The famous Slovenian philosopher Zizek said this to Al Jazeera:
“I think today the world is asking for a real alternative. Would you like to live in a world where the only alternative is either anglo-saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values?
I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy…
What I’m afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, we get a capitalism much more efficient and dynamic than our western capitalism. But I don’t share the hope of my liberal friends – give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration – no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.”
I do not entirely disagree with this point, but it’s hard to dissociate Zizek’s tone from the “yellow peril” hysteria we find in Blade Runner and Black Rain. There is also in all of this that Hegelian view of Asia as being between the democratic spirit of Europeans and the savagery of Africans. In this view, Asians can only realize despotism as a political order. Zizek is above all a Hegelian and “Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with values” sounds very much like a post-neoliberal reanimation of Hegel’s dead theory of history of mind/spirit/soul.
wow, you actually have some negative things to say about Zizek!
Since Zizek *is* a Hegelian, it’s not too surprising he’s intentionally pushing ethnocentric xenophobia here. Sounds like he’s found some common ground to work with.
It doesn’t mean that he’s wrong about the need for a real alternative to the social and economic systems which already exist, though. He just needs to get over the idea that what makes them bad is Asian or Anglo-saxon culture.
Few if any political commentators are emergence of the leaderless peer to peer society of which Occupy and Tea are only the tips of the iceberg.
Centralized media keeps wanting a spokesperson.
Decentralized media is written or not by everyone.
Zizek seems to have never heard of Taiwan, the first Asian democracy: went from despotism to democracy in three decades.
By the way, #$%^ the Chinese Communist Party!
Zizek is not saying the Chinese are part western and part savage, he’s saying they are part western and part authoritarian order. Drop the “yellow peril” bullshit, Mudede, and see that this guy is saying some important shit: we are getting beaten by the Chinese system. The Chinese system is winning. Authoritarianism+capitalism works horrifically well. What’s missing from our system is strength and agility of the state. Only in times of external war or extreme crisis do we actually come together; otherwise we just war internally over money and power. What’s missing from their system is true freedom. And their system seems to be winning.
How do the other capitalist despots figure here? Obviously Russia’s democracy is thin cover for Putin’s unchallenged reign. Stretching the thesis, the argument can be made that even the US under the W regime was bordering on despotism of the corporations and wealthy conservatives.
Another thing to keep in mind when we hear these paranoid, ‘yellow peril’ prognostications – we’ve heard it all before. In the 80’s it was Japan that was soon going to own all of us.
All this coming from a guy who thinks “Better the worst Stalinist terror than the most liberal capitalist democracy”.
Zizek is an affable nut.
Yellow peril hysteria in Blade Runner? This coupled with the stupid lego re-enactment makes me think Charles doesn’t get that movie at all.
I think he’s wrong. I also think he’d like to undermine democracy. But I believe democracy is how a nation reaches it’s potential. And it also creates stability. And markets crave stability.
Also there was lot’s of Yellow Peril in Santa Claus vs. the Martians.
Zizek is a dialectician. Pete and repeat were on a bridge. Pete fell off. Who was left? The problem with a sentimental approach to evaluating any philosophy is to mistake ambiguity with profundity. This is the problem with dialectics is that it is limited to a bipolarity which leads to a recursive regression which without relying on a priori judgments has no more substance than idealism. So all you have is the struggle with no teleology; just struggle. Zizek is a little confused as a dialectician in that he emphasizes formal logic with his position that the system must be replaced. A dialectical position cannot predict an outcome or recommend a course of action since each outcome is the result of perpetual change resulting from the opposition(competition) of two entities, ideas, systems, etc., and the dynamic of ‘survival of the fittest.’ Also the change is inherent or the thing has its own kill switch. So the dialectical view is that due to inherent flaws any system will reach an apex and then through conflict(competition) with an opposing view, there will be a synthesis where we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and a great time is had by all. The only hitch is that the engine of this philosophy is that the means for change is this vague concept of struggle, or qualatative changes occur when the right amount of ‘whatever’ is added to the fray and Voila!, we have change. Just a pinch of salt. I am not sure if Zizek can really align himself with Communism; his philosophy is a little vague.