Slavoj iek: Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism

Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts by John Keane.

Bloomsbury, 532 pp.
Vaclav Havel's life would seem o be an unrivalled success sory! he "hilosopher#Kin$, a
man who combines poliical power wih a $lobal moral auhoriy comparable only o ha
of he "ope, he %alai &ama or 'elson (andela. )nd *us as a he end of a fairy ale
when he hero is rewarded for all his sufferin$ by marryin$ he princess, he is married o
a beauiful movie acress. +hy, hen, has John Keane chosen as he subile of his
bio$raphy ') "oliical ,ra$edy in -i. )cs'/
0n he -evenies, when Havel was sill a relaively un1nown 23ech dissiden wrier,
Keane played a crucial role in ma1in$ him 1nown in he +es! he or$anised he
publicaion of Havel's poliical e.s and became a friend. He also did much o resusciae
Havel's noion of 'civil sociey' as he sie of resisance o &ae -ocialis re$imes. %espie
his personal connecion, Keane's boo1 is far from ha$io$raphy # he $ives us he 'real
Havel' wih all his wea1nesses and idiosyncrasies. He divides his &ife ino si. sa$es! he
early suden years under he -alinis re$ime4 he playwri$h and essayis of he -i.ies4
he defea of he las $rea aemp a 'socialism wih a human face' in he "ra$ue -prin$
of 56784 he years of dissidence and arres which culminaed in Havel's emer$ence as he
leadin$ spo1esman for 2harer 994 he Velve :evoluion4 and finally he "residency.
)lon$ he way, we $e an abundance of 'endearin$ foibles', which far from arnishin$
Havel's heroic ima$e, seem somehow o ma1e his achievemen all he more palpable. His
parens were rich 'culural capialiss', owners of he famous Barrandov cinema sudios
;'bour$eois ori$ins'<. He has always had unreliable habis ;a fondness for eau de oilee,
sleepin$ lae, lisenin$ o roc1 music< and is 1nown for his promiscuiy, nowihsandin$
he celebraed prison leers o his wor1in$#class wife =l$a. ;+hen he was released from
*ail in 5699, he spen his firs wee1s of freedom wih a misress.< 0n he >i$hies, he was
ruhless in esablishin$ himself as 23echoslova1ia's mos imporan dissiden # when a
poenial rival emer$ed, doubful rumours would sar o circulae abou he rival's lin1s
wih he secre police. )s "residen he uses a child's scooer o 3oom alon$ he corridors
of he hu$e "residenial palace.
,he source of Havel's ra$edy, however, is no he ension beween he public fi$ure and
he 'real person', no even his $radual loss of charisma in recen years. -uch hin$s
characerise every successful poliical career ;wih he e.cepion of hose ouched by he
$race of premaure demise<. Keane wries ha Havel's life resembles a 'classical poliical
ra$edy' because i has been 'clamped by momens of . . . riumph spoiled by defea', and
noes ha 'mos of he cii3ens in "residen Havel's republic hin1 less of him han hey
did a year a$o.' ,he crucial issue, however, is he ension beween his wo public ima$es!
ha of heroic dissiden who, in he oppressive and cynical universe of &ae -ocialism,
pracised and wroe abou 'livin$ in ruh', and ha of "os#(odern "residen who ;no
unli1e )l ?ore< indul$es in 'ew )$e ruminaions ha aim o le$iimise 'ao miliary
inervenions. How do we $e from he lone, fra$ile dissiden wih a crumpled *ac1e and
uncompromisin$ ehics, who opposes he all#mi$hy oaliarian power, o he "residen
who babbles abou he anhropic principle and he end of he 2aresian paradi$m, reminds
us ha human ri$hs are conferred on us by he 2reaor, and is applauded in he @-
2on$ress for his defence of +esern values/ 0s his depressin$ specacle he necessary
oucome, he 'ruh', of Havel he heroic dissiden/ ,o pu i in He$el's erms! how does
he ehically impeccable 'noble consciousness' impercepibly pass ino he servile 'base
consciousness'/ =f course, for a '"os#(odern' ,hird +ay democra immersed in 'ew
)$e ideolo$y, here is no ension! Havel is simply followin$ his desiny, and is deservin$
of praise for no shir1in$ poliical power. Bu here is no escape from he conclusion ha
his life has descended from he sublime o he ridiculous.
:arely has one individual played so many differen pars. ,he coc1y youn$ suden in he
early Aifies, member of a closed circle which holds passionae poliical discussions and
somehow survives he wors years of he -alinis error. ,he (odernis playwri$h and
criical essayis sru$$lin$ o asser himself in he mild haw of he lae Aifies and -i.ies.
,he firs encouner wih Hisory # in he "ra$ue -prin$ # which is also Havel's firs bi$
disappoinmen. ,he lon$ ordeal of he -evenies and mos of he >i$hies, when he is
ransformed from a criical playwri$h ino a 1ey poliical fi$ure. ,he miracle of he
Velve :evoluion, wih Havel emer$in$ as a s1ilful poliician ne$oiain$ he ransfer of
power and endin$ up as "residen. Ainally, here is Havel in he 'ineies, he man who
presided over he disine$raion of 23echoslova1ia and who is now he proponen of he
full ine$raion of he 23ech :epublic ino +esern economic and miliary srucures.
Havel himself has been shoc1ed by he swifness of he ransformaion # a ,V camera
famously cau$h his loo1 of disbelief as he sa down o his firs official dinner as
"residen.
Keane hi$hli$hs he limiaions of Havel's poliical pro*ec, and he Havel he describes is
someimes remar1ably naive, as when, in January 566B, he $reeed 2hancellor Kohl wih
he words! '+hy don' we wor1 o$eher o dissolve all poliical paries/ +hy don' we se
up *us one bi$ pary, he "ary of >urope/' ,here is a nice symmery in he wo Vaclavs
who have dominaed 23ech poliics in he pas decade! he charismaic "hilosopher#Kin$,
he head of a democraic monarchy, findin$ an appropriae double in Vaclav Klaus, his
"rime (iniser, he cold echnocraic advocae of full mar1e liberalism who dismisses
any al1 of solidariy and communiy.
0n 569C, "aul ,herou. visied Vienam, afer he peace a$reemen and he wihdrawal of
he @- )rmy, bu before he 2ommunis a1eover. He wries abou i in The Great
Railway Bazaar. ) couple of hundred @- soldiers were sill here # deserers, officially
and le$ally non#e.isen, livin$ in slum shac1s wih heir Vienamese wives, earnin$ a
livin$ by smu$$lin$ or oher crimes. 0n ,herou.'s hands, hese individuals become
represenaive of Vienam's place in $lobal power poliics. Arom hem, we $radually
unravel he comple. oaliy of Vienamese sociey. +hen Keane is a his bes, he
displays he same abiliy o e.rac from small deails he $lobal cone. of wha was
$oin$ on in 23echoslova1ia. ,he wea1es passa$es in he boo1 are hose which aemp o
deal more concepually wih he naure of 'oaliarian' re$imes or he social implicaions
of modern echnolo$y. 0nsead of an accoun of he inner ana$onisms of 2ommunis
re$imes, we $e he sandard liberal clichDs abou 'oaliarian conrol'.
,owards he end of his boo1, Keane ouches on he old idea of he 'Kin$'s ,wo Bodies'
and poins o he eEuivalen imporance of he &eader's body in 2ommunis re$imes. )
'pre#modern' poliical order, he wries, relies on havin$ such sacred bodies, while he
democraic sysem, in which he place of power is supposedly empy, is open o
compeiive sru$$le. Bu his conras fails o $rasp he inricacies of 'oaliarianism'. 0 is
no ha Keane is oo direcly ani#2ommunis, bu ha his liberal#democraic sance
prevens him from seein$ he horrifyin$ parado. of he '-alinis &eader'.
&enin's firs ma*or sro1e, which he suffered in (ay 5622, lef his ri$h side virually
paralysed and for a while deprived him of speech. He realised ha his acive poliical life
was over and as1ed -alin for some poison so ha he could 1ill himself4 -alin oo1 he
maer o he "oliburo, which voed a$ains &enin's wish. &enin assumed ha because he
was no lon$er of any use o he revoluionary sru$$le, deah was he only opion #
'calmly en*oyin$ old a$e' was ou of he Euesion. ,he idea of his funeral as a $rea sae
even he found repulsive. ,his was no modesy! he was simply indifferen o he fae of
his body, re$ardin$ i as an insrumen o be ruhlessly e.ploied and discarded when no
lon$er useful.
+ih -alinism, however, he body of he &eader became 'ob*ecively beauiful'. 0n '=n
he "roblem of he Beauiful in -ovie )r', an essay from 565B, he -ovie criic
'edoshivin wroe! ')mid all he beauiful maerial of life, he firs place should be
occupied by ima$es of our $rea leaders . . . ,he sublime beauy of he leaders . . . is he
basis for he coincidin$ of he FbeauifulF and he FrueF in he ar of socialis realism.'
,his has nohin$ o do wih he &eader's physical aribues and everyhin$ o do wih
absrac ideals. ,he &eader in fac is li1e he &ady in courly love poery # cold, disanced,
inhuman. Boh he &eninis and he -alinis &eader are horou$hly alienaed, bu in
opposie ways! he &eninis &eader displays radical self#insrumenalisaion on behalf of
he :evoluion, while in he case of he -alinis &eader, he 'real person' is reaed as an
appendi. o he feishised and celebraed public ima$e. 'o wonder he official phoos of
he -alinis era were so ofen reouched, and wih a clumsiness so obvious i almos
seemed inenional. 0 si$nalled ha he 'real person' wih all his idiosyncrasies had been
replaced by a wooden effi$y. =ne rumour circulain$ abou Kim 0l Gon$ is ha he
acually died in a car crash a couple of years a$o and a double has a1en his place for rare
public appearances, so ha he crowds can cach a $limpse of he ob*ec of heir worship.
,his is he ulimae confirmaion ha he 'real personaliy' of he -alinis leader is
horou$hly irrelevan. Havel of course is he inverse of ha! while he -alinis &eader is
reduced o a riualisically praised effi$y, Havel's charisma is ha of a 'real person'. ,he
parado. is ha a $enuine 'cul of personaliy' can hrive only in a democracy.
Havel's essay on ',he "ower of he "owerless', wrien in 5698, was percepive in
e.plainin$ how &ae -ocialism operaed a he domesic, day#o#day level. +ha was
imporan was no ha he people deep down believed in he rulin$ ideolo$y, bu ha hey
followed he e.ernal riuals and pracices by means of which his ideolo$y acEuired
maerial e.isence. Havel's e.ample is he $reen$rocer, a modes man profoundly
indifferen o official ideolo$y. He *us mechanically follows he rules! on sae holidays,
he decoraes he window of his shop wih official slo$ans such as '&on$ &ive -ocialismH'
+hen here are mass $aherin$s he a1es par affeclessly. )lhou$h he privaely
complains abou he corrupion and incompeence of 'hose in power', he a1es comfor in
pieces of fol1 wisdom ;'power corrups' ec<, which enable him o le$iimise his sance in
his own eyes and o reain a false appearance of di$niy. +hen someone ries o en$a$e
him in dissiden aciviy, he proess! '+ho are you o $e me mi.ed up in hin$s which
are bound o be used a$ains my children/ 0s i really up o me o se he world o ri$hs/'
Havel saw ha if here was a 'psycholo$ical' mechanism a wor1 in 2ommunis ideolo$y,
i was no o do wih belief, bu raher wih shared $uil! in he 'normalisaion' ha
followed he -ovie inervenion of 5678, he 23ech re$ime made sure ha, in one way or
anoher, he ma*oriy of people were somehow morally discredied, compelled o violae
heir own moral sandards. +hen an individual was blac1mailed ino si$nin$ a peiion
a$ains a dissiden ;Havel, for e.ample<, he 1new ha he was lyin$ and a1in$ par in a
campai$n a$ains an hones man, and i was precisely his ehical berayal ha rendered
him he ideal 2ommunis sub*ec. ,he re$ime relied on and acively condoned he moral
ban1rupcy of is sub*ecs. Havel's concep of 'livin$ in ruh' involved no meaphysics! i
simply desi$naed he ac of suspendin$ one's paricipaion, of brea1in$ ou of he vicious
cycle of 'ob*ecive $uil'. He bloc1ed off all he false escape#roues, includin$ see1in$
refu$e in he 'small pleasures of everyday life'. -uch acs of indifference # ma1in$ fun in
privae of official riuals, for insance # were, he said, he very means by which he
official ideolo$y was reproduced.
) 'sincere' believer in official &ae -ocialis ideolo$y was, herefore, poenially much
more dan$erous o he re$ime han a cynic. 2onsider wo e.amples from counries oher
han 23echoslova1ia. Airs, he emblemaic fi$ures of >vald 0l*en1ov ;562C#96< and
)le1sei &osev ;5863#5688<, he wo prooypes of :ussian philosophy under socialism.
&osev was he auhor of he las boo1 published in he @--: ;in 5626< which openly
re*eced (ar.ism ;he called dialecical maerialism 'obvious nonsense'<. )fer a shor
prison erm, he was allowed o pursue his academic career and, durin$ +orld +ar ,wo,
even sared lecurin$ a$ain # his formula for survival was o wihdraw ino he hisory of
aesheics. @nder he $uise of inerprein$ pas hin1ers, especially "loinus and oher
'eoplaoniss, he was able o smu$$le in his own spiriualis beliefs, while, in he
inroducions o his boo1s, payin$ lip service o he official ideolo$y wih a Euoe or wo
from Khrushchev or Bre3hnev. 0n his way, he survived all he vicissiudes of
2ommunism and was hailed afer 5686 as he represenaive of an auhenic :ussian
spiriual heria$e. 0l*en1ov, a superb dialecician and e.per on He$el, was, on he oher
hand, a sincere (ar.is#&eninis. He wroe lively, individual prose and endeavoured o
en$a$e wih (ar.ism as a serious philosophy raher han as a se of official ma.ims. ,his
didn' $o down well! he was e.communicaed and commied suicide.
,he second e.ample is Gu$oslav 'self#mana$emen socialism' and he fundamenal
parado. conained wihin i. ,io's official ideolo$y coninually e.hored people o a1e
conrol of heir lives ouside of he srucures of "ary and -ae4 he auhorised media
criicised personal indifference and he escape ino privacy. However, i was precisely an
auhenic, self#mana$ed ariculaion and or$anisaion of common ineress which he
re$ime feared mos. Beween he lines of is propa$anda, he ?overnmen su$$esed ha
is official soliciaions were no o be a1en oo lierally, ha a cynical aiude owards
is ideolo$y was wha was acually waned. ,he $reaes caasrophe for he re$ime would
have been for is own ideolo$y o be a1en seriously and aced on by is sub*ecs.
Havel was especially penerain$ in his denunciaion of he inheren hypocrisy of +esern
(ar.ism and of he 'socialis opposiion' in 2ommunis counries. 2onsider he almos
oal absence of a heoreical confronaion wih -alinism in he wor1s of he Aran1fur
-chool, in conras o is permanen obsession wih Aascism. ,he sandard e.cuse was
ha he Aran1fur -chool criics did no wan o oppose 2ommunism oo openly, for fear
ha hey would be playin$ ino he hands of 2old +arriors in he +esern counries
where hey lived. Bu his is obviously no sufficien! had hey been cornered and made o
say where hey sood in he 2old +ar, hey would have chosen +esern liberal
democracy ;as (a. Hor1heimer e.plicily did in some of his lae wriin$s<. '-alinism'
was a raumaic opic on which he Aran1fur -chool had o remain silen # silence was
he only way for is members o reain heir underlyin$ solidariy wih +esern liberal
democracy, wihou losin$ heir mas1 of radical lefism.
,heir ulimae ali$nmen wih he +esern sysem is eEuivalen o he sance of he
'democraic socialis opposiion' in he ?erman %emocraic :epublic. )lhou$h members
of he opposiion criicised 2ommunis "ary rule, hey endorsed he basic premise of he
re$ime! ha he Aederal :epublic of ?ermany was a neo#'a3i sae, he direc inherior of
he 'a3i re$ime, and ha, herefore, he e.isence of he ?%: as he ani#Aascis bulwar1
had o be proeced a any cos. +hen he socialis sysem was really hreaened, he
opposiion publicly suppored i ;a1e Brech's posiion on he >as Berlin wor1ers'
demonsraions in 5653, or 2hrisa +olf's on he "ra$ue -prin$<. ,he opposiion reained
is belief in he inheren reformabiliy of he sysem, bu ar$ued ha rue democraic
reform would a1e ime. ) rapid disine$raion of socialism would, i hou$h, only reurn
?ermany o Aascism and sran$le he uopia of he '=her ?ermany', which, in spie of all
is horrors and failures, he ?%: represened.
,his is why opposiion inellecuals so deeply disrused 'he people'. 0n 5686, hey
opposed free elecions, well aware ha, if $iven he chance, he ma*oriy would choose
capialis consumerism. Aree elecions, Heiner (ueller said, had brou$h Hiler o power.
(any +esern social democras played he same $ame, feelin$ much closer o 'reform#
minded' 2ommuniss han o dissidens # he laer somehow embarrassed hem as an
obsacle o he process of deene. 0 was clear o Havel ha -ovie inervenion in 5678
had preserved he +esern myh of he "ra$ue -prin$! he uopian noion ha, were he
23echs o be lef alone, hey would $ive birh o an auhenic alernaive o boh :eal
-ocialism and :eal 2apialism. 0n fac, had he +arsaw "ac forces no inervened in
)u$us 5678, eiher he 23ech 2ommunis leadership would have had o impose resrain,
and 23echoslova1ia would have remained a fully 2ommunis counry, or i would have
urned ino a 'normal' +esern capialis sociey ;hou$h perhaps one wih a -candinavian
social#democraic flavour<.
Havel also discerned he fraudulence of wha 0 would call he 'inerpassive socialism' of
he +esern academic &ef. ,hese lefiss aren' ineresed in aciviy # merely in
'auhenic' e.perience. ,hey allow hemselves o pursue heir well#paid academic careers
in he +es, while usin$ he idealised =her ;2uba, 'icara$ua, ,io's Gu$oslavia< as he
suff of heir ideolo$ical dreams! hey dream hrou$h he =her, bu urn heir bac1s on i
if i disurbs heir complacency by abandonin$ socialism and opin$ for liberal capialism.
+ha is of special ineres here is he lac1 of undersandin$ beween he +esern &ef and
dissidens such as Havel. 0n he eyes of he +esern &ef, >asern dissidens were oo
naive in heir belief in liberal democracy # in re*ecin$ socialism, hey hrew ou he baby
wih he bah waer. 0n he eyes of he dissidens, he +esern &ef played paronisin$
$ames wih hem, disavowin$ he rue harshness of oaliarianism. ,he idea ha he
dissidens were somehow $uily for no sei3in$ he uniEue opporuniy provided by he
disine$raion of socialism o inven an auhenic alernaive o capialism was pure
hypocrisy.
0n dissecin$ &ae -ocialism, Havel was always aware ha +esern liberal democracy
was far from meein$ he ideals of auhenic communiy and 'livin$ in ruh' on behalf of
which he and oher dissidens opposed 2ommunism. He was faced, hen, wih he
problem of combinin$ a re*ecion of 'oaliarianism' wih he need o offer criical insi$h
ino +esern democracy. His soluion was o follow Heide$$er and o see in he
echnolo$ical hubris of capialism, is mad dance of self#enhancin$ produciviy, he
e.pression of a more fundamenal ranscendenal#onolo$ical principle # 'will o power',
'insrumenal reason' # eEually eviden in he 2ommunis aemp o overcome capialism.
,his was he ar$umen of )dorno's and Hor1heimer's Dialectic of nlighten!ent, which
firs en$ineered he faeful shif from concree socio#poliical analysis o philosophico#
anhropolo$ical $eneralisaion, by means of which 'insrumenal reason' is no lon$er
$rounded in concree capialis social relaions, bu is insead posied as heir Euasi#
ranscendenal 'foundaion'. ,he momen ha Havel endorsed Heide$$er's recourse o
Euasi#anhropolo$ical or philosophical principle, -alinism los is specificiy, is specific
"olitical dynamic, and urned ino *us anoher e.ample of his principle ;as e.emplified
by Heide$$er's remar1, in his #ntrod$ction to %eta"hysics, ha, in he lon$ run, :ussian
2ommunism and )mericanism were 'meaphysically one and he same'<.
Keane ries o save Havel from his predicamen by emphasisin$ he ambi$uous naure of
his inellecual deb o Heide$$er. &i1e Heide$$er, Havel conceived of 2ommunism as a
horou$hly modern re$ime, an inflaed caricaure of modern life, wih many endencies
shared by +esern sociey # echnolo$ical hubris and he crushin$ of human individualiy
aendan on i. However, in conras o Heide$$er, who e.cluded any acive resisance o
he social#echnolo$ical framewor1 ;'only ?od can save us,' as he pu i in an inerview,
published afer his deah<, Havel pu faih in a challen$e 'from below' # in he independen
life of 'civil sociey' ouside he frame of sae power. ,he 'power of he powerless', he
ar$ued, resides in he self#or$anisaion of civil sociey ha defies he 'insrumenal reason'
embodied in he sae and he echnolo$ical apparauses of conrol and dominaion.
0 find he idea of civil sociey doubly problemaic. Airs, he opposiion beween sae and
civil sociey wor1s a$ains as well as for libery and democracy. Aor e.ample, in he
@nied -aes, he (oral (a*oriy presens iself ;and is effecively or$anised as< he
resisance of local civil sociey o he re$ulaory inervenions of he liberal sae # he
recen e.clusion of %arwinism from he school curriculum in Kansas is in his sense
e.emplary. -o while in he specific case of &ae -ocialism he idea of civil sociey refers
o he openin$ up of a space of resisance o 'oaliarian' power, here is no essenial
reason why i canno provide space for all he poliico#ideolo$ical ana$onisms ha
pla$ued 2ommunism, includin$ naionalism and opposiion movemens of an ani#
democraic naure. ,hese are auhenic e.pressions of civil sociey # civil sociey
desi$naes he errain of open sru$$le, he errain in which ana$onisms can ariculae
hemselves, wihou any $uaranee ha he 'pro$ressive' side will win.
-econd, civil sociey as Havel conceived i is no, in fac, a developmen of Heide$$er's
hin1in$. ,he essence of modern echnolo$y for Heide$$er was no a se of insiuions,
pracices and ideolo$ical aiudes ha can be opposed, bu he very onolo$ical hori3on
ha deermines how we e.perience Bein$ oday, how realiy discloses iself o us. Aor
ha reason, Heide$$er would have found he concep of 'he "ower of he powerless'
suspec, cau$h in he lo$ic of he +ill o "ower ha i endeavours o denounce.
Havel's undersandin$ ha 'livin$ in ruh' could no be achieved by capialism, combined
wih his crucial failure o undersand he ori$ins of his own criical impulse, has pushed
him owards 'ew )$eism. )lhou$h he 2ommunis re$imes were mosly a dismal
failure, $enerain$ error and misery, a he same ime hey opened up a space for uopian
e.pecaions which, amon$ oher hin$s, faciliaed he failure of 2ommunism iself.
+ha ani#2ommunis dissidens such as Havel overloo1, hen, is ha he very space
from which hey criicised and denounced error and misery was opened and susained by
2ommunism's aemp o escape he lo$ic of capialism. ,his e.plains Havel's coninuin$
insisence ha capialism in is radiional, brual form canno mee he hi$h e.pecaions
of his ani#2ommunis sru$$le # he need for auhenic human solidariy ec. ,his is, in
urn, why VIclav Klaus, Havel's pra$maic double, has dismissed Havel as a 'socialis'.
>ven he mos 'oaliarian' -alinis ideolo$y is radically ambi$uous. +hile he universe
of -alinis poliics was undoubedly one of hypocrisy and arbirary error, in he lae
,hiries he $rea -ovie films ;say, he ?or1y rilo$y< epiomised auhenic solidariy for
audiences across >urope. 0n one memorable film abou he 2ivil +ar, a moher wih a
youn$ son is e.posed as a couner#revoluionary spy. ) $roup of Bolshevi1s pu her on
rial and a he very be$innin$ of he rial, an old Bolshevi1 demands ha he senence be
severe, bu *us. )fer she confesses her crime, he cour ;an informal collecive of
Bolshevi1 soldiers< rules ha she was seduced ino enemy aciviy by her difficul social
circumsances4 she is herefore senenced o be fully ine$raed ino he new socialis
collecive, o be au$h o wrie and read and o acEuire a proper educaion, while her son,
who is unwell, is o be $iven proper medical care. ,he surprised woman burss ou
cryin$, unable o undersand he cour's benevolence, and he old Bolshevi1 nods! 'Ges,
his is a severe, bu *us senenceH' 'o maer how manipulaive such scenes were, no
maer how far hey were from he realiy of 'revoluionary *usice', hey noneheless bore
winess o a new sense of *usice4 and as such, $ave viewers new ehical sandards a$ains
which realiy could be measured.
Havel seems now o be blind o he fac ha his own opposiion o 2ommunism was
rendered possible by he uopian dimension $eneraed and susained by 2ommunis
re$imes. -o we $e he ra$i#comic indi$niy which is his recen essay in he &ew 'or(
Review of Boo(s on 'Kosovo and he >nd of he 'aion#-ae'. 0n i, he ries o say ha he
'ao bombin$ of Gu$oslavia placed human ri$hs above he ri$hs of he sae, ha he
'ao alliance's aac1 on he Aederal :epublic of Gu$oslavia wihou a direc mandae
from he @' was no an irresponsible ac of a$$ression, or of disrespec for inernaional
law. 0 was, on he conrary, accordin$ o Havel, promped by respec for he law, for a
law ha ran1s hi$her han he law which proecs he soverei$ny of saes. ,he alliance
has aced ou of respec for human ri$hs, as boh conscience and inernaional reaies
dicae.
Havel furher invo1es his 'hi$her law' when he claims ha 'human ri$hs, human
freedoms . . . and human di$niy have heir deepes roos somewhere ouside he
percepible world . . . while he sae is a human creaion, human bein$s are he creaion
of ?od.' He seems o be sayin$ ha 'ao forces were allowed o violae inernaional law
because hey aced as direc insrumens of he 'hi$her law' of ?od # a clear#cu case of
reli$ious fundamenalism. Havel's saemen is a $ood e.ample of wha @lrich Bec1, in
an aricle in Die S)dde$tsche *eit$ng las )pril, called 'miliarisic humanism' or even
'miliarisic pacifism'. ,he problem wih his approach is no ha i is inherenly
conradicory, an =rwellian 'peace is war.' 'or is he 'ao inervenion bes me wih he
pacifis#liberal ar$umen ha 'more bombs and 1illin$ never brin$ peace' ;i $oes wihou
sayin$ ha his is wron$<. 0 is no even enou$h o poin ou, as a (ar.is would, ha he
ar$es of bombardmen weren' chosen wih moral consideraions in mind, bu were
deermined by $eopoliical and economic ineress. ,he main problem wih Havel's
ar$umen is ha inervenion is presened as havin$ been undera1en for he sa1e of he
vicims of hared and violence # ha is, *usified by a depoliicised appeal o universal
human ri$hs.
) repor by -even >rlan$er on he sufferin$ of he Kosovo )lbanians in a (ay ediion of
he &ew 'or( Ti!es was eniled '0n =ne Kosovo +oman, an >mblem of -ufferin$'. ,his
woman is from he ouse idenified as a powerless vicim of circumsance, deprived of
poliical ideniy, reduced o bare sufferin$. )s such, she is beyond poliical recriminaion
# an independen Kosovo is no on her a$enda, she *us wans he horror over! %oes she
favour an independen Kosovo/ 'Gou 1now, 0 don' care if i's his or ha,' (eli said. '0
*us wan all his o end, and o feel $ood a$ain, o feel $ood in my place and my house
wih my friends and family.'Her suppor for he 'ao inervenion is $rounded in her wish
for he horror o end! -he wans a selemen ha brin$s forei$ners here 'wih some force
behind hem'. -he is indifferen as o who he forei$ners are. -he sympahises wih all
sides! ',here is ra$edy enou$h for everyone,' she says. '0 feel sorry for he -erbs who've
been bombed and died, and 0 feel sorry for my own people. Bu maybe now here will be
a conclusion, a selemen for $ood. ,ha would be $rea.'
(eli is he ideal sub*ec#vicim o whose aid 'ao comes runnin$! no a poliical sub*ec
wih a clear a$enda, bu a sub*ec of helpless sufferin$, someone who sympahises wih
all sufferin$ sides in he conflic, cau$h in he madness of a local clash ha can only be
sopped by he inervenion of a benevolen forei$n power.
,he ulimae parado. of he 'ao bombin$ of -erbia is no he one ha was re$ularly
rehearsed by +esern opponens of he war! ha by an aemp o sop ehnic cleansin$ in
Kosovo, 'ao ri$$ered cleansin$ on a lar$er scale and creaed he very humaniarian
caasrophe i waned o preven. ) deeper parado. involves he ideolo$y of
vicimisaion! when 'ao inervened o proec Kosovar vicims, i ensured a ha same
ime ha hey would re!ain vicims, inhabians of a devasaed counry wih a passive
populaion # hey were no encoura$ed o become an acive poliico#miliary force
capable of defendin$ iself. Here we have he basic parado. of vicimisaion! he =her o
be proeced is $ood insofar as i remains a vicim ;which is why we were bombarded
wih picures of helpless Kosovar mohers, children and old people, ellin$ movin$ sories
of heir sufferin$<4 he momen i no lon$er behaves as a vicim, bu wans o sri1e bac1
on is own, i all of a sudden ma$ically urns ino a erroris, fundamenalis, dru$#
raffic1in$ =her. ,his ideolo$y of $lobal vicimisaion, he idenificaion of he human
sub*ec as 'somehin$ ha can be hur', is he perfec fi for oday's $lobal capialism,
hou$h mos of he ime i remains invisible o he public eye.
Havel praised he 'ao bombin$ of Gu$oslavia as he firs case of a miliary inervenion
in a counry wih full soverei$n power, undera1en no ou of any specific economico#
srae$ic ineres bu because ha counry was violain$ he elemenary human ri$hs of
an ehnic $roup. ,o undersand he falseness of his, compare he new moralism wih he
$rea emancipaory movemens inspired by ?andhi and (arin &uher Kin$. ,hese were
movemens direced no a$ains a specific $roup of people, bu a$ains concree ;racis,
colonialis< insiuionalised pracices4 hey involved a posiive, all#inclusive sance ha,
far from e.cludin$ he 'enemy' ;whies, >n$lish colonisers<, made an appeal o is moral
sense and as1ed i o do somehin$ ha would resore is own moral di$niy. ,he
predominan form of oday's 'poliically correc' moralism, on he oher hand, is ha of
'ie3schean ressenti!ent and envy! i is he fa1e $esure of disavowed poliics, he
assumin$ of a 'moral', depoliicised posiion in order o ma1e a sron$er poliical case.
,his is a pervered version of Havel's 'power of he powerless'! powerlessness can be
manipulaed as a sraa$em in order o $ain more power, in e.acly he same way ha
oday, in order for one's voice o $ain auhoriy, one has o le$iimise oneself as bein$
some 1ind of ;poenial or acual< vicim of power.
,he ulimae cause of his moralisic depoliicisaion is he rerea of he (ar.is
hisorico#poliical pro*ec. ) couple of decades a$o, people were sill discussin$ he
poliical fuure of humaniy # will capialism prevail or will i be supplaned by
2ommunism or anoher form of 'oaliarianism'/ # while silenly accepin$ ha,
somehow, social life would coninue. ,oday, we can easily ima$ine he e.incion of he
human race, bu i is impossible o ima$ine a radical chan$e of he social sysem # even if
life on earh disappears, capialism will somehow remain inac. 0n his siuaion,
disappoined &efiss, who are convinced ha radical chan$e of he e.isin$ liberal#
democraic capialis sysem is no lon$er possible, bu who are unable o renounce heir
passionae aachmen o $lobal chan$e, inves heir e.cess of poliical ener$y in an
absrac and e.cessively ri$id moralisin$ sance.
) a recen meein$ of he leaders of he +esern powers dedicaed o he ',hird +ay',
he 0alian "rime (iniser (assimo d')lema said ha one should no be afraid of he
word 'socialism'. 2linon and, followin$ him, Blair and -chroeder, are supposed o have
burs ou lau$hin$. ,his says much abou he ,hird +ay, which is 'problemaic' no leas
because i e.poses he absence of a -econd +ay. ,he idea of a ,hird +ay emer$ed a he
very momen when, a leas in he +es, all oher alernaives, from old#syle
conservaivism o radical social democracy, crumbled in he face of he riumphan
onslau$h of $lobal capialism and is noion of liberal democracy. ,he rue messa$e of
he noion of he ,hird +ay is ha here is no -econd +ay, no alernaive o $lobal
capialism, so ha, in a 1ind of moc1in$ pseudo#He$elian ne$aion of ne$aion, he ,hird
+ay brin$s us bac1 o he firs and only way. ?lobal capialism wih a human face.
,his, hen, is Havel's ra$edy! his auhenic ehical sance has become a moralisin$ idiom
cynically appropriaed by he 1naves of capialism. His heroic insisence on doin$ he
impossible ;opposin$ he seemin$ly invincible 2ommunis re$ime< has ended up servin$
hose who 'realisically' ar$ue ha any real chan$e in oday's world is impossible. ,his
reversal is no a berayal of his ori$inal ehical sance, bu is inheren in i. ,he ulimae
lesson of Havel's ra$edy is hus a cruel, bu ine.orable one! he direc ehical foundaion
of poliics sooner or laer urns ino is own comic caricaure, adopin$ he very cynicism
i ori$inally opposed.

Slavoj Zizek's The Tic(lish S$+,ect is published by Verso. He is senior researcher a he
0nsiue for -ocial -udies in &*ubl*ana.