vimothy
yurp
I think I disagree with that. It depends what you mean by fascists, of course, but I think fascists do want a revolution, though not necessarily a Marxist "class-war" one.
Fascism!
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
I think I disagree with that. It depends what you mean by fascists, of course, but I think fascists do want a revolution, though not necessarily a Marxist "class-war" one.
john eden
male pale and stale
Indeed. I too read the article and it has just reinforced my view that Zizek is either an apologist for the worst excesses of Stalin and Lenin, or a wind up merchant. Or both.
It's easy to fall into this "outrageous" rhetoric - blah blah "the question is not whether Zizek is a fascist, but whether he is fascist enough" blah blah "ooh! so shocking! but what does it mean?" "the question is not whether it is shocking..."
Needless to say I don't think Zizek is a fascist. No doubt fascists could latch onto his rehabilitation of totalitarianism for their own ends, but they could just as easily use him as an example of the degeneracy of modern academia.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
he's a celebrity academic who uses contrarian ruses to shock
'the problem with hitler was that he wasn't violent enough'
'our freedoms [...] mask our deeper unfreedoms'
etc.
with added discourse on the matrix and titanic.
the same old boring, boring mix of pomo/trad marxist theory, but i can see why he goes down well with the usual suspects
Last edited:
Very heartened by Matt B and John E's disdain for this buffoon. I thought the Kirsch article was poor and beside the point, though - trying to emphasis a not-so-latent anti-semitic streak in Zizek's emotional constitution and rhetoric, and then not actually doing it. A weak version of Engage.
Really, Zizek is a quasi-fascist because...what? He extols revolutionary violence as an end in itself? He has anti-semitic leanings? He loathes Western Capitalist Democracy? None of this is really good, or close, enough. He's a chaotic and opportunist career academic with some silly and suspect (but not real enough to be sinister) emotional leanings. Sorry to go the ad hominin route - but this article is exactly what we are talking about: the abuse and dilution of a political moment and movement and definition that's probably been theorised and articulated better after the passing of the founding fascist regimes (and post-Orwell, come to that).
Then again, I was thinking last night, modern fascists are a bit like modern Jungians - just a seedy assortment of cranks (cf. this account).
Really, Zizek is a quasi-fascist because...what? He extols revolutionary violence as an end in itself? He has anti-semitic leanings? He loathes Western Capitalist Democracy? None of this is really good, or close, enough. He's a chaotic and opportunist career academic with some silly and suspect (but not real enough to be sinister) emotional leanings. Sorry to go the ad hominin route - but this article is exactly what we are talking about: the abuse and dilution of a political moment and movement and definition that's probably been theorised and articulated better after the passing of the founding fascist regimes (and post-Orwell, come to that).
Then again, I was thinking last night, modern fascists are a bit like modern Jungians - just a seedy assortment of cranks (cf. this account).
IdleRich
IdleRich
This is true isn't it? Not just of Zizek but of a number of people who post (or posted) here. There is a clear sense that people have been arguing from different directions and can never be reconciled because they are both trying to fit each other's premises to a conclusion that follows from their own premise.
john eden
male pale and stale
Everyone does it to a certain extent.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well, everyone makes assumptions, some of which are unexamined if that's what you mean, but I don't think that everyone starts with the assumption that liberalism is evil and communism is good, which is the specific example I'm talking about. I think that most people would like to think that their political beliefs are not axiomatic but rather are something that they arrived at as a conclusion. If you want to tell me that political system x is better than system y then you are going to need reasons to convince me aren't you? Reasons are precisely what aren't available to you if you start off with the fact of political system x being best by definition.
john eden
male pale and stale
But surely Zizek's position was arrived at through debate and experience?
How is what he is saying different from me saying "democracy is better than fascism" or "beards are evil"?
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well the accusation made in the article is that it's not. Well, I guess it's slightly more subtle than that, the accusation is that he has moved to a position that is pre-debate although he may have actually arrived at that position by debate. If that makes sense.
Well, if you say democracy is better than fascism, you're not saying that as an axiom are you? I could ask you why and you would reply something along the lines of how it (theoretically) gives everyone an equal say in what goes on. And I would ask why that is good and you would then say that it seems reasonable to you that everyone should have the same say because you believe that people are born equal and you believe in some principle of fairness and so on, back to your basic assumptions right?
However, if this is true
Then this would not happen in a debate with Zizek. If he says communism is good and I ask why he would say because it is. I would say, but democracy allows everyone a fair say, doesn't that make it better, he would reply "no, a fair say leads to democracy and that is wrong because it is not communism". And he would give this response to any argument which leads to any conclusion that is not communism. This is quite different from your position where, theoretically, it would be quite possible for someone to say something to you which would make you say "by crikey, you're right, there is a fairer system than democracy".
The colostomy point was introduced in order to say, badly, that there is a distinction in what I claim to be advocating, and what I might actually be advocating. There is a difference between the label and the thing. This is especially true in the orgy of cross-dressing that is contemporary politics.
Zizek says he is a Marxist-Leninist - but what does that mean in an era in which this label possesses no mass movement at all. There is an argument - I think a good one - that Marxism was tied to a certain set of historical, social and technological conditions, and derived its power from them. So what does it mean to be a self-proclaimed Marxist today?
The only thing I'd suggest is it means something to do with genre. That is, it is about a politics of style, rather than politics in the traditional sense. It is about a certain way of staging an appeal. About a style which allows a writer to link the personal to the political, beneath the shelter of a redemption narrative and a sense that they are in some self-evident way serving the Good.
These genre rules are derived from Marxism, but do not necessarily always serve Marxist political ends. There is a notable genre similarity between certain Marxist and fascist narratives, though there are differences as well. The question is: When does the one bleed into the other? When does a genre-narrative which calls itself Marxist, in the rhetorical act of promulgating a message, become something else?
Again, I don't think the answer is necessarily to be found in the content of what is actually being advocated. I think instead instead it is do with the nature of the appeal, what it leans on, and what it closes off.
Intellectuals look to establish certain patterns of communication between people. It is these patterns - these games - which are transmitted more powerfully then the content of the messages they claim to be standing for.
Zizek says he is a Marxist-Leninist - but what does that mean in an era in which this label possesses no mass movement at all. There is an argument - I think a good one - that Marxism was tied to a certain set of historical, social and technological conditions, and derived its power from them. So what does it mean to be a self-proclaimed Marxist today?
The only thing I'd suggest is it means something to do with genre. That is, it is about a politics of style, rather than politics in the traditional sense. It is about a certain way of staging an appeal. About a style which allows a writer to link the personal to the political, beneath the shelter of a redemption narrative and a sense that they are in some self-evident way serving the Good.
These genre rules are derived from Marxism, but do not necessarily always serve Marxist political ends. There is a notable genre similarity between certain Marxist and fascist narratives, though there are differences as well. The question is: When does the one bleed into the other? When does a genre-narrative which calls itself Marxist, in the rhetorical act of promulgating a message, become something else?
Again, I don't think the answer is necessarily to be found in the content of what is actually being advocated. I think instead instead it is do with the nature of the appeal, what it leans on, and what it closes off.
Intellectuals look to establish certain patterns of communication between people. It is these patterns - these games - which are transmitted more powerfully then the content of the messages they claim to be standing for.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
it probably plays the same dogmatic role as religion- creates certainty, simplifies the world etc etc.
things that fascism can also provide
This is true, certainly. But I think there is more to it than that. The concepts get inside the skin, and makes it glow. If you are influenced by Zizek, or any other thinker, it will affect your own thinking, make you see the world in a certain way. You will meet others, and interact with them, based on this mental software which you've downloaded. The idea is to transmit it to them in turn.
How is it transmitted? What is transmitted?
matt b
Indexing all opinion
this feels like we are drifting into some kind of affluenza sttyle discussion
scottdisco
rip this joint please
Josef K.
that seems a fair shout to me.
(though when Zizek stages his appeals, it's not helping us arrive at any conclusion, other than we conclude he's a preening contrarian dolt.)
from the TNR piece in question
it's a shame Kirsch didn't try to go in to this himself.
Matt B.
well said.
i recently linked to this Peter Ryley post, which has a bit of relevance, although in a central passage Ryley throws in the 'f' word in a paragraph characterising Nazi crimes, and leaves it at that, so no real definitional help.
i liked the Orwell quote from the Wiki article Matt linked to, and really think that the section of same, entitled 'Political Spectrum', contains a lot more than something Adam Kirsch just said..
that seems a fair shout to me.
(though when Zizek stages his appeals, it's not helping us arrive at any conclusion, other than we conclude he's a preening contrarian dolt.)
from the TNR piece in question
it's a shame Kirsch didn't try to go in to this himself.
Matt B.
well said.
i recently linked to this Peter Ryley post, which has a bit of relevance, although in a central passage Ryley throws in the 'f' word in a paragraph characterising Nazi crimes, and leaves it at that, so no real definitional help.
i liked the Orwell quote from the Wiki article Matt linked to, and really think that the section of same, entitled 'Political Spectrum', contains a lot more than something Adam Kirsch just said..
matt b
Indexing all opinion
Last edited:
I don't agree - I think Zizek is more than this. His words - and approach - carry weight; he is a cultural phenomenon who is bending contemporary discourse in a particular way. We know this - many people in the blogs have been influenced by Zizek, and these people are influencing others in turn. Our departed friend Padraig among them.
For this reason, I also don't think it's right to say that Zizek's Leninism is "already shameful enough." Surely, it isn't a question of shame.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
i feel that a lot of that is about looking and feeling clever, intellectual circle jerking.
the content isn't important- it's not new, its just couched in a slightly different language, ala most PoMo (in his case a adding psychoanalysis into the mix).
why he's a cultural phenomenon IS interesting. maybe it can be explained along similar lines to the above- marxism has failed, lets wrap it up in a new language and call it new.
i might be spouting rubbish here, as i don't read a lot of the blogs that centre around k punk etc, but if you strip away the layers and the popular culture refs, many are marxists
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Interesting thing about this is that whenever he mentions postmodernity/ism, it's always with contempt; he professes to hate it, like it's part of the larger 'enemy' (liberal capitalist democracy, of course). Can anyone more familiar with the guy shed some light on this? Is he a 'postmodern' thinker (or 'thinker'), despite his what he claims?
As you say, he's a "cultural phenomenon", in effect a celebrity academic - isn't this one of the hallmarks of postmodernity, that everything can at some level be construed as entertainment, bought and consumed as a spectatorial event? And his love of juxtaposing abstruse theory with pop culture is well documented, evidently.
Edit: or perhaps the problem with Zizek is that he isn't postmodern enough!, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Last edited:
scottdisco
rip this joint please
cheers Matt re Orwell URL!
er, me, quoting Josef K., quoting, etc...
i meant to say that Zizek's politics are a pose, a 'style', these contrary stances that other people have already noted, and this is a fair shout in ref to somebody like a Zizek.
so what John and Matt say about him, if we want to label him.
Josef K.
a fair cop.
i was wrong to throw that out there; a bit juvenile of me, and not helping the discussion along. although i will continue to characterise him as such
(and also fair enough on "Surely, it isn't a question of shame.": i don't suppose we need to editorialise about Stalinism here on a fascism thread.)
but.
like Matt i, for whatever reason, am tending to home in on the emperor's new clothes aspect, if we wish to explain Zizek as phenomenon.
Padraig - i bring him up as he has now already been mentioned - was heavily into the SWP-directed Irish Anti War Movement (thanks Droid).
Richard Seymour at Lenin's Tomb is SWP as we know, writes his stuff through their party line, and i have seen him stick the boot into Zizek often enough, tbf.
(not that i'm saying Padraig being in a SWP-controlled group means he follows each and every line, necessarily, from the mothership.)
i've had Roger Eatwell's 1996 history on a bookshelf here for years, although i've never read it. (!)
perhaps i'll start today.
has anyone ever read the OUP's reader from '95?
(i shall check out Oliver's recommendations from up-thread, in book terms.)
i was told once that Dermot Morgan who played Father Ted had concluded after his university studies that everybody was a fascist, incidentally.
dunno if it's true, i can't find a source for it.
er, me, quoting Josef K., quoting, etc...
i meant to say that Zizek's politics are a pose, a 'style', these contrary stances that other people have already noted, and this is a fair shout in ref to somebody like a Zizek.
so what John and Matt say about him, if we want to label him.
Josef K.
a fair cop.
i was wrong to throw that out there; a bit juvenile of me, and not helping the discussion along. although i will continue to characterise him as such
(and also fair enough on "Surely, it isn't a question of shame.": i don't suppose we need to editorialise about Stalinism here on a fascism thread.)
but.
like Matt i, for whatever reason, am tending to home in on the emperor's new clothes aspect, if we wish to explain Zizek as phenomenon.
Padraig - i bring him up as he has now already been mentioned - was heavily into the SWP-directed Irish Anti War Movement (thanks Droid).
Richard Seymour at Lenin's Tomb is SWP as we know, writes his stuff through their party line, and i have seen him stick the boot into Zizek often enough, tbf.
(not that i'm saying Padraig being in a SWP-controlled group means he follows each and every line, necessarily, from the mothership.)
i've had Roger Eatwell's 1996 history on a bookshelf here for years, although i've never read it. (!)
perhaps i'll start today.
has anyone ever read the OUP's reader from '95?
(i shall check out Oliver's recommendations from up-thread, in book terms.)
i was told once that Dermot Morgan who played Father Ted had concluded after his university studies that everybody was a fascist, incidentally.
dunno if it's true, i can't find a source for it.
crackerjack
Well-known member
I don't follow this much, but presumably part of the attraction is because Marxism has failed. "Look, here's this apparently clever bloke prepared to stick up for a fucking catastrophe - this should be interesting"