Riz Khan Interviews Philosopher Slavoj Zizek: Transcript

This interview is stored here as a reference for my other writings related to it. This transcript is machine generated and I do not own any part of it. Original interview in the video below.

 

Riz Khan: Hello and welcome. I’m Riz Khan. He’s been described as the most dangerous philosopher in the West, and he certainly doesn’t hold back any punches. But there’s no denying that Slavoj Žižek provokes deep thought and discussion with his often controversial views on everything from the state of politics and the mainstream media to the meaning of real love, and now the validity of religion through his new book with the provocative title Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist. Well, keeping an eye on the upcoming U.S. elections as well as the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, Professor Žižek sees a world where we can only start to understand what’s going on once it starts to disintegrate, and where, quote, “good old capitalism isn’t what it used to be.” I spoke with the man some see as a celebrity philosopher to find out more. Professor Žižek, it’s really good to have a chance to chat with you. It’s been a number of years, but glad to be with you. I want to start by asking—you know, I love some of the titles that you have been given over the years, a couple of which I quoted in the introduction: “celebrity philosopher,” but also “the most dangerous philosopher in the West,” and you’ve even been labeled “the Elvis of cultural theory.” How do you regard such titles?

Slavoj Žižek: I think… oh, I ignore them. But what makes them interesting is that they unite the opposites. I am, at the same time, a clown enjoying obscene jokes, not to be taken seriously, and a dangerous either imperialist or anti-Zionist subversive. What this demonstrates is how it’s not simply today the task to pick choices. The whole space of the choices we are facing is, in some sense, a false space. That’s what worries me.

Riz Khan: Well, I’d like to get your take on some of the most pressing issues that are currently shaping our world, starting with one that seems to have the global community on a bit of a knife edge—and that’s the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Now, some have called it the most important election in modern history. Do you agree?

Slavoj Žižek: Yes, because of what will happen if Trump wins. Of course, I am, in an abstract sense, for Kamala Harris, but we should nonetheless all the time be aware that she really doesn’t have a convincing new vision. I think the first question we should ask is: how come that from the kind of American consensus which lasted until some 15 or 20 years ago, a figure like Trump emerged? Don’t blame the fanatical right; blame the liberal center. Trump used, exploited deftly, fatal limitations of this benevolent welfare state liberal center. We should begin with self-critique, not just with attacking Trump.

It’s clear now with Kamala: she knows that she’s under double pressure. She needs the support of the Jewish lobby, and she needs the support of young Blacks, Muslims, and other progressives. And she is doing, I think, the worst thing possible—avoiding clear positions, and so on. So, I am, I am for—that would be my metaphor—if I were to be a U.S. citizen, I would vote for Kamala, but before entering the space where you put your vote, I would do something like crossing myself and asking God for forgiveness that I’m voting for the lesser devil, because the choice is not a true choice.

Riz Khan: Well, interestingly enough, there’s kind of extreme terminology being used by opposing parties, according to which the world’s most powerful democracy is about to elect either the Marxist Kamala Harris or the fascist Donald Trump as president. Do those candidates actually justify the descriptions?

Slavoj Žižek: Maybe Trump a little bit more. But I just wanted to draw your attention to another fact—this is not just an American phenomenon. The new right-wingers in Europe, like Alternative for Germany or Viktor Orbán, the we-know-who boss of Hungary, regularly refer to Ursula von der Leyen, a right-wing centrist, as a communist. They claim Marxism is in power in Europe. And this exclusivity, when both sides are designating each other with these radical terms, is a signal of something extremely dangerous. People say democracy means diverse voices can be heard. I claim, yes and no. Democracy also presupposes some basic consensus, social peace, about basic values and rules.

For example, although I thought—I think Al Gore won—but in those Bush Junior versus Al Gore elections, do you remember how, although it was unclear who won, nonetheless the decision that in Florida, by a couple of hundred votes, Bush won—everybody accepted this. Now, this no longer works. Trump is already threatening with unrest, with violence, and so on. I really think, that’s my big pessimism, that liberal democracy—old Fukuyama’s dream of the end of history—liberal democracy is reaching its limitations. And the dangerous prospect I see, what is emerging as the main candidate, I hope you agree, is something that I call “soft fascism.” That is to say, full modernization—capitalist modernization—but with a strong state, which legitimizes itself through some traditional conservative ideology. Look at what’s happening in China.

Riz Khan: Yeah, Professor, just sticking with the U.S. just for a second—you described Donald Trump as, quote, “the ultimate postmodern relativist, cynical politician.” What did you mean by that?

Slavoj Žižek: I mean this… Ah, this is—I’m very glad that you mentioned this, because I’m proud of this designation. Trump, of course, flirts with Christian fundamentalism and so on. But look at how he acts, how he talks, his other gestures, and so on. He is self-ironical. He makes fun of himself. He doesn’t care if he is caught lying. He uses—I will not repeat them because it would be too obscene—all the dirty, obscene, sexualized designations of opponents, and so on. So this self-relativization and this lack of dignity—this is postmodernist. Just compare Trump to Bernie Sanders. Isn’t Bernie Sanders, as a person—not privately, but let’s say his public persona—isn’t he a good old-fashioned “moral majority” person? He never goes into vulgarities. He acts with shame. He retains his dignity.

So when we hear these critiques of postmodernity, my answer is: sorry, but Donald Trump, with his constant mocking—you cannot catch him; he always finds a face, one way out, pure sophism, and so on—he is the true postmodern president.

Riz Khan: But, you know, it seems the divisiveness… Sorry, I was just going to say, it seems that the divisiveness in society, especially in American society, is reaching extremes. It seems that celebrity plays a bigger part than policies when it comes to electing leaders, not just actually in America, but in many parts of the world. Why do you think society has slid down that slippery path?

Slavoj Žižek: I think, again, it’s a risky extreme hypothesis, but I think that somewhere in the ’90s, with what Fukuyama wrongly called “the end of history,” at least in the Western world, wars became predominantly cultural wars—on both sides. The right wing against abortion, portraying the opponent as corrupted moral relativism; the leftists with their politically correct obsessions. What is disappearing is politics as such, in the authentic sense. And I think that the new religious fundamentalists are precisely a return of politics proper. It’s wrong politics, but religious fundamentalists, in some sense, resuscitated politics as passionate enjoyment—sorry, also passionate engagement—while all that the other side, liberals, can oppose is some expert rule, neutral technocracy combined with this politically correct moralism. I think this is an ultimate deadlock.

Riz Khan: It seems quite often though, Professor, that politics is less relevant. Research is showing that many societies are now looking for strong leaders, and that might explain the popularity of someone like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. First of all, I wonder if you see them as strong leaders, and how perhaps society is gravitating towards these kinds of strong figures that they want in power.

Slavoj Žižek: I agree with you, although I would add that it’s more ambiguous. Like, take Trump—yes, he is authoritarian and so on. But for me, the basic characteristic of an authentic—and I believe in them—authentic strong leader is dignity and this spontaneously emanating authority. Trump is not that. Trump plays a strong leader, but he plays it in an ironic way—making fun of himself, and so on. Even with Putin, you can find something similar. He is not dignified; he, from time to time, goes into obscenities, and so on. So it’s very sad what is happening. I am not some kind of anarchist leftist. Sometimes an authentic strong leader is needed. And today, by authentic strong leader, I don’t mean the one who is a dictator and just tells you what is better for you than you yourself know. No, an authentic strong leader shakes you, moves you. He makes you feel, “Yes, we can do this.” He opens a new space, a hope. We don’t get such strong leaders today.

Riz Khan: I know, I know. Professor, you’re not a fan of Vladimir Putin, but, you know, can you sympathize in any way with the position of President Putin against military expansion on his doorstep, especially with Ukraine’s ambition to be part of NATO? The narrative, of course, in the West is very much against him, but can you see his point of view?

Slavoj Žižek: Here, maybe I will disappoint you. I see his point of view, of course. But nonetheless, I have so many friends, not just in Ukraine but in Baltic countries and so on, that I don’t accept this simple narrative that Ukrainians are engaged in, let’s call it, a proxy war of NATO against Russia. I think if you look at what has gone on in the last decades—Russian intervention in Georgia, then Crimea occupation, and so on—just read, I do regularly, I can read passively in Russian, I follow their own ideology. It’s clear that it’s not even some remainder of the Soviet Union; it’s simply imperial ambition. What I find crucial is that in his two speeches in 2022, you know, when Putin announced the intervention in Ukraine—21st and 23rd of February—he only critically mentioned one name in each speech: Lenin. He even said that Ukraine should be renamed Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. So he is really returning to the pure imperial tradition of the Russian Empire, where Ukrainian national sovereignty—the right to be a state of its own—is negated.

I’m very critical towards many things going on in Ukraine—corruption goes on, economic catastrophe, and so on—but nonetheless, I think when we put pressure on Ukraine to be more for peace, and so on, let’s face it: what is their choice? Their choice is not peace or war. Their choice is: we resist Russia, or we disappear as a nation. Russia is repeatedly saying it and is doing it in the parts of Ukraine it occupies. So, I am for peace, for a compromise, but let’s be clear—without the Western help, Ukraine would not even be in a position to negotiate for peace. It’s precisely the fact that Ukraine was able to resist a fast Russian victory which enabled serious negotiations for peace.

Riz Khan: That’s what’s interesting, Professor, because of course what we’ve seen with both the Ukraine-Russia situation and the Israel-Hamas situation is what seems to be a realignment of alliances across the globe. BRICS, of course, is coming up, and many of the BRICS countries seem to take a different position. Do you see a split on the world stage along East-West ideological lines—not in the sense of the Cold War but more in the sense of those alternatives, such as the BRICS bloc, to that long-running domination of the U.S. and the West in setting global agendas?

Slavoj Žižek: I agree with you, and I am, of course, for a more authentic multicentric world. What worries me is just this—that in many BRICS countries, not all, what we in the West nonetheless propose as feminist rights, religious rights, and so on, is now proclaimed as Western imperialism. What do I mean by this? The saddest example for me that I often use is—you must know that in Uganda, a year and a half ago or so, their parliament almost unanimously endorsed the toughest anti-gay legislation. It goes up to the death penalty. And you know what was their justification? That gay rights—this is Western imperialist ideological colonization. So that’s what makes me afraid—that our struggle for women’s rights and so on will be located as a remainder of neo-imperialism against Third World BRICS.

But then BRICS is a strange thing. Did you notice that, I think a couple of weeks ago, Putin acknowledged the Taliban and today’s Afghanistan as a progressive ally of Russia in the struggle against Western terrorism, and so on? So, the situation is again—what I fear most is the one of false oppositions.

Riz Khan: Professor, are these conflicts such as Israel versus Hamas and Ukraine versus Russia bringing the world to split along similar lines? Is there a common theme here?

Slavoj Žižek: Yes, but how—that’s the problem for me. How do you draw the line? I absolutely don’t agree that Ukraine is like Israel. No, I think that first—let me say briefly something about Hamas and so on. For me, what is totally obliterated, although it was publicly demonstrated, is that, as far as I know—I listened to the words of Ehud Barak and others—it is that we should always bear in mind that until, I think, two years ago, Israel financially supported Hamas because they wanted Palestinians split. So I think that in the long term, I, of course, condemn the criminal terrorist attack of Hamas, but in the long term, Israel needed this new war to create a Greater Israel. It’s happening now; we see it—ethnic cleansing of Gaza, West Bank, and so on. Who knows where they will stop?

So I think, you know, remember when the Hamas Gaza attack was done? Every interview that I gave, the first question was: “Let’s clarify, do you condemn the Hamas attack or not?” Now the question should be: “Where do you stand about what is happening now in Northern Gaza?” If you don’t absolutely condemn it, rational conversation is over. Another thing that depresses me immensely is the ethical decay. I hope our viewers and readers know what happened—it was, I think, about two months ago when in the Knesset there was a debate about what happened in some camps out of Jerusalem, not far, further south in Sinai, where some Israeli guards escaped in shock and rendered it public, even with some video clips, that Palestinians there are tortured in an unspeakable way—big metal sticks with needles up their rectum, and so on. You know what shocked me? I’m a pessimist; I know everybody is doing such things. But that we debate not only—we debate this publicly, and the majority in the parliament simply said this is part of our struggle against Arab terrorism. So brutal torture is publicly declared, defended. I mean, in such a situation, sorry, I prefer hypocrisy, because hypocrisy means that you are at least a little bit ashamed of what you are doing. But sorry, when Israel’s struggle for self-defense becomes a publicly admitted horrible mode of torture, then it’s over.

Riz Khan: You know, Professor, one thing I want to ask is, in the case of Israel versus Hamas, the conflict is often, especially by the Israeli side, positioned as Jewish versus Muslim, and any question of Israel’s military action or its consequences is labeled as anti-Semitic. Now, how do you regard that narrative that pushes a religious agenda over what is essentially a land dispute, and where do you see it all ending? Is there going to be a Greater Israel, the way you described Israel’s ambitions?

Slavoj Žižek: I think that the only way to understand the situation is to draw another line of distinction. I see, paradoxically, Hamas and Israel on the same side, because they both see war, brutal violence, as the only way to solve the situation. Israel, I think, is fully aware that what it is doing now in Gaza—and for me, the key is always the West Bank—will give birth to new forms of anti-Semitism. But Israel accepts this because then it will be even more able to present itself as a victim of anti-Semitism, and so on. So we should always bear this in mind. And you know whom I here really respect? I have a long respect from my communist time—do you know who is Ami Ayalon, the ex-chief of Shin Bet? He said at the beginning, the only way out is to give Palestinians under our control some political freedom, dignity, autonomy, recognize them as belonging to this space, and then he even made a quite rational proposal that Marwan Barghouti, who is now in prison, should be set free because he is for a two-state solution—not openly terrorist now—and he can beat Hamas in free elections.

This is our situation. When I repeated what Ami Ayalon publicly said in a couple of interviews at the beginning of this war, I was interrupted by shouts of, “I support Hamas; I’m pro-terrorist,” and so on. Isn’t this a sad time when the only ones who clearly dare to say the truth are ex-leaders of Shin Bet and Mossad? Here is where we are.

Riz Khan: You know, Professor, it also seems that any kind of questioning or protesting at the people level is an issue. Governments seem to set the narrative, certainly in the West. How do you regard the way pro-Palestinian protests were handled in various Western countries—the USA, the UK, much of Europe—in terms of the police and military force used to suppress them?

Slavoj Žižek: No, I totally agree with you. Even my many Jewish friends supported the protests, like my good friend James Schamus, who was a movie producer and so on. You know, I think that behind this particular phenomenon, we should confront and admit a very sad fact: the liberty of the press, of saying things in public space, is gradually disappearing. Censorship is reasserting itself on both sides. We know what the new right is doing in the United States—you know how many books are prohibited in elementary and high schools? From Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer to Moby Dick—they claim, I had to quote that, “Moby Dick,” the title is obscene, like an erected penis or what, so let’s prohibit it. The politically correct left is engaged in this too. So it’s—I think, why is such a stance dangerously authoritarian? Because it is based on a deep mistrust of ordinary people, as if ordinary people can be so easily seduced that if we don’t tightly control what information they get, they will automatically choose the wrong side and we are lost.

So again, I think that the era of liberalism as we know it is getting over. My big dilemma is how to avoid the obvious solution—capitalist state with a strong traditional narrative as its support, what I call soft fascism—how to prevent that this will be the predominant mode. This is happening in India with Modi—wild capitalism but at the same time Hindu nationalism. This is happening in China—see, their boss Xi gave a speech which was, I think, extremely important around a month ago. He spoke about the need to re-educate the young generation. Then I expected that he would say read Mao, communism. No, he said great Confucian tradition. So my problem is that many of the anti-Eurocentric third, so-called third world countries—but China is not third world in any meaningful way—I mean, outside Europe, while they are so critical of Europe, they are taking over what I think is the worst thing of the European tradition—a strong nation-state.

Riz Khan: You know, Professor, going back to what you said about quoting past leaders and the response—the heckling you got—you’ve also commented, to quote you, “You can say the truth today, but it doesn’t awaken us.” So, has society discarded the idea of critical thinking to establish fact versus fiction? And if so, what’s happened to, you know, to truth and the importance of truth, free speech?

Slavoj Žižek: Now, I’m sorry, we don’t have time to go into these more theoretical matters, but this is crucial, what you touched on now. I call this in psychic terms the logic of disavowal. You don’t deny truth—you are open to truth—but you formulate it in such a way that it doesn’t really oblige you to do anything; it doesn’t subjectively engage you. Take ecology—everybody knows we are in danger, blah blah blah, but the more we talk about it, the less we do. I think the battle against global warming is already lost. And it’s the same at all levels—against war, everybody is against war, but like in the case of Israel, Israel is getting serious warnings, Western powers are worried, but they do nothing—they unconditionally, at the level of arms delivery and so on, support Israel.

So again, the predominant logic today is a kind of cynical disavowal. It’s no longer the good old-fashioned lying—you deny the truth because then you can at least counterattack. The logic is, as they say in French, “I know very well, but…” I know the situation is very serious, but listen, we will get somehow out, don’t take it too seriously, and so on. I think the predominant danger today is not so much fundamentalist fanatical engagement, it is this cynical indifference. If you have the cynical indifferent stance towards our situation, you are an ideal subject.

Riz Khan: Professor, that cynical indifference you just referred to—one of the criticisms of many societies now is they tend not to even try to decipher fact from fiction, and many blame the media for misinforming the public, while others blame social media. Is there still actually any objectivity out there?

Slavoj Žižek: I am here an old-fashioned Eurocentric partisan of truth—yes, I still believe in truth. Not only in truth at the level of facts—like, it’s important to know what goes on—all my friends who claim, “But aren’t we too critical of Israel?” I always give them a couple of websites where you can see drone shots of Gaza, and they just go on. You see the facts are important. Second thing is that I don’t believe in simple neutrality. For me, I’m here an old-fashioned theological materialist—truth is a category of subjective engagement. You cannot write a history of Auschwitz or Gulag or whatever without being morally shocked by it. I believe that truth hurts, and that to tell the truth, you again are not allowed to occupy a neutral position—you must be shocked and engaged.

Riz Khan: Professor, the problem is, with this aspect of truth, perception seems to get in the way a lot. And one of the big battles played out in both mainstream and social media focuses on, for example, the so-called woke culture, which kind of redefines so much and complicates so much. What do you make of woke culture?

Slavoj Žižek: Of course, I accept the basic idea—how much our history is twisted, and so on. For example, Churchill was not simply Winston Churchill, the ideal World War II leader. We know one of the worst chapters: then, in, I think, ’43 or ’44, he consciously allowed a big hunger—millions died in Bengal—so that the food was taken for British soldiers for the offensive against Burma, today Myanmar. So yes, all this should be brought out. Nonetheless, where I have a problem is that, you know, monuments from the past, although they are not true in the sense that they imply—they, sorry, obfuscate—the historical truth, can play a progressive role. My big example—you remember Tiananmen demonstrations, where the Chinese people built up a kind, naive, primitive—from paper and so on—Statue of Liberty. But you should ask the question: what did this statue effectively represent for them? I think it wasn’t American imperialism. It was wrongly attributed to this statue, but it was nonetheless a dream of a more free, open society, and so on.

So this is the problem for me with woke critics—yes, we should totally unmask history. My favorite target here is none other than Washington. Many people don’t know that George Washington was the richest man in the United States at that point, and that rich people were much more anti-British than poor English people. So we have to demystify all this. Nonetheless, whenever somebody says “freedom, democracy, human rights,” my point is, let’s look and see how does this slogan function in a certain political situation—what does it mean when people evoke that slogan? For example—again, my own example—when people were demanding freedom, democracy, blah blah, at the end of the ’80s, the end of really existing socialism—at least for Slovenia, I can guarantee you—the ideal was almost a more open socialism. We wanted, of course, freedom of the press, political freedom, but also more social justice, better healthcare, and so on. So again, always look at what slogans, which may be originally imposed by the West, actually mean in certain situations. Of course, freedom and democracy are always, almost as a rule, used to install new authoritarian pro-Western regimes. So I would say: concrete analysis, bringing woke culture back to more modern application.

Riz Khan: When it comes to gender definitions and so on, often people are scared to step in any direction because the wrong statement can be used as a weapon against them. We see politicians walking on eggshells when it comes to saying anything, and it kind of twists what people can discuss—how openly they can talk. So has that idea of free speech disappeared because of the potential landmines that exist with issues such as woke culture?

Slavoj Žižek: Yes, but again, these landmines, I think, should be closely analyzed, and we should be critical towards both sides. Very briefly, to give you my position: I am against binary sexuality, all that stuff. What I reject in trans culture is the idea that gender identity is not biologically determined. Okay, I buy this. But that it’s simply what you feel—you experience yourself as being, I don’t know, masculine, feminine, trans, whatever, and this is what you are. My God, did we forget about Freud and psychoanalysis? I think that building gender identity is a very complex problem, full of contradictions, full of tensions—a very traumatic problem. So what I oppose is this joyful vision of trans—”Oh, I’m free, I’m not determined by biology, I can choose this, I can choose that.” Yes, you are not totally determined by biology, but choosing what you are is an unconscious process—a very traumatic one. I know many trans people, most of them suffer not so much because of external pressure as because of their own inner turmoil. So what bothers me is not the goals of trans ideology—the goals, I fully agree with them. I even fully agree with the premise that gender identity is not a biological fact. I’m just saying it’s not a simple choice. I am not what I feel that I am—feelings can also cheat.

Riz Khan: Professor, going on to issues that are affecting society nowadays, with the election coming up in the U.S., we’re seeing a lot of key policy issues that are being discussed. One of them is immigration, and actually, immigration is something perhaps that is a key concern in many countries across the world. How do you regard the way immigration is being presented, is being handled? We’re hearing some terrible comments, you know, obviously by some of the candidates, about how they regard immigrants. What’s your take on that?

Slavoj Žižek: First, I would say that I know the situation in Europe. Again, my position is against both extremes. I don’t agree with this easy liberal-left position—just open up the borders, and so on. No. First, if you open up the borders, the populist anti-immigrant right will win. What will you do then? Macron already did something incredible—I support him. How did he prevent Le Pen from taking over? By practically, at least partially, canceling democracy. The specificity of the French Constitution, imposed by de Gaulle in the early ’60s, is that the president can nominate a government, and the government can be operative even without being confirmed in the Assemblée Nationale, in the parliament. So it was a manipulation, but it worked. France is not in chaos, and so on.

So the first thing I would say is: don’t focus just on this “open the border” yes/no. Ask yourself: why these waves of immigration? And there are two reasons which are not often mentioned. The first one is that, let’s be frank, without American intervention in Iraq or Western intervention in Libya, or the mess in Syria where Russia and the West intervened, there would have been no ISIS—there would have been much less immigration. I think the solution is to rethink the entire economic-political relationship now. People tell me we don’t have time to do this—yes, we have to begin now.

The second thing, more important, that right-wingers don’t want to hear: I know pretty well the situation all around Europe. Do you know that, let’s say that somehow whoever—who is now more right-wing—Swedish government, Meloni in Italy, and so on—let’s say they succeed in throwing out most of the immigrants? It’s immediate collapse of the economy because all the so-called lower-paid physical jobs—construction, waste disposal, and so on—not to mention, maybe even more crucial, these homes for old people, in hospitals, caretaking, and so on—these posts are already occupied by immigrants. A friend of mine in Sweden has a mother who is now in a home for old people, and he told me that his mother told him that of all the personnel there, there is only one white woman, and she is Polish—not even Swedish.

So, it’s the type of capitalism that we have in Western Europe, and probably also in the United States. We know the role of Mexican illegal workers in doing harvests in California, and so on. So, capitalism the way we have it now needs immigrants. It would be a catastrophe to be too tough and throw them out.

Riz Khan: Professor, it sounds that the idea of replacement theory then, with immigrants, is not so easy to define.

Slavoj Žižek: No, because there is also another reason. Most of the immigrants are nonetheless younger people. In Sweden, I read a wonderful analysis of how is it that their healthcare system doesn’t go bankrupt, although Sweden has a lower birth rate and a high level of retired people, so that now it’s, I think, one to three, one to four—one retired person, a little bit more than one actively working person is needed financially. But you know what’s the paradox? In spite of all the complaints, without the financial contribution of the immigrants in Sweden, their entire healthcare system would already break down.

So again, my first point is: avoid this quick sophistry—replacement, throw them out, blah blah. On the other hand, we should say it’s legitimate to ask: who is coming to the West? I think it should be more organized. I understand that some people worry that, precisely because it’s not more organized, smugglers of people control the trade, so there is a lot of crime there. But my point is that if you look at it closely, it’s not the really poor people who come to the West, because at least from the Middle East, you have to pay a couple of thousand euros, and so on. So, the really poor people remain there. In other words, that’s my argument for what I still, ironically, call communism—more global coordination. Without this, we are lost.

Riz Khan: Professor Žižek, one reason people love you very much, and you have a large following globally, is because you are not worried about provoking, and you certainly provoke thought. I wonder, having reached the age of 75, have you mellowed in your thoughts at all? Have you revisited some of your philosophical positions with the wisdom of those years?

Slavoj Žižek: No, first I must tell you that being 75, I can tell you something very sad: there is nothing wise about being old. It’s just, you’re losing your abilities. It’s sad. Second thing, no, I am not getting softer. If anything, I’m getting more radical. But maybe softer at another level—you know, I once found this wonderful self-definition. It was proposed to me by Tyler Cowen, who is more right-liberal, and I accepted it. You know how I define myself? Moderately conservative communist. I’m a communist in the sense—not the old Central Committee party—but we need more global cooperation. Imagine new crises, and there will be, like COVID, and so on. We can only confront these crises with strong global cooperation—ecological and other threats. But how we do it—we should be, and here comes the moderately conservative aspect—we should be very careful because if history teaches us anything, it is that many well-meant radical measures then entailed catastrophic side effects. This is why also I think our liberal political system needs restructuring. I don’t know how, but listen, I spoke with a Chinese guy. I nonetheless, although I’m very critical of China, respect what China achieved. And they told me, “Listen, the world today needs not communist planning, but thinking in the terms of what will be in the next 30, 50 years.” In China, they can do it because, haha, they don’t worry, will they be elected or re-elected in two or four years, while in the West, the whole political system is pressing you into thinking in short-term terms.

Riz Khan: Professor, we have so many questions. I do want to end, though, with a thought. You’re known for your sense of humor. What’s your favorite philosophical joke?

Slavoj Žižek: It’s a… okay, I like philosophical jokes which are at the same time vulgar, but I will put an innocent joke, please, which I think is known—I repeat it all the time. It’s not even a joke; it’s an anecdote. It’s a scene from Ernst Lubitsch’s film Ninotchka, where a guy goes to a cafeteria—this is a joke told in the film—and says, “Can I get coffee but without cream, please?” And the waiter answers, “Sorry, sir, we don’t have cream, so I cannot give you coffee without cream, but we have milk, so I can only give you coffee without milk.” That’s dialectics—that what is missing also counts. Coffee is materially the same coffee, but coffee without milk is nonetheless symbolically, in how you taste it, not the same as coffee without cream. I think, always ask—this is my lesson—when you see a certain thing, ask yourself what this thing is not but it could have been.

Riz Khan: Professor, you should count me in—I think I’ve been to that coffee shop. Thank you so much—so many questions. Hope to speak to you again.

Slavoj Žižek: Whenever you want, I’m always here for you. You are one of the few hopes because it’s so sad to see how journalists, who—but it’s not even a question. I agree here—you are not a crazy provocateur. You’re just an honest, moderate guy. How we are under oppression, always here for you.

Riz Khan: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. That was a special edition of the show, in conversation with the remarkable and often remarkably outspoken philosopher and cultural theorist, Slavoj Žižek, with comments and thoughts particularly relevant to the upcoming U.S. presidential election. We will, of course, be bringing you coverage of that, but in the meantime, that’s it for now. I’m Riz Khan. From me and the team, thanks for watching.