Slavoj on Lenin

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

Doug, can you stop this sort of shit, send it back to Proyect's Marxism list or one of the sectarian lists where it belongs? Apsken, no one here gives a flying farool how orthodox you are or if you prostrate yourself before a bust of Lenin three times a day. I won't deny anyone his religion, but yours is tedious. Go worship where others enjoy reading each other out of the church as part of the ritual. --jks

In a message dated Mon, 1 May 2000  8:58:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Apsken at aol.com writes:

<<     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.

 >>