicans, all those—the first wake of tea parties against spending so much money for banks. You know what I was doing? I was sitting in a hotel room, jumping between two channels on TV. One was Fox News—you must know the enemy to fight it. The other one was PBS. On Fox News, it was a live transmission of a tea party in Texas where a singer, kind of a fake folk singer, was singing anti-Washington, anti-state-expenditure song. On PBS, there was a documentary on the great leftist icon Pete Seeger. I was shocked at how the words, although the political meanings of it, were almost the same. Both were singing about we small, ordinary people are exploited; big bad guys, bankers in Washington, and so on, Wall Street, and so on. This is the tragedy. This is the tragedy at its purest.

I listened with amazement and great pleasure to the report about how here in the States the universities, which are financed by taxpayers’ money, are more and more used by companies. In Europe, we are even worse. I’ll tell you why. Because they stated clearly the program in Europe. It’s not only this concrete problem—big companies controlling, through money donations, universities. It’s something more fundamental going on. It’s a well-organized, all-European campaign to turn us scientists, human or natural, into experts. The idea is, we have a problem—let’s say oil spill in Louisiana—oh, we need experts to tell us how to contain it. We have a public disorder, demonstrations; we need psychologists and so on. This is not thinking. What universities should do is not serve as experts to those in power who define the problems. We should redefine and question the problems themselves. Is this the right perception of the problem? Is this really the problem? We should ask much more fundamental questions.

Here, it may surprise you, but I still have sympathy for Obama. But in my view, one of his greatest failures is not Afghanistan. There, the situation is very complex. I don’t know what I would have done. It’s how he reacted to the oil spill. You know why? Because he played this legal, moralistic game, as if the—you know, like, I will kick—we know where—BP, they will make—sorry, but in a tragedy of these proportions, you cannot play this legalistic game who is guilty and so on. You should start asking more general questions. BP is evil, but are we aware that it may have happened also to another company? So the problem is not BP. The problems are much more general—the structure of our economy, why are we living like this, our way of life, and so on and so on. I think that this is the problem today. I’m saying this ironically as a leftist. We have maybe even too much anti-capitalism, but in this overload of anti-capitalism, but always in this legal, moralistic sense: ooh, that company is using child slave labor; ooh, that company is polluting; ooh, that company is—that company, whatever, is exploiting our universities. No, no, the problem is more fundamental. It’s about how the whole system works to make the companies do this. Don’t moralize the problem, because if you moralize it, you can say in the States whatever you want. Already in the movies like Pelican Brief, you remember, no problem, big company, even the president of the United States, can be corrupted. No, this excess of anti-capitalism is a false excess. We should start asking more fundamental questions.

His points seem to be that:

1. The fundamental problem is the system we live in, a capitalist one, and not the individual issues, such as companies polluting.

2. That the left has abandoned its contestatory nature towards the economy, and holed itself up in issues such as righ to abortions, gay marriage, etc.

3. That the liberal notion of multiculturalism has failed because (as i interpret it) it has a individualistic notion of integration that does not produce a commity of values.

4. Academia should not let politicians frame the problem, but rather, critically analyse what the elements and context of the problem is before finding a solution.

5. All of this seems to tie into the idea that the resurgence of the right-wing, even more capitalistic, anti-immigrant, hyper-nationalism is the fault of liberalism for not addressing fundamental questions, abandoning economic justice, and lack of pushing for fundamental social values.

What do you think? He is a blowhard? He has legitimate points? Which ones and why?

[Shiroikage]

i recognized this guy by name and he has a great look and a great beard

[Kuya]

He does in fact have a great beard but he seems kind of crazy.

[Shiroikage]

it might be the beard

[BerenTebogo]

No system in place in the modernized world (with respect to government) is built to withstand more than a handful of centuries. It just isn't feasible. The economies that the governments and world run on build up on certain fundamental necessities, and those necessities change over time as we progress forward. Certain models can insulate themselves to a degree by adapting and being open to change (something we aren't by and large) but it won't be a permanent solution.

Our experiment in Capitalism is being hindered by the fact that those in power are kinda digging their heels in and the population of this country is (generally) pretty fucking stupid. See: tax thread. Capitalism has problems but it's a pretty good model when compared to alternatives, we're just kinda shooting ourselves in the foot and shortening the functional lifespan.

How I see it anyways. We'll still probably come back to Capitalism, but our specific implementation of it? (with respect to our laws, regulations regarding corporations rights, taxes, etc etc etc) It's on the way out. Maybe within our lifetimes? Dunno.

[BerenTebogo]

Also yeah, only addressing point 1 because I'm fucking BEAT.

[Krye]

I'm going to BEAT off all three of you

[Krye]

Except with my mouth

[BerenTebogo]

Score!

[Kuya]

No system in place in the modernized world (with respect to government) is built to withstand more than a handful of centuries. It just isn't feasible. The economies that the governments and world run on build up on certain fundamental necessities, and those necessities change over time as we progress forward. Certain models can insulate themselves to a degree by adapting and being open to change (something we aren't by and large) but it won't be a permanent solution.

Our experiment in Capitalism is being hindered by the fact that those in power are kinda digging their heels in and the population of this country is (generally) pretty fucking stupid. See: tax thread. Capitalism has problems but it's a pretty good model when compared to alternatives, we're just kinda shooting ourselves in the foot and shortening the functional lifespan.

How I see it anyways. We'll still probably come back to Capitalism, but our specific implementation of it? (with respect to our laws, regulations regarding corporations rights, taxes, etc etc etc) It's on the way out. Maybe within our lifetimes? Dunno.

His argument is quite different from what you're saying. If i understood right, he's saying it's not an issue of bad parts of capitalism or a poor implementation of it. But at the same time i don't think he's saying that everything related to capitalism (owning property, buying and selling in a relatively free market) is bad. I am the one who mentioned capitalist system, he only said system.

By system he may just mean a structure of hierachy characterized by the exploitation of some and the favour of a different group. Like a pyramid. In other words by system, he means the relationship between entities.

[Shiroikage]

win win win win situation

[BerenTebogo]

His argument is quite different from what you're saying. If i understood right, he's saying it's not an issue of bad parts of capitalism or a poor implementation of it. But at the same time i don't think he's saying that everything related to capitalism (owning property, buying and selling in a relatively free market) is bad. I am the one who mentioned capitalist system, he only said system.

By system he may just mean a structure of hierachy characterized by the exploitation of some and the favour of a different group. Like a pyramid. In other words by system, he means the relationship between entities.

I didn't read at all. I just went to your points, lol. I'm exhausted and killing time until the Jags game / House

[Cadsuane]

Ah, Zizek. Yes, they do! I keep hearing about this guy and everytime I do I usually agree with what he's saying and not just in a, "oh yes I was just thinking or discussing along that line of thought the other day" sort of agreement that is usually the case but rather a very startled "oh I'd never thought about that or thought about it in that way but is it ever insightful" sort of fashion.

The RSA actually introduced me to him:



I think your characterizations of his points miss some finer nuances. After I digest them I'll try to explain exactly what I mean.

[Kuya]

I'm salivating in suspense.

[Cadsuane]

1. The fundamental problem is the system we live in, a capitalist one, and not the individual issues, such as companies polluting.

Maybe not the right way to characterize it, since even anti-capitalist sentiment takes on banal forms. Zizek's example of BP and legalistically conveyed anti-capitalism (many BG liberals conform to the stereotype put forward here), seemed to drive more at the cheapness of the dialogue surrounding issues, whatever their underpinning ideology; that they're more about the trivialities of specific circumstance and not the abstract systemic inevitabilities.

That the left has abandoned its contestatory nature towards the economy, and holed itself up in issues such as righ to abortions, gay marriage, etc.

I laughed at this one, because it's true. The spectre of McCarthyism, and by McCarthyism I don't mean specifically the anti-socialist progroms that took place in the last century but the cultural and moral revolutions that shook our political sensibilities of which that ideological persecution was but a symptom, haunts us still. It's not that leftism is no longer really about class politics (though it certainly isn't, and maybe it shouldn't be) but that merely the suggestion of that sort of populism sounds so reminiscently Bolshevik that it triggers a Freudian gag reflex in anyone with remotely mainstream political sensibilities. The British New Labour party typifies this idea better than I could explain it; it's not just that they're unable to reverse Thatcher era policy, they've come to agree with her.

3. That the liberal notion of multiculturalism has failed because (as i interpret it) it has a individualistic notion of integration that does not produce a commity of values.

I laughed at this one too! It's a core tenet of conservative philosophy, and it's a bloody good one that we should as new age leftists embrace. I would interpret it different than you though, and somewhat less magnanimously since I think this is where leftism fails and the solution is found in right wing thought. Liberal notions of multiculturalism are no more than cultural relativism which is nothing more than the absence of integrity and conviction. Zizek pretty much parrots Edmund Burke here, and I think this sort of right/left dialectic bodes well.

4. Academia should not let politicians frame the problem, but rather, critically analyse what the elements and context of the problem is before finding a solution.

Right, politicizing academia turned it into a trade school for policy advisors. In a word: Sophistry (in the ancient Greek sense).

5. All of this seems to tie into the idea that the resurgence of the right-wing, even more capitalistic, anti-immigrant, hyper-nationalism is the fault of liberalism for not addressing fundamental questions, abandoning economic justice, and lack of pushing for fundamental social values.

I think he intentionally left the answer to that question, how exactly 20th liberalism is responsible for our current perdicament, a little more vague than that, or he says that we need new paradigms of leftism and here is how we might go about that etc. etc. Certainly I don't think what you've said is an adequate explanation. In particular I definitely think that a "back to the basics" approach for left wing liberalism would be absolutely disastrous. We've already covered an example of a relevant but traditionally right wing idea.

[Cadsuane]

I liked his expression, "digital capitalism". It's so evocative of a toothless, middle of the road, tired and worn out mule of antiquated bureaucratic sold out thought.

Philosophy and social commentary is all about finding the right adjectives and metaphors.

[Kuya]

Zizek's example of BP and legalistically conveyed anti-capitalism (many BG liberals conform to the stereotype put forward here), seemed to drive more at the cheapness of the dialogue surrounding issues, whatever their underpinning ideology; that they're more about the trivialities of specific circumstance and not the abstract systemic inevitabilities.

I'm not quite captivating this. Could you pull some specific examples from BG liberals?

For example, the ideas that come to mind to me are (as examples that are not necessarily related to what Zizek said):
1. When Republicans were insinuating that Obama was a Muslim, many liberals in BG fixated on proving that he was not, rather than questioning the idea of framing being a Muslim as a negative and calling to the fact that Muslim hysterya in America is a problem that should be addressed.

2. When the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, some of the dialogue centered around the idea that Muslims were repressive to woman, gays and they were theocratic. Some of the atheist left gobbled this discourse up and supported both wars right along with the neo-cons. They never question whether the wars were expressly for that purpose or chose to ignore that it might not have been, and forgot to question whether the conflict between the US and the Middle East was really based on the theocratic and violent nature of a Muslim religion or because of more secural and cynical reasons.

Does this get the jist of the idea?

I laughed at this one, because it's true. The spectre of McCarthyism, and by McCarthyism I don't mean specifically the anti-socialist progroms that took place in the last century but the cultural and moral revolutions that shook our political sensibilities of which that ideological persecution was but a symptom, haunts us still. It's not that leftism is no longer really about class politics (though it certainly isn't, and maybe it shouldn't be) but that merely the suggestion of that sort of populism sounds so reminiscently Bolshevik that it triggers a Freudian gag reflex in anyone with remotely mainstream political sensibilities. The British New Labour party typifies this idea better than I could explain it; it's not just that they're unable to reverse Thatcher era policy, they've come to agree with her.

Then i would have to agree with Zizek then, but what would the answer be? Dropping the class warfare dicourse (but keeping it for analysis) and instead choosing economic justice? Opposition to polarization of wealth? The destitution and pauperism of human beings? Maybe a more active proposition: that society should not only interfere in the economy when wealth and income polarization become too large to bear, but actively try to distribute wealth and income, probably in services and public initiatives, so that it does not stray too far?

Problem with that is defining how much polarization is too much (certainly what we have now is far too much).

I laughed at this one too! It's a core tenet of conservative philosophy, and it's a bloody good one that we should as new age leftists embrace. I would interpret it different than you though, and somewhat less magnanimously since I think this is where leftism fails and the solution is found in right wing thought. Liberal notions of multiculturalism are no more than cultural relativism which is nothing more than the absence of integrity and conviction. Zizek pretty much parrots Edmund Burke here, and I think this sort of right/left dialectic bodes well.

Ah. I did not think to compare it to cultural relativism. And now a realization hits me. Zizek said he agrees to some extent with the conservatives in so far as this point, and with that in mind, one of my concerns with supporting the Burqa ban in France was the idea that behind this initiative was primarily an anti-Muslim, anti-Immigrant dynamo. Should i agree with the right-wingers in this instance even though their reasons are vile to me, or should i only support attempts to integrate on my own terms? Although i'm still not sure that burqa ban was the best way nor the most relevant way to go about it.

I'm not sure what to suggest to obtain this creation of a common moral code. I know of the morals i would want to place as common, but going about promoting them seems like a difficult task when at the same time you have to fight back the imperialists and bigots.

Right, politicizing academia turned it into a trade school for policy advisors. In a word: Sophistry (in the ancient Greek sense).

I would accuse Economics of this most of all. I've got no opinion on the natural sciences. And i got my own bone to pick with psychiatry and industrial psychology.

In particular I definitely think that a "back to the basics" approach for liberalism would be absolutely disastrous. We've already covered an example of a relevant but traditionally right wing idea.

What do you mean?

[Shiroikage]

academic politics are much worse in the humanities and social sciences but they're still there and they're still nasty in the natural sciences

[Kuya]

I am dissappointed that skirkle does not politics with me no mo'

[tyven]

how come you never politics with me kuya