The most engaged and effective activists who I know in Israel are extremely hostile to both Badiou and Zizek, and in fact, the European left generally... they see them as sloganeers, who don't shed any insight into political reality...
The most engaged and effective activists who I know in Israel are extremely hostile to both Badiou and Zizek, and in fact, the European left generally... they see them as sloganeers, who don't shed any insight into political reality...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
nice post john - a lot of points well & simply put...
tho I dunno if it's just the era, that era is more complex - I think "ambiguous" might be a better word than complex, as every era is complex - anyway hasn't theory always been a specialized discipline of its own, I mean in my experience there is surprisingly little theory/activist crossover...actually perhaps that's not too surprising...
this is/was more my experience - it eventually leads, at least it did for me & lots of ppl I know, to bitterness & disillusionment...there's the feeling of banging your head against a brick wall over & over...tho to be honest reading more theory has not really alleviated that feeling...
nor am I tho I highly doubt it's the latter - I'm trying image those invisble cadres Josef mentioned - just trying to imagine who, what kind of ppl, could possibly benefit from or even care about this nonsense...one thing for me, the kind of theory I find most useful is that which is always questioning, evaluating...so much of the Zizek/Badiou milieu seems to be about being correct.
tho I dunno if it's just the era, that era is more complex - I think "ambiguous" might be a better word than complex, as every era is complex - anyway hasn't theory always been a specialized discipline of its own, I mean in my experience there is surprisingly little theory/activist crossover...actually perhaps that's not too surprising...
this is/was more my experience - it eventually leads, at least it did for me & lots of ppl I know, to bitterness & disillusionment...there's the feeling of banging your head against a brick wall over & over...tho to be honest reading more theory has not really alleviated that feeling...
nor am I tho I highly doubt it's the latter - I'm trying image those invisble cadres Josef mentioned - just trying to imagine who, what kind of ppl, could possibly benefit from or even care about this nonsense...one thing for me, the kind of theory I find most useful is that which is always questioning, evaluating...so much of the Zizek/Badiou milieu seems to be about being correct.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
well black metal kind of, tho of course it's much more nihilistic - I remember reading an old interview with Anton LaVey where he was like "man the kids need to start listening to Wagner" or whatever...laffs for days...don't think he realized that all those guileless Scandinavians weren't in on the joke. also, rather hilariously & to tie this in to another thread, LaVey was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand (see the "Satanism & Objectivism" article)...pops up everywhere doesn't she.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
man not to pry but you're in Israel then?
anyway also that's quite a common stance among activists in the U.S. as well - tho more generally anti-theory (or not even anti, just think it's a waste of time), outside of academic circles I doubt very much that many activists even know who the hell Zizek is, or for that matter Deleuze...
I am in Berlin... but I have a number of contacts in Israel, for some reason.
Personally, I think there are many theorists, works of theory, or philosophy, or in fact, poetry, or anything, that are very helpful in helping to formulate questions about the world... but they tend a) to be rare, and b) not the kind of stuff which is marketed to you as "radical" or "political" or which presents itself in those terms, that is, the terms of those x-ray specs which used to be advertised in the back of comic books, and which promised to help you see under women's clothes, etc...
I find it very interesting that the main inspiration for Gandhi was Tolstoy's weird spiritual book "The Kingdom of God Is Inside You" (Gandhi named his first headquarters, in South Africa, "Tolstoy Farm")
Personally, I think there are many theorists, works of theory, or philosophy, or in fact, poetry, or anything, that are very helpful in helping to formulate questions about the world... but they tend a) to be rare, and b) not the kind of stuff which is marketed to you as "radical" or "political" or which presents itself in those terms, that is, the terms of those x-ray specs which used to be advertised in the back of comic books, and which promised to help you see under women's clothes, etc...
I find it very interesting that the main inspiration for Gandhi was Tolstoy's weird spiritual book "The Kingdom of God Is Inside You" (Gandhi named his first headquarters, in South Africa, "Tolstoy Farm")
john eden
male pale and stale
Well, thank you in turn, padraig.
I think you are right - ambiguous is better word than complex in this instance. I think there is a spectrum of activist -> theorist and there are people in the middle but obviously capitalism encourages people do adopt these weird specialist roles.
As Stewart Home has said:
It seems to me that activist burnout stems from both a lack of reflection and from youth.
(i.e. the incredible urgency and energy one has, and the belief that the conditions are right EXACTLY NOW to make a massive difference).For me age and reflection has brought the realisation that things take a long time and mistakes get made and actually one has to decide how to divide up your time with all this stuff. And that actually, a lot of the time, it doesn't make any difference if I involve myself with an activity or not.
It's not all about me and I am not that important in the grand scheme of things.Further: Zizek on the Today Program:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7954000/7954680.stm
He strikes me as talking some sense here. He says that the crisis of capitalism is also a "moment of truth" for the left.
I am tempted to say that the best thing to come out of this crisis might be the dissolution of both the Left and the Right, which both seem to me both anachronistic and narrow (the terms come originally from the seating plan for the French revolutionary assembly) and increasingly senseless concepts, given the complexity of the contemporary political environment.
The idea of the "the idea of communism" was probably in the end to try and figure out what the Left still stood for... But from the reports which I've read, it seems that the truth is, that it stands for nothing - and that this very term "left" might now need to be sacrificed (in the spirit of total dialectical irony - read Hegel, says Zizek) to allow for some new political possibilities to emerge...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7954000/7954680.stm
He strikes me as talking some sense here. He says that the crisis of capitalism is also a "moment of truth" for the left.
I am tempted to say that the best thing to come out of this crisis might be the dissolution of both the Left and the Right, which both seem to me both anachronistic and narrow (the terms come originally from the seating plan for the French revolutionary assembly) and increasingly senseless concepts, given the complexity of the contemporary political environment.
The idea of the "the idea of communism" was probably in the end to try and figure out what the Left still stood for... But from the reports which I've read, it seems that the truth is, that it stands for nothing - and that this very term "left" might now need to be sacrificed (in the spirit of total dialectical irony - read Hegel, says Zizek) to allow for some new political possibilities to emerge...
vimothy
yurp
I agree. So much of the debate is, essentially, meaningless. The underlying message of the conference seems to be that the idea of communism is that we don't want to let go of the idea of communism -- beyond that, and Badiou's wilfully naive Manichaeism, ideas are rather thin on the ground. In fact, I doubt that capitalism -- the true article of faith amongst communists -- even exists.
The right, faced with the financial crisis, has adopted a similar strategy, putting its fingers in its ears and singing "la, la, la" at the top of its voice. Problem being, I guess, that none of the bat-shit insane people on the right are as entertaining as Zizek when they do this.
The right, faced with the financial crisis, has adopted a similar strategy, putting its fingers in its ears and singing "la, la, la" at the top of its voice. Problem being, I guess, that none of the bat-shit insane people on the right are as entertaining as Zizek when they do this.
I've been reading Marx again lately. I think he is worth going back to... Marx before Marxism, as it were. I've suggest the following:
1) Philosophically, what Marx tried to do was come up with a way of understanding the movements of society and history in a deep sense... his ultimate "object" is the whole of human history. Marx thought: Humanity has a common purpose... Or, rather: It is possible to consider humanity from the perspective of a common purpose, which is a kind of ideal to be striven for. Marx actually says (in the 1844 Manuscripts) that "communism is the real movement..." of this striving... and he emphasizes that it is not itself an ideal, not a state of affairs. Interesting, that. Communism in some sense is silent, is nothing... "the silent weaving of the spirit." Maybe.
2) Politically, Marx thought that he could identify a certain key group of people who could, would, did, must, instrument historical progress. Progress towards the common purpose. The proletariat. He has a complex hydra-headed argument for why the proletariat = the forces of progress. The interesting question is: "Who is the proletariat?" Marx's analysis produced the following conclusion: industrial factory workers. But, given the slippery nature of his Hegelian lube, it seems things need to be a little more abstract then that... And in the end, it wasn't simply "the workers" who revolutionized Russia, but also Lenin, the party, the first World War... a complex conjuncture... Few Understand. But these things are not easy to understand.
1) Philosophically, what Marx tried to do was come up with a way of understanding the movements of society and history in a deep sense... his ultimate "object" is the whole of human history. Marx thought: Humanity has a common purpose... Or, rather: It is possible to consider humanity from the perspective of a common purpose, which is a kind of ideal to be striven for. Marx actually says (in the 1844 Manuscripts) that "communism is the real movement..." of this striving... and he emphasizes that it is not itself an ideal, not a state of affairs. Interesting, that. Communism in some sense is silent, is nothing... "the silent weaving of the spirit." Maybe.
2) Politically, Marx thought that he could identify a certain key group of people who could, would, did, must, instrument historical progress. Progress towards the common purpose. The proletariat. He has a complex hydra-headed argument for why the proletariat = the forces of progress. The interesting question is: "Who is the proletariat?" Marx's analysis produced the following conclusion: industrial factory workers. But, given the slippery nature of his Hegelian lube, it seems things need to be a little more abstract then that... And in the end, it wasn't simply "the workers" who revolutionized Russia, but also Lenin, the party, the first World War... a complex conjuncture... Few Understand. But these things are not easy to understand.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
1) Marx has always seemed to me much more interesting/relevant as a philosopher than as an economist...perhaps this is b/c I can't properly appreciate his more abstruse economics...or perhaps it's b/c he was good at big abstract concepts & fairly shite at practical things (like all philosophers)...dunno i'm not really qualified to say...
2) It's always seemed to me the biggest problem with Marxism is the same as with musical genres...followers of the original innovator trying to copy his work rather than being informed by his method of thinking about the world...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
& it's a good question. tho, really, what problem is anyone, any philosopher or, any scientist, trying to solve? I wonder if Marx himself could have described the Problem he was trying to solve? doesn't this really get into Karl Marx, the man, his psyche & motivations, as opposed to Karl Marx, founder of Marxism (Marx before Marxism)...I feel like if Tolstoy had lived another 20 yrs perhaps he would have penned a companion to War & Peace savaging Lenin & Trotsky & all the rest...
as Josef says I think there's a good deal of 19th century utopianism in the mix...the century of model communities & scientific religions...the idea that existence is something to be solved rather than experience...in fact Marxism, for all it's impenetrable jargon & Hegelian roots, has always struck me as childishly naive in many ways...many (if not all) Marxists as well, including learned ones, perhaps moreso the learned ones...about violence as well...
sorry feel like I'm rambling without really to coming to any point...
I was a dedicated Marxist when I was younger... even two years ago. What is interesting to me is that, since then, I've basically been trying to kill him - only he won't stay dead. Now I think that you need to negotiate with Marx, and with Marxism. The legacy of Marx in many ways is still very unclear - and I think it is important in some way that there are Marxists, and also that there are non-Marxists, or anti-Marxists. I think it is important that there is Zizek, for example, because he brings a cluster of ideas to the table, which should be taken seriously, in the sense of being carefully thought about. Carefully.