Slavoj Zizek & David Horowitz by Francesco- Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 12:28 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM0I5k50XsY

I watched this short debate not long time ago and promised myself to post it, but then got sidetracked and delayed quite a while.

Since we've seen already quite a few videos thanks to Alberto about Zizek (the RSA animation and the Zuccotti park speech) I though I'd post one more.

I found this debate somehow interesting and engaging, but it also made me aware how far words can go and how easy it is to build divison within discussion. At a certain point half way through it they get warmed up and neededs restrain from Assange to mantain the discussion as our Vice Chancellor would love to put it a 'rational one' see abc covereage of Huss Cuts movement at La Trobe. The grand theories they both use to debate issues like "Palestinians and Nazis, Joseph Stalin and Barack Obama, the decline of Europe and the tension between liberty and equality, amongst many others..." seem a bit too general, too overarching, too detached from daily life and peoples'concerns, belonging to another world a metaphorical one, useful but not the only one. (youtube).

It is interesting that two intellectuals of such a stand seem unable to find common meanings to even the same words they use. They talk, but do they talk and refer to the same thing? They seem not to, not merely because of different beliefs but because the experience which informs both is based on such divergent model of thought that experience results politically derailed.

What do you think about the politics of experience and does that change our ability to communicatre with different persons on different levels by using an intellegible language capable of accomodating the experinece of politics and the politics of experience?

It also surprised me that Horovitz being a former socialist and Black Panther Allied was not able to communicate to or understand Zizek and vice versa. Does this means that politics no matter what tends to separate on the common ground that one must necessarily be right and the other wrong? When grand theories are used to bring about our arguments they seem to simplify and generalize reality so much that most of the time we find ourselves at an impasse.

They ultimately found common ground. That common ground was disaster, a political, social and structural one. War seemed the only realistic thing envisioned by both in regards to the dramatic shifts of power that hit the US and Europe.

Do you think this is the only outcome possible relating to the fall of the USA and of Europe? War is nothing new and it keeps going at our hands around the globe, but will the meaning of other peoples' suffering change significance and importance once history will forcefully enter our house without asking for permission?

At the moment it is enough to have a 60 sec silence for the Australian soldiers killed in Afganistan, and other 60 sec for those Afgani, and other 60 sec for those in Burma and other 60 sec for those in each part of the world. For how long will we have this priviliege for? This hypocrisy? this nice lip service paid to illusions and the dirty game of real politik ?

It is really hard to make everyone happy of our convictions and be tolerant and respectful at the same time. I find it quite impossible. That is why every day I struggle not to bring about change and save the world but to bring about resistance to outside forces that want me to behave 'normally' and be silent, condescenting and peaceful. The state, corporations are the first to use the rules of tolerance, multicutural understanding, the right to protest peacefully as the benchmark of liberal politics. All great principles of the most respectable morality and ethics. However, they are also used as a stragem to keep people quite and confused, manipulated and submessive.What happens when the state use these principles only to legitimate their violent action and punish the breach by other grups of thise fundumetal rules of existence? Do not they apply anymore? are they indeed no so fundumental but mere inventions?

the weaker remain under and the stronger get stronger. In regards to this I am thinking about the police violence against muslims in the protest in Sydney two days ago. Police violence against muslim or muslim violence against the police or legitimate response on both side, or just one or the other?

the whole game is ultimately about legitimation. I believe in non -violent action but I also beileve in force, my life is short and won't respect who steps with a grim smile on my face making me a slave, only because the law say so or the majority of civil soceity prefers law and order, to justice and new substance. This is earth not heaven, and for as mush importance i lay to thought and analytical reasoning the hands are what give me tha chance to model the earth.

This why, i think both Zizek and Horovits are a bit obsolete to me, too much talking. Who is the best at bringing their arguments forward and convince me of the truth etc...while people are fucking figthing for a scrap of bread.

Intellectual debate and the time to have such pleasures in life are burgeiose privileges.

I am personally trying to bring about change without losing my identity by buying what cultural artifacts are there for sale, above all here at University. I am trying to diminish the space between thought, analytical and speculative reasoning, and action, what my hands can do. the inbetween I call it hypocrisy. And before you say it, I'll state it, I am an Hypocrit, not like the philosopher Hippocrates, better than him. But isn't this the truth? does not real undertanding start when we discover our own fallacies, paradoxes and truths about being MAN or WOMAN.? or Both Trans/Homo/Hetero///and more?

We are infinite and capable of everything, let's not become the slave of ideologies and thought. we are bette than that. rise above but do not get disconnected, the saint is the model but the warrioir is the practice.

Gandhi once stated that the Polish should have died without figthing the Nazi at the infamous -Warsaw Ghetto-so that the enemy would have undertood. Well, Gandhi, for as much I agree with you, I also think this is pure madness and hypocrisy, different episodes require different responses. Though his idea might have changed if he only knew the size and horror of the Holocaust. You might say, what changes, better to die defying violence when daeth ois the only choice? I say not, better to die standing up and defending you right to be. Ultimately, both are laws and ideals made in our world for this world. We are fighting for the now, not to be a saint somewhere over the rainbow. Let's not confuse heaven and hell for the earth. There is no entrance and good way of behaving in this world which will avoid you hell and join Heaven. Your conscience is what count. But whatever you do, fight for your right not to change the world, good luck for that!!! but to be, and to be yourselves the way you are.

Justice, Peace and Love.

F.

sorry for the f * word I realised it later that should not be there....

Wow Francesco what have you been smoking? You make several valid points and with such passion (I have taken your use of the f-word as a revelation of your passion). People resist because they want change. Aren't protests and resistance afterall attempts or efforts at 'making change happen'? I agree that there has been so much talking but little action by academics like Zizek and Horowitz. I am guilty here. I do a lot of talking but I talk because my primary objective is to persuade and convince as many people as possible to seek solutions to the issues you have highlighted here (as well as in your post about Timor Leste). We need to create awareness that will lead to action. I like to see my role as an organic intellectual (as defined by Gramsci). Now regarding violence: I strongly believe that violence begets violence. Violent resistance ends up with far too much blood letting and simply turns into reciprocal violence: an eye for eye. It is fine not to see eye to eye (as in disagreements) but as Gandhi famously said 'an eye for eye will make the whole world go blind'. A lot of successful revolutions (such as the agricultural, industrial, capitalist) 'materialised' through ideological domination ie hegemony. Ideas may dominate but ideas can also be challenged, deconstructed, critiqued and most importantly manipulated, modified, replaced---that is changed. Gandhi's nonviolent movement, Mandela's anti-apartheid, Malcolm X's civil rights movement, Pots and Pans in Argentina, MST in Brazil, Chipko---these are the peaceful forms of resistance that have taken on the might of powerful others and were victorious. By being peaceful and nonviolent, the members of these movements were not by any stretch of imagination acquiescing or consenting with the dominant power. We can of course 'talk' more about this. But keep that fire in your belly going.