Zizek?

[The Douche]

What are opinions of this guy? I have heard some stuff about him that I kind of like. (seems like he is interested in attacking a lot of bourgeois misconceptions, especially when it comes to "rights") I bought one of his books, I haven't started it yet, but in it he supposedly argues that "it is time for communism". I have also seen him defend Robespierre, and he supposedly argues somewhere for a "return to revolutionary terror". I have seen some people call him a "stalinist" but I get the impression he rejects specific schools in favor of Marxism as he interprets it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What are opinions of this guy? I have heard some stuff about him that I kind of like. (seems like he is interested in attacking a lot of bourgeois misconceptions, especially when it comes to "rights") I bought one of his books, I haven't started it yet, but in it he supposedly argues that "it is time for communism". I have also seen him defend Robespierre, and he supposedly argues somewhere for a "return to revolutionary terror". I have seen some people call him a "stalinist" but I get the impression he rejects specific schools in favor of Marxism as he interprets it.


well he sure is smart. i saw the program on dutch TV someone linked awhile ago where he was interviewed and watched a few videos and i generally approve. but, i dont know much about his politics other than he surely wants communism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I've never understood the interest, myself.

[x359594]

...I have seen some people call him a "stalinist" but I get the impression he rejects specific schools in favor of Marxism as he interprets it.

Zizek is certainly not a Stalinist. He's labeled one though because he makes a nuanced analysis of Stalinism without the usual knee-jerk rejection.

His particular methodology is to combine Lacanian psychoanalysis with Marxism, and this occasionally makes for jargon heavy reading (a lot of his shorter pieces can be found on-line at LacanInk.) However, he's lately written a popular version of his ideas called First As Tragedy, Than As Farce. Here he calls for a return to communism and admits the necessity of revolutionary terror.

Zizek's analysis of bourgeois ideology and all its permutations and obfuscations is always excellent, and his readings of pop culture, especially movies, are entertaining even if sometimes strained and unconvincing. I don't find myself in agreement with everything he says but Zizek is always interesting. I also like his American disciple Jodi Dean, and her current book Democracy and Other Neo-Liberal Fantasies is worth reading.

[which doctor]

Read Lacan and Lenin, and you too, can be your very own Zizek!

[black magick hustla]

zizek is what happens when people make professions out of smoothtalking

[black magick hustla]

*says shocking things. acts like a buffoon. tops shocking thing with heavy words, fucks a 20something model then proceeds to get his ass licked by good for nothing leftists*

[black magick hustla]

Honestly. People like zizek because he is really irreverent and trolls his whole audience. He is like some sort of rockstar. Which is fine. However, sometimes people mistake a spectacle for deep insights.

[x359594]

*says shocking things. acts like a buffoon. tops shocking thing with heavy words, fucks a 20something model then proceeds to get his ass licked by good for nothing leftists*

Aren't you quoting Zizek's description of Berlusconi?

[vyborg]

There is an old latin dictum that goes as follows: in a country of blind people a man with an eye is king...

this is Zizek...in the complete collapse of left-wing intellectuals...he, at least, has something to say...it is not so innovative (he uses Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Lacan...) but he is well informed and radical

[chegitz guevara]

Look up some of the videos on Zizek on youtube. He's good to listen to.

[Q]

I think he is a very provocative thinker. You may not agree with him, but he gets you to think on matters. That is his value.

[The Douche]

Zizek is certainly not a Stalinist. He's labeled one though because he makes a nuanced analysis of Stalinism without the usual knee-jerk rejection.

His particular methodology is to combine Lacanian psychoanalysis with Marxism, and this occasionally makes for jargon heavy reading (a lot of his shorter pieces can be found on-line at LacanInk.) However, he's lately written a popular version of his ideas called First As Tragedy, Than As Farce. Here he calls for a return to communism and admits the necessity of revolutionary terror.

Zizek's analysis of bourgeois ideology and all its permutations and obfuscations is always excellent, and his readings of pop culture, especially movies, are entertaining even if sometimes strained and unconvincing. I don't find myself in agreement with everything he says but Zizek is always interesting. I also like his American disciple Jodi Dean, and her current book Democracy and Other Neo-Liberal Fantasies is worth reading.

Yeah thats the book I bought, guess I should actually get around to reading it.

[vyborg]

Zizek stalinist? He even introduced a Trotsky's book....

[ChrisK]

Zizek bugs me. The guy uses jargon where other, more understandable words would suffice. People like him because reading him makes them feel smart. He's just a hypeman, nothing more.

[Meridian]

I saw an interview with him and some liberal, which put me off quite a bit. Zizek did a very poor job of "defending" his position of a communist, and his vision for a modern communist society. As Chris noted above, he seemed to use jargon in exactly the wrong places, and went into the positive aspects of capitalism a lot more than he did about the extreme negatives of it... And same for communism, he kept talking about how it should be today compared to how it was in Soviet, etc.

That, in my opinion, is a completely wrong focus. We should forget about Soviet; it was a "long" time ago. I have no idea why people still identify as "leninist", "trotskyist", "stalinist", and why people here have these characters in their avatars. That way, we just solidify the movement as a thing of the past, a dead dinosaur. :confused:

[Invincible Summer]

Firstly, Slavoj is the man. Yeah he uses a lot of jargon and stuff, but the content is pretty thought-provoking.

I think what he has to say here is important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw

[jake williams]

- He's intelligent.

- He's entertaining.

- He openly acknowledges he's shit-talking and bullshitting a lot of the time.

- He offers some very valuable and important analyses about a lot of phenomena.

- What he doesn't offer is anything tangible to actually do.


Overall I think he's a good guy to have around, but he doesn't exactly offer a meaningul program for action. Take him as he is.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah's he's not supposed to be the new Lenin.
His analyses are pretty good, if you accept that he is just an interlectual with interesting things to say and not the new hero leader of communism

As for the Stalinism accusation, its usually based on his complete rejection of liberalism and subsequent embrace of the unattractive but necessary parts of socialism such as revolutionary terror and oppression. Many leftists are still infected by bourgeois/liberal ideology, so when they hear Zizek say these things the liberal in them is upset and they label him as Stalinist.

[Invincible Summer]

- What he doesn't offer is anything tangible to actually do.


Overall I think he's a good guy to have around, but he doesn't exactly offer a meaningul program for action. Take him as he is.

Well, as a philosopher/sociologist, that sort of comes with the territory.

[RED DAVE]

Now that George Carlin is gone, I guess he's the best we've got. Me, I prefer the average performer in a NYC comedy club at 3:00 in the morning.

RED DAVE

[Sendo]

Firstly, Slavoj is the man. Yeah he uses a lot of jargon and stuff, but the content is pretty thought-provoking.

I think what he has to say here is important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw

Huh, you might not like the fact that he cites bourgeois liars like Robert Conquest, John Halliday, and Jong Chang in his essays.

[Delenda Carthago]

I love Zizek cause he is not your average univercity proffesor marxist.He has seen politics in action.And he is very thought provoking.You cant take that away from him...

[KurtFF8]

I like how so many people qualify that they like him "even though they don't agree with everything he says." I can't think of a single thinker that I just "agree with everything they say." That kind of comes with the territory of something like Marxism that is so complex. There are a lot of political and theoretical disagreements, and when thinkers like Zizek add psychoanalysis in the mix: it gives more space for argument and disagreement.

It's hard to deny that he's done a lot for the Left in the past few years: just by promoting Marxism and filling auditoriums in the process. He has contributed theoretically to some extent as well, especially in terms of how to frame debates and arguments with liberals and non-Marxists.

Yes, he says silly things sometimes, but who doesn't?

[vyborg]

I agree and I add: there are not man people out there able to speak about Lenin, then about Lacan, then about Matrix etc etc..so competently

[Meridian]

Firstly, Slavoj is the man. Yeah he uses a lot of jargon and stuff, but the content is pretty thought-provoking.

I think what he has to say here is important:
_GD69Cc20rw

Interesting that he spends so much time 'apologizing' (or 'explaining') for using rape in an allegory/joke, but doesn't mention the fact that he used testicles to represent oppression...

[KurtFF8]

I think that someone in the audience raised an issue with the example, and he was just explaining it

[howblackisyourflag]

That rape story is hilarious. (Never though I'd ever write that sentence.)

Its a good speechhe gives but he doesnt actually say all that much, apart from,yes, we must cut off the balls.

[Kléber]

He's Orthodox Lacanian Stalinist (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WyY1Mrr2ao4J:www.elpais.com/articulo/semana/farmaco/puede/hacerme/valiente/lucido/generoso/queda/etica/elpeputec/20060325elpbabese_1/Tes+estalinista+ortodoxo+lacaniano&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a), dogmatic and never dialoguing. :lol:

[ed miliband]

I just like the way he tears into stuff like Buddhism, spirituality, liberalism, etc. I also dig his voice.

[Bandito]

He's OK. Provocative thinker, probably the most popular leftist philosopher, and his popularity is not a bad thing. What, we are all supposed to be losers to be considered non-reactionary?

What Žižek did wrong was to participate in bourgeois elections in 1990. And that is unforgivable from a revolutionary position.

[KurtFF8]

What Žižek did wrong was to participate in bourgeois elections in 1990. And that is unforgivable from a revolutionary position. And he was a Liberal back then. He has of course changed his position on quite a lot since. (That was 20 years ago mind you)

[RED DAVE]

Why is it that everytime I finish watching one of his videos or reading one of his articles, I feel like I need to take a shower? Can anyone imagine a fool like that speaking at a trade union conference?

RED DAVE

[BAM]

Why is it every time I read one of his books published after 2001 I get this peculiar sense of déja-vu?

[Foldered]

I have just recently read some of his material. I like it; he's definitely intelligent and he's very contemporary. He does use "big words" and so on that can be lost on the average reader (which is a negative quality, as it makes his ideas on accesible to those who qualify), but I'm not sure he can help it; he is a philosopher. I mean, reading Deleuze and Guattari, Foucault, and Althusser were never simple tasks.

[Ocean Seal]

Zizek is a brilliant man. I've read some of his works and its very interesting how he interprets history. For example, when the Haitians sing the French national anthem upon emancipation many criticize them stating that they should be singing a song native to Haiti, but Zizek defends them in stating that they were showing that they not the French were against the old power structure.

[KurtFF8]

Zizek is a brilliant man. I've read some of his works and its very interesting how he interprets history. For example, when the Haitians sing the French national anthem upon emancipation many criticize them stating that they should be singing a song native to Haiti, but Zizek defends them in stating that they were showing that they not the French were against the old power structure. Yeah I just read First as Tragedy then as Farce too, and that argument was quite interesting indeed.

[The Douche]

Why is it that everytime I finish watching one of his videos or reading one of his articles, I feel like I need to take a shower? Can anyone imagine a fool like that speaking at a trade union conference?

RED DAVE

Your fetish for unionism is a little boring.

Also, if you think he's grimey, I don't think you'd be very comfortable around most of the union guys I know.

[Sendo]

I still don't understand what everyone finds so fascinating about him. He's unconventional yes and is entertaining, but what does he actually do?

He doesn't support any of the existing methods of organizing (vangaurd, unionism, electoralism)

He doesn't want immediate withdrawal of US troops (imperialism apologist and Eurocentrist)

He cites any author he wants (liberalism or poor scholarly skills for a Marxist)

What has he contributed theoretically? Anything like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Hoxha, Stalin, Kim Ilsung, or Che? As far as filling auditoriums...he has nowhere the ability of guys like Michael Parenti to appeal to the masses. I can't imagine your average person in Butte Montana or in Sri Lanka caring much for his thoughts. And he's like the Ayn Rand of the Left with his ridiculous banter about the phoniness of love and..../end rant.

[BAM]

I still don't understand what everyone finds so fascinating about him. He's unconventional yes and is entertaining, but what does he actually do?

He doesn't support any of the existing methods of organizing (vangaurd, unionism, electoralism)

He doesn't want immediate withdrawal of US troops (imperialism apologist and Eurocentrist)

He cites any author he wants (liberalism or poor scholarly skills for a Marxist)


For me, it's not so much his policy commitments, or lack thereof, it's that he's not really a Marxist and he has an annoying habit of twisting lots of other thinkers into some kind of forerunner of Jacques Lacan. In fact, because Zizek makes no sense without Lacan, and Lacan is one of the most impenetrable writers I have ever tried to read, I find it difficult to see why he has such a wide fanbase.

Actually, it's not difficult to see, because Zizek is a kind of quick intellectual high. He can be quite witty and of course it's cool at first to read about Hitchcock and Highsmith on the same page as Derrida and Deleuze.

However, reading Zizek is like doing a few lines of coke: it's an intense, but short lived and ultimately empty stimulant that makes you talk bollocks.