Given Ken M's dictum that the duty of Marxists is to clown, his performance disappoints. We knew before he wrote that he shares with Zizek the "radical" concept that masses are to be anesthetized with obscurantism, not summoned to the streets. The question on this thread, though, is whether his hero is prepared to be equally direct on that issue, especially as he pretends to embrace Lenin.
As for oracles of opacity, Gene Genovese's favorite dodge was to cite Antonio Gramsci, during the days when not so many Marxists had read the man's work. In contrast to Gramsci, the Frankfurt school and its offspring have yet to demonstrate any connection to an authentic revolutionary occurrence, so invoking them conjures up not workers' power, but academic vagrancy.
KM's and SZ's affinity to Louis Althusser is more direct. Theoretical Practice was a high-sounding pretext for avoiding the duties of lesser party members, such as passing out leaflets to actual workers, but otherwise is bereft of principle. If Theory is Practice, who needs the real thing? That's a true Zizek/Mackendrick precursor. Ken Lawrence
> 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.