# Slavoj Zizek and the rise of authoritarian capitalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096 "2015-10-29T16:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/81 "2015-11-01T20:32:57Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Why I do not think the labor theory does not work? > > This is silly. > > Again, modern economics of all types except for the doctrinaire marxistes discarded the concept over a century ago. > > The multiple failings were already pointed out in the last thread. It is enough to note that this discussion made no impact at all. Did you answer the OP, I think I missed it ? ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/82 "2015-11-01T20:37:05Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Why I do not think the labor theory does not work? > > This is silly. > > Again, modern economics of all types except for the doctrinaire marxistes discarded the concept over a century ago. > > The multiple failings were already pointed out in the last thread. It is enough to note that this discussion made no impact at all. Yes, why _you_ think the labor theory of value doesn’t work. In a separate thread, ideally. Shouldn’t be too hard, if you think it’s already been done, eh? I disagree, obviously–previous attempts simply refused to understand what it says, as I tried to point out. [This](https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/reconsidering-the-labour-theory-of-value/) may be helpful to understand where I’m coming from. Also, remember I asked you to watch your reflexive hostility, and that I asked you not to offer blanket dismissals without specifics. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/83 "2015-11-02T02:06:02Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > Well, what evidence does the rest of the world have for that assertion? I’ll admit our rather heavy-handed foreign policy over the last 15 years has someone jeopardized our claims to be the torchbearer of democracy internationally, but domestically it’s pretty much been business as usual. Looking at the Syria military action, it’s based on post 9/11 authorisation of military force law which means Obama doesn’t have to ask congress their opinion. I think that’s just one example of many ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/84 "2015-11-02T02:36:26Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > OK. > Which system would Lockheed Martin prefer to work under - Chinese state commu-capitalism, or US oligarch capitalism, or Russian authoritarian democracy ? > > Zizek says the future is something like the latter two. Let’s say LM could get rid of all democratic impediments to it’s business (if it has any) ? I think Lockheed Martin would prefer to work wherever it could get the largest margins, all else being equal. All else is not equal, however. Look what Russia has done to the oligarchs that don’t stay in line. So personally, if I could make a 5% margin and know I and my assets were safe, I would take that over a 10% margin with a constant fear that both my assets and my life could be forfeit at any time I crossed the wrong official. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/85 "2015-11-02T03:20:25Z")
> [@OldOlds](#): > > I think Lockheed Martin would prefer to work wherever it could get the largest margins, all else being equal. All else is not equal, however. Look what Russia has done to the oligarchs that don’t stay in line. So personally, if I could make a 5% margin and know I and my assets were safe, I would take that over a 10% margin with a constant fear that both my assets and my life could be forfeit at any time I crossed the wrong official. I don’t know if that’s an equivalent case, really. Anyway isn’t it the oligarchs who choose the politicians in the US ? And if they get out of line they get what Elliot Spitzer got ? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/86 "2015-11-02T03:21:48Z")
So you all agree that democracy and capitalism are destined for a divorce, and that the West is heading for a new authoritarian period ? ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/87 "2015-11-02T05:38:53Z")
No, pretty much no-one has agreed with you. It does not seem to have been a convincing argument. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/88 "2015-11-02T06:01:10Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > No, pretty much no-one has agreed with you. It does not seem to have been a convincing argument. It’s Zizek’s argument and nobody has seriously challenged it. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/89 "2015-11-02T06:59:55Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > It’s Zizek’s argument and nobody has seriously challenged it. Well, he just asserts it’s going to happen in the video\*, no methods of action are mentioned. So, it’s not really like I can argue against it without simply gainsaying it. He doesn’t even really mention why it might happen other than to vaguely describe some “malaise” by jumping from ecological to banking to copyright to genetics concerns, without addressing how divorcing capitalism and democracy would be a solution. After that, he decries that gated communities were our future without considering that they’re also part of our past. So, I’m not convinced that the multitude of choices that people face in liberal democratic societies is going to lead to them devolving into a restrictive society like Singapore. Long-term, the general trend is toward more freedom and power for the individual (even though this process seems pretty damn chaotic) . To assume that trend will continue unabated forever isn’t really a theory, but it has more empirical evidence than his assertions. \*And now I watched your video, twice. Watch the one in my sig. Futurist blather in exchange for intentionally primitive rock and roll. It’s only fair. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/90 "2015-11-02T10:30:59Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > So you all agree that democracy and capitalism are destined for a divorce, and that the West is heading for a new authoritarian period ? No there is no evidence for this. > [@scabpicker](#): > > Well, he just asserts it’s going to happen … > So, I’m not convinced that the multitude of choices that people face in liberal democratic societies is going to lead to them devolving into a restrictive society like Singapore. agreed. > [@OldOlds](#): > > I think Lockheed Martin would prefer to work wherever it could get the largest margins, all else being equal. All else is not equal, however. Look what Russia has done to the oligarchs that don’t stay in line. So personally, if I could make a 5% margin and know I and my assets were safe, I would take that over a 10% margin with a constant fear that both my assets and my life could be forfeit at any time I crossed the wrong official. This is precisely a real driver in decisions of investment. the reality for investors is the authoritarian system appears more dangerous. It is more easy to expropriate the assets, more easy to have action taken against one if you are not part of the close circle - and then if the autocrat falls, to lose your assets. This happened for even some european (ahem, the French) investors into the Tunisia on the fall of Ben Ali and now you encounter among these French a great aversion to having such partners - they learned a hard lesson. So the autocratic system from simply a cold calculus example does not look better for any capital ivnestor not already in the oligarchy. (a similar example from the Egypt is seen - and one has these examples in the sub saharan africa. For every capitalist who is naive or corrupt to associate, there are 10 others who avoid the investment as they know the lesson - not needing a morality, it is a cold calculation) > [@Enterprise](#): > > Yes, why _you_ think the labor theory of value doesn’t work. … Why I would waste my time in such a circus I do not know, [after this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18075309&highlight=labor+theory+hellestal#post18075309), but doing so would be like engaging in a “debate” about the [Phlogiston theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory). It has as much utillity. There really is no point in a discussion with a true believer in such things, particularly when there is the evidence - as the linked past discussion - that there is only circular witnessing to happen. It is enough to note that left or right, no non-marxist economics use this theory as it is a failure and based on a simplistic misconception of the generation of value - one that could be understood c. 19e century but not since. That the marxist true believers cling to it is interesting from a political evolution point of view in studying a marginal movement and its attitudes to the foundational ideas, long passed by, but not for the study of the economics which discarded the concept at the end of the 19e century already. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/91 "2015-11-02T16:17:13Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Well, he just asserts it’s going to happen in the video\*, no methods of action are mentioned. That’s right, that’s why I want bright boys like you to figure it all out for me. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/92 "2015-11-02T16:28:17Z")
> [@](#): > > the reality for investors is the authoritarian system appears more dangerous. Maybe for the examples you mentioned, but not for China, or Singapore - which are Zizek’s examples. Tunisia isn’t a manufacturing powerhouse. It’s fresh out of a revolution. On the contrary, dictatorships are often very good investment partners - look at Saudi. How come all that money is invested in Chinese manufacturing - resulting in your computer ? Of all the places in which people are afraid to invest, China doesn’t seem to be one, what with it being the biggest manufacturer in the world. And internal investment in weapons doesn’t seem to be a problem, judging by it’s recent military parade. On the other hand, NSA over reach has made US tech companies [hopping mad](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa-overreach-hurts-business)because of it’s interference with the saleability of goods. But they will eventually get used to it won’t they, and cynically accommodate the new surveillance reality ? The British government is investing in China to build its new nuclear plants, because for some reason as a democracy it decided not to invest in nuclear design skills, whereas the Chinese state didn’t have that problem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/93 "2015-11-02T16:50:54Z")
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd] Maybe for the examples you mentioned, but not for China, or Singapore - which are Zizek’s examples. Tunisia isn’t a manufacturing powerhouse. It’s fresh out of a revolution. On the contrary, dictatorships are often very good investment partners - look at Saudi. How come all that money is invested in Chinese manufacturing - resulting in your computer ? Of all the places in which people are afraid to invest, China doesn’t seem to be one, what with it being the biggest manufacturer in the world. [/QUOTE] You (and possibly Zizek) seem to be confusing several things. There isn’t a lot of foreign investment in Chinese companies…I don’t have the opportunity to look it up, but I seem to recall that less than 5% of investment in the Chinese stock market(s) are from foreign investment. Nearly all of it is internal (that’s why their Great Crash didn’t really affect people outside of China). No one is investing heavily in Chinese manufacturing…they are building manufacturing plants or buying products that take advantage of Chinese low cost labor and the lower cost of being able to ignore China’s environmental laws and regulations. You can bet, however, that if India or some other country can offer a better deal, that foreign companies will shift to those countries to build their manufacturing plants or buy their cheaper parts. > [@](#): > > And internal investment in weapons doesn’t seem to be a problem, judging by it’s recent military parade. The problem is that they steal much of the highest tech (when they don’t buy it from places like Russia). > [@](#): > > The British government is investing in China to build its new nuclear plants, because for some reason as a democracy it decided not to invest in nuclear design skills, whereas the Chinese state didn’t have that problem. Doesn’t hurt that their bids are lower. I wish the UK good luck with this, though, as several projects in the US that used Chinese contractors to rebuild bridges and the like ended up costing a lot more because of the low quality materials and practices used. That’s bad enough in a bridge, but in a nuke plant it might be a bit more of an issue. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/94 "2015-11-02T16:54:04Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > That’s right, that’s why I want bright boys like you to figure it all out for me. Hmm, I’d say that he’s the only one that’s going to be able to answer that one for you. It’s his prediction/fantasy about how the future will work out. At this point it kind of reads like the people who thought that Bush (or Obama) was going to install themselves as dictator. No one who predicted this had a convincing method of how they were going to do it when pressed, and preferred to make wild claims about how horrible things were going to be. And really, if you want a quick way to tell if a person’s predictions are worth looking into: check if they provide a time scale the prediction is supposed to happen in, and intermediate steps that will lead to their end prediction. If they don’t provide either of those; it’s probably either an unfalsifiable claim, or it is an end state they’d like, and they’re trying to work out how it might happen without considering if it will. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/95 "2015-11-02T17:09:21Z")
I did find this debunking article about ‘[Zizek’s "bullshit](http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/3/22/11186/1335)"’ (there were more than a few if you google ‘debunking Slavoj Zizek’ but this was the smallest: > [@](#): > > ``` > Home Booman Tribune Recent Comments Diaries Search User Guide About Contact > > ``` > > The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles. > > Please REGISTER to post. > Username > Password > Register > > Reset password > Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It’s just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here. > Zizek’s “bullshit” > > by Ted Welch Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 at 11:18:06 AM EST > > In a recent Eurotrib discussion a couple of people commented on Zizek in a fairly positive way while suggesting that they weren’t quite clear about what he was saying. They are not alone. I indicated my reservations about Zizek. Melo suggested that I provide “the pro breakdown”. Here is a general critique of Zizek, largely based on his own comments on himself and his work. > > First a confession, I haven’t read any of Zizek’s books. I have criticised people for unfairly dismissing others. I don’t think I’m being unfair in this case, despite not having read his books. > > As I show, there are some good reasons for not reading his books: > > ``` > He is notorious for contradicting himself, sometimes in one conversation, and, as even a supporter admits, from one book to another. > > He himself has described whole sections of at least one book as "bluff" and "bullshit" and, from his general record of changes of opinion, hoaxes, lies, etc. there's no reason to suppose that this is an isolated example. > > ``` > > I have read several articles by Zizek and watched him in a long interview on TV, that was enough. One doesn’t have to wade through “bullshit” to be able to detect it. I have also read a range of critiques of Zizek by people whose work I respect, e.g. David Bordwell, who writes about films and film theory and reveals Zizek’s carelessness with evidence (we’ll see that he is a habitual liar). > > Some Zizek fans will insist that you can’t have a valid opinion about him unless you’ve read not just one, but a whole series of his many books, and in the right order in order to understand his “trajectory”: > [@](#): > > Apart from confessing that whole sections of at least one of his books are “bullshit”, he also admits that, despite his reputation as a political radical, in fact it’s merely a “boring” chore: “this kind of shitty political interventions”. He also makes clear (as a number of critics have pointed out), that he is less interested in reality than theory: “If you have a good theory, forget about the reality.” > > Cf. (with another admission of how he lies/contradicts himself: > “For me, life exists only insofar as I can theorize it,” he confesses. “I can be bored to death by a movie, but if you give me a good theory, I will gladly erase the past in an Orwellian fashion and claim that I have always enjoyed it!” > > ``` > http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9810/zizek.html > > ``` > > His lack of interest in reality (matching his boredom with politics) explains why he touches on so many things lightly - they’re just examples of Theory, and explains why he often gets things wrong - revealed when people who know something about a particular example look at what he says. > [@](#): > > You couldn’t make it up > > But he learnt early on, in his native Slovenia, that people will swallow almost any old junk - so why bother with serious, time-consuming study and fact-checking ? > > ``` > Zizek once wrote a pseudonymous review attacking one of his own books on Lacan. On another occasion, (the Slovenian magazine) Problemi published a fictional roundtable discussion of feminism in which Zizek played the boorish interlocutor, posing provocative questions to nonexistent participants. (Later, in "Enjoy Your Symptom!", Zizek continued to engage in literary hoaxes with an essay on the films of Roberto Rossellini - none of which he had seen.) > > http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/enjoy.htm > > ``` > > Despite basing much of his work on the ideas of Lacan, he had no compunction about lying even to his Lacanian analyst in Paris, the son-in-law of Lacan, and, more importantly, in charge of a publishing company which Zizek hoped might publish his own dissertation on Lacan. He lied because he feared analysis might “cure” him of his “theoretical desire” and turn him into “a common person.” As we shall see he has an obvious craving for attention, hence the “obscene jokes” and wilfully adopting views to shock liberals and attacking other leftist academics because, for example, they do not really understand Lacan: > > ``` > "It was my strict rule, my sole ethical principle, to lie consistently (to his Lacanian analyst, TW): to invent all symptoms, fabricate all dreams," he reports of his treatment. "It was obsessional neurosis in its absolute purest form. Because you never knew how long it would last, I was always prepared for at least two sessions. I have this incredible fear of what I might discover if I really went into analysis. What if I lost my frenetic theoretical desire? What if I turned into a common person?" > > http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/enjoy.htm > > ``` Anyway, he goes through a number of quotes from the guy and debunks them or points out the various contradictions. I didn’t see anything on this video in particular, but seems clear that the guys just throws stuff at the wall hoping something will stick and is more speaking for shock value as well as because he WANTS it to be the way he claims than from any seeming understanding of even the basics. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/96 "2015-11-02T17:27:23Z")
> [@](#): > > First a confession, I haven’t read any of Zizek’s books. Thanks for the effort, but … small problem ? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/97 "2015-11-02T17:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > There isn’t a lot of foreign investment in Chinese companies…I don’t have the opportunity to look it up, but I seem to recall that less than 5% of investment in the Chinese stock market(s) are from foreign investment. Nearly all of it is internal (that’s why their Great Crash didn’t really affect people outside of China). Well that is an advert for running things the way they run them isn’t it ? Immunity from market crashes isn’t a bad thing. If bankers get out of hand, they execute them rather than throwing money at them. Top destinations for foreign direct investment in 2014 China $128bn Hong Kong $111bn US $86bn Singapore $81bn Brazil $62bn UK $61bn > [@](#): > > The problem is that they steal much of the highest tech (when they don’t buy it from places like Russia). It’s not a problem for them. I suppose the idea here is that being authoritarian they lack innovation. But they don’t seem to have a problem with education, judging by the number of Chinese names on US academic papers. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t hurt that their bids are lower. I wish the UK good luck with this, though, as several projects in the US that used Chinese contractors to rebuild bridges and the like ended up costing a lot more because of the low quality materials and practices used. That’s bad enough in a bridge, but in a nuke plant it might be a bit more of an issue. 😛 I appreciate the sympathy, I do, our government are off their fucking rockers with this deal. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/98 "2015-11-02T17:40:20Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Thanks for the effort, but … small problem ? You should put in some effort. He qualifies this by saying he hasn’t read his BOOKS, but has read many of his articles, seen his interviews and his YouTube videos. So, no…I don’t think it’s a major issue. Have YOU read all his books and such? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/99 "2015-11-02T17:43:45Z")
> **[Why China Can’t Innovate](https://hbr.org/2014/03/why-china-cant-innovate)** > > Reprint: R1403J China has no lack of entrepreneurs, market demand, or wealth, but can the country succeed in its quest to become the world’s innovation leader? For nearly 40 years, the government has been establishing research programs and high-tech... > [@](#): > > Innovation from the Top Down In its 2006 “Medium- to Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology” (MLP), the Chinese government declared its intention to transform China into “an innovative society” by 2020 and a world leader in science and technology by 2050. That was not empty talk. Beijing has a solid track record of setting policies and incentives, and then watching citizens and local government officials, right down to the village level, fall in line with them. > In fact, whereas in 2004 there were some 600 foreign R&D centers in China, by 2010 that number had more than doubled, and their scale and strategic importance had increased. Pfizer moved its Asia headquarters to Shanghai that year. In 2011 Microsoft opened its Asia Pacific R&D center in Beijing, and General Motors opened an Advanced Technical Center comprising several engineering and design labs. Merck’s Asia R&D headquarters in Beijing is scheduled to become operational in 2014. Now you might say that those foreign firms going to China are factors that will bring democracy to China, yet they seem to do fine in an authoritarian environment. So when WILL we see Microsoft and Merck’s presence in china bring about a democracy ? And why not simply invest in dictatorships instead of bombing them into regime change ? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096/100 "2015-11-02T17:49:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You should put in some effort. He qualifies this by saying he hasn’t read his BOOKS, but has read many of his articles, seen his interviews and his YouTube videos. So, no…I don’t think it’s a major issue. Have YOU read all his books and such? I was mean wasn’t I ? I have read a couple yes. I know he’s mischievous and uses a lot of jargon I don’t agree with or that is even incomprehensible. Chomsky recently called him out on it. > [@](#): > > Zizek once wrote a pseudonymous review attacking one of his own books on Lacan. Haha a man after my own heart :p. For instance, didn’t you realise that XT is actually my other account ? Ramira’s bitching is my third account, I enjoy sneering at myself for lulz. I’ll leave you to guess how many other accounts I run. But I don’t care about those distractions, I just want to know about this one point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavoj-zizek-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-capitalism/736096.md?page=6)