flipboard.

com
https://flipboard.com/topic/slavoj%C5%BDi%C5%BEek/slavoj-iek:-only-a-radicalised-left-can-save-europe/a-_xU6pdZRI6vkpwN3OeccQ:a:49843374-8f9aeaf683/newstatesman.com

Slavoj iek sur Flipboard

After the electoral triumph of the anti-immigrant eurosceptic parties in countries like France and UK, many liberals
expressed their shock and worry. However, there was something of a feigned naivety in their surprise and
indignation, in their wonder at how the victory of the populist right was possible. What one should wonder about is
why it took the anti-immigrant right so long to make a decisive breakthrough.
When Jean-Marie Le Pen made a tasteless gas-chamber joke about a French Jewish pop singer well do an
oven load next time (Le Pen denies this was intended to be anti-Semitic) his daughter Marine Le Pen publicly
criticised him, thereby promoting her image as her fathers human face. It is irrelevant if this family conflict is
staged or real the oscillation between the two faces, the brutal one and the civilised one, is what defines todays
populist right. Beneath the civilised public face, there lurks its obscene, brutal underside, and the difference
concerns only the degree to which this underside is openly admitted. Even if this obscene underside remains
totally out of sight, even if it there are no slips in which it breaks through, it is there as a silent presupposition, as
an invisible point of reference. Without her fathers spectre, Marine Le Pen doesnt exist.
There is no surprise in Le Pens message: the usual anti-elitist working class patriotism which targets transnational financial powers and the alienated Bruxelles bureaucracy. And, effectively, Le Pen forms a clear contrast
to the sterile European technocrats: addressing the worries of ordinary people, she brings passion back to politics.
Even some disoriented leftists succumbed to the temptation to defend her: she rejects the non-elected Bruxelles
financial technocrats who brutally enforce the interest of the international financial capital, prohibiting individual
states prioritising the welfare of their own population; she thus advocates a politics that would be in contact with
worries and cares of the ordinary working people her partys fascist outbursts are a thing of the past. . . What
unites Le Pen and the European leftists who sympathise with her is their shared rejection of a strong Europe, and
the return to the full sovereignty of nation states.
The problem with this shared rejection is that, as they say in a joke, Le Pen is not looking for the causes of the
distresses in the dark corner where they really are, but under the light, because one sees better there. It begins
with the right premise: the failure of the austerity politics practised by the Bruxelles experts. When the Romanian
leftist writer Panait Istrati visited Soviet Union in the 1930s, the time of the big purges and show trials, a Soviet
apologist tried to convince him of the need for violence against enemies, evoking the proverb You cant make an
omelette without breaking eggs, to which Istrati tersely replied: All right. I can see the broken eggs. Wheres this
omelette of yours? We should say the same about the austerity measures imposed by the Bruxelles technocrats:
OK, you are breaking our eggs all around Europe, but wheres the omelette you are promising us?
The least one can say is that the economic crisis of 2008 offers large proofs of how is it not the people but these
experts themselves who, in their large majority, dont know what they are doing. In western Europe, we are
effectively witnessing a growing inability of the ruling elite they know less and less how to rule. Look at how
Europe is dealing with the Greek crisis: putting pressure on Greece to repay debts, but at the same time ruining its
economy through imposed austerity measures and thereby making it sure the Greek debt will never be repaid. At
the end of December 2012, the IMF itself released research showing that the economic damage from aggressive
austerity measures may be as much as three times larger than previously assumed, thereby cancelling its own
advice on austerity in the eurozone crisis. Now, the IMF admits that forcing Greece and other debt-burdened
countries to reduce their deficits too quickly would be counterproductive now, after hundreds of thousands of job
have been lost because of such miscalculations.
It is as if the providers and caretakers of debt accuse the indebted countries of not feeling enough guilt they are
accused of feeling innocent. Recall the ongoing EU pressure on Greece to implement austerity measures this
pressure fits perfectly what psychoanalysis calls superego. Superego is not an ethical agency proper, but a
sadistic agent which bombards the subject with impossible demands, obscenely enjoying the subjects failure to

comply with them; the paradox of the superego is that, as Freud saw it clearly, the more we obey its demands, the
more we feel guilty. Imagine a vicious teacher who gives his pupils impossible tasks, and then sadistically jeers
when he sees their anxiety and panic. This is what is so terribly wrong with the EUs demands andcommands:
they dont even give a chance to Greece, because Greek failure is part of the game.
Therein resides the true message of the irrational popular protests all around Europe: the protesters know very
well what they dont know, they dont pretend to have fast and easy answers, but what their instinct is telling them
is nonetheless true that those in power also dont know it. In Europe today, the blind are leading the blind.
Austerity politics is not really science, not even in a minimal sense; it is much closer to a contemporary form of
superstition a kind of gut reaction to an impenetrable complex situation, a blind common sense reaction of
things went wrong, we are somehow guilty, we have to pay the price and suffers, so lets do something that hurts
and spend less. Austerity is not too radical, as some leftist critics claim, but, on the contrary, too superficial, an
act of avoiding the true roots of the crisis.
However, can the idea of a united Europe be reduced to the reign of the Bruxelles technocrats? The proof that this
is not the case is that the US and Israel, two exemplary nation states obsessed with their sovereignty, at some
deep and often obfuscated level perceive European Union as the enemy. This perception, kept under control in
the public political discourse, explodes in its underground obscene double, the extreme right Christian
fundamentalist political vision with its obsessive fear of the New World Order (Obama is in secret collusion with
the United Nations, international forces will intervene in the US and put in concentration camps all true American
patriots a couple of years ago, there were already rumors that Latino American troupes are already in the
Midwest planes, building concentration camps. . .). This vision is deployed in hard-line Christian fundamentalism,
exemplarily in the works of Tim LaHaye et consortes the title of one of LaHayes novels points in this direction:
The Europa Conspiracy. The true enemy of the US are not Muslim terrorists, they are merely puppets secretly
manipulated by the European secularists, the true forces of the anti-Christ who want to weaken the US and
establish the New World Order under the domination of the United Nations In a way, they are right in this
perception: Europe is not just another geopolitical power block, but a global vision which is ultimately incompatible
with nation-states, a vision of a transnational order that guarantees certain rights (welfare, freedom, etc). This
dimension of the EU provides the key to the so-called European weakness: there is a surprising correlation
between European unification and its loss of global military-political power.
So what is wrong with the Bruxelles technocrats? Not only their measures, their false expertise, but even more
their modus operandi. The basic mode of politics today is a depoliticised expert administration and coordination of
interests. The only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilise people, is through fear: fear of
immigrants, fear of crime, fear of godless sexual depravity, fear of the excessive state itself, with its burden of high
taxation, fear of ecological catastrophe, fear of harassment (Political Correctness is the exemplary liberal form of
the politics of fear). Progressive liberals are, of course, horrified by populist racism; however, a closer look soon
reveals how their multicultural tolerance and respect for (ethnic, religious, sexual) others shares a basic premise
with anti-immigrants: the fear of others clearly discernible in the liberals obsession with harassment. The other is
fine, but only insofar as his presence is not intrusive, insofar as this other is not really other. . .
No wonder the topic of toxic subjects is gaining ground recently. While this notion originates from popular
psychology that warns us against the emotional vampires who prey on us out there, this topic is expanding much
further than immediate interpersonal relations: the predicate toxic covers a series properties which belong to
totally different levels (natural, cultural, psychological, political). A toxic subject can be an immigrant with a
deadly disease who should be quarantined; a terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented and who belongs
to Guantanamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologue who should be
silenced because he is spreading hatred; a parent, teacher or priest who abuses and corrupts children. What is
toxic is ultimately the foreign neighbour as such, so that the ultimate aim of all rules governing interpersonal
relations is to quarantine or at least neutralise and contain this toxic dimension.
On todays market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine,
cream without fat, beer without alcohol. . . And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the
Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the
contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to todays

tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of the other deprived of its otherness the decaffeinated other
who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife
beating remain out of sight. . .
Is this detoxification of the immigrant Other not the main point of Nigel Farages Ukip programme? Farage
repeatedly emphasises that he is not against the presence of foreign workers in the UK, that he highly appreciates
the hard-working Poles and their contribution to the British economy. When he was asked on LBC about why he
said that people wouldn't like to have Romanians living in the appartment next to their own, the contrast was
immediately drawn with German neighbours what worried him, he said, were people with criminal records being
allowed to enter the UK. This is the stance of the civilised anti-immigrant right: the politics of the detoxified
neighbour good Germans versus bad Romanians or Roma. This vision of the detoxification of the Neighbour
presents a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. In what conditions does it arise?
Walter Benjamins old thesis that behind every rise of fascism there is a failed revolution not only still holds today,
but is perhaps more pertinent than ever. Rightist liberals like to point out similarities between left and right
extremisms: Hitlers terror and camps imitated Bolshevik terror, the Leninist party is today alive in al-Qaeda
does this not rather indicate how fascism replaces (takes the place of) a failed leftist revolution? Its rise is the lefts
failure, but simultaneously a proof that there was a revolutionary potential, a dissatisfaction which the left was not
able to mobilise. And does the same not hold for todays so-called islamo-fascism? Is the rise of radical Islamism
not correlative to the disappearance of the secular left in Muslim countries? Today, when Afghanistan is portrayed
as the utmost Islamic fundamentalist country, who still remembers that, 30 years ago, it was a country with strong
secular tradition, up to a powerful Communist party which took power there independently of the Soviet Union? As
Thomas Frank has shown, the same goes for Kansas, the homegrown US version of Afghanistan: the very state
which was till the 1970s the bedrock of radical leftist populism, is today the bedrock of Christian fundamentalism.
And the same goes for Europe: the failure of the leftist alternative to global capitalism gives birth to anti-immigrant
populism.
Even in the case of clearly fundamentalist movements, one should be careful not to miss the social component.
The Taliban are regularly presented as a fundamentalist Islamist group enforcing its rule with terror however,
when, in the spring of 2009, they took over the Swat Valley in Pakistan, New York Times reported that they
engineered a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their
landless tenants. If, by taking advantage of the farmers plight, the Taliban are raising alarm about the risks to
Pakistan, which remains largely feudal, what stops liberal democrats in Pakistan as well as the US similarly
taking advantage of this plight and trying to help the landless farmers? The sad implication of this fact is that the
feudal forces in Pakistan are the natural ally of the liberal democracy. . . And, mutatis mutandis, the same goes
for Farage and Le Pen: their rise is the obverse of the demise of the radical left.
The lesson that the frightened liberals should learn is thus: only a radicalised left can save what is worth saving
from the liberal legacy. The sad prospect that lurks if this doesnt happen is the unity of the two poles: the rule of
nameless financial technocrats wearing a mask of populist pseudo-passions.