Προβλήματα στον παράδεισο: Ο κομμουνισμός μετά το τέλος της ιστορίας

by Slavoj Žižek, Ελένη Αστερίου (Translator)

Παρά το γεγονός ότι ζούμε σε έναν κόσμο που δοκιμάζεται από αλλεπάλληλες κρίσεις, φαίνεται πως εξακολουθούμε να αποδεχόμαστε ότι ο καπιταλισμός -μια ιδεολογία ελευθέριων ηθών που διαθέτει επικίνδυνη γοητεία- αποτελεί την καλύτερη δυνατή λύση. Εναλλακτικές όπως: περισσότερη ισότητα, δημοκρατία και αλληλεγγύη μοιάζουν αντιθέτως ανούσιες και βαρετές, όταν δεν είναι εντελώς επικίνδυνες. Αυτό το μονοπάτι ωστόσο μπορεί να μας οδηγήσει μόνο σε μια γκρίζα, υπερ-ρυθμισμένη κοινωνία. Ο Σλάβοϊ Ζίζεκ υποστηρίζει σε αυτή την επίκαιρη παρέμβασή του ότι αυτή η αντίληψη απέχει πολύ από την αλήθεια.
Αν θέλουμε πραγματικά να φανταστούμε μια καλύτερη λύση για τον κόσμο μας, πρέπει να κατανοήσουμε ότι ο καπιταλισμός είναι αυτός που μας προσφέρει το πιο σκοτεινό μέλλον -μας ταΐζει τα ίδια και τα ίδια με τη μορφή όμως της διαρκούς αλλαγής- και ότι ο αγώνας για τη χειραφέτησή μας από αυτόν, αντιθέτως, είναι το πιο τολμηρό εγχείρημα.

Για να αναλύσει τη δυσχερή θέση στην οποία βρισκόμαστε σήμερα, ο διάσημος φιλόσοφος αντλεί υλικό από παντού, από τα βίντεο κλιπ και τον Μπάτμαν ως τον Μαρξ και τον Λακάν. Απογυμνώνοντας τις λειτουργίες του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος, ο Ζίζεκ περιγράφει το μέλλον που μας περιμένει αν δεν απαιτήσουμε άμεση αλλαγή και διερευνά τις δυνατότητες -και τις παγίδες- των νέων αγώνων για χειραφέτηση. Οι νέοι μας ήρωες, όπως εξηγεί, θα πρέπει να είναι ο Τζούλιαν Ασάνζ, η Τσέλσι Μάνινγκ και ο Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν. Μπορούμε ωστόσο να ακολουθήσουμε το παράδειγμά τους και να σπάσουμε τα ιδεολογικά δεσμά μας; Σύμφωνα με τον Ζίζεκ και την άποψη που εκθέτει σε αυτό το βιβλίο, πρέπει οπωσδήποτε να τα καταφέρουμε αν δεν θέλουμε να ζήσουμε σε έναν κόσμο γεμάτο ζόμπι και βαμπίρ.


Περιεχόμενα
ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ: Διαιρεμένοι, ποτέ νικημένοι!
ΔΙΑΓΝΩΣΗ HORS D'OEUVRE?
Κρίση, ποια κρίση;
Σπάζοντας αυγά χωρίς να κάνουμε ομελέτα
Τώρα που ξέρουμε ποιος είναι ο John Galt!
Το χρέος ως τρόπος ζωής
ΚΑΡΔΙΟΓΝΩΣΗ DU JAMBON CRU?
Ελευθερία στα σύννεφα
Βρικόλακες εναντίον ζόμπι
Η αφέλεια του κυνικού
Η διεστραμμένη άλλη όψη του δικαίου
Υπερεγώ ή η απαγορευμένη απαγόρευση
ΠΡΟΓΝΩΣΗ UN FAUX-FILET, PEUT-ETRE?
Θάνατοι στον Νείλο
Απαιτήσεις... και άλλα
Η σαγήνη των δεινών
Οργή και κατάθλιψη στο παγκόσμιο χωριό
Mamihlapinatapei
Ο Lenin στην Ουκρανία
ΕΠΙΓΝΩΣΗ J'AI HATE DE VOUS SERVIR!
Πίσω στην οικονομία του δώρου
Το τραύμα του ευρωκεντρισμού
Λα, όχι σολ ύφεση
Προς έναν νέο αφέντη
"Το δικαίωμα ευεργεσίας έναντι της κατάσχεσης"
ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ NOTA BENE!
Batman, Joker, Bane
Ίχνη ουτοπίας
Βία, ποια βία;
Οι οικογενειακές αξίες των Weathermen
Έξω από το Malttukbakgi
ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΕΙΣ

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, History, Theory, Economics

392 pages, Paperback

First published November 27, 2014

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

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Thatcher was asked about her greatest achievement, she promptly answered: 'New Labour.'
Risking an air of redundancy, Trouble in Paradise is troubling, concerning, topical and immediate. Cobbled from pieces Žižek wrote for periodicals (largely the Guardian and the LRB -- I had read most of them previously there) I found his arguments much more persuasive presented here, linked arm and arm, even if the repeated jokes do ache a bit after the 5th telling. What I appreciate about the text is how Žižek look to other theorists for answers or at least models of opportunity: Sloterdijk and Berardi feature prominently. So quickly -- inequality and a lack of social justice are inflaming many throughout the world. It is a question of expectations, so watch out China. Mindsets are becoming medieval at digital speeds. The establishment feels threatened --why Snowden, Assange, Manning are viewed as such threats -- the welfare state was doomed once the Wall fell, as the lack of a political alternative meant that such securities were a superfluous expenditure. Z reflects on Benjamin's mystic violence while he imagines a Communist horizon. I texted my best friend while reading this that I felt the weight of emancipatory politics all weekend, yet I could only trust beer in such weighty matters.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once I’d finally finished the first draft of my PhD thesis, all 79,659 words of it, the first book I decided to read was by Slavoj Žižek. From this I infer that academia has warped my brain, possibly for life. I found 'Trouble in Paradise' a great deal easier to read than Living in the End Times, for several reasons. Firstly it is shorter, secondly it is ostensibly based on a lecture series given in South Korea, and thirdly there is less frequent recourse to Hegel and Kant. The style is much the same, however. As Žižek freely admits at the end, ‘No single idea underlies this bric-a-brac, nothing like Negri’s ‘multitude’ or Piketty’s ‘soak the rich’ to orientate the book’s analyses towards a clear political strategy’. The text flits from analysis of a poem or joke to discussion of genocide and financial crisis. I’ve become curiously fond of this unique style, but it doesn’t lend itself to reviewing the book as a whole. Instead, I found myself writing references to specific points in a little notebook, as otherwise I’d forget them under the onslaught of further eclectic miscellanea.

Parts that I found interesting and thought-provoking included discussion of structural unemployment as a necessary underpinning of global capitalism (p.23), the link between debt and guilt (p. 44), and this comment on freedom:

Since free choice is elevated to a supreme value, social control and domination can no longer appear as infringing the subject’s freedom; it has to appear as (and be sustained by) the very experience of individuals as free. This unfreedom often appears in the guise of its opposite: when we are deprived of universal healthcare, we are told that we are given a new freedom of choice (to choose our healthcare provider); when we can no longer rely on long-term employment and are compelled to search for a new precarious job every few years or maybe even every couple of weeks, we are told that we are given the opportunity to reinvent ourselves and discover our unexpected creative potential; when we have to pay for the education of our children, we are told that we become ‘entrepeneurs-of-the-self’, acting like a capitalist who has to choose freely how he will invest the resources he possesses (or has borrowed) - in education, health, travel. Constantly bombarded by such imposed ‘free choices’, forced to make decisions for which we are not even properly qualified (or do not possess enough information about), we increasingly experience our freedom as a burden that causes unbearable anxiety.

That second sentence is longer than I remembered. Further intriguing material is to be found on constructed ignorance (p.69), the conflict between superego individualisation and global problems (p.87), and analysis of the Arab Spring and how revolutions are re-appropriated (p.102). I further noted this idea about consistency and general principles versus specific circumstances:

...market freedom goes hand in hand with the US supporting its own farmers, preaching democracy goes hand in hand with supporting Saudi Arabia. This inconsistency, this need to break one’s own rules, opens up a space for genuine political interventions... In Greece, a reasonable call for a more efficient and non-corrupt state apparatus, if meant seriously, implies a total overhaul of the state... A measure (say, the defense of human rights) which is in general a liberal platitude, can lead to explosive developments in a specific context.

Žižek also has some striking things to say about Europe’s rising anti-immigrant sentiment (p.138), the necessity and impossibility of global government (p.160), and post-colonialism (p.170). At times, though, he is just talking nonsense:

What if, today, straight marriage is ‘the most dark and daring of all transgressions’?

It really isn’t. The most memorable part of the book concerned the need for a new ‘Master’. The initial point is both very true and well-expressed:

When Thatcher was asked about her greatest achievement, she promptly answered: “New Labour”. And she was right: her triumph was that even her political enemies adopted her basic economic policies. The true triumph is not victory over the enemy; it occurs when the enemy itself starts to use your language, so that your ideas form the foundation of the entire field.

From this, Žižek moves through Badiou to make this claim, which I am not sure how to feel about:

What we need today, in this situation, is thus a Thatcher of the Left: a leader who would repeat Thatcher’s gesture in the opposite direction, transforming the entire field of presuppositions shared by today’s political elite of all main orientations.

Food for thought, certainly. I was amused that Žižek ended the book in the same way as David Graeber ends The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy - with an extended analysis of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. That film appears to hold a fascination for critical theorists. I can understand why on some level, but it is also an absolute chaos of plot holes. Here, Ra’s al Ghul is compared to Robespierre. I was the first person to borrow this book from the university library; evidently my fellow students have no idea how to have fun.

[Will Ansbacher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Note to self: Do not read any more Slavoj Zizek! If tempted, repeat the word “transfunctionalization” until comatose.

I forget why I thought I needed to read this, it was something to do with harsh words about globalization and the banking crisis, I think.
Much of what Zizek says may well be sharp and provocative, but he doesn’t take aim so much as fire scattershot; he can’t leave any unrelated topic alone. Worse, it’s wrapped in an unfocussed jumble of pop culture, and disentangling anything from the impenetrable pseudo-intellectual babble: “Badiou opposes a new ‘affirmative’ dialectics to (what he considers) the classic dialectical logic of negativity which engenders out of its own movement a new positivity” is just not worth the effort.

Near the end (I skimmed a lot to get there) he quotes a critic Ari Kohen, who took him to task over his convoluted verbal masturbation, and attempts to defend himself (at length). But the quote is the clearest and most succinct paragraph in the book; I thought, good on you, Ari.

[Koen Crolla · Rating 1 out of 5]

Žižek jerks off to words for two hundred pages.
If there was a point he was trying to communicate besides how very clever he is for managing to fit so much vocabulary into a paragraph, I wasn't able (or willing) to extract it.

[Josh Bata · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a self-help book for today's maladies, but it is a book that tickles your brain. Never read before sleeping if you want to have a nice sleep. Žižek's convictions are unapologetic and one might feel "you know nothing" as the book unfolds.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Körülbelül 120 oldalig biztos voltam benne, hogy én úgy lehúzom ezt a könyvet, mint szigeti punk a holland turistákat. Aztán egyre inkább világossá vált számomra, hogy ez így ebben a formában nem lesz lehetséges (sajnos) – mert a hangzatos lózung, miszerint Zizek „a Nyugat legveszélyesebb filozófusa”, nem teljesen légből kapott. Igen, elfogadom, ez a szlovén csávó valóban a progresszivizmus pápája, a forradalom filozófusa, vonatkozó könyve pedig minden hibájával együtt (nincs mese) a XXI. század egyik érvényes alapműve, és mint ilyen, gazdag muníciót kínál azoknak, akik a jövő útjait fürkészik.

Zizek állítása dióhéjban annyi, hogy a globalizáció veszteseinek, a leszakadóknak a társadalmi energiái robbanásközeli állapotba kerültek – ezt az energiát pedig csak úgy lehet megszelidíteni, ha a demokratikus áramlatok hangsúlyosabban beemelik a diskurzusba az egyenlőség kérdését – nem csak az emberi méltóság témakörében, hanem gazdasági aspektusból is. Ez egy progresszivista, marxista (ne féljünk kimondani, hisz Zizek se fél: kommunista) krédó, amely egy új osztályharcot vizionál, és amit ha figyelmen kívül hagyunk, akkor a tömeg indulatait a különböző (vallási vagy nacionalista) fundamentalizmusok kaparintják meg. Igaz, ami igaz, én is úgy hiszem, hogy a nyugati típusú pártpolitikai formák kiüresedtek (legutóbb a francia választások szállítottak erre bizonyítékot), és világosan látszik, melyik a két pályázó, aki az így megüresedett térbe pozicionálja magát: a különböző progresszív mozgalmak, illetve a populista szélsőjobb. Előbbi a horizontális egyenlőség híve (és mint ilyen, sok szempontból baloldali elmélet), mert azt állítja, hogy a szegények és gazdagok közti különbség csökkentésével lehet mérsékelni a globalizáció problémáit – tehát alapvetően nem megszüntetni, hanem megreformálni akarja a globalizációt. A másik mozgalom viszont a globalizációt teszi felelőssé a gondokért*, és nemzeti alapú izolációt hirdet, alkalmasint úgy, hogy azért közben megtartja a közösséghez tartozás előnyeit (például a milliárdos EU támogatásokat). Ez a gondolkodásmód vertikális egyenlőséget kínál fel, azt állítván, hogy lehet, te sokkal szegényebb leszel, mi pedig (a vezetőid) sokkal gazdagabbak, de ez másodlagos, a lényeg, hogy mindnyájan magyarok vagyunk. Pedig hát mi a franc köze van a problémához annak, hogy VÉLETLENÜL mind magyarok vagyunk? Láthatjuk, ebben az egyenletben a nacionalizmus a horog végén a szaftos giliszta, amire ráharap a nép – és ráharap a nép. Merthogy az a paradox helyzet állt elő, hogy a progresszívek (akik egy valódi egyenlőséget hirdetnek) viszont képtelenek eljutni a tömeghez, egyszerűen nem találják meg a nyelvet hozzájuk.** Viszont itt van nekik egy Zizek, aki látványosan, lendületesen képes artikulálni a problémát – nyilván meg kell becsülni őt.

Csakhogy (mégpedig ez egy ordenáré nagy "csakhogy") Zizek jellemzően a pszichoanalitikus iskolák eszköztárával kívánja bizonyítani állításait – viszont véleményem szerint társadalmi kérdéseket pszichoanalitikai módszerrel alátámasztani olyan, mint cirokseprűvel halászni. Egyszerűen más minőség. Részben (azt hiszem) ennek tudható be az a konstans homály, ami oly sok fejezetet beleng ebben a könyvben, és amit talán a szerző is érzékel – legalábbis úgy vélem, ezért próbálja a logikai szakadékokat olyan meghökkentő, provokatív analógiákkal elfedni, mint amilyen mondjuk a páviánok seggéről szóló***. De hát ha a szakadék nem is látszik, azért még ott van, ahogy Czeslaw Milosz mondta volt: "A vulgarizált tudás olyan érzetet kelt, mintha minden érthető és világos volna. Ez a tudás bizonyos szempontból a völgyhidakra emlékeztet. Nyugodtan átmehetünk rajta, elhitethetjük magunkkal, hogy nincs alattunk szakadék. A szakadékokba nem szabad lenézni – de ez, sajnos , mit sem változtat azon a tényen, hogy szakadékok igenis vannak." És bár Zizek valóban egésze káprázatos elméleti struktúrákat hajigál elénk – de ezek a heurisztikus gondolatok gyakran mintha elvesznének a blöffök és blődlik között.

Végig figyeltem, hogy vajon Zizek képes-e a kommunizmusról úgy beszélni, hogy a közgazdaságtant szinte csak érinti – nos, képes volt. Ez alighanem azért van, mert számára a kommunizmus nem gyakorlati, hanem erkölcsi kérdés – az egyetlen következetes választás, ha valaki igazából meg akar szabadulni a társadalmi egyenlőtlenségektől. Amivel nem az a problémám, hogy így figyelmen kívül hagyjuk a kommunizmus bűneit – hiszen valóban lehet amellett érvelni, hogy amit Sztálin csinált, annak nem sok köze van Marx eszméihez. Csakhogy van itt még valami: ugyanis a kommunizmus erkölcsi lényege szerintem nem függetleníthető attól, hogy a gyakorlatban megvalósítható-e – hisz bizonyos aspektusból épp a megvalósíthatatlanságából következtek a bűnei. Ebből fakad (véleményem szerint) e könyv mélységes fatalizmusa: hogy óhajtja a forradalmat, de annak esetleges hátulütőivel nem kíván foglalkozni. És ez az a pont, ahová Zizeket én már nem tudom, nem akarom követni. Elképzelhető, hogy Zizeknek igaza van, amikor azt mondja: ezzel a passzivitással, a fokozatos reformok iránti elkötelezettséggel én is csak konzerválom azt, ami a kapitalizmusban ártalmas – elképzelhető. De ha bizonyosság lenne, még akkor is kicsinek érezném magam ahhoz, hogy felvállaljam a felelősséget egy akkora véráldozattal járó operációhoz, mint amekkorát Zizek elkerülhetetlennek tart. Én maradnék a deklaráltan erőszakmentes mozgalmak mellett, ám fenntartom a jogot magamnak, hogy felhasználjam (ellopjam) a későbbiekben is a szerző értékesebb gondolatait.

* Mivel magam a globalizációt olyan folyamatnak látom, ami a kapcsolódási pontok és információk eddig ismeretlen mennyiségű előfordulásának törvényszerű következménye, igazán nem tudom, hogyan lehet szembeszállni vele úgy, hogy ne csökkentenénk le végletesen ezeknek a kapcsolódási pontoknak és információknak a számát. És még egyetlen olyan értelmes fejtegetést sem hallottam, ami megmagyarázta volna, hogyan lehet fájdalommentesen csökkenteni ezeket, és ha végül valahogy mégis csökkentettük, akkor egészen pontosan mi is lesz utána.
** Persze ez nem független itt Kelet-Európában a történelmi tapasztalatoktól. Nyilván nem véletlen az sem, hogy Lenin annyira erőltette az „élcsapat” elméletét – mivel a bolsevikek pártként nem tudták megszólítani igazából az orosz tömegeket, ezért a tömegek helyett maguk közül élcsapatot neveztek ki, aki a tömeg nevében cselekedett. Aztán látjuk, mi történt a végén. Nyilván ez egy olyan veszély része, amivel foglalkozni kell: hogy miért és miképp válik egy egalitárius mozgalom totális diktatúrává. Zizek ezt nem teszi meg, így a kérdés, hogy miképp érjük el az egyenlőséget, ha a gazdagok nem érdekeltek a változásban, kívül marad a könyv hatókörén. Pedig valamilyen szinten itt kezdődnek a gondok.
*** "Miért van a páviánoknak olyan tolakodóan nagy, szőrtelen, vörös fenekük? A fő ok láthatóan az, hogy a tüzelő nőstény feneke izzad, s így a hím tudja, hogy kész a párosodásra. De a behódolás jeleként is funkcionál – ha az egyik állat a másik felé fordítja a fenekét, ezt mondja a gesztussal: „Tudom, hogy erősebb vagy nálam, ne harcoljunk hát többet!” A vörösebb és csupaszabb seggű több társat vonz, s így több utóda lesz, s azok pedig azért örvendenek közkedveltségnek, mert az átlagot tekintve vörösebb és csupaszabb a seggük, mint a többieké. Nem így fest az ideológiai hegemóniáért vívott harc is? Az ember megmutatja csupasz, kitüremkedő seggét, fölajánlkozva, hogy hatoljanak belé az ideológiai üzenetek."

[Maurizio Manco · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Una nuova epoca oscura incombe, con l'esplosione di passioni etniche e religiose e l'affievolirsi dei valori dell'illuminismo. Queste passioni sono sempre state in agguato, di nuovo oggi c'è che esse sono uscite allo scoperto." (p. 153)

[John DeRosa · Rating 2 out of 5]

To use his own description- a tartle. I can't remember what his point is

[Chris Chapman]

"if moderate liberal forces continue to ignore the radical left, they will generate an insurmountable fundamentalist wave"

[Oli Sutton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Somehow disjointed and coherent at the same time? Funny and fascinating in equal measure.

[Tibor Jánosi-Mózes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Második nekifutásra sikerült csak a könyv végére érnem, mert az érthető megfogalmazást némileg megnehezítette Zizek bizonyos alapfogalmak szimbolikus átértelmezése. Emiatt érdemes egy szusszra olvasni ezt a kötetét is, mert kieshetünk a kereteiből. Nagyon izgalmas írás, köszönet a szerzőnek és a fordítónak!

[José Toledo · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I like about Zizek, and this book, is that the reader is not taken for granted, his intelligence and capacity to comprehend are never underestimated. Zizek tells it the way he sees it like it is, and does not dispense with the wealth of information and understanding of his mind. The book, in fact, while rich in analysis of diverse cultural and political phenomena, does not offer or propose a clear path of action, a single-minded strategy; but beneath the many topics discussed is the hopeful vision of a communist option, not the failed inaccessible ideal of the past, but a space in which ideas can move without being restricted --and ultimately obliterated-- by market demands.

[Noah Tiegs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably actually a 3.5, just because it’s like… a bit over my head. Not SO far over my head, it is somewhat approachable, but when he gets really into the weeds of Marxist theory and similar stuff, ehhhhh… I lose it a bit. That being said, I did really enjoy it! It’s very well-written, it’s got some nice humor, his arguments make a lot of sense to me… yeah it’s all pretty good. Reading the small sections about the Russia-Ukraine conflict from 2014 was… odd.

[Maxim · Rating 4 out of 5]

As engaging as provocative. Zizek is an intellectual radical who manages a biting critique of liberal capitalism, but also the failures of those who have (esp „real socialist“ regimes) and who do (esp left-liberals) oppose it. The important thing is probably not to take him too serious though.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

‘in our daily lives, we more and more resemble baboons… Individuals display their hairless protruding butts, offering themselves to be penetrated by ideological messages’

[James Reynolds · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like Zizek. I really do. I could listen to him go on calling out comic examples of irony and hypocrisy in the west. But Trouble in Paradise just fell short for me. In a six-minute video, perhaps his Hegelian negations of life and being are quite entertaining. But in prose, it can feel a little... wandering.

The method of the book itself is quite something; Zizek will spend a few pages dancing between four or five themes - for example, Kant's public/private reason, baboon mating rituals, Obama's peace prize and Orban's phone tapping - and sometimes tie it up into a complete idea by the end of the chapter. But then, sometimes he doesn't. The central aim of the book (to find an alternative direction, a radical change away from capitalism) is gestured towards but not conclusively found. Ah! - he says - the failure of the left to organise effectively may be linked to Marx's eschatological interpretation of history. The answer, then, is a return to..... Hegel(!?) Well, why? Eagleton makes a fair comparison to the old line about Sartre's existentialism making philosophy out of ashtrays. And Zizek does share that kitchen-sink lens of reality. But Existentialism developed out of its tropes a comprehensive philosophy. Zizek shows how everything can be interesting and then leaves it there.

Buf. I don't know. I don't know what it is exactly that I took from Trouble in Paradise. I found Welcome to the Desert of the Real much more focused on its central claim (fundamentalism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, legitimise each other). But what is the real point or prescription of this book?

Zizek has a fantastic, precise way of educing the hidden contradictions of politics and being, but the lack of a consistent narrative detracts from it. Imagine what a read this could have been if its energy had been focused strictly on something particular...

--

- Late capitalism has evolved a way to embrace and publically ridicule its flaws and contradictions, thereby sidestepping criticism. There are degrees of truth and degrees of 'forgetting'. Liberal capitalism has, in its way, found a way to include aspects of spirituality and fundamentalism.
- The perceived viability of capitalism owes something to the failure of the Left to provide a strong alternative. Similarly, the rise of Islamofascism may have something to do with a weak Left in the Islamic world. If moderates continue to ignore the radicals, they'll collapse.

[Earl of Gwynedd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Žižek korunk egyik rocksztárja és valahol a könyve is ilyen. Kicsit inkább egy hangos arénakoncert jut az eszembe erről a könyvről, ami tele van nagyon jó gondolatokkal, de valahogy mégis inkább egy színes szagos előadásra hajaz, ami inkább kommersz akar maradni, hogy bárkinek a fülébe ragadhasson, akihez eljut (persze, ez önmagában egy eszköz inkább és az is lehet, hogy csak én vagyok túl sznob). Azt gondolom, hogy általánosságban mindaz, amit a világ működéséről ír igaz, osztja is lelkesen a pofonokat, ezekhez nagyon jól kapcsol irodalmi, populáris és közéleti példákat is. Engem annak a gondolatkísérlete (persze az alapbeállításom sem áll messze ettől) erősen megragadott, hogy ma igazán konzervatív csak egy radikális baloldali eszmére hangolt ember tud lenni, az ezzel kapcsolatos részeket és példákat nagy élvezettel olvastam. Összességében valahogy nekem mégis inkoherens ez a könyv, de a központi gondolat, mi szerint a kapzsiság és a kizsákmányolás az atomizált egyéneket korábban összefogó közösségeket, valamint (és ez a rész Ukrajna kapcsán 2023-ban különösen érdekes, vannak pillanatok amiket mondhatni akár előre megjósoltnak mondhatunk a könyv kiadása után 9 évvel) a nemzetek önző individualizmusa és egymással való erőszakos versengése a saját növekedésük céljából mind olyan jelenségek, amikre választ kell találni a lehető leghamarabb. A megoldást a kommunizmusban látja Žižek, de néhány nagyívű gondolaton túl még a start mezőig sem kísérli meg az eljutást, a megvalósítás konkrét lépéseire pedig hiába is várunk. Öt csillagot nem adnék erre a könyvre, igazából a négy csillag megadásán is elgondolkodtam, de egyrészt a könyv témája, másrészt a sok jó gondolat miatt, amiről ír megadom neki a négy csillagot.

[Mariana Ferreira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interessante crítica ao Capitalismo, por vezes confuso em todas a ligações e comparações que tenta estabelecer
No final, a posição de Zizek torna se um pouco mais clara, aquilo que defende. Mas o mesmo que critica é maleita que também ele sofre - excesso de abstração e poucas coordenadas de acção prática real. Susceptível de muitas discussões políticas, deve ser tomado não como uma oposição binária comunismo-capitalismo, mas como uma tentativa de formar algo novo a partir de uma base formal com potencial positivo e quiçá universal em valores. Zizek não defende o comunismo que a história nos deu. Aponta as suas falhas, a sua chacina. Do mesmo modo, não defende o fascismo. No entanto defende a sua luta emancipatória, acusa os podres estruturais que as despoletaram. Aquilo que pode dar errado numa revolução, aquilo que ela necessita..
Bom para pensar no mundo pós - moderno, no seu sentido esvaziado nos ritmos industriais, na dessacralizaçao da cultura e do homem tornado máquina e número e agente self made da sua liberdade demasiado pesada num mundo complexo sem garantias de segurança suficientes. Um mundo individualista, egocêntrico, sem visão clara da força coletiva, que deixa cada um de nós por vezes perdido em tantas escolhas de que não é especialista.
Zizek fala de um horizonte, apenas possível de entrever após o travo das ambiguidades em que vivemos, na desigualdade estrutural, no ciclo vicioso do consumismo, nas inúmeras ilusões de paraíso.

[K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Filosofia é algo que sempre gostei

[Hayden Muscat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading his work helps form the habit of trying to see the larger picture of the daily humdrum of politics, to ask why things are the way they are and look for the deeper patterns at play.

On the flipside, I worry Slavoj forms interpretations and connections of events that don't exist, with such specific examples or platitudes offered as evidence that I sometimes get the impression the examples are anomalous or exceptions that prove the opposite.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

an enjoyable dérive from the great entertainer of our time

[r · Rating 3 out of 5]

Šķiet, ka tikai Žižeks var izskaidrot pretrunas neoliberālisma hegemonijas "paradīzē" caur anekdoti par kādu britu franču restorānā un par metaforu šķiru cīņai izmantot zombijus un vampīrus.

Daudz popkultūras, Marksa un Hēgeļa, tam visam savienojoties secinājumā, ka “there is something wrong with our notion of Paradise”. Interesanta šķita tēze, ka “the only true conservatives are radical leftists”.

[chienyu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Marianne Williamson, a spiritual self-help author and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, remarked that US politics is gripped by “dark psychic forces”. This predictably provoked much commentary on social media platforms and mainstream media. The rhetoric resonated with many viewers not steeped in journo-speak but mystified establishment pundits who ridiculed her. I think we can view this disjunction more profitably with Zizek’s brand of analysis.

In typical Zizek fashion the writing is so circuitous and ironically distant the reader is forced to question if it’s all bullshit. But the ramblings always end with a satisfying punchline and more often than not I’m compelled to agree. Why doesn’t he get to the point rather than force-feed us psychoanalytic/hegelian word salad? I claim there is a consistent method to his approach. The very language we use to address politico-socio-psychological (and so on) issues are steeped in ideology. His style exposes the inadequacy of the regnant linguistic paradigm to address someone like a Williamson.

If the reader can buy into at least that much then there is much to be gained from his critique of political discourse, markets, and the default mode of social commentary. It is not a narrow technocratic critique (minimum wage, distribution curves, tax rates, etc) but a critique of the cultural unconscious in more philosophical or psychoanalytic terms. This is a perspective that’s often ignored or even openly dismissed in mainstream political discourse yet is never fully suppressible.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Williamson’s (and Trump’s for that matter) comments captured a part of the public imagination while bewildering the experts. People already intuitively frame experiences, political or otherwise, in the more intuitive language employed by Williamson (i.e. vibes, moods, psychic forces).

In the wake of the US 2016 election perhaps the concerned political reader would do well to consider adopting analytical tools other than the “Rationalist” approach. For no matter how much you try to chase away nature, it will always come back.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few years ago, I suggested to a couple of people at work that we write a paper on utopia and how important it is to have a vision of utopia if you want to change the world. We gathered some papers to read, but life is busy and it came to nothing. This book would have made an interesting contribution to that project. That he uses the word paradise rather than utopia hardly matters. And that he focuses on the trouble, rather than the hope makes little difference either.

There is that quote, which he doesn’t use in this book, that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. He does use that quote from Churchill that democracy is the worst of all systems, other than all the others – which he corrects by supplying what Churchill actually said. The point remains, that democracy is terrible, but when put head-to-head with any alternative, it doesn’t seem nearly so bad. So… Is the lesson to be grateful for what we have got and stop complaining? That we live in the best of all possible worlds and any change would prove worse?

This isn’t the conclusion that he makes – but he does make a good case for it all the same. Too often revolutionary change doesn’t end up changing all that much. The pigs remain in power or they are replaced by new pigs. And this helps explain him saying that real revolutions generally come in twos. The first revolution that has people dancing in the streets, and the real revolution that comes after when the forces of the new world impose that new world using violence. Otherwise, nothing really changes.

The example he uses here is Mandela and South Africa after Mandela. The world was overjoyed when Mandela was released from gaol, I was with the world then too. The world was distraught when he died. But the revolution he brought was hardly half finished. The crazy right talk of the white genocide occurring to white South African farmers – absent any evidence, of course. But, as Akala says in Natives, apartheid was removed, but the economic conditions that advantaged one group and disadvantaged another were left in place. The joyful coming together of virtually the whole of society – the first revolution – was not continued to the necessary division for a redistribution that would have actualised the revolution. That Mandela was transformed in the west from a terrorist to a saint is largely explained by the fact all changed to ensure nothing changed.

He makes the same point about the revolutions that brought down the Soviet satellites. The moments of joy were shared by what seemed like the entire populations. But what they were celebrating was simply not the same thing. Sure, they were all delighted that the old system was gone, but they certainly weren’t united in what should replace it. There were those who wanted to see western capitalism installed. There were those who wanted the church to have a greater say, if not the major say. There were those who wanted ‘true’ socialism to finally be given a go. Their dance in the streets could only last so long as the music was Beethoven’s Ninth. They would never be able to agree on what song should come next. And then those who had all of the power in the previous regime will call the tune. Everything will have changed, and nothing will have changed.

The idea that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism is not a theoretical problem today. The end of the world is facing us from multiple directions. Climate change, AI, inequality, racism, aggressive and wilful ignorance, a blind trust in experts. But what would a utopian future look like? I’ve been telling people recently how much I used to laugh at and look down upon QAnon and their belief that a cabal of paedophiles ruled the world. They might have been wrong in particulars – although, ex-Prince Andrew using a pizza shop as his excuse to say he didn’t rape a child even calls that into question – but I’m certainly not laughing now.

Why the attraction for sex with children? People say it is more about power than sex and I mostly agree, but they stop short, I think. The power is in the transgression. That the rules that are necessary to be imposed upon everyone else must not be applied to you, since you are god like. There are people who say that Epstein was working for Mossad and that the whole thing was so Israel could have dirt on the world’s most powerful people to keep them on side. The point is that this transgression certainly ensured bonds were sustained beyond those that could have been established in any other way. When you do the unspeakable, not only will you do anything to ensure that no one ever finds out, but you are also initiated into a club – bound by more than a vow. And these are our masters now – from Trump to Bill Gates to Chomsky to Dan Arely.

There is a nice bit of this at the start where he quotes Pinker who has become the Dr Pangloss of our day. His books stress that we’ve never had it so good in terms of life expectance, general wealth, quality of life. Zizek’s point is that the rich and powerful should perhaps be more concerned that is the case. A taste of what life could and should offer is a greater revolutionary force than abject poverty. It is rarely the most discriminated and downtrodden who bring about revolutions – but those who might otherwise look like they have been bought off.

So, what might be our utopian vision for the future and how do we get there other than across an ocean of blood? In part, Zizek’s answer is to hope for a leader who can crystalise our desires into something tangible – something we suddenly see is what we wanted all along. I think I would say this is something Greta Thunberg has shown us. While she was making vague calls to save the planet she was sainted, when she called for the end of capitalism and got on boats to bring food and medicine to those suffering a genocide she became a devil. The maxim to know your heroes by who are your masters’ enemies doesn’t always work – but as a first rule of thumb, at least it forces you to think.

He makes the useful point that about the only thing most people know about Martin Luther King is that he had some sort of dream. As such, his dream has become a kind of nightmare, or worse, a hope devoid of any content and therefore of any power to move us as King himself had wanted us to move. Is it possible to seek a better world when those in power will do anything to ensure they remain in power? Will every line of escape always be captured and turned into its opposite? Can we save the world from the excesses of capitalism and not make things a thousand times worse? Given we appear to be rushing towards self-destruction – these are hardly rhetorical questions.

[Craigtator · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quote From the Book:

"For one thing, relational information is to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. However, this assumption is not correct, since the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap construction. Conversely, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features suffices to account for an abstract underlying order. This suggests that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics delimits problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Notice, incidentally, that the systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of grammarians."

OK, I lied. That paragraph is from the Chomsky Bot. However, it could very easily have come from this book. Never has anyone used so many words to say so little. And, oh yeah, he's still espousing a chop suey of theories that were stale fifty years ago. If you think that Marxism/Freudianism/Maoism is the path to the future, this is the book for you.

Look On My Words, Ye Mighty, And Despair!

[Stephen Goldenberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zizek is an iconoclast whose writing is often impenetrable but can also, at times be thought-provoking and entertaining. The best parts of the book are his analyses of the 2007-2008 banking crisis and the various wars in the middle east. The most difficult parts are his complex analyses of the struggles in Eastern Europe, particularly the Ukraine, and his general thesis about the need to reformulate communism as a bulwark against the worst excesses of modern-day capitalism.
His writing is most entertaining when he wanders off into analogies based on works of popular culture and jokes. Thus, he explains why masturbation is more satisfying than full sex, how zombies and vampires reflect the class struggle (zombies are the down-trodden masses, vampires are the wealthy aristocracy) and how the present state of world politics is reflected in Batman movies. But beware, I may be in danger of making it sound much more readable than it really is.

[Unies Ananda Raja · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading Žižek for a while I am getting used to with his style of narration; fast, jump around often, name-drop Hegel, Lacan or Marx or other thinkers. His explanations are often repetitive. You can almost find every piece of bit of this books in his other books. However, he always has thougt-provoking ideas. He can give a different perspective on issues so that we can see something from his peculiar eyes. His jokes are excellent. He does not joke just for joking. He used it to explain his argument in easier way. Unfortunately, this book is quite unstructured. He admits it in the last chapter. But, it is a rewarding experience. After reading his 'non-philosophical' work, I need to read more of his 'philosophical' ones.

[Erkin Unlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

İçinde bulunduğumuz dünyanın halini, tartışılmaz kabul edilen neoliberal kapitalist ideolojisini, gideceği yeri ve neler yapabileceğimizi tartışıyor Zizek. Tabii ki çözüm radikal özgürlük yani komünizm :).

“Communism is not the name of a solution, but the name of a problem, the problema of commons in all its dimensions... our horizon has to remain Communist - a horizon not as an inaccessible ideal, but as a space of ideas within which we move.”

“In short, true courage is to admit that the light at the end of the tunnel is probably the headlight of another train approaching us from the opposite direction.”

[Mark Valentine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like reading Zizek because of his novelty, his agility, his acuity, and his range. Not everything sticks nor do I agree with everything, but I greatly admire him and I value his insights.

Here, he limits his topics to capitalism and communism and it should be no surprise that he supports the communist but how he supports it is invigorating.

After reading this, I want to read more G. K. Chesteron (he loves to quote from Orthodoxy) and view the Batman trilogy (he deconstructs efficiently).

[Walter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the literary equivalent of having a discussion about western politics with your well-read, but currently wasted, great-uncle. There are definitely some good insights in here, but it may still leave a sour taste in your mouth because Slavoj will have started rambling about something else entirely in the next sentence and never expand on the original thought.