Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours by Slavoj Žižek

Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours Reviews

• 
  Mike Robbins

  “Refugees,” says Slavoj Žižek, “are the price humanity is paying for the global economy.” They are a result of global inequalities, and slamming down the drawbridge will not help, for mass-migrations are an inevitable part of the future, especially as climate change begins to bite. However, opening the floodgates and letting large numbers of refugees into Europe is an equally futile response, and can only cause trouble; in the end, we won’t like them and they won’t like us. Better to understand that this is all the result of global class struggle, and engage with it. Half-measures will get us nowhere.
  
  That’s the core message of this bleak little book. It’s a polemic that has virtually nothing optimistic or generous in its 25,000-odd words. But it does have some intriguing insights, and its central, Marxian, message of global class war makes alarming sense.
  
  It’s fair to say Žižek doesn’t like liberals much. Early in his argument he condemns the hypocrisy he thinks is inherent in arguing for open borders for refugees. Everyone knows it won’t happen, because it would “trigger a populist revolt”, so advocating it is a self-indulgence of those who want to present themselves as “beautiful souls”. In the same vein, he argues against opening the doors to refugees for humane reasons, and insists that there are limits to human empathy. Do not pretend we can empathise with refugees, he says. And don’t expect them to be grateful to us for being rich. Žižek cites the New Year’s Eve 2015 disturbances in Cologne, when large numbers of women were assaulted, apparently by refugees. In a bizarre but interesting comparison, he then quotes a 1731 incident in Paris in which printers’ apprentices murdered cats because their master’s wife pampered them while they starved.
  
  Neither has Žižek any time for those who are too polite about other people’s religions, including Islam. In this context he quotes the Rotherham child-abuse case, in which men of mainly Pakistani descent were found to have been sexually abusing and exploiting young girls over a period of many years, and the local authority had not intervened because (it is said) it was afraid of being seen as racist. He also draws on his background in psychoanalysis to argue that people of different cultures do not necessarily wish to live in proximity.
  
  What all this is leading up to is Žižek’s central point: There is no point in pretending to like people who we don’t really want living next door to us. It’s a hypocritical liberal lie and in any case, it won’t solve the problem. The refugee crisis is a symptom of global class war. The rich world fuels conflict so that it can rob poorer countries of their natural resources, and refugees, Boko Haram and the rest are the result; what did we expect? It’s a fair comment. Žižek makes the interesting point that the Taliban takeover in the Swat valley in 2009 was at least in part a class-driven conflict against feudal landlords.
  
  In the richer countries, Žižek’s sympathies are less with liberals than with lower-income groups of the sort who would oppose immigration or asylum. When Western liberals point the finger at working people in their own countries for being bigoted peasants, says Žižek, this is part of the “culture wars” fuelling movements such as Trump’s (he could have added Brexit in Britain, had he written the book a few months later). The “culture wars”, in his opinion, are themselves class conflict between the disadvantaged and a liberal elite that wishes to denigrate them to maintain its own position. I think he might be right. In this sense, class struggle underlies not only the movement of refugees but the response to them in their chosen countries of refuge. There is no “let them in” option, and no “keep them out” choice either. There is only one answer: To engage with the class struggle. This is a profoundly Marxian analysis, imbued with a visceral loathing for a hypocritical, self-interested “liberal” class that Žižek clearly wishes would go to hell.
  
  While I accept Žižek’s analysis in principle, I did have some problems with this book. An underlying theme is that, sometimes, cultures are incompatible. Given that Žižek himself thinks future large-scale migrations are inevitable, I think that’s a dangerous message. We’re going to have to get used to each other. Moreover the evidence he presents is flawed. Rotherham is not a good example – it may have had as much to do with alienation and poor governance as it did with Islam or cultural difference. He also pushes a theory, based on the work of the French psychoanalyst Lacan, that we have a morbid distrust of the “other” and their customs that both attracts and repels, and causes tensions. I do not buy this. Has he never lived next door to someone whose habits are different? It’s not always so hard. Neither are humane impulses always a bad driver of policy, although Žižek is probably right that they can’t provide a stable world.
  
  Moreover, while global conflict and forced migration is mostly the result of inequality and imperialism, there are other factors. The US and Britain invaded Iraq for several reasons, of which oil was only one. There was also messianic attachment to democracy, and a deluded belief that freedom would make Iraqis love Israel. Moreover, while the invasion helped open the gates of hell in neighbouring Syria, there had long been communal tensions there, and they had erupted before (I know this; I used to live there). Žižek might reply that these were the result of an arbitrary colonial division of the region in 1919 that put the borders in the wrong places. In the case of Iraq this holds water, but Syria is too complex ever to have been culturally homogenous. Elsewhere, Eritrean refugees are fleeing their own government as much as they are poverty.
  
  Lastly, I did not feel that the arguments in the book were presented in a coherent sequence. For example, two early chapters deal with the obscene underbellies of religion, and the existence of undirected violence. They do not really feed into Žižek’s central argument and may have been culled from other work he has done. I wondered if he had felt that the refugee crisis was a golden opportunity to present a thesis of global class struggle, and put it together quickly. That’s not to say that Against the Double Blackmail is a bad read; it’s pithy and well-written. But it often lacks cohesion.
  
  Western liberals do have some thinking to do. The “culture wars” do represent a class struggle with their own proletariat, and the different responses to the refugee crisis – “refugees welcome” hashtags on one side, Pegida on the other – has thrown this into sharp relief. And it is quite true that the current instability is a result of inequality, just as air masses of different temperatures create the weather. So a “humane” response to the refugee crisis will solve nothing. At the same time, humanity is not always a bad basis for policy, and empathy is not always the false emotion or tawdry hypocrisy that Žižek would have us believe. Besides, what would he do if he saw a Syrian or an Eritrean struggling in the water? Leave them to drown? I don’t suppose so.
  
  This book does have something to say, and smug liberals should read it. But it is meant as a provocative polemic. We should all take it with a pinch of salt. And maybe Žižek wants us to.
• 
  foteini_dl

  Ο Zizek-αν μη τι άλλο-μπορεί να προκαλεί αντιδράσεις από τον τίτλο (ή, πιο σωστά, τον υπότιτλο) ενός βιβλίου του: Τα πραγματικά αίτια του προσφυγικού κύματος και της τρομοκρατίας. Αρκετά απόλυτος τίτλος, που υπό άλλες συνθήκες θα με ξένιζε πολύ, αλλά κλείνω τα μάτια λόγω Zizek.
  
  Δε θα παραθέσω ολόκληρη κριτική, γιατί άντε να σχολιάσεις ένα βιβλίο όπου σε κάθε σελίδα (σχεδόν) έχεις σημειώσει κάτι που σε προβλημάτισε πάνω στα θέματα της θρησκείας, του προσφυγικού και της τρομοκρατίας, αλλά θα μείνω σε δύο σημεία: ένα στο οποίο διαφωνώ και ένα στο οποίο συμφωνώ.
  
  Οι μεγαλύτεροι υποκριτές είναι αυτοί που υποστηρίζουν τα ανοιχτά σύνορα: ενδόμυχα γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά πως κάτι τέτοιο δεν θα συμβεί ποτέ, αφού θα προξενούσε άμεσα λαϊκίστικο ξεσηκωμό στην Ευρώπη.
  
  Αν και αυτό που θέλει να πει είναι σωστό, πατάει σε μια λεπτή γραμμή (η οποία είναι και κάπως επικίνδυνη): Ναι, είναι υποκριτικό να μιλάμε για ανοιχτά σύνορα την ώρα που ξέρουμε ότι στα πλαίσια του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος αυτό είναι αδύνατο (και όντως θα ακουστεί λαϊκίστικο). Τι μένει, όμως, να κάνουμε; Δηλαδή, αν επιτραπεί η είσοδος στους μετανάστες, τότε θα έχουμε άνοδο της ακροδεξιάς; Οπότε, για να αποφευχθεί αυτό πρέπει οι κυβερνήσεις να δράσουν εξ αρχής σαν να ήταν ακροδεξιές; Στην τελική, δεν είμαι σίγουρη αν έχει σημασία η μεταναστευτική πολιτική μιας χώρας όταν η ευρύτερη πολιτική της ατζέντα κινείται στα όρια του καπιταλισμού. Άλλωστε, για παράδειγμα, και η Μέρκελ κατηγορήθηκε από την αντιπολίτευση ότι ήταν ανεκτική απέναντι στους μετανάστες. Ας αναλογιστούμε, όμως, ότι αυτή η στάση της γερμανικής κυβέρνησης οφείλεται στη φιλοδοξία του (γερμανικού) κεφαλαίου να εκμεταλλευτεί τη φθηνή εργατική δύναμη των μεταναστών.
  
  Εκεί που συμφωνώ είναι το εξής:
  
  Η πιο βασική αιτία της δημιουργίας προσφύγων είναι ο ίδιος ο σημερινός παγκόσμιος καπιταλισμός και τα γεωπολιτικά του παιχνίδια.
  
  Για να μην υφίσταται το προσφυγικό, θα έπρεπε να συνειδητοποιήσουμε τον ρόλο της ταξικής πάλης.
  
  Ο μοναδικός τρόπος για να το κάνουμε είναι να επιμείνουμε στην παγκόσμια αλληλεγγύη προς τα θύματα εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης.
  
  Και να καταπολεμήσουμε τη ρίζα αυτής της εκμετάλλευσης, που έχει όνομα εδώ και πολλά, πάρα πολλά χρόνια.
  
  Y.Γ.: Αυτό το βιβλίο μπορεί να είναι και το πιο προσιτό του Zizek. Οπότε, αν θα θέλατε να διαβάσετε κάτι δικό του κάποτε, ίσως να είναι και το πιο ομαλό ξεκίνημα.
• 
  Annikky

  This was long on intellectual posturing and philosophical name dropping and short on solutions - it's a polemic, not a guidebook, although the latter is vaguely suggested by the marketing of the text. Most of the book deals with issues only loosely related to migration and refugees, an early rant on TTIP being an especially irrelevant example. When the What Is To Be Done? chapter arrives, in the last 10 pages, the solutions offered are vague and unconvincing and involve some sort of abstract solidarity, lots of class struggle and the end of capitalism. Not surprising, as this is Žižek, but the end-game is too incoherent to make much sense even in the Marxist framework.
  
  Still, I read it in one sitting, as Žižek is clever and unafraid and often right.
• 
  Kostas Papagiannoulis

  Πάει το χάσε και αυτός
  
  "Έρχονται οι πρόσφυγες και μας πέρνουν τις δουλειές "
  
  "Δεν πρέπει να έχουν οι πρόσφυγες όνειρα"
  
  "Φταίνε σε μεγάλο βαθμό οι ίδιοι οι πρόσφυγες για τα δεινά τους"
  
  Μερικά χαριτωμένα που θα διαβάσεις σε αυτό το βιβλιαράκι.
• 
  Ana

  I can understand why some people will find this read absolutely harrowing. It obviously clashes with everything that you hear in traditional media. But I'm also convinced that it's a little bit closer to the truth, especially in the discussion of moving past the emphatical argument when discussing refugees and their situation. The one thing I didn't like was Zizek's push for a sort of communist solution to this, but I agreed with most of his other arguments. He hits the nail on the head in terms of cultural differences and how there is a clash of civilizations between refugees and the Occident.
• 
  Joachim Stoop

  I found this this the most approachable Žižek book I've encountered. Still difficult of course, but very relevant and insightfull!
• 
  Noits

  Thought provoking, resoundingly so.
  Contextualises and illuminates the causes of and responses to the modern concept of "refugeeism".
  Žižek is an erudite man, with a clear and pragmatic approach to contemporary taboos. I particularly enjoyed the way he used literary touchstones to drive home any given argument.
  Well worth a read ... In fact, it should be on every MPs "must read" list.
• 
  Brendan Monroe

  Eight or so years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture Slavoj Žižek gave at my college. Unfortunately, I didn't know at the time who he was and was too distracted by his many nervous tics to truly grasp what he was saying ... something to do with his interpretation of Christ's crucifixion. If only I could be so lucky as to attend one of the great philosopher's lectures today - I would never take such an event for granted again!
  
  "Against the Double Blackmail" is probably Žižek's most accessible book yet. Yes, it's far more demanding than your beach reads and is packed with references and information far exceeding any other book of its length (111 pages), but this book's political timeliness means we're all well familiar with the subject Žižek is tackling here - it's been dominating the headlines the past two years! That subject, as the title makes clear, is the current refugee crisis. And wow, is Žižek spot on!
  
  It's rare that I ever agree entirely with anyone on a given topic, but Žižek is so crisply clever in both his denunciation of liberals who denounce as racist all those who advocate keeping the refugees out and in his comparing the far-right, anti-immigrant political parties in Europe with the armies of ISIS and Boko Haram that damn if I didn't find myself nodding the whole way through. These opposite positions by the two opposing sides in the West today represent "the double blackmail" of Žižek's title, and both positions are doomed to catastrophic ends.
  
  Žižek speaks of western taboos that need to be abandoned, such as that most annoying tendency of many western liberals to call out any critique of Islam as "Islamophobic". He cites the case of Salmon Rushdie and how liberals - rather than criticize an edict from an authoritarian religious ruler condemning an author to death for "blasphemy" - rushed to criticize Rushdie for, in their lowly opinions, choosing to "deliberately" offend the muslim world. Žižek also condemns western media first in its attempt to hide the identities of, and later to rationalize the actions of Muslims responsible for brutal sexual assaults on women in Rotherham and, most recently, Cologne, by pinning the blame on western foreign policy.
  
  Žižek is no partisan though, and he heaps scorns on acts committed by Christians and Jews as well, and argues that Europe's populist right is essentially doing ISIS's work for them by increasingly demonizing Europe's own Muslim population - further ostracizing them to the point where they become more susceptible to radicalization.
  
  Žižek doesn't make the mistake that so many theorists before him have, which is to claim that religion plays no role in fundamentalism. Of course it does, but such Islamic fundamentalism is fascistic in its hatred for the West which is borne, in large part, out of an envy of it.
  
  "Against the Double Blackmail" is never less than fascinating, and oh what fun it is to see Žižek employ pop culture standards like "The Hateful Eight" and "The Searchers" to shatter mainstream taboos.
  
  This book is essential not just for gaining a better understanding of the current refugee crisis, globalization, and other hot button issues around the world, but for bettering how you think.
• 
  Voja

  U pesmi od Damira Avdića, Human Rights, postoji jedna, koliko tragična toliko i bolna, strofa o migrantskoj krizi:
  
  „Iskrcala se ljudska prava
  u zemlju moju iz oklopnjaka
  prizemljili iz transportera
  odmah iza projektila
  čizme nose da utabaju
  stazu meni da put nađem
  puške nose jednom klikne
  rafal puca da bolje pamtim
  
  zidine su izgradili
  mene u njih zatvorili
  pa me uče da sam džubre
  ološ svjetski nepismeni
  sve su moje popalili
  zaostalo je kažu bilo
  pa sad grade bolje ljepše
  a ja gledam iza žice.“
  
  I koliko god da navedeni stihovi pogađaju u metu, te pljuju u lice licemernog i nadasve bezkrupuloznog stanovništva Evrope, Žižek o tome nije hteo da raglaba. Njegova glavna meta u ovoj knjizi jesu njegovi – levi liberali. Iako i sam pripadam toj grupaciji, njegovu kritiku pogrešnih postupaka pomenutih ne mogu da osporim. Neosporno je, pak, po mom mišeljenju, da su desničari nerazumni, da su njihove teze neosnovane, kao i da se radi o mržnji radi mržnje. Ali taj desničarski pogled na ovu krizu, greške koje oni prave, treba ostavit njima. Slavoj s' razlogom kritikuje one kojima pripada po principu „svako treba da sređuje svoje dvorište".
• 
  Iman Rouhipour

  " پناهجویان بهایی هستند که بشر برای اقتصاد جهانی می‌پردازد."
  
  مختصر و روشن‌گر در باب پناهجویان و مشکلات ناشی از این پدیده.
• 
  Carlos Aymí

  Hay muchas formas de admirar un libro, una de las mejores es releerlo. Este ha sido el caso. En cuanto a su autor, en algún lugar habré leído que Zizek es un rockstar de la filosofía, y si por tal definición hay que entender a un pensador que desde un mensaje duro es capaz de llegar a un gran número de personas, entonces estamos ante una buena definición.
  
  “La nueva lucha de clases” tiene una virtud muy interesante, nace muy anclado a su momento (uno, por cierto, precovid), con la crisis de los refugiados sirios y los problemas migratorios que desestabilizaban Europa allá por los primeros años del inicio de la segunda década de este siglo, y sin embargo, y sin que nada se haya solucionado, y teniendo en cuenta que hemos ido a peor, el libro es completamente actual. Los nuevos problemas que sacuden la Historia apenas cambia el análisis que hace el filósofo esloveno, y, aunque no haya soluciones a la vista, su lectura te permite manejarte mejor en el desaguisado de nuestro tiempo.
  
  Desde mi punto de vista, es un libro muy útil para mejorar una perspectiva de izquierda, para fortalecerla, pues incide en sus contradicciones y debilidades, para centrar los problemas y recuperar un núcleo ideológico fundamental: claro que sigue habiendo lucha de clases, y estamos en una guerra difusa que beneficia a los ricos, quienes batalla tras batalla, quienes estrago tras estrago, ganan y ganan y tiene toda la pinta de que seguirán ganando, quizá hasta un colapso definitivo que a fecha de hoy, con la guerra de nuevo en Europa, esté rozándose con las manos.
  
  Quiero concluir citando el último párrafo de la obra, y aconsejando tener a mano un lápiz afilado, porque quien lea el libro sospecho que va a sentir la necesidad de subrayar en muchas ocasiones (eso sí, remarco, que no espere soluciones): “quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos.”
  
• 
  Alex

  Zizek wrote this one after the immigration flood started in Europe (Angie's work). There is a short but intensive meditation on immigration which brings along concepts of difference and otherness. How do we perceive The Other, along with all his differences. What is it for us, how does an Other integrate itself in the concept of Western Europe.
  
  He proposes some working points in dealing with the immigration problem. I find them good and common sense. Hard to apply probably
• 
  Owlseyes

  "I felt that way about Slavoj Zizek, that’s one person who I wrote about in a deliberately attacking way because I felt the cult of Zizek was intellectually dangerous"
  Literary critic Adam Kirsch
  
  "Estamos perdidos, Europa se está convertiendo en Europastán!"
  ("We're doomed, Europe is becoming Europeistan")
  
  "Our goal is not to remain in Mexico. Our goal is to make it to the US. We want passage, that’s all.”
  Honduran migrant
  
  This book had its English title as: Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours, which is not exactly like the Spanish one, obviously. But I would translate the Spanish one as:"The new class struggle: the refugees and the terror. Well, well....
  
  Though written especially for the European theater of migrations (out of control, some years ago), this is a pertinent book for our recent times. As "the Caravan" of thousands, from Honduras and Guatemala, move towards Mexico, and possibly to the USA, one can only wonder about, namely, the study of the Caravan organization*; in the Zizek's words, this "class" of migrants. I have read news that hypothesize a left-wing hand behind these thousands of people; I mean, a "partially" financed operation by Venezuela. If true, this migration is truly political.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Of course, Zizek puts the blame on capitalism in the book at stake. He fully agrees with the views of Peter Sloterdijk who defends that the "capitalist globalization" represents not only "openness and conquest" but a world closed on itself, one world which separates the Inside from the Outside**; it sets a "radical division of classes"; those within (protected by the "sphere") and those outside, unprotected. What solution to this problem? According to Zizek you should "reconstruct the global society".
  
  
  
  (German Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk)
  
  In the case of Europe, it should "redefine " itself, says Zizek. How? By breaking with all the left-wing tabus, like: "it's a racist (or protofascist) thing to protect our way of life", "don't criticize radical islam", "to identify emancipating European values with imperialism", "politicized religion is similar to fanaticism" etc.
  
  Still in the domain of "what to do" Zizek points several avenues. Maybe firstly, he acknowledges "great migrations are our future". The "humanity should be prepared to live in a more nomadic and plastic way". The Slovenian philosopher is pro a positive and emancipating Leitkultur; so with the fight of Wikileaks, of Snowden, of the Pussy Riot, against aggressive Zionism, against antisemitism, against fundamentalism, against west neocolonialism.
  
  The book by Zizek is not limited to Europe, and the refugees question. It includes also the terror attacks in Paris (of 13th November 2015), the Palestinian cause, ISIS, and Israel; it even approaches the Taliban cause. It seems Zizek has a certain hope for the Taliban (as when they had occupied the Swat valley, in Pakistan, back in 2009). Echoing an article by the New York Times***, Zizek quotes: (an ongoing) "revolt of classes which exploited the deep fissures between those who owned land and those who rented it". Zikek believes in those who "listen" to the worries of the people; and, yes, the Taliban had expelled many of the landowners. Zizek suggests they're not that fundamentalists; I concluded Really, are they?.
  
  But how about the USA? What's the best way to deal with "The Caravan"? Should we allow them in? I mean, should the US allow them in? The USA is a sovereign nation...the EU is not.
  
  UPDATE
  
  For some days I've been wondering about how would Zizek respond to "the Caravan", a central America migration phenomenon. And yesterday he "answered"; he thinks "they do signal a basic geopolitical fact". If proved that "the Caravan " is a political move, I doubt the phenomenon is that basic, or comparable to Europe's. ****
  
  *About its composition there are interesting views...I won't disclose for now. Now I can disclose: Caravan Includes Gang Members, Africans, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and Indians
  in:
  https://www.gloucestercitynews.net/cl... It would be interesting to know the number of "criminals" as there are media outlets denying they're in the Caravan. And now a very interesting development: "The Caravan migrants file class action lawsuit against Trump"...they're miles away, and yet they are entitled to "due process".
  
  ** EN EL MUNDO INTERIOR DEL CAPITAL: PARA UNA TEORIA FILOSOFICA DE L A GLOBALIZACION
  
  ***
  https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...
  
  ****
  https://www.rt.com/op-ed/442485-migra...
• 
  Amelie Sutton

  I'm so done with Zizek. This is the last straw lmao.
• 
  Nikola Jankovic

  Pametan čovek. Ponekad i suviše za moje standarde, ili bar želi tako da zvuči.
  
  Nisam čitao Žižka, ali sam čuo dosta o njemu, pa je bio red. Moguće da nisam izabrao pravu knjigu. Iako kratka, i iako govori o bitnoj temi imigranata i kako rešiti trenutne probleme Evrope sa njima, ipak je 150 strana na tu temu mnogo.
• 
  paper0r0ss0

  'Ho detto: caxxo che botta!, che botta caxxo! Caxxo che botta!' direbbe Mia Wallace (da me pudicamente censurata). Ecco, l'effetto leggendo quasi tutti i libri di Zizek e' un po' questo. Il libretto e' del 2015, potrebbe essere un po' datato in alcuni dettagli ma in realta' e' uno spunto di riflessione non indifferente. I rimandi, i collegamenti, le citazioni spaziano come sempre dalla filosofia alla poilitica, alla letteratura, al cinema (Mia Wallace ci stava a pennello quindi). La questione della rappresentanza democratica in Occidente in relazione al fenomeno migratorio e' e sara' non un problema, ma il problema a venire, specie dopo la pandemia virale (aggiungo io). In un contesto di complessiva (ma non ineluttabile) decadenza geopolitico-culturale dell'Europa, la sinistra, il pensiero progressista, devono innanzitutto togliere di mezzo le proprie ipocrisie e i paternalismi dal rapporto con chi arriva da fuori, per poter anche solo sperare di strumentalizzare a proprio favore gli antagonismi nascenti (che l'autore identifica) all'interno del contesto capitalistico globale.
• 
  Sergio D. Lara

  Žižek es siempre inteligente y mordaz. Sin duda el más interesante y entretenido de los pensadores contemporáneos. Y éste es un libro breve pero demoledor, en el que, como de costumbre, el filósofo se ahorra cualquier indicio de corrección política y condescendencia y pone las cartas sobre la mesa: la crisis de refugiados es una consecuencia del capitalismo global. Y, por supuesto, no basta con lamentarnos o realizar pequeñas campañas de fingida solidaridad sino cambiar, radicalmente, el sistema político, económico y social en el que vivimos. Un libro que me parece verdaderamente fundamental para entender el mundo.
  Slavoj Žižek concluye: “Quizá la solidaridad global sea una utopía, pero si no luchamos por ella, entonces estamos realmente perdidos, y merecemos estar perdidos”.
  
• 
  Kuszma

  A kortárs újmarxizmus Rambója és Rihannája egy személyben – igen, ő a szlovén Žižek, aki most azzal kecsegtet, hogy megmondja a tutit a XXI. század egyik* legégetőbb problémájával, a migrációval és az integráció lehetőségeivel kapcsolatban. Élből elveti egyfelől az agresszív bevándorlás-ellenességet, a zéró toleranciát, ugyanakkor elveti a sarkig kitárt kapuk elvét is**, a maximális, mindent megbocsátó toleranciát, amit amúgy is csak a felsőbb osztályok eszközének lát arra, hogy a maguk erkölcsi felsőbbrendűségével zsarolják az alsóbb osztályokat. Egy harmadik utat kíván berajzolni a térképre – mégpedig úgy, hogy mintegy mellesleg újradefiniálja a baloldal önképét és az európai közös nevezőket is. Ez volna a cél. Elméletileg.
  
  No most nekem az a gyanúm, hogy az önbizalomhiánnyal amúgy sem küszködő Žižek ezúttal túl sokat akart markolni. Valahogy mintha túl nagy, túl bombasztikus témákat akarna túl rövid terjedelemben tárgyalni – kifejezetten sokszor éreztem úgy, hogy elindul oltári lendülettel egy irányba, mintha a logika mélységes mély szakadékába akarna elrugaszkodni, majd a következő fejezetben meg egy teljesen más szálat vesz fel, hasonló elánnal. Szemre széttart a szöveg, de piszkosul. Idővel persze találkoznak valamiképp a szálak, és kirajzolódik, mi a mester elképzelése: ő a világkapitalizmusban látja a problémák okát, ami egyfajta új osztályharcot kelt életre azzal, hogy a földgolyót Bennlévőkre és Kinnmaradókra osztja – vagyis a gazdagokra, akik a javakat birtokolják (ez a Nyugat – kapaszkodjatok meg, az afgánok szerint mi is oda tartozunk), és a szegényekre, akiknek semmi sem maradt (ez meg a nem-Nyugat). A migráció, illetve a migráció közvetlen okául szolgáló permanens polgárháború a világ rongyosabbik felén csak ebben a kontextusban értelmezhető – a bevándorlók áradata ugyanis nem más, mint egyfajta kivonulás Egyiptomból az Ígéret Földjére, ahol Egyiptom a folyamatos tragédiáktól sújtott „alsó világ”, az Ígéret Földje pedig a paradicsominak elgondolt Nyugat. Megjegyzendő, hogy Žižek osztályharca nem internacionalizálható, vagyis Szíria szegényei nem testvérei mondjuk Európa szegényeinek, legfeljebb metaforikus értelemben. Idegenek ők egymásnak – és Žižek elég pesszimista azt illetően, hogy valaha igazi megértés alakulhatna ki köztük.
  
  A vége aztán (a klasszikus „Mit tegyünk?”-fejezet) tulajdonképpen meglepően konform az őrült, hektikus vágtatáshoz képest, amit addig tapasztaltunk: egyfelől a szerző leszögezi, hogy a befogadás kötelességünk, ugyanakkor kötelességünk meghatározni azt is, mik azok az európai értékek, amikből nem engedhetünk. Ez mondjuk nyilván nem maga a spanyolviasz, és hát alighanem azon is képes lenne pár politikus tükörsimára tépni egymás koponyáját, hogy mik is a fenn említett európai értékek. Másfelől (és ez már egy picit merészebb) rámutat a bevándorlás végső okára, vagyis a modern apartheidet okozó világkapitalizmusra, hogy biza azt kell szütyőn ragadni. Ne kérdezzétek, hogyan kell azt csinálni – hisz ha egyszer Szíria szegényei idegenek Európának, következésképpen Žižeknek is, akkor valószínűleg egy Žižek is idegen a szíriaiaknak, ezért hiába hirdet itt osztályharcot a szlovén, az nem biztos, hogy oda is eljut. Még Lenin se tudta exportálni a maga forradalmát, pedig ő aztán volt valaki – ha nem lett volna valaki, be se balzsamozták volna, ugye. Mindössze annyiban igazít el a szerző minket, hogy a baloldalnak meg kell találnia önmagát – a hopi mondást idézve: „Mi magunk vagyunk azok, akikre vártunk.” Ez azért nem egy szoros akcióterv. Bár tagadhatatlanul pöpec mondás, szerencsesütinek való.
  
  Jelentős belső hiányosságokat érzékelek hát ebben a kötetben – ám tény, Žižek megközelítése lehetővé teszi, hogy olyan problémákat is szóba merjen hozni, amit más filozófusok ilyen vagy olyan okból nem pedzegetnek. (Ugyanakkor gyanítom, ugyanez a megközelítés – és persze a lendület – teszi lehetővé, hogy át is sikoljon más, nem kevésbé fontos problémák felett…) Elemeiben tehát baromi izgalmas szöveg – sok tekintetben a legizgalmasabb négycsillagos könyv, ami valaha a kezembe került.
  
  * Igazából a második legfontosabb probléma – az első ugyanis maga a bevándorlásellenes populizmus. (Ezt nem csak én mondom – ebben Žižekkel egyetértünk.) Amit az is bizonyít, hogy ahol bevándorlás van, ott van bevándorlásellenes populizmus is, de ahol nincs számottevő bevándorlás – nos, ott is van bevándorlásellenes populizmus. Még picit nagyobb is.
  ** Ezt magunk közt szólva mint ateista, minden további nélkül megteheti. Ugyanakkor szerintem elég nyilvánvalóvá teszi, hogy aki a kereszténységet nem csak egy ún. „kultúra” részének gondolja, hanem hitként éli meg, az egyszerűen nem szűkítheti le a jézusi parancsokat csak azért, mert azok betartása per pillanat nem praktikus. Ha így tenne, akkor kábé annyira veszi komolyan Jézust, mint a Télapót.
  
  
• 
  Milena

  ...Above your body, people are still alive. Follow the river as days go by. Head for the ocean that mirrors the sky. You want to wake up to free yourself of the image of Europa. But it is not possible.
  
  Kad sam prvi put gledala "Evropu" (davao RTS) sa nekih šest godina posle bombardovanja, mislila sam da je taj čika fon Trir onako baš sve shvatio i htela sam odmah da odgledam ostalo što je napravio (roditelji sa pravom rekli ne može, "Breaking the Waves" tek kad porasteš); trinaest godina kasnije fejspalmujem na skorašnja mu dela, ajde "Melanoholija" okej ali ovo posle ZABOGA Larse šta ti bi.
  
  Ova Žižekova knjižica (128 stranica, proguta se lepo posle deprimirajuće radne nedelje umesto nekog alkohola sumnjivog porekla iz ostave u cilju emocionalne eutanazije) je aktuelna i nekoliko godina posle objave. Biće i kroz još par, bez frke. Dobro istražena, kritična bez osude i prodorna.
  
  A evropski voz, isti je onaj čiju prugu deca grade na podu u sobi, i prolazi kroz iste stanice ukrug, ukrug; da bar spakujemo šine u prašnjavu kutiju ili da željno čekamo da se nivo mora digne.
• 
  Andrei Iulian Luca

  3.5
  In this book, Zizek is trying to present one of the most important current problem of the european union: refugees.Why they immigrate from their home countries, what can we do to live beside them and if we do have a part of the guilt of why they need to leave in the first place.Zizek is blaming the globalism and capitalism multiple times throughout the book being the core problem of this and see this problem as an opportunity of europe to renew itself in a new and modern type of socialism.Although I respect Zizek so much, I can't fully get along with his desire of a barbaric authoritarian reform taking place in europe, "new and redesigned" communism as he tried to say it.
• 
  Gabrielius Lapinskas

  This was actually good
• 
  Mario

  Hablamos de dos lados de una misma moneda: los xenofobos racistas anti-inmigración, y los extremistas religiosos que cometen actos “barbáricos” en el mundo de occidente.
  
  Muy interesante el hecho de que la envidia y el odio por la cultura occidental es uno de los motivos para estos extremistas religiosos.
  
  Aunque, como en otras ocasiones, Zizek se queda corto al momento de hablar de soluciones. Hay que buscar la solidaridad global, sí, ¿y?
• 
  Sean

  Another self-plagiarized cashgrab from Slobbering Slavoj:
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Sami Eerola

  Slavoj Žižek doesn't pull any punches in this book. This is a honest and courageous critisims of todays world problems relating to the war on terror and immigration, but also a fearce critisism of liberals and people further on the left. This book have some good ideas, but sometimes it is hard to follow Žižek's train of thought. Still would recommend because this gives a not-racist or left-reactionary alternative to the immigration debate.
• 
  Leda

  (I've never felt so called out and so agreeing at the same time).
• 
  Matthew Walsh

  Žižek argues that refugees are, first and foremost, objects of particular material and economic conditions—conditions that we, in the West, benefit from and are partially complicit in. “The disintegration of state power,” he reminds his reader, “is not purely a local phenomenon but the result of international economics and politics; in some cases, such as Libya and Iraq, it is even the direct outcome of Western intervention” (53). From here, Žižek problematizes this dilemma further: “… the universe of capital … needs ‘free’ individuals as cheap labour forces, but it simultaneously needs to control their movement since it cannot afford the same freedoms and rights for all people” (61).
  
  It is in this sense that Žižek does not believe that the refuge crisis can be addressed—in any long-term, meaningful way at least—through humanitarian effort alone. Obviously, such work saves lives; he does not dispute this. He does, however, see a limitation to humanitarian work and its guiding principle of sympathy: while the two are able to treat the refugee crisis as a symptom of global capitalism, they are ultimately unconcerned with altering the larger structures that perpetuate and aggravate this symptom. Žižek concludes, therefore, that refugees cannot be thought of as mere objects of sympathy. Instead, they must be understood as products of a larger system.
  
  At the current moment, Žižek sees two equally untenable prospects in addressing this issue. On the one hand, there is the vision of the populist Right—on the other, the Liberal multiculturalist vision (intolerance and tolerance, respectively). With both, he identifies problems, the most egregious of which stem from the Right. For in turning away refugees at the border, they do not merely desist from their ethical obligation to help those that they, as beneficiaries of global capitalism, are complicit in displacing; they also embolden Islamic radicalization in demonstrating a discriminatory caveat at the heart of Western humanism.
  
  Liberal and Leftist programs attest to the opposite, though they are still, nonetheless, untenable for Žižek. He spends the majority of the book meditating on the taboos of liberalism and how these taboos paralyze the Left in its attempt to provide a viable counterpoint to the Right. He especially takes offense at the impossible blackmail they impose: “The conflict about multiculturalism ... is not a conflict between cultures, but a conflict between different visions of how different cultures can and should exist; about the rules and practices these cultures have to share if they are to coexist. One should therefore avoid getting caught up in the liberal game of ‘how much tolerance can we afford’ ... At this level, of course, we are never tolerant enough; or we are always-already too tolerant, neglecting the rights of women, and so on. The only way to break out of this deadlock is to move beyond mere tolerance of others. Don’t just respect others: offer them a common struggle, since our problems today are common; propose a fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants” (108).
  
  While I deeply enjoyed the book, I do have problems with it. The pacing and order of the chapters, for instance, are, at their best, loosely strung along and, at their worst, erratic. For anyone familiar with Žižek as a speaker, this should come as no surprise. Just as with his speeches, this book is not as concise as I would like. With the exception of a two page-run which offers the best deconstruction of U.S. conservatism I have ever read (62-3), this book reads as a series of somewhat-related mediations on a vague constellation of topics.
  
  It is also important to understand, going into this text (and any other Žižek text, for that matter), that one should not expect a utopian vision by its close. To do so is to misapprehend Žižek as a political thinker and a philosopher. He is ultimately unconcerned with praxis; his interest, instead, rests in how the way we conceptualize a problem is oftentimes itself a condition of the problem. The value of a thinker like Žižek, then, rests in the ways he is able to deconstruct and reconcile the competing and seemingly contradictory ideologies of today’s political climate. From there, the heaving lifting is on the part of his readers.
• 
  Phillip

  Overall I'm a big fan of this book, which encourages us to find common cause with refugees in the sense that most of us are victims of/exploited by neoliberal capitalism, and that even those of us in the global north are more outsiders than insiders in the working of global capital. Zizek calls for a return to Communist class struggle, but reconceptualized for late capitalism, where the struggle is not merely industrial workers against factory owners, but the entirety of the dispossessed and economically precarious against the forces of global economic exploitation.
  
  However, this is not by any stretch of the imagination an endorsement of the tolerant liberal position that we are all human beings and therefore the global north should throw open its doors to accept all refugees without ever being able to challenge or question Islamic/Arabic cultural practices or to defend the legitimacy of European/American culture. In fact, Zizek devotes more space to critiquing this position than any other--as he simply dismisses the racist and xenophobic nationalists as engaging in the same kind of ethnic hatred as entities like ISIS. I think Zizek offers such a detailed critique of the liberal position--again, in contrast to stark dismissals of the 'conservative' position--because he wants to build a better Left, a Left not so dogmatically committed to multicultural tolerance that they will endorse practices like honor killings, gang rapes as a form of warfare, etc. (all of which, of course, impede the freedom and legitimate cultural expression of the victims), and not so ineffectual as to demand completely open borders while at the same time knowing that position will never be adopted. Instead, Zizek envisions an active and engaged Left, which sees the interconnections between all struggles for liberation and freedom--including the struggles that divide both the refugee communities and Europe/US against themselves. So, while we must oppose global north xenophobic attacks on refugees or immigrants, we must also oppose the oppression of women and queers within refugee populations. And the way Zizek argues that we can do this is by building the sense that we are united in the condition of being exploited and oppressed by global capitalism.
  
  There are a few arguments he makes which I am very cautious of. Particularly the argument that Europe should adopt a kind of military organization to dealing with the refugee crisis--establishing processing centers in places like Turkey, Jordan, and North Africa; moving refugees in an organized way to their destinations, which will be decided by balancing refugees' residency desires with the ability of each nation to accept refugees; and establishing both a set of cultural codes refugees and indigenous Europeans should abide by, and establishing cultural freedom within those shared limits. While Zizek is aware of the fact that this risks the kind of emergency state of exception Agamben identifies with the concentration camp, Zizek (too casually, in my opinion) dismisses this concern by asserting that Europe is already in a state of crisis, which justifies declaring a state of exception. I think the big risk here is that, as Agamben argues, once the authoritarian sovereignty of the state of exception is created, it is difficult to dismantle. I don't know that I have a better solution for solving the logistical problems which are making life difficult for both Europeans and refugees, but I am very cautious about the call to set up a militarized infrastructure to deal with the logistics.
• 
  Mikael Lind

  Surprisingly readable little book by mr. Žižek. And wow, I'm so happy to read a philosopher on the left who doesn't try to simplify the refugees debate! It has been almost standard practise within the left to try to do everything to avoid having to talk about the problems that arise with immigration, and this, Žižek believes (and I with him), has only lead to a stronger support for extreme right parties. So Žižek very effectively exposes the impossible position you put yourself in if you try to see the world in black and white (bad anti-immigrants against good refugees). This has lead to avoiding standing up for women's rights even, because the left has been more eager to defend refugees than to criticise obvious oppression within those refugees. (The Cologne incident, for example.)
  So, if you're on the left of the political spectrum, read this book. Žižek tries to put most things on their heads, and here, he often succeeds. At least, he makes you think things trough. Sometimes, he dismisses things too easily himself, probably as to not ruin his main thesis. For example, Žižek finds the idea doomed to failure that we could somehow teach refugees about the cultural differences that they will experience, as to make them accept certain ways of life and thus avoid a conflict of interests. However, things like these have been tried, with some success, in some cities in Norway. Women's rights in Norway are clearly stipulated to everyone entering the country, for example. In Sweden, even immigrants themselves sometimes complain that there's a lack of discipline, as it were, so that, being an immigrant from Afghanistan (for example), you're not aware of the written and unwritten rules about how to live amongst people with Western values. So yes, education is always good, and better language teaching for new citizens is probably crucial, too.
• 
  Moustafa Mounir

  الكتاب ده، ووفقا للمحتوى المعروض، تقدر تقول إن اسمه هو (ضد الإزدواجية بمعنى عام).
  الحقيقة أنا متخيلتش إني هبقى مستمتع! كتاب بيتكلم عن الإرهاب واللاجئين، وكاتبه فيلسوف معروف إنه صاحب آراء محيرة وبتثير الجدل، لكن الواحد تفاجئ بكتاب، بيجمع بين طرق عرض المشاكل، بنظرة محايدة، وشوية قصص تخدم القضايا المطروحة، وبيقولك بالبلدي كده: "مش كفاية تمثيل بقى؟ ما أحنا لو عايزين نحل حاجة، هنحلها بجد! كفاية شعارات كذابة، عشان كلها بتجري ورا مصلحتها!".
  الكتاب بيعرض كمية الإزدواجية إللي بيعاني منها العالم كله، الغني والفقير، صاحب القضية والظّالم، النّاس إللي بتقول كلام وتعمل غيره، وبيتكلم كمان عن إن في حاجات كتيرة هي حقوق إنسانية أصلا، فالمفروض إن يتم تصديرها للرأي العام على إنها (حقوق إنسانية)، مش تعاطف ولا منة من الرّجل الغربي الأوروبي.
  الحقيقة هو مشلوح الخلاف اليهو-مسيحي، ومشلوح التّعارك الغربي الكنيسي والإسلام السّياسي، وفضائح من هنا على هناك، وكلها بتخدم القضية الأساسية (حقوق الإنسان)، وهنا هو بيتكلم عن أي إنسان، وعن قضايا اللّاجئين، وعارض كمان إن إزاي في ناس متعاطفة وناس كارهة سيرتهم، بمنتهى الصّراحة، بل وعارض مقولات استفزازية جدا لناس بتطالب بترحيل سكان أصليين لدول معينة، عشان دي مش دولتهم، وقالك: "طيب ما فلسطين أولى!".
  حتّى الأفلام، إللي قال يعني بتخليك محتار تتعاطف مع أي ظالم ولا الإنسانية، بيقولك مفيش الكلام ده! الحقيقة كذا وده المطلوب! إيه بقى لازمته جو الصّعبانيات واللّف والدّوران ده؟
  ترجمة مينا ناجي كانت ممتازة، والحقيقة صعب عليا، لأن ما شاء الله ع سلافوي چيجك، بيحط في الفقرة الواحدة يجي 6 ولا 7 مصطلحات مركبة، فأعتقد لولا حب مينا لآراء سلاڤوي كان زمانه قاطع شرايينه بالطول.
  كمان هتلاقي في الآخر ملحق، مكتوب فيه ترجمة حلقة مينا مع سلاڤوي، وهتشوف أكتر مدى اقتناعه بكل كلمة عرضها، وتقريبا يعني -والله أعلم- هتبدأ تتابع شغل سلاڤوي.