Zizek on "Interpreting the World"

[KurtFF8]

I believe it was the Democracy Now! interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAfj_rhnwQE ) where Zizek said something along the lines of:
(I'm paraphrasing here)
Marx said that Philosophers have thus only interpreted the world when the point is to change it. I think it is the opposite, we should return to interpreting the world.

His reversal of Marx is in vein of his love for Philosophy I think, but he seems to be overvaluing interpretation of the world versus action. But I think a problem here is that he is creating a false dichotomy.
I don't think that Marx believed that one (or a collective) could blindly change the world without knowing what (to some extent) it was doing, otherwise it seems he would have thrown class consciousness out. And to be fair, I don't think Zizek is claiming that the working-class should not engage in action as even he has participated in protests and politics.

But this does raise an interesting point that I think there may be a tension between "changing the world" and "interpreting the world" among the left. One thing Zizek talks about is the left's current position of pure interpretation and almost just accepting that capitalism is "here to stay" (although I don't believe he thinks it is "permenant" but instead that the left often has this defeatist attitude).
We can see where perhaps more interpretation could have been helpful in the cases of falied revolutionary actions/movements/etc. and on the flip side where more action could have been benefitial when there was a failure to take action given good opportunities.

Thoughts?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

"The true act creates the conditions of its own possibility"

This is the inherent nature of "The Revolution" (C).

I think you should pick up his new book "In Defense of Lost Causes". I think that his point isn't we should necessarily refuse to change the world. Rather, that we need to ignore the "change we can believe in". Instead, we should not get caught up trying to change the wrong problems. The only way to overcome this is through a new interpretation of the world.

[Apeiron]

Yes, I think he clarifies this thesis in 'In Defense of Lost Causes.' Though the book has a guillotine on the cover, it is largely a defense of theory as revolutionary strategy.

Interesting that you mention 'change we can believe in,' Reclaimed Dasein, as I saw Zizek speak about a month ago and he said he would likely vote for Obama in this election were he a US citizen... certainly not on policy grounds, but because he sees potential in his status as public figure.

EDIT: Just found this article he wrote on the subject of Obama as rhetoritician. inthesetimes.com/article/3862/
And I believe he says something about this in his interview on Democracy Now! as well.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

None the less, I don't think you should downplay his support and defense for terror as radical enforcement as egalitarianism. I really feel that In Defense of Lost causes serves as a bit of a redirection for Zizek. Certainly, he maintains we should view ourselves in a state of crisis. For that seems to only serve Capital. Nevertheless, his continual restating of failure as a necessary step for progress, radical resignation (in a Kierkegaardian sense) to confronting oppression, and his rehabilitation of "terror" seems to argue for engagement with the world.

[Rascolnikova]

Certainly, he maintains we should view ourselves in a state of crisis. For that seems to only serve Capital.

??

[KurtFF8]

Yes, I think he clarifies this thesis in 'In Defense of Lost Causes.' Though the book has a guillotine on the cover, it is largely a defense of theory as revolutionary strategy.

Interesting that you mention 'change we can believe in,' Reclaimed Dasein, as I saw Zizek speak about a month ago and he said he would likely vote for Obama in this election were he a US citizen... certainly not on policy grounds, but because he sees potential in his status as public figure.

EDIT: Just found this article he wrote on the subject of Obama as rhetoritician. inthesetimes.com/article/3862/
And I believe he says something about this in his interview on Democracy Now! as well.

And this is getting to the point I'm trying to bring up. By saying that perhaps we should do the opposite of what Marx said seems to be giving into this false dichotomy of Revolution or Interpretation/reform. Granted if he still admits that revolutionary action is needed, he is moving away from this dichotomy. But he also seems to be quite critical of many leftist actions.