Disorder under Heaven

by | 29 Jun 2016

A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to be fully exploited.

Img: Reuters/Reinhard Krause

Img: Reuters/Reinhard Krause

Late in his life, Freud asked the famous question “Was will das Weib?”, “What does a woman want?”, admitting his perplexity when faced with the enigma of the feminine sexuality. A similar perplexity arouses today, apropos the Brexit referendum: what does Europe want?

The true stakes of this referendum become clear if we locate it into its larger historical context. In Western and Eastern Europe, there are signs of a long-term re-arrangement of the political space. Till recently, the political space was dominated by two main parties which addressed the entire electoral body, a Right-of-centre party (Christian-Democrat, liberal-conservative, people’s…) and a Left-of-centre party (socialist, social-democratic…), with smaller parties addressing a narrow electorate (ecologists, neo-Fascists, etc.). Now, there is progressively emerging a one party which stands for global capitalism as such, usually with relative tolerance towards abortion, gay rights, religious and ethnic minorities, etc.; opposing this party is a stronger and stronger anti-immigrant populist party which, on its fringes, is accompanied by directly racist neo-Fascist groups. The exemplary case is here Poland: after the disappearance of the ex-Communists, the main parties are the “anti-ideological” centrist liberal party of the ex-prime-minister Donald Tusk and the conservative Christian party of Kaczynski brothers. The stakes of Radical Center today are: which of the two main parties, conservatives or liberals, will succeed in presenting itself as embodying the post-ideological non-politics against the other party dismissed as “still caught in old ideological specters”? In the early 90s, conservatives were better at it; later, it was liberal Leftists who seemed to be gaining the upper hand, and now, it’s again the conservatives.

The anti-immigrant populism brings passion back into politics, it speaks in the terms of antagonisms, of Us against Them, and one of the signs of the confusion of what remains of the Left is the idea that one should take this passionate approach from the Right: “If Marine le Pen can do it, why we should also not do it?” So one should return to strong Nation-State and mobilize national passions… a ridiculous struggle, lost in advance.

So what does Europe want? Basically, Europe is caught [in] a vicious cycle, oscillating between the Bruxelles technocracy unable to drag it out of inertia, and the popular rage against this inertia, a rage appropriated by new more radical Leftist movements but primarily by Rightist populism. The Brexit referendum moved along the lines of this new opposition, which is why there was something terribly wrong with it. To see this, one should only look at the strange bedfellows that found themselves together in the Brexit camp: right-wing “patriots,” populist nationalists fuelled by the fear of immigrants, mixed with desperate working class rage… is such a mixture of patriotic racism with the rage of “ordinary people” not the ideal ground for a new form of Fascism?

The intensity of the emotional investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered obfuscated the true questions: how to fight “agreements” like [TTIP] which present a real threat to popular sovereignty, how to confront ecological catastrophes and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations, etc. The choice of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles — suffice it to bear in mind what an important argument for Brexit was the “refugee threat.” The Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good old Marxist sense of “false consciousness”) is well and alive in our societies. For example, the case of Brexit exemplifies perfectly the falsity of the calls to restore national sovereignty (the “British people themselves, not some anonymous and non-elected Brussels bureaucrats, should decide the fate of the UK” motif):

At the heart of the Brexit is a paradox worth articulating! England wants to withdraw from the bureaucratic, administrative control of Brussels, control seen as compromising its sovereignty, in order to be better able to organize the dismantling of its sovereignty (by way of more radical submission to the logic of global capital) on its own. Does this not have the markings of the death drive? The organism wants to die in its own way, on its own terms. This is the paradox at the heart of American Republican thinking: we want to ‘take back our country’ in order to be better able to submit it and pretty much all of life to the logic of the market.(Eric Santner, personal communication)

Is this paradox not confirmed by a quick look at the conflicts between the UK and the EU in the past decades? When they concerned workers’ rights, it was the EU which demanded limiting the weekly work hours, etc., and the UK government complained that such a measure will affect the competitiveness of the British industry… In short, the so much vilified “Brussels bureaucracy” was also a protector of minimal workers’ rights — in exactly the same way as it is today the protector of the rights of the refugees against many “sovereign” nation-states which are not ready to receive them.

When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Right one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: “They are both worse!” Was it not the same with the choice British voters were confronting? Remain was “worse” since it meant persisting in the inertia that keeps Europe mired down. Exit was “worse” since it made changing nothing look desirable. In the days before the referendum, there was a pseudo-deep thought circulating in our media: “whatever the result, EU will never be the same, it will be irreparably damaged.” However, it’s the opposite which is true: nothing really changed, just the inertia of Europe became impossible to ignore. Europe will again lose time in long negotiations among the EU members which will continue to make any large-scale political project unfeasible. This is what those who oppose Brexit didn’t see: shocked, they now complain about the “irrationality” of the Brexit voters, ignoring the desperate need for change that the vote made palpable.

For this reason, one should fully support the EU stance that the UK withdrawal should be enacted as fast as possible, without any long preliminary consultations. Understandably, the Brexit partisans in the UK now want [to] have [their] cake and eat it (or, as a commentator viciously remarked, they want a divorce which will still allow them to share the marital bed). They desperately want to strike a middle road (Boris Johnson’s proposal that the UK should maintain free access to the common market was quite appropriately dismissed as a pipe dream).

The confusion that underlies the Brexit referendum is not limited to Europe: it is part of a much larger process of the crisis of “manufacturing democratic consent” in our societies, of the growing gap between political institutions and popular rage, the rage which gave birth to Trump as well as to Sanders in the US. Signs of chaos are everywhere — a couple of days ago, the debate [on] gun control in the US congress turned into a banana republic chaos, with congressmen involved in rough-and-tumble that we usually associate with Third World countries… Is this a reason to despair?

Recall Mao Ze Dong’s old motto: “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to be fully exploited. Although crises are painful and dangerous, they are the terrain on which battles have to be waged and won. Is there not a struggle also in heaven, is the heaven also not divided — and does the ongoing confusion not offer a unique chance to react to the need for a radical change in a more appropriate way, with a project that will break the vicious cycle of EU technocracy and nationalist populism? The true division of our heaven is not between anemic technocracy and nationalist passions, but between their vicious cycle and a new pan-European project which will addresses the true challenges that humanity confronts today.

In his Notes Towards a Definition of Culture, T.S.Eliot remarked that there are moments when the only choice is the one between heresy and non-belief, when the only way to keep a religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its main corpse. This is what has to be done today. Now that, in the echo of the Brexit victory, calls for other exits from EU are multiplying all around Europe, the situation calls for such a heretic project — who will grab the chance? Unfortunately, not the existing Left which is well-known for its breath-taking ability to never miss a chance to miss a chance…

Repost: DiEM25 (Minor edits indicated by square brackets)


  1. Shouldn’t the question really be, what white elite men want? I can’t read this article, when it starts by posing the problematic of Europe as mystery about the feminine. And if the answer back is but the feminine is just a figure. My answer back white elite men are a figure also. Slavoj Zizek question is I am afraid missing the point.

    • If I read him correctly, Slavoj Zizek argues that the Left, or whatever’s left of it, anyway, should seize the crisis caused by the Brexit vote to effect radical change in the international system, although he gives no clues what that radical change might be, who might sponsor it (if not himself), and what might be left of Britain, the EU, or the Western world-system, afterwards. Instead of keeping a cool head and a stiff upper lip and riding out the shock waves created by this self-defeating assertion of British sovereignty against the EU, which simply shows British delusions of post-imperial grandeur, as if Britannia still ruled the waves and the sun never set on its defunct empire, Mr. Zizek apparently believes that the Left should push this crisis to its breaking-point and take advantage of the chaos and confusion to seize power and effect radical change, ignoring the fact that, as he observes, the only parties likely to benefit from the post-Brexit crisis (except Putin’s Russia) are the knee-jerk conservative, anti-EU, anti-immigrant etc. parties (Zizek not implausibly calls them neo-fascists) whose ‘rage!’ (Zizek’s term) fueled this idiotic vote, in the first place, and that, in the current situation, there’s no shreds of credible support for a radical leftist agenda among the general public, and no signs that whatever Left’s left has any clue what that radical leftist agenda might be, if not the vaguely socialistic, multi-culturalist, pro-globalistic etc. agenda already promoted by the EU itself (as Zizek also notes). Instead, Mr. Zizek argues, in his eminently imitable post-Marxist/Leninist, post-Maoist fashion, citing Chinese Communist dictator and Stalinist personality cultist Mao Ze Dong, that confusion and crisis are per se good, and that if the EU is facing a crisis, that’s per se good, too, under the good old 19th century anarchist rationale that whatever’s falling should be pushed, if not kicked, shoved, and hammered until it falls, ignoring the consequences of what it might fall on, and who might get hurt when it falls, namely those who subscribe to that vaguely socialistic, multiculturalist, pro-globalistic agenda of the EU and the Old European left, which, however admittedly cliche and hackneyed and inadequate to coping with the impending global crisis, is still better than a neo-fascist takeover, or, heck, even than a neo-Marxist/Leninist, neo-Maoist takeover of the type Mr. Zizek apparently advocates. But let’s remember what happened in the past when radical parties took advantage of crisis moments to seize power, without having the slightest clue what they’d do, next. The French Revolutionaries took advantage of the crisis of the Ancien Regime to seize the National Assembly and proclaim the Republic, and the result was the Paris Terror, 18th Brumaire, and the Napoleonic Wars in which chaos and war spread over Europe, and 100,000s died. The Russian revolutionaries (Bolsheviks) took advantage of the decadence of the Czarist Romanov dynasty and the collapse of Russia in WWI to seize the Duma from the Mensheviks and overthrow the Kerensky government, and immediately instigated the Red Terror, which lasted 50 years, through WWII, spawned Stalin’s Great Terror and the Gulag system, and killed maybe 20 million people (conservative estimate). The German National Socialists took advantage of the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the German depression to install Hitler as Chancellor and seize power, to rule by diktat, declare a state of exception, seize Austria Czechoslovakia Poland etc. etc,, and at least 10 million people died in the Nazi death camps, not to mention the 20 or 30 million in WWII (ultra-conservative estimate). And Zizek’s favorites, the Chinese Communists and Chairman Mao, took advantage of the Chinese civil war with Chang Kai Shek’s nationalists and the Japanese invasion to establish a communist dictatorship, and the result was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, in which 30-40 million people died (again, conservative estimate), not to mention that China, the last Stalinist Communist State, still has a Gulag system, called the laogai, in which political dissidents and party opponents are starved beaten tortured and re-educated to comply with the Communist party agenda. These examples and many more should give us pause before accepting Zizek’s call to seize the crisis and launch radical change, before we have some idea exactly what radical change he’s calling for, who’s leading it, and where it’s headed etc. It’s always a good idea, before jumping off a cliff, to check your parachute, first, to have at least a vague flight plan, and to have some idea where you’ll land, when you do hit ground. Which is advice the Brits might have considered, before making this rather stupid, bullish, self-defeating vote in the first place. Oh, and, by the way. It might also be a good idea to ask what Vladimir Putin’s plans might be to take advantage of a chaotic, confused, and weakened EU, to promote his New Russian/Eurasian empire, and exactly what pieces of Western real estate he might try to grab next, after Abkhazia, Ossetia, Crimea, Ukraine, Moldova, etc., before the Brits and the EU hammer out the details on their New Deal, and the West and NATO can make plans to stop him. With or without the Post-Brexit Neo-Post-British empire…

  2. Where, prey, is the LEGAL thinking in any of the above discourse? Or is one to assume in this post-modern world that law is whatever you want it to be? Try selling that notion to anyone languishing in a latter day gulag on a trumped-up charge (no pun intended).

    • Briefly: A crisis like the Brexit crisis invites the declaration of what Carl Schmitt a state of exception, in which constitutional law is suspended and the sovereign can rule by diktat, or, contrarily, extralegal forces, whether left or right, can seize power. Slavoj Zizek apparently regards this crisis in the latter sense: as an opportunity the Left should seize to effect radical change, though he doesn’t say what that radical change might be. Giorgio Agamben, on the other hand, might regard it in the former sense, as a dangerous situation which forebodes fascist (or leftist?) takeover, like that which brought the Nazis to power in Weimar Germany. But as an anarchist, Agamben also wants to distinguish between the false state of exception (state of emergency, state of martial law) created by the sovereign State, and the true state of exception (Walter Benjamin’s messianic state), when a revolutionary breakthrough to a future utopian anarchist state might occur. But I worry that all these attempts to capitalize on crisis and its state of exception, whether by left or right, always seem to involve violence, whether state-sponsored or otherwise. And I was cautioning, against Zizek’s sense that the current situation of breakdown of law presents possibilities for the Left, against the dangers of any situation in which the sovereign state or rule of law breaks down, when a descent into a chaotic and anarchic state of violence is always possible. And always, in my mind, to be avoided, and not, as Zizek suggests, welcomed…

  3. Zizek’s claim as I read it is that the UK seems to be following death drive by breaking with the frameworks of the EU. The UK is locating “freedom” in rebellion, rather than freedom through communion—staying married through the rough times, not “divorcing and hoping to still share the bed”.

    The left ought to be real about things and overcome their drive to miss (or avoid) the opportunity to put forth a plan (tho missing is often what’s most enjoyable)


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Join 4,701 other subscribers

We respect your privacy.


*fair access = access according to ability to pay
on a sliding scale down to zero.



Publish your article with us and get read by the largest community of critical legal scholars, with over 4500 subscribers.