Comments on: In Defense of Slavoj Zizek

By: The Left Against Progress? | The Activist

The Left Against Progress? | The Activist — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:35:43 +0000

[...] political timidity aside, this is somewhat similar to recent arguments made by Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Zizek, and others on the left who don’t necessarily inhabit ideological neighborhood as Tony Judt. I [...]

By: Bhaskar Sunkara

Bhaskar Sunkara — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:09:17 +0000

I think the key for democratic socialists would be to not a “make a virtue out of necessity” as Luxemburg put it. That being said to a degree I can defend Robespierre and the Jacobins and I sympathize with many of the arguments that Trotsky put forth in “Terrorism and Communism”. I can’t comment on his forward to “On Practice and Contradiction”. It sounds like he is defending an Althusserian view, which wouldn’t be that outrageous. I’ve come to believe that there was an “epistemological break” of sorts in Marx’s writing.

I do agree with you that there are fundamental differences in the worldview of the democratic left and someone like Zizek or Badiou. Their critique of capitalism is a fierce one… their “road to emancipation” leaves a lot to be desired. Chris’ argument that if Zizek didn’t exist we would have to invent him is right on the money.

“Heidegger’s support for the Nazis was the “right step in the wrong direction” — “…the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not ‘essential’ enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space…”

In context… he goes on to explain why Gandhi was more “violent” than Hitler this is a perfectly acceptable, if a bit hyperbolic, argument.

By: Joshua Deaton

Joshua Deaton — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:59:31 +0000

I think we should be clear that Zizek’s fetishism of revolutionary terror is central to his philosophical program. Simply look at his publications since 2007:
“Virtue and Terror” (in praise of Robespierre’s divine terror);
“Terrorism and Communism” (where he applauds Trotsky’s assault upon Kautsky’s sentimental appeal to human rights);
“On Practice and Contradiction” (where he approves of Mao’s divorcing communism from any and all humanist impetus);
“In Defense of Lost Causes” (Heidegger’s support for the Nazis was the “right step in the wrong direction” — “…the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not ‘essential’ enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space…”; his theoretical aversion to protecting non-combatants in revolutionary situtations: “there are no innocent bystanders in the crucial moments of revolutionary terror…”; his willingness to be anti-democratic: “the trust in democracy… This is the hard kernel of today’s global capitalist universe”; more on Trotsky: “…the figure of Trotsky nonetheless remains crucial inasmuch as it stands for an element which disturbs the alternative ‘either (social-)democratic socialism or Stalinist totalitarianism’: what we find in Trotsky, in his writings and his revolutionary practice in the early years of the Soviet Union, is revolutionary terror, party rule, and so forth, but in a different mode from that of Stalinism. One should thus, in order to remain faithful to Trotsky’s real achievements, dispel the popular myths of a warm democratic Trotsky…”; etc.)
“Violence” (call to realize the divine virtue of violence, but then ends the book by asserting the truly ‘essential’ violence we must engage in is non-action, resisting the temptation to “do something”; but the idea remains that once a proper theory is constructed that can properly challenge contemporary global capitalism, another sort of mass violence will likely be in the equation)

“First as Tragedy…” I just finished this book last week. It has all that we’ve come to love about Zizek: crude humor, pschoanalytic paradoxes, ocassionally coherent analyses, and above all a call to move beyond the utopian ideology of “global capitalism as the end of history.” He frames this latter bit in terms of a necessity, which pours fuel on the fire for those of us who see the urgency of creating an alternative (for us, democratic socialism). All of this can be found in Zizek’s earlier work. And like his other writing, such appealing flourishes are in service of his more central program: reinvigorating the ideal of revolutionary terror. this time, it is in the form of a re-committment to communism (which he opposes to socialism): “…a good dose of just that ‘Jacobin-Leninist’ paradigm is precisely what the Left needs today. Now, more than ever, one should insist on what Badiou calls the ‘eternal’ Idea of Communism, or the communist ‘invariants’–the ‘four fundamental concepts’ at work from Plato through the medieval millenarian revolts and on to Jacobinism, Leninism and Maoism: strict egalitarian justice, disciplinary terror, political voluntarism, and trust in the people.” Zizek insists that he is not calling for an assault on democracy as such, but only its limitations in its parliamentary form. His solution to the problem, however, is communism. And his communism is essentially defined by the previously listed four qualities that I think we, as democratic socialists, should reject.

And regarding whether or not Zizek is a Stalinist: Let’s again be clear, Zizek himself claims that the humorous form of his comments (the shock-factor) actually conceals his seriousness. He’s pretty straight forward about this. See, for example, his comments regarding the portrait of Stalin in his apartment in the film ZIZEK!

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:58:52 +0000

Zizek isn’t a Stalinist and if he’s shown himself to be enamored with the figure of Stalin it’s mostly to shock liberals (just like his critique of the Chomskys of the world in the form of a rape “joke” on pg. 6). “First as Tragedy” actually features a critique of Stalinism. He and Badiou come from a Maoist background of sorts that had roots in Stalinism (an anti-Stalinist Stalinism?), but I would say that most of Zizek’s contemporary politics aren’t that bad. He doesn’t put much faith into the “anti-imperialist” potential of political Islam and his critique of parliamentary democracy isn’t as strident as Badiou’s, but he is firmly in the anti-capitalist camp. Those are the key positions of the day on the left.

Fetishism of the French Revolution and the Jacobin Terror (which ultimately failed by the way) was one of the problems with the October Revolution (which ultimately failed too). And Zizek hasn’t learned any lessons. That’s where I think democratic socialists differ with him the most. Coercion would be necessary to some extent, but ranting about the “divine virtue” of revolutionary terror, I’m not so sure about (state power can be “seized”, but hegemony cannot). Call it Anglo-American empiricism, but I’ve seen this movie before and I didn’t like the ending.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:36:49 +0000

about Lasch: I myself have had an aversion to him since I learned he was against feminism and even divorce. As for Ziezek, if he’s so enamoured with Stalin and the like, why did he support the Iran protests in June?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:33:07 +0000

“Like a former Catholic becoming not an atheist but a Satanist” — I don’t know who Alan Johnson is, but I love that zinger.

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:06:51 +0000

Finished it and I can recommend it to anyone who has enough of a background in the Left to read it critically. It’s a very good work. Also, on page 121 there is a footnote that cites a Wikipedia entry. Very, very honest of him

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:45:16 +0000

It’s too early for me to be coherent, but I read through about half of “First as Tragedy….” and it was a short, easy read and much better politically than some of his other works.

By: Jason Schulman

Jason Schulman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:59:40 +0000

Critiquing Zizek is like shooting fish in a barrel — not so difficult. And at this point Johnson really has no right to be invoking classical Marxism in his critique. He’s expressly abandoned everything he used to believe — like a former Catholic becoming not an atheist but a Satanist.

And to think he was going to write a biography of Hal Draper!

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:10:42 +0000

I think the root of some of Zizek’s crypto-Stalinist inanities is that he comes from a Maoist tradition that views the key factor in the development of history as human consciousness– in essence–spirit can overcome material condition.

I think Alan Johnson’s critique of “In Defense of Lost Causes” that you link to has a lot of merit. And Johnson himself has a Marxist, socialist background and not a liberal one. Just compare Zizek’s view of Saint-Just compared with more sober, nuanced appraisals like Camus’ in “The Rebel” and you can easily see where his ideas come in stark contrast with that of the rest of the democratic left.

As a whole though I count myself among Zizek’s fans.