I agree with Doug about the stupidity of 'hastening the contradictions', but it's not my reading of the Zizek article.
=============
Yes.
Even as I clicked the "send" button I regretted that turn of phrase, suspecting it would act as a sort of gravitational point singularity, preventing any light from reaching the rest of my post (or Zizek's essay).
james again:
The point of confusion is where Zizek writes that Bush's victory will 'dispel the illusions' and that a Kerry victory would be a 'historical anomaly'. I don't think that he means that things have to get worse for a progressive alternative to emerge. I think he means that progressives need to acknowledge their defeat, and the defeat of their ideas. This interpretation is supported by the reference to Hegel saying that Napoleon needed to be defeated twice to be sure that it was a historical shift not a 'one-off'. Only when defeat is faced can new and powerful progressive challenges emerge.
=============
Precisely.
Defeat as a prelude to victory. As I wrote before, this seems to be Zizek's central idea. Before you can forge a plan to win you must know how truly badly you're beaten. The first step, as listmember Gregory Geboski wrote a few days ago, is to fully acknowledge that our adversaries are serious and smart - they know this country well and have successfully engineered conditions that favor their rule.
This must be accepted, understood and dealt with before intelligent political counter-action can be taken.
.d.