Slavoj Žižek on the Unabomber, Accelerationism, & Multiculturalism
Editor’s Note: I interviewed Slavoj Žižek three years ago at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. While the coronavirus and the then-upcoming 2020 US presidential election were the main focus of the interview (the bulk of which was published in The Spectator) we also spoke about many other topics — including the Unabomber, terrorism, multiculturalism, and accelerationism — which, until now, have not been published.
On Syria, the Kurds, Erdogan & Putin
SZ: Trump talks a lot, but effectively at the level of international politics… he’s pretty careful when it’s about acting, and maybe even too passive. For example, I think one of the most catastrophic things that Trump did [was] when he decided to withdraw American troops from Syria.
CN: Why was that catastrophic?
SZ: You know who even said that this was a mistake? Noam Chomsky, of all people. Because I claimed that in this concrete situation, what this meant is he sacrificed the Kurds, and the Kurds are for me a crucial there. The main victims. Everybody wants to screw them and so on and so on. I have full sympathy with the Kurds. Not so much with the Kurds in the north of Iraq, who are more conservative, but the Kurds in southeast of Turkey and northern Syria. It’s incredible what is going on there.
But what I want to say is that in this way, Trump opened up with unilateral withdrawal a new situation where basically the two partners there are now Putin and Erdogan, and it’s clear what’s the target of both of them — here I am maybe in a little bit of a panic — to ruin Europe. European unity. People even didn’t notice that a similar thing is happening now in Libya. Russia is moving in, supporting one side, Turks supporting the other side in the civil war, and then they are making the deals.
For example, the situation in Idlib, nobody even cares about Assad. It’s Erdogan and Putin who met, and I think here I am a little bit paranoiac. I think that this is all coordinated. How this tension to threaten Europe with new waves of refugees, which — now it will sound horrible for a leftist — but I think that the new wave of refugees in Europe means a total ideological, political catastrophe.
I am for more refugees... but four years ago when there was the first wave, it should have been done in an organized way. This chaotic way means that it will not only be Hungary and a couple of other populists… Populists will simply gradually take over Europe, and we should never forget what strange alliances we get here. For example, although populists are very anti-Islamist, we have an Islamist threat and so on and so on, but do you know that Orban and Erdogan always collaborate? They are friends. Hungary supported the entrance of Turkey into European Union and so on and so on…
The point is that now Russia and Turkey can always blackmail Europe also at the level of oil supply and so on, so I am a pessimist... I’m just shocked at this passivity of Europe. For example, when the situation was diffused, the first immigrant wave, if you remember four years ago, with a filthy compromise. Like we basically pay Turkey six billion euros if they help the refugees. I thought this disgusting compromise, but okay… The time that we had, four years of relative peace, should have been used for Europe to mobilize not against the refugees, but to change the situation there. To mobilize all of them, United Nations, any friends we have to conclude some type of peace there, and so on and so on. The horror that I see now is the following ones: these conflicts go on, Yemen, Idlib, Syria, and so on, and now Europe is the one which is supposed to pay the costs. To avoid receiving the refugees and so on and so on. Of course Europe should receive more refugees, but this is not the solution…
Why Europe? Why not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Emirates? Rich, wealthy countries. It should have been easy for them to receive. No. Why everything goes towards Europe? I’m not just defending Europe. I’m claiming that the Europe which is dying now in the relatively open multicultural Europe… if things go on the way they are now, the result will be double. This united Europe and Europe more-or-less controlled by right-wing populists, it’s a total geopolitical catastrophe, if you ask me. I simply cannot understand this passivity of Europe. Passivity in the sense of what were they doing now for four years?
Europe is too weak. Europe should shamelessly assert itself as some kind of global power and start to intervene through money, international pressure, in Africa, in the Middle East, wherever, and so on and so on. There are many things Europe could still have done [about the refugee crisis]. I’m always shocked by this passivity of Europe. So, again, as you can see I’m here a little bit of a pessimist.
On the Issues With Populism & the Left in General
CN: You’ve touched quite a bit on the right-wing populists of Europe and America. What do you think the biggest difference between the right-wing populists and the left-wing populists is?
SZ: Who are really, in Europe, left-wing populists? I don’t think Bernie Sanders is really a populist… Podemos tried it, but it’s difficult how it worked, their populist approach, as long as they were the opposition party. Now we see what they are, Podemos. Just a normal moderate-left party and so on. In France, Melenchon comes closest I think to some kind of populism, and that’s precisely what’s limited. I think — now I will tell you something horrible for which also I’m often hated — the problem with populism is that it is all based on mobilizing the antagonism. It’s us against them, just instead of the right-wing populism which says it’s Jews or foreigners or whoever, now we say it’s financial capital and so on and so on…
I would like to have — it sounds so naive, I know — a modest, realist left which has positive proposals of what to do. Like, okay, to talk frankly... we cannot obviously step out of capitalism. How to deal with it? How to use capitalist mechanisms in so far as we still need them, absolutely, to work for the good of society and so on and so on. It can be done. It can be done. So here, I think, this populist logic of antagonism, the whole point is to define the enemy. It’s not imperative. It’s not enough. I want a left which has precise positive problems, what to do... That’s my sadness about the left.
The standard story is that the left comes to power, then in one or another way in Greece, in Venezuela, things go wrong, and then of course you cry all the time it was imperialist pressure, blackmail, and so on and so on. I was in close contact with friends in Venezuela and they — my leftists friends — were warning me more than ten years ago when Chavez was still running things that he just is lucky to have enough money from oil. He didn’t have any workable positive alternatives. He was just nationalizing... With Greece, it’s the same. This costed me many friendships there…
I mean, I’m a little bit frustrated by this left who is very good in organizing, you know, one million people on one square, ‘we were all there, we cried together,’ big solidarity, and then things go wrong and the left academics write wonderful books about why things went wrong because of imperialist plot and so on. Did you notice that already in the 20th century all best Marxist books are books about explaining their defeat. You know? Trotsky, the failure of the October Revolution. I'm tired of this.
On Ted Kaczynski & Terrorism
CN: What are your thoughts on Ted Kaczynski?
SZ: You’ve got me here. I vaguely even know. Is he the old so-called terrorist?
CN: Yeah, the Unabomber.
SZ: The Unabomber, yes. I will put it like this. I understand this as logic. Didn’t he write a manifesto or whatever? But I think the whole logic is flawed. It’s the same with the RAF, Rote Armee Fraktion, the so-called terrorists in Germany. I know some of them who are now out of prison and so on, and their basic wager in Germany was this one: people in Europe, even the working class, are so hypnotized by capitalist consumerism that critique of ideology no longer works, we cannot mobilize them through ideological propaganda, we need violence to awaken them. I don't agree with this logic. I don’t think it works, I think it’s catastrophically wrong.
The only ‘terrorism’ to which I was a little bit sympathetic was, you remember, maybe you read about it, Weathermen in the United States. They were kind of a left terrorist group, but they were very careful not to kill anyone. Their procedure was this one. They called United States Justice Department and say a bomb will explode there in half an hour, please evacuate the people. They were very careful at this level.
You know what’s my problem? Many leftist friends, radical leftist friends that I have, I notice they despise ordinary people who simply care how to survive, and you know you cannot just... Maybe because I’m getting old, but I understand ordinary people who say, ‘Okay, don’t talk to me about revolution. Tell me what do I do if my kid goes ill? What do I do if I lose my job? What do if this, that, and so on.’ And many of my big leftist friends find this almost beneath contempt, you know? I think, don’t dismiss [or] despise concerns of ordinary people.
On Multiculturalism
SZ: This is what got me into so much trouble, yes with all my sympathy, refugees, horror, and so on, but there are — and for this I am blacklisted if I mention it — there are, lets call them cultural problems of coexistence, different ways of life. Different ways of life at everyday level. I hate it when I mention this, my leftist friends telling me, ‘But, if immigrants come here they will just make our lives more wealthy. We will enjoy their music, we will enjoy their delicious food.’ No! Their way of life is focused on two things: it’s the logic of authority, how domination works, and how sexual relations are regulated, and there you’ve got problems. So I'm not saying, ‘We in Europe are true Democrats and so on, screw them,’ I’m just saying... we should confront these problems openly…
I don’t believe that we have innocent, pure cultures which are then just spoiled or perverted by anti-feminism or whatever. The way you regulate sexual relations is maybe the crucial element of every culture and so on and so on. I’m just saying we should not be afraid to deal with these problems openly. Don’t talk as if all these are just Western imperialist problems. No, I am not saying they, immigrants, should just accommodate to us, but there are problems.
For example, I know tragic stories. I have a couple of friends who worked in Belgium in, how you call it, Islamist suburb… They wanted just to help the Muslim immigrant women with pregnancy and so on and so on, and they were shocked by the extent to which, at the every day level, supervision of women is part of their life. Now, I’m not saying we should brutally intervene with our laws. We should mobilize Islamist women, render the debate public, and so on and so on, but I don’t know if you can even imagine into how much trouble I got by just mentioning this as a problem. I was even proclaimed a fascist and so on. No! I’m saying there are different ways of life, and of course the usual leftist formula is, ‘Okay, different ways of life. These are just cultural differences. We share a common struggle for justice against capitalism, whatever, let’s forget about this.’ No! Because then you have to draw the line. For example, rights of women, abortion, divorce, and so on. Then you get immediately into trouble here. Is this the specificity of our culture or is this a universal right?
All politically correct leftists that I know try to squeeze out. One strategy is to say, ‘But we also have male chauvinism in our countries.’ Of course we share… but at least it’s more or less — although it’s now returned — oppressed. I mean, it’s very important, this fight for women’s rights now and so on and so on. This is a global struggle, and there will be attention between universal women’s rights, LGBT+ rights and so on, and multiculturalism. If by multiculturalism we are to each of us our own culture, this will not work. Not for the simple reason that, first, I don’t think we live simply in different cultures.
On Joe Biden & the Death of Liberal Centrism
SZ: That’s my obsession: that the rise of Trump and populism signals the end of this old liberal centrist consensus. The majority is disappointed by it and we cannot simply return to it. That’s why all around Europe, Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, and so on, all around we have this populist revolt and I think this is why I still call myself a leftist. I think that the only way to save what is worth saving in liberal legacy — freedoms and so on — is to move a little bit more to the left. The left should do what Trump did on the right. I remember when Trump began, people thought he’s too divisive and so on. No! That’s how you win! Hillary lost because Hillary tried to play this game: we must move more to the center and so on and so on…
Biden is not even very brutal a little bit. People notice this. A little senile, not very intellectual, and so on and so on, and in all probability he will lose.
On the Left’s Obsession With Minorities Over Class Struggle
SZ: The left should also stop this obsession with it’s this LGBT minority, that minority, and so on and so on. Yes, but we should stop... Again, I think that this obsession with different lifestyles, minorities, is ultimately just a manoeuvre to avoid the big, lets call it economic problem. Class struggle is returning...
You remember, two weeks ago when Trump made an ironic cynical remark [about the South Korean movie Parasite]? Didn’t people notice that the two surprising mega hits of the last year, Joker and Parasite, are both movies about class struggle? So, you know, a little bit more from cultural identity politics to class struggle. And I don’t mean the old revolutionary class struggle. Just moderate, but consistent, and so on. It can be done.
On the Internet
CN: Do you think with the rise of the internet that the younger generations are more likely to institute some kind of societal change, or will it be more of the same?
SZ: It’s ambiguous. Because on the one hand, the internet of course opens up the new space of immediate social coordination. You can reach millions instantly. On the other hand, here Julian Assange enters I think. We are gradually becoming aware to what degree the control of internet, who will control the digital space. It’s one of the big battles today. We are entering what some people call surveillance capitalism, you know? And this is why, again, we should focus on this. I am not simply saying render it free of state control. I know, you have immediately problems with those who spread lies and so on and so on, but I think things should be done here in a transparent way. People should be at least openly told what is controlled in what way.
It’s typical how today Russia, China, other countries are all quite fanatical about controlling the digital space… I think this digital space is not simply either good or bad. It’s just one domain of struggle, and that’s why I think it’s important to defend Assange… I know he made many mistakes and so on. Sometimes he was his own worst enemy. But nonetheless, what he stands for is what we need more than ever. The way Assange defines himself: spy for the people, not spy for another secret organization. That people should just know how they’re controlled, what secret agencies are doing, and so on and so on, and it’s so important that things get out into the public here.
On Accelerationism
SZ: What I see good in accelerationism is that I don’t buy this idea that you can oppose global capitalism through some kind of local traditional resistance. Like some of my Latino American friends claim we should return to ancient tribal traditions and so on and so on. No. I still remain a Marxist here. You have to go through radical capitalist modernization. There is no way back. I don’t think there is any power of resistance in returning to some kind of ancient communal traditions and so on and so on. On the other hand I have problems with accelerationism in so far as I know — maybe I’m not well in form — as far as in matters of ecology, some of them tend to put too much trust into technology. They claim that they would like very much this idea of refashioning nature itself.
For example, did you read about these proposals of spreading in the air some chemicals which can block sun rays and in this way to moderate global warming and so on and so on? I think that as we learn now through coronavirus, nature is so contingent, unpredictable, and so on. That such things are simply too risky. One good thing of coronavirus will be that maybe it will teach us to be much more modest, and be aware in what a fragile environment we live.
So again, I don’t like the general term accelerationism. I like very much all these paradoxes of how bringing capitalism to its end will somehow maybe undermine it, but one has to be very careful here. So again, my answer would have been lets get more precise. Which part of accelerationism we’re talking about?
On Tucker Carlson
SZ: Who? Oh my God, you see here you are touching my limits. You cannot imagine how I live. I live very secluded life. I just check weekly news, I only watch Fox News when I’m in the United States and so on. You see here you see my limits. I’m ashamed to say that. Of course the names that you mention, the guy before [referring to Nick Land] and now this guy, it rings a bell in my mind, but I don’t have any precise... I’m not qualified. I’m very sorry. I live very constrained life. Apart from reacting to global crises, I'm now reading books on Hegel and ecology, Marx... You know, I’m very traditional. I live in philosophical universe. I’m very sorry if I disappointed you here.