Žižek, leader of counter-revolution.

[Soviet dude]

I read this today on the Marxist-Leninist. It makes perfect sense to me that Zizek would have been involved in destroying socialism, since he basically seems to be trying to destroy Marxism as a theory itself nowadays.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/what-about-slavoj-zizek/




“The dialectics of history were such that the theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists.” – V. I. Lenin, The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx

“Pre-Marxian socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism.” – V. I. Lenin, Marxism and Revisionism
Someone asked me today what I think of Slavoj Žižek, the well known celebrity of “leftist” philosophy. I’ve always had a hard time reading his rambling, jargon-filled books. I have to admit, having tried to read a couple of his books back when I was a philosophy student, I found them mostly incomprehensable. Most recently I read his book First As Tragedy, Then As Farce. I was disappointed that he basically follows the “islamo-fascism” line on Arab resistance movements like Hezbollah, the capitalist restoration line on People’s China, and basically gets his facts wrong on any number of other points. He believes the socialist project in the twentieth century was mainly a giant failure. I see no real value in his writings.
http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg?w=300&h=300 (http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg)Slavoj Žižek likes to pose as some kind of "stalinist."

That said, I’d like to share an article here on Žižek, from the blog Never Forget Class Struggle (http://neverforgetclassstruggle.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/slavoj-zizek-a-case-study-in-opportunism/) for consideration:
Slavoj Žižek: A Case Study in Opportunism
I don’t pretend to understand Dr. Žižek’s “Lacanian” “post-Maoist” philosophy or critiques of popular culture or whatever it is that he does. All I know is that he pretends he’s some kind of adherent to some form of Marxism Leninism and “Maoism” and people seem to have an impression of him as a genuinely progressive academic. When it counted, however, Žižek was an unabashed leader of counterrevolution in his homeland of Slovenia. Žižek in fact fought to destroy the system he claims he now supports, or at the very least that people he now admires (Lenin, Mao) fought so hard to build. Žižek during the era of socialism was one of the prominent members of the “dissident” circles advocating for its destruction. In the late 1980s he joined the secessionist anti-socialist movement developing in Slovenia, and become an active member of the Liberal Democratic Party (who came to power once Slovenia seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). He was not just a passive participant in this movement, since he was the candidate for the position of President of Slovenia for the LDP in 1990.
People like to taunt socialists about the supposed “misnomers” characterizing a lot of the formal names of the regimes of socialist countries (for instance, there is always a chortle about the name ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’). However, the name “Liberal Democratic Party” of Slovenia is a joke. For one, these cold blooded killers murdered members of the multi-ethnic JNA (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija – Yugoslav National Army) in cold blood, simply for being stationed in their own country. There is video footage of Slovenian nationalists gunning down JNA soldiers waving white flags. The “liberal democrats” then proceded to steal the bank accounts of non-Slovenes who had bank deposits in the banks of Ljubljana. Ljubljana (the capital of Slovenia), was the banking center of Yugoslavia. The Ljubljana banks avoided paying back money to their non-Slovene depositers by simply changing the name of the bank, and saying the new bank should not be held responsible for the previous accounts. The LDP quickly went to work dismantling the socially owned economy in their new ‘republic’, undoing what had been built for generations. This included workers’ self-management, directing authority back into the hands of the capitalists.
This is the movement with which Dr. Žižek became an integral part, and even led. Of course, Žižek had also been a member of the Communist Party of Slovenia at times. He seems to have done whatever it took to ensure that he himself would be of influence and power. He claims he left the Party because of the trial of four people by the JNA in the late 1980s. The Slovene Communists had nothing to do with that trial and in fact implemented the “punishment” in the mildest manner possible. The fact is Žižek was writing anti-Communist diatribes for decades.
Since socialism has been dismantled in many parts of the world, parroting the line of his new masters is no longer new or novel. He must do something different in order to get attention. So he tries to meld his Lacanian gibberish with some kind of revolutionary politics. The question is: where was Slavoj Žižek when it counted? He was on the side of counterrevolution. An old wine in a new bottle is a still an old wine.

[Invincible Summer]

So, they accuse him of being "counter-revolutionary" to a "Soviet" government that - to my knowledge - is considered "revisionist?" :confused:

And a good chunk of the article is just lambasting the LDP, not even criticizing Zizek. In fact, the only decent criticism in this shitty post is that his Lacanian theoretical underpinnings are dense. Zizek writing anti-communist diatribes? He was a speaker at Marxism 2009! He made really good points about being a revolutionary today, and didn't talk shit about communism at all.

I don't see what's wrong with deconstructing Marx. He wrote his stuff like 150 years ago. If people don't try to critically engage with thought and discourse at all levels, then these discourses turn into dogma. But I guess some people just need to get their rocks off knowing that their Marx is still untainted and pure.


I am usually okay with the Marxist-leninist, but now I'm starting to worry about their dogmatic approach.

[Delenda Carthago]

This is stupid.Any true radical communist should rebel against the socialdemocrat revisionist socialfascist regime of the eastern block,from a point on.

Dont accuse Zizek cause he did.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

the capitalist restoration line on People’s China

Come again? PRC isn't capitalist? Then what the hell is it?

[danyboy27]

this guy even at a certain extent defend stalin, and your only tactic is to bash him? really? one of the only credible person on earth to defend your dear leader, and just beccause he said some stuff you didnt like, you acuse him of being a counter revolutionaries?

wow.

[Andropov]

This is stupid.
Not half as stupid as this statement...

Any true radical communist should rebel against the socialdemocrat revisionist socialfascist regime of the eastern block,from a point on.
Standards are getting worse here.

[Delenda Carthago]

Not half as stupid as this statement...

Standards are getting worse here.
you have something to say?

[Raúl Duke]

I recall that in Marxism 2009 (or was it 2010) Zizek made some critical comments about the socialist movement.

Perhaps some people are getting hurt about that, but the truth of the matter is that Zizek is correct in the sense that we haven't really gotten any closer to communism doing what we do.

[Andropov]

you have something to say?
Ehh I said it, you know.....the quote you are replying to?
Slightly bizarre.

[ed miliband]

He believes the socialist project in the twentieth century was mainly a giant failure. I see no real value in his writings.

What a wonderful argument the writer has constructed here.

[Raúl Duke]

He believes the socialist project in the twentieth century was mainly a giant failure.

That's more or less true in that we didn't get any closer to communism during that century...

[Delenda Carthago]

Ehh I said it, you know.....the quote you are replying to?
Slightly bizarre.

What do you have to say on what I said other than beeing a prick?

[Delenda Carthago]

That's more or less true in that we didn't get any closer to communism during that century...
I think it was more of a failed experiment that tought us a lot.

[Raúl Duke]

I think it was more of a failed experiment that tought us a lot.

I agree, I was going to mention they were baby-steps that hopefully the left can learn from eventually.

[Andropov]

What do you have to say on what I said other than beeing a prick?
I thought it was clear, your statement, this one....

Any true radical communist should rebel against the socialdemocrat revisionist socialfascist regime of the eastern block,from a point on.
Is so factually incorrect its ridiculous.
For all your pomp and rehtorric about "smashing the system" and all such poser sloganeering you are very quick to use the language and arguements of the very system you say you are at war with to attack some genuine attempts at working class states.
Many of the Eastern European countrys had their faults, some more so than others but they certainly were not "social democratic" or "social facist" or any such absurditys.

[LimitedIdeology]

I thought it was clear, your statement, this one....

Is so factually incorrect its ridiculous.
For all your pomp and rehtorric about "smashing the system" and all such poser sloganeering you are very quick to use the language and arguements of the very system you say you are at war with to attack some genuine attempts at working class states.
Many of the Eastern European countrys had their faults, some more so than others but they certainly were not "social democratic" or "social facist" or any such absurditys.

*Cough* Hungary *Cough*

[#FF0000]

So does this article ever talk about Zizek's philosophy or does it just go on about his personal life and political connections from three decades ago

[x359594]

"...I was disappointed that he basically follows the “islamo-fascism” line on Arab resistance movements like Hezbollah..."

As a matter of fact Zizek doesn't follow this line. Indeed, he repudiates the Islamo-fascist construct in First as Tragedy, Then as Farce and elsewhere.

[infraxotl]

I don't know how he sleeps with flimsy looking bookshelves hanging over his face.

The ML blog has been kind of an embarrassment lately with all it's facebook talk, but this one was spot on.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So does this article ever talk about Zizek's philosophy or does it just go on about his personal life and political connections from three decades ago

If I remember correctly he was offered some office after that to which he replied he only wanted to be the head of the secret police or he wasn't interested.

[it_ain't_me]

zizek is basically a very intelligent troll. i would not be a bit surprised if he one day wrote a thick, philosophically dense book on the revolutionary potential of forklifts.

[bie]

...He believes the socialist project in the twentieth century was mainly a giant failure...
This is the key point - and also a front line. Rejection of the success and contribution of XX century socialism in its real form (including also difficult moments) is equivalent to closing the door for the success of the any future social revolution. Those who are claiming that "socialism of XX century did not work" (like Zizek) do the job for defending capitalism by neglecting the only real alternative.

XX century socialism did work. It showed the way for the future generations of revolutionaries.

[danyboy27]

This is the key point - and also a front line. Rejection of the success and contribution of XX century socialism in its real form (including also difficult moments) is equivalent to closing the door for the success of the any future social revolution. Those who are claiming that "socialism of XX century did not work" (like Zizek) do the job for defending capitalism by neglecting the only real alternative.

XX century socialism did work. It showed the way for the future generations of revolutionaries.

then again, you misniterpret what he meant by that, Zizek is a huuge nostalgic of eastern europe communism, all what he meant by that is, that communism the way it was applied back then didnt succede into having a final, efficient result against capitalism.

beccause if that form of communism would have ''succeded'' there would be no more capitalism today.

hell, the guy actually support stalin and its contribution into building russia.

[bie]

then again, you misniterpret what he meant by that, Zizek is a huuge nostalgic of eastern europe communism, all what he meant by that is, that communism the way it was applied back then didnt succede into having a final, efficient result against capitalism.

hell, the guy actually support stalin and its contribution into building russia.
No, he is not. Let me state a few examples:


It’s appropriate, then, to recognise the tragedy of the October Revolution: both its unique emancipatory potential and the historical necessity of its Stalinist outcome. We should have the honesty to acknowledge that the Stalinist purges were in a way more ‘irrational’ than the Fascist violence: its excess is an unmistakable sign that, in contrast to Fascism, Stalinism was a case of an authentic revolution perverted.
(...)
Under Stalin in the late 1930s, on the other hand, nobody was safe: anyone could be unexpectedly denounced, arrested and shot as a traitor. (...) irrationality of Stalinism pervaded the entire social body. For that reason, Nazi police investigators looked for proofs and traces of active opposition to the regime, whereas Stalin’s investigators were happy to fabricate evidence, invent plots etc." Source: (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms)
Is it a marxist perspective at all?

beccause if that form of communism would have ''succeded'' there would be no more capitalism today.
In a wide historical perspective socialism "lost the battle but not the war". The progressive socio-economic formation is not always introduced "successfully" at once, even if it is actually much superior. It may be possible for that to be suppressed by the existing but obsolete and inefficient formation, depending on the level of the development of productive forces.. It did not prove the superiority of old system. Let me state an example:


Capitalist relations of production, as a historically new form of exploitation of man by man, with the relation of wage labour-capital, appeared and were extended in the second half of the 14th century in the cities of northern Italy (e.g. Genoa, Venice, etc.) However, for a variety of reasons, they could not pass to a higher level of development and become dominant, which had as a result a return to feudal relations. The development of capitalist relations later in England and in Holland in the 16th century brought the bourgeoisie to the forefront and led to a series of bourgeois revolutions until, finally, through a process of conflict and compromise with the feudal classes, it was able to establish itself in the 19th century. In the “History of the World” of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. C2, p. 943-983, the course of the extension of capitalist relations in the cities of northern Italy is described in detail, as well as the process of their decay and overthrow, that led to the return and dominance of feudal relations. A characteristic revealing the extent that capitalist relations had reached in Italian cities was that harsh class conflicts, including uprisings and strikes, took place between hired laborers and bourgeois artisans, merchants and bankers. One characteristic event concerns the case of the uprising of 4,000 workers in textile manufacturing shops in Florence in 1343. In the 15th century the manufacturing industry was restricted and the rich city residents transferred funds into agricultural activities. One key fact that reveals the retreat of capitalist relations is that, while in the 13th century, in certain cities serfdom had been abolished or relaxed, in the second half of the 15th century a return to it took place. (Vol. C2, p. 962-964)
As we see, capitalism that was proved to be much superior over feudalism was once suppressed by the reactionary forces. But it didn't prove that capitalism did not work! It is exactly the same story with socialism and the future.

[KurtFF8]

I think we all have to give Zizek some credit now.

He's been accused of being a Trotskyist, an authoritarian Stalinist, a useless academic, a dangerous activist, now a counter-revolutionary, etc. etc.

[Proletarian Ultra]

No, he is not. Let me state a few examples:


It’s appropriate, then, to recognise the tragedy of the October Revolution: both its unique emancipatory potential and the historical necessity of its Stalinist outcome. We should have the honesty to acknowledge that the Stalinist purges were in a way more ‘irrational’ than the Fascist violence: its excess is an unmistakable sign that, in contrast to Fascism, Stalinism was a case of an authentic revolution perverted.
(...)
Under Stalin in the late 1930s, on the other hand, nobody was safe: anyone could be unexpectedly denounced, arrested and shot as a traitor. (...) irrationality of Stalinism pervaded the entire social body. For that reason, Nazi police investigators looked for proofs and traces of active opposition to the regime, whereas Stalin’s investigators were happy to fabricate evidence, invent plots etc."

Source: (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms)
Is it a marxist perspective at all?

To be clear: that's his argument for the superiority of Stalinism. Seriously, go back and read it. He straight up argues that Stalinist regimes are vastly preferable to fascist ones because Stalinists invent false evidence. Seriously. Stalinism is preferable because no one is safe and everyone can be denounced on false evidence.

Now...say about it what you will, but that is not an anticommunist position.

[Weezer]

So, Marxist-Leninists FINALLY recognized Yugoslavia as a Socialist state...but only when it's convenient for them. :rolleyes:

Why would they bash Zizek anyway? He's one of the major advocates of Stalinism in the philosophical community.

[Delenda Carthago]

I thought it was clear, your statement, this one....

Is so factually incorrect its ridiculous.
For all your pomp and rehtorric about "smashing the system" and all such poser sloganeering you are very quick to use the language and arguements of the very system you say you are at war with to attack some genuine attempts at working class states.
Many of the Eastern European countrys had their faults, some more so than others but they certainly were not "social democratic" or "social facist" or any such absurditys.

Really?So critising the SOCIAL FASCIST and REVISIONIST Soviet Union(after Stalin's death)is "using the language of the system"?So I suppose supporting Krushchchev and Brezhnev is the radical thing to do huh?

Tha'ts the spirit that brought the CCCP in the decadance it was in the 80's."Dont critisise it,you are with the americans"...

Soviet Union and the eastern block was a failure,and the first that owe to realise that are the revolutionaries.If not,we are doomed making circles till we just stop beeing.And that's what Zizek is doing.And that's what I am doing.And that's what you could never understand.

[Delenda Carthago]

Its funny how people want to live into their own worlds.

How revolutionaries dont see the represion that excisted in eastern block.

how they had to shut down the borders so the people wouldnt want to leave.

How the nomeclature lived in a better condition than the working class.

Fuck 20th century revolutions.They failed.Comparing in a way "but we had 5% more bread in our tables in socialism" in order to show how socialism worked,is stupid.Because it actually shows that it didnt.

Does that mean we have to stop trying?fuck no!

Does that mean we have to learn from previous mistakes?

...

[Andropov]

Really?So critising the SOCIAL FASCIST and REVISIONIST Soviet Union(after Stalin's death)is "using the language of the system"?So I suppose supporting Krushchchev and Brezhnev is the radical thing to do huh?
Firstly I didnt claim that the USSR was not revisionist.
It obviously did start on a revisionist path after Stalin's death.
Some of the General Secretarys were obviously more culpable than others with special mention for Gorbachev.
But with all the faults of the USSR and Eastern European states none of them were "social facist".
That is ridiculous and merely borrowing the headlines from the closest bourgeois rag to gain some credibility.
If you are going to contructively criticise the USSR or the Eastern States then legitimately point out the defficiincies in the system and the failings and stop resorting to sensationalist slogans that are not suitable for the context and merely muddy the intellectual waters.

Tha'ts the spirit that brought the CCCP in the decadance it was in the 80's."Dont critisise it,you are with the americans"...
Ok that is blatantly incorrect.
If you want I can start listing off some of the pivitol reasons for its decline but it certainly wasnt exclusively down to "dont criticise it, you are with the americans".

Soviet Union and the eastern block was a failure,and the first that owe to realise that are the revolutionaries.
Well them collapsing to Liberal Capitalism was a failure but to merely dismiss nearly a century of one of the biggest Socialist experiments in the world as a failure is not helpfull.
We must constructively analyse why it collapsed but also what it achieved and using sensationalist slogans like "social facist" (what does that even mean?) really doesnt help.

If not,we are doomed making circles till we just stop beeing.And that's what Zizek is doing.And that's what I am doing.And that's what you could never understand.
Ya ya, us mere mortals are incapable of grasping the complexitys of your arguements.

[Andropov]

Its funny how people want to live into their own worlds.
How revolutionaries dont see the represion that excisted in eastern block.
Its funny how you remove the repression that existed out of their respective contexts and judge them in absolute terms which is basically irrelevant.

how they had to shut down the borders so the people wouldnt want to leave.
Ohh riiiiight so.
Back to the likes of the Berlin Wall arguement, a favourite of the trendy left.
Yet again Attackgr you are taking such incidents out of their respective contexts and applying absolute criticism to them which is as I said earlier, irrelevant.
The likes of the Berlin wall was a necessity given the material conditions of the GDR and West Berlin.
West Berlin being subsidised with Billions upon Billions from the west to be used as a shop window for Capitalism.
Basically the difference between West and East Berlin is that West Berlin was not an economically sustainable model while in the GDR they were attempting to build a sustainable economic model.
Then you saw on your tellys some citizens of the GDR attempting to gain entry to West Berlin as some sort of failure but in reality it just showed what happens when an economically unsustainable bankrolled economy is placed beside a sustainable model such as the GDR.

How the nomeclature lived in a better condition than the working class.
Marginally better conditions but then there are numerous differing accounts of this depending on which historian you want to referance.

Fuck 20th century revolutions.They failed.Comparing in a way "but we had 5% more bread in our tables in socialism" in order to show how socialism worked,is stupid.Because it actually shows that it didnt.
So you saying that the whole European project for Socialism from the USSR to Eastern Europe was an abject failure?
That we are not to take any positive lessons from this?
That there was nothing of note achieved for the working class in their respective countrys?
With such a dismissive attitude to the issue at hand im afraid that is the only "stupid" thing here.

Does that mean we have to stop trying?fuck no!
Indeed.

Does that mean we have to learn from previous mistakes?
But from your posts you merely dismiss the likes of the USSR and you do not learn from the mistakes when applying such an attitude.
The likes of the USSR was not an abject failure, it had many positive aspects and they must be recognised also.

[bie]

To be clear: that's his argument for the superiority of Stalinism. Seriously, go back and read it. He straight up argues that Stalinist regimes are vastly preferable to fascist ones because Stalinists invent false evidence. Seriously. Stalinism is preferable because no one is safe and everyone can be denounced on false evidence.

Now...say about it what you will, but that is not an anticommunist position.
Really?.. It would be surprising if he equates fascism with communism or says that "fascism is preferable". But nonetheless, he uses the term "Stalinism" in the ordinary bourgeoisies sense, not marxist nor scientific, that he is even force to admit himself ("We should also admit that we still lack a satisfactory theory of Stalinism"). He creates the false, based entirely on anticommunist propaganda, image of the Soviet Union as the "horror state". What is the most important, this article is a nonsense. All he does is to give credit to anticommunism, with small objection that is not as bad as fascism. He doesn't use the Marxist class analysis to explain the rise of fascism. He claims openly that it was "historical necessity of its Stalinist outcome". How should we understand that? That the "emancipatory" revolution was condemned to turn into "Stalinist totalitarianism"? He is claiming that in 30s in USSR "nobody could feel safe". This is TOTALLY anticommunist bullshit. They were more people feeling secure and safe than in the most of the capitalist world. He forgets to mention that the character of socialist country, built on democratic, collective work of workers and peasants, constantly attacked from inside and outside is TOTALLY different than the terrorist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that aimed in "total destruction of all democratic forces in the interest of highest industrial and financial circles". This is not an answer that we can expect from a marxist.

[bie]

Its funny how people want to live into their own worlds
How revolutionaries dont see the represion that excisted in eastern block.
It is even more funny that some people admit the necessity of building socialist society on the ruins of capitalism but at the same time completely neglect and ignore the need to fight with counterrevolution and all the forces that act to bring the project back to the starting point - ruthless imperialism. We may even argue that the struggle with counterrevolutionary forces were not efficient enough in order to prevent them from inflitrating the party and influencing the society (eg. catholic church). But each action against antisocial political dissidents acting to bring back capitalism, was immediately amplified by the class enemy in the anticommunist propaganda as "repressions". And this is why now this argument is being raised by the people who have false, "black" image of socialism created by professionals from bourgeoisie and state PR groups.

how they had to shut down the borders so the people wouldnt want to leave.
There were few people who left the socialist countries in the postwar time. The main barrier was the currency value difference and high price of western money. It was normal in the relations between states that the border traffic was regulated. If you have a passport and enough money you could travel whatever you want. Concerning Berlin Wall - it was build to prevent the sabotage from the Western Germany that planed to destroy DDR by the "brain drainage" program, by attracting all specialists and professionals and offering them extraordinary good conditions. Of course, it is not anymore after conquering East Germany by the Western part. And the mass emigration started after 1989 - at the same manner as Mexicans are emigrating to US.

How the nomeclature lived in a better condition than the working class.
No, it wasn't. It was the reason why some of the cadres supported pro-capitalist "democratic opposition". They wanted to have the privileged position and better conditions, like in capitalism. Think about this. They will never abandon the system in which they have privileges. The reason was that professional, managers, government officials etc. in socialism comparing to capitalism did not have any better conditions than ordinary workers. Doctors earn less than miners. Now they can run a private practice and earn alot.

Does that mean we have to learn from previous mistakes?
We have to learn from the previous mistakes, but the first question is, if we can correctly identify them. Concerning what you said before it wasn't the correct identification. Socialism was brought down by internal and external counterrevolution. One of the major factors was the degeneration of the ruling party that, infiltrated by the petit-bourgeoisie ideology and all sort of revisionist tendencies gradually lost its proletarian character. This caused the distrust between the party cadres and non-associated parts of society, making the job for pro-capitalist propagandists easy. The periodic verifications of party membership were abandoned, that opened its door for all sort of opportunism. The solution for this problem is the periodic verification of the party membership and constant struggle against internal enemies.

[robbo203]

This is the key point - and also a front line. Rejection of the success and contribution of XX century socialism in its real form (including also difficult moments) is equivalent to closing the door for the success of the any future social revolution. Those who are claiming that "socialism of XX century did not work" (like Zizek) do the job for defending capitalism by neglecting the only real alternative.

XX century socialism did work. It showed the way for the future generations of revolutionaries.


On the contrary, the authoritarian state capitalism of the eastern bloc et al showed us how not to achieve socialism. It finally descredited once and for all the idea that the high road to socialism runs through a transitionary system of state capitalism

[Proletarian Ultra]

But nonetheless, he uses the term "Stalinism" in the ordinary bourgeoisies sense, not marxist nor scientific, that he is even force to admit himself ("We should also admit that we still lack a satisfactory theory of Stalinism").

He agrees with you that this is a problem! Full quote: "We should also admit that we still lack a satisfactory theory of Stalinism. It is, in this respect, a scandal that the Frankfurt School failed to produce a systematic and thorough analysis of the phenomenon. " This is only a short review, not a full theoretical work.


He creates the false, based entirely on anticommunist propaganda, image of the Soviet Union as the "horror state". What is the most important, this article is a nonsense. All he does is to give credit to anticommunism, with small objection that is not as bad as fascism. He doesn't use the Marxist class analysis to explain the rise of fascism...He is claiming that in 30s in USSR "nobody could feel safe". This is TOTALLY anticommunist bullshit. They were more people feeling secure and safe than in the most of the capitalist world.

Well first of all, pointing out that "'Stalinism' is not 'just as bad' as fascism" is a big step in itself, even within the left. Second of all, Zizek is not interested in arguing facts - so yes, he takes the standard anticommunist account of Life Under Stalinism pretty much for granted.

His thing against arguing facts is basically that nobody cares. This is why he has no time for Chomsky. Chomsky's spent how many decades painstakingly documenting the facts of American foreign policy, and basically he's a big joke who wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Zizek's method is to take the standard narrative for granted and revalue it. "Yes, Stalinist Russia was every bit as bad as you've heard; and isn't that marvellous? This is precisely what proves Stalinism's committment to the revolutionary values of the Enlightenment etc."


He claims openly that it was "historical necessity of its Stalinist outcome". How should we understand that? That the "emancipatory" revolution was condemned to turn into "Stalinist totalitarianism"?

In his essay on Mao, Zizek argues that any attempt to pinpoint the moment when 'pure Marxism' was 'perverted' takes on the character of antisemitic logic. "See we were just about to establish the unblemished socialist society, but then we were stabbed in the back by _____." Any serious attempt to build socialism has to take the past of actually-existing socialism as its own past.


He forgets to mention that the character of socialist country, built on democratic, collective work of workers and peasants, constantly attacked from inside and outside is TOTALLY different than the terrorist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that aimed in "total destruction of all democratic forces in the interest of highest industrial and financial circles". This is not an answer that we can expect from a marxist.

No, wait:


The ‘pure’ liberal attitude towards Leftist and Rightist ‘totalitarianism’...is a priori false. It is necessary to take sides and proclaim Fascism fundamentally ‘worse’ than Communism.

Look at what he's saying: without even revising what you think you know of Stalin's Russia, without even questioning Conquest's body counts, without reading Ludo Martens, without questioning at all the received account of the 'show trials'...it is categorically imperative to reject an equivalence between Stalinism and fascism, and to choose Stalinism.

That's a much more powerful argument than dickering over census statistics from 1930's Ukraine.

[Sendo]

What is with all the USSR talk? Yugoslavia was never part of it.

Also, the existence of revisionism doesn't justify bad policy. I am saddened by what has happened to the PRC, but I don't think that justifies carving a new, ethnic-based state out of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Likewise, supporting the break-up of the Yugoslavia and the wars of the 1990s and the NATO bombing did irreparable harm to the industries and the people there.

Advocating the breakup of that federation in a world (1990s) with no socialist superpower, only a capitalist superpower and lackies and the third world, could only have one result.

[Magón]

So, Marxist-Leninists FINALLY recognized Yugoslavia as a Socialist state...but only when it's convenient for them. :rolleyes:

Why would they bash Zizek anyway? He's one of the major advocates of Stalinism in the philosophical community.

Last I heard, Zizek wasn't all that happy with Stalinism for some reason? I can't recall the article I read it from, but somewhere it said he was more a Maoist than anything... which kinda threw me against the wall when I read that.