> And now we have Zizek, following a similar path, mystifying Marxism and
> Leninism, purporting to fly their banners but striving to discredit their
> true adherents, posturing as a tough guy but proving only that he's a brute,
> being celebrated and rewarded by the bourgeoisie for his services.
Let Ken Lawrence demonstrate the slightest familiarity with the radical democratic aims of Zizek's analysis. Ken Lawrence will not because he can not.
Times change, and someone who does not pay close attention to the difference between 1948 and 1984 will miss a lot. The damning accusation of inconsistency *is* the logic of late capitalism par excellence. 0110 / 0101. Such a small difference? If you translated this into politics, would it matter?
I'll take a contrary self-proclaimed idiot to a calculating God who thinks they're a Marxist anyday.
> More recently, when masses of antifascist militants took to the streets
> of Vienna in opposition to the rising threat to immigrants and workers, Zizek
> attempted to deflect their struggle by trivializing opposition to Haider's
> Freedom Party as simply liberal hot air exemplified by Clinton and Blair.
> This trick of undermining the left with a super-left pretext for inaction was
> perfected by Genovese long ago.
*LISTEN* - Haider's local popularity went *UP* because of the opposition, local and international. Those masses of antifascist militants who took to the streets *INADVERTENTLY* campaigned for Haider (let Ken Lawrence explain the dramatic rise in Haider's popularity)(the same thing happened here in Ontario with the Conservative party). And now that Haider has resigned as leader, but have people changed their minds? Every cause loves a martyr - and one was provided. The cultural logic of anti-fascism *relies* on fascism to maintain its politics, even in the absence of actual existing fascism. If there is no enemy, one will be created. Now it is easy to think that just because this is done in the name of anti-capitalism or socialism or the environment that it won't be equally as violent or regressivist as other sorts authoritarian politics. Zizek's comments illustrated the parasitical relationship of democracy and fascism, something Adorno warned about shortly after WWII.
Adorno turned to Horkheimer and said, "Is this how far we've come?"
> Doug wrote,
> > By the way, to a questioner who implied he was guilty of
> > Eurocentrism, Slavoj said "Yes, I'm a Eurocentrist." He pointed to
> > the ANC, which in all its decades of struggle against apartheid,
> > never wavered from a dedication to "universal" Englightenment values.
> A racist declaration if ever there was one! Instead of saying, as any
> Marxist would, that human advances and their codifications are universal
> achievements embraced by all people of good will regardless of their
> particular geographic origins, he attributes a moral superiority to his
> continent because it was the birthplace of one progressive advance long ago.
People of good will, aren't those *exactly* Haider's words. Which object of jouissance do our advanced Marxists "of good will" serve? Hmmm? Advances, universal achievements, good will... gee... that doesn't sound European does it? Get a grip on your reading list. Anyway - Rorty said the same thing and I don't see the same storm being raised. Why? Likely because it's true.
One had better be careful though. Zizek's position is not a simply one, backed by a tremendously complex association of Hegel, Kant, Lacan, Schelling, Althusser and Freud. To simply say that Zizek is Eurocentric is a bit of a sound bite, it lacks all of the complexity of his published thoughts. See "Enjoy Your Nation as Yourself!" in Tarrying with the Hegative for a slightly more explicit and drawn out analysis.
> [I did enjoy Doug's unintended but revealing misspelling
> "Englightenment."]
Nice one, Dr. Freud.
ken