以下内容为齐泽克本人官方回应，*星号部分为学院派Academia的回应。
Here is the sequence of events which caused a mess in China for reasons unknown to me, although I have my own suspicions. I apologize if some of my statements were not specified enough and thus led to confusion and misinterpretation.
以下是导致中国陷入混乱的一系列事件，而这背后的原因对我而言是未知的，尽管我有自己的怀疑。我对我的一些发言并不足够清晰，并且导致了困惑和错误的解释而道歉。
--- Earlier this year Academia approached me with the idea to do an online educational course on my book SURPLUS-ENJOYMENT in China as a series of episodes, and I approved the idea – why not? It was also agreed that I will do an introductory Zoom interview with the producer Zheng Wang (which I did months ago), and that this will be my only active participation in the series – the Academia has the right to adapt, curate and localize the content of my book and add their own ideas, and in this sense the series is the work of Academia relying (sometimes also critically) on my ideas, not a work of mine.
今年早期，学院派Academia带着一个想法找到我，他想在中国做一个基于我的书《Surplus Enjoyment》、一个有着一系列视频的线上课程，而我也同意了这个想法。为什么不呢？我也同意了为这个课程，和制作人Zheng Wang一起做一个介绍行的Zoom采访（这个我数月前也做了），而这将会是我对这一系列课程的唯一活跃参与。学院派有权对我书里的内容进行改编、策划和本土化，并加入他们自己的想法。在这个意义上，这个作品是学院派基于我的想法（有时是批评性质的）创作的，而并非是我的作品。*
*学院派Academia声明：齐泽克关于课程参与和著作权归属的观点与我们当时签署的合同中的条款，以及和作者的实际沟通过程并不相符。但基于我们三方的友好互信原则，我们相信这是沟通不良导致的后果。我们后续会针对此与作者和Bloomsbury出版社展开法律协商，以进行定损定赔。在沟通完成之前，我们会尊重齐泽克的个人意见，在课程详情页修改相关陈述。而如果购买者在今日前因这一处于争议中的表达而进行了错误购买，可以在48小时内申请退款。
--- After this agreement, Academia bought the Chinese copyright of SURPLUS-ENJOYMENT from Bloomsbury, the book’s English publisher which holds the copyright. Academia paid Bloomsbury -20.000- $. I was not informed about this deal and nobody is to blame for this: the standard practice of Bloomsbury is that they inform me of my earnings at the end of each year, when they also transfer my royalties to my account. When I now asked Bloomsbury for clarification, I was also told that, in accordance with my contract with them, I will get at the end of the year 20% of the copyright amount minus taxes and some other small sums, so it will be around 3.000 $. Again, I learned all this only yesterday (August 27). So I did not get any money as a honorarium from Academia, although Academia had good reasons to think I did – Bloomsbury got their payment. So nobody cheated or lied here, it was all just a mess of misunderstandings.
在达成这一协议后，学院派Academia从Bloomsbury处买下了《Surplus Enjoyment》的中文版权。Bloomsbury是这本书的英文发行商，也持有此书的版权。学院派Academia付给了Bloomsbury两万美金，但我并不知道这个交易，而这并不能怪任何人：Bloomsbury的常规操作是在每年年底通知我，届时他们会把我的版权费转到我的账户中（royalties，其在西方国家的法律定义是：A royalty is a payment made to the copyright holder of a work, usually based on the usage or sales of that work. Royalty是给一份著作的版权持有者的付款，通常是基于作品的销售分成或使用）。而当我现在去询问Bloomsbury、要个澄清时，他们告诉我，根据我和他们的合同，我会在每年末获得版权收益的20%：除去税务和其他的小开支，差不多是3000美金。最后，我只在昨天，8月27号，知道这一切。所以，我过去没有从学院派Academia这获得任何酬金（honorarium，其在西方国家的法律定义是：An honorarium is a payment made to someone for their services, often in a professional context, where the payment is not strictly based on a contractual obligation or a set fee.酬金是为某人提供的服务而支付的费用，通常在专业背景下，这种支付并不是严格基于合同义务或固定费用），但学院派Academia有很充足的理由认为我拿到了酬金：毕竟Bloomsbury拿到了他们的汇款。所以，没有人在这里作弊或撒谎，这就是一些沟通不良导致的混乱。
--- As for the price of the Academia course on my SURPLUS book, I didn’t have anything to do with it and didn’t know about the amount, even less about what this means in China. But I find absurd the reproach that progressive academic work should be freely accessible to the public. This – from honoraria and royalties – is how I survive, plus I am well known all around the world for giving my text and manuscripts for free (my publishers a couple of times threatened to prosecute me for this) – the list of my pirated books around the world goes into hundreds, you can get all of my works on pirate sites! For me to be accused of capitalist exploitation from China, a country with the greatest number of billionaires in the world, is an anti-intellectual madness.
而关于学院派Academia基于我《Surplus Enjoyment》一书的课程的定价，我并不参与其中也并不知情，更不知道它在中国到底意味着什么。但我觉得这种指控很荒谬（I find absurd the reproach），那就是“进步学术作品应该对大众免费开放”（progressive academic work should be freely accessible to the public）。酬金和版权是我生存的方式，而且我很清楚全世界都在免费地给出我的文本和手稿（我们的出版社好几次要威胁要因此起诉我）。我的盗版书在全世界有几百本，你可以在盗版网站中获得我的所有作品。对我来说，从中国这个有着世界上最多亿万富翁的地方指责我进行资本家式的剥削，是一种反知识分子的疯狂。
--- So will I get some money later? No, because I made a firm decision. When I will get the cca 3000 $ at the end of the year, I will donate them to people who need it more than me. I also thereby notify Academia that they can go on with the course plus with the publication of my short comments, but from now I renounce any honorarium for it.
所以我稍后会拿到钱吗？也不会，因为我做出了一个决定、要把它们捐出去，在年底捐出这3000美金。我会捐给那些比我更需要这笔钱的人。我也在此通知学院派Academia，他们当然可以继续这个课程，并且发表我的各种短篇评论。但我自此之后会放弃所有的相关酬金。
--- Do I do this because I (silently, at least) admit some kind of guilt? NO, I am doing this out of fury and disappointment. I am ready to accept that many poor students cannot afford to pay for the Academia course, but – knowing how things function in Socialist countries – I am firmly convinced that the campaign against me is not spontaneous but well organized. I don’t know who is behind it (although I have my suspicions), but it is clear what its result will be: to silence (or, at least, diminish the status of) one of the few truly critical voices in today’s academia. Are the accusers aware that, because of my public political stances, I am now de facto blacklisted from all big media, Right, centrist or Left, in the West? So, to be brutal in my usual style, my renunciation is meant to deliver a message to my critics: FUCK OFF, I don’t want to have anything to do with you! And if you also fuck me off, all the better, some idiots less will bother me. Why?
但我这么做（指捐钱）是因为我在承认任何罪责吗（至少作为某种沉默的认罪）？当然不，我是因为强烈的愤怒和失望才这么做。我有准备接受很多穷学生无法支付学院派Academia的课程，但是，基于我很清楚这种事情在社会主义国家是怎么运作的：我有理由相信这个反对我的运动不是自发的，而是有组织的。我不知道谁在背后鼓动（尽管我有我的怀疑对象），但非常清楚的是，这个运动的目的是让今天学术界少数的几个批判声音的一个彻底闭嘴（或者至少是减损我的地位）。那些攻击者是否能意识到，由于我的公开政治立场，我现在实际上已经被西方所有大型媒体——无论是右翼、中间派还是左翼——列入黑名单？所以，以我一贯的直率风格，我放弃报酬是为了向我的批评者传达一个信息：FUCK OFF——滚蛋，我不想和你们有任何关系！如果你也想FUCK ME OFF，让我滚蛋，那就更好了，这样烦我的人就会少一些。为什么（不呢）？
--- As for the content of my work and of the attacks on me, I must say that when an attacker presents himself with words like “Communist” or “Marxist,” this is today totally meaningless without a further specification. If we seriously want to be Communists, we have to critically – REALLY critically - reexamine Marxism itself in view of the profound change of global capitalism in the last decades (a change even that pushed some theorists like Yanis Varoufakis and Jodi Dean to talk about techno-feudalism). For the Chinese, they should begin at home: what is China today? Is it a SC and in what sense? This is where the true debate begins.
至于我的工作内容以及对我的攻击，我必须说，当一个攻击者用“共产主义者”或“马克思主义者”这样的词来形容自己时，如果没有进一步的说明，这在今天完全是毫无意义的。如果我们真的想成为共产主义者，我们就必须从批判的角度——真正地批判——重新审视马克思主义本身，考虑到过去几十年全球资本主义的深刻变化（这种变化甚至促使像雅尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯和乔迪·迪恩这样的理论家谈论技术封建主义）。对于东大人来说，他们应该从自己家里开始：今天的东大是什么？它是一个 SC，又在什么意义上是？这才是真正的辩论开始的地方。
Slavoj Žižek
Ljubljana, August 28 2024