Demasiado tarde para despertar: ¿Qué nos espera cuando … (2024)

Very accessible, this almost feels like sitting with Žižek talking about the world and all over a beer. Although I don't always agree, he does make consistent points in most of the cases.

The most important book I’ve read for this year. I am giving this to all my friends as a ‘must read’.

“We should do precisely what historicist relativisation forbids: we should measure the past with today’s standards. Once we see that slavery is wrong, we simultaneously see that it was always wrong, and become able to read history differently.”

if you follow zizek periodically this is nothing new (much of what he writes here can be easily found through different youtube interviews), but he is such nicer to follow on the page rather that listen him talk. even if he abundantly makes it clear that we (the ones who want to consider themselves leftists) should and must stand on the Ukraine side during this ongoing war, zizek takes the effort to actually extricates the implications of such a statement. very insightful and approachable even if written from a guy who studies lacan and hegel for fun; three stars just because much of it I already knew and I expected more philosophy than present politics. but that's what you get from not reading the blurbs. like, ever.

Zizek always brings few brilliant insights and funny obscenities to the table. The text is much more optimistic than the title suggests.
Despite being a bit hectic, it is a fun read.

I know I’m being one of the dull oppressive woke scolds he’s complaining about in this book, but what does he want to signal by calling Chelsea Manning “Bradley”? Surely by now everyone is used to calling her Chelsea and you really have to go out of your way to retrieve the old name

The book contains several new thoughts on the current political problems, mostly focusing on European landscape. It’s less philosophical and easier to read than some of his other works.

1.
However, recent historical experience rather seems to demonstrate the opposite: there is no right moment to awaken. We either freak out too early and thus appear to spread empty panic, or we come to our senses when it’s already too late.
2. (Pessimism is a sign we love sth)
It’s easy, from today’s perspective, to mock the ‘pessimists’, from the Right to the Left, from Solzhenitsyn to Castoriadis, who deplored the blindness and compromises of the democratic West, its lack of ethico-political strength and courage in dealing with the Communist threat, and who predicted that the West had already lost the Cold War, that the Communist bloc had already won it, that the collapse of the West was imminent – but in fact it was precisely their attitude that did the most to bring about the collapse of Communism. In Dupuy’s terms, it was their very ‘pessimistic’ prediction of the future, of how history would inevitably unfold, that mobilized them to counteract it.
3.
Once a full military conflict has broken out (between the US and Iran, between China and Taiwan, between Russia and NATO …), it will appear to us all as necessary; that is to say, we will automatically read the past that led to it as a sequence of events that necessarily caused the explosion. If it doesn’t happen, we will read it the way we read the Cold War today: as a series of dangerous moments where catastrophe was avoided because both sides were aware of the deadly consequences of a global conflict.
4.
This is how ideology functions today: ideology tells the truth but creates conditions which guarantee that the truth itself will be perceived as a lie.
5.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that a radical social change – a revolution – is needed to civilize our civilizations. We cannot afford to hope that a new war will lead to this revolution: a new war would much more probably mean the end of civilization as we know it, with the survivors (if any) organized in small authoritarian groups.
6.
A patriot, a person who really loves her or his country, is someone who is deeply ashamed of it when it does something bad.
7.
And some others on the ‘Left’ (I cannot use the word here without quote marks) have actually gone so far as to place the blame on the West – parroting the Russian line that NATO was slowly strangling and destabilizing Russia, encircling it militarily, ignoring Russia’s quite reasonable fears; after all, Russia was twice attacked from the West in the last century … There is, of course, an element of truth in this, but this reasoning is the same as justifying Hitler’s regime on the basis that the unjust Versailles treaty crushed the German economy. It also implies that the big powers have the right to control their own spheres of influence, sacrificing the autonomy of small nations on the altar of global stability.
8.
demands to boycott Russian culture are also extremely counter-productive since they de facto elevate the Putin regime into a defender of Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy. We should on the contrary insist that we are defending the great Russian tradition against its abusers. And we should avoid triumphalism – we should not demand that Russia should be humiliated. Our goal should remain positive: not ‘Russia must lose!’ but ‘Ukraine must survive!’
9.
We have today two main opposed ideological blocs. The religious neo-conservatives (from Putin and Trump to Iran) advocate a return to old orthodox Christian (or Muslim) traditions against ‘Satanic’ postmodern decadence – usually focussing on LGBT+ and transgender issues; however, their actual politics is full of barbarian obscenity and violence. On the opposite side, the Politically Correct liberal Left preaches permissiveness to all forms of sexual and ethnic identity; however, in its endeavour to guarantee this tolerance, it needs more and more rules – more ‘cancelling’ and regulating – which introduce constant anxiety and tension in this ostensibly happy permissive universe. These limitations are in some sense much stronger than the paternal prohibition that solicits the desire for transgression, and they do little to help the cause of genuine emancipation – they distract from it.
10.
With all its declared opposition to the new forms of barbarism, the woke Left fully participates in it, promoting and practising a flat discourse without irony. Although it advocates pluralism and promotes difference, its subjective position of enunciation – the place from which it speaks – is extremely authoritarian, allowing very limited debate and imposing exclusions that are often based on arbitrary premises.
11.
Cancel culture with its implicit paranoia is a desperate (and obviously inefficient) attempt to compensate for the actual troubles and tragedies faced by LGBT+ individuals, the violence and exclusion to which they are permanently subjected. The answer to this violence cannot be a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo ‘safe space’ whose discursive fanaticism leaves intact and even strengthens the resistance of the majority to it.
12.
And it is exactly the same with much of the ongoing ‘woke’ movement: they awaken us (to the horrors of racism and sexism) precisely to enable us to go on sleeping, that is, ignoring the true roots and depth of racial and sexual trauma.
13.
The correct Leftist stance is: bring out the hidden antagonisms of your own culture, link it to the antagonisms of other cultures, and then engage in a common struggle between those who fight here, against the oppression and domination at work in our own culture, and those who do the same in other cultures around the world.
14.
The paradox is here double: Political Correctness is a displacement of good old class struggle – the liberal elite pretends to protect oppressed minority to obfuscate the basic fact of their privileged economic and political position. This lie allows the alt-Right populists to present themselves as a defense of the ‘real’ working class against the big corporations and the ‘deep state’ elites.
15.
(Orwell)
We all rail against class-distinctions, but very few people seriously want to abolish them.
(Zizek)
Orwell’s point is that radicals invoke the need for revolutionary change as a kind of superstitious token that should achieve the opposite, i.e. prevent the change from really occurring – today’s academic Leftists who criticize capitalist cultural imperialism are in reality horrified at the thought of their field of study really breaking down.
(Later on)
We should not underestimate the secret satisfaction provided by the passive life of depression and apathy, of just dragging on without a clear life-project. However, the change that is required is not just a subjective one but a global social change.
16.
But there is a deeper reason Assange causes such unease: he has made it clear that the most dangerous threat to freedom does not come from an openly authoritarian power, it takes place when our unfreedom itself is experienced as freedom...
17. (some sort of a solution)
To cope with our ongoing, escalating crises, from threats to our environment to unfolding wars, we will need elements of what, in this book, I provocatively call ‘war Communism’: mobilizations that will have to violate not only the usual market rules but also the established rules of democracy (enforcing measures and limiting freedoms without democratic approval). [...] ...let’s mobilize ourselves to attack the roots of our crisis, with all the risks that this involves. Because the greatest risk today is doing nothing and allowing history to follow its course.

Zizek is such a joy to read and has a unique ability to shrug and self relativise, a quality very few other communists possess. This is however a serious and bleak book. «We should have no illusions, in a sense World War III has already begun». He sketches the situation in the entire world today with the biggest part being a multi facetted view of the situation in Russia and Ukraine. Zizek being Zizek I’m always keen to hear him out on where we initially disagree (like sending weapons to Ukraine, or limiting migration to protect the lowest wages).

Some of my favourite parts:
x
The culture war raging in the developed West is thus a false war, a war between two versions of the same global capitalist system: its unrestrained, pure market-individualist version and its neo-Fascist conservative version which tries to unite capitalist dynamism with traditional values and liberties?

x
The predominant critical stance in our big media still avoids capitalism. Here is an exemplary case. Harry and Meghan have joined Ethic, a company that invests in sustainable projects, as 'impact officers' - Ethic's website says: 'They're deeply committed to helping address the defining issues of our time - such as climate, gender equity, health, racial justice, human rights, and strengthening democracy - and understand that these issues are inherently interconnected.' One cannot but note that something is missing in this list of the'defining issues of our time': yes, these issues are 'inherently interconnected', but not directly- what mediates their
connection is global capitalism and its destructive effects."

x
The Rightist nationalist version is: respect your own culture and despise others, which are inferior to it. The politically correct formula is: respect other cultures, but despise your own, which is racist and colonialist (that's why politically correct woke culture is always anti-Eurocentric).
The correct Leftist stance is: bring out the hidden antagonisms of your own culture, link it to the antagonisms of other cultures, and then engage in a common struggle

x
Cancel culture with its implicit paranoia is a desperate (and obviously inefficient) attempt to compensate for the actual troubles and tragedies faced by LGBT+ individuals, the violence and exclusion to which they are permanently subjected. The answer to this violence cannot be a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo 'safe space' whose discursive fanaticism leaves intact and even strengthens the resistance of the majority to it.

x
The paradox is here double: Political Correctness is a displacement of good old class struggle - the liberal elite pretends to protect oppressed minority to obfuscate the basic fact of their privileged economic and political position. This lie allows the alt-Right populists to present themselves as a defense of the 'real' working class against the big corporations and the 'deep state' elites.

x
A type of political leader is emerging who - to quote from Alenka Zupanic's Let Them Rot -
take|s] pride in committing [a] crime openly rather than secretly, as if it amounted to some kind of fundamental moral difference or difference of character, namely,'having the courage,' 'the guts, to do it openly. But what may appear to be their courageous transgression of state laws by avoiding the 'hypocrisy' that those laws sometimes demand is nothing more than a direct identification with the obscene other side of state power itself. It does not amount to anything else or different.
They are 'transgressing' their own laws. This is why, even when they are in power, these leaders continue to act as if they are in opposition to the existing power, rebelling against it - call it the 'deep state' or something else.

If right bad and left bad too, what you do? LIZARD PEOPLEEE LESGOO!

I've always been of an opinion that religion and (super)ego (somewhat tied to simple testosterone in many cases) (and notwithstanding numerous other things I don't relate to here as they seem of a smaller importance) are the biggest plight of this here not so humble a world. I've been reinforced in the belief numerous times since forming the thought. While it's refreshing to read a bouquet of sober thoughts for once, I always find it lacking in the presentation of real solutions. And while it's not an easy undertaking by any means to change the global (mental) issue, there are some things you can try right now. Take a dose of psilocybin once or twice a year and you won't feel the oppressive compulsions to steal and conquer, whether it be someone's girlfriend or a piece of land that just simply doesn't belong to you, no matter how elaborate and prevalent a lie you fabricate; unless you want to ride (or better still, be led) in circles of 'you must but you cannot because you shouldn't'.

It feels like the distillation of the last 2-3 pandemic books, taking the best ideas and placing them in a more lasting form.

This is about as clear, coherent and concise as Zizek gets. His analysis of our dire situation at present, and our impotence in the face it, is bang on (as far as I'm concerned). He is such an asset to our collective political imagination right now.

He gets into some more complex psychoanalytic theory in a way that is perfectly understandable, and very relatable. We are "frantically doing nothing", fantasising about a spectacular apocalypse, and creating imaginary enemies while the world is already on fire.

Compreensão geopolítica e narrativa crítica, o leitor é levado para a análise do seu posicionamento e atividade na atualidade, com as complexidades das guerras, das alterações climáticas, do wokism, e do ponto de não retorno. Alerta-se para a necessidade de construção de possibilidades de vida justa. Momentos de crise como ótimas oportunidades para a criação de outras formas de organização.

The metaphor of the title is a pretty good frame for confronting our seemingly imminent horrors of nuclear war & climate change, but the specifics of the analysis vis a vis Ukraine are themselves horrible.

Žižek presents a interesting and well thought through explanation of the wests current decline from liberalism and puts forward some interesting ideas about how we should move forward as a civilization.
Would definitely recommend for those who want a fresh insight on the decline of the west.

Zizek takes on very current events including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the very real possibility of nuclear war, very interesting points in this one.

admittedly a little hectic and all over the place for the average reader - you have to be engrossed in every word to be able to follow zizek's train of thought. once you get the hang of it, though, this is an incredibly simple yet powerful read. it feels like you're just having a beer with him as he rambles. i initially went into this book expecting more ideological theory and epistemology rather than contemporary comparative politics and cultural criticism, but then i attended his seminar in amsterdam (which was partially book promo) and took notes in the back of my book. i went back to these notes a lot as i was reading and they do complement the content pretty nicely.

the only criticism i can bring myself to voice is that some of the chapters feel too tainted by internet brain rot discourse that is less limited in real-world applicability than zizek assumes.

In 2023's December, I met Mr. Slavoj Žižek himself at G10's festival van de economie, Filosofie & The arts in Amsterdam, where the total character of a philosopher held a
lecture on current geopolitical events. His insights convinced me to purchase this book "Too Late To Awaken: What lies ahead when there is no future (The personally added autograph on its first page serves as a wonderful souvenir of this festival)

Žižek's true-to-self writing style along with its humor makes this a light read for a book that touches on such heavy topics as the conflicts of the 'modern' world, from the war in Ukraine to Israel's tensions in the the West-Bank (Which, in the meantime, has come to an utterly inhumane act of 'self-defense'), to the woke left versus the populist right, and so on.
The essence of Žižek's message can be summarized by the following of his quotes:
“In short, the truly courageous stance is to admit that the light at the end of the tunnel is most probably the headlight of a train approaching us from the opposite direction.”
It's too late to awaken, he states, and we must see eye to eye with the four horsem*n of the apocalypse and face them head on. Žižek successfully manages to cut this thesis into well thought-out points of critique, incorporating significant events in the history of politics as well as the most basic of examples to create understanding.

As a Lacanian psychoanalyst and communist, Slavoj offers an unconventional perspective on the problems we face daily, as seen on TV and in newspapers. Although the title might suggest a book of conspiracies and scaremongering, it is anything but that. I appreciate his no-nonsense approach to philosophy, where, for example, democracy is not praised as the end-all, be-all, and other forms of government aren't ruled out by default. What I do miss in this book is a common struggle everywhere, but specifically within the realm of philosophy—the conversion of broad ideas into concrete steps. All-in-all tough, Too Late To Awaken: What lies ahead when there is no future was an informational read and a solid purchase.

Another reason to feel old: reading Looking Awray: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan and a Plea for Intolerance somewhere in 2002. Slavoj Žižek is somewhat of a rockstar among philosophers, but that should not detract from what he has to say – nor should his incessant referring to Jacques Lacan, Marx and Hegel. When I heard him exclaim “the true dreamers are those who think the things can go on indefinitely the way they are” on YouTube in October 2011, I’ve always thought of him as someone that is able to pull away the curtain on certain things.

It has been over 20 years since I read something of the man, and this title caught my eye – especially after I read The Deluge. 2024 promises to be something of a year celebrating the existential crisis, so in search of denouement, I turned to Žižek again.

Too Late To Awaken has 163 pages, subdivided in 17 short chapters. It was written around the one year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The bulk of the book – the first 100 pages – mainly deal with Žižek’s thoughts on what this invasion means for global politics. The picture ain’t pretty: maybe we should stop worrying about the coming calamity, and admit we are already knee-deep in it. That future dystopia we all fear is already happening, right now. We might be well aware of that, but we choose to ignore it.

Žižek offers some thoughts on the culture wars as well, and his analysis is not that original, if well put: both sides of that war ignore economic foundations. Are we even aware how thoroughly our lives have changed the last few decades? Referring to Alenka Zupančič and Yanis Varoufakis, he ends with a chapter warning about the current form of neo-feudalism, as our most important commons today are privately owned.

He ends with the notion that markets move too slowly to solve the current environmental and political crisis. Remarkably, the book is a call to arms to switch to some kind of war economy, one that bypasses our failing democracies. “Our [only] hope today is the crisis.”

Weighing A Pig Doesn't Fatten It

Classic Zizek, combining analysis of works from the Marxist canon with pop culture titbits. His style is pleasurable and thought-provoking.

He repeats himself book after book, but I'm happy to listen, nodding gently like a child by the fire as grandpa tells the same old story.

The chapter on modern malaise was great:

"Today's global capitalism generates apathy precisely because it demands from us permanent hyper-activity, constant engagement in its devastating dynamic". (p. 111)

I see myself in this description - the hours spent fruitlessly scrolling, reading, skimming the torrent of information - transfixed and paralysed by the flood.

Zizek makes persuasive points in favour of supporting Ukraine, arguing against people who favour inaction due to their distaste for NATO expansion, US imperialism, and the arms industry. In matters of strategy, you sometimes have to accept moral ambiguity, and team up temporarily with forces you don't fully agree with.

As usual, he frames the 'culture wars' in a clear-eyed way:

"We have today two main opposed ideological blocs. The religious neo-conservatives (from Putin and Trump to Iran) advocate a return to old orthodox Christian (or Muslim) traditions against 'Satanic' postmodern decadence - usually focusing on LGBT+ and transgender issues; however, their actual politics are full of barbarian obscenity and violence. On the opposite side, the Politically Correct liberal Left preaches permissiveness to all forms of sexual and ethnic identity; however, in its endeavour to guarantee this tolerance, it needs more and more rules - more 'cancelling' and regulating - which introduce constant anxiety and tension in this ostensibly happy permissive univerise." (p. 88)

Has anybody summarised it any better than that?

Anyway, here's me updating a log of my reading habits on a platform owned by Jeff Bezos. Cheers.

P.S. Free Assange.

oh. not a fan. Made it to about ch. 4 on audio. I was hoping for good philosophy but this is mostly politics (and some climate change...) and he's way too pro Ukraine without any criticism (so far...). I think the man's losing it. time to retire. adequate analysis would take seriously the 8 years of attacks on pro-Russian eastern regions by Ukraine as a serious cause for SMO. My very simple opinion, Ukraine had guarantees of territorial integrity on the CONDITION that it remain militarily neutral. When Nato "invitations" began coming, that condition was violated. So I agree with Russia diplomats. Ukraine will never see the comfortable 1991 borders ever again.

I found Žižek’s method of approaching catastrophe refreshing; to assume the catastrophe has already occured and retrospectively think of what might have prevented it (“hindsight is 20/20”), thus proactively avoiding the worst. Also appreciated his no-holds-barred critique of Western politics, though not every point was as well-developed as one might hope, and he often devolves into chasing rabbit trails that don’t serve his overall thesis. Good but not great — it jumps quickly and cleverly onto a relevant sociopolitical moment but is ultimately rather discombobulated — possibly too discombobulated for as wide of an audience as this book has been marketed toward.

“The apostle Paul characterized his own time in a way that seems to fit our present moment perfectly: ‘Make no mistake about the age we live in; already it is high time for us to awake out of our sleep’(Romans 13:11).”

“Religious ideologues usually claim that, true or not, religion makes otherwise bad people do good things; judging from today’s experience, we should rather stick to Steve Weinberg’s claim that, while, without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things, only religion can make good people do bad things.”

Door de soms wat warrige rollercoaster van schrijven is de onbetwistbare genialiteit van Zizek nog altijd zichtbaar aanwezig in zijn woorden. Hier en daar hele rake punten ten aanzien van de nieuwe wereldorde. Voer voor ieder die de wereld van vandaag poogt te begrijpen!

Ecclectic, witty, questionable, insightful, sometimes incomprehensible, troubling and most importantly: ruthlessly honest. More optimistic than expected. You can hear Zizek’s voice in the text.

Sober take on a lot of past, current and future issues.

ele é um gênio. UM GÊNIO!!!!

a nice up-to-day current affair commentary you can gather and surely it comes with the solutions as well.

A nice, but typical zizekian, book by Zizek.

Really lost me in the second half starting with his discussion of gender/culture wars

It hasn't given me much optimism, but it does help process some of humanities prospects.

Docked one star for not enough old Socialist Bloc jokes.
Don't worry, there are still more than enough of "as Alenka Zupančič puts it."