Žižek o Kosovu, Srbima i Albancima | B92 Blog http://blog.b92.net/blog/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Dušan Maljković sr http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss rss@b92.net rss@b92.net Blog A-JE! RSS generator v0.3 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:41:48 +0000 http://blog.b92.net/user_stuff/avatars/mali/978/7978.jpg Dušan Maljković http://blog.b92.net/ 50 50 Re: dobro se Zizek setio http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k198138
mislim da polako ulazimo u fazu gde je važnije zadržati svoje stavove i završiti diskusiju "časno", nego se yaista yadržati na ovim argumentima. Ali ipak:

1.) Propustio si da uvidis prirodu prvog mog argumenta. On kaže: da li je verovatno da bi se jedna zajednica (bilo koja) mogla održavati samo na strahu? Moj odgovor je ne. Drugi deo pita da li je to dobro. Moj odgovor je ne. To je i objasnjenje zašto je prvi odgovor negativan. Tek treće pitanje se odnosi na to šta bi bilo da je u konkretnoj situaciji nesto bilo drugačije, a s obzirom na prva dva stava, ovo treće pitanje se zapravo odnosi na pitanje po čemu je ondašnja situacija bila specifična, pa za nju ne bi važila prva dva stava.

Dakle, nije se radilo o spekulaciji o empirijskim vezama prošlosti.

2.) E sad pod dva, ti tvrdis da je Milosević nešto uzrokovao i da je to naprosto bili tako, to je činjenica, a sva eventualna pitanja kako bi bilo da je istorija krenula drugim tokom nemaju značaja. Gore sam već objasnio da ja nisam to pitao. Ali i ovo drugo što kažeš nije nikakva činjenica na koju bi trebalo da se odnosi neko sećanje. Nadam se da si čuo za Hjumove argumente da se nijedan uzročni odnos ne nalazi u iskustvu. On je to tvrdio za najjednostavnije stvari kao što je izlaženje sunca ili hranljivost hleba. Sad ti suprotno njemu tvrdis da se ti sećaš nekog uzročnog odnosa koji se tiče delovanja jednog čoveka i njegovih postupaka na udaljenu i heterogenu grupu ljudi, gde otprilike hiljadu različitih uzroka može biti relavantno. Moj odgovor je ovde da se ti toga ne možeš sećati. Sve čega se ti sećaš je vremenski sled i tada aktuelna objašnjenja tog dešavanja.

3. Šta ti to znači da pogled na istoriju ne može da ne bude ideologizovan? Jel to znači da kad ja npr tvrdim da je rat na Balkanu izazvala CIA (ja to ne tvrdim zaista) onda je to jednako vredno objašnjenje kao i tvoje objašnjenje da ga je uzrokovao Milošević, jer je i jedno i drugo ideologizovano. Ja nisam tvrdio da je sve nužno pristrasno, to je ok, nego sam tvrdio da su određeni tvoji postupci suprotni u filozofiji etabliranim načinima da se ta pristrasnost kontroliše ili ograniči. Jedan od tih načina je skepsa prema sećanjem utvrđenim uzročnim vezama.

4. Ta metodološka ograničenja su te ograde koje sam pomenuo. Da - treba da podižemo ograde da ne bi bili ideologizovani.

5. Onome Ne treba obrazloženje.

6. Ja uopšte nisam relativizovao događaje. Koji je to događaj koji ja osporavam a ti tvrdis? Ja osporavam da se mogu tvrditi kao apsolutno sigurne uzročne veze u istoriji. Mislim da je njihovo povlačenje uvek manipulativno. Pogledaj bilo koji politički govor, uvek će uzrok nekog negativnog događaja biti na protivničkoj strani. Mi nikada ne uzrokujemo ništa negativno. To je relativizacija, a ona je moguća zato što su tzv uzročne veze u istoriji uvek mogu modelovati prema potrebama.

7. Argumenti nisu samo događaji, nego događaji spojeni sa kriterijumima.

poz

pogledacu ovaj blog jos jednom ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:47:48 GMT ogar http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: dobro se Zizek setio http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k196518 Dogovorni razlaz bio je malo moguć" kažeš. Da li to onda znači da nije bilo Miloševića mi bi i danas živeli u zajednici koja se održava samo zbog straha da je razlaz nužno nasilan? Kakv je to zajednica i da li bi to stvarno bilo tako. Da bi Hrvatska i Slovenija do veka bile u zortu od rata i zbog toga ostale u Jugoslaviji?

Prvo, nisam imao pristup internetu preko vikenda, pa nisam mogao ranije da odgovorim. Možda niko ne pročita, ali šta sad?
Vidi Ogre, prijatelju - šta bi bilo da je bilo nije moguće utvrditi. Ovako je bilo šta je bilo - Milošević je bio nosilac najvećeg talasa nacionalizma koji je razbucao Jugoslaviju i to je činjenica. Sve ostalo je kalkulisanje, tipa, ma i da nije bilo tako, bilo bi ovako. Nije moguće tako posmatrati stvari.

Drugo, "tek sa dolaskom Miloševića u Srbiji dolazi i do erupcije nacionalizma na sve strane." Ovo ti je tipična ideološka rečenica. Otkud ti znaš da je ovaj vremenski sled bio istovremeno i uzročni sled? Otkud znaš da je nešto što je radio Milošević uzrokovalo da neko radi nešto u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji? Možda je taj to ionako hteo da radi a ovo sa Miloševićem mu je dobrodošlo kao izgovor? .


Na stranu to što pogled na istorijske događaje ne može a da ne bude ideologizovan, ono što je Milošević radio jeste urzokovalo to što je uzrokovalo u celoj SFRJ. Znam tako što se sećam. Možda ovo, možda ono spada u kalkulacije. I na kraju donosiš zaključak:

Uzrošno-posledične veze u istoriji uspostavljene bez velikih ograda i uslovnosti samo su sredstvo ideologije


I šta da radimo? Da podižemo ograde da ne bismo bili ideologizovani?

Da zaključim, svaljivanje isključive krivice na Miloševića za ovo ili ono nije ništa drugo nego zastupanje onoga što je u interesu drugih strana u tom sporu. Ono samo nastalo je isključćivo iz tih razloga.


Ne.

Znak da je tačno to što ti tvrdis, bio bi da možeš da nevedes argumente koji bi bili konkluzivni protiv ovoga gore.


Argumenti su događaji, a mi možemo da ih relativizujemo do besvesti. Ali, mislim da ne treba to da radimo.

pozzz ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:19:48 GMT apatrid http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k195033 Za sve koji se pitaju sta Zizek, posle svega, tvrdi


A ne mislite li da je mozda naprosto u pitanju osecaj blizak panici?

Osnivac liberalno-demokratske partije Slovenije, Slavoj. Z, odbacio je zablude svetog trojstva demokratskog parlamentarizma (gradjansko drusto- politika "Dobra" - zajednicko trziste) i , doduse mnogo godina kasnije, postao najvatreniji kriticar dogme burzoaske paralementarne "demokratije".

Njegova poslednja dela " Robespjer, izmedju vrline i terora ", kao i "Na rubu revolucije ( Zizek komentarise Lenjina)" u tom su smislu korisni prilozi promisljanja politike koja se drznula da izadje iz zadatih okvira liberalizma, tj domacih zadaca koju vredni skolarci kapitalisticke integracije stavljaju pred sebe i , ubedjeni da cine Dobro, pred sve nas.

Neka hvala, izmedju kuge i kolere, cujem kako neko dovikuje -probacu da se izlecim sam. Dok prilazim, shvatam da nas je nevernika* vise. Za pocetak uvek dovoljno.

*Nevernici u neizlecive bolesti. U daljem tekstu NNB.
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:00:49 GMT leto dijalektike http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Bullshit http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k195011
Slavoj Zizek je profesor i istrazivac Instituta za socijalna istrazivanja Univerziteta u Ljubljani, kao i osnivac i predsednik tamosnjeg Drustva za teorijsku psihoanalizu. Od aprila 2000. godine vodi istrazivacku grupu na Institutu za kulturna istrazivanja u Esenu, gostujuci je profesor na mnogim svetskim univerzitetima i jedan od najplodnijih i najcitanijih savremenih svetskih filozofa.


* Teme vaseg razmisljanja su kriza subjekta i politika. Da li su dogadjaji od 11. septembra prosle godine bacili novo svetlo na vasu dijagnozu sadasnjeg stanja u svetu?


- Tih dana smo stalno slusali kako nista vise nece biti isto. A ja se pitam da li je zaista doslo do tako fundamentalne promene. Naravno da se nesto promenilo u nasem posmatranju i predstavljanju stvari, ali ne verujem da mozemo govoriti o nekom stvarnom prelomu. Vise mi se cini da su se potvrdile neke nase stare predstave i stari strahovi, i da se zaista i dogodilo ono sto nam mediji odavno govore u vezi sa terorizmom.

VIRTUALIZACIJA STVARNOSTI

- Ja se inace bavim onim sto nazivamo digitalizacijom, odnosno virtualizacijom stvarnosti. Doduse, sezdeset odsto ljudi na ovoj planeti nikada u zivotu nije upotrebilo telefon. Ali oko trideset odsto nas zivi u vestacki stvorenom, digitalizovanom univerzumu koji je predmet manipulacije, univerzumu kojim ne vlada priroda ili tradicija. Tu ima i neke ironije: na svim nivoima zivljenja sve vise imamo posla sa stvarima koje su izgubile svoju sustinu: imamo pivo bez alkohola, meso bez masnoca, kafu bez kofeina - cak i virtuelni seks bez seksa. Vrhunac toga je virtuelna stvarnost - realnost bez realnosti, odnosno potpuno regulisana stvarnost. Ali tu je i druga strana: u citavom XX veku uocavam tendenciju za koju je filozof Alan Badiu nasao dobru formulaciju: "La passion de réel" - strast stvarnog. To znaci da upravo zato sto zivimo u artificijelnom univerzumu mrtvih konvencija, iskustvo koje je zaista autentnicno mora da bude krajnje nasilan dogadjaj koji ce nas potpuno uzdrmati. Samo takvo iskustvo nam daje osecaj da opet zivimo stvarni zivot.

* I to je ono sto smo doziveli?


- To je, verujem, nesto sto definise citav XX vek. Pocelo je sa Prvim svetskim ratom. Setite se Ernsta Jingera, koji je iskustvo fizicke borbe prsa u prsa opisivao kao autenticno iskustvo. Na ravni seksualnosti, cini mi se da je arhetipski film Osimino "Carstvo cula", u kojem se seksualni susret zaista dovede do krajnjih granica, do toga se covek muci do smrti. Da bi susret bio autentican, on mora biti ekstremno nasilan.
U tom smislu je simptomaticna i pojava ljudi koje zovemo cutters - to je patoloska pojava, veoma rasirena u SAD. Dva miliona ljudi koji sebe seku ziletima. To nema veze sa mazohizmom ili samoubistvom, oni naprosto osecaju da kao licnosti nisu stvarni i zele da kroz bol, osecaj tople krvi koja po njima tece, opet osete da zive.

TERORISTI - ODRAZ NASE CIVILIZACIJE

* Vratimo se onda nekim stvarima koje su nas u poslednje vreme iznenadile. Nedavno ste u jednom clanku napisali da su teroristi odraz nase civilizacije. Oni nisu tamo negde, vec su odraz naseg Zapadnog sveta. Mozete li jos nesto o tome da nam kazete?

- To je moj odgovor na popularnu tezu Samjuela Hantingtona i drugih koji kazu da danas postoji takozvani sukob civilizacija. Tu tezu odbijam iz mnogo razloga. Kao prvo, danasnji rasizam je upravo rasizam kulturne razlike. Rasisti vise ne kazu: "Ja sam bolji od tebe", vec kazu: "Ja hocu moju kulturu, a evo tebi tvoja". Danas svaki desnicar kaze upravo to. Ti ljudi mogu da budu vrlo postmoderni. Oni priznaju da ne postoji prirodna tradicija, da je svaka kultura vestacki konstruisana. U Francuskoj, na primer, neofasisticka desnica se obraca dekonstruktivistima govoreci: "Da, dekonstruktivisti su univerzalistima odrzali lekciju i pokazali da postoje samo partikularni identiteti. Dakle, crnci treba da imaju svoju kulturu, a mi nasu".
Treba da uzmemo u obzir i prvu reakciju americke moral majority na 11. septembar, narocito Dzerija Folvela i Peta Robertsona. Ovaj drugi je donekle ekscentrik, ali Folvel je mainstream licnost. A reagovali su isto kao i Arapi, samo sto su nekoliko dana kasnije reterirali. Folvel je rekao da je unistavanje zgrada Svetskog trgovinskog centra znak da bog vise ne stiti SAD zato sto su SAD krenule putem zla, homoseksualnosti i promiskuiteta.
Prema izvestajima FBI, u SAD trenutno ima najmanje 2 miliona takozvanih radikalnih desnicara. Neki od njih su veoma nasilni, ubijaju lekare koji vrse abortuse, a da ni ne pominjem eksploziju u Oklahoma Sitiju. Meni se cini da je to znak da isti anti-liberalni, nasilni stav postoji i u nasoj civilizaciji. To vidim kao dokaz da je terorizam jedan aspekt naseg vremena i da ga ne mozemo pripisati samo jednoj civilizaciji.

ISLAM

- Sto se tice islama, treba pogledati istoriju. Tu je veoma zanimljiva bivsa Jugoslavija. Zasto su u Sarajevu i Bosni sukobi bili tako nasilni? Zato sto je tamo bilo najvise etnickog mesanja. Zasto? Zato sto su Bosnom dominirali Muslimani i, istorijski posmatrano, oni su definitivno bili najtolerantniji. Mi, Slovenci i Hrvati, katolicki narodi, proterali smo ih jos pre nekoliko vekova. To pokazuje da u islamu kao takvom nema niceg netolerantnog. Pitanje je, dakle, zasto se sada pojavljuje taj teroristicki aspekt islama. Napetost izmedju tolerancije i fundamentalistickog nasilja postoji unutar civilizacije, a ne izmedju vise civilizacija.
Uzmite jos jedan primer. Na CNN-u smo videli predsednika Busa kako pokazuje pismo sedmogodisnje devojcice ciji je otac pilot i sada se nalazi nadomak Avganistana. U pismu ona kaze da voli svog oca, ali ako njena zemlja trazi njegovu smrt, ona je spremna da svog oca zrtvuje za svoju zemlju. Predsednik Bus je rekao da je to americki patriotizam. Ali hajde da napravimo mali mentalni eksperiment. Zamislite da to kaze avganistanska devojcica. Mi bismo odmah rekli: kakav cinizam, kakav fundamentalizam, kakva manipulacija malom decom! Dakle, nesto je i do nase percepcije. Mi na neki nacin radimo ono sto nas sokira kod drugih.

MULTIKULTURALIZAM I FUNDAMENTALIZAM

* Dakle, multikulturalizam i fundamentalizam mogu da budu dve strane iste medalje?

- Protiv tolerancije se ne moze nista reci. Ali kada prihvatite tu multikulturalisticku toleranciju vi sa njom prihvatate i mnogo drugih stvari. Simptomaticno je da je multikulturalizam ekplodirao upravo u onom istorijskom trenutku kada su iz politickog prostora nestali i poslednji tragovi politike koja se bavila radnickom klasom. Za mnoge bivse levicare multikulturalizam je neka vrsta erzaca za tu politiku. Ne znamo da li radnicka klasa zaista jos uvek postoji, pa zato hajde da govorimo o ekploataciji drugog.
S druge strane, nije li tuzno i tragicno sto su desnicarski populisti jedini relativno snazan politicki pokret koji se jos uvek direktno obraca radnicima? Zan Mari Lepen u Francuskoj, na primer. Bio sam sokiran kada sam pre tri godine, na kongresu Nacionalnog fronta, video kako je na podijum doveo crnog Francuza, Alzirca i Jevreja, zagrlio ih i rekao: "Oni nisu nista manje Francuzi nego ja, moji jedini neprijatelji su medjunarodne kompanije koje zanemaruju francuske patriotske interese!"
Dakle, cena takvog obrta je to da samo desnicari i dalje govore o ekonomskoj ekploataciji. Druga stvar koja mi smeta u toj multikulturalnoj toleranciji je to sto je cesto licemerna - drugi, kojeg ona tolerise, vec je redukovani drugi. Drugi je u redu, sve dok je rec samo o hrani, kulturi ili plesu. Ali sta je sa kliteroktomijom? Moji prijatelji koji kazu: "Moramo postovati hinduse". Ali sta je sa onim starim hindu obicajem da se zena spali kada joj muz umre? Da li i to postujemo? Na tom mestu se javljaju problemi. Jos vazniji je problem to sto pojam tolerancije efektivno maskira svoju suprotnost, netoleranciju. Time se cesto bavim u mojim knjigama: kada posmatramo iz liberalne perspektive, osnovna percepcija drugog ljudskog bica je uvek percepcija necega sto na neki nacin moze da nas povredi.

SKRIVENA AGRESIJA

* Da li mislite na ono sto mi sada zovemo kulturom zrtve?

- Diskurs viktimizacije je takoreci dominantan diskurs danasnjice. Mozete biti zrtva okoline, pusenja, seksualnog uznemiravanja. Smatram da je tuzno to redukovanje subjekta na zrtvu. Tuzno je zato sto krije ekstremno narcisticki pojam licnosti i zapravo je netolerantan utoliko sto govori da vise nismo u stanju da tolerisemo nasilne susrete sa drugima - a susreti sa drugima su uvek nasilni.

* Kako to mislite?

- Dozvolite mi da se na trenutak pozabavim seksualnim uznemiravanjem. Naravno da sam protiv toga, ali budimo iskreni: recimo da me neko strasno privlaci, da sam zaljubljen, ili nesto tako, u nekog drugog coveka, i da izjavljujem ljubav i strast koju gajim za njega ili nju - u tome uvek ima neceg sokantnog i nasilnog. Ovo vam mozda zvuci kao sala, ali nije. Igra erotskog zavodjenja nikada ne moze da bude politicki korektna. Postoji momenat nasilja u izjavi "volim te, zelim te", i taj nasilni aspekt se ni na koji nacin ne moze zaobici. Tako da ja cak mislim da strah od seksualnog uznemiravanja ukljucuje i ovaj aspekt, strah od isuvise nasilnog, isuvise otvorenog susreta sa drugim ljudskim bicem.
Jos jedna stvar me muci u vezi sa multikulturalizmom. Kada me ljudi pitaju kako mozes biti siguran da nisi rasista, ja im odgovaram da postoji samo jedan nacin da se to utvrdi. Nema rasizma ako mogu da razmenim uvrede, brutalne sale i bezobrazne viceve sa pripadnikom druge rase, i da pritom oboje znamo da to nije rasizam. Tome nasuprot, ova politicki korektna igra - "O, ja vas postujem, kako su zanimljivi vasi obicaji" - samo je invertovani rasizam i to je odvratno. U Jugoslovenskoj vojsci svi smo bili iz razlicitih nacija. Kako sam se sprijateljio sa Albancima? Tako sto smo poceli da razmenjujemo opscenosti, beozobrazluke i erotske sale. Ali, politicki korektno postovanje je upravo, kao sto je Frojd rekao, zielgehemmt. U njemu uvek ima skrivene agresije prema drugome.

AKO ZAISTA VOLIS...

- Mislim da postoji nesto sto je mera prave ljubavi: mozete uvrediti drugog. Kao u groznoj nemackoj komediji iz 1943. godine u kojej se Marika Rek brutalno odnosi prema svom vereniku. Njen verenik je bogat i znacajan, pa je otac pita zasto se tako ponasa. A ona daje pravi odgovor i kaze: "Ja ga volim, i posto ga volim, ja sa njim mogu da radim sta zelim". Ako zaista volis, mozes da kazes stravicne stvari i sve moze da prodje.
Kada vam multikulturalisti kazu da treba da postujete druge, uvek me prodje jeza jer mi je prva asocijacija da je to slicno onome kako se odnosimo prema deci. Decu treba da postujemo cak i kada znamo da nije tacno ono u sta oni veruju. Ne treba da unistavamo njihove iluzije. Ne, ja mislim da drugi zasluzuju bolje, da ih ne treba tretirati kao decu.

* U knjizi o subjektu govorite o "pravom univerzalizmu" kao necemu sto je suprotno laznom pojmu globalne harmonije. Na sta ste mislili?

- Sada moram sebi da postavim jednostavno habermasovsko pitanje: kako u iskustvu nalazimo temelj univerzalnosti? Naravno, ne prihvatam postmodernu igru koja kaze da svako od nas nastanjuje svoj zaseban univerzum. Verujem da postoji univerzalnost. Ali ne verujem u neka apriori univerzalna ili fundamentalna pravila, ili u univerzalne pojmove. Jedina prava univezalnost koja nam je dostupna jeste politicka univerzalnost - a to nije solidarnost u nekom apstraktnom, univerzalistickom smislu, vec solidarnost u borbi. Ako smo angazovani u istoj borbi i ako otkrijemo, a to je za mene autentnicni momenat solidarnosti, da smo istovremeno feministi i ekolozi, ili feministi i radnici, onda odjednom shvatimo: "Mi vodimo istu bitku!" Ta politicka univerzalnsot je jedina autenticna univerzalnost i to je ono sto nam danas nedostaje, zato sto je politika danas sve vise politika pukog pregovaranja ciji je cilj kompromis izmedju razlicitih stanovista.

NOVE NESLOBODE

* U poslednje vreme se mnogo govori o slobodi. Sta vi na to kazete?

- Ja mislim da ono sto se danas prodaje kao sloboda jeste nesto iz cega je vec uklonjena radikalna dimenzija slobode i demokratije. Drugim recima, vise ne vlada uverenje da sto vise ljudi, da vecina treba da razmatra osnovna drustvena pitanja i da o njima donosi odluke. U tom smislu mi danas nemamo stvarno iskustvo slobode. Nasa sloboda je sve vise svedena na slobodu da se izabere stil zivota. Cak u odredjenoj meri mozete izabrati svoj etnicki identitet. Pogledajte Bosnu u kojoj ima mnogo mesovitih porodica. Kada je izbio rat, ti ljudi su morali da odluce da li su Srbi, Hrvati ili Muslimani. To nije uvek bila stvar genetike, morali ste da odaberete.
Onaj novi svet slobode - koji opisuju ljudi kao sto je Ulrih Bek, koji kaze da je danas sve stvar pregovaranja i slobodnog izbora - moze da ukljuci i nove neslobode. Na primer, znamo da je danas veoma tesko u raznim profesijama dobiti posao na duzi rok. Profesori i novinari, na primer, cesto sklapaju dvogodisnje ili trogodisnje ugovore, po cijem isteku moraju da ponovo pregovaraju o poslu. Za mnoge je traumaticno sto nikada ne mogu da budu sigurni. Ali onda evo ga postmoderni ideolog koji kaze: "O, pa to je samo nova vrsta slobode. Svake dve godine mozete sebe ponovo stvoriti!"
Za mene predstavlja problem to kako je nesloboda skrivena upravo u onome sto nam se danas predstavlja kao nova sloboda. Mislim da je eksplozija tih novih sloboda, koje spadaju u domen onoga sto je Misel Fuko nazvao "brigom o samome sebi", ukljucuje vecu socijalnu neslobodu. Pre dvadeset ili trideset godina jos uvek se raspravljalo o tome da li ce buducnost biti fasisticka, socijalisticka, komunisticka ili kapitalisticka. Danas o tome niko vise ni ne raspravlja. Ti temeljni izbori se vise ne percipiraju kao stvar o kojoj se odlucuje. Izvesni domeni radikalnih socijalnih pitanja su naprosto depolitizovani. Smatram da je veoma tuzno sto upravo u eri u kojoj dolazi do velikih promena, i u kojoj se zaista pomeraju fundamentalne socijalne koordinate, mi te stvari vise ne dozivljavamo kao nesto o cemu slobodno odlucujemo.

RAT KAO SEPKTAKULARAN DOGADjAJ

* Vratimo se onda na 11. septembar. Da li sada dozivljavamo neobicnu vrstu rata za koji se kaze da ce trajati jos dugo vremena? Sta vi mislite o razvoju dogadjaja?

- Ne slazem se potpuno sa onima koji tvrde da su napadi na Svetski trgovinski centar bili pocetak prvog rata XXI veka. Mislim da je ovo rat XX veka u tom smislu sto je to jos uvek pojedinacan, spektakularan dogadjaj. Novi ratovi ce biti takvi da nam nece biti jasno da li je rat ili nije, na neki nacin svi cemo dalje ziveti i znacemo da smo u ratu.
Zabrinjava me to sto su mnogi Amerikanci ove napade doziveli kao nesto sto ih je ucinilo nevinima. Ranije je bilo problematicnih stvari, Vijetnam i tako dalje, ali sada smo mi zrtve i zato je legitimno da se potpuno identifikujemo sa americkim patriotizmom. To je riskantan gest. Amerikanci imaju alternativu o kojoj je nedavno pisao moj prijatelj Arijel Dorfman: "Amerika ima sansu da postane clan Zajednice naroda. Amerika se uvek ponasa kao da je ona nesto posebno. Ona bi ovaj napad trebalo da iskoristi kao sansu da prizna da nije nesto posebno, vec da je jednostavno deo ovog sveta. To je velika sansa za nju."
Ima neceg uznemirujuce tragicnog u tome sto je najbogatija zemlja na svetu bombardovala jednu od najsiromasnijih zemalja. To me podseca na poznati vic o idiotu koji je kljuc izgubio u mraku, a trazi ga ispod sijalice. Kada ga pitaju zasto to radi, on kaze: znam da sam ga tamo izgubio, ali ovde mi je lakse da ga trazim.
Ali moram priznati da me je duboko razocarala i levica. Vracanje na sigurno pacifisticko stanoviste - nasilje nikada ne zaustavlja nasilje, dajte sansu miru - suvise je apstraktno i ovde nije od pomoci. Najpre zato sto nije univerzalno pravilo. Moje levicarske prijatelje, koji ponavljaju tu mantru, uvek pitam sta bi 1941. godine rekli Hitleru. Da li bi i tada rekli da ne treba da se opiremo zato sto nasilje nikada ne pomaze? Jednostavna je cinjenica da u nekom trenutku morate uci u borbu i da na nasilje nekad morate odgovoriti nasiljem. U tome ne vidim nikakav problem.
Suoceni smo sa izazovom da ponovo razmislimo o nasim koordinatama i nadam se da ce to biti pozitivan rezultat ovog tragicnog dogadjaja. Nadam se da ga necemo iskoristiti samo za to uradimo jos vise istog, vec da razmislimo sta je to sto se zaista menja u nasem svetu. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:09:39 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: dobro se Zizek setio http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k194085
A sad, ovo sto si pricao.

"Dogovorni razlaz bio je malo moguć" kažeš. Da li to onda znači da nije bilo Miloševića mi bi i danas živeli u zajednici koja se održava samo zbog straha da je razlaz nužno nasilan? Kakv je to zajednica i da li bi to stvarno bilo tako. Da bi Hrvatska i Slovenija do veka bile u zortu od rata i zbog toga ostale u Jugoslaviji? Ja mislim da ne.

Drugo, "tek sa dolaskom Miloševića u Srbiji dolazi i do erupcije nacionalizma na sve strane." Ovo ti je tipična ideološka rečenica. Otkud ti znaš da je ovaj vremenski sled bio istovremeno i uzročni sled? Otkud znaš da je nešto što je radio Milošević uzrokovalo da neko radi nešto u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji? Možda je taj to ionako hteo da radi a ovo sa Miloševićem mu je dobrodošlo kao izgovor? Uzrošno-posledične veze u istoriji uspostavljene bez velikkih ograda i uslovnosti samo su sredstvo ideologije.

Najzad, ove stvari koje ti navodis ja naravno znam. Ali mislim da MIloševićeve smicalice i planovi ne bi imali nikakvog efekta da su Hrvatska i Slovenija rešile da recimo one umesto Srbije budu stožer okupljanja Jugoslavije. Ali one to nisu htele.

Osim svega ovoga, ne vidim da si igde opovrgao moje primedbe o širem kontekstu u kome se sve dešava i u kome se Miloševićeve smicalice čine još nevažnije.

Da zaključim, svaljivanje isključive krivice na Miloševića za ovo ili ono nije ništa drugo nego zastupanje onoga što je u interesu drugih strana u tom sporu. Ono samo nastalo je isključćivo iz tih razloga. To ne znači da MIlošević nije radio mnogo toga lošeg, ali to loše ne izvinjava nikoga za ono što je on radio, to loše je deo konteksta u kome i drugi imaju svoje nezavisne želje a nisu samo objekti zlog Miloševića.

Ja znam da ti ponavljas ono sto ponavlja njih još milion, ali to nije znak da je to tačno, Znak da je tačno to što ti tvrdis, bio bi da možeš da nevedes argumente koji bi bili konkluzivni protiv ovoga gore.

poz ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:53:27 GMT ogar http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k194080 Drugo, za razliku od ostalih postmodernih filozofa cije su vencane zene po pravilu najruznije od svih zena u njihovom okruzenju, Zizekova je najlepsa (22-godisnja cerka argentinskih lakanovaca-psihoanaliticara.)

Drugim recima, Zizekova filozofija funkcionise.

]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:47:57 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193908 http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:02:37 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193895
G r o f i c a

Vanja Montenegro LjujicOdakle ovolika doza netrpeljivosti prema Zizeku? Gde su argumenti? Da bi se jedan filozof kritikovao mora se najpre citati, right? Ne mislim da je bila namera autora ovog posta da pokrene gossip o Zizekovim zenama. Vanja, ne radi se o prekomernoj dozi ''netrpeljivosti'' prema Zizeku. On samo ne mora da bude izbor svake dame.:)))Ima nas koji preferiramo druge filozofe, one koji stvarno imaju nesto da kazu.

Ali, nikako da shvatimo ko su dotični. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:45:58 GMT apatrid http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193815 Zizek po pravilu izaziva burne reakcije, kao sto je vec rekao neko od blogera. U Srbiji, medjutim, jedina reakcija na Slavoja Zizeka jeste cutanje ili, bolje, precutkivanje. Ali, ne moram Vas da podsecam koliko je cutanje recito ili koliko tisina govori... sve su to varijacije na Vama dobro poznatu temu....

Mislite na ono "...nema govora bez odgovora, čak ako ga dočekuje samo ćutanje...."?


Mislim, takodje, na ono "da ce secanje na onaj drugi dogadjaj ostati veoma zivo cak i pod cenzurom - isto kao sto je prisilna amnezija jedna od najzivljih formi secanja - sve dok bude bilo ljudi koji svoj revolt budu stavljali u sluzbu borbe za politicku vlast proletarijata, odnosno ljudi za koje ce kljucne reci dijalektickog materijalizma imati smisao." ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:44:51 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193801
Marko Ristic
Dusane,Imam utisak da je Vas post mnogo bolje posecen nego sto to cifre govore. Pogledajte naslove koji su usledili odmah posle Vaseg " Zizek o Kosovu, Srbima i Albancima":"Blogorama o muskarcima, zenama i odlucivanju" i zatim,"Srbi o Kosovu i Evropi".Ne znam kako treba da tumacim ovu upadljivu homologiju, osim kao odgovor na Vas post, odnosno na Zizekovu pojavu.

Mislite na ono "...nema govora bez odgovora, čak ako ga dočekuje samo ćutanje...."?

]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:37:34 GMT Dušan Maljković http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193740 Dusane,

Imam utisak da je Vas post mnogo bolje posecen nego sto to cifre govore. Pogledajte naslove koji su usledili odmah posle Vaseg " Zizek o Kosovu, Srbima i Albancima":

"Blogorama o muskarcima, zenama i odlucivanju" i zatim,

"Srbi o Kosovu i Evropi".

Ne znam kako treba da tumacim ovu upadljivu homologiju, osim kao odgovor na Vas post, odnosno na Zizekovu pojavu.

P.S.

Zizek po pravilu izaziva burne reakcije, kao sto je vec rekao neko od blogera. U Srbiji, medjutim, jedina reakcija na Slavoja Zizeka jeste cutanje ili, bolje, precutkivanje. Ali, ne moram Vas da podsecam koliko je cutanje recito ili koliko tisina govori... sve su to varijacije na Vama dobro poznatu temu.... ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:09:08 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193722
Imam utisak da je Vas post mnogo bolje posecen nego sto to cifre govore. Pogledajte naslove koji su usledili odmah posle Vaseg " Zizek o Kosovu, Srbima i Albancima":

"Blogorama o muskarcima, zenama i odlucivanju" i zatim,

"Srbi o Kosovu i Evropi".

Ne znam kako treba da tumacim ovu upadljivu homologiju, osim kao odgovor na Vas post, odnosno na Zizekovu pojavu. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:59:02 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: u komunista nema mantri http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k193328 Kako to da mi se dasi? Nema goreg njesra nego kad propustis dobru zurku. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:02:15 GMT Dejan Stanković http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: A http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192999
leto dijalektike
Hegel, Grofice?Iako veliki poklonik francuske revolucije, prevodilac Marseljeze na nemacki, dijalekticar, pouzdano je zabelezno da je bio dete finog burzoaskog bekgraunda i vlasnik jos finijih manira ( pijenje piva sa studentima i jedenje pasulja po kojima je bio poznat se, recimo, ne racuna :)
Thanks.:) Gde bas njega da zaboravim? :))) ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:29:51 GMT G r o f i c a http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: dobro se Zizek setio http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192991
ogar
artikulisi se argumentima, kao sto vidis ja tvrdim jedno a ti drugo, ako vec hoces da pobijas ovo moje treba ti nova tvrdnja kao argument. Dakle, zasto mislis da bi hrvatska i slovenija ostale u Jugoslaviji da nije bilo milosevica, kad cak ni ceska i slovacka nisu ostale zajedno, npr? A tamo nije bilo nikakvog Milosevica.

"Artrikulisati se sa argumentima" u ovom konkretnom slučaju znači prepričavati i analizati situaciju u SFRJ od Osme sednice naovamo. Mislio sam da je to, pored ovolikog bavljenja tim periodom, nepotrebno. Ali, ukratko:
Slovenija i Hrvatska su bile dve članice federacije, ostalo je četiri. U to doba jednostavno nije bilo moguće reći jednostavno "odosmo mi". Zašto nije bilo moguće i zašto celu ovu situaciju ne bi trebalo vezivati za Čehoslovačku? Zbog okolnosti koje su postojale (broj članica, više nacionalnosti uključenih u krizu, veličina zemlje etc etc etc) dogovorni razlaz poput Češke i Slovačke je bio nalo moguć. To je okvir u kome se krećemo, da ne obrazlažem dalje.
Dalje, veoma bitno: ne kažem da nacionalizmi nisu postojali i pre Miloševića, Tuđmana i tako redom Postojali su, naravno. Imali su svoje plime i oseke u zavisnosti da li je SFRJ bila u krizi, koliko duboko i kakva kriza je u pitanju. Ali, tek sa dolaskom Miloševića u Srbiji dolazi i do erupcije nacionalizma na sve strane. Kako, pitaš se? Evo - Milošević je svoj uspon gradio na dva mita: Kosovskom i onom koji je govorio da zapadne republike (a pogotovo Slovenija) ekonomski iskorišćavaju Srbiju. Plan je bio da preuzme saveznu vlast kroz unutarpartijski udar sprovođenjem plana koji se zvao "jedan čovek - jedan glas" i koji je u krajnjoj konsekvenci imao dominaciju Srbije kao najbrojnije republike sa najviše članova u SKJ, samim tim uništenje federalizma i stvaranje unitarne države što je bio pokušaj državnog udara. Plan nije prošao na XII Kongresu i SKJ se raspao. Korošec i Slovenci su napustili Kongres, za njima delegati iz Hrvatske. Druge dve savezne institucije su bile JNA koju je, na samom kraju Mlošević preuzeo i njome manipulisao. Treća, NBJ je pala još pre vojske: Milošević je poslao naoružane bandite-policajce koji su, jednostavno, preneli rezerve u NBS. Ovo su bili potezi na koje se u tadašnjoj Srbiji gledalo sa većinskim odobravanjem, a u ostalim sredinama sa većinskim neodobravanjem. I tako dalje i tako dalje. Mnogo toga ima i zaista nije moguće na blogu u komentarima obrazlagati to, ja mislim da ove stvari treba da se znaju ako hoćeš da analiziraš taj period i njegove procese.
Dalje, nadam se, znaš i sam.
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:18:36 GMT apatrid http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192958
Dušan Maljković
Ne kaže da je Žižek kapitalista alias da poseduje sredstva za proizvodnju, već kaže da Žižek živi kao kapitalista, cilja se na njegov lifestyle. Meni je nejasno šta bi bili zajednički imenitelji životnog stila svih kapitalista -- tvrdim da tako nešto ni ne postoji, a prethodno takođe ne treba brkati ni sa "kapitalističkim životnim stilom", koji opet nije najjasnija odrednica.

Jasno mi je. Malo šale nije na odmet (za odmetnike ) ). ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:51:30 GMT apatrid http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: ni presao ni stigao http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192946 Wow Adi al' si ti mudar i pametan ... bas ti hvala sto si mi razjasnio
Smesno je tako kritikovati jednog od najvecih naucnika 20. veka i vodecih intelektualaca danasnjice

Pa kad je razjašnjenje bilo preko potrebno
ps. A 'el smem i dalje da mesam tebe i ovog Joshku?

Vidim ja, Vaso, da ti se sve pomešalo ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:40:07 GMT adam weisphaut http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: ni presao ni stigao http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192938
adam weisphaut
P.S. ne mešaj Čomskog kao lingvistu i Čomskog kao političkog autora, nije isto.

Wow Adi al' si ti mudar i pametan ... bas ti hvala sto si mi razjasnio

ps. A 'el smem i dalje da mesam tebe i ovog Joshku? ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:31:24 GMT Virtuelni Vasilije http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: ni presao ni stigao http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192915 Smesno je tako kritikovati jednog od najvecih naucnika 20. veka i vodecih intelektualaca danasnjice sa stanovista ostrascenih balkanskih politickih opcija
Ali nije smešno reći da Čomski pripada grupi onih koji sve sagledavaju kroz prizmu U.S. spoljne politike kao "carstva zla" pa bi se moglo reći da je i on malo više "ostrašćen" što bi se i za tebe moglo reći na osnovu:
lepse bi ti stajalo da si u tvom nicku to "josip broz" zamenio sa "alija izetbegovic", "franjo tudjman" ili "wesley clark"

P.S. ne mešaj Čomskog kao lingvistu i Čomskog kao političkog autora, nije isto. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:03:27 GMT adam weisphaut http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: ni presao ni stigao http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192897
josip broz dobar skroz
Chomski je poznat i po hvaljenju Miloševića i ne predstavlja nikakav politički faktor. ..

E Joschka,

lepse bi ti stajalo da si u tvom nicku to "josip broz" zamenio sa "alija izetbegovic", "franjo tudjman" ili "wesley clark" ... Nije Chomsky hvalio Milosevica nego je kao pametan covek jednostavno poricao utemeljenost mnogih optuzbi na racun Milosevica (posebno onih haskih) iz prostog razloga sto je njihova svrha i bila da Milosevic bude optuzen i za krivicu pomenute gospode.

Smesno je tako kritikovati jednog od najvecih naucnika 20. veka i vodecih intelektualaca danasnjice sa stanovista ostrascenih balkanskih politickih opcija ... to moze da prodje samo na tvom partijskom sastanku... ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:44 GMT Virtuelni Vasilije http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: A http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192846 Hegel, Grofice?

Iako veliki poklonik francuske revolucije, prevodilac Marseljeze na nemacki, "dijalekticar", pouzdano je zabelezno da je bio dete finog burzoaskog bekgraunda i vlasnik jos finijih manira ( pijenje piva sa studentima i jedenje pasulja po kojima je bio poznat se, recimo, ne racuna :)
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:36:46 GMT leto dijalektike http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: ................. http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192773
gagonja
pametan covek slavoj
??????? covek aleksandar

pametan ????? aleksandar, da budemo precizni.. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:00:40 GMT medjutim http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: A ima ih i http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192771 koji su p-ostali kriticari drustvene stvarnosti pod stare dane



N.B. "Kurziv je moj"

N.N.B. Ogradjujem se unapred od nesporazuma sa jezickim i drugim cistuncima , a u vezi sa prelascima, dolascima, silascima autora u polje politicke teorije ili jos bolje , ovakvog, politickog vizionarstva. S obzirom da je Ajnstajn imao 70 godina kada je pisao sledece redove, moze se bez senke sumnje zakljuciti da je par godina pred smrt presao u marksiste (deo u kurzivu je direktno inspirisan Marksovim analizama) ili da je to oduvek bio.

N.N.N.B. Postoje nagadjanja, doduse ne i neosnovana, da je clanak pisan u klimi opsteg Makartzima i "crvenog terora", trebalo da nosi naziv " Zasto komunizam?" , ali da je Ajnstajn, covek sa preko 1000 stranica FBI dosijea odlucio da u sveprisutnoj anti-komunistickoj paranoji ( koja btw nije nikada prestala) sebi za dlaku olaksa zivot. Sustina je reklo bi se , ipak, ostala nepreimenovana.



Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:58:03 GMT leto dijalektike http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Shta je Zizek zapravo hteo da kaze? http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192767
Hvala, ne bih da se vadim na bolest, ali recimo da sam zbog toga potpuno pogresno razumeo sta ste hteli da kazete :)
Pozdrav ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:52:01 GMT Matija M. http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192754 Vas poslednji veliki filozof je umro 1951. Molim vas, gde su oni potonji, Foucault , Derrida...?

He, Vanja, tek sada vidim da ni vasi nisu mnogo mladji, Foucault je rodjen 1930 a ni Derida nije bio bas mnogo mladji iako je umro tek 2000.g.. Dajte Vi neke Vase mladje i zbog cega.

pozz. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:40:48 GMT G r o f i c a http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192749
Vas poslednji veliki filozof je umro 1951. Molim vas, gde su oni potonji, Foucault , Derrida...?
Boze, tek sada vidim koliko ima sati! Bezim. Laku noc!


Pa lepo sam rekla da ima jos.
A bilo je i kasno.:))))))))) ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:35:10 GMT G r o f i c a http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192687
G r o f i c a
Ali i dalje ne nameravate da nam otvorite oci?Dobro, kad ste vec navalili, evo nekoliko i zasto bas oni;Pythagoras (kazao je da stvarnost ima deset strana, zabranio da se jede pasulj zato sto preseceno zrno pasulja lici na zacetak ljudskog zivota :)Socrates (uvek bio oskudno obucen, hodao bosonog i znao je jedino da nista ne zna.:)Plato (rodjen od aristokratskih roditelja, uzasavao se politickog nereda i znao je da dobra vlast nikada ne bi osudila coveka kao sto je Socrates) Aristoteles (stajao obema nogama na zemlji, znao je da hrastovo drvo moze da izraste iz jednog zira iako citava hrpa padne na plodno tlo)Descartes (bio sumnjicav, njegove oci su videle velike stvari kao male u daljini, pitao se da li on stvarno postoji jer je to mogao da bude i san jednog sanjanog coveculjka)Spinoza (bio ljubazan covek sa manirima, odbio prijem na univerzitet jer nije hteo da se odrekne svojih ideja, nije naplacivao za svoj talenat, ziveo je od ostrenja sociva, ziveo od SVOJE filozofije zbog cega su ga mnogi mrzeli sto su mu jedino i mogli)Kant (covek od navika, sve radio u isto vreme pa cak i setao uvek u isto vreme, ziveo izuzetno mirno cak i usporeno)Nietsche (smatrao je da hriscanska vera oduzima ljudima mogucnost da budu najbolji i da ljudi nisu stvoreni kao isti)Wittgenstein (imao ambicija da filozofiju privede kraju i cinilo mu se da je to 2x i uspeo. Bio je smeo, brilijantan, sarmantan, arogantan, kratak i jasan, govornik…njegova filozofija je bila pre konfuzna nego bezgresna. Bio je ustvari dva filozofa koja su se medjusobno slagala. Casove je davao u lezecem stavu sto ga je cinilo posebnim .:)A ima jos.:)))

Vas poslednji veliki filozof je umro 1951. Molim vas, gde su oni potonji, Foucault , Derrida...?
Boze, tek sada vidim koliko ima sati! Bezim. Laku noc!


]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:04:33 GMT Vanja Montenegro Ljujic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192685 http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:56:04 GMT nsarski http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Zizek angst http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192676 Ali i dalje ne nameravate da nam otvorite oci?
Dobro, kad ste vec navalili, evo nekoliko i zasto bas oni;

Pythagoras (kazao je da stvarnost ima deset strana, zabranio da se jede pasulj zato sto preseceno zrno pasulja lici na zacetak ljudskog zivota :)

Socrates (uvek bio oskudno obucen, hodao bosonog i znao je jedino da nista ne zna.:)

Plato (rodjen od aristokratskih roditelja, uzasavao se politickog nereda i znao je da dobra vlast nikada ne bi osudila coveka kao sto je Socrates)

Aristoteles (stajao obema nogama na zemlji, znao je da hrastovo drvo moze da izraste iz jednog zira iako citava hrpa padne na plodno tlo)

Descartes (bio sumnjicav, njegove oci su videle velike stvari kao male u daljini, pitao se da li on stvarno postoji jer je to mogao da bude i san jednog sanjanog coveculjka)

Spinoza (bio ljubazan covek sa manirima, odbio prijem na univerzitet jer nije hteo da se odrekne svojih ideja, nije naplacivao za svoj talenat, ziveo je od ostrenja sociva, ziveo od SVOJE filozofije zbog cega su ga mnogi mrzeli sto su mu jedino i mogli)

Kant (covek od navika, sve radio u isto vreme pa cak i setao uvek u isto vreme, ziveo izuzetno mirno cak i usporeno)

Nietsche (smatrao je da hriscanska vera oduzima ljudima mogucnost da budu najbolji i da ljudi nisu stvoreni kao isti)

Wittgenstein (imao ambicija da filozofiju privede kraju i cinilo mu se da je to 2x i uspeo. Bio je smeo, brilijantan, sarmantan, arogantan, kratak i jasan, govornik…njegova filozofija je bila pre konfuzna nego bezgresna. Bio je ustvari dva filozofa koja su se medjusobno slagala. Casove je davao u lezecem stavu sto ga je cinilo posebnim .:)

A ima jos.:)))
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:35:21 GMT G r o f i c a http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192672 Fizika i metafizika, Fizika i filozofija) -- to bolje znate od mene. To što Hoking vrlo površno otpisuje filozofiju u Kratkoj istoriji vremena ne treba da vas zavede -- nije najbolje upoznat sa materijom... ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:31:05 GMT Dušan Maljković http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192671 SLAVOJ ZIZEK
London Review of Books, 23 May 2002

When Donald Rumsfeld designated the imprisoned Taliban fighters 'unlawful combatants' (as opposed to 'regular' prisoners of war), he did not simply mean that their criminal terrorist activity placed them outside the law: when an American citizen commits a crime, even one as serious as murder, he remains a 'lawful criminal'. The distinction between criminals and non-criminals has no relation to that between 'lawful' citizens and the people referred to in France as the 'Sans Papiers'. Perhaps the category of homo sacer, brought back into use by Giorgio Agamben in Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998), is more useful here. It designated, in ancient Roman law, someone who could be killed with impunity and whose death had, for the same reason, no sacrificial value. Today, as a term denoting exclusion, it can be seen to apply not only to terrorists, but also to those who are on the receiving end of humanitarian aid (Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghans), as well as to the Sans Papiers in France and the inhabitants of the favelas in Brazil or the African American ghettoes in the US.

Concentration camps and humanitarian refugee camps are, paradoxically, the two faces, 'inhuman' and 'human', of one sociological matrix. Asked about the German concentration camps in occupied Poland, 'Concentration Camp' Erhardt (in Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be) snaps back: 'We do the concentrating, and the Poles do the camping.' A similar distinction applies to the Enron bankruptcy, which can be seen as an ironic comment on the notion of a risk society. Thousands of employees who lost their jobs and savings were certainly exposed to a risk, but without having any real choice: what was risk to those in the know was blind fate to them. Those who did have a sense of the risks, the top managers, also had a chance to intervene in the situation, but chose instead to minimise the risk to themselves by cashing in their stocks and options before the bankruptcy - actual risks and choices were thus nicely distributed. In the risk society, in other words, some (the Enron managers) have the choices, while others (the employees) take the risks.

The logic of homo sacer is clearly discernible in the way the Western media report from the occupied West Bank: when the Israeli Army, in what Israel itself describes as a 'war' operation, attacks the Palestinian police and sets about systematically destroying the Palestinian infrastructure, Palestinian resistance is cited as proof that we are dealing with terrorists. This paradox is inscribed into the very notion of a 'war on terror' - a strange war in which the enemy is criminalised if he defends himself and returns fire with fire. Which brings me back to the 'unlawful combatant', who is neither enemy soldier nor common criminal. The al-Qaida terrorists are not enemy soldiers, nor are they simple criminals - the US rejected out of hand any notion that the WTC attacks should be treated as apolitical criminal acts. In short, what is emerging in the guise of the Terrorist on whom war is declared is the unlawful combatant, the political Enemy excluded from the political arena.

This is another aspect of the new global order: we no longer have wars in the old sense of a conflict between sovereign states in which certain rules apply (to do with the treatment of prisoners, the prohibition of certain weapons etc). Two types of conflict remain: struggles between groups of homo sacer - 'ethnic-religious conflicts' which violate the rules of universal human rights, do not count as wars proper, and call for a 'humanitarian pacifist' intervention on the part of the Western powers - and direct attacks on the US or other representatives of the new global order, in which case, again, we do not have wars proper, but merely 'unlawful combatants' resisting the forces of universal order. In this second case, one cannot even imagine a neutral humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross mediating between the warring parties, organising an exchange of prisoners and so on, because one side in the conflict - the US-dominated global force - has already assumed the role of the Red Cross, in that it does not perceive itself as one of the warring sides, but as a mediating agent of peace and global order, crushing rebellion and, simultaneously, providing humanitarian aid to the 'local population'.

This weird 'coincidence of opposites' reached its peak when, a few months ago, Harald Nesvik, a right-wing member of the Norwegian Parliament, proposed George W. Bush and Tony Blair as candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing their decisive role in the 'war on terror'. Thus the Orwellian motto 'War is Peace' finally becomes reality, and military action against the Taliban can be presented as a way to guarantee the safe delivery of humanitarian aid. We no longer have an opposition between war and humanitarian aid: the same intervention can function at both levels simultaneously. The toppling of the Taliban regime is presented as part of the strategy to help the Afghan people oppressed by the Taliban; as Tony Blair said, we may have to bomb the Taliban in order to secure food transportation and distribution. Perhaps the ultimate image of the 'local population' as homo sacer is that of the American war plane flying above Afghanistan: one can never be sure whether it will be dropping bombs or food parcels.

This concept of homo sacer allows us to understand the numerous calls to rethink the basic elements of contemporary notions of human dignity and freedom that have been put out since 11 September. Exemplary here is Jonathan Alter's Newsweek article 'Time to Think about Torture' (5 November 2001), with the ominous subheading: 'It's a new world, and survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question.' After flirting with the Israeli idea of legitimising physical and psychological torture in cases of extreme urgency (when we know a terrorist prisoner possesses information which may save hundreds of lives), and 'neutral' statements like 'Some torture clearly works,' it concludes:

"We can't legalise torture; it's contrary to American values. But even as we continue to speak out against human-rights abuses around the world, we need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism, like court-sanctioned psychological interrogation. And we'll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, even if that's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty."

The obscenity of such statements is blatant. First, why single out the WTC attack as justification? Have there not been more horrible crimes in other parts of the world in recent years? Secondly, what is new about this idea? The CIA has been instructing its Latin American and Third World military allies in the practice of torture for decades. Even the 'liberal' argument cited by Alan Dershowitz is suspect: 'I'm not in favour of torture, but if you're going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.' When, taking this line a step further, Dershowitz suggests that torture in the 'ticking clock' situation is not directed at the prisoner's rights as an accused person (the information obtained will not be used in the trial against him, and the torture itself would not formally count as punishment), the underlying premise is even more disturbing, implying as it does that one should be allowed to torture people not as part of a deserved punishment, but simply because they know something. Why not go further still and legalise the torture of prisoners of war who may have information which could save the lives of hundreds of our soldiers? If the choice is between Dershowitz's liberal 'honesty' and old-fashioned 'hypocrisy', we'd be better off sticking with 'hypocrisy'. I can well imagine that, in a particular situation, confronted with the proverbial 'prisoner who knows', whose words can save thousands, I might decide in favour of torture; however, even (or, rather, precisely) in a case such as this, it is absolutely crucial that one does not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle: given the unavoidable and brutal urgency of the moment, one should simply do it. Only in this way, in the very prohibition against elevating what we have done into a universal principle, do we retain a sense of guilt, an awareness of the inadmissibility of what we have done.

In short, every authentic liberal should see these debates, these calls to 'keep an open mind', as a sign that the terrorists are winning. And, in a way, essays like Alter's, which do not openly advocate torture, but just introduce it as a legitimate topic of debate, are even more dangerous than explicit endorsements. At this moment at least, explicitly endorsing it would be rejected as too shocking, but the mere introduction of torture as a legitimate topic allows us to court the idea while retaining a clear conscience. ('Of course I am against torture, but who is hurt if we just discuss it?') Admitting torture as a topic of debate changes the entire field, while outright advocacy remains merely idiosyncratic. The idea that, once we let the genie out of the bottle, torture can be kept within 'reasonable' bounds, is the worst liberal illusion, if only because the 'ticking clock' example is deceptive: in the vast majority of cases torture is not done in order to resolve a 'ticking clock' situation, but for quite different reasons (to punish an enemy or to break him down psychologically, to terrorise a population etc). Any consistent ethical stance has to reject such pragmatic-utilitarian reasoning. Here's a simple thought experiment: imagine an Arab newspaper arguing the case for torturing American prisoners; think of the explosion of comments about fundamentalist barbarism and disrespect for human rights that would cause.

When, at the beginning of April, the Americans got hold of Abu Zubaydah, presumed to be the second-in-command of al-Qaida, the question 'Should he be tortured?' was openly discussed in the media. In a statement broadcast by NBC on 5 April, Rumsfeld himself claimed that American lives were his first priority, not the human rights of a high-ranking terrorist, and attacked journalists for displaying such concern for Zubaydah's well-being, thus openly clearing the way for torture. Alan Dershowitz presented an even sorrier spectacle. His reservations concerned two particular points:

1. Zubaydah's is not a clear case of the 'ticking bomb' situation, i.e. it is not proven that he has the details of an imminent terrorist attack which could be prevented by gaining access to his knowledge through torture;

2. torturing him would not yet be legally covered - for that to happen, one would first have to engage in a public debate and then amend the US Constitution, while publicly proclaiming the respects in which the US would no longer follow the Geneva Convention regulating the treatment of enemy prisoners.

A notable precursor in this field of para-legal 'biopolitics', in which administrative measures are gradually replacing the rule of law, was Alfredo Stroessner's regime in Paraguay in the 1960s and 1970s, which took the logic of the state of exception to an absurd, still unsurpassed extreme. Under Stroessner, Paraguay was - with regard to its Constitutional order - a 'normal' parliamentary democracy with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed, we were all living in a state of emergency because of the worldwide struggle between freedom and Communism, the full implementation of the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state of emergency obtained. This state of emergency was suspended every four years for one day only, election day, to legitimise the rule of Stroessner's Colorado Party with a 90 per cent majority worthy of his Communist opponents. The paradox is that the state of emergency was the normal state, while 'normal' democratic freedom was the briefly enacted exception. This weird regime anticipated some clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies in the aftermath of 11 September.

Is today's rhetoric not that of a global emergency in the fight against terrorism, legitimising more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous aspect of John Ashcroft's recent claim that 'terrorists use America's freedom as a weapon against us' carries the obvious implication that we should limit our freedom in order to defend ourselves. Such statements from top American officials, especially Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, together with the explosive display of 'American patriotism' after 11 September, create the climate for what amounts to a state of emergency, with the occasion it supplies for a potential suspension of rule of law, and the state's assertion of its sovereignty without 'excessive' legal constraints. America is, after all, as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state of war. The problem is that America is, precisely, not in a state of war, at least not in the conventional sense of the term (for the large majority, daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive business of state agencies). With the distinction between a state of war and a state of peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering a time in which a state of peace can at the same time be a state of emergency.

Such paradoxes also provide the key to the way in which the liberal-totalitarian emergency represented by the 'war on terror' relates to the authentic revolutionary state of emergency, first articulated by St Paul in his reference to the 'end of time'. When a state institution proclaims a state of emergency, it does so by definition as part of a desperate strategy to avoid the true emergency and return to the 'normal course of things'. It is, you will recall, a feature of all reactionary proclamations of a 'state of emergency' that they were directed against popular unrest ('confusion') and presented as a resolve to restore normalcy. In Argentina, in Brazil, in Greece, in Chile, in Turkey, the military who proclaimed a state of emergency did so in order to curb the 'chaos' of overall politicisation. In short, reactionary proclamations of a state of emergency are in actuality a desperate defence against the real state of emergency.

There is a lesson to be learned here from Carl Schmitt. The division friend/enemy is never just a recognition of factual difference. The enemy is by definition always (up to a point) invisible: it cannot be directly recognised because it looks like one of us, which is why the big problem and task of the political struggle is to provide/construct a recognisable image of the enemy. (Jews are the enemy par excellence not because they conceal their true image or contours but because there is ultimately nothing behind their deceiving appearances. Jews lack the 'inner form' that pertains to any proper national identity: they are a non-nation among nations, their national substance resides precisely in a lack of substance, in a formless, infinite plasticity.) In short, 'enemy recognition' is always a performative procedure which brings to light/constructs the enemy's 'true face'. Schmitt refers to the Kantian category Einbildungskraft, the transcendental power of imagination: in order to recognise the enemy, one has to 'schematise' the logical figure of the Enemy, providing it with the concrete features which will make it into an appropriate target of hatred and struggle.

After the collapse of the Communist states which provided the figure of the Cold War Enemy, the Western imagination entered a decade of confusion and inefficiency, looking for suitable schematisations of the Enemy, sliding from narco-cartel bosses to the succession of warlords of so-called 'rogue states' (Saddam, Noriega, Aidid, Milosevic) without stabilising itself in one central image; only with 11 September did this imagination regain its power by constructing the image of bin Laden, the Islamic fundamentalist, and al-Qaida, his 'invisible' network. What this means, furthermore, is that our pluralistic and tolerant liberal democracies remain deeply Schmittean: they continue to rely on political Einbildungskraft to provide them with the appropriate figure to render visible the invisible Enemy. Far from suspending the binary logic Friend/Enemy, the fact that the Enemy is defined as the fundamentalist opponent of pluralistic tolerance merely adds a reflexive twist to it. This 'renormalisation' has involved the figure of the Enemy undergoing a fundamental change: it is no longer the Evil Empire, i.e. another territorial entity, but an illegal, secret, almost virtual worldwide network in which lawlessness (criminality) coincides with 'fundamentalist' ethico-religious fanaticism - and since this entity has no positive legal status, the new configuration entails the end of international law which, at least from the onset of modernity, regulated relations between states.

When the Enemy serves as the 'quilting point' (the Lacanian point de capiton) of our ideological space, it is in order to unify the multitude of our actual political opponents. Thus Stalinism in the 1930s constructed the agency of Imperialist Monopoly Capital to prove that Fascists and Social Democrats ('Social Fascists') are 'twin brothers', the 'left and right hand of monopoly capital'. Thus Nazism constructed the 'plutocratic-Bolshevik plot' as the common agent threatening the welfare of the German nation. Capitonnage is the operation by means of which we identify/construct a sole agency that 'pulls the strings' behind a multitude of opponents. Exactly the same holds for today's 'war on terror', in which the figure of the terrorist Enemy is also a condensation of two opposed figures, the reactionary 'fundamentalist' and the Leftist resistant. The title of Bruce Barcott's article in the New York Times Magazine on 7 April, 'From Tree-Hugger to Terrorist', says it all: the real danger isn't from the Rightist fundamentalists who were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing and, in all probability, for the anthrax scare, but the Greens, who have never killed anyone. The ominous feature underlying all these phenomena is the metaphoric universalisation of the signifier 'terror'. The message of the latest American TV campaign against drugs is: 'When you buy drugs, you provide money for the terrorists!' 'Terror' is thus elevated to become the hidden point of equivalence between all social evils. How, then, are we to break out of this predicament?

An epochal event took place in Israel in January and February: hundreds of reservists refused to serve in the Occupied Territories. These refuseniks are not simply 'pacifists': in their public proclamations, they are at pains to emphasise that they have done their duty in fighting for Israel in the wars against the Arab states, in which some of them were highly decorated. What they claim is that they cannot accept to fight 'in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people'. Their claims are documented by detailed descriptions of atrocities committed by the Israel Defence Forces, from the killing of children to the destruction of Palestinian property. Here is how an IDF sergeant, Gil Nemesh, reports on the 'nightmare reality in the territories' at the protesters' website (http://www.seruv.org.il/):

My friends - forcing an elderly man to disgrace himself, hurting children, abusing people for fun, and later bragging about it, laughing about this terrible brutality. I am not sure I still want to call them my friends ... They let themselves lose their humanity, not out of pure viciousness, but because dealing with it in any other way is too difficult.

Palestinians, and even Israeli Arabs (officially full citizens of Israel), are discriminated against in the allocation of water, in the ownership of land and countless other aspects of daily life. More important is the systematic micro-politics of psychological humiliation: Palestinians are treated, essentially, as evil children who have to be brought back to an honest life by stern discipline and punishment. Arafat, holed up and isolated in three rooms in his Ramallah compound, was requested to stop the terror as if he had full power over all Palestinians. There is a pragmatic paradox in the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian Authority (attacking it militarily, while at the same time requiring it to crack down on the terrorists in its own midst) by which the explicit message (the injunction to stop the terror) is subverted by the very mode of delivery of that message. Would it not be more honest to say that what is untenable about the Palestinian situation is that the PA is being asked by the Israelis to 'resist us, so that we can crush you'? In other words, what if the true aim of the present Israeli intrusion into Palestinian territory is not to prevent future terrorist attacks, but effectively to rule out any peaceful solution for the foreseeable " future?

For its part, the absurdity of the American view was perfectly rendered in a TV comment by Newt Gingrich on 1 April: 'Since Arafat effectively is the head of a terrorist organisation, we will have to depose him and replace him with a new democratic leader who will be ready to make a deal with the state of Israel.' This isn't an empty paradox. Hamid Karzai is already a 'democratic' leader externally imposed on a people. Whenever Afghanistan's 'interim leader' appears in our media, he wears clothes that cannot but appear as an attractive modernised version of traditional Afghan attire (a woollen cap and pullover beneath a more modern coat etc), his figure thus seeming to exemplify his mission, to combine modernisation with the best of Afghan traditions - no wonder, since this attire was dreamed up by a top Western designer. As such, Karzai is the best metaphor for the status of Afghanistan today.

What if there simply is no 'truly democratic' (in the American sense of the term) Palestinian silent majority? What if a 'democratically elected new leader' is even more anti-Israeli, which wouldn't be surprising since Israel has systematically applied the logic of collective responsibility and punishment, destroying the houses of the entire extended family of suspected terrorists? The point is not the cruel and arbitrary treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but that they are reduced to the status of homo sacer, objects of disciplinary measures and/or even humanitarian help, but not full citizens. And what the refuseniks have achieved is a reconceptualisation of the Palestinian from homo sacer to 'neighbour': they treat Palestinians not as 'equal full citizens', but as neighbours in the strict Judeo-Christian sense. And there resides the difficult ethical test for contemporary Israelis: 'Love thy neighbour' means 'Love the Palestinian,' or it means nothing at all.

This refusal, significantly downplayed by the major media, is an authentic ethical act. It is here, in such acts, that, as Paul would have put it, there effectively are no longer Jews or Palestinians, full members of the polity and homines sacri. One should be unabashedly Platonic here: this 'No!' designates the miraculous moment in which eternal Justice momentarily appears in the sphere of empirical reality. An awareness of moments like this is the best antidote to the anti-semitic temptation often clearly detectable among critics of Israeli politics.

Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher, a pyschoanalyst and a researcher at the University of Llubljana. His books include The Ticklish Subject, Welcome to the Desert of the Real and The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity.

Other articles by Slavoj Zizek on FromOccupiedPalestine:
"The Iraqi McGuffin", Lacan.com, 11 April 2003 ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:29:12 GMT Marko Ristic http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192669 http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:25:30 GMT man ray loves me http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192668 OK, drugo pitanje iz oblasti trendova, modernih dogadjaja i ostalo. Danas je u NY Timesu izasao tekst o tome da se u USA 1 u 100 odraslih osoba nalazi u zatvoru, sto je presedan u istoriji Amerike i sveta. Ima li neko objasnjenje za ovu pojavu, ili samo da je prihvatimo kao takvu? Mislim, u pitanju je prilicno ozbiljna stvar, po mom misljenju. ŠBRŽ, iliti Sta Bi Rekao Zizek na ovo? ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:24:36 GMT nsarski http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Re: Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192666
Vi ste moj idol, nsrarski -- uvek sam obožavao fizičare, od Arhimeda preko Galileja, Njutna, Ajnštajna i Hajzenberga, pa sve do kolege vam Ćirkovića...:)

A JK je večiti uzor in the art of what it feels like for us girls in this world... And a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do...:) ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:17:08 GMT Dušan Maljković http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/ Mr. Maljkovicu, http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#k192665 (Posle cu imati pitanje o odnosu Zizeka i M-me Karleuse:)) ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/#komentari Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:13:45 GMT nsarski http://blog.b92.net/text/2400/%C5%BDi%C5%BEek%20o%20Kosovu%2C%20Srbima%20i%20Albancima/