> Zizek's comments on the plebeian extreme right are as sniveling and
>evasive as anything I've seen yet, when they are not simply banal. Suppose he
>is correct. What does he propose that the radical left should do? Support
>Haider? Ignore Haider?
I don't know where you get that from.
> Oppose Haider? And what is Zizek's attitude toward the
>actual policies and actions of the radical left against Haider? It is
>precisely this kind of windy sophistry by so-called public intellectuals that
>disgusts activists.
I don't know that activists are the measure of all things. Whenever I hear that sort of thing I think of the old Heinrich Boll story in which the hero gets a job answering the phone in an office, where he answers queries by saying, "Action is being taken!" "Action will be taken!" "Action has been taken!" What action, why?
> Let me ask Doug: What use is any of Zizek's analysis,
>first, in responding to the present situation in Austria, and second, in
>addressing the general two-party fraud? Do you really think that the twin
>ruling parties spawn third parties in order to prevent the rise of left
>alternatives? If I had written that, I'd be thumped as a conspiracy monger,
>but because an oracle has spoken, we should accept it as revelation?
What's useful in it? First, it helps explain the reaction of the EU and the US: they get to puff out their chests and feel noble about defending democracy (against what is, it must be conceded, a democratic electoral process), while all of them have completely embraced capitalism and marginalized any commitment to social justice their parties once imperfectly represented (Clinton, Blair, Schroder, etc.). Isn't it useful to discredit their posturing? (There's some similarity to the demonizing of Slobo & the Serbs: the moral self-aggrandizing of the Third Way crowd.) Second, it helps explain the popular appeal of far-right politics - why some leftish sorts in the US, for example, embrace Buchanan.
Let me be a provincial American for a minute and talk about Buchanan. He's entirely a creature of the Establishment - Nixon's White House, syndicated column, CNN star. But that Establishment regards him as a pariah - a useful pariah. He's their official bad boy. Mainstream media and politicians legitimate him by their attention, but treat his politics as illegitimate. It's part of a process by which the ruling class gets to designate its opponents. Not only Buchanan - recall how Perot became the official opponent of NAFTA. Having foreclosed any serious left option, right demagoguery is chosen as the acceptable way for the masses to let off steam. Or, to take a more offbeat example, there was a point a year or two ago when the Swedish media and political class had designated Bob "Cockroach" Malecki <http://home.bip.net/malecki/> as a semi-official spokesperson for the unemployed. If I were trying to discredit the unemployed movement, I'd name Bob Malecki as its publicist, wouldn't you?
Finally, Ken McK's point is exactly right - the more Haider is denounced from on high, the more popular he will get with his base. That's a psycho-political fact. Creeps like Duke, Metzger, and Farrakhan enjoy the same legitimation process. How do you fight that? I think Ken's onto something - with mockery, not moralism.
Doug