Zizek on Haider

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Fri Feb 11 04:52:53 PST 2000


On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Nathan Newman wrote:


> Now, to add another point, you focus on Blair and Clinton, your favorite
> "Third Way" whipping boys, but the condemnation of Austria includes the
> French Government, made up not just of the Socialists, but the Communists
> and Greens, as well as the Italians (Dem Party of Left and Italian
> Communists - two out of three wings of old CP). Along with the Greens
> participating in the German government, my question is when third party
> participation - the holy grail apparently - makes such government
> pronouncements no longer "bleatings" but genuine expressions of democratic
> views?

Zizek's point is that all these governments are following third path politics: they have all essentially accepted that the central bank and the capital markets know best, and they are all trying to whittle down their welfare states under the cover of empty rhetorical gestures. They have all abandoned anti-capitalist rhetoric, and they are all constantly trying to suppress their own left wings that still use such terms. And thus the spectre of Haider is useful to them all. It unifies all left forces against a common enemy. And that unity is precisely what all these left governments aim at. Unity in left coalitions is another term for a subordinated left wing.

I like Zizek's model. I think it applies to lots of cases. But I think its real weakness is it doesn't really apply to Haider. Zizek gives a plausible explanation of the response to Haider, of why liberal Europeans love to hate him. But the other side of his argument, about what caused Haider's rise -- that the left ceded the field of anti-capitalist rhetoric and this is the consequence, that it was taken up by the right -- doesn't really hold up. There are lots of rightwing forces in the world that feature strong anti-capitalist rhetoric. But Haider isn't one of them. He's explicitly for a freer market. He has the accent and wardrobe of southern Germanic yuppiedom.

I think to give a decent account of what Haider means you would have to phrase it in terms of the history and national political culture of Austria. And of Switzerland, where there there is similar political culture, a similar external position in Europe, and a similar phenomenon.


> (I'd add the same third communist, former communist and Green parties
> signed up for Kosovo as well, but we can avoid the implied class
> nature of that war given their participation, unless you want to link
> them to the Haider actions :)

A great example. The left of those parties in each of those countries hated the war. In some countries, like Italy, they might have been supported by a majority of the country. But the unity against a common demonized enemy rendered them speechless. And their participation in government during the action decreased their appeal and their power.

Another parallel is that Kosovo had a lot to do with the emerging political culture of the EU. And so does this.

Michael

__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list