Pandemik: COVID-19 Mengguncang Dunia

by Slavoj Žižek

Slavoj Žižek membedah pandemik Covid-19 dengan begitu mengagumkan. Žižek menggunakan berbagai paradoks untuk mengungkap realita yang seringkali tidak terpikirkan di benak banyak orang. Realita ketidakmampuan kekuasaan dalam menangani pandemik, ditelanjangi oleh Žižek dalam buku ini.

Baginya, kepanikan dalam menghadapi Covid-19 menunjukan bahwa wabah ini tidak dianggap sebagai ancaman serius. Panik! adalah ancaman bagi pasar, karena kepanikan akan membunyikan lonceng kematian bagi imperium bisnis. Kepanikan akan membuat semua orang ketakutan melakukan aktivitas ekonomi, industri berhenti berproduksi karena tidak ada konsumsi, sedangkan para pebisnis berebut untuk menyelamatkan kekayaan karena takut akan dilenyapkan krisis. Sistem pasar benar-benar tidak siap menghadapi pandemik. Sehingga menurut Žižek, masyarakat tanpa kelas adalah satu-satunya jalan untuk mencegah kehancuran dunia karena barbarisme sistem pasar ini.

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

158 pages, Paperback

First published April 14, 2020

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

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

It would be hard to find a more topical book – admittedly it is short – you can read it in an hour or so – and while I don’t think this will necessarily be the theoretical book of the virus, it does raise a number of issues it is timely to think about.

Not least is the idea that, unlike Trump telling us that the ‘enemy’ we are facing in this ‘war’ is both invisible and smart – viruses are more like zombies than enemy soldiers, neither alive nor dead, but in need of us to continue living. They are mindless replicators – not too different, if you think about it, to how our societies have been managing to date – where their getting out of hand and killing the host is an ever-present danger. As so many environmentalists have said of late – when did so many governments suddenly start believing in ‘the science’?

I’ve been fascinated with the metaphors around the virus – particularly that of war. Illness and war are so often metaphors for each other – which is odd in a way, because often metaphors only work one way. George is a lion, makes sense, while a lion is George, not so much. Metaphors normally are used to help us understand the incomprehensible in terms of the already known – but it seems to me that war is at least as incomprehensible as illness. And I really dislike the things that connect to the war metaphor that I would rather weren’t connected to this virus – enemies, collateral damage, sacrifice, and also nationalism and chauvinism – the other as threat, the other as enemy, the other that must die to protect our way of life.

As Zizek says here at one point, “if refugees are perceived as linked to the spread of the epidemic (and of course there are likely to be widespread infection of coronavirus among refugees give the conditions in the crowded camps they occupy), then populist racists will have their heyday: they will be able to justify their exclusion of foreigners with ‘scientific’ medical reasons.” And as other theorist have said, the rise of refugees occurred and been contemporary with the rise of zombies in popular culture – with the half-life in isolation camps and threat refugees are perceived to present our ‘way of life’ something that makes them haunt our nightmares and, with suitable displacement, haunt our movie screens as well.

This book has been written in a moment of crisis – in the original Greek definition of that word – a moment where a choice must be made. And the options we have available to us hark back to Rosa Luxemburg’s choices between civilisation and barbarism. Zizek makes no bones about this – he says our choice now is communism and barbarism. It seems clear that the free market has proven strikingly incapable of reacting to this crisis – other than to be a further drain on already stretched resources. This has been particularly clear in the US where we are witnessing ‘more of the same’ in the shift of wealth towards the top even while the lives of millions are being smashed to pieces. Where inconceivable amounts of money are being poured in at the first sign of trouble to prop up corporations, but where little to nothing is being done to protect the precariat. If the majority of people in the US had been one pay cheque away from tragedy before this crisis, then the waves have gone over heads of a staggering number of them now. It is hardly surprising people are demanding ‘liberty or death’ so as to get back to work – taking the chance of death from the virus is the only viable option.

Zizek makes the interesting point that we in the developed world had long assumed that viruses had been relegated to cyberspace. Now we seem to have been relegated to virtual space too. Now, acts of solidarity and love involve us keeping our distance from those we are ‘closest to’. There are so many horrible perversions of basic human care involved in this crisis. And this feeds into something else that Zizek raises here and that I’ve been thinking about myself, yet another reason why the war metaphor is unhelpful. This pandemic has been predicted as being inevitable for decades, in fact, the only thing we can really say about it is that if anything it was over-due. But what had really been predicted is that this pandemic will be ‘an’ example of our future – not ‘the’ example – we didn’t predict ‘a’ pandemic – but a series of them intermittent and iterative.

We live lifestyles – particularly in our agricultural practices – that make such pandemics inevitable. How likely is it that we will learn from this one? Because ‘learning’ implies change. So, when I read the Queen saying ‘we’ll meet again’ that assumes that the world on the other side of all this will be the same as the one we have so recently left behind. I’m not sure that will be the case, or even if that is what we really want to be the case.

Zizek’s main point here is that the world we left behind wasn’t working for so many of us. There is hope that we will learn from that over this time of isolation and demand that we do not go back to the ‘normal’ that existed before – a normal that punished the vast majority to a half-life of risk and fear. Perhaps now the radical selfishness that is at the heart of Capitalism will be understood to be something that needs to be constrained. Surely, if this pandemic has taught us anything it is that radical individualism is an absurdity in what is a social species. The notion we are ‘all in the same boat’ is perhaps the metaphor we need to replace the battle and war metaphors we have proven so fond of.

If all of this sounds too utopian, then let’s end with the darker vision of the barbarism that is offered in its stead. The world economy has crashed. We are about to enter a profound depression like nothing most of us have seen in living memory. Technology is such that corporations will be much more likely to increase production by increasing the mechanisation of their workplaces, rather than in re-employing those who have lost their jobs. They have done this in every recession for the last 50 years, it isn’t clear why people think they won’t do it this time. The ‘future of work with fewer people’ will be a highly likely outcome of this crisis. A crisis of demand, following people across all societies having been forced to run down their savings and go further into debt to survive, will make the economy springing back in the fabled ‘V’ curve so many are predicting almost impossible.

We have already witnessed a near endless rise in xenophobia over the last two decades – with crusades against Muslims, wars on terror, torturing asylum seekers, just the top of the list that springs to mind. That will only get worse. How long did it take before Trump called on immigration into the US to stop? Populism and chauvinism are intimates that never practice social distancing.

Fear of the stranger is at the heart of so many of our social fears – now that they will be defined as a potential source of disease, that fear is hardly likely to be reduced.

Here in Australia we have recently doubled the amount of money people receive when on unemployment benefits – previously the amount was well below the poverty line – something even the business council thought was too low. We have already been told this is a short-term measure with a very definite end date for it to go back to the punishing levels of pre-virus.

We have spent decades being punitive towards the poor. We imprisoned them more, we have created more hurdles for them to jump over to get benefits that, even when they qualify, are barely enough to keep their body and soul together. We humiliate them by denying them any potential dignity other than via jobs – and jobs that we already know do not exist. Employment will be unlikely to bounce back after this is ‘over’ – particularly for the young, we will be creating a world of both physical and mental abuse.

We are faced with a crisis – a choice point – between a utopian future and one of ever deepening barbarism. The seeds of that barbarism were planted long before this pandemic began – their shoots have been springing from the ground for decades.

Zizek is more optimistic than me – something he explains by saying that he once lived in a punishing socialist country that eventually came to an end. That means he can see that change is possible and that he isn’t afraid of that change. My having never lived immediately through such change, means that that change seems much more terrifying for me. He says, “Remember that, in Nazi Germany, anti-Semitism was strongest in those parts where the number of Jews was minimal—their invisibility made them a terrifying spectre” and later a friend writes to Zizek and quotes Freud: “soldiers who had been injured in the war were able to work through their traumatic experiences better than those who returned unscathed”. I suspect we are all going to be scared by what lies ahead – it would be a pity of we picked barbarism merely because utopia seemed too good to be true.

[Owlseyes · Rating 1 out of 5]

Notes, quotes, jokes and my tokes, I mean, takes

“Touch me not,” according to John 20:17, is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene when she recognized him after his resurrection. How do I, an avowed Christian atheist, understand these words?"

Me: really? "An avowed Christian atheist"? Can a Christian be an atheist at the same time? No.

"Such class divisions have acquired a new dimension in the coronavirus panic. We are bombarded by calls to work from home, in safe isolation. But which groups can do this? Precarious intellectual workers and managers who are able to cooperate through email and teleconferencing, so that even when they are quarantined their work goes on more or less smoothly."

Me: the Stalinist intellectuals can do it too, smoothly as well.

"My modest opinion is much more radical: the coronavirus epidemic is a kind of “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique” on the global capitalist system—a signal that we cannot go on the way we have till now, that a radical change is needed."

Me: maybe, Zizek. You surely would like the capitalist system to crumble. And China to take over. Maybe the solution to the coronavirus pandemic lies in the capitalism system.

"The ongoing spread of the coronavirus epidemic has also triggered a vast epidemic of ideological viruses which were lying dormant in our societies: fake news, paranoiac conspiracy theories, explosions of racism."

Me: but if proved that the Chinese did it*, than their communist ideology is really viral, I mean, criminal. I just read "The novel coronavirus we're facing here is an offensive biological warfare weapon". Zizek, who do you think said such a thing?

"Speculation is widespread that coronavirus may lead to the fall of Communist rule in China, in the same way that, as Gorbachev himself admitted, the Chernobyl catastrophe was the event that triggered the end of Soviet Communism."

Me: I hope it will. Free elections are a nice thing.

"The first vague model of such a global coordination is the World Health Organization from which we are not getting the usual bureaucratic gibberish but precise warnings proclaimed without panic."

Me: "precise"?? Give me a break. You should have said, the WHO praised the "superiority" of the socialist system of China, handling the coronavirus. That's precisely what the WHO did.

"We should not be afraid to note some potentially beneficial side effect of the epidemic. (...) Car production is seriously affected—good, this may compel us to think about alternatives to our obsession with individual vehicles. The list can go on."

Me: that I agree on. It would be a wonderful thing, watching the stalinist intellectuals riding public mules, from home to the university,... then back home. No private mules. No cars. Only public mules.

"There is, however, an unexpected emancipatory prospect hidden in this nightmarish vision. I must admit that during these last days I caught myself dreaming of visiting Wuhan."

Me: you should, Zizek. Especially if you're infected. Do you know who said this:

Bruce Aylward, ADG. Assistant Director-General, WHO)

"So, again, the choice we face is: barbarism or some kind of reinvented Communism".

Me: Zizek, there's a third option: capitalism.

"No wonder that, as matters stand now, China, with its widespread digitalized social control, proved to be best equipped for coping with a catastrophic epidemic. Does this mean that, at least in some aspects, China is our future?"

Me: the so-called "digitalized social control" was rejected by some in the West. Well done. Thanks, but "no" to Orwellian gadgets. Ha! You should ask the Uyghurs about the (their) future.

"When I suggested recently that a way out of this crisis was a form of “Communism” I was widely mocked."

Me: they did it right. Communism is no cure nor vaccine, but another plague.

"As the saying goes: in a crisis we are all Socialists".

Me: I AM NOT.

UPDATE

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/202...

https://thepointmag.com/politics/hope...

UPDATE

Follow China???

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/502825-china...

Predictions a la Zizek:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.c...

*https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxlOgC...

[Maziar MHK · Rating 1 out of 5]

ترجمه از این مزخرف تر نداریم گرچه مترجم زحمت کشیده و مصحح وقت گذاشته اما عبارت "مزخرف" کلمه ای است که حس من رو بیشتر از هر کلمه دیگری می رسونه. سخت نویسیِ این کتاب کجا و مصاحبه هایِ رسانه ایِ ژیژک کجا. ایشون آدمِ حرف زدن هستن تا نوشتن. نظر من یکی اینه. مطلقاََ نپسندیدم، شاید بهتره بگم این کتاب رو با این ترجمه نپسندیدم
لینک مصاحبه ژیژک در مورد پندمیِ کرونا
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZJ4...

[Virginia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very quick read, and not one that merits much dwelling upon in rereading. It is definitely written in a journalistic, opinion-piece style, rather than a theoretical style, and references to theory are minimal and presented simply. Hence the speediness of it. However, it's about what one would expect of a book written in such haste. Typos and editing misses abound. Some of what he says is quite cliche at this point, especially at the very end. He repeats almost the exact same statement several times, about the response to what he'd said about the pandemic previously. He cites Wikipedia twice - once for some background on an H.G. Wells novel, once for a summary of a book - in the former case, I suppose it's just undignified; in the latter case, it just seems lazy, self-aware remark or not. The summary is of a short text and I see no reason why Zizek himself should not have summarized it.

Now, those gripes are about what anyone would expect. This book went up for preorder right when the pandemic hit hard, and was released within the last few days, meaning it was put together in a matter of a few months or weeks. Nothing I said is news, then, only specifics of what everyone expected. What was unknown - at least to me, who had not read his previously-published articles on the pandemic - was what exactly his arguments would be.

The ideas in the book are not all bad. For instance, the reflections on different types of tiredness are interesting, if not very fleshed-out, and the same goes for a few other sections, like the introduction. But some points just seem wholly unconvincing. Chapter 5, "The Five Stages of Epidemics," seems like a poor attempt at forcing an ongoing situation into a model that it doesn't quite fit yet - and a model I suspect you could eventually fit any situation into, depending on what sources you select. As an earlier published review noted, his strange desire to visit Wuhan, and his idea that "the abandoned streets in a megalopolis ... provide a glimpse of what a non-consumerist world might look like" (56), seem quite counter to any point I can think of. Is the point of ending consumerism to.... end community and vibrant public spaces? The idea that a non-consumerist city is a ghost town is a strange endorsement of consumerism!

Anyway - I acquired this as an ebook for free, as I preordered it, and I'm glad OR Books set it up that way. I'm also pleased that Zizek is donating the money he would make from its sales to charity. But, all things considered, why did this book need to exist, and so quickly? Apparently he'd been writing pieces about the pandemic already, and this book drew on them heavily. Why not simply continue doing that, and wait until the dust has settled before publishing an entire book? I won't speculate, but the question is on my mind.

Overall - if you want to read a brief book by Zizek with some characteristic anecdotes on an ongoing situation, I suppose I would recommend this. It's probably the first book by a well-known academic on the pandemic, and it's quick and relatively light. But if you aren't interested in Zizek, and don't care about reading the first text on the pandemic, I wouldn't bother. Better books will be published on it soon, and I'd imagine that this one will be largely forgotten, as with so many other current-events types of books by theorists.

[Steffi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gee, it’s only been a month or so and Zizek already published a book “Pandemic! Covid-19 Shakes the World” (OR Books, 2020). This is the beauty of the Zizekian cut-up art of writing: reassembling pieces of previous works mixed with new thoughts or looked at from a different perspective, plus jokes and anecdotes from the good old days of Soviet communism. In this sense, at any point in life, he’s got a book that is already three-quarters done. (The book was free e-book though, he’s not making a quick buck off the crisis. Any royalties after the first 10,000 free copies will go to Médecins Sans Frontières)

Also: can you imagine Zizek NOT touching his face 😂

Now, the book. It’s actually a fairly optimistic reading of the situation: capitalism, at least in its current form, is dead but doesn’t know it yet. What comes after depends on us - this is a very political situation, we have radical choices to make.

Zizek rejects both the conspiracy theories from the right and left (including Agamben’s reading of the crisis) and warns against the ‘civilized barbarism’ of sacrificing the weak and old for the ‘survival of the economy’ - I like the expression he uses of animist capitalism, e.g, ‘panicking markets’. the economy cannot die, human beings die.

I also love his personal annex:

“Let me begin with a personal confession: I like the idea of being confined to one’s apartment, with all the time needed to read and work. Even when I travel, I prefer to stay in a nice hotel room and ignore all the attractions of the place I am visiting” 😻

[Leila Gharavi · Rating 4 out of 5]

ترجمه‌ی نوید گرگین تحسین‌برانگیز است. من با سه نسخه‌ی مختلف از این كتاب در بازار مواجه شدم که نشان می‌دهد سرعت ترجمه‌ی اثر در ایران نیز ستودنی است.
ژیژک در این كتاب همان ژیژک همیشگی است، با این تفاوت که موضوع را زمانی شکافته که همه‌مان با آن درگیریم. جذاب‌ترین وجه مطالعه‌ی كتاب برای من همين تازگی بود؛ به‌خصوص که گرگین چند ضمیمه‌ را با خوش‌سلیقگی تمام به آن افزوده است.

[Shahab Samani · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب را می‌توانید در عرض یک ساعت بخوانید. این یعنی که این کتاب، یک کتاب فلسفی به معنای کلاسیک آن نیست و چهارچوب نظری و مفهومی مشخصی هم ندارد و بیشتر ساختاری ژورنالیستی دارد. کتاب شامل ۱۹ جستار به هم پیوسته به اضافه یک ضمیمه است که ژیژک در آن‌ها، پرسش‌هایی را مطرح می‌کند که گاهی متواضعانه می‌گوید پاسخ مشخصی برای آن‌ها ندارد. او می‌گوید کرونا، علیرغم رنج‌هایی که بر ما تحمیل کرده است، فرصتی را فراهم کرده که درباره جهانی که در آن زندگی می‌کنیم بازاندیشی کنیم، کاستی‌های آن را که در شرایط بحران بروز روشن‌تری دارد ببینیم و قطعاً بیش از پیش متوجه این مسئله باشیم که چرا فکر کردن به امکان‌های جایگزین برای زندگی کردن مهم و البته شاید کمی دیر، اما همچنان ضروری است.

با این که جستارهای کتاب از نظر موضوعی ممکن است پراکنده به نظر برسند، اما می‌توان چند خط مشخص را بین آن‌ها پیدا کرد. اول از همه، نقدهایی است که ژیژک در مورد نگرش‌ها و تحلیل‌های مختلفی مطرح می‌کند که از سوی اندیشمندان گوناگون، از آگامبن گرفته تا فیلسوف اهل کره‌جنوبی بیونگ چول هال در مواجهه با بحران کرونا بیان شده است. ژیژک هشدار می‌دهد که چگونه بحران کرونا می‌تواند باعث قوت گرفتن راست افراطی در غرب شود. جایی که حالا نسبت دادن به ظاهر علمی شیوع کرونا به «دیگری شرقی» می‌تواند موضع راست افراطی در اروپا را برای مردم این قاره منطقی‌ جلوه دهد. همچنین او از امکانی صحبت می‌کند که کرونا به دولت‌ها می‌دهد تا به بهانه مدیریت بحران، موضع استبدادی خود را نسبت به شهروندان تقویت و آزادی‌های سیاسی را به خصوص در رسانه‌ها محدود کنند.

اما چیزی که بخش اعظمی از بحث ژیژک در کتاب را شامل می‌شود نقد او به گسترش بحران کرونا با ارجاع به ساختار جامعه‌ی غربی و به طور ویژه اقتصاد مبتنی بر بازار آزاد است. ژیژک علی‌رغم نقد خوشبینی چپ افراطی در مورد فروپاشی سرمایه‌داری به واسطه بحران کرونا، این وضعیت برزخی را دارای پتانسیلی می‌داند که می‌تواند دوباره ما را برابر این پرسش قرار دهد؛ کمونیسم یا بربریت!

ژیژک علاوه بر شمردن ضعف‌های بی‌شمار اقتصاد آزاد در مواجهه با بحران، این مسئله را بیان می‌کند که سازوکارهای موجود در بازار آزاد برای مدیریت و جلوگیری از بحران و گرسنگی نابسنده است. بحران کرونا نشان داد که کالایی شدن و سود محوری درمان و پزشکی می‌تواند چه فاجعه‌ای را در پی داشته باشد. در حالی که کمبود فضاهای درمانی، لباس‌‌ها و امکانات محافظتی نظیر ماسک هر لحظه منجر به مرگ تعداد بیشتری از افراد می‌شود، ذخایر مالی سرمایه‌داران وارد چرخه تولید این امکانات نمی‌شود. بازار آزاد علی‌رغم نیاز شدید جامعه نتوانست در مراحل اولیه این امکانات را فراهم کند. و در همین نقطه است که سیاست‌های کمونیستی حداقل در حوزه درمان ضرورت خود را نشان می‌دهد. ژیژک ما را دعوت می‌کند که به این مسئله بیشتر فکر کنیم. او معتقد است ما هنوز در برابر دوگانه‌ای آشتی ناپذیر قرار داریم، کمونیسم یا بربریت. مگر بربریت جز این است که کادر درمان به علت کمبود امکانات پزشکی مجبور به انتخاب بین بیماران سالمند و جوان هستند؟ مگر بربریت غیر از این که است که هزاران نفر که به علت شیوع ویروس کرونا کار و درآمد خود را از دست داده‌اند به حال خود رها شده‌اند و اگر از بیماری نمیرند، قطعاً گرسنگی جان آن‌ها را خواهد گرفت. به همین خاطر ژیژک انتخابی جز کمونیسم را در شرایط فعلی ممکن نمی‌داند. اما بنا به کژفهمی واضحی که از کمونیسم ممکن است به ذهن متبادر شود؛ ژیژک مجبور است تا ایده‌ی خود از کمونیسم را به طور خلاصه شرح دهد؛ او از کمونیسمی صحبت می کند که همین حالا هم توسط سیاست‌مدارانی که حتی کمونیست هم نیستند در حال اجرا است. بوریس جانسون، نخست وزیر انگلستان در مارس ۲۰۲۰ به طور موقت را‌ه‌آهن کشوری را ملی اعلام می‌کند و ترامپ می‌گوید لایحه‌ای را امضا می‌کند که که به او اختیار می‌دهد که تولید صنعت بومی را در موارد لازم در دست بگیرد. ژیژک کمونیسم را رویایی تو خالی نمی‌بیند بلکه مستقیماً به برخی سیاست های عملگرایانه اشاره می‌کند، کمونیسمی که ژیژک از آن سخن می‌گوید برای توصیف جریانی است که هم اکنون در حال پیش روی است، اقداماتی که همین الان هم در نظر گرفته می‌شوند و تا حدی اعمال می‌شوند؛

«کمونیسم تصویری از یک آینده مشعشع نیست بلکه بیشتر نوعی کمونیسم فاجعه در واقع پادزهر سرمایه‌داری فاجعه است. دولت باید نقش فعال‌تری بر عهده بگیرد. تولید لوازمی ضروری مثل ماسک، کیت‌های تست و دستگاه تنفسی را سازماندهی کند، هتل و سایر اقامتگاه‌های تفریحی را تعطیل کند. معاش حداقلی تازه بیکارشده‌ها را تامین کند، و کارهایی از این دست؛ منتها باید تمام این اقدامات را بدون اعتنا به سازوکارهای بازار انجام دهد. بیایید فقط درباره‌ی میلیون‌ها نفری که کارشان لااقل برای مدتی منتفی و بی‌معنی می‌شود فکر کنیم؛ مثل کسانی که در صنعت گردشگری مشغولند. سرنوشت آن‌ها را نمی‌شود به امان سازوکارهای بازار یا مشوق‌های استثنائی، رها کرد … وقتی از کمونیسم حرف می‌زنم منظورم این قبیل پیشرفت‌ها است و در عوض آن، هیچ گزینه بدیلی جز بربریت نوین نمی‌بینم. اما این کمونیسم تا کجا پیش می‌رود؟ نمی‌توانم بگویم، فقط می‌گویم نیاز مبرم به آن احساس می‌شود.» صفحه ۸۵٫

ژیژک موضعی ناامیدانه در برابر بحران کرونا دارد. او در این که ما از بحرانی که دچار آن شده‌ایم عبرت بگیریم، تردید دارد. او با هگل هم نظر است که می‌گوید تنها فایده مطالعه تاریخ این است که بفهمیم ما از تاریخ هیچ چیزی نمی‌آموزیم. در این که این بیماری ما را نسبت به جهان خود خردمندتر کند، تردید جدی وجود دارد و این ویروس نه تنها جان شمار گسترده‌ای از افراد را در جهان می‌گیرد، بلکه پایه‌های اقتصاد را نیز کوبنده‌تر از «رکود بزرگ» در هم خواهد شکست. در مواجهه‌ی با این بحران، کافی نیست که ما سبک زندگی خود را تغییر دهیم یا در سطح کلان، تغییراتی در نظام بهداشت عمومی ایجاد شود. ما چاره‌ای نداریم جز آن که پرسشی را در میان بگذاریم؛ «چه اشکالی در سیستم ما وجود دارد که به رغم هشدارهایی که دانشمندان از سال‌ها قبل داده‌اند، در برابر این فاجعه غافلگیر شدیم؟»

این ریویو را برای سابت وینش نوشته ام"
https://vinesh.ir/

[Vartika · Rating 4 out of 5]

We are living in (and hopefully through) extraordinary times. The Trump government in the United States is taking over the private sector. Boris Johnson wants to nationalise the British railways. A universal form of basic income is being contemplated across much of Europe. Entire countries around the world are under lockdown and market logic is being openly defied; people have been asked to stay home and not work because they are, or could get, sick.

Žižek, like many others, thinks that this means we are beyond the point of no return; past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and nearing the fifth stage of grief as a terminally-ill society where we accept our need to radically change our ways of life.

In Pandemic: COVID-19 Shakes The World, the Slovenian philosopher brings together some of his corona-commentary to postulate that we need now, more than ever, to turn to a reinvented form of Communism focused on global cooperation and healthcare — and indeed, that we're already there. He critiques; with the occasional help of H.G Wells, Quentin Tarantino, Fredric Jameson, Tolstoy, and Lacan; the efficacy of our current systems and technology in face of nature, and points to our need for a "different and more nuanced vocabulary of intervention" instead of falling back on barbaric measures like the survival of the fittest even if it is with a human face. His is a more holistic appeal, emphasising a need to ensure real change (and not the kind of "socialism of the rich" that bailed out banks in 2008 at the cost of ordinary people's savings), and to take into account the well-being of the entire natural world. In his view, it isn't humankind itself but our current institutions and ways of life that constitute the real virus.

Žižek here is as witty and cogent as ever, although it is to be seen whether the suggested radical changes, or usual conservative Right-wing bailouts, are what will ensue. In Pandemic: COVID-19 Shakes The World the author is at his most accessible, too, making it the perfect book to dig into and keep up with the times.

[Mohsen M.B · Rating 2 out of 5]

من واقعا در این حوزه صاحب‌نظر نیستم که بگم به این دلیل و اون دلیل کتاب خوبی نیست یا هست. فقط حس شخصی‌ام رو می‌گم؛ احساس کردم نویسنده زیادی دادوبیداد و هیاهو می‌کنه و همه‌چی رو به هم می‌چسبونه. یه بخش‌هایی از حرف‌هاش هم کمی متعصبانه و تصفیه‌حساب شخصی به نظر می‌رسیدن.ـ

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

No surprises for adepts, no sense to the inept. Ok, one surprise: it was entirely on topic. I hope we can have more lockdowns, but I'm sure it's my garden and my library that make me so insensitive to the cares of overcrowded others. Social distancing is the best thing to ever happen ever. Most people look better with a mask yet the ugliest refuse. Can I keep my house if capitalism collapses? Maybe the local warlord I mean sheriff will allow me to be a collaborator! I may have enough provisions to last through 2020, which can't get any worse. Right?!! People you think you know are already thrilled at the prospect of roving cannibal hordes. Heavily armed, of course.

P.S. No other Zizek has nearly this many reviews. Hegel Lacan 2020!

[Amin · Rating 3 out of 5]

دوباره ژیژک، اما نه از بهترین و تحلیلی‌ترین حالت‌هایش. اتفاقا بسیار از این شاخه به آن شاخه پرنده و افسارگسیخته که گاه حتی دو بند پیاپی‌ هم انسجام لازم را ندارند

اما تز اصلی را میتوان این‌گونه خلاصه کرد که درس اصلی و بحث‌برانگیز کووید۱۹ برای ما نیاز به شکلی از اداره جامعه است که ژیژک آن را نوعی از کمونیسم می‌داند و البته این اظهارنظر وی اعتراض‌های زیادی حتی از سوی افرادی مانند بدیو ایجاد کرده است. اما می‌گوید آلترناتیو این کمونیسم چیزی جز شکلی از بربریّت نیست. بربریّتی که درنگاه‌های غیر کل‌نگر مثل رویکرد ایتالیا در مواجهه با سالمندان یا رویکرد آمریکا در خرید واکسن و قرارداد صرفا برای آمریکاییان قابل مشاهده است. بنابراین انگار آدم‌ را بر سر دوراهی خطرناکی قرار می‌دهد

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was going to begin this review by saying that I didn't find much controversial in Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek's latest book- more like a pamphlet really, reviewed more extensively and thoughtfully by my friend Mike Robbins here- although now that I think about it, it occurs to me that a) it takes more than one person and probably even more than two to make a controversy, and b) there's no particular reason I should want a book to be absent of controversial ideas anyway.

Maybe a better way to say it is that I found this thought-provoking if not especially mind-blowing, which I think is just as Zizek intended this modest volume. I haven't been seeking out virus-related books or movies for the time being- I'm afraid The Plague is going to be relevant for quite a while- but I did find something pleasant about simply reading the thoughts of another human being during this time, and Zizek gets more personal than I would have expected. Rather than straight polemic, he lets his thoughts drift to some odd places:

I must admit that during these last days I caught myself dreaming of visiting Wuhan. The abandoned streets in a megalopolis—the usually bustling urban centers looking like ghost towns, stores with open doors and no customers, just a lone walker or a single car here and there, provide a glimpse of what a non-consumerist world might look like.

He quickly clarifies that he's well aware the average citizen of Wuhan is not sitting around and appreciating the silence and the absence of consumerism, but this wasn't enough for Scott Lucas of Buzzfeed, who described Zizek's articulation of this thought as "monstrous." Apparently Scott Lucas shares (but chooses not to resist) my anxiety about having thoughts that could be interpreted as controversial or monstrous, an anxiety that's pretty much good for nothing but in this case also distorts Zizek's more general point, or implication at least, namely that it's conceivable that the virus will provoke us to become a little more aware of the way we've been living.

Zizek believes that there is no going back to normal- or rather that there shouldn't be, that the virus should instead be an opportunity for reflection on what normal has really meant. He puts more emphasis on this point than on specific proposals, but to make just one application of it to an issue here in the U.S., we've now got over 40 million unemployed. For a lot of people in this country, no job means no health insurance (although in many cases, having a job is no guarantee of health insurance either)...which means that if you need to be hospitalized due to coronavirus you might end up with thousands of dollars of debt, which means fewer people go to the doctor when they feel sick, which makes the pandemic more dangerous for everyone. You might almost call this system monstrous, but it's not like before the virus it was humane.

As a general rhetorical sentiment, the notion that we can't go back to normal isn't exactly fringe anymore: even the cover of Time magazine a few weeks ago (yes, Time is still a magazine, and my mom still gets it in the mail) offered a similar sentiment: "this is the moment to change the world."

Obviously the notion of changing the world means different things to different people, and from politicians it's 99.9% of the time nothing but campaign rhetoric, but Zizek sees reason for optimism. Now that civilization has ground to a halt in an unprecedented way, Zizek believes, it might be easier for people to imagine that we can make vast, unprecedented changes in the way we live. Maybe that belief is being reflected in the size and scope of the protests following the murder of George Floyd, in a widespread understanding that we can't sit back and wait another four years for our pre-ordained contest between a corrupt, mediocre Democrat and a corrupt, borderline-fascist Republican. On the other hand, the crisis could also end up demonstrating our capacity to disassociate from whatever is happening in the world, be it the pandemic or wars waged abroad or the depredations of climate change. Or, as Hobbes might have predicted, to let the impulse for immediate safety and security eclipse every other consideration, and to elect leaders who make Bolsonaro sound like Confucius.

So Zizek thinks that this is a moment of great danger as well, but wants us to approach it as thoughtful participants who believe in our own agency. That is hard to argue with, even if some days it's hard to believe in that agency. In the midst of the pandemic and the escalation of climate change, he predicts that we will begin to move towards one of two poles that he calls Communism and barbarism...which he means as opposites, by the way. The former has bent some reviewers out of shape, and generally I'm not a big fan of words with Soviet connotations myself, but what's more important is what Zizek means by it, which seems to be international cooperation on an unprecedented scale:

The coronavirus epidemic does not signal just the limit of the market globalization, it also signals the even more fatal limit of nationalist populism which insists on full state sovereignty: it’s over with “America (or whoever) first!” since America can be saved only through global coordination and collaboration. I am not a utopian here, I don’t appeal to an idealized solidarity between people— on the contrary, the present crisis demonstrates clearly how global solidarity and cooperation is in the interest of the survival of all and each of us, how it is the only rational egotist thing to do.

Which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A recent book title of Chomsky's puts what Zizek is saying a little more starkly: "Internationalism or Extinction."

[Todd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Topical Žižek without the fireworks. It's highly topical. It's Žižek at his most sobre, least provocative, and least sensational timbre. And this probably should be expected given the quick turnaround: the essays are addressing news and headlines form a couple of weeks ago. However, this serves as a reminder of the use of theory as normally deployed by Žižek and others. As we knew all along, one of the uses was entertainment: an opiate for the intellectuals, with apologies to Raymond Aron. Nevertheless, the ideas seem more commonplace stripped of the the excitement of his provocateur and enfant terrible shtick.

With that said, to his credit, Žižek is hitting mostly the right notes. My company has been operating among the front lines at the epicenter, delivering long-term care to people with disabilities in NYC and Long Island. The pandemic, as it has hit us-- at the epicenter or anywhere else -- is not the result of a conspiracy. As Donald Berwick the former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services once said, every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results it gets. The impact and results of the pandemic at the epicenter has gotten exactly the results that the market based delivery and poor planning by the federal government was designed to get.

The New York Times reported that the strain of the virus hitting NYC came via route of Europe and entered into city in early to mid February. The problem was the government was not listening to the experts. In February, I actually had an employee fly into JFK airport from China along with a plane of fellow passengers and was not screened or stopped. The people on his flight and thousands of other flights into JFK were streaming right back into the city. They sat next to each other at the airport, they rode planes together breathing and respirating into the recycled air, and then they got on the subway and the Long Island railroad and sat next to other people. At my company, we reached out to the CDC and together we quarantined him at home for a couple of weeks upon his reentry. But that was one person. The problem is that the government did not listen to the experts and did not put into place protective policies early enough. In early March, schools were still open, all businesses were still open, and social distancing was not being enforced. All of the changes did not start until the middle of March when Gov Cuomo issued Executive Orders to get the response in action. It was already too late to stop NYC from becoming the epicenter.

One of the biggest problems was that there were not enough tests and there were not enough PPEs. In order to allow life to remain on play, we (NYC and NY) needed to test early and often. There just weren't enough tests. The market mechanisms were not pulled early enough to get the tests produced and sent along the supply chain to NY. Especially without a federal government putting pressure on them. Then, once the pandemic hit, there were not enough PPEs. There were workers on the front line in hospitals wearing garbage bags as gowns. There where shortages of N95 respirator masks. There were shortages of gowns, gloves, face masks, you name it. The problem was that the experts were not listened to, the government did not force compliance, and the market did not plan for a pandemic. Once it hit, the market and the suppliers could not mobilize in time.

In the end, and we are not at the end yet, maybe we are just at the end of the beginning, the lack of federal planning/action and the market mechanisms got the results they were designed to get.

[Julian Worker · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first book of Zizek's I've read and it won't be the last.

This is a very thought-provoking, funny, and accurate book, recommended for all and don't be put off by the headline that this man is the most dangerous philosopher in the west.

An example of what Zizek writes:
In the last couple of years, after the SARS and Ebola epidemics, we were told again and again that a new much stronger epidemic was just a matter of time, that the question was not IF but WHEN. Although we were convinced of the truth of these dire predictions we somehow didn't take them seriously.

When we react in panic, we do not take the threat seriously, we on the contrary trivialise it. Just think how ridiculous is the notion that having enough toilet paper would matter in the midst of an epidemic.

Zizek indicates a new form of communism - the outlines of which can already be seen in the very heartlands of neoliberalism - may be the only way averting a descent into global barbarism.

I wish all philosophy books were written in this manner as although he does refer to Lacan, Hegel, and Marx, Zizek also mentions popular culture in equal measure. He's a very smart, intelligent writer who has the common touch.

[Golasa · Rating 4 out of 5]

علاوه بر خود کتاب که ژیژک سعی میکنه توضیح بده که چرا با رسیدن کرونا کمونیسم به شکل یه آلترناتیو میتونه ظهور پیدا کنه، نوید گرگین مقاله های آگامبن، دانیله لورتنسی و ژاک لون نانسی هم ضمیمه کرده که به نظرم خیلی در تکمیل شدن کتاب موثر بودند.

[Hestia Istiviani · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read in English but this review is in Bahasa Indonesia

There is no return to normal, the new "normal" will have to be constructed on the ruins of our old lives, or we will find ourselves in a new barbarism whose signs are already clearly discernible.

Salah satu kanal siniar favoritku bernama Kepo Buku. Mereka gemar mengulas bacaan yang dibaca oleh para pembawa acaranya. Ketiganya punya genre favorit yang berbeda membuat pendengar siniar Kepo Buku juga semakin kaya terhadap ragam bacaan.

Di salah satu episodenya, mereka membahas buku ini. Dengan premis tentang pandangan bagaimana caranya menghadapi pandemi, aku tertarik untuk membacanya sendiri (aku rasa, fungsi mereka sebagai kanal siniar buku berhasil: meracuni pendengar). Ditambah lagi, aku belum pernah membaca tulisan Zizek, padahal teman-temanku seakan sudah fasih dengan pandangan filsuf modern satu ini. Melihat wujudunya yang tidak begitu tebal serta isu yang diangkat adalah isu terkini (dan masih kita hadapi), aku coba saja menjajal.

Bagi mereka yang belum tahu siapa itu Zizek, ia adalah seorang penulis dengan paham Hegelian dan gemar menelaah fenomena menggunakan dialektika Marxist. Ia pun seorang kontributor tetap untuk VersoBooks--salah satu penerbit independen yang cukup radikal. Aku mengetahui Zizek karena buku-bukunya selalu terpajang di rak Kinokuniya Plaza Senayan. Beberapa kawan juga sempat berkisah soal pandangan Zizek yang asik meskipun tidak bisa sepenuhnya diterapkan di Indonesia. Tetapi katanya, membaca Zizek memberikan pengetahuan baru.

Dalam Pandemic! Zizek mengkritisi bagaimana para pemimpin dunia menghadapi COVID-19. Awalnya hanya berada di Wuhan lalu menyebar ke seluruh dunia dengan cukup masif. Meluluhlantakkan ekonomi, sosial, hingga psikologis individu. Apa yang dilakukan oleh para pemimpin negara tidak semuanya efektif. Ada juga yang blunder (ya aku rasa pembaca juga tahu negara mana yang dimaksud).

Zizek mencoba memberikan solusi dengan pendekatan komunisme. Sebentar, jangan berpikir bahwa "komunisme" yang dimaksud oleh Zizek adalah yang seperti tertulis dalam buku sejarah kita ya. Bukan berbentuk seperti tragedi 1965 di Indonesia. Konsep yang ia tawarkan lebih mengedepankan perihal koordinasi yang berada di bawah satu komando namun, dengan melihat kepentingan rakyat terlebih dahulu.

Maksudnya seperti apa? Zizek memberikan contoh berupa kelangkaan masker akibat permainan para pabrik swasta. Melihat hal seperti ini, sebuah negara atau pemegang kekuasaan seharusnya menggunakan haknya untuk "merebut" pabrik itu dan "memerintahkan" mereka agar memproduksi masker sampai mencukupi kebutuhan suatu negara.

One should note how accepting such logic of the "survival of the fittest" violates even the basic principle of military ethics, which tells us that, after the battle, one should first take care of the heavily wounded even if the chance of saving them is minimal.

Zizek juga mengkritisi adanya kebijakan soal memperbolehkan penduduk usia tertentu untuk keluar rumah dan bekerja (hmm terdengar familiar ya?). Kutipan di atas setidaknya menjelaskan mengapa Zizek menolak hal itu. Apakah dengan mencoba menghidupkan kembali roda ekonomi melalui kebijakan pekerja mampu mengurangi rasa khawatir penduduk? Belum tentu.

Dari 10 esai pendek yang dikumpulkan dalam buku ini, semuanya mencoba menawarkan pendekatan dari kacamata komunisme. Zizek meneropong pada permasalahan yang lingkupnya makro hingga yang agak mikro (seperti mengapa pekerja menjadi lebih lelah ketika harus bekerja di rumah saja) dan aku akui, penjelasannya logis dan bisa diterima dengan akal sehat.

Pandemic! ini rasanya menjadi sebuah buku Zizek pertamaku yang membuatku ingin membaca tulisannya lagi. Bahasanya mudah dipahami. Ia tidak terlalu banyak menggunakan analogi sehingga setiap esai yang ada di buku juga langsung menuju pada problem dan solusi.

Terima kasih Kepo Buku atas rekomendasinya!

[باقر هاشمی · Rating 3 out of 5]

ژیژک کووید 19 را به مثابه ی یک امر واقع می نگرد و تلویحاً تئوری های توطئه را رد می کند. این راحت ترین کاریست که یک اندیشمند می تواند بکند. نگریستن به ابژه به مثابه ی یک امر واقع ، به نوعی شانه خالی کردن از زیر بار مسئولیت است.
کمونیسمی هم که درباره اش صحبت می کند، انقیاد شرکت های خصوصی توسط دولت(مانند مجبور کردن کارخانه ی فورد برای تولید دستگاه ساخت اکسیژن)است، به علاوه ی اتحاد دولت ها برای ریشه کندن این اپیدمی.
از نویسنده توقع پیشگویی نداشتم اما انتظارم چیزی فراتر از این بود.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Things we were used to as part of our daily life will no longer be taken for granted, we will have to learn to live a much more fragile life with constant threats. We will have to change our entire stance to life, to our existence as living beings among other forms of life.

Bought this during the pandemic but found myself unable to turn to it then. It isn't that the book suddenly became dated (Odin knows, I have my vacc cards [plural] in my pocket so I can have a sixth jab this afternoon) but it is almost painful to return to such unease, such a prolonged panic. The chapters are barely the length of emails, observations about fatigue, burnout society, the hope for a revolutionary response to such conditions, and apprehensions about the future, a stark departure for his normal "Maoist" optimism about chaos.

I read this in just over an hour. Not as much Hegel and Lacan as one would expect and barely a reference to Hitchcock. There is as always a humbling silence or distance. My pandemic didn’t involve sheltering in place. My work was deigned essential so each day I crept out into the world, marveling at the dearth of traffic, astonished at the orderly queues. The author relates how he’s always preferred a quiet room over anything with could be deemed an attraction. Yet at the moment it becomes impossible to venture out he became a victim of his often cited negation of a negation: he had had to settle for plain coffee instead of coffee without cream. So it goes.

[muthuvel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I remember vaguely from someone's work that it is far easier to act than to think in the times of crisis.

Well these are tough times. We have choice to conform and comfort ourselves yet the times demand for more critical thinking to question the ways our system functions, well, in a holistic way.

I am not intending this book provides a holistic one. Yet it could contribute for the process. With his typical political philosophy showered by Žižek in this pamphlet addresses the lockdown with a 'told you so' attitude referring the medical crisis complimented by economic and psychological ones. Because most of his views are considered a far radical left among the many far radical lefts.

Žižek says that in crisis times we are all Socialists citing Trump considering UBI to adult citizens, Boris making the temporary nationalization of UK railways and a few more.

"As Owen Jones has noted, climate crisis is killing many more people around the world than coronavirus, but there is no panic about this."

"I am not a utopian here, I don’t appeal to an idealized solidarity between people—on the contrary, the present crisis demonstrates clearly how global solidarity and cooperation is in the interest of the survival of all and each of us, how it is the only rational egotist thing to do."

Žižek isn't much interested in providing empty promises about these radical changes, if made happen, would make a better world and prosperous survival. Of course that wouldn't sound like Žižek.

"It’s not a vision of a bright future but more one of 'disaster Communism' as an antidote to disaster capitalism."

Reading this pamphlet work of Žižek might or might not be interesting, insightful, entertaining to some extent depending on the individual's understanding of world politics. Still I'd say it's worth reading rather spending an hour or two on memes.

[Montse Gallardo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lo he leído en un par de días, cuando vi anunciado el libro me llamó la atención en seguida, por ser de quien es (sobre el tema se ha escrito mucho, y no muy bueno en los últimos meses) y en cuanto abrieron las librerías me hice con él

Los historiadores necesitan años de distancia de los acontecimientos que analizan para poder tener la distancia necesaria que permita reducir su subjetividad, su implicación de los hechos; los sociólogos necesitan distancia más intelectual que temporal, aunque también les viene bien alejarse de los fenómenos que quieren analizar. Los filósofos pueden enfrascarse en la inmediatez de los acontecimientos para reflexionar sobre los mismos, y Žižek se lanza de cabeza a valorar hechos, decisiones que no sólo no están cerrados, sino que aún están casi en pañales.

Y se nota la falta de perspectiva de este autodenominado desvergonzado filósofo de la subjetividad. La primera edición en inglés se publicó el 24 de marzo; por rápido que escriba, entiendo que el libro lo escribiría en febrero, es decir, cuando aún la pandemia no había llegado a Europa en todo su fragor. Y muchas de sus reflexiones se refieren a la respuesta europea en comparación a la que se ha dado en China; y le faltan muchos datos de lo que ocurrió a partir de ese 24 de marzo.

El libro es interesante; su tesis principal (la que me llamó la atención cuando oí hablar por primera vez de este libro) sigue vigente: la pandemia y la lucha que los Estados están llevando a cabo contra ella reflejan cómo el modelo actual de capitalismo liberal no es viable para resolver una crisis de esta magnitud ni otras que llegarán en el futuro por el deterioro cada vez mayor del medio ambiente. Y por eso defiende un nuevo comunismo, que no es sino volver al socialismo utópico o al anarquismo de Ivan Illich o Paul Goodman, en el que apenas hay Estado y sí una sociedad civil empoderada, activa, comprometida y cooperativa; un comunismo de acción comunitaria, más que de gestión económica.

Y siendo un planteamiento muy interesante, me temo que se ha quedado desfasado en apenas 3 meses. Al inicio de la crisis, y con el confinamiento, muchos vimos con esperanza los cambios que se podían producir en las relaciones personales, en las políticas, en el ámbito laboral; nos alegramos al ver que el medio ambiente "se recuperaba" sin el ataque constante de su depredador principal (nosotros, los humanos); confiamos en que saldríamos juntos y mejores.

Y abrieron las terrazas y llegaron las rebajas. Y no hemos aprendido nada. Por lo que, en cierto modo, el planteamiento de Slavoj Žižek se queda en una más de las esperanzas ingénuas que mantuvimos unos meses, pero sin mayor recorrido. Si el FMI y el BCE están dispuestos a librar fondos a los países que están sufriendo las consecuencias de la crisis del coronavirus en sus economías con más crudeza, no es porque estén cambiando a una concepción más comunitaria, solidaria y centrada en las personas (no en las grandes corporaciones) como propugna Žižek que deben actuar, es para poder fortalecer el sistema capitalista, que necesita consumidores que compren coches, viajen y vayan a las rebajas para mantener el tinglado.

Lo que el autor no vio (aunque tal vez esté preparando su segunda parte del libro) es que por muy deseable que sea cambiar las estructuras económicas y las relaciones de poder, el tiempo en el que ha trascurrido esta crisis es lo suficientemente breve como para que nada cambie. Tal vez 2 años de confinamiento (si no acabamos matándonos unos a otros) sí nos haría cambiar. 2 meses nos han lanzado a las calles como si no hubiera pasado nada.

Y este comentario, lo siento, no me ha salido tanto del libro como de la situación en la que estamos. Pero supongo que yo tampoco soy capaz de tomar distancia de mi realidad jejeje

[আহসানুল করিম · Rating 3 out of 5]

প্যানডেমিকের মুখোমুখি হয়ে জিজেক প্রশ্ন করেছেন ভবিষ্যৎ নিয়ে। সমাধান খুঁজে ফিরেছেন সীমাবদ্ধতা কাটিয়ে ওঠা নতুন ধরনের কমিউনিজমের মাঝে। যে কমিউনিজম মানুষের উপরে বিশ্বাস না রাখা চীনের কমিউনিজম নয়। ভীষণ তাড়াহুড়ায় লেখা বইটিতে উৎকণ্ঠার পাশাপাশি শুনিয়েছেন সম্ভাব্য স্থায়ী পরিবর্তনের কথা, বর্বরতার বিকল্পের কথা।

[Parham · Rating 3 out of 5]

اولین کتابی که از ژیژک شهیر خواندم.همانطور که از متن پشت جلد و نظرات دوستانی که سابقاً با سبک و سیاق نویسندگی او اشنا بودند بر می آمد،نوعی جامعیتِ پراکنده در نثر دیدم که در آن،نویسنده مثلا از مبحثی سیاسی در یک پاراگراف به مبحثی فلسفی در پاراگراف بعد و بعد به ادبیات میرفت. فرض کنید که انتقادی بر سیاستهای پوتین و اردوغان درباره پناهندگان وارد کند و بعد سریعاً از هگل نقل قول کند و یکباره به رساله ی تولستوی با عنوان((هنر چیست؟)) بجهد! شاید این سبک ،نگرش و بینش خواننده را چند بعدی و گسترده سازد که نوعی مزیت است؛ اما شاید تسلط و تمرکز او را بر متن اشفته کند که میتواند عیب محسوب شود؛ به هرحال شخصاً میلم به چفت و بست بیشتری بود و نظام مندی بیشتر.
ژیژک به نیست شدن کرونا امیدوار نیست و از این رو هر راهکار یا قدم رو به جلویی که ارائه کرده به قول خودش((روی خرابهٔ جهان ماقبل کرونا)) بنا شده.یکی از دوگانگی های جالب توجهی که مطرح میکند ،بربریت/کمونیسم است که در آن ایده هایی نظیر ((بین بیماران کرونایی ،جانِ ضعفا و سالمندان مهم نیست))از گرایشات بربریت هستند.با این حال بیماران تازه بهبود یافته را موظف به مددرسانی اجتماعی(که خیلی شفاف بیان نمیشود) میداند و چندان محافظه ای به خرج نمیدهد از این لحاظ.با اینکه ما را از خطرات حکومتهای توتالیتر و بهانه های جور شده ی انها برای کنترل و زیر ذره بین گذاشتنِ مردم انذار میدهد،نوعی نظارت مفید و فعال را برای جنگ(که از این واژه خوشش نمی اید استفاده کند)با کرونا لازم میداند.به نظر میرسد عقیده اش بین ((کرونا مردمو به هم نزدیک تر کرده )) و ((کرونا مردمو از همدیگه ترسونده)) به اولی نزدیکتر باشد و همچنین کرونا را نوعی "شرِ خیر" برای مقابله با زندگی ماشینی مدرن که از ان با((فقط و فقط پول دراوردن و سفر تفریحی رفتن)) یاد میکند ، میشناسد؛انگار که موقتاً الیناسیون(از خود بیگانگی)درمانی یافته شده باشد برایش.با توصیفِ متناقض و شاید طنزامیزی از مذهب خودش که ((مسیحیِ اتئیست)) است،با اینکه کرونا را نوعی انتقام طبیعت از بشر و مجازات الهی برای گناهان قلمداد کنیم مخالف است و این پیشامد را پوچ و بی معنا میپندارد،و اینجا یاد نیچه در تبارشناسی اخلاق میفتم که میگفت:((انسان از خود رنج ،رنج نمیبرد بلکه از بی معنایی آن.))[نقل به مضمون] .در اخر،در خواندن چنین کتابی که ظاهراً شتابزده نوشته شده،ضرری نمیبینم و توصیه اش میکنم.

[Nad Gandia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una buena reflexión; desde un punto de vista objetivo dentro de marco marxista.
Me gusta, porque ciertas reflexiones ya las comentaba también Harari.
Apunta a una colaboración global entre naciones, en vez de un proteccionismo absoluto, nos lleva a no compartir una i formación crucial entre naciones.
Por otro lado, este ensayo salió el año pasado y parece en cierta forma, profético.
El marxismo en ciertos marcos, desde una reflexión liberal, desde mi punto de vista pueden convivir. En el marco liberal más filosófico, que por desgracia está cayendo en el olvido. Dando paso a un sinsentido conspiranoide, ultra nacionalista, intolerante y en resumen; pro fascista.

[Felix · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book suffers under the weight of many of Žižek's worst traits as a writer. I think he is at his best when he manages to suppress these traits, but here he indulges them freely. This book is rambling, disorganised and poorly referenced (I've never seen so many Guardian articles in footnotes). It is always moving in circles - it constantly seems to be looking for a thesis. Instead of having one, it seems to mostly consist of Žižek sharing his disorganised thoughts on random issues which are only connected to each other through a vague intersection with the pandemic. He flits from one issue to another, rarely drawing a conclusion - and when he does draw a conclusion, never developing his point. I feel like I've been reading a notebook, not a finished work.

I think Žižek sometimes gets a free pass on his arguments either because he's basically right, or because he's telling us what we want to hear. The section where he discusses Russian and Turkish involvement in Syria, for example, made me think 'Yeah! Žižek is onto something!' because on this issue he and I are largely in agreement. But even this section is disorganised and weakly argued. It's really playing to the gallery, and I think it often takes people who disagree with Žižek's conclusions to see how weak his arguments often are. I wanted to agree with his argument, because I already agreed with his conclusion, but that doesn't make his point more persuasive. His point in this section basically consisted of: Putin and Erdoğan have unnecessarily extended the war in Syria and used it to further their own political goals at the expense of the suffering of millions of innocent people. Okay, I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that Žižek offers minimal further analysis, no references beside newspaper articles and very little in the way of original thinking. It's only because I already agreed with him that I was able to read this section as insightful or interesting or really anything other than a paper tiger. It's a claim that tries to look bold, with no real argumentation or evidence lying under the surface.

And of course, because this is Žižek, there is a spectre haunting the text: the spectre of communism. It rears its head a few times but the argument for it is always constructed the same way: xyz thing is bad, therefore we need communism; xyz problem exists, the solution is communism. Žižek does not generally explain his communist solutions in any real depth, besides suggesting that either the problem wouldn't exist under communism, or that under communism it would be solved immediately. And, to be honest, maybe he's right - I don't know - but there's so little argument for his view that the question of whether he's right or wrong is ultimately meaningless. Yes, maybe a vaguely defined global utopian system would solve all of our problems. It's impossible to say. It's all basically irrelevant so long as the details of this hypothetical system remain undefined, and Žižek never even begins to meaningfully define them.

[Bru · Rating 4 out of 5]

Li volia posar tres estrelles però com que soc un reaccionari, en veient les ressenyes del proïsme, n’hi he regalada una de quarta. En Zizek em cau força bé i fa riure. Per internet, quan es toca el nassarró, més.

[عمر الحمادي · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب لا بأس به في تحليل عواقب كورونا من ناحية اجتماعية وفلسفية، لكن ينقصه الاطلاع على النماذج الناجحة في دول الخليج العربي في التصدي لفايروس كورونا، المبادئ الشيوعية طاغية في أفكار الكتاب.

[Milena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh Slavoj, you adorable mischievous beast

Two years late in the game, nešto je pogodio, mnogo toga izgrešio, ali sasvim pristojna zabava za petak-socijalno-distancirano veče

[Mike Robbins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Right now I am sitting in the middle of Manhattan, which is kind of a stupid place to be during this epidemic. Five weeks in, daily deaths have dropped to “only” 500+ (from a peak near 800 a week or so ago). But the city is oddly silent. In normal times, there is a hum of traffic from nearby Seventh Avenue; now there’s nothing, save for the odd siren. Ten minutes ago an ambulance drew up outside my brownstone just north of Central Park, and the crew wheeled a gurney into the block opposite. They’ve gone now, and there’s a police van there instead.

I see few people. It is three weeks since I have been out. My neighbour was here but has now gone upstate. Every few days a delivery will come to my door, borne on the ubiquitous e-bikes that speed pizzas around New York City. (They are illegal, but the Mayor’s decided not to ticket them for the duration.) My bellpush buzzes and I go downstairs to find a masked and gloved figure at the door with groceries, or liquor. We stand well apart; they pass me my bag at arm’s length, and at arm’s length I hand over a grubby $10 or $20 note as a tip, not much in truth for someone taking the risks that they do. They turn quickly away and speed off through the deserted city.

Now and then I clamp on my earphones and talk to someone. On Monday it was my cousin in London. A few days earlier it was my sister in rural Oxfordshire; three cases in her village. Today, Sunday, I spoke to my friend from the office. She is just a mile away on the East Side. I miss her. We talked about food. I make huge pots of meat sauce or dhal that are meant to last me a week but after two days I am sick of them. She made a huge stew of barley and collard greens and is already sick of that. We laughed; and then spoke, as one so often does, of the world after this, and how it will be changed.

*

SLAVOJ Žižek thinks he knows – or at least, he sees two possible scenarios: Communism or barbarism. The first would surely imply some Stalinist hell; the second, a sort of Mad Max dystopia in which we chase each other through the streets with Armalites, killing for a roll of toilet paper or a tin of beans. Actually, Žižek’s vision of both is more subtle, and more plausible. They’re set out in his new book, Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World (OR Books).

I don’t know who chose the title; perhaps the sub’s desk of a Fleet Street tabloid. But my goodness, he certainly got the book out quickly. This may have seemed cynical to some. In fact, Žižek is not making money from this; he is donating his royalties to Médecins Sans Frontières, and in any case the book is modestly priced (and the publisher gave away the first 10,000 downloads for free). Still, it may be his perceived opportunism that prompted a coruscating review on Buzzfeed (The First Book About The Coronavirus Is Here, And It's Terrible, April 8 2020). Yohann Koshy in The Guardian (April 23 2020) was less harsh, but described the book as ‘forgettable’.

To be sure, the book has some of the hallmarks of Žižek’s previous book (of which more in a minute). One is that he jumps about somewhat rather than developing an ordered, linear argument – perhaps because the book’s been assembled from pieces already published in the media. Another is a tendency to quote the sort of French intellectual that inspired Sokal and Bricmont’s 1999 book Fashionable Nonsense. In fact Žižek is genuine; he has studied and worked in France and has actually been influenced by the theories of the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, and has brought them across to his own discipline, philosophy. But to the anglophone reader, with their pragmatic approach, it can all sound rather pretentious, for we judge a writer’s skill by their clarity and simplicity of expression. Lacan or Derrida may relate to the French mind; for us, John Stuart Mill or George Orwell make more sense.

But the book is not terrible. And while Žižek may not order his argument as a logical progression, that argument is surely there. He writes of the huge bailouts, the tax relief and the millions of unemployment cheques the UK and US are using to try and protect the economy. “There is effectively something much more radical going on,” he says. “With such measures, money no longer functions in a traditional capitalist way; it becomes a voucher to allocate available resources so that society can go on functioning, outside the constraints of the law of value.” Žižek actually refers to this new corporatism as ‘Communism’. One wonders if it is really that, but he is surely right to ask whether it will become the new normal and, if it does, whether we will shift to a post-capitalist world. He believes we may. In short, COVID-19 could be a body-blow for capitalism.

Or maybe not. Maybe it will just make it nastier. In the final chapter, Žižek presents an alternative scenario. What if this is all a plot to preserve capitalism? Maybe the capitalists have understood for some time that their system is unsustainable, and have been searching for a way to reorder and preserve it – and have found in the pandemic exactly the tool they need. “What if [capital is] ruthlessly exploiting the pandemic in order to impose a new form of governance?” he asks, and goes on to paint a grim picture of what that might be; the old and the weak left to die, workers’ living standards slashed and more. It will not help that the pandemic has – according to Žižek – unleashed a tide of ideological viruses; fake news, paranoid conspiracy theories, racism. These are forces that the Right could certainly harness. Žižek regards this outcome as barbarism.

But there is an alternative: Communism. And what Žižek means by this is surprisingly mild; he certainly does not want us to return to the Gulag. Rather, states should “seek cooperation with other states. As in a military campaign, information should be shared and plans fully coordinated. This is all I mean by the “Communism” needed today.” So the essence of Pandemic! is that Žižek sees two possible outcomes to the pandemic; his rather mild form of Communism, or barbarism. And populations must organise and fight for the former. So stark is this choice, in Žižek’s view, that we should not waste time in fuzzy New Age speculation about changes to our values when all is over. We must be harshly practical.

*

IT’S NOT the first time Žižek’s made this sort of argument. Neither is it the first time he’s trotted out a book in double-quick time in response to the news. Back in 2016 he published Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours – a meditation on Europe’s refugee crisis and what it really meant.

“Refugees,” wrote Žižek, “are the price humanity is paying for the global economy.” They are a result of global inequalities, and slamming down the drawbridge will not help, for mass-migrations are an inevitable part of the future, especially as climate change begins to bite. However, opening the floodgates and letting large numbers of refugees into Europe is an equally futile response, and can only cause trouble; in the end, we won’t like them and they won’t like us. Better to understand that this is all the result of global class struggle, and engage with it. Half-measures will get us nowhere.

Against the Double Blackmail was especially harsh on liberals and their response to the refugee crisis. Early in the book Žižek condemned the hypocrisy he thought inherent in arguing for open borders for refugees. Everyone knows it won’t happen, he said, because it would “trigger a populist revolt”, so advocating it is a self-indulgence of those who want to present themselves as “beautiful souls”. In the same vein, he argued against opening the doors to refugees on humane grounds, and insisted that there were limits to human empathy. Do not pretend we can empathise with refugees, he says. And don’t expect them to be grateful to us for being rich. He cited the New Year’s Eve 2015 disturbances in Cologne, when large numbers of women were assaulted, apparently by refugees. Žižek also drew on his links with psychoanalysis to argue that people of different cultures do not necessarily wish to live in proximity (here he was influenced by psychoanalyst Lacan’s idea of “the other”; a good example of Žižek’s ability to bring ideas across disciplines).

What all this led up to was Žižek’s central point: There is no point in pretending to like people who we don’t really want living next door to us. It’s a hypocritical liberal lie and in any case, it won’t solve the problem. The refugee crisis is a symptom of global class war. The rich world fuels conflict so that it can rob poorer countries of their natural resources, and refugees, Boko Haram and the rest are the result; what did we expect? There is no “let them in” option, and no “keep them out” choice either. There is only one answer: To engage with the class struggle. This is a profoundly Marxian analysis, imbued with a visceral loathing for a hypocritical, self-interested “liberal” class that Žižek clearly thought was at its worst on the refugee issue.

Was he wrong? It was true that a “humane” response to the refugee crisis would in itself solve nothing. At the same time, I could not help being annoyed by Žižek’s analysis. Humanity is not always a bad basis for policy, and empathy is not always the false emotion that he seemed to imply in Against the Double Blackmail. Besides, what would he do if he saw a Syrian or an Eritrean struggling in the water? Leave them to drown? I don’t suppose so.

I did not, in fact, like Against the Double Blackmail. I thought it bleak. It was a polemic that had virtually nothing optimistic or generous in its 25,000-odd words. But it did have some intriguing insights, and its central, Marxian, message of global class war made alarming sense. Against the Double Blackmail did have something to say, and liberals who were too smug about the refugee crisis should have read it. But I found it – as I said – bleak. A humane response is not always the tawdry hypocrisy that Žižek seemed, in that book, to perceive it to be. I finished the book respecting Žižek’s ruthless logic but less sure of his humanity or his sense of humour.

*

NOW, reading Pandemic!, I wonder if I was wrong – if not about that earlier book, at least about the man. Against the Double Blackmail was written as a polemic and was probably always supposed to piss people off. But Žižek was not a refugee and – like all of us – could probably not imagine how it felt to be one. The COVID-19 disaster is different; even if we remain healthy, we are all involved, and he is no exception. Maybe that is why Pandemic! has a much more humane feel.

For example, Žižek is, like me, not young (he is 71), and his son must limit contact him. “Only now,” he writes, “when I have to avoid many of those who are close to me ...I fully experience their presence, their importance to me.” Indeed, at the start of the book, he quotes Jesus after the Resurrection – His injunction noli me tangere, “touch me not”, and His explanation – wherever my followers love each other, I am present. I don’t think this is a sudden conversion to Christ; Žižek has been highly critical of religion in the past. Rather, his point seems to be that human relationships will survive this and may even be strengthened. This is not the Savonarola of just four years ago.

Pandemic! Is humane in another respect: Žižek is at pains to stress that the virus has no nature of its own. It is not in any way self-aware. It is simply a self-replicating piece of DNA. It does not think, does not have it in for us, has not been sent to punish us. It is a scientific phenomenon that demands a scientific answer. To believe otherwise is to persuade oneself that we are somehow important. “Even if our very survival is threatened, there is something reassuring in the fact that we are punished, the universe (or even Somebody-out-there) is engaging with us,” says Žižek. “We matter in some profound way. The really difficult thing to accept is the fact that the ongoing epidemic is a result of natural contingency at its purest, that it just happened and hides no deeper meaning.” But we do have to accept that lack of meaning. There is, says Žižek, nothing to be gained through a mystical approach to what is happening to us.

This is a point that Žižek could have pursued much further than he does; he only really mentions it in passing, albeit at more than one point in the book. But it is important. While a distrust of the mystical clearly applies to religion, it should also constrain those environmentalists who talk of our species as a plague on the planet and would see a sort of secular divinity in the plague sent, in its turn, to punish us. Such views, whether clerical or secular, can encourage us to believe that we have no control over our fate when we do, in fact, have agency. They are, in effect, inhumane. Shut up, you are guilty, you are being punished; people will die; you must accept your fate; you deserve it; there is nothing you can do. One remembers Father Paneloux in Camus’s The Plague, preaching with force that the pestilence is a flail from the sky, sent by God to punish the sinful of Oran. But it was not. It was an accident of nature that Rieux, the doctor, and his friends had to combat, and it was in their quiet pragmatism that true compassion lay. So it is today.

It is a point that Žižek could have made much more strongly in Pandemic!; after all, a big part of the book is the argument that we face a choice. This pandemic will shape history, that much is clear – but shape it into what? An even more barbaric form of capitalism? Or a benign “Communism”, as he calls it? This is where we all have agency, and Žižek wants us to use it.

*

IT IS now seven o’clock on a cold spring evening. On the dot of seven, there is clapping and cheering in the street. It happens every night at this time. The neighbours are expressing their thanks – love, almost – for the healthcare and other essential workers who have stayed at their posts, and sometimes died. They know what the cost has been. The clapping goes on for several minutes, and some people bang pots and pans. Listening to this, I wonder if our values might be changing.

That is why Žižek’s book is important. It has been written in a hurry; the argument is not linear; there are digressions, and quotations from philosophers that most of his readers will not know, or greatly care about. But the book is not ‘terrible’, or forgettable’. It was worth writing, and is worth reading. Our values are changing, but Žižek knows that our world may not change to reflect them; may, in fact, change into something that is not better, but rather nastier. But we could also be on the verge of something new, more decent. It will be up to us.

[Mohammed Yusuf · Rating 3 out of 5]

للاستزادة

https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu...

[João · Rating 2 out of 5]

First thoughts of Žižek on Covid-19 have been now organized in a very short book, together with some excerpts of letters/discussions with friends. Žižek as usual diverges a lot into interesting anecdotes (not always that relevant), crazy paradoxes of the state of affairs and how they relate with major philosophical trends, and the never-missing recommendations of movies and books to better understand the cultural context of particular topics. The main argument, however, is about the need of a new kind of transparent, people-based politics that abandons capitalist animism and trust on free markets. According to the author, the time for that to happen was never as urgent as now, because of the demonstrable lack of global coordination during the pandemic crisis, the terrible leadership examples from the alt-right (e.g. "we don't need to panic, all will pass soon" - logic), and the awful advises of the "fake left" (e.g "keep on shaking hands everybody, as doing otherwise is xenophobe" - logic).