Liberal Fascisms

by Slavoj Žižek, Joe Jameson (Narrator)

With an apparently contradictory and characteristically makeshift term, ‘Liberal Fascisms’, Slavoj Žižek captures the paradoxical nature of political populism.

To see this phenomenon as purely liberal and dictatorially fascistic is to expose liberalism and fascism as two sides of the same coin. The concept offers a glimpse into the murky landscape of half-lies and double-truths that Žižek enters in this latest collection of urgent essays.

From the economy and politics to ideology, these short texts work through the different faces of liberal fascisms, structured around a trio of the universal, the particular, and the our global predicament; Europe and the Middle East; Trump’s America. Peeling back the inadequate labels we hasten to pin on the phenomena that terrify us – like ‘post-truth'– to peer at the seeping wounds beneath them, these writings reveal the uneasy mixture of hypocrisy, self-deception and what is real that have always been stacked, matryoshka like, inside of one another.

With no cure in hand, but a refusal to dispense with thought that is muddled and murky, these interventions are both timely and resolute. From the so-called “death of truth” opens up the possibility for a new authentic truth… or for an even bigger lie. And ultimately we must ask – what forms of justice are made possible by this disorder?

Liberal Fascisms is also available in audiobook format from audiobook retailers.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, Essays

Audible Audio

First published January 1, 2026

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Bohdan Shtepan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not great, not terrible.

I was pleased to see Mr. Žižek live in conversation a couple of weeks back at the Barbican in London. This is where I got this book.



I was surprised to learn that the man's highly kinetic manner of standing and presenting is exactly the same as in all those videos online. Continuous motion, shifting weight, and physical tics—including twitching, pacing, rubbing his nose, and tugging at his shirt—yeah, that was him. This is also very true of his book, which is like capturing Brownian motion in text; but instead of the random motion of particles suspended in a medium, we deal with random thoughts reciting the yellow press's bold headlines and jumping from one subject to another without holding to a single storyline.

Frankly, this book reminds me of those days in the past when I'd visit my now-late gramps and had to listen to his never-ending rants about "bad Jews", "greedy capitalists", the "American betrayal of Western democratic values", and other things he saw on TV or read in the news while I was away.

My biggest problem with this book is not even the fact that THIS isn't philosophy, but rather highly speculative political science with random throw-ins like the names of Socrates or Plato. The biggest problem is the author's outlook and his fixation on the problems of what are pretty much third-world countries by now—like the USA, Israel, Iraq, Myanmar, etc.—and the European inability to take a strong stance on those external problems.

Why would you even attempt to scrutinise the behaviour of ill-minded and well-known criminals like Trump, Musk, or Netanyahu, while there are loads of people just like them among the ruling European elites? Wouldn't you want to first solve the problems that Europe experiences right now before going on to solve someone else's problems? Why don't we start by addressing the occupation of Northern Cyprus so the rest of the world starts taking us seriously? Did we properly address the simple fact that the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel was pretty much almost solely responsible for bringing Vladimir Putin to the global arena—the same Putin that wreaks havoc in eastern Ukraine now and poses an existential threat to the entire European community? How about the fact that Europe traded its own security for who knows what, and is now in a dire situation, with America openly admitting its unwillingness to protect snickering Europeans? How about uncontrolled mass migration? How about the Muslimisation of Europe? Why don't we solve our own problems first before getting into helping others?

There's also a whole lot of other things that surfaced during Žižek's live conversation and on the pages of this essay collection. Here are a few of the most notable:

Complete lack of understanding of how AI or modern technologies work. The book starts with a lacklustre attempt at addressing the release of the Chinese DeepSeek LLM model and how it affected the market. I noticed the very same problem with Yanis Varoufakis's writings, where the author takes it upon himself to criticise big tech companies while having no idea how the Cloud or AI works.

A lot of factual errors and omissions, like the claim that Yevgeny Prigozhin was into Nazi shit, liked Wagner's music, and so named his mercenary army after the famous composer. I mean, this book already heavily cites Wikipedia, so why wouldn't you actually read the bio of ruzzian Nazi Dmitry Utkin (military alias "Wagner"), who was in fact the organiser of the Wagner Group long before Prigozhin took hold of it?

Even simple stuff like the famous quote, "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun," being misattributed to Goebbels.

The book itself also has a handful of typos and grammatical errors.

Well, what can I say? Marxists are at it again.

[Plch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una stella in meno perché dubito fortemente che il problema della sinistra siano il politicamente corretto e john oliver, Žižek ne azzecca parecchie anche se spesso è dispersivo ma tocca appena i problemi del centro-sinistra istituzionale.

[Goggu Gjini · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought the book after hearing Zizek speak in person. As I expected from the content I had seen before, he tended to talk at length, moving through a wide range of topics unless interrupted. Ironically, rather like Trump, he would often delve into a new point before fully concluding the previous one, sometimes losing the thread.

The collection of essays is similar in that the focus shifts from one essay to the next. However, most of the essays do reach a conclusion, making the book a much more structured way to explore Zizek's perspective on contemporary politics, particularly Trump and Gaza, but also Ukraine, AI, the environment, and other issues. Because the essays are framed as independent pieces, there is some repetition.

The first part was much clearer, following something close to a “premise, fact, fact, conclusion” structure. I felt this clarity was somewhat lost in the second part, which read more like philosophical criticism of Israel and Trump, but in a less coherent form. The third part regained some of that structure and offered a very interesting analysis of ideology, both on the Left and within Trumpian conservatism.

The anecdotes and evidence Žižek uses to support his arguments were mostly interesting, and his humour was entertaining throughout. Overall, it was a very interesting read that touches on important topics, though it is not always watertight.


Most interesting:

- Defence of individuals from the state which amounts to the exploitation of the poor by mega-corporations; "Liberal Faciscms".

- Globalisation leads to a unique opportunity for local cultures and spaces to thrive; the 'digital states' destroy all roots in tradition.

- "Modern individuals ... increasingly focus on the 'self' and the 'global' while neglecting the 'nearby'. ... This erosion of the 'nearby' leads to social fragmentation, atomized individuals and weakened collective agency."

- "What our new techno-feudal masters are giving us for free can be more enslaving than our dependence on market exchange."

- Serbian protests differ from the expectation as instead of threatening violence and expressing readiness for dialogue, they reject both. Only wanting law and order can lead to more change than political demands.

- We are returning to a medival practice of humiliating defeated subjects (people or entities); Trump being a key proponent.

- " ... Agressors are ... in favour or peace ... the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their occupation and denounce any resistance to their occupation as 'warmongering'. "

- "Left to ourselves, we are not free but enslaved to our spontaneous prejudices manipulated by the mass media ... you can reach beyond yourself and make what appears impossible possible. "

- " The struggle against inequality is self-destructive insofar as it undercuts its own foundation ... "

- "... Truths are more easily accepted if we present them as moves in a ficticious game."

[Bludniq Sin · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, the tides turn. I’ve read Zizek’s last few books that are built in a direction I am now terrified to see where it leads.
In the first book I read “Too late to awaken: What lies ahead when there is no future” I was left with the impression that Zizek foresees a needed cultural and political restart of our direction as society, no, humanity. And this was written under the giant shadow of an upcoming ecological collapse we are aware is inevitable. Ironically, the book was full of hope. And on this sentence i believed sits the stepping stone of this path:

“We should do precisely what historicist relativisation forbids: we should measure the past with today’s standards. Once we see that slavery is wrong, we simultaneously see that it was always wrong, and become able to read history differently.”

I was wrong.
In the conclusion of “Liberal Fascism” we a see where this direction leads us and it’s Dante’s Inferno - Hell. Everything is allowed here: a state of terror, democracy (where democracy works, even though in the book Zizek has made clear he is convinced democracy fails) and authoritarian regimes for the sake of survival. This is what, I believe, Zizek wagers will take to walk through Hell and then climb up. It’s a naive bet, considering you can’t dwell in all hell’ circles, mingle with demons and denounce all humanity, only to then craw out and remain good of nature. There will be no rebuilding of society, you stupid s!ut, no cultural reset in a techno-shared utopia for the people.

I wonder if Zizek follows his own advice and measures past states of terror, authoritarian rule and crisis in today’s standards - how can he excuse more of that?

[Holly Kip Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5

Really enjoyed the start, got a bit rambley in the middle, and man the ending was bleak. Will definitely ruminate on some of these essays and revisit again.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Dietro la cieca bestialità delle SA si celava spesso un profondo odio e risentimento verso tutti coloro che erano socialmente, intellettualmente o fisicamente superiori a loro, e che ora, come se si realizzassero i loro sogni più sfrenati, erano in loro potere. Questo risentimento, che non si estinse mai completamente nei campi, ci colpisce come un ultimo residuo di sentimento umanamente comprensibile. Il vero orrore iniziò, tuttavia, quando le SS presero in mano l'amministrazione dei campi. La vecchia bestialità spontanea lasciò il posto a una distruzione assolutamente fredda e sistematica dei corpi umani, calcolata per distruggere la dignità umana; la morte veniva evitata o posticipata indefinitamente."

[Nat F · Rating 3 out of 5]

You seem pretty click-baiting (and lack-luster) for a book so provocatively titled

[Muhammad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Democracy lead the contest. Peace be upon him. There is no God, but Allah SWT. Guide Us to straight path. Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah.

[Akshay · Rating 4 out of 5]

🕶️ THE IDEOLOGICAL TRAP: SNIFFING OUT THE FACISM OF THE GOOD INTENTIONS 🕶️


Slavoj Žižek pulls no punches in this searing collection of essays, setting his sights not on the obvious far-right demagogues, but on the cozy, self-righteous fortress of Western liberalism to show how contemporary tolerance is the ultimate tool of control.



“The true fascist potential lies precisely within the liberal drive to neutralize all authentic political friction in the name of safety and administrative consensus.”




🍿 The Vibe Check:
Reading these essays feels like sitting in a dark university basement while a manic, caffeine-fueled philosopher jumps from Hegelian dialectics to Hollywood blockbusters and dirty jokes, all to prove that the world you think you understand is completely inverted. It is provocative, deeply uncomfortable, and brilliantly illuminating.




📖 The Detailed Narrative:
In this potent compilation of essays, Žižek takes the controversial phrase "Liberal Fascism" and untethers it from right-wing media talking points, re-grounding it in rigorous Critical Theory. His central thesis is terrifyingly simple: modern global liberalism has successfully depoliticized society. By transforming genuine economic and ideological struggles into mere cultural or administrative problems to be managed, liberalism effectively neutralizes any real resistance to global capitalism.



Throughout these essays, Žižek argues that contemporary "woke" capitalism and the liberal emphasis on political correctness act as a smoke screen. We are encouraged to be charitable, environmentally conscious, and deeply inclusive, yet these demands function as a psychological bypass—allowing us to feel like revolutionaries while participating in an economic system that actively destroys the global working class.



Using his signature blend of Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis and Marxist critique, Žižek explores how the liberal obsession with "safety" (both physical and emotional) inevitably leads to totalitarian surveillance and censorship. When any authentic political disagreement is pathologized as "hate" or "madness," the state or corporate apparatus gains the absolute right to regulate the public sphere—a mechanism Žižek brilliantly unmasks as the true face of modern bureaucratic fascism.




🔥 Critical Analysis:

1. The Illusion of the Ethical Consumer:
One of the absolute highlights of this collection is Žižek’s deconstruction of "cultural capitalism." He takes down the corporate narrative where buying a Starbucks coffee or a Tom's shoe "gives back" to a community. Žižek argues that this isn't charity; it is the ultimate capitalist synthesis where the antidote to the system’s cruelty (charity) is sold as part of the commodity itself, completely paralyzing genuine revolutionary desire.



2. Interpassivity and the Politics of Guilt:
Žižek introduces the brilliant concept of "interpassivity"—where we look to media, algorithms, or political figureheads to perform our political duties for us. Liberalism thrives on a perpetual cycle of performative guilt. By hyper-focusing on language and micro-aggressions, the liberal intellectual class creates a matrix of rules that creates the *illusion* of radical change while structurally maintaining the capitalist status quo.



3. Pop Culture as Ideological Blueprint:
As always, Žižek shines when he applies high theory to low-brow pop culture. Whether he is analyzing Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight to explain state-sanctioned violence, or dissecting obscure European cinema, he proves that ideology is never a dry textbook—it is a living monster breathed into existence by the media we consume daily.




✨ Why This Collection is Essential:

Uncompromising Intellectual Honesty: Žižek refuses to play team sports in politics. He attacks the left and the right with equal, devastating precision, forcing the reader to abandon tribal comfort zones.
High-Level Theory Made Visceral: By anchoring complex concepts from Hegel, Marx, and Lacan in real-world geopolitical events, he makes intimidating continental philosophy accessible and wildly entertaining.
Prophetic Vision: These essays read like a blueprint for our current cultural gridlock. His predictions on how algorithmic governance and corporate censorship would slowly suffocate public discourse are terrifyingly accurate.




⚠️The Critiques:

The Žižekian Whirlwind: If you have never read Žižek before, his style can be maddeningly digressive. He rarely walks a straight line; he prefers to meander through anecdotes, jokes, and historical footnotes before circling back to his point. If you demand rigid, linear academic formatting, this book will give you a headache.
Conceptual Repetition: Because this is a collection of essays written over a specific period, certain core anecdotes and theoretical formulas repeat across different chapters.





⭐️ THE VERDICT:

Liberal Fascism is a masterclass in ideological sabotage. Žižek successfully pulls back the curtain on the "benevolent" algorithms and corporate ethics defining our modern life, revealing the cold, totalitarian framework hiding underneath. It is a mandatory read for anyone brave enough to take the red pill and look at our political reality *without* the rose-tinted glasses of liberal consensus.

Final Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐✨ (4/5 Stars - Essential Critical Theory)

[Christopher Willard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zizek has written a short and insightful book that I recommend. In many ways this book might be seen as a companion or continuation of his earlier work First as Tragedy, then as Farce (2009). There are the more abstract insights, and pages of detailed examples from global politics to back up what he says, again much like the earlier book.

In Liberal Fascism, he posits the following:

* The world has/is changing in foundational ways given hypercapitalism, monopolies, multinational companies and so on.

* Along with this has been what may be said to be a shift toward conservative and populist positions in politics in which their authority figures have worked to normalize aspects of society, such as genocide, war, inequality and so on. The plan appears to be working well.

* The Left, (and here I'm not talking about variations of the Left such as the way the liberal left differs from that of the United States) in the United States has not yet been able to deal with this fundamental shift.

* The Left remains stuck in a repetition of needing an authority figure as a scapegoat, as a way to assuage their anxiety.

* However, the Left and Right are one unified party when it comes to their support of capitalist structures.

* An additional way the left deals with this anxiety is through irony. Zizek writes: "Irony, ironic distance towards the social order and its values, can function as a mode of perfect conformism....This is precisely how ideology functions today: it fills up the void left by its central message, which is no longer taken seriously by anyone, with self-referential jokes, multiverse-hopping and directly addressing the public."

Here are some quotes that I found particularly interesting:

"The Left’s inability to accept that things have changed, catastrophically and forever, has been symptomatic of its failure to combat the new populism which Trump exemplifies. It also, perhaps, speaks of the intellectual laziness which the Left, especially the liberal Left, all too often displays: when a new and terrifying phenomenon emerges; instead of analyzing it closely with an open mind and trying to understand its nature and origin, they quickly condemn it, immediately invoking the one truly bad label in politics, ‘fascism’."

What does he see of for the future off this new, changed world? he writes, "To be honest, I almost no longer believe that the world can be changed. I almost feel that people in today’s capitalist society are coddled, and as a result, they are fragile, short-sighted, and extreme, eventually becoming a breeding ground for the far right."

Here's his view on what is needed, odd since he is the philosopher who said that it was not the duty of philosophers to suggest solutions: "My utopia is thus a silent coalition between moderate conservatives (who run day-to-day things) and a Leninist elite (which prepares us for the impending breakdown) – but I am well aware that today both these agents are disappearing from the political scene. Moderate conservatives are being swept aside by Trumpian populists, whatever remains of the radical Left is caught in a fake peacenik utopianism. Insofar as even this crazy dream is all too utopian, what should we do? My formula is one of principled pragmatism: we should focus on central goals which concern our survival, and everything is permitted to move towards these goals – democracy when democracy works, authoritarian state control when it is necessary, popular mobilization when it is needed, even a level of terror when things get really desperate."

[Knecht René · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love these series of pockets because they focus on some central question and connect the different insights from the entire work of Žižek on a central theme.

I only quote what you can also find in earlier works and on Youtube-talks: interesting for this book is how these quotes, deep insights are actual today or can be applied to today's actuality.

ìn this way the quote from Walter Benjamin becomes throughout the book very clear: "Behind every fascism is a failed revolution (P.149)

Actuality
This time Žižek reflects on concrete geopolitical situations, tensions and contemporary catastrophes: Israel and Gaza, the rise of the populist Right, ecological collapse while using the insights of failed revolutions.

One of the central enigmas in the political landscape today:
“..why did the revolution failed, i.e., why did the new Right and not the Left succeed in capturing the rage and fury of many so-called ordinary people?” (p. 149)

Žižek does not approach the contemporary crisis with nostalgia for older forms of socialism, nor with liberal optimism.
“Our only realistic option is therefore to fully accept this absence of an actual alternative.” (p.150)

He speaks of the paralysis of contemporary academic thought, quoting Otto Paans:
“Professional academic philosophy has a moral duty to change direction radically, because of the absence of real, serious philosophy diminishes virtually to zero the chances of genuine political change or resistance against intellectual dictatorship in either of its politically incorrect or neo-fascist subspecies.” (P.150)

Earlier Revolutions
What can we learn from earlier revolutionary moments (the French Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, and Stalin) ?
Not out of nostalgia, but to show how radically our political horizon has changed.

Trotsky, for example, understood “the inertia of the masses,” while the revolutionary tradition itself is reread through the lens of contingency rather than historical certainty. (cf. P.46-47)

About Stalinist “scientific socialism”:
“Following the Stalinist turn, Communist revolutions were grounded in a clear vision of historical reality (‘scientific socialism’)… In theory, revolution was thus deprived of the dimension of subjectivity proper, of radical cuts of the real into the texture of objective reality.” (P.151)

==> Against this deterministic logic, Žižek invokes Saint-Just’s famous line from 1794:

“Ceux qui font des révolutions ressemblent au premier navigateur instruit par son audace.” (P.152)
==> The revolutionary act here is not grounded in historical guarantees, but in an audacious leap into uncertainty. That idea becomes crucial for Žižek’s understanding of the present. We no longer possess a stable ideological map of history. As he writes elsewhere in the same section, today we navigate “uncharted territories, without a global cognitive mapping.”

quoting: T. S. Eliot:
“There are moments when the only choice is the one between heresy and non-belief. When the only way to keep a religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its main corpse.” (P.153)
“==> Lenin did this with regard to traditional Marxism, Mao did this in his own way… Today, the Left has so far failed to do it - it was Trump that enacted a heretic break with global neoliberalism.” (P.153)

Žižek is not endorsing Trump: he is pointing to the Left’s inability to occupy the space of rupture and antagonism, allowing the populist Right to monopolize dissatisfaction with neoliberal globalization.

From there, Žižek arrives at one of the book’s central claims:

“So we do need a heresy, but a heresy that will work, with a chance of becoming hegemonic.” (P. 153)

MAMDANI?
Interestingly, he even refers to Mamdani’s victory in New York as a sign that such a “heresy” may still be possible. (cf. .141)


ABANDON ALL HOPE?
The final pages become almost apocalyptic in tone. Žižek discusses Tehran’s approaching “Day Zero (==> no spoiler alert here, I recommend reading the whole book for the Grand Finale)

"What goes on now in Tehran is such a sign from the future ..." (P.157)

Highly recommended. Every Chapter contains some interesting insights applied to today's reality.

[Knecht René · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love these series of pockets because they focus on some central question and connect the different insight from the entire work of Žižek on a central theme.

I only quote what you can also find in earlier works and on youtube)talks: interesting for this book is how these quotes, deep insights are actual today or can be applied to today's actuality.

ìn this way the quote from Walter Benjamin becomes throughout the book very clear: "Behind every fascism is a failed revolution (P.149)

Actuality
This time Žižek reflects on concrete geopolitical situations, tensions and contemporary catastrophes: Israel and Gaza, the rise of the populist Right, ecological collapse while using the insights of failed revolutions.

One of the central enigmas in the political landscape today:
“..why did the revolution failt, i.e., why did the new Right and not the Left succeed in capturing the rage and fury of many so-called ordinary people?” (p. 149)

Žižek does not approach the contemporary crisis with nostalgia for older forms of socialism, nor with liberal optimism.
“Our only realistic option is therefore to fully accept this absence of an actual alternative.” (p.150)

He speaks of the paralysis of contemporary academic thought, quoting Otto Paans:
“Professional academic philosophy has a moral duty to change direction radically, because the absence of real, serious philosophy diminishes virtually to zero the chances of genuine political change or resistance against intellectual dictatorship in either of its politically incorrect or neo-fascist subspecies.” (P.150)

Earlier Revolutions
What can we learn from earlier revolutionary moments (the French Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, and Stalin) ?
Not out of nostalgia, but to show how radically our political horizon has changed.

Trotsky, for example, understood “the inertia of the masses,” while the revolutionary tradition itself is reread through the lens of contingency rather than historical certainty. (cf. P.46-47)

About Stalinist “scientific socialism”:
“Following the Stalinist turn, Communist revolutions were grounded in a clear vision of historical reality (‘scientific socialism’)… In theory, revolution was thus deprived of the dimension of subjectivity proper, of radical cuts of the real into the texture of objective reality.” (P.151)

==> Against this deterministic logic, Žižek invokes Saint-Just’s famous line from 1794:

“Ceux qui font des révolutions ressemblent au premier navigateur instruit par son audace.” (P.152)
==> The revolutionary act here is not grounded in historical guarantees, but in an audacious leap into uncertainty. That idea becomes crucial for Žižek’s understanding of the present. We no longer possess a stable ideological map of history. As he writes elsewhere in the same section, today we navigate “uncharted territories, without a global cognitive mapping.”

quoting: T. S. Eliot:
“There are moments when the only choice is the one between heresy and non-belief. When the only way to keep a religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its main corpse.” (P.153)
“==> Lenin did this with regard to traditional Marxism, Mao did this in his own way… Today, the Left has so far failed to do it - it was Trump that enacted a heretic break with global neoliberalism.” (P.153)

Žižek is not endorsing Trump: he is pointing to the Left’s inability to occupy the space of rupture and antagonism, allowing the populist Right to monopolize dissatisfaction with neoliberal globalization.

From there, Žižek arrives at one of the book’s central claims:

“So we do need a heresy, but a heresy that will work, with a chance of becoming hegemonic.” (P. 153)

MAMDANI?
Interestingly, he even refers to Mamdani’s victory in New York as a sign that such a “heresy” may still be possible. (cf. .141)



ABANDON ALL HOPE?
The final pages become almost apocalyptic in tone. Žižek discusses Tehran’s approaching “Day Zero (==> no spoiler alert here, I recommend reading the whole book for the Grand Finale)

"What goes on now in Tehran is such a sign from the future ..." (P.157)

Highly recommended. Every Chapter contains some interesting insights applied to today's reality.

[Zach Irvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m sure I’m not the only one, but I can’t help but read it in his voice. Nose scratching and all.

This collection of essays demonstrates just how plugged into the media affairs of history Zizek is in our current time. Lots of discussion of Gaza and Israel that takes Israel to task on the ongoing genocide. Lots of critiques of the flaccid left wing of American politics. I find it interesting that some people talk about the “contradiction” in the title. Having read Deleuze and Guattari and their account of desire and fascist crystallizations, it’s actually not surprising at all that the liberal democrats in America have found kinship with the fascist tendencies of the right.

That being said, I do think that Zizek should just stop using D&G to make his points, because he almost always has a poor reading of their concepts.

Addendum: I did think it surprising that this collection didn’t focus more on the climate crisis. The final essay did (and it ended up being my favorite part of the book), but otherwise it was mentioned in passing more than anything else.

[Kareem Omary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek started off really well in this book and presented his thoughts in a clear round way, which I really liked.
Towards the end it felt like he's jumping from an Idea to the other without exploring it at a deeper level.

The way he sees things around the world is actually quite interesting and (although I hoped he'd give us a bit more structure to cling into) it challenged me to think about the perspective that he presented a bit more.(Maybe it was intentional all along, who knows)

This book felt a bit rough and unripe in some areas but was still generally an interesting, good read. (Especially if you read it in his voice and imagine him scratching his nose while doing so)

[Riccardo Tedesco · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was my first, and so far only, book by Žižek. I picked it up because I’d heard him quoted many times and was curious. Maybe this just isn’t the right book to judge his work.

For me, though, it felt like 90% venting and 10% actual content, with some arguments coming across as quite speculative. I kept waiting for a more structured and evidence-based discussion, but it never really arrived.

Not a book I would recommend

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays was definitely a great read. I love how Žižek is a concise thinker who always tries to come up with surprising insights. For a more comprehensive contextual view of this book within Žižek’s body of work, see the essay “Fascist Libertarianism: Žižek and the Present” by Frank Ruda (freely accesible).

[Massimo Colletti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Molte osservazioni di Žižek sono, come al solito, rivelatrici. Spiace per la visione sulla guerra in Ucraina che perde la solita lucidità e razionalità arrivando ad allinearsi alla propaganda mainstream.

[Matthias · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

Interessant. Eigengereid in positieve zin. Veel coole ideeën en visies op dingen en zo. Veel om over te denken. All over the place in de verkenning van weliswaar een handvol grote, actuele hoofdthema's, wat de analyses ook wel wat rijker maakt.

[Carina · Rating 4 out of 5]

intriguing collection of essays and some rabbit holes to dive into
a fun complement to the chomsky i’m reading
some places i would definitely push back on esp his opinions re militarization and the need for the threat of war to ensure peace
& i need to read marx

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always interesting. This one I have plenty of disagreements with his views, but among the other leftists, Zizek is the most honest and forthright in recognizing the left's failures and limitations.

[Matt Sautman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rejoinder to the original Liberal Fascism, this collection of essays explores how liberal societies can create the grounds wherein bad actors can build totalitarian movements.

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I'd need to reread to understand a lot of it but I fe he's really saying what needs to be said

[David Bowd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read. Not his best work. Hoping the talk tomorrow will see him grilled on it by Frankie Boyle and Alexei Sayle.

[Nacho RT · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent set of current event essays by Zizek with his peculiar and fascinating way to get into the deeper symbolic meaning of many of the superficially difficult to understand signals that we see from across the ideological spectrum. Zizek is very good at showing the hidden meanings of the lies we are constantly told , the lies behind the “common sense truths” that many people in power repeat and then fail to truly defend or care about. Zizek is hopeful that the way Trump has broken the current symbolic order opens the door to hopeful figures like Mamdani in NY and maybe a new Labour in the UK , but he warns of the extreme risks and the vacuous and superficial nature of the far right which has nothing to offer in terms of real solutions but rather drapes itself in more and more excluding symbols, preventing a new Left to truly engage in a universal cosmopolitan discourse to solve humanity’s problems together.