Introduction: The following conversation took place via video in late 2018 and early 2019, years that witnessed significant and influential political events, from the Yellow Vests movement to the sweeping wave of far-right extremism in the world, from the United States to Brazil and the United Kingdom. Now, six years later, not much has changed. The far right is still advancing with strength, claiming victims house by house, door by door. Perhaps it could be said that the only lesson that history has taught us is that, if we want to use Hegel's terminology, there is really nothing to be learned from it. The victory of the far right in many countries, including the United States, indicates that the crises and antagonisms that plagued the world in 2018-2019 have not only disappeared, but have also taken on more perverse forms and are now even being reproduced in technocratic formats. At the same time, the lack of any vision or roadmap in the face of crises, resorting to passive melancholy, and disregard for the formulas that generate apocalyptic situations, is what has continued to plague the left since 2018. To confront a system built on calypsology [1], a framework where there is no distinction between means and ends, one must act like a proficient detective, rereading the hotspots that have affected the sick body of the world. As the following interview shows, overcoming crises cannot be achieved with easy and immediate solutions, and efforts must be redoubled to create a comprehensive and international coalition, a coalition that goes beyond the hyperactivity that has become everyone's daily routine these days.

Kamran Baradaran and Anthony Ballas: Let’s begin from the ultimate horizon of Marxism and talk about knowledge, or as Lenin once called it, “basis of the materialist theory of knowledge”. Many believe that in the age of capitalist dominance, we are not only in need of a knowing subject but also the Lacanian subject supposed-to-know, namely a subject that initiates and embodies the whole process of transformation. What kind of a subject do we need to open up the space for another political articulation rather than the liberal-capitalist democracy? Do you think there is any link between the subject supposed-to-know and the idea of revolution and transgression in the 21st century? 

Slavoj Žižek: My problem is that, first of all, we know so little. And even regarding the things that we know, it is difficult to get it operative. Let’s consider the most obvious example; we know a lot about global warming, ecological problems and so on. But nevertheless, we suspend this knowledge and simply don’t take it existentially serious. As far as the idea of knowledge is concerned, I am becoming more and more a Hegelian. By Hegelian I mean that I don’t think we can simply act upon our knowledge. There is subject supposed-to-know, but anytime we act accordingly it goes wrong all the time. For me, the big lesson of the 20th century is precisely that! 

Lenin is a big example in this regard: He had a certain idea of the revolution, developed in his The State and Revolution. But then, he moved towards a totally different direction and so on. I think we have to fully accept what I call tragic-comic dimension of social change. We usually demand some vague changes, but at the same time, refuse this important dimension. This is also my problem with Yellow Vests movement in France. I am more and more skeptical about the whole thing and here is why: First, they have a really mixed series of demands but at the same time, they are looking for certain privileges within the existing system. And the problem is that these changes cannot be achieved within the current state of affairs. As long as one stays in the existing system, one can only have access to limited demands; lower fuel prices, better ecology, lower taxes, and better security and so on. This is left populism at its purest! The fact that far-right figures like Donald Trump endorsed this movement shows that the left must learn that simply raising several so-called radical demands alone is not enough. We should start to think in the terms of changing the system. One should also take into account the anti-immigrant racism of the mentioned movement, since one of their demands is to stop immigration. And this is something that you cannot find in the mainstream liberal media. 

Baradaran and Ballas: For many, the Yellow Vests movement harkens back to the good old days of May 1968. Can this movement be considered a new rise from those memories?

Žižek: What was the result of May 68? The conservative victory and their triumphantly return to power! That’s my main problem; within the existing system, one cannot look for radical demands! The same issue arises in the case of immigrants: Their situation is completely tragic, but the predominant liberal left is still looking for easy access solutions; opening the borders and receiving everyone and so on. Even today, we are witnessing the outcome of this tendency: In all European countries, the majority of the people are against immigrants! Instead of these kinds of pseudo-activities, one needs to change the whole system. I hate this kind of moralist left which wants to make demands but is incapable of developing new visions. The problems are obvious more or less: Global warming, refugees, the impending chaos and so on. But how can the system be changed to stop and prevent these calamities? I’m a pessimist here. If you ask me, the result of all this disorder would be more power to the nationalist, right-wing, racist regime in Europe. Did you notice how Marine Le Pen and the French far-right reacted to the Yellow Vests movement? They all supported it! I’m not saying that the Yellow Vests protestors had anything to do with this, but at the same time, their set of unattainable demands provides such a context for attracting the support of the extreme right. Their situation is the typical popular discontent. To return to your previous question, with the subject supposed-to-know we think of some kind of vision that presupposes some kind of vision regarding radically changing the society. I don’t see of that kind in our current situation. For me, these protests are still demands addressed to the master!  

Baradaran and Ballas: The Left has always been critical of nationalism. But sometimes nationalism, especially in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, etc. played an emancipator role, given its anti-colonial disposition. Many revolutionary movements in the East and even in some cases in the West have been mixed with nationalist tendencies. What should be done in such a situation? Should nationalism be accepted as a part of revolutionary action?

Žižek: In my opinion, in our current situation, nationalism no longer works. Can one defeat or at least resist global capitalism with a strong nationalist state and so on? As far as the anti-colonial nationalist movements in the East are concerned, can you name one successful example? The only truly successful one would be China. But is it really emancipatory? When I was young, the Left hated two things: Neoliberal competition and strong authoritarian state. China precisely combines these two elements and is a mega success. If by communism we mean a state where communism is in power, to my knowledge, this is the only form of communism that has worked so far. Again, nationalism did work up to certain point but I think that today one cannot find any global emancipatory potential in it. 

The problems we have today cannot be properly approached through nationalism. For example, what does it mean to have a nationalist approach with regard to refugee crisis? The usual nationalist reaction to this problem is only to keep them out! What about ecology? The nationalist reaction to this obstacle is just to outsource the dangerous industries elsewhere. A long time ago, I had a debate with a friend of mine in Norway who said they want to keep their coasts clear of the chemical industry pollution. My reaction was that the usual solution would be to move your chemical pollution to the third-world countries. I think that today a new internationalism is absolutely needed. The only point where I support nationalism is in this type liberation movement, like Palestinians and so on. However, we should not forget that today’s Israel is the most nationalist regime one can imagine, introducing apartheid and so on. I must insist one more that the troubles we are confronting today are totally global and international. These predicaments cannot be solved with nationalism. I don’t believe in this dream of the new populist Left that we need a strong nation-state that somehow will regulate the impacts of the global capital. By doing this, one has lost the game in advance. 

This was exactly the reason for Syriza's defeat in Greece. The main reason is that they tried to build an international coalition, but they failed. And then the other option would be Grexit which would have been a mega economic catastrophe and possibly a kind of military rule due to chaos and poverty. I think we have to face the tragic news: Do we still want to be leftists? Do we even have a vision of what we want? I don’t think we do!

Today, what the Left want is somewhere between a blind and politically correct moralism and modest social democracy. This is my true pessimism: When ordinary people revolt, they usually don’t know what they want! Their wishes by definition are contradictory, confused and so on. So, a true leader should provide some kind of a program, with all the risks involved. And we don’t have this today! Podemos in Spain is an excellent example here. In the last election in Spain, Podemos’s agenda was a very moderate welfare state and social-democratic. It’s easy to be a leftist in opposition; organizing protests and so on. I’m less and less interested in this kind of left. What really interests me is that what you would actually do if you magically win. I don’t think we even have a general idea about what needs to be done; do we remain within the limits of capitalism? Do we control it? The basic idea is probably a sort of welfare state capitalism. Maybe today this is the only option. I think that we should move forward step by step. Of course, I’m not a social-democrat! I know that radical changes are needed here. But I think that if things go on the way they do at the moment, in 20 years we will be pretty much in chaos. 

The problem is that Marxism still trusts that theoretical insight can be connected and rooted in what ordinary people experience. I think this is less and less possible today. My position might be an elitist one, but I don’t think this link is possible today. You know, Mao had this idea that the ordinary workers and farmers have a form of wisdom that we intellectuals should learn from them. I don’t agree with this. Of course, I’m not saying that the intellectuals know what is going on, but ordinary people are clueless as well. As I said before, the desire of the ordinary people is always contradictory. If things go on like this, in the near future the choice ultimately will be between radical, populist, and anti-immigrant far-right and a more civilized conservative form of politics that would do the same thing but with a human face. That’s why I think that in France Macron is in a tragic position; he is probably the best that today’s establishment can offer. But there is a miss-communication here and my fear is that this tension will grow on and before anything new emerges, if at all, some stronger social unrest will happen.

We should also take into account something else which is for me the ultimate irony: Today people compare the current protests in France with May 68. But May 68 was always an enigma for me. One should consider the fact that during that time, the welfare state in France was at its highest point. There is something crucially important here. Today, social unrest emerges not when things are really catastrophic but, as a rule, protests arise when the level of living is relatively well. That’s why, for example, in China today the ruling party is afraid of the new leftists who organize the workers. But let’s face it. In China, overall, the most of ordinary people never lived as well as they do now. Of course, there is huge poverty on the country sides but they never protest since they are truly desperate. Iran is another example in this regard. Yes, the situation was horrible during the Shah’s regime, but it was not economically too catastrophic. And I still believe that there were some emancipator elements in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. 

Baradaran and Ballas: Since the Arab Spring, in the midst of extensive social and political changes, the idea of direct democracy has once again been raised as one of the important ways out of the current situation. Does direct and immediate action possess any emancipatory potential? Do you think the idea of an open-source society, and a direct democratic government by all for all, is the antidote we all need?  

Žižek: One of my problems with the idea of “direct democracy” is that it cannot really work in the real world. Can you even tell me a few examples in which this idea really worked? Is it even possible to find an example of a society or community where this concept could function? I may come across as naive, but I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about direct democracy. People usually mention that Hugo Chávez tried this in Venezuela. But even here it was all supported by a very strong leader with an extremely strong apparatus. I even once asked Negri in a communist conference in Berlin if he could give me an example of multitude directly functioning. And he said Chine Cultural Revolution. But my response was that even then, the whole Cultural Revolution in China was organized through an extremely strong leadership. For the global problems we are facing today –ecology, rise of far-right and so on – international coalitions will be needed. Direct democracy is a certain model which may function in small, local communities. But even there, if you look closely, a very precise structure of authority is discovered. So again, my first response to those who argue that we should give direct democracy a try is to ask what it would accomplish. One idea here is Digital Democracy, but even here there are problems, namely who can control and manipulate the data and so on. I simply claim that different forms of direct democracy always rely on some secret power structure. 

I have the same problem with the topic of toxic masculinity. First, it is also an ideological issue that is often addressed by medicalizing it. And I find this really terrifying. Secondly, the characteristic of toxic masculinity is also problematic. The only intelligent argumentation that I read about this subject was an article published in the Guardian in according to which the fact that thousands of men reacted to the idea of toxic masculinity and were threatened by it proves that they even don’t trust their masculinity. Accordingly, if men really believed in their masculinity, they wouldn’t be in such a panic. I agree with this argument, but what does it really say? It simply opposes this self-boasting masculinity where you don’t really trust yourself to a non-boasting masculinity. What I find really dangerous here is to medicalize total ideological distinctions. This is worst totalitarian procedure. This means than one can be simply accused not only of being ideologically a chauvinist but also on a clinical level. In the 50s, the worst form of politics against homosexuality was to medicalize it. The same American Psychological Association that half a century ago medically categorized homosexuality now is doing the same thing with toxic masculinity and so on. And what makes it really suspicious is that all the big corporations are now behind this form of approach. What I see is the entrance of a new conformist logic where any conflictual stance from a predominant social view is now potentially dismissed as pathological. 

Baradaran and Ballas: What do you think about nationalism with regard to contemporary capitalist logic? This point is particularly interesting because, in countries such as Russia, the government takes a quasi-colonial approach on the international stage while brutally implementing neoliberal and nationalist policies at home.

Žižek: It is an interesting question. China is a good example here; internationally, they still criticize American imperialism and so on, but domestically it is the most brutal capitalism one can imagine. This is why that the Chinese officials are now arresting young students who take Marxism a little bit too seriously and so on. The same logic can be applied to Iran also, but in my opinion, Iran is not anything special in this regard since the same logic of capitalism with Asian values can be found in many countries all around the world. This is a wonderful paradox: internationally, they speak language of solidarity and ecological emergency, but domestically it’s pure brutal capitalism. This is a new formula! I think this is the new logic of capitalism which although seems contradictory, but works nevertheless; the same cruel system which is combined with some religious or ancient ideology and the result is a fake format of Marxism. This is a sad development in which as a radical leftist one can get easily re-appropriated by the system. This can be seen in the sympathetic approach of some of my leftist friends like Oliver Stone with a figure like Vladimir Putin. Here we witness the same paradox; internationally, someone like Oliver Stone criticizes American imperialism, but in Russia he supports Putin! The usual logic here is to emphasize the international aspect of the struggle against capitalism which is total madness. Or another example is the criticism of the policies of Muslim countries, which the liberal left rejects as the imposition of Western values on Eastern culture and so on. This paradox can be understood from the dynamics of the contemporary capitalism: The global capitalism doesn’t function as the old model of Fukuyama, as a democratic liberal order. On the contrary, global capitalism functions today as capitalism with a radical twist which relies on a certain nationalist logic. There are no easy solutions here, just like the case of the Yellow Vest Movement. In my opinion, this new world based on nationalist capitalism, whose main symbols are Modi, Trump, etc., will eventually have the upper hand.

Baradaran and Ballas: In your “Sex and the Failed Absolute”, you talk about a “minimal withdrawal” which “is not a retreat into passivity but perhaps the most radical act of them all”. [2] Can hyperactivity (an activism without action) be also be characterized as a version of this radical act?

Žižek: For me, sometimes hyperactivity can be a refined form of conformism that makes sure nothing changes. Let me be very brutal here: Many of the radical left’s criticism of the society in the West function as hyperactivity. They criticize the society all the time but are not aware that no alternative to the establishment is presented through this constant criticism and so on. In this sense, I think there is a form of hyper-criticism which not only means nothing but plays a positive role in the existing order. The Western societies can only function through this form of radical criticism. This is one of my points of disagreement with Alain Badiou. I believe that his radical stance simply isolates him and ensures that he maintains this kind of rigid political stance and avoids participation. He sees politics as an illusion that everyone engages in. He uses the same reasoning when discussing Syriza, Podemos, Chavez, and so on. Of course, I agree with him to a certain extent, but I also think that in order to succeed, we must experience this type of repeated failures. Remember Occupy Wall Street Movement? Back then, Badiou used to say that the whole thing was just upper middle-class protesting and didn’t take it too seriously. Of course, they disappeared, but nonetheless that movement created a background for presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders and so on. So, I think these important moments should be appreciated, although my view remains pessimistic.

Baradaran and Ballas: “Sex and the Failed Absolute” also outlines the fate of ontology in our era, from Deleuzian ontologies of multitudes and assemblages, Badiou’s logics of the worlds emerging out of the multiplicity of being. On the other hand, you “persist in the failure of every ontology, a failure that echoes the thwarted character of reality itself.” [3] How are we to discern these ontological failures from post-structuralist indefiniteness? And can one link this failure to the Hegelian Night of the World?

Žižek: As I have elaborated in the book, this thwarted character can be discerned in the irreducible parallax gap between the ontic and the transcendental dimension: the notion of reality as a Whole of being and the notion of the transcendental horizon which always mediates our access to reality. For me this failure of every ontology is another name for radical negativity. In this sense, the result of this failure is not just plural universe and so on, but as a positive ontological feature. I think that this is basically Hegel’s position. I love this paradoxical position in which you claim that some ontological pessimism and even catastrophism should serve as the philosophical foundation of radical Left politics. 

As far as Hegel’s Night of the World is concerned, these two can be linked but nonetheless my point here is that this doesn’t mean that we should remain in a mystical state and so on. What I absolutely emphasize on is full engagement and so on. My point is that a full authentic engagement is possible only against this background. Lacan knew this perfectly and he elaborated that an act is possible only in the background of anxiety. One can find traces of the same logic even in Badiou. By “ontological temptation” I simply mean that we should reject all of these big, positive ontological views of reality. And I think that even postmodernists offer some kind of ontology of plurality or disperse multiplicity and so on. I think that postmodernists like Deleuz function in the same way! 

I think it’s good that you noticed this, because my position is ultimately secluded here. No one follows my line of thought here! Even those who do follow me always keep their distance. For instance, my friend Adrian Johnston takes Dialectical Materialism, a term that I use with full irony, too seriously and buys into it as a kind of new positive ontology; reality moving through contradiction and so on. For me, all of this is still ontology.

Baradaran and Ballas: Since the publication of the book "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, there have been many criticisms of this idea. Fredric Jameson pointed out that Adorno’s idea of a culture industry was historically limited, since the society that developed in the 1960s and 1970s with new media went beyond the cultural possibilities available during the 1940s. For Terry Eagleton, both Adorno and Marcuse overestimated the dominant ideology, believing that capitalist society languishes in the grip of an all-pervasive reification. [4] Is it possible to go beyond the framework of the culture industry today?

Žižek: Adorno is the perfect example of a pure, Eurocentric, and elitist modernist. With regards to his critique of culture industry, one should always ask from which position this criticism comes from. This is why Adorno for me is the extreme of modernist avant-garde. He never draws even a marginal vision of our perspective and only portraits a negative picture. He never took political sides, with a few exceptions. In other words, he was basically critical of everybody. I would also criticize Adorno in this sense that he dismissed all popular culture as Kulturindustrie which for me is an extremely simplistic and inaccurate analysis. I think that today’s popular culture is much more ambiguous. Yes, it’s still Kulturindustrie and so on but it’s also something. Take a look at Rock music for instance. Adorno was totally opposed it as a form of Culture Industry. And although I agree with him to some point, but at the same time there’s something more in it, in an emancipator potential sense of the word. On the other hand, it fascinates me that how the so-called avant-garde art, music and especially visual art are themselves a part of modern Kulturindustrie. Let’s take a modern example here: Venice Biennale and so on. In these Biennales the capital integrates the modern art and it’s extremely efficient. The funny thing is that these Biennales always justify themselves in antcapitalist terms and even criticize themselves. But what does that change in reality?

There are from time to time these scandalous art forms that appear, like Piss Christ by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. I was never fascinated by such provocative things, since these kinds of shocks are perfectly integrated into today’s market. No wonder that in the UK, Saatchi Gallery and so on was always politically pro-conservative. I’m tired of all these avant-garde provocations. I think they are absolutely integrated into the capitalist system. 

Baradaran and Ballas: From Adorno to Bataille and Derrida, Hegel has long been criticized and attacked. Accordingly, Hegel forecloses on the material dimension of the dialectic and creates a closed circuit, based on the idea of the dialectical mastery of history. But your reading of Hegel takes a different path. Now, let’s ask the ultimate question here: After all that has been said and done, can we save Hegel today? 

Žižek: I believe that Hegel is the most open philosopher one can imagine. I always quote a text from his preface to Elements of the Philosophy of Right where he says that we cannot say anything about the future and all we can do is describe the rational structure of what already exists. There is no other philosopher who is so open to the future, leaving it out of scope and enigmatic. This is why I admire Hegel because with him you have no dreams about the future and this is for the true closure. True closures happen when you describe the society the way it is and then provide a vision of the future which them closes the horizon. His final message is really not about reconciliation. In his political philosophy, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, the final word is about war not reconciliation; internationally, we all have to be in the state of war. This is also where one can criticize Hegel; for him, our entire ethics is based on war, that is to say the only way to go beyond our daily life and find ethical truth is to risk your life through war and so on. So, at many levels, Hegel keeps this ultimate pessimism. For Hegel, reconciliation does not mean turning the world into a peaceful and conflict-free place. For him, reconciliation means reconciliation with the chaos of the world. Hegel does not believe that everything will eventually rationalize. On the contrary, for him the threat always remains. This is why I like Hegel since here the future is always open! 

And this is the attitude we need today, in other words, admitting that future is not as certain as we want it to be. Basic lesson of Hegel is that whenever you claim big revolutionary acts, you should at the same time beware that things can go wrong one way or the other. And for me this is the true task of a revolutionary: What to do when things go wrong?  

NOTES: 

1. “A system which conceives the means of ensuring its faithful reproduction as its very end is calypsological.” See Mohan, Shaj, and Divya Dwivedi, "April Theses: On Democracy, Anti-caste politics, and Marxisms in India", Maktoob media, April 28, 2024: https://maktoobmedia.com/india/april-theses-on-democracy-anti-caste-politics-and-marxisms-in-india/

2. Žižek, Slavoj, Sex and the Failed Absolute, Bloomsbury Academic, 2019, p.1. 

3. Ibid, p.8. 

4. Eagleton, Terry, Ideology: An introduction, Verso, 1991, p.46.