What do you think?
Rate this book
A Left That Dares to Speak Its Name: 34 Untimely Interventions
With irrepressible humor, Slavoj ?i?ek dissects our current political and social climate, discussing everything from Jordan Peterson and sex "unicorns" to Greta Thunberg and Chairman Mao. Taking aim at his enemies on the Left, Right, and Center, he argues that contemporary society can only be properly understood from a communist standpoint.
Why communism? The greater the triumph of global capitalism, the more its dangerous antagonisms multiply: climate collapse, the digital manipulation of our lives, the explosion in refugee numbers - all need a radical solution. That solution is a Left that dares to speak its name, to get its hands dirty in the real world of contemporary politics, not to sling its insults from the sidelines or to fight a culture war that is merely a fig leaf covering its political and economic failures. As the crises caused by contemporary capitalism accumulate at an alarming rate, the Left finds itself in crisis too, beset with competing ideologies and prone to populism, racism, and conspiracy theories.
A Left that Dares to Speak Its Name is ?i?ek's attempt to elucidate the major political issues of the day from a truly radical Leftist position. The first three parts explore the global political situation and the final part focuses on contemporary Western culture, as ?i?ek directs his polemic to topics such as wellness, Wikileaks, and the rights of sexbots. This wide-ranging collection of essays provides the perfect insight into the ideas of one of the most influential radical thinkers of our time.
Why communism? The greater the triumph of global capitalism, the more its dangerous antagonisms multiply: climate collapse, the digital manipulation of our lives, the explosion in refugee numbers - all need a radical solution. That solution is a Left that dares to speak its name, to get its hands dirty in the real world of contemporary politics, not to sling its insults from the sidelines or to fight a culture war that is merely a fig leaf covering its political and economic failures. As the crises caused by contemporary capitalism accumulate at an alarming rate, the Left finds itself in crisis too, beset with competing ideologies and prone to populism, racism, and conspiracy theories.
A Left that Dares to Speak Its Name is ?i?ek's attempt to elucidate the major political issues of the day from a truly radical Leftist position. The first three parts explore the global political situation and the final part focuses on contemporary Western culture, as ?i?ek directs his polemic to topics such as wellness, Wikileaks, and the rights of sexbots. This wide-ranging collection of essays provides the perfect insight into the ideas of one of the most influential radical thinkers of our time.
290 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2020
66 people are currently reading
445 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
634 books7,512 followersSlavoj 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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
March 18, 2021
I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who reads his books in his voice
April 18, 2021
Slavoj Žižek sagt, er würde immer das gleiche Buch schreiben. Das ist bei jemanden der weit über 70 Bücher geschrieben hat eine kokette Aussage. Sein neustes Buch „Ein Linker wagt sich aus der Deckung: Für einen neuen Kommunismus“ stellt hier keine Ausnahme dar.
Er greift in seinem Buch viele Themen der vergangenen Jahre auf: Rechts- wie Linkspopulismus, die MeToo-Debatte, Feminismus, Rechte für Sexroboter, den Klimawandel und eigentlich sämtliche geopolitische Ereignisse, die eine gewisse Bedeutung hatten. Sogar dem Kanadier Jordan Peterson ist ein eigenes Kapitel gewidmet. Žižek zeigt auf, dass auch die Ideen einer linken Politik nicht radikal genug sind um eine Veränderung zu schaffen, dass es Vorschläge braucht, die außerhalb des bestehenden Systems denken. Denn es ist nicht das Volk das regiert, auch nicht wenn die Linken das Sagen hätten. Die übergroße Macht, die über allem schwebt, ist die Ökonomie, genauer: Das Kapital.
Bis ins Kleinste seziert Žižek die oben benannten Themen und erläutert, wie eine Abkehr vom kapitalistischen geleiteten System ein Verbesserung der meisten Probleme herbeiführen würde. Was also ist die Lösung für all diese Problem? Richtig, ein neuer Kommunismus. Kein totalitärer Kommunismus, sondern ein Kommunismus mit einer starken staatlichen Autorität mit demokratischer Kontrolle. Der Kapitalismus ist unfähig die Welt in einem lebenswerten Zustand zu erhalten und nimmt keine Rücksicht auf das Wohlergehen der Menschen. Das Thema Corona wird in dem Buch leider nur sehr kurz angeschnitten, doch auch hier zeigt sich Žižeks Brillanz: Messerscharf nimmt er die Argumente der Corona-Leugner auseinander, sodass nur der Wille zum Nichtwissen für sie übrig bleibt.
Ein Žižek-Buch wäre nicht komplett, würde es nicht auch eine cineastische Analyse beinhalten. So liefert er hier eine grandiose Analyse der letzten Staffel der Serie „Game of Thrones“ und widerspricht allen, die der Meinung sind, die letzten Folgen wären Mist. Das ist vielleicht ein Anreiz für alle, die sich denken Slavoj… Wer? Kommunismus? Damit will ich nichts zutun haben. Alleine für die Analyse von „Game of Thrones“ lohnt es sich das Buch zu lesen!
Mit „Ein Linker wagt sich aus der Deckung“ ist es Žižek wieder einmal gelungen ein Buch zu schreiben, dass den Lesenden aufzeigt, dass wir einen radikalen Wandel brauchen, damit alle ein erfüllteres und besseres Leben führen können.
Eine klare Leseempfehlung!
Note:1-
Er greift in seinem Buch viele Themen der vergangenen Jahre auf: Rechts- wie Linkspopulismus, die MeToo-Debatte, Feminismus, Rechte für Sexroboter, den Klimawandel und eigentlich sämtliche geopolitische Ereignisse, die eine gewisse Bedeutung hatten. Sogar dem Kanadier Jordan Peterson ist ein eigenes Kapitel gewidmet. Žižek zeigt auf, dass auch die Ideen einer linken Politik nicht radikal genug sind um eine Veränderung zu schaffen, dass es Vorschläge braucht, die außerhalb des bestehenden Systems denken. Denn es ist nicht das Volk das regiert, auch nicht wenn die Linken das Sagen hätten. Die übergroße Macht, die über allem schwebt, ist die Ökonomie, genauer: Das Kapital.
Bis ins Kleinste seziert Žižek die oben benannten Themen und erläutert, wie eine Abkehr vom kapitalistischen geleiteten System ein Verbesserung der meisten Probleme herbeiführen würde. Was also ist die Lösung für all diese Problem? Richtig, ein neuer Kommunismus. Kein totalitärer Kommunismus, sondern ein Kommunismus mit einer starken staatlichen Autorität mit demokratischer Kontrolle. Der Kapitalismus ist unfähig die Welt in einem lebenswerten Zustand zu erhalten und nimmt keine Rücksicht auf das Wohlergehen der Menschen. Das Thema Corona wird in dem Buch leider nur sehr kurz angeschnitten, doch auch hier zeigt sich Žižeks Brillanz: Messerscharf nimmt er die Argumente der Corona-Leugner auseinander, sodass nur der Wille zum Nichtwissen für sie übrig bleibt.
Ein Žižek-Buch wäre nicht komplett, würde es nicht auch eine cineastische Analyse beinhalten. So liefert er hier eine grandiose Analyse der letzten Staffel der Serie „Game of Thrones“ und widerspricht allen, die der Meinung sind, die letzten Folgen wären Mist. Das ist vielleicht ein Anreiz für alle, die sich denken Slavoj… Wer? Kommunismus? Damit will ich nichts zutun haben. Alleine für die Analyse von „Game of Thrones“ lohnt es sich das Buch zu lesen!
Mit „Ein Linker wagt sich aus der Deckung“ ist es Žižek wieder einmal gelungen ein Buch zu schreiben, dass den Lesenden aufzeigt, dass wir einen radikalen Wandel brauchen, damit alle ein erfüllteres und besseres Leben führen können.
Eine klare Leseempfehlung!
Note:1-
September 2, 2025
zeker een aanrader om te lezen. het is een hele fijne aanvulling op de de krant (moest je die lezen xp) ;hiermee bedoel ik dat er heel veel onderwerpen aan bod komen die vandaag de dag nog steeds actueel zijn. vandaar ook de 'untimely interventions'. misschien een beetje nerdy maar zeker aan te raden: krant en boek met elkaar linken en kijken waar een hypothese van zizek anders is verlopen/ andere gevolgen heeft aangenomen. daarbuiten leest het fijn, af en toe wel rigoreus taalgebruik - zo kennen we hem wel ;)
zeker toevoegen aan je boeken kast.
zeker toevoegen aan je boeken kast.
Read
January 20, 202315% bullshit, 15% super goede analyse, 15% amusant, 15% niet benoemenswaardig
"As everyone who has trouble with constipation knows, the suppository is a solid medical cone that is inserted into the rectum to facilitate defecating. I always found it strange that such a noble philosophical sounding term is used for a rather disgusting task. Is it not the same with the way many of our economic experts talk when they call rather brutal measures that hurt ordinary people "stabilization" or "regulation"?"
"What Sloterdijk correctly pointed out is that capitalist globalization does not stand only for openness, conquest, but also for a self encloses globe separating the Inside from its Outside: The two aspects are inseparable: capitalism's global reach is grounded in the way it introduces a radical class division across the entire globe, separating those protected by the sphere from those outside its cover. The flow of refugees is a momentary reminder of the violent world outside our cupola, a
world which, for us, insiders, appears mostly on TV reports about distant violent countries, not as part of our reality but encroaching on it. Our ethico-political duty is not just to become aware of the reality outside our cupola, but to fully assume our co-responsibility for the horrors there. The hypocrisy of the reactions to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi provides a nice example of how this cupola works. In a broader sense, he was one of us, well located within the cupola, so
we are shocked and outraged. But our care is ridiculously displaced: the true scandal is that the murder in Istanbul created so much greater a scandal than in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is destroying an entire country. In (probably) ordering the murder, Mohammad Bin Salman forgot the lesson of Stalin: if you kill one person, you are a criminal, I you kill thousands, you are a hero. So Mohammad Bin Salman should have gone on killing thousands in Yemen."
"As everyone who has trouble with constipation knows, the suppository is a solid medical cone that is inserted into the rectum to facilitate defecating. I always found it strange that such a noble philosophical sounding term is used for a rather disgusting task. Is it not the same with the way many of our economic experts talk when they call rather brutal measures that hurt ordinary people "stabilization" or "regulation"?"
"What Sloterdijk correctly pointed out is that capitalist globalization does not stand only for openness, conquest, but also for a self encloses globe separating the Inside from its Outside: The two aspects are inseparable: capitalism's global reach is grounded in the way it introduces a radical class division across the entire globe, separating those protected by the sphere from those outside its cover. The flow of refugees is a momentary reminder of the violent world outside our cupola, a
world which, for us, insiders, appears mostly on TV reports about distant violent countries, not as part of our reality but encroaching on it. Our ethico-political duty is not just to become aware of the reality outside our cupola, but to fully assume our co-responsibility for the horrors there. The hypocrisy of the reactions to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi provides a nice example of how this cupola works. In a broader sense, he was one of us, well located within the cupola, so
we are shocked and outraged. But our care is ridiculously displaced: the true scandal is that the murder in Istanbul created so much greater a scandal than in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is destroying an entire country. In (probably) ordering the murder, Mohammad Bin Salman forgot the lesson of Stalin: if you kill one person, you are a criminal, I you kill thousands, you are a hero. So Mohammad Bin Salman should have gone on killing thousands in Yemen."
July 2, 2021
Zizek does a fantastic job at dissecting the political and social issues that have arisen from the late stage capitalist systems we operate under, in an unapologetic and sometimes irresponsible interpretation of political intersectionality.
What I find most engaging is his radical solutions that can come only from the left, he calls for a left that sees the forest for the trees, a left that does not lose focus when confronted with culture wars or identity politics, a left that campaigns fiercely for the individual while exclusively employing a collective identity and rhetoric.
A great compilation of essays that provides a broad insight into Zizek's body of work, however it does tend to self reference heavily and requires some kind of understanding of Lacanianism which can make the book difficult to engage with at parts.
What I find most engaging is his radical solutions that can come only from the left, he calls for a left that sees the forest for the trees, a left that does not lose focus when confronted with culture wars or identity politics, a left that campaigns fiercely for the individual while exclusively employing a collective identity and rhetoric.
A great compilation of essays that provides a broad insight into Zizek's body of work, however it does tend to self reference heavily and requires some kind of understanding of Lacanianism which can make the book difficult to engage with at parts.
July 5, 2025
I would love to give this book a higher rating because Slavoj Zizek makes some unexpected and witty critiques of the current global cultural sphere, however the ending seems sporadic and more intent on reacting to critiques rather than building an honest narrative or what he likes to refer to as that ‘radical change’.
Nonetheless, I think he gives insight into how unfreedom can be experienced as freedom, always directing his speech at ordinary people. I would agree with him that social and economic inequality cannot be relegated into clean and completely separate spheres. It’s clear that he was trained in the philosophic tradition but he plays with the rules with his humor and tone.
Interesting and I do recommend ! A relatively quick read.
Nonetheless, I think he gives insight into how unfreedom can be experienced as freedom, always directing his speech at ordinary people. I would agree with him that social and economic inequality cannot be relegated into clean and completely separate spheres. It’s clear that he was trained in the philosophic tradition but he plays with the rules with his humor and tone.
Interesting and I do recommend ! A relatively quick read.
May 19, 2020
Really liked the chapters on Climate Change and global issues.
January 10, 2022
Im Gegensatz zu seinen anderen Büchern die ich gelesen habe fühlt sich dieses an als ob der YouTube Algorithmus random zizek clips auswählt während man sich durch Twitter scrollt. Der einzige Unterschied es ist besser kontextualisiert.
September 4, 2020
“Resistance against this radicalization is extremely strong, as we can see in the latest fictional example of the radical feminine political agent, Daenerys in Gam of Thrones”
“The ferocity of the debate is in itself proof that the ideological stakes must be high.”
“One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of Stephen King, who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but by the ending as such – in this epoch of series which, in principle, go on indefinitely, the idea of a narrative closure becomes intolerable.”
“The stakes of the final conflict are, thus, to put it in a simple way: should the revolt against tyranny be just a fight for the return of the old kinder version of the same hierarchic order, or should it develop into the search for a new order needed?”
“The same femininity that, within the close circle of family life, is the very power of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of public and state affairs. The lowest point of the dialogue is the moment when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fear should reign – the embarrassingly vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied woman who explodes into destructive fury.”
“But – let’s bite our sour apple now – what about Daenerys’s murderous outbursts? Can the ruthless killing of the thousands of ordinary people in King’s Landing really be justified as a necessary step to universal freedom”
“Yes, this is inexcusable – but at this point, we should remember that the scenario was written by two men. Daenerys as the Mad Queen is strictly a male fantasy, so the critics were right when they pointed out that her descent into madness is psychologically unjustified. The view of Daenerys with a mad furious expression flying on a dragon and burning houses and people is simply the expression of patriarchal ideology with its fear of a strong political woman.”
“Arya (who saved them all by single-handedly killing the Night King) also disappears, sailing to the West of the West (as if to colonize America). The one who remains (as the queen of the autonomous kingdom of the North) is Sansa, a type of women beloved by today’s capitalism: she combines feminine softness and understanding with a good dose of spirit of manipulation, and thus fully fits the new power relations”
“This marginalization of women is a key moment of the general liberal conservative lesson of the finale: revolutions are destined to go wrong and lead to new tyrannies.”
“Although Bane is the official villain, there are indications that he, much more than Batman himself, is the film’s authentic hero distorted as its villain: he is ready to sacrifice his life for his love, ready to risk everything for what he perceives as injustice, and this basic fact is occluded by superficial and rather ridiculous signs of destructive evil.”
“And in Black Panther, is not Killmonger the true hero? He prefers to die free than to be healed and survive in the false abundance of Wakanda – the strong ethical impact of Killmonger’s last words immediately ruin the idea that he is a simple villain”
“The liberal conservative lesson is best imparted by the following words of Jon to Daenerys:
I never thought that dragons will exist again; no one did. The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Maybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen: build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But if you use them [dragons] to melt castles and burn cities, you’re no different. You’re just more of the same.”
“Consequently, Jon kills out of love (saving the cursed woman from herself, as the old male-chauvinist formula says), the only social agent in the series who really fought for something new, for a new world that would put an end to old injustices.”
“So no wonder the last episode was well received: justice prevailed – what kind of justice? Each person is allocated to his/her proper place, Daenerys who disturbed the established order killed and flown away to eternity by her last dragon. The new king is Bran: crippled, all-knowing, who wants nothing – with the evocation of the insipid wisdom that the best rulers are those who do not want power. In a supremely politically correct ending, a disabled king now rules, helped by a dwarf, and chosen by the new wise elite. (A nice detail: the laughter that ensues when one of them proposes a more democratic selection of the king.”
“And one cannot but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are more ethnically diverse, while the new rulers are clearly white Nordic”
“The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irrespective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are back to normal, the people’s misery leavened by a resigned wisdom (just remember that the first measures envisaged by the new ruling council are the restoration of the army and brothels …).”
“And is Greta not our Daenerys? Is she not the same Mad Queen who wants real change? And is not the answer of our establishment to her acts not the same cynical wisdom as displayed by the ruling council at the end of Game of Thrones?”
“My first viewing of Alfonso Cuarón’s movie Roma left me with a bitter taste: yes, the majority of critics are right in celebrating it as an instant classic, but I couldn’t get rid of the idea that this predominant perception is sustained by a terrifying, almost obscene, misreading, and that the movie is celebrated for all the wrong reasons.”
“As already in his earlier film Y Tu Mamé También, Cuarón maintains a distance between the two levels, the family troubles (Antonio leaving his family for a younger mistress, Cleo getting pregnant by a boyfriend who immediately abandons her), and this focus on an intimate family topic makes the oppressive presence of social struggles all the more palpable as the diffuse but omnipresent background. As Fredric Jameson would have put it, History as Real cannot be depicted directly but only as the elusive background that leaves its mark on depicted events”
“So does Roma really just celebrate Cleo’s simple goodness and selfless dedication to the family?”
“The film’s texture is full of subtle signs that indicate that the image of Cleo’s goodness is itself a trap, the object of implicit critique, which denounces her dedication as the result of her ideological blindness”
“What struck me was, for example, the display of Sofia’s indifferent brutality in her drunken attempt to park the family Ford Galaxie in the narrow garage area; how she repeatedly scratches the wall causing chunks of plaster to fall down. Although this brutality can be justified by her subjective despair (being abandoned by her husband), the lesson is that, because of her dominant position, she can afford to act like that (the servants will repair the wall), while Cleo, who finds herself in a much more dire situation, simply cannot afford such “authentic” outbursts – even when her whole world is falling apart, the work has to go on.”
“Many critics who saw in this scene the most traumatic moment of the film missed its ambiguity: as we learn later in the film (but can suspect now already), what truly traumatizes her is that she doesn’t want a child, so a dead body in her hands is actually good news”
“After Cleo saves the two boys, they all (Sofia, Cleo, and the boys) tightly embrace on the beach – a moment of false solidarity if there ever was one, a moment that simply confirms the way Cleo is caught in the trap that enslaves her”
“I think Cuarón provides a subtle hint in this direction at the level of the form. The entire scene of Cleo saving the children is shot in one long take, with the camera moving transversally, always focused on Cleo. When one watches this scene, one cannot avoid the feeling of strange dissonance between form and content: while the content is a pathetic gesture of Cleo who, soon after the traumatic stillbirth, risks her life for the children, the form totally ignores this dramatic context”
“There is no exchange of shots between Cleo entering the water and the children, no dramatic tension between the danger the children are in and her effort to save them, no point of view shot depicting what she sees. This strange inertia of the camera, its refusal to get involved in the drama, renders in a palpable way Cleo’s disentanglement from the pathetic role of a faithful servant ready to sacrifice herself.”
“There is a further hint of emancipation in the very final moments of the film, when Cleo says to Adela: “I have much to tell you”
“In other words, Cleo’s total withdrawal from political concerns, her dedication to selfless service, is the very form of her ideological identity, it is how she “lives” ideology”
“Maybe, telling Adela about her predicament is the beginning of Cleo’s “class consciousness,” the first step that will lead her to join the protesters on the street. A new figure of Cleo will arise in this way, a much colder and more ruthless one – a figure of Cleo delivered from ideological chains.”
“But maybe it will not. It is very difficult to get rid of the chains in which we not only feel good, but feel that we are doing something good”
“As T.S. Eliot put it in his Murder in the Cathedral, the greatest sin is to do the right thing for the wrong reason”
“The ferocity of the debate is in itself proof that the ideological stakes must be high.”
“One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of Stephen King, who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but by the ending as such – in this epoch of series which, in principle, go on indefinitely, the idea of a narrative closure becomes intolerable.”
“The stakes of the final conflict are, thus, to put it in a simple way: should the revolt against tyranny be just a fight for the return of the old kinder version of the same hierarchic order, or should it develop into the search for a new order needed?”
“The same femininity that, within the close circle of family life, is the very power of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of public and state affairs. The lowest point of the dialogue is the moment when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fear should reign – the embarrassingly vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied woman who explodes into destructive fury.”
“But – let’s bite our sour apple now – what about Daenerys’s murderous outbursts? Can the ruthless killing of the thousands of ordinary people in King’s Landing really be justified as a necessary step to universal freedom”
“Yes, this is inexcusable – but at this point, we should remember that the scenario was written by two men. Daenerys as the Mad Queen is strictly a male fantasy, so the critics were right when they pointed out that her descent into madness is psychologically unjustified. The view of Daenerys with a mad furious expression flying on a dragon and burning houses and people is simply the expression of patriarchal ideology with its fear of a strong political woman.”
“Arya (who saved them all by single-handedly killing the Night King) also disappears, sailing to the West of the West (as if to colonize America). The one who remains (as the queen of the autonomous kingdom of the North) is Sansa, a type of women beloved by today’s capitalism: she combines feminine softness and understanding with a good dose of spirit of manipulation, and thus fully fits the new power relations”
“This marginalization of women is a key moment of the general liberal conservative lesson of the finale: revolutions are destined to go wrong and lead to new tyrannies.”
“Although Bane is the official villain, there are indications that he, much more than Batman himself, is the film’s authentic hero distorted as its villain: he is ready to sacrifice his life for his love, ready to risk everything for what he perceives as injustice, and this basic fact is occluded by superficial and rather ridiculous signs of destructive evil.”
“And in Black Panther, is not Killmonger the true hero? He prefers to die free than to be healed and survive in the false abundance of Wakanda – the strong ethical impact of Killmonger’s last words immediately ruin the idea that he is a simple villain”
“The liberal conservative lesson is best imparted by the following words of Jon to Daenerys:
I never thought that dragons will exist again; no one did. The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Maybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen: build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But if you use them [dragons] to melt castles and burn cities, you’re no different. You’re just more of the same.”
“Consequently, Jon kills out of love (saving the cursed woman from herself, as the old male-chauvinist formula says), the only social agent in the series who really fought for something new, for a new world that would put an end to old injustices.”
“So no wonder the last episode was well received: justice prevailed – what kind of justice? Each person is allocated to his/her proper place, Daenerys who disturbed the established order killed and flown away to eternity by her last dragon. The new king is Bran: crippled, all-knowing, who wants nothing – with the evocation of the insipid wisdom that the best rulers are those who do not want power. In a supremely politically correct ending, a disabled king now rules, helped by a dwarf, and chosen by the new wise elite. (A nice detail: the laughter that ensues when one of them proposes a more democratic selection of the king.”
“And one cannot but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are more ethnically diverse, while the new rulers are clearly white Nordic”
“The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irrespective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are back to normal, the people’s misery leavened by a resigned wisdom (just remember that the first measures envisaged by the new ruling council are the restoration of the army and brothels …).”
“And is Greta not our Daenerys? Is she not the same Mad Queen who wants real change? And is not the answer of our establishment to her acts not the same cynical wisdom as displayed by the ruling council at the end of Game of Thrones?”
“My first viewing of Alfonso Cuarón’s movie Roma left me with a bitter taste: yes, the majority of critics are right in celebrating it as an instant classic, but I couldn’t get rid of the idea that this predominant perception is sustained by a terrifying, almost obscene, misreading, and that the movie is celebrated for all the wrong reasons.”
“As already in his earlier film Y Tu Mamé También, Cuarón maintains a distance between the two levels, the family troubles (Antonio leaving his family for a younger mistress, Cleo getting pregnant by a boyfriend who immediately abandons her), and this focus on an intimate family topic makes the oppressive presence of social struggles all the more palpable as the diffuse but omnipresent background. As Fredric Jameson would have put it, History as Real cannot be depicted directly but only as the elusive background that leaves its mark on depicted events”
“So does Roma really just celebrate Cleo’s simple goodness and selfless dedication to the family?”
“The film’s texture is full of subtle signs that indicate that the image of Cleo’s goodness is itself a trap, the object of implicit critique, which denounces her dedication as the result of her ideological blindness”
“What struck me was, for example, the display of Sofia’s indifferent brutality in her drunken attempt to park the family Ford Galaxie in the narrow garage area; how she repeatedly scratches the wall causing chunks of plaster to fall down. Although this brutality can be justified by her subjective despair (being abandoned by her husband), the lesson is that, because of her dominant position, she can afford to act like that (the servants will repair the wall), while Cleo, who finds herself in a much more dire situation, simply cannot afford such “authentic” outbursts – even when her whole world is falling apart, the work has to go on.”
“Many critics who saw in this scene the most traumatic moment of the film missed its ambiguity: as we learn later in the film (but can suspect now already), what truly traumatizes her is that she doesn’t want a child, so a dead body in her hands is actually good news”
“After Cleo saves the two boys, they all (Sofia, Cleo, and the boys) tightly embrace on the beach – a moment of false solidarity if there ever was one, a moment that simply confirms the way Cleo is caught in the trap that enslaves her”
“I think Cuarón provides a subtle hint in this direction at the level of the form. The entire scene of Cleo saving the children is shot in one long take, with the camera moving transversally, always focused on Cleo. When one watches this scene, one cannot avoid the feeling of strange dissonance between form and content: while the content is a pathetic gesture of Cleo who, soon after the traumatic stillbirth, risks her life for the children, the form totally ignores this dramatic context”
“There is no exchange of shots between Cleo entering the water and the children, no dramatic tension between the danger the children are in and her effort to save them, no point of view shot depicting what she sees. This strange inertia of the camera, its refusal to get involved in the drama, renders in a palpable way Cleo’s disentanglement from the pathetic role of a faithful servant ready to sacrifice herself.”
“There is a further hint of emancipation in the very final moments of the film, when Cleo says to Adela: “I have much to tell you”
“In other words, Cleo’s total withdrawal from political concerns, her dedication to selfless service, is the very form of her ideological identity, it is how she “lives” ideology”
“Maybe, telling Adela about her predicament is the beginning of Cleo’s “class consciousness,” the first step that will lead her to join the protesters on the street. A new figure of Cleo will arise in this way, a much colder and more ruthless one – a figure of Cleo delivered from ideological chains.”
“But maybe it will not. It is very difficult to get rid of the chains in which we not only feel good, but feel that we are doing something good”
“As T.S. Eliot put it in his Murder in the Cathedral, the greatest sin is to do the right thing for the wrong reason”
April 26, 2021
Die politischen Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen – Zizek auf dem Tiefpunkt.
Wer Slavoj Zizek gerne liest, ist mit dem Kauf von „„Sex und das verfehlte Absolute“ oder „Weniger als Nichts“ besser beraten, oder aber mit einer Neulektüre derselben. Seine Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtungen (wie sie auf Englisch in Anlehnung an Friedrich Nietzsche heißen) versammeln nur unsystematisch aufeinander folgende Kommentare zu aktuellen Themen wie Julian Assange, Corona, Donald Trump oder China und so weiter. Sein Hauptanliegen lässt sich darin umreißen, dass er die Welt heute mit der Lage vor dem 1. Weltkrieg vergleicht, also vor einer drohenden Katastrophe, in Gestalt von digitaler Totalüberwachung, Klimakatastrophen und spontanen Konfliktausbrüchen zwischen monetär obsolet gewordenen Nationalstrukturen.
Seine Forderungen beschränken sich auf Eroberung des Informationsflusses im Internet, weltweite Mobilmachung gegen die Klimakatastrophe, uneingeschränkte Solidarität mit Julian Assange und anderen Hackern, sowie um den Erhalt der Europäischen Union und einer Militärisierung derselben. Er bricht eine Lanze für Bernie Sanders, wettert gegen liberale Demokraten und analysiert den Populismus der Alternativen Rechten und Konservativen.
Seine sich überschlagenden Kommentare, Verteufelungen, ineinander verzahnten psychoanalytischen Überlegungen rauschen und umhüllen den Leser/die Leserin im Versuch, den Elefanten im Raum unsichtbar bleiben zu lassen: Zizek spricht für keine Partei, für keine Bewegung. Sein Buch ist und bleibt Teil einer Unterhaltungsindustrie samt seiner selbsterklärten, verzweifelten politischen Ambitionen. Trotz meiner ungeminderten Begeisterung für seine philosophischen Texte, den interessanten Geistesblitzen, Vergleichen und Witzen in anderen Büchern und gelungenen Hegelinterpretationen, sein neues Buch „Ein Linker wagt sich aus der Deckung: Für einen neuen Kommunismus“ ist ein Griff in die sprichwörtliche Toilette. Beispielsweise schreibt er:
„Ich fühle mich jedoch verpflichtet – das ist wohl meine Berufskrankheit als Philosoph -, auch einen kritischen Blick auf die Gegenseite zu werfen.“
Ich will nicht darauf eingehen, dass es hier um den Konflikt zwischen religiösen Fundamentalismus und Multikulturalismus geht, sondern lediglich darauf, dass Zizek sich verpflichtet fühlt. Aber wer oder was nimmt ihn in die Pflicht? Er schreibt selbst und auch in diesem Buch, dass es keinen ‚Anderen des großen Anderen‘, also keine Instanz gibt, die eine Ethik konsolidiert – woher also die Pflicht? Wohl aus einer ins Leere laufenden Solidarität heraus, aber mit wem solidarisiert er sich eigentlich? Weder mit den Arbeitslosen, Ängstlichen in der Corona-Pandemie, noch mit verfolgten, unterdrückten Frauen in arabischen und westlichen Ländern, noch mit MeToo, noch mit der LGBT+, noch mit den polnischen Frauen, die sich ihr Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit erstreiten, noch mit den Schwarzen oder Latinos in den USA, weder mit Black Lives Matter oder Pussy Riot, sondern lediglich:
„All jene, denen eine freie Öffentlichkeit wirklich am Herzen liegt […] Erstens sind Assange, Manning, und Snowden echte öffentliche Helden, die so gefeiert werden sollten wie der dissidente Ai Weiwei […]“
Was haben all diese Personen gemein? Und welche Interessen vertreten sie? Es hilft, sich die Worte einer tatsächlichen Zeitzeugin ins Gedächtnis zu rufen, die die ideologischen Vorbereitungen zum 1. Weltkrieg verfolgt und bekämpft hat, Rosa Luxemburg, die kein einziges Mal auf den fast 300 Seiten genannt wird. Sie schrieb am 12. Mai 1912:
„Einer der ersten großen Verkünder der sozialistischen Ideale, der Franzose Charles Fourier, hat vor hundert Jahren die denkwürdigen Worte geschrieben: In jeder Gesellschaft ist der Grad der weiblichen Emanzipation (Freiheit) das natürliche Maß der allgemeinen Emanzipation.“
Es ist schade, dass Slavoj Zizek seine eigene Tradition nicht kennt und anscheinend auch nicht bereit ist, trotz permanenter Beteuerung, aus der Geschichte zu lernen.
Wer Slavoj Zizek gerne liest, ist mit dem Kauf von „„Sex und das verfehlte Absolute“ oder „Weniger als Nichts“ besser beraten, oder aber mit einer Neulektüre derselben. Seine Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtungen (wie sie auf Englisch in Anlehnung an Friedrich Nietzsche heißen) versammeln nur unsystematisch aufeinander folgende Kommentare zu aktuellen Themen wie Julian Assange, Corona, Donald Trump oder China und so weiter. Sein Hauptanliegen lässt sich darin umreißen, dass er die Welt heute mit der Lage vor dem 1. Weltkrieg vergleicht, also vor einer drohenden Katastrophe, in Gestalt von digitaler Totalüberwachung, Klimakatastrophen und spontanen Konfliktausbrüchen zwischen monetär obsolet gewordenen Nationalstrukturen.
Seine Forderungen beschränken sich auf Eroberung des Informationsflusses im Internet, weltweite Mobilmachung gegen die Klimakatastrophe, uneingeschränkte Solidarität mit Julian Assange und anderen Hackern, sowie um den Erhalt der Europäischen Union und einer Militärisierung derselben. Er bricht eine Lanze für Bernie Sanders, wettert gegen liberale Demokraten und analysiert den Populismus der Alternativen Rechten und Konservativen.
Seine sich überschlagenden Kommentare, Verteufelungen, ineinander verzahnten psychoanalytischen Überlegungen rauschen und umhüllen den Leser/die Leserin im Versuch, den Elefanten im Raum unsichtbar bleiben zu lassen: Zizek spricht für keine Partei, für keine Bewegung. Sein Buch ist und bleibt Teil einer Unterhaltungsindustrie samt seiner selbsterklärten, verzweifelten politischen Ambitionen. Trotz meiner ungeminderten Begeisterung für seine philosophischen Texte, den interessanten Geistesblitzen, Vergleichen und Witzen in anderen Büchern und gelungenen Hegelinterpretationen, sein neues Buch „Ein Linker wagt sich aus der Deckung: Für einen neuen Kommunismus“ ist ein Griff in die sprichwörtliche Toilette. Beispielsweise schreibt er:
„Ich fühle mich jedoch verpflichtet – das ist wohl meine Berufskrankheit als Philosoph -, auch einen kritischen Blick auf die Gegenseite zu werfen.“
Ich will nicht darauf eingehen, dass es hier um den Konflikt zwischen religiösen Fundamentalismus und Multikulturalismus geht, sondern lediglich darauf, dass Zizek sich verpflichtet fühlt. Aber wer oder was nimmt ihn in die Pflicht? Er schreibt selbst und auch in diesem Buch, dass es keinen ‚Anderen des großen Anderen‘, also keine Instanz gibt, die eine Ethik konsolidiert – woher also die Pflicht? Wohl aus einer ins Leere laufenden Solidarität heraus, aber mit wem solidarisiert er sich eigentlich? Weder mit den Arbeitslosen, Ängstlichen in der Corona-Pandemie, noch mit verfolgten, unterdrückten Frauen in arabischen und westlichen Ländern, noch mit MeToo, noch mit der LGBT+, noch mit den polnischen Frauen, die sich ihr Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit erstreiten, noch mit den Schwarzen oder Latinos in den USA, weder mit Black Lives Matter oder Pussy Riot, sondern lediglich:
„All jene, denen eine freie Öffentlichkeit wirklich am Herzen liegt […] Erstens sind Assange, Manning, und Snowden echte öffentliche Helden, die so gefeiert werden sollten wie der dissidente Ai Weiwei […]“
Was haben all diese Personen gemein? Und welche Interessen vertreten sie? Es hilft, sich die Worte einer tatsächlichen Zeitzeugin ins Gedächtnis zu rufen, die die ideologischen Vorbereitungen zum 1. Weltkrieg verfolgt und bekämpft hat, Rosa Luxemburg, die kein einziges Mal auf den fast 300 Seiten genannt wird. Sie schrieb am 12. Mai 1912:
„Einer der ersten großen Verkünder der sozialistischen Ideale, der Franzose Charles Fourier, hat vor hundert Jahren die denkwürdigen Worte geschrieben: In jeder Gesellschaft ist der Grad der weiblichen Emanzipation (Freiheit) das natürliche Maß der allgemeinen Emanzipation.“
Es ist schade, dass Slavoj Zizek seine eigene Tradition nicht kennt und anscheinend auch nicht bereit ist, trotz permanenter Beteuerung, aus der Geschichte zu lernen.
November 13, 2024
I thought the first half of the book was strong but that it declined quite a bit in the second half. Basically I find he makes the most sense when talking about politics and economics, but when he starts going on about feminism and LGBT themes his reasoning can get specious. His tack is sometimes that the liberal version of identity politics doesn't go far enough to challenge real power structures, and I think he's got a point. But other times he just seems to fall for right-wing distortions of feminists or queer people, and in so doing he reproduces the lies used to prop up oppressive power structures. There's a certain lack of humility and awareness of his own limitations, this attitude that knowing Lacan, Marx and Hegel equips him to pronounce authoritatively on everything, including, say, the experience of young trans people today or the victims of sexual harassment. The very final section manages to turn it around somewhat by presenting some solid Left critiques of Jordan Peterson.
June 27, 2024
Sanders’la karşılaştırdığımızda, Trump en saf haliyle post- modern bir siyasetçiyken, Sanders eski moda bir ahlakçıdır. Evet, siyasi kararlar alırken, istenmeyen olası fiili sonuçların felakete dönüşebileceğini dikkatlice düşünmeliyiz. Fakat ben olsam burada Trump yönetiminden endişelenirdim; ekonomide, uluslararası siyasette, vb radikal değişimler başlatan Trump’tır. “Postmodern Marksizm” terimi bana, (faşizmdeki “Yahudi-Bolşevik komplosu” gibi) iki karşıt eğilimi tek bir düşman figüründe birleştirmenin tipik totaliter yöntemini anımsatıyor.
(...)
Marx, hayaleti bizi ziyaret etmeyi sürdüren, yaşayan bir ölüdür ve onu canlı tutmanın biricik yolu, bugün kendi zamanından çok daha geçerli olan o içgörülerine, özellikle de özgürleştirici mücadelenin evrenselliği çağrısına odaklanmaktır. Bugün savunulması gereken bu evrensellik, bir hümanizm formu değil ama (sınıfsal) mücadelenin evrenselliğidir. Küresel kapitalizme, her zamankinden fazla küresel direnişle karşı koyulmak zorundadır...
(...)
Marx, hayaleti bizi ziyaret etmeyi sürdüren, yaşayan bir ölüdür ve onu canlı tutmanın biricik yolu, bugün kendi zamanından çok daha geçerli olan o içgörülerine, özellikle de özgürleştirici mücadelenin evrenselliği çağrısına odaklanmaktır. Bugün savunulması gereken bu evrensellik, bir hümanizm formu değil ama (sınıfsal) mücadelenin evrenselliğidir. Küresel kapitalizme, her zamankinden fazla küresel direnişle karşı koyulmak zorundadır...
January 23, 2021
Didn’t want to read this at first, but ended up really liking it.
“...our unfreedom is most dangerous when it is experienced as the very medium of our freedom — what can be more free than the incessant flow of communications that allows every individual to popularize his/her opinions and forms virtual communities at his/her own free will? Since in our societies permissiveness and free choice have been elevated to a supreme value, social control and domination can no longer appear as infringing on a subject’s freedom: it has to appear as (and be sustained by) the very self-experience of individuals as free. What can be more free than our unconstrained surfing on the web? This is how ‘fascism that smells like democracy’ operates today.”
“...our unfreedom is most dangerous when it is experienced as the very medium of our freedom — what can be more free than the incessant flow of communications that allows every individual to popularize his/her opinions and forms virtual communities at his/her own free will? Since in our societies permissiveness and free choice have been elevated to a supreme value, social control and domination can no longer appear as infringing on a subject’s freedom: it has to appear as (and be sustained by) the very self-experience of individuals as free. What can be more free than our unconstrained surfing on the web? This is how ‘fascism that smells like democracy’ operates today.”
October 25, 2021
A variety of essays and thoughts on contemporary issues. Grist for the mill.
"The third reaction is therefore to gather courage and envisage a radical change that imposes itself when we fully assume the consequences of the fact that we live in one world. “Anthropocene” describes a new age in the life of our planet: we can no longer rely on the Earth as a receptacle for the consequences of our productive activity; we can no longer afford to ignore the side effects (collateral damage) of our productivity; they can no longer be reduced to the background of the figure of humanity. At the very moment when we become powerful enough to affect the most basic conditions of our life, we have to accept that we are just another animal species on a small planet" (p.171).
"The third reaction is therefore to gather courage and envisage a radical change that imposes itself when we fully assume the consequences of the fact that we live in one world. “Anthropocene” describes a new age in the life of our planet: we can no longer rely on the Earth as a receptacle for the consequences of our productive activity; we can no longer afford to ignore the side effects (collateral damage) of our productivity; they can no longer be reduced to the background of the figure of humanity. At the very moment when we become powerful enough to affect the most basic conditions of our life, we have to accept that we are just another animal species on a small planet" (p.171).
August 3, 2022
zwiegespalten: erkenntnisreich, teilweise flüssig zu lesen und gedanklich folgbar, aber: es fehlte ein übergeordneter roter faden (keine richtige struktur oder zusammenhänge zwischen den einzelnen kapiteln), wirkt wie eine fast wahllose sammlung einzelner artikel zu verschiedenen themen, hier und da auch redundanzen, wenn es zu philosophisch wurde (hegel, lacan) etwas ausgestiegen, sm besten waren die themen zu europa und zum
zustand der welt (populismus, liberalismus, kulturmarxismus, neue linke, trump, china, russland)
zustand der welt (populismus, liberalismus, kulturmarxismus, neue linke, trump, china, russland)
October 2, 2025
Dicevano CCCP - Fedeli alla Linea (1987)
“Grande è la confusione
Sopra e sotto il cielo
Osare l'impossibile, osare
Osare perdere
Grande è l'impossibile
Osare la confusione
Il cielo è sopra e sotto
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere
Grande è l'impossibile
Osare la confusione
Il cielo è sopra e sotto
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere”
Una raccolta di articoli e interventi slegati tra loro, dove la confusione regna sovrana.
Ci si può solo perdere.
E ci siamo persi, purtroppo.
“Grande è la confusione
Sopra e sotto il cielo
Osare l'impossibile, osare
Osare perdere
Grande è l'impossibile
Osare la confusione
Il cielo è sopra e sotto
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere
Grande è l'impossibile
Osare la confusione
Il cielo è sopra e sotto
Ci si può solo perdere
Ci si può solo perdere”
Una raccolta di articoli e interventi slegati tra loro, dove la confusione regna sovrana.
Ci si può solo perdere.
E ci siamo persi, purtroppo.
October 4, 2020
Estremamente interessante e semplice
November 19, 2020
I gave it one star for spoiling third season of “the killing” for me
August 22, 2021
Not that Zizek says anything in this book that he hasn't said many times before, but as a Zizek fan this is a great collection of thoughts from pre-pandemic times.
April 3, 2022
Zizek as usual is at his most entertaining, but I sometimes have the feeling that he's always writing the same book and the titles don't really matter.
September 9, 2022
Even when I think he's off-base in his analysis I'll never get bored of this guy relating political events to a joke he likes or some TV show he half-understood
July 27, 2023
Praticamente parte da interventi orientati a sinistra, dice un mare di stronzate e si sposta a destra
March 13, 2024
3.5 * not my favourite of his works but of course, very informative and accessible!
May 7, 2024
I normally really like Slajov but I don’t think this hit as much for me, I believe it might’ve been the focus on cultural issues over social/economic but maybe I’m out-growing him as well.
July 16, 2025
Mostly superficial or incoherent ramblings.
June 1, 2020
A wild far reaching ride
A wild range of subjects used to show the dire circumstances in which we find ourselves. Prof Zizek never fails to inform and amuse.
A wild range of subjects used to show the dire circumstances in which we find ourselves. Prof Zizek never fails to inform and amuse.
Read
December 27, 2024self-referential and painfully european but still relevant. the fact that there are too many lacan & lubitch quotes as i am sure zizek's books go through very minimal copy editing. he has always been very good at using punctual events and a touch of pop culture to make untimely points. they are impactful, but they won't enliven decaying leftists. he needs to put a little more effort in his work for that (i am pretty sure he wrote all of these essays in one night after 3 beers and never looked back). obviously, there is the sublime object of ideology, his magnum opus that makes semiotical sense, and there are these ones (i am also including too late to awaken) which feel more like talks or Q&As then books. it is a light read, and if anything, unironically has other very good reading recommendations. feels outdated even though it was published in 2020 because of all the niche digital culture references—but i guess you can't seperate a writer from their zeitgeist.
March 2, 2024
Zizeks vielfältige Verwendung von Zitaten alter, klassischer und moderner Philosophen als auch seine Beispiele aus der Pop-Kultur machen das Lesen seiner Kommentare immer interessant. Wenn auch ein wenig der (ironischer Weise) rote Faden fehlt, so ist immerhin alles extrem aktuell und interessant geschrieben. Vielleicht sieht man es an Stellen besser als Essay Sammlung.
Hier einer von Zizeks (zitierten) Witzen, der meinen Vater beim Abendessen lautstark zum Lachen brachte:
Ein Mensch bestellt einen Kaffee: "Ohne Milch, bitte." Der Mitarbeiter des Ladens antwortet mit bedauern: "Wir haben leider keine Milch mehr, aber ich kann Ihnen einen ohne Sahne anbieten."
Hier einer von Zizeks (zitierten) Witzen, der meinen Vater beim Abendessen lautstark zum Lachen brachte:
Ein Mensch bestellt einen Kaffee: "Ohne Milch, bitte." Der Mitarbeiter des Ladens antwortet mit bedauern: "Wir haben leider keine Milch mehr, aber ich kann Ihnen einen ohne Sahne anbieten."
September 10, 2021
Grazie Slavoj✨ ci vediamo domani a Mantova
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews