Conversations with Tyler - Slavoj Žižek on His Stubborn Attachment to Communism

Episode Date: January 8, 2020

This bonus episode features audio from the Holberg Debate in Bergen, Norway between Tyler and Slavoj Žižek held on December 7, 2019. They discuss the reasons Slavoj (still) considers himself a Communist, why he calls The Handmaid's Tale "nostalgia for the present," what he likes about Greta Thunberg, what Marx got right about the commodification of beliefs, his concerns about ecology and surveillance in communist states like China today, the reasons academia should maintain its 'useless character,' his beginnings as a Heideggerian, why he is distrustful of liberal optimism, the "Fukuyama dilemma" we face, the importance of "empty manners," and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video. Recorded December 7th, 2019 Other ways to connect Follow us on Twitter and Instagram Follow Tyler on Twitter  Email us: [e-mail] Subscribe at our newsletter page to have the latest Conversations with Tyler news sent straight to your inbox. 

Conversations with Tyler is produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems. Learn more at Mercadis.org. And for more conversations, including videos, transcripts, and upcoming dates, visit Conversationswith Tyler.com. Before you begin, one thing, let me express my admiration for him. I'm a strange communist, like Marx, who said that one can learn more. more from a conservative like Balzac than from all progressives about economy.

I think that our only true partners, the true leftists today, are modest, intelligent, honest, skeptics, conservatives. This morning he provided the best, I'm grateful for it, the best definition of myself. He told me that he considers me a moderate conservative communist. My gratitude to you. Thank you. I would like to pursue this theme. Thank you for your remarks.

The assigned topic was why I am still a communist. I think, in fact, what you argued was why I am no longer a communist, and you can be thought of as favoring a kind of social democracy with more effort directed at climate change. But before we get to psychoanalyzing you, let me start with a simple factual question. So you cite China as the biggest success story of communism. But is it so successful? It has right now the per capita income pretty much exactly equal to Mexico,

not so impressive. If you look at capitalist Taiwan, it has the per capita income of France, single-payer health insurance, gay marriage, it's a complete liberal democracy. Life there is very nice. Furthermore, the last 30 years, the air in Taiwan has become much cleaner, and the air in China has become much dirtier. So why isn't China the failure, Taiwan the success? And yes, it's a vote for capitalism, not communism. Yeah, you're already asking me a question. Okay. Yes. It's a question.

Okay, okay, okay. No, no. First, but if you compare what China 50 years ago, the difference is still absolutely shocking. Look at Shanghai, Beijing, today, and so on. Second point, you know, forget about per capita. Compare prices and so on, and you will see that today's China, that today's China, the standard of, living of middle classes, at least in the developed part, you know, numbers at this level don't

tell a lot, but at one point I agree with you that this, in the long term, this, whatever we call it, Chinese authoritarian capitalism or whatever we call it, will not work, I think. And China has put over a million people in concentration camps. Their labor force is already shrinking, rate of growth is falling, so you are, in fact, a moderate right pro-Taiwan communist. Yes? No, but, okay, no, can I briefly answer you very honestly? I see all your points.

I agree with them, but my point is this one nonetheless, and now I want to ask you, if I may, a question. Absolutely. Yes. Okay, I know we exaggerate, and I'm well aware of, I emphasize it, do you remember, how easy is to fall into this fascination by catastrophe? prospect. Do you remember? No, you are not old enough. I am, some of you must.

Around 30, 40 years ago, most of Europe, especially Germany. I remember very well. No, was obsessed by Valtzterben dying of forest. And I remember the cover of Spiegel. They demonstrated exactly with statistics that 40, 50 years after that time, today, Europe will be without forests. I'm sad to tell you, but according to some statistics, Today, there are more forests in the world than any point in last hundred years. So I'm over aware of this fascination of catastrophe, but nonetheless, I think, and you can deny it. I will not, when we communists take over, you will go to Gulag but for different reasons.

Where will you go? You know, why I'm glad to talk with him? that, you know, in today's politically correct climate, in typical Western academic institution, you cannot talk like that, you know. No, but seriously. But I nonetheless see these threats, and I could go on indefinitely, like digital control and so on. Things are serious there, the extent to which we are manipulated already and so on. Ecology, immigration. And did you notice, I am not a simple humanitarian there?

I just don't share this simple optimism, open on hearts and what? All the poor will move to Europe and whatever. So how, very simple question, I will try to cut myself short. How these three domains that I outlined, I think, at least in the long term, they need a more radical. Something will have to happen. Do you, probably you don't agree. Do you see them as serious threats? Are you still a Fukuyamaist?

in the sense of we just make a system function a little bit better. I'm skeptical there. The threats you mention, I all see as serious. But ecology, keep in mind the communist nations where the worst pollutants and still are. Surveillance, the worst culprits, China, right? Not a fully communist nation. But nonetheless, surveillance is worst in China.

If you're worried about genetic engineering and the reshaping of mankind, biggest offender is likely to be China. I even know it may surprise you the exact data. I was shown by a friend in suburb of Shanghai, already clinics. No, no, no, okay, sorry, I will not lose too much time. This will interest you. I met years ago in Frankfurt Book Fair, one high guy from Chinese Academy of Sciences,

and she gave me printed in English the short program, programmatic note. And it says, it shocked me, literally. The goal of biogenetic in China is to regulate physical and psychic health of the Chinese nation. They are directly doing it. What I only don't like is don't just evoke China as this ultimate horror. We are basically doing the same, I claim. Let me now get to my theory of you. Now, there's an old interview I read with you, and I found this passage quite striking.

quote and sympathetic, I should add. The movies I watch are often old Stalinist movies. The songs that I listen to are old communist songs. Dot, dot, dot. I fully admit it, but it is also my pleasure. Now also, you're from Slovenia, you're from the Balkans. That part of the world has not developed ideally. There are far-right parties in many places. There's been war. The Balkans are still a disappointment. So there's a negative outlook on the world you're from, and I view your attachment to the communist label as a kind of nostalgia, like the old Stalinist songs, which you don't actually think are better than Beethoven, but it's some like the old East German women who love their Spreveld Pickles, the old cars, the Trabbies, and the Communist

label for you. It's like your Spreveld Pickles, the Gorki. It's like, it's like, like the trabi and why not just cast it aside and live free. Why be so tied to your own nostalgia? That's my question. Okay, my counter question is then that obviously what I read today around, nonetheless, I'm more of a pessimist. You see, you are coming back to this basic dilemma. You need this nostalgia, right?

Why not free yourself by jettisoning the nostalgia and take the next step? No, no, if I were a therapist, this is what I would be asking. Okay, let's go on. I don't want to lose your time, but what really fascinates me in Stalinism is how, if you look at it closely, how fascinated Stalinism was by America. For example, do you know that that's why I like Soviet cinemas, that the absolute model of Soviet cinema was Hollywood. They had desperate plans in the 30 to build on.

their own version of Hollywood, how they imitated Hollywood, and so on and so on. I claim that, you know, even explicitly, when Stalin was asked around 1930, his definition of a Bolshevik, he said the one which combines Russian dedication to a sacred cause with American pragmatism efficiency and so on and so on. But, you know, behind this what you call nostalgia is for me, Nonetheless, it's much more traumatic if you want it. I am the first to admit, and that's my, maybe we share the opinion here, that's my criticism of one of the criticism of Frankfurt School.

As I always repeat, look at Habermas. At his work, he began publishing in early 50s. Read all his work, and I don't think you will even guess from his published text that there is something like communism and East Germany. Frankfurt School, in a strange way, almost totally. I know there is Marcuses' book, Soviet Marxism, but it's very specific. And you know what makes it so strange? The central thesis of late Frankfurt School is a dialectic of enlightenment.

Horrors of 20th century, fascism, Stalinism, are not simply regressions to some dark past. they are deployment of a certain totalitarian, whatever we call them, potentials in the project of modernity itself. Okay, but isn't Stalinism a much more traumatic example of this than fascism? With fascism, things are relatively simple, I think. It's a model of conservative revolution and so on and so on. But Bolshevism, which tried to do a radical emancipation, It turned into a traumatic nightmare. I think even today we don't have a good theory of Stalinism.

That's what bothers me. Not any return to it. I will give you as a proof that it's not in this sense nostalgia. I'll give you another example. I have such a memory. I always tell my friends jokes about life in the army. I served in the mid-70s in Yugoslav army. But you know, like it was a nightmare.

I know. But what fascinated me was I never did I learn so much about ideology and my politically correct friend. For example, I wonder if some of you know you don't have here any more military service in Norway. But basically, on the one hand, Yugoslav army was, as all armies, probably absolutely homophobic. You were gay, you were beaten by fellow soldiers every night discreetly before being thrown out. But at the same time, crucial, absolutely crucial, the entire life was totally penetrated by homosexual innuendos and so on. In my unit, we didn't say good morning.

We say, I'll smoke your prick. Thanks, and after I finish with yours. So, all these paradoxes, what fascinates me about ideology, and this where communism interests me, is how? This is why Yugoslavia, which was relatively liberal communism, interests me. Do you know that in Yugoslavia, it wasn't just we have our own ideology, self-manent socialism? I mean this literally.

Slovenia was a small country. We knew everybody else. Nomenclature. It's sounding like more nostalgia to me. Army tales. We talked about smoking the prick, right? Okay. But, but, but the lesson I learned there, I don't care.

you call it nostalgia, the lesson I and I will tell you where I see real nostalgia today, the lesson for me is how an ideology can function not only even if you don't believe in it, but it is prohibited to believe in it.

This was the beautiful paradox of ex-Yugoslavia. I had two friends who worked in the Central Committee of the Slovene Party. They lost their job, you know why? Because they were stupid and took the ruling ideology. too seriously. But you know who are for me changed the topic, but

along the same line, the true nostalgics today. That's why I don't like the novel. This will again hurt some of you. Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. This is for me true nostalgia. It's what Frederick Jameson called nostalgia for the present. It paints this horrible near future.

It doesn't raise the crucial question. But she is still too fascinated by our permissive society. and so on and so on. You know, for... These are side issues. If I visit your debate with Jordan Peterson, it's on YouTube,

I felt you won that debate, and it's striking to me the discussion between one hour, 10 minutes, and one hour, 18 minutes. And in that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a communist is a bit of a provocation. But now I'd like to draw a comparison. Take the writer who just won the Nobel Prize in literature,

Peter Hanke, right? Sometimes called an Austrian, but he's ethnic Slovene. He has sympathized with the Serbian atrocities. And you are hard on him, correctly so. You don't give him the space of that being a provocation. He is so close to your world that you apply a more absolutist moral standard. And you want him to jettison his Serbian nostalgia. And I am submitting that...

But I have no nostalgia. For what do I have nostalgia? The attachment to the label communist. You can do everything you want without that word. without the concept, without having to apologize for the history. I know the old joke. What's the difference between a communist and a Nazi? Tenure, right?

You mean university tenure? Yes, it's a joke, but the point is, you don't need communism. You are much smarter than communism. Let's go step by step. First, Hanke. My criticism of him was very specific. Even before he got involved into what he got involved to, I didn't like the game he played, for example.

I remember his text from 30 years ago, 40 before, where he said in Austria, everything is commodified. You go to a store, every brand of milk has a name, you cross the border to poor Slovenia. It just says milk with no brand name and so on. And what I hate is we should agree even here. What I call, through borrowing the term of my friend, another Austrian philosopher Robert Fowler, inter-passive authenticity. You want to keep your well, good life in the West, but you like to be authentic through others.

This is why we were very good. He was proud to refer to us, Slovene's, Hanke. In Zofaras, we were the modest, poor communists. The moment we wanted our own state, join European Union, we betrayed his dream. That's why maybe you know in the text, I quote this wonderful saying by Gilles If you were to be pre, Danle Rev, the latter, you're future.

If you are caught into another's dream, and that's, for me, the big problem of Western academic left. They're always searching for another place where things really happen. When I was young, it was Cuba. Then it was a decade ago, Chavez, Venezuela, and so on and so on. No, nothing great happens elsewhere and so on. And to my Serb friends, I declare that they will see. If they will succeed too well, he will betray them also.

They will disappoint him, you know. This is what annoys me with Hanke, if you ask me. But listen, talking about nostalgia, I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not saying I was a great dissident. But now I will say something arrogant. If there are not some great dissident from Eastern Europe here, then probably I can venture a hypothesis that I did more for the disappearance of East European communism than any of you in this room. I was for five years unemployed.

I had to survive through parents and so on and so on. So I was there when it was needed and so on. And I'm even a little bit proud to say that the role I played at that time is that when you said we have problems, right-wing politics. Yes, we also do it, but Slovenia is the only post-Yugoslav country where nationalists never took over. That we did. At that time, it will shock you a member of a party called Liberal Democratic Party. And we did it. But you know what's for me, again, I return to that.

I appreciate what you. Okay, but please ask me that question. How will we deal with ecology? You really think that with market a little bit more? of that, it can be dealt. No, we need much more than that. We need more. We need more. Okay, I call that more communism.

You know why? People idiots tell me, not you. Why don't you call it socialism? Everybody is a socialist today. Bill Gates says he's a socialist and so on. It's meaningless. Socialism basically means today you care for society.

Hitler cared for society. I don't care. I don't care. You know, I just want to signal that, as you nicely said now, something a little bit more radical will be needed. That's all I'm saying. Sometimes, I love your books. I've read more than half of them, which is a lot. Crazy. Madman, madman. Your Gulaq sentence is redoubles now. But one thing I crave is to one day just see you writing about a question like the electric tram in Bergen, should it go through a tunnel or not? And you would not be allowed to mention

Fukuyama. You couldn't use the C-word capitalism or communism. and just analyze that question or look at a municipal bus system in Denmark somewhere and those to me are in some ways more real questions we have a misunderstanding

because I will tell you why not this this may surprise you the answer first you know I tremendous this was the point you know when in my short speech

when I said I despise for me the model of catastrophe today my friends they cried Tahrir Square syntax. We were there

one million people. We were all crying, wonderful. I say F off. What interests me, I hope we agree here, what happens two months later? I'm all for these pragmatic concrete

problems. I'm not waiting for a big revolution. I just am, now this may surprise you for somebody who may sound so bombastic as pretenses like me. You know, strange It will sound, but I don't know everything. I'm immediately thinking in literal terms, what to do so many factors.

I don't know enough. I like this totally concrete empirical problems. I like paradoxes. For example, would you agree very briefly? Maybe you found this in one of my books. I'm not quoting this as an argument for anti-capitalism. I don't know that. But there are some group experiments which fascinate me,

which proves that you cannot reduce some forms of solidarity to money. An Jewish friend from Israel told me this. They had a kindergarten there, and this story is apocryphal. People have tried to follow up on the kindergarten and Israel story. It's probably not true. Really? Are we talking about one when they made it, when they made pay? even less. We're not sure this is

true. I've looked in this. Really? It's possibly true. It cannot be confirmed. But I accept the point. Yes. The point is that I believe it's surprisingly. And when I talk about communism and so on, my God, I've written texts on it and I go on into it into. For me, communism is just as I emphasize, and

the name of a problem is not a solution. You know, now I will say something that will shock you. I'm well aware. Some of my communist friends admitted that even if we imagine something similar to communism, the mega problem will be envy and so on. And this is who is one of the great guys, my God, the one who conducted Chile according to leftist mythology, not Pinochet, the economist free market,

who advised Pinochet according. Arberger. No, no, no, no, the big guy. For he? I think... He only visited once or twice. That was not my point, but one of those guys, when reproached with the fact that, but capitalism is unjust, you work harshly, you fail, your neighbor was, he said, but that's why capitalism works, because he said, your pride survives intact. Let's say we are two guys.

We live in a just society, and if there is no luck and injustice, this means if you are richer than me, I have to admit that I'm more stupid than you. Capitalist injustice, it's a very elegant argument. Amunism is easy in a way. You always have an excuse, right? Yes. The system screwed me. And you're always right. Now I will ask you, this is my big argument against happiness.

Do you agree if you are now like my Stasi observer, you have your list? Yes. You remember when I argue about happiness against. Yes. I take as an example, and I was there, I talked with people. Who sucks? Keko Slovakia in the 70s. Material needs were.

basically satisfied. Nobody was doing that. And as you said, you always had an excuse. There was too much rain or drop. Communists screwed it up. Then, very important. You had a nearby country, West Germany, which was the ideal other, but it was not too far away and so on. That's why I'm against happiness. Happiness means no responsibility, relatively comfortable life, you know because already after Kruschev basically with Brezhnev, you must know this communist in power made a pact with population. They admitted

we will never reach the West but the message was you leave us political power we leave you your private niche where you can enjoy your life and so on and so on I think that Krushchev was paradoxically, don't you agree the last guy who somehow paradoxically

he was sincere in that you must know it, United Nations speech the last epoch where the ruling nomenclatura have still believed in communism. After that, it's a totally different logic of emancipation. Some of the communists in power,

I love this in Yugoslavia, even referred to Marcoza Frankfurt School, they said, but you know in the West you have commodification, alienation. Here, you can take it easy, it's more poor, and so on and so on. You know, sorry, I talk too much. Let me praise you some more. No. All your, yes, all your books I've read. One of my favorite things in the books is how much humor you have. And in person, whether speaking or over breakfast,

for this I will share your selling Gulloch probably. Your humor, which is based on insight, right, rather than any youngman type of jokes, is phenomenally good. But here's what strikes me. You have the humor of a right-winger, of a right-wing moderator. So if you think of today's left, it is increasingly humorless. You're not allowed to talk about so many things on gender. Your views are much more right-wing than left-wing. That's debatable. I don't know.

The left-wing is moving. When I sit down with my right-wing friends and they joke around, their jokes are in broad terms like yours. My answer to this, not critical. It's a very simple one. My answer to this is that's why political correct leftists are doing all. possible to get Trump reelected, if you ask me. A little bit more years on this, and we will be where we are.

But let me add, as a sign of friendship to you, another dead taste humor about you. You are my friend, I like you. So when we come on this takeover, nonetheless, because you are objectively guilty, you go to Gulak. But as a special favor to you, you know what you got on better days in Gulak, on Saturday? Some kind of disgusting soup in trails and hats have rotten fishes and potatoes. Maybe some bread in it. Don't exaggerate.

I will call from my Moscow center and isn't it nice? You will get two plates of that soup. Do you agree you have an increasingly right-wing sense of humor and that if we're going to be true Freudians... Why do we call it right-wing? When I was young, this was left-were-ins of irony. It is no longer left-wing humor. The world has moved on. Perhaps the left.

Okay. We're making progress. Maybe. You are indeed the moderate right, communist nostalgia, rum state communist, who is maybe almost ready to abandon that final bit of the nostalgia. Don't count on that too much, because I still think that the crisis will hit us. I see signs here comes my pessimism. I think that the situation today with new right-wing blah, blah, blah, blah, and here, as we're

We've already talked about it. I'm very open. For example, do they exist here not? We talked about it, so-called incels, involunt celibators. Usually they decried us the worst, women hating fascists. No, they do something, I think, almost tragic. They try to turn their failure. And already this is politically incorrect to state today. You cannot address a woman almost it's prohibited, saying she is beautiful. You cannot say, to a man, you are non-attractive enough, you cannot get any woman. But that's their experience. And I admire how without any imminent violence, they turn this into a wonderful performance, especially clown cells and so on. It's a wonderful way to survive a pretty terrifying predicament. And I don't buy that they are automatically neo-fascists and so on.

Concerning feminism and my reproach to me too is not there to. radical and so on. But it's an upper middle class fake. American feminism should first do, I hope we agree here. A little bit of a good, old-fashioned Stalinist, you will say again, nostalgia, self-criticism.

You know, there are so many things of American feminism. Do you know, for example, they supported American invasion of Iraq that it will help women. Well, we know today that the situation of women today in Iraq is

much worse than under Saddam. Saddam was a brutal despot, but relatively secular. This is what bothers me. Second problem, you will again say I'm conservative here. Fuck it, I don't care. The problem with political

correctness is for me that questions which are questions of not manners in a superficial sense, but of customs. Here I am, as you know, a Hegelian. Hagell always emphasize the basis that holds society together are unwritten rules, customs, and so on.

Political correctness tries too much to legalize it, you know. You are allowed to call this name. For example, let me give you a provocative example, you know, to provoke you. Once I problematize this idea of consent, even bureaucratic consent, you have to state it on a selfie sign before mutual agreement. And they say, oh, so I think we can rape women, we don't need consent. They totally misread me on the opposite. I just claim consent in itself is good, better than nothing. But it doesn't solve the problem.

There is so much pressure, violence, which can survive the form of consent. Even if there is a formal consent, sexual exploitation can go on and so on and so on. My problem with LGBT plus, as if I'm attacking them. No, the problem I see there, I wonder if you agree, is this one. I have a problem with identity politics. The problem is that the idea of predominant, there are many LGBT plus who are extremely good theorists, persons, but the predominant view is the one of this one. I simplify it.

There is some kind of multiplicity of gender positions, flourishing. It's almost the Maoist version. Let the 100 flowers blossom. Let 100 at books, gender, bisexual, tricex. And then evil patriarchy comes, imposed as the binary division. Let's get rid of this. And some of them even establish a list, 30, 35 positions. My God, and then they say Freud is outdated.

If there is anything to learn from Freud, is that sexuality is in itself, antagonist, traumatic, shady domains, and so on and so on. That's my first point. So it's as if what bothers me in LGBT Plus is as if we get rid of social pressure, we get some kind of shabby sexuality. The first presupposition that adopt here is because you do what you desire. My God, didn't they read Freud? How do you know that you really desire what you think that you desire? There are all the ambiguities here.

My second problem, and that's the theoretical one. Let's move into Hegel a little bit. Maybe you know my line. LGBT plus. It's all about plus, no? Because the ordinary LGBT theorists are for me two British empiricists. Plus is for them simply, maybe we don't yet know all identities, let's leave it open. You know, like maybe there will be other gender identities.

We will include them. No. As I got this, I forgot Karnayv, I'm sorry, from an Australian LGBT theorist, very intelligent lady, who wrote to me, but what if plus itself is a subjective position? You can be a plus in the sense of, you know, at a distance, doubting. And I think this is feminine position at it's stronger. I will go to absolutely every day level.

That's why the most provocative, woman's answer is, why do you love me? Because there is no answer to this question. The moment you answer it, it's not true love by definition. If I tell you why I love you, then it becomes matter of, you know. So what I'm saying is that I just try to complicate things. Why not move to Singapore? Yeah.

It's a wonderful country. And if you ask which nation has the quality of government and the thoughtfulness and the long time horizon to actually deal with ecological problems, Are they not near or at the top of the list? And therefore, you and I can join hands in embracing Singapore and presenting it to the world. You know, here I may be too much. But isn't it that Singapore nonetheless enjoys its role as structural and exception?

I don't think you can expand Singapore to Indonesia. Already with Malaysia, there are problems and so on and so on. Well, every country is different, but clearly Singapore has worked there. Because, you know, I recovered that Singapore port is even at some point it was the busiest port in the world and so on. Which means they are kind of a nodal point for the countries around them and so on. I doubt, second thing, maybe I have here too much liberal sensitivity. But nonetheless, you know, it's a kind of a – the way I would define Singapore, you may disagree is. Fascism with a human face, a very human face.

it's consensual and so on. But there are so strict limits, even at the everyday ridiculous level. For example, I was there with my son who wanted some chewing gun. We went to a store, and they laughed at me. Are you crazy? You have to go to pharmacy.

We went to a pharmacy. They said, okay, where do you have doctors' prescription? I said, no. This is fine. This is not fascism. Singapore did that because too many people were leaving the chewing gum on the subway doors, and it was creating a problem.

Maybe they overreact. Now you are exactly. If your criticism of Singapore is about the chewing gum, I say, come join me at the food stalls, right? Where in Singapore? Yeah, I know where all the best ones are, right? Jump on board, forget the communist thing. The nostalgia can be for Singapore 13 years ago, which in some ways was less crowded, right? It's a better nostalgia.

No, no, but again, don't you see where my communism comes seriously? It's precisely, it's not where you think. I don't think there is any link with me clinging to the name communism and my nostalgia. Those times I'm well aware were more or less a nightmare, I mean. Listen, one reason against nostalgia is that I was jobless. Although you may know this joke, something wonderful happened. When people asked me, which was the key factor for your relative success in the West, I told them communist oppression.

because I applied for a job when I finished my post-doctor studies in 1973, and this was the harsh line. I couldn't get the job. And then I was for a couple of years unemployed. I was looking for contacts in the West. Without communist oppression, I would have been now an unknown professor in the city of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Sometimes you remind me of Leibach, the Slovenian rock group.

They are my friend, my God. I'm with them from late 80s. And now things get complicated there. You know why? Because many leftists who support them are nonetheless afraid. Of course. Okay, they are staging totalitarian rituals. What if some people will take it seriously and so on?

And once they were asked, are you a fascist? And one of them said, I am a fascist like Hitler was a painter. What answer is that? I don't know. But why can't they just say, I'm not a fascist? and then you could say I'm not a communist and you and and Leibokin we could all meet in the food stalls of Singapore

Taiwan have a nice time right work on better batteries so solar power can really save us we could have the government subsidize you know better battery technology I know it's not all we need to do but then think about that electric tram and the tunnel diesel from the cruise ships

I can tell you from my personal contact with Leibach they don't mean it as an ironic spectacle They are very serious in their heartline. That's what I like about them. They are not, don't be afraid. We are not really totalitarians. It's just one big social game and so on and so on. But at a certain point, I didn't want to join them

because they wanted me, you probably know, two years ago when they went to North Korea. No, it would be too much. Sure, of course. I didn't want to do it. Too communist for you. Yeah. No, but nonetheless, you know what was so interesting with,

Laibach. Here you have the complexity of ideological process that all this fear, will they be manipulated by radical right and so on? They never were. Whenever they are popular, I know what the right

wingers, at least in Europe, are listening. It's not the German version of Laibach, there was some influence. Do you know Ramstein, the group? Links, links, they are left and it's a beautiful the right thing to do for the left to appropriate this horrible totalitarian sounding stuff and so on and so on. The right winger that I know, they sing beautiful, romantic songs, apolitical usually, and so on and so on.

But still, you know where you, I get your point, of course. I still, when you said no, something more will be needed. F you, what more, tell me. You say, no, no, no, it's not, I know ecology and so on. digital control. Have you any idea what? What more will be needed? What do you think? The ecological

party will be elected? I hope so, maybe. I was told them in Bergen. It's 20% electric cars. Now, I don't know what Bergen did to get that, but many parts of the world could learn from whatever has been done here. And we're at 20, let's work for 60, right?

Yeah, but on the other hand, my only not criticism of Norway is that you have oil, gas and so You know, you can, we can, I would like to learn from Norway, but I would like even more if you give me your natural resources, you know. To earn from the oil and then divest from fossil fuels. Although I have one argument for you here. The good thing about Singapore is that they have no natural resources, no? Well, they do a lot of refining there, so.

Refining, yes, but no. Not that I'm aware of. But what made it? Is it kind of one incidental conjunction? that's what I would have maybe said about Singapore of this Chinese proclivity to hard work and English legislation or what. There must have been some unique combination there. Keep in mind the Chinese themselves felt at first that the Chinese who went to Singapore were kind of the losers who were not doing well in China, the poorly educated peasants. But the Singaporean government thought, let's invest in human capital.

When? Which government? I'm talking about this one. Yes. Yes. And it worked for the most part. But what's then your problem with China? Because you must know this, that at the beginning of history forums, Deng Xiaoping came to Singapore. Everybody, everywhere there they showed and said Singapore should be a model for... It is time for China to liberalize. I don't see them doing that.

They seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Here and now we touch the true problem. Sorry, now I'm not losing time. You know where I am a pessimist? Some of my liberal friends tell me, oh, China achieved so much with full political liberalization, they would have achieved even more, I doubt it. We don't know the counterfactual.

Speaking of counterfactual, I have a question for you about Donald Trump. Yeah. So you initially said, well, if Trump wins, it could be good because it will revitalize the left. He did. There was then another article where people asked you, do you really mean it?

And you said maybe a year ago, yes. But I look at the democratic race. Frontrunner number one is Joseph Biden, age I think 77. Yeah. He was vice president for eight years. Mayor Pete is now number two because he took a moderate stance. Sorry, who is named? Mayor Pete, Buttigieg.

I'm so sorry, I don't know how to pronounce that name. I'm not sure I do either. But he's mayor from South Bend, Indiana. To me, you know, a perfectly fine candidate. And the Democratic conservatives are in the ascendancy. And where the Democrats have gone hard left is identity politics. And that's exactly the thing you hate. So why has it been good?

We have three years of Trump, maybe eight years of Trump. Okay. We don't have time to go with, but let me be specific. Democrats who go for identity politics, already Hillary tried this against Donald Trump. Yes, and that's much more radical. Against Bernie Sanders. That's why I admire Alessandria Ocasio-Cortez,

who said something very ingenious. You must have read it. Who said, recently endorsing Bernie Sanders, I endorsed him not in spite of him being an old white man, but because. Her idea was this one. Bernie Sanders can get us. We don't need...

Center Democrats are obsessed. If you go to march the left, we lose this, centrist, votes, and so on. Trump did exactly the opposite. I think the target of the Democratic Party should be those impoverished, white, half-unemployed workers who otherwise would have voted for Trump. Note those middle of the road and so on and so on. Trump is a genius here, how he broke all the rules and so on, because do you remember

how often in his campaign when he said something, I know, preposterous horrible, liberal press said, oh, Trump just showed himself he's over and so on. No, it's not over. Trump proved that sometimes the only way to majority is through extremes.

It's not always that center works. But I worry here, there's a parallel your views and pronouncements on Trump and on communism. So in the case of Trump, you think, well, I can say this. I have a vision that will work out, a particular way, the Democratic left will be revitalized. But what we've gotten

the worst of the left. The identity politics. And the moderates are on the rise. And then there's a sense of well, I can attach myself to communism. I have a particular theory. That will work out some way. It will tell us we always need more when it comes to ecology. But that to me seems like the Trump prediction.

We know from the work of Philip Tetlock. It's just very hard to predict the future. So why not stand up directly for just the right values? Like take Greta Greta Toenberg, right? I don't agree with everything she says, but her core message is correct. She is unambiguous, she's to the point, it's not ironic.

There's not some complicated theory. She is the contemporary communist for me. Fully. You know why, but you know what, I know, forget, you know what I like about her. But you know what I like about Greta Thunberg? First, you remember, some media in Europe tried to

blame her parents, you know. They are manipulating her. My answer was, I hope they do. I hope. Why shouldn't we the left also manipulate? But what I like is precisely, I didn't like her at the beginning, you remember, when she played that innocent girl who is telling us that the emperor is naked. But did you notice how in the last year of men, she has this almost a little bit of diabolical, aggressive smile? I like the mean, Greta Thunberg. I don't like the good, innocent girl.

And I also referred to her, you know, for me, she is deeply. feminine, but not the usual notion of femininity promoted by the media today. Holistic dialogue. No, no, no. She is quite dogmatic, insistent. That's what we need today. And I don't need anything more. Okay, we can debate the name, but I think that what she is doing is definitely

communist today are for me. Greta Thunberg, Assange, and so on. Incidentally, do you know the story? I must repeat it to you. I hope all of you don't know it when I visited him two weeks ago in prison. It's wonderful. I couldn't believe it. I'm sorry, some of you know it.

I was sitting close to him like this in open space at the table. A friend brought me a cup of coffee, plastic cover. I took the cover off and drank some coffee and put coffee back on the table in two seconds, literally. A guard was there, very gentle, soft, no terror. I just said, please, sir, put the cover, plastic cover. back on the coffee. I asked afterwards, I didn't want to cause problems there. Why? They told

me, you were sitting opposite, A son's an evil man. It was for my own good, they told me. They wanted to block the possibility that evil men like a son's will grab the boiling coffee and threw it into my face and so on. No, but

I think, okay, these are my heroes. You like alternate scenarios, right? No, there is no alternate here. I'd like to tell us. What's the scenario where you write books which are not so much pastiche, not so much bringing together of disparate elements, but you become a kind of realistic, non-Hagallian preacher almost, like Greta Thunberg, return somewhat to your Catholic roots, embrace your right moderate side, retire in Singapore, and go gallivanting off with me to the

few stars where we share your sense of humor with my right-wing friend. First, what is that alternative scenario? Singapore is Ecuador is too hot. For me, if I retire, if I retire, and I'm not lying to you now, two, three times I've written about it. I want to retire to the part of Norway, which is not even Norway. I'm not kidding. I'm not about it. It's my ideal place.

Long-ir-Bien, Swalbard Islands. That's my ideal place. It's half-empty, nothing there, and it's very good prospects for survival, because you know the joke. it's prohibited to die there. But last question, the alternate scenario where you evolve in this manner with your right-wing sense of humor. What does that look like? What has to happen?

It's the humor of my youth. Yes, thank you. What has to happen for that scenario to come about? I'm not saying it will happen, but what does that science fiction world look like? What would you have to see in the world? First, I will tell you, no, I'm not trying to make cheap propaganda for myself,

But I did try to practice this. You know, one of my books, which was not full failure but close to a failure, my rewriting of Antigone. Did you read that one? No, I have not read that one. I loved that one. You know what I did? I took, it's precisely alternate scenario.

I took, and you will not like the third version. I took Antigone. But you should like it because it's very pragmatic. I took, first, it's pure, alternate logic like Kishlovsky's film and that Lola runs and so on. First, I took the way the story you have in Sophocles, which incidentally is not the original story. The original Greek myth is totally different.

Okay, you know what happens. I will not repeat them. Then at the moment of her big conflict in the middle of the play with Creon, I play alternate reality. She wins. Creon says, okay, you are right. Let's allow the burial. In my scenario, what happens is that as Creon suspected, there is again a revolt, again the traitor,

the whole of Tebeth, the city is in ruin, and at the end of the second version, he walks desperate in the city and cries like that famous, you know, hit line of Antigone. I was created for love, not for war, death, and the chorus answers her, fuck you big, but that's what you created. Then comes the third version. Last word is for you, but you have 38 seconds. Okay, okay, yeah. The third version that you will like, I hope, is while Creon and Antigon are fighting, the chorus steps over, said, you are both traitors ruining the city.

You should both be liquidated, and they establish a kind of Jacobin terror, and they're both liquidated. Nobody likes this. I don't think. Lavoy, thank you very much. Thank you. But don't you suspect me. I still have zero seconds.

But don't you suspect me? How come that you don't have? Don't you trust me? That fear that now I'm talking soft, but if I get too close to power, you will see the Stalin's side of me. You don't suspect me of really be a bad guy. You trust me.

I don't. I think your attachment and almost obsession with plenitude and being generative of ideas. A young idea. The sense of which you are generative, which is a personality feature and a temperament and neurological in you that that so overwhelms

whatever oppressive tendencies you might have that if you were appointed dictator of whatever you would just go off and write more books and you can't help it and I admire this I am in somebody similar. I will tell you a story very brief one. Don't be afraid. No time. That's what I like is even

I hope you will like this in my favorite passage in Marxist maybe you know it. 1870 Paris Commune there was a dream that maybe there will be a European revolution. And Marx wrote a letter to Engels, I love him for them,

where he says, oh my God, they want a revolution now, but I haven't yet finished the capital. Not now. I have to finish my book. That's the true spirit that I... Exactly, and that's why I trust you. Now, we have a method for questions.

There will be questions from the floor and questions from Twitter. Your questions from the floor are to be questions, not statements, not proclamations, not political platforms. are here to hear this man, so I will cut you off if it is not a proper question. But before we get to that, we have four questions on video, at least one of which is too long. And I'm told they're your friends, but you need more enemies, perhaps.

First we start with those questions. Let's get to those. And then questions here, and then microphones will come around and will all be managed efficiently because this is Bergen, Norway. Questions from the video? First video, please. my line of questioning for Slavoy has to do with the Marxist critique of political economy. First, in relation to Marx's historical materialism, do you think there have been any major changes in the basic relations between economic infrastructure and more than economic superstructure in capitalism between the mid-19th century and today?

Has the role or weight of the economy in shaping social history altered over this period? Second, if you were to rewrite Marx's critical rendition of economic, for the 21st century. What components of it would you prioritize updating, revising, scrapping, or replacing? What would be some of the distinctive features of your own contemporary critique of political economy?

They are all, my friends. I know who will be, so I will... On the other hand, these are difficult, theoretical questions. We need another two hours. I would just say that, yes, I agree with... I cannot go into it now, with Adrian's point, how the relationship between

ideology, economic infrastructure, change and so on and so on. But all I can do now is point out what he knows and most of us know that already in Marx, and that's one of the critical points that we need to read Marx, what I really admire in Marx, because it's not what you

idiots, not you personally, but think. It's his theory of commodity fetishism. It's not simply we believe in fetishism. No, Marxist's theory is that. We, bourgeois subjects, in our actual life, we are usually pragmatic Anglo-Saxon utilitarians. The fetishist inversion is in how we act, our reality structure.

Marx has a wonderful theory where it's not this enlightenment vision, you know. We dream illusions, the other thing is real life. No, we can be very, to repeat a joke that I'm sure you all know, but it renders perfectly the point. You know that story that I always repeat, Nils Bohr and the Horseshoe. You know, Nils Bore had a horseshoe at his country house across the entrance door, superstitious item, and a friend asked me, why do you have it there? Aren't you a scientist?

Do you believe in it? You know what's Nils Bore's answer. Of course, I don't believe in it. But I have it there because I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's how ideology works today. At this level, the extent, and maybe you would agree with this, The lesson of Marx is that that's why, interestingly enough, commodity fetishism, he never calls it ideology. Because it's something very strange.

It is a system of beliefs and so on, but objectifies central part of infrastructure itself. Along those lines, I would say we have to go further than Marx and so on and so on. I don't want to. Second video question, please. My question is about communism. So along with Alain Badu, you are one of the philosophers who reinvigorated the philosophical discussion of the idea of communism with a series of books and conferences and events. And so I'm wondering about your thinking about that project and the potential for communism now. I'm also thinking about your editions of Collected Works of Lenin, different volumes that you've produced with Lenin's works.

and some of your events, also your event with Jordan Peterson. And so my sense is that for the most part, you work within the communist tradition in addition to Hegel and Lecon, but yet sometimes it seems like your position is that every part of the 20th century experience has to be erased, has to be forgotten, has to be overcome, that we go back to the beginning, and we don't need to use anything that we learned in the

20th century. And other times it seems like you're precisely actually learning from the 20th century and using some of the writings of Lenin and the achievements and the examples from European history in the 20th century. So I'm hoping that you might clarify how you see the potential for communist politics today, not just communist philosophy, but communist politics today, what kind of organizational forms you think it requires. and whether or not there really is a potential in communist movement.

Maybe another way to say this is how do you imagine the end of capitalism? Again, another two-hour answer question. What I would say is that, look close. First, I didn't, my God, I'm not crazy. I didn't edit, collected works of Lenin. I haven't read them, never. What interested me is Lenin at a very precise moment. What fascinates me in Lenin, and I said this in both of my introductions to some texts,

that first, Lenin's time is over. I don't play the boring Trotsky game of, you know, this crazy dream. Oh, if only Lenin were to survive two years longer, he would have made a pact with Trotsky, Stalin would be sidestep, and so on, no. The deadlock was there from the beginning. But what interests me in Lenin, and maybe that's what we need today, is this totally pragmatic volunteerist spirit. Isn't it clear that in 1917, it was a total mess? Lenin often didn't know what to do.

Some even liberal communists praise his state and revolution. But what he says there is something that he immediately abandoned then. What interests me is especially Lenin in 21. 22, and this was the big failure of the October Revolution, they want the civil war. And then it would have been my moment, okay, now it's everyday life, invent new forms, if you can, they failed. But Lenin was at least the one who, he said openly, our situation is totally desperate. We don't have any formula. He didn't have any trust in the future.

he saw this total openness. That's what fascinates me, but I'm not preaching in any sense the return to it. So my idea, unfortunately, I'm here maybe a little bit more, let's call it pessimist. I really think, and incidentally, in this metaphor of returning to zero level, I quote Lenin, who wrote in 21, 22, a wonderful text, where he said nothing worked.

Then he said it's not that we should stabilize our achievements, but we should return to the zero level, begin from nowhere. And quoting data, which also you mentioned, the fact that the only livable communism today, communism in the formal sense, the Chinese one, means ecological problems, more digital control and so on and so on, we have to begin in some sense from the zero. Lenin already did this not just as a good direction.

If you are dogmatic Marxist, you can show that Lenin totally overturned Marx and so on. In this sense, Lenin was not the one of the fidelity to Marx. He pretended to be, but you know how religious revolutions also work. All great revolution proclaims itself return to origins. Martin Luther, the greatest religion, oh, we just want to return to the original Bible and so on. So, no, I think, again, that with all objective study and so on, see the good, bad sides, but the 20th century communism was ultimately a failure, an absolute failure. Third video question, please.

Hi, Slavoy, Paul Taylor here. Hope life's treating you well. My question relates to the role of academics. as independent critical thinkers. In my experience within the UK sector, at least, academics over the years, when confronted with growing bureaucracy, growing commercialism, have behaved like lemming-type creatures or quizlings,

to use a couple of references you're Norwegian audience will be familiar with. And given Brexit as a recent example, there's very little genuine debate over, overall the complicated topics around leaving the EU or not leaving as the case may be. And there's a level of conformity and group think that reminds me of the movie Stepford Wives, if that rings a bell with you. So my question to you is, you've experienced Yugoslav communist system,

and you've experienced something of the UK academic system. Which of those environments do you think is most conducive to genuine, critical, engaged, intellectuals. Thanks. It's a very nice question, and again, you will accuse me of nostalgia. But I would say, in the last decade, 1980s, Yugoslavia was better. You know why?

There was not yet a total economic fiasco, and that was the beauty. From 1980, at least, maybe 82, the ruling nomenclature were already preparing for the fiasco. So actually, I think that some of the governments in different republics were pretty good. You know why? Because they knew they don't have democratic legitimacy. So they tried to do to learn some legitimacy. For example, a very sad story.

In mid-80s or six-seven, a gay organization formed itself in Slovenia. Immediately a delegate from Central Committee came there. Yes, you are progressive. for them, do you want financial support and so on and so on. Then we got democracy 1990. The first thing that the city, town council, whatever, dominated by conservatives, is abolish all half to this gay organization. So in some paradoxical sense, it was a golden era, I would say, the second half, but I don't have any illusions. It's not that communists were good or so well.

But communists in power knew they were fighting for survival. This is incidentally also how I read the explosion of nationalism. Milosevic got this. Communist nomenclature had a problem. Democracy is coming. How to regain some type of democratic legitimacy without canceling themselves as nomenclature. The answer obvious was to stain yourself as a defender of national interests and so on, nationalism and so on. On the other hand, I must say what makes me so depressive and the United States are big enough are not the worst, but especially UK, I don't know how it is here, it's this pragmatic turn of philosophy has to serve concrete social needs. Labour party, more than texture, began this in England.

My friend, philosopher, are telling me you got labor representatives coming to university's philosophy department. Let's say, we will give you more money, but we will just make it if you get some money from private companies and so on and so on. But what I like about today's, I think, this is certainly not a traditional leftist idea, that what's good about academia is precisely that it's a space with no concrete attachment to any needs of society. You can go crazy, you can freely debate and so on and so on. And this is more and more difficult today. Even in Germany, they are telling me, my good friend, conservative but bride, Peter Slaughterdyke, he told me to get more money.

You know what he likes to do? Business weekends. Years ago, he went for a weekend to Volkswagen top managers and explain them, you know, this bullshit. What's going on today, post-modernity, the situation and so on. And God, I didn't ask. So what I'm saying is that this reminds me in an uncanny way to the worst years in ex-Yoslavia, 70s of the communist oppression. This focus on also human sciences has to work for society, experts solve problems.

No, we don't need that today. We need precisely academia, humanities in their useless character. Also in sciences, I think, if you look closely, isn't it that practically all big inventions as far as I can judge, emerged either in a totally contingent external way, usually some military contract, or as a private hobby and so on. So what I advise you if you are here at the university is don't believe in this mantra of you are here, bourgeois spending money, hard-earned workers' money, and stuff. so on, be more useful. No, what's great about

university is they are not useful in the immediate sense. That's what we should expect from you, academics. All great things, again, to use the guy whom you mentioned this morning, John Elster. He has this

wonderful term years ago of states which are necessary a byproduct. It just comes, you cannot plan it. Academia should be a place for D. Last video question, please. Hi, Savoy

from Australia. I said my greetings. You've often spoken critically of the Hildolin paradigm where the danger lies there grows the saving power. The idea that disaster harbors the seeds

of its own overcoming catastrophe provides both the negative index and even the opportunity for redemption. It's a model of historical catastrophe or crisis that's often associated with a kind of dialectical salvage along pseudo-hegelian lines. I'm saying pseudo-hagelian because you've done so much to argue that Hegel himself resists this kind of negative eschatology. But you've often suggested that Marx falls prey to his way of thinking. One of your criticisms of this paradigm

and is that it exaggerates or misconstrues the exceptionality of the present and misunderstands the nature of the crisis and of crisis. Specifically, it underestimates the capacity of capitalism to absorb and feed on its own crises. Can we still pull to the idea of capitalism as being its own grave figure? Can you elaborate your critique of the Hilderian paradigm in the light, of the present, when we can see the danger, the ravaging effects of global capitalism all around us, to the sense that maybe danger itself is not the word we can use any longer, and where previous

models of crisis seem not to hold. Specifically, and here's my question, is there a concept of revolution in the present context that does not fall prey to this paradigm? Again, it's It's a mega-difficult question. Just to explain to you, you know what she, Rebecca Comey, incidentally, here I am a sincere, not politically correct feminist. I'm organizing next October in New York big Hegel conference. The majority will be women. And I already brutally apologize to people.

No, no, I'm not politically correct feminist. It's simply that the best Hegelian studies come from women today. So, okay. So Heldon in Paragu, you know, this. passage from Helderlin, the journal Rantic poem all the time quoted by Hadeger, where the danger is the greatest, the point of salvation is also near and so on. And this is a model for the usual revolutionary thinking, even in Marx, proletariat, zero-level exploitation, poverty, but there is a chance that you turned around into salvation.

I'm here a Hegelian, if you ask me. I much more believe, and I will not go into it now, it's another half an hour. How do I apply this to what I was telling about catastrophes, apocalypses, and so on, the post-apocalyptic vision. Hegel's problem is exactly the opposite one. The big attempt at liberation happened, French revolution, and for Hegel, I don't totally agree with him, but nonetheless, it turned wrong, Jacobin, terror, and so what. So, what went wrong? Hegel is not a crazy optimist. As bad as things are, you should see a chance for the better. No. Hegel's basic insight is exactly the opposite one. No matter how good an idea or a project is, we can be sure that it will be somehow that it will turn wrong somehow. And I think what Hegel did to French Revolution, we should do to 20th century communism.

First, we have to still, we disagree here maybe, I still see some tremendous utopian emancipatory potential, but it went terribly wrong with Stalinism and so on. And we shouldn't play these cheap games just corrupt at Stalin or even. Did you notice how Marxists are often even racist here? They put the blame on Russia is too close to Asia. So it's Asiatic barbarism which is responsible for it. No, it things went wrong. And we have to begin thinking from this.

What's then the solution? Simply return to more modest previous model of society. This is my vision today. Yes, we are approaching a crisis, but we cannot simply revitalize the 20th century communism. We should rethink it right. I'm again a Hegelian pessimist here. Hegel is for me a thinker of deep distrust. Hegelian dogma is everything turns wrong. So only this whole delicate Hegelian theory of repetition.

Only the second time to do it again, you have to do it again. Maybe you have a chance the second time if you learn the lessons of the first time. And I think that's what we need today. This much more modest spirit, don't wait for a big revolution. It already happened and it got screwed up. We now take questions from the floor. I will call on you and please wait for the mic. This way you can be captured on you. I love you.

You are deeply a good Stalin. I am. Yeah, yeah. Fuck democracy. You want order here. In the frontier, there's two people with hands up and we'll do them in sequence. I'm Jesse Taubley from the philosophy department here at the University of Bergen. Now, you came here today to tell us that you are still a communist. That's not an affirmation.

That's a reaffirmation. So my questions are two. The first is what has prompted this reaffirmation of your commitment to communism? And the second question is, has your commitment to communism evolved over the years? And if so, how? I implicitly, maybe I failed, answer this in my, whatever you call it, bombastic words, speech talk or whatever, that it's simply the big dilemma is for me this one. It's still, again, as I said, the Fukuyama dilemma. We are confronting a series of problems today. Among them, not only global migrations, the new forms of dominations based on

on digital universe, ecology, and so on and so on. Is the existing liberal, democratic, capitalists, strong enough to cope with these problems or not? And my answer is, unfortunately, no. I'm not saying now that this means anything go, let's reinvent, let's return to 20th century communism. I totally agree with you that all this. problems reappeared. Only now we are discovering all the ecological catastrophes. Go to East Germany.

Whole areas are there totally contaminated. Go to parts of the Soviet Union, which are even now prohibited and so on and so on. But to put it very simply, you know, I was never naively pro-communist. My diploma work in this was early 70s, late 60s, was rejected by university. These were still communist time as not Marxist. This may surprise many of you, but you know that I began as a Heideggerian. My first book

was on Heideggeran language in Slovene. No, I don't, today I would settle accounts with a book in Nazi style, burn it, you know. But what I'm saying is that this is to put it in very simplistic, common

sense terms. That's why I'm so distrustful about this usual liberal optimism. Like, you know, of course, all my sympathy goes with, for example, refugees, but don't turn it into a humanitarian problem, but not in this politically correct way. You know, Western people like to, from the development countries, like to blame themselves. Like, yeah, yeah, whatever happens in third world, it's colonialism, we are guilty, and so on. No, we are not responsible because one should never forget.

here I'm still, I'm sorry to disappoint you, staunchly pro-European Enlightenment tradition. Even political correctness itself is, I think, misdirected application of something that is part of European tradition of enlightenment. You cannot even, I think, imagine something like political correctness outside the Western tradition. So again, so that I don't get lost, it's not that once I was a traditional tradition. traditional, authentic communist. But I was very lucky in Yugoslavia.

You know why? Because I don't have any illusions about ex-Yugoslavia. I'm not nostalgic. But you know what was our luck? From early 60s, borders were maybe for literally 20 dissidents, but other side were completely open. As a student, late 60s, I was going once, at least every two months,

is not more often, by train to London, Paris or Munich to buy books and so on. So for us in ex-Yugoslavia, the end of communism was not this traumatic experience. Oh my God, now we know what it is. No, we were there all the time going to the West, no illusions. And maybe this was my luck, that I had no illusions about Yugoslav. Communism, I didn't buy the stupidity of some Western Communists. Yugoslavia is different. It was an authentic, democratic communism. But borders were open, so I also didn't have great illusions about the West,

and it goes to my honor. Check it up. It appeared in 88, 89 in New Left Review. A short text of mine, the East European Republic of Gilead, reference to Margaret Edwards' handmaid's tale, where it was clear to me that I predict, there explicitly that

East European post-communism will take this nationalist, fundamentalist, and so on, and so on. So, again, it's not that I ever was a traditional Marxist, because you know what was my formative experience?

I remember when I was young student, the big conflict in Slovenia was between Marxists, Frankfurt School and Hedeggerians. Hedegarians, more dissidents, Frankfurt school official Marxist. Then the big French wave

exploded, so-called structuralism, post-structuralism, and both sides, dissidents and the party officials use the same language, attacking it. That's what made my identity through the French experience, but I'm sorry if I disappointed you,

but again, my point is this one, simply, that we are approaching problems, catastrophic potentials, and it will not be able to deal with it within the liberal, democratic, capitalist system.

That's my foundation, very simple one. Directly in front of her, then in the front row over here, and we'll need to compress the answers a bit to get through with the work. I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, yes. I will go into my Buddhist mode, you know, this bullshit like clap with one hand, listen to my silence or whatever. Please, sorry. So I think we can agree with that.

The idea of a stateless communist society is kind of stupid. So could we apply the Idiot King in a community? The Idiot King? Sorry, Oedipus. Idiot King, right? Yeah. Who is this? Okay.

No, no, like you talked about this in like Theocrates. where it becomes tyranny when the experts get in charge. That's the worst, yes. Yes, that's the worst, I agree with that. So we need, like, an idiot king to be on the top so the expert can make the decisions under him. Could that solution be in a communist society?

And what would it looks like? Yes, very good question. I would refer here to my Japanese friend, very intelligent, read him, his books are translated, most of English, Kodin Karatani. And he, okay, it's provocative. But he said, the passage from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, I quote him,

is the passage from voting to lottery, you know, that there must be a dimension of lottery chance and so on to prevent expert rule and so on. So I believe that in every, whatever we call it, more authentic democracy and so on, an element of chance is needed. And that's why, from ancient Greece to Venice, which was not exactly democratic, but Lunders, they were also obsessed with lottery. How did it was the, how do you call the boss, Doge? Yes, Dosh.

Yes, how was he selected? An incredibly complex. A nine-step process. Very complicated. He was incredibly complex, but it was a mixture of checking the person that he's not corrupted with lottery, with lot. No? So on the other hand, you know, he is not yours, but you were once their colony. I mean, Denmark, no.

Kierkegaard also was well aware of this, you know. I written a biography of how do you pronounce it correctly, Kierkegaor. Okay, we in the corrupted West say Kierkegaard. He was, I think, I read in a biography once called by the king and like, what lessons should I learn? And he expected some deep theological, philosophical, wisdom. No, you must learn how to be polite, how to say polite, platitudes, and so on and so on. I believe in empty manners. All our humanity is based on empty manners.

And this is what absolutely fascinates me. I've written a lot about it. You know, this, I call them sincere hypocrisies. For example, I don't know how you do this here, but in my country, let's say, I'm sorry, my old story. Some of you may know it. Let's say, no, but we are, I don't know what's our, let's say you are a millionaire, I'm a poor guy, you invite me to dinner. The bill to a restaurant, the bill arrives. In my country, it's absolutely crucial to go through this empty ritual. At the end, the bill arrives, we both know that you will pay, but I have to insist a little bit. No, let's at least

clear it. But not too much. Yeah, not too much, yes, because in my ultimate evil, Once I did this to a friend of mine, it was very evil. She insisted, let me pay, and I said, okay, pay. And she was totally desperate. She had to claim, oh, I forgot my credit card. But what I'm saying, isn't this something wonderful? This is specific human communication, you make an offer, a gesture, which is expected to be rejected. But nonetheless, it has to be made.

and all our communication is like this. Like you walk on the street, you stumble upon a friend and you tell him, oh, nice to see you, how are you doing? Usually this is a total lie. You are thinking, why didn't I see him five seconds before to cross? You know, and for this we need, I'm answering your question, I'm not lost. For this, we need idiots. There is no civilization without this idiot.

The final questions, one here, one on Twitter, 30 second answer. Only. Middle-class opportunist. You want to combine left and right, you know. Yes. Question. Yeah. My name is Gisles-Ellis, the Department of Comparative Literature.

I had prepared a complex question concerning the unorientables of your last book. Ah, oh my God, I like this. I took the message from the moderator, so I just keep this short and very concrete, the science of a communist future. You mentioned two names at least, Greta Tunberg and Julian Assange. So I would like to ask you, very specifically, how do you believe that the hearing about the extradition of Assange will turn out at the end of February? And how do you think the outcome would affect that sign of a possible communist future? 30 second answer.

A very difficult question, because I hope Julian, he doesn't have a TV, cannot watch it, no, because I'm more of a pessimist. We are trying to do what can be done, organize things here and there, but the entire establishment is against him and so on and so on. But nonetheless, there are good signs here and there. Even Paul Rudd, the previous Australian Prime Minister, turned against extradition and so on and so on. So if you ask me about his concrete fate, I will do, but what can I do? All possible.

I'm a pessimist. I think we should just hope that at least the after-react. effect will be. Up. Twitter question. Super quick. 30 second answer. Norway too suffers from the stigmatization of communists and even though the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer with far right parties in parliament, workers are reluctant to turn to the left. How can we best turn the proletariat towards our cause? 30 seconds, please. You know, first when you say poor, poor are getting poorer, richer, getting richer, but You know, Norway is still an ideal for many of us, if I may say this, you know.

Like this I got from my good friend Varufakis, who said, you know, everybody protests austerity and so on. But for us or you in the developed West, austerity means, oh my God, purchase power fell for half a percent and so on. Austerity is what happens in Greece where it fell for 30 percent and so on. What I would say is, again, Alessandria Ocasio-Cortes formula. I'm totally, again, for all this new feminism and so on, gay rights and so on, but don't fall into this gap of cultural politics, find a link with the majority, because poor are getting poorer and so on and so on. Is there a political party talking for them,

not in this traditional Marxist way, it doesn't work. But, you know, because so many in the United States politically correct people, you can see that their political correctness quite often has a secret class bias. They don't say it, but politically incorrect are the poor primitive people, working class, and so on and so on. It's a much more complex situation, and I will say now something that you will like, but for this you will get to good luck for life. The problem is much bigger one.

Does the left, I always, I was there in Occupy Wall Street, and I was asking them, what do you want? Do we have a project? Many of them just had a vague idea, less corruption, big banks are corrupted. What do you want? Are you Fukuyamaist, a little bit more efficient system? Do you want old social democratic welfare? Do you want old style communism? And I will be very critical left.

I'm the first one to admit that the left doesn't have, I don't, I'm not talking about legalistic details, but a general vision of a future society. I don't see. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming. You see him. You see him how evil he is.

He interrupted me exactly at this pessimist point, you know. And then he stifled and brutally with his fascist boots oppressed the good message that I wanted to finish it. Thank you very much. Thanks for listening to Conversations with Tyler. You can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. And if you like this podcast, please consider rating it on iTunes and leaving a review. This helps other people find the show.