Читать книгу A Left that Dares to Speak Its Name - Slavoj Žižek - Страница 6
ОглавлениеIntroduction: From the Communist Standpoint
This book brings together my (substantially rewritten) most recent interventions in the public media. They cover the entire panoply of topics that aroused public attention, from economic turmoil to the struggle for sexual emancipation, from populism to political correctness, from the vicissitudes of Trump’s presidency to the ongoing tensions in and with China, from ethical problems raised by sexbots to the Middle East crisis. The concluding supplement contains fragments from two polemics I was engaged in. The collected interventions are untimely because their premise is that only a communist standpoint provides the appropriate way to grasp these topics. So why communism?
Signs abound that our global situation calls increasingly for such a standpoint. Apologists of the existing order like to point out that the dream of socialism is over, that every attempt to realize it turned out to be a nightmare (just look at what goes on in Venezuela!). However, at the same time, signs of panic grow everywhere: how are we to deal with global warming, with the threat of total digital control over our lives, with the influx of refugees? In short, with the effects and consequences of this same triumph of global capitalism? There is no surprise here: when capitalism wins, its antagonisms explode.
On the one hand, signs of anti-Enlightenment madness multiply everywhere. In Koszalin, a city in northern Poland, three Catholic priests have burned books they say promote sorcery, including one of the Harry Potter novels, in a ceremony they photographed and posted on Facebook: they carried the books in a large basket from inside a church to a stone area outside, where the books were set alight as prayers were said and a small group of people looked on.1 An isolated incident, yes – but if we put it together with other similar incidents, a clear anti-Enlightenment pattern emerges. For example, at the 106th Indian Science Congress in Punjab (in January 2019), local scientists made a series of claims, among them: Kauravas were born with the help of stem cell and test tube technologies; Lord Rama used “astras” and “shastras,” while Lord Vishnu sent a Sudarshan Chakra to chase targets. This shows that the science of guided missiles was present in India thousands of years ago; that Ravana didn’t just have the Pushpaka Vimana, but had 24 types of aircraft and airports in Lanka; that theoretical physics (including the contributions of Newton and Einstein) is totally wrong, gravitational waves will be renamed “Narendra Modi Waves,” and the gravitational lensing effect will be renamed the “Hashvardhan Effect”; that Lord Brahma discovered the existence of dinosaurs on earth and mentioned it in the Vedas.2 This is also a way to fight the remnants of Western colonialism, and the book burning in Poland can be viewed as a way to fight Western commercialized consumerism. The conjunction of these two examples, one from Hindu India and the other from Christian Europe, demonstrates that we are dealing with a global phenomenon.
While we are sinking deeper and deeper into this madness (which coexists easily with a thriving global market), the real crisis is approaching. In January 2019, an international team of scientists proposed “a diet it says can improve health while ensuring sustainable food production to reduce further damage to the planet. The ‘planetary health diet’ is based on cutting red meat and sugar consumption in half and upping intake of fruits, vegetables and nuts.”3 We are talking about a radical reorganization of our entire food production and distribution – so how to do it? “The report suggests five strategies to ensure people can change their diets and not harm the planet in doing so: incentivizing people to eat healthier, shifting global production toward varied crops, intensifying agriculture sustainably, stricter rules around the governing of oceans and lands, and reducing food waste.” OK, but, again, how can this be achieved? Is it not clear that a strong global agency is needed with the power to coordinate such measures? And is not such an agency pointing in the direction of what we once called “communism”? And does the same not hold for other threats to our survival as humans? Is the same global agency not needed also to deal with the problem of exploding numbers of refugees and immigrants, with the problem of digital control over our lives?4
Communist interventions are needed because our fate is not yet decided – not in the simple sense that we have a choice, but in a more radical sense of choosing one’s own fate. According to the standard view, the past is fixed, what happened happened, it cannot be undone, and the future is open, it depends on unpredictable contingencies. What we should propose here is a reversal of this standard view: the past is open to retroactive reinterpretations, while the future is closed since we live in a determinist universe. This doesn’t mean that we cannot change the future; it just means that, in order to change our future we should first (not “understand” but) change our past, reinterpret it in such a way that opens up toward a different future from the one implied by the predominant vision of the past.
Will there be a new world war? The answer can only be a paradoxical one. If there is to be a new war, it will be a necessary one. This is how history works – through weird reversals as described by Jean-Pierre Dupuy: “If an outstanding event takes place, a catastrophe, for example, it could not not have taken place; nonetheless, insofar as it did not take place, it is not inevitable. It is thus the event’s actualization – the fact that it takes place – which retroactively creates its necessity.”5 And exactly the same holds for a new global war: once the conflict explodes (between the US and Iran, between China and Taiwan), it will appear inevitable, that is to say, we will automatically read the past that led to it as a series of causes that necessarily caused the explosion. If it does not happen, we will read it in the same way that today we read the Cold War – as a series of dangerous moments where the catastrophe was avoided because both sides were aware of the deadly consequences of a global conflict. (So we have today many interpreters who claim that there never was an actual danger of World War III during the Cold War years, that both sides were just playing with fire.) It is at this deeper level that communist interventions are needed.
Jürgen Habermas is often described as the state philosopher of the German (European even) liberal Left – no wonder, then, that about two decades ago, the conservative Spanish Prime Minister, José Mariá Aznar, even formally proposed that Habermas be declared the Spanish (and European) state philosopher (on account of Habermas’s idea of constitutional patriotism, a patriotism grounded in emancipatory values embedded in a constitution rather than in one’s own ethnic roots). While disagreeing with Habermas on many points, I always found the role he was not afraid to play – that of a critical supporter of, participant in even, power – honorable and necessary, a more-than-welcome retreat from basically irresponsible “politics at a distance.”
The majority of Leftist thought in recent decades got caught in the trap of oppositionalism: it adopts as self-evident the claim that true politics is only possible at a distance from the state and its apparatuses – the moment an agent immerses itself fully into state apparatuses and procedures (like parliamentary party politics), the authentic political dimension is lost. (From this standpoint, the Bolshevik triumph – taking power in Russia in October 1917 – appears also as their self-betrayal.) But is there not in such a stance an indelible aspect of avoiding responsibility? Withdrawal into non-participation in power is also a positive act, since one is aware that somebody else will have to do it, and the dirtiest thing is to leave to another the dirty job and then, after the job is done, accuse this other of unprincipled opportunism. (Among others, Eamon de Valera did this when he let Michael Collins do the “dirty” negotiations with the British, which led to the Free Irish State, and then, after profiting himself from it, accusing him of treason.) An authentic political agent is never afraid to take power and assume responsibility for what is going on, without resorting to excuses (“unfortunate circumstances,” “enemy plots,” or whatever). Therein resides Lenin’s greatness: after taking power, he knew the Bolsheviks found themselves in an impossible situation (with no conditions for an actual “construction of socialism”), but he persisted in it, trying to make the best out of a total deadlock.
The true dimension of a revolution is not to be found in the ecstatic moments of its climax (one million people chanting in the main square …); one should rather focus on how the change is felt in everyday life when things return to normal. This is why Trotsky lost against Stalin: after Lenin’s death, the population of the Soviet Union was slowly emerging from 10 years of hell (World War I, civil war) with untold suffering, and people longed for a return to some kind of normalcy. This is what Stalin offered them, while Trotsky, with his permanent revolution, promised them just more social upheaval and suffering.
Perhaps, then, instead of the increasingly boring variations on the topic of “distance from the state,” what we need today are honest state philosophers, philosophers who are not afraid to dirty their hands in fighting for a different state. Apropos homosexuality, Oscar Wilde cited “the love that dare not speak its name” – what we need today is a Left that dares to speak its name, not a Left that shamefully covers up its core with some cultural fig leaf. And this name is communism.
Notes
1 1. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/01/harry-potter-among-books-burned-by-priests-in-poland.
4 4. There should be no taboos here. For example, the hypothesis that the stream of millions of refugees into Europe which climaxed recently was not spontaneous but masterminded with certain geopolitical aims is not to be dismissed as Islamophobic paranoia. Both the US and Russia are clearly interested in the weakening of Europe and silently tolerate its Muslim reconquista, which also explains why the rich Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Emirates …) receive no refugees, while amply financing the construction of mosques in Europe.
5 5. Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Petite Metaphysique des tsunamis (Paris: Seuil, 2005), p. 19.
