> >Dear Doug, thanks for the text. I just laugh. Slavoj
This contemptible evasion is proof, if any was needed, that Zizek has fleeced his followers thoroughly. For example, Ken M repeatedly has written about Z's supposed anti-authoritarianism. But such a claim requires accountability, which is precisely what Z refused to deliver. Instead, as here, he dodged.
Second, this shows why political ambiguity -- the essence of bourgeois politics, and the deadly enemy of socialist politics -- is unacceptable on the left.
During the U.S.-NATO war against Yugoslavia, Yoshie posted a report that Z supported the bombing. Doug queried him, and he denied it, or so Doug reported here. The excerpt from Z's article posted by Louis Proyect demonstrates either that Z did in fact support the bombing, or that he wanted his readers to believe he did, even employing the demagogic catch phrases of the U.S.-NATO pressroom.
As if to underscore the obvious point that Z's disciples refuse to see, our ironist Brad DeLong likened Z's chauvinistic and imperialistic bombast to the poet laureate of imperialism, Rudyard Kipling! And now, like his "Marxist" precursor Eugene Genovese, Z dances away, accepting no responsibility for his reactionary provocation.
It was Ken M who proposed that Z be given an opportunity to explain his meaning, as though some explanation could show how his mentor's words mean something other than what they say. Will Mackendrick now concede the weakness of his argument?
Ken Lawrence