What do you think?
Rate this book
Guida perversa alla politica globale. Tutti i paradossi del presente dalla crisi ecologica alla guerra in Ucraina
A che punto è l’Occidente cui apparteniamo? Qual è lo stato della politica globale? Mentre emergiamo (lentamente, forse solo temporaneamente) dalla pandemia, il panorama si fa ancora più caotico: disuguaglianze che gridano vendetta, il disastro climatico imminente, una nuova guerra in Europa… La confusione domina il nostro tempo, incontrastata. Fu Mao che, riconoscendo le possibilità di un nuovo inizio insite in momenti come il nostro, pronunciò una frase poi divenuta molto celebre: «Grande è la confusione sotto il cielo; la situazione è eccellente». Ma le catastrofi di oggi contengono ancora una spinta verso il progresso o sono ormai precipitate in qualcosa di non più componibile, non più superabile? Per tentare una risposta, Slavoj Žižek offre in prima mondiale ai lettori italiani il libro politico più completo e ambizioso della sua carriera. Accompagnato dai suoi feticci pop e come sempre prodigo di letture vivificanti e paradossali, Žižek tratta con profondità e brillantezza l’Unione Europea e Putin, Biden e la nuova Cina, il Covid, il femminismo, la crisi ecologica, le fratture in seno alla sinistra, le vuote promesse della democrazia liberale, fino alle recentissime, illuminanti pagine sulla guerra in Ucraina: uno sguardo inedito e complesso sulle principali vicende del nostro presente.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2022
125 people are currently reading
1105 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
638 books7,546 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 - 30 of 114 reviews
May 5, 2022
Yes, the forthcoming Communism will be a war Communism or there will be none.
Cleaving the thicket of (at least my own) despair, our friendly Slovenian philosopher has again saved my day. Collecting pieces from other publications (Guardian, LRB etc) this survey of our tumultuous times lives up to its titular Maoist forecast. The successive waves of Covid, January 6 and the eerie sense that climate change had turned an irrevocable corner are all commented upon. Some jewels found: the new Axis of Evil in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the UAE. Biden is Trump with a human face. Networked Authoritarianism will understand the needs of its constituents so effectively there won’t be a need for dissent or unrest.
Classic Žižek, parsing Habermas or Agamben on their stance on Macron or Covid, he takes a step back and describes a scene from a John Carpenter film and then glosses such with a phrase from Lacan or Hegel. Bob's your uncle.
4.5 rounded up.
Cleaving the thicket of (at least my own) despair, our friendly Slovenian philosopher has again saved my day. Collecting pieces from other publications (Guardian, LRB etc) this survey of our tumultuous times lives up to its titular Maoist forecast. The successive waves of Covid, January 6 and the eerie sense that climate change had turned an irrevocable corner are all commented upon. Some jewels found: the new Axis of Evil in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the UAE. Biden is Trump with a human face. Networked Authoritarianism will understand the needs of its constituents so effectively there won’t be a need for dissent or unrest.
Classic Žižek, parsing Habermas or Agamben on their stance on Macron or Covid, he takes a step back and describes a scene from a John Carpenter film and then glosses such with a phrase from Lacan or Hegel. Bob's your uncle.
4.5 rounded up.
March 11, 2023
سيكون لدى سلافوي جيجيك دائما شيئًا جديدًا ليكتب عنه، ولكن لن يكون لديه بالضرورة شيئًا جديدًا ليقوله. الكتاب في مجمله يخلو من العمق الفلسفي الذي يُفترض بشخص يمارس الفلسفة أن يضفيه على رؤيته لما يحدث في العالم، ويتورط في مواضع كثيرة منه في تحليلات سطحية وعجولة وسخيفة. هذا ما يحدث عندما يصاب المرء بهوس المسارعة للحديث عن أي حادث أو حدث دون أن يترك مسافة - زمنية وفكرية- كافية تتيح له النظر للأمور بشكل واضح.
February 17, 2022
I hope this book reaches a wider audience as Zizek gives, as usual, enlightening insights on some of the most important issues of our time plagued by a pandemic.
His main thesis could be formulated concisely as the need for a new ‘communism’, but neither 20th century type of centralized, Soviets style single-party communism nor a “multitude” based ‘ direct democracy, or autonom communism inspired by Negri / Deleuze vein. He strongly opposes the idea that self-organizing, rhizomatic movements like “OWS”, or “Yellow vests” could be “the” solution to our problems. All such movements fades away after the initial enthusiasm dies out; they can not persists beyond the day after. He says he would sell his mother in slave market just to see “V for Vandetta Part 2”. Yes it was exciting to see the masses with Guy Fawkes masks surrounding the parliement but then what happened afterwards?
He got a point here; enormous problems which we face today cannot be dealt with revolutionary romanticism, they require highly hierarchical expert organisations. We can compare two approaches towards the pandemic taken by the western democracies and China. While Western democratic approach failed miserably in handling the pandemic, highly strict, even despotic Chinese approach succeded in containing the virus. This proves that the liberal democratic or Negrian multitude approaches cannot solve the global problems. What we need is not less alienation but parodoxically more alienation, more expert organizations in global management to have less alienation in our private lives. Our recent experiences support this idea, but then the question comes to mind why then Zizek thinks 20th century style communism of hierarchical organisations of experts, intellectuals is over. One inclines to think that the true alternative to 20th century hierarchical communist organizations can be horizontal, rhizomatic, grassroot organisation of multitudes. Zizek convincingly shows the inefficacy of such grassroot organisations in tackling the huge global problems. But he also says classical type hierarchical communism is also over, so then what kind of communism he really proposing, in what respect it is different than other communisms based on multitude or hierarchy? He seems to oppose both of the possible varieties but fails to elaborate on a third.
This open point aside, he makes brilliant analysis of our current hellish state of things.
I only have two objections.
First is about the kurdish movement. His unconditional support for it , misses some important issues.And I am not talking about their partnership with western imperialism, their willingness of being a proxy of western interests. Despite being weak, Zizek has an explaination for it: “What other options did they have?”
I find his claim that Kurds are the most secular, most modern group in a region where extreme religous conservatism and sectarian approaches are norms, very problematic. Like other groups, Kurds are highly diverse, in some regions they are the most conservative group still living in a feudal culture; most of the infamous honor killings and vendettas happen in parts of Turkey where kurdish population is very high. These regions are also bullwarks of the ruling islamic party. They made coalitions with Islamic movements against the secular, enlightment movements in Turkey. At some point they employed strong Islamic references and rhetoric in attacking secular policies.
Secondly, I find his staunch Eurocentrism highly problematic. He argues that European legacy of Secularism and Enlightenment ideals are still very important. But it is highly questionable that Enlightenment ideals are still the dominant values in Europe. I think there are 2 dominant ideologies in Europe today: Far Right medivealism / neo-feudalism (especially in Eastern Europe) and Neo-liberal Postmodernism. Both of these are strongly opposed to Modernism/Enlightenment. I don’t think Europe would ever be a center of progressive policies again. So I think it is vain to insist on European legacy, the communist “spectre” stopped haunting it long ago, we should look for it in other parts of the world. It seems more probable that Europe will once again be the center of extreme right, even outright fascism.
These reservations having been underlined, otherwise I find this book of Zizek a must-read, highly relevant to our present dire conditions.
His main thesis could be formulated concisely as the need for a new ‘communism’, but neither 20th century type of centralized, Soviets style single-party communism nor a “multitude” based ‘ direct democracy, or autonom communism inspired by Negri / Deleuze vein. He strongly opposes the idea that self-organizing, rhizomatic movements like “OWS”, or “Yellow vests” could be “the” solution to our problems. All such movements fades away after the initial enthusiasm dies out; they can not persists beyond the day after. He says he would sell his mother in slave market just to see “V for Vandetta Part 2”. Yes it was exciting to see the masses with Guy Fawkes masks surrounding the parliement but then what happened afterwards?
He got a point here; enormous problems which we face today cannot be dealt with revolutionary romanticism, they require highly hierarchical expert organisations. We can compare two approaches towards the pandemic taken by the western democracies and China. While Western democratic approach failed miserably in handling the pandemic, highly strict, even despotic Chinese approach succeded in containing the virus. This proves that the liberal democratic or Negrian multitude approaches cannot solve the global problems. What we need is not less alienation but parodoxically more alienation, more expert organizations in global management to have less alienation in our private lives. Our recent experiences support this idea, but then the question comes to mind why then Zizek thinks 20th century style communism of hierarchical organisations of experts, intellectuals is over. One inclines to think that the true alternative to 20th century hierarchical communist organizations can be horizontal, rhizomatic, grassroot organisation of multitudes. Zizek convincingly shows the inefficacy of such grassroot organisations in tackling the huge global problems. But he also says classical type hierarchical communism is also over, so then what kind of communism he really proposing, in what respect it is different than other communisms based on multitude or hierarchy? He seems to oppose both of the possible varieties but fails to elaborate on a third.
This open point aside, he makes brilliant analysis of our current hellish state of things.
I only have two objections.
First is about the kurdish movement. His unconditional support for it , misses some important issues.And I am not talking about their partnership with western imperialism, their willingness of being a proxy of western interests. Despite being weak, Zizek has an explaination for it: “What other options did they have?”
I find his claim that Kurds are the most secular, most modern group in a region where extreme religous conservatism and sectarian approaches are norms, very problematic. Like other groups, Kurds are highly diverse, in some regions they are the most conservative group still living in a feudal culture; most of the infamous honor killings and vendettas happen in parts of Turkey where kurdish population is very high. These regions are also bullwarks of the ruling islamic party. They made coalitions with Islamic movements against the secular, enlightment movements in Turkey. At some point they employed strong Islamic references and rhetoric in attacking secular policies.
Secondly, I find his staunch Eurocentrism highly problematic. He argues that European legacy of Secularism and Enlightenment ideals are still very important. But it is highly questionable that Enlightenment ideals are still the dominant values in Europe. I think there are 2 dominant ideologies in Europe today: Far Right medivealism / neo-feudalism (especially in Eastern Europe) and Neo-liberal Postmodernism. Both of these are strongly opposed to Modernism/Enlightenment. I don’t think Europe would ever be a center of progressive policies again. So I think it is vain to insist on European legacy, the communist “spectre” stopped haunting it long ago, we should look for it in other parts of the world. It seems more probable that Europe will once again be the center of extreme right, even outright fascism.
These reservations having been underlined, otherwise I find this book of Zizek a must-read, highly relevant to our present dire conditions.
February 23, 2022
A political pacemaker. Not peacemaker, no, Zizek brings the sword of wartime communism as that which bars us from entry to paradise but also marks the spot. God is unconscious so act fast.
July 24, 2022
Il centone istantaneo di un comunista realista
Operazione editoriale abbastanza squallidina: un titolo che scimmiotta i titoli di successo di Zizek per una semplice e trascurata raccolta eterogenea di interventi (sospetto articoli per giornali e riviste) su tutti gli eventi di attualità tra 2020 e 2022 (il materiale è parecchio, tra pandemia, trumpismo, crisi climatica e guerra in Ucraina).
E' irritante notare come non ci si è neppure preoccupati di evitare molte ripetizioni (ovviamente Zizek ha il diritto di autoplagiarsi se scrive articoli per giornali, ma leggere lo stesso testo due volte in un libro è segno di sciatteria editoriale imperdonabile.
Il minimo dei voti è quindi più una punizione per gli editori che per Zizek, il quale rimane un ottimo filosofo-psicanalista lacaniano con interessanti intuizioni (su tutte, il fatto che l'odio di destra contro i diritti delle minoranze, gli interventi contro il riscaldamento globale e altri temi di sinistra rientri nella categoria psicanalitica del furto di godimento ). Infatti, l'autore è molto più originale ed interessante quando fa il suo lavoro di lacaniano ed è molto meno convincente nelle vesti di tuttologo globale marxista.
Sul piano politologico, Zizek rivendica il suo essere comunista, mantenendo il realismo e l'equilibrio nella visione del reale ed evitando così le ridicole, rovinose e deprimenti sbandate di altri pensatori di sinistra sulla pandemia (Agamben), sul cambiamento climatico (Vighi) o sulla guerra in Ucraina - bisogna riconoscergli l'onestà intellettuale di chiamare gli errori e le sciocchezze con il loro nome.
In pagine così disorganiche ed eterogenee legate alla strettissima attualità su tutto il mondo è inevitabile trovare opinioni non condivisibili ed errori di analisi (come la lode per la migliore gestione del COVID in Cina, scritta nel 2020; o l'affermazione che i rivoltosi di Capitol Hill hanno fatto la cosa giusta per la ragione sbagliata ; o il dire che Biden è un Trump "dal volto umano") - anche perchè Zizek rimane spesso vittima del suo impianto di base marxista e corre spesso il rischio di cadere nei soliti e stanchi appelli alla rottura del sistema e al ribaltamento del sistema - manifesti radicali sempre minoritari che finiscono solo per autoghettizzarsi.
In effetti, se l'analisi delle situazioni è spesso corretta, profonda e consapevole, sul piano delle concrete azioni politiche Zizek risulta afasico e velleitario, rifiutando sia le proposte pragmatiche e progressive (ma radicali) di Piketty, sia l'azione di rivolta sociale extraparlamentare, della quale si rende ben conto dell'impossibilità pratica e dell'insuccesso garantito (quando non del rischio effettivo di sostegno al capitalismo per effetto della reazione della maggioranza). Quindi, pur prendendo per onesta e consapevole la dichiarazione dell'autore di essere ancora comunista, rimane confuso e non chiaro cosa sia il comunismo al quale ci si appella: non quello cinese, non quello parlamentare iperprogressista di AOC, non quello pragmatico e riformista di Piketty, non quello stravolto e atomizzato dei migliaia di gruppuscoli oltre l'estrema sinistra in continua ed inefficace lotta contro il sistema.
Operazione editoriale abbastanza squallidina: un titolo che scimmiotta i titoli di successo di Zizek per una semplice e trascurata raccolta eterogenea di interventi (sospetto articoli per giornali e riviste) su tutti gli eventi di attualità tra 2020 e 2022 (il materiale è parecchio, tra pandemia, trumpismo, crisi climatica e guerra in Ucraina).
E' irritante notare come non ci si è neppure preoccupati di evitare molte ripetizioni (ovviamente Zizek ha il diritto di autoplagiarsi se scrive articoli per giornali, ma leggere lo stesso testo due volte in un libro è segno di sciatteria editoriale imperdonabile.
Il minimo dei voti è quindi più una punizione per gli editori che per Zizek, il quale rimane un ottimo filosofo-psicanalista lacaniano con interessanti intuizioni (su tutte, il fatto che l'odio di destra contro i diritti delle minoranze, gli interventi contro il riscaldamento globale e altri temi di sinistra rientri nella categoria psicanalitica del furto di godimento ). Infatti, l'autore è molto più originale ed interessante quando fa il suo lavoro di lacaniano ed è molto meno convincente nelle vesti di tuttologo globale marxista.
Sul piano politologico, Zizek rivendica il suo essere comunista, mantenendo il realismo e l'equilibrio nella visione del reale ed evitando così le ridicole, rovinose e deprimenti sbandate di altri pensatori di sinistra sulla pandemia (Agamben), sul cambiamento climatico (Vighi) o sulla guerra in Ucraina - bisogna riconoscergli l'onestà intellettuale di chiamare gli errori e le sciocchezze con il loro nome.
In pagine così disorganiche ed eterogenee legate alla strettissima attualità su tutto il mondo è inevitabile trovare opinioni non condivisibili ed errori di analisi (come la lode per la migliore gestione del COVID in Cina, scritta nel 2020; o l'affermazione che i rivoltosi di Capitol Hill hanno fatto la cosa giusta per la ragione sbagliata ; o il dire che Biden è un Trump "dal volto umano") - anche perchè Zizek rimane spesso vittima del suo impianto di base marxista e corre spesso il rischio di cadere nei soliti e stanchi appelli alla rottura del sistema e al ribaltamento del sistema - manifesti radicali sempre minoritari che finiscono solo per autoghettizzarsi.
In effetti, se l'analisi delle situazioni è spesso corretta, profonda e consapevole, sul piano delle concrete azioni politiche Zizek risulta afasico e velleitario, rifiutando sia le proposte pragmatiche e progressive (ma radicali) di Piketty, sia l'azione di rivolta sociale extraparlamentare, della quale si rende ben conto dell'impossibilità pratica e dell'insuccesso garantito (quando non del rischio effettivo di sostegno al capitalismo per effetto della reazione della maggioranza). Quindi, pur prendendo per onesta e consapevole la dichiarazione dell'autore di essere ancora comunista, rimane confuso e non chiaro cosa sia il comunismo al quale ci si appella: non quello cinese, non quello parlamentare iperprogressista di AOC, non quello pragmatico e riformista di Piketty, non quello stravolto e atomizzato dei migliaia di gruppuscoli oltre l'estrema sinistra in continua ed inefficace lotta contro il sistema.
January 15, 2022
If you like previous Zizek books, you'll enjoy this, even though you may find yourself more than familiar with a few thoughts (and jokes) scattered throughout the book.
September 19, 2022
I like Zizek. He is a very stimulating writer. He combines Hegel's Ideas with Freud&Lacan's psychanalysis and Rammstein's lyrics in commenting contemporary politics.
I like his ideas. But I also think he is an idealist, as always these lefties good-guys are. So that is why I resonante a lot with him.
His style remainds me of Umberto Eco. However Eco concentrates too much (for me) on Italy, so his writing and ideas are difficult to understand if you are not an italian. Zizek is much more international, and for all contemporary - covid, Biden, Trump are his favourite topics in this book.
I like his ideas. But I also think he is an idealist, as always these lefties good-guys are. So that is why I resonante a lot with him.
His style remainds me of Umberto Eco. However Eco concentrates too much (for me) on Italy, so his writing and ideas are difficult to understand if you are not an italian. Zizek is much more international, and for all contemporary - covid, Biden, Trump are his favourite topics in this book.
October 16, 2023
Let me start by saying that this is the first work of Žižek that I have read. However, I have as a large number of people listened to an extensive number of his lectures and debates, for which his arguably quite known. Additionally, I have a read a number of books and papers that directly or indirectly reference and paraphrase him.
The book is a great analysis and incredibly interesting perspective on the recent geopolitical events (2020 US presidential elections, Covid pandemic, Chile protests, Honk Kong protests, etc.). As typical for Žižek the theoretical and philosophical analysis relies deeply on Hegel and Lacan, but even for less knowledgeable readers (like me), the references are perfectly understandable. Žižek offers a multitude of perspectives on worldwide trends and if you have a critical mind, it is a really enjoyable experience.
That said, I very much disagree with a number of conclusions that Žižek comes up with in his writing. So this part of the review is not meant to be discouraging of potential readers, but rather just my grain of thought. Firstly, one of the red lines of this book is alarmism and how to deal with incoming “apocalypses”. Žižek starts by telling us that we should reject alarmism, however as the book progresses, he constantly makes references to seemingly incoming dooms, such as the pandemic, climate change and populism. Each time, the subtle point is to tell us that only a new unidentified form of communism can save us from incoming catastrophes. However, in the last chapter Žižek concludes that we are already in the apocalypse and that truly the only solution is a vaguely defined communism that Žižek bases primarily on Leninist organisation, a radical strong form of global social-democracy and the creation of a new set of the “working class” that goes beyond the current understanding of transcending struggles that form one demographic entity (western European working class aristocracy, the nomadic proletariat, feminists, LGBTQ+ community, etc).
In many ways however, I find this reasoning purely alarmist and completely ignorant of the fact that communism is the only solution. Many times in this book, I found myself thinking of a joke: “How many communists do you need to change a lightbulb? It doesn’t matter, they will all tell you that in order to change the lightbulb, we need to change the social-economic order into communism”. And truly, this is what I understood. Žižek clearly identified real problems and issues in the systemic structures of numerous countries, but instead of providing direct solutions, Žižek tries to convince us that truly only communism will work.
Let me explain. In several chapters Žižek discusses the dissatisfaction of a number of people with the “liberal-democratic capitalist order” in the US and France. He mentions the US capitol storming and the “gilets jaune”. However, he does not spend a single word on explain the democratic systems and the flaws of these two countries. Both the US and France have deep presidential systems with an incredibly weak legislature that is voted in through old archaic and frankly undemocratic systems (FPtP and 2-rounds FPtP). These two characteristics completely explain why voters and the people are disillusioned with their system of governance. Simply, because their voted does not matter as these systems are not good in representing all votes.
Beyond this, there are also clear examples where Žižek either lacks knowledge or willingly ignores certain parts of the story. For example, in chapter 7 he endorses the conspiracy theory that antisemitic allegations against Corbyn were simply made up. The number of times were Corbyn indirectly and directly met/agreed with antisemites is uncountable. There are also clear examples where Corbyn endorsed organisations such as Hezbollah. Here Žižek simply does not want to admit that his own “allies” are flawed and can be problematic.
Similarly, when it comes to Bolivia, Žižek blindly believes the story on how Morales was truly innocent when we know for a fact that he attempted to seize power unconstitutionally. Furthermore, Žižek believes in the lithium coup story, despite the fact that the US gets a vast majority of its lithium from other sources. This lack of consciousness is problematic and reminds us that any political work needs to be critically.
There are many other problematic parts of the book, such as Žižek’s deep distrust and dislike of President Biden, whom he portrays as the return of a pre-Trumpian elite, despite the fact that Biden truly changed US politics forever with his strong pro-union messages and his discourse on democracy. Finally, I want to again say that the book is great and really has a number of interesting points (the role of democratic representatives as either leaders or truly just representatives for example). But I seriously encourage any potential reader to keep in mind that Žižek has a clear political goal in this book and this is to sell you a new form of communism that still has inherited issues of its predecessors (the need for a global form of communism which can be achieved only through force, for example).
The book is a great analysis and incredibly interesting perspective on the recent geopolitical events (2020 US presidential elections, Covid pandemic, Chile protests, Honk Kong protests, etc.). As typical for Žižek the theoretical and philosophical analysis relies deeply on Hegel and Lacan, but even for less knowledgeable readers (like me), the references are perfectly understandable. Žižek offers a multitude of perspectives on worldwide trends and if you have a critical mind, it is a really enjoyable experience.
That said, I very much disagree with a number of conclusions that Žižek comes up with in his writing. So this part of the review is not meant to be discouraging of potential readers, but rather just my grain of thought. Firstly, one of the red lines of this book is alarmism and how to deal with incoming “apocalypses”. Žižek starts by telling us that we should reject alarmism, however as the book progresses, he constantly makes references to seemingly incoming dooms, such as the pandemic, climate change and populism. Each time, the subtle point is to tell us that only a new unidentified form of communism can save us from incoming catastrophes. However, in the last chapter Žižek concludes that we are already in the apocalypse and that truly the only solution is a vaguely defined communism that Žižek bases primarily on Leninist organisation, a radical strong form of global social-democracy and the creation of a new set of the “working class” that goes beyond the current understanding of transcending struggles that form one demographic entity (western European working class aristocracy, the nomadic proletariat, feminists, LGBTQ+ community, etc).
In many ways however, I find this reasoning purely alarmist and completely ignorant of the fact that communism is the only solution. Many times in this book, I found myself thinking of a joke: “How many communists do you need to change a lightbulb? It doesn’t matter, they will all tell you that in order to change the lightbulb, we need to change the social-economic order into communism”. And truly, this is what I understood. Žižek clearly identified real problems and issues in the systemic structures of numerous countries, but instead of providing direct solutions, Žižek tries to convince us that truly only communism will work.
Let me explain. In several chapters Žižek discusses the dissatisfaction of a number of people with the “liberal-democratic capitalist order” in the US and France. He mentions the US capitol storming and the “gilets jaune”. However, he does not spend a single word on explain the democratic systems and the flaws of these two countries. Both the US and France have deep presidential systems with an incredibly weak legislature that is voted in through old archaic and frankly undemocratic systems (FPtP and 2-rounds FPtP). These two characteristics completely explain why voters and the people are disillusioned with their system of governance. Simply, because their voted does not matter as these systems are not good in representing all votes.
Beyond this, there are also clear examples where Žižek either lacks knowledge or willingly ignores certain parts of the story. For example, in chapter 7 he endorses the conspiracy theory that antisemitic allegations against Corbyn were simply made up. The number of times were Corbyn indirectly and directly met/agreed with antisemites is uncountable. There are also clear examples where Corbyn endorsed organisations such as Hezbollah. Here Žižek simply does not want to admit that his own “allies” are flawed and can be problematic.
Similarly, when it comes to Bolivia, Žižek blindly believes the story on how Morales was truly innocent when we know for a fact that he attempted to seize power unconstitutionally. Furthermore, Žižek believes in the lithium coup story, despite the fact that the US gets a vast majority of its lithium from other sources. This lack of consciousness is problematic and reminds us that any political work needs to be critically.
There are many other problematic parts of the book, such as Žižek’s deep distrust and dislike of President Biden, whom he portrays as the return of a pre-Trumpian elite, despite the fact that Biden truly changed US politics forever with his strong pro-union messages and his discourse on democracy. Finally, I want to again say that the book is great and really has a number of interesting points (the role of democratic representatives as either leaders or truly just representatives for example). But I seriously encourage any potential reader to keep in mind that Žižek has a clear political goal in this book and this is to sell you a new form of communism that still has inherited issues of its predecessors (the need for a global form of communism which can be achieved only through force, for example).
January 12, 2023
Is it me (meaning am I getting crazier) or is Zizek writing much clearer and more accessible these days? Even though the book lacks coherence due to the fact that the it is a collection of articles and blog posts by Zizek, the premise is clear: keep fighting the good fight without deceiving ourselves that this mode of living and producing will face catastrophe (Zizek’s maybe favourite word) sooner or later. The solution is not just communism but wartime communism: kind of the mobilisation that’s required to solve crises of ecology, migration etc.
The reason why it’s not five stars is the reluctance Zizek shows on figuring out how this wartime communism will emerge and sustain itself in the long run. Understandable, but missing anyway.
The reason why it’s not five stars is the reluctance Zizek shows on figuring out how this wartime communism will emerge and sustain itself in the long run. Understandable, but missing anyway.
April 15, 2022
zizek is a confirmed Article Head and there's 175 URLs referenced here from news outlets, which i love bc they take up space and make me feel smart for turning pages quicker.
this has great pacing. if zizek wants a to touch on a topic he devotes a tiny chapter of it, ties it up quickly, then onto the next point. the only other work of his that ive read thats similar to this type of focus on politics was Like a Thief in Broad Daylight. this was much more enjoyable (and cohesive) for me
this has great pacing. if zizek wants a to touch on a topic he devotes a tiny chapter of it, ties it up quickly, then onto the next point. the only other work of his that ive read thats similar to this type of focus on politics was Like a Thief in Broad Daylight. this was much more enjoyable (and cohesive) for me
April 2, 2022
Pirmā pilnā Žižeka grāmata, ko izlasīju. Labs, īss pārskats par pēdējo divu gadu aktualitātēm pasaulē, īpašs uzsvars uz panedēmiju un pēc Trampa ASV un viss, protams, pasniegts ierastajā Žižeka stila mērcītē. Tomēr vairums nodaļu nepārsteidza, interesantākās bija garākās, analītiskākās.
March 16, 2023
Ожидал книгу, а получил обзор последних новостей.
Книга в первые выпущена в начале 2021 года, то есть писалась в основном в 2020-м (это важно, так как некоторые главы писались именно в том контексте). И да, как уже и писал, это скорее не цельная книга, а обзор новостей, объединенных, по мнению автора, некоторой единой нарративной линией, и эта линия, опять же по мнению автора, отлично описывает состояние реальности, которой автор (и мы с ним) живем. Главы между собой не связаны, читать можно в любом порядке, кроме, пожалуй, открывающей и завершающей глав.
Большой акцент делается на проблеме пандемии коронавируса (ещё бы в 21-м году!). Многие выводы делаются именно исходя из той предпосылки, что люди живут в депрессивной неопределенности, связанной с неясностью будущего и сменой привычной нормальности на неопределенность.
Большинство глав завязаны именно на американскую политику, и актуальны скорее жителям Америки, при чем не только США, а в том числе и Южной Америки, так как многие события, описанные в книге, касаются Боливии, Чили и Аргентины.
Обсуждая в каждой отдельной главе отдельную новость, автор пытается дать какую-то оценку самой новости и сделать на её основании некоторый далеко (а иногда не очень) идущий вывод. Во многом, и даже в основном, эти выводы касаются того, какую политику нам следует продвигать, и что делать тем, кто эту политику поддерживает.
Отдельного внимания заслуживает ироничный, а местами даже провокационный стиль повествования. Чего только стоит заявление, что самые большие антисемиты в мире – это сионисты! Это определенно добавляет интереса в процессе чтения.
Для меня литература такой формы – это, безусловно, что-то новое. Попытаться связать множество разрозненных новостей в единый нарратив и на их основании попытаться сделать вывод и дать практические советы – это свежо (для меня!). Получилось ли у автора действительно всё увязать? Местами да, местами уж очень дискуссионно.
Помимо того, такой формат крайне контекстуален. Даже в 2023-м году, когда я читал эту книгу, часть утверждений уже казались неактуальными, или даже устаревшими. С пандемией, например, в основном всё уже разрешилось, и мы не живем в той неопределенности, исходя из которой делал выводы автор.
В целом, читать было занимательно. Местами смешно, местами нудновато. Не шедевр, но и не плохо.
6/10
Книга в первые выпущена в начале 2021 года, то есть писалась в основном в 2020-м (это важно, так как некоторые главы писались именно в том контексте). И да, как уже и писал, это скорее не цельная книга, а обзор новостей, объединенных, по мнению автора, некоторой единой нарративной линией, и эта линия, опять же по мнению автора, отлично описывает состояние реальности, которой автор (и мы с ним) живем. Главы между собой не связаны, читать можно в любом порядке, кроме, пожалуй, открывающей и завершающей глав.
Большой акцент делается на проблеме пандемии коронавируса (ещё бы в 21-м году!). Многие выводы делаются именно исходя из той предпосылки, что люди живут в депрессивной неопределенности, связанной с неясностью будущего и сменой привычной нормальности на неопределенность.
Большинство глав завязаны именно на американскую политику, и актуальны скорее жителям Америки, при чем не только США, а в том числе и Южной Америки, так как многие события, описанные в книге, касаются Боливии, Чили и Аргентины.
Обсуждая в каждой отдельной главе отдельную новость, автор пытается дать какую-то оценку самой новости и сделать на её основании некоторый далеко (а иногда не очень) идущий вывод. Во многом, и даже в основном, эти выводы касаются того, какую политику нам следует продвигать, и что делать тем, кто эту политику поддерживает.
Отдельного внимания заслуживает ироничный, а местами даже провокационный стиль повествования. Чего только стоит заявление, что самые большие антисемиты в мире – это сионисты! Это определенно добавляет интереса в процессе чтения.
Для меня литература такой формы – это, безусловно, что-то новое. Попытаться связать множество разрозненных новостей в единый нарратив и на их основании попытаться сделать вывод и дать практические советы – это свежо (для меня!). Получилось ли у автора действительно всё увязать? Местами да, местами уж очень дискуссионно.
Помимо того, такой формат крайне контекстуален. Даже в 2023-м году, когда я читал эту книгу, часть утверждений уже казались неактуальными, или даже устаревшими. С пандемией, например, в основном всё уже разрешилось, и мы не живем в той неопределенности, исходя из которой делал выводы автор.
В целом, читать было занимательно. Местами смешно, местами нудновато. Не шедевр, но и не плохо.
6/10
February 28, 2022
Zizek ontrafelt de catastrofe(s) van onze tijd, op een gedurfde en radicale manier. Het uitsterven van de mens veroorzaakt door de kapitalistische tegenstellingen in onze maatschappij kan slechts een uitweg vinden in een nieuwe vorm van een radicaal opgewekt Communisme, (losgemaakt van onze nihilisitishe vermoeidheid) waarin we onszelf positief weten te vervreemden. Het boek maakt duidelijk dat hoop alleen nog ligt in een vernieuwde linkse beweging. Zoals Zizek Max Horkheimer citeert: "Pessimism in theory, optimism in practice"
October 19, 2025
Al bueno de Žižek siempre es un placer leerlo, pocas voces más lúcidas existen en este mundo en un momento en que decir las cosas claras es más importante que nunca. En los artículos que recoge este libro vemos al filósofo esloveno analizar los últimos y locos años que hemos vivido como civilización: desde la pandemia y el confinamiento hasta la elección de Trump.
Y aunque resulta encomiable que Žižek opte por huir del cinismo, apelando al sentido común y a la sensatez en un intento por ser constructivo y alejarse tanto de los negacionistas como de los profetas del fin del mundo, mi impresión es que ni siquiera él mismo es capaz de creerse su discurso: al fin y al cabo la sociedad se aproxima al colapso y no parece haber nadie al volante. Si las buenas intenciones son lo único que nos queda es que estamos bien jodidos.
Y aunque resulta encomiable que Žižek opte por huir del cinismo, apelando al sentido común y a la sensatez en un intento por ser constructivo y alejarse tanto de los negacionistas como de los profetas del fin del mundo, mi impresión es que ni siquiera él mismo es capaz de creerse su discurso: al fin y al cabo la sociedad se aproxima al colapso y no parece haber nadie al volante. Si las buenas intenciones son lo único que nos queda es que estamos bien jodidos.
November 22, 2025
Leer a Žižek siempre es interesante, pero este libro se me ha hecho algo pesado. Se trata de una serie de artículos, escritos sobre todo entre 2020 y 2021, y que tratan de aportar ideas sobre como va a ser el futuro post-pandemia. Hace pensar, pero en algunos puntos la realidad tan rápida en la que vivimos ha hecho que envejezca muy rápido.
June 25, 2024
Недавно мне приснился странный сон. На залитой солнцем зелёной поляне, среди цветов, в окружении пушистых облачков, радостно скакал Славой Жижек.
Проснулась я в убеждении, что нужно срочно прочитать Жижека, ну и вот, книга с точно таким же облачком на обложке, как в моём сне, прочитана.
Мне часто сложно думать о 2020, 2021, 2022 и даже о 2023 годах. Воспоминания ускользают, противятся анализу, я как будто бы отказываюсь признать весь тот огромный опыт, что пережила, и его глубину и важность для моей дальнейшей жизни.
Всё, что было до 2020-го — вспоминается и анализируется легко. Но эти четыре года: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 — похожи на тающие часы с картины Дали: искажаются, ускользают, меняют форму. Мои навыки аналитика отказываются работать.
И именно то, что сложно сделать мне, а, думаю, и многим из вас тоже, — проанализировать громадные перемены, через которые мы прошли за последние четыре года, — делает Славой Жижек в своей книге «Небеса в смятении».
Мы (как человечество) живём и продолжаем жить в ситуации хаоса и неопределённости. Даже те из нас, кого хаос и неопределённость, кажется, практически не затрагивают, заблуждаются. Хаосом пронизано всё.
«Сейчас, больше, чем когда-либо в истории, человечество стоит на распутье. Один путь ведёт к отчаянью и безнадёжности. Другой — к полному исчезновению. Давайте же помолимся, чтобы у нас хватило мудрости сделать правильный выбор.»
Я выкладывала в своём Телеграм страницы из книги и получила на них огромный, живой отклик. Жижек пишет блестяще, и лучше, чем сама его книга, о ней не скажет никто. Так что — читайте.
Проснулась я в убеждении, что нужно срочно прочитать Жижека, ну и вот, книга с точно таким же облачком на обложке, как в моём сне, прочитана.
Мне часто сложно думать о 2020, 2021, 2022 и даже о 2023 годах. Воспоминания ускользают, противятся анализу, я как будто бы отказываюсь признать весь тот огромный опыт, что пережила, и его глубину и важность для моей дальнейшей жизни.
Всё, что было до 2020-го — вспоминается и анализируется легко. Но эти четыре года: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 — похожи на тающие часы с картины Дали: искажаются, ускользают, меняют форму. Мои навыки аналитика отказываются работать.
И именно то, что сложно сделать мне, а, думаю, и многим из вас тоже, — проанализировать громадные перемены, через которые мы прошли за последние четыре года, — делает Славой Жижек в своей книге «Небеса в смятении».
Мы (как человечество) живём и продолжаем жить в ситуации хаоса и неопределённости. Даже те из нас, кого хаос и неопределённость, кажется, практически не затрагивают, заблуждаются. Хаосом пронизано всё.
«Сейчас, больше, чем когда-либо в истории, человечество стоит на распутье. Один путь ведёт к отчаянью и безнадёжности. Другой — к полному исчезновению. Давайте же помолимся, чтобы у нас хватило мудрости сделать правильный выбор.»
Я выкладывала в своём Телеграм страницы из книги и получила на них огромный, живой отклик. Жижек пишет блестяще, и лучше, чем сама его книга, о ней не скажет никто. Так что — читайте.
Read
September 23, 2024A few of these essays were out of my reach, but overall enjoyed the read. Much to think about
January 18, 2025
Strong 3. Just a ton of collected essays from like 2016-2022. Some of them hit and are profound, some are meh. His humor gives me the ick.
January 29, 2023
This was a lot more fun than I expected. Oh and the man clearly loves the word "apropos"
November 2, 2025
Zizek is far more moderate than he seems. He clearly recognises that 1. the mask of radicalism, and 2. being tactically controversial, can cultivate a mystique that can carry almost-liberal ideas much further. Remember, he ran for the Slovenian LDP in the 90s. He’s a pragmatist - which is refreshing, but I think it betrays a greater ideological distance from Marxism than he’s willing to admit. He does recognise it partially, but I wonder if he’s over identifying with the label to boost his rep. This becomes especially noteworthy with his odd support for Macron and Milei (check his article). It doesn’t quite square with his brand of democratic socialism.
July 25, 2022
I guess I was expecting more from this given his reputation, which I basically understood to be something like "a thoughtful philosopher who writes books accessible to the masses." This definitely isn't technical stuff for specialists, so he nailed that part. But there really didn't seem to be much meat to it. I saw a review which said this one was "Zizek-lite," so maybe I'll try another book by him in the future.
Read
January 27, 2024Chapter 6 sex moron analogy was INSANE
April 29, 2022
o zizek tem dois tipos de livros: os de cariz filosófico e teórico, normalmente extremamente bem escritos e interessantes, mas mais difíceis de acompanhar, e estes- reflexões também filosóficas e críticas sobre acontecimentos da atualidade. muito mais fáceis de acompanhar, mas não menos interessantes e cheios de análises e provocações criativas, que já são quase uma imagem de marca do autor. este livro é bastante recente e trata os acontecimentos que dominaram o debate público político nos últimos anos, desde a pandemia até à invasão do capitólio. é um livro extremamente bom, mesmo para aqueles que se considerem politicamente distantes do autor; com constantes reinterpretações destes eventos com recurso a ferramentas de análise teóricas dos grandes pensadores da filosofia moderna e contemporânea, que o zizek conhece muito bem, por vezes melhor do que eles próprios.
March 19, 2025
It’s easy to look at Marxism from today’s vantage point and dismiss it as a historical curiosity, a mode of thought that saw whatever promise it offered in the 20th century crumble into unambiguous failure. And yet here Zizek does the impossible: he turns this relic of an ideology into something that is not only prescient, but utterly necessary for the modern day. And not just the vague “modernity” of the 21st century, but explicitly, the modern day of 2025.
Ofc, Zizek is far from doctrinaire. He’s not pulling quotes from 1861 and trying to superimpose Marxian dialectic on the pandemic and the 2020 election. If anything, he is ideologically nimble, convicted yet pragmatic, surprisingly accessible and thoroughly incisive. A short read but a necessary one.
Ofc, Zizek is far from doctrinaire. He’s not pulling quotes from 1861 and trying to superimpose Marxian dialectic on the pandemic and the 2020 election. If anything, he is ideologically nimble, convicted yet pragmatic, surprisingly accessible and thoroughly incisive. A short read but a necessary one.
May 31, 2022
Daudz ūdens, tam starpā daži “hmm” un labas vietas manai mīļākajai aktivitātei - pastrīdēties.
Noteikti iespējams no šīs grāmatas paņemt vairāk nekā es paņēmu, bet kopumā info pilns ieskats pēdējo divu gadu (vietām novecojušajos) notikumos, protams, līdz ar Žižeka īpatnējo rokrakstu to analīzē un kritikā.
Bieži nelasu politiku, tāpēc paldies “?” margās, kuras atgādināja lasīt analītiskāk. Reizēm, nezinot tematu, ir vēlme atzīt pirmo dzirdēto - ļauties izlasītajam. (Bet arī jāuzslavē, ka nevienā brīdī doma nebija pārāk grūti uztverama. Noteikti nebija labākais ievads, bet tumsā arī nepaliku.)
Visspilgtāk prātā palika frāze “decaffinated protester”.
Noteikti iespējams no šīs grāmatas paņemt vairāk nekā es paņēmu, bet kopumā info pilns ieskats pēdējo divu gadu (vietām novecojušajos) notikumos, protams, līdz ar Žižeka īpatnējo rokrakstu to analīzē un kritikā.
Bieži nelasu politiku, tāpēc paldies “?” margās, kuras atgādināja lasīt analītiskāk. Reizēm, nezinot tematu, ir vēlme atzīt pirmo dzirdēto - ļauties izlasītajam. (Bet arī jāuzslavē, ka nevienā brīdī doma nebija pārāk grūti uztverama. Noteikti nebija labākais ievads, bet tumsā arī nepaliku.)
Visspilgtāk prātā palika frāze “decaffinated protester”.
March 29, 2024
For someone whose entire style is defined by digressions and the rapid switching of topics, a surprisingly clear, coherent, and useful picture emerges out of the 'disorder' presented here. Zizek argues for the necessity of a renewed commitment to collective action, and against deluding ourselves with either utopian visions, divorced from the concrete situation before us or despairing due to apocalyptic nightmares, grounded in them. Instead, he insists on a 'moderate' Communism, which remains fully engaged with the people and situation surrounding us: surprisingly orthodox, but novel inn its formulation here. Really enjoyed this read.
January 15, 2023
Slavojs Žižeks lasa ziņas un par tām raksta grāmatu. Kopumā tā arī bija - dažādi 2020.gada notikumi, kas izpelnījušies mediju uzmanību, aprakstīti katrs savā nodaļā. Ir gan atsauces uz Lakānu, Hēgeli, anekdotēm un popkultūru (Rammstein pat vairāk nekā vienreiz), gan sociālismu. Nenoliedzami šāds grāmatas formāts to diez vai padarīs par klasiku, jo daļa no notikumiem ir aizmirsti un mainījušies (pandēmijas sākums utt.), bet lasīt bija interesanti.
Manai gaumei ASV notikumu varēja būt arī mazāk, bet tas tomēr atspoguļo Rietumu mediju telpu un tāpēc laikam arī ir diezgan atbilstoši reālajai ziņu proporcijai. Vislabāk man patika nodaļa par Bolīviju un Evo Moralesu, jo, lai saprastu, vai piekrītu autora pozīcijai, pašai nācās krist Vikipēdijas un publikāciju bezdibenī, kurā uzzināju daudz jauna ne tikai par Bolīvijas politisko vidi, bet arī citām Dienvidamerikas valstīm.
Manai gaumei ASV notikumu varēja būt arī mazāk, bet tas tomēr atspoguļo Rietumu mediju telpu un tāpēc laikam arī ir diezgan atbilstoši reālajai ziņu proporcijai. Vislabāk man patika nodaļa par Bolīviju un Evo Moralesu, jo, lai saprastu, vai piekrītu autora pozīcijai, pašai nācās krist Vikipēdijas un publikāciju bezdibenī, kurā uzzināju daudz jauna ne tikai par Bolīvijas politisko vidi, bet arī citām Dienvidamerikas valstīm.
September 21, 2025
Mapa de la geopolítica actual y el mundo post-covid codificado dentro del psicoanalisis lacaniano. Realiza algunas predicciones realizadas de sus textos de 2020 a 2021 y solo unas pocas han mostrado un diagnóstico alejado o errado de la situación actual. Sin embargo peca de disperso, mantiene textos de índole similar totalmente separados entre sí y pierde el hilo conductor rápidamente en otros ensayos, viéndose abocado a finalizarlos abruptamente con conclusiones que podrían dar más jugo
February 20, 2025
Saggio estremamente lucido e ricco di spunti, dove Slavoj Zizek analizza temi come il coronavirus, la democrazia e la competizione internazionale tra Stati, chiedendosi quale modello politico e sociale possa essere il più adatto a governare ed affrontare i problemi che ad oggi il mondo si trova ad affrontare.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews