Žižek: Humanitarizam je laž!

Mislim da ce se mnogi sloziti sa sledecim:

"In the absence of any detectable method, a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance. Example after example is supplied, but the principle that makes them examples is not itself given. Appeals are implicitly made to Lacan's authority but the source of that authority is never mentioned. The truth of Lacan's theories is urged by showing how other people's theories support that truth but without explaining why these theories have the same object. One concept is defined in terms of another, which is then defined in the same way, ad infinitum. What's being explained is mixed in with what's doing the explaining in a circular fashion so striking that it may well count as both a novelty and a technical innovation in the practice of interpretation. Concepts are 'applied' without any boundaries on either the concepts or the scope of their application. Arguments and interpretations are hastily summarized rather than being patiently outlined. Finally, sheer rhetorical force substitutes for argument."

Inace, ne poznajem Zizekov opus, ali ni Baudrillardu, koji je ocigledno uticao na njega, nije bilo potrebno slikanje u krevetu ili "opsednutost defekacijom", da bi zainteresovao siru publiku. Neprijatno za gledanje, ne zbog sadrzaja, vec zbog potrebe koja stoji iza toga, pa i zbog nacina na koji tretira publiku.

1. Ova vrsta sintetickih teorija je granicna (ona proizvodi novost koja se kasnije kroz naucno/verifikatorsku metodolosku masinu overava).

A onda, verujuci nauke, mogu sa svom sigurnoscu sveta da neshto TVRDE i da grade svoje konzistentne naucne interpretacije, sve napadajuci one koji su zapravo i proizveli te proboje i samu gradju na kojoj se bazira njihova konzistentnost i sigurnost.

2. Ovo shto naucnici danas mogu da tvrde je rezultat predhodnih istrazivanja i proboja koji su nacinjeni. A ne kanonskog propoveda o poznatom.

3. Samim tim shto su granicna, ova istrazivanja preuzimaju vishe rizika od klasicnih pozitivnih nauka. Rizik da omashi....da prati pogershne tragove etc.

4. Ova vrsta sintetickih pojmovnih matrica pokushava da napravi proboj kroz oznacena i spoznata mesta. Da stvori novu "cinjenicu". A to se ne moze bez izleta u nepoznato i neoznaceno. Shto nas opet dovodi u rizik.

5. Razlog ovakvih pokushaja lezi, pre svega, u cinjenici da postojeci klasicni/naucni diskursi imaju odredjena ideoloska i metodska ogranicenje.

6. Ako su postojeca objasnjenja dovoljna i adekvatna, pitanje je: da li je to i kraj svakog mjisljenja i pocetak interpretacije i reprodukcije kao osnovne funkcije u drustvenim naukama?

7. A ako je tako, ajte nek me neko obavesti...da prestanem da gubim vreme na istrazivanje...neka mi neko kaze Istinu kako ne bih dalje gubio vreme...

8. Sigurno i bogougodno je biti naucnik koji govori kroz mediji kanona (takvih na Beogradskom univerzitetu kolko ocete...ozbiljna lica...umudreni pogledi...samo rezultata nigde)....

A vrlo tesko biti na granici i proizvoditi novo. Uzasno zahtevna disiplina. Ko god se oprobao u ovom moze da posvedoci o tom strashnom osecaju.

Ove stvari treba imati u vidu kada se govori o ovakvoj vrsti teorije i istrazivanja koje pokushava ZIzek da sprovede...
Greske se podrazumevaju...Ali na kraju, ni spoznajni potencijl greske nebi trebalo podcenjivati.

....у овом случају бих се сложио да је управо то "филозофија" која не може да "истера куче из штенаре", док рецимо следећи текст објашњава шта савремена филантропија може ---

Warren Buffett ...has pledged to turn over most of his fortune to the charitable foundation hitherto funded by the fortune of the man he replaces at the top, William H. Gates III.

This combination puts the pair at the forefront of a new wave of entrepreneurial philanthropists. They are eschewing traditional areas of giving such as the arts in favor of big global social issues, particularly poverty, health and education.

They have the wealth to do so. And, pace Buffett, who is outsourcing the disposal of his money to Gates, they are still young enough to have the energy and fire to undertake such ambitious and challenging philanthropy. They work on a global scale and apply the skills and approaches of business to the work of doing good.

This is reflected in our list of the largest U.S. charitable donations by billionaires last year. It is dominated by gifts of at least $100 million for specific health and education objectives.

Used to rigorous goal setting, benchmarking, accountability and operational efficiency, the new philanthropists seek to maximize the social impact of their actions, just as they sought to maximize shareholder value in their businesses. Comfortable with innovation, they believe they can develop new products and services through technology that will make it have a significant impact.

In practice, they are marrying the approaches taken by corporate social-responsibility programs now flourishing at companies like Cisco Systems and PepsiCo to the single-issue focus and reach of nongovernmental organizations. In the process, they promise to change the rules of the aid and economic development game.

Gates has promised to step down from the day-to-day operations of Microsoft this coming July to devote himself full time to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He has been selling 20 million Microsoft shares each quarter and donating the proceeds to his foundation. Currently, the foundation has assets of $37.8 billion.

Buffett irrevocably committed in 2006 to giving the majority of his shares in Berkshire Hathaway to charity, mostly Gates' foundation, in 5% chunks over the next 20 years. At the time of the announcement, the gift was valued at $31 billion, but if Berkshire's shares continue to rise in value, the donation's ultimate size could far exceed that sum.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, Buffett will give away more money than John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. And apparently it takes resources on this scale to truly make a dent in any of the world's myriad problems. It's worth remembering that no philanthropist has solved a worldwide problem since Carnegie brought universal access for the poor to books via libraries, and Rockefeller used his billions to fund the research that would lead to the eradication of polio.

Gates' ambition is on a similar scale. He wants to eradicate the 20 leading diseases in the world during his (or his wife's) lifetime.

Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican businessman who is now the world's second-richest person, has poked fun at Buffett and Gates for "going around like Santa Claus." In general, Latin American billionaires do not have a record of charitable giving comparable to Buffett or Gates, and the region's tax laws, unlike those in the U.S., often do not encourage it as much.

But Helú has given away hefty sums by any but Buffett and Gates' standards. He gave $100 million last year to the foundation run by former U.S. President William Clinton. In all, he has pledged close to $7 billion worth of cash and stock to fund education and health projects and to revitalize Mexico City's downtown historical district.

"Our concept is more to accomplish and solve things, rather than giving," he said when announcing in March 2007 a $450 million foundation for health care and research.

Gates and those of a similar mind would say that is exactly what they are doing. Most are as hands-on in their philanthropy as they were in their companies. They revel in the complexity of the challenges, and can imagine piecing together the necessary parts of, say, controlling malaria--from fundamental scientific research to creating low-cost delivery systems for the finished vaccine--as an exercise in supply-chain management.

The best of them also have the breadth of mind to join the dots between health and broader societal issues. How do you get a poor person to take a dose of medicine when he is too malnourished to swallow?

The Gates Foundation, for one, is already moving beyond the pure medical dimensions of health into agriculture and micro-financing. In January, it announced a $306 million package of agricultural development grants "designed to boost the yields and incomes of millions of small farmers in Africa and other parts of the developing world so they can lift themselves and their families out of hunger and poverty."

In the end, it and other foundations will inevitably find themselves in the business of promoting sound social infrastructure, open markets, the rule of law, and transparent and corruption-free government. This is the globalization and modernization of what Rockefeller called the "business of beneficence." And this will increasingly bring the new generation of foundations into conflict with governments around the globe.

It is already happening in India, where British-based Indian billionaire Anjil Agarwal is trying to use $1 billion of his $3.8 billion fortune to set up an elite private research university in India that Agarwal hopes will grow into an Indian rival to world-class institutions like Stanford, Harvard and Oxford. Though many Indians acknowledge the shortcomings of their country's higher education system, Agarwal is under attack from both the country's educational bureaucracy and local landowners, who would lose 10,000 acres of land. (Harvard, by contrast, makes do with 380 acres.)

While gaining some acceptance from governments, who, in U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's words, "are starting to realize their limitations," entrepreneurial philanthropists are deeply distrusted by the traditional charitable establishment. Nor will all cultures be comfortable with philanthropic foundations that promote Western values of freedom, technology and entrepreneurship.

It will be interesting to see how the $100 million program investment bank Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ) announced this week to school women in Africa, Asia and the Middle East in business and management will be received in those countries where women have traditionally not been given access to such education. Thomas Robertson, dean of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, one of the participating business schools, notes that there "will be issues when students go back into the family structure, or community, about how they'll apply what they learned."

Yet "no longer can businesses, governments or nongovernmental organizations afford to act independently of each other--the stakes are just too high," as John Connolly, global chairman of Deloitte & Touche, said at the World Economic Forum's January meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

It was there that Gates outlined the next evolution of entrepreneurial philanthropy, what he called "creative capitalism," a way to provide market incentives for companies to serve the poorest people in the world. But before the companies move in, the billionaires and their new foundations will beat the path.

The Liberal Communists of Porto Davos
By Slavoj Zizek

In the last decade, Davos and Porto Alegre have emerged as the twin cities of globalization. In Davos, the exclusive Swiss ski resort, the global elite of managers, statesmen and media personalities meets under heavy police protection, trying to convince us (and themselves) that globalization is its own best remedy. In the sub-tropical, Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, the counter-elite of the anti-globalization movement convenes, trying to convince us (and themselves) that capitalist globalization is not our fate, that, as their official slogan has it, “another world is possible.” Lately, however, the Porto Alegre reunions seem to have lost their impetus. Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre go?

Some of them, at least, moved to Davos itself! That is to say, more and more, the predominant tone of the Davos meetings comes from the group of entrepreneurs who French journalist Olivier Malnuit ironically refers to as “liberal communists” (that is “liberal” in the pro-market, European sense) who no longer accept the opposition between “Davos” (global capitalism) and “Porto Alegre” (the new social movements’ alternative to global capitalism). They claim that we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as profitable entrepreneurs) and eat it too (endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility, ecological concerns, etc.). No need for Porto Alegre, they say, since Davos itself can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual gang of suspects: Bill Gates and George Soros, the CEOs of Google, IBM, Intel, eBay, as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedman. What makes this group interesting is that their ideology is becoming indistinguishable from that of Antonio Negri, who has praised postmodern digital capitalism, which, according to Negri, is becoming almost indistinguishable from communism. By Negri’s reckoning, both the old Right—with its ridiculous belief in authority, order and parochial patriotism—and the old Left—with its big Struggle against Capitalism—are the true conservatives today, completely out of touch with the new realities as they fight their shadow-theatre struggles. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is “smart.” Smart means dynamic and nomadic against centralized bureaucracy; dialogue and cooperation against central authority; flexibility against routine; culture and knowledge against old industrial production; and spontaneous interaction against fixed hierarchy.

Bill Gates—software mogul and philanthropist—is the icon of what he called “frictionless capitalism,” the post-industrial society in which we witness the “end of labor,” in which software is winning over hardware and in which the young nerd has replaced the black-suited manager. In the new company headquarters, there is little external discipline, and (ex)hackers dominate the scene, working long hours and enjoying free drinks in plush surroundings. In this respect, it is a crucial feature of Gates as icon that he is (perceived as) the ex-hacker who made it. At the fantasmatic level, the underlying notion here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan who has taken over and dresses himself up as a respectable chairman.

Liberal communists are big executives reforming the spirit of contest, or, to put it the other way round, countercultural geeks who took over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernized, version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: Market and social responsibility are not opposites, they can be employed together for mutual benefit. Collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the environment and transparent deal-making are now the keys to a successful business.

Liberal communists are pragmatic, they hate ideology. There is no single exploited Working Class today, only concrete problems to be solved, such as starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women or religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa—and liberal communists love humanitarian crises, they bring out the best in them!—instead of employing anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should simply examine what really solves the problem: Engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, approach the crisis in a creative, unconventional way, and don’t worry about labels.

Liberal communists also love May ‘68: What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the confines of stiff bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! And although they’ve changed since then, they didn’t resign to reality, but rather changed in order to really change the world, to really revolutionize our lives. Didn’t Marx say that all the world’s political upheavals paled in comparison with the invention of the steam engine when it came to changing our lives? And wouldn’t Marx say today: What are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the Internet?

Above all, liberal communists see themselves as true citizens of the world, good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalists and irresponsible, greedy corporations. They see the “deeper causes” of today’s problems, the mass poverty and hopelessness that breed fundamentalist terror. So their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, in this way, as a by-product, make even more money).

The catch, of course, is that, in order to give it to the community, first you have to take it (or, as they put it, create it). The rationale of liberal communists is that, in order to really help people, you must have the means to do it. And as experience—the dismal failure of all centralized state and collectivist approaches—teaches us, private initiative is by far the most efficient way. So if the state wants to regulate their business, to tax them excessively, it is effectively undermining its own official goal (to make life better for the large majority, to really help those in need).

Liberal communists do not want to just be machines for generating profits: They want their lives to have a deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religions and for spirituality sans confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadowed brain sciences, that the power of mediation can be measured scientifically!). Their preferred motto is social responsibility and gratitude: They are the first to admit that society was incredibly good to them by allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth. And after all, what is the point of their success if not to help people?

However, is any of this really something new? What about the good old Andrew Carnegie, employing a private army to brutally suppress organized labor and then distributing large parts of his wealth for educational, arts and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he has a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give with one hand what they first took away with the other.

This is what makes a figure like Soros ethically so problematic. His daily routine is a lie embodied: Half of his working time is devoted to financial speculations and the other half to humanitarian activities (providing finances for cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, underwriting the movement in the United States to get public money out of private elections, coining pejorative terms like “free-market fundamentalists”) that ultimately fight the effects of his own speculations. Likewise the two faces of Bill Gates: a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at virtual monopoly, employing all the dirty tricks to achieve his goals … and the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankind.

In the liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: Charity today is the humanitarian mask that hides the underlying economic exploitation. In a blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries are constantly “helping” the undeveloped (with aid, credits, etc.), thereby avoiding the key issue, namely, their complicity in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation of the undeveloped.

And the same goes for the very opposition between the “smart” and “non-smart” approach. Outsourcing is the key notion here. By way of outsourcing, you export the (necessary) dark side—low wages, harsh labor practices, ecological pollution—to “non-smart” Third World places (or invisible places in the First World itself). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the working class itself to the invisible Third World sweatshops.

Etienne Balibar, the French Marxist philosopher, distinguishes the two opposite but complementary forms of excessive violence in the world today: the objective (“structural”) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism—i.e., the “automatic” creation of excluded and dispensable individuals (the homeless, the uninsured, the unemployed)—and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious fundamentalisms. While they fight subjective violence, liberal communists are the very agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for such explosions of subjective violence. Precisely because liberal communists want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global capital system—to render it “frictionless” for their mechanations—they are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system as such.

In the midst of any necessary tactical alliances one has to make with liberal communists when fighting racism, sexism and religious obscurantism, we should remember: Liberal communists are the enemy of every true progressive struggle today.

24 sata ili mozda malo vise od prethodnog javljanja, saljem izvinjenje svima koji su ostali uskraceni odgovora , kao i par kratkih vesti.

Naime, posle jedne nocne smene, a zatim odluke da dnevno izletnistvo na blogu usmerim na novo rekuperiranje politike antifasizma od strane Druge Srbije (ovoga puta lika i dela Koce Popovica) , molim cenjenu blogresku javnost da mi dopusti sutrasnji termin za novu rundu odgovora.

U nadi da cete mojoj molbi izaci u susret i opravdati moj izostanak

Pozdrav!