if electronic mail, for example, had existed."
- Jacques Derrida, Email to Freud. >
Ken wrote:
> Simple courtesies cannot be mandated, least of all in Internet chats,
> but discussion surely would be facilitated if Angela would trifle to
> comprehend this thread before pouring invective into it
Yes, it's very hard to remain polite in the face of invective and ignorance. Might I suggest you read your posts before, or even after, you hit send. Btw, I do so much enjoy being called ignorant and a bitch, but I think Mack and Doug are entitled to the same attentions -- or is this some het thing happening that I don't quite understand?
> , especially if she wishes to
> pursue her allegation that I have an obsession with Zizek
So, the worst thing you see about this discussion is that I implied Slavoj is your inaccessible object of desire?
> In fact, as I have written before, I have no interest at all in Zizek
You think? How many times, by comparison, would you say you've posted on the ostensible content of your difference with Z (border struggles in the EU, anti-immigrant politics, whatever along those lines), as distinct from using the topic symbolically as a point-scoring exercise, the coal to locomotive the train with Lenin at the front pointing the way? I've seen the painting.
> So Angela's attempt to divert the discussion into an attack on me for
> allegedly having failed to comprehend Zizek is offensive, particularly in
> light of her failure to respond when I pointed out the specific frauds and
> lies in the posted excerpts from her hero.
Diversion? I covered a number of issues (as have others, and more patiently than you have appreciated): the antihaider protests, the closure of the detention camp in italy, leninists' understanding of "the masses" and "intellectuals", obscurantism, and so on. As for my failure to respond to your charges against Z: I don't imagine that I speak for Zizek any more than I imagine I speak for "the masses". In any case, I haven't seen you point out anything _specific_, just general, well, slogans: obscurantism,
And you agree with all of Karl's agitation? The statements on the freedom of the press, free trade, the bit where he says he's not going to join the communists because they're too sectarian, the bit where he says that communists do not form a separate party, the bit about penetrating virgin soil... ? Now, you know you pick and choose, find one reading more compelling than another, and so on; so why does this farce continue?
> Paris Commune
1. The antihaider protests are not the Paris Commune, and I'm surprised that you would even think of trying to make them synonymous;
2. M&E did not embrace it unconditionally, and they had some pretty sharp criticisms of it, as you admit;
3. Without Karl sitting down to think about why the Paris Commune failed his expectations and aspirations, we would not have the volumes of _Capital_, at least not in the same form or with the same content: ie., the critique of political economy arises from the attempt to explain that failure;
4. Abstention means to not participate, right? If someone writes a criticism of a specific set of protests, _from the perspective of acheiving the ostensible goals of those protests_, does this mean they are _abstaining_ from the struggle for those goals? Aren't you just making the charge of abstentionism in order to pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with you what the struggle consists of is arguing instead that there should not be struggle? You think this is a plausible insult?
If Zizek writes about one thing quite a bit, it's racism and nationalism, and our struggles are enriched by that contribution, in particular because he does not pretend there are simple answers, and makes us confront some difficult questions, not least about call, summoning, and response/responsibility. How we respond to questions, difficult or otherwise, is our responsibility, not Zizek's. This is why he is not, unlike Lenin is for the would-be-leninist, a hero. Zizek writes, and he even writes pretty well. But that is all.
Angela _________