Charlie Rose

RaymondLotta  01/21/2012 04:02 PM Report

A polemic vs Slavoj Zizek--Events of the past year, from Egypt to the Occupy movements, are opening new vistas and throwing up big issues for debate. Can you break out of the framework of capitalism? Is there a relevant Marxist vision and strategy that speaks to the enormity of the problems humanity confronts and that yields liberatory solutions? In short, is a radically different, and better, world possible?

This is the backdrop for my polemic against the political philosophy of Slavoj Zizek. This is a debate that takes in the lessons of the revolutions of the 20th century, the significance of Bob Avakian's new synthesis of communism, and the nature of the world capitalist system. I am arguing that Zizek's stance, despite his radical reputation, is actually harmful to the cause of revolution. The polemic is at http://revcom.us/a/256/vilifying_communism_and_accommodating_imperialism-en.html

umbrarchist  11/06/2011 01:59 PM Report

It is 42 years after the Moon landing. We are supposed to believe that economists don't know that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for decades? Can the economists tell us how much Americans have lost on the depreciation of automobiles since 1969?

No they don't even talk about Demand Side Depreciation. But our educators don't suggest that accounting be mandatory in our schools either. Double-entry accounting is only 700 years old. Can't our $200 computers handle it?

The Accounting Game: Basic Accounting Fresh From the Lemonade Stand

http://www.exceltip.com/book-1570713960.html

http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/general/2006/10/18/foolish-book-review-quotthe-accounting-gamequ ot.aspx

DCupcake  11/01/2011 02:06 AM Report

Engine, you should realize that TZM is precisely the wrong way to approach social transformation. In Zizek's book Violence, he makes it very clear that a movement like TZM is based on a politics of fear, centered around the notion of "homo sacer" (the sacred man), in which social problems are misconstrued as technical problems. From Chapter 2 of Violence:

"Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics—an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: 'post-political' is a politics which claims to leave behind old ideological struggles and instead focus on expert management and administration, while 'bio-politics' designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives [i.e. homo sacer] as its primary goal. It is clear how these two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life...almost only that. That is to say, with the depoliticised, socially objective expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero level of politics, the only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilise people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's subjectivity. For this reason, bio-politics is ultimately a politics of fear, it focuses on defence from potential victimisation and harassment."

I think a better alternative is Economic Democracy. I'm not completely sold on it, but if anyone is interested, read After Capitalism by David Schweickart. I really wish I could accept TZM's proposal but it's frankly "philosophically vacuous".

JohnGelles  11/01/2011 01:19 AM Report

Engine proposes "we're all in the same boat". I agree.

What next? Row? Start the engine? Grab the wheel?

I admit Zizek, Corwin, Mamet, Occupy everywhere, Print More Money, and all other text is text. Action is Action. Progress is partly subjective. Engine has proposed we are in a sense each other. OK

Engine  10/31/2011 05:08 PM Report

Here's the best proposed alternative so far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1N3opw5eI

JohnGelles  10/30/2011 09:04 PM Report

Corwin died 2 weeks ago at 101. Today I heard a great TV tribute to his work and life. If his WW II ideas had been what people followed Reagan-Thatcherism would not have been elected.

David Mamet is an heir to Norman Corwin -- only he may be less enthusiastic about Freedom from Want. It can seem to be Utopian -- except when you live with its opposite idea.

What about OWS and Zizek? Will Mamet put them in the movies or on TV? Only if they merit it. Meanwhile Steve Jobs died too. And he made far more a splash than Corwin without WW II as the story.

Gates was on TV today on another channel. Corwin, Mamet, Jobs and Gates, and Zizek with Amy Goodman. What a mixed salad if you have lost your voice to say ENOUGH.

JohnGelles  10/30/2011 08:35 PM Report

[ Section 2w -- section 1 is below this reverse-chronological discussion ]

Zizek may look like a disheveled poet with a runny nose. He is a dissident from Red Land.

Norman Corwin was are good looking radio writer-producer-director whose prose was perfect and ran to poetry. He was our wartime patriotic voice who wanted victory to mean achievement of the FOUR FREEDOMS promised to us all -- in exchange for the blood and suffering of all who fought for America and its allies and against German Japanese and Italian totalitarian murderers and fanatics.

When the war was won, American politicians and Tories refused to establish the economic rights called for by Freedom from Want. Corwin sided with the heirs of FDR's political bent.

For his wisdom and his decency he was labelled LEFT. In fact, he was at the center of the spectrum.

[ end section 2 ]

JohnGelles  10/30/2011 08:17 PM Report

Dammit -- I wrote a great piece on Zizek, Norman Corwin and David Mamet -- and flushed it down the cyber-toilet with a false keystroke. I hate this system on account of doing this so often. The only cure -- post your krap in sections.

[end section 1.

Two will follow if I don't kill myself. Which, if I don't, will be just to aggravate both ME and YOU.]

svc  10/29/2011 01:16 PM Report

So great to Zizek on the CR show! Wondering when this was going to happen; seeing as I took an interest in both of their work at about the same time in my life.

Had fun checking out the other comments, I like to see peoples first impressions of Zizek. "what's with the runny nose?", that's my favorite.

Can't wait till he's a house hold name.

I am very serious when I say I think his ideas are a harbinger of a new political climate. He is too intelligent and charismatic to ignore. One thing that he said long ago pertaining to D. Rumsfeld's "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" justification of the invasion of iraq is so poignant: that's the "unknown knowns"- things that we don't know that we know, we know them so well we don't even notice they're there. That's ideology.

JohnGelles  10/29/2011 06:44 AM Report

Eric Lemmons' post below (10/29/ at 01:22 AM) makes a point I believe is key to this discussion:

..... "I think he should not get a free pass on claiming that he has no answers. I appreciate his humbleness in that regard, but to define some of the problems, and then claim that he has no answers, is a clever doge, in my opinion."

No doubt when any of us offer answers -- such as my own "money crank" answer -- we create immediate skeptical reactions that stem from universal attitudes that mimic Zizek's ploy about the non-existence of answers (other than the secreted defense to any answer not his own, held by the skeptic himself.)

Eric goes on to create the straw-man defense that the man with an answer wants TOTAL control of everything and is therefore against human rights and freedom.

I am no anti-human rights or anti-freedom nut-job. My money crank approach to an answer begins with the PREAMBLE and the SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS. (t text of each is linked at the end of this post).

My answer is straight Keynesian focus on

..... (1) matching DEMAND to SUPPLY, (2) matching SUPPLY to natural human need for food, water, shelter, education, recreation, freedom, fun and games, etc., and (3) matching the money supply to economic OUTPUT FOR SALE -- not debt invested ahead of time.

You might say my 1,2,3 resembles the 999 tax of Herman Cain in its categorical over-simplification. But don't.

Open your mind to the fact that money motivates rich and poor alike to want MORE money for as long as it can buy other forms of wanted wealth.

So my answer does not ask for total power over the way you part your hair or eat your soup. It wants only the power to create money, we already have in the American Constitution, for as long as money motivates work enough to create wealth in the form of the necessities and niceties of life in quality and quantity to match the money so created.

This is not Chinese capitalism without freedom; it is as American as apple pie made with good apples in enough pies for workers to be able to buy what they want to eat by way of apple pie.

The money we have today is limited by our system of monetizing DEBT when we should be monetizing OUTPUT.

Naturally my answer has bells and whistles, such as (1).inflation protected savings and (2).an Economic Security Agency (ESA) with computing power on the scale of the NSA, to identify accounts within our systems of SUPPLY and DEMAND where deficits in liquidity want to be corrected (in the opinion of private producers and consumers as well as the ESA)

I invite comment from Eric and all others.

There more at www.ustaxreform.us and www.ustaxreform.us/.preamble.htm and www.ustaxreform.us/.er.htm

MatthewBailey  10/29/2011 06:42 AM Report

The reason that Slavoj kept "grabbing his nose" is that he had a cold when he was being interviewed (and when he spoke at OWS).

So, cut him some slack.

ericlemmons  10/29/2011 01:22 AM Report

Very interesting. He is introduced as a communist and Marxist. However, I found his remarks very fair and honest.

He acknowledges that capitalism is the most successful and productive economic model, although there are problems. He is no fan of the communism of the 20th century. He acknowledges it was a disaster, and in resonse to Charlie's question about Gorbachov, that it was not reformable.

He seems to admire the asian state capitalism model.

I think he should not get a free pass on claiming that he has no answers. I appreciate his humbleness in that regard, but to define some of the problems, and then claim that he has no answers, is a clever doge, in my opinion.

I think Charlie should have gone into the communist/Marist problems with state control. To me, total state control is the primare weakness of all "public interest" government schemes. They all require that the the central government must have all of the power so it can enforce the new "perfect public interest" on the population. It is fundamentally anti representative goverment. Progressive elitists are not willing to accept the results of self-government with individual rights and freedoms.

Mr. Zizek reveals some of this ih his remark about not wanting to debate with sutdents, because most of them are too dumb to interest him. Discussing with them would be a waste of time.

I wish Charlie has also pointed out that the US already has a large element of social justice to it's system. We spend teo thirds of our budget on transfer payments. Taking money from some citizens, and giving it to others. And we spend almost a trillion dollars of our budget on that, and other "welfare" progrems, like food stamps, etc..

Charlie shows his elitists feelings in not going into these issues. Charlie is obviously on board with the elitist progressive view of the world and how it should be governed.

YNHow  10/28/2011 08:38 PM Report

Thank you Mr. Rose for a much appreciated interview.

If it was for me, there would be a philosopher on the show every week. The open minded and honnest approach to resolution of problems characterized (in general) by philosophy is a refreshing discourse contrasting with politic's and economic's althought both more than meaningful.

I didn't know Mr. Zizek prior to this interview and I am pleased. What a character some might say...

Over the head interesting interview.

Thank you

JohnGelles  10/28/2011 02:54 PM Report

The nervous nose grabber character acted out by Slavoj Zizek is nowhere apparent in the Wikipedia entry praising him to the skies. I imagine Zizek the magician has a bagful of poses he can use at will.

However, it is possible that the act we saw was involuntary.

I am a retired teacher and used to find myself in an act before the class that was semi-involuntary.

And then there is the act we perform in this archive. Are we really all so arch and overblown. What about CR. What's the real one like?

oliviamy  10/28/2011 01:29 PM Report

I came to this section looking for a report with the comments of the gentleman who kept grabbing his nose and found some interesting comments. I found the interview interesting. This was Charlie at his most skillful questioning pitch. Way to go Charlie.

JohnGelles  10/28/2011 09:17 AM Report

To JG from THD':

Why would anybody work if he had a trust at birth?

Because the trust paid others to help babies grow up to become responsible adults. It's all a matter of giving birth to fish and helping them grow up to be fish not foul.

We are not fish. We do not want to be fish. We are monkeys. And we like to monkey around.

Take your trust and stuff it. Money is for stealing not investing.

JohnGelles  10/28/2011 09:08 AM Report

THD writes:"... guests [ with opinions that contrast with those of your usual invitees -- new guests] like Zizek, Goodman and Hedges -- ]could make the metal of the [Rose interviews] program stronger, like a good blade, and cut to the heart of our problems more truly.

What is at the heart of the problems of unemployment, poverty, pollution, unfairness, terrorism, hate and war? Is it inattention by government to the societal costs of individual poverty and failure? Would we all be better off if individuals wee born with a checking account large enough to ensure that older people could make a living by serving the future interest of each baby.

How would that work? Why, the same way it works today for babies without rich parents but with large trusts that pay for all their needs. It's just a matter of investing good money to accomplish good purposes.

Where do such government trusts exist? In imaginations as fertile as Zizek's, Goodman's and Hedges'. What would it take to move such trusts from the imagination to the Bank and Trust around the corner?

Money. and the capacity to exchange supply for money and money for necessary work.

Where would you find that?

Next to the bank and all around it.

rodralph  10/28/2011 08:41 AM Report

I couldn't watch it--he kept blowing his nose.

truth_hates_delay  10/28/2011 01:11 AM Report

Thank you Charlie Rose for inviting guests like Zizek, Goodman and Hedges. Progressive thinkers aren't so dangerous after all (and they certainly aren't advocating Stalinism or the end of America).

Guests like these, indeed help create the bigger space for thinking both you and Zizek wish to create. You both also share the philosophic approach: how you ask questions determines the answer (often to a fault and before your guests can complete their thought). Though, see how the kind of guests determine the kind of answers, too. Refreshing, indeed.

Many other positive comments from viewers-new people-too. I am hoping for more of this kind of diversity and more allowance for diverse ideas. Obviously, viewers and our country can handle it and many even desire it.

Seeing that a handful of establishment guests have been on over 20 times, often within the past years, nudging them out a few times to make room for contrasting guests could make the metal of the program stronger, like a good blade, and cut to the heart of our problems more truly.

THANK YOU THANK YOU.

JohnGelles  10/27/2011 03:43 PM Report

Slavoj Zizek has a name more difficult than mine for me to remember and repeat. But his open-minded dissenting ideas, in abbreviated form on TV and in Wikipedia, are the same as my own.

He told the OWS crowd that America may wake up from its reputed dream to find it is in a nightmare world of unemployed labor and ineffective capital -- [that FDR warned in his Second Bill of Rights can lead to tyranny and war, against and/or among, totalitarian nations -- East and West of its considerable portion of Earth.]

I can imagine a Zizek well dressed and appointed to reflect his great success among gifted philosophers with whom he competes for achieving immortality based on his expressed thought. Such a Zizek, supported by audio-visual diagrammatic proof that his opinions must count, would suit me more than the costume he has decided works for him.

But, it may be that he opposes answers offered where questions are as far as legitimate philosophy should venture.

As I have said, on the CR Show page on OWS-Goodman-Hedges, the answer is to change the net worth sign, next to all our names, from negative to positive with respect to numbers. We would replace debt with money, and the puzzles of philosophy could remain as they are for people still alive.

Money is a great invention that has so far found no purpose. Philosophy may be the same, but having one is far less urgent than having beaucoups money.

I think Slavoj Zizek is living proof that human economic rights are as important as having a brain. Without them the brain is tormented.

www.ustaxreform.us/.crs.htm

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/27/2011 03:36 PM Report

Charlie, you saved this interview.

Your questions came at the perfect times.

His brain functions in spurts and you can see this when he pulls his nose, grabs his shirt, flicks his hair.

He says profound things but you have to pan for them like panning for gold.

beenthere2460  10/27/2011 03:18 PM Report

I happen to like him, and totally agree with him in that we "really need to start thinking again" because we are faced with something much more deeper than what is outwardly apparent. And true, there is really no answer in the foreseeable future. I just hope reason prevails.

Uncertainty has never been so refreshing and useful.

OLAN  10/27/2011 02:35 PM Report

He does have some points in some things, not everything. BYOW (W=wastepaper basket).

MarieIsenburg  10/27/2011 02:19 PM Report

Yes, the way you ask the question determines the answer. However, to get closer to the truth, we have to aim for questions that influence the response a little as possible. This show come as close to that standard as any I know of.

Davyh  10/27/2011 02:17 PM Report

I agree with Becker. I thought Zizek was intelligent, amusing and even charming (though a little uncouth.) Having read a little about him, I have a feeling he toned down his remarks for an American audience, but what he did say seemed to me always interesting and sometimes very sensible. Thanks for having him Charlie, and thanks for being, as you always are, gentle and courteous in your questioning.

johnbekker  10/27/2011 02:10 PM Report

Thank you Charlie for this, I have not seen many philosophers on your show and Zizek is definitely a breath of fresh air. Wish it was a bit longer though, since the topics he usually talks about are complex and need quite a bit of explaining to fully understand them.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/27/2011 01:00 PM Report

"If you do mathematics, you need a pencil, paper and a wastebasket. If you do philosophy, you just need the first two."

He needs to do mathematics.

REMant  10/27/2011 11:34 AM Report

Americans have long believed they have no philosophy and looked to Europe for one - the crazier and more irrelevant the better. I would tend to think philosophers growing up in the isolation created by the Iron Curtain must be crazier still, Marxism being a culture all its own. I first encountered this in college when I spent some time with Kolakowski. Zizek seems to have been similarly impressed by the imbecility of his milieu tho as a result has been accused of fascism by his comrades. One could argue however that philosophy stopped more than a century ago, if not indeed some centuries prior to the birth of Christ.

In return American popular culture seems to equally venerated by all Europeans. Exactly how that works out is beyond my comprehension, but that it is the case always been obvious ever since I saw German teenagers jitterbugging to Dixieland, and worn-out Levis selling like hotcakes in Eastern Europe.

Fascism, in any case, has its origins in the attempt to recover the glory of Rome or some other some other such idealistic past. It is the kin in that respect of Whiggism and Progressivism. It differs however from Bolshevism over the role of self-reliance or egotism. The former is jealous and the latter envious, and our evangelicals seem able to go both ways. Archie Bunker said simply ppl who live in communes are commune-ists.

Zizek reminds me too that the formula for academic success has long been to be become expert in the most arcane and scholastic branch of human endeavor, thus insuring not only career advancement, but total insulation from having to become involved with anything really important.

I would advise American students to forget this stuff and study their own religious, political and philosophical tradition and then perhaps they will also understand their past and themselves.

I agree with him about Libya as I wrote the other day, tho I am not particularly upset about the outcome provided they don't start cutting off heads.