Poate că aţi ratat articolul lui Žiži din The Guardian d-alaltăieri, şi nu se cade. Aşa mă mângâie Žiži cum îi categoriseşte el pe toţi, keynesian-stângist, anti-comunist, pro-capitalist etc., cum foloseşte el cuvinte gen deprimare, extravaganţă. E ce-şi poate dori presa mai mult. Editorialul lui Ž. porneşte de la alt editorial, totul e deja confuz, mai ales că poartă titlul: Anul 2012 a fost cel mai bun an din istoria lumii. O să preiau în continuare fragmente din spusele lui Ž., pentru că sunt aşa de pus pe steag. Da, aţi ghicit, din articol nu lipsesc cuvintele capitalism, marxism, imigranţi şi statele unite ale americii.

a) The question to be raised is: if Europe alone is in gradual decay, what is replacing its hegemony? The answer is: “capitalism with Asian values” – which, of course, has nothing to do with Asian people and everything to do with the clear and present tendency of contemporary capitalism to limit or even suspend democracy.

b) People rebel not when things are really bad, but when their expectations are disappointed [Auzi, Žiži, dar cu revoluţia din 1989 a fost fix invers!]. (…) And this is why the Chinese Communists are right to panic: because, on average, people are now living better than 40 years ago – and the social antagonisms (between the newly rich and the rest) are exploding, and expectations are much higher.

c) That’s the problem with development and progress: they are always uneven, they give birth to new instabilities and antagonisms, they generate new expectations that cannot be met. In Egypt just prior to the Arab spring, the majority lived a little better than before, but the standards by which they measured their (dis)satisfaction were much higher.

d) When, during a recent TV debate in France, the French philosopher and economist Guy Sorman claimed democracy and capitalism necessarily go together, I couldn’t resist asking him the obvious question: “But what about China?” He snapped back: “In China there is no capitalism!” For the fanatically pro-capitalist Sorman, if a country is non-democratic, it is not truly capitalist, in exactly the same way that for a democratic communist, Stalinism was simply not an authentic form of communism.

e) When we dismiss the failures of market capitalism as accidental mishaps, we end up in a naive “progress-ism” that sees the solution as a more “authentic” and pure application of a notion, and thus tries to put out the fire by pouring oil on it.

Articolul poate fi citit integral aici.

Hai Slovenia!

foto: detaliu din coperta volumului Žižek and Politics, de Matthew Sharpe şi Geoff Boucher.

Comentarii

comentarii