La violence qui maintient la lutte contre la violence

Slavoj Žižek’s latest work, Nasilje, continues his philosophical inquiry into the nature of violence, offering a provocative analysis that intertwines political economy with existential philosophy. The book explores how violence manifests not just through overt acts, but also through systemic structures that perpetuate harm under the guise of progress. According to the Slovenian media outlet Delo, Žižek argues that sometimes the greatest form of violence lies in doing nothing, particularly in the face of systemic injustice. His argument draws upon long-standing themes in his writings, framing violence as both a material force and a symbolic one, shaped by ideological frameworks. The central thesis of Nasilje revolves around the concept of subjective violence, which Žižek compares to a form of resistance against violence itself. He suggests that this kind of violence maintains the struggle against oppression and promotes tolerance. This idea is exemplified through a narrative involving a worker who was accused of stealing materials from a factory. Despite daily inspections failing to find anything, the focus remained on the tools themselves rather than their contents, highlighting how systems can obscure truth while reinforcing control. Žižek uses this case to illustrate how violence is often not directly visible, yet deeply embedded in institutional practices. Drawing from quantum physics, Žižek explains that subjective and objective forms of violence cannot be perceived from the same perspective. Subjective violence is experienced within the context of a non-violent zero-point, whereas objective violence is more tangible and structural. The book further examines the complex interaction of three modes of violence, subjective, objective, and symbolic, and how they shape societal norms and power dynamics. Žižek notes that the concept of objective violence has taken on new forms under capitalism, echoing Karl Marx’s critique of economic structures. He argues that without understanding the broader social reality of material production, one cannot fully grasp the mechanisms of social interaction. Marx's insights are extended by Žižek to reveal how capitalist systems self-regulate through internal contradictions, creating a balance that avoids direct conflict. This process, he suggests, allows for the development and destruction of real life, shaping human experiences in ways that often remain unacknowledged. The author points to historical instances of mass violence, such as the Mexican tragedy of the 16th century and the Holocaust in Belgium, to underscore how responsibility is frequently absented in the face of large-scale suffering. These examples highlight the failure of individuals and institutions to confront the consequences of systemic violence. In contrast to traditional Marxist critiques, Žižek introduces the notion of “liberal communists”, individuals like Bill Gates and George Soros, who attempt to reconcile capitalism with social welfare. While these figures claim to act altruistically, Žižek views them as agents of self-negation within the capitalist system. Their supposed benevolence is, in his view, a logical endpoint of capital accumulation, designed to mitigate crises and maintain equilibrium without resorting to war. This critique extends to the global elite, particularly those gathered at forums such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, where neoliberal policies are reinforced under the guise of progress. The book also touches on the role of ideology in shaping perceptions of violence, exploring how language and symbolism influence our ability to recognize and respond to harmful actions. Žižek delves into topics such as sexuality in an atonal world, examining how identity and morality are constructed within rigid ideological boundaries. Through these discussions, he challenges readers to question the very foundations of social order and the ethical responsibilities that accompany participation in a globalized system. As Žižek moves toward the final sections of the book, he reflects on the tension between individual action and collective responsibility, drawing parallels between personal ethics and broader socio-political struggles. His exploration of these ideas positions Nasilje as a continuation of his lifelong engagement with the complexities of power, identity, and resistance. The work invites readers to reconsider the ways in which violence operates, not only as a physical force, but as a pervasive cultural and economic phenomenon that shapes the contours of modern existence.