> Lenin's another issue, though. I'm really curious about what of his
> is relevant to life in 2000. Reimagining a Lenin for today is one
> thing; making his formaldehyde-suffused corpse walk and talk is
> another.
This is an odd exchange. Doug invited a discussion on the subject so, against my better judgment, I posted two straightforward comments. Immediately one reader demanded that I be expelled, and others to my right, including Doug, posted comments that were not remotely connected to what I wrote, and which caricatured my position as stupidly as their own would be caricatured by conservatives.
So let me try once more. The doctrines that are called Leninism are straightforward and clear. Zizek's doctrines, if such exist, are anything but. Lenin's are intended to incite action; Zizek's, to discourage it. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Zizek's invocation of Lenin is fraudulent, and it is legitimate to explore, as I did, what he may be up to in adopting this posture.
Ken M adores Zizek, and particularly his opacity and political passivity, so his reply was pro forma. But Doug claims to be an enthusiastic supporter of activists in this country (Seattle and Washington), while not criticizing Zizek's opposition to similar stirrings in Europe.
I personally anticipate that as the intensity of struggle mounts, a portion of today's disparate corps of activists will strive once again for the kind of organizational cohesion and political clarity and unified action that are fundamental to Leninism, albeit adapted to a different social order in a different century. But until that gathering occurs, it is foolish to predict how those adaptations will develop, but useful to project the fundamentals.
Instead of vacuous catcalls and demands for censorship, it might be useful if others would say why they disagree with these points. Or say why unitelligible doubletalk and disengagement from struggle are virtues of leadership, as exemplified by Zizek. Or why 21st century Leninism will be the opposite of Lenin's Leninism in every respect.
Ken Lawrence