Zizek Supports “Umbrella Revolution”

s-hayashi:

齊澤克發聲明支持”雨傘革命” (En/中/日)

【English】

Dear Hong Kong students and people,

you have my full support in your pursuit of your “impossible” dream. History has repeatedly taught us the lesson that only by insisting what our society considers “impossible” that fate has ever been changed. And to play the adult’s game of opportunistic compromises is to fail -so be REALISTIC, demand the impossible!

And remember that your dream is not only about the voting system. It concerns also your everyday life,  your economy: the inhuman property price, ruthless privatization, capitalists from the North joining your own ones. Without economic rights, without social justice and solidarity, a ballot is merely a fetish.

By now you have, I hope, realized that what’s crucial in  any emancipatory movement is your solidarity with and support from the oppressed grass root people. Only when they stand by you, those equipped with guns and lies would reluctantly compromise and that’s when your “impossible” dream will be more than a dream.

My utmost blessing and always with you in our emancipatory struggle,

Slavoj Zizek

【Chinese】

親愛的香港學生和民眾, 

我全力支持你們實現那 “不可能”的夢--普選--(失敗的)歷史不斷告訴我們一個教訓:必須而且只有堅持那些成年人視為”不可能”的事情才能成功改變現實/命運(“reality”),千萬不要中他們的圈套、不要跟隨他們的遊戲規則:Be realistic, demand the impossible! (現實一點要求實現不可能之事!

其次,正如我對佔領華爾街的呼吁:你們的夢不應脫離生活,換言之,不應脫離你們自己每天呼吸的經濟環境--極不人道的樓價、對公共事業的瘋狂私有化或掠奪、北方[富豪]資本家的大舉入侵--,因為,一張剝除了經濟權利的選票最終只是一張空頭支票、一個騙局

好了,現在你們馬上就領悟到追夢過程中最關鍵的一點:受盡壓迫的草根民眾必將和你們手牵手地團結起來--只有當草根民眾站在你們身邊的時候,滿嘴謊言的政客和手持槍炮的權貴才真的會乖乖讓步,你們的夢想才真的會實現!

衷心祝福並總是與你們一起奮鬥的


斯拉沃熱。齊澤克 (Slavoj Zizek)

 【Japanese】

親愛なる香港の学生たち、市民たちへ

私 はあなたがたが「不可能な」夢を追い求めることを全面的に支持します。歴史は繰り返し私たちに教えてくれています。社会が「不可能」だとするものをあえて 主張したときにのみ、運命は変えられるのだということを。そして、大人たちの日和見主義的な妥協のゲームに加わるならば、必ず失敗するのだということを。 だから現実的になりなさい―不可能を要求するのです!

そ して覚えておいてほしい。あなたがたの夢とは、単に選挙制度にかかわることではありません。あなたがたの毎日の生活、そして経済にもかかわることです。非 人間的な不動産価格、情け容赦ない私有化、香港のみならず北からも参入し続けるキャピタリストたち。経済的権利、社会的正義と連帯がなければ、投票用紙な どただのフェティッシュにすぎません。

ここへ来て皆さんが、ど んな解放運動においても肝要なのは、抑圧された草の根の人々との連帯、そして彼らからの支持なのだということを実感されていることを願っています。そうし た人々と共に立つときにのみ、銃と嘘で武装した連中は渋々譲歩し、あなたがたの「不可能な」夢が夢以上のものになるのです。

私からの最上の祝福を。この解放への闘争において、私はいつもあなたがたと共にあります。

スラヴォイ・ジジェク

What are we supposed to think when the greatest living philosopher incessantly wipes his nose with his fingers at his every appearance?

Michael Lipsey (via stoicmike)

Well, we could think, “Damn, this shit is fucked up, this guy is disgusting and ridiculous and the world is fucked.”

Or we could think, “Wow he’s a weirdo, I’m probably not going to listen to anything he says.”

Or we could think, “This is perfect Tumblr fodder.” (his mannerisms)

Or we could think, “This is proof that you don’t have to be any definite way externally in order to have insights, be successful, redefine parameters, gather a following, sleep with beautiful women, travel the world, write books, etc.etc.

I prefer to think the first one and the last one at the same time.

(via memri)

Zizek is constantly checking his Olfactory function because he’s too aware that he’s treading dangerously along the death drive.


Much more ominous is a kind of obscene supplement to pure military discipline. In practically all movies about U.S. Marines, the best-known embodiment of this obscenity are marching chants—a mixture of nonsense, And obscenity.

This is not undermining, making fun of military discipline. It is it’s inner most constituent. You take this obscene supplement away and military machine stops working.

[…]

It’s not just a question of these obscenities, which sustains the military machinery; it’s another more general rule which holds for military communities but even more, I would say, for all human communities. From the largest nations, ethnic groups, up to small university departments and so on.

You don’t only have explicit rules. You always, in order to become part of a community, you need some implicit unwritten rules which are never publicly recognised but are absolutely crucial as the point of the identification of a group.

In the U.K. everyone knows about the obscene unwritten rituals, which regulate life in public schools.

Just think about Lindsay Anderson’s classic If. The public life is democratic, we have professor which interact with their pupils, nice atmosphere, teaching, friendship, sprit of cooperation but then we all know what happens beneath the surface.

Older pupils torturing, sexual abusing the younger. This same mixture of obscenity and sadistic violence. And again what is crucial here is we should not simply put all the blame or all the enjoyment on the older pupils.

The victims even are part of this infernal cycle of obscenity. Its as if in order to really be a member of a community you have to render you hands dirty.

And I think even the Abu Ghraib scandal of American soldiers torturing or especially humiliating Iraqi prisoners is to be read in this way.

It’s not simply we the arrogant Americans are humiliating others. What Iraqi soldiers experienced there was the staging of the obscene underside of the American military culture.

—Slavoj Zizek, Pervert’s Guide to Ideology

Kafka [offers] a perfect staging of bureaucracy: ..“The Court makes no claims upon you. It receives you when you come and it relinquishes you when you go. ..The bureaucratic knowledge..assumes the features of ‘mischievous neutrality’ proper to superego.

Slavoj Zizek (via alterities)

“When we are shown scenes of starving children in Africa, with a call for us to do something to help them, the underlying ideological message is something like: “Don’t think, don’t politicize, forget about the true causes of their poverty, just act, contribute money, so that you will not have to think!”

Slavoj Žižek (via w-farah)

「意味している」ことが、そのような《他者》にとって成立するとき、まさにそのかぎりにおいてのみ、“文脈”があり、また“言語ゲーム”が成立する。なぜいかにして「意味している」ことが成立するかは、ついにわからない。だが、成立したあとでは、なぜいかにしてかを説明することができる―規則、コード、差異体系などによって。いいかえれば、哲学であれ、言語学であれ、経済学であれ、それらが出立するのは、この「暗闇の中での跳躍」(クリプキ)または「命がけの飛躍」(マルクス)のあとにすぎない。規則はあとから見出されるのだ。
 この跳躍はそのつど盲目的であって、そこにこそ“神秘”がある。われわれが社会的、実践的とよぶものは、いいかえれば、この無根拠的な危うさにかかわっている。そして、われわれが《他者》とよぶものは、コミュニケーション・交換におけるこの危うさを露出させるような他者でなければならない。

柄谷行人、『探求Ⅰ』

In a close reading of Marx’s analysis of the commodity-form, Karatani ground the insurmountable persistence of the parallax gap in the “salto mortale” that a product has to accomplish in order to assert itself as a commodity:

The price /of iron expressed in gold/, while on the one hand indicating the amount of labour-time contained in the iron, namely its value, at the same time signifies the pious wish to convert the iron into gold, that is to give the labour-time contained in the iron the form of universal social labour-time. If this transformation fails to take place, then the ton of iron ceases to be not only a commodity but also a product; since it is a commodity only because it is not a use-value for its owner, that is to say his labour is only really labour if it is useful labour for others, and it is useful for him only if it is abstract general labour. It is therefore the task of the iron or of its owner to find that location in the world of commodities where iron attracts gold. But if the sale actually takes place, as we assume in this analysis of simple circulation, then this difficulty, the salto mortale of the commodity, is surmounted. As a result of this alienation — that is its transfer from the person for whom it is a non-use-value to the person for whom it is a use-value - the ton of iron proves to be in fact a use-value and its price is simultaneously realised, and merely imaginary gold is converted into real gold.
This is Karatani’s key Kantian/anti-Hegelian point: the jump by means of which a commodity is sold and thus effectively constituted as commodity is not the result of an immanent self-development of (the concept of) Value, but a “salto mortale” comparable to a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, a temporary fragile “synthesis” between use-value and exchange-value comparable to the Kantian synthesis between sensitivity and understanding: in both cases, the two irreducibly external levels are brought together. For this precise reason, Marx abandoned his original project (discernible in the Grundrisse manuscripts) of “deducing” in a Hegelian way the split between exchange-value and use-value from the very concept of Value: in Capital, the split of these two dimensions, the “dual character of a merchandise,” is the starting point. The synthesis has to rely on an irreducibly external element, as in Kant where being is not a predicate (i.e., cannot be reduced to a conceptual predicate of an entity), or as in Saul Kripke’s Naming and Necessity, in which the reference of a name to an object cannot be grounded in the content of this name, in the properties it designates.


fuckyournoguchicoffeetable:

Fuck your wall manifesto.

———————————
As Badiou demonstrated apropos the Stalinist show trials, this violent effort to distill the pure Real from the elusive reality necessarily ends up in its opposite, in the obsession with pure appearance: in the Stalinist universe, the passion of the Real (ruthless enforcement of the Socialist development) thus culminates in ritualistic stagings of a theatrical spectacle in the truth of which no one believes. The key to this reversal resides in the ultimate impossibility to draw a clear distinction between deceptive reality and some firm positive kernel of the Real: every positive bit of reality is a priori suspicious, since (as we know from Lacan) the Real Thing is ultimately another name for the Void. The pursuit of the Real thus equals total annihilation, a (self)destructive fury within which the only way to trace the distinction between the semblance and the Real is, precisely, to STAGE it in a fake spectacle.
— Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real

fuckyournoguchicoffeetable:

Fuck your wall manifesto.

———————————

As Badiou demonstrated apropos the Stalinist show trials, this violent effort to distill the pure Real from the elusive reality necessarily ends up in its opposite, in the obsession with pure appearance: in the Stalinist universe, the passion of the Real (ruthless enforcement of the Socialist development) thus culminates in ritualistic stagings of a theatrical spectacle in the truth of which no one believes. The key to this reversal resides in the ultimate impossibility to draw a clear distinction between deceptive reality and some firm positive kernel of the Real: every positive bit of reality is a priori suspicious, since (as we know from Lacan) the Real Thing is ultimately another name for the Void. The pursuit of the Real thus equals total annihilation, a (self)destructive fury within which the only way to trace the distinction between the semblance and the Real is, precisely, to STAGE it in a fake spectacle.
— Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real