Stalinism with a Latino Twist

Tuesday at Birkbeck, and once again the great man is introduced by his Colombian cameraman, who proceeds to reiterate the details of the forthcoming interrogation session, “The questions will be organized,” he begins, and it seems he means to go on, but he is too late – Zizek has spotted comic potential, and has already moved in to exploit. “They will be organized! Questions distributed through audience, tell us about your latest book here, applause for five minutes there! Stalinism with Latino twist!”

“Ho, ho, ho,” the cameraman responds.

The Antimonies of Reason

“Last time I ended on bombastic note, dictatorship of proletariat, this time I want to take step back, to Kant – idea of antimonies of reason.”

“Antimonies of reason is basically idea that contradictions emerge when reason extends beyond limits of concrete sensibility into realm of abstraction – because, for instance, there is God, there is no God, it is possible to argue both sides equally rationally, but each side is mutually exclusive.”

“Kant says that where contradiction cannot be resolved, what results is – and this is lovely phrase, ‘euthanasia of pure reason.’”

Butcher Those Who Insult Voltaire

“Danish cartoon controversy is good example of this, because here again you see possibility of argument on both sides of question. For instance, on one hand you have standard Western liberal argument that free expression is absolute value of European culture and so idea is – okay, cartoons were offensive, but this doesn’t justify threats of murder and so – and so, you know, basically boring idea from Voltaire, I detest what you are saying but nonetheless I defend to the death your right to say it, whatever.”

“There is this, also as well extreme Western guilt reaction, for example – and this is something that really makes me ashamed to be a Slovene, in Slovenia we had President apologizing to Islam on behalf of Western civilization. The other interesting thing about this is how quickly it is absorbed back into logic of capitalism – after Muslim protests, you know you had Western companies like Nestle and Carrefour advertising themselves in Islamic countries with anti-Denmark propaganda, saying things like they boycott Danish cows in solidarity, and so on.”

“Then again, you have point from other angle, where argument is that carnivalesque mockery of divinity is important aspect of European religion – for example, crucifixion re-enactions where you have Christ on back of donkey, and so on – so idea here is that Muslim reaction betrays failure to understand Europe, fundamental hostility to European traditions.”

“But then again – the fact is that the Danish newspaper which published cartoons had in fact rejected Christ cartoons, and also that before violent protests, Danish Muslims had tried to go through peaceful channels, but has basically been ignored.”

The Shoah and its Double

“In any case, the problem with the free-speech-is-fundamental-principle-of-West argument is that ultimately it is false – key counter-example here is holocaust, which is basically sacred untouchable of European identity.”

“This was proven recently by case of David Irving, who is in jail now in Austria for article he wrote fifteen years ago, a scholarly article - that okay, I know was really ridiculous travesty of scholarship, but nonetheless it was scholarly form, and form is important. But anyway, point here is that idea that West is committed to free speech, questioning everything – this is not really true.”

“And actually, speaking of question of form, there is other aspect here as well, Leftist idea that Muslim protests were not really about cartoons, but rather really about humiliation – well, okay, maybe this is true in some sense, but nonetheless, fact is that Muslim protests took this form, this is how they were expressed. I mean, we could play crazy games here – like Nazi anti-Semitism wasn’t really about Jews, and you know, it wasn’t – here I am old fashioned vulgar Marxist – but this changes nothing, explains nothing.”

Islam and the Holocaust

“One of the reactions to Danish cartoons in some newspapers in Islamic world was printing of Holocaust cartoons - Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, and so on.’

“Now, I see their logic here – idea is to turn the tables, expose hypocrisy: “So the West says it supports fundamental principle of free speech, okay – so do they support this?” Nonetheless, though, I think this move was basically self-defeating. Problem was, it ultimately just ended up repeating the original offence it was designed to be response to.”

“In any case, I think it is interesting – there is definitely a borrowed kettle logic to Muslim world presentations of Holocaust – you get everything from, Holocaust never happened, Holocaust happened but has been blown out of proportion, Holocaust happened but the Jews deserved…and the point here is obvious, it is Muslim desire for Holocaust to have never happened.”

Israel

“The central point here is of course Israel – Ahmadinejad gave speech in Mecca a few months ago on Israel, and it was interesting I think because it was basically this mixture of pure obscenity Holocaust denial – he said, for example, that “No innocent Jews died in Holocaust,” – and this is very ambiguous statement of course, because it leaves open reading that Jews died, but they were not innocent – and actually correct analysis, when he said for example that foundation of state of Israel was based on hypocritical European guilt – this is obviously in part true.”

“The major idea here was, after World War Two, why did Europe not beg Jews to come back? Say you know, please return, we will give you free lunch vouchers and so on – and maybe have Jewish state somewhere in Bavaria, why not? I am serious! I think it would have been good idea!”

“The deep irony here is that state of Israel is actually objective realization of initial Nazi plan, which you know was just to get rid of Jews from Germany, not yet final solution – in 1938 Eichmann actually travelled to Jerusalem and met with Zionists in order to try and negotiate emigration of Jews to Palestine.”

“Finally, I think it is important to state here as well, that instrumental use of Holocaust cuts both way – when pro-Israel campaigners mobilize it in support of Israel, it is very revealing, because it is basically like saying that crimes of Israel are such that they cannot be justified any other way except with reference to absolute trump card of Holocaust.”

What is to be done?

“My friend Alain Badiou has been in trouble in France lately over book he recently published to do with Israel, in which he claims that Israel is strange mixture of colonialism and revolutionary utopianism, and so for this reason that what it should do is become the most universalist state of all.”

“Now – I think Badiou makes interesting point with this, but nonetheless I see problem here, which is – can these two different aspects of Israel really be separated? Are they not really in a certain sense identical? It is a little like the joke where anti-alcohol campaigner asks politician, “What is your position on prohibiting wine?” And politician responds, “Well, if you mean the addictive substance that destroys families, leads to drunkenness and public disorder, violence and road accidents, then of course I favour prohibition, but if you mean the fine civilized drink that it is very pleasant to share with friends over a meal, then I am against.” And of course you see problem here - it is the same wine in both cases!”

“But question here still remains - what can be done? My idea, I think one possible way forward, would be something like Ed Norton gesture in Fight Club, you know where he is called into office of boss to be reprimanded, and he beats himself up, thus turning his alienated victim identity into triumphant affirmation of possibility. I think this what both Israel and Arabs should do in Middle East. For Arabs, it is the very focus on Israel, which is reason why they are losing in Middle East, and for Israel – and actually now USA as well after September 11 – it is only status of victim that justifies expansionist policies. Israel needs to be made to accept that it is not victim, but regional superpower.”

[Nb – Zizek also alluded here to an interview that Badiou allegedly did with Ha’aretz, but I have been unable to find any trace of it.]

Against the Populist Temptation

“My argument against populism is basically three-fold. First of all, I think it is true, the way that modern post-politics, in which state is managed by technocratic elite, actually works, is only with reference to populist supplement. You see this in Italy with Berlusconi, who is ultimate post-political figure – his “Forza Italia” party, and also I think in United States where Neo-Conservatives are basically alliance between corporate power and populist Christian right.”

“My second problem is that I think populism always involves mystification – in essence it is reduction of complex socio-political situation to a simple figure of concrete enemy, which I think is ultimately an impotent manoeuvre. It is like old joke, it is night and man is scrabbling around under a streetlamp, stranger come up to him, and says, “What are you doing?” Man says, “I am looking for my keys.” Stranger says, “Did you lose them here?” And man says, “No, somewhere over there, but the light is better here.””

“My third problem is that, despite how it first appears, populism is essentially a middle-class phenomenon, with central mobilizing ideology always basically a middle-class ideology, “We just want to live and work and in peace, but we are being threatened/prevented by something.” The radical point here is that this is actually anti-political vision, not political at all.”

‘Deadlock in attempt to formulate theory of progressive populism I think is demonstrated very clearly by work of George Lakoff, whose basic claim is that the reason why the Left is losing in America is that it is too high-minded, and that what needs to do accept Rightist terms of debate, at level of seduction, propaganda and so on.”

“Lakoff idea is that Rightists have managed to boil down their ideology to a series of simple slogans – free markets, smaller government, family values strong military, lower taxes, and so on – and that Left needs to respond with simple slogans of its own, and in his book “Don’t think of an Elephant” he suggests some: stronger America, broad prosperity, better future, effective government, mutual responsibility.”

“The problem here though, is that these slogans are basically meaningless. I mean, think about it – stronger America: who wants weaker America? Broad prosperity? Who would admit to wanting narrower prosperity? Effective government? Who wants ineffective government? Better future – who wants a worse future? I mean, Rightist slogans, okay I know they are not really true, for instance I know you do not really have free market in America, but nonetheless these slogans stand for something, whereas what Lakoff suggests here ultimately are just empty formalisms – and this guy is supposed to be an expert in political rhetoric!”

The Second Coming

“The fundamental problem here I think lies already in the basic analysis of the political situation – Leftist liberals have this idea that it something like Yeats poem, “Second Coming” – you know, “The best lack all conviction,” – this is liberals, “and the worst of full of passionate intensity,” – this is, fundamentalist conservatives: my view is that the real truth is actually closer to opposite of this.”

“Modern fundamentalism is often thought to represent signifier of radical belief, but actually I think this is not the case, that modern fundamentalism in fact is symptom of envy and resentment. If you meet authentic fundamentalists, like Amish, or some Buddhists for example, you notice that they look on craziness of non-believers with kind of ironic amusement - not crazy hatred, like inauthentic fundamentalists. Authentic fundamentalists know they have the truth, what do they care about what the other thinks!”

Two Political Traps

“In politics generally, I think there are two major traps that need to be avoided.”



“First, trap of melodramatic sacrifice - for example, there is film [I forget which one he mentioned] about fighter pilot who is shot down during war, and temporarily blinded, and he is nursed back to health by peasant woman and falls in love with her, but then he recover sight, and he notices that nurse is – how should I put this in politically correct way, “attractively challenged” – but and so what he does is he deliberately blinds himself permanently by staring at sun, so as to preserve her inner beauty.”

“Now, if you translate this idea into politics, what you tend to get is ultimate racism, cultural relativism, where you idealize figure of other and conveniently ignore the barbaric things that they actually do – for instance, clitorectemy in Africa was which was big deal a while ago – idea here would be, “Oh, it is just part of their tradition, who are we to judge, cultural imperialism,” and so on.”

“Second trap is one you see in Michael Powell film, “Death of the Night”, which is film about ventriloquist dummy that goes crazy, and takes over ventriloquist – the idea here is identification with symptom. Other example here would be “Eichmann in Jerusalem” where Hannah Arendt discusses this with reference to Nazi ethical inversion where you have SS guys, and you know, they are still human, they know they are doing horrible things, but what they do, is they invert it, so it turns from, “What horrible things I am doing,” to “What horrible things I am having to do for the cause.” The key point here is that with this, duty changes sides, and become duty to not let down cause, from duty to stop doing terrible things.”

[Part two (Frankenstein, Foucault in Tehran, The Trangressive Model, Repeating Thatcher, The Dictatorship of the Proleteriat) to follow tomorrow, and then the final Zizek shortly after]