Krossa framsteget

by Slavoj Žižek, Henrik Gundenäs (Translator)

Historisk utveckling har länge varit synonymt med förbättring. Men vad göra i en global kristid då alternativen till nyliberalismens framtidsvisioner bara verkar formuleras av accelerationister, techoligarker och trumpister?

Enligt Slavoj Žižek är det tid att ompröva den naiva framstegstro som definierat moderniteten. Det första steget är att krossa illusionen om den framtid som vi nu med säkerhet vet inte kommer att inträffa – den där vi obehindrat fortsätter att leva våra liv som vanligt.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Essays, Sociology, Psychoanalysis, Technology

209 pages, Hardcover

First published January 9, 2025

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Kai · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is what i imagine crack must feel like: you don’t really need it, but it just feels so good

100+ namedrops,
Less perverted than your avg Zizek,
A+ analogies

[linde · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘There is infinite hope – just not for us.’ (Kafka)

[Bludniq Sin · Rating 4 out of 5]

je sais bien, mais quand même…, i know very well (that’s its true), but all the same…
Ah, yes, the world is ending, but we must go on and if we do it may not end (the way we expect it to do so, at least).
A quiet mix of fury - a normalised contradictory of the quotidian. Climate change, the rising new Right, war, corruption - you can never win - but you are still alive, no? I promenade in the park in the prettiest neighbourhood of my city, accompanied by friends. I worry about the news. I buy myself coffee and still think life is worth living.
The book reads like one grand coping mechanism with a fatalistic, yet optimistic, approach to life. A TV series that never ends; to be continued, but you wake up next week and start the show again.
I think of a conversation Irvin Yalome recalls in his book about accepting grief, the death of his beloved wife and continuing to live without her in “A Matter of Death and Life”; briefly visiting his old friend and mentor, suffering from dementia in a hospice-home. This is Jerry Frank, who says to him:
“Yesterday’s all gone. But i sit in this chair and watch life go by. It’s not so bad, Irv. It’s not so bad.”
This is how we must go on. Zizek suggests a disavowal of the ‘doomed’ reality - acknowledging what is to come, but also leaving a space for surprises. Life goes by, you watch it from the window and observe the state of your world. It’s not so bad, you have today.

[Arnau Gisbert Solà]

He entès, potser, el 5%

[Fríða Þorkelsdóttir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Er einfaldlega alltaf sammála þessum manni og það er gaman að lesa þannig.

[Nick]

Funny reading the last sentence of this book (speculation about how long the left/centrist alliance will last for following the French elections this year) whilst Barnier was being ousted, and also in the penultimate essay which talked about South Korea's comparative 'relaxed indifference' in context to the North like a day after people and politicians essentially physically overturned a coup there

[Alicia Dai · Rating 4 out of 5]

i’ve never felt more intellectually humbled and painfully aware of my shrunken pea brain than when reading this book.

žižek is an encyclopedia of every philosopher and political theorist who’s ever existed so it’s almost impossible to keep up without context of everyone who’s ever written anything important in the history of time. if you happen to have the 10,000 TB of brainpower required to understand, these are some poignant applications of classic existentialism on 2025 issues such as trumpian populism, false fundamentalist anti-colonialism, and technocapitalism that i’m sure are worth appreciating.

for as much anxiety and despair i feel over trump’s ongoing obliteration of our societal order, it did kind of make me feel better to engage with a text that acknowledges the complex interplay between everyday complacency and people’s desire for wide-scale revolution in a way that is sympathetic but rightfully critical of the level of agency we feel we have in a ‘society of choice.’ through ‘disavowal,’ žižek offers a way out of outright denial or gleeful acceptance of a deteriorating society afflicted by far right extremism, perverse neoliberalism, and climate disasters: “one should accept the catastrophe as inevitable – and then act to undo the destiny which is already ‘written in the stars’” (106).

unfortunately, the worst part about this book is that i can hardly recall a single thing i learned due to my own cognitive shortcomings!!! as mentioned, frequent references to kierkegaard, hegel, and lacan were all lost on me and it makes me wonder if it’s even possible for me to engage in dialectics let alone retain any sociopolitical theories IN GENERAL even if i read more. i just know my philosophy and mcc professors would’ve rated this 5 stars.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

Zizek is always relevant, but I don't like this one very much. Plenty of points that repeat from his talks, he didn't suggest anything new or groundbreaking, and instead letting his Lacanian word salad to carry the day. I don't agree with almost everything he said. He tends to take any left leaning opinion too seriously. If you read too much of him uncritically, you'll be stuck in a whirpool of world problems, paralyzed with overthinking. However, I do share his worry that the world is facing a big crisis in a lot of areas, although I think he's overestimating it.

[JCJBergman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like Žižek. He is not only refreshing but also often quite amusing to read. As this is a collection of philosophical/political essays, there is favouritism in regards to which appealed to me and those which did not. The first few essays (to do with the concept of "progress") interested me, and the rest not so much (when he doubled down on the subject of politics). The good thing with this kind of book is that it is easy to revisit in the future and see how his comments about contemporary events shine in the light of retrospect.

[Patrick Hewett]

Zizek can be so fun when you're not required to have done a philosophy phd on Lacan and Hegel to understand his writing.

eyes did glaze over for a couple of these essays.

to be honest i dont think there was anything too thought provoking, however he has such a talent with visual metaphors and can (especially not referencing other philosophers) give a funny and clever insight into world politics, failure of the left, the traps of left wing populism, and challenging political narratives.

[Dávid L · Rating 3 out of 5]

Azért érdekelt ez az esszés kötet, mert leginkább arról szól, hogy hogyan kerüljük el a világvégét. Természetesen válaszai nincsenek. Hátha ez, vagy hátha az. Na és addig? Žižek jól látja a megküzdési stratégiákat: a legtöbben a tagadást választják: “jaj nem olyan rossz a helyzet, csak a fiatalok nem akarnak dolgozni!” Mások az üres, szimbolikus “politikai cselekvést”: politikai nyár=bebaszás palesztin zászlóval. Én meg az irodalmat választom. Pótcselekvések mind.

[Jonathan Garvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting thoughts

[Rita · Rating 5 out of 5]

mi mejor amigo

[Thanos Chatziioannou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed, thought - provoking and engaging in a multitude of subjects (in typical Zizek fashion, using progress as a vehicle to include takes on Israel - Palestine, pop movie culture and climate change). The only downside (essentially why 4/5 and not 5 stars) is a specific mid - end section of the book (the chapter Authority), which is not only disconnected from the rest of the book, but requires extensive familiarity with Lacan and Habermas (EXTENSIVE), while the rest of the book serves as a good prelude and explainer to their work itself. If you come in with more than epidermal comprehension of their work, then you can be sure that your opinion of Against Progress will be of the 5 star variety.

[mia moraru]

‘This, according to Dupuy, is also how we should approach the prospect of an ecological or social catastrophe: not realistically appraising the likelihood of the catastrophe, but accepting it as our fate, as unavoidable, and then, on the basis of this acceptance, mobilize ourselves to perform the act which will change destiny itself, and thereby open up new possibilities within the situation. Instead of saying “the future is still fluid, we still have time, time to act and prevent the worst,“ one should accept the catastrophe as inevitable– and then act to undo the destiny which is already “written in the stars “.

Basically create the miracle that we need (in order to avert the seemingly inevitable, the indomitable, the looming catastrophe. It’s always possible.)

the unanswered question is what happens after the miracle, after the catastrophe that we avoided…we likely/often find ourselves at a crux of instability, tension, general confusion, ripe ground for co-optation. it’s a mess, but probably still better than the would’ve-be catastrophe. we’ve altered history. in real time.

[Isaac Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Classic Žižek: “what the hell is he talking about ……. Oh okay that makes sense”

[Stef]

You are very interesting to read, and I like the call to do what needs to be done even though we’re headed towards disaster. I just think you’d be insufferable to meet in person.

[James Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Žižek is very active in both public speaking and writing and yet rarely establishes a memorable call to action. It’s quite difficult to decipher what Žižek aims to achieve with his writing and public speaking (in fact many would say it’s difficult to decipher what he even means in the first place, and I would concede this describes some of the essays here). What is the audience supposed to do with all this information that he throws up?

His short videos on Big Think are worth a watch and his speech ‘Don’t Act. Just Think.’ might provide the biggest clue as to his position on this. Žižek’s words both spoken and written inevitably turn your worldview upside-down. Prepare to learn how quantum wave functions might provide a framework for thinking about geopolitical catastrophe. I try to avoid ‘ism’s at all costs but Žižek has me sold on one: (Hegelian) idealism. Not in the colloquial sense of naive blue-sky thinking, but the firm position that ideas, thoughts, and stories are the primary movers of the human world and of history. This makes Žižek not only a heretic within his own political circle, but a contrarian thinker in Western society at large.

After all, why is a clear call to action the yardstick by which we so often measure someone’s chain of thought? I’ve seen adverts for conferences where the main selling point was all speakers being obliged to finish their talks with ‘5 practical steps that you can implement right now’. I don’t want your pomodoro techniques and your binaural focus music, I want to think more deeply about what I should be focusing on in the first place.

Žižek wrestles with what it means to be a progressive in a world where ‘progress’ means exploitation and catastrophe.

[Eliya Hashemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

at age 20, the first book I’ve ever finished is now this. for a large sum, it, for the great first half, holds a cohesive lining of anecdotal filmic comparisons that give way to the universality of what is a very sporadic project. halfway down the road, it drops the dead birds and indulges in just about anything, and from a geopolitical centre examined by an external psychoanalytical or philosophical theory, the inverse occurs and it becomes primarily of theory itself applied to theory. this, to a layman like me, is perhaps as unenjoyable as this text can become. this is perhaps best displayed in the longest essay as Authority, alongside the more reductive (at least to a layman like me) chapters like holographic history, and even teetering perhaps in the final chapter, which perhaps may belong as much to be at the end as anywhere else in the ensemble. the final product is, for its majority, immensely engaging whilst engaging with pedestrian qualities of theoretical, at times anecdotal theory in accordance with whatever may be dragged together, and at its worst, completely flat as a piece put inside a collection of essays that gives the impression of non accordance.

[Anthony Acquisto]

Did I understand half of what Žižek was talking about in this book? God no. “Authority” had me genuinely gasping for air trying to get through it. I’m by no means a philosopher or a philosophical thinker at that, but I was able to pull some pretty valuable insight from these essays when he stopped using his jargon and babied me through his examples.

Most of it made me either sad or angry about the state of the world. Some of his religious allegories blew my mind. There were even a few references to media I had already consumed and on which I already have firm opinions, and THAT was fun to annotate.

I think the point is that Žižek is far above me still, but I’m glad I gave this a shot and made a point of engaging with the text and taking notes. Contemporary political philosophy is depressing and complicated as all get out, but most of all it’s very clearly important. Žižek articulates that ultimate sentiment in so many words.

It will be interesting to reread this in a few years.

[Naomi Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this! I thought that it was fun, fluid, and really tied a lot of different ideas together. I felt like I was also introduced to a lot of different writers and ideas. I def recommend as a nice survey of ideas and their refutations. Russian Cosmism, the end of history, why Capitalist degrowth doesn’t work. Might order a copy of Fanged Noumena 😬 also makes me glad that I read that Freud book before I read this. Should probably read up on Lacan though before reading more Zizek…

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic, real, had my thoughts whizzing off the pages even where I didn't agree or wanted to steer the conversation someplace else. He's got the right idea of it.

[Keelan]

Relevant and urgent—Žižek never fails to intrigue!
The essay “Holographic History” is particularly innovative and excellent, but those interested in his prior work will find “Authority” to be of paramount importance.

[kiara · Rating 5 out of 5]

she can be pretentious at times, but she's inherently lovely and sobering

[Ella Okko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Powerful, but hopeful cultural commentary. Motivating to action, through writing with great fluidity. Philosophical essays (mainly "Authority") were indecipherable to me - minus for that.

[Colin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first glance, progress is an uncomplicated concept. Sure, any conservative reading this would balk since progress is the antithesis of conservatism. But conservatives notwithstanding, progress seems uncomplicated because it feels like a clean departure. For example, when someone progresses through a graduate program, they master, complete, and depart from one step (e.g., coursework) to advance to another (e.g., dissertation development). But from a dialectical perspective, progress is more complicated. In Against Progress, Slavoj Žižek explores the dialectical contours of progress, and he begins this exploration with a reference to a dialectically-inflected film, The Prestige.

The Prestige is a 2006 film directed by Christopher Nolan about two competing magicians in the 19th century. The competition between these two magicians, however, is narrative window dressing for a larger exploration of sacrifice and the sacrifice needed to dedicate oneself to one’s craft. According to several scholars, The Prestige is also a meta-commentary on cinematic art and spectacle, since Nolan dedicates a considerable amount of screen time unpacking the mechanics of a successful illusion. One of those illusions features a bird in a flattened cage that reappears unharmed. Of this illusion, Žižek writes, “A small boy in the audience starts to cry, distraught that the bird was killed. The magician approaches him and finishes the trick, gently producing a living bird out of his hand—but the boy is not convinced, insisting that this must be another bird, the dead bird’s brother. After the show, we see the magician alone, putting a bird squashed into the trash where many other dead birds lie...The trick could not be performed without violence and death, but it relies for its effectiveness upon concealing the squalid, broken residue of what has been sacrificed, disposing of it where no one who matters will see. Therein resides the basic premise of a dialectical notion of progress: when a new higher stage arrives, there must be a squashed bird somewhere” (1). According to Žižek, whatever we progress from is the hidden, dead bird required to perform the illusion we call progress. This is why progress is far more complicated than it seems. Something always remains; a residue always persists. Progress is ideological when it works to conceal this residue. Žižek’s solution is to have fewer “squashed birds hidden in trunks while we applaud the false living bird distracting us from capitalist corruption and authoritarian power” (3). Žižek continues, “This means that we also become aware of the multiplicities, the complexities, and —inevitably—the inconsistencies of what presents itself as progress” (7). In short, progress is never as simple as it might seem.

Like any good dialectician, Žižek’s solution centers on what we refuse to acknowledge, what progress leaves in its wake. He writes, “True progress thus occurs in two steps: first, we make a step towards actualizing what we consider progress, and when we become aware of the squashed bird that was the victim of this progress, we then accordingly redefine our notion of progress” (8). Once again, Žižek’s reference to The Prestige is appropriate since becoming a successful magician requires a disavowal of what one sacrifices in service of one’s illusions. That is to say, magicians cannot disclose how their illusions work, especially while they perform them. Doing so would defeat the purpose since knowledge is rarely the source of enjoyment. For anyone who has studied film knows, learning about the filmmaking process deepens one’s appreciation of film, but appreciation and enjoyment are different. When we demystify a process or experience by learning more about it, we lose far more than we think, at least where enjoyment is concerned. So much of what makes a thrilling film sequence enjoyable is the question: how did they do that? The lack of knowledge animates us, the gap in knowledge thrills us, but if a magician, for example, immediately disclosed the mechanics of an illusion, they would steal our enjoyment. An excellent example of this occurs in the show Arrested Development. In Season 2, the Bluth family’s unsuccessful magician and oldest brother, G.O.B., announces that he will “blow up” the family yacht on live television. To his family’s surprise, he succeeds. When his brother, Michael, asks how he did it, G.O.B. admits that he rigged the yacht with explosives. His act of “magic” was nothing more than an IED. But this moment feels like a paradigmatic example of dialectical progress. Of progress and its non-linear nature, Žižek writes, “progress is never a linear approximation to some pre-existing goal since every step forwards that deserves the name ‘progress’ implies a radical redefinition of the very notion of progress” (14). To understand G.O.B.’s successful illusion with the yacht, this moment of progress for a, to this point, wildly unsuccessful magician, we must reckon with how he arrived at this point. For G.O.B., progress means eschewing the elaborate performativity of magic as a form of entertainment. Instead, G.O.B. succeeds or progresses by redefining an explosion as an illusion. Destruction becomes disappearance.

Be it The Prestige or Arrested Development, magic is a perfect medium to explore how progress works conceptually. When we refuse to reckon with progress’s residue, we see a bird disappear and reappear unscathed, or we see a boat explode and think a failed magician made it disappear.

[Conor Fitzpatrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good ideas n analysis, very sassy Slavoj I like it, very depressing the state of the fascist world right now

[Enrique Delgado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una serie de ensayos realmente tristes pero, necesarios.  El fin del mundo ya está ocurriendo y Zizek lo presenta aquí derrumbando la concepción de progreso que ha estancado todo como un nuevo conservadurismo utilizado por diferentes movimientos ideológicos bajo el yugo capitalista. 

Con hegel, Kant, Lacan e incluso Kierkegaard. La llamada aquí es que no existe el progreso, esta debe ser redifinida con el tiempo. Éste no existe de manera lineal. 

Estamos actuando como si nada estuviera sucediendo, como si mañana fuera a ser igual que hoy. Con la física cuántica se presenta éste paralelismo ¿Y si ya estamos en el fin del mundo? Quitandonos incluso la expectativa de la megacatastrofe, esto se parece más a las novelas televisivas que al final de cada capítulo nos dejan en una tensión, pues se acerca el final pero, espera, en el siguiente capítulo seguirá siendo peor, habrá más. "La repetición interminable del mismo momento interminable diferido e interminablemente diferido".


Estamos dirigiendonos a la barbarie capitalista. 

La crisis ambiental está aquí y sólo la desesperación podrá salvarnos. Citando a Kafka, "Oh, bastante esperanza, infinita esperanza, sólo que no para nosotros".

Y aún así, yuxtaponiendose al renegacionismo es saber que aunque se tiene esta presunta certeza del fin como algo natural seguir actuando ante esa postura estática:


A diferencia del negacionismo y la negación, la renegación funciona reconociendo plenamente aquello de lo que renegamos; su lógica es la de la célebre frase francesa «je sais bien, mais quand même...», «lo sé muy bien, pero sin embargo... (en realidad, no me lo creo)». Una actitud semejante se está convirtiendo con rapidez en el modo predominante en el que vivimos nuestras vidas sociales y políticas. La vemos en amplios sectores de la población que aceptan plenamente el cambio climático y el colapso medioambiental inminente como realidades científicas, pero no obstante continúan reproduciéndose, conduciendo coches, comiendo carne, confiando en las tecnologías y demás, como si los recursos del planeta fuesen ilimitados en lugar de agotarse: «Sé muy bien que tenemos un grave problema con nuestro medioambiente, pero sin embargo... (la vida debe continuar, sigue mereciendo la pena perseguir nuestros deseos individuales, todo sigue básicamente como siempre)». En términos políticos, lo vemos en la tibia respuesta a las victorias de los partidos y actores neofascistas por toda Europa occidental: «Sí, el auge del populismo derechista supone una seria amenaza para nuestra democracia, pero sin embargo... (fijémonos en Italia, el Gobierno de Meloni funciona bastante bien en el contexto de la Unión Europea; incluso en los Países Bajos, la victoria de Geert Wilders resultó en un Gobierno tecnocrático respetado; y podemos estar seguros de que Rassemblement National en el Gobierno tendrá que moderar sus excesos, las cosas cotidianas continuarán como siempre, la vida debe seguir...)». La continuidad, el aquí no pasa nada, la asunción de que no existe ninguna alternativa significativa a seguir comportándonos como si el mañana no fuese a ser sustancialmente diferente del hoy, y de que nuestra forma de vida puede perdurar indefinidamente: estos son los mecanismos de la renegación.


El objetivo no es proporcionar «datos alternativos», sino socavar el marco que nos hace seleccionar ciertos hechos e ignorar otros. Por eso no estamos hablando aquí de la renegación habitual, sino de un acto valiente de asumir un riesgo e ignorar nuestras aparentes limitaciones. Nuestra actitud debería ser: sabemos que parecemos débiles y divididos, pero deberíamos no obstante hacer lo que hay que hacer. Sabemos (o sentimos con la fuerza del aparente conocimiento) que no podemos evitar el colapso medioambiental, pero aun así deberíamos adoptar las medidas que nos dieran las mayores probabilidades de hacerlo.


En una situación semejante, en la que el apocalipsis se vislumbra en el horizonte, deberíamos tener presente que la lógica estándar de la probabilidad ya no resulta aplicable; necesitamos una lógica diferente, la descrita por Jean-Pierre Dupuy: 


El suceso catastrófico se inscribe en el futuro como un destino, con certeza, pero también como un accidente contingente [...]. Si se produce un acontecimiento destacado, una catástrofe, por ejemplo, no podría no haberse producido; sin embargo, en tanto en cuanto no se ha producido, no es inevitable. Así pues, es la realización del acontecimiento, el hecho de que se produzca, la que crea de forma retroactiva su necesidad.

[Kin · Rating 3 out of 5]

รวมบทความชุดล่าสุดของชิเช็ก ตัวอย่างใหม่ แต่ไอเดียก็พอจับทางได้ถ้าเคยอ่านงานชิเช็กมาก่อน บทความหลักๆ ที่พูดเรื่องความก้าวหน้าสนุกดี แต่ที่เหลือก็ตามสไตล์ คือวิเคราะห์การเมืองโลกตั้งแต่ขบวนการชาตินิยมในแอฟริกา ไปจนถึงอิสราเอล-ปาเลสไตน์ รัสเซีย-ยูเครน ยันเกาหลีเหนือ-ใต้ ซึ่งสนุกและชวนคิดดี แต่ถ้าไม่อินกับประเด็นพวกนี้คงหลุดไปเลย

ข้อเสนอใหญ่ว่าทำไมหนังสือถึงชื่อว่า Against Progress คือเรามักมองคำว่า "ก้าวหน้า" แคบไป หมายความว่าเรามักเชื่อว่าการพัฒนาทางเศรษฐกิจและเทคโนโลยีเท่ากับ "ก้าวหน้า" แต่คำถามของชิเช็กคือ ก้าวไปไหน ก้าวจากอะไร และที่สำคัญที่สุด และเป็นหัวใจของบทแรกๆ ที่ชอบมาก คือเราเสียอะไรไปบ้างระหว่างทาง

ชิเช็กยกตัวอย่างนักมายากลในหนังเรื่อง Prestige ที่ทำเหมือนเสกให้นกหายไปแล้วเสกกลับมาได้ แต่ในความเป็นจริง เบื้องหลังคือนกตัวที่ถูกเสกให้หายไปถูกฆ่า ส่วนตัวที่เสกกลับมาคือนกคนละตัวกัน นกที่ถูกบีบให้ตาย (squashed bird) พวกนี้เองคือ "ต้นทุน" หรือเศษซากของความก้าวหน้าที่เรามักหลงลืมไม่สนใจ เรามองเห็นมายากลของความเจริญ โดยลืมความรุนแรง ความตาย หรือต้นทุนที่ใครบางคน (คนยากคนจน ชนชั้นแรงงานในประเทศพัฒนาแล้ว และคนส่วนใหญ่ในประเทศ Global South) หรือบางสิ่ง (aka สิ่งแวดล้อม) แบกรับ

ต้นทุนของความเจริญของประเทศที่เจริญแล้ว คือประวัติศาสตร์อาณานิคมในประเทศโลกที่สาม ต้นทุนความก้าวหน้าทางเทคโนโลยีและเศรษฐกิจหลังยุคอุตสาหกรรมสู่ยุคอินเตอร์เน็ต คือแรงงานและทรัพยากรธรรมชาติในประเทศยากจน ไปจนถึงสิ่งแวดล้อมและโลกใบนี้ทั้งใบ

ธีมหลักของบทความหลายชิ้นคือการตั้งคำถามกับความก้าวหน้าทั้งทางเทคโนโลยีและเศรษฐกิจ และชี้ให้เห็นว่า นกที่ถูกฆ่าพวกนี้แหละที่กลับมาหลอกหลอนผู้คนที่เห็นแต่นกตัวใหม่โดยไม่สนใจราคาที่จ่ายไป กระแสอนุรักษ์นิยมในอเมริกาก็ใช่ (ชนชั้นแรงงานต่อต้านชนชั้นนำซ้ายกลาง) กระแสชาตินิยมในหลายๆ ประเทศทั่วโลกก็ใช่ ประชานิยมทรงพลังเพราะท่ามกลางความก้าวหน้าทางเศรษฐกิจ คนที่ได้ประโยชน์จากความก้าวหน้าเลิกสนใจการเมือง เลิกสนใจปัญหาเชิงโครงสร้าง หันมาชื่นชมในเสรีภาพในการซื้อและสร้างตัวตนที่หลากหลาย แต่ในขณะเดียวกัน มันทิ้งคนจำนวนมากไว้ข้างหลัง เมื่อชีวิตไม่ดี ไม่มีกิน ใครจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้ดีไปกว่าเผด็จการที่พร้อมชี้หน้าว่าใครคือตัวปัญหาที่คอยบีบนกให้ตาย (ศัตรูทุกคน ยกเว้นตัวเอง)

ข้อเสนอเชิงแนวคิดของชิเช็กคือการมองความก้าวหน้าในสองขยักเสมอ ความก้าวหน้าที่แท้จริงต้องประกอบไปด้วย หนึ่ง การก้าวไปข้างหน้าสู่เป้าหมายที่ตั้งไว้ และสอง ที่คนมักจะลืมไป คือต้องคิดทบทวนถึงราคาที่ต้องจ่ายและจ่ายไป และปรับปรุงเป้าหมายของความก้าวหน้านั้นใหม่ในทุกๆ ก้าว (radical redefinition of the very notion of progress)

เพราะทันทีที่เราสนใจแต่การมุ่งไปข้างหน้าโดยไม่สนใจค่าใช้จ่าย ความก้าวหน้านั้นจะเป็นความก้าวหน้าที่จริงๆ แล้วไม่จำเป็นเลย เพราะมันทำลาย "อิสรภาพ" ของมนุษย์

ชิเช็กบอกว่าแนวคิดเรื่องความก้าวหน้าอย่างน้อยๆ ในปรัชญาตะวันตก มีรากฐานจากสิ่งนี้ คือสังคมที่คนเรียกกันว่า "ก้าวหน้า" หมายถึงสังคมที่มนุษย์มีอิสรภาพมากขึ้นเสมอ แต่ที่ควรระวังคือ อิสรภาพที่ว่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่อิสรภาพส่วนบุคคล ซึ่งเราอาจเห็นได้ชัดและคนยุคนี้แคร์มากกว่า ดังนั้นจึงพร้อมโจมตีนโยบายใดๆ ที่ดูเหมือนจำกัดอิสรภาพของ "ฉัน" แต่อิสรภาพยังมีแง่มุมของส่วนรวม เป็น collective freedom ในความหมายว่า ถ้าทุกคนไม่มีอิสรภาพ ก็ไม่มีใครมี ซึ่งเป็นสปิริตของยุค Enlightenment ด้วย (คิดง่ายๆ คือ ถ้ายังมีทาสอยู่ มีคนโดนกดขี่อยู่ คนโดนบังคับใช้แรงงานอยู่ในสังคมเดียวกันเรา เราเป็นอิสระจริงๆ หรือเราแค่โชคดีไม่ตกเป็นทาส?)

สำหรับชิเช็ก (ที่เราตีความเอา) ความก้าวหน้าบางอย่างส่งเสริม individual freedom แต่ทำลาย collective freedom มันฆ่านกมากมายที่อาจจะไม่เป็นพิษเป็นภัยในวันนี้ แต่จะกลับมาหลอกหลอนเหล่า "อิสรเสรีปัจเจกชน" ที่เลิกสนใจการเมืองแล้วในอนาคต

[Steven Kippax · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admire Žižek, but I rarely agree with him. Unfortunately, as a mere mortal, correctly critiquing his ideas may be beyond my scope; although, I shall attempt.

However, I will start with agreement. The cardinal mistake of political movements is that they become a caricature of themselves by failing to examine the context in which they exist and revolutionise themselves. The talking points become aged and their supporters parrot-like, whether on the right or left. And this provides an endless source of mockery for the "other side" whilst "their side" fails to realise that they too look ridiculous. Both ends of the political spectrum need to modernise their ideas and create pragmatic solutions that address the real world.

Beyond this, I often disagree with Žižek in Against Progress. He makes the common mistake of eclectic academics, applying something he understands little to his domain. In this case, his quantum ramblings bear no resemblance to anything scientific. Perhaps he intended only a metaphor, but it seems he extends beyond that and actually thinks quantum effects are invading the political world, which is ludicrous. Quantum physics is often treated like a panacea to justify all kinds of nonsense, and I fear Žižek should separate his love of physics from his political discourse.

More importantly, his support for the idea of "slowing down" and accelerationism as an existential threat violates his own view of the world. He reminds us that we are heading towards an apocalyptic collapse, and that this, at some point, appears inevitable; in the same breath, he advocates slowing down the intelligence explosion. However, it is the sliver of hope that an intelligence explosion can avoid the apocalypse that makes accelerationism essential. This issue is about acceleration towards what and for whom.

A more effective critique would be to question the motives of those leading the Singularity effort, suggesting that it is an endless pursuit of accumulated capital, status, pride, and power. And providing an alternative with accelerationism towards technology that can avoid ecological collapse, decrease the incentives for violence, and provide equitable resources to the populace. The right has co-opted the concept of the technological singularity because the left rejects it and therefore they can adopt it to win power. The left should accept it in a form that benefits all and use that to reclaim power from the right, accelerating us toward more admirable goals. Slowing down is inherently a conservative philosophy and it is the political reversal of our times that it is the right advocating for progress (albeit in a bastardised way).

Surely, the only way the situation can be saved is not to slow down, but to redirect the spear of acceleration away from the heart of civilisation and towards its injustices, its existential threats and its broken systems.