Zizek is excellent, but short-sighted on several points. For example, his question/point of democracy vs openness. I believe enlightened despotism on the part of politicians will not recreate popular opinion, especially in an increasingly pillarized mediascape. Direct democracy, if well designed, would place more pressure on citizens to inform themselves and discuss their points of view towards consensus. Migrants are scapegoated because other targets are beyond the reach of the average citizen. So the results of a process of democratization are not automatically or permanently xenophobic. He himself notes that the potential for expansion of a concept once it is put into motion in his earlier discussion of human rights.
I'm reading "How to Read Lacan" at the moment and these positions become very very detailed in that book - I'd strongly recommend it. I'm now aware why Zizek loves Lacan so much - Lacan is THE ONE.
With "era of regression" Slavoj totally misses the point. Most progressive thought happens in social networks and games where people develop new versions of the social organization that will inevitably overflow traditional systems of some point. While immature for now - it's clear that the society of the future will be based on things that look more like Blockchain or Wikipedia or EVE Online - not like the Senate of Rome.
Refugees problem for some reason is assumed to be a must to solve on a government/national level. Why not keep it to a local level, give each local vote a decision of do they want immigration and in what numbers? After all Canada has a waiting list for families to welcome refugees - why small towns wouldn't have that in Europe?
Communism was suppose to be the successor of Democracy but was exercised ineffectively and failed, but, it's true ideology is still stronger than of democracy because, it maintains the best part of DEMOKRATIA (equality of classes, status and opportunities) and scrapping aside the part in which capitalism can take control. The melancholy of that is called "Socialism" and some countries thrive in that, also another word for that is "far right nationalist" vis a vis "first iteration" of Communism ;)
"The day after this talk"> not a nightmare at all, this talk. Zizek pushed a number of topics forward, even if this might not seem obvious. And consequently I would love to hear him address 2 topics in the near future. Topic 1, in the context of the authorities not being sure if they had to evacuate x million people from the Tokyo area in two days after the Fukushima disaster, what are the institutions in charge of addressing this type of action as well as in charge of avoiding this kind of nuclear disasters doing? Topic 2, in the context of Zizek's opinion that State is necessary now more than ever and that some kind of supra-national coordination on everything is needed, how would Zizek react to the recent (early april 2017) WikiLeaks claims, if true, that the CIA was and/or is not only involved in cyber attacking major infrastructures of several States but also not in control of its own cyber-attacking tools? Can these queries be forwarded to Zizek?
"We are approaching catastrophe." We must find a way to live together or we simply won't live much longer. Maybe we don't deserve to... We've been poor stewards.
Zizek, as usual nails 🎯 it. Integration, literally doesn't mean 'we welcome u as u are' . NO, I claim ! Integration into a different societal setting is a total nightmare to one concerned. This act of integration means and points to a loss of inherited cultural and behavioral traces. That's why, I claim, immigrants - rightfully or not, emphatically refuse to subscribe to this reeducational measure. Even if it were for their own good and peace of mind, I claim, they will definitely say no. Identity and the obsessions coming along with it is way too strong. An insurmountable 🔥 wall ! Sorry ! I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
