Slavoj Zizek

[Morgenstern]

I was returning a book someone had bought me (I owned a copy already) and with the store credit I bought First As a Tragedy, Then as a Farce by Slavoj Zizek since I've seen his name thrown around here. What should I expect to read? What leftist of the past is closest to him ideologically?

[ed miliband]

Expect a nonesensical paragraph followed by a paragraph saying simply what he said in the paragraph before.

He says some interesting stuff anyway, a lot of which is quite obvious upon reflection.

[TC]

Zizek is a Lacanian cultural theorist - while a leftist (an "Orthodox Lacanian Stalinist" in his semi-serious words) he is his own brand of psychoanalytic Neo-Marxist, a cultural commentator, not someone who builds off of the "great" dead early-mid 20th century figures that party-sects identify with.

So no one in the past is close to him, except maybe in terms of subject matter of interest, in which case you'd be looking at older Neo-Marxists like Adorno.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He's a hokey quasi-leftist celebrity/IRL troll.

[NecroCommie]

A non-prescriptive language philosopher. Nuf said.

[Prairie Fire]

he is his own brand of psychoanalytic Neo-Marxist


"Neo-Marxist"? I wasn't aware that Marxism went away anywhere.

If the "Neo" prefix indicates return to or a "revival" of Marxism, this in itself is anachronistic to Marxism. Marxism is materialist, based on an analysis of contemporary circumstances, so while the fundamentals of previous Marxism are still applicable, to a large extent it is a living theory that meets the current demands of the times with it's own analysis. Therefore, to be a "Neo-Marxist" is certainly more oriented towards distancing oneself from the history of socialism in practice and maintaining a facade of sanitary purity then based upon any sort of theoretical rectification movement.

All of this may seem ironic coming from the mouth of an anti-revisionist like myself, but rejecting certain contemporary "additions" of questionable nature is not the same thing as rejecting everything after Marx (and possibly Engels).


not someone who builds off of the "great" dead early-mid 20th century figures that party-sects identify with.


Yes of course, the established party's and organizations that have played indispensible roles in every corner of the Earth, have brought about monumental changes in the political life of every continent, and have mobilized millions in pursuit of their own rights and political supremacy are 'sects'.

The handful of academics who read Zizeks books from Barnes and Noble are a universal multitude.



So no one in the past is close to him


In terms of tangible achievements?

Even in terms of theory, Zizek is nothing special.


In my opinion, I judge Zizek by his flock and by the uses to which his works are put.

He has always seemed to me as another "radical" safe and sanitary academic, an insignificant commentator inflated by official sources many times larger than his merits, for purposes of disruption and diversion from more damaging and threatening theoreticians.

While the works of "dead early-mid 20th century figures" are nowhere to be found in my country in the Chapters-Indigo-Coles bookstore chain (the only game in town for large bookstores,), Zizek's works are prominently featured alongside Zinn,Chomsky, Naomi Klien, Tim Wise, etc, etc.

I also find his articles re-posted in luke-warm "left" periodicals like 'In these times' and such, which again seems very appropriate to me for the sort of audience that he caters to, largely petty-bougeois academics and intellegentsia rather than the working class.

Perhaps some of his critiques of culture and psychoanalysis may be interesting upon inspection, but like similar psychoanalysis from others like Fanon, it becomes largely sterile and inactionable analysis. That, I think, is largely the problem with focusing mostly on the ideological superstructure of a capitalist society and it's effects, rather than looking at concrete facts on the ground of what is happening in a given society, and determining what needs to be done. Zizek generally produces introverted analysis rather than a tactical game plan for liberation.

All of this, plus his former candidacy for the lib-dems in Slovenia...

I think you would be better off reading something more oriented to actionable class struggle,comrade.

[Hiero]

Zizek is a Lacanian cultural theorist - while a leftist (an "Orthodox Lacanian Stalinist" in his semi-serious words) he is his own brand of psychoanalytic Neo-Marxist, a cultural commentator, not someone who builds off of the "great" dead early-mid 20th century figures that party-sects identify with.

So no one in the past is close to him, except maybe in terms of subject matter of interest, in which case you'd be looking at older Neo-Marxists like Adorno.

He is also primarily a Hegelian. He did his PHD on Hegel and then went to study under Jacques-Alain Miller (Lacan's son in law). I don't know alot about Hegel so I can't comment on how this is expressed in his work.


Perhaps some of his critiques of culture and psychoanalysis may be interesting upon inspection, but like similar psychoanalysis from others like Fanon, it becomes largely sterile and inactionable analysis. That, I think, is largely the problem with focusing mostly on the ideological superstructure of a capitalist society and it's effects, rather than looking at concrete facts on the ground of what is happening in a given society, and determining what needs to be done. Zizek generally produces introverted analysis rather than a tactical game plan for liberation.


I think they are equally important, especially considering the lack of mass revolutionary movement in the first world. You can talk all you want about the objective structures and people can easily respond with some form of aggresitivity (in Lacan's terms libidinal reponse to truth, informing someone about class society if a challenge to their cosmological/existential existnce) and you get no where. In the west now that a large section have accesses to credit we really have to understand what working people's desires are and where they come from. Hence Zizek's focus on "desire as the desire of the Other", the way enjoyment and desire is structures by capitalist logic, surplus value, over determination. And this explanation of the ideological/superstructure/cultural can be and should parralal to epxlaining the structural/economic.

In regards to the OP: You have to read a considerable amount of Zizek, I found to draw some consistency. From Zizek I primarily draw how identity/ego is created in the realm of the imaginary and symbolic, how we are structures by fantasy, desire, drives, bodily experiences and what structures thoose fantasy, desire, drives, bodily experiences (capitalism).

[TC]

"Neo-Marxist"? I wasn't aware that Marxism went anywhere.

If the "Neo" prefix indicates return to or a "revival" of Marxism, this in itself is anachronistic to Marxism. Marxism is materialist, based on an analysis of contemporary circumstances, so while the fundamentals of previous Marxism are still applicable, to a large extent it is a living theory that meets the current demands of the times with it's own analysis. Therefore, to be a "Neo-Marxist" is certainly more oriented towards distancing oneself from the history of socialism in practice and maintaining a facade of sanitary purity then based upon any sort of theoretical rectification movement.

This is not at all what Neo-Marxist means. Neo-Marxist is an established, primarily academic term for Marxist theoretical movements that developed during and after the 60s or so. The "neo" prefix doesn't mean a return to or revival, nor does it imply a rejection of Marxists subsequent to Marx.

Neo just means "new" or "recent" in this context; for example, "neonatal" pertains to newborns (not zombies :blink:) - a neoplasm is a newly grown tumor.

Examples of Neo-Marxist movements include the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Anglo-American Analytic Marxists, French Structual(ist) Marxists, Post-Colonial theory Marxists like Spivak, etc.

For example, Gyorgy Lukacs is typically regarded as a Neo-Marxist thinker though he was a mainstream communist party member (and leader).

But none of these thinkers or Marxist movements are among those canonized by the activist party/sects. They in many ways post-date their thinking.


All of this may seem ironic coming from the mouth of an anti-revisionist like myself, but rejecting certain contemporary "additions" of questionable nature is not the same thing as rejecting everything after Marx (and possibly Engels).

Sure this is totally different than what Neo-Marxism means though. It doesn't really refer to any one position rather a set of philosophical, academically influential developments in Marxist theory in the later half of the 20th century.



Yes of course, the established party's and organizations that have played indispensible roles in every corner of the Earth, have brought about monumental changes in the political life of every continent, and have mobilized millions in pursuit of their own rights and political supremacy are 'sects'.

Which is no reason to canonize Trotsky, Cliff, Cannon, Shachtman, Grant, etc...or anyone else. Many do.




In my opinion, I judge Zizek by his flock and by the uses to which is works are put.
Hardly a reliable way to judge an author. Imagine if you judged Marx that way and had only met a bunch of [fill in the blank for self-described Marxists you think are silly]

[NoOneIsIllegal]

He just released this book a few days ago. I wasn't sure if it was getting because I've heard there is a lot of criticism about him.
The Idea of Communism (http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Communism-Slavoj-Zizek/dp/1844674592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293678357&sr=8-1)