https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=lsWndfzuOc4
Дальше, мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. И мы будем в Тайге, где мы будем в Тайге. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. Please note during tonight’s presentation, video is not recorded. Please note during tonight’s presentation, video is not recorded. Please note during tonight’s presentation, video is not recorded. Please note during tonight’s presentation, video is not recorded. Please note during tonight’s presentation, video, audio, and flash photography is prohibited. And we have a strict zero tolerance policy for any heckling or disruptions. And now please welcome your host and moderator, President of Ralston College, Dr. Stephen Blackwood. Thank you. A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the theatre in Toronto and those following online. You know, it’s not very often that you see a country’s largest theatre packed for an intellectual debate. But that’s what we’re all here for tonight. Please join me. Please join me in welcoming to the stage Dr. Slavoj Zizek and Dr. Jordan Peterson. Just a few words of introduction. There can be few things, I think, now more urgent and necessary in an age of reactionary, partisan allegiance and degraded civil discourse than real thinking about hard questions. The very premise of tonight’s event is that we all participate in the life of thought, not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and argument. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a commitment to thinking itself. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power. And yet they are not principally political thinkers. They are both concerned with more fundamental matters, meaning, truth, freedom. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. Dr. Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher. He has not one, but two doctoral degrees, one in philosophy, one in philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and a second in psychoanalysis from University… Let’s hear it for psychoanalysis. He is from the University of Paris 8. He is now a professor at the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and the director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. He has published more than three dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. He is a dazzling theorist with extraordinary range. A global figure for decades, he turns again and again with dialectical power to radical questions of emancipation, subjectivity and art. Dr. Jordan Peterson is an academic and clinical psychologist. His doctorate was awarded by McGill University and he was subsequently… We’ve got some McGill graduates out here. He was subsequently professor of psychology at Harvard University and then the University of Toronto where he is today. The author of two books and well over a hundred academic articles, Dr. Peterson’s intellectual roots likewise lie in the 19th and early 20th centuries where his reading of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and above all Carl Jung inform his interpretation of ancient myths of 20th century totalitarianism and especially his endeavor to counter contemporary nihilism. His 12 Rules for Life is a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Both Drs. Zizek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines and the academy. Just as this debate, we hope, will transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame of happiness, of human flourishing itself. We’re in for quite a night. A quick word about format. Each of our debaters will have 30 minutes to make a substantial opening statement, to lay out an argument. Dr. Peterson first, followed by Dr. Zizek. Each will then have in the same order, 10 minutes to reply. I will then moderate 45 minutes or so of questions, many of which will come from you, the audience, both here in Toronto and online. With that, let’s get underway. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Jordan Peterson for the first opening statement. Well, thank you for that insanely enthusiastic welcome for the entire event and also for being here. I have to tell you first that this event and I suppose my life in some sense hit a new milestone that I was just made aware of by a stagehand today backstage who informed me that last week the tickets for this event were being scalped online at a higher price than the tickets for the Leafs playoff games. So I don’t know what to make of that. All right. So how did I prepare for this? I went. I familiarized myself to the degree that it was possible with Slavoj Zizek’s work and that wasn’t that possible because he has a lot of work and he’s a very original thinker. And this debate was put together in relatively short order. And what I did instead was return to what I regarded as the original cause of all the trouble, let’s say, which was the Communist Manifesto. And what I attempted to do, because that’s Marx and we’re here to talk about Marxism, let’s say. And what I tried to do was read it. And to read something, you don’t just follow the words and follow the meaning, but you take apart the sentences and you ask yourself at this level of phrase and at the level of sentence and at the level of paragraph, is this true? Are there counter arguments that can be put forward that are credible? Is this solid thinking? And I have to tell you, and I’m not trying to be flippant here, that I have rarely read a tract. Now, I read it when I was 18. It was a long time ago, right? That’s 40 years ago. But I’ve rarely read a tract that made as many errors per sentence, conceptual errors per sentence as the Communist Manifesto. It was quite a miraculous reread. And it was interesting to think about it psychologically as well, because I’ve read student papers that were of the same ilk in some sense, although I’m not suggesting that they were of the same level of glittering literary brilliance and polemic quality. And I also understand that the Communist Manifesto was a call for revolution and not a standard logical argument. But that notwithstanding, I have some things to say about the authors psychologically. The first thing is that it doesn’t seem to me that either Marx or Engels grappled with one fundamental, with this particular fundamental truth, which is that almost all ideas are wrong. And so, if you, and it doesn’t matter if they’re your ideas or someone else’s ideas, they’re probably wrong. And even if they strike you with the force of brilliance, your job is to assume, first of all, that they’re probably wrong, and then to assault them with everything you have in your arsenal and see if they can survive. And what struck me about the Communist Manifesto was it was akin to something Jung said about typical thinking. And this was the thinking of people who weren’t trained to think. He said that the typical thinker has a thought, it appears to them like an object might appear in a room. The thought appears, and then they just accept it as true. They don’t go the second step, which is to think about the thinking. And that’s the real essence of critical thinking. And so that’s what you try to teach people in universities, to read a text and to think about it critically. Not to destroy the utility of the text, but to separate the wheat from the chaff. And so what I tried to do when I was reading the Communist Manifesto was to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I’m afraid I found some wheat, yes, but mostly chaff. And I’m going to explain why, hopefully in relatively short order. So I’m going to outline ten of the fundamental axioms of the Communist Manifesto. And so these are truths that are basically held as self-evident by the authors. And they’re truths that are presented in some sense as unquestioned. And I’m going to question them and tell you why I think they’re unreliable. Now we should remember that this tract was actually written 170 years ago. That’s a long time ago. And we have learned a fair bit from since then about human nature, about society, about politics, about economics. There’s lots of mysteries left to be unsolved, left to be solved. But we are slightly wiser, I presume, than we were at one point. And so you can forgive the authors to some degree for what they didn’t know. But that doesn’t matter given that the essence of this doctrine is still held as sacrosanct by a large proportion of academics. Academics probably are among the most, what would you call, guilty of that particular sin. So here’s proposition number one. History is to be viewed primarily as an economic class struggle. All right. So let’s think about that for a minute. First of all, the proposition there is that history is primarily to be viewed through an economic lens. And I think that’s a debatable proposition because there are many other motivations that drive human beings than economics. And those have to be taken into account, especially the drive people other than economic competition, like economic cooperation, for example. And so that’s a problem. The other problem is that it’s actually not nearly a pessimistic enough description of the actual problem because history… History… This is to give the devil his due. The idea that one of the driving forces between history is hierarchical struggle is absolutely true. But the idea that that’s actually history is not true because it’s deeper than history. It’s biology itself because organisms of all sorts organize themselves into hierarchies. And one of the problems with hierarchies is that they tend to arrange themselves into a winner-take-all situation. And that is implicit in some sense in Marx’s thinking because, of course, Marx believed that in a capitalist society, capital would accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And that actually is in keeping with the nature of hierarchical organizations. Now, the problem with that isn’t so much the fact of… So there’s accuracy in the accusation that that is an eternal form of motivation for struggle, but it’s an underestimation of the seriousness of the problem because it attributes it to the structure of human societies rather than the deeper reality of the existence of hierarchical structures per se, which, as they also characterize the animal kingdom to a large degree, are clearly not only human constructions. And the idea that there’s hierarchical competition among human beings, there’s evidence for that that goes back at least to the Paleolithic times. And so that’s the next problem. It’s that, well, this ancient problem of hierarchical structure is clearly not attributable to capitalism because it existed long in human history before capitalism existed, and then it predated human history itself. So the question then arises, why would you necessarily, at least implicitly, link the class struggle with capitalism, given that it’s a far deeper problem? And now, it’s also… you’ve got to understand that this is a deeper problem for people on the left, not just for people on the right. It is the case that hierarchical structures dispossess those people who are at the bottom, those creatures who are at the bottom, speaking, say, of animals, but those people who are at the bottom, and that that is a fundamental existential problem. But the other thing that Marx didn’t seem to take into account is that there are far more reasons that human beings struggle than their economic class struggle, even if you build the hierarchical idea into that, which is a more comprehensive way of thinking about it. Human beings struggle with themselves, with the malevolence that’s inside themselves, with the evil that they’re capable of doing, with the spiritual and psychological warfare that goes on within them. And we’re also actually always at odds with nature, and this never seems to show up in Marx, and it doesn’t show up in Marxism in general. It’s as if nature doesn’t exist. The primary conflict, as far as I’m concerned, or a primary conflict, that human beings engage in, is the struggle for life in a cruel and harsh natural world. And it’s as if that doesn’t exist in the Marxist domain. If human beings have a problem, it’s because there’s a class struggle that’s essentially economic. It’s like, no, human beings have problems because we come into the life starving and lonesome, and we have to solve that problem continually, and we make our social arrangements, at least in part, to ameliorate that, as well as to, well, upon occasion exacerbate it. And so there’s also very little understanding in the Communist Manifesto that any of the, like, say, hierarchical organizations that human beings have put together might have a positive element. And that’s an absolute catastrophe, because hierarchical structures are actually necessary to solve complicated social problems. We have to organize ourselves in some manner, and you have to give the devil his due. And so it is the case that hierarchies just possess people, and that’s a big problem. That’s the fundamental problem of inequality. But it’s also the case that hierarchies happen to be a very efficient way of distributing resources, and it’s finally the case that human hierarchies are not fundamentally predicated on power. And I would say that biological, anthropological data on that are crystal clear. You don’t rise to a position of authority that’s reliable in a human society, primarily by exploiting other people. It’s a very unstable means of obtaining power. So that’s a problem. Well, the people that laugh might do it that way. Okay, now the other, another problem that comes up right away is that Marx also assumes that you can think about history as a binary class struggle with clear divisions between, say, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And that’s actually a problem, because it’s not so easy to make a firm division between who’s exploiter and who’s exploiter. Let’s say because it’s not obvious, like in the case of small shareholders, let’s say, whether or not they happen to be part of the oppressed or part of the oppressor. This actually turned out to be a big problem in the Russian Revolution. And by big problem, I mean tremendously big problem, because it turned out that you could fragment people into multiple identities. And that’s a fairly easy thing to do. And you could usually find some access along which they were part of the oppressor class. It might have been a consequence of their education, or it might have been a consequence of their education. Or it might have been a consequence of their, of their, of their, of the wealth that they strived to accumulate during their life. Or it might have been a consequence of the fact that they had parents or grandparents who were educated or rich, or that they were a member of the priesthood, or that they were socialists, or anyways, that the listing of how it was possible for you to be bourgeois instead of proletariat grew immensely. And that was one of the reasons that the Red Terror claimed all the victims that it claimed. And so that was a huge problem. It was probably most exemplified by the demolition of the kulaks, who were basically peasants, peasant farmers, although effective ones in the Soviet Union, who had managed to raise themselves out of serfdom over a period of about three or four years. And that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. And so that was a huge problem. The problem is the capitalists own everything. The problem is the capitalists own everything. They own all the means of production. They own all the means of production. And they’re oppressing everyone. And they’re oppressing everyone. And that would be all the workers. And that would be all the workers. And there’s going to be a race to the bottom of wages for the workers. And there’s going to be a race to the bottom of wages for the workers. As the capitalists strive to extract more and more value from the labor of the proletariat. As the capitalists strive to extract more and more value from the labor of the proletariat. As the capitalists strive to extract more and more value from the labor of the proletariat. By competing with other capitalists to drive wages downward. By competing with other capitalists to drive wages downward. Which by the way didn’t happen. Partly because wage earners can become scarce. And that actually drives the market value upward. And that actually drives the market value upward. But the fact that you assume a priori that all the evil can be attributed to the capitalists. But the fact that you assume a priori that all the evil can be attributed to the capitalists. But the fact that you assume a priori that all the evil can be attributed to the capitalists. But the fact that you assume a priori that all the evil can be attributed to the capitalists. And all the good, the bourgeoisie. And all the good, the bourgeoisie. And all the good could be attributed to the proletariat. And all the good could be attributed to the proletariat. And all the good could be attributed to the proletariat. And all the good could be attributed to the proletariat. And that was the first stage in the communist revolution. And that was the first stage in the communist revolution. And remember this is a call for revolution. And remember this is a call for revolution. And not just revolution but bloody violent revolution. And not just revolution but bloody violent revolution. And the overthrow of all, the overthrowing of all existence social structures. And the overthrow of all, the overthrowing of all existence social structures. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. Anyways, the problem with that you see is that because all the evil isn’t divided so easily up into oppressor and oppressed. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with the problem of centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And that’s the problem with centralization. And so, if you allow profit to constitute a limitation on what it is that you might reasonably attempt, it provides a good constraint on wasted labour. And so most of the things that I’ve done in my life, even psychologically, that were designed to help people’s psychological health, I tried to run on a for-profit basis. And the reason for that was, apart from the fact that I’m not averse to making a profit, partly so my enterprises can grow, but it was also so that there were forms of stupidity that I couldn’t engage in because I would be punished by the market enough to eradicate the enterprise. And so… Okay, and then so the next issue. This is a weird one. So Marx and Engels also assume that this dictatorship of the proletariat, which involves absurd centralization, the overwhelming probability of corruption, and impossible computation, as the proletariat now try to rationally compute the manner in which an entire market economy could run, which cannot be done because it’s far too complicated for anybody to think through. The next theory is that somehow the proletariat dictatorship would become magically hyperproductive. And there’s actually no theory at all about how that’s going to happen. And so I had to infer the theory, and the theory seems to be that once you eradicate the bourgeoisie, because they’re evil, and you get rid of their private property, and you eradicate the profit motive, then all of a sudden, magically, the small percentage of the proletariat who now run the society determine how they can make their profit. Their productive enterprises productive enough so they become hyperproductive. Now, and they need to become hyperproductive for the last error to be logically coherent in relationship to the Marxist theory, which is that at some point the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat, will become so hyperproductive that there’ll be enough material goods for everyone across all dimensions. And when that happens, then what people will do is spontaneously engage in meaningful creative labor, which is what they had been alienated from in the capitalist horror show, and the utopia will be magically ushered in. But there’s no indication about how that hyperproductivity is going to come about, and there’s also no understanding that, well, that isn’t the utopia that is going to suit everyone, because there are great differences between people, and some people are going to find what they want in love, and some are going to find it in social being, and some are going to find it in conflict and competition, and some are going to find it in creativity, as Marx pointed out, but the notion that that will necessarily be the end goal for the utopian state is preposterous. And then there’s the Dostoevskyian observation, too, which is, one, not to be taken lightly, which is, what sort of shallow conception of people do you have that makes you think that if you gave people enough bread and cake, and the Dostoevskyian terms, and nothing to do with busy themselves with the continuity of the species, that they would all of a sudden become peaceful and heavenly. Dostoevsky’s idea was that, you know, we were built for trouble. And if we were ever handed everything we needed on a silver platter, the first thing we would do is engage in some form of creative destruction, just so something unexpected could happen, just so we could have the adventure of our lives. And I think there’s something, well, there’s something to be said for that. So, and then the last error, let’s say, although by no means the last, was this, and this is one of the strangest parts of the Communist Manifesto, is Marx admits and Engels admit repeatedly in the Communist Manifesto that there has never been a system of production in the history of the world that was as effective at producing material commodities in excess than capitalism. I guess that’s the point. Like, that’s extensively documented in the Communist Manifesto. And so if your proposition is, look, we’ve got to get as much material security for everyone as possible, as fast as we can, and capitalism already seems to be doing that at a rate that’s unparalleled in human history, wouldn’t the logical thing be just to let the damn system play itself out? I mean, unless you’re assuming that the evil capitalists are just going to take all of the flat-screen televisions and put them in one big room and not let anyone else have one, the logical assumption is that, well, you’re already on a road that’s supposed to produce the proper material productivity. And so, well, that’s ten reasons, as far as I can tell. And so what I saw in that the Communist Manifesto is, like, seriously flawed in virtually every way it could possibly be flawed. And also all in evidence that Marx was the kind of narcissistic thinker who could think he was a good person, and he was a good person, and he was a good person. But what he thought, what he thought when he thought was that what he thought was correct. And he never went to the second stage, which is, wait a second, how could all of this go terribly wrong? And if you’re a thinker, especially if you’re a thinker, you’re a thinker who’s been in the same situation for a long time, you’re a thinker who’s been in the same situation for a long time. And as a consequence, you have the moral obligation to walk through the damn system and think, well, what’s the point of this? And you’re a thinker who’s been in the same situation for a long time, and you’re a thinker who’s been in the same situation for a long time. And you’re a thinker who’s been in the same situation for a long time. And as a consequence, you have the moral obligation to walk through the damn system and think, well, what if I’m completely wrong here and things invert and go exactly the wrong way? And like, I can’t I just can’t understand how anybody could come up with an idea like the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially after advocating its implementation for with violent means, which is a direct part of the communist manifesto, and actually think if they were thinking, if they knew anything about human beings and the proclivity for malevolence that’s part and parcel of the individual human being, that that could do anything but lead to a special form of hell, which is precisely what we’re talking about. And so I’m going to close because I have three minutes with with a bit of evidence as well that. Marks also thought that what would happen inevitably as a consequence of capitalism is that rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. So there would be inequality. The first thing I’d like to say is we do not know how to set up a human system of economics without inequality. No one has ever managed it, including the communists and the form of inequality change. And it’s not obvious by any stretch of imagination that the free market economies of the West have more inequality than the less free economies in the rest of the world. And the one thing you can say about capitalism is that although it produces inequality, which it absolutely does, it also produces wealth and all the other systems don’t. They just produce inequality. So here’s here’s a few stats. Here’s a few free market stats. OK, from eighteen hundred to two thousand and seventeen income growth adjusted for inflation grew by forty times for production workers and sixteen times for unskilled labor. Well, GDP fact GDP rose by a factor of about point five from one eighty to eighteen hundred. So from one eighty to eighteen hundred eighty, it was like nothing flat. And then all of a sudden in the last two hundred and seventeen years, there’s been this unbelievably upward movement of wealth. And it doesn’t only characterize the tiny percentage of people at the top who admittedly do have most of the wealth. The question is not only, though, what’s the inequality? The question is, well, what’s happening to the absolutely poor at the bottom? And the answer to that is they’re getting richer faster now than they ever have in the history of the world. And we’re eradicating poverty in countries that have adopted moderate free market policies at a rate that’s unparalleled. So here’s an example. The UN millennial one of the UN millennial goals was to reduce the the rate of absolute poverty in the world by 50 percent between 2000 and 2015. And they defined that as a dollar ninety a day. Pretty low, you know, but you have to start somewhere. We we hit that at 2012. Three years ahead of schedule. And you might be cynical about that and say, well, it’s kind of an arbitrary number, but the curves are exactly the same at three dollars and eighty three dollars and eighty cents a day and seven dollars and sixty cents a day. Not as many people have hit that. But the rate of increase towards that is the same. The bloody UN thinks that we’ll be out of poverty defined by a dollar ninety a day by the year 2030. It’s unparalleled. And so so the so the rich may be getting richer, but the poor are getting richer, too. That’s that’s not the look. I’ll leave it at that because I’m out of time. But one of the I’ll leave it with this. The poor are not getting poor under capitalism. The poor are getting richer under capitalism by a large margin. And I’ll leave you with one statistic, which is that now. Now. In Africa, the child mortality rate in Africa now is the same as the child mortality rate was in Europe in 1952. And so that’s happened within the span of one lifetime. And so if you’re for the poor, if you’re for the poor, if you’re actually concerned that the poorest people in the world rise above their starvation levels, then the all the evidence suggests that the best way to do that is to implement something approximating a free market economy. And so thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. Dr. Zizek. Thank you. OK. First, a brief introductory remark. I cannot but notice the irony of how Peterson and I, the participants in this duel of the century, are both marginalized by the official academic community. I’m supposed to defend here the left liberal line against neoconservatives. Really? Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. Just remember the outcry against my critique of LGBT plus ideology. And I’m sure that if the leading figures in this field were to be asked if I am fit to stand for them, they would turn in their graves, even if they are still alive. So let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title. Happiness, communism, capitalism. In one exemplary case, China today. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. How did China achieve it? The 20th century left was defined by its opposition to the two fundamental tendencies of modernity. The reign of capital with its aggressive market competition, the authoritarian bureaucratic state power. Today’s China combines these two features in its extreme form. Strong authoritarian state, wild capitalist dynamics. And it’s important to note they do it on behalf of happiness of the majority of people. They don’t mention communism to legitimize their rule. They prefer the old Confucian notion of a harmonious society. But are the Chinese any happier for all that? Although even the Dalai Lama justifies Tibetan Buddhism in Western terms of the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain, happiness as a goal of our life is a very problematic notion. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, it is that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. Happiness is a confused notion. Basically, it relies on the subject’s inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his or her desire. In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire. So that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is for us to get what we officially desire. So I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualize it or in the effort to actualize our inner potentials. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Modernity means that, yes, we should carry the burden. But the main burden is freedom itself. We are responsible for our burdens. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. We are never just instruments of some higher cause. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. All such returns are today a postmodern fake. Does Donald Trump stand for traditional values? No. His conservatism is a postmodern performance, a gigantic ego trip. In this sense of playing with traditional values, of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate postmodern president. If we compare Trump with Bernie Sanders, Trump is a postmodern politician at its purest, while Sanders is rather an old-fashioned moralist. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity or higher value. If we are left to ourselves, if everything is historically conditioned and relative, then there is nothing preventing us to indulge in our lowest tendencies. But is this really the lesson to be learned from mob killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? It is often claimed that, true or not, religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. From today’s experience, I think we should rather stick to Steve Weinberg’s claim that while without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things, only something like religion can make good people do bad things. More than a century ago, in his brother’s Karamazov, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism. If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher André Glucksmann applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to September 11th. And the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan, suggests, as this title suggests, he couldn’t have been more wrong. The lesson of today’s terrorism is that if there is a God, then everything, even blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders, is permitted to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God. The same goes also for godless Stalinist communists. They are the ultimate proof of it. Everything was permitted to them since they perceived themselves as a direct instrument of their divinity, of the historical necessity of progress towards communism. That’s the big problem of ideologies, how to make good, decent people do horrible things. Second, yes, we should carry our burden, accept the suffering that goes with it. A danger lurks here, that of a subtle reversal. Don’t fall in love, that’s my position, with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is in itself a proof of your authenticity. Renunciation of pleasure can easily turn into pleasure of renunciation itself. An example, an example not from neoconservatives. White left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and blame Eurocentrism for our evils. But it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multicultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position. Graciously soliciting others to assert their particular identity. White multiculturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. Next point. Jacques Lacan wrote something paradoxical but deeply true. That even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife, that she sleeps with other men, is all true, his jealousy is nonetheless pathological. The pathological element is the husband’s need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazi claims about Jews, they exploit Germans, they seduce German girls and so on, were true, which they were not of course, their anti-Semitism would still be a pathological phenomenon because it ignored the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonious collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. The same holds for how today, in Europe at least, the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. The cause of problems which are, I claim, imminent to today’s global capitalism is projected onto an external intruder. Again, even if the reported incident with the refugees, there are great problems. I admit it. Even all these reports are true. The populist story about them is a lie. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. In the 1920s, many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. They didn’t understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay and so on. Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot. We are in this mess because of the Jews. That’s what I would like to insist on. We are telling ourselves stories about ourselves in order to acquire a meaningful experience of our lives. However, this is not enough. One of the most stupid wisdoms, and they are mostly stupid, is an enemy is someone whose story you have not heard. Really? Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? The experience that we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves in order to account for what we are doing is, and this is what I call ideology, fundamentally a lie. The truth lies outside in what we do. In a similar way, the alt-right obsession with cultural Marxism expresses the rejection to confront the fact that the phenomena they criticize as the effect of the cultural Marxist plot, moral degradation, sexual prinsquity, consumerist hedonism and so on, are the outcome of the eminent dynamic of capitalist societies. I would like to refer to a classic, Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, written back in 1976, where the author argues that the unbounded drive of modern capitalism undermines the moral foundations of the original Protestant ethics. And in the new afterword, Bell offers a bracing perspective on contemporary Western societies, revealing the crucial cultural fault lines we face as the 21st century is here. The turn towards culture as a key component of capitalist reproduction and concomitant to it, the commodification of cultural life itself, are, I think, crucial moments of capitalist expanded reproduction. So the term cultural Marxism, I think, plays the same role as that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. It projects or transposes some eminent antagonism, however you call it, ambiguity, tension, of our socio-economic life onto an external cause. In exactly the same way, now let me tell you a different, give you a different, more problematic example. In exactly the same way, liberal critics of Trump and alt-right never seriously ask how our liberal society could give birth to Trump. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. Hegel’s motto, evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere, fully applies here. The very liberal gaze which demonizes Trump is also evil because it ignores how its own failures opened up the space for Trump’s type of patriotic populism. Next point, one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. The true opposite of egotist self-love is not altruism, a concern for the common good, but envy, resentment, which makes me act against my own interests. This is why, as many prespicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its faced value. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Egalitarianism often de facto means I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. This is, I think, now comes the problematic part for some of you, maybe the problem with political correctness. What appears as its excesses, its regulatory zeal, is, I think, an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began, it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. Should we then drop egalitarianism? No. Equality can also mean, and that’s the equality I advocate, creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. It is, that’s my paradoxical claim, it is today’s capitalism that equalizes us too much and causes the loss of many talents. So what about the balance between equality and hierarchy? Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? Is there in today’s United States really too much equality? I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. Far from pushing us too far, the left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. Its trademarks, universal health care, free education and so on, are continuously diminished. Look at Bernie Sanders and I don’t idealize him program. It is just a version of what half a century ago in Europe was simply the predominant social democracy, and it’s today decried as a threat to our freedoms, to the American way of life and so on and so on. I see no threat to free creativity in this program. On the contrary, I see health care and education and so on as enabling me to focus my life on more important creative issues. I see equality, this basic equality of chances as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different, more appropriate hierarchies. Furthermore, I find it very hard to ground today’s inequalities as they are documented, for example, by Piketty in his book, to ground today’s inequalities in different competencies. Competencies for what? In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically, but market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulator of the social recognition of competencies. Let me now briefly deal, in a friendly way I claim, with what became known, sorry for the irony, as the lobster topic. I’m far from a simple social constructionism here. I deeply appreciate evolutionary thought. Of course, we are also natural beings and our DNA, as we all know, overlaps, I may be wrong, around 98% with that of some monkeys. This means something, but nature, I think we should never forget this, is not a stable hierarchical system, but full of improvisations. It develops like French cuisine. A French guy gave me this idea that French, the origin of many famous French dishes or drinks is that when they wanted to produce a standard piece of food or drink, something went wrong, but then they realized that this failure can be resolved as success. They were making cheese in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my God, look, we have our own original French cheese, or they were making wine in the usual way, then something went wrong with fermentation, and so they began to produce champagne, and so on and so on. I’m not making just a joke here, because I think that it is exactly like this, and that’s the lesson of psychoanalysis, that our sexuality works. Sexual instincts are, of course, biologically determined, but look what we humans made out of them. They are not limited to the mating season. They can develop into a permanent obsession, sustained by obstacles that demand to be overcome, in short, into a properly metaphysical passion that perturbs the biological rhythm, with twists like endlessly prolonging satisfaction in courtly love, engaging in different perversions, and so on and so on. So it’s still, yes, biologically conditioned sexuality, but it is, if I may use this term, trans-functionalized. It becomes a moment of a different cultural, however you call it, logic. And I claim the same goes for tradition. T.S. Eliot, the great conservative, wrote, quote, What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the work of art which preceded it. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past, end of quote. What does this mean? Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. It’s not just that, in spite of all our natural and cultural differences, the same divine spark dwells in everyone. But this divine spark enables us to create what Christians call Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, a community in which hierarchical family values are at some level at least abolished. Remember Paul’s works from Galatians. There is no longer Jew or Greek. There is no longer male and female in Christ. Democracy extends this logic to the political space. In spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. The danger of democracy is that we should not give all power to competent experts. It was precisely communists in power who legitimized their rule by posing as fake experts. Incidentally, I am far from believing in ordinary people’s wisdom. We often need a master figure to push us out of an inertia. And I’m not afraid to say that forces us to be free. Freedom and responsibility hurt. They require an effort. And the highest function of an authentic master is to literally to awaken us to our freedom. We are not spontaneously really free. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. In our human universe, power in the sense of exerting authority is something much more mysterious, even irrational. Kierkegaard, my and everybody’s favorite theologist, wrote, If a child says he will obey his father because his father is a competent and good guy, this is an affront to father’s authority. And he applied the same logic to Christ himself. Christ was justified by the fact of being God’s son, not by his competencies or capacities. As Kierkegaard put it, every good student of theology can put things better than Christ. There is no such authority in nature. Lobsters may have hierarchy, undoubtedly, but the main guy among them, I don’t think he has authority in this sense. Again, the wager of democracy is that, and that’s the subtle thing, not against competence and so on, but that political power and competence or expertise should be kept apart. In Stalinism, precisely, they were not kept apart, while already in ancient Greece, they knew that they have to be kept apart, which is why their popular weight was even combined with lottery often. So where does communism, just to conclude, where does communism enter here? Why do I still cling to this cursed name, when I know and fully admit the 20th century communist project in all its failure, how it failed, giving birth to new forms of murderous terror? Capitalism won, but today, and that’s my claim, we can debate about it, the question is, does today’s global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms which prevent its indefinite reproduction? I think there are such antagonisms. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics and new forms of apartheid. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons, the shared substance of our social being. First, of course, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming, and so on. Now, let me be precise here. I’m well aware of how uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. It will be certain only when it will be too late. And I’m well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. When I was younger, to give you a critical example, there was in Germany an obsession with Waldsterben, the dying of forests, with predictions that in a couple of decades, Europe will be without forests. But according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than 100 years or 50 years ago. But there is nonetheless, I claim, the prospect of a catastrophe here. Scientific data seem to me at least abandoned enough. And we should act in a large-scale collective way. And I also think this may be critical to some of you. There is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reason that its managers, not because of their evil nature, but that’s the logic of capitalism, care to expand self-reproduction, and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. This is, again, not a moral reproach. Incidentally, so that you will not think that I don’t know what I’m talking about, in communist countries, those in power were obsessed with expanded reproduction and were not under public control, so the situation was even worse. So how to act? First, by admitting we are in a deep mess. There is no simple democratic solution here. The idea that people themselves should decide what to do about ecology sounds deep, but it begs an important question. Even with their comprehension is not distorted by corporate interests. What qualifies them to pass a judgment in such a delicate matter? Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. Let me mention just the idea which is floating around of solar radiation management, the continuous massive dispersal of aerosols into our atmosphere to reflect and absorb sunlight and thus cool the planet. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our Earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geoengineering can disturb it in such times of urgency, when we know we have to act, but don’t know how to act? Thinking is needed. Maybe we should turn around a little bit. Marxist famous thesis 11 in that in our new century, we should say that maybe in the last century, we tried all too fast to change the world. The time has come to step back and interpret it. The second threat, the commons of internal nature. With new biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man in the literal sense of changing human nature becomes a realist prospect. I mean primarily so-called popularly neural link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines and then brains among themselves. This I think is the true game changer. The digitalization of our brain opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. Directly sharing your experience with your beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? Finally, the common space of humanity itself. We live in one and the same world, which is more and more interconnected, but nonetheless deeply divided. So how to react to this? The first and sadly predominant reaction is the one of protective self-enclosure. The world out there is in a mess. Let’s protect ourselves by all kinds of walls. But is the mess the so-called rogue countries find themselves in not connected to how we interact with them? Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state, Congo. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals. Where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Here refugees are created. A new world order is emerging. A world of… Can I just finish the page? Two minutes, literally. A world of peaceful coexistence of civilizations, but in what way does it function? Forced marriages and homophobia are okay, just that they are limited to another country which is otherwise fully included into the world market. This is how refugees again are created. The second reaction is global capitalism with the human face. Think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates or George Soros. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. But even in its extreme form, opening up our borders to the refugees, treating them like one of us, they only provide what in medicine is called a symptomatic treatment. The solution is not for the rich Western countries to receive all immigrants, but somehow to try to change the situation which creates massive waves of immigration. And we are complicit in this. Is such a change a utopia? No. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. So here I think, I know it’s provocative to call this a plea for communism. I do it a little bit to provoke things. But what is needed is nonetheless in all these spheres I claim, ecology, digital control, unity of the world, capitalist market which does great things, I admit it, has to be somehow limited, regulated. Before you say it’s a utopia, I will tell you, but just think about in what way global market already functions today. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. If you look closely, you will see that state plays today more important role than ever precisely in the richest capitalist economies. So you know the market is already limited, but not in the right way to put it naively. So a pessimist conclusion. What will happen? In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. So I don’t accept any cheap optimism. When somebody tries to convince me that in spite of all the problems, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, my instant reply is yes, and it’s probably another train coming towards us. Thank you very much. Please don’t do this, because I really think that that’s why I hope you, Jordan, agree with me that why we are here, engaged in this debate. Don’t take it as a cheap competition. It may be that, but we are, as you said in your introduction, desperately trying to confront serious problems. I mean, for example, when I mentioned China, China, I didn’t mean to celebrate it. That worries me terribly. My God, is this our future? Now, sorry, sorry for this. Sorry, please discount. Take away this from my 10 minutes. No problem. No problem. No problem. Dr. Peterson, 10 minutes to you to reply. So I like to speak extemporaneously, but Dr. Zizek’s discussion was so complex that there’s no way that I can juggle my responses spontaneously. That’s what I wanted to achieve. Okay, yeah, well, achievement managed, I would say. So I heard much of what I heard I agreed with, but we can get to that. I’m going to respond. All right. Well, I heard a criticism of capitalism, but no real support of Marxism. And that’s an interesting thing, because for me, the terms of the argument were rather three terms of the argument. Let’s say there was capitalism, there was Marxism and there was happiness. And I would say Dr. Zizek focused probably more on the problems of capitalism and the problems of happiness than on the utility of Marxism. And that actually comes as a surprise to me, because I presume that much of what I would hear would be a support of something approximating traditional or even a traditional Marxism, which is why I organized the first part of my talk as an attack against Marxism per se. Okay, so now Zizek points out that there are problems of capitalism. And I would like to say that I’m perfectly aware that there are problems with capitalism. I wasn’t defending capitalism, actually, in some sense. I was defending it in comparison to communism, which is not the same thing. Because as Winston Churchill said about democracy, you know, it’s the worst form of government there is, except for all the other forms. And so you might say the same thing about capitalism is that it’s the worst form of capitalism. And so you might say the same thing about capitalism is that it’s the worst form of economic arrangement you could possibly manage, except for every other one that we’ve ever tried. And I’m dead serious about that. I’m not trying to be flippant. I mean that it isn’t obvious to me when Dr. Zizek is speaking in more apocalyptic terms, it isn’t obvious to me that we can solve the problems that confront us, you know, and it’s not also not a message that I have been purveying that unbridled capitalism is the worst form of capitalism. And so I haven’t made that case in any of the lectures that I’ve… anything I’ve written or any of the lectures that I’ve done, because I don’t believe it to be true. He said, well, what’s the problems with capitalism? Well, the commodification of cultural life, all life, fair enough. There’s something that isn’t exactly right about reducing the amount of capital that we have. And capitalism certainly pushes in that direction. Advertising culture pushes in that direction. Sales and marketing culture pushes in that direction. And there’s reasons for that, and I have a certain amount of admiration for the necessity of advertising culture. And I think that’s the reason why I’m so proud of capitalism. I don’t think it is the best way forward. I think the evidence for that is that capitalism is the best way forward. And I think that’s the reason why I’m so proud of capitalism. And there’s reasons for that, and I have a certain amount of admiration for the necessity of advertisers and salesmen and marketers. But that doesn’t mean that the transformation of all elements of life into commodities in a capitalist sense is the best way forward. I don’t think it is the best way forward. I think the evidence for that is actually quite clear. There is, by the way, a relationship. This is something I didn’t point out before. There is a relationship between wealth and happiness. It’s quite well defined in the psychological literature. Now, it’s not exactly obvious whether the happiness measures are measures of happiness or whether they’re measures of the absence of misery. And my sense is, as a psychometrician who’s looked at these scales, that people are more concerned with not being miserable than they are with being happy. And those are all actually separate emotional states mediated by different psychobiological systems. It’s a technical point, but it’s an important one. There is a relationship between absolute level of income and self-reported lack of misery or happiness. And it’s pretty linear until you hit, I would say, something approximating decent working class income. And so what seems to happen is that wealth makes you happy as long as it keeps the bill collectors at bay. Like, once you’ve got to the point where the misery is staved off as much as it can be by the fact that you’re not in absolutely economically dire straits, then adding more money to your life has no relationship whatsoever to your well-being. And so it’s clear that past a certain minimal point, additional material provision is not sufficient to, let’s say, redeem us individually or socially. And it’s certainly the case that the radical wealth production that characterizes capitalism might produce a fatal threat to the structure of our social systems and our broader ecosystems. Who knows? I’m not absolutely convinced of that for a variety of reasons. I mean, Zizek pointed out, for example, that there are more forests in Europe now than there were 100 years ago. There’s actually more forests in the entire Northern Hemisphere than there were 100 years ago. And the news on the ecological front is not as dismal as the people who put out the most dismal news would have you think. And there is some possibility. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t elements of it that are dismal. You know, what we’ve done to the oceans is definitely dismal. And we definitely have our problems, but it is possible that human ingenuity might solve that. What else? There are inequalities generated by capitalism, a proclivity towards a shallow materialism, the probability of corruption. The thing about that for me is those are catastrophes that are part of the struggle for human existence itself and not something to be laid at the feet of any given socio-political system. But I think that’s the problem. Especially one that seems to be producing a fair modicum of wealth for the poorest section of the population and raising people up to the point where, you know, their lives aren’t an unending day-to-day struggle for mere survival. There’s some evidence, for example, that if you can get GDP up to about 5,000 a year. Or three billion as the population grows up to the point where they’re wealthy enough so they actually start to care enough about the environment so that we can act collectively to solve environmental problems. Now you might say, well, by that time we’ll be out of Earth. You know, we’ll have exhausted the resources that we have. We’ll have to get out of the world. We’ll have to get out of the world. We’ll have to get out of the world. We’ll have to get out of the world. But I would like to remind you of a famous bet between Julian Simon and the biologist at Stanford who wrote Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the population bomb. They bet Ehrlich, who thought we were going to be overpopulated by the year 2000, bet Simon that we would be overpopulated by the year 2000. And Ehrlich paid off Simon in the year 2000 because commodity prices went down and not up. And so there is no solid evidence that the fact that our population is overpopulated by the year 2000 is a good thing. And so I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that’s a good thing. Well, I’ll close with this. Capitalism in the free market, well, that’s the worst form of social organization possible, as I said, except for all the others. There is a positive relationship between economics measured by income and happiness or psychological well-being, which might be the absence of misery. I certainly do not believe, and the evidence does not suggest, that material security is sufficient. I do believe, however, that insofar as there is a relationship between happiness and material security, that the free market system has demonstrated itself as the most efficient manner to achieve that, and that was actually the terms of the argument. So thus, if it’s capitalism versus Marxism with regards to human happiness, it’s still the case that the free market constitutes the clear winner. And maybe capitalism will not solve our problems. I actually don’t believe that it will. I have in fact argued that the proper pathway forward is one of individual moral responsibility aimed at the highest good. It’s something for me that’s rooted in our underlying Judeo-Christian tradition that insists that each individual is sovereign in their own right and a locus of ultimate value, which is something that you can accept regardless of your religious presuppositions, and something that you do accept if you participate in a society such as ours. Even the fact that you vote, that you’re charged with that responsibility is an indication that our society is structured such that we presume that each person is a locus of responsibility. And that’s something that I think is very important to me. I think that’s the most important thing that we can accept as a locus of responsibility and decision making. Of such import that the very stability of the state depends upon the integrity of their psyche, the integrity of their character. And so what I’ve been suggesting to people is that they adopt as much responsibility as they possibly can in keeping with that, in keeping with their aim at the highest possible good, which to me is something approximating a balance between what’s good for you as an individual and what’s good for your family in keeping with what’s good for you as an individual, and then what’s good for society in the larger frame such that it’s also good for you and your family. And that’s a form of an elaborated, iterated game, a form of elaborated cooperation. It’s a sophisticated way of looking at the ways society could possibly be organized. And I happen to believe that that has to happen at the individual level first. And that’s the pathway forward that I see. And so that’s my 10-minute commentary. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. Dr. Zizek. I’ve already spent a little bit of my time. I will try to be as short as possible. So a couple of remarks and then my final point. Why I think this self-limitation of self-limitation of self-limitation of self-limitation of self-limitation of capitalism is needed. First, about happiness. Just a couple of remarks. Jordan, I want to ask you, but isn’t it, am I dreaming? I think I’m not. I remember a couple of years ago it was reported all around the world some kind of investigation percentage of people interviewed in different countries. Do they feel happy with their lives? And the shock was that some Некоторые страны скандинавии, которые мы считали социодемократическим парадесом, были очень низкие, а Бангладес, я думаю, был близ к верху. Я знаю, что эта логика имеет лимит. Я не куплю бульфито, что хмельные люди в их мире счастливы и так далее. Но вы знаете, мой аргумент здесь не против вас. Мой аргумент здесь, проблематизирует счастье даже больше. И вы можете интересоваться. Я был годы, я думаю, в Литвии, и мы садили репорт на это в одном из моих книг, когда люди были в некотором первертом смысле, и это критика категории счастья для меня, счастливы. И мы пришли к шутному результату. После советской интервенции, Чекословакия в 1970-е и 1980-е. Почему? Для счастья, в первую очередь, вы не должны иметь слишком много демократии, потому что это приводит к угрозе ответственности. Счастье означает, что есть другой парень, и вы можете поставить все обвинение на него. И как шутка в Чекословакии была, если у нас плохое вещество, то все эти коммунисты это снова раздавали. Это одна кондиционация счастья. Другая кондиционация, намного более субтитровая, и это было сделано в Чекословакии, в эти темные времена, жизнь была довольно, модернатно хорошая, но не идеальна. Как будто была мясо все время, может быть, раз в месяц, не было мяса в магазинах. Было очень хорошо, чтобы вам помнить, насколько счастливы вы были в другом время. Другая вещь. Они имели парадизм, который должен был быть на правильной дистанции, в Восточной Германии, в Афлуенции. Это было не слишком далеко, но не прямо доступно, вы знаете. Так что, может быть, в вашем критике коммунистских режимов, я согласен с вами, вы должны более фокусироваться на что-то, что я испытываю. Вы знаете, не только в тараре, в общем, в режиме тоталитарии. Была какая-то тихая, первертая факта между, в этом позже, немного более толерантно, но я их еще опусти, коммунистские режимы между силой и популяцией. Массажиром было, оставьте нам силу, не насаживайте нас, и мы гарантируем вам, relatively safe life, employment, приватные удовольствия, приватные ниши и так далее, и так далее. Так что я не удивлен, но опять-таки это не для меня аргумент для коммунистов, но опять-таки счастье, вы знаете, люди сказали, когда ворвало, что чудо в Поле, мой бог, в, в, в, как солидарность, которая была прохищена год назад, сейчас трианф в веществе, кто мог бы представить это, да, но настоящий миракль, в плохом смысле для меня, 4 года позже, коммунистов, демократически, вернулись к силе. Так что, вы знаете, не, опять-таки, это для меня не аргумент для них, но просто для д, давайте его называем корруптифой природы счастья. Так что моя формула, может вы согласны с ней, это, моя основная догмочка, счастье должно быть тратено как необходимое продукт. Если вы фокусируете на это, вы потеряете. Это приходит как продукт вашего работы для причины и так далее. Это основная вещь для меня. Второй момент, может мы не согласны с этим. Кина, конечно, миракль, экономический миракль был из-за вывески маркетов и так далее. Но, и вот и приходит мой пессимизм. Некоторые мои либеральные друзья мне говорят, да, представьте, что они бы смогли сделать с политической демократизацией. Я пессимист здесь. Нет, они нашли идею, как, и это парадокс Кина сегодня. Коммунистовская партия, это лучший менеджер капитализма и защитник против рабочих. В Кинае сегодня, на самом деле, опасная вещь не является, чтобы изменить идеи в восточных стран, а чтобы организовать социальные социали, вы знаете, это меня волнует. Эта идея, которая обладает капитализмом и, все равно, правильным правилом, или, чтобы назвать это в другом смысле, моя волна в том, что сегодня, в всей мире, эта вечная речи между капитализмом и демократизмом, slowly disappearing. Until now, I admit it, capitalism needed from time to time some 10-20 years of dictatorship. When things started to improve, democracy returned. Chile, South Korea and so on. I wonder if we are still at that. Now, just very quickly, your basic point in your introduction. You know, I’m almost tempted to say, the way you presented Communist Manifesto, the simplified image and so on and so on, it’s crazy to say, but on many points I agree with you, and it’s a very complex argument. Marx didn’t have, for example, a good theory of how social power exists. His idea was simply with disappearance of class structure. It’s secretly, although he wouldn’t have accepted it, a technocratic dream. Like, by experts, social life will be run as a perfect machine. Although he was at least aware of the problem, which is why he was so enthusiastic, Marx, about Paris Commune, you know, which was precisely not centralized power. So I’m not just defending Marx. I’m saying it was not clear to him. And so let’s drop that, maybe I have more interesting things to say. Ah, another point. Nonetheless, at one point I’m ready to claim, where did you find this? This goes maybe for today’s politically correct jerks and so on, that this egalitarianism, there is one passage in his late critique of the Gotha program where Marx directly accesses the problem of equality. And he dismisses it as a strict bourgeois category. Explicitly, explicitly. For him, communism is not egalitarianism. It’s, yes, hierarchies, but not based on capitalism. Okay, I’m not totally defending here Marx. I’m just saying, don’t report this to Marx. Okay, but to conclude, because yes, I want to keep my promise to be a little bit shorter. You know, I agree with you on many points, but you know what’s my problem with, my problem that I was aiming at, with all the openings I know, we don’t know really what is happening with ecology and so on. Okay, let’s take oceans, you mentioned them. But isn’t it for me, correct me if I’m wrong, and I don’t mean this rhetorically, maybe I’m really wrong, but the problem of oceans, can the only way for me is some kind of cooperated international action and so on. You cannot simply leave it to the market. That’s what I’m saying. This is the faithful limit that I see. About this diminishing poverty and so on. I am aware of it. I tend to agree with it. I also, but I at the same time see so many explosive tensions. For example, do you know about South Africa? It’s a terrifying situation on the edge of the civil war to be very brutal. The only thing that I’m simplifying it, that really happened with end of apartheid is that the old ruling class, I simplified in grotesque, was joined by a new black ruling class, which is not doing a good job. So they are trying to play the race card. It’s still the consequence of white colonialism and so on and so on. But tensions are terrifying. And here I was pleading for not abolishing borders and so on, but this type of, I don’t know how to put it, global change cooperation. Like again, the example of Congo that I mentioned, or like forget the killing of that guy, Kasogi. It’s horrible, but the true nightmare is Yemen today. I mean, you said somewhere that we should well think without engaging in large scale reform what the consequences will be. If you, okay, very briefly, I agree with you that the gap of standard Marxism was that the proletarian revolution will be a place where you do something and you know exactly what you do. If there is a lesson of the 20th century is that this tragic logic, you want something may be good, the result is catastrophic, holds absolutely also for revolutions and so on and so on. But in spite of all this, and I don’t know what forum will it have, I’m not pleading for a new Leninist party or whatever. I’m just pleading for new forums of international cooperation and so on. I agree with you when you said the majority of us is not even really aware of the seriousness of, especially the poor of ecological problems and so on. And I think would you agree that the situation is here much more subtle and obscene. We, it’s that logic that in psychoanalysis is called the survival, verleugnung in French, je so bien, je so bien me con m’aime. We know ecological problems, but we don’t really take them seriously. And here I see problems and I don’t see an easy way out. I am a pessimist, if you ask me. And people say, no, but they are growing, protests are growing and so on and so on. Yes, I’m listening to this story from when I was young, you know. They are growing and then look what happened. The mega tragedy is for me, for example, what happened to Syriza. They were elected for change whatever and they become, and I’m not blaming them, they become the perfect executors of austerity program. So I just see problems. I’m a pessimist and I’m not a radical pessimist, but you have to, maybe here we are different. I noticed with your final speech that final moments of your impression that it’s very strange because usually Marxists have this stupid optimist anthropology. Just get rid of capitalist terror and we will all be happy. My God, I’m much more a pessimist. I don’t believe in human goodness. I never underestimate evil, never underestimate envy. I mean, it’s part of my nature. In Slovenia, we have a wonderful story. Godlike figure comes to a farmer and I will stop immediately and asks him, I will do to you whatever you want. Just I warn you, I will do twice the same to your neighbor. You know what Slovene farmer answers? Fine, take one of my eyes. You know, we are in this. Don’t underestimate this. I don’t see any simple clear way out. Thank you. Thank you both very much. It’s pretty clear, I think, to all of us that you both have quite a bit to say to each other. And to ourselves. And so I think before we jump to some audience questions, I thought it would be nice to give each of you a chance to ask a response or ask a question or two from each other. So starting with you, Dr. Peterson. Maybe you want simply to counterattack. It wasn’t fair to do your reply. I had three questions and two of them are now completely irrelevant. And so I have one left, I guess. And I’m not sure that it’s a fair question, but maybe it seems to me to be a fair question. You’re a strange Marxist to have a discussion with. And well, but here’s why. This is not an insult by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, one of the things that struck me when I was looking at your work was that you’re, well, first of all, you’re a character, you know, and that’s an interesting thing. Is this an insult or not? It’s not an insult. It’s a sign of originality. And it’s a sign of a certain amount of moral courage. And it’s a sign of a certain temperament. And it makes you humorous and charismatic and attractive. And I think you appeal to young people the way that outside intellectual rebels appeal to young people. And so those are all positive things that can be used positively or negatively. And my question is, like, it seems to me that your reputation, unless I’m very misinformed about this, is as a strong supporter of Marxist doctrines on the left, or was that? And so then my question is, given the originality of your thought, why is it that you came to presume at some point in your life, perhaps not now and perhaps still, that the promotion of Marxism, rather than Zizekism, was appropriate? Because it seems to me that there’s enough originality in your body of thought and lateral thinking in the manner in which you approach intellectual ideas that there’s just no reason for you to be allied with a doctrine that’s 170 years old and that is, if capitalism is rife with problems, is twice as rife with problems as that. And so you’re kind of a mystery to me in that way. And so that’s my question. Okay. Very briefly, I developed systematically in my book critical insights into many traditional Marxist thesis, so no doubt here. You know what I still admire? Non-theatrical, non-theatrical, non-theatrical, non-theatrical. I still admire, nonetheless, in Marx, not those simplicities of communist manifesto, but I still think that his so-called critique of political economy, capital, and so on, is a tremendous achievement as a description of the dynamics of capitalist society. And if you read it closely, Marx is much more ambiguous and open there. For example, he mentions, for example, apropos what you referred to, he mentions that law of diminishing return, like why crisis will arrive necessarily, poor are getting poorer, but then he is honest enough to enumerate seven or eight counter tendencies. And if you read him closely, you will see that precisely those tendencies prevailed later. Or forget communist manifesto, go to read his political analysis of its unsurpassable 18th Brimaire and so on of the 1848 revolution, which are incredibly complex, no traces of that class binary there. Marx deals with middle classes with crucial, lumpenproletariat with the ambiguous role of intellectuals and so on and so on. But basically what I was pleading for, and I like to put it in paradoxical terms, was for a return of from Marx back to Hegel. I define myself more as a Hegelian. Why? Hegel is considered a madman, you know, the guy absolute knowing and so on and so on. No, Hegel is much more modest and open. The danger in Marxism is for me this teleological structure. We are at the zero point, but there is a unique chance of a reversal into a new emancipated society and so on. And the danger here is that of self-instrumentalization. Proletarian Communist Party is an agent of history, which knows the laws of history, to put it, follows them and so on. That’s the catastrophe. In Hegel, such a position is strictly prohibited. In Hegel, whenever you act, you err. So, you know, you have to, there is no position of this pure acting where you know what you are doing and the result will be so. This would be my main point. So, yes, my formula is kind of ironically, I know Hegel is the greatest idealist, materialist reversal of Marx by turning back to Hegel. For Hegel, Hegel says in a part that people don’t read introduction to forward sorry to philosophy of right. He says explicitly that the all of Minerva takes off in the evening when there is dusk. So philosophy can just grasp a social order when it’s already in its decay. Philosophy cannot see into the future. It’s radical openness. We need this openness today. The tragedy today, maybe we agree here, is that we really don’t have a basic, how should I call it, cognitive mapping. I don’t think we have here a clear insight into where we stand, where we are moving and so on and so on. So I’m much more again, sincerely of a pessimist. Can I ask you now a question? Let me, let me reply. And then you can ask me. Yeah, of course. So, well, I don’t have anything to quibble about with what you just said. But. Well, no, there’s not even a but really. It’s that even if the, if what you said about Marx’s more sophisticated thought is true, I think the unfortunate reality is that any support for Marxism, especially directed towards those who are young, is likely to be read as support for the most radical and revolutionary proclivities. And I would say that as they’re outlined in the document that I described in the Communist Manifesto, that they’re of extraordinary danger. And so it seems to me that by attempting to, you know, rescue the sheep, you’ve you’ve sort of invited the dragon into the house. And that seems to me to be dangerous and unfortunate. Here I can answer you by asking you my question, because, you know, very naively, you mentioned first, do you really? Where did you find the data that I simply don’t see? OK, let me begin by this. You designate your under quotation marks. I’m not characterizing here enemy or what you are fighting against as sometimes you call it postmodern neo Marxism. I know what you mean. All this from political correctness to these excesses of whatever spirit of envy and so on and so on. Do you think they are really? Where did you find this data? I don’t know them. I would ask you here. Give me some names or whatever. Where are the Marxists here? I don’t know any. I don’t know who is a Marxist here. Show me any big names of political correctness. I think they they fear like a good vampire fears garlic. This is why they are already the one who is not a Marxist, but at least approaches economic topic Bernie Sanders. He’s already under attack as white male and all that stuff and so on. I simply I simply. My problem would be this one. What you describe as postmodern neo Marxism. Where is really the Marxist element in it? They are for equality. Sorry where they are for equality at these cultural struggles or proper names. How do we call each other? Do you see in them in political correctness and so on any genuine will of to change society? I don’t see. I think it’s a hyper moralization hyper moralization, which is silent admission of a defeat. That’s my problem. Why do you call? Give me no again. It’s not a rhetorical question for politely saying you are an idiot. You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s simply I would like to know because you and I like this often when you attack somebody you said aggressively and what should read more tell me whom so I’m asking you now not read more. I don’t advise you. But who are give me some names and so on and who are these postmodern egalitarian neo Marxist and where do you see any kind of Marxism? I see in it mostly an impotent and utterly impotent moralization. Please. I’m so sorry that I was no no that’s that’s no problem. Well, I mean organization like Jonathan Heights. What’s it called? Heterodox Academy and other organizations like that have documented an absolute dearth of conservative voices in the social sciences and the humanities and about 25% according to the what I think are reliable surveys approximately 25% of social scientists in the US identify themselves as Marxists. And so there’s that. But where are the results? Okay, but let me name one. I know a couple of Marxist, for example, who does very solid economic work. I don’t totally David Harvey one but he writes very serious books of economic analysis and so on and so on. Then there is the old guy who is far from simplification. Frederick Vinson and so on. But they are totally marginalized today. In this politically correct mainstream, you know, I don’t see. Well, yeah, your question seemed to me to focus more on the peculiar relationship that I’ve noticed and that people have disputed between postmodernism and and Neo Marxism. I see the connection between the postmodernist types and the Marxists as a sleight of hand that replaced the notion of the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie as the oppression by one identity group by another totally agree with you. Okay, so but that but so now look, we could precisely and non non Marxist. Well, that that’s the seat that I guess that’s where we might have a dispute because I think what happened, especially in France in the 1960s, is as the as the radical Marxist postmodern types like Derrida and Foucault realized that they were losing the moral battle, especially after the information came out of the Soviet Union in the manner that it came out that the whole bloody Stalinist. Yeah, the whole Stalinist catastrophe, along with the entire Maoist catastrophe, but they didn’t really have a leg to stand on. And instead of revising their notion that human history, and this is a Marxist notion should be regarded as the eternal class struggle between the economically deprived and the oppressors, they just recast it and said, well, it’s not based on economics. It’s based on identity, but it’s still fundamentally oppressor against oppressed. And to me, that meant that they smuggled the the the fundamental narrative of Marxism and many of its schools back into the argument without ever admitting that they did so. Now, I’ve been criticized, you know, for this supposition because people who are postmodernists say, look, one of the hallmarks of postmodernism is skepticism of meta narratives. It’s like I know that perfectly well. And I also know that Marxism is a meta narrative. And so you shouldn’t be able to be a postmodernist and a Marxist. But I still see the union of those two things in the insistence that the best the appropriate way to look at the view world is to view it as the battleground between groups defined by a particular group, between individuals defined by a particular group identity so that the group identity becomes paramount. And then the proper reading is always oppressor versus oppressed with a secondary insistence that’s very similar to Marx’s insistence upon the idea of the The moral superiority of the proletariat that the oppressors are by definition because they’re oppressed morally superior and and there’s the call for. Perhaps not revolutionary change, although that comes up above, but change in the structure so that that oppression disappears so that a certain form of equality comes about. Now you argued that Marx wasn’t a believer in equality of outcome, and I’m not so sure about that because his notion of the eventual utopia that would constitute genuine communism was a place where all class divisions were eradicated. Well, well, there’s at least an implication that the most important of the hierarchies had disappeared. And so maybe he had enough sophistication to talk about other forms of hierarchies. But if if that’s the case, then I can’t imagine why he thought that the utopia that would emerge as a consequence of the elimination of economic hierarchies would be a utopia. Because if there were other forms of hierarchies that still existed, people would be just as contentious about them as they are now. Like we have hierarchies of attractiveness, for example, that have nothing to do with economics or very little to do with economics. And there’s no shortage of contention around that or any other form of ability. And so that’s why I associate the social justice types who are basically postmodernist with marks post. Post their postmodernist with Marxism. It’s the insistence that you view the world through the narrative of oppressed versus oppressor. And I think it’s a catastrophe. I think it’s a catastrophe. And you appear to know. Sorry. Well, that’s one sentence. And then you can reply. It’s so strange that you mentioned, for example, somebody like Foucault, who for me, for me, his main target was Marxism. OK, for him represented in he and his his game was never a radical change. But and this is what I don’t like in this what you call postmodern. Let’s not call them Marxist, but revolutionary. It’s enjoying your own self marginalization. The good thing is to be on the margin. You know, like not in the center and so on and so on. It almost made me nostalgic for old communists who at least had the honesty to say, no, we don’t enjoy our marginal position. We want to do something central power. I find so disgusting. It’s no wonder you don’t get invited to lots of places. Yeah, yeah, no, you know, you know, Foucault for me embodies this logic of revolution and by revolution, he meant any social change serious that small resistances and so on, small marginal places of resistance and so on and so on. So OK, but let’s maybe drop it here if you want. But since you are replying to my question, you should have the last word here. I’ll stop with that. Let’s move to the next. We’ll get back to these topics, no doubt, as we move forward with the question. So I’m happy to let that that particular issue stall. Did you already do your Stalinist manipulation and censored the questions? Because this program that he described to us through some screens, questions and so on, I think it puts him to the one who decides which questions are as Stalinist, what you put in are the real voice of the people. Yes, yes, hopefully we can trust him. Let’s move on from that. At heart this evening, we’re talking about happiness. At least that’s the frame of the debate that we have tonight. And you’ve both been in your work and also tonight very critical of happiness as meridians, pleasure seeking or even simply as a feeling. What does true or deeper human happiness consist of and how is it attained? You? I don’t care. Well, I don’t. I don’t. First of all, there’s something you said five minutes ago or so. I think you were still at the podium that I agree with profoundly, which is that happiness is a side effect. It’s not it’s not a thing in itself. It’s something that comes upon you. It’s like an act of grace in some sense. And my sense is that even the theological undertone of what you said. No, no, the category of grace can be used in a perfect sense. It’s one of the deepest. Yeah, well, I’m sorry. OK, good. Well, I would think I would think that we could find agreement about that because partly because of your psychoanalytic background, you know perfectly well that we’re subject to forces within us that aren’t of our voluntary control. And certainly happiness is one of those because you cannot will yourself to be happy. You might be able to will yourself to be unhappy, but you can’t will yourself to be happy. There are certain preconditions that have to be met that are quite mysterious in order for you to be happy. And then it happens. And then maybe if you’re wise, you you regard that as as a like an in a minor incomprehensible miracle that somehow you happen to be in the right place at the right time. Now, I’ve made the case that the most effective means of pursuing the good life, which is not the same as pursuing happiness, is to adopt something like a stance of maximal responsibility towards the suffering and malevolence in the world. And I think that that should be pursued primarily as an individual responsibility. It’s not like I don’t think that political and familial larger organizations are necessary, but in the final analysis, we each suffer alone in some fundamental sense, and we have our own malevolence to contend with in some fundamental sense and the proper beginning of moral behavior, which is the proper beginning of the right way to act in the world is to take responsibility for that. I think you do what you can to conceptualize the highest good that you can conceptualize. That’s the first thing to develop a vision of what might be. And it has to be a personalized vision as well as a universalized vision. And then you work diligently to ensure that your actions are in keeping with that. And you allow yourself on that pursuit to be informed by the knowledge of your ignorance and the necessity for acting and speaking in truth. And a fair bit of that, I believe, is derived. I think it’s fair to say that that’s derived from an underlying Judeo-Christian ethic. And I make no bones about the fact that I think of those stories metaphysically or philosophically or psychologically as fundamental to the proper functioning of our society insofar as it can function properly. And so it’s not happiness, it’s meaning. And meaning is to be found in the adoption of responsibility. And then I’ll close with this. Responsibility is not only to do what you believe to be right. That’s not, because that’s duty, that’s not enough. That’s sort of what the conservatives put forward as the ultimate virtue, which is duty. It’s not that. It’s that you’re acting in a manner that is in accordance with what you believe to be right but you’re doing it in a manner that simultaneously expands your ability to do it, which means that you cannot stay safely ensconced within the confines of your current ethical beliefs. You have to stand on the edge of what you know and encounter continually the consequences of your ignorance to expand your domain of knowledge and ability so that you’re not only acting in an efficient manner but you’re increasing the efficiency and productivity and meaningfulness of what it is that you’re engaged in. And I think that, and I believe that the psychological evidence supports this, even the neuropsychological evidence, is that that’s when true happiness descends upon you. Because it’s an indication from the deepest recesses of your psyche, biologically instantiated, that you’re in the right place at the right time. You’re doing what you should be doing but you’re doing it in a manner that expands your capacity to do even better things in the future. And I think that’s the deepest human instinct there is. It’s not rational. It’s far deeper than that. And it’s something that’s genuine and that exists within us and that constitutes a proper guide if you don’t pervert it with self-deception and deceit. So that’s my perspective. Yeah, okay. I’ll try, if you are stupid enough to believe me, to be brief. First, I like very much what you began with, this grace or whatever we call it, moment of happiness. And I would like to, would you like to say something about that? I think that’s the same goes for love. We have in English and they have it in French. I don’t know if in other languages they have it. They use the verb to fall in love, which means it’s in this sense, in some sense, a fall. You are surprised. You are shocked. Authentic love, I think, is something that is very, very important. And I think that’s the most important thing. I always like to use this example. Let’s say you live a stupidly happy life. Maybe one night stand here and there, you drink with friends, then you fall in love passionately. This is in some sense a catastrophe for your life. All the balance is lost and so on. Yes. You know. So that’s why Cupid has arrows. Sorry? Yeah. So, but where I first, second, surprisingly, maybe for you, I agree with your point about Judeo-Christian legacy for which I am very much attacked, Euro-centrist and so on and so on. You know, I wonder if you have a question about the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of question of question of the question of question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of question of the question of question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of the question of в спиритурной дисциплине, что угодно, тренировки, хорошие действия и так далее и так далее. Формула христианики это совершенно другая, как мы философы бы назвали, вы не поднимаетесь к Богу, вы свободны в христианском смысле, когда вы обнаружите, что расстояние, которое вас поднимает от Бога, висит в Бога Его-сего, поэтому я согласна с этими интеллижентными теологами, как мой любимый Гильберт Кифф Честер, который сказал, что эта кросса, кросифика, это что-то абсолютно уникальное, потому что в тот момент ой, ой, лама, сабак, гот, отец, почему вы меня обвозили, для пустой момент, символически, Бог сам стал атеистом в смысле, вы знаете, вы получите гады там, и это что-то абсолютно уникальное, это означает, что вы не просто раздевались от Бога, ваша раздевление от Бога является часть Дивинитета в себе, и мы можем потом его также в другие термины, может быть ближе к вам, как это, поэтому для меня счастье не есть какая-то блестящая единство с высшим значением, это очень страдания, падение и так далее, и поэтому я надеюсь, что мы оба волнуемся о том, что это будет возможность, так называемый, я гордый, что Рей Кирксвайл называет единственным и этот блестящий статус, я предпочитаю не знать, но, но финальный момент, очень просто, что я только не пойму, почему вы ставите так много доступа к этому, мы должны начать с личного, личного изменения, я имею в виду, это также второй или какой-то, не помню, прости меня, ваших слов в вашем книге, вы знаете, сначала поставить вашу дом в порядке, тогда, но у меня есть очень коммунсенсная, наивная вопроса здесь, но что если в пытаться поставить вашу дом в порядке, вы обнаружите, что ваша дом в порядке именно потому что как общество разрушено, что не означает, что давайте забыть о моем доме, но вы можете сделать их вместе и я даже скажу, я вам сейчас дам последний пример, вы, не вы, что вы так социально активны, потому что вы понимаете, что это не достаточно сказать вашим, вашим, вашим, вашим пациентам, поставить вашу дом в порядке, много из причин, почему они в порядке, их дом, что есть у нас какие-то кризисы в нашей общественности и так далее, так что моя пропаганда к вам, Беневолен, было, вы знаете, это шутка, кофе или кофе, да, пожалуйста, как индивидуал или социал, да, пожалуйста, потому что это явно в экстремной ситуации, как я надеюсь, мы согласны сказать кому-то в Норвегии, поставить вашу дом в порядке, да, но я думаю, в некотором глубоком смысле, это также идет для нашей общественности, я просто повторяю, что вы говорите, вы видите какой-то социальный кризис и я не вижу, конечно, почему так много в этом выборе, потому что я скажу, я вам дам пример, который, я думаю, это все хорошо делает, как мы обычно делаем с экологией, с этой фальшивой персонализацией, вы знаете, они вам говорят, а что вы делаете, вы поставили все коктейли на бок, вы располагали все коктейли и так далее, да, мы должны это сделать, но вы знаете, как вы говорили, жизнь это挑енция, так что, так что я надеюсь, что у меня есть ментал веерwithal, чтобы их подсчитать и ответить на их вопрос, но вы можете мне помогти, если я страсть, я был очень интересен в ваших комментариях о атеизме крественного на кроссе, этот финальный момент атеизма, что-то, что-то, что я никогда не думал о в этом смысле, но это очень интересная мысль, потому что это, это действительно, это невероятно милая идея в некотором смысле, что жертва жизни так невоторженна, и вы видите в крестьянской маневрежности, конечно, мучение, нефаерное судно от общества, подчинение от друзей, и потом, и потом оптимальна резиленция, что вы делаете, вы выкручиваете паузу в сторону куда-то лучше, кто-то входит в это, они имеют проблемы, вы пытаетесь решить, что проблема есть, и потом вы пытаетесь решить, что может быть решением, и так вы имеете что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что-то, что вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, вы, Good night everyone. Good night.