>Doug wrote,
>
>> 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,
People can demand anything, but I can't imagine expelling you. Makes me sound like a vice principal or something.
> So let me try once more. The doctrines that are called Leninism are
>straightforward and clear.
Really? How do they apply to the U.S. or any other First World country in 2000? The analysis of imperialism? The party model? What?
> Zizek's doctrines, if such exist, are anything
>but.
What in life is straightforward and clear? I often find life very confusing, don't you?
> Lenin's are intended to incite action; Zizek's, to discourage it.
Speaking of caricature....
>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.
You may not approve, but he's very serious. His book on Lenin is due from Verso next January, by the way; his book on "totalitarianism" and his exchange with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau later this year.
> 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.
More caricture. He was criticizing the wisdom of mobilizing against Haider in the way that people mobilized against Haider, and asked some serious questions about where Haider came from.
> 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.
I think the organization model of the Direct Action Networks is very interesting - it's very disciplined and flexible, consensual and effective, serious and witty. I don't know where it can go, but maybe it's the organizational model for a different century you're looking for. It doesn't look much like the Bolshies, but it's not 1917 anymore.
> Instead of vacuous catcalls
I prefer my catcalls to be stuffed with content, not vacuous.
Doug