The thing that bothers me the most is that for all of Zizek’s constant references to himself as a kind of diehard Marxist-Leninist, as well as all of his academic credentials, you can never find him referencing what Marx or Lenin ever wrote about democracy. I am especially troubled by his claim that “Radical changes in this domain should be made outside the sphere of such democratic devices as legal rights etc.”
Did you ever consider why Lenin decided to get a law degree? It was in order to discover loopholes in the Czarist legal codes to help workers win the right to strike or to organize. Back in 1970 when I was in the Boston branch of the Socialist Workers Party, a debate broke out in the branch between the majority led by Peter Camejo and a minority led by Larry Trainor, an old-timer from the James P. Cannon generation over whether we should support the Shea Bill, described at the time by the Harvard Crimson:
The law, often known as the Shea Bill after its sponsor in the Massachusetts legislature, Rep. H. James Shea. Jr. (D-Newton), authorizes Massachusetts residents to refuse combat duty in wars Congress has not declared. Furthermore, it instructs Massachusetts Attorney General Robert Quinn to defend and assist servicemen who refuse to fight on these constitutional grounds.
The minority made arguments similar to Zizek’s, accusing the majority of fostering “a democratic illusion” in a parliamentary system stacked against the working class. By urging a vote for the Shea Bill, we were supposedly building confidence in the capitalist state and undermining the anti-war movement, as if we urged a vote for Gene McCarthy or George McGovern. I have vivid memories of Peter getting up to explain how Lenin used to study the Czarist legal codes late into the evening to figure out a way to use the laws against the system. That was the way most of us in the SWP thought about such matters in the days before the group turned into something similar to the De Leonite Socialist Labor Party that like Zizek is all too fond of drawing distinctions between the communist goal of the future and just about every reform that is worth struggling for.
You can get a good idea of Lenin’s approach to these matters in his 1899 article “Factory Courts” that urged the creation of joint employer-worker bodies that would “examine cases and disputes arising in connection with the terms of hire, with the fixing of rates of pay for ordinary work and overtime, with the discharge of workers in violation of rules, with payments for damage to material, with unfair imposition of fines, etc., etc.” Such bodies were fairly common in Western Europe at the time and would obviously never affect what Zizek called “the social relations of production”. That being the case, why did Lenin urge their introduction into Russia? He explained:
The first advantage of the factory court is that it is much more accessible to the workers. To present a petition to an ordinary court, one has to submit it in writing (which often requires the employment of a solicitor); stamp duty has to be paid; there are long waiting periods; the plaintiff has to appear in court, which takes him and the witnesses away from their work; then comes a further period of waiting until the case goes to a higher court to be retried after an appeal by dissatisfied litigants. Is it any wonder that workers do not willingly resort to the ordinary courts? Factory courts, on the contrary, consist of employers and workers elected as judges. It is not at all difficult for a worker to make a verbal complaint to one of his fellow workers whom he has himself elected. Sessions of factory courts are usually held on holidays or, in general, at times when the workers are free and do not have to interrupt their work. Cases are handled much more expeditiously by factory courts.
After enumerating other advantages, Lenin concludes with the most salient point:
Finally, there is one other benefit accruing from factory courts that must be mentioned: they get factory owners, directors, and foremen into the habit of treating workers decently, of treating them as equal citizens and not as slaves. Every worker knows that factory owners and foremen all too often permit themselves to treat workers in a disgracefully insulting manner, to rail at them, etc. It is difficult for a worker to complain against this attitude; it can be rebuffed only when the workers are sufficiently developed and are able to give support to their comrade.
The above paragraph is about as “Leninist” as you can get. Unlike Zizek’s Lenin, who comes across as a podium-pounding preacher for “communism”, Lenin’s focus was on organizing workers so that they gain self-confidence in struggle, achieving victory by victory until they have enough of a sense of their own right to become a ruling class. When that day arrives, you will see the greatest flowering of democracy possible.
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/is-democracy-the-enemy-a-reply-to-zizek/
Zizek's "Marxism" contribution to the OWS protests is basically just a analysis-devoid militant posturing to its populism. If this is satisfying enough then it is populism, not Leninism that is satisfactory. If not, then we require rigorous analysis ("scientific socialism") and not more Will and Radical Courage.
Edited by babyfinland ()
In times when working people are taking the political initiative (and there are reasons to believe that OWS represents, a germinal attempt to radically change U.S. society, regardless of how tentative it may seem at this point), you would have *never* caught Lenin lecturing people about the political opportunities afforded to them by parliamentary bourgeois democracy.
It was in times of political turmoil, when working people were trying to consciously reign in on history (rather than adapting to very adverse political conditions), that Lenin would sound more “radical” or “utopian” (as, e.g. State and Revolution, has been deemed by some). But that was and is the right thing to do! It is in times of crisis, when people must free their political and social imagination and trust themselves, believe firmly that the world can be changed for good. In fact, that’s when we are in the best position to free our minds from the constraints of political inertia and prolonged conformity with the status quo. That is the opportunity that a crisis of large magnitude affords to us.
You won’t find a single line written by Lenin in the winter 1905 or in the spring or summer or fall of 1917 in which he tells people to note the many ways to use the opportunities that the czar’s legal code provided. No, at those times, he would blasting the status quo wholesale! Lenin’s critique of left-wing communism was written in 1920, at a time when the revolutions in Europe were ebbing, and the ultra-leftists had not yet registered the shift, and — consequently — continued to behave as if they were in the upswing of a world revolution. If the conditions change, people have to change their approach.
I’ll tell you what I believe is your fatal weakness as a political commentator, Louis. You start with your likes and dislikes. You dislike Zizek and feel to need to dress him down. You don’t care to reflect on whether he is actually sounding the right note at this point of the song. But timing is of the essence, as lawyers say.
Lin Piao, today a largely forgotten character and one who met a grievous fate, used to say, in order to stigmatize as ‘revisionist’ the established and bureaucratic communism of the Russians: ‘in the end, the essence of revisionism is the fear of death’. If we understand by ‘death’ the key signifier of every anthropology of finitude (which might take the form, as it does today, of the ‘body’, or of the ‘intimate’ – these mediocre deaths), then we will say: ‘The essence of
philosophy is the struggle against revisionism.’
I leave you with this definition; its consequences are not negligible.
the project is to philosophically resuscitate the Communist Idea, dialectical materialism, negativity, and thus Lenin. There is a matter of beating back post modernism with a fusion of Marxism and Lacanian theory. Marxist theory needs to struggle against determinist and anti-subjectivist tendencies, a struggle with the fear of death from which revisionism springs.
OK, so why doesn't Zizek's politics follow through with this supposedly practical theoretical project? Why does he insist on a militant-populist sort of 'building the base'? Because his theoretical project stems from building up a theory of ideology, which is where psychoanalysis comes in. The opinion stems from a negative position towards the prevalent ideology that must be negated, and in a way 'building the base' here is absolutely crucial. The major breakthroughs since the Enlightenment have been superseding subjectivity, in spite of Descartes' founding gesture of the cogito, into where subjectivity has frequently took reactive-mystical forms (fascism especially).
We are at a point right now where Science takes on a positivist tone with 'objectivity', and from this springs such disasters as genocidal eugenics, New Atheists, behavioral economics, 'Objective Processes of History', on and on, resulting in the strange subjectivea-objective play of post modernism (relativism and the eternal Market coexist). The theoretical project of the Hegelian-Lacanians, and especially Zizek, is, again to borrow Badiou, to follow as 'closely as possible to anti-philosophy.' This is where Zizek's infamous negativity stems from, and his peculiar sympathy with reactionary critiques of liberal democracy. Like Nietzsche, Zizek points to a subjective base. There is an attempt here to establish a new radical ontology.
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
aerdil posted:You don’t care to reflect on whether he is actually sounding the right note at this point of the song. But timing is of the essence, as lawyers say.
yeah, politics is contingent. But Zizek isnt a political leader, and his political musings are deeply theoretical, the practical applications must be worked out by us.
this is why 'building the base' is so important: http://vimeo.com/7527571
Impper posted:
this is like the 2nd or 3rd trot article about zizek that bf has posted
its real funny
Crow posted:
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
Isnt that my point
Crow posted:
the project is to philosophically resuscitate the Communist Idea, dialectical materialism, negativity, and thus Lenin. There is a matter of beating back post modernism with a fusion of Marxism and Lacanian theory. Marxist theory needs to struggle against determinist and anti-subjectivist tendencies, a struggle with the fear of death from which revisionism springs.
This is repulsive but you repeated my argument almost verbatim in your conclusion so I donno where that leaves us. Impper and aerdil are cretins so I don't care about their "trot, trot, trot" chanting
aerdil posted:
cool, thanks for the random article from a trotskyist dullard who has likely read very little zizek. zizek's writing on democracy are far more complex and coherent than this dude is making them out to be, choosing as he does only from a few sentences of a LRB article and then generalizing. im just gonna post this decent comment from the same link
In times when working people are taking the political initiative (and there are reasons to believe that OWS represents, a germinal attempt to radically change U.S. society, regardless of how tentative it may seem at this point), you would have *never* caught Lenin lecturing people about the political opportunities afforded to them by parliamentary bourgeois democracy.
It was in times of political turmoil, when working people were trying to consciously reign in on history (rather than adapting to very adverse political conditions), that Lenin would sound more “radical” or “utopian” (as, e.g. State and Revolution, has been deemed by some). But that was and is the right thing to do! It is in times of crisis, when people must free their political and social imagination and trust themselves, believe firmly that the world can be changed for good. In fact, that’s when we are in the best position to free our minds from the constraints of political inertia and prolonged conformity with the status quo. That is the opportunity that a crisis of large magnitude affords to us.
You won’t find a single line written by Lenin in the winter 1905 or in the spring or summer or fall of 1917 in which he tells people to note the many ways to use the opportunities that the czar’s legal code provided. No, at those times, he would blasting the status quo wholesale! Lenin’s critique of left-wing communism was written in 1920, at a time when the revolutions in Europe were ebbing, and the ultra-leftists had not yet registered the shift, and — consequently — continued to behave as if they were in the upswing of a world revolution. If the conditions change, people have to change their approach.
I’ll tell you what I believe is your fatal weakness as a political commentator, Louis. You start with your likes and dislikes. You dislike Zizek and feel to need to dress him down. You don’t care to reflect on whether he is actually sounding the right note at this point of the song. But timing is of the essence, as lawyers say.
this comment doesn't really address anything pertinent. Neither Proyect's Lenin nor Zizek's Lenin are advocating liberalism. Zizek is not in any way equivalent to the historical Lenin, it's totally nonsensical to defend Zizek as performing an adequate mimicry. That's not the point at all.
babyfinland posted:Crow posted:
the project is to philosophically resuscitate the Communist Idea, dialectical materialism, negativity, and thus Lenin. There is a matter of beating back post modernism with a fusion of Marxism and Lacanian theory. Marxist theory needs to struggle against determinist and anti-subjectivist tendencies, a struggle with the fear of death from which revisionism springs.This is repulsive but you repeated my argument almost verbatim in your conclusion so I donno where that leaves us. Impper and aerdil are cretins so I don't care about their "trot, trot, trot" chanting
you are repulsive, you are getting lazy
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/10/2011102813360731764.html
babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
Isnt that my point
your point is 'Zizek is doing very necessary theoretical work'?
“Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.”
“But the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are really American have to be reminded of something,” Zizek continued. “What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What’s the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other.”
“And who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street there are pagans who are worshipping blasphemous idols.”
babyfinland posted:
“We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced,” he said. “We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy.
“Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.”
“But the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are really American have to be reminded of something,” Zizek continued. “What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What’s the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other.”
“And who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street there are pagans who are worshipping blasphemous idols.”
well i certainly dont understand, since we all agree here! even proyect agrees with Zizek's suggestion that we must seize power immediately, do anything possible
Crow posted:babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
Isnt that my pointyour point is 'Zizek is doing very necessary theoretical work'?
no my point was that zizek is not useful politically. i made no comment on his theoretical value and that seemed to upset all you hipster guys
babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
Isnt that my point
your point is 'Zizek is doing very necessary theoretical work'?
no my point was that zizek is not useful politically. i made no comment on his theoretical value and that seemed to upset all you hipster guys
certum est quia impossibile
i dont know what a hipster is, but theory is useful politically, especially the theory of the subject. just because you cant use his political commentary as religious edicts, doesnt mean he isnt useful politically. this isnt a hadith or whatever
Crow posted:babyfinland posted:
“We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced,” he said. “We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy.
“Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.”
“But the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are really American have to be reminded of something,” Zizek continued. “What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What’s the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other.”
“And who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street there are pagans who are worshipping blasphemous idols.”well i certainly dont understand, since we all agree here! even proyect agrees with Zizek's suggestion that we must seize power immediately, do anything possible
me neither. im not the one raising objections so whats the deal.
trot, trot, trot
Crow posted:babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
babyfinland posted:
Crow posted:
This critique is good, it takes Zizek seriously, but I really think to meet Zizek on the level of the political is not reaching the proper potential of his work, we need to engage philosophically. Of course, I agree with the position of Louis Proyect here, but Zizek has been saying lately that 'we must do what we can' in the realm of politics, seize power now, and do what is within our capacity, just like Proyect points out in the figure of Lenin. But this is not where Zizek is useful, he's useful in building a radical subjectivity, a new ontology on the old seed of liberation.
Isnt that my point
your point is 'Zizek is doing very necessary theoretical work'?
no my point was that zizek is not useful politically. i made no comment on his theoretical value and that seemed to upset all you hipster guys
certum est quia impossibilei dont know what a hipster is, but theory is useful politically, especially the theory of the subject. just because you cant use his political commentary as religious edicts, doesnt mean he isnt useful politically. this isnt a hadith or whatever
cool more desperate ad hom from a cool guy. thats what mama likey.
what did i say in the op? it was that zizek is contributing little more than militant posturing. thats fine, if thats all thats called for. the question is whether or not that is all we need now, and if not then lets generate the actual analysis, take an offensive stance, like lenin had done in his own time, and not adopt a defensive position
Impper posted:
even mark ames quotes trots now and then, don't feel too bad about it and stop being so excited
every commie is a filthy animal to me. all the same rotted out hearts, trots and maos, sick dogs
Anyway I thought the most useful part was the last bit:
The Wall Street protests are just a beginning, but one has to begin this way, with a formal gesture of rejection which is more important than its positive content, for only such a gesture can open up the space for new content. So we should not be distracted by the question: ‘But what do you want?’ This is the question addressed by male authority to the hysterical woman: ‘All your whining and complaining – do you have any idea what you really want?’ In psychoanalytic terms, the protests are a hysterical outburst that provokes the master, undermining his authority, and the master’s question – ‘But what do you want?’ – disguises its subtext: ‘Answer me in my own terms or shut up!’ So far, the protesters have done well to avoid exposing themselves to the criticism that Lacan levelled at the students of 1968: ‘As revolutionaries, you are hysterics who demand a new master. You will get one.’
Remember that the subject position of the hysteric is that they focus on the other's desire, they operate through the other. So Zizek is noting that the first step of a really radical movement is to stop making demands as simple appeals to some center of power. This means that goals of the movement start to take on a process of self-ownership, that the movement starts to turn towards its own resources to get things done. Now that could well mean something parliamentary, that's not the point, look at how Morales built up a movement out of the indigenous and exploited, for example, but used traditional channels. The idea is more that "we" take power rather than "we" choose who else rules us. And obviously this is at odds with the bourgeois state, at least in some forms, because bourgeois democracy is centered on passivity of the exploited.
why are uneducated STL cab drivers elucidating the point better than the Great Zizek?
I say this to say I support the protest movement- if it expands. If it says the political system is broke, both parties do not represent the people, end the wars, end the racism, end white supremacy, and Islamophobia, change the economic system, as a matter of fact just blow the whole damn thing up. If the movement is saying that then I am with that. If it is this kind of movement I encourage more Muslims to get involved. If it is not, it is a work in progress and still possible of changing if more people get involved. There is no 99, and there never will be, because people are defined and define themselves by so much more than economics, but diverse groups can come together as a working coalition to bring about change.
getfiscal posted:
I don't really understand your point, Baby Finland. Zizek isn't making a precise political statement about what exactly to do so much as discussing a general political subjectivity that might be appropriate for the movement. This is based on his belief that philosophers can't really do much more than frame the questions right.
Anyway I thought the most useful part was the last bit:The Wall Street protests are just a beginning, but one has to begin this way, with a formal gesture of rejection which is more important than its positive content, for only such a gesture can open up the space for new content. So we should not be distracted by the question: ‘But what do you want?’ This is the question addressed by male authority to the hysterical woman: ‘All your whining and complaining – do you have any idea what you really want?’ In psychoanalytic terms, the protests are a hysterical outburst that provokes the master, undermining his authority, and the master’s question – ‘But what do you want?’ – disguises its subtext: ‘Answer me in my own terms or shut up!’ So far, the protesters have done well to avoid exposing themselves to the criticism that Lacan levelled at the students of 1968: ‘As revolutionaries, you are hysterics who demand a new master. You will get one.’
Remember that the subject position of the hysteric is that they focus on the other's desire, they operate through the other. So Zizek is noting that the first step of a really radical movement is to stop making demands as simple appeals to some center of power. This means that goals of the movement start to take on a process of self-ownership, that the movement starts to turn towards its own resources to get things done. Now that could well mean something parliamentary, that's not the point, look at how Morales built up a movement out of the indigenous and exploited, for example, but used traditional channels. The idea is more that "we" take power rather than "we" choose who else rules us. And obviously this is at odds with the bourgeois state, at least in some forms, because bourgeois democracy is centered on passivity of the exploited.
Right. I'm not arguing for articulation of a response to the bourgeois state, but for a general acknowledgement of Zizek's request to be dismissed as a theoretical and not political, I guess? I'm not sure what the fuss is tbh since everyone is simpyl reiterating my point.
babyfinland posted:
I'm arguing for a general acknowledgement of Zizek's request to be dismissed as a theoretical and not political
Do you have little bins on your desk that are labeled "theoretical" and "political" that you sort all blog posts into? I'm not sure what other reason you'd care to make that sort of distinction.
Impper posted:
thats a cool thing the cab driver said but it really isnt elucidated better than what zizek said
I think it's far more precise and on point. The full article is more elaborate and focuses on the tactical problems of the OWS movement, and not on terms of its relationship to bourgeois politics, as Zizek does. Zizek obsesses about this relationship, while Umar easily kicks it away and turns to the real project of communal self-determination. He doesn't fuss over the need to claim theoretical subjectivity, he claims it. "At the end of the day though real change begins with ourselves and our families and that will change neighborhoods which will in turn change nations." This isn't just an eggheaded discussion about where to place the OWS protest in some theoretical framework, its relocating the energy of the protests in the community, taking it away from lecherous hands of political opportunists. The Democrats have a lot of use for a left-styled protest movement with a broad base and lack of demands: they can dictate to you your demands. Umar says "However, it is not just Wall Street. Main Street is corrupt." It's not just some issue of corruption or lack of financial regulatory policies, but a deep problem of social organization. "The political system is broke, both parties do not represent the people, end the wars, end the racism, end white supremacy, and Islamophobia, change the economic system, as a matter of fact just blow the whole damn thing up. If the movement is saying that then I am with that."
So why is Zizek so important again? Why is the "Communist Idea", which no one but Verso Books' loyal readership cares one shit about, so significant? I ask because if it is in fact important I'd like to know.
getfiscal posted:babyfinland posted:
I'm arguing for a general acknowledgement of Zizek's request to be dismissed as a theoretical and not politicalDo you have little bins on your desk that are labeled "theoretical" and "political" that you sort all blog posts into? I'm not sure what other reason you'd care to make that sort of distinction.
theyre actually labeled "perverts" and "losers"
babyfinland posted:Impper posted:
thats a cool thing the cab driver said but it really isnt elucidated better than what zizek saidI think it's far more precise and on point. The full article is more elaborate and focuses on the tactical problems of the OWS movement, and not on terms of its relationship to bourgeois politics, as Zizek does. Zizek obsesses about this relationship, while Umar easily kicks it away and turns to the real project of communal self-determination. He doesn't fuss over the need to claim theoretical subjectivity, he claims it. "At the end of the day though real change begins with ourselves and our families and that will change neighborhoods which will in turn change nations." This isn't just an eggheaded discussion about where to place the OWS protest in some theoretical framework, its relocating the energy of the protests in the community, taking it away from lecherous hands of political opportunists. The Democrats have a lot of use for a left-styled protest movement with a broad base and lack of demands: they can dictate to you your demands. Umar says "However, it is not just Wall Street. Main Street is corrupt." It's not just some issue of corruption or lack of financial regulatory policies, but a deep problem of social organization. "The political system is broke, both parties do not represent the people, end the wars, end the racism, end white supremacy, and Islamophobia, change the economic system, as a matter of fact just blow the whole damn thing up. If the movement is saying that then I am with that."
So why is Zizek so important again? Why is the "Communist Idea", which no one but Verso Books' loyal readership cares one shit about, so significant? I ask because if it is in fact important I'd like to know.
Ah okay, well then I can articulate it even better than the taxi driver:
I am for the thing that will establish freedom for all, end the Bad Things, and will be based on LOVE and not BAD THINGS. Some bad things can stay, but only to make us Gooder. I am for that.
Crow posted:babyfinland posted:Impper posted:
thats a cool thing the cab driver said but it really isnt elucidated better than what zizek saidI think it's far more precise and on point. The full article is more elaborate and focuses on the tactical problems of the OWS movement, and not on terms of its relationship to bourgeois politics, as Zizek does. Zizek obsesses about this relationship, while Umar easily kicks it away and turns to the real project of communal self-determination. He doesn't fuss over the need to claim theoretical subjectivity, he claims it. "At the end of the day though real change begins with ourselves and our families and that will change neighborhoods which will in turn change nations." This isn't just an eggheaded discussion about where to place the OWS protest in some theoretical framework, its relocating the energy of the protests in the community, taking it away from lecherous hands of political opportunists. The Democrats have a lot of use for a left-styled protest movement with a broad base and lack of demands: they can dictate to you your demands. Umar says "However, it is not just Wall Street. Main Street is corrupt." It's not just some issue of corruption or lack of financial regulatory policies, but a deep problem of social organization. "The political system is broke, both parties do not represent the people, end the wars, end the racism, end white supremacy, and Islamophobia, change the economic system, as a matter of fact just blow the whole damn thing up. If the movement is saying that then I am with that."
So why is Zizek so important again? Why is the "Communist Idea", which no one but Verso Books' loyal readership cares one shit about, so significant? I ask because if it is in fact important I'd like to know.Ah okay, well then I can articulate it even better than the taxi driver:
I am for the thing that will establish freedom for all, end the Bad Things, and will be based on LOVE and not BAD THINGS. Some bad things can stay, but only to make us Gooder. I am for that.
youre being disingenuous but at least youre not speaking in lacanian code anymore